Latest on MJJC

The Change in Michael's Message and Image After 'Thriller'

MJ seemed to adopt the 'Bad' era image for 'You Rock My World' video. It was strange seeing MJ in his 40s trying to recreate past magic. I wish he had tried something different.
 
83magic already said they don't want this thread to keep going and that they opinions are the same. why are you guys still commenting?
 
NatureCriminal7896 said:
83magic already said they don't want this thread to keep going and that they opinions are the same. why are you guys still commenting?
Click to expand...

I am sorry but what is that supposed to mean? Once a thread is made, people can comment in it, regardless of whether or not the creator wants people to comment.
 
I don’t understand why everybody has become so sensitive around here. It’s like you can’t even discuss anything anymore without someone getting offended. This is a discussion forum after all.
 
Last edited:
this video was released today, and explains the basics of what I initially wrote in this very thread years ago..
 
If he hadn’t changed his image the critics would have said he wasn’t evolving anymore. What do you do after Thriller? No matter what there would always be large swaths of people being disappointed. It could only go downhill in every aspect.

I see it as an artist trying to reinvent himself, to move away from thriller. If he didn’t do that he would become irrelevant. The added controversies regarding the bad album was fuel to its popularity. It is all very calculated, it is what pop stars are pushed to do. On the other hand he also just got more vocal about racism and worldwide problems (compared to the thriller era) because he had a big audience which is commendable.
The new image was also counteracted with his humanitarian efforts. I never saw Michael as someone who promoted violence or misogyny. The overall message was still overtly positive imo.

I personally don’t care about the lyrical content of MJ’s music or pop music in general (it is different for folk, country or singer songwriters). It is all about the hook as Michael would also say.
 
It just shows that Michael (probably most celebrities) was in no-win situation with media. Don't do anything different, keep doing the same thing, and you are not being original. Keep your videos clean, and you are being asexual, do something explicit and you are being too sexually explicit. Michael was also "on his own" by then, Thriller's success would have given him the confidence, he was free from whatever religious hold there was, a change in image was inevitable. Probably also partly brought up my media. Though I would agree that Michael did push the boundaries of what is acceptable on stage without actually crossing the line (or maybe he moved the line :unsure:). He still kept the language in his songs clean (some exceptions in HIStory).

PS: @filmandmusic a much more intelligent response than I could formulate, but that's understandable given the topic and contents of the video. I have recovered now.
 
It's all about eras, MJ was moving too fast, Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad : 3 complete different albums within 8 years, its like 3 different decades in a very small period of time! He was hard to follow until he got less inspired around 97-98

Don't get me wrong but who else is able to perfom with this crazy creativity and inspiration ? Usually you stick to your flow all along (The Beatles, James Brown, Elvis) or one morning you choose another color (Madonna, Prince) but Michael was improving and exploring new stuff until inspiration runs dry...
 
@Hiker thanks.

It is actually a really cool video both in images as you say as well as in content but I swear I saw it before some time ago!

It is mentioned he didn‘t do any crotch grabbing in Malaysia which makes me interested in watching it to see how he adapted his dancing to it.

I think it is dangerous when governments intervene with artistry, the fear of them losing control over their population is far more controversial than an artist doing provocative dance moves. This is often fueled by religion which to this day holds way too much importance worldwide. Religion was only invented to curb protests and anger but it was cleverly installed by priests and governments (eventually) because they sold it so that it became a lifeline for many people in troubled times. It is good people find comfort and strength in religion but it is not acceptable when it is used to chain people and this still happens a lot even in the rich and “developed“ Western world.

Also in hindsight (for me at least) the entire dance segment of BoW is completely justifiable as Michael just releases hundreds of years of anger and repression (through dancing and expression and not hurting other people) on behalve of the entire black community. This video would today be seen as a masterpiece. Times change.
 
Salomons said:
Don't get me wrong but who else is able to perfom with this crazy creativity and inspiration
Click to expand...
well, that was his thing, creativity and inspiration, and not crotch grabbing, which is just a dance move. It suited him, fans loved it so kept doing it.

filmandmusic said:
It is mentioned he didn‘t do any crotch grabbing in Malaysia which makes me interested in watching it to see how he adapted his dancing to it.
Click to expand...
It's on YT. For most of the moves he kept his hand on his belt, some moves were modified. But all the hip thrusts and other moves are still there and he did perform TWYMMF. So banning crotch grab was just symbolic. Though I agree with most of what you are saying, but it's not our or Michael's place to impose our values on other cultures. So I am glad Michael agreed to those terms and respected that while performing in other countries instead of saying no.
 
Hiker said:
It's on YT. For most of the moves he kept his hand on his belt, some moves were modified. But all the hip thrusts and other moves are still there and he did perform TWYMMF. So banning crotch grab was just symbolic. Though I agree with most of what you are saying, but it's not our or Michael's place to impose our values on other cultures. So I am glad Michael agreed to those terms and respected that while performing in other countries instead of saying no.
Click to expand...
This was the only possible solution between the 2 parties, the backbone of politics or living together is finding compromises. It is both good of Malaysia for allowing him to perform and for Michael to adjust his moves ( though I don’t agree with their opinion I would have done the same, he was a lover not a fighter)!

Pakistan though looked very awkward about it, like a totalitarian state, that’s not good. This is still rampant today where China and Middle Eastern countries remove scenes in films depicting homosexual characters. You see that today in Iran regarding the death of the young woman that didn’t wear her headscarf correctly that people want freedom of expression not repression.

anyway this is off topic lol
 
there are many ways that an artist can evolve and express themselves without being vulgar or macho. Michael was already doing that for at least fifteen years prior to ‘87. he could have continued after whilst maintaining his moral integrity.

he already set trends with the robot, moonwalk, and mass broadway style choreography in his short films. not to mention his own selection of spins, kicks and poses. he didn’t need to grab himself.

the sparkly glove, fedora, red zipper jacket, black loafers and white socks were iconic without drawing attention to his midsection..

he already sang about gossip and lies (‘wanna be startin somethin’), female predators (‘billie jean’ and ‘heartbreak hotel’ to name just two), horror (‘thriller’/‘somebody’s watching me’), humanitarian/social issues (‘we are the world’, ‘be not always’, ‘beat it’, ‘can you feel it’, ‘man of war’ etc). much of his later work would repeat these topics to the point where they became tropes.

he already experimented with and merged different genres together to create his own sound. he set trends instead of chasing them.

he already explored his wide vocal range, whether it was the high smooth tenor, the soaring falsetto, the baritone (‘burn this disco out’) or the grit introduced in ‘beat it’. the squeals, grunts, hiccups and gasping were already there. they decorated his delivery instead of dominating it as they would do later on. he sang clearly with emotion without resorting to shouting and screaming.

he didn’t need to shoot guns, join a gang, or vandalise property to prove a point . in fact ‘beat it’ was a much more powerful and concise social statement. he unified real life gang members from the l.a crips and bloods. he didn’t take sides, and he remained secure in his individuality . that was a bold stance considering that he was a lone voice. every other male in that short film followed the crowd. all it took was a tap on the shoulder. sometimes not even that.. all except Michael. he tackled toxic masculinity before it was even called that.

he was authentic, unique and exciting pre ‘87. the private matched the public. it wasn’t a manufactured image. he was a breath of fresh air compared to his contemporaries. it was all about the art. it spoke for itself without any elaborate stunts to distract from it. he was humble.
 
83magic said:
there are many ways that an artist can evolve and express themselves without being vulgar or macho. Michael was already doing that for at least fifteen years prior to ‘87. he could have continued after whilst maintaining his moral integrity.
Click to expand...
true but his early image was probably manufactured mostly by Motown
83magic said:
he already set trends with the robot, moonwalk, and mass broadway style choreography in his short films. not to mention his own selection of spins, kicks and poses. he didn’t need to grab himself.
Click to expand...
true though the grabbing is iconic to me too
83magic said:
the sparkly glove, fedora, red zipper jacket, black loafers and white socks were iconic without drawing attention to his midsection..
Click to expand...
very true!
83magic said:
he already sang about gossip and lies (‘wanna be startin somethin’), female predators (‘billie jean’ and ‘heartbreak hotel’ to name just two), horror (‘thriller’/‘somebody’s watching me’), humanitarian/social issues (‘we are the world’, ‘be not always’, ‘beat it’, ‘can you feel it’, ‘man of war’ etc). much of his later work would repeat these topics to the point where they became tropes.
Click to expand...
agreed especially the last part where some of his songs became tropes
83magic said:
he already experimented with and merged different genres together to create his own sound. he set trends instead of chasing them.
Click to expand...
no opinion about it
83magic said:
he already explored his wide vocal range, whether it was the high smooth tenor, the soaring falsetto, the baritone (‘burn this disco out’) or the grit introduced in ‘beat it’. the squeals, grunts, hiccups and gasping were already there. they decorated his delivery instead of dominating it as they would do later on. he sang clearly with emotion without resorting to shouting and screaming.
Click to expand...
very much agreed here. I personally can never put something as BOTDF as high as Beat It in terms of vocals
83magic said:
he didn’t need to shoot guns, join a gang, or vandalise property to prove a point . in fact ‘beat it’ was a much more powerful and concise social statement. he unified real life gang members from the l.a crips and bloods. he didn’t take sides, and he remained secure in his individuality . that was a bold stance considering that he was a lone voice. every other male in that short film followed the crowd. all it took was a tap on the shoulder. sometimes not even that.. all except Michael. he tackled toxic masculinity before it was even called that.
Click to expand...
Beat it was simpler and easier to understand and more universal for sure but perhaps a bit too simplistic. Still think the message in BoW was very powerful and had more impact than beat it.

What happened between the 2 gangs after beat it? Do you know anything about it? Did the rivalry change or am I making MJ's influence bigger than it is :p
83magic said:
he was authentic, unique and exciting pre ‘87. the private matched the public. it wasn’t a manufactured image. he was a breath of fresh air compared to his contemporaries. it was all about the art. it spoke for itself without any elaborate stunts to distract from it. he was humble.
Click to expand...
agreed

I actually agree with almost all points but for me his image change was not a dealbreaker and commercially and critically at that time I think it did more good than bad. For me it made sense. Though I wonder if he lost a lot of fans after Bad. Maybe he gained more than he lost?
 
To be immersed in music is like having sex - a whole body sensation.
You get enveloped in harmony, you get kicked around by the beat and you get carried away by the theme.
If you think crotch grabbing was constructed because image and marketing, you obviously never experienced music the way Michael did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top