Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson (Excerpts on page 19)

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

But the music track was done by Renee Moore and Bruce S., not MJ. MJ did the melody and lyrics.

1) Do you notice that melody is a part of the music? (Some say the most important part of it.)

2) And what is exactly your problem with the crediting of Jam? Isn't it credited to Bruce Sweiden, Renee Morre, Michael Jackson and Teddy Riley?
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

This will probably come as no surprise, but MJ did indeed say in an interview with The Daily Mirror that Vince would be his last album.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Here's something I find interesting about ''Who Is It''

I think the story behind the creation of ''Who Is It'' is that Michael took a tape of him beatboxing the song to Brad Buxer, and then Brad Buxer added chords to that. But why isn't anyone saying that Brad should have gotten a co-composers credit for that song? He added chords, so that must be worthy of a songwriters credit, right? Unless of course Brad himself feels that simply adding chords is not worthy of a songwriters credit


This is what I mean about songwriting credits being a tricky thing

Well, actually Brad says about Who Is It, Will You Be There and other songs that they were really all ready in MJ's head.


The song that he claims he had more contribution to is Stranger in Moscow.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

This will probably come as no surprise, but MJ did indeed say in an interview with The Daily Mirror that Vince would be his last album.

As if MJ would give interviews to the Daily Mirror.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

1) Do you notice that melody is a part of the music? (Some say the most important part of it.)

2) And what is exactly your problem with the crediting of Jam? Isn't it credited to Bruce Sweiden, Renee Morre, Michael Jackson and Teddy Riley?

I was responding to Mattyjam about who created the track. The track itself was given to MJ and without any lyrics or melody. He then did his thing and Jam was born. The point I'm trying to make is that that he's given himself production credits when he didn't actual produce it al all. He wrote the lyrics and melody but not the song.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

I think that whoever comes up with the melody and the lyrics should be credit as the songwriter, and then it would be up to that person if they want to credit anyone else for adding things to that song. Because, for me the lyrics and the melody is the backbone for a song

I'm sure that many people will disagree with me, but that's what I think.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Well if you listen to the music track on the Jam demo, it is pretty sparse, even more so than the album version. It would be nothing without the melody line and lyrics. This is why songwriting credits can be so tricky. You can have some songs where the vocal line is the hook of the track and the music behind it is not that important. And then you can have other songs where the melody line is born out of the chords/musicial arrangement and I think it's those songs which tend to be the ones more hotly contested when one person has come up with the music and another person has come up with the melody line.

Like the team of Elton John (composer) and Bernie Taupin (lyricist)
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

He did. In 1999, as part of an out of court settlement agreement.

Oh ok. Forgot about that.

I was responding to Mattyjam about who created the track. The track itself was given to MJ and without any lyrics or melody. He then did his thing and Jam was born. The point I'm trying to make is that that he's given himself production credits when he didn't actual produce it al all. He wrote the lyrics and melody but not the song.

Melody and lyrics are PART of a song! How can you suggest they aren't? So if MJ wrote the melody and the lyrics then how does he not deserve co-writing credits? Where does this idea come from at all that whoever writes the melody and the lyrics is not part of writing a song? This is getting crazy.

Do you think that the Jam that Swedien and Moore presented to MJ was a ready track, MJ did not do anything with it after that? What you hear on the demo is the EXACT same song that is on the album, there aren't changes at all? If that's not the case, then I don't know why you are so hell-bent on taking production or writing credits from MJ?

I feel like we need to get down to basics here:


melody
[mel-uh-dee]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun, plural melodies.
1.
musical sounds in agreeable succession or arrangement.
2.
Music.

the succession of single tones in musical compositions, as distinguished from harmony and rhythm.
the principal part in a harmonic composition; the air.
a rhythmical succession of single tones producing a distinct musical phrase or idea.
 
Last edited:
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Oh ok. Forgot about that.



Melody and lyrics are PART of a song! How can you suggest they aren't? So if MJ wrote the melody and the lyrics then how does he not deserve co-writing credits? Where does this idea come from at all that whoever writes the melody and the lyrics is not part of writing a song? This is getting crazy.

Do you think that the Jam that Swedien and Moore presented to MJ was a ready track, MJ did not do anything with it after that? What you hear on the demo is the EXACT same song that is on the album, there aren't changes at all? If that's not the case, then I don't know why you are so hell-bent on taking production or writing credits from MJ?

The melody and the lyrics is the backbone for a song. Without those the song is nothing
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

And yes, there are grey areas as well. Whether something deserves rather co-writing credit or co-producing or arrangement credit. I guess what an artist thinks of what deserves what can vary.

Song credits is the area that we don't know much.
Bottrell says here that MJ gave him credits when he didn't need to
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/4582386-post709.html

Also interesting reply from him:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/4582630-post722.html
 
Oh ok. Forgot about that.



Melody and lyrics are PART of a song! How can you suggest they aren't? So if MJ wrote the melody and the lyrics then how does he not deserve co-writing credits? Where does this idea come from at all that whoever writes the melody and the lyrics is not part of writing a song? This is getting crazy.

Do you think that the Jam that Swedien and Moore presented to MJ was a ready track, MJ did not do anything with it after that? What you hear on the demo is the EXACT same song that is on the album, there aren't changes at all? If that's not the case, then I don't know why you are so hell-bent on taking production or writing credits from MJ?

I feel like we need to get down to basics here:


melody
[mel-uh-dee]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun, plural melodies.
1.
musical sounds in agreeable succession or arrangement.
2.
Music.

the succession of single tones in musical compositions, as distinguished from harmony and rhythm.
the principal part in a harmonic composition; the air.
a rhythmical succession of single tones producing a distinct musical phrase or idea.

You confusing two different aspects here. songwriting credits are different from production credits. As I said, he wrote the lyrics and melody, and rightfully gets songwriting credits. However the music/song track was already created (maybe not fully). He didn't produce to music, that was Renee and Bruce. How would he have been able to produce the music if was already create in the first place?

MJ isn't the only artist who took all the credit for a song, even when there was other people contributing to it. Look at Prince's ''Kiss. On that song Prince is credited as the only songwriter, but it was actually a collaboration between Prince and his band.

I think the story was that Prince came up with the idea of ''Kiss'' on an acoustic guitar, and then his band took that, added their own ideas and helped make the song what it is today.

Songwriting credits are tricky, and I think people got their own ideas about what someone has to do in order to get a co-composers credit on a song.

Of Course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

You confusing two different aspects here. songwriting credits are different from production credits. As I said, he wrote the lyrics and melody, and rightfully gets songwriting credits. However the music/song track was already created (maybe not fully). He didn't produce to music, that was Renee and Bruce. How would he have been able to produce the music if was already create in the first place?

You said it yourself that the production was not yet fully ready. Also the production of the melody is just as part of the production work as producing the rhythm section, for example. (And melody IS a part of the music. I don't know why you talk as if it isn't.) The track Bruce and Rene presented to MJ wasn't a ready made track. It needed additional writing AND production to get released. So if MJ contributed to the final production that you hear on the album (and he did) then why on Earth would he not deserve producing credits? Again, why are you so hell-bent on trying to take credits from MJ?
 
Last edited:
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

What's next, Bubbles was the real mastermind behind Billie Jean?
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

"You Are My Life" replaced "Shout" at the last minute on Vince.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

You said it yourself that the production was not yet fully ready. Also the production of the melody is just as part of the production work as producing the rhythm section, for example. (And melody IS a part of the music. I don't know why you talk as if it isn't.) The track Bruce and Rene presented to MJ wasn't a ready made track. It needed additional writing AND production to get released. So if MJ contributed to the final production that you hear on the album (and he did) then why on Earth would he not deserve producing credits? Again, why are you so hell-bent on trying to take credits from MJ?

Agreed.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Is there anything in the book about how the Jerkins tracks on Invincible were written? To me this is the last MJ songwriting mystery : did MJ write the words and melodies to songs like Unbreakable and Threatened, or did Jerkins come into the studio with the songs already written?
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

The only time where MJ obviously took unearned credits on songs was on Invincible, when he was credited for songs like Whatever Happens or Don't Walk Away. We have the songwriters' demos for those songs, and they're exactly like the finished versions : MJ basically just added his vocals. He must have been told it was ok to do, and that everybody else was doing it -- which is true.
 
I think Michael had a very unusual approach to songwriting and that sometimes people think that because he wasn't an instrumentalist, that he couldn't possibly have written/produced his own songs. But I don't know anybody else who had the ability to hear entire arrangements and different layers of instrumentation in their head the way MJ did, even down to being able to hum each note of a chord on command. I am an instrumentalist for a living (I teach guitar) and have played for over 15 years and I don't know anybody who can do that. And we've witnessed enough examples of this remarkable gift over the years to know that it is a very real and legitimate way of composing.

As for producing, it is a grey area when you have someone trying to translate the sounds they hear in their head to a collaborator, as in, who takes the credit for the end result? At the end of the day, MJ needed these people to realise his musical visions, but in reality, the likes of Brad Buxer and Greg Phillinganes would never have created songs like Stranger In Moscow, Hollywood Tonight or DSTYGE by themselves without MJ's remarkable vision and ear for melody.

How do musicians actually go about making music? Fill me in on the process.

Is there anything in the book about how the Jerkins tracks on Invincible were written? To me this is the last MJ songwriting mystery : did MJ write the words and melodies to songs like Unbreakable and Threatened, or did Jerkins come into the studio with the songs already written?

He came in a recorded vocals. The songs were done. Invincible was his least involved project.
 
Last edited:
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

He came in a recorded vocals. The songs were done. Invincible was his least involved project.

That's my assumption as well, but do you have a source? Jerkins should do a track-by-track commentary like Riley did for Dangerous.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

I have a hard time imagining Jerkins wrote the lyrics for a song like Threatened. That's a very MJ-like lyrics. So at the very least MJ must have been involved in writing the lyrics IMO. I also don't think it was Jerkins' idea to use Rod Sterling "rap". With MJ's interest in old movies, classic artists, Twilight Zone itself, IMO that too was probably his idea.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

I have a hard time imagining Jerkins wrote the lyrics for a song like Threatened. That's a very MJ-like lyrics. So at the very least MJ must have been involved in writing the lyrics IMO. I also don't think it was Jerkins' idea to use Rod Sterling "rap". With MJ's interest in old movies, classic artists, Twilight Zone itself, IMO that too was probably his idea.

That's why we need an interview with Jerkins. The one song where it would blow my mind to learn that MJ did NOT write the lyrics is Privacy. If MJ delegated the lyrics to even this "personal" song, then he REALLY was uninterested in the whole project.

Threatened could be the work of somebody who was told, "write lyrics like Thriller, in the MJ style. MJ likes that stuff."
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Threatened could be the work of somebody who was told, "write lyrics like Thriller, in the MJ style. MJ likes that stuff."

Threatened is not just Thriller-like. In fact, I don't think it is anything like Thriller, except that on the surface it is about a horror story. However, it is much closer in theme to Ghosts and Is It Scary - and the whole Ghosts film.

I personally think the other way around re. Privacy and Threatened. I could see someone else writing yet another anti-media song (after all Teddy Riley did that with Why You Wanna Trip On Me), but I think Threatened has much more depth and more layers.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

review of Making Michael:

Here is a super long review of the book:

I loved this book so much I ended up binge reading it and managed to finish the entire thing in a week. Which is very rare for me since I usually never get around to finishing books.

Simply put, this is the definitive Michael Jackson biography (from 1978-2009 only though). There are so many producers, engineers, session musicians, and managers that gave incredibly detailed, new interviews, that it is invaluable to any Michael Jackson fan. Furthermore, the writer was objective and even included interview comments that showed the worst parts of Michael's personality. That being said though, it is fair and also you will see many positive comments about Michael as well, sometimes from the same collaborators.

At the start of the book, already with Off The Wall, I was amazed by how much new information was in the book. As I mentioned before, many people were interviewed for this book, but what is most important was that they were all the right people. It is like if the Bad 25 documentary was more focused and honest. Most importantly though, in terms of how the interviews are presented and the book is written, it is very well done. There is an extensive amount of new information, but it always flowed in a fast way and most things didn't feel dwelled upon to me. Now, not every song of every album came up in the interviews (I'd say about 85% of them are very detailed), but you will be surprised by the amount of information given on songs that were usually ignored or never released as singles.

My favorite part of the book was the amount of information of the making of Dangerous, HIStory, Blood on the Dancefloor, and Invincible. These albums are typically ignored in MJ biographies or articles, and here they are given an insane level of detail. While Thriller and Bad sessions have always been very well documented, it is invaluable to see the amount of attention and pages given to the making of these albums. There is tons and tons of new information on these sessions that even the biggest MJ fan would not know. HIStory especially was given a massive portion of the book, which was great for me since it is my favorite album. That being said though, the making of the earlier albums are also presented in great detail, although Thriller provides the least new info of everything, as everyone knows the stories from that album's production.

The book isn't only about the making of the albums. Tours are decently documented as well as all the troubles that came with them. The stresses of the first allegations and Michael's drug use after them are shown in detail. The period between Invincible's release and June 2009 is also given a hefty portion of the book and gives very detailed information on MJ's many financial troubles and all the projects he would start and back out of, as well as the unfulfilled promises he would make to others while living off of their money. I'm not sure how accurate all the numbers are, but it does paint a very grim picture of Michael during this period.

Some of the cons:

Now something that is important to note is that despite all these new interviews, not every single piece of information is new. You have information in the book that is taken from previous interviews, articles, texts, and gearslutz forum posts. I would say the majority of these sources are great and credible. Every sentence of taken information is clearly cited page by page, however some of the sources are questionable. I did notice a few uses of Taraborrelli's book, which many consider to be inaccurate. Furthermore, there is a chapter of the book that relates to the Invincible promotion and Sony disputes, which for some reason cites Frank Cascio's book (which I consider untrustworthy) a lot. Tommy Motolla is also quoted quite a bit on the subject, despite his opinion always favoring himself. There are a few instances were I found some inaccuracies, but they were pretty infrequent. The portion of the book dedicated to TII uses existing letters and testimonies already previously given at the manslaughter trial and the Jacksons civil suit. You won't have much new information on TII, but it is good at the very least to have an accurate portrayal of it.

The book's mention of the Jackson 5 and the early Jacksons work is very light and only serves to set the scene for the rest of the book. There is no new information on this period and it is simply a prologue. The book's focus is on Michael's solo work from Off The Wall and on. In fact, I would recommend just skipping straight to the Off The Wall section on the book. There also isn't much information on the new songs from The Ultimate Collection, although some such as Monkey Business, We've Had Enough, and Scared of the Moon, are mentioned at earlier portions of the book (when they were being recorded). Posthumous releases are also not mentioned. For those interested in reading about Michael's complete discography and tours, Chris Cadman's Maestro comes highly recommended and is the definitive MJ encyclopedia.

Now this isn't necessarily a con for the book or the writer himself, but this book, while providing you with a lot of new insight, will also make you think much less of Michael as both a person and an artist. One common recurring theme is Michael refusing people credit or giving himself credit for things he never did. This starts a little bit in the Bad era and gets worse as time goes on. Many songs that fans think he composed or made the melody for, he actually didn't contribute anything new to (lyrics and music were already done), besides the ad libs and some criticism. In many cases Michael would have producers come up with songs or ideas and then he would pick the ones he liked. Musicians, producers, and engineers, would put all the creative work into these, and Michael would give himself producer or co-producer credit on these tracks. In a lot of cases he would have musicians just come into his studio and would ask them to play, and he would wait to hear a melody he liked, yet Michael would take credit for these works.

It seemed that in quite a few cases Mike treated his collaborators poorly. He would have people fly around to different states and make copies of all the multi tracks so he could record in different studios, yet in many cases he would be absent, sometimes for weeks at a time. A lot of money was wasted as these people would all be on payroll and put in expensive hotels. In some cases people would just head back home after waiting around for so long and Michael not showing up. Once he told an engineer "see you tomorrow", then was gone for two weeks on vacation without telling anyone.

You will also see how clueless Michael was when it's shown how easily people would manipulate him and convince him that others were against him. It becomes clear that after the Thriller sessions Michael became more and more unreasonable, paranoid, and demanding.

One thing that really shocked me was some of the information Jimmy Jam gave through his interviews. After Scream was finished mixing, Michael, Janet, and Jam all agreed on the final version that was sent to be mastered. Just a week or so before the single was to be released, Janet heard an early copy and her vocals were turned down a lot from what was previously agreed on, so Michael stood out a lot more and she was more like a backing vocalist. Jam confronted Michael about this and he said "Oh that's strange I have no idea who did that", but Jam could tell from Michael's expression that he had been caught and was clearly lying. (It ended up being changed back to the previously agreed upon version just before being pressed). There are a lot worse things Michael has done, but hearing how someone would do this to their own sister is a perfect example of what a c**d person Michael had become.

In conclusion, despite some flaws, this is an amazing biography that will give fans a lot of new insight into Michael's artistry as well as his personal life. It comes highly recommended and I am so glad to have an objective MJ biography out there, as well as a book that provides plenty of information on Michaels later albums, which usually go ignored. I feel it is great to have the mystery of these sessions and Michael's personal life finally gone.

I IN NO WAY ENDORSE EVERY WORD HERE!!!
 
Last edited:
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Hmmm. So this makes it sound like Thriller was both a blessing and a curse in more ways than one.
I wonder how reliable the sources are or if they are named.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

So it's just another book trashing Michael. This time mainly as an artist. Like I said already the title "Making Michael" was suspect of a certain agenda by the author.

It seems like the whole thing about MJ not giving credit or taking credit for others' works is blown way out of proportion in this book - and this seems to be the main theme of the book.

Also it seems like he is portrayed as a vile person, cruel and abusive to his co-workers, something that I never heard of when I saw any of them talking about him on camera or with fans. On quite contrary! They all talked about how extremely nice and polite he was most of the time. So I wonder if the author deliberately blows small issues and rare negative things way out of proportion both in terms of writing credits and personality to serve a certain agenda he wants to serve.

The only positive thing is that it does not seem to generate much attention from fans and even less from non-fans. It came out on October 20 and there isn't a single review about it on Amazon and it does not seem to sell well either. So I guess this is just another book for the rubbish bin.

Unfortunately people are taking all this at face value (like the reviewer seems to) when in reality you have to consider the fact that this is coming through other people who may have their own egos and agendas - and of course through the filter of the author as well who has his own agenda and it seems that agenda is to magnify any small negativity and blow them out of proportion.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

^absokutely. You always have to consider the source, agendas and so forth.
I don't consider michael an angelic saint and I have no doubt he got angry. You can tell from his songs. I'm glad to hear he got angry.

But I don't think he was a 100% obnoxious angry self serving jerk. Some of this sounds a little strange and definitely contradictory. Actually, bizarre.
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

I personally am under no illusion that MJ didn't rely heavily on outside songwriters, musicians and producers. But I still maintain, without him, the songs wouldn't be as good. Regardless of the moral ambiguity of taking credit for someone elses work, you only need to listen to other professional singers attempt to sing his songs to know that it is Michael Jackson who made his songs magic. That doesn't mean he hasn't perhaps been given credit for things at times when he should've given it to someone else, and whilst that is indeed a rotten thing to do, I suspect it is something that is commonplace in the music industry (do you really think Madonna or Janet or Beyonce co-write and co-produce all their own work like the liner notes would have you believe?).

I personally do not believe not giving credit or taking credit for things he hasn't done was as much of his practice as this book seems to suggest. I am sure it happened a couple of times but if this author knew anything about popular music history he would know that this is nothing that is limited to Michael Jackson and it also doesn't mean an artist is vile and greedy and an egomaniac and wants to take credit for others' works. Sometimes it's just tricky to tell from when on someone should or should not be given co-writing credit.

For example, 99% of Prince's songs are credited solely to him when in fact a lot of them were collaborations with his band members - Jam and Lewis and especially Wendy and Lisa all complained from time to time that they felt they should have been given co-writing credit on certain songs but they weren't. Pink Floyd's Money is credited solely to Roger Waters when in fact it was a band effort. James Brown often did not give co-writing credits to collaborating band members. Miles Davis detto. There are a lot of examples like that.

The whole issue with Stranger in Moscow IMO is a good example of how this book seems to blow things out of proportion. The book seems to claim the "real composer" of that song is Brad Buxer. That is just a ridiculous claim when we consider how the song was written. Maybe Brad could have been given co-writing credit, but it is simply laughable to give the impression that he is the creator of Stranger in Moscow. Brad playing some chords doesn't create a song in itself. If only for Brad and if MJ hadn't been there directing and instructing him that song would have never been born. So how can someone claim that actually Brad wrote SIM when he wouldn't and couldn't have created it without MJ's input? (And I haven't even mentioned yet the fact that Brad actually gave two different versions over the times about how even those chords were born, so this is where the reliability of the sources' memories - to be nice - comes into play.)

We have heard many of MJ's demos. We know about a lot of songs that he DID write them! That's enough of an evidence to me about his songwriting. (And let me note that it's not like many of his collaborators proved to be legendary songwriters on their own. So where is their songwriting genius, that supposedly "made Michael Jackson" when they are not with Michael Jackson? If this was all up to them and all MJ did was stealing their stuff?)

There are some grey areas in when to credit someone for co-writing and when not to but if you felt you were cheated then you should have complained when MJ was alive. Starting to claim things after he died while never claiming those things before only makes these sudden memories suspect. Or maybe it's just the author who blew small issues out of proportion and exaggerated them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

I did notice a few uses of Taraborrelli's book

:smilerolleyes:

Tommy Motolla is also quoted quite a bit on the subject, despite his opinion always favoring himself.

:smilerolleyes:


There are a few instances were I found some inaccuracies, but they were pretty infrequent.

:smilerolleyes:
 
Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

"Starting to claim things after he died while never claiming those things before only makes these sudden memories suspect. Or maybe it's just the author who blew small issues out of proportion and exaggerated them"

Yeah, pretty much and I suspect there are those who now want their 5 minutes of fame. And then those who are don't like that he is still so popular (like this author and other organizations) and want to reduce him down as an artist.
 
Back
Top