Lady Gaga to open Michael Jackson museum

[mjchris]

I'm pretty sure having five Grammy's as a 27-year-old musician,writing your own music,selling over a million copies of your fourth album in two months and having sellout concerts in stadiums around America doesn't constitute as a flop.Your argument is highly invalid.Try again.

its not.
thats the past. the present, and the charts, tells a completely different story. FLOP, FLOP, FLOP, its nearly over. good noone needs that low quality of music & kind of erotic show anymore. everyonve here in my country dont like here shitty music and erotic shows. it bugging everyone here.

 

[Bubs]

when i look what happens on the charts. its nearly over. big LOL
you dont understand the situation completely. when i buy a t-shirt noone before me have worn it. so it belongs to me. when michael jackson worn his clothes, then they belong to him. and when michael jackson dies the clothes belong to him. and when someone else pay millions for them then they are still michael jacksons clothes. they can pay millions and millions. the man that worns them, the man that have the right over them was and will allways be michael jackson. noone else. AMEN.
and the only one that should own his clothes and open a museum (now often said) is the MJ ESATE. they should give them back to them, get the money back cause they dont belong too such peoples and only use this for PR.
and the only thing she is doing with michael jackson's clothes (not gagas clothes) is to going into a interview, creating attention, use michael jacksons name to get the PR she needs when there is no success anymore.

As far as I know, Gaga didn't go into MJ's house after his passed away, took his clothes or other items to sell them on actions house or ebay.
Michael Bush was the owner of them and he decided to sell them, and Gaga bought them fair and square. Most of the items that Gaga bought were duplicates and the estate has many of them in storage, thus there is no need for the estate have them. I'm sure,some day they will put them in to museum.

Are you saying that fans who has bought MJ cloves or anything else that has been sold in auctions during the years, that they actually don't own what they bought? How about the man who bought the Thriller jacket? Does he owns the jacket that he paid 1.8 million?

 

[HIStoric]

Lady Gaga doesn't even call them 'Lady Gaga's clothes'. She always refers to them as 'his clothes' or 'Michael Jackson's clothes'. They're not her clothes, she just retains physical ownership of them. It's not for 'PR' either because she never brings it up, the interviewer always does. If you listen to her on the Ellen Show (Page 1 of this thread), you'll see Ellen bring it up first. Only then does Gaga talk about the clothes.

Oh and if having 5 grammies at 27 years old, having your most recent tour sell out 99.8% of tickets, performing songs you have written to millions upon millions of people all over the world, being an icon for equality and selling over 149,000,000* records in half a decade doesn't constitute as a success, then I honestly have no clue what does.

*[Source] 24million albums + 125million singles = 149,000,000 records

 

[mjchris]

As far as I know, Gaga didn't go into MJ's house after his passed away, took his clothes or other items to sell them on actions house or ebay.


Michael Bush was the owner of them and he decided to sell them, and Gaga bought them fair and square. Most of the items that Gaga bought were duplicates and the estate has many of them in storage, thus there is no need for the estate have them. I'm sure,some day they will put them in to museum.

Are you saying that fans who has bought MJ cloves or anything else that has been sold in auctions during the years, that they actually don't own what they bought? How about the man who bought the Thriller jacket? Does he owns the jacket that he paid 1.8 million?

"thats the past. the present, and the charts, tells a completely different story. FLOP, FLOP, FLOP, its nearly over."

This is funny coming from Michael fan. So you say that as Gaga's current album didn't sell as much as the previous ones, her career is over? What do you think of Michael's career after Thriller? None of the albums after Thriller sold as much, but his career was far from over.

Note, I'm not Gaga fan but I think she gets some unfair criticism for something she doesn't deserve.

"everyonve here in my country dont like here shitty music and erotic shows. it bugging everyone here."

Everyone? Wow, you know everyone in your country?

when u read my posts you have the answer.

well, there is a point when it starts to be over. and the same applies to every other artists.
and its very easy to sell out this small concert she always have. or to sell this millions of cheap downloads (they are not records).madonna is over 50, and even when she dont have the best time of her career she make the biggest concerts, and the most money.

gaga is a peanut against her. someone like madonna or mj sold the real records, that what an legend, big artists or megastar made. they have the biggest concerts. and they dont need such cheap downloads to make an 'achievement', to be a real STAR, or even to get the biggest of all time. and that in fact they both aredownloads is not an aviechement. downloads are just simple manipulation, made by record companies. thats why the charts since the beginning of the 2000's doesnt show the reallity anymore. i call it the faked-charts or the cheating-charts.

and now she's not getting a single grammy nomination, she got a nomination for the 'Golden Raspberry' , for the worst.

 

[HIStoric]

and now she's not getting a single grammy nomination, she got a nomination for the 'Golden Raspberry' , for the worst.

Her album came out about a month after the Grammy cut off date so it couldn't have been nominated for a Grammy. The only song that could've been nominated was 'Applause' because that was released back in August.

Her nomination for the 'Golden Raspberry' was for starring in some random movie for a friend of hers (specifically Robert Rodriguez), nothing to do with her music career. Can't comment on her acting or the movie myself, I've yet to see it (nor do I intend to see it tbh - I'm not exactly a fan of Robert Rodriguez nor did the trailer interest me).

 

[HIStoric]

ts very easy to sell out this small concert she always have. or to sell this millions of cheap downloads (they are not records).

It's very easy to sell 125,000,000 singles?

mdownloads is not an aviechement

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.

downloads are just simple manipulation, made by record companies. thats why the charts since the beginning of the 2000's doesnt show the reallity anymore. i call it the faked-charts or the cheating-charts.

Now you're just coming up with excuses

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Seriously guys, why bothering with this stupid fight? Some of you are not gonna change your mind you love her, her music is great, blah, blah, blah and some of us are not gonna change our minds her music suck a rat's ass and find suspicious she speaks about Michael in convenient times. Period.

 

[HIStoric]

Seriously guys, why bothering with this stupid fight? Some of you are not gonna change your mind you love her, her music is great, blah, blah, blah and some of us are not gonna change our minds her music suck a rat's ass and find suspicious she speaks about Michael in convenient times. Period.

We're not arguing over whether her music is great or not as that comes down entirely to personal opinion (for example, mjchris has previously commented about 'here shitty music' but I haven't commented on that because that's merely his personal opinion of her music and he is entitled to that).

The main point of my last post or two is that Gaga has been quite successful for the 5 years she has been in the recording industry. That isn't really an opinion, it's pretty much fact (as you can see by the statistics I posted above).

 

[Bubs]

Seriously guys, why bothering with this stupid fight? Some of you are not gonna change your mind you love her, her music is great, blah, blah, blah and some of us are not gonna change our minds her music suck a rat's ass and find suspicious she speaks about Michael in convenient times. Period.

This is not stupid fight, it is what adults calls debate
I don't see any harm a little heated debate every now and then, as long as insults doesn't start flying all the directions.


As I said before, I like few of her songs but I am not Gaga's fan as such, and watched few of her interviews in which she explained the situation with Michael's clothes and the way she described importance preserving iconic clothing. Note that she never brought up Michael's clothing in the interviews, she was asked and what she was supposed to say? I don't want to talk about it? Not knowing Gaga, I think that concert costumes are important to her as much they were to Michael, so she wanted to have them in one place rather spread all over the world in private collections.
Secondly, if you think Gaga spent absolute fortune on Michael's clothes so she can use it as pump up her own career, you are mistaken. She could have used those millions that she spent on these clothes to buy some advertising time, or other stuff, but she didn't.

Whether you like her music or not, there are many who thinks she is great.
I personally don't think Elvis deserves the praise he gets, as he not that great musician, but I cannot argue over the fact that there are million of people who likes his music and who is to say my taste is music goes over those millions who likes his music? Same goes with Gaga.

 

[HIStoric]

I know it isn't relevant...but..those J. Law and MJ gifs though... :shifty: they're nice

hehe thanks

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Of course it's stupid because it's pointless because no one's gonna change their minds no matter what it's said. Why bringing Elvis? I'm not a fan of his but I like his songs. He was charismatic on his own right (he didn't need shameless stunts to bring attention) and a good performer before his drug problems were more evident

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

I may not like Lady Gaga all that much (although I must admit I do like some of her songs.) but I'm not all that upset at her for having Michael's clothes or talking about them. She's a fan too, and to be honest, I would've done exactly what she had if I was in her place. It's more comforting to know a fellow fan has it and is preserving it than some unknown stranger having it and doing god knows what with it.

Ah, Bubs. You don't like Elvis like that? What? Lol just kidding *backs away with my guitar in my hand* :lmao:

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I'm not upset she bought the cloths btw, I got pissed when she wore some of them. The only one who can rock them it's Michael because they were made for his size.

 

[analogue]

What I appreciate about Lady Gaga's music is that she actually uses melody in her songs. Unlike a lot of today's music which is very melodic-less

 

[HIStoric]

What I appreciate about Lady Gaga's music is that she actually uses melody in her songs. Unlike a lot of today's music which is very melodic-less

What originally caught my eye about Gaga was her music videos, specifically this 10 minute, Tarantino-inspired spectacle called 'Telephone' that starred Beyoncé as well. It reminded me heaps of an MJ short film, mainly because it had it's own storyline, huge choreographed dances with many back up dancers, and the fact that they extended the song just for the music video - something you'd often see in an MJ short film. It was just like a mini-movie! Quite entertaining hehe

 

[AtlasAir]

I really hope this thread doesn't get cleaned up. Whenever a good convo gets going about something, it seems to go away. I think (at least for me) wrote everything as nicely as I can without berating you.
-----
I see Chris is still trying to make his campaign against gaga.

Just to comment on a few of the strange things posted:

Are we just going to pretend people like MJ and Madonna didn't put out flops? Why single out Gaga? Madonna doesn't even make her money off of albums anymore, it's about the touring (which Gaga has been doing just fine in). And while I'm a die hard MJ fan (the hits to the obscure, deep cuts), his sales declined over the years. So I don't know why you're shaming Gaga for having a bad era.

And why would you berate her for her success in the current state of music buying habits? Times have changed. People consume media differently than years ago. The fact that anyone can break out and be a mainstream success, even past 1 hit single, is amazing. So why would you take away from her success in the predominantly digital sales when everyone else is making sales that way as well?

Also, I don't even know where you're from, but I'm sure you don't speak for your whole country when you say they all hate her there.

And what's your deal with anything remotely sexual with a singer? If you're going to single Gaga out, you have to lump in Madonna, Beyonce, Janet, boybands, and even MJ to an extent. Who are you to say "no one needs that kind of show anymore".

---------

Anyhoo, this discussion isn't about convincing you to like her music, because music is subjective (even if some people are more boojie about it than others).

But I don't know how you can't get goosebumps listening to Gaga do these 2 songs live with just her on the piano. Amazing voice, beautiful songs. I prefer these live renditions than the album versions.

In the words of Steve Harvey: If you're not feelin' this, I really don't give a damn!

 

[Dunk96]

Lady Gaga doesn't need Michael Jackson's name to get PR attention.She gets more than enough regularly without even saying anything about him.Not only that,she's only really talked about Michael in three or four interviews over the last few years. You don't do any research do you? Check your facts before you spread sh*t that isn't true.

 

[Dunk96]

I'm not upset she bought the cloths btw, I got pissed when she wore some of them. The only one who can rock them it's Michael because they were made for his size.

Some? Pretty sure she only wore one thing in public,and that was his Oscars '91 jacket.Other than that,she wouldn't publicly show off Michael's clothes and say "Look at me!I'm wearing Michael Jackson's clothes".

 

[dam2040]

Evidently, this place is filled with Gaga fans so I'm going to be careful with what I say here. These items of clothing are pieces of history. They are pop culture history. I honestly think that it was wrong for her to wear the Grammy's jacket because of what it was. Just my opinion. I know she bought it etc but if I bought something historic it wouldn't just be for me to wear or whatever. It'd be kept properly, which she says she's doing with most of the clothes he didn't wear in public often. I think that her wearing it was wrong. Shouldn't have done it. My opinion.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Some? Pretty sure she only wore one thing in public,and that was his Oscars '91 jacket.Other than that,she wouldn't publicly show off Michael's clothes and say "Look at me!I'm wearing Michael Jackson's clothes".
.

Stephanie said herself she wore some of Michael's sweaters while she was recording her album. :doh: to you for your lack of memory!

Thank you dam, I totally agree with what you said. She wore the Oscars' outfit though, it was totally wrong because she wore pieces of history. Michael bought the Edward Scissorhads gloves and you didn't see him wearing them or doing something offensive with the Beatles songs.

 

[Dunk96]

Stephanie said herself she wore some of Michael's sweaters while she was recording her album. :doh: to you for your lack of memory!

Thank you dam, I totally agree with what you said. She wore the Oscars' outfit though, it was totally wrong because she wore pieces of history. Michael bought the Edward Scissorhads gloves and you didn't see him wearing them or doing something offensive with the Beatles songs.

Yea,except guess what? She wasn't IN PUBLIC SHOWING OFF THE OUTFITS!!!!!!! I knew about Gaga wearing the sweaters and she said that Michael fans wouldn't even recognize them.
And to boot,yes Michael refused many things back when he was alive for people using Beatles songs in movies,TV shows,and commercials with the catalog,so She owns the clothes. Cry me aiver.Big freakin' deal.

Stay mad.

Plus,what about all the models in the Phillip Treacy fashion show wearing Michael's clothes? That seems to not be that big of a deal.But the fact that such a "weirdo" like Lady Gaga wearing a jacket that Michael had only worn once,suddenly it's a big threat to you.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

1. I already proved you she wore more than one outfit. In public or not, she wore pieces of history.
2. Why do you assume things you don't know? That fashion show was disgusting, it should had never happened.
3. Don't put words I never said. I never called HER names.

 

[HIStoric]

She wasn't IN PUBLIC SHOWING OFF THE OUTFITS!!!!!!!

She did wear them once at a fashion show, but that was it (and only for a short while I might add, she wore other outfits that night as well). The only other time she has worn MJ's clothes was in the studio, specifically a letterman jacket and "stop filthy press" jacket once or twice, as she explained in her interview with Ellen.

My view on her wearing the clothes is that I'm alright with it. I know she is looking after them in the best possible way and she wouldn't expose them to any activity that could damage them in any way. I'm not sure what Michael would think about it though. We can only speculate unless he has specifically discussed this topic, which I don't think he has. My speculation is that I think he'd be fine with it, so long as it was someone who'd take proper care of them. I say this because I know he was very generous as he would often give his clothes away and he would've only given them to someone who he knows would truly appreciate it for what it is. It's quite evident that Lady Gaga truly appreciates his clothing for what they are and is looking after them in the best possible way.

That's just my personal opinion on her wearing his clothes.

Michael bought the Edward Scissorhads gloves and you didn't see him wearing them or doing something offensive with the Beatles songs.

Overall I personally think MJ did a good job overlooking The Beatles catalogue, because he would've had an appreciation for The Beatles songs, just like Gaga has for MJ's clothes. If there was someone who wasn't a Beatle that I'd like to look after their catalogue, it would be Michael.

However, Michael has in fact done somethings with the catalogue that have been considered 'offensive' by The Beatles themselves. Primarily he licensed their music in a number of ads, and Paul McCartney has made it clear in the past as to the how he wasn't happy with that. In fact, Paul, Ringo and George even filed a suit against Nike (as well as a few other companies involved) for using the songs in their adverts.

(starts at 2:09).

 

[Bubs]

Lady Gaga casts out a disclaimer: “For any Michael Jackson fan that is watching, shit is pristine.”



I think it is great that there are well known artists that talks about Michael, just the way Rolling Stones talks about Muddy Waters as their inspiration, just as basically most well known british bands says Chuck Berry and Little Richard were their inspirations. Those legends may have gone forgotten if there weren't current artists taking about CB and LR and taking their legacy to the next generations.
I'm fully expecting that to happen Michael too. We may not like some artists that talks Michael, but it is better than no talk at all.

"However, Michael has in fact done somethings with the catalogue that have been considered 'offensive' by The Beatles themselves. Primarily he licensed their music in a number of ads, and Paul McCartney has made it clear in the past as to the how he wasn't happy with that."

Paul didn't want their music to be used in ads but he had no problem to use Buddy Holly music in ads?
The reason he gave was because he(Beatles) never considered themselves as "commercial bad, but who the hell is he to say and decide Buddy Holly was commercial? Paul is as much hypocrite than man next to him. I still love Beatles, but hate the way Paul carries on and spreading false accusations toward Michael.

Michael said the reason for Nike ad was that he wanted the next generation to know Beatles music, and I think it is valid reason, especially in America.

 

[HIStory]

While I'm not a fan of Lady Gaga I think Michael's clothes may be better off in her possession than if they would be somewhere we would not even know about. There's no guarantee any other buyer would treat them better. At least with Gaga we know where they are. Even though I'd be happier if they would be in the Estate's possession and they did a museum for them. Those clothes are as much a part of Michael's art as his music and dance - I started to understand it more after reading Michael Bush's wonderful book. Maybe some time later.

As for the Beatles songs. Let's not forget it was also sour grapes on Paul's part because Michael bought the catalogue and Paul realized what a mistake he made when turning down the offer to buy it. And like Bubs pointed out there was a great deal of hypocrisy going on as well. He could sell out Buddy Holly's music to ads, but OMG, Michael Jackson sold out the Beatles' music, how horrible! Anyway, it's a fact that the Beatles catalogue have been doing a lot better since it was in Michael's possession than before, so he certainly did not treat it that horribly.

 

[HIStoric]

Michael said the reason for Nike ad was that he wanted the next generation to know Beatles music, and I think it is valid reason, especially in America.

Yeah, I read thats why MJ did that - not a bad idea as well! I'm not against MJ for licensing the music, I was just pointing out to Snow White that MJ has done in fact done stuff with the catalogue that has upset the remaining Beatles members.

And like Bubs pointed out there was a great deal of hypocrisy going on as well. He could sell out Buddy Holly's music to ads, but OMG, Michael Jackson sold out the Beatles' music, how horrible! Anyway, it's a fact that the Beatles catalogue have been doing a lot better since it was in Michael's possession than before, so he certainly did not treat it that horribly.

Agreed on your last point, it was better in Michael's hands as he was someone who appreciated the music, not some random business suit who would license the music to anyone willing to pay handsomely.

That's a pretty interesting point about Buddy Holly. While Paul can be considered a hypocrite in that regard, he isn't the only member of The Beatles. The other 3 members refused to commercialise their band's music as well, and both Ringo and George joined in on the lawsuit against Nike etc when the ad was released so we can see that they weren't happy in regards to how MJ was using their music. As far as I'm aware, neither John, Ringo or George have ever owned the publishing rights to another artists songs and then proceeded to license them out for commercial purposes. Once again I'm not against MJ for licensing their music for this commercial, just merely pointing it out for discussion purposes.

(Slightly off-topic but oh how I would've loved for MJ and Paul to have collaborated on a few more songs together).

 

[HIStory]

Well, Lisa Marie too criticized MJ for licencing Elvis songs for commercials. I don't think Michael saw it as disrespect, since he licenced his own music to commercials too. He also did not overdo it.

Also, it's a matter of opinion what is disrespectful to whom. For example, licencing his song to a commercial is disrespectful, but making a modern dance remix of an old song of his for commercial purposes is not (Little Less Conversation)? Well, to some it is, to some it isn't. Matter of opinion. It's not like either the Beatles or Elvis were not commercial acts. Commercial in the sense that both of them did things which seemed shallow but popular.

 

[HIStoric]

Well, Lisa Marie too criticized MJ for licencing Elvis songs for commercials. I don't think Michael saw it as disrespect, since he licenced his own music to commercials too. He also did not overdo it.

Also, it's a matter of opinion what is disrespectful to whom. For example, licencing his song to a commercial is disrespectful, but making a modern dance remix of an old song of his for commercial purposes is not (Little Less Conversation)? Well, to some it is, to some it isn't. Matter of opinion. It's not like either the Beatles or Elvis were not commercial acts. Commercial in the sense that both of them did things which seemed shallow but popular.

I think Michael had good intentions as well to be honest, he likely 'looked after' The Beatles music in a similar light to his own. I suppose you are right that it is a matter of opinion of what is disrespectful to whom. I'm sure there are many Beatles fans who thought what MJ did was acceptable, just as there are many who don't. Same goes for the Gaga and clothes incident.

 

[#MJforever57]

I am not a huge fan of Lady Gaga she is okay but i would love to see this happen one day a museum love it.

And i have to agree i can't see somebody else in Michael's clothes either like their said only MJ can rock them and their would made just for him.

 

[jamba]

I participated in the Julien's auction where Bush sold a lot of stuff. (I recall there were some comments here about that auction where people did not like that Bush even did it in the first place.) The point is that ANYONE could have bid on these items. I did it online--all you needed to 'win' (buy/own) the item was to have a credit card on file (re online bids) and put out the highest bid. I did not buy any clothes--I bought a drawing that Bush did for an MJ costume. The bidding seemed high to me. I did NOT want to spend as much as I did but I realized if my bid wasn't up there I was not going to get anything, b/c I put in a few low bids that were quickly topped.

The fact that someone bought most if not all (?) of the iconic costumes available in that auction means that they are not scattered to the 4 winds--in one person's closet here and another person's closet there--etc. Now they are in one place, so I see that as an advantage. Re putting them in a museum, I am happy about that b/c they will be well preserved and people can see them--maybe me.

Re the Estate owning them, there maybe that down the line--who knows? But the Estate is still in probate with that huge IRS penalty to deal with and all the lawsuits. They are NOT in the black. They have a long way to go. I am not sure the probate court would let them get involved in this museum idea. It would mean a totally different enterprise--perhaps builing a new museum or refurbishing an old one. But maybe it will happen down the road. Personally, I am glad one person--and it turned out to be another artist in the music business--one person bought all of them, preserved them, and now wants to put them in a museum.