NBC: Michael Jackson: 'Bigger than Elvis, the Beatles ?!
Moderators: Moderator5, Moderator3, FECC-Moderator, Site Mechanic
-
Topic author - Posts: 10373
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: U.S. of A.
- Has thanked: 661 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
-
- Posts: 402
- Registered for: 20 years 10 months
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Unfotunately BMG has the same dilemma with Elvis as Sony does with MJ. The sales figures are an estimate, not based on verifiable evidence. And I seriously doubt 2007 will be any different to other years, namely BMG will not substantiate the claim that Elvis has sold 1 billion + records/CDs.
EIN ran a very controversial set of articles on the Elvis sales issue/Elvis vs. The Beatles some time ago. You can read them here:
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/elvis_beatles_index.html
[/url]http://www.elvisinfonet.com/credibility.html[url]
Nigel
EIN[/url]
EIN ran a very controversial set of articles on the Elvis sales issue/Elvis vs. The Beatles some time ago. You can read them here:
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/elvis_beatles_index.html
[/url]http://www.elvisinfonet.com/credibility.html[url]
Nigel
EIN[/url]
-
- Posts: 6013
- Registered for: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
He was a great artist and a very successful one. However, I don't even know what "most successful" means.
750M is an excessive number. As a solo artist he had Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad, HIStory, Dangerous, and Invincible. Even if you rack up a hundred million singles sales, he didn't average a hundred million an album especially since even for Thriller no one has claimed sales of more than 50M. What's more Invincible barely moved a million in the US which is something like 40-50 percent of the world market for record sales by most estimates, at least in the estimates I've read on Elvis. Even with the J-5 he simply does not have enough records to even come close to such a number.
In '83, he came as close as anyone has to Elvis/Beatles like domination but by then the market was too fragmented for that kind of dominataion. Still it was impossible to ignore his album.
I hate to see the freak thing take away the genuine artistry and innovation that he managed to achieve.
750M is an excessive number. As a solo artist he had Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad, HIStory, Dangerous, and Invincible. Even if you rack up a hundred million singles sales, he didn't average a hundred million an album especially since even for Thriller no one has claimed sales of more than 50M. What's more Invincible barely moved a million in the US which is something like 40-50 percent of the world market for record sales by most estimates, at least in the estimates I've read on Elvis. Even with the J-5 he simply does not have enough records to even come close to such a number.
In '83, he came as close as anyone has to Elvis/Beatles like domination but by then the market was too fragmented for that kind of dominataion. Still it was impossible to ignore his album.
I hate to see the freak thing take away the genuine artistry and innovation that he managed to achieve.
-
- Posts: 11590
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 499 times
This is from another site, this is from Billboard.
Chart Beat
Elvis Presley is the only artist to have more than 100 chart entries on The Billboard 200, and he increases his total this week with his 109th title to appear on this list. "Elvis Christmas" (RCA) debuts at No. 200, extending the King's album chart span to 50 years and eight months.
"Elvis Christmas" is the first Presley album to debut in 2006 and his first since "Elvis by the Presleys" peaked at No. 15 in May 2005.
Since the calendar rolled over to 2000, Presley has had 10 albums debut on the chart. That compares to the previous 10 albums, which debuted between 1985-1999.
Chart Beat
Elvis Presley is the only artist to have more than 100 chart entries on The Billboard 200, and he increases his total this week with his 109th title to appear on this list. "Elvis Christmas" (RCA) debuts at No. 200, extending the King's album chart span to 50 years and eight months.
"Elvis Christmas" is the first Presley album to debut in 2006 and his first since "Elvis by the Presleys" peaked at No. 15 in May 2005.
Since the calendar rolled over to 2000, Presley has had 10 albums debut on the chart. That compares to the previous 10 albums, which debuted between 1985-1999.
-
Topic author - Posts: 10373
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: U.S. of A.
- Has thanked: 661 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
Interesting post, Joe. I 'd like to see Jackson try to match Elvis with such a feat.
I kind of knew you'd come to his defense. I grew up hearing the Jackson Five and appreciate his first few years of his solo career.
But I resent (once you get past his "shy" schtick) that he's actually more of a ruthless person, foisting himself on children and also fraudently and arrrogantly attempting to elevate himself to the status of Elvis , as well as the Beatles. Paul McCartney wanted to buy his own songs, and Jackson, at the height of arrogance, refused to let him buy his catalog. His fast approaching bankruptcy may result in the sell-back of these songs and he certainly has it coming.
He also cynically married Elvis' daughter, complete with a sham "kiss" on television. Who knows if Lisa Marie was as equally cynical?
Aside from coming onto little boys with cola and booze , he fraudently put himself out there as the "King of Pop" and now the "most successful " ever.
I'm done liking his music beyond overhearing a song while I'm out and about. His grostesque willful changing of his face and even gender is beyond imagination.
As for the suggestion that Jackson came along too late, part of Elvis' great achievement (and others) was his very ablity to transcend what was a fractured market in the '50s. That's one of many reasons why Elvis will always be on another tier above Michael Jackson.
likethebike wrote:He was a great artist and a very successful one. However, I don't even know what "most successful" means.
750M is an excessive number.....
In '83, he came as close as anyone has to Elvis/Beatles like domination but by then the market was too fragmented for that kind of dominataion. Still it was impossible to ignore his album.
I hate to see the freak thing take away the genuine artistry and innovation that he managed to achieve.
I kind of knew you'd come to his defense. I grew up hearing the Jackson Five and appreciate his first few years of his solo career.
But I resent (once you get past his "shy" schtick) that he's actually more of a ruthless person, foisting himself on children and also fraudently and arrrogantly attempting to elevate himself to the status of Elvis , as well as the Beatles. Paul McCartney wanted to buy his own songs, and Jackson, at the height of arrogance, refused to let him buy his catalog. His fast approaching bankruptcy may result in the sell-back of these songs and he certainly has it coming.
He also cynically married Elvis' daughter, complete with a sham "kiss" on television. Who knows if Lisa Marie was as equally cynical?
Aside from coming onto little boys with cola and booze , he fraudently put himself out there as the "King of Pop" and now the "most successful " ever.
I'm done liking his music beyond overhearing a song while I'm out and about. His grostesque willful changing of his face and even gender is beyond imagination.
As for the suggestion that Jackson came along too late, part of Elvis' great achievement (and others) was his very ablity to transcend what was a fractured market in the '50s. That's one of many reasons why Elvis will always be on another tier above Michael Jackson.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 11590
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 499 times
Well said Greg! What amazes me about Jackson, is how when he does decide to make a live appearance, these sort of King of this, and most successful of that claims, get thrown out there. There is no doubt that one of his goals was to eclipse EP in fame, fortunately that never happened, though to his credit, he ranked underneath EP and the Beatles in his heyday and above everybody else in that department, which is still most impressive. Still, if I never seen his grotesque face in public again, I would be extremely happy.Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Interesting post, Joe. I 'd like to see Jackson try to match Elvis with such a feat.
likethebike wrote:He was a great artist and a very successful one. However, I don't even know what "most successful" means.
750M is an excessive number.....
In '83, he came as close as anyone has to Elvis/Beatles like domination but by then the market was too fragmented for that kind of dominataion. Still it was impossible to ignore his album.
I hate to see the freak thing take away the genuine artistry and innovation that he managed to achieve.
I kind of knew you'd come to his defense. I grew up hearing the Jackson Five and appreciate his first few years of his solo career.
But I resent (once you get past his "shy" schtick) that he's actually more of a ruthless person, foisting himself on children and also fraudently and arrrogantly attempting to elevate himself to the status of Elvis , as well as the Beatles. Paul McCartney wanted to buy his own songs, and Jackson, at the height of arrogance, refused to let him buy his catalog. His fast approaching bankruptcy may result in the sell-back of these songs and he certainly has it coming.
He also cynically married Elvis' daughter, complete with a sham "kiss" on television. Who knows if Lisa Marie was as equally cynical?
Aside from coming onto little boys with cola and booze , he fraudently put himself out there as the "King of Pop" and now the "most successful " ever.
I'm done likeing his music beyond overhearing a song while I'm out and about. His grostesque willful changing of his face and even gender is beyond imagination.
As for the suggestion that Jackson came along too late, part of Elvis' great achievement (and others) was his very ablity to transcend what was a fractured market in the '50s. That's one of many reasons why Elvis will always be on another tier above Michael Jackson.
-
- Posts: 6013
- Registered for: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
-
- Posts: 3246
- Registered for: 20 years 6 months
- Location: Helsinki, Finland
- Has thanked: 345 times
- Been thanked: 270 times
The song catalog is half owned by Sony now. I guess Jacko could lose his share of it if he fails to pay back his debts. However, as far as Macca buying Northern Songs Ltd (which owns the Lennon/McCartney song catalog), he had a chance to buy it couple of times. Jacko moved faster and outbid him in it. Macca can only claim himself for it. He had the money and the chance to buy it. Besides Macca has been equally ruthless while building his empire. Ask Denny Laine.Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote: Paul McCartney wanted to buy his own songs, and Jackson, at the height of arrogance, refused to let him buy his catalog. His fast approaching bankruptcy may result in the sell-back of these songs and he certainly has it coming.
"I've learned very early in life, without a song, the day would never end. Without a song, a man ain't got a friend. Without a song, the road would never bend, without a song. So I'll keep on singing the song."
-
Topic author - Posts: 10373
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: U.S. of A.
- Has thanked: 661 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
I'm not a huge Paul fan, but my respect for him is on a much higher level than Jacko.
And from what I understand, MJ could have stepped aside when he realized Paul McCartney was bidding on his own songs! And don't tell me MJ is some kind of businessman. He was just being another, well, celebrity jack-off.
That's what I like about the march of time: whatever drug-intake and obsesity Elvis may have battled, in time, his lustre is entirely being restored, as with any true legend of the ages.
And from what I understand, MJ could have stepped aside when he realized Paul McCartney was bidding on his own songs! And don't tell me MJ is some kind of businessman. He was just being another, well, celebrity jack-off.
I can agree with that. He's given us way too much material to hold against him. If he truly disappeared or laid low for another five years, a lot of people might begin to forgive and forget. But he won't. He truly risks tarring his legacy once and for all with his under-whelming singing and out of control personal life.likethebike wrote:He's not a good guy. He is arrogant. But he was at one point a great artist.
That's what I like about the march of time: whatever drug-intake and obsesity Elvis may have battled, in time, his lustre is entirely being restored, as with any true legend of the ages.
-
- Posts: 3246
- Registered for: 20 years 6 months
- Location: Helsinki, Finland
- Has thanked: 345 times
- Been thanked: 270 times
I'm not in anyway a fan of MJ but I'm a big Beatles/Macca fan (I've seen him twice in concert). Macca is a shrewd businessman who has used every chance to make a good deal but in this case Jacko beat him to it (and I'm not saying MJ is a great businessman). That's all there is to it.Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I'm not a huge Paul fan, but my respect for him is on a much higher level than Jacko.
And from what I understand, MJ could have stepped aside when he realized Paul McCartney was bidding on his own songs! And don't tell me MJ is some kind of businessman. He was just being another, well, celebrity jack-off.
"I've learned very early in life, without a song, the day would never end. Without a song, a man ain't got a friend. Without a song, the road would never bend, without a song. So I'll keep on singing the song."
-
- Posts: 4592
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Caddington, England
- Has thanked: 1671 times
- Been thanked: 1965 times
- Age: 79
-
- Posts: 3858
- Registered for: 20 years 9 months
- Location: Staffordshire
- Has thanked: 1643 times
- Been thanked: 1989 times
- Age: 76
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 6013
- Registered for: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
-
- Posts: 11660
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
- Been thanked: 16 times
Joe Car wrote:This is from another site, this is from Billboard.
Chart Beat
Elvis Presley is the only artist to have more than 100 chart entries on The Billboard 200, and he increases his total this week with his 109th title to appear on this list. "Elvis Christmas" (RCA) debuts at No. 200, extending the King's album chart span to 50 years and eight months.
"Elvis Christmas" is the first Presley album to debut in 2006 and his first since "Elvis by the Presleys" peaked at No. 15 in May 2005.
Since the calendar rolled over to 2000, Presley has had 10 albums debut on the chart. That compares to the previous 10 albums, which debuted between 1985-1999.
Good Info - thanks
When you get to the point where you really understand your computer, it's probably obsolete
-
- Posts: 6013
- Registered for: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
-
- Posts: 3218
- Registered for: 18 years
- Location: Reykjavík,Iceland
- Been thanked: 1 time
Try this link:I would be interested to see the American newspaper headlines about his flop in London. Can any of our American members help?
http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/michael-jackson/faces-of-career-death-michael-jacksons-failed-comeback-215152.php
-
Topic author - Posts: 10373
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: U.S. of A.
- Has thanked: 661 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
likethebike wrote:I'm sure Holly's widow could have made some nice coin off that catalogue with all the Holly music used on tv shows and played on oldies radio over the years.
But it's not like Buddy Holly himself was alive to bid on the catalogue. Jacko went head to head with Paul over Paul's own music. Not good!
And who's to say who would be a better caretaker of the Holly music anyway? Paul has always been a great ambassador for Holly and other early rocker's music. I agree it doesn't look great but compared to MJ, it looks like charity.
Jackson, on the other hand, came out off as making a vain attempt to drape himself in a greatness that escapes his own legacy...
Marry the King's daughter, buy the biggest rock band's song catalog...
"The story behind Paul and Buddy Holly... In 1975, Paul McCartney's MPL Communications bought Holly's publishing catalog from a near-bankrupt Norman Petty. To some, the sale was Petty's final act of theft - having robbed Holly and his widow blind in settling the account of what was owed him as a performer, he was profiting one last time from his perfidy. The truth is that it was a godsend to Maria Elena Holly and the Holly family in Lubbock; amid the events of the years and decades that followed, MPL was able to sell and exploit those songs in ways that Norman Petty in Clovis, New Mexico, never could have, and earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for them that Petty never would have. And with McCartney - a Buddy Holly fan from the age of 15, and probably the most successful fan Holly ever had - as publisher, they were paid every cent they had coming."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------