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?”
ACE
July 23, 2009 at 6:25 pmP.S. Rob McLennan, I’d start with the man in the mirror if I were you.
mbyrnes
July 23, 2009 at 6:27 pmNo Jacki. It is baseless rubbish, not delicious gossip.
Whilst there are many who are dismissive of the tabloid media, and News Limited in particular, they had what could fairly be described as delicious gossip in a story about Jackson yesterday.
They reported that a person who has long been considered a possible “love child” of Jackson was seated in the front row of his memorial service with the Jackson family. They took a fact, wrapped it in some long-standing gossip and speculation, and you have an intriguing story.
That story’s foundation is the fact this person was seated with his family at a memorial. The problem with the Crikey piece is that it ignores facts known from a 1993 investigation, presumably through lack of knowledge and research on the part of the author.
ACE
July 23, 2009 at 6:33 pmI’ll ask again, MBYRNES, since you seem to be ignoring the question, how does the 1993 investigation prove that Michael Jackson was not a castrato?
evidently
July 23, 2009 at 7:03 pmAce
I think that the MByrnes has no evidence to the contrary of the author nor has anyone else.
I am genuinely interested in debate to the contrary, why are there these 3 or 4 that want to shut it down? I also am now convinced that MByrnes is actually aware that he/she/it is projecting his/her/its own fears that he/she/it is presenting baseless counter-argument.
I don’t know for sure but I think that it is Festinger’s theory, you know the thing that most television advertising is to reassure you that made the right choice? Think about BMW etc. Which means that the goading to stop my requesting evidence is based on the dissonance they feel by being former Jacko admirers.
Venise never fails to disappoint in the analysis, and among the jawboning big-talkers, personally I feel a sense of victory for the author, this is all been table thumping.
Anam (anom? A name?) is righ, we should just accept MJ for who he was, a talented young singer, possibly forcibly castrated by a family member delerious with the prospect of the prodigy’s future earning potential.
Keep it coming Jack Ellis – it has proved to be a good story.
Rob McLennan
July 23, 2009 at 7:07 pmI have tried very hard to let this thread go but Ace, people like you cannot be ignored. Flogged with a wet fish, tied up and gagged with used stockings, yes – but ignored, never.
The question is not whether it can be proven that MJ was not a castrato, but whether there is a shred of evidence (not gossip or hearsay as put forward in the article) that he was. If you put the idea out there you have a responsibility to prove it, not the other way around. If you don’t, your article is not worth paying for and we, Ace, as Crikey subscribers, have paid for this piece of trash.
Ace, you demonstrate the same apalling lack of logic as Evidently by buying into the argument at this late stage, beginning with a shovel load of personal abuse and carrying no significant argument to support your case. Also, your detailed knowledge of the hard-ons of the castrarti is deeply worrying.
Alas, my belief that Crikey readers were a little more intelligent than the average Aussie bogan has been proven sadly wrong today.
Venise Alstergren
July 23, 2009 at 7:29 pmROB MCLENNAN. Speaking as one of the bogans, you sound a bit piss and windish yourself.
However, we are left in something of an impasse. According to your circuitous reasoning…We can’t prove Michael Jackson was a castrato. We can’t prove he wasn’t a castrato, the author stinks, his creds are shot, if one is castrato no can have erection. Can have erection. It’s all to do with twigs and berries. And someone is going to be flogged with a wet fish? And all of these comments are meant to prove what. Enough! I’m tired of the discussion.
David Sanderson
July 23, 2009 at 7:30 pmI believe this is an appropriate moment to quote Gmail:
“The conversation has been moved to the Bin.”
Followed by:
“Would you like to delete it permanently?”
Oh yes please, thanks ever so much. I never want to think about his testicles ever again. Not even if you paint them purple and decorate them with fairy floss.
Rob McLennan
July 23, 2009 at 7:48 pmmmm… fairy floss…
Well, it’s been entertaining ladies and gentlemen, a fine way to pass a slow afternoon in the office. Goodnight, God bless, and may you all have pleasant dreams of flacid albino organs and shrivelled sun-dried gonads that serve no purpose other than decorative.
Especially you, Evidently.
David Sanderson
July 23, 2009 at 9:16 pmEvidently, like many champion bores you are unstoppable. Nevertheless, I do urge you to desist and spare us any more lessons in logic. Your “scientific rigour” is so powerful it could kill cats and I can tell you they would not die happy.
davidewoodley
July 23, 2009 at 10:03 pm“chemical castration is unlikely since they usually have to keep up medication to sustain the effect”… Mmmm.
An interesting article to say the list Mr Ellis. Some may think of it as “whimsical” but after some hours of research since this morning’s read, I find it now to not just be a speculative piece but in-fact, quite an interesting hypothesis.
There is also some interesting reading to be had on the subject of chemical castration. The adverse side effects and drugs to counteract such side effects and the side effects of these counteractive drugs.
Such effects including but not limited to: Hair loss, hypopigmentation (albinism), liver malfunction and heart failure.
I await your next article.