|By : (184.108.40.206) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 11:19 pm:|
The interview on 20/20 just breaks my heart..
It's not even over and I don't know if I can watch all of it....
|By stephanie (220.127.116.11) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 02:43 am:|
Man I feel for Mike
1 He is talented
2 He does not seem to understand the mental and physical ramifications of a young kid being in bed with a 44 year old man ..although he did present a great case and I agree with him that we should heal the world
3I have to give the brother credit for opening up about his non-sexual experience with Tatum O Neal
4I have NO sympathy for Joe and the way he abused those kids and I give props to Latoya because she said it years earlier and the family denied it and
said she was crazy!!!
5 What are those bandaids on Mike's fingers for?
6 His money could be spent in a better form or fashion rather than buying everything he sees
7 His best bet right now is to tour with is brothers to sell more records
8 I think the interview was sad and sincere and open and NOW why is he mad at the interviewer he says he feels betrayed. I think people are going to think he is whack HE gave the interviews with cameras I thought they were kind to him no one offended him..he seems confused sometimes.
9He needs to stop having those kids and the poor baby wear masks these kids are going to grow up nutty if he doesnt quit although he cares and I think HE thinks he is doing the right thing.
10Whitney and Mike ..are we going to have more celebrities giving whack interviews and denying stuff. Any fool can see he has had more done than
11I wishI had his money!!!!
I would pay Sue Whithall to write my memoirs on something and send her to Aruba and give her a new house and a new car and hire her to report on all the happenings of Detroit and old music..
|By Clay (18.104.22.168) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 08:34 am:|
For What It's Worth
Michael J is'nt crazy. If you ask me it was rather
brilliant in the way he got the worlds attention last evening. As for his mindset,he has chosen to be a KID
for the rest of his life in order to be happy.Most Superstars die trying to please someone else or the
company they're with ,MJ is pleasing MJ and his kids. He did'nt have a childhood and he said to himself after becoming rich and famous"Now I can enjoy all the things and the life I never had as a child,I'm not going to hurt anyone else with my personal choices and I only have to answer to GOD for my actions. As for his features he was so hurt and effected as a teen, by the ridicule from certain folks that he chose to change his appearance into an almost animated state relative to a Peter Pan character because the characters that look like that don't die they live forever,if not physically than spiritually in the mind and hearts of children. Just think about it,as a normal adult in 2003 after seeing Michael J would you forget how he looks? And remember it was his choice to be look different.
As for him being a molester of children I don't think so. He dose'nt like being part of the adult world when he's not working that's all. He had too much adult supervision as a kid and that's why he feels that he can act like a kid when he wants to and when he's around other kids. Plus, now he won't get punished for acting silly or being a kid out of step. Considering what he's been thru and the despite all of it he has managed to become a BILLIONAIR business (Big Kid)and he ain't on tape like R.Kelly.
Mike does a lot of charity things that don't get
out like the bad press. And if you really want to name names of people that are much more wack than MJ could ever be lets start with the lady that drown her 4 kids,Phil Spector,Baretta,R.Kelly, the Dentist that ran over her husband and others. MJ isn't a killer and he ain't on drugs. MJ has his demons like the rest of us but he's famous.
He's been hurt by close family and so called friends who set him for money, he's afraid to share his utmost feelings for fear of being betrayed again,he's extremely protective of his kids, his current appearance and attitude that seems to make others want him to act and look a certain adult way because he's 44yrs old. I worked with MJ as a kid and I can still see the young prankster who was
such a talented singer that he could Doodle all over the lyris sheet while doing a vocal overdub.
He's very Rich and a now he's a target of some of the same people who bought his records,went to his concerts and labeled him "THE KING OF POP" Maybe we
should all take a minute and look up just 2 words
in the dictionary "PRIVACY" - "FREEDOM"
|By Sue (22.214.171.124) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 09:11 am:|
Thank you -- Aruba would be fine. I'm packing my bag ...
|By Lynn Bruce (126.96.36.199) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:19 am:|
I saw the show. First,in this society he should know that sleeping in the same room with minors is a sure way to get sued,even if the child makes up stories,very few will believe the adult.So he needs to get his head out of his a-- on that.
Second,man I wish I was his friend.All those games!! That one with him on a skate board I want to try.Of course we have to act like adults when dealing with people,but it sure would be fun to let loose like he does.The best part is he likes to share it with deprived children.
I was uncomfortable with that kids head on his shoulder during parts of his interview.Wheres this kids father?
He seems more non-sexual than a child molester.Who knows?
As far as his face,he screwed it up royally,but it's his face to do what he wants with it. In fact after a few minutes of viewing,I stopped noticing his face and started to just accept him as a person.Kind of like when someone has a disfiguring burn or scar on their face and after a while you don't notice it.
He did tell a bald-face lie when he kept saying he only had his nose done,what does he think that we're blind!!
The white skin. He made a valid point! How come no one says much about white people that try to get a deep tan to look like someone they aren't.But when a black person lightens their skin it's wrong.Double standard!!!
I think his children are going to have some problems,but that goes with being super rich and worrying about kidnapping and such.The things over the kids face isn't good for them though,thats got to play on their minds as they get older. Wait till he has to deal with a rich spoiled 14 year old that can have anything he or she wants.Then we'll see what kind kids he's raised. It's to early to tell.
I think him getting back with his brothers would be one HELL of a show.
All and all, if theres nothing sexual going on,then let him be. He's having more fun with his money than most of us could ever think of!!!
|By cleoharvey (188.8.131.52) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:26 am:|
Although I agree with some of your points about Michael Jackson, I came away from the interview deeply disturbed in a way that I have never been before. Being in the business I am aware of how an inteview can be manipulated, but my reaction was from my gut, which normally does not fail me. Now, I am a huge fan but it doesn't take a psychologist to know that this talented man has some deep problems. When it finally comes down to it, money is not the end all, not matter how many toys and playthings you have. I would only want to be his friend to be a "friend" and try to coax over to the adult world. If there are those of you who doubt what I am saying, this man is 44 years old. Think of the same person at 55. It is highly disturbing.
|By Randy Russi (184.108.40.206) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:39 am:|
I do believe he is being haunted by the media.
If the media 40-50 years ago was the way it is
today can you imagine what would have been done
to Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, or John F. Kennedy?
I believe the whole idea he was hoping for from
this documentary-type interview backfired on
|By Sue (220.127.116.11) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:46 am:|
I agree, I came away with the feeling that the guy is more nonsexual than anything.
If he had more women around I wouldn't feel so queasy about the 12-year-old with his head on MJ's shoulder.
The face, ditto, you get used to it. I wish he'd just admit what he did, but I did forget how blotchy he was as a late teen. If only he'd stopped with the Off The Wall or even early '80s look.
|By cleoharvey (18.104.22.168) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:48 am:|
I love Michael Jackson to death. However, I think we do him a disservice if we keep ignoring the fact that there are deep problems there. I would like to throw some fire on the wood and bring up the subject of R. Kelly. Do you think we come down hard on R. Kelly and sort of ignore Michae's problems because we are fonder of Michael Jackson? Is it because we consider R. Kelly to be sexual and Michael not? Just asking and I would love to hear what people think.
Michael (not Jackson) LOL!!!
|By Larry (22.214.171.124) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:49 am:|
I'm with Clay and Lynn completely.
I used to be in the MJ bashing camp and I'll admit it was from pure ignorance and media manipulation (which is far more Disturbing than MJ) and is helping to get us closer to war.
Everyone should really listen to all the comments the media (and callers on radio) are making. Tellin him to "grow up". Why?? Isn't being a kid much more fun? These people have lost some contact with their inner child. Telling him sleeping with kids isn't normal!? Why??? Only in America do want our kids out of the house by 18. Where Is The Love???
My impression has changed about Michael and my only pity for him is the same I have for any Megastar. They probably *try* very hard to keep a normal life, but, it's NOT normal. It's a blessing and a curse.
"Never Judge A Man Until You've Walked In His Shoes", Harper Lee, To Kill A Mockingbird.
|By cleoharvey (126.96.36.199) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:13 am:|
This is why I love this forum. Who would expect that someone would use Harper Lee/To Kill A Mockingbird to substantiate support for Michael Jackson. I truly love this forum one of the best on the internet! Keep the discussion going my friends.
|By J,B. (188.8.131.52) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:26 am:|
To any one who watched the show on M.J. last night it is plain to see how much he needs help. the way he gave the babby that bottle, draging his kids to the zoo with all thoes people around almost crushing them. Holding hands with that young boy and the sleep overs . A great talent yes,but needs help in a big way.If you read the Wall Steet Journal you know he is being sued for not payment to many creditors any he is mortaged to the hilt! So sad a great talent who is burning out. god help his kids,
|By KevGo (184.108.40.206) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:05 pm:|
I caught the interview & I've come away with this perspective - the only ones who are the fools are the media.
The interview was, if anything, a marketing stunt that money couldn't buy. Here is Granada TV and ABC News, airing an inside story on Michael Jackson, thinking that they are doing a public service by trying to put across (in their view) that Michael is a disturbed person. HA! If I was the head of Sony Music Entertainment, I would be sending Granada & ABC-TV thank-you cards. All this pot-stirring is doing is boosting record sales and turning Michael into a sympathetic character in the public's eye (ten years ago on an Entertainment Tonight report, singer/songwriter Tom Petty said that the media "should leave Michael Jackson alone and let him live his life.."). For example, in England alone the sales of "Thriller" and "HIStory" have increased over 300 percent since the documentary aired earlier this week. Now, imagine how much his sales would increase here in the USA.
If the media stops and realizes that all they are doing is helping Michael sell more records and reinforce sympathy for the guy, maybe - just maybe - they will find some other fish to fry. Then again, maybe not.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By STUBASS (220.127.116.11) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:18 pm:|
OK GUYS...LETS HAVE AT IT!!!...TRUE FACT...MICHAEL JACKSON IS AN EXTREEMELY TALENTED MUSICIAN, ARTIST, AND PERFORMER...AND HAS THE RIGHT TO LIVE HIS LIFE ANY WAY HE PLEASES...AS LONG AS IT'S LEGAL, MORAL (HELL, I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSES MORALS)...AND DOESN'T INVADE MY SPACE IF I CHOOSE IT NOT TO!!!...BUT LET'S FACE IT...HE WOULDN'T BE BABYSITTING *MY* KIDS!!!...TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE MUSIC BUSINESS DO GIVE "MJ" A "PASS" ON INAPPROPRIATE AND DOWNRIGHT WEIRD BEHAVIOR, AS IF ONE *MUST* BE TRULY WEIRD TO BE TRULY TALENTED!!!...NOT THE CASE!!!...IF MICHAEL WANTS TO BLEACH HIS ENTIRE BODY...SO BE IT!!!...IF MICHAEL WANTS TO PRANCE AROUND NEVERLAND LIKE PETER PAN...SOMEONE ELSES KIDS IN TOW...SO BE IT!!!...BUT MICHAEL...YOU DON'T SLEEP WITH SOMEONE ELSES KIDS!!!...FIRST OF ALL...THESE OTHER PARENTS...SEEKING THEIR OWN THRILLS BY BEING AROUND A "STAR"SHOULD HAVE A VERY LARGE FOOT, SHOVED VERY DEEP, INTO THEIR OWN ASSES...THATS THE NATURE OF MICHAELS PREVIOUS PROBLEMS...AND THERE WAS WAY TOO MUCH SMOKE, FOR THERE NOT TO BE A FIRE THERE!!!...WHEN YOU WON'T PAY A MILLION FOR SOME ART WORK THAT IS IN YOUR POSSESSION...BUT WILL PAY OUT 15-20 MILLION ON SOME BASELESS ALLEGATIONS...WHICH WILL CERTAINLY BE DUPLICATED IF THE MONEY IS THAT EASY TO PICK...JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN MY BOOK!!!...THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY DOESN'T WANT TO GROW UP IS NO EXCUSE TO BEHAVE LIKE A CHILD AND NOT ACCEPT ADULT RESPONSIBILITIES, DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU *ARE*AN ADULT...MICHAEL CONTROLS HIS OWN MONEY, AND DOESN'T NEED JOSEPH OR KATHERINE TO GIVE HIM AN ALLOWENCE...IT'S ACTUALLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!...MICHAEL HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE HIS 200-MILLION OR WHATEVER...LIVE AS A RECLUSE IF HE WISHES...DISGUISE HIMSELF AS AN "ADULT" AND MOVE INTO "LEGOLAND" IF HE WISHES...OR CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO PRODUCE HIT RECORDS IF HE WISHES!!!...ONE CAN FEEL SORRY FOR THE FACT THAT DESPITE ALL OF HIS EARLY SUCCESS, HE HAD A VERY ABNORMAL CHILDHOOD, AND THAT IS UNFORTUNATE...BUT HE'S AN ADULT NOW WITH ADULT RESPONSIBILITIES...AND FAILURE TO ACCEPT THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES...LOOKING WEIRD OR NOT...WOULD *NOT* BE TOLERATED BY MOST SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY, EXCEPTING THOSE WHO THINK THAT HIT RECORDS...OR HOME RUNS, EXEMPT CERTAIN PEOPLE FROM THE STANDARDS TO WHICH THE REST OF US ARE EXPECTED TO LIVE UP TO!!!...STU
|By stephanie (18.104.22.168) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:20 pm:|
was uncomfortable with that kids head on his shoulder during parts of his interview.Wheres this kids father?
He seems more non-sexual than a child molester.Who knows? >>>>
I totally agree I dont think he is a pedophile at all. I think he told the truth about everything except his face. I enjoyed the part of the interview when he danced and we saw him watching old J5 videos and he talked about Jermaine and Joe and all of that. As some of you have said Im still disturbed OK maybe he doesnt need to grow up but running out of the hospital with the placenta over the kid?
I dont think he is crazy but I do think he needs some mental help. A friend of mine who is a Jehovahs Witness told me years ago she knows someone who knows Michael and said he really had some mental issues and I didnt believe her but now I do. He is in touch with HIS reality and thats all well and good but I sense those kids are in for some trouble. Not the kids who visit Never Never land but his own kids. I have never bashed Mike and I think he is a kind person and it showed in the interview. I hope that he does enjoy his life now though because I wonder what will happen when he turns 60? How will he relate its a scary thought.
|By Scratcher (22.214.171.124) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:33 pm:|
Nationally syndicated sport talk show host Jim Rome is ripping Michael Jackson a new one on his radio show today. His opening momologue was all about Jacko and the rest of the show will probably be the same. Rome says he should be in jail for sleeping with kids. I have no opinion on the subject so don't shoot the messenger.
|By Common (126.96.36.199) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:36 pm:|
KevGo: I echo the same sentiments! Michael is alot smarter than people give him credit for. If anything, he's very good at manipulating the media and the public as well. As evidence by the overwhelming public response to last night's show, I think Michael got exactly the response he was aiming for. Controversy & sympathy!
|By STUBASS (188.8.131.52) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:41 pm:|
SCRATCHER: ROME-EE IS BOMBASTIC... CAN BE OBNOXIOUS... AND OCCASSIONALLY GO OVER THE LINE FROM A JOURNALISTIC PERSPECTIVE...BUT JIM ROME IS A NO-BULLSHIT KIND OF GUY WHO TELLS IT LIKE HE SEE'S IT...AND IN THIS CASE...I'M PROBABLY IN AGREEMENT WITH MOST OF WHAT HE'S GOING TO SAY!!!...STU
|By STUBASS (184.108.40.206) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:47 pm:|
PS: NOW I'M AWAITING ROBERT BLAKES NEXT INTERVIEW!!!...HELL...THE WAY I FIGURE IT...IF HE'S HALF AS SUCCESSFUL AS SOME PEOPLE PERCIEVE MICHAELS INTERVIEW LAST NIGHT...BLAKE WILL HAVE FIVE OR SIX NEW "PILOTS" AWAITING HIM FOR NEXT YEARS FALL SEASON!!!...OR PERHAPS MICHAEL AND PHIL SPECTOR COULD GET TOGETHER NOW TO CREATE THE NEW "WALL OF CLOWN"!!!...STU
|By JJB (220.127.116.11) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:55 pm:|
I have a perspective on this that I'm surprised has not been discussed since this special was aired:
It was very obvious that the producers of the documentary had a specific agenda (as most journalists do) and tailored the documentary to achieve that result. Surely, if they were granted unprecedented access to MJ for 8 months, there were other aspects of his life that could have presented a more balanced perspective.
1. Did he record any music during the 8 months?
2. Did he conduct any business related to his career?
3. Did he spend time with his adult friends and/or family?
4. Did he eat?
5. Did he exercise?
6. Did he have any telephone conversations?
7. Staff meetings?
The documentary (as edited) would have you believe that all Michael does is a) shop 2) play with kids and 3) endanger his children!
As for his time spent with children, the media continues to focus on the allegations of misconduct, but what about the allegations of extortion attributed to the boy's father that was a huge part of the story? As a father (which I am) if someone was accused of molesting my child, there is no sum of money that I would accept to "make it go away".
Somehow, I truly believe his relationships with children to be pure and that his unusual life has fostered a perspective about children that most people can not really appreciate or understand.
As for his physical appearance, all I can say is that I hope he is happy with the way he looks and that his surgical procedures (whether he's had 2 or 30) have produced the result he hoped to achieve. I also wonder why there is not as much discussion about the number of surgeries had by other celebrietes like Joan Rivers, Liz Taylor, etc.
Actually, who cares? In a climate of pending war, why is MJs physical appearance so important?
|By Vickie (18.104.22.168) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 01:31 pm:|
good points JJB
the media can manipulate the truth very easily and make you think that was all he did for 8 months...He was in court and had a lot press coverage in the past 8 months, there's a very adult aspect to that - where was that footage???
|By STUBASS (22.214.171.124) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 01:39 pm:|
VICKIE: ARE YOU SAYING THAT HE ACTED LIKE ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING AN *ADULT* DURING HIS COURT APPEARANCES???...IF SO...WE WERE WATCHING DIFFERENT NEWS COVERAGES!!!...STU
|By Vickie (126.96.36.199) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 01:58 pm:|
not talking behavior....he must have interacted with growns ups to prep for a court hearing...
|By Scratcher (188.8.131.52) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 02:11 pm:|
StuBass, you missed your calling, you should be writing jokes for Jackie Mason.
|By STUBASS (184.108.40.206) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 02:28 pm:|
WELL VICKIE:...CERTAINLY NOT BY CHOICE!!!...FINAL THOUGHTS FOR NOW ON THIS SUBJECT (GOTTA GO TO WORK)!!!...AS FOR THE STATEMENT THAT MICHAEL DIDN'T HAVE A DRUG PROBLEM!!!...WHAT PLANET???...HE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS LONG ADDICTED TO "PAIN PILLS"...AND HAD TO DETOX!!!..."PAIN PILLS"...A NICE WAY FOR CELEBRITIES TO GET SOME SUCK-UP DOCTOR TO WRITE SCRIPTS FOR NARCOTICS TO MAKE THESE PEOPLE FEEL ANY WAY THEY WANT TO AT ANY GIVEN TIME...WHETHER MEDICALLY INDICATED OR NOT!!!...REMEMBER ELVIS... AND HIS OWN PERSONAL DR. DEATH!!!...AS FOR THE INSINUATION THAT MOST PEOPLE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE ISSUES SURROUNDING "STARDOM" CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE ROOT CAUSES SURROUNDING POOR MICHAELS BIZARRE BEHAVIOR!!!...THATS LIKE SAYING THAT ONLY "CARNIVOURS" COULD UNDERSTAND POOR JEFFERY DAHMERS NEED TO EAT HUMAN FLESH!!!...GIVE ME A BREAK !!!...JAKKO IS WHAKKO...AND BEING THAT WAY IN THE PRIVACY OF HIS OWN HOME...SANS THE PRESENCE OF LITTLE "TINKERBELLS"... IS HIS OWN BUSINESS!!!...PUT IT IN MY FACE...AND I'M GONNA "TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!!...LATER...STU
|By KevGo (220.127.116.11) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 02:31 pm:|
Isn't it time for your daily dose of Prozac?
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By Vickie (18.104.22.168) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 02:44 pm:|
|By STUBASS (22.214.171.124) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 03:41 pm:|
KEVGO: MAYBE A LITTLE "BOWL" WEHN I GET HOME TONIGHT...BUT AS FOR PROZAC...JUST NOT MEDICALLY INDICATED!!!...STU
|By john dixon (126.96.36.199) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 03:45 pm:|
Did somebody mention Jerry?
|By Livonia Ken (188.8.131.52) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 03:49 pm:|
[Animal House Reference]
Stu[to group]: THATS LIKE SAYING THAT ONLY "CARNIVOURS" COULD UNDERSTAND POOR JEFFERY DAHMERS NEED TO EAT HUMAN FLESH!!!...
Otter[to Boon]: Carnivours?
Boon[to Otter]: Forget it, he's rolling.
[/Animal House Reference]
|By J.B. (184.108.40.206) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 03:53 pm:|
So M.J.sales of Thriller and His story have increased 300%. from 10 per week to 3000 perweek. The man is sick. His kid thats a laugh, What part of M.J. is in the blond haired white skin little boy, only his money . His nose looks like a frost bite case.Maybe M.J, and R. Kelly can start a day care business.
|By Sue (220.127.116.11) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 04:40 pm:|
There are mixed race people with blond hair and green eyes. Try Genetics 101.
|By Sue (18.104.22.168) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 08:13 pm:|
At one point in the documentary Michael J laments that while he was recording "in the Motown studio" he could hear the children playing in the park across the street, and he longed to be over there playing instead of in the studio.
What studio could he be talking about, Mowest?
|By STUBASS (22.214.171.124) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 08:15 pm:|
SUE: THERE IS A PARK ON ROMAINE, JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM MOTOWNS SUNRISE-SUNSET STUDIOS IN WEST HOLLYWOOD!!!...STU
|By Sue (126.96.36.199) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 08:19 pm:|
Ah. I couldn't remember if they did any recording in Detroit; I know some of their rhythm tracks were done here ...and there certainly aren't any parks across from Studio A or B.
|By STUBASS (188.8.131.52) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 08:27 pm:|
SUE: I AM HERE TO SERVE!!!...STU
|By TheBoredWatcher (184.108.40.206) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 09:17 pm:|
"...Hey Mikey, he likes it!"
|By Jim Feliciano in Detroit. (220.127.116.11) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:41 pm:|
As a footnote....
I would surmise that early on, at least in late 1969, the JACKSON 5 had recorded their first single "I WANT YOU BACK" here, in Detroit.
It was probably recorded at either one of two MOTOWN facilities, then, either at the I-75 and Woodward locale... or, at the HITSVILLE studios on W. Grand Blvd.
This is only a preliminary assumption based on common fact, that in 1969 when the JACKSON 5 were first introduced to us with their (first) release above, MOTOWN was still a record institution based in the city of Detroit at that time.
Of course as we all know, by 1972....
BERRY GORDY had decidely ventured out his entire MOTOWN enterprise away (from its Motor City roots), by having moved to L. A., a place where, ultimately, its MOTOWN beginnings would gradually cease, of any it's past continual 'florish' it gendered while in Detroit.
Eventually, Motown had failed to attain the level of 'grandeur' expectations while out in the west coast, of that which GORDY had envisioned of the very 'dream' he would soon relinquish, then, now reduced to only smatthered memories, of it's own legendary Detroit past.
|By Sue (18.104.22.168) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:55 pm:|
There was never any recording at the Motown Center building at I-75 and Woodward, it was strictly an office building. Motown's Studio A was on Grand Blvd., Studio B was the former Golden World studio, on Davison.
No offense, but I'm not looking for "probably" or assumptions, I wanted to hear from some of the engineers, producers or musicians who worked with the Jacksons. There is no park across from Studio A or B in Detroit, so I wondered if Michael could be remembering the Los Angeles facility.
|By STUBASS (22.214.171.124) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:20 pm:|
SUE & JIM: I DIDN'T SEE THE INTERVIEW...BUT DID MICHAEL MENTION THE PARK IN REFERENCE TO THE RECORDING OF "I WANT YOU BACK"...OR WAS HE SPEAKING IN GENERAL OF RECORDING WITH THE PARK NOISES IN THE BACKGROUND???...EVEN IF HE RECORDED "IWYB" AT HITSVILLE/DETROIT...CERTAINLY, THE BULK OF THE J-5 STUFF WAS RECORDED OUT IN LA, WHERE THE FAMILY HAD MOVED!!!...STU
|By Ralph (126.96.36.199) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:25 pm:|
As STUBASS pointed out, there was a park across the street from Motown's L.A. facility on Romaine St. Jim. Sue is correct in telling you that the Motown Center was basically an office building. there were, however, mixing rooms on the 9th floor.Hopefully one of the engineers who worked on some of this will be able to straighten us all out. more than likely though, early J5 tracks were done at Studio A.
|By Sue (188.8.131.52) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:28 pm:|
Michael was talking in general, he didn't mention which recording session -- but he was saying how while he was recording "in the Motown studio" there was a park directly across the street, and he'd hear children playing sports and games -- and he longed to be there.
I was skeptical, there's no park across from Studio A, but it could have been the later J5 sessions I guess.
|By Ralph (184.108.40.206) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:38 pm:|
Many times rhythm tracks were sent from Detroit to L.A. for vocal dubbing etc. I was at the L.A. studio once during a very young MJ vocal session. I'm sure that was the park Michael mentioned.
|By Sue (220.127.116.11) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:44 pm:|
Yeah I remember you mentioning Funks rhythm tracks being sent west for J5 songs ...so it sounds like Michael was thinking of L.A.
|By Bob Olhsson (18.104.22.168) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 12:36 am:|
There actually was a little recording done at the Woodward Ave. building during the Golden world rebuild and a great deal of mixing.
I remember doing one vocal session for the first album at Golden World with Michael.
|By Sue (22.214.171.124) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 12:46 am:|
Was there a park across Davison from Golden World? I can't imagine that there was.
And was it an actual studio, in the Woodward center building?
|By STUBASS (126.96.36.199) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 12:53 am:|
HEY GANG: I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ROMAINE HERE...NICE LITTLE PARK OFF SANTA MONICA BLVD. DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE MOTOWN STUDIOS. I DOUBT ONE COULD HEAR MUCH ACROSS DAVISON...AND THE WOODWARD FACILITY...THE KIDS WOULD HAVE TO BE PLAYING IN TRAFFIC ON THE FREEWAY!!!...STU
|By Sue (188.8.131.52) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 01:02 am:|
Michael wouldn't be recording vocals at the Woodward facility, sounds like it was strictly mixing.
Studio A -- it'd be possible there'd be kids playing out in the street.
|By ted cogswell (184.108.40.206) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 03:25 am:|
It's telling to me that this discussion has focused in on investigating his story about hearing the kids playing in the park across the street, because one of the things I came out of the interview with is a feeling that Mike makes up lots of stories. When he talks about Joe beating him and his brothers he almost goes into this trance, telling the same stories he's told before. I don't doubt that Joe was rough on those kids and I'm not going to argue that there's not some truth in it, but I think that a lot of the details sound like a little kid's rambling- a half-made up version of what really happened. The whole story about running out of the delivery room with his baby covered in placenta is rediculous. No way that happened. I was always one of those "if there's smoke,..." people who suspected SOMETHING was definitely going on with him and these kids, but after watching that last night, I don't think so anymore. Yes, he has "problems", but I don't think that they're of a sexual nature. I think we're looking at one of the most extreme cases of arrested development we'll ever see. Except for the physical age of his body, he is not a "44 year old man" in any practical way. I don't know where he is emotionally, I'd guess 11 or 12, but everything he does is completely and purely the actions of a young child. So when you talk about "how can a 44 year old man sleep with a child and not see that's wrong"? It's because, for all practical purposes, he's NOT a 44 year old man at all.
|By Allen (220.127.116.11) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 07:42 am:|
JERRY!!!!! ... where is he when you need him?
Jerry was probably a musician in his former life....
|By email@example.com (18.104.22.168) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 09:52 am:|
boy o boy this docusoap has put the cat among the pigeons,where was mj family in it? nowwhere to be seen ,no coverage of his real life , only carefully edited ,put together footage and at one stage unanswered questions due to the contract and
agrrement with him ,maybe iam wrong ,but all the children were white or my tv is up the creek.
are his brothers children white? were we taken on ride to never never land? ps he has already turned down the reunion tour, they say he is finished , watch him come out with a killer album
|By stephanie (22.214.171.124) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 12:17 pm:|
Dont tell me Mike turned down the reunion tour that is the dumbest thing he could have done. The public wants to see him with his brothers again.
THAT would be a great strategic move. The tour wont do well if he is not there. I like his brothers but lets be real.
|By STUBASS (126.96.36.199) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 12:26 pm:|
SUE: SPEAKING OF THE MOTOWN WEST HOLLYWOOD STUDIO...I VISITED THERE SEVERAL TIMES WITH MY BROTHER...WHO WAS DOING PROJECTS THERE WITH NORMAN WHITFIELD (TEMPTATIONS, COMMODORES, KENNEDY GORDY...AKA ROCKWELL...AND MORE)!!!MET RAE SINGLETON GORDY THERE...NICE LADY...OR WOULD HANG OUT WITH RUSS TERRANA!!!...ONE TIME...THE TEMPTATIONS START SHOWING UP...ONE BY ONE...NOT THE "CLASSIC TEMPTS" THAT I KENW FROM MY YOUNGER DAYS...BUT ALI, RON,AND OTIS!!!...WE WERE ALL HANGING OUT IN THE LOBBY BETWEEN THE TWO STUDIOS, WHEN DENNIS EDWARDS WALKS IN...JUST CHATTING WITH THE GUYS...THEN...AND I WOULDN'T PUT MY BROTHER ON THE SPOT TO VERIFY THIS...BUT DENNIS BEGAN MAKING AN APPARENT PLEA TO REJOIN THE GROUP!!!...JUST CASUAL CONVERSATION WITH THE GUYS...BUT APPARENTLY...NEVER CAME OFF...AND I WAS JUST THE "FLY" ON THE WALL!!!...STU
|By STUBASS (188.8.131.52) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 03:12 pm:|
PS TO TED: DON'T LITTLE CHILDREN PLAY "DOCTOR"???...IF WE'RE GONNA GIVE MIKE ADOLESCENT STATUS...LET'S CONSIDER THE WHOLE BALL OF WAX!!!...SORRY KEV...BUT HERE I GO AGAIN!!!...STU
|By Bob Olhsson (184.108.40.206) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 03:13 pm:|
My memory is that the only vocal recordings of the J-5 done in Detroit were a few fixes to vocals that had already been done in LA. I can't imagine that he would have many memories of the Detroit studios and there definitely weren't any playgrounds within earshot of any of them.
|By douglasm (220.127.116.11) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 03:14 pm:|
I'll say one thing for MJ. He makes Peter Green's antics look tame.
|By givethedrummersome (18.104.22.168) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 04:21 pm:|
When I lived in LA, CA. I used to play tennis at Poinsetta park and there was a Motown studio right across the street. It was also close to the Gower st. Studios. The park had a baseball field, basketball courts and volleyball. I think this is the park that he may be referring to.
|By STUBASS (22.214.171.124) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 04:25 pm:|
THATS THE ONE "GTDS"...I THINK WE CAN ALL BE WELL ASSURED THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE PARK IN QUESTION!!!...NEXT???...STU
|By RALPH (126.96.36.199) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 08:01 pm:|
|By Greg C. (188.8.131.52) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 12:13 am:|
That interview sure has encouraged a wealth of dialogue.
Given the circumstances MJ found himself in with regards to his situation with that young child back in the early 90's, why in the name of God would he go before a camera at this date and profess to the world that he still engages in a behavior that did irreparable damage to his career? Is there anyone on his staff or in his life who is sincerely looking out for this man's best interests or has he surrounded himself with a bunch of lackeys and yes men who tells him what he wants to hear?
That was a very compelling yet painful interview to watch. I witnessed a 44 year old man surrounded by every imaginable creature comfort (things) except genuine friends and people who really loved and cared about him.
"I'm Peter Pan." "I want to live forever." Those statements and others spoke volumes. This is a very disturbed and troubled man who is in a lot of pain.
So what happens now? Will he continue to record?
Will he tour? How the public process all of this? The media seems hellbent on destroying him..
I wish the brother well....
|By the judge (184.108.40.206) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 03:37 am:|
Considering the troubles of Michael Jackson,Diana ross, Whitney houston, Mariah carey,and many others.You begin to wonder what is fame doing to these people?? They have fame and riches beyond our imagination yet there is still unhappiness surrounding them. There is a moral in this for everyone.
|By ..... (220.127.116.11) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 09:57 am:|
You mentioned "privacy" and "Freedom" and other people. Don't they have "privacy" and "freedom" too?
If Michael doesn't like the scrutiny, he can revert to being a private citizen.
|By Ritchie (18.104.22.168) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 10:29 am:|
Unfortunately, the mass media is of the opinion that privacy and freedom are luxuries that cannot be granted to stars and celebrities, be they musical or royal. I often wonder how much outraged indignation would emanate from the tabloid journalists who pry into others' private lives "in the public interest", if the same merciless scrutiny was applied to theirs.
|By douglasm (22.214.171.124) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 12:03 pm:|
.....Don't know, Richie. Is it "the price of fame?"
One point that hasn't been brought out is the human fraility. People have had problems as long as there have been people. Oscar Levant, Peter Green, Jim Kweskin, Marvin Gaye, Phil Spector and Whitney Houston are some that come to mind. Some are considered "eccentric" in their fraility, and some, like Gaye, Spector, and Barry Sadler result in tradgity.
I guess what I'm trying to say (not very well) is that these are people, and like other people, they have their problems. It is only by the fact that they're in the public spotlite (generally by choice) that their lives are focused on, and it must be remembered that one can't completely manage his publicity life so that only the "good" news comes out.
|By firstname.lastname@example.org (126.96.36.199) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 12:27 pm:|
1 was earching through the web ,and came across a site .
also you can leave your thoughts or even vent you anger
|By SisDetroit (188.8.131.52) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 04:09 pm:|
I don't think the above link is funny. It was a waste of my time.
|By Scratcher (184.108.40.206) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 10:38 am:|
A very disturbing article about Michael Jackson from the New York Daily News. It's getting harder and harder to defend the guy.
|By drums (220.127.116.11) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 01:10 pm:|
I have a quetion for all out there,since we are in the recording industry:
How would you act if:
1. you couldnt go out in public for fear of getting torn apart by mobs of fans?
2. Had rehearsals where your Dad (or other family members would beat the crap out of you if you got a dance step wrong or missed a chord?
3. Had 300-400 million bucks in the bank?
4. Had been to the very heights of success that the music business could give and now you were on the way down, but had not been taught anything else?
Ever since I saw that interview, I have been really troubled about how people act when they become a "star". I dont know if it is a good thing or not!
Patti Labelle was just talking about this earlier this year. She was explaining what she has to do to go to the supermarket (which is a pretty funny story, but Ill tell you later).
I dont know about you guys but I wouldnt want MJ's or any other "stars'" life either. I love the freedom of being "normal".
I hope this makes sense.
|By KevGo (18.104.22.168) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 02:05 pm:|
Your posting does make sense. Unfortunately with fame comes a very high price tag that forfeits almost any chance of privacy.
Sometimes it's the way a celebrity handles the lack of privacy that could be the issue. When I was in record retail years ago, I had a regular customer who would roller-blade into the store to check out the latest CDs on the listening posts. This person kept to himself, didn't wear any disguises and only asked one salesperson where to find a CD. In the meantime, the rest of the sales staff and customers noticed him but left him alone to buy his purchases. All the while, he was polite and thanked us for being so helpful. His name was John Kennedy, Jr.
If Patti LaBelle has to wear a disguise to go shopping, that tells me she doesn't want to deal with the public - which is her right. At the same time she could've taken a cue from Diana Ross (who used to shop at stores after business hours).
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By drums (22.214.171.124) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 03:22 pm:|
Thank you Kevgo,
I am just troubled and kind of in shock by the whole damn thing. I dont understand what MJ was trying to prove by going on tv saying that:
1. He is Peter Pan(?)
2. He doesnt see anything wrong with sleeping with little kids?
3. He didnt get multiple plastic surgeries?
4. The crying when being asked a question that he didnt like?
5. The baby dangling(Was I the only one that felt weird when he threw the pillow out the window?)
6. The tree climbing?
7. His dad beating the crap out of them for getting a dance step wrong! (I dont know about you guys, but now when I watch a J5 vintage clip, I keep thinking about Joe saying Marlon!! I m gonna tear that ass up!! You shuffled when you were supposed to doo wop!)
8. The shopping trip (6 miilion bucks worth of urns?? WTF)
9. Holding the boys hand and him resting his head on MJ shoulder?)
I have seen a few "stars" with eccentric behavior but this thing is very strange to me! I am not condoning or judging what MJ does or says, I just dont know what to think of it
|By KevGo (126.96.36.199) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 03:55 pm:|
Michael has some serious issues that sooner or later he will have to deal with. He is delusional and reverts to this "Peter Pan" state of mind to block his mind of the hurt he encountered as a child as well as shielding him from any potential hurt or criticism today. His child-rearing methods scare the hell out of me (forget dangling his baby out the window - remember the feeding scene with the shaky knees and the mob scene at the zoo that almost crushed his older son?). Everything from his spending sprees to his tree-climbing all revert to the issue of his delusion that he's a child at heart and his "Peter Pan-ism" , avoiding any responsibilities that come with being an adult.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By cleoharvey (188.8.131.52) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 03:57 pm:|
I believe that how you view the interview has a lot to do with how you view the Michael Jackson. There are those of you who view him as the "innocent," one who is put upon by everyone from his father, family, and media, to his fans. The eternal Peter Pan, who simply wants to left alone and is deeply misunderstood by the world at large. If you are in that camp, you see him as the victim and defend him. There are some of you who know the "other" Michael. The one who is the shrewd businessman, totally in control of everything he does and a careful and brilliant manipulator of his public image. The one who knows what he is doing and what he wants at all times. There are people who are on this forum who can substantiate that image. The one that is not so innocent. I have witnessed "both' Michaels, so it is a bit of a quandry for me. However, I must say from watching the interview and from a couple of personal things I have gleaned over the years, I am deeply disturbed about this talented man. He needs help and I am not sure where he can get it at this point.
|By drums (184.108.40.206) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:04 pm:|
I agree with both of you. I felt sorry for him and angry at him at the same time. But I realize that this is the price of fame. I work here at Sony and realize that he literally built this place. But at the same time I dont know about the things that were said and shown on the TV interview. I shouldnt have watched it.
PS on a positive note, I did get to George Clinton for the first time, so that was pretty exciting (for me anyway!)
|By STUBASS (220.127.116.11) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:20 pm:|
BACK AGAIN: OK...ARE SOME OF US JUST KIDDING OURSELVES, OR DO WE DESPERATLY WANT NOT TO BELIEVE THESE NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT MICHAEL???...CHECK OUT SMOKINGGUN.COM...WHERE COPIES OF THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FROM THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE EXISTS!!!...I SAW PARTS OF THE REPORT THIS MORNING REGARDING THE 20 MILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT!!!...STATEMENTS BY THE VICTIM...NOW IN HIS 20'S ARE COMPLETELY EXPLICIT REGARDING JUST WHAT MICHAEL ALLEGEDLY DID TO HIM...AND IF TRUE...AND IT SOUNDED CREDIBLE TO ME...MICHAEL SHOULD BE SHARING HIS BED IN THE STATE PRISON WITH OTHER INMATES!!!...STU
|By Vickie (18.104.22.168) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:26 pm:|
What father sells out his son...that is the reason I do not believe it...If this was your child, would any amount of money buy you off to keep quiet against abuse to your child...
|By STUBASS (22.214.171.124) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:31 pm:|
HI VICKIE: I'VE ADDRESSED THE LUNACY OF THE PARENTS ON AN EARLIER POST...HOWEVER...THE REPORT IS BASED ON INTERVIEWS WITH THE VICTIM...AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE KID...NUMBER ONE... IS GOING TO FOOL EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATORS...AND NUMBER TWO...YOU JUST HAVE TO READ THE ALLEGATIONS...CAN'T SEE THIS STUFF JUST BEING MADE UP...BASED UPON MY OWN "COMMON SENSE"!!!...STU
|By Common (126.96.36.199) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:34 pm:|
Nothing surprises me anymore. You'd be surprised just how many parents out there would put their children in harm's way for a dollar, especially, if someone is wealthy. Take for example, Pia Zadora(sp?). She was barely sixteen years old when she got together with her fifty something multi-millionarie, with her mom's blessings. So I don't know whether Michael did things he's accused of, but I'm sure the parents who continue to allow these sleepovers in spite of the allegations, don't seem to care one way or the other.
|By STUBASS (188.8.131.52) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:34 pm:|
PS TO VICKIE...THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THERE WAS NO COROBORATION...OBVIOUSLY...AND THE DA DIDN'T WAN'T TO RISK THE PROBABILITY THAT THE WHOLE THING WOULD HAVE TURNED INTO ONE BIG CIRCUS...THE DAD TOOK THE MONEY AND RAN!!!...I'M NOT UPSET WITH THE PARENTS FOR TAKING THE MONEY...ONLY LEAVING THEIR KID WITH THAT "NUTBALL" IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!...STU
|By Common (184.108.40.206) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:36 pm:|
Meant "multi-millionarie hubby".
|By drums (220.127.116.11) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:41 pm:|
I am also troubled by this as well. If MJ didnt do the things that the boy said, WHY did he give him 20 million bucks???? I heard his reason for it but I didnt buy it. I dont care if I have 500 million bucks in the bank, heck I'm greedy and I aint givin up S*&%$^! . If you are gonna accuse me of it bring on the court case so I can prove my innocence.
But at the same time I understand that he is a combination of Peter Pan in his mind and "I just wanna be left alone" Greta Garbo and God knows what else, maybe in his screwed up mind , he really didnt want to be bothered with it. We all just watch him spend 6 million bucks like you or I go to McDonalds....!
All I know is like everyone else here is saying, whether he did it or not, he needs psychiatric or psychological help. I think once his ties are severed with Sony, he is gonna have a psychotic break or he may even kill himself. (Which I hope that neither will happen! )
Sony Studio 4
|By SisDetroit (18.104.22.168) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:45 pm:|
And StuBass, I believe the parents purposely allowed that to happen. Particularly the father, a well known dentist. He knew about it, and I believe he allowed it to go on so he could sue. He didn't care how it would affect his son psychologically. He waited, allowed it to go on, encouraged and gathered evidence, and then filed suit. This is what the father's friends, celebrities, were saying during that time.
|By KevGo (22.214.171.124) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 04:51 pm:|
Daren, Stubass & All:
I read the Daily News update here regarding the 1993 case against Michael.
If what the young man said is indeed true, then Michael will probably face even more scrutiny in the "Court Of Public Opinion" never mind the press/media. I just wish someone close to him who is not as delusional as he would make his wake up to the reality that he cannot carry on like this anymore. Sadly, that may not happen. This may dog Michael (and I have to say rightly so) until he "gets it" or the day he leaves this earth.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By Ollie (126.96.36.199) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 06:41 pm:|
Firstly, I don't think Michael Jackson is a pediophle. He is rich and feels he can do anything he damn well pleases. HE knows that he is not a child molester and that seems to be good enough for him. But, he lives in a prejudiced society.
If you asked most adult men, "would you have sex with a 12 year old boy who was sleeping next to you?" They would say, "no." But, they suspect any OTHER man of being a dog who would. This society is sick, always has been. If Michael was a female and loved children, even slept in the same room or bed with them, there wouldn't be such a stink. We put women on a different level than men. Everybody thinks that men CANNOT be trusted, sexually, in ANY way. That's societal. Why then, do we trust grown men as boy scout leaders surrounded by sexually obsessed teen boys? Why trust them then?
Michael has got to come to the realization that he is not living on an island. Money cannot always protect you. He has to live by the rules like everybody else, no matter what his PRIVATE feelings are...HE'S AN AMERICAN!
|By Vonnie (188.8.131.52) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 06:51 pm:|
I've got your number! IT IS NOT OKAY!!!! DON'T EVEN GO THERE!!!!!
|By Jim Feliciano in Detroit. (184.108.40.206) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 06:51 pm:|
Just a brief comment,
While it may appear to most that Michael's behavior rationale is beyond what is speculative, or, what is true reality...
...Michael Jackson did lend the appearance he is (probably) sincere to the extent beyond what most of us would prefer to believe of him, of his answers, because, if he is not, he has been living a lie, and he has (precariously) inhibited himself within a pattern of 'self-induced' denials.
As to the staggering amount of $MILLION$ which Michael had paid out to the family of the young boy (a minor) he was accused of sexual pandering, one must preclude that if the charges were false, it is almost an attempt to extort, or an obvious attempt to blackmail, for pay.
And yet, MJ paid 30,000,000 dollars for 'damages' incurred, for protecting the boy's identity and 'buying' (forever of) his silence, and isn't this akin to, say... like paying out 'hush' money?
Regardless, after viewing the MJ interview....
One would have to believe this person is so pyschologically impaired, that even at the age of 44, he is still the child that could have been, the child that might have been, the child that never was, therefore, in his mindset, he remains, as a child.
It almost seems, as though he's trying to relive the childhood he never knew to have.
Hence, of his desires of "climbing trees", "water balloon fights", having his own "theme park", or of his bond with "the children" he never interacted with--DENIED--while growing up, etc., blah, blah, blah... and so forth.
Nevertheless, the pattern he lives in, is quite naturally, rather bizzare... and, am I making any clear sense of all of this?
Man, I just don't know what to make of this one.
|By KevGo (220.127.116.11) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 08:01 pm:|
Same here, amigo.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By Jim Feliciano in Detroit. (18.104.22.168) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 08:59 pm:|
I don't mean to detract any from the subject in question, MICHAEL JACKSON...
...but don't forget to let us know when the D-TOWN CD will be available, and as you had once mentioned, "HURT BY LOVE" by SILKIE HARGRAVES will be included (STEREO or MONO?) as well.
Now, let's resume our discussions on the subject matter at hand, let's talk about... MJ, Michael Jackson.
|By douglasm (22.214.171.124) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 09:09 pm:|
I don't think anyones noted yet that MJ has lodged a protest with the Standards and Practices department of the British network that produced the interview.
|By SisDetroit (126.96.36.199) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 10:38 pm:|
I guess we should have known this would happen after Michael sued the recording company. I don't care how much money you've got, don't mess with the big corporations. (LOL)
I refuse to read "the smoking gun. com." I need to elevate my mind to think on positive things. Will someone please suggest something positive I can think about.
I know I loved the videos "Beat It", and "Bad" by Michael. He was kind of cute in those videos. He should have stayed looking that way.
|By Vickie (188.8.131.52) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 11:26 pm:|
Sis, think about the good ol days...with lots of music, Marvin, Tammi, David, Eddie, The Supremes,
Funk Brothers, The Jackson 5..Think of how nice it was to go to the store when you were a "Little Sis Detroiter" and you bought those records and danced to them..
Think about that...My mind can't grasp alot of what is going on with Michael, so I think about the gifts he gave to the world and form my opionions of him by that..
Sis in LA
|By SisDetroit (184.108.40.206) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 11:33 pm:|
Thank you Vickie...that I will do.
|By Vickie (220.127.116.11) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 11:48 pm:|
|By Jim Feliciano in Detroit. (18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 04:39 am:|
On a more positive note....
Here's two of my (post Jackson 5) all-time, Michael Jackson **favorites**...
A. "OFF THE WALL"
B. "PYT (Pretty Young Thing)"
It was young Michael, at his best!
|By drums (22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 08:15 am:|
HI all again,
Is it just me or did the J5 have one of the best childhood that most of us inner city kids have? I mean for real, I grew up reading Right On and seeing them riding around on go-karts and having pets and living in a beautiful houses, and all of that.
I have 11 brothers and sisters and we grew up imitating these guys! In North Philly, we did not have a 10th of what they had materially. I am still trying to figure out which is better, to be poor and grow up "normal" or to be rich and "deprived". I dont know....
|By Andy Skurow (126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 08:16 am:|
I too found the interview disturbing, and I believe Michael is crying out for attention. BUT, I also think that his life isn't nearly as odd as he WANTS people to think.
In 1993/94 when Michael was accused of Child Molestation, you may remember he "disappeared" for several weeks. When he emerged, he showed up in Las Vegas in that bright red shirt (the same one he wore on the special), on New Year's Day. At the time, I worked in the Luxor hotel, where we were all told he would be coming... with no security. At the time, our hotel was the newest, and busiest, and this was by far the busiest day we'd seen yet. When he showed up, there was mass chaos. Michael enjoyed every second of it. If he wanted his privacy, he never would have come on that particular day, in that particular way. We had celebrities almost daily coming through, and most of them had ways to blend with the crowd, or requested private tours to keep the public away. Barbra Streisand came through, and only three employees knew she was there until she was gone.
My point is, we know that celebrities need to find creative ways to live a normal life among the rest of the world. Some of them shopping, eating, even posting online with the rest of us.
Michael continually finds ways to draw attention. For instance, during Michael's day at the zoo in the special, "someone" tipped off the press that he was there. I don't doubt Michael had a hand, even indirectly, in planning it that way.
Madonna's children seem to be living a more "normal" life, so I don't know if Michael's measures (like covering his kids) are necessary. I feel most sorry for those kids, they will probably need a lot of therapy to be able to interact in the real world.
Lastly, no matter what we think about Michael Jackson, good or bad, 24 Million people watched the special when it aired in the US, and as a result, he's selling out CDs all across the country. Talk about brilliant... I think he knows exactly what he's doing.
|By stephanie (188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 10:29 am:|
I agree with you Mike is laughing his way to the bank in my opinion!!! I dont doubt that either.
Its been rumoured for years that he likes publicity and he does things to gain attention like the hyperbolic chamber and all of that stuff.
He is a media maven I think he is better at it than Madonna is. He may have covered the baby's face for shock value for all we know!!
I love the Looking Through the Window album by the J5 I think it was one of their best. I didnt care too much for Skywriter or Going Places.
|By KevGo (184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 12:12 pm:|
I can relate to what you're saying, my friend. Being the youngest of five children who all grew up during Motown's (and soul music's) "golden era" we were all influenced by the J5 in one way or another. Right On! magazine almost devoted every cover & issue to the J5 and the pictures of them at work/play made us think they had the ideal life. My brother Jim bought me the ABC album while my sister Pam had the Third Album and Maybe Tomorrow. Hell, we even dressed like them from the afros to the platform shoes (driving our parents totally crazy!).
While all of this was happening, reality reminded us that we were a struggling middle-class family with a clergyman father & a pre-school teacher for a mother. My parents didn't have much money but we were rich in love and happinesss. My parents made sure we were surrounded by positive images coming from the Black community. The J5 at that at time had that image to the nines...
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By drums (220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 01:22 pm:|
Thank you, thank you Mr Kev!!
I thought that I was the only one to had grown up envying the J5 because of all of their success and supposed happiness!!
I remember when we moved to Detroit and we were really upset. But my mom told us that we were going to the same town that the J5 started singing in and it calmed us all down because we believed that we could hang out with them!! (We were stupid kids that actually believed that! My mom got over on us when we found out that they left way before 1978 when we got there! Thanks Mom!
Anyway, I remember dressing like them and my mom letting us have those big afros and all of that too. It is just strange to have seen that tv show and have the curtain of his reality brought down like that. I cant get that "I am Peter Pan"quote out of my head! Ill get over it though haha!
|By STUBASS (18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 02:15 pm:|
HEY DAREN: PRETTY SMART MOM YOU'VE GOT THERE!!!...AS FOR THE THEORY THAT MICHAEL DOES ALL OF THESE "NUTTY" THINGS FOR PUBLICITY...THAT WOULD SPEAK VOLUMES' AS TO JUST WHAT KIND OF "SICK PUPPY" HE REALLY IS...IF TRUE!!!...STU
|By DCM (22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 02:35 pm:|
Yeah my mom is quite the character!! This is totally off the subject but it might make you all laugh. Due to having 11 bros/sis, Christmas time was hard, but my Mom made up a story about the INCOME TAX Man, instead of Santa Claus!!! She told us that in April a white man with high water pants and a pocket protector and tape around his glasses would climb down the chimney and bring us the "income tax" check! Then we could get 2 times as much junk as the other kids!!
Anyway, that is how I got my first drumkit and how we were raised "normal"!
I wonder what kind of things MJ's mom told him....
|By STUBASS (126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 07:08 pm:|
DAREN: THAT IS *GREAT*!!!...AT LEAST SHE DIDN'T GO OUTSIDE...SHOOT OFF THE FAMILY SHOTGUN...AND TELL YOU THAT POOR OLD SANTA HAD JUST COMMITTED SUICIDE!!!...STU
|By douglasm (188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 10:21 am:|
I saw this morning that the Fox network is going to enter the frey with their own special on the Michael Jackson special, with outtakes from the original interview that put MJ in a better light. Gawd, this whole thing has taken on a life of its own.
|By Ritchie (184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 10:42 am:|
Sadly, there is nothing that the mass media enjoys more than a juicy scandal involving a celebrity - the more unsavoury the better. This gives ample scope for revelling in some lascivious tale-telling, accompanied by polite tut-tutting at how awful the alleged misdemeanours are. Of course, the resultingly-increased viewing figures or newspaper sales are purely an advantageous coincidence.
|By Jim Feliciano in Detroit. (220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:51 pm:|
To the contrary, I'm not so sure the charges levied at Michael Jackson were construed as, how could I say this... as a minor 'misdeed', or to paraphrase the term you had used in your thread above, of (less-felonious) "misdemeanours".
Unfortunately, whether the charges against MJ were ever found to be true, or they were just patently false....
...according to court documents 'released' in recent days, and, what is now known of the alledged sexual brevity committed by Michael Jackson (in 1992) with a male under-aged minor, these court 'papers' which had recently surfaced would only enhance further more of the lingering doubts, despite Jackson's repeated denials, his side of the story seems very amiss, in much serious jeopardy.
Despite the very fact that Michael Jackson was never charged with the "misdemeanour" for the alleged crime he was accused of committing, it does not mean to imply this awful, "tale-telling" of MJ's improprieties with a minor, never happened the way it was 'alleged' to have happened, but the court papers 'alleged' that it did.
As we know, the case never went to trial, Jackson would see to it that it would not. It has been alleged that Michael paid a HEAVY price for all of this, anywhere between 15,000,000 to 40,000,000, an exorbitant amount of cash money he was willing to pay, and he paid for it, of his attempt to make 'the story'... just go away.
|By Ritchie (18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:58 pm:|
Sorry - my posting was a general reflection on tabloid-style reporting, not specifically referring to Michael Jackson's case. Perhaps I should stay out of this, as I have too many unhappy memories of my own family's experience of 'trial by mass media'. I'll keep quiet on this one now.
|By Sue (22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 06:16 pm:|
Ritchie -- you're welcome to your views, don't run off.
As far as Michael Jackson "seeing to it" that the case wouldn't go to trial, the boy's parents and the prosecutor's office could have proceeded with the case. Instead the parents accepted the money. Remember, Jackson did say part of the reason he offered the money was because he didn't want to put the boy through a lengthy trial.
You're asking us to believe there's no way extortion of an extremely wealthy celebrity was involved here or that somebody might have coerced the boy to say these things. Unless you were there, can you be sure?
And, not to come off as MJ's defense attorney, but if the poor child's allegation is true, what person who cares about him would violate the gag order and expose him to shame and ridicule by leaking that document?
|By Nish (126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 10:03 pm:|
Wow, Daren! Congratulations! You're the first person I've ever known who has more siblings than I! I have ten older siblings.
And LOL @ your mom's tax man story.
A nice little MJ memory: Thanks to the Thriller album cover, MJ became the first cat to ever grace my wall, and that was during my whole "Boys are icky" phase.
He defined the era for at LEAST 2 generations of children/young adults.
|By Jim Feliciano in Detroit. (188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 11:15 pm:|
Hello again Ritchie,
Please, there no need to apologize for any 'misconceptions' you and I might have derived of this particular subject matter, after all, we find this to be all too confusing enough, right?
Naturally, while I would like to believe that Michael may have been telling us the truth, after hearing him state his side of the story, there was alot of things not clear, that were was said of him, denied by him, of certain things he would rather have us believe in, otherwise.
Like the "two nose jobs"... and, as he said, nothing else was ever done... but, can we really believe him of that?
If Michael Jackson can blatantly deny of the simply 'obvious', then Michael Jackson is not being very honest about himself, in any respect. And that alone leaves his credibility in question in the public's view.
Nevertheless, I was 'floored' by the sordid details as was levied against Michael Jackson in the (1992) court affidavit, now that it has been 'unofficially' released, now a part of the public domain.
And yes, Sue...
of the (minor) plaintiff whose name appears on the signed notarized affidavit, unfortunately, his life now may forever be affected by this 'apalling' exposure, and sadly, that's only saying the very least....
|By Sue (184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 11:30 pm:|
You don't quite answer my question: Why would anyone professing to care about that child leak the document, if its contents are true? Isn't that kind of seedy?
Unfortunately I've seen a lot of ugly custody battles where allegations of sexual abuse ARE coached and made up.
Bottom line, we're speculating about this case. There was no trial.
|By SteveS (220.127.116.11) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:34 am:|
Sue Whitall has a nice article on MJ in today's Detroit News. She offers a different perspective by talking to Deke Richards and Clay McMurray, who share their recollections of working with a very young MJ, as well as father Joe. Great job, Sue.
|By David Meikle (18.104.22.168) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:54 am:|
I love the Jackson 5 photograph.
I recall "I want you back" when it was first released. It's one of those songs which clicks every time.
Nice article Susan.
Great to see Clay in there too.
|By Ritchie (22.214.171.124) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:20 am:|
One of my friends once remarked, "wouldn't it be great if you could go back to the first time you heard 'I Want You Back', and feel that thrill?" True.
|By SisDetroit (126.96.36.199) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:33 am:|
I'm up early this morning. And it's great to see another fantastic article by our very own Susan Whitall. Great as usual! I voted. Let's see if the tables turn next week after MJ's special.
|By the zoo (188.8.131.52) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 06:30 am:|
Mikes a charming man and we all love him.
Bubbles and Troop.
|By drums (184.108.40.206) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 10:07 am:|
It was never adull moment in our house and I am sure it was the same in your's!!! My mom and dad remind me of MJ parents because my dad gave out the butt whuppins too. He even looked like Joe!! But it was no where near what the Jacksons got!! I am feeling rather lucky now!!
Is it just me or now when you watch vintage clips, are you thinking that Joe was backstage with one of the double loop big buckle ass whippin belts? (haha!) Those guys look scared!!
Sony / Studio 4
Jackie!! Get that dance step Right!! Jermaine, fix yo face!! Tito!!! I m a light yo fire boy!!
|By Sue (220.127.116.11) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 10:43 am:|
Thanks guys -- I still get a kick out of "I Want You Back" -- which is why it annoys me that Blockbuster Video has co-opted it.
But admittedly, that first time you heard it was a real Moment.
David, you should see some of the pictures we have in the file, many shot by News photographers at the time, so they're different than the slicker Motown PR shots people are more used to seeing. Notice the little "J5" logo the boys have on their shirts?
I particularly liked the Michigan State Fair live shot on the jump. I presume that's in the online edition but I'll doublecheck.
|By David Meikle (18.104.22.168) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:07 am:|
The archives MUST be amazing.
You are so lucky to have access.
|By Sue (22.214.171.124) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:17 am:|
Believe it or not, I have a constant battle with designers sometimes -- on this story the designer was going to use a more recent wire photo of Michael.
I said nooo, not when you see what we have in the files, sheesh.
|By STUBASS (126.96.36.199) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:38 am:|
OH WAIT A MINUTE!!!...A NICE OLD LADY HAS JUST FALSLY ACCUSED ME OF STEALING HER CAR...TOTALLY FALSE CHARGES...BUT PERHAPS IF I PAY HER 10-THOUSAND DOLLARS SHE'LL FORGET ABOUT THE ACCUSATION...AND I SURE WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT HER THROUGH A LENGTHLY TRIAL...IT JUST WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO HER...SUCH A NICE LADY...AND WHO CARES IF PEOPLE THINK OF ME AS A CAR THIEF FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE...PLEEEEEEEEEASE???...STU
|By KevGo (188.8.131.52) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:58 am:|
Excellent article & excellent work.
It's refreshing to see an article which puts the whole Michael Jackson issue into perspective, reiforced by first-hand accounts by Deke & Clay.
What many folks (especially certain members of the media) fail to understand is exactly what Clay & Deke put into perspective - Michael has created a world that he sadly missed out on as a child, from Disneyland & the zoo to sleepovers. It's a world we all had experienced at one point in our lives as children. Although I've seen a photo of Michael playing catch with Berry Gordy's son Kerry (in BG's autobiography)& several pictures of the Jacksons' family life in Ebony & Jet but these moments were rare, precious & few.
I'm not saying Michael having sleepovers with kids or plastic surgery or hiding his children in scarves and veils is cool - he should definitely get some kind of help to confront the bull---- he went through in the past. I'm just glad that Sue wrote an article that holds Michael, to a degree, in a sympathetic light.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
(PS - Sue: The quote regarding the media's creation of the "Wacko Jacko" frenzy is dead-on. I would never refer to Michael in such a disrespectful way no matter how strange his behavior may be).
|By STUBASS (184.108.40.206) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:32 pm:|
JUST HAD A CHANCE TO READ SUE'S VERY WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE!!!...INTERESTING STUFF, AND CERTAINLY OPENS UP SOME DEBATE AS TO JUST WHAT TYPE OF CHILDHOOS MICHAEL HAD!!!...BUT KEEP IN MIND...ALL THE OTHER JACKSON SIBLINGS (WHO INCIDENTALLY HAD THE SAME FATHER) APPEAR TO HAVE TURNED OUT QUITE WELL ADJUSTED!!!...AND LOOK AT LITTLE DONNIE OSMOND...PRETTY NORMAL GUY TODAY!!!...I JUST BELIEVE THAT TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE AMKING TOO MANY EXCUSES FOR MICHAELS BEHAVIOR...WHICH IN MY HUMBLE OPINION...DOESN'T PASS THE "GIGGLE" TEST...STU
|By KevGo (220.127.116.11) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:57 pm:|
Jackie Jackson's wife sues for divorce after catching him in an affair with a Lakers' cheerleader.
Jermaine had an affair with Randy's wife, who leaves Randy to marry Jermaine when she became pregnant with the latter's child.
LaToya felt neglected by her family & ran off with an entertaiment manager who winds up being almost as controlling as Phil Spector.
Janet eloped with James DeBarge at age 18 (marriage later annulled). Keeps her second marriage under wraps for years, divorces him and vents personal frustrations through her last two albums.
Marlon is barely holding onto his real estate investments and has consulted with attorneys (one of them a colleague of mine) to investigate his royalty payments.
Tito's estranged first wife died in a mysterious drowning incident at her home. Her abusive boyfriend was under suspicion yet slipped away. Tito blamed the Los Angeles DA's office (Gil Garcetti) for not aggresively pursuing the case.
God only knows what Randy & Maureen (Reebie) are up to.
Finally, the family was busted up when Katherine caught Joseph in an affair (which resulted in a child born out of wedlock). She left him at first but returned.
As for Donny Osmond, he had issues himself over his perfectionism in his craft. According to an interview he gave for VH-1'S "Behind The Music" he admitted feeling pressured to be perfect and the best performer because his #1 competitor was - guess who - our friend Michael!
I guess the apples don't fall far from the tree...
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By STUBASS (18.104.22.168) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:02 pm:|
THANKS FOR THE JACKSON FAMILY UPDATE KEV: YOU'VE GOT A POINT ABOUT THE APPLES..."ONE BAD APPLE DON'T SPOIL THE WHOLE BUNCH" (SORRY...THATS LITTLE DONNIE)...BUT AT LEAST I FEEL THAT I COULD CARRY ON A LUCID, NORMAL, AND NON PSYCHOTIC CONVERSATION WITH THE REST OF THE JACKSON CLAN!!!...STU
|By Ritchie (22.214.171.124) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:13 pm:|
Thank heaven Donny Osmond was a "perfectionist"! What WOULD have his records sounded like if he wasn't? ;o)
|By douglasm (126.96.36.199) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 02:03 pm:|
It would be interesting to compare the childhood of MJ with some other young singers like Brenda Lee. Have any of the now old young singers commented on MJ?
Sue, that was a very well thought out article.
|By Vickie (188.8.131.52) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 02:59 pm:|
Great insight Sue in that article..
I do look forward to the Fox version that will air next week. There are 3 sides to every story and then about 5 more after that, then there are 4 more, then there's the truth..You have to show and tell all of the elements, very good work Sue.
|By Ralph (184.108.40.206) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:40 pm:|
As usual, first class work. Thank you for pointing out that Bobby Taylor discovered the J5. I remember some early publicity going round that they were discovered by Diana Ross.I suppose it gave them better press. however, I always felt sorry for Bobby on this one.I considered him a friend during my Motown days.
|By KevGo (220.127.116.11) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:58 pm:|
I remember reading an issue in Mojo Magazine devoted to Michael Jackson where they interviewed Bobby Taylor, who said he agreed with the idea of using Diana Ross as the person to "introduce" the Jackson 5 to the world. Also, Jermaine gave Bobby Taylor his "props" when the J-5 were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (he said this on the podium standing next to Berry Gordy & Diana Ross).
The J-5's first album still remains my most favorite album (owning two copies of the LP - the Goins family copy which is beat to death and the mint one I bought at a used record shop when I was in college). Bobby really pulled the best performances from the brothers, especially Michael. Their version of "Who's Lovin' You" still gives me chills. As for Mr. Taylor, his hit "Malinda" still brings a smile to my face.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By J.B. (18.104.22.168) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:29 pm:|
Poeple rag on Presidents. Popes. and any body in the public eye,that comes with the price of fame. M,J.
comes across as so screwed up, his face, the way he treats his kids.I know there a plenty of fine schools in the L.A. area that other stars send their children too , so why would M.J. Keep kids at home,keeping them from forming friendships with kid their own age? Maybee they would talk about their dad and his friendships with other little boys,Wake up forum any body can see how sick M.J. is, If he was not rich he would be doing time rigt now.
|By STUBASS (22.214.171.124) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:33 pm:|
ONE MORE ISSUE THAT WAS ADRESSED ON A TELEVISION SHOW THAT I SAW THE OTHER NIGHT!!!...DOES MICHAEL NOT REALIZE THAT KEEPING THESE KIDS FROM THEIR MOTHER...BIOLOGICAL OR OTHERWISE...THAT HE IS DOING IRREPERABLE HARM TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT!!!...IT IS AS IF *HE* IS THE ONLY PARENT...AND IS INTENT IN EXPOSING THEM TO ONLY WHAT IS INSIDE HIS "SICK" WORLD!!!...STU
|By SisDetroit (126.96.36.199) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:45 pm:|
If you stay out of MJ's business you won't have to worry about how he wants to look. If he treats his kids unlawfully, the law will prosecute him.
You can thank the groupies for a portion of his personality. MJ is no more screwed up than the rest of the rich celebrities. You just haven't heard their business all over the press because they don't have as many fans as does MJ. Both MJ and the Boy took depositions. Those depositions could have been used in court had the prosecutors any other evidence to charge MJ. Do you think they would have let him get away with that if they had enought evidence?
I don't blame MJ for keeping his kids away from you groupies. Just because you buy his recordings doesn't mean you own him.
|By Ralph (188.8.131.52) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:47 pm:|
Thanks for the information. Somehow I'm not entirely certain even with Bobby's commments to MoJo. I just seem to remember it was an opinion that made it's way through the Creative Division, and the opinion was that Bobby got somewhat left in the cold. Maybe Clay will remember more than I do. It is nice to know that he was acknowledged by the J5 however.
|By STUBASS (184.108.40.206) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:48 pm:|
HEY SIS: HOW ARE YOU DOING???...REMEMBER WHAT SIS HILLARY SAID..."IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD"!!!...STU
|By : (220.127.116.11) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:50 pm:|
Right On Sis!
Who is to say what "normal" is anyways...
If the guy was truly doing something wrong, someone would cash in on that and betray him...
but they don't - why? The ones that got the cash - That boys family in 93' extortion all the way...
Rest my case....
|By SisDetroit (18.104.22.168) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:50 pm:|
Hi Stu - Are you talking about Hillary Clinton? (LOL) If you are, what did she say about keeping husbands in line?
|By STUBASS (22.214.171.124) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:54 pm:|
YOU KNOW WHAT SHE SAID SIS: "STAND BY YOUR MAN"...THE TAMMY WYNETTE VERSION...NOT THE CANDI STATON VERSION!!!...KEEP THE FAITH...STU
|By Sue (126.96.36.199) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 05:04 pm:|
Berry Gordy wrote in his book that Bobby T discovered the J5, but that they wanted Diana Ross to "present" them and appear to have discovered them to get the maximum PR, and that Bobby agreed ...
|By SisDetroit (188.8.131.52) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 05:06 pm:|
StuBass - Ok, I'll give you that one. That was a good one. :o)
|By STUBASS (184.108.40.206) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 05:08 pm:|
|By Ralph (220.127.116.11) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 05:24 pm:|
From a business standpoint it was a good move. I still feel Bobby got the short end on that.
|By Sue (18.104.22.168) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 05:58 pm:|
At the time I even thought it was funny -- like Diana Ross is hanging around Gary looking for talent?
At least BG gave credit to Bobby Taylor in his book, and Deke Richards of course told me that as well. Deke is a very bubbly conversationalist by the way, just as he is in print.
|By KevGo (22.214.171.124) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 06:25 pm:|
I feel that Bobby not only got the short end of the stick on Motown when it came to producing the J-5 but when he went solo from the Vancouvers he never got the push he deserved. His "Taylor Made" album has some great songs & his voice is stellar but I guess Motown had other fish to fry...
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By Ralph (126.96.36.199) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 08:02 pm:|
Yeah Kev. I always felt Bobby was pushed down somewhere in the middle of the pecking order. Which was too bad because it was obvious to me that the guy had real talent. AND.....next to Bongo Eddie he ws one of the funniest guys I knew at Motown. He used to intentionally warp my name to Ray-aff, as in " Hey Ray-aff, how you doing M.F. " or something like that. Anyway, I liked Bobby a lot.
Sue: At least he got mentioned. Too bad it was so long after the fact. Deke and I have exchanged a couple of e-mails. He seems like a lot of fun and I'm sure your conversations with him were just that.
|By SisDetroit (188.8.131.52) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 09:32 pm:|
My final thought on MJ. Since the prosecutors did not file a charge, the boys family would have filed a civil suit, and MJ would have had to pay because of the society we live in.
|By john dixon (184.108.40.206) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 07:09 am:|
All of the tv interview related MJ obsessiveness currently in effect here and in Europe, including all the postings here, has had a cumulative effect (on me, anyway) of a multi-car pile-up that I can't refrain from staring at through queesiness and clinched teeth. The capper for me now is the morphing MJ face(as in his "Black And White" video) teaser that NBC is not only running as a promo but also as a scroll on the bottom of tv screens during regular programming. It's just too too much. I can't think of any modern day celebrity that has been hounded and persecuted to this degree. And I fully realize that he's brought on alot of it himself. I'm surprized to find myself an MJ apologist but, damn, no matter how strange and out of touch we percieve him to be, this shark-like feeding frenzy could understandably drive him into early retirement and seclusion or, worst case scenario, suicide. Scoff if you will but could YOU stand being the entertainment world's number one freak? Could any of us bear the intense scrutiny of having a magnifying glass trained on our own personal idiosyncracies? It's like we, the general public, just won't let this go until something really bad results and only then will we be satiated. THEN we will suddenly remember all the joy that his music brought us since the J5 days and how his artistry as a performer raised the bar for everyone. I just wish we could move on to something else now...
|By john dixon (220.127.116.11) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 07:37 am:|
Re: my last sentence--when I say that I wish we could move on to something else, I'm referring to the media and general public, not neccessarily this forum.
|By SisDetroit (18.104.22.168) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 11:59 am:|
John Dixon - Hooray for you! You said that so nice and pleasant. :o)
|By R&B (22.214.171.124) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:09 pm:|
MICHAEL HAS TO BE THE SADDEST RICH PERSON IN THE WORLD,LIKE THE OLD FOLKS USTA SAY MONEY CAN'T BUY YOU HAPPINESS.
|By Shawn1 (126.96.36.199) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 10:48 pm:|
I personally think People should leave Micheal alone I have never believed that Micheal was having sex with children !I think Micheal taking his kids to a zoo wasn't maybe the best decision but he is famous and they have to get used to it.All that he can give his kids now comes at a price and that price is Daddy is famous and people whenever they see him will clamour around .I think yes Micheal has been damaged from his childhood but I don't think he's crazy are a child molester .I think that child was looking at Micheal like a father are a older brother.Who cares how old the man is as long as he is not touching those kids in a incorrect manner .Shawn
|By stephanie (188.8.131.52) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 11:44 pm:|
I agree with John Dixon I cant turn on the TV without hearing something about MJ. I think he likes the publicity he always has and I DONT think he should be suing the British interviewer and the company. He agreed to the interview and there was nothing in there that made him look any worse than the public perceives him to be. He is going to sue Sony and now this person who else is he going to sue? I mean this guy is selling records out of the ying yang with this publicity if he wants people to KNOW the truth get off of the suing bandwagon and go on a two hour show with Oprah (Im sure he trusts her) and let it all hang out and speak your piece its that simple. If he wants the truth to be known he knows ANY network would pick it up so there is no excuse about him being misrepresented he can fix that if he wants to.
|By STUBASS (184.108.40.206) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 11:52 pm:|
BETTER IDEA STEPH: HOW ABOUT A POLYGRAPH TEST BY A COMPETENT, INDEPENDANT EXAMINER, APPOINTED BY A NEUTRAL COURT!!! YOU REALLY WANT TO MAKE A STRONG CASE FOR YOUR INNOCENCE MICHAEL???...THEN YOU COULD TELL THE WHOLE WORLD TO F#@K OFF!!!...STU
|By Jim Feliciano in Detroit. (220.127.116.11) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 12:28 pm:|
'Kudos', for the above remarks by Stephanie, but in the response, accolades are respectfully bestowed to the 'acclaimed' extreme point of view, given by STU, just the same.
In reality, Michael can end this 'personal' nightmare if he so desires. He has chosen not to.
I believe that he has been less than honest about himself, while I still hold to the notion, I would rather believe of him otherwise.
Jackson has only extended more of the negative light that has been cast upon him, of his personal affairs, of his 'admissions' and denials, only to counter the public into 'second guessing.'
Michael Jackson is, most deservedly, under intense public scrutinity which only he had so rendered unto himself, brought about his 'strange' antics and of his behaviour of what is now publicly known of him, etc., which is more than MJ would ever personally care to publicly admit of himself.
Based on that....
I no longer believe that MJ is all so innocent as some of the Jackson 'apologists' would only have us believe.
Having now said....
Whether these allegations are true or not, well Michael, as the old sayin' goes, "you made the bed... now you sleep in it."
|By STUBASS (18.104.22.168) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 01:12 pm:|
|By Jim Feliciano in Detroit. (22.214.171.124) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 01:22 pm:|
By the way, let there be no misconceptions--
I'm still a Michael Jackson fan, and I will ALWAYS enjoy listening to MJ's brand of music. I'm just expressing my (MJ slanted) point of view.
Therefore, the personal 'scandals' in which MJ had inmersed himself into (now seeming without any end), they will NEVER (underlined) detract from that.
|By Ritchie (126.96.36.199) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 01:39 pm:|
Question for Kev re MJ
The Jackson 5 : Pre-History - The Lost Steeltown Recordings. Brunswick 8015
Would this be one of "yours"??
|By Sue (188.8.131.52) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 01:42 pm:|
Whew, can you translate that?
|By Lynn Bruce (184.108.40.206) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 03:05 pm:|
Stu,as much as I think we should leave him alone, I think your idea of a polygraph test would be the first thing I would have done if I had been accused of the things he's been accused of. Of course kicking those damn rug rats out of his bed WOULD help us believe he doesn't like to snuggle up to those little critters. If he's gay,GET A FOXY LOOKING GUY,FOR GOD SAKES. If he's straight get a foxy looking lady. What ever his choice,GET THOSE DAMN KIDS OUT OF HIS BED!!
The neighbors are starting to talk!
The neighborhood gossip, Lynn
P.S.I ain't one to gossip,so you ain't heard this from me,ya hear!!
|By STUBASS (220.127.116.11) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 05:11 pm:|
ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH JIM: LOST IN ALL OF THIS GARBAGE IS THE FACT THAT MICHAEL...ALMOST SINGLEHANDLY... SAVED THE AILING RECORDING INDUSTRY IN THE EARLY 80'S!!!...THE RECORD INDUSTRY HAD NO DIRECTION AT THE TIME...AND A MAJOR OVERHAUL FROM FULL ORCHESRTATIONS TO SYNTHISIZERS WAS IN THE WORKS FOR ONE THING!!!...MICHAEL ENERGIZED THE INDUSTRY DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME...ALLOWING LIONEL RITCHIE TO GAIN MUCH RECOGNITION AS A SOLO ACT AMONG OTHERS!!!...THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS MESS ALL THE MORE SAD...BUT IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS...I'D RATHER SEE SOCIETY CREATING FIRST CLASS PEOPLE THAN FIRST CLASS ENTERTAINERS...THOUGH NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS!!!...STU
|By SisDetroit (18.104.22.168) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 05:19 pm:|
While I was amazed at the J5, and thought MJ had much talent. I did not really become a fan of MJ until the 80's. I was taken in by this highly talented young man.
|By SisDetroit (22.214.171.124) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 06:56 pm:|
As far as Joseph is concerned, don't forget how the movie "The Jacksons" portrayed him. The family was involved in the making of that movie. So you can somewhat believe it. Since seeing that movie, I haven't liked the actor who played the part of Joseph Jackson, and cannot watch any other movie he has played in. (LOL)
|By Sis (126.96.36.199) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 07:03 pm:|
It's 7:00EST, and the Jacksons' reunion is on VH1.
|By SisDetroit (188.8.131.52) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 11:45 pm:|
At least MJ purchased all those figurines at one store in Vegas. The other celebrities purchase their treasures one at a time from all around the world, and spend double what MJ spend in one store. And brag about what country they got it from, and how much it cost. (LOL) This is too funny. What would I do if I had half the amount he spent in the store. I know he had so much fun just picking on the spot just because it was pretty.
|By Nish (184.108.40.206) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 11:50 pm:|
What??? You don't like the COOLEST Sweathog behind John Travolta on "Welcome Back Kotter," Sis? Verily, you disappoint me. LOL! :-)
|By SisDetroit (220.127.116.11) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:11 am:|
Nish - I've been trying to determine what you meant. It just came to me, the guy on "WB Kotter" is the same actor playing Joe Jackson. LOL, I never watched WB Kotter. If you give me the year it was playing, I can tell what I was watching during that time. (LOL) Were you even born then? Or were you just a tot. Do you remember seeing the J5 Cartoons?
|By Vickie (18.104.22.168) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:15 am:|
Freddy "Boom Boom" Washington
aka Laurence Hilton Jacobs..
|By SisDetroit (22.214.171.124) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:38 am:|
LOL, believe me "young ladies," I didn't even know the guys name. You two are up on it. And I am just an old fogy.
After watching the MJ interview a second time, I realize that during the whole interview from beginning to end, the interviewer was negative, with an accusatory tone of voice. MJ couldn't do or say anything without being overly scrutinized. The voice of the interviewer put the viewers into that mode, peering, to expect something bad and immoral, to discredit everything about MJ. LOL, MJ just said "I'm happy with my lips."
|By Nish (126.96.36.199) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:43 am:|
I wasn't born until 1980, not even a tot during those heady days. I pretend to remember stuff I ain't old enough to know, that's all. LOL. I'm not sure about the dates on WBKotter, though. Have you seen Cooley High? He was Cochise. I think EVERY girl bawled there EYES out when they killed Cochise in "Cooley High...." "AW MAN! The CUTE one!" was the refrain heard 'round the world.
Thanks Vickie, I forgot his name on the show, and I knew I was gonna mess it up. :-)
|By Vickie (188.8.131.52) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:49 am:|
Sis,the guy was condesending (sp) I didn't like his tone either ..He seemed like he was manipulating and tricking him..I wondered what happned right before some of the segments..like why was MJ so agitated when he was feeding his son? Something had to make him agitated like that..
I have never seen MJ nervous or squirmy like that in any interview..so what made him that way and why we did not get to see that part??...hmmmmmmmm..Working in TV makes me suspicous of everything I see, cuz I know how they manipulate the truth and edit it so you see it much differently than intended..I look forward to the rebutal next week..
|By Vickie (184.108.40.206) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:52 am:|
Nish - I loved Cooley High!!
|By SisDetroit (220.127.116.11) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:03 am:|
It's past my bed time, gotta get my flannel pajamas. (LOL) No, just kidding.
Nish - I think in 1980, I was still listening to Dennis Edwards' "A Song For You" over and over, and Teddy Pendergrass.
In fact, you were two years old when I went to the Temptations Reunion in 1982. And, I had my three (3) David Ruffin LP's autographed by David 4-5 years before you were born.
So, Nish (at age 11), and Vickie, not getting away from the MJ bashing, but in 1991, how did you feel or react when DRuffin was killed? Or did you realize it at that time what was going on?
|By Vickie (18.104.22.168) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:09 am:|
I remember the day David Ruffin died..very much Sis, I'll never forget how my heart sunk...
|By SisDetroit (22.214.171.124) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:12 am:|
What about Marvin Gaye?
|By Vickie (126.96.36.199) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:16 am:|
That was a horrible day here in LA...horrible, it was all over the news I remember the funneral coverage..
I remember that like it was yesterday...Those stand out more in my memory than when Elvis & John Lennon died...I am 36...
|By Nish (188.8.131.52) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:22 am:|
I'm about to get the nighties myself. When DR was killed, I took it HARD. VERY hard. I played the tapes in my headphones and closed my eyes REALLY tight, and tried to envision him performing the song playing. My first poem came as a result of that, actually. And to this day, "My Baby" is such a melancholy and meaningful song to me, because that's the song I played most in the days immediately following the bad news.
|By SisDetroit (184.108.40.206) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:29 am:|
Vickie - When Marvin was killed, I had just recently gone through a personal tragedy, and Marvin's death just doubled it. It was unbelievable. And I can't put into words how I felt when DRuffin died.
Nish - Such a young age to be so affected by such a tragedy. But it's great that we have the voice of both Marvin and David right here with us forever.
OK, thanks ladies. I'm gone. Have a good night.
|By Vickie (220.127.116.11) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:39 am:|
Yes Sis, their voices will be with us always, a beautiful gift that will stand the test of time and make us feel good for years to come...Tammi's been gone over 30 years, but her voice is so alive like she never left. Their spirits are on those recordings, I feel them everytime I hear them singing...
Have a good night ladies...
|By Nish (18.104.22.168) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 10:29 am:|
Yep Sis and Vickie, that's the one big bright spot. The Records! I kind of just crashed, so rather than goodnite... Good Morning ladies (and everyone)
|By douglasm (22.214.171.124) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:17 pm:|
Here's an interesting perspective on what's driving the MJ controversy. Happy sweeps month.
Think I got it right.
|By KevGo (126.96.36.199) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:18 pm:|
The Jackson 5 "Pre-History" recordings Brunswick released in 1996 were the J5's Steeltown releases from 1967-1968.
Their single, "Big Boy" is included.
Brunswick initially licensed the Steeltown recordings from a gentleman who (unbeknown to the Brunswick staff at the time) had licensed the material to several labels before for cheap money. Yet, Brunswick went one step further by reaching out to Ben Brown, the owner of Steeltown, for his cooperation and getting rid of the "middleman".
Kevin Goins - KevGo
|By Ritchie (188.8.131.52) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:12 pm:|
I thought you might have the scoop on this ;o)
A copyof this just went for $21.50 on eBay! I have most of the tracks (with heavy-handed overdubs), but not the "Let Me Carry Your School Books". OK, final point before the thread returns to its previous focus.... Was the group's first 45 really credited to the "Ripples and Waves" or is that another myth?
|By Jim Feliciano in Detroit. (184.108.40.206) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 07:40 pm:|
SisDetroit, Vickie, and Nish,
of your expressed sentiments in regards of when you first heard, and how you felt, with the sudden passing of David Ruffin....
Looking back, it is hard to believe that his death was so unexpected, and in the manner in which he died, over 11 years ago.
But on June 8, 1991....
My sister, Lillian, and I, had the honor of paying homage to this *great* fallen Motown legend, as we passed his open bier at the Swanson Funeral Home, 14751 W. McNichols Rd., here in Detroit.
On this day, the funeral was open for 'public' view, which after having realized this, my sister and I, both jumped in the car and rush over to the funeral home, which was only about 5 miles away from our home.
Immediately as we walked inside, at that time, we noticed David Ruffin's voice was singing this one song, it was playing over the sound system:
"...the sun is shining, there's plenty of light, a new day's dawning sunny and bright, but after I've been crying all night, the sun is cold, and the new day seems old...".
At the that moment the lyrics drew my attention as I looked outside the window, and I noticed, how beautiful and 'sunny' it really was outside, that day, it was a 'bright' and warm afternoon.
As my sister and I slowly streamed by to view his body, I've never witnessed this before--ever--the casket was completely open for full view, from end to end.
But there he was, David, as though in sleep, wearing his 'famous' framed glasses, his tall (and very) thin frame... was tucked in a black tuxedo suit, the silk black slacks, and, he was wearing his very 'best' shoes... and oh, how they were so shiny.
But he looked so serene... finally, he was at peace.
Sadly, this was the only one time I had ever seen David Ruffin, and more sadly, it was only after hearing of his passing... and, of his sudden death.
|By Vickie (220.127.116.11) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 08:06 pm:|
Thanks Jim for that article..it's an area I do need to research a little for my own book....June 1, a sad day indeed...
|By SisDetroit (18.104.22.168) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 08:53 pm:|
Thanks JFeliciano - Really sad. I didn't go. I couldn't deal with it.