Talk

Advanced search

Michael Jackson on the radio

(52 Posts)
fruitbastille Sat 23-Mar-19 08:34:43

Aibu to be shocked to hear him played on radio 2 yesterday? They erased jimmy saville from the bbc so I presumed they'd do the same for Michael Jackson. I speak as someone who was a massive fan, but now every time I hear his songs I see those men and it's just so sad and awful.

wineandcheeseplease Sat 23-Mar-19 08:37:46

But he hasn't been found guilty of anything?

JuniperNarni Sat 23-Mar-19 08:38:25

What wineandcheese said

NameChangeNugget Sat 23-Mar-19 08:41:04

FFS really??? biscuit

What has he actually been found guilty of?

Aspieteach Sat 23-Mar-19 08:42:38

I haven't seen the documentary yet, but was listening to someone (possibly the producer) talking about it on The Media Show on Radio 4. He was very convincing and from what I understand the evidence against Michael Jackson is pretty compelling.

However, MJ is now dead and I think there are only 2 victims who have come forward. Nothing has been proved in a court of law and MJ's family are denying the claims. I can understand why his music is still played even though it seems distasteful.

JS is a different case due to the huge numbers of people who came forward to either say that they'd been abused or to admit that they were aware of his crimes.

marvellousnightforamooncup Sat 23-Mar-19 08:44:00

He hasn't been found guilty of anything but he's now hugely controversial and I think you have to be a particular kind of blinkered not to believe those men. I love his music and I'm really sad it came to this. I can't now hear his songs without feeling a bit sick and I would think it might be triggering for some people.

EssentialHummus Sat 23-Mar-19 08:44:35

Leaving aside his guilt, I think it’s more useful to acknowledge that someone can be a total monster and still produce great creative work. Obviously if people don’t want to listen to him stations won’t play his music, but I don’t agree with banning in these circumstances.

FunkyKingston Sat 23-Mar-19 08:51:13

Neither was Jimmy Saville, but there's evidence both were prolific abusers of children. There's a degree of hypocrisy and willful blindness about how we treat artists who are appalling human beings and I'm as guilty of that as anyone else. For example, Phil Spector 's christmas album is one of my favourite records and it will be all over the radio forever more despite him murdering a woman and a long history of gun related violence.

PlainSpeakingStraightTalking Sat 23-Mar-19 08:54:38

But he hasn't been found guilty of anything

Neither was Jimmy Savill

And we still have to listen to Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis, and Frank Sinatra was always a bit hmm

ZandathePanda Sat 23-Mar-19 08:54:43

It was on Fleur East’s playlist. She was gushing about what an inspiration he was to her and so many others and how you can hear his influence in so many people’s music. Ken Bruce and her did not mention the documentary and it felt like Ken was trying to avoid the huge elephant in the room. I turned over to Radio 1 when ‘Can’t stop til you get enough’ came on.

Lockheart Sat 23-Mar-19 08:56:03

He's widely acknowledged as one of the greatest artists of the 20th century, if not all time (although individual opinion will vary) and has been a very large influence on modern music and culture.

It also seems very likely that he was also an abuser.

How do we reconcile the two? There will still be many people who love his music, and his influence on our culture cannot be undone - we can't make it as though he never existed. Do we separate the art from the person? Or do we censure everything he ever did? How about if it was made when he was young and (presumably) innocent, i.e. the music when he was a child in the Jackson 5?

It's an interesting question which doesn't have an easy answer. I don't think the radio is BU to play his music, but neither are you BU to not want to hear it.

FIFIBEBE Sat 23-Mar-19 08:58:56

I heard that and assumed the actual music wouldn't be played as perhaps the whole thing was recorded a while ago. It did seem odd that KB said nothing. I'm not 100% sure of the BBC position.

FunkyKingston Sat 23-Mar-19 09:06:45

It's an interesting question which doesn't have an easy answer.

It is interesting that when in rhe late 90s/early 2000s both Gary Glitter and Pete Townshend both downloaded child pornography and whilst Gary Glitter was almost instantly erased from compilation albums, radio playlists etc. Pete Townshend's career has been largely unaffected and he's widely lauded as an icon and industry legend.

I'm not saying either approach is right or wrong, but it seems the distinction is artistic rather thsn moral, Glitter's music is deemed to have less artistic worth so it is possible to erase him in wouldn't be possible to do with The Who.

CherryPavlova Sat 23-Mar-19 09:09:41

He’s music remains far superior to his reputation. It’s very good. Why would you not listen to it? He has not and cannot ever be found guilty of any criminal activity.

MinniesAndMickeysNeedCounting Sat 23-Mar-19 09:10:09

I heard that and wondered if it had been pre-recorded because I heard somewhere that Michael Jackson's music had been removed from the BBC playlists, maybe it didnt apply as it was in tracks of your years but Ken did sound uncomfortable so on reflection probably not a pre record.

It was odd, people may still like his music, if they can separate the two aspects but she was gushing over him.

Flicketyflack Sat 23-Mar-19 09:11:31

Weinstein films are still widely shown sad

Lockheart Sat 23-Mar-19 09:12:28

Exactly @FunkyKingston. If someone has produced something "important" or significant, who later turns out to be a complete bastard, does that render the significance of their previous work null?

For the Glitter example, I can only think of one song he did which was the Christmas one - so for me it's easy enough to not bring him up. And I doubt he's know outside of the UK. But even though I'm not an MJ fan, I still recognise a lot of his songs when they come up on a Spotify playlist. His influence was much more global and pervasive.

StillCoughingandLaughing Sat 23-Mar-19 09:13:14

It is interesting that when in rhe late 90s/early 2000s both Gary Glitter and Pete Townshend both downloaded child pornography and whilst Gary Glitter was almost instantly erased from compilation albums, radio playlists etc. Pete Townshend's career has been largely unaffected and he's widely lauded as an icon and industry legend.

Townshend was only ever cautioned, and maintains he downloaded the imagery to demonstrate and draw attention to the ease of doing so. Gary Glitter has more than one conviction for abuse of individuals.

recrudescence Sat 23-Mar-19 09:14:49

I don’t really care if radio stations do or don’t play Michael Jackson, or if people do or don’t listen but let’s not pretend he wasn’t a child abuser.

JellyBeanScene Sat 23-Mar-19 09:15:20

Re Gary Glitter. Rock and Roll Part 2 used to be huge with American Sports teams. Many major teams used it. I wonder if that's changed?

Gone2far Sat 23-Mar-19 09:15:27

So you can't look at Carravagio (murderer) paintings, or Eric Gill (incest and paedophilia) engravings either. And the product of any other artist outside of our moral compass?
Your loss.
Imo most artists are/were unbalanced.

StealthPolarBear Sat 23-Mar-19 09:16:45

Yes neither has Saville. Are the "ffs" posters on this thread equally open to his innocence

Meandmetoo Sat 23-Mar-19 09:24:07

I still love his music and still have my CDs in the car and can separate that appreciation from the accusations.

stopitandtidyupp Sat 23-Mar-19 09:26:21

What did Elvis do?

FunkyKingston Sat 23-Mar-19 09:38:03

Townshend was only ever cautioned, and maintains he downloaded the imagery to demonstrate and draw attention to the ease of doing so.

Well he would say that wouldn't he?

Gary Glitter was removed from playlists etc after his first convution for downloading images of child abuse years befire his arrests in Thailand and Cambodia.

I'm not saying that one approach is wrong and the right, but record labels, radio stations etc. seem to have a fairly wavy moral line.

thetwinkletoescollective Sat 23-Mar-19 09:48:20

You cannot separate the artist from his (or her) creation. It is an expression from their heart, mind, hands. I for one will never listen to him willingly. Despite how talented, how connected to growing up it is, how much I like it...I can not listen to it and ‘forget’ what a monster he was. He was a deliberately manipulative person who used his money and postion to remain above the law.

FunkyKingston Sat 23-Mar-19 10:06:13

So you can't look at Carravagio (murderer) paintings, or Eric Gill (incest and paedophilia) engravings either. And the product of any other artist outside of our moral compass?
Your loss.
Imo most artists are/were unbalanced.

I genuinely don't know what to think about this topic.

I suppose a difference might be and to a certain extent I'm playing devil's advocate here, is that the Michael Jackson's records, (which I bought during his lifetime so as guilty as anyone) and money from radio plays and gigs across the world actively helped facilitate child abuse during his lifetime. If he'd been Mick Jackson who worked in a bank he'd have still been a child abuser, but his fame and fortune fascilitated abuse on a far wider scale.

Samcro Sat 23-Mar-19 10:09:26

i am not a fan. But where do we stop? do we remove all music, films, art, and so on that has links to dodgy people?
or do we let people decide themselves?

FunkyKingston Sat 23-Mar-19 10:22:41

You cannot separate the artist from his (or her) creation

Is this true though?

For example the success 'Off the off Wall' album was as much to do with Quincy Jones (producer) and Rod Temperton (songwriter) who aren't child abusers.

Likewise if it was subsequently discovered that an obscure session musician who played on your favourite song had done something appalling like abused children or an actor who played a bit part in a film or was part of the technical team subsequently murdered someone?

I don't have an answers to any of the above and it something that defies yes or no answers.

Meandwinealone Sat 23-Mar-19 10:23:08

He is just too famous.

YemenRoadYemen Sat 23-Mar-19 10:26:22

CLEARLY he is guilty of what's he's been accused of.

Likewise, he was a once-in-a-generation phenomenon. His music was incredible. It's just not going to go away that easily.

There hasn't been anyone like him, since him.

It doesn't excuse what he did for a second.

FunkyKingston Sat 23-Mar-19 10:39:49

Likewise, he was a once-in-a-generation phenomenon. His music was incredible. It's just not going to go away that easily.

Great dancer, great falsetto, stratospheric record sales, but after Thriller, it was pretty ropey. I aldo think 'oh but he's a special talent' for his continued presence on the airwaves doesn't hold up, given he was born the same year as Prince, you'd struggle to make a case he was the most important or talented African American musician born in 1958, let alone a once in a generation figure.

YemenRoadYemen Sat 23-Mar-19 10:41:10

confused

Prince was good 'n all.

But nothing compared to the phenomenon that was MJ.

ALannisterInDebt Sat 23-Mar-19 10:46:17

I heard him on the radio in the car the other day and changed the channel....I just don't want to listen to a paedophile while I'm driving.....I'll never be able to enjoy his music again.

The radio stations can play his music if they like....we choose whether we tune in or not.

fruitbastille Sat 23-Mar-19 10:48:53

What did Elvis do?

Didn't he rape his wife? Of course it's hard to find a popstar who hasn't done something dodgy. Didn't David Bowie sleep with a 14yr old? He is beloved isn't he.

But the absolute scale of Michael Jackson's abuse, the fact Neverland was basically a way to entice his victims in, it's horrific.

Alsohuman Sat 23-Mar-19 10:55:16

I’m firmly in the separate the art from the artist camp. Nothing can undo whatever crime an artist committed. Airbrushing them out by not listening to or looking at their creations seems a bit Stalinist to me.

Lovestonap Sat 23-Mar-19 11:08:06

I think maybe it needs to be a personal choice. If you still derive pleasure from his music (or art, engravings etc) then that does not reflect badly on you and you should enjoy that pleasure. For me the pleasure has ended because now his music will be linked in my mind to that documentary, and so when I hear him I will be reminded of child abuse. So I will not choose his songs and possibly turn over a radio station.

I don't think this would be me making a point, just consulting my own preferences.

Probably not in the best taste for radio2 to platform his music right now, but if he was a huge influence on a current artist then they shouldn't have to deny or lie about it. Acknowledging the current controversy would have been appropriate I would have thought though.

PregnantSea Sat 23-Mar-19 15:17:37

Never found guilty. As obvious as his crimes may appear to be to some, he was never convicted of anything and you can't just start removing some of the most famous music in history from mainstream media because of people's hunches (however accurate they may be...)

Limensoda Sat 23-Mar-19 15:44:33

I didn't believe he abused those boys. I thought he was just someone who had no childhood and was childlike.
I heard people talking about the documentary and still thought those two young men were just after money.
Then I watched it and changed my mind. I don't think MJ believed he had harmed anyone especially as the boys loved him and spent time with him willingly but their accounts of what happened was totally believable.
I don't think it's easy for any of us who have not experienced what they did, to understand.
He was an abuser.
I will still listen to his music because an abuser isn't all he was.

Helendee Sat 23-Mar-19 16:12:35

Sinatra was never a child abuser, he was a gangster wannabe maybe but he loved children and raised millions of dollars for kids over the years.

OakFramer Sat 23-Mar-19 16:14:04

But he hasn't been found guilty of anything?

Neither was Savile, he was also dead so the 'Wah wah he is dead so can't defend himself' is bollocks too.

He shouldn't be played on the radio. He was a sick, twisted nonce.

I don't know how anyone can listen to his music without feeling sick to the core that they are listening to a child abuser.

PolarBearDisguisedAsAPenguin Sat 23-Mar-19 16:18:17

Where do you draw the line at what actions mean it is acceptable to allow your records to still be played and what isn’t? So so many singers have criminal records or have admitted criminal offences for a wide ranging variety of things.

MissEliza Sat 23-Mar-19 16:32:06

I can't hear his songs without feeling a bit sick
^This

Crappygilmore Sat 23-Mar-19 16:36:39

I just turn the radio over. I have a history of sexual abuse and from a young age I found him to be weird like my attacker. Not suprised in the least when he was first accused and same goes for paying off his victims. You have that amount of money you can do anything. He was and will always be a nonce.

SweetbutaPsycho Sat 23-Mar-19 16:49:37

Him being a paedophile has nothing to do with his music. He is still one of the most successful pop icons in the world and his sorded personal life doesnt deter the love for his music.

practicalmagick Sat 23-Mar-19 16:50:38

Where do you draw the line?

Here's where to draw a line. Michael Jackson's songs are about sex ("I want to rock with you all night"; "Touch me and I feel on fire" etc etc). Some of them are about power and dominance (Smooth Criminal, Thriller...) How can you enjoy his voice singing those words when you now know exactly what sex meant to him and how he used it to abuse people? What do you think is the message of those songs?

It's one of the reasons people's arguments that MJ had "the mind of a child" make no sense. How could the mind of a child perform those songs about sex and power and violence so well?

That's one line you can draw. Another is that playing his music on the radio means that payments are made to his estate, which is using the money earned on legal fees and promotion to attempt to silence the people making abuse claims against MJ. It actively contributes to his victims not being able to speak out. That's why this case is different from looking at Caravaggio paintings or whatever.

OakFramer Sat 23-Mar-19 16:54:57

Him being a paedophile has nothing to do with his music. He is still one of the most successful pop icons in the world and his sorded personal life doesnt deter the love for his music.

Wow. He made the music, he was an abuser. He said himself that his music was from his spiritual soul. His soul was a twisted place, so it has everything to do with his music.

IndigoSpritz Sat 23-Mar-19 16:58:52

In fairness, MJ didn't write Rock With You. It was Rod Temperton, who also wrote Thriller.

Paul Gambaccini played Got To Be There on R2 this afternoon.

walchesterweasel Sat 23-Mar-19 17:00:03

I was just going to put what practicalmagick said , playing the songs generates revenue, there is a reason not to listen.
I heard Fleur East gushing about MJ on the radio, it was weird, I think she said he 'pushed boundaries '

Meandmetoo Sat 23-Mar-19 17:01:12

I can still enjoy it as some of my favourite music because I have separated it from the accusations/evidence but I get people can't or won't and that's obviously fine.

I was abused, and his music was really prominent around the time, and for lots of reasons his music takes me back to some really happy times that have now pretty much almost overwritten the bad.

But as I say I do understand others feelings round this. I actually think radio station s will just slowly reduce the number of his songs they play even more.

MonteStory Sat 23-Mar-19 17:06:36

To me the difference is that radio play=profit. It’s perfectly possible, and indeed important, to talk about Jackson’s impact on modern music and artists but his family should not be allowed to profit.

I believe his family are very much culpable as I’m not convinced they really thought he was innocent. No effort seems to have been made to stop him from deliberately befriending pubescent boys.

PositiveVibez Sat 23-Mar-19 19:36:10

Prince was good 'n all

But nothing compared to the phenomenon that was MJ

Subjective of course, but Prince was a FAR superior musician and performer than MJ.

I can't separate the artist from the art. Would not watch a polanski movie. Would not go to an exhibition of the depraved Gill and will change station when MJ comes on.

Of course this is all personal taste.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »