Thoughts on State of Shock?

MJFAN222

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
5
Points
0
Hello everyone!

I'm just curious to know everyone's thoughts about the Mick Jagger and/or Freddie Mercury duet State of Shock? It was quite a hit from what I understand but it's one of my lesser favourite MJ/Jacksons songs (just personally). So if its one of your favourites, what is it about the song that appeals to you and gets you up and dancing?

Kind regards :)
 
This is one of those songs that never landed on me for whatever reason. I never quite got into this song. Though I prefer the one with my man Freddie
 
Yeah I prefer the mix with Freddie. Great collab. I like how he (at least partially) sang it live during the victory tour. A complete live duet between them would've been amazing.
 
First I ever heard of this was in the early 90s, the snippet in the Moonwalker film intro and it blew my mind.

The Freddie version is nice for the rarity factor, but as that's just a badly recorded demo I can't really compare it to the Jagger version, which, in it's properly produced state, is clearly superior.

The problem with this song is just that it's such a simple super catchy composition, that you can not really listen to it a lot of times. Once a year does it for me. :)


Extended version from the 12":
 
I love the beat, it sounds very contemporary but I prefer the Mercury version over the Jagger version too.
 
Not really one of my favorites.

Listen to it very rarely.
 
A poor man's Beat It. A very average song. One of Michael's worst songs. Michael and Jagger's voices just don't go together very well. Honestly this song is best forgotten about.
 
A poor man's Beat It. A very average song. One of Michael's worst songs. Michael and Jagger's voices just don't go together very well. Honestly this song is best forgotten about.

This is the first time I hear of this comparison which I personally think is a bit far fetched. The only thing beat it and state of shock has in common is that they are rock songs.
 
I love this it's one of my personal favorites. I consider it more of an MJ song even tho it's on a Jacksons album because it's really just a solo MJ collaboration with Mick Jagger.
 
I like the groove but it's just too simple. As in they needed more ro it. It was a great starting point, maybe another verse, more to a bridge.. something to make it less linear. I get annoyed cuz whata there I really like, just gets repetative
 
Electro;4208883 said:
The problem with this song is just that it's such a simple super catchy composition, that you can not really listen to it a lot of times. Once a year does it for me. :)

The ‘State of Shock’ duet (between MJ & Mick Jagger) was meant to be a simple super catchy composition because it served primarily a very specific purpose.

The purpose was its super catchiness to bring big commercial success in order to boost Jagger’s effort to begin a new career as a solo artist during that period.

Riding also on MJ’s coattails at that particular time (in 1984) along with a super catchy duet, seemed the ideal start for Jagger’s solo career right before releasing his first ever solo album ‘She’s The Boss’ in 1985.

As for the song itself, I have to admit that I am not a fan of it.
 
mj_frenzy;4234464 said:
The ‘State of Shock’ duet (between MJ & Mick Jagger) was meant to be a simple super catchy composition because it served primarily a very specific purpose.

The purpose was its super catchiness to bring big commercial success in order to boost Jagger’s effort to begin a new career as a solo artist during that period.

Riding also on MJ’s coattails at that particular time (in 1984) along with a super catchy duet, seemed the ideal start for Jagger’s solo career right before releasing his first ever solo album ‘She’s The Boss’ in 1985.


As Jagger was only second choice after Freddie, the song can't have been all designed to help Jaggers solo efforts.

It simply was Michaels attempt (he produced it) to do catchy music that would also appeal to white rock audiences.

The line between catchyness and repetitiveness is thin sometimes, and this one went a tiny bit beyond the goal. :D
 
Last edited:
Adore it. Probably in my top 20 Michael songs.

The pairing of Michael with a rock n roll titan as well.
 
unlike Michael's previous collaborations, 'state of shock' relied more on star power than actual 'song'. it didn't matter who partnered with him, it just wasn't going to work for me.

I agree that it tried to recapture the magic of 'beat it'. not only because of the genre, but down to the opening drum beat and vocal styling (that would unfortunately dominate his uptempo songs from this point forward)

the guitar riff is tedious, and it seems as though a more freestyle approach was taken with the lyrics - which sound incomplete and obnoxious. for a track like this, it really needs to be half as long. Michael's demos have more direction than this.


this would also signal the macho posturing of the next phase of his career. 'p.y.t' and 'shake your body' were playful in comparison. seriously, mick sounded creepy on the outro! :eek: I don't think their voices gelled together either. Michael gets drowned out on the verses.


the only releases I enjoyed from '84 were 'farewell my summer love' and 'girl you're so together'. not sure if they count though... 1983 was really the most magical Michael Jackson year for me :)
 
Michael's Essence;4234483 said:
, and it seems as though a more freestyle approach was taken with the lyrics - which sound incomplete and obnoxious. for a track like this, it really needs to be half as long. Michael's demos have more direction than this.
I think that where the charm lies in the song, especially the demo with Freddie. It sounds so unfinished and so raw, just two musicians going at it just feeding of each others energy, ad libbing, singing gibberish lyrics at time, it all adds to the overall rawness of the track. I think it is a nice respite from MJ’s usually heavy produced/overproduced sound.
 
Themidwestcowboy;4234492 said:
I think that where the charm lies in the song, especially the demo with Freddie. It sounds so unfinished and so raw, just two musicians going at it just feeding of each others energy, ad libbing, singing gibberish lyrics at time, it all adds to the overall rawness of the track. I think it is a nice respite from MJ’s usually heavy produced/overproduced sound.

that might work for a demo or a jam session, but not for a finalised single released to the public.

I don't think any of Michael's early '80's music was overproduced. I think they were polished, and that's a wonderful thing. one could argue that 'say say say' becomes 'busy' and overlong towards the end. at least they don't bombard you with everything at once.

Michael and paul had such a genuine chemistry that they recorded 3 duets together. 2 of them were hits. some of Michael's most light-hearted work came from this pairing. 'state of shock' is full of random noises to make up for a lack of song. Michael was riding the wave of what he did the previous year. he could well have released this with mick or Freddie, and had gotten chart success. that wouldn't necessarily make it a quality song to be remembered fondly..
 
that might work for a demo or a jam session, but not for a finalised single released to the public.
Apparently the public doesn't agree with this since it reached #3 on the Hot 100. I still hear State Of Shock on the radio occasionally today on the R&B oldies station. It kind of has a Rolling Stones flavor, and they've had many hits. Anyway, there's been different kinds of songs that became hits over the decades, they're not all polished or had a particular sound.
 
just gets repetitive
Nothing wrong with that. You could say that about a lot of funk songs, especially James Brown's. He has songs that are 12 minutes long with the same rhythm throughout them and other songs that are entirely talking and no singing. Some blues songs have a repeated guitar riff and/or a line said over and over with no other lyrics. That's also the case with some salsa & merengue songs.
 
Nothing wrong with that. You could say that about a lot of funk songs, especially James Brown's. He has songs that are 12 minutes long with the same rhythm throughout them and other songs that are entirely talking and no singing. Some blues songs have a repeated guitar riff and/or a line said over and over with no other lyrics. That's also the case with some salsa & merengue songs.

Nothing wrong with that, but what does it have to do with this song/thread? And it doesn't necessarily mean the songs are good...some songs drag on for way too long
 
Apparently the public doesn't agree with this since it reached #3 on the Hot 100. I still hear State Of Shock on the radio occasionally today on the R&B oldies station. It kind of has a Rolling Stones flavor, and they've had many hits. Anyway, there's been different kinds of songs that became hits over the decades, they're not all polished or had a particular sound.

It reached #3 on the Hot 100, because MJ was so big back then that everything he released was a chart success. Heck even Somebody's Watching Me, which features MJ on just one verse went to #2 on the Hot 100. A song being a success on the charts isn't an indicative of its quality.
 
Nothing wrong with that, but what does it have to do with this song/thread? And it doesn't necessarily mean the songs are good...some songs drag on for way too long
It has to do with his comment about State Of Shock being repetitive, which has never prevented a song (not just this one) from being popular. The music in many rap hits are more repetitive than State Of Shock. Drop It Like It's Hot by Snoop Dogg and Pretty Boy Swag by Soulja Boy are examples of that. Anyway, you seem to think that just because you don't like something, then the general public is not supposed to like it either. You said in another thread you don't like hip hop, but guess what, it's been popular for over 30 years now and even more today than in the past.
 
I love it! One of my favourite Jacksons tracks (even though it's MJ solo track). I'm so sad that Freddie couldn't come from Munich to LA to finish the song for Victory album, but Mick also did the job very well. Also, in my opinion, maybe MJ should have wait for Freddie to be available or fly to Munich to his studio to finish the track.
 
that might work for a demo or a jam session, but not for a finalised single released to the public.


Say that to Come Together by the Beatles which is basically a song about nothing and comprises of mostly gibberish lyrics. My point is it clearly worked for the Beatles and MJ cause the songs were top charters, I even heard state of Shock here on a Swedish radio channel not too long ago. I'm sure if MJ would have promoted it more with a Music video and a live performance it would have reached even higher on the charts.
 
Last edited:
I love it! One of my favourite Jacksons tracks (even though it's MJ solo track). I'm so sad that Freddie couldn't come from Munich to LA to finish the song for Victory album, but Mick also did the job very well. Also, in my opinion, maybe MJ should have wait for Freddie to be available or fly to Munich to his studio to finish the track.

I Agree.
 
The Freddie version is way better. Mick adds nothing to the track and his vocals are very weak imo.
 
Say that to Come Together by the Beatles which is a basically a song about nothing and comprises of mostly gibberish lyrics. My point is it clearly worked for the Beatles and MJ cause the songs were top charters, I even heard state of Shock here on a Swedish radio channel not too long ago. I'm sure if MJ would have promoted it more with a Music video and a live performance it would have reached even higher on the charts.
(y)Although it wasn't released as a single, I Am The Walrus got a lot of radio airplay and it has random lyrics too. Rock Lobster by the B-52s doesn't make much sense either, but it's still a popular party song to this day.
 
i'll take 'somebody's watching me' over 'state of shock any day. even though Michael only sang the chorus, he made so much of an impact that he *became* the song!

like many of his collaborations (technically, it was only a feature) many people attribute it solely to Michael. see the comments under the youtube video for evidence. Rockwell connected with michael in that short space more than mick jagger or Freddie mercury did on the drawn out 'state of shock'. Rockwell knew that he'd get a hit if he used Michael (there were actually other voices such as Jermaine's, that were removed from the final mix), yet he was also in tune with the sensibilities of the 'paranoia' in his lyrical themes ('startin' somethin'). Michael's fame made him a target, and fearful as a result. it was a match made in heaven! :wub: it was a step further than 'thriller' (that video was something else! :eek:), yet still playful.

one of the things that help determine whether something is a hit, is the country you live in. in the u.k, 'state of shock' missed the top 20. 'somebody's watching me' on the other hand, made the top 10 (i'll have to look up the exact number). this chart is based solely on sales. not specialised based on genre. I've heard 'somebody's watching me' played quite often over the years. the fact that it had a video, and the Halloween connection may contribute to that... it may not be on the level of 'thriller' in terms of fame, but i'd say it's up there with 'can you feel it' - as I've heard it on an advert last month. it was even remixed and released in the early 2000s, and a hit for a dance act. they sampled Michael's part only (same thing happened around this time with 'say say say').


I can't say the same for 'state of shock'... the song was taken from the jacksons 'victory' album. that album was their biggest selling album. was it their best though? not according to many fans, and even the brothers themselves. there's a reason none of those songs were performed on the tour of the same name. people came to see the 'thriller' hits performed by Michael. that's what created the opportunity for not only that tour to happen, but for anything with Michael's name or face on it to sell regardless of quality during that time.
 
Say that to Come Together by the Beatles which is a basically a song about nothing and comprises of mostly gibberish lyrics. My point is it clearly worked for the Beatles and MJ cause the songs were top charters, I even heard state of Shock here on a Swedish radio channel not too long ago. I'm sure if MJ would have promoted it more with a Music video and a live performance it would have reached even higher on the charts.

i'm not disputing the fact that 'state of shock' was successful on (certain) charts. this thread is based on our opinions of the quality of the song. repetition and uninspired lyrics were only some of the complaints made against it..

for me, a hit is not only based on a chart position, but also popularity (how often it's played in public as well as radio and other media. do people *outside* the fanbase know and like it?), longevity, and how memorable it is. can you hum, whistle, or sing it?

Michael always said that melody was king. I don't see evidence of that with 'state of shock' personally.. :(
 
That is your opinion not a fact.

It's indeed my opinion but it is also a fact. Not every song that does well on the charts is a quality song. There have been many rubbish songs that have done well on the charts over the years. Please don't tell me that you believe that if a song does well on the charts, it's a quality song.
 
Back
Top