Latest on MJJC

Did lack of B-sides hinder MJ's charts success?

Nit having a b side would have been stupid.. his albums were top sellers because he did what he did.. and did it well
 
KOPV said:
Nit having a b side would have been stupid.. his albums were top sellers because he did what he did.. and did it well
Click to expand...
Madonna & Whitney Houston albums were big sellers and they had B-sides too, and so did George Michael, Janet Jackson, Prince, Sting, Phil Collins, Sade & other acts. B-sides did not affect album sales. A lot of people didn't buy albums in the 1st pace and only wanted the song on the radio. That's why Greatest Hits/Best Of's have been popular all this time. They're for people who were not really interested in an artists albums, just the songs they remember from the radio. Same for those K-Tel albums in the 1970s & 1980s and That's What I Call Music in the modern era or those Time-Life CD sets of old hits sold on infomercials.
 
And Michael out sold them all.. of course it was a thought out choice by Michael to do it that way.. Michaels top 3 selling albums sold more than madonna highest selling album... which was a complication album anyway.. and whitney, her top selling album was a soundtrack and ran to the top because of one song.. not because of a b-side.. it was the "and iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii will always love youuu" that did it lol

And also consider how many "A-side" tracks there were on Michael's albums.. imagine taking some of those away for a B level song.. f that!
 
KOPV said:
And Michael out sold them all.. of course it was a thought out choice by Michael to do it that way.. Michaels top 3 selling albums sold more than madonna highest selling album... which was a complication album anyway.. and whitney, her top selling album was a soundtrack and ran to the top because of one song.. not because of a b-side.. it was the "and iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii will always love youuu" that did it lol

And also consider how many "A-side" tracks there were on Michael's albums.. imagine taking some of those away for a B level song.. f that!
Click to expand...
This thread has nothing to do with album sales or albums at all. It's about singles charting. B-sides are on singles, and albums have nothing to do with singles charting. Mike could have put Carousel on the B-side of one of the singles from Thriller instead of an instrumental version of Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' or Get On The Floor from a previous album or a song from The Wiz. Carousel still hasn't been released other than a snippet from the version of Thriller with the Quincy Jones interviews. As far as not recording a exclusive B-side, that is not unique to Mike. Most singles didn't have them, they just had another track from the same album or an instrumental or a part 2. Part 2's were common with James Brown singles. So Mike didn't do anything special there. There's also the case of single versions being different from the album versions like No One Is To Blame by Howard Jones. If you bought Howard's album, you couldn't have gotten version that was played on the radio. Also the long version of Billie Jean was only on the maxi single, so if you bought the Thriller album or the 45 of Billie Jean, you got an edit.
 
I never understand people who treat music as a competition. It's music, not sports where there is a winner from getting the most points or running the fastest. My artist sold more than your artist, or my artist wrote their own songs. So my artist won or is better. :rofl:
 
^ I like that post..

I'll say I fall into it big time with Michael though.. I think (for me) it comes from the drive Michael had to outsell, out perform, and out do.. when growing up watching a man seek out to be the biggest/best and become that - it becomes hard to separate the pride when it comes to that.

I love that he has the best selling album, that hea done huge things by numbers.. it is a measurement of success to me and something solid that solidifies his greatness... on paper!



Not that any of it should matter to me
.
 
KOPV said:
^ I like that post..

I'll say I fall into it big time with Michael though.. I think (for me) it comes from the drive Michael had to outsell, out perform, and out do.. when growing up watching a man seek out to be the biggest/best and become that - it becomes hard to separate the pride when it comes to that.

I love that he has the best selling album, that hea done huge things by numbers.. it is a measurement of success to me and something solid that solidifies his greatness... on paper!
Click to expand...
If selling the most makes something the greatest, then McDonald's must be the best food in the world and Coca-Cola the best drink. :D If I like the music, how much it sells does not make it sound any better or worse. It's just statistics to talk about. It's why I don't get upset about records being broken. It doesn't really mean anything, most people do not read Billboard or follow the charts. Big sales doesn't even necessarily mean an artist will make a lot of money. Look at what happened to TLC, they had a bad contract and a manager ripping them off.

Most of the biggest selling records are by white rock singers and bands. They are also the overall biggest sellers. The Rolling Stones can still have huge grossing tours decades after they last had a really popular record. Popular white artists are generally more documented too. There's been hundreds of books about The Beatles over the years and even books about cars Elvis Presley owned. So does that mean music by white people is better than other races/etnicities?
 
I was just stating as a MJ fan base it's easy to fall into.. when he reached for it, glorified it, and we called into it..

All that editing of showing MJ crowds being huge, fainting fans, the history teaser, the footage of thousands of fans flocking to him. This is all to show a larger than life image that we buy into.. it makes him appear larger than life when anything he touches turns to gold, people go crazy, and his music outsells everyones..

It's an mj fan thing for sure.. thays why all the biggest selling fan bases fall into it and argue.. elvis is bigger, Beatles are bigger. Michael is bigger.. cuz they all used the same psychology behind it
 
KOPV said:
It's an mj fan thing for sure.. thays why all the biggest selling fan bases fall into it and argue.. elvis is bigger, Beatles are bigger. Michael is bigger.. cuz they all used the same psychology behind it
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about who is bigger, but the idea that because an artist sold the most, their music is superior to someone who doesn't. So I mentioned most of the biggest sellers are white. They're also mostly male. That idea of bigger sales making an artist superior implies white male artists are best, since that's who the majority of the acts who sold the most are. Like more people bought Pat Boone's versions of Little Richard & Fats Domino songs and Pat's versions became bigger hits. Eric Clapton & Led Zeppelin sold way more than the blues artists whose music they were doing. White artists are given the title of "King". Benny Goodman was the "King Of Swing" and Elvis was the "King Of Rock n Roll". Rolling Stone called Eminem the "King Of Hip Hop". It's also the idea behind non-white artists had to crossover to them (the mainstream). MTV didn't show many black artists in the beginning because their music (R&B) didn't fit their rock/new wave music format. Yet they showed white artists doing the same kind of music like ABC, Hall & Oates, Culture Club, Madonna, The Police, etc. The Police was doing reggae influenced music. Then in the 1990s there was a so-called Latin Explosion because acts like Ricky Martin, Shakira, Selena, Carlos Santana and others suddenly had crossover success.
 
Well yeah, alot of politics, social acceptance issues, promotional manipulation/lack of play a huge roll in sales.. some of the best artist are not well known.
 
I think MJ did fairly OK on the charts. - I even think I will consider MJ's chart history as a success. - An ongoing success.
 
It may have done but I think that's what made his albums so special, because you didn't get a constant stream of output like with other artists, so therefore his albums became events and out sold everyone massively
I think his single success would have improved drastically had he have lived and tried his plan to release a new single every 6 weeks then at the end of the year release an album with a few new tracks added to it. He would have been constantly top 5 in the UK no doubt.
It's true Michael Jackson stressed quality over quantity, and that is why he will forever be the greatest

I think it's staggering to see the sales of Michael's albums and then to see how well his most of his singles charted, especially in some cases when the album had come out more than a year before. Add to this that the singles (most of the time) didn't have a B-sides or any rare material with it
 
We do know that what's not considered b sides now would have simply been considered b side right? Take the bad album for example.. a side being something like TWYMMF and b side being Liberian girl.. just an example.. he was adamant about only releasing songs that were great in his eyes. He stated that! That said, he would not pick some song he scratched being given to the public instead of the others..
 
KOPV said:
We do know that what's not considered b sides now would have simply been considered b side right? Take the bad album for example.. a side being something like TWYMMF and b side being Liberian girl.. just an example.. he was adamant about only releasing songs that were great in his eyes. He stated that! That said, he would not pick some song he scratched being given to the public instead of the others..
Click to expand...
Mike remade Come Together though, which was a B-side to Something. So apparently he didn't think that was a lesser song, like you think exclusive B-sides were throwaway songs. Also The Beatles didn't generally release songs from their albums as singles, they were songs specifically recorded for singles. Although it was kinda different in the USA because Capitol Records chopped up the original British albums, so the UK & USA albums were mostly different.
 
I'm only using what he himself said.. if you want to debate it, debate him.

We both know how record labels can push things on artists.. Michael has also mentioned how he doesnt like remixes.. he has a remix album and worked on remixes for thriller 25.. that doesnt change the fact he didnt like remixes.
 
KOPV said:
I'm only using what he himself said.. if you want to debate it, debate him.

We both know how record labels can push things on artists.. Michael has also mentioned how he doesnt like remixes.. he has a remix album and worked on remixes for thriller 25.. that doesnt change the fact he didnt like remixes.
Click to expand...
Don't like remixes eh? Then how come there is a video of Mike singing along to the remix for R. Kelly's Ignition? :rofl:
 
Duran, I am stating things Michael has mentioned himself.. how are you really going to debate me when he said it?? Yes ironic considering the jacksons had the first real remix in history. (What is known now as a remix)

I

The logic you are coming to me with is like me saying Michael didnt like 'music videos' (which he called them 'short films') and you come at me with.. he has x amount of music videos.. yeah he has many many music videos.. I'm just stating what he said himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top