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?”
David Sanderson
July 24, 2009 at 11:27 amAce, I detect a stroppy tone in your last utterance. I would remind you that this is a scholarly discussion and that you would be well advised to adopt a much more civil tone.
David Sanderson
July 24, 2009 at 11:30 amAnd MBYRNES, I am very pleased to see you are making such fast and excellent progress on your thesis. You have lost none of your famed mental acuity.
Peter Nicholson
July 24, 2009 at 12:05 pmI’m sorry MByrnes, when someone tells me that I’m intelligent and resourceful enough to answer a question myself, I start to suspect that they’re fobbing me off because they don’t know the answer.
I’ve looked on google and I can’t find all this obvious evidence so MByrnes, please assist a lesser light and tell me the links to your sources.
mbyrnes
July 24, 2009 at 12:29 pmPeter, as a starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson
Remember my primary point that Ellis failed to do this basic research.
David Sanderson
July 24, 2009 at 1:40 pmMBYRNES, I assume this is only one of the many items to appear in your bibliography. A PhD is all about “basic research” and I have high hopes that your basic research will add mightily to this important field of academic inquiry.
As one scholar to another I salute you on your extraordinary scholarship and I look forward to reading the results of your basic research in New Idea.
Pacificpearl
July 24, 2009 at 3:01 pmTake a bow, Monsieur Poirot. Some clues as to why the fuss, seeing as what has been butchered here is an ability to ponder cognisance of none-too-hard to decipher puzzle pieces, tempered with non bias. Those of us higher evolved types [oooh, I can hear the ton of bricks falling now] are compelled to take a stand against the corrosive dogma of non believers, drunk on their delusional zealotry, as if healthy sceptics with some undeclared higher moral ground.
Truth being stanger than fiction, the fascinatingly stranger yet most piteous thing is the rabid energy consumed by the mediocre to defend a stand that is cover for their underlying insecurities. The fragility to order the world as they see fit. What in fact is being hidden here.
Banging on about LAPD investigations, photos, interviews with Presley, dis/misinformation on castration (and the ability to have sex one of the most lost departures in all this – as if you have to be ‘whole’ to perpetrate) etc……. misses the point entirely that you “whole Jacko” brigade are highly selective with what you choose to believe.
Oh yeah and do you reckon their sloppy, to understate, ‘investigation’ of OJ: example of your blind faith in the authorities version of events/’evidence’? But a drop in the ocean of incompetence/fabrication that pollutes/corrupts unsuspecting minds. And you reckon we were born yesterday.
Speaking of which, getting back to the fuss – none of these non Tall Poppy examples are negro. Making it the most curious perversion that the icon has so many bigots for defenders. How many, in the scheme of things, were perturbed at Hoover’s relentless ‘criminal’ setups of Martin Luther King? If you ‘act’ white, try to be white, (or a woman, or a child or forever young and ‘beautiful’), ride the wave of popularising sexual instant gratification circa Madonna….. all the way to the bank – you’re an untouchable. Why did our insane world ‘justice’ with attendant media circus leave criminals OJ and MJ free to predate? Because black heros trump sex/violence towards women/children.
Oh yawn, yawn, yawn…. how few does it not escape that no less than any other sphere of double standard servings, the media scrutinises black leaders mercilessly to the most perverse degree: Obama. Just as well he’s such damned fine calibre, with an unenviable role most unbecoming of him – instead of the the other way round for all the incredulous racists. [“Oh we’re in such an intractable mess: let’s give the darkie a go!”] His own savvy up to date utilisation of medium aside, how many stop to compare the inane twisted minutiae mutated as ‘analysis’ re the most spurious ‘connection’ to the man; all the unable-to-conceptualise let alone deal-with mocking pre and post presidency reaching stratospheres transcending any gloves off political sniping that no (white) leader has ever had to traverse.
We did it with Charles Perkins, ATSIC and Land Councils etc as if a skerrick/scheme of corruption through (forced) adoption of western ‘civilised’ institutions were inherent in non white culture/persons and not learned, opportunistic and systemic. How many of you pseudo crusaders have a remote appreciation of the tragic breadth and depth of countless Aboriginal greats that we have – no less than figuratively – castrated? I ponder the incidence of crossover subsets within an individual of this, fans of MJ and deep male organ/manhood fears. ‘Cause as with many ugly manifestations it’s a cover for deep if not historical guilt. So who’s got the bigger picture perspective on authenticity and what’s really behind newsworthiness or insight for that matter? It’s rarer than your presume.
David Sanderson
July 24, 2009 at 3:11 pmI hope to high heaven I never become that “evolved”. I don’t think I could stand the windy emptiness and desolation.
Venise Alstergren
July 24, 2009 at 3:26 pmMr Jonathan Green
The Editor
Crikey.com.au
Dear Mr Green,
Would it be possible to allow this particular comments section to be printed? It isn’t often a subject has been printed -thank you so much Jack Ellis-and has excited such interest and genuine humour. It would be a great shame to mislay it.
Most sincerely
Venise Alstergren
jungle jane
July 24, 2009 at 5:52 pmWOW Jack Ellis you must be pleased.
With85 comments so far,you certainly have fired the feelings of quite a few people.Of all the nonsense written about MJ over the the years and since his passing ,this article makes alot of sense to me.
I saw a picture in the print press the other day of MJ & his sister La Toyah, they could have been twins. I cannot understand the vitriol spewing forth from some of you towards the author. To me the article expresses thoughts that one might consider.I for one would like to read more of Jack Ellis’s thoughts, any subject would do! Bring it on.
David1
July 24, 2009 at 6:01 pmI’ve got it, Michael and LaToyah are really male twins and one is castrato and one is not, so hence we get the different voices on different songs, one twin doing the high vocals and t’other the lows.
OR and this is where it gets really tricky, they are both half castrato and which one actually ended up in the gold casket and which one is still alive and kicking? What say you Holmes?