Latest on MJJC

History could have been better

Nite Line said:
History could have been better if Morphine and In The Back were on the album, in place of Come Together and Smile.
Click to expand...
But Smile fits in with the whole theme of the HIStory album. After all the crap Michael's been through and no matter how hurt he feels he'll keep smiling. It's not one of my favourite songs but I understand why it's on the album.
 
analogue said:
But Smile fits in with the whole theme of the HIStory album. After all the crap Michael's been through and no matter how hurt he feels he'll keep smiling. It's not one of my favourite songs but I understand why it's on the album.
Click to expand...
I understand ending the album on a positive note, but Smile doesn't fit the overall dark and angry theme of the album, in my opinion.
 
HIStory would have been better without the abuse allegations, period. So much of it got dedicated to the BS he had to go through and working out his anger and grief over it, that it lost a bit of the magic that was normally unfiltered through him. There was some real genius stuff on it, but it got diluted a bit imo. Same thing on Invincible, though Invincible had a higher percentage of pure MJ tracks. There were probably 5 too many tracks on Invincible, however, and the greatest song (maybe his best song ever), Whatever Happens, never got a proper release because of the war with Sony :(.
 
filmandmusic said:
It was a bit of a problem for the last 2 studio albums where some of the tracks that didn't end up in the albums were actually more impressive than several that did make the album.
I think Scream was also a bad choice for lead single. While a good track for me it lacks a hook, a memorable beat or chorus. I would have picked Money as it was a perfect statement after the allegations or Tabloid Junkie well for the same reasons.

I don't know if morphine, ghosts and is it scary were finished in 1995 but I would even argue those 3 songs were good enough reasons to even delay the HIStory album until they were fully finished!
Click to expand...
It appears that the selection of 'Scream' as the lead single (and also as the first song on the album) was because Michael Jackson wanted to emphatically show a feel of unity and support from his family (represented by his sister Janet Jackson) to what was happening to him at that time.

'Money' would have been lyrically far too aggressive as a lead single from that album (the same goes for 'Tabloid Junkie').

The main problems with the 'HIStory' album have to do with other new songs.

For instance, the 'Childhood' song: it was somewhat funny to hear a multimillionaire artist complaining about his alleged 'stolen' or 'lost' childhood.

Or the 'HIStory' song which showed the level of his big arrogance and self-importance, because he basically put himself in the same league as all those great historic pioneers of the past that the song refers to.
 
mj_frenzy said:
For instance, the 'Childhood' song: it was somewhat funny to hear a multimillionaire artist complaining about his alleged 'stolen' or 'lost' childhood.
Click to expand...
Wow, dude. What does being a multimillionaire have to do with anything? Are you not allowed to express your feelings if you're rich?
He wasn't even complaining, it was more of an explanation, to people who were calling him a weirdo, why he turned out to be different than others.
 
@mj_frenzy

Good call on why scream was a good choice for first single, I agree, when you got a point you got a point...
Though Money or tabloid junkie would have been such a huge middle finger and a superb statements. He should have done more with the tracks, they now got snowed in while they have such awesome in your faces messages for all the people against him. Scream on the other hand I find a bit sad, defeatist, getting closer to self to self pity.

But I don't agree with your other opinions.
I personally think childhood is one of his most beautiful compositions and his most personal song. If you don't like that one, then you don't understand where MJ was coming from. It is the one song you could use to describe Michael Jackson to a stranger. I call it a crowning achievement and a centerpiece of his music career.

I also don't agree on HIStory. He isn't using all these quotes of people and historic moments to compare himself with, he uses them to encourage you to become someone in the world or even much smaller for your family after all every individual has the key to make something of their lives. So it is not arrogant, it is only arrogant if you want it to be. It is a testament to what human beings can be. It's a song more like keep the faith, uplifting and inspiring. The sound tapes of all the historic moments was brilliant. very underrated track.
 
Last edited:
mj_frenzy said:
It appears that the selection of 'Scream' as the lead single (and also as the first song on the album) was because Michael Jackson wanted to emphatically show a feel of unity and support from his family (represented by his sister Janet Jackson) to what was happening to him at that time.
Click to expand...
The most obvious reason Scream was released as the lead single is because it had Janet on it, who was a big star at that time. It was the same reason why The Girl Is Mine was released as the lead single from Thriller, because it featured Paul McCartney.
 
Janet Jackson really isn't that big outside the USA though. that's the way love goes, together again, nasty became big hits in Europe but the rest were mostly just moderate hits. Same story with Mariah Carey.
 
filmandmusic said:
Janet Jackson really isn't that big outside the USA though. that's the way love goes, together again, nasty became big hits in Europe but the rest were mostly just moderate hits. Same story with Mariah Carey.
Click to expand...
But she was massive in the USA during the mid 80s-early 00s. She even had more chart success than Michael in the USA during that time period. Michael's reputation following the allegations take a massive hit mostly in the USA, so doing a duet with Janet and release it as the lead single from his first album post allegations was a great marketing strategy.
 
mj_frenzy said:
For instance, the 'Childhood' song: it was somewhat funny to hear a multimillionaire artist complaining about his alleged 'stolen' or 'lost' childhood.
Click to expand...
“Alleged!?”

I find this pretty offensive and I honestly am stunned an MJ fan would use such language. It might be a hokey song people cannot relate to, but how anyone could question MJ’s sincerity on THIS of all subjects blows my mind. He was a multimillionaire because he was basically a child slave to his father and the music industry and had immense talent. Yeah, he could buy whatever he wanted materially, but no money could heal the scars of the emotional trauma he suffered while everyone else was out on the playground.
 
Last edited:
BlastFromThePast said:
“Alleged!?”

I find this pretty offensive and I honestly am stunned an MJ fan would use such language. It might be a hokey song people cannot relate to, but how anyone could question MJ’s sincerity on THIS of all subjects blows my mind. He was a multimillionaire because he was basically a child slave to his father and the music industry and had immense talent. Yeah, he could buy whatever he wanted materially, but no money could heal the scars of the emotional trauma he suffered while everyone else was out on the playground.
Click to expand...
It is not offensive at all.

Michael Jackson did what he wanted to do when he was a child, he enjoyed it, and he would have done the same thing again if he could.

One year before he died, he admitted that.

He was asked if he would do it again as a child, and here is his response:

"I think I would. It is very much worth it. I have always loved show business and have always enjoyed making people happy through that medium. I love the celebration of music and dance and art. I just love it!" (Michael Jackson, 'Good Morning America', 2008)

This clearly shows that as a child he wanted to be in the limelight, to sing, to dance, to perform, to travel all over the world for touring, etc, and as he said in the above interview, he would have chosen to do the same thing again if he could.

Children in Africa who starve have, for example, a 'stolen' or 'lost' childhood, not Michael Jackson.
 
mj_frenzy said:
It is not offensive at all.

Michael Jackson did what he wanted to do when he was a child, he enjoyed it, and he would have done the same thing again if he could.

One year before he died, he admitted that.

He was asked if he would do it again as a child, and here is his response:

"I think I would. It is very much worth it. I have always loved show business and have always enjoyed making people happy through that medium. I love the celebration of music and dance and art. I just love it!" (Michael Jackson, 'Good Morning America', 2008)

This clearly shows that as a child he wanted to be in the limelight, to sing, to dance, to perform, to travel all over the world for touring, etc, and as he said in the above interview, he would have chosen to do the same thing again if he could.
Click to expand...
It is, in fact, very offensive.

You're just pick and choosing one response out of so many others in which he has made it clear that he suffered a lot when he was young. During that interview he simply said that he enjoyed performing, which is something he has never denied and everybody knows.

It was not the performing that made him have a 'lost childhood' and this he made clear a lot of times - it was his father's abuse and the fact that he didn't have the time to do anything else apart from performing.

mj_frenzy said:
Children in Africa who starve have, for example, a 'stolen' or 'lost' childhood, not Michael Jackson.
Click to expand...

That's not an argument. Just because other kids are suffering does not mean Michael Jackson did not. Being surrounded by adults 24/7 as a child and having to deal with fame from such a young age makes you miss out on a normal childhood.
 
There are a couple songs on the album that could have been replaced with more commercial friendly tracks that were recorded in the same era. Thay said, I still would not change a thing on the album - he put his heart and soul into it and that is a large part of what I personally look for in his work. It's personal, raw, & honest - it's Michael that we hear.
 
filmandmusic said:
Janet Jackson really isn't that big outside the USA though. that's the way love goes, together again, nasty became big hits in Europe but the rest were mostly just moderate hits. Same story with Mariah Carey.
Click to expand...
That does not really matter though. Garth Brooks is the biggest selling artist of the 1990s and the majority of his sales are in the US. The US is Mike's main market and also the largest market for record sales in general. That's why all of those British Invasion acts tried to break into the USA. Without the USA, The Beatles would have been nowhere near as huge, they'd be more like The Dave Clark Five, who were primarily popular in the UK. Dave Clark Five is not as well known today as the British acts who made it in the states like The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd, Def Leppard, Eric Clapton, etc.
 
BlastFromThePast said:
“Alleged!?”

I find this pretty offensive and I honestly am stunned an MJ fan would use such language. It might be a hokey song people cannot relate to, but how anyone could question MJ’s sincerity on THIS of all subjects blows my mind. He was a multimillionaire because he was basically a child slave to his father and the music industry and had immense talent. Yeah, he could buy whatever he wanted materially, but no money could heal the scars of the emotional trauma he suffered while everyone else was out on the playground.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with most of the above, minus the 'hokey song' part. There are experiences which can leave one irrevocably scarred, and obviously, for Michael, his lost childhood is one of the issues that haunted him for his entire life.

dethorro said:
[......] Just because other kids are suffering does not mean Michael Jackson did not. Being surrounded by adults 24/7 as a child and having to deal with fame from such a young age makes you miss out on a normal childhood.
Click to expand...

If Adele was still a child, as she was thrust in the limelight at the age of 18, what could be said of Michael, who - at the age of 11 - performed on the Ed Sullivan show, already with half a decade of work behind him? But perhaps, Adele wasn't singing about herself, after all; not every tune has got to be autobiographical, not in its entirety, anyhow,,,,

I've always found useless, counter-productive comparisons quite vexing, especially when they dismiss the depth and seriousness of trauma suffered by others. I find that approach nothing short of ignorant and cruel. One would expect more from people who are supposed to be caring about the man they are talking about. But I guess some feel the need to appear objective, lest they be viewed as 'cultish'. Plurality of opinions and constructive criticism are bedrocks of a healthy, vibrant environment, but some people seem to find it difficult to reconcile their intellect with their emotions, especially those of empathy.

KOPV said:
There are a couple songs on the album that could have been replaced with more commercial friendly tracks that were recorded in the same era. Thay said, I still would not change a thing on the album - he put his heart and soul into it and that is a large part of what I personally look for in his work. It's personal, raw, & honest - it's Michael that we hear.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree - HIStory remains, to this very day, Michael's most personal album and that makes it an absolute masterpiece. Still, it pains me to acknowledge it, while thinking about the inspiration behind so many of the songs..........

It is not good for man to be alone (Ephesians 5:25-33)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top