And at the same time Elton John completly floped?? Well in the Music industry
they say you are only as big a your current album. Which makes MJ King of Pop
and Elton John king flop.
"IConnec808" <iconn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011210172657...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Tom Morrow wrote:
> Let's see how many records the pedophile sells when he's in his mid 50's and
> he looks like a wrinkled dick.
LMAO!!! I thought that is what he was looking like NOW!!!!!!!!!
--
THE IslandGirl...Sharon
When stars collide, like you and I...
Visit my Elton page at
http://members.home.net/islandgirlejfan
<< Subject: Re: Why is Michael Jackson bigger than Elton John and Paul
McCartney combined?
From: rizz...@aol.com (Rizzo219)
Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2001 6:35 AM
Message-id: <20011210173555...@mb-co.aol.com>
<< Subject: Re: Why is Michael Jackson bigger than Elton John and Paul
McCartney combined?
From: "Tom Morrow" tmo...@aol.com
Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2001 6:37 AM
Message-id: <%OaR7.45$Vb6.32...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"IConnec808" <iconn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011210184233...@mb-fb.aol.com...
And Good, Honest, Heartfelt Music
is what we got with Elton's New Album.
(SFTWC) No fluff...all Elton!!!!!
Listen, dude, I'd be quite disturbed also if I forced myself, like you
Jackson nuts, to listen to "Invincible" all the way through multiple
times.
That is one rancid disk, if you ask me and any other respected critic
of music. The album is an absolute joke boasting melodies that Elton
John could fart out and they'd sound better.
Look at the reviews. Rolling Stone, Spin, New Melody Maker,
Entertainment Weekly...I really don't think there was a solid review
anywhere. And most were awful.
I had to listen to it once...probably the worst experience of my life
that will undoubtedly cause nightmares for years to come.
And if you really want to talk sales, by Elton John's 6th album he had
reached international superstardom that compared only to the Elvis and
the Beatles. By Michael Jackson's 6th album (Invincible) he is THE #1
joke in America. The guy is a recluse, he wears surgical masks, he
hired a wife to bear his children, he disfigured himself...his life is
like a bad movie.
And, you'd think that Jackson's first album of new material in years
would be greeted better with more than 1 fuckin' week at #1. You
gotta be kidding me if you think that is a great achievement.
Look at the British charts--I think you'll find that Elton John is
steamrolling over the so-called "Invincible" CD.
Even if it wasn't, Elton will be back with more new music in no time
at all while you guys have to wait another 6 years listening to
"Invincible". I'm crying at the thought, despite the fact that you
all deserve that punishment for being so ignorant--as listeners of
music and as people.
Greg
No itz not really true. Itz almost out of the Top 20 in itz fifth week. & it
was only the biggest selling new release for THAT week. Madonna's GHV2 holdz
the record for biggest selling new release in the UK this year in itz first
week. Of course her last album Music, debuted at #1 in most every country in
the world, but that album stayed in the Top 20 for three months.
I love Michael, but is salez aint what they use to be.
Also, for this year, *N Sync holdz the record for biggest first week salez,
followed by Britney, Creed, Garth Brooks & Madonna's 3rd greatest hits album.
kyle.
www.kylemcmahon.com
Me too Sharon! LOL
JackHandy
FGM
<< Subject: Re: Why is Michael Jackson bigger than Elton John and Paul
McCartney combined?
From: rizz...@aol.com (Rizzo219)
Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2001 9:04 AM
Message-id: <20011210200430...@mb-cl.aol.com>
I would not trust myself alone with Michael Jackson! Not even for a
minute!
Why? Duh. I am a young man. I would be scared that Michael would
molest me, make me sleep with him, touch me. I'd go hug Elton any
time. He would not violate me, and Elton's even gay! But then again,
the number of people who molest small children is extremely
small--only a few extraordinarily warped perverts. Michael is one of
them. Give Michael Jackson a young man any day, and he flies all over
the world putting the boy in deluxe hotel suites with movies so they
can bond together. No, I don't think I would want to meet the 43 year
old plastic white woman known as Michael "Tee-Hee / Grab My Crotch"
Jackson. It'd be disgusting to see a woman that ugly make passes at
me! Vomit-city!
Michael Jackson might say in concert, "Duuh, there are two kinds of
peoples; 1 kind of peoples is the kind that eat cereal; they are good.
The other kind of peoples is the kind that go to sleep after 10 pm;
they are bad. I go eat cereal." FREAK!!!!!!! In my never-to-occur
concert, I say, "There are two kinds of performers, idiotic twats who
get out there and interpret crap they don't understand and which they
didn't craft themselves. The other kind are genuine songwriters who
give life to their own artistry. Elton John is such a musical god,
never one to be a dancing old circus act like Michael Jackson."
There's one difference between their current albums: quality. Emily
Dickinson didn't publish more than NINE poems in her life time. Look
at her now, versus Lord Alfred Tennyson, who was the god of poetry
then? Tennyson has fallen so much in the canon that he is a big
freaking joke now! Nobody takes him seriously! And Dickinson is
universally revered. People don't remember shit, and taht's what
Michael's work is--utterly revolting, unmemorable rubbish that he paid
in excess of $30 million for numerous other artists to write. What a
farce that woman is--talk about a clown! Oh, but they will remember,
Michael, I promise you that, but tell you what--this is what they will
remember: They'll remember his nose falling off, his skin and gender
going flip-flop. Hey, the freak's music has been forgotten for the
last 10 years, and since they don't even play this current INVISIBLE
shit on the radio anywhere, except maybe on some twisted Michael
Jackson fan internet radio station, it will be forgotten within the
year. Elton John is different. He is a songwritter, and for the past
30 years he has written better material than anyone, and it has proven
itself timeless, which is demonstrated to anyone with half a brain who
has listened to the radio even a few times in the last decade. When
was the last time anyone heard "Billie Jean" on the radio? Halloween!
It's when the freaks come out to play!
When Michael turns 50 and comes out of his Faeryland wonderland, after
being charged with molesting his own children, and releasing his 7th
album, it will flop. The reason is because by that time, although he
will still look like a disfigured circus freak, old age would hav
deterioated him so much that there would be no satisfaction in
laughing at his looks; after all, people don't like vomitting, so they
would hardly wanna look at a creature that would cause it. So when he
does release his seventh album called I AM PERFECT, I AM MICHAEL
JACKSON, it will flop. Oh, it might go #1 a week, maybe 2 weeks, but
that will just because it would be weird to see a performer who has no
hair, no nose, and pale white skin with blonde hair, a wrinkled,
broken body thin as a leaf due to AIDS or dieting or plastic surgery.
Michael will probably cry to Oprah that it was alien abduction, and
prove it by showing a picture of his penis or something (which he did
on MTV a number of years ago to "prove" he didn't molest kids). But
all that will fade, and I AM PERFECT, I AM MICHAEL JACKSON, will
quickly fall to #189 week 3, failing to ever chart again, and that
will be his career. But look at Sir Elton right now at age 54--he's
fat, he's gay, he's old, he has a hair weave, and his album is doing
amazing well. And it is better than anything he did since TOO LOW FOR
ZERO!!! Musically he hasn't been this on fire and almost 20 years
(some say 25 years!). Right now Michael, musically, is dead, or less
than a bag of shit (completely moribund), so who can IMAGINE what he
will be like even at age 50! Just be sure to still keep young boys
away from the plastic pedaphile (ph)reak!
JackHandy
"Feelgoodasmillon" <feelgood...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011211030025...@mb-cn.aol.com...
Iceonfire <iceonfi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8f4b78.01121...@posting.google.com...
> 5 MILLION ALBUMS AT AVGERAGE $15.00 A CD. COMES OUT TO 75 MILLION!!!! MJ IS
> KING OF POP :) ELTON JOHN KING OF FLOP.YOU DO THE MATH.
Before you say he "made" 75 mil, you need to subtract expenses.
75 mil sales
- 30 mil production costs
- untold millions in promotional costs, including videos (aka:recoupment)
- countless millions of continuing/future sales lost because the critics and
"casual" fans say the thing sucked
= not such a spectacular showing
Elton's latest, OTOH, has won critical aclaim and seems to be selling very
steadily.
It's kinda like the ol'tortoise and the hare. Fast and flashy doesn't
always win the race.
Karen
Very good point Karen. He still didn't cite any source for his dollar
figure. Perhaps these Michael Jackson fans just don't understand what I mean
when I say that.
JackHandy
Karen
>>
Karen you claims are all vague, subjective smoke and mirrors stuff. I am
talking cold hard numbers here. Every musical source from Sony to Bill Board
has reported MJ sold 5 millon albums world wide and anyone can multiply by $15
x 5 will see his Album has genrated 75 million!!!!:)))))
MJ is doing his job, he is making the sales and generating the cash.
Now how Sony deducted it's expnses etc ect is up to them and their bussiness,
but it has nothing to with the fact that MJ sold more records than Elton John.
A fact that for some crazy reason is just too much for certain whacko Elton
John fans to handle.
So I must agree too, that MJ is still the King of Pop and sad to say Elton John
is a flop, at least on this album. Maybe the one he will relase next month will
do better.
FGM
FGM
<< Subject: Re: Why is Michael Jackson bigger than Elton John and Paul
McCartney combined?
From: "JackHandy" jackhandy...@CAPSelton-fan.net
Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 3:18 AM
Message-id: <MZsR7.66518$C8.39...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
To cite your source means to post a link to prove your claim of Michael Pedo
Jackson selling five million albums worldwide. For instance, if I was to say
that Elton John is the number two highest selling solo artist of all time in
the USA with over 60 million in sales I would quote the source:
http://www.riaa.com/Gold-Intro.cfm
to back up my claim. The number one highest seller is Garth Brooks. I didn't
see Michael Jackson even listed there and he's an American. Now keep in mind
these sales totals are only for the USA. I did find that "Thriller" is tied
with the Eagles "Greatest Hits" as the all time highest selling album in the
USA, but someone else will undoubtedly break that record.
Michael Jackson's new album has only sold 1 million units in the USA since
its release on 10-30-01. If I was to say that Billboard doesn't like his new
album I'd quote the source:
http://www.billboard.com/billboard/reviews/review_displayprint.jsp?vnu_conte
nt_id=1099621
to back up that claim. MJ's album was certified platinum on 12-3-01 with at
least 1 million units sold. Here's the source for that:
http://www.billboard.com/billboard/riaa/platinum.jsp .
It seems Michael's new album has dropped in both sales and likability and is
currently #17 on the Billboard 200 album chart, down from #11 last week. I
see it failing miserably by all information I can find about it. Bad
reviews, slipping sales, and the Michael Pedo Jackson freakshow draws to a
close... His new album has been determined by the most reliable recording
industry sources as a suckfest of terrible tunes.
JackHandy
Michael Jackson's new album has only sold 1 million units in the USA since
its release on 10-30-01. If I was to say that Billboard doesn't like his new
album I'd quote the source:
http://www.billboard.com/billboard/reviews/review_displayprint.jsp?vnu_con
tent_id=1099621 to back up that claim. MJ's album was certified platinum on
12-3-01 with at least 1 million units sold. Here's the source for that:
http://www.billboard.com/billboard/riaa/platinum.jsp . >>
BRAVO, JACK!!!
denice
> You are an idiot. Your math makes no sense and shows a total lack of
> understanding of basic business. Do you think music stores sell CD's out of
> the goodness of their hearts? They take a cut off the top of that $15, then
> distributors might well get a cut.
Don't forget that "units shipped" does not equal "units sold", so all
those CD sitting on the racks shouldn't be counted in the total.
With no effort whatsoever,
Karen
P.S.
MJ is just getting started, and on his way to another 20 million seller album.
It takes Elton John 40 albums to even come close to MJ's six mega hits.
<< Subject: Re: Why is Michael Jackson bigger than Elton John and Paul
McCartney combined?
From: "JackHandy" jackhandy...@CAPSelton-fan.net
Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 5:50 AM
Message-id: <LcvR7.224092$8q.21...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
MJ KING OF POP FOREVER!!
FGM
<< Subject: Re: Why is Michael Jackson bigger than Elton John and Paul
McCartney combined?
From: shub...@aol.com (Shubes61)
Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 6:04 AM
Message-id: <20011211170417...@mb-mv.aol.com>
rom: feelgood...@aol.com
5 million albums sold at average $15. Most top 40 albums can be bought at
the local electronic store for $15Cdn. Assuming the store makes a 30%
profit that would mean they bought the CB wholesale for 11.50 Cdn, which
equates to approx. $7 U.S. Someone posted that MJ has the highest royalty
rate of $5/CD. That would mean that Sony is making approx. $2/CD. What is
the cost of distribution and manufacturing of the CD? Even if they had a
profit of $2/CD then they would have to sell 15 million CD's just to BREAK
EVEN. What are the odds that this CD will sell 15 million CD's
You say that MJ has sold 5 million CD's
5Million x$2/CD is $10 million. According to my math Sony has lost minimum
of 30 - 10 = $20,000,000
Would you consider this a success
If my math is incorrect perhaps someone else can run through the numbers
The average price of a CD in Canada is approx $15 Cdnfor new releases which
is approx. $9 U.S.
"JackHandy" <jackhandy...@CAPSelton-fan.net> wrote in message
news:yglR7.173828$YD.13...@news2.aus1.giganews.com...
FGM
<< Subject: Re: Why is Michael Jackson bigger than Elton John and Paul
McCartney combined?
From: "Qwel" M...@here.com
Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 8:35 AM
Message-id: <3c16a1f7$0$15100$45be...@newscene.com>
Uh, lol, SFTWC is already OFF of the Billboard Top 200. It was certified Gold
shipping 500,000. It has sold 348,000 to date.
Platinum is 1 Million unitz shipped. Double Platinum is 2m, triple is 3m & so
on.....
Not sure where you got your info from, but thought I'd let you know.
kyle.
www.kylemcmahon.com
"Feelgoodasmillon" <feelgood...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011211181218...@mb-fn.aol.com...
"Qwel" <M...@here.com> wrote in message
news:3c16bfa7$0$15063$45be...@newscene.com...
"Feelgoodasmillon" <feelgood...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011211204446...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> Doesn't MJ have to repay Sony the expenses before he makes money?
>
>
Yep. It's called recoupment.
FGM
<< Subject: Re: Why is Michael Jackson bigger than Elton John and Paul
McCartney combined?
From: ci...@aol.com (kyle.)
Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 9:51 AM
Message-id: <20011211205105...@mb-mb.aol.com>
As far as Elton's album goes, it has been certified gold, which means
500,000 units shipped in 60 days. I suspect that will increase to 1 million
units in the next 30-60 days and the album will be certified platinum in the
USA. The store I frequent started out with 50 copies Of "Songs From The West
Coast" and they have all been sold and the album is on re-order. I suspect
this is true nationwide as well. The record company has done an excellent
job of promoting the album and Elton is working his butt off touring and
doing TV appearances for his part of the promotion. Plus, Elton has his
highly successful back catalog to back him up and the public loves him. His
concerts still sell out the day the tickets go on sale, even after 30+ years
of touring in North America year after year, hundreds and possibly thousands
of live appearances just in North America alone. He is the number two
highest selling solo artist of all time with over 60 million units sold,
just in North America. I don't have an accurate online source for the rest
of the world but Elton is probably well over 300 million units sold
worldwide.
To say that Michael Jackson is bigger than Elton John or EJ and Paul
McCartney combined is just ludicrous and simply not true. As a solo artist
Michael Jackson can't even compete with his measley 6 units of product still
in production. None of Paul's or Elton's music is out of print and it all
still sells so therefore Michael Jackson doesn't even make that list. The
only thing Michael has going for him is the "Thriller" album with 26 million
units shipped, and even that is tied with The Eagles "Greatest Hits" album.
Michael is far behind the 60+ million units Elton has under his belt, and if
you combine that with Paul McCartney then we're talking in the hundreds of
millions of units shipped in North America, and if you include the Beatles
music as well for Paul then the figures are astronomical.
The only reason I can come up with on my own for you Michael Jackson
fanatics wanting a pissing contest with Elton John fans is that you realize
Michael's new album is the flop and that Elton's new album is steadily
gaining momemtum worldwide. I also suspect you're very naive and don't even
understand how the music business works and how the actual product is sold
and charts are produced and what the statistics are based on. You people put
me in a position of doing research on Michael Jackson and now I feel dirty
and violated. Everything I've stated is fact and based on research. I guess
you didn't count on Elton John fans being educated and wise people, unlike
Michael Jackson fans who appear to be naive and easily persuaded that the
Michael freak is the king of anything except pedophiles.
JackHandy
"Feelgoodasmillon" <feelgood...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011211180709...@mb-fn.aol.com...
JackHandy
"Qwel" <M...@here.com> wrote in message
news:3c16a1f7$0$15100$45be...@newscene.com...
JackHandy
"Feelgoodasmillon" <feelgood...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011211181218...@mb-fn.aol.com...
JackHandy
"Feelgoodasmillon" <feelgood...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011211181033...@mb-fn.aol.com...
JackHandy
"Qwel" <M...@here.com> wrote in message
news:3c16bfa7$0$15063$45be...@newscene.com...
Theresa
"JackHandy" <jackhandy...@CAPSelton-fan.net> wrote in message
news:mjBR7.334529$dk.22...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
JackHandy
"Theresa" <there...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CBBR7.762$Po6....@eagle.america.net...
JackHandy
"Karen M" <itsk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:itskarenm-111...@10.0.1.34...
DUH! He has said that many times. Elton is a proud and out gay man.
Michael Jackson is different. He doesn't admit it. INstead, Michael
Jackson just RAPES and SEDUCES young men! He's a CHILD MOLESTOR!
You're obsessed with a child molestor! What the fuck does that say
about you???????
> Nope. MJ gets his cut from royalties on each sell. He has a contract, he does
> NOT pay sony to record, they PAY him :-)
How Record Contracts Work (very short form)
1. The Record Company fronts the money for recording and promotion.
2. The Artist pays back the Record Company, from *his share* of the income
realized by sales of the recording, the money the Record Company fronted
for recording and promotion.
3. After the Record Company recoups (that means "gets back") its front
money, anything left goes to the Artist.
Granted, some Big Artists may have agreements whereby they don't pay 100%
recoupment, but there is no major record company functioning today that
fronts 100% of the expenses and lets the artist keep 100% of the
royalties. Not Elton, not Michael, not Sting, not the Stones, not anybody.
It doesn't work that way.
Just substitute face with a** and you get Elton.
Rizzo219 wrote:
I also understand his brain dead fan's confusion with his
immortality.......it's because he looks like a freakin' ghost!!!!!!
--
THE IslandGirl...Sharon
When stars collide, like you and I...
Visit my Elton page at
http://members.home.net/islandgirlejfan
>From: "Qwel" M...@here.com
>
>well,you must know it
>
>
>
>
>
>
JackHandy
"Rizzo219" <rizz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011212182954...@mb-mi.aol.com...
JackHandy
"Rizzo219" <rizz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011212185835...@mb-mi.aol.com...
I meant 100. NOT good for an album released not 2 long ago.
>.In fact, it iz >rebounding from Eltonz >latezt TV appearances.
It won't make it back into the Top 100.
>Your >"S" button seems to be broken
Nope. My S is werkin just fine, thanx.
kyle.
www.kylemcmahon.com