InvincibleMJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,760
- Points
- 48
Hahahahahaha!
get over yourself
Hahahahahaha!
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.
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.
"Pop" is just some term that has to real meaning other than to place artists who are specific genre to that label.
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.
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:
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.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.
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.
I don't think you could call Metallica pop music. Pop music is basically it's own genre.
I don't think you could call Metallica pop music. Pop music is basically it's own genre.
I don't think you could call Metallica pop music. Pop music is basically it's own genre.
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.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.
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.
''Music is color blind'' - Michael Jackson
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
Please elaborate on HOW the crossover model encourages hostility. Hostility towards whom and by whom?
Please elaborate on how your favoured model looks like.
Nirvana, The Smiths, The Jam, Sex Pistols, Bob Marley, Green Day, Pearl Jam, The Clash...
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.....
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.....
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 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 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......
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
this did not happen for MIchael Jackson after Thriller, and the record sales domestically reflected that
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.....
^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.
^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.