Statement from MJ Estate Pg 12 #170 / New Yorker - Did Thriller Really Sell a 100 Million Copies?

[Bubs]

I have a question, and its not only about Thriller sales but all of Michael's sales.
It's been reported that he sold 750 million.
Does this number include all of his records, including J5, The Jacksons, and solo albums from J5 time to his last Invincible? Also are Greatest hits included?

How about The Beatles albums sold app. 1 billion? Do they include only what The Beatles recorded together, or is their solo albums during and after the Beatles included in their numbers? And is their Greatest albums included to total numbers sold?

 

[HIStory]

I think that number (750 mio) includes J5 and Jacksons as well. Maybe if it includes singles as well it's a correct number (though I have my doubts even so), but if it's only albums I can't see how that can be correct, to be honest. Although Michael's albums were typically big sellers but he did not have very many albums (compared to the Beatles or Elvis). And the Beatles 1 billion claim is just as exaggerated IMO. Probably they would include everything under the sun (albums, singles, sales of the albums and singles of individual members etc.) but I think even so it's a gross exaggeration. The article above mentions that Paul McCartney "has total sales of some six hundred and seventy million". The 500 million of the Beatles is included, of course. Which would mean that solo he sold 170 million? I don't think so. Wikipedia is not very reliable but for a hint here is McCartney's discography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney_discography I can't see how that would make 170 million...

The other most popular Beatle is John Lennon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon_discography
Again, I can't see how that would make hundreds of thousands of sales.

And George Harrison and Ringo Starr obviously sold even less as solo artists.

So I personally don't believe the 1 billion claim is accurate, even if we add all the solo records of the individual Beatles (and to be honest why should the Beatles' sales include that?).

 

[mjjmsc]

The exact numbers are not so important, the important thing is that Michael is number one! he is the best because his albums rock

 

[Indra]

3 albums in top 30, that's what I'm gonna take from this - Only Michael Jackson!

 

[ChrisC]

It is subtle racism. Dress it up in whatever way you want. It's the same nonsense that journalists have printed about Michael for years for daring to break records held by white rock n' roll icons.

I too think the 100 million copies figure may be inflated slightly. But that's just it. It's slightly off. Possibly. So what? Why not tackle one of the many gargantuan misconceptions about Michael? Nah, let's just take another jab in a poor attempt to undermine and dilute his greatest achievement.

The 3 million in Asia figure is bizarre too. Japan is the biggest music market in the world outside of the United States. The album was number one there. Was the biggest selling album in Japan of 1984 and the 2nd biggest selling release of the decade there. Even if 2/3s were supposed sold in Japan and still LESS in those years as I'd imagine it continued to sell throughout the decades, tours and death following...so maybe what, 1.5 million in Japan in the 80s? To make it the 2nd biggest seller overall in the world's 2nd biggest market? Hardly! lol.

 

[Annita]

A comment from the autor in the comments


Posted 1/5/2013, 5:01:20pm by billwym
Report abuse


Bill Wyman here; thanks for all the great comments. WIll try to address some issues. Presley's sales are lost to history. But he moved a lot of vinyl in the 1950s and '60s. He also deserves credit for another thing. It doesn't matter whether he invented rock 'n' roll; he helped inent the rock 'n' roll *audience*. Jackson was good at mobilizing record buyers; but Presley's consumers were people who in most cases, had never done anything quite like it before. Jackson moved carefully to his audience; Presley moved the universe to himself.

 

[jamba]

A comment from the autor in the comments


Posted 1/5/2013, 5:01:20pm by billwym
Report abuse


Bill Wyman here; thanks for all the great comments. WIll try to address some issues. Presley's sales are lost to history. But he moved a lot of vinyl in the 1950s and '60s. He also deserves credit for another thing. It doesn't matter whether he invented rock 'n' roll; he helped inent the rock 'n' roll *audience*. Jackson was good at mobilizing record buyers; but Presley's consumers were people who in most cases, had never done anything quite like it before. Jackson moved carefully to his audience; Presley moved the universe to himself.

Help, I need a translation of this. What the heck is he saying? Elvis 'helped invent' the rock and roll audience?? So Presley's consumers 'had never done anything quite like it before'? 'It'--meaning what, bought records?? listened to rock and roll? "Jackson moved carefully to his audience"--huh? What does that mean, if anything? "Presley moved the universe to himself"--oh, we're talking about the universe now, I get it.

Something is way off with this comment, Bill Wyman. Believe me, Bill, there was an audience for rock and roll before Elvis came along. Yes, he was popular, very popular, but let's not go overboard by suggesting he invented or helped invent an audience. We were listening to Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Haley and the Comets, Everly Brothers, --etc--before. Didn't "I found my thrill on Blueberry Hill" come before Hound Dog?

 

[jamba]

It is subtle racism. Dress it up in whatever way you want. It's the same nonsense that journalists have printed about Michael for years for daring to break records held by white rock n' roll icons.

I too think the 100 million copies figure may be inflated slightly. But that's just it. It's slightly off. Possibly. So what? Why not tackle one of the many gargantuan misconceptions about Michael? Nah, let's just take another jab in a poor attempt to undermine and dilute his greatest achievement.

The 3 million in Asia figure is bizarre too. Japan is the biggest music market in the world outside of the United States. The album was number one there. Was the biggest selling album in Japan of 1984 and the 2nd biggest selling release of the decade there. Even if 2/3s were supposed sold in Japan and still LESS in those years as I'd imagine it continued to sell throughout the decades, tours and death following...so maybe what, 1.5 million in Japan in the 80s? To make it the 2nd biggest seller overall in the world's 2nd biggest market? Hardly! lol.

I agree with this post. Here is the link and some comments from Bill Wyman's article called 'The Pale King"--disgusting title of course----a review of Randall Sullivan's book.

"One of the cruelties of stardom is that you never know when you’ve reached your apogee. For Jackson, decline set in almost as soon as “Thriller” fell out of the No. 1 spot, in April, 1984.

Sullivan’s biography details thoroughly both the bad decisions that led Jackson to ruin and the increasingly foggy world from which he made them. Jackson, perhaps seeking to erase from his body the face of the father who beat him, underwent multiple plastic surgeries. He fell out of step with the world of pop music, which, with the rise of hip-hop, had embraced black musicians who were proudly black, and decidedly uningratiating to whites. His experiments in sexual liminality were troubling; he fell deep into debt through staggering financial profligacy and wrongheadedness."

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...#ixzz2FNBHskg3

 

[jamba]

Why do detractors always talk about Michael's "financial proligacy and wrongheadedness" (Bill Wyman)? Ok, let's look at it. He spent $17 million on NL. What is it worth today? He spent $47 Million on the ATV catalogue. What is it worth today? He owned his own MIJACK catalogue of songs. What is it worth today?

Now let's look at the humanitarian contributions. According to Guiness Book of Records, he gave $300 million to charity. How many NL's could he have bought with that money? 17 NL's. How many ATV catalogues could he have bought with $300 million? 6 more. But he didn't spend it on more land and catalogues. No. He GAVE it to charity. Somehow, that little tiny fact gets lost in the 'spending spree' view of Michael Jackson. I wonder why???

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I don't see this as an attempt to undermine Michael's achievements. Thriller is still by far the best selling album of all times and this article didn't claim otherwise. Of course they could also ask questions like "Did Elvis/The Beatles really sell over 1 billion records?" To dissect those numbers would be just as much fun as to dissect the sales of Thriller all over and over again.

This article says the Beatles sold 500 million, so only half of the often claimed 1 billion. So IMO it's OK. They say Thriller did not sell 100 million, but they also say the Beatles did not sell 1 billion. IMO that's fair.

I most definitely see it as an attempt to undermine mj. For wyman has made it clear in previous articles on mj that for him mj is not an 'artist' he is just good at selling records. So in trying to undermine mj's massive commercial success, what are you left with? I'm sure this article arose from wyman reading that sullivan book which in it's hundreds and hundreds of pages manages to completely dismiss and ignore mj's music after thriller. So does this music journalist attempt to redress the balance and look in detail at mj's music output - no he just homes in on sullivan's statistic of mj selling 100million of thriller and spends an entire article to try and rubbish it. He might mention the beatles in passing, but he says that these inflated sales figures were particularly relevant to mj's figures, not to anyone else. Of course he can't challenge the fact thriller is the no 1 in the world, because it's a irrefutable fact, but he goes on about the numbers being inflated and he makes especial mention that mj's total sales figures are behind those of ringo star's - just making sure to put mj in his place.

Wyman is such a one-eyed prejudiced muppet. In his review of sullivan's book he gleefully claims how mj's career was in decline the minute thriller left the top 40 in 83/4, yet he's publishing this chart which shows bad and dangerous up there in a list of the top 25 selling albums of all time. I guess there's decline and decline:mj style - truly there is one law for mj and one for every other artist.

And don't get me started on this man's offensive remarks in other articles on mj's ingratiating himself to the white audience in his attempt to crossover. Apparently changing his shade and handing over his tarnished legacy to 'some rich white kids' was the 'final meaningless step in the ultimate crossover'. Everything wyman writes is designed to undermine mj - he most definetely has an agenda.

 

[HIStory]

A comment from the autor in the comments


Posted 1/5/2013, 5:01:20pm by billwym
Report abuse


Bill Wyman here; thanks for all the great comments. WIll try to address some issues. Presley's sales are lost to history. But he moved a lot of vinyl in the 1950s and '60s. He also deserves credit for another thing. It doesn't matter whether he invented rock 'n' roll; he helped inent the rock 'n' roll *audience*. Jackson was good at mobilizing record buyers; but Presley's consumers were people who in most cases, had never done anything quite like it before. Jackson moved carefully to his audience; Presley moved the universe to himself.

And they have a problem with a little exaggeration about Michael's sales, when they write such megalomaniac crap about Elvis? LOL. I agree with Jamba. It doesn't even make sense.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

^ Elvis 'invented' the rocknroll audience by just the dint of being white. Wyman was bleating on and on about elvis > mj on the day of mj's memorial at staples - he claimed elvis invented rocknroll but got slapped down by nelson george so i see he's now saying it doesn't matter who invented it. Such a muppet.

 

[HIStory]

I most definitely see it as an attempt to undermine mj. For wyman has made it clear in previous articles on mj that for him mj is not an 'artist' he is just good at selling records. So in trying to undermine mj's massive commercial success, what are you left with? I'm sure this article arose from wyman reading that sullivan book which in it's hundreds and hundreds of pages manages to completely dismiss and ignore mj's music after thriller. So does this music journalist attempt to redress the balance and look in detail at mj's music output - no he just homes in on sullivan's statistic of mj selling 100million of thriller and spends an entire article to try and rubbish it. He might mention the beatles in passing, but he says that these inflated sales figures were particularly relevant to mj's figures, not to anyone else. Of course he can't challenge the fact thriller is the no 1 in the world, because it's a irrefutable fact, but he goes on about the numbers being inflated and he makes especial mention that mj's total sales figures are behind those of ringo star's - just making sure to put mj in his place. Wyman is such a one-eyed muppet. In his review of sullivan's book he gleefully claims how mj's career was in decline the minute thriller left the top 40 in 83/4, yet he's publishing this chart which shows bad and dangerous up there in a list of the top 25 selling albums of all time. I guess there's decline and decline:mj style - truly there is one law for mj and one for every other artist.

And don't get me started on this man's offensive remarks in other articles on mj's ingratiating himself to the white audience in his attempt to crossover. Apparently by changing his shade and handing over his tarnished legacy to 'some rich white kids'. Everything wyman writes is designed to undermine mj - he most definetely has an agenda.

OK, I did not really know the history of this writer regarding MJ. Knowing that it certainly puts this article in a different perspective. Also his comment about Elvis in the comment section. Based on that it seems to me that he's so obsessed with putting down everything MJ did because he's an Elvis fan who sees him as a threat?

The idea that Michael is not an artist only good at selling records is so funny coming from an Elvis fan. I mean, to me art is something that is creative. Now, tell me: how many of his songs did Elvis write? His songs were written for him by others, like it is today in the case of boy bands. I know there is such as performing art, but let's not get carried away with Elvis in that department either. Elvis was a cultural icon. So was Michael. But Michael also wrote many his songs (and most of is best songs), choreographed his dances, concieved ideas for videos etc. If art is about creativity (and IMO it is) there is no question who was more of an artist.

 

[HIStory]

BTW, this thing about the (mostly white) media trying to determine who deserves to be called an artist and who is "only an entertainer" has so clear racist attitudes behind it. (Just look at what type of music is usually considered "art" and what "just entertainment"! Of course, (white) rock music is almost always considered "art". While dancable, rhythm music (ie. black music) most of the time is just considered entertainment... Even if their lyrics are actually not that light. Just think of Billie Jean or Heartbreak Hotel, and I could go on.)

Michael just could not win in that department. When his lyrics actually became deeper and more personal that's when he was dismissed the most. My favorite example is how the US media praised You Are Not Alone as the best song from HIStory and how that was the only song that went Nr 1 in the US from that album. It kind of sent out a message to Michael: "this is what we want you to do - harmless little love songs, not something that stirs things". Not something like Earth Song, Stranger in Moscow, Scream, They Don't Care About Us, Little Susie, Money (which are all better songs than YANA and have lot deeper lyrics too). Or when critics criticized HIStory for being angry. What did they expect after the 1993 allegations? That MJ will just act like nothing happened? Apparently that's what the media wanted. They wanted him to take their every hit without uttering a word back.

So this kind of tells us that the media wanted MJ to be "merely an entertainer", but the problem for them is that he actually was not. In this showbusiness world one of the bravest things to do is to call out the media on their deception, their lies, the way they operate. Not many artists will do that, because of course they all depend on the good graces of the media at the end of the day. But Michael did challenge them. Artists do that too: cover subjects which are risky, which are not popular and tell it like it is, even if they may be forced to pay for that.

 

[lom kit]

I pretty sure that 60 mill number came first in the mid 90s. its impossible 15 years later that it have sold only 5mill more, when evryone usually buys one of his GH and thriller. i think is 70-75 mill.

 

[captainhulk]

We have said it here before but I must repeat it MJ is not safe. Being an old white person I know the media want a safe black person. Denzel Washington is safe, Oprah Winfrey is safe, Michael Jackson is not. He is not safe because he doesn't bow down to anyone, he can't be controlled, he doesn't mind his words in his music, his dancing music appeals to all (he stole all us white people), he is masculine without being "masculine". Michael never apologized for 1993 and then 2005 so no media will "forgive him." How dare he not say I was wrong while going on every talk show? Michael was never safe therefore it will take generations longer for him to get his historical credit, these white folks need to be dead and buried before his true history is written.

 

[marebear]

To me it's not about if it's 67, 80 or 100 million. Thriller has high enough number to be the best selling album of all time.

What bothers me is that this type of article is trying to put Michael in his place. When Michael was alive people did not like what he achieved and how great he was. It was always being minimized or downplayed. This guy is trying to do that now. Sullivan's book was a failure so people who support the book write these little articles and such to "promote" the agenda of the book. I am sorry but I don't see articles like these about the Beatles or Elvis. Their numbers and whatever they did was always great and always the best. They say Michael was only good at Thriller and after that no. Even though most people said his best work came after Thriller.

People think that MJ fans are naive or too sensitive when people say something they don't like about Michael. I can take fair critique or analysis. But what I can't take when people give little or no credit to Michael at all about anything. They have the gall to bring his looks and finances in things. That has nothing to do with his acheivements and works. For these "educated" or well knowledgeable people they sure act ignorant and stupid with what they say.

Even Michael said it himself that the things that apply to everyone else doesn't apply to him because that is how people treated him. When it came to Michael people placed different rules to him and everybody else the same. This article is just biased and one mindset. They don't want people to think Michael was that great but like average. But too many people love Michael and know how great he was and what an innovative and influential artist he was. There are people out there who can't stand that and we get these little things that pop up to downplay and to put Michael in the place they feel he should be.

 

[144000]

You know, I fear people like this. People who harbor such envy-based hate, for a long period..even after the artist is gone, are dangerous to society. Nobody who harbors that much hate, that they can't be comfortable with someone's massive success, can be trusted to contribute to society. Hateful people are simply too dangerous for society.

 

[jamba]

What did they expect after the 1993 allegations? That MJ will just act like nothing happened? Apparently that's what the media wanted. They wanted him to take their every hit without uttering a word back.
--respect77

I agree. Michael was in a no-win situation. If he took the hit, that wouldn't help; if he fought, it made it worse b/c then he got criticized for being angry and paranoid. I think in the 93 situation it was the same. If he settled, look what happened. But when he fought and won in 05, what happened? It was another no-win situation, either way. Look how it is now, and Michael is dead and gone but do they stop their bashing, their denigration, their belittlement? Hell, no.

Believe me, I loved Elvis but I also know there were a lot of great musicians and singers that came before him, and for Bill Wyman to act like Elvis emerged and invented an audience--no, the audience was already there. What about Dick Clark and American Bandstand--the whole argument is nuts.

 

[Lucilla]

OK, I did not really know the history of this writer regarding MJ.
Knowing that it certainly puts this article in a different perspective. Also his comment about Elvis in the comment section. Based on that it seems to me that he's so obsessed with putting down everything MJ did because he's an Elvis fan who sees him as a threat?

Definitely now this is a different story.

So we have an Elvis fan huh?
And here I was thinking that maybe he only used MJ's name to get more attention but it was deeper than that. lol

 

[ebm4mj]

"I had to tell them I am second to none.." That line didn't come from nowhere. Michael always had to scrap to be acknowledged. He was aware of that. He didn't tout it- but we know he was aware of it. And it just irks me that THAT continues.

 

[bluetopez]

So over critics hyping up Elvis as the one and only and everybody else ain't ish. If they could they would give Elvis credit for inventing rap music too. -_- lol

 

[Petrarose]

You know, I fear people like this. People who harbor such envy-based hate, for a long period..even after the artist is gone, are dangerous to society. Nobody who harbors that much hate, that they can't be comfortable with someone's massive success, can be trusted to contribute to society. Hateful people are simply too dangerous for society.

So true, but what is more alarming is that these people who are focused on hate have a large platform to vent that hate. They can write for papers and influence the mindset of several people. It is another abuse of freedom of speech. Here is someone who cannot see the value of another person because he is so caught up in keeping Elvis over Michael. He forgets that Elvis got his dance moves and hip swinging from another group in society. Even some of Elvis' songs came from another group in American society.

Yes Elvis is king, is handsome, has a fantastic voice, & moves his hips well. It was the first time the young White teens especially girls saw a white young man with all these attributes in the entertainment world. Naturally they went wild, & when someone like that is hot in the US their name is going to go all around the world. Elvis had that advantage of being "White." However, there is no need to belittle Michael's achievements to make Elvis look bigger & better, something people like this guy always do.

 

[Billie Jean 78]

A comment from the autor in the comments


Posted 1/5/2013, 5:01:20pm by billwym
Report abuse


Bill Wyman here; thanks for all the great comments. WIll try to address some issues. Presley's sales are lost to history. But he moved a lot of vinyl in the 1950s and '60s. He also deserves credit for another thing. It doesn't matter whether he invented rock 'n' roll; he helped inent the rock 'n' roll *audience*. Jackson was good at mobilizing record buyers; but Presley's consumers were people who in most cases, had never done anything quite like it before. Jackson moved carefully to his audience; Presley moved the universe to himself.

Well that really is some heavy objective fact... NOT!!! Does this even have a meaning. I sure don't understand what he's actually trying to say whith this.

Other than that I think that it should be the Estate's priority to bring some light into Michael's sales. Sadly somehow I doubt this will happen because that would probably mean they would have to reduce the 750M figure from 2006. Now what kind of credibility would that be that Michael actually sold less after 2009 than what was claimed in 2006?! That's why I don't like it when people don't use facts because sooner or later it all comes out.

 

[mdiegee210]

We shouldn't play their game, first the rolling stones down graded Bilie Jean and katy perry matched michael after 23yrs. and now they are working on Thriller. Get that # down to were it can be beaten or matched. they won't us to prove that Michaelsold 100million. NO LET THEM PROVE THAT HE DIDN'T SELL 100MILLION COPIES.

 

[144000]

edit......

 

[Lucilla]

BTW, this thing about the (mostly white) media trying to determine who deserves to be called an artist and who is "only an entertainer" has so clear racist attitudes behind it. (Just look at what type of music is usually considered "art" and what "just entertainment"! Of course, (white) rock music is almost always considered "art". While dancable, rhythm music (ie. black music) most of the time is just considered entertainment... Even if their lyrics are actually not that light. Just think of Billie Jean or Heartbreak Hotel, and I could go on.)

Michael just could not win in that department. When his lyrics actually became deeper and more personal that's when he was dismissed the most. My favorite example is how the US media praised You Are Not Alone as the best song from HIStory and how that was the only song that went Nr 1 in the US from that album. It kind of sent out a message to Michael: "this is what we want you to do - harmless little love songs, not something that stirs things". Not something like Earth Song, Stranger in Moscow, Scream, They Don't Care About Us, Little Susie, Money (which are all better songs than YANA and have lot deeper lyrics too). Or when critics criticized HIStory for being angry. What did they expect after the 1993 allegations? That MJ will just act like nothing happened? Apparently that's what the media wanted. They wanted him to take their every hit without uttering a word back.

So this kind of tells us that the media wanted MJ to be "merely an entertainer", but the problem for them is that he actually was not. In this showbusiness world one of the bravest things to do is to call out the media on their deception, their lies, the way they operate. Not many artists will do that, because of course they all depend on the good graces of the media at the end of the day. But Michael did challenge them. Artists do that too: cover subjects which are risky, which are not popular and tell it like it is, even if they may be forced to pay for that.

Permission to post this on FB
I always thought this way but you wrote it so well...

 

[HIStory]

Permission to post this on FB
I always thought this way but you wrote it so well...

Permission given. My pleasure.

 

[MjsLovelyOne88]

Thriller is the best selling album of all time. I find these articles as a way to put down Michael. Whatever the number is still makes it the best selling album of all time. Why don't other artists sales, work and other things get questioned too? It's like only Michael but everyone else it gets accepted and not analyzed at all about anything they do or accomplish.

^^ I was about to post something similar to this..I mean after all the years of bashing Michael and tearing him to pieces they still feel the need to keep doing so after he's gone..even with something positive as Thriller and its best-selling record SMDH. No matter what number the album sold it made it THE biggest selling album of all time and as we know, it still holds that record. But honestly, I will really celebrate the day only positive news about Michael make headlines.. (I know, wild dream alert)

Permission given. My pleasure.

I shall request permission too, I just kept going "unk:" at your post.

 

[HIStory]

I shall request permission too, I just kept going "unk:" at your post.

You are free to quote it as well.