Firstly, to clear up some of the wicked accusations, Michael suffers from vitiligo, an illness which members of my family carry and have suffered from.

>>ME: Sorry, but I and members of my family suffer from vitiligo, and I Know many others from support groups. NONE of us have gone to the extreme Jacko has gone. The skin color he has isn't the result of vitiligo - the lack of pigment makes the skin pink, not white.

Pictures exist and I've seen them online myself, which display Michael's blotchy patches, on his chest and on his arms. To ridicule one of a misfortune merely reflects you as part of the very ugly natured society we live in.

>>ME: Again, while he may have the disease, his current choice of skin color isn't because of it.

The allegations are blatant fraude. Anybody who believes to the contary is forming their opinions on what they've read from The National Enquirer and such garbage. How many of the naysayers have read GQ's 'Was Michael Jackson Framed'? It provides solid EVIDENCE of the guys innocence. It's availible to read online. You don't obtain the right to judge his character without knowing the facts.

>>ME: Then why the $5 million dollar settlement? Sorry, but if I was innocent, you couldn't get a nickle out of me, much less 5 mill.

As for the tired 'Prince is an artist, Michael's an entertainer' arguement, I'd like to point out one thing: Michael's been writing music for longer than Prince.

>>ME: Again, not true. Not even close


He's been writing, producing, arranging, composing AND performing (check the credits if you don't believe me) for years now. Many of his finest tracks are ones written and produced solely by Michael (Who Is It, Morphine, Speechless, Earth Song.

>>ME: Earth Song???? You've got to be kidding.

, They Don't Care About Us etc). Listen to the Billie Jean demo MJ recorded at his family home, way before Quincy had touched it, it was MICHAEL who came up with those killer rifts, it was MICHAEL who composed the melodies and the strings... QJ's role on production credits was very minimal. Michael is certainly no artist of his producers, especially considering a lot of his work, he's the only producer.

>>ME: Hmmm, so much to work with. First, Mikey and Prince are the same age. While Mikey's has been writing, producing, arranging, composing AND performing for years, Prince has done the same, and for a longer period of time (YOU check the credits). Not only has Prince done so longer, he has, what, 30+ albums to his credit, while Mikey has 5 (and really, he shouldn't be credited with Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad - those are Quincy Jones albums. You can especially tell by comparing the sound to Dangerous and Invincible). And if you can listen to that demo of Thriller, and then compare it to the final Q produced track and can't hear a clear difference, you have my pity.


You criticise his lack of output, but at that's where Prince falls short. Half of Prince's albums are killer and the other halves are filler (Emancipation, Diamonds & Pearls, TRC and even tracks on Lovesexy and 1999). If Prince spent longer on each disc, and stopped padding out the albums with so much non-distinct, forgettable jamming sessions then he'd be a much more significant artist. Thank heavens for the CD, so you don't have to wade your way through the likes of Let's Have A Baby, Mr Happy, Sha La La La La Means I Love U and Sex In The Summer to get to the real gems like In This Bed I Scream, My Computer, The Love We Make and Soul Sanctuary.

>>ME: Umm with the except of two tracks, each of the above are better than anything on Invincible

Michael's output is no less wealthy than Prince's.

>>ME: If so, where is it?


He's notorious for writing hundreds of tracks for each album and selecting the best by a process of elimination.

>>ME: Sorry, but so do most songwriters. It's part of the craft.

And it shows, as his albums are always cohesive, and always have a little something for everyone's musical tastes, which is why people still buy and care about his music, unlike Prince, who narrowly markets himself to one demographic.

.....

Whilst we're in the mood for popularity contests...

I almost laughed out loud at the person who told me to "go to one of MJ's incredible-active fan sites (not)". Prince's fanbase isn't half of MJ's. In 1998, Prince stuggled to sell out Wembley Arena (10,000). In 1997, MJ sold out Wembley STADIUM (75,000) four times! So Michael can sell 300,000 tickets with ease, whereas Prince stuggles to sell a mere 10,000. I'll leave you to do the math.

Supernova said:

interesting rebuttal to 100% facts..about this "Pre-Op Transexual" who is going to be dropped by Epic ( or sign to a nothing contract)

I actually have a feeling Epic will drop him.. who wants to spend $40-60 Million to only sell 1.6 Million albums.. and ALL the headaches of a "Boy Lover"?

* I feel the only reason Epic and others spent ALL this money to "fix" MJ's Career is because THEY OWN ALL his Hits.. & Back Catalog of Music Material.. and IF THEY want to make money on it (with the public) in the future.. they can't destroy him by "telling the truth".. or just having him "Lay" out there and have EVERYONE use their Brains of what MJ is about in his Personal Life so they used some "public relations" to brainwash much of the public ( they had PR working on MJ since 1999.. and trying to figure when can we drop this new album ( it has been in the can since early 1999).. Good Job!! Guys.. you did something that surprised me.. you got him around 370,000 sold first week which was a #1 album.

* IF you notice also.. right when MJ's Latest Album was #1.. Epic released ALL Micheal Jackson Re-Issue "New versions" of Thriller and others.. SO they can ride that wave .. because "they" feel this is the last harrah..


so I feel knowing Public Relations.. and how most of this Industry works.. he will be dropped, if I had to take a guess...

*Plus BAD MOUTHING Tommy Matola head of SONY about a month ago.. instead of "Thanking him" for "fixing" this (digusting man who should be in jail)..career

what does this EGO driven scumbag do.. BLAME HIM?? for poor sales of this latest album?? what an ungreatful scum-bag


~ the truth is MJ is NOT even the best Jackson.. Janet is 100% better and the only "dance/singer" who is a "musican".. she writes from her life.. learns ALL new dance steps.. sings LIVE at concerts for most of it...and has had more then 2 albums.. EVERYONE of Janet's albums (since her father Joe was fired as her manager) IS GREAT!!

She is better then ALL these "fake" Icons
MJ
Madonna
* all these young hacks ripping her off..

Janet you are a true talent.. and puts her time in.. and you get the respect here at "Tha Org".. from this Prince Fan!

MJ.. you should check your no talent ego at the door with that "Tommy Matola Bashing".. because you should have really been MOONWALKING your way to a Jail Cell for "Child Rape"

be greatful you are not in jail for something you did.. and That "The Media" moved on when OJ Simpson killed his wife.

Mj not playing piano or guitar....ooh excuse me i never saw James Brown with an instrument neither, and what about George Clinton??!!!!And the list goes on.....Playing instruments on stage (or on records) is what makes you talented...Madonna played guitar on her last tour so is she now more talented than MJ, just because she dares touch an instrument....total bullshit....Mj is not a musician, never pretend to be one...take him for what he is: a performer. For me, Mj and Prince are not in the same category, Mj is more like James Brown, Sinatra, Nat king Cole, Smokey Robinson, Jackie Wilson, most of Motown acts, Sam Cooke....Prince is in another one with: Zappa, Miles,Hendrix, Sly stone.... I like the two of them for different reasons and i don't understand why i'd have to make a choice....

Please stop the dissing, show you're not limiting your views to tabloïds headlines.....Freak, gay, peadophile, bastard, criminal...that's your words when you speak about him, why so much HATE???? Maybe you don't like his work, that's ok with me, you don't like his personnality, that's ok too, but why so much rudeness and disrescpect????

Forget the man if he's not you cup of tea....There's place for both Prince and Mj, in the music world.

Why would Jackson's side agree to settle out of court, given his claims of innocence and the questionable evidence against him? His attorneys apparently decided there were many factors that argued against taking the case to civil court. Among them was the fact that Jackson's emotional fragility would be tested by the oppressive media coverage that would likely plague the singer day after day during a trial that could last as long as six months. Politics and racial issues had also
seeped into legal proceedings -- particularly in Los Angeles, which was still recovering from the Rodney King ordeal -- and the defense feared that a court of law could not be counted on to deliver justice. Then, too, there was the jury mix to consider. As one attorney says, "They figured that Hispanics might resent [Jackson] for his money, blacks might resent him for trying to be white, and whites would have trouble getting around the molestation issue." In Resnick's opinion, "The
hysteria is so great and the stigma [of child molestation] is so strong, there is no defense against it."

Jackson's lawyers also worried about what might happen if a criminal trial followed, particularly in Santa Barbara, which is a largely white, conservative, middle-to-upper-class community. Any way the defense looked at it, a civil trial seemed too big a gamble. By meeting the terms of a civil settlement, sources say, the lawyers figured they could forestall a criminal trial through a tacit understanding that Chandler would agree to make his son unavailable to testify.

Others close to the case say the decision to settle also probably had to do with another factor -- the lawyers' reputations. "Can you imagine what would happen to an attorney who lost the Michael Jackson case?" says Anthony Pellicano. "There's no way for all three lawyers to come out winners unless they settle. The only person who lost is Michael Jackson." But Jackson, says Branca, "changed his mind about [taking the case to trial] when he returned to this country. He hadn't seen the massive coverage and how hostile it was. He just wanted the whole thing to go away."

Actually, the truly sad and bitter fans are Michael Jackson fans since they have to accept the fact that he is certainly no longer the King of Pop. Getting knocked off the top of the pop charts after only one week by Britney Spears must certainly be an embarrassment to the ghoul formerly known as Michael Jackson. And taking six or seven years to come out with the very mediocre Invincible is hardly the sign of genius. MJ is a very sick individual, and I think more and more people are starting to realize that. He's a liar and a pedophile who used to be majorly talented.
Meanwhile, Prince has taken on the record industry, and in many ways has won the battle. He still manages to sell a respectable amount of CDs for someone who gets no airplay and in effect has been blacklisted by the music industry. More and more artists are following his lead and doing it for themselves. Prince's legacy will be far more substantial and longer lasting than Michael's. Michael still a significant artist? Well, firstly he's not an artist and the only thing significant about him is how bad he looks and why he won't sing live anymore. And MJ's legacy? In twenty years, his son will probably be a child molester just like his daddy.