You misread me on the comment "the people he appealed to was more limited as well" (hopefully not intentionally). I am saying that the audience size that Michael Jackson appealed to was more limited, not that the actual people who listened to him were limited in their tastes.

And you still seem to not want to accept that The Beatles did all kinds of music from heavy blues



to a folk styled song



to tin pan alley



or how about a bit of Beatles funk-pop? Michael Jackson actually covered this lol.



Then there was the experimental one I posted earlier too. Sorry but Michael Jackson just can't compete with this variety and he would have said that himself. Either you know about this variety and don't want to admit it, or you are pretending to know The Beatles music.

And to say The Beatles just appeal to one race is ridiculous. They were the first Western act to break Japan, and possibly the biggest one ever there as well. And there is no doubt that their music appeals to black people as well, that's why black artists have covered their songs just like others have. And the fact that they did music like funk and blues which are more known for black artists would suggest that they would appeal to a wider audience than you would admit anyway. If you show me a Michael Jackson tin pan alley song, avant-garde sound montage and folk song....then we can say he had variety.

When you look at the Beatles they have little charisma as far as stage presence is concerned compared to Micheal's, instead rather "ordinary" in my opinion. When I listen to a Beatles album I respect the music but it can be kinda boring at times. But I sometimes may feel more entertained, energized, and refreshed after listening to a MJ album in comparison for example. And his shows, when he's on stage, he has more energy than all 4 Beatles could muster put together. So where is the evidence to say they're better than MJ?
If anybody says they have Better stats, so what? West life a rubbish Irish boy band has more charted number ones than the Beatles in the UK, does that mean they're bigger and better than the Beatles? I wouldn't think so. And really the Beatles should have better stats when holding into consideration that they have released 27 studio albums compared to MJs 10. And in some ways Jackson has certain stats that surpassed the Beatles, most awarded entertainer of all time, Thriller best ever selling album, bigger world tours and far more successful music videos, (while holding into account, the difference between the era of Jackson with MTV, VH1, compared to the use of musical video's in the 60s).
But that's besides the point, I still do not see how the Beatles natural talent out ways MJs as sometimes suggested. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should be a fan of Jackson over the Beatles or vise versa, and not to suggest that one band/artist is better than the other, I am only suggesting to be more open minded and honest about it. I mean come on, the Beatles will always be one of the most talented and influential bands to date, but they're not "God's". I find the subject itself, Jackson verses the Beatles to be (at times) as intense and unique, as the artist are/were themselves.

I never said The Beatles were Gods and I dislike some of the music they did, though I like most of it. I like some of Michael Jackson's music like the Thriller album (which Paul McCartney contributes on btw lol).

And Michael Jackson has released much more than 10 albums, from Wikipedia:
Studio albums 10
Live albums 1
Compilation albums 67
Soundtracks 2
Remix albums 7

The Beatles
Studio albums 27
Live albums 4
Compilation albums 54

If you have a preference for Michael Jackson in this that is your choice and you have a right to that, but sales would suggest most disagree. And the sales of Westlife worldwide are nothing like either The Beatles or Michael Jackson, so I think that is irrelevant.

The Beatles had 12 studio albums.

That's what it said on Wikipedia, I think it includes the American releases as separate.

I know you didnt mean to type that.. right?

You posted 5 songs out of there big catalogue which does not reflect their entire catalogue. I like the Beatles and I am not going to deny their impact but its disrespectful and unfair to deny Michael so far all I see is a biased arguement from you. All I see is you prefer the Beatles and in your preference you downplay Michael which is ridiculous and utter bull****. I dont know why you are turning this into a who is better thing when their both great. At the end of the day it just balls down to what YOU prefer.

[QUOTE=starrynight;1072658]
or how about a bit of Beatles funk-pop? Michael Jackson may have liked this.



Michael covered that and I prefer Michaels cover.

You dont listen to Michael Jackson obviously so here are some tunes to enlighten you.



Michael used his own variation of Pie Jesu from Maurice Duruflé's Requiem
Michael sings to a distinctly Russian, melancholic melody, with the repeated line of "lift her with care, the blood in her hair and very much a Dutch influence style tune.

Michael wrote this song to just let you know and was inspired by the girl who was murdered in back in 87.



Another Russian Soviet Union tune
Michael also wrote this song while he was in Russia.




A Disco style tune





An R&B slow jam style tune



Rock style tune
Michael wrote this to let you know



Gospel style tune
Michael wrote this himself to let you know



Spoken Word/Rap/Hip Hop style tune
Michael wrote this himself




New Jack Swing style tune Michael wrote himself













You mentioned a selective songs that they have done I am speaking on their overall catalogue which isnt that much variety I AM not in any way stating their music was not iconic or influential

Thats true but you feel the need to bash Michael I mean his legacy speaks for itself you can live in denial or not.

When they were in the recording studio they recorded one album how the album was divided up for the American release doesn't make it another album just another version, with some of the song off the whole album that was the British release. The Beatles were not in the studio recording 27 albums.

:confused:
^Suggested as an example in order to make a point^ :confused:

lol an album is an album, doesn't matter if it is done in a studio or not they all count equally for sales, you do realise that don't you. :D And as Neapolitan says The Beatles didn't actually record 27 studio albums anyway, the American albums were just compiled by Capitol without any input from The Beatles even and largely duplicate the British releases.

Obtuse