Ah xxxx, enough already 2016, George Michael

orraloon

For xxxx's sake, the toll of the musicians continues. RIP George. Only 53. Is it cos we is all getting old?

smoggysteve

RIP George.

Shame he didn't Last Christmas

Sorry. Too soon?

crumbschief

The drinks are free.

Stevo_666

Did nobody try to wake him up before he go-goed?

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Did nobody try to wake him up before he go-goed?

No, he's definitely gone gone

ballysmate

Only 53 but hardly a shock was it, given his history.

lucan2

Is this true, or is it just a careless whisper?

Maybe you shouldn't give away a vital organ at this time of year.

tlw1

someone should have called a whambulance

andy9964

Death by matrimony, apparently.....

ballysmate

Really was his last Christmas.

Stevo_666

He did once ask to be taken to the edge of heaven. Looks like they overshot a bit.

pinno

There was a lot of hush hush surrounding successive illnesses. Was there a chance he had HIV and a suppressed immune system as a result? - he had previous complications with pneumonia. Maybe i'm just speculating.

crispybug2

Sad really, he wasn't particularly my taste but he was a songwriter of the highest order. Careless Whisper is a mature, sophisticated, high class ballad of the type that great songwriters work towards and produce in their thirties or forties, George Michael wrote it when he was seventeen!!

pinno

crispybug2 wrote:

Sad really, he wasn't particularly my taste but he was a songwriter of the highest order. Careless Whisper is a mature, sophisticated, high class ballad of the type that great songwriters work towards and produce in their thirties or forties, George Michael wrote it when he seventeen!!

Yep. Including the line "Guilty feet have got no rhythm".

Anonymous

Personally I don't care how good a songwriter he was. its just a bloody song!

Driving around drugged and/or boozed up and willing to kill innocent people/children by your actions easily wipes out a poxy pop song lyric IMO lol.

Live fast, die young (but try not to take any unfortunates on the boring old slow route with you)

type:epyt

Carbonator wrote:

Personally I don't care how good a songwriter he was. its just a bloody song!

Driving around drugged and/or boozed up and willing to kill innocent people/children by your actions easily wipes out a poxy pop song lyric IMO lol.

Live fast, die young (but try not to take any unfortunates on the boring old slow route with you)

Man brings joy to millions during a 30-odd year career ... ruins it all by killing no-one, ever ... I think you need a re-think ...

bbrap

type:epyt wrote:

Man brings joy to millions during a 30-odd year career ... ruins it all by killing no-one, ever ... I think you need a re-think ...

Given his well documented tastes and excesses I don't think anyone can be sure of that.

pinno

type:epyt wrote:

Man brings joy to millions during a 30-odd year career...

I didn't realise he was that promiscuous.

Anonymous

type:epyt wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Personally I don't care how good a songwriter he was. its just a bloody song!

Driving around drugged and/or boozed up and willing to kill innocent people/children by your actions easily wipes out a poxy pop song lyric IMO lol.

Live fast, die young (but try not to take any unfortunates on the boring old slow route with you)

Man brings joy to millions during a 30-odd year career ... ruins it all by killing no-one, ever ... I think you need a re-think ...

Er, can you not read? I said willing to kill.

So exactly how many happy pop music liseners does it take to make drug/drink driving ok in your book then?

No rethink needed for me, but I think you need to explain your odd morals in more detail.

Drug/drink driving is a crime before the family are wiped out.
Do you think its ok for everyone to do as long as no one dies? Or just celebs?

I don't think GM brought joy to millions out of the good of his heart either.
Pound notes, ego and power all came a lot higher up the motivation list I would have thought.

rjsterry

Carbonator wrote:

So exactly how many happy pop music liseners does it take to make drug/drink driving ok in your book then?

...

What an inane question. Driving under the influence is indeed criminal, but I'm not sure one act of gross stupidity entirely negates everything else he has ever done. His charitable donations appear to have been in the millions, quite apart from the significant contribution to music. No one is suggesting that the hit singles excuse the driving offences, but if you want to sit in judgement, then there' was a bit more to the man than Wham! and driving into Snappy Snaps.

smoggysteve

Im sure that no matter how drunk or drugged he was he wasn't willingly ready to kill anyone. Perhaps you should rephrase.

He did stupid things and I'm sure he had remorse for those actions. I in no way condone his actions but he was wreckless but not a maniac hell bent on harming others

andy9964

Carbonator wrote:

I don't think GM brought joy to millions out of the good of his heart either.
Pound notes, ego and power all came a lot higher up the motivation list I would have thought.

Well, if this is to be believed, despite his issues, he seemed to be a pretty decent bloke
http://www.boredpanda.com/george-michae ... 50&score=1

type:epyt

Carbonator wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Personally I don't care how good a songwriter he was. its just a bloody song!

Driving around drugged and/or boozed up and willing to kill innocent people/children by your actions easily wipes out a poxy pop song lyric IMO lol.

Live fast, die young (but try not to take any unfortunates on the boring old slow route with you)

Man brings joy to millions during a 30-odd year career ... ruins it all by killing no-one, ever ... I think you need a re-think ...

Er, can you not read? I said willing to kill.

So exactly how many happy pop music liseners does it take to make drug/drink driving ok in your book then?

No rethink needed for me, but I think you need to explain your odd morals in more detail.

Drug/drink driving is a crime before the family are wiped out.
Do you think its ok for everyone to do as long as no one dies? Or just celebs?

I don't think GM brought joy to millions out of the good of his heart either.
Pound notes, ego and power all came a lot higher up the motivation list I would have thought.

Thats A LOT of vitriol for an imaginary outcome ... An outcome that can only now happen if the hearse driver gets boozed/drugged up, forgets to close the rear door of the hearse properly and the coffin containing GM shoots out the back, taking out a family out on a casual stroll with their newborn triplets who had stopped to look in the butchers window to forlornly dream of the pie they might buy once the triplets have all left home and they have a bit more spare cash ... At that point I might believe that a drink/drug related death was caused by GM ...

Until then, I'm pretty sure he hasn't killed anyone ...

lucan2

He was just one person. I didn't know him, so I won't be wringing my hands in a public display of how terribly sad it is that any unknown individual is dead. I really don't understand why the death of a so-called celebrity gives rise to all this public outpouring. Worthy of a "did you know xxx has died?" "Really?" "Yes, it was on the news." "OK, next subject."

Does social media mean we have to demonstrate how caring and devastated we all are(n't really)?

My life hasn't changed one bit, despite hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide in 2016.

"Next!"

Pross

Andy9964 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

I don't think GM brought joy to millions out of the good of his heart either.
Pound notes, ego and power all came a lot higher up the motivation list I would have thought.

Well, if this is to be believed, despite his issues, he seemed to be a pretty decent bloke
http://www.boredpanda.com/george-michae ... 50&score=1

Yep, gone up in my estimations. It's proper altruism when you do those sorts of things without letting on especially when you haven't been getting the best PR for a few years.

Anonymous

SmoggySteve wrote:

Im sure that no matter how drunk or drugged he was he wasn't willingly ready to kill anyone. Perhaps you should rephrase.

He did stupid things and I'm sure he had remorse for those actions. I in no way condone his actions but he was wreckless but not a maniac hell bent on harming others

Hey, I'm sure he had his good points and I never said he was anything other than just reckless.
This was originally about people getting excited by a pop song lyric.

The point was that a pop song lyric is not more of a good, than drug/drink driving is bad.

As with cycling, leave all the money (that a good pop song makes) out of it lol.

Any half intelligent person who gets behind the wheel in that state is willing to kill in my book though.
I never said he, or anyone doing the same, wants to kill, just that they make a choice knowing it could happen.

DeVlaeminck

Lucan2 wrote:

He was just one person. I didn't know him, so I won't be wringing my hands in a public display of how terribly sad it is that any unknown individual is dead. I really don't understand why the death of a so-called celebrity gives rise to all this public outpouring. Worthy of a "did you know xxx has died?" "Really?" "Yes, it was on the news." "OK, next subject."

Does social media mean we have to demonstrate how caring and devastated we all are(n't really)?

My life hasn't changed one bit, despite hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide in 2016.

"Next!"

Except perhaps for real fans I think it's just a case of it being a reminder that the world we grew up in and our own youth and maybe the hopes, ambitions, friends, family and life we had then have gone. I haven't actually seen an outpouring of grief more people expressing a collective feeling that they''ve been reminded that life is finite.

So no our lives haven't changed because of these celebrity deaths, but they remind us our lives have changed massively in the period since these celebrities were famous and I think that is why they have the impact they have - though I wouldn't want to overstate that impact to an extent it's just something to say much like talking about the weather.

mrfpb

He didn't do a lot in his career - 2 Wham albums, 3 solo albums and enough stray singles to half fill a greatest hits CD. Not a lot for 30 years, and he ignored the 80's nostalgia circuit. My sisters and the girls at school thought he was great. But it's one more somewhat inspiring human life that's gone.

If he or Bowie or Prince had lived and died in Aleppo do you think we'd be more moved about the thousands that have died there this year?

diamonddog

He actually did 4 solo studio albums.

briantrumpet

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Lucan2 wrote:

He was just one person. I didn't know him, so I won't be wringing my hands in a public display of how terribly sad it is that any unknown individual is dead. I really don't understand why the death of a so-called celebrity gives rise to all this public outpouring. Worthy of a "did you know xxx has died?" "Really?" "Yes, it was on the news." "OK, next subject."

Does social media mean we have to demonstrate how caring and devastated we all are(n't really)?

My life hasn't changed one bit, despite hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide in 2016.

"Next!"

Except perhaps for real fans I think it's just a case of it being a reminder that the world we grew up in and our own youth and maybe the hopes, ambitions, friends, family and life we had then have gone. I haven't actually seen an outpouring of grief more people expressing a collective feeling that they''ve been reminded that life is finite.

So no our lives haven't changed because of these celebrity deaths, but they remind us our lives have changed massively in the period since these celebrities were famous and I think that is why they have the impact they have - though I wouldn't want to overstate that impact to an extent it's just something to say much like talking about the weather.

There are actually something like 240,000 worldwide deaths a day, or 87,000,000 deaths a year. I find the reactions to these 'celebrity deaths' odd, because of how they seem to reflect the public appetite for 'celebrity', and how 'celebrity' is overwhelmingly due to mass media access, not (necessarily) skill or talent (see Princess Diana). There are millions of people doing amazing things who don't have the exposure. Sure, George Michael did actually have a talent, but the outpouring of grief is out of all proportion.

But, more than that, I find the idea of public grieving for someone whom you don't know a bit strange - I can't quite work out why, or quite what purpose it serves.

meanredspider

I think it depends a bit if you were hoping for more "output" from the person.

If you happen to love Gearge Michael's music, you could be forgiven for being sad that he's dead. Apparently he sold 100,000,000 albums so a few people liked his stuff and some of them were profoundly influenced by it. Additionally it seems he gave quite a bit to help others - they might be sad too.

I've never met, say, Max Verstappen but his driving is entertaining so I'd be sad if he died. That's above-and-beyond generally feeling a bit sad for anyone that dies younger than might normally be expected (whether that's in conflict or from disease or accident)