[Benzene]

Originally posted by RobynYoBank

I sometimes feel like the combination of the pure acclaim of The Beatles' music and the recency of Jackson and his image make it easy to overlook the fact that The Beatles embody a lot of those same characteristics. They were idols, innovators and influencers in every field they touched, from fashion to touring to the music video to the boy band.

True, though more than anything else I think it helps that Michael Jackson is just one person. All of the iconic imagery (the good and the bad) associated with his brand is his and his only.

[RobynYoBank]

Originally posted by Benzene

True, though more than anything else I think it helps that Michael Jackson is just one person. All of the iconic imagery (the good and the bad) associated with his brand is his and his only.

Without a doubt. A great modern example is the Justin Bieber phenomenon versus the One Direction phenomenon.

But in this case, I do think it's just inviting under-representation on The Beatles' side. Their influence was and is staggeringly widespread.

I don't care too much about the argument at hand. I'm always drawn angrily into these threads by the people claiming that The Beatles had no growth, influence, or respect musically. Or the ones who believe their acclaim is ex post facto.

[Benzene]

Originally posted by RobynYoBank

Without a doubt. A great modern example is the Justin Bieber phenomenon versus the One Direction phenomenon.

Perfect example, and I feel like I've even said as much about Bieber vs. 1D whenever the topic comes up.

But in this case, I do think it's just inviting under-representation on The Beatles' side. Their influence was and is staggeringly widespread.

I don't care too much about the argument at hand. I'm always drawn angrily into these threads by the people claiming that The Beatles had no growth, influence, or respect musically. Or the ones who believe their acclaim is ex post facto.

As soon as I saw the thread title I thought "here we go." I generally avoid this subject, but I went ahead and bit the bullet because it seems like disregarding MJ's impact has become a trend on here lately (not saying this applies to you, I won't name any names...or stanbases ). I don't want it to seem like I'm dismissing The Beatles' impact either. Some ridiculous things were said earlier in the thread on both sides (MJ's Grammys = more acclaim? How embarrassing ) that I just decided to ignore.

[Jabril]

Originally posted by Lately 1814

Well the show was free, what do you expect?

That doesn't defy the fact that they still wanted to see him.

[RoryBaby]

The Beatles are the biggest band and Michael is the biggest solo artist. I personally prefer Michael's music, but I wouldn't knock either of the two. There is no need for a contest. They're both great in their own ways!

[SexDrugs&PopMusic]

This isn't a fair comparison. . .The Beatles are a group, and Michael Jackson is a solo artist. They're two totally different entertainers.

I personally like Michael Jackson's music much more, but I'm not saying that he's better than the Beatles.

[Turkish Chick]

MJ

and it's not EVEN close !

[SeanXtina]

Michael Jackson >>>

No one could touch him.. greatest entertainer of all time.

[Johnny]

Bumping. I hope its okay I add more to the conversation because I'm really (obviously) passionate about The Beatles and want to defend and refute some of the arguments and claims that were made here. Just to say, I really believe there have been people in this thread overrating and underrating the impact and legacy that the Beatles have made and there are many posts that stand out to me.

The first would be the ridiculous notion that The Beatles have influenced every single artist today indirectly if not directly. It is true that it is hard to escape the fact that would can literally hear their sounds in quite a bit of the music today (even Speechless by Lady Gaga is quite Beatle-esque whether intentional or not) but I would say there is an enormous pool of artists that The Beatles have only a miniscule influence on, if any.

The second is from Kworb's post, and whether intentional or not, is a perfect example of applying subjective realizations onto an objective argument. To say us, as fans, have been influenced negatively and as a result we have bad music taste is pretty offensive (I'm not trying to be rude) and a really distasteful thing to say. Regardless, their influence back then as a pop phenomenon was enormous, and their engineering strategies (in conjunction with their sound engineers) changed the way music was recorded, their albums revolutionized the way we look at the concept of the album, and they contributed greatly to the advancement of the psychedelic rock era. This is only a piece of their puzzle.

The third is that people are trying to use critic lists to make an argument for artists when they have little to no place in terms of legacy. Arcade Fire is one of the most critically acclaimed bands of this generation but I doubt their influence will be as great as that of Coldplay. Janelle Monae was critically lauded for her debut album but she won't touch the legacy of Sasha Fierce on its own. Commercial success makes a lot more sense because your music gets out to so many people, but critical listings don't make a lot of sense to me in this kind of context.

The fourth is that people are trying to bring Michael Jackson's race into the argument. That is literally irrelevant now, because although it may have been hard to trascend that barrier, he has precedents (Aretha Franklin, Ella Fitzgerald, among others) who also helped him to pave the way. If anything, The Beatles being from the UK should be considered a barrier for them as well.

The fifth is the notion that The Beatles were not popular and still are not popular in Asia and Africa, which is an incorrect claim. Africa (or South Africa at the very least) has always been strongly tied to the United Kingdom and only gained independence from it during the early 1900s. With that said, The Beatles were very much popular and still are extremely popular worldwide. Their greatest hits album sold 31 million worldwide, and I can tell you that they did not achieve this by selling exclusively in North America and Europe. People will say who? to the name Paul McCartney. But most people won't say that about The Beatles. They're too big of a name.

I can respect that people don't take too well to The Beatles or their music (even if I'm pretty sure from all these claims that they are heavily uninformed and uneducated on the subject), but to say that the poll is a run away or not even close is a bit excessive to me. Michael Jackson was enormous and one of the biggest male artists of all time (Elvis Presley could be an argument) and I totally get why people are voting for him, and if you look at my first post I even mentioned the only breaking point for me between them was my preference for The Beatles. Just my two cents on these matters.

[Big Smoke]

This thread makes no sense.

the Beatles last album was 50 years ago. Theyre still talked about.

Thriller was nearly 30 years ago. People still talking about it. Their legacies are already cemented.
P.S. didnt the Jacksons buy the Beatles catalog?

Oh and John Lennon as a solo artist is overrated. Paul>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[buseta77]

Beatles means more than music, they did more. They are icon of all world, so my answer is The Beatles...

[EnslavedBitch]

Michael Jackson, hands down.

[Power]

The Beatles are much more influential than Michael Jackson, IMO but MJ's legacy is the biggest.

[RobynYoBank]

How'd I know this would get bumped with another recent thread.

[simon]

Beatles.

When you see Michael Jackson images you think of Michael.

When you see The Beatles' images you think of music period.

If that makes sense....

[Honey]

Originally posted by Kworb

Michael Jackson by far. The only impact the Beatles had was negative, because they inspired future generations to have poor taste in music and make poor music themselves. Even today many people just blindly repeat the "Beatles are great" mantra while only having heard two or three songs that they didn't even enjoy that much. It's still a taboo to call out the Beatles for what they were: utterly mediocre. So that is the Beatles' legacy, they are the number one example of sheep behavior, blind stanning and fooling the public. That's why MJ's legacy is far greater because his contribution to music and to human culture has only been positive, and he was a true once in a lifetime talent, performer, phenomenon and legend.

!!!

[fortheloveofmusic]

Originally posted by Johnny

Bumping. I hope its okay I add more to the conversation because I'm really (obviously) passionate about The Beatles and want to defend and refute some of the arguments and claims that were made here. Just to say, I really believe there have been people in this thread overrating and underrating the impact and legacy that the Beatles have made and there are many posts that stand out to me.

The first would be the ridiculous notion that The Beatles have influenced every single artist today indirectly if not directly. It is true that it is hard to escape the fact that would can literally hear their sounds in quite a bit of the music today (even Speechless by Lady Gaga is quite Beatle-esque whether intentional or not) but I would say there is an enormous pool of artists that The Beatles have only a miniscule influence on, if any.

The second is from Kworb's post, and whether intentional or not, is a perfect example of applying subjective realizations onto an objective argument. To say us, as fans, have been influenced negatively and as a result we have bad music taste is pretty offensive (I'm not trying to be rude) and a really distasteful thing to say. Regardless, their influence back then as a pop phenomenon was enormous, and their engineering strategies (in conjunction with their sound engineers) changed the way music was recorded, their albums revolutionized the way we look at the concept of the album, and they contributed greatly to the advancement of the psychedelic rock era. This is only a piece of their puzzle.

The third is that people are trying to use critic lists to make an argument for artists when they have little to no place in terms of legacy. Arcade Fire is one of the most critically acclaimed bands of this generation but I doubt their influence will be as great as that of Coldplay. Janelle Monae was critically lauded for her debut album but she won't touch the legacy of Sasha Fierce on its own. Commercial success makes a lot more sense because your music gets out to so many people, but critical listings don't make a lot of sense to me in this kind of context.

The fourth is that people are trying to bring Michael Jackson's race into the argument. That is literally irrelevant now, because although it may have been hard to trascend that barrier, he has precedents (Aretha Franklin, Ella Fitzgerald, among others) who also helped him to pave the way. If anything, The Beatles being from the UK should be considered a barrier for them as well.

The fifth is the notion that The Beatles were not popular and still are not popular in Asia and Africa, which is an incorrect claim. Africa (or South Africa at the very least) has always been strongly tied to the United Kingdom and only gained independence from it during the early 1900s. With that said, The Beatles were very much popular and still are extremely popular worldwide. Their greatest hits album sold 31 million worldwide, and I can tell you that they did not achieve this by selling exclusively in North America and Europe. People will say who? to the name Paul McCartney. But most people won't say that about The Beatles. They're too big of a name.

I can respect that people don't take too well to The Beatles or their music (even if I'm pretty sure from all these claims that they are heavily uninformed and uneducated on the subject), but to say that the poll is a run away or not even close is a bit excessive to me. Michael Jackson was enormous and one of the biggest male artists of all time (Elvis Presley could be an argument) and I totally get why people are voting for him, and if you look at my first post I even mentioned the only breaking point for me between them was my preference for The Beatles. Just my two cents on these matters.

Well dam that wasn't just two cents that was the whole piggy bank

[Alexz]

The Beatles.

[ToMmY]

MJ.

The Beatles are overrated as *****.

[chanel]

Originally posted by Johnny

The fourth is that people are trying to bring Michael Jackson's race into the argument. That is literally irrelevant now, because although it may have been hard to trascend that barrier, he has precedents (Aretha Franklin, Ella Fitzgerald, among others) who also helped him to pave the way. If anything, The Beatles being from the UK should be considered a barrier for them as well.

You are utterly insane if you think the struggle of a black man and the struggle of foreign but still yet white men are the same. Don't be so dense. MJ helped COMPLETELY broke the mold for blacks in entertainment. Not just musicians but entertainers all across the board.

No one has ever said MJ was the first black artist to break the mold. He built on what Berry Gordy did at Motown with the Supremes and later The Jackson5.

Before Thriller black artist didn't receive the same level of exposure and treatment white artist did.

Originally posted by Johnny

The fifth is the notion that The Beatles were not popular and still are not popular in Asia and Africa, which is an incorrect claim. Africa (or South Africa at the very least) has always been strongly tied to the United Kingdom and only gained independence from it during the early 1900s. With that said, The Beatles were very much popular and still are extremely popular worldwide. Their greatest hits album sold 31 million worldwide, and I can tell you that they did not achieve this by selling exclusively in North America and Europe. People will say who? to the name Paul McCartney. But most people won't say that about The Beatles. They're too big of a name.

What does SA being colonized by UK have to do with the Beatles popularity there???? NOTHING!!
The US and the UK are two of the largest markets for buying music. So I'm pretty sure much of their sales came because they are immensiley popular in those places.

No one said they aren't popular... But they aren't waayyyy poplar than MJ either.
-------------------------------

The Beatles did more for the way you hear music. MJ changed the way you see it.
There is no one compete definite over the other. That's why they are the two biggest names in music ever.