Who says I can't?

Who says I can’t?

/ ... /

Navi - King of Pop

The Robin

26-28 Mount Pleasant

Bilston

WV14 7LJ

6th April 2024

“It doesn’t matter who’s wrong or right ...

just beat it, beat it”.

Michael Jackson

There’s a bit in 1975's ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ where the old Bridgekeeper at the Bridge of Death stops King Arthur and his Knights, before informing them that “Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see”. The penalty for getting the question wrong is to be cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril. Sir Lancelot the Brave goes first (of course) and is asked his name (easy), what he seeks (the Holy Grail) and his favourite colour (blue). He passes safely. Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot (but now feeling a lot braver) steps up. He is also asked his name and what he seeks and he answers those easily and is very pleased with himself ... but is then asked, “What is the capital of Assyria?” Sir Robin does not know (who does?) and is cast into the gorge. Next up is Sir Galahad, the Chaste. His first two question are identical to those asked of the previous Knights, but then to his surprise he is also asked “What is your favourite colour?” to which, in his confusion, he answers ‘Blue’ – the same as Sir Lancelot – but when he tries to correct this to ‘Yellow’, his actual favourite colour, it’s too late and he also gets cast into the gorge. Arthur steps up. The first two question are identical, and he answers them dismissively. The Bridgekeeper then asks Arthur his third question. "What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?" When Arthur asks the old man whether he means an African or European swallow, the Bridgekeeper is unable to answer, and is himself launched into The Gorge of Eternal Peril. The remaining Knights are then free to cross and when Sir Bedevere asks how Arthur knows so much about swallows, Arthur replies, "You have to know these things when you're king."

Four walls won't hold me tonight

If this town

Is just an apple

Then let me take a bite

Human Nature - Michael Jackson

But who gets to decide who may cross the bridge and who may not? We can’t all be kings. In other words, what right does someone have to be a Bridgekeeper? I’m thinking of this as I walk to the Robin 2 at Bilston, after an excellent curry at the Tikka Tavern, to see ‘Navi - King of Pop’ who, as his website claims is ‘certainly recognised as the World’s no.1 MJ impersonator’. Obviously, we can no longer see Michael Jackson (MJ) live … but, if we could, would we? Should we? And if not live Michael, should we even see an impersonator? Leon Neyfakh, co-host of an MJ podcast believes that “Michael Jackson is probably the most interesting person who’s ever lived. Both because he had this unique, world-historic talent, but also because he led this utterly singular life, for better or for worse.” There is little doubt that Michael Jackson produced the most perfectly realised pop music that’s ever been made but it’s that ‘for worse’ bit that is the issue.

Michael Jackson died on June 25th, 2009, of an acute propofol intoxication in Los Angeles, California, at the age of 50. He was about to embark upon a comeback tour at the end of a four-decade career that had begun in 1964 with his public debut as the youngest member of the Jackson 5 along with his brothers, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, and Marlon. Michael Jackson was, without doubt, one of the most culturally significant figures of the 20th Century, influencing music, dance and fashion in ways that continue to resonate. And yet … and yet MJ had also been accused of child sexual assault, firstly in 1993 in a case that was settled out of court without criminal charges being pressed, then in 2005 when he was acquitted of all charges and finally, posthumously, in a devastating 2019 documentary, co-produced by Channel 4 and HBO and directed by Dan Reed, entitled ‘Leaving Neverland’ where two men accused MJ of sexually abusing them when they were children and had been staying at Jackson’s home, Neverland Ranch. Despite rebuttals citing the lack of evidence and questioning the veracity of statements made in the documentary, there was an immediate media backlash against MJ with many radio stations refusing to play his music and Michael Jackson memorabilia and MJ-inspired products hastily being removed from display amidst calls for a reassessment of his legacy. The city council of Brussels even cancelled plans to dress the Manneken Pis sculpture in Jackson's signature clothing. However, the release of the documentary led to Jackson’s record sales increasing by 10%, streams of his music and videos increasing by 6% and views of his videos increased to 22.1 million times in that week. Three of his albums re-entered the UK iTunes chart, where the documentary had broken Channel 4 streaming records. No such thing as bad publicity, I guess?

Everyone's taking control of me

Seems that the world's got a role for me

I'm so confused will you show it to me

You'll be there for me

And care enough to bear me

Will You Be There – Michael Jackson

So, who’s right? Can you separate the art from the artist? Neyfakh doesn’t think you can and nor should you try. He believes, “You bring to someone’s work the things you know about them. And now I just know a lot more, and that makes it a richer experience to engage with the art itself.” But that doesn’t stop some from trying to decide who should or shouldn’t cross the Bridge. However, with ‘MJ – the Musical’ opening in London last week with a script that plays all the hits and skips the allegations, Sony’s £0.5 billion purchase of just half of his back catalogue, a biopic on the horizon starring Michael’s nephew, Jaafar in the lead role, and the Jackson estate still earning around £60m a year from his music, royalties and merchandise, it doesn’t seem like Michael is disappearing from our lives anytime soon despite the impact of movements such as #MeToo that have called out and highlighted awareness of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and rape culture.

I was born two years after Michael Jackson and so have grown up with the boy, the man, and his music throughout all my and his life. I’ve followed his incredible development both as a musician and physically; the latter often garnering more media attention than the former even though, for Michael, there was no ambivalence about his racial identity and heritage. I loved the Jacksons, especially the Jackson 5ive cartoon series and, as a boy, I was moved by Michael’s solo, ‘Ben’ which, although (allegedly) written for his pet rat, resonated immensely with the very young me who was still trying hard to find his place in a troubled 1970s Britain and, to this day, I still have to pretend I have something in my eye if I hear this play:

Ben, most people would turn you away (Turn you away)

I don't listen to a word they say (A word they say)

They don't see you as I do

I wish they would try to

I'm sure they'd think again

If they had a friend like Ben

As an adult, I was amazed by the storytelling and video of ‘Thriller’ and loved ‘Man in the Mirror’ (best pop song featuring a gospel choir ever) but for the sheer audacity of the music, the lyrics and its dance moves, ‘Billie Jean’ must be MJ at his purest and best. Blender magazine called the song "a five-minute-long nervous breakdown, set to a beat" and those 5 minutes introduced us to a number of Jackson's signatures, including the moonwalk, black sequined jacket, and cropped ‘high-water’ trousers. The video was the first by a black artist to be aired by MTV on heavy rotation and was certainly instrumental in establishing video as a key part of music marketing.

I never saw Michael Jackson live, perhaps believing myself ‘too cool’ when younger to be a fan (in my defence, Thriller was released in 1982, the same year of A Certain Ratio’s ‘Sextet’, Philip Glass’ ‘Glassworks’, Kate Bush’s ‘The Dreaming’, Prince’s ‘1999’, The Clash’s ‘Combat Rock’, Elvis Costello’s ‘Imperial Bedroom’, The Fall’s ‘Hex Enduction Hour’ and Joe Jackson’s ‘Night and Day’) but I’m very much looking forward to seeing Navi play tonight. All the pre-show hype (to be fair, mainly by his production company) about the show has led to a sell-out crowd of die-hard fans (many wearing loafers, silver gloves, glitzy jackets and/or appropriate fedora hats as purchased from the merch stall at £10 a pop), as well as the simply curious, like myself. The actual Michael Jackson has watched and applauded a Navi performance in LA and Navi’s also been invited to Neverland and has acted as a necessary MJ decoy at times. As the production company states “Don’t believe the hype – read the facts!” Navi’s been doing this tribute act for 24 years and everyone in the Robin is anticipating something special tonight here in this small corner of the Black Country. And we are not let down.

Of course, none of us are immune from aging (except perhaps the original Michael Jackson and maybe Tom Cruise?) but from the moment the Trinidadian-born Navi Charles joined his incredible 4-piece band, 2 amazing dancers and engineer on stage we were all transported back over the years, as hit after hit was played over a 2-hour set with Navi looking, sounding and moving as much like MJ as you could have ever imagined or hoped. The drum and basslines introducing the opening track, ‘Smooth Criminal’ were met with shrieks of recognition from the audience as Navi climbed the few steps onto the stage and the relationship between artist and fans did not let up from the beginning to the end. At one point, Navi even asked, in the soft, shaky, broken voice of Michael Jackson, “Anyone here from Dudley?”, which received a great roar of approval. A masterclass in showmanship. As an aside, Navi had famously, dressed and stood, looking like MJ, outside the Santa Maria, California courthouse in 2005 where Michael was facing assault charges, holding aloft his own, hand-made banner reading “Smooth, but NOT a Criminal”. Nice! Singing along and dancing together throughout, audience and band made their individual and collective ways through ‘The Way You Make Me Feel’ ‘Beat It’, ‘Black or White’, ‘Bad’, and ‘Dirty Diana’ before the slower tempo of ‘Will You Be There?’ ended the first half with camera phone flashlights held aloft and swaying gently. As a bonus, we were treated to the amazing guitar talents of special guest, Jennifer Patten. Retaining her unique look and her distinctive playing style, Patten had supported Michael Jackson on three world tours over 10 years, playing Madison Square Gardens, the Tokyo Dome, and Wembley Stadium. She’s been bitten by Bubbles - twice - and was a close personal friend of Michael Jackson. And tonight, I get to see her play the Robin in Bilston.

The 2nd half began with refreshed drinks in hand and three Jackson 5 hits; ‘Want You Back’ ‘ABC’ and ‘The Love You Save’. With video projection of the original Jackson 5 plus clips from the cartoon show, this may have been my favourite section of the entire show. Returning to solo MJ, we then had ‘Can You Feel It?’, ‘Shake Your Body’ and ‘Rock with You’, before an inevitable and superb performance of ‘Billie Jean’, replete with single silver glove and all the MJ trademark moves copied perfectly including a sadly reduced moonwalk sequence due to ‘the floor not being right’. ‘You Are Not Alone’ slowed things down and even brought the odd tear to a few of those who had been rocking moments earlier. However, ‘Thriller’ with obligatory dancing ghouls soon cleared those tears and got things pumping again before the show finished, fittingly, with ‘Man In The Mirror’. A brilliant night out in this most ‘unlevelled-up’ part of England and a few hours spent away from thoughts of money problems and international crises.

So, as I walk back out to my car in the cool darkness of Saturday evening, my Fedora ‘strategically dipped below one eye’ (© Carly E. Simon), I’m no longer feeling ambivalent about whether I should have stayed away tonight, and I’d recommend anyone needing a pick-up in these sombre times to catch ‘Navi – King of Pop’, whilst they still can. But that doesn’t resolve the more general issue about who gets to choose whether something - or someone - is ‘wrong or right’ or deserving to be ‘cancelled’, as it’s now termed. Peter Keeble writing in “Philosophy Now’ states ‘Why should we expect to be able to know right from wrong? Morality isn’t written into the universe the way facts of nature seem to be: it’s a matter of human choice, and people choose to respond to moral issues in different ways.’ He acknowledges, however, that some issues are more complex than others and says, “We agonise over these difficult problems. Perhaps the important question is not Did we get the morally right solution? – where there may be none – but Did we agonise enough? Did we grapple and make sure we looked at the problem from all possible sides?” As someone who believes they are capable of looking, like Joni Mitchell, at both sides of life, I think that is very sound advice, Peter. But we now live in a world where those with the loudest voices – usually on social media – are looking to remove our personal responsibilities by telling us what and even how we should feel about something by making decisions - on our behalf - about what is permissible.

Tell me what has become of my rights

Am I invisible 'cause you ignore me?

Your proclamation promised me free liberty, now

I'm tired of bein' the victim of shame

They're throwin' me in a class with a bad name

I can't believe this is the land from which I came

You know I really do hate to say it

The government don't wanna see

But if Roosevelt was livin', he wouldn't let this be, no, no

They Don’t Care About Us - Michael Jackson

When I was little, around the time of Michael Jackson releasing ‘Ben’, getting ‘Sent to Coventry’ was as bad as ostracising could get, at least in the playground. This involved others acting as if you did not exist by deliberately – often ostentatiously – not talking to you or just avoiding your company. It certainly hurt, as it was meant to, and often the reason(s) for it being initiated were slight and the way it ended was usually accidental as its very triviality meant that people soon forgot that they were meant to be doing it. Incidentally, there are a few reasons that the City of Coventry might have been linked to this childish, yet painful, act that you might wish to look up yourselves, but it’s been around a while as an account from 1765 in the Club book of the Tarporley Hunt proves: “Mr. John Barry having sent the Fox Hounds to a different place to what was ordered was sent to Coventry, but return'd upon giving six bottles of Claret to the Hunt.”

The modern version of being ‘Sent to Coventry’ is termed, ‘Cancel Culture’ and refers to the ostracization, i.e. casting into the Gorge of Eternal Peril, those who are deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner and need thus to be ‘cancelled’, with the most high-profile incidents inevitably involving celebrities. However, unlike in my playground of yore, in this new age of social media, to be cancelled can impact on a person’s standing, livelihood, career and legacy and can even, in extreme cases, lead to death threats or worse. So much more like Monty Python’s Bridge keeper, then. Believed to have originated from the 1981, Chic song ‘Your Love is Cancelled’ that described getting out of a relationship like the withdrawal of a TV series, the phrase was used again, with the same meaning, in the 1991 crime-action film, New Jack City, leading it to getting incorporated more widely into the African American vernacular. From around 2015, as the term ‘cancellation’ began to be increasingly associated with the discrediting of specific individuals online, often for a specific statement they might have made, a new culture of ‘outrage’ began to grow. In 2020, Ligaya Mishan wrote in The New York Times, "The term is shambolically applied to incidents both online and off that range from vigilante justice to hostile debate to stalking, intimidation and harassment. ... Those who embrace the idea (if not the precise language) of cancelling seek more than pat apologies and retractions, although it's not always clear whether the goal is to right a specific wrong or redress a larger imbalance of power." Whilst some argue that cancel culture is ultimately unproductive in the way it shuts down public discourse and encourages intolerance without bringing about the social change it seeks, others argue that it fosters accountability through giving the disenfranchised a voice that goes often unheard and probably is no different to other forms of ‘boycotting’ that have long existed. But is it? For instance, whilst, to this day, I still won’t buy/eat a South African apple (although it’s now 34 years since Nelson Mandela walked, a free man, out of the Victor Verster Prison in Cape Town), I’m not sure I have bullied anyone specifically through my action.

However, being attacked for controversial views is certainly not new; from Beatles records being burned after John Lennon claimed they were “bigger” than Jesus to the Dixie Chicks getting blacklisted by country music radio stations for criticising President George W Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq war. But, as President Barack Obama, in 2020, noted when he criticised the cancel culture emerging on social media: "People who do really good stuff have flaws.”

But does being cancelled have any effect? Connor Garel doesn’t think so, stating that cancel culture "rarely has any tangible or meaningful effect on the lives and comfortability of the cancelled". So, R Kelly still gets 5m+ people listening to his music on Spotify each month. Perhaps it’s another case of the wrong term being used, and some commentators have wondered whether renaming it as ‘consequence culture’ might refocus the agenda towards ensuring those who make statements or opinions about others bear some responsibility for the effects on those people. Morgan Millard, in the same issue of Philosophy Now as Peter Keeble’s contribution earlier, articulates this so-called ‘principle of reciprocity’ by saying “I would argue that the majority of human beings have an innate sense of disgust at immoral acts, stemming from empathy. If you want to know if your actions towards another individual are right or wrong, just ask yourself if that’s how you would want to be treated. That’s the objectivity: we’re living, aware creatures. Why complicate it more than that?” However, whilst that might sound great on the face of it, it's (isn’t it always?) probably a bit more complicated than that. Take for example how to treat criminals. If you’re the kind of person who has never committed, or even thought of committing, a crime, you’d have no expectation of how you should be treated if you did. As such, believing that if you were a criminal, you’d expect to be punished severely isn’t that hard to imagine. However, it’s this sense of ‘assumed’ reciprocity that enables the inhumane treatment of criminals and by extension justifies the wealthy to exploit the poor, military conquerors to ill-treat the vanquished, misogynists to validate their treatment of women and so on.

And so back to Michael. Tim Jonze, writing in the Guardian, has asked why some celebrities, including MJ but also David Bowie, are seemingly immune to cancel culture. He doesn’t believe it has to do (entirely) with how much the artist is adored or even whether they are still living. Instead, he quotes the critic, Jessa Crispin who asserts that individuals who had built up a loyal following before the advent of social media become immunised to cancellation, thus ensuring affection for their art remains. It’s those without a ‘monolithic presence in the field’ e.g. the emerging artist or academic without an established fanbase that will therefore feel the greatest impact of being cancelled. But there are no set instructions for how to behave in this new culture so I think it’s OK that we should each make our own rules about whether we choose to approach any artist or piece of art with or without the encumbrances of conflicted feelings. And so, as I get into my car, and set the playlist to MJ Essentials for the journey home, I am reminded of Claire Dederer’s comment in her book ‘Monsters: A fan’s dilemma’, that, “a piece of art involves two biographies meeting: not just that of the artist, but that of the audience member, too.” Looking around at the happy faces, as I exit the car park, I think of all the biographies that must have met tonight in this small, friendly venue nowhere near Dudley and smile to myself, knowing that despite MJ saying it don’t matter if you’re black or white, sometimes you just need to be a little bit grey.

I'm starting with the man in the mirror

I'm asking him to change his ways

And no message could've been any clearer

If they wanna make the world a better place

Take a look at yourself and then make a change

Man in the Mirror - Michael Jackson

But perhaps I only really needed to recall Margery Williams’ words that summed this all up so beautifully back in 1922 (some 70 years before the Internet was widely available and 80 years before social media) when she wrote in ‘The Velveteen Rabbit’, her timeless book for children: “Does it hurt?” asked the Rabbit. “Sometimes,” said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. “When you are Real you don’t mind being hurt.” “Does it happen all at once, like being wound up,” he asked, “or bit by bit?” “It doesn’t happen all at once,” said the Skin Horse. “You become. It takes a long time. That’s why it doesn’t often happen to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don’t matter at all, because once you are Real you can’t be ugly, except to people who don’t understand.”