Estate of michael jackson and sony music renew 30-year relationship

[Kuzeh]

This generation's Tupac!

What??...
Sorry dude, that's just ridiculous...

I don't think Jackson's library of songs approaches the quality of the Beatles songbook, but in fairness, I don't think that anyone does (Prog mentions the Rolling Stones, but they've only got a small handful of songs that are played on the radio/used to sell ____).

There's no point in comparing MJ to The Beatles, they are completely different eras and styles. But I'll be honest, I don't like POP music, I actually pretty much hate it... the only POP-ish I listen to is MJ, because it has one of the greatest blends in styles and sounds... he managed to make great Rock, Pop, R&B, etc.
And the quality of his recordings are some of the best ones in music EVER...

Weirdo though he may have become, Jackson was certainly one of the greatest entertainers in my lifetime, and made some amazing music, IMO. People will continue to listen to and enjoy his pre-1990s work well into the future. I think his work from that point on is akin to John and Yoko or Wings.

Do you know that most of his overseas fans are more into his post 90's music?
I personally think that he was way more creative during and after Dangerous...

 

[karamazov80]

What??...
Sorry dude, that's just ridiculous...

There's no point in comparing MJ to The Beatles, they are completely different eras and styles.

You may not like the comparisons, but remove yourself from your position of MJ infatuation for a second. Tupac released nearly as many albums after he died than he did when alive, from my understanding. If Jackson has 100 unreleased songs, that makes him Tupac-lite in this sense

And you certainly can compare MJ to the Beatles in terms of the richness of their respective discographies. Like Prog says, you can hear almost any Beatles song on the radio on a given day. Not just Yesterday or She Loves You, but nearly anything they made! Even songs that were never released as singles are well known to people who are only casual listeners. Can you say that about MJ?

I'm not surprised to hear that Europeans might like MJ's "Wings"-era work. But then, they also love David Hasselhoff. Not that Americans have much better taste

 

[die]

Using Beatles songs in commercials and ads SUCKS to me. It's called "selling out", I thought it was stupid when the Jacksons did it for Pepsi and it's stupid when bands do it now. Look at Nirvana...Kurt Cobain was always totally against using any of Nirvana's music to help sell merchandise for companies. When he died, his wife sold off rights and then you see Nirvana songs in commercials & ads and it just seems cheesy, campy and cheap. I'm all for hearing unreleased music or companies making action figures of bands, anything that pays tribute to the actual artists (I'm even cool with the Rock Band Beatles game!)... but I don't need to hear their songs to get me to buy a certain toothpaste or computer, that's lame.

 

[The Monster]

If MJs got 10 albums worth of stuff and "This Is It" and "Another Day" were what was chosen to be released first, I think thats a bad sign as far as the quality of whats left there.

I just don't see his music being huge sellers down the road. IMO his catalog doesn't have a lot of value outside of the occassional "joke" like in "13 Going on 30".

His music is rarely used to sell stuff. So no royalties there. I don't see his albums being constantly rereleased. I just think its a very poor investment on Sony's part. Similar to the horrible investments made on Madonna and Prince in the past. I love the 80s, but IMO these artists catalogs are just not what the Beatles' or Stones' are so I don't see them being worth $100s of millions.

"Another Day" ? Got a link?

 

[ProgMatinee]

object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/um6Xcib6IIE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/um6Xcib6IIE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

maybe its not legit, i just googled new MJ songs and got this

 

[Kuzeh]

You may not like the comparisons, but remove yourself from your position of MJ infatuation for a second. Tupac released nearly as many albums after he died than he did when alive, from my understanding. If Jackson has 100 unreleased songs, that makes him Tupac-lite in this sense

You realize that Michael Jackson released close to 30 albums during all of his career right?...
I understand what you're saying, but comparing it to Tupac because of that is just ridiculous...

And you certainly can compare MJ to the Beatles in terms of the richness of their respective discographies. Like Prog says, you can hear almost any Beatles song on the radio on a given day. Not just Yesterday or She Loves You, but nearly anything they made! Even songs that were never released as singles are well known to people who are only casual listeners. Can you say that about MJ?

I'm pretty sure right now you can hear more MJ than the Beatles... for obvious reasons
but let's talk about it in 30 years... right now it's just pointless assumption.

And it's also pointless to compare them!

I'm not surprised to hear that Europeans might like MJ's "Wings"-era work. But then, they also love David Hasselhoff. Not that Americans have much better taste

Hey, by overseas I meant most of the rest of the world besides America as a continent... that includes Africa, Asia and Australia...

And some of his more deep and creative music was released in the 90's, I'm sure it wasn't appreciated because it was a bit ahead for it's time... believe me...
You probably can't appreciate it because you're already clouded by your prejudice, but if you decide to listen to it without that...
You'll find some astonishing tracks produced by MJ.

Using Beatles songs in commercials and ads SUCKS to me. It's called "selling out", I thought it was stupid when the Jacksons did it for Pepsi and it's stupid when bands do it now. Look at Nirvana...Kurt Cobain was always totally against using any of Nirvana's music to help sell merchandise for companies. When he died, his wife sold off rights and then you see Nirvana songs in commercials & ads and it just seems cheesy, campy and cheap. I'm all for hearing unreleased music or companies making action figures of bands, anything that pays tribute to the actual artists (I'm even cool with the Rock Band Beatles game!)... but I don't need to hear their songs to get me to buy a certain toothpaste or computer, that's lame.

My thoughts exactly...
listening to artists music on commercials just "cheapens' it for me...
I don't know why people consider this an "accomplishment"...

 

[ProgMatinee]

Using Beatles songs in commercials and ads SUCKS to me. It's called "selling out", I thought it was stupid when the Jacksons did it for Pepsi and it's stupid when bands do it now. Look at Nirvana...Kurt Cobain was always totally against using any of Nirvana's music to help sell merchandise for companies. When he died, his wife sold off rights and then you see Nirvana songs in commercials & ads and it just seems cheesy, campy and cheap. I'm all for hearing unreleased music or companies making action figures of bands, anything that pays tribute to the actual artists (I'm even cool with the Rock Band Beatles game!)... but I don't need to hear their songs to get me to buy a certain toothpaste or computer, that's lame.

feelings about it aside, thats the stuff that gives the catalog "value". which is what this thread is referring to. i don't see a slew of ways to capitalize on the MJ catalog, especially when the fascination of his death wears out in a few years. It might be a great move for MJ fans, but IMO its a bad investment on Sony's part. They bought high. There is nowhere but down to go for the value of MJs catalog. The Beatles catalog is at least a sustainable investment where they will get constant royalties from all the commercials and stuff.

 

[Kuzeh]

feelings about it aside, thats the stuff that gives the catalog "value". which is what this thread is referring to. i don't see a slew of ways to capitalize on the MJ catalog, especially when the fascination of his death wears out in a few years.

How can you say that, if the very reason you're posting here is because of your feelings...

The Beatles were the greatest band ever, we know it, everybody knows it... but you fail to acknowledge that Michael jackson was the greatest entertainer, and just FYI, that "fascination" has lasted 41 years already...

 

[ProgMatinee]

How can you say that, if the very reason you're posting here is because of your feelings...

The Beatles were the greatest band ever, we know it, everybody knows it... but you fail to acknowledge that Michael jackson was the greatest entertainer, and just FYI, that "fascination" has lasted 41 years already...

My personal feelings about "selling out" on commerials has nothing to do with what 6 billion other people on the planet do, or how businesses approach things. I may not like selling out, but its a legitimate money making strategy, which IMO MJs catalog doesn't add up to the money being offered his estate here.

I don't think his music translates into 20 second snippets for commercials like the Beatles do. You might be personally glad it doesn't, but you didn't fork out $200m or whatever for the rights to do that. I think Sony thinks his catalog can sell cars or cell phones or something, I think they will be sorely mistaken. His list of awesome songs just isn't big enough. He's got some great songs, don't get me wrong, but there is only so many times his top 10 songs can be used to sell stuff. The Beatles however have like I said about 50 songs that translate well for money making ventures.

 

[die]

feelings about it aside, thats the stuff that gives the catalog "value". which is what this thread is referring to. i don't see a slew of ways to capitalize on the MJ catalog, especially when the fascination of his death wears out in a few years. It might be a great move for MJ fans, but IMO its a bad investment on Sony's part. They bought high. There is nowhere but down to go for the value of MJs catalog. The Beatles catalog is at least a sustainable investment where they will get constant royalties from all the commercials and stuff.

Let's just say for instance that you love The Beatles & you think Michael Jackson was just some sicko, child molesting , skin bleaching flash-in-the-pan pop star (for the sake of argument). OK, I can understand that, but that's just a matter of opinion. The flip side of the coin could be from a person who thinks that Michael Jackson was an amazingly talented unique person and the Beatles were a pop group that made alot of drug-influenced non-sensical songs and were self-destructive or failures when trying to achieve success as solo artists. OK, I can understand that, but that's just a matter of opinion.



The problem lies with people trying to deny the facts.....


-Jackson's Billie Jean was the first video by a black artist to air on MTV.

-Three of Jackson's albums - Bad, Dangerous and Thriller - are among the bestsellers of all time.

-Thriller remains the biggest-selling album since records began.

-Jackson has sold more than 300 million records worldwide.

-Jackson was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of The Jackson 5 on May 6, 1997. He was inducted as a solo artist on March 19, 2001.

-Jackson has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame: one for radio play, located at 1541 Vine Street, and one for recording at 6927 Hollywood Boulevard.

-Jackson's music video for Thriller was voted the greatest music video of all time in a recent Channel 4 (UK) poll.

- Jackson won an MTV Movie Award for Best Movie Song in 1994 for his song Will You Be There from the movie Free Willy.

- The Scream music video Jackson made with sister Janet is the most expensive promo ever made, costing more than $7 million (#3.8 million).

- Jackson's double album HIStory is the biggest selling double album ever released in the U.S.

- Jackson's Blood on the Dance Floor is the biggest selling re-mix album of all time.

- Jackson owns the patent for a stage shoe device that allows performers to lean forward and appear to defy gravity.

- Jackson co-wrote charity anthem We Are The World with Lionel Richie.

- Jackson's performance during the 1993 SuperBowl half-time show drew the largest TV audience in American history.

- The directors of Jackson's videos have included Martin Scorsese, John Singleton and John Landis.

- An extensive 1997 survey declared Jackson was the Most Famous Person in the World.

-Thriller spent 37 weeks at number one in the US Billboard chart.

- In 1984 he won eight Grammy’s – the joint highest amount ever won by one person in a single year

-Two of his other albums – Bad and Dangerous – are also among the world’s best-selling records

-He won 13 Grammy Awards

-The Jackson 5’s number one hits included “I Want You Back,” “ABC” and “I’ll Be There”

- Jackson’s 13 number one hits on the US Billboard charts put him behind only Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Mariah Carey

-In 1992 he founded the Heal the World Foundation




People still listen to old Jackson 5 songs and Michael Jackson songs, he's still breaking records and Hot Toys still continues to make Michael Jackson figures. He's still influencing artists and "This is It" was a huge success. To think that all of that is just going to fade away in a few years and be forgotten over time seems hard to fathom. Especially since his music has ALREADY been around and remembered for so long.


It just seems that when people just flat out don't like somebody, it's impossible for them to accept facts.

 

[karamazov80]

You probably can't appreciate it because you're already clouded by your prejudice, but if you decide to listen to it without that...

Dude, I grew up with MJ just like many on these boards, and there is no prejudice now that I didn't have when I was 10-11 years old, that won't be here when I'm 50 or 100. Just like I'm sure that your irrational love for the guy will remain well into the future. Maybe he was more creative in the 1990s, but that didn't translate into good music. John Lennon was arguably more creative doing his thing with Yoko, but the vast majority of that music blew.

And just so you know, I think that your bias outweighs my bias!

 

[ProgMatinee]

Your facts don't have a lot of creedance to whether this is a worthy investment. I'm not mentioning my personal feelings in this thread, merely comparing his music catalog depth and the catalog's ability to 1)sell records into the future and 2)be sold for other uses to earn royalties.

Up until his death MJs stuff was almost tainted. It was used licensed to movies or commercials almost exclusively as jokes. It was almost as bad as Styx "Mr Roboto".

Now he died and he's getting the positive attention, but how long will that live?

Does his catalog have sustained marketability?

In the early 90s WB thought Prince would be worth $100,000,000. He's been pretty much irrelevant since. I think this is simply Sony overpaying based on current hype. I don't think it will last and Sony is going to be very sorry.

We'll see, but IMO it doesn't, at least not to the value Sony thinks it does.

 

[die]

I don't think his music translates into 20 second snippets for commercials like the Beatles do. You might be personally glad it doesn't, but you didn't fork out $200m or whatever for the rights to do that. I think Sony thinks his catalog can sell cars or cell phones or something, I don't.

You could probably use "Thriller" or "Billie Jean" to sell anything...why? Maybe because they are 2 of the most recognizable songs EVER from 2 of the most recognizable videos EVER and both come from the best selling album EVER. If you can get consumers to think of your product along with those songs, it's gonna rain cash for you. Try walking up to some kids these days and ask them some questions about the Rolling Stones or The Beatles...just try it. MJ also has appeal between blacks & whites. How many black people do you know who are gonna run to the dance floor when a Beatles song comes on?

companies like Sony & Hot Toys invest in MJ because they know it's a wise investment.

 

[ProgMatinee]

My whole point is outside 7-10 songs, there is little else in the Jackson catalog worthy of such a high investment.

The Beatles have 50+ songs that are instantly recognizable.

And I would say A LOT of kids know the Beatles. I'm only 32 and I knew the Beatles growing up in the 80s. I would say kids know them now, especially with the Rock Band game.

And while people may not "dance" to a Beatles song, I wouldn't be so shallow as to say the only music black people know is what they dance too... I have a black friend that absolutely loves Johnny Cash, I've never spoken to him about the Beatles, but I guess I can ask.

 

[Kuzeh]

My personal feelings about "selling out" on commerials has nothing to do with what 6 billion other people on the planet do, or how businesses approach things. I may not like selling out, but its a legitimate money making strategy, which IMO MJs catalog doesn't add up to the money being offered his estate here.

The problem is that you're failing to acknowledge the influence MJ's music still has...
You know that there has been an MJ musical playing in London for over a year already? Using MJ's music?
They are also planning a Cirque du Soleil play?

I don't think his music translates into 20 second snippets for commercials like the Beatles do. You might be personally glad it doesn't, but you didn't fork out $200m or whatever for the rights to do that. I think Sony thinks his catalog can sell cars or cell phones or something, I think they will be sorely mistaken. His list of awesome songs just isn't big enough. He's got some great songs, don't get me wrong, but there is only so many times his top 10 songs can be used to sell stuff. The Beatles however have like I said about 50 songs that translate well for money making ventures.

Oh boy... yeah sure...
that's why his music has been around for 41 years!!
BTW, about 40 of his songs have been on the top 100 around the world
and about 25 of them in the top 20...

The problem lies with people trying to deny the facts.....



People still listen to old Jackson 5 songs and Michael Jackson songs, he's still breaking records and Hot Toys still continues to make Michael Jackson figures. He's still influencing artists and "This is It" was a huge success. To think that all of that is just going to fade away in a few years and be forgotten over time seems hard to fathom. Especially since his music has ALREADY been around and remembered for so long.


It just seems that when people just flat out don't like somebody, it's impossible for them to accept facts.

My thoughts exactly...

Dude, I grew up with MJ just like many on these boards, and there is no prejudice now that I didn't have when I was 10-11 years old, that won't be here when I'm 50 or 100. Just like I'm sure that your irrational love for the guy will remain well into the future. Maybe he was more creative in the 1990s, but that didn't translate into good music. John Lennon was arguably more creative doing his thing with Yoko, but the vast majority of that music blew.

Sorry but it is GREAT music...
You might not like it... but just from a technical point of view it's way better than anything he released prior to that... also the production values, lyrics and message from his 90's music is more powerful than his late 90's early 80's stuff...

And just so you know, I think that your bias outweighs my bias!

OK that was funny...

 

[The Monster]

object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/um6Xcib6IIE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/um6Xcib6IIE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

maybe its not legit, i just googled new MJ songs and got this

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/rL7wOwoGSNw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/rL7wOwoGSNw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[ProgMatinee]

I think we're going around and around. I like some of MJs music. I'm not dissing it. I'm just saying I don't think its worth the money Sony thinks it is.

If this forum is still here in 10 years we can revisit this and see if Sony is regretting the decision.

If someone wants to convince me otherwise, feel free to post a list of MJ songs you think are "marketable" for commercials or tv shows, etc. I'll come back and give you a Beatles list about 5x longer.

 

[BadMoon]

Jackson Fans and Avatard fans are the same.

 

[Vincent Shaw]

meh, Joe probably gonna die soon anyway

(wink wink, innocent nudge towards hitman)

 

[Annika]

Up until his death MJs stuff was almost tainted. It was used licensed to movies or commercials almost exclusively as jokes. It was almost as bad as Styx "Mr Roboto".

This quote strikes me as incorrect. In fact, MJ's solo work (i.e. not the Jackson 5 stuff) is well known for being one of the hardest licenses in the industry to obtain. When he was alive, MJ kept a very tight rein on his own work, and it was only licensed with his personal approval (for the Rush Hour movies, for example, both the director and Chris Tucker were close personal friends of MJ's). As far as I know, the only licensed use of his music in commercials since the Pepsi relationship broke down is the ad where the lizards do the Thriller dance (again, personally approved by MJ).

If I'm missing something here, though, do let me know!