I'll cross-post from the Music forum.
Dude made some good pop music. Then he sharply declined. It's telling that you'll probably only see photos of his younger self in obits - his elder self, if not a child molester, was obviously mentally ill and a tragic figure more than anything.
Good records, though.
Honestly I'd just like to point out that the "respect" rule is kind of ridiculous. We shouldn't be canonizing anyone when they die. The dead deserve better than that. They were human beings, not selfless paragons whose very presence was a boon to the lives of everyone around them. A period of mourning is a time to reflect on good things (like great commercial and artistic success, and the adoration of millions received) and bad things (like inappropriate conduct with children, mental illness, and career ruination) because who they were in life on the day they die is no different from who they were in life after a year in the ground - when you die there shouldn't be some ultimate choice between your being a saint or devil. We can know that Ghandi was a great peacemaker and still acknowledge that he was such a terrible, neglectful father that it drove his son to suicide. We can know that King was a master orator and champion of the oppressed and still acknowledge that he was an adulterer. Michael Jackson, less of a figure than either of those two, made good pop records that a lot of people really loved and cherished, and yet he had deep psychological problems that made a functional life impossible, problems from which he could never escape. Some people might hold scorn for him for that, which is their right, but I think it's just sad.
A degree of respect must be maintained in public in consideration for loved ones, but this is more or less a private forum and no one's getting hurt, unless you believe in spirits of the dead, and I don't.
