So, are we still playing Michael Jackson or not?

[Corabar Steve]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653380/Michael-Jackson-s-secret-underage-sex-closet-Inside-raid-uncovered-King-Pop-s-extensive-collection-photos-featuring-naked-teenage-boys.html

[DazzyD]

Well, based on my belief of justice and the judicial system, he has stood trial on these charges and been acquitted. And the article does state that a lot of the material found was catalogued as evidence in the trial so it's already been taken in to account. The article quotes Santa Barbara Senior Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen as saying "There’s not much question in my mind that Michael was guilty of child molestation.'. This smacks of trial by media and is very dangerous ground.

However, the "shall we play the music" debate is not as clear cut as others who have been tried and found guilty. This will have to be up to the individual DJ to decide upon based on a decision of conscience. I never really like him anyway and only play his music when requested. And I can see that stance continuing.

[ukpartydj]

I personally don't care what a person has done. Does an artist's actions alter your enjoyment of their music?

The Vatican is still very popular with tourists despite its proven links to thousands of child abuse cases...

[DeckstarDeluxe]

Well it's the daily mail so I take this with a pinch of salt.

I have a feeling rightly or wrongly than in most peoples eyes whatever he is convicted of post death won't impact on punters requesting his songs. Not the same can be said for various artists and band members who have been charged with these sorts of crimes.

[Jim - Scotland's Party DJ]

Never been a fan and always thought there was something to the allegations from back in the 90s - there was plenty of fairly damning evidence there.

That being said, I also only play his stuff when it's been requested and can't see folk changing their opinions unless there's a proper revisit of the case.

[Excalibur]

Wondered when this one would come up, in light of recent stories. Other than his work with the Jacksons, I only tend to play Billie Jean, and Thriller. I'm not terribly fond of censorship at any time, and I'd hate to lose these songs from my armoury.

To answer you Steve, yes. In my case. And I'm not saying I'm right. It would be noce if we could let the music stand or fall on its merits, not court cases involving artists.

[musicology]

He got requested tonight. Don't Stop Till You Get Enough and Beat it. I'm certainly not taking any kind of solo moral stance on the back of a newspaper story. While they still request and dance, I'll keep playing him!

[Excalibur]

He got requested tonight. Don't Stop Till You Get Enough and Beat it. I'm certainly not taking any kind of solo moral stance on the back of a newspaper story. While they still request and dance, I'll keep playing him!

A policy I find it hard to argue with, as it mirrors mine.

[Imagine]

A policy I find it hard to argue with, as it mirrors mine.

Same here I'm afraid.

The customer's paying (hence I got stuck with Acid rave last night :o ), and I'm there to do a job....not to question their musical taste or ethics.

[funkymook]

'm there to do a job....not to question their musical taste or ethics.

I’ll happily question both and turn down a booking if I don’t like it (or the client) for any reason - that’s why I’m self employed, I answer to no one but myself when it comes down to what events I take on.


As for MJ - I still believe if they had any real evidence against him he would’ve been charged and found guilty - every newspaper, magazine, journalist, private detective, lawyer etc were out to make a name for themselves by exposing him. He would not have slipped through the net with so many people digging into his life.

As for the parents of the children who were involved in the actions against him, if the allegations were true and they allowed themselves to be paid off then that’s child abuse (they basically took the money rather than going for justice - what parent would do that?) and if they weren’t true then that’s also child abuse by using them for blackmail.

[Excalibur]

I’ll happily question both and turn down a booking if I don’t like it (or the client) for any reason - that’s why I’m self employed, I answer to no one but myself when it comes down to what events I take on.



I think we all do. The $64,000 question is- to what extent? :confused:

There's a very apposite quote often attributed to Churchill, on the subject. :). Google " we're just haggling about the price".

While I'm in quote mode" Fine words butter no parsnips". There are gigs I'd turn away, and probably more than one I wish I had. On the flip side, there have been ones I wasn't too happy about doing which turned out to be great gigs.

We all draw the line in the sand in different places, but there has to be a line.

[funkymook]

I think we all do. The $64,000 question is- to what extent? :confused:

There's a very apposite quote often attributed to Churchill, on the subject. :). Google " we're just haggling about the price".

While I'm in quote mode" Fine words butter no parsnips". There are gigs I'd turn away, and probably more than one I wish I had. On the flip side, there have been ones I wasn't too happy about doing which turned out to be great gigs.

We all draw the line in the sand in different places, but there has to be a line.

That’s a fair point, we all have a price, but just how much would it take to compromise ourselves?

I very seldom get last minute bookings, most are months in advance, so the chances of filling a date I turn down are very high (and experience bears this out), if I was taking bookings with less notice I may well be less choosy.

[CRAZY K]

I personally don't care what a person has done. Does an artist's actions alter your enjoyment of their music?

The Vatican is still very popular with tourists despite its proven links to thousands of child abuse cases...

Yes but you don't get asked to play music by the Vatican or priests.

Would you play Gary Glitter at a 70s night?

I think because Jacksons music is SO good people turn a blind eye.

I always bang on Billie Jean when I can--no change for me.

He was mighty dodgy with his behaviour but not convicted.

Daily Mail--hmm I take that but don't believe everything I read--I have just cancelled the Mail on Sunday as I'm not comfortable now with their political views and no they are NOT the same as the Daily Mail.

[ukpartydj]

Yes but you don't get asked to play music by the Vatican or priests.

Would you play Gary Glitter at a 70s night?

I think because Jacksons music is SO good people turn a blind eye.

I always bang on Billie Jean when I can--no change for me.

He was mighty dodgy with his behaviour but not convicted.

Daily Mail--hmm I take that but don't believe everything I read--I have just cancelled the Mail on Sunday as I'm not comfortable now with their political views and no they are NOT the same as the Daily Mail.

To be honest it wouldn't have even crossed my mind if I should play Gary Glitter or not based on any of his crimes. I don't delve into what music comes from nice people and what music comes from criminals and if I did, I wouldn't let my judgements get in the way of my DJing.

If I was to only play music I thought was "morally correct" I'd rule out half my collection. How many songs suggest women are inferior, drugs are great, criminal activity is "cool" etc etc...

If you will avoid Jackson songs because you think he was probably a child abuser that's not a bad thing... If I think the clients wants it though, they've got it!

If a client asks for it and you say no based on that... Well... I wouldn't be very happy with that if I were your client.

[CRAZY K]

To be honest it wouldn't have even crossed my mind if I should play Gary Glitter or not based on any of his crimes. I don't delve into what music comes from nice people and what music comes from criminals and if I did, I wouldn't let my judgements get in the way of my DJing.

If I was to only play music I thought was "morally correct" I'd rule out half my collection. How many songs suggest women are inferior, drugs are great, criminal activity is "cool" etc etc...

If you will avoid Jackson songs because you think he was probably a child abuser that's not a bad thing... If I think the clients wants it though, they've got it!

If a client asks for it and you say no based on that... Well... I wouldn't be very happy with that if I were your client.

Having a play list in advance always helps.

[Excalibur]

I don't delve into what music comes from nice people and what music comes from criminals and if I did, I wouldn't let my judgements get in the way of my DJing.
I have to say that I agree with the concept, but in reality it's hard to achieve without annoying clients.


If I was to only play music I thought was "morally correct" I'd rule out half my collection. How many songs suggest women are inferior, drugs are great, criminal activity is "cool" etc etc...
Amen. I think if we tried hard enough, we could find valid moral reasons not to play around 90% of our collections.


If you will avoid Jackson songs because you think he was probably a child abuser that's not a bad thing... If I think the clients wants it though, they've got it!

If a client asks for it and you say no based on that... Well... I wouldn't be very happy with that if I were your client.

More tightropes. Ethics versus principles. There's a Kanye/Jay Z song about dark skinned people in the capital of France, which I have steadfastly refused to play for years. At an 18th recently, it was requested, and I played it, simply because the gig was going that way, and all the guests were of that age, with no young teens, or older generations. I don't expect to play it again in a hurry, and I wasn't proud of playing it then. We are however in a service industry, and that's why we face these moral dilemmas.

[funkymook]

MJ wasn’t convicted (and as of yet nothing’s been proved either) so a fairly safe example. Lets change it to the Lost Prophets, play or not play if asked by the client?

[ukpartydj]

What is the reasoning behind not wishing to play songs linked to child abusers? Is it a personal thing or are we scared guests might be offended?

[CRAZY K]

I have to say that I agree with the concept, but in reality it's hard to achieve without annoying clients.


Amen. I think if we tried hard enough, we could find valid moral reasons not to play around 90% of our collections.



More tightropes. Ethics versus principles. There's a Kanye/Jay Z song about dark skinned people in the capital of France, which I have steadfastly refused to play for years. At an 18th recently, it was requested, and I played it, simply because the gig was going that way, and all the guests were of that age, with no young teens, or older generations. I don't expect to play it again in a hurry, and I wasn't proud of playing it then. We are however in a service industry, and that's why we face these moral dilemmas.

Strangely that's the tune I was asked to play at a Middlesbrough Wedding IN ADVANCE ON THE PLAYLIST SO REALLY HAD TO.

Later I discovered it was chosen by a 6 year old aaaaaaargh ,,,,,,

These days the most controversial track is probably. BLANKET ON THE GROUND :D:(:D

[DazzyD]

Well it's the daily mail so I take this with a pinch of salt.

I have a feeling rightly or wrongly than in most peoples eyes whatever he is convicted of post death won't impact on punters requesting his songs. Not the same can be said for various artists and band members who have been charged with these sorts of crimes.

Don't think he can be convicted now. He's already been acquitted and can't he not be tried again for the same crime under the "Double Jeopardy" laws in the US?


I have to say that I agree with the concept, but in reality it's hard to achieve without annoying clients.



What is the reasoning behind not wishing to play songs linked to child abusers? Is it a personal thing or are we scared guests might be offended?

It's not just about annoying clients or people being offended. It's about personal safety, too. I once had a drunken Scottish punter at a pub karaoke grab me by the throat because he thought I was playing GG. I wasn't! I can't remember who I was playing but it was something like Mud. His mates had to pull him off me! So, for me, playing tracks by CONVICTED child abusers is a definite no-no.

[CRAZY K]

Don't think he can be convicted now. He's already been acquitted and can't he not be tried again for the same crime under the "Double Jeopardy" laws in the US?





It's not just about annoying clients or people being offended. It's about personal safety, too. I once had a drunken Scottish punter at a pub karaoke grab me by the throat because he thought I was playing GG. I wasn't! I can't remember who I was playing but it was something like Mud. His mates had to pull him off me! So, for me, playing tracks by CONVICTED child abusers is a definite no-no.

I still reckon its down to popularity.

MJ is still hugely popular as far as I know because of his legacy-- and no convictions.

GG well I loved his music but I dont know of any requests for many years--also he has form so I wouldnt play anything now unless specifically
asked and having done a risk assessment first.:D:D:D

[Stone liu]

I’ll happily question both and turn down a booking if I don’t like it (or the client) for any reason - that’s why I’m self employed, I answer to no one but myself when it comes down to what events I take on.


As for MJ - I still believe if they had any real evidence against him he would’ve been charged and found guilty - every newspaper, magazine, journalist, private detective, lawyer etc were out to make a name for themselves by exposing him. He would not have slipped through the net with so many people digging into his life.

As for the parents of the children who were involved in the actions against him, if the allegations were true and they allowed themselves to be paid off then that’s child abuse (they basically took the money rather than going for justice - what parent would do that?) and if they weren’t true then that’s also child abuse by using them for blackmail.

:)

[Marc J]

Don't think he can be convicted now. He's already been acquitted and can't he not be tried again for the same crime under the "Double Jeopardy" laws in the US?

I think being dead trumps any "Double Jeopardy", anyway! An accused person has the right to face his accusers and defend themselves...pretty hard in MJ's case. He was never convicted in his lifetime, and so will never be...

[DazzyD]

I think being dead trumps any "Double Jeopardy", anyway! An accused person has the right to face his accusers and defend themselves...pretty hard in MJ's case. He was never convicted in his lifetime, and so will never be...

I was of the belief that a certain personality who'll fix it for you was convicted posthumously. When I've looked, it was an inquiry following the conviction of Ray Teret and it looks like JS was never convicted himself. What a strange turn of evens for our judicial system. In reality, no-one can say he was guilty of what he has done as he never stood trial and faced a juries decision. Hmm. That's really weird!

[CRAZY K]

I was of the belief that a certain personality who'll fix it for you was convicted posthumously. When I've looked, it was an inquiry following the conviction of Ray Teret and it looks like JS was never convicted himself. What a strange turn of evens for our judicial system. In reality, no-one can say he was guilty of what he has done as he never stood trial and faced a juries decision. Hmm. That's really weird!

Yeah, the police just hounded a load of likely and unlikely suspects in the business afterwards.

Great Justice :daft::daft::daft:

[Jim - Scotland's Party DJ]

What is the reasoning behind not wishing to play songs linked to child abusers? Is it a personal thing or are we scared guests might be offended?

Both to put it simply.

[ukpartydj]

I heard this from a friend and thought it was quite odd...

Ian Watkins sentenced to 29 years in prison for possessing explicit child photos and making a deal with a 12-year old's mother.
Oscar Pistorius sentenced to 6 years for killing somebody.

The moral of the story is, if somebody catches you with inappropriate material shoot them through a door.