Free2BMe said:

I love AND chuckle how you assume and probably can't fathom how/if a person can possibly be a part of Beatlemania AND Michaelmania. I KNOW about both. Yes, the Beatles were HUGE and I have never denied that. Beatlemania was staggering. However, I STILL say that Michaelmania eclipsed Beatlemania and on a LONGER and LARGER scale. I will never forget Beatlemania. However, that doesn't diminish Michael's GLOBAL popularity and mania and the LENGTH of that popularity and mania.

Btw, record sales ARE an indication of an artist's popularity and longevity; but, not the only factor. Since you posted the sales of Michael, Elvis and the Beatles, let's put those sales into perspective.

Michael's sales represent pretty much a 30+ year span. Elvis' represent a 50+. Most of Elvis' records sold AFTER his death. Elvis had a 150 GOLD albums. Michael had ONLY about 7 or 8 major album releases and STILL has OVER 200 million( I don't agree with the numbers posted) in records sold. The Beatles released a little over 30 albums. Just looking at those statistics, Michael sold MORE than either the Beatles or Elvis, because he released far less albums and STILL outsold BOTH iover a shorter span of time.

Again, I am not trying to diminish Elvis' popularity nor the Beatles. I am just putting things into perspective when you talk about and post sales. Btw, I like this discussion. Thus far, it hasn't derailed into bashing and that is refreshing.

I

[Edited 3/31/14 19:20pm]

Okay, so let's say that I grant you the claim that Beatlemania and the height if MJ's fame in the

80s were commensurate with each other. How do you quantify such a thing? Record sales and

merchandise! Whose got the most of the former? The Beatles do! Read this article, as well.
By the way, nobody seems to want to enhance their argument with any facts or numbers. If you

are claiming one is more popular than the other, put up some numbers to support your case!

Your argument that MJ sold more records than the Beatles and/or Elvis is flawed: the RIAA does

not take into consideration the percentage of albums sold as related to albums released; it simpy

tells us how many albums were sold - period! Also, you are forgetting that MJ started out teeny

bopper with his brothers. It's not like Off The Wall was his debut album. Wasn't Thriller like his

fifth or sixth album in? not considering all the albums he released as a Jackson 5/Jackson

member. So, MJ had about ten adult releases and I'm too lazy to look up how how many he

released as a child professional. Besides, if you look at the url link in my original post, you'll see

that the Beatles lead the pack with units sold. Scroll down a bit more and you'll see Paul

McCartney, as a solo act, has sold about 50 million units. I mean, how much more "proof" do ya

want?

It just doesn't seem like you are trying to put things in perspective, Free. It seems like you are

making a case for MJ out of devotion to sentimental value. I know that I'm in a Prince org where

it's more than likely that MJ's fans will claim he's more popular, but I'm giving y'all numbers to

back up my claim and it's going thru one ear and out the other. It's all good! I know where I'm

at.

duccichucka said:

Free2BMe said:

I love AND chuckle how you assume and probably can't fathom how/if a person can possibly be a part of Beatlemania AND Michaelmania. I KNOW about both. Yes, the Beatles were HUGE and I have never denied that. Beatlemania was staggering. However, I STILL say that Michaelmania eclipsed Beatlemania and on a LONGER and LARGER scale. I will never forget Beatlemania. However, that doesn't diminish Michael's GLOBAL popularity and mania and the LENGTH of that popularity and mania.

Btw, record sales ARE an indication of an artist's popularity and longevity; but, not the only factor. Since you posted the sales of Michael, Elvis and the Beatles, let's put those sales into perspective.

Michael's sales represent pretty much a 30+ year span. Elvis' represent a 50+. Most of Elvis' records sold AFTER his death. Elvis had a 150 GOLD albums. Michael had ONLY about 7 or 8 major album releases and STILL has OVER 200 million( I don't agree with the numbers posted) in records sold. The Beatles released a little over 30 albums. Just looking at those statistics, Michael sold MORE than either the Beatles or Elvis, because he released far less albums and STILL outsold BOTH iover a shorter span of time.

Again, I am not trying to diminish Elvis' popularity nor the Beatles. I am just putting things into perspective when you talk about and post sales. Btw, I like this discussion. Thus far, it hasn't derailed into bashing and that is refreshing.

I

[Edited 3/31/14 19:20pm]

Okay, so let's say that I grant you the claim that Beatlemania and the height if MJ's fame in the

80s were commensurate with each other. How do you quantify such a thing? Record sales and

merchandise! Whose got the most of the former? The Beatles do! Read this article, as well.
By the way, nobody seems to want to enhance their argument with any facts or numbers. If you

are claiming one is more popular than the other, put up some numbers to support your case!

Your argument that MJ sold more records than the Beatles and/or Elvis is flawed: the RIAA does

not take into consideration the percentage of albums sold as related to albums released; it simpy

tells us how many albums were sold - period! Also, you are forgetting that MJ started out teeny

bopper with his brothers. It's not like Off The Wall was his debut album. Wasn't Thriller like his

fifth or sixth album in? not considering all the albums he released as a Jackson 5/Jackson

member. So, MJ had about ten adult releases and I'm too lazy to look up how how many he

released as a child professional. Besides, if you look at the url link in my original post, you'll see

that the Beatles lead the pack with units sold. Scroll down a bit more and you'll see Paul

McCartney, as a solo act, has sold about 50 million units. I mean, how much more "proof" do ya

want?

It just doesn't seem like you are trying to put things in perspective, Free. It seems like you are

making a case for MJ out of devotion to sentimental value. I know that I'm in a Prince org where

it's more than likely that MJ's fans will claim he's more popular, but I'm giving y'all numbers to

back up my claim and it's going thru one ear and out the other. It's all good! I know where I'm

at.

Interesting about this article in relation to MJ and the Beatles over that catalog, John's estate and Paul will win back the rights of their catalog in 2018 so Paul will get a whole lot richer...

Gunsnhalen said:

But which cheese is the more popular? Velvetta or Kraft?

No cheese, just MUSICA please. I'm shocked this was not locked due to MJ in the title.

I was thinking, if there wasn't an Elvis, which other artist(s) at that time could havehad the same success in selling records, popularity, marketability etc?. Maybe Roy Orbison?, he certainly had the vocal ability and also Elvis himself said he was one of his favourite singers. I don't know if Rock & Roll would have continued with the same level success. There was alot of teen idols and Rock & Roll acts both in the US & UK (like Cliff & Billy Fury) who patterned their style after Elvis . Going back to the John Lennon quote I posted, I think John had a point and I think he was referring to the UK music scene which was basically big bands, easy listening and skiffle music so an artist like Elvis (& the growth of the Motown sound and US R&B records) was like a big thing and I think Rock & Roll and the impact Elvis had was a catalyst which helped mold the Beatles as IIRC they started out playing Lonnie Donnegan covers as a skiffle band along with some R&B. So I think Elvis Presley amongst others including blues musicians too and artists like Little Richard, Chuck Berry et al all helped pioneer modern popular music. Some musical genres become fads and Rock & Roll could have been a short lived fad as some DJs and critics at the time said it would be, but its still being listened to and talked about today. I also agree if you're judging popularity its generational although you could say all three artists in question popularity has spanned the decades.

thetimefan said:

I was thinking, if there wasn't an Elvis, which other artist(s) at that time could havehad the same success in selling records, popularity, marketability etc?. Maybe Roy Orbison?, he certainly had the vocal ability and also Elvis himself said he was one of his favourite singers. I don't know if Rock & Roll would have continued with the same level success. There was alot of teen idols and Rock & Roll acts both in the US & UK (like Cliff & Billy Fury) who patterned their style after Elvis . Going back to the John Lennon quote I posted, I think John had a point and I think he was referring to the UK music scene which was basically big bands, easy listening and skiffle music so an artist like Elvis (& the growth of the Motown sound and US R&B records) was like a big thing and I think Rock & Roll and the impact Elvis had was a catalyst which helped mold the Beatles as IIRC they started out playing Lonnie Donnegan covers as a skiffle band along with some R&B. So I think Elvis Presley amongst others including blues musicians too and artists like Little Richard, Chuck Berry et al all helped pioneer modern popular music. Some musical genres become fads and Rock & Roll could have been a short lived fad as some DJs and critics at the time said it would be, but its still being listened to and talked about today. I also agree if you're judging popularity its generational although you could say all three artists in question popularity has spanned the decades.

Without Elvis, Chuck and Richard, the industry would've been a lot boring...

The RIAA listed sales amounts are a hard way to really figure overall record sales. In their figures they don't list single sales or album sales between certifications. So lets say a record sales 1,230,000 copies, the RIAA only list the sales of 1,000,000. Now for the Beatles who who only had 13 studio albums and very few compiliations his can only impact their uncertified sales by a few million, but someone like Elvis who had hundreds of albums during his life time and after there are an incrediblly high amount of uncertified sales. Also the RIAA doesn't count sales before 1958 which eliminates Elvis from receiving credit for his sales during his most popular period.

Add to that, RCA didn't ever provide the RIAA with sales data for the year immediately after Elvis died and using the RIAA figures as a measure of popularity gets kind of tricky. The billboard released a year after Presley's death reported that RCA were shipping about 20million Elvis records a week for a year after he died. Most of these shipments were to fulfill orders so they were guaranteed sales. It is very likely that Elvis, who is only credited with one diamond status album (10 million copies solid) actually has several albums that meet that criteria and it is likely that albums like Blue Hawaii that reportedly sold about 14 million copies per the trade papers of the time, migt have pushed over the 25 million mark.

As far as the relative fame of all three, like I said in an earlier post, each artist/group was as popular in their "heyday" as was humanly possible. That Elvis has been dead for almost 40 years and the Beatles have been broken up for even longer, that their numbers compete with someone who had the almost the entire world for his potential audience speaks volumes about their success without diminishing MJs whatsoever.

I just feel blessed to have had the luxury of living in a time when the music of all three is available.

Not to beat a dead horse (bad pun intended) and not to regnite any debate because as I have stated I think it is fair to say that all three were as famous as anyone coud be the time of their peak success, but one of the points often listed as a key factor in Michael Jackson Vs Elvis threads is his international fame. In light of that perspective I thought I would share a recent article from India.com which is a website focusing on...well Indian culture and news. It lists the top five solo artists of all time and regardless of the order they put them on, that Elvis who has been dead for almost 40 years is still on this list says volume about just how much of a global impact he had before there was really a global market in terms of what we have today.

So, here is the link, for those of you as fascinated with the power of celebrity as I am, I hope you will find the article interesting:

http://www.india.com/top-n/5-of-the-best-solo-music-artists-37525/

Thanks for the link kalelvisj. What? Eminen made that list? Weird, I like him, but who knew?

Militant said:

Michael is popular in countries where they've never even heard of The Beatles or Elvis.

There are no countries where they haven't heard of the Beatles or Elvis. Generations of people around the world learned English singing the songs of the Beatles and Elvis.

The Beatles. More than any other act in any genre, discovering their music has become a generational right of passage. They're as popular now as they ever have been. A local radio station here started playing Beatles four at four (four Beatles songs at four o'clock in the afternoon) and it's become one of the most popular 15 minutes of radio on the dial. Small children know the lyrics to Beatles songs. People who don't even know they're humming Beatles songs hum Beatles songs. Every race, creed, religion, sexual preference, etc., all find something to love about the Beatles. I can't imagine this is even a close competition.

And for the record; the Beatles broke up seven years before Elvis died on his throne.

Also, let me be clear, I'm not talking about any kind of sales numbers. We all know that most of the time these days sales have fuck all to do with an artists popularity.

[Edited 4/19/14 12:59pm]

[Edited 4/19/14 14:20pm]

SuperSoulFighter said:

Something went wrong with my previous post. I am in Cusco, Peru right now, waiting for my bus to La Paz, Bolivia and I can tell you that I have not heared a lot of Jackson or Elvis here. The Beatles, yes.But the real winner is Bob Marley. He truly was and is a world star.

Yea but you've heard about them and that's all that matters.

Just found out that Donna payed tribute to Elvis on this song, Now I hear it. I didn't before.

JoeBala said:

Just found out that Donna payed tribute to Elvis on this song, Now I hear it. I didn't before.

I never heard if she did it as an intended tribute or homage to Elvis, but I do know that John Lennon played it for a music journalist during an interview and said something like "you've got to hear this, she is doing Elvis." The reporter commented on Lennon's almost chldlike joy in finding connections between two artists that he enjoyed. The interview contained several quotes by Lennon about the influene Elvis had on him in particular and the Beatles as a band. If I could remember the interviewers name, I would find the interview and post a link.

Thanks for the video Joe. Growng up in the 70's and 80's Donna was an important part of my soundtrack, so much so that I even skipped school to watch Thank Go its Friday when it came out in theaters.

[Edited 4/21/14 22:06pm]

I'm pretty sure Donna liked Elvis. She was a class act, always loved her.

Tough to say, as I wasn't around for the Elvis and Beatles craziness. From today's perspective, I'd say it's between The Beatles and MJ. Elvis has lost some ground over the years.

Michael is by far my favorite of the 3, with Elvis coming next and The Beatles prominently featured on my list of most disliked artists.

Moonbeam said:

Tough to say, as I wasn't around for the Elvis and Beatles craziness. From today's perspective, I'd say it's between The Beatles and MJ. Elvis has lost some ground over the years.

Michael is by far my favorite of the 3, with Elvis coming next and The Beatles prominently featured on my list of most disliked artists.

I'm a Generation Y guy but I'm feel like Elvis' star cooled off back in the 70s when the pool of countless more talented and interesting artists began taking over the music scene.

Why the hate for The Beatles?

There is a great interview with Jackie Wilson on youtube that is about 15 minutes long where at about the 6 minute point he talks about Elvis. While it doesn't speak directly of Elvis' popularity, I think it sheds light on how one of the greatest performers of all time felt about Elvis as an artist and as a human being. The link ask that you watch the video on the posters youtube channel but here is the link for anyone interested in either Jackie or Elvis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90tqWrDEodw&feature=player_embedded

the beatles...by some distance...walk down any city centre and i bet you will see a beatles t shirt at some point...their continued influence cannot be denied...the biggest selling worldwide album artists between 2000 and 2010 wasnt eminem or beyonce....it was the beatles..a band that broke up in 1970...just incredible...they are the only band that comes close to prince in what they have given me musicially as well..

[Edited 5/1/14 2:00am]

MJ's appeal was to EVERYONE - all races, ethnicities (sp), cultures, sexes, ages (2 t0 102). No one had ever done that before. The Beatles and Elvis fan base was mostly/mainly white teens.

Today MJ has statues erected on six continents (Far more than Elvis or Beatles) and im not talking about Madame Toussand - lol. MJ has about 20 statues erected of him from India to Mexico.

There's a video of people/bystanders running after MJ's car two months before he passed on. Does this happen with Paul macCartney or Ringo?

If you were old enough during the 80s you know MJ drew crowds (around the world) that Elvis and the Beatles could only dream of.

Everone knows MJ slays Elvis and Beatles in popularity WORLDWIDE. Peace

[Edited 5/1/14 20:46pm]

Redfox said:

USA

1. Elvis

2. Beatles

3. Michael

Internationally:

1. Beatles

2. Michael

3. Elvis

lol you know that's not true. In USA the media prefers Elvis and Beatles but MJ just shut down Elvis' show in Vegas. Elvis is outta there. Internationally the Beatles > MJ..c'mon now...even Asia and Africa? lol.

Michael Jackson fans can't stand being told another artist might be more popular than he is.

sexton said:

Michael Jackson fans can't stand being told another artist might be more popular than he is.

I think your are spot on with this, but I think it is true of fans of any artist. While it would be hard to try to put any other acts in the same category as Elvis, The Beatles or MJ, people all tend to think that what they like the most is the best, and other people just don't "get it". In the case of these three there are so many factors and achievements wrapped into their success that the loyalty becomes, I guess....competitive?

And we come back to the point that all three hit the highest level of popularity possible at their respective peaks.

As far as their legacies/popularity now, it is hard to really measure. Is MJ more popular right now than Elvis or the Beatles? Hard to say really but even if he is...Elvis has been dead for 37 years and the Beatles broken up for 44 and they are still incredibly popular around the world.

But to be honest it is fun to dig into achievements and statistics and play the game sometimes. For instance, in the year after MJ died he sold an astonishing 35 million records. Pretty amazing...but as reported in Billboard magazine a year after Elvis had died, he sold about 20 million records a week for a full year (August 77 to Aug 78).

Guess, I just want to be starting something...lol.

kalelvisj said:

...but as reported in Billboard magazine a year after Elvis had died, he sold about 20 million records a week for a full year (August 77 to Aug 78).

Yeah, sure. On what fucking planet.

As for MJ fans getting dissed on the Org... it's about the only thing that props this place up.

George Strait has sold more records and had more #1's than all of them.