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?”
evidently
July 23, 2009 at 4:26 pmRob McLennan, MByrnes and all the other hotheaded individuals that love to revert to cursing other views of the argument, and wish to win said argument by shouting down those that have asked for evidence that causes you to believe that you are so right, may I ask you again where is the evidence that this piece is so far off the mark.
You say that you have presented the evidence here…
“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.
..but you would be wrong if you think that is evidence to support your claim that the author’s work is unfounded.
If you are so clever at research how do YOU rate as a researcher if you did not check that castrati DO actually have a pen*s and may even have test*cles. It is the absence of hormones that the test*cles produce that cause the effect that the author of this article speaks, which means (it is terribly boring to have to spell it out to you ungrateful nitwits) that he either has no test*cles, or he has them but they have not produce enough hormones to prevent the effects thus described by Jack.
When it comes to saying “nothing to see here”, I will remember that there is not much to take note of in your work Rob McLennan, not so far anyway.
Rob McLennan
July 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm*sigh* Despite the poor quality of the original article I had so hoped for some intelligent debate…
Alison Turner
July 23, 2009 at 4:33 pmThis is fun! But who deleted my dumbhead comment? I want answers, people!
Rob McLennan
July 23, 2009 at 4:35 pmI was wondering about that too, I was starting to suspect you were a Crikey insider…
Alison Turner
July 23, 2009 at 4:37 pmNo, just a devout First Dog fan . . .
David Sanderson
July 23, 2009 at 4:41 pmThe next person who writes about this deserves extreme genital mutilation followed-up by an intimate photo shoot with the LAPD.
You have been warned.
chinda
July 23, 2009 at 4:43 pmI’m with GREGSTYLES – the apparent presence of testicles doesn’t prove a person hasn’t been castrated. He could have had his testicles removed and replaced with prosthetic ones, as occurs when men lose testes to cancer.
I found the article interesting and thought-provoking, but obviously intended as a piece of fluffy speculation rather than something to be taken seriously as investigative journalism. Some of you really need to lighten up.
David Sanderson
July 23, 2009 at 4:47 pmRight, that’s it. You’ve pushed me too far. An African witch doctor is on his way and the LAPD photographers are on standby.
evidently
July 23, 2009 at 4:49 pmRob McLennan
I believe now the only intelligent thing for you to do is put up the evidence or shut up. I have shown in smallish words that you previous evidence is not the proof of you claim it is.
This Crikey reader for one believes that author of the article far more intelligent than yourself with your unsubstantiated claims of the Jacko knowledge ‘high-ground’.
I am all ears (or eyes), I am actually interested in seeing the evidence that this story is baseless nonsense or whatever else hyperbolic over-claiming names you’ve called it.
I am not too worried about name-calling me, I never cared much for intelligence ratings, I much rather the Charles Handy definitions of intelligence coming in lots of different and indiscernible forms.
Anyway what is all this about this being the wrong sort of journalism now? Are you an better at those sort of judgement calls than Jonathan Green now too??? Gosh no-one is as intelligent as you today. You hot.
David Sanderson
July 23, 2009 at 4:55 pmEvidently you are not listening. You’re next on the list. Those garden shears are crude but remarkably effective.