Moreintelligentlife.com is the website of Intelligent Life magazine. Articles about Arts, Lifestyle, Travels, and Ideas

It is amazing how our society mis-weights what is important. We pay people that shuffle about, can barely sing, play childrens games with a ball or other entertaining but useless activities millions and we pay the really important people such as our childrens teachers a pittance. I was looking at a listing of recent obituaries and couldn't find a single scientist, mathematician, computer technologist or engineer listed. There were however extensive obituaries of so-called artists who played to crowds of 5 or 10. Millions watch the Oscar ceremony, but the Nobel Prize Awards are limited to a few seconds of a national news broadcast or page 6 of the local paper. Michael Jackson wasn't a genius and he wasn't important. A caller noted on a local radio call-in show that the people most happy to see Mr. Jackson's death are the newly "elected" President of Iran and the Governor of South Carolina. That any news source would give more than a brief mention to Mr. Jackson over much more important issues such as democractic yearnings in Iran, economic recovery, national health care, international security issues and the like is astonishing to me.

This article is complete crap.

Very well put. He was undoubtedly a true legend: the King of Pop. If certain people actually held the common courtesy of listening to his music before making some sort of obscure judgement (see above article for further details) and an unfair critique of the man himself, perhaps they would then realise that he did indeed (consistently) earn his title as King of Pop, which was so well put by Elizabeth Taylor all those years ago.

He may have been flawed, but he was a flawed musical genius. This is why I, a fan (at 17) who is much younger than those who would have followed the superstar throughout his entire career, know his music so well. For the sheer shock at his death, which created tremours all over the world, should dispel any misjudgements over his skill and mastery of popular music being 'outweighed' by the rumours that plagued his later years and his private life.

What is more, I cannot honestly see how anyone could possibly compare this great man, arguably the greatest solo artist of all time, to meer fickel characters in the music world such as Prince and Madonna! What a joke! Michael created an entirely new genre, an entirely new level, of popular music during his 46 years in the public domain. He will never be forgotten as long as music drives popular culture. It always will.

As Spielberg remarked on that sad Thursday afternoon in California, "There will never be another Michael Jackson". This is the saddest fact of all.

Here's something everyone should try. For a moment, say MJ never existed, but somehow you get your hands on to one of his hit singles (the earlier ones preferably). Remember you are about to hear this for the first time. Just sit back and let it play. If you dont get your feet tapping or 'suffer' some involuntary body movements, they you must be among the tiny minority who just cannot enjoy his genre. Just for this, MJ was great. Greatness is not measured in numbers or how one compares to another, it is measured in how a great many feel about something (his music), however fleeting that feeling.

Yet another talentless hack belittling Michael's "oeuvre"... tiresome.

Did you say briefly? I bet if you had 1/10 of MJ's talent, you'd have asked to be called king of pop. Please go get some sleep.

This article just like the one in the Economist is complete crap! It has no depth or any true understanding of what Michael Jackson brought to the world of music. His fame and music may have peaked with Thriller, but he went into new territory with every album, music video, charitable act, and live performance thereafter. He wasn't just a singing genius, but an amazing dancer, song writer, choreographer and artist. There is noone of his caliber in the music world today, and definitely noone who defied genre barriers the way he has and reached out to the entire world irrespective of race, religion, and nationality (look at the Phillipino prisoners' tribute!) Are you even aware of the number of pop/r&b artists that have been influenced by him today? Every dance move you see out there is a kind of variation on what Michael Jackson introduced to begin with.

So may I suggest that the Economist stick to what they know best (which is obviously not the world of music or entertainment) and write about world economic and political issues instead? Honestly, this is a disgrace to the serious journalism we as readers expect from a publication such as the Economist!

--From Turkey

If this is your view about Michael Jackson, I worry about the future of The Economist. It is totally out of tune with the generation born years after Sinatra and Presley. The next time you interview for the editor's job please ask the candidate if he or she ever moonwalked. If the answer is no, pass, because Michael Jackson influenced millions of current and future business leaders and politicians. Deal with it, Fossil.

Michael Jackson was a remarkable dancer. In terms of movement, he was on a par with Fred Astaire and Charlie Chaplin. Truly extraordinary.

Hopefully his genius in this department will be recognised/remembered.

For a sister publication of the Economist, this article is disappointing at the least and outright bunkum at the other extreme.

Artists are never beyond public scrutiny for their lifestyles or choices. But what this article fails to recognize is that aesthetics moves well beyond the realm of manichaeistic analysis. Beauty and art are truly in the eye of the beholder, and often have nothing to do with the moral intentions of the artist. Why does Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will still prevail as a great work? And so on.

In the same vein, MJ's personal travails have little if nothing to do with his impact on music as we know it today. I agree with a comment above that the reduction of his repertoire to one album is simply misinformed. This article is written as a pop response to a pop icon, as opposed to a well researched response to a generational icon.

I, like many others, abhor the aspects of MJ's personal life which came to taint his image.

But I also grew up with his image and music and performance and can truly say, few have made such an impression on me in my formative years. Early in his childhood, as a student growing up in India, I saw MJ as a star, a king, a whatever you call the most famous person in the world. I knew him as American because he represented America to me. It was not until much later that I 'discovered' he was black and that it mattered. He was raceless and countryless, as far as I was concerned. He transcended borders and made an impression on me like no one else. His music inspired a generation of youngsters to DANCE. If nothing else, this is a contribution which cannot be diminished.

The article here misses the point entirely.

Pathetic stuff, really.

Michael was a great artist and no other performer put the passion and zeal in his music and dance he did - in the studio, in front of the camera and on stage.

He had many hits, including from his last albums, albeit not so many as from those in the 80's and 90's.

He was famous and loved by so many because of the enlightenment, inspiration and joy his music and dance brought. We, humans need those things the way we need technical genius and genius in medicine and any other field.

He might not be as bright star as some people place him, but in this century there does not seem to be anyone from the young artist giving the slightest hope of replacing him. Sadly.

OK, it's time to come clean. I never once understood why MJ is so widely thought to be a genius. It is the case that the combination of the ability to compose, sing and dance is rare, however just listening to his music in isolation always left me cold. The work of his I like best (J-5 to Off the Wall) was good but not an order of magnitude better than other groups of the era (Village People and Kool and the Gang). Thriller is entirely overrated (wow, disco with electric guitar riffs!). To be honest it has less merit than Rick James and Parliament Funkadelic. Everything after Thriller is downhill.

I guess the point probably is that compared to all the junk music that has been perpetrated in the last 20 years, he probably does sound like a genius compared to the Beastie Boys, Prodigy etc.

A well written comment

The outpouring of adulation and grief over this sick person is truly astounding. People literally crying over a pop singer is a genuine sign of social decay. I had a serious flash of insight about why much of the rest of the world (and not just the Islamic part of it) sees the western world as sick, decaying and dying. There was no paradigm shift with Mr. Jackson's music. He was no genius. He cannot in anyway compare with Bach or Mozart. Not even close to the Beatles. His dancing is mere pale shuffling compared to the greats of ballet. I have seen better square dancers. The only useful reason to study his life is as a negative example of what to avoid in life.

Extremely disappointed with this article. I followed a link from the Economist expecting something a little more sophisticated. Instead got a poor attempt at controversy. I can't see myself coming back to this website.