LittleBLUECorvette said:

Nah, I'm recording at school. My school as a recording studio and has Pro Tools, FL Studio, Reason, Cubase, Acid....all of the popular recording software

one of my classmates has his own studio and equipment. His shit is really good

so good I was about to apply for a membership for the Player Hater's Ball

bboy87 said:

You sing or just write? Whenever I in the studio, don't laugh, but I always imagine i'm in the studio creating Thriller...LOL

bboy87 said:

YEah, I used to record at school when I went a few semesters back. I took a class for Pro-Tools and this class called studio Orchestra (that class was fun) just a bunch of student musician s who created songs and recorded them.

But, if you really interested in music, I suggest you get an in-home studio. I have Pro-Tools, REASON, a nice mic, some keyboards, a guitar and a bunch of percussion instruments. It's not as costly as you think ... and with that said, let's get back onto the King of Pop.

blessedk said:

Hahaha

In all seriousness though, they were a team. That's why it irks me to no end when people act like MJ couldn't create his own music just because he didn't have the technical side down like Prince. I don't think anyone realizes how hard it is to even come up with a melody. That is probably the hardest part. And MJ created great melodies. You listen to his demos and he has the song made in his head, the other stuff is just what he heard falling into place. People act like its easy, or that everyone does the work for him when that couldn't be further from the truth.

Quincy helped take those melodies and develop them into bonafide tracks. They were a great team. Although I do think Quincy's role, while hugely important, is overstated by some. I'm not taking credit away, but the comments like "MJ wasn't shit without Quincy" really irks me to no end. What was Quincy's involvement in Destiny or Triumph, albums I probably like more than both Thriller and Bad?

Superstition said:

Exactly, some seem to forget that there were masterpieces before Quincy came into the picture musically. I'll take Destiny and Triumph over Bad anyday.

my other new MJ shirt

look at this cutie pie

kibbles said:

first of all, their dad's life was not sad. He inspired the world, brought to it beauty n joy. Now to the point - i find it hilarious, the speculation about the Jacksons money, wealth. You don't know ANYTHING about their finances. The Jackson brothers are still getting royalties for their music. They are not broke. Janet is loaded and has no kids. They are a dynasty. What makes you think the brother's children wont grow up and become lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. They will educate their children.Why would u use the term 'welfare'? Sounds racist to me. That entire family deserve to be wealthy. Of course, Never as much as Michael's kids,and that won't happen. but they are part of a dynasty. Katherine has 40% n if u think she's not goinng to invest those hundreds of millions to benefit all of her kids then you don't know black mothers. You said someone should step in between those kids and that family. Well THAT family happens to be Prince, Paris, and Blankets family. Who's going to protect them better than their grandmother?

graecophilos said:

You know what, your ass is getting reported.

DEFENDING MICHAEL
by Thomas A Mesereau Jr.

Forum Column, Los Angeles Daily Journal, July 1st, 2009

The Michael Jackson trial was unique. More accredited media covered these proceedings than the O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson trials combined. When the verdicts were reached, people in every capital around the world were riveted to their radios, computers and televisions. The "King of Pop" was more popular than anyone, including Elvis Presley.

Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, Macaulay Culkin, George Lopez and lesser-known celebrities testified. Larry King testified outside the presence of the jury. The trial lasted five months with more than 140 witnesses appearing. Twenty-four-hour coverage, including actors re-enacting the proceedings, emphasized the trial's popularity.

When more than 70 Santa Barbara sheriffs raided Neverland Ranch in November 2003, I was driving to Los Angeles from Northern California. I was ending a nine day vacation and ready to resume preparation for the Robert Blake murder trial, set for February 2004. My phone started ringing off the hook with frantic requests that I travel to Las Vegas and defend Michael. I refused, because I did not think I could handle the two cases at once.

After jury selection began in the Blake case, the client and I had a severe disagreement that Judge Darlene Schemp could not resolve. Mercifully, she granted my motion to withdraw. Within a short period, Michael's brother Randy called me to, again, see if I would defend his brother. I flew to Florida, where I met Jackson for the first time.

Upon arriving, I was told by Michael and Randy that they had spoken with Johnnie Cochran in the hospital. According to them, Johnnie said I was the one who could win. I knew Johnnie, but he was not a close friend. I was quite surprised that he would speak so glowingly about me.

Three weeks later, I was told that Michael wanted me and my law firm partner, Susan Yu, to defend him. I returned to Florida and firmed up the understanding. The adventure began.

When I first met Michael, he said virtually nothing. He sat at a distance and observed others field questions. I didn't know if he was intentionally being mysterious or simply observing in his own way. At that point, I had little information from which to judge whether he could possibly have committed the alleged crimes.

My retention generated enormous media coverage. One anti-Jackson reporter immediately appeared on "The Today Show" to announce that I had an African-American girlfriend and attended a black church. The lawyers I replaced did not depart gracefully. One appeared on "Good Morning America" to say he had left voluntarily because less than desirable people surrounded Michael. Certain tabloid shows, like those hosted by Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly, criticized my appearance. I assumed they were "in the pocket" of prior counsel. This was my baptism.

Initially, Michael was very inaccessible. I scoured every used bookstore and Website for books and articles about his life and character. I read all of them, sometimes twice. My meetings with him confirmed my suspicions about these charges. He was a gentle, kind soul. Sensitive, intuitive and creative, it seemed inconceivable that he could be the monster his enemies portrayed him as.

Much has been made about the child molestation charges. Little has been said about the other claims. The prosecution alleged that Jackson masterminded a conspiracy to falsely imprison a family, abduct children and commit criminal extortion. I can assure you that Michael was not capable of even imagining such behavior. But the more I spoke with him about the alleged molestation charges, the more firm I became in my belief that they were part of a universe of money-making opportunities created by charlatans.

During my first court appearance in Santa Maria, the entire Jackson family appeared dressed in white. They were unified, exquisite and powerful in their message of innocence. I delivered my first statement to the media regarding his innocence and my respect for the court and community. My statement included words, to the effect, that this case was not about "lawyers, or anyone else, becoming celebrities."

These words were designed to change the atmosphere surrounding the defense and, of lesser importance, to hurl a barb at prior counsel. I had not liked the carnival atmosphere surrounding Jackson's defense lawyers. In my opinion, they repeatedly advertised their absolute delight at being in the middle of the circus. Their public statements were, to me, self-serving and amateurish. Michael and Randy Jackson were very suspicious of them. My anti-lawyer-like comments generated controversy. But, a new firm die had been cast. My Irish grandmothers smiled from the heavens!

The prosecutors had an enormous advantage. Two grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara had investigated Jackson in the early 1990s. Nobody was charged. A third grand jury indicted him in 2004.

During the interim, District Attorney Tom Sneddon had traveled to at least two countries, Australia and Canada, searching for victims. The Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department had a Web site seeking information on Michael.

The trial judge wanted to waste little time. The politics surrounding the defense were horrific. Numerous lawyers, most of them mediocre at best, were constantly trying to get to Michael to undermine me. The media smelled enormous ratings and revenue in a conviction. They were like a cloud of locusts, constantly descending on any weakness they spotted or created. There were numerous efforts to discredit me. Former girlfriends called to say they had been approached for unsavory information. I received calls from alleged "journalists" promising me favors for inside information. Tabloid sensationalism was at a premium.

The trial was carnival-like. Mountains were made out of molehills. For example, Jackson hurt his back one morning and went to the hospital. I informed Judge Melville immediately. His message was firm. If Michael did not appear forthwith, bail would evaporate. I instructed him to rush to court in whatever he was wearing. His pajama bottoms became a media feast. But, they had no bearing on the trial or verdict. The jury foreman later informed me that no juror even noticed Michael's pants, or lack thereof. This case was characterized by shock, crisis and confusion.

On numerous occasions, I was summoned to Neverland to handle searches, disputes and a variety of crises. Michael seemed to always have a new "guru," adviser or lawyer who virtually guaranteed a dismissal or acquittal. It was a veritable "sea of fools." But the effort it took to handle these crises was wasted time.

The trial was characterized by contentious legal rulings. For example, the trial judge allowed the following: The prosecution was permitted to start its case by showing a scurrilous, slanted British documentary that claimed Michael was a pedophile. The prosecution claimed this was evidence of "motive."

The prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence that Jackson had settled other claims of child molestation in civil court. The actual dollar amounts were not admitted (as if anyone hadn't heard them!). It was also permitted to introduce evidence of alleged prior similar acts of child molestation. Prosecutors were permitted to introduce such evidence extending back 10 years. As icing on the cake, the court permitted them to call third-party witnesses who watched the alleged acts without any requirement that the actual alleged victims testify.

During the prosecution's rebuttal, the court permitted the prosecutors to play a police interview tape of the alleged victim. Of course, this was rank hearsay. The theory of admissibility was that I had challenged the demeanor of the alleged victim and the tape was relevant to rebut.

As a measure of fairness, Melville permitted the defense to play "outtakes" of the interview footage that were edited out of the British documentary. In these interviews, Jackson denied abusing children.

Five lawyers testified. Three were called by the prosecution and two by the defense. I have always believed that lawyers are the easiest witnesses to discredit. Throw them any measure of flattery and the seeds of arrogance are sown.

We had more good days in this trial than anyone can reasonably expect. But the public never saw how many prosecution witnesses were scorched on cross-examination. The judge imposed a gag order, which I supported. While this permitted more flexibility in court, it made the trial easily distorted by self-serving pundits.

I would often return to my duplex, turn on the TV and turn apoplectic at what was being reported. Quite often, former prosecutors in New York would wax passionately about how a witness behaved. Their theatrics were totally lacking in substance or accuracy. I thought we were winning all along. But the media reported the very opposite. And, of course, jealous, shallow legal pundits had a field day criticizing my performance. To them, God help any lawyer who engaged in unconventional trial behavior. Such hearsay merited capital punishment.

From the outset, I did everything I could to remove race from the case. I immediately removed the Nation of Islam from Jackson's public persona and asked that his father refrain from commenting on race in the media. It became clear that Michael was a person who brought all races together. Unfortunately, some of the mediocrities who surrounded him wanted to profit through racial conflict. This was a constant source of tension.

My reaction to this cauldron was stoicism and a hermit-like existence. Our team lived in condominiums far from the media hotels, restaurants and bars. I was in bed at 7:30 most evenings with a 3 a.m. start. Our staff worked all night updating witness books and performing other chores. Because they had a key to my apartment, the door would open virtually every hour with updated binders appearing miraculously on my stairwell. We lived like this for six months.

In the wake of his passing, I am haunted by certain late-night phone calls I received from Michael. Childlike, kindhearted and terrified, Michael begged me not to allow corrupt enemies to co-opt my performance. He seemed skeptical about any lawyer truly acting in an honorable, professional manner. I repeatedly assured him that my background had more to do with civil rights than it did Hollywood. The world's most famous celebrity was not accustomed to honest, decent representation.

The 14 acquittals were tantamount to complete legal vindication. Nevertheless, I write this with a heavy heart. Michael was one of the kindest, nicest people I ever met. His wistful desire to heal the world with love, music and artistry clashed horribly with the barbaric way he was exploited. The world is a far better place because of him.

The Trial...Words From Michael's Lawyer

Attorney Tom Mesereau, Jr, is highly respected in his field. Widely recognized as one of the best trial lawyers in the country, Mr. Mesereau has been selected by his peers as one of "The Best Lawyers in America" and has been listed as one of the "One Hundred Most Influential Attorneys in California" by the Los Angeles Daily Journal. These are just a couple of his accolades.
Mr. Mesereau represented Michael Jackson in his 2005 child molestation trial (he replaced attorneys Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman), and has very poignant insight on Michael, and the trial.

DK: Deborah Kunesh
TM: Tom Mesereau

DK: What kind of client was Michael? What was it like working with him?

TM: He was a very delightful client to work with. He was very cooperative, he listened, he was very respectful of me, and attorney Susan Yu and our staff. The worst thing I can say about him is that sometimes he was inaccessible. Sometimes he was difficult to find, and I think part of it was he was so terrified and fearful of this process, but he was a delightful person to work with.

DK: I imagine that would be horrifying having people saying these kind of things about you. How did he handle all of the stress that came with that?

TM: I think it was very difficult for him. You know, I used to talk to him often, early in the morning because my schedule was that I would get to bed, usually at 7:30, sometimes latest 8 o clock and I was up at 3, with no fail every day. Michael is a person who would often be up early in the morning and walking through Neverland to relax and get close to nature and look at the sky and the moon and stars and he would call me often at 3 or 4. He was suffering from anxiety, clearly he was at times very depressed, and he was having sleep problems. This is all normal for someone who was facing serious criminal charges like he was.

DK: When I interviewed Aphrodite Jones, she mentioned that the prosecution had called witnesses, had called friends and people that were close to Michael, and that he had a hard time with some of that, with some of what they said?

TM: It was a dreadful experience. It was painful, it was horrifying, he couldn’t believe that he was listening to some of the statements that were made. He couldn’t believe anybody would accuse him of harming children. He couldn’t believe that they would ever accuse him of masterminding a conspiracy to falsely imprison a family, to abduct children, to extort. These are things that Michael was not capable of even imagining and to formally charge him with this and then to call witnesses who clearly were not telling the truth, to try and build a case against him, was frightening and very disheartening for him.

DK: The trial went for over 4 months?

TM: It was almost 5 months. It started Jan 31st and ended mid-June.

DK: How often would you go to trial each week?

TM: 5 days a week.

DK: When the not guilty verdicts were being read, how did Michael react?

TM: That particular day he looked horrible. His cheeks were sunken in, (he was) walking very weakly. He looked horrible. He didn’t say a word until the last “not guilty.” There were 14 “not guilty’s”. 10 felonies and 4 lesser-included misdemeanors. Then we hugged and he said “thank you.”

DK: Before that last day of trial, where these verdicts were going to be read, I heard that you had felt pretty certain that they would exonerate him . Was it just a feeling that you had?

TM: I had a very strong feeling that this jury was not going to convict him. I didn’t know if he would be acquitted of everything because some of the jurors, I had an excellent feeling about, others I wasn’t sure. Remember, I didn’t know these people, I’d never spoken a word to them. I observed them throughout the trial and I did not think they would ever get 12 people on this jury to convict him of anything. Whether or not he would be acquitted of everything, I just wasn’t sure, because I didn’t know the jurors, but I had a very good feeling about it. When I heard there were verdicts, I felt everything was going to be “not guilty”.

DK: What is the difference between being acquitted and being “not guilty”?

TM: Well, in America, you need, I shouldn’t say that, in most states in America, you need a unanimous jury to convict or acquit. In California, you need 12 jurors to convict or acquit. If they can’t agree, it’s called a hung jury. A hung jury means that the person hasn’t been convicted or acquitted. They could conceivably retry the person on the hung count. When I heard they had reached verdicts on every count, I knew in my heart of hearts it was “not guilty”, but until I heard they had actually reached verdicts, I just felt very strongly that some of these jurors are definitely not going to convict him on this evidence. Would all of them agree not to convict him, I just didn’t know. But when I heard they had reached unanimous verdicts, I said to myself, he’s going to be acquitted on everything.

DK: Is there anything specific that you want to share about Michael, about who he was? What you would like the public to know about Michael and about the trial?

TM: Michael Jackson was one of the nicest, kindest people I’ve ever met. He really wanted to do more than just be a musical genius. He wanted to heal and change the world through love, through kindness, through art and through music and I do believe the world’s a better place because he was with us.

He was very gentle, very kind. There was, I sort of describe it as a universal Michael and Michael the individual. There was the universalist Michael who wanted to change the globe. Wanted to see the entire world focus on children and he felt that if children were properly loved and cared for that we would significantly reduce the violence in the world, significantly reduce the meanness in the world, significantly reduce poverty, and all of the world’s most important problems. He felt that the way to do that was to focus on the world’s children. So that’s the universalist Michael who thought he could heal the world through music, through love, through humanitarian measures. He was one of the greatest humanitarians in world history. He actually is in the Guinness Book of Records as one of the largest donors to children’s causes, which the media doesn’t like to focus on.

There also is the individual Michael, who I dealt with, who was a person, and he loved to see a child smile. He built Neverland to see children happy. He was one of the wealthiest men in the world. He could have spent all of that money selfishly. Instead he had a zoo, he had an amusement park, a theatre, he had statues devoted to the world’s children. If you looked at the artwork in his house, a lot of it centered on children and seeing them happy and respecting them for who they were. Their race, their religion, what part of the world they were from, what kind of native traditions they had. This was someone who as a person, loved to see a child smile. Loved to see a child from the inner city who was growing up in poverty and violence come to Neverland and look at a giraffe and smile and look at an elephant and smile. Get some free ice cream and just be happy. It just meant a lot to Michael because he was a very good person. But unfortunately when you’re that much of a genius, and you’re that wealthy, all of the sharks are going to come forward, and when you combine with that a certain level of naivety, a person who just didn’t want to be wrapped up in money matters all of the time or legal matters. He wanted to do creative things, he wanted to do humanitarian things. That makes him even more of a target for frivolous lawsuits and frivolous claims.

DK: This is great because I really want, through this, for people to see who he really was and I think that’s so missing now

TM: Of course, because the media wants shock value and they want to see people go down in flames and they were desperately hoping he would be convicted because it would mean stories for years about what he looked like and how he was doing in prison and was he going to kill himself. Believe me, they were salivating over his conviction and they were trying to skew all of the reporting in a way they hoped would influence the jury to convict him. Even a lot of cheap shots at me throughout that time.

DK: Oh, really?

TM: Oh sure.

DK: That’s so sad that the world is like that, you know what I mean?

TM: Everybody was hoping to profit off his destruction. It was terrible. It’s one of my proudest moments in my lifetime….just acquitting him, vindicating him. In retrospect now, he only had approximately 4 more years to live, at least he was there to be with his kids and just to be vindicated. The trial was so unjust. The case was so unjust and lacking in credibility.

TM: At his burial, which I attended, a young man who in the 80’s was a rather high profile case in southern California, a father doused his son with gasoline and set him on fire and burned most of his body including all of his face (this man is now known as Dave Dave, formerly David Rothenberg ). Michael took care of him. He (Dave Dave) got up to speak (at Michael's funeral) about what a kind, decent, generous, wonderful person Michael Jackson was. I happen to know there were kids all over the world he did this for. Disabled kids, children with illnesses and disabilities. Michael would write checks for them and nobody publicized it. He didn’t do it to become well known for doing it. He did it because that’s what his heart wanted him to do. You know? I think one of the cruelest things that ever happened was to take his love for children, his desire to help kids, and turn it against him and try and call him a monster as they did in that trial. It was just horrible.

DK: You’re going right for what’s one of the most important things for a person and you’re turning that against them.

TM: It was just heart wrenching to be there and watch him and to see it, you know, what toll it took on him. I don’t know if he ever really recovered from it emotionally.

DK: I imagine that would be something very difficult to overcome. Thank you for everything you shared with me.

bboy87 said:

LMAO! I just love that gif. His face when he walks away is priceless

ViintageJunkiie said:

Mike like "this fool".

Timmy84 said:

The first face he makes is like "who's bad?! who's bad?!" *the ending vocals from the Bad extended version* .. then the second dance face is like "you know it! you know it!" .. then the Thriller face, hes like "you got served huh?" *using MJ's voice when he asked Ola if she was scared when they were walkin out the theater" .. THEN, the last face is like "Ch'mon!"

For the last few days the tabloids have been reporting the use of body doubles and stand in look a likes in the footage featured in "This is it".

"JACKO'S DOUBLE FAKE!"
Stand-in hired for movie.

"Parts of the new Jacko film features stand ins, NOT the star, his family claim. Father Joe and sister La Toya accuse Sony Pictures of "fooling" fans by using Michael Jackson impersonators. Joe said "This movie features body doubles, no doubt about it. I think people are going to tear this movie apart". Jeffre Phillips adds"I see all these great movements in the trailers but I don't believe most of those shots were Michael. He wasn't well enough. I've seen clips where I even thought, 'thats not Michael's voice. Its very upsetting for La Toya."
A Uk based impersonator says he was asked to stand in for Jacko before his death.

Here's the important bit:

"SONY DECLINED TO COMMENT"