Woah, When did HIStory come out as a stand alone release?

[Eric]

Earth Song wasn't even released un US. They would like it if it was released. Stupid stupid move by MJ and Sony Music. It would have been a major hit released after #1 hit single You Are Not Alone. That was their biggest mistake in the whole HIStory promo. They were aiming to release This Time Around instead (which would be another major hit in the US), but they didn't when MJ collapsed and One Night Only show got cancelled.

They Don't Care About Us would have been hit in US if there wasn't such a big gap between second single (You Are Not Alone) and third (TDCAU). People forgot about HIStory by then, especially without MJ touring there. And on top of all that don't forget radio boycotting the song, media backlash and false "controversy" constructed by various organizations about the lyrics. That song was doomed in US, and every other single from HIStory released after.

BOTDF came out almost without any promo. HIStory/Ghosts was not released there. And SIM just came way too late (in late 1997!). That song if released earlier (maybe after YANA) would have become a big hit in US.

Earth Song was released in the USA! There wasn't a physical single, but the song was sent to radio and the video was sent to MTV. The physical single of Earth Song wasn't released in the USA in hopes of boosting album sales for HIStory. I remember Earth Song was the number one video on the MTV countdown soon after it's release in the USA.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Morphine and Ghosts are ok, but more like album fillers.

The only album fillers on the ‘Blood on The Dance Floor’ record are the remixes.

 

[Electro]

Well, Scream was #3 in the UK. BOTDF was #1. Do you say that the first single of HIStory didn't get enough promotion compared to BOTDF? If it all comes down to promotion and whether a song is among the first song released from an album...

Commercial success always depends on a combination of song quality (in terms of mass appeal) and the efforts made in promotion or a given momentum.

Scream did not go to No. 1 in most countries because it's Michael most edgy agressive song ever released as a single. Attention-wise, next to Janet's appearance, the song had a "rise of the phoenix" bonus of being the first music sign of Michael after the 1993 debacle. Never the less, all that and the giant promotion that followed couldn't compensate the obvious lack in mass compatibility of the song.

BOTDF (the song) has more mass appeal than Scream. So it performed slightly better (top 10 in most countries, but only a few No.1's) as a lead-single even with a little less momentum than Scream had.


Would these same songs have been released "on their own" as a 4th~5th~6th single off an album, they would have performed way worse in the charts.

 

[Electro]

This was a hit in the US a few years ago. Are the vocals clear enough for you to understand? :rofl:

That's a gimmick song that lived from its originality.

 

[Electro]

The only album fillers on the ‘Blood on The Dance Floor’ record are the remixes.

I meant on an actual album, they would have been fillers. Wait, maybe thats why they were dropped off as a bonus on a remix album?

 

[Electro]

SO for the singles that didn't get to number one, or chart anywhere near as well as BOTDF BUT you consider them to be better singles for the public than BOTDF, what do you have to say for them? Were the songs not good enough? and should they have received a bigger push? Or announce a tour for each of those singles?

What's so hard to understand about the effect that momentum and big promotional events have on the chart performance of a song? As I wrote before, it's always a combination of song quality (in terms of mass appeal) and the quality of the promotion that decides over chart positions. You can't separate the two.

Blood on the Dance Floor did as well as it did. There's no changing history really. A lot of people liked it, went out and bought it, and happened to turn it into a #1 single for him. Your posts have an air of "how dare the song do as well as it did, as it is not up to my standards".

??

 

[DuranDuran]

Commercial success always depends on a combination of song quality (in terms of mass appeal) and the efforts made in promotion or a given momentum.

Scream did not go to No. 1 in most countries because it's Michael most edgy agressive song ever released as a single. Attention-wise, next to Janet's appearance, the song had a "rise of the phoenix" bonus of being the first music sign of Michael after the 1993 debacle. Never the less, all that and the giant promotion that followed couldn't compensate the obvious lack in mass compatibility of the song.

BOTDF (the song) has more mass appeal than Scream. So it performed slightly better even with a little less momentum than Scream had.


Would these same songs have been released as a 4th~5th~6th single off an album, they would have performed way worse in the charts.

You keep talking about what makes a hit, when I mentioned several hit songs that doesn't fit your criteria. They have no "beautiful melodies" and some don't have clear vocals. Even the record companies don't always know what makes a hit, especially the majors. That Ying Yang Twins song is literally just whispering over a beat (and that's the clean radio edit in the video, the more popular version has heavy profanity) and Pretty Boy Swag sounds like someone talking who's out of breath. Lil Wayne has more Top 100 hits in Billboard than anyone else and Drake is about to pass up Elvis, who was #1 before Lil' Wayne. That includes The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Madonna, Michael Jackson, James Brown, etc. A lot of Lil Wayne's songs don't make much sense either, but he was popular. Many of Wayne & Drake's chart songs are not their own, but features with others, unlike Elvis. If a beautiful melody makes a hit, then people could have hit singles with easy listening and classical music, lol.

 

[mj_frenzy]

I meant on an actual album, they would have been fillers.

Not for me, at least.

Wait, maybe thats why they were dropped off as a bonus on a remix album?

I think these five songs were not included in his studio albums, for reasons other than being perceived as fillers (studio album’s concept, being in need of more editing when a studio album approached its completion, etc.).

 

[Electro]

You keep talking about what makes a hit, when I mentioned several hit songs that doesn't fit your criteria. They have no "beautiful melodies" and some don't have clear vocals.

As far as i know them, most of the songs you listed have nice catchy melodies or some other quality. They are all no masterpieces, but they are simple enough to be a hit TODAY.
But you'll have to agree that the music market has changed dramaticly since Michaels best years. By 1996 Michael didn't sell music to the masses because he was that hot new act everyone just fell in love with. But maybe being that is enough these days to fill the USA charts with medioce gimmick songs that kids download on their telefons, because they never learned what a good song is in the first place. Who knows.

If you want to compare BOTDF with the performance of other hit songs, you'll need to go back to the mid 90s.

 

[OnirMJ]

Earth Song was released in the USA! There wasn't a physical single, but the song was sent to radio and the video was sent to MTV. The physical single of Earth Song wasn't released in the USA in hopes of boosting album sales for HIStory. I remember Earth Song was the number one video on the MTV countdown soon after it's release in the USA.

Video maybe. But I doubt the song was sent to radios. It would have enter the charts then. Butterflies, Heaven Can Wait & This Time Around charted in US only due to the radio airplay. Earth Song did not enter any Billboard chart except U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play which doesn't count radio airplay but songs that are most popular in U.S. dance clubs.

 

[HIStory]

Commercial success always depends on a combination of song quality (in terms of mass appeal) and the efforts made in promotion or a given momentum.

Scream did not go to No. 1 in most countries because it's Michael most edgy agressive song ever released as a single. Attention-wise, next to Janet's appearance, the song had a "rise of the phoenix" bonus of being the first music sign of Michael after the 1993 debacle. Never the less, all that and the giant promotion that followed couldn't compensate the obvious lack in mass compatibility of the song.

BOTDF (the song) has more mass appeal than Scream. So it performed slightly better (top 10 in most countries, but only a few No.1's) as a lead-single even with a little less momentum than Scream had.


Would these same songs have been released "on their own" as a 4th~5th~6th single off an album, they would have performed way worse in the charts.

To me it feels like you keep changing the target in this discussion.

One of your arguments against BOTDF was that the lyrics were difficult to understand. It was shown to you that many songs with hard-to-understand lyrics become hits. It isn't as important as you say when the song itself is catchy.

But you also said at some point that BOTDF was just not catchy enough. And the reason why it did well was that it was hyped and promoted as the first single of a new album. Then I brought up Scream and showed how being highly promoted and the first song of an album doesn't gurantee #1. Heck, that song had an highly expensive and special video and two superstars! Then you said it's because Scream has less mass-appeal. True. But then your argument was that BOTDF was just not catchy enough. So maybe it is then if mass-appeal is why it did better than Scream. BTW, to me actually it IS a catchy song.

I don't know why are these excuses for BOTDF's European success are even needed. Like I said, many people like it, maybe other people simply have other tastes, maybe other people genuinely liked it and maybe your judgement of a song is not necessarily an absolute.

 

[Electro]

maybe your judgement of a song is not necessarily an absolute.

Well, to me it seems like you want to keep misunderstanding me. And i'm starting to get tired of it.

We are exchanging opinions here, nothing more. I even wrote something like "my 2 cents" at one point, to make that clear.
So why do you and the other guy keep trying to push me into this strange light as if i'm full of myself?
Hurt feelings because i said something against songs you like?

i never said BOTDF didn't perform better ONLY BECAUSE there are some hard to understand parts in it.
I'm tired of repeating myself...

 

[DuranDuran]

As far as i know them, most of the songs you listed have nice catchy melodies or some other quality. They are all no masterpieces, but they are simple enough to be a hit TODAY.

But you'll have to agree that the music market has changed dramaticly since Michaels best years. By 1996 Michael didn't sell music to the masses because he was that hot new act everyone just fell in love with. But maybe being that is enough these days to fill the USA charts with medioce gimmick songs that kids download on their telefons, because they never learned what a good song is in the first place. Who knows.

If you want to compare BOTDF with the performance of other hit songs, you'll need to go back to the mid 90s.

For the last 20 years rap has been the #1 genre in the US, although it's popularity is starting to taper off a little. Country pop is #2 right now. There's 2 or 3 televised award shows on network TV here that are country only. Pop music doesn't have that. Melodies is generally not the selling point of hip hop, but the flow. The samples used could have melodies, but that is only if they're doing it in a Puff Daddy way and just rapping over the instrumental track. But not in a sound collage way like Paul's Boutique by the Beastie Boys.

In the late 1990s, stuff like Limp Bizkit, KORN, Backstreet Boys, N*SYNC, Master P, Snoop Dogg, Green Day, Jay Z, & Blink 182 was popular.

 

[Shane Michaels]

Did BOTDF 'debut' at number one, or did it 'peak' at number one? I'd say that makes up the difference.

"Scream' probably did not hit number 1 because of the leak to radio.

 

[HIStory]

Did BOTDF 'debut' at number one, or did it 'peak' at number one? I'd say that makes up the difference.

"Scream' probably did not hit number 1 because of the leak to radio.

Both for BOTDF and Scream their top positions were the first week's position.

 

[innuendo141]

Well, to me it seems like you want to keep misunderstanding me. And i'm starting to get tired of it.

We are exchanging opinions here, nothing more. I even wrote something like "my 2 cents" at one point, to make that clear.
So why do you and the other guy keep trying to push me into this strange light as if i'm full of myself?
Hurt feelings because i said something against songs you like?

i never said BOTDF didn't perform better ONLY BECAUSE there are some hard to understand parts in it.
I'm tired of repeating myself...

I agree with respect77 ive already said a few posts ago that you keep changing your point, so its not a case of misunderstanding you. Dont see what the point of the debate is anymore. No one is pushing you into a strange light. You are just difficult to debate with in this topic. Im gonna stop now too as ive lost interest, but its nothing personal obviously.

 

[Electro]

Did BOTDF 'debut' at number one, or did it 'peak' at number one? I'd say that makes up the difference.

"Scream' probably did not hit number 1 because of the leak to radio.

The difference makes that BOTDF didn't reach the No.1 in many countries. The UK was one of the few for some reason.

The radio leak of Scream didn't really matter back then I think. This was just one FM radio station somewhere in the USA.
What mattered more was that the Scream video came a long long time after the single CD was released.
I can't imagin the single CD being rushed back then because of the leak It's not like today where a leaked MP3 will spread like wildfire.

 

[Electro]

To me it feels like you keep changing the target in this discussion.

One of your arguments against BOTDF was that the lyrics were difficult to understand. It was shown to you that many songs with hard-to-understand lyrics become hits. It isn't as important as you say when the song itself is catchy.

But you also said at some point that BOTDF was just not catchy enough. And the reason why it did well was that it was hyped and promoted as the first single of a new album. Then I brought up Scream and showed how being highly promoted and the first song of an album doesn't gurantee #1. Heck, that song had an highly expensive and special video and two superstars! Then you said it's because Scream has less mass-appeal. True. But then your argument was that BOTDF was just not catchy enough. So maybe it is then if mass-appeal is why it did better than Scream. BTW, to me actually it IS a catchy song.

I don't know why are these excuses for BOTDF's European success are even needed.

In the hope to bring this mess of a discussion to end, I'll put all that into one sentence for you:

Answering to the question why the song BOTDF didn't perform better in the USA and in most other countries, I blame it on a lack of overall catchyness, particularly in verse-parts with hard to follow/understand vocal performance, which in the end was compensated enough by the amount of promotion and momentum the release had, so it was still able to reach the top 10 in many countries, just not the No.1 in most.

Whether you share that point of view or not, tell me, within that, where am I changing the "target" or the point?


And before you jump back in the loop again...
Yes, other songs by other artists might have parts with hard to understand lyrics as well. But, as i wrote also, the thing in BOTDF is that the hard to follow verse-vocals are in combination with music thats rather complex. So for the average non-nativ-english listener there is no melody and no lyrics to follow. It might still be giving a nice edgy gritty feel where the vocal is incorporated in the mix like an instrument (

 

[HIStory]

I blame it on a lack of overall catchyness

It is a very subjective thing though what is catchy to you. To me it is catchy. Others said in this thread that it is catchy to them. To you it is not, but it doesn't mean it cannot be to others - including those who bought it.

particularly in verse-parts with hard to follow/understand vocal performance, which in the end was compensated enough by the amount of promotion and momentum the release had, so it was still able to reach the top 10 in many countries, just not the No.1 in most.

And this is where your bias against this song shows. Can't it be simply that people just liked this song? Just like many people in this thread like it too, you know. Why does its performance have to be explained away purely with promotion with not giving any credit to the song itself at all?

top 10 in many countries, just not the No.1 in most

MJ singles rarely were No 1 everywhere after the mid 90s. So it is not like BOTDF is a flop compared his other singles at the time. In the US it is, but then in the US so is TDCAU, which I hope we agree is an excellent song. Many fans think it's HIStory's best song. You can argue that it flopped in the US just because it was released late during the HIStory campaign but then that did not affect the song's success outside of the US, so maybe that's not the main reason. And even if it did not hit #1 but it should have still charted much higher than it did based on song quality, even if it was a late release from the album. Yes, the whole artificial "anti-semitism" scandal etc. But that shows well the US media's relationship with MJ at the time. Which certainly did not get any better by the time BOTDF was released either.

So it is maybe not always all about song quality, after all. Thing is, that MJ had a bad reputation at the time in the US, the media was extremely hostile to him, he was not considered cool any more - in other words he had massive image problems in the US. So those are all factors which we should consider. And yes, probably also the "outdated" NJS sound, but that does not make the song weak or less catchy.

So for the average non-nativ-english listener there is no melody and no lyrics to follow.

Interesting then that it was a hit in many non-English speaking countries.

Denmark #1
Spain #1
Finnland #2
Norway #2
Sweden #2
The Netherlands #4
Romania #4
Germany #5
Switzerland #5

It might still be giving a nice edgy gritty feel where the vocal is incorporated in the mix like an instrument (

 

[Shane Michaels]

Both for BOTDF and Scream their top positions were the first week's position.

I see. Then, might it be, a possibility that in part, BOTDF's success was owed to being a new Michael Jackson song? Not to say that it's bad, its actually one of his best, but, you never know for certain.... of course, people buy things, songs, for different reasons, and of course, if they like a song, they'll listen to the song and buy it too. There's validity in both view-points, though ultimately, I agree that BOTDF is a classic and that is the reason for it's success. That, and that bangin video.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

They have been reissuing albums recently. I've seen reissued versions of Off the Wall, Thriller and Dangerous at my local JB Hi-Fi, they all had the original packaging of the albums but with copyright dates dating 2014/2015 (as well as the original release year).

Here's the Off the Wall reissue I saw back in June:

I never liked the re-do of the CD jacket cover for OTW; it only showed Mike's legs, not his face...WTF?!!

 

[HIStoric]

I never liked the re-do of the CD jacket cover for OTW; it only showed Mike's legs, not his face...WTF?!!

Idk, I'm indifferent (I have the new album artwork as the artwork for my copy on iTunes). Michael would've had to approve the new cover anyway so I suppose he was fine with it?

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Idk, I'm indifferent (I have the new album artwork as the artwork for my copy on iTunes). Michael would've had to approve the new cover anyway so I suppose he was fine with it?

Well, he was WRONG, plus he wasn't selling the album to himself, LMFAO!! The original cover was awesome: his 'fro, his tux, his pose, his SMILE...gorgeous, gorgeous, GORGEOUS!! :girl_sigh: :wub: :swoon:

 

[Electro]

And this is where your bias against this song shows. Can't it be simply that people just liked this song? Just like many people in this thread like it too, you know. Why does its performance have to be explained away purely with promotion with not giving any credit to the song itself at all?

Of course to have a top 10 hit all over Europe and outside, it takes tons of people who LOVE this song so much that they buy it. Isn't that self-explaining? I never said the song itself has ZERO quality or catchyness.

Nothing is just black or white. I was trying to shine light on some of the different forces that simultaneously work for and against the success of a song and the result it might have had in the case of BOTDF.

Honestly, maybe i'm just not able to write things clear enough for you, but i'm starting to think you just can't follow this rather complex subject. So you keep jumping back to single aspects of what i write and take them out of context. Once i mention one of the forces working against, you will make it seem as if thats the only reason why I would think this song sucks, and wonder why we even talk about it, as it's just my opinion, which isn't the ghospel. So we are getting nowhere with this...

MJ singles rarely were No 1 everywhere after the mid 90s. So it is not like BOTDF is a flop compared his other singles at the time. In the US it is, but then in the US so is TDCAU, which I hope we agree is an excellent song. Many fans think it's HIStory's best song. You can argue that it flopped in the US just because it was released late during the HIStory campaign but then that did not affect the song's success outside of the US, so maybe that's not the main reason. And even if it did not hit #1 but it should have still charted much higher than it did based on song quality, even if it was a late release from the album. Yes, the whole artificial "anti-semitism" scandal etc. But that shows well the US media's relationship with MJ at the time. Which certainly did not get any better by the time BOTDF was released either.

Although the opening question involved the USA, I admit I was basicly talking about Europe. (The situation with Michael and the USA is a story of it's own.) Comparing the chart performance and amount of PR and momentum these songs had here, I think it gives a pretty clear picture regarding mass appeal of the individual songs. But whatever...

 

[ChrisC]

I don't know about the US, but in the UK, Scream sold way more copies than BOTD in it's opening week and yet only reached number 3. It was actually one of the best selling songs of 1995 here in the UK, but it came out the same week as a massive media-driven Britpop battle between Oasis and Blur, which was a really big deal over here for some reason. Any other week and Scream would've been number one by a country mile.

Actually your memory fails you a bit. Scream came out the week that Unchained Melody by Robson & Jermone and Common People by Pulp were flexing their muscles. Scream failed to challenge either. Unchained Melody was in week 2 of it's 7 week number one run. However you are right to say this was a huge week in Britain for singles and that in most other weeks Scream would have scored the top spot. I believe Scream's numbers in week one ran to about 350,000 copies.

And just to put the cat among the pigeons, Blood On The Dancefloor was among the lowest selling week numbers for a number one single, ever, in the UK. I imagine in the following decade, with physical single sales in terminal decline, this 'record' didn't last.

Whilst Scream was poorly timed, Blood was almost certainly perfect timing.

 

[analogue]

This was a hit in the US a few years ago. Are the vocals clear enough for you to understand? :rofl:

That was a hit? Well..better kill myself

 

[Eric]

Video maybe. But I doubt the song was sent to radios. It would have enter the charts then. Butterflies, Heaven Can Wait & This Time Around charted in US only due to the radio airplay. Earth Song did not enter any Billboard chart except U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play which doesn't count radio airplay but songs that are most popular in U.S. dance clubs.

It was released in the USA to radio. You can see it here:

http://www.mjjcollectors.com/and dr...ategory_id=17&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=99

It just wasn't a radio friendly song in the USA. When MJ died and radio was playing MJ songs nonstop, I never heard Earth Song played once on the radio despite it being one of the best MJ songs according to fans.

 

[Shane Michaels]

That was a hit? Well..better kill myself

You honestly telling me that this is worse than Justin Bieber and Will I Am?

 

[Shane Michaels]

Video maybe. But I doubt the song was sent to radios. It would have enter the charts then. Butterflies, Heaven Can Wait & This Time Around charted in US only due to the radio airplay. Earth Song did not enter any Billboard chart except U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play which doesn't count radio airplay but songs that are most popular in U.S. dance clubs.

I know it's probably the "Hani's Club Experience" that was probably played, but I wonder if they actually played "Earth Song", the original, in a club, and if so, what would people do? To be a fly on the wall there.

 

[barbee0715]

I know it's probably the "Hani's Club Experience" that was probably played, but I wonder if they actually played "Earth Song", the original, in a club, and if so, what would people do? To be a fly on the wall there.

I'm so glad you asked that bc I thought the same thing: People were dancing to Earth Song?
Or maybe waving glow sticks.

I have never ever heard Earth Song on the radio here in the US. Not then or in 2009. In fact, it's also one of the rare videos that I don't remember a special announcement or premiere for. It just appeared. (As I remember it).