independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 20th Sep 2019 5:21pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Do we Cancel? Art separate from Artist? These days are crazy!!
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 3 <123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 03/12/19 1:32pm

purplethunder3
121

avatar

MarshallStacks said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

^ Yes.

Indeed. Leonardo da Vinci, who never married, spent most of his adult life living with and supporting a household of apprentices and assistants, all of whom seem to have joined his employ as young boys.

No further facts or evidence exist on this matter, though rumours persisted at the time. Many of these youths lived with and supported him for many years, a couple even inheriting his worldly goods after his death.

Are we to burn the Mona Lisa?

Another great and revered artist, Carravaggio, was convicted of killing a man in a brawl over a prostitute.

Not trying to compare MJ to these guys in terms of artisitic greatness, other than to say -

These kinds of debates are nothing new.

[Edited 3/12/19 13:29pm]

Indeed.

"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 03/12/19 1:51pm

TD3

avatar

I think everyone has the right to decide who they listen to and why they decide not to support an artist. Whether I agree or disagree with your choice, is neither here or there.

"The only person you know is YOU". This why so many people struggle when they've discovered celebrities, like all humans have q feet of clay. I find the obession/worshipping in the U.S. with celebrites, fame, and wealth, distrubing.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 03/12/19 3:42pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

MarshallStacks said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

^ Yes.

Indeed. Leonardo da Vinci, who never married, spent most of his adult life living with and supporting a household of apprentices and assistants, all of whom seem to have joined his employ as young boys.

No further facts or evidence exist on this matter, though rumours persisted at the time. Many of these youths lived with and supported him for many years, a couple even inheriting his worldly goods after his death.

Are we to burn the Mona Lisa?

Another great and revered artist, Carravaggio, was convicted of killing a man in a brawl over a prostitute.

Not trying to compare MJ to these guys in terms of artisitic greatness, other than to say -

These kinds of debates are nothing new.

[Edited 3/12/19 13:29pm]


Many artists are troubled and use their art as an escape so the two often go together. In the past, when information was less readily accessible, art could be appreciated without having to take in the baggage that came with the artist. But with the ever-contant presence of the news in our internet era, it is hard to avoid information and thus almost impossible to dissociate the art from the artist's life.


Does that mean that we have to reject both? It depends. The artist may still have the freedom to express themselves through their art, but the recipient, their audience have a choice too. Freedom goes both way. Times have changed, with freedom comes more rights and people nowadays tend to draw a clear line between what they are ready to accept or not.

And while it is easier to tolerate an artist despite the mistakes they may make in private, when these mistakes are against the concensus and transpire publicly through their art, it is usually a big no-no. Racist undertones are no longer accepted for example, as it was recently the case for one of Gucci's latest creation (which was thankfully promptly 'cancelled'). In this case the art was cancelled but not the artist. But what then if the artist repeatedly offends and shows no remorse?

All this to say that these days may not be so 'off the wall' after all... P-Y-T anyone?

[Edited 3/12/19 15:55pm]

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 03/12/19 4:41pm

Moonbeam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

MarshallStacks said:

Indeed. Leonardo da Vinci, who never married, spent most of his adult life living with and supporting a household of apprentices and assistants, all of whom seem to have joined his employ as young boys.

No further facts or evidence exist on this matter, though rumours persisted at the time. Many of these youths lived with and supported him for many years, a couple even inheriting his worldly goods after his death.

Are we to burn the Mona Lisa?

Another great and revered artist, Carravaggio, was convicted of killing a man in a brawl over a prostitute.

Not trying to compare MJ to these guys in terms of artisitic greatness, other than to say -

These kinds of debates are nothing new.

[Edited 3/12/19 13:29pm]


Many artists are troubled and use their art as an escape so the two often go together. In the past, when information was less readily accessible, art could be appreciated without having to take in the baggage that came with the artist. But with the ever-contant presence of the news in our internet era, it is hard to avoid information and thus almost impossible to dissociate the art from the artist's life.


Does that mean that we have to reject both? It depends. The artist may still have the freedom to express themselves through their art, but the recipient, their audience have a choice too. Freedom goes both way. Times have changed, with freedom comes more rights and people nowadays tend to draw a clear line between what they are ready to accept or not.

And while it is easier to tolerate an artist despite the mistakes they may make in private, when these mistakes are against the concensus and transpire publicly through their art, it is usually a big no-no. Racist undertones are no longer accepted for example, as it was recently the case for one of Gucci's latest creation (which was thankfully promptly 'cancelled'). In this case the art was cancelled but not the artist. But what then if the artist repeatedly offends and shows no remorse?

All this to say that these days may not be so 'off the wall' after all... P-Y-T anyone?

[Edited 3/12/19 15:55pm]


Great post, as always!

Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 03/13/19 8:36pm

ChocolateBox31
21

avatar

"4 all of us, life is death without adventure,& adventure only comes 2 those who are willing 2 b daring & take chances." prince AMA's 1985
“When eye say, ‘eye own “Purple Rain,” eye sound like Kanye.” He paused.“Who eye consider a friend.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 03/14/19 6:15am

happinessinits
uncutform

I find this to be a very thought-provoking topic. Seems there's never the right answer to it.

I'm extremely disgusted by R Kelly. But his songs on my itunes,...I haven't and don't think I will delete them. The memories I have attached to those tunes are very separate from R.Kelly the person, I used to jam to those tracks with my friends and they remind me of certain memories I have with them.

I bet in the 70s and 80s when women didn't have much of a voice and all female fans were considered groupies...as disturbing as it sounds, sexual harassment was a prevalent practice among A LOT OF rockstars. We all know that and yet we still choose to listen to their music. The heck is wrong with us.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 03/14/19 7:39am

PennyPurple

avatar

happinessinitsuncutform said:

I find this to be a very thought-provoking topic. Seems there's never the right answer to it.

I'm extremely disgusted by R Kelly. But his songs on my itunes,...I haven't and don't think I will delete them. The memories I have attached to those tunes are very separate from R.Kelly the person, I used to jam to those tracks with my friends and they remind me of certain memories I have with them.

I bet in the 70s and 80s when women didn't have much of a voice and all female fans were considered groupies...as disturbing as it sounds, sexual harassment was a prevalent practice among A LOT OF rockstars. We all know that and yet we still choose to listen to their music. The heck is wrong with us.

Grand Funk Railroad.


On the road for forty days / Last night in Little Rock put me in a haze / Sweet, sweet Connie -- doin' her act." “Sweet Connie” Hamzy was a famous groupie that had allegedly been with a number of famous people and musicians -- including Bill Clinton during his time as governor of Arkansas. “She had the whole show and that's a natural fact” alleges that Connie had been with the entire band, but she told VH-1 that wasn't entirely true – according to her, she never got to Mark Farner.


https://ultimateclassicrock.com/grand-funk-railroad-were-an-american-band-lyrics-uncovered/

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 03/14/19 7:59am

CherryMoon57

avatar

Moonbeam said:

CherryMoon57 said:


Many artists are troubled and use their art as an escape so the two often go together. In the past, when information was less readily accessible, art could be appreciated without having to take in the baggage that came with the artist. But with the ever-contant presence of the news in our internet era, it is hard to avoid information and thus almost impossible to dissociate the art from the artist's life.


Does that mean that we have to reject both? It depends. The artist may still have the freedom to express themselves through their art, but the recipient, their audience have a choice too. Freedom goes both way. Times have changed, with freedom comes more rights and people nowadays tend to draw a clear line between what they are ready to accept or not.

And while it is easier to tolerate an artist despite the mistakes they may make in private, when these mistakes are against the concensus and transpire publicly through their art, it is usually a big no-no. Racist undertones are no longer accepted for example, as it was recently the case for one of Gucci's latest creation (which was thankfully promptly 'cancelled'). In this case the art was cancelled but not the artist. But what then if the artist repeatedly offends and shows no remorse?

All this to say that these days may not be so 'off the wall' after all... P-Y-T anyone?

[Edited 3/12/19 15:55pm]


Great post, as always!


Thanks moonbeam!

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 03/16/19 1:49am

SoulAlive

For me,it's never been difficult to separate the artist from the song.I have read alot of tell-all books about many of my favorite artists and as you can expect,many bad things are revealed about them.And yet,I can still play their songs/albums and enjoy the music.I look at it this way: who they really are in their personal life is none of my business,anyway.I don't know them personally.I don't hang out with them.I don't work for them.My interest in them is strictly because of the music.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 03/16/19 5:06am

ChocolateBox31
21

avatar

rolleyes

"4 all of us, life is death without adventure,& adventure only comes 2 those who are willing 2 b daring & take chances." prince AMA's 1985
“When eye say, ‘eye own “Purple Rain,” eye sound like Kanye.” He paused.“Who eye consider a friend.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 03/16/19 8:00am

SoulAlive

I recall something that Sinead O'Connor said in the 90s.She was angry at Prince because of that "incident" where he supposedly argued with her at his home.She said that,in order to continue to perform "Nothing Compares 2 U" during her shows,she has to "separate the artist from the song,which I was already doing anyway.But I'm just really pissed at him,so it's kinda hard to do now".

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 03/16/19 10:19am

EmmaMcG

avatar

SoulAlive said:

I recall something that Sinead O'Connor said in the 90s.She was angry at Prince because of that "incident" where he supposedly argued with her at his home.She said that,in order to continue to perform "Nothing Compares 2 U" during her shows,she has to "separate the artist from the song,which I was already doing anyway.But I'm just really pissed at him,so it's kinda hard to do now".






I wouldn't take anything that mad cow says seriously. This is the same idiot who called Prince a demon and claimed to see his eyes turn white.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 03/16/19 4:00pm

ItsLetoyaBaby

purplethunder3121 said:

MarshallStacks said:

Indeed. Leonardo da Vinci, who never married, spent most of his adult life living with and supporting a household of apprentices and assistants, all of whom seem to have joined his employ as young boys.

No further facts or evidence exist on this matter, though rumours persisted at the time. Many of these youths lived with and supported him for many years, a couple even inheriting his worldly goods after his death.

Are we to burn the Mona Lisa?

Another great and revered artist, Carravaggio, was convicted of killing a man in a brawl over a prostitute.

Not trying to compare MJ to these guys in terms of artisitic greatness, other than to say -

These kinds of debates are nothing new.

[Edited 3/12/19 13:29pm]

Indeed.

And Elvis was a pedophile and nobody seems to be turned off by it.

[Edited 3/16/19 16:06pm]

[Edited 3/16/19 16:07pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 03/16/19 7:49pm

peggyon

ItsLetoyaBaby said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Indeed.

And Elvis was a pedophile and nobody seems to be turned off by it.

[Edited 3/16/19 16:06pm]

[Edited 3/16/19 16:07pm]

Not a pedophile, an ephebophile. Man who prefers girls in the 13-18 age range.

[Edited 3/16/19 19:51pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 03/17/19 2:33am

spacedolphin

avatar

Yeah it's an interesting question, obviously it's time to move creepy MJ's albums to the back of the shelf again, I can separate to a degree I guess it depends on the nature of the action, whether there is conjecture on the allegations, if the woman is a mental case, etc, but that mindset would be different for a confirmed POS like Roman Polanski or Charles Manson where it's clear cut and someone suffered against their will.

music Don't wanna be an American idiot music
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 03/17/19 8:34am

darlingnikkkki

EmmaMcG said:

That's actually a good question. Can we seperate art from the artist? Or rather, SHOULD we seperate art from the artist. Obviously, people will have different opinions on that but for me personally, I don't get invested in the personal lives of the artists I listen to. I never liked R Kelly so these allegations against him have no bearing on my interest in his music. I am a fan of Michael Jackson though. I always have been. And whereas I feel that it's completely and totally wrong to condemn the man without any proof whatsoever, I've always kept an open mind in relation to his alleged crimes. I don't know if he did it or not. We'll never know if he did it or not. And honestly, I don't care. Like I said, I don't get invested in their personal lives. I listen to the music because I like the music.

For me, it's no different than OJ Simpson in the Naked Gun movies. I still watch them and enjoy them, including his performances in them. He's probably a murderer but he was still funny in those movies. Michael Jackson MIGHT be a paedophile but his music is still enjoyable to me. Bill Cosby is a scumbag but I still watch Ghost Dad.


So for me, I guess I do separate art from the artist.


I grew up with MJ’s music and I don’t have a problem with the music he made with the Jackson 5 as a kid but I doubt I can listen to Heal the World again given the message of the song and what he was doing to the kids in his bedroom especially the graphic details of the abuse which he remained unrepentant and in denial until his death. The $20+M hush money he paid to settle that one case out of court is damning to me. If I wasn’t guilty of a crime I won’t even pay a dollar.
"I want to be the only one you come for...."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 03/17/19 10:42am

CherryMoon57

avatar

darlingnikkkki said:

EmmaMcG said:
That's actually a good question. Can we seperate art from the artist? Or rather, SHOULD we seperate art from the artist. Obviously, people will have different opinions on that but for me personally, I don't get invested in the personal lives of the artists I listen to. I never liked R Kelly so these allegations against him have no bearing on my interest in his music. I am a fan of Michael Jackson though. I always have been. And whereas I feel that it's completely and totally wrong to condemn the man without any proof whatsoever, I've always kept an open mind in relation to his alleged crimes. I don't know if he did it or not. We'll never know if he did it or not. And honestly, I don't care. Like I said, I don't get invested in their personal lives. I listen to the music because I like the music. For me, it's no different than OJ Simpson in the Naked Gun movies. I still watch them and enjoy them, including his performances in them. He's probably a murderer but he was still funny in those movies. Michael Jackson MIGHT be a paedophile but his music is still enjoyable to me. Bill Cosby is a scumbag but I still watch Ghost Dad. So for me, I guess I do separate art from the artist.
I grew up with MJ’s music and I don’t have a problem with the music he made with the Jackson 5 as a kid but I doubt I can listen to Heal the World again given the message of the song and what he was doing to the kids in his bedroom especially the graphic details of the abuse which he remained unrepentant and in denial until his death. The $20+M hush money he paid to settle that one case out of court is damning to me. If I wasn’t guilty of a crime I won’t even pay a dollar.


What makes you so sure this is true, was it the graphic details?

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 03/17/19 10:44am

RJOrion

i never waa a fan of R.Kelly anyway...and even though i think MJ was behaving inappropriately with young boys, it doesnt change my feelings about his music, or Jackson 5 music, which i still enjoy regularly...after years of observation, it appears most of the entertainment icons seem to be weirdos and deviants of some sort anyway...that may even be a requirement in the entertainment industry...thats THEIR business tho...just entertain me...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 03/17/19 10:52am

CherryMoon57

avatar

I have decided to still listen to Michael Jackson, simply because - until proven otherwise - the quality of his music to me is far superior than any shifty allegations.

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 03/17/19 10:55am

SoulAlive

RJOrion said:

i never waa a fan of R.Kelly anyway...and even though i think MJ was behaving inappropriately with young boys, it doesnt change my feelings about his music, or Jackson 5 music, which i still enjoy regularly...after years of observation, it appears most of the entertainment icons seem to be weirdos and deviants of some sort anyway...that may even be a requirement in the entertainment industry...thats THEIR business tho...just entertain me...

I feel the same way: if your album is good,I will buy it and enjoy your music.The person that you are outside of the spotlight is your business and I don't really care about all that.

and yeah,I never liked R.Kelly anyway,either lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 03/17/19 1:31pm

ChocolateBox31
21

avatar

RJOrion said:

i never waa a fan of R.Kelly anyway...and even though i think MJ was behaving inappropriately with young boys, it doesnt change my feelings about his music, or Jackson 5 music, which i still enjoy regularly...after years of observation, it appears most of the entertainment icons seem to be weirdos and deviants of some sort anyway...that may even be a requirement in the entertainment industry...thats THEIR business tho...just entertain me...

MJ LOVED R Kelly, "Ignition" was his favorite song.

"4 all of us, life is death without adventure,& adventure only comes 2 those who are willing 2 b daring & take chances." prince AMA's 1985
“When eye say, ‘eye own “Purple Rain,” eye sound like Kanye.” He paused.“Who eye consider a friend.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 03/17/19 2:06pm

PatrickS77

avatar

darlingnikkkki said:

If I wasn’t guilty of a crime I won’t even pay a dollar.



If you would stand a chance to loose everything, to suffer through a humiliating trial, where your life gets disected in front the world, further damaging your reputation with the prospect of that trial influencing a potential second (criminal) trial, blocking another year of your life, which could result in you going to jail and you had a chance to make it all go away with having your insurance pay, I'm sure you would at least consider it. It's easy to say, I would never pay, if it only is theoretical, but it's a different thing if everything is at stake. So really, him settling means nothing other than taking the "easy" way out.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 03/17/19 2:34pm

EmmaMcG

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

I have decided to still listen to Michael Jackson, simply because - until proven otherwise - the quality of his music to me is far superior than any shifty allegations.



Honestly, I don't believe Michael Jackson was a kiddie fiddler. But even if there was indisputable proof that he was guilty, I'd still listen to his music. My opinion of the man would change but not my opinion of his music.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 03/17/19 4:28pm

RJOrion

PatrickS77 said:

darlingnikkkki said:

If I wasn’t guilty of a crime I won’t even pay a dollar.



If you would stand a chance to loose everything, to suffer through a humiliating trial, where your life gets disected in front the world, further damaging your reputation with the prospect of that trial influencing a potential second (criminal) trial, blocking another year of your life, which could result in you going to jail and you had a chance to make it all go away with having your insurance pay, I'm sure you would at least consider it. It's easy to say, I would never pay, if it only is theoretical, but it's a different thing if everything is at stake. So really, him settling means nothing other than taking the "easy" way out.


settlements are the "easy way out" in most cases...but NOT in a pedophilia case when most people will assume guilt when a person buys out of their charges... i just cant reconcile an innocent man paying over 20 million in settlements..hell no..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 03/17/19 4:28pm

Free2BMe

I always think that it is ironic that haters and semi-fans say that they would still listen to Michael’s music, if he was guilty. I could never listen to Michael’s music if I thought he was guilty. Most REAL fans feel the same way. See that’s the difference in REAL fans defending Michael Jackson an innocent MAN vs. Michael Jackson, the entertainer. That’s the difference between being a passionate and dedicated fan vs. a fence straddling, bandwagon hopping, go with the flow “fan”. Real fans see Michael as a man, father, son, brother first, and a singer, songwriter, dancer, humanitarian, philanthropist and global megastar second.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 03/17/19 5:00pm

SoulAlive

EmmaMcG said:


Honestly, I don't believe Michael Jackson was a kiddie fiddler. But even if there was indisputable proof that he was guilty, I'd still listen to his music. My opinion of the man would change but not my opinion of his music.

Same here.'Off The Wall' is one of my favorite albums.Regardless of what Michael did in his personal life,it wouldn't change my opinion of the music itself.Great music will always be great music,no matter what is later revealed about the artist.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 03/17/19 5:13pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

.

[Edited 3/21/19 5:49am]

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 03/17/19 5:24pm

PatrickS77

avatar

RJOrion said:

PatrickS77 said:




If you would stand a chance to loose everything, to suffer through a humiliating trial, where your life gets disected in front the world, further damaging your reputation with the prospect of that trial influencing a potential second (criminal) trial, blocking another year of your life, which could result in you going to jail and you had a chance to make it all go away with having your insurance pay, I'm sure you would at least consider it. It's easy to say, I would never pay, if it only is theoretical, but it's a different thing if everything is at stake. So really, him settling means nothing other than taking the "easy" way out.


settlements are the "easy way out" in most cases...but NOT in a pedophilia case when most people will assume guilt when a person buys out of their charges... i just cant reconcile an innocent man paying over 20 million in settlements..hell no..


Why is there a difference? There is none. You get sued. You weigh your options and you pay or fight it til the end. Sometimes you just think what would cost you more. And once again, the money didn't come out of his pocket, so it cost him nothing, other than the public believing what they want to believe. He went to trial 10 years later, got exonerated and people still think he did it. So really, fuck it what you and others, who's life is not at stake, demand accused people to do.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 03/17/19 6:47pm

Free2BMe

RJOrion said:

PatrickS77 said:




If you would stand a chance to loose everything, to suffer through a humiliating trial, where your life gets disected in front the world, further damaging your reputation with the prospect of that trial influencing a potential second (criminal) trial, blocking another year of your life, which could result in you going to jail and you had a chance to make it all go away with having your insurance pay, I'm sure you would at least consider it. It's easy to say, I would never pay, if it only is theoretical, but it's a different thing if everything is at stake. So really, him settling means nothing other than taking the "easy" way out.


settlements are the "easy way out" in most cases...but NOT in a pedophilia case when most people will assume guilt when a person buys out of their charges... i just cant reconcile an innocent man paying over 20 million in settlements..hell no..


He didn’t pay a cent. He fought to have criminal case brought first and was turned down at leastn4 times or more. His record label, Sony and his lawyers persuaded him to settle, His/Sony insurance settlement was for negligence. It was specifically stated that this was not an admittance of any criminal wrongdoing. This settlement did NOT stop Evan Chandler from filing criminal charades. He didn’t want justice for his, he wanted 💰. He knew that he would never win in court, so he took the money and ran. If Michael had simply wanted to pay this extortionist off, he could easily have given him money under the table and neither you or I would have known anything about it. That’s what you do when you have something to hide. So, get your facts straight and stop being a brain-washed sheep. Of course, you have an AGENDA, so FACTs don’t matter t YOU people.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 03/17/19 9:55pm

RJOrion

Free2BMe said:

RJOrion said:



settlements are the "easy way out" in most cases...but NOT in a pedophilia case when most people will assume guilt when a person buys out of their charges... i just cant reconcile an innocent man paying over 20 million in settlements..hell no..


He didn’t pay a cent. He fought to have criminal case brought first and was turned down at leastn4 times or more. His record label, Sony and his lawyers persuaded him to settle, His/Sony insurance settlement was for negligence. It was specifically stated that this was not an admittance of any criminal wrongdoing. This settlement did NOT stop Evan Chandler from filing criminal charades. He didn’t want justice for his, he wanted 💰. He knew that he would never win in court, so he took the money and ran. If Michael had simply wanted to pay this extortionist off, he could easily have given him money under the table and neither you or I would have known anything about it. That’s what you do when you have something to hide. So, get your facts straight and stop being a brain-washed sheep. Of course, you have an AGENDA, so FACTs don’t matter t YOU people.



you poor thing... i actually feel sorry for you...bless your heart
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 3 <123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Do we Cancel? Art separate from Artist? These days are crazy!!