The King of Pop

I thought it funny that the discussion on Friday about the King of Pop was ridiculed for lacking depth in comparison to talking about gender/race issues. The King of Pop/Rock/Soul are inherently misogynistic and the role of race seemed to almost always decide the title. In fact the title reflects the medias and to an extent, American perspective on societal issues.

As for Michael Jackson and his role as King of Pop has been cemented. His death, while definitely over covered by the media, showed his incredible popularity in all segments of society. I think this showed the irrelevance of Tates argument, or rather, it showed that Jackson never sold out when he altered his skin as the black community more than championed Jackson despite his questionable personal issues.

Titles are ordinal representations of artists' impact on society. While they may be arbitrary and open to infinite debate, this debate should not be shunned, it is important analyse why/how these artists have obtained their heading, which has tangible rewards other than prestige (increased record sales). After all, music more than most forms of art (and some forms of media) reflect values/issues in society and this is the basis not just for this class but most people's majors in the class.