I’m of two minds when it comes to this.
“Unreleased,” contrary to popular insistence, doesn’t always mean “the world should never hear this,” at least in MJ’s case. There are several reasons he might’ve withheld a song, most of which amount to time/place concerns. I can’t think of a single song that he explicitly said should never come out, so all of the people complaining that we’re “betraying” him with these albums make no sense to me. Plus, as others have mentioned, MJ was well-versed with the concept of posthumous albums—he literally contributed to Minnie Riperton’s in 1980. If he didn’t want that to happen, he could have outlined as much in his will.
Where I find myself unsure is in regards to how the songs are presented. There’s essentially no “right” way to give us vault tracks. You can’t release them as-is because almost none of them are finished and MJ was very vocal about not letting the world hear anything until it was complete; but you also can’t finish it posthumously because not only are you taking creative liberties, but you’re also robbing MJ of the right to approve the final mix. It’s such a complicated subject, and it’s only made worse by the fact that MJ was the breakneck perfectionist that he was.
On a moral standpoint, I can understand why some are so opposed to posthumous albums. No matter what path you take, you’re fighting some sort of dilemma. But as a diehard fan, selfishly, I know that I’ll never protest hearing new material, no matter what state it’s in.
All this is to say, my feelings are complicated. I think most posthumous albums should be considered on a case by case basis, and MJ poses very unique questions and considerations. While I’ll always buy a new MJ single or album, I also feel that they’re all, in their own way, inherently disrespectful, and that that’s something we need to accept so long as we continue to ask for more.
