I, too, fail to see any similarity between beltgate and Prince appearing on invincible.
.
It's not about similarity it's about interpretation.
MJ said he wanted his kids to have a private life, someone would then ask, if you want privacy, why record them on your album?
It's the same thing with what people are saying of Katherine, if the kid's privacy is paramount, why get them to sign the belt?
here is my main issue, I know getting kids to sign a belt doesn't seem like a good idea, but people have to pause and put themselves in Katherine's shoes. She must have been inundated with so many requests to do an interview, to promote certain things.
She definitely has turned down a lot of stuff from all around the world.
Then someone suggests a simple thing such as a belt to comemorate their father and the advantage that kids don't have to appear in public and the added advantage that profits will not go to one Jackson member but to a worthwhile project that celebrates not only Michael's career but the Jackson5 and their roots.
She evaluates it and thinks, of all things put before her, this is the most sensible.
Then next day guess what, executors release a statement accussing her of exploiting the kids by saying they could never get MJ kids to do something like that, some media attack her, fans are on her neck that she's no angel, while others go as far as saying emancipation.
What's wrong here is that the executors did not ask their lawyers to meet with her and discuss why she went ahead with the deal and highlight any of their concerns, but felt it important to release a statement putting her down.
Oh, but when they want to promote deals like Cirque de Soleil, they get her to issue a statement seconding it.
If so, they should have released a statement condeming the kids appearance at the Grammys then, because Grammys got ratings and profit by annnouncing beforehand MJ kids would appear to pick up the award and Katherine was persuaded to let them do so.
Or was that because the kids appearance would help promote "This Is It" the project executors were in charge of that was being released on DVD at that time, which Lionel happened to mention on the same show and for which Sony bought advertising space?
We all know Joe has all kinds of plans, no one knows that better than Katherine. And she has definitely blocked many of his ideas both while Michael was alive and even after his passing.
But let's step back and look at this rationally rather than trashing someone without knowing how the issue of the belt was evaluated and the decision was arrived at.
Because you know what, the future albums the executors will release will at some point contain contributions from the kids. The albums will make profits and the executors will pocket some of that.
At what point then will we define "exploitation"
Is it when Jacksons involve the kids in a project?
Or when the executors involve them in a project, as i have already shown above with their appearance synching with the promotion of "This Is It" release?
And also, a family is a family. Michael does not owe his family anything. But we should remember that at the This Is It premiere, Michael's brothers were there free of charge to help promote it. They were urged to appear and they walked the red carpet.
Imagine the picture of an MJ premire and not a single Jackson turns up. It wouldn't look nice. I know some fans couldn't care less, but for the wider marketing in people's mindset, the "family support" picture does matter, that's why they were urged to come, walk the red carpet and speak to the media.
They have a shared history. Some fans only like Michael, some only like Jackson5, others like when all are together united and there are several variations in between.
Michael had to balance this while he was alive otherwise he would long have stopped paying tribute to his brothers while on stage, and his mother has to do the same too now.
Some may not like how she tried to balance and may not like the Jacksons museum idea, that's all well and good. But don't go trashing her.
And i wish the executors in future would raise their concerns in private first of all before putting her down, otherwise it creates a fighting match where statements will be released in future by the other party putting them down when something goes amiss, which in the end doesn't help anyone.
. I'm sorry, I found the Feb tweets by searching on google but I can't find the April 4th tweets for some reason sorry.. but I def. saw them because I dm'd mjjnews about it, telling them we from mjjc sent gifts and were told they were accepted and I didn't think the estate would be involved in this kind of thing..
