Michael - The Official New Album - Out December 14th - General Discussion Thread

Which tracks are you most looking forward to hearing in full/Want on Album!

  • All I Need

    Votes: 13 14.0%
  • Carry On

    Votes: 16 17.2%
  • Breaking News

    Votes: 11 11.8%
  • Monster

    Votes: 13 14.0%
  • Much Too Soon

    Votes: 66 71.0%
  • Do You Know Where Your Children Are

    Votes: 68 73.1%
  • Another Day

    Votes: 76 81.7%
  • Hold My Hand

    Votes: 54 58.1%
  • A Place With No Name

    Votes: 65 69.9%
  • Love Never Felt So Good

    Votes: 34 36.6%
  • Blue Gangsta

    Votes: 57 61.3%

  • Total voters
    93
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

I cannot wait for this, but the only thing im scared is, (this is directed to smooth) is that you say they are *the co-producers modernising it up! NO!! Michaels timeless work should not be touched if it was fully finished unless just to clean up and master the original. If this is the case then thats cool, but if its being messed with i wont want to have anything to do with it. Michaels work is and always was the pinnacle of melodies and this should not be messed with.

Terry
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

a song isn't a failure just because it isn't played on the radio. albums have sold well without radio, before.


Yes, but the traditional role of a single was to promote the album. A successful single is one that is played on the radio a lot because it is that song that people are requesting and it is that song people want to hear. That traditionally has a positive effect on album sales. Times have changed slightly since the introduction of itunes and the ability to purchase songs individually, but it still holds true.

Sony and the Estate were aiming to use the song as a tool to promote the album and film. That is the only reason they hyped it up by changing it's name to match the concerts and by saying it was something MJ had been working on for the concerts, then releasing it to radio. They didn't allow radio programmers to listen to the song prior to the premiere and so many stations who wouldn't have played the song dedicated time to promoting it and playing it, but ufortunately for the estate it wass obvious they had been caught in a lie when it was finally played, and it got a very poor reception from the listeners on most mainstream stations and so it failed to make many playlists. those who added it to the playlist dropped it very quickly. If it had been released as a single to buy it would have flopped, so I guess it's good they backed out of that plan.
The song was a failure because it didn't do it's job. It wasn't played on radio beyond a short period of time when it was released because nobody wanted to hear it and therefore nobody wanted to play it. It was a major mistake IMO. The Estate should have released something really radio friendly and could have used the same lie about it being planned for the concerts. The outcome would have been a much better response from the public, potentially better airplay and a potential hit single. The result being something that really would have helped promote both the album and film and therefore a much more successful single IMO.
McClain's handling of that song is one reason why many people are worried about how the new album will turn out. After all, the man added the Jacksons' vocals to TII, which we all know goes against what MJ would have wanted!
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Yes, but the traditional role of a single was to promote the album. A successful single is one that is played on the radio a lot because it is that song that people are requesting and it is that song people want to hear.

Actually it's the other way round. The song is not successful because people request it on the radio, it is successful because radio play it all the time. And in order to play it (promote it) all the time you must pay the radio. In other words if you have big budget to pay the promo, the success is almost guaranteed. Eventually people who listen to the radio are so used to hear the songs that they start to like them (or get irritated).

Some great songs are not played on the radio most of the time becaus ethere is a lack of budget to promote it. By the way, radios are not charity, they won't play songs for free. The same way goes with commercials (big budget, big success: coca cola, pepsi cola, etc, but have you ever heard of cockta? Probably not, because their budget for promotion is limited, yet cockta is also a good soda drink.)
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Actually it's the other way round. The song is not successful because people request it on the radio, it is successful because radio play it all the time. And in order to play it (promote it) all the time you must pay the radio. In other words if you have big budget to pay the promo, the success is almost guaranteed. Eventually people who listen to the radio are so used to hear the songs that they start to like them (or get irritated).

Some great songs are not played on the radio most of the time becaus ethere is a lack of budget to promote it. By the way, radios are not charity, they won't play songs for free. The same way goes with commercials (big budget, big success: coca cola, pepsi cola, etc, but have you ever heard of cockta? Probably not, because their budget for promotion is limited, yet cockta is also a good soda drink.)


I'm no expert but I don't believe that this is the way it works for all stations. Perhaps it does from some small regional stations but certainly not the big boys. In the UK, BBC radio 2 is the most listened to station and Radio 1 is right up there. Most major stations can't be bought like you describe, at least not to the extent you describe.

For example, the BBC radio stations (and many others) have a playlist determined by the internal panel who meet every week to listen to the new releases and then put them on a graded playlist:

A = most spins
B = medium spins
C = low spins.

Or of course they may not playlist them at all, in which case a song will either be completely ignored or get very very few spins over the course of that week.

It is possible for record companies to pay for advertising or specific features that may feature their song, but when you hear a song played twice an hour every hour, that is not because the record company have paid for it. It is because it is on the playlist, as decided by the panel. In the example of the BBC radio stations, they just wouldn't be allowed to be bought like you suggest. Of course it could be different in your country.

A record company can increase the chances of their songs being playlisted by creating the right buzz around that artist through advertising in magazines, on TV, on the underground, billboards, and by organising appearances by their artist. If they get the right buzz and the public are interested, then the radio stations will play their song.

Every time a song is played on UK radio a royalty payment is due and can be collected via a number of avenues (usually by the PPL or PPS in the UK). Most radio stations pay a blanket fee to cover the songs they play, while others pay on a more one-to-one basis but they are all paying to play the songs they play, not the other way around.

It is a fact that a song can be added to a playlist after the station has received many requests, even if they had previously not been playlisted at all. If it was playlisted on the C-list one week, it is possible it can move to the A-list.
Similarly, if a song was put on the A-list one week and it receives a poor reception from the listeners it can be dropped the following week. A station would be stupid to ignore the opinion of it's listeners because after all, if the listeners don't like what they hear they will stop listening and the station would go out of business.

Also, I do realise that radios are not a charity. In the UK, BBC radio stations are paid for by the license fee, which is paid by anyone in the UK who owns a TV. The BBC uses a portion of this fee to pay for its online and radio services. Commercial radio stations make the vast majority of their money through advertising revenue and sponsorship.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

^^ I got another example. One of my friend is a singer, Rayan Mahal, and unfortunately he has to pay his own promotion, but of course it's not enough. He's a real good singer with awesome voice pop and rnb style, a bit MJ style without imitating him. Check for example a sample of the song "NOVEMBER RAIN" on his site or "HOW COULD WE FORGET", vocals and music are purely amazing (go to music section and check it out):

http://users.telenet.be/dbt-web/MahalRayan/


He also has a short film, but no promotion at all unfortunately:

"HERE WHERE U BELONG"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ulZCjPzTI

and

I WANNA BE WITH U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9kVf0Y5sJw&feature=related



Now if he had the right budget to promote himself, don't tell me that radios and tvs wouldn't play his songs. And that eventually people would start to like it and probably request his songs. But how people could request something that is is not promoted? They are simply unaware that it exists.

Everybody witnessed what happened to INVINCIBLE due to the lack of promotion (even if your name is Michael Jackson).

The same goes with the new album, if it has no proper promotion it'll remain unknown and neither sales won't go up, nor requests on the radio, except by some fans.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

hmm that idea sounds familiar. oh yea... i said it a few pages ago.

Heres your medal. :clapping:


I like the idea of there being only 10 songs, theres only a certain ammount of songs for release. MJ isnt here anymore to make new ones, so it needs to be spread out. 10 songs is plenty, most current artists dont even have 10 songs on their new albums.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Of course you are right that if people don't hear the song then they won't buy it because they won't know it exists.

The more airplay a song gets, the larger its audience and so of course more listeners equals more sales potential.

My point is that you can't just call up the BBC and say I have £30,000 and I want you to play the song x amount of times a day. They won't do it because it doesn't work like that in the UK. As I said, it might be different in your country. BUT if you went to a commerical station and said I have money and I want to buy an advertising slot for my album then they would because you will have paid for that slot, but I still don't believe the songs they play are determined by which record comanies pay them. There is a difference between buying an advertising slot and bribing a station to play your music.

Of course, the major record companies have a great deal of power because they have the financial backing to buy the best advertising slots and to get their artists onto the most successful TV and radio shows as guests. Your friend cannot compete with them in that domain and I understand that is frustrating

BUT if a BBC DJ heard a song that he or she liked, the station would play that song at an appropriate time in the schedule. One particular DJ - John Peel - who is now dead was famous for doing exactly that.

I can only recommend that your friend finds all the radio stations that play similar music to the style he has and sends them the songs. If they listen to them and they like the songs, they may play them. I wish him the best of luck.


The trouble with Invincible was down to Sony (as we all know).
YRMW did fairly well on radio and was proving to be popular. for the second single, Sony released 'Cry', which was a terrible choice. It was not radio friendly and so didn't get any airplay, it was not really 'single' material and so didn't sell very well. It was a deliberate move by Sony to kill the album. Combined with their decision to stop buying advertising slots, their plan worked very well.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Im sorry i disagree about CRY!! had Michael been in this and promoted it , it would of been a huge success, remember! This WAS!! released to ease the pain of september 11th!! Its kinda spooky and prophetic too.

Terry
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Heres your medal. :clapping:


I like the idea of there being only 10 songs, theres only a certain ammount of songs for release. MJ isnt here anymore to make new ones, so it needs to be spread out. 10 songs is plenty, most current artists dont even have 10 songs on their new albums.

;D thanks thats all i wanted ;)
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Okay, so Monday is Labor Day here in the US. I really think starting this upcoming Tuesday we should be hearing something regarding the album.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Smooth has said there will be a single, but Damien who is known to have a contact at Sony and has provided a lot of reliable inside information in the past has said on MaxJax that he hasn't heard from his source about any singles being planned. That's not to say there won't be any, I'm just warning you.

At this point, without any official announcement from Sony or the Estate and without any substantial rumours beyond what Smooth says, I highly doubt there will be a single in October.

A single may be released as late as a week before an album is released. If we believe Smooth's information that the album could be released in first or second week of November, the single would be released (in shops/itunes) the week before at the latest. Usually a single would be released for radio play around 4 or 5 weeks before the single's release date, which would mean about 4 weeks from now IF it's released early November.

As I said, without an announcement and no substantial rumours, it seems doubtful a single will be released to radio in the next 4 or 5 weeks. Sure, the Estate or Sony could release it closer to the release date, but they wouldn't be doing themselves and favours. There's a reason record labels follow this kind of strategy and that is usually to buid momentum for a song and generate airplay and sales. If they're doing something different (as they did with TII - I hear ALARM bells ringing!) that would be strange to me.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

No I said they ignor me when I ask about singles. Haha. Meaning they don't comment on my questions. Meaning I have never heard them talk about them. Surely there is a single planned.....
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

It's quite possible Sony does something like this:

9/14: Announcement. First Single: 10/12. Album: 11/16
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

I stand corrected. Thanks Damien! :)
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

I cannot wait for this, but the only thing im scared is, (this is directed to smooth) is that you say they are *the co-producers modernising it up! NO!! Michaels timeless work should not be touched if it was fully finished unless just to clean up and master the original. If this is the case then thats cool, but if its being messed with i wont want to have anything to do with it. Michaels work is and always was the pinnacle of melodies and this should not be messed with.

Terry

Unless to clean up and master the original??? Woah....there should be even no one doing that!!! Let Michael clean up his own music. And NO ONE can master Michael's original music BUT Michael.'

Now if it's an unfinished duet with another artist or something....then maybe....ONLY if they don't change any of Michael's creations on that song, or if they tweak one little thing there, then that may be acceptale since it's an unfinished duet.

But really, Michael's music should not be touched at all unless it's by him or if he tells someone else to. PERIOD.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

As long as these producers are not putting auto tune all over MJ's vocals i'll be happy. That's the main thing that worries me now is that they'll do something like that just because auto tune is popular at the moment
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

As long as these producers are not putting auto tune all over MJ's vocals i'll be happy. That's the main thing that worries me now is that they'll do something like that just because auto tune is popular at the moment

oh i know! I can't stand that auto-tune crap...I really hope they don't feel the need to add that to his already astounding vocals....
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

I'm no expert but I don't believe that this is the way it works for all stations.

I remember back during Vince people were explaining how radio works in North America where the station would have to pay royalties for each spin for a song they just want to play for a short period of time for a high profile artist like MJ.

Then when they get an artist who isn't high profile, they will just buy the rights to play the song unlimited times royalty-free no matter how many spins they get.

Therefore the reason why YRMW lost radio play to others like Mary J. Blige and Nsync and all the others back then was because they were cheaper for the station to buy... and that explains the phenomenon that people say "I hate that station. They always play the same old songs over and over every single day."
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

^^^

Wow I never knew that. I really hope that's not true.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Smooth or Damien - I am very exited about the first singles - du you have any idea when it will be realesed?

Also - do you know how many singles will be released? - I hope there will be 6-7 singles spread over 1½ - 2 years. And videos for all the singles. That way focus will remain on the album for a longer period.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Ok, so I'm a little late on this, but what happened to the album announcement we were going to get around MJ's birthday?? Did SC_05 update on this?
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

^ I just repeat here what I'm told by my source. An announcement was expected by Sony around the time of MJ's birthday, that's all I know. It never came from the estate for whatever reason. The estate is most likely running behind and will announce it soon. With the first single expected in late October , there is still plenty of time so there is no need to worry.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

^ I just repeat here what I'm told by my source. An announcement was expected by Sony around the time of MJ's birthday, that's all I know. It never came from the estate for whatever reason. The estate is most likely running behind and will announce it soon. With the first single expected in late October , there is still plenty of time so there is no need to worry.

Alright, thanks. :)
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

I'm really hoping the single is Another Day. After Hold my Hand, One More Chance, the Katrina single I just know whatever the first single is it will probably be some weak ballad. that's all we have had new to listen to in the last 9 years. 3 ballads.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

didnt I read that Another Day was going to be the first single?
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

It's easily possible that Another Day won't be the lead single for the album. Lenny said it would be ages ago, but things change. Lenny isn't the authority on the album. I think Sony will be the deciding influence on the single. Afterall, even Michael Jackson himself didn't have complete power over Sony in selecting the lead single of Invincible. Michael wanted Unbreakable with a big budget video. Sony allocated a lesser budget and told MJ to make a video for YRMW. Sony might get the album and decide that Another Day is the wrong option, and choose another song, and make a video for that song and release it.

Thats just me speculating tho.
 
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

Of course you are right that if people don't hear the song then they won't buy it because they won't know it exists.

The more airplay a song gets, the larger its audience and so of course more listeners equals more sales potential.

My point is that you can't just call up the BBC and say I have £30,000 and I want you to play the song x amount of times a day. They won't do it because it doesn't work like that in the UK. As I said, it might be different in your country. BUT if you went to a commerical station and said I have money and I want to buy an advertising slot for my album then they would because you will have paid for that slot, but I still don't believe the songs they play are determined by which record comanies pay them. There is a difference between buying an advertising slot and bribing a station to play your music.

Of course, the major record companies have a great deal of power because they have the financial backing to buy the best advertising slots and to get their artists onto the most successful TV and radio shows as guests. Your friend cannot compete with them in that domain and I understand that is frustrating

BUT if a BBC DJ heard a song that he or she liked, the station would play that song at an appropriate time in the schedule. One particular DJ - John Peel - who is now dead was famous for doing exactly that.

I can only recommend that your friend finds all the radio stations that play similar music to the style he has and sends them the songs. If they listen to them and they like the songs, they may play them. I wish him the best of luck.


The trouble with Invincible was down to Sony (as we all know).
YRMW did fairly well on radio and was proving to be popular. for the second single, Sony released 'Cry', which was a terrible choice. It was not radio friendly and so didn't get any airplay, it was not really 'single' material and so didn't sell very well. It was a deliberate move by Sony to kill the album. Combined with their decision to stop buying advertising slots, their plan worked very well.

sony's plan did not work very well. it's clear you see Invincible as a failure, but it was and is not. as far as people not hearing a single because of lack of airplay, that does not apply to Michael. his fanbase is huge, and they know every song on every album. the general public comparison is irrelevant when you mention the name Michael Jackson. that's how huge his fanbase is. the general public doesn't need to hear anything for an MJ project to be successful. this isn't like some other artist whose population is so fragmented that they need radio airplay to be heard by the general public.

again...the definition of 'radio friendly' is so vague. what does that mean, that can pass muster with a large number of people?

you think 'Cry' is terrible. i don't. then there's the trust factor in MJ's music. you hear yrmw, then the album gets bought by many, before 'cry' gets played. whether or not it continues to get played is of no consequence, because people are buying the whole album. why just have a single when you can have the whole album, where MJ is concerned. even people....who..could do without MJ as a person, like his music. that's a lot of musical power that doesn't necessarily need the traditional routes. there's a lot of x factors that you don't consider that can work for Michael Jackson that can't work for other artists, because he's Michael Jackson.

whether or not songs get played on the radio, in the future, you give radio too much credit. this isn't the 70's when there was no internet. Susan Boyle, for example, has youtube and the internet to thank for her respectable success, and she has nowhere near Michael's success.

Soulja Boy has myspace to thank. and though a lot of people castigate him, that didn't stop myspace from making him a success, even without radio, before it ever hit radio. and of course, Soulja Boy's success isn't anywhere near Michael's. Michael is in a class by himself. you really give radio too much credit, where he's concerned.

i'm not against the idea of MJ on radio, of course, but to act as if his legacy depends on radio, is wayy to big an overstatement. his legacy doesn't need it, as a matter of fact.

being on radio would be wonderful for him. but not being on radio would be wonderful for him too. because he's Michael Jackson. and it's clear that he sells, no matter what.

i witness too many people who can't do without his music..including those... who say they can do without him as a person, for his musical legacy to ever die.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Official New Album Thread - Discussion Only

sony's plan did not work very well. it's clear you see Invincible as a failure, but it was and is not. as far as people not hearing a single because of lack of airplay, that does not apply to Michael. his fanbase is huge, and they know every song on every album. the general public comparison is irrelevant when you mention the name Michael Jackson. that's how huge his fanbase is. the general public doesn't need to hear anything for an MJ project to be successful. this isn't like some other artist whose population is so fragmented that they need radio airplay to be heard by the general public.

again...the definition of 'radio friendly' is so vague. what does that mean, that can pass muster with a large number of people?

you think 'Cry' is terrible. i don't. then there's the trust factor in MJ's music. you hear yrmw, then the album gets bought by many, before 'cry' gets played. whether or not it continues to get played is of no consequence, because people are buying the whole album. why just have a single when you can have the whole album, where MJ is concerned. even people....who..could do without MJ as a person, like his music. that's a lot of musical power that doesn't necessarily need the traditional routes. there's a lot of x factors that you don't consider that can work for Michael Jackson that can't work for other artists, because he's Michael Jackson.

whether or not songs get played on the radio, in the future, you give radio too much credit. this isn't the 70's when there was no internet. Susan Boyle, for example, has youtube and the internet to thank for her respectable success, and she has nowhere near Michael's success.

Soulja Boy has myspace to thank. and though a lot of people castigate him, that didn't stop myspace from making him a success, even without radio, before it ever hit radio. and of course, Soulja Boy's success isn't anywhere near Michael's. Michael is in a class by himself. you really give radio too much credit, where he's concerned.

i'm not against the idea of MJ on radio, of course, but to act as if his legacy depends on radio, is wayy to big an overstatement. his legacy doesn't need it, as a matter of fact.

being on radio would be wonderful for him. but not being on radio would be wonderful for him too. because he's Michael Jackson. and it's clear that he sells, no matter what.

i witness too many people who can't do without his music..including those... who say they can do without him as a person, for his musical legacy to ever die.


Regarding radios, I think you are underestimating its importance. Although we have other means to promote songs such as Youtube, Facebook, etc, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that radios remain a huge influence in the music industry worldwide. Today people might watch more tv and surf on internet, however radios are still in force everywher in every single country around the world. Take for example café bars, restaurants, shopping malls, all kinds of shop, cars (especially when people are stuck in traffic jams), hairdressers, waiting rooms, airports, train stations, subway, supermarkets,... everyday we are being hammered and brainwashed by the music we actually even don't choose to listen to.
 
Back
Top