Michael Jackson

Necromancer · 06-17-2011, 09:51 PM

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.

06-17-2011, 09:51 PM	#10 (permalink)
Necromancer Divination Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,655	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.