Reflection on Stranger in Moscow

[SmoothGangsta]

Is there a reason why Loren isn't trustworthy but buxer is?

Not saying I think he's trustworthy, Im just asking you why you deemed one credible but the other not

He tried to get fans to pay for new MJ songs that most likely didn't even exist illegally.

 

[ChanceToDance]

Is there a reason why Loren isn't trustworthy but buxer is?

Not saying I think he's trustworthy, Im just asking you why you deemed one credible but the other not

Bryan asked people to donate money to him in exchange of HQ copies of his songs but instead of doing as he promised he would he took the few bucks he got and disappeared.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Is there a reason why Loren isn't trustworthy but buxer is?

Not saying I think he's trustworthy, Im just asking you why you deemed one credible but the other not

He literally just said neither one is trustworthy. And Loren is just ignorant.

 

[xam]

Bryan Loren isn't exactly a trustworthy beacon of truth, either.

From my perspective, he'd have to be slightly crazy to make so many MJ fans call him negative and arrogant, if he wasn't telling the truth. I think his recollections are honest.

 

[xam]

The whole thing of ''You need to play an instrument to be considered a real muscian and songwriter'' always comes across as really snobbish to me.

Listeners still don't really know how capable MJ is with instruments. It doesn't mean he's not a musician, or musical. Not at all.

I did listen to the interview, he offered no specifics and no examples, so that could mean literally anything.

"Ideas" don't equal a composition or a song lyric.

Yes, it could literally mean anything, including lyrics and composition. Sounds to me like both are included in his complaints. How can they not be. We are talking about musical ideas.

And if Im not mistaken loren said the other collaborators took his ideas, not Michael. He very well may have been talking about Buxer. which would be hilariously ironic.

Point being he was shortchanged. All the little workers in the process let it happen, so the end result is the same as what we see with Brad.

Why was he being too nice?

You assume he wasn't telling the truth in 2005. and is telling the truth now. I believe the opposite. He was telling the truth about Michael 2005, and is lying now.

I don't assume anything. I just strongly believe he deserves some credit based on what I have heard.

If Buxer was so skilled and talented he could found another artist to work with. No one would continue working for someone that "stripped" them of credit.


Multiple people contradict Brad's claim.

Well, if it were only Brad & Mike in the hotel room when it was being composed, I can't see how anyone can contradict anything if they weren't there. If it's in the studio later, anything can happen there.

But why does he need to play an instrument for you to believe he composed his music?

Can you explain that?

Have you ever seen Amadeus?

Never seen. I think MJ needed Brad more than Brad needed MJ. He was very skilled. MJ still wanted him around even after he changed careers. If we knew how good MJ was in the studio (truly knew) then it would help answer some questions, even though we'd still have no definite answers.

What is the difference between what Mozart is doing in this scene and the way Michael composed his music?

How is him using his voice to write the notes on a tape recorder any less legitimate than playing it on an instrument???

It isn't. I would like to know if MJ did this track 100%, and I still think he didn't.

I remember listening to this track for the first time on release day (I liked it then, and I like it now) and I read the notes, and even back then I had this strong feeling MJ didn't compose it. It's a meaningless thought, but I believe it to be true. It didn't surprise me when Brad started talking about it after Mike died.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

This thread ain't about "feeling". And it's not about if he composed it or not, still. We're talking about the overall experience of the song.

Even if it is as composed as Man in the Mirror or Rock With You, what matters to me is the special feeling it brings and just that sense of escapism it provides. MJ embodied and enhanced many things whether he crafted them or not.

 

[kelley]

Listeners still don't really know how capable MJ is with instruments. It doesn't mean he's not a musician, or musical. Not at all.

Yes, it could literally mean anything, including lyrics and composition. Sounds to me like both are included in his complaints. How can they not be. We are talking about musical ideas.

Point being he was shortchanged. All the little workers in the process let it happen, so the end result is the same as what we see with Brad.

I don't assume anything. I just strongly believe he deserves some credit based on what I have heard.

Well, if it were only Brad & Mike in the hotel room when it was being composed, I can't see how anyone can contradict anything if they weren't there. If it's in the studio later, anything can happen there.

Never seen. I think MJ needed Brad more than Brad needed MJ. He was very skilled. MJ still wanted him around even after he changed careers. If we knew how good MJ was in the studio (truly knew) then it would help answer some questions, even though we'd still have no definite answers.

It isn't. I would like to know if MJ did this track 100%, and I still think he didn't.

I remember listening to this track for the first time on release day (I liked it then, and I like it now) and I read the notes, and even back then I had this strong feeling MJ didn't compose it. It's a meaningless thought, but I believe it to be true. It didn't surprise me when Brad started talking about it after Mike died.

So why call yourself a fan then? You don't believe Michael is talented enough to compose beautiful music despite dozens of witnesses statements to his genius, you think he's a thief. I don't get it. Go start a brad buxer fan club if you love him so much, why are you here? For what reason?

Michael has the strangest "fans" who will believe any negative thing about him but still want to be a fan and be apart of the fandom. It's odd and honestly it makes me think there is a targeted infiltration in the fandom from people looking to discredit Michael, attack his legacy and turn his fans against him.

 

[mj_frenzy]

So why call yourself a fan then? You don't believe Michael is talented enough to compose beautiful music despite dozens of witnesses statements to his genius, you think he's a thief. I don't get it. Go start a brad buxer fan club if you love him so much, why are you here? For what reason?

Michael has the strangest "fans" who will believe any negative thing about him but still want to be a fan and be apart of the fandom. It's odd and honestly it makes me think there is a targeted infiltration in the fandom from people looking to discredit Michael, attack his legacy and turn his fans against him.

Keep in mind that there are many fans that separate his personal life from his music.

This means for example that even though they believe that Michael Jackson was guilty of the child sexual abuse accusations against him (or they have very serious doubts about his innocence), they still enjoy his music.

So, any conspiracy theories (about these fans being strange, or having an agenda to discredit him, or wanting to attack his legacy, etc) are absolutely ridiculous.

 

[dethorro]

Can you explain that?

Have you ever seen Amadeus?

What is the difference between what Mozart is doing in this scene and the way Michael composed his music?

How is him using his voice to write the notes on a tape recorder any less legitimate than playing it on an instrument???

As wonderful a movie as Amadeus is, it is also a work of historical fiction. Mozart's compositional process was very different to how it was portrayed in that scene. The whole Mozartian myth of composing complete symphonies or operas in his head and then committing them to paper last minute is just that, a romantic myth which was created in the 19th century, originating with the infamous Rochlitz letter.

In reality, the compositional process was much more sophisticated. Mozart evidently had a tremendous capacity to juggle compositions in his mind, I'm not denying that, no one is. He had a prodigious memory and incredible improvisational skill. However, when composing a piece he would sketch it, sometimes try it out at the piano, before creating a draft and then finally writing out the manuscript.

I'm fairly positive Michael took the romantic myth of the genius, who creates his works intuitively, automatically and almost unaware of his surroundings and used it as a way to further establish his own mysterious image. Michael was well-read and this myth was not only used to describe Mozart's compositional method, but also that of other composers such as Beethoven or Shostakovich, and in earlier times the creative process of Plotinus and Raphael.

Of course musical ideas came out of his head, but no song he ever wrote was fully conceived in his mind before ever singing it into a tape recorder, or recording it some other way, contrary to what he has stated. It is against the capacities of the human mind firstly, and secondly it goes against any of the evidence we have of his process. Improvisation was a big part of his songwriting. The work-tape of The Girl Is Mine, presented in the 1993 deposition is an example of that. He needed to sing the melodies and hear them in the air, change them and tweak them in order to create the final product.

Going back to the original question, why he had to play an instrument to write songs, he didn't, you're right. The problem is that, usually, if you can play an instrument, you also know a great deal of musical theory. Without knowing musical theory, you are essentially stuck musically, not being able to compose things which are more sophisticated. In Stranger In Moscow, the chord A6, which comes during the line "when you're alone, and you're cold inside" is a perfect example of something Michael could not have come up with, due to his lack of knowledge in musical theory. In fact, Michael would most certainly not sing every single note of a chord to his collaborators, at least not most of the time, meaning he would sing a tone, and Buxer, or whoever he was composing with, would try to find what Michael was looking for.

 

[xam]

So why call yourself a fan then? You don't believe Michael is talented enough to compose beautiful music despite dozens of witnesses statements to his genius, you think he's a thief. I don't get it.

There are lots of comments on both sides of the fence. Keep in mind most people are not stupid: they want to keep working and selling workshops, keep existing relationships, sell presentations, travel the world and whatever. They don't want to make loyal MJ fans mad, even if they had a chance to. So what is said is probably a mild version of reality. At least that's how I think. I have had a chance personal involvement with someone who you could call a famous celebrity (not related to MJ at all). We don't know 10% of what really goes on in their life. So I try to keep that in mind all the time.

Go start a brad buxer fan club if you love him so much, why are you here? For what reason?

I'm here because I grew up with MJ's music, and I have found a lot of good info here. I like to know how things are made of things that I admire. The creative process is fascinating to me.

Michael has the strangest "fans" who will believe any negative thing about him but still want to be a fan and be apart of the fandom.

I consider myself objective, but I can understand your want to call me strange and negative. Bryan Loren got some of that for his interview, and he was an insider. I am just a distant observer.

It's odd and honestly it makes me think there is a targeted infiltration in the fandom from people looking to discredit Michael, attack his legacy and turn his fans against him.

That whole idea ranks a zero on my scale of things to do. It really is as simple as this: giving credit where it's due. Of course it sounds like we disagree about Stranger In Moscow. That's ok.

 

[Agonum]

As wonderful a movie as Amadeus is, it is also a work of historical fiction. Mozart's compositional process was very different to how it was portrayed in that scene. The whole Mozartian myth of composing complete symphonies or operas in his head and then committing them to paper last minute is just that, a romantic myth which was created in the 19th century, originating with the infamous Rochlitz letter.

In reality, the compositional process was much more sophisticated. Mozart evidently had a tremendous capacity to juggle compositions in his mind, I'm not denying that, no one is. He had a prodigious memory and incredible improvisational skill. However, when composing a piece he would sketch it, sometimes try it out at the piano, before creating a draft and then finally writing out the manuscript.

I'm fairly positive Michael took the romantic myth of the genius, who creates his works intuitively, automatically and almost unaware of his surroundings and used it as a way to further establish his own mysterious image. Michael was well-read and this myth was not only used to describe Mozart's compositional method, but also that of other composers such as Beethoven or Shostakovich, and in earlier times the creative process of Plotinus and Raphael.

Of course musical ideas came out of his head, but no song he ever wrote was fully conceived in his mind before ever singing it into a tape recorder, or recording it some other way, contrary to what he has stated. It is against the capacities of the human mind firstly, and secondly it goes against any of the evidence we have of his process. Improvisation was a big part of his songwriting. The work-tape of The Girl Is Mine, presented in the 1993 deposition is an example of that. He needed to sing the melodies and hear them in the air, change them and tweak them in order to create the final product.

Going back to the original question, why he had to play an instrument to write songs, he didn't, you're right. The problem is that, usually, if you can play an instrument, you also know a great deal of musical theory. Without knowing musical theory, you are essentially stuck musically, not being able to compose things which are more sophisticated. In Stranger In Moscow, the chord A6, which comes during the line "when you're alone, and you're cold inside" is a perfect example of something Michael could not have come up with, due to his lack of knowledge in musical theory. In fact, Michael would most certainly not sing every single note of a chord to his collaborators, at least not most of the time, meaning he would sing a tone, and Buxer, or whoever he was composing with, would try to find what Michael was looking for.

Why wouldn’t he be able to come up with an A6?

 

[dethorro]

Why wouldn’t he be able to come up with an A6?

To be fair, I’m not entirely sure if it was an A6, but that chord and some of the others in that song, are not chords I can see someone come up with, who does not have musical expertise. Instead they would most likely simplify it in some way. In general, the songs Michael wrote by himself tend to have simpler chords than say Rod Temperton’s, where you can clearly notice, in the chord progressions, that is a person with extensive knowledge in musical theory.

 

[Agonum]

To be fair, I’m not entirely sure if it was an A6, but that chord and some of the others in that song, are not chords I can see someone come up with, who does not have musical expertise. Instead they would most likely simplify it in some way. In general, the songs Michael wrote by himself tend to have simpler chords than say Rod Temperton’s, where you can clearly notice, in the chord progressions, that is a person with extensive knowledge in musical theory.

Disagree. Because a major sixth chord isn’t advanced at all. It’s neither more nor less advanced than a major seventh chord. Michael could definitely hear those. A well developed relative pitch will get you very far.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

So why call yourself a fan then? You don't believe Michael is talented enough to compose beautiful music despite dozens of witnesses statements to his genius, you think he's a thief. I don't get it. Go start a brad buxer fan club if you love him so much, why are you here? For what reason?

Yeah, don't gatekeep being a fan. Cut that out.

Plenty of people here I disagree with, and some I would outright say lack all social skills and should not be allowed to be on the Internet. But I would never say they shouldn't be allowed to be a fan. Maybe if it's Dan Reed levels of hypocrisy.

Michael has the strangest "fans" who will believe any negative thing about him but still want to be a fan and be apart of the fandom. It's odd and honestly it makes me think there is a targeted infiltration in the fandom from people looking to discredit Michael, attack his legacy and turn his fans against him.

I do agree with this, but we can minimize it to just this forum. Too many elitists too good for other social media but not good enough for Steve Hoffman forums. And probably one singular troll, or groups of, with multiple accounts. Take your picks really.

 

[kelley]

Keep in mind that there are many fans that separate his personal life from his music.

This means for example that even though they believe that Michael Jackson was guilty of the child sexual abuse accusations against him (or they have very serious doubts about his innocence), they still enjoy his music.

So, any conspiracy theories (about these fans being strange, or having an agenda to discredit him, or wanting to attack his legacy, etc) are absolutely ridiculous.

Those people are not fans. I don't care what you say.

 

[kelley]

As wonderful a movie as Amadeus is, it is also a work of historical fiction. Mozart's compositional process was very different to how it was portrayed in that scene. The whole Mozartian myth of composing complete symphonies or operas in his head and then committing them to paper last minute is just that, a romantic myth which was created in the 19th century, originating with the infamous Rochlitz letter.

In reality, the compositional process was much more sophisticated. Mozart evidently had a tremendous capacity to juggle compositions in his mind, I'm not denying that, no one is. He had a prodigious memory and incredible improvisational skill. However, when composing a piece he would sketch it, sometimes try it out at the piano, before creating a draft and then finally writing out the manuscript.

I'm fairly positive Michael took the romantic myth of the genius, who creates his works intuitively, automatically and almost unaware of his surroundings and used it as a way to further establish his own mysterious image. Michael was well-read and this myth was not only used to describe Mozart's compositional method, but also that of other composers such as Beethoven or Shostakovich, and in earlier times the creative process of Plotinus and Raphael.

Of course musical ideas came out of his head, but no song he ever wrote was fully conceived in his mind before ever singing it into a tape recorder, or recording it some other way, contrary to what he has stated. It is against the capacities of the human mind firstly, and secondly it goes against any of the evidence we have of his process. Improvisation was a big part of his songwriting. The work-tape of The Girl Is Mine, presented in the 1993 deposition is an example of that. He needed to sing the melodies and hear them in the air, change them and tweak them in order to create the final product.

Going back to the original question, why he had to play an instrument to write songs, he didn't, you're right. The problem is that, usually, if you can play an instrument, you also know a great deal of musical theory.

Please provide evidence of this statement. How pompous of you to declare that a person you never met could not do something that dozens of other people testified that he could do. The internet definitely makes people bold.

n fact, Michael would most certainly not sing every single note of a chord to his collaborators, at least not most of the time, meaning he would sing a tone, and Buxer, or whoever he was composing with, would try to find what Michael was looking for.

So I should just believe you, not all the dozens of other people who say Michael could and did do that? None of those testimonies matter, because King Brad decided to change his story after Michael's death right?

I'll stick with the witnesses who were actually there and who haven't changed their stories to get attention

 

[dethorro]

Please provide evidence of this statement. How pompous of you to declare that a person you never met could not do something that dozens of other people testified that he could do. The internet definitely makes people bold.

I'm not entirely sure for which of the various statements I have made in the original post you would like me to provide evidence. With regard to Mozart, I encourage you to read any of the well-researched and scholarly accepted biographies of the subject, from the late 19th-century/early 20th century Jahn and Abert biographies, to the much more recent Solomon and Swafford books. The latter ones may be more accessible and are in fact more up to date with the Mozart literature. All of these mention his creative process (his use of extensive sketching, improvising, e.t.c...)

If you are solely interested in the area of the compositional method of Mozart, German musicologist Dr. Ulrich Konrad has written the most extensive study on this topic, called "Mozarts Schaffensweise", and published it in the year 1992. The internet certainly makes people bold. Asserting that a fictionalised, Hollywood motion picture is reality, without looking into the facts, is an example of that. Perhaps you should also know that Salieri and Mozart, in fact, respected one another and that Salieri did not kill, or even attempt to kill Mozart, but that's another discussion.

So I should just believe you, not all the dozens of other people who say Michael could and did do that? None of those testimonies matter, because King Brad decided to change his story after Michael's death right?

I'll stick with the witnesses who were actually here and who haven't changed their stories to get attention

Going back to Michael, I'm pretty sure I have made it clear, if you read the original post, that it is my belief, based on the evidence we have of Michael's method, that no song he ever wrote was fully conceived in his head before recording it, despite his statements over the years. Firstly, you can ask any musician you ever encounter, that is not how anybody in this area of expertise works, as well as the fact that it very likely goes beyond the capacity of the human brain, to conceive a song in one's mind, and retain it in memory until one has recorded it. If such classically trained giants as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven did not do it, I'm almost certain Michael could not.

Secondly, the abundance of recorded proof we have goes against this notion. We have examples of work tapes (e.g. The Girl Is Mine or Give In To Me) as well as early demos (e.g. The Jacksons' We Love You or Beat It). If the songs were fully finished in his head, what would be the need to record these demos? What would be the need to improvise melodies and come up with lyrics on the spot (The Girl Is Mine)? And lastly, what would be the need to work on some songs extensively over a number of years, with some not even ever being fully finished.

Who are the dozens of people who say Michael could hear fully formed compositions in his mind, before ever orally vocalising them, at the very least into a tape recorder? Both Brad Buxer and John Barnes, arguably his two closest collaborators have said that, yes, the process would vary, in that Michael would sometimes only have an idea of a bass lick, sometimes the idea of a beat and other times perhaps a bit more than that (a concept, some lyrics,...). None of them, as far as I am aware, has ever said "Michael had fully fledged songs in his mind and all he had to do was sing them to me, before they were done".

With regard to the chords. It is possible that he would sing each of the notes in the chords. I still am not entirely sure, however, if that was usual occurrence, but it most certainly was not something which happened all the time, according to Buxer and Barnes.

In any case, Michael Jackson was a tremendously talented individual. I don't want to create the illusion that I believe anything else. My initial response was simply to clarify some of the myths, which in the case of a Michael or a Mozart are not needed, because these guys were geniuses regardless. Knowing and accepting the truth around them should allow us to appreciate them and their work even more. And @kelley, regarding Stranger In Moscow, I also don't know what the exact truth is. Some of your points are certainly interesting and compelling.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

I'm not entirely sure for which of the various statements I have made in the original post you would like me to provide evidence. With regard to Mozart, I encourage you to read any of the well-researched and scholarly accepted biographies of the subject, from the late 19th-century/early 20th century Jahn and Abert biographies, to the much more recent Solomon and Swafford books. The latter ones may be more accessible and are in fact more up to date with the Mozart literature. All of these mention his creative process (his use of extensive sketching, improvising, e.t.c...)

If you are solely interested in the area of the compositional method of Mozart, German musicologist Dr. Ulrich Konrad has written the most extensive study on this topic, called "Mozarts Schaffensweise", and published it in the year 1992. The internet certainly makes people bold. Asserting that a fictionalised, Hollywood motion picture is reality, without looking into the facts, is an example of that. Perhaps you should also know that Salieri and Mozart, in fact, respected one another and that Salieri did not kill, or even attempt to kill Mozart, but that's another discussion.



Going back to Michael, I'm pretty sure I have made it clear, if you read the original post, that it is my belief, based on the evidence we have of Michael's method, that no song he ever wrote was fully conceived in his head before recording it, despite his statements over the years. Firstly, you can ask any musician you ever encounter, that is not how anybody in this area of expertise works, as well as the fact that it very likely goes beyond the capacity of the human brain, to conceive a song in one's mind, and retain it in memory until one has recorded it. If such classically trained giants as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven did not do it, I'm almost certain Michael could not.

Secondly, the abundance of recorded proof we have goes against this notion. We have examples of work tapes (e.g. The Girl Is Mine or Give In To Me) as well as early demos (e.g. The Jacksons' We Love You or Beat It). If the songs were fully finished in his head, what would be the need to record these demos? What would be the need to improvise melodies and come up with lyrics on the spot (The Girl Is Mine)? And lastly, what would be the need to work on some songs extensively over a number of years, with some not even ever being fully finished.

Who are the dozens of people who say Michael could hear fully formed compositions in his mind, before ever orally vocalising them, at the very least into a tape recorder? Both Brad Buxer and John Barnes, arguably his two closest collaborators have said that, yes, the process would vary, in that Michael would sometimes only have an idea of a bass lick, sometimes the idea of a beat and other times perhaps a bit more than that (a concept, some lyrics,...). None of them, as far as I am aware, has ever said "Michael had fully fledged songs in his mind and all he had to do was sing them to me, before they were done".

With regard to the chords. It is possible that he would sing each of the notes in the chords. I still am not entirely sure, however, if that was usual occurrence, but it most certainly was not something which happened all the time, according to Buxer and Barnes.

In any case, Michael Jackson was a tremendously talented individual. I don't want to create the illusion that I believe anything else. My initial response was simply to clarify some of the myths, which in the case of a Michael or a Mozart are not needed, because these guys were geniuses regardless. Knowing and accepting the truth around them should allow us to appreciate them and their work even more. And @kelley, regarding Stranger In Moscow, I also don't know what the exact truth is. Some of your points are certainly interesting and compelling.

@dethorro Your arguments are really good. I think it ultimately comes down to schematics though. If you consider just the composition the whole thing then yes, MJ did that more or less, for most of his prime era material. Not always though. Obviously, the most advanced version, with lyrics and all, and production, even other embellishments like a bridge or the chords, that's more variable probably.

 

[Agonum]

@dethorro I agree with most of what you write, but am struggling with the following:

[…] Firstly, you can ask any musician you ever encounter, that is not how anybody in this area of expertise works, as well as the fact that it very likely goes beyond the capacity of the human brain, to conceive a song in one's mind, and retain it in memory until one has recorded it. […]

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean?

 

[dethorro]

@dethorro I agree with most of what you write, but am struggling with the following:

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean?

Composition is born in one's mind, like any other creative form, and I am obviously not denying that. It is the issue of how much one relies solely on the mind when composing, which I am discussing here. Michael has described composition as being like catching a leaf, falling from a tree. Evidently meaning that the song "would drop into his lap, like a gift", as he has said repeatedly, fully-formed. He has spoken about this several times.

Now, the problem is that most musicians, whether they have absolute pitch or not, compose at an instrument. They would not need an instrument, in the creative process, so before the actual recording sessions, if compositions came to them in their head and stood there like a finished painting, ready to be brought to life. One can certainly hear ideas in one's head before composing a musical piece, just the same as you can have ideas in your head before writing a novel, or painting a picture. However, you couldn't say that you have a finished novel in your head, with every word and sentence, before putting pen to paper. Or that you have a completely finished picture, with every small detail, before ever starting to paint it or making the most insignificant sketches. Changes are very often made along the way, not always in one's head.

Creation is often a matter of unexplored territory, waiting to be discovered. Your mind might conjure up an idea of the whole piece, some melodies, some rhythms, perhaps all coming together, which would then lead to you making your first steps in bringing your creation to life. In the case of a song, or musical piece specifically, you can jot down ideas, hum it to yourself, record it, re-record it, come up with better melodies or lyrics, and so on. That is why, more often than not, improvisation is an integral part of the creation process, because it opens up possibilities of directions you can go in with your musical piece.

There is a great scene in the Get Back documentary which shows Paul McCartney at the exact moment of creation, coming up with the song Get Back. That is a prime example of the creative process. He was creating the melody on the spot, and initially there were no lyrics,
until he later wrote them. He didn't have the song, as it is on the record, in his head before picking up his bass and a microphone and recording it. There were things which had to be added and re-done. And this applies to a majority of musicians.

In Michael's case, he evidently did not play an instrument all that much, which means that he, perhaps, relied more on his imagination. However, as I have stated previously, he is notorious for the amount of demos and re-writes he would make, as well as how long he needed until a song was fully final (in the case of Best Of Joy e.g. 27 years). Had these songs come to him like a leaf falling from a tree, there would be no re-writes, no work-tapes existent and no early demos. There would be no Streetwalker which evolved into Dangerous.

Michael was prone to exaggeration, and that quite often. He did not write 150 songs for every album, which is why the vault is as empty as it is. He also did not compose all of his songs, or most of them for that matter, up in his giving tree, with the songs coming to him like in a daydream, fully-fledged and ready to be taken to the other musicians to record. Some fans take his statements too literally and can't differentiate between the man and the myth. That is what I was trying to say.

 

[zinniabooklover]

[...] There is a great scene in the Get Back documentary which shows Paul McCartney at the exact moment of creation, coming up with the song Get Back. That is a prime example of the creative process. He was creating the melody on the spot, and initially there were no lyrics,
until he later wrote them. He didn't have the song, as it is on the record, in his head before picking up his bass and a microphone and recording it. There were things which had to be added and re-done. And this applies to a majority of musicians. [...]

Is that similar to what happened with Yesterday, do you think?

"The melody to “Yesterday” came to Paul McCartney in a dream. He woke up and stumbled to the piano by his bedside to work out the chords. “I just fell out of bed, found out what key I had dreamed it in…and I played it.”


EDIT - I just found a related quote:
“Yesterday” wasn’t completed when it came to McCartney. It took another year and a half for it to reach its completed form.

 

[Mark Shaw]

Wow.

A repost from earlier. Please remain on topic; Stranger in Moscow is the topic.

Part One:
For this project, I am choosing the song Stranger in Moscow by Michael Jackson. The link is posted
below.

Part Two:
There are several elements to this song that make it very compelling. It is consistently described as one
of Michael Jackson’s best songs, and this is due to the many elements at work throughout the song.
The song, penned and composed by Michael Jackson and produced with important contributions by
Brad Buxer, moves to draw you in. With a pregnant pause in place at the start of the composition, no
doubt to accentuate the live performance of the song, the song’s beat kicks in, heralding the start of the
song, and many performances, where he would demonstrate his robotic dance moves. The tempo of the
song fittingly compliments the gliding nature of Jackson’s moonwalking. The tempo of the track stands as
one of Jackson’s slowest; around 67 BPM. Despite that, the song maintains a fluid rhythm, in large part
due to the track’s beat, which serves as a harmonious counter-rhythm to the track’s melody.
The melody is extremely captivating. It is simple, conjunct and hypnotic. It loops, repeatedly cycling
through the sampled beatboxing characteristically used by Jackson to compose his hit songs. It keeps a
brisk pace, complimenting the BPM, while still communicating the melancholy tone the song serves to
represent. The soundscape of the track speaks to how sonically dense many of the songs engineered and
mastered by Michael Jackson and his team. One can hear the multiple samples and sounds interspersed
throughout the song, as they compliment and enhance the despondent, moody vocal flourishes and tics
from the song’s performer, as he asks how it does feel, when you are alone, and cold inside. All of this
serves to make Stranger in Moscow a standout, a tour-de-force on the album HIStory: Past Present and
Future: Book I.

Part Three:
This song serves the purpose of heralding the rain. On days when the sun is away, and the water falls
from the sky. The mood of the song perfectly complements weather conditions like this. It’s not an
isolationist song, but it’s meant for relief. The song describes Jackson’s loneliness due to many
encounters in his life. It also gives a voice to the feeling of aimless drifting that we all may feel, the
solemn nostalgic feeling that a cloudy, rainy day may bring. Many people have stated the ways Jackson’s
work explores and serves to help escape from tension, and that is exactly the purpose of the song. When
one is feeling the onset of isolation, or simply when the weather conditions are right, this song serves as
its anthem. For that reason, it remains in my song queues, set apart for these rainy days

That's interesting. But you already made a thread about SIM

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Wow.

That's interesting. But you already made a thread about SIM

And how would you know that since that was months ago? And you're a "new member".

 

[Mark Shaw]

And how would you know that since that was months ago? And you're a "new member".

I'm going to shock you, but Search function is not canceled yet

 

[R1chard]

Though the two composed various themes for the 1994 Sega Mega Drive/Genesis game, Jackson was ultimately unhappy with the results. "At the time, game consoles did not allow optimal sound reproduction, and Michael found it frustrating. He did not want to be associated with a product that devalued his music.

Ultimately, this is something that's convenient to say, but is easily proved wrong.

MJ was happy with the sound of the Megadrive. He was even happy with the inferior Mastersystem, and even the much inferior Spectrum.

Reminder that the following were all released under MJ's name.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

I'm going to shock you, but Search function is not canceled yet

I deleted the old thread you tool. You would not be able to see it even in search.

It's actually pathetic how bad you are at pretending this.

 

[Mark Shaw]

You goofy Jackass

I deleted the old thread you tool. You would not be able to see it even in search.

It's actually pathetic how bad you are at pretending this.

Why are you so rude?

 

[Mark Shaw]

You goofy Jackass

I deleted the old thread you tool. You would not be able to see it even in search.

It's actually pathetic how bad you are at pretending this.

I never done anything bad to you

 

[Mark Shaw]

You goofy Jackass

I deleted the old thread you tool. You would not be able to see it even in search.

It's actually pathetic how bad you are at pretending this.

@Hiker please shut this arrogant member

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

It's Richard76. I report it, nothing happens. We ask you, nothing happens. If nothing changes in a week, I might just leave this website, and see how many people might feel the same way and do just the same.