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?”
Bryce Corbett
July 22, 2009 at 5:52 pmI’m sorry Crikey, but you cannot spend the better part of every day lambasting News Ltd for tabloid sensationalism and then publish something like this. Seriously? Nine paragraphs of speculation and innuendo, with nary a fact to back any of it up. The sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, moral guardians of the fourth estate facade that you dress up in every other day is only going to be convincing if you desist from publishing unsubstantiated rubbish like this. Only two weeks ago you were tut-tutting in disgust at the tabloid media’s all-consuming obsession with the (and I quote), “death of a pop star”. And now you publish this? CTFO. Very disappointing. …
David1
July 22, 2009 at 6:29 pmAgree 100% with Bryce. If Crikey is going to sink into the slime of tabloid type items, best it stop having a go at other media for doing same. Hypocrite quickly comes to mind.
MrsPatrickCampbell
July 22, 2009 at 7:59 pmWe are not much interested in trash like Miss J but sisters have wondered for decades whether Mae West was actually a sister and NOT a fish.
It is claimed that nobody ever f—– Mae, or saw her naked, and that she performed only ‘oral love’ on her numbers.
Discuss!
Jonathan Green
July 22, 2009 at 8:43 pmDear me, apologies all round. And here was me just thinking this was a rather appealing little piece of whimsy.
Pacificpearl
July 22, 2009 at 10:00 pmTsk tsk, with such vehement reactions, who’s being absurd, nonsensical, sanctimonious, very disappointing, lame, not really worthy, slime, hypocritical, tabloid even, etc etc? There is a major script going on here. Leading one to wonder why such strong responses shooting the possibly spot on, for all we know, messenger. You angers spews forth as if you know the undefilable truth about Michael Jackson’s gonads; as if contrary to the perfectly reasonable one thought here. From where ever this emotive closed mindedness festers, is it somewhere ‘rooted’ in ‘rooting’ however buried, for the said deceased or a far more complex psychological twister yet still?
Does this notion subconsciously challenge your own testosterone producing manhood collides-with relections of whatever this icon/his music/the mystery (lurking permutations thereof within the medicore masses so affected, who never quite came to terms with this enigma) may at any time have represented to/for you? What straight jacketed version do you have as alternative? The haughtily stabbed at ‘humour’ of concreted bodily entombment hints at a perverse flight of fancy that a hypothetical anyone couldn’t see to find out for themselves, anyway, before a body rots….. yeah make sure (your) denial remains buried forever. Hmmm, well won’t it be a most newsworthy moment when someone does surface with evidence. Already I can see lofty connections with DaVinci, and their contribution to the psyche of the collective consciousness – for the most part lost on us – but that’s another story.
Given the article who’s heading clearly indicates a speculative piece, was informative, perfectly plausible, compassionate and fair, what’s your inappropriately-blown-out-of all-proportion-to-the-act problem? Are you going to line up and castrate anyone who’s ever penned supposition? How hollowly sustained was your thrill in shooting down a perfectly legitimate query, just because it is just that and not statement? The real question is, if it arrived in the form of HARD news, what inner unravellings would each of you be going through…..that is, once you got over your incredulity. Or perhaps you wouldn’t strain the brain/emotive centres too much on anything too close to the raw nerve. These cheap shots are the sort of shallow knee jerkiness that I wouldn’t expect to find here, but amongst the mindset of tabloid followers you so scathingly reduce this article to.
Thanks Graham, Michael and Alison for furthering the information. I sincerely congratulate Crikey and Jack Ellis for assisting me with my own ambivalent stuck inability to process him/parts of what he represented. The first comment here was what I’d subscribed to previously. However this is certainly an ‘a-ha’ Eureka moment and solely due to these words above, have I softened to a compassionate understanding for the man. Why at this point – for me, an intuitively affirmative registry – dissing him as nuts is redundant. When, as is fittingly speculated, powerful executives made a decision to line their pockets, affect history and Michael’s Peter Pan destiny, he paid a price otherwise known as life scarring child abuse.
Don’t bother sticking the boot in over my acceptance of this without ‘proof’. (Difference here for me is that I’m well capable of suspending dis/belief in either direction on particular issues, however choose in this instance to go beyond neutral territory to concur without hesitation.) I never believed little Johnny’s statment that children were thrown overboard among a bunch of other witch hunting and commonly swallowed lies/myths, the easily led ignorant so bigotedly passionately believe. Suppose you believe those kids are his too, hey? Well I KNOW they aren’t biologically so, and knew so before accepting veracity to this key explanation of the man. Wonder how many of you smokes’n’mirrors detractors a) have an inkling about genetics in closely witnessed/generationally tracked progeny outcomes and b) (on absolutely any level whatsoever – c’mon denial runs deep) are racist…… If so, and you believe they’re his real kids, then you bought the same deception in his deranged mind that to thin his nose/lips and whiten his skin etc, then to parade his ‘offspring’ to the world, made it so. How gullible, swallow this foolishness and do some your own busting out of Neverland. He never had a chance.
David Sanderson
July 22, 2009 at 10:31 pmWTF, ROFL. What a pearler. Even my gonads are flabbergasted.
Pacificpearl
July 23, 2009 at 1:34 amOn ya
David1
July 23, 2009 at 10:14 amPacificP what planet did you say you were from??????????????
evidently
July 23, 2009 at 10:57 amJack
I thought it was a good piece. I think Crikey was right to publish it here. Shame about the Faranelli bit, probably just the sub-editor mixing up what you had intended to say. I haven’t seen anything in all this malicious carping that sways me away from the view that your story poses a well considered question. I think many of the replies here seem to forget that you merely raise a question (most interesting to me but obviously a little offensive to some), rather than propose an insuperable conclusion. Some of these Crikey readers need to ease back on the caffeine.
Give us more Jack!
David1
July 23, 2009 at 11:08 amAhhhh Wonky Wilson Tuckey, writes under his non de plume “Jack”, onya Tuckers.