Latest on MJJC

The Discussion of MJ's Unreleased Tracks

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Is Man in the Music worth the read?
Click to expand...
It's OK. I mostly use it as a reference source - although I believe that there are errors in the book but I don't know what they are. I've only read it once. Obviously, it's way better than some of the trash that's out there. I don't really know what to say about it. I don't hate it and I'm glad it's there bc the music is the focus but I don't love it either.

It's useful for someone like me bc there is a lot of stuff I don't pay attention to so there are gaps in my knowledge. So when I need to find out a bit more info about, say, The Man, it's there. So that's great. I read it a few years ago and still haven't gone back to it. Maybe it's about time I gave it another chance.
 
Read carefully the handwritten notes from mj the lyrics are very similiar
 
Lotfi11k said:
Who can found Ryan Arnold that said about Delilah unreleased MJ
Click to expand...

Here :
https://www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/bhi3u6
The quote :
"
  1. Yes actually. I didn't hear many tracks that were cut, but two stuck out to me. Basszouille, which had circus vibes in an orchestral type way. It sounds a lot like Little Susie because the texture of instruments is the same. Another was a cover of Tom Jone's Delilah, but funky with a swingbeat."
 
Pollonio said:
Here :
https://www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/bhi3u6
The quote :
"
  1. Yes actually. I didn't hear many tracks that were cut, but two stuck out to me. Basszouille, which had circus vibes in an orchestral type way. It sounds a lot like Little Susie because the texture of instruments is the same. Another was a cover of Tom Jone's Delilah, but funky with a swingbeat."
Click to expand...
Yes i know but i want to ask him
 
I feel like Basszouille has no vocals since the person doing the AMA implies that the song was dropped pretty early on due to how similar it was to Little Susie and also makes no mention of the vocals but only the instrumentals.
 
ChanceToDance said:
I feel like Basszouille has no vocals since the person doing the AMA implies that the song was dropped pretty early on due to how similar it was to Little Susie and also makes no mention of the vocals but only the instrumentals.
Click to expand...

There's conflict because Ryan says it exists but when a fan asked Bruce Swedien about it, Bruce said he never heard of it.
 
BlackAnon said:
There's conflict because Ryan says it exists but when a fan asked Bruce Swedien about it, Bruce said he never heard of it.
Click to expand...
Not everything ended up on Bruce' desk. It probably was discarded at early stages.
 
Regarding “Apocalypse Now,” from an interview with John Robinson in Let’s Make HIStory by Brice Najar:

Q: In 2001, you played on the song “Cry” for the Invincible album. Did you perceive any organizational differences between that setup and the 1980s Quincy Jones productions?

A: Yes, it was totally different. We were at Record One, and Michael would not show up on those days—he called me on the telephone and gave me instructions, but he was incredibly focused. It was a different era, you know, and Quincy Jones wasn’t producing. Actually, I think “Cry” is the only song that has acoustic drums on it. I also recorded two other tunes for that record that never came out: one was called “Apocalypse Now” with big drums on it. It was kind of an “end of the rope” song and I recorded four military percussion parts and wrote six and a half minutes of military music. I had a gran casa and a duo of piatti. I used four piccolo snare drums. It was great! Except it wouldn’t have blended with the record anyway.
 
Fuzball said:
Not everything ended up on Bruce' desk. It probably was discarded at early stages.
Click to expand...
Of course but with Bruce being his main engineer for many years, you’d think they’d go through him at some point.
 
AlwaysThere said:
Regarding “Apocalypse Now,” from an interview with John Robinson in Let’s Make HIStory by Brice Najar:

Q: In 2001, you played on the song “Cry” for the Invincible album. Did you perceive any organizational differences between that setup and the 1980s Quincy Jones productions?

A: Yes, it was totally different. We were at Record One, and Michael would not show up on those days—he called me on the telephone and gave me instructions, but he was incredibly focused. It was a different era, you know, and Quincy Jones wasn’t producing. Actually, I think “Cry” is the only song that has acoustic drums on it. I also recorded two other tunes for that record that never came out: one was called “Apocalypse Now” with big drums on it. It was kind of an “end of the rope” song and I recorded four military percussion parts and wrote six and a half minutes of military music. I had a gran casa and a duo of piatti. I used four piccolo snare drums. It was great! Except it wouldn’t have blended with the record anyway.
Click to expand...
So the vocals can be recorded
 
AlwaysThere said:
Regarding “Apocalypse Now,” from an interview with John Robinson in Let’s Make HIStory by Brice Najar:

Q: In 2001, you played on the song “Cry” for the Invincible album. Did you perceive any organizational differences between that setup and the 1980s Quincy Jones productions?

A: Yes, it was totally different. We were at Record One, and Michael would not show up on those days—he called me on the telephone and gave me instructions, but he was incredibly focused. It was a different era, you know, and Quincy Jones wasn’t producing. Actually, I think “Cry” is the only song that has acoustic drums on it. I also recorded two other tunes for that record that never came out: one was called “Apocalypse Now” with big drums on it. It was kind of an “end of the rope” song and I recorded four military percussion parts and wrote six and a half minutes of military music. I had a gran casa and a duo of piatti. I used four piccolo snare drums. It was great! Except it wouldn’t have blended with the record anyway.
Click to expand...
Was that other tune We've Had Enough, or was it a completely unknown song?
 
AlwaysThere said:
Regarding “Apocalypse Now,” from an interview with John Robinson in Let’s Make HIStory by Brice Najar:

Q: In 2001, you played on the song “Cry” for the Invincible album. Did you perceive any organizational differences between that setup and the 1980s Quincy Jones productions?

A: Yes, it was totally different. We were at Record One, and Michael would not show up on those days—he called me on the telephone and gave me instructions, but he was incredibly focused. It was a different era, you know, and Quincy Jones wasn’t producing. Actually, I think “Cry” is the only song that has acoustic drums on it. I also recorded two other tunes for that record that never came out: one was called “Apocalypse Now” with big drums on it. It was kind of an “end of the rope” song and I recorded four military percussion parts and wrote six and a half minutes of military music. I had a gran casa and a duo of piatti. I used four piccolo snare drums. It was great! Except it wouldn’t have blended with the record anyway.
Click to expand...
That's really odd, he basically said the exact same thing on the interview from 2010 but this time he says the song is from Invincible. Could it be possible that he's misremembering or it was also reworked for Invincible?
 
ChanceToDance said:
That's really odd, he basically said the exact same thing on the interview from 2010 but this time he says the song is from Invincible. Could it be possible that he's misremembering or it was also reworked for Invincible?
Click to expand...
I kinda think he's just harping on Apocalypse Now is all. He just wants that producer kudos.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Is Man in the Music worth the read?
Click to expand...
Coming back to this. Short answer - it depends. On balance, I would say, yeah, go for it.

Depends on what your expectations are or what you want from a Michael book. If you are a veteran fan, you've read loads of Michael books, you know loads about his work and you want to be surprised by this book, maybe you won't get much out of it. Since Joe published his book there have been quite a few others that have avoided the tabloid trash approach and actually looked at Michael's work seriously. Joe's book must have been one of the first to do that but there is more choice now.

I haven't seen the first edition, except online, but I know it's really different. Lots of photos, seems to have a nice layout. Production values look high. Looks quite large format. I have the pbk 2019 edition. Low-ish production values, Really boring set of photos in the middle - the album covers plus one photo of Michael in the studio (not rare). The first edition has a foreword by Anthony de Curtis, in the 2nd edition that's gone.

I was a bit lukewarm about the book bc reading books about music isn't really my thing. Just started re-reading this. Had forgotten that I do like his writing style. He's an academic, a good writer, imo.

"As an artist, then, his work was about liberation. He wanted to free what was bound, awaken what was dormant. He wanted to break through barriers and limitations - any obstacle in the way of his ambition or imagination. He wanted to invigorate the body, mind and soul. This is what the music did for him personally ...

This was his gift as an artist: his ability to fully dissolve into the stories, the emotions, and the magic of his music - and to take people from all walks of life with him. He called this creative bond many things over the years: escapism, entertainment, showmanship, art. But ultimately, for Jackson, it was about sharing and receiving love."
(Joe Vogel)

dethorro said:
If you have been a fan for a while, Man In The Music is not very interesting, at least not the original edition. The 2019 edition is better though and contains some information, which at that time, was not known to the public.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I'd still say, go for it.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Is Man in the Music worth the read?
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

Vogel is fortunate enough to have spoken with many of the key players for Thriller and Bad, and as a result those chapters are fantastic. He’s very comprehensive with everything from the writing and recording process, to the influences that shaped the album, to the various collaborators MJ worked with, to the month/year songs were worked on. Bad is especially detailed; the track-by-track section is as good as it gets.

Unfortunately, he still engages in a substantial amount of guesswork and includes information that has long been corrected and/or debunked. Also, it seems as though his resources for MJ’s post-Bad albums were limited, because each succeeding chapter becomes less and less informative. By the time you get to Invincible and MJ’s final years, it’s basically like reading the Wikipedia article. His writing oddly enough also seems less journalistic in his 2019 reissue, and more… high school-ish, if that makes sense? The original book was very succinct and well-thought-out, and the new edition (which I’d estimate is at least 50% rewritten) feels very thrown together. You can feel the sharp contrast between long, academia-esque sentences, and short, 11th-grade-English-essay ones. A nit pick, but one I feel compelled to note.

If you’re a newer fan with a limited understanding of MJ’s catalog, it’s a great starting point. Otherwise, I’d suggest Making Michael by Mike Smallcombe, which in my opinion is the definitive MJ biography. Concise, objective, and not shy from including observations that critique the man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top