MJ’s website 2001

[Hot_Street]

Hard to feel like MJ worked hard on this album when he's giving himself co-writer credits on songs he didn't actually write at all. Save for "Speechless" and "The Lost Children", all of the songs were written by other people; MJ would pick them for his album after hearing the demos and just add his own vocals. He was just shopping, basically.

MJ worked hard selecting the best songs for the best album ever made.

 

[Spaceship]

Yeah but doing anything with MJ at any point after Thriller was like doing a song with MJ after Thriller.

Not when each of his subsequent albums were significantly less successful than Thriller. Rockwell did "Somebody's Watching Me" with MJ two years after Thriller in 1984 and it was a hit. Eddie Murphy did "Whatzupwithyou" with MJ nine years later in 1993 and it was a flop.

That's not to say that every song that featured MJ shortly after Thriller was a success, or that every song that featured him long after was a flop, but you're more likely to have a hit when you make a song with someone in their prime than you are with someone who's not.

The song existed and was done up a long while before Santana. It never had to go to Santana. But it did and that's fortuitous.

It existed and was done a long while before MJ, too. It's pretty common practice for celebrities to be given songs that were completed long ago.

But it's not like he has to do the singer-songwriter thing always.

He could have written more than just two songs on Invincible. He wrote of the songs on Bad by himself, and even on Dangerous and History, he wrote more than he did for Invincible.

The J5, Motown, (Early) Jacksons stuff had barely any of his "input" and yet those are beloved classic songs.

He was just a kid for most of the time at Motown, so of course he didn't write his songs back then. As he got older, both MJ's solo music and J5's music had declining success at Motown, which is why they left the label. Even at CBS, they weren't allowed to write most of their music and none of the songs that wrote were even picked as singles. Their first album as the Jacksons wasn't a big success and Goin' Places was a flop altogether.

It was only when they went Epic and got full creative control that their albums enjoyed notable success again. Destiny, Triumph and Victory are all more successful than their music from 1973-1977.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Not when each of his subsequent albums were significantly less successful than Thriller. Rockwell did "Somebody's Watching Me" with MJ two years after Thriller in 1984 and it was a hit. Eddie Murphy did "Whatzupwithyou" with MJ nine years later in 1993 and it was a flop.

Everything was significantly less successful than Thriller. It need not even be in the conversation on the average. It's like, an entity into itself.

Also, Whatzupwitu is a terrible song, that's the difference. There was no more great charting for collabs exactly but MJ also didn't pursue those very hard.

He could have written more than just two songs on Invincible. He wrote of the songs on Bad by himself, and even on Dangerous and History, he wrote more than he did for Invincible.

He could've, and he had. He just saved em. He preferred more. Off The Wall and Invincible have about the same amount of MJ material. And both are pretty different thematically from the rest of MJ canon.

Their first album as the Jacksons wasn't a big success and Goin' Places was a flop altogether.

It was only when they went Epic and got full creative control that their albums enjoyed notable success again. Destiny, Triumph and Victory are all more successful than their music from 1973-1977.

Anyway, Success does not equal quality. Stranger in Moscow was MJs worst performing US song.

 

[Spaceship]

Everything was significantly less successful than Thriller. It need not even be in the conversation on the average. It's like, an entity into itself.

But you claimed that "doing anything with MJ at any point after Thriller was like doing a song with MJ after Thriller", which would imply that he was always remained as he big as he was when he released Thriller. This isn't true when his subsequent albums weren't as successful.

Also, Whatzupwitu is a terrible song, that's the difference.

That's subjective. "Why" by 3t also featured MJ and it was still a flop.

He could've, and he had. He just saved em.

Even the number of outtakes that were written by MJ for Invincible is smaller than the number of outtakes he wrote for his previous albums.

Off The Wall and Invincible have about the same amount of MJ material.

He wrote two of the ten tracks on Off the Wall by himself, which is 20% of the album. He wrote two of the sixteen tracks on Invincible by himself, which is 13% of the album. Not a huge difference, but I wouldn't consider them to be about the same. And there's more evidence showing that he helped write "Get on the Floor" than there is evidence showing that he had an actual role in writing any of the songs he's listed as a co-writer on for Invincible.

In any case, he was still relatively young back when he did Off the Wall. Until Dangerous, he wrote more of his albums by himself as he got older. He wrote four of the nine tracks on Thriller by himself, which is 44% of the album. He wrote eight of the ten tracks on Bad by himself, which is 80% of the album.

Anyway, Success does not equal quality. Stranger in Moscow was MJs worst performing US song.

You were talking about how "beloved" the songs were. One would measure that by how successful they were. I wouldn't consider most of MJ and J5/Jacksons' music from 1973-1977 to be all that beloved, considering that they weren't very successful.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

But you claimed that "doing anything with MJ at any point after Thriller was like doing a song with MJ after Thriller", which would imply that he was always remained as he big as he was when he released Thriller. This isn't true when his subsequent albums weren't as successful.

Again, quality/popularity does not equal sales/success. They were successful, the criteria for successful simply changed due to diminishing returns in physical media. Michael Jackson as a celebrity was always as big, at least up to 93. Maybe some of his fame simply became, infamy, but oh well. Anyone who wanted to Collab geeked out just the same. Not every song was a smash hit, they never were, and they never had to be. Off The Wall, Bad, Dangerous, and History, was a pretty consistent sales trend.

Even the number of outtakes that were written by MJ for Invincible is smaller than the number of outtakes he wrote for his previous albums.

Yeah, that's true. But not really. Thriller and Off The Wall did not have that many. HIStory also only has a few. There's really not that many outtakes period anyway, so it's quality over quantity anyway.

The trend changed because he became a father.

You were talking about how "beloved" the songs were. One would measure that by how successful they were. I wouldn't consider most of MJ and J5/Jacksons' music from 1973-1977 to be all that beloved, considering that they weren't very successful.

Dancing Machine
Show You The Way To Go
All I Do Is Think of You

That's a few songs from that period. I consider them famous like the material from certain other eras, even if there's not as many.

 

[Spaceship]

Again, quality/popularity does not equal sales/success.

Quality doesn't equal success, but popularity does. Successful songs and albums are popular. Unsuccessful songs and albums aren't.

They were successful, the criteria for successful simply changed due to diminishing returns in physical media.

I said he wasn't as successful as he was when he released Thriller. 1983-1984 is the peak of Michael Jackson's fame. He was still big after that, but not as big.

Michael Jackson as a celebrity was always as big

No. Otherwise, his subsequent albums would have sold just as much as Thriller did.

Maybe some of his fame simply became, infamy, but oh well.

The infamy only hurt him.

Anyone who wanted to Collab geeked out just the same. Not every song was a smash hit, they never were, and they never had to be.

If your songs aren't successful, then your music isn't as popular.

The trend changed because he became a father.

I don't think so. Plenty of singers have time to keep writing music even after reaching parenthood.

MJ was literally dumping more and more money into the album against Sony's wishes. Many people who worked with MJ on his albums after Dangerous have said that there were many days when he didn't even bother coming to the studio, leaving other people to work on the songs without him. This was before MJ actually had kids, too, so it has nothing to do with that.

It's more like, as MJ's personal troubles increased, he had less time to write music. This is understandable, of course, but it still resulted in him putting less effort into his albums.

Dancing Machine
Show You The Way To Go
All I Do Is Think of You

That's a few songs from that period. I consider them famous like the material from certain other eras, even if there's not as many.

"Dancing Machine" is one of the exceptions. So is "Enjoy Yourself". Everything else, nah. "Show You the Way to Go" was only a modest hit. "All I Do is Think About You" wasn't big at all. "Get It Together" and "I Am Love" were fairly successful, but nowhere near as big as their earlier stuff.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Quality doesn't equal success, but popularity does. Successful songs and albums are popular. Unsuccessful songs and albums aren't.

Plenty of great music is unpopular. Haven't you heard of indie?

1983-1984 is the peak of Michael Jackson's fame. He was still big after that, but not as big.

It was his peak, but below that is still just casually bigger than all other names. It's like Lennon Solo versus Lennon with the Beatles.

No. Otherwise, his subsequent albums would have sold just as much as Thriller did.

I don't know what to tell you. That simply was not possible. Victory in the peak era sold an absolute fraction of Thriller, and it was popular, and "successful", in MJs peak. The song with Paul was a Number 1, over TGIM no less. Still nowhere as successful, Pipes of Peace didn't sell squat. So was the duet with Jermaine, wasn't actually a single.

He lost a subsection of his fairweather fans. The new fans he came to have didn't buy records until much later. Some of the J5 fans didn't buy Bad or anything later, because of his changing skin tone. How relevant is this really? Thriller sold more than records before and after for different reasons. Everything that you mentioned also, same reasons really.

 

[Spaceship]

Plenty of great music is unpopular. Haven't you heard of indie?

Great isn't the same thing as being successful.

Need to be popular to be successful.

It was his peak, but below that is still just casually bigger than all other names

He definitely wasn't the most popular artist by the time Dangerous came out.

That simply was not possible.

Because he was no longer at his peak.

Victory in the peak era sold an absolute fraction of Thriller, and it was popular, and "successful", in MJs peak.

That was a Jacksons album.

The song with Paul was a Number 1, over TGIM no less. Still nowhere as successful, Pipes of Peace didn't sell squat

That was a Paul McCartney album.

MJ didn't release another album until Bad.

So was the duet with Jermaine, wasn't actually a single.

So it wasn't a number one.

He lost a subsection of his fairweather fans. The new fans he came to have didn't buy records until much later. Some of the J5 fans didn't buy Bad or anything later, because of his changing skin tone. How relevant is this really? Thriller sold more than records before and after for different reasons. Everything that you mentioned also, same reasons really.

If his music isn't selling as much, then he's not as popular.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Need to be popular to be successful.

You need to make money to be successful. Admittedly that's easier to do when you are popular but still.

He definitely wasn't the most popular artist by the time Dangerous came out.

I struggle to think of who would've been. He wasn't the trendiest, sure. But it was MJ. After 93 is different maybe. It's like saying the Weeknd now isn't the most popular artist because of The Idol or something.

His peak was past but his prime wasn't over.

So it wasn't a number one.

It was the most successful album track ever.

If his music isn't selling as much, then he's not as popular.

If his every album makes Number 1 then he is popular. It means the general audience has moved on. Like the blue ocean of casual gamers that bought PS2, are you gonna say PS5 is not as popular?

 

[zinniabooklover]

His peak was past but his prime wasn't over.

Perfect summation.

 

[Spaceship]

You need to make money to be successful. Admittedly that's easier to do when you are popular but still.

A song won't make money if it's not popular

I struggle to think of who would've been.

I would argue Nirvana. Their album Nevermind famously knocked Dangerous off the number one spot and outsold it in the United States.

His peak was past but his prime wasn't over.

Peak = prime.

It was the most successful album track ever.

Not by any relevant metric.

If his every album makes Number 1 then he is popular.

He wasn't as popular as he was before. No one said he wasn't popular in general. He was no longer in his prime.

 

[zinniabooklover]

I would argue Nirvana. Their album Nevermind famously knocked Dangerous off the number one spot and outsold it in the United States.

I sometimes think people give this more importance than necessary. Dangerous was at No.1 for 4 weeks, iirc, so it's not unexpected for it to be knocked off the top spot at that point. Nevermind did outsell Dangerous in the US, afaik, but it was only No.1 for two weeks (not consecutive) and Dangerous was, I believe, the best selling album worldwide in 1992. Just to be clear, it doesn't bother me that Dangerous was shunted aside by Nevermind. If your album is going to lose the No.1 spot it might as well be to an album that goes on to become iconic. But the fact of Nevermind taking over from Dangerous, I don't think it's that big a deal.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Ok

A song won't make money if it's not popular

Yes, it does. You think they do this for free?

I would argue Nirvana. Their album Nevermind famously knocked Dangerous off the number one spot and outsold it in the United States.

Nirvana did not eclipse MJ anywhere but the US. And that passed; Garth Brooks knocked Nirvana off just as soon.

Peak = prime.

Artistic prime was much longer than his commercial peak.

He wasn't as popular as he was before. No one said he wasn't popular in general. He was no longer in his prime.

No, he wasn't as popular or as commercially successful, but again, who really cares? Nothing really was. There is nothing on the level of Thriller commercially, that Eagles cd doesn't count.

 

[Spaceship]

Yes, it does. You think they do this for free?

A song won't make money if it's not popular.

Nirvana did not eclipse MJ anywhere but the US.

Not a small country. Dangerous didn't even get certified Diamond; Nevermind did.

Artistic prime was much longer than his commercial peak.

We were discussing his popularity, not his artistry.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

A song won't make money if it's not popular.

Not a small country. Dangerous didn't even get certified Diamond; Nevermind did.

We were discussing his popularity, not his artistry.

I mean, fine, sure, I guess you're right. That's not set in stone by any means though.
Very few artists have multiple diamond records so that's not surprising. Perhaps if they had done Dangerous 25 it would be at least closer by now.

You are discussing his popularity. His artistry definitely plays a significant role in his popularity. Dangerous was in fact on track to outsell Bad, before 1993.

 

[Spaceship]

Very few artists have multiple diamond records so that's not surprising.

For MJ, yeah, it is. You'd think the so-called "King of Pop" would be one of the few artists who have more than two Diamond records.

You are discussing his popularity. His artistry definitely plays a significant role in his popularity.

Nah, because quality and success are two different things. Something won't be successful just by being "good", which is subjective.

Dangerous was in fact on track to outsell Bad, before 1993.

But it didn't.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

For MJ, yeah, it is. You'd think the so-called "King of Pop" would be one of the few artists who have more than two Diamond records.

He is.... You think because the lazy estate won't recertify his records he's a wash up. Diamond Certification wasn't even around by the time of Dangerous and later records. But basically all of his records meet the criteria (10 Million Sold).

But it didn't.

It fell short of 3 million, unfortunately..such a huge downgrade.

 

[Spaceship]

You think because the lazy estate won't recertify his records he's a wash up. Diamond Certification wasn't even around by the time of Dangerous and later records.

They would have still been certified Diamond once it became a thing if they sold 10 million. But they didn't.

Thriller was recertified 34x Platinum in 2021, so it's not that anyone's too lazy to recertify his albums.

But basically all of his records meet the criteria (10 Million Sold).

Not in America.

It fell short of 3 million, unfortunately..such a huge downgrade.

Nowhere near as big as Thriller. Not even as big as Bad. He was still the biggest artist overall in 1991-1993 before the scandal, but the decline was already showing. Bad had a record five number-one singles in the United States; Dangerous only had one. It took a series of public appearances in 1993 for Dangerous' sales to rebound; even if the scandal never hit, the next album wouldn't have been likely to be as successful because just making a bunch of public appearances again won't have the same effect and becoming a recluse wouldn't have done him any good, either.