Tommy Mottola talks about Michael Jackson in his book Hitmaker - Comprehensive summary

[LastTear]

That was what I was trying to say all along.
Downloading must've impacted Invincible sales as well (like I said: I downloaded it as well, only to buy it later on sale, but in Holland CD's are like $30).


In an ideal world this would be perfect
Let great artists just do their thing and not worry about anything else.

Yes I got what you were trying to say, but to be honest more from your subsequent posts, where you explain it more. I find when approaching sensitive subjects it's best to really spell it out and not to forget that not everyone knows you.

I think we should draw a line under it and move on.

Yes, downloads would have absolutely affected Invincible album sales and I think I'm right that downloads weren't included in sales until about 8 years ago (?) Billboard started tracking downloads in the early nineties, so clearly downloads would have had an effect on his other albums as well.

 

[mthalen]

I have really enjoyed this part cause I make this banner and gave it to MJ. His reaction was incredible as he make thumbs up and take the banner in the bus on his way to Sony headquarters in London. Now I know Mottola was so pissed with it that 11 years later he still remember that one.

Haha!
Very cool

 

[mthalen]

Yes I got what you were trying to say, but to be honest more from your subsequent posts, where you explain it more. I find when approaching sensitive subjects it's best to really spell it out and not to forget that not everyone knows you.

I think we should draw a line under it and move on.

Thanks. Never meant to hurt anyone
--------------------------------------

 

[LastTear]

@mthalen :better:

So does Mottola mention the effect downloads had on album sales prior to them being included in the figures? I guess not when he is droning on about Michael's dwindling sales!

 

[Martin2011]

I've seen "This is it" in the movies and the "Immortal" Show from CDS and the audience was very mixed, from very young to the elderly. I think it bothered anyone that was Michael's skin from dark to white.The media has blown artificial this topic skin many years. The media Michael insulted and humiliated and manipulated the public.

 

[144000]

I like Michael's dreaminess, even though I think sometimes (often?) it was naive and his naivety got him in much trouble in his life (such as trusting bad people or thinking that all children are innocent and good, for example). But yeah, despite of this, it's refreshing to have people in the world like him, who are not completely cynical and/or apathic. That's what made him different in this ugly world, for sure.

On the other hand, the world is ugly - no matter how idealistic one individual is. And if you are not realistic in this ugly world, then you will often get hurt and used and abused. Like it happened to Michael so many times. In this case of chasing the 100 million copies dream, he ended up being in heavy debt and people using him and abusing him. So I can't say I think it it was a positive thing to spend so much on that album in the (I will say it) unrealistic hope that it would sell 100 million copies.

Michael was an artist, maybe he wasn't supposed to be realistic, making calculations with numbers, analyzing market trends etc. I don't blame him for being dreamy. But that doesn't mean I think all of his decisions were wise.

yeah..in this real world with Michael's idealism there's a risk of being abused. So it was with MLK and many others. That reminds me of a line from 'The Rose'..and i understand some people aren't ready for that. 'it's the one afraid of dying, that never seems to live'. I don't think it's always a life risk. But I do know, if you're a revolutionary person, get ready for the haters. But I love revolutionary people..and fact is..I don't think we can live without them. Great inventors, or whoever...Steve Jobs, or whoever. It never stops. And, to me, that's good.

 

[ivy]

First of all let's please stop the personal exchanges and go back to the topic : which is Mottola's book.

@mthalen :better:

So does Mottola mention the effect downloads had on album sales prior to them being included in the figures? I guess not when he is droning on about Michael's dwindling sales!

this is not going to be an exact answer but Mottola's book tells his life on a chronological order. Before he starts talking about year 2000-2001 and Michael's Invincible album, Mottola in great detail talks about Napster and other illegal music sharing / downloading. He does mention an industry wide effect on the album sales numbers.

 

[Petrarose]

Bubs love your posts.

Respect I understand what you are saying, but let me ask you a question. If you tell Michael not to focus on 100m because he would never attain it, what do you think he will do? From what we hear from people about Michael & from what he wrote & said, most likely he would still think about the 100m, still tape it on his mirror, still say it to himself every day, and still work as though he will attain it. This is the way he works, and many people do the same.

 

[mjjmsc]

Mottola is a business man and he is talking like one, cold and concerned about money...Art is a diffrent thing and Michael was first an artist...Sony didn't have the correct attitude in the music business and in the electronic section, that's why they lost the market...but I would recognize that Michael did also some mistakes during Invincible, I think he was tired and frustrated, it took a while until he put order in his thoughts and feelings...but he got back on his feets, like always, a phoenix

 

[Petrarose]

But anyways, lets get back on topic here.

Yes I think you should because what you have said & the way you have said it speak for itself.

Mjjmsc I understand you above^^ & I like the way you see mistakes on both sides. To me, that is the correct way to look at something like this.

 

[Bubs]

I like Michael's dreaminess, even though I think sometimes (often?) it was naive and his naivety got him in much trouble in his life (such as trusting bad people or thinking that all children are innocent and good, for example). But yeah, despite of this, it's refreshing to have people in the world like him, who are not completely cynical and/or apathic. That's what made him different in this ugly world, for sure.

On the other hand, the world is ugly - no matter how idealistic one individual is. And if you are not realistic in this ugly world, then you will often get hurt and used and abused. Like it happened to Michael so many times. In this case of chasing the 100 million copies dream, he ended up being in heavy debt and people using him and abusing him. So I can't say I think it it was a positive thing to spend so much on that album in the (I will say it) unrealistic hope that it would sell 100 million copies.

Michael was an artist, maybe he wasn't supposed to be realistic, making calculations with numbers, analyzing market trends etc. I don't blame him for being dreamy. But that doesn't mean I think all of his decisions were wise.

I want to reply on this even thou mods probably kick me out of this thread.

You do not tell long distance runner not to try break record time in race, in case he/she break a leg or other injury.
Nor you tell formula driver to slow down in case car accident. His goal is drive as fast as possible.
Or ski jumper not to jump in case he falls and break his neck. His goal is to jump as far as possible.
And lastly, how do you tell Michael Jackson to aim less or set his goal to 50 million albums when he already broke that record? Its the drive within, that makes people to aim or set goals high, and not all people have it, and those people know the risks and live with results.

It was Michael's money to spend what ever way he wanted, if he drowned his money to the well, it was his money.
We either support/ed him on his chosen road or we don't/didn't.

I'm done ranting and were are cool Respect :sun:

 

[HIStory]

@ Petrarose & Bubs

I don't think art can only be measured in sales and goals in art cannot only be set in record sales. So I would not compare it to sports.

But even if we do: if Usain Bolt said his goal is to run 100 under 5 seconds I'd call that an unrealistic goal too, even if he is the World Record holder. And if he'd spend all his money and more on achieving this impossible goal then I'd call that unwise too.

@ Bubs

We either support/ed him on his chosen road or we don't/didn't.

I don't think supporting Michael means you have to agree with his every decision.

 

[Petrarose]

Hey love that rant^^. You are right. People are forgetting that a person is who the person is. I don't want to stray, but it is the same when that guy Chris asked Michael why he let another kid in after the first problem. Michael said something like he will never keep love from any child and some other things. This is just Michael. He knows his purpose is pure & he sticks to it, so telling him to scale down to 250,000 will not work. He will say OK to your face, but something different could be going on internally & physically.

Respect I understand you. It is true we do not have to agree with all his decisions. No one here does. However, we cannot ignore the fact that each of us here works in a specific way, and some of us are more motivated than others. Some of us take more risks; some take risks all the time. Michael works with that pressure of the 100m as his aim, and it seems that is the way he functions, so no one should take it away from him. Let him have his aim/goal/reality, but caution him about the money at stake & give alternatives of how else we can do what YOU want but use less money.

I will be a little personal here and mention that I met an African American who told me he wanted to be a science teacher. He was told in school that he couldn't do that & he should go to a trade school. Now this was in the early 1970s. He spent many years wasting time until he finally decided that he should just do what he felt he was capable of & went to college at night & now teaches chemistry at one of the City colleges in New York. What is my point, let people have their reality/goals, & let them screw up. We should lend a hand to monitor, mentor, advice.

 

[mthalen]

Agree 100% with respect77

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

You know what bugs me about these folks complaining about yessing him blablabla? As long as sales were good everyone 'yessed' him all day long.

Then sales are not 'there' and suddenly being a yes man is a problem. As long as Michael brought in the money nobody has any moral issues. And then, when the sales are not in the astronomical sphere, everything that was previously fine is suddenly belabored as HIS problem.

Same old story, go cry me a river, Mottola. I'm sick of American corporate ellbowers suddenly playing the moral flute when they were more than happy to use him to please their uppers.

This doesn't mean I see Michael as infallible, I am just sick and tired of absolute greed trying to wash their hands clean on Michael. Sony was MORE than happy to oblige and charge outrageous prices on a CD until their empire fell. Greedy as %^&* for decades and then crying uncle.

 

[Petrarose]

Pace excellent. This is a typical business strategy & practiced by Ad executives to the hilt. When they are romancing a new client they are Yes all the way, promising the client everything, giving the client the sky. You see the same method when Vegas casinos try to attract the high rollers to their casino. They go get them in limos, give them the best suites, etc., all to keep them as their customers. I am not complaining about the strategy, but then when things go sour, they turn around and blame the client as though it was the client who initially asked them to be Yes men.

TM did not state what Sony told Michael they will give him, unless Ivy did not put that in her summary. But, I guess they promised a heap of things that made the contract attractive to Michael.

Something I do not understand about the situation with the waste of money, when TM saw Michael in the truck why didn't he cancel the rentals that were empty? If they knew Michael would have these producers around the world working together, wouldn't they know in advance this would be costly and deal with this in contract? Bruce said they worked on BJ ninety something times, so it seems to me that TM knew Michael took a long time to work on a project, so they should know that the longer it takes, the more money is used and should have dealt with that during contract also.

Even in Moonwalk Michael mentioned they asked for Thriller & he cried because he felt it was not ready. The company was adamant & said we need it. Now think what would happen if Q did not say lets go over this thing again & work on it or if the executives said no we are sending someone for it in 2 hours? We would have had a sloppy Thriller album. TM never took that road with Michael's invincible & that is the difference.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Thanks ivy for doing the summary, it was interesting. Mottolla's experiences of dealing with mj echo alot of what walter yetnikoff wrote about in his book. I agree with what mottolla said about the dangers of getting an album budget way out of control and getting into debt. You can argue it was financial issues that led mj to take on tii, that led to his need for propofol, that led to murray - and those in mj's circle at that time who allowed mj's financial situation to escalate certainly didn't have his best interests at heart.

I thought mottolla seemed entirely reasonable from that book summary, but i just listened to his interview with howard stern, it's on youtube. Stern mentioned that mj owned the beatles catalogue and then congratulated mottolla on doing a good business deal by getting 50% ownership in it later on. Which is correct, but mottolla corrected him and said 'we helped to finance the purchase of that catalogue for mj. Right from the get go - for $90m which was a joke as it was worth a billion plus.' Mottolla was taking the credit for buying the catalogue and agreed with stern when he said that it was because mj didn't have enough money to buy it outright - there was no mistaking what he was saying here. If he can lie on a radio show about historically documented events, it kind of destroys his credibility.

He also seemed equivocal in this interview in his support of mj's innocence in the allegations which also ticked me off. Also personally i don't believe him when he says he took the high road with mj over the accusations in 02 and never responded. I cannot believe that the debacle at the 02 mtv awards was all down to mj's managers mishearing 'we're going to be giving mj a birthday cake' with 'we're going to be giving mj the artist of the millennium award'. There was definitely more to it than that.

 

[HIStory]

I thought mottolla seemed entirely reasonable from that book summary, but i just listened to his interview with howard stern, it's on youtube. Stern mentioned that mj owned the beatles catalogue and then congratulated mottolla on doing a good business deal by getting 50% ownership in it later on. Which is correct, but mottolla corrected him and said 'we helped to finance the purchase of that catalogue for mj. Right from the get go - for $90m which was a joke as it was worth a billion plus.' Mottolla was taking the credit for buying the catalogue and agreed with stern when he said that it was because mj didn't have enough money to buy it outright - there was no mistaking what he was saying here. If he can lie on a radio show about historically documented events, it kind of destroys his credibility.

Why didn't Stern ask: why didn't Sony (CBS) buy it then? Funny, how in the hindsight everybody wants to take credit for it, but still none of them bought it themselves? Why?

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Yes, exactly, why didn't sony with it's corporate millions, just outbid mj and cut him out of this totally amazing deal. But that follow up requires a more knowledgeable and less obsequious (him and mottolla appear to be pals) interviewer than howard stern. Well if we get a q and a with mottolla, i know what questions i'm going to ask him, lol.

 

[la_cienega]

I thought mottolla seemed entirely reasonable from that book summary, but i just listened to his interview with howard stern, it's on youtube. Stern mentioned that mj owned the beatles catalogue and then congratulated mottolla on doing a good business deal by getting 50% ownership in it later on. Which is correct, but mottolla corrected him and said 'we helped to finance the purchase of that catalogue for mj. Right from the get go - for $90m which was a joke as it was worth a billion plus.' Mottolla was taking the credit for buying the catalogue and agreed with stern when he said that it was because mj didn't have enough money to buy it outright - there was no mistaking what he was saying here. If he can lie on a radio show about historically documented events, it kind of destroys his credibility.

He said they helped finance the original sale of the catalog in 1985 for $90 million?

Reading about the sale, supposedly CBS didn't want to go up against their biggest star in a sale like that. They were supposedly happy with MJ buying it though, because it meant they could administer it for him.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

That was my reading of it. He didn't mention the date, but to me he was saying he was in the purchase of the catalogue at the beginning as mj couldn't afford it. Mattola wasn't at sony at the time of the purchase in mid 80s, he's talking about the mid90s sony/atv merger and misrepresenting it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MsAOZ6zH20

Around 0.40 mark. Let me know what others think.

 

[jamba]

I personally want to wait for the Forbes book (by Zack O'Malley, I think) on MJ's finances before believing what TM says about it. MJ had debts from other sources, as well as for putting his own $ into Invincible. He had huge legal expenses for instance. It is estimated he did 500 depositions and had over 1,500 lawsuits thrown at him in his lifetime. When he died there were 38 different lawsuits thrown at him. His legal fees were astronomical. Also there was the "Michael Jackson Effect," meaning that when anyone knew they were billing MJ, they increased their fees a lot, just b/c it was him.

I am not saying he didn't make mistakes financially, but I think we need more info on this and not just from TM, who was not privy to the whole thing IMO.

 

[HIStory]

Reading about the sale, supposedly CBS didn't want to go up against their biggest star in a sale like that. They were supposedly happy with MJ buying it though, because it meant they could administer it for him.

Not even for a deal when you can buy a catalog that is worth more than a billion for $90 million? Doesn't sound convincing.

You know, I can believe that if Michael didn't have liquid money immediately they helped him out, but I don't think it was more than that. And that doesn't mean they can take credit for the purchase of the catalog any more than a bank could have which would have given a loan to him. Had they really realized what a great deal it was they would have bought it themselves, I'm sure.

 

[jamba]

He said they helped finance the original sale of the catalog in 1985 for $90 million?

Reading about the sale, supposedly CBS didn't want to go up against their biggest star in a sale like that. They were supposedly happy with MJ buying it though, because it meant they could administer it for him.

The catalogue was bought for $46 or 47 million originally.

 

[la_cienega]

Not even for a deal when you can buy a catalog that is worth more than a billion for $90 million? Doesn't sound convincing.

MJ bought it for $47.5 million. He had to spend a year buying it, where they had to go through all the records and make sure everything was legit, and many buyers stepped away before that because that alone I think cost about a million or so.

Those were the stories back then given about why CBS didn't buy it anyway, that they didn't want to compete with MJ for it and were happy to just administer it for him.

Yetnikoff says he told MJ that the price was too high.

 

[HIStory]

Those were the stories back then given about why CBS didn't buy it anyway, that they didn't want to compete with MJ for it and were happy to just administer it for him.

Yetnikoff says he told MJ that the price was too high.

My point is, just because they gave him a loan for it (if they did) it doesn't mean they can take credit for it. No one at the time seemed to have realized how much it would worth in the future. Mottola can say in the hindsight that it's worth 1 billion, but at the time if CBS really thought it would be worth that much, I'm sure they would have bought it themselves. If $47.5 million was too high for Yetnikoff he and CBS certainly cannot take credit for it, because they clearly did not believe at the time that it would be worth so much more in the future.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I personally want to wait for the Forbes book (by Zack O'Malley, I think) on MJ's finances before believing what TM says about it. MJ had debts from other sources, as well as for putting his own $ into Invincible.

I agree jamba,(if you were directing your post at me) i was just seeing mj spending way over the odds on invincible as an example of how his advisors were so relaxed at mj spending money on all types of ventures and getting into debt which to me made mj vulnerable.

MJ bought it for $47.5 million. He had to spend a year buying it, where they had to go through all the records and make sure everything was legit, and many buyers stepped away before that because that alone I think cost about a million or so.

Those were the stories back then given about why CBS didn't buy it anyway, that they didn't want to compete with MJ for it and were happy to just administer it for him.

Yetnikoff says he told MJ that the price was too high.

I added this to my post upthread but the thread has moved on - i think motolla was talking about the deal in the mid 90s, he wasn't at sony/cbs in '85 and was just totally misrepresenting the deal as the initial purchase of the beatles catalgoue. Listen to the youtube i added to my post on previous page and see if you agree. Noone loaned mj the money in 85 - he was awash with thriller money - he bought neverland outright a couple years later.

 

[la_cienega]

My point is, just because they gave him a loan for it (if they did) it doesn't mean they can take credit for it. No one at the time seemed to have realized how much it would worth in the future. Mottola can say in the hindsight that it's worth 1 billion, but at the time if CBS really thought it would be worth that much, I'm sure they would have bought it themselves. If $47.5 million was too high for Yetnikoff he and CBS certainly cannot take credit for it, because they clearly did not believe at the time that it would be worth so much more in the future.

I was just checking if he was trying to claim they were involved in the 85 deal. CBS' only involvement back then was to supposedly be rumored to have been interested in it but stepped back because of MJ, and that they were happy just to administer to it.

As far as I know no loan was ever used for it in 1985.

I'm guessing he's got the two different deals mixed up, I need to look over what happened in the 1995 deal again.

I wasn't sure if he misspoke or was being intentionally misleading.

 

[HIStory]

Yeah, probably he mixes it up. I looked it up and it was in 1995 that Michael sold his half to Sony for $90 million.

After that there were a lot of other purchases made and added to the catalog. One for $157 million, another for $370 million and there were others. So that's how we get to the 1 billion number. It's not like the worth of the Beatles songs went up that much (although I'm sure they went up too). But neither in 1985 or 1995 could Mottola say it would be worth 1 billion. He couldn't know that yet.

 

[la_cienega]

Maybe I'm having a slow day, but by saying they merged it in 1995 after MJ sold half "for $90m which was a joke as it was worth a billion plus" - is he saying that they should have paid MJ a billion for it in 1995?

Sorry, that stuff just confuses me... and I hate listening to Howard Stern discuss MJ at the best of times...

I wonder why the rumor of MJ being interested in selling his share came about in May 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing#cite_note-guest_12.E2.80.9313-19

The reports on how much his share was worth in 2007 and in the value of Neverland seems wrong to me here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/30/entertainment/main5125862.shtml

Sorry, going off topic...