Have you all seen the news reports on Michael Jackson's visit to Japan? It's like 1983 all over again over there. Anyone think we are starting to experience Michaelmania again? I think so. Seriously, everytime he's been out since the trial ended. He made an appearance in London in 2006. He went to the 2006 World Music Awards. He also went to the 2006 Japanese MTV VMA's. Now he's back in Japan for an exclusive VIP party. And at all there events, it's been a frenzie!

When he stepped out of the plane in Japan a couple of days ago, hundreds of fans were there to greet him. Most celebrities can walk in and out of an airport unnoticed. I have never seen anything like the mania surrounding Michael Jackson when he made appearance in London, and in Japan. It's crazy, it's huge, it's out-of-this-world.

I've only ever seen a frenzie like this when The Beatles were around in the 60s. But that was at their prime. Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr (the only remaining Beatles) don't get that sort of attention anymore. Not by any stretch. McCartney can go to an airport and have a few 60-year-old ladies ask for his autograph. But Michael Jackson can go to an airport and gather the same sort of crowd McCartney could only gather in his hey-day. According to most critics, media and general public, Michael's hey-day is long gone. He's supposed to be over, finished, a joke. In all my life I've seen such a massively popular has-been, lol.

No one else in the world get's so much love everywhere he goes! Other celebs can go through an airport without a fan in sight, maybe a photographer at the most. But with Michael, it turns into a circus, he's mobbed by screaming, crying fans every time he steps out. All the local police are at the same place... where Michael Jackson is! LOL! The smallest public outing he makes his world-wide news. It's just mind-boggling how for Michael, the mania never ends and never will. It's unbelievable! Have you all noticed this? I think we are witnessing something that will never happen again, Michael Jackson and the mania the never ends! To put it straight; Michael still has "it", and Michael will be the last to have it forever because MJ is SO big, he knocked all the past big artist down and made them tiny when compared to him and so the fact is; no one can become any bigger that Michael Jackson ever again because his made it impossible!

Whether ya'll are going to admit it or not. What we are experiencing can be defined in one word... MICHAELMANIA!

Have you all seen the news reports on Michael Jackson's visit to Japan? It's like 1983 all over again over there. Anyone think we are starting to experience Michaelmania again? I think so. Seriously, everytime he's been out since the trial ended. He made an appearance in London in 2006. He went to the 2006 World Music Awards. He also went to the 2006 Japanese MTV VMA's. Now he's back in Japan for an exclusive VIP party. And at all there events, it's been a frenzie!

When he stepped out of the plane in Japan a couple of days ago, hundreds of fans were there to greet him. Most celebrities can walk in and out of an airport unnoticed. I have never seen anything like the mania surrounding Michael Jackson when he made appearance in London, and in Japan. It's crazy, it's huge, it's out-of-this-world.

I've only ever seen a frenzie like this when The Beatles were around in the 60s. But that was at their prime. Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr (the only remaining Beatles) don't get that sort of attention anymore. Not by any stretch. McCartney can go to an airport and have a few 60-year-old ladies ask for his autograph. But Michael Jackson can go to an airport and gather the same sort of crowd McCartney could only gather in his hey-day. According to most critics, media and general public, Michael's hey-day is long gone. He's supposed to be over, finished, a joke. In all my life I've seen such a massively popular has-been, lol.

No one else in the world get's so much love everywhere he goes! Other celebs can go through an airport without a fan in sight, maybe a photographer at the most. But with Michael, it turns into a circus, he's mobbed by screaming, crying fans every time he steps out. All the local police are at the same place... where Michael Jackson is! LOL! The smallest public outing he makes his world-wide news. It's just mind-boggling how for Michael, the mania never ends and never will. It's unbelievable! Have you all noticed this? I think we are witnessing something that will never happen again, Michael Jackson and the mania the never ends! To put it straight; Michael still has "it", and Michael will be the last to have it forever because MJ is SO big, he knocked all the past big artist down and made them tiny when compared to him and so the fact is; no one can become any bigger that Michael Jackson ever again because his made it impossible!

Whether ya'll are going to admit it or not. What we are experiencing can be defined in one word... MICHAELMANIA!




Calling it a mania when it's only based in one country is kind of farfetched, no?

And comparing the frenzy of the Beatles to this walking freakshow is not only ludicrous, it's insulting.

Do you guys find it funny how the Japanese are always so far ahead in terms of technology, yet their taste in celebrities dates back to the Stone Age :D

Calling it a mania when it's only based in one country is kind of farfetched, no?

And comparing the frenzy of the Beatles to this walking freakshow is not only ludicrous, it's insulting.




You are so smart.

Anyone think we are starting to experience Michaelmania again? I think so. Seriously, everytime he's been out since the trial ended

MJ does seem to be back again, but the only question is which Michael?

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e288/leah0192/Michael-Jackson-nose-and-face-joban.jpg

Do you guys find it funny how the Japanese are always so far ahead in terms of technology, yet their taste in celebrities dates back to the Stone Age :D


To this day, one of the biggest groups in Japan is The Ventures (who are as old as the hills...)

Do you guys find it funny how the Japanese are always so far ahead in terms of technology, yet their taste in celebrities dates back to the Stone Age :D

Excuse me, 1984 was most emphatically NOT the Stone Age!
::)

And it's not only Japan, but it's London, Germany and Las Vegas. It's worldwide. No other celebrity alive today can cause such mania. Michael Jackson today is bigger than The Beatles in 1964.

About being stuck in an era...

2007 isn't much different than it was in 1999 in the states with very little change like numetal being replaced by emo

And it's not only Japan, but it's London, Germany and Las Vegas. It's worldwide. No other celebrity alive today can cause such mania. Michael Jackson today is bigger than The Beatles in 1964.


Once again:


And comparing the frenzy of the Beatles to this walking freakshow is not only ludicrous, it's insulting.


Thank you.

I haven't heard anything about this.  ???

I haven't heard anything about this.  ???


Eh, he sold out to the Japanese by charging $3400 a handshake or something.

And in the pictures I saw, he looked awfully interested in those little Japanese boys....

And it's not only Japan, but it's London, Germany and Las Vegas. It's worldwide. No other celebrity alive today can cause such mania. Michael Jackson today is bigger than The Beatles in 1964.


Well of course.  After all, who wouldn't love a piece of plastic that's worth millions :D

No matter how much of a freak he's become, it's hard to argue that he was one of the most important musicians of recent history. He was basically like a superhero from 1983-1992, and more of a cute/normal creepy, as opposed to weird and scary creepy. He influenced, even if only residually, stars like Justin Timberlake, 50 Cent and Gwen Stefani - basically any visual artist, because he "householdifyed" MTV with the Thriller singles, and made R&B accessible to a suburban pop audience.

That being said, partly because of his personal life, as well as the '00s being less "older artist friendly", I don't think he'll ever be able to be able to return to the success of his Thriller days, since people will also factor in his current image - and they didn't back then, of course.

It's kinda like how Jerry Springer used to be a respectable politician and news anchor, and his talk show was normal in the beginning too. So yes, back then, he could discuss serious subjects and people would take it that way. That's what he was known for and he didn't have an "image" of anything different. Nowadays, it doesn't work as well, because the public at large wouldn't really be able to have the same impression of him anymore (because of the circus his TV show became, especially in the 1997+ years).

Same thing with Mike. It's unfortunate, but that's just how it works in the public eye.

As far as the Japanese fans flocking to him, oftentimes celebrities have loyal fanbases in different countries more than others. For some people, he's still like a superhero that could do no wrong. That doesn't necesarilly mean he'd be received the same way in America, though.

I won't be surprised if MJ does well outside of the States, but I think he'll need a little help for his singles to become big hits. That said, while singles tend to be more visible to the general public, I would not be surprised if he made good money off of album sales and concert performances, and those tend to bring in more money then single sales ever could. I think he's one of those artists that can do well now even without big radio exposure.

That's true, he has enough "name recognition" for fans to buy the CD sight unseen. Bands like The Rolling Stones are also big enough for this, whereas most artists aren't.

Eh, he sold out to the Japanese by charging $3400 a handshake or something.

And in the pictures I saw, he looked awfully interested in those little Japanese boys....

You are sooo funny  ::)

There were two seperate events. One was an exclusive V.I.P. party. The tickets cost $3,400. A ticket got you into the party where you could get your picture taken with Michael Jackson, watch the live entertainment, and have complimentary drinks and dinner.

The second event was for fans. Tickets cost $30. It was more or less a like a big dance club. Therw was music, dancing, drinks and all that. Michael made a speech. From the videos of it, it looked pretty fun.

You are sooo funny  ::)


Thanks! I try to be.

Thanks! I try to be.



Try?  You're fantastic.

There were two seperate events. One was an exclusive V.I.P. party. The tickets cost $3,400. A ticket got you into the party where you could get your picture taken with Michael Jackson, watch the live entertainment, and have complimentary drinks and dinner.


Why would anyone pay $3,400 to get their picture taken with Michael Jackson?  Save yourself the money, and just go to a wax museum where the fake Michael looks more real than the real Michael

Why would anyone pay $3,400 to get their picture taken with Michael Jackson?  Save yourself the money, and just go to a wax museum where the fake Michael looks more real than the real Michael

Well over 300 paid $3400 to attend the event. That $1 million in Michael's back pocket. Say what you want, but you must admit, Michael is a finance wizard.

Well over 300 paid $3400 to attend the event. That $1 million in Michael's back pocket. Say what you want, but you must admit, Michael is a finance wizard.


Makes you wonder though just who these 300 people were?  If I had $3400, I wouldn't waste it to see some hasbeen perform that's for sure

And it's not only Japan, but it's London, Germany and Las Vegas. It's worldwide. No other celebrity alive today can cause such mania. Michael Jackson today is bigger than The Beatles in 1964.
;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

London? B*llocks! he caused about as much mania as I do when I go to London apart from a handful of die hard fans noone could have cared less.

Well over 300 paid $3400 to attend the event. That $1 million in Michael's back pocket. Say what you want, but you must admit, Michael is a finance wizard.
I imagine that's 1 million to help pay off his debtors.

This article explains very well what Jackson's activities in Japan have involved.


Michael Jackson greets troops in Japan

25 minutes ago

TOKYO -
Michael Jackson greeted thousands of U.S. troops and their family members at a U.S. Army base south of Tokyo Saturday, taking a break from days of parties with die-hard fans and well-heeled business people.
ADVERTISEMENT

About 3,000 troops and their family members gathered at a fitness center at Camp Zama. Jackson walked around shaking hands and exchanging words to thank them for their service.

"Those of you in here today are some of the most special people in the world," Jackson told the crowd, reading from a statement. "It is because of you in here today, and others who so valiantly have given their lives to protect us, that we enjoy our freedom."

Jackson, 48, arrived in Japan last Sunday for his second trip in less than a year to attend parties including an extravagant gala held Thursday in Tokyo.

The reclusive pop icon was the guest of honor at the lavish party aimed at a well-heeled business crowd — though the roughly 400 people who showed up were mainly die-hard fans, and more than 100 orphans and handicapped children who were invited for free.

The paying guests each laid down $3,500 for tickets, which included a buffet dinner, a show featuring several Japanese Michael Jackson impersonators and a chance to meet, greet and take photos with Jackson.

On Friday, he made an appearance at another party for his less affluent fans. More than 1,000 people crowded a popular night club.

He did not perform at either party.

Jackson, one of the best-selling artists of all time, has lived abroad since his 2005 acquittal on child molestation charges, forsaking his Neverland Ranch in California for residences in Bahrain, France, and a castle in Ireland.

Jackson will spend another three or four days in Tokyo.

;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

London? B*llocks! he caused about as much mania as I do when I go to London apart from a handful of die hard fans noone could have cared less.

It was all over the British news, and the Australian news. It was a frenzy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL4DFgw1cHQ

The Beatles never created a stir like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gbj18uaNds

Michael Jackson is bigger now than he's ever been. I've never seen anything like this. It's incredible!

By the way, he didn't charge $30 for tickets to the regular event. They were ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY DOLLARS. And I would NEVER spend that much money, whether it be $130 or $3400 to meet any damned celebrity.

I'm done with this thread. The person who started it only did so with the intent to start drama. I ain't having any part of it. He can worship, lick, and beat off to Michael as much as he wants now. I could give a flying monkey's butt.

This thread has also earned my seal.


http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o283/Nerdprincess1980/warning.jpg

Michael Jackson is bigger than The Beatles?  That sir, is an exaggeration of mythic proportions.  It's more than an exaggeration, it's a gross insult to the talent The Beatles had and the completely new wave of music, culture and style they were bringing with them.

It was all over the British news, and the Australian news. It was a frenzy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL4DFgw1cHQ
You call that a frenzy?  ::)

No matter how much of a freak he's become, it's hard to argue that he was one of the most important musicians of recent history. He was basically like a superhero from 1983-1992, and more of a cute/normal creepy, as opposed to weird and scary creepy. He influenced, even if only residually, stars like Justin Timberlake, 50 Cent and Gwen Stefani - basically any visual artist, because he "householdifyed" MTV with the Thriller singles, and made R&B accessible to a suburban pop audience.

How has Micheal influenced 50 Cent and Gwen Stefani? I don;t see it. I do agree Michael did influence Justin Timberlake very much.

Do you guys find it funny how the Japanese are always so far ahead in terms of technology, yet their taste in celebrities dates back to the Stone Age :D
The Japanese are behind in techology yeah thats why Honda and Toyota are have been eating GM's and Ford's luch in the US and have been since the 80's.

The Japanese are behind in techology yeah thats why Honda and Toyota are have been eating GM's and Ford's luch in the US and have been since the 80's.



He said AHEAD in technology, not behind.

He said AHEAD in technology, not behind.
oh sorry.

How has Micheal influenced 50 Cent and Gwen Stefani? I don;t see it. I do agree Michael did influence Justin Timberlake very much.



It's more indirect, but I think he at least had a vague influence on the success of pretty much every visual artist after 1983. I know millions of people have said this before me, and will again, so it's not exactly an original statement - but he really made MTV the success it was. Without Thriller, the medium may have still succeeded, but it wouldn't have been the same. I think videos equally had the chance of have burning out a few years later, to where music videos might've been looked at as "Hey, remember back in the '80s when people did that?"

Please, I didn't start this thread to cause drama. I just wanted to hear what people thought about Michael Jackson at the moment, and if they agree that he has suddenly become very popular all of a sudden.

I agree that Michael Jackson has a huge influence on today's music. I think him and Prince both created the styles of music we hear today. Most R&B and hip-hop artists base their sound on either Prince's minneapolis thing or Michael's funk/pop blend, or a mixture of both. People often associate Justin Timberlake with Michael Jackson, because the influence there is so obvious. But I think the artist he has most influence is Pharrell Williams. Everything he has ever done sounds like a Michael Jackson song. But there are heaps of artists like Beyonce, Ciara, Chris Brown, Usher, Mary J Blige, Justin Timberlake, Pharrell etc. who are heavily influenced by Michael Jackson. Then some artists, like JT also incorporate influences from Prince. Prince is becoming a big influence on mainly hip-hop, but also R&B.

^Yeah, Madonna, Michael and Prince are probably THE three most influential '80s artists on modern music, whether or not everyone will admit it or not. MJ especially, with anything dance-oriented.

Prince didn't rely on MTV as much for his success (he had plenty of explicit songs that couldn't really garner any radio play, and that's part of his appeal), but when "Little Red Corvette" came out in early 1983, it exposed alot of new people to him, right about the same time "Billie Jean" was on the charts.

BTW, I wonder if the fact that 2001's Invincible album kinda flopped commercially will have any impact on how Michael's new one is received? I know alot of people who bought it off the bat (i.e. without listening, just based on name recognition) were disappointed with it. If he has the right producers, I do think he has it in him to make some good music again, even if it doesn't set the world on fire (I mean, even Bad was directly compared to Thriller, so of course everything else will be too).

I don't think Invincible will hinder the success of his new album. All his fans will buy it regardless. Giving him a #1 album in most contries, except the US. Then if it's a really good album, a lot of general music fans will buy it because I think most people want Michael to make great music, but they have really high expectations because this is the same guy that made "Off The Wall" and "Thriller". So I think he's got a #1 album in most countries except the US, and if it's a really good album, it'll be a multi-million seller, even in the US.

Please, I didn't start this thread to cause drama. I just wanted to hear what people thought about Michael Jackson at the moment, and if they agree that he has suddenly become very popular all of a sudden.


Ok here are my thoughts. I think he was a *major* influence on music in the 80's and therefore still is today from the music he made in the 80's and 90's.
It would be nice to think he could go back to his roots so to speak and produce a great new album but personally I don't think it's possible because to my mind he has lost it completely,he is not a well man. He looks weird, he acts even weirder and his recent musical output has been crap. There will always be diehard fans of course, but if you watch the clip you uploaded of the London 'frenzy' it was mostly the press. Yes he got in the papers but not because his music or himself is hugely popular, but because of the fact he looks and acts like a freak and people are fascinated by that.They don't give two hoots about his music they just want to see what his face looks like now and to hear if he's dangled a child over a balcony!
I actually don't know why I've just typed all of this because I know you will not accept a word of it but it is the truth as far as the U.K goes anyway.

Ok here are my thoughts. I think he was a *major* influence on music in the 80's and therefore still is today from the music he made in the 80's and 90's.
It would be nice to think he could go back to his roots so to speak and produce a great new album but personally I don't think it's possible because to my mind he has lost it completely,he is not a well man. He looks weird, he acts even weirder and his recent musical output has been crap. There will always be diehard fans of course, but if you watch the clip you uploaded of the London 'frenzy' it was mostly the press. Yes he got in the papers but not because his music or himself is hugely popular, but because of the fact he looks and acts like a freak and people are fascinated by that.They don't give two hoots about his music they just want to see what his face looks like now and to hear if he's dangled a child over a balcony!
I actually don't know why I've just typed all of this because I know you will not accept a word of it but it is the truth as far as the U.K goes anyway.

No, I agree with some of it. Don't get me wrong. Ofcourse some of it is paparazzi. But definately not most of it. Most of the mob was fans. I know, I hang out at MJ forums and I know how many fans were there. I've heard first hand accounts of who was there and what it was like. The UK is probably where Michael Jackson is most famous. His release do incredibly well over there. The Number Ones album from 03/04 sold like crazy over there and was in the charts for months, probably even a full year. Those dualdisc singles he re-released all entered the top 20 atleast, most of then ended up in the top 10. Just look at the reaction from Jermaine Jackson being on celebrity big brothers. To most people, it was Jermiane Jackson it was Michael Jackson's brother. I know that a lot of people bought ticked to the grand final just because they thought Michael would be there. He went to the WMA which were held in London and completely stole the limelight. It was all about him. Fans, paparazzi, everyone followed him around London when he went to the Billy Elliot musical, and went shopping. It made headline news. That's what's crazy about it. He was on the news for just being seen. And when you watch the news reports, they aren't talking about his face or whatever (as you claim), they are saying "The King of Pop is in London!" Michael reveals to some news reporter that he is in London making music and it's "I'm so glad that Michael Jackson is making new music. I can't wait to hear it", not "here we go again, wacko jacko's going to release another Thriller-nostalgic album" (as most people seem to expect from a news report on Michael Jackson). I've heard nothing but positive news reports about Michael's various sightings since the trial. I don't think I've heard his face mentioned once.

Oswald the Rabbit is popular in Japan and haven't been heard of in the US since the 1930's 

He was an early Walt Disney cartoon, created before Mickey, who he sold to Universal...

Now that's going way back in time  :D

Those dualdisc singles he re-released all entered the top 20 atleast, most of then ended up in the top 10

19 of them made the UK Top 40, but none of them entered the Top 10.  But because those re-charted, only shows that people long for the old Michael Jackson, the days before he became the sick, troubled man that he is today

To the record buying public, he is just a singer who continues to release albums and singles.  To the media and the record buying public, he is a crazy freak show who dangles babies over balconies, has sex with little kids, and goes to plastic surgeons more often then an ex-lax user goes to the crapper.  The media only sees the one side, and the public buys right into it

"Michael Jackson releases new single" - read by thousands of people
"Michael Jackson dangles baby over balcony" - record sales for tabloid newspapers

19 of them made the UK Top 40, but none of them entered the Top 10.  But because those re-charted, only shows that people long for the old Michael Jackson, the days before he became the sick, troubled man that he is today

To the record buying public, he is just a singer who continues to release albums and singles.  To the media and the record buying public, he is a crazy freak show who dangles babies over balconies, has sex with little kids, and goes to plastic surgeons more often then an ex-lax user goes to the crapper.  The media only sees the one side, and the public buys right into it

"Michael Jackson releases new single" - read by thousands of people
"Michael Jackson dangles baby over balcony" - record sales for tabloid newspapers



You are just stating a well-known fact. Controversy sells. A newspaper with the head-line "The Beatles release new album" wouldn't sell as well as a newspaper with the head-line "John Lennon: 'The Beatles are bigger than Jesus'". It applies to everyone, not just Michael Jackson. I bet you "Michael Jackson releases new album" would sell better in today's world than "Paul McCartney releases new album". Or any band/artist releasing a new album for that fact.

Calling it a mania when it's only based in one country is kind of farfetched, no?

The Americans do it all the time.

Paul McCartney > Michael Jackson

You are just stating a well-known fact. Controversy sells. A newspaper with the head-line "The Beatles release new album" wouldn't sell as well as a newspaper with the head-line "John Lennon: 'The Beatles are bigger than Jesus'". It applies to everyone, not just Michael Jackson. I bet you "Michael Jackson releases new album" would sell better in today's world than "Paul McCartney releases new album". Or any band/artist releasing a new album for that fact.


No paper would print a headline like "Michael Jackson released new album" cause it wouldn't sell

No paper would print a headline like "Michael Jackson released new album" cause it wouldn't sell

But the album sure as hell would!

Paul McCartney > Michael Jackson

If you watch this video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGdNPnXmRLI

talentwise, Michael Jackson > Paul McCartney

He outsung McCartney, and the parts of the song which he wrote are better than the parts McCartney wrote.

On a side note, it's kinda ironic that Michael is being compared to Paul McCartney and the rest of The Beatles - they're connected in a way, since MJ duetted with Paul on 1983's "Say Say Say".

In a weird way, I think Michael's controversial side post 1993 could indirectly have a positive effect on his album sales too. Like, people will buy it because they're curious what he could be capable of now. He still has more of a chance of a comeback than some other singer or bands that have disappeared from the spotlight and are still tied to the early '80s.

A new MJ CD would be more successful than a new Loverboy or Naked Eyes CD.

If you watch this video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGdNPnXmRLI

talentwise, Michael Jackson > Paul McCartney

He outsung McCartney, and the parts of the song which he wrote are better than the parts McCartney wrote.




Who the hell is talking about the song?  I'm talking overall.  Paul McCartney has more talent in his left pinkie toe than Jacko has in his entire surgically-enhanced body.


Paul McCartney > Michael Jackson




A new MJ CD would be more successful than a new Loverboy or Naked Eyes CD.



....and that's not saying much since neither of those groups have been really successful since the early to mid 80s.

Who do you all reckon is more influential Michael Jackson or The Beatles?

I think it's very close. The Beatles influenced everything in the 60s, and some of the 70s, and influenced 90s bands like Oasis. Michael Jackson has been a huge influence on the MTV generation of music (pretty much the last 25 years).

I think Michael Jackson has a bigger influence on today's music, but The Beatles have had a bigger influence overall. Afterall, even Michael Jackson cites them as an influence (but they clearly aren't as big of influences on him as James Brown or Sly Stone).

Btw, James Brown is more influential than both of them, IMO.

Who the hell is talking about the song?  I'm talking overall.  I could care less about that.


Paul McCartney > Michael Jackson




....and that's not saying much since neither of those groups have been really successful since the early to mid 80s.

I just used as an example because it shows Jackson's voice and songwriting up against McCartney's voice and songwriting. It's the only song they both sung in and wrote. So it's the best way to judge who is more talented. And that song shows Michael as a better singer and songwriter.

And Michael's success goes beyond the mid 80s. Michael Jackson has never not been successful. In the alte 80s he released Bad, which sold 30 million copies. In the early 90s he released Dangerous which sold about the same, but a little less (around 28-29 million). In the mid 90s he released HIStory which sold 25 million. And in the early 00s he released Invincible which sold 12 million. While his sales have declined, they've remained very high. Overall he's sold more than The Beatles. He's the biggest selling artist of all-time, and only 20% of his overall sales come from the 80s.

I just used as an example because it shows Jackson's voice and songwriting up against McCartney's voice and songwriting. It's the only song they both sung in and wrote. So it's the best way to judge who is more talented. And that song shows Michael as a better singer and songwriter.



Michael Jackson......a better singer and songwriter than Paul McCartney.  Hoo-boy.

Who do you all reckon is more influential Michael Jackson or The Beatles?

I think it's very close. The Beatles influenced everything in the 60s, and some of the 70s, and influenced 90s bands like Oasis. Michael Jackson has been a huge influence on the MTV generation of music (pretty much the last 25 years).

I think Michael Jackson has a bigger influence on today's music, but The Beatles have had a bigger influence overall. Afterall, even Michael Jackson cites them as an influence (but they clearly aren't as big of influences as James Brown or Sly Stone).


I agree with your last paragraph, it's really a close call. Mike has had more influence on visual artists and many successful post-1984 artists.

But post-Fifties music (as well as overall pop culture and even fashion) would not be what it was/is since then without The Beatles. Sixties stuff was really the true foundation of "modern" music. I'd even say they influenced a bit of every decade. When the late '60s started making a revival around 1987 it was more evident, but I think the new wave/second British Invasion of the early-mid '80s was sorta Beatles-esque in an updated sense.

Michael Jackson......a better singer and songwriter than Paul McCartney.  Hoo-boy.

Better singer, definately. But better songwriter is questionable. In that song the parts MJ wrote are better than the parts PM wrote. But overall, I'd say they are equal in songwriting skills. Michael Jackson has written some very good material, and Paul McCartney has written some very good material.

Oh, about "Say Say Say" -- it was one of Paul's biggest solo hits (that, along with "Ebony and Ivory" were both #1s and both were '80s), but I wonder if it would've been as successful without Michael duetting? This was in the late part of 1983, after the Thriller singles, so at that point, everything he touched basically turned to gold.

Michael used to be a good singer.  Paul can still throw down, as evidenced by his last world tour and his performance during halftime of the Super Bowl two years go.  And he sings LIVE!  I remember during that complete butt-kissing fest of a concert that was aired about a week before 9/11....every time Michael would sing, he'd put his hand over his mouth and hide it.  If you're singing live, what reason do you have to hide your mouth?  The only reason I even watched it was to see Whitney Houston.

Oh, about "Say Say Say" -- it was one of Paul's biggest solo hits (that, along with "Ebony and Ivory" were both #1s and both were '80s), but I wonder if it would've been as successful without Michael duetting? This was in the late part of 1983, after the Thriller singles, so at that point, everything he touched basically turned to gold.

Well Michael co-wrote the song, so without him there would be no song. But just say McCartney wrote the whole thing. Without Michael Jackson, I don't think it would've been as successful. You're right in saying that everything that had the name "Michael Jackson" on it in 1983 turned to gold. So without him it wouldn't have been as successful. It was a success because of namesake. Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney. That's what sold it.

You could argue that Michael could have belched and farted on the whole track, but simply because his name was on it....it would sell.  That doesn't necessarily mean his parts were good.  It meant people would buy and support whatever he slapped his name on.

Michael used to be a good singer.  Paul can still throw down, as evidenced by his last world tour and his performance during halftime of the Super Bowl two years go.  And he sings LIVE!  I remember during that complete ass-kissing fest of a concert that was aired about a week before 9/11....every time Michael would sing, he'd put his hand over his mouth and hide it.  If you're singing live, what reason do you have to hide your mouth?  The only reason I even watched it was to see Whitney Houston.

Michael is and always was a good singer. If you've ever heard a recent recording from Michael Jackson, his voice is actually better than it was in the 80s. But he can definately outsing Paul McCartney. Btw, the concert you are talking about was great. Michael sung live, and sung well. Did you see the J5 re-union. They were all fantastic. And Michael tore it up. Great performance.

You could argue that Michael could have belched and farted on the whole track, but simply because his name was on it....it would sell.  That doesn't necessarily mean his parts were good.  It meant people would buy and support whatever he slapped his name on.

But his parts were good. He wrote the part he sung, and the horn part. The only parts of the song worth listening to.

Michael is and always was a good singer. If you've ever heard a recent recording from Michael Jackson, his voice is actually better than it was in the 80s. But he can definately outsing Paul McCartney. Btw, the concert you are talking about was great. Michael sung live, and sung well. Did you see the J5 re-union. They were all fantastic. And Michael tore it up. Great performance.



I refuse to believe he sang live.  I watched that concert.  The whole thing.  His voice deviated not one bit from the album versions of any of the songs he sang and he would constantly cover up his mouth with his hand.  If you're singing live and still have a great voice....you don't do that.

I refuse to believe he sang live.  I watched that concert.  The whole thing.  His voice deviated not one bit from the album versions of any of the songs he sang and he would constantly cover up his mouth with his hand.  If you're singing live and still have a great voice....you don't do that.

The Jackson 5 reunion was 100% live. The solo performances were sung live over the top of playback. The J5 reunion was fantastic.

Do you think he's infallible?


While I can't speak for him, I think I understand where Zoso is coming from.

To use another example, when O.J. was first arrested, I didn't believe he was guilty, and whenever an argument was presented in his favor of his possible innocence, I rooted for it. Don't get me wrong, I also hoped whoever did it would be caught for the obviously horrible crime, but I kept telling myself he couldn't be guilty. Maybe it was someone else the police hadn't investigated yet, etc.

However, looking back on it now, I realize this semi denial on my part was because I wanted him not to be guilty - I was a fan of his from the Naked Gun movies, and nobody wants to think someone they like could've done something like that. While I still like the movies and the character of Nordberg today, of course I now realize it was wishful thinking on my part.

I'm not necesarilly suggesting this is what Zoso is thinking too in his defense of MJ. He has his own reasons for being a loyal supporter, but I do believe at least part of it may be that he's a huge Michael Jackson fan and will always kinda be in favor of him. Which I can understand, regardless of my personal opinion (I agree with him on some stuff, not as much on others, but that's besides the point).

I wasn't even talking about that.  I was talking about within his musical career.  All that is for another thread.

I can just picture Jacko singing ...

"Beat it, Beat it, let the little baby beat it.  Show me his johnson, i'll show him mine, it doesn't matter if he's 4 or 5, he'll beat it"

While I can't speak for him, I think I understand where Zoso is coming from.

To use another example, when O.J. was first arrested, I didn't believe he was guilty, and whenever an argument was presented in his favor of his possible innocence, I rooted for it. Don't get me wrong, I also hoped whoever did it would be caught for the obviously horrible crime, but I kept telling myself he couldn't be guilty. Maybe it was someone else the police hadn't investigated yet, etc.

However, looking back on it now, I realize this semi denial on my part was because I wanted him not to be guilty - I was a fan of his from the Naked Gun movies, and nobody wants to think someone they like could've done something like that. While I still like the movies and the character of Nordberg today, of course I now realize it was wishful thinking on my part.

I'm not necesarilly suggesting this is what Zoso is thinking too in his defense of MJ. He has his own reasons for being a loyal supporter, but I do believe at least part of it may be that he's a huge Michael Jackson fan and will always kinda be in favor of him. Which I can understand, regardless of my personal opinion (I agree with him on some stuff, not as much on others, but that's besides the point).

I viewed the allegations very objectively. I didn't think he was innocent just because I wanted him to be. I did want him to be innocent, but that doesn't mean I didn't look at the charges objectively and consider that he might be guilty. I wanted a child molester to be locked up more than I wanted Michael Jackson to be innocent. So if I felt there was any evidence to suggest he is guilty, I would've wanted him put away. But I could see no evidence at all. None. To suggest that he might be guilty. There was nothing telling me he was guilty and everything telling me he was innocent.

Well, this thread has taken a great turn.

I viewed the allegations very objectively. I didn't think he was innocent just because I wanted him to be. I did want him to be innocent, but that doesn't mean I didn't look at the charges objectively and consider that he might be guilty. I wanted a child molester to be locked up more than I wanted Michael Jackson to be innocent. So if I felt there was any evidence to suggest he is guilty, I would've wanted him put away. But I could see no evidence at all. None. To suggest that he might be guilty. There was nothing telling me he was guilty and everything telling me he was innocent.


With all apologies for the change of topic, I just brought up the O.J. thing as a parallel example more to say I understand one possible view you might've been coming from, not implying that you necesarilly felt the same way about Mike as I did about OJ. Didn't mean to make it sound factual - sorry if it came off that way. :)

Overall I agree with you though. Personally, I think his behavior involving kids and his personality can be a little eccentric, but of course, that doesn't necesarilly equate to being guilty of a crime.

I think MJ is over and done with in "mainstream" music.  Of course, there are still fans who will buy his new record.....as Zoso (robbo?) pointed out, there are fans who would buy ANYTHING with his name on it.  It could be pure, total crap and these poor people would STILL buy it.....pretty sad if you ask me ::)

Then again, I've never been a huge MJ fan.  Not even back in the 80s. 

Well he's a lot more popular than the artists topping the charts at the moment. So clearly he's not over and done with. His next album will be a world-wide #1.

I think I liked Michael Jackson better when he was black and liked chicks instead of young boys.

I loved his older stuff (I still listen to his 70's & 80's music)....but he will never be what he was back then...ever again.

Well he's a lot more popular than the artists topping the charts at the moment.

Michael Jackson is only popular in the media and that's only because he is crazy.  So how does that make him more popular than these new talented singers who are topping the charts at the moment?  Dangling babies over balconies is not a talent

Well he's a lot more popular than the artists topping the charts at the moment. So clearly he's not over and done with. His next album will be a world-wide #1.
Really?  In what corner of the world?  Just because he's sold more records over his lifetime than most of the artists topping the charts now doesn't mean he's "a lot more popular than" they are.  It simply means he's released more albums worldwide and there's no accounting for taste in some countries....in the US, he's not even in the top 10 (15?) in total lifetime album sales....in fact, if memory serves, even Mariah Carey has higher sales #s....

Michael Jackson is only popular in the media and that's only because he is crazy.  So how does that make him more popular than these new talented singers who are topping the charts at the moment?  Dangling babies over balconies is not a talent

lol, all those artists in the charts at the moment.... carbon copies of Michael Jackson. He's not just popular in the media. He is popular in the public. Seriously, I know so many people who would be so eager to buy his new album when it comes out. He's going to clean up. It's not just the media. WTF. Check out the Japan stuff. It's pretty much all fans and public.

lol, all those artists in the charts at the moment.... carbon copies of Michael Jackson. He's not just popular in the media. He is popular in the public. Seriously, I know so many people who would be so eager to buy his new album when it comes out. He's going to clean up. It's not just the media. WTF. Check out the Japan stuff. It's pretty much all fans and public.


Japan is just one piece of the world though, so you know .. David Hasseloff is big in Germany, so does that mean he is more successful than today's chart topping artists?

Are you saying Michael Jackson is bigger than David Hasselhoff?  How dare you! :D

Really?  In what corner of the world?  Just because he's sold more records over his lifetime than most of the artists topping the charts now doesn't mean he's "a lot more popular than" they are.  It simply means he's released more albums worldwide and there's no accounting for taste in some countries....in the US, he's not even in the top 10 (15?) in total lifetime album sales....in fact, if memory serves, even Mariah Carey has higher sales #s....



QFT

This thread is making me really nostalgic - not for anything to do with Michael Jackson, mind you, but because it had me reflecting on things like this...

A BRIEF HISTORY OF ROMAN AQUEDUCTS

Remember that? I know that can't be resurrected, but if it were to be, this would be an awesome place for it.



hahaha...karma for that! ;D

Japan is just one piece of the world though, so you know .. David Hasseloff is big in Germany, so does that mean he is more successful than today's chart topping artists?

Are you saying Michael Jackson is bigger than David Hasselhoff?  How dare you! :D

Japan, UK, US, Australia, wherever. He is popular worldwide.

Really?  In what corner of the world?  Just because he's sold more records over his lifetime than most of the artists topping the charts now doesn't mean he's "a lot more popular than" they are.  It simply means he's released more albums worldwide and there's no accounting for taste in some countries....in the US, he's not even in the top 10 (15?) in total lifetime album sales....in fact, if memory serves, even Mariah Carey has higher sales #s....

Actually he is #1 in lifetime sales. He's sold more than anyone.

The Beatles, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, have sold over 1 billion albums worldwide.  Michael Jackson has sold between 300 and 750 million albums worldwide (sources vary). 


The Guinness Book of World Records received that number from EMI, their record company.

Something else I've found, along the lines of who has sold more:


The Beatles have more than eight albums that sold more than 20 million copies worldwide, Michael Jackson only five.

The Beatles sold 156 million albums in Michael Jackson`s homecountry, the US. That`s three times as many as Jackson (54 million).

The Beatles have 20 US #1 singles, Jackson has only 13.

The Beatles have 19 US #1 albums, Jackson only four!

The Beatles spent 128 weeks at #1 in the US album chart, Jackson only 49 weeks.

The Beatles achieved 17 UK #1 singles, Jackson only seven.

The Beatles had 15 #1 albums in the UK, Jackson only six.

The Beatles spent 172 weeks atop the UK album chart, Jackson only 19.

The Beatles achieved five million selling singles in the UK, Jackson none.

The Beatles sold more than 59 million singles in the US, Jackson certainly less.



So please tell me again how this person is better than The Beatles.  Also, Michael Jackson has been in this business for what.....close to 30-35 years?  The Beatles did all that in 8.

One thing to be clear about here is that all the people you know who are eager to buy his record are the people you talk to on his fan sites so of course they are eager! I would not say they are a good representation of the general record buying public!

One thing to be clear about here is that all the people you know who are eager to buy his record are the people you talk to on his fan sites so of course they are eager! I would not say they are a good representation of the general record buying public!



Michael Jackson's last album sold something like 5-6 million copies in the US.  The Beatles' last album, #1's.....sold 10 million copies in the US.....30 years after they broke up.  It's sold something like 28 million copies worldwide. 


The album features every #1 British and American hit single by the band released from 1962 to 1970. 1 sold 3.6 million units in its first week and more than 12 million in three weeks worldwide, becoming the fastest selling album of all time and the biggest selling of 2000 and of the decade so far.


Michael Jackson's last album sold 360,000 copies in its first week and only 8 million copies worldwide.

One thing to be clear about here is that all the people you know who are eager to buy his record are the people you talk to on his fan sites so of course they are eager! I would not say they are a good representation of the general record buying public!


That's a good point I hadn't thought of. I'd say the majority of people who will buy his future releases are diehard fans. Probably a smaller amount of them will be either casual fans as well as people buying it more out of curiosity. The real key to any comeback artist is if they can attract new fans with new material (as, say Starship and ZZ Top did in the mid '80s, or Santana and Aerosmith circa 1998), and I don't see that happening with him. At least not enough to make a huge impact.

Just to give him the benefit of the doubt - even if he does come out with some great music, there's gonna be people who will be turned off by it. Many people probably won't give it a chance because of his personal life and increasingly weird image. That works against him, you've gotta admit.

Just to compare Michael's last album with an album released by a very huge band around the same time, NSYNC's album "Celebrity" was released in July of 2001, Michael's in October.  In one week, Jacko sold 360,000 copies.  In one week, NSYNC sold over 1 million copies. 

I can just picture Jacko singing ...

"Beat it, Beat it, let the little baby beat it.  Show me his johnson, i'll show him mine, it doesn't matter if he's 4 or 5, he'll beat it"



The pacing is off a little bit toward the end.  ;)

Japan, UK, US, Australia, wherever. He is popular worldwide.


Being popular, and being in the media are two different things.  Michael Jackson is a hasbeen, a thing of the past .. a washed up popstar who belongs in a mental institution

The pacing is off a little bit toward the end.  ;)


The end was hard to do ;D

Actually he is #1 in lifetime sales. He's sold more than anyone.
Not in the US according to the RIAA.....http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp.  There is no authority that measures total sales worldwide...

Top Artists (I edited this so there were only the top 20)

Totals are derived from cumulative album sales totals (U.S. only)

Artist


Certified Units (in Millions)

BEATLES, THE
169.0

PRESLEY, ELVIS
        118.5

BROOKS, GARTH
116.0

LED ZEPPELIN
109.5

EAGLES
91.0

JOEL, BILLY
79.5

PINK FLOYD
73.5

STREISAND, BARBRA
71.0

JOHN, ELTON
69.0

AC/DC
68.0

ROLLING STONES, THE
65.5

AEROSMITH
65.5

MADONNA
63.0

STRAIT, GEORGE
62.5

SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE
62.5

CAREY, MARIAH
61.5

JACKSON, MICHAEL
60.5

METALLICA
57.0

VAN HALEN
56.5

HOUSTON, WHITNEY
54.0

lol, all those artists in the charts at the moment.... carbon copies of Michael Jackson. He's not just popular in the media. He is popular in the public. Seriously, I know so many people who would be so eager to buy his new album when it comes out. He's going to clean up. It's not just the media. WTF. Check out the Japan stuff. It's pretty much all fans and public.
Nickelback is a carbon copy of MJ?  Fall Out Boy?  Daughtry?  That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while.....thanks for the laugh robbo ;D ;D ;D

And, I'd rather not check out ANYTHING concerning the public delirium re: MJ.....it's all rather depressing, IMO.

Something else I've found, along the lines of who has sold more:

The Beatles have more than eight albums that sold more than 20 million copies worldwide, Michael Jackson only five.

The Beatles sold 156 million albums in Michael Jackson`s homecountry, the US. That`s three times as many as Jackson (54 million).

The Beatles have 20 US #1 singles, Jackson has only 13.

The Beatles have 19 US #1 albums, Jackson only four!

The Beatles spent 128 weeks at #1 in the US album chart, Jackson only 49 weeks.

The Beatles achieved 17 UK #1 singles, Jackson only seven.

The Beatles had 15 #1 albums in the UK, Jackson only six.

The Beatles spent 172 weeks atop the UK album chart, Jackson only 19.

The Beatles achieved five million selling singles in the UK, Jackson none.

The Beatles sold more than 59 million singles in the US, Jackson certainly less.


So please tell me again how this person is better than The Beatles.  Also, Michael Jackson has been in this business for what.....close to 30-35 years?  The Beatles did all that in 8.


OK. So. First off, The Beatles didn't do all that in 8 years. A large percentage of their sales come from greatest hits packages that were released after their break-up.

The Beatles only have 5 albums that sold over 20 million copies. Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road, 1, 1962-1966 and 1967-1970. Three of those were released after their break-up.

Charting positions have nothing to do with overall sales.

The 1 billion figure for The Beatles is completely false. They've not sold anywhere near that and until I see figures for each individual Beatles album and single (like there is for Michael Jackson) I will not believe that their total sales are anywhere near 1 billion. They need to back up that claim.

Someone got trapped in the quote box..............



First of all, I said that was according to the Beatles' record company who then submitted it to the Guinness Book of World Records.  Are you saying EMI is lying?  I can't attest to the veracity of the comment because I don't work for either EMI or the Guinness Book of World Records.

The Beatles have the highest album sales in the United States.  Garth Brooks is #2.  That is fact.  Not Wacko Jacko.  Furthermore, by October 1972, the Beatles’ worldwide sales total stood at 545 million units.  That's 2 years AFTER they had split up....so you mean to tell me in in the last 35 years.....they haven't sold a damn thing since?  In the span of time from when they formed to 1972...or about 10 years, they managed to sell over half a billion albums.....you think they can't do that in 35 more?  Come on now. 


    * During the week of April 4, 1964 The Beatles occupied the first five slots of the Billboard Hot 100, #1 - "Can't Buy Me Love," #2 - "Twist and Shout," #3 - "She Loves You," #4 - "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and #5 - "Please Please Me," the only group in rock and roll history to achieve this feat. That same week they also had another seven charting records in the Hot 100: "I Saw Her Standing There", 31; "From Me to You", 41; "Do You Want to Know a Secret?", 46; "All My Loving", 58; "You Can't Do That", 65; "Roll Over Beethoven", 68. The Beatles had twelve songs on the charts that week, a feat never matched before or since.

    * In 1964, the Beatles had the never-matched total of 15 American million-selling records (9 singles and 6 LPs), representing US sales of over 25 million in 1964 alone.

    * "I Want To Hold Your Hand" sold nearly 5 million records in the US by 1968, making it the best selling single of the 1960s (from a Capitol Records Press release, September 9, 1968).

    * When "Can’t Buy Me Love" was released in the US on March 16, 1964, it sold 940,225 copies on the first day, shattering all previous sales records. The single went on to sell over 3 million by the end of the year (Spizer, Bruce, 2000: The Beatles’ Story on Capitol Records, Part One: Beatlemania & The Singles, p. 36).

    * The motion picture soundtrack "A Hard Day’s Night" sold 1 million copies in the first four days of its US release making it one of the fastest selling LPs of the 1960s (Billboard article, July 11, 1964).

    * By August 1964, the Beatles had sold approximately 80 million records globally (Variety 235, August 12, 1964).

    * By February 1965, their global sales had moved beyond 100 million records (Variety 237, February 3, 1965).

    * Rubber Soul sold 1.2 million copies in the US during the first 9 days of its release (Billboard article, January 1, 1966).

    * By August 1966, the Beatles had sold 150 million records worldwide (Variety 243, August 3, 1966).

    * By May 1967, the Beatles’ global gross stood at $98 million (Variety 246, May 19, 1967).

    * The "Hey Jude" single had sold over 3 million copies in America in its first 2 months of release, and 3.7 million by mid-January 1969. It eventually sold over 4 million copies and was the fourth best-selling single of the 1960s (Spizer, Bruce, 2003: The Beatles on Apple Records, p. 32).

    * Although it carried a list price of $11.79, their double album The Beatles sold 1.1 million units during its first two weeks on sale; a record for any double album up to that point in time (Spizer, Bruce, 2003: The Beatles on Apple Records, p. 102).

    * "Abbey Road" sold over 3 million copies in the US in a little over a month, making it one of the best-selling LPs of the 1960s despite having been on sale for only the last three months of the decade (Spizer, Bruce, 2003: The Beatles on Apple Records, p. 164).

    * According to the Guinness Book of Records, the Beatles had topped worldwide sales of 300 million units by 1969.

    * The "Let It Be" LP reportedly shipped 3.2 million copies in 13 days representing a gross retail value of nearly $26 million (Billboard article, June 6, 1970).

    * By October 1972, the Beatles’ worldwide sales total stood at 545 million units.




I think you are COMPLETELY underestimating just how big the Beatles were, are, and always will be. 

And it's not only Japan, but it's London, Germany and Las Vegas. It's worldwide. No other celebrity alive today can cause such mania. Michael Jackson today is bigger than The Beatles in 1964.


Are we even supposed to take that statement seriously? True, Michael still has a massive fan-base, but he's definitely not the flavour of the month. At least not since his trial ended...

Are we even supposed to take that statement seriously?



Yes, apparently we are. 

Are we even supposed to take that statement seriously? True, Michael still has a massive fan-base, but he's definitely not the flavour of the month. At least not since his trial ended...


Yeah there's NO WAY that Michael is as big as the Beatles in 1964, or as big as he once was. It's absolutely ridiculous to compare this small crowd in Japan to Beatlemania, which took the whole world by storm. He'll still sell some albums but there will NEVER be another Thriller.

The Beatles are the biggest-selling artists in history.  To even compare that person to the Beatles is a grave, grave insult.

Not in the US according to the RIAA.....http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp.  There is no authority that measures total sales worldwide...

Top Artists (I edited this so there were only the top 20)

Totals are derived from cumulative album sales totals (U.S. only)

Artist


Certified Units (in Millions)

BEATLES, THE
169.0

PRESLEY, ELVIS
        118.5

BROOKS, GARTH
116.0

LED ZEPPELIN
109.5

EAGLES
91.0

JOEL, BILLY
79.5

PINK FLOYD
73.5

STREISAND, BARBRA
71.0

JOHN, ELTON
69.0

AC/DC
68.0

ROLLING STONES, THE
65.5

AEROSMITH
65.5

MADONNA
63.0

STRAIT, GEORGE
62.5

SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE
62.5

CAREY, MARIAH
61.5

JACKSON, MICHAEL
60.5

METALLICA
57.0

VAN HALEN
56.5

HOUSTON, WHITNEY
54.0

I hate when Americans think they own the world. No. When it comes to record sales, I'm talking WORLDWIDE. There is a world outside the US.

Someone got trapped in the quote box..............



First of all, I said that was according to the Beatles' record company who then submitted it to the Guinness Book of World Records.  Are you saying EMI is lying?  I can't attest to the veracity of the comment because I don't work for either EMI or the Guinness Book of World Records.

The Beatles have the highest album sales in the United States.  Garth Brooks is #2.  That is fact.  Not Wacko Jacko.  Furthermore, by October 1972, the Beatles’ worldwide sales total stood at 545 million units.  That's 2 years AFTER they had split up....so you mean to tell me in in the last 35 years.....they haven't sold a damn thing since?  In the span of time from when they formed to 1972...or about 10 years, they managed to sell over half a billion albums.....you think they can't do that in 35 more?  Come on now. 

I think you are COMPLETELY underestimating just how big the Beatles were, are, and always will be. 


I think I have a good grasp on how popular the Beatles were. That's the main reason I think the 1 billion figure is bogus. Ofcourse EMI is lying, it's what record companies do to promote their artists. Until I see individual sales for the Beatles' albums and singles, I will not take any figure higher then 500 million.

The Beatles are the biggest-selling artists in history.  To even compare that person to the Beatles is a grave, grave insult.

That's just an opinion. There is no evidence to support than claim. I think it's a grave insult to Michael Jackson to say that he's not atleast close to being the biggest selling artist in history. There are only three artist who you could consider the best-selling in the world. Michael, The Beatles and Elvis. Either one of those I will take. But not some Garth Brooks clown. No one knows him outside the US. Btw, stop bring US statistics into this. Michael AND the Beatles were both internationally popular. You can't judge either of them by their US sales. That's just a small percentage of their worldwide sales.

That's just an opinion. There is no evidence to support than claim. I think it's a grave insult to Michael Jackson to say that he's not atleast close to being the biggest selling artist in history. There are only three artist who you could consider the best-selling in the world. Michael, The Beatles and Elvis. Either one of those I will take. But not some Garth Brooks clown. No one knows him outside the US. Btw, stop bring US statistics into this. Michael AND the Beatles were both internationally popular. You can't judge either of them by their US sales. That's just a small percentage of their worldwide sales.



I never said Garth Brooks was one of the biggest selling artists in the world.  Did you read what I said?  I mentioned Garth Brooks only in conjunction with US sales and that is all.  It was done mainly, to illustrate how some country singer you think is a clown outsold your precious Jacko in the United States.

I think I have a good grasp on how popular the Beatles were.


No, I don't think you do.  An album of just #1 singles that was released 30 years after they broke up, sold more than 10 million copies in the US alone.  That's an obscene figure.

But not some Garth Brooks clown. No one knows him outside the US.

You'd better re-check your facts because Garth Brooks is internationally known

Got those individual sales for Beatles albums and singles yet? When you do, we'll talk. Until then, Michael Jackson (who the IFPI announced at the world's best selling artist of all-time) is the best-selling artist of all-time because he's the only artist who's been officially stated as such with individual sales figures for each album and single to back it up.

Got those individual sales for Beatles albums and singles yet? When you do, we'll talk.


Well.....since you're going to be kinda snotty about it:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles_discography
http://www.beatlelinks.net/forums/printthread.php?t=1351


Michael Jackson has only sold 75 million albums in the United States and only 250 worldwide.  The Beatles, according to this source --> http://membres.lycos.fr/worldwidesales/index.php , have sold 274 million albums worldwide.  Which is more than 250.  That website used the following sources to come up with their figures: IFPI, NIELSEN SOUNDSCAN, ORICON, BPI, SNEP/IFOP, MEDIA CONTROL, ARIA, FIMI/AC NIELSEN, HOT100 BR@SIL, MEGA CHARTS BV, GLF, VERDENS GANG, IFPI.FI, RIANZ, CAPIF AND OTHERS.  This same website, using the same above criteria, only lists Michael Jackson as having sold 174 million albums worldwide.  Since this site uses so many sources with which to cull their data, I'm going with this one as one that can be trusted. 

I don't know what else you want.  Perhaps Paul McCartney can register an account here and put your mind at ease.

Thanks you for those links. The 274 million figure looks very accurate IMO. If that is the most accurate figure, I stand corrected. Michael Jackson has sold 268 million albums worldwide. But if his new albums sells 6 million copies... look out Beatles! But thank you for those links. I do stand corrected.

According the the IFPI, Michael Jackson is the biggest-selling artist of all-time. But that was announced through the World Music Awards who claimed their award was judge by record sales tracked by the IFPI, but you know how award shows work with rich record companies interfer. The fact that worldwide sales weren't tracked well before the 80s mean The Beatles might've got the award Michael Jackson got if the IFPI tracks their album sales.

So The Beatles have sold 6 million more albums than Michael Jackson. That is interesting. I wonder if Michael Jackson will eventually outsell them. He has the edge over them because he is still active and where as they aren't (it's a bit hard when only 2 of yours members are alive). So Michael Jackson could release a few albums in the future that might bring him to a total higher than 274 million. He could do it with 1 album even. He's only 6 million away. But in saying that, The Beatles' sales may also increase if EMI releases any new compilations or re-releases of their classic albums. Anything could happen.

Record sales and comparisons aside: just for the point of discussion here, I think the basic point Zoso is trying to make is that Michael still has a loyal fanbse. It may not be even close to what it once was, but it still exists.

Now I don't fully agree with him on some stuff (for instance, on the success any future stuff from him will have, I know it's not gonna be another Thriller), but I think he makes some valid points. He's just pointing out the positive aspects of a celebrity and singer he obviously likes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

IMO, his fame has run it's course. Yes, he was a musical god back in the day...and his music from the 70's and 80's is still played to this day.....BUT, those hey days are over.  Yes, he still has a fan base, but you could say that about nearly any artist...they all still have some amount of "fans" out there. The main point is that Michael Jackson will never sell as many albums in today's world...as he did back in the 80's.  That was his time....but now it's over.  Too much crap has happened since then (with him in the media, the allegations, the odd behaviors, the change in his appearance, etc..).

I hate when Americans think they own the world. No. When it comes to record sales, I'm talking WORLDWIDE. There is a world outside the US.
Never said we did, you keep saying "worldwide", well, last time I checked, the US was part of the "world".  I was simply pointing out that IN HIS OWN COUNTRY, there are MANY who have outsold him.
Record sales and comparisons aside: just for the point of discussion here, I think the basic point Zoso is trying to make is that Michael still has a loyal fanbse. It may not be even close to what it once was, but it still exists.

Now I don't fully agree with him on some stuff (for instance, on the success any future stuff from him will have, I know it's not gonna be another Thriller), but I think he makes some valid points. He's just pointing out the positive aspects of a celebrity and singer he obviously likes, and there's nothing wrong with that.
You are absolutely right, but when you come and ask for opinion, expect some to be different.  That's exactly what Robbo Zoso did, then got upset when others disagreed. ::)

IMO, his fame has run it's course. Yes, he was a musical god back in the day...and his music from the 70's and 80's is still played to this day.....BUT, those hey days are over.  Yes, he still has a fan base, but you could say that about nearly any artist...they all still have some amount of "fans" out there. The main point is that Michael Jackson will never sell as many albums in today's world...as he did back in the 80's.  That was his time....but now it's over.  Too much crap has happened since then (with him in the media, the allegations, the odd behaviors, the change in his appearance, etc..).

No one will ever sell like Michael Jackson did in the 80s. P2P, iTunes and all that has made it impossible. There is no way anyone is ever going to make an album that would outsell Thriller. Never. But I do honestly think Michael Jackson has another 20 million seller in him. If