Elvis Presley vs. Michael Jackson vs the Beatles.

[Goodbook]

Elvis didnt write any songs...so dont know how you can compare these three on those merits if he didnt even write any.

 

[Goodbook]

In that case, MJ was the best all round musician. He could sing, write and he could dance..better than elvis, beatles couldnt dance.

While Mj didnt play instrument specifically, he orchestrated and choreographed all his music.
And not only that, he involved his fans with his music in a way elvis amd beatles never did. Like he would get childen up singing and dancing with him. He gave back to fans..he touched them personally. In an emotional way, a childlike way.
But he was much maligned for this.

 

[Goodbook]

My sister went to his concert, and mj danced with one of the girls who went to our highschool. She said he smelled of talcum powder. She was nearly fainting. Imagine, dancing with MJ!

 

[Sammy-San]

Elvis didnt write any songs...so dont know how you can compare these three on those merits if he didnt even write any.

How does that automatically make MJ and the Beatles better them him? Elvis's voice was better than either one of them.

 

[Citanul]

How does that automatically make MJ and the Beatles better them him? Elvis's voice was better than either one of them.

I think that comment about song writing was directed at me (although when posts aren't quoted it becomes a little tricky to follow), but I wouldn't say that Elvis not writing songs automatically makes the others better than him. It all comes down to what criteria you're using to compare them.

Elvis may have been a better performer and singer than either the Beatles or Jackson, but I'm more interested in songs rather than performances of songs. A good song remains a good song regardless of who's performing it (although someone can obviously perform a good song badly). So when I'm judging artists/bands I place far more stock in being able to create something than just being able to perform what someone else has created.

So I would put Elvis below the other two because they wrote songs and he didn't (at least not very many), while other people might evaluate them differently and consider Elvis or Jackson the best of three.

 

[Goodbook]

I think that comment about song writing was directed at me (although when posts aren't quoted it becomes a little tricky to follow), but I wouldn't say that Elvis not writing songs automatically makes the others better than him. It all comes down to what criteria you're using to compare them.

Elvis may have been a better performer and singer than either the Beatles or Jackson, but I'm more interested in songs rather than performances of songs. A good song remains a good song regardless of who's performing it (although someone can obviously perform a good song badly). So when I'm judging artists/bands I place far more stock in being able to create something than just being able to perform what someone else has created.

So I would put Elvis below the other two because they wrote songs and he didn't (at least not very many), while other people might evaluate them differently and consider Elvis or Jackson the best of three.

Well..each was best in their different areas.

Mj. Best performer, dancer, showman
Elvis. Best singer
Beatles, best songwriters.

Happy?

 

[Citanul]

Well..each was best in their different areas.

Mj. Best performer, dancer, showman
Elvis. Best singer
Beatles, best songwriters.

Happy?

I have no problem with that. All I've done is explain why I went with my particular ranking of the three.

I don't have an issue with anybody ranking them differently and for different reasons. I thought that I'd made it clear that it was how I regarded them, and I didn't make any statements that were meant to be definitive outside of my personal opinion.

 

[Goodbook]

well. conversation over...

Lets talk about Jesus.
I like talking about Him. I think...if anyone, even unbelievers, sing a song like Amazing Grace (which Elvis did) they cannot fail to be touched.

 

[Dave-W]

"Murder" is kind of in the ears of the listener. A couple of my favorite rock songs from the 60s were "Summertime Blues" by the Who and "Smoke on the Water" by Deep Purple. Both have been covered many times; with Summertime Blues being a cover itself. A few years ago I did a couple of collection CDs gathering together as many versions of each song I could find. I started with Summertime Blues and the original by Eddie Cochran and going thru the country version by Alan Jackson.

Some were good and some were really bad. Heavy Metal. Folk. Country. Pop. To me the country versions "murdered" the songs; but at least in the case of Summertime Blues, Jackson's country version was actually quite close to Cochran's original.

 

[Dave-W]

I think some people are gifted songwriters, and musicians but crappy singers! Eg carole King.

That would be Bob Dylan for me.

 

[Goodbook]

I like alan jackson. I think he did a really nice version of 'what a friend we have in Jesus'

 

[Sammy-San]

I like alan jackson. I think he did a really nice version of 'what a friend we have in Jesus'

Who is Alan Jackson?

 

[Goodbook]

The guy that sings this song...

 

[Goodbook]

No relation to Michael...

 

[Sammy-San]

No relation to Michael...

Why do they have the same last name? They arent related and arent even the same ethnic background.

 

[Sammy-San]

Well..each was best in their different areas.

Mj. Best performer, dancer, showman
Elvis. Best singer
Beatles, best songwriters.

Happy?

Cant you say that Elvis was the best in terms of his lasting fame and legacy? His iconic status is more than even MJ and the Beatles. His commercial appeal includes impersonators, memorabilia, tabloid articles, Graceland tourism, etc.

 

[Goodbook]

Well yea but he be the first to say Jesus is greater...

It was the beatles who thought they were bigger than Jesus. So...i kinda dont care too much for the beatles.

 

[Citanul]

It was the beatles who thought they were bigger than Jesus.

Not quite. The quote by John Lennon (which doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the other Beatles) was, "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink… We're more popular than Jesus now - I don't know which will go first, rock and roll or Christianity." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/3646983/The-John-Lennon-I-knew.html)

It's still somewhat arrogant to have said that they're more popular, although given the number of albums that the Beatles sold, maybe there's a modicum of truth to it. But he wasn't saying that the Beatles were better than Jesus.

 

[Citanul]

Cant you say that Elvis was the best in terms of his lasting fame and legacy?

You can, but aren't those things like that more to do with factors not under the control of the artist? Obviously, someone without the necessary talent isn't going to be particularly famous or influential, but it is to some extent about being in the right place at the right time. If Elvis had been born 10 years later, I doubt he would have had nearly the impact that he did.

 

[Goodbook]

well, I was paraphrasing. They thought they were more popular.
I don't think so.

The Bible is way more popular than the piddling Beatles albums over all time.