What's the difference in that and this, although not the first posthumous duet, is probably the 1st to get major popularity. It also has a music video
Mike is not related to Minnie Riperton. These types of collaborations have been going on for decades. What makes Mike exempt from the practice when he has done it himself.Natalie is Nat's own daughter.
Also, I thought we were discussing MJ posthumous duets and not those of other artist.
Minnie, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, and none of the other acts had any input into whatever was released on them after they died, so there's still no difference. So basically what you're saying is "do as I say, not as I do". If Mike had no problem with singing on Minnie's song and using vocals from Biggie Smalls, Rod Serling, Martin Luther King, etc. when they had no input in its use, then saying that it shouldn't be done with Mike's songs doesn't make sense to me. In many cases, remixes that are released while an act is alive have no input from them, unless they record exclusive vocals for the remix (ig. Bell Biv DeVoe, Mariah Carey) or remix it themselves (ig. Al B. Sure!, Prince, DJ Jazzy Jeff). That's why professional remixers or DJs are hired, to put their sound on the songs. Some acts don't even have a say in approving a remix or choosing the people doing the remix, the label does. In some cases background singers, guest musicians, or rappers are added to remixes that had nothing to do with the original song. Janet Jackson has a song called What'll I Do and there's a remix with the Red Hot Chili Peppers playing on it. They weren't on the album mix.
Does not matter if Minnie's song was promoted, how much of Mike's vocals was used, or it has a music video or not. The process behind the songs is still the same. They took Minnie's vocals, recorded new music, and had guest singers who were not originally involved. What you're saying is like because a vegan restaurant is not promoted like McDonald's with TV commercials, then it's not food like McDonald's. :rofl: A music video is a commercial for a record. Just because something is not advertised or is more popular does not make it a different thing.
Just becuase they did a song together does not necessarily mean that Biggie would automatically apporove. Mariah Carey & Nicki Minaj made a song and music video together, but it has been said that they didn't get along when they hosted American Idol. Anyway, going by what you're saying, *NSYNC performed with The Jacksons in 2001, Mike appeared with the group on MTV, and *NSYNC was also on What More Can I Give, so Mike would have no problem with Justin.
I'm not trying you change your mind, but it's hypocritical to say that Mike should be exempt, when it's done for other acts and Mike has participated in doing it. Mike was an employee of a record company just like all the rest of the acts. Thinking he should get special treatment is unrealistic.
How much or how little is irrelevant, it's still the same thing. Rod had no approval or input. If a person steals a penny or $20,000, it is still stealing. What about these then?
You can't compare the music industry to the fast food industry because whether you know it or not they are very different.
AFAIK Biggie and MJ never had a falling out whereas Nicki Minaj and Mariah obviously held contempt for one another, and NSYNC and Justin Timberlake are not one and the same.
I didn't say Mike stole. He obviously got permission to use the voice. It says in the credits "Audio snippets of Rod Serling courtesy of CBS Broadcasting". If it was public domain, no such credit is needed. But Rod himself did not participate in the song, nor gave approval himself. I'm saying it's no different than putting Justin Timberlake on a recording with Mike. Rod was not alive when Threatened was made, but he was put in it.
I think Princess is in denial lol. IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING
