It takes the death of the King of Pop to bring me back to this blog after more than 2 weeks away. I'm finding through e-mails, IM's, and media coverage that everyone's got an opinion on the death of Jacko. (Even PTI devoted a short segment to his passing last Friday.) Not surprising at all, given the fame and infamy that defined his life. So I couldn't let the opportunity pass without throwing my two cents and silver glove into the ring.
I've always liked MJ. Never a huge fan, but appreciated his music and marveled at his talent. I listened to "Thriller" while I was cutting the grass this past Saturday AM, trying to identify what it was that drew so many people in. What struck me as the most identifiable reason was the passion in his voice. The songs are good, the lyrics are well written, but it's the passion in his voice that seems to set MJ apart from everyone else. Listening to the album, there's no doubt that Billie Jean is certainly not his lover. (And there was certainly never any doubt that the kid was not his son ;) ) Thinking further, it becomes easy then to see that same passion in his dancing, and also easy to see how his misguided passion completely screwed up his personal life.
I think it can be argued that Michael Jackson is the most famous person since Jesus. More than Elvis, more than the Beatles, more than Princess Diana. Michael transcended music- he crossed age barriers, race barriers, cultural barriers. For that reason, to the chagrin of many, his death will be a huge story for the media (and bloggers) for quite a while.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
. . . ...a glimpse inside all things fink
Blog Archive
Finkipedia classics
- The Ballad of Lucky the Fish
- Perspective
- Resurrection
- Things I Love: Convenience Stores
- Hey, You Never Know
- Extreme Makeover- Plumbing Edition
- A Tale of Two Cities
- Dream Weaver
- Human Nature
- When All Else Fails, Go With the Longest Answer
- Geography Bee
- The Longfellow Jokes Must Be Just Around the Corner
- A Day In the Life
- As If I Need Further Confirmation That I Married the Right Woman
- Oh, Tannenbaum
- Can You Hear Me Now?
- The Scream
- 6 Quirks
10 comments:
I think it's likely that at least one other person is more famous than Michael Jackson: Barack Obama. I think it's reasonable to think that nearly every able minded person over the age of 10 years old (or perhaps even younger) on the planet knows who Barack Obama is. The same cannot be said about Michael Jackson. Even in his hey day, say 1983, I don't think everyone 10 or older knew who Michael Jackson was.
I'd venture that most people under the age of 15 on the planet didn't know who Michael Jackson was until last week. I don't there's going to be a time where that will be said about Barack Obama.
Barack Obama is no more popular now(in the sense that people know his name) than was GW Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Reagan, etc.
For that matter, I don't believe Barack Obama is any more popular now than is Tiger Woods or was Michael Jordan.
Michael Jackson was the most popular person on the planet for a good 3-5 year period. Bar none.
Obama is certainly more famous in a global sense than GWB or Clinton. Reagan can be debated because of his previous fame, but I'd still put Obama ahead of him.
However, I think 2white is extremely nearsighted in his assessment of MJ's fame. Steve's right- for a 3-5 year period in the early to mid '80's, MJ's fame was off the charts on a worldwide sense. He drew insane crowds everywhere he went, especially overseas. He was tapped to appear with presidents and royalty, just so that those individuals could seem more culturally relevant. Even into the 90's, I believe his fame in Europe and Asia (especially Japan) was as high as almost any other public figure there.
Fame is difficult to quantify. Name recognition alone is one measure, but doesn't take into account positive or negative views. Madison Avenue has for years used the Q rating to quantify fame, but it is more of a tool for assessing an individual's drawing power.
I realize it's a subjective assessment and personal bias plays a role, but I'll stand by my comment. It may seem like insane hyperbole to claim that MJ's fame approaches that of Jesus, but using whatever measure you want, I'd challenge anyone to come up with an individual who at their prime would be more famous.
I understand how famous Michael was across the globe. I'm not dismissing him as not being famous (nor am I saying he wasn't popular). What I don't think you're taking into account is that, while 25 years ago really isn't that long ago, the Internet and other telecommunication advances (more widespread adoption of satellite TV in developing countries) had not happened, and significant portions of the world had limited access to Michael Jackson (sub-Saharan Africa, for instance). Or, at least, it was far harder for the people of certain parts of the world to access information (in all forms, including his music and their videos) about Michael Jackson. Today, it's far easier for people around the globe to access information about Barack Obama.
The other things about Obama that need to be taken into account are his African heritage and his time spent in a Muslim country. These two factors make him of interest to legions of people who otherwise wouldn't be predisposed to be interested in a President of the United States nor an American pop star. This opens up Obama to developing countries in Africa and large swaths of Asia in a way that no other American President has experienced.
One other point, because of security concerns, American presidents typically don't have widely publicized events that can be easily attended. So, the opportunities for crowd frenzies that people associate with stars at their peak height (think Beatles landing at the then-Idlewild Airport in 1964) are rather limited. But, when such occasions do arise, Obama has shown that he can go toe-to-toe with anyone in history. To wit, when he gave a speech in Berlin last summer, an estimated 200,000 people attended. And, of course, his inauguration in January was the most widely attended inauguration in U.S. history, with estimates ranging from 400,000 to more than 1 million people in attendance.
PS -- The other thing is that people of all ages around the globe know who Barack Obama is. Yes, lots of American, European, and Asian teenagers knew and went ape-shit over Michael Jackson in 1983, but I'm sure there were a considerable number of people in 1983 living in China, India, and Japan who were in their 60s, 70s, and 80s and had no clue who Michael Jackson was.
just as I'm sure- and I know it pains you to hear this- that there are plenty of people here in 2009 living in China and India who have no idea who Barack Obama is.
I'm not disagreeing with Obama's worldwide fame. But I think the fact that it is taking place here and now is clouding your memory of the early 80's. There were kids in sub-Saharan Africa with red leather jackets and silver gloves. (Remember- he co-wrote "We Are The World") Hundreds of thousands of people saw him throughout Asia and Europe. While it may have been the kids that saw him and made him popular, I think it would be naive to say that most adults wouldn't have known whom "those kids" were talking about.
Because fame is subjective, we'll continue to disagree. With the advances in communication and the increase in the world's population in 25 years, it is a little hard to dismiss the fact that Obama's name is now known worldwide. I just think you underestimate the enormous penetration (no pun intended) MJ had around the globe.
Imagine if Obama serves two successful terms & leaves office with the highest approval ratings of any President in history.
Then imagine, fifteen years after his second term, Obama stands trial for sexual molestation of a minor, thus tarnishing his good reputation.
Then, imagine, 25 years after his second term and the height of his popularity, Obama decides to hold 50 consecutive speaking engagements in the same venue.
What are the odds he sells them all out?
Jackson sold out FIFTY performances in London in the months before he died. He did so as a 50-year old man, 25 years removed from the height of his popularity.
No one else on this planet could do that. Not Obama, not Paul McCartney, no one.
I don't see how Wiley's hypothetical has anything to do with fame. It is an indication of something besides fame. Fink's original post said that Michael Jackson was the most famous person since Jesus Christ. I define fame as people who don't know you personally being able to recognize your name or picture and say who you are. That's it. It's not that they love you, adore you, or get weak at the knees when you perform. The fact that Michael Jackson still has numerous, rabid fans around the globe is a completely separate matter.
Also, I don't think fame is at all subjective, as Fink wrote last night. Popularity, which Wiley seems to be conflating with fame, is subjective in my opinion, because you have to deal with two factors (the amount of people that like someone and the degree to which they like that someone). Using my definition of fame, I think there is an objective truth whether Michael was more famous than Obama is famous. It's just that we don't have access to the information (if such information even exists) that would enable us to make that determination.
My contention is that a larger percentage of people across the planet today know Barack Obama than knew Michael Jackson across the planet in 1984. My contention rests on three main elements I've mentioned in earlier comments (the more interconnected world in 2009 than in 1984; Obama's heritage is unique and compelling to large parts of the developing world; and a pop star is not going to be as well known by certain age demographics, whereas a President like Obama will be known by people of all ages).
To Fink's point about my not having proper perspective on Obama because he is the present: I'd say that I generally am the type of person who doesn't buy into the hype that the media foments about how things are historic. Mainstream media coverage by the nature of its 24 hour news cycle, propensity for short stories, and emphasis on talking heads confronting each other is incapable of providing perspective and putting things in appropriate historical contexts. However, that doesn't preclude today's developments or events from being historic in the small scale of things or even historic in the big picture scale of things. And I think the hype about Obama is one case where it's on target.
If name recognition is the barometer for fame, I find it hard to make the contention that GW Bush was less "famous" world-wide than is Obama.
Bush's notoriety was predicated on much the same measures that Obama's currenty are: access to internet, 24 hr. news cycles, etc.
Bush was on the world stage for over 8 years. Despite Obama's unique attributes mentioned here(his race, religion, etc.), I hardly think they are significant enough to vault him ahead of GW Bush from a "fame" perspective when Obama has only been on the public stage for just over a year.
So, while Obama may be more "popular" than Bush was worldwide, I find it hard to make the argument that he is more "famous".
If the argument here is that MJ was less "famous" in 1983 than Obama is today because of the advances in technology during these last 25 years, I'll buy it.
However, I'm not buying the notion that Obama is more "famous" than his contemporaries (Bush, Jordan, Woods, etc.).
I have to agree with Wiley w/r/t G. W. Bush using one of 2MFW points: interconnectedness of today's world means that once someone gets big enough, the "network" (tv, internet, mobiles, telephones, newspapers) easily spreads their "fame" far and wide. I think we've reached the point in history where every President will be as famous as the next. But what will not be equal is popularity. So while W and Obama may be equally famous, Obama is far more popular (c.f. the Berlin gig, etc)
Post a Comment