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

[HIStory]

Re: Debates with the public

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...

If I am not mistaken you are referring to the fact that during the Jacksons days and OTW era there were more black people in his concert audience and then during Bad there were more white people. What I do not understand is why do you think that is because anyone was not allowed to do anything?

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.....

Who pulled them away and how?

As far as I see the change in the demographic make-up of his audience is due to the simple fact that he gained more mainstream popularity. And when that happened I don't think his black audience disappeared, it's just that white people joined as well and since there are demographically more white people in America than black, you will see more white faces in the audience when an artist is that mainstream.

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

I have never really seen references to the ethnicity of their audiences in any documentary or specials - whether black or white.

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...

But you know, exactly in Michael's case you can observe that the other way around. Where his OTW and Thriller and maybe Bad era is acknowledged and constantly praised but they often "forget" about Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible. There is a documentary about him, The One, that was released in 2004 and they talk about J5-Bad in detail but when they get to Dangerous all they mention is Black or White and his later albums are not even mentioned at all. Especially in the US they just love to reduce him to those three Quincy Jones-produced albums.

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

This is where your whole argument is messy to me. How were these artists not allowed to function freely? How were they forced to do a certain kind of music? IMO Michael always did the kind of music he liked. Obviously, he was influenced by the musical trends of any given time, like most artists are. But he always stuck to the kind of music he liked. For example he never did EDM because he did not like it, no matter how trendy it was at certain times. When artists like Usher turned EDM because that was the trendy thing to do Michael still stuck to R&B on Invincible (with maybe the exception of Heartbreaker). I don't think he ever did music that he did not like or that he was "forced" to do rather than what he liked. (With the exception of allowing remixes of his music that he admittedly did not like himself, but that's different. Those are just remixes, not the original songs.)

And I don't get what any of this has to do with tabloids and MJ's life being cut short.

And I feel your argument is contradictory. At times you seem to consider Thriller his greatest album BECAUSE it sold the best. You always bring up sales figures as the measure for everything and how MJ lost a lot of his record buyers between Thriller and Bad.

Please realize that what you actually value with the praise of Thriller's sales is mainstream success, crossing over and the like! But then you talk about crossing over as if it is a bad thing. I don't get it. He did Beat It to cross over. Is that as much of a bad thing as you suggest crossing over is? I mean the result is a timeless classic, so what's the problem with that? And BTW it was Quincy who told him he should write a rock song. Please realize that without crossing over Thriller would not have been the success story it was and it would not have been the same album either. It probably would not have Beat It, The Girl Is Mine, maybe not even Human Nature. So is it a good thing then that he crossed over or not? It did not compromise his music, it added to his diversity instead. Songs like Beat It, Dirty Diana, Give In To Me showed he could rock like any rock star. I think it's a good thing, not a bad thing when an artist shows diversity and doesn't just stay in one genre all the time.

Michael was never a strictly R&B artist. Already Motown always seeked how to "cross over". In a way I get it that in an ideal world artists should not "cross over", but in this world black artists always had it more difficult to find mainstream success than white ones. That is simply because of demographical facts - ie. that there are more white people in Western record buying countries than black people. And white people also tend to be more wealthy - ie. their record buying potential is bigger. And they tend to have a different taste in music. Of course, you cannot generalize that to everyone. There are black rock fans and white R&B fans, but generally you can observe that certain genres are liked mainly by black people and certain genres are liked mainly by white people. That's just the way it is and that is why black dominated genres such as funk have always been in a disadvantage compared to, say, rock.

But like I said earlier, those 29 million people who bought Thriller weren't MJ's core, black R&B audience, but mainly bandwagon jumpers. His core, R&B audience in the US would have been around 8 million, if we go by OTW's sales. And he produced similar sales with Bad and Dangerous as well - only with the latter two albums he produced bigger sales overseas.

And I don't think he compromised himself on later albums and cut himself off from his R&B roots. Heck, I'd say Dangerous is a more black album (NJS, gospel, hip-hop, R&B) than Bad which is more pop.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

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.

I, for one, appreciate you stepping in and getting a grip on this thread, because I AM offended by the ASSumptions that Mike's original fanbase abandoned him and that he abandoned them. That is a major pet peeve of mine (as a Black woman who grew up listening to the Jacksons since their Motown debut) when I see some white people making blanket statements about how we supposedly didn't love/appreciate/support Mike and his family. That is bullshit as well as being ignorant and racist.

Mike NEVER hated his Black fans and he never denied his heritage. GTFOH!

 

[innuendo141]

I, for one, appreciate you stepping in and getting a grip on this thread, because I AM offended by the ASSumptions that Mike's original fanbase abandoned him and that he abandoned them. That is a major pet peeve of mine (as a Black woman who grew up listening to the Jacksons since their Motown debut) when I see some white people making blanket statements about how we supposedly didn't love/appreciate/support Mike and his family. That is bullshit as well as being ignorant and racist.

Mike NEVER hated his Black fans and he never denied his heritage. GTFOH!

Hear hear Sheila, very well said and I think I can safely say that the vast majority of fans agree with everything you have said here.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

If I am not mistaken you are referring to the fact that during the Jacksons days and OTW era there were more black people in his concert audience and then during Bad there were more white people. What I do not understand is why do you think that is because anyone was not allowed to do anything?



Who pulled them away and how?

As far as I see the change in the demographic make-up of his audience is due to the simple fact that he gained more mainstream popularity. And when that happened I don't think his black audience disappeared, it's just that white people joined as well and since there are demographically more white people in America than black, you will see more white faces in the audience when an artist is that mainstream.



I have never really seen references to the ethnicity of their audiences in any documentary or specials - whether black or white.



But you know, exactly in Michael's case you can observe that the other way around. Where his OTW and Thriller and maybe Bad era is acknowledged and constantly praised but they often "forget" about Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible. There is a documentary about him, The One, that was released in 2004 and they talk about J5-Bad in detail but when they get to Dangerous all they mention is Black or White and his later albums are not even mentioned at all. Especially in the US they just love to reduce him to those three Quincy Jones-produced albums.



This is where your whole argument is messy to me. How were these artists not allowed to function freely? How were they forced to do a certain kind of music? IMO Michael always did the kind of music he liked. Obviously, he was influenced by the musical trends of any given time, like most artists are. But he always stuck to the kind of music he liked. For example he never did EDM because he did not like it, no matter how trendy it was at certain times. When artists like Usher turned EDM because that was the trendy thing to do Michael still stuck to R&B on Invincible (with maybe the exception of Heartbreaker). I don't think he ever did music that he did not like or that he was "forced" to do rather than what he liked. (With the exception of allowing remixes of his music that he admittedly did not like himself, but that's different. Those are just remixes, not the original songs.)

And I don't get what any of this has to do with tabloids and MJ's life being cut short.

And I feel your argument is contradictory. At times you seem to consider Thriller his greatest album BECAUSE it sold the best. You always bring up sales figures as the measure for everything and how MJ lost a lot of his record buyers between Thriller and Bad.

Please realize that what you actually value with the praise of Thriller's sales is mainstream success, crossing over and the like! But then you talk about crossing over as if it is a bad thing. I don't get it. He did Beat It to cross over. Is that as much of a bad thing as you suggest crossing over is? I mean the result is a timeless classic, so what's the problem with that? And BTW it was Quincy who told him he should write a rock song. Please realize that without crossing over Thriller would not have been the success story it was and it would not have been the same album either. It probably would not have Beat It, The Girl Is Mine, maybe not even Human Nature. So is it a good thing then that he crossed over or not? It did not compromise his music, it added to his diversity instead. Songs like Beat It, Dirty Diana, Give In To Me showed he could rock like any rock star. I think it's a good thing, not a bad thing when an artist shows diversity and doesn't just stay in one genre all the time.

Michael was never a strictly R&B artist. Already Motown always seeked how to "cross over". In a way I get it that in an ideal world artists should not "cross over", but in this world black artists always had it more difficult to find mainstream success than white ones. That is simply because of demographical facts - ie. that there are more white people in Western record buying countries than black people. And white people also tend to be more wealthy - ie. their record buying potential is bigger. And they tend to have a different taste in music. Of course, you cannot generalize that to everyone. There are black rock fans and white R&B fans, but generally you can observe that certain genres are liked mainly by black people and certain genres are liked mainly by white people. That's just the way it is and that is why black dominated genres such as funk have always been in a disadvantage compared to, say, rock.

But like I said earlier, those 29 million people who bought Thriller weren't MJ's core, black R&B audience, but mainly bandwagon jumpers. His core, R&B audience in the US would have been around 8 million, if we go by OTW's sales. And he produced similar sales with Bad and Dangerous as well - only with the latter two albums he produced bigger sales overseas.

And I don't think he compromised himself on later albums and cut himself off from his R&B roots. Heck, I'd say Dangerous is a more black album (NJS, gospel, hip-hop, R&B) than Bad which is more pop.

and as mentioned earlier, after he saw what happened with Bad, Michael spent the rest of this career attempting to regain those sales he lost after Bad....

but I will respond to everything later. I know it's a sensitive issue, but it is there

 

[innuendo141]

Re: Debates with the public

and as mentioned earlier, after he saw what happened with Bad, Michael spent the rest of this career attempting to regain those sales he lost after Bad....

but I will respond to everything later. I know it's a sensitive issue, but it is there

Just like any other artist who doesn't sell as much as they previously had. That is exactly what they try to do in order to keep themselves in a job.

 

[Tony R]

Hear hear Sheila, very well said and I think I can safely say that the vast majority of fans agree with everything you have said here.

Exactly, I feel the same when people talk about all Jewish people being offended by TDCAU.

You can't lump full races together and say they felt a certain way.

The thing is, familiarity breeds contempt. As soon as an artist gets too successful, people leave them in droves as it's no longer 'cool'.

See the same for U2, Madonna and for a quicker example Gaga who had a meteoric rise and it seems an even quicker fall.

The thing is by MJs standards, even Dangerous selling 30million, History on 20 and even Invincible on 11m seemed like failure when they still outsell contempories like Prince and Madonna by miles.

 

[Tony R]

Careful Tony, for a second there you came dangerously close to defending Invincible.

Hey! I used Invincible in the favourite bridges thread the other day!!

Anyway, I've never said it is a poor album, it's just his worst. And I've never said it wasn't a success either. In fact for a project with only one single to speak of, one video and no tour it did exceptionally well.

 

[KOPV]

Michaels career was an all time peak by 1993 right before allegations.. To say he lost fans pre Bad era etc. is just putting into effect the demographic of his fan base changed.. U can take out 100 fans of a specific race and add 500 all around the world and/or different age groups. No doubt that with more tabloids making up stories and his skin color changing he lost some fans in the black community. But at the same time with his endorsement deals, world tours, memorabilia, and PR stunts it made his world wide notoriety larger than ever...

It took more than his talent alone (which he had through the 70's and80's) to make him beyond a mega star.. No one talked about a young African American talent (before the social media boom) to the extent of this larger than life, mysterious being that he became to be known as..

In fact the less he became known as an "black" artist, and just an artist the larger he became..

It was the allegations that forever negatively impacted his career... Before that the crazy stories about him were exactly that "crazy stories"... much which was PR to make himself mysterious and get peope talking.

At that point at his highest point, they were able to use the allegations as an "ah ha" moment to make sense of everything they did not understand. "That's why he's so strange", "that's why hes around kids all the time".. "I knew something was off"...

Than like a vicious cycle the more people bashed him the more recluse he became, and the more recluse he became did 2 things.. 1) he became more mysterious which caused people to create there own negive presumptions. 2) that was the exact tool that "they" needed to make Michael appear less relevant and make sure that he never gets full recognition for being the largest artist in history.. Keeping him (in the minds of the general public) under Elvis and The Beatles.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Michaels career was an all time peak by 1993 right before allegations.. To say he lost fans pre Bad era etc. is just putting into effect the demographic of his fan base changed.. U can take out 100 fans of a specific race and add 500 all around the world and/or different age groups. No doubt that with more tabloids making up stories and his skin color changing he lost some fans in the black community. But at the same time with his endorsement deals, world tours, memorabilia, and PR stunts it made his world wide notoriety larger than ever...

It took more than his talent alone (which he had through the 70's and80's) to make him beyond a mega star.. No one talked about a young African American talent (before the social media boom) to the extent of this larger than life, mysterious being that he became to be known as..

In fact the less he became known as an "black" artist, and just an artist the larger he became..

It was the allegations that forever negatively impacted his career... Before that the crazy stories about him were exactly that "crazy stories"... much which was PR to make himself mysterious and get peope talking.

At that point at his highest point, they were able to use the allegations as an "ah ha" moment to make sense of everything they did not understand. "That's why he's so strange", "that's why hes around kids all the time".. "I knew something was off"...

Than like a vicious cycle the more people bashed him the more recluse he became, and the more recluse he became did 2 things.. 1) he became more mysterious which caused people to create there own negive presumptions. 2) that was the exact tool that "they" needed to make Michael appear less relevant and make sure that he never gets full recognition for being the largest artist in history.. Keeping him (in the minds of the general public) under Elvis and The Beatles.

his career was not at an all time peak in 1993,

I enjoy all his albums, never tried to compare one album to the next, but his career was not at all all time peak then

when Thriller was released in December of 1982, it was actually released in relative obscurity compared to the release of Bad, Dangerous, History, and Invincible that received more promotional backing......did he received more promotional backing for those albums compared to the release of Off The Wall and Thriller, absolutely...no doubt he did, but even w/minimum promotion, Thriller rocked the world like no album ever did before or since

When Thriller was released, people were still listening to the Triumph Live album that was released the year before along with the Triumph album itself

but his career was not at an all time peak in 1993, his international success was at no greater point than during Thriller, the record sales proves that, and he didn't even tour overseas during that album's run

after the release of the Jam single in the summer of 1992, the Dangerous album was not charting in the top 100 of Billboard, and this is why by the end of the year going into 1993, that's why he started making all those public appearances, the 93 SuperBowl, the NAACP image Awards, and the 93 Grammys, and most memorably, that interview with Oprah Winfrey, he did that interview to boost sales in America......if Dangerous would have been selling to his expectation, he would have never done a live televised interview like that........and then 2 years later, he did that prime time interview with Diane Sawyer to try and spark interest right when HIstory was about to be released

and his stardom did not increase at anytime when becoming less known as a black artist and that's really the root of the problem and the genesis of the untold scrutiny he would face throughout the duration of his career and his life after Thriller

if he would have been encouraged to stay on course and dont' deviate from the path that led to what he achieved at that landmark moment, he would have had the best of both worlds, he would have maintained his original support while garnering a new generation of fans, and w/that possibility, all of his subsequent albums after Thriller would have sold more than what they did and the media would have never been able to touch him...that's how good he had it

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

If I am not mistaken you are referring to the fact that during the Jacksons days and OTW era there were more black people in his concert audience and then during Bad there were more white people. What I do not understand is why do you think that is because anyone was not allowed to do anything?



Who pulled them away and how?

As far as I see the change in the demographic make-up of his audience is due to the simple fact that he gained more mainstream popularity. And when that happened I don't think his black audience disappeared, it's just that white people joined as well and since there are demographically more white people in America than black, you will see more white faces in the audience when an artist is that mainstream.



I have never really seen references to the ethnicity of their audiences in any documentary or specials - whether black or white.



But you know, exactly in Michael's case you can observe that the other way around. Where his OTW and Thriller and maybe Bad era is acknowledged and constantly praised but they often "forget" about Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible. There is a documentary about him, The One, that was released in 2004 and they talk about J5-Bad in detail but when they get to Dangerous all they mention is Black or White and his later albums are not even mentioned at all. Especially in the US they just love to reduce him to those three Quincy Jones-produced albums.



This is where your whole argument is messy to me. How were these artists not allowed to function freely? How were they forced to do a certain kind of music? IMO Michael always did the kind of music he liked. Obviously, he was influenced by the musical trends of any given time, like most artists are. But he always stuck to the kind of music he liked. For example he never did EDM because he did not like it, no matter how trendy it was at certain times. When artists like Usher turned EDM because that was the trendy thing to do Michael still stuck to R&B on Invincible (with maybe the exception of Heartbreaker). I don't think he ever did music that he did not like or that he was "forced" to do rather than what he liked. (With the exception of allowing remixes of his music that he admittedly did not like himself, but that's different. Those are just remixes, not the original songs.)

And I don't get what any of this has to do with tabloids and MJ's life being cut short.

And I feel your argument is contradictory. At times you seem to consider Thriller his greatest album BECAUSE it sold the best. You always bring up sales figures as the measure for everything and how MJ lost a lot of his record buyers between Thriller and Bad.

Please realize that what you actually value with the praise of Thriller's sales is mainstream success, crossing over and the like! But then you talk about crossing over as if it is a bad thing. I don't get it. He did Beat It to cross over. Is that as much of a bad thing as you suggest crossing over is? I mean the result is a timeless classic, so what's the problem with that? And BTW it was Quincy who told him he should write a rock song. Please realize that without crossing over Thriller would not have been the success story it was and it would not have been the same album either. It probably would not have Beat It, The Girl Is Mine, maybe not even Human Nature. So is it a good thing then that he crossed over or not? It did not compromise his music, it added to his diversity instead. Songs like Beat It, Dirty Diana, Give In To Me showed he could rock like any rock star. I think it's a good thing, not a bad thing when an artist shows diversity and doesn't just stay in one genre all the time.

Michael was never a strictly R&B artist. Already Motown always seeked how to "cross over". In a way I get it that in an ideal world artists should not "cross over", but in this world black artists always had it more difficult to find mainstream success than white ones. That is simply because of demographical facts - ie. that there are more white people in Western record buying countries than black people. And white people also tend to be more wealthy - ie. their record buying potential is bigger. And they tend to have a different taste in music. Of course, you cannot generalize that to everyone. There are black rock fans and white R&B fans, but generally you can observe that certain genres are liked mainly by black people and certain genres are liked mainly by white people. That's just the way it is and that is why black dominated genres such as funk have always been in a disadvantage compared to, say, rock.

But like I said earlier, those 29 million people who bought Thriller weren't MJ's core, black R&B audience, but mainly bandwagon jumpers. His core, R&B audience in the US would have been around 8 million, if we go by OTW's sales. And he produced similar sales with Bad and Dangerous as well - only with the latter two albums he produced bigger sales overseas.

And I don't think he compromised himself on later albums and cut himself off from his R&B roots. Heck, I'd say Dangerous is a more black album (NJS, gospel, hip-hop, R&B) than Bad which is more pop.

if you can answer this question for me and when I get extra free time, I'll respond to the rest of your post

this is never mentioned by the entertainment media but this happened, and this is an example of what I've been referring to and how it serves as a detriment down the road

while Whitney Houston was being groomed and introduced to the public, even before her debut album was released, she was told by executives of her label to refrain from conducting any interviews with black radio/tv/or print.......she was told this before she even started.....even as the initial support was going to be the black audience to set the foundation for her to experience the national and global success she did

now advice like that was going to do nothing but lead to eventual backlash, and that's exactly what happened 4 years later at the Soul Train Music Awards.....

now was this right or wrong for her to be expected to do something like that to build her image a certain way instead of just letting her showcase her talent?....

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Re: Debates with the public

Just like any other artist who doesn't sell as much as they previously had. That is exactly what they try to do in order to keep themselves in a job.

YES! In my opinion it's always been a numbers game, not about demographics. People are going to buy what they like, regardless if the sound is R&B, Pop, Rock, Rap, etc. For better or for worse, Thriller cemented the standards/expectations put on Mike and those numbers are impossible to duplicate or surpass. Like Tony R posted, even with the success of BAD, Dangerous and Invincible, they didn't sell as much as Thriller and were viewed as "failures" which was ridiculous. Anybody else (including his contemporaries) would have been celebrated for racking up those numbers.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Debates with the public

if you can answer this question for me and when I get extra free time, I'll respond to the rest of your post

this is never mentioned by the entertainment media but this happened, and this is an example of what I've been referring to and how it serves as a detriment down the road

while Whitney Houston was being groomed and introduced to the public, even before her debut album was released, she was told by executives of her label to refrain from conducting any interviews with black radio/tv/or print.......she was told this before she even started.....even as the initial support was going to be the black audience to set the foundation for her to experience the national and global success she did

now advice like that was going to do nothing but lead to eventual backlash, and that's exactly what happened 4 years later at the Soul Train Music Awards.....

now was this right or wrong for her to be expected to do something like that to build her image a certain way instead of just letting her showcase her talent?....

You did not reply to any of the points I raised in my post, instead you want to talk about Whitney Houston.

But to answer your question: I have no idea what Whitney was advised and why, but I know that Michael did give interviews to black publications all through his career, so whatever Whitney did or did not do in that respect has no parallels with Michael's career.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

YES! In my opinion it's always been a numbers game, not about demographics. People are going to buy what they like, regardless if the sound is R&B, Pop, Rock, Rap, etc. For better or for worse, Thriller cemented the standards/expectations put on Mike and those numbers are impossible to duplicate or surpass. Like Tony R posted, even with the success of BAD, Dangerous and Invincible, they didn't sell as much as Thriller and were viewed as "failures" which was ridiculous. Anybody else (including his contemporaries) would have been celebrated for racking up those numbers.

why is it that Thriller was so impossible to duplicate when he was in position to do just that...

it wasn't like he was 50 years old, he was 26 years old when the Victory Tour concluded.....he garnered a following that no other artist had ever achieved...

he had the balance of those who bought his records from the beginning and a new wave of followers, both followings were eager to see what he was going to do next

Bad was the most anticipated follow up album in the history of the business.....it wasn't like anyone took his place while he removed himself from public view in 1986

he conducted his first ever solo tour to promote Bad around the globe....and he was expecting to surpass Thriller

the album sold 16 million copies worldwide in just 2 months of its release......it was all right there for it to happen

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Re: Debates with the public

You did not reply to any of the points I raised in my post, instead you want to talk about Whitney Houston.

But to answer your question: I have no idea what Whitney was advised and why, but I know that Michael did give interviews to black publications all through his career, so whatever Whitney did or did not do in that respect has no parallels with Michael's career.

what were your points and I'll respond when I get a chance

 

[HIStory]

Re: Debates with the public

what were your points and I'll respond when I get a chance

I am not gonna type it again when you can go back and read it. Let's not be that lazy, OK?

 

[innuendo141]

Re: Debates with the public

why is it that Thriller was so impossible to duplicate when he was in position to do just that...

If things are that simple in your world, then I applaud you.

Why didn't Around the World in a Day sell more than Purple Rain?

Why didn't A Day at the Races sell more than A Night at the Opera?

Why didn't Journey Through the Secret Life of Plants sell more than Songs in the Key of Life?

Artists evolve and try to do something new. Trying to immediately re-create their previous work rarely works. In this case, the majority of the public just apparently seemed to prefer Thriller to Bad, hence more people bought it.

Also people could tape songs in 1987.

No conspiracy.

 

[KOPV]

his career was not at an all time peak in 1993,

I enjoy all his albums, never tried to compare one album to the next, but his career was not at all all time peak then

when Thriller was released in December of 1982, it was actually released in relative obscurity compared to the release of Bad, Dangerous, History, and Invincible that received more promotional backing......did he received more promotional backing for those albums compared to the release of Off The Wall and Thriller, absolutely...no doubt he did, but even w/minimum promotion, Thriller rocked the world like no album ever did before or since

When Thriller was released, people were still listening to the Triumph Live album that was released the year before along with the Triumph album itself

but his career was not at an all time peak in 1993, his international success was at no greater point than during Thriller, the record sales proves that, and he didn't even tour overseas during that album's run

after the release of the Jam single in the summer of 1992, the Dangerous album was not charting in the top 100 of Billboard, and this is why by the end of the year going into 1993, that's why he started making all those public appearances, the 93 SuperBowl, the NAACP image Awards, and the 93 Grammys, and most memorably, that interview with Oprah Winfrey, he did that interview to boost sales in America......if Dangerous would have been selling to his expectation, he would have never done a live televised interview like that........and then 2 years later, he did that prime time interview with Diane Sawyer to try and spark interest right when HIstory was about to be released

and his stardom did not increase at anytime when becoming less known as a black artist and that's really the root of the problem and the genesis of the untold scrutiny he would face throughout the duration of his career and his life after Thriller

if he would have been encouraged to stay on course and dont' deviate from the path that led to what he achieved at that landmark moment, he would have had the best of both worlds, he would have maintained his original support while garnering a new generation of fans, and w/that possibility, all of his subsequent albums after Thriller would have sold more than what they did and the media would have never been able to touch him...that's how good he had it

I seems like you are labeling success by sale number of albums?!? Because that is only 1 measurable number of success.. Michael was much more famous and there was a larger demand for Michael Jackson (on a worldwide scale) after Thriller by a large shot.. That can be proven by tour sales, money people and companies would pay to see him, the simple fact that in many many countries learned about Michael after the early/mid 80's.

Something it doesn't seem you are putting into consideration is that as his popularity In the United States fizzled a bit it exploded overseas.. That is something that is hard for a lot of people tend not to get.. Part of the American brain washing that the media did.

by the late 80's and 90's Michael could not get away with just doing a tour of the states.. which Victory tour was (plus Canada), do you honestly believe the victory tour could have out sold the level Bad, Dangerous, or History tour?

However it was Thriller that set him up to be truly the first artist to get REAL world wide success. Thriller was the fuel.

Michael doing specific interviews and awards that you mentioned was to help his career in the United States, not so much for the people in Libya, Japan, Brazil, Iraq, Nigeria.. the list goes on..

Just as a personal example when I moved to Libya in 1990, Michael was a fairly new thing for them..

You cannot measure success of a person by a sale of A product.. He was a business man that became more successful and more famous for his dance, film, business ventures, performances both on and off stage.

Thrillers sales had a lot to do with the quality of the album mixed with the time in American history... you release BAD in 1982, it would have sold much more than It did..

But you look at the demand (worldwide) for the debut of the Thriller compared to Black Or White.. it's not even a question. Black Or White had people all over the world watching at the same time. Oprah interview, there is a reason why It was the largest watched interview in history.. WHY? because his demand was larger than ever..

 

[MIST]

after the release of the Jam single in the summer of 1992, the Dangerous album was not charting in the top 100 of Billboard, and this is why by the end of the year going into 1993, that's why he started making all those public appearances, the 93 SuperBowl, the NAACP image Awards, and the 93 Grammys,

As far as I know Michael was paid for doing the 93 superbowl, they paid to the heal the world foundation. It seems organizers were more eager he should perform than Michael was.

 

[MAQ]

I think MJ's success is undermined by a lot of people. They forget that Black or White was the most watched video ever at 500 million views. They forget that Dangerous is the best selling NJS album, History is the best selling double album, BotDF is the best selling remix album. He sold more than 50 million albums worldwide in the 90s which even Nirvana couldn't do.

See, we are conditioned these days and even then, to believe that he was out in the 90s. They make us ignore the fact that history had 2 record breaking singles. And that Black or White was even more successful than Billie Jean (yes it is true, I'm on my cell so I can't post the link right now).

Let's look at it this way. A singer who sold around 20 million with an album in 79 and 31 million with a single album in 91 made an album in 2001 which managed to sell around 9 million in a matter of weeks - an album which wasn't even promoted. How is there any "huge" drop in popularity? MJ still managed to sell like shit without any promotion after 22 years since his first big hit.

Most of us don't even know that he's the best selling R&B artist of the 2000s. Sad, really.

 

[HIStoric]

made an album in 2001 which managed to sell around 9 million in a matter of weeks

A matter of weeks? If you mean what I think you're implying (like, say,

 

[MAQ]

A matter of weeks? If you mean what I think you're implying (like, say,

 

[innuendo141]

after the release of the Jam single in the summer of 1992, the Dangerous album was not charting in the top 100 of Billboard, and this is why by the end of the year going into 1993, that's why he started making all those public appearances, the 93 SuperBowl, the NAACP image Awards, and the 93 Grammys, and most memorably, that interview with Oprah Winfrey,

Do you realise that you can't just "decide" to do the Superbowl?... You kind of have to be asked to do it. If that was the case then I'd have done the Superbowl halftime show a few years ago when I hadn't much on in January.

You really seem to only link popularity with album sales. By the time Dangerous came out I was 5 and even I was already taping songs off the radio and copying albums. I had 3 copied tapes of Dangerous along with my original which perished. You need to think outisde of the bos and step away from "Thriller sold A, Dangerous sold B. Where did it all go wrong". Ditto Oprah. It's not like she was dying to have Right Said Fred for a live interview.

Regarding the awards.... Are you saying Michael should have turned down his award at the Grammys and that he only did it to boost sales? Does the man not deserve to be rewarded for the work he's done? I'd hate to have you as an employer. Regarding the NAACP Image Awards could it ever dawn on you that there might have been a tiny part of him that just wanted to bring some awareness to the group? Because thanks to him I knew who the NAACP were at the age of 7 in Ireland, where I have rarely heard them mentioned since.

The Bad tour went on for nearly 3 years. Who would be bothered with attempting to make more personal appearance at events? His tour was that. Why begrudge the man who opted to do a different kind of tour and then add in some personal appearances to mix it up?

And finally, you do realise that if Thriller was released today it would only sell a fraction of what it has sold. Thriller is a freak of an album in which the stars aligned and absolutely everything EVERYTHING worked from the songs, production, album cover, economy, social racial changes, more people with access to record players, etc. That's the reason everything is compared to Thriller. It's not about the choices Michael made, but the choices that were being made by everyone at the time.

 

[Lil]

Thriller is a freak of an album in which the stars aligned and absolutely everything EVERYTHING worked from the songs, production, album cover, economy, social racial changes, more people with access to record players, etc.

^^^ I think, just to be fair, Thriller should just be left out when looking at Michael's album sales. You shouldn't compare any of his albums to Thriller (in terms of sales) because what happened with that album was freakish indeed.. it wasn't just the music, it was everything coming together at the exact right time that made the album explode the way it did. It's completely unrealistic to think he would've just come out with another Thriller every couple of years had he just stuck to his 'roots' (which imo he did, but okay..). And if you take out Thriller, his sales are pretty consistent, and only drop after the allegations.

 

[innuendo141]

^^^ I think, just to be fair, Thriller should just be left out when looking at Michael's album sales. You shouldn't compare any of his albums to Thriller (in terms of sales) because what happened with that album was freakish indeed.. it wasn't just the music, it was everything coming together at the exact right time that made the album explode the way it did. It's completely unrealistic to think he would've just come out with another Thriller every couple of years had he just stuck to his 'roots' (which imo he did, but okay..). And if you take out Thriller, his sales are pretty consistent, and only drop after the allegations.

Exactly. Even Michael's own team told him to cop on and forget about topping Thriller. Thank god he always did attempt to outdo it, because of what we have to show for it. But I completely agree. While not my favourite album, Thriller as a whole is on a mountain of its own.

 

[Psychoniff]

Exactly. Even Michael's own team told him to cop on and forget about topping Thriller. Thank god he always did attempt to outdo it, because of what we have to show for it. But I completely agree. While not my favourite album, Thriller as a whole is on a mountain of its own.

Thriller is ageless, that's what makes it better overall than anything that came after. What is it about Thriller than turns you off, is he too soulful here? You don't like BBM, LIML, PYT?

 

[Gatesy2006]

I'm in my late 20s (unfortunately!) and I've done quite a bit of travelling (mostly Europe and Asia) and MJ is quite loved, especially in Asia. Now most of my globetrotting has been done in the wake of his death so I don't know if he was as loved beforehand.

Most Americans I've encountered on my travels have little time for MJ. I find Americans in general to be a strange bunch of people (ironically the very thing they accuse MJ of being), I've found they like their male musicians to be manly, full of testosterone. Now I know this doesn't apply to everyone in the USA and there are tons of MJ fans from the US but as is well known, America basically washed their hands of Jackson and ostracised him from his own country. That wouldn't happen in any other western country in my view.

MJ's strive for perfection that resulted in long periods in between albums, which led to the rise in outrageous stories being thrown at him, didn't help his perception or popularity. Thriller was a one off phenomenon that was never ever going to happen again, he was insanely popular from 1986 onwards but it was always impossible to be THAT popular again (in the US at least) as he was during the Thriller.

 

[innuendo141]

Thriller is ageless, that's what makes it better overall than anything that came after. What is it about Thriller than turns you off, is he too soulful here? You don't like BBM, LIML, PYT?

Psychoniff, I dont get you man. Why read so much into me saying its not my favourite album? Thriller is not my favourite album because I prefer a different one. Simple.

While you may consider Thriller to be "better overall than anything that came after" I respect your opinion but will disagree.

 

[analogue]

Thriller was both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it made Michael the mega superstar he is today, and a curse because lots of people couldn't get passed that album and wouldn't give anything else he did a fair chance. Whatever he did after Thriller a lot of people's reactions were ''It's going to suck because it's not Thriller''

 

[Gatesy2006]

The media also pigeonholed Jackson, they didn't want angry MJ songs or songs about saving the earth or poverty, they perpetually wanted disco, fluffy songs that can be found on OTW and Thriller. When MJ moved away from them templates and explored deeper meaningful songs, which weren't really pop songs, the media couldn't come to terms with it.

 

[Psychoniff]

I'm in my late 20s (unfortunately!) and I've done quite a bit of travelling (mostly Europe and Asia) and MJ is quite loved, especially in Asia. Now most of my globetrotting has been done in the wake of his death so I don't know if he was as loved beforehand.

Most Americans I've encountered on my travels have little time for MJ. I find Americans in general to be a strange bunch of people (ironically the very thing they accuse MJ of being), I've found they like their male musicians to be manly, full of testosterone. Now I know this doesn't apply to everyone in the USA and there are tons of MJ fans from the US but as is well known, America basically washed their hands of Jackson and ostracised him from his own country. That wouldn't happen in any other western country in my view.

MJ's strive for perfection that resulted in long periods in between albums, which led to the rise in outrageous stories being thrown at him, didn't help his perception or popularity. Thriller was a one off phenomenon that was never ever going to happen again, he was insanely popular from 1986 onwards but it was always impossible to be THAT popular again (in the US at least) as he was during the Thriller.

Are these Americans abroad you encountered mainly white? It wouldn't surprise me.