Michael Jackson's "Thriller" - It was Toto Album...

Human Nature was drastically changed from the demo once Michael got a hold of it. He's making it sound like they composed the album, which they didn't - they were the session musicians.

 

This is what is the most ridiculous part of Luke's claim, that TOTO as studio musicians and as a band, have been overlooked in his opinion, as it was them, (TOTO), who turned down the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, one of the biggest music magazines and they are proud about the fact, that they are the only rock band to ever turn down the cover, as if it was a GOOD career move?

 

You have a point here. Allan Holdsworth is a genius but, as they often say, you live or die by material;
you can be a top musician but without the "right" tunes you're nothing. I'll take Holdsworth's playing vs Britney's voice any day but that weak voice had, in addition to a pretty face and a nice body, a set of songs that people liked and bought.

 

The unspoken 'lack of respect' for Toto comes from the fact that you would be hard-pressed to find any fans of rock'n'roll/underground music back in the 1980's who didn't think Toto to be terribly cheezy. That's all it is IMHO.

 

His beef is legit. Toto was on everything back in the day, on tons of highly influential records. As they look back at their 'legacy' Toto is finding itself judged on the name-brand material and less on their session contributions. I suppose that, with much of Toto's output rightly maligned (following IV), they'd prefer to be judged on the full output. Fair enough -- they could tour their session hits and reclaim some of that legacy.

 

Right. We're on a huge tangent now, but the whole issue of what constitutes a "nice song" is an interesting side discussion. For me, I find a jazzy tune like Holdsworth's "Tokyo Dream" very accessible and hook-filled. To others, it's dissonant noise (although not nearly as dissonant as some music). When thinking of great hooks in music, there's an element of doing something familiar but in just enough of a different style to make it sound a little unique. In that sense, I think what constitutes a hook-filled song is limited by people's own limited listening habits. There's no superiority in it, but those of us who hav listened far and wide (have a bigger sonic palette), tend to hear hooks where others do not.

 

They've done Human Nature before, but I think they have too much integrity to do a Toto Session Review type of show. Although frankly, if they had the right mix of vocalists to pull it off, I think it would be pretty interesting. What would be cool would be a box set of their "greatest session hits." There are two volumes of Jeff Porcaro sessions out on CD in Japan. Those just scratch the surface and concentrate mainly on West Coast type of material. A wide-net approach could be really interesting (and a licensing nightmare).

 

Lyrically, I get that but musically . . . well . . . let's just say that I find the rather limiting musical scope of some underground music fans to be almost more about personal issues and self-definition than it is about music. Those aren't meant to be fighting words, but it's just almost inconceivable to me that people could listen to the playing of Jeff Porcaro (bursting with energy and inspiration and feel in just about every bar) and not get that it's great. And I really like a lot of heavy and aggressive rock, too.

 

I had a similar experience: it was during the 90's and they were playing an old video of Steely Dan, playing live in a TV show ("Do It Again" and "Reelin' In The Years")... i was amazed, the fantastic guitar players, the music, everything...but all my friends (girls and boys) had to say about is how ugly the singer (Donald Fagen) was. It was great when you didn't have to be a poster boy to be successful in the music biz.

 

It's a Michael Jackson album.

 

Much like the perception of Rush until the very recent past. "Sure, they're great musicians, but their songs are stupid - and that voice!", etc.

 

Agreed, but rock'n'roll writers/critics consider bands like Toto & their ilk to be an example of what NOT to do. I mean, let's face it, their isn't a music writer out there who's looking for 'the new Toto'.

 

they were session musicians and did their job very well.
I think they got a generous reward.
it's pop music and the big brand-icon-artist has a whole group of people who are "behind the scenes".

 

Michael Jackson is the reason I bought the album.

 

So much hate/dislike for such a great band and musicians. Hate all you want but they were and still are pretty successful.

Pat

 

Totally completely unrelated, this interview was recorded at the Hotel American in Amsterdam, Netherlands. I drove him there, he stayed at another hotel.

 

"What makes I bless the rain down in Africa so bad?"

 

I think I get what he's saying. There's nothing to do with putting their name on the cover like "Michael Jackson feat. TOTO - Thriller", but more in the sense that the band, and their individual members, really did play on a TON of records and done some amazing work, but not only there's almost nobody mentioning that, but instead there's a ton of people to mock Toto as a band.

I think, at least around the internet, I've seen more videos and texts of people mocking the lyrics to "Africa" than anyone talking about how great these guys were/are as musicians and mentioning at least part of all that massive work they did with other artists.

 

I didn't. But I never bought Thriller either, until my daughter developed a Michael Jackson interest a couple of years ago.

 

Good points made here.

a) Many music fans are less about the music and more about 'cool factor'. They rely on associations with external manifestations of 'cool' in an effort to promote their own cool-agenda!
b) And when Toto music became incredibly cheesy, regardless of the quality of musicianship, there went the in-crowd.

Frankly, I lost interest after IV also. The material can be cringe-inducingly bad. They stopped pushing forward and starting chasing trends (not unlike Duran Duran after 1986). And they've been judged for it (as they should be).

One pretty much has to promote their legacy - and if Lukather wants to be as well known for Thriller as he is IV he needs to take that show on the road. Most folks dont care who the backup men were.

 

It's kind of funny reading all these comments. I used to work with most of these guys back in the 70s. I remember them talking about starting the band and wondering how well a band of studio cats would do.

In any event, they were on tons of albums whether credited or not. They generally made triple scale which was like a grand a day back then and they were booked pretty heavily. They should have no reason to feel bad.

 

I always read the liner notes and something I figured everyone knew.

It is pretty amazing how many albums they had to do with.

 

Is there a list or something of the hit songs the Totos played on?

 

http://www.stevelukather.com/music/discography.aspx?page=1

That's just Lukather, but it's a start

 

wikipedia