Timmy84 said:

I like P, have all his albums, but I'm a much bigger MJ fan. I guess this thread is really about their reaction to the Cornell cover. Still, I can't stomach those forums.
[Edited 7/8/07 10:31am]

Ellie said:

Ellie, I have been a fan of Michael's for OVER 20 years and a part of the internet community longer than 11 years. Btw, nowhere in my post did I mention that an American fan had urged Michael to go into the dance/electronica Pop route. In fact, I very carefully did NOT mention what fans have been urging him to take that route. I didn't want to specifically name whether it was American or European fans.

lilgish said:

Ditto. I'm annoyed that as of this year I'll have seen Prince in concert more times than MJ

skyecute said:

Yeah but in your paragraph you were specifically talking about Invincible's US sales and popularity on US radio. Format radio isn't the norm everywhere else and MJ has been viewed as a 'Pop' artist for about 30 years now. Calling MJ almost exclusively an R&B artist is like saying Lionel Richie is still Funk.

apparently that case was more of a circus that i imagined

That license plate is awful, cos on first glance it just says "Proven Guilty"

Ellie said:

Pretty much and I've found myself more a fan of his R&B music (from the Motown and early CBS years) than his more pop-based music. Nothing was rubbish about "Bad" (except for one or two songs maybe) and "Dangerous" (which was actually better than "Bad") IMHO either.

Ellie said:

Ellie, I see where you're coming from; however, let's not forget that Michael has been through living hell. Can you,me or anyone imagine having to sit in a courtrooum KNOWING that you are innocent and have been framed by a prosecutor, hell bent on convicting you of a crime that he knows that you didn't committ. Can any of us even begin to realize how it felt to have a person and his family that you tried to help come into a courtroom and look you in the face and blatantly lie? Can anyone know how Michael felt not knowing that he would be put in jail for 20-25 years and basically never seeing his children again? That takes a huge part of a person's soul away. I am just very glad that he even WANTS to make music after what he has gone through. The really sad part is that he is still going through the crap because there are those who don't want to see him comeback because their plan to destroy him didn't work in the courtroom. For those very reasons, I am not angry, annoyed at Michael. I am being patient because I know the hurdles that he is going to go through whenever or if he releases his new music. You can bet that the many in the media and music industry are just waiting like vultures to pounce when he comes back with a new release. As a long time fan, I am more than used to being patient. Maybe it has to do with the fact that my fandom preceded the advent of the internet and I don't have to have instant gratification of my fandom of Michael. LOL, don't get me wrong, I am ANXIOUS for him to release his new music; but, I can wait. In all of these years, I have never been disappointed with any of his albums. I truly thought that Invincible was a wonderful album, and still listen to it 10 times more than I listen to any other MJ album.

Timmy84 said:

I've always thought he should return to his R&B/ Funk Roots and add a tinge of rock...
but then he'd be Prince...

Ellie said:

It did say "Innocent Until" on top of it, you just had to squint your eyes a little bit but he was an embarrassment. He was "TWANING" it up.

EmbattledWarrior said:

Maybe he can scratch the "tinge of rock" and just do an album that more reflect his "classic" R&B/funk, I don't ever want him to do what he tried to do with "Invincible". He had some great songs on it (like "Butterflies" and "You Rock My World" and "Whatever Happens" is the shiz-nit, lol). But something about the album seemed off to me.

Timmy84 said:

Sure, it's a preference. Personally I love it all and just judge the music song by song.

Invincible was such an odd project - these days I pretty much hate all the uptempo songs as they've dated so badly.

Ellie said:

I'm about to view it, had to revive my password since I haven't posted there in years. at least some of the responses are thought out.

Ellie said:

Yeah all of them were very 1998-ish. Only "Butterflies" and "Whatever Happens" and "Break of Dawn" seem to stick with me as "classic MJ".

Timmy84 said:

Yes, I adore his rockier songs and there was none of that on Invincible except for the joke that was Privacy (I wish I could erase that song from history). Like Prince, MJ has the rare ability to mix up the genres. None of these young copycats today can get raw and funky. TTD/Sananda was one of the last ones to be able to do all that.

None of the Invincible album flows at all. It's like the great songs are just flukes thrown in with the mess - and we all know he wasn't fully focused on the project (the album credit blatantly show that).

Nowadays that shouldn't have to matter. If you want to do something a bit different that won't go with what's on your album, it's easy, just release a digital single or EP. The old post-CD era MJ theory of filling up all 80 minutes of data to give fans alleged value for money is dead. I still hear that excuse from fans and I think I even gave it myself back in 2001, thinking the more songs the better.
[Edited 7/8/07 10:59am]

Timmy84 said:

Nah i like it when he does Rock...
matter of fact he could do an all rock album...
either way...
I think he's focusing his energy in the wrong direction
Funk or Rock, would be a better alternative than where he went with Invincible
I'd rather see him do an album like D'Angelos Voodoo,
Just good ole home grown funky rhythm & blues...
But of course thats not gonna happen

Ellie said:

Yeah I love his rock songs too and yeah I didn't dig "Privacy" at all. Michael wasn't into a lot of things in 2001. I think he looked at "Invincible" as a final album deal or something since it was the last studio album on his contract. And I hope for his latest that he don't heed to what will.I.am is telling him in releasing the music to I-Tunes or whatever.

EmbattledWarrior said:

I think he's so wanting to prove to people he was the "king of pop". The more I hear about the title the more annoyed I get because Michael doesn't just do pop but some fans don't get that. "He's the King of Pop"... I think pop music is just a term for marketable catchy music. If we look at his entire catalog, the title was just an euphemism.

Ellie said:

Talking about Invincible's US sales and popularity has nothing to do with specifically saying whether American or European fans want him to do that horrible dance/electronic pop sort of music. As you very well know, there are fans from MANY countries on any MJ forum. Btw, who called Michael "almost exclusively R&B artist"? I didn't. I just stated the facts about American pop radio stations. They did NOT support Michael during Invincible. It had more to do with their bias of him than it had to do with his music. "Whatever Happens" was a brilliant song and they didn't even give it a chance. At least, R&B radio did give the album a chance by playing gems such as, "Butterflies", YRMW, "Heaven Can Wait" and "Break of Dawn". I am not trying to put Michael into an exclusive category of R&B or Pop. The fact is that POP radio is not suppporting him, at least in the USA. Michael album's have never fit into any one category. His music has a 'universal' appeal that most artists don't have.

Timmy84 said:

I have never understood why the media, detrators and even some fans haven't realized that the title "King of Pop" was never meant to be just about "pop" music. In this context, it means that Michael is the King of POPular music. That could entail many different genres of music. I don't think anyone can deny the fact that he deserved the title. It always irritates me that people make such a big deal of "The King of Pop" title that Michael so richly deserves and don't give damn when Elvis is called the "King" or the "King of Rock n' Roll", Madonna is called the "Queen of Pop", James Brown the "Godfather of Soul", Mary J. Blidge the "Queen of Hip-Hop Soul", Aretha the "Queen of Soul", etc. What is the REAL problem with Michael being called the "King of Pop"? Sorry, it this offends anyone; BUT, does it have to do with the fact that a black man, Michael Jackson, is dubbed the King of POPular music? The thing with those who have a problem with this title is that there is no one in history who has deserved it more than Michael. I am open for discussion whether you agree or disagree. The only thing that I am NOT open is the bullshit that some will want to bring in about their opinion of him personally or his looks. That crap doesn't fit into the equation.

CHIC0 said:

The media made it a circus; yet, they were the ones complaing. The photos that you are looking at are during Deliberation Day. Fans gathered to hear the verdict. Remember, basically MJ's life was at stake. If the jury had believed the false allegations of this conspiracy, Michael would have been sent to prison for 25 years with no chance of parole. This was more than a man being released from a record contract or winning a victory about a business deal. Just thought that I would mention that since some Prince fans want to compare the two events as if they even compare in importance. A man's LIFE is nothing to compare to being freed from a record contract or anything else involving a career.

I think the dove lady is sweet.

skyecute said:

All titles are stupid in my opinion. I still don't understand why James is the "Godfather" or why Aretha is the "Queen" or Elvis is the "King of Rock". So all titles are actually silly because they don't showcase the full arsenal of either artist.

lilgish said:

Unless she took that out to poop on you. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

Timmy84 said:

I agree. However,have any of the artists that you mention had their "title" debated by the media as they have done with MJ? It's as if they are angry that Michael is called the King of POP; yet, they are satisfied and have no challenge on James Brown being called the Godfather of SOUL, or Aretha being called the Queen of SOUL or Elvis being called the King of ROCK and ROLL. It's alright for the black performers to be called godfather or queen of SOUL because that represents only black music. Why the challenge of Michael being called the King of POP when he is the King of all POPular music. That's not just an opinion or an MJ fan speaking, that is a fact. Can someone give me a person who has emcompassed and galvanized POPULAR music AND the music industry- this includes: racially, age level, socio- economic status, genre, universally,etc.- as Michael Jackson has done? If someone can come up with some names or a name, I am open for discussion. It's not about trying to glorify Michael, it's about facts and the truth.
[Edited 7/8/07 12:23pm]

Oh they do do it with the Queen of Pop title aswell. Some rabid Janet fans still call her the Queen of Pop and quote some 15 year old magazine article that said she was - nevermind the fact that Madonna's sales and popularity worldwide has tripled hers, and they don't even bear thinking about Whitney, Celine & Mariah. If it's sales you need though surely the Queen of Pop is Barbra Streisand

It's the self-proclaimed nonsense that gets me. OK, so what if he did get an ego and start calling himself that come the time of Dangerous? He'd been called it throughout the 80s by the fans on banners everywhere anyway, even before Elizabeth Taylor said it at the AMAs. They never go around saying R Kelly is the "self-proclaimed" Pied Piper of R&B - probably because it's a shit title in the first place. It is quite amusing to see Rolling Stone have a new cover story titled "The new King of Pop?" every year or two for articles on whatever flavour of the month is big at the time. Forget Timberlake and [in Europe] Robbie Williams, it's been thrown around next to Ricky Martin and even Ronan Keating too.

Ellie said:

That's why the title is silly because it seems with MJ's troubles and all, they try hard to find someone to become the title and the problem is they can't. The thing is it is popular music but the thing is Michael hasn't been "popular" in x amount of years so they pass it off to anyone who's "popular at the moment", that's the frustrating part of that title and it's very annoying.

skyecute said:

I am not talking about the court case, I know the facts of the court case and I understand why he was found NOT Guilty. However, I also understand why people see him as a Pedo and why people think he is a "weird freak". You can't blame everything onto the media. The media were not the ones who told him to invite young children into his room and his bed(even his lawyers could not dispute this) on a constant basis, any fool will know sooner or later a scandel will blow up out of it; and it did twice. And in the first case it has never really been resolve because there was an out of court settlement, that alone left a cloud over MJ head, yet fans you like continue to blame such incidents on the media, even though MJ was in control of the kind of lifestyle he has choose to live.

The media never told him to mess up his once natural, attractive face. It's no use saying to Oprah infront of a worldwide audience 10 years on that you have vitiligo when the world saw him transform from an attractive looking African-American man to an ambigious looking white woman. Did Michael really believe the whole wide world would aacept this explanation after seeing his features as well as his skin changing simultaneously

The media can only use the ammunition you give them and over the last 25 years intentionally or untentionally Michael has given the media many bullets for them to shoot him down with.

As for his music, well I too prefer the earlier stuff, simply because he just sounds a whole lot more organic singing Rock With You or Human Nature than he does singing Speed Demon or The Lost Children or Heal the world. Having said that he is in the great position in being one of the very few artist out there who is truely diverse. But he probably could have got a whole more out of his solo career if he didn't have 5 years gaps in between his music.

skyecute said:

VERY good points you brought up Skycute.

I too have noticed the media's and others sad attempts to try and constantly defame Michael. They will say things like "Former King of Pop", "Self-Proclaimed", etc and it just gets on my last nerve sometimes.

You are correct that no one says anything about Aretha or James Brown titles because soul music is a genre of music sang by mostly black people, so the media at large does not care if James and Aretha are called the Godfather and Queen of soul. When it comes to pop music though it's a totally different story. Some people resent the fact that Michael Jackson is referred to as the "King of Pop" and I believe a lot of it has to do with race. I mean look at what the media is doing right now, they have been trying so hard for the past few years to convince people that Justin Timberlake is the new King of Pop when he hasn't done ANYTHING to deserve it. He is their new Elvis. I feel like since they are so DESPERATE to take the title away from Michael, why not give it to someone like Usher who is a lot more deserving of it than Justin Timberlake? Usher has had more success than Justin but of course they don't want to call Usher the new King of Pop because Usher is black.


Funny thing is though I don't see them doing this with Madonna, although when Britney first hit the scene, they were asking if she was the new Queen of Pop but that didn't last too long. I don't see them questioning Madonna's title all the time. They only do this with Michael 'cause they can't stand him. And this is not the fan in me talking right now either. People like to say that we as MJ fans are constantly blaming the media and excuse everything he does and blah blah blah but ya know what? These are not excuses these are facts. Michael is not treated like everyone else, bottom line.