All that - the "well documented fact" seems to be
solely based on that ONE single Entertainment Weekly article:
Stylists plan Michael Jackson's makeover
It's out with the glove and in with the... cornrows?
February 26, 2001 at 05:00 AM EST
by Evan Serpick and Bob Cannon
As Michael Jackson prepares to launch version 4.0 of himself, many of his fashion staples — military epaulets, single sequined gloves — have beat it from his wardrobe. By mandate. According to stylists hired for recent Jackson photo shoots, Sony insists that fashion consultants sign a contract agreeing not to outfit the star in his old style relics. (Sony’s Michele Schweitzer downplayed the label’s role: ”Many artists have a standard contract when you do a photo shoot.”
So what should the 21st century Jack0 look like? No more socks and gloves, insists Rodney Jerkins, who’s worked on Jackson’s new album. ”He needs to change, come out totally fresh.”
Tameka Foster, a stylist for Lauryn Hill and Toni Braxton, suggests a more subtle vibe. ”He’s always been larger than life. He needs to be a bit more regular.” Her suggestion? Cornrows and clothing that’s ”halfway between hip hop and haute couture.”
Jamie Kimmelman, an image consultant for Shania Twain and others, would dump the androgynous theatrics. Stealing a page from the recent men’s fashion shows, Kimmelman urges ”a return to gentlemanly elegance…impeccably tailored suits, but with a bright orange shirt and tie, and a lining [that] is bright orange satin, so it’s not a boring pinstriped banker’s suit.”
Even the quote you credited the 'King Of Pop' magazin for, actually comes from this same Entertainment Weekly article. But that might be down to good old copy & paste journalism by that British fanzine.
So let's take a closer look:
Reading that they write (in 2001) that "many of his fashion staples —
military epaulets,
single sequined gloves — have
beat it from his wardrobe", and looking at the
image to that article, it becomes clear that their visual perception of Michael Jackson was (deliberately or not) stuck in the 1980s Thriller days.
But had he looked like that in the previous decade during Dangerous or HIStory? Nope.
This ignorant perception might be expectable from non-fans and such USA-based boulevard journalists, but not from Michaels own record label, who definitly should know better.
You really believe Sony would intrigue to make Michael get rid of the single sequined gloves although he had not worn those (outside of the Billie Jean performance) since the BAD era? That makes no sense.
Michael by himself reinvented his look for every album with the help of talented designers/stylists. No need to force.
That Entertainment Weekly article offers the solution for a problem it creates.
And "According to stylists" is what it goes down to.
Before the HIStory album there were also reports that Michael was about to reinvent his image and look etc. This had become something to expect from Michael Jackson with every new album.
The comments from Rodney, Tameka Foster and Jamie Kimmelman are just that. Entertainment weekly probably simply reached out to them for a quote on Michaels style. They don't confirm anything Sony.
Feel free to provide reports and quotes that actually support this claim.
(At least hinting that it was not completely down to Michaels own will in the first place.)