sleepyq said:

It's not always just about sales. What's Going On by Marvin Gaye sold a fraction of all those albums, but to many people that appreciated good music it's probably seen as one of the best albums ever made...The fact of the matter is Michael created a whole lot more music when he was with his brothers. If his brothers were really holding him back then he should have done a whole lot more albums when he went completely solo, which was well over 20 years before his death.

And your last statement just shows how ignorant many hard-core MJ fans are. They justify MJ worth purely by sales. It's like saying Brittany Speares is a better artist than Aretha Franklin because she sells more albums!! MJ was a wonderful artist, one of the best. His career span alone was unique, songs what he did before he reached teenagerhood are still being played world-wide and seen as classics, but that doesn't mean his very best albums were the ones that sold the most. And people say History was personal, I think Destiny was also quite a personal album and it was delivered, imo, in a more eloquent and beautiful way.
[Edited 2/19/10 18:36pm]
[Edited 2/19/10 18:38pm]
[Edited 2/19/10 18:49pm]
[Edited 2/20/10 2:56am]

I love Michael Jackson in any era period. But the Destiny and Triumph albums were not very diverse in my opinion. Many of the songs sound very repetitive, and from what I've seen of the concerts during this era, Michael was great but his brothers not so much. The shows were not very tight either.

I love OTW and Thriller. OTW was/is such a great album and vocally MJ is just amazing, but again, the album is not very diverse. Thriller is probably his most diverse album because it sounds like nothing anybody had done before period. Some might think Thriller is just overrated, but I can see why it became the monster it became: nothing really compares to that album. It is so unique in every single way, and not even MJ did another album as diverse as this one.

Bad was good and Dangerous was great too. MJ was at his best as a showman during the bad era IMO. Some might not like it because he seemed more controlled and not as spontaneous as during the Triumph and Destiny eras,but he was at his peak during this time. He danced his best and every body movement he did on stage was simply otherwordly.

Funny enough, some of my favorite songs are in the Dangerous album though. I don't know why but I love that album. But for me his best song is Stranger in Moscow. His voice sounds amazing and the songwriting, music, arrangements etc are just pure perfection.
[Edited 2/19/10 20:00pm]
[Edited 2/19/10 20:01pm]

I notice most who grew up with Michael (when he first started) like everything pre bad and the other's like post. (At least online anyway)But it doesn't matter because he was good in all Era's just people can relate to some era's more than others.

MOL said:

All this mess and attacking the Jackson Family is turining everyone off!!!
Who wants to constantly read this garbage? Give it a f***ng break!!! Your negative post run Michael Jackson supporter away for this site. You are hurting Michael Jackson's legacy with your constant badmouthing crap!!! Please
stop!!!

whatsgoingon said:

This is a smart, insightful post....Props....

There are two more picture from the photoshoot.











As for when was Mike the best: he was always great. Recently. I´ve been enjoying his earlier work by the Jacksons and J5 that I didn´t get to experience cause I wasn´t born yet and I am loving it.
[Edited 2/20/10 0:42am]
[Edited 2/20/10 0:54am]

This is so great and rare:



I love the way he says "OOOOOH!" @ 0:07.

LaSeles said:

This is what I think spoiled some of MJ latter music; he tried to be too diverse and sometimes that can spoiled an album and make it sound messy. Take Dangerous for instance it would have been a much better album if he wasn't trying to be all things to all people. There are some great songs on that album but in the end the whole album seems that it was all over the place. It should have been shorter and kept to no more than two genres. He tried to do too much in one album and there doesn't seem to be any flow. That was the beauty of Quincy he made MJ albums flow, even the Bad album, which I do not care for much, still had this flow about it. MJ subsequent albums don't.

I keep on going back to an album like What's Going On by Marvin Gaye. He mainly used one type of genre to sing in, however the topics that he sang about were so diverse; he sang about religion, war, the environment, taxes and children all delivered in a beautiful, succint and flowing manner.
[Edited 2/20/10 3:14am]

WaterInYourBath said:

Haha, he's adorable!

whatsgoingon said:

Totally agree - Destiny is an album dealing with growth and hopes of what one's life might be. It's a lot more open and optimistic than later recordings. HiStory whilst also personal was a lot more raw and biting and fuelled by anger because that is where he was at that point - it's more a comment about what his life had become. I appreciate them both for the honesty they present.

I also agree that commercial success doesn't instantly mean artistic success. I think when some MJ fans talk about the commercial success of albums post Thriller it is more in reaction to being told constantly by the press that these albums were flops - which clearly they weren't based on their sales but when compared to Thriller didn't reach the same critical and commercial success.

Swa

Swa said:

Another great post....

Everyone has peaks and lows in their career.
Look at Prince, for instance. He had his peak in the 80's and, from the mid-nineties until the early-millenium, he just released crap.
To claim MJ would be nothing but "tabloid fodder" without this and that is nonsense, because one has to look at the bigger picture and judge a career as a whole.
It's like a person claiming Ronaldo would a crappy footballer if it wasn't for the 6 first years of his career. One cannot judge a career based on some years.
It's like saying Elvis was not attractive because of his appearance in latter years.
Whatsgoingon keeps screaming "Marvin Gaye". Well, you must be "forgetting" (with the due respect) that not everything about Gaye's career were roses. He had some pretty BAD periods, musically speaking. But, once again, which artist doesn't (although, in my opinion, Gaye had too many)? I won't keep ranting about how many of Gaye's releases were awfull and that if it wasn't for 3-4 albums his career would be average, because I have to judge his career as a whole. I have to look at the bigger picture.
So, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that Michael also did crappy songs and blah blah blah. Do you know what the Beatles' producer said about the "White Album"? According to him "it was a piece of shit".
Besides, while I know it is not politically correct to claim John Lennon's solo career wasn't good, the fact is that I- and many- think it was nothing but average. But you can't resume his "career quality" to that.
[Edited 2/20/10 8:25am]

whatsgoingon said:

To even hint that Bad is better than Dangerous (because of Quincy's touch) is a LAUGH.

Dangerous is a masterpiece period , an album for any music fan, the album has every genre and it flows perfectly ……FACT.

seeingvoices12 said:

It's obvious you are confused. I never said Bad was better album, I said it flows better than Dangerous. I actually prefer Dangerous to Bad but Dangerous would have been a much better album if it wasn't all over the place. Trying to put so many genres in one album doesn't alway work and imo it didn't work with Dangerous, it was very far from being a masterpiece IMO. An album can be diverse without having to cram everything from rock to pop to gosepel on it..

whatsgoingon said:

Lets agree to disagree, and Im not confused, Dangerous is not all over the place at all and this is your opinion , Other cats say that bad is too 80's and aged horribly , at the end its all personal preference, for me , with the album dangerous it worked, the album flowed greatly, one of his most creative efforts .

MOL said:

You make the stupid analogy that MJ brothers held him back, even though he was exclusively solo for over 20 years and yet he only did 3 and half albums!! If his brothers held him back so much why did he release a bulk of his vintage stuff during the time he was with his brothers? He released an album per year when he was with his brothers, including his best selling album; Thriller. And yet when he was completely solo he released one album ever 4 to 5 years. And that is the fact.

And by the way unless you are part of the Jackson circle, stop pretending you know more about MJ than his family. Your the type of rabid MJ fans, that make MJ fans seem so crazy.
[Edited 2/20/10 9:27am]

whatsgoingon said:

I think he did more albums back when he was young because he wanted to achieve his goals. When that happened (with Thriller), he stopped working hard and worked, instead, for the numbers. He mistook success with numbers and popularity, something that his brothers couldn't afford to even think about since they already had to work too hard in order to get a contract. In my opinion, he didn't need his brothers. The reciprocous, however, is true. Read some stories on the Jacksons and you'll realize that his brothers and parents DID hold/try to hold him back. Start with the TII boycott.

I don't pretend to know more about the guys than anyone. Nor do I want to. I know what informed fans know. It does hurt people like you who see everything through pink colored glasses. Let's invert the coin here: you are the type of MJ fan who sees everything with roses.

BTW, did you even read my post or wasn't it convenient? Damn, I politely tried to start a constructive discussion with you (you seemed fair and inteligent), but you don't seem too interested in defending your claims, do you?

Ohhh...and yes (!), many fans do know more about MJ than his own father, for example!
[Edited 2/20/10 10:07am]

MOL said:

Stop talking out of your arse. Did I say the Jackson family was wonderful? I can't stand Joe Jackson, he obviously saw Michael as a commodity rather than a son!! I also have a problem with some of his brothers. But I ain't going to sit there like your crazy-arse does, and blame every single problem that MJ ever had on his family.

MJ made a lot of bad choices on his own, with no help from his family. MJ was probably going gaga whilst he was still close to his family, but he sure went into free-fall when he completely detached himself from his family....The proof is in the pudding, deal with it. It's your crazy, rabid arse that wants to see MJ as a saint, or worse still as some retarded child. By you blaming every little tiny thing on the Jacksons your more or less saying MJ was not adult enough to stand up for himself and take responsibility for his own life.
[Edited 2/20/10 10:26am]

whatsgoingon said:

No. You are wrong. Here's why: I've said numerous times that Michael Jackson is to blame for a lot of things. What I also said- which was probably too complex for some- is that some of his problems' origins weren't his fault. Here's a great example: the nose. Yes, Michael was stupid and did WAY too much plastic surgery, but being verbally abused as a child over his nose and looks in general, certainly didn't help, don't you think? I could go on and on.

As a saint? Here you are really wrong. Mainly when, two pages ago, I stated that Jackson was to blame for his divorce with LMP. Selective memory?

Yes, Jackson had to grow up urgently and take responsability for his own life. Who ever denied it?

Yes, Jackson played the victim way too many times instead of taking control over his own life and how many times have I stated that?
Your "you blame everything on the Jacksons" argument doens't go with me, because it is simply not true. But, hell yeah, I do blame them for exploiting (and not being shy to admit it) and abusing a 5 years old Michael and that, obviously, had its consequences.

MOL said:

Well you should read your own post more, there all about how "awful" the Jacksons are. Normally I wouldn't take you on when it comes to your ramblings, but when you start even blaming his brothers on holding his career back, even though he had been solo for well over 20 years then I really knew you were talking out of your arse.
[Edited 2/20/10 10:54am]

whatsgoingon said:

I'll repeat it; this time slowlier: the Jacksons did MANY things to MJ, when he was a solo act, that had a negative impact on his career. In fact, Joe and Jermaine were more than happy in trying to ruin it (no exxageration; read what they told Todd Gold). I might talk out of my ass, but you think with it. Quite a difference.
[Edited 2/20/10 11:10am]

MOL said:

And it's been also claimed that MJ tried to sabotage the solo careers of Jermaine and Janet, do you believe that too? Of course you don't because in your eyes MJ could never do no wrong. MJ fans are selective as the media they choose what they want to believe and discard what doesn't sound favourable to MJ. You are just as selective and bias as the haters. MJ had 24 years as a solo artist, it wasn't his brothers or even Joe that stopped him making no more than 3 and half albums in that period!!

I just came across this sweet article that I haven´t read. Oh, how I miss those little things - reading about Mike´s whereabouts and what he was doing.




Mike must have really liked this t-shirt. I´ve seen him wear it a couple of times.


[Edited 2/20/10 14:15pm]

whatsgoingon said:

U got this wrong. I don't care about what music u doi or don't like. I'm telling u that u r factually incorrect. U said:

whatsgoingon said:

This is where u made ur mistake. I'll post- yes, I'm going to post #s. Sorry, but i like dealing with facts. Here ya go:

Billboard 200 05/12/2009:
85 JACKSON*MICHAEL THRILLER 9,817
181 JACKSON*MICHAEL BAD 4,794
__ JACKSON*MICHAEL DANGEROUS 3,438
__ JACKSON*MICHAEL OFF THE WALL 3,228

So here, we have both Bad and Dangerous outselling OTW- and no Destiny/Triumph/J5 compilation on chart

Billboard 200 12/12/2009:
68 JACKSON*MICHAEL BAD 17,453
89 JACKSON*MICHAEL THRILLER 14,368
115 JACKSON*MICHAEL OFF THE WALL 10,905
147 JACKSON*MICHAEL DANGEROUS 9,108

Bad outselling Thriller! OTW & Dangerous being neck & neck in sales, No Jacksons/J5 showing.

What u don't seem to understand is that u r only half right- what sold most initially doesn't matter at all, yes. But what is selling the most NOW does matter. It matters a lot. Britney Spear's first album may have sold 14 million copies when it came out, but guess how much it sold last year? About 5,000 copies. Awful for such a big album- the album is forgotten, and dead. Marvin Gaye's What's Goin On may have sold much less when it was released, but guess how much it sells now? About 50k a year. That's over 10X what Britney's album is selling now. Why? Because his album is more remembered. Hers is forgotten.

So case and point- if ur theory that Michael is remembered for his J5/Jacksons stint moreso than his Bad/Damngerous albums is correct, they would be selling more than Dangerous today. Madonna's Like A Prayer sells double True Blue each year, despite the fact that True Blue sold sold way more than LAP when it was released. So why the sales? Because she's more remebered for her Like A Prayer years. So understand that it has no bearing whatsoever that Dangerous outsold Destiny when it was released. If Michael was most remebered for Destiny, it would be up there with Thriller/OTW. So why isn't it? Because you're wrong! The fact is that Michael's solo career is what he is most remebered for, period. The ones he made when he was his brothers, the ones he made after, doesn't matter. Solo career is why he is an icon and a legend. Not an opinion. A fact.

I don't want to change ur opinions, they're urs, not mine. But pls. No more factually incorrect assumptions. Peace.

sleepyq said:

I think whatsgoingon already made it shown he/she wasn't talking about sales. But anyway I'm going into another post at the moment this is not my convo.

babybugz said:

She made the mistake of saying that Michael is ONLY remembered for Thriller/OTW/J5. Pruple Rain sells more than any other Prince album not because its his best, but because its what he's most remembered for. The albums that sell the most now are the ones that an artist is most remembered for. So if Dangerous sells more than Triumph, Destiny, or The Best of Jackson 5, Michael is more remembered for Dangerous, which he made AFTER he left his brothers. She's wrong, full stop. This isn't an opinion issue.

Sales are only a fraction of MJ so I don't know what you're going on about, sleepy.

I like all of the eras, but something about MJ between 1978 and 1982 is precious to me.
[Edited 2/20/10 14:54pm]

Timmy84 said:

I agree , I can't explain I just don't like when people skip those years and go straight to everything else. Skip like half of his career

sleepyq said:

I said it was the first 20 years that consolidated his legendary status as a musician. If we are basing his legendary status as an artist on anything from Bad onwards it wouldn't hold up, regardless of record sales. He did too little after Thriller and as much as Bad and Dangerous sold they were not innovative, groundbacking albums that changed the world. They were more hype than substance. And let's face it if it weren't for the the success of Thriller I doubt any of his subsequent albums would have sold the amount they sold in the first place. MJ himself realize that with Thriller he created a monster, which he himself was always trying to beat.

After Thriller it was more about the tabloid fodder than the music. That's why when some of the fans go on about his brothers affecting his solo career it becomes laughable, as if to say it was his brothers who turnt the latter part of his life into tabloid fodder.