Wow, SoS, thaaat ^^^ was quite the post. Thanks again for going to all that trouble, rekindle the discussion in here and open up so very many new/old avenues. Unlike your neat, chronological analysis, I will take the twisted away around.
You can all feel free to take a cup of coffee, tea, a glass or an entire bottle of gin or whatever other drinks you prefer and your reading glasses, because this is bound to be a long one, if anyone will actually be brave enough and still awake to re-read this whole thing through. However huge, I won't be able to comment on every single thing SoS pointed out and although not entirely sure that we got crunching material for an entire year, we can definitely expand the talk for a little while longer.
Btw SoS, thank you for the lovely little history-of-the-thread lesson you included. I think it was most welcome, especially for those who are unfamiliar with its origins. This thread really is like a tapestry or a puzzle of sorts.
My experience of this lovely thread is like a continuously unfolding tapestry of revelation, especially whist posting which spontaneously makes for more...and more....in the moment as discovery occurs.
It reminds me of how Michael said years ago in an Ebony or Jet article that he writes in layers, like an onion. I have discovered that after the dominant sounds become like, white noise that s when the sounds, words, stories underneath come forward sonically speaking and the other sounds are revealed.
And your words above reminded me of a recent tweet
And also they reminded me of some words at the start of This is it, the movie - bit, by bit, by bit.........Michael is revealed
. In the context of the movie, it was about the intro to the would-be concerts and Michael's video screen suit that was supposed to open up. I actually remember some footage where Michael actually does these movements with his hands mimicking the robot that he is supposed to come out of and even having a sweet smile on his face, especially while revealing the middle section of his body
, but my memory may play tricks on me, since I haven't seen that particular portion in ages.
Turns out, folks on YT were kind enough to remind us all of this magical footage, almost a year after I had written about it, in the paragraph above. Better late than never, I suppose,,,,The 00:25 - 00:30
portion may very well contain some of the most important scenes ever shot on camera and shown on screens.......the robot part is shortly thereafter.
Not even sure where to go from here. Maybe with the clear disagreements, to get those out of the way? lol SoS, I am afraid I haven't been able to hear some of the things you mentioned (especially about the Destiny remix, Opis One), but I must say that I only heard it once, through the computer. Maybe if I truly pay attention and use headphones, I might be able to hear those things as well. A couple of things that I absolutely agree with are the following
Also, speaking of the word 'dear' there is a line also in, This Is It where toward the end of the song, (just before his angelic falsetto adlib) he sings 'come on please dear understand.'
That line truly is marvelous.
Streetwalker being NOT about a prostitute btw
Streetwalker is about a unique lady ('never met a girl just like you')
Totally agree. Btw, it's one of my favorite MJ songs to get my groove on; it's really funky. You could say it's about a different kind of lady
, not necessarily from Portugal though lol. Don't you all mind me, it was just a friendly wink to my newest friend here on MJJC, that's all, although I'm not sure if she even checks this thread.
And by the way of the TII tune, I am afraid I never did hear this one thing
Speaking of 'real' and speaking of the song This Is It as Girl posted above, there's a line where he sings, I'm the light of the world gonna make - make her feel this is real, every time I'm in love, they don't feel [it]
I could swear that I hear him sing gonna make, PEOPLE feel, this is real
, exactly because of the next line implying the questions over the years about his public romantic liaisons or lack thereof. But hey, if you hear make HER
feel, maybe it is also there, underneath the upper layers of the song. In any case, it would indeed be a pretty brilliant idea to make her feel that it was real. Otherwise, it would all be rather pointless...........
Another thing I agree with is the next quote, although from your phrasing, and not only that, I am getting the distinct impression that you have outgrown your 'realistic' nature and you now consider Michael's catalog full of special messages meant for whomever.
Personally I had originally felt that a song is just a song. My realistic nature tells me that in real life it's all really done to have his fans/customers on fan forums talking about his music forevermore, and for 'escapism' to use MJ's word but sorry I temporarily digress.
I very much understand your realistic instincts and I very much appreciate your location. Whether pleasant or not, real life
is where we all are, although the mind does take us in many other places, some lovelier than others.
I guess I can relate to your initially realistic framework because I have this need, can even call it urge, for things to make sense; so much so, that at times, I use reason to sift even through spiritual matters. I also find somewhat repugnant the need for secrecy, hidden meanings, useless mystery. For me, things have to be clear, neat, preferably self-evident.
Unfortunately, reality is full of nuances and at times legitimate withdrawals of information; there are things which we are not meant to know or understand. But still, I can't help but have this general tendency towards trying to find answers and logical conclusions, all the while realizing that some of my questions may never be answered. Twistedly self-defeating, I know.
As for, secret messages in Michael's songs - well, I don't know about those. I may come back at a later point on this issue.
I also believe he at least did also have real love with those he married, each obviously special to him in their own way, and I take solace in knowing he did not live his entire existence without a single modicum of a normal or normally abnormal love in his life.
Obviously they were all special in their own way and I have much respect for their struggles, before and
after being with Michael, in whatever way, even the ones the world doesn't know about, there may very well be those as well. We all got issues and chips on our shoulders, not just megastars and when dealing with Michael and his own enormous mountain of problems, I imagine things can get very difficult. There may even have been blame to be shared if things did not work out in the long term.
A million and two fans could claim that they could have done such a better job at loving Michael than the women who were actually near him, but is that really true? Projecting song lyrics and dance moves onto his romantic potential may not necessarily embody the whole complexity of the man. Rita Hayworth, who had such a horrible childhood and youth, poor woman, is famously quoted as saying - people expect Gilda and they wake up with me.
I'm pretty sure someone already mentioned it a few moons ago in this very thread.
Of course fans can fantasize, cause that's in the job description, I guess, but the true question is - was Michael really willing and able to live out the lyrics to THE Lady In My Life and To Satisfy You, and not just for a night or a season? In between his workaholic ways (part of which, ironically were dedicated to recording songs about sensuality and lifelong faithfulness), his absolute commitment to charity, all of his troubles which consumed so much of time and drained him of his vital energies, did he really
understand that women need constant attention and exclusive affection and did he find the time for that?
Furthermore, was he allowed to have such priorities? Wouldn't 'the committee' made of labels, managers, lawyers prevent him from even entertaining such thoughts? It is, after all, well known that folks from boy bands are supposed to appear free and uncommitted, so their audience can dream away while staring at their posters, buying their tunes and attending never ending tours. Well, his boy band days were long behind him, but the more fame he accumulated, the greater the business interest grew. Back in Feb. 1993 the man himself said he was 'married to his music, to his fans'. Turns out that in May 1994 he changed his mind and thus led people to question the realness and the timing of his first civil union.
At some level, Michael may have had simple needs. Just like most other human beings, he longed to love and be loved, preferably by the same person and preferably for all time. But his life was anything but simple and I'm not sure even the world 'complex' does it justice. However, in spite of it all, we can certainly take solace in the fact that he had a modicum of real life connections, however sporadic, some more memorable than others.
There are people that go through life without any
such thing and that is an absolute tragedy, so much so that it can make life not just miserable, but completely unbearable. Not only that, but his dream of fatherhood became a reality. Therefore, his life, although marked by deep sorrow and prolonged loneliness, was not bereft of joy and purpose.
It seems that relationships that are 'proximity' types of connections (meaning people known due to being incidental to one's environment) tend to often be those connections that teach us initial awarenesses about ourselves- the knowledge of which helps us with our ultimate relationships.
I see what you are saying and it actually makes a lot of sense. But to be honest, if I were one of those ladies I would feel a bit offended by such a suggestion. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but it does sound somewhat demeaning. It sounds as though Michael had these 3D connections out of sheer geographical convenience, while his mind/spirit were dreaming away about some ultimate chick. After all, isn't that one of the hypothesis of the thread? I seem to recall some comments about the YANA video which were in this vein. Also, it may very well mean that she wasn't someone within his easy reach. Wasn't there a J5 tune
that went - where are you girl, are you just across the street.......OR clear across the world?
Either way, that whole idea of proximity-driven connections just doesn't sit right with me. I find it unfair - both to the women near and to the 'far-away' one, the potential destination at the end his romantic labyrinth, so to say. But then again, maybe that's just me and my silly idea(l)s, which tend to be quite rigid.
In this thread, as an in any other comment online, we all have the impetus to talk about things from our own perspective, world view and values and those are not always similar to the ones used by others and in this case, by the man himself. Only Michael would know who was in his life, on his mind and in his heart and for how long. It was his life, after all and he certainly owed no explanation to anyone else but
those in his life. He certainly was not obliged to explain himself, even to the fans, let alone the world. And as I already said it before, we can only speculate about it all, trying to make sense of the puzzle, with the few pieces we think we have at our disposal, while using our own lens, however skewed it may or may not be.
And speaking of one's own lens, with the risk of being perceived as a radical romantic of the Christian type, I must say that from my perspective, REAL love
is defined solely as a life-long bond blessed by God between one man and one woman
. It may sound restrictive, but anything else is most temporary affection and everything else represents just a string of failed romances. It's like they say - it's nice to be someone's first love, but it is best to someone's last love. In any case, me and my highly demanding reference points are irrelevant. As long as Michael and his ladies were happy with whatever it is they had and it was 'perfection for them', as I believe it was also said in this thread at some point, what I think doesn't really matter.
I think it is also highly unlikely that the messages throughout the music are for only one person in particular. I may very well be wrong, but I think he simply got enthused with each new (ad)venture - known/unknown, hoping that each new conquest, of whatever type, may be THE ONE - the final one, the proper one, the permanent one, but it just never actually worked out. To confuse infatuation for the real thing can happen not just to commoners, like us, but also to kings. At the end of the day, we are all human and perhaps for kings it is all even more difficult, because of their 'duties' and many constrains. Hence, for people like Michael, romantic connections may very well be only brief and passing.
Also, I know there are some who even questioned God's possible involvement in all this, going to such lengths as to extrapolate their own faith experience and that of others to Michael's case. Departing yet again from a logical point view, it would seem that God did not see fit to bring the reality of holy matrimony into Michael's life, because based on what we know, Michael was NEVER married, not in the eyes of God anyhow. Obviously, such a thing was not necessary - either for the salvation of Michael's soul or the improvement of his life, be it in terms of length or romantic fulfillment and stability.
But then again, who knows? We can always dream that the reason why Michael had to 'disappear' and 'get away' in June 2009 was to find and keep real love. I believe that is what SoS was hinting at when she wrote this.
Some of us who are unsettled about the evidence of the death also have held out hope that he strategically found a way to make his 'dream come true' as he sang about in various songs and spoke about as well in terms of the fame.
It would indeed be absolutely lovely, if true. I think everyone who cared about his well-being, would be incredibly happy for him and would understand that. It would be swell if that is what he has been doin' for more than a decade now - to embrace his great, true love on beaches and hotel rooms all over the world or on some distant island, away from the prying and poisonous eyes of the media.
Lord knows he deserved to be happy, after everything the world put him through. And just as I said before, a happy, public relationship, lived out for decades in front of the world, would have been most improbable. If that's what it took for him to have that dream come true, so be it; just as long as no one was hurt significantly because of false expectations and delusions.
But in that case, what about those poor folks still awaiting a BAM? But then again, I don't think anyone expects such a thing anymore, even if, defying all reason, logic and media reports, Michael would still be alive. Who knows, though? After all, we are talking about Michael J. Jackson, a man many claimed to love and few even dared to think they knew. I guess just about anything is possible with him. Does it even matter if his middle name was Joe or Joseph, btw? However, I am afraid the hoax people see too much into this slight confusion and many other things, for that matter.
Perhaps it is a most unwarranted supposition on my part, especially since the thread started while Michael was very much alive and we cannot tell the motivations of people, but I think some of the intensity in participation in this thread is somewhat related to those first few years after June 2009, when the so-called 'hoax' was in full swing. As time went on and nothing happened, people started to let go of all fanciful thoughts - everything from him still being alive to a supposed grand love affair he may have had, in whatever way, with whomever, as initially described in so many of the pages here.
And now for some other, more tangible issues, I gotta dwell a bit on something SoS said and really caught my attention.
Clearly 'she' was not lured by material things (although she should've realized MJ can't help but to come that way) and we speculated that it may be the thing she wanted him to know most. How else would he know she loves him for him? It is also a contradiction to assume that would matter to him since according to interviews his focus seemed to have been that special someone would have money like him so he'd know he could trust that person. I find it a sad irony that he would use money as a screening criteria but I digress sorry again.
Another irony on top of that is a song that emphasizes how 'life ain't always material things'
Obviously I meant the bolded part. That is something new for me. I am not aware of any such statement by Michael, about him using money as 'screening criteria', but his lyrics seem to be contradictory indeed, especially considering Destiny
or even earlier, I can only give you love
. We can always say the latter one was written by the Factory at Motown and he was just a little boy singing their lines, but one would assume that a man with Michael's wisdom, insight and intelligence, beyond his braggadocio lines in several songs, would seek other things in a woman than material wealth.
Notwithstanding, it isn't that hard to understand why he could also be interested in her financial independence. The rich and famous always have to live with the doubt that those approaching them have ulterior, less than pure reasons. Also, people who have made wrong choices and invested far too much emotion and trust in all the wrong 'targets' can find it very difficult, if not impossible, to really open their heart ever again. But one cannot go through life painting everyone with one big, generalizing brush - not everyone is the same and, as hard as it may seem to believe, there are women and men out there who think about other things than money and fame and who expect totally different things from their man/woman.
I happen to think one doesn't need to be a trillionaire, a 4th wave feminist or some grand she-entrepreneur to be an 'independent woman', afford some nice things and travel across the world - all it takes really is a decent job, low cost airlines............and
, apparently, the 'permission' to travel.
The things one expects from a man cannot possibly be bought either - his loving stare, his supportive shoulder to cry on, his hand to hold for better or for worse, his superhuman ability to deal with female mood swings, long rambles or sharp silences and all kinds of other lovely things that he can do with the rest of his body, meaning of course his brilliant brain to make her laugh, what else?
And for all of those things, there's no need for spas, diamonds or ultra exotic locations, not in my corner of Mars, anyhow. All such a woman would need is exactly what Michael and Stevie understood so perfectly in Get it
- tender love and affection
, love forever after
- from ANY beautiful man (in and out), in her proximity. They really did get it
, didn't they?
So, if the financial criterion can be somewhat understandable, I think we can all hope that Michael didn't use equality of fame as a benchmark, because in that case, he would have lived a completely solitary existence and would have ended up with absolutely no one.
It just occurred to me that there was another part of SoS' post that I agreed with
Lastly, curious whether anyone here found it rather......I guess I'll say, 'odd' that on the Jackson brothers' recent tours where Jermaine sings many of Michael's lead parts especially on Michael's solo hits - there is one lesser known song in Michael's repertoire that Jermaine sings in addition to his giant hits, and that particular song was not only NOT a hit, it was also not a single release at all and for the most part not a huge fan favorite even as a 'filler' song - in fact it often shows up on the LEAST favorite and least well-liked/well-known- lists and that song is, Can't Let Her Get Away.
Indeed, I've also noticed that. Although not seeing every single last one of their performances, I am aware that they, and especially Jermaine, have been using this lesser known and under-appreciated song very often. It does seem a bit strange, doesn't it?
And since this is my first post of the year in here, I will take this opportunity to wish everyone a year full of contentment, tranquility and joy, within of course the limits of what is possible. Keeping the feet on the ground, preparing for the worst, while hoping and praying for better times, are pretty sound pieces of advice.
And btw of New Year's wishes, here's that record breaking tweet from the other day
tough seeing a new year [and a new decade] start without Michael around, but after all these years, I am afraid we have gotten rather accustomed to it and we must make the best of the situation in front of us.
All we can do really is defend him in whatever small way we can with those terrible trials that still await, read things and even participate in ancient threads like this which deal with Michael's love life, seemingly spelled out in his songs. And if his love life is like a puzzle or a labyrinth, not having the complete picture or a map, we are bound to wind up with some surrealism, placing pieces in all the wrong places or end up in dead ends. I guess it's all cool, just as long as no one gets too dizzy from trying to make the pieces fit or from bumping into some of the inevitable walls of the labyrinth, or worse yet, gets caught by the minotaur.
We can't tell the motivation of people, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that most of the people who participated in this thread over all the years were seemingly incurable romantics and folks who simply wished the very best for Michael and wanted to see him irrevocably happy. And I think that's quite noble and lovely, actually.
And by the way of well-meaning people, I have to thank SoS once more for her bravery and contribution to this thread. And btw, home girl, please feel free to post any idea, however strange it may seem to the untrained ear or mind. Over the decades, there have been many crazy stories and theories about Michael and I believe in this very thread we've long since passed the outlandish phase. So much so, that I don't think you should have any apprehensions about the wild factor in your thoughts. Also, in a quest without a map and a clear destination, there's no such notion as 'digressing'.
Here's a funny thought though - do you guys think Michael was actually aware of this thread?
We know that he was a member here and we also know he was aware of a certain thread dedicated to the gold pants and supposedly he wasn't offended by it, but did he know of this
thread? And if he did, I wonder what his reaction might have been. Did he go - oh no, they couldn't be more wrong
or was it how on earth did they realize that?
Anyway, I better get going now. I may have just broken the world record for longest internet post ever. Obviously, the less is more
memo never arrived around here; it must be lost in some postal office somewhere.
Happy and healthy New Year, everyone!