Another Quixote? What Michael Jackson means (to me)
The Quixotic Michael Jackson
I just got around to reading the comments to Gerald’s post on Michael Jackson. As a professional musician (I play guitar and sing for our summer rent and bills) who has spent a great deal of time playing across the genres of blues, soul, jazz, and R&B I think my view on the matter may offer something different and, perhaps, of interest.
First of all, let me be clear: I reject the notion that art can be neatly parsed into professional terms that bracket away the personal life of the artist. So, what I have to say is not an attempt to try and set anything aside for a purely musical analysis. In the interest of order and intelligibility, I would like to comment on two aspects that are, in fact, intertwined if not indistinguishable at the level of any credible first person account: Michael’s music and Michael’s identity.
Music
For all those who dismiss the musical prowess of Michael Jackson, I would ask them to attempt to replicate his art. To put it more bluntly: Join a cover band and try to pull off credible versions of his stuff from the Jackson Five material to “Invincible,” his last studio album (which would include trying to find people talented enough to play it with you). Speaking from experience, you can’t just execute Michael Jackson with great technique, you need all the intangibles (and more).
For example, you cannot simply sing to emulate his staccatoed phrasing and wide range with perfect tone; you have to sang (a well-known technical distinction in Black musical circles, e.g. “I know she can sing, but can she sang?”). Then, to get the beat just right, it is not a matter of being “on the one” every time, like a metronome; you’ve got to be able to keep a tight groove that breathes just enough to let the body move (another well-known somatic approach to rhythm in dance-based musical genres, especially Latin and Afrocentric music: the beat is for the body).
My point is this: playing the basic forms and beats of a genre or style is one thing, but to really be able to play—and dance too!—Michael Jackson’s music (or Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, and a few others) you need him to hold you by the hand and teach you. I came into the scene pretty late with little more than a good ear and years of playing at church, but I gave Stevie, Ray, and Michael a long listen (I also did the same for Bob Marley). From continuing to do that, I have gained more in my playing and my ability to communicate myself through my instrument than ever before. Even then, it is still a daunting task to play Michael’s music in our Neo-Soul/nu-Jazz band, Gruvment.
Now, I also have combined that listening with heavy doses of listening to some older cats like Wes Montgomery, Muddy Waters, Freddie King, Django Rhienhart and some current virtuosos like John Scofield, Pat Metheny, Adam Rogers, and John Mayer (yes, he fits in that category to me), but, while they inspired me to shed and work on chops, phrasing, and style, Michael Jackson (and the others I mentioned) taught me how to let a beat be itself and suck you in in the process without sounding too loose.
So, is “pop” a silly throw away genre? Sure, in some cases. But in this case, unless you hold some expertise that I have yet to come across (which very well may be the case), hold your verdict. What Michael means to me musically is the most sophisticated approach to Black American music we have had to date—none more evident by its ability to communicate globally (for better or for worse).
Seeing the range of poor to pretty decent execution of his material by the very best in the field at his memorial on Tuesday (Mariah sounded liked a hot mess) I think the bar is set for everyone, not just a semi-professional type like me. Michael Jackson, like the short list of greats before him, is to be reckoned with musically if you want to play in the tradition of the evolving Black American music scene, period.
Identity
Michael Jackson had a tragic life. Whether he emerges the hero or the villain is not for me to say, after all, it hardly would makes any sense to cut it so cleanly. What Jackson did do in his life (including his music) is struggle to become a person in ways that were tortuously strange to everyone watching. From his move from Black to blanched, to his boyish face that became an androgynous profile, his life was a mystery cloaked in the questions of abuse, pedophilia, and unrequited love.
The idea that such a tragic life should dismiss him from being worthy of our attention is, to me, the strangest thing of all. Why is his identity—even in mourning—so controversial?
To me, he is a another Quixote: A man trying to live out a fairytale, who’s life is a paradox at best, and a contradiction at worst. For Miguel de Unamuno, Don Quixote was an embodiment of the “tragic sense of life,” a sense of life fulfilled not in the type of the Quixote, but in Christ.
I am not sure if I am ready to join Michael Jackson to Unamuno’s Christological reading of Cervantes, but I am compelled to say that Michael Jackson’s life is one we should not be ashamed of being fascinated with. It is not a lost cause to wonder why his identity was so strange to most of us—even those who wish he would go away—in some way or another.
For me, at the deepest level of introspection, the identity of the man who was objectified in abuse from prepubescence and, in turn, objectified and subjected himself (and, perhaps, others) for the rest of his adult life via the excesses of celebrity, body-transformation, traumatic escapes and repressions, and musical innovation, is not so strange at all: he is myself. In a way, I am Michael Jackson. We all are.
It may sound too glib or cheesy to make such a bombastic claim, but, for me, any quixotic life—none more puzzling than the mystery of Christ—that presents us with deep questions of identity is a call to conversion, to re-identification, that forces us to face ourselves, our sister and brother, our enemy, and, in the end, God.
Rest in Peace Michael.
Comments are closed.
Sam,
This is a very thoughtful and provocative piece. It is predicated on experience and what you discovered having struggled with his musical artistry and his presence. Thank you.
I quoted Frank Sinatra and Fred Astaire at the beginning of my post. Both were unparalleled in their artistry. Yet, both said MJ was better than they.
It was interesting to hear you relate your struggles trying to incorporate his genius into your own. I once heard Wynton Marsalis speak to the difficulty of playing like Louis Armstrong. He said it was impossible.
As for MJ’s identity, I’d like to make one small point. There is no evidence MJ was a pedophile. We have procedures in this country to determine the truth or falsity of such allegations. He was never proven guilty and thus remains innocent. People are free to have feelings and opinions one way or the other, but that is what they are — feelings and opinions.
I, too, have a strong affinity with MJ. Part of this is due to close associations that I will not mention. Aside from those, there is his immense talent. But even more, there is a profound spirituality that resides at the core of his music. It is this spirituality — and his own spiritual struggles — that constitute the core of his global appeal.
Finally, I appreciate your reference to “the tragic sense of life.” To fully understand MJ, it is necessary to transcend the “drug store pop psychology” that captivates minds. There is a much deeper story to be told but it will take someone who is well versed in philosophical anthropology and great literature to do so. But ultimately, it will be the people who were moved by him that will decide. They alone know what it was about MJ that moved them so powerfully.
There is no evidence MJ was a pedophile.
I have been defending Michael Jackson when he has been attacked, but it is going much too far to say there is no evidence that he was a pedophile. The presumption of innocence is a procedural approach in criminal law and tells us nothing about the actual guilt or innocence of an accused person. It is also somewhat of a fiction, and if taken too literally might raise the question why only innocent people are put on trial!
Michael Jackson’s relationship with children was — to use a value-neutral term — highly atypical. He acknowledged that he frequently shared his bed with young boys, although he claimed it was innoncent. How he got “his own” children is still somewhat of a mystery to me. I don’t believe we even know who the biological fathers and mothers are, and apparently Jackson never adopted any of them.
Thanks Gerald, and your point is well taken. However, pedophilia is a part of his legacy whether there is judicial or legal reason to think it is the case or not. This is intimately connected to the tragic sense of life and I think it is very clear in Don Quixote, Cervantes has us wondering all the time about his intentions and madness and sometimes it all seems so unfair. To me, this only make his legacy more rich, it puts him out there a person—warts and all—instead of a sanitized character we so often find. I hope this, at the very least, informs you on how I understand that part of his legacy, fair or not (on legal grounds).
Thanks again for your kind words.
Sam,
I have to apologize for even raising the issue. Your post is too insightful to be ignored, and I’d rather comments were directed at what you said rather than the point I raised.
With that in mind, let me say that the way you expressed MJ’s “tragic sense of life” was very good and, indeed, compelling. You said “his life was a mystery cloaked in the questions of abuse, pedophilia, and unrequited love.” Indeed it was and for that reason, as you said in your comment, it adds a richness to MJ’s persona. This mystery will have the effect of compelling others to look more deeply into his life.
Your comments are not only fair, they are insightful.
David Nickols,
“Michael Jackson’s relationship with children was — to use a value-neutral term — highly atypical. He acknowledged that he frequently shared his bed with young boys, although he claimed it was innocent.”
I agree, David.
What’s interesting is that Tom Mesereau, MJ’s trial attorney, brought forth a string of witnesses who testified that MJ had indeed spent hundreds, if not thousands, of nights in bed with children. This evidence was presented before the jury as part of MJ’s defense!
The prosecution, however, was unable through its witnesses to establish proof that MJ had sexually violated any of these children. He said not. They couldn’t establish otherwise.
It was for this reason that I said: “there is no evidence MJ was a pedophile.” Pedophilia involves sexual activity of an adult with a child. None had been proven.
But … did he engage in “atypical behavior”? Yes, his behavior was atypical.
Perhaps we are not far apart.
Gerald, no apology required (and it doesn’t seem to be steering away discussion at the moment!). Peace.
What about listening to Yngwie Malmsteen?
What about it? Neo-classical electric guitar is very demanding, more demanding technically than I can accomplish, to be sure.