Grammys & MJ post 1984 - can someone please explain to me how...

Themidwestcowboy

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,508
Points
113
Can someone explain to me how back on the block won a grammy for the album of the year in 89 and how Dangerous didn't win a single one two years later? Not to detract anything from Back on the block, but I just heard the album in it's entirety for the first time and my god, this must be one of the most generic sounding albums to ever win a grammy! Maybe that was why it won? Because it sounded so late 80's.. The songs were not bad or anything like that but imo that album just sounds extremely generic. I don't want to sound like a dangerous fanboy (which I am lol) but honestly Dangerous only won "Best Engineered Album - Non Classical" I really feel it deserved more. Dangerous was more edgier, more riskier in both themes and sound than Back on the Block. The ironic thing is if MJ would have released a Bryan Loren influenced album in late 89/early 90 with cuts like Superfly Sister, Work That Body etc, I bet he wouldn't have won a grammy even then. I also wonder why MJ didn't guest on Back On The Block?
 
Last edited:
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

America had turned its back on MJ by then, but he really didn't need awards, he was almost bigger than them. He was meeting heads of state for crying out loud.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Because what other album has both Ray Charles & Big Daddy Cane on it? :rofl: The Secret Garden still gets played on the Quiet Storm radio show today. Also look at the competition:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002UW5/rockonthenet-20Wilson Phillips - Wilson Phillips
MC Hammer - Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em
Phil Collins - But Seriously
Mariah Carey - Mariah Carey

All of these are pretty much Adult Contemporary style albums except for MC Hammer.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

America had turned its back on MJ by then, but he really didn't need awards, he was almost bigger than them. He was meeting heads of state for crying out loud.

Exactly this. MJ didn't need awards, but still it would an acknowledgement if he won more Grammys. I just can't understand why America left hime alone. I hope they feel stupid for what they did towards Mike, because they really don't know how to enjoy good music from Bad and Dangerous.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Because what other album has both Ray Charles & Big Daddy Cane on it? :rofl: The Secret Garden still gets played on the Quiet Storm radio show today. Also look at the competition:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002UW5/rockonthenet-20Wilson Phillips - Wilson Phillips
MC Hammer - Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em
Phil Collins - But Seriously
Mariah Carey - Mariah Carey

All of these are pretty much Adult Contemporary style albums except for MC Hammer.

You know what, I'm going to re-listen to all those albums...
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

What was up (and won) for album of the year when Dangerous was released?

(I turned my back on the Grammys back in 88).
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

The short answer: his image.

Long answer:

Remember in 1988 Bad didn't win any Grammys. Leading upto the '88 Grammys his image had been tainted. Unfortunately, at this time the media had began referring to him as (the term gets starred out but it's two words, the first begins with W and the second with J). He'd been labelled 'weird', 'he's changed his skin' and 'he sleeps in a hyperbaric chamber'. Nor could they understand his reclusiveness. His refusal to give interviews just spurred the media on even more to destroy him. The likelihood of Academy giving the awards to him, unfortunately, disappeared due to the negative publicity. He stood no chance.

Then came Dangerous by which time the media had made out he'd bleached his skin entirely. His skin looked, to somebody with no idea, to of of been bleached totally white now. It wasn't until the interview with Oprah that he revealed he suffered from vitiligo. That interview went a long way to helping the public understand him. They were given an inside look into Neverland and MJ himself. He also didn't show off Neverland totally to brag 'look what I have'. Areas such as the home and zoo were off limits. He instead chose to show the beds sick children could lie in to watch films as they were too ill to sit up.

It did wonders with the general public. Dangerous sales increased despite the album having come out in 1991. It managed to climb back up to number ten well over a year after its initial release. Billboard officials said they'd never seen such a rebound on the charts. Heal The World sales increased and received more air play. He then started to make more media appearances which only endeared him more to the general public who finally, in a sense, 'understood him'.

Unfortunately, the Jordy Chandler allegations hit and the repair done to his image was destroyed. MJ never stood a chance of winning Grammys with the image he'd been labelled with. Which is a huge shame. Had the Chandler saga never occurred, the history books may of seen him not only have dominated the 80's but the 90's as well. That would of been sensational.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

What was up (and won) for album of the year when Dangerous was released?

(I turned my back on the Grammys back in 88).

Dangerous came out near the end of 1991, so most likely it would have been eligible for the 1993 awards. The nominees for album were:

k.d. lang - Ingenue
Eric Clapton - Unplugged (winner)
Annie Lennox - Diva
U2 - Achtung Baby
Soundtrack - Beauty & The Beast

Eric was also the big winner for that year for Tears In Heaven
 
New Jack

New Jack Swing was beginning to go on the way out by the time Dangerous was released, and especially by 1993. It first began around 1985 and became big in 1987 & 1988 with acts like Keith Sweat, Guy, & Al B. Sure!. Then it crossed over with Bobby Brown. Maybe New Jack wasn't that known in countries outside the USA, but it was old here and a lot of it sounds alike if you hear it all the time. So that's probably why it wasn't nominated in the main categories. Many veteran acts had made New Jack songs or albums like James Brown, James Ingram, Aretha Franklin, & Boy George. Even The Jacksons 2300 Jackson Street had NJS songs on it and it came out 2 years before Dangerous. Randy's solo album with his group The Gypsys was also NJS and came out in 1989. Most New Jack acts was mainly known to the R&B audience, not many of them crossed over to the pop audience in the way Bobby did.
 
Re: New Jack

New Jack Swing was beginning to go on the way out by the time Dangerous was released, and especially by 1993. It first began around 1985 and became big in 1987 & 1988 with acts like Keith Sweat, Guy, & Al B. Sure!. Then it crossed over with Bobby Brown. Maybe New Jack wasn't that known in countries outside the USA, but it was old here and a lot of it sounds alike if you hear it all the time. So that's probably why it wasn't nominated in the main categories. Many veteran acts had made New Jack songs or albums like James Brown, James Ingram, Aretha Franklin, & Boy George. Even The Jacksons 2300 Jackson Street had NJS songs on it and it came out 2 years before Dangerous. Randy's solo album with his group The Gypsys was also NJS and came out in 1989. Most New Jack acts was mainly known to the R&B audience, not many of them crossed over to the pop audience in the way Bobby did.

I totally forgot about this aspect myself. Very good point.
 
Last edited:
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Jam didn't even hit the Top 10 on the Hot 100, but it did on the R&B chart. Give In To Me was more like the 1980s glam metal and not the grunge bands who replaced most of those acts around that time. I don't think it was released as a single in the US. Will You Be There became a Top 10 hit as part of the Free Willy Soundtrack, not Dangerous per se.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

America had turned its back on MJ by then, but he really didn't need awards, he was almost bigger than them

there's other american award shows than the Grammy's....and he still won lots of awards on those shows, throughout his life and beyond. and he did win a grammy in 1993, I know it wasn't for anything to do with the Dangerous album, but he still got one
 
Last edited:
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Can someone explain to me how back on the block won a grammy for the album of the year in 89 and how Dangerous didn't win a single one two years later? Not to detract anything from Back on the block, but I just heard the album in it's entirety for the first time and my god, this must be one of the most generic sounding albums to ever win a grammy! Maybe that was why it won? Because it sounded so late 80's.. The songs were not bad or anything like that but imo that album just sounds extremely generic. I don't want to sound like a dangerous fanboy (which I am lol) but honestly Dangerous only won "Best Engineered Album - Non Classical" I really feel it deserved more. Dangerous was more edgier, more riskier in both themes and sound than Back on the Block. The ironic thing is if MJ would have released a Bryan Loren influenced album in late 89/early 90 with cuts like Superfly Sister, Work That Body etc, I bet he wouldn't have won a grammy even then. I also wonder why MJ didn't guest on Back On The Block?

Good question. It actually won SEVEN Grammies, which is only one less than Thriller. Can you believe that? I saw an article about two years ago which listed the most undeserved Grammies of all times and Back on the Block was on top, so you are certainly not alone with your opinion about that album. And I agree too.

Not only the sound is very generic, but it's mainly just a buch of covers and rehashes. Most of the songs on it are songs of other artists which Q simply decided to re-record with a bunch of big name artists and with a sound that was fashionable at the time but also very generic. So very "original". LOL.

I think the Grammies are no different than other institutions: connections do matter. And Quincy has great connections within the industry.

Also let me tell you I made fun on Spotify by making playlists from past Grammy winners and there is a tendency I discovered in their taste and leanings of the Grammy board. While Rolling Stone or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has baby-boomer bias, the Grammies have other biases. In the 60s when the Beatles were great they hardly even got a Grammy, it was all about Frank Sinatra at the Grammies. That taste is still heavy in the Grammies choices. They definitely have a soft spot STILL for old crooners, swing, jazz, jazz-pop.

Even in the last 20 years Album of the Year winners included:

- Herbie Hancock
- Ray Charles
- Norah Jones
- Tony Bennett

And Quincy fits into that taste/tendency IMO.

Dangerous was more edgier, more riskier in both themes and sound than Back on the Block.

It's funny when people claim that after Bad MJ "lost it" and he should have stayed with Quincy. When MJ went on to do Dangerous and Quincy went on to do stuff like Back on the Block or Tevin Campbell's debut album (which wasn't a bad album at the time, but also very generic for that era).
 
Last edited:
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Back on the Block ....first I thought this was a New Kids On The Block album lol
Never heard about that Q album.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Because what other album has both Ray Charles & Big Daddy Cane on it? :rofl: The Secret Garden still gets played on the Quiet Storm radio show today. Also look at the competition:

Wilson Phillips - Wilson Phillips
MC Hammer - Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em
Phil Collins - But Seriously
Mariah Carey - Mariah Carey

All of these are pretty much Adult Contemporary style albums except for MC Hammer.

While it wasn't a strong year for music but Mariah Carey's debut album would have been more deserving.
 
Re: New Jack

New Jack Swing was beginning to go on the way out by the time Dangerous was released, and especially by 1993. It first began around 1985 and became big in 1987 & 1988 with acts like Keith Sweat, Guy, & Al B. Sure!. Then it crossed over with Bobby Brown. Maybe New Jack wasn't that known in countries outside the USA, but it was old here and a lot of it sounds alike if you hear it all the time. So that's probably why it wasn't nominated in the main categories. Many veteran acts had made New Jack songs or albums like James Brown, James Ingram, Aretha Franklin, & Boy George. Even The Jacksons 2300 Jackson Street had NJS songs on it and it came out 2 years before Dangerous. Randy's solo album with his group The Gypsys was also NJS and came out in 1989. Most New Jack acts was mainly known to the R&B audience, not many of them crossed over to the pop audience in the way Bobby did.

You could say the same about OTW: by the time OTW came out disco was on its way out, it was old etc. etc. Does that stop OTW from being one of the most influential and greatest albums of all times? Definitely not. It's such a great "disco" album that over and over again I hear even rock fans compliment it - rock fans who otherwise hate disco with a passion.

Having said that, as we know OTW did not get any major Grammies either - maybe because of the same mentality that you mention here re. Dangerous (the genre being on its way out), but that doesn't make that kind of thinking right. OTW should have been Album of The Year in 1980, but it wasn't even nominated.

IMO Dangerous actually did the same to NJS that OTW did to disco: took it to another level and it does NOT sound like any of your generic NJS albums.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Jam didn't even hit the Top 10 on the Hot 100, but it did on the R&B chart. Give In To Me was more like the 1980s glam metal and not the grunge bands who replaced most of those acts around that time. I don't think it was released as a single in the US. Will You Be There became a Top 10 hit as part of the Free Willy Soundtrack, not Dangerous per se.

If we are going to rate an album by its commercial success and the success of its singles then Dangerous is still miles ahead of Back on the Block, I am sure you are aware of that. Also if Grammies are given based on commercial success it's definitely NOT Back on the Block which should have won in 1991. So I am not sure why you bring up sales and chart success here. (Also those randomly picked singles - Jam, GITM - weren't the only singles off the album. Black or White, In The Closet, RTT, WYBT were ALL Top 10 hits even in the US.)

It's a lot better argument that the competition was stronger in 1993 than in 1991. A LOT stronger. In 1993 you had Clapton, U2's Achtung Baby. And Nirvana's Nevermind wasn't even nominated and it was a HUGE and very hyped album. So it's not like the Grammies suddenly went grunge. They actually did not seem to have a fondness for grunge music. (And if the Grammies were so against "outdated" sounds then why would they STILL today favour so much the likes of Tony Bennett and Ray Charles?)

So 1993 that was simply a very strong year. Having said that, even in the weak year of 1991 I don't think BotB deserved to win, let alone seven Grammies.
 
Last edited:
Re: New Jack

You could say the same about OTW: by the time OTW came out disco was on its way out, it was old etc. etc. Does that stop OTW from being one of the most influential and greatest albums of all times? Definitely not. It's such a great "disco" album that over and over again I hear even rock fans compliment it - rock fans who otherwise hate disco with a passion.

Having said that, as we know OTW did not get any major Grammies either - maybe because of the same mentality that you mention here re. Dangerous (the genre being on its way out), but that doesn't make that kind of thinking right. OTW should have been Album of The Year in 1980, but it wasn't even nominated.

IMO Dangerous actually did the same to NJS that OTW did to disco: took it to another level and it does NOT sound like any of your generic NJS albums.
Disco wasn't really on the way out. It was prematurely killed by the disco demolition & "disco sucks" by rock fans, who did not like their stations turned into a disco format. It was partly disguised bigotry, since disco was popular with women, blacks, latinos, and homosexuals. Really a lot of the stuff called disco was really late 1970s R&B and funk. Album Oriented Rock stations played primarily white male rock acts. Soon after, country and soft pop like Air Supply took over the Top 40. Arena rock like Foreigner, Styx, & Journey was popular too. Interestingly, John Travolta was the face of both the disco & country crazes with Saturday Night Fever & Urban Cowboy. John was also part of the 1950's thing (Sha Na Na, Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, American Graffiti) going on in the 1970s with Grease. R&B was considered disco and had a harder time getting airplay on Top 40 in the early 1980s, except maybe Kool & The Gang. That's why The Girl Is Mine was a hit. Lionel Richie changed to a more pop & AC sound, which was happening on the later Commodores albums anyway. That was the in sound on pop radio before MTV hit and made the synth acts and glam metal bands popular. The Christopher Cross type acts lost popularity when MTV exploded or they just got moreadult contemporary play than Top 40.
 
Re: New Jack

Disco wasn't really on the way out. It was prematurely killed by the disco demolition & "disco sucks" by rock fans, who did not like their stations turned into a disco format. It was partly disguised bigotry, since disco was popular with women, blacks, latinos, and homosexuals. Really a lot of the stuff called disco was really late 1970s R&B and funk. Album Oriented Rock stations played primarily white male rock acts. Soon after, country and soft pop like Air Supply took over the Top 40. Arena rock like Foreigner, Styx, & Journey was popular too. Interestingly, John Travolta was the face of both the disco & country crazes with Saturday Night Fever & Urban Cowboy. John was also part of the 1950's thing (Sha Na Na, Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, American Graffiti) going on in the 1970s with Grease. R&B was considered disco and had a harder time getting airplay on Top 40 in the early 1980s, except maybe Kool & The Gang. That's why The Girl Is Mine was a hit. Lionel Richie changed to a more pop & AC sound, which was happening on the later Commodores albums anyway. That was the in sound on pop radio before MTV hit and made the synth acts and glam metal bands popular. The Christopher Cross type acts lost popularity when MTV exploded or they just got moreadult contemporary play than Top 40.

Whether artificially driven or not, "disco" and black music did start to decline by the time OTW came out and it was on the decline basically until Thriller came out. It was definitely not the freshest, most progressive sound. But probably that's not why OTW was not nominated. After all Donna Summer's Bad Girl was nominated for AotY in 1980.

The bigger point is simply that it's not like the Grammies are so big about being progressive and only awarding stuff that has the latest hip sound of the era. It's not like they turned all grunge in the early 90s either. In fact the only Grammy Nirvana ever received was Best Alternative Music Performance for their "MTV Unplugged in New York" album in 1996 (after Cobain's - and grunge's - death!). Pearl Jam won a few more, but always only in Rock/Hard Rock/Heavy Metal/Alternative categories, not in major ones.

Whether you are progressive in sound or not doesn't in itself make a great or a bad album, anyway. Hardly anyone would objectively debate OTW is a great album but it wasn't a progressive in sound album. And the Grammies were never really about being progressive anyway, so I am not sure why Dangerous having a (partly) NJS sound would be a good reason to reject it, like you seem to suggest. The Grammies still keep awarding the likes of Tony Bennett for God's sake. LOL. And they overlooked Nirvana just as much in the early 90s as they overlooked MJ. Instead they awarded Nat King Cole and his daughter and stuff like that.

I think award shows just should not be taken too seriously. They all have certain biases, the Grammies are no exception. It's actually fun to look back and see all the big winners who hardly anyone knows any more and the overlooked/ignored acts who are still influential today. You just mentioned Christopher Cross for example, who sweeped the Grammies either in 1980 or 1981 but today people would rather be like "who?".
 
respect77;4126832 said:
(And if the Grammies were so against "outdated" sounds then why would they STILL today favour so much the likes of Tony Bennett and Ray Charles?)

So 1993 that was simply a very strong year. Having said that, even in the weak year of 1991 I don't think BotB deserved to win, let alone seven Grammies.
Jazz never really went out of style. Just because it's not on Top 40 radio doesn't mean people stopped making it, buying it, or seeing it live. Look at the success of those American Songbook albums Rod Stewart put out. People stopped making NJS, it was more a fad sound. Even Teddy Riley's group Blackstreet wasn't really NJS like Guy. Michael Buble is popular and he's basically doing a Frank Sinatra / Bobby Darin kind of thing. I don't see anybody today releasing New Jacks Swing albums.Tony Bennett gets nominated because he makes records with young acts like Santana did with Supernatural. It's like Johnny Cash got a lot of press for making albums with Rick Rubin. Makes them hip with the young folks. I doubt Tony would get the same attention without the young guests like if he released an album with Mavis Staples instead of Lady Gaga.

Well, Beyoncé or Jay-Z will probably soon pass up Quincy anyway and Quincy's career is much longer than theirs. Beyoncé might even reach 31, which is the current record for most Grammys by Georg Solti. So you don't have to worry about him, lol.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Simple answer- Grammy's are inconsistent. In every way.

I can't remember the last time I was impressed with a Grammy win, other than the White Stripes with Get Behind Me Satan.

Music awards are shambolic to me. They are either:

A popularity contest
Built around a certain few artists, regardless of standard
Based around whoever was bothered to show up

With the Oscars, at least you can see why an actor would win best actor eg. DeNiro in Raging Bull, Pacino in Scent of a Woman. Music is just based on a couple of guys in a room declining which sounds sound better to them THAT MIGHT represent what the majority of what others think (even sometimes I think they even disregard this to seem like they made the EXTRA effort to find the best album).

Lifetime achievement awards are the only ones I take note of, because these are normally recognition of your career, not just of an album that 10 people in a room have clinically dissected.

Thriller winning 7 grammys lost it's charm with me as I aged. Despite how I'd obviously agree with the categories it won in, I fully believe that Michael was just a part of the Machine that year and was used just as well as he was rewarded.

The Grammy's in 88 just proved how fickle it really was. That to me suggested that they choose their stars and then if they want, they can break you down and treat you like yesterday's leftovers to make a point.

The Grammy's have about as much worth and prestige as the NME or Golden Razzie Awards.
 
DuranDuran;4126837 said:
Jazz never really went out of style. Just because it's not on Top 40 radio doesn't mean people stopped making it, buying it, or seeing it live. Look at the success of those American Songbook albums Rod Stewart put out. People stopped making NJS, it was more a fad sound. Even Teddy Riley's group Blackstreet wasn't really NJS like Guy. Michael Buble is popular and he's basically doing a Frank Sinatra / Bobby Darin kind of thing. I don't see anybody today releasing New Jacks Swing albums.Tony Bennett gets nominated because he makes records with young acts like Santana did with Supernatural. It's like Johnny Cash got a lot of press for making albums with Rick Rubin. Makes them hip with the young folks. I doubt Tony would get the same attention without the young guests like if he released an album with Mavis Staples instead of Lady Gaga.


It all still doesn't make the Grammies some kind of progressive board which is big on awarding only the latest sounds and never any "outdated" thing. Which seemed to be your initial argument against Dangerous. That by the time it came out NJS was out and grunge was huge. The argument fails when you actually look at the Grammies' stance towards the arguably biggest and most influential grunge band, Nirvana. They hardly got any more attention from the Grammies than MJ at the time. Even in the 60s they were more about awarding Sinatra over and over again than the Beatles (although they did get some awards towards the late 60s). So to me the Grammies is anything but a board that is big on progressivity. On the contrary, actually. It's a pretty conservative board which tends to react to trends pretty late itself. The album that won AotY in 1980 was Billy Joel's 52nd Street. Would you claim it has the long time influence of OTW? Would you claim it had a fresher sound than OTW? If anything it was a very conservative choice, especially compared to something like OTW.

BTW, I think it's so wrong to call Dangerous a NJS album. It's a NJS-influenced album, not a NJS album. I would not lump it together with a Bobby Brown or a Guy album. It's totally different than those.
And anyway, were the Grammies ever really big on NJS, even at its peak?

Maybe Back on the Block had a sound that was still hip in 1989 (if something needs to be that generic to be hip, then yes, it did) but ironically, today BotB with its 7 Grammies sounds a LOT more outdated than Dangerous, which - according to your theory at least - wasn't awarded because it was "outdated". Kind of ironic.

I think the more plausible reason is simply that in 1993 competition was a LOT stronger than in 1991 for Q's album and that's it. (And also Q was always kind of a Grammy-darling.)

Well, Beyoncé or Jay-Z will probably soon pass up Quincy anyway and Quincy's career is much longer than theirs. Beyoncé might even reach 31, which is the current record for most Grammys by Georg Solti.
So you don't have to worry about him, lol.

My problem is not with Quincy having a gazillion Grammies. For Back on the Block they are just not deserved, IMO and I am not the only one thinking so, so let's not try to make it out as if it's some personal thing on my part.
 
Last edited:
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Simple answer- Grammy's are inconsistent. In every way.

I can't remember the last time I was impressed with a Grammy win, other than the White Stripes with Get Behind Me Satan.

Music awards are shambolic to me. They are either:

A popularity contest
Built around a certain few artists, regardless of standard
Based around whoever was bothered to show up

With the Oscars, at least you can see why an actor would win best actor eg. DeNiro in Raging Bull, Pacino in Scent of a Woman. Music is just based on a couple of guys in a room declining which sounds sound better to them THAT MIGHT represent what the majority of what others think (even sometimes I think they even disregard this to seem like they made the EXTRA effort to find the best album).

Lifetime achievement awards are the only ones I take note of, because these are normally recognition of your career, not just of an album that 10 people in a room have clinically dissected.

Thriller winning 7 grammys lost it's charm with me as I aged. Despite how I'd obviously agree with the categories it won in, I fully believe that Michael was just a part of the Machine that year and was used just as well as he was rewarded.

The Grammy's in 88 just proved how fickle it really was. That to me suggested that they choose their stars and then if they want, they can break you down and treat you like yesterday's leftovers to make a point.

The Grammy's have about as much worth and prestige as the NME or Golden Razzie Awards.

Yes, I agree with this totally.

The Grammys (and other awards) were important to Michael because for some reason he felt validated by them, but he really did not need them. He was so much bigger than those awards. Just think of the many highly influential artists who never got a Grammy!

Queen
Bob Marley
Led Zeppelin

Artists who stood the test of time and crossed over generations in terms of popularity and influence.

Meanwhile look at all the Grammy recepients and discover the many names among them that hardly ring familiar any more and no one listens to them any more.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Yes, I agree with this totally.

The Grammys (and other awards) were important to Michael because for some reason he felt validated by them, but he really did not need them. He was so much bigger than those awards. Just think of the many highly influential artists who never got a Grammy!

Queen
Bob Marley
Led Zeppelin


Artists who stood the test of time and crossed over generations in terms of popularity and influence.

Meanwhile look at all the Grammy recepients and discover the many names among them that hardly ring familiar any more and no one listens to them any more.

I only just noticed your signature.

It is absolutely wonderful.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

America had turned its back on MJ by then, but he really didn't need awards, he was almost bigger than them. He was meeting heads of state for crying out loud.

Exactly this. MJ didn't need awards, but still it would an acknowledgement if he won more Grammys. I just can't understand why America left hime alone. I hope they feel stupid for what they did towards Mike, because they really don't know how to enjoy good music from Bad and Dangerous.

:coffee: You do realize that the Grammys have nothing to do with a region, country or their citizens when choosing which artists to award, right? You should also realize that Mike still has millions of fans in the States. You might want to brush up on that fact and not dismiss millions of people by regurgitating that nonsense.
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

tgr9fqr.jpg
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

:coffee: You do realize that the Grammys have nothing to do with a region, country or their citizens when choosing which artists to award, right? You should also realize that Mike still has millions of fans in the States. You might want to brush up on that fact and not dismiss millions of people by regurgitating that nonsense.

Who mentioned anything about his American fans? We are talking about the media, music executives, people who dictate awards etc. had long since given up on MJ. Even by 1986 the backlash against MJ was gathering momentum.

In his entire solo career he was only the darling of the media from '79 until about 1984, then it got nasty and American society gradually turned against him (it's no coincidence he didn't tour in the US after Bad).
 
Re: Okay can someone please explain to me how...

Who mentioned anything about his American fans? We are talking about the media, music executives, people who dictate awards etc. had long since given up on MJ. Even by 1986 the backlash against MJ was gathering momentum.

In his entire solo career he was only the darling of the media from '79 until about 1984, then it got nasty and American society gradually turned against him (it's no coincidence he didn't tour in the US after Bad).

The comments she specifically posted mentioned american fans. You will find them in the post you just quoted if you look up.
 
Back
Top