Michael Jackson

[Worthy Nigelton 1,057]

So there is a new MJ show in the West End proving popular with his legions of fans.

However, what about his alleged crimes? Whilst not being one for cancel culture generally, child abuse is surely a big enough evil that the perpetrator should 100% be cancelled. Why has this not happened to MJ?

I'm an enormous fan of his music (like most people) but his songs make me feel uncomfortable now. How do others feel about this? Does anyone honestly believe he's innocent still? Would you have left your children with him unattended? Why has he not been cancelled?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,752]

Probably beacause he was acquitted on all counts of rape and or pedophilia in a court of law in 2005.

Then again it's a fact he's slept in a bed with many young boys.

It's a fact that Michaels closet contained photograpshs of naked young and teenage boys.

It's a fact that one of the many young boys who slept in his bed with him was able to draw a picture of Michaels penis that had marking on it which he showed to the police and it was later proved via a police medical examination that those markings did match those on Michaels penis.

 And lastly it's also a fact that Michael in that famous interview with Bashir held hands with a young boy and talked about how he thought there was nothing wrong with "loving" a young boy.

Make of these facts what you will.

Edited April 2 by cambridgeshire canary

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

I think it's possible to accept that the man may be very deeply flawed but make good or at least popular music. Knut Hamsun may be one of Norway's best ever authors after Ibsen, but he was one heck of a Quisling sympathiser and to say the Norwegians are bloody ambivalent at best is putting it mildly.

Hitler's little helper | Knut Hamsun | The Guardian

Heck, there were rumours a-plenty about Lewis Carroll, but he probably still ranks as a children's author of the first rank here too.

[If wed kept Howie.. 208]

ehhhh-hhh -  it's because he had money - chamone

Edited April 2 by If wed kept Howie..

[If wed kept Howie.. 208]

this is how i imagine a Wagner half-time talk would also sound:

 

[king canary 7,623]

46 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I think it's possible to accept that the man may be very deeply flawed but make good or at least popular music. Knut Hamsun may be one of Norway's best ever authors after Ibsen, but he was one heck of a Quisling sympathiser and to say the Norwegians are bloody ambivalent at best is putting it mildly.

Hitler's little helper | Knut Hamsun | The Guardian

Heck, there were rumours a-plenty about Lewis Carroll, but he probably still ranks as a children's author of the first rank here too.

Yeah but nobody is making a stage musical about the life of Lewis Carroll that completely ignores those accusations.

I don't think anyone is saying MJ's music should be forgotten but making a hagiography about him is somewhat questionable. 

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

29 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah but nobody is making a stage musical about the life of Lewis Carroll that completely ignores those accusations.

I don't think anyone is saying MJ's music should be forgotten but making a hagiography about him is somewhat questionable. 

To be fair I was mainly answering the question of whether the music makes people uncomfortable even now. But in this case I don't see a problem - Jackson's hardly going to benefit from it as he's snuffed it so it's not as if he's gaining anything from his notoriety. It doesn't alter the fact that he was a bloody popular musician and I'm sure people would want to remember the good stuff he did.

Frankly, as long as his misdeeds are noted, I don't remotely see an issue with this.

[Naturalcynic 641]

31 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

To be fair I was mainly answering the question of whether the music makes people uncomfortable even now. But in this case I don't see a problem - Jackson's hardly going to benefit from it as he's snuffed it so it's not as if he's gaining anything from his notoriety. It doesn't alter the fact that he was a bloody popular musician and I'm sure people would want to remember the good stuff he did.

Frankly, as long as his misdeeds are noted, I don't remotely see an issue with this.

Do you advocate the same approach with Gary Glitter’s music?

[Herman 9,793]

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

What about if the electrician who worked on your house when it was constructed was a serial killer in his spare time? Would anyone feel uncomfortable when they turned on the lights or any electrical appliance in their house?

[sonyc 5,539]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What about if the electrician who worked on your house when it was constructed was a serial killer in his spare time? Would anyone feel uncomfortable when they turned on the lights or any electrical appliance in their house?

As long as he wasn't colour blind then no.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,752]

20 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Do you advocate the same approach with Gary Glitter’s music?

All I'm saying is that did nobody ever find it strange Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile were good friends? No?

[Barbe bleu 829]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What about if the electrician who worked on your house when it was constructed was a serial killer in his spare time? Would anyone feel uncomfortable when they turned on the lights or any electrical appliance in their house?

I'd feel uncomfortable if they turned out the lights. More so given that my house is from the 1920s and the electrician really shouldn't be there anymore.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

17 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'd feel uncomfortable if they turned out the lights. More so given that my house is from the 1920s and the electrician really shouldn't be there anymore.

I do wish people would stop dismissing serious points with stupid jokes, or at least follow it up with a serious response: Michael Jackson's not around anymore either, but people still debate whether his music should be accepted for what it is because of questions about what he did. .

Point I'm making is someone's work has nothing to do with who they are or their character flaws. We can do that with more mundane professions, so why shouldn't that be the case with artists?

Michael Jackson made great music; there's no reason to feel guilty about appreciating his music, regardless of what he may or may not have done outside of his work. By extension, it shouldn't make a difference if they're alive or dead.

Maybe another example that you might be more prepared to take seriously: Should JK Rowling's views on the acceptance of self-definition on gender affect Harry Potter's standing in the literary world.

Edited April 2 by littleyellowbirdie

[Worthy Nigelton 1,057]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I guess that's a joke, but I'm being serious: Michael Jackson's not around anymore either.

Point I'm making is someone's work has nothing to do with who they are or their character flaws. Michael Jackson made great music; there's no reason to feel guilty about appreciating his music, regardless of what he may or may not have done outside of his work. By extension, it shouldn't make a difference if they're alive or dead.

Maybe another example that you might be more prepared to take seriously: Should JK Rowling's views on the acceptance of self-definition on gender affect Harry Potter's standing in the literary world.

JK Rowling's trans stance and sexually abusing children are not the same thing... 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,057]

Just now, Worthy Nigelton said:

JK Rowling's trans stance and sexually abusing children are not the same thing... 

I can't believe I had to put that.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

6 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

JK Rowling's trans stance and sexually abusing children are not the same thing... 

I completely agree. But they're both things where artists are being judged personally, and in both cases it's impacting how their art is judged by some people. In my opinion art of any sort stands independently from its creator. They're connected with it, but the art doesn't define who they are/were and who they are/were doesn't define the art.

Edited April 2 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

2 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

I can't believe I had to put that.

You didn't have to put it; I wasn't arguing that they were 'the same thing'.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,057]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

I completely agree. But they're both things where artists are being judged personally, and in both cases it's impacting how their art is judged. In my opinion art of any sort stands independent of who the creator was.

As art yes I agree - his songs aren't suddenly crap coz he's a wrong un. It's a question of morally whether they should be sold anymore, profits should be made from them and a sexual abuser should be promoted/celebrated. Personally, I don't think they should be played anymore (as much as I think he was a great artist).

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

9 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

As art yes I agree - his songs aren't suddenly crap coz he's a wrong un. It's a question of morally whether they should be sold anymore, profits should be made from them and a sexual abuser should be promoted/celebrated. Personally, I don't think they should be played anymore (as much as I think he was a great artist).

Morally, I think there's a strong argument for making all artistic works public domain in the intellectual property after the death of the artist. Why should Elvis Presley's estate benefit financially from recreation of his work after his death? Those benefitting from it financially didn't contribute to it.

The flip side is, given that we do have a system where it's accepted that people can assume the rights for the music, as with the music of Elvis Presley to name a really famous example, why should the rightful owners of the rights to Michael Jackson's music be punished for alleged crimes that weren't theirs? Then again, Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatle's music. Does Michael Jackson's estate still own it? His estate profits from the music of the Beatles, so should we stop listening to the Beatles?

Edited April 2 by littleyellowbirdie

[Worthy Nigelton 1,057]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Morally, I think there's a strong argument for making all artistic works public domain in the intellectual property after the death of the artist. Why should Elvis Presley's estate benefit financially from recreation of his work after his death? Those benefitting from it financially didn't contribute to it.

The flip side is, given that we do have a system where it's accepted that people can assume the rights for the music, as with the music of Elvis Presley to name a really famous example.  Why should the owners of the rights to Michael Jackson's music be punished for crimes that weren't theirs? Then again, Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatle's music. Does Michael Jackson's estate still own it? His estate profits from the music of the Beatles, so should we stop listening to the Beatles?

Good points and it is a complex question I agree. I guess the point is we wouldn't want Gary Glitter on the radio nowadays, why is MJ different? Is it coz he's dead?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

5 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Good points and it is a complex question I agree. I guess the point is we wouldn't want Gary Glitter on the radio nowadays, why is MJ different? Is it coz he's dead?

That's a really good question. I definitely can't answer it because I didn't like Gary Glitter's music anyway, so couldn't care less if I never heard it again.

Edited April 2 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,539]

48 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I do wish people would stop dismissing serious points with stupid jokes, or at least follow it up with a serious response: Michael Jackson's not around anymore either, but people still debate whether his music should be accepted for what it is because of questions about what he did. .

Point I'm making is someone's work has nothing to do with who they are or their character flaws. We can do that with more mundane professions, so why shouldn't that be the case with artists?

Michael Jackson made great music; there's no reason to feel guilty about appreciating his music, regardless of what he may or may not have done outside of his work. By extension, it shouldn't make a difference if they're alive or dead.

Maybe another example that you might be more prepared to take seriously: Should JK Rowling's views on the acceptance of self-definition on gender affect Harry Potter's standing in the literary world.

Sorry LYB. The joke was just waiting to be made. And I did agree with your take.

I've always treated people with openness and suspend belief. I used to have to do that in my days as a therapist - otherwise my own opinions and feelings would get in the way and I could never have been neutral. Likewise when I meet anyone now. I am just friendly as ever and I've met many a dodgy character, outside of work whom I've known from others have done bad things (like beat people up etc) but in the moment I don't judge. What I think privately stays private. 

The best people to probably judge I would say however are people who've experienced abuse. Not me as a Pink Un poster. That's why I rarely post on some subjects. I have a view but actually it's far less important than the people being affected (e.g. in the various wars going on). 

Anyway, there you hopefully can now appreciate my apology. And maybe you could just see my response in the lightest way it was intended. When we can't make a joke it is a sad place (and tomorrow marks 20 years of me being on this forum I've just seen....a reminder to myself that you and one or two others might well think that's enough time😊).

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Do you advocate the same approach with Gary Glitter’s music?

I think "Rock and Roll" is still used in American sports stadia.  I  guess they either don't know or don't care?

As a young boy in the early 70's, Gary Glitter was my first musical love. I had all his singles. It's difficult to even think of listening to him now 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

For those interested, The Guardian ran this article yesterday 

[king canary 7,623]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I do wish people would stop dismissing serious points with stupid jokes, or at least follow it up with a serious response: Michael Jackson's not around anymore either, but people still debate whether his music should be accepted for what it is because of questions about what he did. .

Point I'm making is someone's work has nothing to do with who they are or their character flaws. We can do that with more mundane professions, so why shouldn't that be the case with artists?

Michael Jackson made great music; there's no reason to feel guilty about appreciating his music, regardless of what he may or may not have done outside of his work. By extension, it shouldn't make a difference if they're alive or dead.

Maybe another example that you might be more prepared to take seriously: Should JK Rowling's views on the acceptance of self-definition on gender affect Harry Potter's standing in the literary world.

Ok but everyone seems to be ignoring the fact they are now making a musical about his life which completely ignores the many accusations against him.

Personally that is what I have a bit of an issue with.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

41 minutes ago, king canary said:

Ok but everyone seems to be ignoring the fact they are now making a musical about his life which completely ignores the many accusations against him.

Personally that is what I have a bit of an issue with.

This is the entire problem with that particular genre of biographical drama. Personally, I'm against a lot of the treatment of historical stuff in drama because it takes a lot of liberties in both directions. A screenwriter has no historical information about something so they invent a scene depicting conversations that there's no evidence happened, but many people will simply believe is fact because they saw it in a biographical drama. There's a lot of scope to almost completely reinvent history. The Crown's a great example of that. Also Oppenhemier, Vice, although I liked the way Vice was completely upfront about the stuff it was imagining.

On the other hand, we're talking about stuff that's allegations, so I suppose if screenwriters have the right to invent stuff that there's no evidence to show happened regarding historical figures, they also have the right to ignore the stuff that may or may not have happened that they're just not interested in. There's nothing stopping a screenwriter coming along and making a drama about the alleged abuse if they want to at a later date.

[Midlands Yellow 4,012]

A good moon walker though. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

9 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

A good moon walker though. 

Looking like he's walking forwards while actually going backwards. Modern politics as interpretive dance?

[Barbe bleu 829]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I do wish people would stop dismissing serious points with stupid jokes, or at least follow it up with a serious response: Michael Jackson's not around anymore either, but people still debate whether his music should be accepted for what it is because of questions about what he did. .

Point I'm making is someone's work has nothing to do with who they are or their character flaws. 

I dont really have a problem playing music of someone with a dark reputation, or watching a film where the star or director has done something we now disapprove of. 

I'd draw the line if by doing that i was glorifying them or, especially, their actions. I'd probably also draw the line if that meant they got royalties.  Other than that I can easily separate the art from the artist so to speak.

 

Edited April 2 by Barbe bleu