"FUNNY BUT IT SEEMS YOU'RE ALONE LIKE ME."

The MJ child molester story could have been a conspiracy to neturalize MJ from bucking the system.
Believe me if you committed this form of sexual assault & evidence pointed in your direction ,witness or no witness, you WILL GO TO JAIL.

Many so called fans of Prince severely rejected HIS fight against the music industry because of reasons already listed on this site.But one thing I have problems with is the lack of knowledge of the situation.

muleFunk said:

Exactly! There is not *one* shred of evidence to suggest that MJ committed this crime.There was a full investigation by the cops and they STILL didn't charge Michael with anything.If there had been incriminating evidence,Mike would NOT have been able to settle this matter out- of- court.I don't know if the whole ordeal was a "conspiracy" per se,but stranger things have happened.
[This message was edited Wed Jul 10 6:24:59 PDT 2002 by DavidEye]

in reference to the way the media acted in 1993 response to the paedophelia allegations, it would be unfair to compare the outlash against him and the responses to artists like Woody Allen. I think Pee Wee Herman would be a better comparison. Both MJ and PW portrayed an innocent, if not odd, lifestyle. Whereas, Woody Allen's character was always a bit 'freaky' in the neurotic sex driven sense.

For the first time, I must side with the record label on this issue. 2 million or so album sales would be respectable if the company had not spent $30 million in making the album. They cut their losses which was fair. Also, I don't believe that they discriminate against race. They screw everyone over equally.\

Why does MJ have to deal with scum like Al Sharpton and Johnnie Cochran? Those guys are bad news. They're entirely self serving opportunists.

If the biggest artist they can get at this conference in Harlem is Doug E. Fresh, then I think this movement has problems.

theWinFunk said:[quote)

For the first time, I must side with the record label on this issue. 2 million or so album sales would be respectable if the company had not spent $30 million in making the album. They cut their losses which was fair. Also, I don't believe that they discriminate against race. They screw everyone over equally.\[/quote]


You know,I wonder why Sony didn't just hand MJ $5 million and say "Make your album".I think 30 million is WAY TOO MUCH money to spend on an album.If MJ had spent only 5 million,this whole mess would have been avoided.There wouldn't have been no losses to cut.

Apparantly Rodney Jerkins has said the album cost about 5 million. And let's be fair, the album probably would've sold a lot more had there been the usual 7/8 singles (which are on Invincible: Unbreakable, Heartbreaker, Heaven Can Wait, Speechless, 2000 Watts, Whatever Happens.)

People aren't going to buy an album they don't get to hear.

Prince is probably the best example of this!

I totally agree with MJ's cause, but his methods are what are hurting him. He has many good points, but they are being overshadowed by his antics. Yes, the industry is corrupt, and artists get constantly screwed (this has been especially prevelant with black artists). Unfortunately, no one is going to take MJ seriously, because he's calling Mottolla "the devil" and such. Sure, Mottolla may be a truly evil man, but it just makes Mike look like he's being petty.

As for Sony, they can try to say that MJ put out a sub-standard album, but that is really irrelevant. Half the album's on the chart are utter crap, but they have promotion behind them. Sure, Invincible was a lousy album, but can anyone really say it was worse than the latest pile of turds churned out by Britney? Time was, MJ would have had several singles off of one album, and the first single was rarely the one that took off. If Sony had wanted Invincible to be a hit, it would have.

Sony's claims that MJ has faltered since his molestation accusations are quite off as well. HIStory came out after the allegations, and it sold quite well. The difference was that Sony promoted HIStory to death. The scandal was still fresh in everyone's minds when this album was released, and the disc was a double, and it still sold well. The difference? Promotion, baby! Makes all the difference in the world!

The fact is, Sony screwed up, and MJ has a legitimate complaint. Likewise, he has some legitimate charges against the record industries practices. Unfortunately, MJ is lumping all of his complaints against the industry into one big argument. Yes, racism has affected many black artists in the past, but is MJ really a victim of it? Probably not. MJ is a victim of stupidity on the part of his label, nothing more. He really needs to be more focused in his fight, or else he's just going to come across as a spoiled millionaire throwing a tantrum. In many ways, this is exactly what happened to Prince. P had many valid complaints against the recording industry, but he muddled it up by changing his name to a symbol and scrawling "slave" on his cheek. Ultimately, the public just scratched their heads, totally missing his point. The shame of it is, these are two artists who really could make a difference in the industry, changing the status-quo for the better, but they've hurt their own cause with their eccentric behaviour.

I disagree with whoever said that the record industry screws everybody regardless of race. I think that blacks in the industry are screwed far worse than whites.

Why is it that people like Mick Jagger and the rest of the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, David Bowie, Jimmy Page all have incredibly huge fortunes while the black musicians who invented rock 'n roll have little or nothing?

I read somewhere that Jagger is worth over $200 million and McCartney is close to being a billionaire. I heard that John Lennon's estate is worth about $400 million. Literally all of the English rockers hailed as "pioneers" of rock actually learned the music from listening to old R&B records from the U.S.

Why is Elvis the king of rock 'n roll? Why isn't Chuck Berry the king of rock 'n roll? Chuck Berry plays an instrument, wrote classic rock tunes, and wrote his own songs. Chuck Berry should be the king of rock 'n roll -- not Elvis.

While Jimmy Page sits in his castle in the U.K. counting his royalties from the Led Zeppelin catalogue, the black blues musicians from whom Led Zeppelin stole a substantial amount of music live and die in obscurity and poverty.

All of these multi-millionaire English rockers should be making regular donations to the Rhythm & Blues Foundation.

fonkywonder said:

I don't know what history books you read, but they should be banned and burned for misinformation.

I have never heard of Elvis being described as a "pioneer of r&b"; certainly not the first!! He is considered a pioneer of rock & roll. Maybe your pretzel logic means that early rock & roll was a guise for white singers to sing r&b; but that's a big difference from being a "pioneer".

I don't understand your point about jazz. Whoever said any white artist dominates that music? You should watch who you're calling a moron when your statemnets about music history are inaccurate and imprecise.

For the record: I totally despise everything about Elvis. Still, Elvis sang blues, gospel and country tunes with more authentic urgency than someone lily-white like Pat Boone.

Batdance said:

Beatles, Stones and Zep had really aggressive managers and attorneys who were extremely well-paid to represent their interests and protect their assets. Getting screwed by record companies is one thing. Getting screwed by your management team is another issue altogether.



BTW#1: Quiet as it's kept, Led Zep had to pony up to the Willie Dixon estate for a number of copyright violations.

BTW#2: You might be quite surprised how these selfsame English rockers (Americans too!) keep active in the blues and use their coattails to record and perform with the very blues artists that inspired them. I will admit that sometimes the blues gets watered down, but guys like John Lee Hooker (RIP), Buddy Guy and BB King, Otis Rush etc etc have been fronting mostly white bands that were toatlly kick-ass!



[This message was edited Wed Jul 10 8:53:33 PDT 2002 by PFunkjazz]

No offence to Jedi Master but i really don't think Invincible is a lousy album. It's all a matter of opinion, obviously, but it's my fave Jackson album since Off The Wall.

It seems to me that Sony, knowing this is his last studio album for them, have deliberatly screwed up the promotion and crushed sales so that other labels would see him as a fading artist and not want to sign him. Considering how much money Jackson has made Sony over the years i find this rather dispicable.

No video or single release for Butterflies, Heaven Can Wait and Unbreakable cancelled. Hmmm...too suspect.

No offence to Jedi Master but i really don't think Invincible is a lousy album. It's all a matter of opinion, obviously, but it's my fave Jackson album since Off The Wall.

It seems to me that Sony, knowing this is his last studio album for them, have deliberatly screwed up the promotion and crushed sales so that other labels would see him as a fading artist and not want to sign him. Considering how much money Jackson has made Sony over the years i find this rather dispicable.

No video or single release for Butterflies, Heaven Can Wait and Unbreakable both cancelled. Hmmm...too suspect.

Friends of mine who haven't been fussed about his music since the Bad album even gave it the thumbs up but without promotion people just ain't gonna buy.

It really is that simple.

Doh! I don't know what happened there.
Maybe my hands are working independantly of my brain.
Cool!

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I think this is all playing MJ's game.
His TV special was an big expensive dud and INVINCIBLE
admittedly sank like a stone in the river off the charts,
but notice all the press he's generated about himself?
Makes you wonder about a "comeback", eh?


The PR boys are working extra hard on this. Too bad they can't
get rid of the "JACKO-WACKO" thing, but there's no such thing as
bad publicity.

They're supposed to get the name right , though!

I don't get this.
I don't like Sony throwing out the "molestation" charge as much as I don't like Michael throwing out the "racism" charge.
But how does Michael Jackson put out (a very mediocre)new CD. He gets a special long-ass video, TV specials on ABC, MTV replays all their Michael Jackson specials.

Everyone on earth knew that Michael JAckson had a new CD out!
After you let everyone know he has it out, the public has to listen and decide for themselves. And once they did, it was clear that the music wasn't up to par with previous Jackson albums. The critics didn't like it and the word of mouth from the public was that it wasn't any good either.

So...that's what happened. Tough shit Michael, go back to the drawing board and make a comeback album.

lemoncrush said:

The critics haven't had much good to say about Michael since Thriller. And even that got some shit reviews.

A lame argument. Invincible didn't sell 'cos people didn't hear much of it.

I agree, if u release one and a half single and still sell over 5 million in 2 or three months, it's more real 2 say promotion was short lived and the majority of the public did not have a chance 2 discover the album apart from YRMW, wich was hardly representative 4 the rest of the songs.