suga10 said:

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.

Pre-boy band. DIDN'T you say you prefer musicians?

Timmy84 said:

suga10 said:

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

Pre-boy band. DIDN'T you say you prefer musicians?

And well rounded artists.

But Michael Jackson owns the Beatles- period.

[Edited 4/3/11 11:30am]

suga10 said:

Timmy84 said:

Pre-boy band. DIDN'T you say you prefer musicians?

And well rounded artists.

Depends on what you think is "well rounded".

Ok so just to be fun.

List all of the reasons why the Beatles are better than Michael Jackson.

suga10 said:

Ok so just to be fun.

List all of the reasons why the Beatles are better than Michael Jackson.

Fuck that better than shit. They're both great. End of story.

Dewrede said:

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]

dont say that out loud....she might buy your neighborhood and kick you out

Artistically? The Beatles

Promotional and visually: MJ

Slut: Madonna

And for this arguement to be even close shows hor horribly off-balanced the visitors to this site has become. Come on folks, I hate the Beatles but still acknowledge their legacy. Used to be a time this forum would demand respect. Now it's just a joke full of youngens with zero perspective or knowledge of history. There, I said it.

sosgemini said:

Artistically? The Beatles

Promotional and visually: MJ

Slut: Madonna

And for this arguement to be even close shows hor horribly off-balanced the visitors to this site has become. Come on folks, I hate the Beatles but still acknowledge their legacy. Used to be a time this forum would demand respect. Now it's just a joke full of youngens with zero perspective or knowledge of history. There, I said it.

Yes The Beatles were talented- I acknowledge it- but I hate how they get praised as if they're the gods of music.

The Rolling Stones helf their own against the Beatles as well.

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.

You forget the Beach Boys when discussing the Beatles. I still don't think the Beach Boys get any real recognition for what they accomplish in the business. The Beatles did give them credit but that was overlooked by rock music snobs.

suga10 said:

The Rolling Stones helf their own against the Beatles as well.

They weren't really doing anything different than other groups like Paul Butterfield or Fleetwood Mac, which was basically a British version of the blues records from the USA that they heard.

If we're talking about songwriters, Lennon McCartney.

If we're talking about vocalists & dancers, Michael.

MickyDolenz said:

suga10 said:

The Rolling Stones helf their own against the Beatles as well.

They weren't really doing anything different than other groups like Paul Butterfield or Fleetwood Mac, which was basically a British version of the blues records from the USA that they heard.

Thank you. I like the Stones too but there were other bands that were just as good like the ones mentioned and other groups such as Them and The Who and The Kinks (and those groups' own reputations put together would've made the Stones seem like schoolboys. ).

The Beatles and the Stones- brought forth the first British Invasion in music. Then the second wave started happening again in the early 80s with New Wave- groups like Duran Duran kind of started it off.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

They weren't really doing anything different than other groups like Paul Butterfield or Fleetwood Mac, which was basically a British version of the blues records from the USA that they heard.

Thank you. I like the Stones too but there were other bands that were just as good like the ones mentioned and other groups such as Them and The Who and The Kinks (and those groups' own reputations put together would've made the Stones seem like schoolboys. ).

When The Beatles released Sgt Pepper, The Stones decided to do Satanic Majesties. As far as his performing style goes, Mick Jagger was influenced by James Brown too.

suga10 said:

The Beatles and the Stones- brought forth the first British Invasion in music. Then the second wave started happening again in the early 80s with New Wave- groups like Duran Duran kind of started it off.

If you're not in the USA, I don't think that really means anything. There was no British Invasion in South America or Africa, at least not of the musical type.

[Edited 4/3/11 12:08pm]

Timmy84 said:

suga10 said:

Ok so just to be fun.

List all of the reasons why the Beatles are better than Michael Jackson.

Fuck that better than shit. They're both great. End of story.

"...Ya can't just buy, ya gotta haggle !..."

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Thank you. I like the Stones too but there were other bands that were just as good like the ones mentioned and other groups such as Them and The Who and The Kinks (and those groups' own reputations put together would've made the Stones seem like schoolboys. ).

When The Beatles released Sgt Pepper, The Stones decided to do Satanic Majesties. As far as his performing style goes, Mick Jagger was influenced by James Brown too.

AND Tina Turner. I thought Mick was hot when he was moving like that. Even if it appeared he was having seizures onstage.

Shango said:

Timmy84 said:

Fuck that better than shit. They're both great. End of story.

"...Ya can't just buy, ya gotta haggle !..."

Militant said:

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.

Let's see, Michael was basically a puppet during his Motown years (like most Motown artists) so of course he had lots of time to tour, him and his brothers just did what they were told. I will grant you that Michael's tours earned a lot more money but you have to remember that in the Beatles time there weren't big tours like we got later on. I think it's safe to say that if the Beatles had launched a widescale tour in the late '60s it would have been extremely successful.

On Triumph three of the songs have no writing input by Michael and he is given sole credit for only one of them that's hardly "produced and written almost solely by MJ." There was a lot of input by other people on that album.

Um, Michael wasn't very involved in the Victory album, didn't he contribute to less than half of it? Stop exaggerating.

So, Michael's accomplishments for the whole of 1985 was one cheesy song? Compare that to any year of the Beatles circa 1963-1969 and they accomplished tons more. Number one hits in every year plus at least one album (often two) that were loaded with classic songs.

If you are counting Captain EO as one of Michael's better accomplishments go ahead but A Hard Day's Night, Help! and Yellow Submarine are light years ahead of it.

How about cover songs? The Beatles are one of the most covered acts in music history, that can hardly be said about Michael.

I'm not a big fan of either artist but you seem hopelessly biased and incapable of being objective about this. My original point was that the Beatles crammed a ton of music into their careeer while Michael, especially the adult Michael, released albums fairly sporadically.

MickyDolenz said:

suga10 said:

The Beatles and the Stones- brought forth the first British Invasion in music. Then the second wave started happening again in the early 80s with New Wave- groups like Duran Duran kind of started it off.

If you're not in the USA, I don't think that really means anything. There was no British Invasion in South America or Africa, at least not of the musical type.

[Edited 4/3/11 12:08pm]

Didn't we come up with that name? "British Invasion".

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

If you're not in the USA, I don't think that really means anything. There was no British Invasion in South America or Africa, at least not of the musical type.

[Edited 4/3/11 12:08pm]

Didn't we come up with that name? "British Invasion".

Yeah, it was basically a play on words from the war between Great Britian & the US colonies centuries ago. Remember Paul Revere with "The British are coming!".

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Didn't we come up with that name? "British Invasion".

Yeah, it was basically a play on words from the war between Great Britian & the US colonies centuries ago. Remember Paul Revere with "The British are coming!".

rialb said:

How about cover songs? The Beatles are one of the most covered acts in music history, that can hardly be said about Michael.

That's true. Mike's songs haven't been covered much. The ones that have been remade the most are Motown era, and those weren't written by him.

1. Ludwig van Beethoven

2.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Mozart

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Vivaldi

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

300. The Beatles

301. Prince

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

600. Tie Britney Spears/MJ/Maddona/NKOTB

[Edited 4/3/11 12:36pm]

[Edited 4/3/11 12:48pm]

rialb said:

I'm not a big fan of either artist but you seem hopelessly biased and incapable of being objective about this.

Whoomp there it is. This forum is like fresh flesh to a zombie. They keep coming and coming and taking control of this place.

V10LETBLUES said:

NKOTB

This is like saying Pat Boone is more of an influence than Little Richard. The New Kids were put together by Maurice Starr as a white clone of New Edition. That's why they were named "New Kids On The Block", because they were also from Boston like NE.

This is a bit arbitrary but let's compare when they were most influential. The Beatles' influence was most strongly felt in the '60s and '70s. Michael was most influential in the '80s and '90s. If you had to pick an era which was greater? The '60s/'70s or the '80s/'90s? I suspect your answer has a lot to do with your age but for me the '60s/'70s are clearly superior to the '80s/'90s.

MickyDolenz said:

V10LETBLUES said:

NKOTB

This is like saying Pat Boone is more of an influence than Little Richard. The New Kids were put together by Maurice Starr as a white clone of New Edition. That's why they were named "New Kids On The Block", because they were also from Boston like NE.

Ohh it's joke..

V10LETBLUES said:

1. Ludwig van Beethoven

2.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Mozart

.[Edited 4/3/11 12:48pm]

Wtf you got it wrong from the beginning!