I'd suggest you have a listen as it's better to judge an album after you've heard it


but if you hear it you might feel differently


I've never heard anyone say such a thing before, and it seems a strange choice of artists to compare him too. but those artists made quite different types of music, and it was very different to what MJ did. dance music can lend itself well to being remixed, and people have been doing all sorts of house and dance mixes of 70s disco/soul/funk tracks for decades, some good, some bad, and some big hits


I wonder if the writer forgot about the beatles anthology sessions where they took lennon demos and added new backing tracks etc to turn them into "new" beatles tracks. or "love" by the beatles which remixed their material in a mashup style

however his music doesn't really suit that type of work, and a notable difference is that his most basic demos usually have him playing guitar or piano, and in a format that's releasable and sellable to fans, and there was a lennon boxset of his demos released in 98


the thing about this release is you get both the original versions and new versions. people complained about the last release which was poor and many said they would have preferred the unedited demos, so that's what you get here

many fans of artists want more material, especially old stuff from the vaults, and they are being given it. some of the reworkings do improve the original versions, notably the title track. they could have just taken a load of demos untouched and stuck them out but it probably wouldn't sell well either. I'm sure this will end up another flash in the pan, but it's an improvement over the last one. none of the tracks are amazing by any means but some of them are better than other unreleased stuff that people have been listening to for years. personally I'd like to see them stick out more alternate unreleased versions of well known tracks, such as the early version of beat it that was much rockier

you should at least have a listen and make your own mind up

If the Rolling Stone review is correct, where it mentions 'dubstep eruptions', I doubt it.

Part of the magic of MJ's music is how timeless it sounds, and how tracks from 30 years ago do not sound dated.

As of now, May 2014, dubstep has (thankfully) declined into insignificance, and already sounds dated.

I am a huge MJ fan, and am smart enough to know that due to his notoriously 'devoted' fans, entering a thread with anything less than glowing praise is akin to putting one's head into a lion's mouth.

For all the criticism of 'Michael', I quite like the album, and appreciate that the tracks do not sound over-contemporised.

The official video with JT for LNFSG is on You Tube now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG08ukJPtR8

it's not something that stuck out to me or how I would describe anything on it


I think a lot of his stuff sounds dated, but sounding dated or old isn't always a bad thing. remember of course you have the original untouched tracks as well as updated version


it's an old genre so it's been sounding dated for a long time. but there is nothing remotely dubstep about the album


yeah, but the fans seem to be split on it, but fairweather fans who didn't expect anything decent from the remixes seem to be pleasantly surprised. but in saying that, the general consensus is the album is "alright", nothing fantastic, but the best thing about it is the original versions


if you liked Michael you will probably like this more. the remixes aren't much different to the idea of the last one, it's just this one is more cohesive and works better. apart from behind the mask, of which it's a shame the original version wasn't included, the songs on this album are better than the last, but none of them are great by any means. put it this way, none of them were good enough to be put on any albums that were released, and the ones that were released got patchier from bad onwards, especially the 90s albums

also it's ironic how he mentions not liking remixes in his interview considering he didn't play anything or mix anything himself, plus he agreed to a cash in half remix album

Thanks for your help!
I didn't like my itunes saying they were all 2014 when they aren't! (Music OCD). As Xscape was originally for the Invincible album I don't know if I should put it down as 2001? Was Chicago produced for Invincible too?
Also if "A Place With No Name" was produced in 1998..what album was it for?

It could well have been for the album "Invincible", although there seems to be limited information about it online. The song was re-worked during the early "Invincible" recording sessions.

There's a good article here about the history of the song - http://www.damienshields.com/michael-jacksons-a-place-with-no-name-the-story-behind-the-song/.

I wonder why they didn't put this song on Xscape?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMQ3jwqH_lU

Thanks for all the info!

I think if the songs were any good, he would have released them in his lifetime

Than you're incorrect. There could be a whole host of reasons why songs never made an album. Legal issues, lack of space, it was unfinished, disagreements between writers... it's not just about the quality of the song.

Loads of fantastic songs were left off Bad simply because MJ and QJ had set themselves a definite limit of 10 track. (I think that was Quincy Jones rule as oppose to MJs).

I like the demos. Xscape sounds finished. The song I mean. Still though, Justin Timberlake and Bieber featuring on songs? I just can't..

I love Slave To The Rhythm. Its my song of the year so far.

I heard an suggested album version that i think was based on the demos alone.... but the new productions add a freshness and totality of a remaster and production that they would receive if they were eventually recorded for an album. I like the honesty of the intention...and the inclusion of the original recorded demos. I actually liked 'Michael' tbh despite obvious session singer vocals.

If you watch the Bad 25 documentary they talk about all the songs that made the album and crews initial reaction to some of the songs, can you believe that Smooth Criminal was not liked by most of the crew and could have easily been cut. Who is to say why some of these songs were cut in the first place, it not like every song on a officially released album were all great, there a few on Dangerous and History that i skip. I don't like a lot on Blood on the Dance Floor and I don't think I have listened to all of Invincible more than once.

The song Carousel was intended for Thriller but never made the final selection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycG4BVbSzYM

Before the CD era, the LP album running time was about 40 mins so some songs - finished ones worthy of selection - would not make the track list. In hindsight, Love Never Felt So Good would have made a great single release in between the release of Thriller and Bad.

That is a pretty good track never heard it before but have found there is a edited version on my Thriller special edition CD, why the hell did they cut it down to 1:49?

I presumed it was down to the space on the cd..I just checked my copy and the cd is just over 72 minutes. I am unsure what the maximum time is for official cds? I know cd-r's go up to 80 minutes. I didn't realise there was a 4 minute version so thanks for that! (don't know why the video has 4 minute of nothing at the end?)

what ever happened to the duets with Freddie Mercury...many people in the know say they were exceptional....and there were musings that the songs were being reproduced and remastered ...so I expected them on the Xscape album.....

The remaining members of Queen are supposed to be working on them.

Anyone watched the DVD on the deluxe version?

I have.

Anyone think the inclusion of track 'Do You Know Where Your Children Are' is rather ironic or in unintentional bad taste given the sex crimes allegations made against Jackson? The song includes the lyrics:


Had MJ not died I wonder if he'd have left that song in the archives? I guess so. He always maintained he was innocent and never abused children (there's been new allegations made about Jackson) but it does seem an inappropriate choice of song to put on a post-death Jackson album. Sony might be showing Jackson a bit of disrespect, perhaps. The song itself is quite good, though.

I have listened to it and I think the whole album is fantastic. Just goes to show that he had the songs, it was other stuff in his petsonal life etc and probably politics behind the scenes too which stopped further music being released. I'm listening to this online though. It's a fantastic album, but Sony couldn't care less about MJ...it's just a money making exercise and I refuse to pay them a penny. As amazing the album is, I also can't help but think that Michael might not have wanted any if these released...he may have wanted them changed, may have disliked some of them. Also, I don't think they should have included 'Do You Know Where Your Children Are At?' Michael always insisted that he was innocent of all the allegations against him, and so to put a song like that on the album, especially with those lyrics, I just don't believe for a second that he would have wanted that. Anyway, my favourite tracks are: Xscape, Blue Gangsta, Chicago, Love Never Felt So Good and A Place With No Name. I actually think A Place With No Name would have been a huge hot for him...it's classic Michael but just sounds and feels so good.

Pretty good album, if you buy the deluxe edition. 35 minutes for the standard edition is too short IMHO and it's nowhere near as interesting without the original tracks.


Probably. I've seen albums go to 80 before but technically they are right on the edge of the spec. I've never ran into anything that can't read them properly but that possibility exists. It's a bit strange though. If it was an 80s release I could understand the caution but wasn't that album released in 2001. No drives from that era should have a problem reading an 80 minute disc.

Michael Jackson returns this evening!