1. Oh - didn't know that. Interesting.
  2. I’m unsure what to think of the whole thing. I was never a huge fan but can’t deny that his music is good. What I do find interesting though is that I know a huge MJ supporter who is also someone who shouts about believing all victims. I wonder how she reconciled this.
  3. Originally posted by kris_smith87:I’m unsure what to think of the whole thing. I was never a huge fan but can’t deny that his music is good. What I do find interesting though is that I know a huge MJ supporter who is also someone who shouts about believing all victims. I wonder how she reconciled this.
    Court cases are the only way these matters are solved. And he was acquitted.
  4. Didn't he settle a load of cases out of court.
  5. Originally posted by TheRealEdge:All that depends on whether you believe the witnesses or not, or whether you're a fanatical Jackson supporter who will defend him to the death.

    Do we still play his music? Well, there's an argument that we still enjoy art created by people from history with dubious behaviour and hang/present that art in public galleries.

    I wasn't there, I don't know what he did and what he did not. I can only guess (and guesses are biased). There should be a reason why he paid millions to the families to silence their claims, but who am I to say.

    On the other hand, in my opinion there is no argument: art is art and it can (and should) be enjoyed regardless what their creator's did. Same applies for U2: do I like all of Bono's political statements, meetings with (ex-)presidents, religious views, etc? Or the bands' decision to move their business outside Ireland or to sell their rights to LiveNation? No I don't - not even close. Does that turn me into a U2 hater? God, no!
  6. His interests and what he had admitted to have done is extremely messed up.
  7. He's a flawed genius I guess.
    Wasn't the first and won't be the last.
  8. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]

    I wasn't there, I don't know what he did and what he did not. I can only guess (and guesses are biased). There should be a reason why he paid millions to the families to silence their claims, but who am I to say.

    On the other hand, in my opinion there is no argument: art is art and it can (and should) be enjoyed regardless what their creator's did. Same applies for U2: do I like all of Bono's political statements, meetings with (ex-)presidents, religious views, etc? Or the bands' decision to move their business outside Ireland or to sell their rights to LiveNation? No I don't - not even close. Does that turn me into a U2 hater? God, no!
    I don’t know what to make of Michael Jackson, I don’t really think about it tbh because we’ll probably never get definite answers but if he or any artist was found guilty of something like he was accused of it would absolutely stop me enjoying there work. It’s one thing disagreeing with someone’s views and not letting that tarnish how you see there work but when it comes to the things that Michael Jackson was accused of that’s a totally different matter.
  9. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    I don’t know what to make of Michael Jackson, I don’t really think about it tbh because we’ll probably never get definite answers but if he or any artist was found guilty of something like he was accused of it would absolutely stop me enjoying there work. It’s one thing disagreeing with someone’s views and not letting that tarnish how you see there work but when it comes to the things that Michael Jackson was accused of that’s a totally different matter.
    Art and its appreciation are 100% subjective so there's nothing wrong with your view (and I very much respect it).
  10. Obviously I was not there either, but there was not enough evidence to find him guilty. Also, the first of the two accusing families brought it up after Michael failed to fund the father's film project...at least something to consider. And the second case was a woman who WENT OUT OF HER WAY to leave a child alone with Michael. In this case, the woman had already won a lawsuit suing someone over similar circumstances, and then did not report her windfall on her taxes, so she gets in trouble for tax evasion. And she still is on Welfare despite no longer needing it.
    Then she leaves her child with cancer alone with someone suspected of child molesting? Seems fishy to me. And I love Michael a lot, but you just don't leave children alone with someone who has been accused, right? You're just taking precautions. Was Michael strange? Yes. Did he have an unusual arrangement with many children? Yes. Did he do anything illegal? I hope not, but it was never proven, and it seems the media and those that do not do the research think he is guilty no matter what.