Does MJ's lack of respect from serious music critics/rock press/music snobs bother you?

[DuranDuran]

What was 'Calculated' was the portrayal the white media has played on Michael Jackson...

Kept him a 'black artist' until he busted through that boundary and that's when he became a "*****" artist.

But Jimi Hendrix is often praised by the rock press and guitar magazines though and so is Bob Marley & maybe Tracy Chapman. The difference is that they're not really R&B, so that stigma isn't there. Jimi's audience from the beginning was primarily white, instead of black. You could say that for Johnny Mathis too, although his audience is different from Jimi's. Jimi never really received R&B radio play, so he didn't "crossover". Jimi is brought up more in white magazines than black ones like Ebony or Jet. The black media is less likely to feature rock acts such as Fishbone, Death, Bad Brains, BusBoys, Living Colour, etc. than the white rock magazines. You're not going to see them on BET or TV One. Their musical focus is hip hop, R&B, and sometimes gospel.

 

[Psychoniff]

But Jimi Hendrix is often praised by the rock press and guitar magazines though and so is Bob Marley & maybe Tracy Chapman. The difference is that they're not really R&B, so that stigma isn't there. Jimi's audience from the beginning was primarily white, instead of black. You could say that for Johnny Mathis too, although his audience is different from Jimi's. Jimi never really received R&B radio play, so he didn't "crossover". Jimi is brought up more in white magazines than black ones like Ebony or Jet. The black media is less likely to feature rock acts such as Fishbone, Death, Bad Brains, BusBoys, Living Colour, etc. than the white rock magazines. You're not going to see them on BET or TV One. Their musical focus is hip hop, R&B, and sometimes gospel.

And how many times did his black *** appear on Rolling Stone? Didn't matter how 'rock' centred his music was, the common dominator hear is that he was a 'black artist', hell even Justin Timberfake appeared on the cover of RS more that Jimi. Madonna and other white artist get given more respect just they are white and not seen as 'outsiders'. I could name you many many influential black musicians that influenced practically every major white rock, rock-n-roll artist of the 20th century, and none of them have ever appeared on RS.

 

[SoCav]

I’d much rather take stories of Elvis’ (supposedly) giving Black people credit for anything with a grain of salt. However, if you truly believe he actually did that, that’s fine.

So can you explain why are you skeptical about this? Cause Elvis was open about who inspired him from the beginning, was always humble and never waivered in that regard.

A lot of people seem to think I started this business', Elvis explained, 'but rock 'n' roll was here a long time before I came along. Nobody can sing that kind of music like colored people. Let's face it; I can't sing it like Fats Domino can. I know that. But I always liked that kind of music.'

When a reporter referred to him as the 'king of rock 'n' roll' at the press conference following his 1969 Las Vegas opening, he rejected the title, as he always did, calling attention to the presence in the room of his friend Fats Domino, 'one of my influences from way back'.

'I always wanted to sing like Billy Kenny of the Ink Spots', Robinson quoted Elvis. 'I like that high, smooth style'. When Robinson asked about the origin of his 'earthy, moaning baritone' singing voice, Presley responded, 'I never sang like this in my life until I made that first record - That's Alright, Mama. I remembered that song because I heard Arthur (Big Boy) Crudup sing it and I thought I would like to try it'.

And there are countless examples like this. And, for a different perspective:

Jackie Wilson : 'A lot of people have accused Elvis of stealing the black man's music, when in fact, almost every black solo entertainer copied his stage mannerisms from Elvis'.

The music industry was no different, in the way it would heavily promote certain performers to particular audiences. Most Black entertainers were little-known and mainly ignored, even then. There were a few that were very well-known, but not at the level Elvis was, nor would become. Any sort of taking advantage of another people, for copycatting and exploitative use of certain aspects of its culture, to mainly benefit the dominant society, is “appropriation.” Your description of what you consider as “appreciation” is what others might view as “appropriation.” You’re right. But, it depends upon whom you ask. You might get a different answer or response each time.

As a teenager, long before he was famous, Elvis was already going to 'colored churches' because he was so touched by gospel music. He grew up listening to black acts in Tupelo and Memphis. He would often go to 'black events'.

Would it have been better if he had been an average white Southern male with zero interest in or respect for black music? Or would it have been alright for him to enjoy black music as long as he didn't perform it himself, because it then becomes 'appropriation' and 'exploitation'? To me this is a ridiculous notion.

Obviously I do not deny that Elvis was paid more than black entertainers, nor that he got the opportunity to reach heights of fame that they could not. And that was wrong. But I don't see why Elvis as an individual should be blamed for the faults of a system/society. I think any individual should be able to make the music that they want. Do you think it was wrong for MJ to make rock tracks too because rock is supposedly 'white music'?

 

[FullLipsDotNose]

As a teenager, long before he was famous, Elvis was already going to 'colored churches' because he was so touched by gospel music. He grew up listening to black acts in Tupelo and Memphis. He would often go to 'black events'.

Would it have been better if he had been an average white Southern male with zero interest in or respect for black music? Or would it have been alright for him to enjoy black music as long as he didn't perform it himself, because it then becomes 'appropriation' and 'exploitation'? To me this is a ridiculous notion.

Obviously I do not deny that Elvis was paid more than black entertainers, nor that he got the opportunity to reach heights of fame that they could not. And that was wrong. But I don't see why Elvis as an individual should be blamed for the faults of a system/society. I think any individual should be able to make the music that they want. Do you think it was wrong for MJ to make rock tracks too because rock is supposedly 'white music'?

I've been trying to find again a blog about white people performing hip-hop, but I'm not successful Regardless, the author stated there that white people will do whatever they want to do regardless of what people of colour think.

I'd also argue that it's not the same if you're a white artist performing hip-hop and a a black artist performing rock. White people performing hip-hop are generally more successful than black folks doing the same (think Eminem, The Beastie Boys, Vanilla Ice, perhaps Iggy Azalea). It's doesn't apply vice versa though; there are a few people of colour on rock scene, but white people still trump them.

A lot of people seem to think I started this business', Elvis explained, 'but rock 'n' roll was here a long time before I came along. Nobody can sing that kind of music like colored people. Let's face it; I can't sing it like Fats Domino can. I know that. But I always liked that kind of music.'

Mhm, I don't like this to be said by a white person. It seems to me like a sort of essentialism - black people are great at music, Native Americans have excellent survival skills and then someone (another white person) jumps in and says that white people are better at mathematics, technology, yadda, yadda. Unfortunately, I have experienced this. They defend people of colour for what they have achieved, but the won't allow them to succeed at things that whites dominate.

 

[SoCav]

Mhm, I don't like this to be said by a white person. It seems to me like a sort of essentialism - black people are great at music, Native Americans have excellent survival skills and then someone (another white person) jumps in and says that white people are better at mathematics, technology, yadda, yadda. Unfortunately, I have experienced this. They defend people of colour for what they have achieved, but the won't allow them to succeed at things that whites dominate.

Well, I'd say you can read that quote many ways, and imo yours is a pessimistic interpretation. I see it more as him complimenting the originators of a music tradition by saying no one can perform it quite like them. Perhaps he is implying that he can't sing it as well because he did not grow up under the same circumstances that the people who started that tradition did, circumstances in which he felt that tradition might have been rooted. I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment but, especially given the circumstances of that time, I could see where he is coming from (if that's what he meant). In any case, personally I don't think the quote reflects the type of condescending attitude you describe. Regarding your last sentence, Elvis said this about Jackie Wilson:

In Elvis Presley, Last Train To Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, author Peter Guralnick describes the meeting between the two backstage at The Trip: 'In between sets Elvis finally got the opportunity to meet Jackie and express his unreserved admiration for Wilson's talent. With all he had going for him, Elvis said, he could see no reason why Jackie shouldn't be the number one singer in the world'.

I also must say that your criticism of the Elvis quote came across as a bit ironic to me, given that you posted this on page 12:

Whenever I dance hip-hop, it's not the same as if it is performed by black people. Whenever I paint Arabic or Persian calligraphy, it's not the same either.

What to you is the difference between you saying this and Elvis saying that no one can sing rock & roll "like colored people"?

 

[FullLipsDotNose]

What to you is the difference between you saying this and Elvis saying that no one can sing rock & roll "like colored people"?

I think you've misunderstood me. When I said, "When I do this tradition, it's not the same as if it's done by people of that culture", I only meant it has a special significance to them. Not that a white person can't learn it.

For example, I have seen English people attending traditional events of my culture, but they just couldn't relate to it the way I did. They couldn't feel my pride, my thankfulness to my ancestors that fought hard to make our lives better. Our music, our oral traditions... They weren't born into it. That doesn't mean they can't be better at it than me (and God, I've already met such people!), that only means they don't have that connection to it, the one that I have.

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

Back on topic. One of the reasons why rock snobs didn't take and continue to not take MJ seriously is because of his good-boy 'peter pan' image. I watched a clip on YouTube below, an I noticed that a radio host by the name of David Brudnoy had these annoyed tone in his voice about how controversial-free MJ's life was at that point (Thriller era).....

from 3:23 to 3:51

[video=youtube;V9oYfHJj2TA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9oYfHJj2TA&index=2&list=WL[/video]


Notice how he uses words like 'calculated' and 'con-job', as if a person like MJ couldn't actually be teetotal. It got me thinking that maybe if MJ was a chain-smoking, drug-induced bad-boy then he would have ironically gotten MORE respect from rock snobs the way the Beatles and Rolling Stones and Elvis did.

Great “YouTube” clips you’ve posted, Psychoniff. You make quite a number of excellent points with them, here. There are many different people shown in them, with each person having his/her own personal point of view in regards to Michael, and attitude towards him.

Of course, the one person who absolutely qualifies as a total, complete snob* is the radio commentator from Boston, David Brudnoy. (*And, I would have loved to have used much stronger language than the word, “snob,” to describe such people with their uppity attitudes, who tend to look down their noses at certain Black performers, anyway, in my view. Psychoniff, if you can come up with an even better word than “snob,” one that truly expresses what we both really think of them, please post it.) His tone of voice is so doggone condescending and exasperated that he could never have imagined, for the life of him, that any people who sang “Pop,” “Rock-and-Roll” or “R&B/Soul” music, for example, could not exist in their careers without ever getting themselves involved in some kind of trouble or another, without a history of scandal, personal problems and other severely damaging issues in their lives.

I do like that the Video showed one young man making his positive comments on Michael, immediately after the Brudnoy put-down segment calling Michael’s clean-living Early-1980’s lifestyle (such as it had been, at that point) a “con-job” and “calculated.” What would David Brudnoy and others like him, who all had the same negative attitude towards Michael and who held similar views of his career and lifestyle - just a brief time-period before the height of “Thriller’s” unprecedented success, and shortly following it thereafter - have thought of Michael during the last 15 to more than 20 years of his life, from his post-“BAD” era* onwards? (*Or, should I call it the “pre-‘Dangerous’ era”? I’m not sure....) How would he have reacted to the way Michael’s life had, eventually, turned out in the ’90’s, from that time ever since then? I’d like to know what your honest, truthful answer is. It could be very interesting.

 

[DuranDuran]

Jimi

And how many times did his black *** appear on Rolling Stone? Didn't matter how 'rock' centred his music was, the common dominator hear is that he was a 'black artist', hell even Justin Timberfake appeared on the cover of RS more that Jimi. Madonna and other white artist get given more respect just they are white and not seen as 'outsiders'. I could name you many many influential black musicians that influenced practically every major white rock, rock-n-roll artist of the 20th century, and none of them have ever appeared on RS.

Jimi's career was only 2 or 3 years long as his own act. He only released 4 albums while he was alive and 1 of them was a live album. More Jimi albums have been released after his death. He was a sideman for other acts before he made he own records. So why would he have been on the cover a lot during that time. Madonna has a much longer career than Jimi. She also released records more often than Mike. So of course she's going to be featured more than him. George Michael didn't release albums often and he hasn't been on the cover of Rolling Stone much either. He's white. He only has 8 studio albums total and 3 were with Wham!.

 

[DuranDuran]

Jimi

Really, both Jimi & Bob Marley became way more popular after they died than when they were alive.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Jimi

Jimi's career was only 2 or 3 years long as his own act. He only released 4 albums while he was alive and 1 of them was a live album. More Jimi albums have been released after his death. He was a sideman for other acts before he made he own records. So why would he have been on the cover a lot during that time. Madonna has a much longer career than Jimi. She also released records more often than Mike. So of course she's going to be featured more than him. George Michael didn't release albums often and he hasn't been on the cover of Rolling Stone much either. He's white. He only has 8 studio albums total and 3 were with Wham!.

Re. comparing the number of MJ and GM being on RS' cover: George Michael's other albums besides Faith have not been very successful in the US, so it's not a very good example in comparation to MJ. RS refused to put MJ on the cover even when he had a critically acclaimed and successful album.

And often when they wrote about him it was with a portion of mocking and disrespect, focusing on tabloid stuff etc.

Whether it was because of some kind of latent or not so latent racism or because RS never really understood what MJ was all about musically and artistically? I think a little bit of both. (Well, the two are not totally disconnected from each other IMO.)

 

[DuranDuran]

Re: Jimi

Re. comparing the number of MJ and GM being on RS' cover: George Michael's other albums besides Faith have not been very successful in the US, so it's not a very good example in comparation to MJ. RS refused to put MJ on the cover even when he had a critically acclaimed and successful album.

And often when they wrote about him it was with a portion of mocking and disrespect, focusing on tabloid stuff etc.

Whether it was because of some kind of latent or not so latent racism or because RS never really understood what MJ was all about musically and artistically? I think a little bit of both. (Well, the two are not totally disconnected from each other IMO.)

Why is it racism with Mike, but not with Jimi? This is a quote (read entire note here) made in 2006 from RS founder Jann Wenner: "The Beatles, together or individually, have been on our cover more than thirty times; the Rolling Stones, in various configurations, twenty-three. Bob Dylan has appeared thirteen times (note to self: more Dylan!), Bruce Springsteen a dozen, Jimi Hendrix ten, Madonna ten." So according to this, Jimi had appeared on the cover (by 2006) more than most other acts, white or otherwise. Remember, RS didn't just have musicians on the cover, but actors, comedians, and politicians too.

Around the mid 1990s Rolling Stone changed their format, probably because rap replaced rock as the most popular genre in the US. Acts like N*Sync & Britney Spears likely wouldn't have made the cover in the 1970s.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Jimi

Why is it racism with Mike, but not with Jimi? This is a quote (read entire note here) made in 2006 from RS founder Jann Wenner: "The Beatles, together or individually, have been on our cover more than thirty times; the Rolling Stones, in various configurations, twenty-three. Bob Dylan has appeared thirteen times (note to self: more Dylan!), Bruce Springsteen a dozen, Jimi Hendrix ten, Madonna ten." So according to this, Jimi had appeared on the cover (by 2006) more than most other acts, white or otherwise. Remember, RS didn't just have musicians on the cover, but actors, comedians, and politicians too.

Around the mid 1990s Rolling Stone changed their format, probably because rap replaced rock as the most popular genre in the US. Acts like N*Sync & Britney Spears likely wouldn't have made the cover in the 1970s.

Racism isn't simply about the color of the artist. Like you yourself said earlier in this thread certain black artists appealed more to a white audience than a black audience and Jimi Hendrix is one of them, so of course JH will get more covers on RS than any other black artist - even if he is probably not the most significant black artist. But that actually once again shows the kind of bias that RS has. Not necessarily for skin color but for the type of music that white people usually like. IMO that too can be seen as a form of racism - the white man's taste and aesthetics is put on a pedestal over everything else. Obviously, much of it has generalizations. Not all white people like blues-rock or alt-rock over R&B but many do respect Jimi Hendrix more than, say, Stevie Wonder. So RS featuring Hendrix more than Wonder is not all that surprising and not all that independent from race issues, is it?

 

[DuranDuran]

Re: Jimi

Racism isn't simply about the color of the artist. Like you yourself said earlier in this thread certain black artists appealed more to a white audience than a black audience and Jimi Hendrix is one of them, so of course JH will get more covers on RS than any other black artist - even if he is probably not the most significant black artist. But that actually once again shows the kind of bias that RS has. Not necessarily for skin color but for the type of music that white people usually like. IMO that too can be seen as a form of racism - the white man's taste and aesthetics is put on a pedestal over everything else. Obviously, much of it has generalizations. Not all white people like blues-rock or alt-rock over R&B but many do respect Jimi Hendrix more than, say, Stevie Wonder. So RS featuring Hendrix more than Wonder is not all that surprising and not all that independent from race issues, is it?

But RS is not just white people's taste, but primarily the taste of rock fans. RS didn't really feature acts like Wayne Newton or easy listening music or polka music, which have a primarily white audience. Rock fans in general tend to be white. Black people weren't the main buyers of RS, so why would R&B be on the cover a lot? There's acts that are popular in R&B that were little known by the mainstream and didn't get Top 40 airplay. You could say the same for country and heavy metal. Kenny Rogers & Motley Crue reached a more mainstream audience than Merle Haggard and Iron Maiden, who mostly sold to fans of their genres. If you look at the top 20 biggest selling acts in history, the majority are white, not black or Chinese.

 

[DuranDuran]

Hall Of Fame

The Rock N Roll Hall Of Fame was created by the founders of Rolling Stone. These are the inductees of the first 2 years. The names in blue are black. That's a pretty good percentage, especially since there are many white acts whose albums have sold more than a lot of them. Aretha Franklin was never really a big album seller, with maybe a few exceptions. Her biggest seller was certified at 2 million and that was a gospel album (Amazing Grace), and not her secular ones. In recent years, Percy Sledge was inducted. He had a few hits, but is primarily known for 1 song When A Man Loves A Woman, yet multi-platinum acts like Journey are not in. So you can't say they only induct the most popular.

1986
Elvis Presley
Buddy Holly
Chuck Berry
Fats Domino
James Brown
Jerry Lee Lewis
Ray Charles
Sam Cooke
The Everly Brothers
Little Richard
Alan Freed
Sam Phillips
Jimmie Rodgers
Jimmy Yancey
Robert Johnson
Leonard Chess
Jerry Wexler
Ahmet Ertegun
Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller


1987
Aretha Franklin
B.B. King
Big Joe Turner
Bill Haley
Bo Diddley
Carl Perkins
Clyde McPhatter
Eddie Cochran
Jackie Wilson
The Coasters
Marvin Gaye
Ricky Nelson
Roy Orbison
Smokey Robinson
Muddy Waters
Hank Williams
Louis Jordan
T-Bone Walker

 

[HIStory]

Re: Jimi

But RS is not just white people's taste, but primarily the taste of rock fans. RS didn't really feature acts like Wayne Newton or easy listening music or polka music, which have a primarily white audience. Rock fans in general tend to be white. Black people weren't the main buyers of RS, so why would R&B be on the cover a lot? There's acts that are popular in R&B that were little known by the mainstream and didn't get Top 40 airplay. You could say the same for country and heavy metal. Kenny Rogers & Motley Crue reached a more mainstream audience than Merle Haggard and Iron Maiden, who mostly sold to fans of their genres. If you look at the top 20 biggest selling acts in history, the majority are white, not black or Chinese.

The "it's a rock magazine so it's alright if they mainly feature white artists" argument reminds me of MTV's argument when they initially refused to play Billie Jean. "We are a rock channel, we don't play that kind of music". Many felt that the "we are rock" excuse was basically an euphemism for saying "we don't play black music".

Of course, there are niche/genre magazines - magazines that focus on a certain genre only - but is Rolling Stone a genre magazine? Did they ever declare themselves a strictly rock magazine? Or are they supposedly a general popular culture magazine? I think the latter. Polka music isn't a part of current popular culture, so it's understandable if they do not feature polka artists, but it's a lot harder to defend if they rarely feature R&B artists because that is very much a part of popular culture, only at the time it was mainly appreciated by black people. Off The Wall, for example, had all the credentials to be considered a big part of popular culture in 1979 (and ever since) - it had the commercial success and the critical acclaim - and RS still refused to have a cover story about it. I think it's not comparable to RS not featuring polka.

I understand that white artists usually sell better because of the bigger economical power of their audience. But it does not make it right if the media plays into that status quo and strengthens it even more.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Regardless of what anyone says, Rolling stone did (and possibly still does) have a bias against MJ.

 

[DuranDuran]

Re: Jimi

I understand that white artists usually sell better because of the bigger economical power of their audience. But it does not make it right if the media plays into that status quo and strengthens it even more.

How is that RS' fault? If more people in the 1950s bought Pat Boone instead of Little Richard doing the same songs, that isn't Pat's fault. There was a skit on SNL about Ebony & Ivory sung by Frank Sinatra (Joe Piscopo) & Stevie Wonder (Eddie Murphy). Frank tells Stevie something like "What is ebony? A magazine nobody buys". How many black TV shows were on TV in 1979? Very few, and those generally had white writers like Good Times, Sanford & Son, The Jeffersons, and What's Happening!!!. If Pink Floyd sold more than the Isley Brothers, that isn't the fault of Pink Floyd. Even today, how many TV shows on the main 4 networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) have majority non-white casts? In the movies, black people will go to "white movies", but in general whites don't go to movies with a majority non-white cast unless it's about slavery or something. They're labeled "black movies" and don't usually become blockbusters, with maybe a few exceptions. Even the popular black actors like Denzel Washington, Eddie Murphy, Will Smith, etc. are usually in movies with a mostly white cast or a sidekick to a white actor like Lethal Weapon and the TV show Miami Vice.

In the modern era, some rappers sold more than the old R&B/soul/funk acts did. Hip hop is mainstream in a way that R&B never really was. Straight Outta Compton became the highest grossing biopic. Some have mainstream clothing brands like Apple Bottoms & Sean Jean and 50 Cent was part of Vitamin Water. Ice Cube, Queen Latifah, Ice T, LL Cool J, and Will Smith (aka Fresh Prince) became movie/TV stars in a way that Mike, Madonna, Prince, Ringo Starr, Glenn Frey, or even Elvis Presley couldn't. Elvis movies were popular at the time, but he wasn't really considered a real actor because of the movies Colonel Parker had him doing. Many of Elvis movies were the same, so his film popularity eventually went down.

 

[DuranDuran]

Regardless of what anyone says, Rolling stone did (and possibly still does) have a bias against MJ.

Having a bias against a specific act and Rolling Stone being racist are 2 different things. What about Farrakhan saying in the 1980s that Mike & Prince were "sissified" and not good role models for young black men. There's also some black people at the time who said that they and Lionel Richie sold out and abandoned the black audience to get more money and fame. Whitney Houston was booed at a Soul Train Awards one year. The "sell out" accusation was often said about black performers who got a crossover audience, going all the way back to Sammy Davis Jr and Nat King Cole. Motown was considered a sell out too by some, especially The Supremes.

 

[HIStory]

I did not say it's RS' fault alone but when they refuse to put something like OTW on their cover it's the same as when MTV refused to play Billie Jean. Instead of fighting that phenomenon of racial segregation in the mainstream media they are a part of the culture that perpetuates it. At least at the time they were.

In the movies, black people will go to "white movies", but in general whites don't go to movies with a majority non-white cast unless it's about slavery or something.

Exactly what the root of the problem is, the difference between us seems to be only that you think this is alright and the media doesn't have any responsibility in it and they don't have any task in trying to change it but I think they do. I also think they do have a responsibility for keeping this up when they do not even give to successful black artists (like MJ during OTW) the same opportunities as their white counterparts with less success. So let's not pretend as if race has nothing to do with this phenomenon.

You can argue for RS not putting, say, Funkadelic on their cover because they weren't that successful in the mainstream but you cannot use that argument against MJ and OTW. The album had two #1s and was the best selling album by a black artist until that point and was one of the best selling albums of the year.

(Sure hip-hop became mainstream and popular but who is the most successful, best-selling rapper of all times? Once again, a white man.)

 

[DuranDuran]

Exactly what the root of the problem is, the difference between us seems to be only that you think this is alright and the media doesn't have any responsibility in it and they don't have any task in trying to change it but I think they do. I also think they do have a responsibility for keeping this up when they do not even give to successful black artists (like MJ during OTW) the same opportunities as their white counterparts with less success. So let's not pretend as if race has nothing to do with this phenomenon.

You can argue for RS not putting, say, Funkadelic on their cover because they weren't that successful in the mainstream but you cannot use that argument against MJ and OTW. The album had two #1s and was the best selling album by a black artist until that point and was one of the best selling albums of the year.

(Sure hip-hop became mainstream and popular but who is the most successful, best-selling rapper of all times? Once again, a white man.)

The media is about making money, not changing people per se. The media can't force somebody to buy a record/magazine or see a movie/TV show. Do you think the people who watch Bill O'Reilly and Fox News or are voting for Donald Trump will buy a record because Rolling Stone writes about it? They might not buy it in the first place unless Ted Nugent was on the cover, lol. It's not just the USA. It's been said that black Hollywood movies don't do as well overseas like white Hollywood movies do.

 

[HIStory]

The media is about making money, not changing people per se.The media can't force somebody to buy a record/magazine or see a movie/TV show. Do you think the people who watch Bill O'Reilly and Fox News or are voting for Donald Trump will buy a record because Rolling Stone writes about it? They might not buy it in the first place unless Ted Nugent was on the cover, lol. It's not just the USA. It's been said that black Hollywood movies don't do as well overseas like white Hollywood movies do.

You still talk about artists that don't sell in the mainstream, though. Off the Wall did sell. It did have mainstream success. It produced two #1s. It was one of the most successful albums of the year. So what's the excuse of RS to not give it a cover story like they gave to white artists with less successful albums that year? The same RS that rushed to put Julian Lennon or Lisa Marie Presley's debut albums on their cover just because of their last names. Neither was more successful than OTW. Neither had mainstream success that justified this treatment.

But Michael Jackson and Off the Wall is not a cover story. Alright, Rolling Stone.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Having a bias against a specific act and Rolling Stone being racist are 2 different things. What about Farrakhan saying in the 1980s that Mike & Prince were "sissified" and not good role models for young black men. There's also some black people at the time who said that they and Lionel Richie sold out and abandoned the black audience to get more money and fame. Whitney Houston was booed at a Soul Train Awards one year. The "sell out" accusation was often said about black performers who got a crossover audience, going all the way back to Sammy Davis Jr and Nat King Cole. Motown was considered a sell out too by some, especially The Supremes.

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular with what I said.

I was just giving my opinion in passing, and my statment still stands.

There's no way that an artist that has and continues to have as much impact and influence on the music industry as MJ has been on Rolling Stones cover so few times.

Super Bowl 50 was a huge MJ tribute (if that's not impact and influence then I don't know what is).

Oh, but wait, let's not forget that the Rolling Stone (the same magazine that has a problem with MJ himself) was a okay with calling Justin Timberlake that new King of Pop (while MJ himself was still alive) when we all know full and well that Justin Timberlake (and no other current artist for that matter) is even one fourth as good as MJ.

Rolling Stone tried it with that mess, and for that they can

 

[DuranDuran]

You still talk about artists that don't sell in the mainstream, though. Off the Wall did sell. It did have mainstream success. It produced two #1s. It was one of the most successful albums of the year. So what's the excuse of RS to not give it a cover story like they gave to white artists with less successful albums that year? The same RS that rushed to put Julian Lennon or Lisa Marie Presley's debut albums on their cover just because of their last names. LOL. Neither was more successful than OTW. Neither had mainstream success that justified this treatment.

But Michael Jackson and Off the Wall is not a cover story. Alright. LOL.

When has Celine Dion been on the cover of RS? She's sold more than Lisa Marie. Lionel Richie and Cher have not had covers either. Lionel was big in the 1980s and the Commodores had mainstream success in the 1970s and they didn't get a cover. Anyway, Lisa is after the format change. Did Lisa get the cover because of her record or because she's talking about some other people (Elvis, Mike, Nic Cage). Off The Wall came out around the time of "Disco Sucks" and the demolition/riot at the baseball game. Even at the Grammys, Off The Wall was nominated in R&B and disco categories. So that's probably the reason it's not a cover story, they do want to sell and not get a bunch of returns. Besides Stevie Wonder & Marvin Gaye have made the cover years before Off The Wall. They also put Mike (rather than Jackson 5) on the cover in the early 1970s. Julian's debut album was successful and had a few hits. The stuff he released afterward not so much.

 

[Psychoniff]

^^^*Boom* mic drop.....

 

[DuranDuran]

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular with what I said.

I was just giving my opinion in passing, and my statment still stands.

There's no way that an artist that has and continues to have as much impact and influence on the music industry as MJ has been on Rolling Stones cover so few times.

Super Bowl 50 was a huge MJ tribute (if that's not impact and influence then I don't know what is).

Oh, but wait, let's not forget that the Rolling Stone (the same magazine that has a problem with MJ himself) was a okay with calling Justin Timberlake that new King of Pop (while MJ himself was still alive) when we all know full and well that Justin Timberlake (and no other current artist for that matter) is even one fourth as good as MJ.

Rolling Stone tried it with that mess, and for that they can

Weren't Oasis called the new Beatles? Duran Duran and even New Kids On The Block were called "Fab 5", which came from The Beatles being called "Fab 4". The media is always saying someone is the "new" somebody else.

 

[Psychoniff]

^Ever heard the song "Ticket To Ride" by the Beatles?

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Weren't Oasis called the new Beatles? Duran Duran and even New Kids On The Block were called "Fab 5", which came from The Beatles being called "Fab 4". The media is always saying someone is the "new" somebody else.

The media doesn't try to replace any other artist or band as much as they try to replace MJ, and this is because MJ is the standard when it comes to entertainment.

The media doesn't like to give MJ himself the accolades he deserves, but is quick to say someone is the "new" MJ, which is the ultimate compliment because MJ is the best, and everyone wants to be the best.

Additionally, calling anyone the new Michael jackson is an insult to Michael because they can use MJ as the standard (which he is) but not give Michael himself the credit he deserves, also none of the people that have been called the "new" MJ are even half a good as him.

I personally take the media calling everyone and their dog the new MJ as a compliment because whether they realize it or not their using MJ as the standard.

 

[HIStory]

Off The Wall came out around the time of "Disco Sucks" and the demolition/riot at the baseball game. Even at the Grammys, Off The Wall was nominated in R&B and disco categories. So that's probably the reason it's not a cover story, they do want to sell and not get a bunch of returns.

And this has nothing to do with racism? Because that was your initial point. The "disco sucks" sentiment was all about racism (and homophobia). So if it was one of the reasons why RS did not put OTW on its cover then it does have to do with racism. And why do magazines with black artists on it get a bunch of returns? Doesn't that have to do with racism?

Like I said before, racism isn't just blatant racism, like "I hate this or that ethnicity". It can be expressed in attitudes, actions that come from certain prejudices or privileges. The person doing them may not be deliberately or blatantly racist, but still may have certain racist prejudices or attitudes that ultimately root in racism. I don't necessarily think RS said "let's not put MJ on the cover because he is black". But they could have had certain prejudices against the type of music that he played - prejudices that eventually do come from certain racist attitudes and privileges.

They also put Mike (rather than Jackson 5) on the cover in the early 1970s.

Yes, this was RS' argument in that letter as well and I found it ridiculous when they wrote that in their letter. As if they say: "well, MJ was on RS's cover once as a child, some 9 years ago, he should be content with that and leave us alone with this OTW crap". OTW is not J5, so what does it have to do with MJ being on RS's cover 9 years before? Did they ever tell Madonna "you were on our cover X years ago, so why do you want to be on it again now that you released a new album"? Did they ever tell Bob Dylan that while they were putting him on their cover a million times? Or is it just black artists that have a certain quota about how many times they can be on the cover?

Julian's debut album was successful and had a few hits. The stuff he released afterward not so much.

Well, I am sure you know OTW sold much better than Julian Lennon's debut album. Lennon's album peaked at #17 on Billboard. The point is simply that when you defend RS by saying they don't want to put someone on their cover who doesn't sell, that doesn't really hold water in the case of OTW which did sell and did have mainstream success. Lots of it actually. Unlike Julian or LMP who they DID put on the cover. Julian had some minor success, but not anywhere near OTW. I used those examples to put the fact that they refused to put OTW on the cover into a perspective.

 

[DuranDuran]

And this has nothing to do with racism? Because that was your initial point. The "disco sucks" sentiment was all about racism (and homophobia). So if it was one of the reasons why RS did not put OTW on its cover then it does have to do with racism. Like I said before, racism isn't just blatant racism, like "I hate this or that ethnicity". It can be expressed in attitudes, actions that come from certain prejudices or privileges. The person doing them may not be deliberately or blatantly racist, but still may have certain racist prejudices or attitudes that ultimately root in racism. I don't necessarily think RS said "let's not put MJ on the cover because he is black". But they could have had certain prejudices against the type of music that he played - prejudices that eventually do come from certain racist attitudes and privileges.

Yes, this was RS' argument in that letter as well and I found it ridiculous when they wrote that in their letter. As if they say: "well, MJ was on RS's cover once as a child, some 9 years ago, he should be content with that and leave us alone with this OTW crap". OTW is not J5, so what does it have to do with MJ being on RS's cover 9 years before? Did they ever tell Madonna "you were on our cover X years ago, so why do you want to be on it again now that you released a new album"? Did they ever tell Bob Dylan that while they were putting him on their cover a million times? Or is it just black artists that have a certain quota about how many times they can be on the cover?

Well, I am sure you know OTW sold much better than Julian Lennon's debut album. Lennon's album peaked at #17 on Billboard. The point is simply that when you defend RS by saying they don't want to put someone on their cover who doesn't sell, that doesn't really hold water in the case of OTW which did sell and did have mainstream success. Lots of it actually. Unlike Julian or LMP who they DID put on the cover. Julian had some minor success, but not anywhere near OTW. I used those examples to put the fact that they refused to put OTW on the cover into a perspective.

I said they didn't usually put R&B on the cover during that era, except a few who had reached a rock audience like Stevie Wonder, not that they only put acts who sold a lot of records on the cover. Rolling Stone in the beginning often featured underground psychedelic acts, still acts who appealed to a rock audience. Stevie and Jimi Hendrix are also not really disco related. I also meant the R&B acts didn't sell as many magazines which is a different market than them selling records. Like the SNL joke ("Ebony is a magazine nobody buys", probably code for the mainstream aka white people don't buy it). There was not a R&B equivalent of RS, a music based magazine. There were magazines for jazz, country, and blues music, but in the US the R&B related magazines were generally geared towards a teen audience like Right On!.

There was a writer for RS during the 1970s that Wenner did not want to feature disco at all in the magazine when disco first started to become popular. How many disco related acts are in the Rock Hall now? Donna Summer was rejected several times and only finally got inducted probably because she died. ABBA got in somehow, maybe a token act. There's not much prog rock or heavy metal in the Hall either. RS was never really that friendly to those genres. And those are actual rock groups, but not the blues based rock the founders were more fond of. I pointed out the J5 era cover and Jimi Hendrix & Marvin Gaye because of RS being accused of being racist for rejecting Off The Wall, when the RS run Hall Of Fame inducted many black performers the first 2 years, including some who didn't actually make rock related music.

 

[HIStory]

I pointed out the J5 era cover and Jimi Hendrix & Marvin Gaye because of RS being accused of being racist for rejecting Off The Wall, when the RS run Hall Of Fame inducted many black performers the first 2 years, including some who didn't actually make rock related music.

Actually, what I said was this:

Whether it was because of some kind of latent or not so latent racism or because RS never really understood what MJ was all about musically and artistically? I think a little bit of both. (Well, the two are not totally disconnected from each other IMO.)

The "disco sucks" sentiment does have racist undertones. Not putting black artists on the cover for lack of magazine sales does point to racism in the audience of that magazine. So when you brought up those arguments you actually supported my point. I also said there could have been other reasons as well and that it's probably a combination of all those factors why they refused to put OTW on the cover.

As for RS putting Hendrix and Gaye (I think in the latter case only once) on the cover somehow negating this argument - I disagree. As a black artist you had to be a real giant or real special to make it on the cover of RS. As a white artist much less was enough.