Michael Jackson album - worth picking up or in bad taste?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Jul 2005, 17:01

I mean the "Essential Michael Jackson" CD or something CD thats just been released by Sony.
Sure there are many classics on it (early Jackson 5, 80's stuff), but is it in poor taste to release it so soon after the trial?

Obviously he needs to rebuild his career but still

The pic of Jackson on the cover looks really wierd as well...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Jul 2005, 17:10

How is it weird?

It's just Michael from 20 years ago but maybe that makes him look weird

. They should've used a more up to date photo but then again no one would buy it :rr:

As for the CD lets not forget Michael got off. As for whether you should pick it up that depends. Out of his last 4 albums only the crud "Invincible" was solely based on new material.

There was the great "HIStory" which disc 1 was Greatest Hits, then there was "Blood on the Dance Floor" containing a select few new tracks, the rest were awful remixes of older material and now there is "The Essential" another Greatest Hits.

I already own HIStory it's enough for me. Would I buy a new Michael Jackson album of new material YES but only IF it was decent not crud like "Invincible". "Dangerous" was and still is an excellent album (his last decent solely new material album). The new material on "HIStory" was mostly good.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Jul 2005, 18:02

This Greatest Hits is supposed to very good, only spoilt slightly by crud like Heal The World on Disc 2.

Its' all old stuff, the most recent track being You Rock My World from a few years back (which I never cared for).

You're right I can place the photo now - it just looks odd looking at it now..

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Jul 2005, 18:54

Personally I'd prefer to own MJ and the Jackson Five separately.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Jul 2005, 19:41

Why? I'll admit I havent heard "much" of the Jackson 5 work apart from I Want You Back, Rockin' Robin etc, so I thought it would be interesting to hear

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Jul 2005, 21:18

Because they're two seperate beasts.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 24 Jul 2005, 07:26

OK fair enough

I'm not sure when he first went alone, was it 1979? Up until then he was still performing with his brothers (under the name "The Jacksons").