Anyone who thinks "Burn Tonight" is MJ needs a slap. It's just horrible. The person singing on this song needs BASIC voice coaching, it's not the voice of someone who sings professionally for 2 years, let alone 40.

Militant said:

Anyone who thinks "Burn Tonight" is MJ needs a slap. It's just horrible. The person singing on this song needs BASIC voice coaching, it's not the voice of someone who sings professionally for 2 years, let alone 40.

This.

mozfonky said:

Swa said:

I don't see the need for a purfume. Maybe it's just not my thing - but when MJ products move out of the realm of music and pop culture I think it starts damaging the brand.

How do you guys feel?

all depends, paul newman put out a brand which had nothing to do with his business other than using his name and it was done with such class and taste that it's all good. Then you have guys like Muhammad Ali who was such an easy mark that he had motherfuckers selling ali cookies, shoe polish, cars and a lot of other shit i can't think of right now and it ruined his name for a long time. Elvis similarly had lots of inane bizarre shit sold with his name on it by that motherfucker parker. all depens.

To be fair - the Paul Newman brand of salad dressings etc came from his own recipie that he used to do for friends when they came round. Everyone raved about them and he partnered with a friend to start the business - with profits going to charity. It's not like they started making the food products after his death and whacked his name on it.

I agree if done with class it could be ok - but I think that won't be the case.

Swa said:

mozfonky said:

all depends, paul newman put out a brand which had nothing to do with his business other than using his name and it was done with such class and taste that it's all good. Then you have guys like Muhammad Ali who was such an easy mark that he had motherfuckers selling ali cookies, shoe polish, cars and a lot of other shit i can't think of right now and it ruined his name for a long time. Elvis similarly had lots of inane bizarre shit sold with his name on it by that motherfucker parker. all depens.

To be fair - the Paul Newman brand of salad dressings etc came from his own recipie that he used to do for friends when they came round. Everyone raved about them and he partnered with a friend to start the business - with profits going to charity. It's not like they started making the food products after his death and whacked his name on it.

I agree if done with class it could be ok - but I think that won't be the case.

i know that, i'm just answering a question, can it be done with some ethics? Yes it can. Will it? In most cases, probably not. Money brings out the animal in everyone. Ridiculous Elvis products were put out ever since the 50's it's one of the reasons Elvis is simultaneously a joke and a great artist. After his death, probably hundreds of books came out, most of them either bad or exploitive, there have been a handful done with love and care and also, some of his music compilations were likewise put out with great care in many circumstances after his death. Mike had lowlives around him, in his family too and that doesn't bode well for anything when everyone around you will sell you downriver in a heartbeat. Everyone has to pick the people around them carefully.

mozfonky said:

Swa said:

To be fair - the Paul Newman brand of salad dressings etc came from his own recipie that he used to do for friends when they came round. Everyone raved about them and he partnered with a friend to start the business - with profits going to charity. It's not like they started making the food products after his death and whacked his name on it.

I agree if done with class it could be ok - but I think that won't be the case.

i know that, i'm just answering a question, can it be done with some ethics? Yes it can. Will it? In most cases, probably not. Money brings out the animal in everyone. Ridiculous Elvis products were put out ever since the 50's it's one of the reasons Elvis is simultaneously a joke and a great artist. After his death, probably hundreds of books came out, most of them either bad or exploitive, there have been a handful done with love and care and also, some of his music compilations were likewise put out with great care in many circumstances after his death. Mike had lowlives around him, in his family too and that doesn't bode well for anything when everyone around you will sell you downriver in a heartbeat. Everyone has to pick the people around them carefully.

When I hear people say Michael's estate is gonna sell him out, I think about people like Elvis, Jimi, and Sammy Davis Jr.

I'm not a fan of Elvis but even I feel uneasy when I see tacky stuff with his likeness on them. I've seen candles, plates, clocks, pillow cases.... I remember working for Borders and seeing a section of the calendar shop dedicated to Elvis calendars, clocks, photography books, and other stuff and it made me wonder if Priscilla or Lisa Marie signed off to all of that. It wouldn't surprise me if there's Elvis toilet paper out there

When people talk about the Breaking News, Monster, and Keep Your Head Up on the MICHAEL album, It reminds me of a book I skimmed through about Jimi where they saw several unofficial albums being released, and some of the songs not being Jimi at all. I've seen the same thing happen to Jimi happen to Elvis. I've seen his likeness or so much crap

And Sammy? The IRS took all of his stuff and whoever is in charge of his estate now.... they're doing a terrible job

Militant said:

Anyone who thinks "Burn Tonight" is MJ needs a slap. It's just horrible. The person singing on this song needs BASIC voice coaching, it's not the voice of someone who sings professionally for 2 years, let alone 40.

I'd hope not - "Burn Tonight" sounds like the title of some shitty jingle you'd hear during a Valtrex commercial or something.

bboy87 said:

mozfonky said:

i know that, i'm just answering a question, can it be done with some ethics? Yes it can. Will it? In most cases, probably not. Money brings out the animal in everyone. Ridiculous Elvis products were put out ever since the 50's it's one of the reasons Elvis is simultaneously a joke and a great artist. After his death, probably hundreds of books came out, most of them either bad or exploitive, there have been a handful done with love and care and also, some of his music compilations were likewise put out with great care in many circumstances after his death. Mike had lowlives around him, in his family too and that doesn't bode well for anything when everyone around you will sell you downriver in a heartbeat. Everyone has to pick the people around them carefully.

When I hear people say Michael's estate is gonna sell him out, I think about people like Elvis, Jimi, and Sammy Davis Jr.

I'm not a fan of Elvis but even I feel uneasy when I see tacky stuff with his likeness on them. I've seen candles, plates, clocks, pillow cases.... I remember working for Borders and seeing a section of the calendar shop dedicated to Elvis calendars, clocks, photography books, and other stuff and it made me wonder if Priscilla or Lisa Marie signed off to all of that. It wouldn't surprise me if there's Elvis toilet paper out there

When people talk about the Breaking News, Monster, and Keep Your Head Up on the MICHAEL album, It reminds me of a book I skimmed through about Jimi where they saw several unofficial albums being released, and some of the songs not being Jimi at all. I've seen the same thing happen to Jimi happen to Elvis. I've seen his likeness or so much crap

And Sammy? The IRS took all of his stuff and whoever is in charge of his estate now.... they're doing a terrible job

I love sammy and have studied him for years. I wondered why he was being so forgotten too, it turns out that the IRS owns his likeness, name and they don't do any entertainment business, that is why you don't hear about him anymore. I hate to bring up race again, and I flat just won't, but when you have someone that exceptional just pushed off the map it's tragic.

mozfonky said:

bboy87 said:

When I hear people say Michael's estate is gonna sell him out, I think about people like Elvis, Jimi, and Sammy Davis Jr.

I'm not a fan of Elvis but even I feel uneasy when I see tacky stuff with his likeness on them. I've seen candles, plates, clocks, pillow cases.... I remember working for Borders and seeing a section of the calendar shop dedicated to Elvis calendars, clocks, photography books, and other stuff and it made me wonder if Priscilla or Lisa Marie signed off to all of that. It wouldn't surprise me if there's Elvis toilet paper out there

When people talk about the Breaking News, Monster, and Keep Your Head Up on the MICHAEL album, It reminds me of a book I skimmed through about Jimi where they saw several unofficial albums being released, and some of the songs not being Jimi at all. I've seen the same thing happen to Jimi happen to Elvis. I've seen his likeness or so much crap

And Sammy? The IRS took all of his stuff and whoever is in charge of his estate now.... they're doing a terrible job

I love sammy and have studied him for years. I wondered why he was being so forgotten too, it turns out that the IRS owns his likeness, name and they don't do any entertainment business, that is why you don't hear about him anymore. I hate to bring up race again, and I flat just won't, but when you have someone that exceptional just pushed off the map it's tragic.

I've been reading his autobiography and the struggles he dealt with in his career reminded me of Michael and James

It's like the cycle was constantly repeating

bboy87 said:

mozfonky said:

i know that, i'm just answering a question, can it be done with some ethics? Yes it can. Will it? In most cases, probably not. Money brings out the animal in everyone. Ridiculous Elvis products were put out ever since the 50's it's one of the reasons Elvis is simultaneously a joke and a great artist. After his death, probably hundreds of books came out, most of them either bad or exploitive, there have been a handful done with love and care and also, some of his music compilations were likewise put out with great care in many circumstances after his death. Mike had lowlives around him, in his family too and that doesn't bode well for anything when everyone around you will sell you downriver in a heartbeat. Everyone has to pick the people around them carefully.

When I hear people say Michael's estate is gonna sell him out, I think about people like Elvis, Jimi, and Sammy Davis Jr.

I'm not a fan of Elvis but even I feel uneasy when I see tacky stuff with his likeness on them. I've seen candles, plates, clocks, pillow cases.... I remember working for Borders and seeing a section of the calendar shop dedicated to Elvis calendars, clocks, photography books, and other stuff and it made me wonder if Priscilla or Lisa Marie signed off to all of that. It wouldn't surprise me if there's Elvis toilet paper out there

When people talk about the Breaking News, Monster, and Keep Your Head Up on the MICHAEL album, It reminds me of a book I skimmed through about Jimi where they saw several unofficial albums being released, and some of the songs not being Jimi at all. I've seen the same thing happen to Jimi happen to Elvis. I've seen his likeness or so much crap

And Sammy? The IRS took all of his stuff and whoever is in charge of his estate now.... they're doing a terrible job

you have to remember, bboy, that unlike mj, elvis ONLY has his name to sell.

elvis didn't write his big hits; they were mainly written by others, notably leiber and stoller whose publishing is now under the sony/atv umbrella. as a co-publisher, mj gets a bigger cut of every leiber/stoller song that elvis sang than his ex-wife does. while i'm sure elvis sells well, i don't think he's up there with the beatles for consistency for sales, so the presleys can't rely on his albums for revenue.

when he died, elvis didn't have that much money in the bank, about $1-$5 million, i think.

priscilla has said that taxes would have eaten up the estate if vernon (his dad) hadn't put her in charge and she brought in the money men who knew how to exploit "elvis the brand" so that lisa marie would have something. lisa sold off a lot of the estate a few years back, though she still owns graceland. they sold it to someone who could help them bring in more revenue (i forget the details and i'm too lazy to look it up right now!)

but yes, i think the presley women (or whomever now) do sign off on all that stuff you saw.

even though mj's was in deep debt when he died, his assets and the revenues derived from them should keep his executors from signing off on wack ventures like mj perfume. i'm hoping that roger friedman is right about them shutting down joe, and wrong about the other stuff.

bboy87 said:

mozfonky said:

I love sammy and have studied him for years. I wondered why he was being so forgotten too, it turns out that the IRS owns his likeness, name and they don't do any entertainment business, that is why you don't hear about him anymore. I hate to bring up race again, and I flat just won't, but when you have someone that exceptional just pushed off the map it's tragic.

I've been reading his autobiography and the struggles he dealt with in his career reminded me of Michael and James

It's like the cycle was constantly repeating

ya, and with Sammy, if you'll notice, he had to play the subservient negro role to a t, there was no "maybe I can be a man sometimes" it was total unthreatening, subservience which is really beneath a man of his intelligence and talent. I feel bad watching him sometimes, but divinity shines in his best performances, just like any great entertainer.

kibbles said:

bboy87 said:

When I hear people say Michael's estate is gonna sell him out, I think about people like Elvis, Jimi, and Sammy Davis Jr.

I'm not a fan of Elvis but even I feel uneasy when I see tacky stuff with his likeness on them. I've seen candles, plates, clocks, pillow cases.... I remember working for Borders and seeing a section of the calendar shop dedicated to Elvis calendars, clocks, photography books, and other stuff and it made me wonder if Priscilla or Lisa Marie signed off to all of that. It wouldn't surprise me if there's Elvis toilet paper out there

When people talk about the Breaking News, Monster, and Keep Your Head Up on the MICHAEL album, It reminds me of a book I skimmed through about Jimi where they saw several unofficial albums being released, and some of the songs not being Jimi at all. I've seen the same thing happen to Jimi happen to Elvis. I've seen his likeness or so much crap

And Sammy? The IRS took all of his stuff and whoever is in charge of his estate now.... they're doing a terrible job

you have to remember, bboy, that unlike mj, elvis ONLY has his name to sell.

elvis didn't write his big hits; they were mainly written by others, notably leiber and stoller whose publishing is now under the sony/atv umbrella. as a co-publisher, mj gets a bigger cut of every leiber/stoller song that elvis sang than his ex-wife does. while i'm sure elvis sells well, i don't think he's up there with the beatles for consistency for sales, so the presleys can't rely on his albums for revenue.

when he died, elvis didn't have that much money in the bank, about $1-$5 million, i think.

priscilla has said that taxes would have eaten up the estate if vernon (his dad) hadn't put her in charge and she brought in the money men who knew how to exploit "elvis the brand" so that lisa marie would have something. lisa sold off a lot of the estate a few years back, though she still owns graceland. they sold it to someone who could help them bring in more revenue (i forget the details and i'm too lazy to look it up right now!)

but yes, i think the presley women (or whomever now) do sign off on all that stuff you saw.

even though mj's was in deep debt when he died, his assets and the revenues derived from them should keep his executors from signing off on wack ventures like mj perfume. i'm hoping that roger friedman is right about them shutting down joe, and wrong about the other stuff.

elvis was nearly broke when he died, but it wasn't like he had no earning power, he could always make more money. That wasn't a problem. From what I know, it's true that Priscilla took care of things moneywise, colonel parker started the cheap exploitation with lunchboxes, shitty movies and helping to ruin a brilliant talent, Priscilla hasn't done much more honorably. Usually, if something good comes out it's with the help of caring, loving fans/writers/producers. Love matters a lot. Priscilla never struck me as anything other than a cold woman who took what came her way and made the most of it. Elvis is white though, so there will be a resilience and forgiveness in the public consciousness which will never be extended to our black genius'. Hell, it rankles me to no end how Jimi hendrix has to play second fiddle to Kurt Cobain in seattle here. No comparison in my mind as to who was more influential, creative, great etc..,

kibbles said:

bboy87 said:

When I hear people say Michael's estate is gonna sell him out, I think about people like Elvis, Jimi, and Sammy Davis Jr.

I'm not a fan of Elvis but even I feel uneasy when I see tacky stuff with his likeness on them. I've seen candles, plates, clocks, pillow cases.... I remember working for Borders and seeing a section of the calendar shop dedicated to Elvis calendars, clocks, photography books, and other stuff and it made me wonder if Priscilla or Lisa Marie signed off to all of that. It wouldn't surprise me if there's Elvis toilet paper out there

When people talk about the Breaking News, Monster, and Keep Your Head Up on the MICHAEL album, It reminds me of a book I skimmed through about Jimi where they saw several unofficial albums being released, and some of the songs not being Jimi at all. I've seen the same thing happen to Jimi happen to Elvis. I've seen his likeness or so much crap

And Sammy? The IRS took all of his stuff and whoever is in charge of his estate now.... they're doing a terrible job

you have to remember, bboy, that unlike mj, elvis ONLY has his name to sell.

elvis didn't write his big hits; they were mainly written by others, notably leiber and stoller whose publishing is now under the sony/atv umbrella. as a co-publisher, mj gets a bigger cut of every leiber/stoller song that elvis sang than his ex-wife does. while i'm sure elvis sells well, i don't think he's up there with the beatles for consistency for sales, so the presleys can't rely on his albums for revenue.

when he died, elvis didn't have that much money in the bank, about $1-$5 million, i think.

priscilla has said that taxes would have eaten up the estate if vernon (his dad) hadn't put her in charge and she brought in the money men who knew how to exploit "elvis the brand" so that lisa marie would have something. lisa sold off a lot of the estate a few years back, though she still owns graceland. they sold it to someone who could help them bring in more revenue (i forget the details and i'm too lazy to look it up right now!)

but yes, i think the presley women (or whomever now) do sign off on all that stuff you saw.

even though mj's was in deep debt when he died, his assets and the revenues derived from them should keep his executors from signing off on wack ventures like mj perfume. i'm hoping that roger friedman is right about them shutting down joe, and wrong about the other stuff.

and elvis had his own publishing companies too, he got plenty of money unfairly from writer royalties, if you have the fucking king wanting your song, you do it. I would. That was the colonel at work though, not elvis. And as far as sales, I've heard people say no one ever came close to elvis, although, I don't really know or care for those kinds of stats.

mozfonky said:

bboy87 said:

I've been reading his autobiography and the struggles he dealt with in his career reminded me of Michael and James

It's like the cycle was constantly repeating

ya, and with Sammy, if you'll notice, he had to play the subservient negro role to a t, there was no "maybe I can be a man sometimes" it was total unthreatening, subservience which is really beneath a man of his intelligence and talent. I feel bad watching him sometimes, but divinity shines in his best performances, just like any great entertainer.

THAT RIGHT THERE was what I was trying to say in that "Who's the greatest entertainer?" thread. Entertainers like Sammy, or Michael, or James had this quality where the performance could be choreographed up the yazoo, but you'd see Michael or James, or Sammy and you'd see the genuinity shining through, like they were free styling the whole thing while everyone was following steps

The EXECUTION

THE ENERGY

THE HEART

that what makes a great entertainer! Like some in that thread and other threads have said, Michael was really into theatrics in his later tours, but that's understandable with his love for vaudville and broadway, but through the pyro, the huge video screens, and shots of crying fans, you'd catch something, be it a foot tap or just the way he commanded the audience and it would WOW you. That's why when you see him performing Human Nature or Billie Jean or Bad and it would be just him on stage, you can't help but watch. Something great shines through

mozfonky said:

kibbles said:

you have to remember, bboy, that unlike mj, elvis ONLY has his name to sell.

elvis didn't write his big hits; they were mainly written by others, notably leiber and stoller whose publishing is now under the sony/atv umbrella. as a co-publisher, mj gets a bigger cut of every leiber/stoller song that elvis sang than his ex-wife does. while i'm sure elvis sells well, i don't think he's up there with the beatles for consistency for sales, so the presleys can't rely on his albums for revenue.

when he died, elvis didn't have that much money in the bank, about $1-$5 million, i think.

priscilla has said that taxes would have eaten up the estate if vernon (his dad) hadn't put her in charge and she brought in the money men who knew how to exploit "elvis the brand" so that lisa marie would have something. lisa sold off a lot of the estate a few years back, though she still owns graceland. they sold it to someone who could help them bring in more revenue (i forget the details and i'm too lazy to look it up right now!)

but yes, i think the presley women (or whomever now) do sign off on all that stuff you saw.

even though mj's was in deep debt when he died, his assets and the revenues derived from them should keep his executors from signing off on wack ventures like mj perfume. i'm hoping that roger friedman is right about them shutting down joe, and wrong about the other stuff.

and elvis had his own publishing companies too, he got plenty of money unfairly from writer royalties, if you have the fucking king wanting your song, you do it. I would. That was the colonel at work though, not elvis. And as far as sales, I've heard people say no one ever came close to elvis, although, I don't really know or care for those kinds of stats.

well, the way priscilla tells it, 'elvis-the afterlife' would have been nothing about her, which is probably why i have the impression of elvis that i do.

i'm often skeptical of the stats quoted for elvis, and i think people have come close to him. for example, i remember a few years back when his album of number one hits came out, it didn't come close to the numbers for the beatles' similar compilation.

i hear what you're saying about cobain, too. i just don't understand what was exactly 'revolutionary' about nirvana. i don't hear it, anyway. i'm curious as to why nirvana and kurt cobain have earned such an untouchable legendary status in such a short space of time for music that was, to these ears, nothing really more than good guitar-based rock music.

since mj is often brought up in the discussion of nirvana's rise - in that nevermind knocked dangerous down to the number two position on the charts - it makes me see the praise in more sinister terms. when the music critics talk about nirvana claiming the top spot, it is always in the context of re-establishing some musical hierarchy that had been displaced when mj became as big as elvis. the underlying premise of the praise seems to be that kurt and co. had restored white privilege and superiority to the charts by knocking mj down to his rightful 'place' below them.

it reminds me of the crazy, over-the-top reaction to the rise of disco. when a stadium full of mainly young white males take out their aggression by burning records, which then turns into a full scale riot, there's something a lot more going on beneath the surface. who was making disco music? basically, not a lot of white males who played rock based guitar. the bee gees, white men who were truly excelling in the genre, were reviled by white rock critics. if the saturday night fever soundtrack had been more rock oriented, and had sold the numbers it did, rolling stone mag would be kissing barry gibb's hairy sack every opportunity it got, the way it does with kurt cobain. but because that album appealed to a cross-section of society, much like thriller, the bee gees were treated very, very badly. everyone has backlash, but having lived through their lynching as well as mj's, i can truthfully say i've never seen any other white artists treated with the level of contempt that they have been.

i don't understand how the rolling stones who have made no secret of their love of blues and r&b, and have incorporated elements of it into their music, could be so loved while the bee gees, who also loved r&b and basically did the same thing, could be so reviled by these same critics. is it all about proverbial 'tipping point'? the stones still mainly appeal to a mostly white audience while the bee gees crossed over to the black charts. is it felt that they became 'too black' while the stones could take and pull from the same influences but managed to maintain their white privilege and racial hierarchy?

the things i think about at 2 a.m. . . .

kibbles said:

mozfonky said:

and elvis had his own publishing companies too, he got plenty of money unfairly from writer royalties, if you have the fucking king wanting your song, you do it. I would. That was the colonel at work though, not elvis. And as far as sales, I've heard people say no one ever came close to elvis, although, I don't really know or care for those kinds of stats.

well, the way priscilla tells it, 'elvis-the afterlife' would have been nothing about her, which is probably why i have the impression of elvis that i do.

i'm often skeptical of the stats quoted for elvis, and i think people have come close to him. for example, i remember a few years back when his album of number one hits came out, it didn't come close to the numbers for the beatles' similar compilation.

i hear what you're saying about cobain, too. i just don't understand what was exactly 'revolutionary' about nirvana. i don't hear it, anyway. i'm curious as to why nirvana and kurt cobain have earned such an untouchable legendary status in such a short space of time for music that was, to these ears, nothing really more than good guitar-based rock music.

since mj is often brought up in the discussion of nirvana's rise - in that nevermind knocked dangerous down to the number two position on the charts - it makes me see the praise in more sinister terms. when the music critics talk about nirvana claiming the top spot, it is always in the context of re-establishing some musical hierarchy that had been displaced when mj became as big as elvis. the underlying premise of the praise seems to be that kurt and co. had restored white privilege and superiority to the charts by knocking mj down to his rightful 'place' below them.

it reminds me of the crazy, over-the-top reaction to the rise of disco. when a stadium full of mainly young white males take out their aggression by burning records, which then turns into a full scale riot, there's something a lot more going on beneath the surface. who was making disco music? basically, not a lot of white males who played rock based guitar. the bee gees, white men who were truly excelling in the genre, were reviled by white rock critics. if the saturday night fever soundtrack had been more rock oriented, and had sold the numbers it did, rolling stone mag would be kissing barry gibb's hairy sack every opportunity it got, the way it does with kurt cobain. but because that album appealed to a cross-section of society, much like thriller, the bee gees were treated very, very badly. everyone has backlash, but having lived through their lynching as well as mj's, i can truthfully say i've never seen any other white artists treated with the level of contempt that they have been.

i don't understand how the rolling stones who have made no secret of their love of blues and r&b, and have incorporated elements of it into their music, could be so loved while the bee gees, who also loved r&b and basically did the same thing, could be so reviled by these same critics. is it all about proverbial 'tipping point'? the stones still mainly appeal to a mostly white audience while the bee gees crossed over to the black charts. is it felt that they became 'too black' while the stones could take and pull from the same influences but managed to maintain their white privilege and racial hierarchy?

the things i think about at 2 a.m. . . .

Sorry but I just think this is rubbish!! I have heard this brought up before. Now excuse me because I live in the UK and I don't think we have racial issues as bad as the US, but when you talk about music critics talking about Nirvana knocking off MJ, you are NOT talking about some big racist theory...you are talking about rock music, guitar music, instruments, 'real music' as these critics see it versus pop music. That is all it is to me. I remember a few years ago the same thing happened when bands like The Kings Of Leon, Kasabian, Kaiser Chiefs became big in the UK, DJ's and critics were basically saying that the country had finally got fed up of pop music and manufactured music. Alot of people, including alot on this site, have the opinion that unless you play an instrument and write your own songs you are not a proper artist. I don't agree with that, hell if you went by that it would wipe out half of motown, Elvis, James Brown etc etc.

It is just guitar music versus pop music. Nothing else.

GettOffMyLand said:

kibbles said:

well, the way priscilla tells it, 'elvis-the afterlife' would have been nothing about her, which is probably why i have the impression of elvis that i do.

i'm often skeptical of the stats quoted for elvis, and i think people have come close to him. for example, i remember a few years back when his album of number one hits came out, it didn't come close to the numbers for the beatles' similar compilation.

i hear what you're saying about cobain, too. i just don't understand what was exactly 'revolutionary' about nirvana. i don't hear it, anyway. i'm curious as to why nirvana and kurt cobain have earned such an untouchable legendary status in such a short space of time for music that was, to these ears, nothing really more than good guitar-based rock music.

since mj is often brought up in the discussion of nirvana's rise - in that nevermind knocked dangerous down to the number two position on the charts - it makes me see the praise in more sinister terms. when the music critics talk about nirvana claiming the top spot, it is always in the context of re-establishing some musical hierarchy that had been displaced when mj became as big as elvis. the underlying premise of the praise seems to be that kurt and co. had restored white privilege and superiority to the charts by knocking mj down to his rightful 'place' below them.

it reminds me of the crazy, over-the-top reaction to the rise of disco. when a stadium full of mainly young white males take out their aggression by burning records, which then turns into a full scale riot, there's something a lot more going on beneath the surface. who was making disco music? basically, not a lot of white males who played rock based guitar. the bee gees, white men who were truly excelling in the genre, were reviled by white rock critics. if the saturday night fever soundtrack had been more rock oriented, and had sold the numbers it did, rolling stone mag would be kissing barry gibb's hairy sack every opportunity it got, the way it does with kurt cobain. but because that album appealed to a cross-section of society, much like thriller, the bee gees were treated very, very badly. everyone has backlash, but having lived through their lynching as well as mj's, i can truthfully say i've never seen any other white artists treated with the level of contempt that they have been.

i don't understand how the rolling stones who have made no secret of their love of blues and r&b, and have incorporated elements of it into their music, could be so loved while the bee gees, who also loved r&b and basically did the same thing, could be so reviled by these same critics. is it all about proverbial 'tipping point'? the stones still mainly appeal to a mostly white audience while the bee gees crossed over to the black charts. is it felt that they became 'too black' while the stones could take and pull from the same influences but managed to maintain their white privilege and racial hierarchy?

the things i think about at 2 a.m. . . .

Sorry but I just think this is rubbish!! I have heard this brought up before. Now excuse me because I live in the UK and I don't think we have racial issues as bad as the US, but when you talk about music critics talking about Nirvana knocking off MJ, you are NOT talking about some big racist theory...you are talking about rock music, guitar music, instruments, 'real music' as these critics see it versus pop music. That is all it is to me. I remember a few years ago the same thing happened when bands like The Kings Of Leon, Kasabian, Kaiser Chiefs became big in the UK, DJ's and critics were basically saying that the country had finally got fed up of pop music and manufactured music. Alot of people, including alot on this site, have the opinion that unless you play an instrument and write your own songs you are not a proper artist. I don't agree with that, hell if you went by that it would wipe out half of motown, Elvis, James Brown etc etc.

It is just guitar music versus pop music. Nothing else.

And I happen to like the UK's pop music

plays Bros on iPod

I have a offtopic question, Why was the music of Pulp, Oasis, and others labeled "Britpop" when they were more rock? I thought the Britpop label would've fit better from groups like Take That and Spice Girls

bboy87 said:

GettOffMyLand said:

Sorry but I just think this is rubbish!! I have heard this brought up before. Now excuse me because I live in the UK and I don't think we have racial issues as bad as the US, but when you talk about music critics talking about Nirvana knocking off MJ, you are NOT talking about some big racist theory...you are talking about rock music, guitar music, instruments, 'real music' as these critics see it versus pop music. That is all it is to me. I remember a few years ago the same thing happened when bands like The Kings Of Leon, Kasabian, Kaiser Chiefs became big in the UK, DJ's and critics were basically saying that the country had finally got fed up of pop music and manufactured music. Alot of people, including alot on this site, have the opinion that unless you play an instrument and write your own songs you are not a proper artist. I don't agree with that, hell if you went by that it would wipe out half of motown, Elvis, James Brown etc etc.

It is just guitar music versus pop music. Nothing else.

And I happen to like the UK's pop music

plays Bros on iPod

I have a offtopic question, Why was the music of Pulp, Oasis, and others labeled "Britpop" when they were more rock? I thought the Britpop label would've fit better from groups like Take That and Spice Girls

I had the same question the other week...

NaughtyKitty said:

mjscarousal said:

[img:$uid]http://i903.photobucket.com/albums/ac231/mjscarousal/BillieJean-2.gif[/img:$uid]

Great one!

bwhahah love this gi

bboy87 said:

GettOffMyLand said:

Sorry but I just think this is rubbish!! I have heard this brought up before. Now excuse me because I live in the UK and I don't think we have racial issues as bad as the US, but when you talk about music critics talking about Nirvana knocking off MJ, you are NOT talking about some big racist theory...you are talking about rock music, guitar music, instruments, 'real music' as these critics see it versus pop music. That is all it is to me. I remember a few years ago the same thing happened when bands like The Kings Of Leon, Kasabian, Kaiser Chiefs became big in the UK, DJ's and critics were basically saying that the country had finally got fed up of pop music and manufactured music. Alot of people, including alot on this site, have the opinion that unless you play an instrument and write your own songs you are not a proper artist. I don't agree with that, hell if you went by that it would wipe out half of motown, Elvis, James Brown etc etc.

It is just guitar music versus pop music. Nothing else.

And I happen to like the UK's pop music

plays Bros on iPod

I have a offtopic question, Why was the music of Pulp, Oasis, and others labeled "Britpop" when they were more rock? I thought the Britpop label would've fit better from groups like Take That and Spice Girls

Haha know you love our 80's pop particularly!

As for the Britpop thing, I am not sure, but I think like most things british it probably started in a tabloid and was picked up from there. At the time I think it was a little more commercial to just be rock music, it literally ruled the airwaves for a couple of years.

I wouldnt mind supporting a perfume if the estate puts one out...i mean not that im creepy or anything but if im gonnaa spend money on a cologne and one by michaels estate is classy quality and smell great i dont see why i should go give my money and make another brand richer when i can make the estate of my fav artist richer

I just have to say......WHO THE FUCK KEEPS RELEASING THESE FAKE ASS MJ SONGS?!?! I JUST HEARD "BURN TONIGHT" & IT OBVIOULY ISN'T MJ. THE VIBRATO IS ALL WRONG, NO REAL FEELING WHATSOEVER VOCALLY, MORE FAKE MJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAN, I'M REALLY BECOMING QUITE UPSET WITH THIS BULLSHIT!!!!!! THE 3 FAKE TRACKS ON "MICHAEL" RUINED THAT WHOLE ALBUM TO ME, & NOW COMES MORE FAKE SONGS????!!! WHY SONY WHY?!

[img:$uid]http://www.gifs.../img:$uid] GIFSoup

Tittypants said:

I just have to say......WHO THE FUCK KEEPS RELEASING THESE FAKE ASS MJ SONGS?!?! I JUST HEARD "BURN TONIGHT" & IT OBVIOULY ISN'T MJ. THE VIBRATO IS ALL WRONG, NO REAL FEELING WHATSOEVER VOCALLY, MORE FAKE MJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAN, I'M REALLY BECOMING QUITE UPSET WITH THIS BULLSHIT!!!!!! THE 3 FAKE TRACKS ON "MICHAEL" RUINED THAT WHOLE ALBUM TO ME, & NOW COMES MORE FAKE SONGS????!!! WHY SONY WHY?!

[img:$uid]http://www.gifs.../img:$uid] GIFSoup

Sony's raping his memory to try and fill their pockets, duhhhhh.

And the fucked up part is, the fans are so stupid and desperate for anything with MJ's name attached that they run out and buy that shit. Which in turn leads to Sony butt-fucking his memory and tarnishing his legacy some more....

smoothcriminal12 said:

OH god no , the disaster is that those tracks are rigestered on BMI as MJ real songs , This is a disaster ....

The guy's voice is ugly and uncontrolled as hell.........and something should be done, What a Mess.....

armpit said:

Tittypants said:

I just have to say......WHO THE FUCK KEEPS RELEASING THESE FAKE ASS MJ SONGS?!?! I JUST HEARD "BURN TONIGHT" & IT OBVIOULY ISN'T MJ. THE VIBRATO IS ALL WRONG, NO REAL FEELING WHATSOEVER VOCALLY, MORE FAKE MJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAN, I'M REALLY BECOMING QUITE UPSET WITH THIS BULLSHIT!!!!!! THE 3 FAKE TRACKS ON "MICHAEL" RUINED THAT WHOLE ALBUM TO ME, & NOW COMES MORE FAKE SONGS????!!! WHY SONY WHY?!

[img:$uid]http://www.gifs.../img:$uid] GIFSoup

Sony's raping his memory to try and fill their pockets, duhhhhh.

And the fucked up part is, the fans are so stupid and desperate for anything with MJ's name attached that they run out and buy that shit. Which in turn leads to Sony butt-fucking his memory and tarnishing his legacy some more....

I just don't see what's so hard about releasing real un-released MJ tracks. I've found quite a few online that were legit. This makes me wonder if Sony really has all that much MJ music to use. for some reason, I have this feeling that MJ has quite a few outtakes, but Sony just can't find them. So they're using whatever they can find, plus the fakes to compensate for their lack of songs. If MJ has a stash of [at least] 200 tracks he made for his children, I'm thinking those tracks are hidden somewhere.....

GettOffMyLand said:

Sorry but I just think this is rubbish!! I have heard this brought up before. Now excuse me because I live in the UK and I don't think we have racial issues as bad as the US,

That's not the sentiment expressed in this thread:

http://prince.org/msg/8/3...?&pg=9

[Edited 8/3/11 7:52am]

[img:$uid]http://img546.i.../img:$uid]

Even though the Estate *legally* own all unreleased MJ material that doesn't necessarily mean they are in possession of it.

I would postulate that certain producers have songs that they haven't handed over because they don't want them remixed and bastardized.

A similar thing happened with Tupac. One of Tupac's main producers, the late Johnny "J", was a friend of mine. When I went to his studio, he played me some unleaked original versions of songs that had been remixed and of course, they were way better. He told me that, had he known that people like Eminem would be given songs to remix, he may not have handed certain things over.

And another friend, QD3 (Quincy Jones' son) who also produced a lot for Tupac, did a song in particular called "Soon As I Get Home" which had been bootlegged in the late 90's and was very much loved by fans. Anyway, for years QD maintained that he had lost the master tape and therefore was unable to give it to the Estate for it to be released and most likely, remixed.

In quite literally the WEEKS leading up to the release of the "Pac's Life" album in 2006, the tapes apparently were discovered in a closet. The song was given to the Estate, and because the album was scheduled to be sent for pressing shortly afterwards, there was no time for it to be remixed. It's the ONLY song on the album that appears in it's complete, original form

Now, I'd never accuse my buddy of being anything less than honest about the circumstances but, you can see how the popular opinion of fans was that he simply did not want the song ruined by some crappy remix!

If I was a producer that worked with MJ at somepoint and had some unreleased songs, I wouldn't release them to the Estate. McClain would've lost my trust after "Michael". All of the unreleased music should be released just as it was left. But the problem is the Estate is after making money so they will do whatever it takes.

In regards to McClain, I wish he was more open to the fans. Not like I expect much but at least give us more of an idea as to what the Estate might have.

Militant said:

Even though the Estate *legally* own all unreleased MJ material that doesn't necessarily mean they are in possession of it.

I would postulate that certain producers have songs that they haven't handed over because they don't want them remixed and bastardized.

A similar thing happened with Tupac. One of Tupac's main producers, the late Johnny "J", was a friend of mine. When I went to his studio, he played me some unleaked original versions of songs that had been remixed and of course, they were way better. He told me that, had he known that people like Eminem would be given songs to remix, he may not have handed certain things over.

And another friend, QD3 (Quincy Jones' son) who also produced a lot for Tupac, did a song in particular called "Soon As I Get Home" which had been bootlegged in the late 90's and was very much loved by fans. Anyway, for years QD maintained that he had lost the master tape and therefore was unable to give it to the Estate for it to be released and most likely, remixed.

In quite literally the WEEKS leading up to the release of the "Pac's Life" album in 2006, the tapes apparently were discovered in a closet. The song was given to the Estate, and because the album was scheduled to be sent for pressing shortly afterwards, there was no time for it to be remixed. It's the ONLY song on the album that appears in it's complete, original form

Now, I'd never accuse my buddy of being anything less than honest about the circumstances but, you can see how the popular opinion of fans was that he simply did not want the song ruined by some crappy remix!

I gaurantee that Quincy Jones has a nice stash of MJ tracks no ones ever heard before. And didn't MJ say he recorded 70 tracks for Dangerous? I heard MJ always over-recorded for albums. I think 30 were recorded for Bad. But yeah, I truly think tons of tracks are "missing" & knowing MJ's disgust of Tommy Mottola, someones holding back until that contract is up.....

Derek1984 said:

If I was a producer that worked with MJ at somepoint and had some unreleased songs, I wouldn't release them to the Estate. McClain would've lost my trust after "Michael". All of the unreleased music should be released just as it was left. But the problem is the Estate is after making money so they will do whatever it takes.

In regards to McClain, I wish he was more open to the fans. Not like I expect much but at least give us more of an idea as to what the Estate might have.

You know what? I actually don't have a problem with them remixing the tracks as long as they give us the originals too. Just to see what was improved on, or what wasn't. Think about how MJ released a version of "Carousel", I love the longer version of it more, but the official release of it was cut. So I wish they'd do double CD's of the albums......