They tried it again: Katy Perry is again compared to MJ (LOL)

I don't have anything against Katy Perry but really not familiar with any of her songs besides "I kissed a girl". But I haven't cared about most music for many years. Most of Pop music on the whole is what we used to call bubblegum back in my day.

My BIG problem is Billboard keeps changing the rules in order to destroy decades old records. Katy was allowed to take her records, add another vocalist and put them back out there. And they counted them as the same song. That wasn't allowed in Michael's time and they shouldn't change the rules.

Same thing with catalog albums-they changed the rules when Whitney died-not when Michael died. Not fair at all.

I haven't heard the term "bubblegum" music in a long time. True though.
That article reads like pure PR from her and her team. Wouldn't have something to do with a certain albums's anniversary coming up next year?
 
I haven't heard the term "bubblegum" music in a long time. True though.
That article reads like pure PR from her and her team. Wouldn't have something to do with a certain albums's anniversary coming up next year?

I agree it sounds a bit too PR. I think it has to do with the fact that her latest album is a lot less successful than her previous one was, so I think her management is trying to give it a positive spin by saying: "look at MJ, Dangerous too was less successful than Bad, so it's alright, that does not mean she is on the decline". But that is only true about the singles' chart run, in terms of sales however Dangerous remained close to Bad and on the international market possibly even surpassed it (or the two albums are about head to head).

I find it stupid when they try to use MJ's name for such things. Katy Perry is not and never will be Michael Jackson - either in success and much less in terms of talent. So her team or anyone trying to compare her to MJ is simply stupid. Compare her to her peers and leave MJ out of it.
 
It seems the magical words to generate headlines and/or attention are 'Michael Jackson.' Disgustingly disrespectful towards an artist of his caliber nonetheless.
 
Its stupid to make comparisons. However, don't fool yourselves. Records are bound to be broken. We also have to keep in mind records don't sell like they did in the 80's. The internet definitely changed the record market and as a result many record stores closed its doors. Today, probably MJ wouldn't sell a fraction of he sold in the 80's. It's not about Katy Perry being less talented than Michael. It's just a different era. When MJ was at the peak of his solo career, I read articles comparing him to Elvis with regard to popularity, record sales, etc.. Each performer has their own space in music history. With Perry is no different.
 
It's not about Katy Perry being less talented than Michael.

Are you serious?

And your post is a bit contradictory on the records part as well. First you say "records are bound to be broken" then you discuss the record market which basically means that probably no one will break MJ's certain records any more. Katy Perry is not even the best selling artist of her generation, so to suggest that she only did not break MJ's records because of the general decline in record sales is a bit bold statement.

Also what do record sales have to do with talent? MJ is infinetely more talented than Katy Perry and that has nothing to do with his or her record sales.
 
Last edited:
Michael's new album would have sold around 17 million had he been able to release all that he had planned, promote everything so perfectly etc.
 
Michael's new album would have sold around 17 million

Where'd that oddly-specific number come from? The way people consume music has completely changed these past few years and I think even Michael would find it hard to get near that number.

Not to say it's impossible but the odds aren't exactly in his (or anyone's) favour.
 
I meant to say it's not impossible to break records, no matter how difficult they may be. Adele 21, for example, overtook Bad sales in UK. And I brought the sales subject up, because someone mentioned that Michael sold more 10 millions copies of Dangerous in two weeks. Obviously talent is not about sales. I didn't mean to say that Perry didn't sell as many records as Michael because of the decline in record sales, even though if her albums had been put out in the 80's they would probably have sold many more copies. Anyway, as I said, it's silly to make comparisons. There was only one Michael. No one can be like him. It does not mean though that there aren't talented artists out there. As far as sales go, in 2014 no album has gone platinum. Artists like Beyonce, according to Forbes sold only 750,000. Not the best era to sell records.

Are you serious?

And your post is a bit contradictory on the records part as well. First you say "records are bound to be broken" then you discuss the record market which basically means that probably no one will break MJ's certain records any more. Katy Perry is not even the best selling artist of her generation, so to suggest that she only did not break MJ's records because of the general decline in record sales is a bit bold statement.

Also what do record sales have to do with talent? MJ is infinetely more talented than Katy Perry and that has nothing to do with his or her record sales.
 
I meant to say it's not impossible to break records, no matter how difficult they may be. Adele 21, for example, overtook Bad sales in UK.

Bad did not hold the record in Britain. If we wanna talk about 21 breaking the record in the UK then it should break Queen's Greatest Hits, not Bad - which did not hold the record in the first place. Thriller holds the record of worldwide sales and US sales (the latter together with the Eagles' GH album). 21 did not come close to breaking that record.

It does not mean though that there aren't talented artists out there.

I did not say there aren't talented artists out there. It's another matter that I do not count Katy Perry among them, but tastes differ.
 
Last edited:
Where'd that oddly-specific number come from? The way people consume music has completely changed these past few years and I think even Michael would find it hard to get near that number.

Not to say it's impossible but the odds aren't exactly in his (or anyone's) favour.

Would have sold far more copies than Invincible, just look at the demand for the 'This Is It' residence!
 
Thanks for the info. That Forbes article is from October/2014. Slightly outdated.

Taylor Swift's 1989. Came out 12 weeks ago and is already 4x platinum in the US.

It's an outlier but it's selling very, very well.



Zakk, high demand for concert tickets does not necessarily mean the artist has a highly successful album. Madonna for example was a sold out concert with MDNA, but her album didn't surpass 2 million copies (in 2 years since released). I assume Michael would sell out every concert, but as far as record sales go, I don't think he would achieve the same success he had in the peak of his career.
 
I think he would have personally. He probably would have found ways of utilizing the internet in new ways for promotion. When he was on, he was no slouch in the area of marketing.
 
Yeah, fair point. What sort of chart rules have changed? Not challenging you, just genuinely curious.

I know that nowadays you can decrease prices on digital retailers to help sell and move up the charts (as was the case with a few of the singles from Teenage Dream)... and catalogue albums are now available on the normal Billboard charts now I believe? That wasn't the case around Michael's death though. Any other rules?

Not just chart rules, but the world has changed. Back then, people had to dress, go out, drive (or) walk to a record store and buy the record or single. Now you can buy single while lying in bed. Now the single costs $0,99, CD singles were $8,99, but nowadays number of copies sold counts the same!

Also your song had to be really good to be played on the radio and the competition was much stronger. Back then there was no twitter, facebook, youtube to promote yourself (not your music but yourself). Now radios play the trash songs just because record companies pay them to play that kind of music to influence kids and young adults.

Now streaming music on youtube, Spotify... counts as sales on the charts! MJ was alive when Thriller had 60 MIL views on youtube (record back than) and that didn't count anywhere.

There are numerous examples. It's just not fair to compare Katy Perry with MJ.
 
OnirMJ;4070446 said:
Not just chart rules, but the world has changed. Back then, people had to dress, go out, drive (or) walk to a record store and buy the record or single. Now you can buy single while lying in bed. Now the single costs $0,99, CD singles were $8,99, but nowadays number of copies sold counts the same!

Also your song had to be really good to be played on the radio and the competition was much stronger. Back then there was no twitter, facebook, youtube to promote yourself (not your music but yourself). Now radios play the trash songs just because record companies pay them to play that kind of music to influence kids and young adults.

Now streaming music on youtube, Spotify... counts as sales on the charts! MJ was alive when Thriller had 60 MIL views on youtube (record back than) and that didn't count anywhere.

There are numerous examples. It's just not fair to compare Katy Perry with MJ.

Yes, and the problem is that it has fully devalued music and made it more disposable.

As a teenager for me to fork out £4 for a CD single, I had to really love it and sometime agonise about it for weeks!

Now, a single is 79p and it's nothing so I may only play it once and it doesn't really matter.

It also means that people tend to buy singles and not albums, look at Rhianna. Tonnes of singles sold, but not many are interested in her albums. Where as look at MJ at his peak in 80s and 90s, the albums were the best selling ever plus 7-9 Top 10 singles off the albums also!

I used to love going to the shop waiting for the next single and watching it climb the charts. Hearing how the single edit sounded, seeing what the B side or extra songs on the CD were, seeing the single cover (faves being Dirty Diana, Smooth Criminal, Remember The Time).

It was an experience.
 
Is this true? I mean streaming music on youtube, Spotify... count as sales on the charts? Psy for example, broke youtube counter. Does it mean it counted as sale of his record Gangnam Style?

Not just chart rules, but the world has changed. Back then, people had to dress, go out, drive (or) walk to a record store and buy the record or single. Now you can buy single while lying in bed. Now the single costs $0,99, CD singles were $8,99, but nowadays number of copies sold counts the same!

Also your song had to be really good to be played on the radio and the competition was much stronger. Back then there was no twitter, facebook, youtube to promote yourself (not your music but yourself). Now radios play the trash songs just because record companies pay them to play that kind of music to influence kids and young adults.

Now streaming music on youtube, Spotify... counts as sales on the charts! MJ was alive when Thriller had 60 MIL views on youtube (record back than) and that didn't count anywhere.

There are numerous examples. It's just not fair to compare Katy Perry with MJ.
 
Is this true? I mean streaming music on youtube, Spotify... count as sales on the charts? Psy for example, broke youtube counter. Does it mean it counted as sale of his record Gangnam Style?

On Billboard chart, for example, yes. Even Billie Jean re-entered the charts at #14 this year after that kid danced in his high school the Billie Jean routine (because the original track was in the video!). Also Slave To The Rhythm charted at #45 after the "hologram" performance, mostly because of youtube views.
 
Is this true? I mean streaming music on youtube, Spotify... count as sales on the charts? Psy for example, broke youtube counter. Does it mean it counted as sale of his record Gangnam Style?

I don't think this rule was around when Gangnam Style was taking off back in '12? To be honest, I think Spotify should have some influence on the charts as a large number of people are now using that as a way of listening to music instead of purchasing music individually. Obviously 1 play shouldn't equal 1 sale, much less but I do agree with their decision to have it influence the position. No idea how much Spotify influences the charts tbh.

Can you imagine if YouTube/the Internet had been around for so many more decades? Jesus, how many billions of views would Thriller have? :bugeyed
 
In February of 2013, Billboard and Nielsen made another modification to the “Billboard Hot 100” chart, the official singles chart in the United States. The chart now includes data from YouTube video streaming – an unprecedented event that reflects the growing importance of YouTube on society and the music industry.

http://www.thembj.org/2013/05/modernizing-the-hot-100/

I think it's not only YouTube by now, but also Spotify and other official streaming services.

Then in 2014 they also started to incorporate streaming for the album charts:

In one of their biggest shake ups in decades, Billboard has announced that they are altering the methodology on their historic Billboard 200 album chart, and that it will now take streaming into consideration when charting albums.

Up until now, the Billboard 200—the tally that ranks albums—had been an entirely sales-based chart, placing albums above or below one another solely on how many copies were moved in a single week from both physical and digital retailers. In the chart that will first appear on December 3rd (the top ten at least—Billboard always shares the top ten albums and songs each a day or so before both tallies are refreshed entirely), all major streaming models will be included as well. Those numbers will include the incredibly important Thanksgiving shopping week, one of the busiest for the music industry all year.

Sites and services like Spotify, Beats, Google Play, Xbox, Rdio, Rhapsody and several others will all be included, with others likely to join the fray as the revamped chart matures.

While streaming one song is fairly easy to count in a singles context, turning that into albums-related data is trickier. Moving forward, Billboard will now be equate 10 digital track sales (from one single album) to one purchase of the album. Along the same lines, 1,500 streams of songs (also from one single album) will now also equal an album sale. So, if you don’t have the money to purchase a new CD but want to help the artist’s ranking on the Billboard 200, just listen to 1,500 songs from that record, and it will count as a sale.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmci...ir-charting-methodology-to-include-streaming/
 
In UK, streaming counts as of last month, but not YouTube.

It's ridiculous that YouTube counts. You may be slightly interested in a track or video & it counts as a sale (or part of a sale).

Many times it'll be young kids for sexual titilation (e.g. Nikki Minaj) and nothing to do with the quality of the song.
 
Many times it'll be young kids for sexual titilation (e.g. Nikki Minaj) and nothing to do with the quality of the song.

Sabrina's "Boys" video would have been HUGE if streaming existed back then. LOL.
 
Imo, hits on youtube and spotify shouldn't count as sales, imo because it's a false statistic.
 
Back
Top