Latest on MJJC

Lady Gaga to open Michael Jackson museum

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread cleaned: Please stop the personal insults and attacks or the thread will be closed. You can express your opinions without doing that.

Thank you for your cooperation and as always if you have any questions or concerns PM Admin and do not derail the thread by replying or discussing moderation actions on your posts or admin requests on the board.
Click to expand...
 
To summarize this thread:

meangirls-chaos.gif
 
I am not a fan of her but I don't have to be to appreciate what she is doing. Anyone could have bought those clothes, but for an actual fan who wants to preserve them to purchase it, that is a very good thing.
 
I should probably just finish off what I have to say since I've not responded to anyone in this thread.
Regardless of what you think of Lady Gaga,whether you think she's successful or not,talented or not,right for buying the clothes or not,bla bla bla,at the end of the day,she still owns his clothes.Whether you like it or not,she owns them and she purchased them with her hard-earned money over the span of six years.Her name may not be on the clothes,but she's still a hardcore and dedicated fan.If the Estate didn't like the fact that people such as Gaga were BUYING these clothes:
A.) The Estate would've not handed over a single article of clothing or anything for that matter over to Julien's Auctions to auction off.
B.) The Estate would've been able to find some viable excuse to sue Gaga.
Since both of those aren't the case,just drop it and leave it alone.It's at least in good hands,maybe not in the hands you want them to be in,regardless of your opinion of her.
giphy.gif

Just my two cents.
 
If it is true, to me she is the only one person who should do this. She is so much alike Michael, real humanitarian, who cares about ARt, people, love and world. Not mentionig her unique music style. IF MJ is God of Love, she is the Goddess...
 
HIStoric said:
It's very easy to sell 125,000,000 singles?


Uhh... yes... yes it is. It doesn't matter at all if you're buying a physical record or a digital download. You still have to convince people that your song is good enough to spend money on. Have stores like iTunes made it easier to buy singles? Yes, but the internet has made it extremely easy (in fact just as easy) to download singles for free. They counter each other out to be honest.

If you can sell over a hundred million singles in a mere 5 years in today's music 'climate', you're doing extremely well - no matter who you are.



Now you're just coming up with excuses
Click to expand...

after the admin have deleted here something. i have to re-add something, cause that were arguments and i dont want to leave it like that

= speculation & nearly everything of it is only downloads, and not singles or records.
download = download = cheap = just a file
single = record = expensive = physical
downloads is not an avievement, its only speculation and manipulation for the charts.

a single is a physical record and a download is just simply a cheap worthless download. a download is a download. cheap and simple. thats what the word says. maybe u didnt realise it yet? every artist can sell 50 or 100 mio downloads. and also claim to have sold 200 mio. 'RECORDS' (or 2 Billion ^^, we know they are all lying, cause its impossible, also the claims about mj's sales), when there is a big organized record company, PR, and the radio stations on your side and like you (for example not for madonna, and she is still the biggest female artist). and what an achievement made is how much physical records you are selling. a record is expensive, a real RECORD. compared to an download. and that is why REAL music experts does not put such artist on a top selling artist list. cause downloads are just simply manipulative and speculation. and that also apllies on the airplay and the speculative manipulative charts.
downloads doesnt make you a megastar, legend, icon. thats the same when someone made 5 number ones from one album, like mj did. and then compare it to perry. perrys 5 number ones was not honoured that much in the industry, cause, first how she made that, and second how this manipulative charts are made/created.

and i dont make excuses.

AMEN & last word to you.
 
Just to correct something above ^^ the estate did not give the clothes to Juliens to auction. It was Bush who did. According to Bush, Michael gave him the items.
 
One more thing, just something that's been nagging me while reading through this thread the last few days. As mentioned before, those clothes are a part of history. Musical history, Entertainment history. Like any other relic of historical relevance, such things are treated with care, people barely touch these things out of an effort to preserve it's historical value, some of these things are handled with gloves and in controlled environments, because it's valuable and again, it's history. You don't see people walking around wearing Princess Diana's old dresses that she once wore, because it decreases the value, such things are preserved for a reason. And nearly everyone believe's things should be preserved that way. So why now, is it okay for an artist you prefer, to wear such historical things, like his Grammy Jacket, to a red carpet appearance, or his tour outfits (not just his sweaters, but the things he performed in, like the Workin' Day And Night jumpers) to studio sessions? She's right in that that you can feel things from someones old clothes, such as the fragrance they wore. With exactly that said, wouldn't that be more suitable for Michael's kids to wear? She says she gave one of his sweaters to Michael's god son...His god son, who the H E double hockey sticks is that? As famous as she is she couldn't seek the three of his kids and give majority of the sweaters and "stuff she put off to the side" to his children? WHAT?! While she may be doing some things right, keeping his clothes in controlled temperature closets and stuff, there's also a lot of ways she's going about this wrong.

Such things like this have been brought up in the past, remember how everyone raged against Arnold Klein for wanting a Jacket that Michael wore, that Klein once gave to him. Nobody wanted him in possession of that jacket, we surely didn't want him showing up in photo's wearing it. But when it's someone we prefer, things are all cool and okay. I'm willing to bet the reactions would be so different if this was Chris Brown, who's also an avid MJ fan.

But in the end, my point is, factually, taking such actions with historical objects ruins the value minute by minute, according to many historians, archaeologists, etc. So why is this any different?
 
Some people here are acting like Lady Gaga has cut up MJ's clothes into ''Meat dress part 2''
 
WhoIsIt89 said:
One more thing, just something that's been nagging me while reading through this thread the last few days. As mentioned before, those clothes are a part of history. Musical history, Entertainment history. Like any other relic of historical relevance, such things are treated with care, people barely touch these things out of an effort to preserve it's historical value, some of these things are handled with gloves and in controlled environments, because it's valuable and again, it's history. You don't see people walking around wearing Princess Diana's old dresses that she once wore, because it decreases the value, such things are preserved for a reason. And nearly everyone believe's things should be preserved that way. So why now, is it okay for an artist you prefer, to wear such historical things, like his Grammy Jacket, to a red carpet appearance, or his tour outfits (not just his sweaters, but the things he performed in, like the Workin' Day And Night jumpers) to studio sessions? She's right in that that you can feel things from someones old clothes, such as the fragrance they wore. With exactly that said, wouldn't that be more suitable for Michael's kids to wear? She says she gave one of his sweaters to Michael's god son...His god son, who the H E double hockey sticks is that? As famous as she is she couldn't seek the three of his kids and give majority of the sweaters and "stuff she put off to the side" to his children? WHAT?! While she may be doing some things right, keeping his clothes in controlled temperature closets and stuff, there's also a lot of ways she's going about this wrong.

Such things like this have been brought up in the past, remember how everyone raged against Arnold Klein for wanting a Jacket that Michael wore, that Klein once gave to him. Nobody wanted him in possession of that jacket, we surely didn't want him showing up in photo's wearing it. But when it's someone we prefer, things are all cool and okay. I'm willing to bet the reactions would be so different if this was Chris Brown, who's also an avid MJ fan.

But in the end, my point is, factually, taking such actions with historical objects ruins the value minute by minute, according to many historians, archaeologists, etc. So why is this any different?
Click to expand...
The only reason Gaga is being crucified at all by certain fans is because she's "out of the norm" to them,so they have to make fun of her and call her "unsuccessful" and "flop" to make themselves feel better.
On with what you're saying,I somewhat agree.Yes,I do feel like she should've given things to his kids,but honestly,do you think three 17,15,and 13 kids could honestly take care of clothes worn by their dad better than a 27-year old?It sounds harsh and extreme,but it's the truth.
Eventually,she'll probably end up giving the things she put on the side to the Estate so they'll make a museum in the near or distant future.She's smarter than most people assume in this thread/on this forum.
 
It's funny how so many MJ fans hate it when people make fun of him but then some of them have no problem with making fun of other artists like Lady Gaga. So hypocritical

If you disagree with her buying his clothes you can disagree in a respectful manner without resorting to childish mocking
 
analogue said:
It's funny how so many MJ fans hate it when people make fun of him but then some of them have no problem with making fun of other artists like Lady Gaga. So hypocritical

If you disagree with her buying his clothes you can disagree in a respectful manner without resorting to childish mocking
Click to expand...
You literally took the words right out of my mouth.
 
analogue said:
It's funny how so many MJ fans hate it when people make fun of him but then some of them have no problem with making fun of other artists like Lady Gaga. So hypocritical

If you disagree with her buying his clothes you can disagree in a respectful manner without resorting to childish mocking
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean all non LG fans are like that. I have expressed my disagreements towards her actions but I haven't mocked anybody.
 
Last edited:
analogue said:
It's funny how so many MJ fans hate it when people make fun of him but then some of them have no problem with making fun of other artists like Lady Gaga. So hypocritical

If you disagree with her buying his clothes you can disagree in a respectful manner without resorting to childish mocking
Click to expand...


Who's mocking her or being disrespectful towards her? Since you posted this right after my comment, I'm curious if this was in reference to what I said.


And from all that we've seen from the children since June 25th, 2009, I get the impression that they somewhat know how important their father was to the entertainment industry as a whole. I know certainly Prince & Paris will know how to take care of such clothing. Blanket, the same kid who's said to wear a shirt with the image of his father on it everyday, I'm almost sure he'd cherish his fathers own clothes in the same way, without having to wear them.
 
Last edited:
^^I think analogue is making reference to mjchris' comments.

Why his children couldn't take care of their father's clothing if it'd be having a part of him with them?
 
mjchris said:
= speculation & nearly everything of it is only downloads, and not singles or records.
Click to expand...

Well um, no, Lady Gaga selling 125,000,000 singles is not 'speculation', it has been verified by Billboard themselves. I included the source when I first posted it, but I'll post it again: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...clear-channel-for-live-streamed-artpop-events
At the bottom of the article: "Since 2008, Gaga has amassed five Grammy Awards (from 15 nominations), 24 million albums, and 125 million singles worldwide."
mjchris said:
a single is a physical record and a download is just simply a cheap worthless download. a download is a download. cheap and simple. thats what the word says. maybe u didnt realise it yet?
Click to expand...
The way people listen to music has changed, there's a reason so few record shops stock singles physically now. You can pretend that digital downloads do not count as a single, but that doesn't change the fact they are internationally recognised by all companies who monitor music charts. Because one must still pay for the song, it is no different than purchasing it physically. Therefore, whether you like it or not, they are still considered singles.
 
Last edited:
you have no clue what u are talking about.
i know the difference between a download and a single. seems you are not.
and bilboard does not give or create certificates, = speculations.
I am guess we're done here, cause that will lead to nothing, when u dont accept the facts.
write what u want, but that doesnt change anyhing to what i have written in that thread.
AMEN
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top