When Buddy Holly died in a plane crash on 3 February 1959 the young songwriter Don McLean wrote his searing and enigmatic tribute, American Pie. (This was one of the songs I was doing when I was arrested for busking on the Paris Metro when I was 20.) The death of Holly was the ‘day the music died’.
When John Lennon was shot on 8 December 1980 a part of my adolescent life closed down. I had grown up in Liverpool with the Beatles as the soundtrack companion and we were still hoping for some sort of reunion one day. The angry resentments of Lennon would never now mature into new avenues of musical creativity and poetry. Something died with Lennon.
Last night Michael Jackson died at 50 - 10 years older than Lennon and 28 years older than Buddy Holly was when he passed away. It is perhaps not surprising that the dominant mood in the media this morning is focused on the sadness of Jackson’s lonely life. It almost feels like a mercy that this troubled man has been released from a life that brought him a host of personal problems and public humiliations.
Michael Jackson was bullied by his father, propelled into stardom and fame before he even reached his teens and even seemed to spend the rest of his life trying to recover the phantom of a missed childhood. The wonder of his music and dancing was always overshadowed by the prurience of a public that loved to build up the artist and humiliate the man.
When Jackson announced his intention to attempt yet another career revival with fifty concerts in London, I wasn’t the only one to think this was ridiculous. No surprise, then, that they began to get cancelled before they even began. But the speed with which tickets were sold at least gave the hope that Jackson might be wanted more for his music than the stories of weirdness that always accompanied him.
Jackson won the spoils of stardom, but he also paid a heavy and miserable price. Despite all the weirdness and his complex inability to cope with the world as it is (to say nothing of his body as it was), he was a human being made in the image of God and infinitely valuable – regardless of the judgements of those whose miserable lives are spent trying to destroy those who achieve something in life.
May he rest in a peace he never knew in life. And may he be remembered above all else for his wonderful artistry and the gift he gave the world through his music.
June 26, 2009 at 10:41 am
It’s a little more complex than this idea that the media or somehow the public like to build someone up and then humiliate/destroy them. And it’s certainly not the case that he should be remembered only for his music. You haven’t mentioned the charges of child abuse – one case settled out of court, and on the other he was acquitted. But a the very least he did reveal to Martin Bashir that he slept and showered with children.
Certainly a great pop singer and dancer but I’d hate to think that in the media frenzy these things are somehow excused or forgotten.
June 26, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Totally agree with Andrew Carey. I’d go further and ask- don’t we live in a pathological culture, which on one hand venerates, and hugely rewards, talented entertainers whatever their personal characters, and on the other hand offers no better than humiliating punishment to “ordinary” people who display similar failings for all the same reasons (bullied by father, loveless childhood)? And isn’t paying high tribute to Jackson on his death colluding with that pathology?
June 26, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Interesting point. But I am not sure that identifying this inconsistency obviates the one I was pointing out. Secondly, understanding the factors that made someone like Michael Jackson the person he was is not the same as defending or justifying them. Thirdly, if everyone’s flaws negated their gifts (or contribution to society through music, work, art, service, etc), there wouldn’t be anyone worth praising.
I was still pondering Andrew Carey’s point and remembered the complaint by Jonathan Aitken that despite the just payment for his crime, he is still universally described as ‘the disgraced former minister’ rather than ‘the redeemed former criminal’. And in this I am not comparing Aitken with Jackson in terms of their misdemeanours (nor minimising the seriousness of either), but considering another issue they throw up in relation to our treatment of people in the public eye. Why does praise of Jackson’s artistry and recognition of his tragic personality get equated with ‘excusing or forgetting’ his ‘crimes’?
Your point about the ‘ordinary’ people is one that Andrew did not agree with when I was describing the press’s role in shredding people’s reputations, relationships and lives (I think that’s how I expressed it at the time) without threat of redress.
That said, I agree with your complaint about the inconsistency in treatment between the famous and the ‘ordinary’.
June 26, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Mozart wasn’t exactly squeaky clean, was he?
June 26, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Nor Carlo Gesualdo who wrote some glorious music as well as being a murderer. You can admire the former without condoning the latter (although it does add some interest to his life story…).
Only Jackson himself will ever know the nature of his relationships with children. Abuser or witch-hunted? – I’m not in a position to judge. But I am in a position to say that he wrote some very good music.
If he was an abuser, that has now stopped. But his music will live on for a while yet.
June 26, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I have just had the 6 pm new on television, the first 15 or so minutes was devoted to Michael Jackson and they also doing a special programme at 7.30 this evening. I feel this is going over the top especially when compared the time given to those who have lost their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan etc and the current troubles in Iran, Zimbabwe and other parts of the world. To me it seems all out of proportion – perhaps I am biased because I am not hi greatest fan!
June 26, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I don’t have a single Michael Jackson CD and don’t consider myself a fan either. Celebrity gets everything else out of proportion, I guess. I will be in Zimbabwe at the beginning of August and am staggered that (apart from Tsvangirai’s visit to London last week and today’s BBC report on army-run diamond mining) Zimbabwe’s issues are no longer interesting enough for the media to follow other than sporadically. We have short attention/compassion spans…
June 27, 2009 at 11:05 am
Hi Nick,
I’m not particularly disagreeing with the basic points you make but more the emphasis. Although you have pointed to Jackson’s basic flaws which may or may not have arisen out of a variety of factors, such as his relationship with his father and his early exposure to fame. Nevertheless you want him remembered largely for his music. Well, in my view any moral assessment of Jackson must deal upfront with the sheer ‘wrongness’ of his inappropriate relationships with children.
I think you’re being unfair with your remark that I somehow disagreed with you about the ‘shredding of people’s reputations’ etc. I don’t think that I was dealing with this issue in my exchange with you. I felt your critique of the press was misplaced in one particular instance, that doesn’t mean I think your criticisms are always unjustified.