DCC Archive Michael Jackson remasters

Sony Legacy will release Off The Wall-Thriller-Bad. I hope they sound better as I expect! I don't know if Bernie Grundman did the job as for the SACD 2 years ago.

 

The nasty, cynical side of me is glad to see that no one on this board cares about Michael Jackson's catalog.... that weirdo's contract was the first volley in the war that destroyed the former abundance of independent record labels we used to have in the US 20 years ago....

 

I'm with Tim on this one ... I still can't forgive Mr. Weirdo for causing us Paul McCartney fans so much public embarrassment with "The Girl is Mine" (true, Macca himself must share some of the blame for even taking part ... but even when the record was new he himself was quoted as complaining about having to sing the term "doggone girl"). That was for me surely the nadir of the formerly Fab one's career ...

 

Anything before Thriller happened was enoyable for me, I very much enjoyed Michael's solo work on Epic and Motown before hand, and am a big fan of the J5, but as far as Michael in the hear and now, I'd rather listen to a Traffic album anyday.

...specifically "Shoot Out At The Fantasy Factory" right now.

Pop poetics and stylish flair is much more tender and timeless coming from the Ronnetts, Supremes, Orlons, Otis... Michael takes a distant back seat here too.

 

Well, I'm a little mixed about Michael Jackson. Just a sad, sad case. I think he was great with Jackson 5 (sort of like Frankie Lymon's successor), and "Off The Wall" is a favorite, a really great pop album.

Even with the lite-pop garbage on "Thriller" and the duets with McCartney, it's still a worthy follow-up; "Billie Jean" has got to be one of the best singles of all-time and "Wanna Be Startin' Something" and "Beat It" were great, too. I really think he arguably was still at the top of the heap artistically, too. I mean, man, the way he dropped the moonwalk on everyone on live TV, that was the capper.

That's how I like to remember Michael Jackson. You think he had it altogether, and then his whole mind just fell apart. Honestly, who would've thought he'd turn into such a joke? The noses, the make-up (or whatever the hell that's making him look like a she-male)...it's really sad to see him turn into a middle-aged Peter Pan case. I mean, he started as this kid who, to me, grew up into a true adult, an artist with real style and class, but as it turns out, he really hasn't grown up at all. Even worse, he's no longer a real artist, hasn't been since "Billie Jean." I think Quincy Jones said it best, when he said Jackson was good when he got things on record fast. Now, it takes him forever because he's so brainwashed by the whole idea of capturing a wide market (probably a result of "Thriller," unfortunately), so he's stuck doing bland pop for lite radio and calculated, slick r&b with no soul for the rest. The last thing he recorded that I cared about was "Man In the Mirror." It was good advice for him at the time, but unfortunately, he's taken it the wrong way.

 

As a musical subject, Michael Jackson is a force still to be reckoned with, period. His CD's from "Thriller" were produced well to begin with, so the remasters have to be incredible! His sexual politics aside, I can't wait to hear the remasters, and I'm sure everyone is curious too !

I picked up two CD volumes...kind of pricey, at that...of remixes of Jackson 5 vintage songs, and his solo "Ben", looking very much like they were authorized by Universal-Motown Japan, and issued only in that country. They are very hot musically, and reworked into songs more powerful than their originals. Those harmonies and That Voice is still verrrry cool to listen to, and stands up to my repeated listenings ! Worth checking out.

 

I have to admit I like most of "Off The Wall" and some of "Thriller."

Still, I'd hesitate to have any of his CDs openly visible in my collection. I mean, a guy can get beat up for that, you know?

 

Uh, Tim, Jacko had NOTHING to do with the fall of the independant record companies! That was something that was set in motion in the mid 60's when the majors found out how profitable rock/soul music was and wanted to get a piece of the pie. Before then, it was relativley rare for a rock record to be released on a major label beyond the Beatles and Bob Dylan.

Money and greed was the cause.

Harvard was commissioned by CBS Records in the late 60's to study soul music and to make reccommendations as to what they could do to get in on the action. The result? Lucrative distrubution deals with T-Neck, Philadelphia International, Stax, and other small soul labels and Atlantic was absorbed into a new conglomerate. Buddah made distrubution deals with Curtis Mayfield And Hot Wax/Invictus, and all of the majors like RCA signed new soul artists. Motown was untouchable at the time. A recommendation to buy the popular Los Angeles-based TV dance show "Soul Train" was even suggested but CBS backed out of that idea.

Back to The Jacksons/Michael, The Jackson 5 wanted out of their contract with Motown because Motown would not give them artistic control and like most other Motown artists, they were being cheated out of royalties.

I am one person who thinks "Off The Wall" was Michael's finest album. "Bad" was good. "Thriller" and "Dangerous" I couldn't care less about.

[ September 27, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

 

F***ing Harvard business school...
You know, there are some people in the film industry, older guys who got in back in the 70's, who say that movies got ruined when Harvard MBA's came in and took over everything. Even when the studio system ruled Hollywood up through the 50's, it at least tried to put out what it considered to be classy entertainment. For some reason, you've got these studios who put their faith in those f***ing companies that run focus groups (thanks for nothing "Fatal Attraction") and all this other marketing crap that quite frankly has made a lot of people forget what a good movie is when they see it. Just read all the articles on "Pearl Harbor" up until its release. Not just in EW, but in Businessweek and other financial magazines. They talk about how good the movie will be because of how it reach this target group and how it appeals to this age and this gender for "the love story." Then, if you've got the stomach, go see it. It's such absolute crap, but they just couldn't see it because they've been brainwashed by the whole Harvard business model of doing anything.

It's the same with Michael Jackson. "Off The Wall" is real pop material. Can it be considered mainstream? Absolutely. But he knew how to make GOOD music. Now, he's studying marketing trends, ripping off of those (remember Teddy Riley? Or the Stonesy riffs on "Black & White"? Heck, that element was him ripping off his own heavy rock-r&b fusion from "Beat It"). On top of that, he's become a tabloid joke, and an egomaniac who needs celebrities to kiss his ass in his liner notes. A couple of years ago, during the HIStory promotion, there was a stop in Chicago where he unveiled a big, shiny statue of himself in military uniform (a rip-off from Sgt. Pepper). You got the feeling from the publicists that was supposed to be a cue for the music writers there to gasp in awe and applaud in adulation. Instead, you heard giggles, snickers, and an occasional laugh. Just sad...

 

No offense, Jeff, but I think Macca did *plenty* to cause himself public embarrassment with his half-assed 70s cloying school of milktoast tripe. I love 'Band on the Run' and 'McCartney,' but most of the rest of it makes me want to run from the room screaming.

 

I think it's important at a time like this to reflect back on the good ole days when record labels were run by good-hearted philanthropists and bands like the Beatles and Stones had no interest in making any money.

Seriously, though, there have been many, many great films (many indie) in the last 5 years or so -- Fargo, Shine, Breaking the Waves (not my favorite, personally), Eve's Bayou, When We Were Kings, fast, cheap, and out of control, American Beauty, American Movie, A Simple Plan, Dark City, Boogie Nights, Dead Man Walking, Hamlet (Branagh), LA Confidential, Bound, Paradise Lost, Secrets & Lies, Welcome to the Dollhouse, The Sweet Hereafter, The Ice Storm, Exotica (1995), etc etc etc etc etc.

I'm sure "Pearl Harbor" is crap, but I didn't see it. It sticks in your mind cause it came out this year. 25 years from now, it will a hazy memory, just like the crappy movies of 25 years ago are to you now. There were crappy movies in the past, there are crappy movies now, and there will be crappy movies in the future. Instead of bemoaning Pearl Harbor, go see whatever Errol Morris or Atom Egoyan comes up with next.

 

Yeah, that's true. I didn't mean there aren't any more good movies; to be honest, it's a tired old critique at the end of every year about how films have gotten worse and that it's harder to find a real good film to put on their top 10 list, blah blah. There are plenty of films that are worth seeing every year, and you just named a good bunch. There will always be good indie films, here and abroad, (though I don't want to give the impression that all indie films are good; there are just as many bad ones as good ones, if not more so) because they're free of the traps studios put themselves in.

It's just real frustrating, for me, to think that there was a time when a major studio was willing to take a risk and make "Taxi Driver" (Columbia) or "Raging Bull" (MGM) or at least make "popcorn" films that are a bit more than just "popcorn" films, like "The Exorcist" and "The Godfather." They still occasionally make those risks, but much less so, and meanwhile, the popcorn films are relying more on formula without trying to add anything to it or at least do a really good job of it.

Oh, and now that I've cooled off a bit,
let me say that it's really not Harvard Business School to blame. The problem is applying a business model to a creative field or an art form. You're not dealing with soda pop or department stores, you're dealing with a work of art. Can you imagine if someone messed around with "Sticky Fingers" in 1971 because they weren't getting the over 35 crowd like "Bridge Over Trouble Water" did, or if someone messed with "L.A. Confidential" because they wanted another Mel Gibson police action flick? Shudder...

(P.S. I love both Sticky Fingers and BOTW...I just think it would ridiculous for someone to try and impose Paul Simon's own sensibility on to the Stones')

[ September 27, 2001: Message edited by: Camarillo ]

 

I think that was more of Jacko making fun of his own popularity. You don't really think he takes all of the praise seriously, do you?

 

Oh, don't be fooled, Patrick! The Beatles and Stones were ALL interested in making money! The Beatles were pissed about it. The Stones made out a bit better because Mick Jagger was an economics major in college. But they both had their tanglements with the likes of Allen Klein!

Philanthropists running record companies? Gimmieabreak! Berry Gordy was cutthroat when it came to money. The owners of Atlantic Records, especially Jerry Wexler, were obsessed with the bottom line. EVERYONE was in it for the money. They ripped off artist after artist, and to this day many are still fighting for their due. Some died penniless. Don't romanticize rock & roll. Even Jimi Hendrix wanted a gold record on the pop charts!

 

Will ANYONE admit to picking up the Universal
-Motown two-fer releases ????

I did...me and Pop Music are grateful to Barry Gordy, Diana Ross, and Michael Jackson and his brothers, for bringing their version of "Soul", as it were, into the heart of the white mainstream....where the
Money Still is, for good or for bad!

Though the dirth of Music Talent wasn't anywhere near those same Detroit recording studios after Marvin Gaye died, they just made it in "under the wire"...and their Talent did it...and their Nerve to make the type of music they did!

Before Motown, you couldn't get ANY music buyer to purchase the Gold of the smaller independent labels...in the numbers that mattered...no matter how good the music was in Memphis or Muscle Shoals!

That no one can take away from the Jacksons!

 

Hey Grant, my first paragraph was 100% sarcasm.

I, too, get sick of romanticizing rocknroll. I wish I had that quote from Macca where he talks about writing a song for a swimming pool. He's a billionaire now. David Bowie is not hurting for money, either.

Give them respect as great artists, but don't pretend they didn't have financial interests.

 

Go back and look at all the films that came out in '96. The only problem with that year is trying to fit all the great films on a list of 10.

I'm of the opinion that things have cooled off since then (this year has been full of disappointments), but there's been good stuff in the interim. It also seems like there are a lot more films I like than albums in the last 5.

My problem is not with a lack of good movies being made, it's with good movies getting distributed. I was living in KY when a new Woody Allen movie came out a few years ago and Lexington didn't even carry it. (Louisville did.) When Dogma came out, I don't think Lexington or Louisville had it (I lived in OH at the time). When Happiness came to the one artsy theater in Lexington, people protested. Waiting for Guffman? American Movie? Good luck finding those on a big screen.

The other thing that really sucks is the takeover of Blockbuster everywhere I go. They'll have 500 copies of some Jet Li movie no one cares about, but try to find the Red, White, and Blue trilogy or The Scent of Green Papaya or The Last Broadcast or the French version of The Vanishing. Forgetaboutit. Bastards. That's what really pisses me off.

Great films are getting made. Good luck finding that restored version of "M" around here though.

 

For some strange reason, I can still remember that fateful day in late 1991 when I opened Rolling Stone, only to find a four and a half star review to "Dangerous", perhaps the worst pop album I've ever bought. (IMO, Black and white, Remember the time and Give in to me aren't bad, but the rest of the disc is pure, absolute and unadulterated torture).
I have never ever taken that magazine seriously again.

 

That's right! The 45 single is never the wrong version!

I bought at least four of the Jackson 5 two-fers. I don't like the compression used on "Looking Through The Windows".

 

Patrick, I agree with you — Macca did plenty of dreck to the point where I, (a huge McCartney Fan) stopped buying his albums. Even later when he turned out a decent album (say, "Flowers In The Dirt" or "Off The Ground") he cocked it up with some truly excrable, treacly tracks.

And don't get me started on all the great B-sides he recorded in that same era that weren't included on the albums....

 

I don't completely disagree with you, Patrick ... McCartney made some pretty lame music in the '70s (anyone listened to "Wild Life" lately??). But nothing, and I mean nothing, compares in my opinion to "The Girl is Mine" for sheer badness. It's just horrible ...

 

What's with the Paul bashing, all of a sudden?

Waaaaaaaaaaaal, please let me say that, like many Paul fans, I plan to buy all his records/cds/tapes/etc, until they stop releasing them or I die.

Why? Well, it's just because Paul is the greatest songwriter and performer in recorded history. Every one of his sparkling records displays another facet of his brilliance. And true fans are more than happy to LISTEN AND ENJOY each release in the context of his 40 years of magnificent achievement.

Yes, that's MHO and I'm sticking to it!

Now, when are going to get those new SACDs that DCC keeps promising? Will any be multi-channel?

And, will Paul McCartney be included?

 

Bah. So Paul made some cheese. He made up for it and then some with the Russian album, the Unplugged set that is STILL in print in the UK (after it was promised to be limited pressing only). All you have to do is avoid what you might not agree with. Some people don't like the 80's John Lennon stuff, mostly the gooey Yoko love songs, and the Milk & Honey material.

What's wrong with silly love songs? Not every musical genius is infalible. You could say the same with Stevie Wonder. The mindset is where it lies, and artists absorb all kinds of things that you might like or...hate?

Ram on.

 

Comparing his solo output with his ouvre with the Beatles...his post-Beatle product has been very disappointing...to the point of being embarassing, considering he was part of an excellent song writing team! He made all of his money from publishing...his Beatle money gave him seed money for his present publishing empire. This has NOTHING to do with his Talent, which is spotty and mediocre at best. We wouldn't be interested in his stuff if he wasn't a Beatle and had a few catchy Pop tunes to his credit...most of them with the Beatles, at that!

If he wasn't a Beatle, in all liklihood he would not have been the Power that he is in the Industry, as well. He would have been like Dave Clark...a "has been" and footnote to the Sixties British Invasion that would be trying to peddle the rights to his songs, ever so often!

I buy his old music and am only interested in him lately, as a collectible commodity, not for entertainment value.

 

Sergio, I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of the "Dangerous" album. True, the "Rolling Stone" review rated it much higher than it deserved, but the songs that you thought were okay were the ones I thought were rather dull.

I think "Dangerous," like disc one of "History," contains songs that are among the best and the worst Jackson has ever recorded. I think "In the Closet" and "Will You Be There" are two of his best recordings. On the other hand, "Jam," "She Drives Me Wild," "Heal the World" and "Dangerous" are certainly among his worst songs ever.

As is "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" from the "Bad" album -- awful, awful song. And his new single and video aren't very good, either. He's really gone downhill. Not to mention how unnerving his appearance is. Time to retire.