trueiopian said:

DEAD at seeingvoices and his failed impersonation of misdiscover

Unholyalliance said:

That's because you have none to post.

I have plenty to post but I won't waste my time pulling up stats on them. You and I both know that the Beatles success eclispes MJ's. But your standom is clouding your senses A pity.

Impersonation of Misdiscover ...when and where? you failed to prove me wrong so you started to say silly and irrelevant things like that ...but now i'm gonna quote midiscover....stay mad btw....midiscover is far more interesting and intelligent than you, even tho i don't agree with him on many things , he is far more interesting than you Miss trueiopain

trueiopian said:

I have plenty to post but I won't waste my time pulling up stats on them. You and I both know that the Beatles success eclispes MJ's. But your standom is clouding your senses A pity.

The only real pity is that you lack all these "stats" and info you claim to possess. You and I both know if you had them you would have posted them without fail. You have presented an argument to which you have no means of being able to back up or support. The whole "Oh I'm too busy to be bothered..." is an easy cop out method posters use when this happens. So, instead, you are trying divert the attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle me to cover up the fact that your argument is full of FAIL.

[Edited 1/27/11 12:57pm]

Unholyalliance said:

trueiopian said:

I have plenty to post but I won't waste my time pulling up stats on them. You and I both know that the Beatles success eclispes MJ's. But your standom is clouding your senses A pity.

The only real pity is that you lack all these "stats" and info you claim to possess. You and I both know if you had them you would have posted them without fail. You have presented an argument to which you have no means of being able to back up or support. The whole "Oh I'm too busy to be bothered..." is an easy cop out method posters use when this happens. So, instead, you are trying divert the attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle me to cover up the fact that your argument is full of FAIL.

[Edited 1/27/11 12:57pm]

Not to mention accusing me of of impersonating another member and going off-topic.

Members do that when they have nothing to add...or when they fail to prove their points.

Unholyalliance said:

trueiopian said:

I have plenty to post but I won't waste my time pulling up stats on them. You and I both know that the Beatles success eclispes MJ's. But your standom is clouding your senses A pity.

The only real pity is that you lack all these "stats" and info you claim to possess. You and I both know if you had them you would have posted them without fail. You have presented an argument to which you have no means of being able to back up or support. The whole "Oh I'm too busy to be bothered..." is an easy cop out method posters use when this happens. So, instead, you are trying divert the attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle me to cover up the fact that your argument is full of FAIL.

[Edited 1/27/11 12:57pm]

Don't worry, I got 'em!

Seriously, STFU and do some research. Chart yourself over to the UKMix forum and look in the Beatles and MJ threads, their market-by-market charts runs, official certifications, and other published sales are ALL archived.

Michael Jackson Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...mp;start=0

The Beatles Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...hp?t=26913

Unholyalliance said:

trueiopian said:

I have plenty to post but I won't waste my time pulling up stats on them. You and I both know that the Beatles success eclispes MJ's. But your standom is clouding your senses A pity.

The only real pity is that you lack all these "stats" and info you claim to possess. You and I both know if you had them you would have posted them without fail. You have presented an argument to which you have no means of being able to back up or support. The whole "Oh I'm too busy to be bothered..." is an easy cop out method posters use when this happens. So, instead, you are trying divert the attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle me to cover up the fact that your argument is full of FAIL.

[Edited 1/27/11 12:57pm]

Wow. You seem truly touched by all of this

It's no cop out. The Beatles sold more than him. I don't find it necessary to dig out stats and post an already obvious fact. They're the best selling band/artists in the world. You're just beating around the bush and I'm sure your next excuse will be "there's no way of determining worldwide stats". Yet MJ stans are the first to post his album/single sales in any debate. The irony!

musicjunky318 said:

Unholyalliance said:

The only real pity is that you lack all these "stats" and info you claim to possess. You and I both know if you had them you would have posted them without fail. You have presented an argument to which you have no means of being able to back up or support. The whole "Oh I'm too busy to be bothered..." is an easy cop out method posters use when this happens. So, instead, you are trying divert the attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle me to cover up the fact that your argument is full of FAIL.

[Edited 1/27/11 12:57pm]

Don't worry, I got 'em!

Seriously, STFU and do some research. Chart yourself over to the UKMix forum and look in the Beatles and MJ threads, their market-by-market charts runs, official certifications, and other published sales are ALL archived.

Michael Jackson Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...mp;start=0

The Beatles Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...hp?t=26913

OKAY!

Watch him blame the recession or some bullshit. Mind you this is the same guy that took the time to post Janet's janet album stats and deemed it as factual because he got it from some forum but watch him bait those two threads as incorrect.

musicjunky318 said:

Unholyalliance said:

The only real pity is that you lack all these "stats" and info you claim to possess. You and I both know if you had them you would have posted them without fail. You have presented an argument to which you have no means of being able to back up or support. The whole "Oh I'm too busy to be bothered..." is an easy cop out method posters use when this happens. So, instead, you are trying divert the attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle me to cover up the fact that your argument is full of FAIL.

[Edited 1/27/11 12:57pm]

Don't worry, I got 'em!

Seriously, STFU and do some research. Chart yourself over to the UKMix forum and look in the Beatles and MJ threads, their market-by-market charts runs, official certifications, and other published sales are ALL archived.

Michael Jackson Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...mp;start=0

The Beatles Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...hp?t=26913

Those are the most accurate sales figures I've seen of them both. I'm amazed some people thought his Motown albums did more than five million worldwide lol

seeingvoices12 said:

Unholyalliance said:

The only real pity is that you lack all these "stats" and info you claim to possess. You and I both know if you had them you would have posted them without fail. You have presented an argument to which you have no means of being able to back up or support. The whole "Oh I'm too busy to be bothered..." is an easy cop out method posters use when this happens. So, instead, you are trying divert the attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle me to cover up the fact that your argument is full of FAIL.

[Edited 1/27/11 12:57pm]

Not to mention accusing me of of impersonating another member and going off-topic.

Members do that when they have nothing to add...or when they fail to prove their points.

It's a classic case of an ad hominem argument.

[Edited 1/27/11 14:24pm]

Homer (playing with Beatles bobbleheads): Look at me, I'm Brian Epstein! Now I'm Michael Jackson. *in soft voice* I own all your songs, losers! ~hee hee~

SherryJackson said:

Homer (playing with Beatles bobbleheads): Look at me, I'm Brian Epstein! Now I'm Michael Jackson. *in soft voice* I own all your songs, losers! ~hee hee~

There was more in that catalog than the Beatles lol but you see how the media turned it into? To be honest, I wish it was Elvis' music, then y'all will all get along.

Unholyalliance said:

seeingvoices12 said:

It's a classic case of an ad hominem argument.

musicjunky318 said:

Don't worry, I got 'em!

Seriously, STFU and do some research. Chart yourself over to the UKMix forum and look in the Beatles and MJ threads, their market-by-market charts runs, official certifications, and other published sales are ALL archived.

Michael Jackson Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...mp;start=0

The Beatles Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...hp?t=26913

Thanks for the links, but I also frequent that site, including those particular threads, as well as quite a few others. You aren't showing me anything new. I also recommend checking out the Beatles v. MJ v. Elvis thread there if you haven't done so already. =) It was quite informative.

[Edited 1/27/11 14:24pm]

Yea informative that they CRUSH him all over the planet.

I'm gonna end this argument it's pointless. The shit is right in front of you and you floons still don't get it.

seeingvoices12 said:

Unholyalliance said:

The only real pity is that you lack all these "stats" and info you claim to possess. You and I both know if you had them you would have posted them without fail. You have presented an argument to which you have no means of being able to back up or support. The whole "Oh I'm too busy to be bothered..." is an easy cop out method posters use when this happens. So, instead, you are trying divert the attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle me to cover up the fact that your argument is full of FAIL.

[Edited 1/27/11 12:57pm]

Not to mention accusing me of of impersonating another member and going off-topic.

Members do that when they have nothing to add...or when they fail to prove their points.

Did I stutter?

You came in here just a little too late with lines I've already heard. Sorry, maybe next time.

musicjunky318 said:

Unholyalliance said:

Yea informative that they CRUSH him all over the planet.

I'm gonna end this argument it's pointless. The shit is right in front of you and you floons still don't get it.

Sorry, but you have either got to be just doggedly stubborn or a complete idiot. I'm gonna be nice and say it's the first one. What is so difficult to understand about sales vs. pop culture impact?

[Edited 1/27/11 14:53pm]

SEANMAN said:

musicjunky318 said:

Yea informative that they CRUSH him all over the planet.

I'm gonna end this argument it's pointless. The shit is right in front of you and you floons still don't get it.

No offensem but you have either got to be just doggedly stubborn or a complete idiot. I'm gonna be nice and say it's the first one. What is so difficult to understand about sales vs. pop culture impact?

What's your definition of pop culture impact?

musicjunky318 said:

SEANMAN said:

No offensem but you have either got to be just doggedly stubborn or a complete idiot. I'm gonna be nice and say it's the first one. What is so difficult to understand about sales vs. pop culture impact?

What's your definition of pop culture impact?

^^and this was just a couple of years ago. Would Paul and Ringo be able to reduce a grown man to this after announcing a tour?

^^as you can see, this is world-wide fandemonium, and it was still happening until the day he died. The fever his fans had for him was not a thing of the past.

Children AND adults still look up to an emulate him. If that's not the ultimate indication of pop culture icon status, then I don't know what is.

His influence is all over top 40 radio. His legacy is in music and video every where you look. For years, musicians have been trying to top "Thriller" in the video dept. It won't happen. You tell me what stamp the Beatles has made on young and old, black and white, rich and poor, foreign and domestic, the way Michael Jackson has. And don't bring up sales, because you've done that ad-nauseum, and it still means nothing as far as pop culture goes. Do people dress up like the Beatles for Halloween? Do the Beatles have awards named after them? Are dozens of hot artists of the day sampling their music?

[Edited 1/27/11 15:07pm]

SEANMAN said:

musicjunky318 said:

What's your definition of pop culture impact?

^^and this was just a couple of years ago. Would Paul and Ringo be able to reduce a grown man to this after announcing a tour?

^^as you can see, this is world-wide fandemonium, and it was still happening until the day he died. The fever his fans had for him was not a thing of the past.

Children AND adults still look up to an emulate him. If that's not the ultimate indication of pop culture icon status, then I don't know what is.

His influence is all over top 40 radio. His legacy is in music and video every where you look. For years, musicians have been trying to top "Thriller" in the video dept. It won't happen. You tell me what stamp the Beatles has made on young and old, black and white, rich and poor, foreign and domestic, the way Michael Jackson has. And don't bring up sales, because you've done that ad-nauseum. Do people dress up like the Beatles for Halloween? Do the Beatles have awards named after them? Are dozens of hot artists of the day sampling their music?

Yea and? So by that theory my Britney eclipses the Beatles too right cause I've seen people 7 to 30 dress up as her for Halloween. I've seen the schoolgirl outfit, the snake, the diamond-flesh suit, the stripper-gear several times, you name it.

And more artists in the industry cover more Beatle songs than anyone else in history.

[Edited 1/27/11 15:15pm]

musicjunky318 said:

SEANMAN said:

^^and this was just a couple of years ago. Would Paul and Ringo be able to reduce a grown man to this after announcing a tour?

^^as you can see, this is world-wide fandemonium, and it was still happening until the day he died. The fever his fans had for him was not a thing of the past.

Children AND adults still look up to an emulate him. If that's not the ultimate indication of pop culture icon status, then I don't know what is.

His influence is all over top 40 radio. His legacy is in music and video every where you look. For years, musicians have been trying to top "Thriller" in the video dept. It won't happen. You tell me what stamp the Beatles has made on young and old, black and white, rich and poor, foreign and domestic, the way Michael Jackson has. And don't bring up sales, because you've done that ad-nauseum. Do people dress up like the Beatles for Halloween? Do the Beatles have awards named after them? Are dozens of hot artists of the day sampling their music?

Yea and? So by that theory my Britney eclipses the Beatles too right cause I've seen people 7 to 30 dress up as her for Halloween. I've seen the schoolgirl outfit, the snake, the diamond-flesh suit, the stripper-gear several times, you name it.

Britney? Ha! Lordy, I'm just gonna chalk it up to you being too young to experience MJ when he was in his prime, and whatever you know about The Beatles is because of what you've been told. As I said, Michael has influenced EVERYONE. People in the industry STILL emulate, sample and remake him. STILL. Did you not see that grown man weeping because of the mere fact that Michael had announced his concert? Not many artists can do that just on the mere announcement that they are putting on a concert. Babies, the elderly, and everyone in between are familiar with him and know his name--that is the mark of his pop icon status, not pushing a zillion units.

musicjunky318 said:

Unholyalliance said:

The only real pity is that you lack all these "stats" and info you claim to possess. You and I both know if you had them you would have posted them without fail. You have presented an argument to which you have no means of being able to back up or support. The whole "Oh I'm too busy to be bothered..." is an easy cop out method posters use when this happens. So, instead, you are trying divert the attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle me to cover up the fact that your argument is full of FAIL.

[Edited 1/27/11 12:57pm]

Don't worry, I got 'em!

Seriously, STFU and do some research. Chart yourself over to the UKMix forum and look in the Beatles and MJ threads, their market-by-market charts runs, official certifications, and other published sales are ALL archived.

Michael Jackson Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...mp;start=0

The Beatles Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...hp?t=26913

wow you're reeeeeaaally gullible if you believe these bogus stats for MJ sales, smh. THRILLER - 65 million worldwide, 37million in US. Damn it sold 40 mil in 1984! so in almost 30 yrs Thriller has only sold 25 ml more albums worldwide. You believe that. Then you may as well believe Elvis has sold a billion records lol. They have that great lie charted somewhere.

These folks have often hiked up the Beatles and Elvis sales and watered down MJ's. and its laughable cause no inaccuracies, no lies, nothing they do will deter the massive world appeal of MJJ. Wasting their precious time.

[Edited 1/27/11 19:31pm]

mrsnet said:

musicjunky318 said:

Don't worry, I got 'em!

Seriously, STFU and do some research. Chart yourself over to the UKMix forum and look in the Beatles and MJ threads, their market-by-market charts runs, official certifications, and other published sales are ALL archived.

Michael Jackson Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...mp;start=0

The Beatles Charts & Sales History

http://www.ukmix.org/foru...hp?t=26913

wow you're reeeeeaaally gullible if you believe these bogus stats for MJ sales, smh. THRILLER - 65 million worldwide, 37million in US. Damn it sold 40 mil in 1984! so in almost 30 yrs Thriller has only sold 25 ml more albums worldwide. You believe that. Then you may as well believe Elvis has sold a billion records lol. They have that great lie charted somewhere.

These folks have often hiked up the Beatles and Elvis sales and watered down MJ's. and its laughable cause no inaccuracies, no lies, nothing they do will deter the massive world appeal of MJJ. Wasting their precious time.

[Edited 1/27/11 19:31pm]

Those stats are about as accurate as 2 + 2 = 4. No one's out to "get" MJ, that's what some of you aren't understanding. People want authentic numbers. The Beatles have sold over 100 million more albums than him and their single sales are much larger. He doesn't shit on them, Elvis is the one he shits on. The two are often confused.

musicjunky318 said:

mrsnet said:

wow you're reeeeeaaally gullible if you believe these bogus stats for MJ sales, smh. THRILLER - 65 million worldwide, 37million in US. Damn it sold 40 mil in 1984! so in almost 30 yrs Thriller has only sold 25 ml more albums worldwide. You believe that. Then you may as well believe Elvis has sold a billion records lol. They have that great lie charted somewhere.

These folks have often hiked up the Beatles and Elvis sales and watered down MJ's. and its laughable cause no inaccuracies, no lies, nothing they do will deter the massive world appeal of MJJ. Wasting their precious time.

[Edited 1/27/11 19:31pm]

Those stats are about as accurate as 2 + 2 = 4. No one's out to "get" MJ, that's what some of you aren't understanding. People want authentic numbers. The Beatles have sold over 100 million more albums than him and their single sales are much larger. He doesn't shit on them, Elvis is the one he shits on. The two are often confused.

Oh please - the US MJ hateration began after he broke all of Elvis records and bought the beatles music way back there in the 80s. Yeah people do want authentic numbers which is why I choose Guiness. Peace.

musicjunky318 said:

Yea informative that they CRUSH him all over the planet.

I'm gonna end this argument it's pointless. The shit is right in front of you and you floons still don't get it.

[img:$uid]http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/HikoTanifuga/Dumb%20Pictures/obamam-lol-y-u-mad-tho.jpg[/img:$uid]

I really don't know what is up with you and trueiopian. The other one talks big, but can't back the garbage they spew so they resort to petty name calling. You jump into a convo where it is obvious you haven't read one single word I posted, AT ALL. I dare you to go into this thread and find exactly where I stated that Michael Jackson, overall, outsold the Beatles. You know why you won't find it? Because I never said anything of the such. It's best to end this discussion here because basic reading comprehension, obviously, isn't your strong suit.

In fact...I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that The Beatles are top sellers. No one. I mean is it necessary to have to break down album sales at this point for you to be happy? Whether it's 100 million or so difference, then so what? Despite album sales, all of these acts have achieved many great things. Arguing about who is ahead of who is a waste of time as it's personal as it changes depending on where you go and who you talk to.

Though, I still don't know what album sales has to do with pop icon status. Are you trying to tie the two up by saying that because the Beatles have sold more therefore their pop icon status or influence is more far reaching than his? Do you know that is some real asinine reasoning you are putting forth there? YOU CAN NOT MEASURE INFLUENCE. This is impossible and it can not be done. I don't care how many album sales stats that you try to bring to the table. This thread is about POP CULTURE ICONS OF THE PAST 50 YEARS, not album sales of the past 50 years.

According to your own logic though, MJ's Thriller is far more reaching, influential, and popular than any other single Beatles album in existence or any other album ever created solely based on its massive album sales. Hell, even according to your logic The Bodyguard Soundtrack is even more popular, influential, and far reaching than any other album ever besides Thriller simply because it sold so much. Do you even agree with this, because this is what your argument can be summed up as.

[Edited 1/27/11 21:04pm]

Unholyalliance said:

musicjunky318 said:

Yea informative that they CRUSH him all over the planet.

I'm gonna end this argument it's pointless. The shit is right in front of you and you floons still don't get it.

[img:$uid]http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/HikoTanifuga/Dumb%20Pictures/obamam-lol-y-u-mad-tho.jpg[/img:$uid]

I really don't know what is up with you and trueiopian. The other one talks big, but can't back the garbage they spew so they resort to petty name calling. You jump into a convo where it is obvious you haven't read one single word I posted, AT ALL. I dare you to go into this thread and find exactly where I stated that Michael Jackson, overall, outsold the Beatles. You know why you won't find it? Because I never said anything of the such. It's best to end this discussion here because basic reading comprehension, obviously, isn't your strong suit.

In fact...I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that The Beatles are top sellers. No one. I mean is it necessary to have to break down album sales at this point for you to be happy? Whether it's 100 million or so difference, then so what? Despite album sales, all of these acts have achieved many great things. Arguing about who is ahead of who is a waste of time as it's personal as it changes depending on where you go and who you talk to.

Though, I still don't know what album sales has to do with pop icon status. Are you trying to tie the two up by saying that because the Beatles have sold more therefore their pop icon status or influence is more far reaching than his? Do you know that is some real asinine reasoning you are putting forth there? YOU CAN NOT MEASURE INFLUENCE. This is impossible and it can not be done. I don't care how many album sales stats that you try to bring to the table. This thread is about POP CULTURE ICONS OF THE PAST 50 YEARS, not album sales of the past 50 years.

According to your own logic though, MJ's Thriller is far more reaching, influential, and popular than any other single Beatles album in existence or any other album ever created solely based on its massive album sales. Hell, even according to your logic The Bodyguard Soundtrack is even more popular, influential, and far reaching than any other album ever besides Thriller simply because it sold so much. Do you even agree with this, because this is what your argument can be summed up as.

[Edited 1/27/11 21:04pm]

A to the Men!!!!!!!

SEANMAN said:

Are dozens of hot artists of the day sampling their music?

The Beatles have never approved their music to be sampled. Those that tried were threatened with lawsuits by Paul, George (when he was alive), & Ringo. A few have done it illegally though like the Beastie Boys on Paul's Boutique and there's a bootleg CD called "The Gray Album". The remaining members and Yoko & Olivia just recently approved their music to be downloaded. The Beatles are strict with their recordings. Remember they sued Nike in the 80's for using their recording of Revolution without permission.

MickyDolenz said:

SEANMAN said:

Are dozens of hot artists of the day sampling their music?

The Beatles have never approved their music to be sampled. Those that tried were threatened with lawsuits by Paul, George (when he was alive), & Ringo. A few have done it illegally though like the Beastie Boys on Paul's Boutique and there's a bootleg CD called "The Gray Album". The remaining members and Yoko & Olivia just recently approved their music to be downloaded. The Beatles are strict with their recordings. Remember they sued Nike in the 80's for using their recording of Revolution without permission.

Yeah, I remember that. But even without that, the guys got paid when someone COVERED their material, which is entirely different.

You can make as much money from someone COVERING you as you can from those that sample you.

And why would today's "hot artists" sample the Beatles or Michael? That would be an insult to both acts nowadays. Get the fuck outta here lol

MickyDolenz said:

Remember they sued Nike in the 80's for using their recording of Revolution without permission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ion_(song)

In 1987, "Revolution" became the first Beatles recording to be licensed for use in a television commercial. Nike paid $500,000 for the right to use the song for one year, split between recording owner Capitol-EMI and song publisher ATV Music Publishing (owned by Michael Jackson). Commercials using the song started airing in March 1987.

The three surviving Beatles, through their record company Apple, filed a lawsuit in July 1987 objecting to Nike's use of the song. The suit was aimed at Nike, its advertising agency Wieden+Kennedy, and Capitol-EMI Records. Capitol-EMI said the lawsuit was groundless because they had licensed the use of "Revolution" with the "active support and encouragement of Yoko Ono Lennon, a shareholder and director of Apple". Ono had expressed approval when the commercial was released, saying the commercial "is making John's music accessible to a new generation".

The "Revolution" lawsuit and others involving The Beatles and EMI were settled out of court in November 1989, with the terms kept secret. The financial websiteTheStreet.com included the Nike "Revolution" advertisement campaign in its list of the 100 key business events of the 20th century, as it helped "commodify dissent".

[Edited 1/27/11 22:06pm]

Unholyalliance said:

musicjunky318 said:

Yea informative that they CRUSH him all over the planet.

I'm gonna end this argument it's pointless. The shit is right in front of you and you floons still don't get it.

[img:$uid]http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/HikoTanifuga/Dumb%20Pictures/obamam-lol-y-u-mad-tho.jpg[/img:$uid]

I really don't know what is up with you and trueiopian. The other one talks big, but can't back the garbage they spew so they resort to petty name calling. You jump into a convo where it is obvious you haven't read one single word I posted, AT ALL. I dare you to go into this thread and find exactly where I stated that Michael Jackson, overall, outsold the Beatles. You know why you won't find it? Because I never said anything of the such. It's best to end this discussion here because basic reading comprehension, obviously, isn't your strong suit.

In fact...I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that The Beatles are top sellers. No one. I mean is it necessary to have to break down album sales at this point for you to be happy? Whether it's 100 million or so difference, then so what? Despite album sales, all of these acts have achieved many great things. Arguing about who is ahead of who is a waste of time as it's personal as it changes depending on where you go and who you talk to.

Though, I still don't know what album sales has to do with pop icon status. Are you trying to tie the two up by saying that because the Beatles have sold more therefore their pop icon status or influence is more far reaching than his? Do you know that is some real asinine reasoning you are putting forth there? YOU CAN NOT MEASURE INFLUENCE. This is impossible and it can not be done. I don't care how many album sales stats that you try to bring to the table. This thread is about POP CULTURE ICONS OF THE PAST 50 YEARS, not album sales of the past 50 years.

According to your own logic though, MJ's Thriller is far more reaching, influential, and popular than any other single Beatles album in existence or any other album ever created solely based on its massive album sales. Hell, even according to your logic The Bodyguard Soundtrack is even more popular, influential, and far reaching than any other album ever besides Thriller simply because it sold so much. Do you even agree with this, because this is what your argument can be summed up as.

[Edited 1/27/11 21:04pm

The Beatles beat him in influence as well. Michael Jackson was one of the artists they influenced, not the other way around.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

The Beatles have never approved their music to be sampled. Those that tried were threatened with lawsuits by Paul, George (when he was alive), & Ringo. A few have done it illegally though like the Beastie Boys on Paul's Boutique and there's a bootleg CD called "The Gray Album". The remaining members and Yoko & Olivia just recently approved their music to be downloaded. The Beatles are strict with their recordings. Remember they sued Nike in the 80's for using their recording of Revolution without permission.

Yeah, I remember that. But even without that, the guys got paid when someone COVERED their material, which is entirely different.

You can make as much money from someone COVERING you as you can from those that sample you.

And why would today's "hot artists" sample the Beatles or Michael? That would be an insult to both acts nowadays. Get the fuck outta here lol

They don't seem to be as strict with their solo material, which has been approved for sampling and used in commercials, only The Beatles.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Yeah, I remember that. But even without that, the guys got paid when someone COVERED their material, which is entirely different.

You can make as much money from someone COVERING you as you can from those that sample you.

And why would today's "hot artists" sample the Beatles or Michael? That would be an insult to both acts nowadays. Get the fuck outta here lol

They don't seem to be as strict with their solo material, which has been approved for sampling and used in commercials, only The Beatles.

Yeah.

I don't know why anyone would compare who samples who, everyone is likely to sample a Funkadelic song over the both of them.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

They don't seem to be as strict with their solo material, which has been approved for sampling and used in commercials, only The Beatles.

Yeah.

I don't know why anyone would compare who samples who, everyone is likely to sample a Funkadelic song over the both of them.

Or James Brown, before he became wise to it. Even George Michael sampled Funky Drummer in Waiting For That Day. Oddly enough, Mick Jagger & Keith Richards sued George for the same song. On printings after they won, their names "Jagger/Richards" were added to the credits and the song was retitled "Waiting For That Day/You Can't Always Get What You Want". I guess James wasn't aware of the track, because he's still not credited. The whole beat of the song is the Funky Drummer break slowed down. George even released a video explaining how he took the break and used it in the song. Then again, that's when sampling was really beginning to be noticed by the labels, lawyers & artists. It was pretty much a free for all before 1990.