If Michael's career happened sooner, what would his legacy be like today?

IhateTheMedia

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2023
Messages
307
Points
63
Country
United-States
Basically in this hypothetical, he would just be born in early 1940s instead and he starts his music career two decades before he actually did. How would Michael Jackson be revered today? Nothing about him changes at all (allegations aren't factored into this equation as they presumably would never happen)
 
He'd probably be a mostly forgotten oldies act. Maybe today appearing on some PBS pledge week multi-act concert. How much media writeup does the music of Jackie Wilson, Leslie Gore, or The Shirelles get today? Nowhere near what The Beatles or The Rolling Stones continue to get.

Frankie Lymon was born in 1942 and he was a teen singer. In comparison, Ringo Starr was born in 1940, & Elvis Presley in 1935. So more than likely The Jackson 5 would have been a similar doo-wop group as Frankie Lymon & The Teenagers. Doo-wop's popularity on lasted a few years. Or the brothers would have been on the chitlin' circuit and mostly known to Black audiences in the USA. Because the places performers played were segregated, especially in the southern USA.

In general, Top 40 music artists (of any race) of that time weren't really written about in a Rolling Stone style magazine, those kinds of publications didn't exist. Those primarily started in the late 1960s with the young rock n roll generation. The kinds of pre-rock magazines were ones like Billboard & the jazz magazine Downbeat. I think during that era, popular music in general was considered throwaway. It probably wasn't thought "important" like classical music or something to be documented.

The record business was different too, They didn't milk an album for a year or 2 years and have 7 singles from it. The average act released 2 or 3 albums a year, with songs that were 2 or 3 minutes long. A lot of artists had singles only contracts. Some small independent labels didn't release albums at all or very few. The album as it is known today only started around 1949. Before that it was all 78s. With the technology of the time, it was impossible to do a "one man band" record or have all of the background vocals by one person. Recordings were pretty much done live with everybody in the studio at the same time, couldn't do overdubs.
 
Born in 1938 instead of 1958, basically?

Well, he'd really be considered quite avant garde, dropping Off The Wall at 21 in 1959, before even the first tinge of Disco occurs.

Also, Quincy would be about 20 years younger, and in the midst of his Jazz Band thing so who knows.
 
Born in 1938 instead of 1958, basically?

Well, he'd really be considered quite avant garde, dropping Off The Wall at 21 in 1959, before even the first tinge of Disco occurs.

Also, Quincy would be about 20 years younger, and in the midst of his Jazz Band thing so who knows.
No he would be born the same time as Paul McCartney (1942), he just starts his career towards the end of the 1940s.
 
Basically in this hypothetical, he would just be born in early 1940s instead and he starts his music career two decades before he actually did. How would Michael Jackson be revered today? Nothing about him changes at all (allegations aren't factored into this equation as they presumably would never happen)
Hopefully no Pepsi ads or Pepsi burn.
Hopefully no painkillers.

No MTV tie-in, so definitely no mass hysteria about Thriller.
Probably no moonwalk?

Without Motown, he would be signed to another label, maybe. Maybe not. So much depends on the people he meets. He would probably have done a lot of talent shows, but who knows where they would take him.

In his 20s, he would be in the 1960s dressed well, in 1960s style clothing, maybe with a little pizazz. He would probably enjoy it but he would be 'normal' in a crowd and maybe want to set himself apart from it, as many entertainers do. His insecurities about his nose would presumably still exist and he may do something about it.

Summary: he'd probably be far less popular and a lot more 'normal' had his career started 2 decades earlier. So much depends on the people who are around him, so it really could go any way.
 
Basically in this hypothetical, he would just be born in early 1940s instead and he starts his music career two decades before he actually did. How would Michael Jackson be revered today? Nothing about him changes at all (allegations aren't factored into this equation as they presumably would never happen)
He wouldn't become a King of Pop, simply because of racism, that was tortuiring black artist in america during first half of 20s century
And the most imporant and dramatic thing, that in that timeline there would be no Invincible album... Simply because Michael couldn't made it in 1981 (Rodney Jerkins was only 4 years old... he didn't have opportunity to make music at that time)... That's why it would be disaster for every MJ fan, if he decided to born 20 years earlier
 
Nope. Painkiller still would be included. Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe - they all had painkiller addiction already....
I mean painkillers as a result of the Pepsi burn.

Michael would probably move into movies more than he had. I think he would have done that far sooner if MTV weren't around.
 
There'd be no white socks (Gene Kelly) or Smooth Criminal (Fred Astaire)
There'd be more active James Brown and Jackie Wilson, being direct counterparts
 
Praise Be!
Watch your mouth
you-rock-my-world-mjs-you-rock-my-world-14232590-300-164.gif
 
Last edited:
He’d maybe be an oldies act that every one forgot. Also if he was born in 1938 then he would be older than my grandparents. Kinda weird to think about that…
 
Considering Michael wanted to push boundaries and break barriers between black and white music I think he could have done the same if he was born 20 years earlier. He is a generational talent, he would have made his mark either way, regardless of when he was born.
 
Considering Michael wanted to push boundaries and break barriers between black and white music I think he could have done the same if he was born 20 years earlier.
I would say Harry Belafonte already did that in the 1950's. He sang across many genres and was big into American folk music. Not saying it wouldn't have been good to have someone else alongside him.
 
Considering Michael wanted to push boundaries and break barriers between black and white music I think he could have done the same if he was born 20 years earlier. He is a generational talent, he would have made his mark either way, regardless of when he was born.
Unlikely, there's a reason that Pat Boone got bigger hits remaking Fats Domino & Little Richard songs than the original versions did. Also the reason Elvis sold a lot more than Jackie Wilson & Chuck Berry and the reason he was labeled "King Of Rock n Roll". The same way Benny Goodman was called "King Of Swing" many years before Elvis career started. Why would a Black artist of that time need to break any barriers in music. It was white acts who were influenced by Black music. No blues, R&B, or Black gospel/spirituals, then no Elvis, Led Zeppelin, or Rolling Stones. Paul McCartney copied Little Richard's singing style on some Beatles songs. He even said so when Little Richard passed. Even country music was originally developed from the blues mixed with European folk music & Hawaiian traditional music. Hawaiian music is where the steel & slide guitar sound came from in blues & country.
 
Breaking barriers is going from a 90% black crowd on concerts to a 50/50 ratio and eventually an overwhelmingly white crowd. What other black artist managed to do this?

Michael achieved this because he believed in it. None of his contempororaties or influences managed the same.
 
Breaking barriers is going from a 90% black crowd on concerts to a 50/50 ratio and eventually an overwhelmingly white crowd. What other black artist managed to do this?

Michael achieved this because he believed in it. None of his contempororaties or influences managed the same.
Because Mike & Lionel Richie adapted their music to appeal to the mainstream audience. He did duets with Paul McCartney & Mick Jagger, not Teddy Pendergrass or Johnnie Taylor. He (or Quincy) got Eddie Van Halen, not Ernie Isley. R&B as a genre never really crossed over like hip hop has done today. Commodores started out as a funk band, but later became really popular with the mainstream Top 40 audience with Lionel Richie ballads like Three Times A Lady. There's a difference in Tina Turner's solo music and the music she had done with Ike. If she continued in the 1980s with Ike's sound, her big comeback probably wouldn't have happened. Clive Davis didn't want Whitney Houston to be a R&B only artist and found her songs that were less R&B and a clean cut image to match. That's why people were surprised she married Bobby Brown, who had the opposite image. Some Black artists wasn't willing to change their music to get the white audience.

The main reason that some Black artists wanted the white audience, was because they could get bigger sales & the media attention that came with that. Also major record labels spent more money on mainstream artists than R&B artists. So still basically racism. CBS had to threaten MTV with removing all of their acts to show the Billie Jean video. Which included really popular artists like Journey, Billy Joel, Culture Club, & Bruce Springsteen. Also, there were a lot of Black artists who didn't do R&B. Until recent years, Charley Pride was the only Black artist who had a successful career in country music. He wasn't the only one to try it. MTV claimed they didn't show Black artists because their music (R&B) didn't fit their rock format. Yet showed Hall & Oates who were basically doing the same thing. They were even labeled "blue eyed soul". There were Black rock bands like Fishbone & The Bus Boys that MTV didn't show either. In the 1980s, the R&B chart in Billboard magazine was called "Black Singles" & "Black Albums".

Mike getting a largely white audience, did not really help other Black artists escape the R&B radio "ghetto". So what did he really change? He got the benefit. A few token artists getting to crossover, did nothing for the big picture. Rick James still couldn't get on MTV, and this was after Mike, Lionel Richie, Billy Ocean, & Prince got on there. Rick's music was still too R&B to get Top 40 airplay. That's why he's just a "one hit wonder" with pop audiences, but had many R&B hits. Whitney Houston was mainstream big, not Stephanie Mills or Phillys Hyman.
 
You don’t understand, he broke barriers by being accepted by the white public as a musical genius. it is not about crossing over to pop radio imo. He was seen as a sell out by the r&b crowd and he didn’t care because it doesn’t matter, music is universal and it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white, that is the barrier he broke. He didn’t want to be put in boxes so he made music that black artists weren‘t supposed to make. He was not going to be that black artist forever, he was going to be THE artist. Michael was decades ahead of his time. He had an equal amount of white and black fans, an equal amount of adults and kids, an equal amount of male and female. He had males breaking down in tears in front of him. He broke every pre conceived box in music history.

And what do we have now? Kids loving every genre, now it is accepted to love both punk and disco Michael jackson made that possible
 
"In the early 1950s, Nat King Cole successfully united White and Black audiences. He had paved the way, and Belafonte was looking for his roots."

 
You don’t understand, he broke barriers by being accepted by the white public as a musical genius. it is not about crossing over to pop radio imo. He was seen as a sell out by the r&b crowd and he didn’t care because it doesn’t matter, music is universal and it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white, that is the barrier he broke. He didn’t want to be put in boxes so he made music that black artists weren‘t supposed to make.
What music was that? I'm lost. 🤔
 
What are we even discussing here? Doesn’t he deserve any credit for breaking down barriers then?
In the matter of a couple of hours I am in the middle of 2 discussions bringing MJ down to being nothing more than just a pawn. Thriller wouldn’t be thriller without Quincy and now Michael supposedly didn’t do anything to bring black and white closer together. What kind of forum is this?
 
What are we even discussing here? Doesn’t he deserve any credit for breaking down barriers then?
In the matter of a couple of hours I am in the middle of 2 discussions bringing MJ down to being nothing more than just a pawn. Thriller wouldn’t be thriller without Quincy and now Michael supposedly didn’t do anything to bring black and white closer together. What kind of forum is this?
Everybody thinks they got it pegged don't they.
 
What are we even discussing here? Doesn’t he deserve any credit for breaking down barriers then?
Well, imo it's tricky. Nat King Cole gained a white audience. So did Harry Belafonte. So did Teddy Pendergrass with his 10 consecutive platinum albums. I'm not saying Michael isn't part of that story. Sometimes it feels like people (not you, just talking in general terms) think that Michael was the first to do that. I'm not so sure he was. Of course he deserves credit. But there were people who paved the way long before Michael was even born. I don't see what's so terrible about pointing that out and, for me, it's not being disrespectful to Michael, it's just acknowledging the history of this whole thing.

In the matter of a couple of hours I am in the middle of 2 discussions bringing MJ down to being nothing more than just a pawn. Thriller wouldn’t be thriller without Quincy
Well, it wouldn't be. And that doesn't mean that Michael is being reduced to being a mere pawn. I argued the exact opposite of that, actually. Michael and Quincy, two geniuses together, created a masterpiece. That's the point I made. Can't speak for anyone else in that thread but that was my point.

and now Michael supposedly didn’t do anything to bring black and white closer together.
Well, I didn't say that. I'm trying to place his contribution into a historical context. Bc that's important, imo. I don't understand what's so terrible about that.
 
You don’t understand, he broke barriers by being accepted by the white public as a musical genius. it is not about crossing over to pop radio imo. He was seen as a sell out by the r&b crowd and he didn’t care because it doesn’t matter, music is universal and it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white, that is the barrier he broke. He didn’t want to be put in boxes so he made music that black artists weren‘t supposed to make. He was not going to be that black artist forever, he was going to be THE artist. Michael was decades ahead of his time. He had an equal amount of white and black fans, an equal amount of adults and kids, an equal amount of male and female. He had males breaking down in tears in front of him. He broke every pre conceived box in music history.

And what do we have now? Kids loving every genre, now it is accepted to love both punk and disco Michael jackson made that possible
No it's not, that's why the mainstream could not accept R&B/funk (The Jacksons, Funkadelic, Maze), but could accept Whitney Houston's music. That's also why there are like 500 different charts in Billboard today. 😂 That wasn't the case decades ago. Music is more segregated now than it's ever been.
 
No it's not, that's why the mainstream could not accept R&B/funk (The Jacksons, Funkadelic, Maze), but could accept Whitney Houston's music. That's also why there are like 500 different charts in Billboard today. 😂 That wasn't the case decades ago. Music is more segregated now than it's ever been.
Completely disagree, music isn’t segregated at all. Music festivals have artists playing of any genres. Concert goers have no problem going to Tomorrowland, Glastonbury or a Bruce springsteen concert in one summer.
 
Back
Top