Timmy84 said:

Yeah I judge it sometimes so I'm guilty of it as well. Trying to stop that nonsense.

as people who listen to music we have every right to judge it. ESPECIALLY if you like the artist. i see no guilt in that at all. we reserve the right to hold these artists accountable.

[Edited 5/8/11 22:23pm]

MJJstudent said:

babybugz said:

I don't care i'm going to continue listening to pop music might blast some Britney tonight have a problem just bring it

and... this is fine. AGAIN, why is this bad? if that's what you like to do, so be it. it's just something I don't like to do. what is this, gang up on the person who doesn't like 'pop music' day? wow...

and yes, i don't like the thriller album either, because to me it was marketed as being 'non-political'. it was set up to breed mindlessness (even though 'beat it' and 'wanna be startin' somethin' slipped through the cracks). i prefer michael's later political/message' tracks, after thriller. this to me is where he shined. off the wall was a great album in terms of engineering, technique and production, but ultimately if he did that kind of record his whole life michael would not be one of my favourite artists.

there, i said it. beat up on me now.

It’s not bad I was going to agree to disagree with you a few replies back but when you said its bad music etc you messed up that is your opinion not mines or maybe some others. I respect everyone opinions but you trying to force your views in the thread. I’m still going to listen to it you don’t like it fine but don’t act like because you feel it’s not good everyone is going to agree .

[Edited 5/8/11 22:27pm]

Unholyalliance said:

But wasn't it rock 'n roll? There seems to be a difference in the genres.

"Rock" is really just a quick way of saying "Rock 'N Roll", just like "Country" is short for "Country & Western". It's like metal acts have songs with "Rock 'N Roll" in the title or shout out the term in concert. There's also the slogan sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Originally, the term "rock 'n roll" was black slang for sex. I don't think the term really means anything today, just like "pop" or "dance" doesn't. But still Elvis' post-Army soundtrack songs weren't really rock 'n roll tunes, and he also released gospel & Christmas records. His 1970's music was generally country or adult contemporary based.

MickyDolenz said:

Unholyalliance said:

But wasn't it rock 'n roll? There seems to be a difference in the genres.

"Rock" is really just a quick way of saying "Rock 'N Roll", just like "Country" is short for "Country & Western". It's like metal acts have songs with "Rock 'N Roll" in the title or shout out the term in concert. There's also the slogan sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Originally, the term "rock 'n roll" was black slang for sex. I don't think the term really means anything today, just like "pop" or "dance" doesn't. But still Elvis' post-Army soundtrack songs weren't really rock 'n roll tunes, and he also released gospel & Christmas records. His 1970's music was generally country or adult contemporary based.

Yeah "rock and roll" and "pop" (and definitely "R&B") don't even mean the same things anymore like it once did. That's what some folks don't get. I didn't get it myself. People always use labels to blanket certain sounds keeping it in boxes. That's why the music world is so fragmented. And Elvis did a lot of country music before he died too, hell some of his early records had country and blues influences. The media called his music "rock and roll", not the man himself.

babybugz said:

MJJstudent said:

and... this is fine. AGAIN, why is this bad? if that's what you like to do, so be it. it's just something I don't like to do. what is this, gang up on the person who doesn't like 'pop music' day? wow...

and yes, i don't like the thriller album either, because to me it was marketed as being 'non-political'. it was set up to breed mindlessness (even though 'beat it' and 'wanna be startin' somethin' slipped through the cracks). i prefer michael's later political/message' tracks, after thriller. this to me is where he shined. off the wall was a great album in terms of engineering, technique and production, but ultimately if he did that kind of record his whole life michael would not be one of my favourite artists.

there, i said it. beat up on me now.

It’s not bad I was going to agree to disagree with you a few replies back but when you said its bad music etc you messed up that is your opinion not mines or maybe some others. I respect everyone opinions but you trying to force your views in the thread. I’m still going to listen to it you don’t like it fine but don’t act like because you feel it’s not good everyone is going to agree .

[Edited 5/8/11 22:27pm]

grrrrrrrrrr... i'm not trying to force my views... i just have strong opinions and i like to get them out. AGAIN, i will repeat.... I think it is bad music. just because I think it is bad doesn't mean ANYONE ELSE has to think it's bad. i don't think i messed up at all for stating my views. if that is how you feel, well, okay...

i see that having strong opinions means that you are forcing others to think as you do? well then, i guess i cannot have an opinion... because this is the way i am. i do a whole lot of agreeing to dis-agree. and i am okay with that. where did i say on this forum that everyone had to agree with me? not once did i say 'and EVERYONE MUST AGREE WITH ME'. this is how you percieve my views possibly, but this is not my intent.

so... ONE MORE TIME... I do not like 'pop' music of today. I personally think it robs the soul of any light energy. yes, this is MY opinion, and if YOU like it, IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON. as i also said, i know a lot of people in the activists' communities who like some of this stuff. they are wonderful people. i just don't agree with their musical tastes, just as some folks i know hate some of the things i listen to. i hope i made this clear now.

thanks.

Anyways, going back to Michael doing an album between Thriller and Bad... I think had his career started in, say, 1976, and not 1963 when he was only 5 years old, there's a possibility he could've but he probably wouldn't have been the same artist. It all depends on how the story could've went.

MJJstudent said:

babybugz said:

It’s not bad I was going to agree to disagree with you a few replies back but when you said its bad music etc you messed up that is your opinion not mines or maybe some others. I respect everyone opinions but you trying to force your views in the thread. I’m still going to listen to it you don’t like it fine but don’t act like because you feel it’s not good everyone is going to agree .

[Edited 5/8/11 22:27pm]

grrrrrrrrrr... i'm not trying to force my views... i just have strong opinions and i like to get them out. AGAIN, i will repeat.... I think it is bad music. just because I think it is bad doesn't mean ANYONE ELSE has to think it's bad. i don't think i messed up at all for stating my views. if that is how you feel, well, okay...

i see that having strong opinions means that you are forcing others to think as you do? well then, i guess i cannot have an opinion... because this is the way i am. i do a whole lot of agreeing to dis-agree. and i am okay with that. where did i say on this forum that everyone had to agree with me? not once did i say 'and EVERYONE MUST AGREE WITH ME'. this is how you percieve my views possibly, but this is not my intent.

so... ONE MORE TIME... I do not like 'pop' music of today. I personally think it robs the soul of any light energy. yes, this is MY opinion, and if YOU like it, IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON. as i also said, i know a lot of people in the activists' communities who like some of this stuff. they are wonderful people. i just don't agree with their musical tastes, just as some folks i know hate some of the things i listen to. i hope i made this clear now.

thanks.

Lol it’s not that serious you said you didn’t considered pop music good music me and some others disagree and said that’s your opinion and you got a titty fit. Moving on

Timmy84 said:

Anyways, going back to Michael doing an album between Thriller and Bad... I think had his career started in, say, 1976, and not 1963 when he was only 5 years old, there's a possibility he could've but he probably wouldn't have been the same artist. It all depends on how the story could've went.

I think he would just be known as a Jackson brother that's it.

babybugz said:

Timmy84 said:

Anyways, going back to Michael doing an album between Thriller and Bad... I think had his career started in, say, 1976, and not 1963 when he was only 5 years old, there's a possibility he could've but he probably wouldn't have been the same artist. It all depends on how the story could've went.

I think he would just be known as a Jackson brother that's it.

And still in Gary, IN.

Timmy84 said:

Anyways, going back to Michael doing an album between Thriller and Bad... I think had his career started in, say, 1976, and not 1963 when he was only 5 years old, there's a possibility he could've but he probably wouldn't have been the same artist. It all depends on how the story could've went.

i like where he went post-thriller. i'll just say that. and i am glad he did not do an album right away. i like their gamble and huff period; it was underrated. i'm glad they went with gamble and huff, if they had to go with anybody at the time. the 'message in the music' was most important.

i suppose prepping since childhood was helpful; but had he and his brothers stayed with motown there never would have been a significant improvement on their art. either way, i think due to michael's drive he would have been successful either in film, or doing something behind the scenes. and he would have run into someone to help him go on his way. he was that driven.

babybugz said:

Timmy84 said:

Anyways, going back to Michael doing an album between Thriller and Bad... I think had his career started in, say, 1976, and not 1963 when he was only 5 years old, there's a possibility he could've but he probably wouldn't have been the same artist. It all depends on how the story could've went.

I think he would just be known as a Jackson brother that's it.

i don't think so... his work ethic was way too strong. as well as his drive.

babybugz said:

MJJstudent said:

grrrrrrrrrr... i'm not trying to force my views... i just have strong opinions and i like to get them out. AGAIN, i will repeat.... I think it is bad music. just because I think it is bad doesn't mean ANYONE ELSE has to think it's bad. i don't think i messed up at all for stating my views. if that is how you feel, well, okay...

i see that having strong opinions means that you are forcing others to think as you do? well then, i guess i cannot have an opinion... because this is the way i am. i do a whole lot of agreeing to dis-agree. and i am okay with that. where did i say on this forum that everyone had to agree with me? not once did i say 'and EVERYONE MUST AGREE WITH ME'. this is how you percieve my views possibly, but this is not my intent.

so... ONE MORE TIME... I do not like 'pop' music of today. I personally think it robs the soul of any light energy. yes, this is MY opinion, and if YOU like it, IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON. as i also said, i know a lot of people in the activists' communities who like some of this stuff. they are wonderful people. i just don't agree with their musical tastes, just as some folks i know hate some of the things i listen to. i hope i made this clear now.

thanks.

Lol it’s not that serious you said you didn’t considered pop music good music me and some others disagree and said that’s your opinion and you got a titty fit. Moving on

hmmmmmmm... you obviously don't know me that well. i am a very intense person, and i take conversations i have about this stuff VERY seriously. it's not that serious because you don't think it is- it's just not something you choose to emphasize in your conversations, but to someone else it is. i have hours and hours of wonderful conversations/dialogs with people about this stuff (and there are plenty of dis-agreements). there are scores of essays written about this stuff- the social dynamics and effects of 'pop' music...

i see neither one of us will have a serious conversation about art with each other, since you don't really want to. that's too bad, i'm sure it would be very interesting... it's your call. such is life.

okay, moving on...

MJJstudent said:

as people who listen to music we have every right to judge it. ESPECIALLY if you like the artist. i see no guilt in that at all. we reserve the right to hold these artists accountable.

You're forgetting that a performer is an employee of a company. You probably don't go to your job and tell the boss how you want to work. Look at Prince, he didn't like being an employee and so he decided to release his music himself. But he doesn't have the connections or money to widely get his music out there like Warner Brothers. Then there's TTD/Sanada. He records whatever he wants and sells it on his site. Again, he doesn't have the connections. He also can't reach the people who don't own a computer. Yet, people criticize them for releasing what they consider "mediocre" music and prefer the stuff they released when they were under the control of a major. The record company can refuse to release anything they like (and they do), and the performer has no say so. In some cases, the label remixes albums without the performers knowledge before they are released. I don't know why people think an act really has any power. They don't, unless they're doing an Ani Difranco and skipping a label contract and self releasing their material. Look at the situations of Teena Marie and Tori Amos. Their labels wouldn't release their music, nor let them out of their contracts.

and i see there isn't a need for intense/serious conversation about art and music on this forum (and site), and whenever i speak of leaving, people say 'don't leave'... but i see my need is never going to be met here, beyond the basic level of conversation. and i think we all desrve better than that.

so with that i bid adieu, and if anyone wants to speak with me (intensely about art or music), you can send me a note. thanks, and have a lovely day.

MickyDolenz said:

MJJstudent said:

as people who listen to music we have every right to judge it. ESPECIALLY if you like the artist. i see no guilt in that at all. we reserve the right to hold these artists accountable.

You're forgetting that a performer is an employee of a company. You probably don't go to your job and tell the boss how you want to work. Look at Prince, he didn't like being an employee and so he decided to release his music himself. But he doesn't have the connections or money to widely get his music out there like Warner Brothers. Then there's TTD/Sanada. He records whatever he wants and sells it on his site. Again, he doesn't have the connections. He also can't reach the people who don't own a computer. Yet, people criticize them for releasing what they consider "mediocre" music and prefer the stuff they released when they were under the control of a major. The record company can refuse to release anything they like (and they do), and the performer has no say so. In some cases, the label remixes albums without the performers knowledge before they are released. I don't know why people think an act really has any power. They don't, unless they're doing an Ani Difranco and skipping a label contract and self releasing their material. Look at the situations of Teena Marie and Tori Amos. Their labels wouldn't release their music, nor let them out of their contracts.

RIGHT! Reminds me of those who give artists too much power that they think because they have 20 years in their catalogue that they can suddenly find a way to bring an audience. Not everybody can do an Ani DiFranco. Nobody.

MickyDolenz said:

MJJstudent said:

as people who listen to music we have every right to judge it. ESPECIALLY if you like the artist. i see no guilt in that at all. we reserve the right to hold these artists accountable.

You're forgetting that a performer is an employee of a company. You probably don't go to your job and tell the boss how you want to work. Look at Prince, he didn't like being an employee and so he decided to release his music himself. But he doesn't have the connections or money to widely get his music out there like Warner Brothers. Then there's TTD/Sanada. He records whatever he wants and sells it on his site. Again, he doesn't have the connections. He also can't reach the people who don't own a computer. Yet, people criticize them for releasing what they consider "mediocre" music and prefer the stuff they released when they were under the control of a major. The record company can refuse to release anything they like (and they do), and the performer has no say so. In some cases, the label remixes albums without the performers knowledge before they are released. I don't know why people think an act really has any power. They don't, unless they're doing an Ani Difranco and skipping a label contract and self releasing their material. Look at the situations of Teena Marie and Tori Amos. Their labels wouldn't release their music, nor let them out of their contracts.

fortunately, the place i work is striving towards a collective, so i am fortunate in where i work.

in terms of prince, i commend him. as long as he has ba=sic ammenities, he's okay. at least he has his integrity. if your needs aren't being met as an artist, why would you sell your soul? i personally think prince's music is better after he left warners, so... possibly due to the integrity being there, since he was free from corporate puppetmasters.

with teena marie, she released stuff on her own label as well, but went back to a major because she didn't have enough distribution... this is why i'm not in 'entertainment' folks, because i'm not into selling my soul. i am fortunate to live in a place where i can find work that does not compromise my beliefs.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

You're forgetting that a performer is an employee of a company. You probably don't go to your job and tell the boss how you want to work. Look at Prince, he didn't like being an employee and so he decided to release his music himself. But he doesn't have the connections or money to widely get his music out there like Warner Brothers. Then there's TTD/Sanada. He records whatever he wants and sells it on his site. Again, he doesn't have the connections. He also can't reach the people who don't own a computer. Yet, people criticize them for releasing what they consider "mediocre" music and prefer the stuff they released when they were under the control of a major. The record company can refuse to release anything they like (and they do), and the performer has no say so. In some cases, the label remixes albums without the performers knowledge before they are released. I don't know why people think an act really has any power. They don't, unless they're doing an Ani Difranco and skipping a label contract and self releasing their material. Look at the situations of Teena Marie and Tori Amos. Their labels wouldn't release their music, nor let them out of their contracts.

RIGHT! Reminds me of those who give artists too much power that they think because they have 20 years in their catalogue that they can suddenly find a way to bring an audience. Not everybody can do an Ani DiFranco. Nobody.

i don't like di franco's music at all, but i respect her for going independently. but she tried to sue mom and pop record shops for having live recordings of her music... that i don't agree with. why don't people just do like the greatful dead or fugazi and allow people to record their stuff live? all they ask is that they get to hear the recordings...

Timmy84 said:

babybugz said:

I think he would just be known as a Jackson brother that's it.

And still in Gary, IN.

But if Joe's musical career had taken off and he became famous, it's doubtful he would have pushed his sons out there. Jackie might have played pro baseball. If the others decided on their own to be a group, they still probably wouldn't have made it. Because in general, children of famous musicians aren't taken seriously, and/or their music is compared to the parent.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

And still in Gary, IN.

But if Joe's musical career had taken off and he became famous, it's doubtful he would have pushed his sons out there. Jackie might have played pro baseball. If the others decided on their own to be a group, they still probably wouldn't have made it. Because in general, children of famous musicians aren't taken seriously, and/or their music is compared to the parent.

Yeah... but maybe, just maybe, the reason Joe didn't take off was because it just wasn't his time. He had the smarts and talent, yes, but too many things got in the way of his dreams. That's why when he found out his sons had talent, he basically used his own failures to boost them up...even if it wasn't in the right intentions. But you're right.

MJJstudent said:

MickyDolenz said:

You're forgetting that a performer is an employee of a company. You probably don't go to your job and tell the boss how you want to work. Look at Prince, he didn't like being an employee and so he decided to release his music himself. But he doesn't have the connections or money to widely get his music out there like Warner Brothers. Then there's TTD/Sanada. He records whatever he wants and sells it on his site. Again, he doesn't have the connections. He also can't reach the people who don't own a computer. Yet, people criticize them for releasing what they consider "mediocre" music and prefer the stuff they released when they were under the control of a major. The record company can refuse to release anything they like (and they do), and the performer has no say so. In some cases, the label remixes albums without the performers knowledge before they are released. I don't know why people think an act really has any power. They don't, unless they're doing an Ani Difranco and skipping a label contract and self releasing their material. Look at the situations of Teena Marie and Tori Amos. Their labels wouldn't release their music, nor let them out of their contracts.

fortunately, the place i work is striving towards a collective, so i am fortunate in where i work.

in terms of prince, i commend him. as long as he has ba=sic ammenities, he's okay. at least he has his integrity. if your needs aren't being met as an artist, why would you sell your soul? i personally think prince's music is better after he left warners, so... possibly due to the integrity being there, since he was free from corporate puppetmasters.

with teena marie, she released stuff on her own label as well, but went back to a major because she didn't have enough distribution... this is why i'm not in 'entertainment' folks, because i'm not into selling my soul. i am fortunate to live in a place where i can find work that does not compromise my beliefs.

If Michael Jackson hadn't went to CBS, would you be talking about him now? Had they remained on Motown, the J5 would just be an oldies group. You see that Motown didn't really do anything with Jermaine's records, (and he was Gordy's son-in-law). That's probably why he was doing A&R work at the label. If they really pushed his stuff, would he have found Switch/DeBarge?

MickyDolenz said:

MJJstudent said:

fortunately, the place i work is striving towards a collective, so i am fortunate in where i work.

in terms of prince, i commend him. as long as he has ba=sic ammenities, he's okay. at least he has his integrity. if your needs aren't being met as an artist, why would you sell your soul? i personally think prince's music is better after he left warners, so... possibly due to the integrity being there, since he was free from corporate puppetmasters.

with teena marie, she released stuff on her own label as well, but went back to a major because she didn't have enough distribution... this is why i'm not in 'entertainment' folks, because i'm not into selling my soul. i am fortunate to live in a place where i can find work that does not compromise my beliefs.

If Michael Jackson hadn't went to CBS, would you be talking about him now? Had they remained on Motown, the J5 would just be an oldies group. You see that Motown didn't really do anything with Jermaine's records, (and he was Gordy's son-in-law). That's probably why he was doing A&R work at the label. If they really pushed his stuff, would he have found Switch/DeBarge?

Exactly. Motown was a dying empire by 1975 (Rick James revived it for a hot minute as did DeBarge). If Michael had stayed, THRILLER wouldn't have even come out!

MickyDolenz said:

MJJstudent said:

fortunately, the place i work is striving towards a collective, so i am fortunate in where i work.

in terms of prince, i commend him. as long as he has ba=sic ammenities, he's okay. at least he has his integrity. if your needs aren't being met as an artist, why would you sell your soul? i personally think prince's music is better after he left warners, so... possibly due to the integrity being there, since he was free from corporate puppetmasters.

with teena marie, she released stuff on her own label as well, but went back to a major because she didn't have enough distribution... this is why i'm not in 'entertainment' folks, because i'm not into selling my soul. i am fortunate to live in a place where i can find work that does not compromise my beliefs.

If Michael Jackson hadn't went to CBS, would you be talking about him now? Had they remained on Motown, the J5 would just be an oldies group. You see that Motown didn't really do anything with Jermaine's records, (and he was Gordy's son-in-law). That's probably why he was doing A&R work at the label. If they really pushed his stuff, would he have found Switch/DeBarge?

probably not... and that's perfectly okay. people who know me well enough know i prefer michael outside of 'song and dance'.

i truly think he would have found his way of teaching the world in other ways. i truly think he shined mostly outside of music, doing his active-ist work. i wish that was emphasized more than it is. music was a catalyst through that work; but i think he would have made it in some other art, if not music. perhaps film...

and even if he didn't do the arts, i think he would have utilized his virgo healing nature, even if it was in his neighborhood or local community. he mentioned something to this affect at the age of 5.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

If Michael Jackson hadn't went to CBS, would you be talking about him now? Had they remained on Motown, the J5 would just be an oldies group. You see that Motown didn't really do anything with Jermaine's records, (and he was Gordy's son-in-law). That's probably why he was doing A&R work at the label. If they really pushed his stuff, would he have found Switch/DeBarge?

Exactly. Motown was a dying empire by 1975 (Rick James revived it for a hot minute as did DeBarge). If Michael had stayed, THRILLER wouldn't have even come out!

and that's okay... i'd rather have michael here doing work in his community (if that was what he wanted to do) than putting out 'the best-selling album of all time'. in the end that isn't important.

and now he's not physically here to do ANY work in any communities...

[Edited 5/8/11 23:34pm]

^ Well we don't know how anything could've turned out. Maybe what happened to Michael was meant to happen...if you get me. It's easy to imagine the what ifs... but sometimes fate can deal you a card and a hard pill to swallow.

Again, it's to wonder, if Michael had stayed with Motown, would we even be talking about Michael Jackson as an adult performer? Would we all say "oh look at him, still doing those Vegas shows..." it's weird to think about.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

If Michael Jackson hadn't went to CBS, would you be talking about him now? Had they remained on Motown, the J5 would just be an oldies group. You see that Motown didn't really do anything with Jermaine's records, (and he was Gordy's son-in-law). That's probably why he was doing A&R work at the label. If they really pushed his stuff, would he have found Switch/DeBarge?

Exactly. Motown was a dying empire by 1975 (Rick James revived it for a hot minute as did DeBarge). If Michael had stayed, THRILLER wouldn't have even come out!

The brothers probably would have been dropped. Motown did little promotion on the last few J5 albums. They surely wouldn't have released records like Boogie or Farewell My Summer Love.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Exactly. Motown was a dying empire by 1975 (Rick James revived it for a hot minute as did DeBarge). If Michael had stayed, THRILLER wouldn't have even come out!

The brothers probably would have been dropped. Motown did little promotion on the last few J5 albums. They surely wouldn't have released records like Boogie or Farewell My Summer Love.

Right. Just like the DeBarges were dropped. I hate giving it up to him but Joe Jackson definitely deserves props for getting the boys to CBS. Plus he knew they were getting underpaid in Motown. Motown kept them on a salary for six years. That's the reason Ray Charles left Atlantic because Atlantic had him on a salary, that's why he moved to ABC and asked for more money in the deal and to continue to make his own statements. It's all in the way you manage it.

Timmy84 said:

Again, it's to wonder, if Michael had stayed with Motown, would we even be talking about Michael Jackson as an adult performer? Would we all say "oh look at him, still doing those Vegas shows..." it's weird to think about.

Like Otis Williams and his endless rotating cast of "Temptations".

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Again, it's to wonder, if Michael had stayed with Motown, would we even be talking about Michael Jackson as an adult performer? Would we all say "oh look at him, still doing those Vegas shows..." it's weird to think about.

Like Otis Williams and his endless rotating cast of "Temptations".

You can say that about Mary Wilson too. And Smokey (though he's paid)...

Timmy84 said:

Again, it's to wonder, if Michael had stayed with Motown, would we even be talking about Michael Jackson as an adult performer? Would we all say "oh look at him, still doing those Vegas shows..." it's weird to think about.

No.

But I guess the irony here is that his star didn't fly out of orbit as an adult performer until the Motown 25 special.

Unholyalliance said:

Timmy84 said:

Again, it's to wonder, if Michael had stayed with Motown, would we even be talking about Michael Jackson as an adult performer? Would we all say "oh look at him, still doing those Vegas shows..." it's weird to think about.

No.

But I guess the irony here is that his star didn't fly out of orbit as an adult performer until the Motown 25 special.

One that he had control of. "I want a solo spot." That was a PLAYER move! Berry knew he couldn't compete with that so he was like "cool, just get in the show." Michael had Berry begging, man!