LouieB Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Right....so now his family no longer has to worry about a thing. Feel free to Google this yourself. It is all over the news. It is so great when an artist is worth more dead than alive..... LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
brianjeremy Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Crazy. I always say it, but didn't this guy rape children? Damn the world is crazy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mystik Spiral Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 All I can say is... I hope the money goes to his kids. I don't believe he ever raped any kids. I believe he was robbed of his childhood by his father and acted out his childhood fantasies when he grew up. Yes, he was an odd duck, but I don't believe he was a molester. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 Putting aside Jacksons personal life for a moment.... If he had music in the can that was this good, why didn't he put it out? He was swimming in debt and planning that 50 show thing to help himself out. How good can this stuff be if he didn't bother to release it?? LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mystik Spiral Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I'm sure Sony's banking on the fact that MJ's fans will eat up ANYTHING new, since he can't put out new material anymore. Whether the songs are good or not, people will buy them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The High Heat Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 It is so great when an artist is worth more dead than alive..... Same was true with Elvis. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
remphish1 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 The ironic thing is the last album he released in the USA in 2003 "Invincible" Sold a dismal 2 million copies....Can't recoup $250 Mil that way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BreezyGrass Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Mr. Potter was right...It is a Wonderful Life!!! =P Happy St. Paddy's! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 “It’s not just a record deal,” said Rob Stringer, chairman of the Columbia/Epic Label Group, a Sony division. “We’re not just basing this on how many CDs we sell or how many downloads. There are also audio rights for theater, movies, computer games. I don’t know how an audio soundtrack will be used in 2017, but you’ve got to bet on Michael Jackson in any new platform.” I think it's pretty safe to say that Sony did this probably more for the ability to license Jackson songs than for the direct cd sales. Even with for Michael Jackson standards mediocre cd sales on the new material to be released it would still all sell 1 million plus copies with his name attached to it alone, and the radio play it will gain will generate revenue as well. But obviously the biggest fortune is to be made in collecting off of Michael Jackson songs in other ways. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted March 17, 2010 Author Share Posted March 17, 2010 Same was true with Elvis.This is sort of true, except the Presley catalogue didn't include a bunch of unreleased stuff; it was merely re-packaging. Of course every artist gets a bump when they die, but in Elvis' case he continued to sell well for decades and still does. Michael by contrast has really less to bank on. Unlike Elvis who had dozens and dozens of albums and singles to continually repackage, Jackson has only a handful of really popular albums and now the anticipation of some gems in the can. This is not something I would bank on if I were a record exec, but someone undoubtedly knows something. Had Jackson's career not have fallen off so precipitiously he too would have had a large catalogue. Aside from Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad, what could possibly be interesting to long term fans or even new ones? I guess we will all find out, but 10 new albums worth? I dunno...!! LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The High Heat Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 This is sort of true, except the Presley catalogue didn't include a bunch of unreleased stuff; it was merely re-packaging. Of course every artist gets a bump when they die, but in Elvis' case he continued to sell well for decades and still does. Michael by contrast has really less to bank on. Unlike Elvis who had dozens and dozens of albums and singles to continually repackage, Jackson has only a handful of really popular albums and now the anticipation of some gems in the can. This is not something I would bank on if I were a record exec, but someone undoubtedly knows something. Had Jackson's career not have fallen off so precipitiously he too would have had a large catalogue. Aside from Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad, what could possibly be interesting to long term fans or even new ones? I guess we will all find out, but 10 new albums worth? I dunno...!! LouieBI wasn't necessarily talking about music. The Presley Estate/Graceland was in trouble until Elvis became a merchandising bonanza after he died. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I wasn't necessarily talking about music. The Presley Estate/Graceland was in trouble until Elvis became a merchandising bonanza after he died. The unreasoned Elvis stuff is coming out now, and has been for a few years (I think). I wonder if Lisa gets any money from the Jackson estate? Lisa Marie talks to Larry King on "The Sale of Graceland" KING: You sold 85 percent of the Presley estate, and it got a lot of controversy. Explain that. PRESLEY: OK. Well, it's kind of a misconception in the way it was -- it's a very complicated business deal. It took me weeks to understand it, but it was misleading the way the press ran it, because it is complex. But it wasn't -- there's two separate entities. There's Elvis Presley Enterprises and Elvis Presley estate. Now, 85 percent -- what we did is we merged with Sillerman. He bought 85 percent of the Enterprises, which is different from the estate. Estate's mine, his things mine, everything's still mine and in order. He has the 85 percent, but I also still have -- we have a 15. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
isadorah Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Van Gogh died poor, relatively unknown, and only sold one painting while he was alive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Putting aside Jacksons personal life for a moment.... If he had music in the can that was this good, why didn't he put it out? He was swimming in debt and planning that 50 show thing to help himself out. How good can this stuff be if he didn't bother to release it?? You're not accounting for the nature of ego and self-consciousness in all of this. Salinger didn't release his works later in life, and people are drooling over them in anticipation of awesome. Jackson could very well have been the same - in a world as materially rich and emotionally empty as his, I'm almost positive he would not release some of his works claiming they sucked, when they could quite possibly be pop masterpiece. Not counting any of the charges against him, dude was all sorts of crazy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 that reminds me, I should try to find a torrent of some MJ stuff. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 I wasn't necessarily talking about music. The Presley Estate/Graceland was in trouble until Elvis became a merchandising bonanza after he died.Agreed. You're not accounting for the nature of ego and self-consciousness in all of this. Salinger didn't release his works later in life, and people are drooling over them in anticipation of awesome. Jackson could very well have been the same - in a world as materially rich and emotionally empty as his, I'm almost positive he would not release some of his works claiming they sucked, when they could quite possibly be pop masterpiece. Not counting any of the charges against him, dude was all sorts of crazy.I also agree with this too, all except the Salinger part. Salinger was never in debt because what he had released and his rather subdued lifestyle, meant he didn't have to publish more. As long as folks keep buying your old work and you don't live outside your means, you can go on forever. Jackson was clearly batshit crazy. He could easily have lived a fairly opulant lifestyle with what he did early in his career and never release another piece of music, but he couldn't control himself. Many artists do exactly what Salinger did (but maybe not so reclusive) and live off of the royalties, etc of earlier work. (The best example is the guy who wrote the musical Grease, which is all he ever did and he has comfortably lived the rest of his life so far simply managing the rights and royalties of that.) Certainly if you make a Thriller, you don't need to ever work again if you are smart. Personally I don't believe Salinger wrote anything of major worth after he stopped publishing. I think his career most closely parallels Henry Roth's and Richard Wright's careers. Their later work, unpublished in their lifetime, was of little consequence compared to their major work. Of course I could be wrong and Salinger may have written the great unpublished novel. We shall see. I suppose it really doesn't matter if MJ's unreleased music sucks or not does it? LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Eh, I wasn't analogizing him to Salinger so much as the circumstances - loads of unreleased material, and dedicated fans who want it, regardless of the quality. Salinger was rational, he lived within his means, and he was able to do what he wanted, therefore, he didn't have to release anything he didn't want to, to earn money. Jackson was irrational, lived outside of his means, and was consistently enabled by handlers, therefore he likely would not have done the sound, rational, sensible thing, even if it was easy, and in his own self-interest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 Eh, I wasn't analogizing him to Salinger so much as the circumstances - loads of unreleased material, and dedicated fans who want it, regardless of the quality. Salinger was rational, he lived within his means, and he was able to do what he wanted, therefore, he didn't have to release anything he didn't want to, to earn money. Jackson was irrational, lived outside of his means, and was consistently enabled by handlers, therefore he likely would not have done the sound, rational, sensible thing, even if it was easy, and in his own self-interest.I know, I just figured we could continue the convo about this. For all us Salinger fans, unlike all of us MJ fans, we have been largely spared the gory details of Salinger's somewhat bizarre personal life. After a point I just don't want to know (or do I) just how crazy some of these guys are. Seeing the old pictures of JD, he looks so normal. Hopefully we won't have to have to think of him in the same way we had to think about the elderly and equally nutty Howard Hughes. Jackson's slow public decline was agonizing to say the least. LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I know, I just figured we could continue the convo about this. For all us Salinger fans, unlike all of us MJ fans, we have been largely spared the gory details of Salinger's somewhat bizarre personal life. After a point I just don't want to know (or do I) just how crazy some of these guys are. Seeing the old pictures of JD, he looks so normal. Hopefully we won't have to have to think of him in the same way we had to think about the elderly and equally nutty Howard Hughes. Jackson's slow public decline was agonizing to say the least.LouieBI wasn't going to add to this thread, especially as it's practically hijacked already, but I thought I'd just mention that I recently read the Margaret Salinger memoir and the Joyce Maynard memoir, and J. D. Salinger was just about as nutty as Jackson. You can find quite a few gory details of his personal life if you read those books. He really should have gotten serious psychiatric care after surviving WWII, but he didn't. His daughter's memoir is particularly devastating, documenting a cult-like household and a truly emotionally unavailable set of parents. Sad. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted March 19, 2010 Author Share Posted March 19, 2010 I wasn't going to add to this thread, especially as it's practically hijacked already, but I thought I'd just mention that I recently read the Margaret Salinger memoir and the Joyce Maynard memoir, and J. D. Salinger was just about as nutty as Jackson. You can find quite a few gory details of his personal life if you read those books. He really should have gotten serious psychiatric care after surviving WWII, but he didn't. His daughter's memoir is particularly devastating, documenting a cult-like household and a truly emotionally unavailable set of parents. Sad.Wow, you must be a real glutton for punishment. Luckily there books are just about the only reporting on how nutty JD was. Ultimatly I guess that I am curious about his quirks, etc, but I think we all have to feel lucky that most of what we know of his last 50 years is relatively slim compared to the public travesty that was Jackson's life during the last 25 or so years. But given the choice between buyng some crap Michael Jackson music or some less than stellar work by JD Salinger, I would pay for the Salinger. LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.