Michael - The Great Album Debate

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I don't really understand why people consider older days to be less pressured or more perfect. Motown made them sing whatever they wanted and didn't allow J5 to use songs they wrote, kept their J5 name etc. Furthermore if you read about the history of Motown you'll see a lot of complaints about money and ripping of the artists.

True. But at least the music, for the most part, was kick ass.

In short I don't think that record companies were these artist friendly artistic integrity places that turned evil. Instead they were always after the winning formula that made them the most money.

Music business. Two words that should never go together.

 

[Tony R]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Music business. Two words that should never go together.

Unfortunately always has and always will.

As much as the romantic view that people in the industry do it for the love of the music and nothing else, sad truth is it's all about the benjamins.

From Tom Parker to Gordy to Sony to Cowell. It's who will sell the most.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

you know it's not only Sony but all the record companies unless you go with a indie label or form your own label.



I don't really understand why people consider older days to be less pressured or more perfect. Motown made them sing whatever they wanted and didn't allow J5 to use songs they wrote, kept their J5 name etc. Furthermore if you read about the history of Motown you'll see a lot of complaints about money and ripping of the artists.



In short I don't think that record companies were these artist friendly artistic integrity places that turned evil. Instead they were always after the winning formula that made them the most money.

In short, the music industry puts a much higher weight on cost/benefit relationship. Decision is made based on profitablilty. Hence, a low level of risk tolerance. As a result, we don't see innovation anymore. With all the advancement in technology in the past decade, music, however, seems to move backward. Have we seen any innovative never-seen-before music video in the past decade? Have we seen any artist who totally change the music landscape?

Everything we see, we hear these days are re-hash of old materials. Lady Gaga recycles Madona's style and 1990's Euro pop. Her fans are too young to realize there's nothing original about her.

If today's business model was to be put in place back in the early 1980's, I'm afraid there would not be any Thriller.

No doubt Motown was about money as well. The difference is that Berry Gordy would like to build a legacy. He's not just a business man who sit in his corner office browsing numbers.

 

[Mikaeel101]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

No Thriller means no Usher, Justin, Neyo, etc...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

you know it's not only Sony but all the record companies unless you go with a indie label or form your own label.

I know all companies do it. But when a company pays 1 billion dollars, you can imagine the level of stress they inflict. They need their money back + cashing in.

I don't really understand why people consider older days to be less pressured or more perfect. Motown made them sing whatever they wanted and didn't allow J5 to use songs they wrote, kept their J5 name etc. Furthermore if you read about the history of Motown you'll see a lot of complaints about money and ripping of the artists.

I wasn't referring to Motown. Motown helped the Jackson 5 to become famous with many memorable hits such as Ain't no sunshine, ABC, I want you back, I'll be there,... everyone knows those songs worldwide. So at least they contributed in making the Jackson 5 famous, despite the stress.
The biggest mistake from Motown indeed was not to let them write and sing their own songs. But I guess that was the house policy with some exceptions such as Lionel Richie and Stevie Wonder.

However, later on, they signed a contract with Epic and had hits after hits without as much pressure as in the beginning of the 90s when the contract with SONY was signed and hits expected to be delivered. Expectations were huge. DANGEROUS met those expectations, but we should bear in mind that most of the songs were written way long before 1991 (the contract). The HISTORY album was written out of rage against injustice, it had excellent songs and was very personal. All the rest was underpromoted and went astray from what Michael's soul wanted to do.

Can someone answer me why till today there hasn't been any DVD release of GHOSTS for example? Where was the promotion? How come that many people don't know the existence of that mini film, despite its outsanding quality and performance?

In short I don't think that record companies were these artist friendly artistic integrity places that turned evil. Instead they were always after the winning formula that made them the most money.

Yes, money is ultimate motivation, but there are degrees and balances to be respected between the turnover and the quality. today we have turnovers with zero quality, while before you at least had some quality. Can you name me one single pop artists which has an excellent album, I mean that all the songs are excellent such as, for example, in the 80s:

The Jacksons: LIVE
The Jacksons: Triumph (at least half of the album is excellent)
Michael Jackson: Thriller
The Jacksons: Victory (only one or two songs are questionable in terms of quality "Body" and "The Hurt", yet the first one is catchy, the second one's rhythm is excellent for that era)
Michael Jackson: BAD (is practically a greatest hits, only one song is unknown to the general public)
George Michael: Faith
Madonna: Like a Virgin
Madonna: True Blue
Madonna: Like a Prayer
Terence Trent d'Arby: Introducing the Hardline According to terence Trent d'Arby
Phill Collins: No Jacket Required
Phill Collins : ...But Seriously
Milli Vanilli: All or Nothing
U2: The Joshua Tree
U2: Rattle and Hum
Beverly Hills Cop soundtrack (The heat is on, Axel F.)

Then all those singers and bands with original songs (not re-hashed remakes):
Cindy Lauper, Tina Turner, A-ha, Bros, Duran Duran, Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, Run DMC, Guns 'n' RosesVan Halen, Alice Cooper, Bobby Brown, Whitney Huston, Europe, Toto, ZZ Top, Bonnie Tyler, Peter Gabriel, and many, many more.... what happend to the music and to those (kind of) singers? They did for the sake of music. No autotunes. Gosh I sound like an old man, but hey it's so true. Music industry killed the music.

 

[Sophielo]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Unfortunately always has and always will.

As much as the romantic view that people in the industry do it for the love of the music and nothing else, sad truth is it's all about the benjamins.

From Tom Parker to Gordy to Sony to Cowell. It's who will sell the most.

Sadly this is very true and you quoted three very good examples. I mean Berry Gordy did a lot for music with Motown but its all a money making ploy, in which we now have Cowell. The best music isn't always the ones that sell.

 

[Tom]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Heavily processed vocals with Smooth Criminal, maybe we should suggest it to Teddy:

[youtube]BgVJHuvC6dg&feature=related[/youtube]

When you can hear MJ in that and not in the Cascio tracks you know there's a problem...

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

just realized this is the only Cascio controversy thread remains opened...:scratch:

 

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

You guys, I had a dream about Jason Malachi the other night :mello: I was quite disturbed when I woke up....lol

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

True. But at least the music, for the most part, was kick ass.

are we talking about Michael or Motown in general? As far as Michael goes I think his own solo albums were more kick ass then anything he did with Motown.

Unfortunately always has and always will.

As much as the romantic view that people in the industry do it for the love of the music and nothing else, sad truth is it's all about the benjamins.

From Tom Parker to Gordy to Sony to Cowell. It's who will sell the most.

and that was my point. Sometimes when I read these posts about Sony , to me it sounds like people think that only Sony is evil and was/is only evil towards to Michael.

In reality all the companies are the same (in regards to their evilness / profit wanting) and do the same thing to a lot of artists.

and that's just the reality of music business.

In short, the music industry puts a much higher weight on cost/benefit relationship. Decision is made based on profitablilty. Hence, a low level of risk tolerance.

True and don't get angry but that's one of the best logical points against "fake vocals" debate.

I'll say given a record companies wish for profitability and low risk , it's more likely that they'll use "not so good" filler songs to increase the number of albums released (and have an overall high sales number) than risk their all investment and future releases with controversy.

No doubt Motown was about money as well. The difference is that Berry Gordy would like to build a legacy. He's not just a business man who sit in his corner office browsing numbers.

we need to give the man his due, Gordy and Motown did a lot to break down the racial and musical barriers. on the other hand some people can still question the methods. The success of Motown was making black music towards the white people - hence increase the listener base (therefore sales). It's not that different from saying to a pop-rock band "be more pop than rock because it has a wider audience".

Yes, money is ultimate motivation, but there are degrees and balances to be respected between the turnover and the quality. today we have turnovers with zero quality, while before you at least had some quality. Can you name me one single pop artists which has an excellent album what happend to the music and to those (kind of) singers? They did for the sake of music. No autotunes. Gosh I sound like an old man, but hey it's so true. Music industry killed the music.

although I'm not big fan of record companies (as you already know) I also blame the society for that in music. People became more "fast" and more "superficial" so everything is consumed very quickly and people's taste in music became questionable. With this reality even though you put out a wonderful artistically deep album it don't necessarily sell well.(remember my story that the best album sold half of the average sales number and a "pop" album sold double the average numbers).

Real life story : 2000 in a college graduation that my musician friends and I attended the DJ was playing a dance/club song that had the lyrics of "I'm horny horny horny" repeated over and over (sorry don't remember the artist) and people were enjoying themselves. We watched that in shock for 5 minutes for a)inappropriateness of the song to the situation and b) lack of quality in the song. Yet no one complained about it. and if people are willing to act like that's an acceptable quality in music and accept the song, then you know that it's a lost battle. Why would record companies ever release artistically deep songs when they don't sell and songs have lyrics such as "I'm horny" becomes an overnight hit and sells millions?

 

[Tom]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

You guys, I had a dream about Jason Malachi the other night :mello: I was quite disturbed when I woke up....lol

Was it an epiphany? Did he reveal the truth behind the Cascio tracks? Do tell!

 

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Was it an epiphany? Did he reveal the truth behind the Cascio tracks? Do tell!

bahaha...I don't remember much...I was friends with him..That's all I know...I think I did ask him about the vocals and he just gave me a strange smirk and didn't answer...So, there you go lol

 

[Tom]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

bahaha...I don't remember much...I was friends with him..That's all I know...I think I did ask him about the vocals and he just gave me a strange smirk and didn't answer...So, there you go lol

That's a yes!!

 

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

That's a yes!!

Not that I needed a dream to confirm it...lol

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

when you can hear mj in that and not in the cascio tracks you know there's a problem...

lol, lol, lol

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

are we talking about Michael or Motown in general? As far as Michael goes I think his own solo albums were more kick ass then anything he did with Motown.



and that was my point. Sometimes when I read these posts about Sony , to me it sounds like people think that only Sony is evil and was/is only evil towards to Michael.

In reality all the companies are the same (in regards to their evilness / profit wanting) and do the same thing to a lot of artists.

and that's just the reality of music business.



True and don't get angry but that's one of the best logical points against "fake vocals" debate.

I'll say given a record companies wish for profitability and low risk , it's more likely that they'll use "not so good" filler songs to increase the number of albums released (and have an overall high sales number) than risk their all investment and future releases with controversy.




we need to give the man his due, Gordy and Motown did a lot to break down the racial and musical barriers. on the other hand some people can still question the methods. The success of Motown was making black music towards the white people - hence increase the listener base (therefore sales). It's not that different from saying to a pop-rock band "be more pop than rock because it has a wider audience".



although I'm not big fan of record companies (as you already know) I also blame the society for that in music. People became more "fast" and more "superficial" so everything is consumed very quickly and people's taste in music became questionable. With this reality even though you put out a wonderful artistically deep album it don't necessarily sell well.(remember my story that the best album sold half of the average sales number and a "pop" album sold double the average numbers).

Real life story : 2000 in a college graduation that my musician friends and I attended the DJ was playing a dance/club song that had the lyrics of "I'm horny horny horny" repeated over and over (sorry don't remember the artist) and people were enjoying themselves. We watched that in shock for 5 minutes for a)inappropriateness of the song to the situation and b) lack of quality in the song. Yet no one complained about it. and if people are willing to act like that's an acceptable quality in music and accept the song, then you know that it's a lost battle. Why would record companies ever release artistically deep songs when they don't sell and songs have lyrics such as "I'm horny" becomes an overnight hit and sells millions?

Because it kills music. And to kill crap the best thing is to download illegally.

If a real artist is worth his title he shouldn' worry about sales, he will always sell.

p.s. You still haven't mentioned the name of the band you'd been involved with.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

True and don't get angry but that's one of the best logical points against "fake vocals" debate.

I'll say given a record companies wish for profitability and low risk , it's more likely that they'll use "not so good" filler songs to increase the number of albums released (and have an overall high sales number) than risk their all investment and future releases with controversy.?

I don't disagree with you. But, I disagree with Sony's decision. Again, I understand their motivation (overall sales, low cost); but as a fan, I'm disgusted.

Unfortunately, Sony's strategy serves them well. The album has performed respectfully. Who else can score a platinum album in numerous countries with such minimal promotion budget. I have no doubt there will be more quesionable tracks in future release.

although I'm not big fan of record companies (as you already know) I also blame the society for that in music. People became more "fast" and more "superficial" so everything is consumed very quickly and people's taste in music became questionable. With this reality even though you put out a wonderful artistically deep album it don't necessarily sell well.(remember my story that the best album sold half of the average sales number and a "pop" album sold double the average numbers).

Real life story : 2000 in a college graduation that my musician friends and I attended the DJ was playing a dance/club song that had the lyrics of "I'm horny horny horny" repeated over and over (sorry don't remember the artist) and people were enjoying themselves. We watched that in shock for 5 minutes for a)inappropriateness of the song to the situation and b) lack of quality in the song. Yet no one complained about it. and if people are willing to act like that's an acceptable quality in music and accept the song, then you know that it's a lost battle. Why would record companies ever release artistically deep songs when they don't sell and songs have lyrics such as "I'm horny" becomes an overnight hit and sells millions?

True. Technology advancement is actually a two-edged sword. Musical download has made music disposable. As profit margin gets slimer, risk tolerance level gets lower. Record company has no interest in investing in talents. Record company wants sure bets.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

It's unfortunate for you because it's just further embarrassment, following the revelation that you originally didn't hear Michael Jackson on these tracks and now you do. 'How he sounded at 14 is irrelevant to how he sounded at 48' is complete nonsense. He was a supreme, skilled vocalist at 14. Which, according to the bullshit Cascio songs, he wasn't at 48. Not only was he completely unskilled at 48 - even though he would have had 40 years of experience - he also lost his accent, his dexterity, the texture of his voice, every little piece of skill he had, his vibrato control, his ability to extend notes, his ability to hit notes, and on and on.

So him being a fantastic vocalist at 14 is completely relevant to the bullshit being fed to us regarding the Cascio songs.

As unfortunate as that may be for your ridiculous take on events. Depending, of course, on what your take is today, that is. It's already gone through one paradigm shift... so where do you stand today?

I should remind you that the title of this thread includes the line *'ONLY go here if you want the controversy to continue'. Why do you pop up in here just to provoke arguments? You don't want the controversy to continue, so why do you continue to post in here?*

The thread says debate does it not? Meaning, whether I agree, or disagree, I'm free to speak my mind in regards to the discussion. I never said I didn't hear Michael on any of these records, I said that about one song, Monster. Please, for like the 100th time, I'd appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth and actually read my posts. Fact of the matter is, from the age of 14 to 50, his voice changed, his vocal range changed, the way he sang his songs, changed...So what exactly would that have to do with any tracks from his recent years?

 

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Fact of the matter is, from the age of 14 to 50, his voice changed, his vocal range changed, the way he sang his songs, changed...So what exactly would that have to do with any tracks from his recent years?

Yes, his voice changed in the fact that it matured...Did he lose pronunciation? No...Did his vocal range change? ....Well, with his skill and YEARS AND YEARS of experience, it had no choice but to IMPROVE...The way the voice sounds on the Cascio tracks doesn't sound like someone who's been a skilled vocalist the majority of his life...The skill that Michael had as a child is light-years ahead of the voice on these tracks....Of course he sounds different - from a child to a man...What do you mean 'the way he sang his songs changed?' Changed in what way? Changed to the style of someone who sounds nothing like Michael Jackson on these tracks?

Yet, it's the skill we're talking about..Not to mention the soul, the emotion, the joy, the angst, the ferocity, the tenderness. You said yourself that there's something not right about the vocals...Could it be a lack of these things, maybe? It's all missing!.....And, obviously, you FELT that void if you believed the songs weren't legit in the beginning...

These things don't change as you get older...! They only improve, develop in richness, and reach heights that only Michael Jackson's voice can attain....

THAT is the fact of the matter.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Anyway, in all modesty, those who believe that Cascio tracks are genuine are all wrong, while all those who believe that they are fake are undeniably right, because I say so. When I say something, I am always right. In my humble opinion, I am perfect.

Every day I feel sorry for non doubters and pray that one day they'll finally get the ability to hear the difference between the genuine and the fake vocals. Untill that day I will be fasting every day and if I don't see any change I'll start hunger strike chained naked on the rails and holding a copper bar on a heavily rainy and stormy day abounding in lightnings and thunders. Amen

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

The thread says debate does it not? Meaning, whether I agree, or disagree, I'm free to speak my mind in regards to the discussion.

WITH the caveat that you are ONLY coming in here if you want the debate to continue. Provoking an argument by posting 'are you being sarcastic?' is not 'debating'. Not by any stretch of the imagination. You're not free to speak your mind if you don't want the debate to continue. The thread title explicitly says 'ONLY'... ONLY if you want tge debate to continue.

I *never said I didn't hear Michael on any of these records, I said that about one song, Monster. Please, for like the 100th time, I'd appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth and actually read my posts.

Well seeing as you refuse to expound on your comments and answer any questions related to your original belief (ie. 'something is up'), you'd be better served explaining what changed in the audio between your original hearing of the track and your current hearing of the track.

Fact of the matter is, from the age of 14 to 50, his voice changed, his vocal range changed, the way he sang his songs, changed...So what exactly would that have to do with any tracks from his recent years?

Fact of the matter is that he was a supreme vocalist at age 14. As he was at 25. And 30. And 40. And 49. So it's completely relevant that, according to these bullshit Cascio songs, Michael, apparently, was not a supreme, trained, talented vocalist but he sounded exactly like Jason Malachi. It's completely relevant. To anyone who cares about the truth behind this mess.

 

[analogue]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Real life story : 2000 in a college graduation that my musician friends and I attended the DJ was playing a dance/club song that had the lyrics of "I'm horny horny horny" repeated over and over (sorry don't remember the artist) and people were enjoying themselves. We watched that in shock for 5 minutes for a)inappropriateness of the song to the situation and b) lack of quality in the song. Yet no one complained about it. and if people are willing to act like that's an acceptable quality in music and accept the song, then you know that it's a lost battle. Why would record companies ever release artistically deep songs when they don't sell and songs have lyrics such as "I'm horny" becomes an overnight hit and sells millions?

When i hear songs like this today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd8lP4YnQNE

I miss the dignity of I'm Horny more and more lol.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

When i hear songs like this today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd8lP4YnQNE

I miss the dignity of I'm Horny more and more lol.

When people started to like this you know that the music was killed:

[youtube]_KztNIg4cvE[/youtube]


source wikipedia:

The song became a worldwide hit, memorable for its "la da dee, la dee da" refrain and its often sampled keyboard riff. The track reached #8 on the Billboard Hot 100, and found even more success in Europe, reaching #2 on the UK Singles Chart. Scarcely a year after its release, a new version turned up on the Red Hot Organization's Red Hot + Dance AIDS fundraiser disc (1992, distributed by Sony Music), gaining its remixer (Joey Negro) his first real American exposure.





YUCK

 

[Tony R]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

When people started to like this you know that the music was killed:

[youtube]_KztNIg4cvE[/youtube]


source wikipedia:

The song became a worldwide hit, memorable for its "la da dee, la dee da" refrain and its often sampled keyboard riff. The track reached #8 on the Billboard Hot 100, and found even more success in Europe, reaching #2 on the UK Singles Chart. Scarcely a year after its release, a new version turned up on the Red Hot Organization's Red Hot + Dance AIDS fundraiser disc (1992, distributed by Sony Music), gaining its remixer (Joey Negro) his first real American exposure.





YUCK

Oh! Unfair! Back in the day, that was a tuunneee.

Together with Cece Peniston's Finally & Kym Syms Too Blind To See It.

Sure, they're no Billie Jean but they're good throwaway pop tunes.

I'd rather that than most of the recent dirge Black Eyed Peas seem to get away with.

 

[analogue]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I actually really like 90's dance music. Sure it's not deep or poetic but it's fun, catchy and has great melodies.

Give me Rhythm Is A Dancer by Snap! over Dirty Bit by Black Eyed Peas anyday

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Oh! Unfair! Back in the day, that was a tuunneee.

Together with Cece Peniston's Finally & Kym Syms Too Blind To See It.

Sure, they're no Billie Jean but they're good throwaway pop tunes.

I'd rather that than most of the recent dirge Black Eyed Peas seem to get away with.

Unfair? Are you kidding me? Around the same era, you had big artists such as Prince or George Michael who started having problems with their respective companies.

Back in the days this was the song that ended all the good tunes from the 80s.
With its lyricless, repetitive and annoying "la da dee, la dee da" (when you just wanna scream and tell the singer: "shut the f* up or I'll shoot myself!"), it opened the doors to all kinds of lyricless, repetitive and hellova boring songs such as (with same instrumentals as Crystal Waters's):

[youtube]YIAnkrPgTvY[/youtube]

Has anyone counted how many times he says "please don't go"?

or endless repetitive "we all need love" (same instrumental as Crystal Waters's)

[youtube]3NL_VNhEs10[/youtube]

or (f*cking) tutatutatutatutataa

[youtube]6WsVjBhRMCU[/youtube]

or (the song that should have been only a cartoon hit and nothing more)

[youtube]Dyx4v1QFzhQ&feature=related[/youtube]

or overrepetitive "what is love, baby don't hurt me no more"

[youtube]k_U6mWu1XQA[/youtube]

or overrepetitive no-no, no-no, no-no, there's no limt

[youtube]aFd5Cci_pE4[/youtube]

and many, many, many others. The common point was: make a whole album with as few lyrics as possible, over-repeat the refrain and put some crappy computerized instrumentals and you have a hit. Add to that some top-models-like singers and an average voice.

Of course there were some exceptions in all this 90s mess, but they really had hard time to compete: Prince, George Michael, Madonna, Fugees, Michael Jackson, ... but they were clearly overshadowed by the crap and nobody really wanted to invest huge money or promote real artists.

 

[Tony R]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Unfair? Are you kidding me? Around the same era, you had big artists such as Prince or George Michael who started having problems with their respective companies.

Back in the days this was the song that ended all the good tunes from the 80s.
With its lyricless, repetitive and annoying "la da dee, la dee da" (when you just wanna scream and tell the singer: "shut the f* up or I'll shoot myself!"), it opened the doors to all kinds of lyricless, repetitive and hellova boring songs such as (with same instrumentals as Crystal Waters's):

[youtube]YIAnkrPgTvY[/youtube]

Has anyone counted how many times he says "please don't go"?

or endless repetitive "we all need love" (same instrumental as Crystal Waters's)

[youtube]3NL_VNhEs10[/youtube]

or (f*cking) tutatutatutatutataa


or (the song that should have been only a cartoon hit and nothing more)

and many, many, many others. The common point was: make a whole album with as few lyrics as possible, over-repeat the refrain and put some crappy computerized instrumentals and you have a hit. Add to that some top-models-like singers and an average voice.

Of course there were some exceptions in all this 90s mess, but they really had hard time to compete: Prince, George Michael, Madonna, Fugees, Michael Jackson, ... but they were clearly overshadowed by the crap and nobody really wanted to invest huge money or promote real artists.

Yes, I hear you. But at the time, these songs were the exception rather than the rule so it had novelty value.

No most of the Top 40 is filled with this crap, and the good songs are the exception.

But in all fairness, I don't remember George, Michael, Prince or Madonna suffering as a result of this. I think their sales started dwindling due to the fact that as they got older the record buying public identified with them less.

Hence why Lady Gaga now outsells Madonna even though M's last album was far superior.

Same with George, not many 13-19 year olds identify with GM, but will do with (ahem!) N-Dubz (I was just a little sick in my mouth).

Your original point probably still stands though, but records such as Ride On Time or Theme From S-Express were still excellent at the their time.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Now compare the so called hits from the 90s with the quality of the 80s (that is completely forgotten):

[youtube]1-mU-YSk32I&playnext=1&list=PLEA051767FBC7A5F5[/youtube]

[youtube]6Cs3Pvmmv0E[/youtube]

[youtube]ynIHsHYaig0[/youtube]

[youtube]z8rQ575DWD8[/youtube]

[youtube]YcY3FH208l8[/youtube]

[youtube]Rbm6GXllBiw[/youtube]

and many, many, many, many more. Autotunes, computerized voices and no instruments together with music business companies killed real artists.

 

[Pentum]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

No need to get snappy, JM doesn't have the talent to pull off that voice for an entire song, he never has, so it doesn't fit into his singing style, Michael never finished the Cascio tracks, and before you turn around and snap my head off about not sounding like his other demos, first think about the circumstances, most other demos we've heard Michael had touched them up before releasing them, or had a say in which ones were to be released, we have nothing to compare it to, and therefor can only assume it's real, if you assume its fake, you have to prove it.

Again, what you are saying sounds like something out of a ten year old.

JM doesn't have the talent to pull off that voice for an entire song? Have you even listened to the songs? Haven't you noticed all the takes during these songs? Of course he never did a full song without breaks. He did a few lines, paused, a few lines, paused. It's OBVIOUS if you listened to the songs. Cut and paste here and there.

Michael had touched them up before releasing them, or had a say in which ones were to be released, we have nothing to compare it to, and therefor can only assume it's real, if you assume its fake, you have to prove it

Woah, Michael touched his demos up before releasing it, in that way, it actually sounded like Michael, while after his death, he couldn't touch his demos up (demos, which has NO signs of being a demo, no typical stuff MJ would've done) and they ended up soudning like a different human being.

Face it, it's not Michael Jackson singing.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Face it, it's not Michael Jackson singing.

Exactly. Forget the million and one excuses for why it doesn't sound like Michael Jackson. The most probable reason is just ONE reason... it doesn't sound like Michael Jackson because it's not Michael Jackson.