Latest on MJJC

The Discussion of MJ's Unreleased Tracks

Read carefully the handwritten notes from mj the lyrics are very similiar
 
Lotfi11k said:
Who can found Ryan Arnold that said about Delilah unreleased MJ
Click to expand...

Here :
https://www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/bhi3u6
The quote :
"
  1. Yes actually. I didn't hear many tracks that were cut, but two stuck out to me. Basszouille, which had circus vibes in an orchestral type way. It sounds a lot like Little Susie because the texture of instruments is the same. Another was a cover of Tom Jone's Delilah, but funky with a swingbeat."
 
Pollonio said:
Here :
https://www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/bhi3u6
The quote :
"
  1. Yes actually. I didn't hear many tracks that were cut, but two stuck out to me. Basszouille, which had circus vibes in an orchestral type way. It sounds a lot like Little Susie because the texture of instruments is the same. Another was a cover of Tom Jone's Delilah, but funky with a swingbeat."
Click to expand...
Yes i know but i want to ask him
 
I feel like Basszouille has no vocals since the person doing the AMA implies that the song was dropped pretty early on due to how similar it was to Little Susie and also makes no mention of the vocals but only the instrumentals.
 
ChanceToDance said:
I feel like Basszouille has no vocals since the person doing the AMA implies that the song was dropped pretty early on due to how similar it was to Little Susie and also makes no mention of the vocals but only the instrumentals.
Click to expand...

There's conflict because Ryan says it exists but when a fan asked Bruce Swedien about it, Bruce said he never heard of it.
 
BlackAnon said:
There's conflict because Ryan says it exists but when a fan asked Bruce Swedien about it, Bruce said he never heard of it.
Click to expand...
Not everything ended up on Bruce' desk. It probably was discarded at early stages.
 
Regarding “Apocalypse Now,” from an interview with John Robinson in Let’s Make HIStory by Brice Najar:

Q: In 2001, you played on the song “Cry” for the Invincible album. Did you perceive any organizational differences between that setup and the 1980s Quincy Jones productions?

A: Yes, it was totally different. We were at Record One, and Michael would not show up on those days—he called me on the telephone and gave me instructions, but he was incredibly focused. It was a different era, you know, and Quincy Jones wasn’t producing. Actually, I think “Cry” is the only song that has acoustic drums on it. I also recorded two other tunes for that record that never came out: one was called “Apocalypse Now” with big drums on it. It was kind of an “end of the rope” song and I recorded four military percussion parts and wrote six and a half minutes of military music. I had a gran casa and a duo of piatti. I used four piccolo snare drums. It was great! Except it wouldn’t have blended with the record anyway.
 
Fuzball said:
Not everything ended up on Bruce' desk. It probably was discarded at early stages.
Click to expand...
Of course but with Bruce being his main engineer for many years, you’d think they’d go through him at some point.
 
AlwaysThere said:
Regarding “Apocalypse Now,” from an interview with John Robinson in Let’s Make HIStory by Brice Najar:

Q: In 2001, you played on the song “Cry” for the Invincible album. Did you perceive any organizational differences between that setup and the 1980s Quincy Jones productions?

A: Yes, it was totally different. We were at Record One, and Michael would not show up on those days—he called me on the telephone and gave me instructions, but he was incredibly focused. It was a different era, you know, and Quincy Jones wasn’t producing. Actually, I think “Cry” is the only song that has acoustic drums on it. I also recorded two other tunes for that record that never came out: one was called “Apocalypse Now” with big drums on it. It was kind of an “end of the rope” song and I recorded four military percussion parts and wrote six and a half minutes of military music. I had a gran casa and a duo of piatti. I used four piccolo snare drums. It was great! Except it wouldn’t have blended with the record anyway.
Click to expand...
So the vocals can be recorded
 
AlwaysThere said:
Regarding “Apocalypse Now,” from an interview with John Robinson in Let’s Make HIStory by Brice Najar:

Q: In 2001, you played on the song “Cry” for the Invincible album. Did you perceive any organizational differences between that setup and the 1980s Quincy Jones productions?

A: Yes, it was totally different. We were at Record One, and Michael would not show up on those days—he called me on the telephone and gave me instructions, but he was incredibly focused. It was a different era, you know, and Quincy Jones wasn’t producing. Actually, I think “Cry” is the only song that has acoustic drums on it. I also recorded two other tunes for that record that never came out: one was called “Apocalypse Now” with big drums on it. It was kind of an “end of the rope” song and I recorded four military percussion parts and wrote six and a half minutes of military music. I had a gran casa and a duo of piatti. I used four piccolo snare drums. It was great! Except it wouldn’t have blended with the record anyway.
Click to expand...
Was that other tune We've Had Enough, or was it a completely unknown song?
 
AlwaysThere said:
Regarding “Apocalypse Now,” from an interview with John Robinson in Let’s Make HIStory by Brice Najar:

Q: In 2001, you played on the song “Cry” for the Invincible album. Did you perceive any organizational differences between that setup and the 1980s Quincy Jones productions?

A: Yes, it was totally different. We were at Record One, and Michael would not show up on those days—he called me on the telephone and gave me instructions, but he was incredibly focused. It was a different era, you know, and Quincy Jones wasn’t producing. Actually, I think “Cry” is the only song that has acoustic drums on it. I also recorded two other tunes for that record that never came out: one was called “Apocalypse Now” with big drums on it. It was kind of an “end of the rope” song and I recorded four military percussion parts and wrote six and a half minutes of military music. I had a gran casa and a duo of piatti. I used four piccolo snare drums. It was great! Except it wouldn’t have blended with the record anyway.
Click to expand...
That's really odd, he basically said the exact same thing on the interview from 2010 but this time he says the song is from Invincible. Could it be possible that he's misremembering or it was also reworked for Invincible?
 
ChanceToDance said:
That's really odd, he basically said the exact same thing on the interview from 2010 but this time he says the song is from Invincible. Could it be possible that he's misremembering or it was also reworked for Invincible?
Click to expand...
I kinda think he's just harping on Apocalypse Now is all. He just wants that producer kudos.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Is Man in the Music worth the read?
Click to expand...
Coming back to this. Short answer - it depends. On balance, I would say, yeah, go for it.

Depends on what your expectations are or what you want from a Michael book. If you are a veteran fan, you've read loads of Michael books, you know loads about his work and you want to be surprised by this book, maybe you won't get much out of it. Since Joe published his book there have been quite a few others that have avoided the tabloid trash approach and actually looked at Michael's work seriously. Joe's book must have been one of the first to do that but there is more choice now.

I haven't seen the first edition, except online, but I know it's really different. Lots of photos, seems to have a nice layout. Production values look high. Looks quite large format. I have the pbk 2019 edition. Low-ish production values, Really boring set of photos in the middle - the album covers plus one photo of Michael in the studio (not rare). The first edition has a foreword by Anthony de Curtis, in the 2nd edition that's gone.

I was a bit lukewarm about the book bc reading books about music isn't really my thing. Just started re-reading this. Had forgotten that I do like his writing style. He's an academic, a good writer, imo.

"As an artist, then, his work was about liberation. He wanted to free what was bound, awaken what was dormant. He wanted to break through barriers and limitations - any obstacle in the way of his ambition or imagination. He wanted to invigorate the body, mind and soul. This is what the music did for him personally ...

This was his gift as an artist: his ability to fully dissolve into the stories, the emotions, and the magic of his music - and to take people from all walks of life with him. He called this creative bond many things over the years: escapism, entertainment, showmanship, art. But ultimately, for Jackson, it was about sharing and receiving love."
(Joe Vogel)

dethorro said:
If you have been a fan for a while, Man In The Music is not very interesting, at least not the original edition. The 2019 edition is better though and contains some information, which at that time, was not known to the public.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I'd still say, go for it.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Is Man in the Music worth the read?
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

Vogel is fortunate enough to have spoken with many of the key players for Thriller and Bad, and as a result those chapters are fantastic. He’s very comprehensive with everything from the writing and recording process, to the influences that shaped the album, to the various collaborators MJ worked with, to the month/year songs were worked on. Bad is especially detailed; the track-by-track section is as good as it gets.

Unfortunately, he still engages in a substantial amount of guesswork and includes information that has long been corrected and/or debunked. Also, it seems as though his resources for MJ’s post-Bad albums were limited, because each succeeding chapter becomes less and less informative. By the time you get to Invincible and MJ’s final years, it’s basically like reading the Wikipedia article. His writing oddly enough also seems less journalistic in his 2019 reissue, and more… high school-ish, if that makes sense? The original book was very succinct and well-thought-out, and the new edition (which I’d estimate is at least 50% rewritten) feels very thrown together. You can feel the sharp contrast between long, academia-esque sentences, and short, 11th-grade-English-essay ones. A nit pick, but one I feel compelled to note.

If you’re a newer fan with a limited understanding of MJ’s catalog, it’s a great starting point. Otherwise, I’d suggest Making Michael by Mike Smallcombe, which in my opinion is the definitive MJ biography. Concise, objective, and not shy from including observations that critique the man.
 
AlwaysThere said:
Yes and no.

Vogel is fortunate enough to have spoken with many of the key players for Thriller and Bad, and as a result those chapters are fantastic. He’s very comprehensive with everything from the writing and recording process, to the influences that shaped the album, to the various collaborators MJ worked with, to the month/year songs were worked on. Bad is especially detailed; the track-by-track section is as good as it gets.

Unfortunately, he still engages in a substantial amount of guesswork and includes information that has long been corrected and/or debunked. Also, it seems as though his resources for MJ’s post-Bad albums were limited, because each succeeding chapter becomes less and less informative. By the time you get to Invincible and MJ’s final years, it’s basically like reading the Wikipedia article. His writing oddly enough also seems less journalistic in his 2019 reissue, and more… high school-ish, if that makes sense? The original book was very succinct and well-thought-out, and the new edition feels very thrown together. A nit pick, but one I feel compelled to note.

If you’re a newer fan with a limited understanding of MJ’s catalog, it’s a great starting point. Otherwise, I’d suggest Making Michael by Mike Smallcombe, which in my opinion is the definitive MJ biography. Concise, objective, and not shy from including observations that critique the man.
Click to expand...
What unreleased unheard this books talked about
 
AlwaysThere said:
Vogel is fortunate enough to have spoken with many of the key players for Thriller and Bad, and as a result those chapters are fantastic. He’s very comprehensive with everything from the writing and recording process, to the influences that shaped the album, to the various collaborators MJ worked with, to the month/year songs were worked on. Bad is especially detailed; the track-by-track section is as good as it gets.
Click to expand...
This is one of the things that I think makes the book - hm, I'm willing to say it's invaluable.

AlwaysThere said:
Unfortunately, he still engages in a substantial amount of guesswork and includes information that has long been corrected and/or debunked. Also, it seems as though his resources for MJ’s post-Bad albums were limited, because each succeeding chapter becomes less and less informative. By the time you get to Invincible and MJ’s final years, it’s basically like reading the Wikipedia article.
Click to expand...
I agree, hence my lukewarm feelings overall about it. I'm basically conflicted about the book. As you say, each chapter becomes less and less compelling and it feels weird as you're reading it.

AlwaysThere said:
His writing oddly enough also seems less journalistic in his 2019 reissue, and more… high school-ish, if that makes sense?
Click to expand...
It does make sense.

AlwaysThere said:
The original book was very succinct and well-thought-out, and the new edition (which I’d estimate is at least 50% rewritten) feels very thrown together.
Click to expand...
Again, yes. I haven't seen the first edition but the 2019 one does feel ... um, kind of unsatisfying.

AlwaysThere said:
You can feel the sharp contrast between long, academia-esque sentences, and short, 11th-grade-English-essay ones. A nit pick, but one I feel compelled to note.
Click to expand...
No, I struggle with this. He is an academic and I personally love good, accessible academic writing. But he does jump about with his writing style and it gets a bit wearing. I think this is partly why I use it to dip into as a reference tool more than anything. I am gonna read it a second time just to see if my reaction to it has changed at all but you are reminding me of my initial reactions.

AlwaysThere said:
If you’re a newer fan with a limited understanding of MJ’s catalog, it’s a great starting point. Otherwise, I’d suggest Making Michael by Mike Smallcombe, which in my opinion is the definitive MJ biography. Concise, objective, and not shy from including observations that critique the man.
Click to expand...
Hm, interesting. I liked Smallcombe's book to start off with but got increasingly fed-up with it as I went along. It's another one I read years ago and haven't gone back to. I keep meaning to. I thought he really ran out of steam as the book progressed and it became more - I wouldn't say 'tabloidy' but, I dunno, more superficial? There is some great stuff in there and I think it complements the Vogel book quite well. I don't think either of them work perfectly on their own and I'm glad I have both. I do need to re-read Smallcombe.

@Mister_Jay_Tee - Forgot to say, re the Vogel 2019 edition, he doesn't look at the short films or live shows in any detail. He doesn't cover posthumous releases. He stops at Invincible. He mentions unreleased material briefly in the epilogue and also some of them are listed in the appendix.
 
Last edited:
Good thoughts and feelings everyone;

I've been seeing the book probably ever since it came out, I just never got around to renting or paying for it. It's available for free on Archive.com, so I think it's the first edition. It seems like overall it's a good summation of a lot of info that's basically been summarized here and elsewhere in the forums.
 
Hollywood_Tonight said:
Even Serious Effect (which Imo is the best Loren track) pales in comparison to the Teddy Riley tracks on Dangerous
Click to expand...
Even Serious Effect sounds crap to me. Bryan Loren tracks are really dull and repetitive . Man in Black sounds like a NKOTB song , Work that Body and She Got it another pair of boring songs which are ultra dated now for a future release unless they make a " The Out takes " album which of course will never happen . Teddy Riley is one of the driving forces which made Dangerous such a success , MJ obviously as well lol . Loren seems to be a one trick pony with his songs , which mainly are boring apart from one song SuperFly Sister which is brilliant but i have a feeling MJ had more to do with that than Loren. I remember when people were wondering about Men in Black and thinking it was some sorta holy grail and when we finally heard it most of us thought "oh is that it? " lol .
 
Andymachine said:
Even Serious Effect sounds crap to me. Bryan Loren tracks are really dull and repetitive . Man in Black sounds like a NKOTB song , Work that Body and She Got it another pair of boring songs which are ultra dated now for a future release unless they make a " The Out takes " album which of course will never happen . Teddy Riley is one of the driving forces which made Dangerous such a success , MJ obviously as well lol . Loren seems to be a one trick pony with his songs , which mainly are boring apart from one song SuperFly Sister which is brilliant but i have a feeling MJ had more to do with that than Loren. I remember when people were wondering about Men in Black and thinking it was some sorta holy grail and when we finally heard it most of us thought "oh is that it? " lol .
Click to expand...
Now let's not rewrite history. All the Bryan Tracks would sound crazy right after Bad, or even instead of it, idk, it would not sound so out of place. More honestly it just sounds, organic. MJ is flowing and having fun.

Of course Teddy's stuff is better, the goal was to make more modern dance R&B music. BL's stuff is kinda just pop/funk tunes like Black or White.

I'll take any of the Bryan Loren tracks over Slave to the Rhythm tbh, now that's a boring song.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Now let's not rewrite history. All the Bryan Tracks would sound crazy right after Bad, or even instead of it, idk, it would not sound so out of place. More honestly it just sounds, organic. MJ is flowing and having fun.

Of course Teddy's stuff is better, the goal was to make more modern dance R&B music. BL's stuff is kinda just pop/funk tunes like Black or White.

I'll take any of the Bryan Loren tracks over Slave to the Rhythm tbh, now that's a boring song.
Click to expand...
Agreed on Slave to the Rhythm .
 
Andymachine said:
Even Serious Effect sounds crap to me. Bryan Loren tracks are really dull and repetitive . Man in Black sounds like a NKOTB song , Work that Body and She Got it another pair of boring songs which are ultra dated now for a future release unless they make a " The Out takes " album which of course will never happen . Teddy Riley is one of the driving forces which made Dangerous such a success , MJ obviously as well lol . Loren seems to be a one trick pony with his songs , which mainly are boring apart from one song SuperFly Sister which is brilliant but i have a feeling MJ had more to do with that than Loren. I remember when people were wondering about Men in Black and thinking it was some sorta holy grail and when we finally heard it most of us thought "oh is that it? " lol .
Click to expand...
Work That Body is a terrible song Imo. The Jackson 5 lyric in it is jarring and doesn't fit the song at all. Even Superfly Sister (which, again, is too long and uninteresting) is not nearly as good as its "sister" track, BOTDF. I get that Loren is upset his tracks weren't included, but the reality is that most (if not all) of them are just not up to par with MJ's standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top