starrynight

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.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Necromancer

So...

starrynight

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

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Soulflower

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.

starrynight

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.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

djchameleon

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

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

starrynight

"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.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Soulflower

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.

starrynight

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.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Soulflower

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?