Michael Jackson's 'Bad': 34 Years Later*

That first statement rings so true for MJ, so many great unreleased records. Besides Stevie Wonder I couldn't name an artist imo with the consistency of MJ's records for like 10-15 years. It was just great song after song, and amazing album after album for him for years.

 

In the 90s I think people didnt quite understand what Prince was doing with the feud with Warners and the symbol thing. I was a huge fan and even I didn't get it. But in retrospect I think it is starting to make sense. He took on a major media corporation and everyone assumed it was self indulgence and never wondered that maybe he just was very unhappy with his major record company.

I think it does. Even records that I thought were weak (Diamons and Pearls, Come) actually stand up quite well if you give them a listen and take it into consideration that that was the era of lots of 90s cheese.

 

The first cracks becoming visible.
While there still was an element of spontanity to Thriller where Michael still seemed to be enjoying himself, on Bad it's being demolished by monstrous expectations being carried on the frail shoulders of an artist who, by this point, pretty much starts to lose it. It's a great album, without a doubt, but the psychological rot has set in and you can hear it.

 

Man I feel old. Only seems to be 2 mins since my wife & I watched the 25th documentary - and I’d like to second all the endorsements for that documentary, it really is quite in depth and keeps away from the usual popular media image they liked to portray.

Entire album is still a blast from beginning to end, even more so back in the day with the additional of Leave Me Alone. Can’t imagine the album without it now, and can still remember seeing that video for the first time. Bad as much defines 1987 for me as much as Seventh Son and INXS’ Kick did 1988. Bad is an album of its time, production especially that has lost nothing to the intervening years. That so much other strong material was written and recorded at the same time that didn’t make the album, such as Cheater, is remarkable,

 

What's sad is this idiotic impression. It's totally off-base. Neither Mike nor Prince will be remembered as crazy dugs addicts except by people who don't know or appreciate the evolvement of either artist. Prince, especially, maintained his integrity as a very good musician and entertainer - just ask anyone who attended a concert within last years of his life. Though there may have been a falloff in personal energy for both there was no falloff in terms of creativity.

 

Well, of course, but there was an objective falloff in quality. I disagree with calling MJ or Prince crazy drug addicts, I think it sells both short, because while their work in their 40s and 50s wasn't as good (not to say it was all bad, because it wasn't), it was more due to the usual suspects of a lack of checks and balances from band mates and producers. That happens to pretty much all artists in any field, so it's not abnormal.

 

That’s part of its charm.

 

I like that you responded articulately but I fundamentally disagree with your idea of "checks and balances from bandmates and producers", particularly with someone like Prince or MJ. Musicians aren't governments. Who is legitimately able to check a musician on his or her work unless they're considering record sales? Certainly that's no barometer for quality of music. You would never make such an assessment of a musician like John Coltrane, The Beatles or J.S. Bach! They led the way in terms of change and innovation, none of which would have been possible had they been looking over their shoulders to see who's approving or disapproving of whatever they happened to be working on at any given moment.

My main beef is with the influence of the market on music. It has not and never has served musicians well. People who really love music should be a bit more discerning in making judgement calls.

 

Michael at his top form.

 

The Off The Wall thread is that-a-way ----->

(Just kidding- couldn't resist). I like Bad much better than HIStory or Invincible, that is for sure but I rank it behind Off The Wall and Thriller. But that's just my opinion.

 

I get where you're coming from, but I really do think that it's important that there are other voices in the creative process - whether that be music, film (George Lucas & the Star Wars prequels spring to mind as an example of the results of a man without limits or anyone to call him out), or anything else. I think it's crucial to have artistic equals to help expand your vision (Prince initially had this with the Revolution, and Michael did with Quincy Jones), not some sort of record label hack who is pushing dance tunes with good beats, but fellow artists with merit who are there to help.

That's my opinion anyway. I just think it's crucial that there is someone in the studio to clarify and if needed condense or expand on what you're trying to say as an artist. The Beatles had that as a unit of four, and often differed on what was best - but as a result of those differences and contrasting opinions came some truly great music. If only John or Paul were allowed to dominate the band in totality, then, well, it wouldn't be as good.

 

Yes, you have a point when you're considering a highly collaborative art like the theater, for instance, which depends and thrives on the spirit of the ensemble. And in terms of the development of budding talent the influence of older/ established musicians is actually crucial. And if you're selling your music naturally you need engineers to package the material. But do you think someone like Beethoven checked his work based on what "his peers" were doing? If anything he wrote music which he knew would be a challenge for his fellow musicians, particularly his competitors, to perform! Same with musician/composers like Monk, Trane, Elliott Carter, Berg, etc... If you don't go your own way as a musician, it seems to me, you're really lost. Nothing could be less creative than following some stricture from the crowd. But musicians actually rely on one another - it's part of the process of creating music - so that's unavoidable. Prince and Mike collaborated with others often late in their careers, much to the joy of other musicians - and listeners alike. I had never heard a musician say, "Man, Mike is done." unless they were referring to his health. Ditto for Prince.

 

Sounds like a cold mountain top.

 

I bought it immediately when it came out. I still play it a lot. Great album.

 

Think how much greater it could have been if it had not been for (as Oakvale points out) Quincy Jones' influence:

Jackson wrote a reported 60 songs for the new album and recorded 30, wanting to use them all on a 3-disc set. Jones had suggested that the album be cut down to a ten-track single LP. - Wikipedia

Wonder if we'll ever get hear what Mike had originally intended. Might have been a real landmark lp instead of just a tepid chart topping follow up to Thriller (imo, of course).

 

Yeah, I would love to know what his proposed track listing for the 3 LP version would have been. I wonder if there are demos or some kind of recordings of all of those unreleased songs in some form?

 

How come all these years after his death there has been so little unreleased music?
I thought Michael had loads of stuff in the archives.

 

Because they have a finite amount of material to sell to fans and they have to make it last for as many decades as possible. We've actually gotten quite a bit of unreleased material and I'm sure more is on the way in the coming years / decades.

 

But in the decades to come the original fan base will be dead or so old they simply will not care.

 

So what? There are always new generations of fans to sell product to.

 

Very few of those have complete vocal performances.

 

Michael was still forming his identity and wasn’t in his prime as a songwriter or performer yet for Off the Wall. That came with Thriller, Bad, and Dangerous even though there was too much excess on Dangerous. I listen to “Don’t stop till you get enough” and feel like I’m listening to an oldie but I listen to “Smooth Criminal” and “Man In the Mirror” and I hear timeless tracks.

 

Erm not really. There will never again be a fan base as big as the original one, The Beatles prove that. They should get the stuff out there whilst people are still around and interested in paying for it. Future generations may only be interested in a greatest hits set and maybe a classic album. We all know that sales are dismal these days, I cant imagine there will be much of a market in 20/30 years to make it worthwhile releasing half finished stuff.

 

Yeah, it's a very shortsighted thing to say that. Younger folks today, for the most part, aren't going and traversing Elvis' catalogue. They won't be for Michael either. Unreleased songs are a very niche market mainly made up by fans, and Michael's unreleased stuff isn't exactly earthshaking anyway.