Yeah, right, like ANY of that can be seen as a justification for his own inappropriate conduct with children....... <_< Wake up Danny..... He was a GROWN MAN, he made CHOICES..... BAD ONES....... <_<

Yes, but if he was insane, like I and many others believe, he wouldn't be able to help acting in the way he did. This is assuming he never actually sexually abused children of course...

 

And this argument that Quincy Jones should take the credit for Jackon's best work is so lame. All it indicates is that the two complemented eachother's strengths. I'm sure someone else has made this point, but it goes without saying that none of the Beatles on their own ever produced anything worthwhile in the wide scheme of things, apart from maybe Lennon... does that mean we take away the credit from each and every one of them for the work in the Beatles? No, it just indicates that while they never produced greatness on their own, they worked better together, as they complemented eachother's strenhths... in the same way Quincy and Jackson did.

A bit like "Little" Stevie Wonder then......? :rolleyes: See, here's the thing, people talk about Jacko not really having a childhood and being this child star.... Well, people forget that so was Stevie Wonder, in fact, he was a "child prodigy" before MJ in the early 60s... Not only that, but Stevie had a disability to overcome as well - ie blindness, he and Jacko are more-or-less contemporaries in some ways, both child stars, both coming out of Motown... So, taking all this into account, how come Stevie Wonder manages to pretty much keep both feet on the ground, and keeps in touch with reality and Jacko just goes nuts....? The same amounts of pressures would surely be on both of them as young lads. And frankly, if you were to ask me who I thought made the greater contribution to popular Black music and who is the more respected as an artist, I'd prob go with Stevie Wonder tbh.....

Just because Stevie Wonder coped well with the pressure, that doesn't mean every other prodigy does. Sport is filled with child prodigies who go onto achieve and great things, as well as child prodigies who burn out by their early 20s and never fulfill their potential. People cope with these things differently, there's no stock-type way of coping with being idolised at such a young age because it's such a rare thing.

 

Besides, was Stevie Wonder a global mega-star as a child in the way the Jackson 5 were? Did he fly around the world constantly promoting? I'm genuinely asking - I don't really know much about his beginnings.

Grimly, you seem to be forgetting (or rather choosing to forget) the reception which Dangerous received. The majority of fans consider it his finest album, and yet you're discrediting it. Personally I prefer Bad - Dangerous is decent if a little ballad-heavy - but to claim that he was past-it by then is madness. The ever-reliable All Music made a very good point when reviewing Dangerous:

 

It was time for a change-up, something even a superstar as huge as Michael Jackson realized, so he left Quincy Jones behind, hired Guy mastermind Teddy Riley as the main producer, and worked with a variety of other producers, arrangers, and writers, most notably Bruce Swedien and Bill Bottrell. The end result of this is a much sharper, harder, riskier album than Bad.

 

Even so, Dangerous captures Jackson at a near-peak, delivering an album that would have ruled the pop charts surely and smoothly if it had arrived just a year earlier. But it didn't — it arrived along with grunge, which changed the rules of the game nearly as much as Thriller itself. Consequently, it's the rare multi-platinum, number one album that qualifies as a nearly forgotten, underappreciated record.

 

Regardless, it's considered his finest album by many fans and the accompanying tour was also considered his finest, so...

 

And the same "All Music Guide" also gives the full 5-stars to "Off The Wall" and "Thriller" (so, clearly All Music guide considers them "Classics") and 4.5 to "Bad" (which would be classed as a "near classic"), "Dangerous" actually gets 3.5 stars (prob considered "above average")...... So, dunno what your point is tbh.... The two main songs off "Dangerous" - "Black and White" (which I just find a joke...) and "Heal the World" (toe-curlingly "worthy"....), which are the two "big singles", I just dont consider all that good at all, not when you take into account "Billie Jean", "Wanna Be Startin' Something", "Thriller", "Beat It", "Off The Wall", "Bad", "Smooth Criminal", "Dont Stop Til You Get Enough"..... Er, I think you get the picture... If you seriously belive that anything on "Dangerous" or "Invincible" is better than the best stuff Jackson did on his first two albums, I would suggest you listen to the records again mate.....

 

A bit like "Little" Stevie Wonder then......? :rolleyes: See, here's the thing, people talk about Jacko not really having a childhood and being this child star.... Well, people forget that so was Stevie Wonder, in fact, he was a "child prodigy" before MJ in the early 60s... Not only that, but Stevie had a disability to overcome as well - ie blindness, he and Jacko are more-or-less contemporaries in some ways, both child stars, both coming out of Motown... So, taking all this into account, how come Stevie Wonder manages to pretty much keep both feet on the ground, and keeps in touch with reality and Jacko just goes nuts....? The same amounts of pressures would surely be on both of them as young lads. And frankly, if you were to ask me who I thought made the greater contribution to popular Black music and who is the more respected as an artist, I'd prob go with Stevie Wonder tbh.....

 

Exactly

 

It is absurd nonsense to justify his weird behaviour on being abused as a child or having a childhood in the spotlight, Ian Huntley was abused and beaten by his stepfather does that mean that his childhood is some justifiable excuse for killing Hollie and Jessica ? :rolleyes: many people have abuse as children but that does not give them some green light to behave unacceptably as adults, every bloody courtroom is full of defence laywyers saying that their client should be pitied and let off because they had a tough childhood :rolleyes: its lily livered bleeding heart claptrap, Jacko's abuse as a child is NOT a justification for dangling babies out of windows, having 8 year old boys in his bed at 40, getting them drunk on vodka and alleged sexual abuse, its really starting to grate me people making excuses of his childhood for his weird and depraved adult life

A bit like "Little" Stevie Wonder then......? :rolleyes: See, here's the thing, people talk about Jacko not really having a childhood and being this child star.... Well, people forget that so was Stevie Wonder, in fact, he was a "child prodigy" before MJ in the early 60s... Not only that, but Stevie had a disability to overcome as well - ie blindness, he and Jacko are more-or-less contemporaries in some ways, both child stars, both coming out of Motown... So, taking all this into account, how come Stevie Wonder manages to pretty much keep both feet on the ground, and keeps in touch with reality and Jacko just goes nuts....? The same amounts of pressures would surely be on both of them as young lads. And frankly, if you were to ask me who I thought made the greater contribution to popular Black music and who is the more respected as an artist, I'd prob go with Stevie Wonder tbh.....

But then again, Stevie has also had a good adult-life. MJ's created mystique persona of himself pretty much backfired, and he became a fugitive. Withdraw yourself from society, and you'll end up going loopy one day. Which he did.

Yes, but if he was insane, like I and many others believe, he wouldn't be able to help acting in the way he did. This is assuming he never actually sexually abused children of course...

 

And this argument that Quincy Jones should take the credit for Jackon's best work is so lame. All it indicates is that the two complemented eachother's strengths. I'm sure someone else has made this point, but it goes without saying that none of the Beatles on their own ever produced anything worthwhile in the wide scheme of things, apart from maybe Lennon... does that mean we take away the credit from each and every one of them for the work in the Beatles? No, it just indicates that while they never produced greatness on their own, they worked better together, as they complemented eachother's strenhths... in the same way Quincy and Jackson did.

 

But Quincy Jones did truly great material with other acts though..... Mine and Rob's argument is, that while the relationship between Jones and Jackson was certainly a creatively fertile one, it is our argument that the more fertile of the two was Jones.....

 

And, tbh, and as Rob will tell you, I've never been a fanatic on The Beatles... I've always felt that while The Beatles certainly put the metaphorical experimental/psychedelic/avant garde "ball" into play, that it was the likes of The Velvet Underground, MC5, Hendrix, The Doors and Pink Floyd that booted the thing up the park and into the penalty box........ :lol: I've always been more into The Who or The Kinks anyway tbh......

 

Must be honest - much as I admire Quincy Jones, I think some of his production on the 3 big Jacko albums was way-off.

 

Listening to the latter Jackson albums this weekend, the production on Dangerous, History and Invincible is pretty near top-notch and faultless throughout. The songs, however, aint.

 

I'm shocked and appalled that his most lame, embarrassing and frankly toe-curling single, Earth Song, is his biggest UK seller.... it ranks as his worst single in my eyes. Alongside Black or White.

 

 

But then again, Stevie has also had a good adult-life. MJ's created mystique persona of himself pretty much backfired, and he became a fugitive. Withdraw yourself from society, and you'll end up going loopy one day. Which he did.

 

Jacko's fault though

 

Instead of surrounding himself with advisers who were prepared to tell him in no uncertain terms to sort himself out and get help he surrounded himself with slobbering sycophants who would tell him how great he is and ass lick him as opposed to making him get a grip and get the professional help with his problems that he needed, Jacko could afford the best shrinks, the best rehab places to sort out his problems but he instead had all the sycophants telling him how wonderful he was and therefore probably didn't realise what he was doing was wrong, his fault

Jacko's fault though

 

Instead of surrounding himself with advisers who were prepared to tell him in no uncertain terms to sort himself out and get help he surrounded himself with slobbering sycophants who would tell him how great he is and ass lick him as opposed to making him get a grip and get the professional help with his problems that he needed, Jacko could afford the best shrinks, the best rehab places to sort out his problems but he instead had all the sycophants telling him how wonderful he was and therefore probably didn't realise what he was doing was wrong, his fault

Oh of course, I'm not denying that.

 

He did go to a shrink once. But tbh, I think during the 90's he was beyond help. It's not like you can "cure" a man with the mind of a child, or, (allegedly), a paedophile.

its really starting to grate me people making excuses of his childhood for his weird and depraved adult life

 

Same here tbh... I think Rob gave the example of The Osmonds, who were MASSIVE teen stars in the 70s, Little Jimmy Osmond as well would've been about the same age as Jacko when he was doing his stuff.... David Cassidy was another one.... The chief problem with Jacko was, was that he surrounded himself with these bottom-feeding "enablers" like Uri Gellar who basically put all sorts of stupid, weird bullsh!t into his head... Too many people telling him only what he wanted to hear, and not enough telling him what he needed to hear, IMO....

Must be honest - much as I admire Quincy Jones, I think some of his production on the 3 big Jacko albums was way-off.

 

Naaaah, it's just very much "of the time" mate..... Late 70s/early 80s...... I listened to "Dangerous" again a few years back, and frankly thought it was absolute PISH for the most part, "top notch" production or not.....

Same here tbh... I think Rob gave the example of The Osmonds, who were MASSIVE teen stars in the 70s, Little Jimmy Osmond as well would've been about the same age as Jacko when he was doing his stuff.... David Cassidy was another one.... The chief problem with Jacko was, was that he surrounded himself with these bottom-feeding "enablers" like Uri Gellar who basically put all sorts of stupid, weird bullsh!t into his head... Too many people telling him only what he wanted to hear, and not enough telling him what he needed to hear, IMO....

 

Well the likes of Donnie Osmond etc still enjoyed a normal life (by celeb standards) when they were adults - there every move was not followed. He was not even remotely in Jackson's league in terms of fame on a global scale. People don't seem to realise quite how massive Jackson was. He was huge everywhere on the planet - on a much greater scale than anyone else. Elvis for example, his main sales came from the States, whereas Jackson was bigger internationally than in his home country. The rest of the Jackson's were able to lead a reletivly normal life as adults. I mean lets be honest, most of the general public could'nt name any of the other Jackson's if put on the spot. Michael enormous fame since he was a child was completelly different to any other child star, because he just kept getting bigger and bigger and his life become increasingly more bizzare. In that sence there is really no-one else to compare him to.

 

At the end of the day -there could be countless reasons as to why he turned so strange - we will never know the real reason. One thing I will say in his defence as a person , something that is not being reported (well I havent read it in any papers) - his work for charity. He has given over $300 million to charities throughout his life - more than any other celeb. Yes he wasted huge volumes of his wealth on all sorts of useless things but think of all the lives that would've been saved thanks to such an enormous amount of money. That alone is something hugely positive other than his contribution to music and popular culture that should be celebrated in my view.

 

At the end of the day -there could be countless reasons as to why he turned so strange - we will never know the real reason. One thing I will say in his defence as a person , something that is not being reported (well I havent read it in any papers) - his work for charity. He has given over $300 million to charities throughout his life - more than any other celeb.

 

Well, okay, but that hardly makes up for the fact that he USED children in one way or another to make up for his own inadequacies as a person, or dangling kids out of windows.... Anyone who's rich can chuck money around just like it's paper, it's meaningless, and anyway, the rich should redistribute a fair portion of their wealth anyway, IMO, at the end of the day, he got rich mainly because US KIDS in the 80s nagged our parents to buy his records for christmas or birthdays... :rolleyes:

 

At the end of the day, it takes a real man to live up to his responsibilities, Jackson was not real man, IMO.....

 

At the end of the day, I am FAR more impressed by Shakira and what she's done to build schools and use her wealth to set up education foundations for the poorest kids in her country, Columbia.... And she's been doing that since she was 18.... Shakira, I thoroughly admire, her actions are genuine and real, and dont expect anything in return, she give a lot more of herself than just a load of dosh.....

And the same "All Music Guide" also gives the full 5-stars to "Off The Wall" and "Thriller" (so, clearly All Music guide considers them "Classics") and 4.5 to "Bad" (which would be classed as a "near classic"), "Dangerous" actually gets 3.5 stars (prob considered "above average")...... So, dunno what your point is tbh.... The two main songs off "Dangerous" - "Black and White" (which I just find a joke...) and "Heal the World" (toe-curlingly "worthy"....), which are the two "big singles", I just dont consider all that good at all, not when you take into account "Billie Jean", "Wanna Be Startin' Something", "Thriller", "Beat It", "Off The Wall", "Bad", "Smooth Criminal", "Dont Stop Til You Get Enough"..... Er, I think you get the picture... If you seriously belive that anything on "Dangerous" or "Invincible" is better than the best stuff Jackson did on his first two albums, I would suggest you listen to the records again mate.....

Stop making crap up! Where on Earth did I say Invincible was better than Thriller? Christ. I've not even got that album, merely the singles. I have no desire to even listen to it. The era was a disaster.

 

And different reviewers wrote the AMG pieces, as you'd know if you'd read them. The reviewer who wrote Dangerous' review did 'only' give it 3.5/5, yes, but he also cited that it was a better album than Bad.

 

Not that that matters. Opinions are subjective, although you've yet to accept that.

Oh and Mushy, (I know this is late), but Jackson has never said that he invented the moon walk. :mellow: He was taught it by kids dancing on the street, and perfected and tuned it (as been told by many other dancers and him himself).

 

It's like, trying to pick out at every little thing and exaggerate it to make it seem worst than what it is.

its really starting to grate me people making excuses of his childhood for his weird and depraved adult life

Whether it "grates you" or not, it doesn't change the facts that a) a psychologist during the child abuse case several years ago said he was to all intents and purposes insane, and B) someone who is insane often has no idea of how their actions are perceived. Maybe you know better than a professional psychologist who spent much time studying him though... for all I know, maybe you did regular Sunday dinners at Neverland. If you didn't, then I'd suggest you probably don't know better.

...seeing photos of Jacko's err... 'children'..... the blonde one... he's a mini Macauley Culkin!!!! I hope that if there's a custody battle, the truth will out on 'his' kids... because I don't believe for a minute any one of the three is his, not even a turkey baster job.....

...seeing photos of Jacko's err... 'children'..... the blonde one... he's a mini Macauley Culkin!!!! I hope that if there's a custody battle, the truth will out on 'his' kids... because I don't believe for a minute any one of the three is his, not even a turkey baster job.....

 

Well I for one do not think that Jackson's mother and father should get custody on a full time basis. Firstly she is almost 80 years of age and who is to say that Joe Jackson wouldnt abuse those children as well? I mean the man does not come accross as a very caring individual whatsoever. Anyone who saw todays press conference will know his behavior was very questionable. He didnt show any emotion over his son's death and just kept going on about how he will sell more albums now he is dead etc, and saying how big he was worldwide. He even had his business partner come up and talk about a new company they are setting up. It was frankly disturbing. I don't know who the kids should be with. Im not sure they have any relationship with their mother or not, so perhaps giving her full custody would not be the best idea either. It is a battle that I am sure will go on for quite some time. It is very sad for the children.

The photos of his Dad in the tabloids yesterday belly-laughing and hamming it up for photographers were, at best, alarming and disturbing.

 

I suppose this evil old bast*rd realises his golden ticket is worth more dead than alive......

 

These pics are just... astonishing.....

http://x17online.com/gallery/view_gallery....mept2062509_X17

Firstly, i'm not getting into this debate I just want to kind of make a little point here -

 

Rob, how do you know Kate Bush wrote all of her material? Or John Lennon? Paul McCartney? Did they tell you they did? The same uncertainty looms over them as it does Jackson. They all have vast amounts of writing credits, but you're doubting Jackson wrote his with no real foundation to do so but you don't doubt Kate Bush or the others I named? I don't quite understand how that works really...

 

erm...because its well documented, you can see them playing instruments, composing, experimenting, by themselves... jacko is a performer, and unlike the examples ive given, has NEVER given a coherant, intelligent, interview or film footage of doing anything creative, just performing. listen to interviews of the examples ive given... its clear they know what they are on about, jacko has never done that which is why i have a huge question mark over just how much of the songs credited to him....did he actually have anything to do with...

 

same response to scotty... its all part of the mj product, crediting him with the talent in order to create a global money making superstar idol... find me any video clip where jacko explains why he wrote what he 'did', and the reasoning behind it... bush, bowie, lennon etc all have done this, all are credible, believeable, artists but jacko just doesnt 'fit' in this league of credibility. i very strongly suspect that its all a lie, that jackos input was very minimal, that its all a part of the great business of money making project that is michael jackson and that the (sucker) fans bought into the whole illusion. does that make his music bad?... well no, its still there, but it highlights the illusion that jacko was a genius, he wasnt, but fans dont want to accept this uncomfortable possibility. <_<