Yawn... Dunno why you are trying to pick an argument over trivia. The difference between worldwide and international is?

I stand by everything ive posted here and you have not put foreward a credible reason why its incorrect.

It makes not one jot of difference whst any artist did elsewhere in the world, nor ours there. The op quoted chart placings not me. In that respect so what if who had hits where? That doesnt place them on a higher standing when releasing things here.

By your reckoning punk practically didnt exist as it made no impact on anywhere other then the uk, yet here in the uk it was one of the greatest youth movements ever.

Nope.... I stand by my earlier points, i dont give a damn who did what elsewhere, i know of no other pop music fans who do, our music scene is determined by the success or innovation of what artists achieve here and dont get some sort of extra credit rating because they were big in wherever.

Fine if you disagree, but in the absence of any compelling evidence to make me reconsider, id suggest agree to disagree.

That's an opinion, not a fact

I wouldn't bother with him, scrilla. Don't feed the trolls.

Love MJ, always have and always will. True musical genius in my opinion.

There will always be people who disagree, but whatever. I don't have to justify my love for MJ, in the same way I don't have to pay any attention to those who so vocally disagree.

Well I just got back from Elton

He tore the entire house down







the end

Really? Which books were these?
While sleeping in the same bed as strangers children is indeed weird, there is no evidence anything sexual took place.
His private life may have been messed up. But his body of work is exceptional in many ways he has made some very good music

MJ loved water balloon fights.

Boys Will Be Boys’ – a book featuring nude photos of boys;
The Boy, A Photographic Essay’ – another book featuring nude photos of boys

Both Thriller and Bad are in the top ten biggest selling albums of all time in the UK. Bad was much bigger for Jacko in the UK than the US (Bad isn't even in the top 100 selling albums in the US). Thriller live has been a west end hit for 9 years now.
I think it's fair to day he's was fairly popular in this country.

Oh yeah and I can't stand the guy, and only like a handful of his songs....

indeed, i never said otherwise, but hes not AS big here as he was in america as the stats prove that were posted by someone else.

All I see is a bunch of singles chart positions, that's not really proof!

isnt it?.... using sales of both singles and albums is a guide to any artists popularity is it not? even my arch nemesis agrees on that!

and in this case jacko had far bigger sales and chart reprisentation in america then he did here, wouldnt that suggest he was bigger in america then he was here?

whilst i agree its not a scientific fact that this is 'proof', it must be regarded as a strong indication , and tbh, im not sure theres any other way of guaging an artists popularity if not by units shifted.

Here'a an interesting fact.

IMO he was not, as I've seen people post here, some kind of musical genuis or messiah .

A decent performer, Yes, particularly when he was a kid. Thriller album, is a fantastic pop albun but then he also benefited from a good songwriting team, a brilliant producer and arranger, coreographers and a hell of a good marketing team.

I've used the word Genuis myself over in the David Bowe thread, where that acolade is far more deserving...and if you want comparisons, i.e ex-Motown acts, you have to look no further than Stevie Wonder, where the Genuis tag would be also more appropriate.

A songwriting team? Do you even know a single thing about MJ? Most of his best loved and biggest hits were solely written by the man himself and nobody else. Billie Jean, Beat It, Wanna Be Startin Somethin, Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, Smooth Criminal, The Way You Make Me Feel, Black or White, Earth Song.... all written solely by MJ.

A lot of people don't seem to know he wrote his own songs.

Two art books found in a library of tens of thousands of books.

Clutching at straws.

Have you factored in the population of both countries as a contributor to the amount of sales? You're forever bulldozing these MJ threads, because, let's face it, you have a serious fixation on him which is not at all healthy. If you were pedalling your favourite or more preferred artists, you would surely have a more positive point of view, but because it's Michael Jackson, you can only try and knock it.

Billie Jean was alright I suppose but everything else he did wasn't all that great.

Chart positions and sales don't mean anything. If they did then all fourteen year olds would be employed as music critics.

I am another who does not get the love for his music, a few songs were good,' bilie jean, thriller, beat it' but far outweighed by the rubbish 'wanna be startin somethin, girl is mine, , dirty diana, heal the world, scream etc' to name a few

Michael had a 3 and a half octave range as confirmed by his vocal coach Seth Riggs

Well firstly the singles charts are calculated differently, radio plays factor into the American system - that's why singles released after the album tend to chart higher in the States. And as I said Bad was a bigger success in the UK (it matched Thrillers sales) than the States (where is sold 1/3 of what Thriller did). Both Bad and Thriller are in the top ten selling albums of all time in the UK - the only other artists with two entries are Queen - and they are both greatest hits albums.

I'm not trying to pick an argument. There is no issue regarding the difference between worldwide and international. It arose for you because you misread what I wrote.


You should be aware that I did indeed put forward credible reasons. They are in post number #13. You even made the admission later on yourself but the relevant posts seem to have been mysteriously removed.


I've already shown why the US and UK have a connected musical history and ongoing relationship. If you can't or won't acknowledge this it leads to a rather blinkered idea of what is actually going on.


That's absurd (and your words), so you needn't attribute it to me, thanks.


That much is blatantly obvious from the things you post. It certainly doesn't serve to make anyone's views more credible by ignoring things.


1. The US isn't some "wherever" It is the largest English language music market in the world you are ignoring here and the biggest influence on UK popular music over the years.
2. The thread is about Michael Jackson. He's American. What he achieved here is outside of his domestic market.


It's nothing to me what view you insist on holding but when I read something totally innacurate (e.g. post #4) on a discussion forum I'll address it. There is nothing in post #13 anyone could realistically disagree with. It's not my fault that you couldn't pick up on the 'vice versa' part. You wrote that "there are plenty of acts that charted well there [the US] but had little or no impact here. [the UK]" Vice versa meant that it works the other way too... there are plenty of acts that charted well HERE but had little or no impact in the US. As I say, nothing to dispute.

ahh.... now we are getting somewhere?... sort of.

on population..... what is your point? i suspect the record buying public are pretty much the same demograph... therefore the % will be the same, roughly. the facts are that jacko had greater chart success in america then he did here. that doesnt mean he was insignificant here, it means that more people bought other records (singles wise). no ones denying the facts that he has 2 of the biggest selling albums here.

what you must understand, is that its the BULLSHIT that the marketing men have fed the fans, some of which believe it to be fact, THATS what i rail against and will continue to do so. jacko was in the uk a huge act, he was/is still very popular and he has helped shape the pop music industry. that is an undeniable truth.

ill ask you, as a fan, do you want to base your beliefs on facts, or on fantasy?


chart/sales mean nothing? .... what better way is there of guaging someones popularity?

14 year olds cant be critics because they have no experience, nor much deeper knowledge to make a fair judgement by.


thats a fair comment but how does it suggest that he wasnt bigger in america? which was/is my point.

oh i see, didnt like my response so post the same thing again eh?...

i told you i do not get into protracted 'unique style' arguments with him or anyone. you adopt his style and i will not respond.

the point being that our music goes on despite what influence the americans have... many acts were huge in america but not here, we have had a varied pop music history which has developed many genres and sub genres many of which hardly touched the american charts.

im not saying what happens in america doesnt impact here at all, of course there is some influence/impact, but historically we forged our own styles in music regardless of what america was peddling. therefore i stand by my earlier point. american success matters to america, the uk success of any artist is the one that matters here for reasons already mentioned.

now you can agree, or not, as neither of us are going to back down on this then we will need to agree to disagree and leave it.

Posts are missing. Possibly you know more about this than me, I don't know. That's why I posted again. I doubt I even saw what was posted.

I neither need nor want a response, I'm simply exercising my right to reply. In fact I'd far prefer not to have a response from someone who keeps coming back only to insist that they are right despite having modified their position. It's quite childish and time-wasting.

I agree with this to an extent but feel you significantly understate the US influence as always: "im not saying what happens in america doesnt impact here at all, of course there is some influence/impact"

Again, I agree with this partly: "but historically we forged our own styles in music regardless of what america was peddling". Partly because 'regardless' again is far from reality.

Hopefully we've both had our say now.

posts are missing because they broke the rules , i had a 48 hour ban hence not responding earlier. i presumed you had hit the report button... i dont care though and thats now history.

im not insisting im right, im expressing my pov which you have not produced a counter point that would make me change my mind.

is 'regardless' far from reality? since the 60's we had our own scene that has been far more varied then what was in mainstream american music. the point is, if we were so beholden the america, our charts wouldnt reflect the variety we created but would have been as rather dull as the american charts have been.

but all this came about because someone posted jackos american chart positions. and i dont see how that impacts on his chart placings here, because amongst music fans (the hundreds ive met at pop quizes for eg) artists are judged by their chart success here, by default.