Michael Jackson acquitted of all charges...

[rojo]

Hi matsoljare,

Here's an article from when this news broke, Nov. 12 2008:

Jackson’s Neverland Ranch sold for $35 million

By Sam Womack/Staff Writer

Michael Jackson has sold Neverland Ranch to a Delaware-based corporation for approximately $35 million, although the King of Pop retains an interest in the property.

The infamous property north of Los Olivos in Santa Barbara County was transferred from Jackson to Sycamore Valley Ranch Company LLC, which formed in mid-July, according to documents from the county assessor’s office.

Sycamore is a joint venture between Jackson and an affiliate of Colony Capital Inc., a Los Angeles-based company that purchased the entertainer’s $24.5 million mortgage on the property in May, according to a source close to the deal.

The pop star’s private amusement park and home at 5225 Figueroa Mountain Road opened in 1988 and consisted of 2,800 acres. Prior to that, it was a working cattle ranch owned by Bill Bone, a developer who has his own connections to Colony Capital.

A notice of default from a San Francisco title company was served in November 2007 suggesting that Jackson’s ownership of the ranch could be at risk. And a foreclosure auction in May was canceled after Colony Capital LLC purchased the multi-million loan.

.................................................. ............


So he has sold it to a company that he partly owns. Maybe he plans to have the land developed, who knows.

One can read the whole article here:

http://www.santamariatimes.com/artic...breaking15.txt

[Pista Gyerek]

I used to idolize him when I was a kid, circa "Ben."

This was long before he was into pedophilia, plastic surgery, buying the Beatles catalog, and dangling kids off balconies.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[rojo]

Aw Pista.

I've moved your post; I think it belongs here.

He was never into pedophilia.

I don't see what's wrong with buying the Beatles' catalogue.

He's not into dangling kids off balconies; on one occasion he held his child tightly, just over the railing of a balcony for a very short moment. Not that I think that that was particularly intelligent.

Who cares if he has plastic surgery?

You might want to read this thread, Pista.

[Pista Gyerek]

I'm not trying to insult anyone here, just trying to be honest about the career and legacy of Michael Jackson. Enough time has passed that I think it's okay to ask what Jackson really contributed to our culture. If people are offended by any talk of Jackson that's short of utter, indiscriminate worship, they may want to stop reading now.

Michael Jackson personified a lot of things I find disturbing.

He was the symbol of success in Reagan's America. Jackson's career was a shining example of what people were told they wanted in that greed-blind era: immense wealth from corporate dealings, pushing product, and shilling soda. There was no reason for him to feel guilty for his single-minded pursuit of riches. He figured any inequities in the system that made him a bazillionaire could be rectified by singing a superficial song about poverty and selling even more records. His fans were only too happy to pretend they could make things better just by forking over dough to the corporate overlords of a pop singer.

His stardom was that creepy hero-worship that the deeply insecure crave. His life delivered the lesson that if you're famous, people will excuse you for your abusive or maniacal behavior. He lived in a fantasy world where everyone told him he was great, regardless of whether he was singing, making his face grotesque with unnecessary plastic surgery, or having sleep-overs with pre-teen boys.

In the era of gangs, crack, and rap, he was the acceptable face of the minority in America. He was the kind of black kid whitey liked: an asexual, soft-spoken, religious guy who sang that "it doesn't matter if you're black or white." He was considered proof that racism didn't exist in America.

And "brilliant"? "Genius"? Please. There's no excuse for such hyperbole.

The change he inspired in the music industry was wholly financial. Unlike Elvis, whose young fans (like John Lennon and Bob Dylan) were inspired to start rock bands and transcend his influence, Jackson's fans merely imitated him: they dressed like him and drank whatever soda he was paid to shill. Jackson's abiding legacy in the music world is his big spending. He didn't invent rock superstardom, but the amount of money he spent on his lavishly produced albums and videos was unprecedented in its profligacy. In the 80's, the inflationary spiral Jackson set in motion ensured that no one would be seen on MTV unless they could spend immense sums on video production. This excluded anyone not employed by a multinational like Sony.

I feel bad for the guy for his upbringing, because that father of his seems like a violent maniac. But what Michael Jackson stood for troubles me deeply.

[rojo]

^^

Once again, I have moved one of your posts to this, more suitable, thread.

Well, seeing as Pista has deemed for us all that enough time has passed...

The above post expresses exactly the kind of narrow-minded, brainwashed opinion based on what the media has fed to the public that I find disturbing. The post is riddled with lies, yet the poster attempts to have one believing that he/she is stating facts in the name of honest analysis. And this is supposedly a "realistic" assessment?

One should be ashamed to post such blatant lies and fabrications. And the fact that they are there only serves to dismiss the entire post.

It's funny; the poster states "I'm not trying to insult anyone here", yet follows with a statement implying that those here that admire Jackson are only capable of "utter, indiscriminate worship." If that's not insulting, I don't know what is.

I won't deny Michael is very ambitious. I don't think Jackson is to be blamed for faults in the system though. The system was in place long before he came along. It boils down to the fact that many people recognize and appreciate what he has provided. If he is well payed for that, I personally have no problem. Money controls everything, of that I have no doubt. But Michael is not to blame for that.

What Jackson inspires is exceptional singing and dancing, creativity in song writing and videos, and doing exemplary humanitarian work.

If the purpose of this post (which is obviously not honest, factual analysis) is to deter folks from enjoying something, to take down their pleasure in something, to taint it, it ain't gonna happen.

[Pista Gyerek]

Maybe, just maybe, you're taking this a little too personal.

Lighten up before you hurt yourself, okay?

[rojo]

Things one won't read or hear about Michael in the media-

An interesting read; an excerpt from Aphrodite Jones' book including a forward by Thomas Mesereau:

http://www.aphroditejones.com/chapte...2008_07_AJ.pdf

Just a partial list of humanitarian efforts by MJ:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14283749/M...forts-19792003

The Beatles' catalogue: Heaven forbid that an artist actually show some business acumen, and make a wise financial investment. 'Sing your songs and entertain us, but don't get richer than we are. Don't dare get into the business side of the industry that you work for.'

Interesting to note that when MJ decided to get out from under his corporate overlords and announced he would not renew his contract with Sony in early 2000's, they pulled the plug on promotion of his then recently released album (Invincible.) Freedom comes with a price, apparently.

Perhaps MJ the conglomerate gets attacked because it is (or was,) a corporation with an actual human being behind it; perhaps it's harder to attack the faceless ones. I think I'd rather support a corporation with an artist behind it than one that's without.

As to lavish productions, perhaps a comparison can be made between MJ and stars of Hollywood's film industry in it's heyday (1930's & 40's). MGM, Universal studios etc. paid enormous sums to their stars then as well. A plethora of timeless, great films with superb acting were the result, and the era became known as 'The Golden Years' of Hollywood. (Some of those actors even 'shilled' products.) Perhaps MJ, (and Madonna for that matter) could be said to have dominated what could be termed the 'Golden Years of MTV.'

Blame, or thank capitalism, I guess.

To compare Elvis to MJ is perhaps not wise; he wasn't responsible for writing his own songs, and had his share of imitators: Elvis impersonators. By the way, Elvis was romantically involved with a fourteen-year old. And that is fact. Just sayin'. I have no beef with Elvis, and appreciate his talent. It's just the irony that is striking here.

'Genius' and 'brilliant' are subjective terms, and I don't believe anyone needs to have an excuse to use them, as far as I know.

I believe that those who attack Michael with false accusations are guilty of one or more of the following: greed, ignorance, brainwashing, racism, jealousy, dishonesty, bullying behaviour, mob mentality.

The nice thing to keep in mind is that after his attackers have passed on and have been long forgotten, MJ will still be loved and admired around the world for his amazing talents and his generous nature. And I could be wrong, but I think that is what he was truly after.

I hope that justice continues to be served for Michael in the near, and far future.

And now, I would like to point out that this forum is not a tabloid the likes owned by Rupert Murdoch. If people would like to make derogatory, fictional accusations of criminality derived from their own perverted imagination, they should do so elsewhere; there are plenty of places for that. Despite my respect for freedom of speech, posters who make unfounded derogatory accusations (particularly against a dead person who cannot defend himself or herself,) will have their posts edited by staff (unless the poster edits them out first.)"

[Contratrombone64]

Rupert Murdoch, a fine Australian (not).

Robin, as always I read your Michael Jackson thread with interest. You obviously have a deep love for his artistry and a deep sadness that his talent is now relegated to CDs, DVDs, and so forth. I must, really must, rethink my views on his music and actually get some into my collection.

hugs to you my dear

David

[Pista Gyerek]

Interesting to note that when MJ decided to get out from under his corporate overlords and announced he would not renew his contract with Sony in early 2000's, they pulled the plug on promotion of his then recently released album (Invincible.) Freedom comes with a price, apparently.

Sony's actions concerning Invincible don't seem that surprising. Considering the company had already spent upward of $30 million on the album, they would be expected to try and cut their losses when the album wasn't the sales blockbuster Thriller had been. Michael himself has to bear some of the blame for the disappointing sales, since he didn't tour to support it like rock stars usually do. And he unwisely told Sony he was leaving the company prior to the record's release, calling Sony head honcho Tommy Mottola a racist in public.

Does that sound like a good strategy for mobilizing the support of your record company for your long-awaited comeback album?

[sunwaiter]

Hello.

I was hanging around and read one of last Pista's posts.

As an introduction to what follows: I have one copy of Deep Purple's "In Rock", from 1970. A pressing from Belgium or Holland, I don't know anymore. On the sleeve, you can read something on a round sticker, in bold letters: "POP MUSIC".

I won't write about Michael Jackson dealing with justice. I don't care.
I just want to talk about the artist, and a bit about his looks, since it was part of his image as a popular artist.

I'm one of those who find Michael Jackson was quite ridiculous since the mid-eighties, and maybe even before, but since I kinda like the album "Thriller", I won't go that far.

Well, Michael was making music, sang before my parents got married, even before my father came to Paris. I'm not really old, but that's a hint of how far that all brings us back in time.

I'm not a specialist of the Jackson Five but the few records I own/listened to, are clear and obvious testimony of the talent that they displayed back then. Particularly Michael on vocals. He was simply incredible. Here it's a matter of pure subjectivity, each person has its own conception of who's uninteresting, irritating or who's nice, wonderful as a singer.

I do like Michael's qualities as a singer, in fact I place him side to side with Stevie Wonder, Peter Gabriel, David Clayton Thomas, Donny Hattaway and a bunch of others. Not to mention his presence on a stage, that he had developed while growing up, as he turned into the biggest star the record market could sell us. I'm talking figures here, because it's true that once you pass the "Cape Thriller", it seems you're never to come back. As I said earlier, from this album on, I find Michael quite funny (and then scary) to look at and really irritating to listen to. This is my own way of hearing and seeing things. In 1987, when "Bad" was released, I was 9. My brother had bought it. I liked to listen to the title song and I often skipped "Man in the mirror" (in an older post here you may see a funny performance of this song in an embedded video). If I had the album in my hands today, I would do strictly the opposite. Because I have grown up. My ears are quite the same but they don't hear quite the same things.

I won't look into any dictionnary to find the official definition of the word "genius", and I don't like to segregate people on the basis of their qualities, but I don't think it's such a hyperbole to say Michael Jackson was a genius. He brought something really new to what we call pop music, that is, popular music, music that is designed or has the qualities to gain the attention and the money of the masses. He was not the great musical designer Brian Wilson, Frank Zappa, Paul and John or Wolfgang Amadeus were, but I really think he has brought something new, no matter how hard this would be to explain in simple rational terms. It's not the nine-year-old-child who's speaking here, but someone who discovered Michael Jackson's work of the seventies way after his twenties. And to quote Rojo:

'Genius' and 'brilliant' are subjective terms, and I don't believe anyone needs to have an excuse to use them, as far as I know.

So if I had to make a vynil compilation, a picture disc of songs featuring Michael, covering his whole career, I would see one side with bright colors, like the set of the "Soul train" show, and the other side would be red and grey, like some Coke advertisement under a big cloud.

And yes, time will tell how strong the memories associated to this singer will be. I think they won't fade away like Britney Spears or Billy Crawford.

[rojo]

Sony's actions concerning Invincible don't seem that surprising. Considering the company had already spent upward of $30 million on the album, they would be expected to try and cut their losses when the album wasn't the sales blockbuster Thriller had been. Michael himself has to bear some of the blame for the disappointing sales, since he didn't tour to support it like rock stars usually do. And he unwisely told Sony he was leaving the company prior to the record's release, calling Sony head honcho Tommy Mottola a racist in public.

Does that sound like a good strategy for mobilizing the support of your record company for your long-awaited comeback album?

Hmm, I don't know how much the album grossed, but it debuted at No. 1 in the charts, and sold over 2 million copies in a short time after being released. It was a huge success by industry standards of the time. One would think Sony would have wanted to get their money's worth by continuing to promote it. MJ didn't tour, but he did two hugely successful shows at Madison Square Gardens, and album singings at Virgins record store. It's hard to know what transpired exactly without the dollar figures. The fact that if MJ were to become more indebted to Sony would have been advantageous to Sony, as they could get closer to owning MJ's share of the Sony/ATV catalogue, so who knows what the motives really were.

Btw, just to be clear, MJ called Mottola a racist only after the non-promotion issues. I think there was also some issue concerning MJ's friend, Mottola's ex-wife Mariah Carey as well. Perhaps he regretted that; they apparently made peace later and had dinner together at Mottola's place. I think this was the only instance where MJ spoke harshly about an industry person.

Hello.

I was hanging around and read one of last Pista's posts.

As an introduction to what follows: I have one copy of Deep Purple's "In Rock", from 1970. A pressing from Belgium or Holland, I don't know anymore. On the sleeve, you can read something on a round sticker, in bold letters: "POP MUSIC".

I won't write about Michael Jackson dealing with justice. I don't care.
I just want to talk about the artist, and a bit about his looks, since it was part of his image as a popular artist.

I'm one of those who find Michael Jackson was quite ridiculous since the mid-eighties, and maybe even before, but since I kinda like the album "Thriller", I won't go that far.

Well, Michael was making music, sang before my parents got married, even before my father came to Paris. I'm not really old, but that's a hint of how far that all brings us back in time.

I'm not a specialist of the Jackson Five but the few records I own/listened to, are clear and obvious testimony of the talent that they displayed back then. Particularly Michael on vocals. He was simply incredible. Here it's a matter of pure subjectivity, each person has its own conception of who's uninteresting, irritating or who's nice, wonderful as a singer.

I do like Michael's qualities as a singer, in fact I place him side to side with Stevie Wonder, Peter Gabriel, David Clayton Thomas, Donny Hattaway and a bunch of others. Not to mention his presence on a stage, that he had developed while growing up, as he turned into the biggest star the record market could sell us. I'm talking figures here, because it's true that once you pass the "Cape Thriller", it seems you're never to come back. As I said earlier, from this album on, I find Michael quite funny (and then scary) to look at and really irritating to listen to. This is my own way of hearing and seeing things. In 1987, when "Bad" was released, I was 9. My brother had bought it. I liked to listen to the title song and I often skipped "Man in the mirror" (in an older post here you may see a funny performance of this song in an embedded video). If I had the album in my hands today, I would do strictly the opposite. Because I have grown up. My ears are quite the same but they don't hear quite the same things.

I won't look into any dictionnary to find the official definition of the word "genius", and I don't like to segregate people on the basis of their qualities, but I don't think it's such a hyperbole to say Michael Jackson was a genius. He brought something really new to what we call pop music, that is, popular music, music that is designed or has the qualities to gain the attention and the money of the masses. He was not the great musical designer Brian Wilson, Frank Zappa, Paul and John or Wolfgang Amadeus were, but I really think he has brought something new, no matter how hard this would be to explain in simple rational terms. It's not the nine-year-old-child who's speaking here, but someone who discovered Michael Jackson's work of the seventies way after his twenties. And to quote Rojo:


So if I had to make a vynil compilation, a picture disc of songs featuring Michael, covering his whole career, I would see one side with bright colors, like the set of the "Soul train" show, and the other side would be red and grey, like some Coke advertisement under a big cloud.

And yes, time will tell how strong the memories associated to this singer will be. I think they won't fade away like Britney Spears or Billy Crawford.

Hi sunwaiter! Nice to hear from you again.

I"m glad you think so highly of MJ's vocal talents; so do I. I've heard the term genius used to describe MJ many, many times, so you're definitely not alone thinking that.

Music is really quite ridiculous in general. What's more ridiculous; green and yellow satin bell-bottoms from the 70's, or buckles on leather from the 80's? Debatable.

As an artist, there's no pleasing everybody. If MJ had kept the same style over time, some would have said he hadn't evolved as an artist, and was stuck in a rut. That said, I see no diminishing of MJ's skills and talents over time, and each of the albums he put out has songs that I enjoy, even if I don't enjoy every single one.

This planet became a much less fun place since losing MJ. Less fun, and less magical.

I will be going to the movie; the special showing Tuesday Oct. 27 at midnight. My feelings could not be more mixed. I would have preferred to be seeing the movie after justice had taken place, and any/all guilty parties held accountable. But alas, time is $...

+ YouTube Video

CT 64, I hope you got my PM.