It's okay to not like these songs, but acting like your opinion is fact reeks of you having a gigantic ego. Yes, those tracks are considered filler, but people can like them. Hell, I like them as well. Like Agonum said, it's not the fact that you don't like those songs that's the issue, but your choice of words that make it sound like you're parading the "popular opinion" as the only correct take to have.
You just proved what I said. Those sound less like regular New Jack songs, and more like "Michael Jackson". There's 2 or 3 New Jack Swing threads in the other part of this site and nobody currently on the site posts in them. There's also a thread in this section that is about Dangerous & Janet's Rhythm Nation 1814 and that Janet's album is considered a better New Jack Swing album. The comments are generally that Dangerous is better. I think they are saying that because they are Michael Jackson fans and not Janet fans. So they are not really rating either album as a New Jack Swing album. Which neither are for the most part, they are albums that have a few NJS songs on them. I think Jermaine's 1991 album You Said is more New Jack Swing than Dangerous or Rhythm Nation. Because Jermaine's entire album was produced by Babyface & L.A. Reid, who at the time was producing NJS. An actual NJS album would be by Bobby Brown, Al B. Sure!. Bell Biv DeVoe, Heavy D, Today, Redhead Kingpin, Kool Moe Dee, etc. This song by Bobby Brown sounds similar to She Drives Me Wild and it was a single.
I didn't say all that. I just said that they don't have much exposure to New Jack Swing as a genre.
I guess you are not aware that reggae is popular with Nazi skinheads. Donald Trump has been known to hang out with Black celebrities in the past, including Mike. At the same time he was getting lawsuits about being racist to non-white people living in his buildings. "I'm not racist, I have a Black friend." It's like white people who will watch NBA/NFL or listen to hip hop, but don't have much to do with any Black folks in their personal lives. Decades ago, in the Jim Crow years, whites would go to see Black entertainers, but the same entertainers could not stay in the white hotels, and they could not come in the front door of the club or concert hall. They had to come in the back through the kitchen. The audiences were segregated too, many white owned places would not allow other races in the audience, although Black artists were on the stage. That was also the era Stepin Fetchit was popular with the white audience, and so was blackface.
Well thank you for at least agreeing with me that those songs are considered filler.
If MJ hadn't made Beat It and Thriller hadn't crossed over, would non black people be listening to MJ nearly as much? It's a hypothetical but yeah. A lot of MJs fame did come because of crossover success. With Off The Wall he was the biggest black artist. And two of his songs became big number 1s in an era of great soul music. With Thriller he became the biggest artist period. And Bad just triplified that to a worldwide scale.
Yeah but @Agonum can't keep pressing him just because we don't like his dogmatic tone. I get it, but why fill the thread up like that, with arguing?
You can call all album tracks fillers. It would be wrong. In my opinion.
Filler hasn't really existed since the 1960s. What filler really is, decades ago, a lot of acts had record contracts to only release 45s, not full albums. If an artist had a couple of singles blow up and get popular, the label would have the singer or group quickly record an album to capitalize on the success of the singles. These new tracks would be called "filler", as to pad out the record with the 12 to 14 songs that were on the albums of that time. A album cost more than a 45 so the record label could possibly make more money if the album sold well. "Filler" doesn't mean that it's a song you don't like.
The term filler is still widely used today to describe certain tracks that just make up the numbers on an album and are not considered good enough to release as singles
The weakest tracks is what I would consider album filler.
At least two of those are singles. 2 Bad had the extended dance break. Invincible has no singles campaign.
I wouldn't say that critics praising Elvis or The Beatles is racist per se. People in general are more likely to buy records of performers of their own race, ethnicity, or culture. The writers for mainstream magazines like Rolling Stone were usually white, and white people were the people who made up most of their sales. White people weren't largely buying Ebony & Right On!. Same with TV or movies, like BET or Telemundo. Latinos are more likely to listen to salsa, merenge, or Tejano than Chinese people would. Unless they only listen to hip hop, white people in general are usually gonna own more music by white artists over another race.. Because that is what is primarily promoted to them. White entertainers are the default in the USA, because the mainstream media is majority white. Bollywood is gonna be more popular with Indians than Black people. Notice in the 1970s, that movies with majority Black actors was called "blaxploitation". This was because some of the movies happened to crossover to white audiences, who otherwise would have ignored them or would not have known they existed. Or at least, the studios would have primarily promoted them the Black audiences. That was was R&B radio was, mainly promoting to the Black audience, because most of the artists were Black, If not, they were labled "blue eyed soul" or "Latin soul" by the music press.
Those are generally regarded as the weakest tracks on those albums, I've missed out released stuff like the girl is mine.
What does that mean? Most albums don't have any singles released. Like jazz rarely has any singles, maybe smooth jazz does. Also going by your logic, then the average Drake song are superior to album tracks by Stevie Wonder. Since Drake has more hits than any other artists in the history of the recording business. A lot of songs that became hits weren't even the A-side of a single. Kung Fu Fighting by Carl Douglas was originally the B-side. Radio DJs of the early 1970s had more input to what they played than today's conglomerate run radio stations, and many of them didn't like the A-side song. Disco Duck by Rick Dees was a single and critics tend to trash that, although I like Disco Duck.
So, people on this site say Drake & Justin Bieber are no good, yet they're very successful. Kanye West has won more Grammys than Mike. I don't think Kanye is that popular on this site either.
I've also seen people on this site say You Are Not Alone isn't that good. No matter what his legal problems are now, R. Kelly was really popular as an artist & producer in the 1990s to early 2000s.
Sorry you've lost me....So, people on this site say Drake & Justin Bieber are no good, yet they're very successful. Kanye West has won more Grammys than Mike. I don't think Kanye is that popular on this site either.
So bad that MJ put it in this is it? Stop being tasteless.
He obviously liked it otherwise he wouldn't have recorded it.
Bill, please don't hawk your opinions like they're fact. Just say they're your opinions, no one's gonna care if you obviously present them as such. I personally think Threatened is a kick-ass song with a soaring chorus and excellent samples from The Twilight Zone.
Yep, like him thinking songs have to be of a certain quality to be a single. All kinds of songs have been radio hits, but most songs released as singles have been unsuccessful. Some acts were more popular with albums than singles like Rush, Pink Floyd & Led Zeppelin. Most radio hits are songs that are promoted by a major record label that has the funds to do so. It has nothing to do with any quality of the music, such as What Did The Fox Say. That was a Top 10 hit in the USA, it doesn't mean that it was better than a song that wasn't a hit. Top 40 is designed to appeal to as many people as possible. That's why Adele albums sold more than B.B. King's. I'm guessing that some people on this site haven't heard the songs that are Top 10 this week.
I really wish people would stop saying that because that's not the case at all.
Omg give it a rest already...
I've posted the same kind of way ever since I've been on this site. Nobody's forcing you to read what I post. You volunteered to do so.
It ain't the 80s anymore. They weren't gonna do Quincy Jones tunes anymore. But what, You like Is It Scary more? Sure, I get it. It's not to your standards. Just quit yucking people's yum.
Indeed. Love that song.
You're damm right it ain't the 80s anymore.
Janet Jackson's 'Control' album is actually a more new jack swing album than her next 'Rhythm Nation 1814' album, or than the 'Dangerous' album.
Well clearly it's getting a lot of viewership.A bit rich from someone who keeps bumping ancient threads from over 15 years ago though
