Latest on MJJC

'Michael Jackson Was Charming But damaged': Elton John

  • Thread starter Dangerous Incorporated
  • Start date
I must say I don"t like Elton, regardless of what he said about Michael.
It sounds like he is speaking about a pet, not about the legendary and most talented person on Earth. I just don"t like it.
Damaged. He should pick his words more carefully.
 
Well, I think people have a problem with him using that word without context. It is very general and the connotation could be negative depending on which way he means. But outside of that, Elton never said "damaged" in the article. We have to remember that. He is not quoted as saying that, it is a word the author of the article used.

That could be a reason that the word has no context.
 
ginvid said:
Well, I think people have a problem with him using that word without context. It is very general and the connotation could be negative depending on which way he means. But outside of that, Elton never said "damaged" in the article. We have to remember that. He is not quoted as saying that, it is a word the author of the article used.

That could be a reason that the word has no context.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Elton himelf didnt use the word 'damaged' and even if he did, I dont think is that bad.
 
mjjmsc said:
look who is talking!elton john gives lessons about being normal?come on!
Click to expand...

what do you mean by this ? Elton John never said Michael was not normal unless if charming and sweet but damaged (like many people could be) is being anormal ? - I think you just express your own feelings upon Elton John - Not very kind :no:
 
Topflux said:
I think Michael meant having a meal at somebody else's home..? Because he had meals with some friends in his hotel rooms (between 1987-1997) but it was not the same.
Click to expand...

Didn't he have meals with the rabbi and his family in his home?

I agree with whoever said Michael liked to exaggerate a bit.
 
There is nothing that's "bad" about the comments elton made. MJ WAS damaged, he WAS abnormal. That's why he's such a genius. I think Elton (among all the artists during that time I believe) are a little jealous of MJ's success, that's where the whole "are you gonna top that" question came about. I also believe he sensationalized MJ's social life. It made it seem like MJ literally had no connection with humans for a complete decade, that's completely insane. But all in all it's nothing to get upset about.
 
ASIS said:
There is nothing that's "bad" about the comments elton made. MJ WAS damaged, he WAS abnormal. That's why he's such a genius. I think Elton (among all the artists during that time I believe) are a little jealous of MJ's success, that's where the whole "are you gonna top that" question came about. I also believe he sensationalized MJ's social life. It made it seem like MJ literally had no connection with humans for a complete decade, that's completely insane. But all in all it's nothing to get upset about.
Click to expand...

"Damaged" or "Abnormal" are words often used in negative connotations, so if people do get upset, they have a perfect right to do so. Oh and those words are used in the eye of the beholder,

For example people who don't act like others, may be observed as a "Different" person where as another person will see see them as "Strange"...I'm sure you know which description has the negative connotation..

But I don't think he intended for it to be a description with any sort of malice in this case..
 
Tsukiji said:
"Damaged" or "Abnormal" are words often used in negative connotations, so if people do get upset, they have a perfect right to do so. Oh and those words are used in the eye of the beholder,

For example people who don't act like others, may be observed as a "Different" person where as another person will see see them as "Strange"...I'm sure you know which description has the negative connotation..

But I don't think he intended for it to be a description with any sort of malice in this case..
Click to expand...

I think they are interpreted negatively because they have a large negative side to them, MJ suffered from that too. But they also have a positive side to them, and MJ gained from that... a lot.

I get what you're saying but personally I just never saw it as a bash (well maybe damaged).
 
I had already read in another Elton John interview about the dinner where Michael was brought in to Elton's house by Elton's therapist, that at that time was also helping Michael. Not sure if Elton that introduced Michael to his therapist, Beechy Colclough, because at the time Elton was still having therapy to help him to remain clean of drugs and deal with some aspects of his life.

I remember the interview he had with Barbara Walters where she asks Elton about Michael Jackson and mentions the allegations against Michael. Elton said he didn't know anything about Michael and the accusations. Elton didn't want to talk about it, but Walters pushed the subject to get some information from Elton (typical of Walters). Elton just said that if he (Elton) was innocent he would fight to prove his innocence, he would never settle as Michael did. He didn't accuse or implied anything that Michael was guilty. He also said he just gave him some advice, helped him and, I don't remember well, but I think he said he referred Michael to a therapist. Probably his own, as they both had Beechy Colclough, as therapist.

As regards the interview where Elton mentions Michael was damaged, it was an excerpt from an interview to the Telegraph. This is the part he talks about Michael.

Michael Jackson is another case in point. Elton had known him since Jackson was 13. 'He used to come to my shows with Elizabeth Taylor.’ In 1993, having cancelled a tour in the Far East, Jackson was in London undergoing treatment for his addiction to the painkiller Demerol. Elton had only recently met Furnish.

'David was coming down to meet my mother, and he was frightened about that,’ Elton says. 'He arrived at 10 in the morning, and there was a message on my answerphone from my counsellor of the time saying, “Oh, by the way, I’m bringing Michael Jackson down to lunch.” And David was saying, “I can’t meet your mother and f***ing Michael Jackson in one day.” ’

Jackson, Elton says, was 'charming, sweet, lovely – but damaged. He came down here and we closed all the curtains and had lunch. He said it was the first time he’d sat down and had a meal with people for 10 years. He would always eat on his own.’ Fame, Elton says, infantilises people. 'You don’t ever grow up. But thank God, I did.’

There was a time, he says, when he would judge himself by his chart positions. 'But I’m intelligent enough to have got over that now. I remember talking to Michael once when he did Thriller and I said, “How are you going to top that?” He said, “Oh, the next one’s going to do twice as much”, and I thought, Michael, it’s not. You can’t. You put so much pressure on yourself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/8080705/Elton-John-interview.html

That dinner at Elton's house happened in late 1993 when Elton was introducing his then new boyfriend David to his mother.

I do not want to put words in Elton's mouth, so I won't try to guess, but certainly he didn't mean anything bad saying Michael was damaged.

And I don't think Elton and Michael was close friends. Elton was acquainted with Michael at the most. There are several on line papers saying they were close friends. Elton never said he was close friends with Michael. If you read the interview on the Telegraph, you will not find a single word coming from Elton saying he had some kind of friendship with Michael. The tabloids though make it seem they were close friends,
 
Memefan said:
Guys, you do know at times, MJ tended to exaggerate things a tidbit right? Like taking Paris out if the hospital with the umbilical cord still attached.... o_O

I say we should keep things in perspective



In this care, it is used as an example to drive home my point. Because no damn doctor would let MJ leave a hospital with a kid with an umbilical cord attached. O.O

And I think there are other examples of MJ's love for story telling. Like I said, keep some things in perspective.
Click to expand...

good assertation Memefan :yes:
 
If religion is digested or simply regarded as a stifling dogma, that means creating hostility among people and nations. John reffered to religion in the broad sense, so he was overgeneralizing and to say he'd ban religion completely is too wrong on all levels, I won't even get into this again. As is being ostentatious with and flaunting your sexual orientation, no matter which is.

John, I remember once, was bitching about song "Blood On The Dancefloor" at some point, that, of all the songs Michael could've dedicated to him, he chose that, and he expressed that in a quiet violent, ungrateful way. "BOTD" is so misunderstood and an awareness song about promiscuity and all that, and blood is a key word of that song, the precious blood pooring from victims, about what can happen when high libido takes away your reasoning. It's about one-night stands and it could be very well related to HIV contamination as well, which is very much fitting in John's case, as he partnered with Michael at some point for Ryan White, who died of AIDS, and John has been a renowned spokesperson for AIDS victims. Michael even apologized for dedicating the song to him, after seeing John got bothered by it.. And he shouldn't have, because that is a deep song and Jackson knew it was, that is why he chose to dedicate it to someone he deemed important in his life and was important at some point. It's sad that some people don't have enough maturity and profoundness and intellect to actually think when thinking is due.

Didn't want to start anything here, which I hope I didn't. Just pointing out some things that needed to be said.
 
Alma said:
If religion is digested or simply regarded as a stifling dogma, that means creating hostility among people and nations. John reffered to religion in the broad sense, so he was overgeneralizing and to say he'd ban religion completely is too wrong on all levels, I won't even get into this again. As is being ostentatious with and flaunting your sexual orientation, no matter which is.

John, I remember once, was bitching about song "Blood On The Dancefloor" at some point, that, of all the songs Michael could've dedicated to him, he chose that, and he expressed that in a quiet violent, ungrateful way. "BOTD" is so misunderstood and an awareness song about promiscuity and all that, and blood is a key word of that song, the precious blood pooring from victims, about what can happen when high libido takes away your reasoning. It's about one-night stands and it could be very well related to HIV contamination as well, which is very much fitting in John's case, as he partnered with Michael at some point for Ryan White, who died of AIDS, and John has been a renowned spokesperson for AIDS victims. Michael even apologized for dedicating the song to him, after seeing John got bothered by it.. And he shouldn't have, because that is a deep song and Jackson knew it was, that is why he chose to dedicate it to someone he deemed important in his life and was important at some point. It's sad that some people don't have enough maturity and profoundness and intellect to actually think when thinking is due.

Didn't want to start anything here, which I hope I didn't. Just pointing out some things that needed to be said.
Click to expand...

Waw, Alma I did not know about this. I guess the song connected to something in John that was negative for him. I wish Michael dedicated a song to Me!!!
 
You can write your opinions without bashing Elton John and/or gay people.
Thread cleaned
 
Don't forget to not to bash Michael either. I have seen it a few times in this thread in a subtle way.
 
What's wrong with him saying 'damaged'. Fans talk about how Michael was damaged by his childhood, his father, the accusations and the media, all the time. MJ said as much himself.

Elton has been there with Michael at key times. I know he is fond of him. I really don't think he has said a bad word about him.
 
I'd like to see most people endure half the searing end lastly enduring pain Michael had to live through- and see how long they last without jumping of the next balcony after being put through an international character assassination scheme being called the scum of the scum.

That's not "damaged", that almost superhuman that he survived that.

Drew the curtains? Yeah, most of us aren't used to the feeling of being stalked literally, when Paparazzi climb trees to shoot through windows and underneath toilet stalls.

I feel anxiety rising in me when I imagine there's a bunch of people waiting in front of my house, day and night, ready to jump on me if I just want a freakin' burrito.

The problem with this entire "damaged" thing is that it's a slippery slope down "damaged, abnormal and deranged"- he was constantly ridiculed as freak, "circus" and a whole bunch of other things that I don't care to repeat because they just hurt reading them. A lot of people don't even realize how hurtful most "regular" documentaries even start out, in a verbal sense.

I also don't get this eccentricity focus- Live in any artist colony in Berlin, NYC or San Francisco- if I went out on a Saturday Night in Berlin's goths clubs- lemme tell you, Michael Jackson looked like regular prude compared to half the people of Berlin. "Normal" is relative. Maybe I am way to immersed in the MJ world and other artists myself- but I never even thought of Michael as "weird" ever. It's so relative. Did these journalist never set foot in any contemporary art gallery or contemporary theatre production??

If you have followed the press coverage even before '93- you'd be very careful using any kind of verbal description that the press regularly used to feed you innuendo and insinuations.
 
Last edited:
Pace said:
I'd like to see most people endure half the searing end lastly enduring pain Michael had to live through- and see how long they last without jumping of the next balcony after being put through an international character assassination scheme being called the scum of the scum.

That's not "damaged", that almost superhuman that he survived that.

Drew the curtains? Yeah, most of us aren't used to the feeling of being stalked literally, when Paparazzi climb trees to shoot through windows and underneath toilet stalls.

I feel anxiety rising in me when I imagine there's a bunch of people waiting in front of my house, day and night, ready to jump on me if I just want a freakin' burrito.

The problem with this entire "damaged" thing is that it's a slippery slope down "damaged, abnormal and deranged"- he was constantly ridiculed as freak, "circus" and a whole bunch of other things that I don't care to repeat because they just hurt reading them. A lot of people don't even realize how hurtful most "regular" documentaries even start out, in a verbal sense.

I also don't get this eccentricity focus- Live in any artist colony in Berlin, NYC or San Francisco- if I went out on a Saturday Night in Berlin's goths clubs- lemme tell you, Michael Jackson looked like regular prude compared to half the people of Berlin. "Normal" is relative. Maybe I am way to immersed in the MJ world and other artists myself- but I never even thought of Michael as "weird" ever. It's so relative. Did these journalist never set foot in any contemporary art gallery or contemporary theatre production??

If you have followed the press coverage even before '93- you'd be very careful using any kind of verbal description that the press regularly used to feed you innuendo and insinuations.
Click to expand...

Love your post and I absolutely agree with it!!!

From the posts her, many feel damaged is an ok word to describe Michael, but to the average reader it brings up some negative associations which you have adequately addressed above^^^. I am still trying to understand why some do not see this.
 
Last edited:
Petrarose said:
Love your post and I absolutely agree with it!!!

From the posts her, many feel damaged is an ok word to describe Michael, but to the average reader it brings up some negative associations which you have adequately addressed above^^^. I am still trying to understand why some do not see this.
Click to expand...

because the conditioning is that if that term is applied to MJ, it's ok, but if it's applied to someone else, it's not ok.
 
My thing is Michael Jackson never personally commented on any other celebrity, in terms of discussing their issues (as he saw them) and therefore celebritities should show him the same respect.
 
WHY is this still talked about that story happen like 2 WEEKS ago...
 
Petrarose said:
That is a good point. You even see it in the media where Bashir said Michael was "manic." Now Michael's "friends" attempt to say something nice about him, but there is always this little dig with something negative to show Michael was "not like us." I wonder if Elton thinks he himself is "damaged?"
Click to expand...

I thought the samething.:(
 
Memefan said:
Guys, you do know at times, MJ tended to exaggerate things a tidbit right? Like taking Paris out if the hospital with the umbilical cord still attached.... o_O

I say we should keep things in perspective
Click to expand...


The umbilical cord is clamped at birth but the part still attached to the baby can be there for 7 - 10 days. I am assuming this is what he meant.

 
Last edited:
TheChosenOne said:
My thing is Michael Jackson never personally commented on any other celebrity, in terms of discussing their issues (as he saw them) and therefore celebritities should show him the same respect.
Click to expand...

Michael was also much more refined and classier than a lot of other celebrities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top