Latest on MJJC

dark messages behind 'michael' cover

I didn't like the cover/painting since the first time I saw it. The painter was not a skillful one, with sense of aesthetics.

This painting/cover looks like an growing tumor... the heads on it look like the heads surrounding that evil tree
in the movie 'Sleepy Hallow'. ( look at inlay work and see all the heads there... creepy... )

Also they use predominant older pics from 80s and begging of 90s... The most recent eras are hidden, with little portraits in the background... or sides...





I do not agree with the crown being taken... Mike got a painting when 2 cherubs are crowning him just like that and the crown is not yet on his head - that image is taken from older picture, they show like that royal being crowned by cherubs.. and those royals at time of specific paintings being commissioned were already kings/queens.... So the interpretation does not apply.






I've painted many years, now I am mostly doing photography. As an artist I got to say that this work is a disgrace. it defies the sense of aesthetics... and some things there are not pleasant to the eye, and all those are justaposed and growing one from another... Big NO from me on this one.

Do not believe I am saying this, because I am against the album. I am not, I've bought it on Amazon and plan to buy a couple more. I am agaisnt boycotting the album.
 
Last edited:
michaelslady said:
Sony's "Michael"

The Album

MJ_2010_MJ_Cover_sony_album.jpg


I love digging beneath the surface searching for the subliminal. Call it instinct, or my several years working as a TV consultant finding the soul of a character. Where SONY is concerned, perhaps the messages are not so well disguised, which would be consistent with everything else they have been doing since June 25, 2009! But that's just my opinion. You be the judge. Study the artwork on the new Michael CD, which is skillfully done, wouldn't you agree? However, if you look closer you may find some of your own disturbing symbolic images.

First, unlike Michael, who was the personification of love and hope for humanity, the overall atmosphere of the entire montage is full of negative energy. Not so much for the actual objects or scenes being depicted, but in its use of colors, which conveys a heavy and dark mood.

I also detect a look of "defeat" in the center portrait, evident in Michael's eyes and downward positioning of the mouth. While beautifully drawn, where is that familiar Light? The Victorious Conqueror? His expression is foreboding. Has Michael lost his "power?" Also, look at the smaller "Thriller" Michael in the red jacket. Are your eyes drawn to HIS face...or the two zombies on either side of him? These images are excessively hideous and give off an uneasy feeling of "devouring" Michael, whereas the original Thriller ghouls were ugly, yet campy in nature, with Michael always "in control." The feeling I get here is that Michael is in danger.

None of this may be significant, and my personal mood could be influencing my artistic interpretation. Nevertheless, this last image is the most troubling, which makes everything else that much more thought provoking. Michael is the KING OF POP - you with me so far? And as such, the crown should be ON HIS HEAD! No mistake about it - the crown here is OFF Michael's head. There is no reason for the cherubs to be placing it on his head, since Michael has owned the crown for most of his adult career! If you look at the cherubs, they are poised in such a way (noticeably the left) so as to suggest the crown is being lifted off and away from Michael's head.

SONY, are you trying to tell Michael something? Don't be too confident...Game Not Over Yet!

By: Micheline James


http://www.michaeljacksonjustice.com/Michael_Album.htm
Click to expand...


I notice the crown was not on his head, rather hanging on air! MJJ's eyes are baggy, sloppy shoulder, and giraffe neck! MJJ had broader shoulder beautiful eyes. Overall I don't like the cover!I don't know it is Vincent McKoy's or Kadir's work! Needless to say SONY maybe is trying to resonate to us the fans something, but whatever it is, they are failing! For me Michael Jackson was is and forever will be King Of Pop in all eras!
 
The more I look at the cover, the more it seems to be just sort of quickly thrown together with a lot of "stuff" in it. Below is a video of Christian Audigier and his MJ magazine collection. At about 40 seconds, there is a picture on the cover a magazine that could almost be the one used on "Michael"...just very similar. A lot of stuff was put into the cover...just not a lot of thought. They are trying to make money as fast as they can and don't mind being a bit sloppy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTwqMjCReUY
 
Reminds me of all the speculations about the Dangerous album cover.
 
I don´t think king of pop, king of music needs a crown.
I see the crown in a different way.
Cherubs are putting the crown on Michaels head.
Cherubs are children with wings
We know Michael didn´t want children to die, he wanted to save all of them but he couldn´t.
The cherubs know he did his very best and he visited many of them before they died.
I see the king for children in the painting.
We who are adults have one time in our lives been children and a part of that are always with us.

I can also see he is a light in the darker.
I write is because we can still enjoy his music, lyrics etc
 
Whos is saying they are putting the crown on his head?
You can also say they take it away, the figures of the body wouldnt change if they lift it.
 
tricia70 said:
I fail to see how that is so funny. The article doesn't say exactly when in 09 it was created and finished. It could have been finished before Michael passed. After 6/25/09 the estate was just trying to get TII ready, only thinking about the cover art for that particular album. They didn't even have a deal with Sony until the next year. So the estate already had the foresight to start cover art for a brand new album before Sony was in the picture? Like I mentioned I have read somewhere where they had found this painting and thought it would be fitting for this album.

Besides, Michael had many paintings commissioned that depicted him and his life in many settings. the Opus has some there. This painting reminds me of something Michael would commission.
Click to expand...

Agree. I think MJ would like the cover very much.

I always wanted a cover in the Dangerous style - so when I saw the cover I couldn't have been more pleased. I LOVE THE COVER !!
 
I think it has a lot of symbolism just like Dangerous.
The difference here is that can be interpreted in many ways.
Are they putting the crown on or taking it off...?
No question for me here, he allways had it and allways will ! :)
 
Gloating over possibilities (i.e. "What if is Michael did indeed commission the painting?") is evil, too, by the way. The answer would be the same.

To whoever said that Dangerous had a dark theme as well, plus videos Thriller and Ghosts. "Dangerous" is an incredibly underestimated work of art, certain people used to demonize the cover, for they came up with the conclusion that it forms a pentagram, a.k.a the one of baphomet's, which means, in their mind, Michael was a satanist. They didn't think of the fact that the album is suitably called "Dangerous", meaning what is represented on the album's cover is dangerous = evil = perillous. Michael's eyes, unlike the eyes for "Michael", have a warmth to them, an urgency to them, but a warm, conscious one nonetheless; his eyes on Dangerous silently ring the alarm that he is surrounded by a dangerous, weird world, including a dangerous, weird music industry, meaning he is the one erroneously portrayed as dangerous and weird. It's inspired by "The Garden Of Earthly Delights" of Hyeronimus Bosch, which depicts hell. Hell is dangerous. The song "Dangerous" talks about an evil girl who occupation is to tempt, she is 'the girl I could not trust', "the girl is bad', 'the girl is dangerous', which further makes him cry "I have to pray to God /'Cause I know how lust can blind", and goes on to describe her in biblical terms. The eyes on the "Michael' cover are hallow or mean, and he is depicted in his youth, like his recent years would've been a disgrace or something, or maybe he wouldn't have looked that well in their mind. The title is so ironic, and "Michael's" hands across his heart (honesty) not just because of that, but because on 65 percent of the album he is not even there, he's not true. Talk about really funny and ironic, right?

Also, with "Thriller" and "Ghosts", again, the title of the short films and the films are in complete harmony. Thriller is generally something of intense action that can turn scary. He's expressing not that he has become a monster, but how scary his childhood fears were (i.e. when his father came to the window, with a monster mask on). Yeah, it takes psychoanalysis too. In 'Ghosts' he expresses how scary the media is to him: "Who gave you the right to scare my family / [...] my baby, she needs me, / [...] Tell me are you the ghost of jealousy? / A suckin' ghost of jealosy?; in "Is It Scary", he wonders "Am I scary for you?", affirms "See the evil one is you", "I'm tired of being abused, / You know you're scaring me too, / I see the evil is you".

Whereas on 'Michael', the cover, generally speaking is a kitsch: throwing things in there, like all sorts of personages from his life which some weren't even his friends to begin with - just montages of elements . Second, trying to imitate the "Dangerous" the cover, trying to imitate something close to perfection becomes charicatural. The butterfly on Michael's shoulder looks innocent and nice, and seems to compliment the childlike title "Michael". It's just that it doesn't, for they're passing it forward as being resulted from him - and he isn't a hundred percent Michael on the album, which means they're lying. The monarch butterfly could actually mean what I've mentioned before. That it's a symbol of mind-control: it's a beautiful symbol, so one shouldn't think it means something else. Moreover, it makes Michael a victim of that - not the victor he is portrayed as, being that the butterfly is on his shoulder, sort of like an 'angel'. On the "Dangerous" cover, Michael's eyes look protected by what's surrounding them, that armour which bears his name. On "Michael", it almost appears like he doesn't have that safety anymore, he is just Michael, and doesn't have the 'back-up' of his powerful surname. He's dressed as the nobles, but his crown, representative of his shield of protection against the media (who spat on him and his reputation and dragged him in the mud, as beggars are), seems to be taken off his head, which again exposes him, making him vulnerable. He either appears vulnerable, exposed to dangers or blank. Like a robot. I won't sit here and explain the MK Ultra's mind-control techniques further, it's just that it's very coincidental and at the same time, curious, that there's this symbol so out there up front, and considering what they're up to, Sony and others: making money off a dead man and brainwashing people. Of course not every symbol in there is evil, many are just montages of his life, a nauseous mix, but of just pictures. I've never said the entire cover is wrong. The cover pretends to be mysterious, and positive, when it's so out there and open that it's dumb... founding. Whereas "Dangerous" and "Ghosts" and "Thriller", for instance, never pretended to be other than what they are.

It's very funny, indeed.
 
Last edited:
why is it you people like to read into things and take it WAY to far? Its a cover and a time-line of his albums/videos that's all it is nothing sinister,evil or other. Its all about Michael's Life. god people not everything is a conspiracy
 
You know, it is possible to disagree without being rude or resorting to insults. I think some people have forgotten that. And you're tearing this whole forum apart.
 
Alma, thank you for your analysis. I never see things this far. I guess the interesting thing about this cover is that different people can interpret it differently. It's up to people's imagination.

I like the Dangerous cover. I still think it's one of the most intriguing cover ever released.

The cover of MICHAEL is not my favorite. I don't dislike it though. I still think it's smarter than just a photo from a recent photoshoots.
 
What's the big deal???? Why can't someone just state their views on something without being called mentally dark or reading too deep into things? Let people have their opinions, gosh! No one is saying someone has to agree with anything that is posted here. But it is a forum. Where people are going to discuss. Where everyone will not see things the same way. It is not necessarily tantamount to being hooked up on conspiracies. Could it be people just don't like the cover?

I am an art major. From my aesthetic viewpoint, I think it is ugly. I don't know if this artist is trained or self taught. If he is trained, I can certainly question some of the methods in his artwork and some of his choioces, they seem odd. But if he is not trained, maybe he doesn't know any better. :shrug:

Point being, not everyone will have the same aesthetic viewpoint. It's a matter of opinion and a matter of personal taste.
 
omg.. cmon.. i know u should let people speak..

but these types of "analyzing" just makes me irretated..
 
Extremely interesting subject which I have been deeply looking into. Please be open minded and not be quick to dismiss theories. Look around and pay attention to details to Discern. For they are very important.
 
Hess said:
Agree. I think MJ would like the cover very much.

I always wanted a cover in the Dangerous style - so when I saw the cover I couldn't have been more pleased. I LOVE THE COVER !!
Click to expand...

Ha ha Great minds think alike Hess. Yes, I loved the Dangerous cover and I love this one too.

I don't see any sinister messages at all, on the contrary. If you see to top left you see the sun shining, coming up like a new day is dawning and there you see Michael in his OTW days as he was starting his adult solo career then you see MTV how it was just dawning. I love the colors also, just beautiful, bright and warm. The first time I saw it I saw this regal king with two cute cherubs (black and white) placing his crown on his head as it should be. Remember that pic is what he looked like during Thriller, before he was pronounced the KING OF POP. And all the events of his life unfolding from left to right.

I can't wait to see the rest and discover new things. I love it!

Ginvid- to say it is ugly- Idk I think that is pretty harsh. I would suspect it wasn't easy painting all those tiny details. It can't be easy. I'm an art lover, and well not everything I see is to my liking, but I appreciate their effort.

Frankly for those who have concluded that this post is another "evil Sony jibe" , well do you blame us? This poster has a gif against Sony and has posted tabloid stories that ignite all this 'evil Sony" garbage.
I'm all for freedom of speech and after all this is a forum, but its gotten to a point where these things only reignite bad feelings and more in fighting.

I just wish we could leave sony out of this and just have mature, spirited discussions.
 
The cover disturbs me too...

Dangerous was much much better.

The zombies freak me out (i hate zombies) and Michael doesnt look like himself..
 
I am not very much pro reading hidden messages because I think there are not so many hidden messages into this cover. The only clear things that I see are that our recent Mike is not very well represented, and also that some people that not deserve to be mentioned, ( painted) are there. This is lack of respect for Mike 90s and 00s career, to put it simply.

I deal with art on daily basis, and for me as artist this painting/cover is an aesthetic monstrosity. To put it nice, it's ugly. :rofl: Dangerous cover on the other hand - that was brilliant and very well painted.

I am gonna hide this cover behind some other pic.... I don;t want to stare to much on it...
 
@ tricia70, I understand why people like it. And I can appreciate the time he put into it. But, I will not give him a pass on this just because he put in a lot of time to do it. I think his execution was badly done.
However, I dont think it's a matter of a conspiracy from Sony. I think it's a big jump for me to take. And as I said I don't think the cover is life or death. I will just turn my booklet to a page I like and use that as my cover. :)
 
the only thing that i really don't like about the album cover is the fact that his children are painted on it with money floating around them..
 
Mr. Nelson’s painting “Michael” accomplished exactly what is intended, provoking thought and discussion.
It’s always the intention of the artist and the subject who commissions the piece to create a visual that provokes a response,
just as in music and the written word. The irony is in all this fomenting on the validity of the album from which
this painting belongs to - provoking strong emotions on a man’s musical career spanning almost 40 years.
Metamorphosis comes to mind when I look at this fabulous painting & the Vision DVD set. A tale of change through visuals,
a transformation of a man, his dance, his music and a life lived on the global stage. Translation is change, so as we translate
these images & colors, we evolve. Also known as the Butterfly Effect, as we change we affect & transform the world outside of us,
by painting with a whole new palette of colors.

Butterflies taste with their front legs so they experience life through motion, just as Michael did through dance.
Butterflies bring color & lightness to our lives, color affects how we respond to our world. Butterflies represent change and to change
we require courage to make the necessary alterations in our process for growth. The butterfly represents courage as does the crown,
the crown being the metaphor for the crown of life, "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has
stood the test, he will receive THE CROWN OF LIFE.....” for those with a particular belief. Or that the crown of royalty signifies less
about rulership than it does as a symbol of righteousness, glory and honor. A crown represents DIGNITY, something which was stolen
from Michael a long time ago and is way past due to be returned to him.
You don’t think the tabloid references on that cover were just thrown up there as an homage to “Leave Me Alone” do you??
The cherubs signify guard and providence through the good of love, the good of truth - -
Isn’t that all Michael ever asked for, truth and love for all and from all?

The dance of the butterfly teaches us to not take things so seriously, to find joy in everything.......

Joy is prayer, Joy is strength, Joy is love, Joy is a net of love by which you can catch souls." Mother Theresa
 
Last edited:
These images are excessively hideous and give off an uneasy feeling of "devouring" Michael, whereas the original Thriller ghouls were ugly, yet campy in nature, with Michael always "in control." The feeling I get here is that Michael is in danger.
Click to expand...
The only thing ''devouring'' Michael is his shoddy excuse for a record company and everyone that's sold him out going on about shit that we had rammed down our throats when he was alive.

I think the cover is crap as is the whole project and that's my opinion.
 
The collage painting follows his life and the part on the cover is only the center of the painting. The artist has painted others' lives like this as well. This one depicts Michael in the center around Thriller/1983/1984, hence why he looks from that time. That's the halfway point in his life and also the year he made it into the Guinness Book, got his star on the Walk of Fame, won 8 Grammy's in one night, etc. It makes sense that he's being crowned at that point in the painting, at that point in his life. I agree that the overall tone is kind of dark, though, yes.

As for Sony and so forth.... :rolleyes: ... no further comment... grrrrr ... (< at them, not you)
 
ginvid said:
@ tricia70, I understand why people like it. And I can appreciate the time he put into it. But, I will not give him a pass on this just because he put in a lot of time to do it. I think his execution was badly done.
However, I dont think it's a matter of a conspiracy from Sony. I think it's a big jump for me to take. And as I said I don't think the cover is life or death. I will just turn my booklet to a page I like and use that as my cover. :)
Click to expand...

I understand you don't like it, and as an art major you probably have a better eye than most. But can ppl just use kind words? Ugly, monstrosity from another poster. Idk, we can't be nice? Just sayin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top