Am I the only MJ fan who thinks that Michael’s solo career began with...

[KOPV]

I think we also have to consider the psychological effect of where he was in his life and how we hear his music. The album came out in his 21st year of life, naturally we associate those early 20s to adulthood. By this time he moved to NYC for The Wiz, partied at Studio 54.. Basically he experienced the world on his own for the first time and that period really played a huge role on his sound as an artist. The sound, themes, topics, and even his look changed in that time. He did a great job setting up the feeling of 'i'm stepping out now' in Off The Wall.

Notice even around that time the Jacksons music themes changed, a lot about getting into the music and letting go etc. You can even hear the shift in the Destiny album (and also see how much Michael wrote on that album), Blame it on the boogie, Shake your body down - gain songs that sound influenced by his time in NYC. Michael brought in more focal funk than usual, had what would be considered now 'club bangers' for the time. Even the effect Michael felt exploring out into that world (studio 54 etc) and how his battle with his religious beliefs came into play.

his magic music grooves me
That dirty rhythm moves me
The devil's gotten to me through this dance

There was a paradigm shift happening in the late 70's that played a huge role in what became of what we know as Michael Jackson the solo artist. he 'butterflied' around that time frame - we see and hear it with Off The Wall and that's really why so many consider Off The Wall his first true solo album.. Though it really wasn't

 

[DuranDuran]

jazz

although Michael was album orientated, I personally don't view him, or any other artist in that way. it's all about the hits for me. those are what tend to be the most memorable, have the most replay value, and actually shape the legacy for me.

What about something like jazz or gospel? Those rarely got Top 40 airplay, so there's few hits. Big band jazz was pop music in the 1920s and 30s though and young people danced to it. But when bop and then free jazz came along, jazz primarily became music for niche audiences. In the late 1970s and 1980s, smooth jazz had some commercial success with acts like George Benson, The Crusaders, The Blackbyrds, and Kenny G. But smooth jazz is more like instrumental R&B and funk. Miles Davis & Sun Ra never had any hit singles, but they released many albums, had long careers, and are generally held in high regard. Miles' album Kind Of Blue is the biggest selling (non-smooth) jazz album in history. Kind Of Blue sold to people who don't normally listen to jazz and every few years there's another remaster or deluxe version of it.

 

[DuranDuran]

Blame it on the boogie

The brothers didn't write this. It was by a British singer named Mick Jackson.

 

[KOPV]

The song was still selected for the album.. mike didn't write man in the mirror either but he considers that a song that describes his beliefs.

Human nature describes New York and is expression of his time there and he didnt write that either

Sometimes the most personal songs are not actually written by the artist.

 

[83magic]

Re: jazz

What about something like jazz or gospel? Those rarely got Top 40 airplay, so there's few hits. Big band jazz was pop music in the 1920s and 30s though and young people danced to it. But when bop and then free jazz came along, jazz primarily became music for niche audiences. In the late 1970s and 1980s, smooth jazz had some commercial success with acts like George Benson, The Crusaders, The Blackbyrds, and Kenny G. But smooth jazz is more like instrumental R&B and funk. Miles Davis & Sun Ra never had any hit singles, but they released many albums, had long careers, and are generally held in high regard. Miles' album Kind Of Blue is the biggest selling (non-smooth) jazz album in history. Kind Of Blue sold to people who don't normally listen to jazz and every few years there's another remaster or deluxe version of it.

I don't consider instrumentals to be 'songs', but rather compositions. song comes from the melody of the voice.

there's no way that I can confirm the rest of what you've written, as i'm not old enough to have experienced that the first time around. unfortunately, those genres do not interest me enough to research them either... sorry.

you have kind of proven my point though; how many songs remain unexposed because they were buried on albums? how many outtakes were scrapped, not because they were bad, but because they didn't fit in with the rest, or they simply ran out of space?

albums cost a lot more money, and in my experience, the best songs are the singles already released prior. more effort seems to go into making them. after 'I want you back', Motown didn't even bother releasing any more songs from j5's debut album. there's a reason for that.. whenever I find out a song is a cover I get disappointed. artists/groups should have songs that reflect their individuality (they could of course, write them themselves also, if they can). I also prefer radio edits, as album versions tend to needlessly double everything. a song should never overstay its welcome. 'shake your body' is a prime example of this. I never listen to the album version that runs for almost 8 minutes

if we look at how Michael's tours typically evolved, the songs performed from the current album were mostly the singles. the more singles released during the duration of the tour, were added to the setlist eventually. I feel this was a smart move. the hits got the best reactions. people may buy albums, but many don't actually listen to them enough to learn them properly. same goes for lyrics

i'm actually thankful for digital downloading (I used to collect physical singles). I like getting exactly what I asked for without having to wade through the rest. there's nothing worse than buying an album and only liking 3 songs. I also find albums to be restrictive and calculating. you have to be constantly thinking of balance and flow. that's not organic creating to me. this is of course, all my opinion, and shouldn't be taken as fact or personally

 

[DuranDuran]

Re: jazz

I don't consider instrumentals to be 'songs', but rather compositions. song comes from the melody of the voice.

Not all jazz songs are instrumentals, and vocal jazz still usually didn't get much Top 40 airplay to become a hit. An instrumental is still a song, just like when 45s were around, there was sometimes an instrumental version of the A-side on the B-side or a dub mix of a reggae song. Gospel didn't get Top 40 airplay because they're religious songs, but a few became pop radio hits like Oh Happy Day by the Edwin Hawkins Singers & My Sweet Lord by George Harrison. Some R&B radio stations would play gospel on Sunday though.

artists/groups should have songs that reflect their individuality (they could of course, write them themselves also, if they can)

A song can't reflect everybody in a group or band. The average funk band might have 10 members in it. :laughing: If Paul McCartney & John Lennon write a song for The Beatles, how does that reflect the individuality of Ringo Starr, and vice versa? What does The Ballad Of John & Yoko have to do with the other 3 Beatles? There's also Elton John writing the music and Bernie Taupin doing the lyrics, so Elton's songs are more about Bernie than himself. There's songwriters like Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis who generally write songs specifically for a particular artist

I also prefer radio edits, as album versions tend to needlessly double everything. a song should never overstay its welcome. 'shake your body' is a prime example of this. I never listen to the album version that runs for almost 8 minutes

I guess you don't listen to psychedelic rock, progressive rock, or disco songs which can be up to 25 minutes long, and that was because that was all that could fit on one side of a record. Prog rock didn't have edits because they weren't usually released as singles. Many early hip hop song were 8 - 10 minutes and were only on 12" maxi singles not 45s. Rappers Delight by the Sugarhill Gang is around 15 minutes. The disco era in the late 1970s is really when remixes & 12" maxi singles came about. Disco songs were long because they were primarily made to play in clubs for people to dance to, not for radio per se, and playing short songs meant that a club DJ had to change the song more often which could break the flow, if the tempo of the next song was different. A totally different tempo might result in the people dancing (aka paying customers for drinks) leaving or heckling the DJ. DJs counted the amount of beats a song had in a minute. This way they could match songs with similar BPMs back to back without interrupting the flow. The beat, groove, and rhythm was more important than the singing & lyrics to dancers so there were long instrumental sections like in Shake Your Body and Love To Love You Baby by Donna Summer. This is also why acts like KC & The Sunshine Band could have lyrics in which basically the same lines were repeated over and over.

if we look at how Michael's tours typically evolved, the songs performed from the current album were mostly the singles. the more singles released during the duration of the tour, were added to the setlist eventually. I feel this was a smart move. the hits got the best reactions. people may buy albums, but many don't actually listen to them enough to learn them properly. same goes for lyrics

That would only apply to an artist who is known for radio hits. Most acts who perform live don't have that and they have an audience who go to see them anyway, all the way down to a local bar band. A year or 2 ago, Stevie Wonder did a tour where he only performed the entire Songs In The Key Of Life album, in which the majority of the songs on it weren't singles or hits. The Rolling Stones & Prince played a lot of album tracks in concert. Also, in the USA there are genres that are mainly popular in one area, like zydeco in Louisiana and tejano in Texas & Mexico. So they might be regional hits, but unknown in other parts of the US. There's also hits for particular audiences and there's charts in Billboard for that like dance music, Latin pop, Adult R&B, country, modern rock, etc.

 

[83magic]

Re: jazz

Not all jazz songs are instrumentals, and vocal jazz still usually didn't get much Top 40 airplay to become a hit. An instrumental is still a song, just like when 45s were around, there was sometimes an instrumental version of the A-side on the B-side or a dub mix of a reggae song. Gospel didn't get Top 40 airplay because they're religious songs, but a few became pop radio hits like Oh Happy Day by the Edwin Hawkins Singers & My Sweet Lord by George Harrison. Some R&B radio stations would play gospel on Sunday though.


A song can't reflect everybody in a group or band. The average funk band might have 10 members in it. :laughing: If Paul McCartney & John Lennon write a song for The Beatles, how does that reflect the individuality of Ringo Starr, and vice versa? What does The Ballad Of John & Yoko have to do with the other 3 Beatles? There's also Elton John writing the music and Bernie Taupin doing the lyrics, so Elton's songs are more about Bernie than himself. There's songwriters like Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis who generally write songs specifically for a particular artist


I guess you don't listen to psychedelic rock, progressive rock, or disco songs which can be up to 25 minutes long, and that was because that was all that could fit on one side of a record. Prog rock didn't have edits because they weren't usually released as singles. Many early hip hop song were 8 - 10 minutes and were only on 12" maxi singles not 45s. Rappers Delight by the Sugarhill Gang is around 15 minutes. The disco era in the late 1970s is really when remixes & 12" maxi singles came about. Disco songs were long because they were primarily made to play in clubs for people to dance to, not for radio per se, and playing short songs meant that a club DJ had to change the song more often which could break the flow, if the tempo of the next song was different. A totally different tempo might result in the people dancing (aka paying customers for drinks) leaving or heckling the DJ. DJs counted the amount of beats a song had in a minute. This way they could match songs with similar BPMs back to back without interrupting the flow. The beat, groove, and rhythm was more important than the singing & lyrics to dancers so there were long instrumental sections like in Shake Your Body and Love To Love You Baby by Donna Summer. This is also why acts like KC & The Sunshine Band could have lyrics in which basically the same lines were repeated over and over.


That would only apply to an artist who is known for radio hits. Most acts who perform live don't have that and they have an audience who go to see them anyway, all the way down to a local bar band. A year or 2 ago, Stevie Wonder did a tour where he only performed the entire Songs In The Key Of Life album, in which the majority of the songs on it weren't singles or hits. The Rolling Stones & Prince played a lot of album tracks in concert. Also, in the USA there are genres that are mainly popular in one area, like zydeco in Louisiana and tejano in Texas & Mexico. So they might be regional hits, but unknown in other parts of the US. There's also hits for particular audiences and there's charts in Billboard for that like dance music, Latin pop, Adult R&B, country, modern rock, etc.

I don't like rock at all ('beat it' being the only exception), and I don't listen to hip hop. the only gospel songs I like are a couple by sounds of blackness (mostly 'optimistic', but also 'i'm going all the way. 2 singles I bought..)

I listen to music at my own leisure without it being fed to me by club or radio djs.

when I wrote about individuality being reflected in groups, I didn't mean each individual member. the whole point of being a group/band is that they're all unified as one, working towards a common goal. which is why they are listed under one name.


I think you knew what I meant though, and just decided to nit-pick in order to mock me I appreciate the information, however you are not going to change mind on what I find enjoyable in music. I think we're getting off topic, and this back and fourth is not productive to this thread. I do not wish to continue, thank you.

 

[8701girl]

The song was still selected for the album.. mike didn't write man in the mirror either but he considers that a song that describes his beliefs.

Human nature describes New York and is expression of his time there and he didnt write that either

Sometimes the most personal songs are not actually written by the artist.

that is true like singers tend to use other people written songs and make it as they feel it and understand the emtions of that song for like sia (i think it was her) wrote a song called ''you lost me'' and christina aguilera sang it.

 

[DuranDuran]

that is true like singers tend to use other people written songs and make it as they feel it and understand the emotions of that song for like sia (i think it was her) wrote a song called ''you lost me'' and christina aguilera sang it.

Most singers sing songs by others because they can't write or don't want to, just like there's songwriters who can't sing well and/or play an instrument. Some professional songwriters do not want to be entertainers, only write songs. I don't know why some people think acts writing their own songs is that important, when most performers in the entire history of the recording business hasn't.

 

[ManBehindTheMirrOr - Dona]

I find it absolutly disrespectful and mean to say that MJs solo career begun with Off the Wall!
This is a media truth which is always told in nearly every MJ documentary. They never really cover the years before off the wall or Thriller were MJ did so much incredible great things to have enough time to tell the negative staff, the scandals and paint a negative picture from him.

I like MJs solo motown albums and the additional solo stuff which was released later.
Its good stuff in this very young age he and his fans really can be proud off.
I know he put all his heart in evey song.

"What ever I sing, this is what I really meam, I don't sing it when I don't mean it."
MJ with 11 years

I listen to 90 Percent of the songs where Michael is singing.
I had a big collection on my old YouTube channel with over 400 songs and great other MJ collections, but I sadly lost it.
I see it as my duty as his fan to keep the 70ies part of his legacy alive cause this is the most fragile part that people and history will forget.
They already forgot it mostly.
When people talk about MJ they talk about the 80ies and 90ies, but he was 20 more years active as an artist where he sung great songs and did incredible performances.

 

[mj_frenzy]

I don't know why some people think acts writing their own songs is that important, when most performers in the entire history of the recording business hasn't.

Some people think that it is very important because they believe that writing your own music makes you convey truer emotions/experiences (while singing it) which, in turn, makes you become more relatable to the audience.

But for me, writing your own music is not that important.

In fact, it is not important at all.

Whitney Houston’s example comes to mind, whose biggest hits that millions of people loved so much were not even written by her.

‘How Will I Know’, ‘I Will Always Love You’, ‘I’m Your Baby Tonight’ & the list goes on.

Some professional songwriters do not want to be entertainers, only write songs.

That is because the songwriting aspect is the most lucrative one in the music industry, so these professional songwriters do not want (or do not have) to be also entertainers in order to earn more money.

 

[Cinnamon234]

I think of "Off the Wall" as the beginning of Michael's solo career as an adult, but I don't ever discount his other four solo albums created before then. His life as an entertainer began when he was a member of the Jackson 5, but he could still be an individual artist, as well; therefore all solo efforts created during that time should be counted, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether MJ had creative control, picked the songs, picked with whom he worked, etc. Considering the beautiful excellence Michael gave us as a VOCALIST on the four solo Motown albums, I think it does him a disservice to sweep them under the rug when analysing the entirety of his solo career.

I totally agree

 

[Spike J]

I face this paradigm of Michaels carreer like this: The Jacksons output, to me is more like a butterfly in a cocoon phase, otw being the bfly ready and flying free. Jacksons is what I consider the PRINCE OF POP period, 76-79. Blues Away to me is ground zero for Michael as a composer and songwriter

 

[NatureCriminal7896]

Re: self-songwriting

This is a fantastic post. I often get told that Prince was better than Michael because he did it all himself. In my eyes, getting help to flesh out ideas doesn't make the music worse.

I'd rather MJs output with help than the 40 dud albums Prince released 'all by himself'.

They were both great artists.

 

[83magic]

lately I've been feeling as though Michael's career began and ended with 'thriller'. of course I know this isn't true. it's just that 'thriller' set the bar so high that anything that came before or after was made irrelevant. why bother with the rest when I have the best? I've been listening to it in all of its capacities practically my whole life, and my feelings only intensify with time. the cassette is playing (p.y.t) as I type this! the original 'billie jean' performance is all I need. same goes for the 'billie jean', 'beat it' and 'thriller' short films. even when I watch choreographed sequences I zoom in on Michael, and ignore the other dancers. they, along with his brothers, just tend to get in the way for me. he alone was magnetic. what was created was unique. may it live on forever!

 

[mj_frenzy]

About the comparison between MJ & Prince that has been mentioned here, actually Prince’s fans claim that Prince was a more complete artist than MJ.

Which is true, because MJ did not play any real instruments, he just used to experiment occasionally with them (like, piano).

MJ relied a lot on his use of beatboxing, meaning he emulated with his mouth the rhythm of specific real instruments (like, the guitar riff on ‘Black Or White&#8217 so that musicians would interpret & play what he was hearing in his head.

But that was a problematic way for him to create his music because many times he was not totally satisfied with the musicians’ interpretation.

This is where Prince gained the upper hand because he could play what exactly he was hearing in his head.

 

[NatureCriminal7896]

I wish fans stop compering Michael and Prince. they both was great artists. both were two different people. i don't understand why this always a problem. Michael was the human musician while Prince was everything expect an dancer(?) it's really doesn't matter they both was good.