morinen
Proud Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,074
- Points
- 48
Re: "A Truth Untold" GOES LIVE. Book publication aimed to present the truth about the Cascio songs.
Ivy, I haven't heard one solid argument as to why it is impossible to have the songs removed from the album. If the Estate executors really respect Michael and his fans as much as they claim, this has to be at least an ongoing debate between them. I'll leave this matter alone as soon as either of the following happens:
1) I realize that the Estate doesn't really give a shit about fans or Michael's quality standards, and only cares about money (which I don't believe is the case), or
2) I learn that there is an objective legal barrier that makes it impossible for them to remove the songs.
Until then I'd rather put my time and money into something that might turn out positive for the memory of Michael.
This is true, and not true. Of course, music lovers and hardcore longtime fans divide works into those released by the artist and those released posthumously. However, casual fans and new fans do not. If I decided to listen to Jimi Hendrix, for example, I wouldn't know one from the other, not would I care much. This is all Hendrix, right? If it was released, it must have been good enough for release. It must be representative of his art. In the same way, I see many school kids, post-2009 fans, who have "Monster" in the same playlist with "Billie Jean" and don't see the difference. The more time passes, the fewer hardcore fans Michael will have, and more fans will be in this casual fans group. Lines will get blurred for most people. This is just unfair to Michael. He didn't work all his life on every sound, every vocal take, to end up with this.
Ivy, I haven't heard one solid argument as to why it is impossible to have the songs removed from the album. If the Estate executors really respect Michael and his fans as much as they claim, this has to be at least an ongoing debate between them. I'll leave this matter alone as soon as either of the following happens:
1) I realize that the Estate doesn't really give a shit about fans or Michael's quality standards, and only cares about money (which I don't believe is the case), or
2) I learn that there is an objective legal barrier that makes it impossible for them to remove the songs.
Until then I'd rather put my time and money into something that might turn out positive for the memory of Michael.
Usually every artist's work is clearly defined into works authorized and signed off on while alive, vs. posthumous and published through an Estate. Most posthumous publications had the air of suspicion around them, some rightfully, some not. It's not as if "Monster" suddenly replaced Billie Jean in popularity, so my blood pressure remains fairly even keeled.
This is true, and not true. Of course, music lovers and hardcore longtime fans divide works into those released by the artist and those released posthumously. However, casual fans and new fans do not. If I decided to listen to Jimi Hendrix, for example, I wouldn't know one from the other, not would I care much. This is all Hendrix, right? If it was released, it must have been good enough for release. It must be representative of his art. In the same way, I see many school kids, post-2009 fans, who have "Monster" in the same playlist with "Billie Jean" and don't see the difference. The more time passes, the fewer hardcore fans Michael will have, and more fans will be in this casual fans group. Lines will get blurred for most people. This is just unfair to Michael. He didn't work all his life on every sound, every vocal take, to end up with this.
Last edited: