American Idol. America’s Top Model. The Apprentice. The Bachelor. Survivor. The Biggest Loser. Ah, now there’s a double entendre!

We have met the losers, and they are us!

Over the past three decades (beginning with the 1970s reject, "The Gong Show,") audiences have been “treated” to dozens of mega-hyped “artists” — most of them phony, scripted, talent-challenged, and insulting to paying listeners and spectators who are either too unschooled (or maybe just too tired) to notice, given the frenetic pace and long commutes now endemic to our society.

But the recent outpouring upon the death of pop icon Michael Jackson brings another dimension to the debate.

Clearly, Michael Jackson was appreciated by countless young people, and no doubt he possessed some degree of talent, had it been channeled and nurtured. But “talent” today is confused with “presence.” Like Britney Spears, what Michael Jackson actually had most was “stage presence.” 

A truly superior voice (or proficiency with a musical instrument, for that matter) is distinguished first by its uniqueness. If a song (or a musical score) no one has heard before is played over the airwaves, the listening audience ought to be able to recognize the voice (or instrumentalist) instantaneously. That is uniqueness. This is true even when the artist in question lacks “perfect pitch” — Maurice Chevalier, Ray Charles and Louis Armstrong come to mind as decidedly lacking in that area, yet they were, and continue to be, instantly recognizable. And all three could make any song a winner, hands down.

The same is true if a musical piece is not quite orchestral quality — as in the late Jack Benny’s signature violin spoof (“The Kreutzer Etude”) — and Welsh prodigy, Máiréad Nesbitt, the fiddler/dancer/violinist of Riverdance and Celtic Woman fame who somehow manages to play her chosen instrument nearly flawlessly and perform a difficult dance number at the same time. Ageless favorites like Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Frankie Avalon, Roy Orbison, Sammy Davis, Jr., Barbra Streisand and Michael Feinstein are additional examples of styles so unique that once a person has heard them, they recognize the singer whether they actually see the person or not.  No introduction is necessary.

Extraordinary talent (as opposed to “style”) is distinguished by perfect pitch (a comparable expression, “perfect ear,” exists in music) as well as by the ability to express a piece in such a way as to “touch” an audience. Examples include Italian tenor Andrea Boccelli, American opera icon Denyce Graves, folk singer Joan Baez (politics notwithstanding), actress/Broadway singer Patti LuPone and, more recently, Great Britain’s Susan Boyles. If you watch their performances you will notice something unusual: None make use of hand movements, or even much in the way of facial expressions, which is rather a departure from the norm. Why? Quite simply, they don’t need to.

In the dance department, neither Michael Jackson’s “moonwalk” nor Britney Spears’ gyrations approach in any way the precision and complexity of real dance artists like Ben Vereen, Michael Flatley, the late Sammy Davis, Jr., Bob Fosse, Gwen Verdon, Ginger Rogers, Lisa Minnelli or Ann Miller, much less modern greats like the Riverdance ensemble and its spinoffs.

Over the past couple of decades, what has been marketed to the masses have been primarily “acts,” not performances in the true sense of the word. Jumpstarted via modern technology — psychedelics, pyrotechnics, etc. — professional handlers and managers discovered they could deflect audiences from the fact that their “stars” had little actual talent and rake in a fortune. More sinister, however, is the discovery that such techniques could whip up a frenzy among younger audiences — the old “mob psychology” run amok. If old newsreels show fans of Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley swooning and screaming with delight, it is nothing compared to the addled agitation among youth audiences of today, many of whom use Woodstock-inspired recreational drugs to augment the “entertainment experience.”

Thus, the emergence of the term “celebrity packaging,” coined to describe substance-less shows and routines which are almost entirely dependent upon the skills of marketing-managers. They use psycho-demographic surveying, mainly among youth, to gear their human “product” to the “lowest common denominator” — which is to say, to the great untaught masses.

The fact is, most schools today do not teach any culture, much less Western culture. Elementary and secondary school students do not, and have not for a long time, partaken of daily (or even weekly) lessons in music, painting, dance and all the things that even public schools once taught.  In looking over vintage yearbooks from the late 1930s-1950s recently, a lot more than something called “band” apparently was a regular feature of the curriculum. An entire elementary student body in Maryland, Virginia and Indiana would, for example, gather in a large room on a regular basis to sing to staples of Americana and memorize British and Scottish folk tunes. Pupils learned to recognize the difference between a Monet painting and a Renoir; there were small violin ensembles, piano recitals and so forth. In some states, students graduated knowing the difference between Tudor, Victorian and Georgian-style mansions; between ancient Greek and Roman buildings. They learned to recognize Baroque, Renaissance, and Neoclassical architectures.

So, when we talk about “packaged artists” today, it comes down to a pejorative of sorts, meaning that the handler or manager in question “grooms” his charge in such a way as to be as outrageous as possible, even going so far as to plant occasional false stories in tabloids that receive wide dissemination. Unsurprisingly, the “star” in question, often being naïve and narcissistic, will begin to believe their own hype. Some “go off the deep end,” their real “drug” not being painkillers or tranquilizers or even bizarre cosmetic surgery, but the narcotic of nonstop recognition and privilege.

It’s too bad that Michael Jackson’s stage presence and physical flexibility, like Britney Spears’, could not have been harnessed in a more positive way. As it was even Elvis Presley would have been reluctant to duplicate Michael’s on-stage (and off-stage) persona; although, unbeknownst to the then-young and innocent singer of tender love songs and gospel music, the suggestive and risqué movements encouraged by his “handler” (“Colonel” Tom Parker) was the opening salvo that foreshadowed today’s gross-out performances. Looking at Elvis’ old clips now, one detects a certain self-deprecation, as if it is all in jest; that he is, in fact, laughing at himself. 

Whether or not older generations liked Presley’s style or music, one thing they all grudgingly agreed on was that “Elvis the Pelvis” did have an on-key, memorable voice. Sadly, today's "entertainers" are more pop and pizazz than style and substance.


Beverly K. Eakman is the daughter of the late Jan Tomasow, former concert master of the National Symphony Orchestra, who toured the world as a child prodigy.  Her mother, Evelyn Sprow, was a talented violinist and pianist.  Mrs. Eakman recently retired from the Justice Dept., is a lecturer and the author of four books (two award-winners) on education, privacy, culture, mental health and illicit data-trafficking. She can be reached through her website:  www.BeverlyE.com.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (19)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	Thank you very much - - - Beverly K. Eakman. I couldn't agree more.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 10, 2009
Votes: +1

still free said:

	Yes, Thank you Ms. Eakman I agree with you, "danwhitehead1" - Ms. Eakman is 100% correct.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 10, 2009
Votes: +1

danwhitehead1 said:

I am sooo sick - - - - - - and sooo tired of having this never ending stream of sick, twisted cyphers, trivialities and uglies shoved into our faces by a sick, twisted, ugly vile media that has the gall to insist that these are "beautiful people". Thanks to the vile media and a completely broken "education" system, it would appear that we are sinking into (if we're not already mired in) another dark ages. The filthy, loathsome enemy have done extensive damage; perhaps beyond repair.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 11, 2009
Votes: -1

danwhitehead1 said:

Also - - - I would like to add that, in my little tiny opinion, the scum who would rule (with the complicity of their toadies, myrmidons and sycophants in the media and the "education" system) are responsible not only for the literal physical murder of millions of innocent, defenseless unborn babies, but also for the cultural, intellectual and moral murder of two or three or four generations of unsuspecting young people. Murdered, I say, culturally, intellectually and morally before they even had a chance.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 11, 2009
Votes: -2

Lee Gonzales said:

Talent within The JBS During the JBS 50th anniversary a few musicians met out on the Hotel and convention center lawn to play and sing in between the marvelous speeches that were going on throughout the John Birch Society's celebration. Steve Bonta was there with his banjo and guitar entertaining us. Next day a coordiator played the trumpet and Kurt Hyde sang his rendition of The Federal Reserve, sung to the tune of 16 Tons. A young lady who is a concert violinist regretted not bringing her violin. I used to impersonate Elvis, the voice and not the body movements and even toyed with taking my act to Las Vegas. I did some shows here in my home town and some hotel guests paid me a compliment via the hotel manager who told her that my act was better than any he had seen in Vegas by professional Elvis impersonators. She booked my act and I did my best to please Elvis fans by dressing the part and singing his hits as close to his voice as possible. I also did a Sinatra-ish show with tap dancers -titled "Tap and Tux." I don't watch the so-called talent shows on TV. I find them embarrassing to watch. I think that some of the Country talent acts are better than the pop acts. I's heard of Susan Boyles but up to know I haven't researched her act: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoF_XMDUukI Thank you Ms. Eakman for telling us about her! I am impressed with her.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 11, 2009
Votes: +2

Ateo said:

	It's a little sad. I never cared for Micheal Jackson's work. Thriller wasn't bad for the times, but that was largely due to Quincy Jone's influence.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 12, 2009
Votes: +1

MarkGlen said:

	Music at its best Mama liked big band, Daddy could play at least 3 instruments, but he didn't seem to care for music. Now, me, I love music, the right kind. Gospel is secong to none of course, but wait till you hear this one:Turn the volume up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n552gP9X40
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 12, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Lal Wynstrom said:

Defending the Moonwalker: A More Balance Perspective, P1 I speak as one who has had training in the classical music tradition of Western Civilization by a very rigorous and exacting musical teacher who herself was a product of that same tradition. Yet I take some issue with Ms. Eakman’s broad brushstrokes against modern artistry, and here particularly with her generalizations against the King of Pop, the late Michael Jackson. I also believe that Ms. Eakman either: a) seeks to take advantage of the ignorance of her readers, or b) is expressing her own ignorance of the far-lingering effect which MJ wielded. MJ’s personal lifestyle, eccentricities and eventual manner of death aside (and I do get the impression Ms. Eakman considers that at least part of what a good artist should try to properly express, which I do not, for the most part, disagree with) the trivialization of his talent and influence in this article cannot be ignored. And I will here try to provide a more balanced perspective on why. Stealthily attempting to package Michael Jackson as the epitome of our culture’s artistic depredation is, in my opinion, absurd. The cultural morass we are now in began long before MJ’s then-beginning comeuppance was ever starting to be felt. As one example, we can look to the man Ms. Eakman attempts to excuse, the great Elvis Presley, whose hip gyrations of the 50s were considered so lewd that popular television refused to show him from the waist down. Of course, Ms. Eakman makes reference to that. I also agree with another commentator who stated that there is “no comparison” between Elvis and MJ. He’s right, there isn’t; Michael Jackson was light years ahead of Elvis, bar none.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 12, 2009
Votes: +1

Lal Wynstrom said:

Defending the Moonwalker: A More Balance Perspective, P2 Ms. Eakman makes reference to the notion that “countless young people” loved MJ. While this is no doubt true, it marginalizes his fan-base and his popularity, for MJ was recognized by young and old alike who could, at the very least, appreciate his musical talent and ability even if it wasn’t to their particular taste. She states that “he possessed some degree of talent.” I am curious, since he was minorly possessed of talent in her estimation, and needed to have his ability “channeled and nurtured” beyond that which apparently his parents, siblings, and Motown mentors such as Berry Gordy and Diana Ross were able, what schools and/or mentors would Ms. Eakman have seen MJ’s talent honed in or by? For that matter, since constant references are made to her, what further educational institutions of music should Britney Spears have been sent to, Juilliard perhaps? While I agree that formal education at the distinguished school would have benefitted the former, and most certainly the latter, in MJ’s case, he became more of what he was meant to be even without the schools or teachers of Ms. Eakman’s approval. Wherever or whomever he should have been educated by aside, MJ had more than mere stage presence, he had both presence and nurtured natural talent, manifested from age four, and focused to skill by his family and successive mentors that made him what he was. This cannot be ignored or washed away by ridiculous comparisons to Britney Spears. For indeed- her mental acuity notwithstanding- MJ has so influenced the likes of Spears that succeeding generations of artists, like herself, Justin Timberlake, even Jennifer Lopez, have greatly copied Jackson’s trailblazing dance movements and distinctive singing style. Ms. Spears’ “gyrations” in no way come close to MJ’s awesome “physical flexibility” as Ms. Eakman so callously puts it.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 12, 2009
Votes: +2

Lal Wynstrom said:

Defending the Moonwalker: A More Balance Perspective, P3 And on that subject, if for Ms. Eakman tap dancing is the epitome of complex dance precision then she should say so, for all of the personalities she describes as the maximum of “real dance artists” in the following sentence are, or began, as exactly that. "In the dance department, neither Michael Jackson’s 'moonwalk' nor Britney Spears’ gyrations approach in any way the precision and complexity of real dance artists like Ben Vereen, Michael Flatley, the late Sammy Davis, Jr., Bob Fosse, Gwen Verdon, Ginger Rogers, Lisa Minnelli or Ann Miller, much less modern greats like the Riverdance ensemble and its spinoffs." However, without marginalizing it or the persons mentioned above, there are other forms of dance besides tap, and MJ excelled at both innovating and originating them, setting the stage for much of the dance we see today. This is not to excuse some of his more “risqué” movements, such as his signature crotch-grabbing, which I believe was an entirely unnecessary of his performances, for his eye-popping dance moves were spectacular all on their own without resortation to vulgarity, however slight. Ms. Eakman goes on to state: "A truly superior voice… is distinguished first by its uniqueness. If a song … no one has heard before is played over the airwaves, the listening audience ought to be able to recognize the voice… instantaneously. That is uniqueness. This is true even when the artist in question lacks 'perfect pitch'." My question for the lady then becomes, was this not true of MJ, and If she believes not, then why not? However, the many followers of MJ’s music, and even those who did not, could almost immediately, if not right away, recognize his distinctive vocals.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 12, 2009
Votes: +1

Lal Wynstrom said:

Defending the Moonwalker: A More Balance Perspective, P4 Further, Ms. Eakman also understands, as the offspring of two musically-inclined parents, that vocal ability is not only recognized by uniqueness of sound, but also by range, itself a distinguishable quality, and one that MJ possessed and displayed in many songs, particularly as he aged and his voice matured. In a following paragraph she says: "Extraordinary talent (as opposed to 'style') is distinguished by perfect pitch… as well as by the ability to express a piece in such a way as to 'touch' an audience." Here I would only say, for I do not know if MJ had perfect pitch (but probably not), that if Ms. Eakman explains this ability as a means of dismissing Jackson it is an exercise in expositional diversion, for she also knows (or should) that perfect, or absolute pitch- the ability to recreate a tone without the aid of an external device, such as a piano- is a rare, unique, special gift that few individuals are possessed of, thus making it indeed the extraordinary talent who commands it. Furthermore, “the ability to express a piece in such a way as to 'touch' an audience” is a highly subjective experience that can be as unique to the individual listener/viewer as to the performer who attempts to “move” his/her audience with every performance. Thus this, by itself, is also not sufficient criteria with which to downplay MJ‘s vital contributions to modern music and dance.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 12, 2009
Votes: +1

Lal Wynstrom said:

Defending the Moonwalker: A More Balance Perspective, P5 There are those who believe that neither Frank Sinatra nor Elvis Presley had even the slightest of talent by the technical definition Ms. Eakman formulates. Yet to this day both men are receiving their “props” from our culture. Whether one actually thinks they should be, and for whatever reasons not, is, at this juncture, beside the point. Their influence lingers. The notion of “who cares about Michael Jackson,” as one alternative radio commentator so disgustingly, meanly, and I dare say, insanely ranted upon the pop sensation’s passing, or even who *should* care about Michael Jackson, as Ms. Eakman’s flippant remarks try to subtly implant into our minds-, his talent, his impact, his genius-, can be answered in one single sentence- the millions of people around the world whom he made happy and joyful with his music. Such love for an artist, lingering for over four decades, is not easily achieved. Yes, Michael Jackson was a man, like Elvis, who had personal demons and failings. We can pity those circumstances which, I believe, both made him what he was and eventually also led to his demise. But we shall not, as Ms. Eakman has attempted to here, dismiss him.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 12, 2009
Votes: +1

MarkGlen said:

	The day when music died The world would be a better place today had Elvis Presley and M. Jackson not been born. It has been said that when "The Big Bopper" (What's his name?) died that "music died" No, music died in the 1950s with Elvis' big hit Heart Break Hotel. From that song until this very day young people, because of peer pressure, have gone sexually crazy. I watched it happen.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 12, 2009 | url
Votes: -1

Anyce Lee said:

Debunking Michael Jackson As Merely a 'Stage Presence: A Perspective' Part 1 We are, according to our collective interpretation of the 1st Amendment, entitled to our (separate) opinions. Thus, in her op-ed, Ms. Eakman exercises her constitutional right to link Michael Jackson to, in her words, the “talent challenged” state of American culture as it exists today. Granted Ms. Eakman makes a valid argument that (some of) the up and coming talent leave a lot to be desired. So too did (some of) the talents of yesteryear, well before the era of ‘free love’ 70s. However, I take exception to Ms. Eakman’s negative implication that appreciation for Michael Jackson comes only from the young; frankly, it is an insult to his achievements. Many notables in the entertainment industry have applauded Michael Jackson for his musical talent, not as an outsider or one-hit wonder but as a peer, the kind of recognition that can only come from those who appreciate the dedication to and cultivation of one’s craft. Indeed. One such notable that instantly comes to mind is: Liza Minnelli.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2009
Votes: +1

Anyce Lee said:

Debunking Michael Jackson As Merely a 'Stage Presence: A Perspective' Part 2 Like him or despise him, there is no denying Mr. Jackson’s influence on the music industry as a whole and those who continue to follow in his footsteps – if no more than to take the minutest piece of his influence and cultivate it into their own individual styles – a fact Ms. Eakman willfully overlooks. Moreover, for Ms. Eakman to suggest that Mr. Jackson had no more than mere “stage presence” is, at best, ludicrous. Ludicrous in the sense that Ms. Eakman fails to realize that, according to her standards of excellence, many of Mr. Jackson’s early influences – legendary hoofers such as the graceful Fred Astaire and the athletic Gene Kelly, the street ballets of West Side Story and the lyrical (and individual) voices of Sammy Davis, Jr., Sam Cooke and James Brown – must also be placed in the same category to which she dismisses Mr. Jackson. For what is an influence if it is not to have, in Mr. Jackson’s case, a positive effect, allowing him to use this in his own creation according to his vision and, in the end, affording him the opportunity to become an influence?

report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2009
Votes: +1

Anyce Lee said:

Debunking Michael Jackson As Merely a 'Stage Presence: A Perspective' Part 3 Ironically, at varying points during his career, praise for Mr. Jackson’s creative style was bestowed upon him by Fred Astaire and Sammy Davis, Jr., the same greats whom Ms. Eakman feels Mr. Jackson is unworthy of mention in the same breath. And insofar as ‘ageless favorites,’ Mr. Jackson joined the ranks before the age of 14. (My 80 year-old Mother still does a toe-tap when listening to a 10-year-old swinging to “A-B-C.”) I would not categorize this as a simple pat on the back; rather, it is the epitome of the passing of the baton.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2009
Votes: +1

Anyce Lee said:

Debunking Michael Jackson As Merely a 'Stage Presence: A Perspective' Part 4 Furthermore it is ludicrous to casually dismiss an artist who: has sold in excess of 700 million records worldwide during his career (there are artists who would give their eye-tooth to sell 4 million); is the first artist to have four top 10 singles from one album and, to date, the only artist to have five number one hits from one album; became the first artist to garner eight Grammy awards for one album and again, to date, to have the honor of the Guinness Book of Records listing that album (“Thriller”) as “the best selling album of all time.” And the list goes on. The point: one does not garner these kinds of achievements if one is “talent challenged.”

report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2009
Votes: +1

Anyce Lee said:

Debunking Michael Jackson As Merely a 'Stage Presence: A Perspective' Part 5 In her discussion on uniqueness (of voice), Ms. Eakman highlights the talents of Frank Sinatra, Roy Orbison (one the all-time Rock artist greats) and others as artists with easily recognizable voices and their ability to “touch an audience.” Firstly, Ms. Eakman chooses to ignore the strikingly intense vocal talent of Michael Jackson, who at the age of ten was capable of crooning a ballad as if having lived the experience. (I am a fervent admirer of Frank Sinatra, yet I do not recall having ever read his ability to ‘touch’ an audience began at such a tender age.) Secondly, as Frank Sinatra’s uniqueness was his ability to sing on the beat (as if riding a wave) and Perry Como’s smooth scat (his voice becoming one with the instrument), Michael Jackson’s uniqueness was his timbre, his ability to transition from a high pitch to a lower range and back again. I join Ms. Eakman in celebrating the uniqueness of Sinatra, et al; yet to say that Michael Jackson was without his own brand of uniqueness is an unworthy slight. There is no mistaking the voice of Michael Jackson, with or without his trademark hiccups.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2009
Votes: +1

Anyce Lee said:

Debunking Michael Jackson As Merely a 'Stage Presence: A Perspective' Part 6 Finally, from each generation there has emerged a talent like no other, one daring to step into the spotlight and set the bar high enough for the next generation’s talent to dare to reach it. Michael Jackson studied the greats and dared to dream long before, as I am reminded, there was MTV. Because he too dared to reach, the bar has now been set pretty darned high. Yes, his personal demons were many and his inability to overcome these tragic. This cannot, however, erase his musical genius or his lasting legacy. Even Elvis would agree with that. And speaking of the much admired baritone, I doubt that Elvis Presley would have shirked at the opportunity to duplicate Michael Jackson’s on-stage persona, seeing that Mr. Presley was keen on ideas – no matter where these originated – to perfect his craft.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2009
Votes: +1