Michael: Album Reviews

Michael hasn't had this many positive reviews since Off the Wall. The critics hammered 'Thriller' 'Bad' Dangerous, 'History' Blood on the Dancefloor' and 'Invincible'. The last good reviews MJ had was back in 1979, so the fact that the critics are being nice now leads me to believe they are only being nice because he's gone.
 
Michael hasn't had this many positive reviews since Off the Wall. The critics hammered 'Thriller' 'Bad' Dangerous, 'History' Blood on the Dancefloor' and 'Invincible'. The last good reviews MJ had was back in 1979, so the fact that the critics are being nice now leads me to believe they are only being nice because he's gone.

not only that. they are still trying to downplay his talents. some reviewers said the album is better off because michael is not here "second guessing" himself, his collaborators have more equal standing without his presence. they are insinuating that michael was not the creative driving force of his acheivements.

call me cynical or reading between the lines too much, when i see a overly positive review, i actually get turned off.
 
not only that. they are still trying to downplay his talents. some reviewers said the album is better off because michael is not here "second guessing" himself, his collaborators have more equal standing without his presence. they are insinuating that michael was not the creative driving force of his acheivements.

call me cynical or reading between the lines too much, when i see a overly positive review, i actually get turned off.

I completely agree ....
 
I didn't agree with the negative reviews of his albums that I enjoyed, so I'm not surprised that I'm not agreeing with many of the reviews out now, positive or negative.
 
not only that. they are still trying to downplay his talents. some reviewers said the album is better off because michael is not here "second guessing" himself, his collaborators have more equal standing without his presence. they are insinuating that michael was not the creative driving force of his acheivements.

call me cynical or reading between the lines too much, when i see a overly positive review, i actually get turned off.


I so agree with this. Actually the overly positive previews are very surprising and suspicious considering how the media treated him in his life. And while I enjoy "Michael" it's not this sensational album that is the best thing he has done since "Thriller" - like some of these previews seem to suggest. From this you can clearly see that the media had an agenda when slagging Michael off while he was alive and they have an agenda now as well. So I'm a bit ambivalent about these positive previews. While I'm happy to see Michael's talent acknowledged, but I'm afraid this is not totally about that.

When they are praising the "Michael" album they don't really praise Michael, but they praise the other people who have worked on it. And I'm not sure I can agree with that praise in many cases. (Neff-U and Lenny Kravitz did a great and respectful job, but I think Teddy Riley's songs are a mess - I'm not even so much a fan of HT, to be honest, though I know I'm in a minority with that, because most fans seem to like it a lot.)
 
Last edited:
Another sad chapter reveals itself in fabricated 'Michael'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121305831.html

By Chris Richards
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 14, 2010


If you've ever dreamed of Michael Jackson singing into your answering machine, then you have a reason to pick up "Michael," the first posthumous album from a singer who's sold more than 35 million albums worldwide since his sudden death in the summer of 2009.

On the album's fourth track, "(I Like) The Way You Love Me," that angelic voice comes trickling from the speakers, small and scratchy in what appears to be a voicemail message to himself - a quick melodic sketch and some beat-boxing for Jackson to revisit once he gets home from a busy day of shopping, or roller-coaster riding, or whatever the lost pop genius was doing in his final days.

It's a rare glimpse into Jackson's working process, one of the countless facets of his life that he carefully hid from the public eye. But when the song blooms into a glossy, full-bodied studio track, the sputtery, beat-boxed rhythm is immediately ditched for a feeble drumbeat. Someone else is at the controls.

That moment captures the debate surrounding this 10-track batch of Jackson leftovers. The singer obviously had no hand in the final product here, but many of these tunes are bland enough to make you wonder if he had any hand in it at all. Longtime producer Quincy Jones and members of the Jackson family have questioned whether some of the voices on "Michael" are actually Michael's.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The real Michael Jackson was a perfectionist who loved to burnish every note that came out of his lungs. Just as last year's "This Is It" was a concert film culled from rehearsal footage Jackson would never want us to see, "Michael" is an album of unfinished songs that Jackson would never want us to hear.

And that's a drag because we're probably going to be hearing this stuff for the rest of the decade. The Jackson estate has reportedly signed a $250 million deal that should pump posthumous albums into the marketplace for the next seven Christmases, at least.

Only in Jackson's pop kingdom can such disgusting practices fly. No one writes the missing chapters of an unfinished novel and credits the author. Why let 50 Cent rap over a mere sketch of a tune and call it a new Michael Jackson song? (It happens here with "Monster.") For anyone who has adored Jackson's brilliance - i.e., all of us - this is sickening stuff.


So much so, we should probably conserve our keystrokes, but here's a second question that "Michael" forces us to ask: When did Jackson record his last great song?

Unless you count "Scream," a serrated 1995 duet with kid sister Janet that's aged far better than expected, you'll have to moonwalk back to 1988's "Bad" album, when "Man in the Mirror" topped the charts with some of the most euphoric na-na-na's since "Hey Jude."

Then, he fades. 1991's "Dangerous" only flirted with excellence, 1995's "HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I" was sloppy and strange, and 2001's "Invincible" remains largely forgotten. It's unrealistic to expect so much from him now.


Which is what makes "Behind the Mask" this album's only pleasant surprise. Allegedly written in the "Thriller" days, its synthesizers throb to a tightly coiled beat while Jackson's voice tiptoes between a whisper and an explosion.

It's a Jackson you'll recognize, but the excitement is fleeting. On the mid-tempo fluff of "Hold My Hand," the sentimental platitudes of "Keep Your Head Up" and the paranoid ire of "Breaking News," he offers mere approximations of the precision, agility and grace that defined his heights.

In that sense, "Michael" only amplifies the tragedy of Jackson - an artist who rose too fast to ever gain control of his life and died too suddenly to steer the direction of his legacy.

Recommended track: "Behind the Mask"

Please, add your comment to the article especially for HIStory album that is one of the best sellers...
 
Then, he fades. 1991's "Dangerous" only flirted with excellence, 1995's "HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I" was sloppy and strange, and 2001's "Invincible" remains largely forgotten. It's unrealistic to expect so much from him now.

^^^^:hysterical:

On the contrary, "Dangerous" and "Excellence" celebrate an undying and passionate love affair that, like all love stories, will remain timeless.

The rest ain't worth commenting.

The last sentence has me in stitches. And this is why artists shouldn't even read reviews, that could be potentially "DANGEROUS.". :punk:
 
Back
Top