Is HMH not quite as it seems?

[jacilovesmichael]

Thanks for all your insight on this, guys. I had heard the original version of this song a long time ago, so when I heard the version with MJ I was kind of disappointed that it sounded exactly like the original. Nothing new. Not a bad song, but I would have to agree with it being somewhat "weak" (in MJ standards, which are high). I didn't initially get the homosexual vibe, BUT...I just remembered an interesting convo I had with a friend the other day about the new song "Do you know where your children are". I sent the link to my friend in Chicago to check it out. He said he'd have to listen to it a bit later but he asked me what it was called. When I told him the title, he's like "whoa, really? that's an interesting choice for a title..." hinting towards the child molestation charges. The song itself is simply amazing and not creepy in any way, but certainly someone had to realize that giving it that title would raise some eyebrows unfortunately. Perhaps that is the point though.

Wow, Jaci...I seemed to have a light bulb moment when reading your post. Previous to it, I was thinking that HMH was just a song. Don't try to overanalyze it....but add Do You Know Where Your Children Are and it  makes me think there are no such things as coincidences. I'm hot to have a listen to Monster too.
This has to be strategic to the hoax. It seems Mike is throwing these things in the world's face. Where it can't be ignored. I'd say our boy is understandably really pissed off. It reminds me of  Is It Scary. where he says
I'm gonna be exactly what you wanna see
It's you whose haunting me Your warning me
To be the stranger in your life
Am I amusing you or just confusing you
Am I the beast you visualize.
And if you wanna see eccentrialities I'll be grotesque before your eyes
Let them all materialize.
But if you came to see the truth and purity
It's here inside a lonely heart
So let the performance start......
As far as HMH goes, I love it. Nice song....but the controversy is on purpose....hoax purpose. I don't understand how it all will unfold, but I intend to keep watching the performance of the greatest show on earth.

That's what I'm thinking too! It all has to be strategic. I didn't think of any of those negative things about these songs, but I simply know that some OTHER people will. And those lyrics you pointed out show exactly what I mean.

[Snoopy71]

Missed the quote but I think it is Snoopy

The reason why the woman does not have a slim waist is because then there would be no M, it would look like an undecipherable alphabet.

Yeah, that was me  ....I see what you mean...so we are meant to see the letter moreso than the shapes? (I know that sounds weird).  If that's the case then it would tweak my perspective of it and whose behind it.

couldn't they have used two children to achieve that same effect or would that become even more controversial ?

Well, see that's the thing!...Thank you for that.... if they did do that, then it seems weird to have a "grown-up" song with kids holding hands on the cover.  I know people are getting all upset about suggesting a "gay" undertone to it, but how it's presented that can make you percieve it a certain way. If they did use two little kids, then what? What would people be saying then? would they be confused about  the context of the song?

But if you hear the song and see the single cover, the outward observer is going to take it for the "literal"...they aren't seeing an "M" for Michael or thinking of it in hoax terms. They hear two men singing an ambiguous love song and see an ambiguous art cover...what conclusion are they going to naturally come to?

(by ambiguous I mean there is no gender reference)

check out the attached picture...you tell me if this is a man and woman holding hands or two men? :geek:

[Datroot]

When I hear the song I don't hear negativity but I do when I look at the cover.  Only because it can be taken two ways - I think the ambiguity speaks for itself.

[Snoopy71]

I have to agree.  When something is ambiguous and unclear, it never takes certain elements of society long to get the wrong idea.  There is definately a game plan here.

Thank you!...that's all I was trying to say... it's sad that society thinks that way, but it's real.

That was my "knee jerk" reaction to first hearing the song and seeing this cover.  It's no different than say seeing two women kissing and hugging each other on the street.  My first "knee jerk" reaction would be to think they were gay...when in fact they could have been a mother - daughter. Things aren't always so obvious until they are explained or researched and sadly not alot of people are going to research such things...they are just going to go on their initial assumption.

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here because if people are here reading these forum threads, they obviously "get it"....they "see" things differently already...you know the meaning behind things Michael does....that's not true for everyone else.

maybe this is part of the plan to re educate people's minds...but I've honestly never had that reaction to any of Michael's other songs he's collaborated on. Go figure  :|

[Datroot]

I have to agree.  When something is ambiguous and unclear, it never takes certain elements of society long to get the wrong idea.  There is definately a game plan here.

Thank you!...that's all I was trying to say... it's sad that society thinks that way, but it's real.

That was my "knee jerk" reaction to first hearing the song and seeing this cover.  It's no different than say seeing two women kiss and hug each other on the street.  My first "knee jerk" reaction would be to think they were gay...when in fact they could have been a mother - daughter. Things aren't always so obvious until they are explained or researched and sadly not alot of people are going to research such things...they are just going to go on their initial assumption.

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here because if people are here reading these forum threads, they obviously "get it"....they "see" things differently already...you know the meaning behind things Michael does....that's not true for everyone else.

Yes - you only stop to wonder when something is ambiguous - someone obviously meant it that way to make people wonder.   Its a bit like the Say Say Say cover where you could plainly see MJ and Paul McCartney holding hands - I often used to wonder why they did the cover that way.

[simalves]

I think it is just unfortunate. This is how much they destroyed Michael's image and why Michael would have found it a hurdle to release music all these years. I think a lot of songs can now be misinterpreted and all the parody songs come to mind.

If there were no allegations, would people think this about his song. If people are questioning this track, they are the ones who refuse his legacy to be stain free. They are constantly trying to insinuate all sorts of negative things about him. I am just glad that on youtube where the views are going up so fast, there are just 2% listeners who think this track is bad. And we the 98*% can surely drown them out. We owe it to Michael.

I would say just ignore the negativity and try to spread positivity. A thread like this on this forum means that we are doubting Michael, why should we be concerned about it having a gay vibe, do we believe he was gay? And even if he was, would we love him less??

Even Michael can make mistakes, maybe he meant this song and the picture to just be one of brotherly love, he must now be upset that even part of the Michael's army of love doubt his actions.

[simalves]

I have to agree.  When something is ambiguous and unclear, it never takes certain elements of society long to get the wrong idea.  There is definately a game plan here.

Thank you!...that's all I was trying to say... it's sad that society thinks that way, but it's real.

That was my "knee jerk" reaction to first hearing the song and seeing this cover.  It's no different than say seeing two women kiss and hug each other on the street.  My first "knee jerk" reaction would be to think they were gay...when in fact they could have been a mother - daughter. Things aren't always so obvious until they are explained or researched and sadly not alot of people are going to research such things...they are just going to go on their initial assumption.

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here because if people are here reading these forum threads, they obviously "get it"....they "see" things differently already...you know the meaning behind things Michael does....that's not true for everyone else.

Yes - you only stop to wonder when something is ambiguous - someone obviously meant it that way to make people wonder.   Its a bit like the Say Say Say cover where you could plainly see MJ and Paul McCartney holding hands - I often used to wonder why they did the cover that way.

I don't think the world was that corrupt those days. Right now everything anyone does or says has a double meaning and I am tired of it already.

[Datroot]

Response to Simsalves post before last -

We don't doubt - we are just acknowledging that there are people out there who will and the ambiguity on the cover will only add to it.  Personally, I don't hear any ambiguity in the song itself - just on the cover - which is open to interpretation.  I think most, if not all of us here don't doubt MJ at all.

[suspicious mind]

anyone considered the possibilty of friendship turned romance .make any sense?

[peterpanswendy]

I looked further into this, and I still see nothing gay about this at all. Men do songs together all the time, sometimes with disgusting lyrics, but nobody ever has anything to say about that. Nothing about this song or cover looks or sounds gay. It doesn't even look like two men, even if it was, it's not a big deal, I hold hands with friends of the same gender all the time, am I a lesbian now? No, not at all. I love men. That's just me and my friends loving each other and having fun together. Plus, if they were gay, which I do NOT believe to be true, so what, what does this have to do with anything? I know we are some hardcore investigators and we look into everything, but this is just off the wall, no pun intended. And narrow-minded. Just my opinion

XOXO

[trublu]

You know bec, I looked at the cover and the first thing I thought was, ok that makes an M and a V.

Second thing I thought was, who are those two guys holding hands?
Though I agree with Serenity that on a closer inspection one wrist is more feminine.

Now, my thought is, either

1) Sony really are the bad guys and are trying to make Michael look gay (although why ANYONE would have a problem if he WAS gay is beyond me-hello! it's 2010 not the stone age!!) and releasing the album and simoutaneously sabotaging Michaels name (this theory doesn't make too much sense to me)

2) Michael is behind it and wants to shake up peoples perceptions or even just cause controversy (possible)

3) We are reading too much into it. (possible)

Right now my brain is a mushy fuzzy mess so who knows.  :lol:

[backstager]

Its funny you bring this up. Just yesterday I played this song for my little brother, who is ten years old, from YouTube. The very first thing out of his mouth was, "Is that supposed to be Akon and Michael holding hands?" Of course I told him no and pointed out the differences of the two.

My personal opinion is he's stirring up controversy, as usual. I don't think Sony is out to get him or any of that jazz. I just think he's doing what he used to do, just without people knowing he's behind it. Know what I mean?

[truthprevails]

I looked further into this, and I still see nothing gay about this at all. Men do songs together all the time, sometimes with disgusting lyrics, but nobody ever has anything to say about that. Nothing about this song or cover looks or sounds gay. It doesn't even look like two men, even if it was, it's not a big deal, I hold hands with friends of the same gender all the time, am I a lesbian now? No, not at all. I love men. That's just me and my friends loving each other and having fun together. Plus, if they were gay, which I do NOT believe to be true, so what, what does this have to do with anything? I know we are some hardcore investigators and we look into everything, but this is just off the wall, no pun intended. And narrow-minded. Just my opinion

XOXO

I agree with the point that it shouldn't matter whether it's 2 men or 2 women or a parent and child... It's 2 people holding hands - since when is that wrong/bad, and WHY?!  There's nothing wrong with being gay, so why is anyone talking about "negativity" at all?

WE are the ones creating the controversy - ANY controversy - not MJ or anyone else.  If we were indifferent to MJ, this forum would not exist and we wouldn't be here (regardless of what MJ did or does)... It's our reactions to people's words and actions that create controversy.  MJ's life simply held a mirror onto us... in which we got and still get reflected.  That's all.  No one ever held a gun to our heads telling us what to think or do about MJ, if anything.  

This cover is, to me, a simple M and 2 people holding hands... I don't think "Oh wait, let me figure out who exactly that is!" And if this cover happened pre 6/25/2009, would we dissect it so much?

Other artists have dabbled in ambiguity of all sorts - including Prince, Freddie Mercury... WHY NOT?  Seems to make people go nuts, so it's a good marketing ploy.

[truthprevails]

Another thought:
MJ was someone who wanted to break barriers and walls of all kinds.  He promoted equality through his songs and everything else he did in life... He took on the issue of color, race, and nationality.  What if now he's taking on the issue of gay-ness, trying to send out a message that "it don't matter if you're straight or gay"?  There was a recent incident in the U.S. where a gay boy (college student) ended up committing suicide... Remember that Michael was sensitive to people's pain and sometimes wrote songs inspired by real stories of real people (Bad, Gone Too Soon)?  Maybe this is just another example of that.  Now I know HMH was written in 2007 or so, but maybe the cover was created recently and is ambiguous on purpose... And maybe it IS about gay-ness.  (I don't know, of course.  This is a possible theory.)

[looking4truth]

I am not going to say I totally disagree with bec because I did think of the homosexual overtones but I thought of that when I heard the demo. I figured that is not what they meant obviously but I did think of it. I just laughed it off and enjoyed the song. However, I'm actually surprise, no one didn't think that this could simply be a continuation of Michael's last single and video from Invincible--Cry. Throughout the video, there are people of different backgrounds, races, cultures, holding hands. It is also interesting that Michael is NOT in this video. It seems to be a prelude to this adventure we are on now. I think the message of Cry and Hold My Hand is similar and goes along with this adventure of L.O.V.E. and truth. I think the homosexual overtones could just be a coincidence? It's not there with Cry so I would say it could be just be our interpretations getting in the way of the important message or maybe you guys are onto something...what exactly...not sure. The video for Cry is below.

[youtube:o7z34xl1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj3MfUR35CM[/youtube:o7z34xl1]