Did BBC seriously just compare MJ to the Beatles and Frank Sinatra?

[DavidB 0]

Quote

Quote

If anyone's the odd one out there, I'd say it's Sinatra. For my money, not that great a singer - really a crooner (and of other people's songs).

At his peak, (which was early in his career), he was just another good singer.
Through most of his career, he was a mediocre singer.
Watch a documentary containing samples of his singing from across the years, and you will see for yourself.

Had it not been for having made a lot of powerful friends who promoted his career, he would have faded away and been forgotten.

The fact that he rode the first breaking wave of MTV & music videos in general is, IMHO, the only reason for his fame beyond being just another pop-singer.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[MikeMcLean 0]

I thought there was a zero tolerance policy on pedophilia on DZ.com. IMHO, this should include all discussions about the dead kid toucher.

It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

[MikeJD 0]

Mike, the posts in this thread (well ok, most of them) are debating Jackson's legacy as an entertainment icon, so not breaching any forum rules.

I see his post-death surge in album sales are exceeding those that followed Lennon's assassination - I guess that's one way to make a comparison, but then it is much easier to buy music now on a whim. Although I find it a bit mystifying why people feel the urge to suddenly purchase anyone's work just because they're dead.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

I thought there was a zero tolerance policy on pedophilia on DZ.com. IMHO, this should include all discussions about the dead kid toucher.

Interesting, but since he was found innocent it's irrelevant (regardless of what we may personally feel).

Not withstanding the above, and speaking as a NON MJ music fan, there's no doubt that the man's influence on music was quite undeniable.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[MikeMcLean 0]

So the litmus test (so to speak) is a criminal conviction? This doesn't match well with "zero tolerance" ... which last I checked meant not having any subjectivity or allowances made for extenuating circumstances.

No allowances for extenuating circumstances, to me, implies that we can't talk about the "musical legacy" of a pedophile, nor can we make a subjective judgement that convicted counts but suspected doesn't.

Zero should be zero ... right?

It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

"musical legacy" of a pedophile,

That's just it - he isn't one. In the eyes of the law, and this site - innocent until proven guilty.

So yes, we have a zero pedophile tolerance - but just because people *THINK* he was one doesn't mean he was one and thus, discussing him, is in no way a forum issue.

Sounds to me like you have a personal beef with him (which I totally understand, and actually agree with) - HOWEVER just cause we *believe* he did something doesn't mean he did, especially when you consider that he won in court.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[billvon 3,070]

>So the litmus test (so to speak) is a criminal conviction?

From the rules:

No References to Pedophilia
References to pedophilia can only be made in a factual context or in discussion of certain political and social issues. Outside of those limited contexts Dropzone.com will have a zero-tolerance policy to pedophilia and any reference thereto will be removed without explanation.

So to be 100% literal about it, it is fine to talk about Michael Jackson, and to discuss the factual aspects of his various court cases, but not to discuss rumors or tell jokes about it.