crazymouse said:

bboy87 said:

Michael told Paul up front he was gonna buy it. Michael had bought Sly Stone's publishing catalog months prior and when the Northern Songs catalog came up, Michael went for it and Paul knew it because there were about 3 or 4 people trying to acquire it. Paul had time to put his bid in but he never did. The whole story of the Michael buying it in 1985 is in a book about the Beatles... I can't remember the name of it right now (I'll check Google in a minute)

And they were still friends after Michael bought it. Their friendship crumbled between 1987-89 when Michael started licensing Beatles songs to companies for the commercials like Nike using Revolution

I think MJ asked the permission of Joko Ono for that and she agreed for the use of the song.

Anyway. Paul McCartney used to buy the rights of other artists music for years.He was the one that introduced Michael do that business. Why doesn't anyone say that McCartney "stole" the songs of all those artists? Yeah, i think we pretty much know why.

[Edited 8/5/11 4:24am]

Not to mention that Revolution was a song written by Lennon, not McCartney, and Nike is a huge well known international sports brand. Hardly a shop brand bathroom cleanser.

armpit said:

Oh, please.

If the situation was reversed and Paul had done the exact same thing to MJ, you'd be sitting there wishing McCartney would die or something. I'm an MJ fan myself, but I'm not so far gone that I can't call some of MJ's more fucked up, unscrupulous choices, exactly what they are.

At the end of the day, you don't put business before a friendship and buy your friends work right out from under them, whether you warned them you would do it or not. There's some things you just don't do. I think MJ got his own bullshit right back though when Sony bent him over and pumped him a few times around the time of Invincible's release.

If the same shit had happened in reverse why the fuck would I be wishing for Paul's death?!?!?!?! At the end of the day, business is business and he did what he needed to do. I don't even think that Paul really even cared that much, it's just a bunch of butthurt ass fans who don't realize that, at the end, of the day, no one cares what they think. The reality is that Paul declined the offer, because he was too cheap to pay for it and/or didn't put much thought into it. He laughed MJ off, but if he was serious about getting them he would have tried a little harder instead of thinking that MJ was going to sell them back to them for less $$$. Fuck that shit, I would be like 'no' too. It's not as if Paul McCartney was too poor to afford his shit back either.

Give me a break.

Also, lol at the bolded. Do you live on a cloud? Friendship is one thing, but business is business. They are two seperate matters. You can't be successful if you're going to sit there and worry about everyone else. That is, exactly, how you don't succeed in this world. It sucks, but it's true. You have to worry about yourself. Constantly being concerned with the welfare of others and what they think is how you fuck yourself over. That's the reality of cut throat industries. Always look out for #1. Then, once you have gone up that ladder, it would be great if you go back and help those who got you there. (Ideally.)

But, all in all, please stop assuming you know what I would think. You, obviously, don't. You may have been a MJ fan before Michael Jackson was even born (apparently), but that doesn't mean that you can sit there and assume that you know the thought patterns of every single one of his fans. You don't.

As for what happened with MJ and Sony, it was probably because MJ head was going too far into his ass at some point, but I'm not really sure of all the details so I can't really make an opinion. There seems to be too many conflicting reports.

bboy87 said:

armpit said:

Oh, please.

If the situation was reversed and Paul had done the exact same thing to MJ, you'd be sitting there wishing McCartney would die or something. I'm an MJ fan myself, but I'm not so far gone that I can't call some of MJ's more fucked up, unscrupulous choices, exactly what they are.

At the end of the day, you don't put business before a friendship and buy your friends work right out from under them, whether you warned them you would do it or not. There's some things you just don't do. I think MJ got his own bullshit right back though when Sony bent him over and pumped him a few times around the time of Invincible's release.

I gotta disagree, if roles were reverse, I'd feel the same way about it, it's business. Michael and Branca were up front about it.

I don't think it was fucked up at all, in fact I think it was a great business decision. He had bought Sly Stone's catalog in 1983 and then he went for ATV. Like I said before, that catalog had more than just the Lennon-McCartney tracks. I could see if it was just the Beatles songs alone, but it was a huge catalog when MJ got it in '85

and like I and others have already said, Michael didn't "buy it from under" Paul. Michael started to pursue it in '83 and the deal was finalized in April 1985 and there were other people going after it. Michael had the highest bid and he acquired it

Paul wasn't surprised by Michael buying it either. He knew all along about the sale and declined to buy it. Their friendship didn't crumble until Michael started letting companies use the songs for commercials, which pissed Paul off

That's what people don't get about the deal. The media made it seem like he ripped Paul off but Paul knew that this was going to happen.

my opinion of Paul as a man, I've always thought (even though he's usually been my favorite beatle) that even though he's always been likable, gentlemanly, courteous that he had a side to him that was very subtly nasty. I'm not talking about Michael here, I mean what I read into his statements on Elvis, he's yet to say one good thing about Elvis and he'll say it's because he joined the army or some other shit, the real reason is because he knows goddamn good and well that Elvis was the main competition for ruling the rock world. He also was very prickly around the subject of John, always was. I like paul but he's always had a bit of a bastard streak in him which is not that obvious to the average viewer. I guess that's all to say, none of that would make it easy for his songs to be "owned" by a fellow superstar, he would not have liked that under any circumstances period.

[Edited 8/6/11 13:12pm]

bboy87 said:

armpit said:

Oh, please.

If the situation was reversed and Paul had done the exact same thing to MJ, you'd be sitting there wishing McCartney would die or something. I'm an MJ fan myself, but I'm not so far gone that I can't call some of MJ's more fucked up, unscrupulous choices, exactly what they are.

At the end of the day, you don't put business before a friendship and buy your friends work right out from under them, whether you warned them you would do it or not. There's some things you just don't do. I think MJ got his own bullshit right back though when Sony bent him over and pumped him a few times around the time of Invincible's release.

I gotta disagree, if roles were reverse, I'd feel the same way about it, it's business. Michael and Branca were up front about it.

I don't think it was fucked up at all, in fact I think it was a great business decision. He had bought Sly Stone's catalog in 1983 and then he went for ATV. Like I said before, that catalog had more than just the Lennon-McCartney tracks. I could see if it was just the Beatles songs alone, but it was a huge catalog when MJ got it in '85

and like I and others have already said, Michael didn't "buy it from under" Paul. Michael started to pursue it in '83 and the deal was finalized in April 1985 and there were other people going after it. Michael had the highest bid and he acquired it

Paul wasn't surprised by Michael buying it either. He knew all along about the sale and declined to buy it. Their friendship didn't crumble until Michael started letting companies use the songs for commercials, which pissed Paul off

The BOLD is all that matters. That's the ONLY REASON why Paul and MJ's friendship fell apart.

And again Paul McCartney did the exact same thing that MJ did. He bought the rights of the music of his felow artists. Why is it OK for Paul to buy those rights but for MJ not? Isn't Paul considered an unscrupulous businessman when doing the exact same thing?

Secondly, like i have already said Michael returned the rights of him music to Little Richard. Did Paul ever do something similar with the rights of the music of so many black artits that he owned? I doubted it. So apparently MJ wasn't so unscrupulous after all.

Thirdly, has anyone ever thought why Michael may have wanted to own Beatles, the biggest and most "precious" white group ever? What would make him, a black guy, owning the Beatles?

armpit said:

I think MJ got his own bullshit right back though when Sony bent him over and pumped him a few times around the time of Invincible's release.

I think Paul got his own bullshit for doing the exact same thing by MJ though, don't you think? Paul bought the rights of the music of black artist with everyone blessing and MJ bought the Beatles. (and the hell brock loose for some reason. What could that be? ) It was business for Paul to buy those rights from his fellow artists , it was business for Mj to buy the Beatles. Simple as that. Why the double standarts?

crazymouse said:

And again Paul McCartney did the exact same thing that MJ did. He bought the rights of the music of his felow artists. Why is it OK for Paul to buy those rights but for MJ not? Isn't Paul considered an unscrupulous businessman when doing the exact same thing?

Secondly, like i have already said Michael returned the rights of him music to Little Richard. Did Paul ever do something similar with the rights of the music of so many black artits that he owned? I doubted it. So apparently MJ wasn't so unscrupulous after all.

Thirdly, has anyone ever thought why Michael may have wanted to own Beatles, the biggest and most "precious" white group ever? What would make him, a black guy, owning the Beatles

I could bring the black guy owning stuff but I've been trying to steer away from that facet, but of course, it's more than likely true.

armpit said:

Unholyalliance said:

I'm a little confused. How did MJ backstab Paul by buying Nothern Lights? He told him to his face that he was going to buy HIS songs didn't he? It's not really his fault that Paul:

1. Didn't believe him.

2. Didn't take up the offer to buy back his rights when offered the chance.

3. Try to get Michael to sell them back to him for a much cheaper price.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there other bidders that were looking to buy them? Isn't it better that someone, they knew, bought them rather than some stranger? Why don't people call Paul a backstabber for owning the rights to the music of others? Wtf? Had MJ been a white man who bought the Beatles catalog would people be making that big of a deal about it? I don't get why so many people are so fucking butthurt about it. It's not as if any of us laymen are being financially affected by it maybe besides if one of the songs licensed out sells a product that could, possibly, mean more business for all companies invloved, including employees. I mean, big deal fucking deal. Why so butthurt about it?!

[Edited 8/5/11 11:01am]

Oh, please.

If the situation was reversed and Paul had done the exact same thing to MJ, you'd be sitting there wishing McCartney would die or something. I'm an MJ fan myself, but I'm not so far gone that I can't call some of MJ's more fucked up, unscrupulous choices, exactly what they are.

At the end of the day, you don't put business before a friendship and buy your friends work right out from under them, whether you warned them you would do it or not. There's some things you just don't do. I think MJ got his own bullshit right back though when Sony bent him over and pumped him a few times around the time of Invincible's release.

I understand what you are getting at - but at the same time I think some of the folklore of the ATV catalogue buy has overtaken the facts.

Michael didn't buy the work right out from under him. Both Paul, and Yoko, where given first right of refusal to purchase the catalogue. Paul declined thinking it was over priced. And pulled himself out of game. Even when approached as a team to buy them Paul declined.

Buy doing so Paul opened the door for anyone to buy it. Michael saw the investment opportunity and set about making an offer. It wasn't a bidding war between the two. Paul declined, then it went on the market. Nothing unscrupulous about it.

And to your point, if the tables were reversed and MJ has the opportunity to buy his publishing rights and decided against it, I for one would be saying it was a terrible business deal.

Fact is, if you don't want someone else to own your work - don't sell it. Or in this instance, don't decide against the opportunity to buy it back and then whine if someone else decides to buy it.

If anyone is actually interested in finding out about the true history of the Northern Songs catalogue then I highly recommend reading "Northern Songs: The True Story of the Beatles Publishing Empire" by Brian Southall

The latest news in the Tribute concert fiasco.

Swa said:

The latest news in the Tribute concert fiasco.

This from the website: The organisers of the Michael Forever Tribute Concert are very mindful of the expectations of the fans, who have waited over two years for an event that will do justice to Michael’s musical legacy. Some of the greatest names in music are already signed, and more are trying to shuffle other commitments to come on board. Chairman of Global Live Events Chris Hunt said “We will be announcing an incredible line-up very soon. The registration period was put on hold because we want people to know who they are registering to see. Between now and October we will be continuing to add names to the line-up so more announcements will follow. Fans of Michael’s music will get the concert they've been waiting for.

Hopefully, God willing, it's no one.

Swa said:

The latest news in the Tribute concert fiasco.

This from the website: The organisers of the Michael Forever Tribute Concert are very mindful of the expectations of the fans, who have waited over two years for an event that will do justice to Michael’s musical legacy. Some of the greatest names in music are already signed, and more are trying to shuffle other commitments to come on board. Chairman of Global Live Events Chris Hunt said “We will be announcing an incredible line-up very soon. The registration period was put on hold because we want people to know who they are registering to see. Between now and October we will be continuing to add names to the line-up so more announcements will follow. Fans of Michael’s music will get the concert they've been waiting for.

I bet no one tells 'em. I want it to flop so fucking badly just for their conscience to be clear.

OMG! I can now post & Reply on prince.org! (Thanks Ben & Staff) Jumps up & down I've missed this place. Haven't been here much in a few months due to an issue w/not being able too.

End OT rant.

Okay I am asking Please someone help me out I'm trying to find a video that was on youtube not so long ago and I'm pretty sure it was posted here in one of the MJ threads too.. where Michael was in (maybe) a music store and some guy walks up to him and starts singing & dancing like James Brown (I think) and Michael is taken off guard and starts laughing cause he's taken back. If anyone know what I'm speaking of Please,Please direct me to or post the video. Thanks a bunch!

Good to be back at the org.

[Edited 8/6/11 20:08pm]

crazymouse said:

And again Paul McCartney did the exact same thing that MJ did. He bought the rights of the music of his felow artists. Why is it OK for Paul to buy those rights but for MJ not? Isn't Paul considered an unscrupulous businessman when doing the exact same thing?

Secondly, like i have already said Michael returned the rights of him music to Little Richard. Did Paul ever do something similar with the rights of the music of so many black artits that he owned? I doubted it. So apparently MJ wasn't so unscrupulous after all.

Thirdly, has anyone ever thought why Michael may have wanted to own Beatles, the biggest and most "precious" white group ever? What would make him, a black guy, owning the Beatles?

armpit said:

I think MJ got his own bullshit right back though when Sony bent him over and pumped him a few times around the time of Invincible's release.

I think Paul got his own bullshit for doing the exact same thing by MJ though, don't you think? Paul bought the rights of the music of black artist with everyone blessing and MJ bought the Beatles. (and the hell brock loose for some reason. What could that be? ) It was business for Paul to buy those rights from his fellow artists , it was business for Mj to buy the Beatles. Simple as that. Why the double standarts?

Applause!!! I agree with everything that you said. It IS double standards because NO ONE would be saying anything if the situation was reversed. It is all about BUSINESS. Paul had enough money to purchase the ATV catalogue; however, he was too cheap. He thought that he could just sit back and do a half-ass offer and get the songs. Paul offered around $30 million, CBS offered $40 million and Michael offered $43.5 million. Now, if I were selling something, it's common sense that you would take the highest offer. I am still trying to understand why all of the "whiners" don't understand that. Paul was waiting for Yoko Ono to add to his money(because he's cheap) and she didn't. The story goes that she WANTED Michael to have the catalogue because she didn't like Paul. Maybe it had something to do with Paul always bitching that it was he who was the main songwriter and that HIS name should be first and not Lennon's. I always ask the question, would the media and other whiners be still whining if CBS had been the highest bidder?

Btw, Michael had certain Beatle songs that he considered "sacred" and would not use in commercials; when the surviving Beatles expressed their displeasure over the use of "Revolution" in the Nike commercial, he pulled it. I think it is hypocritical for Paul to bitch about anything since he is making MILLIONS off of OTHER people's music that he purchased. Paul uses a lot of that music in commercials. WTF does he think that the Beatle's music is more sacred than other music? I shudder at the double standards that the media and music industry evokes when it comes to Michael Jackson and what others are allowed to get away with. Double fucking standards!!

tangerine7 said:

Please someone help me out I'm trying to find a video that was on youtube not so long ago and I'm pretty sure it was posted here in one of the MJ threads too.. where Michael was in (maybe) a music store and some guy walks up to him and starts singing & dancing like James Brown (I think) and Michael is taken off guard and starts laughing cause he's taken back. If anyone know what I'm speaking of Please,Please direct me to or post the video. Thanks a bunch!

TO EVERYONE INCLUDING BBOY87!!!

I found this information years ago somewhere and never saw it anywhere else again until today though I kept telling fans about it! I found a book in 2005 called The Top 100 Best Selling Albums. It listed Bad as having sold 11,900,000 copies (meaning in the US, I know this because other figures I read for other albums were what I already knew about US figures for them) I never saw it again and today I found a reprinted version of the book and bought it though I don't think anything was updated other than a list for the 2000's and

Bad has sold 11,900,000 million copies in the US as of 2005 and should be 12 or 13 times platinum!!!!!!

When I bought it in the 90's, I guessed it sold 15 million in the US, and though I think 8 million is fine the figure surprised me when I first saw it, though flop is not a word I got in my head either. I just did not believe it at all cause though I was only 4 years old and only knew of MJ from afar cause of people playing him or performing him at shows and cause of having some memory of seeing his videos and having one or two and having a Thriller toy I played with, the song Bad was everywhere that fall of 87', Captain EO was at Disney, you KNEW he was the it guy without anyone telling you. I know posters here may disagree or give facts about how things were starting to go bad for him, and I'm sure people here talked about that too but I heard nothing yet, but he was HUGE.

[Edited 8/7/11 0:13am]

alphastreet said:

TO EVERYONE INCLUDING BBOY87!!!

I found this information years ago somewhere and never saw it anywhere else again until today though I kept telling fans about it! I found a book in 2005 called The Top 100 Best Selling Albums. It listed Bad as having sold 11,900,000 copies (meaning in the US, I know this because other figures I read for other albums were what I already knew about US figures for them) I never saw it again and today I found a reprinted version of the book and bought it though I don't think anything was updated other than a list for the 2000's and

Bad has sold 11,900,000 million copies in the US as of 2005 and should be 12 or 13 times platinum!!!!!!

When I bought it in the 90's, I guessed it sold 15 million in the US, and though I think 8 million is fine the figure surprised me when I first saw it, though flop is not a word I got in my head either. I just did not believe it at all cause though I was only 4 years old and only knew of MJ from afar cause of people playing him or performing him at shows and cause of having some memory of seeing his videos and having one or two and having a Thriller toy I played with, the song Bad was everywhere that fall of 87', Captain EO was at Disney, you KNEW he was the it guy without anyone telling you. I know posters here may disagree or give facts about how things were starting to go bad for him, and I'm sure people here talked about that too but I heard nothing yet, but he was HUGE.

[Edited 8/7/11 0:13am]

Being a fan who lived through all the releases I can tell you the BAD period was anything but bad for MJ. The media were starting their "tall poppy" attacks on MJ and the wacko jacko moniker was being bantied about by the press, but there was still massive interest in Michael and the album.

Let's not forget this was the album that had 5 number singles on the Top 100 chart.

It was given a 4 star review from Rolling Stone.

It debuted at Number 1 on the Top 200 Billboard chart.

At the time it was often reported as being the second biggest selling album in history with 27million+ sold worldwide.

It is now listed as having 30 million worldwide. And is MJ's 3rd biggest selling album behind Thriller and Dangerous.

Speaking of BAD's distinction of having 5 number 1s on the Top 100.

Looks like Katy Perry isn't giving up on the dream of equaling it.

Katy Perry Sets Sights On Tying Michael Jackson's No. 1s Record With 'Friday' Remix

Swa said:

Speaking of BAD's distinction of having 5 number 1s on the Top 100.

Looks like Katy Perry isn't giving up on the dream of equaling it.

Katy Perry Sets Sights On Tying Michael Jackson's No. 1s Record With 'Friday' Remix

August 05, 2011

By Keith Caulfield (@keith_caulfield), Los Angeles

Katy Perry is on the verge of tying an incredible Billboard Hot 100 chart record -- held by Michael Jackson -- thanks to some help from Missy Elliott.

Jackson owns the record for the most Hot 100 No. 1 singles from one album -- with five from his 1987 album "Bad." Presently, Perry has four No. 1s from her "Teenage Dream" set. Its fifth single, "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F)," rests at No. 2 on the chart this week.

However, on Monday, Aug. 8, a new remix of "Friday" (featuring Missy Elliott) will hit radio airwaves, the web and digital retailers.

If the sales, airplay and streams of the track are strong enough, it could push the song to No. 1 in the coming weeks. (All versions of a song and its remixes are generally merged together for charting purposes.) Last week, it trailed the current Hot 100 No. 1, LMFAO's "Party Rock Anthem," by about 50,000 digital downloads on the Digital Songs chart. Over on the Hot 100 Airplay tally, "Friday" was behind "Party" by 2 million in audience points and had been the greatest gainer for the past three weeks.

This late-in-the-game remix-release strategy has become a popular concept in recent months. In April, Rihanna enlisted Britney Spears for a remix of the former's "S&M" that prompted its jump to No. 1. Shortly after that, Spears turned to Nicki Minaj and Ke$ha to help out with a remix of her "Till the World Ends." Its release helped push the single 11-3 on the Hot 100.

But let's get back to Perry versus Jackson. Perry has so far claimed four No. 1s from "Teenage Dream" -- "California Gurls," the title track, "Firework" and "E.T." (featuring Kanye West). "Last Friday Night" is in its second week at No. 2 and its seventh frame in the top 10.

Jackson's five No. 1s from "Bad" are "I Just Can't Stop Loving You," the title track, "The Way You Make Me Feel," "Man in the Mirror" and "Dirty Diana." Some fans might have immediately thought "Thriller" held the record for the most No. 1s, since it was such a monster album. While it did spawn seven top 10 hits, only two of them -- "Billie Jean" and "Beat It" -- hit No. 1.

source: http://www.billboard.biz/...6212.story

Go ahead, let her equal it or even top it. But times were different back then. You couldn't buy a song with the click of a button. No matter what, we all know that Michael is number one. And I doubt that a remix version of a song will reach number one.

Why the hell do MJ fans even care if Perry outsells MJ or not? MJ fans are always so anal about sales. Plenty of bullshit sells like hotcakes, and plenty of really good music doesn't even go platinum.

And MJ's discography doesn't get the same respect in terms of the quality of the re-releases like U2 because MJ didn't approach his work from the same mindspace as U2. He made it hard for people to respect his own work because he didn't show a lot of respect for it, himself. It was kinda hard for people to take the man's stuff seriously when he was taking some of his best work and releasing shitty-ass videos for it that were more about how many celebs he could get to do cameos (the "Liberian Girl" video) and shit like that; or parading giant statues of himself down rivers to promote his cd and all that bullshit, and how when the anniversary of his most successful work rolled around, he consented to a bunch of no-talent pop-fuckers remaking the tracks and essentially ruining them in the process.

mozfonky said:

my opinion of Paul as a man, I've always thought (even though he's usually been my favorite beatle) that even though he's always been likable, gentlemanly, courteous that he had a side to him that was very subtly nasty. I'm not talking about Michael here, I mean what I read into his statements on Elvis, he's yet to say one good thing about Elvis and he'll say it's because he joined the army or some other shit, the real reason is because he knows goddamn good and well that Elvis was the main competition for ruling the rock world. He also was very prickly around the subject of John, always was. I like paul but he's always had a bit of a bastard streak in him which is not that obvious to the average viewer. I guess that's all to say, none of that would make it easy for his songs to be "owned" by a fellow superstar, he would not have liked that under any circumstances period.

[Edited 8/6/11 13:12pm]

Hey, Paul is a Gemini and they all have their good side/f***ed up side.

Aren't we on a site dedicated to ANOTHER famous Gemini who's like that?

Here's my Monday Morning Quarterback opinion on the the whole publishing thing.

Since Paul did turn MJ on to buying publishing rights it was KIND of dirty for MJ to do that. BUT in business, that's the way it goes - s**t happens.

I do think Paul shouldn't have been cheap and he should have bought Nothern Songs years ago. He had the money.

If Yoko didn't want to go in on the deal then buy it outright and for the sake of John's kids GIVE them half or work something out where Paul and John's heirs finally own their work.

I don't think MJ should have merged ATV with Sony. I think he should have kept it 100% to maintain his independence.

If he had to pay his legal fees for his constant troubles then he should have just toured to pay everyone. This way he could have toured a few times, paid everyone and his income through ATV would be coming in. Whatever he spent from his touring money he would have made back in ATV Money.

All that waiting until you get in a bind and going against Mottola and claiming Artists Rights and crying racism was a bunch of ca-ca given the whole "crossover" aspect of how things were in MJ's career BUT we won't get into that.

[Edited 8/7/11 14:04pm]

Thank You for discussing the Paul and Michael situation I always wanted to know more on that.

armpit said:

Why the hell do MJ fans even care if Perry outsells MJ or not? MJ fans are always so anal about sales. Plenty of bullshit sells like hotcakes, and plenty of really good music doesn't even go platinum.

And MJ's discography doesn't get the same respect in terms of the quality of the re-releases like U2 because MJ didn't approach his work from the same mindspace as U2. He made it hard for people to respect his own work because he didn't show a lot of respect for it, himself. It was kinda hard for people to take the man's stuff seriously when he was taking some of his best work and releasing shitty-ass videos for it that were more about how many celebs he could get to do cameos (the "Liberian Girl" video) and shit like that; or parading giant statues of himself down rivers to promote his cd and all that bullshit, and how when the anniversary of his most successful work rolled around, he consented to a bunch of no-talent pop-fuckers remaking the tracks and essentially ruining them in the process.

I agree with what you said about MJ stans worrying too much about sales, certifications and honorary stuff. I'm a hardcore MJ admirer, but I never quite worried about whether albums sold more than others, who was breaking MJ's record and all that jazz. But it's nothing new really.

Now, this whole thing you said about MJ's discography not attaining the same respect from contemporaries is just atrocious. I don't understand what your point is. Clearly, Michael always wanted his work post-Off The Wall to be the biggest, the best ever. Whether people understood it or trashed it, I feel like it was their personal gripe with what MJ was doing either professionally or personally (mostly personally). They weren't worried about the artistic value of the work. Instead, they criticized MJ or some gimmick like sales.

[Edited 8/7/11 14:51pm]

alphastreet said:

TO EVERYONE INCLUDING BBOY87!!!

I found this information years ago somewhere and never saw it anywhere else again until today though I kept telling fans about it! I found a book in 2005 called The Top 100 Best Selling Albums. It listed Bad as having sold 11,900,000 copies (meaning in the US, I know this because other figures I read for other albums were what I already knew about US figures for them) I never saw it again and today I found a reprinted version of the book and bought it though I don't think anything was updated other than a list for the 2000's and

Bad has sold 11,900,000 million copies in the US as of 2005 and should be 12 or 13 times platinum!!!!!!

When I bought it in the 90's, I guessed it sold 15 million in the US, and though I think 8 million is fine the figure surprised me when I first saw it, though flop is not a word I got in my head either. I just did not believe it at all cause though I was only 4 years old and only knew of MJ from afar cause of people playing him or performing him at shows and cause of having some memory of seeing his videos and having one or two and having a Thriller toy I played with, the song Bad was everywhere that fall of 87', Captain EO was at Disney, you KNEW he was the it guy without anyone telling you. I know posters here may disagree or give facts about how things were starting to go bad for him, and I'm sure people here talked about that too but I heard nothing yet, but he was HUGE.

[Edited 8/7/11 0:13am]

You are correct about Bad. Bad outsold everyone else's album during that time and made history with the first album to have five number one singles. Of course, the jealous media started planting into the gullible and naive public's mind that Bad was a failure and idiots who were too lazy to research the facts fell for the bullshit. After Thriller, the media AND music industry called everything Michael did a failure when they wouldn't have done it to any mainstream artist. Sorry for anyone who can't handle that observation, but it's true.

armpit said:

Why the hell do MJ fans even care if Perry outsells MJ or not? MJ fans are always so anal about sales. Plenty of bullshit sells like hotcakes, and plenty of really good music doesn't even go platinum.

And MJ's discography doesn't get the same respect in terms of the quality of the re-releases like U2 because MJ didn't approach his work from the same mindspace as U2. He made it hard for people to respect his own work because he didn't show a lot of respect for it, himself. It was kinda hard for people to take the man's stuff seriously when he was taking some of his best work and releasing shitty-ass videos for it that were more about how many celebs he could get to do cameos (the "Liberian Girl" video) and shit like that; or parading giant statues of himself down rivers to promote his cd and all that bullshit, and how when the anniversary of his most successful work rolled around, he consented to a bunch of no-talent pop-fuckers remaking the tracks and essentially ruining them in the process.

You love making a hell of a lot of generalizations. I disagree with everything you said and im going to leave it at that. I refuse to waste my time. I will say this though, Michael Jackson was Michael Jackson. Everything he did made him...well him. I dont know why some of you arent satisified with that and are hell bent on bitching and moaning about what you think he should have done and how you think he should have lived his life. Michael Jackson with all his quirks, artistic productions and chosen vehicles of expressions, work ethic and genius made himself one of the most successful, beloved and known superstar around the world. Its funny because your putting him up against ppl who dont even come close to his superstardom and never will so imo your argument is irrelevant. oh and speak for your self, you may not have respect for his work but I do and im sure millions of ppl around the world do because believe it or not him and his music affected alot of people's lives for the better. smh. If its not one thing, its something else. jump off please.

[Edited 8/7/11 15:01pm]

[Edited 8/7/11 15:03pm]

[Edited 8/7/11 15:06pm]

mozfonky said:

crazymouse said:

And again Paul McCartney did the exact same thing that MJ did. He bought the rights of the music of his felow artists. Why is it OK for Paul to buy those rights but for MJ not? Isn't Paul considered an unscrupulous businessman when doing the exact same thing?

Secondly, like i have already said Michael returned the rights of him music to Little Richard. Did Paul ever do something similar with the rights of the music of so many black artits that he owned? I doubted it. So apparently MJ wasn't so unscrupulous after all.

Thirdly, has anyone ever thought why Michael may have wanted to own Beatles, the biggest and most "precious" white group ever? What would make him, a black guy, owning the Beatles

I could bring the black guy owning stuff but I've been trying to steer away from that facet, but of course, it's more than likely true.

Why hate to bring up what is DEFINENTLY true. There is no way in hell that the media and those in the music industry would be bitching and whining if Michael was not a black man. I really get sick of people "pussy-footing" around that fact because they think that someone will get angry. Damn, it's true. Let's be real. Anyone who denies that is not being honest with themselves and they know it. I remember the media calling Michael "crazy" when he first made this deal. Would they have called any OTHER(mainstream artist) "crazy" for purchasing the Beatles catalogue? Again, why the double standards for Michael? Later, these same naysayers had to begrudgeinly ADMIT that Michael made the deal of a lifetime. I have always said that a LOT of the media and industry hate against Michael had to do with the Beatles catalogue purchase. They did everything in their power to make or want him to lose it. The "broke" stories started in order to diminish the fact that he STILL owned that catalogue and THOUSANDS of other songs. As Jermaine stated during an interview-"Michael was NEVER broke" and the media/industry KNEW it. Btw, I apppreiate that Jermaine tells it like it is about Michael more than anyone else in that family. I know his ass has his faults, but he defends Michael like no other and always has.

SamiDion said:

armpit said:

Why the hell do MJ fans even care if Perry outsells MJ or not? MJ fans are always so anal about sales. Plenty of bullshit sells like hotcakes, and plenty of really good music doesn't even go platinum.

And MJ's discography doesn't get the same respect in terms of the quality of the re-releases like U2 because MJ didn't approach his work from the same mindspace as U2. He made it hard for people to respect his own work because he didn't show a lot of respect for it, himself. It was kinda hard for people to take the man's stuff seriously when he was taking some of his best work and releasing shitty-ass videos for it that were more about how many celebs he could get to do cameos (the "Liberian Girl" video) and shit like that; or parading giant statues of himself down rivers to promote his cd and all that bullshit, and how when the anniversary of his most successful work rolled around, he consented to a bunch of no-talent pop-fuckers remaking the tracks and essentially ruining them in the process.

You love making a hell of a lot of generalization. I disagree with everything you said and im going to leave it at that. I refuse to waste my time. I will say this though, Michael Jackson was Michael Jackson. Everything he did made him...well him. I dont know why some of you arent satisified with that and are hell bent on bitching and moaning about what you think he should have done and how you think he should have lived his life. Michael Jackson with all his quirks, artistic productions andchosen expressions, work ethics and genius made himself one of the most successful and beloved and known superstar around the world. Its funny because your putting him up against ppl who dont even come close to his superstardom and never will so imo your argument is irrelevant. oh and speak for your self, you may not have respect for his work but I do and im sure millions of ppl around the world do because believe it or not him and his music affected alot of people's lives for the better. smh. If its not one thing, its something else. jump off please.

[Edited 8/7/11 15:01pm]

Well said.

silverchild said:

armpit said:

Why the hell do MJ fans even care if Perry outsells MJ or not? MJ fans are always so anal about sales. Plenty of bullshit sells like hotcakes, and plenty of really good music doesn't even go platinum.

And MJ's discography doesn't get the same respect in terms of the quality of the re-releases like U2 because MJ didn't approach his work from the same mindspace as U2. He made it hard for people to respect his own work because he didn't show a lot of respect for it, himself. It was kinda hard for people to take the man's stuff seriously when he was taking some of his best work and releasing shitty-ass videos for it that were more about how many celebs he could get to do cameos (the "Liberian Girl" video) and shit like that; or parading giant statues of himself down rivers to promote his cd and all that bullshit, and how when the anniversary of his most successful work rolled around, he consented to a bunch of no-talent pop-fuckers remaking the tracks and essentially ruining them in the process.

I agree with what you said about MJ stans worrying too much about sales, certifications and honorary stuff. I'm a hardcore MJ admirer, but I never quite worried about whether albums sold more than others, who was breaking MJ's record and all that jazz. But it's nothing new really.

Now, this whole thing you said about MJ's discography not attaining the same respect from contemporaries is just atrocious. I don't understand what your point is. Clearly, Michael always wanted his work post-Off The Wall to be the biggest, the best ever. Whether people understood it or trashed it, I feel like it was their personal gripe with what MJ was doing either professionally or personally (mostly personally). They weren't worried about the artistic value of the work. Instead, they criticized MJ or some gimmick like sales.

[Edited 8/7/11 14:51pm]

Plus can't we make an argument that both Prince AND Stevie Wonder gave much less of a FUCK about their LATEST projects?! I mean if you're gonna criticize Michael for not focusing on one particular album, might as well every other artist who just plain GIVES UP on an album after ONE WEEK/MONTH!

Timmy84 said:

silverchild said:

I agree with what you said about MJ stans worrying too much about sales, certifications and honorary stuff. I'm a hardcore MJ admirer, but I never quite worried about whether albums sold more than others, who was breaking MJ's record and all that jazz. But it's nothing new really.

Now, this whole thing you said about MJ's discography not attaining the same respect from contemporaries is just atrocious. I don't understand what your point is. Clearly, Michael always wanted his work post-Off The Wall to be the biggest, the best ever. Whether people understood it or trashed it, I feel like it was their personal gripe with what MJ was doing either professionally or personally (mostly personally). They weren't worried about the artistic value of the work. Instead, they criticized MJ or some gimmick like sales.

[Edited 8/7/11 14:51pm]

Plus can't we make an argument that both Prince AND Stevie Wonder gave much less of a FUCK about their LATEST projects?! I mean if you're gonna criticize Michael for not focusing on one particular album, might as well every other artist who just plain GIVES UP on an album after ONE WEEK/MONTH!

Great point Timmy! I mean, when you have released albums for nearly your entire life (solo or otherwise) hell it's hard to keep focusing and worrying about if an album is gonna sell or appeal to an audience. Everybody has done it or is doing it. You can't satisfy everyone else I guess!

silverchild said:

Timmy84 said:

Plus can't we make an argument that both Prince AND Stevie Wonder gave much less of a FUCK about their LATEST projects?! I mean if you're gonna criticize Michael for not focusing on one particular album, might as well every other artist who just plain GIVES UP on an album after ONE WEEK/MONTH!

Great point Timmy! I mean, when you have released albums for nearly your entire life (solo or otherwise) hell it's hard to keep focusing and worrying about if an album is gonna sell or appeal to an audience. Everybody has done it or is doing it. You can't satisfy everyone else I guess!

Exactly. Don't know why folks think Michael is the only one. Look at Todd Rundgren, he hardly focused on his album before being inspired and moving on to the next album and we all know how James Brown treated albums! Releasing 10 in one year lmao

Free2BMe said:

mozfonky said:

I could bring the black guy owning stuff but I've been trying to steer away from that facet, but of course, it's more than likely true.

Why hate to bring up what is DEFINENTLY true. There is no way in hell that the media and those in the music industry would be bitching and whining if Michael was not a black man. I really get sick of people "pussy-footing" around that fact because they think that someone will get angry. Damn, it's true. Let's be real. Anyone who denies that is not being honest with themselves and they know it. I remember the media calling Michael "crazy" when he first made this deal. Would they have called any OTHER(mainstream artist) "crazy" for purchasing the Beatles catalogue? Again, why the double standards for Michael? Later, these same naysayers had to begrudgeinly ADMIT that Michael made the deal of a lifetime. I have always said that a LOT of the media and industry hate against Michael had to do with the Beatles catalogue purchase. They did everything in their power to make or want him to lose it. The "broke" stories started in order to diminish the fact that he STILL owned that catalogue and THOUSANDS of other songs. As Jermaine stated during an interview-"Michael was NEVER broke" and the media/industry KNEW it. Btw, I apppreiate that Jermaine tells it like it is about Michael more than anyone else in that family. I know his ass has his faults, but he defends Michael like no other and always has.

co sign