Michael Jackson acquitted of all charges...

Frederik Magle

Administrator
Staff member
ADMINISTRATOR
Regulator
Well, it looks like the mosty talked about case in recent years has come to an end. A happy end for Michael Jackson but quite uhappy for the prosecutors.

I haven't really followed the case in detail, but it's been hard not to know what was going on because of the enormous media coverage. Anyhow, personally I'm satisfied with the verdict. Is Michael Jackson eccentric? Yes (but that's not a crime). Is it wrong for a grown man to sleep with little boys: In my opinion definitely yes! (but still not a crime if it's just "sleeping"). Was he guilty of the charges brought up?: I strongly doubted it, and it seems the jury did as well.

So congrats to Michael Jackson. Now I hope for him that this second chance in his life can turn back on his musical spark.

Michael Jackson arrives for verdict:
 

Alex Tiuniaev

New member
Agree completely. MJ, in my opinion, is the greatest pop artist. With a unique style of his, really great songs and never-ending originality. I think that people just wanted to take his money as he's got plenty of it. Plus fame, of course. If your name sounds next to MJ, you suddenly become very famous.

Anyway, glad that it's over. I'd join in the congrats!!
 

ApeXX

Banned
Well, it looks like the mosty talked about case in recent years has come to an end. A happy end for Michael Jackson but quite uhappy for the prosecutors.

I haven't really followed the case in detail, but it's been hard not to know what was going on because of the enormous media coverage. Anyhow, personally I'm satisfied with the verdict. Is Michael Jackson eccentric? Yes (but that's not a crime). Is it wrong for a grown man to sleep with little boys: In my opinion definitely yes! (but still not a crime if it's just "sleeping"). Was he guilty of the charges brought up?: I strongly doubted it, and it seems the jury did as well.

So congrats to Michael Jackson. Now I hope for him that this second chance in his life can turn back on his musical spark.

Michael Jackson arrives for verdict:


Doesn't it make you wonder if he was really just "sleeping" with the child? And does anyone else think that although it is not a crime, "sleeping" with a young child (who is a complete stranger) is slightly odd?

I trust the jury's judgement however, and will hold my tongue until there is undeniable evidence.
 

amira

New member
I also think the mMJ is one of the best entertainers in the world When I saw him and Usher dance together, Usher was no match for him.. He's really awesome as an entertainer.. as a person... umm...
 

ApeXX

Banned
I also think the mMJ is one of the best entertainers in the world When I saw him and Usher dance together, Usher was no match for him.. He's really awesome as an entertainer.. as a person... umm...

I agree 100% that he was (past tense) an awesome entertainer, however he threw his life away doing idiotic things. And I'm not even talking about the possibility that he slept with an underage boy. Look at the time when he held his baby out of his hotel window. Intelligent thing to do?
 

amira

New member
I just wish he can make a big come back album just to prove that he's still the king of pop.
 

ApeXX

Banned
I just wish he can make a big come back album just to prove that he's still the king of pop.


I really wish I could say I grew up when he was "the king of pop", however during my childhood, MJ had already lost his touch. In all honesty though, I can't say that he even compared to some of the worlds greatest musicians, like The Beatles.
 

ApeXX

Banned
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0823051arvizo1.html

It's pretty clear the charges were weak.

That said:

WHERE ELSE but in AMERICA can a adorable and talented black boy grown up to be a creepy white woman?

Yes, only in America. But is it really our fault? Many doctors have examined his past, and found that the troubles and pressure he went through as a child, directly affected him as an adult. I'm not standing up for the guy, because I can't honestly say I respect him, however I think that he is bordering the edge of mental insanity.
 

rojo

(Ret)
I only recently (about 3 months ago) became a devoted fan of Michael Jackson; the greatest entertainer the world has ever seen, the most multi-talented pop artist of all time (top of the ranks singer, dancer, songwriter and video writer/performer), and a generous and caring individual. After learning about the tragedy that has happened to this man, (I didn't pay any attention at the time; artists' personal lives don't really interest me) I feel the need to spread the word about the disgusting way this man has been treated because many people do not know the truth, judging by what I have seen and heard around the internet. The trial should never have happened, imo.

What sounds like a fascinating new book has been written by respected author Aphrodite Jones called ''Michael Jackson Conspiracy''. Apparently it explains what happened.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwehjDPOYU[/youtube]
 
Last edited:

Sybarite

New member
I only recently (about 3 months ago) became a devoted fan of Michael Jackson; the greatest entertainer the world has ever seen, the most multi-talented pop artist of all time (top of the ranks singer, dancer, songwriter and video writer/performer)...

Freddie Mercury would eat him for breakfast. ;)
 

Sybarite

New member
Love Freddie, but Freddie couldn't dance, and didn't make pioneering videos.

Nothing could be more pioneering, in its day, than the video to Bohemian Rhapsody. It was pretty much the first proper music video as we know it.

I'd also suggest that videos such as that to Radio Gaga are pretty impressive too – homage to a seminal film.

How much artistic control did Michael Jackson have over, say, Thriller?

Now you may also be able to correct me on this (my Jackson singles are currently in a box so I can't check the credits), but how much of his own material did he actually write?

And even if he wrote it all, then Queen – with Mercury as primary writer – produced such a variety of songs, that one could ask whether that was greater than the variety produced by Jackson?
 

rojo

(Ret)
Tbh, I don't find the BR video all that innovative. Perhaps for it's time; not sure. But it's mostly just scenes of Freddie and the band. It's not a narrative, nor a work of art as many of Jackson's videos are. Unless I'm not watching the original video... The Radio Gaga video seems more innovative to me, but does not have the same depth as Jackson videos. Jackson made the video an art form. And made many great ones.

The song (BR) however is out of this world, as many of Queen's songs are.

Thriller was Jackson's concept. Jackson has a lot of control over his projects. He picks the camera angles for his tv performances for example. I'll see if I can find some info to post.

Jackson wrote scads of songs. Maybe not the quality of BR, but many fine songs. 'Billie Jean', 'Beat It', 'Stranger In Moscow'; a long list of songs to his credit. Again, I'll find some info to post; I don't know the list of his songs by heart. He was also the main songwriter for the Jacksons.

Freddie also had the collaboration of his band members, btw.

As to variety of songs, I think it could be argued to both artists. My point is that Michael is the most multi-talented pop artist. I notice you don't mention dance. Michael is a combination of Fred Astaire, Sammy Davis jr, James Brown and many other greats rolled into one. I stand by what I said. And I'm a big fan of Freddie and Queen.
 

Sybarite

New member
rojo, I have some Jackson recordings myself – I certainly don't dislike some of his work.

He could dance, yes. But did he ever turn in a live performance such as Live Aid? And what instruments could he play? Mercury could play the piano to a very serious level.

I suspect that Bohemian Rhapsody is a seminal video for us oldies. ;) At the time, it was incredible.

The Bad and Thriller albums are very good. The later stuff, in my opinion, starts bearing the hallmarks of someone who started believing his own publicity. Jackson virtually seemed to be suggesting that he was a Christ-like figure at one stage and that he himself could someone 'heal' the world.

And BTW, this is a most enjoyable discussion. :)
 

rojo

(Ret)
No, not 'he could dance, yes, but'; he could dance to an incredibly high level. Period.

I'm not sure what you are inferring about turning in a live performance such as Live-Aid. Please explain.

I hasten to point out that the human voice is a musical instrument. Would someone say 'Pavarotti is great, but he should pick up a violin and accompany himself while he sings'. Jackson dances to perfection, and often sings at the same time. He could not do that while playing any other instrument.

Mercury was a very good piano player, but no virtuoso. This from a pianist who transcribed and now plays excerpts from BR. Michael is a virtuoso dancer.

FYI, Michael plays many instruments. On the HIStory album, Michael plays keyboard, synthesizer, guitar, drums and percussion. But I don't know on which tracks, so I don't know how good he is.

What 'hallmarks' are you referring to? Please explain.

Whether or not we like Jackson's (or Queen's) stuff is moot. It changes nothing to the fact I stated above.

Off to work now; back later.
 
Last edited:

Sybarite

New member
No, not 'he could dance, yes, but'; he could dance to an incredibly high level. Period.

And Mercury was a great writer, performer and musician. To an incredibly high level.

I'm not sure what you are inferring about turning in a live performance such as Live-Aid. Please explain.

Mercury's performance at Live Aid stole the entire show – that's a generally acknowledged piece of musical history, not simply my take on events. Now I haven't seen Jackson live, but I have also never heard his performances described as earth-shattering to the point of becoming legend. There's only one specific Jackson performance that I can think of that is that famous – and not for those reasons – and that's the one at the 1996 Brit awards.

I hasten to point out that the human voice is a musical instrument. Would someone say 'Pavarotti is great, but he should pick up a violin and accompany himself while he sings'. Jackson dances to perfection, and often sings at the same time. He could not do that while playing any other instrument.

Oh, as a singer I appreciate that the voice is an instrument. Let's re-phrase the question then – what other instruments does Jackson play? I'm attempting to illustrate that, if we're trying to tally up particular talents, then one has also to add other instruments in the Mercury column.

Mercury was a very good piano player, but no virtuoso. This from a pianist who transcribed and now plays excerpts from BR. Michael is a virtuoso dancer.

And Mercury was a virtuoso performer and a virtuoso singer.

FYI, Michael plays many instruments. On the HIStory album, Michael plays keyboard, synthesizer, guitar, drums and percussion. But I don't know on which tracks, so I don't know how good he is.

What 'hallmarks' are you referring to? Please explain.

As I said, his music became about himself being some sort of saviour of the world. Earth Song, for instance, was dire – total sanctimonious schmaltz. And when he started posing like Christ while performing it at the Brits in 1996, he looked as though he was starting to believe his own hype. That was how I meant a hallmark. One could also look at lyrics such as "With your pen you torture me/You'd crucify the Lord" from Tabloid Junkie, which seems to link his situation with Jesus's.

Whether or not we like Jackson's (or Queen's) stuff is moot. It changes nothing to the fact I stated above.

Indeed. And I would still suggest that, in my opinion, Queen produced better work. ;)
 

rojo

(Ret)
So this is what we have;

Mercury-

top singer
top performer
top writer
(erm, not sure how to rate his video talents)
very good pianist


Jackson-

top singer
top performer
top writer
top dancer
top video artist
musician who plays many instruments, to what level, we don't know yet.

I will say that Mercury's songs from the 70's are superior to many of Jackson's in terms of complexity. In the 80's, Queen's material dropped in level of complexity. That said, lack of complexity does not necessarily make for a worse song; many people prefer Queen's 80's stuff. So this point can only go under opinion anyway. Personally, I don't like all of Jackson's songs (although there are a few I love), but many Jackson songs are liked and respected by a lot of people. Same goes for Queen. (And I don't like all of Queen's songs, but there are a few I love as well. I haven't counted the exact number though, as compared to Jackson's.)

Which artist made better work is not the issue here. You're slanting the debate to reflect your personal opinions and preferences.

I find basing a comparison of the two artists based on a single performance (one song only in Jackson's case!) to be far too limited. Go check out some of Jackson's performances, then get back to me. And put your personal preferences aside. If it's possible for anyone to do such a thing.

Sybarite said:
One could also look at lyrics such as "With your pen you torture me/You'd crucify the Lord" from Tabloid Junkie, which seems to link his situation with Jesus's.
I don't see that at all. He just means that the media are cruel and that they go too far. Which they do. It's an exaggeration to make a point, and to make an effective lyric for the song.

Personally I don't like preachy songs, or religious songs either though. That said, Jackson's 'Earth Song' is one I kinda like, musically. Imo, he was simply portraying this gospel-type song in a manner that best expresses it according to him. If people choose to compare him to Jesus, that's up to them. Did he ever compare himself to Jesus? No.

Although, the way the media has collaboratively set themselves out to crucify the man for ratings, the comparison actually does have merit! Maybe he is Jesus! :eek::grin:

Honestly, what you're saying reminds me of when Lennon said something like 'we're bigger than Jesus' and all hell broke loose. It was just an innocent comment. For crying out loud, the man was simply singing and performing a song. When one thinks about it, what's wrong with writing a song about the plight of the earth? There are worse topics I can think of. He cares about the planet, so he writes songs about it. Nothing wrong with that. And I like a bit of schmaltz now and then.

I think you may have been reading too much about Jackson, getting other people's opinions. Go judge for yourself. See PM.
 
Last edited:

Krummhorn

Administrator
Staff member
ADMINISTRATOR
Having lived just one state east from all the hoopla during the Jackson trial, we were subjected to a plethora of media glitz locally, and the whole scene was shoved in front of us constantly by all the media as being The Most Important Event of the Decade. Well, I could hardly describe it as having that much magnitude in my life, but then I am not a Michael Jackson fan, either.

I agree that the media seriously overplayed the whole trial, the events leading up to it and during ... when the trial was over, the media blitz vanished into thin air ... so part of the act of discrediting Michale Jackson was the fault of the media.

The other part of the fiasco was whenever Michael moved about ... no less than 5 seriously gas guzzling SUV's were in his entourage at any time, special considerations like moving people out of a hospital area so he could have the room to himself. Sorry, nobody, celebrity or not, deserves that kind of treatment. When he got sick (coughed twice) he was RUSHED to the hospital in his pajamas ... c'mon, when was the last time you or I even distantly thought of going to the emergency room when we coughed? Those incidents were pure publicity stunts, and nothing more, at least imho. There were more than one occassion when he was almost in contempt of court for not showing up on time, but the judge "decided" not to throw the book at him. Would you or I have had that same treatment by the court? No way!! Sorry, the fact that someone is a celebrity doesn't excuse them from the laws - he puts his pants on just like I do, one leg at a time.

Was Michael Jackson treated fairly by the media during this whole process? I say yes, and no. It wasn't the media who dangled their own son over an elevated balcony in public - Some of the problems were brought on by Michael himself. I agree that the media, just to make a story, will say just about anything about anybody in order to make the headlines, but that balcony incident was totally uncalled for. Ok, he later admitted that it was a dumb thing to do, but the fact remains that it shouldn't have been done at all - that is child endangerment and should have resulted in some serious charges, which of course never happened because he is a celebrity ... (?). Again, if you or I had done that, our child would have been removed from our custody and we would have been arrested. The rules keep changing based on how well someone is known. That's not equal justice, imho.

The media completely blew everything way out of proportion ... typical media for this day and age. I think they need to be more in tune with peoples feelings and stop making assumptions based on little evidence. I always liked the phrase on the old TV show, Dragnet, with Jack Webb and Harry Morgan when Officer Joe Friday would say "Just the facts Ma'am, just the facts!"

Michael being the greatest performer of all time? Depends on a persons likes or dislikes in the musical world. I rank some pretty darn great organists worlds ahead of Michael Jackson ... lots of them 'danced' on the pedalboards, wore shiny sparkly suits, were interactive with audiences, AND attracted thousands of concert goers. So, it's all in ones perspective who is the greatest performer. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.
 

Sybarite

New member
Krummhorn, there’s a lot of good points there. In the UK, we were still subjected to hours of it, including nightly recreations of the court case.

My reading of it was that the authorities were stupid to push a prosecution – the evidence, such as was reported, was weak to say the least and seemed to largely rest on the son of a woman who had previously attempted to blackmail celebrities. I first thought that a conviction was unlikely a couple of months before the trial, when it emerged that the prosecution was asking special permission to introduce new evidence – the Martin Bashir documentary. So hardly 'new' and something that had been in the public domain for some time. In other words, they were struggling event then.

That said, would I leave a child unaccompanied in Michael Jackson's company? No way. What I find quite extraordinary is the number of parents who apparently did exactly that – possibly attempting to put themselves in a position of being able to rake in the money after. Imagine that – risking your own child for money. Obscene. And, in some ways, because of its sheer calculating cynicism, worse than some of the things that an apparently seriously screwed up individual is alleged to have done.

Where I would differ is on your comments about the media in general. Not all media is the same. The problem is that the majority of people don’t want good reporting and analysis – they want crapulous gossip and sensation. That's why, in the UK for instance, the tabloids (gutter press) sell far more copies than the quality papers. In the same way, we've seen a burgeoning of free 'newspapers' that are full of little but 'celebrity' gossip, plus countless magazines that peddle nothing else – and people pay out for these by the hundred thousand. Then we have the absurd situation where more people vote for Big Brother than in a political election.

There is an extent to which society gets the media it deserves – that's the joy of the market. People will pay for what they want and if that means that quality gets sidelined, then that's the market telling us something. But there’s another way to look at the same question – it's a chicken-and-egg question: what came first? The unscrupulous media or the public gagging for sensation and scandal? One cannot exist without the other.

Finally (at the moment :) ), I do think that there's a growing tendency to blur reality and entertainment. You see it in things like the Jerry Springer Show (we see this and have several of our own versions in the UK). It's a new kind of freak show, where people can stare and point and laugh and those less fortunate (dumber, generally speaking) than ourselves. In many ways, the Jackson trial was an extension of this. And the question needs to be asked, does trial by TV actually forward the cause of justice or does it hinder it?
 
Top