Teddy Riley Interview: Unreleased song Joy sung by Michael Jackson will be given to Estate!

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Somebody had posted this on the inevitable street by the name of facebook and I think it could add something to the discussion:

“Wesley Snipes: Subsequently [after Bad] I met him many times around the world. Man, I met him one time in South Africa and we were sitting in this palatial space. He happened to be there, I happened to be there. We sat and we started talking and chopping up - we chopped it up for like three hours, and he had a list of books, lined up all along the floor, and I looked over and I said, ‘Yo, Mike, are people just sending you stuff like that?’ and he says, ‘No, that’s what I read.’ I mean, he had everything, from the autobiography of Malcolm X, Eat To Live, he had Sri Aurobindo, [Kalki] Krishnamurthy, I mean, like these exotic books, you know? That you would never imagine Michael was down with. And we sat there three hours man, chopping it up about all of this, from metaphysics to psychology, ‘how the black man is treated.’ I was looking at him, like…
Interviewer: How the black man is treated?
Wesley: I’m telling you, it was a trip.Interviewer: Eat To Live by Elijah Muhammad? [Elijah was the leader of the Nation of Islam and a mentor to Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali]
Wesley: Yes, sir.
Interviewer: Wow.
Wesley: Mike, Mike… people don’t know about Mike on the real. Mike had a consciousness that could blow your mind and he could recite things that could blow your mind as well. From like the street corner stuff.
Interviewer: Really?
Wesley: Straight up.”
Wesley Snipes speaking about Michael Jackson during a radio interview.

I don't have a date for this - so I'm assuming it's quoted correctly.

And rock on, Michael - there's a reason Krishnamurti, Sri Audobindo and "Eat to Live" tie in with Michael. It's relevant, all of it.

Edit: The transcriber wrote Kalki Krishnamurthy - I'm wondering though it would be Jiddu Krishnamurti that Michael read - it makes more sense with Sri Audobindo mentioned in the same context. But Krishnamurty also makes sense - being read in the context of 'street cred'. Both Krishnamurthis can relate heavily to 'street cred'.
Ironically Jiddu Krishnamurti has also been accused of being the 'rich man's philosopher'.

And then there's also a third Krishnamurti who many boiled down to:

Tell them that there is nothing to understand.
​

I envy those that had the opportunity to sit down with Michael and have a chat about these things. I bet he was an amazing philosopher. Philosophy IS the street.

 

[Arklove]

What an interesting thread this turned out to be...Never saw it coming lol

I think if Michael simply just stuck to 'street cred' mentality, he wouldn't have been as appealing to all walks of life. I don't know, it seems street credibility is mostly referred to in the US. As mentioned in this thread, Michael was GLOBAL.

 

[Petrarose]

What an interesting thread this turned out to be...Never saw it coming lol

I think if Michael simply just stuck to 'street cred' mentality, he wouldn't have been as appealing to all walks of life. I don't know, it seems street credibility is mostly referred to in the US. As mentioned in this thread, Michael was GLOBAL.

^^So true. This is the problem I have with a lot of music critics--the tendency to place Michael in one box of the type of music he should play. He is supposed to stick with strict R&B. He is not supposed to try out new, different, or combination of sounds. Hence, the theory that he lost something & was blessed to have Teddy so that he could find that sound he lost. I see this as a type of thinking that comes from narrow minds. If Michael stuck to one sound, he would never reach that global mark, which was something he wanted. Michael practiced and pushed his art so that he would reach people across the globe. This was done deliberately, so he did not lose anything. If he did not have it at one time, it means he deliberately set it aside for a moment, in order to do something different.

We can't have it both ways. On one hand people want him to stick to some "street creed" while at the same time love his work because it is innovative, creative and new. How does that work? If he sticks to one sound, how does he become individualistic, innovative, and creative with his art?

 

[8701girl]

That is why michael was sp special cuz there were different sides to him the street cred aka JAM, why u wanna trip on me and the one who wanted to help & save the worl aka , heal the world we are the world

Thats what made him a one of a kind singer

 

[144000]

critics knew that what you said, is the answer to that, but like lawsuits and everything else, aimed at Michael, it was a frivolous attempt to hurt him out of envy, Petrarose. Everybody knows that what you said, is elementary.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

I mean, all flippancy and jokes aside - 'street cred' with whom? The rioters in LA? Those with the ghetto blasters, the NOI and New Black Panther Party? Middle and high school kids? Are we opening the field to all other ethnicities at home in the US?

144,000 - do I remember correctly that you were in LA at the time?

And why would anyone want Michael to continue to sing Burn This Disco Out when the Berlin Wall just fell, the Soviet Union disappeared and things are progressively heating up in parts of the US (again...)? So I guess in that aspect Dangerous definitely hit the nerve of the time.


I know this could open a can of worms - but I think you'll have as many perceptions of Michael as you have people in vastly different situations. Thinking in these terms just carries a load of generalizations and reducing people to a demographic in a time frame that saw major changes in the world. Parts of the world practically had changed overnight by the time of the early 90ies - for millions of people. But for others nothing had changed. Odd situation. Bit hard to compare one man to the situation of countless 'demographics'. Anyone need a thesis theme??? There's more than enough to go around for everyone. :wild:

 

[144000]

i wasn't in L.A. at that time. But, you know what? In a nutshell, I think i can say what you were saying. When I think of the song'Never Can Say Goodbye', I think Michael summed it up when he said he only sings what he believes, and believes what he sings. And that he knew he had sonic perception when he was a boy. Much of the Motown stable of songs were about a good hook, when written by others for the singers. But that song consisted of a tasty breakfast, lunch and dinner of a lyric, and a melody, and the hook. Michael's pick-em ability said as much as his writing ability. When you can perceive the quality of a song, like that, you get everybody's cred.

 

[HIStory]

At the beginning of the 90s the US's taste in music was very different from the rest of the World. I'm in Europe, I watched MTV Europe, but I remember that on Sunday nights they showed the US charts. And that's when we got a glimpse of the type of music that was hot at the time in the US - new jack swing, hip-hop (way before it achieved global popularity) and the like. But Europe was not into that much. It were only R&B nerds like me, who paid attention to it, but the general public did not care about it. The tastes were different.

Therefore if Michael went for street cred and US trends and did a hard-core NJS album, Dangerous might have been a little bit bigger success in the US, but I think it could have been a flop globally. Michael did not want to be just an R&B artist who does well in the US urban community, he wanted to be global.

So Dangerous, tough it incorporated NJS, I don't consider it a NJS album. While I like NJS, NJS albums today sound very dated. Dangerous doesn't sound like that. Another reason why it was a good decision for Michael not to go hard-core NJS. Even if that meant a little less sales in the US, the global sales more than made up for it.

And I remember here in Europe songs like Give In To Me were huge (I remember it was Nr 1 on the European charts *), but a song like that is exactly what is frowned upon by the urban community, because it's rock and a black man playing rock is considered a "sell-out". Michael was losing "street cred" with that song and it did not even chart in the US, but it was a huge success in throughout Europe, in New Zealand and Australia.

I think Michael eventually found the right balance of genres on Dangerous and the album was a big globalsuccess.

^^So true. This is the problem I have with a lot of music critics--the tendency to place Michael in one box of the type of music he should play. He is supposed to stick with strict R&B. He is not supposed to try out new, different, or combination of sounds.

I remember at the time critics criticized Dangerous for not being coherent. I took it to mean that it covered so many different genres, styles and themes. But to me that's exactly what was so impressive and exciting about it! You never got bored! It was like a caleidoscope of music. There was rock, pop, gospel, NJS, R&B, hip-hop - all on one album, by the same artist, and Michael could deliver all of those genres fantastically. It's just amazing. But instead of applauding that ability, critics trashed it for being "incoherent". Yeah, I think they wanted to see Michael in one box and they did not like him not staying in his box...

I think, like in life, in his music Michael attempted to unite people. He did not feel music should have limits and boundaries - and therefore he incorporated many different styles in his music, assocaited with many different people (ie. "black music", "white music").

So what if Dangerous was not coherent musically or/and thematically? It was not supposed to be a concept album. I feel there is some narrow-mindedness there on all sides of the fence: many people in the urban community are not willing to listen to anything that's not R&B, hip-hop, that does not have "street cred". Many white kids are not willing to listen to anything that is not rock or electronic music. Many do not even understand other types of music, other than what they are "supposed to" listen by race.
And Michael is a little bit of all of this music (minus electronic), but not enough to be embraced totally by anyone who likes musical segregation. Someone who likes only urban music, does not want rock like GITM on the album he buys... I think Michael was trying to make people look out of their musically segregated boxes and wanted them to be more open-mindend with this kind of mixing of styles and genres.


PS: I know we are getting OT, but this is really a very interesting subject to discuss IMO.

*ETA: I even remember that when Give In To Me was #1 on the European chart, #2 was Are You Gonna Go My Way by Lenny Kravitz. Another rock song by a black man. And that too failed to chart in the US on the Billboard 100. I thought it's just interesting to note this too.

 

[marebear]

I think Michael wanted to reach out to everybody with his music. He didn't want to do one kind of music or be one kind of artist. Even though people wanted him to be in one box but he didn't and people saw his success and didn't like it. Michael would get criticized for it yet now you see so many artists today do different types or styles of music to reach out to more people. People should be grateful to Michael for all the hits he took because now it seems acceptable and "hip thing to do". That's why I always hope that Michael's later work beyond Bad will get more recognition in what he was trying to do.

 

[Petrarose]

^^Great comments, and no I don't think we are out of topic here because the reason why some would like or would not like to see Teddy work on Joy, involves all these issues we are discussing. Actually I love this intellectual thread.

 

[Arklove]

I think Michael wanted to reach out to everybody with his music. He didn't want to do one kind of music or be one kind of artist. Even though people wanted him to be in one box but he didn't and people saw his success and didn't like it. Michael would get criticized for it yet now you see so many artists today do different types or styles of music to reach out to more people. People should be grateful to Michael for all the hits he took because now it seems acceptable and "hip thing to do". That's why I always hope that Michael's later work beyond Bad will get more recognition in what he was trying to do.

I think Michael not only wanted to reach out to everybody, I think it was just naturally who he was, and on a purely subconscious level. I don't think he could have been any other type of artist. It's just WHO he was as a whole. But with so many different facets. These facets were/are able to continue to reach out to the rich, the poor, the old, the young, and every colour and creed.

He stuck to his guns throughout his career, and stayed true to himself as a person and artist, and that is what made his music and artistry last. And I don't think it's going away any time soon. It's forever, as he himself stated before.

So when I hear this 'street cred' reference, it's like pigeon-holing him and that is the complete opposite to who he was.

I think this is a great conversation, but I often get frustrated because I feel I can't express fully what I want to say lol.

 

[144000]

You have to wonder..just how genuine is 'street cred'? A lot of times, when I see a guy of one race who wants to impress a girl of another race, she's white, he's black, for example, he says he likes rock, and she's surprised. Or she likes urban and he's surprised. Or, in the closet, they both like 'their own' and 'each others'' sound.

If a song is really good, if you're playing the percentages...there's more of a percentage of everybody liking it, whether they admit it or not. I remember the Hollywood producer over in another section of this forum who loves the Jacksons music. We never would have known he liked the music if he didn't mention it.

Most importantly, what everybody notes...if you get the children..'baby cred'...you got everybody. Michael knew that.

I hear and see too many 'closet' people loving Michael's REALLY good songs. There's nothing more impressive than 'closet cred'. You wanna keep it a secret, and stay true to your 'boys'...fine. As long as you buy it. . I'm as African American as a person can get. But so what...you give me a really good song..ima buy it. I'm not exactly going to be in the closet about it, but i know i'm not alone.

Why did Eminem so so well in the black community? Why did Elton John do so well in the black community?

What is a 'sell out', really? Perhaps it goes a certain number of miles/kilometers...but...

Doesn't everyone secretly dream of crossing over? I think it's a dream as old as dirt.

I think, because Michael naturally did it so successfully, there are quite a few butt hurt people who wish they did it, and are taking it out on him.

Anyway, whatever the estate decides to do with 'Joy', the entire world..unless they got a lobotomy, will know Michael had nothing to do with the decision involving using the song, so whatever the estate does, it's not going to affect Michael's legacy. If people don't like the song, the world will not blame Michael, unless they are just about hate for no reason. If they approve of the song, they'll probably give the estate credit for it, and add money to the estate. If the world doesn't like the song, it won't affect the sane part of the world's consumption of Michael's classic music. To be honest, anything released, post Michael, and anything with Michael's blessing are forever, two seperate issues.

 

[qbee]

What an interesting thread this turned out to be...Never saw it coming lol

I think if Michael simply just stuck to 'street cred' mentality, he wouldn't have been as appealing to all walks of life. I don't know, it seems street credibility is mostly referred to in the US. As mentioned in this thread, Michael was GLOBAL.

Steet cred according to Michael Jackson

"I want it to be something that touches the heart and emotions of the world. From a child to older people, from the farmers of Ireland to the lady who scrubs toilets in Harlem. I mean I want to reach every demographic I can through the love and joy and simplicity of music." ~ Michael Jackson 1999

 

[Ashtanga]

Steet cred according to Michael Jackson

"I want it to be something that touches the heart and emotions of the world. From a child to older people, from the farmers of Ireland to the lady who scrubs toilets in Harlem. I mean I want to reach every demographic I can through the love and joy and simplicity of music." ~ Michael Jackson 1999

:girl_sigh:

 

[Arklove]

Steet cred according to Michael Jackson

"I want it to be something that touches the heart and emotions of the world. From a child to older people, from the farmers of Ireland to the lady who scrubs toilets in Harlem. I mean I want to reach every demographic I can through the love and joy and simplicity of music." ~ Michael Jackson 1999

The man just GOT it, ya know?

I love him :wub:

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

I think Michael in a sense experienced the fate and faith of many that indeed succeeded in that crossover, achieving that all-over recognition.
If you search all civil rights groups, all over the world - you'll find a common theme. The strive begins with minorities going out into the world, breaking the barrier down. Then the individuals who have broken down the barriers are faced with the 'sellout' syndrome - ie. are they still the megaphone for all those who still experience oppression and what is the way to overcome it?
Then the groups heavily start to redefining themselves and the goals - what is integration, what is assimilation, what are your roots and the whole question of inclusiveness versus separation. That's not a struggle that is unique to the US civil rights groups, either. What is identity - particular in all backgrounds that started to work change within the diaspora experience.
Researching the civil rights movement particular in the US you'll find heavy overlap in the that refinement once change started to occur. The goals often seem to start from inclusion and very soon after you'll find heavy debate in terms of: "Are we just trying to be like those who oppress us, is assimilation a 4 letter word and are those individuals who broke the barriers obligated to act and conduct the way they see fit - or what are the expectations?

Michael is really not the only one who had to deal with that, but I think he experienced the pressure even more so. Where black/african-american men once were lynched for merely looking at a white/caucasian/etc woman - once it was the fight interracial marriage which then became the question of 'are you betraying your roots' for exactly doing what once was not a right. And that plays out everywhere. I married twice 'outside my own' - two American men. You'll 'get it' from everyone. My mother (not German) got spat at for marrying a German man when the wounds were still visible from WWII and I have never been married to "one of my own."
There's no pleasing everyone. Life itself will take care of that. One of my friend was a Hindu who dated a divorced, white Christian. (didn't matter the man didn't identify a Christian). Another friend of mine married an Indian American - and it's quite amazing just how many people will feel they have a right to meddle within personal business of individuals.

So to a degree issues like that definitely played out more in the US, just as Respect already mentioned before. The %^&* I have read regarding Michael on different personal blogs just astounds me. Everyone and their mother feels they have a right to decide on Michael's behalf whether he is too this, too that.

Michael obviously was well aware of the views and expectations placed on him. He shares that with everyone who broke the mold. The first African-American female (no less!!) opera singers dealt with it, so did the black ballet dancers. Is Leontyne Price obligated to sing gospel and she selling herself out singing Mozart? Are they a sellout acting 'too white' and President Obama gets accused of either not being black enough when he does the human thing - down to linguistics. Watching the debate on all sides about his speech at a traditionally black university. So, I too, am 'deceiving' people when I fall into a heavy Berlin accent - when I am in Berlin and talk to the locals, having been a local...

I would have loved to ask Michael about his conclusions - based on his own life and obviously the literature that he studied. What are his thoughts reading - because obviously Elijah Muhammad's very pro-separatist views do seem to stand in opposition to Michael's (public) life - or maybe not? Are we all just throwing the names "Martin Luther, Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad" into one big pot and assume it's all the same anyway? Those three said vastly different things.

Man, so many wasted opportunity to have meaningful discussions with Michael - instead we hear from the media about his nose. Really? Ugh. I know that it's partially nosy and irresponsible to dig through someone's personal library since the simple fact of owning a particular book does not mean the reader IS the book he owns - but I tend to think that the books that a person read would lend itself to more meaningful debates than their eating Tuscan White Bean soup vs. Mc Cheese.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Here's another sentence regarding "cred" that amused me for hours. (and no disrespect intended for Led Zeppelin lovers!)

“Some of the Zeppelin songs were massive hits, but I just couldn't make them work in this context. You can't ask an orchestra to play four chords for eight minutes. The Michael Jackson charts give the orchestra a whole lot to do.”
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-philharmonic-pays-tribute-to-michael-jackson/article/3747640/?page=1

Lots of credit to given to Michael and the issues cropping up doing JUSTICE to his art.
^^^^Preach it, baby, preach it!!

 

[Sunflowers]

At the beginning of the 90s the US's taste in music was very different from the rest of the World. I'm in Europe, I watched MTV Europe, but I remember that on Sunday nights they showed the US charts. And that's when we got a glimpse of the type of music that was hot at the time in the US - new jack swing, hip-hop (way before it achieved global popularity) and the like. But Europe was not into that much. It were only R&B nerds like me, who paid attention to it, but the general public did not care about it. The tastes were different.

You're very right there. The difference in music between Europe and the US have never been bigger then in that period. Dance was becoming really big here in The Netherlands and we were very much behind on r&b and hip hop.

I remember at the time critics criticized Dangerous for not being coherent. I took it to mean that it covered so many different genres, styles and themes. But to me that's exactly what was so impressive and exciting about it! You never got bored! It was like a caleidoscope of music. There was rock, pop, gospel, NJS, R&B, hip-hop - all on one album, by the same artist, and Michael could deliver all of those genres fantastically. It's just amazing. But instead of applauding that ability, critics trashed it for being "incoherent". Yeah, I think they wanted to see Michael in one box and they did not like him not staying in his box...

Many people said this. I love Dangerous but I do get where they were coming from saying this. But then who says an album has to be coherent. I thought it was the strenght of the album. Although I like the 2nd half better then the first half. The first half is more Riley songs then the 2nd. But my faves of the album really have that Michael stamp on the. Give in to me, Who is it. Keep the faith, Dangerous.
No matter what comments Riley has made, he made some great songs with Michael.

I'm really curious about Joy. Always liked the Blackstreet song and never knew Michael had recorded it as well untill a while ago. But if it is ever released it should only be when they have the full complete song. Wouldn't want to hear a song missing anything because they don't have the vocals.

 

[HIStory]

Here's another sentence regarding "cred" that amused me for hours. (and no disrespect intended for Led Zeppelin lovers!)



Lots of credit to given to Michael and the issues cropping up doing JUSTICE to his art.
^^^^Preach it, baby, preach it!!

Haha. Love that quote, because some rock fans can be the biggest snobs.

 

[HIStory]

You're very right there. The difference in music between Europe and the US have never been bigger then in that period. Dance was becoming really big here in The Netherlands and we were very much behind on r&b and hip hop.

Right. It was either grunge/rock or techno/dance music here. It's not easy to be global in such times. (Maybe it's easier for rock acts, because rock does not change as much as pop which is always influenced by some new genre/trend. Though at the time grunge was something that brought some change into rock as well. For a while, at least, then grunge faded away.) When there's such a difference in the taste of the US and the rest of the world it's not easy to be global. Even Madonna struggled: she sold only 6 million (2 million in the US) worldwide of her 1992 Erotica album and 7 million worldwide (3 million in the US) of her 1994 album Bedtime Stories. So Dangerous was a phenomenal global and US success compared to that.

On a side note, I find it ironic how the US now embraces euro dance and it's all over on the US charts. Many so called "R&B" acts aren't really playing R&B any more but some kind of mixture of R&B and euro dance. Or the pop artists. When I hear Lady Gaga it reminds me of 90s euro dance. I swear some of her songs remind me of Ace of Base. Well, she has a Swedish producer, so maybe that's no coincidence...

I do not really find this development a good one. Even if I'm European I was never into euro dance. I think it's trashy cheap music. I prefer R&B and I find it sad how euro dance infected and cheapened it.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

The only thing that makes me laugh is Michael giving Ace of Base the thumbs up in Monaco during an Award show. And that was also before the ladies had to be practically naked on staged, so those two clearly hit his tastebuds...

Yeah, I agree - what in the world? Hubby said though that you could hear Euro Dance stuff in the clubs on the East Coast, too - even back then. Man, I was glad when the Euro Dance and Boyband fever finally subsided. The producing literally bored me out of my skull, a short chorus and 4 or 5 bars and that's it. Michael's "Is Is Scary" is rather complex, glad he was around back then because he was almost the only one in contemporary music that could catch my attention, aside from the ubiquitous singer/songwriter indie scene that was already re-gaining huge momentum.

 

[Arklove]

This topic needs a whole 'nother thread

 

[Silouette]

This topic needs a whole 'nother thread

Lol!
And there's no smilies in here neither.

I'm listening to BLACKstreet, 'Joy' now.
Yeah, I can so see Michael singing this. :girl_sigh:

 

[Gfresh]

I'm glad Teddy's back in good spirit. He's a legend and you gotta respect him for that. Let's keep MJ's legacy alive by supporting everything with his name on it.

 

[Petrarose]

The man just GOT it, ya know?

I love him :wub:

Awwww. You making me blush.

 

[MJ*PP]

i start to have a pretty strong feeling this will be on the next -whatever it is- release. Especially since he mentioned it. like he/they already have spoken to each other and doing this to pep everyone up? :shifty:

 

[ExoticPrincess]

I remember this song and I so can hear Michael's vocals singing this song. Interesting point Teddy made about Mike not being ready at the time to sing this particular song because he had'nt experienced LMP yet.

 

[Petrarose]

I remember this song and I so can hear Michael's vocals singing this song. Interesting point Teddy made about Mike not being ready at the time to sing this particular song because he had'nt experienced LMP yet.

^^Does that mean the joy that LMP brought into his life made him able to sing that song?

 

[8701girl]

The only thing that makes me laugh is Michael giving Ace of Base the thumbs up in Monaco during an Award show.

Ha! i remember that it was so cute when he did that

 

[HIStory]

I remember this song and I so can hear Michael's vocals singing this song. Interesting point Teddy made about Mike not being ready at the time to sing this particular song because he had'nt experienced LMP yet.

I would not take such comments by Teddy seriously. He tends to make up things like that. I remember when Michael married Debbie in 1996 he said Remember The Time was about Debbie. One and a half decade later he laughed at people on Twitter who brought this up and said: "Hell no! It wasn't about Debbie!" I personally don't think he knows anything about who RTT was about (if it was about someone at all), he just likes to show himself more "in the know" about Michael' private business than he really is.
What he says about Joy does not make sense either. It's not like MJ never sang love songs before LMP.