I understand both perspectives, in this case. For fans, I understand why many of us crave understanding his art so much and from his perspective. From Michael's perspective, I understand why dissecting it in that way especially in formal interviews would be unpleasant or uncomfortable. Both points of view make sense for me. But I think sometimes people get frustrated with Michael's answers and I just want to offer my perspective on this.
Like
@zinniabooklover said above, imo Michael's interviews
were wasted opportunities. Though some of the fault could, I suppose, fall on Michael for not getting too in depth with certain craft related answers, such as referring back to music "just happening," or only retelling the same stories about Billie jean, for example, when asked about his composition process, I think mostly this was due to a couple of factors.
1) I think he was never really given the respect as an artist he deserved (in light of his persona taking over) and therefore the in-depth craft-focused interviews that could have gotten below the surface just never happened, and
2) It is extremely difficult to talk to people about craft who just do not have the language or technical understanding to participate as an equal in that conversation.
Here's what I mean by that. I would bet that Michael had incredible conversations about music, dance, video -- all aspects of his artistry -- when working with peers. With collaborators. With people who spoke the same language. But when trying to convey that to a lay audience? That would be extremely challenging for someone like Michael. I'm a writer and when I talk to other writers, we can get
into it in a way I just can't with my family or friends who are not writers. There's an unspoken resonance between us. Even if we are different kinds of writers, there's a shared understanding of what it means to experience the world that way. But trying to explain my writing to my father, for example, is exhausting. I mean it is truly
exhausting. Five minutes of talking about writing with my dad makes me never want to talk about writing again. Even my mother, who is a huge reader and therefore feels she is very knowledgable about writing (and tbf she does know more than my father who hasn't read a book in full since he was probably 6), is challenging. And I'm just a regular person. I am not a literary genius. So I can't imagine for someone like Michael, a musical
genius, how challenging it must have been to try to communicate about his process and perspective on his own work with people who were just not operating on that level at all, all while trying to make whatever he said consumable for the masses. That's just very challenging. I don't envy him.
I think the most productive avenue for learning about Michael's perspective on his own music would have been to talk to him about the craft in general. To talk to him about other people's music. To play him songs and let him react. To ask him about past or present sounds and see him respond in real time. An intellectual discussion about music. Meditating with him. Watching him draw, or walking through an art museum with him. Just interacting with him broadly about artistry. I'm not sure any artists can't help but reflect on their own craft when surrounded by inspiration. I imagine Michael was much the same.
I love to imagine a world where in place of "Living with Michael Jackson" we got something else entirely -- some kind of documentary, or long-form journalistic effort that followed Michael for a year, or five years, I don't know, that captured, as best as it could, the way he experienced the world through art. I think that would tell us so much more about his art than any direct conversations about how he wrote his songs, or whatever, ever could.
Ok. I seriously need to go grade now. Sigh.
