|
|
Post by aaronbarrow on Apr 1, 2007 19:53:36 GMT -5
I completely disagree. Please note that in November, Access Hollywood took a poll to ask if MJ could make a comeback, 91% said 'yes' and 9% said 'no.' Also, at this hour, 'Thriller' sits at #580 on Amazon.com and it has been like that for six months. It peaked at number one hundred and twenty-six. two weeks ago! And 'Number Ones,' is number one thousand five hundred and forty-one on Amazon. 'Number Ones' sold Ten Million worldwide, almost 2 Million in the US, remember...it was released the same week MJ was arrested. 'Invincible' sold 11.8 Million worldwide, 2.5 Million in the US with ONE single release! MJs career is FAR from over! Thriller is a classic album, one of the all-time best. I don't doubt that there is still interest in it. 'Number Ones' was platinum November 2005 'Invincible' was double platinum but this was 5 years ago now. Good numbers even at the time but...a far cry from where he was. However, Essential flops did about one hundred thousand A charity single was recorded right after Katrina but never got released because there wasn't a label that wanted it. His public image is worse than any other former star that I can think of. His image, since the trial hasn't improved. Now I am only talking USA here. I am sure he will still be a big seller in Japan and other countries. Essential flopped due to ZERO promotion and it was the 4th greatest h-i-t-s album released. The real reason the charity single did not come out was because the owner of the label (2Seas) it was going to be released on and Michael had a falling out. His image has improved very much since the trial. The case should not have been brought to trial. There was not one iota of credible evidence and if the US public woke up and did research instead of relying on the big 5 media companys, Michael would still be one of the biggest stars in America. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2007 20:00:24 GMT -5
Even if that is true, the original label didn't want it and no other labels wanted it. If this were 20 years ago and he was marketing a 'We Are The World' type song, labels would have been lining up.
Even the jury who let him go said they believed he is a child molester, they just did not believe he molested that particular child that he was brought to trial for.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2007 20:09:57 GMT -5
Michael was not one of the biggest music stars in America, even before the trial.
Sure, there was a time that he was.
As you said, 'Invincible' sold 2 pl us million. certainly decent numbers for 5 or 6 years ago (and amazing numbers if it happened to d ay)
It only did that much because he still had some fa ns left who remembered him from 'Thriller' but, reality is...the album wasn't that good.
Only 2 million would indicate to me that, even then, the e nd was near.
|
|
|
|
Post by aaronbarrow on Apr 1, 2007 20:45:48 GMT -5
Even if that is true, the original label didn't want it and no other labels wanted it. If this were 20 years ago and he was marketing a 'We Are The World' type song, labels would have been lining up. Even the jury who let him go said they believed he is a child molester, they just did not believe he molested that particular child that he was brought to trial for. No, two of the jurors later said they belived he was a child molester. The rest of the jury stood behind their verdict. The two jurors who did change their mind only did after being offered multi-million dollar book and movie deals. One of the jurors said they felt so guilty for saying they changed their mind, they sued to get out of their contract. The jury voted Not Guilty 168 times. Also, they were under oath and compelled by US law to tell the truth. Regarding the 1993 case: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lVUvOLdg50 |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2007 21:00:59 GMT -5
Well I haven't seen the movie or book yet, when is it coming out?
Anyway, 2 publicly said as such (maybe more, not sure about that) but, let's say it is just two.
How many of the remaining jurors believed it but did not publicly say so because they did not want to be dragged into the spotlight and wanted to return to their private life?
Keep in mind, these are private citizens, not celebrity wannabes.
The ones that went public, said over and over again, that they were instructed to look at ONLY the admissible physical evidence presented regarding this child and not act on thier beliefs based on circumstances.
The jury voted not guilty 168 times because the case presented on THIS child was weak and the mom was a moron. The jury did their jobs to the letter and based their vote only on the admissible evidence.
The two jurors we are talking about believe they kept a child molester out of jail. How many others believe the same thing but just didn't say it in front of a camera?
|
|
|
|
Post by music on Apr 2, 2007 9:15:59 GMT -5
Michael was not one of the biggest music stars in America, even before the trial. Sure, there was a time that he was. As you said, 'Invincible' sold 2 pl us million. certainly decent numbers for 5 or 6 years ago (and amazing numbers if it happened to d ay) It only did that much because he still had some fa ns left who remembered him from 'Thriller' but, reality is...the album wasn't that good. Only 2 million would indicate to me that, even then, the e nd was near. Yeah, Invincible has scanned 2.1 million. It did 8 million world wide. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2007 9:20:03 GMT -5
Michael was not one of the biggest music stars in America, even before the trial. Sure, there was a time that he was. As you said, 'Invincible' sold 2 pl us million. certainly decent numbers for 5 or 6 years ago (and amazing numbers if it happened to d ay) It only did that much because he still had some fa ns left who remembered him from 'Thriller' but, reality is...the album wasn't that good. Only 2 million would indicate to me that, even then, the e nd was near. Yeah, Invincible has scanned 2.1 million. It did 8 million world wide. I said repeatedly that I wasn't talking about worldwide, and I am still not. That 8 million number is irrelevant to the discussion. |
|
spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669 
|
Post by spooky21 on Apr 2, 2007 9:31:58 GMT -5
Regardless of his past sales or historical/current status, the marketplace is a very different these days and it will be extremely hard for an artist his age to compete against this generation of Ushers, Justins, Chris Browns and Neyos, etc, on the radio, especially in the US.
They all bit his style and given that he hasn't exactly been relevant to popular music for years, they now become the point of comparison rather than the other way around. That's if he decides to go contemporary, which in my little opinion, would not be the best thing to do. MJ was always best when he did his own thing and not what was hot.
MJ had the ability to draw epic musical landscapes with soaring walls of sounds rather than just finding a hot beat to write a hook too. I sincerely hope he can draw on those skills again.
IMO, his best bet is to just strip himself of most of the baggage that goes while his public image and but the focus back on the musicianship. Lay off on the makeup a bit, tone down the outlandish clothing, behavior and show the world that you can still jam with your band and have fun dancing on stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by music on Apr 2, 2007 9:37:24 GMT -5
Yeah, Invincible has scanned 2.1 million. It did 8 million world wide. I said repeatedly that I wasn't talking about worldwide, and I am still not. That 8 million number is irrelevant to the discussion. Jesus, you're such a tosser.  I didn't even bother reading your previous posts, I just posted that as FYI. |
|
spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669
|
Post by spooky21 on Apr 2, 2007 9:39:41 GMT -5
I said repeatedly that I wasn't talking about worldwide, and I am still not. That 8 million number is irrelevant to the discussion. Jesus, you're such a tosser. As in "tossing salad"? ??? |
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 2, 2007 9:39:42 GMT -5
Michael was not one of the biggest music stars in America, even before the trial. Sure, there was a time that he was. As you said, 'Invincible' sold 2 pl us million. certainly decent numbers for 5 or 6 years ago (and amazing numbers if it happened to d ay) It only did that much because he still had some fa ns left who remembered him from 'Thriller' but, reality is...the album wasn't that good. Only 2 million would indicate to me that, even then, the e nd was near. The album was good that's why people bought it. It's really that simple. People always want to say oohhh it wasn't that good even when the sales numbers come in stronger than expected for the time period. The truth is the album was good otherwise no one would've bought it as evidenced by blood on the dance floor that peaked at #21 on the Billboard 200. I hate how you try to speak for all of us who bought Invincible but you can't so just say you don't like it because you don't like it and leave it at that. I'm not even that big of a fan of Michael's and wasn't even planning on buying invincible until after I heard the songs online. In fact, Invincible is the only Michael jackson album I have ever purchased to date. |
|
spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669
|
Post by spooky21 on Apr 2, 2007 9:40:58 GMT -5
2.1 MM is a pretty good number as well if you consider his tenure and what other artists his age were/are selling.
|
|
|
|
Post by music on Apr 2, 2007 9:45:56 GMT -5
Michael was not one of the biggest music stars in America, even before the trial. Sure, there was a time that he was. As you said, 'Invincible' sold 2 pl us million. certainly decent numbers for 5 or 6 years ago (and amazing numbers if it happened to d ay) It only did that much because he still had some fa ns left who remembered him from 'Thriller' but, reality is...the album wasn't that good. Only 2 million would indicate to me that, even then, the e nd was near. The album was good that's why people bought it. It's really that simple. People always want to say oohhh it wasn't that good even when the sales numbers come in stronger than expected for the time period. The truth is the album was good otherwise no one would've bought it as evidenced by blood on the dance floor that peaked at #21 on the Billboard 200. I hate how you try to speak for all of us who bought Invincible but you can't so just say you don't like it because you don't like it and leave it at that. I'm not even that big of a fan of Michael's and wasn't even planning on buying invincible until after I heard the songs online. In fact, Invincible is the only Michael jackson album I have ever purchased to date. is GARBAGE despite a few tracks. Its NOTHING compared to his earlier work. (OTW to History.) |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2007 9:50:40 GMT -5
Jesus, you're such a tosser. As in "tossing salad"? ??? LOL  |
|
azp
New Member
Joined: April 2006
Posts: 20
|
Post by azp on Apr 2, 2007 9:52:06 GMT -5
Well, I bought Invincible because I'm a fan but I didn't like it at all.  It have some stand out tracks ("Unbreakable", "You Rock My World", "Break Of Down" and "Whatever Happens") but it's nothing compared to Dangerous or Off The Wall. That's a shame. I only hope he can do better this time around... because I'm very disappointed with his last work. Anyway, I'll buying this one when it comes out... just for curiosity! |
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 2, 2007 9:54:10 GMT -5
The album was good that's why people bought it. It's really that simple. People always want to say oohhh it wasn't that good even when the sales numbers come in stronger than expected for the time period. The truth is the album was good otherwise no one would've bought it as evidenced by blood on the dance floor that peaked at #21 on the Billboard 200. I hate how you try to speak for all of us who bought Invincible but you can't so just say you don't like it because you don't like it and leave it at that. I'm not even that big of a fan of Michael's and wasn't even planning on buying invincible until after I heard the songs online. In fact, Invincible is the only Michael jackson album I have ever purchased to date. is GARBAGE despite a few tracks. Its NOTHING compared to his earlier work. (OTW to History.) That's your opinion but don't try to have an opinion for the 2.1 million people who disagree. IMO Invicible is a better album than both Bad and Dangerous. Every album from any artist is garbage when compared to THRILLER. You aren't saying much there.... The best songs were Invincible, Butterflies, You Rock My World, Whatever Happens, Break of Dawn & Speechless... Unbreakable was HOT GARBAGE! 3 Good songs on an album means the album is worth buying to me so....I didn't even like Thriller the song that much. To me it sounds ordinary as does most of the Bad album and Dangerous album. There were only two good songs on Bad and Dangerous but because they came out before the scandal they are still held in high esteem and they just two albums that weren't worth the plastic they were recorded on. |
|
spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669
|
Post by spooky21 on Apr 2, 2007 10:14:03 GMT -5
I listen was listening to "Triller" yesterday and the last minute or so of the song with just the instrumentation is truly EPIC!!
Epic = My new favorite word.
|
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Apr 2, 2007 10:22:10 GMT -5
"Dangerous" is really underrated, it's a very consistent album. IMO it's better than "Bad", which was just a few hot singles and TONS of filler.
|
|
spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669
|
Post by spooky21 on Apr 2, 2007 10:23:47 GMT -5
"Dangerous" is really underrated, it's a very consistent album. IMO it's better than "Bad", which was just a few hot singles and TONS of filler. I agree. Dangerous holds together very well and almost all the tracks are consistent in their quality. Also besides a few tracks, Bad didn't age very well. It generally sounds very dated. |
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Apr 2, 2007 10:26:05 GMT -5
"Dangerous" is really underrated, it's a very consistent album. IMO it's better than "Bad", which was just a few hot singles and TONS of filler. I agree. Dangerous holds together very well and almost all the tracks are consistent in their quality. Also besides a few tracks, Bad didn't age very well. It generally sounds very dated. We agree, at last. ;) |
|
spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669
|
Post by spooky21 on Apr 2, 2007 10:28:20 GMT -5
I agree. Dangerous holds together very well and almost all the tracks are consistent in their quality. Also besides a few tracks, Bad didn't age very well. It generally sounds very dated. We agree, at last. ;) Lol, I wouldn't count the Timberland vs Diddy discussion a disagreement. The margins of our points weren't too far from each other. Press Play still sucks though.  |
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Apr 2, 2007 10:32:49 GMT -5
^ LMAO!
|
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Apr 2, 2007 10:37:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 2, 2007 10:41:54 GMT -5
"Dangerous" is really underrated, it's a very consistent album. IMO it's better than "Bad", which was just a few hot singles and TONS of filler. I only liked two songs on bad and three songs on dangerous which is low for a Michael Jackson album. Dangerous is still buyable IMO but its just not as good as History, Invincible, Thriller, and Off The Wall. |
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Apr 2, 2007 10:46:07 GMT -5
Off The Wall > Thriller > Dangerous > HIStory = Bad > Invincible >>>>>>>>>> Blood On The Dancefloor
IMO.
|
|
azp
New Member
Joined: April 2006
Posts: 20
|
Post by azp on Apr 2, 2007 18:25:46 GMT -5
Off The Wall > Thriller > Dangerous > HIStory = Bad > Invincible >>>>>>>>>> Blood On The Dancefloor IMO. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 2, 2007 19:20:35 GMT -5
IMO Thriller would come first because it has no "filler" Off the Wall has "filler".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2007 19:41:35 GMT -5
Why does 'Off The Wall' have filler and 'Thriller' doesn't?
Critically speaking, 'Off The Wall' was a much better album.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,483
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Apr 2, 2007 20:04:42 GMT -5
Off The Wall is the album that the critics keep going back to more and more, despite the mammoth sales of its follow up. Imo, Off The Wall was defiantly his "most free" album, it's effortless perfection. Everything afterwards sounded more forced than the one before it. It wasn't very prominent on Thriller, but starting on Bad it became very obvious. That being said, I think everything up until History was great overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by K. on Apr 2, 2007 20:17:10 GMT -5
I don't think this album will do well. The younger generations are turned off by his image, which is basically the only one of him they know. The older generations who loved him to begin with seem disinterested and statistically aren't buying as many albums, especially pop albums, anymore in general.
Having a GH album is very different from having a new album sell well. With a greatest hits, you can buy it celebrating the man that Michael Jackson was, the legend, etc. It's quite different to by an album and support the quite different man he is today. Not to mention that the songs on a GH are iconic, while the new ones are . . . well, unfamiliar. duh.
|
|
