I’ve avoided writing this post for some time, but don’t see any reason to put it off any longer.
In my past several years of Rufus Wainwright enthusiasm, I’ve spoken to a lot of people about my project, as well as asking for their thoughts about Rufus. Let me share some of the more challenging remarks:
“It’s always about Rufus. Anything that will further Rufus’s career will ALWAYS come first.”
“Yeah, nice music: too bad he’s such a jerk.”
“I can’t stand him, he’s so full of himself.”
“XXX won’t work with him anymore because he was always drunk or always stoned.”
“Why does everything he writes sound so depressing?”
“I found his behavior and stage presence at the Hollywood Bowl despicable and unprofessional.”
After comments like these, and there are more, I jump in to his defense and say “yeah but…”
Yeah, but it keeps happening again and again. I have felt obliged to do a certain amount of damage control for Rufus, perhaps in hopes of shining up or glossing over certain things in this career. But thank God, I’ve realized it’s not my problem.
I’ve ultimately decided to separate the creator from the creation. Mussorgsky was supposed to not have been such a nice fellow, actually an obnoxious drunk, but I love his music. Jews will always have to come to terms with Wagner and the issue of separating the creator from the creation. Jackson Pollock was difficult at best as a friend.
I have fallen into the trap that so many do, and that is the notion that because someone is famous or somewhat famous, they are wise, or intelligent, or worth listening to. Think of unscripted movie stars, famous sports figures, rock idols: the media is flush with interviews with these people, and why the hell do we care what they have to say? All we really want to see is them acting, or playing basketball, or performing in their band.
So, now I’m clear: I don’t have to defend anything Rufus has done or said, he’s a big boy and can handle himself. My job is to try to interest people in listening to his music by writing intelligently about it, and use whatever analytic tools that seem appropriate. There are times when it is important to discuss events in a composer’s life to explain musical issues and elements, but besides that, my book is not a biography. Even so, despite my desire to separate the creator from the creation, I can’t. What I can do, is to be dispassionate about it. Buddhists would likely encourage me to strive for a state of non-attachment.
Non-attachment.
Sounds good to me.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
A lot of writers are terribly unpleasant as well by all accounts. Fortunately for them people have less cause to experience, or even learn of, their unpleasantness. I think part of it might be that some of these people are incredibly creative but also incredibly focused on themselves and maybe that’s where some of their creativity stems from.
At the same time, nice as the idea of separating the creator from the creation is, if I were to learn that Rufus say, tortured kittens and kicked puppies, I really can’t see myself continuing to buy his music.
Yes Meg, I agree with you: Rufus IS a good boy. I still love his music. But my own breakthrough is that I can love his music and not worry about things he says or things people say about him. I’m a bit slow, but I get it eventually.
Some of the worst scoundrels and hypocrites I have ever known were colleagues in the ministry. But from the standpoint of what they accomplished and how well they did it, damn they were good!
Still, they leave a sour taste in my mouth.
Rufus has an ego? Someone should have told me. I should never have bought/listened/enjoyed every song wrote. I vote for Bourland!
Ps. Do the book. Online books ain’t the real thing.
I’m doing the book! I’m doing the book. Yeah yeah, with paper.
On the other hand, there is no law of life that requires incredibly creative people to be obnoxious and and obnoxiously self-centered. I think there have been many great artists who are kind, generous, and thoughtful people, and beloved by their friends. I honestly don’t think there is any direct correlation between creativity and neurosis, or creativity and mental/physical illness, an idea which 19th century mythology successfully promoted to the extent that we still have trouble shaking it now in the 21st century.
To me, it boils down to this: having a gift *never* excuses bad behavior. I say it’s high time we got rid of the “tempermental artist” model of the creative person.
And I still love Rufus’s music!
-Mark Carlson
Right on Mark, I agree!
You must log in to post a comment.