Michael Jackson Estate Reveals Confidential Project in Works

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

MJ stays forever young in the fans minds but even alive he wouldn't be scoring hits anymore. Even in 2001 he wasn't big big anymore. He was big in name only by this time. Like all legacy acts they are only still good for sell out live shows. Bad promotion or not the fact is that the 2nd single "cry" flopped all over the world which prematurely ended the chances of Invincible. As a result Invincible dropped out of the Belgian charts top 50 after 6 weeks. Yes you read that right, 6 weeks! After debuting at nr 1 it dropped like a stone.
To make a comparison HIStory charted for 71 weeks of which 18 weeks in the top 10. Even the half arsed remix album BOTDF held the top 10 position for 15 weeks.

For those who doubt that, look at Madonna who's hits have also completely dried up and she was a bonafide hit machine for over 30 years. You can't beat time.

Invincible isn't the same, because Cry was a terrible choice for a single period. It is explicitly the bad promotion. Unbreakable would've been a smash hit.

 

[filmandmusic]

Invincible isn't the same, because Cry was a terrible choice for a single period. It is explicitly the bad promotion. Unbreakable would've been a smash hit.

We will never know but I doubt it. You Rock My World already underperformed. It was a worldwide top 10 hit for sure but it was his worst performing first single release since the Motown years.

It was a bad first single choice imo. I remember people feeling underwhelmed by the song. I would have gone for heartbreaker or speechless first and second, then whatever happens as 3rd and maybe a 4th but final one with don’t walk away because this also feels like a song that could touch radio listeners (like speechless)

But these are not half as good as the 4 singles from HIStory (not counting YANA as I don ‘t like it but I’m not surprised it became a huge hit)

This is my view on it, of course other people express their huge love for the Invincible tracks.

 

[SeriousEffect.]

MJ stays forever young in the fans minds but even alive he wouldn't be scoring hits anymore. Even in 2001 he wasn't big big anymore. He was big in name only by this time. Like all legacy acts they are only still good for sell out live shows. Bad promotion or not the fact is that the 2nd single "cry" flopped all over the world which prematurely ended the chances of Invincible. As a result Invincible dropped out of the Belgian charts top 50 after 6 weeks. Yes you read that right, 6 weeks! After debuting at nr 1 it dropped like a stone.
To make a comparison HIStory charted for 71 weeks of which 18 weeks in the top 10. Even the half arsed remix album BOTDF held the top 10 position for 15 weeks.

For those who doubt that, look at Madonna who's hits have also completely dried up and she was a bonafide hit machine for over 30 years. You can't beat time.

This is very true, the music industry is ageist.

Michael, Lionel Richie, Whitney Houston, Prince and Madonna all had great music in the 2000s that didn't get the respect and attention it deserved. Younger people will always drive what's popular in mainstream.

MJ was mismanaged in the 2000s. Unbreakable would have been the first single, followed by Rock My World and Butterflies. All 3 of those songs had potential to be hits with the right promotion.

MJ's Grammy speech in '93 is where MJ needed to be in the 2000s, "Where is he? To, there he goes again".

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

You Rock My World already underperformed. It was a worldwide top 10 hit for sure but it was his worst performing first single release since the Motown years.

It leaked for starters, so again, we see how these things ruined MJs career time after time. Scream also was leaked, it could've easily been #1 but it only ended at #5.

But YRMW was not the first choice MJ wanted either, so again, explicitlity it's bad promotion. Sony caused it, Sony wanted it, and that's what happened.

MJs first choice was Unbreakable and Unbreakable, with an excellent video, would've been the right choice. Whatever Happens definitely was also a great choice but that would've been later.

 

[AlwaysThere]

We will never know but I doubt it. You Rock My World already underperformed. It was a worldwide top 10 hit for sure but it was his worst performing first single release since the Motown years.

In fairness, “You Rock My World” reached the top 10 without a physical single release (at least in the US) and limited promotion. That’s impressive for an artist’s 10th album.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

I'm forgetting this is about the museum, sorry to derail the thread.

Casino, uh, no. Though I know a lot of people who aren't crazy about MJ would actually love that. So, idk.

 

[filmandmusic]

Promotion is one thing but in the end the quality of the tracks is still the main factor it says a lot that many fans are disappointed by the songs on Invincible.

It was the same with Victory, the fans expected an MJ album and they got just 3 tracks with vocals. As a result the initial hype and big sales dropped quickly.
Victory is a great album though imo

Ok back to the museum now 😇

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Promotion is one thing but in the end the quality of the tracks is still the main factor it says a lot that many fans are disappointed by the songs on Invincible.

It was the same with Victory, the fans expected an MJ album and they got just 3 tracks with vocals. As a result the initial hype and big sales dropped quickly.
Victory is a great album though imo

Ok back to the museum now 😇

Nah, not yet.

Notevery song is so good, but it's best tracks deserve to be high up. I mean, Whatever Happens is amazing itself, there should be no disappointment there. Every other album had a few lesser appreciated tunes. But the good ones just overshadow it. If you got a problem with overall pacing/sequencing, fine,I get it. But single wise it is just as strong, completely unfair to say otherwise.

ok,now back to the museum

 

[Hiker]

ok,now back to the museum

yes, can we talk more about the museum! What do we think it's going to be like? One room dedicated to each era? Do people think there will be some interactive / video / short film elements? I have never seen such a museum before, so I cannot imagine. It would be so cool if they had the whole Smooth Criminal lean setup replicated with different shoes as an interactive element!

And what was all that talk about Casino? No please no!!! Don't want people losing their money in Michael's name! no.

 

[Hess]

A museum is a great idea. Hopefully at Havenhurst. - A shame it's not allowed at Neverland, but that's how it is.

ALSO - interesting that MJ actually talked with Brance about a museum. - So he realised how huge he was and was seeing into the future wanting a museum. I like that very much. - Since 2009 when MJ died I have been astounished about how little he planned about what should happen after he died. I know he died young and all that. But when you are such a HUGE iconic figure, it seems unbelievable to me that he did not in his Last Will mentioned what should happen with his unreleased music, footage etc. Here he could have written his ideas about a museum etc.

But maybe he actually DID talk with Brance about his wishes and ideas and therefore made him executor of the estate to secure his ideas got realized.

Maybe it's because I'm a lawyer, but it puzzles me when people has not made a Last Will and made some thoughts about what should happen once you die... We all die, that's a given. And it's so much better for everyone if you have written down your wishes. Seems like MJ didn't do that, and he was around lawyers all the time who could have updated his last will every half year or so if MJ's wishes changed...

 

[MJ5]

ALSO - interesting that MJ actually talked with Brance about a museum. - So he realised how huge he was and was seeing into the future wanting a museum. I like that very much. - Since 2009 when MJ died I have been astounished about how little he planned about what should happen after he died. I know he died young and all that. But when you are such a HUGE iconic figure, it seems unbelievable to me that he did not in his Last Will mentioned what should happen with his unreleased music, footage etc. Here he could have written his ideas about a museum etc.

Maybe you are right, but how did other artists handle that before dying? Would be interesting to hear if they mentioned sth about unreleased music in their Last Will or not.

 

[SeriousEffect.]

Maybe you are right, but how did other artists handle that before dying? Would be interesting to hear if they mentioned sth about unreleased music in their Last Will or not.

Shakespeare himself did not for his manuscripts, etc.

 

[DanGerouS-]

I'd be more happy about a Branca themed amusement park with game machines where you could hit his head with a hammer.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Maybe you are right, but how did other artists handle that before dying? Would be interesting to hear if they mentioned sth about unreleased music in their Last Will or not.

Artists are not really allowed to specify in their Last Will what should be done with their unreleased music after they die.

That is because artists (when they are still alive) do not have ownership of their unreleased music, meaning also that they do not have the rights over their unreleased music.

That ownership and rights over their unreleased music belong to their record labels.

So, their record labels in conjunction with the artists' newly-formed Estates are the ones that decide about the matter of posthumously releasing or not their unreleased music.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Maybe you are right, but how did other artists handle that before dying? Would be interesting to hear if they mentioned sth about unreleased music in their Last Will or not.

That ownership and rights over their unreleased music belong to their record labels.

Strictly speaking it belongs to the music publishing company. That is often a completely separate company to the record label. The publishing company owned the song - i.e. the music - and the record label owned the version of the song as recorded by the artist.

In the case of Sony Music Entertainment, afaik, there is the publishing arm and also the record label. So Sony presumably does own the recording rights as well as the publishing rights to Michael's work - unless all of his publishing rights were owned by Mijac Music or whatever it was called. Didn't he get the publishing side of things all sorted back in the 1980's?

Anyway, generally speaking, in many other cases, publishing and recording are two separate things. It used to be quite common for a band / artist to secure a publishing deal before they got a record deal. That may have changed in this new era.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Maybe you are right, but how did other artists handle that before dying? Would be interesting to hear if they mentioned sth about unreleased music in their Last Will or not.

I'm quite intrigued now! Started out thinking Sony would own the publishing rights to Michael's music but then remembered he had his own music publishing company set up in the 1980's, didn't he? I don't follow this stuff very closely. But if he owned his own music - most artists don't - that does change things in regard to his will etc. 🤔

You've got me thinking, lol.

 

[AlwaysThere]

Artists are not really allowed to specify in their Last Will what should be done with their unreleased music after they die.

That is because artists (when they are still alive) do not have ownership of their unreleased music, meaning also that they do not have the rights over their unreleased music.

That ownership and rights over their unreleased music belong to their record labels.

So, their record labels in conjunction with the artists' newly-formed Estates are the ones that decide about the matter of posthumously releasing or not their unreleased music.

Wrong. Per usual.

The estate has full ownership of anything Michael wrote and recorded that has not yet been commercially released. Sony only has jurisdiction over anything that has popped up on posthumous albums and the like. If Sony ran the show, they wouldn’t need any consent or involvement from the estate to release anything.

On top of that, the very first duties of any estate is executing the respective individual’s will, which can absolutely include provisions on how their unreleased music is treated. Stevie Wonder and Anderson .Paak are two examples—neither want their unfinished works to be released. .Paak has a tattoo stating as such, and Wonder allegedly wants his vault destroyed upon his death. It’s asinine to suggest that an artist can’t state what they want done with their unreleased material.

Mods, can we please ban this guy? The amount of blatant misinformation spread on a near-daily basis has to be against forum policy.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Wrong. Per usual.

The estate has full ownership of anything Michael wrote and recorded that has not yet been commercially released.

Thanks for the clarification. That's helpful.

Sony only has jurisdiction over anything that has popped up on posthumous albums and the like. If Sony ran the show, they wouldn’t need any consent or involvement from the estate to release anything.

Makes sense.

On top of that, the very first duties of any estate is executing the respective individual’s will, which can absolutely include provisions on how their unreleased music is treated. Stevie Wonder and Anderson .Paak are two examples—neither want their unfinished works to be released. .Paak has a tattoo stating as such, and Wonder allegedly wants his vault destroyed upon his death.

Goodness me, didn't know that about Stevie. Assuming it's true. Interesting!

Also, that tattoo! Wow!!

 

[mj_frenzy]

Strictly speaking it belongs to the music publishing company. That is often a completely separate company to the record label. The publishing company owned the song - i.e. the music - and the record label owned the version of the song as recorded by the artist.

In the case of Sony Music Entertainment, afaik, there is the publishing arm and also the record label. So Sony presumably does own the recording rights as well as the publishing rights to Michael's work - unless all of his publishing rights were owned by Mijac Music or whatever it was called. Didn't he get the publishing side of things all sorted back in the 1980's?

Anyway, generally speaking, in many other cases, publishing and recording are two separate things. It used to be quite common for a band / artist to secure a publishing deal before they got a record deal. That may have changed in this new era.

In Michael Jackson's case, there are 3 parties involved.

The singer's personal record label (Mijac Music) which has all of his released and unreleased master recordings.

There is also the Sony Music Publishing that is in charge of managing and publishing the Mijac Music.

And there is also the Michael Jackson Estate.

These 3 parties decide about the matter of posthumously releasing or not Michael Jackson's unreleased music.

These 3 parties also decide about how his unreleased music should be distributed in case it gets a posthumous release.

 

[zinniabooklover]

In Michael Jackson's case, there are 3 parties involved.

The singer's personal record label (Mijac Music) which has all of his released and unreleased master recordings.

There is also the Sony Music Publishing that is in charge of managing and publishing the Mijac Music.

And there is also the Michael Jackson Estate.

These 3 parties decide about the matter of posthumously releasing or not Michael Jackson's unreleased music.

These 3 parties also decide about how his unreleased music should be distributed in case it gets a posthumous release.

Well, you've slightly changed your story from your earlier post.

S'okay! @AlwaysThere already covered this.

 

[Amaya]

On top of that, the very first duties of any estate is executing the respective individual’s will, which can absolutely include provisions on how their unreleased music is treated. Stevie Wonder and Anderson .Paak are two examples—neither want their unfinished works to be released. .Paak has a tattoo stating as such, and Wonder allegedly wants his vault destroyed upon his death. It’s asinine to suggest that an artist can’t state what they want done with their unreleased material.

The lost media community is going to have a fit if this ends up being true. Damn lol.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Well, you've slightly changed your story from your earlier post.

This post refers generally to what happens:

Artists are not really allowed to specify in their Last Will what should be done with their unreleased music after they die.

That is because artists (when they are still alive) do not have ownership of their unreleased music, meaning also that they do not have the rights over their unreleased music.

That ownership and rights over their unreleased music belong to their record labels.

So, their record labels in conjunction with the artists' newly-formed Estates are the ones that decide about the matter of posthumously releasing or not their unreleased music.

And this post is more specific about Michael Jackson's case:

In Michael Jackson's case, there are 3 parties involved.

The singer's personal record label (Mijac Music) which has all of his released and unreleased master recordings.

There is also the Sony Music Publishing that is in charge of managing and publishing the Mijac Music.

And there is also the Michael Jackson Estate.

These 3 parties decide about the matter of posthumously releasing or not Michael Jackson's unreleased music.

These 3 parties also decide about how his unreleased music should be distributed in case it gets a posthumous release.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Mods, can we please ban this guy? The amount of blatant misinformation spread on a near-daily basis has to be against forum policy.

He's had total free reign to do this constantly for years at this point, he's not gonna get banned unfortunately.

 

[zinniabooklover]

This post refers generally to what happens:

And this post is more specific about Michael Jackson's case:

Uh huh.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

A museum is a great idea. Hopefully at Havenhurst. - A shame it's not allowed at Neverland, but that's how it is.

ALSO - interesting that MJ actually talked with Brance about a museum. - So he realised how huge he was and was seeing into the future wanting a museum. I like that very much. - Since 2009 when MJ died I have been astounished about how little he planned about what should happen after he died. I know he died young and all that. But when you are such a HUGE iconic figure, it seems unbelievable to me that he did not in his Last Will mentioned what should happen with his unreleased music, footage etc. Here he could have written his ideas about a museum etc.

But maybe he actually DID talk with Brance about his wishes and ideas and therefore made him executor of the estate to secure his ideas got realized.

Maybe it's because I'm a lawyer, but it puzzles me when people has not made a Last Will and made some thoughts about what should happen once you die... We all die, that's a given. And it's so much better for everyone if you have written down your wishes. Seems like MJ didn't do that, and he was around lawyers all the time who could have updated his last will every half year or so if MJ's wishes changed...

He had a will. Just because people didn't like it doesn't mean anything. Saying nothing is saying something. Anything goes, because he is dead. But that's not an excuse to lack taste, which Branca unfortunately just might. He's no artist, is for sure.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Artists are not really allowed to specify in their Last Will what should be done with their unreleased music after they die.

That is because artists (when they are still alive) do not have ownership of their unreleased music, meaning also that they do not have the rights over their unreleased music.

That ownership and rights over their unreleased music belong to their record labels.

So, their record labels in conjunction with the artists' newly-formed Estates are the ones that decide about the matter of posthumously releasing or not their unreleased music.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531403883930480640

 

[Annita]

I'm wondering if the estate has already cleared with the City of LA permission to open a museum in Encino and all what brings it with it for the neighborhood, parking requirements, etc.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

yes, can we talk more about the museum! What do we think it's going to be like? One room dedicated to each era? Do people think there will be some interactive / video / short film elements? I have never seen such a museum before, so I cannot imagine. It would be so cool if they had the whole Smooth Criminal lean setup replicated with different shoes as an interactive element!

And what was all that talk about Casino? No please no!!! Don't want people losing their money in Michael's name! no.

I def think it will be interactive and a lot like the immersive experience. Basically it was a beta for this.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

In fairness, “You Rock My World” reached the top 10 without a physical single release (at least in the US) and limited promotion. That’s impressive for an artist’s 10th album.

And they're better performance metrics than Who Is It (14), They Don't Care About Us (30), And Stranger in Moscow (91), which are all considered holy grails to fans.

 

[Robbsaber01]

I’m not just talking about here; I mean fan accounts on social media, other forums, etc. The response seems to be about 50/50, which is astonishing to me.

I mean, that just proves how starved some of us are for new high quality concert material. Just like you would be for new music if we didnt get T40. I'd take the bad tour on film over some museum I'm too far away to even visit.

I'm not against the museum though. Much better idea then a casino lol.
I dont know how they are gonna pull off the biopic.