Timmy84 said:

seeingvoices12 said:

Lawd...coming here talking like you like you are an objective poster is not going to help , your post history about MJ indicates the contrary , you don't like the man...plain and simple....

and btw.. Elvis is Elvis ...and MJ is MJ..........Two different ICONs....

Anyways Thriller WON'T be surpassed. End of story.

Plus it did like 70 million WORLDWIDE. Not even the best-selling albums of the '80s reached that yet! The highest was AC/DC at, last I checked 45 million.

So yeah. Surpassed my ass.

Sure...It's not going to happen

seeingvoices12 said:

Timmy84 said:

Anyways Thriller WON'T be surpassed. End of story.

Plus it did like 70 million WORLDWIDE. Not even the best-selling albums of the '80s reached that yet! The highest was AC/DC at, last I checked 45 million.

So yeah. Surpassed my ass.

Sure...It's not going to happen

Hell the rapture was more believable than Thriller being surpassed in the future.

You people amuse me. that's all that matters.

Ellie said:

That's funny, because nearly every week when I walk around central places in the city, I see/hear MJ influences everywhere. Just this afternoon I was at a tube station and a busker was playing Thriller with young kids nearby dancing. Last week it was a different station blasting out The Girl Is Mine. The week before I was walking down Shaftesbury Avenue and toddlers were coming out of the Thriller Live theatre dressed from head to toe in MJ attire. I went to a 1 year olds birthday party today and a 4 year old Asian boy was wearing a Rolling Stones T-Shirt. There are certain giants of the industry that have transcended age, race and most importantly time.

It's like Star Trek, people still get into a show that came out over 40 years ago. Kids still buy Superman & Batman comic books. People still get into Bruce Lee, and not counting his childhood non-martial arts films, he only made 4 movies. The Beatles continue to sell pretty well. Mike is pop culture in the same way.

MickyDolenz said:

Ellie said:

That's funny, because nearly every week when I walk around central places in the city, I see/hear MJ influences everywhere. Just this afternoon I was at a tube station and a busker was playing Thriller with young kids nearby dancing. Last week it was a different station blasting out The Girl Is Mine. The week before I was walking down Shaftesbury Avenue and toddlers were coming out of the Thriller Live theatre dressed from head to toe in MJ attire. I went to a 1 year olds birthday party today and a 4 year old Asian boy was wearing a Rolling Stones T-Shirt. There are certain giants of the industry that have transcended age, race and most importantly time.

It's like Star Trek, people still get into a show that came out over 40 years ago. Kids still buy Superman & Batman comic books. People still get into Bruce Lee, and not counting his childhood non-martial arts films, he only made 4 movies. The Beatles continue to sell pretty well. Mike is pop culture in the same way.

Not to mention the kids who listen to and idolize Elvis.

For the record I just want to say that, to the contrary I do not dislike MJ. I think Off The Wall and Thriller are very good recordings. MJ is a pop music recording artist that touched a nerve with kids. And artists like MJ do not come along too often.

That said, I simply state that the music industry is headed to towards a homogenized mainstream state once again that will inevitably enable another popular artist to sell as many records.

Lets be real here. Elvis fans never thought another artist would sell as many records as he. The Beatles proved them wrong. Another generation saw MJ encroach on the Beatles sales territory. It's only logical that the same will happen again.

I don't think many people in Elvis & The Beatles day knew or cared what records sold. In most cases the record companies didn't put out that kind of information anyway to avoid paying their acts or paying them as little as possible. That sort of statistic chasing mainly started in the 1980's or maybe the mid 1970s with the advent of the "super" album acts like Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Led Zeppelin, Eagles, Styx, etc.

MickyDolenz said:

I don't think many people in Elvis & The Beatles day knew or cared what records sold. In most cases the record companies didn't put out that kind of information anyway to avoid paying their acts or paying them as little as possible. That sort of statistic chasing mainly started in the 1980's or maybe the mid 1970s with the advent of the "super" album acts like Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Led Zeppelin, Eagles, Styx, etc.

Yeah it started around the time Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd were releasing what they later called arena rock albums. Peter Frampton at one point had the best-selling album of all time with Frampton Comes Alive shortly after its release in 1976.

Also, and this is quite outstanding looking back at it but the biggest-selling album by a solo artist PRIOR to Thriller was Carole King's Tapestry and that album had sold past seven million making it so (this was in 1971). By the time of Thriller, it had reached ten million. Michael surpassed it in not even 18 months, more like 10 lol Stevie's SITKOL had also did ten million though it's a question of WHEN it hit that mark (and that was a double album). Michael's was a single album affair of just nine tracks that today could've been released an EP if it was first released in the 1990s or even now.

Timmy84 said:

Stevie's SITKOL had also did ten million though it's a question of WHEN it hit that mark (and that was a double album).

When did Motown start releasing sales figures? Berry Gordy always refused to do so.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Stevie's SITKOL had also did ten million though it's a question of WHEN it hit that mark (and that was a double album).

When did Motown start releasing sales figures? Berry Gordy always refused to do so.

SITKOL's sales figures were released, I believe, in 2008.

Do you think there will be an album that has more number 1's then Bad? maybe not sell more but more number 1's?

I seriously think a Beiber fan paid you to make this thread Keep it coming...I hear what you're saying and I hope it doesn't happen, but this is MJ we're talking about. I have seen way too many times, even lots of times post 1993, that people of all ages in families were enjoying his music a lot. I see mostly little kids liking Beiber and taking him seriously and people 25 and over just thinking aw cute kid and nothing more. If he has a successful adult career, good for him, but he will be like another Jesse McCartney or Justin Timberlake, cause he seems overexposed right now and will probably reach his peak soon if he already hasn't.

[Edited 5/21/11 19:23pm]

In this current state of record sales it'll never happen. Also keep in mind that the music being made today by artists and heavily pushed is disposable and cookie cutter stuff. True innovation isn't as hihly regarded as it once was.

BTW - I have never owned a copy of Thriller or any other Michael Jackson album!

V10LETBLUES said:

For the record I just want to say that, to the contrary I do not dislike MJ. I think Off The Wall and Thriller are very good recordings. MJ is a pop music recording artist that touched a nerve with kids. And artists like MJ do not come along too often.

That said, I simply state that the music industry is headed to towards a homogenized mainstream state once again that will inevitably enable another popular artist to sell as many records.

Lets be real here. Elvis fans never thought another artist would sell as many records as he. The Beatles proved them wrong. Another generation saw MJ encroach on the Beatles sales territory. It's only logical that the same will happen again.

The homogenization you're talking about IS happening to some extent among music made for little kids. Miley, Jonases, now Biebs.

Here's the problem. In the two years that it took Michael Jackson to sell 20 million units, with like ten hit singles in a row, acts like Bieber and Cyrus have already gone from obscurity to superstardom to irrelevance.

That kind of sustained stranglehold on the popular attention is not going to happen again, not among any act that adults listen to. From Elvis to the Beatles to MJ you have relatively the same distribution system in place, if anything it evolves to where the superstars of the 80s can sell more than the stars of the 60s. The one that's in place today, even the biggest hits don't sell what they used to. I don't see the market place changing in any way that's gonna get us back to the conditions where people are buying more units of the big albums, instead of fewer.

Somebody may eventually rack up more Youtube views but it's just not the same thing.

Yeah a billion YouTube views, 15 million followers on Twitter, 60 million fans on Facebook does not guarantee you longevity. Neither does 100 top ten hits on iTunes.

Gunsnhalen said:

Do you think there will be an album that has more number 1's then Bad? maybe not sell more but more number 1's?

Two letters:

N.O.

Never ever will it be surpassed. If anyone wants an album nowadays, all they got to do is go to a site and download it in 10 minutes.

As long as that's possible, Thriller will forever be the no.1 selling album of all time.

bobzilla77 said:

V10LETBLUES said:

For the record I just want to say that, to the contrary I do not dislike MJ. I think Off The Wall and Thriller are very good recordings. MJ is a pop music recording artist that touched a nerve with kids. And artists like MJ do not come along too often.

That said, I simply state that the music industry is headed to towards a homogenized mainstream state once again that will inevitably enable another popular artist to sell as many records.

Lets be real here. Elvis fans never thought another artist would sell as many records as he. The Beatles proved them wrong. Another generation saw MJ encroach on the Beatles sales territory. It's only logical that the same will happen again.

The homogenization you're talking about IS happening to some extent among music made for little kids. Miley, Jonases, now Biebs.

Here's the problem. In the two years that it took Michael Jackson to sell 20 million units, with like ten hit singles in a row, acts like Bieber and Cyrus have already gone from obscurity to superstardom to irrelevance.

That kind of sustained stranglehold on the popular attention is not going to happen again, not among any act that adults listen to. From Elvis to the Beatles to MJ you have relatively the same distribution system in place, if anything it evolves to where the superstars of the 80s can sell more than the stars of the 60s. The one that's in place today, even the biggest hits don't sell what they used to. I don't see the market place changing in any way that's gonna get us back to the conditions where people are buying more units of the big albums, instead of fewer.

Somebody may eventually rack up more Youtube views but it's just not the same thing.

I will agree with you that if when you say "units" you mean vinyl records, cassettes and CD's, Then I will agree that no other artist will top it. If we talk about sales in general, as in downloads, CD's and whatever other format that may come down the pike, then I have to say yes, someone will top it. As sure of this as anything, It is ineveitable. But it is about how the question is posed.

Its like comparing horse-shoes to tires. As methods of transportation change, some things are not able to be equally compared. Now some are marginalizing downloads and any other form of access to fit their fanaticism.

[Edited 5/22/11 5:57am]

It's way too easy to get music for free these days. You'll never see someone sell 20 million in a year and a half no matter how huge the singles are when people don't feel particularly compelled to purchase the album.

Spinlight said:

It's way too easy to get music for free these days. You'll never see someone sell 20 million in a year and a half no matter how huge the singles are when people don't feel particularly compelled to purchase the album.

People just don't understand things will never be the same. Hell wasn't like people were always selling 20 million, that only occurred between 1975 and 2001. I could count about 15 albums here in the U.S. that did 20 million or more, everybody else either did 10 million or lesser. It's too easy for someone to assume that something "revolutionary" will occur with today's model but I just don't see it and anybody wishing that would happen is only selling a pipe dream. Artists today would be lucky to sell five million even WITH the promotion they do.

Here is a little food for thought.

http://blog.nielsen.com/n...p-in-2011/

Cue the Music: Driven by Digital, Music Sales up in 2011

May 11, 2011

Music sales in the U.S. are up 1.6 percent in 2011, according to The Nielsen Company, as digital album and track sales saw dramatic growth through May 8. While physical albums saw a decline in year-over-year sales from the same period in 2010, digital album and track purchases went up 16.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively. Digital retailers received more than half of all music transactions, propelling a 12.4 percent growth in sales over last year.

Catalog album sales are up 5.4 percent in 2011, thanks in part to a long-awaited 2010 deal allowing digital distribution of The Beatles’ albums for the first time. Other trends reported by Nielsen include:

• Vinyl sales increased 37 percent in the beginning of 2011 over the same period last year. Vinyl sales also rose 14.2 percent in 2010, although they only accounted for 1.2 percent of physical sales.
• 2011 saw the most successful Record Store Day in the event’s four-year history. Album sales at independent record stores increased over 39 percent the week of Record Store Day (April 16) from the prior week – an increase of 180,000 units – and 12.7 percent compared to 2010.
• Rock is the most popular genre of music, with 32 percent album share, while pop music represents 40 percent of all current digital tracks sold.
• Ninety-three of the 100 best selling vinyl albums in 2011 fall within the Rock or Alternative genres.

HonestMan13 said:

BTW - I have never owned a copy of Thriller or any other Michael Jackson album!

+_+ L.A.M.E.

All the digital shit won't mean anything if Thriller doesn't get surpassed by 2022. By then it'll be 40 years and we'll probably be still here talking about who will replace him. Willow Smith will be brought up in discussion.

Don't believe me? Just watch...

.

[Edited 5/22/11 13:48pm]

Are we allowed to make a friendly bet on Prince.org? I think arguing is boring and getting us nowhere...

Emancipation89 said:

Are we allowed to make a friendly bet on Prince.org? I think arguing is boring and getting us nowhere...

Yeah we can. This was a friendly bet until certain things were BROUGHT UP!

Bieber

Digital music's "rise"

Someone saying they don't own Thriller

Going back and forth over how music is about to be buried and its grim reaper being an ORG member

Timmy84 said:

All the digital shit won't mean anything if Thriller doesn't get surpassed by 2022. By then it'll be 40 years and we'll probably be still here talking about who will replace him. Willow Smith will be brought up in discussion.

Don't believe me? Just watch...

Shit as much as they talk about someone like Elvis, MLK and JFK every year by commemorating their death, what makes one think that Michael ain't gonna be talked about? What makes you think people aren't gonna keep buying his music, whether it's a reissue or compilation? Thriller and his other albums are gonna be cash cows for now on...that's one of the obvious reasons why Thriller will never be surpassed.

[Edited 5/22/11 13:47pm]