Latest on MJJC

Triumph 40th Anniversary Edition - should this happen, your thoughts?

Re: record labels

ChrisC said:
The rest of your post went off on another historical ramble...although I do agree with every word on this occasion. But again I'd remind you, as black as Michael Jackson was, he reached commercial heights nobody of white skin has ever reached.

Let's move on.
Click to expand...
This kind of attitude is why white supremacy & sexism continues to happen. Wow Michael Jackson made it! Now the record labels & mainstream media will give other black artists the same priority. If that was the case then the top 50 highest sellers would not still mostly be white guys. Rolling Stone magazine would not have called Eminem "The King Of Hip Hop".

Epic did not do the same amount of promotion on the 2300 Jackson Street album like they did Bad. Funkadelic, Isley Brothers, & Earth Wind & Fire would have the same importance as the Rolling Stones & The Who. James Brown probably has more influence on modern popular music than The Beatles or Elvis. Larry Graham's slap bass technique is used by bassists in many genres.
 
Re: record labels

DuranDuran said:
This kind of attitude is why white supremacy & sexism continues to happen. Wow Michael Jackson made it! Now the record labels & mainstream media will give other black artists the same priority. If that was the case then the top 50 highest sellers would not still mostly be white guys. Rolling Stone magazine would not have called Eminem "The King Of Hip Hop".
Click to expand...


Let's move on from our back and forth, I'm not saying let's move on as a people on the issue of systemic racism in the history of popular music! I mean, for Gods sake, stop twisting everything. I even said I agreed with what you wrote!

I never suggested that because Michael Jackson achieved massive success that it translates to all black artists! You're twisting that to give yourself another platform to talk about the history of everything. I'm saying that Michael Jackson is a commercial artist with a massive audience. I'm trying to focus you because your tendency is to take one piece of a post out of context and then begin talking for paragraphs about decades of other stuff that often aren't relevant. You did this in the Moonwalker debate we had, you started talking about cigarette advertising and album covers!

Honestly, do not implicate me or my comments in any sexism or white supremacy. I find that hugely offensive.
 
Prince gets a lot of new releases containing unreleased stuff. Queen does get HD concerts released every now and then.

With all due respect to Prince's and Queen's fans... MJ is bigger than both of them. So people saying that no one would buy MJ's new releases are not using their common sense.

Nuff said.
 
Prince, Queen, and Michael are all great legends in history. i wish fans don't debate and compare them. all 3 of them are better than today music and artists. but i agree that people will buy Michael "new" releases. not because he our "king" but because he's a legend just like the rest of them.
 
People who are black do get their inspiring from Michael and Prince. BUT you don't have be black to be inspiring by both artists. Michael and Prince are from the black community but other communities look up to them and are inspiring by them as well.

sometimes race don't have to do with everything.
 
The Jacksons

ChrisC said:
I never suggested that because Michael Jackson achieved massive success that it translates to all black artists! You're twisting that to give yourself another platform to talk about the history of everything.
Click to expand...
That's what you wrote and that's what I got out of it. I said that those other artists get more priority because they are white. Then you said Michael Jackson had success that they didn't have. Michael Jackson is one act. Most of the biggest sellers are still white males and mainly rock n roll. They aren't Puerto Rican or Japanese. So that doesn't really got anything to do with me saying Sony does more with Bruce Springsteen records than The Jacksons or that Bruce gets talked about more in the media.
ChrisC said:
Honestly, do not implicate me or my comments in any sexism or white supremacy.
Click to expand...

Maybe its like humor or sarcasm, comments doesn't always translate printed on the internet. I wasn't saying you yourself are these things, but I thought "let's move on" & "ramble" was implying that what I was saying was something that happened a long time ago and it's over today. So to me it's like people ignoring or dismissing something because it doesn't affect them, even if they don't think it themselves.
NatureCriminal7896 said:
but i agree that people will buy Michael "new" releases.
Click to expand...

"Michael" has gotten several album releases of unreleased music & compilations of already released songs since he passed. So I don't think Sony has any problem with releasing music by Mike. "The Jacksons" haven't. The "Jackson 5" have but they are on a different label. Motown is mostly a compilation label today anyway.
 
I acknowledge your post. Go with peace and love.
 
ChrisC said:
I raised this before, how come we have albums upon albums of unreleased Jackson 5 songs, and we have about 30 or so MJ unreleased songs but my current count of unreleased Jacksons tracks remains at 0. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

The current count of Jacksons unreleased songs needs to be updated to 1.
 
ChrisC said:
I raised this before, how come we have albums upon albums of unreleased Jackson 5 songs, and we have about 30 or so MJ unreleased songs but my current count of unreleased Jacksons tracks remains at 0. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

ChrisC said:
The current count of Jacksons unreleased songs needs to be updated to 1.
Click to expand...

Perfectly summoned.:clapping:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top