TheWifey said:

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

In terms of MUSICAL INFLUENCE - The Beatles.

Their catalogue was very wide ranging. As someone else stated, they experimented A LOT within their 8 years of existence as a recording band. And created a huge number of classic songs within that short time.

27 number one hits (either UK or US) in the space of 8 years is remarkable and a testament to their unmistakable influence from that period onward.

Music really branched out in different directions at the point in time when the Beatles were active, and they were leading the way.

V10LETBLUES said:

1. Ludwig van Beethoven

2.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Mozart

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Vivaldi

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

299. Soulja Boy

300. The Beatles

301. Prince

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

600. Tie Britney Spears/MJ/Maddona/NKOTB

Fixed it for ya buddy

LittleBLUECorvette said:

V10LETBLUES said:

1. Ludwig van Beethoven

2.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Mozart

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Vivaldi

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

299. Soulja Boy

300. The Beatles

301. Prince

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

600. Tie Britney Spears/MJ/Maddona/NKOTB

Fixed it for ya buddy

suga10 said:

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]

"Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, U2, Bon Jovi, Green Day and Kenny Chesney are just some of the artists who regularly play outdoor gigs at 70,000-seat football stadiums. But 45 years ago, the music business was turned on its ear by four mop-topped kids from Liverpool who put on a concert for the ages.

On Aug. 15, 1965, The Beatles became the first rock band to perform at an American sports stadium with their show at Shea Stadium in Queens, New York. Before a crowd of 55,000 crazed and mostly female fans, The Fab Four made history by playing some of their most popular songs on the home turf of the Mets and Jets."

Once again The Beatles were game changers.

Music videos? MJ was a master at them indeed! But once again The Beatles had very early influence here too in the filed of creating an artistic visual piece to enhance a song.

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.

Well they certainly did cram more musical releases into those 8 years than MJ did in his 30 year-ish adult career between 79 & 2009.

Studio albums 62-70:

• Please Please Me 1963
• With The Beatles 1963
• A Hard Day's Night 1964
• Beatles For Sale 1964
• Help! 1965
• Rubber Soul 1965
• Revolver 1966
• Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 1967
• Magical Mystery Tour 1967
• The Beatles (The White Album) 1968 (2 disc)
• Yellow Submarine 1969
• Abbey Road 1969
• Let It Bead 1970

THE BEATLES!!

Almost everyone i know like's The Beatles tons i know like Mike but there's also a lot who don't, i mean not to mention solo the Beatles inspired a lot John Lennon is one of the biggest musicians in the history of music. & Paul is a huge legend as well. Ringo & George are of course to but solo wise not as much IMO

This is not about sales which The Beatles also cave mike in

But there music was groundbreaking, every album was groundbreaking up to Let It Be which was so so, come on honestly Mike not every album he did was groundbreaking...

Off The Wall

Thriller

And in many way's Bad

But Dangerous? History?, Ben, Invinsible? not groundbreaking at all

The Beatles?

Please Please Me

Rubber Soul

The White Album

Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club

Abbey Road

A Hard Day's Night

Help!

Revolver

All groundbreaking albums

As for singles?

MJ Had

Don't Stop Till You Get Enough

Billy Jean

Thriller

Beat It

Black Or White

Bad

Man In The Mirror

Smooth Criminal

Rock With You

All those singles are the one's EVERYONE seem's to know, and that i hear played the most and in a way they where all groundbreaking... but to me he had no more singles i find to be groundbreaking...

As for The Beatles

I Wanna Hold your Hand

Hey Jude

She Love's You

I Saw Her Standing There

With A Little Help From My Friend's

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds

Across The Universe

Yesterday

Eleanor Rigby

Come Together

Let It Be

Yellow Submarine

All You Need Is Love

While My Guitar Gently Weeps

Revolution

Can't Buy Me Love

Hard Day's Night

Penny Lane

Birthday

Hell i can go on forever, The Beatles released many legendary singles, that are still as popular today

of course not EVERYTHING the boys did was original, they did take a lot from blues & Little Richard & music of that time but who didn't?

But they put there own spin on it, then they did there own thing and just did amazing album after album.

It will be biased opinion no matter what. Even if you're a respected critic (if you think rolling stone critics are "respected" modern music critics) you will still be biased.

More prolific = Better artist? NO

Selling more records = Better artist? NO

More instruments used in songs = Better artist? NO

Better Singer = Better musical artist? NO

Covered more genre = Better artist? NO

More Modulation in one song = Better song? NO

At the end I think it's a little bit of everything + your preference. Oh yeah and lyrics is important too. There's no 1 solid stardard to define a better artist. (Actually, the term "better artist" started to sound so stupid to me)

Btw Just because someone worked with a producer, that doesn't mean that person's musical ability is poor. Sometimes, being able to collaborate well and finding what's going to be popular are important qualities in modern music!

THERE'S NO POINT OF DOING THIS!!!

I love Michael to death but one of the reasons I don't go to MJ fansites is because of stupid shit like this!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Emancipation89 said:

It will be biased opinion no matter what. Even if you're a respected critic (if you think rolling stone critics are "respected" modern music critics) you will still be biased.

More prolific = Better artist? NO

Selling more records = Better artist? NO

More instruments used in songs = Better artist? NO

Better Singer = Better musical artist? NO

Covered more genre = Better artist? NO

More Modulation in one song = Better song? NO

At the end I think it's a little bit of everything + your preference. Oh yeah and lyrics is important too. There's no 1 solid stardard to define a better artist. (Actually, the term "better artist" started to sound so stupid to me)

Btw Just because someone worked with a producer, that doesn't mean that person's musical ability is poor. Sometimes, being able to collaborate well and finding what's going to be popular are important qualities in modern music!

THERE'S NO POINT OF DOING THIS!!!

I love Michael to death but one of the reasons I don't go to MJ fansites is because of stupid shit like this!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

You have a good point=]

Sales are meh, and other thing's

An for producer... well we all know it's not always a good thing, you can have a good producer but still make crap

*facepalm*

nd33 said:

Music videos? MJ was a master at them indeed! But once again The Beatles had very early influence here too in the filed of creating an artistic visual piece to enhance a song.

These were around before The Beatles, but the earlier ones were usually called "soundies".

[Edited 4/3/11 13:34pm]

Yeah and they were called "soundies". Hell that Elvis' "Jailhouse Rock" segment became a "music video" in a way too. Music videos are as old as jazz music in terms of when it started.

MickyDolenz said:

nd33 said:

Music videos? MJ was a master at them indeed! But once again The Beatles had very early influence here too in the filed of creating an artistic visual piece to enhance a song.

These were around before The Beatles, but the earlier ones were usually called "soundies".

[Edited 4/3/11 13:34pm]

Sure, I didn't mean to say the Beatles invented the music video concept, but more that they had a strong influence in the concept of the modern day music video. Ie arty imagery, more abstract, fantasy based concepts that can completely take you to a different mindset than the song by itself.

Those soundies are more like broadway shows captured on film rather than pieces of art in themselves created as someones visual interpretation of the song.

nd33 said:

MickyDolenz said:

These were around before The Beatles, but the earlier ones were usually called "soundies".

[Edited 4/3/11 13:34pm]

Sure, I didn't mean to say the Beatles invented the music video concept, but more that they had a strong influence in the concept of the modern day music video. Ie arty imagery, more abstract, fantasy based concepts that can completely take you to a different mindset than the song by itself.

Those soundies are more like broadway shows captured on film rather than pieces of art in themselves created as someones visual interpretation of the song.

I don't look at it that way. I think there were definitely pieces of art. Just look at the dances, the choreography, the atmosphere. It was all glam and fierce to me. Without it, I doubt Michael would've done half the "mini-movies" he did.

MJ is clearly the most influenital, not taking anything away from the boys from England with the bad haircuts but you see more artists influenced by Michael, more pop cultural references, MJ made a lot of unreleased material and he was also a child singing prodigy that people forget. He surpassed the Beatles a minute ago and then bought their music. He is the top musical artist.

Timmy84 said:

nd33 said:

Sure, I didn't mean to say the Beatles invented the music video concept, but more that they had a strong influence in the concept of the modern day music video. Ie arty imagery, more abstract, fantasy based concepts that can completely take you to a different mindset than the song by itself.

Those soundies are more like broadway shows captured on film rather than pieces of art in themselves created as someones visual interpretation of the song.

I don't look at it that way. I think there were definitely pieces of art. Just look at the dances, the choreography, the atmosphere. It was all glam and fierce to me. Without it, I doubt Michael would've done half the "mini-movies" he did.

Yeah they're art. But wouldn't you say they are inherently Broadway style shows captured on film?

And that things started heading in a different direction around the time of the Strawberry Fields video?

LittleBLUECorvette said:

rialb said:

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.

OK, but I don't think anything that you said contradicts my original post. James had some great music circa 1956-1964 but would you agree that he was more influential and successful circa 1965-1975ish? There was a little bit of a new sound creeping in around 1964 ("Out of Sight") but it really flourished in the years that followed.

nd33 said:

Sure, I didn't mean to say the Beatles invented the music video concept, but more that they had a strong influence in the concept of the modern day music video. Ie arty imagery, more abstract, fantasy based concepts that can completely take you to a different mindset than the song by itself.

Those soundies are more like broadway shows captured on film rather than pieces of art in themselves created as someones visual interpretation of the song.

Most of the MTV era videos had nothing to do with the songs.

nd33 said:

Timmy84 said:

I don't look at it that way. I think there were definitely pieces of art. Just look at the dances, the choreography, the atmosphere. It was all glam and fierce to me. Without it, I doubt Michael would've done half the "mini-movies" he did.

Yeah they're art. But wouldn't you say they are inherently Broadway style shows captured on film?

And that things started heading in a different direction around the time of the Strawberry Fields video?

I consider Broadway to be as much about art as Strawberry Fields.

rialb said:

LittleBLUECorvette said:

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.

OK, but I don't think anything that you said contradicts my original post. James had some great music circa 1956-1964 but would you agree that he was more influential and successful circa 1965-1975ish? There was a little bit of a new sound creeping in around 1964 ("Out of Sight") but it really flourished in the years that followed.

I would. 1956-1964 James is underrated but it was obviously he wasn't his "own artist" by that point. He was taking bits of Little Richard, Joe Tex, Jackie Wilson, Ray Charles and Clyde McPhatter and adding it into his act. But I guess with James, this saying is true: good artists borrow, great artists steal.

HermesReborn said:

No sense discussing this in a forum filled with music fans It will be bias, no matter how you slice it. I love music, but any reasonable person will pick the Beatles.

...says the person with John Lennon as an avatar.

TheWifey said:

MJ is clearly the most influenital, not taking anything away from the boys from England with the bad haircuts but you see more artists influenced by Michael, more pop cultural references, MJ made a lot of unreleased material and he was also a child singing prodigy that people forget. He surpassed the Beatles a minute ago and then bought their music. He is the top musical artist.

I think this thread could be simplified to one question.....

Did The Beatles musically influence Michael Jackson??

The fact that Michael worked with Paul a couple of times would suggest that they probably did.

If they did, then the answer over who's more influential would surely be The Beatles right?

What do you think peeps?

nd33 said:

TheWifey said:

MJ is clearly the most influenital, not taking anything away from the boys from England with the bad haircuts but you see more artists influenced by Michael, more pop cultural references, MJ made a lot of unreleased material and he was also a child singing prodigy that people forget. He surpassed the Beatles a minute ago and then bought their music. He is the top musical artist.

I think this thread could be simplified to one question.....

Did The Beatles musically influence Michael Jackson??

The fact that Michael worked with Paul a couple of times would suggest that they probably did.

If they did, then the answer over who's more influential would surely be The Beatles right?

What do you think peeps?

No. Jackie Wilson influenced Michael too. Does that make Jackie more influential? Absolutely not.

MickyDolenz said:

nd33 said:

Sure, I didn't mean to say the Beatles invented the music video concept, but more that they had a strong influence in the concept of the modern day music video. Ie arty imagery, more abstract, fantasy based concepts that can completely take you to a different mindset than the song by itself.

Those soundies are more like broadway shows captured on film rather than pieces of art in themselves created as someones visual interpretation of the song.

Most of the MTV era videos had nothing to do with the songs.

Maybe not directly in terms of storyline, but somewhere along the way the resulting video has been someone's (possibly the directors) visual interpretation of the song. Whether it's some bland flashy lights with bikini models with not any deep thought put into it or whatever

Interpretation doesn't need to mean what's on screen must match what the lyrics are saying, it could just be an instinct or the feeling someone gets from the music/rhythm/melody without even considering the lyrical content.

smoothcriminal12 said:

nd33 said:

I think this thread could be simplified to one question.....

Did The Beatles musically influence Michael Jackson??

The fact that Michael worked with Paul a couple of times would suggest that they probably did.

If they did, then the answer over who's more influential would surely be The Beatles right?

What do you think peeps?

No. Jackie Wilson influenced Michael too. Does that make Jackie more influential? Absolutely not.

But that is not the question.

The question is who was more influential out of 2 of the most popular musical artists of all time.

I think, worldwide, they ARE the 2 most popular of all time. Clearly both have had massive musical influence. It's a pretty close call, but if you could say one influenced the other, in this specific case that could be the tipping point?

smoothcriminal12 said:

nd33 said:

I think this thread could be simplified to one question.....

Did The Beatles musically influence Michael Jackson??

The fact that Michael worked with Paul a couple of times would suggest that they probably did.

If they did, then the answer over who's more influential would surely be The Beatles right?

What do you think peeps?

No. Jackie Wilson influenced Michael too. Does that make Jackie more influential? Absolutely not.

The Beatles DID influence Michael. Even Michael said so himself. Come on now.

nd33 said:

MickyDolenz said:

Most of the MTV era videos had nothing to do with the songs.

Maybe not directly in terms of storyline, but somewhere along the way the resulting video has been someone's (possibly the directors) visual interpretation of the song. Whether it's some bland flashy lights with bikini models with not any deep thought put into it or whatever

Interpretation doesn't need to mean what's on screen must match what the lyrics are saying, it could just be an instinct or the feeling someone gets from the music/rhythm/melody without even considering the lyrical content.

Micky was right though.

The ONLY artists I ever saw that put a story that went with the song was Michael, Janet, and, probably, Madonna (with exceptions).

The others just focused on making epic bullshit. Something that continues today. *coughladygagakatyperrycough*

Timmy84 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

No. Jackie Wilson influenced Michael too. Does that make Jackie more influential? Absolutely not.

The Beatles DID influence Michael. Even Michael said so himself. Come on now.

I NEVER denied that. I was saying that just becaused you are influenced by someone does not make the one you are influenced by more influential than you. Trust me. I know The Beatles are more influential than Michael and are a huge influence on him. I'm just trying to make a point.

Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters were more influencial than MJ and the Beatles combined...there. argument settled. .

smoothcriminal12 said:

Timmy84 said:

The Beatles DID influence Michael. Even Michael said so himself. Come on now.

I NEVER denied that. I was saying that just becaused you are influenced by someone does not make the one you are influenced by more influential than you. Trust me. I know The Beatles are more influential than Michael and are a huge influence on him. I'm just trying to make a point.

I got cha now but when I initially read it I was like "huh?"

Please use MJ sticky here http://prince.org/msg/8/355139