Latest on MJJC

More Number ones?

Metalfish2

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
57
Points
0
So Mj has 13 number one singles in the US. Thats no where near the beatles, elvis and mariah carey. I wonder how many more number one singles Mj will have.
 
Maybe a few if they release a single soon.
 
The number of no.1 hits should be judged in relation to the number of singles released. Elvis and the Beatles have many times more (and at a time where the charts were arguably alot less competitive). And plus, a song becoming number one does not say much necessarily about how classic it will be. 'Will you be there' is a huge classic having only made it to no.7; and 'You Rock my world' is also a classic although sony never released it commercially.
So don't pay much attention to that. It's album sales that are important -and there again in relation to the total number of albums recorded/released. MJ is and will remain far ahead both Beatles and Elvis on that.
 
hesiod said:
The number of no.1 hits should be judged in relation to the number of singles released. Elvis and the Beatles have many times more (and at a time where the charts were arguably alot less competitive). And plus, a song becoming number one does not say much necessarily about how classic it will be. 'Will you be there' is a huge classic having only made it to no.7; and 'You Rock my world' is also a classic although sony never released it commercially.
So don't pay much attention to that. It's album sales that are important -and there again in relation to the total number of albums recorded/released. MJ is and will remain far ahead both Beatles and Elvis on that.
Click to expand...

agreed
and I dont understand whats so good about Elvis he maybe was good to ppl back then but to me his music is soooooooooooooooooo boring I mean my mom is 50 and she would pick mj over Elvis any day
sorry thats just my opinion I don't mean to offend any one
 
xXMJJXx said:
agreed
and I dont understand whats so good about Elvis he maybe was good to ppl back then but to me his music is soooooooooooooooooo boring I mean my mom is 50 and she would pick mj over Elvis any day
sorry thats just my opinion I don't mean to offend any one
Click to expand...


I agree. I've never liked Elvis. But taste can not be argued.

Some like Elvis, some like Frank Sinatra, some like Michael Jackson. Believe it or not, some even like Britney Spears!! :wild: :)
 
What? I dotn care about all that. Im just wondering how many more singles he can get at number one. I predict the next single release will go to number one simply becuz of how popular he is right now. He hasnt had a number one this decade either and theres only 4 months left!
 
Metalfish2 said:
What? I dotn care about all that. Im just wondering how many more singles he can get at number one. I predict the next single release will go to number one simply becuz of how popular he is right now. He hasnt had a number one this decade either and theres only 4 months left!
Click to expand...

That's just one good reason for the estate to release a single this year.

He will have had a #1 single 4 decades in a row! :punk:

Hopefully they release a new single soon!
 
Metalfish2 said:
So Mj has 13 number one singles in the US. Thats no where near the beatles, elvis and mariah carey. I wonder how many more number one singles Mj will have.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing not many. Seldom does an artist's single reach number one at posthumous status. Usually unreleased tracks are looked at as inferior, otherwise they would have been included on the albums at the time. . . . Just to play devil's advocate though, let's say MJ was working on an album and it gets released, an album will wield around five singles, so I'm guessing the max number of future number ones would be about five.
 
hesiod said:
The number of no.1 hits should be judged in relation to the number of singles released. Elvis and the Beatles have many times more (and at a time where the charts were arguably alot less competitive). And plus, a song becoming number one does not say much necessarily about how classic it will be. 'Will you be there' is a huge classic having only made it to no.7; and 'You Rock my world' is also a classic although sony never released it commercially.
So don't pay much attention to that. It's album sales that are important -and there again in relation to the total number of albums recorded/released. MJ is and will remain far ahead both Beatles and Elvis on that.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this logic works. If Michael wanted more number one singles, then he would have and could have released more singles. But he didn't. I wouldn't penalize another artist for releasing music. And just because an artist releases material doesn't equate huge sales: the Ramones and Velvet Underground/Lou Reed released plenty of great songs but never saw huge sales.

YRMW was released by Sony as a single and reached number 10 on the billboard charts. I don't think anyone outside of Michael Jackson fans think of it as a "classic"; I remember it was panned at the time, and even reviews of Michael's music since 6/25 see it as a low-point.

How did Elvis and the Beatles have less competition than today? Motown, Stax Records, the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Beach Boys, Phil Spector's Wall of Sound, Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, Bob Dyan, etc all were around in the '60s. "Lady Gaga" is a laughable joke.

According to Wikipedia, the Beatles have sold two billion albums, Elvis one billion, and Michael 750 million.
 
In 2001, the HOT 100 was predominantly a radio airplay chart. Radio tracks were eligible to enter the chart since 1998 and digital downloads were not yet included. YRMW reached number 10. Im not sure why we are discussing YRMW though.


Here is the list of most number ones. MJ would need 7 more number ones to top the list. He would need at least 4 to catch up to elvis.

1. The Beatles (20)
2. Mariah Carey (18)
3. Elvis Presley (17)
4. Michael Jackson (13)
5. Madonna (12)
5. The Supremes (12)
7. Whitney Houston (11)
8. Janet Jackson (10)
8. Stevie Wonder (10)
10. Bee Gees (9)
10. Elton John (9)
 
MJ's amount of number one's needs to be pro rata compared to other artists to do a fair comparison. What percentage of all his singles went to number one comapred to the others.

I think that if a new MJ single was to be released soon, it would go to number one, simply cos demand in all things MJ is still high. After the hype dies down a bit, I'm not sure he would have anymore number one hits.
 
JoeyMJFan said:
I don't see how this logic works. If Michael wanted more number one singles, then he would have and could have released more singles. But he didn't. I wouldn't penalize another artist for releasing music. And just because an artist releases material doesn't equate huge sales: the Ramones and Velvet Underground/Lou Reed released plenty of great songs but never saw huge sales.

YRMW was released by Sony as a single and reached number 10 on the billboard charts. I don't think anyone outside of Michael Jackson fans think of it as a "classic"; I remember it was panned at the time, and even reviews of Michael's music since 6/25 see it as a low-point.

How did Elvis and the Beatles have less competition than today? Motown, Stax Records, the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Beach Boys, Phil Spector's Wall of Sound, Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, Bob Dyan, etc all were around in the '60s. "Lady Gaga" is a laughable joke.

According to Wikipedia, the Beatles have sold two billion albums, Elvis one billion, and Michael 750 million.
Click to expand...


1) the reference to the ratio of albums sold/albums released does not mean to penalize those who make releases often. It's just a fact that artists have different modes of creation and productivity. One may be after being constantly in the market-publicity and release all kinds of stuff all the time, and another may feel his job fulfills his own standards twice a decade. Michael was clearly such a case. He was the absolute nothing-short-of perfectionist (look at Akon's description of him), put all his creative effort in the preparation of a single album, and released one every four years aproximately. A single album he released was, in effort and energy absorbed, equal to a handful of albums by others -sorry but that's the way it is. The whole venture of MJ albums -production, promotion, almost in all cases accompanied by a world tour, and all of that in the highest possible quality- was not something that could be materialized in greater frequency.
This is not meant to discredit those who make frequent releases. But it's a factor to be taken in mind. In the 80's, Madonna released singles alot more frequently than him -almost three times as many. You would consequently find her at the top 10 for a greater number of weeks in total. Does that now seem as representative of how successful in singles-sales each of them -MJ and Madonna- were in that decade? I don't think so..
Same with albums. take into consideration the following simplified hypothesis -just for the logic of my argument: Imagine you have a successful artist that releases an album a year, and sells a million for each. With 20 albums, he'll have 20 mil.sales =which is wildly successful by all standards. Then you have another artist that sells that much, with only two albums in the same period of time. Can they be considered as equally successful? All I'm saying is that, when we look at the cumulative chart-legacy of stars on a comparable basis, that is a factor to be taken into account. As simple as that.

2) YRMW was planned as the first commercial release of 'Invincible', but as you might know Michael broke with Sony just as the album was being released, which led to Sony cancelling all promotion and all further releases. YRMW was already out and they couldn't postpone that -but they completely neglected and in fact boycotted its further promotion, airplay etc. The degree in which your record company supports you determines largely how far you go on the charts and the kind of the publicity you get -particularly back then. This is SO obvious if one looks at the coverage MJ's return had in 2001 at the press till just before 'Vince' was released, and right after -once he broke with Motolla. If Sony had stood by him, my strong opinion throughout these years is that Vince would have given a number of classics (can someone seriously claim that 'Speachless' was not a song with an all-time classic potential?). And YRMW would definately be no.1 -we already have Billboard's admission of that.

And sorry, but to me the song -and video- IS a classic by all standards, and for all. It's a song that a decade after its release everyone knows and has lipsung at some point. And will be even more so in the years to come.

3) I'm not saying charts were 'empty' of competition at the time of the Beatles and Elvis (although this might not be as far from the truth as one might first think when it comes to the 50's -when Elvis appeared-), but hey, who can compare the traffic of big names and single-releases back at the 60's with what it was in the 80's and 90's..? This seems so automatically obvious to me that I don't even feel it needs any further proof, sorry..

4) You'll find many threads here that show how wiki is not the all-reliable source when it comes to these numbers. In reality, noone can really know. I am absolutely confident MJ will surpass the others in sales in the years to come -at least in albums-, but even now, it's not clear how accurate the numbers quoted are. For instance, I doubt they are inclusive -or that there even is viable counting- of sales in massive markets that have risen only recently -e.g. China or India- where MJ is many times more huge than the rest.. Plus, they don't count the Jackson5 numbers in his sales, which I don't think is fair -but that's a whole different discussion...

respectfully..
 
Well you have to remember that Michael released six albums (well nine if you count the Motown one's but hardly anyone know's about those) in his career compared to the dozens Elvis & The Beatles have, so it's not a fair comparison. He hasn't released that many singles at all compared to people in his peer group. For him to have sold so many records and have as many #1's as he's had with such a small discography says a lot I think.

Very impressive.
 
This idea of ratio of albums to singles is irrelevant. Janet Jackson has 10 number ones. It doesnt matter if she released 10 albums or if all 10 of her number ones came from the very same album. In the end she holds the distinction of having 10 number ones either way.
Its not a measure of her long term success, its just one unique acomplishment. All Im saying is it would be cool if Mj moved up a few notches on that list. I mean he is the king of POP after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top