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.

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.

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?

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.

He is just too famous.

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.

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.

Prince was good 'n all.

But nothing compared to the phenomenon that was MJ.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 '

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.

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.