I don't know it seems like a somewhat fair question.
One could ask if had the Beatles not come out would the girl groups of the 60's had thrived throughout the decade?
Did The Beatles disbanding clear the way for Stevie Wonder in the 70's?
Maybe the girl groups ran thier course.
More obviously The beatles and Stevie had nothing to do with each other but...
The general zeitgiest consensus is that everyone was always waiting for "Purple Rain 2" and at least a "grown up" album from Michael. The musical landscape quite possibly could've changed.
I don't know it seems like a somewhat fair question.
One could ask if had the Beatles not come out would the girl groups of the 60's had thrived throughout the decade?
Did The Beatles disbanding clear the way for Stevie Wonder in the 70's?
Maybe the girl groups ran thier course.
More obviously The beatles and Stevie had nothing to do with each other but...
The general zeitgiest consensus is that everyone was always waiting for "Purple Rain 2" and at least a "grown up" album from Michael. The musical landscape quite possibly could've changed.
It's new innovations and change that brings about a shift in popular culture, not the re-treading of old ground. Your Beatles example actually answers your own question for you. The Beatles didn't keep repeating themselves with Help! version 2 and so on; they moved forward, changed styles, developed as artists, took artistic risks.... and it was THAT development and pushing forward that helped the music landscape change. Shan-na-na girl groups and many old Rock n Roll artists fell by the wayside exactly BECAUSE they kept re-treading old ground and didn't move with the times and change of musical tastes that The Beatles were a part of (along with any other fine 60's acts).
The Beatles are my favourite group of all time, but as you indicated, I see no relationship between their disbanding and Stevie Wonder or a Marvin Gaye starting to shine artistically. Soul/funk/R&B call it what you will developed and changed through the late 60's and early 70's with people such as Curtis Mayfield front and centre. Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye both changed with the times and outgrew their 60's Motown sound, and it's down to their own pushing forward and developing that they succeeded to such a great artistic and commercial degrees... not because The Beatles were no longer releasing records, in a completely different genre of music.
Rap, like Punk, Rock, Rock N Roll and Hip-hop did what it was supposed to do; it shook the music tree hard and the deadwood fell away. I don't really listen to rap, but it needed to happen, just as rock music did. Something new needed to come along and change the landscape, or the charts and music would never, ever have changed, and Phil Collins and George Michael would still be topping the charts. A new generation needed new sounds and new voices to speak directly to THEM, and all a PR2 or Thriller 2 would have achieved would be to hasten the need for that change, because new kids coming through don't want sloppy seconds of what their older siblings had, they want their own time and music.... and rap is that, love it or loathe it.
Purple Rain 2 or Thriller 2 might have sold by the truckload to their existing fans, but a constant repeating of old glories would have seen both artists become dinosaurs to the younger market, and rap would probably only have come through even quicker.
By the way, there's no such thing as an unfair question
Excellent answer, Yewdale. Prince already hit it big with Purple Rain, so releasing a second album that sounded just like it, wouldn't have changed anybody's mind about him. The fact that he released something completely different was exactly what made him so interesting! And influential. As for a "grown up" album by Michael Jackson, that would have been exactly the knd of thing that would have kept me listening to him. I liked Bad (I was 16 at the time), but totally lost interest as I grew older. He always sounded like a teeny-bop idol to me, not an artist you van take seriously. All those stories about a chimpanzee for a pet and sleeping in an oxygen tank (true or not) didn't help. And that was before the really bad stories came out...
I don't know it seems like a somewhat fair question.
One could ask if had the Beatles not come out would the girl groups of the 60's had thrived throughout the decade?
Did The Beatles disbanding clear the way for Stevie Wonder in the 70's?
Maybe the girl groups ran thier course.
More obviously The beatles and Stevie had nothing to do with each other but...
The general zeitgiest consensus is that everyone was always waiting for "Purple Rain 2" and at least a "grown up" album from Michael. The musical landscape quite possibly could've changed.
It's new innovations and change that brings about a shift in popular culture, not the re-treading of old ground. Your Beatles example actually answers your own question for you. The Beatles didn't keep repeating themselves with Help! version 2 and so on; they moved forward, changed styles, developed as artists, took artistic risks.... and it was THAT development and pushing forward that helped the music landscape change. Shan-na-na girl groups and many old Rock n Roll artists fell by the wayside exactly BECAUSE they kept re-treading old ground and didn't move with the times and change of musical tastes that The Beatles were a part of (along with any other fine 60's acts).
The Beatles are my favourite group of all time, but as you indicated, I see no relationship between their disbanding and Stevie Wonder or a Marvin Gaye starting to shine artistically. Soul/funk/R&B call it what you will developed and changed through the late 60's and early 70's with people such as Curtis Mayfield front and centre. Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye both changed with the times and outgrew their 60's Motown sound, and it's down to their own pushing forward and developing that they succeeded to such a great artistic and commercial degrees... not because The Beatles were no longer releasing records, in a completely different genre of music.
Rap, like Punk, Rock, Rock N Roll and Hip-hop did what it was supposed to do; it shook the music tree hard and the deadwood fell away. I don't really listen to rap, but it needed to happen, just as rock music did. Something new needed to come along and change the landscape, or the charts and music would never, ever have changed, and Phil Collins and George Michael would still be topping the charts. A new generation needed new sounds and new voices to speak directly to THEM, and all a PR2 or Thriller 2 would have achieved would be to hasten the need for that change, because new kids coming through don't want sloppy seconds of what their older siblings had, they want their own time and music.... and rap is that, love it or loathe it.
Purple Rain 2 or Thriller 2 might have sold by the truckload to their existing fans, but a constant repeating of old glories would have seen both artists become dinosaurs to the younger market, and rap would probably only have come through even quicker.
By the way, there's no such thing as an unfair question
>
Exceptional analysis.
The key point you made was existing fans. Of course they'd do well, in the same way I assume a new Eagles throwback album would do.
As for the girl groups, I can think of The Supremes, and the stellar work of producers Holland-Dozier-Holland, who transcended their genre and actually diversified in the way you specified.
Prince was all about innovation, creativity and transcending barriers. I dont´think a PR 2 would be coherent... I´m glad he released ATWIAD, a totally different path.
It's new innovations and change that brings about a shift in popular culture, not the re-treading of old ground. Your Beatles example actually answers your own question for you. The Beatles didn't keep repeating themselves with Help! version 2 and so on; they moved forward, changed styles, developed as artists, took artistic risks.... and it was THAT development and pushing forward that helped the music landscape change. Shan-na-na girl groups and many old Rock n Roll artists fell by the wayside exactly BECAUSE they kept re-treading old ground and didn't move with the times and change of musical tastes that The Beatles were a part of (along with any other fine 60's acts).
The Beatles are my favourite group of all time, but as you indicated, I see no relationship between their disbanding and Stevie Wonder or a Marvin Gaye starting to shine artistically. Soul/funk/R&B call it what you will developed and changed through the late 60's and early 70's with people such as Curtis Mayfield front and centre. Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye both changed with the times and outgrew their 60's Motown sound, and it's down to their own pushing forward and developing that they succeeded to such a great artistic and commercial degrees... not because The Beatles were no longer releasing records, in a completely different genre of music.
Rap, like Punk, Rock, Rock N Roll and Hip-hop did what it was supposed to do; it shook the music tree hard and the deadwood fell away. I don't really listen to rap, but it needed to happen, just as rock music did. Something new needed to come along and change the landscape, or the charts and music would never, ever have changed, and Phil Collins and George Michael would still be topping the charts. A new generation needed new sounds and new voices to speak directly to THEM, and all a PR2 or Thriller 2 would have achieved would be to hasten the need for that change, because new kids coming through don't want sloppy seconds of what their older siblings had, they want their own time and music.... and rap is that, love it or loathe it.
Purple Rain 2 or Thriller 2 might have sold by the truckload to their existing fans, but a constant repeating of old glories would have seen both artists become dinosaurs to the younger market, and rap would probably only have come through even quicker.
By the way, there's no such thing as an unfair question
>
Exceptional analysis.
The key point you made was existing fans. Of course they'd do well, in the same way I assume a new Eagles throwback album would do.
As for the girl groups, I can think of The Supremes, and the stellar work of producers Holland-Dozier-Holland, who transcended their genre and actually diversified in the way you specified.
Thanks for that. Oh, don't start me off on Holland-Dozier-Holland or we'll be here all night. I'm a huge fan of their work, and especially their later work at the Invictus label. And I was one of the guilty parties who bought The Eagles throwback album (Long Road out of Eden).
Excellent answer, Yewdale. Prince already hit it big with Purple Rain, so releasing a second album that sounded just like it, wouldn't have changed anybody's mind about him. The fact that he released something completely different was exactly what made him so interesting! And influential. As for a "grown up" album by Michael Jackson, that would have been exactly the knd of thing that would have kept me listening to him. I liked Bad (I was 16 at the time), but totally lost interest as I grew older. He always sounded like a teeny-bop idol to me, not an artist you van take seriously. All those stories about a chimpanzee for a pet and sleeping in an oxygen tank (true or not) didn't help. And that was before the really bad stories came out...
Thank you. We had a similar experience regarding Prince and Michael Jackson. I'm a couple of years older than you and was 18 by the time Bad came out, and a few decent tracks aside, it was the beginning of the end for me. I bought both Thriller and Purple Rain upon release, and up until then I guess I was an equal fan of both... but by the time Prince released Parade he was like a completely different artist from the one who'd released PR just two years before. Like you, I grew along with Prince and went from teenager to adult still loving his ever evolving music.... but I outgrew a stagnant MJ, and yes, the stories of later years certainly didn't help.
Regardless of sales, I felt Prince maximised and realised his talent in a way I don't think Michael Jackson ever did.
Excellent answer, Yewdale. Prince already hit it big with Purple Rain, so releasing a second album that sounded just like it, wouldn't have changed anybody's mind about him. The fact that he released something completely different was exactly what made him so interesting! And influential. As for a "grown up" album by Michael Jackson, that would have been exactly the knd of thing that would have kept me listening to him. I liked Bad (I was 16 at the time), but totally lost interest as I grew older. He always sounded like a teeny-bop idol to me, not an artist you van take seriously. All those stories about a chimpanzee for a pet and sleeping in an oxygen tank (true or not) didn't help. And that was before the really bad stories came out...
Thank you. We had a similar experience regarding Prince and Michael Jackson. I'm a couple of years older than you and was 18 by the time Bad came out, and a few decent tracks aside, it was the beginning of the end for me. I bought both Thriller and Purple Rain upon release, and up until then I guess I was an equal fan of both... but by the time Prince released Parade he was like a completely different artist from the one who'd released PR just two years before. Like you, I grew along with Prince and went from teenager to adult still loving his ever evolving music.... but I outgrew a stagnant MJ, and yes, the stories of later years certainly didn't help.
Regardless of sales, I felt Prince maximised and realised his talent in a way I don't think Michael Jackson ever did.
To add, in the old days, artists were fierce about never being locked into a "2". Not a goal. Creative "up the game" ruled. The dull business of music/entertainment "franchise" was not in place as it is now.
As curious as I could be, Im not sure I want to hear an artist try to "recapture" that feeling on hindsight. Everything Prince did with Purple Rain and Michael Jackson did with Thriller was done without knowing at all how the world would react. The meaning each of those songs took in pop culture couldnt possibly be reinterpretted agreeably in the same audiance. It would have not only been seen as secondarym but would be beaten up with comparisons to the former. Curiosity demands I DO want it, but I dont think It would be received well.
I think Prince and Jackson could both tell interesting stories with sequals, but I think that they didn't for good reason.
New topic
Printable
Report post to moderator
