Latest on MJJC

Do ''music critics'' just plug their ears to any music that Michael did in the 90's?

analogue

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
8,323
Points
113
We've heard so called ''music critics'' say time and time again that Michael made is best work in the 80's and that no matter what he did after he could never live up to his 80's work. When i listen to Dangerous, HIStory and Blood On The Dance Floor it really makes me wonder if me and these ''critics'' are listening to the same albums. For me in a lot of ways Michael's genius grew and got even better in the 90's. Who Is It, i think is the best song that he has ever written and composed. Yes even better than Billie Jean. It's like these ''critics'' don't/refuse to listen to any of MJ's 90's work. It just seems like ''Oh this album doesn't have Billie Jean, Beat It and Thriller on it so therefore it sucks''

I've also heard some ''critics'' say ''Michael Jackson fans viewed Dangerous as a dissapointment''. Were they talking to right group of fans? Dangerous is a fan favorite
 
Yes, MJ's later work does appear to generally be reviewed as much less positive. Although this opinion in and of itself is fine of course, to each their own, I do feel that many reviewers (and people/non-fans in general for that matter) are influenced by the shift in MJ's public image and seem to be unable or unwilling to disentangle this from their opinion on the music itself. Though I think Thriller is a brilliant album, I do feel it is generally overrated in comparison to MJ's other work. Critics love to proclaim it is the greatest things Michael ever did, often mentioning the unprecedented popularity he enjoyed at the time. Dangerous, for instance, of course never sold as many copies and MJ was by that time no longer treated as the media's darling. I really get the impression that this influences the reviews of the music itself.

Another thing I've noticed among some (self-proclaimed? :) ) music purists is that MJ's songwriting abilities are extremely underrated. They have the tendency to give Quincy Jones all the credit for Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad. Often it comes across as a form of snobbery to me - they mention Quincy because they, 'as experts', know that he was MJ's producer whereas the general public might not. I also find that they generally claim that Off The Wall is Michael's best album - again, a perfectly fine opinion in its own right, but it seems like they just like to mention it because it is not the obvious choice.
 
I agree with both of the above posts. Critics personal biases against Michael influenced their critique on all his albums after Thriller. Real shame because Michael's albums have the best production of any albums out there, not to mention the vocals and all the laborious details Michael put into every song. Dangerous I believe is a masterpiece and I know a fan favorite, again these ppl have it wrong. These so called critics cannot see past his looks, the total lies and his enormous popularity, (jealousy is another human emotion not to be overlooked). But oh well, we know the truth and hopefully history will too.
 
I personally think his greatest work was in the 90s, the most artistic album being Dangerous.
 
MindCompass said:
(...)
I also find that they generally claim that Off The Wall is Michael's best album - again, a perfectly fine opinion in its own right, but it seems like they just like to mention it because it is not the obvious choice.
Click to expand...

hehe...yeah I've had that feeling too, but then again there was a time when alot of fans (in my opinion) did also. but ay it's a good album, that would (maybe) be forgotten if it was thrown out of the hat like that - and that would be shame

anyway, back on topic. Dangerous was a new sound, comparring to thiller and bad, maybe the music critics fought over who to do the review - and ended up giving it to the guy in the back who randomly listened to the thriller lp? - instead of give it to the new guy?
If you expected a soft ballad album (sorry - i do not want to hear for this - just understand the point ok) with sweet smooth vocals and a little black R'N'B touch - and ended up listening to white rock and the lyricks yelled out there - you might be shoched?

Maybe they simply gave the wrong critics the album? If Michael had continued the thriller and Bad sound he would have got a "boring label" attached to him - so maybe music critics were just getting a little tired of him? he had ben the big thing for a long time. (I know some artists do that to me - not mentioning any names)
As I remember ( i do not read album reviews that closely) Michael got good response in my country for History, the critics glad to see him back, and glad to get the posibility to talk about the music again...

I don't know - but yes... Dangerous deserves credit - it a major album, my favourite ;)
 
Music critics have always trashed Mike's music. I remember reading some reviews when Thriller was released and i was like wtf. But they had to eat their words because of the sales. When the sales stared to decline and Mike's image began to change and the rest, they had an "alibi" to trash everything concerning him. Even now you will see that those "critics" when referring to Thriller or when the album is mentioned at a list, they usually talk about the sales of it and they don't touch the music aspect of the album at all. Same thing with his post Thriller albums.Critics review those albums based on their personal bias against Mike and sometimes the sales and not the music itself. It is amazing to see it actually because it's so obvious that they burry his 90's work because they don't dig him as a person rather than the quality of the music. I mean when you have "music critics" review Paris Hilton's album more favourable than HIStory, you know that something is very wrong with them.I personally think that Mike's best work was in his post Thriller albums.
 
After Thriller Michael moved away from the ''cute love songs'' and ''fun party songs'' and started creating songs with more of a deeper message to them. Maybe ''critics'' were not ready or didn't want to except that Mike could write songs with a serious message behind them.
 
analogue said:
After Thriller Michael moved away from the ''cute love songs'' and ''fun party songs'' and started creating songs with more of a deeper message to them. Maybe ''critics'' were not ready or didn't want to except that Mike could write songs with a serious message behind them.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I really think many people feel threatened by Michael's unparalleled talents. Michael was far more than a pop singer who happened to dance extremely well. He's a phenomenal song writter. Many people just refuse to acknowledge his talents and choose to downplay his brilliance.

Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible age well. Actually, they don't age at all. They sound as fresh now as when they were just released.
 
Critics cannot be trusted. Never trust them they're stupid, no wonder some people turn they're backs on Michael. I never trusted any critics at all.
 
MindCompass said:
Yes, MJ's later work does appear to generally be reviewed as much less positive. Although this opinion in and of itself is fine of course, to each their own, I do feel that many reviewers (and people/non-fans in general for that matter) are influenced by the shift in MJ's public image and seem to be unable or unwilling to disentangle this from their opinion on the music itself. Though I think Thriller is a brilliant album, I do feel it is generally overrated in comparison to MJ's other work. Critics love to proclaim it is the greatest things Michael ever did, often mentioning the unprecedented popularity he enjoyed at the time. Dangerous, for instance, of course never sold as many copies and MJ was by that time no longer treated as the media's darling. I really get the impression that this influences the reviews of the music itself.

Another thing I've noticed among some (self-proclaimed? :) ) music purists is that MJ's songwriting abilities are extremely underrated. They have the tendency to give Quincy Jones all the credit for Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad. Often it comes across as a form of snobbery to me - they mention Quincy because they, 'as experts', know that he was MJ's producer whereas the general public might not. I also find that they generally claim that Off The Wall is Michael's best album - again, a perfectly fine opinion in its own right, but it seems like they just like to mention it because it is not the obvious choice.
Click to expand...

Great post. I agree totally as well as with the topic starter.

Also let's not forget that the media often has agendas. Sometimes journalists write what people from higher places order from them. I don't think it's any different in the music industry.

When I read such criticism of Michael's latter work, sometimes I get the impression the journalist doesn't even know what he's talking about! Sometimes it's like they don't even know those albums and songs! I mean does any critic ever mention "Who is it" at all? And I agree with the topic starter it's one of Michael's best songs ever, if not the best.

They just criticize him because it's not cool to like MJ in the 90s and 2000s. And when they cannot really criticize him they make up ridiculous reasons to slag him off. Like back in 1995 when Earth Song was released and this critic on a British TV channel mocked the song for its lyrics! He was like: "What about the elephants, have we lost their trust? How can you lose the trust of the elephants? It's ridiculous." Has he never heard of metaphors, poetry? It was so clear that he just wanted to make a reason to slag the song off, no matter what, because that was what was expected from a "cool" critic on TV. And I think this was the general attitude to MJ among critics from the early 90s on. Snobbery is the right word to this. Someone decided that MJ is "out", he's not cool any more and most critics went along with the trend, never giving him a fair chance.
 
Critics just expected far too much from him, especially after how amazing Thriller & Bad were.
 
Michael was pretty much in a lose lose situation with the ''critics'' when it came to his music after Thriller

If Michael did continue to make albums that were like the Thriller album then ''critics'' would have bashed him for not doing anything different and always repeating himself, but when he did do albums that sounded nothing like Thriller ''critics complained that he was being different and saying ''He should go back to his Thriller sound''

I remember hearing that when Mike started working on The Bad album the first thing he said was ''I don't want a Thriller 2'' and i always think ''Damn right''. There should be no need for a Thriller 2
 
analogue said:
After Thriller Michael moved away from the ''cute love songs'' and ''fun party songs'' and started creating songs with more of a deeper message to them. Maybe ''critics'' were not ready or didn't want to except that Mike could write songs with a serious message behind them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a good point too. It's like they wanted Michael to forever make fun dance songs without any deeper meaning. It's interesting that they started to criticize him when his lyrics got deeper and more meaningful. They totally trashed History for being angry. What the hell did they expect Michael to write about after he just went through? Go on and write songs like "Shake your body down to the ground" as if nothing happened? It's like they didn't like the deep messages - maybe because they were spot on? About the media, about how "they don't care about us" and everything.

If you look at today's music industry, there's hardly a mainstream song with a deeper meaning, you can hardly hear a song on the radio that could make you think. Most are just superficial love/sex songs. And this is the stuff that got hailed by critics and this is where it lead the music industry to.
 
I've noticed that the song that get's praised the most or bashed the leasy by ''critics'' on the HIstory album is You Are Not Alone. Probably because it the ''Cute love song'' of the album
 
Agree with everyone in this thread. It's one thing for music critics to say that they don't like his music in the 90s, but for some reason it annoys me more when regular people on the street say that because 1. They probably haven't listened to Dangerous and History in their entirety and 2. Because it's the "smart" thing to say. Argh so annoying!

I never cared much for the opinion of music "critics" though because only I can tell myself what I like in terms of music. They can take their opinions and shove it!
 
A lot of them are just bitter failed musician. As a musician myself i can tell you his work in the 90s is off an exceptionally high standard, flowing with creativity. Most musicians i know prefer Michael's later work, Stranger In Moscow is a particular favorite of many. It's more political and business based why they proclaim not to like it rather than actually listening to the music i'm afraid, as with much of Michael's career.
 
It's more political and business based why they proclaim not to like it rather than actually listening to the music i'm afraid, as with much of Michael's career.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this sentence?
 
kasi said:
What do you mean by this sentence?
Click to expand...

The money is in destroying the career of MJ, it was pretty much the fashion, they wanted to see him fail, it would sell more papers. Putting him in the 80s rendered him outdated to hurt sales and future sales. It was also yet another chance to get a convenient hit at the appearance. Because of this, before they touched the CD, most will have decided whether deep down they like the album or not, they will be writing a negative review.
 
MJultimatemusiclegen said:
The money is in destroying the career of MJ, it was pretty much the fashion, they wanted to see him fail, it would sell more papers. Putting him in the 80s rendered him outdated to hurt sales and future sales. It was also yet another chance to get a convenient hit at the appearance. Because of this, before they touched the CD, most will have decided whether deep down they like the album or not, they will be writing a negative review.
Click to expand...


Thank you. Yes, i see what you mean and i fully agree with it
 
JamesDean said:
If you expected a soft ballad album (sorry - i do not want to hear for this - just understand the point ok) with sweet smooth vocals and a little black R'N'B touch - and ended up listening to white rock and the lyricks yelled out there - you might be shoched?

If Michael had continued the thriller and Bad sound he would have got a "boring label" attached to him - I don't know - but yes... Dangerous deserves credit - it a major album, my favourite ;)
Click to expand...

At first when he dropped Quincy Jones I thought "oh no not a good idea" but then once I reflected on it I had to give it to Michael, he after all was the genius. Why continue using the same producer for all his albums (ala Janet) and having the chance to get stuck with the same boring sound. What he did was he wanted to expand and explore new horizons, so he did and that was his creation called DANGEROUS. Dangerous was totally different than anything he's ever done, and it threw me off too at first, but then I totally loved it! Michael took the risk of doing something different and I am sooo glad he did. I know all his fans and unbiased musicians agree. Why take the easy road? why not take a walk in the wild side? he he quoting Michael on that.

Unfortunately, even if Michael would have continued with Quincy and continued with the same sound critics would HAVE CRITICIZED his for being boring and not taking a risk on a new sound. So basically Michael couldn't win either way. History was also a wonderful creation. He put his strong feelings about all the nonsense going on into his music. And why not? Isn't music supposed to be an outlet for your feelings, didn't Alanis Morrissette do the same with her failed romances- wasn't she angry in that album? But of course her music was highly critically acclaimed, but Michael's was trashed? It's ridiculous! I thought Dangerous and HISTORY were amazing albums because it showed Michael's most artistic and creative genius, and his most introspective and personal perspective on his real life issues he was going through at the time. So it wasn't all fun and games, so what, didn't Picasso have his "blue period"? IMO very few and I mean very few critics if at all have it right.
 
analogue said:
I've noticed that the song that get's praised the most or bashed the leasy by ''critics'' on the HIstory album is You Are Not Alone. Probably because it the ''Cute love song'' of the album
Click to expand...

Yep. YANA is one of my least favourite MJ songs and definitely the least favourite of his hits. I could never understand how that was the only song from History that went Nr 1 in the US, when there are so much better songs on that album! Musically, lyrically, everything. Cute love song that doesn't make you think - yes. It seems that's what critics and the public want. (I guess it also had to do with that it was written by R. Kelly who was hip at the moment.)
 
HIStory had the gems that were Stranger in Moscow and TDCAU-two phenomenal songs so yes, Michael's 90s work is criminally underated. Dangerous is many people's favoruite album and I love how it was so different. It will always have a special place in my heart due to it being the first album that I was obsessed with! I demmanded my dad play it every time we got in the car, and the hours spent staring at the cover!
 
Most of the reviews I've read have nothing to do with music. There's enough going on in almost every song on Dangerous and History to write multiple pages about each song. Despite that, the "professional critics" find room to talk about plastic surgery and allegations in short 2-3 paragraph reviews and then wrap things up by giving the album a C or whatever. Stranger in Moscow and later Butterflies and Whatever happens are among his best songs ever. Dangerous is probably my favorite MJ album, with the exception of HTW and Gone Too Soon - no offense to people that like those :).
 
Last edited:
Stranger In Moscow is one of the best songs ever. But it's fun that a lot of socalled music experts always forget what Michael did of songs in the 90's.
 
Wow, I agree with basically this entire thread. Yep. I absolutely adore Dangerous and HIStory and could never figure out what the heck the "critics" were listening to (seemingly not the same album as I was hearing!) as they bashed or simply underrated music that was truly stunning. Listening to these albums today they still sound stunning, like they were just made yesterday. The general public seem to put too much emphasis on the 80's where Michael is concerned and it always annoys me. Not that the 80's weren't amazing, and it's hard to argue with sales numbers like Thriller, but his music and artistry matured wonderfully in the 90's. Someone here mentioned fluffy pop love songs versus songs with a message. Yes, totally! That's one thing I always admired so much about Michael. He tackled actual issues and other topics. I mean, even back in the 80's, and this thankfully continued and expanded in the 90's. Did I mention I love Dangerous and HIStory?

respect77 said:
Yep. YANA is one of my least favourite MJ songs and definitely the least favourite of his hits. I could never understand how that was the only song from History that went Nr 1 in the US, when there are so much better songs on that album! Musically, lyrically, everything. Cute love song that doesn't make you think - yes. It seems that's what critics and the public want. (I guess it also had to do with that it was written by R. Kelly who was hip at the moment.)
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, what the public wants seemingly. Or at least the majority do.
[Reading your post made me think of "Radio Friendly Song" by comedian Jon LaJoie, lol. It's hilarious, but warning -- very strong language, so don't search for it on youtube if easily offended. Perhaps I shouldn't post it here ;) ]

Sophielo said:
HIStory had the gems that were Stranger in Moscow and TDCAU-two phenomenal songs so yes, Michael's 90s work is criminally underated. Dangerous is many people's favoruite album and I love how it was so different. It will always have a special place in my heart due to it being the first album that I was obsessed with! I demmanded my dad play it every time we got in the car, and the hours spent staring at the cover!
Click to expand...
"criminally underated" - just had to quote for that! Exactly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top