Michael Jackson

Necromancer · 06-17-2011, 01:33 PM

In the wake of Michael Jackson’s death, people are now re-examining his influence on music. In this context, the Beatles are often credited as being the only artists to have a similar or greater impact on popular music. This debate can get really intense and often polarizing along a number of lines (race, age, etc). In terms of artistry, performance, industry, and other aspects of musical culture, as to who has had the greater influence.

source: Influence: Michael Jackson vs. The Beatles | Straight Gangsterism

Queen Boo · 06-17-2011, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

His notoriety, record sales, etc. might be able to stand with, at the least, if not surpass that of the Beatles. (The fans always seem to come out of the woodwork).
"Michael Jackson vs The Beatles", I wonder how that one would turn out? Not that I am a big fan of Jackson or the Beatles (as far as that goes) Just saying.

wah wah, these people are rich and I am not.

starrynight · 06-17-2011, 01:43 PM

Influence can't be assessed with any degree of accuracy, so arguments over that are pointless. And as I always say influence can be bad as well as good. All you can really do is judge people on what they themselves have done.

Necromancer · 06-17-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

Influence can't be assessed with any degree of accuracy, so arguments over that are pointless. And as I always say influence can be bad as well as good. All you can really do is judge people on what they themselves have done.

So, its an open debate that is subjective?

starrynight · 06-17-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

So, its an open debate that is subjective?

Subjective, but impossible as well. They both influenced lots of people, but so what? Alot of that music was and is probably crap as well. And The Beatles have been going longer so I suppose they have influenced more anyway. And influence is just fashion as well, not something to have any serious long term judgement on. And neither should really get credit for the work of others, that just wouldn't make sense to me.

~~Soulflower~~ · 06-17-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

Subjective, but impossible as well. They both influenced lots of people, but so what? Alot of that music was and is probably crap as well. And The Beatles have been going longer so I suppose they have influenced more anyway. And influence is just fashion as well, not something to have any serious long term judgement on. And neither should really get credit for the work of others, that just wouldn't make sense to me.

How is that subjective when its evidence and facts that show that they BOTH were influential and made a profound impact on pop culture?
Thats Objective.

What IS subjective is: Out of the two who had the greater influence?

I personally feel Michael had the greater impact even though I like and respect the Beatles.

starrynight · 06-17-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by realtalk92

How is that subjective when its evidence and facts that show that they BOTH were influential and made a profound impact on pop culture?
Thats Objective.

What IS subjective is: Out of the two who had the greater influence?

I personally feel Michael had the greater impact even though I like and respect the Beatles.

If you read what I said you will have seen that I said that you can't measure influence, and I think you admitted that by saying you can't say who had the greater influence. And I said both were influential as well, that doesn't of course mean that Michael Jackson's musical achievement is anywhere near to The Beatles.

Necromancer · 06-17-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

Subjective, but impossible as well. They both influenced lots of people, but so what? Alot of that music was and is probably crap as well. And The Beatles have been going longer so I suppose they have influenced more anyway. And influence is just fashion as well, not something to have any serious long term judgement on. And neither should really get credit for the work of others, that just wouldn't make sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

And neither should really get credit for the work of others.

^? Lost me there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

And influence is just fashion as well, not something to have any serious long term judgement on.

^Debatable.

Could MJ’s influence and audience be bigger than the Beatles because the record industry was about 1000 times larger than it was in the 60s?

~~Soulflower~~ · 06-17-2011, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

If you read what I said you will have seen that I said that you can't measure influence, and I think you admitted that by saying you can't say who had the greater influence. And I said both were influential as well, that doesn't of course mean that Michael Jackson's musical achievement is anywhere near to The Beatles.

Thats subjective because Michael surprassed The Beatles in alot of his achievements as well as innovated/impacted things they didnt even do and thats not downplaying their musical achievements. The Beatles were a group and Michael was a solo artist they were pop but in different eras really shouldnt be compared. Their similiar because of the cultural impact they on the music industry as well as commercial success. And one thing is for sure those achievements cant be repeated.

starrynight · 06-17-2011, 04:01 PM

The Beatles still had a widespread influence across to areas like the far east and South America. And the size of the record industry may help distribute music more but it can also provide much more music as well so one artist can't really dominate as much perhaps. The internet has changed things, but during that period Michael Jackson didn't really release much new music anyway.

By credit for the work of others I mean for instance that, for example, The Beatles may have influenced many Britpop groups in the 90s but that doesn't mean they wrote their songs, they just influenced them, that's all.

06-17-2011, 01:43 PM	#1173 (permalink)
starrynight Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 937	Influence can't be assessed with any degree of accuracy, so arguments over that are pointless. And as I always say influence can be bad as well as good. All you can really do is judge people on what they themselves have done. __________________ non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

06-17-2011, 04:01 PM	#1180 (permalink)
starrynight Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 937	The Beatles still had a widespread influence across to areas like the far east and South America. And the size of the record industry may help distribute music more but it can also provide much more music as well so one artist can't really dominate as much perhaps. The internet has changed things, but during that period Michael Jackson didn't really release much new music anyway. By credit for the work of others I mean for instance that, for example, The Beatles may have influenced many Britpop groups in the 90s but that doesn't mean they wrote their songs, they just influenced them, that's all. __________________ non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

06-17-2011, 01:33 PM	#1171 (permalink)
Necromancer Divination Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,655	In the wake of Michael Jackson’s death, people are now re-examining his influence on music. In this context, the Beatles are often credited as being the only artists to have a similar or greater impact on popular music. This debate can get really intense and often polarizing along a number of lines (race, age, etc). In terms of artistry, performance, industry, and other aspects of musical culture, as to who has had the greater influence. source: Influence: Michael Jackson vs. The Beatles \| Straight Gangsterism