The Impact of MJ's Musical Decisions on His Career and Popularity

[Soundmind]

when I was a kid , I went to Lebanon. That was in 1995 .one magazine had a very long article on him, among the things the article contained that Lisa Marie wanted to divorce him , that she was so fed up with his lies, that he was caught performing oral sex on an INFANT, that he was homosexual, never had sex with women and was banging his chimpanzees. Imagine people reading such horrible things reported as UNDISPUTED FACTS in a magazine ( not a tabloid). It is a miracle that he has survived all the BS that was thrown at him and still has millions around the world believing in him.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

when I was a kid , I went to Lebanon. That was in 1995 .one magazine had a very long article on him, among the things the article contained that Lisa Marie wanted to divorce him , that she was so fed up with his lies, that he was caught performing oral sex on an INFANT, that he was homosexual, never had sex with women and was banging his chimpanzees. Imagine people reading such horrible things reported as UNDISPUTED FACTS in a magazine ( not a tabloid). It is a miracle that he has survived all the BS that was thrown at him and still has millions around the world believing in him.

Before all the innuendo, Michael Jackson had lost half his fanbase by 1988, 5 years before the 1993 allegations and before the tabloids ran amuck

He lost the support from 1969-1985, he lost that

 

[HIStory]

Re: Debates with the public

Before all the innuendo, Michael Jackson had lost half his fanbase by 1988, 5 years before the 1993 allegations and before the tabloids ran amuck

He lost the support from 1969-1985, he lost that

I doubt he was less popular after 1985 than in 1969. How many copies did the J5 records sell, especially outside of the US?

 

[ChrisC]

Re: Debates with the public

Michael Jackson's most popular period was defo 1987-1989 in the UK.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

I doubt he was less popular after 1985 than in 1969. How many copies did the J5 records sell, especially outside of the US?

He lost his foundational support by 1988, and he spent the rest of his career trying to regain, even as his fans internationally didnt know, even when gave the impression that he wasnt

 

[barbee0715]

Re: Debates with the public

He lost his foundational support by 1988, and he spent the rest of his career trying to regain, even as his fans internationally didnt know, even when gave the impression that he wasnt

I know I was just being facetious when you said this before-that he lost half his fan base between 85 and 88 so I was just trying to figure out what fan base you're talking about and what occurred in 85 that this would happen. All I could think of is that he bought the catalogue, he bought Bubbles, he (probably) leaked the stories about the hydrobaric chamber and the Elephant Man to create a little mystery and publicty for Captain EO, And he finally left the Jacksons officially.

After that, the other stories started-he wanted to look like Diana, he was gay, he was taking hormones to make his voice high, he was castrated to make his voice high, he was having cosmetic surgery constantly, he wanted to be white. None true and should have been laughable-

I have been a fan since 1969. Musically, I was a fanatical fan during the Jackson disco days and the whole Quincy Jones period. After that, not as much as a music fan because I personally didn't like the New Jack Swing sound or the rap stuff. (Although on repeated listens, some of the songs grew on me and now they're favorites-some not) At the same time, I loved him even more as a person-if that was even possible-with every new story, I dug in and was even more faithful and loyal.

So who is the half fan base you're talking about, and why would they leave?

 

[HIStory]

Re: Debates with the public

He lost his foundational support by 1988, and he spent the rest of his career trying to regain, even as his fans internationally didnt know, even when gave the impression that he wasnt

You said he after 1985 he lost the fan base he had between 1969 and 1985. I wish you would be a bit clearer on what fan base you mean. African-Americans?


If you mean general popularity, the thing is his popularity was not constant between 1969-1985. The Jackson 5 was popular at the beginning, though thing is that the J5 was always mainly a US centered phenomenon. And no he wasn't more popular during J5 era than during Bad or Dangerous. Then by the mid 1970s the Jackson five lost popularity massively and their sales struggled. So it's a bit strange that you lump together the 1969-1985 period and act like that was a constant success story when it wasn't.


Off The Wall was a successful album, but it wasn't more successful than Bad. And it still isn't. When you go to Spotify this is the order of popularity of his albums (based on the number of spins they get).


1. Thriller
2. Bad
3. Dangerous
4. HIStory
5. Off The Wall
6. Invincible


So the only more successful album between 1969-1985 than Bad or Dangerous was Thriller. He might have lost African-American support after 1985 but he was gaining massive international support. Like ChrisC said in some countries in Europe Bad or Dangerous era was as big as Thriller and there are some where it was even bigger (eg. Germany).

Prince had one massive stand out successful album - Purple Rain. After PR sold 13 million copies in the US, his next album only sold 2 million. Then he had Sign of the Times which sold 4 million, but for the rest of his career even his more successful albums sold in the 1-2 million range. And, unlike MJ, he did not make up internationally for his domestic drop in popularity. So did Prince lose "foundational support" as well?

How about Madonna, who sold 10 million copies of Like a Virgin in the US, then 7 million of True Blue and then Like a Prayer dropped to 5 million, Erotica and Bedtime Stories 2-2 million then she had a little more success with Ray of Light (4.5 million) but then nothing she did ever crossed the 3 million mark any more (most did not even cross the 1-2 million mark). So Madonna's US popularity too dropped after the mid 80s. So did Madonna lose "foundational support" as well?

I'm mentioning these people because usually they are the ones who are considered MJ's peers - born in the same year, reaching success at around the same time etc. But as you can see their curve of success was similar to Michael's (even though Michael's sales were even more phenomenal with Thriller): reaching their commercial peak around the early-mid 80s, then their sales dropping towards the end of the decade. So it seems to me there were lots of outside circumstances which affected the marketability of these people. By the end of the decade there were other trends coming up in popular music: hip-hop started to be the thing for black youth and by the early 90s grunge started to be the thing for white youth and the pop stars of the 80s became somewhat "uncool". They still sold, but not as many as in the early-mid 1980s. And that is not just Michael.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

You said he after 1985 he lost the fan base he had between 1969 and 1985. I wish you would be a bit clearer on what fan base you mean. African-Americans?


If you mean general popularity, the thing is his popularity was not constant between 1969-1985. The Jackson 5 was popular at the beginning, though thing is that the J5 was always mainly a US centered phenomenon. And no he wasn't more popular during J5 era than during Bad or Dangerous. Then by the mid 1970s the Jackson five lost popularity massively and their sales struggled. So it's a bit strange that you lump together the 1969-1985 period and act like that was a constant success story when it wasn't.


Off The Wall was a successful album, but it wasn't more successful than Bad. And it still isn't. When you go to Spotify this is the order of popularity of his albums (based on the number of spins they get).


1. Thriller
2. Bad
3. Dangerous
4. HIStory
5. Off The Wall
6. Invincible


So the only more successful album between 1969-1985 than Bad or Dangerous was Thriller. He might have lost African-American support after 1985 but he was gaining massive international support. Like ChrisC said in some countries in Europe Bad or Dangerous era was as big as Thriller and there are some where it was even bigger (eg. Germany).

Prince had one massive stand out successful album - Purple Rain. After PR sold 13 million copies in the US, his next album only sold 2 million. Then he had Sign of the Times which sold 4 million, but for the rest of his career even his more successful albums sold in the 1-2 million range. And, unlike MJ, he did not make up internationally for his domestic drop in popularity. So did Prince lose "foundational support" as well?

How about Madonna, who sold 10 million copies of Like a Virgin in the US, then 7 million of True Blue and then Like a Prayer dropped to 5 million, Erotica and Bedtime Stories 2-2 million then she had a little more success with Ray of Light (4.5 million) but then nothing she did ever crossed the 3 million mark any more (most did not even cross the 1-2 million mark). So Madonna's US popularity too dropped after the mid 80s. So did Madonna lose "foundational support" as well?

I'm mentioning these people because usually they are the ones who are considered MJ's peers - born in the same year, reaching success at around the same time etc. But as you can see their curve of success was similar to Michael's (even though Michael's sales were even more phenomenal with Thriller): reaching their commercial peak around the early-mid 80s, then their sales dropping towards the end of the decade. So it seems to me there were lots of outside circumstances which affected the marketability of these people. By the end of the decade there were other trends coming up in popular music: hip-hop started to be the thing for black youth and by the early 90s grunge started to be the thing for white youth and the pop stars of the 80s became somewhat "uncool". They still sold, but not as many as in the early-mid 1980s. And that is not just Michael.

Off The Wall was more successful in the United States, it maintained consistent chart position, particularly on the R&B charts, the real r&b charts.........

since the 80s, there has been a totally reversal between the relationship of r&b and pop oriented radio......

when Michael Jackson released Off The Wall and Thriller, it was not pop radio that dictated the success, or I should say set the foundation for it, it was r&b radio.....with Thriller, it's debut single The Girl Is Mine, that song hit #1 on R&B radio, then Pop radio followed......Billie Jean hit #1 on R&B first then Pop radio followed suit, Beat it hit #1 on R&B radio first then pop radio followed......Thriller's success was made possible, the foundation was established on R&B radio first, his black audience, then the nation, and eventually the globe embraced the album

all that was switched by the late 80s and Pop Radio began to marginilize the significance of real r&b, thus the premier black artists of the 80s, Michael Jackson, Prince, Whitney, and Lionel Richie were pushed in that direction to either sustain what they already achieved or given the impression they would achieve even greater success but all 4 did not experience that, and eventually all the premiere artists of that time, their careers experienced a similar dilemna, thus by the beginning of the 90s, the majority of those artists sought and was encourage to focus on establishing international presence......and why did the decline in sales happen in such a conspicuous manner?.....it's because the original support of all these artists were marginilized and slowly phased out from the landscape....

balance was lost, where there was no bridge between the original support and the new generation of support that followed, and this shift was the major reason why Bad sold 22 million copies less than its predecessor even as it was the most eagerly anticipated album in history.......

what I'm saying is...when Madonna first came out, she was considered an r&b artist and not pop

all 4 of those artists and even Madonna to a certain extent got seperated from the roots, and in the grand scheme that's more significant than whatever popularity you may gain down the road

the root is needed in order for the branches to exist

 

[HIStory]

Re: Debates with the public

what I'm saying is...when Madonna first came out, she was considered an r&b artist and not pop

all 4 of those artists and even Madonna to a certain extent got seperated from the roots,

Since when is Madonna an R&B artist? She might have had R&B influences in her music (notably when she worked with Babyface in the 90s) but that doesn't make her an R&B artist. Her roots are not in R&B either. She's always been a pop artist.

Otherwise I lost track with what you are trying to say. What is your point exactly? That Michael should have stuck with the post-disco sound of Thriller forever and that would have guaranteened him continued sales of 29 million or what? That he should have done strictly R&B and that would have guaranteened him continued sales of 29 million? Or what is your point exactly?

In case you think it would have been a better strategy to try to mainly cater to the African-American audiences instead of building a strong and diverse international fan base. Isn't that what Janet did and look where is her career now. I mean she's always been more R&B oriented than MJ. Her success has always been more US-centered than MJ's. Based on that it's safe to say IMO that a larger percentage of her core audience were African-American R&B fans than the core audience of MJ. And did that give Janet a loyal fan base? Not really. While a lot of Michael's fans stuck with him through incredible hardships, Janet's fans base basically dissipated after the first little scandal (nipple gate). She might have had all the chart success in the US, but what did that bring her on the long term? Go to any streaming service and see who's legacy is holding up more, whose songs are listened to more etc. Janet is nowhere near. So from that alone it does not seem stupid for me that Michael made his fan base diverse and international. That holds up the legacy on the long term a lot more successfully than if he had only focused on some core R&B audience.

And BTW, MJ has always been at least as much pop as R&B. Since I Want You Back. That's as much a pop song as it is R&B. The R&B influence in his music was always there but he's never been a hard core R&B artist, he's always been pop. With strong R&B foundations, of course, but then that foundation was there all along.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

Since when is Madonna an R&B artist? She might have had R&B influences in her music (notably when she worked with Babyface in the 90s) but that doesn't make her an R&B artist. Her roots are not in R&B either. She's always been a pop artist.

Otherwise I lost track with what you are trying to say. What is your point exactly? That Michael should have stuck with the post-disco sound of Thriller forever and that would have guaranteened him continued sales of 29 million or what? That he should have done strictly R&B and that would have guaranteened him continued sales of 29 million? Or what is your point exactly?

In case you think it would have been a better strategy to try to mainly cater to the African-American audiences instead of building a strong and diverse international fan base. Isn't that what Janet did and look where is her career now. I mean she's always been more R&B oriented than MJ. Her success has always been more US-centered than MJ's. Based on that it's safe to say IMO that a larger percentage of her core audience were African-American R&B fans than the core audience of MJ. And did that give Janet a loyal fan base? Not really. While a lot of Michael's fans stuck with him through incredible hardships, Janet's fans base basically dissipated after the first little scandal (nipple gate). She might have had all the chart success in the US, but what did that bring her on the long term? Go to any streaming service and see who's legacy is holding up more, whose songs are listened to more etc. Janet is nowhere near. So from that alone it does not seem stupid for me that Michael made his fan base diverse and international. That holds up the legacy on the long term a lot more successfully than if he had only focused on some core R&B audience.

And BTW, MJ has always been at least as much pop as R&B. Since I Want You Back. That's as much a pop song as it is R&B. The R&B influence in his music was always there but he's never been a hard core R&B artist, he's always been pop. With strong R&B foundations, of course, but then that foundation was there all along.

Madonna, when she first started out in her career, before she even cut her first album, her dance style and original musical presentation coming out of Michigan were heavily influenced by the urban community...she has admitted and acknowledged this in various interviews after her rise to stardom......songs like Borderline and Lucky Star were originally supported by urban radio before she would become recognized as Pop queen by the mid to late 80s

and see that's the thing that perplexed the situation during the 80s, particularly the mid 80s going into the late 80s, the original audience of all the artists that were mentioned, Michael, Whitney, Prince, Lionel, and Madonna were no longer acknowledged after each star reached their commercial apex, thus the divide, thus the decline in sales w/the follow up efforts to those albums...it happened to Michael, it happened to Whitney, it happened to Prince, it happened to Lionel...all artists are black, and when the original support became alienated, then that's when the criticism towards each one escalated....the motivation behind the critisicm of Michael, Whitney, and Lionel (Prince to a lesser extent) happened for the same reason, then that's when the tabloids kicked in and ran amuck, then the focus began to be directed away from the talent and focused on the image being projected


MJ wasn't necessarily Pop starting out but was geared towards pursuing it while his roots were deeply entrenched in R&B, R&B not necessarily regarding the genre as we have come to know it, but the cultural experience that shaped it, and because of that foundation, MJ was able to interpret the other genres of music in a way that was able to connect with so many people from all walks...the real R&B that had been shaped over time is what made the other genres possible to exist

what I'm saying is, if the climate that existed throughout the entertainment industry after Thriller would have promoted balance rather than extremes, then MJ would have maintained the support of his original audience while he garnered new generations of fans, the balanced would have been there, and all of his albums after Thriller would have sold more than they actually did, and he would not have been subject to the criticism he faced over time, or I should say scrutiny, so much so, leading him to write the song Scream where he clearly says

"Yall keep changing the rules, I keep playing the game, I can't take it much longer, I think I may go insane"

and if we go back and really study the musical family tree, we will find that Pop in of itself has no musical original but is a distinction after a particularly genre of music has been established and matured and presented in the most definitive manner

what I'm saying, if the balance would have been allowed....Bad, or the follow up to Thriller would have sold more than Thriller did

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Debates with the public

You sound so much like Thrillernight of KOP. "MJ turned his back on the black community so they did the same" . When this will stop really?!

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

You sound so much like Thrillernight of KOP. "MJ turned his back on the black community so they did the same" . When this will stop really?!

it's deeper than any generalization

it was a systematic mechanization, a breach that's greater than any one person....the breach is what opened the door to all the scrutiny

the problem is bigger than any one artist

and based on the evidence and the trajectory of where the music industry is headed

its' 2015, it may not even exist 10 years from now......we all need to look at the current state, we all know it's terrible, we all know everything is redundant, we all know it is boring now, we all know the focus is not on talent any longer......but there is a reason for it, and it all can be traced back to the late 80s

the breach is so profound now, it has affected all artists regardless of ethnicity, nationality, gender, or cultural background

unless the problem is fixed, we're not gonna have anymore music coming down the pike

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: Debates with the public

Bringing Brighter Days often states stuff based his/her personal opinion rather than facts. I don't believe a word of it. Michael's popularity became bigger in other countries with the Bad and Dangerous albums where they didn't even know The Jackson 5, Off The Wall or even Thriller. I don't intend to start a religious or political discussion but back in the day it was considered a crime to listen or even owning western music in Iran and some other Muslim countries and countries who were part of the Soviet Union couldn't listen to it freely. It was until the 90s people in those situations had more access to Michael's music and gained new fans but it's also unfortunately true he lost many others due to the allegation and the hatred towards him intensified.

 

[TinnyandOdd]

Re: Debates with the public

I don't intend to start a religious or political discussion but back in the day it was considered a crime to listen or even owning western music in Iran and some other Muslim countries and countries who were part of the Soviet Union couldn't listen to it freely. It was until the 90s people in those situations had more access to Michael's music and gained new fans.

Funny you mention this, because a really good friend of mine was directly resulted in this way. She grew up in the Bosnian War and was delivered a tape player and cassette of Michael Jackson's music by peace officers in order to drown out the sounds of the gunfire and so fourth. She's actually in the MJ Opus either under the Friends or Heart section (can't remember which.) Her name's Annie if you have it and want to check it out. Her story is both heartbreaking and fascinating, and really tells the personal tales of just how influential and far reaching MJ's music could and did go. Whether that means he lost fans, or street cred., or whatever have you, the fact is he was arguably the most recognizable worldwide name/figure throughout the 80's/90's and whether you like him or not, you'll be hard pressed to find someone that doesn't at least know his name? You can't say that about any other musical artist as far as I have seen?

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

Bringing Brighter Days often states stuff based his/her personal opinion rather than facts. I don't believe a word of it. Michael's popularity became bigger in other countries with the Bad and Dangerous albums where they didn't even know The Jackson 5, Off The Wall or even Thriller. I don't intend to start a religious or political discussion but back in the day it was considered a crime to listen or even owning western music in Iran and some other Muslim countries and countries who were part of the Soviet Union couldn't listen to it freely. It was until the 90s people in those situations had more access to Michael's music and gained new fans but it's also unfortunately true he lost many others due to the allegation and the hatred towards him intensified.

My word doesn't have to be taken....

all people have to do is look at the actual trajectory of record sales

the reason it appears his international support was stronger during Bad and Dangerous in comparison to Thriller was because by the time the 90s arrived, Michael was marketed as an international artist exclusively

but the sales tell the actual story because even when he was being marketed as such, his international sales never surpassed Thriller

Thriller sold 47 million copies worldwide from the time it was released from 1982 and completed its run by late 1984, the album sold 25 million domestically and the other 22 million internationally

Bad sold 25 million copies worldwide from the time of its release in 1987 making its run thru the beginning of 1989, selling 6-8 million copies domestically where the other 17 to 18 million sold internationally, so that means, the international sales declined by 4-5 million

Dangerous sold 20-22 million copies worldwide during its release of late 1991 and making its run thru mid 1993, selling 20-22 million copies worldwide w/4-6 million copies sold domestically, so the other 16-18 million sold internationally

History sold 15 million copies worldwide (when the album is counted as a double disc) during its run from mid 1995 thru the better part of 1997, with 3-5 million sold domestically and the other 10-12 million sold internationally

the sales tell the true story of what was taking place.....another reason why it appeared he was bigger/more popular overseas after Thriller was because his Dangerous and History tours were performed overseas exclusively as he did not tour North America

the truth is that Michael reached his apex internationally with Thriller and that's w/out a tour to promote the album


The Jackson Five had toured the world at least 3 times before Michael started his adult solo career, he was already an entertainment legend by 18.....

after Thriller, if Michael would have been allowed to showcase his talent in the manner it should have happened, he never would have been subjected to the scrutiny he faced over time...

 

[barbee0715]

Re: Debates with the public

and see that's the thing that perplexed the situation during the 80s, particularly the mid 80s going into the late 80s, the original audience of all the artists that were mentioned, Michael, Whitney, Prince, Lionel, and Madonna were no longer acknowledged after each star reached their commercial apex, thus the divide, thus the decline in sales w/the follow up efforts to those albums...it happened to Michael, it happened to Whitney, it happened to Prince, it happened to Lionel...all artists are black, and when the original support became alienated, then that's when the criticism towards each one escalated....the motivation behind the critisicm of Michael, Whitney, and Lionel (Prince to a lesser extent) happened for the same reason, then that's when the tabloids kicked in and ran amuck, then the focus began to be directed away from the talent and focused on the image being projected


MJ wasn't necessarily Pop starting out but was geared towards pursuing it while his roots were deeply entrenched in R&B, R&B not necessarily regarding the genre as we have come to know it, but the cultural experience that shaped it, and because of that foundation, MJ was able to interpret the other genres of music in a way that was able to connect with so many people from all walks...the real R&B that had been shaped over time is what made the other genres possible to exist

what I'm saying is, if the climate that existed throughout the entertainment industry after Thriller would have promoted balance rather than extremes, then MJ would have maintained the support of his original audience while he garnered new generations of fans, the balanced would have been there, and all of his albums after Thriller would have sold more than they actually did, and he would not have been subject to the criticism he faced over time, or I should say scrutiny, so much so, leading him to write the song Scream where he clearly says

"Yall keep changing the rules, I keep playing the game, I can't take it much longer, I think I may go insane"

and if we go back and really study the musical family tree, we will find that Pop in of itself has no musical original but is a distinction after a particularly genre of music has been established and matured and presented in the most definitive manner

what I'm saying, if the balance would have been allowed....Bad, or the follow up to Thriller would have sold more than Thriller did

Pop doesn't have a musical original, as you said, because Pop is what is popular with everyone at the time. From the old jazz and blues, to big band, swing, disco, rock-pop, hip hop, it constantly changes. But R&B now (or urban or whatever you want to call it) doesn't seem to have any roots in the old R&B that I grew up with-that evolved distinctly from the old jazz/blues era of the 20s and 30s mixed up with gospel.

And this is what I don't get, and never have, in all these years? What is it that makes the original audience alienated? I am a white, USA fan since 1969 and I remember listening to some songs from "Off the Wall" in the early 80s at my first job, and my black colleagues fairly freaked out that I was also a fan since childhood. I was actually even more of a fan, because I had stayed with him and the brothers and through out the early Epic/disco days and they had had their crushes and moved on. One of them brought me all their old Ebony and Jet mags that they had saved so I could catch up on the Jacksons growing up-stuff I'd never read before. I also remember they were the first ones that turned on him around 86-bringing in the National Enquirer with the strange stories. When the show "Living Color" came on in the early 90s , (which I did not watch) they had to tell me all the funny skits they had ridiculing Michael. They were the first to believe the tabloid trash.
Why is that?

(To me, this is similar to the irrational backlash against disco-everybody loved it, until one day people realized oh, this was music for women, gay people, Latinos, Blacks, and we have to destroy it-that was nothing but in your face racism and sexism).

And, as you said, this isn't unique to Michael-this seems to happen to all black artists once they hit crossover success-Diana Ross went through this also. Berry Gordy was demonized. I remember all the nasty remarks about Michael while they were killing themselves trying to score tix to the BAD tour. I remember the booing of Whitney at the award show. I remember the nasty cracks about the Cosby show and the fact that the daughters were all light skinned. That's when they taught me about the paper bag test. And all that time, none of these artists did ANYTHING to turn their backs on the black community-nothing-they just kept reaching out to them more and more.-I just saw a video of Diana Ross in the 90s wearing a tank top and torn jeans and trying to dance in front of a hip hop dance crew-I had no idea she was trying to reinvent herself, much like Michael did when he started working with Teddy Riley and Rodney Jerkins, etc.
Can you tell me why this alienation happens-because I see nothing from the artist that warrants it, and it honestly makes me really angry.

I had the TV on 24/7 after Michael died, and watched the BET awards two days later-and Jamie Foxx was on-his speech made it quite clear and I paraphrase "that MICHAEL WAS OURS FIRST" and I threw a book at my TV set. You really want to claim that he's yours first, when he was chewed up and spit out?

I really want to understand the alienation, because to me, it seems like racism too.



Edited to add: I see, while I was ranting, that you posted a vid of them performing in Mexico. I was lucky enough to see this show that year. It was quite wonderful.
Better, I apologize if my rant seemed aimed at you-it's not-it's the 30 years of rage I have over this treatment. I worked with those girls at the bank for over 16 years and they taught me more about the black community than you can even imagine-I thought I knew everything, and I didn't have a clue what it was really like. I was flabbergasted at some of the stuff they told me-how racism was all around me and I didn't even realize it.And they did it in the most non-condescending way-we became like family and I was closer to several of them than I have ever been to my own sister. I went to weddings, funerals and drove like a crazy person to the hospital when one had a baby-babysat for them. And vice versa.

It's just one or two topics that I never good get a good answer or understanding to-one was the backlash against black artists who cross over-and should be appealing to all races-I never got a good answer on why that becomes a bad thing.

You and I agree on a lot of things-especially our appreciation of the Quincy Jones work-although I do think Quincy needed Michael as much as Michael needed Quincy-and they drove each other to the highest heights possible. So I guess I'm just trying to finally figure this one out.

 

[mjprince1976]

Re: Debates with the public

I don't agree with a lot of this stuff. Pop music trends change quickly and many stars who are absolutely hot one year are all but forgotten 2 or 3 years later. Who remembers Lady Gaga anymore? yet in 2011she was the biggest thing in music. Same for Justin Bieber, he has a hit at the moment as a featured singer, but his career is all but over. What about Bruno Mars and Robin Thicke, Mr 2013, all but forgotten on the scrapheap of pop fan fickleness.

Now compare these so called megastars next to MJ, who was pretty much in his commercial prime global from 1983 through to 1995 with History. Here in NZ it was not a race thing, Maori liked him, Pakehas liked him, Asians, Islanders. Michael was a unifying force here. His hits were on our charts through to Ghosts and all were big smashes, ecxept some of the later Dangerous singles which bombed (You wonder why as they were great), but when a music magazine criticised it, Sony Music NZ sounded them out and then they released Give in to me, which was a #1 hit here.

I remember from Billie Jean in early 1983 through to Ghosts in 1997, every music show and magazine mentioned MJ and there were MJ fans everywhere. After History sales slowed in late 1996, they were revived by the History tour in Auckland on November 9 and 11 1996. I could not go as I was 2nd year uni and had exams in Dunedin (1300km away). It was his first concert here since he toured as a member of the Jacksons back in 1978 and earlier in 1972 as a member of the Jackson 5. The trials bought out the criticisers here and when Invincible came out, it was not that successful.

I think MJ's time at the top lasted longer than most pop musicians, and plus you can not deny the fanbase of MJ fans that exist globally. Plus where does your number of 47 million copies of Thriller come from. I thought the official figure was 104 -110 million copies globally since December 1982.

Everyone has their time on the charts, but MJ's would be one of the longest and this exposure in the public eye would endure criticism. Okay given Thriller was his commercial peak, but all the albums OTW to History were huge in the States and Thriller to History overseas. Thats at least 14 years (I say early 1983 with Billy Jean as a single, up to Blood on the Dancefloor, which was a huge hit in most places). The first two months of Thriller, the album sold modestly rather than phenomenally, as it really took off after Pop music pluggers played Billie Jean and MTV added it to their playlist along with Prince's 1999.

Prince in my eyes got 9 years at the top, from the time Little Red Corvette hit #6 on the Pop Chart in May 1983, through to 7 leaving the Top 10 in early 1993 (Although TMBGITW was a #3 hit, it was under Symbol and the name change put heapsof fans off). Like MJ, Prince's commercial peak was with Purple Rain which sold 20.5 million copies (nearly 14mil US and 7 mil Worldwide), but his artistic peak was 1987's Sign O the Times, which sold 3.2 million copies (1.8 US and 1.4 Worldwide) and still had 3 Top 10 singles (SOTT #3, U got the look #2 - Kept off #1 by Bad!, ICNTTPOYM #10). With Michael most of us agree that Dangerous was his artistic peak.

And again with Madonna, Virgin and True Blue were her biggest sellers, but many say that Like a Prayer or Erotica were her artistic peaks.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Debates with the public

^ Hopefully the mods will sort out what to do.

Until then to the things said above:

I don't really understand what is the problem here, because to me Michael had a very satisfying career, more successful than most, if not all, others. He had hardships, most however did not have to do with his music, but outside circumstances (which is what the OP seemed to have referred to - eg. people calling him this or that).

In terms of commercial success it's natural that artists are not on a never ending high, so it is simply and irrealistic expectation that somehow he should have kept recreating Thriller's success over and over again, when no one ever managed to reach that level of success, let alone maintain it over a long term. Thriller wasn't just an album but a whole cultural phenomenon that I am sure draw in a lot of bandwagon fans. Thriller wasn't that successful because of Michael's original core audience but because of those casual "bandwagon" fans. Which then go away when the media decides that it's time to tear down an artist and the bandwagon is not considered cool any more. As simple as that. Nothing really to do with MJ's core audience IMO.

When you look at it: putting Thriller aside Michael actually kept up a pretty consistent level of success between OTW and Dangerous in the US: OTW sold 8 million, Bad sold 9 million, Dangerous sold 7 million. I'd call that pretty constant. Except that internationally he grew bigger with Bad and Dangerous. So on world wide sales Bad and Dangerous exceeded OTW.

It seems to me that it would be more fair to call those about 8 million people who bought OTW his original core audience than the 29 million who simply jumped on the Thriller bandwagon. Those were obviously not all hard core fans - and BTW not all black R&B fans either. Thriller was that successful among others because it crossed over to rock fans (Beat It), to older white pop fans (The Girl Is Mine) etc.

After Dangerous it's not really fair to compare anything to his earlier success because obviously the allegations had a big effect on his popularity. I can also see why a heavy and rather dark album like HIStory will never be as commercially popular as some light hearted fun album and I am perfectly content with that. HIStory is still an important album and a favourite among hard core fans and that's OK. Not everything has to be crazy popular with the general public. Some things just cannot be due to their nature but artistically they still have to exist and it's a good thing they exist. Every artist have depths to their art which are mainly appreciated by hard core fans. But even that part of MJ's catalog generated some highly successful outputs such as TDCAU or Earth Song.

So I am not quite sure what is to be unsatisfied with in MJ's career when it was one of the most successful careers ever with both crazy commercial success and fantastic art.

And I agree with Barbee, I am not sure where this notion comes from that black fans (I suppose that's what meant by his "original audience") are somehow more loyal than others. Or that they are more effective in keeping up an artist's legacy over the long term. That's not true IMO. Both black and white fans can be fickle bandwagoners or loyal hard core fans.

My observation is actually that fans outside of the US tend to be more loyal than American fans (whether black or white). The US seems to be this "throwaway society" to me where you do not want to be stuck in some old trend that is not considered "cool" any more by the media and the masses. Everyone wants to look cool by keeping up with the latest trends and that includes mocking the old ones and those who got stuck in those old trends. I think in other countries this is is less important and because of that fans tend to be more loyal (to any artist, not just to Michael BTW).

And that is why I think it's actaually a good thing that Michael extended his fan base and focused on international audiences after Thriller, rather than just focusing on his core audience. As great as OTW is (and don't get me wrong, it's one of my fave albums - I consider it a masterpiece), but he would have never achieved the international mega star status with albums like that that he achieved with Bad and Dangerous. It's simply a matter of differences between the tastes of certain demographics. And to rely just on your original core audience rather than trying to reach a diverse, international fan base is not proven to be more effective in maintaining the longevity of your legacy. In fact, the opposite is true. Which is why I mentioned Janet's example.

 

[karom]

The off topic discussion in the haters thread has been moved here. In the future, please create a new thread for off topic discussions before they reach such great size as it is very time consuming to move so many posts and they may just end up deleted instead.

If you have any better ideas for what the title of this thread should be, please PM myself or one of the moderators so we can change it. We needed a title to create the thread, but perhaps you can think of one more relevant to the discussion.

Finally, please stop the racial discussions which are both offensive and against MJJC rules. Implying that MJ was better when or because his skin was black or that the black fan community was more or less loyal and any other such notions are offensive and will not be tolerated on here.

 

[HIStoric]

Re: Debates with the public

Plus where does your number of 47 million copies of Thriller come from. I thought the official figure was 104 -110 million copies globally since December 1982.

The figure is all over the place. No one doubts it's place at #1 on the best selling album of all time list but I usually see figures go from 47-65 million myself. Wikipedia says that sale estimates have been as high as 110 million, but that these sales figures are generally unreliable (it then gives this link as a reference, I haven't bothered to read it as I have to go do some work soon http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/did-thriller-really-sell-a-hundred-million-copies).

 

[HIStory]

^ The very least it should be 65-66 million. That's the minimum IMO. Wikipedia always tries to bring it down to the very minimum that they have to acknowledge. In this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums you can see that they acknowledge 42.4 certified albums and say that's good to support 51-65 million sold copies acc. to them. But with other artists they are always a lot more liberal and they allow a much bigger gap between the certified copies and the sales number they claim. Only with MJ they are that strict. LOL. I actually had to argue with them a couple of years ago to make it 51-65, instead of just 51. With the 51 figure they basically only acknowledged what they have certificate figures for (and that is not a complete list from all countries), but then for other artists you can see they have no problem to claim the double amount sold as than what they have certifications for. The double standards and the bias against MJ is just crazy.

In any case, I think at least 65-66 million is very well supported. 47 million sounds a way too little number when even the not at all complete list of certifications on Wikipedia contain 42.4 million.

ETA: Figures from only a couple of countries:

USA 29 million
UK 4.2 million
Canada 2.4 million
Australia 1.15 million
Germany 1.5 million
France 2.4 million
Brazil 3.8 million
Japan 1.7 million
Argentina 0.5 million
Austria 0.4 million
New Zealand 0.18 million

This is already above 47 million and this is just some countries plus in some countries certifications have not been updated for a long time.

 

[Psychoniff]

Re: Debates with the public

Bringing Brighter Days often states stuff based his/her personal opinion rather than facts. I don't believe a word of it. Michael's popularity became bigger in other countries with the Bad and Dangerous albums where they didn't even know The Jackson 5, Off The Wall or even Thriller. I don't intend to start a religious or political discussion but back in the day it was considered a crime to listen or even owning western music in Iran and some other Muslim countries and countries who were part of the Soviet Union couldn't listen to it freely. It was until the 90s people in those situations had more access to Michael's music and gained new fans but it's also unfortunately true he lost many others due to the allegation and the hatred towards him intensified.

Thriller is still the biggest selling album internationally, does that not stand for anything? BaDangerous both didn't sell as well internationally.

 

[HIStoric]

I agree, it's honestly probably somewhere in the ~60-65 million range.

Wikipedia always tries to bring it down to the very minimum that they have to acknowledge. In this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums you can see that they acknowledge 42.4 certified albums and say that's good to support 51-65 million sold copies acc. to them. But with other artists they are always a lot more liberal and they allow a much bigger gap between the certified copies and the sales number they claim. Only with MJ they are that strict. LOL.

Well I mean, the claims list is really only what publications tend to list the sales figure as, along with the certified sales proving at least 30% of it is true. The certified sales is, of course, from certified chart companies that depict an accurate measure of sales.

I don't think the 'gap' is as bad as you are claiming and saying there is a 'bias' against MJ honestly seems a bit too far-fetched.
The gap between certified and claimed for Thriller is 8.6 million - 22.6 million.
The gap for The Dark Side of the Moon is 22.3 million.
The gap for Back in Black is 14.1 million.
The gap for Bat Out of Hell is 21.4 million.
The gap for Bad is 11.6 - 26.6 million.
The gap for Dangerous is 13.7 - 28.7 million (which is extremely odd, I've never ever seen Dangerous be claimed for anything over ~31 million but yet there's a claim of 45 million??).

MJ does seem to have the biggest gap between certified and claimed (and that's really only due to some odd claim that Dangerous has somehow sold 45 million) but take that out of the question and it seems to be in the realm of the other best selling albums. I don't really see any 'bias' against him, least not anymore if there was one. Wikipedia tends to be a relatively neutral source. I feel it's just usually the claimed sales for MJ albums are usually all over the place whereas most other albums tend to be the opposite.

Obviously, I am not doubting that MJ has sold a crazy amount, just merely questioning your claim of bias against MJ on the claim/certified gaps.

This is already above 47 million and this is just some countries plus in some countries certifications have not been updated for a long time.

Maybe you should look into getting it updated? Editing is locked to certain users but maybe you can post on the Talk page? No doubt many of the albums here have outdated figures though. It really seems to be a page where you read it to get an idea of how much an album has sold.

 

[HIStory]

I agree, it's honestly probably somewhere in the ~60-65 million range.

Well I mean, the claims list is really only what publications tend to list the sales figure as, along with the certified sales proving at least 30% of it is true. The certified sales is, of course, from certified sources that depict an accurate measure of sales. I see the claimed figures for other albums and it does seem correct with what I've read over the years.

I don't think the 'gap' is as bad as you are claiming and saying there is a 'bias' against MJ honestly seems a bit too far-fetched.
The gap between certified and claimed for Thriller is 8.6 million - 22.6 million.
The gap for The Dark Side of the Moon is 22.3 million.
The gap for Back in Black is 14.1 million.
The gap for Bat Out of Hell is 21.4 million.
The gap for Bad is 11.6 - 26.6 million.
The gap for Dangerous is 13.7 - 28.7 million (which is extremely odd, I've never ever seen Dangerous be claimed for anything over ~31 million but yet there's a claim of 45 million??).

Well, like I said they only put in the 65 million figure after much arguing. They tried to keep it at 51. And I don't know how 8.6 million is a bigger gap than 22.3 million (DSOTM), Back in Black (14.1 million), Bat out of Hell (21.4 million) etc and how you do not see the bias where you have to fight and argue to make them put there that 65 million figure while they did not have a problem with similar gaps regarding other albums and artists. But with MJ you always have to do that extra fight to make them acknowledge similar things for him that they naturally acknowledge for other artists.

In fact, if they were neutral and had the same standards for Thriller as for the other albums then they would simply say 65 million without the 51 million. They still did not want to let go that 51 million number.

And BTW, other albums too have sales number claims that are different, so that is not a good excuse either.

MJ does seem to have the biggest gap between certified and claimed

Only if you focus on the upper numbers of the given range and even then only Bad/Dangerous. If you focus on the minumum number then the difference is still smaller as with other albums, but in any case I did not talk about Bad or Dangerous, I talked about Thriller. I think the 45 million claims for Bad and Dangerous are exaggerated, 30-32 million is more right.

Wikipedia tends to be a relatively neutral source.

Wikipedia is not known to be neutral at all. It's actaully known to be a source that you have to take with a big mountain of salt (even they themselves state that so in their disclaimer) because it can be edited by anyone and because often those who edit it have their own agendas. There are a lot of harmful and false claims about MJ on Wikipedia and album sales are the least of it. About the allegations haters completely hijacked the discourse. I actually had a discussion about it once with a Wikipedia editor who told me that the things appear on Wikipedia do not have to be true, they just have to be "verifiable". That means if you can provide a source for a claim from a newspaper article or book (well, if the book is not self published) it can be put on Wikipedia. But not every book is acceptable. Self published ones are not. As if non self-published books are somehow more reliable. So haters are well within their right to put quotes on Wikipedia from trashy articles or hostile books, but I'd hate it if people thought that's actually neutral and truthful information about Michael Jackson.

Here is a good article about the limitations of Wikipedia as a source: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news...tudents-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html

According to Wikipedia itself, “[W]hile some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. … use [Wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn't.”

And you know what's interesting? The New Yorker article that they cite as a source for why the 110 million number is probably exaggerated calculates Thriller sales as 66.2 million. So they use that as a source for an argument against 110 million, but they still do not want to get rid of that minimizing 51 million number in the best selling albums article. If they can say for example that DSOTM sold 45 million, just because they can find articles saying so, instead of saying it sold 30-45 million, why can't they just say 65 or 66 million for Thriller? Everything that is required for that is there: sources saying so and the required number of certifications as well.

 

[HIStoric]

And I don't know how 8.6 million is a bigger gap than 22.3 million (DSOTM), Back in Black (14.1 million), Bat out of Hell (21.4 million) etc

Well obviously it's not. I put a range for Thriller, Bad and Dangerous because the gap between claimed/certified varied depending on whether you used the lower or higher value. If there was one value for those 3 albums, obviously I would've stuck to that single value but since there was two values, I had to give a range.

In regards to why MJ has a range for his claimed sales, is it possible because the claimed sales for his albums are all over the place? I can't speak for many of the other artists on this list (and for those I can, the claimed sales seem close to what I've read everywhere) but I admit I always see the sales for Thriller and Bad all over the show? It's odd that there isn't at least a couple of other albums that aren't like this because you think there , but once again, I wouldn't know. I agree that the range that included the 65 million figure should've at least been there in the first place.

Only if you focus on the upper numbers of the given range and even then only Bad/Dangerous. If you focus on the minumum number then the difference is still smaller as with other albums, but in any case I did not talk about Bad or Dangerous, I talked about Thriller. I think the 45 million claims for Bad and Dangerous are exaggerated, 30-32 million is more right.

But even if you use the upper number of the given range, the numbers are still in the same realm of albums of the same honour? Focusing on the maximum range (so a 22.6 million gap between certified and claimed for Thriller), it's 0.3 million more than Dark Side of the Moon's gap, 1.2 million more than Bat Out Of Hell, 1.6 million than Saturday Night Fever. Thriller has the highest still, but it's only 0.0-2.0 million more than some of other results which isn't too much of a difference when we're speaking such a large volume of sales. This is all focusing on the 40+ million sellers btw.

Wikipedia is not known to be neutral at all. It's actaully known................

Completely fair points, I've just personally and in general found it to be a relatively fair source on him at the times I've read the articles on him (which when it comes to the allegations isn't that often). When I have read it, there has been the odd occasion I've noticed something off but I come back soon after and it's generally fixed (minus the once or twice I've fixed it myself, but I almost never edit Wikipedia so yeah).

And you know what's interesting? The New Yorker article that they cite as a source for why the 110 million number is probably exaggerated calculates Thriller sales as 66.2 million. So they use that as a source for an argument against 110 million, but they still do not want to get rid of that minimizing 51 million number in the best selling albums article. If they can say for example that DSOTM sold 45 million, just because they can find articles saying so, instead of saying it sold 30-45 million, why can't they just say 65 or 66 million for Thriller?

I was about to post when I refreshed and saw you added this, so take what I've said before this quote as having not read your quote. I haven't read that article yet, but you should definitely bring it up on the Talk page or something. If they refuse to change it after this, then yeah I will agree with you that there is an odd bias against MJ.

 

[HIStory]

I was about to post when I refreshed and saw you added this, so take what I've said before this quote as having not read your quote. I haven't read that article yet, but you should definitely bring it up on the Talk page or something. If they refuse to change it after this, then yeah I will agree with you that there is an odd bias against MJ.

I'm kind of done with Wikipedia, to be honest. When I talked to them the claim for Thriller was just 51 million. And even back then everything required to say it was 65 million or 66 million was already there. I provided sources saying so (I think I actually provided this same article by the New Yorker among others) and the required number of certifications to back it up were obviosuly there as well. Still they were kind of reluctand and when they did change it they still left the 51 million number there. They do not seem to do this to other albums. If the required certifications are there and you can provide a source saying a certain number they will just put it there. With Thriller the only thing I could achieve was that they put there the 65 million number as the higher end of a range. Better than nothing, I guess.

I don't know, but I feel there is a certain culture war regarding MJ. I have seen Madonna fans on Wikipedia lobbying against certain sales claims for his albums and stuff like that. I knew they were Madonna fans because while they were lobbying against MJ albums, they were lobbying FOR Madonna albums. And among others, this is why Wikipedia is not necessarily reliable. Often it's about the clash of agendas in terms of what kind of information is being claimed on it. There are haters with agendas, fans of other artists with agendas, obviously also fans of MJ with agendas etc.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

Pop doesn't have a musical original, as you said, because Pop is what is popular with everyone at the time. From the old jazz and blues, to big band, swing, disco, rock-pop, hip hop, it constantly changes. But R&B now (or urban or whatever you want to call it) doesn't seem to have any roots in the old R&B that I grew up with-that evolved distinctly from the old jazz/blues era of the 20s and 30s mixed up with gospel.

And this is what I don't get, and never have, in all these years? What is it that makes the original audience alienated? I am a white, USA fan since 1969 and I remember listening to some songs from "Off the Wall" in the early 80s at my first job, and my black colleagues fairly freaked out that I was also a fan since childhood. I was actually even more of a fan, because I had stayed with him and the brothers and through out the early Epic/disco days and they had had their crushes and moved on. One of them brought me all their old Ebony and Jet mags that they had saved so I could catch up on the Jacksons growing up-stuff I'd never read before. I also remember they were the first ones that turned on him around 86-bringing in the National Enquirer with the strange stories. When the show "Living Color" came on in the early 90s , (which I did not watch) they had to tell me all the funny skits they had ridiculing Michael. They were the first to believe the tabloid trash.
Why is that?

(To me, this is similar to the irrational backlash against disco-everybody loved it, until one day people realized oh, this was music for women, gay people, Latinos, Blacks, and we have to destroy it-that was nothing but in your face racism and sexism).

And, as you said, this isn't unique to Michael-this seems to happen to all black artists once they hit crossover success-Diana Ross went through this also. Berry Gordy was demonized. I remember all the nasty remarks about Michael while they were killing themselves trying to score tix to the BAD tour. I remember the booing of Whitney at the award show. I remember the nasty cracks about the Cosby show and the fact that the daughters were all light skinned. That's when they taught me about the paper bag test. And all that time, none of these artists did ANYTHING to turn their backs on the black community-nothing-they just kept reaching out to them more and more.-I just saw a video of Diana Ross in the 90s wearing a tank top and torn jeans and trying to dance in front of a hip hop dance crew-I had no idea she was trying to reinvent herself, much like Michael did when he started working with Teddy Riley and Rodney Jerkins, etc.
Can you tell me why this alienation happens-because I see nothing from the artist that warrants it, and it honestly makes me really angry.

I had the TV on 24/7 after Michael died, and watched the BET awards two days later-and Jamie Foxx was on-his speech made it quite clear and I paraphrase "that MICHAEL WAS OURS FIRST" and I threw a book at my TV set. You really want to claim that he's yours first, when he was chewed up and spit out?

I really want to understand the alienation, because to me, it seems like racism too.



Edited to add: I see, while I was ranting, that you posted a vid of them performing in Mexico. I was lucky enough to see this show that year. It was quite wonderful.
Better, I apologize if my rant seemed aimed at you-it's not-it's the 30 years of rage I have over this treatment. I worked with those girls at the bank for over 16 years and they taught me more about the black community than you can even imagine-I thought I knew everything, and I didn't have a clue what it was really like. I was flabbergasted at some of the stuff they told me-how racism was all around me and I didn't even realize it.And they did it in the most non-condescending way-we became like family and I was closer to several of them than I have ever been to my own sister. I went to weddings, funerals and drove like a crazy person to the hospital when one had a baby-babysat for them. And vice versa.

It's just one or two topics that I never good get a good answer or understanding to-one was the backlash against black artists who cross over-and should be appealing to all races-I never got a good answer on why that becomes a bad thing.

You and I agree on a lot of things-especially our appreciation of the Quincy Jones work-although I do think Quincy needed Michael as much as Michael needed Quincy-and they drove each other to the highest heights possible. So I guess I'm just trying to finally figure this one out.

that's the entire crux of the problem when it comes to genuine acceptance,

why is it that artists have to seek crossover appeal anyway, why was the recording industry set up like that to begin with

why couldn't it just have been set up where you don't have to worry about crossing over to where if a person likes what you doing, they like what you're doing

because race is a factor unfortunately....the connotation of the word says it all.."crossing over".....it may not be dictated by the audience the artist is geared on crossing over to, but causes more problems in the long run rather than allowing an artist who possess immense talent to achieve based purely on their merit....

the decline in those record sales by all the aforementioned artists in the 80s, it was all systematic it was not a coincidence, for it was a byproduct of what was already being shaped a generation earlier in the 60s

because what started off as this

turns into this

compare who we see in the audience of both clips.....

balance was lost out......this dynamic occurred with Lionel, Whitney on a similar scale and Prince on a smaller scale when the late 80s arrived....

that's not by accident.....the root of the criticisms these artists faced are based on a system that pulls these artists away from their beginning support and dont' allow them to function properly where people can support them w/out the divisions that arise...

appealing to all races is not the problem...never was...when MJ acheived what he did with Thriller, it was the most amazing thing I've ever seen in the field of music and entertainment.......if a person has that type of talent to do that, it's awesome..that' not the issue

it's "how" it happens that becomes the problem, because as soon as these artists reached their apex commercially, they were pulled away from their original audience to where balance is lost out on.....

if we look at stories today about Michael or Whitney, specials about them, or anything in references to them, the original audience, the black audience rarely if ever gets acknowledged or mentioned


Here's a perfect example, E hollywood did a special on Whitney Houston earlier this year and a participant on the special said that Whitney Houston's first major hit was "How Will I Know", which was a pop hit......but the truth was that Whitney had two major hits before in "You Give Good Love" and "Saving All My Love For You", which received initial support from R&B radio, and this is why the special never acknowledged it....it's small moments like that which leads to what happened to her 4 years later at the Soul Train Awards...there's always a cause that leads to these effects...

that's what led to these backlashes from the onset

and Michael Jackson himself tried to share this w/the world during his period of rebellion in releasing the History Album, the lyrics in the songs Scream, They Don't Really Care About Us, and Stranger in Moscow highlight the plight

if the industry would let these artists, all artists function properly without feeling the need to focus on one area of support, to where they can exist freely, 1.) we would get better music as we did years ago...2.) these artists careers wouldn't be cut short....3.) any criticisms that would exist would mainly be centered around what they are doing professionally rather than being the subject of criticism and tabloid fodder....

there is no way that Michael Jackson should have only existed for 50 years in this world

 

[innuendo141]

that's the entire crux of the problem when it comes to genuine acceptance,

why is it that artists have to seek crossover appeal anyway, why was the recording industry set up like that to begin with

why couldn't it just have been set up where you don't have to worry about crossing over to where if a person likes what you doing, they like what you're doing

because race is a factor unfortunately....the connotation of the word says it all.."crossing over".....it may not be dictated by the audience the artist is geared on crossing over to, but causes more problems in the long run rather than allowing an artist who possess immense talent to achieve based purely on their merit....

the decline in those record sales by all the aforementioned artists in the 80s, it was all systematic it was not a coincidence, for it was a byproduct of what was already being shaped a generation earlier in the 60s

because what started off as this

turns into this

compare who we see in the audience of both clips.....

balance was lost out......this dynamic occurred with Lionel, Whitney on a similar scale and Prince on a smaller scale when the late 80s arrived....

that's not by accident.....the root of the criticisms these artists faced are based on a system that pulls these artists away from their beginning support and dont' allow them to function properly where people can support them w/out the divisions that arise...

appealing to all races is not the problem...never was...when MJ acheived what he did with Thriller, it was the most amazing thing I've ever seen in the field of music and entertainment.......if a person has that type of talent to do that, it's awesome..that' not the issue

it's "how" it happens that becomes the problem, because as soon as these artists reached their apex commercially, they were pulled away from their original audience to where balance is lost out on.....

if we look at stories today about Michael or Whitney, specials about them, or anything in references to them, the original audience, the black audience rarely if ever gets acknowledged or mentioned


Here's a perfect example, E hollywood did a special on Whitney Houston earlier this year and a participant on the special said that Whitney Houston's first major hit was "How Will I Know", which was a pop hit......but the truth was that Whitney had two major hits before in "You Give Good Love" and "Saving All My Love For You", which received initial support from R&B radio, and this is why the special never acknowledged it....it's small moments like that which leads to what happened to her 4 years later at the Soul Train Awards...there's always a cause that leads to these effects...

that's what led to these backlashes from the onset

and Michael Jackson himself tried to share this w/the world during his period of rebellion in releasing the History Album, the lyrics in the songs Scream, They Don't Really Care About Us, and Stranger in Moscow highlight the plight

if the industry would let these artists, all artists function properly without feeling the need to focus on one area of support, to where they can exist freely, 1.) we would get better music as we did years ago...2.) these artists careers wouldn't be cut short....3.) any criticisms that would exist would mainly be centered around what they are doing professionally rather than being the subject of criticism and tabloid fodder....

there is no way that Michael Jackson should have only existed for 50 years in this world

Are you saying michael jackson died young because he felt like he had to change his sound to appeal to more people?

By the way, the change in Michaels music is what you call evolution. Who wanted to hear another Off the Wall every 4 years?

I dont understand what you are trying to get at, at all but the points I did understand, I disgaree with

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Are you saying michael jackson died young because he felt like he had to change his sound to appeal to more people?

By the way, the change in Michaels music is what you call evolution. Who wanted to hear another Off the Wall every 4 years?

I dont understand what you are trying to get at, at all but the points I did understand, I disgaree with

I didn't say that Michael needed to create another Off The Wall every 4 years

if that's the case, then that could be applied to all of his albums

a person can say they didn't want to hear an Invincible or History every 4 years...

I never compared any of his albums to the next

when Dangerous was released, I played the album to the nub...I still have the same CD of Dangerous that I originally bought, cracked CD case and all and always said that album deserved more critical acclaim than it actually received based solely on the musical merit alone

while listening to Dangerous, I never compared it to his previous work

the musical genres that he endeavored in was not the problem

Beat It was a rock song that hit the top of both R&B and Pop......

Earth Song was one of his greatest all time recordings, Little Susie was one of my favorite songs on History

 

[MJJA]

Awesome conversation. Let's just say this. MJ is the biggest and most successful and influential artist ever.