25th June, 2009. I’m
relaxing at home after a stressful couple of weeks of exams. I get a text from
my sister and, after opening the message, I don’t believe what I’m reading and
instantly flick on a news channel.
Sure enough, Michael Jackson’s
dead.
A similarly bewildering moment
happened on Sunday morning, when, opening up my computer, social networks were
trending Whitney. And another star had passed too soon.
One of the advantages of this
modern society is that the integration of technology allows not only this quick
relay of information, but in these cases, a sentimental outpouring of emotion
when we lose an influential figure.
However, with these new mediums
of information, what is appropriate decorum when talking of the deceased? When
famous personas have had their lives taken under a microscope as public
property, how should that public remember them?
Case in point: sitting with a
friend in a café last July, the radio broke the news that Amy Winehouse had
passed away. The reporter’s very next words were: “The troubled star, who was
known for her drug addictions and love life…” as though her singing career did
not merit a mention. Amy has been defined by her misdemeanours.
With the death of Whitney
Houston, this act of remembrance is called into question once again. When
looking back at such an iconic songstress, should we look to her rise or fall?
Without doubt, the talent of the
young Houston cannot be denied. Hailing from musical genes, Whitney was signed
at the tender age of 19 after a performance in a Manhattan night club. Her
eponymous debut was the biggest selling album by a debut artist when it was
released in 1985.
Houston enjoyed seven consecutive
number one singles, surpassing the record set by The Beatles, and had notched
up over 200million album sales by the late 80s alone. Yet eclipsing even all of
these staggering achievements, the resounding number ‘I Will Always Love You’ is
the biggest selling single by a female of all time (and is sure to notch up
another batch of sales posthumously).
Serene images were shattered with
Houston’s decline into abuse of crack cocaine and marijuana. Her tumultuous
marriage to Bobby Brown constantly attracted headlines and her once famed voice
was broken.
Yet, which era of the star’s life
should the public focus on?
Unfortunately, intrigue and bad
news are always awarded more coverage: these are the stories with more layers,
more depth, high interest and, immorally, make people feel much better about
themselves. Even if Whitney had not been signed, there is the possibility that
she, or countless others like her, like Amy, would have made headlines for
their solvent abuse. They would have been paraded as examples of a breakdown in
society, without a saving voice, so to speak.
Of course, perhaps without the
fame, these people would not have resorted to drugs, without the attention,
they may not have performed crazy stunts, such as hanging children over
balconies. But whose fault is this? Are these people victims of self-nurtured
decline, or of outer afflictions?
Society is constructed in such a
way that we pressure a number of stars into depression, ruts, abuse. From music
to film and beyond, pop culture means we are able to highlight the likes of
Britney Spears, Macaulay Culkin, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan as testimony to
the breakdown culture that has been nurtured by modern life. Some, like Robert
Downey Jr, make it back; other stars, like Kurt Cobain and Winehouse, never
defeat their demons.
But do their devils add meaning
to their work. In the case of ‘Nevermind’ by Nirvana, material dealt with lost
loves, with ‘Back to Black’, the album can be seen as shaped from Winehouse’s
indiscretions and media attention.
However, for the stars like
Jackson and Houston, whose prime came before a spectacular fall, their records
should be remembered and replayed without the clouds of rumour that have come
to outshine their talents. For, certainly, these people became famous for their
gifts, and should be thought of in this light.
In 2002, Houston told ABC's Diane
Sawyer in an interview that: "The biggest devil is me. I'm either my best
friend or my worst enemy."
Perceptive as this analysis is,
perhaps the biggest devil to Houston, and to her fallen contemporaries, lies in
public responsibility.
Just as we facilitate the rise of
a star, we are compliant in their demise.
Remembering where I was when I
heard of the deaths of these stars proves something: that these people touched
our lives with their songs, their albums, or whatever their gifts. We have a
public responsibility to keep that spirit of their talents alive.
No comments:
Post a Comment