So now you acknowledge that MJ's music is actually "blacker" on Dangerous and HIStory than on the 80s albums, but somehow that too is evidence of him losing touch with his black roots? I don't agree it's evidence of any such thing (on the contrary), but at least that is a step forward. Can we now get the the "his music became whitewashed after the 80s" argument out of the way? It is simply factually incorrect.
no, I said the CRITICS reached that conclusion that his music with History and Dangerous came across "blacker" with MJ incorporated the contemporary black music of the day into his presentation.......I mentioned why he tried to do that, in an attempt to regain the audience he knew he had lost....because with the Bad album, he went full scale pop......I'm not saying Bad was not a good album because it was, I bought all his solo albums....but there would have never been a need to try and be "blacker" if he had just stayed the course that led him to the pinnacle of his career......and there's no doubt all of his subsequent albums, Bad, Dangerous, History would have sold significantly more than what they did, specifically in his homeland.........it's not really about the style of music as much as it is in how it's presentation and the image projected in the process
Rarely mentioned? By whom? Everyone knows where the J5 started from, it was discussed in each and every documentary about MJ's career.
BTW, while during the J5 days they had more black support than later it is simply false to give all credit to his black audience for supporting him before his runaway solo success in the 80s. Like I showed you in this post earlier
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...riller/page9?p=4143568&viewfull=1#post4143568 the fact is actually that after the J5 lost its initial popularity it was more Europe (more specifically the UK) that supported the Jacksons rather than the US. It seems (just like later in his solo career) their European audience was more loyal.
I am sure a lot of their audience in the UK were black people as well, but they weren't only black people. When you look at the footage of a London show from the Destiny tour it's a very much mixed audience while in the US it's a mainly black audience on the Destiny tour. Earlier in this thread Psychoniff claimed that MJ needed to "whitewash" his music to have the acceptance of white people outside of the US. This clearly shows it is not true.
I never said black people then deserve all the credit but there's no doubt they were the majority support who set the foundation, and THAT'S the part that never gets acknowledged in any documentary that's ever been made about his career, and I've seen all these documentaries....
he difference in the support that MJ got in the US and Europe to race is a very simplicistic POV that ignores every other factor that plays into it. One such factor is that US audiences tend to move on faster and leave old favourites behind as "washed up" whenever there are new trends while European audiences are more loyal. That is true in the case of most artists, regardless of race.
this is the issue I'm talking about as to why US audiences tend to move on from acts they once supported or consider to be "washed up"
what is the reason American audience tend to act in this manner....what leads them to reach that conclusion that someone is washed up
it's because of the whole "mainstream" context driven by the Pop Music structure and how it operates.....
which shows that Pop music and the way it has functioned over the past 30 years has no point of origin, no beginnings in cultural activity.....it is a distinction given to an individual who they deem viable as long as that can continue to profit from their talent.....talents that were cultivated from cultural influence, that same cultural influence that shape the genres of music that were born throughout the 20th century
Pop Music can not thrive on its own, it must appropriate what's already been done once that particular form of expression meets its fulfillment, and once that expression meets that fulfillment, those who run the pop music landscape then takes it over while excluding the contributions made by the community of people who shaped whatever it is that has now been taken over
what I'm saying is, when blues was taken over by mainstream, when jazz was taken over by mainstream, when rock n roll was taken over by mainstream, when soul music was taken over by mainstream, when r&b was taken over by mainstream, the community picks up on that because the artists who best represent that particular brand of music after it has reached its fulfillment, that person or individuals are drawn away from that audience, and then once that person is drawn out, their talent is exploited to the tilt until there's nothing left to give, and this brand of exploitation leads to them being considered as a has been or washed up, which is why the american audience tends to seek and find "the new sensation" or the "next big star"
that type of dichotomy does not exist in the UK or any other country outside of the states.......the mainstream model causes that, which is why so many american stars seek to extend their careers beyond the border
if the need to go mainstream was banished for good, this would not be happening and the world can enjoy the music w/out all the angles
How was his original audience "not given the opportunity to speak"? Please be specific!
what I'm saying is, when Michael released the Bad album, the Michael Jackson that now appeared was totally foreign to what we knew, what the public new in the years prior to that, he did not look the same and was practically unrecognizable to what we had just seen a couple of years prior, and the mainstream did not allow those voices to be heard, and it wasn't just voices of the black community, but many white people and supports of other cultures were voices the same concerns but those comments were not presented by the mainstream, the impression given was that we just had to role with it
Isn't it rather you who have a problem with accepting MJ for who he is? If Michael Jackson wants to make a song that is rock or wants to involve classical music in his songs or wants to make a song that is showtunes-like or not urban sounding enough why is that a problem for you? If he likes it why can't he make music that is not typically considered black music or not typically associated with black artists? Why should he stick to a certain kind of music even though he is interested in other types of music as well? Isn't it rather racist to expect a black artist to stick to a certain kind of music just because he is black rather than letting him explore all kinds of music that he is interested in?
I dont' see anywhere where I said MJ should have been expected to sing one style of music because he showed the full range from the very moment he debuted at Motown......he was already displaying the ability to thrive performing the full range of genres....
during the Triumph Tour of 1981, when MJ performed the song Ben, he was receiving just a loud an ovation while performing that song than he did when performing Don't Stop Til You Get Enough or Rock With You
Wish Upon A Star showed his full range as well and people back then were loving it......
Can You Feel It carries all the albums and is not an exclusive R&B song,
Will You Be There was one of the greatest recordings of his life and that's totally outside of the R&B realm....
The style of music he chose to sing was not the issue
Here we go again. You seem to be unable to accept the fact that Thriller was an unprecedented runaway success and most artists' career have a peak like that which then will never be remotely repeated. Bruce Springsteen could never repeat the success of Burn in the USA. Prince could never remotely get close to the success of Purple Rain. Did they also abandon their "original audience"?
BTW, the audience during Thriller was not MJ's "original audience". It had all kinds of bandwagoners which naturally will leave when the artist is not the latest hype any more. Other than Thriller, MJ's album sales were actually pretty constant (around 8-9 million in the US and around 20-30 million globally).
all these artists mentioned were affected by the mainstream pull that drew them away from their foundational support......whereas if the mainstream influence did not exist, the downturn would not have happened to them either......this stuff did not occur by a whim or by coincidence
I wouldn't call those who supported these albums as bandwagoners, as much as they were new fan support, just like new fans who bought Bad, just like new fans who bought Dangerous, just like new fans who bought History....
I wish you would be less vauge and more specific about what your actual problem with MJ is - because it is obvious that you have a problem with him because you cannot stop about this one thing ever since joined this board. Is it that he had mainstream success and white people liked him just the same as black people? Is this the same kind of mentality that made black people boo Whitney Houston and call her "Whitey Houston" at the Soul Train Awards just because she had the audacity to be popular with a white audience? Isn't that some sort of seperatist attitude or possessivenes - a kind of narrow-mindedness?
and this is the perfect example of what I'm referring to, placing the onus on a group who was not responsible for what happened.....
and I'm glad you brought up Whitney Houston, let's talk about what really led to that moment at the 1989 Soul Train Awards.....
this is an example of how mainstream media omits the root cause of what happens down the road
when Whitney Houston was being groomed for her solo career, before she even broke out her first record, record execs at her label told her to refrain from doing anything interviews with black oriented press or radio and she was told she look to ethnic too in response to her album cover of her debut record "Whitney Houston", can you imagine being instructed from communicating with the very audience who's gonna be your primary support starting out, this same detrimental career advice extended to her second album release "Whitney" where she was given the same advice, and that advice led to declining sales, where her image had been contorted.....
and even when I felt that's not what she really wanted, the damage had already been done, and that alienation is what led to that response by the black audience at those 89 Soul Train Awards...this stuff does not happen on a whim, but has origins to it, it was 4 years in the making
it wasn't about her getting booed, as much as it was the system getting booed, and she got caught up in the mix....
we must remember with Whitney, she was asked to be the nation's darling, which she did not want to do, all she wanted to do was sing, and when she rejected the mainstream's demand of her, by the end of the 80s, she was ostracized by both sides, which played a major factor in leading her to the years of despair we saw down the road
she should have never been given that advice starting out and should have been allowed to let her talent stand on its own merit and its own merit alone and I'm confident her life would not have evolved in the way it did
and just as MJ tried to reaffirm his "blackness" by the beginning of the 90s, Whitney felt compelled to do the same thing
but if we did away w/the entire crossover model and the mainstream goal, it would be better for everyone involved
I just believes things could be so much better because the mainstream model carries racial undertones whereas if it was done away with, the balance would exist.....