3 His material isn't very good anymore.

That's a matter of opinion and his most recent material (i.e. the "Invincible" album) isn't what I wanted to post about anyway (even though its lack of commercial success may be explained in another way).

But while I'm on about musical influences and since I mentioned Faith No More...I'm convinced that Mike Patton is influenced by MJ to an extent. First, it's clear that he's influenced (to an extent) by pop music. This is evident from his singing style in the later Mr Bungle demos, "The Real Thing" and other Faith No More albums, Peeping Tom and the pop covers performed in concert with his various groups, amongst other things. Now, before anyone says it's entirely in jest, I would argue that this isn't true, because he ventures to sing a lot of these songs largely in a serious way. It's different when you can tell that he's aping someone (as you can with his Hetfield impression when he did "Enter Sandman" in a medley with "Zombie" by the Cranberries. That and the fact that the setlist title of the song "She Loves Me Not" from Faith No More's "Album of the Year" was "Michael Jackson", which is sung tongue in cheek but with honesty all at once (well, that's Patton for you). So there's some trivia right there.

No it's not what you wanted to post about but it's been said in this thread countless times and yet all Jackson fans want to go on about is how he got off in his trial and that's why he's not popular anymore. Read the posts in this thread. Many people think his recent material isn't up to much regardless of anything else.

And of course it's opinion , that's why the forum exists.

Well actually, it was you who had asked the question whether another poster would let their child sleep in MJ's bed earlier in the thread. That in itself implies that you believe that there is substance to the allegations and, as such, that the matter warrants further discussion.

Here, let me help you:-

Page 24 of this thread:-


Fair enough. My view however is that the strength of his achievements, like many artists/bands, lies in the earlier works anyway. In any event, you say you don't think much of it and someone else says they do...it's a matter of preference which doesn't make for much debate, in my view.

No need to help me I know what I said. You may also notice that I was replying in a discussion about it that was already going on and it wasn't me that bought it up. And I think it's a perfectly valid question, All I asked was would you let a man who has had allegations of that sort made against him near your child if you were a parent.
I'm not implying guilt on anybody that's asking a moral question.

Funnily enough your essay didn't even mention his music anywhere.

In case you missed it, that was because I was addressing the basis of the very "moral question" you had asked. My first post in this thread clearly set that out. You may not have asked the question in the first place but you certainly attempted to further the discussion of that issue with your post. And when I try to participate in the discussion of the same, it's something that's been done and dusted? The implications of a settlement on a party's liability was not an issue that was resolved, as far as I could see. Further, your post, as I had said, appeared to take as true the allegations which had not been shown to be true. Why not take issue with that?

Separately, you raised the issue about music with me just now and my previous post addresses that.

I never said they were true , or false for that matter.

All I did was ask a moral dilemma of trust about someone ACCUSED of something.

Whether that implies guilt or not is down to the individuals judgement.

In my view, guilt should be implied where there is obviously a sustainable basis for it. Without even referring to MJ or the legal arena, there are plenty of frivolous, vexatious and/or entirely bare allegations that are made on a daily basis. But if there's no reasonable or sustainable basis on which such allegations or accusations rest, I don't see how you can hold them against someone. Especially when such allegations look to have been made for an improper collateral purpose (usually money or spite).

But like you said, it's down to an individual's judgment. Coming back to the MJ issue, I don't think it's enough to say he's guilty of indecent sexual assault when the settlement or the outcome of the criminal case don't provide a basis for this. This is why I asked what the basis could be. His looks? I don't know.

Put another way, if some woman cried rape and the accused was acquitted on the basis that there was no evidence of any penetration and her testimony was full of holes, I wouldn't go around saying the guy was a rapist. There may be a moral dilemma nonetheless, but the scales may be further tipped by other circumstances (let's say you knew the dude to be an upstanding guy and the "victim" was butt-ugly and you know the guy doesn't do fat or ugly chicks). You know what I mean.

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough...nice to meet you guys.

P.S. I had no idea I'd be posting in the pop forum as much as this. Time to move on. :D

I bet you wouldnt be setting him up with your sister either though, would you?

And going back to a previous comment - I'm not a parent but if I had kids I wouldnt let them anywhere near someone who had been accused of sexual assault. Not because I would automatically assume they were guilty but because I'd be a parent and therefore have to be responsible. Anyway, lets not overlook the fact that any parent who would knowingly allow their child to sleep in the same bed as another adult is nothing short of an idiot anyway.

Im not convinced that every allegation thrown at MJ has been true at all and I think its a case of "If you throw enough ****..." but I doubt I'd be settling out of court for such a severe allegation if i was innocent.

Threads like this make we want to bid 'adios' to MB. This discussion just goes around and around.