To hear that the track might be dropping isn't shocking to me. Most of the initial listens were strictly a curiosity thing. The internet and Drake made it a "must listen" for much of the world. Once you hear it though the magic is gone, which has nothing to do with its quality mind you. I played it once and have no desire to ever listen to it again personally. I don't fault those who enjoy it or anything whatsoever. The overall point is more so just that a lot of people did just that....thus it started out strong and is starting to fade into "old news".
I don't know about that. Maybe songs like Earth Song, Little Susie, Blood On The Dancefloor, & Childhood were. They Don't Care About Us probably didn't get played because when the album came out, Jewish groups here in the US complained about it, so on later pressings of HIStory the word was bleeped out. Even bleeped out, people knew what was said, since it was all over the news, so that likely hurt any chances of radio airplay. But there were other songs on the album that were US radio friendly. You Not Alone was a big hit on the Hot 100, R&B, & adult contemporary charts. Like I mentioned earlier, This Time Around could have gotten airplay. There was a promo maxi single with remixes on it for that. But it was never actually put out as a single.And while I'm sure the controversies played a part, I honestly think Michael's music was so far away from where the US was at radio-wise it just couldn't find a place.
I don't think anyone said anything about quality, but that some of his later stuff did not fit as well with what was popular on the radio and with the general public at the time. Like if Billie Jean was a new song today and was the exact same track, it doesn't really fit on the Top 40 with Cardi B, Migos, Rihanna, DJ Khaled, & Post Malone. It's not a sound that's in now. Few if any songs from the 1980s would become popular today, especially the rock songs from that era, because rock music does not have the same popularity now. If Mike was still alive today and releasing new music, it is unlikely to get played on Top 40 either because he would be over a certain age. At best, it would only get on adult R&B or adult contemporary stations in the US.KOPV;4225740 said:Not the lack of quality of his work!!
dam2040;4225648 said:MJ sounds terrible on it (through no fault of his own). You can barely recognise it’s him. What on earth did they do to his voice..
He doesn't sound terrible, but it sounds like they put his vocals through some sort of mix. It fits the song, which says that, probably, the song would have been better being finished by someone other than Drake.
dam2040;4225755 said:MJs voice on the original is probably great. But my point is that whatever they've done to his voice sounds horrible.[
I’m still wondering if I’m listening to the same song as some of you are. I purchased the song on Amazon and it sounds amazing. Of course there is a little tweeking of Michael’s voice to fit the flavor of song. However, it sounds extremely close to the original, which I have heard. There is nothing horrible about the way Michael’s voice sounds on this song. Maybe some of you are listening to the FAKE vocals from You Tube and other unauthorized places. Seriously, Michael’s vocals are not altered that much. I am loving the song for what it is. This is not a Michael solo and we need to accept that Michael’s vocals are featured on a Drake track. Btw, if the song was as bad as some of you claim, I would be the first saying that. Finally, when I listen to the song, I also turn on the lyrics and Michael’s part fits in so well with Drake’s lyrics. I support Michael; therefore, I support this project.
somewhereinthedark;4225763 said:dam2040;4225755 said:MJs voice on the original is probably great. But my point is that whatever they've done to his voice sounds horrible.[
I’m still wondering if I’m listening to the same song as some of you are. I purchased the song on Amazon and it sounds amazing. Of course there is a little tweeking of Michael’s voice to fit the flavor of song. However, it sounds extremely close to the original, which I have heard. There is nothing horrible about the way Michael’s voice sounds on this song. Maybe some of you are listening to the FAKE vocals from You Tube and other unauthorized places. Seriously, Michael’s vocals are not altered that much. I am loving the song for what it is. This is not a Michael solo and we need to accept that Michael’s vocals are featured on a Drake track. Btw, if the song was as bad as some of you claim, I would be the first saying that. Finally, when I listen to the song, I also turn on the lyrics and Michael’s part fits in so well with Drake’s lyrics. I support Michael; therefore, I support this project.
How have you heard the original? Okay this post messed up lol.
SmoothGangsta;4225768 said:somewhereinthedark;4225763 said:How have you heard the original? Okay this post messed up lol.
I was searching around the internet and clicked a site(can’t remember the site right now). There was a snippet of Michael singing with only piano accompaniment. I assumed that was original vocals. I could be wrong.
Let's not forget what Michael did often did not fit what was on the radio.. the radio fit around him!!!
.. while Michael did take elements from what people were listening to - he took that to another level.. made music for fans of all ganres, and that's what got him so widely loved.. not cuz he can emulate what others are doing. He would take a trend, try to vision where the trend will go - and go there before anyone else did.
SmoothGangsta;4225768 said:somewhereinthedark;4225763 said:How have you heard the original? Okay this post messed up lol.
Heard an audio of Michael singing with piano accompaniment only. I can’t remember the site at the moment; however, this was almost a week ago. I’m still trying to search for this again.
somewhereinthedark;4225769 said:SmoothGangsta;4225768 said:I was searching around the internet and clicked a site(can’t remember the site right now). There was a snippet of Michael singing with only piano accompaniment. I assumed that was original vocals. I could be wrong.
We've never heard the original.
somewhereinthedark;4225763 said:I’m still wondering if I’m listening to the same song as some of you are. I purchased the song on Amazon and it sounds amazing. Of course there is a little tweeking of Michael’s voice to fit the flavor of song. However, it sounds extremely close to the original, which I have heard. There is nothing horrible about the way Michael’s voice sounds on this song. Maybe some of you are listening to the FAKE vocals from You Tube and other unauthorized places. Seriously, Michael’s vocals are not altered that much. I am loving the song for what it is. This is not a Michael solo and we need to accept that Michael’s vocals are featured on a Drake track. Btw, if the song was as bad as some of you claim, I would be the first saying that. Finally, when I listen to the song, I also turn on the lyrics and Michael’s part fits in so well with Drake’s lyrics. I support Michael; therefore, I support this project.
Michael works with Will.I.Am = 'Not allowed to use the material'
Drake who's never even met Michael = 'Go ahead'.
There's a real lapse in logic there.
I don't understand this point that because Michael never met an artist, his music shouldn't be used by them or they shouldn't feature on his songs. Like, it's the dumbest logic ever. How was Michael meant to meet Drake, when the latter only really begin his career after Michael's death.
Will.I.am = has been
Drake = best selling current artist.
The Estate is still a business why not use Drake to push some music. Will has long been out of date. Any song with him would not receive any radio play.
Let's not forget what Michael did often did not fit what was on the radio.. the radio fit around him!!!
.. while Michael did take elements from what people were listening to - he took that to another level.. made music for fans of all ganres, and that's what got him so widely loved.. not cuz he can emulate what others are doing. He would take a trend, try to vision where the trend will go - and go there before anyone else did.
dam2040;4225773 said:The fact it's quite obviously a DIY acapella rubs me the wrong way for starters. It also might be because I'm so used to MJs pure, raw voice this just sounds wrong. Some guy made a mashup of MJ words and turned it into a song. At times it sounds like that. It effected negatively on Michael too. A lot of people said he could've 'come harder' on the track [I saw a tweet with a few thousand likes etc saying as much]. People will like it. When I saw Drake ft Michael Jackson I was excited. This didn't deliver.
Supporting Michael has nothing to do with this, he had no involvement or say in it.[/QUOTE
Of course Michael had no involvement, he’s not here. However, I still support this project because it’s Michael and it gives him exposure to a different audience. I am a dedicated fan of many, many, many years. I don’t have to be convinced of Michael’s music and vocals. I will be a fan for all time. Nothing will ever change that. Again, I like this project, and hope it continues to be a success.
You're acting like Mike is the 1st artist in history to have stuff put out and have no say in it. Minnie Riperton had no say in Mike singing on her song I'm In Love Again, but he did it and John Lennon had no involvement in what the other 3 Beatles did with Free As A Bird. Yoko Ono gave them John's demos. Jimi Hendrix has had more albums released after he passed than he did when he was alive. When they used to release remix 12" singles, an act might not have anything to do with it and they were alive. Some artists got involved with remixes like picking the remixer or doing an entire different vocal for it. If the artist did not want to do that, then the label chose who did the remix. A lot of people think musical artists have all the power to do what they want with their music, when they're really an employee of a company. The company is the boss, not the artist, unless they self-release their music.Supporting Michael has nothing to do with this, he had no involvement or say in it.
somewhereinthedark;4225771 said:SmoothGangsta;4225768 said:Heard an audio of Michael singing with piano accompaniment only. I can’t remember the site at the moment; however, this was almost a week ago. I’m still trying to search for this again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doz9tSz-dSI are you reffering to that? that's fanmade !
You're acting like Mike is the 1st artist in history to have stuff put out and have no say in it. Minnie Riperton had no say in Mike singing on her song I'm In Love Again, but he did it and John Lennon had no involvement in what the other 3 Beatles did with Free As A Bird. Yoko Ono gave them John's demos. Jimi Hendrix has had more albums released after he passed than he did when he was alive. When they used to release remix 12" singles, an act might not have anything to do with it and they were alive. Some artists got involved with remixes like picking the remixer or doing an entire different vocal for it. If the artist did not want to do that, then the label chose who did the remix. A lot of people think musical artists have all the power to do what they want with their music, when they're really an employee of a company. The company is the boss, not the artist, unless they self-release their music.
If an artist wants that, then they wouldn't sign with a record company in the first place, especially not a major one. That's what Ani DiFranco did, she self released her music. She might not have gotten on Top 40 radio or sold a huge amount of records, but that's not how she wanted to do it. Notice that all of these acts who sign with a major label and later complain about it like Mike, Prince, George Michael, Metallica, TLC, Terence Trent D'Arby, Chaka Khan, Teena Marie, etc. Prince went around with "slave" written on his face and changed his name to a symbol in the 1990s to protest Warner Brothers. George Michael couldn't release any music because he was in a lawsuit with Sony that Sony dragged out for years because they could afford to do that, nor would they let him out of his contract. It's like employees working at any place might not like their employer, but they can't really do anything about it. Signing with a label is how The Beatles lost their song publishing in the first place for Mike to later buy in the 1980s. It was in their contract that they and/or Brian Epstein didn't read or they didn't understand what was written. Because label contracts are written that way, to be in the labels' favor, not the artists favor. A corporation is never really designed to be fair to its employees, they exploit their workers and the person at the top gets rich. If the labels were fair, the J5 would have never left Motown to go to Epic. The labels also would not own the master recordings to their acts, even if they are not with the label anymore. The acts on the label are considered workers for hire.Dear DuranDuran,
I truly hope you are an employer/boss yourself, otherwise the neoliberal ideology underlying your argument would be rather sad. Michael was the real deal where artistry is concerned and I'd rather have artistic integrity and the artist's vision over the concerns of corporatists any day, thank you very much.
That said, I quite like Don't Matter...
