Ah xxxx, enough already 2016, George Michael

briantrumpet

meanredspider wrote:

I think it depends a bit if you were hoping for more "output" from the person.

If you happen to love Gearge Michael's music, you could be forgiven for being sad that he's dead. Apparently he sold 100,000,000 albums so a few people liked his stuff and some of them were profoundly influenced by it. Additionally it seems he gave quite a bit to help others - they might be sad too.

I've never met, say, Max Verstappen but his driving is entertaining so I'd be sad if he died. That's above-and-beyond generally feeling a bit sad for anyone that dies younger than might normally be expected (whether that's in conflict or from disease or accident)

Fair enough, but I think there's a distinct difference between being sad and public grieving, and the way that social media seems to lead to a tendency to 'grief amplification' in some weird group dynamic.

lucan2

briantrumpet wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Lucan2 wrote:

He was just one person. I didn't know him, so I won't be wringing my hands in a public display of how terribly sad it is that any unknown individual is dead. I really don't understand why the death of a so-called celebrity gives rise to all this public outpouring. Worthy of a "did you know xxx has died?" "Really?" "Yes, it was on the news." "OK, next subject."

Does social media mean we have to demonstrate how caring and devastated we all are(n't really)?

My life hasn't changed one bit, despite hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide in 2016.

"Next!"

Except perhaps for real fans I think it's just a case of it being a reminder that the world we grew up in and our own youth and maybe the hopes, ambitions, friends, family and life we had then have gone. I haven't actually seen an outpouring of grief more people expressing a collective feeling that they''ve been reminded that life is finite.

So no our lives haven't changed because of these celebrity deaths, but they remind us our lives have changed massively in the period since these celebrities were famous and I think that is why they have the impact they have - though I wouldn't want to overstate that impact to an extent it's just something to say much like talking about the weather.

There are actually something like 240,000 worldwide deaths a day, or 87,000,000 deaths a year. I find the reactions to these 'celebrity deaths' odd, because of how they seem to reflect the public appetite for 'celebrity', and how 'celebrity' is overwhelmingly due to mass media access, not (necessarily) skill or talent (see Princess Diana). There are millions of people doing amazing things who don't have the exposure. Sure, George Michael did actually have a talent, but the outpouring of grief is out of all proportion.

But, more than that, I find the idea of public grieving for someone whom you don't know a bit strange - I can't quite work out why, or quite what purpose it serves.

^^^ This

heavymental

I'm not sure why its so hard to understand the reasons people are sad and mourn artists or other celebrities like George Michael or Carrie Fisher. Apart from their obvious talent and their ability to entertain us, make us cry, give words to our own feelings or touch us with their art; countless memories are associated with their work. From dancing at school discos to Careless Whisper or sitting down to watch Carrie Fisher in many peoples first ever visit to the cinema... these people and their work are ever present in our lives. I've heard more words spoken by George Michael than by members of my own family and certainly felt more touched by his music than I have by conversations with many people I meet day to day.

Yes lot's of other people die and some of them have also done wonderful things but someone like Vera Rubin https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ed-aged-88 wasn't on the soundtrack to most people's lives and nor were the people of Aleppo of who I'm sure most right minded people feel desperately sad for.

From this article... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ic-meaning

Attacks on celebrity culture are now a staple of satirists, and there is a great deal to satirise and mock – but that is true of all money-making forms of religion. The relationships that people have with the celebrities who inhabit their imagination express profound longings, and help to fulfil them too. Otherwise they would not survive. Some might say that imaginary friends are cultivated at the expense of real ones, and that the contemplation of such things as George Michael’s astonishing acts of private generosity is no substitute for actually giving yourself to a food bank or visiting granny in her nursing home. But this is a counsel of perfection. We are not made to care equally for everyone – and as a matter of simple fact, we don’t.

We aren’t creatures of unlimited compassion, or of entirely rational calculation. However, the alternative to rational calculation is not sloppy emotion but imagination, which shapes emotion into drama. That is what the lives of celebrities provide, quite as much as their work, and that is part of why they are mourned. They collaborate with their audience to make engrossing worlds that neither party quite comprehends, but both know they need. Although this may be one of the things replacing traditional religion, it only works because it does not seem “religious”, moralistic, or cut off from the world around it. It sanctifies, or makes vivid and valuable, the ordinary things of life.

I'm also unsure why people want to just 'move on' and get on with life as if pausing to reflect on the passing of a great talent is somehow wasted time in your life. You know it's not a bad thing to do that rather than just marching, chest out and nose in the air, towards your own grave.

Anyway, I loved George Michael, I was worried that he's not survive much longer as he seemed to be teetering on the edge of disaster this last couple of years. A great shame that his voice is silenced. He had maybe the best voice in British music and was a fantastic songwriter and lyricist. Not to everyones tastes and it wasn't particularly cool to like him but he was an exceptional artist as anyone who knows their onions would agree.

orraloon

^ Well put.

ballysmate

For the life of me I can't understand how anyone can mourn people they didn't know, hadn't met or in some extreme cases, hadn't even heard of. Indeed, in one of these RIP threads I was taken to task for not empathising enough, mourning someone I had never heard of.
I accept that when a musician or actress dies, people may think back to particular events in their lives, memories that are triggered by particular songs. But public outpourings of grief like we see on TV and the extensive coverage of their deaths are beyond bizarre.
To me, are more fitting level of coverage would be at the end of the proper news as "And Finally... such and such as died of heart failure aged ..."
Another observation, would be that it seems that the level of coverage of their passing is linked to their celebrity status more than their talent.

Heavymental, did you seriously worry about George Michael's long term survival? I have to confess, I didn't, as I didn't know him. Perhaps you were better acquainted.

ballysmate

Thousands of people die on Xmas day. I wonder how many people have given them expensive gifts and when they hear the news of the demise on Xmas day, think, "Bugger!"

heavymental

Ballysmate wrote:

Heavymental, did you seriously worry about George Michael's long term survival? I have to confess, I didn't, as I didn't know him. Perhaps you were better acquainted.

I did worry yes, and explained in my post why I or anyone else would feel strongly for someone they admire. It's possible to feel empathy with someone you haven't actually met and find it bizarre that this point is made every time a celebrity dies. We know the story of these people and it's entirely human to attach emotions to them. Some people even shed a tear when an animated character such as Woody out of Toy Story gets left behind when his animated owner goes to college! Why would it be a surprise that a person could get upset about the passing of someone they have 'known' their whole life!?

Yes I do accept that the coverage can be a bit much if you didn't personally like his work but like it or not he was a cultural icon.

Pross

Ballysmate wrote:

For the life of me I can't understand how anyone can mourn people they didn't know, hadn't met or in some extreme cases, hadn't even heard of. Indeed, in one of these RIP threads I was taken to task for not empathising enough, mourning someone I had never heard of.
I accept that when a musician or actress dies, people may think back to particular events in their lives, memories that are triggered by particular songs. But public outpourings of grief like we see on TV and the extensive coverage of their deaths are beyond bizarre.
To me, are more fitting level of coverage would be at the end of the proper news as "And Finally... such and such as died of heart failure aged ..."
Another observation, would be that it seems that the level of coverage of their passing is linked to their celebrity status more than their talent.

Heavymental, did you seriously worry about George Michael's long term survival? I have to confess, I didn't, as I didn't know him. Perhaps you were better acquainted.

The most ludicrous ones I've seen in the '2016 takes another' style social media posts with crying emojis in the comments are the Watership Down author whose name I can't even remember and Liz Smith from the Royal Family - they were 96 and 95 respectively FFS, I doubt even their families were overly shocked. I can sort of understand people being upset when relatively young singers or actors die who will still active and you realise you won't see or hear anything new from them but a 96 year old author who most people only know because one of his books was made into a sad cartoon with a sad theme tune?

mrfpb

Pross wrote:

The most ludicrous ones I've seen in the '2016 takes another' style social media posts with crying emojis in the comments are the Watership Down author whose name I can't even remember and Liz Smith from the Royal Family - they were 96 and 95 respectively FFS, I doubt even their families were overly shocked. I can sort of understand people being upset when relatively young singers or actors die who will still active and you realise you won't see or hear anything new from them but a 96 year old author who most people only know because one of his books was made into a sad cartoon with a sad theme tune?

Hard to disagree with this, though one friend of mine had given her daughter the Watership Down novel for Christmas (it was one of her own favourites as a child). So she was understandably upset about his death.

With the likes of Bowie or Dickie attenborough (a few years ago) I wasn't so much greived as reminded of the body of work they produced, and appreciative, if a little sad that we wouldn't see more. With George Michael and Prince I felt a sense of frustration that as talented indivduals they had not given everything they had to give. They both seemed to have little confidence in their own work over the last twenty years and whether that was down to the hedonistic temptations of fame or just an inability to measure the worth of their own talent, it still makes me sad.

surrey_commuter

Heavymental wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Heavymental, did you seriously worry about George Michael's long term survival? I have to confess, I didn't, as I didn't know him. Perhaps you were better acquainted.

I did worry yes, and explained in my post why I or anyone else would feel strongly for someone they admire. It's possible to feel empathy with someone you haven't actually met and find it bizarre that this point is made every time a celebrity dies. We know the story of these people and it's entirely human to attach emotions to them. Some people even shed a tear when an animated character such as Woody out of Toy Story gets left behind when his animated owner goes to college! Why would it be a surprise that a person could get upset about the passing of someone they have 'known' their whole life!?

Yes I do accept that the coverage can be a bit much if you didn't personally like his work but like it or not he was a cultural icon.

You have done the best job of explaining public displays of grief, but the fact that you loved the guy suggests that you had a great deal more interaction with him than the average fan or man in the street.

I do find it strange but then again I was sad that Ali died

orraloon

BBC iPlayer is showing GM's concert at the Palais Garnier Paris recorded in 2012.

Put your feet up, pour yourself a drink, and appreciate a very good songwriter and performer doing what he does / did.

No outpouring of grief here, just a solemness that he is no more. As is the case for any great in his / her field.

heavymental

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You have done the best job of explaining public displays of grief, but the fact that you loved the guy suggests that you had a great deal more interaction with him than the average fan or man in the street.

I do find it strange but then again I was sad that Ali died

Ah well I didn't have any more interaction with him. I just liked his music that's all. Maybe love is a strong word but I had been thinking that he was on the road to disaster so I'm sad that he didn't prove me wrong by staying alive and making music into his old age. Same with Amy Winehouse actually, it was obvious to see she was heading in the wrong direction and it wasn't going to end well.

Shame about Ali for sure.