Michael Jackson on the radio

[fruitbastille]

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.

But he hasn't been found guilty of anything?

What wineandcheese said

FFS really???

What has he actually been found guilty of?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Weinstein films are still widely shown

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

What did Elvis do?

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.

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.