HIStory 30th Anniversary

[mjfp]

Why DVDs when Blu Rays are just better?
(OK, maybe Blu Rays are sometimes "more complicated".)

(I'll just skip the "Why vinyl? while a well-made/well-mastered CD is better than vinyl. Already debated enough.)

I said DVD as in general physical video formats, if I buy a movie I'm only buying it on 4K (if it exists) for example

 

[Maxym]

I said DVD as in general physical video formats, if I buy a movie I'm only buying it on 4K (if it exists) for example

I mean... after the success of vinyl over CD and even of streaming over physical media... I naturally expect wide audience to make the "wrong" choice for whatever reason...
(Maybe pushed by the industry itself.)

 

[DuranDuran]

Why DVDs when Blu Rays are just better?
(OK, maybe Blu Rays are sometimes "more complicated".)

(I'll just skip the "Why vinyl? while a well-made/well-mastered CD is better than vinyl. Already debated enough.)

DVDs still outsell Blu-Ray & 4K put together. Those never really caught on with the general public, especially 4K discs which are pretty niche. Most people went right to streaming after DVD instead of adopting the later formats. Also, there are way more things that are released on DVD that will never be on Blu-ray like exercise videos, sports, church services, how-to, work training videos, concerts, children's (ig. Sesame Street, Barney), public domain, history, documentaries, TV shows, obscure stuff, bootlegs, etc. A lot of older TV sitcoms were shot on videotape and so were music/variety shows like Soul Train, Midnight Special, & The Carol Burnett Show. Most people do not care about audio/video quality, that's why MP3s were popular. A lot of people still have tube TVs, they still work with a converter box or just hooked up to cable TV. You can buy a VHS tape at the thrift store, flea market, or Ebay. Some of the local record stores sell cassettes & 8-track tapes. Cassettes are still manufactured. and so are 8-tracks but to a lesser extent

DVDs are also cheaper, like Walmart has that bin of $5 DVDs.

 

[R1chard]

I want MORE
This has nothing to do with envy, but with enthusiasm - but you probably don't understand that

Exactly. You want more. So campaign for stuff you haven't got. It's just dumb to campaign fur stuff you've already got.

Especially because we know anything released now will not be the original version of the album. They will only release the crappy edited versions.

Why in this forum we still talk about physical releases??

Exactly. I have no idea. Sony are a mainstream company. They want to make products that will still lots of copies to the general public and make them huge profits.

The problem is that physical products don't do that. The entire physical market has been left behind. If an anniversary release of Thriller can't manage to sell more than 0.1 million, none of the other albums have a chance.

As much as I like CDs, they're dead. Physical media just doesn't cut it for a company like Sony.

When is the last time anybody here has bought a DVD?

Just to answer the question, I checked my Amazon history, and it was 2022. Can't remember if I bought anything more recently from somewhere else.

Why DVDs when Blu Rays are just better?

Actually lots of reasons. BD is not better unless it's actually better. And with this source material it simply can't be. Material from the 90s or before simply doesn't have enough resolution for BD to make any difference.

So you could buy a DVD for $8 or a BD for $30 that offers exactly the same picture and sound quality.

Playing something low res uses less energy and therefore runs cooler and quieter. Plus, I have DVD players in more rooms than I have BD players. And portable ones.

 

[DuranDuran]

Physical media just doesn't cut it for a company like Sony.

Yeah, Sony the same company that makes TVs, stereos, PlayStation, DVD/Blu-ray players, movies, etc, doesn't believe in physical media. The Spider-Man movies are Sony. They sell pretty well.

 

[mjfp]

Material from the 90s or before simply doesn't have enough resolution for BD to make any difference.

tell that Dracula from 1931 which is available in 4K

 

[zinniabooklover]

40,000 for Thriller was the most MoFi ever did, Off The Wall was limited to 6,000 iirc.

I didn't explain myself properly! I was trying to make the point that even Thriller didn't get a massive print run bc the customer base for any specific MoFi release is quite small.

[...] Physical media has actually seen a resurgence in recent years,

with vinyl, CDs, [...]

CD's are having quite a moment in 2025. Imo, physical media, and CD's in particular, are basically counter-cultural at this point.

 

[R1chard]

tell that Dracula from 1931 which is available in 4K

Just to humor you, I read a review. So it's in black and white, hmm, I wonder if the HDR brings the movie to life, or whether it's completely totally and utterly unnecessary?! Again, having more pixels doesn't actually make it better unless they convey more information.

And the audio on that release is Mono 48kHz... You realize that is within the capabilities of a DVD, right?

Right??

Or are you just writing off a format you don't understand just because it's old?

I said DVD as in general physical video formats, if I buy a movie I'm only buying it on 4K (if it exists) for example

Yeah, confirmed that you've bought in to the hype without questioning it.

 

[Fuzball]

Actually lots of reasons. BD is not better unless it's actually better. And with this source material it simply can't be. Material from the 90s or before simply doesn't have enough resolution for BD to make any difference.

**cough, cough**

 

[R1chard]

Should I discuss?

I don't know what you mean. How am I supposed to have a conversation with somebody who just posts links?

 

[mjfp]

Just to humor you, I read a review. So it's in black and white, hmm, I wonder if the HDR brings the movie to life, or whether it's completely totally and utterly unnecessary?! Again, having more pixels doesn't actually make it better unless they convey more information.

And the audio on that release is Mono 48kHz... You realize that is within the capabilities of a DVD, right?

Right??

Or are you just writing off a format you don't understand just because it's old?

oh man... HDR isn’t just about color, it enhances contrast by boosting dynamic range, meaning deeper blacks and brighter highlights, which makes even black-and-white films look dramatically better. It’s an incredible visual improvement that’s very easy to see on a proper HDR display.


As for resolution, film is an analog medium that naturally exceeds 1080p. Many classic movies were shot on 35mm or even 70mm film, which can be scanned to true 4K and beyond. So yes, 4K absolutely conveys more detail, skin texture, film grain, environmental nuance, that gets lost in 1080p masters.


And regarding audio: yes, DVD can technically handle 48kHz mono, but it’s almost always compressed (like Dolby Digital). On a 4K Blu-ray, you’re getting uncompressed, lossless audio, usually in DTS-HD MA or LPCM. That's a real noticable upgrade in fidelity.

Yeah, confirmed that you've bought in to the hype without questioning it.

I own a calibrated 4K HDR setup and have done direct comparisons between 1080p Blu-rays and their 4K counterparts. The difference isn’t subtle — especially with proper film restorations. If you’ve only half read reviews and never seen it for yourself on a capable setup, you’re not in a position to call it hype.

 

[R1chard]

oh man... HDR isn’t just about color, it enhances contrast by boosting dynamic range, meaning deeper blacks and brighter highlights

Yes, I know what it's capable of. But that means nothing if the source isn't capable of these resolutions and colour depths. It just means you're getting 32 bits of shit when 16 bits would have been adequate.

which makes even black-and-white films look dramatically better. It’s an incredible visual improvement that’s very easy to see on a proper HDR display.

I know about that. I have a 4K projector that gives me something like an 88-inch screen. But again, that assumes your film had true blacks and bright whites to begin with. You can't reproduce what was never there.

As for resolution, film is an analog medium that naturally exceeds 1080p.

Even one that's been stored in a damp garage for 94 years?!

There's just so many misconceptions around film that I don't know where to start.

And regarding audio: yes, DVD can technically handle 48kHz mono, but it’s almost always compressed (like Dolby Digital). On a 4K Blu-ray, you’re getting uncompressed, lossless audio, usually in DTS-HD MA or LPCM. That's a real noticable upgrade in fidelity.

Again, a list of buzzwords and marketing terms. DVD offered uncompressed PCM sound as standard, right back from 1995. That's nothing new.

You realize DTS-HD MA doesn't actually upgrade anything, right? And you know a standard BD handles it as well, right? That wasn't invented in the 4K era.

You're just gonna have to accept that with some source material, such as old MJ concerts, a 4K transfer just isn't possible, and in those cases, a DVD will give exactly the same picture/sound quality as a BD or 4K BD or 8K BD. Except that the DVD is cheaper and better for the environment.

I own a calibrated 4K HDR setup and have done direct comparisons between 1080p Blu-rays and their 4K counterparts. The difference isn’t subtle — especially with proper film restorations. If you’ve only half read reviews and never seen it for yourself on a capable setup, you’re not in a position to call it hype.

What's happening here, you're trying to one-up me? In that case, my PhD is in image processing. I literally got paid to analyse contrast, noise and resolution, on state-of-the-art equipment, using software that I wrote, for 70 hours per week, for 4 years.

 

[mjfp]

Yes, I know what it's capable of. But that means nothing if the source isn't capable of these resolutions and colour depths. It just means you're getting 32 bits of shit when 16 bits would have been adequate.


I know about that. I have a 4K projector that gives me something like an 88-inch screen. But again, that assumes your film had true blacks and bright whites to begin with. You can't reproduce what was never there.


Even one that's been stored in a damp garage for 94 years?!

There's just so many misconceptions around film that I don't know where to start.


Again, a list of buzzwords and marketing terms. DVD offered uncompressed PCM sound as standard, right back from 1995. That's nothing new.

You realize DTS-HD MA doesn't actually upgrade anything, right? And you know a standard BD handles it as well, right? That wasn't invented in the 4K era.

You're just gonna have to accept that with some source material, such as old MJ concerts, a 4K transfer just isn't possible, and in those cases, a DVD will give exactly the same picture/sound quality as a BD or 4K BD or 8K BD. Except that the DVD is cheaper and better for the environment.


What's happening here, you're trying to one-up me? In that case, my PhD is in image processing. I literally got paid to analyse contrast, noise and resolution, on state-of-the-art equipment, using software that I wrote, for 70 hours per week, for 4 years.

Yes, not every source benefits equally, and yes, film condition matters. But properly handled 4K scans — even of old materials — can retain more detail, cleaner grain, and better tonal gradation than what gets crushed in 1080p or DVD. Look at how labels like Criterion and Arrow restore early 20th-century films — it absolutely makes a difference.


As for audio: sure, PCM was possible on DVD, but rarely used due to size limits, especially on feature films. 4K Blu-rays give studios the space and freedom to use lossless tracks by default, not exception. DTS-HD MA may not “upgrade” a source, but it preserves what’s there without lossy compression — that’s the point.

Let's say a 2-hour uncompressed PCM track at CD quality (16-bit/44.1kHz) takes up around 1.2–1.5 GB for stereo. At 24-bit/48kHz or higher, which is common on Blu-ray and 4K UHD, you’re looking at several gigabytes just for audio alone.


Now factor in the video stream (especially if it's high bitrate progressive scan or HD downscaled), menus, subtitles, and any extras — and a dual-layer DVD maxing out at 8.5 GB just doesn’t cut it. That’s exactly why DVDs almost always use compressed Dolby Digital (AC-3) or DTS at reduced bitrates.


Blu-rays and 4K BDs give you the space to include full-bitrate video and lossless audio like PCM, DTS-HD MA, or TrueHD — with zero compromise. So while it’s technically true DVD could carry PCM, in practice, it almost never did — and certainly not at the quality levels modern formats can deliver.


And yes, I agree: some sources, like tape or early digital masters, won’t magically become UHD masterpieces. But the claim that "DVD gives the same quality" as 4K BD just isn’t accurate — it depends on the source and the transfer, not the runtime or age. Dismissing everything as “hype” ignores the real advances we’ve made in preservation, scanning, and mastering.


Also, let’s not forget that even video sourced from tape — which obviously isn’t native HD — can still benefit from Blu-ray or 4K workflows. A great example is the Doctor Who classic season restorations. These were originally shot on SD broadcast formats, but their restoration team apply advanced cleanup, noise reduction, color grading, and upscaling techniques that simply wouldn’t fit on a DVD.


The results may not be true HD, but they’re significantly cleaner, more stable, and artifact-free compared to DVD versions. DVD’s 480p resolution, heavy compression, and limited bitrate just can’t hold that level of enhancement without throwing away a lot of the detail.


So, no — I’m not trying to one-up anyone. But I am pushing back against misinformation, because a lot of people end up missing out on amazing restorations just because someone told them “it’s all the same.”

 

[Fuzball]

a DVD will give exactly the same picture/sound quality as a BD or 4K BD or 8K BD. Except that the DVD is cheaper and better for the environment.

DVD specs don't support 23.976/24fps; only PAL-Speedup (25fps) or NTSC 3:2 pulldown (29.976) are possible.

 

[DuranDuran]

Except that the DVD is cheaper and better for the environment.

CDs, DVDs, & Blu-ray are all plastic.

 

[R1chard]

Yes, not every source benefits equally, and yes, film condition matters. But properly handled 4K scans — even of old materials — can retain more detail,

This isn't a beloved multimillion dollar feature film. Let's not compare these professional studios with what Sony would have done for a 90s concert from MJs least popular tour. They don't have a "restoration team" who are working on cleanup and color grading. They didn't get Wembley's visuals right, and in most cases they didn't even get the audio right.

As for audio: sure, PCM was possible on DVD, but rarely used due to size limits

I'm not talking about what was "rare". I'm talking about what's possible, and what's actually done. PCM is a default format, required to be supported on all DVD players. 48kHz PCM from a DVD is absolutely identical to 48kHz PCM from a 4K BD.

• Look at the MJ Number Ones DVD - it offers PCM as the only option
• Look at Dangerous/Bucharest - it offers PCM as the only option
• Look at Bad/Wembley - it offers PCM
• Look at Video Greatest Hits - HIStory - it offers PCM
• Look at HIStory on Film, Volume II - it offers PCM.

In all five cases, DVD is the optimal format for the release. With Wembley, VCD at 240 lines would have been optimal!

I guarantee you 100% that BD would not have been any better for picture or sound, if anything, BD would have been worse. 4K circuitry runs hot. All the superfluous processing would introduce electronic noise which would degrade the purity of your signal. Plus the audible noise from the cooling fans means you literally can't hear the full dynamic range. And the whole thing releases around three times more carbon into the atmosphere from the coal power station.

But I am pushing back against misinformation, because a lot of people end up missing out on amazing restorations just because someone told them “it’s all the same.”

I'm talking about this specific case of vintage Michael Jackson concerts from the archives. Please tell me you understand I'm not saying that BD isn't a better format.

 

[Hot_Street]

I'm wondering why HIStory, which sold about as many copies as Off the Wall, isn't getting a 30th anniversary edition, while Off the Wall received a special edition in 2016, which is actually almost its 37th anniversary. Not only are the sales figures similar, but both albums also had two big hits. HIStory also achieved the same sales figures as Off the Wall in a much shorter time, and as a double album, it sold twice as many discs.
The Estate significantly underestimates the influence of HIStory and also the importance the album still has in times of climate change and social tensions. One could almost call this ignorance on the part of the Estate a deliberate act of sabotage of Michael's legacy.

 

[mjfp]

This isn't a beloved multimillion dollar feature film. Let's not compare these professional studios with what Sony would have done for a 90s concert from MJs least popular tour. They don't have a "restoration team" who are working on cleanup and color grading. They didn't get Wembley's visuals right, and in most cases they didn't even get the audio right.


I'm not talking about what was "rare". I'm talking about what's possible, and what's actually done. PCM is a default format, required to be supported on all DVD players. 48kHz PCM from a DVD is absolutely identical to 48kHz PCM from a 4K BD.

• Look at the MJ Number Ones DVD - it offers PCM as the only option
• Look at Dangerous/Bucharest - it offers PCM as the only option
• Look at Bad/Wembley - it offers PCM
• Look at Video Greatest Hits - HIStory - it offers PCM
• Look at HIStory on Film, Volume II - it offers PCM.

In all five cases, DVD is the optimal format for the release. With Wembley, VCD at 240 lines would have been optimal!

I guarantee you 100% that BD would not have been any better for picture or sound, if anything, BD would have been worse. 4K circuitry runs hot. All the superfluous processing would introduce electronic noise which would degrade the purity of your signal. Plus the audible noise from the cooling fans means you literally can't hear the full dynamic range. And the whole thing releases around three times more carbon into the atmosphere from the coal power station.


I'm talking about this specific case of vintage Michael Jackson concerts from the archives. Please tell me you understand I'm not saying that BD isn't a better format.

You’re right that the MJ releases you mentioned were not treated with the same care as major film restorations — that’s exactly the problem. The DVD isn’t “optimal”, it’s just all we were given. And that’s not a limitation of Blu-ray or 4K BD — it’s a limitation of how Sony chose to handle the material.

The Michael Jackson Estate actually works with a restoration team that restored footage of various artists.

But if you’re going to argue what’s possible — as you insisted — then we should acknowledge that a properly restored, upscaled and color-corrected MJ concert would benefit from higher bitrate video and lossless multichannel audio, which DVDs simply can’t support at the same quality level.

Yes, PCM can be done on DVD, as the MJ releases show, but that doesn’t prove DVD is optimal — just that Sony had to squeeze it in with major compromises on video bitrate. Try putting high-quality PCM and high-bitrate video together on an 8.5GB dual-layer disc for a full 2-hour concert. Something’s always getting sacrificed — usually the video.

Your claim that Blu-ray would sound worse due to “electronic noise” from “hot 4K circuitry” and “fan noise” is just not how signal chains work. If anything, Blu-ray players are quieter than early DVD players. No one in the AV world treats internal heat or fan noise as degrading digital output, unless you’re listening with your ear against the machine.

And the carbon footprint argument? Sure — if we’re discussing energy use, let’s talk about streaming, which wastes bandwidth and compresses both video and audio far more aggressively than physical media. But that’s a whole other conversation.



The format isn’t the issue — the effort behind the transfer is. Saying “DVD is optimal” just because the content wasn’t treated properly for BD or UHD is like saying “MP3 is optimal” because a certain album never got a proper CD release.

Also worth noting: DVD is locked to two broadcast standards — NTSC (29.97 fps) and PAL (25 fps). That creates problems when your source material was shot on film (24 fps) or interlaced video (usually 29.97i for NTSC, 25i for PAL).

 

[mjfanboy27]

The best gift for my birthday today would have been a history30 publication

 

[R1chard]

The DVD isn’t “optimal”, it’s just all we were given.

It's optimal to reproduce a 4th generation VHS tape. It just is. And it's universally compatible with the DVD players in cars, laptops, hotels, etc. Most places don't have BD players, so a BD isn't optimal for those situations.

The Michael Jackson Estate actually works with a restoration team that restored footage of various artists.

But they're not miracle workers. You're nut going to get 4K out of the Sullivan Show. You'll end up with more pixels but they won't be meaningful. You see how your phone having a 48 MPixel camera isn't actually better - it just means you can't email photos any more.

a properly restored, upscaled and color-corrected MJ concert would benefit from higher bitrate video

And it would cost more than the estate wants to spend. Sometimes a budget release is better.

and lossless multichannel audio, which DVDs simply can’t support at the same quality level.

As much as I love a 7.1 or Atmos mix, the truth is that live concerts are actually mixed to be almost mono. That's how they sound when you're there.

2.0 PCM actually does the job perfectly.

Yes, PCM can be done on DVD, as the MJ releases show, but that doesn’t prove DVD is optimal — just that Sony had to squeeze it in with major compromises on video bitrate

Number Ones on DVD is the perfect product, when you consider that it starts with Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, the picture and sound quality are both better than what MJ saw/heard in the studio.

Your claim that Blu-ray would sound worse due to “electronic noise” from “hot 4K circuitry” and “fan noise” is just not how signal chains work. If anything, Blu-ray players are quieter than early DVD players.

My $2k amplifier has a button you can press to improve the sound quality. Similarly, my disc player also has a button you can press to improve the sound quality.

You know what both of these buttons do? They cut off all the visual processing and output, ie you get a black screen, and even nothing on the LCD display.

No one in the AV world treats internal heat or fan noise as degrading digital output, unless you’re listening with your ear against the machine.

It's a big deal. It's even a selling point for videogames consoles, which tend to sound like you're on a runway about to take off.

And the carbon footprint argument? Sure — if we’re discussing energy use, let’s talk about streaming

I wasn't talking about that. I don't stream music precisely because it's too shit.

 

[mjfp]

I don't even want to reply to this

 

[Hot_Street]

Tim Pierce Reveals Michael Jackson’s Guitar Obsession​

By Admin Team
July 8, 2025

Among the many superstars who sought Pierce’s talent was none other than Michael Jackson. Pierce played on several of Jackson’s landmark projects, notably the 1991 album Dangerous and the 1995 double album HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. On these records, Pierce’s guitar lines added texture and drive to tracks that pushed pop into bold new territories.

While Jackson is often described as a perfectionist, Pierce found him to be a remarkably easy collaborator. “Michael felt secure. In the studio, it was just me, Bill the assistant, and Michael, so he felt very safe,” said Pierce. “My job was to actually treat him like an equal. That means you don’t act like a fan, don’t gush, don’t ask questions. I was doing my thing, and he was doing his. That’s how you play it.”

HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I (1995)​

• “Scream” (duet with Janet Jackson)
  Pierce adds aggressive, distorted guitar riffs on the chorus that match the track’s defiant tone. His playing adds straight-ahead rock energy while blending seamlessly with the song’s edgy pop-industrial production.
• “Tabloid Junkie”
  Pierce’s guitar lines give this scathing critique of sensationalist media a harsher edge. The gritty, chugging riffs reflect the song’s frustrated tone and help power its driving arrangement.

Tim Pierce Reveals Michael Jackson’s Guitar Obsession - MJVibe

For legendary session guitarist Tim Pierce, his memories of Michael are strikingly different and refreshingly down-to-earth.

www.mjvibe.com

 

[Skylover]

 

[Hot_Street]

Crazy to think there's no release for the 30th anniversary!

Fan shares Michael Jackson’s HIStory Tour Promotional Cut Out
August 08, 2025
Fan Allison Tidswell shared her Michael Jackson cardboard cutout which was part of the in-record store promotion for the HIStory album. She writes: “I was lucky enough to find this one online, and he now stands in my living room in pride of place. Crazy to think it’s 30 years old!”.

Fan shares Michael Jackson’s HIStory Tour Promotional Cut Out

Fan Allison Tidswell shared her Michael Jackson cardboard cutout which was part of the in-record store promotion for the HIStory album. She writes: “I was lucky enough to find this one online, and he now stands in my living room in pride of place. Crazy to think it’s 30 years old!”. Share your...

www.michaeljackson.com

 

[R1chard]

Crazy to think there's no release for the 30th anniversary!

Not that crazy. Most albums don't get a 30th anniversary rerelease.

Like, just consider BOTDF as the 30th anniversary release, but we were lucky to get it 28 years early. It's exactly what you want - it includes 5 outtakes as "bonus tracks" and everything!

 

[Hot_Street]

Not that crazy. Most albums don't get a 30th anniversary rerelease.

Take That release 30th anniversary edition of 'Nobody Else' - TotalNtertainment

In celebration of the 30th anniversary of the third studio album, from Take That Nobody Else, a special multi-format release is out now

www.totalntertainment.com

Van Halen Preview Deluxe 30th Anniversary Edition of 'Balance'

Van Halen will revisit 1995's 'Balance' for an expanded 30th anniversary edition on Aug. 15, via Rhino Records.

rockcellarmagazine.com

The Cranberries Unveil No Need to Argue 30th Anniversary Limited Edition 3LP Set on June 27; 2LP and 1LP Versions Available August 15

What’s in your heh-ed, in your heh-ehh-ehh-ed? If that deliberately enunciated lyrical refrain instantly brings to mind a certain chilling but ultimately cathartic song by Irish alt-rockers The Cranberries — “Zombie” — then you’ll be eternally pleased to learn that a trio of 30th anniversary...

www.analogplanet.com

 

[mjfp]

even Janet got a 30th anniversary release:

janet. Deluxe Edition 2CD - Janet Jackson Official Store

This 2CD version of Janet's self titled album, commemorates the 30th anniversary of her seminal GRAMMY® Award-winning fifth full-length album, janet. It will be available in a special 2CD version with standard packaging and seven bonus tracks.

store.janetjackson.com

janet. Deluxe Edition 3LP - Janet Jackson Official Store

This 3LP version of Janet's self-titled album, commemorates the 30th anniversary of her seminal GRAMMY® Award-winning fifth full-length album, janet. It will be available in a special 3LP limited edition package with a third LP of bonus material, presented in a Tri-Gatefold with an upgraded...

store.janetjackson.com

 

[Hot_Street]

I understand why Michael Jackson fans are upset, we never got History 30th Anniversary this year or any celebration of the album or it's songs. They claimed "We are busy with the biopic and musical" as a excuse, yet we are getting 10 different features with other artists based on unreleased songs from decades ago (which is totally fine). But the issue is that by doing this the estate clearly had the manpower to devout time and resources into celebrating Michael's legacy not just with History but all of the other albums that have gotten nothing, however they simply don't give a ****.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1952129672197902578

 

[mjfp]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1952129672197902578

What I have noticed over the years, it seems that the estate doesn't want it to be recognized as a Michael Jackson project, but as an estate project. Every single time when they have re-released the albums, released anniversary albums and other posthumous projects, they always want to make it their own. Changing the font of Off The Wall and Bad, wanting to change Thriller but got an immense backlash from the fans that they reverted it. Those changed covers of Off The Wall and Bad are btw even present in the Michael Jackson biopic, literally changing history. Remixing his unreleased tracks, not to finish them in a way Michael intended for them to sound like but a completely different "modernized" uptemo remix. Releasing a Thriller documentary, not about how the album was made but how much of an impact it had, which everyone already knows at this point. The probable reasons why there aren't any more anniversary reissues or posthumous albums is that they are not able to change much of those, too many people who worked on these songs are still alive and don't want the songs to be changed from a Michael Jackson to an Xscape production sound. I remember so many people actually approached the estate about releasing songs like will.i.am for the song "I'm Dreamin'" but The Estate simply declined, same goes for songs like Dream Away, Chicago 1945 and If You Don't Love Me, latter was actually finished up by Bill Bottrell in 2014 but was rejected by The Estate. I've heard multiple sources saying a new album consisting of songs from the Thriller, Bad and Dangerous sessions are being prepared for release on a posthumous album next year but for some reason, I can't really get excited about that anymore, rather I would like a box-set series like "The Michael Jackson Vault" focussing on each album's sessions, releasing work in progress mixes and unreleased songs and demos but I already know, The Estate won't do that because they can't change them. Thriller 40 was literally pushed by Sony Music to be released, that's how we even ended up with that album and with zero promotion (which Sony even wanted to do, but the estate declined). It is simply sad to see that the greatest artist to have ever lived is treated so badly, not just during his lifetime but even posthumously, money is simply being ripped off. All just so that Branca can increase his car collection.

 

[R1chard]

3 cherry picked albums

Yes yes. But for every 3 albums you list, I could list 30,000 albums that did not have one. It's the exception rather than the rule.

What I have noticed over the years, it seems that the estate doesn't want it to be recognized as a Michael Jackson project, but as an estate project.

That's a good take.

At this point we don't need an "estate" at all.

Remixing his unreleased tracks, not to finish them in a way Michael intended for them to sound like but a completely different "modernized" uptemo remix.

This is offensive. I will play no part in it. Nobody asked for a new version of Speed Demon with bangin beatz.

Releasing a Thriller documentary, not about how the album was made but how much of an impact it had

Because it's a group of PR specialists. All they care about is bragging.

The probable reasons why there aren't any more anniversary reissues or posthumous albums is that they are not able to change much of those, too many people who worked on these songs are still alive and don't want the songs to be changed from a Michael Jackson to an Xscape production sound

It's fine. We don't want or need them.

Just be happy with the MoFi SACDs. We are getting stuff, and they're 10 times better than anything from Sony. They're the best way to listen to MJ's work as MJ intended.

I've heard multiple sources saying a new album consisting of songs from the Thriller, Bad and Dangerous sessions are being prepared for release on a posthumous album next year but for some reason, I can't really get excited about that anymore

I lost most of my interest in projects like that because I simply can't trust the estate to release anything genuine. They're basically gonna press the AI button, making up vocals as appropriate, take the output, compress the hell out of it, then throw it out.

Thriller 40 was literally pushed by Sony Music to be released, that's how we even ended up with that album and with zero promotion

More to the point, T40 sold 0.1 million copies, which is more than it deserved to sell. So that's the reason we won't get any more albums.

The music industry is an industry. It's just like the pizza industry or the pencil industry. It's all about making as much money as possible for as little effort as possible. It's always been that way. It's the reason those people got those jobs in the first place.