|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-17-2011, 10:28 PM | #1191 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
|
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.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on Last edited by starrynight; 06-17-2011 at 10:43 PM. |
06-17-2011, 10:51 PM | #1192 (permalink) |
Divination
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
|
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. |
06-17-2011, 11:02 PM | #1193 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
|
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.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on |
06-17-2011, 11:16 PM | #1194 (permalink) | |
carpe musicam
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
|
The Beatles had 12 studio albums.
__________________
Quote:
"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº? “I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac. “If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle. "If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon "I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards |
|
06-17-2011, 11:31 PM | #1196 (permalink) | |||||
Account Disabled
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
|
Quote:
Quote:
[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. Quote:
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 Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Soulflower; 06-17-2011 at 11:45 PM. |
|||||
06-17-2011, 11:34 PM | #1197 (permalink) | |
carpe musicam
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
|
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.
__________________
Quote:
"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº? “I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac. “If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle. "If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon "I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards |
|
06-17-2011, 11:37 PM | #1198 (permalink) | ||
Divination
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
|
Quote:
Quote:
^Suggested as an example in order to make a point^ |
||
06-17-2011, 11:54 PM | #1199 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
|
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. 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.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on |
|