Billboard Greatest Of All Time, Michael in top 10

Doggone

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
1,203
Points
38
The end of the year is nearing so a new ''Greatest of All Time'' is published by Billboard.

Billboard published a new list with Greatest Artists of All Time, ranking Michael on #8 and Janet on #7. Funny to see the siblings ranked behind each other.
Ranking in the Top 10 is a great thing, but some artists are waaaay overrated above Michael. For example, Mariah Carey is ranked #5.

The top 10 is as followed:

1) The Beatles
2) Madonna
3) Elton John
4) Elvis Presley
5) Mariah Carey
6) Stevie Wonder
7) Janet Jackson
8) Michael Jackson
9) Whitney Houston
10) The Rolling Stones

Click here for the full list.

Also, as many of us already know. Michael scored #13 number one hits making him the third artist with the most number one singles. Rihanna is tied with the King.

Here is the full list of most number one singles by an artist:

1) The Beatles - 20
2) Mariah Carey - 18
3) Michael Jackson - 13
3) Rihanna - 13
4) Madonna - 12
5) Whitney Houston - 11
6) Janet Jackson - 10
6) Stevie Wonder - 10

As last, Shitboard put up the list showing the Greatest Album Of All Time, ranking 21 by Adele as #1 and Thriller as #3.

Click here to see the list full of nonsense.
 
I think the first list is based on how many songs each artist had on the singles (Hot 100) chart. Since Michael did not realese as many singles as the artists before him I think that explains why he is behind some of them.

The weirdest to me the "greatest album" chart which seems a bit biased towards current acts. Adele's 21 is neither the best selling album of all times, nor is the album with the most weeks at #1. Both titles go to Thriller. So what happened? Apparently Billboard has its own methods which are strictly based on some chart scoring system they created, not on actual sales:

CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS

Billboard vp charts and data development Silvio Pietroluongo explains the methodology behind the all-time charts.


How did you assemble these charts?


First, we used a sliding scale to rank each title: A No. 1 record would get X amount of points, a No. 2 a little less and so on. Second, since chart rules and chart behavior changed over time, we weighed the years and eras differently. For example, songs and albums moved up and down the charts faster in the 1970s than in other eras, so a record that was No. 1 for five weeks in 1975 would be granted a higher point value than a record that was No. 1 for the same duration in 2010.


Thriller is the best-selling album of all time, according to the RIAA. So why isn't it No. 1 on the all-time Billboard 200?


These lists reflect the behavior of albums and songs on our charts, not overall sales. Albums such as Thriller continue to sell for quite some time even if they're no longer on the weekly Billboard 200.


How else has chart behavior changed?


Things changed dramatically in 1991 when Billboard introduced Nielsen-based point-of-purchase sales data. Before '91, only six albums had debuted at No. 1. Now, that's nor

http://www.billboard.com/articles/e...atest-of-all-time-charts-top-songs-album-acts

Note: Actually, Thriller IS still on the Billboard 200. It is at #45 this week, which is obviously the Halloween effect, but it regularly charts all through the year.

So if Adele's 21 is called impressive for not leaving the Billboard 200 since its release then how impressive is Thriller which still regularly charts, 33 years after its release?

When you compare Billboard's greatest albums of all times list to the actual biggest selling albums of all times the discrepancies are huge.

Billboard's weird list: http://www.billboard.com/charts/greatest-billboard-200-albums

An actual sales based list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States

As you can see 21 is only #45 on the latter list. You can also see that for some reason Billboard's list seems to favour current acts.

1. Adele - 21
4. Taylor Swift - Fearless
9. Nickelback - All The Right Reasons
12. Lady Gaga - The Fame
17. Frozen Soundtrack
18. Taylor Swift - Taylor Swift
64. Taylor Swift - 1989

etc.

Sorry, but I don't think any of thes are legendary albums or will be remembered like the ones which are seen on the best selling albums list and of which most are really famous and legendary albums. There are some other weird results there too. Like Paula Abdul's Forever Your Girl is the #19 greatest album of all times? Really? Okay.

I guess, Billboard has the right to create whatever scoring system they want to for albums, but the result just seems off compared to the reality of what are the truly most legendary and most successful albums of all times. I wonder if they deliberately created a scoring system to somehow favour current acts knowing that most of their readers are fans of these current artists.
 
Last edited:
Laughing hard at Adele at #1.. And in what universe is Janet greater than Michael?? Shameful and biased list, as usual. Nothing new.
 
Wonder what they were smoking when they made that list? :shifty:
 
Food for though and 1 man's opinion of Billboard lists

Billboard, R&B lists and young White people writing about old Black music

Music lists are so trivial.

You get a crew of “experts” together to “rank” something that ostensibly can’t be truly ranked. There’s no easy measuring stick for artistic merit or hierarchal canonizing in music—you don’t have the luxury of a stat sheet like you do in sports and awards are given based on taste as opposed to rule-based, winnable competition. So when I saw that Billboard had decided to rank the 35 greatest R&B artists of all time, I expected to see a lineup of the usual names arranged in some arbitrary order, quibble about this or that, tweet some smart-alecky commentary and forget about it by the time my head hit the pillow to prep for another long weekend for yours truly.

But when I read the list that was compiled by the Billboard staff, I was kind of stunned at how oddly bad it was. Not even bad in that impossible-to-please music nerd sense. Not even bad in that “They were obviously going for a younger demographic with this” sense. It was just bad. Aside from the always-questionable rankings, there were no bands or groups or duos included, no-brainers like Otis Redding and Sade didn’t make the cut and they didn’t seem to make much of a distinction between R&B and pop music. What makes Whitney Houston R&B but not Mariah Carey?

“Naysayers will no doubt quickly note the absence of Rihanna, whose impressive success is more heavily rooted in pop than R&B.”

What does that even mean when Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Lionel Richie and Whitney Houston are all on the list — artists who were all as much pop artists as R&B artists? And what is the difference between dance pop and a lot of post-MJ R&B? This distinction seemed to always be more of a distinction based on aesthetics than music.

Incidentally, I’ve long complained that we don’t do a great job of canonizing R&B. Mainstream media has been less invested in R&B over the years — at least, by comparison to rock and hip-hop. R&B has often been framed as a genre that’s adjacent to those genres. There are a lot of young white males who consume rock and hip-hop, and oftentimes, young White male tastes dominate the popular narrative. So a generation of music critics is attempting to canonize a genre of which they have limited historical expertise.

In the early 1970s, FM radio emerged as a format for classic rock fans to hear album cuts from artists like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. The format more or less shunned Black artists — even a lot of funk bands who were recording music that wasn’t all that stylistically removed from what White psychedelic rockers were doing. As FM expanded and the “classic rock” format exploded in popularity, a generation of White rock fans became less engaged with R&B as compared to White youth of the 1960s; who’d grown up with Motown and British Invasion artists sharing airtime on many AM radio stations. By the dawn of MTV, rock and R&B — two genres that were, musically-speaking, fraternal twins in the 1950s— were viewed as totally separate entities and their audiences rarely overlapped.

Even ’70s rock fans had to have some working knowledge of early rock ‘n’ roll and blues legends because so many of their guitar heroes worshiped names like John Lee Hooker and Albert King. But a White millennial music fan has grown up with post-1980 hip-hop, dance pop and R&B; and their parents probably didn’t listen to Rick James or New Edition. So while they may be fully aware of the significance of Mary J. Blige, they have significantly less knowledge of Gladys Knight or Mavis Staples. And it shows.

“And those singers whose iconic status stemmed primarily from fronting groups rather than as a solo artist were not included.” Well — why not? Many fans and commentators have noted that groups seem to have faded from contemporary popular music. For generations, groups and bands had been as much an indelible part of defining pop music as solo artists; but it seems as though we’ve lost our ability to see “Greatest Artist” as anything but a standalone superstar. But how odd would a “Greatest Rock Artists” list look without the Beatles or the Who? How could you rank the “Greatest Hip-Hop Artists” of all time without N.W.A. or Wu-Tang Clan? It’s ridiculous to exclude seminal acts like The Supremes and Boyz II Men just to zero in on solo artists. It’s dumbed-down in the most arbitrary way.

Magazines like Rolling Stone have written extensively about legendary R&B artists like Smokey Robinson and Stevie Wonder, but when was the last time one of those greats landed on the cover? VH1 is more focused on reality shows for ratings these days and the occasional airings of new “Behind the Music” episodes tend to be slanted toward contemporary artists — mostly hip-hop and pop. Shows like “Unsung” are there to promote less-heralded Black artists, but oftentimes features iconic acts like Isaac Hayes and Sly Stone because there’s just nowhere else to see them celebrated. Unfortunately, an hourlong basic cable show can’t really convey the fullness of those kinds of careers — though it should be commended for trying. Many R&B fans worry about the genre becoming more and more niche as pop and hip-hop continue to dominate airwaves, and they should worry. It’s rare to see high-profile R&B singers these days — especially if they aren’t blue-eyed Brits with big voices — but it’s also troubling to think that the great R&B of yesteryear is passing from memory with a whimper. Generational shifts happen, but Black music has a tendency to get lost if no one is shouting about it. We have to make sure we celebrate the greatness of these artists in a way that resonates with contemporary fans. And we obviously can’t entrust outlets like Billboard with that responsibility.

http://rollingout.com/2015/11/13/billboard-rb-lists-young-white-people-writing-old-black-music/
 
Btw, someday Billboard or Rolling Stones find a way to make these lists so that they can discount Michael altogether:doh:
 
Billboard published a new list with Greatest Artists of All Time, ranking Michael on #8 and Janet on #7.

As last, Shitboard put up the list showing the Greatest Album Of All Time, ranking 21 by Adele as #1 and Thriller as #3.

1. Adele - 21
4. Taylor Swift - Fearless
9. Nickelback - All The Right Reasons
12. Lady Gaga - The Fame
17. Frozen Soundtrack
18. Taylor Swift - Taylor Swift
64. Taylor Swift - 1989

Paula Abdul's Forever Your Girl is the #19 greatest album of all times

tumblr_nxnsgvhTl21tp2mvqo3_540.jpg


..are they serious
 
...Another pole/list that means nothing!!


Let someones 'opinion' be viewed as a standard.....
 
So this is the way they crunch these charts:

Greatest of All Time - Hot 100 Artists
These all-time rankings are based on actual performance on the weekly Billboard Hot 100 (from its launch on Aug. 4, 1958 through Oct. 10, 2015) and Billboard 200 (from Aug. 17, 1963 — when we combined our two leading pop album album charts for stereo and mono releases into one all-encompassing weekly chart — through Oct. 10, 2015). Titles are ranked based on an inverse point system, with weeks at No. 1 earning the greatest value and weeks at lower rungs earning the least. Due to changes in chart methodology over the years, eras are weighted differently to account for chart turnover rates over various periods. Artists are ranked based on the combined point totals, as outlined above, of all their Hot 100 or Billboard 200 chart entries.

Hmm, do I get this right, down the years Thriller will get lower and lower in this chart because it keeps selling?
To get on top of this list, they better off making albums that sells well at start and then disappear from the charts altogether:scratch:
 
Bubs;4116482 said:
So this is the way they crunch these charts:

Greatest of All Time - Hot 100 Artists
These all-time rankings are based on actual performance on the weekly Billboard Hot 100 (from its launch on Aug. 4, 1958 through Oct. 10, 2015) and Billboard 200 (from Aug. 17, 1963 — when we combined our two leading pop album album charts for stereo and mono releases into one all-encompassing weekly chart — through Oct. 10, 2015). Titles are ranked based on an inverse point system, with weeks at No. 1 earning the greatest value and weeks at lower rungs earning the least. Due to changes in chart methodology over the years, eras are weighted differently to account for chart turnover rates over various periods. Artists are ranked based on the combined point totals, as outlined above, of all their Hot 100 or Billboard 200 chart entries.

Hmm, do I get this right, down the years Thriller will get lower and lower in this chart because it keeps selling?
To get on top of this list, they better off making albums that sells well at start and then disappear from the charts altogether:scratch:

The way I understand it it works like this:

An album that is #1 on any given week gets (let's say for simplicity's sake - I don't know if this is the actual amount of points they give out) 200 points. The second gets 199 points, third 198 ponts and so on down to #200 which gets 1 point. And this is repeated for each week. When an album is not on the charts it gets 0 points. So the more weeks an album will spend on the charts and at the higher places it can collect the more points. But this is not all because they also use some other corrections, so it is probably not as straightforward, but something like this seems to be the basis of it. At least how I understand it.

Problem with this kind of ranking is that a lot depends on in which era an album was released. This era you sell 3000 copies and you are on the charts. An album that sells 50,000 can be a Top 10 album. Unimaginable in the 70s, 80s or 90s. The result also depends on whether an album was released during a period when there was much competition or not.

Also, I am not sure if Thriller was counted before 2009, since as far as I know catalog albums are only allowed on the main Billboard charts since 2009. Since it is allowed for catalog albums to enter the Billboard 200 I see Thriller there regularly. Sometimes it drops out but it is there more often than not. Alone this year it sold 103,000 copies. Three other MJ albums - Bad, Essential and Number Ones - also chart regularly. Bad sold 108,000 copies this year, Essential 97,000 and Number Ones 91,000 copies. So MJ sold around 400,000 catalog albums this year with no new release, not any kind of promotion. With that he is by far the most successful catalog artist.

I think the results are just weird and they do not seem to correspond to real commercial success. I mean Paula Abdul - Forever Your Girl? Really? I looked it up and it sold 7 million copies in the US which is not bad, but very far from being the #19th best selling album of all times. I think it was released in 1989. So compare it to Bad which sold 9 million copies in the US and is still selling and still regularly charts (unlike Paula's album), yet it is way down at #138 on the list compared to Forever Your Girl's #19. It's just very weird and I think Billboard should review their methods because their lists do not seem to mirror reality in terms of commercial success - at least not the album charts.
 
Last edited:
Also, I am not sure if Thriller was counted before 2009, since as far as I know catalog albums are only allowed on the main Billboard charts since 2009. Since it is allowed for catalog albums to enter the Billboard 200 I see Thriller there regularly. Sometimes it drops out but it is there more often than not. Alone this year it sold 103,000 copies. Three other MJ albums - Bad, Essential and Number Ones - also chart regularly. Bad sold 108,000 copies this year, Essential 97,000 and Number Ones 91,000 copies. So MJ sold around 400,000 catalog albums this year with no new release, not any kind of promotion. With that he is by far the most successful catalog artist.

I think the results are just weird and they do not seem to correspond to real commercial success. I mean Paula Abdul - Forever Your Girl? Really? I looked it up and it sold 7 million copies in the US which is not bad, but very far from being the #19th best selling album of all times. I think it was released in 1989. So compare it to Bad which sold 9 million copies in the US and is still selling and still regularly charts (unlike Paula's album), yet it is way down at #138 on the list compared to Forever Your Girl's #19. It's just very weird and I think Billboard should review their methods because their lists do not seem to mirror reality in terms of commercial success - at least not the album charts.
I read your understanding of how they put these numbers together, and even though I understand what you wrote, it still doesn't make sense that Billboard put their numbers together this way.
To not include Thriller, because it was a CATALOG album for so many years? So were a lot of other albums-that's the first thing they should have discounted-Thriller is Thriller is Thriller.
And their own charts seem to contradict each other. I was glad to see some albums that I ran out and bought because everyone was going crazy over them (and me too, from radio play) Saturday Night Fever, Rumours, etc. but these stats just seemed to be all over the place.

I already griped on the Billboard site, and reading the comments, it seems like everyone else was griping too.
 
Also, I am not sure if Thriller was counted before 2009, since as far as I know catalog albums are only allowed on the main Billboard charts since 2009. Since it is allowed for catalog albums to enter the Billboard 200 I see Thriller there regularly. Sometimes it drops out but it is there more often than not.

I can't say I've looked much at the charts or read everything in depth here, but you might be onto something Respect... On the more positive side of life, at least they have rightfully credited Michael here in a dedicated article: http://www.billboard.com/articles/e...-most-weeks-at-no-1-on-billboard-200-by-title
 
Bubs;4116464 said:
Food for though and 1 man's opinion of Billboard lists

Billboard, R&B lists and young White people writing about old Black music

Music lists are so trivial.

You get a crew of “experts” together to “rank” something that ostensibly can’t be truly ranked. There’s no easy measuring stick for artistic merit or hierarchal canonizing in music—you don’t have the luxury of a stat sheet like you do in sports and awards are given based on taste as opposed to rule-based, winnable competition. So when I saw that Billboard had decided to rank the 35 greatest R&B artists of all time, I expected to see a lineup of the usual names arranged in some arbitrary order, quibble about this or that, tweet some smart-alecky commentary and forget about it by the time my head hit the pillow to prep for another long weekend for yours truly.

But when I read the list that was compiled by the Billboard staff, I was kind of stunned at how oddly bad it was. Not even bad in that impossible-to-please music nerd sense. Not even bad in that “They were obviously going for a younger demographic with this” sense. It was just bad. Aside from the always-questionable rankings, there were no bands or groups or duos included, no-brainers like Otis Redding and Sade didn’t make the cut and they didn’t seem to make much of a distinction between R&B and pop music. What makes Whitney Houston R&B but not Mariah Carey?

“Naysayers will no doubt quickly note the absence of Rihanna, whose impressive success is more heavily rooted in pop than R&B.”

What does that even mean when Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Lionel Richie and Whitney Houston are all on the list — artists who were all as much pop artists as R&B artists? And what is the difference between dance pop and a lot of post-MJ R&B? This distinction seemed to always be more of a distinction based on aesthetics than music.

Incidentally, I’ve long complained that we don’t do a great job of canonizing R&B. Mainstream media has been less invested in R&B over the years — at least, by comparison to rock and hip-hop. R&B has often been framed as a genre that’s adjacent to those genres. There are a lot of young white males who consume rock and hip-hop, and oftentimes, young White male tastes dominate the popular narrative. So a generation of music critics is attempting to canonize a genre of which they have limited historical expertise.

In the early 1970s, FM radio emerged as a format for classic rock fans to hear album cuts from artists like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. The format more or less shunned Black artists — even a lot of funk bands who were recording music that wasn’t all that stylistically removed from what White psychedelic rockers were doing. As FM expanded and the “classic rock” format exploded in popularity, a generation of White rock fans became less engaged with R&B as compared to White youth of the 1960s; who’d grown up with Motown and British Invasion artists sharing airtime on many AM radio stations. By the dawn of MTV, rock and R&B — two genres that were, musically-speaking, fraternal twins in the 1950s— were viewed as totally separate entities and their audiences rarely overlapped.

Even ’70s rock fans had to have some working knowledge of early rock ‘n’ roll and blues legends because so many of their guitar heroes worshiped names like John Lee Hooker and Albert King. But a White millennial music fan has grown up with post-1980 hip-hop, dance pop and R&B; and their parents probably didn’t listen to Rick James or New Edition. So while they may be fully aware of the significance of Mary J. Blige, they have significantly less knowledge of Gladys Knight or Mavis Staples. And it shows.

“And those singers whose iconic status stemmed primarily from fronting groups rather than as a solo artist were not included.” Well — why not? Many fans and commentators have noted that groups seem to have faded from contemporary popular music. For generations, groups and bands had been as much an indelible part of defining pop music as solo artists; but it seems as though we’ve lost our ability to see “Greatest Artist” as anything but a standalone superstar. But how odd would a “Greatest Rock Artists” list look without the Beatles or the Who? How could you rank the “Greatest Hip-Hop Artists” of all time without N.W.A. or Wu-Tang Clan? It’s ridiculous to exclude seminal acts like The Supremes and Boyz II Men just to zero in on solo artists. It’s dumbed-down in the most arbitrary way.

Magazines like Rolling Stone have written extensively about legendary R&B artists like Smokey Robinson and Stevie Wonder, but when was the last time one of those greats landed on the cover? VH1 is more focused on reality shows for ratings these days and the occasional airings of new “Behind the Music” episodes tend to be slanted toward contemporary artists — mostly hip-hop and pop. Shows like “Unsung” are there to promote less-heralded Black artists, but oftentimes features iconic acts like Isaac Hayes and Sly Stone because there’s just nowhere else to see them celebrated. Unfortunately, an hourlong basic cable show can’t really convey the fullness of those kinds of careers — though it should be commended for trying. Many R&B fans worry about the genre becoming more and more niche as pop and hip-hop continue to dominate airwaves, and they should worry. It’s rare to see high-profile R&B singers these days — especially if they aren’t blue-eyed Brits with big voices — but it’s also troubling to think that the great R&B of yesteryear is passing from memory with a whimper. Generational shifts happen, but Black music has a tendency to get lost if no one is shouting about it. We have to make sure we celebrate the greatness of these artists in a way that resonates with contemporary fans. And we obviously can’t entrust outlets like Billboard with that responsibility.

http://rollingout.com/2015/11/13/billboard-rb-lists-young-white-people-writing-old-black-music/



it's all by design and the irony is that real r&b has proven to be the foundational source of the musical genres of the past 35 years and they have flourished
 
Is Billboard doing such "charts" purposely?
I mean really purposely?
Hey, there is the Adele agenda and PR with her new album, there is the constant anti-Michael Jackson to reduce his impact on culture, its been evident since 1993 when anything big in showbiz happened was somehow compared to MJ, especially in connection with all MJ projects and album sales, everytime anything was released or done in MJs career, all of a sudden there was something against him, and I see it a purpose!

Where are all the Elvis fans reacting to this chart? Madonna and Elton better than Elvis, ok..., anyway... I cant see any of his albums or songs near the top 10, well, Billboard started in 1963, so anything after is still relevant, his carrer started in 1956, not very long before...
The top 10 is as followed:

1) The Beatles
2) Madonna
3) Elton John

4) Elvis Presley
5) Mariah Carey
6) Stevie Wonder
7) Janet Jackson
8) Michael Jackson
9) Whitney Houston
10) The Rolling Stones
 
Why ARE NOT these charts labeled - ONLY IN THE USA?

The media, especially the music journalists around the world tend to (better said -
they are copying these texts) twist the "facts" and "statistics" and reality labeling the charts as "worldwide" or "global" and take the results like there is only the US charts considered "worldwide" and "all time", which means that such charts are not comparable to any other album/single charts in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America and the artists outside the USA .

There are many artists in Europe or in Asia selling hundreds of milions of records, who topped the local charts, and the world has to know only about the US charts considered "worldwide"?
Julio Iglesias, Alla Pugacheva, Nana Mouskouri have also sold an unprecedented level of records in their home lands of Spain, Russia and Greece respectively and abroad.

Well, Billboard in the only US entity for only US music charts, so DO NOT proclaim your charts as worldwide and DO NOT take it as "all time" charts...

BTW, before any option to buy any digital album or online sales, the real artists and icons got their popularity, fame and chart success solely based on physical sales - LP, MC, CD, and for the real price, not like those after 2000s when you cag get the whole album for 0.99 cents or for a few bucks by a few clicks.

Most of the real icons were hard-working artists not like those like Taylor S., Katy P. Rih, Bey or Addy commercially exploited by the media and their record companies only for money and tabloid fame spreading by YouTube, FB portrayting like everything from and in the USA is the only greatest thing on this planet including the neverending fanfictions like those for the Beatles or Elvis... physically and technically it was and still is NOT possible to produce and sell such "billion" numbers, especially in the 50s and 60s with very limited markets and the industrial production, even in the new era of the 80/90s and the new internet era of downloads.

Anyway... the USA - the 50 states ARE NOT THE WHOLE WORLD.

Most, if not all, Americans have no idea what artists there are outside the USA, for them its enough to have Taylor, katy, Adele, Bees

I am not sure about his or her name, but there is one Chinese artist who sold 300 million albums China.

But still, the American music charts aka Billboard CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED - WORLDWIDE, only the US.
And its definitely not objective to compare Adele or Taylor Swift by the charts in connection to who is the all time greatest, come on... how can they - Billboard compare Adele to the Beatles or Michael Jackson, or Taylor to Madonna?

We will see where Adele or Taylor will lead their careers in 40+ years in showbiz, because we can see how influential the beatles or Michael Jackson are globally, they are the real icons worldwide.

Thats the point.... having or being the greatest after decades not based on an actual chart success in the digital internet era.
 
Haha. That's really funny. I didn't even realize they left Tupac off the list. He's probably one of five rappers I've heard of.
So none of these lists is any good.
I've read vicious comments on the Billboard site.
 
These are the same people who think Adele's new album will outsell Thriller. Fluff!

tumblr_ll1hrcjC231qb0pog.gif
 
April 1st came early for Billboard, I guess :puke:
 
It's things like these that really prove that music is dead, or definitely dying. Not because everything sounds like garbage, or even that all of the lyrics are banal and trashy, but that no one has any respect for the past, or really understands what made Legends legendary, Masterpieces, Masterful, or Icons, Iconic. It's disappointing more than it is upsetting.
 
The AMAs are tomorrow night and our local news channel did a list of the top 10 artists that won the most AMAs. (Popular awards based on sales and radio play).

I was pleased to see Michael was the top with 24. And I was surprised that Alabama was #2, but all top 10 positions were artists that are truly legendary and made great music.
 
These are the same people who think Adele's new album will outsell Thriller. Fluff!

tumblr_ll1hrcjC231qb0pog.gif


What all these folks forget is that it wasn't just the album itself that catapulted Thriller into a whole new stratosphere. It was MJ's performances in the videos AND that Motown 25 special. I think Adele is a great vocalist, and love her albums, but it was the combination of MJ being not only a great vocalist, but dancer, and showman, that had kids, their parents, and their parents' parents talking about Thriller and buying it. There is absolutely no one out there today who is the combination of what MJ was, especially if you throw in the massive fan base he already had established from his childhood days.

His electrifying performances is what expanded his appeal and Thriller album sales across the globe.
 
Back
Top