Re: New MJ content?
One thing I would agree with is that in my mind, I don't called them "remixes". Nonetheless, I still consider most of them has ruined mixes...
also they cant use DEMO TRACKS FROM DECADES AGO as singles
Why not? Even if they are currently called "demos" on the album cover ... most of them are complete enough to actually be full songs.
There are example of songs that are different versions on the album and on the single, even in MJ's discography. Also remember that MJ's singles since the 90s use to be full of remixes as b-sides...
Also, I tried to explain that point earlier but I got in a different direction and didn't really finish it: I don't think that songs should be "forced" to "please young public", for multiple reasons. MJ's song (and luckily I can include the Motown era in it) are timeless, his whole career is still good music to this day, and his "demos/unreleased tracks" are still better than many songs from many artists. They don't need to be doctored in the first place.
As I tried to mention earlier, many artists are still extremely popular with old discographies and don't need to "remix" all their tracks to please "young people".
This mostly shows a motivation for very short term profit, all it does is making timeless and ageless works mediocre and forgettable, vaguely enjoyable to listen to.
And even from a marketing point of view, this seems like a mistake: try to arrange everything in order to please "young people", and there is no guarantee that that audience will like it and buy, if that audience even exist. And doings so, you lose people of all ages that could have appreciated the timeless work I referring to earlier. (I see similarities in the way they ruin MJ's works with the way Star Wars got ruined this last decade.)
And do the record sales confirm that this was a good strategy?
Based on these data, "Michael" performed slightly better than "Ben" and slightly worse than another Motown released names "The best of Michael Jackson" (