Latest on MJJC

The Pop-Diplomacy of Quincy Jones/ IV in New York-Times

Bonnie Blue said:
I read the rest of the mj extracts, yetnikoff seems more concerned in giving good anecdotes and soundbites than a serious discussion about the artists he represented. But who knows if quincy having the ego he had would believe these stories.

BTW, yetnikoff confirms what you were saying about rolling stones being overtly racist.
Click to expand...
i believe mike did want more production credit for thriller, because he did essentially hand in songs like billie jean to quincy as they were, so i can believe he called up just to ensure he'd be recognized as a co-producer, if we're assuming this call happened at all.

but telling him to completely take quincy off the list - no. i don't believe that. because the fact is that quincy DID go on to produce bad for michael and michael let him have production credit. if mike were such an egotist he could've demanded he fly solo and produce the whole thing himself.

didn't walter also allegedly claim he saw some cute 15 year old boy backstage at some mj show or something in his bio, and he made it sound all intentionally weird? he did have an agenda, so i don't take him at his complete word.
 
TheChosenOne said:
I just found this quote on Huffington Post and thought it would be good to post it here:

"Of course, George Martin was a great help in translating our music technically when we needed it, but for the cameraman to take credit from the director is a bit much." - John Lennon in a letter to George Martin, the Beatles' producer.

It made me smile!
Click to expand...

I just came across the whole article you mentioned. Here it is: http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-t...itterness-toward-george-martin-192300104.html

Well, Quincy should be grateful that he did not work with John Lennon. If Michael had done to him what Lennon did to George Martin and Paul McCartney THEN he could complain! But Michael always gave him credit in every public place.
 
respect77 said:
It's funny because I have just seen Beatles fans becoming upset about a suggestion in an article that Martin made the Beatles big. It's like people saying that Quincy made Michael big.

OTOH imagine if Michael had ever written something like that about Quincy. He would be called all kinds of ungrateful egomaniac by the media...
Click to expand...

I think me and you are on the same page with this whole Beatles thing :)
 
respect77 said:
I just came across the whole article you mentioned. Here it is: http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-t...itterness-toward-george-martin-192300104.html

Well, Quincy should be grateful that he did not work with John Lennon. If Michael had done to him what Lennon did to George Martin and Paul McCartney THEN he could complain! But Michael always gave him credit in every public place.
Click to expand...
I'm a little visually impaired. My vision messes with me when it comes to long drawn out paragraphs. If it's ok, could you give me the gist of what John Lennon did to George Martin and Paul McCartney? Was it more like John acted as if Paul and Martin didn't exist? I heard John could be a little short tempered at times. But i think that nobody else should get credit for John's contributions to music, and if he made that clear, i think that's bold, but legit. However i realize that the way John addressed someone was important. Then again, if someone's trying to not give Lennon credit for what was Lennon's, then all bets are off on decorum.
 
Last edited:
^ There is a new book out entitled The John Lennon Letters, with letters written by Lennon to others. It includes letters in which he claims George Martin did not really do much for them and doesn't deserve as much credit as he gets. He sounds pretty arrogant in his tone.

There's also a dispute about who contributed what to the song 'Eleanor Rigby'. Martin remembered it was mainly McCartney's song and he said that in an interview. Lennon wrote in one letter that he wrote 50% of the lyrics, then in an interview he claimed he wrote 70% of it. McCartney claimed Lennon actually contributed by adding "half a line". Years later he came up with a more generous ratio saying: "John helped me on a few words but I'd put it down 80-20 to me, something like that."

Martin said the biggest insult from Lennon against him was when Lennon said he wished he could re-record every Beatles song that was produced by Martin.

Martin: "I said to him: 'I can't believe that. Think of all we've done and you want to rerecord everything?' 'Yeah, everything.' And I said: 'What about 'Strawberry Fields'?' And he looked at me and said: 'Especially 'Strawberry Fields'.' Which I was very disappointed with. If he felt that way about it, he should have recorded the bloody thing himself."


Now, if Quincy had ever worked with such a person he'd learn to appreciate the gratefulness of Michael...
 
Yeah..Michael is the definition of humility. Having said that, when i hear people talk about the songs they love, they always seem to refer to the lyrics first. it feels like it would be a slippery slope. i wonder if people would relate to a sentiment that is eighty percent expressed in the half line that John..wrote. I can understand why he was such a fighter. Now, me. like i said before, the music is what is most important to me..but i know that the sentiment expressed in We Are The World was strongly brought home in the spirituality of the lyric, IMO..but that music rocked. so..it would seem it should be fifty fifty, no matter what if two people contributed. but..attitude, as this all proves, makes all the difference, indeed. Thanks for the info about John.
 
144 said:
Yeah..Michael is the definition of humility. Having said that, when i hear people talk about the songs they love, they always seem to refer to the lyrics first. it feels like it would be a slippery slope. i wonder if people would relate to a sentiment that is eighty percent expressed in the half line that John..wrote. I can understand why he was such a fighter. Now, me. like i said before, the music is what is most important to me..but i know that the sentiment expressed in We Are The World was strongly brought home in the spirituality of the lyric, IMO..but that music rocked. so..it would seem it should be fifty fifty, no matter what if two people contributed. but..attitude, as this all proves, makes all the difference, indeed. Thanks for the info about John.
Click to expand...

I dunno, sometimes i think lyrics are over exaggerated when people make out it's mostly lyrics and stuff. I bet if there was some kind of lyrics chart vs instrumentals chart, or even accapelas v instrumentals, the instrumentals would sell far far far more. The fact there isn't a major demand for poetry compared to songs sums that up for me pretty nicely. I think people don't actually realize that this is the case for most people. Lyrics are important, but some of Michaels strongest uptempo tracks arn't lyrically amazing (run's and hides) but there grooves are insane and that's all they need. However when a song is lyrically strong like MITM, it's only as meaningful in it's instrumental setting that it's presented in, if the lyrics where just presented on a piece of paper, with no track ever being heard, people would just think, ah thats a nice message, and move on with their lives. Just the way i see it though.
 
For me the most important part about the music is the music. That's why it's called ''listening to music'' and if the music moves me enough i can forgive some bad lyrics. Within reason of course, some lyrics are just unforgivable lol
 
MJultimatemusiclegen said:
I dunno, sometimes i think lyrics are over exaggerated when people make out it's mostly lyrics and stuff. I bet if there was some kind of lyrics chart vs instrumentals chart, or even accapelas v instrumentals, the instrumentals would sell far far far more. The fact there isn't a major demand for poetry compared to songs sums that up for me pretty nicely. I think people don't actually realize that this is the case for most people. Lyrics are important, but some of Michaels strongest uptempo tracks arn't lyrically amazing (run's and hides) but there grooves are insane and that's all they need. However when a song is lyrically strong like MITM, it's only as meaningful in it's instrumental setting that it's presented in, if the lyrics where just presented on a piece of paper, with no track ever being heard, people would just think, ah thats a nice message, and move on with their lives. Just the way i see it though.
Click to expand...

and that's a brilliant statement, and i would soo agree with it. But it's sorta unfair to state it. I thought of stating it, myself..but then i thought again, because..there are not what ifs. a song with a lyric is a song with a lyric..they are inseperable. and to compare a poem to an instrumental to a song with a lyric..well...it's an unfair comparison, because..well..in another life, a song can't come back as a poem..lol..i don't know how else to express that.
 
If I want great poetry then I will read poems, because frankly even the best lyricists in pop/rock music pale in comparison with great poets when it comes to poetry. I agree that music comes first when I listen to pop/rock, but of course it elevates the value of the song if even the lyrics are good and have something important to say and aren't just about sex, partying etc.

When I became a fan of Michael I did not even understand his lyrics, because I didn't speak English yet. And since Michael has a huge global fan base I suspect most people first and foremost get hooked on his music. But at the end of the day it's the coherence of the music and lyrics that matters. I would not like it if Michael's songs would be just about superficial subjects (like a lot of Top 40 songs are today), no matter how great the music is.

But some artists are stronger in music, some stronger in lyrics. Michael is more a music artist, but it doesn't mean his lyrics are weak and certainly not meaningless. Especially as he matured his lyrics became stronger and more and more profound. Is It Scary or Threatened are such profound songs in terms of lyrics IMO, saying truths that no one has ever said before him. Of course, those lyrics come from his unique life experience, but that (unlike the critics tried to dismissed them) doesn't mean they don't tell anything to anyone else. They are actually holding up a mirror to today's society and the reason why the media dismissed what Michael had to say in those songs IMO is exactly because he is dead right and it's unpleasant for many people to actually look into the mirror he held up. It's easier to dismiss Michael as "whining", as "out of touch with reality", as "self-obsessed" and what not. In fact, those songs are not about him, but about how society treats people who are different, so eventually they are about us, society.

But even his early lyrics are pretty unique IMO. Songs like Heartbreak Hotel, Billie Jean etc. do not only have great music, but they are pretty interestingly dark lyrically as well. And the lyrics match the music perfectly. I like his little paranoid, little nightmare-ish world. It's very Michael Jackson-ish and IMO pretty interesting too. He definitely wasn't just a "lets have sex and go party" type of artist lyrically.

I also agree with what Joe Vogel wrote that Michael's performance of a song was inseparable from the lyrics. In Michael's songs often it's the performance, the way he emoted while singing, the way he emphasized words, the passion he put into the singing, the ad-libs he added etc. that elevated the lyrics to even deeper meanings - and these things are inseparable and IMO should be in a pop/rock song. This is how Vogel put it:

"If critics simply hold Jackson’s lyrics on a sheet of paper next to those of Bob Dylan, then, they will likely find Jackson on the short end. It’s not that Jackson’s lyrics aren’t substantive; it’s that they become so much more in their delivery. His greatness is in his ability to augment his words vocally, visually, physically, and sonically, so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

Listen, for example, to his non-verbal vocalizations—the cries, moans, exclamations, grunts, gasps,and improvisatory vernacular—in which Jackson communicates beyond the strictures of language. Listen to his beat boxing and scatting; how he stretches or accents words; his James Brown-like staccato facility; the way his voice moves from gravelly to smooth to sublime; the passionate calls and responses; the way he soars just as naturally with gospel choirs and electric guitars. Listen to his virtuosic rhythms and rich harmonies; the nuanced syncopation and signature bass lines; the layers of detail and archive of unusual sounds. Go beyond the usual classics, and play songs like “Stranger in Moscow,” “I Can’t Help It ,” “Morphine,” Liberian Girl ,” “Who Is It” and “In the Back.” Note the range of subject matter, the spectrum of moods and textures, the astounding variety (and synthesis) of styles. On the Dangerous album alone, Jackson moves from New Jack Swing to classical, hip hop to gospel, R&B to industrial, funk to rock. It was music without borders or barriers, and it resonated across the globe.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't really know what to say about that.. I guess people tend to forget Quincy didn't make Michael, Michael was already a household name when they began working together..so yeah. I think what they did was amazing but MAN! Mike wanted to move on, I guess we've all felt that need but I guess Q. didn't and to me, he's bitter about it still and will always be..he never got over it. Such a shame because I'm sure Mike didn't hold any grudges and boy, he had lots of reasons to but still didn't. Pff..whatever Q.
 
etoile 37 said:
Quincy sounds like a bitter ex-wife. I think he's still mad he didn't get dat ass. :beee:
Click to expand...
Who knows? That could be true, I mean, literally.
Some people think Q is a homosexual or bisexual and threw sex parties and orgies where he turned some people out. They say he was trying to "get to" MJ and MJ wasn't having it.
Well, personally I don't care about his sexual orientation or his freaky deaky sh*t, but I don't rule out the scenario, either *Welcome to Hollyweird*

He trashed MJ shortly after he passed.
That type of sh*t right there, shows you something more than him being a bitter ex-business associate. The man got issues.
You can call him a super egomaniac or frustrated DL or whatever.
Whatever the title might be, it don't matter to me. The bottom line is, he won't be forgiven.
 
Quincy is vain as usual...Michael needed to grow and Dangerous is fantastic!
 
respect77 said:
If I want great poetry then I will read poems, because frankly even the best lyricists in pop/rock music pale in comparison with great poets when it comes to poetry. I agree that music comes first when I listen to pop/rock, but of course it elevates the value of the song if even the lyrics are good and have something important to say and aren't just about sex, partying etc.

When I became a fan of Michael I did not even understand his lyrics, because I didn't speak English yet. And since Michael has a huge global fan base I suspect most people first and foremost get hooked on his music. But at the end of the day it's the coherence of the music and lyrics that matters. I would not like it if Michael's songs would be just about superficial subjects (like a lot of Top 40 songs are today), no matter how great the music is.

But some artists are stronger in music, some stronger in lyrics. Michael is more a music artist, but it doesn't mean his lyrics are weak and certainly not meaningless. Especially as he matured his lyrics became stronger and more and more profound. Is It Scary or Threatened are such profound songs in terms of lyrics IMO, saying truths that no one has ever said before him. Of course, those lyrics come from his unique life experience, but that (unlike the critics tried to dismissed them) doesn't mean they don't tell anything to anyone else. They are actually holding up a mirror to today's society and the reason why the media dismissed what Michael had to say in those songs IMO is exactly because he is dead right and it's unpleasant for many people to actually look into the mirror he held up. It's easier to dismiss Michael as "whining", as "out of touch with reality", as "self-obsessed" and what not. In fact, those songs are not about him, but about how society treats people who are different, so eventually they are about us, society.

But even his early lyrics are pretty unique IMO. Songs like Heartbreak Hotel, Billie Jean etc. do not only have great music, but they are pretty interestingly dark lyrically as well. And the lyrics match the music perfectly. I like his little paranoid, little nightmare-ish world. It's very Michael Jackson-ish and IMO pretty interesting too. He definitely wasn't just a "lets have sex and go party" type of artist lyrically.

I also agree with what Joe Vogel wrote that Michael's performance of a song was inseparable from the lyrics. In Michael's songs often it's the performance, the way he emoted while singing, the way he emphasized words, the passion he put into the singing, the ad-libs he added etc. that elevated the lyrics to even deeper meanings - and these things are inseparable and IMO should be in a pop/rock song. This is how Vogel put it:
Click to expand...

actually i absolutely agree with everything you said about Michael's lyrics, except from the very beginning he had the lyrical maturity..even when he chose the songs he sang at Motown. What you are expressing about his lyrics, i feel he had it on point when he decided to sing Ben, about the rat. again, he was holding a mirror to society. whether he wrote lyrics or chose ones he didn't write...even his Billie Jean...yes..i see the maturity from the very beginning. when he had something 'unfinished' i got the message..such as 'in the back'. very mature.
Because of where he was from, in his heart, he held a more powerful mirror than Bob Dylan. Maybe more people could relate to some of the general things of Dylan, but like you said, Michael introduced us once and for all to the hatred of..'different', by society.
 
Last edited:
I read in Joe Vogel's book that Quincy was getting mad at Michael for changing things in the studio without him being there during the Bad sessions. In my opinion, Quincy forgot that the name on the front of the album read 'Michael Jackson', not 'Michael Jackson & Quincy Jones'. The guy was just way too full of himself. He got used to the level of control he had during the Off The Wall sessions and didn't like that Michael got more and more independent, and took more control with each release. He bought the hype from the media that the magic was in the partnership between him and Michael. By the time they were finished with Bad, Michael had to get away from Q because he was beginning to stifle him as an artist. It was the right move.
 
Is Quincy Jones insane? How can he say that Michael thought rap was dead when the songs on the Dangerous album clearly has the Hip hop/ Rap vibe, like Jam?
 
To be honest, I don't really care what was Michael's opinion about rap ca. 1988. He is not a rap artist and although there are rap parts in his songs, but rap isn't what made him great. Quincy always brings this story about rap up, but even if that was Michael's opinion at the time, even if he was mistaken about the prospects of rap at the time, so what? It's not really significant concerning his own career. It's not like he would have or should have turned into a rap artist, anyway. To me it is a lot more significant mistake to advise that Billie Jean shouldn't be on Thriller. Now, THAT would have affected Michael's career significantly!
 
When i hear stories about Michael working without Quincy during Bad it makes me wonder if Michael was ready to leave Quincy after Thriller and the only reason he stuck with Quincy is because he and Quincy were under contract together
 
Remember WMA 2006? Quincy should be thankful that Michael used to ALWAYS thank him in almost every speech he gave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top