"Say, say, say" ranked as MJ's biggest Billboard hit. WTF?!

[mjrox2011]

May I just add that Michael has ALSO been the hugest in the Middle East, before his off the wall album!! I'm an Arab. My mother/aunt/uncle have been MJ fans since forever. Before his solo career.

one more thing,to Arabs Michael was and is the biggest non-arab music figure of all time. People have not had such love and adoration for Elvis and the Beatles (no offense to their fans here. I'm just stating a fact). They just didn't care for their type of music.

On the other hand, people were attracted and had some sort of unprecedented attachment to Michael. To his music, has dance, his sex appeal. He was all of that even to people who didn't speak or understand a word in English.

I think many hateful journalists and critics should realize that one day. or maybe they know it, and they just hate it. So they have this urge to downplay his success

WELL SAID! and @the bolded part THEY KNOW IT!!! or else there'll be no point for them to write these trashy articles!

 

[mjdove]

hey guys, better forget it! It's not further relevant what THEY say say say :tease:

 

[GeorgeDK]

It surprised me to see that Say, Say, Say was MJ's biggest hit. LOL was my reaction. Sure, it's a good song, but biggest hit? Hrm.
As for Elvis, he never wrote any songs at all.

Biggest hit and most remembered song is not always the same as the biggest seller ;-) I for sure do not consider Say, say for MJ's biggest hit, but again Say, say, say was not included on any MJ albums and because of that it might have sold more copies than the singles that were included on an MJ album... back when Say, say, say was released I bought the single, I did not buy Beat it and Billie Jean, because I bought the album and could not afford both the singles and the album

About Elvis, I tend to agree, but he is mentioned as a co-writer on some of his songs, so hard to know for sure....

 

[Seven]

Is it me, or are you saying that before Say, Say, Say, Michael & his music were not sufficiently known around the world?

Hello???

I do not know if you know but Jackson 5 and The Jacksons were well known and celebrated around the world.

Not to mention that Off the Wall, when released was the best selling album in black music.

What you says simply makes NO sense.

I am making perfect sense, you are misunderstanding me. And there no need to be so rude.

Of course Michael was well known around the world. What I am saying is that he was not listened to by everyone on the planet. There are some who knew who he was but had not gone out and bought his music before.

The fact that he teamed himself with Paul and had a great record, made some people go and buy his solo music who would not have bought him before.

 

[Seven]

that assumption that certain people always listen to certain types of music is a very big assumption. a whole lot of MJ fans loved MJ's solo music, and didn't need another artist to help them out.

Regardless of how much promotion one artist gets, sometimes teaming with another artist opens that artist up to new fans.

I see adverts for say a rap artist, I don't rush out and buy the CD. Then he might team with another artist I like and I hear him perform. I then think, that was good I'll go and buy his solo stuff.

I've heard a lot of dumb comments about MJ made by the beatles fans but this is one of the dumbest one! It's like saying Lisa marie got MJ exposed in 1995. :wtf:

You need to learn some manners.

 

[oldmoon20]

You need to learn some manners.

True that!

Let's keep the comments nice and civilized

 

[loveforever]

I am making perfect sense, you are misunderstanding me. And there no need to be so rude.

Of course Michael was well known around the world. What I am saying is that he was not listened to by everyone on the planet. There are some who knew who he was but had not gone out and bought his music before.

The fact that he teamed himself with Paul and had a great record, made some people go and buy his solo music who would not have bought him before.

I am no expert of music. but Paul McCartney had other duets with different artists. did their success also have to connect with McCartney's fame and his large fan base? were their duets the big hits? In my country, people knew beatles or Elvis because of Michael jackson.
It was Michael Jackson opened the door for western music (which was well-reported in our media). I think people still had no idea how much Michael Jackson changed this world.

 

[Seven]

I am no expert of music. but Paul McCartney had other duets with different artists. did their success also have to connect with McCartney's fame and his large fan base? were their duets the big hits? In my country, people knew beatles or Elvis because of Michael jackson.
It was Michael Jackson opened the door for western music (which was well-reported in our media). I think people still had no idea how much Michael Jackson changed this world.

I am not saying Michael needed help or that Paul gave Michael a 'leg up' in anyway. They collaborated as they were friends at the time

All I am saying is that collaborating with another sucessful artist would've opened Michael's music up to some of the other artists' fans who might not have actually gone and bought Michael's music before.

That's all.

 

[Sophielo]

I like 'Say Say Say', its a good song, but I think Billboard have conviniently switched around what happened. When the song was released yes it was hugely successful on the Billboard Top 100, remaining at the top for six weeks. Say Say Say was released at the end of 1983, becoming Michael's seventh top ten hit in a year, surpassing the record held jointly by, guess who, The Beatles and Elvis Presly. Michael had taken off that year and gone into orbit, from which he never came down. It was Michael who made the song so successful and reviewers even conceeded that. Music critic Nelson Georgestated that "Say Say Say" would not have "deserved the airplay it received without Michael Jackson". The song was massively successful because of Michael, and it was McCartney that needed him. Sadly the music press do not want to accept that a member of The Beatles had been surpassed, and needed help to get another hit, from a black man.

 

[BunnyHead]

I am so sick of Billboard and their bullshit.

I'm not playing the race card but they just don't want to give Michael his credit...they want him to SHARE the wealth.

 

[144000]

Regardless of how much promotion one artist gets, sometimes teaming with another artist opens that artist up to new fans.

I see adverts for say a rap artist, I don't rush out and buy the CD. Then he might team with another artist I like and I hear him perform. I then think, that was good I'll go and buy his solo stuff.

u can't compare other artists to MIchael jackson. i guess u weren't around in the eighties. u would see different. the Mccartney of the eighties and the Michael of the eighties would turn ur explanation around in a heartbeat. and Paul had duets with other artists, and not nearly the same big impact, at that time. i also must say that the sign of the artist with the biggest success, is how derided they are by the media, as well. we all know who is the champion there. mj has received more evil from the media than ANYONE. to THIS day. they pay MORE attention to him, because they know he has a more diverse, big and active fanbase than ANYONE. that makes MJ the biggest. so..his appearance on songs has the most impact. not Paul's. may i also add that when you ask the average person on the street, what song do they associate with Michael, they don't say Say Say Say....they say Billie Jean. which song has a trademark dance? this is MJ's default song. we all know this. are we going to suddenly deny it for billboard's convenience? which song was remade by that dude on american idol? didn't somebody else remake billie jean, and NOT say say say? i think two artists remade billie jean. u know that if people associate a certain song, then they had to have bought said song. so, billboard is twisting things. i don't need their made up graphs in their attempt at revisionist history. they are making a mockery of their own charts. they continue to deride him, and prompted the lyric in tdcau. and they do it subtly. it is all deliberate.

 

[anthontherun]

well..the idea of conspiracy is still open to debate. it's not like it's NOT possible.

No. It's not possible.

The fact that MJ was mistreated by the press in his lifetime is hardly up for debate. That a music magazine creating a chart of his biggest hits would fudge the numbers because of some agenda is a laughable assertion. What about the fact that they're publishing this list in the first place? If they had an agenda, they wouldn't have done that.

Thriller is the biggest-selling album ever. The "Billie Jean" single sold well but most people who wanted the song got the album. "Say Say Say" didn't appear on a MJ album, so fans picked up that single in presumably greater numbers (thereby missing out on actually the best of the three Paul/Michael collaborations, "The Man"). But beyond that, it's a song performed by arguably the two most successful and popular artists in music history. It stands at the top of both the MJ and Beatles rankings for that reason.

Imagine if by some magic stroke of luck, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis, and Frank Sinatra released a single together. The song itself probably wouldn't be the pinnacle of their catalogs in terms of quality, but can we not agree that that would've been easily the biggest-selling single ever? Having a collaboration as the biggest hit of an artists' career does not cheapen their legacy. Simply put, it earns wider appeal because you're winning over a multitude of fanbases. Why do you think Michael chose to release "The Girl is Mine" as the first single from Thriller? It's arguably the weakest song on the entire album. But it has Paul McCartney on it. Case closed.

People need to stop looking for anti-Michael conspiracies where they clearly do not exist. Just enjoy the music! It doesn't do anyone any good to police everything written about the guy with a fine-toothed comb trying to find something to get up in arms about.

 

[144000]

No. It's not possible.

The fact that MJ was mistreated by the press in his lifetime is hardly up for debate. That a music magazine creating a chart of his biggest hits would fudge the numbers because of some agenda is a laughable assertion. What about the fact that they're publishing this list in the first place? If they had an agenda, they wouldn't have done that.

Thriller is the biggest-selling album ever. The "Billie Jean" single sold well but most people who wanted the song got the album. "Say Say Say" didn't appear on a MJ album, so fans picked up that single in presumably greater numbers (thereby missing out on actually the best of the three Paul/Michael collaborations, "The Man"). But beyond that, it's a song performed by arguably the two most successful and popular artists in music history. It stands at the top of both the MJ and Beatles rankings for that reason.

Imagine if by some magic stroke of luck, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis, and Frank Sinatra released a single together. The song itself probably wouldn't be the pinnacle of their catalogs in terms of quality, but can we not agree that that would've been easily the biggest-selling single ever? Having a collaboration as the biggest hit of an artists' career does not cheapen their legacy. Simply put, it earns wider appeal because you're winning over a multitude of fanbases. Why do you think Michael chose to release "The Girl is Mine" as the first single from Thriller? It's arguably the weakest song on the entire album. But it has Paul McCartney on it. Case closed.

People need to stop looking for anti-Michael conspiracies where they clearly do not exist. Just enjoy the music! It doesn't do anyone any good to police everything written about the guy with a fine-toothed comb trying to find something to get up in arms about.

nothing is impossible and it's naive of you to say that it is. nobody has to need a fine tooth comb for all of this. a magazine releasing a list doesn't mean it isn't fudged. they know there are people who will accept anything the mag writes, just because it's a media publication. i've heard people who say they believe the media just because it's the media. but there are plenty who won't believe it. you're giving opinions in such a strong way, that you make your case lessen. you decided that 'the girl is mine' is weak. you can never know that. you can't determine why an album sold well with your opinion. you don't know why it sold well, outside of MJ's talent. a lot of people would think 'the girl is mine' is a strong song. and, in the eighties, there weren't just albums...there were singles being sold, so you can't know how many 'Billie Jean' singles were sold.

but it is extremely naive to think that people don't do things behind the scenes. that's why the term 'conspiracy' was invented. you have a username that gives you away. you have strong opinions. but don't act like something other than your opinionated assertions is not possible.

and if you are so sure about 'the man', then why aren't as many people aware of that album that featured that song, as they are of Thriller? and you are presuming that more people bought Say Say Say, when it's entirely possible that a bigger concentration of people bought 'Billie Jean', when it was at it's number 1 status. Right now, Michael is the biggest selling artist of all time. Not Paul McCartney. Michael is in the guiness book for that. Not Paul McCartney.

and billboard went of the track of counting sales for chart position for a while, during the latter part of the Michael Jackson era, and now they are back to counting sales, right after Michael Jackson died. so it IS possible that billboard fudged a LOT to downplay Michael's success. and it will ALWAYS be easy to question a magazine that puts a companion article, accusing Michael of skin bleaching, right next to their chart 'facts' article. if they want you to believe something, they'll make damn sure they'll publish it. it was an irresponsible move, to put those next to each other, and it smacks of anything being possible.

 

[anthontherun]

nothing is impossible and it's naive of you to say that it is. nobody has to need a fine tooth comb for all of this. a magazine releasing a list doesn't mean it isn't fudged. they got plenty of people like you who will accept it. but there are plenty who won't.

Obviously. But what point does fudging the list serve? The overall message that I get from this list is that Michael has, whether by himself or with others, 50+ Billboard hits. That's a pretty huge accomplishment.

Look, I'm not arguing that there are still people/journalists out there who will do their damnedest to put Michael down. But it's about choosing your battles. And this is, as Ben Folds would say, a battle of who could care less. This is an objective list. It's not "The editors of Billboard pick what they think are the best MJ songs." They're using their criteria--straight numbers, albeit in a strange mathematic combination--and presenting the list as is. The data is probably out there if fans want to double-check it. And whatever criteria is, obviously "Say Say Say" tops the Beatles list too so unless Billboard has an agenda against both of these artists, I think people are certainly reading too much into it.

you're giving opinions in such a strong way, that you make your case lessen.

With all due respect, I think I've backed up my arguments with solid facts and a sprinkling of opinion. Most of the other posts in this thread seem to be only the latter, seen through MJ-colored glasses.

you decided that 'the girl is mine' is weak. you can never know that. you can't determine why an album sold well with your opinion. you don't know why it sold well, outside of MJ's talent.

First off, I said it's "arguably" the weakest song. I didn't decide that; it's the opinion that seems prominent here anyway. I like the song, but yeah, it's my least favorite on Thriller even though I'm a huge McCartney fan.

MJ's talent is just as much an opinion as to why Thriller sold well as anything I suggested. I think it's fair to say that a collaboration between him and Paul McCartney is a selling point.

in the eighties, there weren't just albums...there were singles being sold, so you can't know how many 'Billie Jean' singles were sold.

The "Billie Jean" single went gold in the US (approximately 500,000 copies). Thriller appears to have sold upwards of 29 million copies in the US (I'm going strictly by certifications and facts; I know there's a conspiracy theory that it's more than that but that's not a solid argument). Can we agree that "Billie Jean" would've sold in much higher quantities as a single if it'd not been on that best-selling LP?

but it is extremely naive to think that people don't do things behind the scenes. that's why the term 'conspiracy' was invented.

Oh yeah, I know there are tons of behind-the-scenes conspiracies and cover-ups. But I don't see how/why this is one of them.

you have a username that gives you away. you have strong opinions. but don't act like something other than your opinionated assertions is not possible.

That's fair. But I'd like to see the same from the other side (not singling you out on this).

I'd like to add that I'm not trying to provoke or argue anything here. I think it's a worthwhile debate but somebody needs to take the other side of it--that there's nothing fishy going on. Kudos, 144,000 (any particular reason for that username?).

 

[Moulin Rouge]

I am so sick of Billboard and their bullshit.

I'm not playing the race card but they just don't want to give Michael his credit...they want him to SHARE the wealth.

lol i agree, say say say is a nice song but i don't believe it's his most popular. I don't care what statistics they try to use.

 

[144000]

Obviously. But what point does fudging the list serve? The overall message that I get from this list is that Michael has, whether by himself or with others, 50+ Billboard hits. That's a pretty huge accomplishment.

Look, I'm not arguing that there are still people/journalists out there who will do their damnedest to put Michael down. But it's about choosing your battles. And this is, as Ben Folds would say, a battle of who could care less. This is an objective list. It's not "The editors of Billboard pick what they think are the best MJ songs." They're using their criteria--straight numbers, albeit in a strange mathematic combination--and presenting the list as is. The data is probably out there if fans want to double-check it. And whatever criteria is, obviously "Say Say Say" tops the Beatles list too so unless Billboard has an agenda against both of these artists, I think people are certainly reading too much into it.



With all due respect, I think I've backed up my arguments with solid facts and a sprinkling of opinion. Most of the other posts in this thread seem to be only the latter, seen through MJ-colored glasses.



First off, I said it's "arguably" the weakest song. I didn't decide that; it's the opinion that seems prominent here anyway. I like the song, but yeah, it's my least favorite on Thriller even though I'm a huge McCartney fan.

MJ's talent is just as much an opinion as to why Thriller sold well as anything I suggested. I think it's fair to say that a collaboration between him and Paul McCartney is a selling point.



The "Billie Jean" single went gold in the US (approximately 500,000 copies). Thriller appears to have sold upwards of 29 million copies in the US (I'm going strictly by certifications and facts; I know there's a conspiracy theory that it's more than that but that's not a solid argument). Can we agree that "Billie Jean" would've sold in much higher quantities as a single if it'd not been on that best-selling LP?



Oh yeah, I know there are tons of behind-the-scenes conspiracies and cover-ups. But I don't see how/why this is one of them.



That's fair. But I'd like to see the same from the other side (not singling you out on this).

I'd like to add that I'm not trying to provoke or argue anything here. I think it's a worthwhile debate but somebody needs to take the other side of it--that there's nothing fishy going on. Kudos, 144,000 (any particular reason for that username?).

to all this, i say, you stated that you HAVE to take the other side of it. well, that is your perrogative. but the reason for my problems with the list, ARE based on the special effort to destroy MJ in the media. the reality is, if the attacks were not so severe, i'd be less suspicious. like i said, a list can be fudged. and like you said...a strange math formula was used. and saying that the say say say tops the beatles..sure it makes them look fair, but i have every reason to see that as their attempt to look fair, to cover themselves. it really doesn't matter what else they write. they, in essence have depleted the legitmacy of the idea of having a number 1 song. that's enough for me. but i appreciate you saying that there is room for people on BOTH sides of this argument. and like u said, u took ur figures from a usa compilation. we have to figure the whole world, as counting for the sales of the songs. you just can't leave that out, as the usa is not the only place on this planet. but as for gold certification, you have to consider the last time you got that info. and since you are approximating, there's room for it to be a different figure. but the purpose of choosing this battle is the steady stream from the mag to lessen the potency of Michael. and, we are entitled to pick the battles we want to pick. but you can't call a fact a fact, when, like you said, a strange math formula was used. so..they leave room for themselves being fair game. besides, you said the data is probably out there, which means you didn't say it's definitely out there. you say you don't see why they would fudge it. that is you making an assumption. the lure of believing them, just because they said it. but, many lists can be compiled, and not all of them, necessarily agree with each other, even if they are about the same thing. there were people in the media who have declared that an MJ album is not a success..and they have based that on their high expectations and bias, rather than objectivity. billboard is included in that bunch. that also makes their 'objective' lists fair game. as for my username...it's just a number i chose from a religious text.

but, by the way..saying that people have MJ colored glasses is not fair. we can't determine that. otherwise i can say you have McCartney colored glasses. there is just as much chance as them being objective as you being objective. again, there's nothing you wrote that tells me that the facts you say you have are factual beyond the shadow of a doubt. approximating, data PROBABY being out there..stuff like that. MJ has done enough, the thriller album has done enough...the billie jean remakes have done enough, the songs that were released at that time that were made to sound like billie jean, whether they be from artists like billy ocean, madonna, or others... it's much easier to believe that billie jean did better than billboard would like us to believe.

 

[Calotte12]

Say say say is a really good song.. not surprised! Even if its a duet!

 

[Janart]

Say say say is a really good song.. not surprised! Even if its a duet!

I agree and MJ looks soooooo cute in the video :heart:

 

[ddmff]

http://www.billboard.com/news/say-s...michael-jackson-s-1004098909.story?tag=hpfeed

Look at the trick they did to make this McCartney song MJ's "biggest hit":

""Billie Jean" places as Jackson's second-biggest single. While the song spent one more week at No. 1 and two more weeks on the Hot 100 than "Say Say Say," the latter title totaled more weeks than the former track in the top 10 (13/11), top 20 (16/12) and top 40 (18/17)."

I'm pretty sure "Say, say, say" isn't MJ's biggest selling track ever. But they will never let a black guy outshine the Beatles and Elvis, will they?

Same with the tricking with the Eagels' "Greatest Hits" album and so on.....

Make of it what you want, but I don't think MJ was totally nuts when he felt there was a conspiracy against him in the industry.

I agree 100%. MJ is the quintessentail example in many respects of how no matter how spectacular you are, when you are black many times your accomplishments will be mitigated
or ignored alltogether. You have to be twice as good as everybody else. And since MJ's
talents and accomplishments are staggering, some feel they must find a way either blatantly or a round -about way of not giving him credit.
I don't think you need the sensibilities of a black American man to see that, and there is no race card played here in my statement, it is what it is. In America especially, some think that certain others are not supposed to have or accomplish certain things, that they have no right to it, sometimes this thought process is subtle but it exist, believe it or not.

Say, say, say???? Get outta hereeeee! I forgot all about that song.

 

[144000]

I agree 100%. MJ is the quintessentail example in many respects of how no matter how spectacular you are, when you are black many times your accomplishments will be mitigated
or ignored alltogether. You have to be twice as good as everybody else. And since MJ's
talents and accomplishments are staggering, some feel they must find a way either blatantly or a round -about way of not giving him credit.
I don't think you need the sensibilities of a black American man to see that, and there is no race card played here in my statement, it is what it is. In America especially, some think that certain others are not supposed to have or accomplish certain things, that they have no right to it, sometimes this thought process is subtle but it exist, believe it or not.

Say, say, say???? Get outta hereeeee! I forgot all about that song.

indeed. it's a hard pill to swallow. but there are people outside this country who say america is particularly racist. so it's not just people in the usa saying it. after all..how can an artist be so spectaculary loved all over the world..but..NOT in the usa? that isn't the fault of usa fans. nor is it true of usa fans. it's the usa media that is racist. and it's subtle. so, naturally it's a hard battle to fight. like it was with Tiger Woods. the american public never thought twice about Tiger's infidelity, but the american media did. don't mean to be flip, but adultery is one of america's favorite sports. they don't normally think twice about adultery. neither did american media. but then Tiger came along. and american media went ballistic. they just have a problem with the racial contingent of the situation. but guess what? it was the american PUBLIC that shot down the american media, for attacking Tiger Woods. if it weren't for the American PUBLIC, the american media would have still been going off about Tiger Woods. so the american public wasn't racist about Tiger. the american MEDIA was. now..back to the billboard situation..

billboard's math doesn't make sense. they said billie jean spent more weeks in the top 100 than say say say, and more weeks at number 1 than say say say..but..they say it spent less weeks WITHIN the chart, by very little, than say say say. that simply is illogical. how is it that number 1 is less than number 10, and more than number 100 at the same time? either the song is selling or it's not.

 

[anthontherun]

and if you are so sure about 'the man', then why aren't as many people aware of that album that featured that song, as they are of Thriller?

First off, "The Man" being the best of their collaborations is just my opinion. Second, Thriller is the biggest-selling album ever. The music videos were superior and the entire album is just flat-out better than Paul McCartney's Pipes of Peace. That doesn't mean that there aren't some individual tracks on that record I prefer to individual tracks on Thriller.

and you are presuming that more people bought Say Say Say, when it's entirely possible that a bigger concentration of people bought 'Billie Jean', when it was at it's number 1 status. Right now, Michael is the biggest selling artist of all time. Not Paul McCartney. Michael is in the guiness book for that. Not Paul McCartney.

But the criteria isn't just flat-out sales either way. It's Billboard's list so naturally it's based on Billboard's chart performance (which is determined only by weekly sales; not long-term).

to all this, i say, you stated that you HAVE to take the other side of it. well, that is your perrogative.

True.

but the reason for my problems with the list, ARE based on the special effort to destroy MJ in the media. the reality is, if the attacks were not so severe, i'd be less suspicious. like i said, a list can be fudged.

I agree that there have been unmerited attacks on MJ in the past and present--but I still fail to see how exactly listing a collaboration as his biggest hit is meant to undermine him in any way. Is it really that hard to believe that a collaboration of two of the most popular performers of all time was the biggest (short-term) hit for both of them? Like I said above, Billboard doesn't take long-term impact and success into account. "Billie Jean" and other songs have clearly won out over "Say Say Say" in that respect.

and like you said...a strange math formula was used. and saying that the say say say tops the beatles..sure it makes them look fair, but i have every reason to see that as their attempt to look fair, to cover themselves.

But at what point do the assumptions start to be too much? Is Billboard's supposed quest to destroy MJ worth also lessening the legacy of the Beatles? When do they stop?

and like u said, u took ur figures from a usa compilation. we have to figure the whole world, as counting for the sales of the songs. you just can't leave that out, as the usa is not the only place on this planet.

Oh yeah, absolutely. But I think Billboard only counts US sales, so that's what I was working with.

but you can't call a fact a fact, when, like you said, a strange math formula was used. so..they leave room for themselves being fair game.

Let's put it this way--they employed this formula for whatever reason, and perhaps that decision was a conscious or subconscious slight against MJ. I personally don't think so but I'll go along with that. But my belief--and I have no reason to believe otherwise--is that:
A) They use this formula in compiling all their data of this sort
B) They did not fudge any numbers within the context of this formula

but, by the way..saying that people have MJ colored glasses is not fair. we can't determine that. otherwise i can say you have McCartney colored glasses. there is just as much chance as them being objective as you being objective.

I'm a bigger Paul fan than I am of Michael but I'm trying to be as objective as possible with this. I think they're both amazing, so I love that "Say Say Say" was such a great success. I will admit I was sort of taken aback to see it rank as the biggest hit by any Beatle ever, but it does make sense to me.

It's been fun, man--the last word is yours if you want it.

 

[144000]

But at what point do the assumptions start to be too much? Is Billboard's supposed quest to destroy MJ worth also lessening the legacy of the Beatles? When do they stop?

well you know what they say. in an effort to hate, you only destroy yourself in the process.

anway...all this aside..i love say say say. anything MJ has done, i love. i also love Yesterday, by the beatles. i'm shocked that it's not said that that is their biggest hit, solo or group. it's the most remade song, in history, last time i checked. so..sometimes, i just feel like these media mags need to find something to spend money on...so..they compile..'lists'.