Michael's Career After Thriller

[InvincibleMJ]

Hahahahahaha!

get over yourself

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Hahahahahaha! But his music apparently didn't appeal to white consumers until BAD, Thriller was highly skewed towards American white consumers which a different demographic to non-american white ones. I'm talking primarily about Euro and Asian fans.

One does not make the best selling album of all time by appealing to only one group of people.
I think that you just wanna be startin something.

 

[analogue]

One does not make the best selling album of all time by appealing to only one group of people.

Mic drop

 

[HIStory]

Hahahahahaha! But his music apparently didn't appeal to white consumers until BAD, Thriller was highly skewed towards American white consumers which a different demographic to non-american white ones. I'm talking primarily about Euro and Asian fans.

And where does this idea come from that Thriller was only popular among American whites but not whites outside of the US? The fact is that Thriller was a massive seller, a huge success and #1 all around the world including all major European markets.

I think MJ did become even more popular in Europe during Bad and Dangerous but that has many reasons that have nothing to do with race. For one, the tour. MJ did not tour Europe during Thriller, he did during Bad. I was very young at the time, but I remember what big news the Bad Tour was in Europe and how HUGE it was. The teen bopper magazines I bought at the time, like BRAVO, had an article about it every week. Another thing is that MTV Europe started in 1987. Then, from an Esatern European perspective, you have to also consider that the Iron Curtain came down during the late 80s. Before that many Eastern European's access to Western music was limited. I myself never heard about Michael Jackson before Bad and Bad was the first ever album I listened to by him (it immediately made me a fan for life).

I think in Germany Dangerous is MJ's best selling album, but unless you want to claim New Jack Swing is actually white music and Teddy Riley is actually white I don't know how it is "whitewashed" music. If anything it was more urban music than his previous works (which remember contained plenty of "whitewashed" moments themselves: eg. Girlfriend, She's Out of My Life was also written by a white man, The Girl Is Mine, Rod Temperton is a white man for god's sake - half of OTW was written by white people: Temperton, Bahler, McCartney!).

And let me point this out as well: during that transitional period between Motown and OTW MJ and the Jacksons actually got more support from the UK than from the US.

Show You The Way to Go was #1 in the UK, only #28 in the US. Blame it on the Boogie was #8 in the UK, only #54 in the US. Shake Your Body Down to the Ground was #4 in the UK, #7 in the US.

Shortly after OTW:

Can You Feel It was #6 in the UK, only #77 in the US.
Walk Right Now was #7 in the UK, only #73 in the US.

One Day in Your Life was a #1 hit in the UK, The Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland. Only #55 in the US.

Yes, the UK has black people but far less than the US. So why didn't the US support the "non-whitewashed music playing Jacksons" like the UK did? Oh yeah, Europeans need "whitewashed music" to support it, right?

"Pop" is just some term that has to real meaning other than to place artists who are specific genre to that label.

Pop is an umbrella term indeed but in the context I used it to point out the fact that MJ's music was always geared towards a pop audience ever since their first hit with the J5.

You haven't answered my point about MJ's music being lighter for a white audience. If his music was funky and heavy like that like James Brown, do you honestly think whites for the most part would care?

Teddy Pendergrass had a powerful voice, but that didn't help him attract white females that much.

I DID answer that: MJ never "turned lighter for a white audience" because his music has ALWAYS been geared towards a pop audience, not a strictly funk or soul audience - ever since I Want You Back. If you are a decades old fan it should be clear by now that MJ has NEVER been a heavy funk artist like James Brown or a strictly soul artist like Teddy Pendergrass. If you want such artists listen to them. MJ was differnt - always has been different than those artists and ever since he was a child he had more appeal to a mainstream audience. Like I said I am not sure how the NJS of Dangerous is any whiter than pop songs on Thriller and OTW like Girlfriend or The Girl Is Mine. How is Jam lighter any more poppy than Baby Be Mine? How is Remember the Time less black than Thriller? How is They Don't Care About Us whitewashed?

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

For anyone that may not know, pop music means any music that's popular no matter what genre.
So Michael's title as King of pop is very big, and is much better then being the King of one genre.
I just figured I'd clear that up for anyone that may not have known.:yes:

 

[Galactus123]

For anyone that may not know, pop music means any music that's popular no matter what genre.
So Michael's title as King of pop is very big, and is much better then being the King of one genre.
I just figured I'd clear that up for anyone that may not have known.:yes:

Not anymore. Pop music is it's own genre nowdays.

 

[Tony R]

For anyone that may not know, pop music means any music that's popular no matter what genre.
So Michael's title as King of pop is very big, and is much better then being the King of one genre.
I just figured I'd clear that up for anyone that may not have known.:yes:

It may have started out like that, but it evolved into more of a term for let's say unintelligent, dismissive mainstream music. Which is ridiculous of course.

I think the term King of Pop didn't actually help him in that regards and leads us back to the discussion to why MJ wasn't more respected in the industry compared to Prince for example.

 

[barbee0715]

For anyone that may not know, pop music means any music that's popular no matter what genre.
So Michael's title as King of pop is very big, and is much better then being the King of one genre.
I just figured I'd clear that up for anyone that may not have known.:yes:

That's correct. It means it's popular with all races, genders, ages. No matter the genre.

I sometimes think the term pop as a genre gets confused with bubblegum music.
Edit: just saw the two previous posts while I was typing. Yes, by bubblegum I mean unintelligent dismissive mainstream music and that's just crazy.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

It may have started out like that, but it evolved into more of a term for let's say unintelligent, dismissive mainstream music. Which is ridiculous of course.

I think the term King of Pop didn't actually help him in that regards and leads us back to the discussion to why MJ wasn't more respected in the industry compared to Prince for example.

Popular music now may not be that great, but any genre of music can be popular, and MJ's music is definitely popular, so popular music=pop music, and MJ made the best and most popular music in history.

I know MJ isn't the most respected artist (people like to downplay his talent for whatever reason), but I do believe he is more respected then Prince.

Also King of Pop isn't his full title.

If I can remember correctly his full title is King of Pop, Rock,R&B, and Soul, but I personally believe MJ is the Emperor of all music.:yes:

 

[Tony R]

I know, I hate the way pop is dismissed. Personally I love great pop artists such as MJ, Madonna, early Janet plus great pop tunes by the likes of Girls Aloud, Sugababes etc. as well as rock bands such as Suede, Fratellis, GnR, Oasis, RHCP.

I don't think one genre is less important or relevant than the other but unfortunately anything under the pop umbrella is too easily dismissed.

The ironic thing is that the best MJ stuff isn't pop ( GITM, WYBT, Jam, Little Susie, Who Is It).

 

[analogue]

''Music is color blind'' - Michael Jackson

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

I know, I hate the way pop is dismissed. Personally I love great pop artists such as MJ, Madonna, early Janet plus great pop tunes by the likes of Girls Aloud, Sugababes etc. as well as rock bands such as Suede, Fratellis, GnR, Oasis, RHCP.

I don't think one genre is less important or relevant than the other but unfortunately anything under the pop umbrella is too easily dismissed.

The ironic thing is that the best MJ stuff isn't pop ( GITM, WYBT, Jam, Little Susie, Who Is It).

That's the thing though.
Any music can be pop music whether it's country, r&b, hip hop, jazz, rock, or bluegrass, it's doesn't matter because as long as it's popular it's pop music.

 

[Galactus123]

That's the thing though.
Any music can be pop music whether it's country, r&b, hip hop, jazz, rock, or bluegrass, it's doesn't matter because as long as it's popular it's pop music.

I don't think you could call Metallica pop music. Pop music is basically it's own genre.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

I don't think you could call Metallica pop music. Pop music is basically it's own genre.

The only way I could probably explain pop music is with a Venn diagram LOL.
Metallica is a heavy metal band, but if heavy metal is popular it's also pop music, or at least thats how I see it.

 

[Tony R]

I don't think you could call Metallica pop music. Pop music is basically it's own genre.

Beat me to it, but I was going to say Iron Maiden

Pop may be an abbreviation for popular but it's not want it ended up meaning.

Iron Maiden, Oasis, Sam Cooke, Mozart, not pop.

 

[HIStory]

I don't think you could call Metallica pop music. Pop music is basically it's own genre.

On the other hand, you could call people like Elton John, The Beatles, Sting, George Michael, Phil Collins, the Bee Gees, Whitney Houston etc. etc. pop music. It's not all mindless, throwaway bubblegum music*. There are plenty of very much classic artists whom I would consider pop more than anything else.
(I know the Beatles are sometimes called "rock" - I guess exactly because music snobs don't like the pop label - but much of their music is more pop than rock IMO.)

Pop is an umbrella term for music that is popular AND is not very heavily specific to one genre. Metallica are popular but they are very clearly one genre and with a very specific audience. Pop artists tend to draw from more than one genres and tend to appeal to a wider variety of people. A pop artist can be more rooted in rock, another can be more rooted in R&B (like MJ), but they are not strictly and heavily rock or R&B (or any other genre).

(*And BTW, not even bubblegum is necessarily bad. Weren't the Jackson 5's early hits considered bubblegum soul/pop? Yet, they are classics and many people appreciate them as great songs.)

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Beat me to it, but I was going to say Iron Maiden

Pop may be an abbreviation for popular but it's not want it ended up meaning.

Iron Maiden, Oasis, Sam Cooke, Mozart, not pop.

I know I'm probably going to get a decent amount of hate for this, but Mozart's music could be called the pop music of his time.
It all depends on how you look at it really. :yes:

 

[HIStory]

Beat me to it, but I was going to say Iron Maiden

Pop may be an abbreviation for popular but it's not want it ended up meaning.

Iron Maiden, Oasis, Sam Cooke, Mozart, not pop.

Out of these artists only Oasis (in the 90s for a limited period) had huge (I mean similar to the success of pop artists) mainstream success. So none of the others really defy that pop=popular. BTW, Oasis was considered Brit pop.

 

[HIStory]

''Music is color blind'' - Michael Jackson

Yes. It's worth listening to this interview that MJ gave in January 1980, so at the height of OTW era, before he supposedly got "whitewashed" (LOL). The first question and then go to 2:20.

 

[Tony R]

Out of these artists only Oasis (in the 90s for a limited period) had huge (I mean similar to the success of pop artists) mainstream success. So none of the others really defy that pop=popular. BTW, Oasis was considered Brit pop.

Nirvana, The Smiths, The Jam, Sex Pistols, Bob Marley, Green Day, Pearl Jam, The Clash...

 

[barbee0715]

On the other hand, you could call people like Elton John, The Beatles, Sting, George Michael, Phil Collins, the Bee Gees, Whitney Houstonetc. etc. pop music. It's not all mindless, throwaway bubblegum music*. There are plenty of very much classic artists whom I would consider pop more than anything else.
(I know the Beatles are sometimes called "rock" - I guess exactly because music snobs don't like the pop label - but much of their music is more pop than rock IMO.)


Yes. It's worth listening to this interview that MJ gave in January 1980, so at the height of OTW era, before he supposedly got "whitewashed" (LOL). The first question and then go to 2:20.

At the end of this interview, Michael talks about his audience-and that defines POP. "You go to our concerts and you see every race out there-waving their arms...you see the kids out there dancing, you see the grownups out there, the, grandparents". Music liked by everyone, not just a specific group of people. It's not only loved by everybody, but it's covered by everybody in all genres. Everybody had their own version of the Tin Pan Alley songs (the American Songbook). Everybody covered the Beatles. Now, personally, I think it's a little hard to cover Michael's solo adult songs, but I used to hear the Jackson 5/Jacksons stuff covered by everyone.

I know I'm probably going to get a decent amount of hate for this, but Mozart's music could be called the pop music of his time.
It all depends on how you look at it really. :yes:

And that's right. I'd say that Mozart was pop in his time, Big Bands/Swing and and the Tin Pan Alley composers like Gershwin, Arlen and Berlin were pop of their time, the Brill Building writers were pop of their time, as were the Beatles, Elton John, Phil Collins, Hall and Oates, Whitney, etc. later. Hip hop music is now pop music today.

I do agree that Michael needs a better moniker than King of Pop. I prefer the longer version.


Edit: I said that hip hop is the new pop music, although I am not certain how many older than 40-ish adults and grandparent types like it. I just seem to notice its influence in everything.

 

[Psychoniff]

^Entertainer in Chief maybe?

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

I've read countless reviews back in the day on Dangerous and History where they specifically called Michael's music "blacker." You've said repeatedly that Michael got away from his R&B roots after OTW. So, now, as you say, it wasn't the music itself, what 'attributes' represented the REAL reason for his success?
This gets frustrating unless you're specific. I saw no evidence of turning his back on his black fan base except the stories people made up.

I'm very aware that reviews by critics said that Dangerous and History were "blacker".........

it's because w/those 2 albums, when his fans abroad wasn't aware of it, Michael Jackson worked w/the contemporary producers of the day, particularly young black producers to shape his music presentation to try and regain the black audience he had lost 4 years earlier, when it was rarely mentioned by the end of the 80s that his black audience who supported MJ and the Jackson Five set the foundation for him to achieve the global appeal and success he experienced w/Thriller...w/out that original support, Thriller never happens

the reason you may not have seen evidence because the voice of that original audience was not given the opportunity to speak on it outside of the community during the time Bad was released from 87-89......the album sales reflected that

but if he had stayed the course that set the stage for him to achieve the monumental mark with Thriller, there wouldn't have been a need to try and come across more "blacker" in his subsequent albums after BAD.....

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Please elaborate on HOW the crossover model encourages hostility. Hostility towards whom and by whom?



Please elaborate on how your favoured model looks like.

the absolute ideal model would be for the recording industry and the people who guide the careers of these performers, especially those who have immense talent, allow them to conduct their careers naturally w/out any pretense w/out encouraging them to seek "crossover acceptance" to begin with...that should be the first criteria right off the bat.....eliminate the crossover model altogether......

for if a group of people, a community, a society, other countries are going to accept you, encourage that group to accept whomever for who they already are staring out, that will eliminate problems down the road......

this goes for all races, colors, creeds, and nationalities of performers, in the end, everyone will be happier in the long run

if a person is black, he/she should not be swayed to contort their true identity for crossover success, this mantra should apply to white artists, latino artists, asian artists, all the way down the line

that way, when that artist's talent potential reaches fulfillment, balance will always occur where that person maintains the support of the audience who supported them starting out while appealing to new generation of fans.......the best of both worlds

this did not happen for MIchael Jackson after Thriller, and the record sales domestically reflected that

because whomever u are, when you fully being led to cross over, ultimately, that person winds up double crossing themselves, and there's no true means to correct the situation because the crossover model creates situations of extremes



this is how the crossover model creates hostility,

let's look at who gets recognized today.......MIchael Jackson's career extended over the course of 5 decades, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s.....

but whenever any mention is made of his fans, it's primarily the fans since the 90s, there's rarely any mention of the fans from the beginning......that creates hostility out the box.......when the fact is everyone should be mentioned and it can be done if people truly want to extended that acknowledgement, because w/out those fans in the beginning, no fanbase would exist today.....

 

[HIStory]

Nirvana, The Smiths, The Jam, Sex Pistols, Bob Marley, Green Day, Pearl Jam, The Clash...

The way I defined pop isn't true of any of these acts though.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

the absolute ideal model would be for the recording industry and the people who guide the careers of these performers, especially those who have immense talent, allow them to conduct their careers naturally w/out any pretense w/out encouraging them to seek "crossover acceptance" to begin with...that should be the first criteria right off the bat.....eliminate the crossover model altogether......

for if a group of people, a community, a society, other countries are going to accept you, encourage that group to accept whomever for who they already are staring out, that will eliminate problems down the road......

this goes for all races, colors, creeds, and nationalities of performers, in the end, everyone will be happier in the long run

if a person is black, he/she should not be swayed to contort their true identity for crossover success, this mantra should apply to white artists, latino artists, asian artists, all the way down the line

that way, when that artist's talent potential reaches fulfillment, balance will always occur where that person maintains the support of the audience who supported them starting out while appealing to new generation of fans.......the best of both worlds

this did not happen for MIchael Jackson after Thriller, and the record sales domestically reflected that

because whomever u are, when you fully being led to cross over, ultimately, that person winds up double crossing themselves, and there's no true means to correct the situation because the crossover model creates situations of extremes



this is how the crossover model creates hostility,

let's look at who gets recognized today.......MIchael Jackson's career extended over the course of 5 decades, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s.....

but whenever any mention is made of his fans, it's primarily the fans since the 90s, there's rarely any mention of the fans from the beginning......that creates hostility out the box.......when the fact is everyone should be mentioned and it can be done if people truly want to extended that acknowledgement, because w/out those fans in the beginning, no fanbase would exist today.....

The bolded parts are the ones that hit the nail on the head (for me). I never understood why the crossover gimmick was ever necessary because people will like what they like, regardless of what the artist looks like or sounds like. If the music is good and I like it, I don't care who it is, I'll buy it. The whole idea that mainstream success is a code phrase for attracting white fans (and their money) is antiquated, racist and needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. Michael has been very successful since childhood, but wasn't recognized as such until he pulled in the "mainstream" audience with Thriller. As for his original fanbase, many of us are still here and have been for the entire ride in real time, but many of us don't match the image of the way Mike is being marketed. We're not 12 years old to 30. Never mind the fact that Mike himself was 50 years old (and 2 months shy of turning 51) when he died; keeping him youthful/ageless means keeping him "hip" with the kids. I was glad to see that Spike Lee utilized the many different demographics that represent Mike's true fanbase in the Off The Wall documentary; Old School, New School and multicultural. Spike himself is an Old School Mike fan and it showed in his enthusiasm during it.

I don't see that kind of picking and choosing of the fanbase of any other multi-decades artists.

 

[HIStory]

I'm very aware that reviews by critics said that Dangerous and History were "blacker".........

it's because w/those 2 albums, when his fans abroad wasn't aware of it, Michael Jackson worked w/the contemporary producers of the day, particularly young black producers to shape his music presentation to try and regain the black audience he had lost 4 years earlier, when it was rarely mentioned by the end of the 80s that his black audience who supported MJ and the Jackson Five set the foundation for him to achieve the global appeal and success he experienced w/Thriller...w/out that original support, Thriller never happens

the reason you may not have seen evidence because the voice of that original audience was not given the opportunity to speak on it outside of the community during the time Bad was released from 87-89......the album sales reflected that

but if he had stayed the course that set the stage for him to achieve the monumental mark with Thriller, there wouldn't have been a need to try and come across more "blacker" in his subsequent albums after BAD.....

So now you acknowledge that MJ's music is actually "blacker" on Dangerous and HIStory than on the 80s albums, but somehow that too is evidence of him losing touch with his black roots? I don't agree it's evidence of any such thing (on the contrary), but at least that is a step forward. Can we now get the the "his music became whitewashed after the 80s" argument out of the way? It is simply factually incorrect.

it was rarely mentioned by the end of the 80s that his black audience who supported MJ and the Jackson Five set the foundation for him to achieve the global appeal and success he experienced w/Thriller...w/out that original support, Thriller never happens

Rarely mentioned? By whom? Everyone knows where the J5 started from, it was discussed in each and every documentary about MJ's career.

BTW, while during the J5 days they had more black support than later it is simply false to give all credit to his black audience for supporting him before his runaway solo success in the 80s. Like I showed you in this post earlier http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...riller/page9?p=4143568&viewfull=1#post4143568 the fact is actually that after the J5 lost its initial popularity it was more Europe (more specifically the UK) that supported the Jacksons rather than the US. It seems (just like later in his solo career) their European audience was more loyal.

I am sure a lot of their audience in the UK were black people as well, but they weren't only black people. When you look at the footage of a London show from the Destiny tour it's a very much mixed audience while in the US it's a mainly black audience on the Destiny tour. Earlier in this thread Psychoniff claimed that MJ needed to "whitewash" his music to have the acceptance of white people outside of the US. This clearly shows it is not true.

I think to reduce the difference in the support that MJ got in the US and Europe to race is a very simplicistic POV that ignores every other factor that plays into it. One such factor is that US audiences tend to move on faster and leave old favourites behind as "washed up" whenever there are new trends while European audiences are more loyal. That is true in the case of most artists, regardless of race.

the voice of that original audience was not given the opportunity to speak on it outside of the community during the time Bad was released from 87-89

How was his original audience "not given the opportunity to speak"? Please be specific!

the absolute ideal model would be for the recording industry and the people who guide the careers of these performers, especially those who have immense talent, allow them to conduct their careers naturally w/out any pretense w/out encouraging them to seek "crossover acceptance" to begin with...that should be the first criteria right off the bat.....eliminate the crossover model altogether......

for if a group of people, a community, a society, other countries are going to accept you, encourage that group to accept whomever for who they already are staring out, that will eliminate problems down the road......

Isn't it rather you who have a problem with accepting MJ for who he is? If Michael Jackson wants to make a song that is rock or wants to involve classical music in his songs or wants to make a song that is showtunes-like or not urban sounding enough why is that a problem for you? If he likes it why can't he make music that is not typically considered black music or not typically associated with black artists? Why should he stick to a certain kind of music even though he is interested in other types of music as well? Isn't it rather racist to expect a black artist to stick to a certain kind of music just because he is black rather than letting him explore all kinds of music that he is interested in?

When you listen to the interview I linked above, MJ clearly saw labels and genres as limiting terms that are "kind of racist". So exploring all kinds of music is not something that he was forced into by some mysterious powers that be (as you seem to suggest) but rather something that came from him. If you cannot accept that then it's you who has a problem with accepting him for who he is and it's you who expect him to stay in a certain box.

if a person is black, he/she should not be swayed to contort their true identity for crossover success, this mantra should apply to white artists, latino artists, asian artists, all the way down the line

Once again it is just your assumption that MJ's identity was somehow "contorted". His identity musically and how he saw limiting labels is very clear from that interview that I linked above.

this did not happen for MIchael Jackson after Thriller, and the record sales domestically reflected that

Here we go again. You seem to be unable to accept the fact that Thriller was an unprecedented runaway success and most artists' career have a peak like that which then will never be remotely repeated. Bruce Springsteen could never repeat the success of Burn in the USA. Prince could never remotely get close to the success of Purple Rain. Did they also abandon their "original audience"?

BTW, the audience during Thriller was not MJ's "original audience". It had all kinds of bandwagoners which naturally will leave when the artist is not the latest hype any more. Other than Thriller, MJ's album sales were actually pretty constant (around 8-9 million in the US and around 20-30 million globally).

let's look at who gets recognized today.......MIchael Jackson's career extended over the course of 5 decades, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s.....

but whenever any mention is made of his fans, it's primarily the fans since the 90s, there's rarely any mention of the fans from the beginning......that creates hostility out the box.......when the fact is everyone should be mentioned and it can be done if people truly want to extended that acknowledgement, because w/out those fans in the beginning, no fanbase would exist today.....

Mentioned by who exactly? The media? Fans themselves? If you mean the media, I have seen plenty of mentions in documentaries about his original audience. It's actually the other way around: documentaries always mention the fans, the success during the J5 days, but there are documentaries which fully skip Dangerous or HIStory era and never mention the fact that those albums were actually pretty successful outside of the US and have many, many fans. The impression these documentaries give is rather that MJ hardly had any fans by the time. So it's rather the post-80s fans that don't get mentioned in the media not the pre-90s fans.

If you mean fan boards. Who stops anyone from talking about fans before the 80s? You are free to share your experiences as a fan before the 90s or 80s just like anyone else is free to share their post-80s fan experiences. How about doing that rather than just keep going on about the same old point over and over again in every post you make here? I don't know where this notion of yours is coming from that somehow pre-90s fans and black fans are silenced. I have never seen such a thing either here or elsewhere.



I wish you would be less vauge and more specific about what your actual problem with MJ is - because it is obvious that you have a problem with him because you cannot stop about this one thing ever since joined this board. Is it that he had mainstream success and white people liked him just the same as black people? Is this the same kind of mentality that made black people boo Whitney Houston and call her "Whitey Houston" at the Soul Train Awards just because she had the audacity to be popular with a white audience? Isn't that some sort of seperatist attitude or possessivenes - a kind of narrow-mindedness?

(ETA: BTW, it was Quincy Jones who told Michael to write a rock song for Thriller to "cross over". It was him who brought in the white guitar hero Van Halen who was popular with white kids at the time. So if you have a problem with deliberate attempts at crossing over you should blame Quincy.)

 

[Psychoniff]

^Stateside, MJ's audience was primarily black up until Thriller. What BBD is trying to point out is where did these fans go? Why did they just magically disappear during the Bad era? And why did MJ need to recover his 'blacker' audience if he never as you say lost it in the first place?

Like you said, if you look at footage of the crowd during the Destiny tour, it's largely black but by BAD, it's virtually all white/non-black. This didn't happen by accident.

It's quite obvious that he lost a large chunk of his black U.S. fanbase after Thriller and by the late 80's they were all but gone.

 

[HIStory]

^Stateside, MJ's audience was primarily black up until Thriller. What BBD is trying to point out is where did these fans go? Why did they just magically disappear during the Bad era? And why did MJ need to recover his 'blacker' audience if he never as you say lost it in the first place?

Like you said, if you look at footage of the crowd during the Destiny tour, it's largely black but by BAD, it's virtually all white/non-black. This didn't happen by accident.

It's quite obvious that he lost a large chunk of his black U.S. fanbase after Thriller and by the late 80's they were all but gone.

And IF that is so, is that ALL MJ's fault and not a bit the fault of those black people who left and abandoned him for whatever reason - whether it is because MJ was deemed uncool by the US tabloids and they believed them, or whether because of his lightening skin or whether it was hip-hop that replaced him as the next hype? You cannot just make one party responsible for that. A lot of black fans in the US abandoned him after the initial success of th J5 as well when the J5 wasn't cool any more and it was the UK that remained loyal, not the US. And there was no changing skin of MJ back then and no weirdness tabloid rumours. Simply the J5 was considered "washed up" and US people moved on from them more than the UK did.

I don't see it as a black vs. white thing, anyway. To me it's more a US attitudes vs. rest-of-the world attitudes. The rest of the world, whether black or white, seems to me more loyal to their artists and it just so happens that the other major record buying market outside of the US, Europe is predominantly white. But those people weren't more loyal to MJ because his music "became whitewashed" (which is factually untrue), but simply because Europe generally tends to be more loyal to ANY artist they like.

What about Janet? Her audience was always predominantly black in the US. Her skin did not change, her music was always urban sounding yet her audience abandoned her after the US media deemed her uncool in the early 2000s. Where are HER fans? The ones who made her one of the most successful artists of the 90s? How come that she struggles to sell out theaters now? Why aren't US black people loyal to her? I know, I know she still has people, mostly black people, who ARE loyal to her, but it's just crazy how much of her fanbase she lost compared to the 90s. Where are those fans with their support? Janet's problem is exactly that she never had a strong fan base outside of the US like MJ did, so when her US fan base abandoned her there was nowhere to go for her.

BTW, during Bad tour MJ toured stadiums. During Destiny the Jacksons toured theaters. Since in the Western world (US, Europe) there are more white people than black people, inevitably you will see more white faces in the audience when an artist blows up to be that huge in the mainstream. That doesn't necessarily mean that there were less black people in the audience.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

^Stateside, MJ's audience was primarily black up until Thriller. What BBD is trying to point out is where did these fans go? Why did they just magically disappear during the Bad era? And why did MJ need to recover his 'blacker' audience if he never as you say lost it in the first place?

Like you said, if you look at footage of the crowd during the Destiny tour, it's largely black but by BAD, it's virtually all white/non-black. This didn't happen by accident.

It's quite obvious that he lost a large chunk of his black U.S. fanbase after Thriller and by the late 80's they were all but gone.

exaaaactly

this is the dangling carrot that goes silent after all these years

I think the issue is that mainstream media and a great percentage of the fans today don't understand how huge MJ's black following was during that time, that extends beyond attending concerts, or buying albums, but always setting the foundation for the success of his albums, particularly the songs with J-5/Jacksons, along with his solo efforts OTW and Thriller.......every one of those albums, the black audience set the foundation to achieve whatever it was that it did....with Thriller, all those 7 top 10 singles, those #1 hits, even BEAT IT that was a rock oriented song, the foundation was always established on the r&b charts before Pop Radio supported it


from the late 70s to early 80s, the majority of people in teh crowds were black, and right after reaching the top, when Bad was released, the majority of the people in the crowd were white.......that's not by accident

and that didn't just happen with MJ, it happened with other premiere black artists too during the 80s, it happened to Lionel Richie and it happened to Whitney Houston.........these dynamics are not by coincidence, it's a systematic approach that takes premier artists of a distinct culture and does not allow them to function properly and set them up to be subject to future backlash

people want to know why the industry is floundering right before our eyes, the root of it can be traced to what was taking place back in the late 80s

if the industry promoted balanced principles, there wouldn't be a need to try and "compensate" or try to regain anything for that person would have never lost it



here's a perfect example of what I'm referring to

back in the late 2000s, on the talent competition show American Idol, I believe it was during their 6th season on the air, this was the stage of the competition where they were about to narrow the field of contestants to 12 performers

there was the black woman in her late 20s who had a raspy/blues style of singing, reminded you of Anita Baker...

after her performance, Simon Cowell said to her on national television that her look was too ethnic and her singing style would not appeal to mainstream audiences

he told her that, and then she got voted off the show by day's end

so basically, what he implied is that she not only needed to change her look but change the way she sings to go "mainstream"

and that type of attitude has played a huge role in the industry's demise because there was no reason to tell that woman that

this type of attitude permeated throughout the industry during the late 80s, which is a huge reason why the adult population don't buy music like they once did

there is a racial element that destroys the progress of what music should represent