...
I think when people say "seperate the man from the music" they usually mean that they love MJ the artist, but don't like him (or rather the tabloid caricature that they buy into) as a person.
That's something that does happen, however I would not say that this has to be the case every single time. I do think for example that it is possible for an artist to practice aspects of his artistry that at some point 'become him/her', like their personal trademark, but just because he talks to the fedora in his trademark Billie Jean performance, doesn't have to mean that he does that as the private person all the time. (just an example).
Or his crotch grab- that crotch grab alone is such a good example- I am quite sure that he FELT that crotch grab early on being the artist that he was- and then he made it a defining choreography part because it worked- and I am sure that the consummate artist and especially the disciplined performer that he was knew, how to develop something from instinct and turn it into the artistry that became recognized all over the world.
I am not saying that to deny that the public MJ didn't feel the humanitarian acts he performed- I am actually quite sure that a great musician and performer such as Michael knew exactly how to literally become the song he was performing ("Become the sound of what that emotion is", Oprah interview)- that was his enormous gift- the ability to pour himself into a 4 minute song with such 400% intensity that even the last person, in the last row of that stadium would walk away feeling him at 100%- because let's face it, Michael's 50% feels as intense as someone else's 150%.
Such stage presence and general charisma is definitely the hallmark of a gifted genius such as Michael. You cannot fake that. That was the amazing thing about TII- even knowing what we know we can still feel the professional musician Michael- no matter how sliced and diced.
Also, when Michael talked about the music of the heavens coming to him and that he was merely the instrument through which it flowed- then of course that means that it responded to one aspect of himself, some kind of resonation. Of course one can take their own life experiences- or those observed around him. But it also means being able to pick up on the issues of those around him. It's a grey zone sometimes.
Or think about Stephen King and other horror genre authors- are they tapping into the collective conscious, or just themselves by writing the most gory piece of fiction, detailing the most horrendous acts they themselves might not be able to ever do?
I think in Michael's case people simply have a hard time understanding the very many different facets of Michael- just as most of us have wild and passionate side, the I just wanna lay here and be miserable facet, the I'm gonna get up and show the world facet, the child in all of us, the not a morning person side, the night owl, the deadline pusher, the parent, the lover, the mentor- just all these facets that make all of us. Michael on the other hand had no qualm about living all these sides of himself that make him Michael- and that's what so many people love to use against him. The childlike persona who apparently didn't mind getting up close to any female fan and who also was an astute business person- while being a father.
All of us are being complete beings with more than one side to us- just that in Michael's case every facet of his seemed magnified by those who couldn't or didn't WANT to understand this being as a whole- just the way they seem themselves a some kind of compartment.
An artist can also very much slip into his whole own artistic alter ego, a great number of artists know how to do that- because they have to every night for example when the performance demands that they decry their Beloved's premature death on an Opera stage- it's their job to muster that discipline every night. They can also do that when writing a song, or a drama.
And secondly slipping into your artistic persona is also part of you in a way- but how often do you run across some MK-Ultra conspiracy fan who talks about the major artists as having been trained in mind destructive personality splits and fragmentation? :rofl:
So if I do say that on occasion it is very much possible to separate especially the performing artist from the man- then I do not mean that I don't understand him or have a dislike for Michael as a person. And yes, I do think that Michael knew the difference between a public persona and other private aspects- that doesn't mean that the public persona who visited hospitals is a different person- I think that sometimes the public persona can be the same as private Michael. Or the stage persona.
Am I the person that I am on the job? Is it possible to be a neat freak on the job and come home and be a disgusting slob who loves digging through creative chaos? Which one of those is "me"- or can I be both?
Having said that, yes, I do think it's a lame excuse to want to love Michael's music and then maintain that behind that supposed mask he must have been a horrible human being guilty of the crimes he was accused that- but that's just as naive as thinking that we are one-dimensional beings- the professional on the job only for example.
How is it possible that composers on the verge of death, personal ruin and with creditors hounding them can compose the most glorious, positive and uplifting symphony with a chorus doting on mankind, full of love? That's the secret of a deaf genius for example- the musical genius such as Michael who are able to reach up to these heights and grow toward something larger as even themselves- that is unparalleled genius, which is why we are still talking about Michael Jackson.
For example, remember Bashir nagging on Michael "why do you care so much?" and yammering on endlessly why on earth Michael feels compelled to help children. Michael's pain instantly took on an expression of actual pain- as if Bashir's question caused him pain- he said "I feel that pain". He didn't just looked at sympathetically- but empathically, taking on their pain as his own. (being an empath must have been awful- yet that's who he was). His own experiences certainly helped understanding that. So he took on that pain as if it was his own. He even said that he wouldn't change a thing about all of it.
You can have the muses throwing countless inspiration at you- if there is no way for the recipient to feel it, it passes by unused- hence it being helpful to be able to draw upon those experiences- he didn't have to starve himself to feel the pain of neglected orphans in an orphanage.
Great painting.
The Poet's Inspiration or The
Inspiration of Anacreon, 1627; by Nicolas Poussin.
Takes a special being though- just as Michael. That painting depicts exactly what Michael spoke about, how music comes to him.
