Jacko loses top of pops appeal with music fans
Rock stars mean a lot to a generation that grows up to music of the singer or the group. Few stars have been as big as Michael Jackson. At his death he was compared to Elvis Presley, The Beatles, David Bowie and others who have dominated popular music for a decade or more, before the next big act comes along.
Ten years is not long but for teens and pre-teens of that period the performer is more than a singer of catchy songs, he or she sets the image, the style, the fashions and attitude of their youth, and they never entirely leave it behind. The first popular music they loved has a special emotional resonance for them, which they can share with their contemporaries, for the rest of their lives.
The generation that grew up to songs of Michael Jackson will be in their thirties and forties by now and learned long ago the icon of their youth was not just a strange character but a flawed one. A documentary on television is about to bring new allegations of child abuse against him. The director of Leaving Neverland, Dan Reed, has said, “I think people will certainly stop playing his music at children’s parties and family gatherings. I can’t imagine people continuing to revel in his music.”
But Reed does not want radio stations to stop playing it. “I wouldn’t support banning his music,” he said. “I understand why people might choose not to play it, at least for a while . . .”
The reaction to Reed’s documentary in countries where it screened this week suggests not many people will want to hear Michael Jackson for a while. Radio stations in New Zealand, including those owned by NZME, the publisher of this newspaper, have not banned it but it is no longer on their playlists, which change frequently.
The reaction to the documentary raises important questions about art and morality. Can art be separated from the life of the artist? Can it be appreciated simply for its own sake? Does it have a life of its own? Some art perhaps. Great paintings, fictional literature, theatre, films, orchestral music and most of the performing arts can be appreciated independently of their creators.
Harvey Weinstein’s movies appear to be surviving the accusations against him, less so Woody Allen’s, probably because he appears in them. When artists puts themselves in the picture it becomes hard to separate the creation from the creator. Popular music puts the performer out front. It builds much of a song’s appeal around the voice and image of the person who makes it a hit.
Stars of film and television are in the same position. If they disgrace
Can art be separated from the life of the artist? Can it be appreciated simply for its own sake? Does it have a life of its own? Some art perhaps.
themselves personally they are liable to lose their parts no matter how different the character they play may be. In fact the more different their fictional character, the more likely they will lose it.
In time, if the performance is good enough, it can overcome the downfall of the performer. Those who loved the performance can remember what they loved before their illusions of the performer were shattered. Plenty of great painting, music and literature has been created by people whose personal behaviour was notorious.
In time, no doubt, Michael Jackson’s music will be heard again. In the meantime, a generation of fans have probably put it away for awhile, remembered other music of their formative years that still sings for them. That is how it goes.