Michael's Career After Thriller

[HIStory]

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

I get your point there and I agree that what Cowell did was wrong.

But I think "black people abandoning MJ" or supposedly "MJ abandoning them" in the US is a more complex matter than that. Like I said why did black people abandon Janet in the US then? Did she "sell out" too? Was her music not black enough? Where are her fans that supported her through the 90s?

I think there is a certain narrow-mindedness on the part of the black audience as well. When a black artist does music that is not considered black enough he or she is immediately labelled a "sell-out". Which is wrong too. No one calls white artists sell-outs when they do urban music (in fact, their white audience supports them in that - so the result is that they take over the classic black genres) but when black artists do music that is not black enough according to black people they abandon him or her - or even mock them as a sell-out, like they did with Whitney.

Not every black artist does "non-black music" just to cater to white audiences. For example, Michael had an inclination to sentimental showtune or musical type of songs which are very, very far away from the "cool" urban taste. He has always had an inclination to such music. He wrote Little Susie in 1979. I am sure not with the goal to cater to white people (because it is really not a "cool" song within any contemporary genre) but because it was simply a melody and a song he liked and a theme he felt the need to address. It just what was in his mind. It's just who he was. He was more an artist that could be authentic with a song like Little Susie than an artist who could be authentic with, say, gangsta rap.

Don't forget he listened to lots of classical music as well, which also inspired him. I think black artists should be allowed to explore any genre they like without the threat of their black audience labelling them a "sell-out" and abandoning them. Just like fans of white artists don't abandon them if they explore urban music.

The irony of this conversation is that IMO there were more blatant crossover-attempts on OTW and especially Thriller (and many of those under the direction of Quincy Jones) than on Dangerous or HIStory, yet the people in this thread somehow manage to consider the 90s albums as sell-outs or "whitewashed".

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

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.

no, I said the CRITICS reached that conclusion that his music with History and Dangerous came across "blacker" with MJ incorporated the contemporary black music of the day into his presentation.......I mentioned why he tried to do that, in an attempt to regain the audience he knew he had lost....because with the Bad album, he went full scale pop......I'm not saying Bad was not a good album because it was, I bought all his solo albums....but there would have never been a need to try and be "blacker" if he had just stayed the course that led him to the pinnacle of his career......and there's no doubt all of his subsequent albums, Bad, Dangerous, History would have sold significantly more than what they did, specifically in his homeland.........it's not really about the style of music as much as it is in how it's presentation and the image projected in the process

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 never said black people then deserve all the credit but there's no doubt they were the majority support who set the foundation, and THAT'S the part that never gets acknowledged in any documentary that's ever been made about his career, and I've seen all these documentaries....

he 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.

this is the issue I'm talking about as to why US audiences tend to move on from acts they once supported or consider to be "washed up"

what is the reason American audience tend to act in this manner....what leads them to reach that conclusion that someone is washed up

it's because of the whole "mainstream" context driven by the Pop Music structure and how it operates.....

which shows that Pop music and the way it has functioned over the past 30 years has no point of origin, no beginnings in cultural activity.....it is a distinction given to an individual who they deem viable as long as that can continue to profit from their talent.....talents that were cultivated from cultural influence, that same cultural influence that shape the genres of music that were born throughout the 20th century

Pop Music can not thrive on its own, it must appropriate what's already been done once that particular form of expression meets its fulfillment, and once that expression meets that fulfillment, those who run the pop music landscape then takes it over while excluding the contributions made by the community of people who shaped whatever it is that has now been taken over

what I'm saying is, when blues was taken over by mainstream, when jazz was taken over by mainstream, when rock n roll was taken over by mainstream, when soul music was taken over by mainstream, when r&b was taken over by mainstream, the community picks up on that because the artists who best represent that particular brand of music after it has reached its fulfillment, that person or individuals are drawn away from that audience, and then once that person is drawn out, their talent is exploited to the tilt until there's nothing left to give, and this brand of exploitation leads to them being considered as a has been or washed up, which is why the american audience tends to seek and find "the new sensation" or the "next big star"

that type of dichotomy does not exist in the UK or any other country outside of the states.......the mainstream model causes that, which is why so many american stars seek to extend their careers beyond the border

if the need to go mainstream was banished for good, this would not be happening and the world can enjoy the music w/out all the angles

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

what I'm saying is, when Michael released the Bad album, the Michael Jackson that now appeared was totally foreign to what we knew, what the public new in the years prior to that, he did not look the same and was practically unrecognizable to what we had just seen a couple of years prior, and the mainstream did not allow those voices to be heard, and it wasn't just voices of the black community, but many white people and supports of other cultures were voices the same concerns but those comments were not presented by the mainstream, the impression given was that we just had to role with it

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?

I dont' see anywhere where I said MJ should have been expected to sing one style of music because he showed the full range from the very moment he debuted at Motown......he was already displaying the ability to thrive performing the full range of genres....

during the Triumph Tour of 1981, when MJ performed the song Ben, he was receiving just a loud an ovation while performing that song than he did when performing Don't Stop Til You Get Enough or Rock With You

Wish Upon A Star showed his full range as well and people back then were loving it......

Can You Feel It carries all the albums and is not an exclusive R&B song,

Will You Be There was one of the greatest recordings of his life and that's totally outside of the R&B realm....

The style of music he chose to sing was not the issue

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).

all these artists mentioned were affected by the mainstream pull that drew them away from their foundational support......whereas if the mainstream influence did not exist, the downturn would not have happened to them either......this stuff did not occur by a whim or by coincidence

I wouldn't call those who supported these albums as bandwagoners, as much as they were new fan support, just like new fans who bought Bad, just like new fans who bought Dangerous, just like new fans who bought History....

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?

and this is the perfect example of what I'm referring to, placing the onus on a group who was not responsible for what happened.....

and I'm glad you brought up Whitney Houston, let's talk about what really led to that moment at the 1989 Soul Train Awards.....

this is an example of how mainstream media omits the root cause of what happens down the road

when Whitney Houston was being groomed for her solo career, before she even broke out her first record, record execs at her label told her to refrain from doing anything interviews with black oriented press or radio and she was told she look to ethnic too in response to her album cover of her debut record "Whitney Houston", can you imagine being instructed from communicating with the very audience who's gonna be your primary support starting out, this same detrimental career advice extended to her second album release "Whitney" where she was given the same advice, and that advice led to declining sales, where her image had been contorted.....

and even when I felt that's not what she really wanted, the damage had already been done, and that alienation is what led to that response by the black audience at those 89 Soul Train Awards...this stuff does not happen on a whim, but has origins to it, it was 4 years in the making

it wasn't about her getting booed, as much as it was the system getting booed, and she got caught up in the mix....

we must remember with Whitney, she was asked to be the nation's darling, which she did not want to do, all she wanted to do was sing, and when she rejected the mainstream's demand of her, by the end of the 80s, she was ostracized by both sides, which played a major factor in leading her to the years of despair we saw down the road

she should have never been given that advice starting out and should have been allowed to let her talent stand on its own merit and its own merit alone and I'm confident her life would not have evolved in the way it did

and just as MJ tried to reaffirm his "blackness" by the beginning of the 90s, Whitney felt compelled to do the same thing

but if we did away w/the entire crossover model and the mainstream goal, it would be better for everyone involved

I just believes things could be so much better because the mainstream model carries racial undertones whereas if it was done away with, the balance would exist.....

 

[HIStory]

no, I said the CRITICS reached that conclusion that his music with History and Dangerous came across "blacker" with MJ incorporated the contemporary black music of the day into his presentation.......I mentioned why he tried to do that, in an attempt to regain the audience he knew he had lost....because with the Bad album, he went full scale pop......I'm not saying Bad was not a good album because it was, I bought all his solo albums....but there would have never been a need to try and be "blacker" if he had just stayed the course that led him to the pinnacle of his career......and there's no doubt all of his subsequent albums, Bad, Dangerous, History would have sold significantly more than what they did, specifically in his homeland.........it's not really about the style of music as much as it is in how it's presentation and the image projected in the process

But once again you project your own opinion onto MJ as to why he did certain things and then present those opinions as fact. There is no way of saying MJ's motives of choosing the NJS style were any different than any other artists's that chose that same style around the time - namely that it was a popular sound at the time. Did Quincy Jones try to regain some sort of black audience and black credibility that he supposedly lost when he utilized the NJS in his productions at the time? Did any other artist that used the NJS style try to regain the support of a black audience or it was simply a popular style at the time - much like disco was a popular sound during OTW?

I never said black people then deserve all the credit but there's no doubt they were the majority support who set the foundation, and THAT'S the part that never gets acknowledged in any documentary that's ever been made about his career, and I've seen all these documentaries....

IMO it gets acknowledged all the time. In all those J5 documentaries where they show footage of exclusively black kids chasing the boys around etc. I just don't think this mantra of yours is true that it never gets acknowledged that the main initial support of the J5 were black people. If it never gets acknowledged in documentaries, books, articles then how do I know about it here in Eastern Europe?

this is the issue I'm talking about as to why US audiences tend to move on from acts they once supported or consider to be "washed up"

what is the reason American audience tend to act in this manner....what leads them to reach that conclusion that someone is washed up

it's because of the whole "mainstream" context driven by the Pop Music structure and how it operates.....

which shows that Pop music and the way it has functioned over the past 30 years has no point of origin, no beginnings in cultural activity.....it is a distinction given to an individual who they deem viable as long as that can continue to profit from their talent.....talents that were cultivated from cultural influence, that same cultural influence that shape the genres of music that were born throughout the 20th century

Pop Music can not thrive on its own, it must appropriate what's already been done once that particular form of expression meets its fulfillment, and once that expression meets that fulfillment, those who run the pop music landscape then takes it over while excluding the contributions made by the community of people who shaped whatever it is that has now been taken over

what I'm saying is, when blues was taken over by mainstream, when jazz was taken over by mainstream, when rock n roll was taken over by mainstream, when soul music was taken over by mainstream, when r&b was taken over by mainstream, the community picks up on that because the artists who best represent that particular brand of music after it has reached its fulfillment, that person or individuals are drawn away from that audience, and then once that person is drawn out, their talent is exploited to the tilt until there's nothing left to give, and this brand of exploitation leads to them being considered as a has been or washed up, which is why the american audience tends to seek and find "the new sensation" or the "next big star"

I don't think that's the reason between the loyalites of the European and US audience. I think it's that the US audience is more concerned with always being at the forefront of new things and new trends and not to seem stuck in the past.

As for pop music. Pop is an umbrella term and as such it is the melting pot of many genres. So no, pop is not a big evil in itself. It's just the point where several genres meet and merge and interconnect - which at times can be creatively very fruitful and interesting, actually - and yes, usually in a way that is popular with the masses. Popular is not inherently evil or bad to me, I am sorry, I am not a snob about that. There is pop music that is bad and there is pop music that is good, it depends on the actual music that I judge independently of genre or whether it is pop or not.

I also cannot make much of statements like this:

that person or individuals are drawn away from that audience, and then once that person is drawn out, their talent is exploited to the tilt until there's nothing left to give

I know of many artists that stay in one genre through a lifetime yet they get exhausted and "washed up" after a while either musically or personally or both. It isn't only pop music where artist are exploited but in all genres. It's also a very natural tendency that after a while artists creativity and people's interest in them decline. You don't have to be in pop for that.

I think for MJ the pop platform actually gave a more proper platform to fully express himself musically and artistically than if he had remained a strictly soul artist. He was always naturally more than a soul or an R&B artist IMO. Soul and even R&B would have been too limiting for him.

what I'm saying is, when Michael released the Bad album, the Michael Jackson that now appeared was totally foreign to what we knew, what the public new in the years prior to that, he did not look the same and was practically unrecognizable to what we had just seen a couple of years prior, and the mainstream did not allow those voices to be heard, and it wasn't just voices of the black community, but many white people and supports of other cultures were voices the same concerns but those comments were not presented by the mainstream, the impression given was that we just had to role with it

I suspected all along that this was about his looks more than anything else.

How were those voices not represented in the mainstream? When Bad came out the mainstream media was FULL of articles and TV reports about his looks and speculations and analysis about what happened, how happened, why happened. You must have lived under a rock around 1987-90 if you think the issue was not addressed and not discussed in the mainstream. Actually that's almost ALL the US media discussed about him at the time.

As for Whitney. It's unfortunate if she was given advice not to give interviews to black publications, but MJ always gave interviews to black publications. He regularly gave interviews to Ebony/JET throughout his career. He NEVER distanced himself form his black audience. His skin might have became white but in his rhetorics and what he had to say - both in music and in word - he never did. I have seen black celebrities who said stuff to actually distance themselves from the black community. Never Michael. So I don't think he needed to "reaffirm his blackness" because he was never non-black to begin with and he never distanced himself from the black community. Doing a pop album like Bad (which is still an inherently black pop album, not a white one) is not distancing himself from blackness, I am sorry. Pop is not white. It belongs to black people just as much as it does to white people.

As for mainstream. You seem to consider mainstream inherently evil. It is not. There is always something that is bound to be more popular with the masses than other things. You cannot "do away with that". Crossing over simply means to go into that mainstream. I do not deny its racist origins, where crossing over was when black people felt the need to cater to white people's tastes. That's probably because of demographical reasons - eg. there are more white people in the major record buying countries than black people. The irony is that while you are so angry at the concept of crossing over, your favourite album Thriller is the ultimate crossover album in that regard - not Dangerous and much less HIStory. Beat It and The Girl Is Mine were created with the very intent of crossing over. Doesn't make those songs any worse to me. In fact, MJ's discography would be poorer without a song like Beat It.
I think crossing over is a broader term now. White artists may crossover from more specific genres to the mainstream as well. Like from punk, EDM or other more nieche genres.

The desire of crossing over to the mainstream is not necessarily commercial either. There could be a genuine desire to create a kind of music that is liked and enjoyed by the widest variety of people. MJ definitely had that desire and ambition and I don't think it had anything to do with money - for him. He just had this genuine belief in the power of music bringing people together and he had a genuine belief that music is borderless and there are no limits as to what kind of music a black or a white artist is supposed to do. And I agree with him.

 

[Psychoniff]

MJ's black audience stayed consistent from J5 through to Thriller. The reason the sales of the J6/Jacksons' records dropped off was because of the white buying public that stop supporting in that period. As you say, black buying public make up a smaller segment, so even if MJ had 100% of the black buying public, still that's not enough to have high sales.

 

[HIStory]

MJ's black audience stayed consistent from J5 through to Thriller. The reason the sales of the J6/Jacksons' records dropped off was because of the white buying public that stop supporting in that period. As you say, black buying public make up a smaller segment, so even if MJ had 100% of the black buying public, still that's not enough to have high sales.

You are sure 100% of the blacks who supported them during I Want You Back still supported them during Destiny, on the other hand you are also sure that it were the blacks who left him from Thriller to Bad and Dangerous. This is just speculation on your part. There is no evidence, polls or whatever to prove either way. However, there is proof that in Britain their support stayed relatively constant compared to the US (see the chart positions I posted). Yes, you see lots of white people in the audience on Bad tour, but the crowds are also much bigger than during Destiny, Triumph and even Victory, so of course you are bound to see relatively a lot more white faces. Also most Bad concert footage is from Europe.

This was in Ebony this January. It's from a black man, the story is about a black family:

In the bicentennial summer of 1976, my cousin Denise suddenly announced to me, “Michael Jackson is played out”—and she wasn’t the only one who believed that to be true. As an impressionable 13-year-old kid used to my older teenage cousin being the beat barometer guiding me towards whatever cool music I should’ve been listening to, her announcement of Michael Jackson “falling off” struck me like a heavy blow from some playground bully’s fist.

http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-...l-jackson-into-the-stratosphere#axzz3yT1sIxlj

So that MJ and the Jacksons were finished definitely wasn't a sentiment only among white people.

 

[innuendo141]

Wow, Bringing Brighter Days, you must be in your element in this thread.

Have 0 interest in arguing with any of the points you've made (as they are the same as all the previous threads you have tried to derail) but can I honestly ask everyone here who on earth would be able to follow up an album like Thriller the way Michael did while still keeping things fresh and gaining new fans? It's called evolution. You must have wanted MJ to stay within the confinement of the 3 years between Off the Wall and Thriller.

Following up with 2 of the biggest selling albums of all time, the biggest selling double album of all time and the biggest selling remix album of all time seems to say to me that he wasn't turning his back on anything as much as he was pushing forward and reaching new goals which required transforming his methods and output.

By the way, this happens with nearly every band. Good album released, loads new fans, next album different, some fans dont like, loads like the new stuff- cycle continues.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

You are sure 100% of the blacks who supported them during I Want You Back still supported them during Destiny, on the other hand you are also sure that it were the blacks who left him from Thriller to Bad and Dangerous. This is just speculation on your part. There is no evidence, polls or whatever to prove either way. However, there is proof that in Britain their support stayed relatively constant compared to the US (see the chart positions I posted). Yes, you see lots of white people in the audience on Bad tour, but the crowds are also much bigger than during Destiny, Triumph and even Victory, so of course you are bound to see relatively a lot more white faces. Also most Bad concert footage is from Europe.

This was in Ebony this January. It's from a black man, the story is about a black family:



http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-...l-jackson-into-the-stratosphere#axzz3yT1sIxlj

So that MJ and the Jacksons were finished definitely wasn't a sentiment only among white people.

MJ definitely gets hated on by all races equally.
What amazes me is even with all the hate he got (and continues to get) his legacy is still untouchable.

 

[Psychoniff]

You are sure 100% of the blacks who supported them during I Want You Back still supported them during Destiny, on the other hand you are also sure that it were the blacks who left him from Thriller to Bad and Dangerous. This is just speculation on your part. There is no evidence, polls or whatever to prove either way. However, there is proof that in Britain their support stayed relatively constant compared to the US (see the chart positions I posted). Yes, you see lots of white people in the audience on Bad tour, but the crowds are also much bigger than during Destiny, Triumph and even Victory, so of course you are bound to see relatively a lot more white faces. Also most Bad concert footage is from Europe.

This was in Ebony this January. It's from a black man, the story is about a black family:



http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-...l-jackson-into-the-stratosphere#axzz3yT1sIxlj

So that MJ and the Jacksons were finished definitely wasn't a sentiment only among white people.

This women breaks down why black america was not feeling the likes of Lionel Richie, James Brown, Whitney Houston, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson and EVEN PRINCE etc in the 80's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hul5T1HX0Uc&list=WL

 

[HIStory]

This women breaks down why black america was not feeling the likes of Lionel Richie, James Brown, Whitney Houston, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson and EVEN PRINCE etc in the 80's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hul5T1HX0Uc&list=WL

Their loss.

 

[Tony R]

I see what BBD Is saying, no need for the backlash. But I would counter argue that in the 1980s many artists left their roots musically to find huge audiences. Not always purposefully, it was just natural evolution.

For example David Bowie had auguably his most successful commercial period with Let's Dance, very mainstream compared to all his previous works

Many rock bands were the same, for example Dire Straits, Alice Cooper. Prince was at his most commercial and 'pop' in the 80''s.

Lionel Richie, Billy Joel. Even Stevie Wonder had his most successful but least loved works, e.g. I Just Called To Say I Love You.

What I'm saying is that the Eighties were just a very successful, glossy, mainstream period for many artists where they started appealing to the masses. I doubt it was a way to change the colour of their audience but just either normal evolution or a way for more people to hear their music. After all, the main thing as a musician I'd to get your work out to as many people as possible!

I do agree MJs audience went more white (terrible term), but that's just because he started to appeal to more people, and in many countries the majority people are whites, ergo his audience became more white.

I would agree with those that said ironically his music was more urban in the 90s. Dangerous proves that e.g. Jam, Who Is It, RTT, and 2Bad on HIStory is the most 'street' track he ever made in my opinion.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

MJ definitely gets hated on by all races equally.
What amazes me is even with all the hate he got (and continues to get) his legacy is still untouchable.

but if this is the case with him being hated equally

he wasn't hated on during OTW and he wasn't hated on during Thriller

there was no hate, and there wasn't such a term as being a "hater", that term did not become part of lexicon until the mid to late 90s

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Their loss.

perfect example of what I'm talking about when the response is "their loss" w/out understanding the root of why many from the black community shard this sentiment

everything has a root,

it's like when this crossover model went full bore, we not only saw how impacted the focus or ambition of the premier black talents of the 80s, we also so how the crossover phenomenon, and those who fostered it, it began the process of destroying the very fabric of r&b music, where the crossover phenomenon opened the door for R&B to be appropriated by other genres of music, and real authentic R&B was being phased out by either contorting the image of those artists who was once luminaries of that expression or they were replaced by future contemporaries who the industry felt would fit in more during the age of video

and we've already agreed that the crossover model is built on racial proclivity, so it's no coincidence the black community at large felt the brunt of it, because when this transition began to take root, we sensed where it was all headed

and let's not forget, many of those leading black artists during the 80s, many of them were encouraged to contort their image, to the point where started undergoing plastic surgery

R&B has suffered most under this construct, and R&B can no longer charge because it's been stripped of its true identity

and if the crossover model had never existed, then MJ, nor LIonel, nor Whitney, nor Prince would have received the backlash they did

it's not the community who's responsible for that, it's the system based on race indifference that causes these problems

I realize it's an uncomfortable topic, it's hostile, but it's real and it needs to be done away with

and if an artist, regardless of what their ethnicity or nationality is, if that person has the ability to touch people universally, society should allow that person to do so naturally from the sheer will of their talent

I believe it's possible, always have and that approach will begin to change the music industry for the better

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Wow, Bringing Brighter Days, you must be in your element in this thread.

Have 0 interest in arguing with any of the points you've made (as they are the same as all the previous threads you have tried to derail) but can I honestly ask everyone here who on earth would be able to follow up an album like Thriller the way Michael did while still keeping things fresh and gaining new fans? It's called evolution. You must have wanted MJ to stay within the confinement of the 3 years between Off the Wall and Thriller.

Following up with 2 of the biggest selling albums of all time, the biggest selling double album of all time and the biggest selling remix album of all time seems to say to me that he wasn't turning his back on anything as much as he was pushing forward and reaching new goals which required transforming his methods and output.

By the way, this happens with nearly every band. Good album released, loads new fans, next album different, some fans dont like, loads like the new stuff- cycle continues.

1.) he never needed to transform anything, that's what caused the problems

2.) I don't see how Thriller or OTW could be considered confining considering, especially when OTW was the most free album he ever did

3.) Change for the sake of change isn't a reason to feel the need to change

 

[LindavG]

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?

I find it interesting that neither BBD nor Psychoniff addressed those statistics because it undermines their whole argument. I don't understand this obsession with "keeping the balance" between domestic and foreign fans or black and white fans. There are a lot more non-Americans than Americans in the world and most of the major record-buying markets (Europe, Australia, Canada) are predominantly white. So by saying there should be a balance you are effectively placing his American black fans on a pedestal and devaluing everyone else. I'm sure Michael was grateful for every fan that he got and didn't give a damn about the colour of their skin or the piece of land they were born on.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

I find it interesting that neither BBD nor Psychoniff addressed those statistics because it undermines their whole argument. I don't understand this obsession with "keeping the balance" between domestic and foreign fans or black and white fans. There are a lot more non-Americans than Americans in the world and most of the major record-buying markets (Europe, Australia, Canada) are predominantly white. So by saying there should be a balance you are effectively placing his American black fans on a pedestal and devaluing everyone else. I'm sure Michael was grateful for every fan that he got and didn't give a damn about the colour of their skin or the piece of land they were born on.

and this is another example of how his foundational support gets slighted time and time again, this has been going on for close to 30 years

I'm not placing anyone on a pedastal

it's like if someone was from China, born in China, and they become a successful public figure in entertainment or athletics, no matter how successful he or she becomes, it's not going to change the fact that person's original support from China will be the people who always set the foundation

oh, and as far as that #77 ranking for Can You Feel it in the US, that was on the Pop Charts, not the R&B charts

The Triumph album was #1 not on the Pop Charts, but the R&B charts which shows how vital that foundational support was to his career during the formative years and the support MJ spent the remainder of his career from the 90s on trying to regain even when giving the impression that he wasn't

so that #1 ranking on the R&B charts shows that even moreso than any support in the UK, the support from his black following made it possible for him to achieve the global success he did

 

[LindavG]

and this is another example of how his foundational support gets slighted time and time again, this has been going on for close to 30 years

I'm not placing anyone on a pedastal

it's like if someone was from China, born in China, and they become a successful public figure in entertainment or athletics, no matter how successful he or she becomes, it's not going to change the fact that person's original support from China will be the people who always set the foundation

oh, and as far as that #77 ranking for Can You Feel it in the US, that was on the Pop Charts, not the R&B charts

The Triumph album was #1 not on the Pop Charts, but the R&B charts which shows how vital that foundational support was to his career during the formative years and the support MJ spent the remainder of his career from the 90s on trying to regain even when giving the impression that he wasn't

so that #1 ranking on the R&B charts shows that even moreso than any support in the UK, the support from his black following made it possible for him to achieve the global success he did

The whole point of that post just went completely over your head, didn't it? You claimed that Michael had to "whitewash" his music in order to gain acceptance from European fans. Respect77 just showed you that's utter rubbish because Michael was already successful in (Western) Europe before OTW, when his music was still "pure" as I think you'd call it smilerolleyes.

And it's clear that you lack any respect for Michael as a creative artist, dismissing everything post-Quincy as pandering to his black American fans which had given up on him after his music became "white". I have no time for that.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

The whole point of that post just went completely over your head, didn't it? You claimed that Michael had to "whitewash" his music in order to gain acceptance from European fans. Respect77 just showed you that's utter rubbish because Michael was already successful in (Western) Europe before OTW, when his music was still "pure" as I think you'd call it smilerolleyes.

And it's clear that you lack any respect for Michael as a creative artist, dismissing everything post-Quincy as pandering to his black American fans which had given up on him after his music became "white". I have no time for that.

I never said anything about any of that, and I bought all of his solo albums after Thriller the day they were released

Ill tell anyone Dangerous should have received more critical acclaim than it did and that a song like Will You Be There was one of his greatest recordings he ever gave

Earth Song is one of my favorite MJ songs ever

And Break of Dawn was absolutely perfect and should have been released as a single

Oh, and when he performed Heal The Wold at the 1993 Superbowl with all the children surrounding him, that was a moment that absolutely touched the heart

 

[Psychoniff]

I find it interesting that neither BBD nor Psychoniff addressed those statistics because it undermines their whole argument. I don't understand this obsession with "keeping the balance" between domestic and foreign fans or black and white fans. There are a lot more non-Americans than Americans in the world and most of the major record-buying markets (Europe, Australia, Canada) are predominantly white. So by saying there should be a balance you are effectively placing his American black fans on a pedestal and devaluing everyone else. I'm sure Michael was grateful for every fan that he got and didn't give a damn about the colour of their skin or the piece of land they were born on.

I already addressed this. But to repeat what BBD said those were the pop (mainstream) charts. If you look at the US R&B (blacks) charts, they did much better. The black buying public makes up a smaller percentage of the market than do whites. So theoretically speaking, if 100% blacks bought their MJ's records, the possibility of him getting top 40 hits and number 1 albums is based on how additional whites would buy his records. MJ knew this, that's why he reiterated annoying aphorisms like "music has no color" to convince people that he wasn't trying to sound urban.

 

[Psychoniff]

Here's another video from the black lady and 80's music and race etc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmjdbyOBHxQ&list=WL&index=1

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Do not forget Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America were also among the places that found MJ appealing - more than any other artist of our time. Europe and North America are not the center of the universe and even though they're the main markets, they're not the only ones. The division of MJ's audience to black and white is simply ignorant and narrow-minded.

In my opinion the alleged abandonment issue is media propaganda. Even now when people keep repeating it, there's no actual evidence that any kind of group left the MJ fandom for one specific reason in the 80s.

On a different note I always find it funny that MJ to this day is the most successful artist of all time and naturally the most diverse audience and still some people think they know better :cheeky:

 

[HIStoric]

I saw a while back here that someone was claiming that Michael lost 22 million fans or something because he only sold 35-40 million copies of Bad as opposed to 67 million copies of Thriller or whatever it is.

Honestly I think that's a stupid claim. Some people in this thread seem to give off the impression that you need to be a fan of an artist to buy a record, which isn't true. A year and a half or so ago, I bought Taylor Swift's album 1989 but I wouldn't even consider myself much of a fan of her... more-so just a fan of that specific album. If her next album sells 2 million less copies, you can't just assume that she as an artist has lost 2 million fans, because many of the buyers weren't necessarily fans of her in the first place. Same goes for Thriller basically.

And I mean, we're not talking about your normal top of the charts album like 1989, we're talking about Thriller - the biggest musical cultural event of the 1980s! Millions and millions of people who aren't even into pop music were swept up and bought copies. Many of them were a fan of the album itself but not necessarily the artist, which is why I think it's silly to assume all 22 million of those people were fans of Michael in the first place and therefore make such a claim.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

I saw a while back here that someone was claiming that Michael lost 22 million fans or something because he only sold 35-40 million copies of Bad as opposed to 67 million copies of Thriller or whatever it is.

Honestly I think that's a stupid claim. Some people in this thread seem to give off the impression that you need to be a fan of an artist to buy a record, which isn't true. A year and a half or so ago, I bought Taylor Swift's album 1989 but I wouldn't even consider myself much of a fan of her... more-so just a fan of that specific album. If her next album sells 2 million less copies, you can't just assume that she as an artist has lost 2 million fans, because many of the buyers weren't necessarily fans of her in the first place. Same goes for Thriller basically.

And I mean, we're talking about your normal top of the charts album like 1989, we're talking about Thriller - the biggest musical cultural event of the 1980s! Millions and millions of people who aren't even into pop music were swept up and bought copies. Many of them were a fan of the album itself but not necessarily the artist, which is why I think it's silly to assume all 22 million of those people were fans of Michael in the first place and therefore make such a claim.

During BAD's initial run from 1987-1989, it sold 25 million copies worldwide compared to THRILLER that sold 47 million worldwide from 1982-1984

That's a 22 million decline in sales and that sure didn't sit right with MJ as he sought a new manager and producer afterwards

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

I saw a while back here that someone was claiming that Michael lost 22 million fans or something because he only sold 35-40 million copies of Bad as opposed to 67 million copies of Thriller or whatever it is.

Honestly I think that's a stupid claim. Some people in this thread seem to give off the impression that you need to be a fan of an artist to buy a record, which isn't true. A year and a half or so ago, I bought Taylor Swift's album 1989 but I wouldn't even consider myself much of a fan of her... more-so just a fan of that specific album. If her next album sells 2 million less copies, you can't just assume that she as an artist has lost 2 million fans, because many of the buyers weren't necessarily fans of her in the first place. Same goes for Thriller basically.

And I mean, we're talking about your normal top of the charts album like 1989, we're talking about Thriller - the biggest musical cultural event of the 1980s! Millions and millions of people who aren't even into pop music were swept up and bought copies. Many of them were a fan of the album itself but not necessarily the artist, which is why I think it's silly to assume all 22 million of those people were fans of Michael in the first place and therefore make such a claim.

Exactly!
No other album in history had/has created the pandemonium that Thriller did.
Thriller wasn't just an album it, was turning point in world history, and to this day is the benchmark for all videos and albums.

Psychoniff and Bringing Brighter Days seems to think that because the albums that followed Thriller weren't as successful that they were flops, but NO ONE has outsold Thriller.
Additionally, it gets a sales boost every October.

I understand that MJ is the GOAT but give him a break Thriller is a tough act to follow for anyone LOL.

 

[HIStory]

and this is another example of how his foundational support gets slighted time and time again, this has been going on for close to 30 years

I'm not placing anyone on a pedastal

it's like if someone was from China, born in China, and they become a successful public figure in entertainment or athletics, no matter how successful he or she becomes, it's not going to change the fact that person's original support from China will be the people who always set the foundation

oh, and as far as that #77 ranking for Can You Feel it in the US, that was on the Pop Charts, not the R&B charts

The Triumph album was #1 not on the Pop Charts, but the R&B charts which shows how vital that foundational support was to his career during the formative years and the support MJ spent the remainder of his career from the 90s on trying to regain even when giving the impression that he wasn't

so that #1 ranking on the R&B charts shows that even moreso than any support in the UK, the support from his black following made it possible for him to achieve the global success he did

I already addressed this. But to repeat what BBD said those were the pop (mainstream) charts. If you look at the US R&B (blacks) charts, they did much better. The black buying public makes up a smaller percentage of the market than do whites. So theoretically speaking, if 100% blacks bought their MJ's records, the possibility of him getting top 40 hits and number 1 albums is based on how additional whites would buy his records. MJ knew this, that's why he reiterated annoying aphorisms like "music has no color" to convince people that he wasn't trying to sound urban.

The R&B charts don't show how many of those buying your record were black or white. It is simply a catagorization of your music. So to say a TOP 10 hit on the R&B charts means 100% of their black fans still supported them while the whites left is utterly false. It might still have been a mix of black and white fans - only less from both. As I showed by the example of that Ebony article, many blacks considered them "washed up" and "out" too by the mid 70s.

And for your information, all those pre-OTW Jacksons record charted high on the UK main chart, unlike in the US.

It's interesting that MJ being inclusive in his music is "annoying" to you.

 

[HIStory]

I saw a while back here that someone was claiming that Michael lost 22 million fans or something because he only sold 35-40 million copies of Bad as opposed to 67 million copies of Thriller or whatever it is.

Honestly I think that's a stupid claim. Some people in this thread seem to give off the impression that you need to be a fan of an artist to buy a record, which isn't true. A year and a half or so ago, I bought Taylor Swift's album 1989 but I wouldn't even consider myself much of a fan of her... more-so just a fan of that specific album. If her next album sells 2 million less copies, you can't just assume that she as an artist has lost 2 million fans, because many of the buyers weren't necessarily fans of her in the first place. Same goes for Thriller basically.

And I mean, we're talking about your normal top of the charts album like 1989, we're talking about Thriller - the biggest musical cultural event of the 1980s! Millions and millions of people who aren't even into pop music were swept up and bought copies. Many of them were a fan of the album itself but not necessarily the artist, which is why I think it's silly to assume all 22 million of those people were fans of Michael in the first place and therefore make such a claim.

Yes, I agree. That's why I said earlier those buying Thriller weren't his "original audience". There were lots of bandwagoners among those bought that album, because it was such a huge cultural phenomenon. When you take out Thriller MJ's album sales have actually been pretty consistent in the US until Dangerous: OTW 8 million (don't forget OTW also profited in the hindsight from the Thriller craze - with some people buying Thriller also going back to his previous album and buying it too), Bad 9 million, Dangerous 7 million. I ignore post-1993 albums here, since the allegations obviously massively influenced his sales potential and popularity, especially in the US.

During BAD's initial run from 1987-1989, it sold 25 million copies worldwide compared to THRILLER that sold 47 million worldwide from 1982-1984

That's a 22 million decline in sales and that sure didn't sit right with MJ as he sought a new manager and producer afterwards

Instead of repeating the same things over and over again please pay attention to what the actual argument is.

The division of MJ's audience to black and white is simply ignorant and narrow-minded.

Indeed, it is. I wonder what the actual end game is for this argument that attempts to make a drift between black and white fans? I keep hearing in this thread that his initial black fan base is "forgotten", "not mentioned" but I still have not got an answer to "how?" any "by whom?". And if his black fans left him in the late 80s (which I don't believe BTW - some left, some stayed, just like whites), but let's say it is true. Then wasn't it their choice to leave him? If someone is bitter about that they should level their bitterness towards those who were unloyal. The fact is that MJ's music has not gotten any "whiter" compared to Thriller - contrary to what was claimed in this thread earlier, so it's definitely NOT that. Yes, it wasn't as "black" as hip-hop which started to get more and more mainstream popularity in the late 80s, but then, MJ's music has NEVER been that black. Many songs on OTW and Thriller were written by white people for god's sake (Temperton, Tom Bahler, McCartney, Steve Porcaro)! Let's not act like those weren't multicultural/multiracial albums.

The only thing that became whiter was his skin (the music actually became "blacker"). And I suspect that's what this thread is eventually about, no matter how they beat around the bush with factually untrue claims about the music ("whitewashed" etc.)

 

[InvincibleMJ]

The only thing that became whiter was his skin (the music actually became "blacker"). And I suspect that's what this thread is eventually about, no matter how they beat around the bush with factually untrue claims about the music ("whitewashed" etc.)

I believe this is the bottom line of this whole argument. If MJ's skin remained black this discussion wouldn't have been going for so long. Like I mentioned before, this abandonment (of fans in general) myth is mainly media propaganda.

 

[HIStory]

perfect example of what I'm talking about when the response is "their loss" w/out understanding the root of why many from the black community shard this sentiment

The black community is not a monolith, not homogenous. There were plenty of black people who have not left Michael Jackson, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Whitney etc based on this notion of "selling out" just because they dared to become popular in the mainstream and among white people.

This kind of possessiveness is not exclusive to the black community or R&B. It exists in every genre. When an underground rock band gets mainstream popularity some of their original fans will leave them on the notion of "selling out". The bigger the popularity, the bigger the disdain in (some of) the original fan base. Same thing. It has less to do with race than with a kind of elitist, snobish and/or possessive attitude. Basically the same as what you are talking about here: a feeling of being "left behind" as the original people who supported that band and as a result feeling less "special" because now masses support that band. It's mainly about fan ego.

it's like when this crossover model went full bore, we not only saw how impacted the focus or ambition of the premier black talents of the 80s, we also so how the crossover phenomenon, and those who fostered it, it began the process of destroying the very fabric of r&b music, where the crossover phenomenon opened the door for R&B to be appropriated by other genres of music, and real authentic R&B was being phased out by either contorting the image of those artists who was once luminaries of that expression or they were replaced by future contemporaries who the industry felt would fit in more during the age of video

How did those black artists in the 80s destroy the fabric of R&B? Didn't they create some of the best and most influential music ever? And it did not occur to me in the 90s that R&B was supposedly destroyed by then. In fact, it was one of the golden eras of R&B music.

IMO R&B got destroyed in the late 90s and early 2000s when it started to get mixed extensively with EDM and when hip-hop/rap took over as the most popular form of black music in the mainstream. Nothing to do with MJ, Prince, Stevie Wonder or Whitney Houston. All to do with the emergence of EDM and hip-hop.

1.) he never needed to transform anything, that's what caused the problems

2.) I don't see how Thriller or OTW could be considered confining considering, especially when OTW was the most free album he ever did

It does look like that the ideal thing for you would have been if MJ had kept repeating the same things as on OTW and Thriller. OTW in itself isn't confining but it is confining when you are only allowed to do one type of music all your life and you are being put and kept in a box musically, while not being allowed to explore other territories. Which it seems you wanted MJ to do. Be stuck musically and creatively somewhere between 1979 and 1982 and doing the same type of music over and over again.

For a creative artist I am sure that would be very boring.

3.) Change for the sake of change isn't a reason to feel the need to change

And who said MJ changed just for the sake of change? He changed because he wanted to explore other territories musically and thematically. What you seem to have wanted from him actually looks like the ultimate death of him as a creative force. Just sticking to keep repeating OTW. I am glad he was more creative than that.

And BTW, I said it a couple of times, but since you keep ignoring that point I will repeat again: I find it ironic that you lash out at the concept of crossover yet you put Thriller on such a pedestal, while Thriller is probably the most deliberately crossover album of MJ's entire career - which is probably one of the reasons why it was so successful. So you (and Psychoniff) seem to be not too consistent there.

 

[Psychoniff]

Exactly!
No other album in history had/has created the pandemonium that Thriller did.
Thriller wasn't just an album it, was turning point in world history, and to this day is the benchmark for all videos and albums.

Psychoniff and Bringing Brighter Days seems to think that because the albums that followed Thriller weren't as successful that they were flops, but NO ONE has outsold Thriller.
Additionally, it gets a sales boost every October.

I understand that MJ is the GOAT but give him a break Thriller is a tough act to follow for anyone LOL.

I Didn't say his other albums were flops lol where did you pluck that from?

The R&B charts don't show how many of those buying your record were black or white. It is simply a catagorization of your music. So to say a TOP 10 hit on the R&B charts means 100% of their black fans still supported them while the whites left is utterly false. It might still have been a mix of black and white fans - only less from both. As I showed by the example of that Ebony article, many blacks considered them "washed up" and "out" too by the mid 70s.

And for your information, all those pre-OTW Jacksons record charted high on the UK main chart, unlike in the US.

It's interesting that MJ being inclusive in his music is "annoying" to you.

Now you're completely losing it. You use one anecdote to try to prove you're point. Again if compare the black singles and albums charts at the time, it's self-explanatory.

 

[HIStory]

Now yo're completely losing it. You use one anecdote to try to prove you're point. Again if compare the black singles and albums charts at the time, it's self-explanatory.

So you are allowed to use anecdotes and single individual's opinions to support your point (the videos you linked in), but I am not? Okay.

Again, the black singles and album charts do not tell us anything about the racial makeup of those who bought the album. Nor do they tell us anything about how many black people actually left the Jacksons as fans compared to their initial success. So your point is moot.

 

[Psychoniff]

^Yes they do. That's why they're called the black singles charts. Black radio was primarily listened and frequented by blacks.