All right, you musicheads, who had the greatest musical influence?

Obviously Michael- he had great songs, innovative music videos, incredible dancer, and had amazing stage presence.

I'd go with James Brown. Without him, there wouldn't be a Michael. Without R&B and blues, there wouldn't be a Beatles. James helped create a whole genre, funk. Videos have nothing to do with music, so that is not a factor to me. Music videos are commercials for a record, no different than appearing on Shindig or something.

the Beatles , without a shadow of a doubt

btw this was done a short while ago

MickyDolenz said:

I'd go with James Brown. Without him, there wouldn't be a Michael. Without R&B and blues, there wouldn't be a Beatles. James helped create a whole genre, funk. Videos have nothing to do with music, so that is not a factor to me. Music videos are commercials for a record, no different than appearing on Shindig or something.

It's named MJ vs the Beatles NOT MJ vs James Brown On second thought

1. James Brown

2. Michael

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

100. The Beatles

smoothcriminal12 said:

100. The Beatles

I'd say The Beatles are higher than this. The Beatles inspired groups and singers to self write, when it was not common to do so. Many pop and rock groups (even some country acts) have said they started in music because of the Beatles. Solo singers or an entertainer style performer generally aren't an influence on a band. The Fabs inspired movies, circus shows, etc. Just because you may not like them, doesn't mean they have no influence. That's why a band that broke up 40 years ago still sell a lot, and songs are being used in commercals and heard everywhere, and still continue to get books and magazine articles written about them. You don't see that with The Dave Clark Five or Herman's Hermits.

MickyDolenz said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

100. The Beatles

I'd say The Beatles are higher than this. The Beatles inspired groups and singers to self write, when it was not common to do so. Many pop and rock groups (even some country acts) have said they started in music because of the Beatles. Solo singers or an entertainer style performer generally aren't an influence on a band. The Fabs inspired movies, circus shows, etc. Just because you may not like them, doesn't mean they have no influence. That's why a band that broke up 40 years ago still sell a lot, and songs are being used in commercals and heard everywhere, and still continue to get books and magazine articles written about them. You don't see that with The Dave Clark Five or Herman's Hermits.

beatles are a bigger musical influence. MJ more when it comes to videos and dancing

hhhhdmt said:

beatles are a bigger musical influence. MJ more when it comes to videos and dancing

I don't think this is a valid thing to compare. Although, the Beatles and some other acts made promotional films before 1980, (mostly as a cheaper and faster way to get music to different places instead of traveling to them), videos weren't important until MTV.

The Beatles MJ hardly broke new ground musically like the Beatles. It's no comparison. The Beatles cranked out albums consistently and they were groundbreaking. MJ took forever on barely mediocre albums compared to the greatest albums ever made. MJ has a legacy built on one amazing album. It's like in a schoolers fight, you knock out the toughest kid in school in epic fashion you're gonna have a rep. Your other fights are so-so but you still manage to win, that epic fight is still remembered. End of discussion.

kdj997 said:

The Beatles MJ hardly broke new ground musically like the Beatles. It's no comparison. The Beatles cranked out albums consistently and they were groundbreaking. MJ took forever on barely mediocre albums compared to the greatest albums ever made. MJ has a legacy built on one amazing album. It's like in a schoolers fight, you knock out the toughest kid in school in epic fashion you're gonna have a rep. Your other fights are so-so but you still manage to win, that epic fight is still remembered. End of discussion.

not that i disagree but mj had two mastepieces, off the wall and thriller. And Bad and Dangerous were pretty darn good too.

The Beatles were talented, but no offense- but I find them boring.

They were all about producing music that was ahead of the time, and that's it. Yeah they can sing, but so can so many others.

Michael was well rounded.

[Edited 4/3/11 9:48am]

hhhhdmt said:

kdj997 said:

The Beatles MJ hardly broke new ground musically like the Beatles. It's no comparison. The Beatles cranked out albums consistently and they were groundbreaking. MJ took forever on barely mediocre albums compared to the greatest albums ever made. MJ has a legacy built on one amazing album. It's like in a schoolers fight, you knock out the toughest kid in school in epic fashion you're gonna have a rep. Your other fights are so-so but you still manage to win, that epic fight is still remembered. End of discussion.

not that i disagree but mj had two mastepieces, off the wall and thriller. And Bad and Dangerous were pretty darn good too.

Yeah but the beatles where muscally more adventerous...

The Beatles created pop infused, raga laced, psychedelic, singer songwriter, funktified, bluesy, classically tinged, hippie rock.

MJ was a funk-rock R&B kat. He had a vision of what he wanted, when the Beatles where into experimentation.

Michael, because his influence reached MUCH further than the Beatles. Of course, the Beatles laid the groundwork for a lot of what Michael did to be possible in the first place, but Michael took maximum advantage.

There are more than a few parts of the world where people are largely unaware of The Beatles, but they damn sure love MJ.

Furthermore - amongst the younger generation Michael is far more popular and influential. I see my nieces and nephews (I have at least 12 of them all under the age of 15) watching MJ videos on YouTube and dancing/singing along ALL THE TIME. With a couple of exceptions where their parents are big Beatles fans and have ensured their kids are aware, they largely don't know much about the Beatles.

Even the modern comtemporary pop acts - I don't see them copying/imitating the Beatles. If you look at kids like Chris Brown, Justin Bieber, etc, they're all swagger-jacking from MJ.

Militant said:

Michael, because his influence reached MUCH further than the Beatles. Of course, the Beatles laid the groundwork for a lot of what Michael did to be possible in the first place, but Michael took maximum advantage.

There are more than a few parts of the world where people are largely unaware of The Beatles, but they damn sure love MJ.

Furthermore - amongst the younger generation Michael is far more popular and influential. I see my nieces and nephews (I have at least 12 of them all under the age of 15) watching MJ videos on YouTube and dancing/singing along ALL THE TIME. With a couple of exceptions where their parents are big Beatles fans and have ensured their kids are aware, they largely don't know much about the Beatles.

Even the modern comtemporary pop acts - I don't see them copying/imitating the Beatles. If you look at kids like Chris Brown, Justin Bieber, etc, they're all swagger-jacking from MJ.

Thats not a good thing...

Thats probably why music is suffering the way it is now.

The Beatles basically existed as a recording unit from 1963-1969. Compare those seven years to any seven year span of Michael Jackson and the Beatles are clearly superior. They crammed more into those years than Michael did in his whole career.

EmbattledWarrior said:

Militant said:

Michael, because his influence reached MUCH further than the Beatles. Of course, the Beatles laid the groundwork for a lot of what Michael did to be possible in the first place, but Michael took maximum advantage.

There are more than a few parts of the world where people are largely unaware of The Beatles, but they damn sure love MJ.

Furthermore - amongst the younger generation Michael is far more popular and influential. I see my nieces and nephews (I have at least 12 of them all under the age of 15) watching MJ videos on YouTube and dancing/singing along ALL THE TIME. With a couple of exceptions where their parents are big Beatles fans and have ensured their kids are aware, they largely don't know much about the Beatles.

Even the modern comtemporary pop acts - I don't see them copying/imitating the Beatles. If you look at kids like Chris Brown, Justin Bieber, etc, they're all swagger-jacking from MJ.

Thats not a good thing...

Thats probably why music is suffering the way it is now.

No. The reason that music is suffering is because they ARE imitating earlier artists.

MickyDolenz said:

I'd go with James Brown. Without him, there wouldn't be a Michael. Without R&B and blues, there wouldn't be a Beatles. James helped create a whole genre, funk. Videos have nothing to do with music, so that is not a factor to me. Music videos are commercials for a record, no different than appearing on Shindig or something.

I disagree. Yes, James is a musical giant but his greatest influence and success was 1965 and later. By that point the Beatles were already well established. I think it's safe to say that James had a limited influence on the Beatles. By 1960 they were starting to gel and by the end of 1962 they had released their first single. James had some great music circa 1956-1962 but even in R & B he wasn't nearly as influential and innovative as he would be circa 1965-1975. I can't say for certain but there's a good chance that the Beatles never even heard a James Brown song before they recorded their first "real" song ("Love Me Do").

If you want me to be REALLY honest?

The Beatles.

rialb said:

MickyDolenz said:

I'd go with James Brown. Without him, there wouldn't be a Michael. Without R&B and blues, there wouldn't be a Beatles. James helped create a whole genre, funk. Videos have nothing to do with music, so that is not a factor to me. Music videos are commercials for a record, no different than appearing on Shindig or something.

I disagree. Yes, James is a musical giant but his greatest influence and success was 1965 and later. By that point the Beatles were already well established. I think it's safe to say that James had a limited influence on the Beatles. By 1960 they were starting to gel and by the end of 1962 they had released their first single. James had some great music circa 1956-1962 but even in R & B he wasn't nearly as influential and innovative as he would be circa 1965-1975. I can't say for certain but there's a good chance that the Beatles never even heard a James Brown song before they recorded their first "real" song ("Love Me Do").

By 1962, JB was R&B number one star. Since 1960, he'd been having top 40 Pop hits like Bewildered, Prisioner of Love and countless R&B top hits. At that time, only Jackie Wilson and Ray Charles and Sam Cooke were bigger nlack names him him.

I actually think Ray Charles was more musically adept than James...and that's saying a lot.

Purely musically speaking Beatles are more influential. But in present day Michael Jackson has more influence not only on music that is made, but what an artist can and should do. singing, songwriting, dancing videos, stage performance, fashion.He defines what a pop-star should be. His influence crosses sexual and racial boundaries...and he appeals to different age groups.

A lot of people will hate me but I don't care. Today, Madonna is more influential than the Beatles as well.

[img:$uid]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8jxMDAYiLDk/SAdPZ_MWfuI/AAAAAAAACxE/T-cIwfKwrug/s400/5382807.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 4/3/11 11:14am]

first things first...

• Beatles recording career 5 years...MJ more than 40 years...
• Beatles music evolved in that time... MJ it was hard to tell it all sounded the same after awhile
• MJ had the maximum expsoure of MTV at its launch...Beatles didn't have that..
• MJ FAR better entertainer... Beatles...lets no go there...
• Beatles have inspired the want to be musicians/rockers...MJ inspired the "pop" stars of today
• both good song writers...have to give the edge to the Beatles... "yesterday" is the most covered song in history...that says something.
• both were no the best on how to manage thier money...

so to be fair they both are in my i-pod...i enjoy them both..

LightOfArt said:

Purely musically speaking Beatles are more influential. But in present day Michael Jackson has more influence not only on music that is made, but what an artist can and should do. singing, songwriting, dancing videos, stage performance, fashion.He defines what a pop-star should be. His influence crosses sexual and racial boundaries...and he appeals to different age groups.

A lot of people will hate me but I don't care. Today, Madonna is more influential than the Beatles as well.

[img:$uid]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8jxMDAYiLDk/SAdPZ_MWfuI/AAAAAAAACxE/T-cIwfKwrug/s400/5382807.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 4/3/11 11:14am]

oh lawd

gtfohwtbs

that talentless hag

[Edited 4/3/11 11:21am]

rialb said:

The Beatles basically existed as a recording unit from 1963-1969. Compare those seven years to any seven year span of Michael Jackson and the Beatles are clearly superior. They crammed more into those years than Michael did in his whole career.

Complete and utter bollocks. The Beatles RETIRED from touring in 1966 and only existed as a studio unit after that. Therefore you simply cannot compare, because all they did was studio work. Michael toured more in any one year on Motown than the Beatles did in their entire career.

MJ - 1979-1986

Off The Wall (1979)

Triumph (1980) - produced and written almost solely by MJ

Triumph Tour (1981) - grossed nearly $6million, and sold out completely

Thriller (1982-1983) - the biggest selling album of all time, the biggest selling home video of all time (Making of Thriller), iconic music videos for "Billie Jean", "Beat It" and of course, "Thriller". Motown 25 performance of "Billie Jean" and J5 reunion.

Victory (1984) - again, mostly written and produced by MJ

Victory Tour (1984) - 55 concerts, grossed $65 million

We Are The World (1985) - spearheaded the entire campaign, wrote the song and organised all the artists to record and perform. Early recording sessions for "Bad" began.

Captain EO (1986) filmed the movie, further "Bad" recording sessions.

Add a year on either side, and you've got the entire process of filming and recording material for "The Wiz" in 1978, and the release of the "Bad" album, most of it's music videos, and the "Bad" world tour in 1987.

The Beatles run through those years you mentioned is COMPARABLE. But to say they crammed more into those years than Michael did in his career is fucking laughable and shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Beatles can only dream of being well rounded- singing, dancing, and touring like Michael did and producing legendary music videos.

Michael was a true artists- in every way and form. He was a machine.

No wonder McCartney just can't get over Michael all these years

[Edited 4/3/11 11:25am]

[Edited 4/3/11 11:26am]

Uh, why would the Beatles wanna dance anyway?!

That's not what made them who they were.

Comparing Michael and the Beatles is like comparing Batman to James Bond.

suga10 said:

The Beatles can only dream of dancing like Michael did and producing legendary music videos.

Michael was a true artists- in every way and form.

No wonder McCartney just can't get over Michael all these years

[Edited 4/3/11 11:25am]

and singing....MJ just owns mccartney in both the girl is mine and say say say

I honestly gotta know what goes inside some of y'all's heads when discussions like this pop up.

This is a snobbery-approved thread.

Timmy84 said:

Uh, why would the Beatles wanna dance anyway?!

That's not what made them who they were.

Comparing Michael and the Beatles is like comparing Batman to James Bond.

Haven't your forgotten that the Beatles were a boyband.