Latest on MJJC

That "Controversial" '96 Brit Awards Earth Song Performance...

CodaBroda

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
562
Points
18
This sole performance is the one that has puzzled me as a fan. And with the lack of "behind the scenes" information of the performance, we're left with mere speculation behind Michael's intentions. Given the ample amount of information that supports he was a humble individual, the "Christ-like messiah" reading that most people subscribe to seems to contradict that very idea. Joseph Vogel writes about this performance in his book, "Earth Song: Inside Michael Jackson's Magnum Opus":

Because of the religious symbolism and the passionate response of the crowd (audience members are often shown sobbing), perhaps the most common criticism associated with “Earth Song” was that Jackson, or the song (or both), were “messianic.” This label gained more currency after a performance at the 1996 BRIT Awards in which Pulp singer, Jarvis Cocker, stormed the stage to protest what he perceived as Jackson’s “offensive” Christ-like portrayal.

This reading of Jackson’s performance(s)—which has been recycled by numerous journalists and critics—is staggeringly literal-minded. There is no question Jackson used iconic messianic gestures in his performances. What isn’t taken into consideration, however, is how, as a dancer/performance artist, his body acted as his canvas. He used specific gestures and symbolism to communicate meaning and express emotion. Would a critic claim Michelangelo is “messianic” and “narcissistic” for painting Jesus on the cross? What is far more interesting is considering how Jackson is deploying such symbols and gestures.

“When Jackson embodies a particular archetypal stance,” notes Constance Pierce, “his physical body transfigures into a kind of symbolic, elegant calligraphy wherein the Divine may channel gestures of explosive emotion or intimate compassion. The artist becomes shamanic, taking on our massive cumulative “shadow” and sweeping it whole into the light.

Jackson, then, uses messianic gestures, not because he thinks he is the messiah, but because of what such symbols can express and communicate. It is not about him personally, but how his body can translate the emotions of the song.
Click to expand...

So what is your opinion or reading of this performance given what we know? A brief ego trip, or something much more?

TLDR: The 96 Brit Awards performance is considered one of Michael's most controversial, given the religious implications. Given what we know, what do you think the true meaning behind the commonly read "Christ-like messiah" performance is?

[video=youtube;oJj3iupbnyk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJj3iupbnyk[/video]
 
It's a great performance.. Michael Jackson could have been caught on camera wiping his @$$ and that would have been found controversial. By that time - he could not be around someone sneezing for media to wait to see what "religious move" MJ would make.. "Bess you"? "God Bless you" "Damn that was loud." OMG Michael said damn...
 
Much of the spirit of what rock n' roll became is anti-establishment, anti-conformist, controversial, and - in some facets of rock - overblown and grandiose.

Of course when Michael Jackson engages in anything like that it's considered plain unacceptable.

This particular 'controversy', of course, ran much deeper than the performance itself - the performance and the convenient 'stage invasion' was just the vehicle that was jumped on. I've commented on it before a few times in here.
 
Jarvis Cocker invaded the stage way before MJ did any "Messiah-like" pose, so his explanation later was a bit off. Then, if I remember correctly, he tried to explain it in a way they he saw the rehearsal so he knew what was coming. I have heard when MJ rehearsed others were kicked out of the room and actually that was Cocker's problem with him. But of course it looked "cooler" to say it was to protest some supposedly Messianic pose. Why would he care, anyway? He does not come across to me as a particularly religious type.
 
To be honest if any other singer did this Id completely write it off as cringey and cheesy. Same with the end of the song during the HIStory tour. For some reason it works for Michael because he was already known for good performances AND good videos so this was an example of meshing the two.
 
innuendo141 said:
To be honest if any other singer did this Id completely write it off as cringey and cheesy. Same with the end of the song during the HIStory tour. For some reason it works for Michael because he was already known for good performances AND good videos so this was an example of meshing the two.
Click to expand...

Personally I think the HIStory tour version borders on cheesy whereas the Brits one comes off as ballsy (forgive the phrase).
 
I absolutely love this performance! Michael was practically untouchable during the 90's, he was that big! I would have loved it if MJ had engaged in a little ass kicking on stage ?
 
Jarvis Crocker was pulling a Nigel Farage there, that is for sure, or a Kanye at the Grammys. Totally horrible and unecessary. I considered Jarvis's music absolute mororse crap. Michael was really doing an incredible performance of an incredible song and that tosser ruined it.

Cringeworthy, Michael was a gentleman on stage, because had it been some rapper or metal group's performance he had interupted, they would have kicked his ass.
 
I do believe the controversy over this performance was blown out of proportion........

the way the kids surrounded him was very similar to that of the end of the Man in the Mirror video in 1988....

I think the issue was that those 93 allegations had just occurred and people still had that fresh on their minds and that was the root of the criticism

but the performance in of itself, I always loved EArth Song and thought it was one of his career best recordings he gave
 
I personally don't feel like he was trying to present himself like a messiah. I feel like he was trying to appear as the embodiment of goodness, love and healing that is needed to reverse the destruction of the earth - not that HE was able to do that, but he was presenting the energy of it. Just my take. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top