Latest on MJJC

Chris Brown just posted this! (11/11)

SmoothGangsta said:
I'm not cancelling anyone, I just don't think a serial woman beater associating himself with MJ is a good thing, doesn't matter how many fans he has lol.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's a good point, protecting the MJ legacy, didn't think of that.
 
Why does this belligerent, pompous neck tumor of a man still have a career? ESPECIALLY post- "Me Too" movement?
 
AlwaysThere said:
Even if you’re capable of separating the art from the artist, Chris Brown (in my opinion) has been terrible for the better part of a decade. I’d honestly rather not get another new song than have to listen to him on it and know that he benefits from an artist that he shouldn’t be allowed within spitting distance of.

But also, separating art from artist only really works when the artist’s actions amount to misdemeanors, not felonies. If we’re getting Chris Brown on a song, why not call up R. Kelly and have him phone a verse in from prison?
Click to expand...
Cb is not getting on it.. He is using MJ name to get more fame,,, I know Chris Brown is part of our MJ community, am telling him to stop
 
Lordshema said:
Cb is not getting on it.. He is using MJ name to get more fame,,, I know Chris Brown is part of our MJ community, am telling him to stop
Click to expand...
I mean, at this point, is he not allowed to be a fan anymore, is that what people are saying? As far as I'm aware, he was held legally accountable for every wrong thing he did, so at this point, it should be net neutral now.

I don't like him either but do we have to do this every time?
 
I really didn't think I'd see people defending Chris Brown and his women beating ways but the takes on this forum are wild so here we are.

He can be a fan all he wants but him associating himself with MJ is not a good thing and being held legally responsible does not make anything "net neutral".

Scary logic, especially when taking about someone who beats women to a pulp.
 
Last edited:
SmoothGangsta said:
I really didn't think I'd see people defending Chris Brown and his women beating ways but the takes on this forum are wild so here we are.

He can be a fan all he wants but him associating himself with MJ is not a good thing and being held legally responsible does not make anything "net neutral".

Scary logic, especially when taking about someone who beats women to a pulp.
Click to expand...
Who's defending Chris Brown? Literally nobody so your attempt to start an argument will not succeed this time.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Who's defending Chris Brown? Literally nobody so your attempt to start an argument will not succeed this time.
Click to expand...
I do consider saying that it's net neutral as lowering the gravity or seriousness of what he did, yes.

If people disagree with what I'm saying or I've misunderstood then they can tell me and we can discuss it. Get a life and stop replying to everything I post trying to argue with me, thanks.
 
Last edited:
SmoothGangsta said:
I do consider saying that it's net neutral as lowering the gravity or seriousness of what he did, yes.

If people disagree with what I'm saying or I've misunderstood then they can tell me and we can discuss it. Get a life and stop replying to everything I post trying to argue with me, thanks.
Click to expand...
and who exactly are you? Coming away with such entitled views each time you post? The way you spout it's as though it is fact.

As I've mentioned before, you do not run this forum. We all have an opinion so if you don't like something or have perhaps misunderstood, that's your problem.
 
It seems like he's comparing himself to Mike, because he'll be releasing his 11th album. I'd be surprised if it's anything more than that
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
and who exactly are you? Coming away with such entitled views each time you post? The way you spout it's as though it is fact.

As I've mentioned before, you do not run this forum. We all have an opinion so if you don't like something or have perhaps misunderstood, that's your problem.
Click to expand...
I legitimately have absolutely no clue what you're rambling on about. Leave me alone and stop trying to cause arguments constantly.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
I really didn't think I'd see people defending Chris Brown and his women beating ways but the takes on this forum are wild so here we are.

He can be a fan all he wants but him associating himself with MJ is not a good thing and being held legally responsible does not make anything "net neutral".

Scary logic, especially when taking about someone who beats women to a pulp.
Click to expand...
I am not defending him, don't ever put words in my mouth. Very ignorant and disrespectful of you, to say the least. I'm done talking now, people's emotions are running high, over a picture on Instagram.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I am not defending him, don't ever put words in my mouth. Very ignorant and disrespectful of you, to say the least. I'm done talking now, people's emotions are running high, over a picture on Instagram.
Click to expand...
You said him going through legal process should make everything net neutral. There's no need to call me rude and ignorant for responding to what you actually wrote lol.

Anyway, apologies if my post came across in a way that upset you, wasn't really my intention.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I do think there's the possibility for a duet because why wouldn't the estate allow it when they already gave Drake permission to do the same thing just a few years ago? Chris Brown is one of the few mainstream artists out there who publicly still supports and has done tributes (or at least was about to at the American Music Awards) for MJ post-Leaving Neverland, and John Branca even endorsed him and called him "one of the greatest entertainers alive today" in one of his TikToks so there's really no bad blood between him and the estate, in fact it seems like John Branca greatly admires Chris as an artist. I really don't see what reason would the estate have to negate a collab.
 
ChanceToDance said:
Honestly, I do think there's the possibility for a duet because why wouldn't the estate allow it when they already gave Drake permission to do the same thing just a few years ago? Chris Brown is one of the few mainstream artists out there who publicly still supports and has done tributes (or at least was about to at the American Music Awards) for MJ post-Leaving Neverland, and John Branca even endorsed him and called him "one of the greatest entertainers alive today" in one of his TikToks so there's really no bad blood between him and the estate, in fact it seems like John Branca greatly admires Chris as an artist. I really don't see what reason would the estate have to negate a collab.
Click to expand...
I could definitely see it happening, I just don't think the instagram post really means anything. We had the same thing happen with The Weeknd posting pics.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
I could definitely see it happening, I just don't think the instagram post really means anything. We had the same thing happen with The Weeknd posting pics.
Click to expand...
This time is a bit different because Chris is directly tying it to his new album's release, meanwhile all that was going for the Weeknd/MJ collab was rumors created by troll accounts. Though I am also expecting this to be a cover at most.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
You said him going through legal process should make everything net neutral. There's no need to call me rude and ignorant for responding to what you actually wrote lol.

Anyway, apologies if my post came across in a way that upset you, wasn't really my intention.
Click to expand...
Well, I wasn't defending him. That said, I, was thinking progressive. I'm not gonna really get into all that but I started thinking bigger than Chris Brown.

The truth is I don't want him on any MJ songs, and I'd much rather never hear or see him again. But... at the same time, I don't think people get off easy for their crimes, on average. He is stained and likely always will be. But if he's made strides to be better and make amends, well, isn't rehabilitation allowed? But now I'm realizing how many other famous people are abusers, and how 2 other famous browns also beat women. He doesn't deserve much sympathy regardless. So maybe this is all a pointless go around anyway.

I'm just sticking to my main point though, that he is allowed to be a Fan, and gatekeeping that is obnoxious. And that was happening, but just a little. The estate should not work with him regardless.
 
ChanceToDance said:
Honestly, I do think there's the possibility for a duet because why wouldn't the estate allow it when they already gave Drake permission to do the same thing just a few years ago? Chris Brown is one of the few mainstream artists out there who publicly still supports and has done tributes (or at least was about to at the American Music Awards) for MJ post-Leaving Neverland, and John Branca even endorsed him and called him "one of the greatest entertainers alive today" in one of his TikToks so there's really no bad blood between him and the estate, in fact it seems like John Branca greatly admires Chris as an artist. I really don't see what reason would the estate have to negate a collab.
Click to expand...
But The Weeknd does all that and isn't controversial. So does Bruno. And JT is still, around. Kept at arms length.
 
The MJJ Library said:
11PM is an instrumental, there are no vocals on the song.
Click to expand...
Damien Shields said that the version he heard at the Copyright Office had no vocals, but then he also said that the version of Adore You he heard there didn't have vocals even though now we can hear in the seminar leak that there were some vocals recorded for it. It's possible that there might be a version of the song that has vocals, or at least a version with enough vocals that could be made into a duet.
 
ChanceToDance said:
Damien Shields said that the version he heard at the Copyright Office had no vocals, but then he also said that the version of Adore You he heard there didn't have vocals even though now we can hear in the seminar leak that there were some vocals recorded for it. It's possible that there might be a version of the song that has vocals, or at least a version with enough vocals that could be made into a duet.
Click to expand...
There are background vocals on Adore You but no lead vocals, that could have been what Damien meant
 
The MJJ Library said:
There are background vocals on Adore You but no lead vocals, that could have been what Damien meant
Click to expand...
The background vocals he meant was the choir on the song, he insisted that there was no lyric or lead vocal whatsoever. It shows how not all of the songs that were registered were the most up-to-date versions. The estate did release the outdated versions of some of the demos on Xscape after all so it wouldn't be out of the usual for them.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
I really didn't think I'd see people defending Chris Brown and his women beating ways but the takes on this forum are wild so here we are.

He can be a fan all he wants but him associating himself with MJ is not a good thing and being held legally responsible does not make anything "net neutral".

Scary logic, especially when taking about someone who beats women to a pulp.
Click to expand...

SmoothGangsta said:
You said him going through legal process should make everything net neutral. There's no need to call me rude and ignorant for responding to what you actually wrote lol.
Click to expand...
It's depressing that most of the discussion on this forum at this point is just us responding to people who are clearly just saying things to be annoying and start unserious debates for their own amusement.
 
Hollywood_Tonight said:
It's depressing that most of the discussion on this forum at this point is just us responding to people who are clearly just saying things to be annoying and start unserious debates for their own amusement.
Click to expand...
But by making this type of comment surely you're only adding fuel to the fire and instigating the situation? Rather than simply moving on...
 
Hollywood_Tonight said:
It's depressing that most of the discussion on this forum at this point is just us responding to people who are clearly just saying things to be annoying and start unserious debates for their own amusement.
Click to expand...
I don't really know why you're posting this trying to be clever when we already sorted it out, I've also barely spoken to you on here so if you thought that comment was about yourself then you clearly know something I don't. I also wasn't trying to start an argument with what I posted, so not really sure what the relevance here is, really.

Just trying to cause more arguments or be snarky for no reason I guess.
 
Last edited:
Hollywood_Tonight said:
It's depressing that most of the discussion on this forum at this point is just us responding to people who are clearly just saying things to be annoying and start unserious debates for their own amusement.
Click to expand...
I'm confused, who's clearlying saying things to be annoying and start unserious debates? Please make it clear for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top