Latest on MJJC

The Discussion of MJ's Unreleased Tracks

AdeZ said:
I've said it before and i'll say it again, no there is NOT a more finished version of 'In The Back'.

Yes, there is a longer version, but really all it is, is just the song with it's uncut instrumental, its just the song but without the fade out, and there's nothing too special about it at all.

All the rumors that there's a more finished version are just lies.
Click to expand...
I'll take your word for it, thanx!
However it remains weird that Buxer would consider this (imo pretty lame) demo without any lyrics as one of his best songs
 
AdeZ said:
All the rumors that there's a more finished version are just lies.
Click to expand...
According to Brad Buxer there might be:
“In the Back” is one of Jackson’s most impressive unreleased tracks from the 1990s. Atmospheric and hypnotic, it recalls Jackson’s Dangerous-era masterpiece “Who Is It” (and touches on similar themes of betrayal). The track begins with an ominous, thudding beat, accented by Jackson’s vocal percussion. Jackson sings and scats his way through the vocal (which was left finished). Brad Buxer pointed out that he spent years developing the song—first during the HIStory sessions, then for Blood on the Dance Floor, and finally for Invincible.

What begins as a minimalist groove gradually unfolds into an intricate and ethereal sonic canvas—lush strings, an entrancing harp, and a mournful trumpet. Buxer described the track as “unbelievable and it proves once again how Michael was a genius. I play almost every instrument on this song, but all [the] ideas are Michael.” The 1997 demo, recorded in Switzerland, was released on Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection in 2004.
Click to expand...
Unless you mean that version with the uncut instrumental is the version from Invincible?
 
Last edited:
Fuzball said:
Even in its demo state, it's easy to see what the song could have become had it been finished.
Click to expand...
Yes but in that case I don't know what the fuss is with this song, one of his favourites..? Nice synths but the rest sounds pretty boring (to me IMHO), both musically and thematically
 
Victorious said:
Yes but in that case I don't know what the fuss is with this song, one of his favourites..? Nice synths but the rest sounds pretty boring (to me IMHO), both musically and thematically
Click to expand...
It's like a smooth piece of jazz, it's got a great rhythm..the hook is also nice. It feels fully formed even without lyrics.
 
AdeZ said:
According to my ears which have heard the version from the multitrack:

That version which I heard was literally just the version on The Ultimate Collection but without the fade out, and again that part after the fade out was just instrumental.

This may be a typical case of Brad Buxer misremembering or mixing things up, I remember him saying at one point that In The Back was from 2004, which we know definitely wasn't. But of course, we should cut him some slack given how many years its been since he worked on all this stuff of course his mind won't be the sharpest in this regard, hell who even remembers what they ate last week at a specific time?
Click to expand...

Or you could have just heard the multitrack of the demo that was put on TUC? It would obviously be the exact same then, just uncut.
 
AdeZ said:
Why would Buxer himself play an earlier version of the song rather than the final? That wouldn't make sense.

Also if it was the TUC multitrack, that would've been the same length as what was on the record which it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Not sure, I'm just saying because you've heard something that doesn't mean nothing more exists. If you're talking about vocals then I agree that what we've heard is all there is.

Multitracks are often not the same length as the tracks on the record, not really sure why you're implying that's the case.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
Not sure, I'm just saying because you've heard something that doesn't mean nothing more exists. If you're talking about vocals then I agree that what we've heard is all there is.

Multitracks are often not the same length as the tracks on the record, not really sure why you're implying that's the case.
Click to expand...
Almost never i would say.
 
AdeZ said:
Well regardless my main argument really is about the vocals, as that's what everyone refers to when they say there's a "more finished version", and simply there isn't any more vocals besides what we've already heard.
Click to expand...
Do you think tomboy have vocals ?
 
AdeZ said:
This would be hard to explain, no you're wrong, if this was the The Ultimate Collection multitrack, this would've been the same length due to the fact that, that they would've trimmed down the multitrack separately.

It's hard to explain but wonder why the full bad multitrack that leaked in 2020 is the single mix length and has nothing unused even though we know the full bad multitrack goes around 8 minutes, is because it's the single mix multitrack.

So if this was the TUC multitrack master, that would've been the album length, and have no unused sections.

I won't be able to elaborate further, just not something I can easily explain.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Bad example really means anything as that was specifically for a single. Unless you're saying that you know for an absolute fact that In The Back was prepared that way it just seems like speculation.
 
AdeZ said:
I know how multitracks are set up/prepared/printed, this isn't speculation. They would've sent the multitrack to the mastering studio (since most of the time in the industry the artist would send the session to the mastering studio and MJ has in the past I can recall with Speechless.)

Then the mastering studio would send the mastered pack back to the artist.
Click to expand...
I guess we're disagreeing about what speculation is in this case.
 
AdeZ said:
I know how multitracks are set up/prepared/printed, this isn't speculation. They would've sent the multitrack to the mastering studio (since most of the time in the industry the artist would send the session to the mastering studio and MJ has in the past I can recall with Speechless.)

Then the mastering studio would send the mastered pack back to the artist.
Click to expand...
Usually, stereo mixdowns are sent to the mastering.

In case of 'in the back', open the track in an audio editor and you'll notice that its fade out has been set after the mastering process; so the track sent to mastering is definitely longer than the version that appeared on TUC.😉
 
AdeZ said:
I don't really have an answer for this. How can you tell that the fade out was set after mastering or after mixing? I'm curious to know this, as I can be wrong. I'm mainly going off of logic at this point.
Click to expand...
I guess you could say you are speculating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top