No-one took up the mantle

[financeguy]

By the way, as a general point to counteract what a few people have said as regards bands only being considered world class if they have broken the US market, this works both ways. My take is US bands and artists cannot even be up for consideration for this 'elite' group unless they have had very significant success outside the US. Guns 'n' Roses and Nirvana, or if we bring in pop, Michael Jackson and Madonna, passed that test, but most US bands don't.

Grunge in Europe was really only big for 1991/94. Even then, dance was probably bigger. A Dutch Eurodance act called '2 Unlimited' sold millions and millions of records in Europe in the early 1990s (seven number one singles in Holland, NINE in Spain), but I bet most Americans have never heard of them.

I like US hard rock bands like Van Halen and Alice in Chains, but of that genre, probably only G'n'R and Aerosmith can be said to have really broken the 'outside the US' market.

Linkin Park can be said to have bucked the trend of US grunge and post-grunge bands not particulary succeeding outside the US, as they have done very well in the UK and Europe also, at least their first three albums did. Can't understand why. I find their music really uninteresting.

 

[Snowlock]

It's an evasion because it's understood that none of us KNOW the future, but we can guess at things.

For example, the Yankees play the Red Sox tonight. I am predicting that the Sox win, sadly. I won't really know if I'm right until after the game, but, I'm making an educated guess here and picking the Sox.

And, now, I'm going to tell you that in a billion years, KOL nor Snow Patrol couldn't attain U2's heights. Am I right? Time will tell. Can I guess at this, though? Sure.

My point is, you cannot make an educated guess.

To make an educated guess, you need a pattern. There is no pattern.

U2, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, Metallica, REM, GNR all took different paths to legend status. Each situation is unique.

The only parallels in every case are their signature album struck from out of the blue, was followed up by a massive tour, and followed up again by another strong album that was wildly popular but not as much as the first.

In every case prior to the explosion in popularity, they were either unknowns, or considered part of the pack.

For every U2, there's an 1000 INXS's. Good bands with lots of promise that never make that big leap. I remember when INXS looked like they were going to make that big leap after Kick. They were then what Coldplay is now. Rolling Stone even called INXS the next U2. They were done long before Hutchence was.

So you can pick your favorties, it's a fun game. My personal pick would be The Last Vegas. But the odds are astronomical and your odds are no better.

 

[purpleoscar]

I wish the Stone Roses could continue making great records, but alas, it was not meant to be.

 

[digitize]

I would love to see Arcade Fire be able to be as big as U2, as they are by far my favorite "up-and-coming" artist (one of my favorite artists overall), but that's never going to happen. Unfortunately. They are an amazing band.

 

[digitize]

This is my main problem with Coldplay. I do like them, but they don't rock by any stretch of the imagination. I Will Follow is more intense than anything Coldplay has ever recorded, and it's not like IWF is a balls-to-the-wall rocker.

Great discussion here. I honestly don't think anyone will ever achieve the longtime success of U2. I think in terms of talent and an amazing live show (and a band that actually rocks), Muse come the closest, but they're still not a household name in the US, and I think they're a little too "progressive" as elfa said to become as big as U2. But they do have that epic quality that helped bands like U2 and Queen, and while they do wear some of their influences on their sleeves, I think they've created a unique sound. And Matt is a guitar god, truly a guitar hero ... I have to say though, Muse have yet to create an album as good as any of U2's classics. I feel like every album has some filler (Absolution is probably the closest to perfection, but I still feel like it's missing something...). To even be considered, Muse would need an album with as much success and staying power as JT or AB. Of course even if that did happen, it's hard to say if Muse would still be making music and popular 20 years from now ... somehow I doubt it.

This is absolutely true about Muse... they have an absurdly large amount of promise, and they are some of the best musical performers the world has ever seen, but I'm not sure their songwriting is good enough in a sustained way to carry them major places.

Plus, they now have the unfortunate stigma in the United States of being an older version of the Jonas Brothers, because of their association with... Twilight.

 

[financeguy]

I wish the Stone Roses could continue making great records, but alas, it was not meant to be.

I think that the Stone Roses had more talent than the vast majority of bands mentioned in this thread, but even had they continued releasing regular albums, I'm not convinced they would ever have come close to challenging bands like U2 or even REM, or even Coldplay.

The Charlatans, a hardworking band of the Roses vintage with a similar sound, and that never were disorganised and/or druggy enough to wait five years between albums as the Roses did between their two, are still going, and while their albums sell respectably, they were never big in the US.

I do think though, that in the early years, the Roses really wanted it bad. It's all there in the lyrics to I Wanna Be Adored and I Am the Resurrection. That's part of why the Roses hated U2, they wanted to knock them off their pedestal.

 

[financeguy]

BTW, Purpleoscar, given the Roses were notorious exploiters of the social welfare system, by their own admission, and also had left wing politics, it's kind of funny to see you mention this band - but, respect for good taste nevertheless.

 

[nava1987]

Last of the rockstars.

Amen

 

[Montrose]

Would more or less agree. There were bands like the Rolling Stones, but U2, though they respect and admire the Rolling Stones, quite clearly were not following that particular template; for a start, their music was completely different. As for the Beatles, while they were obviously a huge influence on U2's music, they didn't tour for long enough to make them the role models in respect of U2's extraordinary touring career.

The odds on the future largest rock band in the world coming from north side lower middle class Dublin were not high back in the 1970s, in some ways U2 came from nowhere, they didn't even come from particularly musical backgrounds.

I used to work for someone that actually used to work with U2's accountants, and he told me that even in the early days, he had been told that this band were going to go places, so I guess enough people saw something in U2 back in those early years.

But in another sense, for bands like Coldplay, it makes it harder that it's all been done before, in the sense of a 'no new ideas in the house, and every book has been read' kind of way.

It makes it both easier and harder, I think.

On one hand, the template is there. The type of fanbase is there, the expectations are there, and the whole 'The Next' debate has been going on for decades now. The mechanisms with the record labels and video makers and tour promoters..they now know how to handle and promote bands like Coldplay, in large part because of the work bands like U2 have done over the years building up this form of artistic presentation.

On the other, I agree.. while I think bands like CP can reach an early level of success quickly and more 'easily' because of those who have gone before, it does limit them. Two roads diverged in a 'Yellow' wood...and Coldplay took the one U2 traveled. In that sense, there are fewer new places to travel once you've followed too far down a path someone else has trail-blazed.

U2 started out without a distinct direction. They wanted to biting and political like the Clash, they wanted to be huge and theatrical like The Who.. they admired the music of the Beatles and the Stones.. but they never did what those bands did, never followed down their roads.

And you're right.. because of their musical limitations, they really couldn't - they had to make things up as they went along, and forge their sound and identity from scratch as a matter of necessity.

If you pattern yourself after your heroes, your musical journey's bound to find you settling in the same town as them, and not in a country of your own. U2 started out from god knows where, and carved a path to this amazing land they're now in. Rarefied air. Coldplay, and others, stand the risk of trailing behind for so long, following that map U2 left posted with the big shiny X on it, that they end up in the same land.. and then having to go find a new street or suburb to call their own.

That's why I don't understand how people claim they don't see the similarities of how Coldplay has followed in U2's shadow. Saying they are nothing alike sounds like someone claiming the Suburbs are totally different from Downtown. But if you pull back your perspective, zoom out a bit, it's the same city, same state, same country, same continent.

It's just that the 'burbs will always be less interesting than the city core.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

in the us, i don;t feel u2 is on the level on the elite classic rock artists. And u2 are legends. But to due to the refusal of classic rock fans, and classic rock radio to accept the deep cuts on a AB, or zooropa,or pop, or even the most accepted albums they are still quite honestly below the classic rock class. The beatles,the stones, led zeppelin, the who,billy joel, elton john, springsteeen, pink floyd, etc. u2 are classic rock jr. u2 may be on the radio, but pink floyd is on every fucking 30 mins. lol. I may be a huge u2 fan, but i know whos in charge on radio.

 

[eviltwin]

I'd be curious to know your source for the above statistics? Are you sure those stats are not US-only? I'm surprised not to see Oasis or Bon Jovi in the top 100...

soundscan is US only. The metallica v U2 numbers are worldwide. Source: check the appropriate forum section (Peeling off...)

as for Bon Jovi, I forgot to include them, but they were at #72 Bon Jovi - 18.120m (again: soundscan so US numbers.) Please note Bon Jovi actually made it big before U2.

Oasis did not break the top100, so they would be below

98 - Def Leppard - 15.712m
99 - Christine Aguilera - 15.534m
100 - TLC - 15.459m

Fail. Okay, let's get this straight once and for all (...) It completely surpassed all expectations. The notion that black audiences could not cross over to white audiences in 1979/80 is also completely wrong

learn to read...I said "Did not meet expectiations."

-not his own: he wanted a masterpiece
-not the record company's: they wanted pop domination, with four hit singles they expected more album sales.
-the majority of sales only picked up after Thriller
-not the critics': yes it was panned, critics probably expected a young black rising star to be somewhere between marvin gaye and jimi hendrix, but MJ was bland and uninspired on OTW. The collaborations with Macca were atrocious.
-#1 in the US? so what, Springsteen had had three top#5 albums already by 1980, without any significant singles success.

The record company having to blackmail MTV to get Jackson played is documented, the colour barrier was alive and well in 1982.

The simple fact is, MJ was nowhere before the "Billy Jean" and "Beat It" double whammy. And "Beat It" came with a lot of help from Steve Lukather (Toto) and obviously Eddie van Halen (home town boy for me, Im definitely not UK ) They deliberatly tried mating MJ with white stars to cross over.

Lastly, the first single off "Thriller" bombed. If OTW really had made MJ great, would his follow-up single tank that way? No way in hell!

No one would've predicted Springsteen, U2 or Metallica becoming the institutions they became prior to the release of those three albums.

Early in his career Springsteen was already predicted to become huge , but it took a while (84-85), commercial and critical success with "The river" (80) or "Born to Run" (75) notwithstanding.

Metallica didn't WANT to be commercial, they refused to make videos (prior to "One") and arguably they were huge with Justice already, albeit mostly in the US and amongst metal heads in Europe. I certainly was a fan, and even my mom knew and liked them.

I like US hard rock bands like Van Halen and Alice in Chains, but of that genre, probably only G'n'R and Aerosmith can be said to have really broken the 'outside the US' market.

Stretching the genre slightly, but I'd include Bon Jovi. #72 see above.
Van Halen debuted in 78, Aerosmith are dinosaurs. So although it's interesting to look at their numbers they are not as relevant as Green Day or Pearl Jam.

Those last two for me are the closest we've had so far to any band taking up the mantle:

Global success
Touring, live appeal
Social conscience, politically active
Critical Acclaim

I don't have worldwide numbers for GD, but based upon their early sales I'd guess they are at 22US+12ROW. Which puts them below Coldplay, unfortunately. Pearl Jam is at 30+30 roughly, so below Metallica.

Interesting analogy between GD ad U2: U2 arguably used Live Aid as a springboard to (global) success, while GD used Woodstock 94 for (US) success.

But both also have had their weaknesses, GD dipped slightly when they looked for other musical directions and Pearl Jam picked a fight with the music institutions and the industry.

At any rate any band dethroning U2 should bring another thing to the table, multimedia spectacles, not just tours (ZooTV, Pop, 360) but also the big screen (R&H, U2:3D) and musicals.

Does anyone really think they could sit through a Coldplay movie without falling asleep?

 

[Marko]

My point is, you cannot make an educated guess.

To make an educated guess, you need a pattern. There is no pattern.

U2, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, Metallica, REM, GNR all took different paths to legend status. Each situation is unique.

The only parallels in every case are their signature album struck from out of the blue, was followed up by a massive tour, and followed up again by another strong album that was wildly popular but not as much as the first.

In every case prior to the explosion in popularity, they were either unknowns, or considered part of the pack.

For every U2, there's an 1000 INXS's. Good bands with lots of promise that never make that big leap. I remember when INXS looked like they were going to make that big leap after Kick. They were then what Coldplay is now. Rolling Stone even called INXS the next U2. They were done long before Hutchence was.

So you can pick your favorties, it's a fun game. My personal pick would be The Last Vegas. But the odds are astronomical and your odds are no better.

I get your point but I don't agree with bolded part - I feel that there is always something before that BIG album. I know that Enter Sandman was eagerly awaited before it even hit the airways, and it was because their former signes of promise (One video etc.). JT was eagerly awaited because of Pride, Live aid...if it wasn't so that JT wouldn't debuted at number 1 on the charts...

A BIG out of the blue album that you speak of is almost never a debut album and it always comes with some kind of expectation.
Yeah, so basically I don't really agree with you

 

[Morgoth321]

By the way, as a general point to counteract what a few people have said as regards bands only being considered world class if they have broken the US market, this works both ways. My take is US bands and artists cannot even be up for consideration for this 'elite' group unless they have had very significant success outside the US. Guns 'n' Roses and Nirvana, or if we bring in pop, Michael Jackson and Madonna, passed that test, but most US bands don't.

Grunge in Europe was really only big for 1991/94. Even then, dance was probably bigger. A Dutch Eurodance act called '2 Unlimited' sold millions and millions of records in Europe in the early 1990s (seven number one singles in Holland, NINE in Spain), but I bet most Americans have never heard of them.

I like US hard rock bands like Van Halen and Alice in Chains, but of that genre, probably only G'n'R and Aerosmith can be said to have really broken the 'outside the US' market.

Linkin Park can be said to have bucked the trend of US grunge and post-grunge bands not particulary succeeding outside the US, as they have done very well in the UK and Europe also, at least their first three albums did. Can't understand why. I find their music really uninteresting.

Good post, agree with all of this. Look at the acts who were / are big in the US, but who don't seem to travel too well - Matchbox 20, Goo Goo Dolls, Hootie and the Blowfish, Dashboard Confessional, Staind, Creed, Dave Matthews etc. I suspect that most if not all of these acts were probably delighted to be popular in the US, but I don't think any of them will be considered all-time greats.

I'm glad that you mention Linkin Park - it's amazing that a band can have so much success when they basically release endless versions of the same song.

 

[gvox]

learn to read...I said "Did not meet expectiations."

-not his own: he wanted a masterpiece
-not the record company's: they wanted pop domination, with four hit singles they expected more album sales.
-the majority of sales only picked up after Thriller
-not the critics': yes it was panned, critics probably expected a young black rising star to be somewhere between marvin gaye and jimi hendrix, but MJ was bland and uninspired on OTW. The collaborations with Macca were atrocious.
-#1 in the US? so what, Springsteen had had three top#5 albums already by 1980, without any significant singles success.

The record company having to blackmail MTV to get Jackson played is documented, the colour barrier was alive and well in 1982.

The simple fact is, MJ was nowhere before the "Billy Jean" and "Beat It" double whammy. And "Beat It" came with a lot of help from Steve Lukather (Toto) and obviously Eddie van Halen (home town boy for me, Im definitely not UK ) They deliberatly tried mating MJ with white stars to cross over.

Lastly, the first single off "Thriller" bombed. If OTW really had made MJ great, would his follow-up single tank that way? No way in hell!

You really don't have the slightest clue, do you? I don't really care about the rest of your post - you lose all credibility completely stating that Off The Wall was critically panned and not successful in terms of what the record company expected. It won multiple Grammies, American Music Awards, was very warmly received by the top industry mags, you name it. You're just dead wrong, sorry. MJ was nowhere before Billie Jean or Beat It? Give your head a shake, seriously.

 

[Snowlock]

I get your point but I don't agree with bolded part - I feel that there is always something before that BIG album. I know that Enter Sandman was eagerly awaited before it even hit the airways, and it was because their former signes of promise (One video etc.). JT was eagerly awaited because of Pride, Live aid...if it wasn't so that JT wouldn't debuted at number 1 on the charts...

A BIG out of the blue album that you speak of is almost never a debut album and it always comes with some kind of expectation.
Yeah, so basically I don't really agree with you

lol


Well, with the exception of GNR, the big albums are never debuts.

You're right, there's always something before the big album. But we're not talking about "successful" albums. What's the Story Morning Glory was highly anticipated. Hugely successful. Is Oasis at U2's level? No. As a big a song as Wonderwall was, it was hardly generation defining and it didn't even proceed to carry them to the next level. Their next album bombed horrendously.

When we're talking about albums like The Joshua Tree and Thriller and Material Girl, we're talking about music your Grandmother knows and has discovered on her own; even if she isn't a music fan or would rather be listening to Pat Boone. It's pervasive. It's ubiquitous. And its completely unpredicatable.

NO ONE knew based on Live Aid that U2 would one day be the group they are now. They weren't even in the conversation. There were tons of bigger bands. No one knew that based on the One video that Metallica's next album would be on the top 200 for the next two years.

So you can go head and disagree all you'd like to. But what let me put it to you this way..

In 1984, there were the Duran Duran, INXS, U2, John Mellencamp, Van Valen, Motley Crue, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Huey Lewis and the News, Dire Straits & The Police.

Of that bunch, you tell me which would be playing stadiums in 25 years, featuring their new material instead of shoe horning it in hoping people don't make a beer run before the next big hit, and coming off two consecutive number 1 albums.

That's what the OP is asking us to do. Its a fun excercise, but completely impossible.

Out of that group at that time, I would've picked the Police. They never released another album of new material.

 

[65980]

Double Fail !

EvilTwin, thanks for answering my question about SoundScan and clarifying it; also for addressing Bon Jovi. Appreciate that. However, as GVox has pointed out, the rest of your post is absurd!

learn to read...I said "Did not meet expectiations."

I believe I addressed those exact words (which you mispelled here) in my previous post...

-not his own: he wanted a masterpiece

According to most reviews I've read of Off The Wall, it is considered a masterpiece. In any case, where is your documentation of this point you have stated as fact?

-not the record company's: they wanted pop domination, with four hit singles they expected more album sales.

Completely wrong. When I checked, I believe the album is now 7 times platinum in the USA. Yes, of course sales weren't that high back in 1979 to 1981, but they were damn high. As i already stated, it was the third-biggest selling LP of 1980, and it had been released in 1979. That proves it was a huge seller. As MJ's only solo LP before Off The Wall (back in about 1975) had pretty much flopped, I am 100% sure that Epic did not expect Off The Wall to be a huge hit with huge hit singles that outstripped The Jacksons' sales. In other words, as I already stated in my previous post, Off The Wall certainly -- no doubt about it -- exceeded all expectations in terms of sales.

-the majority of sales only picked up after Thriller.

See my response above.

-not the critics': yes it was panned, critics probably expected a young black rising star to be somewhere between marvin gaye and jimi hendrix, but MJ was bland and uninspired on OTW. The collaborations with Macca were atrocious.

No. It was critically praised, as almost any contemporary review will show you. There were no collaborations with McCartney on it, so you're talking out of your ass on that one (there is a Paul song -- "Girlfriend" -- on the album, but Paul doesn't appear on it and the two didn't meet while MJ made Off The Wall.)

-#1 in the US? so what, Springsteen had had three top#5 albums already by 1980, without any significant singles success.

It wasn't #1 in the USA, as I already stated. Yet, it was huge. I don't know why you're suddenly prioritizing singles success. Albums made more money for record companies than singles.

The record company having to blackmail MTV to get Jackson played is documented, the colour barrier was alive and well in 1982.

It's still alive today, too. Racism is going nowhere fast. However, stating that it was rare for blacks' music to be played on mainstream radio in 1983 is clearly wrong. (I didn't disagree with anything you said about MTV, by the way.)

The simple fact is, MJ was nowhere before the "Billy Jean" and "Beat It" double whammy. And "Beat It" came with a lot of help from Steve Lukather (Toto) and obviously Eddie van Halen (home town boy for me, Im definitely not UK ) They deliberatly tried mating MJ with white stars to cross over.

Er...what? MJ was a household-name star by about 1970, when he was 11. He was mega-famous in the wake of Off The Wall (and before it).

Lastly, the first single off "Thriller" bombed. If OTW really had made MJ great, would his follow-up single tank that way? No way in hell!

No. The first single from Thriller was "The Girl is Mine" (which did feature McCartney) and it went to US #2 -- i.e., a huge hit.

Early in his career Springsteen was already predicted to become huge , but it took a while (84-85), commercial and critical success with "The river" (80) or "Born to Run" (75) notwithstanding.

Springsteen was big by 1975. Born To Run hit the top 5 and he was on the cover of Time magazine. Yes, he got "bigger" later, but so what? Big is big.


I appreciate the stats you researched, but it's probably best not to make grand, sweeping statements like these if you are unaware of the basic facts.

 

[purpleoscar]

BTW, Purpleoscar, given the Roses were notorious exploiters of the social welfare system, by their own admission, and also had left wing politics, it's kind of funny to see you mention this band - but, respect for good taste nevertheless.

I wish Canadian subsized bands could produce an album that good even once. I wouldn't mind even if we had 1 guitarist that good

I do think though, that in the early years, the Roses really wanted it bad. It's all there in the lyrics to I Wanna Be Adored and I Am the Resurrection. That's part of why the Roses hated U2, they wanted to knock them off their pedestal.

It's easy to talk but to walk the walk and do all the work it takes to repeatedly make good records almost every attempt is the real challenge. I remember Edge dissing the Rollingstones for "unimpressive" performances during the UF era but at least U2 walked the walk.

 

[65980]

Agree with PurpleOscar, re: above. I'm a huge Stone Roses fan -- I've published an article on Ian Brown, had my comments lifted and plagiarized in John Robb's bio of them, and I even drank beers with John Squire in Montreal once -- but I concur that to "walk the walk" is the hardest thing, and the Roses failed to do this, big time.

The fact is, the Roses (except maybe Mani, who's now with Primal Scream) were thoroughly adrift from mainstream ideology (not to mention from career aspirations). Even when they were at their peak in 1989/90, they were lazy, taking about 5 months off to do nothing just when they had made it. Producer John Leckie stated that they recorded the basic track for "One Love" in early 1990, then he went off to Canada (to record one of my favorite Canuck bands -- The Grapes of Wrath's These Days), produced an entire completed album, then returned to Britain to find the Roses still mixing "One Love".

The Roses can blame Silvertone records, lawsuits and such for their Nov. 1990 to Oct. 1994 disappearance, but the real culprit was their own egos and laziness. Even in their much hyped UK 'comeback' tour of late 1995, they preferred to play small venues rather than big ones, though they could have sold out five times more tickets (their entire tour sold out in 24 hours). Any crap they'd have put out in 1996 would have been an instant #1 and broke in the American audience (where they were quite popular despite never having had a hit), but instead Squire quit and it was over.

You are right -- U2 walked the walk. Other groups just talked it.

 

[purpleoscar]

The band members of U2 understand that you need to negotiate egos to have a chance for the band to survive. To be honest bands like U2 should be rare. To get at least 4 guys to commit over 30 years and to voluntarily (not forced) to put maximum effort and detail oriented concentration on quality albums for that long wasn't even possible by The Beatles or Rollingstones. There are at least 4 - 5 songs on each U2 album (including Passengers) that I can enjoy.

So we will have to pack a lunch for a couple of eons to wait for another combo like that to arrive.

 

[torn vinyl]

I think most bands don't want to be in the position of U2 - too much pressure, and it seems like a really fucked up existence.

To me, Radiohead picked up the mantle just fine. They make experimental yet accessable music, they sing about a wide variety of subjects and they are really, really big. They don't get played on the radio, but that's not their fault. TV on the Radio also fall into this category, but they're not that big yet.

The Verve were never meant to be a mega band. Their music is huge, and they are my favourite band ever, but they were completely unwilling to compromise at all - what other band would break up when their getting big, break up again when they're at the peak of their popularity, reuinte AGAIN, play gigs that make everyone orgasm, record a record and then not promote it at all...all because they (McCabe or Ashcroft, really) weren't feeling it?

Oasis are rockstars, they took up the "we want to be massive and run with it" bit.

 

[torn vinyl]

lol


You're right, there's always something before the big album. But we're not talking about "successful" albums. What's the Story Morning Glory was highly anticipated. Hugely successful. Is Oasis at U2's level? No. As a big a song as Wonderwall was, it was hardly generation defining and it didn't even proceed to carry them to the next level. Their next album bombed horrendously.

Wonderwall took Oasis to the uppermost level of success and rock stardom, and it definitely is a generation defining song. Maybe you don't remember 95/96? Be Here Now didn't bomb, either. It sold a lot, and it received great reviews too.

Oasis were the biggest band in the world for a bit, and they were at U2s level. In the UK, they still are.

 

[VintagePunk]

Completely wrong. When I checked, I believe the album is now 7 times platinum in the USA. Yes, of course sales weren't that high back in 1979 to 1981, but they were damn high. As i already stated, it was the third-biggest selling LP of 1980, and it had been released in 1979. That proves it was a huge seller. As MJ's only solo LP before Off The Wall (back in about 1975) had pretty much flopped, I am 100% sure that Epic did not expect Off The Wall to be a huge hit with huge hit singles that outstripped The Jacksons' sales. In other words, as I already stated in my previous post, Off The Wall certainly -- no doubt about it -- exceeded all expectations in terms of sales.

The discussion re: OTW made me curious, and so I searched for sales numbers pre-Thriller. I haven't been able to find anything official, but I did find something on a MJ site that appears to be legit - the author seems to have used official sources in writing the article. Anyway, here it is:

By 1981, Michael’s Off The Wall album had sold an incredible 5 million copies. Today it is seen as one of Michael Jackson’s most important records. He had become the first artist in history to generate four number one singles off an album. He had also sold more records than any artist at a time when the record industry was experiencing a major slump in sales. To date, Off The Wall has sold over 20 million copies world wide. The album had started a 9 year partnership with producer Quincy Jones and had displayed Michael’s amazing song writing and vocal skills. The best was yet to come, as Michael was soon back in the studio, creating the biggest selling album of all time.

http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/era/off-the-wall/

So, while it was a very big album, critically acclaimed, award winning, etc, the pre-Thriller sales weren't anywhere close to the highly impressive 20 million it eventually sold, which supports the point I've been making all along. Additionally, how many artists have sold 5 million albums, only to become nothing but a footnote in music history? All kinds. That obviously didn't happen with MJ, but were it not for Thriller, who knows what would have happened.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

^ exactly. plus, i'd say seven million (including five million by 81, well before thriller) is not bad. i think it's especially impressive given the jacksons also had an album out around this time (one the year before, another the year after), and since michael didn't even tour to promote otw - he instead toured with the jacksons. growing up i of course was well aware of the thriller album, but was also very familiar with off the wall. my parents had both albums on vinyl, along with several jacksons albums. i'd say that's at least some proof he crossed over to the white market.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

guns and roses don;t deserve to be mentioned in any conversation. axl rose destroyed and ruined what could have been one of the top bands of the last 30 years. over 10 years to make Chinese democracy. they destroyed their own careers. biggest disgrace in history. please. makes pop era u2 look like thriller. axl is shithead of the highest order.

 

[gvox]

No. The first single from Thriller was "The Girl is Mine" (which did feature McCartney) and it went to US #2 -- i.e., a huge hit.


I appreciate the stats you researched, but it's probably best not to make grand, sweeping statements like these if you are unaware of the basic facts.

The funniest thing about "The Girl Is Mine"? Most people thought it was cheesy and ridiculous BECAUSE of Paul McCartney being on it, not MJ, and we were still grooving away to real MJ music from OTW. Why they ever chose it as a lead off is beyond me. Mind you, alot of U2's lead off singles have sucked ass too.

What stats? There were simply no credible stats about OTW presented by eviltwin, period, just ridiculously outlandish crap, honestly.

So, while it was a very big album, critically acclaimed, award winning, etc, the pre-Thriller sales weren't anywhere close to the highly impressive 20 million it eventually sold, which supports the point I've been making all along. Additionally, how many artists have sold 5 million albums, only to become nothing but a footnote in music history? All kinds. That obviously didn't happen with MJ, but were it not for Thriller, who knows what would have happened.

This is kindof frustrating now, because every single album in history sells n number of records upon release and then residual as time goes on. Also, MJ became one of those artists who generation after generation buy up the back catalogue because of the current record released and new fans gained. Kids that bought OTW after Dangerous was released did so because of Dangerous, not because of Thriller. They also bought Thriller, so we could arguably say that Thriller's current sales count wouldn't have happened without Dangerous and around and around we go. Hell, kids - many of them on this site - who bought the Unforgettable Fire did so because of All That You Can't Leave Behind, not because of The Joshua Tree. So it's kindof a variable/cyclical statistic that you can't really trace to one single album.

The entire reason MJ didn't become a footnote after OTW was BECAUSE of OTW, because of how it caused the critics to view him as a solo artist, because of what it did for him as a writer and because of the relationship it started with Quincy Jones. If anything, your last sentence needs to be switched around: Were it not for Off The Wall, would Thriller have happened?? I'd put serious money on that answer being a resounding NO.

^ exactly. plus, i'd say seven million (including five million by 81, well before thriller) is not bad. i think it's especially impressive given the jacksons also had an album out around this time (one the year before, another the year after), and since michael didn't even tour to promote otw - he instead toured with the jacksons. growing up i of course was well aware of the thriller album, but was also very familiar with off the wall. my parents had both albums on vinyl, along with several jacksons albums. i'd say that's at least some proof he crossed over to the white market.

You're not really saying the same thing as VP (was kindof curious about the "^exactly" but you're on the right idea, I think. Off The Wall did excellent given all those factors you listed and I'll say it again, if Off The Wall hadn't been the amazing album it was, it's very questionable that Thriller would have even happened. Thriller built on the massive strength and attention that MJ recieved as a solo artist in his own right from creating OTW. Not the other way around.

I'll be honest, in my age bracket and older I don't know a single person who bought OTW post-Thriller. Everyone I know bought Thriller because of who MJ had become after OTW.

 

[VintagePunk]

This is kindof frustrating now, because every single album in history sells n number of records upon release and then residual as time goes on. Also, MJ became one of those artists who generation after generation buy up the back catalogue because of the current record released and new fans gained. Kids that bought OTW after Dangerous was released did so because of Dangerous, not because of Thriller. They also bought Thriller, so we could arguably say that Thriller's current sales count wouldn't have happened without Dangerous and around and around we go. Hell, kids - many of them on this site - who bought the Unforgettable Fire did so because of All That You Can't Leave Behind, not because of The Joshua Tree. So it's kindof a variable/cyclical statistic that you can't really trace to one single album.

Oh, c'mon, it's a *very* rare album that sells 300% of its initial 2 year sales after the fact, and when it does, it's generally because of (a) subsequent album(s) or the artist's subsequent popularity. I don't have time at the moment to look up the initial 2 year sales of Bad and Dangerous, but I think it's a pretty safe guess that they both sold considerably more than 5 million copies initially. And certainly, some of OTW's sales came from the post-Bad and Dangerous eras. I still maintain though that Thriller was his definitive album, the one that most new fans would go to first (undeniable, given its sales numbers compared to the rest), the one that made people explore more of his catalogue.

 

[eviltwin]

Funny that two supposed experts (I'm looking at yoyu Gvox and 65980) would try to correct me on certain facts related to OTW when you get the basics wrong. I can't really blame you for getting it wrong as there is a lot of misinformation about, but don't tell me I'm wrong.

FACT The Girl is Mine topped at #2 US. (as you stated 65980) but that was in 1983! It was released in Oct82. So what happened in between...
FACT The Girl is Mine barely made the top40 in the UK and mainland Europe.
FACT the Girl is Mine did not chart well in 1982.
1982 Billboard Magazine List - Biggest Songs of the Year
#20 in 1983
1983 Billboard Magazine List - Biggest Songs of the Year

Which can only mean one thing, it can by definition only have reached #2 after the release of Billy Jean (Jan 2nd)

Billy Jean is a funny story as well, note that wikipedia is clearly wrong, when discussing Billy Jean's success:
1980s Billboard Number One Hits and Music: 1980s Billboard Number One Hits Pop Music Hits

Billy Jean did not reach #1 until AFTER the "Beat It" video release. In fact if you dig deeper you will find that BJ only started to get video airplay AFTER Beat It. I clearly remember thinking at the time that Billy Jean and The Girl is Mine, were rereleases off an older album, since these songs felt completely different from Beat It. Beat It was THE hyped up single off Thriller.

So what happened exactly? Things didn't get started for MJ until Beat It. And even that wasn't all dominant in Europe (it only got to #1 in the Netherlands, again because of the Van Halen connection) The Girl is Mine only got to number #2 (US) AFTER the release of "Billy Jean". Billy Jean itself, although released prior to Beat It, actually followed and would surpass Beat It in chart success, after which Beat It would also claim the #1.

This clearly proves my point. If MJ had already been huge after OTW, how is it that the first TWO singles off Thriller could bomb? Chart success for OTW was decent, but slow. Nothing big in 1979, and only one major hit in 1980:
1980 Billboard Magazine List - Biggest Songs of the Year

The numbers quoted for OTW (I've seen 5 and 7million) around the time of Thriller's release are most likely hyped up numbers from the record company.
When we know OTW has sold at most 8mio up to 2009, how could they have been reporting 7mio by 1983?
Michael Jackson: Thriller : Music Reviews : Rolling Stone

Simple, the record company sent out press releases with the new album, that included overstated numbers, probably adding up both album and singles tallies. (incl. rock with you: 2mio+)
Off-the-Wall Tallies of Jackson's Sales - WSJ.com

I'm pretty certain his record company is still overstating the OTW numbers, because looking at individual country numbers, OTW consistently gets sold out by Thriller 1to10. Except for the US (7mio to 28mio, or 1to4 ) His record company claims 20mio worldwide for OTW.

The officially available totals say 13mio.
UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - Michael Jackson Sales Thread

In fact, looking at the official numbers above, Jacko hasn't even outsold U2!
(MJ 146mio to U2 160mio)

All the while MJ's record company is claiming sales between 250mio and 750mio.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

fyi, it's billie jean.

 

[namkcuR]

Mind you, alot of U2's lead off singles have sucked ass too.

I know this isn't the topic of the thread, but I take issue with this statement. Which one of these 'sucks ass', in your opinion? Also, are you saying that 'alot of U2's lead off singles have sucked ass too' in that you don't think they were good choices to promote their albums out of the gate, or are you saying it in that you think they just 'suck ass' in general? Even if you don't love them all, I think 'sucks ass' is harsh. I personally think they're all good(Vertigo, A Day Without Me, Fire) or great(the rest). But I have a hard time genuinely disliking U2 songs.

A Day Without Me
Fire
New Year's Day
Pride(In The Name Of Love)
With Or Without You
Desire
The Fly
Numb
Discotheque
Beautiful Day
Vertigo
Get On Your Boots

 

[65980]

Eviltwin, this is gonna be my last reply to you, because you clearly are the type not to know when to lie down and preserve what's left of your dignity. If your entire argument that "Michael Jackson was a nobody until Thriller came out" is based on some dubious stats about the "Girl is Mine" single, then you've long since lost this argument. Nobody gives a sticky turd about how successful one lead-off single was or wasn't (incidentally, "The Girl is Mine" did go top 10 in the UK) -- the facts are that Michael Jackson was famous for 12 years before Thriller was released, and that Off The Wall was one of the most successful albums of the 1979-1981 period. These are facts, and are not disputable.

Nobody was arguing with you that Thriller was much more successful (that's obvious), or that Thriller made him a mega-star, when he just a superstar before it (that's also obvious). But to suggest that he was a nobody, or that his career only took off, after Thriller, is incredibly stupid. A good analogy here would be Prince when he made the move from 1999 to Purple Rain. Obviously, the latter made him into a global megastar who defined his era, but that doesn't mean 1999 was unsuccessful -- in fact, it was a huge commercial hit and began a huge breakthrough to a mainstream audience, etc., etc.

Finally, why do you assume that a successful album must be followed by a hit single from the next album? This is false, and there are hundreds of examples. Take U2, for example -- Rattle & Hum sold something like 10 million in the USA, and then the next lead-off single, "The Fly", missed the US top 50. According to your absurd theory, this proves that Rattle & Hum was "nothing".

If I were you, I would limp out of this discussion now and splash your ego somewhere else while the getting is good, but I have a feeling you've got more "intelligent" analysis to enlighten us... In any case, I won't be paying attention from here on in.