Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Micky Jackson in trouble again
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Beechwoodspark wrote: »MJs record company paid top dollar for whoever the latest cool producer to get was but still,
The quality of Jackson’s output declined rapidly after QJ stopped working with him.
Yeah I see Teddy Riley plays a big role after quincy.
A lot of pop acts over the years use that setup. Always working with a multi instrumentalist, who has worked with so many artists you know. It's gas. Some times it's like there was 5 guys who wrote all the 90s hits you know
sold and packaged with different front men/women/bands. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
tylercheribini wrote: »
It isn't, nor is it new, to be fair.
The same arguments have been brought up to half a dozen times all ready on this thread and probably by every other publication for the past 2 years.
Yes it is,I never said ideas contained therein hadnt been broched before, and it was for the benefit of those who are only fractionally as learned as yourself Dismissing thread contributions because one wasnt here from the start, eugh 
0 -
-
Mr.Wemmick wrote: »Q Jones is without question a genius and has had an amazing contribution & influence on music throughout the 60s/70s and 80s. MJ wouldn't have been the star he was without him.
Quincy Jone's documentary is well worth a watch (Netflix) and he has some interesting things to say about MJ. I think I read somewhere MJ tried to block him from receiving an award for Thriller as Jackson wanted it, but Quincy got it nonetheless, as was deserved.
I am a big fan of Mr. Jones. Incredible composer and musician.
his best production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashida_Jones0 -
-
kunst nugget wrote: »Or that the childlike, innocent Michael, who after getting advice from Paul McCartney when they collaborated in the early eighties that you should always own the publishing rights of your back catalogue, stabbed Macca in the back and bought up the rights to the Beatles catalogue when they went up for auction shortly afterwards...
Well no, what Paul told him was to invest his money in other artists back catalogs, as Paul had did with Buddy Holly.
McCartney and Yuko Ono were given first refusals on the Beatles songs, they didn't want them.
Jackson didn't stab anyone in the back, he just followed his advice.
There was no rift according to Macca in interviews since.
But it is hilarious that we are going down these current rabbit holes of conjecture. 0 -
tylercheribini wrote: »Yes it is,I never said ideas contained therein hadnt been broched before, and it was for the benefit of those who are only fractionally as learned as yourself Dismissing thread contributions because one wasnt here from the start, eugh
I wasn't dismissing any contribution TBF.
It's a discussion forum, not a news dump.
The only opinion you offered was "interesting". I responded to that. You didn't expand on the article itself, so what level of discourse do you think you should enjoy or be entitled to when you couldn't be bothered yourself?0 -
Advertisement
-
Well no, what Paul told him was to invest his money in other artists back catalogs, as Paul had did with Buddy Holly.
McCartney and Yuko Ono were given first refusals on the Beatles songs, they didn't want them.
Jackson didn't stab anyone in the back, he just followed his advice.
There was no rift according to Macca in interviews since.
But it is hilarious that we are going down these current rabbit holes of conjecture.
McCartney was too cheap to pay the market value for his own songs.0 -
tylercheribini wrote: »Yes it is,I never said ideas contained therein hadnt been broched before, and it was for the benefit of those who are only fractionally as learned as yourself Dismissing thread contributions because one wasnt here from the start, eugh
I wasn't dismissing any contribution TBF.
It's a discussion forum, not a news dump.
The only opinion you offered was "interesting". I responded to that. You didn't expand on the article itself, so what level of discourse do you think you should enjoy or be entitled to when you couldn't be bothered yourself?
Bahaha, Is that you Jeremy Paxman? Never realised boards was so high and mighty. Plenty of others linking relevant articles here too and two people found the link I posted engaging so not a completely wasted venture eh?0 -
-
Well no, what Paul told him was to invest his money in other artists back catalogs, as Paul had did with Buddy Holly.
McCartney and Yuko Ono were given first refusals on the Beatles songs, they didn't want them.
Jackson didn't stab anyone in the back, he just followed his advice.
There was no rift according to Macca in interviews since.
But it is hilarious that we are going down these current rabbit holes of conjecture.
Yes, it was nothing personal, just business.
I think the ire if you could call it that was how the publishing rights to the songs were being used e.g. Nike paid $500k in 1987 to use the song "Revolution" for a year long ad campaign.
The remaining members were peeved and as Harrison put it "If it's allowed to happen, every Beatles song ever recorded is going to be advertising women's underwear and sausages" If there was beef between Jackson and McCartney it was about how the songs were treated and not that Jackson had pulled a fast one on Paul.
They sued through their record company Apple but their suit failed as Yoko Ono, who was a shareholder of their record Company, had supported the use of the music in the ad.
If anything it doesn't show Jackson as a shrewd business man at all, he ended up spending money hand over fist and lacked any financial acumen. For me it shows that he was a guy who got whatever he wanted and was willing to pay to get what he wanted as well. He wanted the Beatles songs and he eventually got it. He also used his superstar status to effectively seal the deal by promising to hold a benefit concert for the billionaire catalog owner's charity of choice. That shows Jackson's "shrewdness" i.e. he knew he could exploit his star status to manipulate people to get what he wanted.0 -
-
-
-
That shows Jackson's "shrewdness" i.e. he knew he could exploit his star status to manipulate people to get what he wanted.
This is true, but it was a business deal, nothing more. Its difficult to draw parallels with other stuff.
Lots of stars and business men are experts at manipulation. Does it mean they are paedophiles? Not without solid evidence to back it up.
As I said earlier, the whole documentary is based on the statements from people of dubious character taken at face value. I would include Jackson in that dubious character assessment by the way even though he didn't make a statement
The only way to tell what from what and whose telling the truth is a court case with lawyers doing cross examination to see who is lying and whose account holds water.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement