Michael Jackson - trick or treat?

[bettysyourauntie]

How do you feel when Michael Jackson’s music is played on the radio following the recent documentary where two individuals accused him of serious child abuse?

Though he was never convicted, the stories told in great detail were compelling. It’s hard to imagine these as fake. As far as I’m aware these individuals were not trying to blackmail his estate, and while they may have hoped for financial compensation (and got some?), the public exposure is high risk and an emotionally heavily price to pay.

Since, whenever I hear his music I have to turn off the radio or switch station. I can’t shake off these stories which may also apply to so many others suffered pain and trauma under his hands and his creepy ‘generosity’ freak show.

I love his music and still listen to it

Quite! I appreciate he had issues and had suffered abuse himself. But he admitted the above and it is not ok. I agree that there are double standards. If his music wasn't as good or he wasn't as big as a star I'm sure he would have been completely cancelled.

The recent Michael Jackson/Quincy Jones coverage following Jones' death highlights that the music is not the product of just one individual. To ban the music is to also penalise everyone else that made it possible - Thriller would not have been the album it was if not produced by Jones.

Elvis didn't . They were friends and didn't actively date until she was 16. Priscilla was also sent by her father to live at Graceland.

I do believe if he didn't go to trial and be proven innocent in that particular case the backlash probably would be much much harsher than it is today

Yes it puts me of listening to his music.I know his music is so much a part of many peoples youth mine included and it's very good, but I often think the same thing.
I suppose his music was also created by the likes of Quincy Jones and I suppose it's not all just his music.
I feel like this because I am working with children and how people worship celebrities, thinking now about this other allergation against Diddy.
How you need to be so careful who you trust with your kids.

Just think of all Micheal Jackson's strange behaviour the baby dangling from the balcony.
It was all there to see if you weren't blinded by his celebrity and talent.
I think when it all started coming out about Micheal Jackson , I do remember a bit of a back lash against his music.
I suppose there are a lot of people still making money from his music.Unfortunately it's all about money.

Compared to some of the other sexual predators mentioned in the thread, I believe Michael Jackson gets a degree of public leeway because at no point of his life did he have a normal or healthy upbringing. He was groomed and abused for his talent from an early age by those that should have been protecting him. Given a huge amount of fame and wealth, he shied away from the former when not performing and used the latter to try and create a fantasy childhood he never had. He didn't know how to "adult" off-stage.

His upbringing is irrelevant if he was a paedophile. He wasn't found guilty of any crime and it's impossible to cancel him regardless.

John Lennon was a domestic abuser but people still listen to the Beatles. Plenty of rock stars took advantage of very young fans such as Bowie but people still listen to him.

As someone pointed out up thread, people still watch Weinstein films. You'd have a very limited pool of entertainment if you cancelled every person with questionable morals.

Michael Jackson may or may not have molested young boys. At best he was an asexual with a mentally arrested personality that made him unable to relate to people his own age (because of his own exploitation from childhood) or he was a blatant pedophile.

What I find difficult to square is - those people who worked for MJ or made money off his work like agents and managers etc. even if they had such poor morals they didn't GAF about children being abused, surely on a purely self-serving basis they would have a vested interest in making sure MJ was not in a position where he could either a) act on his desires or b) be blackmailed/accused of inappropriate behaviour because of his weird interactions with these kids. After all, this is the one thing that's universally reviled and could significantly affect his earning power and legacy. Also, the parents of these children - did they have no concerns about their prepubescent sons having "sleepovers" with MJ? What was their belief at the time? Did they have no concerns? If not, why not? I'm not saying their agreement to their children being with MJ is proof they either believed it was innocent or they thought it was dodgy but the financial gains were worth the risk. It seems very odd.

I am also uncomfortable with people being accused of crimes (that are very difficult to prove) publicly and there being no criminal action taken. I used to think paying someone off in a civil case was a tacit admission of guilt, but apparently it is a pragmatic act in instances where blackmail and reputational damage is a risk.

As for anyone's music, film, art or writing - that is entirely separate to the individual. I don't think it should be erased - where does it stop? Accused of a heinous crime, no conviction - erased; hold a divisive opinion - erased?? If folk individually choose not to listen/read/watch or look at someone's work because they object to the artist as a person they can do that, but it shouldn't be forced onto the public.

It’s personal to everyone what they feel comfortable with. Art is art and I can separate it from the artist. I think Roman Polanski is a disgusting child-rapist but I also think Rosemary’s Baby is a wonderful film and would happily watch it. We’re human, that means we don’t always behave logically. I also love Ignition (Remix) by R Kelly because it was a huge part of my youth. That can’t be removed from my brain and emotions and feelings because the man singing it is a sex trafficking rapist child abuser.

I also find the Jim’ll Fix It theme tune catchy.

My sister snd her friend wrote to Jim'll Fix It to meet Gary Glitter!! 🤣🤣

I hope their wish was not granted? Lucky escape.

For starters I had no idea of this anecdotal fact. Anything Elon, I run a mile, in particular this kind of trash gossip. That's another weirdo, but on steroids

Elvis. Elvis Presley met his wife and started dating her when she was 14. He was in his 20s.

edited to add a TW warning on the link

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Hinest to God I don't understand how people still say he is innocent. Look at the raid done on his house. He was a vile abuser. I don't care if he was found not guilty. How many rapists walk around scot free?

@bettysyourauntie sorry I meant Elvia Presley - typo!

Elvis?!? Elvis?!? He was making music SEVENTY years ago. I couldn’t give a fluff about elvis- he was long dead before I was even born. I’ve never heard a song of his come on the radio or be associated with a holiday or anything in fact.

yes, If a male pop star married a child now I’d expect them to be “cancelled”. On what people thought was fine in the 1960s, I can’t say.

it has zero to do with MJ

This post from a few years ago is pretty eye-opening:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4403955-Grooming-by-Famous-Men

His music is not his crime. If you knew what a lot of celebrities get up to in their spare time, you would not be able to listen to or watch much of anything.

Was a huge fan growing up. Can't listen to him now. Guilty or not,his music is tainted for me now 😔

I've given this a lot of thought. It basically comes down to whether you can separate the art from the artist. I have decided i can. I was a MJ fan as a kid, his music evokes a lot of nostalgia for me. If you are someone who doesn't want to listen I respect that too. But then you need to have the courage of your convictions. If we discovered something sinister about Michaelangelo should the Sistine chapel be torn down? There are a million examples of course of how far this should be taken. Recently I was talking to a young person obsessed with tech who was lecturing me on why I should not read Harry Potter (my kid had a HP jumper on) because of his views on Rowling, incidentally i didnt share his views. I wanted to ask him if he would stop using all apple products if something was revealed about Steve Jobs. You can be sure he wouldn't because he enjoys the products too much. So I think it comes down to how much you value the art or product ultimately.

@AutumnLeaves1990 that's what happened to me and how I feel. Since the stories on the abuse came out, and the documentary (which I found believable) something completely changed.

@Dontlletmedownbruce I see your point too. How far one go is very personal. I think the fact that iMJ was such a big part of my life growing up is even more upsetting. Finding similar facts about famous figures from a distance past don't bear the same weight. The problem with MJ is that he is an icon of our generation meaning we can easily relate to and understand the context and social norms of which he violated. That is why it's hard to separate the art from the person and for me the abuse is written all over it. MJ music is played almost daily on the radio. As I said, I can't imagine the 'art' of Jimmy Savile or the great TV moments of Mr Edwards being celebrated on the media today. No one would dare. But maybe in 500 years, who knows?

Exactly that

@stargazerlil the music itself can not be a crime obviously, but this music is with us because a person, allegedly an horrific abuser, created it. Let's hope his abuse was not the source of inspiration for all these hits.

Yes