Elvis and Michael: The Lost Boys
As the Michael Jackson hoopla-cum-mourning continues, you’ll hear lots of comparisons of Jackson to Elvis Presley.
Jackson was a popular figure, and as I wrote yesterday he did represent an apogee of crossover, with commercial results we can wonder at to this day. Presley, of course, was uniquely popular too.
Both suffered from their stardom; both coasted for decades on early concussions of creativity; both lost themselves in an abyss of cowed courtiers and drug use; both, let’s face it, were sexual predators, a term I use not as a general-purpose epithet but as a descriptive term about people who systematically pursue under-aged kids for sexual purposes and, in both cases, were uniquely positioned to be successful at it, leaving some not insignificant legacy of damaged lives in their wake; both died, sadly, wasted away in a laceratingly pointless fashion, knowing, in their hearts, that they could not longer do the things that gave them their power in the first place.
Both were man-boys with infantile sexualities and preadolescent images of themselves as gang leaders and missionaries. Both changed from impossibly beautiful youths into ravaged adults, Presley bloated and dazed; Jackson self-mutilated almost beyond recognition.
But there the similarities end.
Presley grew up severely disadvantaged; I don’t want to make comparisons to a black family in Gary in the 1960s, but let’s remember that his father was basically a failed sharecropper. Out of this environment, one that should have made him a racist cracker, he developed a visionary perspective on music that hadn’t been imagined before. Blacks and whites, country and gospel, blues and pop. And he did it at a time when no one wanted it—indeed, almost everyone didn’t want it.
Presley invented a music and created its audience. Fine—so did T.K. Records, right?
But this wasn’t disco, for two reasons. What Presley invented with his voice was something that, in a sociological sense, was the internet of its time—by which I mean that it carried in it the seeds of its own revolution, and grew in power in the face of opposition. It did it by being so right—with the clarity of its conception and the audacity of its idea: Bringing those musics, and cultures, together. I think we can agree the rock era’s effect on society was definitive.
And that audacity was the second reason. Rock is the most American of musical genres because its conception is just that big. If I may quote Greil Marcus, Elvis Presley “almost has the scope to take America in.” America, like rock, is often flawed in its execution but it’s hard to argue with its ambition or its intents. The implications of America—the idea of America, not the reality of it—is monumental, something you can’t get your mind around. Presley—his audacity, his vision—is too big to think about as well. His tragedy is so vast it calls into question the future of the society that created, and destroyed, him.
Now, as for Jackson. As I wrote yesterday, he is the embodiment of crossover—the biggest star of his time, the culmination of some three decades of gracious black pop. Motown commandeered that music and cleaned it up for presentation to whites; Jackson took the lessons he gleaned from Berry Gordy, imagined a world that he bestrode, and didn’t stop until he did.
But: Since that world was merely a commercial one, Michael Jackson’s life doesn’t resonate like Presley’s. Sure his Thriller was the biggest record ever, for a while—but its commercial appeal soon burned out and, as the years went by, it was steadily overtaken and then supplanted by … Springsteen? Prince? Madonna?
No, just a dorky Eagles greatest hits album (”Oooh-oooh, witch-chay woo-man!”), beloved of the modern-day frat boy. Ten years or so after Thriller, Michael Jackson’s artistic footprint had washed away. He was no longer a star per se but rather a spectacle. Elvis Presley died at home, but no artist was farther away from himself at the time of his death; Jackson, by contrast, remained at the center of his own created world until the very end.
His legacy incorporated himself and nothing else, though I suppose you could throw Usher and Justin Timberlake in there. We’re still living in the world Elvis Presley created; for all intents and purposes, Jackson’s ended yesterday.
—————-
Previously in Hitsville:
Michael Jackson and the Ultimate Crossover
Can Michael Jackson play live?
Catching up with Michael Jackson’s finances
A footnote to the Neverland auction
Thriller (and “Billie Jean”) 25 years later
Also, here’s a discussion I had on Presley with the amazing Ann Powers in Slate …:
The Book Club: Peter Guralnick’s Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley
… and a long essay on Jackson I wrote for the Chicago Reader in the mid-1990s:
13 Comments so far
Leave a reply
“[Presley’s] tragedy is so vast it calls into question the future of the society that created, and destroyed, him.”
That is a big, big statement. Could you say more about what you mean by “society” - the entertainment industry, the record-buying and movie-going public, the South, what? And destroyed? Didn’t Elvis destroy himself, with help from the doctors who prescribed drugs for him?
I’m not being snarky, I really want to know what leads you to this conclusion.
Good piece, Bill. I think the Colonel, who continuously sucked money out of Elvis’ soul, and Quincy Jones, who apparently considered Michael a jazz artist, deserve consideration too.
elvis presley and michel jackson were both super stars in their field of music. both were great singers, different styles, great charisma attraction. michel jackson was loved it seems by both black and white audiences, while i am not sure the black audience liked presley,s music.what i do know is when elvis died the entire white people of the world mourned plus other non white races like hipanics. i do not know if the same is true about jackson. the point i am trying to make is to me a hispanic man in my 50,s i grew up with both i love thier music equally no black or white prejudice and will miss them deeply. but in my opinion because elvis was white his legacy will continue to be supreme over anybody else white or black, and it will be up to the mainly the black race to keep his legacy from being forgotten. they were one of a kind, R M
Excellent analysis; great counterpoint. A bit harsh, perhaps, but a bit of reality needs to intrude.
I agree about Elvis. Those of us who lived in the segregated US before the ’60’s will be able to relate to what you meant. Those who have never seen blatant discrimination, in thought and speech as well as in deed, probably will not get it.
Bill
Three related thoughts.
First, my brother pointed out a difference he saw yesterday and that is that Elvis seemed to enjoy himself and his stardom (at least for over a decade) and that Micheal didn’t.
Second, although you are correct about Michael Jackson building Berry Gordy’s crossover concepts and not pioneering in the sense of Elvis and cross over being primarily a commercial concept, I think the word “merely” isn’t quite right and that (at least in terms of my experience and inner life) Micheal’s role is more significant than this captures.
For many those years of the early 1970s were years when the ideals of the Civil Rights movement were being tried out in day-to-day life. As a grade schooler at an consciously integrated school named after Martin Luther King, I was in the middle of this. The Jackson 5(I wish I could type with the 5 in Jackson 5 ending in a heart like it did in the notebooks of the girls in my grade school) dominated the culture of my school and embodied this idea. In this, their youth and ours were key. We were the “Young Folks,” the children of the dream and the J5 were ours. It was (for the most part) a culture of post-struggles hope and optimism (”bring salvation back”) and joy. We were the children of integration and crossover and were able to lived as if these were natural and ascendant. This made us and J5 different from earlier Motown artists and from the earlier culture of the Civil Rights movement. In important ways cross over did become merely commercial in the larger society, but for people like me the experiences of that time still resonate. The J5 are near the center of those experiences. I’ll add that at the time when Thriller broke I was working with some white working class and relatively racially isolated teenagers at a restaurant in Massachusetts and their embrace of Michael ten years later impressed me as having some of the same qualities in a much less conscious or political way.
Last, I’ve been thinking about how little Michael s death seems to call up personal feelings of mortality among my generation. I recall that when Elvis died people many who came of age in the 50’s and early 60’s spoke and wrote of how his death brought home the end of their youth and brought closer thoughts of the inevitability of their own deaths. I don’t feel this at all with Michael and don’t hear it from others. maybe it is because his life has been so publicly strange for so long that there is more of a personal distance. Maybe it is because there have been so many deaths — Joey Ramone evoked these feeling with me. Maybe, I’m wrong and others do feel it.
TJ
Among Jackson’s numerous Neverland possessions up for auction a few months ago was something truly fascinating. It was one of those life-sized Elvis statues you sometimes see in theme restaurants - but that wasn’t the fascinating part. Someone (Jackson, I assume), had inscribed a quote on Elvis’ shoulder: “If I could only find a white man with a black man’s sound, I could make a million dollars.” ~ Sam Phillips. How telling.
While I agree with most of what you’re saying here, I’m kind of confused about the remark you made that Elvis was a sexual predator. What exactly do you mean by that? I haven’t read about Elvis’s life too extensively but I don’t think I’ve come across anything suggesting that.
While I think you’re right about Elvis’ place in music history, bringing together the genres you listed I’m a little skeptical of your claims that he was a visionary, artistic figure. Michael certainly played a greater role in authoring his product, whether writing and producing his songs, setting up his music videos, or designing his stage shows. Elvis was a great singer and performer but his music was more dependent on writers and producers. As far as Elvis successors go (other than Nicolas Cage), do we have any rockabilly singers on the charts these days?
[…] Elvis and Michael: The Lost Boys […]
Elvis remains the most influential artist of his era and the most important artist in rock history for a simple reason: he was the first. Whether intentional or not, he introduced black rhythm & blues to the wider white audience. That was the spark that lit the fire that’s been burning for 50+ years now. One can argue about the many great artists (white and black) of that era who are overlooked today, or the injustice of it, but that’s missing the point. For good and bad, in the context of those times, Elvis was the one.
Michael Jackson, on the other hand, didn’t invent a genre - he refined one already in existence, making it more palatable to the masses. The difference is immense. A better comparison than Elvis or the Beatles (the other name thrown into the mix by TV commentators), I think, is the Bee Gees circa Saturday Night Fever. After a decade in the biz, they shot to superstardom…and flamed out within a few years due to overexposure and changing musical trends. The same was true of MJ. By 1990 he was, for all intents and purposes, an afterthought.
wow. to give Elvis Presley credit for creating anything is astonishing. Elvis stole Black Music and their dance moves to get on the charts. That was the novelty. Seeing a White kid perform like the Black Kids. Michael could sell out in any city and neighborhood in the world. This is not true of Elvis. African Americans view Elvis as a thief! He does not possess the quality to bridge different races like Michael had. We have had 32 years to reflect on Elvis. When the same time has passed, Michael will outsell Elvis in every category and will be the biggest GLOBAL Icon ever!
In addition, Michael was acquitted in 2005 of all charges. You can have your personal thoughts about Michael, but to print them is simply slanderous.
>>>African Americans view Elvis as a thief!
You mean African Americans like James Brown (I interviewed him once about Elvis; he and Presley were very good friends and Brown attended the funeral at Graceland), Muhammad Ali “(”Elvis was my close personal friend…I don’t admire nobody but Elvis was the sweetest, most humble and nicest man you’d want to know”), Aaron Neville and Florence Ballard (both have listed Elvis as their favorite singer), Eddie Murphy, Sammy Davis, Jr., Jackie Wilson (”A lot of people have accused Elvis of stealing the black man’s music when, in fact, almost every black solo entertainer I know, including me, copied his stage mannerisms from Elvis”) B.B. King (”Once a music is out there, it’s there for anybody to use. I don’t think they got it wrong when they called [Elvis] the King”), Billy Eckstine (another close friend), Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, Little Richard (”They wasn’t playing no black music on the radio before…so I thank God for Elvis Presley”), etc., etc.
Even Chuck D. later came out and admitted he had it wrong in “Fight The Power.”
What a load of bullshit, Tam Tam. Do your research before you post next time.
Nice post, Bill…even if you and I still do disagree on several major points regarding Elvis. Discovered this site on a NYT article about Nikke Finke, of all places.