Let me get this straight, you're telling me that Michael Jackson is not salesworthy in 2010 but a Michael Jackson imposter is? You're saying this with a straight face? Not only do I beg to disagree but, also, I find that a completely outrageous, nay, insulting statement.
Any of the songs i've mentioned could've been worked on to give them a modern sound.*
Hence 50 Cent rapping with an imitator. You can applaud that if you want to. As far as I'm concerned Michael Jackson earned his Throne with blood, sweat and tears.
Hiring an impersonator and adding the ridiculous 50 ('I don't know what you heard about me, but I'm a muthafucking P.I.M.P.)' Cent is an abomination. Trying to raise Michael from the dead to compete with Justin Bieber and Usher is NOT what I'd wish for his legacy. You do? Well I hope you enjoy it. I don't.*
Michael Jackson is the Mozart of modern music. And he should be revered as such. And his legacy should be managed as such.
Yes. You've completely misunderstood. But I didn't expect anything else. Maybe you'd have understood had you tried not to be so condescending. Most of my friends respect music. They couldn't give a toss about sales or revenue. They care about art and the artists. They care about integrity and legacy. They'd understand that Michael Jackson singing a song like DYKWYCA, a song about child abuse, with a profound message, would be much more legitimate and much more worthy of the*man compared to the hiring of an imposter singing, 'Mamma say mamma got you in a zig zag'.
But what do I know, right?*
You can continue with the insults all you like, at the end of the day, it'll only get you permanently banned.
As far as your first point of this post, you obviously didn't even read the post and just proceeded to insult my intelligence, way to go. Anyway, did I say Michael isn't profitable in 2010? I don't think I did, I said his song content, and the tune of
the songs you mentioned aren't profitable in 2010, because it's not. You still have 0% of proof that it isn't Michael on some of these records, so it's rather comical that you keep speaking of an "imposter". The songs you mentioned could have been worked on for a modern sound, but at the end of day, would you be satisfied with the work that would have to be done to the songs for that to occur? I doubt you would.
Also, did I "applaud" anything they've done? I don't think I did, in fact, I think in my last post I said specifically,
"do I agree with what they did? No, but I understand why it was done." What does 50 Cent have to do with this, also? You're saying it's a slap in the face of Michael's legacy that he's even on this album, but you fail to realize he was only added to appeal to the Hip-Hop audience. So I guess Michael flushed his legacy down the toilet by including both Heavy D and Notorious BIG on Dangerous, and then on Invincible. It's hypocritical you blame the Estate/Sony for doing such a thing, when Michael usually pulled the biggest names in Hip-Hop at the time to be featured on his records.
Alright, so you admit you and your friends don't care about revenue? You just contradicted yourself, by saying "businesses don't do that", in reference to the material included. But the sole purpose of a business is to garner revenue, is it not? DYKWYCA wouldn't garner much revenue in 2010, it's a song that should be heard, and paid attention to, and it should be played to the masses, but the reality of it is, it'll never be a hit. It's not a song the mainstream public would particularly be interested in listening to. You really fail to understand how the music industry and labels work today.
