![]() ![]() That's not to say you can dismiss Bad as a flop. Jackson conspicuously restaged and amplified Thriller's signature moments with perfectionist's precision, making Bad sound sterile in too many places. For all of Jackson's bionic upgrades, Bad was bigger and bolder, but not better. In Rolling Stone, Davitt Sigerson wrote that, "Comparisons with Thriller are unimportant, except this one: even without a milestone recording like 'Billie Jean,' Bad is a better record." And USA Today's Edna Gundersen argued that Bad was Jackson's "most polished effort to date." But after having the luxury of 25 years to re-evaluate the impact and enduring power of Bad in relation to his previous two LPs, I'd argue the album is more Wachowskis than Lucas. While common wisdom in 1987 said that outshining Thriller would be nearly impossible, Bad, to a lot of ears, lived up to the task. If we compare the three albums Quincy Jones produced for Michael Jackson to the standard Hollywood movie trilogy, how should we view Jackson's 1987 LP, Bad-reissued this week with a deluxe 25th anniversary commemorative packaging? With it following the spectacular, record-breaking success of Thriller, did Bad rise to occasion like Return of the Jedi and Revenge of the Sith, the two grand finales in George Lucas's respective Star Wars trilogy and prequel? Or did Jackson's final collaboration with Jones fail to meet high expectations, like the Wachowskis' The Matrix Revolutions?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |