Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Norman Bates
New member
I just saw in the news that Michael thinks Sony is discriminating against blacks.
But what does that have to do with him?
But what does that have to do with him?
Michael Jackson
- Thread starter Norman Bates
- Start date
the nature boy
New member
hee hee
C
Code
Guest
Haha!
I saw Al Sharpton on the Today show. He *has* to be the most ignorant fool ever. When I see him I think one word, "Bamboozle".
I saw Al Sharpton on the Today show. He *has* to be the most ignorant fool ever. When I see him I think one word, "Bamboozle".
Norman Bates
New member
I bet M. has an " I O U a brain - God" in his head
the nature boy
New member
what's even more hilarious is that Sharpton was in disagreement with Jackson on the whole Sony Records thing. He is actually friends with the owner of Sony Records.
hee hee.
hee hee.
C
Code
Guest
I think the problem isn't racial.
It *is* a problem when a record company spends *your* money to promote your record without your consent.
But that's not racial, it's just the way the business works.
If you want reform, you need to avoid using the race card.
It *is* a problem when a record company spends *your* money to promote your record without your consent.
But that's not racial, it's just the way the business works.
If you want reform, you need to avoid using the race card.
the nature boy
New member
its probably pretty obvious that the record industry is one of the least racist organizations there are. Michael is so sensitive.
hee hee.
hee hee.
Norman Bates
New member
I wonder if he is on Chlomid
the nature boy
New member
probably for the last 15 years.
Norman Bates
New member
If the side effects of Chlomid make me look like MJ i´ll quit it right away
Doktor Bollix
New member
I love that story. There's more to it than that though. Here's a bit of a good article about it.
http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2002/06/26/jacko/index.html
Who's bad?
Amid a messy $200 million dispute with Sony, Michael Jackson adopts temporary blackness and summons Al Sharpton to his cause. But racism hasn't torpedoed your career, Michael: Your music sucks.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Bomani Jones
June 26, 2002 | Sony has just realized something that's been apparent to everyone else for about a decade now: Michael Jackson is washed up. Jackson has yet to take the hint, but he hasn't released a cutting-edge album in 20 years or an above-average album in 15. Even so, he's been treated like the megastar he once was, a reception that subjects us to a semi-decennial promotional campaign that overloads the world with images of a man in his prime. But when the Wizard emerges from the curtain, he's revealed as a performer on his last legs. So Sony and Jackson have decided to part ways on less than amicable terms, the record company only requiring three new tracks and a greatest-hits compilation from Jackson.
But months after the release of Jackson's sixth solo album, "Invincible," the details of the self-appointed King of Pop's catfight with his record label have come to light. The battle apparently centers on a rumored multimillion-dollar debt, a $25 million promotional campaign that Jackson found to be insufficient and one of the most lucrative publishing catalogs on Earth. If that isn't juicy enough for you, Jackson has summoned Johnnie Cochran and Al Sharpton to his side. Oh, goody.
The Associated Press has reported that Jackson may owe Sony up to $200 million, a condition created by the star's penchant for borrowing money and the massive costs put into readying his albums for release. Jackson asserts that Sony underpromoted "Invincible," citing the fact that only one video was released from the album (for the lackluster opening single, "You Rock My World") as an example of negligence.
Jackson -- along with many music-industry observers -- feels that the squabble may really be over the rights to the Beatles catalog that Jackson acquired in the mid-1980s (and who could ever forget the squabble with Paul McCartney that caused?). By underpromoting Jackson's work, Sony could hypothetically force Jackson into such massive debt that he'd have to sign over the portion of that catalog that he owns. (Sony already owns the rest.)
In response, Cochran and Sharpton have become players in the controversy, reaffirming Jackson's place in the halls of fair-weather blackness, his bust sitting right alongside O.J. Simpson's. Jackson's racial, shall we say, confusion has always made for interesting spectator sport. Whether his loss of pigmentation in the last few decades was natural or artificial is up for debate, but what's unquestionable is the rush of pride he seems to feel in his race when things are going bad for him in the court of public opinion.
When things are all good, though, he's hanging with Elizabeth Taylor and gallivanting through Europe. At this point, all I can say is that Jackson better hope Cochran and Sharpton own a record company.
That Sony is trying to strong-arm Mike is a plausible theory, but not one worthy of much discussion. Even those who are not fans of A Tribe Called Quest are familiar with Q-Tip's Industry Rule No. 4,080: "Record-company people are shaaaady." No one is likely to be surprised by such a thing. What is surprising, though, is that Jackson seems to think that Sony is responsible for his last album selling just 5 million copies worldwide. You might argue it's even more surprising that Sony is still pumping zillions of dollars into Jackson's career, all based on glory attained during the Reagan administration.
Wake up and smell the coffee, folks. Michael Jackson is done. Ten years ago, Sony would not have been in a position to dream about bullying Jackson, then the biggest star in the universe. But really, didn't we all know he was done when "HIStory" was released in 1996? People should have noticed how resistant the supposed Jackson-loving masses were to that year's media blitz.
Anyone who has heard Jackson's last three albums should also have noticed that he stopped being a trendsetter and has settled into the role of music's slowest-reacting follower. "Dangerous" was a new jack swing album that seemed just a tad outdated when it hit the streets. No one seems to be able to tell what "HIStory" was, and I'm willing to hypothesize that the album wouldn't have sold half as well as it did if not for the collection of classics that came along with the CD. And as "neo-soul" became the style du jour, Jackson released "Invincible," a slick, urban pop/R&B album that was completely out of place in the contemporary music landscape.
Next page | Once upon a time, Michael set the trends: "Beat It" came three years before Run-DMC had ever heard Aerosmith
1, 2
http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2002/06/26/jacko/index.html
Who's bad?
Amid a messy $200 million dispute with Sony, Michael Jackson adopts temporary blackness and summons Al Sharpton to his cause. But racism hasn't torpedoed your career, Michael: Your music sucks.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Bomani Jones
June 26, 2002 | Sony has just realized something that's been apparent to everyone else for about a decade now: Michael Jackson is washed up. Jackson has yet to take the hint, but he hasn't released a cutting-edge album in 20 years or an above-average album in 15. Even so, he's been treated like the megastar he once was, a reception that subjects us to a semi-decennial promotional campaign that overloads the world with images of a man in his prime. But when the Wizard emerges from the curtain, he's revealed as a performer on his last legs. So Sony and Jackson have decided to part ways on less than amicable terms, the record company only requiring three new tracks and a greatest-hits compilation from Jackson.
But months after the release of Jackson's sixth solo album, "Invincible," the details of the self-appointed King of Pop's catfight with his record label have come to light. The battle apparently centers on a rumored multimillion-dollar debt, a $25 million promotional campaign that Jackson found to be insufficient and one of the most lucrative publishing catalogs on Earth. If that isn't juicy enough for you, Jackson has summoned Johnnie Cochran and Al Sharpton to his side. Oh, goody.
The Associated Press has reported that Jackson may owe Sony up to $200 million, a condition created by the star's penchant for borrowing money and the massive costs put into readying his albums for release. Jackson asserts that Sony underpromoted "Invincible," citing the fact that only one video was released from the album (for the lackluster opening single, "You Rock My World") as an example of negligence.
Jackson -- along with many music-industry observers -- feels that the squabble may really be over the rights to the Beatles catalog that Jackson acquired in the mid-1980s (and who could ever forget the squabble with Paul McCartney that caused?). By underpromoting Jackson's work, Sony could hypothetically force Jackson into such massive debt that he'd have to sign over the portion of that catalog that he owns. (Sony already owns the rest.)
In response, Cochran and Sharpton have become players in the controversy, reaffirming Jackson's place in the halls of fair-weather blackness, his bust sitting right alongside O.J. Simpson's. Jackson's racial, shall we say, confusion has always made for interesting spectator sport. Whether his loss of pigmentation in the last few decades was natural or artificial is up for debate, but what's unquestionable is the rush of pride he seems to feel in his race when things are going bad for him in the court of public opinion.
When things are all good, though, he's hanging with Elizabeth Taylor and gallivanting through Europe. At this point, all I can say is that Jackson better hope Cochran and Sharpton own a record company.
That Sony is trying to strong-arm Mike is a plausible theory, but not one worthy of much discussion. Even those who are not fans of A Tribe Called Quest are familiar with Q-Tip's Industry Rule No. 4,080: "Record-company people are shaaaady." No one is likely to be surprised by such a thing. What is surprising, though, is that Jackson seems to think that Sony is responsible for his last album selling just 5 million copies worldwide. You might argue it's even more surprising that Sony is still pumping zillions of dollars into Jackson's career, all based on glory attained during the Reagan administration.
Wake up and smell the coffee, folks. Michael Jackson is done. Ten years ago, Sony would not have been in a position to dream about bullying Jackson, then the biggest star in the universe. But really, didn't we all know he was done when "HIStory" was released in 1996? People should have noticed how resistant the supposed Jackson-loving masses were to that year's media blitz.
Anyone who has heard Jackson's last three albums should also have noticed that he stopped being a trendsetter and has settled into the role of music's slowest-reacting follower. "Dangerous" was a new jack swing album that seemed just a tad outdated when it hit the streets. No one seems to be able to tell what "HIStory" was, and I'm willing to hypothesize that the album wouldn't have sold half as well as it did if not for the collection of classics that came along with the CD. And as "neo-soul" became the style du jour, Jackson released "Invincible," a slick, urban pop/R&B album that was completely out of place in the contemporary music landscape.
Next page | Once upon a time, Michael set the trends: "Beat It" came three years before Run-DMC had ever heard Aerosmith
1, 2
Norman Bates
New member
Or a little shorter: Michael Jackson sux 
circusgirl
New member
record companies are assholes, and fuck their acts over, but not because they're racist...
musclebrains
New member
H
HighIntensity
Guest
what that fuck has that thing become, sad.
the nature boy
New member
he is a perfect example on what happens when you grow up in a very disfunctional family. of course not every ends up like him but then agian not everyone has the money he has too.
musclebrains
New member
manny78 said:
I think I saw that in Planet of Apes...........
musclebrains
New member
The Nature Boy said:
Can you say more about that, Nature Boy? Tell us about your mama. Did she touch you down there?
the nature boy
New member
yes she did. that's why I'm so good in the sack.
Thanks mom.
Thanks mom.
musclebrains
New member
The Nature Boy said:
mmhmmm, mmhmmmm. I see. So how would it be for you to actually have another PERSON in the sack with you, hmmm? How would that be? Can you imagine doing it without peeing the bed? Hmmm? Take your time.
Similar threads
