Why did they lighten his skin on the Bad album cover?

Before:-
After:-

Honestly I think it was Michael/his team trying to generate headlines and a talking point.
In my opinion it was misguided

Interestingly during the Bad Tour and the short films for the Bad album his skin tone was still relatively dark, although his vitiligo had worsened.

Bob Jones (his long-time publicist) stated that Michael Jackson had a specific strategy with each new studio album.

The singer wanted to present also a brand new look with each new studio album that he released, and his lighter skin (via photoshop) on the 'BAD' album cover was apparently also due to that strategy.

It has been said that the 'BAD' album cover (with his lighter skin via photoshop) at that time alienated many of his black fans who in turn decided to not buy the album because of that.

Yeah. I've never been a fan of the Bad album cover for this very reason. The original looks so much better! And in my opinion, the hair in the face in the original gives him more of that "rugged" appearance he was trying to go for. Instead, they moved the hair out of his face and made him look too "clean." And, of course, the whitening of the skin and thinning of the lips in the touched up version... Ugh. Just not a fan. Not at all.

SmoothCriminal1995 said:

Honestly I think it was Michael/his team trying to generate headlines and a talking point.

Click to expand...

Also, this just shows that "bad publicity is better than no publicity at all" isn't always the best way to go about. It did work, but at an immense cost (accusations of internalized racism thrown at Michael, as well as an album cover that looked unrealistically perfect) that still has an impact today.

Michael looked so good just as he was at every period of his life. It's no surprise to me at all that his insecurities progressively worsened, because others around him felt they needed to make changes to him or that those intentional changes would improve his image, when really, it just did the exact opposite. He deserved so much better.

Imagine the original cover plus Streetwalker

Horrorlover656 said:

Before:-

After:-

Click to expand...

are u from the hating media? the first photo seems manipulated.
i never heart from a fan that we have a problem with the album cover.
this thread is such a pointless waste of time. ^^
or people have too much time for such a thread.

mjchris said:

are u from the hating media? the first photo seems manipulated.

Click to expand...

You've got to be joking.

Michael even said himself in the Glenda tapes (the recorded phone conversations from the early 90s) that his appearance was heavily airbrushed for both the Bad and Dangerous album covers (although the Dangerous album cover is a painting and not a photograph, but I digress). Here is a video that shows portions of the Glenda tapes, including that part. The portion where he talks about this specifically is shown at 8:07. The second photo is a result of this method of photo manipulation.

mjchris said:

i never heart from a fan that we have a problem with the album cover.

Click to expand...

Also, fans have disliked the touched up version of the Bad album cover for AGES. This is not something most of us just decided to criticize out of nowhere. Especially consider this statement here:

mj_frenzy said:

It has been said that the 'BAD' album cover (with his lighter skin via photoshop) at that time alienated many of his black fans who in turn decided to not buy the album because of that.

Click to expand...

And in general, most discussions I see about this topic (especially on Reddit, but can be applicable to any MJ fan space online) show that most fans prefer the original version where he isn't deliberately whitewashed. Maybe it's time to crawl out of the rock you're clearly living under.

mjchris said:

this thread is such a pointless waste of time. ^^

Click to expand...

Also, I find this funny coming from someone who justs posts nothing but the poop emoji on some threads for no reason at all.

Including here.

And here.

And I know you can't be a child, considering you've had your account since literally 2004. Almost TWENTY YEARS you've been a member. So maybe contribute something actually valuable and less childish to discussions as well.

i love the bad album cover like it is. i would never discuss such a pointless matter. and i dont know anyone who dont like it, for the last 40 years. lol, this is such a pointless thread.
and i dont care about your stupid emojis or choice of words. bye bye.

mjchris said:

the first photo seems manipulated.

Click to expand...

It is. The head is taken from this outtake, slapped onto the cover-body and skin colour altered.
The first one is NOT how the untouched photos look like at all.

MichaelD said:

It is. The head is taken from this outtake, slapped onto the cover-body and skin colour altered.
The first one is NOT how the untouched photos look like at all.

Click to expand...

this looks right
thanks

The final product looks fine. It wasn't MJs preference for the album cover anyway, in case you forget.

MichaelD said:

It is. The head is taken from this outtake, slapped onto the cover-body and skin colour altered.
The first one is NOT how the untouched photos look like at all.

Click to expand...

This also isn't accurate to his skin tone either. This was shot during the Bad Short Film and he was pretty light there.

He's clearly a lot closer to having Caucasian skin tone than having a black skin tone.
Hell, you could watch the short film to see that.

ArchieSmash said:

This also isn't accurate to his skin tone either. This was shot during the Bad Short Film and he was pretty light there.

He's clearly a lot closer to having Caucasian skin tone than having a black skin tone.
Hell, you could watch the short film to see that.

Click to expand...

The photo was taken using a flash which makes everybody look paler and the short film is colour graded. Not an accurate reference for colours.
Camera settings (ISO, shutter speed) and lighting (subway/underground vs photo studio lights vs daylight) also make a huge difference. And make-up.

MichaelD said:

Camera settings (ISO, shutter speed) and lighting (subway/underground vs photo studio lights vs daylight) also make a huge difference. And make-up.

Click to expand...

and who says that didn't affect the photoshoot or any of the photos you posted? I'm aware of all this, that's why I'm talking about MJ's skin tone compared to other people beside him.

MichaelD said:

It is. The head is taken from this outtake, slapped onto the cover-body and skin colour altered.
The first one is NOT how the untouched photos look like at all.

Click to expand...

Oh my God! I can't thank you enough!

Side note:- He looks so hot though....

I was 7 years old when the Bad album came out, and I didn't even hear it for almost a year after that. So while I was able to notice the difference between that cover and Thriller, it didn't mean a lot to me. When you're that young, concepts like insecurity and hatred over race usually aren't part of your being. I'm 43 now, and I still don't have a problem with the artwork. Michael wanted to look different for it, and as an artist that was his right. I don't think its fair or just to condemn him for it.