The King of Pop has died at age 50.
RIP.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/25...l_jackson_.html

From The Washington Post

From The New York Times

This makes me very sad. Whatever mess he made of his personal life (and the repercussions on other people) he was an astonishing musician, and a phenomenal dancer.

I don't think we can hold all of the bad things against him, sandik. I've read some really ghastly stories about the way Jackson was treated by his family as a child. A marvelous talent. I hope all goes well for his children.

It's very bittersweet for me thinking about MJ. I was a young girl who swooned to "I'll Be There", a senior in high school when I first heard "Billie Jean" and thought to myself that this is the song of my generation. I watched in the following years as the talented man I grew to adore seemed to slowly melt away and a new unrecognizable slightly frightening MJ emerged. I was done with him completely by the time the reports of inappropriate behavior towards young boys were first being broadcast. So for me, he had already died.
I do want to pray for his family, especially his three young children. I also want to pray for Michael's soul.

I re-watched the "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough" video this morning. That's the way I prefer to remember him. Young, handsome and filled with a joyous, musical energy that seemed infinite and all enveloping.

I think he was instrumental in bringing sophisticated choreography into music videos. The Thriller choreography was as sophisticated and enjoyable as anything you see on Broadway stage.

How can his be called phenomenal music? Please explain because it doesn't impress me as such. And exactly how much of his music was he responsible for? Did he orchestrate or score his music? What instrument(s) did he play? I don't know much about this so perhaps Sandil or someone who knows might shed some light on this.

As sad as is this news, it's brought dance back into the forefront of news. All of the broadcast and cable-news networks have done major features on Jackson's influence in dance, with Debbi Allen and other show/B'way choreographers interviewed.

Also, related to ballet, I found the following clip from an NBC interview of Jackson very touching. When the interviewer asked MJ if it is true that classical music influences his own music, MJ said: "Absolutely. I love Tchaikovsky's 'Nutcracker Suite.' Every song (tune) in it is a hit."

I chose to remember the positive aspects of Michael. May he rest in peace and may his three children find happiness.

Agreed, that's what I'm trying to do also.

He must have had a lot of demons and did a lot that was questionable and certainly bizarre.

But I really think he was a thrilling performer with tons of charisma and hope that the memory of his career peak dominates the way he is remembered rather than his troubled final years.

May he RIP and I also wish the best to his children.

Michael Jackson, his magic and talent stretched accross the generations, putting aside his strange ways and lifestyle, the wonder of his performances still shone through. He has now joined the select few we will always remember, Elvis Presley, Judy Garland, Marilyn Monroe, Princess Diana, Frank Sinartra. Charlie Chaplin, Anna Pavlova, Nijinsky, Ruddi Nureyev. Margot Fonteyn. May he rest in peace on heavens stage in the sky.

My impression is that he was primarily a singer and dancer. I liked his singles and bought copies of Off the Wall and Thriller back in the day but was not otherwise a big fan so my knowledge is not deep. Perhaps someone who knows more will have something to add. He spent the rest of his life trying to duplicate the success of Thriller to no avail and started repeating himself. He was an exceptionally gifted mover but I'd be hard put to call him a great dancer. He has been compared to Elvis but he didn't have as comprehensive an influence. Eventually his fame turned to notoriety and possibly criminal behavior and that's how matters ended. A canny businessman, though, cleverly buying up song catalogues like those of The Beatles at bargain prices, and only ran into debt because of his extravagance.

Well, yes, but he will be remembered for both--and should be, because it's just a matter of historical accuracy, And his notoriety was a big deal. There's no such thing as remembering Lana without Stompanato (whom she sometimes confessed to having killed herself, and probably did), or Sinatra without his Mob connections, even if you don't emphasize them. Michael's extreme childishness (pretending all the cosmetic suregery was 'naturel', i.e., that he hadn't had any, which is disingenuous in the extreme) is probably what endears him to some--and with some good reason. But his notoriety is of the extreme sort, and there was a great deal of undisclosed material around the various paedophile cases. There is still a lot around the Marilyn Monroe death, for another kind of example of non-disclosure of the material evidence, that is still not known, or is kept under lock and key and not known to the public.

Alastair Macaulay has an interesting appreciation of Michael Jackson as a 'mover' in today's NYT.

To be honest, I've never paid any attention to Jackson as a performer: his music was several generations too young for my taste; but based on Macaulay's comments, I went to YouTube to watch the 'Billie Jean" video. I'll be the first to admit I can't stand pop music and after five minutes Jackson mumbling unintelligibly on the same two notes, I was really, really ready for some Frank Sinatra. But --- I couldn't take my eyes off Jackson. I don't know, maybe it wasn't really 'dancing', but in "Billie Jean" and the earlier "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" video you can see why Fred Astaire had praise for the young Jackson; they shared a casual elegance and charm.

I hope Michael has found his peace at last.

Oh, now Miss Turner suddenly looks even more interesting on my eyes...

...still She IS one of the most interesting Hollywood characters, Cristian--it's just that most of it's offscreen. The book by her last secretary-hairdresser, Eric Root (forget the title, but it came out about 1996, just after her death), has one of the confessions in it. She had just met Laurence Olivier for the first time, but I don't know whether that caused her to lose it that time...the outburst occurred in a hotel near Lincoln Center...

He's not the greatest, not a genius, but seeing him holding his own alongside the Nicholas brothers, I can easily consider him a great dancer.

Returning to Michael Jackson, I cannot help wondering what the result would have been if his dance skills had been channeled into a different area. Supposing he had received classical ballet training? He was definitely a very musical person and moved with remarkable flexibility. He was almost sensual in some aspects, plus he had a very slim physique. Perhaps his life would not have had such bizarre elements. Though during the time this could have happened, it would have proven very difficult for a coloured young man to be accepted in the world of classical Ballet. When you consider Carlos Acosta. having made it, Michael Jackson, could well have succeeded had he been given the opportunity. Though in these circumstances he would have not been known for his songs.

Although I think the influence is different, I think Jackson's is probably comparable to that of Elvis Presley. I think if Elvis was the first white man who could sing the so-called "black music" and become a star, then Michael Jackson was the first black man to crossover and become a superstar and sex symbol to both white and black audiences. I think you also have to give him credit for having the vision to see the possibilities of the music video form, and expand the vocabulary and grammar of what is possible with music videos.

And although I wouldn't call his songwriting as artful as the Beatles, Brian Wilson or Barry Gibb, he put out some very good records, and has been a direct influence on a huge segment of performers today. Although Elvis is a undeniable titan of the recording industry, I honestly don't think he was nearly as interested in the actual production of his recordings or even the nature of his material as the Beatles, Wilson, Gibb (as examples) or Jackson. Honestly, Elvis made a lot of schlocky movies and recorded some very weak songs, but he redeemed them on the basis of his magnificent vocal talent.

Sadly, like with Elvis, talent and the subsequent fame on that scale does seem to twist a person's psyche.



I think this is an intriguing possibility, but I can't imagine the likelihood of his success as an African-American male classical ballet student in the 1970s.

What about Sam Cooke, Smokey Robinson and James Brown, just to name a few off the top of my head? Not to mention Muddy Waters and other bluesmen to many educated whites in the late 50's and 60's. Jackson's crossover appeal as measured by the size and breadth of his audience probably exceeded them all, but he wasn't the first to cross over as both sex symbol and highly influential performer.

Didn't A. Mitchell sort of paved the path on this matters earlier...?

They never achieved stardom on Jackson’s scale. Like Michael Jordan in sports he appealed to whites and blacks in equal measure, achieving a mass audience reach not previously accomplished by an African American, as sidwich notes.



Elvis’ influence goes well beyond that, though. The landscape of the pop scene would look different without Jackson, but he never dominated it to the degree Presley did. Elvis didn’t have to be a songwriter (and it was hardly necessary with Leiber-Stoller around).



As badly off as Elvis was he never seems to have quite reached Jackson’s depths. I suspect there was something wrong with Jackson apart from death by superstardom.

I agree about the degree of stardom, as noted above. And in appealing to whites, Jackson no doubt benefitted from the conciousness-raising that occurred through the civil rights movement. That said, I disagree that Jackson's fame differed in kind. Motown, for example, had huge crossover appeal, and was played on stations that both blacks and whites listened to. I also think Jackson's appeal to whites, great as it was, is exaggerated. There was a significant portion of the pop audience that never cared for him.

Michael Jackson, gone . It's been been five days, and I'm still processing this. I grieve for him and for his children. For me, he was absolutely superlative, number one, the best, the total package of what an all around entertainer should be. Quite simply, Michael was a perfectionist. He was the total performer. He was the complete singer & dancer. I can say for myself, that when he hit the stage in concert, he hit it hard and never let up. He was happiest and most comfortable onstage, and there he gave his all, he poured out everything that was in him. His music is the soundtrack of my life. I choose to remember and celebrate only the positive things about him, and the enormous contribution that he gave to music, dance, videos, (and before his descent), his philanthropy.

sidwich wasn’t saying that Jackson was the first black performer with real crossover appeal, just as Jordan was not the first black athlete with crossover appeal. It’s a matter of scale, reach, and how a star is perceived in the eyes of the public, all of which do make a difference when you’re talking about stardom at this level.



Thanks, cygnet. I never saw him live. Would be interested to hear more from anyone who did.

The NY Times article on the tribute at the Apollo is here:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/...-the-apollo/?hp

Al Sharpton was among the speakers:

I can't speak as to the accuracy of these statements, but they certainly help me to appreciate the enormous influence that Jackson must have had on the area where pop culture and politics intersect.

Sharpton used to travel with James Brown. I spoke with him once at a Brown show with an almost entirely white audience. I appreciate the affection Sharpton must have for Jackson inasmuch, but not limited to the fact, that Jackson was the first black "superstar" after the word had been coined. But Sharpton is surely familiar with the careers of Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, who were huge stars in the days when jazz was pop, not to mention the Motown stars who were already on white oldies stations by the time Jackson broke big.

Sharpton is never interested in anything but the gratification of the moment, and bart's mention of the matter of the 'accuracy of these statements' is an important part of it--it it happens to be accurate, then it's purely coincidental, as it's clear from one event to the next there is not the slightest interest in any kind of verisimilitude, any kind of logic, or anything but rabble-rousing at its cheapest. He even used Paris Hilton's day-long early release from her jail sentence in 2007 as reason to make a trip to Los Angeles and preach about 'racial unfairness', nevermind she went back to jail and finished her sentence, and Nicole Richie, partly black, served only 82 minutes for hers. I don't believe a word he says, and familiarity with the Armstrong and Ellington careers would have served no purpose in what is always the same Sharpton Show, which is to say, purely racist. The Tawana Brawley case says it all. 'Before Michael we were limited and ghettoized'. One of the most repulsive and blatantly false statements I've ever heard. You'd think Michael was the same kind of civil rights leader as Martin Luther King, Jr.or Malcolm X. Sharpton is simply unspeakable.

Elvis was around when Rock'n'Roll was just being born, and as such had a greater influence on what it was to become. By the time Michael became a solo artist, the genre had broken into a dozen or more subgenres. There is no way the younger's influence on his art could match Presley's.

I hate to say it, as it's always tragic when someone dies so young, but part of me is relieved that the freak show that MJ became is being laid to rest. My prayers go to his children, whom I'm sure will need them.

You are right about the music videos, and in addition to his crossover power in other departments Jackson was the first African American to gain a crossover audience on MTV – in fact, given his innovations in video, MTV probably owes its success as much to Jackson as any other performer.



Without Elvis, it's possible rock wouldn't exist. It is certainly true that the fragmentation of the pop scene had accelerated by the Eighties. MTV was actually reluctant to run Jackson's videos because he wasn't perceived as a "rock" star.

I wouldn't go that far, but Sharpton is far from the only public figure who has been comparing Jackson to figures as Jackie Robinson. If you think back, prior to "Thriller," entertainment was still highly segregated, and Jackson broke that color barrier by being the first African-American performer to be featured on MTV. He opened a major door for African-American entertainers to walk through, and I think he does deserve credit for that.



Considering the work of Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc. (all of whom I think were significantly greater in terms of musical innovation than Elvis) I doubt rock wouldn't have existed at all, but I do think that Elvis made rock compelling to the masses in a way that they were unable to for one reason or another (Little Richard and Berry partly because they were African-American, Lewis largely because he made the disastrous decision to marry a 12-year old).



To paraphrase, it is always sad when a great man passes, and even sadder when the greatness passes before the man.



I think in a lot of ways, Elvis created the persona of the modern rock star in the same way that Babe Ruth created the persona of the modern sports star.



I think art is always morphing. Rock itself is a subgenre of popular music, and by that reasoning you could might be tempted to say that Elvis' influence on his art could in no way match Benny Goodman's. I think that Jackson was there at the dawn of the music video era and was instrumental in the development of the music video and the music video star. (For example, compare the Rolling Stones' video of "Start Me Up" which is roughly around the same time as "Thriller"). In his own way, he was the Elvis of music video.

I think a lot of public figures have engaged in hyperbole, and that's not uncommon when someone famous dies.

By the time MTV came along, the rise of niche marketing on FM radio had further fragmented the American music scene from what it had been when AM predominated. But by this time what "segregation" existed was voluntary according to individual taste -- anyone could buy any record or attend any concert -- and disco was popular among both blacks and whites. Donna Summer, for example, had a huge crossover hit that was played on MTV. Tina Turner was played there too. I've mentioned a number of entertainers in previous eras who had large black and white audiences. Thinking back to the 70's I remember the Staple Singers, Al Green, and Isaac Hayes, and I'm sure I'm forgetting others. And this is just mass market pop music, not the jazz and blues market, which was dominated by black artists with many white fans.

MTV debuted in 1981. It was not then the enormously popular station it is today, just a small cable outfit directed primarily at young, straight whites, who mostly listened to hard rock and new wave. Thriller was released in 1982 and MTV began playing it the following year. The station had already been under pressure to play more black artists. Jackson broadened their base and their format, but it's not as if he broke some great color barrier. That is far too simplistic a way to put it.

Rev. Sharpton engaging in hyperbole? I'm shocked!

The name I haven't seen mentioned regarding pioneers in racial barrier breakthroughs is Nat King Cole. He gained crossover acceptance even in the years before the civil rights movement. He was "first" in many things. Others that come to mind are Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong, and Harry Belafonte.
While I admire the work of Michael Jackson and appreciate the tremendous creativity he brought, I would agree that there are many others that would be in the Jackie Robinson category before him as breaking racial barriers in entertainment.

Oh no, sidiwich, I agree with you (on some of that, I'll get to the other below) and surely didn't edit and readjust the order of sentences quite perfectly. I wasn't trying to denigrate Michael Jackson, even though I just consider him 'an important entertainment figure', his own tortured existence is just as much of what difficulties can present themselves for a black person in a white-dominated culture, viz., the attempts to look white as well as then claiming to go back to solidarity with blacks. If he broke barriers for African-Americans, and I have no doubt that he did although I think in some much more modest way, it wasn't because that was his main goal, as it was with activists. I was myself just talking about Sharpton and how he uses any African-American for his infernal The Sharpton Show, and indiscriminately, which nauseates me. But you can talk about other entertainers who did the same thing, even if they started in Paris, like Josephine Baker (although with a brief period in Harlem herself)



No, I don't agree with that, entertainment by the 60s and 70s was not 'highly segregated', and if Jackson was the first to be featured on MTV, that's not because MTV was highly segregated either, but because they just coincided at the same time. MTV and 'Thriller' are about of the same vintage. I mean, even the old 'Solid Gold' was hardly segregated. And what about Burt Bacharach and Dionne Warwick? That was definitely mainstream entertainment back in the 60s just to give one example, not to mention even before that Nat King Cole. I guess I don't see what you're getting at.. Because MTV would never have had a 'whites preferred' policy; that is a commercial entity and I'm not convinced they could ever be thought of as presenting a 'color barrier.'

Not surprising to find a lot of hype around Jackson at his death, although neither his nor Farrah's death came to me as any surprise. It was bound to be an after-death fame syndrome just begun, much like Marilyn's and Elvis's. Not having been a fan of his, I was nevertheless always aware of his talent and that he had a huge following, but if he broke any barriers, I can't see that they are much different from those that Madonna broke. Now, what I'd want to see is something like what Barbra Streisand did by her power very early in her career, which is not to have to hide your Jewishness at all anymore. There's a bio of Judy Holliday (may get a chance to look up the author later) that pointed this out, and all the long history of Hollywood Jewish actors (with some exceptions like Paul Newman), but Holliday herself was Judith Tuvim, and that at the time was not going to work as a big star name. The Jewish names kept were by the moguls and the directors. You didn't see any big stars with names like Goldstein, Rosenbaum, Schwartz, etc. Sure, things like 'Segal', which can go either way. But stars basking in their Jewishness (of course, not nearly only that) didn't exist until Streisand was so powerful that she could get anything she wanted in that period. Did Jackson do anything like this for blacks? I can't see what he did that was so special in that area. It seems to me he was just a great entertainer, and by virtue of being black expanded black entertainement, but there were already so many hugely popular black entertainers, and had been for decades. And his own investment in 'blackness' is pretty dubious, it seems to me.

For the record, I just looked up the dates: MTV was launched in August, 1981, and Thriller released in November, 1982.

Nat Cole is a great example of early cross-over appeal.

In the 1940s, my mother and her parents, all of whom were white, visited my uncle who was stationed [I forget where in the US] in the Army. He took them to a local dive to hear this amazing new singer, Nat Cole. This was well before the Civil Rights era.

The Cotton Club, established in 1920 in Harlem, featured black entertainers, but did not, at least in its earlier days, admit black patrons.

So how did the american public received the obvious absence of the active black pop icons of those times during that gap...? (I'm thinking about Lionel Richie, Tina Turner, Diana Ross, Donna Summer or even Janet Jackson, whose first album dates from that same year, 1982). Did MTV had anything to say about it...?

You can't equate MTV with "the American public." As I understand it, it played nothing at all except music videos in its early days, and its target audience was under the age of 25. VH1 was conceived as an alternative for older people. You know, the 25-35 year-old geezers. Richie, Turner, Ross and Summer would have gone to the VH1 crowd.

I say "as I understand it" because I have never, since the day it first started, seen the station. Not even once.

Ok, I digged a bit and found this...

"MTV executives have always denied that there was any kind of prohibition against African American artists in the channel's early days, while Walter Yetnikoff, who was the head of Jackson's record label at the time, has always insisted there was. Yetnikoff wrote in his autobiography, "Howling at the Moon," that "I screamed bloody murder when MTV refused to air his videos. They argued that their format, white rock, excluded Michael's music. I argued they were racist (jerks) -- and I'd trumpet it to the world if they didn't relent... With added pressure from Quincy Jones, they caved in, and in doing so the MTV color line came crashing down."

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.s...mtv_impact.html

My question was aimed at trying to determine if the general population-(Americans...MTV viewers or not...youngsters or not)-did take notice of the "all-white" factor of the channel...

Great work, Cristian! And I think that's a good question too. It totally surprises me, and must have been one of the usual demographic things that are used to target audiences, but still, it's pretty self-evident that it was still not representative of the fact that black artists by 1981 already had huge audiences. Why they thought their 'format was white rock' I couldn't answer. Because with an outfit like MTV, it has to be commercial concerns at work, not garden variety racism of the old sort. Obviously it took them a while, although not that long, to realize that they'd been shortsighted, but if it was even a little over year, they thought their formula was working to achieve its goal of capturing a big audience. Would possibly have to do with early matters of making music videos, which may have had different audiences than I have any idea about. Because we know that there were enormous numbers of white fans for Diana Ross, Donna Summer, and others you've named in a list that could easiy be continued. And definitely Tina Turner, that beautiful dame, I still absolutely crazy about her FOREVER, from 'Acid Queen' and then 'What's Love Got to Do With It' and 'Private Dancer', she was IT. sorry to be so yet AGAIN...

Exactly, Patrick...and of course the list could on and on forever if trying to name all the excellent black performers of the time. I just named some names that would totally fit in the "pop" category-(even if they had their roots deep into R&B). Considering that the phenomenon took place for more than a year, it surprises me that it even took place in the first place, considering how far the last segregation signs were already...(or maybe not that far...?)

Same here, becuse they were NOT there, they were long-gone even by the early 70s. i really have no idea myself why MTV was working this angle.

I think they were working the same angle as a radio station that plays a certain kind of music. They mostly played rock. You didn't hear Michael Jackson on rock radio.

Actually, although the "Thriller" album was released in 1982, the video for "Billie Jean" was not released until 1983 and the famous "Thriller" video was not released until 1984.

And as to the question whether the MTV racial question was noticeable at the time, I think it was noticeable to certain segments of society, probably most noticeably to the black artists who were missing out on the promotion of having their videos played on the new and burgeoning MTV, although David Bowie famously had an outburst on-air about the lack of black artists' videos. To get away from the Sharpton hype and eulogizing hyperbole, this is an article that came out a few years ago about what was going on at the time:

Why it took MTV so long to play black music videos

This Blender blurb also came out a few months ago and is more generally about "Billie Jean" but also discusses the dispute between MTV and CBS to air the "Billie Jean" video:

Blender on Billie Jean

I think television is an interesting comparison. Were there African-American actors on television during the 1960s and 1970s? Absolutely, but "The Cosby Show" was still important in that it showed that mainstream audiences were willing to watch an African-American family that didn't live in a junkyard ("Sanford and Son") or the projects ("Good Times") and make it #1. Incidentally, "The Cosby Show" debuted in the fall of 1984, in the wake of "Thriller" and "Billie Jean."




I don't think the MTV ever said, "Oh, we don't want to air videos by any black artists," but I do think there was a strong sense that mainstream white audiences were not going to want a channel that featured predominantly black artists. It was a business decision, and it's the same business decisions that was made by many magazines not to feature African-American models or celebrities on their covers for many years. Or why studios and networks are very reluctant to make films with large budgets with predominantly African-American casts. For example, for all of Will Smith's box office power, the studio refused to cast a black woman as Smith's love interest in "Hitch" because there was fear that it would be ghettoized as a "black film" and lose appeal to white audiences. (Interestingly, the studio also refused to cast a white woman because they feared the film would alienate audiences in the South and Eva Mendes was cast). Even with films that are ostensibly about moments in African-American history such as "Amistad" and "Glory," white characters are often the lead characters who are somehow saving or leading the African-Americans through a crisis.

Apparently, white males don't like to see anybody but white males, because it's the same reason why studios don't like to make movies that feature predominantly female casts or have a female artists open concerts of other female artists.



This is still very common. It's not like Natalie Portman is actually named Natalie Portman (which is always interesting to me since she's quite devout). Performers don't like to limit their perceived versatility with names that are overly "ethnic." On the Jewish front, there's also John Stewart and Gene Wilder, but in other Anglicization, there's also of course Martin and Charlie Sheen (Estevez), Meg and Jennifer Tilly (Chan), and on the TV front James Roday (Rodriguez) and Paul Anthony Stewart (Tamaccio).



Actually, even clubs that did admit "black" patrons often used the "paper bag" test, that is, patrons who were considered darker than a paper bag were not admitted.

...meaning they don't consider her white...?
(Oh, God, that old terminology mix-up...That's why when asked about my race, I always answer "Caucasian", getting VERY often that "uuh...?" look which precedes the most of the times the question..."But aren't you hispanic...?" to which I answer..."Did you ask me for my race,my ethnicity or my skin color...?").

Miss Mendez is a Caucasian Hispanic female. About colors, I'm not sure...that would be more difficult to determine. In spanish we woujld call her "Triguena"-(a Caucasian person with a darker skin tone).
Oops, sorry about all this...As usual, I'm , so back to Mr. Jackson...

No, I don't think they consider her "white" because of her skin tone and her Cuban heritage, although she is Caucasian which is why I didn't use the term "Caucasian." For example, I think it would have been issue to cast Cameron Diaz who is also of Cuban heritage but who has played up her blonde All-American persona for all it's worth. (There was a fascinating article in the "Los Angeles Times" about the casting of "Hitch" when it came out. I'll try to dig it up.)

It goes back to the issue of whether it is acceptable to certain audiences for a black man to kiss a white woman onscreen. It's all about perception to the audience.

(Off topic -- you see the same casting pattern with Denzel Washington, as well. I remember reading that Washington avoids being cast opposite a white woman romantically because he doesn't want to annoy his African-American female fans. So there's a perception issue there as well.



Or you have a picture like "Cry Freedom," where the primary significance of the death of Steve Biko seems to be as a wake up call for Kevin Kline.)



Good points, sidwich, thanks.

Patricia J. Williams, in her "Diary of a Mad Law Professor" column in The Nation, raises issues that I don't recall seeing much about elsewhere.

The full piece is here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090720/williams

Access to all sorts of painkillers W/O prescription is a widely common practice. About ethics on cosmetic surgery performed on celebrities...well, that's a very controversial issue. Just look at Miss Wildenstein. I guess the top rule is "No rules".

Many doctors do what they know is wrong out of the conviction that there are others even less responsible. If I don't provide the service/drug, there are others out there who will do so carelessly. If I do this wrong thing, I can do it in a way to minimize risk.

They're right, but that's an flimsy rationalization. And since medical boards are the ultimate enforcers (at least in theory), there isn't much that can be done to rein in any but the most egregious malpractitioners.

I confess to watching the memorial in its entirety. It was just about perfect for the occasion. Highlights for me were Brooke Shields for her eloquent evocation of her dear friend and companion's humanity, Smokey Robinson's appreciation of the sheer breadth of his precocious artistry, and Jermaine Jackson's touching rendition of Charlie Chaplin's Smile.

"Depend upon it, there is nothing so unnatural as the commonplace." Sherlock Holmes.
("A Case of Identity," by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle).

The memorial was very, very moving. This whole tragic scenario is classic death by entourage. Instead of calling 911 immediately, staff tend to call lawyers and others for advice. According to reports from reputable MDs and specialists (anesthesiologists) regarding the potency of Diprovan, he had to have died long before 911 was called.

Michael carried, not just luggage, but alot of cargo. IMO I think that he never really confronted his need to unload and unpack that cargo for himself. He touched on some of it in his lyrics, but he never unpacked it all IRL for himself. Now that he's gone, the dissection of his troubled personal life has just begun. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. There is an unmentionable, but "understood" sub-culture here in Hollywood that tolerates illicit self-medication by rogue MDs. Perhaps the sole positive outcome of this Greco-Shakespearean tragedy, will be that this time, the doctor(s) responsible will be brought to account and made example of.

Me too. Jennifer Hudson brought me to tears. What a passionate singer.