Michael Jackson was robbed.

Spotify is certainly huge these days, and The Beatles and MJ are seeing insane growth on it. Here are the Numbers from around Christmas until Now

Christmas:
The Beatles 4m
Michael Jackson 8m

Now:
The Beatles 8m
Michael Jackson 12m

So as you can see it's going pretty well for both of them and I'm glad to see that. Both should be remembered for a long time and it's good to see new fans listen to them too.
 
KatrinaXP;4180722 said:
I agree that the allegations and the continued smearing of Michael’s reputation were despicable and he would have been much better off without them. But I think some perspective is needed. Of course if you focus on the negative stories in American/British tabloid media or disparaging pieces in some American (rock) music press it seems depressing but we have to keep in mind that only a minority of people read or take interest in these stories and they represent a very small proportion of ‘public opinion’. And yes maybe Michael does have more ‘haters’ than other music artists but committed haters number how many - a thousand? That’s insignificant compared to how many people enjoy his music. This is especially true when you consider how internationally popular Michael is - do you think many people in India, Africa or China read western tabloids?

I don’t think that the accusations did that much damage to the sales of his albums. Pretty much all of Michael’s albums (inc HIStory) are among the highest selling of all time. Of course without them, he may have released more music which may have meant that he had more sales and could have become the best-selling artist of all time. It’s clear that the Beatles and Elvis only have more sales than Michael because of their larger discography - on a per album basis Michael is much higher. But then we shouldn’t just focus on physical sales. Today physical sales across the board are falling massively and streaming has seen huge increases. And look at how good Michael’s streaming stats are: he is the top ‘classic’ artist on Youtube and Spotify. On Youtube he has streamed 5.33 billion since Sept 2014 compared to 2.06 billion for Elvis and 1.68 billion for the Beatles - Michael is on par with current top artists. Also on the worldwide iTunes album chart (a compilation of all country’s iTunes chart positions) since 2011, Michael is ranked 13th (again the top ‘classic’ artist) and if you look at his albums, like Number Ones, they have huge global penetration and chart in practically all countries. I have not seen that for the compilation albums of the Beatles, Elvis or Prince. And this is all years after Michael’s death so clearly he has peerless longevity (which IMO is more important than sales). Also, since Feb 2016 the RIAA has started to take into account video and audio streams when calculating album sales (1500 streams = 1 album) so there’s a chance Michael will surpass Elvis/Beatles in sales eventually (in term of certified sales, not the inflated 750 million/1 billion figures for all three).

I don’t believe the rock critics or music snobs would have liked Michael regardless. They didn’t like him because of the type and content of his music which doesn’t fit their ideals of great ‘art’. But in my view that’s not because Michael was inferior as an artist but because he wasn’t trying to make art only for the ideals of the ‘artist’ or recreation and scholarship of music enthusiasts but understood that the greater purpose of art is to influence and inspire people which is why his music communicates so many important messages.

It’s probably true that the allegations did significant damage to Michael’s image and maybe the respect from some quarters but his impact and legacy are so huge that I don’t think it matters. His impact/legacy is pretty much unparalleled by any artist in the last half century, certainly greater than Elvis and arguably greater than the Beatles too. I think there’s plenty of evidence to support this.

Michael has greater global recognition and popularity, as shown by Youtube/iTunes and also google search stats. He is probably the one of the most popular western pop stars in India and has influenced a whole generation of Bollywood stars, including Shah Rukh Khan, Amitabh Bachchan, Hrithik Roshan, Salman Khan, Sridevi Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, etc who have all spoken about their admiration of Michael. The great Indian composer AR Rahman (with whom Michael collaborated) has often talked about how Michael inspired him and his music school even covered Xscape. Michael has also had huge influence on Asian musicians. The Chinese pianist Lang Lang (probably the biggest music star in China today) compared Michael’s genius to that of Mozart when asked about his opinion on the great modern musicians. And the Korean rapper Psy, when asked what America’s greatest export was, said: “First of all, the English language. And also pop music. A song like Michael Jackson’s Billie Jean, it's like the world's biggest, most universal language.” To quote Justin Bieber (I don’t agree with everything he says but I think he absolutely gets what Michael was about and has said some very insightful things about him), “in order to be on Michael’s level you have to reach as many people as Michael reached, and Kanye doesn’t reach as many people. No one really does.” That pretty much sums up what Michael was and still is to the world.

Michael’s legacy as an artist is also multifaceted, including both music and dance. Maybe not the music press, but I think he gets a lot of respect from today’s top artists. Beyoncé, Justin Timberlake, Usher, Justin Bieber, the Weeknd, Ed Sheeran, Kanye West, Madonna, Mariah Carey etc have all spoken about his influence and ranked him as the one of if not the best music artist ever - Bieber, West and the Weeknd are particularly vocal. Also Michael’s had a huge impact on the dance world and modern dance. He is quoted as an inspiration by great ballet dancers like Carlos Acosta and Darcey Bussell and praised by the likes of Mikhail Baryshnikov, Sylvie Guillem, Frank Sinatra, etc. When DWTS did a tribute to Michael in 2009, the pro dancer Louis van Amstel said: “It's really important to do this tribute because he pretty much opened doors, and I thank him for opening doors for all of us.” And that’s so true - Michael has been a driving force in the integration of music and dance in entertainment and the rising popularity of dance (inc shows like DWTS) over the world, and in doing so opened up so many doors and professional opportunities for dancers. Michael has even permeated into other artistic disciplines like figure skating. His music and style has been adopted in routines by many people including the great Russian skater Evgeni Plushenko, world champion Oksana Baiul, Olympic champions Tatiana Navka and Roman Kostomarov, etc.

Michael also has huge social and political influence. So many world leaders have spoken of his impact. Ali Bongo Ondimba, the current President of Gabon, said:

"Certainly there have been figures like Elvis Presley, bands like the Beatles ... But I think Michael Jackson really marked his era in the sense that he opened up the possibilities and the way for all black African artists And American artists ... he is the first artist who has established himself throughout the world, to all races, and he has proved that music has no borders."

Also the former President of Ghana, Jerry John Rawlings said:

“I once had the honour of meeting with Michael and we struck a great friendship borne out of respect. Michael changed the world and always knew that with change he would appeal to many across all borders even if some in the non musical media did not always appreciate it… He was human and so sensitive. The world has lost one of its greatest sons. Michael you made an impact and you changed the whole world in so many ways.”

Ali Hassan Mwinyi, former President of Tanzania, said Michael was “a legend that will forever remain etched in the memories of both young and old alike”, and Kim Dae Jung, the former president of South Korea and 2000 Nobel Peace laureate called him a “hero of the world” and “beloved friend of Korea”. We all know that Nelson Mandela paid a great tribute to Michael in 2009 and Desmond Tutu, when speaking to students in the US for Black History Month in 2011, singled Michael out as a role model and said that he symbolised limitless potential. And the reason why they all think so highly about Michael is because he truly had concern for the underprivileged people of the world. He travelled to these places, did humanitarian work, held benefit concerts, raised awareness of social issues, and devoted his time and money to help people.

To this day Michael’s music means so much to people. For example Man in the Mirror was sung at the 2009 Nobel Peace prize concert, We are the World was sung by a children’s choir for Pope Francis in a huge concert in front of St Peter’s Basilica, Heal the World was quoted by the President of Ghana when addressing the UN General Assembly and was sung at the opening ceremony of the International Criminal Court this year, They Don’t Care About Us has been sung in BLM protests internationally… Just which other artists can you say that about? Who else has music of such continuing impact and universality?

A great indicator of Michael’s colossal legacy is the fact that in 2014, the British Council, in a list of the 80 most important moments of the last 80 years placed at #49:

The influence of the life and music of the American singer Michael Jackson, 1958-2009

There are no Beatles or Elvis on the list, or any other music artist for that matter. Michael is in the company of the likes of Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. And I think that illustrates the key point. Michael, Elvis, the Beatles, Prince, David Bowie, etc are all great artists but beyond that Michael was also a great man - someone who will be remembered as one of the great men of the 20th century. Because he was a pioneer of the modern concept of ‘public life’, of a celebrity as an activist, philanthropist, humanitarian, and for so many people across the world, Michael is the embodiment of Western popular music, and its representation of liberalism and the spirit of creativity.

On a final note, whilst we all wish that Michael had a simpler and happier life, the adversities that he faced were key in shaping the person that he was. I think that it is the depth of a person and tragedy that speak most strongly to the heart and soul of people and through which people identify with others. That’s the reason that, for example, Snape is often voted the favourite character in the Harry Potter series. So I think we should be happy that Michael lived an extraordinary life and had such an incredible impact on humanity. I don’t think he would have been disappointed in his legacy. I’m sorry this turned out to be such an essay but Michael’s legacy is something I also feel really strongly about and I think there’s so much positive here that we should focus on.

Damn good read!
As far as longevity goes Michael is definitely doing the best right now.:yes:
And the fact that hes doing so good on Youtube AND Spotify shows that it's not only his visuals keeping him ahead of the other classic acts.:D
 
Last edited:
Let's not forget that Number Ones is just one of at least 3-4 albums by MJ that regulraly chart. Including another compilation The Essential. Plus 2-3 studio albums (Bad and Thriller, and this year Off The Wall joined as well). I don't think any other classic act really has that.



Being relatively new on Spotify is not a disadvantage for them but a huge advantage, considering all the media and Spotify hype and push they got when they first got on Spotify. All the ads on Spotify, the million playlists Spotify created with their music and all the media articles promoting their getting on Spotify - that was surely pushing their streams and not putting them at a disadvantage compared to artists who are there for longer and frankly never got this treatment by Spotify.

And if we talk about streams in general Spotify isn't that big anyway in comparation with YouTube.

I see what you mean.
Your saying that since they're still riding high on all that promotion and have been on Spotify for such a short amount of time that of course they would be doing well.
I agree.

I also remember the Beatles being ranked higher then Queen as the top classic rock act on a year end list that Spotify released when if I can recall correctly Queen should have been above them.
 
Last edited:
I see what you mean.
Your saying that since they're still riding high on all that promotion and have been on Spotify for such a short amount of time that of course they would be doing well.
I agree.

IIRC, the extra Beatles promotion on the homepage etc stopped a month or so after they arrived, so like 10-11 months ago.
 
The one massive advantage the Beatles have over MJ is that they are universally loved by the (mainly white, middle class) media.

Everything that is released is given massive media attention and praise, even when it's just a rehash of material released 40-50 years ago. Here in the UK hardly a week goes by without some Beatles documentary being shown on TV or played on the radio.

I think MJ has done incredibly well, considering most of the (mainly white, middle class) media has hated on him at every given opportunity for decades.

I wonder how well John Lennon and co would be doing now, if one or them had been called a child molester for the last 20 odd years?

In fact, I can not think of an artist from history that would be doing so well under the circumstances he has endured.
 
In fact, I can not think of an artist from history that would be doing so well under the circumstances he has endured.

It actually is quite remarkable, and it makes me think of his quote about how lies run sprints but the truth runs marathons. I think as time goes on, people will focus less and less on the accusations and the art will live on. I've seen it happen already and it's good because I'm never worried anymore about bringing him up (when I was younger, I used to worry because I didn't want people to bring up the accusations).

I feel the fact he was found not-guilty as well as the lack of any substantial evidence helps. Over time I've noticed more and more people's opinions shifting towards the idea that the accusations were based on hopes of getting lots of money, not any actual truth. More and more people are learning about his lack of a proper childhood, the abusive childhood that took place instead, his desire as an adult to regain what he had lost and his "Peter Pan syndrome". I think for a lot of people, it essentially explains why he acted like he did as an adult and, along with his charitable deeds towards children, brings a lot of doubt towards those accusations. Maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but that's what I like to think people are realising.

Your comment made me think of Bill Cosby. Go back 5 years and he was beloved by all but now his name has been reduced to a punchline for rape jokes. His reputation is completely tarnished.
 
Of course it's a disadvantage, Spotify has been huge since at least 2011/2012, so they haven't had the time to build up their streams counts as much as anyone else. They did get a lot of promotion and media upon joining (and rightly so, they are one of the last huge artists to finally join streaming) so that definitely did play a part in the beginning, but after the first short while it's been all on them. All services combined, they were streamed over two billion times in 2016.

I am not really talking about overall stream counts but about popularity on streaming services which you can compare regardless of who joined when and all I said that I disagree with your opinion that the Beatles joining later somehow put them in a disadvantaged underdog position compared to MJ and others in that regard. No, it does not.

As you know Spotify publishes its numbers in "monthly plays" so in that how long someone has been on Spotify does not play a part only how much they have been played over the last 28 days. I have been following Spotify's numbers over the past year, adding all these "monthly plays" over a one year period to see who gets where in a year. So here is what I got for 2016:

MJ 121,6 million
Queen 118,1 million
Beatles 93,1 million

You did acknowledge that MJ is more popular but my problem is rather with the suggestion that that is because the Beatles are somehow underdogs because they joined later. That is not the case when you compare a yearly stat where both artists have been present on Spotify over that period. In fact, during that period it was the Beatles who got the more promotion, because at the beginning of the year their initial hype after they joined in December 2015 still lasted.

Keep in mind that as Michael's music has been on Spotify since around 2008/2009, that means his music would be on far more playlists than The Beatles. Think of all the playlists created between then and the end of 2015. A good number of them wouldn't have been updated by their various creators but continue to be played by those who follow said playlists.

That the users of Spotify put someone on their playlist is natural and of course is someone is popular then he will be on many people's playlists. Here I speak of Spotify's own playlists and promotions. While it is true that of course MJ too features in many Spotify created playlists the Beatles got a treatment and hype by them that I have never seen with any other artist. It wasn't just that they put their songs on mixtape playlists. They literally created dozens of Beatles-exclusive playlists at the time with promotion and everything. It was a VERY heavy promotion. While they create exclusive playlists for other artists as well, including MJ (for example the "This Is...." playlists, ie. "This Is Michael Jackson", "This Is George Michael" etc. and a lot of artists have such a Spotify created playlist), not by far in the number and with the hype and fanfare that you have seen with the Beatles. I have never seen them promote any artist as heavily as they did with Beatles. So I don't think it is correct to think of them as some sort of underdogs in these statistics where we compare them to someone over a certain period of time when they were both on Spotify. It is quite the contrary, IMO. They are pushed and promoted like no one else. Not to mention the far better press they have, that SmoothMJ mentioned.
 
Last edited:
As you know Spotify publishes its numbers in "monthly plays" so in that how long someone has been on Spotify does not play a part only how much they have been played over the last 28 days. I have been following Spotify's numbers over the past year, adding all these "monthly plays" over a one year period to see who gets where in a year. So here is what I got for 2016:

MJ 121,6 million
Queen 118,1 million
Beatles 93,1 million

Are you referring to the numbers they display on their profile in the 'About' section? Those aren't "monthly plays" or "monthly play counts" but "monthly listeners", which are different things.

If you go back and read my post that you first quoted in this thread, the times I have referred to "not having the chance to catch up" is in the actual number of plays a respective song has, not their overall monthly listeners. Them joining late would play a factor in their total playcounts(i.e. the song 'Blackbird' having 24.8 million plays).

For a second I thought you meant that Spotify published the actual streaming playcounts/numbers of each month for everyone and I was surprised! Those sort of things are normally reserved for artists and their labels (although we do get the total number, which is cool)

That the users of Spotify put someone on their playlist is natural and of course is someone is popular then he will be on many people's playlists. Here I speak of Spotfy's own playlists and promotions. While it is true that of course MJ too features in many Spotify created playlists the Beatles got a treatment and hype by them that I have never seen with any other artist. It wasn't just that they put their songs on mixtape playlists. They literally created dozens of Beatles-exclusive playlists at the time with promotion and everything. It was a VERY heavy promotion. While they create exclusive playlists for other artists as well, including MJ (for example the "This Is...." playlists, ie. "This Is Michael Jackson", "This Is George Michael" etc. and a lot of artists have such a Spotify created playlist), not by far in the number and with the hype and fanfare that you have seen with the Beatles. I have never seen them promote any artist as heavily as they did with Beatles. So I don't think it is correct to think of them as some sort of underdogs in these statistics where we compare them to someone over a certain period of time when they were both on Spotify. It is quite the contrary, IMO. They are pushed and promoted like no one else.

Yes but there weren't "dozens". There were 7, which really isn't that much (although if you compare to other artists, sure I can see your angle). Ultimately, they don't seem any different than what their label would've put up upon release if Spotify hadn't as a few other legacy artists have, like AC/DC who joined half a year before them. They have similar style playlists. Also just for clarification, I'm not arguing the fact that they got a lot of promotion in the first few weeks (Why would I? I loved every second of it. Given their status, they deserved it).

Once again, the only time I have painted them as "underdogs" (using your words, respectfully) has been overall playcounts of their songs. Not monthly listeners, which their lateness wouldn't affect now that they are part of Spotify (something it would affect is obviously absent artists - like Prince). The Beatles early heavy promotion would've absolutely helped kickstart a nice amount of playcounts, but I don't believe it would be near the degree of being on Spotify for the past 5 years.

If it makes you feel any better, Apple Music (which I'm currently using primarily, has only been around for a year and a half and has over 20 million subscribers), have a number of MJ playlists they made. There's 7 there made by Apple Music, including:
-Michael Jackson Essentials (the description for this playlist is so cool, it ends with "Even among the Greatest of All Time, the King of Pop stands apart" :D)
-Inspired by Michael Jackson
-If You Like... Michael Jackson
-Michael Jackson: Love Songs
-Under Cover: Michael Jackson
-Michael Jackson: The 90s and Beyond
-Sampled: Michael Jackson

They do that for many of their big artists, it's a really cool way to learn about their discography. Sometimes on top of "Essentials", they have "Next Steps" which is a great way to go beyond an artists hits :)
 
HIStoric;4180832 said:
Are you referring to the numbers they display on their profile in the 'About' section? Those aren't "monthly plays" or "monthly play counts" but "monthly listeners", which are different things.

We can nitpick on words, but the bottom line is that I have cited stats which ARE comparable regardless of when someone joined Spotify and which are used by Spotify itself to rank artists by popularity.

If you go back and read my post that you first quoted in this thread, the times I have referred to "not having the chance to catch up" is in the actual number of plays a respective song has, not their overall monthly listeners. Them joining late would play a factor in their total playcounts(i.e. the song 'Blackbird' having 24.8 million plays).

You reacted to Katerina saying this:

Also, since Feb 2016 the RIAA has started to take into account video and audio streams when calculating album sales (1500 streams = 1 album) so there’s a chance Michael will surpass Elvis/Beatles in sales eventually (in term of certified sales, not the inflated 750 million/1 billion figures for all three).

To which you said:

For streaming, definitely Prince (because of his legacy-killing restrictions) and perhaps Elvis (he seems to currently be enjoying a small boost from Christmas but generally he's behind the MJ and The Beatles on Spotify), though I'm not so sure about The Beatles. They still regularly do well on Spotify (especially considering they've only been on there for a year, if I look at their play counts). Don't get me wrong, Michaels still outdoing them in streaming stats but if he's going to outdo them through there, it's going to be a loooooong time.

So, as I took it, it was to say that MJ doesn't have a chance to outdo the Beatles, or only over a long period of time based on Spotify, because they too do well. That also wasn't my issue but rather the remark "especially considering they've only been on there for a year, if I look at their play counts". I simply took issues with this remark because it felt like you suggest that the Beatles are in some sort of disadvantage on Spotify regarding their present popularity or potential in the future because they joined later.

In this context we are talking about the potential of whether MJ has a chance of outdoing them based on streaming in the future, which is what Katerina's post was about. In that I don't think who joined when makes a difference. They are now both there, so they can be compared on a one-and-one basis and in that MJ is more popular, although you can have the opinion that the difference is not so big as to give MJ enough edge to outdo them in overall album sales+streamings - even if he beats them on streaming services. I have no problem with that opinion, I just have a problem with the portrayal of the Beatles as some sort of underdogs in disadvantage on Spotify and to explain MJ's edge over them there with that - which is IMO far from being the case. If that wasn't your intention then I probably misunderstood you and I am sorry.

As for the past - since past streaming has been counted by RIAA towards the sales of Thriller for example and based on that they added an extra 2 million to the album's certification, you can say the Beatles doesn't have that because they haven't been on many streaming platforms in the past years. While that is true, this is a bit tricky as well in terms of whether that overall harmed or boosed their overall sales+streams stats. Hard to tell. While in the past years their streams might have been minimal simply because of their lack of presence who knows if it wasn't compensated in album sales resulting from the same lack of presence? This has been the dilemma of streaming in the past few years. I think in the past 1-2 years streaming actually became more of a boosting factor in sales - especially for legacy artists who otherwise do not get played on radio and this is the only way the younger generation can listen to them. The management of the Beatles have realized that too and that is why they allowed them on Spotify. Although, IMO, they are in a privileged position anyway, compared to most legacy artists, because, like SmoothMJ said they are heavily promoted still by the mainstream media. So their position is a bit different to most legacy artists who do not get that much hype from the media so their only chance to achieve younger people is really just being on streaming services. Still it seems that the Beatles' management thought that now it is the time to allow them on Spotify. I think it was actually the right time and they are pretty well managed in general in these matters, so I do not see them in any sort of disadvantage overall in sales+streaming stats.
 
So, as I took it, it was to say that MJ doesn't have a chance to outdo the Beatles, or only over a long period of time based on Spotify, because they too do well. That also wasn't my issue but rather the remark "especially considering they've only been on there for a year, if I look at their play counts". I simply took issues with this remark because it felt like you suggest that the Beatles are in some sort of disadvantage on Spotify regarding their present popularity or potential in the future because they joined later.

I suppose I don't really see them in an "underdog" way as you are describing. All I simply meant was that their song's total playcounts on Spotify aren't as high as other artists and thats because those songs haven't been online for as long. I didn't really see it as anything more than that (to the point where I felt The Beatles were underdogs, if that makes sense).

To tell you the truth, until your last post I had forgotten that the RIAA had applied pre-2015 streaming numbers to Thriller's sales and that they'd do that for other artists. The way I was looking at The Beatles' Spotify playcounts was really only at a pure numerical value. I hope that clarifies things somewhat.

In this context we are talking about the potential of whether MJ has a chance of outdoing them based on streaming in the future, which is what Katerina's post was about. In that I don't think who joined when makes a difference. They are now both there, so they can be compared on a one-and-one basis and in that MJ is more popular, although you can have the opinion that the difference is not so big as to give MJ enough edge to outdo them in overall album sales+streamings - even if he beats them on streaming services. I have no problem with that opinion, I just have a problem with the portrayal of the Beatles as some sort of underdogs in disadvantage on Spotify and to explain MJ's edge over them there with that - which is IMO far from being the case. If that wasn't your intention then I probably misunderstood you and I am sorry. As for the past - since past streaming has been counted by RIAA towards the sales of Thriller for example and based on that they added an extra 2 million to the album's certification, you can say the Beatles doesn't have that because they haven't been on many streaming platforms in the past years.

I agree with the bolded. I sometimes worry if I come off as trying to shit on MJ so that Beatles come out on top, but that's never my intention (and if it comes off that way, I do apologise). As you are aware by now, both are my most top two favourite artists so I'm always happy to see either one on top. I try my best to not contest them too much, but try and have them "compliment" each other (like I try to approach it from "my 2 most favourite artists are in the top 3 best selling artists of all time! F yeah!" "The Beatles are the best selling artist of all time and Michael has the best selling album of all time! Yay they're both the best" stuff like that ya know?).

If we talk about Michael eventually outdoing The Beatles in overall album sales (with Billboard's streaming rules in place), I do personally struggle to see it happening as The Beatles are reasonably ahead of Michael in sales, which as you know are worth more more than streams. When you look at streaming numbers, I see both of them making good numbers and while Michael is unequivocally #1 on the streaming services, I don't see his numbers being TOO much bigger than the Beatles, at least to the point where it is overly significant in the grand scheme of things and is actually able to push him past them, given where both artists album sales stand. I hope that makes sense, that's just how I personally see it.

Having thought about it now that you brought up the RIAA including pre-2015 streams, I still don't think streaming service join date applies that much. My reasoning for this is that while The Beatles didn't join Spotify, AM etc until Christmas 2015, their music was available to stream over YouTube via fan uploads until November 2015 so I believe the RIAA would've (or at least should've) counted that towards their music. Once again, the way I was looking at The Beatles' Spotify playcounts was really only at a numerical value and I wasn't taking into account any RIAA thing, if that influenced how you interpreted my post??

As such, I didn't intend to make it seem like join date overly applied (re-reading my post, I believe I just added it as a off-hand, relatively unrelated remark, so I gave it in brackets). I feel there have been miscommunications and misunderstandings on some level, but it's no problem and I hope all is well between us :)

As for the past - since past streaming has been counted by RIAA towards the sales of Thriller for example and based on that they added an extra 2 million to the album's certification, you can say the Beatles doesn't have that because they haven't been on many streaming platforms in the past years. While that is true, this is a bit tricky as well in terms of whether that overall harmed or boosed their overall sales+streams stats. Hard to tell. While in the past years their streams might have been minimal simply because of their lack of presence who knows if it wasn't compensated in album sales resulting from the same lack of presence?

Yeah, I'm with you on that. It is hard to tell.
 
Last edited:
You are right. The last time I checked, it was just platinum for both songs. Still I think Billie Jean should be at least 3X or 4X platinum. And some songs such as Man In The Mirror, Bad, The Way You Make and Smooth Criminal and You Rock My World don't have a single certification. Not even a Gold (500,000 units) in America. I'm pretty sure all of those five songs have sold at least half a million copies and some definitely a million or maybe two in USA alone. MJ's record company need to stop being stingy and start paying for Michael's music to be accurately certified. I know the during Michael's times albums were more popular so he didn't have any 6X or 7X platinum singles in USA like we see with many of the current hit songs but still some of his songs are missing millions in certifications.

Tracked sales aren't certs though. Thriller is certified 1 x plat for physical sales, Gold for downloads and Gold for ringtones. In reality, it's sold 3.6M+ digital downloads and very likely more than 1M physical copies since that cert is from 1989. Beat It is certified for 1M physical in 1989, and Gold for ringtones, leaving its millions of downloads uncertified. It's the same for most of his songs.

I wish Japan did certs for albums pre-1989 tracking, too. Thriller (album) is missing about 2.5M in certs from there.

The biggest jumps MJ's catalogue can get right now are all of his big singles and Bad getting its overdue Diamond cert.
 
Beat It is certified for 1M physical in 1989

Well there's another 1.6million in digital sales by 2010, so we're likely looking at least a few more million overall sales now.

Question: so Beat It has been streamed 122 million times on Spotify. As Billboard counts those streams towards sales, do they count it towards album sales (i.e. apply it to the sales for the album Thriller), or do they also count it towards sales of the specific single? Because if so, that figure would probably push the certification for Beat It up quite a nice amount.
 
I wish Japan did certs for albums pre-1989 tracking, too. Thriller (album) is missing about 2.5M in certs from there.

The biggest jumps MJ's catalogue can get right now are all of his big singles and Bad getting its overdue Diamond cert.

Not sure but I think Off The Wall should have sold around 10m or close to that amount so maybe that album is also eligible for a Diamond certification
 
I really do honestly think MJ's success is downplayed somewhat and therefore I feel a little skeptical of the figures that are out there.

One thing I find really telling about Michael's enduring popularity is how a modern audience respond to Michael's music and how his music is still modern enough sounding that it can stand shoulder to shoulder in contemporary radio station playlists - that's ignoring, at least in part, just how great the music is anyway. To me, Michael's music sits in a place where the Beatles and Elvis do not, this may be largely to do with his music being far more recent and produced with more modern tech. I don't mean to infer his music is more important or better or anything like that but I do think that has an important effect on streaming and sales in today's market.
 
^agree 100%. I adore The Beatles back catalog, but their tracks on the radio or anywhere sound inescapably dated because of the era they were made. The LOVE album made for the Cirque show for them blew my mind because they used track stems and redid some of the production and it sounds amazing. Contrasting that with Michael - when his hits come on the radio or at a party, they just sound like timeless hits. Billie Jean and Smooth Criminal don't sound 80s, they're just Michael Jackson.
 
^agree 100%. I adore The Beatles back catalog, but their tracks on the radio or anywhere sound inescapably dated because of the era they were made. The LOVE album made for the Cirque show for them blew my mind because they used track stems and redid some of the production and it sounds amazing. Contrasting that with Michael - when his hits come on the radio or at a party, they just sound like timeless hits. Billie Jean and Smooth Criminal don't sound 80s, they're just Michael Jackson.

I agree. If Billie Jean came out this year it would've likely gone no. 1
 
The one massive advantage the Beatles have over MJ is that they are universally loved by the (mainly white, middle class) media.

Everything that is released is given massive media attention and praise, even when it's just a rehash of material released 40-50 years ago. Here in the UK hardly a week goes by without some Beatles documentary being shown on TV or played on the radio.

I think MJ has done incredibly well, considering most of the (mainly white, middle class) media has hated on him at every given opportunity for decades.

I wonder how well John Lennon and co would be doing now, if one or them had been called a child molester for the last 20 odd years?

In fact, I can not think of an artist from history that would be doing so well under the circumstances he has endured.

fdc1c6d4-2a63-4d30-90a3-24779f16b60b.gif


I know I'm kinda late on commenting but this comment is so true.
As I've spent time reading music forums (and just forums in general when Michael and race pops up as a topic) I notice that many like to turn a blind eye to how Michael's race has quite a lot to do with how he's treated by the media in comparison to both the Beatles, Elvis, and many other white acts.
Some people just don't want to face facts. :/

As you said though, how well Michael still does even with the media always trying to tarnish his legacy and name by perpetuating negative stories goes to show how strong his legacy truly is and also that hopefully the people that can see through the bullshit are in the majority.

A+ comment
If I could like/thank it twice I would. :yes:
 
Last edited:
^agree 100%. I adore The Beatles back catalog, but their tracks on the radio or anywhere sound inescapably dated because of the era they were made. The LOVE album made for the Cirque show for them blew my mind because they used track stems and redid some of the production and it sounds amazing. Contrasting that with Michael - when his hits come on the radio or at a party, they just sound like timeless hits. Billie Jean and Smooth Criminal don't sound 80s, they're just Michael Jackson.

There's an FM radio station in the UK called Heart that plays mostly current chart hits mixed in with some classic hits. I assume it gets a lot of listeners if the roster of celebrity presenters are anything to go by. I don't like the station and find their playlist very repetitive but it's on most days at work - not my choice - and they play Michael on it every day, sometimes several times. The Way You Make Me Feel, Bad, Billie Jean, Man In The Mirror, I Just Can't Stop Loving You, Black or White, Beat It - they're on all the time. They probably play the very occasional Elvis track - mostly Suspicious Minds - and I can't remember the last time I heard a Beatles record on it.

Just an example.
 
Back
Top