Thoughts on State of Shock?

[83magic]

Nothing wrong with that. You could say that about a lot of funk songs, especially James Brown's. He has songs that are 12 minutes long with the same rhythm throughout them and other songs that are entirely talking and no singing. Some blues songs have a repeated guitar riff and/or a line said over and over with no other lyrics. That's also the case with some salsa & merengue songs.

Michael was a commercial pop artist. a student of berry gordy and 'the corporation'. he was in the business of making hits since he was 10 years old. that's not to say that he didn't have any artistic integrity. he just knew how to achieve the balance of expressing his vision in a way that was accessible to the general public. he made no secret in wanting to reach the widest audience. 'can't get outta the rain ('you can't win part 2')' was left as a b-side for a reason. there's no way that would have been a main single release (unlike the first half, which contains the actual song, and not an extended groove). I don't see how your examples of more underground artists (not talking about james brown, just in general) from specialised genres align with michael's methods..

 

[DuranDuran]

Please don't tell me that you believe that if a song does well on the charts, it's a quality song.

Quality is an opinion of the listener. They're good quality songs to people who like them and bought the records to make them a hit. People don't buy or listen to songs they don't like. They generally change the station when a song they don't like comes on. With Youtube and streaming sites like Spotify, people pick the songs they want to listen to, rather than passive listening to what a radio DJ plays. Because of this, newer acts like Drake, Nicki Minaj, & Lil Wayne have gotten more songs on the Hot 100 than all of those older acts like Elvis Presley & The Beatles, who could only get their hits by people buying a physical 45 single. So that means Lil Wayne is quality music to today's mainstream audience, doesn't matter if you like him or not. Radio in the past played album tracks, but those songs couldn't chart (in the US, I don't know about other countries) because they wasn't a single to buy, like Stevie Wonder's Isn't She Lovely. There's people who only listen to classical music, that think non-classical/opera songs is not good music, that includes Michael Jackson. When a magazine like Rolling Stone makes a list of the best albums in history, that's the opinion of the writers and wouldn't mean much to someone who isn't a fan of rock music. A person who mainly listens to R&B wouldn't say Sgt. Pepper is the best album ever, because that isn't what most R&B fans listen to. An R&B listener is more likely to pick albums by Teddy Pendergrass as best than ones by Bob Dylan or Pink Floyd. Heavy metal fans say more metal groups should be inducted in the Rock n Roll Hall Of Fame and acts like Madonna, Jackson 5, & Donna Summer don't belong because they don't make rock music.

 

[DuranDuran]

Michael was a commercial pop artist. a student of berry gordy and 'the corporation'. he was in the business of making hits since he was 10 years old. that's not to say that he didn't have any artistic integrity. he just knew how to achieve the balance of expressing his vision in a way that was accessible to the general public. he made no secret in wanting to reach the widest audience. 'can't get outta the rain ('you can't win part 2')' was left as a b-side for a reason. there's no way that would have been a main single release (unlike the first half, which contains the actual song, and not an extended groove). I don't see how your examples of more underground artists (not talking about james brown, just in general) from specialised genres align with michael's methods..

Herb Alpert has a lot of pop hits with entirely instrumental grooves, and you said instrumentals aren't songs. Snoop Dogg isn't an underground artist. I wasn't talking about Mike's methods, but what songs have become hits in general. Mike isn't the only person in the world who had hit singles, and his way of making songs isn't the only way for them to become hits. Mike would spend a lot of time recording 1 song. Jimmy Jam said Mike spent an entire day on just a drum track when they were working with him. Steely Dan & the Eagles are other groups who were extreme perfectionists and spent a lot of time on 1 song doing dozens of takes. Prince generally recorded an entire song in 1 day, playing all the instruments on some of them. Prince had hit singles. The entire Beatles debut album was recorded in 1 day and that was around 12 songs. There's many many songs that have become hits that don't have melodies and you can't whistle to them, especially today's trap music such as Beyonce's 7/11 and she is nowhere near an underground act. Even on American Bandstand decades ago, the people on there would often say they liked a song because it had a good beat and they could dance to it.

 

[Michaels Lover]

It has to do with his comment about State Of Shock being repetitive, which has never prevented a song (not just this one) from being popular. The music in many rap hits are more repetitive than State Of Shock. Drop It Like It's Hot by Snoop Dogg and Pretty Boy Swag by Soulja Boy are examples of that. Anyway, you seem to think that just because you don't like something, then the general public is not supposed to like it either. You said in another thread you don't like hip hop, but guess what, it's been popular for over 30 years now and even more today than in the past.

I never said that, when did I say that??? I would never say that I don't like hip hop, cause I do. Why are you talking about hip hop anyway? What's it got to do with this? I'm so confused. And the general public can like whatever they want, I don't give a rats ass

 

[83magic]

Herb Alpert has a lot of pop hits with entirely instrumental grooves, and you said instrumentals aren't songs. Snoop Dogg isn't an underground artist. I wasn't talking about Mike's methods, but what songs have become hits in general. Mike isn't the only person in the world who had hit singles, and his way of making songs isn't the only way for them to become hits. Mike would spend a lot of time recording 1 song. Jimmy Jam said Mike spent an entire day on just a drum track when they were working with him. Steely Dan & the Eagles are other groups who were extreme perfectionists and spent a lot of time on 1 song doing dozens of takes. Prince generally recorded an entire song in 1 day, playing all the instruments on some of them. Prince had hit singles. The entire Beatles debut album was recorded in 1 day and that was around 12 songs. There's many many songs that have become hits that don't have melodies and you can't whistle to them, especially today's trap music such as Beyonce's 7/11 and she is nowhere near an underground act. Even on American Bandstand decades ago, the people on there would often say they liked a song because it had a good beat and they could dance to it.

of course I wasn't implying that Michael was the only artist to have pop hits. or that his method was the only way of doing things. I would appreciate it if you didn't deliberately distort my words thank you. michael is (or was) however, the focus of this discussion and section of the board (there's literally a general music section to discuss other artists). which is why my comments were centred on him, and the views he actually expressed during his lifetime in relation to what defines a hit.

I have nothing more to add. I feel as though we've already drifted..

 

[DuranDuran]

I never said that, when did I say that??? I would never say that I don't like hip hop, cause I do. Why are you talking about hip hop anyway? What's it got to do with this? I'm so confused. And the general public can like whatever they want, I don't give a rats ass

It must have been someone with a similar name. There's several "Michael's something" here. :laughing: I appollogize for thinking it was you, but the other person did say they didn't like rap. I'm talking about rap because people here appear to think that a popular song can only fit a certain formula, when that has never really been the case.

 

[DuranDuran]

of course I wasn't implying that Michael was the only artist to have pop hits. or that his method was the only way of doing things. I would appreciate it if you didn't deliberately distort my words thank you. michael is (or was) however, the focus of this discussion and section of the board (there's literally a general music section to discuss other artists). which is why my comments were centred on him, and the views he actually expressed during his lifetime in relation to what defines a hit.

I have nothing more to add. I feel as though we've already drifted..

But the comment you responded to (about James Brown) was one I made to another poster. I've always talked about other artists in this section the entire time I've been on this site, if they're relevant to a comment. I've done so on other artists threads in the other music & the Jackson family sections too and I'm not the only person here who does that.

Just because that is what Mike considered the criteria for his hits, does not make it a so for another artist and there's songs even in that era to prove it. That only applies to how he makes a hit song. Most of the time a song becomes a hit because of payola, which is what the promotional department of a record company does. They pay commercial radio stations to play songs, that's how the songs that become hits usually came from major labels who can afford to pay hundreds or thousands of radio stations. If they don't pay, it doesn't get on the radio, which is what happened with Mike's later albums in the USA. It's not generally because of how a song is made or whether a song consists of melodies, grooves, or just beats. Without payola, the public wouldn't have heard of most popular artists.

If Michael was on a small independent label instead of Epic with the same exact Thriller album, it wouldn't have sold nowhere near the same amount. The indie label wouldn't have the money, power, or worldwide reach of CBS Records. Such a label likely couldn't have afforded to pay Quincy Jones and his session guys in the first place, so the album wouldn't have been made the same way. When Prince was on Warner Brothers, he got on the radio, but when he went independent in the mid 1990s, he didn't.

 

[MJTruth]

I agree with some of what you say. I agree the initial push for Thriller was helped by the clout of Epic records but beyond that it kept selling because it was good.
Indie albums CAN be massive sellers though they need a bit more luck and natural support for its singles from stations. These days sponsored deals almost squeeze that out of mainstream stations.

I think it's true to say that bad records often will not sell no matter how much the label throw at marketing it and the labels know that. If the sales aren't there you'll see labels cutting promotion quite quickly because they know they CAN'T buy success.

so it's "swings and roundabouts" as the Brits say.