Latest on MJJC

Jackson Moonwalks For Himself

whitesocksdancer

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,140
Points
0
Location
Second star to the right
Jackson Moonwalks For Himself

By: Samantha Gannon

Posted: 2/18/08

Michael Jackson who? That was the one flaw in this year's 50th annual Grammy Awards. The 2008 music celebration was about commemorating the legends, the performers, and the rising stars of the new generation. Tina Turner, Aretha Franklin, Luciano Pavarotti, John Fogerty and Little Richard all graced the stage. Cirque du Soleil also wowed audiences with their captivating rendition of "A Day in the Life" to honor the Beatles.

Coincidently, this year also marks the 25th anniversary of Michael

Jackson's Thriller, the biggest selling album of all time. Not once did the Academy recognize Jackson's incredible feat or his superior achievements as an artist. There had been rumors circulating for weeks that Jackson was going to perform on Grammy night with artists such as Akon, Fergie, and qill.i.am who all appear on the re-release of Thriller. Fans were left disappointed.

According to Usatoday.com, Thriller sold and astounding 27 million-plus albums in the United States, and included seven top-10 singles. Jackson also garnered 8 Grammys and 12 nominations in 1984. No one in the music industry had ever reached the matched his success as a solo artist. He had a unique sound and a creative flair that elevated him into a class by himself. Jackson transcended and defined the realm of pop music, shaping the molds of some of today's biggest artists.

In recent years, Jackson has been scrutinized by the media for his bizarre behavior and impulsive lifestyle. You say the word "Jackson," and people shout "freak." What happened? What went wrong? How could one of the most talented individuals in music throw his career away? We'll never really know.

However, his personal life does not alter the Michael Jackson everyone once knew and adored. His music is a testament to that. The 14-minute music video for "Thriller" made everyone's heads turn, and raised the bar high for music videos thereafter. The sleek sequin glove was his trademark. His smooth moves, specifically the moonwalk, signified his sex appeal to girls throughout the world. And Jackson's high-pitched but polished voice made him the international phenomenon that he represents to this very day. We still crank up the volume whenever we hear his hits on the radio, and rock out to his signature beats on the dance floor.

Disappointed that Jackson wasn't recognized at the 2008 Grammys? Yes.

Does he need a speech to salute his magnitude of influence on music? Absolutely not. The King of Pop will always be the "master of his domain."



Contact Samantha Gannon at Samantha.Gannon@UConn.edu.

© Copyright 2008 The Daily Campus

http://www.dailycampus.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=befed52e-edeb-4480-9ea6-edf0d8fc5428
 
Datsymay said:
Yep, it was very stupid of the grammy's not to recognise the most successful artist of a generation. It makes them look stupid indeed. I am sure much question are being asked.:)
Click to expand...

Speaking of which i found this on HitsDailydouble when someone was asking what the Grammys were missing.......


http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/newsPage.cgi?news06987m01


LENNYBEERBLOG: FINAL THOUGHTS ON GRAMMY WEEK

What Went Right, What Went Wrong and What Could Improve the Music Industry's Big Night

February 15, 2008

Once again, Ken Ehrlich brought us a beautifully shot and incredibly choreographed Grammy Awards presentation. Around the office and in my UCLA class, opinions differed radically as to who was good, who was great and who wasn't. Personally, I thought Amy Winehouse was nothing short of sensational, and the London crew that set up and beautifully executed the intimate atmosphere deserves special credit. As does Neil Portnow, who steadfastly stood up against a town torn by the writers’ strike, stuck to his guns and delivered the 50th presentation with taste, style and class. Amy's five wins were well deserved. And while I still think Springsteen's Magic will stand the test of time as the year's best album, I am happy with the ultimate choices for Ms. W, as I am with the Best Album win for Herbie Hancock’s brilliant River: The Joni Letters. In the field of five, his album stands ahead of the rest. I know most of you still haven’t taken the time to listen to it, but many more are now buying it (as it immediately surged to #3 at iTunes) and, I’m quite sure, are enjoying the heck out of it, as did I.

As for criticism of the show, instead of nitpicking over micro choices, I offer one significant thought to Mr. Ehrlich and team. How about adding a little drama to the proceeding by making the awards, the winners and especially the Best Album category into a more visible and profound contest? This could be accomplished simply, much like the Oscars, in which highlights of the best movies are sprinkled throughout the show, with dramatic clips and introductions for each of the contenders.

Why not do the same with the Best Album nominees—have a speaker introduce each nominee, play some of the music, show a short, pre-prepared conversation with the nominees about their art and make us care and want to hear more? This might result in more people staying through the long proceedings, as the drama builds toward the evening’s ultimate winner. Heck, it might help the ratings, which unfortunately were low this year. It's just a thought.

Tell us your thoughts on the show, the winners and the glorious sun-filled week in Los Angeles at lennybeerblog@hitsmagazine.com. As for me, now that everyone has left town, there's more time to hit the links... Fore!
______________________________________

Hi, was there a shortage of Thriller this week? I went to four different stores and all of them said that they were sold out of the deluxe version and this was on Tuesday night. Some of them didn't even have any more of the regular version and the ones that did didn't have many. I am glad to see it sell so well and I hope to see a new album soon. Thanks!

Sincerely,
Robert J. Akesson
______________________________________

Lenny:
According to Nielsen Media Research, the 50th Annual Grammy Awards show on Sunday was the third least-watched Grammy Awards ever. Viewership was down from the 20 million people who watched last year, to 17.5 million. The 2006 awards, with 17 million viewers, is the Grammy low point. The show had 17.3 million viewers in 1995. (And if comparative analysis with Nielsen numbers goes further, the actual number of viewers, not households, was only 17.1 million this year)

The Grammy Awards lost relevance to the TV audience at large years ago for a lot of different reasons. While there was a host of great talent on the show this year, from the likes of Alicia Keys, Carrie Underwood, Tina Turner, John Fogerty, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Andrea Bocelli, Josh Groban, the Beatles tribute, Foo Fighters, Amy Winehouse, Feist, Beyonce, Kanye West and others, the show once again failed to connect with viewers.

Of course, the biggest upset of the entire night was Herbie Hancock's win for Album of the Year for his album River: The Joni Letters. It was, in my opinion, a well-deserved award for an album filled with extraodinary and exceptional quality. Herbie had won 10 Grammys going into the night's ceremony, but never Album of the Year.

"It's been 43 years since the first and only time that a jazz artist got an Album of the Year award," Hancock said, referring to 1964's Getz/Gilberto, an album released by the American saxophonist Stan Getz and Brazilian guitarist Joao Gilberto. An album that to this date, is known by millions all over the world, because of its Top 10 single "The Girl From Ipanema."

Herbie thanked Joni Mitchell several times for the songs she's written that inspired him to record the album with guest vocalists on several tracks like Norah Jones, Tina Turner, Corinne Bailey Rae, Leonard Cohen and Joni Mitchell herself.

It was a good night for many other artists as well. Kanye West couldn't be too upset he lost to Hancock; he took home four Grammys. Amy Winehouse won five, Bruce Springsteen three, the Foo Fighters' Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace won Best Rock Album, the White Stripes, Justin Timberlake, Mary J. Blige, Vince Gill and even the Beatles, also took home Grammys.

Famed jazz musician from the 1920s, Bix Beiderbecke, said "One thing I like about jazz, kid, is that I don't know what's going to happen next. Do you?"

A lot of people didn't expect what happened last Sunday night to happen.

Whether or not you're a jazz fan, in my opinion, it's good to know that the NARAS members chose a unique and distinguished recording in a time when too much focus in music is given to style over substance in the media.

Steve Meyer
Smart Marketing
Las Vegas, NV
______________________________________

The Grammy executives should have done EVERYTHING in their power to get Michael Jackson on that show. Although I didn't watch the entire broadcast, the parts that I did see lacked the excitement that you would expect from a Grammy telecast. (Alicia Keyes and "Frank Sinatra" being one of those segments that lacked excitement.)

A performance or even an appearance by Mr. Jackson would certainly have given the Grammys a much-needed boost in the ratings. Maybe next year.

Note: Tina Turner did not need Beyonce to "enhance" her performance!

Best regards,
Wanda G. Thompson
______________________________________



I attended the Grammy Awards and was pleased by the excellent technical production and pace of the show. I was disappointed that Herbie Hancock did not play a track from his Album of the Year, but was instead forced to perform a duet of music from the United Airlines TV commercial (no offense to Mr. Gershwin, but it was Herbie's night). And among the crowd inside Staples Arena, there was a brief moment of agitation when it was announced that the Foo Fighters were playing outside.

David Bean
BeanBag1.com
______________________________________
 
Last edited:
Wow...the was a very moving and true article on the Grammy's and Michael. Thanks Whitesocks. ;)

I still don't know why they didn't mention anything at all. I hope the American Music Awards will step-up to the plate. The man literally put food on all of their tables....not to mention the rest of the music industry.
^_^
 
Great article and it was on point.

It shows that the Grammys will always be the Shammys. :)
 
help..i'm about to have a positive shock heart attack. i can't see anything wrong with that article!:punk:

i wrote to her and thanked her immediately.
 
Well its nice to know some people can see where the fault lies with the Grammys. So many just seem to want to dump all the blame on Michael. But what they're failing to grasp is, Michael shouldn't have to appeare and give a speech or stand on stage in order for his unparalleled acheievements both as a recording and performing artist to be recognized. The fact that the Grammys would demand his precense before they would be willing to honor him shows a total absence of respect on their part towards Michael and it proves that, just as their failure to present Michael with any awards for his music in the last 20 years has proven, they never really did care about or respect Michael, either as a person or as an artist. And for that I say, good on Michael for sticking it back at them and not allowing himself to be pimped.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Well its nice to know some people can see where the fault lies with the Grammys. So many just seem to want to dump all the blame on Michael. But what they're failing to grasp is, Michael shouldn't have to appeare and give a speech or stand on stage in order for his unparalleled acheievements both as a recording and performing artist to be recognized. The fact that the Grammys would demand his precense before they would be willing to honor him shows a total absence of respect on their part towards Michael and it proves that, just as their failure to present Michael with any awards for his music in the last 20 years has proven, they never really did care about or respect Michael, either as a person or as an artist. And for that I say, good on Michael for sticking it back at them and not allowing himself to be pimped.
Click to expand...

:punk:Right on Target;)
& also thanks for the great article/updates!
 
Last edited:
Yeh they should od mentioned the greatest artist on the planet but they didn,t how sad was that.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Well its nice to know some people can see where the fault lies with the Grammys. So many just seem to want to dump all the blame on Michael. But what they're failing to grasp is, Michael shouldn't have to appeare and give a speech or stand on stage in order for his unparalleled acheievements both as a recording and performing artist to be recognized. The fact that the Grammys would demand his precense before they would be willing to honor him shows a total absence of respect on their part towards Michael and it proves that, just as their failure to present Michael with any awards for his music in the last 20 years has proven, they never really did care about or respect Michael, either as a person or as an artist. And for that I say, good on Michael for sticking it back at them and not allowing himself to be pimped.
Click to expand...
Yep. And I think they got some explaining to do. Many people who turned up on their show must have been puzzled like hell, esp when a big fuss was made of the beatles. That was the grammy's shame.:mello:
 
sundayroberts1 said:
Yeh they should od mentioned the greatest artist on the planet but they didn,t how sad was that.
Click to expand...

Very, very sad.
I have lost all the respect for The Grammy's. I thought it was a decent awards show, but now I see it's just as crappy as MTV.
 
I've BEEN lost respect for the Grammys. I'm surprised some of y'all really thought they were "decent", lol. They have NEVER been decent. Ask Marvin Gaye (RIP). :moonwalk:
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Well its nice to know some people can see where the fault lies with the Grammys. So many just seem to want to dump all the blame on Michael. But what they're failing to grasp is, Michael shouldn't have to appeare and give a speech or stand on stage in order for his unparalleled acheievements both as a recording and performing artist to be recognized. The fact that the Grammys would demand his precense before they would be willing to honor him shows a total absence of respect on their part towards Michael and it proves that, just as their failure to present Michael with any awards for his music in the last 20 years has proven, they never really did care about or respect Michael, either as a person or as an artist. And for that I say, good on Michael for sticking it back at them and not allowing himself to be pimped.
Click to expand...


totally totally agree. mann i don't know what's wrong with some of the 'officials' in this country!

i lost all respect for all usa award shows years ago, the moment dick clark could no longer oversee the american music awards, and when the grammys started dissin MJ for his later material. as far as i am concerned, usa critics are no longer qualified to even critique the neophyte songwriter. a few have spoiled it for the whole bunch, cus they were too loud and abused their power. clark made sure that MJ was recognized, but now, Dick's health is compromised. i'm like...the academy awards? pshh. and i'm like Janet is dreaming of an oscar? oh well..sweet vain dreams. it's not worth dreaming about.
 
Last edited:
vncwilliam said:
totally totally agree. mann i don't know what's wrong with some of the 'officials' in this country!

i lost all respect for all usa award shows years ago, the moment dick clark could no longer oversee the american music awards, and when the grammys started dissin MJ for his later material.
Click to expand...
A while ago I watched some show about the "Best of the Grammies", I think it was melissa ethridge hosting it. (And Green Day had been voted as the best act ever to be on grammies :rolleyes: not dissing Green Day, but gee :ph34r::rolleyes: )
Anyways they mentioned that in 1988 Michael was nominated for a Grammy but lost it (for U2) but Michael's performance that evening was so good that he should have gotten a Grammy.
So I started to wonder when was the last time Michael Jackson got a Grammy and what was it for?
 
Great article except for this part:

How could one of the most talented individuals in music throw his career away? We'll never really know.

I don't think he did that, but whatever...
 
LovelyOne said:
Great article except for this part:

How could one of the most talented individuals in music throw his career away? We'll never really know.

I don't think he did that, but whatever...
Click to expand...

at first, when i looked at that...i guess i saw it differently..and that is HIGHLY unusual for me. but on second look, you may be right. i guess what i saw was that she said that we'll never really know if his career is truly lost, or if what supposedly happened personally actually did any damage..but it could be that you are right. i mean reporters have a hard time being totally positive when it comes to MJ. i just think that she said that whatever went on should not take away from his achievments..so, that's why i figured i'd separate her from the other reporters. but then again, she could be saying his achievments are untouchable, but his future is no more. i'm tempted to say that we always have a tendency to comb reports with a fine tooth comb, and we should accept one for a change, or people will stop reporting for him from now on...but then, i don't think fans should be intimitdated by idle threats either, cus MJ's career has survived on fanbase alone...never needing the reporters, which is unprecedented for an artist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top