Ghost at the feast, A. That is what one tends to feel like regarding the bizarre, enthralling and disturbing Jackson and the number of intriguing pieces of writing about him and what he may have represented:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/interactive/2009/may/14/paul-morley-michael-jackson (including languid thoughts from people such as Traceyanne from Camera Obscura. Swoon.)
- Off the Wall the early pinnacle.
- Heal the World and other follies
- 'Stranger in Moscow' is great - worthy of the Pet Shop Boys as I think someone else once said.
- Bad the most 'pop' album - an epitome of where he was at when at his biggest
- Thriller over-exposed; I'm a bit bored by it, frankly. And it marked the crossover into corporate 'icon' and artist-as-advertisement to be projected all around the world.
- Did he work well with Jam and Lewis? If not, who or what was to blame?
- Is Janet not better? Surely nothing matches Control. Does his control go post-'Billie Jean', quality and artistry-wise.
- His Chaplin fixation - compare and contrast his own career with Chaplin's.
- Buying the Beatles's back catalogue - why?
- Jarvis Cocker incident - hubris punctured...? Sets himself up as God, attacks the way the world has become but proposes no answers - the projection cannot break out of the system.
- Why did he never attempt some proper techno madness? Or even something as out-there as Bablyon Zoo's 'Spaceman'?
- He is not one of the great pop artists*, because he is bigger than that - he practically *is* pop culture itself, in all its complexity. (*e.g. Prince, Kate Bush, Abba - who clearly are)