Katy Perry 'ties' Michael Jackson!

[New Trail]

From our local newspaper:

 

"Katy Perry ties Jackson record

NEW YORK

[wheresgrant3]

(sigh)

It's sorta like saying "Meet The Fockers" almost outgrossed The Empire Strikes back.... if not adjusted for inflation. The Empire Strikes Back was released on 953 screens... "Meet the Fockers" was released on 4200. Tell me which film is more legendary.

 

 

Achievement or not there's really no comparison. "Thriller" alone sold between 65-110 million albums worldwide. Teenage Dream has barely scraped 1x Platinum after 4 months of release There were differen't metrics at hand 30 years ago and certainly methods of media delivery. These days singles are measured in terms of 'downloads'. In 1982 you could go to a store and by the LP or cassette and that would count as '1' unit. These days you down load to any media device and an it's considered '1' unit. Her singles of the album are measuring about 4,000,000 downloads... or about 4x's platnium.

 

I imagine you could have 10 #1 singles today and still not achieve anything close to the sales of "Back In Black" 30 years later.

 

Not taking anything away from her or her success.... she's a pop dynamo... but Madonna ran circles around her and Lady Gaga when you adjust for inflation. With the avenues of digital delivery these days you'll be able to elipse the sales statuses of some great artists... without even come close to what the former artist really achieved.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Achievement or not there's really no comparison.

 

 

well....yes and no.

 

The "no" is that #1 is still #1. Yes, "Thriller" sold much more, but so did EVERY album back then. The metric is still the same in that to be #1 you have to out-do every other record out that week. The fact that the industry was bigger overall in the 80s isn't Katy Perry's fault and is no slam on her. Drop this week's Top 100 into 1986 and Katy Perry would STILL be #1, but EVERYTHING on the chart would be selling more. Because that was the industry in 1986. It's not because of the music that sales are down. I don't see how it is any easier to get to #1 today simply because it took more sales to do so back then. There's still X-number of records released every week, only so many spots in radio-rotation, only so many weeks in the year, etc.

 

The "yes" is that you're right that the metric is different on how they measure chart position. There are no "singles" to go out and buy anymore. So it's about downloads/radio play/club play/etc. (Which, actually the Billboard Hot 100 has ALWAYS been about a mix of different measurements. It's never been just strictly "sales".) Still, you gotta compete against all the other records out there that are competing using the same measuring stick.

[wheresgrant3]

(sigh) It's sorta like saying "Meet The Fockers" almost outgrossed The Empire Strikes back.... if not adjusted for inflation. The Empire Strikes Back was released on 953 screens... "Meet the Fockers" was released on 4200. Tell me which film is more legendary. Achievement or not there's really no comparison. "Thriller" alone sold between 65-110 million albums worldwide. Teenage Dream has barely scraped 1x Platinum after 4 months of release There were differen't metrics at hand 30 years ago and certainly methods of media delivery. These days singles are measured in terms of 'downloads'. In 1982 you could go to a store and by the LP or cassette and that would count as '1' unit. These days you down load to any media device and an it's considered '1' unit. Her singles of the album are measuring about 4,000,000 downloads... or about 4x's platnium. I imagine you could have 10 #1 singles today and still not achieve anything close to the sales of "Back In Black" 30 years later. Not taking anything away from her or her success.... she's a pop dynamo... but Madonna ran circles around her and Lady Gaga when you adjust for inflation. With the avenues of digital delivery these days you'll be able to elipse the sales statuses of some great artists... without even come close to what the former artist really achieved.

 

I'll add to this... I've worked in book publishing many. many years now. I've seen that progression/regression/transition of the media and the retail channel change over the past 20 years... from independents bookstores... to small chains (like Crown, Perseus).... to Mall Stores (B. Dalton, Waldenbooks)... to Super stores (Borders & Barnes & Noble) to it's eventual collapse and takeover by Amazon. Keep in mind there is alot more profit in a digital download than there will ever be in offset printing millions of books, preselling, managing inventory, paying for packaging and displays .... etc. Still the unit sales are in decline overall. In other words people are dealing with a newer medium that has even surpassed the Guttenberg Press... that is the internet itself. You can sell less to make more money, but there is such an easy exposure to new channels of media that longstanding successes by prior artists and instituions will be much harder to maintain. You'll still have your Stephen Kings and John Grishams, but newer authors will likely not smell the same level of success as the previous heavy wieghts. There are more people and less buyers these days. What always keeps pace is the rise in retail price. And if Amazon doesn't try to give it all away in an effort to 'own the customer'... someone will make more profit with less over all revenue.

[wheresgrant3]

 

Still, you gotta compete against all the other records out there that are competing using the same measuring stick.

 

 

 

True... she's still a success story. It's just that success is measured a little differently these days.

[troyguitar]

I wouldn't put Katy or her music on the same level as Michael in any respect except maybe production. I've seen and heard her live. She's a worse singer, a worse entertainer, and has worse songs with worse lyrics. If she's the top of my generation, I'm embarrassed. Oh, she does have better tits

[Vito Corleone]

 

True... she's still a success story. It's just that success is measured a little differently these days.

 

 

Yeah. I still think reaching #1 is as big a deal now as it was when Michael Jackson or The Beatles or Elvis did it. EXCEPT when they goose the sales, like Lady Gaga did the first week of the release of "Born This Way" when they were selling a download of the full album for 99 cents and it sold some 400,000 units that way. Obviously, if you're giving it away you've got an unfair advantage over the other records. Prince did a similar thing a couple of years back when he was giving out a free copy of "Musicology" with every concert ticket sold and those were counting as albums sold through Soundscan.

 

I think that one way the new measure of success has maybe changed things is that singles stay on the chart a lot long than they used to. I remember that up through about 1990 I think the longest any single had stayed on the Billboard Hot 100 was around 42 weeks. Now MANY singles stay on the chart that long. But I think Katy's #1s are just a legit as they ever were. In a way, even more so. One of the reasons "Bad" was the first album to produce 5 #1 singles is because prior to "Bad" there were only a handful of albums that even RELEASED that many singles, period. ("Thriller" was one of the first, if not THE first album to produce more than 4 singles). But since then, it's very common to release 5, 6, 7+ singles from an album. Frankly, I was surprised to hear nobody had had 5 #1s since "Bad". I would have thought Mariah Carey or Britney Spears or Rhianna or somebody else would have done it years ago.

[troyguitar]

 

Prince did a similar thing a couple of years back when he was giving out a free copy of "Musicology" with every concert ticket sold and those were counting as albums sold through Soundscan.

 

 

I actually think that is brilliant and am hugely surprised that it has not been done more often by other acts.

[rangefinder]

 

It's very common to release 5, 6, 7+ singles from an album.

 

 

As far as trends, I think this one is the key.

 

Back in the day, albums tended to be one (or two, if you were lucky) "hits" and a bunch of mediocre or outright bad filler. You had no choice but to take the filler because that was the only way to get the hits. Even if you WANTED to release an "all-hits" album it was a highly questionable business decision. Better to divvy out your best stuff over the next few albums, then release a "greatest hits". Michael Jackson's immense talent made him an exception because he had dozens of hits in his grab bag, and had no real choice but to release them all at once before the music business trended away from him.

 

Anyway, there's no point to releasing a "one-hit-only" album any more, since people can just buy the single. So either just release the single, or release a "real" album.

[Vito Corleone]

 

As far as trends, I think this one is the key. Back in the day, albums tended to be one (or two, if you were lucky) "hits" and a bunch of mediocre or outright bad filler.

 

 

Also, I think the labels worried that releasing too many singles would just cannabilize album sales, plus there was a lot of pressure to put out a new album every year prior to the 80s, so there was always new product to work. I remember people being downright shocked that it took Boston nearly 2 1/2 years to release their second album in 1978 and many people wondered if they would still have any career momentum after waiting so long.

 

A lot of big "hit" album tracks were never released as singles back then. "Isn't She Lovely" by Stevie Wonder is one of the most obvious "hit singles that never was a hit single". The original version of Elton John's "Candle In The Wind" was another. Just too many singles already released from those albums. It was a big deal when Fleetwood Mac released 4 singles from "Rumours" and all of them went Top 10. Still, huge radio play songs like "Gold Dust Woman", "Songbird" and "The Chain" were never singles. Today, they all would be.

 

IIRC, "Thriller" and Billy Joel's "An Innocent Man" were the first albums to have more than 4 hit singles.

[mstreck]

Ummmm.... the songs from Thriller had a wee bit more "heavy" competition at the time, didn't they? Who are the other hit-making machines that Katy Perry is competing against?

[TrickyBoy]

Give Katy Perry her props. 5 number one songs for a career is an amazing achievement, let alone from one album...

 

That being said, I was in middle school in the mid 80's and we had a 3 hour assembly where students had a "Michael Jackson" competition, where they dressed up like Michael Jackson and lip synched to his tunes. Can't imagine there's that many "Katy Perry" competitions.

 

For the record, I like Katy Perry's stuff...

[kmart]

 

I actually think that is brilliant and am hugely surprised that it has not been done more often by other acts.

 

 

Brilliant?

I guess if one needs the ego-stroke, sure, and if there's one thing Prince will never tire of, it's getting his ego stroked.

 

Otherwise, you're manufacturing and distributing one hell of a lot of product that the bulk of the people who end up with it...don't really want.

 

Believe me, I paid to see that tour willingly, but you know how many times I've played the Musicology CD I got that came with a free concert ticket attached?

ZERO.

 

 

 

In any case, it's not been done by other artists because as soon as the RIAA got wind of what Prince was doing, they changed the rules about what constitutes a unit sale: they closed the loophole Prince exploited (and make no mistake, Prince did it solely to get a #1 record at a time when he couldn't by a long shot).

[jimiv]

You guys need to lay off of Katy Perry man. Stumble back to your wheelchairs and fumble for your wineglasses.

 

Hey Tricky, nice avatar, but I thought you had a chick singer?

[n9ne]

You guys need to lay off of Katy Perry.....

 

Believe me......I can think of a BUNCH of things I need to do to Katy Perry.

[MikeyParent]

I'll admit that 5 number one singles is an achievement, but seriously? Comparing Perry and Jackson? I'm with Grant on this one.

 

On a side not. actual unit sales are a hard thing to compare in this day and age of digital downloads...

[New Trail]

 

Ummmm.... the songs from Thriller had a wee bit more "heavy" competition at the time, didn't they? Who are the other hit-making machines that Katy Perry is competing against?

 

 

I understand your point but at the same time Katy Perry's stuff isn't as good as Michael Jackson's, either IMO, which means that the 'playing field' is still, as it were, level.

[MusicalSchizo]

Want to have a more level playing field? Let's add some facts about these artists, shall we?

 

Katy Perry was almost entirely unsuccessful in the music business before her current run of hits.

Michael Jackson was a well-established star already.

 

Katy Perry works with the best pop producers of her day, and writes or co-writes the majority of her material (including the big hits). Plus she plays guitar.

Michael Jackson worked with Quincy Jones, one of the best pop producers of ALL TIME. He wrote lyrics sometimes, and tweaked songs, but he was not really a songwriter. He did not play an instrument (other than his voice, obviously).

 

Katy Perry has been on the national scene for parts of 4 years (2008-2011), and she has 6 #1 hits, and 8 top-10 hits. In fact, her only non-top-10 song was "Thinking of You" (#29).

Four years into Michael Jackson's solo career on Epic (1979-1982), he had 2 #1 hits and 5 top-10 hits (two were #10).

 

Michael will always be a legend, and his sales are impressive, but acting as though it was easier for Katy Perry is dishonest.

 

He didn't have to compete with illegal internet downloads and a million other digital distractions. And she has to contend with Rihanna and Lady Gaga - two hit factories. There was NO ONE that Michael really had to contend with that was doing what he was doing until Prince really broke huge in 1982, and that just shot Michael into the stratosphere because people were excited about that kind of music. You could argue that it's the same thing that Lady Gaga did for Katy Perry.

 

Not saying she's better, but her accomplishment is still impressive, no matter what era we're talking about.

Brian V.

[pickinatit]

Compare Michael Jackson to Katy Perry? Over-all career? Not possible because Katy is really just getting started so of course Michael Jackson wins that one hands down. But if you campare their first efforts as solo artists you find that the results are strikingly similar. Over the course of a twenty or thirty year career will she out do him or even come close ? Who knows. I personaly seriously doubt it, but at least be fair about it and give credit where it's do.

[Vito Corleone]

I don't think it really makes sense to compare across generations, but just to be clear it was Michael Jackson's "Bad" album that produced 5 #1s, not "Thriller". Seven singles were released from "Thriller", two of which went to #1.

[niceguy]

I find it cute that the concept of "#1 song" actually means something to some people.

 

Seriously, the way #1 is "determined" is such a {censored}ing joke. It's almost as laughable as the way we elect our President. Hell, at least with elections, there's a veneer of public opinion. Modern music charts? It's all about what the industry wants to present.

[New Trail]

 

I find it cute that the concept of "#1 song" actually means something to some people. Seriously, the way #1 is "determined" is such a {censored}ing joke. It's almost as laughable as the way we elect our President. Hell, at least with elections, there's a veneer of public opinion. Modern music charts? It's all about what the industry wants to present.

 

 

Having a song go to #1 is "determined" by sales and has been the gold standard for popular music for maybe a century, if you count sales of sheet music before the days of radio. Is there a problem with sales being a standard for success of a product?

[Vito Corleone]

The Billboard Hot 100 has always been based on a combination of sales and radio play. With the advent of digital downloads and streaming music, what defines "sales" and "play" has changed in recent years but, in many ways I imagine the chart is probably more honest today than it has been in the past.

 

Before the introduction of Soundscan in the early 90s, sales were measured by a sampling of certain record stores that would fill out a piece of paper every week telling Billboard what their best sellers were, and Billboard would use this sampling to represent the entire nation's record sales. I know this because I was one of the guys who filled out this paper every week when I worked for Tower. There was a lot of pressure, often in the form of non-cash bribery, coming from the labels to give certain records they were working higher positions on the chart. I was always honest about it, because there wasn't really any reason for me NOT to be: I could very easily take their gifts, tell them "I'll do what I can" and then still fill out the chart in any way I wanted--which was an honest report of our store's sales. But I imagine there were many people across the country who weren't so honest.

 

After Soundscan, that whole system ended as they now can accurately (or relatively accurately) measure sales electronically.

[MusicalSchizo]

 

I don't think it really makes sense to compare across generations, but just to be clear it was Michael Jackson's "Bad" album that produced 5 #1s, not "Thriller". Seven singles were released from "Thriller", two of which went to #1.

 

 

I know it was from "Bad". I was just comparing "same point in solo career" stats. Katy's winning in everything except album sales (and musical quality).

 

But you are right - comparing across generations is kind of foolish. Imagine how much harder it was for a black artist who everyone thought was washed up to cross over to full on pop (and get on MTV) and have that kind of worldwide success. Michael's still the man.

 

Brian V.

[New Trail]

 

I know it was from "Bad". I was just comparing "same point in solo career" stats. Katy's winning in everything except album sales (and musical quality). But you are right - comparing across generations is kind of foolish. Imagine how much harder it was for a black artist who everyone thought was washed up to cross over to full on pop (and get on MTV) and have that kind of worldwide success. Michael's still the man. Brian V.

 

 

That's subjective...