it took a long time to get into don't be messin round tbh, and I'm so blue stands out more than free to me, though that is still a good song, I think he captured emotion so well and gave it some of the OTW treatment

alphastreet said:

can I marry him?

No because I am already married to him

mjscarousal said:

alphastreet said:

can I marry him?

No because I am already married to him

not yours, but mine

purpleworld said:

Cloudbuster said:

Finally, someone else gets it. About fucking time.

I too agree with this. It'll be interesting to see what the Estate will do with Dangerous when it's 25th anniversey comes around. I've always viewed this as Michael's best artistic work. More mature and darker than his previous works (along with Blood on the Dance Floor, most of which was recorded during the Dangerous sessions) and much richer and meatier song writing. ''Who is It'' alone is worth the price of admission. That is, in my view, one of MJ's most underrated masterpieces.

dag said:

I wanna watch the dvd, too, but my box set still hasn't arrived.

You don't have any stores there that have it?

alphastreet said:

mjscarousal said:

No because I am already married to him

not yours, but mine

His mine mine mine mine mineeeee

mjscarousal said:

alphastreet said:

not yours, but mine

His mine mine mine mine mineeeee

dirty diana on the wembley bad tour wore me out

EmeraldSkies said:

dag said:

I wanna watch the dvd, too, but my box set still hasn't arrived.

You don't have any stores there that have it?

Not in my town and I haven't travelled anywhere else to get it. Hopefully it will arrive today.

I have just checked one website and it says there are copies only in our capital city, not anywhere else yet.

[Edited 9/24/12 0:32am]

LiLi1992 said:

Damn.

[Edited 9/24/12 0:10am]

'Who Is It' is a brilliant, astonishing song. In his top ten. Right up there.

LiLi1992 said:

she's practically molesting him

Marrk said:

'Who Is It' is a brilliant, astonishing song. In his top ten. Right up there.

top 3 for me if not 5

alphastreet said:

LiLi1992 said:

she's practically molesting him

You must have a really boring sexlife if you consider that molesting

kremlinshadow said:

alphastreet said:

she's practically molesting him

You must have a really boring sexlife if you consider that molesting

nooo I didn't mean it like that, never mind.....I know it's not that if he's interacting with her by choice I wish I met him onstage

Siedah Garrett's tribute to MJ:

A critical review from a critic that feels that Bad wasnt that good of an album

http://www.theatlantic.co...od/262551/

alphastreet said:

mjscarousal said:

His mine mine mine mine mineeeee

dirty diana on the wembley bad tour wore me out

I was taken aback too. Her hands ran over his hips and crotch. I don't go around caressing the bodies of strangers and would feel violated if a stranger did that to me, lol.

kremlinshadow said:

alphastreet said:

she's practically molesting him

You must have a really boring sexlife if you consider that molesting

[Edited 9/24/12 10:48am]

NaughtyKitty said:

Siedah Garrett's tribute to MJ:

Loving tribute! I've always liked Siedahs songwriting skills, she should write more songs because she's really great at it.

mjscarousal said:

alphastreet said:

not yours, but mine

His mine mine mine mine mineeeee

No, HE'S MINE!!!

Cloudbuster said:

Dangerous can be viewed as Michael Jackson’s coming of age album, a grand claim to make given that many think his best work lay behind him by the time this record was made. It offers Jackson on a threshold, finally inhabiting adulthood and doing so through an immersion in black music that would continue to deepen through the remainder of his career, yet unable to convince a skeptical public that he was either adult or interested in his black heritage. In fact, it is in the wake of Dangerous, in the wake of his bold new direction, that Jackson’s tragic downfall began. Jackson struggles with weighty stuff on this record—love and lust, politics, and race—in ways unseen before; he gives us a darker, less childishly optimistic vision of the world, one based more in realism than his characteristic theatricality, one in which he is emotionally wrenched. Significant as this turning point in Jackson’s career may be, the album is one of his least celebrated. It is precisely with this record, precisely when he enters maturity, that his differences become intolerable and that a critical blindness towards his music takes hold.

Finally, someone else gets it. About fucking time.

I've always felt this way. Dangeorus is so underrated and yet one of his most creative albums. Being a huge Nirvana/Kurt Cobain fan, I always thought that Dangerous was in the same vein of complex/misunderstood music in the early 90s. It was a drastic change from the "happy" sound that the 80s was all about and Dangerous is the contrast to that and is much darker and is more fascinating.

GoldDolphin said:

Cloudbuster said:

Finally, someone else gets it. About fucking time.

I've always felt this way. Dangeorus is so underrated and yet one of his most creative albums. Being a huge Nirvana/Kurt Cobain fan, I always thought that Dangerous was in the same vein of complex/misunderstood music in the early 90s. It was a drastic change from the "happy" sound that the 80s was all about and Dangerous is the contrast to that and is much darker and is more fascinating.

yeah, but don't tell quincy jones or the new york times. to let them tell it, mj became a big, fat failure once he parted company with q. so there!

the whole vibe of dangerous is a leap forward, whereas i think 'bad' is too much of trying to appeal to everyone(?) i don't know. as i posted in the other thread, i've liked individual songs on 'bad', but not enough to buy the cd.

it just goes to show the UNREAL bias against mj. mj had his own musical sensibilities and they shine through on every album. whether he was working with q or with teddy riley, mj's imprint is on the music itself. just like stevie and marvin had their own sound, if you will, so did mj. q can't take credit for that, i don't understand why he tries to.

but see, the critics love him, and they hate mj - still - so you rarely get anyone who actually cuts through the filter of the "conventional wisdom" and "group think". it's pretty funny, too, since although q was a respected musician and had been around for a long time, i don't know that until 'otw' he was exactly a sought after commodity. moreover, i'm not sure his own post-mj work has endured, so why are the critics to so quick diminish mj's post-q work?

if what happened in '93 and beyond hadn't happened, i often wonder what might have been. i think mj would have continued to work with lots of other people, maybe have worked with a william orbit type to take him in yet another direction. i think he would have been encouraged to take even more chances, since he going in that direction (by getting rid of q, for one).

i just wish the events that led to the "tragic downfall" had never happened.

kibbles said:

GoldDolphin said:

I've always felt this way. Dangeorus is so underrated and yet one of his most creative albums. Being a huge Nirvana/Kurt Cobain fan, I always thought that Dangerous was in the same vein of complex/misunderstood music in the early 90s. It was a drastic change from the "happy" sound that the 80s was all about and Dangerous is the contrast to that and is much darker and is more fascinating.

yeah, but don't tell quincy jones or the new york times. to let them tell it, mj became a big, fat failure once he parted company with q. so there!

the whole vibe of dangerous is a leap forward, whereas i think 'bad' is too much of trying to appeal to everyone(?) i don't know. as i posted in the other thread, i've liked individual songs on 'bad', but not enough to buy the cd.

it just goes to show the UNREAL bias against mj. mj had his own musical sensibilities and they shine through on every album. whether he was working with q or with teddy riley, mj's imprint is on the music itself. just like stevie and marvin had their own sound, if you will, so did mj. q can't take credit for that, i don't understand why he tries to.

but see, the critics love him, and they hate mj - still - so you rarely get anyone who actually cuts through the filter of the "conventional wisdom" and "group think". it's pretty funny, too, since although q was a respected musician and had been around for a long time, i don't know that until 'otw' he was exactly a sought after commodity. moreover, i'm not sure his own post-mj work has endured, so why are the critics to so quick diminish mj's post-q work?

if what happened in '93 and beyond hadn't happened, i often wonder what might have been. i think mj would have continued to work with lots of other people, maybe have worked with a william orbit type to take him in yet another direction. i think he would have been encouraged to take even more chances, since he going in that direction (by getting rid of q, for one).

i just wish the events that led to the "tragic downfall" had never happened.

I totally agree, it's a shame those journalists are such dickriders. I love Q, I really do - his arrangements skills and his compositions are INCREDIBLE but he did NOT create MJ. I hate how Q still bashes Mike after all these years and yet nobody cares that much about him, because they always talk about Mike in almost every interview I've read.

Much of MJs best work is after Bad, one of them being Stranger In Moscow, it's so emotional, raw and different to anything he ever did with Q and I doubt a song like that would have been made with Q. Even with Quincy, MJs songs are superior to his selections, I mean we are talking about the guy who didn't want to include Billie Jean on the album. MJs & Gregs version of P.Y.T is much better and sounds more timeless than the one Q & James ingram wrote and the only reason why people always look at Qunicy as superior to MJ is because Q was the main producer for OTW & Thriller and Thriller being the most sold album in the world. But the best songs on those albums are still MJs.

I personally love Bad, it's Michael in his essence and showing the world, what was yet to come creatively and artistically. I hate the fact that journalists can't concentrate and give a REAL opinion on Mike's music, it's quite frustrating as a fan (but I honestly don't care that much, cuz music critics are just "bad" musicians that weren't good enough to make it and instead they talk about music)

Even if the molestion case never happened, I still think something else would have been said to destroy Mike. We have to remember that most music critics are mostly white "rock fans" who have no understanding or dont care about the african american tradition of music and artistry.

(sorry 4 writing so much lol)

GoldDolphin said:

kibbles said:

yeah, but don't tell quincy jones or the new york times. to let them tell it, mj became a big, fat failure once he parted company with q. so there!

the whole vibe of dangerous is a leap forward, whereas i think 'bad' is too much of trying to appeal to everyone(?) i don't know. as i posted in the other thread, i've liked individual songs on 'bad', but not enough to buy the cd.

it just goes to show the UNREAL bias against mj. mj had his own musical sensibilities and they shine through on every album. whether he was working with q or with teddy riley, mj's imprint is on the music itself. just like stevie and marvin had their own sound, if you will, so did mj. q can't take credit for that, i don't understand why he tries to.

but see, the critics love him, and they hate mj - still - so you rarely get anyone who actually cuts through the filter of the "conventional wisdom" and "group think". it's pretty funny, too, since although q was a respected musician and had been around for a long time, i don't know that until 'otw' he was exactly a sought after commodity. moreover, i'm not sure his own post-mj work has endured, so why are the critics to so quick diminish mj's post-q work?

if what happened in '93 and beyond hadn't happened, i often wonder what might have been. i think mj would have continued to work with lots of other people, maybe have worked with a william orbit type to take him in yet another direction. i think he would have been encouraged to take even more chances, since he going in that direction (by getting rid of q, for one).

i just wish the events that led to the "tragic downfall" had never happened.

I totally agree, it's a shame those journalists are such dickriders. I love Q, I really do - his arrangements skills and his compositions are INCREDIBLE but he did NOT create MJ. I hate how Q still bashes Mike after all these years and yet nobody cares that much about him, because they always talk about Mike in almost every interview I've read.

Much of MJs best work is after Bad, one of them being Stranger In Moscow, it's so emotional, raw and different to anything he ever did with Q and I doubt a song like that would have been made with Q. Even with Quincy, MJs songs are superior to his selections, I mean we are talking about the guy who didn't want to include Billie Jean on the album. MJs & Gregs version of P.Y.T is much better and sounds more timeless than the one Q & James ingram wrote and the only reason why people always look at Qunicy as superior to MJ is because Q was the main producer for OTW & Thriller and Thriller being the most sold album in the world. But the best songs on those albums are still MJs.

I personally love Bad, it's Michael in his essence and showing the world, what was yet to come creatively and artistically. I hate the fact that journalists can't concentrate and give a REAL opinion on Mike's music, it's quite frustrating as a fan (but I honestly don't care that much, cuz music critics are just "bad" musicians that weren't good enough to make it and instead they talk about music)

Even if the molestion case never happened, I still think something else would have been said to destroy Mike. We have to remember that most music critics are mostly white "rock fans" who have no understanding or dont care about the african american tradition of music and artistry.

(sorry 4 writing so much lol)

You only have to listen to Destiny and Triumph to hear how Mike sounds without Quincy's input. Like, you know... not much difference at all.

^ I've said this too for ages, he has even more creative output on those albums, and the sounds are in the same vein as OTW and is revisted several times later on in his career.

alphastreet said:

^ I've said this too for ages, he has even more creative output on those albums, and the sounds are in the same vein as OTW and is revisted several times later on in his career.

GoldDolphin said:

I totally agree, it's a shame those journalists are such dickriders. I love Q, I really do - his arrangements skills and his compositions are INCREDIBLE but he did NOT create MJ. I hate how Q still bashes Mike after all these years and yet nobody cares that much about him, because they always talk about Mike in almost every interview I've read.

Much of MJs best work is after Bad, one of them being Stranger In Moscow, it's so emotional, raw and different to anything he ever did with Q and I doubt a song like that would have been made with Q. Even with Quincy, MJs songs are superior to his selections, I mean we are talking about the guy who didn't want to include Billie Jean on the album. MJs & Gregs version of P.Y.T is much better and sounds more timeless than the one Q & James ingram wrote and the only reason why people always look at Qunicy as superior to MJ is because Q was the main producer for OTW & Thriller and Thriller being the most sold album in the world. But the best songs on those albums are still MJs.

I personally love Bad, it's Michael in his essence and showing the world, what was yet to come creatively and artistically. I hate the fact that journalists can't concentrate and give a REAL opinion on Mike's music, it's quite frustrating as a fan (but I honestly don't care that much, cuz music critics are just "bad" musicians that weren't good enough to make it and instead they talk about music)

Even if the molestion case never happened, I still think something else would have been said to destroy Mike. We have to remember that most music critics are mostly white "rock fans" who have no understanding or dont care about the african american tradition of music and artistry.

(sorry 4 writing so much lol)

q has worked with everyone from ella to sinatra to ice t, and you can't tell me some of those people were exactly a walk in the park. so why such venom for mj? i really don't get that esp. since even after they did part, mj always, always, always spoke highly of q.

when i heard that q didn't want 'billie jean' on thriller, that when i started to really question the conventional wisdom. he couldn't hear that song was a hit???? mj knew this, plus he saw how the critics were going out of their way to marginalize him and write him out of his own story, i think. as i posted in the other thread, i think mj rightly thought that he would always be regarded as q's puppet, which is the last thing he wanted, so he moved on.

you're probably right about something else happening, too. he was dogged from the moment he walked off with all those grammys in '84.

Cloudbuster said:

You only have to listen to Destiny and Triumph to hear how Mike sounds without Quincy's input. Like, you know... not much difference at all.

thank you.

kibbles said:

Cloudbuster said:

You only have to listen to Destiny and Triumph to hear how Mike sounds without Quincy's input. Like, you know... not much difference at all.

thank you.