I remember where I was.

My mom was driving me home from camp and I turn on the radio. One of the first things I hear: "Rumor has it that Michael Jackson died." The other radio personality on whatever show it was, was in complete disbelief, as were we. The first guy continued, "yeah well, TMZ is reporting it, but it hasn't been confirmed by a reliable news source yet." Having never heard of TMZ before, we immediately started looking it up to see if it was credible. We monitored the web as news almost literally came up every 10 minutes. After a few hours some LA newspaper (LA times?) reported on it, and it was official.

LOL GREAT JOKE hahaha

She is a popular singer out today and while I am not a fan she is good for right now but nothing she is doing is groundbreaking or innovative. Not to mention not even worthy to be mention in the same breathe or sentence as Michael... c'mon get real now.

hi realtalk92, EAT YOUR HEART OUT!!!

What a boring performance and what a HORRIBLE song ughhhh
Nevermind I will stop right here.

Please do not pollute Michaels thread with her crap, she has her own thread.


Its not even worth arguing any time you want to use a performance that clearly shows her limitatations as a performer by using visual special effects and 500 million people on stage singing to a mediocre 3 year old toddler song as your arguement as to why you feel she is the new Michael Jackson.. I am done. FYI. Michael didnt need 500 people on stage or special effects to entertain a crowd. Only ONE man on stage and that was HIM. Its okay to be fan but you have lost your damn mind if you think she is Michael Jackson.. Oh hell no but you can continue to think whatever you want and have your fun..you have proved that its not even worth discussing with you.. LOL who's bad?

:crazy:

nevertheless, i still love Michael Jackson.

This is my favorite MJ song at the moment

wow...me too!

He's dead as hell, why do people keep giving him their money?

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.

Just saying.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

^? Lost me there.
^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?

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.

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.

How did he surpass The Beatles musically? And you can never say any achievement will not be repeated or bettered I think unless you can see into the future.

So... :rolleyes:

You can talk about it but it won't go anywhere unless you work out how to measure influence.

The type of commercial success they acheived especially Michael when it came to sells, chart positions, global success and just the overall innovations they contributed etc. The music industry is different today and that kind of success cant be repeated for one thing mostly everything has already been done and the popularity of the internet of today.. nobody is not selling 50 million copies an album today lol

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.

The internet may not be around forever, so you don't know what the future will bring. We don't know what will happen with the music industry in the future.

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.

What are these many genres? I'm not well versed in everything Beatles.

"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.

In a technology savy society as this one, we can only go forward. If we have advanced technology why would we suddenly go back to old ways of doing things? That doesnt even make sense. Pretty soon albums will be ancient as well as the radio and they'll be other ways artists will promote their new music.

I know which is basically the same thing I said in my last post but you just worded differently. If you read my last post again I state that Michael didnt surpass The Beatles musically being that they were pop and covered similar music. However Michael did hell of alot more variety and I also said that He innovated the music video medium which is why it is so popular today and artists put more time/effort into their videos than before music videos like Beat It, Billie Jean and Thriller. Also dance and stage performances and this is objective and you know this.


Didnt I say way earlier that they shouldnt be compared because one is different from the other and two they are from two different eras? You minimized Michaels achievement so I am simply challenging that with objective responces.

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.




I never said The Beatles were not globally known. And what are these many genres did the Beatles do because the music of theres that I have listen to the genre has been pretty consistent. Light rock pop..

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.





How was his music limited? Because to be honest one can argue the same about the Beatles who didnt cover much genres in their music. So people who listen to Michael Jackson have bad taste in music? People can easily say the same thing about The Beatles a popular band lol thats not good reasoning.

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



Michael is the biggest saling solo artist of all time and even as a solo artist he out sells The Beatles. The Beatles arent even the greatest selling band, I believe its the Eagles.

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.






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.

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.

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

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.


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.


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.

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.

This is what you said in your last response:

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.



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.



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.


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..

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.

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.

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.


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?

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