MotownSubdivision said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

It's not only album sales. As I said, MJ went from a US Stadium Tour with Victory to Arena Tours with Bad. His fan base was diminished greatly to the point he couldn't fill 45-50 thousand capacity football stadiums in America within just three years. That is a fair measure of an artist's popularity. He was still massive in Europe where he sold out venues like Wembley Stadium many times over. It was difficult for MJ to overcome his image problems in America from 1987 onward...which included the perception he was strange and addicted to cosmetic surgery.

[Edited 12/1/15 19:54pm]

Source? I'm pretty sure every show in the US during the Bad Tour sold out.

During the Victory Tour, MJ could sell out stadiums in America. During the Bad Tour he was still capable of selling out hockey and basketball arenas with capacity of 17-19 thousand. But he could still sell out statiums like Wembley during the Bad Tour. Stadiums > Arenas and MJ was no longer able to sell out Stadiums in America during the Bad Era. Not a single Stadium in his Bad Tour nor one Canadian date. That is a massive decline in support.

Here are the tour dates for the Victory Tour according to Wikipedia:

[Edited 12/2/15 11:37am]

[Edited 12/2/15 11:39am]

MichaelJackson5 said:

Scorp said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

January 16, 1989	Los Angeles	United States	Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena
January 17, 1989
January 18, 1989
January 26, 1989
January 27, 1989

Sure looks like proof to me

Word.

[Edited 12/2/15 11:56am]

Scorp said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

January 16, 1989	Los Angeles	United States	Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena
January 17, 1989
January 18, 1989
January 26, 1989
January 27, 1989

Sure looks like proof to me

Conclusive proof of his decline. He was able to book Dodgers Stadium for 5 shows in 1984 but could only manage 6 shows for the Bad Tour at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena.

From Wikipedia:

The Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena seats up to 16,740 for boxing/wrestling, 16,161 for basketball, and 14,546 for hockey. There are 12,389 fixed upper-level, theatre-type seats and arena-level seating which varies by sport.

Dodger Stadium is the only current MLB park (excluding the most recently built parks) that has never increased its capacity. It has historically held 56,000 fans, due to a conditional-use permit limiting its capacity.

[Edited 12/2/15 12:00pm]

What exactly does Michael Jackson tours or how many records he sold have to do with The Commodores or Lionel? Now if the Jackson 5 tour where The Commodores was the opening act was discussed, that would make more sense.

MickyDolenz said:

What exactly does Michael Jackson tours or how many records he sold have to do with The Commodores or Lionel? Now if the Jackson 5 tour where The Commodores was the opening act was discussed, that would make more sense.

Because both followed the same path. Lional lost the bulk of his fans going full pop (not to mention poor pop) with Dancing on the Ceiling and ending up more of an international artist. Jackson lost the bulk of his fans a year later with Bad which also was pure pop (but way better than DotC) and also ended up becoming more of an international artist. By the 1990s, both artists were a shadow of what they were during their hey day and relied on European support to a greater extent than in the 80s. Both lost a great deal of respect in America despite collaborating on one of the biggest singles in history..We Are The World, and both were destined for much greater success than they achieved post-Can't Slow Down and post-Thriller.

vainandy said:

As with any artist, when you try to appeal to too many groups of people, the music must be weakened because not everyone has the good taste to jam hard. I see it like this, artists should make the baddest jams possible for their core audience and if other groups of people like them, fine, and if they don't, well, fuck 'em.

They can't make the big money that way, and people always forget that music acts work for the record company, not the other way around. They're employees of the label. Most people who work at jobs can't tell the boss what they want to do, so why do they think it's different for an entertainer? The label can drop the act at anytime or keep them in limbo and not release their music like Teena Marie & Tori Amos. Teena had to take Motown to court to get out of her contract. Labels also sometimes release albums to fail on purpose for a tax writeoff or to shut up complaining employees.

MickyDolenz said:

phunkdaddy said:

There are certain acts like Beyoncé,Rihanna,Taylor Swift, and Kanye that can tell their label what they want in their product and if they disagree with the label can go to another label immediately and get signed because of their track record.

They can't go anywhere if they're under contract. Look at what happened to George Michael when he tried to sue Sony. Nothing, but him spending money on lawyers for years. George was a big act. Maybe they can if they or a label they want to go to buy out the contract, but I think a Beyoncé would have to pay a lot of money. Michael Bivins said that Puff Daddy helped to get them out of their contract with MCA to sign with him. Acts who were under Clive Davis during his entire career have said he was controlling and would tell them what to record. If acts self release their music, that's the only way they can have complete control.

Wow, people really went off the deep end on this one. Bringing it back to the original topic, the Commodores were one of the very finest funk bands of the 1970s, up there with the likes of Earth, Wind and Fire, Ohio Players and Isley Brothers. I was very bummed when they went the pop route and Three Times a Lady signaled the beginning of the downfall to me. Slippery When Wet and Fancy Dancer are among the hottest cuts but their entire albums from their debut through most their Live album are stellar IMO. I love Sweet Love, Zoom and High on Sunshine and wish they could have stuck to that type of sound for their mellower tracks. But my all-time favorite cut from them is the little-known Gimme My Mule from the Moving On album. I never grow tired of that amazing groove! I saw them play UCLA's Pauley Pavilion in the 1978-80 timeframe (don't remember exact year) and it was a strong show. I am not a fan of Lionel Richie's solo work.

HardcoreJollies said:

MickyDolenz said:

vainandy said:

As with any artist, when you try to appeal to too many groups of people, the music must be weakened because not everyone has the good taste to jam hard. I see it like this, artists should make the baddest jams possible for their core audience and if other groups of people like them, fine, and if they don't, well, fuck 'em.

They can't make the big money that way, and people always forget that music acts work for the record company, not the other way around. They're employees of the label. Most people who work at jobs can't tell the boss what they want to do, so why do they think it's different for an entertainer? The label can drop the act at anytime or keep them in limbo and not release their music like Teena Marie & Tori Amos. Teena had to take Motown to court to get out of her contract. Labels also sometimes release albums to fail on purpose for a tax writeoff or to shut up complaining employees.

Uh...and how long have you known me now? And in all those years, when have you ever known Andy to give a damn whether they make big money or not? Why would I make a statement like they should make the baddest jams possible for their core audience and not give a damn if any other audiences like it if I was concerned with how much money they make? That's their problem, not mine.

.

As for them being employees of the record label, yeah, that's true. So all R&B acts were expected by the labels to water down their music for a crossover hit? Was Solar Records telling Shalamar, Lakeside, The Whispers, Dynasty, and Midnight Star that if they didn't get a huge crossover hit, they were going to drop them? Did Mercury Records threaten The Barkays, Con-Funk-Shun, The Gap Band, and their other funk acts that they had better crossover or get dropped? Or how about Atlantic Records and Kleeer or MCA Records and Al Hudson and One Way or Bill Summers and Summers Heat? Apparently not, because they kept putting out album after album each year.

.

As for nowadays, yes, I would say you are probably definitely right that a label would threaten to drop an R&B act unless they have a big crossover hit because there's no such thing as a hardcore genre like funk anymore with it's own audience because of all the watering down and selling out in the past. But as for back then, apparently they were expected to achieve a certain amount of success within their own genre and true artists seemed to be fine with it. It's greed that killed good music.

.

Oh my God, I'm just talking about R&B here. Do you honestly think the country/western acts were being told by their label that they had better get a crossover pop hit or get dropped?

phunkdaddy said:

MickyDolenz said:

They can't make the big money that way, and people always forget that music acts work for the record company, not the other way around. They're employees of the label. Most people who work at jobs can't tell the boss what they want to do, so why do they think it's different for an entertainer?The label can drop the act at anytime or keep them in limbo and not release their music like Teena Marie & Tori Amos. Teena had to take Motown to court to get out of her contract. Labels also sometimes release albums to fail on purpose for a tax writeoff or to shut up complaining employees.

Not necessarily true. There were a lot of veteran acts from the 70's and 80's who had creative control of their music. You think any record exec would tell Maurice White, The Isleys, Maze what to do in the studio and turn it in especially when they are successful. I remember watching an interview with the Barkays years ago(less successful selling act)where Mercury was great at giving them creative control and letting them turn any record in which is why they lasted 10 plus years on the label. Things are different in the music industry nowadays because it's no longer solely based on talent. I'm not so sure you can compare all music artists to everyday working people. There are certain acts like Beyoncé,Rihanna,Taylor Swift, and Kanye that can tell their label what they want in their product and if they disagree with the label can go to another label immediately and get signed because of their track record.

You damn right. And it's totally different now because damn near everything is either crossover, or an attempt at crossing over. That comes from decades of selling out from artists from the late 1980s up to today. Each decade since became worse and worse to the point that everything is now either pop or adult contemporary unless you go into the underground.

vainandy said:

As for them being employees of the record label, yeah, that's true. So all R&B acts were expected by the labels to water down their music for a crossover hit? Was Solar Records telling Shalamar, Lakeside, The Whispers, Dynasty, and Midnight Star that if they didn't get a huge crossover hit, they were going to drop them? Did Mercury Records threaten The Barkays, Con-Funk-Shun, The Gap Band, and their other funk acts that they had better crossover or get dropped? Or how about Atlantic Records and Kleeer or MCA Records and Al Hudson and One Way or Bill Summers and Summers Heat? Apparently not, because they kept putting out album after album each year.

.

Oh my God, I'm just talking about R&B here. Do you honestly think the country/western acts were being told by their label that they had better get a crossover pop hit or get dropped?

I didn't say anyone had to crossover or else. But crossing over was a goal, especially when Thriller became a big thing. Why do you think Rick James was complaining about not getting on MTV? If not getting the larger white pop audience wasn't important, why would he care about his videos being played on MTV? The later Video Soul on BET was enough to reach an R&B audience. Remember the labels was beginning to stop signing R&B horn bands in the 1980s and the sound clanged to synth electrofunk and the rock horn bands like Chicago became known for AC power ballads. Groups like Cameo downsized and EWF popularity dropped. Kool & The Gang was pretty much the only one of the funk bands who really reached a crossover audience in the 1980s in that their albums was selling pretty good. The others might have got a hit song or 2 like Word Up or Oh Sheila.

.

There was crossover country in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A major TV network would not have given Mandrell Sisters a prime time variety show if they did not have crossover potential nor recruited Kenny Rogers to make those Gambler movies. Their show did not just have country acts like Hee Haw & Pop Goes The Country which were both syndicated, not network. Pop Goes The Country itself focused more on pop sounding country acts (although they didn't necessarily crossover to the pop charts), hence the name of the show. Kenny Rogers, Crystal Gayle, Ronnie Milsap, & Eddie Rabbitt had a more crossover sound which in some cases was R&B flavored. Ronnie started out as an R&B singer in the 1960s and switched to country in the 1980s. Barbara Mandrell remade several R&B hits. Dolly Parton & Ronnie Milsap released disco songs. Dukes Of Hazzard, Smokey & The Bandit, BJ & The Bear, Sherriff Lobo, Urban Cowboy, and CB radios all reached a mainstream audience and were big hit TV shows & movies. There was even a CB episode on Good Times. Dallas had a country flavor to it, although set in a city. JR Ewing always wore cowboy hats. Willie Nelson did a duet with Julio Iglesias. I watched an interview with The Oak Ridge Boys once and they were saying that when Elvira crossed over and hit the pop Top 10, their label wanted them to do more songs like that to reach the Top 40. That's probably why a big deal was made about Randy Travis becoming a hit with a more traditional country sound.

.

Solar Records was not a major, they were a R&B label like Sugarhill was a rap label. That was their only focus. But I bet they wasn't mad when Babyface later reached a crossover audience. That has pretty much always been the case (ig. Chess, Sun, Checker, Stax, Atlantic) until a major either took their their biggest acts or bought out the label. When Aretha Franklin signed to a major, Columbia, they didn't have her recording R&B or gospel. She was doing showtunes, standards, and jazz. Warner Brothers probably spent more money to promote Rod Stewart or Christopher Cross than to promote The Time, Zapp, & Chaka Khan. R&B didn't always get the same attention at the majors and usually had a separate department. George Benson & Al Jarreau was on Warners and they had crossover hits. Al sang the theme song to Moonlighting. Can't get more mainstream than that. Lionel Richie was on Motown and their goal from the beginning was "The Sound Of Young America" not "The Sound Of Black America". Really by the 1980s many of the people behind the scenes at Motown were white. Berry Gordy was partly a figurehead, he wasn't as involved with the day to day running of the company like he was in the 1960s and then he sold it in the late 1980s.

MotownSubdivision said:

Waiting for the Lionel haters to show up here and whine about how he sucks because he didn't only make funk music his entire career.

Here I am.


I thought Mr. Richie post Commodors'e music was chessy as hell. I enjoyed a few of Richie's solo songs, but for the most part... his solo disography was corny and dull has as watching flat paint drying. Funk music is beside the point, the guy's music was at , best mediocre. For those who enjoyed Richei's solo stuff fine but I thought his solo career smelled and sucked more than rotten eggs.

=======================================

[Edited 12/4/15 9:09am]

is 3 times a lady.. ..abiout a 3 INPUT lady?????

TD3 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Waiting for the Lionel haters to show up here and whine about how he sucks because he didn't only make funk music his entire career.

Here I am.


I thought Mr. Richie post Commodors'e music was chessy as hell. I enjoyed a few of Richie's solo songs, but for the most part... his solo disography was corny and dull has as watching flat paint drying. Funk music is beside the point, the guy's music was at , best mediocre. For those who enjoyed Richei's solo stuff fine but I thought his solo career smelled and sucked more than rotten eggs.

=======================================

[Edited 12/4/15 9:09am]

Damn

TD3 said:

TD3 said:

Bottom line some us liked Lionel with the Commodores more so than Lionel on his own.

If that hurts some folks feelings so what. I'll say what the fuck I wanna say about his

solo career.

phunkdaddy said:

MotownSubdivision said:

phunkdaddy said:

MotownSubdivision said:

OK. That's wasn't my point. If you don't like his solo material, fine but my issue with most of the complaints I've seen is that it seems people didn't like how he didn't stick to one type of genre [funk] his whole career when he's proven to be a versatile singer. My feelings are fine but just like you, I'll say whatever I want in regards to this subject as well. It's a two-way street.

Well the title of the the thread suggested you would get varied opinions so it's really not a shock one way or another.

Varied opinions were going to occur even if the topic title was worded differently.

SoulAlive said:

The Commodores were great in the 70s....one of the finest R&B/funk bands of that era.

Yep, that's when Lionel was at his best. Then he lost his funk and started making boring-ass elevator music.