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.

you're entitled to your opinion, as i am to mine. my opinion is not rubbish.

you admit you've heard this theoriy brought up before, so obviously i'm not mad. the reason people bring it up is b/c it is blatant. i dont live in the uk, i live in the u.s. and i know whereof i speak.

you talk about certain singers not being given credit b/c they don't play instruments or write songs. i've heard these discussions, and yet, mysteriously, elvis is suspiciously given a pass on that. he barely played guitar and didn't write his music (though he took credit in some cases as mofonsky pointed out), and you ask these same rock critics who's "the king", and all of their usual benchmarks for 'true artistry' go out the window. now why is that?

[Edited 8/3/11 9:41am]

I found a rolling stones book covering the 90's and Nirvana is praised so much, MJ's Dangerous nowhere to be found despite the good article and review from the 1992 issue that I have in tact.

kibbles 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.

you're entitled to your opinion, as i am to mine. my opinion is not rubbish.

you admit you've heard this theoriy brought up before, so obviously i'm not mad. the reason people bring it up is b/c it is blatant. i dont live in the uk, i live in the u.s. and i know whereof i speak.

you talk about certain singers not being given credit b/c they don't play instruments or write songs. i've heard these discussions, and yet, mysteriously, elvis is suspiciously given a pass on that. he barely played guitar and didn't write his music (though he took credit in some cases as mofonsky pointed out), and you ask these same rock critics who's "the king", and all of their usual benchmarks for 'true artistry' go out the window. now why is that?

[Edited 8/3/11 9:41am]

...I think you're over-thinking things and seeing racism where there isn't any. If anything, your example of the Rolling Stones and the BeeGees actually hurts your case, because just like you said, both acts were influenced by black musicians, and one was received warmly. If it were about race, wouldn't they both have been shat on?

I think it's more about genre and pop music like GettOff said, than racism. There's usually always a point where, whatever is the most popular genre or style of music at that time, experiences a heavy backlash, because people are just plain sick of being inundated with it. At that time, disco was the genre that was being crammed down everyone's throat all the time - hence the BeeGee derision.

Same thing with MJ in the 90s, really - a lot of folks were probably just glad to see him get knocked out of the top position because he had occupied it so much throughout the years. I think it was more of a "Yay, someone else gets a turn now" type of thing than "We got that colored dude out of the top spot hot damn let's throw a party."

Michael Jackson giant soda can portrait sold to Ripley's

August 2, 2011 | 12:05 pm

7

75

http://latimesblogs.latim...erson.html

kibbles 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.

you're entitled to your opinion, as i am to mine. my opinion is not rubbish.

you admit you've heard this theoriy brought up before, so obviously i'm not mad. the reason people bring it up is b/c it is blatant. i dont live in the uk, i live in the u.s. and i know whereof i speak.

you talk about certain singers not being given credit b/c they don't play instruments or write songs. i've heard these discussions, and yet, mysteriously, elvis is suspiciously given a pass on that. he barely played guitar and didn't write his music (though he took credit in some cases as mofonsky pointed out), and you ask these same rock critics who's "the king", and all of their usual benchmarks for 'true artistry' go out the window. now why is that?

[Edited 8/3/11 9:41am]

I've always felt that the hatred for Disco was mainly racial, of course the way it distorted funk was atrocious but I was around at the time and hating the genre was just an excuse for racism. And in the 80's I recall Bruce Springsteen being an answer to Prince and Michael, I love Bruce just as much as P and Mike maybe more but there is no question in my mind that in the public's consciousness that America could not have two black genius' run rampant on the charts without no one on their team doing something, that has always been my feeling. Race is always a factor in america. Always, and white people always deny it with equal frequency.

armpit said:

kibbles said:

you're entitled to your opinion, as i am to mine. my opinion is not rubbish.

you admit you've heard this theoriy brought up before, so obviously i'm not mad. the reason people bring it up is b/c it is blatant. i dont live in the uk, i live in the u.s. and i know whereof i speak.

you talk about certain singers not being given credit b/c they don't play instruments or write songs. i've heard these discussions, and yet, mysteriously, elvis is suspiciously given a pass on that. he barely played guitar and didn't write his music (though he took credit in some cases as mofonsky pointed out), and you ask these same rock critics who's "the king", and all of their usual benchmarks for 'true artistry' go out the window. now why is that?

[Edited 8/3/11 9:41am]

...I think you're over-thinking things and seeing racism where there isn't any. If anything, your example of the Rolling Stones and the BeeGees actually hurts your case, because just like you said, both acts were influenced by black musicians, and one was received warmly. If it were about race, wouldn't they both have been shat on?

I think it's more about genre and pop music like GettOff said, than racism. There's usually always a point where, whatever is the most popular genre or style of music at that time, experiences a heavy backlash, because people are just plain sick of being inundated with it. At that time, disco was the genre that was being crammed down everyone's throat all the time - hence the BeeGee derision.

Same thing with MJ in the 90s, really - a lot of folks were probably just glad to see him get knocked out of the top position because he had occupied it so much throughout the years. I think it was more of a "Yay, someone else gets a turn now" type of thing than "We got that colored dude out of the top spot hot damn let's throw a party."

no, the bee gees and rolling stones weren't received warmly for reasons i clearly stated in my post. i'm not talking the music going public. i'm talking about the way in which music and artists are critiqued and ranked by such critics and social commentators. the bee gees are in no way 'warmly received'.

no one was 'cramming' disco down everyone's throat. it was a popular genre of music that many people enjoyed, had its time, and then people moved on. yes, there is backlash sometimes. but the sheer demonization of disco is something else altogether. there was an actual burning of the records. the people involved were overwhelmingly white and angry at the fact that 'niggers and gays' had, in their view, taken over the airwaves. it was no different than what had happened in the 50s with the 'race music' controversies. and sadly, from where i sit, a strain of this line of thinking was also embraced by so-called liberal white rock critics who were uncomfortable that an r&b derived music form had displaced their vaunted beatles, et al as a cultural force.

dangerous had been out for a few weeks before nevermind, so it's not surprising that a new release would knock mj out of the top spot. it could have been any other release by any other artist(s). but critics seized upon this event as some sort of "proof" of the transcendency of rock music. when nirvana was knocked out of the spot, did they consider that event to be some sort of proof of the decline of rock music? of course not.

i wouldn't have even taken note of any of this, but as i say, every time i read about nirvana, i read about how displacing dangerous was some seminal event in the history of music when it was really no such thing. grunge had an even shorter shelf life than disco, and certainly did not cut across cultural and racial lines the way disco did. but to to let the music critics tell it, you would think it was the second coming. i don't understand how cobain can even be mentioned in the same breath as hendrix, but as mozfonky pointed out, he has been raised high above him, and we all know why that is.

kibbles said:

armpit said:

...I think you're over-thinking things and seeing racism where there isn't any. If anything, your example of the Rolling Stones and the BeeGees actually hurts your case, because just like you said, both acts were influenced by black musicians, and one was received warmly. If it were about race, wouldn't they both have been shat on?

I think it's more about genre and pop music like GettOff said, than racism. There's usually always a point where, whatever is the most popular genre or style of music at that time, experiences a heavy backlash, because people are just plain sick of being inundated with it. At that time, disco was the genre that was being crammed down everyone's throat all the time - hence the BeeGee derision.

Same thing with MJ in the 90s, really - a lot of folks were probably just glad to see him get knocked out of the top position because he had occupied it so much throughout the years. I think it was more of a "Yay, someone else gets a turn now" type of thing than "We got that colored dude out of the top spot hot damn let's throw a party."

no, the bee gees and rolling stones weren't received warmly for reasons i clearly stated in my post. i'm not talking the music going public. i'm talking about the way in which music and artists are critiqued and ranked by such critics and social commentators. the bee gees are in no way 'warmly received'.

no one was 'cramming' disco down everyone's throat. it was a popular genre of music that many people enjoyed, had its time, and then people moved on. yes, there is backlash sometimes. but the sheer demonization of disco is something else altogether. there was an actual burning of the records. the people involved were overwhelmingly white and angry at the fact that 'niggers and gays' had, in their view, taken over the airwaves. it was no different than what had happened in the 50s with the 'race music' controversies. and sadly, from where i sit, a strain of this line of thinking was also embraced by so-called liberal white rock critics who were uncomfortable that an r&b derived music form had displaced their vaunted beatles, et al as a cultural force.

dangerous had been out for a few weeks before nevermind, so it's not surprising that a new release would knock mj out of the top spot. it could have been any other release by any other artist(s). but critics seized upon this event as some sort of "proof" of the transcendency of rock music. when nirvana was knocked out of the spot, did they consider that event to be some sort of proof of the decline of rock music? of course not.

i wouldn't have even taken note of any of this, but as i say, every time i read about nirvana, i read about how displacing dangerous was some seminal event in the history of music when it was really no such thing. grunge had an even shorter shelf life than disco, and certainly did not cut across cultural and racial lines the way disco did. but to to let the music critics tell it, you would think it was the second coming. i don't understand how cobain can even be mentioned in the same breath as hendrix, but as mozfonky pointed out, he has been raised high above him, and we all know why that is.

...You're seriously saying The Rolling Stones weren't received warmly?

Honestly, you kind of ended the discussion and ruined your credibility with that one statement, alone. I don't even have to go into the rest at this point. No offense meant btw.

Katy Perry.

You know what I think is the matter, it isn't the musicians, it's the media. They always had a superiority complex with what was better and what was not, and we've all either become supportive of their argument or intensely critical of it. I don't listen to the media when I listen to their music. All of it is great to me.

Surely Michael never got props from the media for his later music but you actually think they know anything about music when their music tastes are more biased and probably one dimensional? You actually think it's something that is debatable to talk about? I actually think when critics do their lists and everything, they make a mockery of themselves. Rock purists have always been joked about. It's nothing to take seriously.

It all goes with your ears as the public. I don't listen to hype messages about artists anymore. What's the point?

Timmy84 said:

You know what I think is the matter, it isn't the musicians, it's the media. They always had a superiority complex with what was better and what was not, and we've all either become supportive of their argument or intensely critical of it. I don't listen to the media when I listen to their music. All of it is great to me.

Surely Michael never got props from the media for his later music but you actually think they know anything about music when their music tastes are more biased and probably one dimensional? You actually think it's something that is debatable to talk about? I actually think when critics do their lists and everything, they make a mockery of themselves. Rock purists have always been joked about. It's nothing to take seriously.

It all goes with your ears as the public. I don't listen to hype messages about artists anymore. What's the point?

Yeah, I've never let critics or popular opinion dictate to me what I listen to, watch or anything else. I've never understood it when other people do it, either.

But that's really not what this is about. Boiled down, this was really a discussion about the cause for whatever is said about MJ and his record sales by the press, one way or the other. Kibbles thought it was due to race; others (and myself) felt differently.

armpit said:

Timmy84 said:

You know what I think is the matter, it isn't the musicians, it's the media. They always had a superiority complex with what was better and what was not, and we've all either become supportive of their argument or intensely critical of it. I don't listen to the media when I listen to their music. All of it is great to me.

Surely Michael never got props from the media for his later music but you actually think they know anything about music when their music tastes are more biased and probably one dimensional? You actually think it's something that is debatable to talk about? I actually think when critics do their lists and everything, they make a mockery of themselves. Rock purists have always been joked about. It's nothing to take seriously.

It all goes with your ears as the public. I don't listen to hype messages about artists anymore. What's the point?

Yeah, I've never let critics or popular opinion dictate to me what I listen to, watch or anything else. I've never understood it when other people do it, either.

But that's really not what this is about. Boiled down, this was really a discussion about the cause for whatever is said about MJ and his record sales by the press, one way or the other. Kibbles thought it was due to race; others (and myself) felt differently.

I think the cause of the matter of why Michael's sales are never discussed is because of some bias. Some folks just never respected Michael...for whatever reason. It's more simple for some folks to say "oh it's because he was black" but I question that sometimes myself.

Tittypants said:

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.....

Michael stated that he WRITES at least 100 songs, so I doubt they all were recorded. Quincy (or was it Bruce?) said that MJ wanted Bad to be a double disc of 30 tracks, but Quincy made him cut it down to about 13 tracks.

Bruce would probably have the best knowledge of what's in the vaults.

Fox News Settles Lawsuit Over Interview of Michael Jackson's Ex-Wife (Exclusive)

Aaron Lambert-Pool/Getty Images

Fox News has settled a lawsuit that claimed the cable news network improperly aired an interview with Michael Jackson's ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, during its nonstop coverage of the singer's death in 2009.

In making the agreement, Fox News owner News Corp. puts particularly nasty litigation to bed and spares some possible embarassment at trial for chairman Rupert Murdoch, who once proclaimed there to be no such thing as "fair use," but then had to rely upon it in this case to fight copyright infringement claims.

This dispute was extraordinary from the get-go.

In 2002, F. Marc Schaffel became aware that Jackson was being interviewed by British journalist Martin Bashir for a special that would run on ABC entitled "Living with Michael Jackson." The resulting special would prove embarassing for MJ.

Schaffel worked together with Jackson on video projects that would rehabilitate the singer's image. One such project was an interview with Rowe, produced by Shaffel. Because of a confidentiality deal signed by Jackson and Rowe at the time of the divorce, Jackson had to personally release Rowe from her non-disclosure obligations. Portions of the interview aired in 2003 on Fox News' Geraldo at Large, but Schaffel held back hours of unaired footage that might have been deemed more sensitive for Jackson.

Seven years later, that interview resurfaced thanks to Jackson's mysterious death and Rowe's old discussion of needing sedatives.

Fox News aired the sensitive portions of the interview. So did TMZ, which may have obtained it through connections at the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's office, which had executed a search warrant on Schaffel’s home.

Schaffel sued both Fox News and TMZ for copyright infringement.

The nature of the complaint against Fox News, filed in January 2010, immediately made this lawsuit personal for News Corp. executives.

To preclude any defense that the network might have fair use, the lawsuit pointed to comments that Murdoch made to Sky News Australia where he said, "There's a doctrine called 'fair use,' which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether."

Howard King, Schaffel's lawyer, admits that including this quote was an inflammatory move. Nevertheless, King got passionate about this case and decided to pursue much of it on his own dime.

Over the following year, the lawsuit became nastier and nastier, with both sides lobbing allegations at each other and attempting to have a judge impose sanctions on one another for "cheating and deception."

On the legal merits, Fox News not only claimed fair use, but questioned whether Schaffel should be entitled to copyright on the clip in the first place. Fox maintained the interview was a work-for-hire and that at the time of the airing, the interview was controlled by Fire Mountain Services, a company owned by Michael Jackson.

Last June, the judge in the case declined to rule on that matter at the preliminary stage, and the case was on track for trial later this year.

This past March, Schaffel settled with TMZ.

Now, despite the extraordinary animosity between the sides, Schaffel and Fox News have come to an agreement on undisclosed terms. It's fair to say News Corp. has more pressing legal issues these days on the forefront.

http://www.hollywoodrepor...iew-213928

Timmy84 said:

You know what I think is the matter, it isn't the musicians, it's the media. They always had a superiority complex with what was better and what was not, and we've all either become supportive of their argument or intensely critical of it. I don't listen to the media when I listen to their music. All of it is great to me.

Surely Michael never got props from the media for his later music but you actually think they know anything about music when their music tastes are more biased and probably one dimensional? You actually think it's something that is debatable to talk about? I actually think when critics do their lists and everything, they make a mockery of themselves. Rock purists have always been joked about. It's nothing to take seriously.

It all goes with your ears as the public. I don't listen to hype messages about artists anymore. What's the point?

when you are that huge whether you or white or black there is an element of absurdity to it. Always, my least favorite Springsteen era is the Born In The Usa era, not only is it an unsaid and unmeant way to bring the focus back to a white guy (Remember, when Gerry Cooney fought Larry Holmes it was widely being reported as "bringing the title back to america" seriously) this was the era that we are talking of. Anyway, even Bruce himself said he has mixed feeling about the era "You'll be embarrassed and trivialized, I guarantee it" about that kind of fame. Most of my friends think Bruce is a big dork to this day and I have to admit, i get tickled as hell watching the non-rhythmic, geeky at heart bruce try to market himself as a dancing stud. Anyway, Michael and Elvis similarly had that kind of fame where you just can't take it completely seriously. But, Mike has the added disadvantage of being in a country where black success has to be countered, explained, dismissed and as bruce said "trivialized". White critics who can accurately bolster the true meaning at the heart of Elvis' best work won't even give a second thought to Michael, in fact they hate him for outshining everyone else, actual vitriolic hate. I've yet to see one kind word written pre/post death by any well respected white rock writer. Even Nelson George sold out with a sort of rushed out bio.

armpit said:

kibbles said:

no, the bee gees and rolling stones weren't received warmly for reasons i clearly stated in my post. i'm not talking the music going public. i'm talking about the way in which music and artists are critiqued and ranked by such critics and social commentators. the bee gees are in no way 'warmly received'.

no one was 'cramming' disco down everyone's throat. it was a popular genre of music that many people enjoyed, had its time, and then people moved on. yes, there is backlash sometimes. but the sheer demonization of disco is something else altogether. there was an actual burning of the records. the people involved were overwhelmingly white and angry at the fact that 'niggers and gays' had, in their view, taken over the airwaves. it was no different than what had happened in the 50s with the 'race music' controversies. and sadly, from where i sit, a strain of this line of thinking was also embraced by so-called liberal white rock critics who were uncomfortable that an r&b derived music form had displaced their vaunted beatles, et al as a cultural force.

dangerous had been out for a few weeks before nevermind, so it's not surprising that a new release would knock mj out of the top spot. it could have been any other release by any other artist(s). but critics seized upon this event as some sort of "proof" of the transcendency of rock music. when nirvana was knocked out of the spot, did they consider that event to be some sort of proof of the decline of rock music? of course not.

i wouldn't have even taken note of any of this, but as i say, every time i read about nirvana, i read about how displacing dangerous was some seminal event in the history of music when it was really no such thing. grunge had an even shorter shelf life than disco, and certainly did not cut across cultural and racial lines the way disco did. but to to let the music critics tell it, you would think it was the second coming. i don't understand how cobain can even be mentioned in the same breath as hendrix, but as mozfonky pointed out, he has been raised high above him, and we all know why that is.

...You're seriously saying The Rolling Stones weren't received warmly?

Honestly, you kind of ended the discussion and ruined your credibility with that one statement, alone. I don't even have to go into the rest at this point. No offense meant btw.

you have a problem with reading comprehension.

both the bee gees and the rolling stones have their fans, and are warmly received.

vis a vis the music critics, the rolling stones are definitely warmly received. i am discussing the fact that the bee gees are not, and the reasons for that.

your screen name is apt. no offense meant btw.

[Edited 8/3/11 15:21pm]

Derek1984 said:

Bruce would probably have the best knowledge of what's in the vaults.

Rob (who worked with Michael) said that there weren't many outakes from Bad, only songs Quincy discarded during the pre-production

In terms of Michael's music since he died, while sales-wise it's still doing wonders, artistically, I think it's being stagmated by these fake songs that are claiming to be Michael's but is really isn't. Problem is some of the songs are copyrighted as his works. We can only IMAGINE what they're doing with the music if he WAS going to do those songs (let's say "Breaking News" for instance), that he just never had time to do or was too late in recording.

mozfonky said:

Timmy84 said:

You know what I think is the matter, it isn't the musicians, it's the media. They always had a superiority complex with what was better and what was not, and we've all either become supportive of their argument or intensely critical of it. I don't listen to the media when I listen to their music. All of it is great to me.

Surely Michael never got props from the media for his later music but you actually think they know anything about music when their music tastes are more biased and probably one dimensional? You actually think it's something that is debatable to talk about? I actually think when critics do their lists and everything, they make a mockery of themselves. Rock purists have always been joked about. It's nothing to take seriously.

It all goes with your ears as the public. I don't listen to hype messages about artists anymore. What's the point?

when you are that huge whether you or white or black there is an element of absurdity to it. Always, my least favorite Springsteen era is the Born In The Usa era, not only is it an unsaid and unmeant way to bring the focus back to a white guy (Remember, when Gerry Cooney fought Larry Holmes it was widely being reported as "bringing the title back to america" seriously) this was the era that we are talking of. Anyway, even Bruce himself said he has mixed feeling about the era "You'll be embarrassed and trivialized, I guarantee it" about that kind of fame. Most of my friends think Bruce is a big dork to this day and I have to admit, i get tickled as hell watching the non-rhythmic, geeky at heart bruce try to market himself as a dancing stud. Anyway, Michael and Elvis similarly had that kind of fame where you just can't take it completely seriously. But, Mike has the added disadvantage of being in a country where black success has to be countered, explained, dismissed and as bruce said "trivialized". White critics who can accurately bolster the true meaning at the heart of Elvis' best work won't even give a second thought to Michael, in fact they hate him for outshining everyone else, actual vitriolic hate. I've yet to see one kind word written pre/post death by any well respected white rock writer. Even Nelson George sold out with a sort of rushed out bio.

exactly. my original argument was about critical acceptance and the fact that the bee gees were villified for doing r&b based music, while the stones were not.

that is to say, i was arguing the point that the rolling stones never lost their exclusivity with the white critics who warmly received them, while the bee gees were relegated to oblivion in terms of the lack of critical acceptance of their success.

both groups are obviously warmly received and accepted by their fans. that's not what i'm talking about.

those same so-called liberal rock critics that dismiss mj while lavishing praise upon elvis, similarly villify the bee gees. i believe that race plays a role in that the bee gees had too many blacks and others supporting them, and therefore their music and success are marginalized. i just don't believe that if these white men had been successful appealing to just whites who enjoyed rock-based guitar, that they would have been treated the way they were. people want to say it's just pop v. rock, but the out and out vitriol is what is disturbing about it. i'm not the first person to notice this or comment on it. bruce springsteen himself said as much.

Nirvana's Nevermind is often mentioned in relation to Dangerous because it was basically this little known band coming out of nowhere to take top spot on the charts and "knock off Michael Jackson". There's a little david v goliath that the music critics love in that tale.

As I've mentioned before most fail to report that MJ had been number 1 for 5 weeks by that time - so someone was bound to come along and knock the album off. In fact, Nirvana was only number 1 for a week before Nevermind was knocked off by Garth Brooks but no one mentions Garth Brooks as the guy who knocked off Nirvana, lol.

Yes, Nevermind was a breathrough album and ushered in the era of rock-grunge. And it's this band from nowhere against the heavyweight that the media love to play back.

To me it would have been a bigger issue if they had kept MJ from number 1. But 5 consecutive weeks at number 1 is pretty impressive. Also no one notes that Nirvana only had 2 (non consecutive) weeks at number 1 with Nevermind.

Swa said:

Nirvana's Nevermind is often mentioned in relation to Dangerous because it was basically this little known band coming out of nowhere to take top spot on the charts and "knock off Michael Jackson". There's a little david v goliath that the music critics love in that tale.

As I've mentioned before most fail to report that MJ had been number 1 for 5 weeks by that time - so someone was bound to come along and knock the album off. In fact, Nirvana was only number 1 for a week before Nevermind was knocked off by Garth Brooks but no one mentions Garth Brooks as the guy who knocked off Nirvana, lol.

Yes, Nevermind was a breathrough album and ushered in the era of rock-grunge. And it's this band from nowhere against the heavyweight that the media love to play back.

To me it would have been a bigger issue if they had kept MJ from number 1. But 5 consecutive weeks at number 1 is pretty impressive. Also no one notes that Nirvana only had 2 (non consecutive) weeks at number 1 with Nevermind.

Yeah the media really loves to play the hype card. Odd thing was Nirvana hated the attention they got from it, especially Kurt. He didn't love that all of a sudden they were acting as if they were the greatest thing since the British Invasion or something. It's what led to his depression, drug addiction and later his death. He hated the hype as much as some people here hated it. And yeah Nevermind didn't have a longer reign at number-one like Dangerous. That was all in the imagination of the media...

ViintageJunkiie said:

Derek1984 said:

Bruce would probably have the best knowledge of what's in the vaults.

Rob (who worked with Michael) said that there weren't many outakes from Bad, only songs Quincy discarded during the pre-production

Those discarded songs could considered as outtakes. Michael was recording a lot of demos from 1985-1987, and some of those sessions didn't include Quincy. He was also working with Bill Bottrell and John Barnes at that time (Barnes co-produced the original versions of Another Part Of Me and We Are Here To Change The World)

Now, completely finished tracks, there probably aren't many, but considering this was Michael Jackson, the demos probably sound more finished that the average performer Cheater blew me away when I first heard it and you can tell it's a home demo

From the 1985-1987 sessions (He was working on songs for Bad before 1985 but we can look at those later)

Al Capone

Another Part Of Me

Bad

Buffalo Bill

Crack Kills

Chicago 1945 (some think it's an alternate version of Smooth Criminal but you can never be too sure)

Cheater

Dirty Diana

Fly Away

Groove Of Midnight

I Just Can't Stop Loving You

Hot Fever (the original version of The Way You Make Me Feel)

Just Good Friends

Liberian Girl

Make A Wish

Man In The Mirror

Michael McKeller

Pretty Faces (Originally from the Jackson 5/Stevie album but Michael and Stevie re-recorded it)

Speed Demon

The Price Of Fame (Was supposed to be in the 1987-88 Pepsi commercials but was replaced with Bad)

The Way You Make Me Feel

Tomboy

Someone Put Your Hand Out (Michael held on to it for Dangerous)

Stop Throwing Your Life Away

Streetwalker

We Are Here To Change The World

What You Do To Me

Then there's Come Together and who knows what else he recorded during this period. I'm tellin' ya'll, we could get a couple of surprises in the next 10 years. I didn't know about "Remember This Night" that was recorded for Thriller until I found out about it last year

^ Remember This Night - Recorded for Thriller? What's the story behind that?

BTW despite current reports that Katy Perry has equalled MJ with 5 no 1s off one album - Billboard have qualified the statement.

UPDATE: According to Billboard, which has not yet posted its official Hot 100 update but will shortly today, “As Perry achieves a first with her quintet of No. 1s from one album on Pop Songs, she’s seeking to become just the second artist to earn the honor on the Billboard Hot 100. ‘California,’ the title track, ‘Firework’ and ‘E.T.’ all reigned on the Hot 100, while ‘Friday’ last week lifted 3-2 (with Airplay Gainer honors). Should ‘Friday’ reach the Hot 100 summit, ‘Dream’ would join Michael Jackson’s Bad as the only albums in the Hot 100′s 53-year history to produce five No. 1s apiece.

The article goes on to say that “Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)” is Perry’s “seventh topper on the list overall. She scored two No. 1s from her prior album, One of the Boys: ‘Hot N Cold’ (2008) and ‘Waking Up in Vegas’ (2009). She ties Lady Gaga and P!nk for second-most No. 1s in the chart’s archives, one away from Rihanna’s record eight leaders.”

stupid girl, she doesn't deserve it

I don't care if I sound like a paranoid and stupid fan, I do feel like they are trying to erase MJ's accomplishment and it's not the first time......

armpit said:

...I think you're over-thinking things and seeing racism where there isn't any. If anything, your example of the Rolling Stones and the BeeGees actually hurts your case, because just like you said, both acts were influenced by black musicians, and one was received warmly. If it were about race, wouldn't they both have been shat on?

I think it's more about genre and pop music like GettOff said, than racism. There's usually always a point where, whatever is the most popular genre or style of music at that time, experiences a heavy backlash, because people are just plain sick of being inundated with it. At that time, disco was the genre that was being crammed down everyone's throat all the time - hence the BeeGee derision.

Same thing with MJ in the 90s, really - a lot of folks were probably just glad to see him get knocked out of the top position because he had occupied it so much throughout the years. I think it was more of a "Yay, someone else gets a turn now" type of thing than "We got that colored dude out of the top spot hot damn let's throw a party."

I think you and GetOff are both wrong. Especially since America's two favorite genres of music are rock and country and rock is mainly still seen as 'whites only' music.

Rolling Stone magazine, in itself, was created from a very racist ideaology in the first plave and it's something that has 'rock critic' mentality was born from. It is similar how ancient Egypt is almost never included in the African art section in art history textbooks. It's as if white art historians have seperated that as if ancient Egypt is somehow seperated from African art. It's upsetting that they do things like this tbqh.

Or how jazz is not really held in the same regard as classical music.

[Edited 8/3/11 21:30pm]

Derek1984 said:

^ Remember This Night - Recorded for Thriller? What's the story behind that?

I'm interested in that story too.

Derek1984 said:

^ Remember This Night - Recorded for Thriller? What's the story behind that?

Even I don't know The estate has been doing inventory and registering Michael's unreleased work with the US Library of Congress (that has unreleased songs of Michael's too along with the full tape of The Jacksons At The Forum '81) and BMI Publishing

They also registered another Victory outtake titled "Just Feel It"

bboy87 said:

ViintageJunkiie said:

Rob (who worked with Michael) said that there weren't many outakes from Bad, only songs Quincy discarded during the pre-production

Those discarded songs could considered as outtakes. Michael was recording a lot of demos from 1985-1987, and some of those sessions didn't include Quincy. He was also working with Bill Bottrell and John Barnes at that time (Barnes co-produced the original versions of Another Part Of Me and We Are Here To Change The World)

Now, completely finished tracks, there probably aren't many, but considering this was Michael Jackson, the demos probably sound more finished that the average performer Cheater blew me away when I first heard it and you can tell it's a home demo

From the 1985-1987 sessions (He was working on songs for Bad before 1985 but we can look at those later)

Al Capone

Another Part Of Me

Bad

Buffalo Bill

Crack Kills

Chicago 1945 (some think it's an alternate version of Smooth Criminal but you can never be too sure)

Cheater

Dirty Diana

Fly Away

Groove Of Midnight

I Just Can't Stop Loving You

Hot Fever (the original version of The Way You Make Me Feel)

Just Good Friends

Liberian Girl

Make A Wish

Man In The Mirror

Michael McKeller

Pretty Faces (Originally from the Jackson 5/Stevie album but Michael and Stevie re-recorded it)

Speed Demon

The Price Of Fame (Was supposed to be in the 1987-88 Pepsi commercials but was replaced with Bad)

The Way You Make Me Feel

Tomboy

Someone Put Your Hand Out (Michael held on to it for Dangerous)

Stop Throwing Your Life Away

Streetwalker

We Are Here To Change The World

What You Do To Me

Then there's Come Together and who knows what else he recorded during this period. I'm tellin' ya'll, we could get a couple of surprises in the next 10 years. I didn't know about "Remember This Night" that was recorded for Thriller until I found out about it last year

Most def. MJ recorded a shit load of demos leading up to the Bad album, but to me, if these records never even made it to the chopping block of songs that WONT make the album, I wouldn't call them "outakes" per say.

StreetWalker would be considered an outtake to me because it was almost selected for inclusion on the record while other songs were nipped during pre-production. I'm sure MJ had the core of the album written already, but like Rob said, Quincy stopped the songs dead in their tracks when he knew it wouldn't fit the direction of Bad

Anyway it goes, If I had all the tracks, I'd list them in my iTunes under the Bad album

bboy87 said:

Derek1984 said:

^ Remember This Night - Recorded for Thriller? What's the story behind that?

Even I don't know The estate has been doing inventory and registering Michael's unreleased work with the US Library of Congress (that has unreleased songs of Michael's too along with the full tape of The Jacksons At The Forum '81) and BMI Publishing

They also registered another Victory outtake titled "Just Feel It"

The Estate better get it together "This Time Around!". Just Feel It? What is that, a prequel/sequel to "Can You Feel It"? I'm hoping for some OTW era records, but I feel that they might sound too "dated". I think the estate is going to push out more Invincible-2009 records