Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bubs;3711450 said:Generally speaking reviews for BAD 25 has been good if not great. I have to wonder why BAD was "bad" (according some old reviews) in its first time release, but is good after 25 years?
Is it because 25 years ago critics among others wanted to insult Michael though their reviews,therefore bad reviews?
Did they get caught with "hate everything MJ does" hype?
“The Michael Jackson cacophony is fascinating in that it is not about Jackson at all. I hope he has the good sense to know it and the good fortune to snatch his life out of the jaws of a carnivorous success. He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables, for he damn sure grabbed the brass ring, and the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo has nothing on Michael. All that noise is about America, as the dishonest custodian of black life and wealth; the blacks, especially males, in America; and the burning, buried American guilt; and sex and sexual roles and sexual panic; money, success and despair…”
Bad 25 Is it worth your time and money?
Randall Roberts Los Angeles Times Pop Music Critic
September 18, 2012, 9:41 a.m.
A quarter of a century ago, Michael Jackson released “Bad,” his follow-up to the blockbuster album "Thriller." It sold over 30 million copies, contained many hits that you can probably sing by heart -- “Dirty Diana,” “Smooth Criminal,” “Man in the Mirror,” “The Way You Make Me Feel,” and others -- and has become one of the touchstone pop recordings of the era.
Since his death, Jackson’s record label Sony Music has understandably started capitalizing on his legacy, doling out a handful of tracks for last year’s “Michael” album and adding remixes to his Cirque du Soleil performance. Now, on "Bad 25," the label has dug into the archives for a disc’s worth of unreleased rehearsal recordings and a complete 1988 live performance at London’s Wembley Stadium.
The result is the three-CD, one-DVD box set released Tuesday. The set’s list price is 34.99. Is it worth it?
The sturdy box, which is kept shut with a nifty magnet, includes two double-disc collections with glossy cardboard gatefold sleeves. The first features a remastered version of 10-song album (with the bonus track "Leave Me Alone") and a selection of demos on the second disc that illustrate the musician at work.
The best of these is also the most revealing: a track tentatively titled "Song Groove" but also known as "Abortion Papers." Somewhat understandably, Jackson struggled with the lyrics to this story about a teen pregnancy, and ultimately decided not to tackle the hot-button issue on "Bad."
Also featured on that disc are new remixes by current EDM hitmakers Afrojack and Nero intended, one would assume, to appeal to a young generation that wasn’t yet born when Jackson was a commercial force. These are terrible commercial house tracks -- especially Afrojack's "Bad" remix featuring Pitbull -- and are an insult to MJ's memory not because they rework his music, but because they do it so ungracefully.
Two different glossy booklets focus on, respectively, the recording of “Bad” and a rundown of the outakes, and the Wembley Stadium performance of July 16, 1988. They’re detailed accounts, filled with dozens of striking photos of Jackson in performance, and behind-the-scenes glimpses of him with his many admirers.
That Wembley gig is documented in its entirety on DVD, and shows Jackson in peak form, moving through then-new songs and dipping into his back catalog to highlight both earlier solo work and a hot medley of Jackson 5 hits. It's a solid, if thinly recorded, document that lacks sonic heft. The rhythm section sounds a mile away, and lacks the pop of a well-recorded concert.
And, for the 8-year-old kid in you, the package also includes a fold-out poster and a “Bad 25” sticker you can put on your locker door.
Worth noting are other versions of this collection that are also available. A two-CD set features only the remastered "Bad" and disc of outtakes and is available for $12.99, and you can get just the Wembley show and DVD for the same price. A "Deluxe Collector's Edition" features all of the above plus a fancier box and an MJ T-shirt, and is available for $199.99.
Price, though, isn't the issue for a product designed for diehard MJ fanatics who covet posters and stickers as much as they do the music. At $35, the full box isn't a bad deal if you're a completist. The asking price of the $200 version is more than a little ridiculous, but this is Michael Jackson we're talking about.
Alas, regardless of which version you take, consumers will have no choice but to receive the aforementioned new remixes. Which is a shame because not only do they tarnish a legacy, but signal a future in which Jackson's music is officially deconstructed to unfortunate ends with full sanction of the singer's estate.
Here's hoping that Paris Jackson has better taste in dance music than estate co-executors John Branca and John McClain.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-it-worth-your-money-20120918,0,2000283.story
Follow Randall Roberts on Twitter: @liledit
Critics also want their readers to keep buying their magazines. MJ was not seen as "cool" in 1988, he was seen as corny, over the top, too big and too everywhere, so a lot of people reacted against that. It was like if they praised him too much it would give him too much credit and make him even bigger, and they didn't want that. He's also not a traditional Rolling Stones critic hero. Even though Prince is much weirder than MJ in his every day life and how he deals with people, there are probably hundreds of stories of Prince being an ass or being weird people could share, but he's much more of a Rolling Stones idea of what a rockstar should be, so they tend to be very praising of his talent.
Personally what I've found interesting in the last few years since MJ's passing is who the music critics now praise. I've seen music critics kiss up to Lady Gaga and Katy Perry like nobody's business. It's almost ridiculous. I remember when Lady Gaga's last album was released, Rolling Stone wrote the most glowing review. No disrespect to Gaga fans, but that album was generic blah to me. I had to listen to it a few times just because I wondered what I was missing that these reviewers seemed to say existed there. But Gaga at the time was someone everyone wanted to like, they needed a new pop icon, and with sales in magazines declining, they needed fans of hers to go out and buy their copy.
But I thought it was amusing, they seemed so intent to try and turn Lady Gaga into what they needed her to be, a super talented icon, instead of having someone who was, and that this is where we are now, where songs like Born This Way and Katy Perry's music are praised because critics need them to be praised, but back then they had the talent of MJ and they wanted to overlook it. Now the music magazines and critics seem to be in dire need of a star like MJ, when it seemed before they wanted to be act like they were too good for the likes of him.
One thing I know for sure is that whenever/if Justin Timberlake releases a new album someday it'll be hailed as a masterpiece of our time. He's a music critic darling, the kind of guy even people who hate pop music can seem credible by listening to. He's the perfect Rolling Stones (aka white male liberal middle class hipster) kind of hero and they know it, and they kiss his ass because of how they believe it reflects on them positively to do so, it maintains their image of being cool-but-not-too-cool.
It's like how some people don't win Oscars for certain parts, no matter how well played. There are some people who are not "acceptable" to Hollywood's ideas of who should win, or be nominated, and people would rather act like someone more obscure or more Hollywoody is more worthy.
I wish MJ had turned his back even more against critics and magazines. But I think he still really wanted their approval, especially because the media and everyone kept acting as though he desperately needed it too (of course they'd believe he needed their approval). Like, "Oh his last album got trashed by critics, he's done for!" and of course the public became imbued by these ideas as they were so prevalent, that Thriller/OTW (It's kind of funny that they didn't think he was a cover story back in 1979 with OTW, but these same critics will kiss up to OTW now) were his only decent worthy albums and everything else after was just crap. But he knew full well how hard it was for him as he was to be accepted by them.
Yes, at the beginning of the official APOM video you can also see Sophia Loren and Tina Turner. I'm sure a lot of stars attended those concerts.![]()
Especially when names like "Usher" arise - yuck!! That guy has zero or even minus 99 talent when compared to MJ.I always hate when people say .... is the next king of pop. It is so disrespectful. That belongs to Michael. I don't care what anyone else does.
:wild: Never noticed this... screenshot?!?
Agree wholeheartedly. And I'm glad for Joe Vogel finally talk about things like this in articles.
The media, incl. Rolling Stone, kiss up to Lady Gaga, Madonna, Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake - while they trash Michael. It's ridiculous. Is it a coincidence BTW that all their darlings are white? Even "black music" is done better than by black people, according to them. Justin Timberlake is better than Michael - when he's a lame imitation and they know it - (after all they declared him the new KoP in 2003), the best hip-hop artist ever is Eminem etc.
When activists plastered Chris Brown albums with the warning "This Man Beats Women," the Internet (rightfully) cheered. But now that John Lennon albums are also getting stickered, the online response is a lot more conflicted.
The reminder has been met with a fair amount of surprise, including from a content editor at The Telegraph. Others are surprised that everyone else is so surprised. "Why's everyone angry about the 'This man beats women' sticker on John Lennon albums?" asks Anna Warnaby. "It's true. He's still an amazing musician, but he did." Instead of denouncing Lennon's abusive history, an NME editor remarked that the stickers were merely "interesting" (it's an awkward story for the music publication to have to deal with on the same day they crowned Lennon their Ultimate Icon.)
I think there was a critic in 1984 who said that Mike scared people not because of himself really, but because of what he represented for the people who saw things in him that they identified with, and so they pushed him away on that basis, the way we do with things we fear. People like Justin Timberlake, Eminem are so safe and non scary/threatening it's almost funny, but Mike with his soft demeanor seemed threatening to a degree that seems comical in contrast, because they refused to be nice to him, they refused to treat him like a person, they had to degrade him to the point where nothing about him was human - (according to them) he was not a man or a woman, he was not black or white, he wasn't gay or straight, he didn't have his own children, he didn't have his own face, he didn't even have his own name - they stripped him completely of everything that humanizes him and then told people to accept this version of him as the truth. I don't know of any celebrity who's ever been dehumanized in such a way. Once someone is seen as less than human... well, slavery has taught us what we're capable of doing to such a person.