duccichucka said:

I'm one of the few posters here who does not hate Taylor Swift (I can appreciate a good song
or two despite who's deliverying it. This board can't see the forest for the trees when it comes
to this chick).

And I'm one of the few posters here who thinks MJ was a one trick pony (it was the greatest
trick of all time, but he was a limited performer). But in no way is 1989 comparable to Thriller
in any regard as far as influencing pop culture goes.

-

Really? Care to elaborate?

No!

Musicslave said:

duccichucka said:

I'm one of the few posters here who does not hate Taylor Swift (I can appreciate a good song
or two despite who's deliverying it. This board can't see the forest for the trees when it comes
to this chick).

And I'm one of the few posters here who thinks MJ was a one trick pony (it was the greatest
trick of all time, but he was a limited performer). But in no way is 1989 comparable to Thriller
in any regard as far as influencing pop culture goes.

-

Really? Care to elaborate?

As an instrumentalist.

Musicslave said:

duccichucka said:

I'm one of the few posters here who does not hate Taylor Swift (I can appreciate a good song
or two despite who's deliverying it. This board can't see the forest for the trees when it comes
to this chick).

And I'm one of the few posters here who thinks MJ was a one trick pony (it was the greatest
trick of all time, but he was a limited performer). But in no way is 1989 comparable to Thriller
in any regard as far as influencing pop culture goes.

-

Really? Care to elaborate?

Yeah, it pains me to say this, but MJ stopped growing creatively after Bad and began
his creative descent after Dangerous. His dance routine, stage/live show, music, and
music videos all used a Thriller template; he was so beholden to that album and the
peak he ascended during that era that he never stretched out beyond it. In this way,
I think he was limited as a performer, even though his one trick, Thriller, was enough,
and should have been enough, to keep him peerless up until his death.

728huey said:

CharismaDove said:

Since THRILLER? LOL. Yeah sure, let's just forget all the huge albums that came after 1982 like Purple Rain, Born in the USA, Nevermind, Ray of Light, Jagged Little Pill, The Joshua Tree, etc.. Even more 'recent' albums like Get Rich or Die Tryin' (as posted above), The Marshall Mathers LP, 21, etc...

"1989" is more likely having the biggest impact on the pop-culture landscape in the past 4 years.

[Edited 9/10/15 19:10pm]

[Edited 9/10/15 19:11pm]

Taylor Swift"s 1989 is arguably a true phenomenon in today's music climate, but it's nowhere in the same stratosphere as Thriller was and still is. Not to mention Prince's Purple Rain, Bruce Springsteen's Born In The U.S.A, Madonna's Like A Virgin, Like A Prayer, or Ray of Light, U2's Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, Nirvana's Nevermind, Dr. Dre's The Chronic, Backstreet Boys' Millennium, 'Nsync's No Strings Attached, Eminem's Marshall Mathers LP, or Mariah Carey's Emanicpation of Mimi. The more appropriate comparisons should be with Katy Perry's Teenage Dream and Adele's 21.

Having said that, the same statements were being made about Beyonce about seven years ago, so I'm not surprised someing is stooping to make those same comparisons, even if they are patently false or lacking, as it gets enough people to read their magazine and/or blog post to be shared virally on Facebook.

duccichucka said:

Musicslave said:

-

Really? Care to elaborate?

Yeah, it pains me to say this, but MJ stopped growing creatively after Bad and began
his creative descent after Dangerous. His dance routine, stage/live show, music, and
music videos all used a Thriller template; he was so beholden to that album and the
peak he ascended during that era that he never stretched out beyond it. In this way,
I think he was limited as a performer, even though his one trick, Thriller, was enough,
and should have been enough, to keep him peerless up until his death.

I understand what you're saying performance-wise (even before his death, 'This Is It' was intended to be the ultimate 'Michael Jackson' show; this is good in the way that he was basically a worldwide brand and everyone knew and loved his style, but bad in the way that he was never able to evolve from moonwalking and etc without disappointing people).

But music-wise? Nah. I mean, I get that people don't care for 'Dangerous' and 'History' as much as the earlier albums, and that they find them inferior, but that doesn't mean he had stopped growing creatively. If 'Dangerous' had been an 11-track pop/funk record, I'd agree with you. Instead, it's a sprawling sonic new jack swing set that sounds unlike anything he'd done before, and much darker. Lyrically, he was growing leaps and bounds from 'Thriller'. In the '90s, I feel he began singing deeper and his lyrics became weird and darker. And c'mon, do you think songs like "Little Susie" or "D.S." or "Whatever Happens" would have been included on Thriller or Bad? Songs may suck in your opinion, but I definitely do think he evolved.

CharismaDove said:

duccichucka said:

Yeah, it pains me to say this, but MJ stopped growing creatively after Bad and began
his creative descent after Dangerous. His dance routine, stage/live show, music, and
music videos all used a Thriller template; he was so beholden to that album and the
peak he ascended during that era that he never stretched out beyond it. In this way,
I think he was limited as a performer, even though his one trick, Thriller, was enough,
and should have been enough, to keep him peerless up until his death.

I understand what you're saying performance-wise (even before his death, 'This Is It' was intended to be the ultimate 'Michael Jackson' show; this is good in the way that he was basically a worldwide brand and everyone knew and loved his style, but bad in the way that he was never able to evolve from moonwalking and etc without disappointing people).

But music-wise? Nah. I mean, I get that people don't care for 'Dangerous' and 'History' as much as the earlier albums, and that they find them inferior, but that doesn't mean he had stopped growing creatively. If 'Dangerous' had been an 11-track pop/funk record, I'd agree with you. Instead, it's a sprawling sonic new jack swing set that sounds unlike anything he'd done before, and much darker. Lyrically, he was growing leaps and bounds from 'Thriller'. In the '90s, I feel he began singing deeper and his lyrics became weird and darker. And c'mon, do you think songs like "Little Susie" or "D.S." or "Whatever Happens" would have been included on Thriller or Bad? Songs may suck in your opinion, but I definitely do think he evolved.

Right - This Is It is a prime example of what I'm talking about. You can take the routine and
stage show/presentation of This Is It and transport it to 1987 and you really wouldn't be
too historically anachronistic. He perfected a template and he never strayed from it. But
who could do such a thing anyways? Metaphorically speaking, once you've seen the face
of God, what good will a pretty girl's face do for you? In other words, once you come up with
Thriller and the live presentation of it as an entertainer, where else do you go? Nowhere,
apparently; you stay right there and milk it for all it's worth.

Dangerous is indeed sprawling; the first half is Teddy Riley at some of his finest. The second
half is utter shite as it sounds like it was produced by Walt Disney and Willy Wonka. Yes,
his lyrics are dark and strange, but his lyrics were always dark and strange as heard
all the way from Thriller to Bad. MJ was a pretty strange fellow as indicated by his lyrical
subject matter (paranoia, the supernatural, his fame, the evils and ills of the world, etc). So
lyrically, I don't find Dangerous too unconnected from Thriller and Bad at all. Musically, MJ is
back to his usual tricks with Dangerous even if a different co-pilot is at the helm. MJ liked hard
guitar rock (Beat It/Dirty Diana/Give In To Me), his R&B heavy tunes (Billie Jean/Another Part of
Me/Remember the Time), his light'n'fluffy (PYT, Baby Be Mine/Liberian Girl/Gone Too Soon) and
his save the world foundation tunes (Man in the Mirror/Heal the World). So lyrically, and even
compositionally, he didn't stray too far from that template he worked on in the 80s. I disagree
with ya, Charisma, even though I don't think we'll ever see another performer quite like
Michael Jackson, who was really just a sign that God can be a show-off!

I did not understand this thread-headline about 1989,

Until I opened the thread and saw motherf*cking Taylor Swift.. Haha.. terrible...!


Pseudo socalled "music"... imho:

Like Bigd74 wrote:

"i can't believe Taylor Swift is being compared to Michael Jackson. fuck sake."

thedance said:

Pseudo socalled "music"... imho:

Calm down, dude; I dunno why this board is so anti-Taylor Swift. Anyways, you can compare
the cultural impact of Taylor Swift to the cultural impact of Michael Jackson. It's a weak com-
parison but one can be made.

But nobody is suggesting that she's comparable to MJ in terms of talent, discography quality,
and stage performance.

duccichucka said:

Musicslave said:

-

Really? Care to elaborate?

Yeah, it pains me to say this, but MJ stopped growing creatively after Bad and began
his creative descent after Dangerous. His dance routine, stage/live show, music, and
music videos all used a Thriller template; he was so beholden to that album and the
peak he ascended during that era that he never stretched out beyond it. In this way,
I think he was limited as a performer, even though his one trick, Thriller, was enough,
and should have been enough, to keep him peerless up until his death.

I love Michael,but I sorta agree with this.After Bad,he really should have evolved more and did different things.Musically,he stuck with an R&B-based sound,working with the likes of R.Kelly,Rodney Jerkins and others....but it would have been really nice to have seen him step outside of that comfort zone and try some different sounds and styles.Remember when Madonna released Ray Of Light? It was unlike anything she had ever done before.I wanted to see Michael grow and evolve that way.

duccichucka said:

Musicslave said:

-

Really? Care to elaborate?

Yeah, it pains me to say this, but MJ stopped growing creatively after Bad and began
his creative descent after Dangerous. His dance routine, stage/live show, music, and
music videos all used a Thriller template;

I've been saying this 4 YEARS...................

duccichucka said:

MJ was a one trick pony (it was the greatest
trick of all time, but he was a limited performer). But in no way is 1989 comparable to Thriller
in any regard as far as influencing pop culture goes.

I entirely agree with this all.

If you're talking about the album in terms of sales, it's very much the child of Thriller. It just doesn't seem to stop selling. If we're talking about material or impact, I think it's closer to Backstreet Boys Britney Spears. That's not a bad thing, but like all artists, she's in her pinnacle. I doubt anything she puts out will ever sell as well again.

HataHZappa said:

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

I don't think "limited" is the right word to use when describing MJ talent-wise. I do admit that though he switched things up musically, thematically and conceptually he didn't spread his wings as much as his contemporaries. You can't really blame him, he found a formula that worked and stuck to it, making variations and modifications to his usual routine to keep it fresh as time went on. MJ played it safe by staying in his lane with no deviations radical enough to be considered stepping out of it. Although it would have been nice to see what he could have done had he not had it implanted in his head to simply be the best and be more experimental than he was. As far as overall talent, MJ was more than just a one-trick pony and had the tools in which to branch out and make a drastic conceptual change to his formula which is where the disappointment stems from. MJ could sing, dance, and attract attention better than Prince but what makes Prince stand out besides his elite musicianship is his range, one of the edges he had over Michael. MJ was obviously one of the greatest and most recognizable talents in history and is the blueprint for what a musical superstar is but it's that he didn't exhibit his talent as much as he could have. His final album was a sour note to leave on.

If MJ found a formula and stuck to it, doesn't that kinda indicate that he was sorta limited in his
approach to providing music and its live presentation? Yes, he made some variations and modi-
fications to his live show; and yes, Thriller is distinct in sound from Dangerous. But like you said:
MJ had a formula that he hammered out during 1982. After that, he dared not venture too far
from it as it was, like I said, probably the greatest template in pop music for a solo artist.

As an entertainer, he definitely was gifted. But MJ never made a "drastic conceptual change"
to his formula - are you kidding me? What is drastically new in This Is It? Another example of
how MJ was totally beholden to his past: Ghosts, the long music video, is so indebted to Thriller
that it borders on being a lampoon. And you kinda contradict yourself too. Either he stayed in
his lane or he made drastic changes but he couldn't do both at the same time. What's likely is
that he made minor changes to his approach to music and its live presentation and stayed in
his lane, that only he was worthy of occupying. Don't get me wrong: he's the greatest pop star
I've ever seen. I'm old enough to understand what the years 1982-1985 mean in terms of
our culture and how MJ was directing that impact as I was there when it all went down! I stared
at my parents' cover of Thriller as a five year old in '82, completely mesmerized by how beautiful
he was.

So, I'd ask that you guys who disagree with me stop making mention of how wondrously gifted
MJ was; that is indisputable. What is disputable is whether or not he stretched his creative vision
and musical imagination beyond what was comfortable, especially when we judge those great
artists as those who do push beyond what is comfortable. For example, Miles Davis, John
Coltrane, Hendrix, Prince, Joni Mitchell, all have distinct artistic phases were they gambled. MJ,
sadly, did not.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

I suggest you reread my post because I said that MJ had the tools to make a drastic conceptual change. There is a difference.

Okay, great! You did make that distinction!

Now, what about the other parts of what I said as this distinction doesn't make my post
void: MJ, like you said, had a lane, made some small changes, and continued to ape him-
self, as evidenced by Ghosts and This Is It. So, despite his wondrous gifts, he limited him-
self as far as pushing his imagination and vision outward and forward. We honestly do not
know the lengths of his talents because he continued to copy himself.

As for MJ "making variations and modifications to his usual routine to keep it fresh as time
went on," the work he produced during the last twenty years of his life does not bear this
out.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said:

Okay, great! You did make that distinction!

Now, what about the other parts of what I said as this distinction doesn't make my post
void: MJ, like you said, had a lane, made some small changes, and continued to ape him-
self, as evidenced by Ghosts and This Is It. So, despite his wondrous gifts, he limited him-
self as far as pushing his imagination and vision outward and forward. We honestly do not
know the lengths of his talents because he continued to copy himself.

As for MJ "making variations and modifications to his usual routine to keep it fresh as time
went on," the work he produced during the last twenty years of his life does not bear this
out.

When you said "limited", I assumed it was in the reference to MJ'S musical ability, not his output.

I actually meant both.

We can fairly suspect that MJ was limited as a performer with a limited musical ability because
we only saw him perform the same routine over and over again, with little modification to that.
And let's not cast him as some preternatural musician: MJ had a very rudimentary approach to
composition and relied upon his producers mightily. If MJ had more to offer us in this regard,
he didn't. Proof? Bad rips off Thriller; Invincible rips off Dangerous.

We can fairly suspect that MJ was limited as far as his output is concerned because we only
heard him perform from the same Thriller template over and over again, as an adult. Granted
this area of his creativity allowed for more modification than what his stage shows provided.
Again, if MJ had more to offer us in this regard too, he didn't. Proof? Ghosts rips off Thriller;
This Is It is old hat.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

If that "same routine" consisted of the general dancing and singing combo then yeah, he did perform it over and over again. I think you're exaggerating a little bit in reference to MJ's limitations; he did not perform the same exact thing over and over. Yes, he recycled many moves and sequences over the years with a few changes and minor differences sprinkled here and there but that's quite different from him doing the same exact performance night in and night out. Nobody thinks MJ is a musician (at least not a traditional one like Prince for example) and I wasn't trying to say he was. With his abilities as they were he could have took them further than he did. He could sing and dance excellently but he only did so in the niche he carved for himself and branched out no further. How does Bad rip off Thriller and Invincible rip off Dangerous? Yeah, Mike used a formula similar to Thriller for his subsequent releases but that's not the same as outright ripping off the original. An example of "ripping off one's self" would be Rick James trying to make Street Songs for many albums after 1981. The difference between Thriller and Bad is as plain as can be. Yes, of course MJ didn't offer us more than he did and that's why many (including yourself) may be disappointed with his output. If we didn't think he could've given us more than he did, why would there be disappointment? Based on what MJ gave us and how talented he was, there's no reason to believe he couldn't have given us even more than he already did. In retrospect, MJ did give us limited output but limited output doesn't equate to limited talent. Sure, he needed producers but it's not as if he just chilled at home whilst Quincy, Rodney Jerkins, and Teddy Riley toiled day and night in the studio only for him to take credit for their work. Mike had a strong hand in the creative process of his music and contributed plenty in that regard. He even gave credit to his producers and touted them as the major reason for his albums sounding like they did. No big deal. Overall, you have Michael Jackson: an artist with a much talent that didn't quite reflect in his limited output.

We both agree that MJ's dancing routine/live show features his talent prominently; but, also
indicates that he was beholden to a template that he modified slightly. And we both agree
that MJ used a music template from Thriller for the remainder of his career where he allowed
for more modification than he did with the former. And we both agreed that we don't know
the lengths of MJ's talents and abilities because he only revealed a limited perspective when
it came to his live shows and his musical output - I've said all of this, bro. We can fairly argue
that MJ was limited because if you scan his work, there's a template he never strayed too far
from, even if he had boundless amounts of talent. I think at this point, you're just arguing to
be arguing (with me).

duccichucka said:

Ryan Adams has just released his version of 1989 https://itunes.apple.com/...1040989837

I've not heard Taylor Swift's 1989--but like anyone (I would think) who listens to mostly U.S. pop radio (which I realize many of you do not), I am unable to go more than 40 minutes on a station without her popping up--and if I turn, there's a darn good chance that she's playing on one of our other local stations, and it won't just be the current hit. So if you really haven't heard the singles from 1989, you probably just don't follow Top 40 pop at all.

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't remember it being that Jackson heavy on pop radio in 1982 (or 1983). Yes, he was obviously there, but not an overwhelming presence. Video saturation made him seem omnipresent (the videos were definite events), but although he was on pop radio, it wasn't constant (at least on the stations I received). It was just a series of singles, and the old ones (besides Beat It and Billie Jean) disappeared after their run. The only thing I ever hear anymore is Wanna Be Starting Something, but even when it was a hit I rarely heard it at the time. With Swift, I'm almost as likely to hear Shake It Off as I was when it first came out, and each of the subsequent singles has also stayed in rotation.

Yes, Jackson was getting play on a wider variety of formats than Swift is, and being bought by audiences that aren't buying Swift (the same thing happened with Adele--I really doubt that mainstream pop audiences drove her sales, and everyone I knew who did buy her had very little contemporary pop in their collections). But Swift is still big, and I'm floored by how many people are weighing in with "I don't know any of her music"-type responses. There were lots of people who didn't know the Thriller tracks, too--most of my family, honestly, who didn't listen to Top 40. Now, I'm sure if you're listening to something other than Top 40 pop radio then you're not hearing her all that often. But I do, and since my daughter really likes her, I've learned the singles pretty well. And they're good pop records. And that's a good thing.

I'm doing something that might seem a little strange. Even though I haven't heard the original album, I'm currently listening to Ryan Adam's cover version of 1989 (I'm on the next-to-last track). But it's pretty good, so I'm pretty happy right now.

EddieC said:

MotownSubdivision said:

EddieC said:

I've not heard Taylor Swift's 1989--but like anyone (I would think) who listens to mostly U.S. pop radio (which I realize many of you do not), I am unable to go more than 40 minutes on a station without her popping up--and if I turn, there's a darn good chance that she's playing on one of our other local stations, and it won't just be the current hit. So if you really haven't heard the singles from 1989, you probably just don't follow Top 40 pop at all.

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't remember it being that Jackson heavy on pop radio in 1982 (or 1983). Yes, he was obviously there, but not an overwhelming presence. Video saturation made him seem omnipresent (the videos were definite events), but although he was on pop radio, it wasn't constant (at least on the stations I received). It was just a series of singles, and the old ones (besides Beat It and Billie Jean) disappeared after their run. The only thing I ever hear anymore is Wanna Be Starting Something, but even when it was a hit I rarely heard it at the time. With Swift, I'm almost as likely to hear Shake It Off as I was when it first came out, and each of the subsequent singles has also stayed in rotation.

Yes, Jackson was getting play on a wider variety of formats than Swift is, and being bought by audiences that aren't buying Swift (the same thing happened with Adele--I really doubt that mainstream pop audiences drove her sales, and everyone I knew who did buy her had very little contemporary pop in their collections). But Swift is still big, and I'm floored by how many people are weighing in with "I don't know any of her music"-type responses. There were lots of people who didn't know the Thriller tracks, too--most of my family, honestly, who didn't listen to Top 40. Now, I'm sure if you're listening to something other than Top 40 pop radio then you're not hearing her all that often. But I do, and since my daughter really likes her, I've learned the singles pretty well. And they're good pop records. And that's a good thing.

I'm doing something that might seem a little strange. Even though I haven't heard the original album, I'm currently listening to Ryan Adam's cover version of 1989 (I'm on the next-to-last track). But it's pretty good, so I'm pretty happy right now.

Taylor is popular during a time where there's far less a variety of artists and music on pop radio. She isn't the first person to have her songs spammed on radio (that's basically all pop radio is good for now). Michael was popular during a time when there was a great variety and an upcoming plethora of artists and genres on pop radio. The industry in 1982/3 is far different than what it is in 2015. Thrillermania happened during a time when radio was the way to listen to music. Today we have several other more accessible avenues for music listening; radio doesn't hold up anymore against today's technology. Radio airplay today revolves around playing only a handful of songs from a handful of artists, naturally with less artists their music gets played more. Most radio airplay today is manufactured and paid for by labels and other corporate entities in affiliation with the music industry. Today, an album could go #1 and you won't hear a single track from it on pop radio. Unless it's a pop album, it has no chance of getting mainstream airplay on radio; Tyrese and Jill Scott both had chart topping albums yet you turn on the radio only to hear the usual pop, EDM, and hip pop/ hop pop&B in between Taylor Swift's music. If this were 1982/3, you could guarantee you'd hear their voices on pop radio. The radio format is running on fumes now and it's painfully obvious with how it's structured. There's really no comparison here. 1989 isn't anything more than your average successful pop album released at a time when radio airplay has never been more irrelevant. [Edited 9/23/15 23:44pm] [Edited 9/23/15 23:47pm]

I agree that the music scene is completely different now, and that there isn't really a comparison. I'm just stunned at how few people seem to be aware that pop actually exists. I think "average successful pop album" is a bit of an understatement, but obviously the meaning of "successful album" has changed in the intervening years. I don't think Tyrese and Jill Scott would have had number one albums in the past, nor that they would have had much pop radio play--their chart success is probably a result of the lowered album sales in general and the limitation of the pop format (back in the 80s their sales wouldn't have even been noticed on the Billboard 200, much less gotten to number one), alhough I still don't think early 80's pop radio was nearly as open as you describe--part of why the mainstream world noticed Michael's success was that it was so unusual in a fairly, for lack of a better word, white pop landscape. It wasn't just MTV that he had to push his way into.

So, to sum up--Jackson bigger impact, but Swift pretty darn near ubiquitous. Yes, the range of things played is (somewhat) smaller now, and there have been other people played at very high frequency in recent years, several of whom might at their peak appear as frequently in a typical pop music listening day as Michael Jackson did in 1982-1983--but you would have heard more songs in general during that day, so there was still a lot of Michael, just not quite as much relative to the total.

However, if you're listening day consists of avoid pop hits--you're not going to hear Swift. In 1982-83, you could listen to several other radio formats and still hear Michael Jackson. And that's an important thing when you're talking on this forum. Our sense of what got played is affected by what we heard. Local commercial radio everywhere I've ever lived has consisted of pop, country, classic rock (there's been one modern rock station and one adult contemporary). So it's only actual pop play that I can talk about.

EddieC said:

MotownSubdivision said:

EddieC said: Taylor is popular during a time where there's far less a variety of artists and music on pop radio. She isn't the first person to have her songs spammed on radio (that's basically all pop radio is good for now). Michael was popular during a time when there was a great variety and an upcoming plethora of artists and genres on pop radio. The industry in 1982/3 is far different than what it is in 2015. Thrillermania happened during a time when radio was the way to listen to music. Today we have several other more accessible avenues for music listening; radio doesn't hold up anymore against today's technology. Radio airplay today revolves around playing only a handful of songs from a handful of artists, naturally with less artists their music gets played more. Most radio airplay today is manufactured and paid for by labels and other corporate entities in affiliation with the music industry. Today, an album could go #1 and you won't hear a single track from it on pop radio. Unless it's a pop album, it has no chance of getting mainstream airplay on radio; Tyrese and Jill Scott both had chart topping albums yet you turn on the radio only to hear the usual pop, EDM, and hip pop/ hop pop&B in between Taylor Swift's music. If this were 1982/3, you could guarantee you'd hear their voices on pop radio. The radio format is running on fumes now and it's painfully obvious with how it's structured. There's really no comparison here. 1989 isn't anything more than your average successful pop album released at a time when radio airplay has never been more irrelevant. [Edited 9/23/15 23:44pm] [Edited 9/23/15 23:47pm]

I agree that the music scene is completely different now, and that there isn't really a comparison. I'm just stunned at how few people seem to be aware that pop actually exists. I think "average successful pop album" is a bit of an understatement, but obviously the meaning of "successful album" has changed in the intervening years. I don't think Tyrese and Jill Scott would have had number one albums in the past, nor that they would have had much pop radio play--their chart success is probably a result of the lowered album sales in general and the limitation of the pop format (back in the 80s their sales wouldn't have even been noticed on the Billboard 200, much less gotten to number one), alhough I still don't think early 80's pop radio was nearly as open as you describe--part of why the mainstream world noticed Michael's success was that it was so unusual in a fairly, for lack of a better word, white pop landscape. It wasn't just MTV that he had to push his way into.

So, to sum up--Jackson bigger impact, but Swift pretty darn near ubiquitous. Yes, the range of things played is (somewhat) smaller now, and there have been other people played at very high frequency in recent years, several of whom might at their peak appear as frequently in a typical pop music listening day as Michael Jackson did in 1982-1983--but you would have heard more songs in general during that day, so there was still a lot of Michael, just not quite as much relative to the total.

However, if you're listening day consists of avoid pop hits--you're not going to hear Swift. In 1982-83, you could listen to several other radio formats and still hear Michael Jackson. And that's an important thing when you're talking on this forum. Our sense of what got played is affected by what we heard. Local commercial radio everywhere I've ever lived has consisted of pop, country, classic rock (there's been one modern rock station and one adult contemporary). So it's only actual pop play that I can talk about.

I wouldn't go so far to say that people forget pop music exists just that many don't actively listen to it by means of radio. It's pop music, it's near impossible for people not to acknowledge it in some way with the various ways we get a hold of music today.

With Tyrese and Jill I was speaking hypothetically; if they were to score a #1 album in the 80s then we'd hear some semblance of them on pop radio because that was how things operated back then. Them scoring #1 albums now is definitely indicative of album sales these days but so is this heralding of Taylor Swift and 1989. If Taylor was around in the 80s especially post-Thriller, 1989 (or whatever year it would've been named after) wouldn't have registered a blip on the pop music radar though if her album went #1 then she would've gotten some radio airplay. I can't see Taylor being more than a one-hit wonder in the 80s.

Music in the 80s prior to Thriller was pretty eclectic; granted it was dominated by white artists but it still had an good mix of black artists that made pure R&B, soul, funk, dance, and post-disco music that were scoring Top 40 hits with the aforementioned music. Keep in mind this is before Thriller which opened the doors for countless genres and subgenres to flood the charts en masse. It took a phenomenon like Thriller in order for something of that magnitude to happen but even prior there was still a bigger variety of music on pop radio than what we have today. Even disregarding the black acts of time, there was still a better mix of music.

Taylor's music being ubiquitous is also a side effect of music's current state of affairs. She has a large fanbase and is popular but as mentioned earlier if she were around in the 80s, she wouldn't have stood a chance gaining a mainstream audience with the star power she would've been forced to compete with. That's not to say she wouldn't have carved a niche of fans but not much more than that.

It's pretty hard to avoid hearing pop music today. If you don't listen to the radio, chances are you'll hear a Top 40 song via TV (commercials, shows), internet, and through other people. You're right to an extent about what we're conditioned to think what we hear is what gets played but even if one doesn't avidly listen to today's pop music, it's pretty difficult to avoid.

[Edited 9/24/15 13:44pm]

[Edited 9/24/15 18:49pm]

MotownSubdivision said:

Comparisons like these just need to stop. They do nothing for the younger/ more current act in question. . . . 1989 isn't even selling as quickly as Adele's 21 at this point in the album's lifetime (the latter pretty much is Adele's Thriller, a lot closer than 1989)

My thoughts exactly. If Madonna or Janet had Taylor's sales numbers 20 years ago, they would have been worried about their continuing relevance.

[Edited 9/24/15 13:02pm]

namepeace said: