Latest on MJJC

What would you consider "proof" that MJ's is over?

RightOn

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,845
Points
0
This article has inspired this post:
Janet Jackson's new single Feedback bombs
http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/3am/2008/0...89520-20290295/
I have long said that I believe MJ can make a comeback … a strong comeback. I've said that I think it just takes a great song/video/performance to "bring MJ back" to prominence on the pop charts and in the pop culture world.
But am I deluding myself? I am just exercising "wishful thinking"?
This is something I think we all have to ask ourselves.
What would prove to you that MJ is over as a significant popular-culture artist?​
Anytime one discusses an issue in a bubble (like we do here with MJ) one can get a skewed perspective on things. Groupthink sets in and one can begin to see things as one WANTS them to be as opposed to what they are really like.
This leads to the question of is MJ really over? When I say "over" I'm strictly talking in the commercial and mass cultural sense. I am not talking in the sense of being "artistically" or "creatively" over. I think MJ can still make great work. But the question is: will many people care?
The media and haters say MJ is over but we don't seem to agree. Who's right? How will we know who's right?

Janet Jackson's last 3 CDs have been flops. I know some will say "well sales are down for everyone" but when I say "flop" I mean it in way that compares her sales to other "Big" artists who released music in and around the same time. So saying "overall sales are down" doesn't really cut it. Janet’s sale comparing with other pop artist is down.
"Feedback" has bombed and this does not bode well for the album "Discipline".
Both MJ and JJ suffer from "ageism" and "Jacksonism". There are a lot of people who want them to fail. There are a lot of people in the music business who will not lift a finger to help them succeed.
So my question is: What would you have to see for you to be convinced that they are “over” as commercial forces?
I think looking at album and ticket sales would be the natural thing to do.
I really don't have high hopes anymore for the sales of Janet's or Michael's new projects. I think "Discipline" will probably sell about 400K in the USA and Thriller 25 might do 500K. MJ's new album (if he ever releases a new NEW album) might sell about 1 million (and that's if it is really extraordinary).
Those are going to be some hard numbers for us die-hard fans to swallow but I think, if that happens, we will have to accept the fact that The Jacksons are over as significant commercial and mass culture forces.
I don't know what you guys would think of those numbers but that would be my conclusion. If you have different numbers, please post them and explain why you thing those numbers would signify the end of the Jacksons.
MJ is about to turn 50. There aren't any "comeback" chances left if you consider a "comeback" being reclaiming a dominant position on the charts. So I really believe this is it - it is time to put up of shut up. I can't imagine this new album flopping and MJ "coming back" strong commercially at 55 or 60!
It's too bad really. I believe MJ had a chance to be the greatest of all time. It would have been great for me to see because I've been a fan of his since he and I were kids. But I think it's lost now. The allegations and other controversy have really sunk MJ and poor Janet has been an innocent casualty of war.

I know all pop acts eventually fade. With or without the allegations, MJ was going to have a hard time being relevant to mass culture at 55 or 60 or 70. But I think he could have easily kept his run going up to now if it were not for the allegations.
The allegations have given the media and the haters the rope to finally hang and finish off the Jacksons.
And this sucks because for the rest of my life I'm now going to have to hear about how “Elvis was the greatest” or “The Beatles were the greatest” or even how “Madonna was the greatest” and how MJ was "pretty good" but a weirdo and a pedophile that lost his career after being accused of child molestation. Who knows, maybe 10 years from now I might be hearing how MJ was good but the real “King of Pop” was to come after him in the form of Justin Timberlake. Don’t think for a second that that’s not possible.
I know its MJ's life, his career and his business but it is just sad to see.
I hope the sleepovers were worth it Michael Jackson.
 
when people stop talking about him is the day he'll be over.

scratch that....i just read the rest of the post and this:

I hope the sleepovers were worth it Michael Jackson.
Click to expand...
OMg lol U act like the allegations were entirely his fault. Skip the lying conniving kids and parents, skip the vindictive racist DA...they had no part in that i guess. LOL

And Numbers don't mean ish since EVERYONE'S numbers are pretty low cuz the industry is suffering right now. What would be a success? thriller numbers? Control numbers? that's crazy.

Santana is what 70 years old and he made a comeback :lol: Actually tied mj's record for Grammys in his old age. Madonna is the same age as MJ and is still going. So i say, look up the word "optimistic" and learn from it :lol: Cuz this is a really unnecessarily depressing view LOL

The fact that everyone is looking for a new release, wondering what MJ's next move is, wonder where he's living on any given day shows he can do a comeback.
 
Last edited:
AW: What would you consider "proof" that MJ's is over?

What would prove it?? Well, if a new album with all new material would bomb! Otherwise there is no real way of telling! If you look at catalog sales, he's still going strong! As good or even better as his contemporaries!

And as for Janet's last 3 album flopping! It was only 2! "All for you" did well!
 
Last edited:
Michael Jackson will never be "over" as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't have to even release anything else as he's already changed popular culture. I figure anything we get now is just gravy. But I can really understand if Mike doesn't want to end his career on false allegations. So, he's going to come back with an "Off the Wall" type album according to will.i.am. I personally think this is an excellent idea--back to basics and back to his roots.

I just want the music to be good.

edit: as far as the sleepovers. The media and most folks know that Mike ain't did nothing to those kids. They just causing drama. There were folks who didn't like Mike before the allegations and are using the allegations as an excuse. But, don't underestimate the general public, if the music's dynamite--ain't nothing they can do but listen.
 
Last edited:
I read like two lines and gave up! :lol: I don't need no more BS in my head! :lol:

Michaels not over - never has been - never will be! End of! :D
 
IMO, being "over" has nothing to do with whether or not you can sell the same level of music that you sold in the past. If that were the case, I can think of a ton of people that should be placed in the over category including Celine Dion, Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Usher, Whitney Houston, Jay Z, Justin Timberlake, etc. None of these people sold as many records as they did when they first hit the scene. But they all still have careers. They all have brand name recognition.

With regards to Michael, I will believe he is over when all of these new acts STOP USING HIS BLUEPRINT he set. Everybody wants to be Michael. And they want to be him even when he is not doing anything! Michael is the industry standard...and he has set that standard really high. So until someone comes along and tops Michael Jackson, Michael will never be over. Until I see today's acts chasing someone else besides Michael Jackson, then he aint over!

How can Michael be over, irrelevant or done when everybody is still chasing his legacy? Every music producer wants a crack at Michael.

IMO, Michael is one of those once in a lifetime entertainers that will go to his grave NEVER BEING TOPPED. I don't think that we will ever see another Michael Jackson in our lifetime. He is rare. He has a GIFT.

I agree with Dick Clark when he said that a star like Michael only comes around once in a blue moon.

There will be plenty WANNABES.....but there will never be another Michael Jackson. Dude will die THE KING OF POP.
 
First of all, Feedback has NOT bombed. It was just released this week in the UK and it's moving up the American charts as we speak. I don't find that article accurate, let alone inspiring or applicable to discuss MJ about.
 
addendum: as for as the media saying MJ is over, they just talking crap. If he was so over, they wouldn't be trying to spy on his every move or posting pics of him when he's just out trying to hide and shop. Over---PFFFFF!!!!
 
Mello, I am glad you said that about Feedback. I was thinking the same thing. How can you call it a flop when it just hit?

And from the way this poster is talking, I think they have already made up their own mind that Michael is over. Read what they are saying. It is so pessimistic and conclusive.
 
mello1 said:
First of all, Feedback has NOT bombed. It was just released this week in the UK and it's moving up the American charts as we speak. I don't find that article accurate, let alone inspiring or applicable to discuss MJ about.
Click to expand...
It seems like a new trend now by haters to attack MJ by claiming to be fans. This gives their article more credibility. I an fed up of reading these types of articles. We shouldn't give them a voice. There is nothing to discuss. The guy quite frankly attacked MJ.
 
BrOkEn BaRbiE said:
I read like two lines and gave up! :lol: I don't need no more BS in my head! :lol:

Michaels not over - never has been - never will be! End of! :D
Click to expand...


:lol: Ok.. here it is in a short version:

What would you have to see for you to be convinced that MJ is over as a significant or dominant commercial force?


For example, if "Thriller 25" sells 200,000 copies and the new album sells (even after significant promotion, videos etc.) 600,000 copies, would that be convincing to you?

If not, what would be?


Again, I am not speaking about his "Legendary status" or his "creative abilities". MJ is a legend and he can still do great things in my opinion.

But there are loads of great acts that are no longer commercially significant. For example:
- Stevie Wonder
- Paul MacCartney
- The Rolling Stones
- Prince

None of those acts sells (even comparatively speaking) huge numbers of CDs anymore.

BTW.. I'm not saying MJ caused the allegations or is the only one to blame. I'm just saying that "the sleepovers" made him an easy target.
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
Mello, I am glad you said that about Feedback. I was thinking the same thing. How can you call it a flop when it just hit?

And from the way this poster is talking, I think they have already made up their own mind that Michael is over. Read what they are saying. It is so pessimistic and conclusive.
Click to expand...

You know, I really don't get it. :mello:

What is it with all of this Jacksonism? :rolleyes:

They too this, they too that... if they are so over, then what's the point in talking about it?

If they are so over, then discussing it really isn't going to change a thing.

No artist stays on top forever, but just because they may not be on top (and on top of what one might ask? On top of a heap of smelly crappy music? Is that what people want?), we can't enjoy them anymore? :huh:

Can we talk here? -_-
 
ahhh i'm not even gonna argue this. There's no point.

Ultimately it's what u personally are satisfied with. If numbers mean that much i guess it's up to MJ to pass ur test.

The fact Paul McCartney and Prince was asked and did the superbowl fairly recently kinda show they have SOME commercial significance I'd say. Enough people love their music and enjoy them.

So I dunno if ur basing commercial success by numbers and what 13 year olds say, then...i guess MJ's just gonna have to, like i said, pass that test...if he doesn't pass it, I guess he's 'over' LOL
 
Last edited:
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
...

And from the way this poster is talking, I think they have already made up their own mind that Michael is over. Read what they are saying. It is so pessimistic and conclusive.
Click to expand...

You may be right that I'm pessimistic. But, on some days, I'm way optimistic.

I just don't want to be a deluded MJ fan.

So I'm looking for some kind of objectivie evidence let's say.

What objective measure would you say we could use to determine this?
 
So being optimistic is being a deluded MJ fan?

Y is it so important for u to figure this out? It's really gonna come down to if MJ lives up to ur set up expectations (theres that word again). So...there's no point in discussing this really.

But I'll throw a number out there.

MJ will be over if he sells LESS THAN THIS number:

20,345,4354.

No less.
 
Last edited:
RightOn said:
:lol: Ok.. here it is in a short version:

What would you have to see for you to be convinced that MJ is over as a significant or dominant commercial force?


For example, if "Thriller 25" sells 200,000 copies and the new album sells (even after significant promotion, videos etc.) 600,000 copies, would that be convincing to you?

If not, what would be?


Again, I am not speaking about his "Legendary status" or his "creative abilities". MJ is a legend and he can still do great things in my opinion.

But there are loads of great acts that are no longer commercially significant. For example:
- Stevie Wonder
- Paul MacCartney
- The Rolling Stones
- Prince

None of those acts sells (even comparatively speaking) huge numbers of CDs anymore.

BTW.. I'm not saying MJ caused the allegations or is the only one to blame. I'm just saying that "the sleepovers" made him an easy target.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question or your point. Are you saying that it is 'over' for these other artists because they no longer rule the charts?
 
There has been technically not any MJ release since he started his solo career that would have been a FLOP. To me flopping means that you don't make any profit. All of his releases have been in TOP 20 or mostly in TOP 10 either in US pop or r/b charts, or UK's charts. So based on that it's very veRY VERY hard to believe that any of his records would ever FLOP in the future either.. So many people just go on talking about Michael - it will NEVER stop - and when he releases something they talk about how it is. And like that he gets so much free promotion that even if it wasnt a huge mega success it would be far away from the FLOP.

Maybe the biggest release near the flop was Girlfriend single release in UK in 41. It's just so silly and childish song it doesn't surprise me. :lol:
 
RightOn said:
You may be right that I'm pessimistic. But, on some days, I'm way optimistic.

I just don't want to be a deluded MJ fan.

So I'm looking for some kind of objectivie evidence let's say.

What objective measure would you say we could use to determine this?
Click to expand...
Define 'deluded'. Because if being deluded means that you have unrealistic expectations as to what MJ should be doing commerically in order to be successful in your mind, then....

You know....
 
mello1 said:
I don't understand your question or your point. Are you saying that it is 'over' for these other artists because they no longer rule the charts?
Click to expand...

When I say "over" I mean strictly in the sense of being a major or domninant commerical artist. For example, Amy Winehouse is currently a major or dominant commerical artist. When she releases her next album, there will be certain sales expectations. People will expect her album to be one of the top sellers of the year. I am strickly talking numbers here -- MASS APPEAL in a commercial sense.

When I say "over" I don't mean in the sense of being artisitic or creatively over (for example).
 
RightOn said:
:lol: Ok.. here it is in a short version:

What would you have to see for you to be convinced that MJ is over as a significant or dominant commercial force?


For example, if "Thriller 25" sells 200,000 copies and the new album sells (even after significant promotion, videos etc.) 600,000 copies, would that be convincing to you?

If not, what would be?


Again, I am not speaking about his "Legendary status" or his "creative abilities". MJ is a legend and he can still do great things in my opinion.

But there are loads of great acts that are no longer commercially significant. For example:
- Stevie Wonder
- Paul MacCartney
- The Rolling Stones
- Prince

None of those acts sells (even comparatively speaking) huge numbers of CDs anymore.

BTW.. I'm not saying MJ caused the allegations or is the only one to blame. I'm just saying that "the sleepovers" made him an easy target.
Click to expand...

Prince isn't commercially significant.. He only got his FIRST EVER #1 album debut in 2006.. :lol: What is "huge numbers" of cd's to you!?
 
Prince isn't commercially significant.. He only got his FIRST EVER #1 album debut in 2006.. :lol: What is "huge numbers" of cd's to you!?
Click to expand...


really?? ^^ didn't know that! That's pretty awesome. LOL

So if ur only talking about numbers, and not artistically, why does it matter so much? Why does the numbers matter so much? U got TONS of GREAT artists who are CULTURALLY significant, who were commercially significant at one point...and tons of HORRIBLE artists that are COMMERCIALLY significant now, and won't be CULTURALLY significant AT ALL. So what's the point here?
 
Last edited:
mello1 said:
Define 'deluded'. Because if being deluded means that you have unrealistic expectations as to what MJ should be doing commerically in order to be successful in your mind, then....

You know....
Click to expand...

Say it Mello! PPL just need to shut the hell up & let the man do what he's gonna do! None of us have the right to judge Michael! He knows what he's doing!
 
RightOn said:
This article has inspired this post:
Janet Jackson's new single Feedback bombs
http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/3am/2008/0...89520-20290295/
I have long said that I believe MJ can make a comeback … a strong comeback. I've said that I think it just takes a great song/video/performance to "bring MJ back" to prominence on the pop charts and in the pop culture world.
But am I deluding myself? I am just exercising "wishful thinking"?
This is something I think we all have to ask ourselves.
What would prove to you that MJ is over as a significant popular-culture artist?​

Anytime one discusses an issue in a bubble (like we do here with MJ) one can get a skewed perspective on things. Groupthink sets in and one can begin to see things as one WANTS them to be as opposed to what they are really like.
This leads to the question of is MJ really over? When I say "over" I'm strictly talking in the commercial and mass cultural sense. I am not talking in the sense of being "artistically" or "creatively" over. I think MJ can still make great work. But the question is: will many people care?
The media and haters say MJ is over but we don't seem to agree. Who's right? How will we know who's right?

Janet Jackson's last 3 CDs have been flops. I know some will say "well sales are down for everyone" but when I say "flop" I mean it in way that compares her sales to other "Big" artists who released music in and around the same time. So saying "overall sales are down" doesn't really cut it. Janet’s sale comparing with other pop artist is down.
"Feedback" has bombed and this does not bode well for the album "Discipline".
Both MJ and JJ suffer from "ageism" and "Jacksonism". There are a lot of people who want them to fail. There are a lot of people in the music business who will not lift a finger to help them succeed.
So my question is: What would you have to see for you to be convinced that they are “over” as commercial forces?
I think looking at album and ticket sales would be the natural thing to do.
I really don't have high hopes anymore for the sales of Janet's or Michael's new projects. I think "Discipline" will probably sell about 400K in the USA and Thriller 25 might do 500K. MJ's new album (if he ever releases a new NEW album) might sell about 1 million (and that's if it is really extraordinary).
Those are going to be some hard numbers for us die-hard fans to swallow but I think, if that happens, we will have to accept the fact that The Jacksons are over as significant commercial and mass culture forces.
I don't know what you guys would think of those numbers but that would be my conclusion. If you have different numbers, please post them and explain why you thing those numbers would signify the end of the Jacksons.
MJ is about to turn 50. There aren't any "comeback" chances left if you consider a "comeback" being reclaiming a dominant position on the charts. So I really believe this is it - it is time to put up of shut up. I can't imagine this new album flopping and MJ "coming back" strong commercially at 55 or 60!
It's too bad really. I believe MJ had a chance to be the greatest of all time. It would have been great for me to see because I've been a fan of his since he and I were kids. But I think it's lost now. The allegations and other controversy have really sunk MJ and poor Janet has been an innocent casualty of war.

I know all pop acts eventually fade. With or without the allegations, MJ was going to have a hard time being relevant to mass culture at 55 or 60 or 70. But I think he could have easily kept his run going up to now if it were not for the allegations.
The allegations have given the media and the haters the rope to finally hang and finish off the Jacksons.
And this sucks because for the rest of my life I'm now going to have to hear about how “Elvis was the greatest” or “The Beatles were the greatest” or even how “Madonna was the greatest” and how MJ was "pretty good" but a weirdo and a pedophile that lost his career after being accused of child molestation. Who knows, maybe 10 years from now I might be hearing how MJ was good but the real “King of Pop” was to come after him in the form of Justin Timberlake. Don’t think for a second that that’s not possible.
I know its MJ's life, his career and his business but it is just sad to see.
I hope the sleepovers were worth it Michael Jackson.
Click to expand...

When he no longer is he talk of the town, brought in conversations and doesn't exist the minds of anyone anymore, lol when pigs fly. I think it's a silly question to ask because Michael being as greatly known? no one can easily forget about him. His performances, videos, music etc.. is legendary and artistic, very tasteful and that's something/someone you can't consider over.
 
RightOn said:
:lol: Again, I am not speaking about his "Legendary status" or his "creative abilities". MJ is a legend and he can still do great things in my opinion.

But there are loads of great acts that are no longer commercially significant. For example:
- Stevie Wonder
- Paul MacCartney
- The Rolling Stones
- Prince

None of those acts sells (even comparatively speaking) huge numbers of CDs anymore.

BTW.. I'm not saying MJ caused the allegations or is the only one to blame. I'm just saying that "the sleepovers" made him an easy target.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that if an artist does not sell "huge numbers of cds" anymore then they are OVER? Please define what you mean by huge numbers of cds. Is this in relation to what that artists has sold in the past OR is it in relation to what others artists are selling?

RightOn said:
I just don't want to be a deluded MJ fan.
Click to expand...

I think you are already there! :lol:

RightOn said:
When I say "over" I mean strictly in the sense of being a major or domninant commerical artist. For example, Amy Winehouse is currently a major or dominant commerical artist. When she releases her next album, there will be certain sales expectations. People will expect her album to be one of the top sellers of the year. I am strickly talking numbers here -- MASS APPEAL in a commercial sense.

When I say "over" I don't mean in the sense of being artisitic or creatively over (for example).
Click to expand...

If Amy doesn't top her last album sales with her new album, will you consider her OVER?
 
Janet is not over, and neither is Michael. The new single, "Feedback," is recieving really positive reviews, and it's only been released for about a week (I think.)

Seems to me that the writer here was biased against Janet and Michael. :sleep:
 
Whoa .. lots of questions!

1. What do I mean by deluded?
I mean I don't want to have a perception that is not in tune with reality. I am very optimistic with MJ's new projects -- particularly the new NEW album. I think it's going to cause a storm critically, in the entertainment world and on the charts. Does my optimism stem from a delusion? (this article about the "flopping of Feedback" has piqued this in me). Am I purposely not seeing things are they really are -- that such a happenning is highly improbable?


2. What do I mean by "chart success"? I mean this in a relative term to what is going on NOW. So I don't mean, will the new album be a success as compared with "Thriller". I mean will it be on of the top success stories of the year. Will it be one of the top 10 CDs of the year? That would indicate to be that he's still a dominate force commerically.


3. What about Amy Winehouse's next album? There is a difference between MJ and Amy Winehouse -- about 25 years. Yes, if Amy next album sells a third of "Back to Black", one would be able to make a argument that she's "over" as a commercially dominant act. But she would get a benefit of the doubt that MJ (being 50) would not get. That is just an age thing -- not anything to do with MJ specifically.
 
Well the fact that u agree Feedback is a flop before it's had nearly 3 weeks of play is kinda messed up. Sometimes singles CLIMB to success. So....(and i personally HATE feedback btw lol)

Why is this so called commercial success so important to you? Like i said, commercially successful artists come and go. MJ has made his mark. And by all accounts, there's no reason to doubt MJ will not do well. So i dunno what u expect people to tell u. Like i said, do u want a number or something? Security? Closure? What?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top