After Thriller was Michael in a lose lose situation?

[analogue]

After Thriller it seemed like whatever Michael did people would critise him for it. If he made an album that sounded like Thriller people would have said ''Oh can't he do anything different? He needs to let go of Thriller allready'' but then if he did do something different (Like he actually did do) people would have said ''Why is doing this? He needs to go back to his Thriller sound''

It was like he was damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

 

[Gozer]

I think all artists has an album like that, honestly. Whatever any artist does, it will always be compared to their greatest success.

 

[marebear]

I think so and it was not his fault. He did what you should and that was grow as an artist and use his influence to make a difference. Michael didn't define himself by Thriller that's what others did. You see it now. I have friends who don't know his work from History and on. They think this is when he had good music but they don't listen to anything past that. It's always hard to top your best selling album but his work got better and he grew as a person. People want to ignore that to me it seems.

 

[PurdyYungThang84]

He created a monster, even Michael himself said that he can't seem to out-do it... :/

 

[HIStory]

I think all artists has an album like that, honestly. Whatever any artist does, it will always be compared to their greatest success.

Yes, but it was held against Michael more than anyone else.

For example, I looked into the discography of Pink Floyd the other day. If people say Michael did not create anything substantial after the 80s, just because his sales weren't that good, then why don't they say the same about Pink Floyd? They are considered the gods of rock, but in actuality, they had two successful albums and that's it. Dark Side of The Moon sold about 15-20 million in the States and The Wall 11 million, but the rest of their albums sold like 2-4 million. They could never achieve the same success afterwards. So why is it only Michael who is considered a "has-been" and a flop who was only able two create 2-3 good albums, but after that declined? (It's not even true, because most fans consider Dangerous his best album, not even something from the 80s.)

So while I think it's a common phenomenon for anyone who has an exceptionally successful album, but I think critics deliberately acted as if it was only true for Michael and their sheep readers bought this narrative about Michael's career.

 

[PurdyYungThang84]

Yes, but it was held against Michael more than anyone else.

For example, I looked into the discography of Pink Floyd the other day. If people say Michael did not create anything substantial after the 80s, just because his sales weren't that good, then why don't they say the same about Pink Floyd? They are considered the gods of rock, but in actuality, they had two successful albums and that's it. Dark Side of The Moon sold about 15-20 million in the States and The Wall 11 million, but the rest of their albums sold like 2-4 million. They could never achieve the same success afterwards. So why is it only Michael who is considered a "has-been" and a flop who was only able two create 2-3 good albums, but after that declined? (It's not even true, because most fans consider Dangerous his best album, not even something from the 80s.)

So while I think it's a common phenomenon for anyone who has an exceptionally successful album, but I think critics deliberately acted as if it was only true for Michael and their sheep readers bought this narrative about Michael's career.

On top of that, there has been no music artist in history that stays at the height of their success for their entire careers lol. Just because you don't keep surpassing your own peaks, doesn't make you not successful....

And you gotta keep in mind that certain albums become so successful because you capture a feeling of the time period that everyone can grab on to. The same variables in society (economic climate, the sound of popular music at the time, what people want to hear vs. what they're tired of hearing, etc.) and how Michael's sound and ideas may have evolved, will never be exactly the same again; those two things may have lined up again, but not as seamlessly as they did with Thriller. It's virtually impossible to replicate great timing, nevermind having the perfect work of art ready for that elusive time window...