When Alessandro Moreschi died on 21 April, 1922, the world thought it had felt the last stubbleless kiss of the voice of an angel on Earth — the boy castrato. The castrato tradition dictated that the talented boy singer was castrated before he reached puberty so that his larynx was not transformed by age and his angelic voice was preserved into adulthood. Castrati sang with a range equivalent to that of a female soprano, and the absence of testosterone as they grew resulted in unusually long ribs which gave them an almost superhuman lung power.
By the time Michael Jackson was 11 years old, he was the keystone to the earning power of a Motown juggernaut with an unprecedented string of consecutive number-ones. And his voice was about to break.
This week at his memorial, his brothers and sisters gathered to support and to mourn the passing of their talented sibling. In the photos of those difficult times, it is immediately apparent that whatever it was that was different about Michael, it probably wasn’t genetic. His eldest brother Jackie is a thick-set man with broad shoulders, Tito has a solid, masculine figure, Jermaine shares the manly physiques of his older brothers and combines it with a chiselled jaw, Marlon and Randy have similar builds and Marlon usually wears a thick moustache.
The surviving images of the great castrati of history suggest that castrati do not physically develop in the same way as other boys. The absence of testosterone as they grow not only affects their ribs, it also prevents them developing the other typical physical characteristics of grown men — body hair, broad shoulders and most significantly, a manly voice. A study in mice also found that castrating mice leads to depigmentation of their skin. Although this finding is hardly conclusive, it provides an intriguing explanation for the significant depigmentation of his skin.
The lack of women (or men) who claim to have slept with Michael Jackson seems surprising given his level of celebrity, and it appears that none of his children were naturally conceived. Michael Jackson kept his private life intensely private, which was his prerogative. But is it possible that his unusual love and s-x life was as much a result of a physical inability to engage in sexual intimacy as it was about sexual preference? He clearly enjoyed the company of children.
Could this have been the result of a preference for the simpler, more honest level at which children communicate, free of the temptations and complications of sexual desire? Perhaps children were more his physical and emotional equals than the adults in his life. They at least spoke with similar voices.
Carlo Broschi, who died in 1782, had legendary three-octave vocal range and could reputedly hold a note for a full minute. Another great castrato, Farinelli, had a voice that was likened by critics to that of a god. It seems the world appreciates the purity and agility of the castrato voice, even though they may wince at the methods behind its creation. Whatever it was that altered the trajectory of Michael Jackson’s adult life, it almost certainly happened before he reached puberty.
Money and superstardom are powerful motivators to do extreme things. We will never know what conversations took place in the rooms backstage in the months leading up to Michael’s puberty, and whether the possibility of him losing the voice that had made him and a lot of other people fabulously wealthy was discussed at all. But it might have been. And if so, was there a solution proposed?
Could it be that the explanation for Michael Jackson’s unquestioned uniqueness lay in a hidden childhood shame? Whether or not it was the case, he undoubtedly sacrificed a lot for our entertainment, and, as he always said, the world was not willing to accept him for who he was. The question remains, was he the great castrato of our time?
Jack Ellis is a graduate in Composition of the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and studied Phase Composition at the Royal Conservatorium, The Hague.
107 thoughts on “Michael Jackson: was he a castrato?”
Venise Alstergren
July 24, 2009 at 6:08 pmI say to Jungle Jane the reason Michael Jackson and his sister, LaToya could have been twins, is because they both went to the same plastic-surgeon. The nose-jobs are indeed identical.
mbyrnes
July 24, 2009 at 6:31 pmJungle Jane, much of the negative feedback (it is hardly vitriol – people need to be more robust) is directed at the author for glaring factual and research deficiencies in the article. Surely your observation about La Toya looking like Michael as supporting the thesis is intended as a joke. Is that the best you can do at this stage of the discussion ?
The number of comments about an article doesn’t reflect on its quality; in fact, often the inverse is true. For instance, this article has only achieved a mere fraction of the notoriety of Max Gogarty’s ill-fated, short-lived, nepotism-originated blog.
In the same way the Guardian was tone deaf on the paradigm on new media in the Gogarty scandal, perhaps the writer and editor here are as well.
Mr Ellis hasn’t deigned to respond to criticisms of his article and the editor has made just one post. If this was on one of the News Limited blogs both would likely have been responding regularly. There are too many old media types who are struggling to make the adjustment to a new media paradigm of direct accountability to its readership.
David Sanderson
July 24, 2009 at 6:54 pmMBYRNE, I think that Mr Ellis’s response could more appropriately be included in the doctoral thesis you are currently writing on the subject. You and Jack Ellis should join forces and conduct a thorough forensic dissection of Mr Jackson’s groinal region. I urge you not to leave one pubic hair unturned or any gonad unmolested until the truth is found once and for all.
We are all behind you in this remarkable scholarly journey. New Idea is so hungry for dissertation that they are leaving the cover, and the first eight pages, of their next edition free in order that they may be the first to present your findings to a gobsmacked populace.
Venise Alstergren
July 25, 2009 at 12:12 amMBYRNE. Isn’t this the point? From the preciousness of your remarks I’ve imagined you would never read one of the trashy News Limited blogs. You sir, are having a ball. Doubtless it didn’t belong to the late Michael Jackson.
David Sanderson. You sir, are a class act! Albeit a terrible stirrer. I’m worn out with laughter.
Goodnight.
Venise.
DoilyHead
July 27, 2009 at 4:44 pmThat would explain a lot about Jackson and his behaviour – like how he was never that interested in women – and his appearance – the skin whitening and so on. And why the Jackson family considered him special and protected the privacy aspect so much. It’s not fair to take away a boy’s testicles but you got to admit it really payed dividends career-wise. Could that be the abuse from his father that Jackson spoke of? The brothers had very different voices and were non-distinct. But what a move to make in the modern day. I feel sorry for Jackson.
@mbyrnes et al: The appearance of testicles doesn’t disprove castration. It is an easy plastic surgery to get prosthetic testicles. Given Jackson’s penchant for plastic surgery it would surely be expected he would restore his manhood that way, at least aesthetically. But you just get on message and then keep insisting that you’re right; the “proof” the “evidence” and so on. You mean: your interpretation of third-hand knowledge of the alleged photographic evidence, right?
Venise Alstergren
July 27, 2009 at 6:21 pmOne of the many things I find to be a puzzle is the appeal to pre-pubescent and pubescent ladies of contra-tenore voices in men. Many, many rock stars have assiduously cultivated this type of voice and combined it with an effeminate mien. This is in no way an attempt to deny the very real talent of Michael Jackson. But, surely this interesting phenomenon has received, or been the subject of much learned debate.
Why does this age group of predominantly female persons feel stirred to such orgasmic lust? Is it because a part of the female brain has picked up the message that these shemales are off the menu and therefore safe. Perhaps the same thing occours with older women with androgynous actors like the late Fred Astaire and the actor Johnny Depp.
Malcolm Street
July 27, 2009 at 7:11 pmRe Lisa Presley’s alleged intimacy with Jackson, I remember her at one time describing him as “a tiger in bed”, which seemed to be straining for effect. I always thought the marriage was a sham, to take attention off the paedophelia allegations. Wasn’t it stitched up by the “Church” of Scientology? Certainly didn’t last long.
mbyrnes
July 27, 2009 at 7:18 pmThere is nothing alleged about the photographic evidence. The 1993 examination by law enforcement officials is a matter of public record.
Predictably there have been some websites and forums devoted to the thesis that Michael Jackson’s death is an elaborate, staged hoax. As ludicrous as that proposition is, the arguments presented in some of those fora are more cogent and factually based than presented in this article and accompanying comments. At least those people have done a little bit of research on the subject, even if they reach rather bizarre conclusions.
If some of those commenting and defending the article saw it on a News Limited or conspiracy theory website, they would dismiss it as the work of an ill-informed crackpot. Because it is featured here on Crikey, the cosy literary love-in clique get to work.
The thesis is stale and the research non-existent. It’s simply not worthy of this site.
mbyrnes
July 27, 2009 at 7:24 pm@MalcomStreet – I’m also a little incredulous at Lisa-Marie Presley’s assertions on the subject, but the reality is she made them, made them consistently and has maintained them as true over a lengthy period. This renders one of the key statements and foundation arguments of the author incorrect.
I do realise I’m beginning to come across like one of the protagonists in those never-ending Gerard Henderson-Robert Manne exchanges ! It’s really more about the journalistic quality of the article that Jackson. It’s reflective of the appalling standard of many pop culture pieces.
Evan Beaver
July 28, 2009 at 12:58 pmWow, this went on for a long time. I haven’t read it all, but one point:
Just because there’s a sack, doesn’t mean there’s potatoes in it. For those who are not squeamish, have a look at the clamps they use on livestock for the same job. removes the bloodflow only, and not the aparatus inside. Yet they stop working. Hence, a photograph of the package will not be conclusive.