Latest on MJJC

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

mjchris said:
You too.
but 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.
Click to expand...

I have never spoken on behalf of Michael Jackson though, you did. This forum is not 'the general public'. You are on a Michael Jackson fan forum so it's unbelievably obvious that the majority people are going to be biased towards Michael Jackson (and understandably).

AtlasAir summed it up best: "And when you're having a conversation with reporters, things come up." If you were an artist you'd probably do the same too. This has barely made got any attention though. Excluding MJJC, I haven't seen this anywhere, and a quick Google search brings up just 3 notable news sources: Mirror.co.uk, The Sun and Express.co.uk. It's barely gotten traction anywhere so no, she hasn't got much attention out of it. Nobodies going to get a 'media circus' because they wore Michael Jackson's clothes for a bit, thats silly :rofl:

I'm not arguing anymore on the "whose clothes they are" issue because Petrarose summed it up perfectly a few posts up (personal taste, etc etc etc).

IMWhizzle said:
Not if she sings them unplugged. This woman can sing, it's out of this world.
Click to expand...

Not completely off topic, since this topics about Gaga... but boy can she sing:
 
HIStoric said:
To me it appears she just casually mentioned it offhand in an interview, and a journalist decided to blow it up into a full article. It's not something you get to say everyday either so I can see why she said it. At least 15 users were happy to know this, judging by the 'thanks' on the first post, so while you may not be interested, it is evident a number of other fans were.
Click to expand...

Yes, I said it, I'm not. I actually believe you shouldn't be objecting everyone's opinion on the matter because we have as much right to voice it, just like you seem to be all good about it and apparently those 15 users you say, but many aren't and that's completely OK too.
 
HIStoric said:
I have the right to voice my opinion and object others, just as everyone else does.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's not necessary and you won't change my mind or anyone's who's not fond of her or the Michael clothes issue either by objecting what we have to say. I see you reply to almost everything here, because you're clearly a fan. I wouldn't waste my time on that to be honest.
 
MjsLovelyOne88 said:
Yes, but it's not necessary and you won't change my mind or anyone's who's not fond of her or the Michael clothes issue either by objecting what we have to say. I see you reply to almost everything here, because you're clearly a fan. I wouldn't waste my time on that to be honest.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, which is why a few posts back I said I'm more than happy to agree to disagree :p

Looking at my last post or two, I've mostly been commenting on how people have been speaking on behalf of MJ himself (which you can't do unless you personally knew him quite well, or he spoke up on the issue somewhere and there's proof) and people who are saying she's doing it to get attention when she hasn't really got attention from it at all (except on MJJC). That's all :)
 
Some of y'all are angry,when this is not THAT big of a deal.

I'd truly be offended if she either wore the clothes on stage,or just kept them in a closet in her home,unprotected and such.

It could be WAY worse than what you all make it seem to be.

And to prove Gaga can sing:
 
Of course it would get attention here, it's an MJ fanboard and we're very protective of him and anything that has to do with him. It's only natural. But I guess it's true what you say, no one can quite know what his input on the matter would be, sadly because I'd actually like to know. Anyway, have a good day/night (don't know where in the world you are lol) :)

@Neverland... I'm not angry at these particular news just don't see the need to post it, I would be VERY angry if she did something else w/ them like alter them or something.
 
HIStoric said:
I have never spoken on behalf of Michael Jackson though, you did. This forum is not 'the general public'. You are on a Michael Jackson fan forum so it's unbelievably obvious that the majority people are going to be biased towards Michael Jackson (and understandably).

AtlasAir summed it up best: "And when you're having a conversation with reporters, things come up." If you were an artist you'd probably do the same too. This has barely made got any attention though. Excluding MJJC, I haven't seen this anywhere, and a quick Google search brings up just 3 notable news sources: Mirror.co.uk, The Sun and Express.co.uk. It's barely gotten traction anywhere so no, she hasn't got much attention out of it. Nobodies going to get a 'media circus' because they wore Michael Jackson's clothes for a bit, thats silly :rofl:

I'm not arguing anymore on the "whose clothes they are" issue because Petrarose summed it up perfectly a few posts up (personal taste, etc etc etc).
Click to expand...


We are part of the general public. and I think others would think the same.

and no, i dont think she can sing or dance. i would say that for many other artists too.

and the question is not how much she get attention. but she had. media circus. and yeah, cause like often said the clothes belongs to michael jackson, no one else. and to use a dead man for this is just a shame and it shows that she dont have a sence of deceny. video and nude pictures (also partly nude pictures), especially from the last days to promote an album :puke:, confirm that. it shows that she only got the attention when getting naked or partly naked. it always was like this. people here in my country, for example (only example, but i know that they are everywhere around the world) did not regonized that there is a gaga album coming. they now know that cause they saw the naked pictures (album release mentioned in the articel with the naked pictures). FACT!
its without any sence of deceny from every artists, whatever the artist is gaga, rihanna, lopez or anyone else, to promote something with nude and partly nude pictures. that is pathetic cheap PR. :puke:
 
Pretty much everybody has a problem with nudity whether they admit or not....that's half the reason people wear clothes!!!
 
AtlasAir said:
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.
Click to expand...

She's 95% marketing. Almost everything she says is part of that marketing!
 
Thread cleaned - Please Note: We want all our members to enjoy their experience on MJJC so please help insure that with how you post and interact with each other on the board. Respect and treat others as you wish to be treated. Certainly you are free to state you disagree and still be respectful in your tone to the members you are addressing. If anyone makes a habit of personally attacking or insulting our members on this board because you disagree with their view, infractions will be place on your account. Saying others did the same will not be excepted as an excuse for that behavior. Many times it is not what you say, but how you say it. Please carry on with that in mind.
 
r3mJf.gif
:blink:
 
Marketing is a major part of being a pop star. Lady Gaga, fortunately, has talent as well (despite what some people here say).
 
Michael has more talent in his pinky toe than her in marketing and he's not 95% of that.

And she might be successful right now but the star title is way too big for her.
 
Last edited:
yeah, it is.
All the great, world known pop stars, regardless if they make great music or not, have staying power because of things like their music videos, being vocal in politics/current events, fashion, etc.
 
AtlasAir said:
yeah, it is.
All the great, world known pop stars, regardless if they make great music or not, have staying power because of things like their music videos, being vocal in politics/current events, fashion, etc.
Click to expand...

You're talking about being successful financially. When you say 'makes a great pop star' it's a little ambiguous.

And you've also reduced music videos to mere marketing tools. The very thing Michael set out to change...and in my eyes, excelled.

Whatever the case, the suggestion that a 'great pop star' is 95% marketing and, presumably, 5% talent/ability is one I reject completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top