music What do you think of Michael Jackson's unreleased songs being released?

[Adachi 772]

I think it's wrong that they're making money off a dead man, and on top of that, using a hologram of him. His legacy is solid, he has nothing left to prove, and I think he should be left to RIP. I can only see things going wrong, and I'm sure he had good reason to not release those songs.

[Golem 65]

I haven't heard the story myself, but if they were unreleased there was likely a reason they weren't.

Not particularly supporting the idea of it. The hologram, I can live with that.

[Guest]

Milking a dead cow comes to mind unfortunately, any opportunity to make a quick buck

[Sunshower Raindrops 3,227]

The hologram is amazing but the unleashed song is just not cool. :okiedokielokie:

[Courageous Thunder Dash 7,824]

It sucks that these companies are taking all of that work Michael did and basking in their own glory. Someone should step in and stop this stuff. It is an insult to Jackson himself. 

[Sunshower Raindrops 3,227]

It sucks that these companies are taking all of that work Michael did and basking in their own glory. Someone should step in and stop this stuff. It is an insult to Jackson himself. 

 

It will never happen. The media destroyed him long ago, only to revive him when needed .

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

Personally, I don't care.  The only thing I would say one way or the other is that it IS a good thing that they're doing it because MJ was heavy in debt.  If the money earned off of his unreleased stuff goes towards reducing his debt, then there's nothing wrong with it.

[Courageous Thunder Dash 7,824]

It will never happen. The media destroyed him long ago, only to revive him when needed .

That's just wrong. The media needs to really get new management. All they do is just take advantage of people and get money like they don't even give a flying feather about it. They seriously need a heart transplant. 

[Discordian 6,015]

If the songs are good, that's all that matters. I've never been much of a MJ fan. I like a few songs.

[Sunshower Raindrops 3,227]

That's just wrong. The media needs to really get new management. All they do is just take advantage of people and get money like they don't even give a flying feather about it. They seriously need a heart transplant. 

 

I agree, even though I don't like MJ's music at-least respect that said so person especially in death.

[Discordian 6,015]

What I don't understand is how people can think the dead deserve respect simply because they're dead. The dead don't feel anything. The company makes money, the people get to hear new MJ music. Everyone should be happy about this.

[Khaoios 1,970]

I've heard only 3 of his unreleased songs, however, for companies to take credit over a dead mans work.........that's just plain wrong.  Someone has to definitely stand up on this issue.

[Sir Hugsalot 9,348]

For me it's just spitting on his memory. It only shows that only thing that matters in music industry is money and if artist is profitable, then they will use him for their own gain even after his death. Michael Jackson was icon of pop music. Artist, who unboubtly had major influene on many musicians all around the world. He was someone who I respect and whos music I like despite being generally fan of metal music. And seeing how record industry is releasing his work after his death makes me lose faith in humanity even more.

 

I mean, imagine this, You had some unreleased for some reasons songs. Your days on earth are finally over and then some random jerk in suit gets in and starts messing with Your personal stuff to look for anything that is profitable. Not so great, isn't it? And it is what people are doing with Michael Jackson. They have no respect for him, if they had then they'd just let him rest in peace. On top of all overall being popular was damaging for Michael Jackson. He suffered from vitiligo yet magazines were spreading bullshit that he was so crazy that he changed colour of his skin by plastic surgery. He was outright judged as pedophile and will remain as one in memory of some people when he was never even charged for that (despite people claiming to have "evidence" he never ended up in jail). All of people who now earn cash on his death have destroyed his life before. And I am never going to approve of this kind of mess. 

[EndtheRaven 161]

I agree, it's just all about money really. Micahel Jackson was a great artist, but now people just use his name and legacy for profit.

[Something Floaty 1,334]

Apparently the released songs aren't selling well. Much like Jackson himself, the sales are coming in a little behind.

[Guest90210 3,568]

Doesn't bother me one bit. The fans get new content. I don't see the problem. People make money, fans get new music. Win/Win situation. I mean, it's not like they're releasing some deeply personal information or anything like that. It's just songs

Edited June 4, 2014 by Rivendare

[Discordian 6,015]

Doesn't bother me one bit. The fans get new content. I don't see the problem. People make money, fans get new music. Win/Win situation. I mean, it's not like they're releasing some deeply personal information or anything like that. It's just songs

Yeah, it's not like we've defamed him by accusing him of being a child molester or anything.

 

Oh wait.

[AppleLover 146]

I think its a load of meat slices. The guy is dead. And he didn't want those songs released for a reason. Even if I don't know those reasons, I'm sure they are sound. I mean, what if the media producers died, than someone started to use their unwanted ideas or name. They would be turning in their graves. SO leave the guy alone. He's been put through a lot of stuff (even though he caused it most pf the time) and they should let him Rest In Piece. 

[Unified Draft 130]

The album is good, but not the best, if you want to here good Michael Jackson music listen to the albums Bad, Thriller, and Dangerous, easily his best work. 

Edited June 6, 2014 by Brohoof117

[Espy Vibe 4,282]

It still makes me really upset when this happens so much in the mainstream music industry, no matter who the artist is or what time period it happened at.

It's cool to hear what could've been, but it makes me wonder why he didn't release it. Something just tells me it wasn't good enough or up to his standards. I don't know the exact backstories behind any of them but they could also be different ideas that simply didn't go anywhere too, as the other ideas worked better. They don't have lots of time in the recording studio at times, so it's understandable for them to try different ideas and see which one they vibe with more.

On 2014-06-03 at 4:28 PM, Discordian said:

What I don't understand is how people can think the dead deserve respect simply because they're dead. The dead don't feel anything. The company makes money, the people get to hear new MJ music. Everyone should be happy about this.

It's more about why they didn't release it to begin with. Artists never release works until they are satisfied with it. Even if it is finished but unreleased, not every work that someone makes has to be released publicly regardless if they are dead or alive.

It wouldn't be much of an issue if a fan got a hold of it and uploaded it for free for all to hear. They aren't profiting off of it, instead just sharing something they think is interesting.

It's different when you know how dirty that the mainstream music industry works (sign a bad contract to artist, loan a lot of money but disguised more like a typical paycheck, artist doesn't perform as expected after being signed because its an unrealistic expectation placed on the artist, threaten them to make a hit, when there is still no hit then drive them insane to the point that they no longer want to live or cause an "accident" to happen to them, get paid the insurance money as written in the contract, tug on the public's feelings in the news about the death, start finding ways to capitalize on it through merch, music sales... these days with overpriced vinyl pressings that are totally not upmarked to insane prices, and find the next sucker to leech from). That's not even getting into the whole thing of the mafia using music to launder money 

Of course, this can all be avoided by looking at the contract first with an unbiased/unaffiliated lawyer to negotiate better terms, but when you're new and excited to be signed to a major label (or a "dream label") it's fair to not look into the details much, very understandable. Once that honeymoon period ends, good luck... might as well work at fast food or retail at that point.

These kinds of songs should only be released if explicitly stated by the person who made it to begin with.

However, there's also the situation of an artist about to release new music... they already did promos for it, etc. the months up until they pass away unexpectedly. That's alright to release since they wanted it to be released.

IMO remasters get an exception since it's work that was already released but sonically updated for the modern day.

I can only ask, do people actually feel as if they deserve to have every song made by their favorite artist(s), regardless if it were intended for public release or not? It's one thing to playfully wish/hopeful thinking... another to feel as if it's deserved for one to be able to hear it. 

[Clawdeen 14,164]

My thoughts are if he was alive and agreed to his unreleased stuff being released that's one thing. Or if it was even signed somewhere that he was ok with this after his passing. Like how Taylor Swift has been releasing previously unreleased material. She's alive and consenting to this. This just seemed like to me a cash grab at an already grieving fanbase at the time. Not only that but it was unreleased for a reason. For them to just do it without his consent feels wrong.