Why do the younger generations like MJ more than the older generations?

MAQ

Proud Member
Joined
May 21, 2015
Messages
288
Points
0
Has anyone else noticed this? I was browsing this thread about Michael's albums one day in a forum, and these two or three 30+ men were saying stuff like MJ went stale after Thriller and the younger guys were refuting this and most of them had named Bad, Dangerous or History as their favorite MJ albums. The men kept uttering self-contradicting statements like "I don't listen to brainless teen music anymore maybe that's why I can't listen to him and blah blah blah" - apparently they thought his Mowtown albums and OTW and Thriller are deeper and maturer than his later albums (which is bull****).

And this is not the only time I've seen this sort of behavior. What do you guys think - why does this stuff happen :/
 
Maybe this is a very simplistic thought, but I think the younger generation hasn't been poisoned by the media, as much as the older generation, about Michael. They see his artistry and appreciate the music. My 11 year old loves many songs from Invincible.
 
It has nothing to do with MJ, most people just tend to think everything was better in "their day" and are dismissive of anything modern. This pattern repeats itself with every generation. I grew up in the 90s and remember very well how people back then complained that music was so cheesy and meaningless. Now if you look up 90s music on YT, you'll see that the vast majority of comments are about how "they don't make fun songs like this anymore! :(" So I just shrug it off and move on, it will correct itself with time.
 
I think the people who bash the albums after Thriller haven't really listened them. They haven't given them a real chance.
 
Has anyone else noticed this? I was browsing this thread about Michael's albums one day in a forum, and these two or three 30+ men were saying stuff like MJ went stale after Thriller and the younger guys were refuting this and most of them had named Bad, Dangerous or History as their favorite MJ albums. The men kept uttering self-contradicting statements like "I don't listen to brainless teen music anymore maybe that's why I can't listen to him and blah blah blah" - apparently they thought his Mowtown albums and OTW and Thriller are deeper and maturer than his later albums (which is bull****).

And this is not the only time I've seen this sort of behavior. What do you guys think - why does this stuff happen :/

Interesting.

One would think that 30+ people are the generation which likes MJ since those are the people of the generation who grew up with him. But then a lot depends on the demographics, I guess. I mean he was more popular among certain people and less popular among certain other people even from his generation. Also, like said before probably the younger generations are less influenced by the decades of media brainwash.I think it's a good thing that Michael can appeal to young people. That will ensure he will not go obscure once his generation goes old or dies.

I'm not convinced that most of those who say Thriller was his last great work were ever real fans. I mean a real fan can also have this opinion, but I think most of these people are non-fans who just parrot whatever they read in Rolling Stone or whatever other rock magazine. I don't think those people are really the ones who listen to MJ - whether Thriller, OTW or his latter albums.
 
It's interesting to me too. The younger generation grew up with Michael's trials and tribulations being the only thing he was mentioned for. The older generation saw the magic and the innovation. It's odd to me, really. It's nice to see Michael's contributions loved by another generation however after many attempts to end his legacy.
 
One would think that 30+ people are the generation which likes MJ since those are the people of the generation who grew up with him. But then a lot depends on the demographics, I guess. I mean he was more popular among certain people and less popular among certain other people even from his generation. Also, like said before probably the younger generations are less influenced by the decades of media brainwash.

My mother is a prime example of the media brainwashing. The last album she owned or listened to was Dangerous. She was the one who introduced me (thanks Mum), loved him all the way up to the 90's before the allegations, and then refused to believe he was innocent and therefore completely tuned out. Despite all my own research, she just wouldn't hear it, yet I became a fan and followed him through to the end of his life. She did have to sit down and watch the MSG show with me though, and even then she couldn't really deny that he "still had it", albeit, grudgingly.
 
It's interesting to me too. The younger generation grew up with Michael's trials and tribulations being the only thing he was mentioned for.

That "younger generation" which grew up with MJ's trials and tribulations may be middle aged now. Exactly those 30+ people. I mean a person who is now 30-32 years old was 8-10 in 1993 when Michael's major image troubles started. That's the age when those people started to be interested in music and Michael was not cool at the time. The real young generation of today are the ones who started to be interested in music a couple of years ago, maybe already after Michael's death when the negativity in the media was less and when his music was playing again on TV, radio and when the artists of today have no problem citing MJ as an influence again etc.
 
I been an MJ fan for over 30 years now. I am 35 now. And I am one whose top 3 favorite MJ albums are Dangerous, HIStory, and Bad. I L.O.V.E. his more later songs. Than I do with his earlier songs. I am one of Michael's fans that can some what remember the 80s MJ mania. And knows just how great of a time it was to be a MJ fan. And sadly of course some years later I also remember how the media also bashed him. Those 30+ people that says that Michael went stale after Thriller. Are totally wrong. I think Michael became way more better after Thriller. Those men really need to hear songs like Who Is It, Stranger In Moscow, and Smooth Criminal. And then maybe they will rethink their stupid statement. I am so glad that the fans that are younger than me knows how great Michael's later albums are. And can really appreciate his greatness. And not be poison by whatever the media or other people has ever said about him. I never was.
 
MAQ;4098253 said:
Has anyone else noticed this? I was browsing this thread about Michael's albums one day in a forum, and these two or three 30+ men were saying stuff like MJ went stale after Thriller and the younger guys were refuting this and most of them had named Bad, Dangerous or History as their favorite MJ albums. The men kept uttering self-contradicting statements like "I don't listen to brainless teen music anymore maybe that's why I can't listen to him and blah blah blah" - apparently they thought his Mowtown albums and OTW and Thriller are deeper and maturer than his later albums (which is bull****).

And this is not the only time I've seen this sort of behavior. What do you guys think - why does this stuff happen :/

People who claim that (“I don't listen to brainless teen music anymore maybe that's why I can't listen to him”) cannot be taken seriously at all, let alone to elaborate their opinions. In fact, either they never bothered to listen to his later albums, or they just find it difficult to understand music.

For example, ‘HIStory’ is the darkest & most depressive album of MJ’s career & thus, for the most part, does not aim at teens.
 
Well, I just turned 68! Been a lifelong fan and still am, always will be.
 
I been an MJ fan for over 30 years now. I am 35 now. And I am one whose top 3 favorite MJ albums are Dangerous, HIStory, and Bad. I L.O.V.E. his more later songs. Than I do with his earlier songs. I am one of Michael's fans that can some what remember the 80s MJ mania. And knows just how great of a time it was to be a MJ fan. And sadly of course some years later I also remember how the media also bashed him. Those 30+ people that says that Michael went stale after Thriller. Are totally wrong. I think Michael became way more better after Thriller. Those men really need to hear songs like Who Is It, Stranger In Moscow, and Smooth Criminal. And then maybe they will rethink their stupid statement. I am so glad that the fans that are younger than me knows how great Michael's later albums are. And can really appreciate his greatness. And not be poison by whatever the media or other people has ever said about him. I never was.

My dad who is in his 40s has also always been a fan of MJ - of his later works too.
 
It has nothing to do with MJ, most people just tend to think everything was better in "their day" and are dismissive of anything modern. This pattern repeats itself with every generation. I grew up in the 90s and remember very well how people back then complained that music was so cheesy and meaningless. Now if you look up 90s music on YT, you'll see that the vast majority of comments are about how "they don't make fun songs like this anymore! :(" So I just shrug it off and move on, it will correct itself with time.

I agree with you to an extent, but a lot of it has to do with MJ too. For example, many people who were there during the Dangerous era (for example the men I referred to) called Dangerous a shallow and meaningless album, while hailing Nevermind as the greatest most complex album ever (I like Nevermind, don't get me wrong).

Here's my theory; Michael had a knack for writing songs about very serious - and sometimes very disturbing - subjects and transforming them into very catchy tunes (e.g Smooth Criminal, Bad, Scream, TDCAU, Black or White, Who Is It) which sold like hell. They accompanied catchy music videos - innovative but which entered instantly into the mainstream and were on heavy rotation on the tv. Because of the commercial success of his albums and singles, a lot of older people, who as you said dismiss anything modern, think that since it appeals to a lot of people it must be trash when many of his number ones, and albums have very serious and dark undertones. Take for example Bad, and compare it to the only other 5-number-one-singles'-album. 3 of the 5 chart toppers in Bad have a pretty unconventional theme (for a chart topper) whereas in Teenage Dream there is almost not a single chart topper which deals with themes dealt in Bad.

I think that MJ's commercial success, along with his persona and his appeal to the young generation is what annoys 'intelligent' and 'insightful' critics.
 
There's more perspective on him now because he's no longer here to make any new impressions on us, unfortunately. Nobody completely realized his impact on culture until he passed. One advantage for newer generations is that his entire career is encapsulated forever through technology. Any and everything past, present and future fans want to know about him musically is one click away. The setback is the other garbage that isn't filtered out so easily. Older generations living in the moment didn't always have YouTube. It was radio, MTV, and physical media. I was 8 years old when the first allegations hit in '93, and living in Germany. I never believed it, nor did my family & friends. Looking back, we were shielded from a lot of the innuendo and lies that were being spread stateside because of MJ's strong and loyal fanbase in Europe. Perception of him was like night & day once we came back home. The backlash really hit during the BAD era. It's not like today, where artists dispel each and every rumor through tweets and several tv and radio appearances. MJ feared overexposure, so, the few times he spoke, the people listened. But, during those quiet moments, the tabloid media spoke for him, and many of the same rumors and lies from 20-30 years ago are still kept alive because they were never really addressed and drilled into the public's conscience. Also, many "journalists" became lazy and trashed his work after "BAD". Many of them would even "revise" their reviews of past albums after his death, giving him glowing remarks and praise.
 
I think that MJ's commercial success, along with his persona and his appeal to the young generation is what annoys 'intelligent' and 'insightful' critics.

Yes, but this kind of snobism against pop music from rock fans always existed and always will. You mentioned Nevermind and actually that was a very popular album, very fashionable to like at the time. Every kid in my school who wanted to be cool and "in" called themselves a Nirvana/grunge fan. (And BTW, one can have the opinion that Nevermind is the greatest album ever - that's very subjective, but the most complex? That makes me think that person hasn't heard a lot of albums in his life if Nevermind is the most complex music he's ever heard.) So at the time it was as much a fashion and as commercial as it gets. Nirvana were the fad of the moment, they were pushed by MTV like no other, they were everywhere in the early 90s etc. But rock always gets a pass from being accused of being a fashion trend. Even though most of popular music's biggest sellers are actually rock albums - which means in that way there's probably nothing more commercial than rock music. Rock definitely is a privileged genre, because its audience is the demographics (white, male, upper-middle class) that buys the most music and it gets the most support from music magazines.

Also, in popular music image is everything. And yes, that's true of most rock music also. By the early 90s Michael was in the phase of his career where the media decided he was yesterday's news and Nirvana and grunge were the fresh new hype. In other words Nirvana was the cool thing to like for kids and Michael was the "old, declining pop star" - at least that's the image the US media tried to project about him. So again, if you were a kid in the early 90s and if you wanted to be cool among your peers you were a Nirvana fan, not a Michael Jackson fan (I personally never cared about such things and I liked what I liked, but a lot of kids did care.) And people always think back to the days of their youth with nostalgia. So a lot of people in their 30-40s (who were in their teens during the hey day of Nirvana and grunge) obviously hold dear memories of Nevermind and Nirvana and hence that album became kind of the symbol of the 90s. Which is interesting BTW, because grunge never really went anywhere, it was more like a short lived fad in terms of popularity. It was really hip-hop from the late80s-early 90s that then went on to become a very influential and wide spread genre.
 
That "younger generation" which grew up with MJ's trials and tribulations may be middle aged now. Exactly those 30+ people. I mean a person who is now 30-32 years old was 8-10 in 1993 when Michael's major image troubles started. That's the age when those people started to be interested in music and Michael was not cool at the time. The real young generation of today are the ones who started to be interested in music a couple of years ago, maybe already after Michael's death when the negativity in the media was less and when his music was playing again on TV, radio and when the artists of today have no problem citing MJ as an influence again etc.

God, time really does fly by. Somewhat younger generations still only knew the guy who had the 2005 trials and the baby dangling. Dying just brought his reputation right back up again in the eyes of the world. It's horrible to say, just very unfortunately it seems true. Most people cite MJ as an influence because it's the "in thing" to do. Many artists ignored Michael in his time of need. But yeah, you are right. The really young generation still are aware of tabloid speculation (it will never die down) but it's a lot more "MJ loving" now than it used to be for sure.
 
Also let me add: people have certain prejudices about genres. A rock artist is automatically assumed to be more sincere, more genuine, more artistic than a pop star. I do think that Nevermind is a very genuine album, but so is Dangerous. Nevermind has nothing in terms of genuinity and artistic authenticity on songs like Who Is It, Will You Be There, Jam, Give in to Me etc. If only people would be willing to give such songs open ears!

I find it very interesting how Dangerous always gets compared to Nevermind. I think the rock press at the time started it and until this day some people want to give it some sort of significance that Nevermind replaced Dangerous at the top of the Billboard chart in 1992. When you read the Wikipedia article on Nevermind that fact is mentioned in the opening section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind

It's just so weird because it is only natural that albums will not stay #1 for ever and they will eventually be replaced by someone else. The rock press however tried to make it symbolic of something, but they rarely mention how then (after one week I think) Nevermind was replaced by a Garth Brooks album. So what was THAT symbolic of then? LOL.

I wonder what Kurt Cobain thought of those type of narratives in the media, because he actually seemed to have respect for Michael.

kurt-cobain-mj-shirt.jpeg
 
Also let me add: people have certain prejudices about genres. A rock artist is automatically assumed to be more sincere, more genuine, more artistic than a pop star. I do think that Nevermind is a very genuine album, but so is Dangerous. Nevermind has nothing in terms of genuinity and artistic authenticity on songs like Who Is It, Will You Be There, Jam, Give in to Me etc. If only people would be willing to give such songs open ears!

I find it very interesting how Dangerous always gets compared to Nevermind. I think the rock press at the time started it and until this day some people want to give it some sort of significance that Nevermind replaced Dangerous at the top of the Billboard chart in 1992. When you read the Wikipedia article on Nevermind that fact is mentioned in the opening section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind

It's just so weird because it is only natural that albums will not stay #1 for ever and they will eventually be replaced by someone else. The rock press however tried to make it symbolic of something, but they rarely mention how then (after one week I think) Nevermind was replaced by a Garth Brooks album. So what was THAT symbolic of then? LOL.

I wonder what Kurt Cobain thought of those type of narratives in the media, because he actually seemed to have respect for Michael.

kurt-cobain-mj-shirt.jpeg

But in the 'battle' of those two albums, Nevermind automatically becomes the underdog, because Dangerous outsold Nevermind by a margin of millions, stayed at the top for 4 weeks while Nevermind stayed there for only one, had 4 hot top 10 singles while the adversary had only 1, had a better and more complex cover (arguable), had much more globally viewed music videos, and Dangerous was another smash album from a guy who's had smash albums since back in the 70s. So automatically, the cool thing for the media to do would be to side with the underdog and dish dirt on the obviously superior guy.

I don't hate Nirvana nor am I downplaying their work, but it just bugs when people diss someone just because it's cool to do it, so I'm against the people who unfairly compare the two albums than either of the albums themselves. I hope I'm making sense lol.
 
why would the older generation be viewed as the people who didn't like Michael when it was the support of that older generation starting as his career premiered that made it possible for future generations to witness his talent....without the support of that older generation, his solo career would have never happened, his career would have never happened
 
Since when is someone in their 30s an older generation? :rofl: That might have been true over 200 years ago when many people did not live that long.
 
Well if 30's are middle aged, then I must be ancient considering I'm one year younger than the man himself. I'm not even sure what is considered middle aged anymore, it keeps going up.
A part of the reason he is looked at more kindly now is in a large part to his fans, young and old, who refused to let his legacy die with him and continue to fight for respect for the man, not just the artist.
 
Since when is someone in their 30s an older generation? :rofl: That might have been true over 200 years ago when many people did not live that long.
I agree. I'm now confused after reading thru this thread what is considered older. I always thought older were people like me that were the same age as Michael and grew up with the Jacksons and watched him evolve.

I consider younger those who probably first saw him in Moonwalker, first album might be Bad, possibly Thriller, and Dangerous was their first tour.

But reading this, it sounds like that
is that the generation that is "older"?? Are the young fans now the ones born in the last 10-15 yrs? I guess my opinion on the question would change depending on the definition.
 
Anyone who bashes Bad, Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible... I feel pity for you. Go listen to your Nicki Minaj crap. Damn... I'm glad that I'm a 90s kid and that I can appreciate Michael's genius music and dancing.
 
Since when is someone in their 30s an older generation? :rofl: That might have been true over 200 years ago when many people did not live that long.

I know they're not old lol, I was just being relative about it. Like what I mean by "young" are kids in their teens or maybe the ones in their early 20s. I'm aware that this is a very general statement, but a large portion of this age group have a lot of respect for MJ, at least more than the "older generation". http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/03/us.jackson.poll/index.html?iref=24hours this proves it to an extent (although the age group they're referring to is higher).
 
This is my opinion about this matter:

People of the older generation really experienced Michael becoming the King of Pop. They purchased the CD's, went to ooncerts and bought his latest single. After all the allegations & trials, some of the fans felt sorry for him and what he went through, while others became Tabloid Junkies and believed everything the media reported. On June 25th, we were all as one. We felt sorry for him, still to this day. We know the real Michael and his legacy. I'm not talking about huge fans, I'm just talking about a regular person or a music lover. They don't really listen to Michael that much (as people like I do), but when Billie Jean comes on the radio, 99% of the people will sing-along Michael Jackson style.

As for the younger generation, the kids out there nowadays don't really grow up with Michael Jackson, but rather the popular tunes of today. But Michael is the King and there isn't one day when the radio/television blasts out Beat It or Bad and kids see/hear that. They go ask their parents: ''Who is this guy? Look how he's dancing'''and their parents tell them all about it. That's when they become little Moonwalkers (for a time or their whole lives), they searching it up on YouTube and imitate everything, start buying the well-known albums and get a costume and a glove. Kids see Michael as a super-hero. For some, this is only a stage, like in my family. I'm 17 and have always been a Michael Jackson fan. I remember showing the Dangerous album to my best friend (my nephew)who was 12 by that time, and I was like ''You've got to give this album a listen'' and he didn't really care. Years laters around June, when Michael announced the TII-concerts, he came to visit me with a giant poster of Michael shouting: ''DO YOU KNOW HIM. HE'S GREAAT'' and around June 25th, he was like ''He died. I can't believe it.'' He made a drawing of Michael with all his songs. It was around that time all my nieces & nephews were a HUGE Michael Jackson fan, we danced in front of the whole family lol, gave eachother gifts related to Michael and just listened to his songs and other 80s artists everyday.

That has changed now. My nephew dislikes Michael now and thinks he's a pedophile. He listens to Dubstep and House music now and all my other nieces & nephews are saying that Michael Jackson is stupid with his annoying grunts, while I'm secretly still a Michael Jackson fan, other great artists as well. But I guess that a part of growing up and discovering your interests. He now has a girfriend and plays soccer while I'm here being physically disabled and really want to have both. Well, that's another subject lol. I really miss that time. I really do. God, if I could turn back time..

Well, here you have it. I'm sorry for my bad English and sorry for my whining.. I don't know if I said that right..
:big_boss:
- MJJNick
 
Like a few people have suggested . . . the people that were into Thriller during their teen years when it first came out are now well into their 40s. I'm in my 30s now and although I knew Beat It when I was like 4 yrs old, I didn't know most of the Thriller album until much later. For most people in their 30s, Dangerous was probably their first big MJ album. That release was around the time people were really pushing grunge (and not realizing Dangerous was one of the most complex pop albums ever). That was a time of accusing him of bleaching (and other appearance related issues) and was quickly followed by the first set of allegations. I think people under 20 were moved by the funeral related stuff and so view things differently. Also, they're way more comfortable with the aspects of MJ that are perceived as effeminate . . . not the case when I was in HS.
 
There were obviously very serious allegations made against Michael Jackson. Never proven in a court of law. It obviously made a lot of people uncomfortable or biased against MJ regardless.

Since Michael's death, it doesn't seem the media focuses on the allegations as much. Younger generations of fans are more likely to focus on the music itself and not the controversy.
 
Back
Top