The Musician and the Music – Should We Separate the Two?
Last week, as the news of Michael Jackson’s death spread, I noticed that people’s reactions were very different. I got word that he was in the hospital on my Facebook news feed and immediately flipped back and forth between CNN and ABC News, waiting for the rumors of his death to be confirmed. I kept track of my Facebook friends’ comments – some were very empathetic, while others were much less so. One friend accused the King of Pop of “getting what was coming to him” and another said she couldn’t stop crying.
I had never seen so many Facebook status updates at once (well, other than the night of last year’s November election). I felt I had to say something but realized that I didn’t know where my allegiances lay relative to this strange dichotomy between utter devotion and condemnation. So my confused self changed my Facebook status to “music will certainly miss Michael Jackson.” I know, I know. It was weak.
But what is the correct way to react to the death of a very complex person? Like so many others, I adore Michael Jackson’s music, admire his philanthropy, and respect the way he revolutionized the music game. However, while I want to ignore what one news station called “the idiosyncrasies” of his personal life—like it seems so many people have done—I cannot.
So the overarching question becomes: to what extent should we be able to separate the artist from his art?
I was listening to an R&B radio station yesterday that was asking listeners to call in and join the discussion of MJs death. One caller said something that stuck with me: that with the expansion of the media, it is much harder for entertainers (and I guess this also includes governors, as we’ve seen in recent news reports) to distance their careers from their personal lives. Michael Jackson was an extreme example of that. The media suffocated him and anything and everything was told to the rest of the world. While I am convinced that Michael Jackson was, at the very least, a little eccentric, it is probably unfair to say that his lifestyle as a successful artist is an anomaly. Many musicians from much earlier decades had all kinds of serious personal issues. But unlike the King of Pop, these musicians’ legacies benefited from much looser media scrutiny and these personal issues were backstaged.
This morning, Michael Jackson made history yet again. He is the first artist to sell over 1 million song downloads in a week. There is no question that his death has spiked a renewed interest in his music. In fact, maybe the mass attention to Jackson’s music over his personal life is a testament to how powerful his artistry was and still is to the world.
We know that music was Michael Jackson’s escape from his personal life. For the world, it seems to also be a way to avoid who he was a person. It will be a challenge figuring out how to reconcile this complicated man with his amazing art. I am not sure what is right, but I do know that his music was too good to give up and his massive contribution to our culture is too powerful to ignore.
For me the question is not “should we be able to separate the artist from his art?” but how much of our beliefs about gender influence how we view his art and him as a person–legal woes, love of children, etc. Living in a patriarchal culture that privileges a very dominant and aggressive masculinity, Michael Jackson’s effeminate masculinity, love of children, and pronouncement of “healing the world” makes him and even his non heteronormative romantic and dance songs immediately questionable. It is hard for us to accept Michael Jackson for who he said he was, a man who “innocently” loved children because it is completely antithetical to how we have been socialized to see men. Men are strong. They grunt (okay somewhat kidding). Housework and by default nurturing children is for women and not for men. Of course this is a gross simplification of patriarchy. However, it makes my point given how we see “acceptable real” men, it is difficult for us to believe that Michael Jackson’s personality was authentic and innocent. Can a man really love children without violating them sexually?
All of this is not to say that Michael Jackson did not have problems because I believe he did, however, I think some of his problems stemmed from our inability to recognize alterative non-hegemonic masculinities. Furthermore, I believe given his global influence, song about accountability, community, and loving the Earth, coupled with his non-dominant masculinity, he represents a threat to patriarchy that men can love, men can nurture, and men can be asexual or at least not publicly heterosexual (holding constant his marriage to Lisa Marie). Given I am conspiracy theorist; he has to be discredited and why not discredit him where we are all more likely to believe he’s culpable given patriarchy. So, “should we be able to separate the artist from his art?” well I cannot answer that question, but I can say that patriarchy does influence how we see him and his art. Also, a side point people are “willing to go to the mattress” defending misogynistic men like R. Kelly, who we know violate children . . . just a thought.
For me the question is not “should we be able to separate the artist from his art?” but how much of our beliefs about gender influence how we view his art and him as a person–legal woes, love of children, etc. Living in a patriarchal culture that privileges a very dominant and aggressive masculinity, Michael Jackson’s effeminate masculinity, love of children, and pronouncement of “healing the world” makes him and even his non heteronormative romantic and dance songs immediately questionable. It is hard for us to accept Michael Jackson for who he said he was, a man who “innocently” loved children because it is completely antithetical to how we have been socialized to see men. Men are strong. They grunt (okay somewhat kidding). Housework and by default nurturing children is for women and not for men. Of course this is a gross simplification of patriarchy. However, it makes my point given how we see “acceptable real” men, it is difficult for us to believe that Michael Jackson’s personality was authentic and innocent. Can a man really love children without violating them sexually?
All of this is not to say that Michael Jackson did not have problems because I believe he did, however, I think some of his problems stemmed from our inability to recognize alterative non-hegemonic masculinities. Furthermore, I believe given his global influence, song about accountability, community, and loving the Earth, coupled with his non-dominant masculinity, he represents a threat to patriarchy that men can love, men can nurture, and men can be asexual or at least not publicly heterosexual (holding constant his marriage to Lisa Marie). Given I am conspiracy theorist; he has to be discredited and why not discredit him where we are all more likely to believe he’s culpable given patriarchy. So, “should we be able to separate the artist from his art?” well I cannot answer that question, but I can say that patriarchy does influence how we see him and his art. Also, a side point people are “willing to go to the mattress” defending misogynistic men like R. Kelly, who we know violate children . . . just a thought.
I would also suggest adding pictures or links to allegations
I would also suggest adding pictures or links to allegations
leigh, thanks for this. i’m glad you’re willing to admit what the media won’t: that it’s really difficult to find a way to honor a man who in many ways was illegible to us. perhaps that reflects more on us than him, but at least you’re willing to say it. i’m happy you’re highlighting the gray area so many of us are ignoring.
@fallon: so true. they don’t want to go there. but you do. love it.
leigh, thanks for this. i’m glad you’re willing to admit what the media won’t: that it’s really difficult to find a way to honor a man who in many ways was illegible to us. perhaps that reflects more on us than him, but at least you’re willing to say it. i’m happy you’re highlighting the gray area so many of us are ignoring.
@fallon: so true. they don’t want to go there. but you do. love it.