While the world works it's way through the death of Michael Jackson, with all it's sideshows, lurid or otherwise, there are those of us who have been mourning the loss of the man; the musician, for some time. The loss of opportunity, the wasting of resources, all the possibilities now surely gone, but that had long been buried beneath the celebrity and notoriety.
The question now is where does Michael Jackson belong in the pantheon of music, be it African-American, pop, soul; where is his place among the greats in music? Where does he belong? Compared to others, his discography is limited, but given that, does it compare in quality to his contemporaries, his predecessors, or to the icons some suggest he now joins? I think as far as his contemporaries are concerned, be it Prince, Lionel Richie, Madonna ( never thought I'd give the 80's that much....................thought ), or U2, he certainly eclipsed them by sheer volume and number. That he was dubbed the King of Pop, a crown worn in previous eras by Elvis and Sinatra, certainly speaks to his status in those days. But, musically, was he better, or more influential, than his contemporaries? Prince and U2 were more restless and creative; pushing themselves to be more than one dimensional, but then they weren't " pop " stars in the traditional sense, or more properly, moved through the popular firmament for a time, before returning to their own particular venues. Richie, suffered from the dominance of Jackson; Madonna appropriated the iconography and ran with it, producing albums in the idiomatic style of that particular moment in Pop.
What of his place with his predecessors? Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder, James Brown, Smokey Robinson, and the many other greats of Motown and Stax. He and his brothers came up through that time and obviously were influenced and mentored by that group. Does his work measure up to theirs? Is Thriller the equal of Marvin Gay's What's Going On? Thriller sold more, but what album by any individual or group is going to measure up to that? Is that the parameter that defines his place in history?
Is he among the great? Can he stand along side Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, or Ray Charles? Can he match their contributions to music; the songs, the styles, the impact on successive musicians; the weight of their legacies? I believe most discerning critics and historians of music would say no. Some of that is due to the category in which his music falls. Pop is, by and large, disposable; remembered mostly by those who age group is defined by it's time, and largely forgotten or unknown to others. It's like talking about the Beatles to a seventeen year old; he might like or appreciate the music; he might not, but he'll never understand the context of the time or the sensation, anymore than I would the Swing era, even though I truly enjoy Swing.
I do think that, for some of us; and I do include myself, there is a sense of what Michael Jackson might have created musically, had Thriller been a big hit rather than the monster he could never replicate. There's no doubt that he had a real feel for what he wanted to do musically, and success certainly can reinforce the belief that you can do no wrong, but the question that will never be answered was if that's all he really had; that Thriller was the culmination; that there wouldn't be anything better; that everything that followed would be a failed attempt at recreating the Thriller magic. Historically, you could say that his subsequent recording bear that out. They were good, but not great. Had Thriller not been the monster that it was, would Michael Jackson have moved on musically; creatively? Would he have had the opportunity to expand his musical palette; to try new thing and sound without being restrained by expectations, or was he, simply what he was; the best for a time, but only for that time, and then eclipsed by the next big thing.
