Elvis Presley vs. Michael Jackson vs the Beatles.

[Sammy-San]

I used to think Elvis was the most popular when I was a kid in the 70s. I argued with my older cousin because he said the Beatles. Now I strongly believe the Beatles are the most influential artists in history. What Michael Jackson did was done through Motown and other venues. The Beatles stand out more, IMO.

Didn't Michael Jackson have more platinum albums than the Beatles, though? His musical legacy with regards to record sales was bigger. Am I incorrect?

 

[patrick jane]

Didn't Michael Jackson have more platinum albums than the Beatles, though? His musical legacy with regards to record sales was bigger. Am I incorrect?

Likely true, and that can't be discounted. I was offering my opinion that the Beatles influenced music more than any other band/artist. Although, fans of Michael or countless other fans of different artists will disagree.

 

[Sammy-San]

Likely true, and that can't be discounted. I was offering my opinion that the Beatles influenced music more than any other band/artist. Although, fans of Michael or countless other fans of different artists will disagree.

How would you define influence? Number of people who try to sound similar, the way music overall sounded as a result of them?

 

[patrick jane]

How would you define influence? Number of people who try to sound similar, the way music overall sounded as a result of them?

I think of the impact the Beatles had in America and worldwide and I see their influence as greater than Elvis or MJ.
Just my opinion as i said.

Here's how I define influence:
in·flu·ence
ˈinflo͝oəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.
   "the influence of television violence"
   synonyms: effect, impact;
   • 
     

verb

1. 1.
   have an influence on.
   "social forces influencing criminal behavior"
   synonyms: affect, have an impact on, impact, determine, guide, control, shape,govern, decide; More
   
   

 

[Sammy-San]

I think of the impact the Beatles had in America and worldwide and I see their influence as greater than Elvis or MJ.
Just my opinion as i said.

Here's how I define influence:
in·flu·ence
ˈinflo͝oəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.
   "the influence of television violence"
   synonyms: effect, impact;

verb

1. 1.
   have an influence on.
   "social forces influencing criminal behavior"
   synonyms: affect, have an impact on, impact, determine, guide, control, shape,govern, decide; More
   

View attachment 165872



View attachment 165871

Based on what? It's very hard to measure influence, just as it is to measure "iconic-ness". I don't think you could write down a list of singers/bands/artists who are more influential or iconic than other ones.

 

[Sammy-San]

It's really kind of impossible to compare the three:
An American crooner/actor who sang country, gospel and pop from '53-'77 vs. a British band who innovated the development of modern rock and psychedelia from '60-'70 vs. an R&B/pop singer who dominated the 1980s video era.

Not to mention, they all had vastly different cultural impacts:
Elvis served as the commercial breakthrough for rock and roll music and helped break the segregated lines between "white" and "black" music, The Beatles revolutionized the music industry (moving away from soloists and professional songwriters to groups who wrote their own songs) and laid the foundations for many modern styles of rock music, and Michael Jackson made similar strides in popularizing and evolving pop and R&B during the video era.

Really, a question like this will always come down to personal preference.

For me, I guess I'd choose The Beatles for sheer consistency. Elvis and MJ had numerous ups and downs in their career and sometimes produced less-than-stellar material, but The Beatles had a solid and steady (if brief) output which ultimately influenced most of the genres I love, including progressive rock and power-pop. I definitely don't agree with the consensus that they're the "greatest band of all time", but it's hard to dispute their influence on popular music and popular culture, which I think was a much bigger impact than either Elvis or MJ.

When did MJ produce less than stellar material?

 

[BookofMatt]

When did MJ produce less than stellar material?

Taste is of course subjective, but 'HIStory' and 'Invincible' were pretty sub-par, plus they were received rather lukewarmly by critics. Some of his pre-'Off the Wall' non-Jackson 5 solo albums are pretty hit or miss, as well. One tries to view them all on their own individual merits, but it's hard not to compare them to the absolute heights of 'Thriller' or 'Bad', to which they easily pale.

Though I haven't listened to them, I've heard 'Michael' and 'Xscape' were kinda "meh", but I wouldn't feel right criticizing posthumous releases, which are always pretty much just leftover or unfinished songs and likely not something MJ planned on releasing in such a condition.

I wouldn't say MJ released any truly *bad* material though; far more than I could say for Elvis, if you've ever listened to all of the songs he ever performed for the movies he starred in.

 

[Sammy-San]

Taste is of course subjective, but 'HIStory' and 'Invincible' were pretty sub-par, plus they were received rather lukewarmly by critics. Some of his pre-'Off the Wall' non-Jackson 5 solo albums are pretty hit or miss, as well. One tries to view them all on their own individual merits, but it's hard not to compare them to the absolute heights of 'Thriller' or 'Bad', to which they easily pale.

Though I haven't listened to them, I've heard 'Michael' and 'Xscape' were kinda "meh", but I wouldn't feel right criticizing posthumous releases, which are always pretty much just leftover or unfinished songs and likely not something MJ planned on releasing in such a condition.

I wouldn't say MJ released any truly *bad* material though; far more than I could say for Elvis, if you've ever listened to all of the songs he ever performed for the movies he starred in.

Are you referring to his singing style, or the lyrics that he was singing?

 

[BookofMatt]

Are you referring to his singing style, or the lyrics that he was singing?

Just the material itself wasn't as good. I'm not a huge MJ fan, but I listened through his discography out of historical and musicological interest: 'Off the Wall', 'Thriller' and 'Bad' are all fantastic albums on every level and 'Dangerous' had some really solid singles, but the other albums didn't feel as strong, memorable or engaging. If I had to pinpoint any particular cause, it was likely the departure of Quincy Jones as a producer: Jones produced Michael's best work, and without him Michael's albums didn't have the same focus or quality.

 

[Sammy-San]

Just the material itself wasn't as good. I'm not a huge MJ fan, but I listened through his discography out of historical and musicological interest: 'Off the Wall', 'Thriller' and 'Bad' are all fantastic albums on every level and 'Dangerous' had some really solid singles, but the other albums didn't feel as strong, memorable or engaging. If I had to pinpoint any particular cause, it was likely the departure of Quincy Jones as a producer: Jones produced Michael's best work, and without him Michael's albums didn't have the same focus or quality.

What do you mean? In what sense? Return to Sender and Viva Las Vegas aren't that horrible of songs-they aren't much worse than Bieber or One Direction.

He sang cheesy songs in Vegas after he left acting, like Love Me Tender.

 

[BookofMatt]

I...I don't know how much clearer I can make myself. I mean, unless you're willing to make an argument over why 'Invincible' is every bit as good an album as 'Thriller', it's not a controversial statement to say that no artist has a completely flawless discography maintaining a consistent level of quality. Michael Jackson's 1980s albums were trailblazers that covered innovative new ground in pop music and production quality and produced many songs loaded with memorable hooks and melodies; his later albums simply didn't have that same level of originality, innovation or memorability, even if it wasn't objectively *bad* material. Like I said, do I really need to explain why a song like, for example, "Can't Let Her Get Away" isn't as good as "Billie Jean" or "Beat It"?

 

[Sammy-San]

I...I don't know how much clearer I can make myself. I mean, unless you're willing to make an argument over why 'Invincible' is every bit as good an album as 'Thriller', it's not a controversial statement to say that no artist has a completely flawless discography maintaining a consistent level of quality. Michael Jackson's 1980s albums were trailblazers that covered innovative new ground in pop music and production quality and produced many songs loaded with memorable hooks and melodies; his later albums simply didn't have that same level of originality, innovation or memorability, even if it wasn't objectively *bad* material. Like I said, do I really need to explain why a song like, for example, "Can't Let Her Get Away" isn't as good as "Billie Jean" or "Beat It"?

The catchiness and singing ability?

 

[Sammy-San]

Well - since Mercury is dead he is not singing in the present tense at all anymore. But he did have a good voice - probably with some classical training. (MJ did not have that)

Plant - don't get me started. I blame him for almost all hard rock and metal singers being counter tenors. (or castratos)

So you're not a fan of his singing? I know some people who don't like his vocals either.

 

[Sammy-San]

Probably just a personal preference. I don't consider that voice to be "one of the best voices in music history." Not by a longshot.

Can't one argue Michael Jackson had better technical singing abilities?

 

[TheApostleJohn]

So you're not a fan of his singing? I know some people who don't like his vocals either.

He's very talented, but I find the high pitched yelping he does on their big rock songs grating. I like his voice better when he sings gentler on their acoustic songs or ballads.

 

[Sammy-San]

He's very talented, but I find the high pitched yelping he does on their big rock songs grating. I like his voice better when he sings gentler on their acoustic songs or ballads.

What about Kashimir?

 

[TheApostleJohn]

What about Kashimir?

I also like Kashmir. That's a more anthem one with the orchestra and stuff, not just a pure hard rock guitar song.

 

[Sammy-San]

He's very talented, but I find the high pitched yelping he does on their big rock songs grating. I like his voice better when he sings gentler on their acoustic songs or ballads.

What were the acoustic songs and ballads? Like earth song or stranger in moscow?

 

[TheApostleJohn]

What were the acoustic songs and ballads? Like earth song or stranger in moscow?

Those are Michael Jackson songs, I was talking about Robert Plant/Led Zeppelin. I like them in stuff like Stairway to Heaven and Rain Song.

 

[Sammy-San]

He's very talented, but I find the high pitched yelping he does on their big rock songs grating. I like his voice better when he sings gentler on their acoustic songs or ballads.

Do you think overrated is used too much?

I don't find Elvis Presley overrated, but I don't idolize him-he's not God.