Michael Jackson covers- Yes or No?

[EliasMooseblaster]

31 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

It's very hard to say.

I'd tend to err on the side of caution - there's lot's of other music to play while it's at the forefront of everyone's minds. But I wouldn't change radio channels just because Beat It came on.

This sounds like very sound advice - especially this last paragraph. It might be seen as being in poor taste while the new film is fresh in people's minds, and he's in the headlines again. Once the dust has settled, it's probably safer to test the waters with your audiences.

It is an enduring and morally murky problem, that some great art is made by some truly terrible people. In some cases, it's easy to dismiss the music along with its creator - Lostprophets and Gary Glitter being obvious examples - as they were popular at one point, but haven't pervaded popular culture to the same extent as Michael Jackson. See also Chris Brown, convicted for domestic violence - reviews of an album he released not long after his conviction focused on what an awful man he was, and barely discussed the music within. But plenty of his fans were quite prepared to treat the album and its creator as two separate entities. I expect plenty of Jackson fans will be prepared to do the same - you could argue that they've been doing it for decades - but while he's in the news, you'd be right to worry about objections from other people.

[MacDaddy]

We can study the works of lauded philosophers, regardless of pederasty.

The BBC can celebrate playright Joe Orton, even while showing films mentioning his visits to Morocco to have sex with young boys.

Is there an artistic hypocrisy?

 

[Silvia Bluejay]

That's the Wagner dilemma once again. As a music listener, as opposed to performer in public, I separate the music from the character of the artist and play/listen to whatever I like.

[lemmywinks]

48 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

We should also remember that no-one is perfect; where do you draw the line? Should you play music by someone who once bullied another kid in the school playground or smacked their children?  Where do you draw the line?

 

I think paedos and nazis is probably a good place to draw the line personally.

[TheGreek]

Here's a thread that going to divide opinion - expect this to go pear shaped quickly.

I didn't see the Neverland documentary but my understanding is that there are allegations but no proof. As I said, this is bound to divide opinion (at the end of the day that's all we have.)

[Stub Mandrel]

1 minute ago, MacDaddy said:

We can study the works of lauded philosophers, regardless of pederasty.

The BBC can celebrate playright Joe Orton, even while showing films mentioning his visits to Morocco to have sex with young boys.

Is there an artistic hypocrisy?

 

Certainly. Over the entrance to Broadcasting House are statues by Eric Gill, who had a particularly unpleasant history.

[redbandit599]

Plenty of people still playing/liking Sex Pistols stuff and no one really knows if Sid killed Nancy or not?

It's enough to make me want to start an originals band! 😏

[Paul S]

27 minutes ago, TheGreek said:

Here's a thread that going to divide opinion - expect this to go pear shaped quickly.

I didn't see the Neverland documentary but my understanding is that there are allegations but no proof. As I said, this is bound to divide opinion (at the end of the day that's all we have.)

I watched it.  I started out with the opinion that Jackson was a weirdo and nothing worse - nothing had been proved in earlier court cases, after all.  Having watched the programme I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he was a manipulative paedophile who clinically groomed the families into allowing the children to stay with him, thereby putting him into a position here he could abuse those kids.  The reasons why he got off in those earlier court appearances are fully explained in the documentary and the account given by the two -then boys now men - as to what they said and why is compelling believable.  If you don't watch it you'll never be sure so I would commend anyone with an interest to watch it.

[dmccombe7]

5 minutes ago, Paul S said:

I watched it.  I started out with the opinion that Jackson was a weirdo and nothing worse - nothing had been proved in earlier court cases, after all.  Having watched the programme I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he was a manipulative paedophile who clinically groomed the families into allowing the children to stay with him, thereby putting him into a position here he could abuse those kids.  The reasons why he got off in those earlier court appearances are fully explained in the documentary and the account given by the two -then boys now men - as to what they said and why is compelling believable.  If you don't watch it you'll never be sure so I would commend anyone with an interest to watch it.

I didn't watch it Paul but did one of the two guys not give evidence in court as an adult in support of Jackson. Sure i read that somewhere.

Was just wondering if it explained why he did that. ?

Dave

 

[mrtcat]

We've had to pull all of the R-Kelly and Rolf Harris songs from our set.

[Les]

Rightly or wrongly I can't see any mileage in a cover band doing MJ songs now. 

Last thing I want at a gig is to be defending my choice of songs to a punter or punters over an issue like this. 

Les

[chris_b]

Have the MJ accusations been proved?

The Ted Heath and Leon Brittan claims turned out to be false.

Keep playing the songs you want to play and don't believe anything unless there is real evidence.

[dmccombe7]

Has anyone mentioned Elvis and Priscilla altho its never been viewed as indecent but she was only 14 when they met. 

Is that viewed differently because they ended up getting married and he was obviously besotted by her.

Dave

[Newfoundfreedom]

Don't start pulling Michael Jackson.

 

That's what got him into trouble in the first place. 

[chris_b]

I guess the whole country will have to stop playing Rolling Stones songs?

This trial by smear campaign is pretty sad. Start to take interest when there is a court case and make your decisions if anything is proven.

[MacDaddy]

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 3, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[PaulWarning]

it's a personal decision we all have to make, I'm ok listening to most music apart from artists where pre pubescent boys and girls have been involved, so Glitter is just about in, Jackson out, of course it helps a lot if you like the music.

It doesn't make much difference, to me, whether they been found guilty in a court because that's down to luck, who they know (Savile, Cyril Smith etc)lawyers, what country the case is heard in, and the jury

We did Another Rock and Roll Christmas for a couple of years with no problems, went down rather well

[JellyKnees]

Why else would a grown man have children that weren't his sleeping in his bed? I mean, seriously?

[upside downer]

27 minutes ago, JellyKnees said:

Why else would a grown man have children that weren't his sleeping in his bed? I mean, seriously?

Maybe they were there to help him control the mad, midnight mood swings of his mean and moody monkey, Bubbles?

[lowdown]

Just a curious question really...

For those that say that they will not play Michael Jackson songs, where would that put you if you were depping in a band that played MJ tunes?

Would you not take the gig? or if you took on the gig, would you just stand there with your hands behind your back and not play a note?

Like I said, just interested to know.

[Billy Apple]

4 hours ago, redbandit599 said:

No, nor a Gary Glitter - though as these cases have been tried and convicted while the perpetrator is still alive, I think that makes them an 'easier' case to blacklist.

 

But Jimmy Saville was never tried and convicted and it’s generally accepted he’s history’s greatest monster.

[Paul S]

1 hour ago, dmccombe7 said:

I didn't watch it Paul but did one of the two guys not give evidence in court as an adult in support of Jackson. Sure i read that somewhere.

Was just wondering if it explained why he did that. ?

Dave

 

Yes, both of them gave evidence whilst still children to support him at his first trial and it was their testimony that got him off.  The reasons why were fully explained and plausible - it was watching them - now adults with children of their own - and their families in this documentary that made my  U turn in opinion.

[stingrayPete1977]

47 minutes ago, PaulWarning said:

it's a personal decision we all have to make, I'm ok listening to most music apart from artists where pre pubescent boys and girls have been involved, so Glitter is just about in, Jackson out, of course it helps a lot if you like the music.

Ermm Gary Glitter moved to Thailand and seen regularly with young boys? 

[PaulWarning]

6 minutes ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

Ermm Gary Glitter moved to Thailand and seen regularly with young boys? 

must admit, not heard that rumour, I read it was a couple of 12 year old girls, he's always been prosecuted for girls, think he'll be on my 'no' list now though, just read one of them was under 10 😫