Latest on MJJC

I Am a Fan, But... (What Makes You Heretic Among Other Fans?)

I came to really like the golden "leothong" because it enhances Michael´s slim and toned body! Am I the only person thinking the leothong even was well fitted in the crotch area and did not give anything away, like being too tight. if you know what I mean lol.

Also, didn´t Michael Bush say that he tried to convince Michael to leave out that little "tail" on the back of the thong? And Michael said, no he wanted it for fun (it would fly around when he danced) and also he wanted to see the reaction of the media and concertgoers. :laughing:
 
analogue said:
Whenever someone questions why Michael had friendships with children, I hate how some fans defend that by saying ''He never had a childhood'' - I think that is a really weak defense. I always say ''Yeah, it's not common, but his friendships with children were completly innocent''
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a particular conversation about one of our "scandals" in Brazil, which is... modern art exhibition featuring a naked guy and some randomly present kids who were taken to the museum by their parents. Not for this thread but the word "innocent" is so... relative. FYI I left the group after 5 days. The fans there were "blindly stupid".
 
I really wish he didn't wear that leotard on the Dangerous tour. It wouldn't be as bad if he didn't have that thing on the back of his pants. Anytime I show friends clips of that tour they ask why hes wearing a "thong" and I'm forced to try and explain that lmao. The gold pants from History are cool but as a heterosexual male it can be annoying as well.

It urks the heck out of me that Remember the Time was never on one of his tours. I've heard all of the rumors as to why but it doesn't justify it. To me he could have easily taken out "working day and night" on Dangerous (which i do love) and put RTT in there.

I think History was such a weak finish for the History Tour especially considering how epic MITM was for Dangerous.

I've never been much of a "Childhood" fan. I know, I know lol. Oh, you can throw "Say Say Say" on there as well.

The Dangerous performance is excellent, but isn't the be all end all MJ performance. They're all very similar as well...too similar.

I think thats enough for now lol.
 
I agree with the weak defense of. "Never had a childhood". While there is truth to it, it gives no tangible proof of innocence. Plus, who hasn't heard that line 1000 times about Michael?

They've already heard that story, over and over..

I just explain the reason we (general public) dont find it "normal" is because of what we've learned as "social norm".. now what if you (like michael) were not raised in society to really experience "social norm"?


I'll tell you this, culturally it's much more excepted in some cultures over others. I've personally slept next to adults alot growing up. Aunts, uncles, family friends etc.

And I'll say this, when you'rs interaction is on the road growing up.. you are always sleeping around adults. One city to the next, bunking in hotels with the band and crew.. In that environment it's very normal.. I mean even his brothers were adults when they'd share rooms.

You cant expect normalcy from someone that lived a very untraditional life
 
Scorpio said:
I think History was such a weak finish for the History Tour especially considering how epic MITM was for Dangerous.
.
Click to expand...

I get that he wanted to do something different, but that performance just feels really anti-climatic to me. If he was gonna do something different, then I would have liked it better if he ended with Earth Song.
 
I guess a more controversial opinion I have would be that while I think Martin Bashir is a huge piece of shit for what he did to Michael and I will never forgive him for that, I don't think he was solely to blame for what ensued in 2005. Most of the blame falls entirely on Tom Sneddon and the Arvizos.

Martin Bashir was and still is, a sleazeball journalist who did what all sleazeball journalists do and created controversy and headlines...and if it wasn't Michael Jackson, it would have been another celebrity. And as much as he's a piece of shit, he was doing what was expected of him to do. The two rebuttal documentaries (Footage You Were Never Meant To See and Private Home Videos) should have been more than enough to repair his image...But then there was that bastard Tom Sneddon, who would literally do anything and everything to incriminate Michael Jackson....Part of me still thinks to this day, if Sneddon had been removed from office before the Arvizos made their false claims, the case would have possibly been thrown out, like it should. And the Private Home Videos documentary would have had more effect to repair his image.


The point I'm trying to make is, Martin Bashir was the villian's sidekick while Tom Sneddon was the true villian in the Michael Jackson saga.
 
Yes, what Bashir did was unethical but not to be unexpected given his profession. MJ was foolish in allowing Bashir to have full editorial control over the documentary, and even more foolish to sit there holding Arvizo's hand. Clearly it was a set up - no boy of that age would be caught on camera holding a man's hand, particularly a man accused of crimes against children. Imagine the bullying and jokes he would be victim of!! It was done on purpose because it would be 'good evidence' in the case against MJ that we know they were already planning!
MJ's explanation of the 'sharing the bed' issue was ridiculously weak and gives many people the creeps. MJ was a fool and had nobody else to blame but himself for that particular aspect of the documentary. But that doesn't mean Bashir was any less of a villain in this story - to fawn over MJ in between takes and then add sinister voice overs to the documentary is beyond evil.

Of course Sneddon himself was beyond desperate in the way he tried to prosecute MJ and clearly used the trial to destroy MJ. He knew what he was doing when he made claims that he simply could not prove. In fact in some cases he never even attempted to prove the statements he made during opening arguments. He knew that even if he didn't manage to prosecute MJ successfully that MJ would be critically damaged goods.
 
analogue said:
I get that he wanted to do something different, but that performance just feels really anti-climatic to me. If he was gonna do something different, then I would have liked it better if he ended with Earth Song.
Click to expand...

Heck yeah! I think the message would have made even more of an impact had Earth Song closed the show. The song itself is ok, for what it is but I also was just never that into it. It was more so a showing of theatrics IMO, so Earth Song would have been just fine in that same position. It also seems weird to me that he went with a song that wasn't necessarily a hit or anything. I remember the first time I saw a full History Show and thinking to myself, "ok, that was cool....but thats it!?" Hahahaha. I guess I was just expecting something I feel was far more epic, like a MITM from the previous two tours. IMO he kind of put himself in a corner by closing out Dangerous with the rocket man. Im sure it was a challenge to try and top that, though it is interesting he went back to a more epic MITM closing for TII. Its all relative I guess. I'm glad I'm not the only one hahaha.

I do agree in part with the Martin Bashir comments. I think perhaps there was an initial intent to show the right stuff and show the right footage; however, I believe once an opportunity presented itself he and his crew decided to basically turn it into a bit of a slander. Whether or not that was the intent from the beginning is up for debate I suppose. I just know that I've watched that doc soooo many times in the past, because there were some good aspect of it....its just the "negative" is what everyone ran with. Perhaps Bashir was under pressure, perhaps he was in the pocket of a guy like Sneddon...we'll never really KNOW the truth, but it wouldn't surprise me if both were the case and thus the product we received.
 
I don't like or understand the comparisons to other artists. especially Prince and Freddie mercury .
 
Michael's Essence said:
I don't like or understand the comparisons to other artists. especially Prince and Freddie mercury .
Click to expand...

I agree, especially with the Prince thing. I'm sure back in the 80s it made sense because you had two Kings in their prime thriving at the exact same time. It is always cool to take a side and argue for who you support. Once the 90's hit though the conversation didn't really exist though with Michael's hardships, and Prince going with the whole don't call me Prince thing. Heck I too used to partake in these arguments of who is better, because as I said they were fun! Today though I kind of just appreciate them both, and its more enjoyable that way. Last week I watched my very first Prince concert in full (Prince and the Revolution), and it was great...confusing at times but still entertaining. That show was in the 80s and all I could think about is how him and Michael were totally different artists. To me its like saying who was the better NFL player this quarterback or this defensive player...well they didn't do the same thing so you can't really compare the two. They are both great at what they do.

Michael's fans tend to go to the hits and his dancing and Prince fans tend to go to the fact that he played a ton of instruments and is considered a "real artist". I guess it depends on what you considered to be "real". I guess Prince will forever be better than everyone if thats the case then (even though Michael could play instruments as well).

While I'm at it: Michael put out albums about every 4 years. Prince literally had one every single year at one point. One could argue that the quality of Michael's work makes him better. Honestly with Prince I have to try and piece a list of his together, but with Michael he only has so many albums but there are so many hits on each one of those. You kind of have to know what you are looking for with Prince to really find his great work outside of "Purple Rain" IMO. Honestly I think "The Gold Experience" is his best album, but what do I know. hahaha.
 
They were very different artists and the comparison was more PR built. At least that's where it started. They were both simply pretty boy black artists that were both influenced by James brown and thats all they had in common
 
I'm glad Bruno is not doing a duet with Michael, and hope we don't get any other duet in the future unless it was recorded by Michael when he was still alive.

IF Michael was still alive and decided to do a duet with Bruno, I'd be more than happy to listen to that song but since this will never happen... *shrugs*
 
Michael saying the word ''Shorty'' on 2,000 Watts was just super cringy. It came across as a middle aged man that's desperatly trying to be trendy with the kids.
 
A simple google search says laryngitis lasts on average about 2 weeks...but most want you to believe that he not only had it during the entire History tour run of two years but basically through 2009.... How about maybe, just MAYBE his voice was shot? Why is that never a consideration for people? Im not saying he never had laryngitis at some point, but cut me a break. lol. People want to believe Michael was immortal but he wasn't! Most of the greats lose their voice at some point. Look at Whitney, look at Mariah. Michael sang live and hard for over 30 years so why is it impossible to imagine that he simply damaged his vocal box? Why do we have to say "no, he just aged" or "no he was sick"? Play the BAD album in full then play Invincible right after it and if you can honestly tell me his vocals didnt take a hit then I guess I'm crazy, hahaha. Sure he could still hit certain songs or notes with age, but I wish people would also not seem so gullible when it comes to certain things with him. He aged and his vocals were shot, it happens and its ok! IMO of course. Heck you can hear his voice begin to take a hit during the Dangerous tour. Listen to his vocals he did live for the Sultan in 96. I think what happened was something far more naturally that some fans just don't want to admit for some reason. As if it makes him a bad artist or something? I dont know.

Along those lines I really can not stand when people get on Michael and lip-syching. I prefer my Michael live as well but non-fans really take it as an end of the world thing. I'll read uneducated comments online of people saying, "well, lip-syched most of the time"....well that's just silly. The fact of the matter is this man sung live (for the most part) his first 30 years of his life. Think about that for more than half a second....30 YEARS. People seem to be so "triggered" by lip-syching that they will look at one portion of Michael's career (96 and up) and say that was his entire duration. They do not take into consideration that he was also someone who danced their ass off which made singing live for a duration at peak level near impossible (again consider he did it for 30 years previously). It is always annoying to me when people compare him to say a Beyonce and they'll say things like, "Well she sang live all the time so shes the GOAT!". Honey, when your "Goat" calls someone else the greatest that kinda disqualifies the point IMO, and she also hasn't been singing live for 30 years.
 
Last edited:
Scorpio said:
Along those lines I really can not stand when people get on Michael and lip-syching. I prefer my Michael live as well but non-fans really take it as an end of the world thing. I'll read uneducated comments online of people saying, "well, lip-syched most of the time"....well that's just silly. The fact of the matter is this man sung live (for the most part) his first 30 years of his life. Think about that for more than half a second....30 YEARS. People seem to be so "triggered" by lip-syching that they will look at one portion of Michael's career (96 and up) and say that was his entire duration. They do not take into consideration that he was also someone who danced their ass off which made singing live for a duration at peak level near impossible (again consider he did it for 30 years previously). It is always annoying to me when people compare him to say a Beyonce and they'll say things like, "Well she sang live all the time so shes the GOAT!". Honey, when your "Goat" calls someone else the greatest that kinda disqualifies the point IMO, and she also hasn't been singing live for 30 years.
Click to expand...
Oh, I completely agree with you on this, especially the bolded.
 
Scorpio said:
A simple google search says laryngitis lasts on average about 2 weeks...but most want you to believe that he not only had it during the entire History tour run of two years but basically through 2009.... How about maybe, just MAYBE his voice was shot? Why is that never a consideration for people? Im not saying he never had laryngitis at some point, but cut me a break. lol. People want to believe Michael was immortal but he wasn't! Most of the greats lose their voice at some point. Look at Whitney, look at Mariah. Michael sang live and hard for over 30 years so why is it impossible to imagine that he simply damaged his vocal box? Why do we have to say "no, he just aged" or "no he was sick"? Play the BAD album in full then play Invincible right after it and if you can honestly tell me his vocals didnt take a hit then I guess I'm crazy, hahaha. Sure he could still hit certain songs or notes with age, but I wish people would also not seem so gullible when it comes to certain things with him. He aged and his vocals were shot, it happens and its ok! IMO of course. Heck you can hear his voice begin to take a hit during the Dangerous tour. Listen to his vocals he did live for the Sultan in 96. I think what happened was something far more naturally that some fans just don't want to admit for some reason. As if it makes him a bad artist or something? I dont know.

Along those lines I really can not stand when people get on Michael and lip-syching. I prefer my Michael live as well but non-fans really take it as an end of the world thing. I'll read uneducated comments online of people saying, "well, lip-syched most of the time"....well that's just silly. The fact of the matter is this man sung live (for the most part) his first 30 years of his life. Think about that for more than half a second....30 YEARS. People seem to be so "triggered" by lip-syching that they will look at one portion of Michael's career (96 and up) and say that was his entire duration. They do not take into consideration that he was also someone who danced their ass off which made singing live for a duration at peak level near impossible (again consider he did it for 30 years previously). It is always annoying to me when people compare him to say a Beyonce and they'll say things like, "Well she sang live all the time so shes the GOAT!". Honey, when your "Goat" calls someone else the greatest that kinda disqualifies the point IMO, and she also hasn't been singing live for 30 years.
Click to expand...

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
During the HIStory Tour there was something clearly wrong with Michael's voice. Just listen to how rough and scratchy it sounded when he actually did sing live on that tour. In 2009 for This Is It, his voice was in much better shape.
 
analogue said:
During the HIStory Tour there was something clearly wrong with Michael's voice. Just listen to how rough and scratchy it sounded when he actually did sing live on that tour. In 2009 for This Is It, his voice was in much better shape.[/QUOTE?]

I agree that his voice was definitely more raspy for History. I can also hear it being a little rough for the 30th anniversary show and This is It. WBSS for TII is probably the best example. It wasnt that it sounded bad, it just sounded like a man whos voice was worn out from the years of wear and tear (IMO). I don't think it was nearly as bad as the History tour (to your point), but it certainly was not what it was, which is in part to be expected. I just personally think there was something a little more natural that happened rather than it ONLY being he was sick or something.
Click to expand...
 
This is It is absolutely no way of judging MJs true ability. Audio was edited and we don't know MJs effort level.

MJs voice wasn't shot - he recorded Invincible and re-recorded the 30th Anniversary show in the studio and it sounded great. Invincible has some of his best vocal performances. I've never really seen 30th Anniversary amateur but by all accounts he put on a fantastic show on the 10th September. He still had it. We must remember he was on all kinds of crap during the HIStory tour. Could it have effected his voice? Who knows.

Wouldn't surprise me if the Bad and Dangerous tours were damaging to his voice. Especially Bad, the over-the-top schedule and it being 95% live is absolutely crazy.
 
Alright here's a hot take:

The Victory Tour sucks and I have absolutely no desire to see it released. That concert that leaked a couple years back sounded absolutely terrible. MJ moved great but the stage is filled with losers. The Bad Tour onward are the only tours I care about. I'd even prefer HIStory Wembley over a Victory Tour show.

Also - I love the HIStory Tour. Some amazing effects and MJs movement was on another level. Much slower but he seemed to adapt to it and change it up completely - absolutely mesmerising to watch.
 
I'd prefer a release of the Triumph Tour over the Victory Tour.
 
Billie Jean have such a boring composition and the most easy to play drum beat. Though i like the song. But it's overrated as hell.
 
His vocals on Invincible sound worse than his previous albums to me. I feel like fans prefer them because they a rougher, but when he screams he sounds strained and like he is really pushing his voice. Not at all how is vocals sounded prior.
 
Last edited:
SmoothGangsta said:
His vocals on Invincible sound worse than his previous albums to me. I feel like fans prefer them because they a rougher, but when he screams he sounds strained and like he is really pushing his voice. Not at all how is vocals sounded prior.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. But only on some songs. Whatever Happens for example. I like it but it sounds like it wasn't his best vocal-day.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
His vocals on Invincible sound worse than his previous albums to me. I feel like fans prefer them because they a rougher, but when he screams he sounds strained and like he is really pushing his voice. Not at all how is vocals sounded prior.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.
Strained is the word. Shouty would be another for some parts. Adlibs were great on other albums but Vince they weren't as good.
 
With Invincible I think a few factors played roles in his voice being a bit different..

1. naturally with age and strain over the years his voice was a little deepe
2. they filtered out a lot of the natural sounds they usually kept in.. (breathing, background noises that Michael would make etc.) made it less authentic
3. his voice did become a little more nasally and his breathing patterns were different. you could tell he had to try more..

I still think he sounded amazing though, id still love to hear Break Of Dawn Acapella!
 
2000 Watts seems to have a sort of "cult-like" following these days and I've just personally never got the hype. Heck you want to talk about controversy of tracks "not being him" ? Man, back in the day the community used to dog the track and literally have silly arguments of it not being him....because I guess computer programs can't alter the sound of your voice. I guess it wasn't really Janet on the track "You" either? I mean really, why would HE allow someone not him to be him on HIS album. I just never understood those silly arguments that don't seem to exist these days.

Anyways... 2000 Watts is ok for what it is I guess but I personally think its one of if not the weakest track on an otherwise excellent album full of content.
 
analogue said:
I'd prefer a release of the Triumph Tour over the Victory Tour.
Click to expand...

I remember a few years ago there was a rumor of one of those (I believe it was Victory) being set for a possible release in theaters. Haven't heard anything about that one sense but I'd probably agree with you on that one since there is at least 1 pretty decent Victory show online now.
 
I realize this is a controversial post, but I really, really hate all the plastic surgery that Michael did on his face.

I know, it was his choice, but it's a clear sign of illness. Nobody would make themselves look like that without needing some sort of therapy, especially when Michael was always a good looking guy.

This is not debating Michael's beautiful personality or his talent. But he needed help and someone to tell him no.

I'm probably going to get my head bitten off for this post.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top