Stories are now starting to emerge of prescription drug abuse (and the dispreputable, highly-paid "doctors" who provided the prescription drugs; probably the same sort of doctors who consented to the multiple plastic surgeries and gave Jackson the face of a monster), a daily shot of Demerol, an addiction to Oxycontin. Whether true or false, it will probably be weeks before it is precisely determined. Deepak Chopra, a friend of Jackson's, has been interviewed, and said Jackson's addiction to Oxycontin concerned him enough that he was considering an "intervention". I've said some harsh things about Jackson (as I told a friend when the child molesting allegations first arose against Jackson years ago, "If he didn't molest those kids, it's only because he's a eunuch and is physically incapable of the sex act."), and I stand by them, but there's no denying that he was a tormented, deeply disturbed individual. For as long as he had money...like Elvis...there were always people willing to cater to his delusions and addictions. His legacy? I don't deny that he was talented; he wrote much of his music, and, while it really isn't my kind of music, there's no getting around the fact that a lot of it was good. Still, I think people go overboard in analyzing his "impact". On Friday, I heard a panel discussion on NPR (I can't remember the names of the participants, unfortunately) and they all spoke glowingly of Jackson's "artistic contributions" to the culture. One of them said (and I paraphrase), "In 400 years, people will still remember Michael Jackson like they do William Shakespeare now." Even one of his fellow panel participants said, "I don't know that I'd say that."
Another participant said, "Everything you hear nowadays has been influenced by Jackson. Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears, for example, have been influenced by the music of Michael Jackson." Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears? If that's the case, it ain't much of a legacy. To me, Jackson obviously has made the same sort of cultural impact that Elvis Presley did, but neither one of them comes close to being the sort of "artist" that Miles Davis was, or Billie Holiday, or even Frank Sinatra. Presley, who also wasn't untalented, took a style of music that others had perfected, and homogenized it down...made it accessible...to a white audience. I'm not suggesting that that was necessarily a bad thing (while such a "homogenization" originated in racism, Camille Paglia wrote a piece asserting that if it weren't for Elvis, we wouldn't have the Rolling Stones, or the Beatles, or a great many of the quality musical groups we've had). But it doesn't transform him into an artistic giant. As for Jackson, he wrote catchy pop songs that spoke to more than one generation. Nobody can take that away from him. But, again, it doesn't make him an artistic giant, and it doesn't guarantee the immortality of his work. As a final, I can state without equivocation, for all the negative things I have said about Jackson (and, again, I don't think they're out of line), I'm sorry that he was so tortured, and I do hope he's found a peace in death that he obviously was never able to find in life, money, talent, and public adulation notwithstanding.
