Lady Gaga wore Michael Jackson's clothes while making new album

[HIStoric]

The fact she owns them legally doesn't make them automatically hers.

Well uh, yes it does. She purchased them with her own hard earned money so yes, they are hers.

He's taller than her and probably weights a little more. Both the jacket and the glove look too big for her, plus the unnecessary stupid mouse ears, that's why she looked ridiculous. Yeah, right Michael's big like a baseball catcher hand look very female like.

If I recall correctly, the original glove was merely a golfers glove that was sequined. Yes, there can be golfers glove designed for a specific sex but the original 'white glove' could be worn on both sexes just fine. Even then, the fact it is not for her sex though is not a reason why she cannot wear it. Go to your local mall and you'll see many women wearing clothes that were designed for men. It's not uncommon.

 

[Petrarose]

If Michael gave me personally to wear one of his beautiful black fedoras, that'd be the only exception, otherwise I wouldn't, it's diarespectful becauase I know HIS outfilts weren't made for me, only Michael himself can rock them off, NO ONE ELSE! And he's no longer here.

^^I agree that Michael wore his white pearl jacket with more flare than Gaga did.

We should all expect likes and dislikes on a topic like this.

I think some are turning this thread into a problem when it should not be. I don't understand why people are trying to make others accept things for themselves that are not their "personal taste." Some like Gaga and some do not. There is no need to force people to like her. Some like Gaga's music and some do not. There is no need to force people to like her music. Some will not wear the clothes, and some will. Everyone has their own personal taste about these types of things.

Right now I understand the point of view of those who will not wear the clothes or don't think anyone should have them. It is just the way they feel about it. No problem with that. I also understand the point of view of those who like Gaga's music, feel she is honoring Michael, & would wear the clothes. No problem with that. However, understanding someone's point of view, does not mean you accept their views. So I can understand why some will not wear the jacket, but that does not mean that if I had the jacket I would not wear it. I think some here forget that distinction, which is why they try to force their personal, subjective likes on others.

I don't think Gaga wore the Jacket with the same type of flare as Michael, and I think she made the jacket look sloppy when it is a classic piece. Others will not agree, and that is ok because their sense of classiness and sloppiness may not be the same as mine. So I will not attack them and say, "how can you not see she made the jacket look cheap."

Anyway, I wish I owned a few of his jackets, and I would definitely wear them with care and respect. I understand the person who talked about wearing a dead person's object. One of my clients gave me some jewelry she gave to her mom. The mom had died less than 2 months prior & I did not feel comfortable about wearing the jewlry because the mom and client did not have a loving relationship with each other. I took it, so she would not be offended, and then gave it away. Maybe that was not nice of me to give it away. Years prior I met an elderly woman at church who said she was looking at me for some time & see that I take care of things, so she bought me 2 bags of things belonging to her mom who had died 7 years ago. She said she held on to it because she did not want people who would not care to have any of her mom's things. I ended up taking the bags and wore all the pieces. They were all antique pieces and my "taste." So I can understand various views that people have about Michael's clothes.

 

[qbee]

"The idea is to keep them for him and I actually don't really want to wear them. They're Michael's clothes."
"There's a couple of pieces I have to the side, his sweaters that I put on - I wear that when we're mixing and finish up a record."

"I feel something from the clothing and I gave one of the sweaters to his godson and he really loved that. I just feel like through clothes you can feel things."

She didn't wear the White Jacket around, She was visiting Juliens auction and tried it on for a few minutes only. She probably was trying on the ears as well. ( to say she was disrespecting is a big stretch) I'm sure she knows it's too big for her. She didn't go out anywhere rocking the Jacket or glove. Just tried it on, because she was contemplating buying some MJ costumes in the upcoming auction. If she didn't someone else would have purchased them. Some of the costumes that were purchased from that auction, we don't even know where they are or how they are being cared for.

She did nothing wrong in purchasing them. IMO Michael would want them preserved. That's what she has done. Once a museum is in place for MJ. I have no doubt LG will have them properly displayed with a plaque in her name. as the owner or donator.

She said she wore his sweater to record in for inspiration. (I'm sure she took great care, knowing the value) I would rather she didn't wear it, but they are hers to do with as she wishes. She did stated she knows they are Michael's. She knows the responsibility she has. I don't see her out and about wearing and or abusing MJ's costumes. She didn't buy them for that purpose or because they fit her. They a collectors item. (Millions of dollars per item) She said she was having them professionally stored and preserved. I would rather know where they are, then have someone unknown have possession.

That being said I'm not a LG fan, I don't like her music or how she presents herself. But she is not stupid and knows the great value of what she has.

 

[HIStoric]

^^^Thank you!

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I never attacked her for buying the clothes, I don't have a problem with that but the fact she's wore some of them such as his iconic diamoned glove and not make looking as flaring as Michael does but some of her fans want to force us (me) to not have a problem with it. I understand there are different points of view but many of us is not right or respectful wearing the outfits of a humongously beloved and famous artist like Michael. If the estate decides to open a museum, I'll be happy the day she decides to sell or donate the pieces to them. Even though Gaga owns them physically, they aren't hers, she's even said they're Michael's cloths.

 

[HIStoric]

Well then lets just agree to disagree on this issue and leave it at that.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Didn't you feel outraged how the journalist Lara Logan was touching many Michael's precious belongings from his warehouse such as the diamond glove, his manifesto, shoes, etc without plastic gloves? I did feel outraged, specially when I saw Karen Langford handling the items with extreme care and wearing plastic gloves. Well, I had the same sentiment when I saw Gaga.

 

[HIStoric]

Didn't you feel outraged how the journalist Lara Logan was touching many Michael's precious belongings from his warehouse such as the diamond glove, his manifesto, shoes, etc without plastic gloves? I did feel outraged, specially when I saw Karen Langford handling the items with extreme care and wearing plastic gloves. Well, I had the same sentiment when I saw Gaga.

No, not particularly. As long as her hands were properly clean and she treated the items with care, I don't have much of an issue with it. If it really was a big deal, I'm sure Langford would have made her put gloves on before handling any items.

 

[mjchris]

Legally, they are hers. She purchased them legally from whoever owned the clothes. Like it or not, they're hers now.

I don't think they belong to her. wasnt made for her. I don't think michael jackson would want that she wears them. not in a million years. especially not her. they are HIS. so they belong at first to the MJ estate. its totally direspectfully what she is doing. thats a fact. a shame.

 

[HIStoric]

they does not belong to her. wasnt made for her. michael jackson would not want that she wears them.

Yes it does belong to her. No it wasn't made/tailored for her. You wouldn't know what Michael Jackson wanted unless he talked about it.

 

[Virre]

He wanted them in a museum. Sadly it seem this can not happen.

 

[HIStoric]

He wanted them in a museum. Sadly it seem this can not happen.

Well, it would be unrealistic to expect every piece of clothing he wore to be in a museum. However, they could always make an exhibit that showcases many notable pieces of his wardrobe ! They've showcased a number of iconic and notable pieces he has worn over the years throughout the world (I believe they're showing some at the theatre where MJ ONE is taking place), so it's still an idea that could go ahead in the future

 

[mjchris]

Yes it does belong to her. No it wasn't made/tailored for her. You wouldn't know what Michael Jackson wanted unless he talked about it.

These clothes are michael jackson clothes, they bleong to him. noone else.they does not belong to her. wasnt made for her. michael jackson would not want that she wears them. not in a million years. especially not her. they are HIS. so they belong at first to the mj estate. its totally direspectfully what she is doing. thats a fact. a shame
everything that was made for one, does only belong to themself. no matter if that was sold to someone else. especially when someone is dead.

 

[Petrarose]

^^It is all just different points of view--nothing wrong with that.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Exactly mjchris.

Michael bought the Gone With The Wind Oscar for Best Movie, the fact he owns it, does it make it HIS! No, it DOES NOT.
It's the exact same situation with HIS OUTFITS, she may be the owner legally but THEY AREN'T HERS.

 

[mjchris]

Exactly mjchris.

Michael bought the Gone With The Wind Oscar for Best Movie, the fact he owns it, does it make it HIS! No, it DOES NOT.
It's the exact same situation with HIS OUTFITS, she may be the owner legally but THEY AREN'T HERS.

exactly. everthing that michael jackson bought from other artists/persons does not belong to him. exactly my words. and michael didnt made such a BIG media attention about that.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

^^Or the thousands songs he owns, are those automatically his? No, they're from whoever the performer is.

 

[Petrarose]

^^I find that a rather thoughtful way of looking at it. Michael buys for, eg., the Beatles songs but they are only his in the sense that he paid for them and holds the rights of ownership, but the creative owner is and will always be the Beatles. I see where Snowhite and Mjchris are coming from. I find this very interesting really. This probably falls under the philosophy.

 

[marebear]

I thought she wore a sweater in a recording studio. I don't find it that offensive. Many people have items not just clothes of Michael's that they use as inspiration. I hope I don't offend anyone with what I am saying. If she were to parade around on stage with his clothes and outfits then that would bother me. I understand people's concerns and what they are trying to say.

 

[HIStoric]

michael jackson would not want that she wears them. not in a million years. especially not her.

You are not Michael Jackson, and you cannot speak on his behalf. If you have an actual source where he talks about this topic though, and who he wouldn't want to wear them - I'm all ears.

Exactly mjchris.

Michael bought the Gone With The Wind Oscar for Best Movie, the fact he owns it, does it make it HIS! No, it DOES NOT.
It's the exact same situation with HIS OUTFITS, she may be the owner legally but THEY AREN'T HERS.

^^I find that a rather thoughtful way of looking at it. Michael buys for, eg., the Beatles songs but they are only his in the sense that he paid for them and holds the rights of ownership, but the creative owner is and will always be the Beatles. I see where Snowhite and Mjchris are coming from. I find this very interesting really. This probably falls under the philosophy.

That's what I was trying to get across. Legally, Michael Jackson is the owner of the oscar, just as Lady Gaga is now the owner of the clothes. The clothes may not be 'hers', in the similar sense that the creative owners of the Beatles songs are always the Beatles, but they are hers now in terms of ownership. I think that's a rather thoughtful way of looking at it too

I thought she wore a sweater in a recording studio. I don't find it that offensive. Many people have items not just clothes of Michael's that they use as inspiration. I hope I don't offend anyone with what I am saying. If she were to parade around on stage with his clothes and outfits then that would bother me. I understand people's concerns and what they are trying to say.

I would like to add that I do see where everyone is coming from, it is just obvious we all have different view points on the issue. I said earlier I'm happy to just agree to disagree as we can repeat all these points back and forth forever, but we're not gonna change anyones mind on the issue

 

[Petrarose]

^^Yes. People should not try to change others' mind in a topic like this, but simply put their different opinions across and discuss it, because this deals a lot with personal taste. If you try to change people's personal taste, they will get offended. I remember when that Bashir was trying to tell Michael with disdain about his liking for those paintings when they were going up in the escalator. Michael you could see would have said something snippy to him, but I saw that he held back and only said "it is my taste." Michael also gave him a kind of look.

 

[Ashtanga]

 

[HIStoric]

Stupid question: What does this gif mean ? I see it every so often on here but I can't seem to tell if it means you're annoyed or if you're indifferent or what. Can't seem to decide which one it means

 

[Ashtanga]

Stupid question: What does this gif mean ?

Just watching this thread and comments -_- .... some problem about it?

 

[HIStoric]

Just watching this thread and comments -_- .... some problem about it? :blink:

Haha I don't have a problem, I was just wondering what the gif meant that's all

 

[Petrarose]

The gif is really appropriate for the thread. I like it. Michael is watching, thinking, wondering "what exactly are they saying there."

 

[Krshna28]

Think about this way:

Did Michael have to mention James Brown every time he released a new album?

And its this that annoys me about some of today's "artists".

 

[mjchris]

You are not Michael Jackson, and you cannot speak on his behalf. If you have an actual source where he talks about this topic though, and who he wouldn't want to wear them - I'm all ears.

The question was not what michael jackson was thinking of. thats off topic.
the question was what the general public thinking of. 'and generally the public feels that she bought them, have a purchase agreement, but they are still michael jackson cloths, they belong to him, he's the one that have to wear them, no one else. and that media cirus and the attention she wants to have with this cloths, cause PR, for that bullshit of album, is a shame.' another one used michael jackson to promote themself.

 

[AtlasAir]

Think about this way:

Did Michael have to mention James Brown every time he released a new album?

And its this that annoys me about some of today's "artists".

Gaga doesn't mention MJ when promoting every release...

And when you're having a conversation with reporters, things come up. She made news for buying his clothes. It probably came up.

 

[IMWhizzle]

Kenny Ortega said that wasn't true in his twitter. I can no longer find that tweet anymore.

To me in my eyes she committed a sacrilege, those were cloths made for Michael exclusively, only him could rock those sweaters/outfits. I see her attention seeking hasn't go away, Michael Jackson are the magical words to make headlines. She and her music are a pain the ass. :angry:

Not if she sings them unplugged. This woman can sing, it's out of this world.

The commercial stuff she is doing, the uptempo techno / dance tracks are are strategic moves.