Regarding technical stuff, me and my band recorded most of the vocals on our new album with a U47 which is what Michael used for "Dangerous".... that microphone is HEAVENLY. It's got so much warmth, depth and character. You know what's crazy? The best way to use it, is to turn it on 6 hours or more prior to using it. When you use it, you can touch the metal and it's HOT! Not burn-inducing, but more than just a little warm. And it's amazing. It's like it's alive and breathing. Well, for a microphone that can cost more than $10k, that's what you get

This is the main reason why the vocals on "Dangerous" are ALIVE. They burst out of the song right at you. It's mostly because of this mic. Bruce's mixing techniques did not change much in this time frame, but the mic makes all the difference. You know the raspy, heavy, almost rap-style vocal technique that Michael uses on "Jam", for instance? There is absolutely NO WAY he could have done that during the "Thriller" recording sessions where they used an SM7, which is a decent mic but not on the level of the U47. You don't get enough edge, enough clarity with a SM7 to do vocals like that, although it's great for more traditional R&B and pop.

Regarding this:

i think what he gave to us warrants a larger conversation about politics, spirituality, the notion of family, and how we treat ourselves, and each other. the day i find these conversations dominating our sensibilities when it comes to michael, i will be so pleased.

I wholeheartedly agree, but for a figure as iconic, deep, and beloved as Michael you have to accept that he has such a wide fanbase, of ALL ages, backgrounds, etc. So with that in mind, I don't think the type of conversations you speak of will ever dominate.

The goal should be more that they get a fair amount of discussion time, but if someone wants to come in here, drop a picture of Michael and comment "love that outfit", etc, I'm not going to begrudge them simply because they may not have the time/inclination/interest/understanding to have a philosophical conversation about Michael's spiritual sense, or how his work and life is influential on a sociopolitical level.

I understand your frustations. I really do. I've felt them too when trying to discuss things on MJ forums. It's an overwhelming abundance of the superficial much of the time. But that's the nature of the beast when you're talking about an icon of pop culture.

It's your prerogative if you feel that something you wish to discuss is not getting the attention you feel it deserves. But I think that being reactionary and simply not posting is not the right answer. The great thing about Michael is that so many of us love him the most for different reasons. It's unlikely that any of us has the exact same view and appreciation of Michael for the exact same reasons (although I think bboy87 and I might be clones of each other lol ) but things wouldn't be interesting if we were all exactly the same, and that's the beauty of the discussions we have here. Because we can all learn from each other.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

ViintageJunkiie said:

I wanna hear ALL those! From what I can remember, Crack Kills was never even recorded and Buffalo Bill goes back to 83 and I know the hook is "Who shot Buffalo Bill? They said he shot a lot, did he ever get killed?" I wanna hear his remake to Strawberry Fields

The BAD sessions are lookin more and more interesting as I look into them. Me thinks there may be two completely different sessions for BAD. ME thinks BAD was to originally be released sometime in 84 after VICTORY or in 85. We do know he was recording for the new album as early as 1983. Also, supposedly Epic stopped the release or Jermaine's Arista single "Tell Me I'm Not Dreamin" as they said if would interfere with MJ's upcoming release, BAD. I do think it was gonna be released sometime in 85, but with the success of THRILLER, why put out BAD so soon? THRILLER was still selling like hotcakes, so no reason to put out another album on the market at the same time.

So, I think he started to work on the record again after the THRILLER craze died down a bit. And then. from some other sources, BAD was to be a 3-Set LP with 30 songs.

[Edited 2/17/11 23:31pm]

plus I think they felt Michael was overexposed by then. Thinking of the appearances he made, there weren't many:

1985

January- We Are The World

March- London trip

October- Appearance in Australia

1986

May- New York appearance for Pepsi conference and Guiness Book presentation

Inglewood race track appearance

November/December- New York appearance for the Bad videoshoot

[Edited 2/18/11 11:24am]

If people are expecting anybody to discuss Michael in the light you think he should be discussed @mjjstudent, then you better be prepared for a WHOLE LOT of opposition. But why should that stop you from posting about it? It's a free country (or at least it is in layman's terms lol).

bboy87 said:

LittleBLUECorvette said:

The BAD sessions are lookin more and more interesting as I look into them. Me thinks there may be two completely different sessions for BAD. ME thinks BAD was to originally be released sometime in 84 after VICTORY or in 85. We do know he was recording for the new album as early as 1983. Also, supposedly Epic stopped the release or Jermaine's Arista single "Tell Me I'm Not Dreamin" as they said if would interfere with MJ's upcoming release, BAD. I do think it was gonna be released sometime in 85, but with the success of THRILLER, why put out BAD so soon? THRILLER was still selling like hotcakes, so no reason to put out another album on the market at the same time.

So, I think he started to work on the record again after the THRILLER craze died down a bit. And then. from some other sources, BAD was to be a 3-Set LP with 30 songs.

[Edited 2/17/11 23:31pm]

plus I think they felt Michael was overexposed by then. Thinking of the appearances he made, there weren't many:

1985

January- We Are The World

March- London trip

October- Appearance in Australia

1986

May- New York appearance for Pepsi conference and Guiness Book presentation

Inglewood race track appearance

November/December- New York appearance for the Bad videoshoot

[Edited 2/18/11 11:24am]

Releasing a new album in 1984 would've been problematic. Him holding off until 1987 was a wise decision.

Militant said:

Regarding technical stuff, me and my band recorded most of the vocals on our new album with a U47 which is what Michael used for "Dangerous".... that microphone is HEAVENLY. It's got so much warmth, depth and character. You know what's crazy? The best way to use it, is to turn it on 6 hours or more prior to using it. When you use it, you can touch the metal and it's HOT! Not burn-inducing, but more than just a little warm. And it's amazing. It's like it's alive and breathing. Well, for a microphone that can cost more than $10k, that's what you get

This is the main reason why the vocals on "Dangerous" are ALIVE. They burst out of the song right at you. It's mostly because of this mic. Bruce's mixing techniques did not change much in this time frame, but the mic makes all the difference. You know the raspy, heavy, almost rap-style vocal technique that Michael uses on "Jam", for instance? There is absolutely NO WAY he could have done that during the "Thriller" recording sessions where they used an SM7, which is a decent mic but not on the level of the U47. You don't get enough edge, enough clarity with a SM7 to do vocals like that, although it's great for more traditional R&B and pop.

Regarding this:

i think what he gave to us warrants a larger conversation about politics, spirituality, the notion of family, and how we treat ourselves, and each other. the day i find these conversations dominating our sensibilities when it comes to michael, i will be so pleased.

I wholeheartedly agree, but for a figure as iconic, deep, and beloved as Michael you have to accept that he has such a wide fanbase, of ALL ages, backgrounds, etc. So with that in mind, I don't think the type of conversations you speak of will ever dominate.

The goal should be more that they get a fair amount of discussion time, but if someone wants to come in here, drop a picture of Michael and comment "love that outfit", etc, I'm not going to begrudge them simply because they may not have the time/inclination/interest/understanding to have a philosophical conversation about Michael's spiritual sense, or how his work and life is influential on a sociopolitical level.

I understand your frustations. I really do. I've felt them too when trying to discuss things on MJ forums. It's an overwhelming abundance of the superficial much of the time. But that's the nature of the beast when you're talking about an icon of pop culture.

It's your prerogative if you feel that something you wish to discuss is not getting the attention you feel it deserves. But I think that being reactionary and simply not posting is not the right answer. The great thing about Michael is that so many of us love him the most for different reasons. It's unlikely that any of us has the exact same view and appreciation of Michael for the exact same reasons (although I think bboy87 and I might be clones of each other lol ) but things wouldn't be interesting if we were all exactly the same, and that's the beauty of the discussions we have here. Because we can all learn from each other.

This is a great post.

Militant said:

Regarding technical stuff, me and my band recorded most of the vocals on our new album with a U47 which is what Michael used for "Dangerous".... that microphone is HEAVENLY. It's got so much warmth, depth and character. You know what's crazy? The best way to use it, is to turn it on 6 hours or more prior to using it. When you use it, you can touch the metal and it's HOT! Not burn-inducing, but more than just a little warm. And it's amazing. It's like it's alive and breathing. Well, for a microphone that can cost more than $10k, that's what you get

This is the main reason why the vocals on "Dangerous" are ALIVE. They burst out of the song right at you. It's mostly because of this mic. Bruce's mixing techniques did not change much in this time frame, but the mic makes all the difference. You know the raspy, heavy, almost rap-style vocal technique that Michael uses on "Jam", for instance? There is absolutely NO WAY he could have done that during the "Thriller" recording sessions where they used an SM7, which is a decent mic but not on the level of the U47. You don't get enough edge, enough clarity with a SM7 to do vocals like that, although it's great for more traditional R&B and pop.

Regarding this:

i think what he gave to us warrants a larger conversation about politics, spirituality, the notion of family, and how we treat ourselves, and each other. the day i find these conversations dominating our sensibilities when it comes to michael, i will be so pleased.

I wholeheartedly agree, but for a figure as iconic, deep, and beloved as Michael you have to accept that he has such a wide fanbase, of ALL ages, backgrounds, etc. So with that in mind, I don't think the type of conversations you speak of will ever dominate.

The goal should be more that they get a fair amount of discussion time, but if someone wants to come in here, drop a picture of Michael and comment "love that outfit", etc, I'm not going to begrudge them simply because they may not have the time/inclination/interest/understanding to have a philosophical conversation about Michael's spiritual sense, or how his work and life is influential on a sociopolitical level.

I understand your frustations. I really do. I've felt them too when trying to discuss things on MJ forums. It's an overwhelming abundance of the superficial much of the time. But that's the nature of the beast when you're talking about an icon of pop culture.

It's your prerogative if you feel that something you wish to discuss is not getting the attention you feel it deserves. But I think that being reactionary and simply not posting is not the right answer. The great thing about Michael is that so many of us love him the most for different reasons. It's unlikely that any of us has the exact same view and appreciation of Michael for the exact same reasons (although I think bboy87 and I might be clones of each other lol ) but things wouldn't be interesting if we were all exactly the same, and that's the beauty of the discussions we have here. Because we can all learn from each other.

MJJstudent said:

sag10 said:

I refuse to read this nonsense..

why is it nonsense? because you dis-agree with it, or it makes you uncomfortable? i think there are valid points here. points we as a society need to discuss in trelation to the perpetuation of sexual violence in popular culture. michael was not immune to that. it's something we need to acknowledge. i don't think it's a bad thing.

You have every right to express your self in your posts, and I respect that.

Sexual violence is an everyday thing, I can go to CNN.com and read all about it, but in this forum I chose to keep it light, we live in a very violent world as it is.

Don't leave because some don't agree, that is the beauty of free speech!

Unholyalliance said:

MJJstudent said:

i don't think your interpretation of the 'way you make me feel' video is wrong (as it is your interpretation)... i must say it still disturbed me. why is michael stalking this woman? leave her alone! let her be, let her go to where she is going in peace. his relentlessness is not only unattractive, but frightening. again, i have had this same thing happen to me (by both strangers AND people i thought were friends), and i had to put a stop to it. i wasn't giving off any signals that i was in the slightest bit attracted to them. there is a point where it's important to read body language. how tatiana gave in was very disappointing, and i think set back women in a lot of ways. it was as if she was weak and could not defend herself. what is this 'weak/helpless woman' crap? i mean she was already so skinny that you could break her in half. and then she couldn't put her stilettos up somebody's ass for stalking her? no way... no way!

lol I just found this today:

http://www.washingtoncity...n-edition/

Off-screen, Jackson's sex life was notoriously tortured—rumors in the press pegged Jackson alternately as a lifelong virgin, a pedophile, and a freak. In his music videos, we saw Jackson play with sexual violence and physical domination in order to portray the image of complete sexual control.

Michael Jackson Date Rape Anthem: "The Way You Make Me Feel"

Relevant Lyrics:

Why It's So Rapey: In the "Billie Jean" video, a rogue Michael Jackson sneaks into a woman's bed at night as he's chased by a band of police. The woman, obscured beneath the covers, shows no sign of being awake, or in fact registering Jackson's presence at all! The sheets nevertheless erupt into a metaphorical flash of light, signifying doin' it. Then, Jackson vanishes into thin air, underlining the song's assertion that Billie Jean is totally lying about all of this. Tragically for MJ, charges of sexual assault weren't relegated to the fictional sphere: Jackson was acquitted of sex abuse allegations in 2005.

Michael Jackson Date Rape Anthem: "Thriller"

Relevant Lyrics:

They're out to get you, there's demons closing in on every side
They will possess you unless you change that number on your dial
Now is the time for you and I to cuddle close together, yeah
All through the night I'll save you from the terror on the screen
I'll make you see

That this is thriller, thriller night
'Cause I can thrill you more than any ghost would ever dare try
Thriller, thriller night
So let me hold you tight and share a
Killer, diller, chiller, thriller here tonight

Why It's So Rapey: In "Thriller," a young man attempts to scare his date by taunting herwith horror film phantoms—and insisting that she needs to come home with him to avoid them.

There's a domestic violence lesson to be learned here: The guy who insists that you need his protection in return for sexual favors (implied) is actually much more dangerous than any of the shit he's claiming to protect you from. (" I can thrill you more than any ghost would ever dare try.") In the case of "Thriller," the bogeyman keeping the girl close to Jackson takes the form of ghouls, blood-seeking creatures, and "the thing with forty eyes." In real life, the phantom dangers abusive men use to make women stay include "never being able to find a guy like me again," "being unhappy forever," and/or "doing it for the kids."

That's hilarious.

They managed to somehow take the most innocent, innocuous songs and get absolutely the most sinister meaning possible out of them.

Although I've joked (and heard others joke) about how if the TWYMMF vid was real-life, the girl would've called the cops like two minutes into that whole thing. lol

Timmy84 said:

If people are expecting anybody to discuss Michael in the light you think he should be discussed @mjjstudent, then you better be prepared for a WHOLE LOT of opposition. But why should that stop you from posting about it? It's a free country (or at least it is in layman's terms lol).

i agree with you in many ways, but what's the point of posting things if (a. there's going to be mass opposition (with no discussion as to why) and (b. virtually no response? again, it's like i would be talking to air. and that's not a lot of fun. in fact, it hurts.

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

If people are expecting anybody to discuss Michael in the light you think he should be discussed @mjjstudent, then you better be prepared for a WHOLE LOT of opposition. But why should that stop you from posting about it? It's a free country (or at least it is in layman's terms lol).

i agree with you in many ways, but what's the point of posting things if (a. there's going to be mass opposition (with no discussion as to why) and (b. virtually no response? again, it's like i would be talking to air. and that's not a lot of fun. in fact, it hurts.

Why are you afraid of that? I face that every day I post a thread with some good music in it.

Militant said:

Regarding technical stuff, me and my band recorded most of the vocals on our new album with a U47 which is what Michael used for "Dangerous".... that microphone is HEAVENLY. It's got so much warmth, depth and character. You know what's crazy? The best way to use it, is to turn it on 6 hours or more prior to using it. When you use it, you can touch the metal and it's HOT! Not burn-inducing, but more than just a little warm. And it's amazing. It's like it's alive and breathing. Well, for a microphone that can cost more than $10k, that's what you get

This is the main reason why the vocals on "Dangerous" are ALIVE. They burst out of the song right at you. It's mostly because of this mic. Bruce's mixing techniques did not change much in this time frame, but the mic makes all the difference. You know the raspy, heavy, almost rap-style vocal technique that Michael uses on "Jam", for instance? There is absolutely NO WAY he could have done that during the "Thriller" recording sessions where they used an SM7, which is a decent mic but not on the level of the U47. You don't get enough edge, enough clarity with a SM7 to do vocals like that, although it's great for more traditional R&B and pop.

Regarding this:

i think what he gave to us warrants a larger conversation about politics, spirituality, the notion of family, and how we treat ourselves, and each other. the day i find these conversations dominating our sensibilities when it comes to michael, i will be so pleased.

I wholeheartedly agree, but for a figure as iconic, deep, and beloved as Michael you have to accept that he has such a wide fanbase, of ALL ages, backgrounds, etc. So with that in mind, I don't think the type of conversations you speak of will ever dominate.

The goal should be more that they get a fair amount of discussion time, but if someone wants to come in here, drop a picture of Michael and comment "love that outfit", etc, I'm not going to begrudge them simply because they may not have the time/inclination/interest/understanding to have a philosophical conversation about Michael's spiritual sense, or how his work and life is influential on a sociopolitical level.

I understand your frustations. I really do. I've felt them too when trying to discuss things on MJ forums. It's an overwhelming abundance of the superficial much of the time. But that's the nature of the beast when you're talking about an icon of pop culture.

It's your prerogative if you feel that something you wish to discuss is not getting the attention you feel it deserves. But I think that being reactionary and simply not posting is not the right answer. The great thing about Michael is that so many of us love him the most for different reasons. It's unlikely that any of us has the exact same view and appreciation of Michael for the exact same reasons (although I think bboy87 and I might be clones of each other lol ) but things wouldn't be interesting if we were all exactly the same, and that's the beauty of the discussions we have here. Because we can all learn from each other.

thank you so much for letting me know about the microphones, and the tips on how to get the sound! it sounds like on 'dangerous' michael was a lot closer to the microphone than on prior recordings. it also sounds like he's using a flanger effect on the vocals, starting with dangerous.

i know bruce spoke about the microphones in his book, but did he introduce them to michael, or did michael sort of scout around himself, until he found the ones he liked for the album?

i think the microphone we use at the station i do stuff at is an SM6... i need to check on that again. but when swedien was speaking about that, i got really interested. and i believe the SM series are better for male voices, due to the angle. something to that effect. women have to project their voices more with the SMs.

===============================

on the second subject, i agree with you for sure, a billion percent... i don't think the discussions should be uniform. however, it's extremely frustrating when there's not really ANY philosophical dialog on michael, outside of academic circles. an even larger frustration is that it remains there, in this bubble. it appears that a vast majority of the conversation, wherever i go, tends to be superficial. it's not even a FAIR amount of discussion time; because there's NONE.

should the people who run this site opt to dedicate a thread for a more serious/less superficial discussion on michael? would they WANT to do this? and would people post on it?

i guess for me, even though i consider michael to be my life's teacher, i don't see him as iconic, as i do not worship him. i see him as a man, worthy of critique as the rest of us. he just happened to teach in the field of music. so the clothes, the dancing and the like are not as pivotal to me, in terms of my feelings about him. i just wished there was more of a focus on his teachings, his messages.

the thing is, if there was a significant portion of these discussions already happening i would not feel as strong about it as i do. but again, i don't see it happening anywhere. and it's frustrating when i post things and i just get no response, or i get grief. so it makes me not want to do anything at all. it's like, what is the point?

again, when this new forum went up, i posted a thing asking people what their favourite arrangements were- and he would have had to have been credited with composing the song on his own. and i don't recall anyone answering. i am sincerely interested in how people view the science of composition, how he does it. apparently, no one else is here.

i am no better than anyone else on this forum. i think people are so much better/smarter than they are when discussing the superficialities. i guess i expect too much from people. so when i see people are not using their full capabilities it makes me disappointed/impatient. i feel like my time is limited when i don't see the best in people. it's like i am wasting my time, if people are not going to bring their best out, mentally. it hurts my feelings, honestly. i agree this is an issue. i am just putting it out there.

this is why i could never work in a field like michael's. i demand too much from people, i would never like entertaining people for a living (if that meant compromising my beliefs), and i'm too opinionated. and i hate small talk with an intense passion. it saddens/upsets me to see how much small talk famous people have to deal with.

i work in community radio, but i get to ask people philosophical questions, where their responses are extra long. this is what i love to do. and this is why i do not really watch or listen to popular media. i miss the days of gil noble and them. THAT was compelling media!

sag10 said:

MJJstudent said:

why is it nonsense? because you dis-agree with it, or it makes you uncomfortable? i think there are valid points here. points we as a society need to discuss in trelation to the perpetuation of sexual violence in popular culture. michael was not immune to that. it's something we need to acknowledge. i don't think it's a bad thing.

You have every right to express your self in your posts, and I respect that.

Sexual violence is an everyday thing, I can go to CNN.com and read all about it, but in this forum I chose to keep it light, we live in a very violent world as it is.

Don't leave because some don't agree, that is the beauty of free speech!

for me, there are WAAAAAY too many things regarding michael which are NOT light. issues like familial abuse, depression, self-esteem, etc. is there really a space to discuss those things here, if there is more of a tendency to keep things light?

there is a space for everything, for sure, but if the 'dark stuff' is never discussed, how can we as a culture and society, do any healing? i think these subjects need to move beyond the sentiments owned by time warner (CNN), MSNBC (GE/comcast) of fox (news corp.) and into our communities. this is why i find it utterly important to discuss these things here.

Timmy84 said:

MJJstudent said:

i agree with you in many ways, but what's the point of posting things if (a. there's going to be mass opposition (with no discussion as to why) and (b. virtually no response? again, it's like i would be talking to air. and that's not a lot of fun. in fact, it hurts.

Why are you afraid of that? I face that every day I post a thread with some good music in it.

i'm not afraid, it just hurts. i don't post things just to post them. so if it feels like people don't take what i post seriously (or if it feel like people are ignoring what i say), it's like what is the point?

again, i just wish there was a forum for the purpose of having long, drawn out philosophical conversations... the old school type, before text messaging culture took over. as you can see, i write a lot. i wrote a friend of mine a 97-page letter once. this is what i love to do. it's not like i have all the time in the world either, but when i do, that's what i do, i write. this is why i stay up after work until the sun comes up. all i do is write.

Derek1984 said:

^^ I think when all is said and done, the best outtakes will have been from BAD. 2 songs that really interest me are Buffalo Bill and Tomboy. IIRC, in a deposition, MJ was asked about Tomboy and he started singing the song to himself and was grooving to it.

I think Buffalo Bill was worked on a lot. It started in '83 and Frank Dileo was quoted in Rolling Stone saying it was another hit dance song. I then asked an engineer that worked on BAD over in the Gearslutz forum about this song and he replied back that they DID work on it and it had a heavy John Barnes influence. I believe it was worked on for Victory and BAD.

And also, don't forget about the song called Apocalypse Now. I also have high hopes about a song titled "What You Do To Me". And if Groove of Midnight was ever recorded, that sounds like it could be amazing.

2012/13 should be all about BAD. It's the 25th anniversary. They should release a double disc and also finally the BAD Tour on dvd. Oh, and they should release the original cover that Michael wanted for the album... I believe that's already been posted on here. The picture with drawings on his face.

[Edited 2/18/11 6:33am]

[Edited 2/18/11 6:34am]

Cool, hope they see the light of day sometime.

I used to discuss michael deeply years ago but stopped doing it out of laziness and just being busy lately, though I still feel about the same. This is just a message board and it's hard to tell what everyone is thinking based on what's being posted. But I also agree that since his death, I'm finding that less fans are digging deep like a few of us are. I don't understand how casual fans don't "get it" all the time when it comes to him. I'd write all about the music too and the deeper meanings behind them and interpret the music, but felt I could only do it so many times...

I like to discuss Michael and his music deeply...but in recent months I've just taken a more laid back position. And now, I've been plagued by terrible dreams.. I realise why I don't do it as often.

So going back to laid back...

To MJJStudent - I am sorry for not taking part in a "deeper" conversation with you. Basically in the past months, I have narrowed my posts here to posting pictures and here and there replying to stuff that gets my interest and that has happened for several reasons:

1. I have gotten busier over the last years

2. With Mike's death, I somehow cannot be bothered to follow much of the news and I can't even explain why. It somehow all feels irrelevant now that he's gone.

3. I don't get into that musical and equipment discussion because I am not a musician, never been to a studio and therefore I really could not care less what microphone he used etc., cause I've never seen, used or held in my hand any of them. How could I possible join a discussion like that? I'd have no idea what I'd be talking about. I can understand that those of you who are musician and record are interested for obvious reasons, but don't be mad at me that I am not.

4. As for the lyrics discussion and the meaning of the song, I have to admit that I have never thought that much about them cause when it comes to music, I rarelly pay attention the the lyrics cause I am just so much into the music that I usually don't care. Sometimes I do notice them and think about them, but not that often so if you can bring here something interesting that I haven't thought about, I will be happy, but don't expect me to jump in right there and state my opinion cause I like to think about things first and then express myself.

[Edited 2/19/11 1:34am]

According to the lattest court documents the executors have given Katherine 5,3 millions, on top of the allowance. So why does she keep complaining? It seems to me that the legendary ungratfulness that always carachterized the Jacksons still runs alive.

MJJstudent said:

Unholyalliance said:

Why It's So Rapey: In "Thriller," a young man attempts to scare his date by taunting herwith horror film phantoms—and insisting that she needs to come home with him to avoid them.

There's a domestic violence lesson to be learned here: The guy who insists that you need his protection in return for sexual favors (implied) is actually much more dangerous than any of the shit he's claiming to protect you from. (" I can thrill you more than any ghost would ever dare try.") In the case of "Thriller," the bogeyman keeping the girl close to Jackson takes the form of ghouls, blood-seeking creatures, and "the thing with forty eyes." In real life, the phantom dangers abusive men use to make women stay include "never being able to find a guy like me again," "being unhappy forever," and/or "doing it for the kids."

i am probably alone when i see the points in this... those are actually some of my least favourite songs too. it's no secret that michael had issues with women, due to how he grew up. so i can see where this piece is coming from. i don't see these interpretations as stupid at all. i definitely see michael playing with violence in ways which were not healthy. and popular culture conditions us to ignore and accept it. and people who speak out against it are seen as 'reading too much into it', or being 'no fun'.

we have yet to take sexual abuse of women (and men, boys and girls) seriously. thanks for posting this.

Well, whenever Mike spoke about music videos, he spoke about them as an "entertainment". I am not sure if he himself saw these interpretations in his work just as most of us have not. Besides some of the work analyzed here is not Michael´s. Michael did not write Thriller and I am not sure which of the video concepts were really his. From what he said, his only input on Billie Jean video was the dancing part and I would have to check to see if how much of the videos to TWYMMF and Thriller were Michael´s ideas. Of course, he agreed to them and made them, but how can you know he was aware of these things.

And btw, what are you impliing with some of your posts saying that Mike had issues with women? We surely don´t know that much about his relationships with them. The only woman who has ever spoken more in depth about their relationship was Lisa. To me, it seemed like quite a "normal" marriage considering the circumstances. Or are you implying that Mike have been treating women similarly to what is being "portrayed" in those videos? If so, which women and relationships are you particularly talking about or do you believe that he was a paedophile? I don´t and from my point of view it seems that his relationships with women were more normal than they may seem at first sight.

[Edited 2/19/11 4:41am]

dag said:

MJJstudent said:

i am probably alone when i see the points in this... those are actually some of my least favourite songs too. it's no secret that michael had issues with women, due to how he grew up. so i can see where this piece is coming from. i don't see these interpretations as stupid at all. i definitely see michael playing with violence in ways which were not healthy. and popular culture conditions us to ignore and accept it. and people who speak out against it are seen as 'reading too much into it', or being 'no fun'.

we have yet to take sexual abuse of women (and men, boys and girls) seriously. thanks for posting this.

Well, whenever Mike spoke about music videos, he spoke about them as an "entertainment". I am not sure if he himself saw these interpretations in his work just as most of us have not. Besides some of the work analyzed here is not Michael´s. Michael did not write Thriller and I am not sure which of the video concepts were really his. From what he said, his only input on Billie Jean video was the dancing part and I would have to check to see if how much of the videos to TWYMMF and Thriller were Michael´s ideas. Of course, he agreed to them and made them, but how can you know he was aware of these things.

And btw, what are you impliing with some of your posts saying that Mike had issues with women? We surely don´t know that much about his relationships with them. The only woman who has ever spoken more in depth about their relationship was Lisa. To me, it seemed like quite a "normal" marriage considering the circumstances. Or are you implying that Mike have been treating women similarly to what is being "portrayed" in those videos? If so, which women and relationships are you particularly talking about or do you believe that he was a paedophile? I don´t and from my point of view it seems that his relationships with women were more normal than they may seem at first sight.

[Edited 2/19/11 4:41am]

to answer your questions... i definitely agree with you in that i don't think michael necessarily interpreted the videos in relation to a deeper political meaning. i must say this makes me very sad. i think he began to use his music as a political tool, begining in 1987 (but you see its roots in 1985)- THIS is the point i began to appreciate michael as an (adult) artist more, as he moved beyond the typical romance and dance music. he spoke of the (in)justice system in ways not a lot of popular artists of his stature were doing (save prince).

for better or for worse, how someone presents their views politically is what attracts me to an artist. if you hold little to no positive political voice (either publicly or through your music), i don't really listen to you as an artist. it's like, are you for true freedom, or not? are you gonna stand firm when it all goes down, or are you gonna buckle under this corporatist control?!

i also know that a lot of the videos (particularly 'billie jean') were not his idea, save the dance bits. still, just because the ideas were not his he was still complicit in presenting those images to the public. i mean, he was swayed by the JWs from burning the 'thriller' film- he could have also said- some of these images make me uncomfortable, i want to do it again. that's what he did when they recorded the 'thriller' album. he had SOME say over which images were presented. he was very conscious about how he controlled his image, so i am not going to assume he is fully innocent. he is not immune from critique.

i am actually going by interviews (in particular the ones he did with boteach), as well as how i perceive the videos of course, where he was pretty open in his comments about women. i wouldn't say they were the ultimate in mysogyny, but i will say that we take on some of the traits we grew up around. and from seeing him speak about his father (and looking at joe's actions) i would not be surprised if there were issues. i can only go by my perspective/perceptions, of course, since i did not personally know him in this life. just as we are ALL going by our perceptions on how we view him. no one is wrong or right.

i'm not sure why this is a battle between wrong or right. we are all shaped by our experiences. you and i happen to view michael's view on women differently, i suppose.

again, i ask, what is 'normal'? that is also relative. i am not implying at all that michael treated women how he did in the videos. i actually mentioned this in another conversation in this thread... i am just saying that i have an issue when perhaps, he (or anyone else) feels, in order to appear 'normal' he must act aggressive towards women, if this indeed is the opposite of who he considers himself to be.

wow... do i believe he was a paedophile? i am not sure where this question stems from, as i never implied such a thing, referring to his relationship with children. just because you are not aggressive towards women does this mean you are thereby sexually attracted to children? OF COURSE NOT. why do men need to represent some form of aggressive heterosexist norm?

i, in my own perceptions, like when he is assertive on the creative and business front. however, as a person, i quite like when he presents himself as gentle. i think it's funny when he's observing women, but he's pretty goofy and playful when he does it- to me, it's not at all like how he presents himself in the videos.

again, what is 'normal'? to me, i liked that he never discussed his relationships with women. that stuff is PRIVATE. he was also quite open about this. i appreciate that he was a proponent of no sex before marriage. i appreciate that he put GOD in his life first.

again, no one is right or wrong in this dialog. we all just have different views. my thing is, I JUST WANT THE DIALOG TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN THAN IT IS HAPPENING. and i am finally glad it is here on this forum.

MOL said:

According to the lattest court documents the executors have given Katherine 5,3 millions, on top of the allowance. So why does she keep complaining? It seems to me that the legendary ungratfulness that always carachterized the Jacksons still runs alive.

grrrrrrr... these people are guided by EVIL!

alphastreet said:

I used to discuss michael deeply years ago but stopped doing it out of laziness and just being busy lately, though I still feel about the same. This is just a message board and it's hard to tell what everyone is thinking based on what's being posted. But I also agree that since his death, I'm finding that less fans are digging deep like a few of us are. I don't understand how casual fans don't "get it" all the time when it comes to him. I'd write all about the music too and the deeper meanings behind them and interpret the music, but felt I could only do it so many times...

i would love to see what everyone is thinking though. this is what i thought message boards were about. maybe my concept of message boards, it's all warped. i thought people share ideas and theories back and forth. for instance, even though i don't agree that michael faked his transition, the conversations about that are compelling in those forums, because people pull reasonings out of EVERYWHERE!!! i love reading that stuff because it's so detailed.

the thing is, it's not the sort of community i want to be a part of. so... where's the community of folks who love to wax poetic about michael, with long posts? this is ultimately what i am looking for. i don't really have a community of michael people i belong to. it's lonely. after my friend transcended, i realized how much support i DON'T get in the way i discuss michael. my ONE friend was equal to a full community. we could talk for hours on end about the socio-political impact michael has made to the world. and now he's gone, i don't have anybody.

i don't like talking about michael lightly. when i say i am a student, i am serious. i examine michael as my teacher, in the same way one would a university course or something. except i don't need the institution for that. i think the world is a perfect place to examine him. but the world does not accept it.

SherryJackson said:

I like to discuss Michael and his music deeply...but in recent months I've just taken a more laid back position. And now, I've been plagued by terrible dreams.. I realise why I don't do it as often.

So going back to laid back...

i have had very vivid, sometimes disturbing dreams after michael's transition. and i usually write the dreams down in a blog piece. for me, as i student i just take my study extremely seriously. and i have been on the search for others who take the studies just as seriously, with the same amount of enthusiasm. if i am not at work or doing radio, this is my life. even when i am spending time with someone, there is always an aspect of my studies at play. people know this about me.

when it comes to michael i am not laid back at all. to me, this is an emergency, to find a serious community. i have posted about this numerous times on my facebook page actually, and i don't really get a response. so as my friend says, you are just gonna have to go it alone. at some points i am okay with that. but we humans by nature seek companionship. it gets lonely being a solo student.

dag said:

To MJJStudent - I am sorry for not taking part in a "deeper" conversation with you. Basically in the past months, I have narrowed my posts here to posting pictures and here and there replying to stuff that gets my interest and that has happened for several reasons:

1. I have gotten busier over the last years

2. With Mike's death, I somehow cannot be bothered to follow much of the news and I can't even explain why. It somehow all feels irrelevant now that he's gone.

3. I don't get into that musical and equipment discussion because I am not a musician, never been to a studio and therefore I really could not care less what microphone he used etc., cause I've never seen, used or held in my hand any of them. How could I possible join a discussion like that? I'd have no idea what I'd be talking about. I can understand that those of you who are musician and record are interested for obvious reasons, but don't be mad at me that I am not.

4. As for the lyrics discussion and the meaning of the song, I have to admit that I have never thought that much about them cause when it comes to music, I rarelly pay attention the the lyrics cause I am just so much into the music that I usually don't care. Sometimes I do notice them and think about them, but not that often so if you can bring here something interesting that I haven't thought about, I will be happy, but don't expect me to jump in right there and state my opinion cause I like to think about things first and then express myself.

[Edited 2/19/11 1:34am]

for me, when i see something i respond to, i jump right in. i love the sponteneity of dialogs in that way. children respond in the same way... it keeps them honest. if they don't like you they will say so. if they like you, they will also say so.

again, i am seeking other serious students of michael;. this is one of the reasons i joined this forum. i have tried so many other ways, i don't even know what to do anymore.

what i mean by this is: i acknowledge that everyone's relationship to michael is different. for me, i am openly looking for a community of people who are serious about the socio-political and philosophical significance of michael's teachings and works. this is what i am most interested in. i don't want my experience to be relegated to a university setting. this is a discussion the WORLD should be having, in one form or another. i see michael as a very significant political figure, relating to the fabric of this nation; firstly, as a black man in the u.s., and secondly as a figure regarding the state of the nature of corporatist/capitalist sensibilities. i think he's also pivotal in the discussion regarding the family structure, and how the concept of self-esteem is framed.

THIS IS ALL I WANT. to find a community to discuss these things consistently. if i don't ask or put it out in the universe, how can i find this community? it certainly won't occur by remaining silent in my own thoughts. i don't feel as if i am asking for too much. ALL I AM ASKING FOR IS A COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE TO SHARE THIS EXPERIENCE WITH. i figured there was a chance that could happen here, but apparently, i thought wrong.

if someone can lead me to that community of people, i will sincerely thank you.

i am not asking EVERYONE to become involved in these discussions- if that is not your field of interest then i don't see how you would want to be involved. but is there not ONE person here interested in this dialog? not ONE person?

in terms of lyrics, i pay very close attention to them. the nature of pop music is to hypnotize people with the beat, so you do not pay attention to the content. this is why so many songs about sex and violence get on the radio. what is the intent of the song? is it about positive and pro-active movement and vibration? despite some songs of michael's being very dark; for the most part the vibrations he sent out were about love. 'why you wanna trip on me', ''man in the mirror', 'the lost children'... those songs were about awareness. music is supposed to feed our subconscious mind in positive ways.

so much of the popular music we see today is motivated by dark/evil forces. the imagery is set to control our base chakras, without giving equal energy to the others.

michael was actually a keen study on the subconscious, so his presence in pop music was actually very relevant.

MJJstudent said:

dag said:

Well, whenever Mike spoke about music videos, he spoke about them as an "entertainment". I am not sure if he himself saw these interpretations in his work just as most of us have not. Besides some of the work analyzed here is not Michael´s. Michael did not write Thriller and I am not sure which of the video concepts were really his. From what he said, his only input on Billie Jean video was the dancing part and I would have to check to see if how much of the videos to TWYMMF and Thriller were Michael´s ideas. Of course, he agreed to them and made them, but how can you know he was aware of these things.

And btw, what are you impliing with some of your posts saying that Mike had issues with women? We surely don´t know that much about his relationships with them. The only woman who has ever spoken more in depth about their relationship was Lisa. To me, it seemed like quite a "normal" marriage considering the circumstances. Or are you implying that Mike have been treating women similarly to what is being "portrayed" in those videos? If so, which women and relationships are you particularly talking about or do you believe that he was a paedophile? I don´t and from my point of view it seems that his relationships with women were more normal than they may seem at first sight.

[Edited 2/19/11 4:41am]

to answer your questions... i definitely agree with you in that i don't think michael necessarily interpreted the videos in relation to a deeper political meaning. i must say this makes me very sad. i think he began to use his music as a political tool, begining in 1987 (but you see its roots in 1985)- THIS is the point i began to appreciate michael as an (adult) artist more, as he moved beyond the typical romance and dance music. he spoke of the (in)justice system in ways not a lot of popular artists of his stature were doing (save prince).

for better or for worse, how someone presents their views politically is what attracts me to an artist. if you hold little to no positive political voice (either publicly or through your music), i don't really listen to you as an artist. it's like, are you for true freedom, or not? are you gonna stand firm when it all goes down, or are you gonna buckle under this corporatist control?!

i also know that a lot of the videos (particularly 'billie jean') were not his idea, save the dance bits. still, just because the ideas were not his he was still complicit in presenting those images to the public. i mean, he was swayed by the JWs from burning the 'thriller' film- he could have also said- some of these images make me uncomfortable, i want to do it again. that's what he did when they recorded the 'thriller' album. he had SOME say over which images were presented. he was very conscious about how he controlled his image, so i am not going to assume he is fully innocent. he is not immune from critique.

i am actually going by interviews (in particular the ones he did with boteach), as well as how i perceive the videos of course, where he was pretty open in his comments about women. i wouldn't say they were the ultimate in mysogyny, but i will say that we take on some of the traits we grew up around. and from seeing him speak about his father (and looking at joe's actions) i would not be surprised if there were issues. i can only go by my perspective/perceptions, of course, since i did not personally know him in this life. just as we are ALL going by our perceptions on how we view him. no one is wrong or right.

i'm not sure why this is a battle between wrong or right. we are all shaped by our experiences. you and i happen to view michael's view on women differently, i suppose.

again, i ask, what is 'normal'? that is also relative. i am not implying at all that michael treated women how he did in the videos. i actually mentioned this in another conversation in this thread... i am just saying that i have an issue when perhaps, he (or anyone else) feels, in order to appear 'normal' he must act aggressive towards women, if this indeed is the opposite of who he considers himself to be.

wow... do i believe he was a paedophile? i am not sure where this question stems from, as i never implied such a thing, referring to his relationship with children. just because you are not aggressive towards women does this mean you are thereby sexually attracted to children? OF COURSE NOT. why do men need to represent some form of aggressive heterosexist norm?

i, in my own perceptions, like when he is assertive on the creative and business front. however, as a person, i quite like when he presents himself as gentle. i think it's funny when he's observing women, but he's pretty goofy and playful when he does it- to me, it's not at all like how he presents himself in the videos.

again, what is 'normal'? to me, i liked that he never discussed his relationships with women. that stuff is PRIVATE. he was also quite open about this. i appreciate that he was a proponent of no sex before marriage. i appreciate that he put GOD in his life first.

again, no one is right or wrong in this dialog. we all just have different views. my thing is, I JUST WANT THE DIALOG TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN THAN IT IS HAPPENING. and i am finally glad it is here on this forum.

I am not sure if Mike ever was "political". He just always fought for what he believed in - for the planet and love in general. And he fought for that no matter what. He never stopped fighting for children even though the world tried to cruciffy him for that. That is what I admire him for.

As you said that he is not all that innocent when it came to the videos, well if he wasnˇt aware of these interpretations, you cannot criticise him for that. I am sure he wouldnˇt wanna portray such images considering how he resented his father´s and brothers´ actions. I saw him as being "playful". It´s the same as when some poeple see his playing with kids inappropriately. As you say, itˇs about one´s point of view and I think "knowing" him, he was rather playful than "aggresive" with those women. Also I don´t think Mike was "trying to be aggresive" to appear normal. From what I´ve heard, he was a flirt and I don´t think that in those videos he was trying to be someone he, in fact, wasn´t. It´s just that people refused to see him this way and took anything like that from him as phony, unless it didn´t concern boys. I think it´s actually sad when people are trying to make this be sinister cause what do you expect from him then? If he didn´t do stuff like that at all, he´d be even weirder. When he does it, he´s trying to hard or covering something else. I really don´t know what he was supposed to do to be "normal". You can tell us what type of "story" or video woud you consider appropriate from him. I think comparing him to other artists, he wasn´t aggressive at all. I don´t understand why people wanna point to something like that when we are living in a world, where women dress as whores and man portray them as pure sex objects in the videos. Just watch any of the music videos today.

I was asking you whether you thought he was a paedophile just because you said something in a sense you like it when people point to things like sexual agression towards men (or children and boys).

MJJstudent said:

SherryJackson said:

I like to discuss Michael and his music deeply...but in recent months I've just taken a more laid back position. And now, I've been plagued by terrible dreams.. I realise why I don't do it as often.

So going back to laid back...

i have had very vivid, sometimes disturbing dreams after michael's transition. and i usually write the dreams down in a blog piece. for me, as i student i just take my study extremely seriously. and i have been on the search for others who take the studies just as seriously, with the same amount of enthusiasm. if i am not at work or doing radio, this is my life. even when i am spending time with someone, there is always an aspect of my studies at play. people know this about me.

when it comes to michael i am not laid back at all. to me, this is an emergency, to find a serious community. i have posted about this numerous times on my facebook page actually, and i don't really get a response. so as my friend says, you are just gonna have to go it alone. at some points i am okay with that. but we humans by nature seek companionship. it gets lonely being a solo student.

And let me straigten this out. I do take Mike very serously, but you have to understand that you have joined a board where most of us have been here for a couple of years by now and we´ve discussed most of these things so many times that we are just tired of discussing them again. Or at least I am. There´s been so much drama over the years that it got tiring, so I just join only some of the discussion now.

for better or for worse, how someone presents their views politically is what attracts me to an artist. if you hold little to no positive political voice (either publicly or through your music), i don't really listen to you as an artist. it's like, are you for true freedom, or not? are you gonna stand firm when it all goes down, or are you gonna buckle under this corporatist control?!

See, I just care about the music. If the music is good, I´ll listen to it. And if you manage to even fight for something, then I am going to even admire you as a person, but you don´t have to fight for something for me to enjoy the music. If the music and everything else about you sucks, I am going to ignore you completely.

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

Why are you afraid of that? I face that every day I post a thread with some good music in it.

i'm not afraid, it just hurts. i don't post things just to post them. so if it feels like people don't take what i post seriously (or if it feel like people are ignoring what i say), it's like what is the point?

again, i just wish there was a forum for the purpose of having long, drawn out philosophical conversations... the old school type, before text messaging culture took over. as you can see, i write a lot. i wrote a friend of mine a 97-page letter once. this is what i love to do. it's not like i have all the time in the world either, but when i do, that's what i do, i write. this is why i stay up after work until the sun comes up. all i do is write.

Do you completely identify MJ a person with MJ an artist/public figure/guy in the videos?

If not, which criteria do you use to keep them separate?

Do you believe that every his public move was either political or social message and expressed exactly his position and views?

Did it also apply to his music videos?

Do you think they contained an element of… "doing what is considered to be cool at the time"? Flirting with public, taking into account its expectation?

Compromises?

Possibly, self-irony?

The women-subject doesn't appeal to me at all (sorry) - moreso, a dozen of users in this forum will tell you at once that MJ "had no issues with women at all, he chased them at the backseat, period", but I would like to know your opinion about HIStory era and his turn to totalitarian imagery.

That is, by the time the album came out and advertising company started, there was as good as no other way than… not to take it too seriously. We all bought it, of course - in fact, everybody I knew bought it: to express their support after the child molestation issue; but objectively - and visually - it was almost the worst stuff one could come to old continent with. For many - like a slap in the face. Hope, I don't have to explain why.

Now, would you concur in that-time-assumption that MJ "just" got impressed with the superficial glitter and monumentality of totalitarianism, and played with its symbols without realizing WHAT exactly they represented?

Or would you say it was a political message and he actually approved of this regime or, at least, saw its good sides? Enough to propagate it?

Or did he mean it ironically???

Would really like to know what you think of it; and, once again, about your criteria of taking an issue "absolutely, deadly seriously" and "not so very seriously".

greatpink said:

MJJstudent said:

i'm not afraid, it just hurts. i don't post things just to post them. so if it feels like people don't take what i post seriously (or if it feel like people are ignoring what i say), it's like what is the point?

again, i just wish there was a forum for the purpose of having long, drawn out philosophical conversations... the old school type, before text messaging culture took over. as you can see, i write a lot. i wrote a friend of mine a 97-page letter once. this is what i love to do. it's not like i have all the time in the world either, but when i do, that's what i do, i write. this is why i stay up after work until the sun comes up. all i do is write.

Do you completely identify MJ a person with MJ an artist/public figure/guy in the videos?

If not, which criteria do you use to keep them separate?

Do you believe that every his public move was either political or social message and expressed exactly his position and views?

Did it also apply to his music videos?

Do you think they contained an element of… "doing what is considered to be cool at the time"? Flirting with public, taking into account its expectation?

Compromises?

Possibly, self-irony?

The women-subject doesn't appeal to me at all (sorry) - moreso, a dozen of users in this forum will tell you at once that MJ "had no issues with women at all, he chased them at the backseat, period", but I would like to know your opinion about HIStory era and his turn to totalitarian imagery.

That is, by the time the album came out and advertising company started, there was as good as no other way than… not to take it too seriously. We all bought it, of course - in fact, everybody I knew bought it: to express their support after the child molestation issue; but objectively - and visually - it was almost the worst stuff one could come to old continent with. For many - like a slap in the face. Hope, I don't have to explain why.

Now, would you concur in that-time-assumption that MJ "just" got impressed with the superficial glitter and monumentality of totalitarianism, and played with its symbols without realizing WHAT exactly they represented?

Or would you say it was a political message and he actually approved of this regime or, at least, saw its good sides? Enough to propagate it?

Or did he mean it ironically???

Would really like to know what you think of it; and, once again, about your criteria of taking an issue "absolutely, deadly seriously" and "not so very seriously".

I personally bought History cause I loved the music, not just to support him after the allegations even though I did support him all the time.

As for that History advertising, I got an answer during the Prime Time. "I wanted everybody´s attention." The expression on his face was quite revealing. I think he was really going for the controversy. Plus he was always obssesed with military stuff and the way he portrayed himself as a "leader that everyone adored" was more about him laughing in the face of those who fought they could destroy him. I took it as an irony. Knowing he was interested in history, he should have known what he was implying to, but I think he just did it for the controversy of it.

dag said:

MJJstudent said:

to answer your questions... i definitely agree with you in that i don't think michael necessarily interpreted the videos in relation to a deeper political meaning. i must say this makes me very sad. i think he began to use his music as a political tool, begining in 1987 (but you see its roots in 1985)- THIS is the point i began to appreciate michael as an (adult) artist more, as he moved beyond the typical romance and dance music. he spoke of the (in)justice system in ways not a lot of popular artists of his stature were doing (save prince).

for better or for worse, how someone presents their views politically is what attracts me to an artist. if you hold little to no positive political voice (either publicly or through your music), i don't really listen to you as an artist. it's like, are you for true freedom, or not? are you gonna stand firm when it all goes down, or are you gonna buckle under this corporatist control?!

i also know that a lot of the videos (particularly 'billie jean') were not his idea, save the dance bits. still, just because the ideas were not his he was still complicit in presenting those images to the public. i mean, he was swayed by the JWs from burning the 'thriller' film- he could have also said- some of these images make me uncomfortable, i want to do it again. that's what he did when they recorded the 'thriller' album. he had SOME say over which images were presented. he was very conscious about how he controlled his image, so i am not going to assume he is fully innocent. he is not immune from critique.

i am actually going by interviews (in particular the ones he did with boteach), as well as how i perceive the videos of course, where he was pretty open in his comments about women. i wouldn't say they were the ultimate in mysogyny, but i will say that we take on some of the traits we grew up around. and from seeing him speak about his father (and looking at joe's actions) i would not be surprised if there were issues. i can only go by my perspective/perceptions, of course, since i did not personally know him in this life. just as we are ALL going by our perceptions on how we view him. no one is wrong or right.

i'm not sure why this is a battle between wrong or right. we are all shaped by our experiences. you and i happen to view michael's view on women differently, i suppose.

again, i ask, what is 'normal'? that is also relative. i am not implying at all that michael treated women how he did in the videos. i actually mentioned this in another conversation in this thread... i am just saying that i have an issue when perhaps, he (or anyone else) feels, in order to appear 'normal' he must act aggressive towards women, if this indeed is the opposite of who he considers himself to be.

wow... do i believe he was a paedophile? i am not sure where this question stems from, as i never implied such a thing, referring to his relationship with children. just because you are not aggressive towards women does this mean you are thereby sexually attracted to children? OF COURSE NOT. why do men need to represent some form of aggressive heterosexist norm?

i, in my own perceptions, like when he is assertive on the creative and business front. however, as a person, i quite like when he presents himself as gentle. i think it's funny when he's observing women, but he's pretty goofy and playful when he does it- to me, it's not at all like how he presents himself in the videos.

again, what is 'normal'? to me, i liked that he never discussed his relationships with women. that stuff is PRIVATE. he was also quite open about this. i appreciate that he was a proponent of no sex before marriage. i appreciate that he put GOD in his life first.

again, no one is right or wrong in this dialog. we all just have different views. my thing is, I JUST WANT THE DIALOG TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN THAN IT IS HAPPENING. and i am finally glad it is here on this forum.

I am not sure if Mike ever was "political". He just always fought for what he believed in - for the planet and love in general. And he fought for that no matter what. He never stopped fighting for children even though the world tried to cruciffy him for that. That is what I admire him for.

As you said that he is not all that innocent when it came to the videos, well if he wasnˇt aware of these interpretations, you cannot criticise him for that. I am sure he wouldnˇt wanna portray such images considering how he resented his father´s and brothers´ actions. I saw him as being "playful". It´s the same as when some poeple see his playing with kids inappropriately. As you say, itˇs about one´s point of view and I think "knowing" him, he was rather playful than "aggresive" with those women. Also I don´t think Mike was "trying to be aggresive" to appear normal. From what I´ve heard, he was a flirt and I don´t think that in those videos he was trying to be someone he, in fact, wasn´t. It´s just that people refused to see him this way and took anything like that from him as phony, unless it didn´t concern boys. I think it´s actually sad when people are trying to make this be sinister cause what do you expect from him then? If he didn´t do stuff like that at all, he´d be even weirder. When he does it, he´s trying to hard or covering something else. I really don´t know what he was supposed to do to be "normal". You can tell us what type of "story" or video woud you consider appropriate from him. I think comparing him to other artists, he wasn´t aggressive at all. I don´t understand why people wanna point to something like that when we are living in a world, where women dress as whores and man portray them as pure sex objects in the videos. Just watch any of the music videos today.

I was asking you whether you thought he was a paedophile just because you said something in a sense you like it when people point to things like sexual agression towards men (or children and boys).

michael was actually a pretty political dude. he was pretty well versed in political theory. folks like jane fonda actually confirmed this. also, there were people in his circle who have. there have also been photos of his library at neverland, and the man had so many books regarding political history.

and in his conversation with boteach, he called out napoleon and the genocide of hatian people (as boteach was not aware of this, he countered michael in his book). i would also say the speech he gave at the national action network offices was pretty political. 'they don't care about us', 'why you wanna trip on me', 'earth song'... those are political tracks. the scond part of the 'black or white' film was indeed, political. there's a great piece by armond white about the significance of black rage regarding the film.

"He just always fought for what he believed in - for the planet and love in general. And he fought for that no matter what. He never stopped fighting for children even though the world tried to cruciffy him for that. That is what I admire him for."

dag, what you said right there... what he did IS political action. what he represented whas political struggle. i don't see it any other way.

i'm still not sure why he is immune from critique. if he was not aware of the images he was presenting to the world, i'd actually find grounds for an even heavier critique. as an artist, you must know what you are putting out there. the only way i can say he is devoid of critique is if he was brainwashed (which i actually think he WAS in the 80s, particularly during 'thriller'). i think he snapped out of his programming in a major way, beginning in the 1990s.

the ultimate point, is, we're most likely going to view him differently. i would not sayy he was aggressive as a man; i just think how he portrayed himself to the public in these videos sometimes was. i mean, he did model himself after james brown and jackie wilson in a lot of ways; two very violent men when it came to women- patti la belle spoke of her experience where wilson almost raped her; she escaped. and james brown had a history of beating the women in his life, including tammi terrell. michael also lived with his father.

despite overtly reacting against the violence you grew up with, i think some of that stays with you, if you don't work on it consistently. i can only speak from my perspective though; i see some of the same behaviors in michael that i see in myself, coming from an abusive home.

how you and i view normalcy and violence i suppose, tend to differ. i think there are some points where flirtation becomes too aggressive. that's what i saw in the video- the all-too aggressive mating ritual.

"If he didn´t do stuff like that at all, he´d be even weirder."

why would he be weirder? not at all. i think for me, he's actually be MORE normal if he did nothing at all. again, all that stuff that occurs in those videos to me should be PRIVATE. it should be done in the privacy of one's home. i don't see any real need to see michael present some sexual fantasy or vision in a video. is that really necessary? was he married or in a committed relationship with tatiana in that video? no. so i don't see the point. and even if they were, i still wouldn't wanna see it. because it's still out in public.

i have been called a prude. i am not anti-sex. i just think it should not be displayed as much as it is in the public sphere. and michael doing it publicly is not very helpful in keeping it private.

so the video i definitely see as taking an aspect of his off-camera character (in terms of looking at and appreciating the female form), but i don't think he would take that much effort to chase a woman down so aggressively, since sex and relationships are so private to him.

i just have a major issue with the contradiction. it's a distrubing one.

"I don´t understand why people wanna point to something like that when we are living in a world, where women dress as whores and man portray them as pure sex objects in the videos. Just watch any of the music videos today."

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. and i call all those people out too. it's just because we are discussing michael that i am calling him out. i don't think ANY of it should be happening. none of the music or images. it's a step downhill. we've lost respect for each other, when we objectify each other like that.

we don't generally promote popular music anymore that respects women (and men, and children). it's very sad.