Michael Jackson's death versus others in recent history

[Frank M 181]

I may have overspoke about satellite. They have niche audiences. They have a spa music channel for fock's sake.

 

Classic rock stations will not play the Beatles. The oldies and doo wop stations do. Not classic rock.

 

 

98.5 WNCX Classic Rock in Cleveland plays the Beatles all the time.

[phillybear 366]

98.5 WNCX Classic Rock in Cleveland plays the Beatles all the time.

 

I guess this is why FM radio is failing. GMs like that allowing the Beatles to be played. How do you market that? It's impossible for the sales people to sell advertisement for a station playing music 60 years old. Holy fock.

 

You have 40 pop stations in each town, while any kind of rock stations are disappearing. Well done.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I guess this is why FM radio is failing. GMs like that allowing the Beatles to be played. How do you market that? It's impossible for the sales people to sell advertisement for a station playing music 60 years old. Holy fock.

 

You have 40 pop stations in each town, while any kind of rock stations are disappearing. Well done.

 

Radio stations attempt to play music that appeals to the largest number of people, so as to sell ads for the highest price. Everyone at least tolerates the Beatles, and the are easily the most popular band of all time.

 

Top 40 currently sucks, and everyone knows it.

[NewbieJr 541]

For once I agree with Newbie. Who knows who was more "talented", but to say MJ isn't close is quite dumb. How do you sell that many records, have the most talked about music video/best music video (Thriller), known all over the world (I am sure everyone here has heard or seen of the 1500 prisoners in the philippes doing a choreographed version of thriller. This and be light years behind anyone? Makes no sense.

remote thinks Harrison was also more talented. He has Ringo and MJ tied.

[NewbieJr 541]

Top 40 currently sucks, and everyone knows it.

You obviously haven't heard "I Do Not Hook Up" by Kelly Clarkson.

[phillybear 366]

Radio stations attempt to play music that appeals to the largest number of people, so as to sell ads for the highest price. Everyone at least tolerates the Beatles, and the are easily the most popular band of all time.

 

Top 40 currently sucks, and everyone knows it.

 

The Beatles popularity is dicey at best. They were among the first groups around. No competition. Any band could have sold as many albums with a head start like they did. And all that promotion. Do you think a band, let's say for example Coldplay right now, has the same level playing field as the Beatles? They could be more popular theoretically, but the dynamics have changed. It's like arguing Babe Ruth vs Albert Pujols. I would never concede that the Beatles are the most popular band of all time, and any station trying to appeal to a large number of people is not going to promo the Beatles since their demo skews very old. They want the 18-45 demographic, not older, and that's what the Beatles attract. Older people.

 

I for one do not tolerate the Beatles. They have a distinct sound that probably belongs on Disney radio.

[TD Ryan2 316]

Classic rock stations will not play the Beatles.

 

that's just an ignorant statement.

 

sure, there are some Beatles songs that classic rock stations do not play.

 

But the Boston Classic rock station (WZLX) uses Beatles' songs all the time (Birthday, Revolution, Come Together) as part of their intro/marketing campaign.... they don't just play the songs, they use them right out front to advertise themselves as a classic rock station.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

You obviously haven't heard "I Do Not Hook Up" by Kelly Clarkson.

 

No, I actually have a peemus.

 

The Beatles popularity is dicey at best. They were among the first groups around. No competition. Any band could have sold as many albums with a head start like they did. And all that promotion. Do you think a band, let's say for example Coldplay right now, has the same level playing field as the Beatles? They could be more popular theoretically, but the dynamics have changed. It's like arguing Babe Ruth vs Albert Pujols. I would never concede that the Beatles are the most popular band of all time, and any station trying to appeal to a large number of people is not going to promo the Beatles since their demo skews very old. They want the 18-45 demographic, not older, and that's what the Beatles attract. Older people.

 

I for one do not tolerate the Beatles. They have a distinct sound that probably belongs on Disney radio.

 

You're right, only old people listen to the Beatles. That's why their albums have almost constantly been high selling albums. I'm sure its just old people buying the same albums over and over again. When I was in high school (1994-1998) most people I knew loved the beatles, and were buying their albums.

[phillybear 366]

that's just an ignorant statement.

 

sure, there are some Beatles songs that classic rock stations do not play.

 

But the Boston Classic rock station (WZLX) uses Beatles' songs all the time (Birthday, Revolution, Come Together) as part of their intro/marketing campaign.... they don't just play the songs, they use them right out front to advertise themselves as a classic rock station.

 

Why not promote Mozart too? It's dumbass decisions like that that keep turning rock stations into Jack FM or Ben FM every day.

 

The Beatles are not ROCk either. It's POP.

[phillybear 366]

No, I actually have a peemus.

You're right, only old people listen to the Beatles. That's why their albums have almost constantly been high selling albums. I'm sure its just old people buying the same albums over and over again. When I was in high school (1994-1998) most people I knew loved the beatles, and were buying their albums.

 

Actually, that is exactly what is happening. Old people rebuying their albums over and over again.

 

Records, casettes, CDs, and now ITunes. That's a lot of replacement sales.

 

The people in your high school had questionable taste in pop music apparently. Who the hell is listening to the Beatles in the 90's? That's just embarrassing. I bet they wore KISS makeup too.

[TD Ryan2 316]

The Beatles are not ROCk either. It's POP.

 

this is not the debate.

 

you claimed Classic Rock stations do not play the Beatles.

they do.

all of them from Boston to LA do.

 

you are wrong.

 

If you have insightful marketing advice or proven plans to maximize the revenues of Classic Rock stations, I'm sure they'd be glad to grant you audience. You may one day change the landscape of Classic Rock stations as we know them.

But until that time, they do play the Beatles and, as I mentioned above, you are wrong.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

The Beatles are not ROCk either. It's POP.

 

The Beatles were many things. They were pop in some songs, rock in others, weird hippie stuff in others, and downright orchestral in yet others. That's why they are the GOAT.

 

Actually, that is exactly what is happening. Old people rebuying their albums over and over again.

 

Records, casettes, CDs, and now ITunes. That's a lot of replacement sales.

 

The people in your high school had questionable taste in pop music apparently. Who the hell is listening to the Beatles in the 90's? That's just embarrassing. I bet they wore KISS makeup too.

 

Well let's see, we can throw Itunes right out, as the Beatles are not even for sale on Itunes. Now yes, there are a certain amount of resales, as people moved from vinyl to cassette to CD. But there are also millions of sales of people buying the Beatles for the first time on CD. I personally own every Beatles album on CD, along with several different compilations. All of them were bought post 1995.

 

Then there is the fact that the Beatles are one of the most covered acts in music history. Oh, and they still get new sales today, from things like the Cirque de Soleli remix album, and the Across the Universe Movie.

 

Hey, if they aren't your cup of tea, that's cool. It must suck to have such poor taste. But nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has sold more albums than the Beatles, and they broke up what, 35 years ago? Hell, I venture to guess that they were in the top five in album sales in each decade, starting with the 60's, and continuing to today.

[phillybear 366]

this is not the debate.

 

you claimed Classic Rock stations do not play the Beatles.

they do.

all of them from Boston to LA do.

 

you are wrong.

 

If you have insightful marketing advice or proven plans to maximize the revenues of Classic Rock stations, I'm sure they'd be glad to grant you audience. You may one day change the landscape of Classic Rock stations as we know them.

But until that time, they do play the Beatles and, as I mentioned above, you are wrong.

 

Granted, I am a brilliant man. I am simply stunned how illogical program directors are and the Beatles, the freaking Beatles, are getting air play. How pathetic.

 

I am now way off topic, as is this entire thread. I originally got pissed when it was suggested the Beatles now are bigger than any grunge band. So unless the Beatles are getting played every hour like Nirvana is on modern rock stations, that statement is silly. Nirvana > Beatles now, and it's not close.

[phillybear 366]

The Beatles were many things. They were pop in some songs, rock in others, weird hippie stuff in others, and downright orchestral in yet others. That's why they are the GOAT.

Well let's see, we can throw Itunes right out, as the Beatles are not even for sale on Itunes. Now yes, there are a certain amount of resales, as people moved from vinyl to cassette to CD. But there are also millions of sales of people buying the Beatles for the first time on CD. I personally own every Beatles album on CD, along with several different compilations. All of them were bought post 1995.

 

Then there is the fact that the Beatles are one of the most covered acts in music history. Oh, and they still get new sales today, from things like the Cirque de Soleli remix album, and the Across the Universe Movie.

 

Hey, if they aren't your cup of tea, that's cool. It must suck to have such poor taste. But nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has sold more albums than the Beatles, and they broke up what, 35 years ago? Hell, I venture to guess that they were in the top five in album sales in each decade, starting with the 60's, and continuing to today.

 

That's nice that they sold a bunch of albums. But they've been around, what, 60 years? They got a head start over almost every other band, had very little initial competition, and are riding a tidal wave of hype to this day. Their exploits in the tabloids certainly helped too.

 

They sold a bunch of pet rocks too back in the day.

[jets24 6]

I may have overspoke about satellite. They have niche audiences. They have a spa music channel for fock's sake.

 

Classic rock stations will not play the Beatles. The oldies and doo wop stations do. Not classic rock.

 

 

Holy Shite! You are one focked up dude.

[jets24 6]

http://classicrock.about.com/od/recommenda...op100_bands.htm

 

 

 

That's a nice little linky for you there my aids infected friend. You look at any Classic Rock Band list and almost without exception, The Beatles will be #1.

 

You can feel free to think they are Disney or whatever you think but...you would be wrong. Other than the geeks here, feel free to look up any list of Classic Rock stations and the music they play. You just don't like them.

[phillybear 366]

http://classicrock.about.com/od/recommenda...op100_bands.htm

That's a nice little linky for you there my aids infected friend. You look at any Classic Rock Band list and almost without exception, The Beatles will be #1.

 

You can feel free to think they are Disney or whatever you think but...you would be wrong. Other than the geeks here, feel free to look up any list of Classic Rock stations and the music they play. You just don't like them.

 

So, people enjoy listening to the same exact songs, every day for 60 years? It's not hip to rip the Beatles because the 12 Beatle fans on this planet will get upset.

 

60 years. Over and over again.

 

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

[phillybear 366]

I would like to also point out...

 

Heather Mills is a monster and should not get one cent of Paul's money.

It's a bit sad George Harrison died from pudding head.

Yoko Ono is a twat.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I would like to also point out...

 

Heather Mills is a monster and should not get one cent of Paul's money.

It's a bit sad George Harrison died from pudding head.

Yoko Ono is a twat.

 

Ok, these are the first three correct things you've posted in this thread.

[jets24 6]

So, people enjoy listening to the same exact songs, every day for 60 years? It's not hip to rip the Beatles because the 12 Beatle fans on this planet will get upset.

 

60 years. Over and over again.

 

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

4 8 15 16 23 42

 

There may be a bit more than that. After all, they are arguably the Greatest Band of All Time. But sure...you stick with your 12 fans. Doofus. When the heck are you gonna croak already?

[donhaas 19]

For once I agree with Newbie. Who knows who was more "talented", but to say MJ isn't close is quite dumb. How do you sell that many records, have the most talked about music video/best music video (Thriller), known all over the world (I am sure everyone here has heard or seen of the 1500 prisoners in the philippes doing a choreographed version of thriller. This and be light years behind anyone? Makes no sense.

 

Milli Vanilli sold a ton of records.

Vanilla Ice also sold a ton of records.

Mambo No. 5 sold a ton of records....

 

I'm sure somewhere on earth right now some prisoners are choreographing a crapass dance to these crapass artists.

 

All this aside (because I don't know what it has to do with the argument), Lennon is way more musically gifted and talented than MJ. It's not even close.

And I love MJ.

[phillybear 366]

Clearly I won this thread. The rest of you can run along as I mark my territory by urinating on my computer in my cubicle.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Clearly I won this thread. The rest of you can run along as I mark my territory by urinating on my computer in my cubicle.

 

Have a celebratory twinkie too fatty.

[Frank M 181]

Clearly I won this thread. The rest of you can run along as I mark my territory by urinating on my computer in my cubicle.

 

You'd think that being on death's door would make a man contemplate his legacy and try to soften it a bit.

 

Apparently no.

 

[NewbieJr 541]

Milli Vanilli sold a ton of records.

Vanilla Ice also sold a ton of records.

Mambo No. 5 sold a ton of records....

 

I'm sure somewhere on earth right now some prisoners are choreographing a crapass dance to these crapass artists.

 

All this aside (because I don't know what it has to do with the argument), Lennon is way more musically gifted and talented than MJ. It's not even close.

And I love MJ.

Beatles would have been just as popular without Lennon. It was Paul who the girls loved and he wrote and sang their best songs, anyway. Lennon was along for the ride.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Beatles would have been just as popular without Lennon. It was Paul who the girls loved and he wrote and sang their best songs, anyway. Lennon was along for the ride.

 

Lennon was a genius with words, but lazy with the music at times.

 

Paul was a genius musically, but sometimes went over the top.

 

The two worked together very well, and balanced each other's stregnths and weaknesses perfectly.

 

And George would throw a great tune in from time to time as well.

[shovelheadt 71]

Lennon would be nothing more than a piss ant on the canine balls of history had he not existed during the height of the hippie movement. I win.

[donhaas 19]

Lennon would be nothing more than a piss ant on the canine balls of history had he not existed during the height of the hippie movement. I win.

 

This is the smartest anti-Lennon posting I've seen so far on this thread...

Well done

[NewbieJr 541]

Holy crap. Go listen to Man in the Mirror on a good stero system at loud volume. It's awesome. Now that he's dead, the song is very poignant and meaningful.

[remote controller 143]

Holy crap. Go listen to Man in the Mirror on a good stero system at loud volume. It's awesome. Now that he's dead, the song is very poignant and meaningful.

Holy Fock!!!! Go listen to Imagine on a focking transistor radio. You have to come with more than that Newbie!!!

[jets24 6]

Beatles would have been just as popular without Lennon. It was Paul who the girls loved and he wrote and sang their best songs, anyway. Lennon was along for the ride.

 

Holy incorrect statement Batman! That is one opinion of which I completely disagree.

[remote controller 143]

Beatles would have been just as popular without Lennon. It was Paul who the girls loved and he wrote and sang their best songs, anyway. Lennon was along for the ride.

John was the Soul of the group, and Paul the Heart.

[kutulu 1,702]

Michael Jackson outstrips Elvis and Lennon in posthumous sales surge

 

Michael Jackson has proved to be bigger than Elvis, according to high street chain HMV, which has reported unprecedented demand for the singer's back catalogue.

 

HMV's chief executive, Simon Fox, said sales of Jackson's singles and albums had outstripped the demand it experienced after the death of Elvis Presley in 1977, or John Lennon in 1980. Sales of the star's Number Ones album – which topped last week's album chart – rocketed 80-fold last Friday following Jackson's untimely death the previous day.

 

"Across the industry we reckon something like 125,000 Jackson albums have been sold," said Fox, adding that HMV had sold over 40,000 albums.

 

A total of five Jackson albums surged into Sunday's official chart. Thriller, the biggest-selling album of all time, was seventh, followed by King of Pop at 14, Off The Wall at 17 and The Essential Michael Jackson at 20.

 

linky

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Jackson posthumously returns Beatles' music catalog to Paul McCartney

 

According to information reported in the UK's Daily Mirror and In Entertainment, Michael Jackson recently changed his will, returning his remaining publishing rights to some 200 Beatles' songs to the man many consider to be their rightful owner—Sir Paul McCartney.

 

Jackson, who passed away in his southern California home yesterday at the age of 50, originally outbid the knighted musician for publishing rights to his own catalog of music in 1985, to the tune of over $577 million. Prior to that, the two men had been friends, collaborating on the hit songs "Say, Say, Say" and "The Girl Is Mine." Subsequently, the two had not spoken to each other because of the hard feelings that arose from the publishing auction.

 

According to a source, the 66-year-old McCartney disliked the fact that he had to pay to perform his own songs. Since 1995, when Jackson sold 50% of his publishing rights to Sony, the King of Pop was still earning approximately $66 million annually from the catalog.

 

Another source said of Jackson, "Most of his estate has been divided up between his three children. But Michael told his lawyers he was sad he no longer talks to Sir Paul and said he wanted to make things right."

 

It appears, even in passing, that Jackson has found a way to make things right with his former friend.

 

link

[shovelheadt 71]

linky

link

 

I'm not sure you can accurately compare record sales today vs Elvis' day..with downloads and mass production available today. As for the Beatles tunes...that would be cool as sh*t if it turns out to be true.

[edjr 6,890]

You obviously haven't heard "I Do Not Hook Up" by Kelly Clarkson.

 

how ironic she waited till she was pushing 200 LBS to release that song

[kutulu 1,702]

As for the Beatles tunes...that would be cool as sh*t if it turns out to be true.

 

Sounds like it might be.

 

Earlier this year, Spinner, an AOL music website, reported that Jackson planned to leave Paul McCartney the long-contested rights to 200 songs of the Fab Four’s iconic repertoire, valued at about $500 million.

 

 

[remote controller 143]

link

This would be very cool, and about time. It also tells you that he knew his time was coming fast. I swear this will be uncovered as a suicide of some sort.