Tomorrow the big Michael Jackson reveal?

Be the 1st to vote.

The stories around Michael Jackson seem to be peaking, all surrounding the fourth anniversary of the . One interesting story I recently heard is that Michael Jackson was replaced at the Pepsi commercial incident, where we were told his hair caught fire and he was burned.

The stories around his 0;children” are too silly to believe for me. I don’t believe he was biologically related to any of the actors that portrayed his children.

He was one of the most secretive men in showbiz but Michael Jackson made a startling confession just a few months before he died.The King of Pop revealed that British actor Mark Lester is the father of his daughter Paris and eldest son Prince.

via Michael Jackson ‘revealed that Mark Lester was Paris and Prince’s father just before he died, friend Jason Pfeiffer claims – 3am & Mirror Online.

Let’s see if anything exciting is revealed tomorrow.

4 thoughts on “Tomorrow the big Michael Jackson reveal?

  1. Jan ERik

    As i do understand it:
    Artists are owned by music industry and are the property of the record label and management ETC…
    Its like slavery and SAD i think !!!
    They do as they are told and cant decide anything inn that contract they have as the record label own their PERSONA.

    Might be wrong maybe and like feedback on my wiew.
    As artists i think they are property of the corporate enteties they have contract with.

    1. Aral Sea

      Jan: I think you are right to some degree. I dont think they become total slaves unless they allow it. MJ was hooked on fame as he was a “star” most of his life therefore could never live without it.

      If the record label owns their persona, I can believe that (Lady Gaga is a persona, a character). But the private person (Lady Gaga is really Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta) might still be free from that. Lesser stars can walk away and live in peace but major stars have to deal with it for the rest of their lives.

    2. Blue Moon

      The trends engineered by corporate entertainment leviathans require personas to maintain the trends; when the trends are shifted, the performer and his/her persona stops getting promoted and either fades away, “dies” to cash in on the post-mortem nostalgia spike (see Elvis for the template) or is repurposed as something else because the performer rates well as a personality more than as whatever their specialty was (singer, actor etc.) Cher is an interesting example of someone who is continuously reinvented to stay ahead of her shifting demographics, selling well in a variety of mediums while evidencing only a modest amount of talent, but spurred on by a great PR machine- The bottom line is the bottom line, ie, John Lennon’s solo stuff was sub-standard in my opinion, but a dead Lennon is way more profitable for the Beatle catalogue and their subsequent rereleases than that angry wanker continually telling fans the Beatles are dead and Yoko’s “talents” should be your concern now- (And, oddly enough, right after Michael Jackson’s “death” Sony rereleased the Beatle library which Jackson owned in some form-)

      1. Aral Sea

        And The Beatles remasters were released on 09-09-09…mono and stereo versions.

        Yes, a dead artist makes more money. Lennon, Elvis, MJ, Hendrix.

        Cher is an oddity, lucky to be still popular because she can reinvent herself.
        Dylan is regarded as a legend and still makes music that is praised.
        The Stones, Beach Boys & The Who live off their past and incorporate video footage of deceased members in their shows now.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.