Emancipation89 said:

GoldDolphin said:

I remember back in 08 when there were rumors about MJ performing at the Grammys and I was hyped and if only he had done it, I think the industry would have been a bit different. Haters gonna hate, but when MJ did something the industry watched in awe.

Yeah what was up with that? But what I heard was that there was going to be a Thriller 25 tribute with Will.I.Am and Fergie and etc, I don't think Michael was originally supposed to perform there that night. My guess is maybe it was either the grammys couldn't arrange a proper tribute with decent enough performers for Thriller 25 so they ended up canceling it or Michael told them not to do it at the last minute....? They even made a freaking commercial about it =(

I don't know, some people said that the grammys didn't fullfull his requirements of some sorts, I don't know how true that is. It sucks though and I remember that commercial! I don't understand how they couldn't arrange a proper tribute, with all of those people copying everything he had done. It's a shame he never got a proper tribute while he was alive, espcially the last 10 years of his life. Watching Prince feel all that love during the grammys the other day, made me think how it's a shame MJ never got that and he truly deserved that, espcially after all those stupid scandals. Thinking about it, the few people that were supporting him during his later years were people in the Hip-Hop community.

GoldDolphin said:

alphastreet said:

GoldDolphin said:

I don't know, some people said that the grammys didn't fullfull his requirements of some sorts, I don't know how true that is. It sucks though and I remember that commercial! I don't understand how they couldn't arrange a proper tribute, with all of those people copying everything he had done. It's a shame he never got a proper tribute while he was alive, espcially the last 10 years of his life. Watching Prince feel all that love during the grammys the other day, made me think how it's a shame MJ never got that and he truly deserved that, espcially after all those stupid scandals. Thinking about it, the few people that were supporting him during his later years were people in the Hip-Hop community.

Yes that's what I'm talking about! Mj influences were everywhere 06 to 09 including with samples. And some ignored that shit and needed to be slapped upside the head. To me mj w's still relevant cause of all these references and influences.

I wish that would have happened. I feel like that would have shown MJ he was still the most loved entertainer of all time. Which is something he needed to feel, he needed to feel that love. I feel like his final years 07/09 things where going so good for him, he had his "swagger" back. If he would have been able to do the 50 TII shows, and put out the new album he was working on, i have no doubt in my mind he would have taken over the industry once again. He was still filled with so much talent, so much art just waiting to be created.

GoldDolphin said:

Emancipation89 said:

Yeah what was up with that? But what I heard was that there was going to be a Thriller 25 tribute with Will.I.Am and Fergie and etc, I don't think Michael was originally supposed to perform there that night. My guess is maybe it was either the grammys couldn't arrange a proper tribute with decent enough performers for Thriller 25 so they ended up canceling it or Michael told them not to do it at the last minute....? They even made a freaking commercial about it =(

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7tEOz7zk5A[youtube]

I don't know, some people said that the grammys didn't fullfull his requirements of some sorts, I don't know how true that is. It sucks though and I remember that commercial! I don't understand how they couldn't arrange a proper tribute, with all of those people copying everything he had done. It's a shame he never got a proper tribute while he was alive, espcially the last 10 years of his life. Watching Prince feel all that love during the grammys the other day, made me think how it's a shame MJ never got that and he truly deserved that, espcially after all those stupid scandals. Thinking about it, the few people that were supporting him during his later years were people in the Hip-Hop community.

I wonder if they simply couldn't get a lot of people to do MJ tribute at that time. I'm probably over-thinking this but a lot of musicians were being really reserved when it comes to showing their support for MJ publicly after the trial, even if it was just solely about his legacy as an artist...that's how I felt. Who knows, maybe it really was MJ who didn't want to make an appearance at the Grammys to watch the tribute and wanted this to be cancelled. Michael could've really used a good award show tribute to boost his confidence imo and yes it would've been a great way to remind the public what he was originally known and famous for. I'm surprised the grammys and even the BET never gave MJ an all-star tribute when he was alive like they did with Prince. He really deserved it.

Oh and about Justin haha personally I see more Prince influence than MJ in him these days..

[Edited 2/14/13 15:12pm]

you exaggerate.
always there were many artists who have expressed their support and respect to him, from Beyonce to Amy Winehouse and Bjork.

I do not believe that a lot of rnb artists of 00`s would refused to participate in the tribute, he was the biggest influence for most of them.

I think the problem was passivity both organizers and the side of the MJ.

LiLi1992 said:

MJ or Prince? Check out the link BELOW

funny article ... thanks.

1. Yeah, exactly sale are not known, but only 3 main hit albums (Thriller, Bad and Dangerous) officially (only on the basis of certification) have sold more than the entire catalog of Prince.
2. 6 albums number 1 for MJ ... well, not impressive, but he had only 6 adult solo albums.
3. MJ had more than 20 Top 10 hits in the groups (Yes, these hits are not fair to add to his statistics, but it is his legacy, too)

MJ obviously is much bigger star globally .... but better? this is very subjective
for most people, the best one whose music they prefer.
simple and obvious.

LiLi1992 said:

funny article ... thanks.

1. Yeah, exactly sale are not known, but only 3 main hit albums (Thriller, Bad and Dangerous) officially (only on the basis of certification) have sold more than the entire catalog of Prince.
2. 6 albums number 1 for MJ ... well, not impressive, but he had only 6 adult solo albums.
3. MJ had more than 20 Top 10 hits in the groups (Yes, these hits are not fair to add to his statistics, but it is his legacy, too)

MJ obviously is much bigger star globally .... but better? this is very subjective
for most people, the best one whose music they prefer.
simple and obvious.

The article is simply looking at it from a charting angle AKA an angle that is actually measurable (unlike sales or influence) To say that "MJ is obviously a much bigger star globally" is extremely subjective especially if you are implying that he is bigger solely because of his music. I could easily argue that MJ became the bigger star after his death and that it had little to do with his music but again that too would be subjective, an inadmissable claim and unmeasurable. The idea of charting success globally as a measure is completely objective, and it is a more effective and efficient way to look at their illustrious careers when comparing them, instead of crazy fans just hurling insults at each other and saying things that they can't back up with actual real proof. Thanks for reading!

You know, I liked the beginning, where written that it is impossible to determine who is the best/better (I agree with that), but the final conclusion that Prince is better based on what exactly?

even leaving only the charts and forget about work MJ in the group, MJ has more hits number 1, Prince, has more number one albums .... what kind of conclusions can be drawn from this?

they are different to me, one ability is not better or worse than another, just different.

MJ became bigger star after his death (though not bigger than he was in the 80s and the early 90s), than in last 10-12 years of his life (his fall, by the way, is also not associated with music in the first place), but even before his death, he was a bigger global legend, not least because he was always more famous person.

do you really doubt that MJ sold more records? or you remove this criterion to the side, because it does not justify your opinion?

It`s not mathematics, it's music ...
Based on the charts you can tell who is more successful in the charts, based on sales - who is more successful in sales, etc.
But better?
no.

[Edited 2/15/13 9:41am]

LiLi1992 said:

You know, I liked the beginning, where written that it is impossible to determine who is the best/better (I agree with that), but the final conclusion that Prince is better based on what exactly?
they are different to me, one ability is not better or worse than another, just different.

MJ became bigger star after his death (though not bigger than he was in the 80s and the early 90s), than in last 10-12 years of his life (his fall, by the way, is also not associated with music in the first place), but even before his death, he was a bigger global legend.

[Edited 2/15/13 9:22am]

First and foremost thank you for your compliment. Secondly, The conclusion is based on global charting. When I say "better" all I precisely mean is "chart success" not better person, singer, dancer or looking etc, etc. Thirdly, yes, they are completely different artists, but are and have been in the past, continually pitted against each other. So Instead of hearing the same old arguments and screaming matches I felt it would be best to break it down by actual measurable facts (chart success). My conclusion is based on those facts. Lastly the death comment was just an example of an equally subjective opinion, not neccesarily based on my own. The way you map out the popularity timeline for MJ and Prince is the way that you see it and I respect that, but others see it completely differently. There is no measurable evidence of what you state about MJ being the "bigger star or legend" and therefore it is subjective. Popularity, Fame and influence are impossible to measure. This article is based on measurable facts. Unless of course you have a formula to measure these things, please, by all means I would love to have it and add it to my article, as that would be revolutionary, but unfortunately to my knowledge a formula of that kind does not exist. Again thank you for reading and your input, it is appreciated.

LiLi1992 said:

You know, I liked the beginning, where written that it is impossible to determine who is the best/better (I agree with that), but the final conclusion that Prince is better based on what exactly?

even leaving only the charts and forget about work MJ in the group, MJ has more hits number 1, Prince, has more number one albums .... what kind of conclusions can be drawn from this?

they are different to me, one ability is not better or worse than another, just different.

MJ became bigger star after his death (though not bigger than he was in the 80s and the early 90s), than in last 10-12 years of his life (his fall, by the way, is also not associated with music in the first place), but even before his death, he was a bigger global legend, not least because he was always more famous person.

do you really doubt that MJ sold more records? or you remove this criterion to the side, because it does not justify your opinion?

It`s not mathematics, it's music ...
Based on the charts you can tell who is more successful in the charts, based on sales - who is more successful in sales, etc.
But better?
no.

[Edited 2/15/13 9:41am]

The article is not based on what I believe so regardless if I beleived MJ had sold more albums or not, wouldn't matter. as For MJ having more #1's, I did credit him with that. But #1 songs cannot be wieghted against #1 albums. I compared hit singles to hit singles and albums to albums. To cross them over would be impossible to measure. I would assume #1 albums would carry more weight than a #1 song but how would I actually measure that? I have already stated that sales are not a dependable source of info and it is an unmeasurable stat due to the very loose estimations from the RIAA.

okay I understand that "better" for you = 'better in charts''

only charts: according to your article MJ (solo) had 29 hits number 1, Prince had 13 hits number 1.
Prince had more number 1 albums.
if you just add (elementary mathematics), their numbers 1,
MJ , 6 (albums) + 29 (singles) = 35
Prince, 12 (albums) + 13 (singles) = 25

if only albums, MJ had only 6 adult solo albums, so this aspect is simply incomparable.

In addition, to complete the picture, we need to calculate the number of weeks at number one, it is also important.

what I personally think? that MJ was bigger in the charts, too,

even in the analysis of the charts much subjectivity.
For example, you can omit some of the criteria (number of weeks, days at #1, charts run, etc.), there are coefficients of utility (the percentage of all released material has reached the first line, etc.).

By the way, Rihanna of hits number 1 in the U.S. for a long time ahead of Prince, already caught up with Madonna and this year certainly will catch MJ.
I have no doubt that in a few years she will catch up with the Beatles, too.
perhaps she is really the "best".

Or perhaps people just dont know good music I dont really care about stats, charts, awards etc. I will admit when I was YOUNG and was harcore on MJ, still am but have matured in my fandom I use to care but now I dont. The industry is different now and not even comparable to what those legends did.

LiLi1992 said:

You know, I liked the beginning, where written that it is impossible to determine who is the best/better (I agree with that), but the final conclusion that Prince is better based on what exactly?

even leaving only the charts and forget about work MJ in the group, MJ has more hits number 1, Prince, has more number one albums .... what kind of conclusions can be drawn from this?

they are different to me, one ability is not better or worse than another, just different.

MJ became bigger star after his death (though not bigger than he was in the 80s and the early 90s), than in last 10-12 years of his life (his fall, by the way, is also not associated with music in the first place), but even before his death, he was a bigger global legend, not least because he was always more famous person.

do you really doubt that MJ sold more records? or you remove this criterion to the side, because it does not justify your opinion?

It`s not mathematics, it's music ...
Based on the charts you can tell who is more successful in the charts, based on sales - who is more successful in sales, etc.
But better?
no.

[Edited 2/15/13 9:41am]

Agree with everything and now I will leave quietly

Also, why do you counted Purple Rain (Soundtrack album), but not Blood on the Dance Floor? Both formally are not studio albums.
Batman and Graffiti Bridge are soundtrack albums too ...

MJ has a lot number one albums besides studio albums:

18 Greatest Hits
Number Ones
The Essential Michael Jackson
King of Pop
The Collection
Michael
25 Bad and Thriller 25

and it's also his history in the charts and his legacy.

LiLi1992 said:

okay I understand that "better" for you = 'better in charts''

only charts: according to your article MJ (solo) had 29 hits number 1, Prince had 13 hits number 1.
Prince had more number 1 albums.
if you just add (elementary mathematics), their numbers 1,
MJ , 6 (albums) + 29 (singles) = 35
Prince, 12 (albums) + 13 (singles) = 25

if only albums, MJ had only 6 adult solo albums, so this aspect is simply incomparable.

In addition, to complete the picture, we need to calculate the number of weeks at number one, it is also important.

what I personally think? that MJ was bigger in the charts, too,

even in the analysis of the charts much subjectivity.
For example, you can omit some of the criteria (number of weeks, days at #1, charts run, etc.), there are coefficients of utility (the percentage of all released material has reached the first line, etc.).

By the way, Rihanna of hits number 1 in the U.S. for a long time ahead of Prince, already caught up with Madonna and this year certainly will catch MJ.
I have no doubt that in a few years she will catch up with the Beatles, too.
perhaps she is really the "best".

No better for me is not chart success (remember this isnt about me). Better for me is my ears (like everyone else) The purpose of this article was just to show a more subjective way to compare the two artists instead of debating it like kids. By the chart success measure Madonna is 'better' than Prince and MJ. Do I personally feel she's better? HELL NO. But chart success says she is. I dont know much about Rihanna so I'll take your word for it that she too may overtake them in this measure but facts are facts so if she does than she does and in an objective measure of chart success she's "better". If we were to weigh everything the same then your simple mathematics would be correct but as I have said I would definitely not weigh a #1 single more or equally than a #1 album. And yes, I completely agree with you, weeks spent is an incredibly great statistic. On another note, I would like to know what you feel the major difference is between a #1 single and a top 10 hit? both are smash hits and both are equally overplayed on the radio. So I dont see that as an effective measure. But weeks spent within their position in the top 10 would be something that would be very effective and would be a telling statistic of influence and overall airplay. Lastly your statement about MJ only releasing 6 albums as an adult is unfortunately irrelevant. he has 10 studio albums to his name. Those are the facts. That would be like me omitting albums "For You" and "Prince" and the songs from them because both those albums were written and recorded when he was a minor. I can't do that, that's ignoring facts. I also can't weigh MJ differently becuase he lacked output like Prince. MJ could have done more, Prince could have done less but as we know that's not what happend.

LiLi1992 said:

Also, why do you counted Purple Rain (Soundtrack album), but not Blood on the Dance Floor? Both formally are not studio albums.
Batman and Graffiti Bridge are soundtrack albums too ...

MJ has a lot number one albums besides studio albums:

18 Greatest Hits
Number Ones
The Essential Michael Jackson
King of Pop
The Collection
Michael
25 Bad and Thriller 25

and it's also his history in the charts and his legacy.

Blood on the Dance Floor is a remix album. Purple Rain, Batman, and Graffiti Bridge are all Studio Albums and served as soundtracks for the movies. not the other way around. The other MJ albums are all compilation albums of re-released songs. why would I double count albums containing songs that already were counted from the albums they spawned from? that would skew the numbers.

Prince all his albums released after he turned 18, he was officially an adult. MJ released first 4 solo albums before he was even 17 .... it's different.
eh, okay, play fair! but it is still 10 vs 25.
even with limited solo material MJ has a huge success on the charts.
well, you can`t ignore his albums as a child, and I can`t ignore his other albums (not the studio), he has, in my opinion, more than 15 albums number 1 overall and this all is his history in the charts.

Purple Rain, Batman, and Graffiti Bridge are all Studio Albums

it's just not true!
these albums are officially considered soundtrack albums.

And how can we draw general conclusions about the charts, unless you consider all the albums released under the name of an artist?

again, this subjectivity, of which we have already spoken. I think we have to calculate everything.

but I understand your position and respect it!
just think a little differently.

[Edited 2/15/13 11:39am]

LiLi1992 said:

Prince all his albums released after he turned 18, he was officially an adult. MJ released first 4 solo albums before he was even 17 .... it's different.
eh, okay, play fair! but it is still 10 vs 25.
even with limited solo material MJ has a huge success on the charts.
well, you can`t ignore his albums as a child, and I can`t ignore his other albums (not the studio), he has, in my opinion, more than 15 albums number 1 overall and this all is his history in the charts.

I really can't believe that you are trying to argue that MJ should only be accountable for his 6 albums as an adult. That's preposterous! With regards to 10 vs. 25 and that not being a fair comaprison what would you like me to do? Bring MJ back to life and tell him to get crackin? or call Prince up and tell him he needs to start omitting albums from his repotoire? we can't change history because it's not fair. Lastly your opinion is incorrect. If you count all the compilations etc. MJ has a total of 13 #1 Albums not 15. Anyways thanks for the discussion it was great while it lasted and thanks for the "time spent in the top 10" statistical idea, I'm going to try to use it, it just will be tough to use it internationally. I could do it for USA or UK or whatever other country individually but I don't know how I would do more than one country? add all the weeks up for every country? it wouldn't be accurate. I'll figure it out

LiLi1992 said:

Prince all his albums released after he turned 18, he was officially an adult. MJ released first 4 solo albums before he was even 17 .... it's different.
eh, okay, play fair! but it is still 10 vs 25.
even with limited solo material MJ has a huge success on the charts.
well, you can`t ignore his albums as a child, and I can`t ignore his other albums (not the studio), he has, in my opinion, more than 15 albums number 1 overall and this all is his history in the charts.

Purple Rain, Batman, and Graffiti Bridge are all Studio Albums

it's just not true!
these albums are officially considered soundtrack albums.

And how can we draw general conclusions about the charts, unless you consider all the albums released under the name of an artist?

again, this subjectivity, of which we have already spoken. I think we have to calculate everything.

but I understand your position and respect it!
just think a little differently.

[Edited 2/15/13 11:39am]

Look up all three of those albums and you'll find that they are Studio albums that were USED for the movie's soundtrack not the other way around. Purple Rain (the album) was released on June 25 1984. Purple Rain the movie was released on July 27, 1984. Since when is a "soundtrack" out before the movie? Batman (album) was released June 20, 1989. Batman (movie) came June 23, 1989. Graffiti Bridge (album) released August 20, 1990. Graffiti Bridge (movie) came out on November 2, 1990. Sorry but the truth is They are ALL studio albums that were USED as soundtracks. not the other way around.

films contributed to the success of each of these albums.

I do not consider his child albums primarily for two reasons: 1) I do not take them seriously and do not listen, and 2) his contribution to these albums is very small. but I agree that they exist objectively and I have to take this

all albums # 1 under his name
Studio: Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, HIStory, Invincible
Others: 18 Greatest Hits, Number Ones, The Essential Michael Jackson, King of Pop, The Collection, Michael, Blood on the Dance Floor, Thriller 25, This Is It, Bad 25 (# 1 in Italy)
--------------------
16 total

Yes, compilations and reproducing give him more # 1 than directly studio albums, but they are in his history of the charts and should not be ignored. they represent him in the charts.
your unwillingness to accept them - it`s your personal choice (not fan position). Fans will prefer to consider them.

2 different (and correct in their own rights) views on the same. notorious subjectivity.

but in the end - who is better connected with your personal sympathy.
for some it's Prince, and for some - MJ.

I suggest just leave it that way

LiLi1992 said:

films contributed to the success of each of these albums.

I do not consider his child albums primarily for two reasons: 1) I do not take them seriously and do not listen, and 2) his contribution to these albums is very small. but I agree that they exist objectively and I have to take this

all albums # 1 under his name
Studio: Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, HIStory, Invincible
Others: 18 Greatest Hits, Number Ones, The Essential Michael Jackson, King of Pop, The Collection, Michael, Blood on the Dance Floor, Thriller 25, This Is It, Bad 25 (# 1 in Italy)
--------------------
16 total

Yes, compilations and reproducing give him more # 1 than directly studio albums, but they are in his history of the charts and should not be ignored. they represent him in the charts.
your unwillingness to accept them - it`s your personal choice (not fan position). Fans will prefer to consider them.

2 different (and correct in their own rights) views on the same. notorious subjectivity.

but in the end - who is better connected with your personal sympathy.
for some it's Prince, and for some - MJ.

I suggest just leave it that way

Are you choosing to ignore the fact that every one of those albums were released PRIOR to the film? Soundtracks are always released AFTER the movie comes out. Since you got that pic from wikipedia, you should click on those "soundtrack" albums and read what they actually say. ALL of them will tell you that they are Studio albums that served for the film. I agree with your point: "2 different (and correct in their own rights) views on the same. notorious subjectivity." However I find it to be a very difficult argument that compilation albums (containing songs that have spawned from albums that have already been counted for, to be "fair". Maybe remix albums like Blood On The Dance Floor should get counted. But things like "The Essential Michael Jackson" which contain Jackson 5 material I should credit to MJ? So should I credit all of the Beatles #1's, hit albums, etc. to Paul McCartney's solo work? where does it end? where is the line? Studio Albums contain NEW material and not regurgitated hits which is why it is the most effective way to count #1 albums. But yes let's agree to disagree. And I PERSONALLY agree with your last statement however the article was meant to get away from personal, how i felt, how others feel etc; and just look at the raw numbers.

SWV did a beautiful job incorporating Human Nature to their song

I loved this jam

TheEmperorofFunk said:

Are you choosing to ignore the fact that every one of those albums were released PRIOR to the film? Soundtracks are always released AFTER the movie comes out.

and I look at the raw numbers ... only differently

I choose to take into account all!!

which of these albums reached number one before the movie? I think the only Purple Rain would be a hit without the film, because it was so good.
I do not believe in the hit potential of the other two.

Even if we remove the compilations where there Jackson 5 songs, we still get 13. and personally I think consider each solo album under the name of the artist - the most correct and fair way.
Thriller 25 in 2008 was number one in France for three conseq. weeks, for example. and this is also the charts, positions and history.
Even the positions of live albums are counted when analyzing charts.

but this is what we discussed ... even in charts subjectivism is present. yes, there are numbers, it is an objective reality, but what exactly numbers you choose to take for analysis - depends on the subject and his subjective opinion

alphastreet

Anyone who not grew up with Michael ...
When I first heard his child's songs, I was 17 or 18 ... I was like, "nice", but as a grown I was not interested in listening to the singing of the child.
in reality, even the extremely weak Invincible is superior to any of his early album, IMHO.
and this is not the position of "King of Pop fan", I like Destiny, Triumph more than Invincible.

I do not believe that outside the United States, many adults love to listen to his songs as a child ... they have no experience of growing up with these songs. that`s important.

LiLi1992 said:

TheEmperorofFunk said:

Are you choosing to ignore the fact that every one of those albums were released PRIOR to the film? Soundtracks are always released AFTER the movie comes out.

and I look at the raw numbers ... only differently

I choose to take into account all!!

which of these albums reached number one before the movie? I think the only Purple Rain would be a hit without the film, because it was so good.
I do not believe in the hit potential of the other two.

Even if we remove the compilations where there Jackson 5 songs, we still get 13. and personally I think consider each solo album under the name of the artist - the most correct and fair way.
Thriller 25 in 2008 was number one in France for three conseq. weeks, for example. and this is also the charts, positions and history.
Even the positions of live albums are counted when analyzing charts.

but this is what we discussed ... even in charts subjectivism is present. yes, there are numbers, it is an objective reality, but what exactly numbers you choose to take for analysis - depends on the subject and his subjective opinion

alphastreet

Anyone who not grew up with Michael ...
When I first heard his child's songs, I was 17 or 18 ... I was like, "nice", but as a grown I was not interested in listening to the singing of the child.
in reality, even the extremely weak Invincible is superior to any of his early album, IMHO.
and this is not the position of "King of Pop fan", I like Destiny, Triumph more than Invincible.

I do not believe that outside the United States, many adults love to listen to his songs as a child ... they have no experience of growing up with these songs. that`s important.

I guess that's your preference, and I will listen to Invincible more too though I haven't in some time, and love the Music & Me album best from those years, start to finish. And the Jacksons were bigger than solo MJ worldwide at the time of the releases, but I still have seen articles include his motown solo albums as part of his solo work. OTW is only his first Epic records album. Some people have done the same thinking Control is Janet's first album when it's her third album under the same album contract and decade, and if you want to go further back, Love Song for Kids with Randy and being on a couple of Latoya Jackson songs in the early 80's, co-writing them.

[Edited 2/16/13 5:32am]

LiLi1992 said:

alphastreet

Anyone who not grew up with Michael ...
When I first heard his child's songs, I was 17 or 18 ... I was like, "nice", but as a grown I was not interested in listening to the singing of the child.
in reality, even the extremely weak Invincible is superior to any of his early album, IMHO.
and this is not the position of "King of Pop fan", I like Destiny, Triumph more than Invincible.

I do not believe that outside the United States, many adults love to listen to his songs as a child ... they have no experience of growing up with these songs. that`s important.

Oh, geez.. I'm an adult (a real adult, not some 20 year old shit thinking she knows it all) outside the states and I do love listening to his Motown stuff. There are lots on lots of great songs. Also, the majority of his fans did grow up with him and realize that his careeer hadn't started with Off the wall.