Gordy, Luther King's, Wonder And Robinson Out For Jackson

[Guest]

Not just America either. Anyone remember Lena Zavaroni?

Ian D

You mean the Stax corp' messed with her head ?

[Ady Pountain]

Best quote of the night was Stevie Wonder saying "this is a day I didn't expect to see" ! I would never ask anyone to expose a young child to appearing on Global Television to say goodbye to her Father on the day he had his funeral. Unforgivable. Sharpton was a joke. Lionel Ritchie sang a Gospel Song and got it spot on. There are some uncanny similarities between Micheal Jackson's death and Elvis Presley's. If you read Guarlnick's 2 brilliant books on Elvis it comes down to a 'rogue' Doctor over administering prescription drugs. I spent my working life in Pharmacueticals (see I can even spell it!) and mixing the wrong drugs is very very dangerous. As to the hype and Pete's original post well this is now. Best thing is ignore it as the media will always take fame over importance. I heard he's coming back as a shopping bag....white, plastic and a danger to children. As for him paving the way for Obama,oh please! Cheers, Ady

[Guest]

Hold on a second. You clearly don't know me very well to conclude from the above that I am keen to go in to bat for American capitalism. Jackson's ability to make and squander money was one of, if not the most noteworthy aspects of his life and celebrity and certainly worth commenting on.

In answer to your question "Does it really do any individual any good to be worth billions of dollars, be they black or white?" I am clearly less qualified than you to make the sweeping generalisation implied by it.

As for your long list of child showbiz casualties I'm aware of both high profile and more obscure cases, but I have to suspect that tales of woe from these quarters can often exaggerated in order to scratch the itch for continued exposure to the narcotic that is celebrity.

It is of course entirely possible to taste success in the field of entertainment and then melt away from the public eye and enjoy a life of mundane, un-damaged normality. I suspect that the numbers in the respective camps would tend not bear out your theory of inevitability. In any case, the extent of Jackson's fame was highly unusual and his exposure to the limelight extremely prolonged, so drawing parallels with erstwhile soap opera stars who go off the rails is perhaps unhelpful.

You state:

For all the insane hype surrounding him, MICHAEL JACKSON individually is less important historically than MOTOWN as a collective, something which is perhaps in danger of being obscured by the fanatical hysteria being accorded to JACKSON in death.

Yet it is possible that it is Berry Gordy and the Motown phenomenon which are as culpable in the tragic dimensions of what came to be Jackson's predicament as Joe Jackson, the American media and global capitalism (and by extenion in your argument, record buyers worldwide).

Child entertainers in R&B were a not uncommon part of that field of entertainment in the mid 1960s. While The Jackson 5 were making independently distributed records in and around their hometown. Tony Talent, Little Gary Ferguson, Larry Chubby Reynolds, The Admirations and a host of others were doing the same throughout the States, with varying degrees of success. While precocious the Jacksons were not in themselves unique. That they were eventually signed by Gordy, groomed, styled and sold in the patented Motown manner was to be both their blessing and their curse. In creating unprecedented demand for the products of a group of adolescents it was Motown which exacerbated the strains on the vulnerable young performers.

Yes, Motown has cultural significance, but it is entirely possible to argue that it actually has far less cultural significance than the Michael Jackson phenomenon.

By the early 1980s Motown was a spent force aesthetically and economically. Indeed the recording arm of the Corporation could be said to be a failure of almost unparalleled dimension by that time, with operating costs and other outgoings wildly at odds with the revenues tricking in from an extremely mediocre roster. Berry Gordy was acutely aware of the need to sell the company in order that the legacy of the songwriting and publishing archive could be 'safeguarded' (i.e. kept in his own hands). The years of Motown representing an unqualified Black Success Story actually represent quite a short time span in the company's life. If the barometer of success is 'crossing over' in terms of sales and profile (and we must use that barometer because these were the terms in which Gordy himself saw success) then very few could actually be said to be successful. Outside of Jackson, Gordy himself, Smokey Robinson, Diana Ross and Stevie Wonder no Motown artist or figure achieved lasting, concrete success (in Gordy's terms) outside of cult fame in their lifetime.

Motown Records would mean practically nothing to most people in the world in current terms outside a core of afficionados, whereas Jackson's iconic status is guaranteed now. Michael Jackson's Memorial Concert was broadcast live globally. Berry Gordy's will not be, and I think that's beyond question. That's different from asking whether that should be the case, but then I'm not the one making judgements.

QUOTE:'Motown Records would mean nothing in the world in current terms, outside a core of afficiandos (???????????), wheras JACKSON'S iconic status is guranteed now.....'

And that is not a 'judgement' on Motown's collective status and relevance?

I sincerely beg to differ on many issues contained here. I do not however have the time to do justice to such an in-depth posting tonight. I will do so tomorrow but thank you for providing a serious opposing position to this debate.

Edited July 8, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Ian Dewhirst]

You mean the Stax corp' messed with her head ?

I completely forgot she was involved with Stax. Poor lass. She just wasted away and died young...........

Ian D

[Garethx]

I don't think I'm providing an opposing point in the debate: in many cases I'm in more or less complete agreement with the tone and essence of your original post. I do, however, fundamentally disagree with your point about the extent of Motown's historical importance.

Motown's impact in musical terms was unquestionably large for a period of time, but as a totem of Black enterprise it has to be said that the overall story in 50 years of existence has been one of heroic failure. As each generation passes the richness of the company's musical legacy will ebb away as the marketing becomes ever more formulaic and removed from the roots of what made that music vital and special. If you don't believe me have a look at comments from young people worldwide on sites like youtube. Awareness of Motown as a brand is vague at best in that demographic.

Outside the confines of communities like this one Motown's importance registers no more than a footnote in wider stories like that of, for example, Martin Luther King, or indeed, Michael Jackson. That isn't a qualitative judgement (I own and like hundreds of Motown records but have never bought a Michael Jackson release), I'm just looking at the jackson Memorial from a slightly wider perspective.

The media frenzy and the banality of much of the coverage and reaction to Jackson's death and indeed the skewed logic and questionable taste of much of last night's event is cause for much reflection from our sometimes insular perch as soul fans, but as Brian and Ady and others point out, it's the way things seem to be done nowadays.

yours in soul,

gareth

[Ian Dewhirst]

I don't think I'm providing an opposing point in the debate: in many cases I'm in more or less complete agreement with the tone and essence of your original post. I do, however, fundamentally disagree with your point about the extent of Motown's historical importance.

Motown's impact in musical terms was unquestionably large for a period of time, but as a totem of Black enterprise it has to be said that the overall story in 50 years of existence has been one of heroic failure. As each generation passes the richness of the company's musical legacy will ebb away as the marketing becomes ever more formulaic and removed from the roots of what made that music vital and special. If you don't believe me have a look at comments from young people worldwide on sites like youtube. Awareness of Motown as a brand is vague at best in that demographic.

Outside the confines of communities like this one Motown's importance registers no more than a footnote in wider stories like that of, for example, Martin Luther King, or indeed, Michael Jackson. That isn't a qualitative judgement (I own and like hundreds of Motown records but have never bought a Michael Jackson release), I'm just looking at the jackson Memorial from a slightly wider perspective.

The media frenzy and the banality of much of the coverage and reaction to Jackson's death and indeed the skewed logic and questionable taste of much of last night's event is cause for much reflection from our sometimes insular perch as soul fans, but as Brian and Ady and others point out, it's the way things seem to be done nowadays.

yours in soul,

gareth

Good point Gareth.

I see what you're getting at here. In terms of Motown, it's difficult to see what else can be done really. There's been a plethora of high profile re-issues, countless TV documentaries which reach a marginal audience at best and plenty of recent deaths of the Motown aristocracy but Motown's relevence simply doesn't touch most people the way it touches us.

It's probably a generational thing and unless you were of a certain age, the majesty of the label simply doesn't affect most people in the same way, that, say, the Sun catalogue doesn't really affect me.

I guess it's a sign of the times isn't it. The mass media convenient sound-bites and imagery of MJ are perfect for a global audience which has the attention span of a gnat!

Ian D

[Guest]

Hold on a second. You clearly don't know me very well to conclude from the above that I am keen to go in to bat for American capitalism. Jackson's ability to make and squander money was one of, if not the most noteworthy aspects of his life and celebrity and certainly worth commenting on.

In answer to your question "Does it really do any individual any good to be worth billions of dollars, be they black or white?" I am clearly less qualified than you to make the sweeping generalisation implied by it.

As for your long list of child showbiz casualties I'm aware of both high profile and more obscure cases, but I have to suspect that tales of woe from these quarters can often exaggerated in order to scratch the itch for continued exposure to the narcotic that is celebrity.

It is of course entirely possible to taste success in the field of entertainment and then melt away from the public eye and enjoy a life of mundane, un-damaged normality. I suspect that the numbers in the respective camps would tend not bear out your theory of inevitability. In any case, the extent of Jackson's fame was highly unusual and his exposure to the limelight extremely prolonged, so drawing parallels with erstwhile soap opera stars who go off the rails is perhaps unhelpful.

You state:

For all the insane hype surrounding him, MICHAEL JACKSON individually is less important historically than MOTOWN as a collective, something which is perhaps in danger of being obscured by the fanatical hysteria being accorded to JACKSON in death.

Yet it is possible that it is Berry Gordy and the Motown phenomenon which are as culpable in the tragic dimensions of what came to be Jackson's predicament as Joe Jackson, the American media and global capitalism (and by extenion in your argument, record buyers worldwide).

Child entertainers in R&B were a not uncommon part of that field of entertainment in the mid 1960s. While The Jackson 5 were making independently distributed records in and around their hometown. Tony Talent, Little Gary Ferguson, Larry Chubby Reynolds, The Admirations and a host of others were doing the same throughout the States, with varying degrees of success. While precocious the Jacksons were not in themselves unique. That they were eventually signed by Gordy, groomed, styled and sold in the patented Motown manner was to be both their blessing and their curse. In creating unprecedented demand for the products of a group of adolescents it was Motown which exacerbated the strains on the vulnerable young performers.

Yes, Motown has cultural significance, but it is entirely possible to argue that it actually has far less cultural significance than the Michael Jackson phenomenon.

By the early 1980s Motown was a spent force aesthetically and economically. Indeed the recording arm of the Corporation could be said to be a failure of almost unparalleled dimension by that time, with operating costs and other outgoings wildly at odds with the revenues tricking in from an extremely mediocre roster. Berry Gordy was acutely aware of the need to sell the company in order that the legacy of the songwriting and publishing archive could be 'safeguarded' (i.e. kept in his own hands). The years of Motown representing an unqualified Black Success Story actually represent quite a short time span in the company's life. If the barometer of success is 'crossing over' in terms of sales and profile (and we must use that barometer because these were the terms in which Gordy himself saw success) then very few could actually be said to be successful. Outside of Jackson, Gordy himself, Smokey Robinson, Diana Ross and Stevie Wonder no Motown artist or figure achieved lasting, concrete success (in Gordy's terms) outside of cult fame in their lifetime.

Motown Records would mean practically nothing to most people in the world in current terms outside a core of afficionados, whereas Jackson's iconic status is guaranteed now. Michael Jackson's Memorial Concert was broadcast live globally. Berry Gordy's will not be, and I think that's beyond question. That's different from asking whether that should be the case, but then I'm not the one making judgements.

If you begin a post by stating that people should be praised for facilitating unprecedented sums of capital on behalf of entertainers be they they black or white, then I think it's pretty reasonable to expect - in your own words - for people to take that as a 'championing of American style capitalism!'. (Of course I accept that may not have been intentional but words are dangerous weapons!) As for 'sweeping generalisation', personally I believe that the outrageous sums of money that are paid to top entertainers/sportsmen are quite often to their personal detriment and most certainly do not benefit the collective intellectual or social fabric of our society. I hardly think I am alone in that fundamental belief and I would argue there is huge evidence to support this. So I agree that it is worth commenting on JACKSON'S ability to 'make and squander' money, but not inside any channel that offers up 'praise' to the likes of JOE JACKSON and others involved, i.e men who are driven by greed and the unquenchable thirst for wealth. To the contrary, personally I feel that such human energies are ultimately a negative force to humanity as a whole. They also certainly represent a direct dichotomy in relation to certain elements of JACKSON'S 'preachy' flavoured material.

The horrendous culture of 'celebrity' as we know in our age and the western media-driven longing for the trappings of fame, are in a large part due to the obscene amounts of money and material possesions that top Entertainers like JACKSON proudly parade to young people across the world. Elements such as MTV have been involved in fuelling these desires to significant degrees. Likewise, the elevation of aspects such as 'Gangsta rap' and its celebration of materialism have further compounded it. Yet the reality of 'super-stardom' time and time again is misery and redundancy of the human spirit.

As regards your comments on the abilty of youth to absorb moderate showbiz success/profiles etc, I am sorry but the artists that you refer to fall into a totally different category. In fact, the likes of TONY TALENT, LITTLE GARY FERGUSON, LARRY CHUBBY REYNOLDS and THE ADMIRATIONS (One of my favourite Soul groups, incidentally) most certainly belong to a grouping which are only likely to be renowned by 'afficiandos' and r/b fans. With all due respect, whilst possessing certain degrees of creative talent and minor celebrity, none of these individuals or acts can seriously be discussed as comparisons with the MICHAEL JACKSON life experience.

I will use the phrase 'SUPER-stardom' in order to clarify the gulf between my examples and the individuals you have mentioned. When I say the sufferings of child 'superstars' are well documented, I refer to cases such as FRANKIE LYMON, JUDY GARLAND, GARY COLEMAN and MICHAEL JACKSON etc. Surely you will acknowledge a distinct difference? To be specific with your grammar, I am not outlining a theory of 'inevitability' - I am merely stating that a significant proportion of child superstars are not well equipped to deal with the pressures and wealth that such a level of celebrity brings. Given the backgrounds of a vast majority of them, is that hardly surprising? Once more, given the overall history of American Superstardom, are you really trying to purport that there is anybody - with a rational brain - who should be surprised at the final circumstances of MICHAEL JACKSON'S decline?

As concerns MOTOWN, yes I agree totally, that BERRY GORDY and the company's assembly line ethos, most certainly do hold a certain degree of responsibility for the ruination of MICHAEL JACKSON'S life. If we seperate ourselves from the emotional attachment to musical recordings and of course the huge significance MOTOWN holds collectively for our community on here, then it is very easy to see that GORDY never provided anywhere near due provision for the pressures that would ensnare JACKSON. But that is hardly surprising is it? He too, was much nearer JOE JACKSON'S mould and in reality he had to be in order to give his business enterprise a fighting chance - he was not a Child Care officer and stories of people such as FLO BALLARD clearly indicate the level of ruthlessness apparent at MOTOWN even during the 'Golden Years'.

As for the question of MOTOWN RECORDS VS MICHAEL JACKSON - The Cultural Phenonemons, the greater significance etc, yes I agree it is entirely possible to argue from a position heralding MICHAEL JACKSON as the greater relevance and I believe this would be a fantastic and very interesting debate. I would however adopt the MOTOWN corner and I feel it is actually you now guilty of 'sweeping generalisations' when you dictate that the confines of such a debate would have to be argued from within BERRY GORDY'S own definition of 'success'.

Sorry, the concept of 'cultural significance' is definetly not confined to the narrow avenues of 'commercial success' and the eventual decline of MOTOWN records is certainly not the defining encapsulation of it's relevance. It is always easy when we are distanced from history, to assume that the explosive impact of the 'present' and in particular the dynamic of spectacular individuals, has more relevance than the historic past but when history is examined in a few centuries I believe MOTOWN and the way it influenced youth culture and popular music/art/culture worldwide, will be judged to have had a far bigger collective impact than JACKSON individually. The influence that Songwriters such as SMOKEY ROBINSON had on acts such as THE BEATLES, BOB DYLAN and a whole generation of white pop stars, is a bona-fide groundstone for a starting examination of it's impact. But the impact go's far beyond that.

To truly assess MOTOWN'S impact you have to ask people what they know of the myriad ranks of famous pop stars, politicians, personalities, artists, designers, cultural figures and spokesmen, who were profoundly and creatively influenced by MOTOWN, not merely for their knowledge of 'MOTOWN RECORDS'! (That last one is our department!)

Indeed, before we even begin on the wider world, it is certainly possible to argue that MOTOWN galvanised and ignited the creative heart and soul of Black America to previously undreamt of proportions and its impact in that respect has certainly not been surpassed collectively or individually and is unlikely ever to be so. That impact, which we of all people know, most certainly cannot be assessed in mere terms of financial success. Culture is more than finance, although ironically how well BERRY GORDY himself understood that is open to additional debate. At the end of the day the 'Sound of Young America' concept can be extended way down the line and was not MICHAEL JACKSON, the logical and final offspring of the whole thing? Yes, MICHAEL JACKSON was ultimately BERRY GORDY'S vison embodied, the so called Black Artist who can buy into the hearts of White America's youth - but by what terrifyingly agonising routes? Black America's beloved Soul child, and yet cast to the wolves of corporate white USA. MICHAEL was/is the organic conclusion of the GORDY dream. He literally inherited it from BERRY. But what that dream did to MICHAEL is a true human tragedy.

I am afraid that reality states that without MOTOWN, there is no MICHAEL JACKSON phenonemon, it is the funadamental ethos of MOTOWN that created MICHAEL JACKSON and MICHAEL is in fact, the final relevant chapter of the MOTOWN story. A colossal individual Artist yes, but undeniably a product of the MOTOWN DREAM MACHINE. THE product! His story is what makes THE MOTOWN LEGACY such an enormous cultural legend and to try and seperate MICHAEL JACKSON from the MOTOWN story is foolhardy and factually incorrect. Does anybody really and truly not believe that? MICHAEL was the ultimate figurehead of the MOTOWN vision but unfortuately like many other beautiful artistic creations, that vision foundered on the rocks of greed, excess and the treacherous trappings of fame and fortune. MICHAEL'S own business failures and financial crumbling even reflected that of MOTOWN and that I believe, is no cultural coincedence. In the same vein, his purchase of THE BEATLES catalogue can be viewed as an act of genetic inheritance from GORDY, i.e the overiding desire of a Black Musical force to claim 'ownership' of the white dominated recording world. THE BEATLES symbolised the very pinnacle of white pop music and MICHAEL JACKSON had to claim that ground for his own - in more ways than one, obviously. The purchase was an act of absolute 'GORDYESQUE' symbolism.

MOTOWN was far more than a record label. It was an emblem, a symbol, a spirit and an entity of which the complete impact is impossible to define. The artists are singular components of the greater whole, irrespective of whether their greatest periods of commercial success came during their periods with the company or after they departed to other rosters. MICHAEL JACKSON is no different. In fact he was the crowning jewel in the MOTOWN universe, the boy 'Soul Prince' who would become 'King of Pop'.

My Final point? MICHAEL JACKSON'S funeral with SMOKEY, STEVIE, GORDY, RICHIE and the remaining JACKSON 5 BROS playing prominent roles made it a MOTOWN funeral. The contribution from MARTIN LUTHER KING'S descendants merely reinforced the cultural link to Hitsville's heyday. The global broadcast and the size of MICHAEL'S audience in life and DEATH has everything to do with the original vision of BERRY GORDY. At his passing, the MOTOWN 'Family' came out to reclaim their own. It was the absolutely defining moment of the MOTOWN legacy and cultural historians will most certainly see it that way.

Yours in Soul too.

Edited July 14, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest]

Good point Gareth. I see what you're getting at here. In terms of Motown, it's difficult to see what else can be done really. There's been a plethora of high profile re-issues, countless TV documentaries which reach a marginal audience at best and plenty of recent deaths of the Motown aristocracy but Motown's relevence simply doesn't touch most people the way it touches us. It's probably a generational thing and unless you were of a certain age, the majesty of the label simply doesn't affect most people in the same way, that, say, the Sun catalogue doesn't really affect me. I guess it's a sign of the times isn't it. The mass media convenient sound-bites and imagery of MJ are perfect for a global audience which has the attention span of a gnat! Ian D

Thing is Ian, what is perfect for the exact moment in time, i.e the now, does not neccessarily transpose to being viewed as of the greater cultural significance when viewed from the point of history. When Social Historians examine MOTOWN and MICHAEL JACKSON in say 150 years time, I believe they will conclude that MJ'S story is actually merely the logical conclusion of BERRY GORDY'S original vision. Without the MOTOWN vision/dream, there could not have been a MJ story and it is the framework/philoshophy that created him that will be given the more serious acknowledgement. That philosophy is firmly entrenched within the GORDY/MOTOWN mindscape.(SEE MY POST concerning all this.) Edited July 9, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Ian Dewhirst]

Thing is Ian, what is perfect for the exact moment in time, i.e the now, does not neccessarily transpose to being viewed as of the greater cultural significance when viewed from the point of history. When Social Historians examine MOTOWN and MICHAEL JACKSON in say 150 years time, I believe they will conclude that MJ'S story is actually merely the logical conclusion of BERRY GORDY'S original vision. Without the MOTOWN vision/dream, there could not have been a MJ story and it is the framework/philoshophy that created him that will be given the more serious acknowledgement. That philodpohy is firmly entrenched within the GORDY/MOTOWN mindscape.(SEE MY POST concerning all this.)

I actually agree with pretty much most of what you say Chorleysoul. Of course, Motown should be historically viewed as being the catalyst for both the original and subsequent sucesses of Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Diana Ross, Lionel Ritchie and Michael Jackson etc, etc.

It's just that Michael Jackson had the biggest selling album of all time, reached the biggest audience long after he left Motown, had the biggest marketing machine in the music business behind him at the time and the snappiest videos, all of which adds up to a much bigger media package for today's media than the black and white clips from the original Motown era.

Naturally WE know the real story but we're living in an era where snappy soundbites and quick-cut video clips rule - instant gratification for the video generation if you like. Hopefully, in the context of time, Motown will get it's proper due but you only have to look at the history following Elvis Presley's death to realise that Elvis and his iconic image meant more to the mass population than Sun Records ever did!

A good intelligent debate though!

Ian D

[Guest]

I actually agree with pretty much most of what you say Chorleysoul. Of course, Motown should be historically viewed as being the catalyst for both the original and subsequent sucesses of Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Diana Ross, Lionel Ritchie and Michael Jackson etc, etc.

It's just that Michael Jackson had the biggest selling album of all time, reached the biggest audience long after he left Motown, had the biggest marketing machine in the music business behind him at the time and the snappiest videos, all of which adds up to a much bigger media package for today's media than the black and white clips from the original Motown era.

Naturally WE know the real story but we're living in an era where snappy soundbites and quick-cut video clips rule - instant gratification for the video generation if you like. Hopefully, in the context of time, Motown will get it's proper due but you only have to look at the history following Elvis Presley's death to realise that Elvis and his iconic image meant more to the mass population than Sun Records ever did!

A good intelligent debate though!

Ian D

'History knows transformations of all kinds' KARL MARX

Todays media and emotion will be utterly redundant in 150 years. And the Elvis story is also very young in true historic terms.

But yes a good debate....Our little contribution!

Now I'm going to relax with some FANTASTIC FOUR records!

[Ian Dewhirst]

'History knows transformations of all kinds' KARL MARX

Todays media and emotion will be utterly redundant in 150 years. And the Elvis story is also very young in true historic terms.

But yes a good debate....Our little contribution!

Now I'm going to relax with some FANTASTIC FOUR records!

Whilst I'm rediscovering the sheer unbridled beauty of Edward Hamilton & The Arabians.......

Detroit's doing well tonight innit?

Ian D

[Guest]

Whilst I'm rediscovering the sheer unbridled beauty of Edward Hamilton & The Arabians.......

Detroit's doing well tonight innit?

Ian D

Funny enough, one of my top plays at the moment is EDWARD HAMILTON AND THE ARABIANS 'Willing Mind' - B side of 'My Darling Baby'....

One of those types of tunes we would have sneered at in 1975!

Sheer, unbridled beauty you aint kidding! Been driving my Mrs nuts with it!

[Guest Carrie Mehome]

Actually I didn't feel revolted by this show, I felt truly sorry for the children and enjoyed some of the performances. I have no idea whether MJ committed offences to children - I wasn't there so it's not for me to judge him on that. If he did then yes he should have gone to jail but I can still like some of his tunes. I certainly don't condone bad criminal activities even if someone is a celebrity

My comments about Janet's outfit are typical of my love for fashion and totally off the cuff as anyone who knows me well would expect. Even if one is abused one can still come through it and be frivilous with comments about fashion. If MJ did abuse children it is not Janet's fault is it?!

Infact if it was proved without doubt about MJ's allegations I would still be commenting on Janet's groovy outfit so your question on if my child or friend's child was abused would I still be commenting on Janet's outfit falls on knowing and deaf ears, and no I'm not offended at you asking this question...but I am offended you didn't like her outfit - shocking!

That's exactly my point....

If one has the slightst concern that there might possibly have been a semblance of truth somewhere, then surely you'd feel revolted by all this glorifying of the individual now?

If on the other hand, you believe beyond any doubt that he was completely innocent, then that is another matter.

But...

As a Black Islamist said to me on saturday, 'Brother, if the same things had been levelled at a normal man, in a normal house, in a normal street and he'd paid £10,000 to stop the allegations, he would have been hounded from his home and be held in disgrace within his community forever.'

So what is it about celebrity that changes the goalposts?

There are many 'good shebangs of musical giants', they do not carry the worrying aspects contained within this show.

For instance - and please do not take offence at this - if the allegations had come from your own child, or a friend's or another parent at your kid's school, would you still be remotely interested in JANET JACKSON'S outfit??????

Those are the questions we ALL have to ask ourselves.

[Guest]

Actually I didn't feel revolted by this show, I felt truly sorry for the children and enjoyed some of the performances. I have no idea whether MJ committed offences to children - I wasn't there so it's not for me to judge him on that. If he did then yes he should have gone to jail but I can still like some of his tunes. I certainly don't condone bad criminal activities even if someone is a celebrity

My comments about Janet's outfit are typical of my love for fashion and totally off the cuff as anyone who knows me well would expect. Even if one is abused one can still come through it and be frivilous with comments about fashion. If MJ did abuse children it is not Janet's fault is it?!

Infact if it was proved without doubt about MJ's allegations I would still be commenting on Janet's groovy outfit so your question on if my child or friend's child was abused would I still be commenting on Janet's outfit falls on knowing and deaf ears, and no I'm not offended at you asking this question...but I am offended you didn't like her outfit - shocking!

I agree with you when you say you felt truly sorry for the children, so do I. In a single moment of highly emotional Corporate 'dream' television, PARIS in particular has been catapaulted across the world's media to a degree where THE SUN yesterday hailed her on the front page as 'the Most famous child in the world'. My god, with a Mother who sold her to WACKO for money, a parasite Grandfather like JOE JACKSON who is now telling the world that he is noticing her talents for dancing, this little girl really needs a media presence like this doesn't she? The chances of those children living any semblance of a normal life have been destroyed by that service and if people cannot see that it was a highly contrived and extremely cynical excercise for brand JACKSON, then the TV Producers who made millions from it have got their way. In fact, it was an act of cruelty to expose her to such a degree. This at the hands of people who understand better than anybody, the destructive nature of an ultra-high media profile. THE JACKSON'S could not help themselves though, they are addicted to such behaviour. The tone of her voice as she cried out, carried a distinct air of defence, as if she was trying to prove something in her grief and confusion. It was pitiful.

Likewise, the circumstances of his death and the yet to be concluded reports regarding his drug addictions have again, been convienantly sidestepped as the buisness of canonisation rolls on. Lets try some truth on a Sunday morning shall we - MICHAEL JACKSON is not even that little Girl's Father. He bought her. How obscene is that? When normal Drug Addicts die and leave kids at a vulnerable age, how often do people condemn them as 'selfish'? MICHAEL JACKSON was on a narcotic diet of mindblowing proportions and if the welfare of those children had been paramount in his priorities, he'd have been in serious rehab long ago. Instead he squandered hundreds of millions on various forms of self-gratification. As his children began to grow, he withered away as another hapless junkie, who paid respectable Doctor's for copious supplies of drugs.

Behind the glamour of the videos, the make-up and the dance routines, laid the sordid squalor of NEVERLAND and the reality of loneliness, emptiness and misery on a scale that many people find impossible to comprehend. JACKSON'S children were his ultimate commodity. Then he bought death, submitting them to the spectacle of watching him die, pumped full of pethedin and other substances.

I did not mean to attack you personally, I just find the discussion of JANET JACKSON'S outfits and the songs that were sung, extremely facile in the face of what constitutes a truly horrendous human story.

But I am sure JANET would be very happy to know people across the world, were noting her apparell.

Edited July 12, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest Carrie Mehome]

No problem Chorley - I didn't think you were personally attacking me, it's a debate after all. I really do feel that the young girl would not have spoken if she didn't want to. We were sitting down to our dinner and we just happened to turn the telly over and caught the ceremony half way through. Yes it was glitzy and smalcthsy (I can never spell that word!) but that's what you would expect wouldn't you from tinseltown. The show was televised because the family knew that fans across the world would have wanted to see it. The proper private ceremony was kept just for the family and close friends which it should have been and was.

It really doesn't matter if MJ was the girl's real Father does it?! When you are brought up by someone ho is not your Biological Parents from a young age they are still your Mummy and Daddy because that is all you have known. Yes MJ was taking prescribed drugs, in some ways more dangerous than illegal drugs and yes I can see all the sadness within his life no doubt brought on by a lot of feeling of self-loathing which ended with all the hideous plastic surgery that he did not need. His path in life was difficult but now he is eternal life he can now live a normal existance.

I'm still liking Janet's outfit although not a huge fan of over-sized shades! You may think I'm flippant in such things as Janet's get-up but trust me I'm not.

[Guest]

No problem Chorley - I didn't think you were personally attacking me, it's a debate after all. I really do feel that the young girl would not have spoken if she didn't want to. We were sitting down to our dinner and we just happened to turn the telly over and caught the ceremony half way through. Yes it was glitzy and smalcthsy (I can never spell that word!) but that's what you would expect wouldn't you from tinseltown. The show was televised because the family knew that fans across the world would have wanted to see it. The proper private ceremony was kept just for the family and close friends which it should have been and was.

It really doesn't matter if MJ was the girl's real Father does it?! When you are brought up by someone ho is not your Biological Parents from a young age they are still your Mummy and Daddy because that is all you have known. Yes MJ was taking prescribed drugs, in some ways more dangerous than illegal drugs and yes I can see all the sadness within his life no doubt brought on by a lot of feeling of self-loathing which ended with all the hideous plastic surgery that he did not need. His path in life was difficult but now he is eternal life he can now live a normal existance.

I'm still liking Janet's outfit although not a huge fan of over-sized shades! You may think I'm flippant in such things as Janet's get-up but trust me I'm not.

Actually in this case I think it matters a great deal that he's not the Father. That child will grow into an adult and somewhere along the line she is going to have to mentally deal with the fact that she was bought and sold. The fact that the real Mother is now raising her head almost guarantees that this little girl is going to have some very serious identity/self-esteem issues to deal with somewhere along the line. Kids dont stay kids forever and all 'Daddy's Girl's' (I know, I've had enough of'em!) grow up. When this child becomes an Adult she may well see things very differently and her media profile - shoved onto her by her 'adoring' Aunts and Uncles - may be something she comes to resent.

Secondly, that show was televised because THE JACKSONS were determined to ensure that MICHAEL was re-elevated to hero status in death. They were under no compunction whatsoever to broadcast anything to the world, this was a 'show' in the truest sense of the word and it worked as a superb 'launch' for the lifelong iconisation of MICHAEL JACKSON that we shall all now sadly witness.

[Guest Carrie Mehome]

I think we should give the young girl more credit don't you think - kids are more resiliant than we realise. OK, she was bought and sold and she has to come to terms with that - big deal - life is not supposed to be easy that's for sure. I'm sure she was loved by her Daddy whether or not he bought her or not.

Actually in this case I think it matters a great deal that he's not the Father. That child will grow into an adult and somewhere along the line she is going to have to mentally deal with the fact that she was bought and sold. The fact that the real Mother is now raising her head almost guarantees that this little girl is going to have some very serious identity/self-esteem issues to deal with somewhere along the line. Kids dont stay kids forever and all 'Daddy's Girl's' (I know, I've had enough of'em!) grow up. When this child becomes an Adult she may well see things very differently and her media profile - shoved onto her by her 'adoring' Aunts and Uncles - may be something she comes to resent.

Secondly, that show was televised because THE JACKSONS were determined to ensure that MICHAEL was re-elevated to hero status in death. They were under no compunction whatsoever to broadcast anything to the world, this was a 'show' in the truest sense of the word and it worked as a superb 'launch' for the lifelong iconisation of MICHAEL JACKSON that we shall all now sadly witness.

[Guest]

I think we should give the young girl more credit don't you think - kids are more resiliant than we realise. OK, she was bought and sold and she has to come to terms with that - big deal - life is not supposed to be easy that's for sure. I'm sure she was loved by her Daddy whether or not he bought her or not.

I am very sorry but no child of that age, has the slightest ability to rationally assess the potential pressures and damage that can be wrought by a worldwide media submitting your life to microscopic examination. THE JACKSONS on the other hand know more than any collective group about the harm and pain such aspects can bring. Especially at a youthful age for god's sake. They were duty bound to protect that girl from the spotlight, not allow her to be thrust into it and not one of them stopped it from happening. Just because a child wants to do something, does not mean we allow it if we can see significant risks. But for THE JACKSONS that was the perfect 'finale' to the occaison, one they could hardly have scripted better. If your reaction to the pressures this child will undoubtedly now face is - big deal - then there is not a lot anybody can say on the matter. The dramatisation now continues with LA TOYA'S 'Murder' allegations. She too, could be pursuing these lines in dignified silence, via Lawyers, Private Investigators etc, that would be far more sensible and protect the possible validity of any case eventually pursued. But that would deny LATOYA her moment in the spotlight again so the whole sorry mess continues. Meanwhile the kids can see their Auntie splattered across the globe and we have to assume - logically - that if said Auntie is screaming to the entire world that her brother/their Father was murdered, that this is what they are being told? Yet you dismiss all these pressures as - big deal, life was not meant to be easy?

The value you seemingly place on her 'daddy loving her' seems strangely at odds with your somehat flippant dismissal of the absolutely extraordinairy issues and pressures surrounding these children. Personally I believe they are being submitted to an obscene level of examination and publicity. If you think the present circumstances auger well for their state of mind and well being, we obviously see life very differently.

Edited July 13, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest]

On the other hand, LATOYA'S hat looked pretty nifty on the 'SCREWS OF THE WORLD'....

Edited July 13, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest Carrie Mehome]

Why are you "very sorry?" - sorry because I hold the same view as you on this subject or sorry for some other reason? What position do you hold in life to make an assumption that ALL children don't have the ability to rationally assess potential pressures in life? You cannot generalise all children surely - some can rationalise and some can't - simple as.

As for La Toya, I thought her floppy hat was hideous and so last year!

I am very sorry but no child of that age, has the slightest ability to rationally assess the potential pressures and damage that can be wrought by a worldwide media submitting your life to microscopic examination. THE JACKSONS on the other hand know more than any collective group about the harm and pain such aspects can bring. Especially at a youthful age for god's sake. They were duty bound to protect that girl from the spotlight, not allow her to be thrust into it and not one of them stopped it from happening. Just because a child wants to do something, does not mean we allow it if we can see significant risks. But for THE JACKSONS that was the perfect 'finale' to the occaison, one they could hardly have scripted better. If your reaction to the pressures this child will undoubtedly now face is - big deal - then there is not a lot anybody can say on the matter. The dramatisation now continues with LA TOYA'S 'Murder' allegations. She too, could be pursuing these lines in dignified silence, via Lawyers, Private Investigators etc, that would be far more sensible and protect the possible validity of any case eventually pursued. But that would deny LATOYA her moment in the spotlight again so the whole sorry mess continues. Meanwhile the kids can see their Auntie splattered across the globe and we have to assume - logically - that if said Auntie is screaming to the entire world that her brother/their Father was murdered, that this is what they are being told? Yet you dismiss all these pressures as - big deal, life was not meant to be easy?

The value you seemingly place on her 'daddy loving her' seems strangely at odds with your somehat flippant dismissal of the absolutely extraordinairy issues and pressures surrounding these children. Personally I believe they are being submitted to an obscene level of examination and publicity. If you think the present circumstances auger well for their state of mind and well being, we obviously see life very differently.

[Guest]

Why are you "very sorry?" - sorry because I hold the same view as you on this subject or sorry for some other reason? What position do you hold in life to make an assumption that ALL children don't have the ability to rationally assess potential pressures in life? You cannot generalise all children surely - some can rationalise and some can't - simple as.

As for La Toya, I thought her floppy hat was hideous and so last year!

I find the glaring dichotomies in your posts quite fascinating. Firstly you say you hold the same views as me on this subject, then in the next breath you say I do not have a right to assume that thse kids are being submitted to unreasonable pressures and intrusions. But you have blatantly ignored the vast majority of points I have raised and the questions they throw up....

Ok, let me word it to a degree that you will perhaps approve....

Yes, of course there might be a child of PARIS JACKSON'S age who can go instantly from being almost unknown to being the most famous child on the planet - without it affecting her in any way. Perhaps there is a child who can cope with seeing her Father die in front of her, from lethal drug dosage - without it affecting her. Perhaps there is a child whose Aunt can then grab worldwide headlines by stating that he was murdered - and not be affected by it. Perhaps there might be a child whose own blood Mother, who sold her in the first place, comes back on the scene and demands shared custody - without it affecting her. Perhaps there might be a child who suddenly realises she is at the centre of one of the most bizarre custody battles in history, ie KATHRYN JACKSON, DEBBIE and Jolly old JOE - without it affecting her and so on and so on.....

Personally and I stress personally, I just happen to believe that a young child who is subject to all that would be far better served by not having the world's paparazzi pursue her every move and comment from here on in. By all means, if you can show me a child who has been submitted to such extraordinairy circumstance without it having some type of negative psychological affect on them, I would be remarkably surprised.

I maintain children that age cannot possibly have the life experience, maturity and sense of objectivity to deal rationally with a situation as

horrendously convoluted and abnormal as this one. I think you'll find that the 'protection of minors' laws in this country most certainly agree with that stance and I cannot imagine the US system differing in too pronounced a manner.

I am most certainly not talking about ALL children in ALL circumstances, which is what you seem to have implied. I am talking about this subject specifically.

Edited July 13, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest]

Why are you "very sorry?" - sorry because I hold the same view as you on this subject or sorry for some other reason? What position do you hold in life to make an assumption that ALL children don't have the ability to rationally assess potential pressures in life? You cannot generalise all children surely - some can rationalise and some can't - simple as.

As for La Toya, I thought her floppy hat was hideous and so last year!

What I really don't get, is there are far too many comparisons with The ELVIS PRESLEY story here already - why do THE JACKSON WOMEN insist on permanently wearing his sunglasses?

Edited July 13, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest Carrie Mehome]

It is possible to agree on certain slants and not agree on other slants within a subject - it is allowed you know lol! I'm terribly glad you find me fascinating lol! You say below that you're not talking about all children in all circumstances yet you clearly said in another post that "I am very sorry but no child of that age, has the slightest ability to rationally assess the potential pressures..." - to me that is a generalisation in my book! Sometimes people need to look outside the box!

Why are you bothered about wording something that I will approve of?! You don't need my approval on anything - I'm just putting my view across just as you are...

I find the glaring dichotomies in your posts quite fascinating. Firstly you say you hold the same views as me on this subject, then in the next breath you say I do not have a right to assume that thse kids are being submitted to unreasonable pressures and intrusions. But you have blatantly ignored the vast majority of points I have raised and the questions they throw up....

Ok, let me word it to a degree that you will perhaps approve....

Yes, of course there might be a child of PARIS JACKSON'S age who can go instantly from being almost unknown to being the most famous child on the planet - without it affecting her in any way. Perhaps there is a child who can cope with seeing her Father die in front of her, from lethal drug dosage - without it affecting her. Perhaps there is a child whose Aunt can then grab worldwide headlines by stating that he was murdered - and not be affected by it. Perhaps there might be a child whose own blood Mother, who sold her in the first place, comes back on the scene and demands shared custody - without it affecting her. Perhaps there might be a child who suddenly realises she is at the centre of one of the most bizarre custody battles in history, ie KATHRYN JACKSON, DEBBIE and Jolly old JOE - without it affecting her and so on and so on.....

Personally and I stress personally, I just happen to believe that a young child who is subject to all that would be far better served by not having the world's paparazzi pursue her every move and comment from here on in. By all means, if you can show me a child who has been submitted to such extraordinairy circumstance without it having some type of negative psychological affect on them, I would be remarkably surprised.

I maintain children that age cannot possibly have the life experience, maturity and sense of objectivity to deal rationally with a situation as

horrendously convoluted and abnormal as this one. I think you'll find that the 'protection of minors' laws in this country most certainly agree with that stance and I cannot imagine the US system differing in too pronounced a manner.

I am most certainly not talking about ALL children in ALL circumstances, which is what you seem to have implied. I am talking about this subject specifically.

[Guest]

It is possible to agree on certain slants and not agree on other slants within a subject - it is allowed you know lol! I'm terribly glad you find me fascinating lol! You say below that you're not talking about all children in all circumstances yet you clearly said in another post that "I am very sorry but no child of that age, has the slightest ability to rationally assess the potential pressures..." - to me that is a generalisation in my book! Sometimes people need to look outside the box!

Why are you bothered about wording something that I will approve of?! You don't need my approval on anything - I'm just putting my view across just as you are...

I am just being polite - but hey come on!!!!!!!!!! You have very convienantly CHOPPED MY SENTENCE IN COMPLETE HALF LOL!

First line - 'I am very sorry but no child of that age, has the slightest ability to rationally assess the potential pressures....(enter your edit space...!!!)

My ACTUAL conclusion to above line - 'and damage that can be wrought by a worldwide media submitting your life to microscopic examination....'

Any fair reading of that line, has to surely conclude that I am writing about a very specific and dramatic set of events - in themselves, way out of the normal life experiences of the average child - I am not making a generalisation, I am talking about experiences which perhaps one in 100 million children experience, perhaps even less than that....

I have heard about winning a literary debate by creative editing but that has to count as butchery!

[Guest Carrie Mehome]

I don't have time to sit here fiddling with copying and pasting all of your lines. It's common practice to input dots to let people know there is more in that sentence - I did that as a time factor so don't get paranoid that it's a conspiracy!

I wasn't aware that this was a competition - a literary debate lol?! If this is a competition then does one have to agree with everything you say to win a prize? You posted a topic for us all to discuss and just because I don't agree with everything you say you take it personally. I still believe that children can see things more clearly without any fuzzy edges than adults and even with these unusual circumstances I give more credit to children for being able to cope - that's what I believe and that's my opinion.

I am just being polite - but hey come on!!!!!!!!!! You have very convienantly CHOPPED MY SENTENCE IN COMPLETE HALF LOL!

First line - 'I am very sorry but no child of that age, has the slightest ability to rationally assess the potential pressures....(enter your edit space...!!!)

My ACTUAL conclusion to above line - 'and damage that can be wrought by a worldwide media submitting your life to microscopic examination....'

Any fair reading of that line, has to surely conclude that I am writing about a very specific and dramatic set of events - in themselves, way out of the normal life experiences of the average child - I am not making a generalisation, I am talking about experiences which perhaps one in 100 million children experience, perhaps even less than that....

I have heard about winning a literary debate by creative editing but that has to count as butchery!

[Guest]

I don't have time to sit here fiddling with copying and pasting all of your lines. It's common practice to input dots to let people know there is more in that sentence - I did that as a time factor so don't get paranoid that it's a conspiracy!

I wasn't aware that this was a competition - a literary debate lol?! If this is a competition then does one have to agree with everything you say to win a prize? You posted a topic for us all to discuss and just because I don't agree with everything you say you take it personally. I still believe that children can see things more clearly without any fuzzy edges than adults and even with these unusual circumstances I give more credit to children for being able to cope - that's what I believe and that's my opinion.

Actually it's become quite pointless because you are not debating with me at all! I have not taken anything personally, its all done in good humour but I think the press stuff of the last few days is bearing out my views. Today I saw PARIS hailed as 'The New Jacko' on the front cover of one of those hideous British weekly gossip glossies...

If you can find an ounce of ration in that, I'll concede entirely!

[Guest Carrie Mehome]

I was debating! For someone who was not taking it personally you seemed to get on your high horse a bit! Yes it is all in good humour but I am allowed to have a point of view.

As for tabloids, I wouldn't believe everything you read in the papers!!!! For example; did you really believe Freddie Starr ate his hamster?! I rest my case...

Actually it's become quite pointless because you are not debating with me at all! I have not taken anything personally, its all done in good humour but I think the press stuff of the last few days is bearing out my views. Today I saw PARIS hailed as 'The New Jacko' on the front cover of one of those hideous British weekly gossip glossies...

If you can find an ounce of ration in that, I'll concede entirely!

[Guest]

I was debating! For someone who was not taking it personally you seemed to get on your high horse a bit! Yes it is all in good humour but I am allowed to have a point of view.

As for tabloids, I wouldn't believe everything you read in the papers!!!! For example; did you really believe Freddie Starr ate his hamster?! I rest my case...

I'm sorry, I just don't get your responses. I was not talking about something I believed, I just saw a front cover and it had a colour photo of his daughter with the tag PARIS: The New Jacko!!!

Thats the type of ridiculous profile stuff that the trash media are going to stuff on these kids for years. I just think there's a reasonable chance that might affect them, god, there's enough examples at this very second is there not? JORDAN'S implosion etc...

As for THE JACKSON'S, again now we have had TITO grab his five minutes in the spotlight as his story gets syndicated by News International. As he tries to paint a picture of his Father as an old fashioned workhorse who just kept a firm hand on his rowdy lads, another paper claims he booted MICHAEL so hard in the balls he infertilised him! Poor ol'Joe, so just why is it his wife is trying to keep him away from his grandchildren? These stories on the same day! IAN DEWHIRST was certainly right when he said 'You aint seen nothin' yet!' Nine million records sold since his death, a possible murder case, his brothers and sisters screaming across the world's front pages and I cannot still get you to concede that perhaps a lot of people would have thought it better to keep the kids away from this monstrous circus?

[Guest Carrie Mehome]

Nope you still cannot get me to thik it's best to get the kids away - they're not exactly crying are they imo.

I'm sorry, I just don't get your responses. I was not talking about something I believed, I just saw a front cover and it had a colour photo of his daughter with the tag PARIS: The New Jacko!!!

Thats the type of ridiculous profile stuff that the trash media are going to stuff on these kids for years. I just think there's a reasonable chance that might affect them, god, there's enough examples at this very second is there not? JORDAN'S implosion etc...

As for THE JACKSON'S, again now we have had TITO grab his five minutes in the spotlight as his story gets syndicated by News International. As he tries to paint a picture of his Father as an old fashioned workhorse who just kept a firm hand on his rowdy lads, another paper claims he booted MICHAEL so hard in the balls he infertilised him! Poor ol'Joe, so just why is it his wife is trying to keep him away from his grandchildren? These stories on the same day! IAN DEWHIRST was certainly right when he said 'You aint seen nothin' yet!' Nine million records sold since his death, a possible murder case, his brothers and sisters screaming across the world's front pages and I cannot still get you to concede that perhaps a lot of people would have thought it better to keep the kids away from this monstrous circus?

[Guest]

Nope you still cannot get me to thik it's best to get the kids away - they're not exactly crying are they imo.

'They're not exactly crying are they?'?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Words fail me lol

[Guest Carrie Mehome]

And?!...

'They're not exactly crying are they?'?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Words fail me lol