Comments on: Regarding MJ: 1958-2009

By: dannytdot

dannytdot — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:50:31 +0000

Pilgrim,
so many of your observations and insights are right in line with how i feel – thank you for articulating them so nicely on this page – i would question one statement in your commentary – “because MJ brought this on himself on some level. When you are a celebrity, and particularly when you court the status of cultural icon in the fervent sort of way that MJ did, you sign up to be a symbol…”

i truly wonder if this man’s life was ever his own… as a child he was abused and exploited – did he really have a choice?
i don’t know…

By: tallgirl-in-heels

tallgirl-in-heels — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:45:09 +0000

BearDownCBears: I think death does bring a unique finality that causes a wave even if one’s relationship with a person or his/her work has been symbolically dead for some time. When someone with whom I’d chosen to have no contact with for many years passed away, it hit me hard even though I thought I’d already mourned and moved beyond the death of that relationship. Not that I’m comparing the death of a pop icon with the loss of someone I actually knew; rather, my point is that death changes the landscape in a way that irrelevance does not.

As for MJ, I am definitely ambivalent about what his loss means. Perhaps it’s illogical, but I really do think of him as two different people: the Michael who had a tangible impact on my childhood, and the lost, madman he became. I mourn the former without excusing the man who likely hurt children. I recognize, however, that my ability to do this has everything to do with the personal connection I have with his art. If Polanski died, I wouldn’t shed a tear likely because I have no sense of connection whatsoever with his work. Whether that’s a legitimate or “appropriate” distinction is up for debate, but I think it speaks to the fact that the more we feel we know someone, or the greater the connection we feel to someone, the more complicated it becomes to think in blacks and whites about him/her.

By: bluebears

bluebears — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:57:09 +0000

When a great artist that people have high esteem for is accused or associated with accusations of misconduct on a level society deems to be unacceptable I think its very hard to discuss that artists or his work without factoring in his life. I think its because people have a visceral sort of cringing away at the mention of certain things.

Woody Allen was on Fresh Air the other week and Terry Gross asked him what he thought of people who judge his work differently because they disapprove of his personal life. He said, (basically) people can judge an artist using whatever criteria they want, its not up to the artist to say.

By: BearDownCBears

BearDownCBears — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:48:03 +0000

@PhDork: Yeah…I don’t know. You have a good point; those vultures are definitely out there. But it’s my impression that a lot of the artistic evaluation since yesterday, esp. on the web, is organic. We take cues from the Media Beast, but I don’t think everyone takes orders from it. But maybe your “body is still warm” comment still applies: some people took the death as a reminder and decided now was as good a time as any to organize their thoughts on the subject.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:32:54 +0000

The body is still warm, BearDown, and there’s money to be made. You’ll notice that those 15 years of musical stagnation are not mentioned; instead, it becomes about allegations and rumors and scandals (not to say those things should be ignored). Those who care about–and those who care to profit from–MJ’s death need the twin images of the young, beautiful entertainer at the top of his game, wooing the globe, and of the freakish recluse with his life in shambles, variously horrifying and amusing them. They only really work as foils, and we can romanticize the first and bemoan the second. If there were discussion of how the well ran dry, so to speak, then MJ is just another fading star. There’s no drama, no story there.

By: BearDownCBears

BearDownCBears — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:04:05 +0000

I guess I’m not too compelled to evaluate the dude’s life, but I was wondering today, as I waited for my car at the mechanic and watched the endless spew of media diarrhea about MJ’s demise, why does everyone think the book report’s due now? I suppose the obvious answer, as evident by 88% or so of the comments I’ve read (and this well-written–as always–essay), is that his discography triggers nostalgia about childhood/adolescence in many people, people who profess not to care that much (or at least their ambivalence) about the artist, but adore the art. If that’s the case, it doesn’t make sense to me why his death is making such a huge ripple with these folks for this reason: the guy’s been artistically void for like 15 years now. Hasn’t there been plenty of opportunity to evaluate his legacy? Won’t there still be? It’s not like his career was cresting. So what’s the point in rushing to conclusions about the effects of a stagnant body of work like MJ’s if you could make just as sound a judgment (or better)in six months?

Maybe it was a cognitive thing, that folks couldn’t process the end of his career until its source irreparably “dried up”, but I don’t pretend to have a great handle on human grief.

@BeckySharper: But yeah, I some level I get that visceral thing, that even though you’re not condemning his work, he probably fondled little kids and could pay his way out of it, so fuck that guy.

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:23:12 +0000

@Spark: Oh Snoop…I suppose he’s right in that we can all agree that MJ sure did love children. I’m guessing he didn’t send his sons to MJ’s for sleepovers, though.

By: Spark

Spark — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:18:14 +0000

@Pilgrim: I thought this thread was about how “there’s no either/or here,” which I agree with. That doesn’t solve the problem of how to talk about him–in fact, it makes it harder. Unless you’re arguing we listen to his music and ignore the man who made it? Would you make the same argument about Chris Brown?
I’m not accusing anyone here of sweeping child abuse under the rug. I’m listening to MJ right now. But last night, Snoop Dogg was on MTV talking about how Michael Jackson remained relevant because he loved children so much. That seems to deserve comment.

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:04:40 +0000

@Spark: In 1993 the DA declined to press charges because the felt the alleged victim was a poor witness (which is not unusual, unfortunately) MJ settled a civil suit with the boy’s family for $22 million. He was tried in 2003 for a different allegation and acquitted of all charges then. That said, MANY sex crimes do not go to trial or end in an acquittal because the victim is young or seems unreliable or the accused is famous or has a seemingly spotless reputation (priests, for example).

By: Pilgrim Soul

Pilgrim Soul — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:02:15 +0000

Spark: I don’t know how many times I will have to say this, but personally, I, this post, these commenters, have not suggested sweeping anything under the rug. People who are implying that talking about this in a nuanced and complicated manner is impossible because he is a child molester are missing the point of this thread. That’s all.