The Misunderstood Power of Michael Jackson's Music

[Bubs]

@Victory
I get what you mean and I guess we all have one or two people that we just love to hate.
To me LM and mommy are the bottom of my list, top of my "dislike very much" list are Martin B and Diana D, and I will go to my grave hoping that someday DD and MB will know what Michael went through because of them.

Anyway,I'm delighted that these kind of articles are spread like forest fire in the net, the more people read them the more
people get to know real Michael, not the tabloid caricature that is presented to the public later years.

@Souldreamer7
Lovely post.
Joe as well as Bruce did start to write their books when Michael was alive, unfortunately Michael didn't get to see or read
these books.
I suppose that book idea right after the court case was out of order as people were looking for more rubbish to be printed
I'm looking forward seeing many more book written about Michael, especially about his music.
(If there are hundreds of book written of Elvis, Michael deserves more)

 

[lt_v92]

Great article, but couldn't the reason Springsteen, Madonna, Britney etc were featured on the cover of RS more then Michael was because they were releasing albums more often and twice as much than Michael was?

 

[Victory22]

Nope not buying that as a reason at all. Not in the United States of America because there is so much more evidence to back it up.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Great article, but couldn't the reason Springsteen, Madonna, Britney etc were featured on the cover of RS more then Michael was because they were releasing albums more often and twice as much than Michael was?

Britney's only released the same number of albums as mj. Rolling stone didn't give mj a cover for his breakout solo album Off the wall as vogel pointed out. I might be forgetting some RS covers, but i don't remember one for Bad*, history or blood on the dancefloor (might not be classed as an album). I don't think RS were planning anything for This is it - the biggest comeback in pop history.

The 'self-proclaimed king of pop' is still wheeled out. I heard it on the bbc headlines recently, it must have been when murray was sentenced - just so unnecessary. I actually dislike the kop title, think it's too trifling for mj.


*edit, just checked - RS did a cartoon MJ as mickey mouse cover for bad's release. So a 30m album plus record breaking world tour nets mj a borderline offensive cartoon cover. Excellent.

 

[teli-mj]

Great article, but couldn't the reason Springsteen, Madonna, Britney etc were featured on the cover of RS more then Michael was because they were releasing albums more often and twice as much than Michael was?

No,i don't that that is the reason.

By the way, when MJ died the Rolling Stones "tribute" to him was on of the most disgusting that i have ever read in my life. So, yeah.

 

[marebear]

I hope I don't offend anyone buy saying this but I do think race had a lot to do with the way Michael was treated at times. I think it's a reason that he doesn't always get the credit he deserves. I am not at all saying it was the only thing but it was a factor. I can't help but think that. I hope I am not offending anyone.

 

[HIStory]

No,i don't that that is the reason.

By the way, when MJ died the Rolling Stones "tribute" to him was on of the most disgusting that i have ever read in my life. So, yeah.

My God, that was like an article in a tabloid, not something in a music magazine! They speculated about whether his nose was detachable and they made an interview with Brooke Shields (I have no problems with her, but her relationship with Michael is not something that should be featured in a music magazine, instead of featuring interviews with MUSICIANS Michael has worked with).

 

[HIStory]

Britney's only released the same number of albums as mj. Rolling stone didn't give mj a cover for his breakout solo album Off the wall as vogel pointed out. I might be forgetting some RS covers, but i don't remember one for Bad*, history or blood on the dancefloor (might not be classed as an album). I don't think RS were planning anything for This is it - the biggest comeback in pop history.

The 'self-proclaimed king of pop' is still wheeled out. I heard it on the bbc headlines recently, it must have been when murray was sentenced - just so unnecessary. I actually dislike the kop title, think it's too trifling for mj.


*edit, just checked - RS did a cartoon MJ as mickey mouse cover for bad's release. So a 30m album plus record breaking world tour nets mj a borderline offensive cartoon cover. Excellent.

Let's not forget the Justin Timberlake "The New King of Pop" cover in 2003! So ridiculous!

 

[Bubs]

Here is the list of people appeared in RS covers through years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...peared_on_the_cover_of_Rolling_Stone_magazine

I feel that whatever they have against Michael, its personal.

RS mag is not going to stay relevant for long if they don't sort out their act.
"One major criticism of Rolling Stone involves its generational bias toward the 1960s and 1970s. One critic referred to the Rolling Stone list of the "99 Greatest Songs" as an example of "unrepentant rockist fogeyism".[6] In further response to this issue, rock critic Jim DeRogatis, a former Rolling Stone editor, published a thorough critique of the magazine's lists in a book called Kill Your Idols: A New Generation of Rock Writers Reconsiders the Classics (ISBN 1-56980-276-9), which featured differing opinions from many younger critics.[7] Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg criticised the magazine writing that "Rolling Stone has essentially become the house organ of the Democratic National Committee."[8] Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner has made all of his political donations to Democrats.[9]
Hunter S. Thompson, in an article that can be found in his book Generation of Swine, criticized the magazine for turning on marijuana even though the magazine embraced it in the 60s and 70s when Thompson was a frequent contributor.[citation needed]
Rolling Stone magazine has been criticized for reconsidering many classic albums that it had previously dismissed. Examples of artists for whom this is the case include, among others, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, The Beach Boys, Nirvana, Weezer, Radiohead, Outkast and also Queen. For example, Led Zeppelin was largely written off by Rolling Stone magazine critics during the band's most active years in the 1970s. However by 2006, a cover story on Led Zeppelin honored them as "the Heaviest Band of All Time".[10] A critic for Slate magazine described a conference at which 1984's The Rolling Stone Record Guide was scrutinized. As he described it, "The guide virtually ignored hip-hop and ruthlessly panned heavy metal, the two genres that within a few years would dominate the pop charts. In an auditorium packed with music journalists, you could detect more than a few anxious titters: How many of us will want our record reviews read back to us 20 years hence?"[6] Another example of this bias was that the album Nevermind, by grunge band Nirvana, was given three stars in its original review, despite being placed at #17 in "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time" list in 2003. Also, when The Beatles' Let It Be was released in 1970, the magazine originally gave the album a poor review, yet in 2003, Rolling Stone ranked it number 86 in the magazine's list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.[11]
The hire of former FHM editor Ed Needham further enraged critics who alleged that Rolling Stone had lost its credibility.[12]
The 2003 Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists of all Time article's inclusion of only two female musicians resulted in Venus Zine answering with their own list titled "The Greatest Female Guitarists of All Time".[13]?

 

[Alayasha]

A great deal of the bias toward Michael from Rolling Stone and most media involves race. If you want evidence of this, go back and re-read articles and pay attention to how many references are made to his skin tone or nose. Add to that the thinly veiled insults toward his perceived sexuality. As progressive as Rolling Stone and others like to think they are, the collective they have never felt comfortable with someone like Michael being taken seriously and having true influence.

 

[HIStory]

A Rolling Stone journalist is about to publish a book about Michael this year. I don't remember his name, I only heard his upcoming book mentioned by Roger Friedman last year, in the same breath as when he mentioned Frank's book. He was gleefully announcing how both books will upset fans. I looked up that author at the time because I haven't heard his name before (and forgot it since). What I found was that he earlier (besides being a Catholic apologist) wrote a book about 2Pac and Notorius B.I.G. and when I went to an online book store and read the reviews it seemed like he was a latent racist. He made remarks in that book which are pretty much racist. So I don't expect much good from his book on Michael either. I really think there are racists at Rolling Stone and much of their treatment of Michael has to do with that. Of course, they would point out how they wrote positively about this or that black artist, but thing is no one is such a threat for white idols and legends as Michael. They can praise Aretha Franklin, when she will never be a threat for Elvis or the Beatles, you know... (And many white journalists will never forgive Michael buying the Beatles cataloge...)

 

[AliCat]

The speech Michael made in Harlem 0f 2002 was driving home a point. How black artist's are overlooked by the mainstream white audiences. Specifically singling out Elvis Presley for instance, shows Elvis to be more of a copycat than an innovator.

Michael spoke of Otis Blackwell as an example of Elvis copying.

Michael took his celebrity and brought attention to something, the light of truth in the Music Industry!

"...his voice exerted an influence, even if it was behind the scenes. It’s been noted that Blackwell’s vocal stylings on demos of songs Presley recorded were followed rather faithfully, leading to his receiving credit as an obvious influence on Presley’s delivery. “At certain tempos, the way Elvis sang was the result of copying Otis’ demos,”

"Citing Otis Blackwell as one such pioneer deserving of larger recognition, Jackson said that there was something terribly amiss in a system that would find Blackwell dying penniless despite having penned such classics as "Don't Be Cruel," "All Shook Up" and "Great Balls of Fire." "They didn't write one book about him that I know of, and I've searched the world over," Jackson said. "And he was a prolific, phenomenal writer."

I remember watching Little Richard in an interview and talking about how because Pat Boone was white, it was alright for Pat Boone to get credit for the song's Little Richard sang.

"In 1956, Little Richard (Richard Wayne Penniman) wrote and recorded "Tutti Frutti." It was a middlin' hit and a modest success on the record charts. When Pat Boone covered the song that same year, however, Boone's version shot into the top ten. For revenge, Little Richard wrote "Long Tall Sally,"saying he wanted to write a song "so fast that Pat Boone couldn't sing it." Boone couldn't (though he tried). "Long Tall Sally" topped the R&B charts and was the first of Little Richard's three US Top 10 hits.

In the early 50s, the owner of Sun Records, Sam Phillips, said, "If I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a billion dollars." He found Elvis."

 

[Bubs]

Quick glance to the list of people appeared to RS covers more often than Michael.
What does U2 (individually or group),Eric Clapton, Kurt Cobain, Bob Dylan, Eminem, Jerry Garcia, The Beatles (individually or group), Rolling Stones (individually or group), Anthony Kiedis, Madonna, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, Bruce Springsteen,
The Who, Jimi Hendrix and Tina Turner has in common?

It's fairly clear to see, excluding a few exception, JH and TT.

As for The Beatles catalogue, that is a red flag for many white journalists. Paul McCartney is loved by them (rightly so, and I love The Beatles too), but there are so many misconception about how Michael end up with Beatles catalogue. I remember seeing one of Paul's interview on telly, in which he was showing his sad face and said that Michael pulled the mat under his feet by buying the catalogue. The public and journalists bought his side of the story but there is more than that. Paul never brought up that he himself was buying rights to their songs behind of other members of The Beatles. Isn't that pulling mat under other Beatles members
feet? Funny that I don't remember any other Beatles members complaining Michael buying
Beatles catalogue, just Paul?
No one says anything about his vast catalogue other peoples music, or him making millions
of other people's music, or how he got them.
Why is that?

 

[HIStory]

^^ I actually remember Yoko Ono saying that it's good that Michael bought the catalog, at least it won't end up in a fight between her and Paul. And she also added she thinks it's in good hands with Michael buying it.

Another white journalist I could name in this regard is Roger Friedman. I never put the pieces of the puzzle together until I have read an interview with him in which he says he's massive Beatles fan. And then I remembered all the articles he has written circa 2007-2008 about how Michael will lose the Beatles catalog in 2008 and you could tell he was so gleeful about it. That's also when I kind of understood how really important issue it is for many white showbiz journalists.

 

[Bubs]

^^ I actually remember Yoko Ono saying that it's good that Michael bought the catalog, at least it won't end up in a fight between her and Paul.

I don't know why Paul didn't buy the catalogue himself, he is one of the richest man in Britain and couldn't fork out the money for it? I'm not buying that he didn't have money because he was secretly buying rights to the songs so why not buy the whole catalogue?

 

[The Brown Gangsta]

I'm not sure where I read it but I remember something about Paul having a lot of his money tied up in buisness ventures so he didn't have enough ready cash available to seal the deal. Why he asked Yoko and not othe Beatles to pool their cash together is still a mysyery to me though.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

McCartney was given first refusal on the catalogue and part of the reason that people are snippy about mj getting it is because mccartney doesn't make that clear, implying mj went behind his back and outbid him for it against his wishes.

Mccartney's original plan was to buy it 50/50 with yoko ono but she wasn't interested for whatever reason. I read somewhere that he claimed that he didn't pursue it on his own because he felt lennon's fans would think he was buying out lennon (not heard anything about him not having enough cash). It's significant that yoko ono seemed to be happy having mj have it, maybe happier than mccartney having it. Also it was alot of money and it's only with hindsight that it's turned out to be an absolute goldmine. All these different platforms that have been developed in the past decades have made the music sales explode. MJ through luck or more likely far-sighted business acumen saw the potential, and probably mccartney has spent the past 25 yrs kicking himself for not going for it - he only had himself to blame and his casting of shade on mj does him no favours.

 

[AliCat]

Michael said Paul didn't even bid on the Catalog. Michael's intent was to share it with the next generation, was another account I read. John Branca is the lawyer who handled the deal. This article may help answer some of these questions as to how the Catalog was acquired...

"Since the subject has been bandied the past few days with many misconceptions, here is a brief review of the events that took place that enabled Michael Jackson to buy the Beatles catalog. It's a very complex issue that this article can't completely begin to cover, so we've listed sources at the bottom that offer additional information.

The sale of Northern Songs had been bandied about for some time. EMI Music had considered, at one time, buying ATV Music, which included Northern Songs, but never made an offer.

Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson, when they were working together, discussed investments in music copyrights. Jackson had commented to McCartney that he might one day buy his and John Lennon's songs. McCartney took it as a joke.

But in November, 1984, Jackson's representatives called with serious intentions. "When the ATV music publishing catalogue, which contains many Lennon-McCartney songs, went on sale, I decided to put up a bid. I consider myself a musician who is also a businessman and Paul and I had both learned the hard way about business and the importance of publishing and royalties and the dignity of song writing," Jackson was quoted as saying.

The book "Northern Songs" by Brian Southall says Jackson's lawyer talked individually to both Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney, suggesting they each each buy the catalog. Both said no. Ono was concerned about having copyrights of other Beatles' songs, while for McCartney, it was said the price was more than he expected to pay. There's no indication in the book that the two considered making a joint deal.

Nobody expected Jackson to pull it off. In fact, according to Robert Hilburn of the Los Angeles Times in a lengthy article on the Beatles catalog deal in 1985, negotiators at first thought Jackson was standing in for McCartney. "It seems Paul's people once told one of the ATV officers that their client was interested in buying the copyrights, but that he didn't want to go through lengthy
negotiations. They said, in effect, 'You go out and get your best offer and we'll pay 10% more,'" Hilburn quoted an unidentified person involved with the negotiations.

Jackson was said to have told McCartney he planned to buy ATV. McCartney has said he was never told. The negotiations took time -- with another buyer entering and exiting the picture -- but Jackson persisted. In a note to his lawyer pictured in "Northern Songs," he writes, "John, Please not let's bargain. I don't want to lose the deal."

He didn't.

Jonathan Morrish, former CBS UK and Sony press chief and Jackson associate says in the book "Northern Songs," "He'd (Jackson) done tracks with McCartney, they used to hang out a lot, went to the BRITs together, so I can completely understand why buying Northern Songs was something he wanted to do. It was beyond money, and Michael does not feel he ever betrayed McCartney by buying Northern Songs."

The outcome, not surprisingly, irked McCartney.

"The annoying thing is I have to pay to play some of my own songs. Each time I want to sing 'Hey Jude' I have to pay," he was quoted by the UK Mirror.
--

(The most complete source of information on this subject is Brian Southall's "Northern Songs: The True Story of the Beatles Publishing Empire," also available through Amazon.co.uk. Another excellent source is the Los Angeles Times 1985 article by Robert Hilburn, "The Long and Winding Road.")
For more info:

Los Angeles Times 1985 article by Robert Hilburn, "The Long and Winding Road" NPR "All Songs Considered": "The Beatles Catalog and Michael Jackson" Bloomberg.com: Sony/ATV Said Planning to Keep Beatles Songs Post-Jackson Death
Link to purchase Brian Southall's "Northern Songs: The True Story of the Beatles Publishing Empire" Beatle news briefs: Report says Macca won't get chance to take back Beatles catalog Could Paul McCartney get back the Beatles catalog from Michael
Jackson? Maybe, if and if ... With Michael Jackson gone, what happens to the Beatles catalog now?

.

 

[teli-mj]

The speech Michael made in Harlem 0f 2002 was driving home a point. How black artist's are overlooked by the mainstream white audiences. Specifically singling out Elvis Presley for instance, shows Elvis to be more of a copycat than an innovator.

Michael spoke of Otis Blackwell as an example of Elvis copying.

Michael took his celebrity and brought attention to something, the light of truth in the Music Industry!

"...his voice exerted an influence, even if it was behind the scenes. It’s been noted that Blackwell’s vocal stylings on demos of songs Presley recorded were followed rather faithfully, leading to his receiving credit as an obvious influence on Presley’s delivery. “At certain tempos, the way Elvis sang was the result of copying Otis’ demos,”

"Citing Otis Blackwell as one such pioneer deserving of larger recognition, Jackson said that there was something terribly amiss in a system that would find Blackwell dying penniless despite having penned such classics as "Don't Be Cruel," "All Shook Up" and "Great Balls of Fire." "They didn't write one book about him that I know of, and I've searched the world over," Jackson said. "And he was a prolific, phenomenal writer."

I remember watching Little Richard in an interview and talking about how because Pat Boone was white, it was alright for Pat Boone to get credit for the song's Little Richard sang.

"In 1956, Little Richard (Richard Wayne Penniman) wrote and recorded "Tutti Frutti." It was a middlin' hit and a modest success on the record charts. When Pat Boone covered the song that same year, however, Boone's version shot into the top ten. For revenge, Little Richard wrote "Long Tall Sally,"saying he wanted to write a song "so fast that Pat Boone couldn't sing it." Boone couldn't (though he tried). "Long Tall Sally" topped the R&B charts and was the first of Little Richard's three US Top 10 hits.

In the early 50s, the owner of Sun Records, Sam Phillips, said, "If I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a billion dollars." He found Elvis."

Who said all those in bold, Mike?

 

[marebear]

It really annoys me that people make it seem Michael "stole" the beatles catalogue. Paul had the chance and didn't do it. I don't like him at all. I think some Beatles music is fine but he is not my favorite beatle. He knows that Michael didn't steal anything from him and he lets people think that. That's not right and I don't care who you are.

 

[Bubs]

The outcome, not surprisingly, irked McCartney.
"The annoying thing is I have to pay to play some of my own songs. Each time I want to sing 'Hey Jude' I have to pay," he was quoted by the UK Mirror.

I don't know why he is complaining,Paul had to pay the previous owner of the catalogue,
why would he be upset that he had to pay Michael?

Bonnie Blue:McCartney was given first refusal on the catalogue and part of the reason that people are snippy about mj getting it is because mccartney doesn't make that clear, implying mj went behind his back and outbid him for it against his wishes.

Exactly!
Paul was pissed off that The Beatles music was used in commercials, what the hell
does he thinks of their music, a Holy Grail?
He didn't have a problems to give approval to use Buddy H. music for selling stuff.He is very much arrogant. In his way, he says The Beatles music is "up there" and others music is
"down there".

In case anyone wants to know what music Paul owns, here it is:
http://www.mplcommunications.com/about.php


Anyway, snippet from Joe's post:
Yet among critics (predominantly white), skepticism and suspicion only grew. "He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables," predicted James Baldwin in 1985

I personally think that he meant by turning tables that Michael didn't stay as when he started his career. His music, his look, basically everything in Michael's life changed every so often.
Critics were safe with Bruce S singing his rock and look the same all of his life, same goes
with Paul M, Bono, Bob D etc. I would have thought if Bruce had started singing R&B, he
would have gotten the same reception from critics as Michael.
I think the critics were uncomfortable with Michael as every time his album came out,
they really couldn't compare it to any other of his albums as they were never the same, so
they resorted criticising other aspect of his life.
I believe that was one of the main reason that Michael's music was ignored or dismissed.
In their mind, no one person could do so many different kind of music and be good at it.
Critics couldn't put Michael in one box, he wasn't a pop singer nor rock singer nor R&B etc...
not even just a singer, he was influencing in cinema world, he was influencing in business world, he was humanitarian, dancing and more. MJ was too much for simple minded critics

I hope that you understand what I'm trying to say, I'm not native english speaker so sometimes its difficult to write down what I want to say :blush:

 

[Suzie B]

This is a really well written article - it is so true. I will make sure that everyone reads this!

 

[Bonnie Blue]

If anyone's interested there's a youtube of an aussie news report done after 25 june, talking about the purchase by mj of the catalogue and his trip (which was part of the deal) to australia for a tv charity event. Robert Holmes a court (the catalogue owner)'s chief negotiator, bert reuter, is interviewed and clearly says that paul mccartney was given first right of refusal. (Warning for viewers - holmes a court's widow is interviewed and she is a straight up, 20carat bitch.)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3htpIVyUtec

I think mj couldn't understand how someone wouldn't want to own their own music if they had the means to buy it - i don't think he had much sympathy for pmccartney's griping about it. MJ gave the rights of little richard's music which was in the atv catalogue back to him as he had fallen on hard times.

I hope that you understand what I'm trying to say, I'm not native english speaker so sometimes its difficult to write down what I want to say :blush:

Perfectly understand. For a non-english native speaker i'm really impressed, my foreign language skills are rubbish.

 

[AliCat]

Who said all those in bold, Mike?

I was quoting the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame about Otis Blackwell, then Michael, then information on Little Richard, all dealing with Racism.

 

[marebear]

Michael gave Little Richard back his music? That is nice thing to do. John Branca knows the truth so I hope he will continue to tell people how it was. Paul, George, Ringo and Yoko should have bought it together. I hope someday someone will tell him to stop implying or let people think that Michael stole anything from him. I don't believe he couldn't afford it.

 

[pierpinto1]

Thanks for posting!

Great article by Vogel as always.

 

[Severus Snape]

Elvis Presley, the Beatles, and Bruce Springsteen, they claimed, challenged and re-shaped society. Jackson simply sold records and entertained.

First black artist to have a video on MTV, paving the way for hundreds more, the impact of which is felt to this day. Granted, Elvis changed history, broke barriers in regards to sexuality and dance, etc. which is obviously relevant because music has changed so much since the times before Elvis, and the influence of the artists from the 1940s and before on today's music is pretty much nonexistent thanks to Elvis, whose tactics, etc. obviously hold a strong influence still. But, pray tell, how did the Beatles re-shape history? The hippie movement was the most useless thing on the face of the planet, and had we all followed it, I have a good feeling we'd all be dead for lack of jobs, not to mention drugged out and disease-ridden. They're massively overrated and didn't really do much of anything, the predecessors to teen pop ands like N'SYNC with no real purpose other than for teens and young people to relate to them.

IDK much about Springsteen so I'll hold my tongue when it comes to him, but musically [to me at least] he's not very appealing.

But anyway, back to this...author has a point. They've tried to make Michael out to seem less than what he was probably because it would hurt some deep-seated part of them to admit a black man is the best mainstream artist of all time, better than the Beatles, better than Springsteen, better than even Elvis, even though he was the original revolutionary of the later part of the 20th century.

It is true that, at first, Michael's music was shallow pop stuff[OTW, Thriller]. But as he went on, it got deeper, more personal, more meaningful, and he did in the end do a LOT, way more than he's given credit for, to not only sing about the problems this unfortunate world of ours has, but to actually get off his ass and do something about it, something which most artists have not done/do not do. And obviously he's changed history. In many ways, he has become history. He's the most recognized musician throughout the world, whereas the Beatles, Springsteen, and Elvis really only hold almost religious significance in the U.S.

But Michael was loved throughout the world, he was the first truly international artist to hold a bond with the people. But, again, we can't let the black man win and admit he's better than a white person at anything. It'd hurt our racial pride, which we might claim with all the fibre of our being is gone, but actions indicate otherwise.

Anyway, to cut this thing short, interesting read. Thanks for posting.

 

[Bubs]

I think mj couldn't understand how someone wouldn't want to own their own music if they had the means to buy it - i don't think he had much sympathy for pmccartney's griping about it. MJ gave the rights of little richard's music which was in the atv catalogue back to him as he had fallen on hard times.

Thanks for the utube link. That woman was quite nice until they started talking about Michael wanting to avoid sun. She thought it was because of plastic surgery, I guess she now knows the real reason, and the reason for those books too.

Its funny all that information of how Michael got ATV catalogue is out, but I still come across articles about how Michael pulled the mat under Paul's feet (ok, it didn't help when Paul went on telly right after Michael died, and cried his mistreatment).

Another note, I sent a mental apology to Paul for criticising him and I feel bad about it. As much as I love them and their
music, I'm not blind for Paul's faults as a musician or as a friend. I wish I could have made a point without throwing
someone else under the bus but I personally think that root for some of Michael's problems/critique (his music not being taken seriously) comes from the subjects that I have written about.

I just saw Severus Snape's post and have a comment to this
"It is true that, at first, Michael's music was shallow pop stuff[OTW, Thriller]."
I somewhat agree with you, although there are some diamonds in those albums.
Funny that the critics, even recently write that Michael was artistic in decline after OTW and Thriller, yet his best work was after OTW and Thriller, at least I think so
Then again, I'm no critic, what do I know about music:cheeky:

 

[HIStory]

It is true that, at first, Michael's music was shallow pop stuff[OTW, Thriller]. But as he went on, it got deeper, more personal, more meaningful

It's interesting that critics still call OTW and Thriller his best albums and (especially in the US) they act as if he hasn't done anything significant after that. It's almost as if they want him to put in a certain box: you are a black R&B star and as long as you sing us happy and harmless little songs we will love you. But as soon as he started to sing about more profound things, he was belittled, mocked and critics deliberately tried to divert attention from that message. For example, I will never forget how a British critic mocked "Earth Song" on TV when it came out. He was mocking the lyrics "what about the elephants, have we lost their trust?" as something that doesn't make sense and that is laughable because "how can we lose the trust of elephants?" He obviously hasn't heard about poetic expression yet. It was obvious that he was only trying to find something, anything to criticize the song that had such an important message.

 

[AliCat]

So then the heck with Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd, because Elvis changed everything???!

All Elvis did was go down to Beale Street in Memphis and copy the style of the black artists. Which is the point Michael Jackson was making in his Harlem Speech in July of 2002. Besides, Elvis did nothing for Rock and Roll after 1957.