Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
To say that The Eagles have sold more than The Beatles worldwide is just absurd lol.
|
It is LOL
Never mind I was thinking of a sale figure in relation to
Michael and the Eagles and got it mixed up. The Beatles are the biggest saling group of all time
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
Then you have to retreat on your argument about awards.
|
I didnt retreat anything I was clarifying a difference to you. You said Michaels musical ACHIEVEMENT doesnt compare with the Beatles when they get about the same accolades as far as sales and what they done. I stated before you even said it last post they shouldnt even be compared but I am not going to sit here and allow someone who obviously is biased towards the Beatles to downplay Michaels talent and his impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
The Beatles have been covered by way way more people than Madonna or Michael Jackson, probaby combined. Yesterday is the most covered song ever, over 1.600 times (Guinness World Records 2009). A list of just some of The Beatles covers can be found here: Beatles Covers List |
So what?
You seem to keep stating that as to say that puts down Michaels accomplishments. Thats a rather insignificant fact to this arguement because people and artists have covered Michael's songs as well whether its more or less than the Beatles is not the point. Current artists as well as contemporary site Michael more as an influence than the Beatles not to mention Michaels influence is clearly
visible in todays mainstream entertainers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
Then you still try and pretend that The Beatles didn't have a wide range of styles beyond the soul-pop of Michael Jackson.
|
They didnt and that doesnt make them any lesser than Michael but I am not going to sit here and say they covered a WIDE range of genres when they didnt neither.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
You won't even look into it yourself, it's clear you know very little of The Beatles music. The following song for example is not 'light pop rock' as you call it.
|
What are you talking about? I listen to Beatles music. I am not going to say a comment without listening to an artists music before hand unlike maybe... you. My favorite Beatles song is A Day in the Life and I love John Lennon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
Then you make things up saying that I said Michael Jackson had no global impact and that he had no classic songs. I also never said that people who like Michael Jackson have bad taste in music.
|
This is what you said in your last response:
Quote:
|
Obviously he catered to a different generation of fans as his music was done in a different period. More of a global impact? Michael Jackson was arguably more limited in his music and the people he appealed to was probably more limited as well.
|
This is the response you said earlier in your post insinuating Michael's music had no global impact by questioning it. You also insinuated that people that listen to Michael had limited taste in music and if you do not realize what you type out then you need to THINK BEFORE you type. Now you want to backtrack what you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
I'm talking about music and not music videos.
|
I am talking about BOTH because unlike The Beatles Michael had a big impact on both and please dont keep using technology as an lame excuse for the Beatles when The Beatles had popular music videos as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
Obviously Michael Jackson along with others will have done more music videos, the technology to do that was much more advanced than it was in the 60s.
|
Stop it! Michael innovated music videos by incorporating the short film format as well as implementing rehearse technical choregraphy that was not being done BEFORE Beat It, Billie Jean and Thriller. This started in the early 80's. Music videos were ALWAYS around even during the 60's so dont use this technology bit. If you look at Beat It.. there is nothing technology savy about that music video. The 2 most important things about that music video is the choregraphy and story plot also the fact that he used real gang members.... You dont have to be a fan but c'mon now give props where it is dued this takes NOTHING away from the Beatles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
But that has nothing to do with the music or about the abilities of anyone.
|
This entire time we have both discussed entertainment and music in speaking on both this group and artist you cant just possible talk about one without the other especially if you are trying to downplay Michaels talent as well as impact get real..
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
And The Beatles had films about them done and all kinds of TV programs as well anyway, including the first ever world satellite broadcast.
|
Im not saying that they didnt do all of that but Michael INNOVATED music videos the Beatles DID NOT DO THAT I dont care if they were the first to broadcast.. Michael was the first to broadcast on and popularize MTV and music videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
"The Beatles primarily cater to a caucasion audience" That is nonsense.
|
No it is not it's true.
Do you honestly think there are more black people and asians listening to the Beatles than Michael Jackson???? I am not saying they ALL are not but NO WHERE on the level as they listen and are aware of Michael Jackson.. it once again does not take away from the Beatles but this is something u have to accept.
Michael has a more diverse fanbase than the Beatles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
All people of all races like The Beatles music. They were huge literally all over the world, and they are still well known everywhere and getting new fans.
|
Thats true but there fanbase is not as diverse as Michael. Age range is also a demographic not just race. And I still belive more whites listen to the Beatles than other races for the MOST part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
And as for Michael Jackson being a solo artist, he depended on producers like Quincy Jones and also other songwriters. The Beatles as a group were only together about 10 years. Michael Jackson had far more time but squandered quite alot of it in later years.
|
I was just waiting on that Q excuse. smh.. . Michael worked with Quincy but he still wrote most of his own music on all three of those albums. Regardless if he worked with Quincy that doesnt take away from his singing or dancing talent as well as what he has done for the music industry. Michael was in the biz since he was 5 years old and produced alot of his own music as well. Just because he worked with Q and some songwriters does not be he DEPENDED and RELIED on them. Based on your comments I can tell you dont listen to alot of MJ and based ur opinions on here say.
Michael wrote the ENTIRE BAD album on exception of two songs. He also plays instruments as well before you bring that arguement up.
It doesnt matter what he did in his later life we are talking about his LEGACY
So whats your point?