VH Award Runner Up – April 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whether it is right or wrong, it is an undeniable fact that\nMichael Jackson is one of the most famous musicians of the last century, if not\never. With over 21 million monthly listeners on Spotify alone, he is a man who\nhas changed the face of music and 70s \/80s American culture. There have always\nbeen rumours about the illegal activities Jackson was involved in, sometimes\ninvolving minors. However it wasn\u2019t until recently that two of his supposed\nvictims have come forward to tell \u2018their story\u2019 about Michael Jackson and what\nhe did to him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In my\nopinion the question \u2018is it morally wrong to listen to the music of Michael\nJackson?\u2019 conjures up two separate questions. Firstly, is it right that people\nsuch as Michael Jackson are tried by the media and \u2018found guilty\u2019 on the basis\nof the word of a few individuals when the accused has no way of responding to\nthese allegations? Secondly, can we separate the man and his behaviour from the\nmusic he produced. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the\nparticular case of Michael Jackson, I think the answer to the first question is\nyes. Although not certain, it is probable that the allegations have some truth\nbehind them; the sheer number of allegations, the previous scandals and the\n\u2018payoffs\u2019 certainly make this seem very likely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore,\nfor the remainder of this article I will assume the allegations to be true and\nfocus on, in my opinion, the more interesting and relevant latter question.\nThis question is a vital question for the progression of our society and\nunfortunately quite a common one. With the rise of #MeToo, the concept of\nwhether we can or cannot separate a work of art from its maker is coming under\nmore scrutiny. The answer to the Michael Jackson question surely sets the\nprinciple for any film in which Kevin Spacey acts in or indeed any piece of\nliterature written by Oscar Wilde. If we were to go down this route then we\nwould be ruling out hundreds of films, songs, literature and art. This would\nresult in the loss of some truly incredible pieces of work. The 21.8 million\nMichael Jackson fans on Spotify may be rather put out if we suddenly tell them\nthey are no longer allowed to listen to Man in the Mirror. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For me,\nthe answer to this question stems from two main points. One a point of\npracticality and one of principle. If we allow artists like Michael Jackson to\ngo \u2018unpunished\u2019 and we continue to listen and love his music then does this not\nthen tell other famous artists thinking of committing these serious crimes that\nthey can do it? \u201cPeople won\u2019t care as long as they love my music, films, etc.\u201d.\nTo me this seems ludicrous. If we were to condemn these people by refusing to\nlisten to their music or refusing to watch their films this would be much more\npowerful. In a similar sort of way the environmentalists are rejecting plastic\nstraws with their McDonalds and LGBT activists are boycotting Dorchester Hotels\nover the Sultan of Brunei\u2019s policies on homosexuality. This is a widely done\nthing, boycotting a product to try and get across to the powers that be that we\nas a society will not stand for what they are doing. In my opinion this seems\nsignificantly more moral and potentially effective than the alternative. If not\nlistening to Thriller again sent out a message to the world and stopped more\nyoung boys or girls being abused would you not stop? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondly,\nI think the idea that it is possible to separate some of these artists from\ntheir work is a naive one. The art and the artist in many examples, including\nthe Jackson case, go hand in hand, with each complementing the other and\nneither being as effective without the other. People\u2019s love for Jackson\u2019s music\narises due to the very fact that he was the one singing it. The dancing, the\nscandals, and the various body alterations he underwent created this package.\nHis actual music was only one of the parts of his act. Therefore, when we\nlisten to his music, we are buying into this whole package. We are buying into\na man who it is clear is strange enough to not only bleach his skin but also\ncapable of building a house for the sole purpose of abusing children. This\nlogic extends to other artists as well. Oscar Wilde supposedly slept with a 13\nyear old boy (again, this is an accusation which I am assuming to be true for\nthe purpose of an example) which I think shows that he was mentally unwell, yet\nwe feel it is appropriate to listen or read the work directly conjured up in\nthat brain. The same is true for actors such as Kevin Spacey. Arguably he is\nchosen to play a sinister villain such as Frank Underwood in House of Cards or\nthe paedophile Lester Burnham in American Beauty because he had the demeanour\nof these things. When we appreciate a talent of a person, whether it be\nsinging, acting or writing it is impossible to disconnect from the person\nbehind the singer, actor or writer because in fact they make up a lot of what\nthe work stands for and how it is perceived. I very much doubt Billie Jean\nwould have been as successful if Michael Jackson wasn\u2019t the one who sang it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A counter\nargument to my points would be that to be an artist of such talent, you have to\nsee the world in a different light to the rest of us and you have to be a bit\nmentally different. However, in my opinion this argument is just a desperate\nattempt to justify your love of an abhorrent person. Being an artist, so having\nto have a different mindset, cannot be used as an excuse to sexually,\nphysically or mentally abuse anyone, especially children. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In\npractice, punishing Jackson for what he did may result in less abuse by people\nin positions of power and influence. In my opinion, it is impossible in most\ncases of art and artist to separate the two, with it being even harder in a\ncase like Jackson\u2019s. In principle, therefore, it is also wrong to listen to his\nmusic. It may be hard to stop engaging with someone we have loved for our whole\nlives, and yes, some truly incredible music, literature or film may be lost. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
However,\nfor the purpose of progression it is vital that the music of Michael Jackson\nand the work of other disgraced artists be respected for being great art but no\nlonger appreciated in the way they once were. It therefore has to be immoral to\nlisten to the music of Michael Jackson. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"