|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1181 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1182 (permalink) | |
Divination
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1184 (permalink) | |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
|
![]() Quote:
Now in your last post you spoke of musical achievemnt and when I challenged that I was refering to accolades and awards since you said achievement which Michael has more of than the Beatles as well as more hits and longer chart positions. Now as far as his music itself.. I wouldnt say he surpassed the Beatles.But his music definitly had more of a global impact and it catered to different demographics, races, ages not just one. He has a different generation of fans and more to come. He made alot of pop classics the same as the Beatles. However, Michael explored different genres in his music. He has more innovations in his music video medium and dancing performances over the Beatles. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1185 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
|
![]() Quote:
Music videos and dancing aren't strictly music, it's more general entertainment. Obviously he catered to a different generation of fans as his music was done in a different period. More of a global impact? It's hard to say, The Beatles were known globally as well. And The Beatles explored very many genres in their music, with many different kinds of vocals. Michael Jackson was arguably more limited in his music and the people he appealed to was probably more limited as well. And it's hard to say he did as many pop classics as The Beatles. Look at how many people have covered The Beatles songs, including soul singers. And really what makes you think The Beatles only appealed to a small demographic? Their sales strongly suggests otherwise. The Beatles would have got any accolades and awards that were around at the time they were around. And look at the number of classic albums most people think The Beatles did compared to Michael Jackson.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1186 (permalink) | |
A.B.N.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,451
|
![]()
What are these many genres? I'm not well versed in everything Beatles.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1187 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
|
![]() Quote:
"It is difficult to pigeon hole the Beatles so easily since they covered a lot of musical ground including Rock and Roll, Rock, Hard Rock, Country, Blues, Ballads, Psychodelia, Instrumentals, Soul, Folk, Indian, Symphonic, ie. not stuck in the rut of just one musical genre. However, it is most commonly accepted to assign them as "Rock."" Answers.com - What musical genre do the Beatles belong to There's other styles too like 20s jazzy style or tin pan alley, avant-garde and probably others.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1188 (permalink) | |||||||
Account Disabled
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They catered to a 50's 60's generation of fans and Michaels fan base spans BEYOND that it spans before and even beyond his solo prime. Michael has fans from the 60's 70's with his brothers with the Jackson 5/The Jacksons and fans from 80's90's during his peak. He has new generation of fans in the 00's and will have more to come. Every era in some shape of form can related to him. ALL races and ages as well. The Beatles primarily cater to a caucasion audience. Are you kidding me? You do not have to be a fan but denying the global success of Michael Jackson is like denying the impact of the Beatles. Michael was an international superstar and his influence spans BEYOND POP. Quote:
Michael did soul r&b, rock, gospel, pop, funk, new jack swing.. I can show examples of songs if you like. Not only that he wrote most of his songs and most of his hits were written by him himself. Ex. Beat it, Smooth Criminal, Billie Jean, The Way You Make Me Feel, Dirty Diana, Jam, In the Closet etc. Quote:
That is obsurd Michael has a ton of classics even with his brothers that still get airplay on the radio and people still bump to. I think more people might call The Beatles a legend but will bump the Off the Wall album or Thriller before a Beatle C.D. the average 15 yr old today. Anybody really. The Beatles only appeal to one demographic where as Michael is loved by many. You mean to tell me I Want You Back, Rock With You, Dont Stop Till You Get Enough, Billie Jean arent classics to just name a few? I dont know what world you are living in then because it definitly isnt earth lol Quote:
The fact that some artists cover Beatle songs doesnt valid their impact or legacy. There are people that cover Madonna songs. I know alot of artists that cover MJ and J5. Quote:
I disagree with that because why is it that Stevie Wonder has the most grammys as a solo artist then? He has 20 plus grammys. But anyway awards truly dont mean anything I just added that in this arguement. If you look at an artist like Marvin Gaye who only has one grammy but a catalogue of classics and influence it shows awards dont determine what makes you a legend but in this arguement it was necessary to add that since you were insinuating they had more musical achievement than Michael which is not true. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1189 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
|
![]()
To say that The Eagles have sold more than The Beatles worldwide is just absurd lol.
Then you have to retreat on your argument about awards. 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 Then you still try and pretend that The Beatles didn't have a wide range of styles beyond the soul-pop of Michael Jackson. 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. 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. I'm talking about music and not music videos. 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. But that has nothing to do with the music or about the abilities of anyone. And The Beatles had films about them done and all kinds of TV programs as well anyway, including the first ever world satellite broadcast. "The Beatles primarily cater to a caucasion audience" That is nonsense. 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. 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.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1190 (permalink) | ||||||||||||
Account Disabled
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
|
![]() Quote:
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 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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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? Last edited by Soulflower; 06-17-2011 at 09:15 PM. |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|