Nearly a year and half after his death, Michael Jackson has a new album out this week. The record, simply titled "Michael," is a collection of previously unreleased material, unfinished tracks, and B-sides, mostly from the latter stages of the megastar's career. But "Michael" has stirred considerable controversy, with critics saying the vocals have been manipulated so much that it's not clear it's actually Jackson singing, and fans and celebrities have expressed outrage that the material is even seeing the light of day. Is "Michael" any good — and would the superstar have approved of it?
It is not bad, but leaves you wondering: "Michael" is "arguably stronger" than Jackson's 2001 release, Invincible, says Leah Greenblatt at Entertainment Weekly. It's a "solid" effort "as far as musical epitaphs go" — the "airy, danceable" track "Monster" is a highlight. But Jackson was famously a perfectionist in the studio, and listening to the album, "it's hard not to not wonder what he would have done differently — or if he would have wanted us to hear it at all."
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.