Over 320 million people live in the U.S., but just over 64 million people live in the U.K. A platinum album in the U.S. is one million copies, a platinum album in the U.K. is 300,000 copies. It’s not surprising that Michael Jackson has sold more records in the U.S. The Beatles have as well. It’s a bigger market. The highest selling album there has sold 30 million copies compared to six million in the U.K.

Some of Michael’s most popular songs may have charted lower in the U.K. than the U.S., but he still has two of the ten highest selling albums of all time in the U.K. We’re not talking greatest hits albums. We’re talking studio albums. Not even The Beatles have managed to do that. In fact, they only have one studio album inside the top 40 highest selling albums of all time in the U.K. Their only other entry is a compilation album. Madonna doesn't have a studio album in the top 40 not even Like a Virgin and True Blue. Same goes for Prince and Whitney Houston. The only albums released in the 1980s that are inside the top 40 are:

Queen – Greatest Hits
Michael Jackson – Bad, Thriller
Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms
Bob Marley & The Wailers – Legend
Dirty Dancing OST
U2 – The Joshua Tree
Phil Collins - ...But Seriously

So yeah, I’d say Michael Jackson was pretty big in the U.K. Keeping trying

For a 'genius' he slipped irrevocably into self-parody after 'Bad'. His forced vocal mannerisms, hiccups etc made his later stuff unlistenable.

I like how you are trying to get the thread back on track.

I am not certain off the top of my head but I think I remember hearing that he made album
quality demos of all the songs on Bad (including tracks not eventually used) with a totally
different set of musicians and producer just as preparation for the actual album.

Not surprising it took so long to come out. I remember vividly how excited I was at that time
and how much I loved the album.

i dont dispute that! he was one of the biggest selling acts in the uk.

id suggest that chart placings though are relative to the music buying population, his chart placings in america are far greater then here in the uk. especially the singles charts where 'we' bought a wider variety of music. we know its a bigger market, but the pop music buying public are % wise probably about the same, so it doesnt matter if the americans bought ten times more records then what we did, chart positions are relative to whats being bought whether its 100 million or 10 thousand.

and on that basis his singles and albums didnt sell as well here as they did in america.

thats not putting him down, its just an honest appraisal based on the chart stats.

as for 'amazing facts'.... i find it amazing that the fans think its ok for a middle aged man to have sleepovers with unrelated kids, made even more bizarre by the excuse that 'he was like a kid himself' ... that makes it WORSE!

Again you insist on ignoring that the singles charts in America aren't purely based on sales. The chart placings between the two countries are based on different parameters.

And if as for albums - 9% of the population of America brought 'Thriller' compared to 7.8% of the UK. But only 2.8% of the US brought 'Bad' compared to another 7.7% in the UK.

And now you've made me defend MJ and do Maths - two of my least fav things

point one.... were they 30 odd years ago?

point 2.... so what? isnt that the same for every artist who released tracks alongside jacko? it doesnt matter how the americans calculate their charts because its relative between jacko and the rest. and the chart stats - regardless of how they are calculated - show that jacko had greater chart success over there.


but to get a fair comparison youd have to compare the % for each country of total sales, and not just the odd one, because its only by comparing the sales % of the population can you get an accurate idea of where he was most popular.... and going of his chart track record it appears that it would be america where he was more popular % wise of the population.

i mean, is it really such a big thing to believe he was more popular in america % wise then here?

heres an amazing fact..... discussing his popularity , discussing his 'talent', is carried out far far more now then it ever was 30 odd years ago. he was just one of the big acts around at the time, and its true to say hes lasted longer then most. but view the retro music press, retro tv both music and contemporary drama. he was one of many, and wasnt regarded as anything THAT special outside his ever loyal and growing fan base.

Here you are again...surprise surprise. Rearing your head in every Michael Jackson thread to inform us of so called "facts" relating to the accusations made against him.

After thriller was released he was a huge star here, a household name. and to say anything else is absurd wether you like him or not. People went crazy whenever he came here.

Fact: The 'This is it' shows at the 02 in London were originally meant to run for 10 nights but it sold out so quickly that another 40 nights were added, which also sold out instantly.
the following records were or would have been broken:
"The biggest audience ever to see an artist in one city""The most amount of people to attend a series of arena shows", "The fastest ticket sales in history"

Why would he choose to do his final series of concerts in a place where according to you he is not really loved?

the only thing i presented as 'fact' was the fact, undisputed fact, that he had sleepovers with unrelated kids.

i made NO reference to the sex allegations.


then we have different memories on this.... 'off the wall' brought him back into popularity and many say to this day it was his best (that doesnt mean popular though).

but again, im NOT saying he wasnt big here, yes he was a household name, people did go crazy for him .... just as they did for george michael, boy george, frankie goes to hollywood, duran duran, nik kershaw, and loads of others.... see this is my point, he was ONE of MANY and id suggest its his longevity that has made him a bigger success then those he was vying for chart places with back in the early 80's.



i did not say that! (bib)

i said, and i still maintain, that he was MORE popular in america then here (% of population). i didnt, havnt and wouldnt say 'he wasnt really loved here. im abit disappointed in you for that, weve had some fun recently.

if you read my posts i fully agree he was a big star here, he was and is popular.

but 30 years ago, he was one star of many that were popular...

nowdays and before his untimely death, i think % wise he might be more popular then 30 years ago. abit like 'take that' who id suggest has a bigger % of fans now then they did 20 years ago. some acts, like take that, like jacko, keep their original fans and add new ones as time goes on.

i do wish people would read what ive posted and not what they think i posted, this thread would be a lot shorter....

I iike this chart, wacko managed an impressive number 46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

Isn't every star from any country in any era just one of many? Everyone knows there were other singers around at the time besides him.I don't understand the point.If he's from America and they have a far greater population it stands to reason that he would sell more records there. Its just stating the obvious. but you are doing it in a way as if to diss him. so its confusing.
I do think he is one of the elite that you can put into the bracket of global superstar.
Ok people did go crazy for George michael, but i certainly don't remember people going crazy for any of the others you mentioned..they were just popular. And had maybe one hit record in the USA.
None of them would sell out arenas consistently in the UK and worldwide. And cross age/gender/race divides like he did.

yes, thats my point, re one of many, nothing like the god like status some would want to heap on him.

its not about just selling more records, of course he will in a bigger country. its about the chart positions gained. his american chart success stats are far greater then those he gained here. that would suggest that % wise he sold more in relation to other tracks released in america then he did here which would strongly suggest he was more popular there % wise.

i agree he is a global superstar, and was bigger worldwide then possibly every other act.

overall, in not sure why me stating that he was probably more popular in america then he was here should cause such a fuss. does it really matter whether you lot agree or not? after all it was an observation made based on the comparitive chart successes that a fan posted.

thanks for posting that, it highlights what ive been on about , that jacko wasnt AS big as some of the fans would have us all believe. he didnt dominate the 80's, he was just one of many acts. the only difference being that he carried on long after the others faded.

If we are talking 80's music mega stars the only other comparable solo artists in the western world are Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, maybe prince.. I wouldn't say that was many.

... all with longevity.

george michael did well too.

Lionel Ritchie also smashed it in the 80s when he went solo..not sure he would sell out arenas now though..I once saw him supporting Tina Turner late 90s-early00's.
(I enjoyed his set more.)

Do you know who was the top selling uk male artist of the 80s?

Phil Colins? George michael? Elton John? Sting? Rick Astley?

Shakin Stevens, well top selling singles

If true thats tragic. The UK's answer to elvis, or is that meant to be tom jones. I would take MJ over Shaky anytime..although he did know how to rock the double denim look.

Not many people know that he employed a team of dwarves (in full gnome costumes) to dig a hole on his property with the aim of reaching Australia.

He used to get his bodyguards to break the arms of local children so that he could beat them in arm wrestling competitions.

His party piece was to insert an entire billiard ball under his foreskin.

He was undergoing an ongoing cosmetic surgery procedure, in which the skin under his armpits was being gradually stretched with the aim of him eventually being able to glide.

Michael was actually born white, but was blacked up from an early age to fit in with his brothers.

He is known mainly in the UK for being mooned at by Jarvis Cocker at the Brit Awards.

you got some crackers here.

They remind me of the rumour that he was having each of his toes turned into tiny bums
so that he could literally moonwalk.

Your gliding one is the best one though.

I agree. I think his biggest problem musically is that he got stuck in an era and didn't evolve or move on. IMO, he peaked with Off The Wall, though I personally much prefer his band stuff to his solo stuff, he never excited me as a solo artist.
Thriller was style over substance (imo) and he played the game very well by using the fact that music videos had become big news at that point.
I'll be perfectly honest and say I don't remember the Bad era because that came out at a time when house was becoming big and that was my scene at that point so he passed me by.

I would agree that bits and pieces I've heard after the 80's were all a bit tired and sad. It was like he was stuck in a time warp of when he was popular and trying to recreate something that was long gone.

Just an add but I watched TOTP 80 last night and Jermaine Jackson was on there doing Lets Get Serious. Ok, he didn't have his brothers stage presence but, for me, that was a far superior song than anything MJ ever did solo

bib.... but lets face it, he gave his fans what they wanted so from a business pov it was a successful period.