bboy87 said:

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

JAIL!?? You serious??? How much time we talkin' here?

when you hack into a company's servers then try to sell the songs, some of them probably not even being Michael, you're gonna get caught

This is why I hate hackers. No wonder people try to keep their music on lock! I would too...

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

EmeraldSkies said:

Catholic school suspends 9-year-old for Michael Jackson dance move

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/04/catholic-school-suspends-year-old-for-michael-jackson-dance-move/#ixzz1lfaK27E5

Are you kidding me?

[Edited 2/6/12 21:10pm]

They still believe he's corrupting the young?? Gaddam....

Why was he dancing in the first place is my question. Much less a Michael Jackson move...

What do you mean why was he dancing?

alphastreet said:

What do you mean why was he dancing?

I beg your pardon?

Anyways, okay, I read that apparently he had done this before in a rehearsal and it was approved. So they came to the conclusion that when he did it, it was wrong? Uh... then why did they let him go on and do it then?

Timmy84 said:

alphastreet said:

What do you mean why was he dancing?

I beg your pardon?

I didn't understand why you didn't like the idea of him dancing, I think it sounds cute that youngsters are dancing to MJ, like they did when I was a kid.

And yeah, not to mention he'd danced to MJ 2 years in a row without a problem.

alphastreet said:

bboy87 said:

which forum are you talking about?

mjjc?

Nope, MJJC almost got caught in the crosshairs though. It was fans who have a bit of a reputation for selling and trading unreleased material

bboy87 said:

alphastreet said:

mjjc?

Nope, MJJC almost got caught in the crosshairs though. It was fans who have a bit of a reputation for selling and trading unreleased material

That's always dangerous territory. Some sites are bold in what they sell.

alphastreet said:

Timmy84 said:

I beg your pardon?

I didn't understand why you didn't like the idea of him dancing, I think it sounds cute that youngsters are dancing to MJ, like they did when I was a kid.

And yeah, not to mention he'd danced to MJ 2 years in a row without a problem.

I didn't say I liked the idea of him dancing, I just wanted to know why at first. I had to read it.

Must've hired some new people. But I thought it was funny playing Billie Jean in a Catholic fundraiser lol

If they haven't protested that Beiberism book practically calling him the second coming or banning the kid cause of the paternity suit, I don't see them disapproving the lyrical content of Billie Jean anytime soon :p

[Edited 2/6/12 23:16pm]

Timmy84 said:

This is why I hate hackers. No wonder people try to keep their music on lock! I would too...

Some hackers are in charge of making sure stuff is safe. On the flip side there are some people who can take advantage of weak systems, but many times I think it starts on the inside.

Not sure, but sad that there won't be anymore leaks.

Unholyalliance said:

Timmy84 said:

This is why I hate hackers. No wonder people try to keep their music on lock! I would too...

Some hackers are in charge of making sure stuff is safe. On the flip side there are some people who can take advantage of weak systems, but many times I think it starts on the inside.

Not sure, but sad that there won't be anymore leaks.

Then you're not a hacker then...

I actually don't mind there won't be anymore leaks. Like there were any good ones to begin with. And since the estate is being quite slow on the nostalgia factor, I'll wait for any good shit to come out.

The Misunderstood Power of Michael Jackson's Music

by Joe Vogel

http://www.theatlantic.co...ic/252751/

His influence today proves him to be one of the greatest creators of
all time, but Jackson's art—like that of many black artists—still
doesn't get the full respect it deserves.

More than two and a half years after his untimely death, Michael Jackson continues to entertain. Cirque du Soleil's crowd-pleasing Michael Jackson Immortal World Tour is currently crisscrossing North America, while a recent Jackson-themed episode of Glee earned the show a 16 percent jump in ratings and its highest music sales of the season. Even Madonna's halftime Super Bowl spectacle harkened back to a trend first initiated by Jackson.

But there is another crucial part of Jackson's legacy that deserves attention: his pioneering role as an African-American artist working in an industry still plagued by segregation, stereotypical representations, or little representation at all.

Jackson never made any qualms about his aspirations. He wanted to be the best. When his highly successful Off the Wall album (in 1981, the best-selling album ever by a black artist) was slighted at the Grammy Awards, it only fueled Jackson's resolve to create something better. His next album, Thriller, became the best-selling album by any artist of any race in the history of the music industry. It also won a record-setting seven Grammy awards, broke down color barriers on radio and TV, and redefined the possibilities of popular music on a global scale.

Yet among critics (predominantly white), skepticism and suspicion only grew. "He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables," predicted James Baldwin in 1985, "for he damn sure grabbed the brass ring, and the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo has nothing on Michael."

Baldwin proved prophetic. In addition to a flood of ridicule regarding his intelligence, race, sexuality, appearance, and behavior, even his success and ambition were used by critics as evidence that he lacked artistic seriousness. Reviews frequently described his work as "calculating," "slick," and "shallow." Establishment rock critics such as Dave Marsh and Greil Marcus notoriously dismissed Jackson as the first major popular music phenomenon whose impact was more commercial than cultural. Elvis Presley, the Beatles, and Bruce Springsteen, they claimed, challenged and re-shaped society. Jackson simply sold records and entertained.

It shouldn't be much of a strain to hear the racial undertones in such an assertion. Historically, this dismissal of black artists (and black styles) as somehow lacking substance, depth and import is as old as America. It was the lie that constituted minstrelsy. It was a common criticism of spirituals (in relation to traditional hymns), of jazz in the '20s and '30s, of R&B in the '50s and '60s, of funk and disco in the '70s, and of hip-hop in the '80s and '90s (and still today). The cultural gatekeepers not only failed to initially recognize the legitimacy of these new musical styles and forms, they also tended to overlook or reduce the achievements of the African-American men and women who pioneered them. The King of Jazz, for white critics, wasn't Louis Armstrong, it was Paul Whiteman; the King of Swing wasn't Duke Ellington, it was Benny Goodman; the King of Rock wasn't Chuck Berry or Little Richard, it was Elvis Presley.

Given this history of white coronation, it is worth considering why the media took such issue with referring to Michael Jackson as the King of Pop. Certainly his achievements merited such a title. Yet up until his death in 2009, many journalists insisted on referring to him as the "self-proclaimed King of Pop." Indeed, in 2003, Rolling Stone went so far as to ridiculously re-assign the title to Justin Timberlake. (To keep with the historical pattern, just last year the magazine devised a formula that coronated Eminem—over Run DMC, Public Enemy, Tupac, Jay-Z, or Kanye West—as the King of Hip Hop).

Jackson was well-aware of this history and consistently pushed against it. In 1979, Rolling Stone passed on a cover story about the singer, saying that it didn't feel Jackson merited front cover status. "I've been told over and over again that black people on the covers of magazines don't sell copies," an exasperated Jackson told confidantes. "Just wait. Some day those magazines will come begging for an interview."

Jackson, of course, was right (Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner actually sent a self-deprecatory letter acknowledging the oversight in 1984). And during the 1980s, at least, Jackson's image seemed ubiquitous. Yet over the long haul, Jackson's initial concern seems legitimate. As shown in the breakdown below, his appearances on the front ...ling Stone, the United States' most visible music publication, are far fewer than those of white artists:

John Lennon: 30

Mick Jagger: 29

Paul McCartney: 26

Bob Dylan: 22

Bono: 22

Bruce Springsteen: 22

Madonna: 20

Britney Spears: 13

Michael Jackson: 8 (two came after he died; one featured Paul McCartney as well)

Is it really possible that Michael Jackson, arguably the most influe...th century, merited less than half the coverage of Bono, Bruce Springsteen, and Madonna?

Of course, this disregard wasn't limited to magazine covers. It extended into all realms of print media. In a 2002 speech in Harlem, Jackson not only protested his own slights, but also articulated how he fit into a lineage of African-American artists struggling for respect:

All the forms of popular music from jazz to hip-hop, to bebop, to soul [come from black innovation]. You talk about different dances from the catwalk, to the jitterbug, to the charleston, to break dancing -- all these are forms of black dancing...What would [life] be without a song, without a dance, and joy and laughter, and music. These things are very important but if you go to the bookstore down the corner, you will not see one black person on the cover. You'll see Elvis Presley, you'll see the Rolling Stones...But we're the real pioneers who started these [forms]."

While there was certainly some rhetorical flourish to his "not one black person on the cover" claim, his broader point of severely disproportionate representation in print was unquestionably accurate. Books on Elvis Presley alone outnumber titles on Chuck Berry, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Ray Charles, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, and Michael Jackson combined.

When I began my book, Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, in 2005, there wasn't one serious book focused on Jackson's creative output. Indeed, at my local Barnes & Noble, I could find only two books about him, period. Both dealt with the scandals and controversies of his personal life.

It seemed the only way Michael Jackson could get covered was if he was presented as a freak, a curiosity, a spectacle. Even reviews of his albums, post-Thriller, focused on the sensational and were overwhelmingly condescending, when not outright hostile.

Of course, this poor coverage wasn't only about race. Biases were often more subtle, veiled and coded. They were wrapped together with his overall otherness and conflated with the "Wacko Jacko" media construct. In addition, as Baldwin astutely noted, there were not entirely unrelated apprehensions about his wealth and fame, anxieties about his eccentricities and sexuality, confusion about his changing appearance, contempt for his childlike behavior, and fears about his power.

But the bottom line is this: Somehow, in the midst of the circus that surrounded him, Jackson managed to leave behind one of the most impressive catalogs in the history of music. Rarely has an artist been so adept at communicating the vitality and vulnerability of the human condition: the exhilaration, yearning, despair, and transcendence. Indeed, in Jackson's case he literally embodied the music. It charged through him like an electric current. He mediated it through every means at his disposal—his voice, his body, his dances, films, words, technology and performances. His work was multi-media in a way never before experienced.

This is why the tendency of many critics to judge his work against circumscribed, often white, Euro-American musical standards is such a mistake. Jackson never fit neatly into categories and defied many of the expectations of rock/alternative enthusiasts. He was rooted deeply in the African-American tradition, which is crucial to understanding his work. But the hallmark of his art is fusion, the ability to stitch together disparate styles, genres and mediums to create something entirely new.

If critics simply hold Jackson's lyrics on a sheet of paper next to those of Bob Dylan, then, they will likely find Jackson on the short end. It's not that Jackson's lyrics aren't substantive (on the HIStory album alone, he tackles racism, materialism, fame, corruption, media distortion, ecological destruction, abuse, and alienation). But his greatness is in his ability to augment his words vocally, visually, physically, and sonically, so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Listen, for example, to his non-verbal vocalizations—the cries, exclamations, grunts, gasps, and improvisatory vernacular—in which Jackson communicates beyond the strictures of language. Listen to his beat boxing and scatting; how he stretches or accents words; his James Brown-like staccato facility; the way his voice moves from gravelly to smooth to sublime; the passionate calls and responses; the way he soars just as naturally with gospel choirs and electric guitars.

Listen to his virtuosic rhythms and rich harmonies; the nuanced syncopation and signature bass lines; the layers of detail and archive of unusual sounds. Go beyond the usual classics, and play songs like "Stranger in Moscow," "I Can't Help It ," "Liberian Girl ," "Who Is It," and "In the Back." Note the range of subject matter, the spectrum of moods and textures, the astounding variety (and synthesis) of styles. On the Dangerous album alone, Jackson moves from New Jack Swing to classical, hip hop to gospel, R&B to industrial, funk to rock. It was music without borders or barriers, and it resonated across the globe.

However, it wasn't until Jackson's death in 2009 that he finally began to engender more respect and appreciation from the intelligentsia. It is one of humanity's strange habits to only truly appreciate genius once it's gone. Still, in spite of the renewed interest, the easy dismissals and disparity in serious print coverage remains.

As a competitor on par with the legendary Muhammad Ali, Michael Jackson wouldn't be satisfied. His goal was to prove that a black artist could do everything a white artist could (and more). He wanted to move beyond every boundary, earn every recognition, break every record, and achieve artistic immortality ("That is why to escape death," he said, "I bind my soul to my work"). The point of his ambition wasn't money and fame; it was respect.

As he boldly proclaimed in his 1991 hit, "Black or White," "I had to tell them I ain't second to none."

Unholyalliance said:

Timmy84 said:

This is why I hate hackers. No wonder people try to keep their music on lock! I would too...

Some hackers are in charge of making sure stuff is safe. On the flip side there are some people who can take advantage of weak systems, but many times I think it starts on the inside.

Not sure, but sad that there won't be anymore leaks.

Who said there won't be more leaks?

It's just the matter of how other songs were obtained that's the issue. Folks going into a company's servers and stealing songs know better

Now, unreleased material that's still out there, for example, the recent surfacing of the 1988 concert in Rome, the Pensacola '88 rehearsals, Hot Fever, Tomboy, I Am A Loser, People Of The World, Tomboy, and a couple more are out there....you just gotta know who to talk to

bboy87 said:

Unholyalliance said:

Some hackers are in charge of making sure stuff is safe. On the flip side there are some people who can take advantage of weak systems, but many times I think it starts on the inside.

Not sure, but sad that there won't be anymore leaks.

Who said there won't be more leaks?

It's just the matter of how other songs were obtained that's the issue. Folks going into a company's servers and stealing songs know better

Now, unreleased material that's still out there, for example, the recent surfacing of the 1988 concert in Rome, the Pensacola '88 rehearsals, Hot Fever, Tomboy, I Am A Loser, People Of The World, Tomboy, and a couple more are out there....you just gotta know who to talk to

Tomboy is out there? I wonder how that could've happened...

crazymouse said:

The Misunderstood Power of Michael Jackson's Music

by Joe Vogel

http://www.theatlantic.co...ic/252751/

His influence today proves him to be one of the greatest creators of
all time, but Jackson's art—like that of many black artists—still
doesn't get the full respect it deserves.

More than two and a half years after his untimely death, Michael Jackson continues to entertain. Cirque du Soleil's crowd-pleasing Michael Jackson Immortal World Tour is currently crisscrossing North America, while a recent Jackson-themed episode of Glee earned the show a 16 percent jump in ratings and its highest music sales of the season. Even Madonna's halftime Super Bowl spectacle harkened back to a trend first initiated by Jackson.

But there is another crucial part of Jackson's legacy that deserves attention: his pioneering role as an African-American artist working in an industry still plagued by segregation, stereotypical representations, or little representation at all.

Jackson never made any qualms about his aspirations. He wanted to be the best. When his highly successful Off the Wall album (in 1981, the best-selling album ever by a black artist) was slighted at the Grammy Awards, it only fueled Jackson's resolve to create something better. His next album, Thriller, became the best-selling album by any artist of any race in the history of the music industry. It also won a record-setting seven Grammy awards, broke down color barriers on radio and TV, and redefined the possibilities of popular music on a global scale.

Yet among critics (predominantly white), skepticism and suspicion only grew. "He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables," predicted James Baldwin in 1985, "for he damn sure grabbed the brass ring, and the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo has nothing on Michael."

Baldwin proved prophetic. In addition to a flood of ridicule regarding his intelligence, race, sexuality, appearance, and behavior, even his success and ambition were used by critics as evidence that he lacked artistic seriousness. Reviews frequently described his work as "calculating," "slick," and "shallow." Establishment rock critics such as Dave Marsh and Greil Marcus notoriously dismissed Jackson as the first major popular music phenomenon whose impact was more commercial than cultural. Elvis Presley, the Beatles, and Bruce Springsteen, they claimed, challenged and re-shaped society. Jackson simply sold records and entertained.

It shouldn't be much of a strain to hear the racial undertones in such an assertion. Historically, this dismissal of black artists (and black styles) as somehow lacking substance, depth and import is as old as America. It was the lie that constituted minstrelsy. It was a common criticism of spirituals (in relation to traditional hymns), of jazz in the '20s and '30s, of R&B in the '50s and '60s, of funk and disco in the '70s, and of hip-hop in the '80s and '90s (and still today). The cultural gatekeepers not only failed to initially recognize the legitimacy of these new musical styles and forms, they also tended to overlook or reduce the achievements of the African-American men and women who pioneered them. The King of Jazz, for white critics, wasn't Louis Armstrong, it was Paul Whiteman; the King of Swing wasn't Duke Ellington, it was Benny Goodman; the King of Rock wasn't Chuck Berry or Little Richard, it was Elvis Presley.

Given this history of white coronation, it is worth considering why the media took such issue with referring to Michael Jackson as the King of Pop. Certainly his achievements merited such a title. Yet up until his death in 2009, many journalists insisted on referring to him as the "self-proclaimed King of Pop." Indeed, in 2003, Rolling Stone went so far as to ridiculously re-assign the title to Justin Timberlake. (To keep with the historical pattern, just last year the magazine devised a formula that coronated Eminem—over Run DMC, Public Enemy, Tupac, Jay-Z, or Kanye West—as the King of Hip Hop).

Jackson was well-aware of this history and consistently pushed against it. In 1979, Rolling Stone passed on a cover story about the singer, saying that it didn't feel Jackson merited front cover status. "I've been told over and over again that black people on the covers of magazines don't sell copies," an exasperated Jackson told confidantes. "Just wait. Some day those magazines will come begging for an interview."

Jackson, of course, was right (Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner actually sent a self-deprecatory letter acknowledging the oversight in 1984). And during the 1980s, at least, Jackson's image seemed ubiquitous. Yet over the long haul, Jackson's initial concern seems legitimate. As shown in the breakdown below, his appearances on the front ...ling Stone, the United States' most visible music publication, are far fewer than those of white artists:

John Lennon: 30

Mick Jagger: 29

Paul McCartney: 26

Bob Dylan: 22

Bono: 22

Bruce Springsteen: 22

Madonna: 20

Britney Spears: 13

Michael Jackson: 8 (two came after he died; one featured Paul McCartney as well)

Is it really possible that Michael Jackson, arguably the most influe...th century, merited less than half the coverage of Bono, Bruce Springsteen, and Madonna?

Of course, this disregard wasn't limited to magazine covers. It extended into all realms of print media. In a 2002 speech in Harlem, Jackson not only protested his own slights, but also articulated how he fit into a lineage of African-American artists struggling for respect:

All the forms of popular music from jazz to hip-hop, to bebop, to soul [come from black innovation]. You talk about different dances from the catwalk, to the jitterbug, to the charleston, to break dancing -- all these are forms of black dancing...What would [life] be without a song, without a dance, and joy and laughter, and music. These things are very important but if you go to the bookstore down the corner, you will not see one black person on the cover. You'll see Elvis Presley, you'll see the Rolling Stones...But we're the real pioneers who started these [forms]."

While there was certainly some rhetorical flourish to his "not one black person on the cover" claim, his broader point of severely disproportionate representation in print was unquestionably accurate. Books on Elvis Presley alone outnumber titles on Chuck Berry, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Ray Charles, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, and Michael Jackson combined.

When I began my book, Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, in 2005, there wasn't one serious book focused on Jackson's creative output. Indeed, at my local Barnes & Noble, I could find only two books about him, period. Both dealt with the scandals and controversies of his personal life.

It seemed the only way Michael Jackson could get covered was if he was presented as a freak, a curiosity, a spectacle. Even reviews of his albums, post-Thriller, focused on the sensational and were overwhelmingly condescending, when not outright hostile.

Of course, this poor coverage wasn't only about race. Biases were often more subtle, veiled and coded. They were wrapped together with his overall otherness and conflated with the "Wacko Jacko" media construct. In addition, as Baldwin astutely noted, there were not entirely unrelated apprehensions about his wealth and fame, anxieties about his eccentricities and sexuality, confusion about his changing appearance, contempt for his childlike behavior, and fears about his power.

But the bottom line is this: Somehow, in the midst of the circus that surrounded him, Jackson managed to leave behind one of the most impressive catalogs in the history of music. Rarely has an artist been so adept at communicating the vitality and vulnerability of the human condition: the exhilaration, yearning, despair, and transcendence. Indeed, in Jackson's case he literally embodied the music. It charged through him like an electric current. He mediated it through every means at his disposal—his voice, his body, his dances, films, words, technology and performances. His work was multi-media in a way never before experienced.

This is why the tendency of many critics to judge his work against circumscribed, often white, Euro-American musical standards is such a mistake. Jackson never fit neatly into categories and defied many of the expectations of rock/alternative enthusiasts. He was rooted deeply in the African-American tradition, which is crucial to understanding his work. But the hallmark of his art is fusion, the ability to stitch together disparate styles, genres and mediums to create something entirely new.

If critics simply hold Jackson's lyrics on a sheet of paper next to those of Bob Dylan, then, they will likely find Jackson on the short end. It's not that Jackson's lyrics aren't substantive (on the HIStory album alone, he tackles racism, materialism, fame, corruption, media distortion, ecological destruction, abuse, and alienation). But his greatness is in his ability to augment his words vocally, visually, physically, and sonically, so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Listen, for example, to his non-verbal vocalizations—the cries, exclamations, grunts, gasps, and improvisatory vernacular—in which Jackson communicates beyond the strictures of language. Listen to his beat boxing and scatting; how he stretches or accents words; his James Brown-like staccato facility; the way his voice moves from gravelly to smooth to sublime; the passionate calls and responses; the way he soars just as naturally with gospel choirs and electric guitars.

Listen to his virtuosic rhythms and rich harmonies; the nuanced syncopation and signature bass lines; the layers of detail and archive of unusual sounds. Go beyond the usual classics, and play songs like "Stranger in Moscow," "I Can't Help It ," "Liberian Girl ," "Who Is It," and "In the Back." Note the range of subject matter, the spectrum of moods and textures, the astounding variety (and synthesis) of styles. On the Dangerous album alone, Jackson moves from New Jack Swing to classical, hip hop to gospel, R&B to industrial, funk to rock. It was music without borders or barriers, and it resonated across the globe.

However, it wasn't until Jackson's death in 2009 that he finally began to engender more respect and appreciation from the intelligentsia. It is one of humanity's strange habits to only truly appreciate genius once it's gone. Still, in spite of the renewed interest, the easy dismissals and disparity in serious print coverage remains.

As a competitor on par with the legendary Muhammad Ali, Michael Jackson wouldn't be satisfied. His goal was to prove that a black artist could do everything a white artist could (and more). He wanted to move beyond every boundary, earn every recognition, break every record, and achieve artistic immortality ("That is why to escape death," he said, "I bind my soul to my work"). The point of his ambition wasn't money and fame; it was respect.

As he boldly proclaimed in his 1991 hit, "Black or White," "I had to tell them I ain't second to none."

Brilliant! Thanks for sharing!

As TV’s most successful show hits a milestone, Matt Groening and co. open up in the newest issue of The Hollywood Reporter about mocking Murdoch's News Corp., collaborating with Liz Taylor, Lady Gaga and the King of Pop and O’Brien's awkward run-ins with Johnny Carson.

WORKING WITH MICHAEL JACKSON AND ELIZABETH TAYLOR
"Michael Jackson once called Jim [Brooks] and said he wanted to do the show and even write a hit song for Bart," showrunner Al Jean says of the uncredited 1991 guest spot and single, "Do the Bart Man." "This is the only time this ever happened. We went to his agent Sandy Gallin's house. We're all sitting around this huge table and everybody’s silent, including Michael. I’d never been more nervous in my life. He asked for a sound-alike vocalist, Kipp Lennon, to sing, and Michael did the spoken part. When Kipp sang, Michael was really cracking up. I also directed the Liz Taylor episode when she did the voice of Maggie saying, 'Daddy.' I asked her for 15 or 20 takes. At the end she said in the cute baby voice, 'F--- you!' It was really funny."

from: http://www.hollywoodrepor...ing-287823

Take us to Church Mike.... Mike killing them ad libsss

mjscarousal said:

Take us to Church Mike.... Mike killing them ad libsss

Another song to add to the list of song rehearsals that wasn't included in This Is It: Best Of Joy

bboy87 said:

Another song to add to the list of song rehearsals that wasn't included in This Is It: Best Of Joy

I think THIS was the "new song" he was rehearsing so maybe the version on "Michael" was really the finished one...

[Edited 2/11/12 21:16pm]

klick2me said:

WAS MICHAEL JACKSON SATANIC? IS HE IN HELL NOW?

Please watch the entire video to get the full effect. If not, you can fast foward to 54 minutes and 40 seconds to hear this young girl's testamony about hell and MJ.

klick

I watched this a while back... it's a waste of time, super insane religious babble .. I couldn't make it through the whole video, and I'd recommend nobody else bother either.

Just my opinion, of course.

bboy87 said:

CrabalockerFishwife said:

Last summer......a couple of songs leaked, either in full or snippets

Slave To The Rhythm

snippets of the original demo of Hollywood Tonight (dated maybe 1998-99)

snippets of People Of The World

snippets of I Am A Loser

snippets of Black Widow (fake)

Burn Tonight (fake)

Ready 2 Win (fake)

there were other songs (mostly stuff submitted by Eddie Cascio and James Porte) and honestly, NONE of them were anything to call home about

and the matter of HOW these were obtained.....let's just say afterwards, those people responsible got into BIG trouble....I'm talkin' JAIL trouble

Thank You.. I 've heard all of these, except for "Ready 2 Win" - which I heard a brief snippet of.. not really worth my time. I can't wait to hear all of "People Of The World" (thought the j-friends version sounded great) and "I Am A Loser".

I'd also like the untouched "Hollywood Tonight" - I think it's a classic song, but terribly overproduced. I'd like the original "Behind The Mask", too.

"Slave To The Rhythm" is the one song I do hope they'll finish.. there wasn't much going on instrumentally in the leaked version.

Half-assed as "MICHAEL" was, I can't wait for the next album.. I know it'll be much better. I really want to hear some more stuff from "Dangerous" onward, because I'm already content with the music he released up to "Bad", but from the 1990s on, most of his dance songs were all attacking the media. I'd love some more carefree songs, like those on "Off The Wall", but more modern sounding.

[Edited 2/9/12 21:48pm]

People like them give religion a bad name for those of us who are open minded believers

CrabalockerFishwife said:

bboy87 said:

Last summer......a couple of songs leaked, either in full or snippets

Slave To The Rhythm

snippets of the original demo of Hollywood Tonight (dated maybe 1998-99)

snippets of People Of The World

snippets of I Am A Loser

snippets of Black Widow (fake)

Burn Tonight (fake)

Ready 2 Win (fake)

there were other songs (mostly stuff submitted by Eddie Cascio and James Porte) and honestly, NONE of them were anything to call home about

and the matter of HOW these were obtained.....let's just say afterwards, those people responsible got into BIG trouble....I'm talkin' JAIL trouble

Thank You.. I 've heard all of these, except for "Ready 2 Win" - which I heard a brief snippet of.. not really worth my time. I can't wait to hear all of "People Of The World" (thought the j-friends version sounded great) and "I Am A Loser".

I'd also like the untouched "Hollywood Tonight" - I think it's a classic song, but terribly overproduced. I'd like the original "Behind The Mask", too.

"Slave To The Rhythm" is the one song I do hope they'll finish.. there wasn't much going on instrumentally in the leaked version.

Half-assed as "MICHAEL" was, I can't wait for the next album.. I know it'll be much better. I really want to hear some more stuff from "Dangerous" onward, because I'm already content with the music he released up to "Bad", but from the 1990s on, most of his dance songs were all attacking the media. I'd love some more carefree songs, like those on "Off The Wall", but more modern sounding.

[Edited 2/9/12 21:48pm]

I think you might be describing the Will.I.Am songs.

klick2me said:

WAS MICHAEL JACKSON SATANIC? IS HE IN HELL NOW?

Please watch the entire video to get the full effect. If not, you can fast foward to 54 minutes and 40 seconds to hear this young girl's testamony about hell and MJ.

klick

Are you serious? Do you really expect from people to take seriously this thing?

klick2me said:

WAS MICHAEL JACKSON SATANIC? IS HE IN HELL NOW?

Please watch the entire video to get the full effect. If not, you can fast foward to 54 minutes and 40 seconds to hear this young girl's testamony about hell and MJ.

klick

Put the crack pipe down, kid...

No comment.