musicjunky318 said:

vainandy said:

Yeah, but that's two people. Go out on a street corner and ask some black folks of any age....Michael Jackson or The Beatles?....and see what answer you get.

Oh I know what answer I'll get. You don't have to ask me that. We'll say Michael but the reality is we aren't the only people on the planet. This is a different discussion.

If you asked the black community, Aretha Franklin or Madonna, who do you think would win? Ciccone wouldn't have a chance in hell. However, if you polled England, if you polled Brazil, if you polled Japan, and then add it up, Madonna is dominant.

And that's what I'm trying to get people to understand. It wasn't until recently did I begin to truly understand the scope of the Beatles impact but after doing research on their achievements it's an undoubted fact. They are the #1 act in the world. From the U.S., all over Asia, the entire European continent, South America, Australia, they are unrivaled. MJ only defeats them in African markets. They're billions and billions of people on this earth.

Thing is as far as worldwide figures go if you wanna compare them, Michael and the Beatles are neck in neck. That's a good thing to consider though. Then again few solo performers became as big in pop culture as Michael. Elvis was to a certain degree pre-satelite but Michael's iconic status overtook him in the markets he (Elvis) once dominated. That said, I know young people who are fans of all three, which is rare.

trueiopian said:

Now you're just making excuses. Once again, I was comparing the two because they were released around the same time. But if you want to make the 1 and Number Ones comparison go right ahead. The Beatles still sold more. Another excuse... waits for it ...

Excuses?

[img:$uid]http://i.imgur.com/wYkg8.jpg[/img:$uid]

It's a bad comparison. Once you come to this realization then you can finally move on.

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

Oh I know what answer I'll get. You don't have to ask me that. We'll say Michael but the reality is we aren't the only people on the planet. This is a different discussion.

If you asked the black community, Aretha Franklin or Madonna, who do you think would win? Ciccone wouldn't have a chance in hell. However, if you polled England, if you polled Brazil, if you polled Japan, and then add it up, Madonna is dominant.

And that's what I'm trying to get people to understand. It wasn't until recently did I begin to truly understand the scope of the Beatles impact but after doing research on their achievements it's an undoubted fact. They are the #1 act in the world. From the U.S., all over Asia, the entire European continent, South America, Australia, they are unrivaled. MJ only defeats them in African markets. They're billions and billions of people on this earth.

Thing is as far as worldwide figures go if you wanna compare them, Michael and the Beatles are neck in neck. That's a good thing to consider though. Then again few solo performers became as big in pop culture as Michael. Elvis was to a certain degree pre-satelite but Michael's iconic status overtook him in the markets he (Elvis) once dominated. That said, I know young people who are fans of all three, which is rare.

There's a considerable gap between #1 and #2 as far as sales are concerned. The fame battle is closer but which ever way you slice it the Beatles are triumphant.

Elvis isn't even in a contest with them. It sickens me how much he's been gased up.

musicjunky318 said:

Timmy84 said:

Thing is as far as worldwide figures go if you wanna compare them, Michael and the Beatles are neck in neck. That's a good thing to consider though. Then again few solo performers became as big in pop culture as Michael. Elvis was to a certain degree pre-satelite but Michael's iconic status overtook him in the markets he (Elvis) once dominated. That said, I know young people who are fans of all three, which is rare.

There's a considerable gap between #1 and #2 as far as sales are concerned. The fame battle is closer but which ever way you slice it the Beatles are triumphant.

Elvis isn't even in a contest with them. It sickens me how much he's been gased up.

I admit, the media ass-kissing Elvis is sick, considering they DID dog him during the last years of his life. Now they wanna act as if they loved his ass (which is a lie). The media oversaturation of Elvis is sick, but it doesn't stop me from at least admiring him somewhat. That said, he don't have as big of an impact as Michael and the Beatles. Hell Little Richard is a bigger global figure than Elvis now.

Unholyalliance said:

trueiopian said:

Now you're just making excuses. Once again, I was comparing the two because they were released around the same time. But if you want to make the 1 and Number Ones comparison go right ahead. The Beatles still sold more. Another excuse... waits for it ...

Excuses?

It's a bad comparison. Once you come to this realization then you can finally move on.

So now two compilations is a bad comparison?

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

There's a considerable gap between #1 and #2 as far as sales are concerned. The fame battle is closer but which ever way you slice it the Beatles are triumphant.

Elvis isn't even in a contest with them. It sickens me how much he's been gased up.

I admit, the media ass-kissing Elvis is sick, considering they DID dog him during the last years of his life. Now they wanna act as if they loved his ass (which is a lie). The media oversaturation of Elvis is sick, but it doesn't stop me from at least admiring him somewhat. That said, he don't have as big of an impact as Michael and the Beatles. Hell Little Richard is a bigger global figure than Elvis now.

I wish this were true

trueiopian said:

Timmy84 said:

I admit, the media ass-kissing Elvis is sick, considering they DID dog him during the last years of his life. Now they wanna act as if they loved his ass (which is a lie). The media oversaturation of Elvis is sick, but it doesn't stop me from at least admiring him somewhat. That said, he don't have as big of an impact as Michael and the Beatles. Hell Little Richard is a bigger global figure than Elvis now.

I wish this were true

Yeah I was just flubbing.

[Edited 1/26/11 19:57pm]

trueiopian said:

vainandy said:

Yeah, but that's two people. Go out on a street corner and ask some black folks of any age....Michael Jackson or The Beatles?....and see what answer you get.

That's like asking them Luther Vandross or Johnny Cash?

It's not a matter of who they like more, it's a matter of who they are more knowledgeable of and more aware of. Like I said in an earlier post, don't ask them who they like better, ask them to simply list some songs from both Michael Jackson and The Beatles. They don't even have to like the songs, all they have to do is list the songs. That will show you who they have been more exposed to or who they have even cared to be exposed to more. I guarantee you, they could name more Michael Jackson songs than they could name Beatles songs and that goes for a lot of white people also. The 1980s made Michael Jackson huge and whether you liked him or not, you definately knew who he was and you sure as hell couldn't escape his songs because they absolutely wore them out on the radio and video channels for years. The media has worn the damn "Thriller" album out so much that I could care less if I ever hear half of it again.

Being a bigger pop culture icon does not mean that person or artist is more talented than any other person or artist. I think that's why Beatles fans get so bent out of shape when people list folks like Michael Jackson above them. They are definately more talented than Michael Jackson but the list is not rated on talent, it's rated on pop culture. Hell, you have pop culture icons these days that are reality TV show stars who have absolutely no talent whatsoever. And why the hell is someone like Paris Hilton a celebrity anyway? The bitch doesn't sing, dance, act, rap, draw, paint, etc. She has no talent whatsoever and is not an entertainer of any genre but yet she's a pop culture icon these days and a big one.

^ That's because that's what they prefer. I mean of course people are gonna choose the obvious. But I like those who think OUTSIDE the box.

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

There's a considerable gap between #1 and #2 as far as sales are concerned. The fame battle is closer but which ever way you slice it the Beatles are triumphant.

Elvis isn't even in a contest with them. It sickens me how much he's been gased up.

I admit, the media ass-kissing Elvis is sick, considering they DID dog him during the last years of his life. Now they wanna act as if they loved his ass (which is a lie). The media oversaturation of Elvis is sick, but it doesn't stop me from at least admiring him somewhat. That said, he don't have as big of an impact as Michael and the Beatles. Hell Madonna Little Richard is a bigger global figure than Elvis now.

musicjunky318 said:

Timmy84 said:

I admit, the media ass-kissing Elvis is sick, considering they DID dog him during the last years of his life. Now they wanna act as if they loved his ass (which is a lie). The media oversaturation of Elvis is sick, but it doesn't stop me from at least admiring him somewhat. That said, he don't have as big of an impact as Michael and the Beatles. Hell Madonna Little Richard is a bigger global figure than Elvis now.

Everyone knows Madonna's a global figure lol that's not even a question.

Timmy84 said:

^ That's because that's what they prefer. I mean of course people are gonna choose the obvious. But I like those who think OUTSIDE the box.

It's not even a matter of who you prefer. Being a bigger pop icon than someone else means that damn near everyone not only has heard of you, but also has been exposed to you whether they like your music or not.

Perfect example. I can't stand that little goodie two shoes Shitney Houston but she's definately a pop icon and I can list several of songs even though I can't stand her or those songs because I have had massive exposure to them for years played on the radio between songs by other artists that I do like.

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

Everyone knows Madonna's a global figure lol that's not even a question.

My point is she shits on Presley too as far as fame. People act like it's a sin to say that but it's the truth.

She hasn't outsold him though.

vainandy said:

trueiopian said:

That's like asking them Luther Vandross or Johnny Cash?

It's not a matter of who they like more, it's a matter of who they are more knowledgeable of and more aware of. Like I said in an earlier post, don't ask them who they like better, ask them to simply list some songs from both Michael Jackson and The Beatles. They don't even have to like the songs, all they have to do is list the songs. That will show you who they have been more exposed to or who they have even cared to be exposed to more. I guarantee you, they could name more Michael Jackson songs than they could name Beatles songs and that goes for a lot of white people also. The 1980s made Michael Jackson huge and whether you liked him or not, you definately knew who he was and you sure as hell couldn't escape his songs because they absolutely wore them out on the radio and video channels for years. The media has worn the damn "Thriller" album out so much that I could care less if I ever hear half of it again.

Being a bigger pop culture icon does not mean that person or artist is more talented than any other person or artist. I think that's why Beatles fans get so bent out of shape when people list folks like Michael Jackson above them. They are definately more talented than Michael Jackson but the list is not rated on talent, it's rated on pop culture. Hell, you have pop culture icons these days that are reality TV show stars who have absolutely no talent whatsoever. And why the hell is someone like Paris Hilton a celebrity anyway? The bitch doesn't sing, dance, act, rap, draw, paint, etc. She has no talent whatsoever and is not an entertainer of any genre but yet she's a pop culture icon these days and a big one.

I understand it's not about who they like more. It's about who they were exposed to more. I guarantee you more than 90% of them will say MJ simply because they grew up with his music playing on the radio all the time or the fact that their parents were fans of MJ/J5. But I highly doubt that would go for white people too.

I never said being a pop culture icon makes that person talented. I already stated that MJ is a bigger pop culture icon than the Beatles. There's no denying that.

vainandy said:

Timmy84 said:

^ That's because that's what they prefer. I mean of course people are gonna choose the obvious. But I like those who think OUTSIDE the box.

It's not even a matter of who you prefer. Being a bigger pop icon than someone else means that damn near everyone not only has heard of you, but also has been exposed to you whether they like your music or not.

Perfect example. I can't stand that little goodie two shoes Shitney Houston but she's definately a pop icon and I can list several of songs even though I can't stand her or those songs because I have had massive exposure to them for years played on the radio between songs by other artists that I do like.

Since when was Whitney Elizabeth a goodie two shoes? Are you confusing her with Weavonce Giselle?

musicjunky318 said:

Timmy84 said:

Everyone knows Madonna's a global figure lol that's not even a question.

My point is she shits on Presley too as far as fame. People act like it's a sin to say that but it's the truth.

She hasn't outsold him though.

Yeah I know.

musicjunky318 said:

vainandy said:

It's not even a matter of who you prefer. Being a bigger pop icon than someone else means that damn near everyone not only has heard of you, but also has been exposed to you whether they like your music or not.

Perfect example. I can't stand that little goodie two shoes Shitney Houston but she's definately a pop icon and I can list several of songs even though I can't stand her or those songs because I have had massive exposure to them for years played on the radio between songs by other artists that I do like.

Since when was Whitney Elizabeth a goodie two shoes? Are you confusing her with Weavonce Giselle?

Hah since she started. See, Andy has blamed Whitney for killing the funk for being the norm in R&B in '85. Since then he has attacked her. It's a specialty of his lol I don't know why but it is.

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

Since when was Whitney Elizabeth a goodie two shoes? Are you confusing her with Weavonce Giselle?

Hah since she started. See, Andy has blamed Whitney for killing the funk for being the norm in R&B in '85. Since then he has attacked her. It's a specialty of his lol I don't know why but it is.

LMAO.

Shit if anyone was ever the opposite of one it's Nippy. All of that black American princess crap was nothing but a facade. Whitney's from East Orange, NJ. She is HOOOD as they come.

Everyone always wants to blame Bobby. She was ghetto before she knew what a Bobby Brown was.

Do you honestly think there will ever be another female singer as popular as Madonna? I truthfully do not think so...

The only music-stars that give her competition are Elvis, Michael, and The Beatles...NO ONE ELSE AT ALL!!! Certainly no females that's for sure.

Hopefully, someone with talent eventually does

musicjunky318 said:

Timmy84 said:

Hah since she started. See, Andy has blamed Whitney for killing the funk for being the norm in R&B in '85. Since then he has attacked her. It's a specialty of his lol I don't know why but it is.

LMAO.

Shit if anyone was ever the opposite of one it's Nippy. All of that black American princess crap was nothing but a facade. Whitney's from East Orange, NJ. She is HOOOD as they come.

Everyone always wants to blame Bobby. She was ghetto before she knew what a Bobby Brown was.

Yeah that's common knowledge now. But it was an open secret growing up so I knew she wasn't what she appeared.

ratethis99 said:

Do you honestly think there will ever be another female singer as popular as Madonna? I truthfully do not think so...

The only music-stars that give her competition are Elvis, Michael, and The Beatles...NO ONE ELSE AT ALL!!! Certainly no females that's for sure.

Ciara's back in the studio. She was quoted as saying this is the record that's gonna BLOW HER UP, and she means past Madonna level.

Get ready. Yal ain't seen nothin yet.

musicjunky318 said:

ratethis99 said:

Do you honestly think there will ever be another female singer as popular as Madonna? I truthfully do not think so...

The only music-stars that give her competition are Elvis, Michael, and The Beatles...NO ONE ELSE AT ALL!!! Certainly no females that's for sure.

Ciara's back in the studio. She was quoted as saying this is the record that's gonna BLOW HER UP, and she means past Madonna level.

Get ready. Yal ain't seen nothin yet.

Oh yeah she's gonna blow up something alright. The rings at Barnum Bailey's circus.

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

Ciara's back in the studio. She was quoted as saying this is the record that's gonna BLOW HER UP, and she means past Madonna level.

Get ready. Yal ain't seen nothin yet.

Oh yeah she's gonna blow up something alright. The rings at Barnum Bailey's circus.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

trueiopian said:

Unholyalliance said:

Excuses?

It's a bad comparison. Once you come to this realization then you can finally move on.

So now two compilations is a bad comparison?

I was the one who was comparing two compilations. You were comparing a compilation with a studio album. Hell, even Madonna's Immaculate Collection has sold much better than any of her studio albums and she's still alive.

Unholyalliance said:

trueiopian said:

So now two compilations is a bad comparison?

I was the one who was comparing two compilations. You were comparing a compilation with a studio album. Hell, even Madonna's Immaculate Collection has sold much better than any of her studio albums and she's still alive.

I understand. If you read my post I said you can compare the Beatle's compilation to MJ's and the Beatle's still sold more.

and I don't care if Madonna's compilation sold more than her studio albums

trueiopian said:

MickyDolenz said:

I'm black, and the Fabs were one of the first groups I liked. I even have Magical Mystery Tour (their Graffiti Bridge) on DVD. I used to have it on videotape before that. Also, if blacks don't care about the group, how come so many of them covered Beatle songs?

Michael Jackson included!

I'm sure the same people that think the Beatles made little impact on black people/music are the same ones that think Bob Dylan made little impact too.

Here's some albums of all Beatle songs

There's a Beatles reference in Erykah's video at 1:56 and John Lennon & Yoko Ono at 3:40. The Hey Ya! video is based on the US debut of The Beatles appearing on the Ed Sullivan Show.

^Is that Gayle in the Honey video? LOL

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

Since when was Whitney Elizabeth a goodie two shoes? Are you confusing her with Weavonce Giselle?

Hah since she started. See, Andy has blamed Whitney for killing the funk for being the norm in R&B in '85. Since then he has attacked her. It's a specialty of his lol I don't know why but it is.

Hell, she's an entertainer isn't she. Well, her music is the furthest thing from entertainment so she's got to entertain me some kind of way. Just making her earn her entertainer title.

vainandy said:

Timmy84 said:

Hah since she started. See, Andy has blamed Whitney for killing the funk for being the norm in R&B in '85. Since then he has attacked her. It's a specialty of his lol I don't know why but it is.

Hell, she's an entertainer isn't she. Well, her music is the furthest thing from entertainment so she's got to entertain me some kind of way. Just making her earn her entertainer title.

I thought she would be more of a jokester to you. You know, since she makes you laugh.