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

[kreen]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

OK-fine. Something like this doesn't diminish Michael's songwriting in my mind, because I know he wrote tons of songs and have heard demos and heard stories for years about the creations of these songs.

But I just find these stories a little hard to believe without an explanation. I don't think somebody should just say he DID IT, and no explanation of why? Even if Michael had said to the collaborator: "I'm Michael Jackson and this song sucks and unless you put my name on it, no one will buy it"-I'd probably accept that. Maybe. Maybe if it were worded a little kinder.

But I find it hard to believe that a songwriter, who is proud of his work, wouldn't make a squawk about it at the time? Maybe sue Michael? Maybe tell everybody he knows so the story is as commonplace as the arguments between Michael and Quincy on the co-producer credits for "Thriller"? Why tell one story for years and then suddenly change it?
It seems odd to me.

Here's an interview done by a French mag that sheds light on how it happened for the writer of Whatever Happens :


BOS: Hello Gil, you are the creator of the song "Whatever Happens, can you tell us the story of this track appearing on Michael Jackson's album Invincible released by Epic / Sony Music in 2001?

Gil Cang: Geoffrey and I wrote the song in my "studio room" in 1999...

BOS: Did you write "Whatever happens" especially for Michael Jackson?

Gil Cang: The song was first offered to artist Mario Vasquez (who was signed to Atlantic and later featured in "American Idol" performing "Whatever Happens" at the audition). He recorded the song, but it was never released.

BOS: What happened next?

Gil Cang: Mario Vasquez went to Teddy Riley's lawyer to see if Teddy would be interested in producing him. It didn't work out, but Teddy thought the song would be great for Michael. He played the song for Michael, and Michael loved it.

BOS: Did you meet Michael Jackson and Teddy Riley? Did you watch the song's evolution from your demo to the final version on Invincible?

Gil Cang: I was not in the studio, and I have not met any of them.

BOS: How was your song selected? Did you suggest any other demos to Riley, and if so, do you remember their names? Did they record any other demos or final versions?

Gil Cang: Riley didn't select anything else. They recorded this song among 200 songs they worked on for Invincible, and they kept it. An honor for me because I've always been a huge fan.

BOS: Do you know if "Whatever Happens" was planned as a single by Sony Music?

Gil Cang: Unfortunately, the song was never released as a single because the promo campaign was stopped after only 2 songs from the album. "Whatever Happens" was planned as the 4th single from Invincible. But still it is my musical dream come true.

BOS: What is this song about, and what do you think is Michael Jackson's version about?

Gil Cang: I love Michael's version. The song is about a girl who discovers that she is pregnant. People mistake the first sentence of the song, it's actually "He gives a nervous smile," not "He gives another smile." It always makes me nervous! They had it wrong in the album booklet.

BOS: Who sings and plays instruments on the demo?

Gil Cang: Geoffrey Williams sings, and I play instruments.

BOS: Who decided to invite Carlos Santana?

Gil Cang: It was their idea.

BOS: When listening to your demo and the final version on Invincible, there is no real difference in melody, text, etc. Why are Teddy Riley and Michael Jackson credited? Was it a copyright issue, as in "Give us credit, otherwise you will never see your song on the album?"

Gil: Exactly.

BOS: Gil, thank you for this short interview, "Whatever Happens" remains one of the major titles on Invincible and it is very much appreciated by the public.

Gil: Thank you.

 

[kreen]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

No, it doesn't have to be a hagiography, but let me put it this way: For years I have been reading stories from MJ's collaborators. Interviews, their Facebook accounts, stories coming out from seminars, documentaries etc. Most of the same people who are quoted in these extracts from the book. There was nothing that painted MJ in the light that he seems to be painted in this book - at least if we go by the review above. Brad Buxer told about his contribution to SIM before (although he also told a different story even before that - ie. that the chords were created initially for the Sonic game by MJ and him and that's what they decided to use for SIM) but in the extract from this book now it is claimed that he wrote all of the music which is BS. We know that MJ wrote the melody, for example, which is not mentioned in the extract I read about the song. (Hagiography or not, it IS at least mentioned in Vogel's book. Brad obviously doesn't dispute that claim since he read the part about SIM from Vogel's book at the Brad 2x seminar.) We also know SIM would not have been born without MJ's input. It's one thing to say Brad should have been given co-credit. It's another to go to the other extreme and now make it look like MJ had nothing to do with the music and it was all Brad. It sounds like with every telling of the story of SIM Brad's role gets bigger and bigger and MJ's gets lesser and lesser. To be fair, it's not who is Brad saying that in the book, it is the author who puts it that way. Brad's quotes in themselves are not bad.

But let's forget song credits. The review also makes it look like MJ was a major a**hole to his colleagues. Treated them poorly (actually in one of the extracts from the book even the word "abusive" is used supposedly quoting Bill Bottrell). How come that this is the major impression the book manages to leave behind about MJ when we have dozens of testimonies from colleagues - again, mostly the same people who are quoted in this book - and most of them rave about what a pleasure it was to work with MJ, what an extremely kind, polite person he was? I am sure MJ had his bad days, like all of us do, but generally when you read first hand accounts about him the picture you get is that this was a generally very kind, very polite guy who had great respect to his collaborators and went out of his way to treat them very well. Eg. we heard about family dinners he had with his co-workers in the studio, we heard about him being extremely apologetic if he did not show up, sending them a basket of DVDs as gifts to "compensate" them etc. I am sure there were times when he disappeared for days and did not send them any gift to "compensate", but actually he did not have to if they were on his payroll during those days. That there were times when he did that was an extra little bit of kindness on his part, not an obligation. While I am sure MJ was not a saint and no, he doesn't have to be portrayed as one, and while I am sure he had his bad moods when he was less kind than usual, but when you read first hand testimonies about what it was like to work with MJ the general picture is that this was a very nice, very kind, very generous guy who was a pleasure to work with.

How did then this author manage to portray him as the opposite in the book? Well, if the review is really true - that is. Again, of course, I am talking about what is in the review ("will also make you think much less of Michael as both a person and an artist", "in quite a few cases Mike treated his collaborators poorly", "what a c**d person Michael had become" etc.). Maybe it is the review that is twisting the book's content, we will see when someone else gets to read it. But for now I can only talk about what is in reviews and extracts. This is why I said earlier that an author is more than capable of taking generally positive stories and turn them into rather negative ones if that is his agenda. One way to do is that if there are small negative stories you blow those out of proportion and represent those as the rule, when in fact, the rule was that MJ generally was very kind and treated his collegaues well. (Of course, it is quite possible that it is not the book that is doing this, but the reviewer.) Again, I am not saying this because I see him as a saint, but because this is what I have read directly from his collaborators so far. So if the book managed to turn all those generally positive accounts of MJ as a person into MJ being an a**hole, then it isn't an honest book IMO.

Same about his artistry. Maybe some credits are debatable in one way or another, but if the focus is disportionately on that while conviniently leaving out information about MJ's own contributions (eg. not mentioning that he wrote the melody for SIM) and not representing all the positive accounts of his creative genius proportionately then I don't know how much we can consider this book as something that is "setting the record straight". And BTW, I wouldn't put too much trust into ANY book. You have to consider the sources, the general goal of a book (in this case already the title "Making Michael" seems to set a direction). It sounds like this book is more about praising his collaborators than about a focus on MJ's genius. Which wouldn't be surprising considering everything in the book is told through these collaborator's filter (and of course, they will have some bias for themselves - that's human nature) while MJ's own point of view doesn't get represented. Since the author met the collaborators but did not meet MJ himself he too might have a bias for the collaborators as opposed to MJ. This renders the book to be inevitably one-sided. Of course, it can still carry lots of useful, truthful and never before heard information. I just wouldn't take anything in it as the gospel truth that "sets the record straight". I take it for what it is. Stories told through the filters of MJ's collaborators and in this author's arrangement and interpretation, at a time when MJ is not here to tell his side of the story.

We haven't even read the book yet, and our reaction is based on someone's review. Let's wait for more reviews, and read the book ourselves : it's probably not as bad as that first review made it out to be.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

We haven't even read the book yet, and our reaction is based on someone's review. Let's wait for more reviews, and read the book ourselves : it's probably not as bad as that first review made it out to be.

I agree with that. All my opinions have been based on this review alone. I'm looking forward to more people on the forum reading it and more reviews. Maybe he sent out some advance copies.
I just want it to be more than one side so I can get the whole story, not to especially portray Michael as an angel.

The way he abruptly fired Dileo and for that matter Wiesner were somewhat cruel. Especially when they both thought they were doing excellent work. You don't often hear adult professional men talking in public about how hurt they were.

 

[Augustino]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Here's an interview done by a French mag that sheds light on how it happened for the writer of Whatever Happens

So it sounds like a fair business deal. It's not that Gil was not informed and he sure was paid handsomely for the song.


Gil Cang, Jasmine Quay, Geoffrey Williams are also credited and Riley.
Why did Riley want credit if he didn't do anything?

And how can we know whether the demo was indeed not changed by Riley and Michael so they do deserve credit after all?
Did anyone hear that demo other than those in the studio?

All in all I can't see how anyone was cheated when tons of people are credited on Invincible.

The way he abruptly fired Dileo and for that matter Wiesner were somewhat cruel. Especially when they both thought they were doing excellent work. You don't often hear adult professional men talking in public about how hurt they were.

Oh please. A lot of people were "hurt" when they realized they were no longer in Michael's orbit.
Bob Jones, Evan Chandler the Neverland 5, the Arvizos, Orietta Murdoch among them.
Remember Chandler's whining that Michael didn't have to do that? Meaning cut him off?

Reminds me of that interview Roger Friedman did with Bobby Newt where he talked about the people who accused him.
You have to look at when the phone calls stopped coming.
And of course that was exactly what Chandler was mad about. He doesn't return my calls. June, Jordan don't return my calls.
Poor crybaby.


People thought Michael owned them something. He couldn't fire anyone without risking a new round of slander.
Frank Dileo cheated Michael according to Karen Faye so what about that?
Wiesner was a called a vulture by Debbie Rowe.
Those two Germans shouldn't have been anywhere around Michael in the first place. They didn't do any favor to him only allowed the Arvizos to portray Michael like a gangster.

It's interesting that after Michael died Frank Dileo said that he couldn't say anything negative about Michael.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

On Whatever Happens the song writer said he didn't meet Michael or Teddy when the track was recorded but the interviewer just put words in his mouth and he just agreed. Still we don't know the whole story and Gil Cang never said either Michael or Teddy called him to say what the interviewer implied/assumed.

Everyone involved won either way, Gil Cang, Geoffrey Williams were still credited and were paid royalties.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

People thought Michael owned them something. He couldn't fire anyone without risking a new round of slander.
Frank Dileo cheated Michael according to Karen Faye so what about that?
Wiesner was a called a vulture by Debbie Rowe.
Those two Germans shouldn't have been anywhere around Michael in the first place. They didn't do any favor to him only allowed the Arvizos to portray Michael like a gangster.

It's interesting that after Michael died Frank Dileo said that he couldn't say anything negative about Michael.

Do you take Karen Faye seriously? If so, you shouldn't because she's a lying hag who thinks she was important to Michael. One of Frank's daughters showed various emails exchanged between her father, Karen and Kenny Ortega if I remember correctly showing how it was Karen the one talking BS about Michael.

 

[Annita]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

@Respect 77
Maybe could you decideto buy the book and to create a detailed review. It would be really helpful to have reviews of competent users. With your opinion and the upcoming review from Morinen fans would hafea good foundation to decide whether the book is worth a purchase.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

@Respect 77
Maybe could you decideto buy the book and to create a detailed review. It would be really helpful to have reviews of competent users. With your opinion and the upcoming review from Morinen fans would hafea good foundation to decide whether the book is worth a purchase.

I am not planning to buy the book as of now.

 

[kreen]

So it sounds like a fair business deal. It's not that Gil was not informed and he sure was paid handsomely for the song.


Gil Cang, Jasmine Quay, Geoffrey Williams are also credited and Riley.
Why did Riley want credit if he didn't do anything?

And how can we know whether the demo was indeed not changed by Riley and Michael so they do deserve credit after all?
Did anyone hear that demo other than those in the studio?

The original writers' demo has been on Youtube for years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MPv6f-zYys

MJ added nothing to it, from a writing point of view.

The whole Invincible album is not an example of MJ NOT crediting the real writers, it's an example of MJ taking credit for writing songs when he didn't. And putting his name first in the list means people still think MJ wrote Whatever Happens or Don't Walk Away.

Do you take Karen Faye seriously? If so, you shouldn't because she's a lying hag who thinks she was important to Michael. One of Frank's daughters showed various emails exchanged between her father, Karen and Kenny Ortega if I remember correctly showing how it was Karen the one talking BS about Michael.

You do realize that somebody doesn't have to have NEVER said anything negative about somebody to still be 1- a friend and 2- a trustworthy source? People's relationships with others go through phases. Sometimes you're angry, sometimes things are fine. Sometimes you're hurt and say too much you regret later. Sometimes you don't get paid/receive credit and it makes you bitter, despite you still respecting/loving the person.

It happens ALL THE TIME in real life and in the music industry. Unless MJ was the first perfect human being since Jesus, I'm sure he could be selfish/mean/unfair to others from time to time, lile the rest of us.

But it doesn't even seem to be the message of the book anyway. And EVEN if it had that slant, if it offers new information, it's still worthwhile. We can keep the actual info and disregard the editorializing.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

You can say Michael kept the integrity of the original melody but he gave it a new life of its own with his powerful voice and improving the instrumentation. I'm not denying Michael and Teddy credited themselves for the composition but we don't know how it was negotiated or how they informed the composers.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

So it sounds like a fair business deal. It's not that Gil was not informed and he sure was paid handsomely for the song.
Gil Cang, Jasmine Quay, Geoffrey Williams are also credited and Riley.
Why did Riley want credit if he didn't do anything?

And how can we know whether the demo was indeed not changed by Riley and Michael so they do deserve credit after all?
Did anyone hear that demo other than those in the studio?


Oh please. A lot of people were "hurt" when they realized they were no longer in Michael's orbit.
Bob Jones, Evan Chandler the Neverland 5, the Arvizos, Orietta Murdoch among them.
Remember Chandler's whining that Michael didn't have to do that? Meaning cut him off?

Reminds me of that interview Roger Friedman did with Bobby Newt where he talked about the people who accused him.
You have to look at when the phone calls stopped coming.
And of course that was exactly what Chandler was mad about. He doesn't return my calls. June, Jordan don't return my calls.
Poor crybaby.


People thought Michael owned them something. He couldn't fire anyone without risking a new round of slander.
Frank Dileo cheated Michael according to Karen Faye so what about that?
Wiesner was a called a vulture by Debbie Rowe.
Those two Germans shouldn't have been anywhere around Michael in the first place. They didn't do any favor to him only allowed the Arvizos to portray Michael like a gangster.

It's interesting that after Michael died Frank Dileo said that he couldn't say anything negative about Michael.

Oh, please? How can you possibly put Weisner and Dileo in the same category as Chandler and the Arvizos and the Neverland 5? I'm talking about RONALD Weisner, who managed him from the Jacksons period through the Wiz, through Thriller. Until Dileo took over. Neither one of them had a bad thing to say about him-Weisner recently wrote a book about his own life that has some blatant untruths/speculations about Michael, but it just proves the point that Michael was good at separating personal/health issues from business. As close as they might have been, he obviously didn't tell his employees every single thing about himself.

At one point I might have added Bob Jones and Karen Faye to this list of loyal employees, except that Bob got his revenge on his termination with his trash book in 2003 and Karen has disappointed me terribly since Michael's death.

Dieter was and is always one of many leeches-I'm really sorry that Michael (who found it so hard to trust anybody) couldn't see thru this group of hangers-on in the last 10-15 years of his life.

The original writers' demo has been on Youtube for years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MPv6f-zYys

MJ added nothing to it, from a writing point of view.

The whole Invincible album is not an example of MJ NOT crediting the real writers, it's an example of MJ taking credit for writing songs when he didn't. And putting his name first in the list means people still think MJ wrote Whatever Happens or Don't Walk Away.



You do realize that somebody doesn't have to have NEVER said anything negative about somebody to still be 1- a friend and 2- a trustworthy source? People's relationships with others go through phases. Sometimes you're angry, sometimes things are fine. Sometimes you're hurt and say too much you regret later. Sometimes you don't get paid/receive credit and it makes you bitter, despite you still respecting/loving the person.

It happens ALL THE TIME in real life and in the music industry. Unless MJ was the first perfect human being since Jesus, I'm sure he could be selfish/mean/unfair to others from time to time, lile the rest of us.

But it doesn't even seem to be the message of the book anyway. And EVEN if it had that slant, if it offers new information, it's still worthwhile. We can keep the actual info and disregard the editorializing.

I just listened to the demo on YouTube before I came back over to this thread, and it does sound the same. I don't hear any changes in melody, backgrounds, or lyrics. There might have been some tweaks around, but that's it. Of course, it's nothing like the finished product with Michael's voice-but that's the main difference.
Reading that interview makes it sound quite different than the reviewer who implied that Michael was just stealing songs right and left.


And yes, that's the reason I wrote the example of Weisner and Dileo being terminated so suddenly. Michael wasn't an angel all the time-he was hurt often and hurt badly and yes, he lashed out too.

 

[Tygger]

I am not planning to buy the book as of now.

I am not suggesting you purchase the book. Your response reminded me that the popular argument when the bodyguards’ book was release was that posters should read the book themselves and not base their views solely on reviews and/or excerpts.

Dewey and other posters here have stated they read all books about Michael. I dare say there are some books in the approximately 220+ books that have been written since Michael’s passing that do not pique most fans interests; this book does not seem to be one of them.

Maybe Dewey can request a free copy of this book (maybe Genius and 88 Seconds as well) and submit a review for members here.

 

[NotAlone]

Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

PS, I wrote that review, and the book isn't mainly about songwriting credits at all, its about the making of Michael's albums, thats something that just stood out to me. The collaborators all have immense respect for Michael and their time together. It is a gold mine of new info about the making of all of Michael's songs. You guys are missing out, the author is clearly a huge MJ fan due to how in depth he goes on the making of things like HIStory, Dangerous, Vince, and BOTDF.

And it's all real info too, not speculative like Vogel's shit where he makes assumptions and recopies info everyone knows.

Anyone thinking the author or any of the collaborators are trying to trash talk Michael are completely wrong. The author writes what people said in their interviews, so if you think people like Matt Forger, Bruce Swedien, Teddy Riley, Brad Sundberg, and Bill Bottrell are against MJ, you are mistaken.

 

[Annita]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

And it's all real info too, not speculative like Vogel's shit where he makes assumptions and recopies info everyone knows..

I am not sure why it is necessary to disrespect Joe Vogels book. He also did talk with collaborators like Michael Prince, Brad Buxer etc.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

And it's all real info too, not speculative like Vogel's shit where he makes assumptions and recopies info everyone knows.

Well, at least Vogel did not leave out information about MJ's role in writing a song. For example, he did not leave out the fact tha MJ wrote the melody for SIM, like this book does, giving the impression that ALL the music of SIM was written by Buxer.

IMO, generally it is best to rely on several sources and put together the information from them. Some will have more info - and more accurate info - on one thing, the other will have more on another thing. I don't think any book will have "THE ultimate truth" about MJ - each book has its inaccuracies and biases, this one included. No need to put it on a pedestal while trashing Vogel (why is that even necessary?). Usually a true (or at least close to true) picture can be formed by reading several sources, not just one.

@Tygger. You are free to read and review the book yourself.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

MJ added nothing to it, from a writing point of view.

The whole Invincible album is not an example of MJ NOT crediting the real writers, it's an example of MJ taking credit for writing songs when he didn't. And putting his name first in the list means people still think MJ wrote Whatever Happens or Don't Walk Away.

I must have been listening different demo and different MJ's version of the song than you?

MJ's version

original

The changes Michael made to lyrics and other things he added gave him right to add his name to credits.

 

[Electro]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

One of Frank's daughters showed various emails exchanged between her father, Karen and Kenny Ortega if I remember correctly showing how it was Karen the one talking BS about Michael.

Like being worried about Michaels health at the time? How is that BS.
She might have been a little bit too much in love with Michael, but I think many people hate on her for no real reason.
Same with Tatiana... she wrote a book, oh no, what a reason to hate. :smilerolleyes:

 

[kreen]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

I must have been listening different demo and different MJ's version of the song than you?

MJ's version

original

The changes Michael made to lyrics and other things he added gave him right to add his name to credits.

Changing a couple of words to a wholly completed song and then claiming equal songwriting credit with the people who actually wrote the whole song, and then putting your name first in the list of songwriters, implying you're the main writer, is legal, but to me it's dishonest.

I read that Babyface was actually angry at MJ over "You are My Life", because the original song was "You are my World", and MJ changed that one word and then claimed a co-writing credit.

 

[Bubs]

Changing a couple of words to a wholly completed song and then claiming equal songwriting credit with the people who actually wrote the whole song, and then putting your name first in the list of songwriters, implying you're the main writer, is legal, but to me it's dishonest.

I read that Babyface was actually angry at MJ over "You are My Life", because the original song was "You are my World", and MJ changed that one word and then claimed a co-writing credit.

I don't know why I even bother, but here it is:
You need to get MJ's lyrics on screen and then compare them to original demo, then listen what else was added(hint,whole lot in the end).

If Michael sang the song without any changes as in demo, then those guys would have gotten 100% credit, but Teddy and MJ made changes.
Funnily enough, Riley's name is 2nd in credits but only MJ gets trashed by basically stealing someone's song robbing credits


One more thing, where did you get that equal song-writing credits? Despite MJ having his name first (that bastard, daring to put his name first on his own album), it does not mean his credits are equal. How do you know that its not something like this:

So you're quoting J Randy Tarraborelli as a source now??

I have to say, I am a little perplexed as to why you seem so intent on minimising MJ's contributions to his own work??

It's a current trend. Make all sort of accusations of MJ, then when called out, defend trash talk by saying MJ wasn't Jesus, God etc.........., and lastly don't get informed but trust blindly what some people say

 

[HIStory]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

You don't say that melody is actually an important part of the MUSIC on a song?

 

[Bubs]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

You don't say that melody is actually an important part of the MUSIC on a song?

?
I think in that pie chart melody means music.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

?
I think in that pie chart melody means music.

It was just a reference back to earlier discussions in this thread where there was a little bit of disussion about whether MJ writing the melody to a song counts as him writing music. As stupid as it sounds, the meaning of melody had to be explained:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t.../page5?p=4112631&highlight=melody#post4112631

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ackson/page5?p=4112642&viewfull=1#post4112642

 

[analogue]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Like I said before. I think that if someone comes up with the melody and the lyrics to a song, then that person has every right to take full songwriters credit. I don't think that simply adding chords to a song is worthy of a co-composers credit. For someone to get a co-songwriters credit, then (IMO) that person needs to add their own melody ideas and/or their own lyrics.

For the songwriting process for the song Dangerous, Michael said that Bill Botrell added new chords over Streetwalker, and I can't remember if Bill added anything else to the song, but IMO Michael didn't have to give him a co-composers credit, but he did. As for Teddy Riley's contribution to that song, I think Michael said that Teddy just changed the sounds of the instruments on the original Dangerous demo. So again, MJ didn't have to give Teddy a co-composers credit, but he did.

And Bill Botrell himself has said that Michael gave him credit, when he didn't need to give him credit. So Michael could be very generous when it came to sharing credit

 

[kreen]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

So you're quoting J Randy Tarraborelli as a source now??

I have to say, I am a little perplexed as to why you seem so intent on minimising MJ's contributions to his own work??

I'm a truth-based person. If MJ wrote a song -- and he wrote tons of them -- I credit him with writing the song.

If he adds his name as a writer -- and at the TOP of the list, no less -- when he did nothing or basically nothing in terms of the writing of the particular song, it annoys me and I call him out on it.

It's legal and everybody does it, and I know it can be justified even if he only changed ONE word, but usually, the main songwriters of a song won't accept to credit somebody else -- and let them eat into their royalties -- when their contribution is minimal.

When I see people still refer to Whatever Happens or Don't Walk Away as great songs MJ wrote, it's confusing for the historical record. In the same way it is when people say "Elvis co-wrote a bunch of his early hits". No he didn't, Coloner Parker just got his boy's name on there for royalties purposes.

MJ only did this for Invincible, which shows he was usually above such tricks.

 

[kreen]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Like I said before. I think that if someone comes up with the melody and the lyrics to a song, then that person has every right to take full songwriters credit. I don't think that simply adding chords to a song is worthy of a co-composers credit. For someone to get a co-songwriters credit, then (IMO) that person needs to add their own melody ideas and/or their own lyrics.

For the songwriting process for the song Dangerous, Michael said that Bill Botrell added new chords over Streetwalker, and I can't remember if Bill added anything else to the song, but IMO Michael didn't have to give him a co-composers credit, but he did. As for Teddy Riley's contribution to that song, I think Michael said that Teddy just changed the sounds of the instruments on the original Dangerous demo. So again, MJ didn't have to give Teddy a co-composers credit, but he did.

And Bill Botrell himself has said that Michael gave him credit, when he didn't need to give him credit. So Michael could be very generous when it came to sharing credit

There's a lot of confusion in pop music when it comes to the difference between "music", "melody" and "lyrics", because those terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Like when Brad Buxer says he wrote the music to Days in Gloucestershire, and MJ wrote the lyrics, he probably means he wrote the chords, while MJ wrote the vocal melody, supported by the lyrics. MJ often created vocal lines/lyrics over a musical track . That's what he did for, say, Get on the Floor, or Behind the Mask. Same thing happened with Blood on the Tracks : what Riley gave him was the track, as you hear it on the CD. MJ wrote the melody and the lyrics.

That's why many songs on HIStory are credited as "Song by MJ, music by Jam and Lewis" or stuff like that. The producer created the track, wwile MJ pened the vocal line and lyrics.

Same thing happens in metal. The guitar player writes the chords and riffs, and the singer adds the vocal melody on top.

 

[Psychoniff]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

There's a lot of confusion in pop music when it comes to the difference between "music", "melody" and "lyrics", because those terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Like when Brad Buxer says he wrote the music to Days in Gloucestershire, and MJ wrote the lyrics, he probably means he wrote the chords, while MJ wrote the vocal melody, supported by the lyrics. MJ often created vocal lines/lyrics over a musical track . That's what he did for, say, Get on the Floor, or Behind the Mask. Same thing happened with Blood on the Tracks : what Riley gave him was the track, as you hear it on the CD. MJ wrote the melody and the lyrics.

That's why many songs on HIStory are credited as "Song by MJ, music by Jam and Lewis" or stuff like that. The producer created the track, wwile MJ pened the vocal line and lyrics.

Same thing happens in metal. The guitar player writes the chords and riffs, and the singer adds the vocal melody on top.

That's the exact point I've be trying to point out on this thread. But some just can't get the distinction right in their heads. MJ was primarily a lyricist on most of post 80's tracks, why producers came up with the chords.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

I'm sorry-I'm old school and grew up on MGM movie musicals about songwriters: Gershwin, Berlin, Rodgers and Hart. There was melody and lyrics. Only. I thought chords were just more than one note together in a melody.

Then you have production/arrangers like Nelson Riddle and Quincy Jones. They take the melody and arrange or produce it to suit the strengths of a band/singer.

So I'm not understanding what you all mean by music-is there something maybe on YouTube where I can see a demonstration for dummies?

 

[Psychoniff]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

Like Bernie Taupin being the person who wrote the words over the instrumentation for Elton John, who composed the music, the chord progression etc. With MJ It's essentially beats, and rhythm of the 90's was done already, he did the melody line/lyrics. Think of any song as just a instrumental (no lyrics), that's how a particular track was handed to MJ who would then think of how he would compose the lyrics/melody over it.

 

[analogue]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

I'm sorry-I'm old school and grew up on MGM movie musicals about songwriters: Gershwin, Berlin, Rodgers and Hart. There was melody and lyrics. Only. I thought chords were just more than one note together in a melody.

Let's say that someone comes up with a song in the key of A minor, and then someone else on piano plays chords within the A minor scale, then all that person was doing was just playing in tune to what the melody was. They didn't come up with anything new themselves. But if they added some new melodies onto the piano, then yes, that person would have added something new to the song.

and, btw chords are something that have already been discovered. So the person adding chords to a song isn't adding anything new, because that chord was already discovered many, many years ago.

 

[analogue]

Re: Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson

And, going back to Michael. He explained on the Mexico Deposition that it's very hard to translate chords vocally. So he had to rely on outside instrumentalists to play the chords that he was hearing in his head.