Latest on MJJC

Had the album that became "Invincible" been released in 1999

Electro said:
But had he looked like that in the previous decade during Dangerous or HIStory? Nope.

Michael by himself reinvented his look for every album with the help of talented designers. No need to force.

Before the HIStory album there were also reports that Michael was about to reinvent his image and look etc.

This had become something to expect from Michael Jackson with every new album.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Michael always changed his style before an album. he was doing it since his comeback for BAD. it's was nothing new for him to change his style. LOL!
 
If it's true Sony was forcing him to change his style to something else then I wouldn't be surprise why Michael left this company in the first place.
 
Mikky Dee;4294262 said:
You have absolutely no idea what Michael Jackson did, intentionally or not intentionally, on any night and this is neither the time nor the place to re-hash speculations and recriminations such as this.
Click to expand...

I was not there, but this can been confirmed by the doctor who resuscitated him at that night.

That doctor had been for several months the personal doctor of Randy Jackson, and it was Randy Jackson who actually called the doctor in the middle of the night in order to resuscitate Michael Jackson from that overdose.

So, the incident did happen, and it is not a speculation, or a myth, or a rumour.

ChrisC;4294628 said:
Don't believe this about Sony's orders.

First of all, where does a record company get off telling a veteran world class singer how to sing?
Click to expand...

In the same way the record company told him (despite being a veteran world class singer) to sit on a chair and patiently sign copies of his newly released ‘Invincible’ album at Virgin Megastore.

Electro;4294642 said:
Michael by himself reinvented his look for every album with the help of talented designers/stylists. No need to force.

That Entertainment Weekly article offers the solution for a problem it creates.
And "According to stylists" is what it goes down to.

Before the HIStory album there were also reports that Michael was about to reinvent his image and look etc. This had become something to expect from Michael Jackson with every new album.

The comments from Rodney, Tameka Foster and Jamie Kimmelman are just that. Entertainment weekly probably simply reached out to them for a quote on Michaels style. They don't confirm anything Sony.

Feel free to provide reports and quotes that actually support this claim.
(At least hinting that it was not completely down to Michaels own will in the first place.)
Click to expand...

NatureCriminal7896;4294647 said:
Exactly! Michael always changed his style before an album. he was doing it since his comeback for BAD. it's was nothing new for him to change his style. LOL!
Click to expand...

The ‘Invincible’ situation (in terms of change of his image and style) was different from previous eras in that Sony controlled him in almost every way and forced him certain things to do.

New image and abandonment of his vocal trademarks in favour of modern slang words on the album were just two of these things.

Remember also, unlike previous eras, Michael Jackson in the early 2000s was no longer his own master.

For example, Sony financed the making of that album by paying the bills directly to the parties involved in that album (musicians, songwriters, producers, recording studios’ rents, etc) charging Michael Jackson’s royalty account.

Sony also turned his wish down about ‘Unbreakable’ being the lead single, and the record company forced him to release ‘You Rock My World’ instead.

Sony also forced him to change stylistically (as confirmed also by these hired by Sony stylists’ quotes that I posted) by adopting a more casual image (look, for example, at his new image on the TV Guide Magazine interview and photo shoot, December 4-10, 1999, which was part of that stylistic change forced by Sony).

Sony also forced him the ‘Invincible’ album promotional campaign to be minimalist because the record company wanted the focus to be on his album’s music, rather than on other non-musical aspects that would distract from his music.

For example, Sony did not want the extravagant and pompous ‘HIStory’ album promotional campaign to happen again because during that 'HIStory' album era it distracted from his music (people were reading about him rather than listening to his music).
 
mj_frenzy;4294949 said:
I was not there, but this can been confirmed by the doctor who resuscitated him at that night.

That doctor had been for several months the personal doctor of Randy Jackson, and it was Randy Jackson who actually called the doctor in the middle of the night in order to resuscitate Michael Jackson from that overdose.

So, the incident did happen, and it is not a speculation, or a myth, or a rumour.
Click to expand...


Hah, great! Randy Jackson...................

So that must have been another one of those juicy stories "a source close to the family" aka Randy Jackson "leaked" to the likes of TMZ, right? Since the 2005 trial Randy keeps "leaking" fabricated and spiced up gossip about the Jackson family, even about Michaels CHILDREN! (Paris' suicide attempts etc.)

If that's not the source for your claim, then WHY are you not simply sharing the details that at least suggest that it is NOT a speculation, or a myth, or a rumour.

I hate to break it to you once again, but Greek Michael Jackson fan mj_frenzy confirming in his own words, that some wild story is not a speculation, or a myth, or a rumour is actually not confirming anything. It just makes you look like an attention seeker. But maybe for some pervert reason you are happy with that?





mj_frenzy;4294949 said:
Sony also turned his wish down about ‘Unbreakable’ being the lead single, and the record company forced him to release ‘You Rock My World’ instead.
Click to expand...

Yes, we probably all heard this story. And I totally understand this descision by Sony.

Record companies naturally always have the last word regarding songs picked for singles (especially lead singles) and everything that involves spending, making or possibly losing big amounts of their money. That's why Michael had to finance the "Thriller" and "Ghosts" short films himself. That's why "Do the Bartman" wasn't released as a single, "Give In To Me" wasn't released as a single in the USA, "Smile" didn't get released, "Blood On The Dance Floor" EP turned into a remix album, or why the "HIStory" single was a remix, despite Michael reportedly saying that he didn't like (those) remixes. There are enough examples to understand that this is nothing new.

Yes, Michaels financial situation had worsened by 2001.

But to think that would lead to Sony forcing Michael to say "Shorty" (in a song he didn't write), or force him to dress in a certain way, is just very far fetched. I get how you come to connect these dots, but nothing you shared yet actually confirms or even proves this theory in any way.





mj_frenzy;4294949 said:
Sony also forced him to change stylistically (as confirmed also by these hired by Sony stylists’ quotes that I posted) by adopting a more casual image (look, for example, at his new image on the TV Guide Magazine interview and photo shoot, December 4-10, 1999, which was part of that stylistic change forced by Sony).
Click to expand...

So you just ignore the important part of my last post then. *sigh*

Again, that one article by Entertainment Weekly and those quotes from stylists in it DO NOT confirm your "Sony forced a certain style on Michael" claim. At all.

Sony very obviously did not have to force Michael in 2001 to get rid of his Thriller era look. Right??

So.... this leads us to the understanding that the stylists quotes attached to the nonsense premise of that article can not be in that context of ANYONE FORCING ANYTHING. Because: We know that Michael obviously loved to changed his look anyway for every album since the 80s.

Can you follow me?





mj_frenzy;4294949 said:
Sony also forced him the ‘Invincible’ album promotional campaign to be minimalist because the record company wanted the focus to be on his album’s music, rather than on other non-musical aspects that would distract from his music.

For example, Sony did not want the extravagant and pompous ‘HIStory’ album promotional campaign to happen again because during that 'HIStory' album era it distracted from his music (people were reading about him rather than listening to his music).
Click to expand...

Force force force...
If you don't have any quotes from halfway credible people to share, please just stop trying to come across knowledgeable like that.
This is just the next best obvious guesswork any fan can come up with in hindsight. But that still doesn't make it FACT.
 
Last edited:
I think Michael was trying to be hip and be relevant. :laughing: he didn't need to but it's understandable. it's happens all the time like in the late 80's and 90's everybody was trying to be hip. it was so cheesy. they still do things like that today. I wish they don't but it's understandable. LOL!

But Michael was sort of always kind of like that. he would always put himself and mix what was popular during the time. like look at dangerous new jack swing. that was very popular in the late 80's early 90's.

so it was all about staying relevant too. lol! :D
 
I notice in the you rock my world video he's wearing a scarf with a fedora. LOL! :D back in the 90's and early 2000's it was cool to wear a scarf on your head. Michael was trying to be Gangsta I mean he was a gangster in the short film but you get what I mean. :laughing:

when Michael made this album they asked him before releasing it who your target audiences is he said he didn't know but he hoped they would liked the album. :lmao:

see this one of problems waiting so long to release an album and getting older. you have to stay relevant because the world is considering changing and slangs considering changing.

same goes for Bad. the whole point of Bad for him to be hip too with the teenagers, his race, the time period and music at the time. lol! he had to put down the good guy image sometimes to be hip and "Bad".

Bad was slang in the late 80's which mean it cool. LOL!

he was a introvert and not really mainstream into the world. he kind of an outsider.

I still like Invincible through even if he was trying to be hip. it's happens sometimes to all of us. :laughing:
 
Imagine if Michael tried to be relevant today? he"ll probably try trap music. LOL! i guess we have Michael Trapson for that. :laughing:
 
Honestly, if Michael was alive and still making music (which is sort of up in the air since he'd be turning 62 in two months), odds are he would've dabbled in trap. Even if he didn't directly embrace trends, he always incorporated them into his work.
 
Mj would have been involved in the current trends and putting his own mark on it, as he had always done.
 
Age is just number. when it come to somethings. if Michael was alive an wanted to something with trap he could have. michael was in his 30's when dangerous was release and in his 40's when Invincible was release. so what?

he was very talented. when you have talent like Michael did or if there ever be someone like Michael again. you make a lot things you can go far. he was a genius.
 
Not saying he was too old to make music, but he said consistently over the years that he was getting sick of doing pop album after pop album and wanted to move on into cinema and film. Plus, part of his deal with AEG was to finance films for him to be involved in once the TII residency wrapped up.

I honestly don't know if Michael would still be dropping songs at this point in his life.
 
In my opinion he would be still making music and movies like he said. still helping people, charities, etc. speaking out for the protesting etc. same old Michael just older. I really think Michael could done a lot more things if didn't leave us so soon.
 
AlwaysThere;4294981 said:
Not saying he was too old to make music, but he said consistently over the years that he was getting sick of doing pop album after pop album and wanted to move on into cinema and film. Plus, part of his deal with AEG was to finance films for him to be involved in once the TII residency wrapped up.

I honestly don't know if Michael would still be dropping songs at this point in his life.
Click to expand...

Taj said in one of his live streams that the last words his uncle said to him were: “After this, we’re going to make movies.”
:boohoo
 
Awwwwwwwww. well, if that's what he was really gonna do then i would respect that but honestly we really don't what Michael would of done first he said something then said and do something else. i'm just gonna end this topic because we really don't know for sure.
 
Fuzball said:
From the little pieces I gathered from here and there it is most likely that these songs were considered for such an album in late 1999

Break of Dawn
Cry
Escape
Another Day
She Was Loving Me
Blue Gangsta
I Have This Dream
Rock My World
Thank Heaven
What More Can I Give
Click to expand...

I would add ''Fall Again'' which was recorded in May 1999, ''We've Had Enough'', ''Speechless'', ''Monster'' and ''The Way You Love Me'' (which was titled ''Hanson'').
 
Electro said:
All that - the "well documented fact" seems to be solely based on that ONE single Entertainment Weekly article:


Stylists plan Michael Jackson's makeover​
It's out with the glove and in with the... cornrows? ​
​
February 26, 2001 at 05:00 AM EST ​
by Evan Serpick and Bob Cannon​
​
Stylists-plan-Michael-Jackson-s-makeover-EW-com-2020-06-19.jpg
​
​
As Michael Jackson prepares to launch version 4.0 of himself, many of his fashion staples — military epaulets, single sequined gloves — have beat it from his wardrobe. By mandate. According to stylists hired for recent Jackson photo shoots, Sony insists that fashion consultants sign a contract agreeing not to outfit the star in his old style relics. (Sony’s Michele Schweitzer downplayed the label’s role: ”Many artists have a standard contract when you do a photo shoot.”)​
​
So what should the 21st century Jack0 look like? No more socks and gloves, insists Rodney Jerkins, who’s worked on Jackson’s new album. ”He needs to change, come out totally fresh.” ​
​
Tameka Foster, a stylist for Lauryn Hill and Toni Braxton, suggests a more subtle vibe. ”He’s always been larger than life. He needs to be a bit more regular.” Her suggestion? Cornrows and clothing that’s ”halfway between hip hop and haute couture.”​
​
Jamie Kimmelman, an image consultant for Shania Twain and others, would dump the androgynous theatrics. Stealing a page from the recent men’s fashion shows, Kimmelman urges ”a return to gentlemanly elegance…impeccably tailored suits, but with a bright orange shirt and tie, and a lining [that] is bright orange satin, so it’s not a boring pinstriped banker’s suit.”​
​
​



Even the quote you credited the 'King Of Pop' magazin for, actually comes from this same Entertainment Weekly article. But that might be down to good old copy & paste journalism by that British fanzine.


So let's take a closer look:

Reading that they write (in 2001) that "many of his fashion staples — military epaulets, single sequined gloves — have beat it from his wardrobe", and looking at the image to that article, it becomes clear that their visual perception of Michael Jackson was (deliberately or not) stuck in the 1980s Thriller days.

But had he looked like that in the previous decade during Dangerous or HIStory? Nope.

This ignorant perception might be expectable from non-fans and such USA-based boulevard journalists, but not from Michaels own record label, who definitly should know better.

You really believe Sony would intrigue to make Michael get rid of the single sequined gloves although he had not worn those (outside of the Billie Jean performance) since the BAD era? That makes no sense.

Michael by himself reinvented his look for every album with the help of talented designers/stylists. No need to force.

That Entertainment Weekly article offers the solution for a problem it creates.
And "According to stylists" is what it goes down to.

Before the HIStory album there were also reports that Michael was about to reinvent his image and look etc. This had become something to expect from Michael Jackson with every new album.

The comments from Rodney, Tameka Foster and Jamie Kimmelman are just that. Entertainment weekly probably simply reached out to them for a quote on Michaels style. They don't confirm anything Sony.





Feel free to provide reports and quotes that actually support this claim.
(At least hinting that it was not completely down to Michaels own will in the first place.)
Click to expand...
There used to be a picture of this, anyone have it? He had a durag and wife beater on with jeans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top