independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Album Artistry: Celebrating Michael Jackson's Dynamic Discography
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 09/04/21 1:39pm

Free2BMe

MotownSubdivision said:

TrivialPursuit said:



MotownSubdivision said:


Triumph is better than Destiny (and Destiny is great). Happy to see more people noticing that album in recent years. The people that continue to dog Mike and cast him as some manufactured pop star who *gasp* didn't do EVERYTHING in the studio do so out of spite. What he lacked in quantity, he more than made up for in impact and since OTW, it's been nothing but consistent and quality albums.


I've honestly never heard people paint MJ as manufactured. Ever. That feels far fetched. MJ and Prince were never accused of being under some producer's thumb (like boy bands or pop princesses of the early aughts).

I honestly think, that despite his success and universal celebrity, MJ was still unappreciated as an artist. I mean, if one just listens to the music - and forgets all the dancing, the moonwalking, the nose jobs, the Vitaligo (sp), the glove, and even the videos - the real thrust of his talent as a songwriter and vocalist shines. The hype around MJ's albums or videos (ie: promotional events) often distracted folks from just hearing the music. I mean, really listening to it. Listening to the production, the vocal arrangements, the harmonies, the melody, the intricacies... it's just amazing.

When I listen to a Prince song or an MJ song, they just make sense, ya know? Like, "Of course there's a pre-chorus here," or "of course that's the bridge, DUH!" It feels organic, natural, like it's meant to be that and nothing else. That's a gift flowing through someone. A producer may add sounds from a keyboard or whatever to highlight all that, but the song is there, like it's always been there, and we're just now/then discovering it or hearing it. It's like seeing the ocean for the first time. It's breathtaking, it humbles you, it makes sense, and it is mysterious, and appealing - all at once. Yet none of it is predictable.

I think the only time that maybe MJ snarfed up some trends to try and stay relevant was on Invincible. The production is really heavy on that album, it almost feels overproduced (the way folks wrongly say the same about The Gold Experience). All that despite Dangerous having a heavy New Jack Swing leaning for half the album.

I've always had Triumph on a regular rotation. I often listen to it while I sew or quilt.

"Manufactured" perhaps wasn't the the precise word but the notion of it is implied when detractors undermine his talents. One moron on YouTube (comment section) said MJ was just a dancing karaoke singer simply because he wasn't a one man band or didn't write EVERY single song in his catalog.

The fact that we are in this present day where leagues of information is at the common man's disposal and people still can't read or look up album credits, can't understand context or simply are allowed to revel in willful ignorance is beyond dumbfounding. Thankfully, there are tons of people who can (or at least, choose to) read between the lines. Mike's legacy is doing pretty good from what I can see despite how shady many sections of the media have been with him. Just the fact that there are people who were born after his last album who know who he is and enjoy his music shows that MJ's legacy is safe regardless of whatever conceited rock critic publishes or whatever some pundit implies on TV or in writing.
[Edited 9/2/21 4:23am]
[Edited 9/2/21 7:14am]


Thank you so much for saying this. I have read these comments also on You Tube where people try to diminish Michael’s artistry by saying the things you stated. I agree that it is either unintentional or willful ignorance. There is also the fact that some are just too lazy to do any kind of research. Finally, I agree that Michael’s legacy is safe, thriving and RELEVANT. This man is STILL influencing generations of fans. Btw, the conceited rock critics have ALWAYS been biased against Michael and what they say or do now is nothing new. Whenever they said something negative about any MJ album, I MADE SURE THAT I BOUGHT THAT ALBUM.🙂
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 09/04/21 1:45pm

Free2BMe

MotownSubdivision said:

TrivialPursuit said:



MotownSubdivision said:



"Manufactured" perhaps was the the precise word but the notion of it is implied when detractors undermine his talents. One moron on YouTube (comment section) said MJ was just a dancing karaoke singer simply because he wasn't a one man band or didn't right EVERY single song in his catalog. The fact that we are in this present day where leagues of information is at the common man's disposal and people still can't read or look up album credits, can't understand context or simply are allowed to revel in willful ignorance is beyond dumbfounding.

Thankfully, there are tons of people who can (or at least, choose to) read between the lines. Mike's legacy is doing pretty good from what I can see despite how shady many sections of the media have been with him. Just the fact that there are people who were born after his last album who know who he is and enjoy his music shows that MJ's legacy is safe regardless of whatever conceited rock critic publishes or whatever some pundit implies on TV or in writing.


I used to love to read the whole album liner while listening to the album. I'd think, "wow, Jeff Pocaro is playing the drums on this song! They're so perfect!"

It does thrill me when I see a young person, born well after Invincible or was a youngster when he passed, really get into his music and know every word. Same with Prince.

That person in the comments is ridiculous. That's like calling someone such as Diane Warren or David Foster a "master at crayons" because they can draw out a song but can't sing it. Or whatever. It's obtuse, at best.

I do wish the MJ estate would put something else besides another damn Vegas show, t-shirt, or compilation.

I just have to wonder why it seems like MJ is the target for this scrutiny. I wonder what people like that think of Sinatra or Elvis or many of Motown's stars who weren't Marvin or Stevie? I highly doubt they'd claim Sinatra was just a 'karaoke singer' because he didn't pen his own songs or compose music and Mike (co-)wrote, (co-)composed and (co-)produced most of the Jacksons' stuff and of course his solo stuff in addition to his dancing and singing. It's stupid. MJ and Frank are from very different eras but it doesn't change the magnitude of ignorance at play in these opinions.

Michael's estate doesn't respect him as an artist or even just a person, it seems. Everything hinges on short term profit with them even at the expense of what fans want. The only worthwhile posthumous album we got from them was Bad 25, 9 years ago...

It's up to fans to remaster MJ's vids to 4K, they won't remaster or (re-)release live shows, they don't do a damn thing to highlight MJ the artist but instead solely focus on MJ the brand, MJ as a product which only further plays into the dehumanizing of him the media has been responsible for. Thank God for the internet and curious, vigilant Millennials and Gen Z'ers taking the initiative and doing their homework.
[Edited 9/2/21 7:59am]


I thought the Xscape posthumous album was AWESOME. I loved the fact that it included the originals and the remixed songs. That album and Invincible are still the albums that I listen to the most. I would love another Xscape type project, despite the whining from some fans.Ftr, some fans are going to complain about any and everything that the Estate does.😏
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 09/04/21 1:52pm

Free2BMe

CoolMF said:



RODSERLING said:


The MJ's estate just went to recertify MJ'sales in the US. It's the 6th most certified artist in the US. MICHAEL JACKSON Title: THE ESSENTIAL MICHAEL JACKSON Certification Date: August 20, 2021 Label: EPIC/LEGACY Format: ALBUM 5xP MICHAEL JACKSON Title: NUMBER ONES Certification Date: August 20, 2021 Label: LEGACY Format: ALBUM 5xP MICHAEL JACKSON Title: THRILLER Certification Date: August 20, 2021 Label: EPIC RECORDS Format: ALBUM 34xP MICHAEL JACKSON Title: BAD Certification Date: August 20, 2021 Label: EPIC/LEGACY Format: ALBUM 11xP


Help me with this as I've seen that number for Thriller in recent years and it doesn't add up for me-Thriller was at 30 million in the 80s and, considering how album sales are reconsidered based on streams and downloads, shouldn't it be certified much higher at this point?



I agree that the certification of Thriller should be MUCH higher. IMO, someone is trying to keep this certification lower. AGENDA%? Of course, it is. It has always been about the Agenda. Can we say the Eagles Greatest Hits?Hmmm🤔
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 09/04/21 2:01pm

RODSERLING

Free2BMe said:

CoolMF said:



RODSERLING said:


The MJ's estate just went to recertify MJ'sales in the US. It's the 6th most certified artist in the US. MICHAEL JACKSON Title: THE ESSENTIAL MICHAEL JACKSON Certification Date: August 20, 2021 Label: EPIC/LEGACY Format: ALBUM 5xP MICHAEL JACKSON Title: NUMBER ONES Certification Date: August 20, 2021 Label: LEGACY Format: ALBUM 5xP MICHAEL JACKSON Title: THRILLER Certification Date: August 20, 2021 Label: EPIC RECORDS Format: ALBUM 34xP MICHAEL JACKSON Title: BAD Certification Date: August 20, 2021 Label: EPIC/LEGACY Format: ALBUM 11xP


Help me with this as I've seen that number for Thriller in recent years and it doesn't add up for me-Thriller was at 30 million in the 80s and, considering how album sales are reconsidered based on streams and downloads, shouldn't it be certified much higher at this point?



I agree that the certification of Thriller should be MUCH higher. IMO, someone is trying to keep this certification lower. AGENDA%? Of course, it is. It has always been about the Agenda. Can we say the Eagles Greatest Hits?Hmmm🤔


In the contrary, MJ's estate, and even Sony before, always updated MJ's certifications, whenever they could.
Even BOTDF has been certified in 2000, whereas Sony US didn't care about the album in 1997.

But I agree the Eagles recertifications are an obvious fraud.
[Edited 9/4/21 14:18pm]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 09/04/21 2:08pm

Free2BMe

RODSERLING said:

Free2BMe said:



I agree that the certification of Thriller should be MUCH higher. IMO, someone is trying to keep this certification lower. AGENDA%? Of course, it is. It has always been about the Agenda. Can we say the Eagles Greatest Hits?Hmmm🤔


In the contrary, MJ's estate, and even Sony before, always updated MJ's certifications, whenever they could.
Even BOTDF has been certified in 2000, whereas Sony US didn't care about the album in 1997.

But I agree the Eagles recertifications are an obvious fraud.


At least we agree that the Eagles recertification is an OBVIOUS fraud.😀
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 09/04/21 2:27pm

RODSERLING

Free2BMe said:

RODSERLING said:



In the contrary, MJ's estate, and even Sony before, always updated MJ's certifications, whenever they could.
Even BOTDF has been certified in 2000, whereas Sony US didn't care about the album in 1997.

But I agree the Eagles recertifications are an obvious fraud.


At least we agree that the Eagles recertification is an OBVIOUS fraud.😀


Of course.
I hope the Prince'estate one day recertifies all Prince albums, especially Purple Rain.
The Beatles albums are also under certified, I think it s the most famous case.
IIRC Abbey Road hasn't been recertified since 1996, it sold like 4/5 millions pure sales since then, without not even adding up streaming!
Obviously, not even McCartney give a shit about it.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 09/04/21 5:08pm

CoolMF

RODSERLING said:

Free2BMe said:
I agree that the certification of Thriller should be MUCH higher. IMO, someone is trying to keep this certification lower. AGENDA%? Of course, it is. It has always been about the Agenda. Can we say the Eagles Greatest Hits?Hmmm🤔
In the contrary, MJ's estate, and even Sony before, always updated MJ's certifications, whenever they could. Even BOTDF has been certified in 2000, whereas Sony US didn't care about the album in 1997. But I agree the Eagles recertifications are an obvious fraud. [Edited 9/4/21 14:18pm]

Can album sales be certifed by an entity other than the RIAA?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 09/04/21 11:43pm

RODSERLING

CoolMF said:



RODSERLING said:


Free2BMe said:
I agree that the certification of Thriller should be MUCH higher. IMO, someone is trying to keep this certification lower. AGENDA%? Of course, it is. It has always been about the Agenda. Can we say the Eagles Greatest Hits?Hmmm🤔

In the contrary, MJ's estate, and even Sony before, always updated MJ's certifications, whenever they could. Even BOTDF has been certified in 2000, whereas Sony US didn't care about the album in 1997. But I agree the Eagles recertifications are an obvious fraud. [Edited 9/4/21 14:18pm]


Can album sales be certifed by an entity other than the RIAA?



No, that s a monopoly.
But someone has to pay tjem, or else they won't recertify automatically.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 09/05/21 7:45am

MickyDolenz

avatar

CoolMF said:

Can album sales be certifed by an entity other than the RIAA?

It's not a requirement to report record sales. The RIAA is voluntary and the labels have to pay a fee for certifications. When Berry Gordy ran Motown, sales were rarely reported. Small independents didn't report because either they couldn't afford the fee or their sales were not enough for gold or platinum. Also lables have reported sales to the RIAA less than they were to get out of paying as much in royalties. Same with Billboard magazine, there's ways to scam chart positions. Record labels have also known to release records to fail on purpose for a tax writeoff or to teach artists a lesson. Cutout records were not counted as sales and the record clubs, especially RCA, were not usually counted as sales (12 albums for a penny!). Record clubs had different bar codes and the name of the club printed somewhere on the cover.

You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 09/05/21 8:35am

RODSERLING

MickyDolenz said:



CoolMF said:



Can album sales be certifed by an entity other than the RIAA?



It's not a requirement to report record sales. The RIAA is voluntary and the labels have to pay a fee for certifications. When Berry Gordy ran Motown, sales were rarely reported. Small independents didn't report because either they couldn't afford the fee or their sales were not enough for gold or platinum. Also lables have reported sales to the RIAA less than they were to get out of paying as much in royalties. Same with Billboard magazine, there's ways to scam chart positions. Record labels have also known to release records to fail on purpose for a tax writeoff or to teach artists a lesson. Cutout records were not counted as sales and the record clubs, especially RCA, were not usually counted as sales (12 albums for a penny!). Record clubs had different bar codes and the name of the club printed somewhere on the cover.




RIAA certifies since 1994 music club sales retroactively.
They count everything, even freebies, even discs returned to the labels.

And I would be curious to know what they even counted for the Eagles RIAA certifications : musical post cards, cardboard record in cereals, ringtones ?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 09/05/21 11:52am

CoolMF

MickyDolenz said:

CoolMF said:

Can album sales be certifed by an entity other than the RIAA?

It's not a requirement to report record sales. The RIAA is voluntary and the labels have to pay a fee for certifications. When Berry Gordy ran Motown, sales were rarely reported. Small independents didn't report because either they couldn't afford the fee or their sales were not enough for gold or platinum. Also lables have reported sales to the RIAA less than they were to get out of paying as much in royalties. Same with Billboard magazine, there's ways to scam chart positions. Record labels have also known to release records to fail on purpose for a tax writeoff or to teach artists a lesson. Cutout records were not counted as sales and the record clubs, especially RCA, were not usually counted as sales (12 albums for a penny!). Record clubs had different bar codes and the name of the club printed somewhere on the cover.

Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 09/08/21 12:03am

Phase3

What is everyone's opinions on the Blood on the dance floor album?
For years I have kinda overlooked thos album.Not sure why,maybe because there is only 5 songs of new material or the fact that I never cared for remixes much.Especially techno
I recently gave some of the album alisten.The 5 new songs are very great and is just as good as the "History" material.
I now have more of a appreciation for techno,gave the remix of "you are not alone" a listen.Sounds very good
What do you all think of this album? Was it a major success when it was first released? I had it on cassette as a kid but I think I was too young to understand the songs
I was drawn to the cover because it was michael jackson and thought the pic of him being a giant so cool
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 09/08/21 2:01am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

MotownSubdivision said:

Triumph is better than Destiny (and Destiny is great). Happy to see more people noticing that album in recent years. The people that continue to dog Mike and cast him as some manufactured pop star who *gasp* didn't do EVERYTHING in the studio do so out of spite. What he lacked in quantity, he more than made up for in impact and since OTW, it's been nothing but consistent and quality albums.


Not really true. His last really decent album was Dangerous. 'Consistent and quality'? Albums that good are few and far between.


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 09/08/21 4:17am

MotownSubdivis
ion

avatar

fortuneandserendipity said:



MotownSubdivision said:


Triumph is better than Destiny (and Destiny is great). Happy to see more people noticing that album in recent years. The people that continue to dog Mike and cast him as some manufactured pop star who *gasp* didn't do EVERYTHING in the studio do so out of spite. What he lacked in quantity, he more than made up for in impact and since OTW, it's been nothing but consistent and quality albums.


Not really true. His last really decent album was Dangerous. 'Consistent and quality'? Albums that good are few and far between.


Hey, opinions.

Even if you want to say that, that's still 4 for 6.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 09/08/21 2:16pm

RODSERLING

Phase3 said:

What is everyone's opinions on the Blood on the dance floor album?
For years I have kinda overlooked thos album.Not sure why,maybe because there is only 5 songs of new material or the fact that I never cared for remixes much.Especially techno
I recently gave some of the album alisten.The 5 new songs are very great and is just as good as the "History" material.
I now have more of a appreciation for techno,gave the remix of "you are not alone" a listen.Sounds very good
What do you all think of this album? Was it a major success when it was first released? I had it on cassette as a kid but I think I was too young to understand the songs
I was drawn to the cover because it was michael jackson and thought the pic of him being a giant so cool


Its personally my favourite MJ album.
I wish it was longer, and with more subtle remixes.
I think the remixes were crap, besides History which was fun.
They didn't even dared to put TDCAU on it.

The album was a huge success in Europe. It was released during the second leg of the European History tour, so it helps.
In the US it was a huge flop though.

Sony didn't give Ghosts/2Bad a chance.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 09/08/21 3:26pm

PatrickS77

avatar

fortuneandserendipity said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Triumph is better than Destiny (and Destiny is great). Happy to see more people noticing that album in recent years. The people that continue to dog Mike and cast him as some manufactured pop star who *gasp* didn't do EVERYTHING in the studio do so out of spite. What he lacked in quantity, he more than made up for in impact and since OTW, it's been nothing but consistent and quality albums.


Not really true. His last really decent album was Dangerous. 'Consistent and quality'? Albums that good are few and far between.


Yes. Very true. Except Invincible all of his albums are stellar, with only 1 or 2 filler songs on each. Even Blood on the dancefloor, which, of course, helps to only consider the new songs and Scream louder. Forget about the remixes, which IS filler.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 09/08/21 3:28pm

PatrickS77

avatar

RODSERLING said:

And I would be curious to know what they even counted for the Eagles RIAA certifications : musical post cards, cardboard record in cereals, ringtones ?

Yeah. Those Eagles certs certainly are a huge mystery.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 09/08/21 10:38pm

Phase3

I watched the 2001 anniversary special that was broadcast on CBS last night
It was a incredible show.I remember seeing it when I was a kid and I wasn't but 12 years old
What is everyone's opinions on that show? Besides MJ,who had the best performance?
And what's the deal with the 2 different performances of "the way u make me feel"? One version is with britney spears and one version is without her..why did they film 2 different versions
You figure the superstar of her magnitude, they would've broadcasted the version with her in it.Was MJ not satisfied with that version perhaps?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 09/09/21 12:03am

PatrickS77

avatar

Phase3 said:

I watched the 2001 anniversary special that was broadcast on CBS last night
It was a incredible show.I remember seeing it when I was a kid and I wasn't but 12 years old
What is everyone's opinions on that show? Besides MJ,who had the best performance?
And what's the deal with the 2 different performances of "the way u make me feel"? One version is with britney spears and one version is without her..why did they film 2 different versions
You figure the superstar of her magnitude, they would've broadcasted the version with her in it.Was MJ not satisfied with that version perhaps?


Well, it featured the reunion with his brothers. So that alone was amazing and reason enough for me to be there. Yeah, that was the other best performance. wink They didn't just film 2 versions of TWYMMF. There were 2 shows and she only was available for 1. The reason she was not on the broadcast was some exclusivity deal another TV channel had with her at that time, that prevented her from being on CBS. At one point it even was said, that she couldn't come at all. If I remember correctly. It's 20 years ago, after all. wink
[Edited 9/9/21 6:41am]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 09/09/21 2:49am

RODSERLING

Yes, it's correct.

The show was a huge ratings success, like 25 millions of tv spectators.
Sadly, it wasn't made at all for promoting Invincible.

MJ should have used these shows as a vehicle for promoting his new album, by performing at least 3 songs out of it.

The TV rights were to expensive for most of the abroad channels to be broadcasted worldwide at the time.
What a shame!

I remember in France, it was to be broadcasted during the holiday season on the most viewed channel. But the producer ( Endemol), despite being a huge fanfan and attended the 1st show, walked out because of the price ( too much artists we don't care about in France), and the deal wasn't made.
[Edited 9/9/21 2:50am]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 09/09/21 3:06pm

Marrk

avatar

Phase3 said:

I watched the 2001 anniversary special that was broadcast on CBS last night It was a incredible show.I remember seeing it when I was a kid and I wasn't but 12 years old What is everyone's opinions on that show? Besides MJ,who had the best performance? And what's the deal with the 2 different performances of "the way u make me feel"? One version is with britney spears and one version is without her..why did they film 2 different versions You figure the superstar of her magnitude, they would've broadcasted the version with her in it.Was MJ not satisfied with that version perhaps?

The Jacksons reunion was the best part. It went to shit on MJ's solo part. Michael hiding his botched surgery with hs hand all the time is an annoying watch. That's what it looks like to me anyway. Make up all sweated off around his mouth, him constantly touching it. What a mess he was then. It didn't get better.

Yeah, we'll, we'll try to imagine what silence looks like.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 09/09/21 5:28pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

Marrk said:

Phase3 said:

I watched the 2001 anniversary special that was broadcast on CBS last night It was a incredible show.I remember seeing it when I was a kid and I wasn't but 12 years old What is everyone's opinions on that show? Besides MJ,who had the best performance? And what's the deal with the 2 different performances of "the way u make me feel"? One version is with britney spears and one version is without her..why did they film 2 different versions You figure the superstar of her magnitude, they would've broadcasted the version with her in it.Was MJ not satisfied with that version perhaps?

The Jacksons reunion was the best part. It went to shit on MJ's solo part. Michael hiding his botched surgery with hs hand all the time is an annoying watch. That's what it looks like to me anyway. Make up all sweated off around his mouth, him constantly touching it. What a mess he was then. It didn't get better.


To answer Phase3's comment: Things like that are often filmed twice, and the best of both is put together. It's not unusual, you know that. Even the amazing George Michael bluray from a few years ago, Live in London, was taped over two nights. Some of the shots are pretty telling, too. The conga player keeps changing during "Fantasy" or some other song. Heck, even live events like Janet's The Velvet Rope Tour Live are heavily edited once they make it to DVD. As far as Brit Brit, who knows. She didn't sound that great, and it just didn't work.

To the MJ hiding his face stuff: I always thought one of two things was happening:

1) some of those songs have such a lower register in the verses, it's hard to get that over a mic. Especially those damn headsets. I assume he was cupping the mic to help isolate his voice and cut out any noise, so he could be heard.

2) he was lip syncing. Not a first for MJ. (Half the damn History World Tour was lipsynced.)

MJ wasn't in great shape. When he was in the audience, he was stoned out of his fucking mind. It was some book - I forget which one - that talked about MJ being on something that had him zonked out, and they were trying to wake him up and get him together mere hours before he had to show up and pretend to be enjoying these jokers covering his songs. His voice wasn't up to par the whole time, but some songs he sang better than others. So I don't know which night was which, but it could be safe to assume night two was the better night; because he was probably more sober, aware, and ready to perform.

I don't think it had anything to do with makeup. If he wanted a touch up, or they needed to re-tape something, they could have done that on the spot. That's why they were there. The CGI re-touching for the re-broadcast was what was annoying. He was as thin (for him) as Whitney was, and they went in there and tried to hide that, after every other person already had it on their VHS tapes at home.

MJ just looked tired, drugged, and dopey. And that's saying a lot cuz he's usually on his game. And this was only 2001. The dude was only forty-three years old. All the other brothers, sans Randy, were older than that, and they were all over the place. (Of course, when you don't perform nearly as much as your epically more popular brother, you have that recouping time, I guess.)

AND CAN I JUST SAY: there are moments when the Jacksons - as a group or as a family - try to put on some shindig, and it's just ....lacking. It's overbaked as much as it's lacking in originality or anything engaging. I think about those Jackson Family Honors or whatever. Even the award "trophy" itself looked ridiculous. I'm not sure I would've even put that in my garden so keep the gnomes company.




Sorta not surprised that MJ distanced himself from family type events like that (in public) for so very long. They're corny. That said, the show felt a bit lacking. Sure, it was great seeing all 6 of them together, don't get me wrong. But the stage, the band out of sight and not even able to interact with the group in some way, the house lights being kept on, it all felt like... well, like a cheap TV special.

"eye don’t really care so much what people say about me because it is a reflection of who they r."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 09/09/21 8:13pm

Phase3

TrivialPursuit I guess I was being naive because I thought the show was filmed LIVE and it was only a 1 night event.Makes more sense now though
Whitney Houston looked very thin but MJ looked healthy.I enjoyed his solo set more than the jackson 5 set
That performance of "Billie Jean" was fire and so was "you rock my world"

Does anyone remember there was a rumor going around in 2007 or 2008 of MJ performing at the Grammys? To my memory it was even advertised on TV but MJ decided at the last minute to not do it because he wanted a award to be given to him and his name mentioned a certain number of times throughout the broadcast?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 09/10/21 12:23am

TrivialPursuit

avatar

Phase3 said:

TrivialPursuit I guess I was being naive because I thought the show was filmed LIVE and it was only a 1 night event.Makes more sense now though Whitney Houston looked very thin but MJ looked healthy.
I enjoyed his solo set more than the jackson 5 set That performance of "Billie Jean" was fire and so was "you rock my world"
Does anyone remember there was a rumor going around in 2007 or 2008 of MJ performing at the Grammys?
To my memory it was even advertised on TV but MJ decided at the last minute to not do it because he wanted a award to be given to him and his name mentioned a certain number of times throughout the broadcast?


It was filmed just a couple of days before 9/11, on Sept 7 and 10, 2001. MJ & some of his folks were still at a hotel when the planes hit in NYC. They were watching it on TV and scared to death, wanting to get out of town. I forget how they did.

Wikipedia and other sources note, "On September 11, 2001, Jackson along with his personal assistant Frank Cascio were scheduled for a meeting at the World Trade Center, to return a 'two million' dollar watch Jackson used for the concert, and a diamond necklace for Elizabeth Taylor, but overslept and did not make it." Wikipedia also has the set lists for both nights, which different greatly.

The show was also the last time Randy performed w/ his brothers. He retired from music after that, and the remaining 4 perform together on occasion.

With the MTV thing, I sorta remember that. I think it was a promoter thing, and he pretended to faint during a rehearsal then pulled out of it. OR - that was an HBO thing. I forget, but it also seems earlier in 2008.

"eye don’t really care so much what people say about me because it is a reflection of who they r."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 09/10/21 4:55am

RODSERLING

The producer of the shows, David Guest, wanted MJ to do 3 concerts originally, but MJ backed off to only two.
MJ and Whitney Houston rehearsed One Day In Your Life for the 1st show.
On stage, MJ announced Whitney, but then someone whispered him something to his ear, and then he performed the following song.

In fact MJ was told she was too high on cocaine to come on stage.
Too bad that performance didn't happen. At least he could have performed it alone, but he was obviously very high too and probably didn't remember Whitney, s verse.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 09/10/21 11:55am

Phase3

TrivialPursuit said:



Phase3 said:


TrivialPursuit I guess I was being naive because I thought the show was filmed LIVE and it was only a 1 night event.Makes more sense now though Whitney Houston looked very thin but MJ looked healthy.
I enjoyed his solo set more than the jackson 5 set That performance of "Billie Jean" was fire and so was "you rock my world"
Does anyone remember there was a rumor going around in 2007 or 2008 of MJ performing at the Grammys?
To my memory it was even advertised on TV but MJ decided at the last minute to not do it because he wanted a award to be given to him and his name mentioned a certain number of times throughout the broadcast?


It was filmed just a couple of days before 9/11, on Sept 7 and 10, 2001. MJ & some of his folks were still at a hotel when the planes hit in NYC. They were watching it on TV and scared to death, wanting to get out of town. I forget how they did.

Wikipedia and other sources note, "On September 11, 2001, Jackson along with his personal assistant Frank Cascio were scheduled for a meeting at the World Trade Center, to return a 'two million' dollar watch Jackson used for the concert, and a diamond necklace for Elizabeth Taylor, but overslept and did not make it." Wikipedia also has the set lists for both nights, which different greatly.

The show was also the last time Randy performed w/ his brothers. He retired from music after that, and the remaining 4 perform together on occasion.

With the MTV thing, I sorta remember that. I think it was a promoter thing, and he pretended to faint during a rehearsal then pulled out of it. OR - that was an HBO thing. I forget, but it also seems earlier in 2008.


It wasn't affiliated with MTV,I know for certain it was for the Grammy awards and it was to promote Thriller 25 anniversary so it had to be 2008
I think I remember MJ wanting a award invented just for him.
As soon as I heard about MJ and prince possibly being I the same arena,I thought my dreams of a duet would finally come true but I was disappointed
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 09/10/21 12:26pm

Cloudbuster

avatar

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 09/10/21 3:50pm

RODSERLING

Phase3 said:

TrivialPursuit said:



Phase3 said:


TrivialPursuit I guess I was being naive because I thought the show was filmed LIVE and it was only a 1 night event.Makes more sense now though Whitney Houston looked very thin but MJ looked healthy.
I enjoyed his solo set more than the jackson 5 set That performance of "Billie Jean" was fire and so was "you rock my world"
Does anyone remember there was a rumor going around in 2007 or 2008 of MJ performing at the Grammys?
To my memory it was even advertised on TV but MJ decided at the last minute to not do it because he wanted a award to be given to him and his name mentioned a certain number of times throughout the broadcast?


It was filmed just a couple of days before 9/11, on Sept 7 and 10, 2001. MJ & some of his folks were still at a hotel when the planes hit in NYC. They were watching it on TV and scared to death, wanting to get out of town. I forget how they did.

Wikipedia and other sources note, "On September 11, 2001, Jackson along with his personal assistant Frank Cascio were scheduled for a meeting at the World Trade Center, to return a 'two million' dollar watch Jackson used for the concert, and a diamond necklace for Elizabeth Taylor, but overslept and did not make it." Wikipedia also has the set lists for both nights, which different greatly.

The show was also the last time Randy performed w/ his brothers. He retired from music after that, and the remaining 4 perform together on occasion.

With the MTV thing, I sorta remember that. I think it was a promoter thing, and he pretended to faint during a rehearsal then pulled out of it. OR - that was an HBO thing. I forget, but it also seems earlier in 2008.


It wasn't affiliated with MTV,I know for certain it was for the Grammy awards and it was to promote Thriller 25 anniversary so it had to be 2008
I think I remember MJ wanting a award invented just for him.
As soon as I heard about MJ and prince possibly being I the same arena,I thought my dreams of a duet would finally come true but I was disappointed


Nobody was crazy enough to think MJ would come to an award, especially in 2008.
I followed very close every news at the time.
You are just quoting tabloids.

In 2008 to promote Thriller 25, he was supposed to come to the biggest awards ceremony in France ( Nrj Music Awards).
But he just made a video. And that's all the promotion he made for this crap.

Maybe your tabloid rumour was based upon that.
He wasn't in such a bad shape, I mean he was able to stand a minute and his face was more expressive than in 2001.

https://youtu.be/8HCpmEqooi4
[Edited 9/10/21 15:50pm]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 09/11/21 11:36am

Free2BMe

Phase3 said:

TrivialPursuit I guess I was being naive because I thought the show was filmed LIVE and it was only a 1 night event.Makes more sense now though
Whitney Houston looked very thin but MJ looked healthy.I enjoyed his solo set more than the jackson 5 set
That performance of "Billie Jean" was fire and so was "you rock my world"

Does anyone remember there was a rumor going around in 2007 or 2008 of MJ performing at the Grammys? To my memory it was even advertised on TV but MJ decided at the last minute to not do it because he wanted a award to be given to him and his name mentioned a certain number of times throughout the broadcast?


I don’t believe that TABLOID rumor.🤔
[Edited 9/11/21 11:41am]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 09/11/21 2:25pm

Phase3

Free2BMe said:

Phase3 said:

TrivialPursuit I guess I was being naive because I thought the show was filmed LIVE and it was only a 1 night event.Makes more sense now though
Whitney Houston looked very thin but MJ looked healthy.I enjoyed his solo set more than the jackson 5 set
That performance of "Billie Jean" was fire and so was "you rock my world"

Does anyone remember there was a rumor going around in 2007 or 2008 of MJ performing at the Grammys? To my memory it was even advertised on TV but MJ decided at the last minute to not do it because he wanted a award to be given to him and his name mentioned a certain number of times throughout the broadcast?


I don’t believe that TABLOID rumor.🤔
[Edited 9/11/21 11:41am]

I remember it being discussed on this very site
Most likely isn't true
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Album Artistry: Celebrating Michael Jackson's Dynamic Discography