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?”
A.Brooksbank
July 23, 2009 at 11:32 amSally T
I thought myself that it was a mild and, I have to say, credible piece. I remember years ago that I had barely heard of Michael Jackson. I heard a song several times on the radio and asked my then young children who the woman was singing. They told me it wasn’t a woman, it was Michael Jackson.
davidewoodley
July 23, 2009 at 11:38 amAs PP rightly responds, the piece is, as headed, speculative.
And why should this speculation not be given the possibility of being plausible. Does it sound so absurd? I think not.
The absurdity is when those others who have such closed minds, would rather slosh around in the mud then to give someone so wonderfully gifted, some clear understanding and hence return the honour he deserves.
I met him briefly in Brisbane 87. He shook my hand as I welcomed him and he spoke in his very soft, angelic and innocent tone.
I feel sad for his passing and I feel sad for the pressures he endured.
So…Who’s Bad?
Rob McLennan
July 23, 2009 at 12:31 pmIt stuns me to see this piece of ill-informed, speculative garbage getting any support at all among Crikey readers. As mentioned earlier on this page, the evidence presented in Jackson’s child molestation case rules this ludicrous theory out – therefore to call this nonsense ‘speculation’ is simply wrong. I pay my Crikey subscription to read (for the most part) quality journalism – if I wanted this trash I would get the Herald Sun home delivered.
mbyrnes
July 23, 2009 at 1:35 pmI endorse the comments of David1 above. If there had been a scintilla of research undertaken by the author Ellis would realise that the proposition he is advancing is completely without foundation.
It is a matter of public record that Jackson had a full examination of the relevant area by law enforcement officials in 1993. He was not a castrato. A cursory google search would show as much.
This article is a complete disgrace. How something so ill-considered, offensive and ignorant found itself onto the (generally excellent) Crikey website warrants further analysis.
In looking at the name of the author I wonder whether Australia now has its own Max Gogarty. Jack isn’t related to Bob by any chance is he ? The only explanation for the publication of something so entirely misconceived and lazy was that a lower standard was applied to its submission through family connection.
evidently
July 23, 2009 at 1:39 pmWell, Well, Rob and David1
if you are so sure, give us all a link to reference anything to support your ham-fisted argumentation.
As I recall the evidence was all about birthmarks and he was photographed to aid in the confirmation of the location, colour and shape of the marks – which could not possibly enlighten us as to whether he had any functioning test*cles. in the wrinkly sack.
I am theorising the only evidence you are both presenting is evidence of your own cognitive dissonance. ie. you are probably former and/or continuing fans of Michael Jackson, and you seek to control your dissonance with the possibilities raised by the writer, to the extent that you slam the metaphorical table with (unreferenced) hyperbole in an effort to shut down the argument.
give us the proof of your conviction.
David1
July 23, 2009 at 1:53 pmEvidently, get off your lazy backside and Google for yourself. I have no intentionof assisting your stupidity. There is ample evidence if you care to look for it. Incidently I am no lover of Jacksons music, his talent as a song writer, choreographer and producer are beyond dispute. So you want information, get it yourself, I did, remember Google is your best friend, I doubt by your attitude you have many.
mbyrnes
July 23, 2009 at 1:56 pmA cursory search would reveal the nonsense of this article.
There may well be a bigger “Max Gogarty” to this submission to be explored.
Pacificpearl
July 23, 2009 at 2:17 pmDavid1: Yeah it’s called Asperger’s. You wouldn’t know/like life without it. Many of the greatest minds and contributors to the world and it’s attendant comfort zones were/are wired this way. How grateful I am that I’m not a chronically dismissively blinkers-on neurotypical. Question earthlings is, are you going to enlighten yourselves? We have to adjust to your planetary view and it’s perpetually found wanting.
Evidently: if you assume I’m part of the “insuperable conclusion” pack, you missed the complexities behind my expression. People will believe what they will on flimsy or otherwise ‘evidence’; lack thereof. It may appear ‘balanced’ to be a reserving judgement fence sitter, which is fine and safe, just like going with the dominant (ahem: ‘civilised’) world ‘reality’ that the earth was flat, till proven otherwise. That’s why the best, humble and most interesting scientists aren’t full of their limited scope selves – what scraps of ‘proof”/absence of, otherwise spun problematic answer-alls to with set-in-concrete postulations. That is, alternating with ‘blissful’ ignorance – a position in itself.
The fact, obvious by the sampling here, that people baulk at conceptualising this possibility
for Jackson, as though despite all his media exposure/vulnerability, this aspect of him is some sort of sacred hands off, speaks of another phenomenon – a dogged refusal to make a call on the (at least) likelihood that black is white, or vice versa.
And if you’re referring to me, I don’t do caffeine or stimulants (unless I want to pay a lose/lose heavy price for focusing [and be vilified by the likes of you just because big pharma ‘answers’ are controversial. That’s right two positives make a negative or is that over your ‘voice of reason’ head?] and lose the richness of valid diversion): I’ve got enough naturally as a woman with full blown ADD. And with the ignorance flying around here, many of you – as microcosm at any rate for the wider population – are likely to know squat about that too. But hey never stops every Tom, Dick and Ain’t Gotta Clue from having a baseless/stereotyped/incorrect opinion. By the way it is society who decides what a disability is. It’s not my sin that ‘ablist’ bashers are ones who decide difference as though aberrant. The only reason Jackson wasn’t some invisible tranny was his sheer talent including business acumen – at one stage. (How’s the audacity of the McCartney song rights trick?)
Rob: oh dear, better go educate yourself. Reality check: yes castrated men do get erections and ejaculate for that matter. Try googling: is a castrated man sexually functioning? Over 70,000 sites. One will tell you all about his personal experience, effects of hormones etc and is soliciting for that matter. Another tells of the hot water a US politician is in for the release of a castrated sex offender who went on to serially rape again………
Rob McLennan
July 23, 2009 at 2:30 pmI doubt Evidently has the mental capacity for research so here is something I managed to track down in about 2 minutes:
“The attempt to admit the genitalia photographs stems from a 1993 molestation investigation of Jackson. When prosecutors were trying to gather evidence against the singer back then, they served a subpoena at his home that allowed them to photograph his genitalia.They then had the accuser draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture contained a blemish that was unique to Jackson’s anatomy.Arguing for use of the pictures, Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said the prosecution wanted to show jurors a child’s description “of a unique feature of his (Jackson’s) anatomy.” He said it would show that Jackson’s relationships with boys were “not casual.” ” – Associated Press, May 25 2005.
Evidently, you are a drop kick. I respect Jackson’s talent but I do not own a single CD or record. I am not a fan, just someone who does not want his Crikey subscription wasted on crap like this.
mbyrnes
July 23, 2009 at 2:45 pmExactly right Rob. It seems inconceivable that, first, the article could be written and submitted without such simple resarch having been undertaken and, second, that it would be published.