Forum
I don't know what you mean,but what I know is that 6 albums of mj outsold 13 albums of beatles
Just out of curiosity, there probably are good reasons, but is History the only album that is counted twice? Or are any of the other (double) albums also treated this way?
Streams are updated daily. The EAS from streams cause movement on their sales.
The total number of albums sold is the Beatles more than MJ, but the Beatles are not more popular than MJ.
Michael Jackson's post-adult studio albums are 6 and the Beatles' studio albums are 13.
Michael Jackson towered over the Eighties the way no superstar before or since has dominated an era — not even Elvis or the Beatles
Above is an excerpt from the thriller album review from Rolling Stone's "Great Album 500"
some of y’all need to shut up
michael had 6 studio albums and the beatles 13
the beatles did it in 7 years and mj in 22 years
the thing is that both found their own way into their success and there’s no excuse to invalidate the other, just SHUT UPPPPP
Not to mention that Michael has actually 10 studio albums. Anyway, they're both icons
He had 6 albums as an adult. If we don't add
The other four albums ,they won't affect that
Much.
Hi MJD, do you have any estimate of how many albums Michael sold since his passing in 2009? According to Soundscan he sold 16.1 million albums in the US alone as of 2019, is it possible to make a worldwide figure?
Alas, the question is probably too dumb/difficult or easy for me to search for
Well disc one of history is a compilation and disc two is a studio album and disc on is certified platinum in the us but disc two is certified 8 times platinum in the us so the compilation and studio album are considered like two separate things even though they are put together.
At the time of writing, 'Thriller' has now topped 120 million EAS.
It's astounding to think that one album has been more successful that the entire career output (so far) of some pretty big international acts. Dire Straits, Coldplay, RHCP, Simon and Garfunkel, Adele, Drake and Rihanna to name a few...
Michael Jackson was part of Thriller album, there was dozens of workers and inventors, everyone's goal was maximum commercialism or sales. That's why its rating is not at the top. Not so creative. Call product.
I'm not necessarily saying than I'm a fan of either Jackson or 'Thriller'. Just commenting on the enormous success it has achieved regardless of how many people were involved in it's creation.
How is it any less creative, than say Blood on the Tracks, OK Computer, Nevermind, Sticky Fingers etc
You just sound like a bitter snob, finding fault and putting something down, just because it's not to your taste.
Read everyone's reviews from the critics. They say it better. Are Agatha Christie books better than, let's say Herman Hesse, John Steinbeck or L-F Celine? I just threw a comment out of context. It's not dangerous.
There is an interesting comment in Sandra Bullock's film The Lost City. She plays a romance novelist who's extremely popular but would prefer to write serious work. The cover model says, "How can I be embarrassed by something that brings so much joy to so many people?"
If you like something, enjoy it. But don't try to negate someone else's happiness.
Same with your quote about Agatha Christie. Hundreds of millions of people bought her books. It obviously brought them joy. Why insult their taste?
