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?”
mbyrnes
July 23, 2009 at 4:59 pmThe evidence is readily ascertainable.
It is certainly evident the author had no knowledge of the 1993 incident when he wrote this. That reflects how poorly researched and conceived it was.
As for the editorial decision to publish this article, I will put myself forward as saying it was, with respect to this generally fine website, an appalling decision. In part this has given rise to my Max Gogarty references.
David Sanderson
July 23, 2009 at 5:00 pmNot nearly as appalling as having your nether regions chopped off.
Peter Nicholson
July 23, 2009 at 5:02 pmI think the fact that this article has created a lot of comment and brought forward a lot of information – I now know more about castrati than I ever thought I would – tends to confirm that the editors of crikey were right in printing it yesterday.
David Sanderson
July 23, 2009 at 5:06 pmPeter, you are going to have some very first hand knowledge if these idiotic posts don’t stop.
evidently
July 23, 2009 at 5:23 pmWho is David Sanderson to say when the comments must stop. Jokesey threats to stop comments are idiotic and inappropriate.
This aggressive shut down just makes me more suspicious that there is no evidence to the contrary.
MByrnes you clearly can’t read. You are suffering cognitive dissonance because you used to love this Wacko, and you are projecting your insecurities on those who are asking for a proper debate driven by the evidence.
There has been no evidence presented to falsify this story. Evidence = none.
I have found nothing in the 1993 – 2005 incidents that in anyway countervails the authors argument, so far that is, I am hoping that one of you table slapping jaw bones actually presents something to the contray rather than big talking “the evidence is readily ascertainable”
Where is it?
Rob McLennan
July 23, 2009 at 5:36 pmFruit loop alert…
David Sanderson
July 23, 2009 at 5:42 pmEvidently, you are unable to know when to stop. Someone has to tell you. If that needs to be accompanied by incredibly serious threats of imminent emasculation then so be it.
While the shears are getting blunt there is still enough slice in them for your wee member.
Venise Alstergren
July 23, 2009 at 6:18 pmThis is not like me to have been so slow to drop onto this delicious bit of gossip. Still, I’ve had some nasty problems.
JONATHAN GREEN. Onya! But whimsical? Oh well, you’re the expert.
EVERYONE ELSE: My my, what a lot of pounding of keyboards over a piece of writing being described as trash, lacking-in-research, fantasy, squalor, shock, horror, dismay and every other adjective in the book. What appalling hypocrites we are. If this opinion piece is so mendacious, etc, etc why give it legitimacy by debating it?
If, on the other hand, it’s a terrific piece of gossip. Enjoy it for what it is.
Cheers Jack!
AnaM
July 23, 2009 at 6:19 pmWhy can’t people just accept MJ for who he was. This deep analysis isn’t going to solve world hunger, nor is it going to resurrect the dead singer.
ACE
July 23, 2009 at 6:23 pmFruit loop alert? How mature.
I’m with EVIDENTLY, can one of you – Rob or David or MBYRNES – please explain how the 1993-2005 incidents countervail Jack Ellis’s argument? Castrati CAN have testicles. They can get hard-ons. Did the investigators force MJ to shoot some sperm?