Sheesh.

.

Can't we just change the thread title to something like, " 'white' folks (and their sympathisers) insecurities & inabilities to contemplate the notion that a non-white artist could be infinitely more popular than their drab artists without causing severe damage to their self-concept"...already?

.

Sheesh! It isn't that hard to change a fricken thread title!

.

Funkyandy is joking, of course.

Shawy89 said:

its easy for a 8 year old child to click on Youtube and watch Smooth Criminal video alone to be impressed and become a fan, and its damn hard for him to get into the Beatles or Elvis, and untill the kid is more mature, he would be intrested in his today's music.

That's stereotyping. Not all kids are just into today's music. There's kids who like classical and opera which is older than Mike, The Beatles, or Elvis. There's kids that go to the Renaissance Faires with music that is hundreds of years old and are in languages that are not in use anymore. There's kids into showtunes, the blues, funk, jazz, heavy metal, prog, bluegrass, doo wop, etc. There's the teen opera singer Jackie Evancho, who started as a little girl.

[Edited 3/25/14 15:16pm]

Rodney said:

Gunsnhalen said:

I understand that in the long run. But asking who's the most popular only starst stan wars. I don't think anyone can know for sure who's the most popular. Militant has been to parts of the world where they knew MJ but not The Beatles. I have been to places where they knew Beatles but not MJ. We can't all travel the world to find out all we have is osme bullshit number and ''records'' which i never see as a stature for anything. I don't think we cold ever quite now who's the most popular ''worldwide''

No disrespect but i seriously doubt that. He's too famous for that.

There are people who haven't heaerd of him just like there are those who haven't heard of The Beatles. We can't travel to every single place in the world. None of us will ever know who is the most popular. There's people who never heard of Led Zeppelin, The Eagles, Kanye West, Britney Spears, Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, or Elvis to name a few. Who is seen as ''Big'' artists honestly change from state to state or country to country.

funkyandy said:

Sheesh.

.

Can't we just change the thread title to something like, " 'white' folks (and their sympathisers) insecurities & inabilities to contemplate the notion that a non-white artist could be infinitely more popular than their drab artists without causing severe damage to their self-concept"...already?

.

Sheesh! It isn't that hard to change a fricken thread title!

.

Funkyandy is joking, of course.

Pretty sure this had nothing to do with race till you said that ignorant shit. Great job funkandy.

Really Poor countries I'm sure don't know any of these artist If you really think about it. To me this is turning out to be who did what and who did this + throw in race and mess up this friendly thread. They were all popular period. There is no proof who is more popular + who cares just enjoy the MUSIC!

Gunsnhalen said:

Rodney said:

No disrespect but i seriously doubt that. He's too famous for that.

There are people who haven't heaerd of him just like there are those who haven't heard of The Beatles. We can't travel to every single place in the world. None of us will ever know who is the most popular. There's people who never heard of Led Zeppelin, The Eagles, Kanye West, Britney Spears, Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, or Elvis to name a few. Who is seen as ''Big'' artists honestly change from state to state or country to country.

Well we can never know for sure that's true.. But my gut feeling says Michael Jackson.

JoeBala said:

Really Poor countries I'm sure don't know any of these artist If you really think about it. To me this is turning out to be who did what and who did this + throw in race and mess up this friendly thread. They were all popular period. There is no proof who is more popular + who cares just enjoy the MUSIC!

THIS

Michael jackson. In my country is more popular MJ , my 2-year-old cousins know the one who is he and my 80-year-old grandfather also knows it. If you go to twitter, facebook or instagram this one dominated by young fans of Michael jackson, This does not happen with the beatles or elvis

is funny, but there are persons who are very famous in ee.uu, but in many parts of the world nobody you know them, Tupac or oprah in my country they are not anybody for example

yes , SORRY for my bad english

Michael jackson . En mi pais es mucho más popular MJ , mi primo de dos años saben quien es él , y mi abuelo de 80 años tambien , si tu vas a twitter , facebook o instagram esta dominado por adolecentes fans de michael jackson , esto no pasa con los beatles o elvis

es divertido , pero hay muchas personas que son muy famosas en ee.uu , pero en muchas partes del mundo , nadie los conoce . Tupac o oprah en mi pais no son nadie por ejemplo

im not believing anybody who says there is a place where the beatles are known but not mj,sorry just not buying it. its obvious all those kids in the pics parents or grandparents dressed them up like elvis and the beatles, i caught my 2 year old nephew dancing one day and singing beat it all on his own, he saw the video and was hooked.i dont think there is anybody else on this planet that would have their memorial service broadcast around the world.

JoeBala said:

Really Poor countries I'm sure don't know any of these artist If you really think about it. To me this is turning out to be who did what and who did this + throw in race and mess up this friendly thread. They were all popular period. There is no proof who is more popular + who cares just enjoy the MUSIC!

are you serious? poor countries know and loved mj.remember mj was also a humanitarian and traveled all over the world helping people. after he died i found out alot of things he did for people that the public didnt know.

claudiax said:

Michael jackson. In my country is more popular MJ , my 2-year-old cousins know the one who is he and my 80-year-old grandfather also knows it. If you go to twitter, facebook or instagram this one dominated by young fans of Michael jackson, This does not happen with the beatles or elvis

Exactly what I've been saying.

lowkey said:

im not believing anybody who says there is a place where the beatles are known but not mj,sorry just not buying it. its obvious all those kids in the pics parents or grandparents dressed them up like elvis and the beatles, i caught my 2 year old nephew dancing one day and singing beat it all on his own, he saw the video and was hooked.i dont think there is anybody else on this planet that would have their memorial service broadcast around the world.

Me either. I'm very sceptical of that claim. I live in England, and I work in the music business, having been signed to two majors and two indies over the course of a decade. Even in England, more people know Michael Jackson's music compared to The Beatles, and they are FROM here! My nephews, nieces and all their friends all know Michael's music, I have seen them many times watching his videos online and listening to him without me encouraging them to, even though they know I'm a fan. A few of them are into The Beatles somewhat, but it's plain to see that they far prefer Michael. Of course everyone knows who The Beatles are, but it's plainly obvious that Michael has far more fans.



Another thing is that Michael transcends race and social class. I don't see any black, south asian, or chinese people out in the streets rocking Beatles shirts. I see people of all races rocking MJ shirts, all the time. You can be in the hood, the suburbs, or the country and hear cars go by blasting "Billie Jean", I very very rarely hear people anywhere listening to the Beatles these days and certainly not in the hood.

Even when Michael felt he had been abandoned in the USA, he still sold a huge amount of records here. Albums like HIStory and Blood On The Dancefloor sold incredibly well here. Earth Song was #1 for weeks and weeks at Xmas time, the busiest sales time for music. These reasons are exactly why he chose the UK to launch "This Is It".

lowkey said:

its obvious all those kids in the pics parents or grandparents dressed them up like elvis and the beatles, i caught my 2 year old nephew dancing one day and singing beat it all on his own, he saw the video and was hooked.

So if a kid is dressed like Michael Jackson, then it's of their own choice, but it's impossible for others to like Elvis or The Beatles?

Michael has another advantage the other two acts didn't on the same level which is what makes him the biggest. He was popular everywhere during his Thriller period (and before as a child star), but globally re-experienced that even more with Bad, Dangerous and HIStory, and in the 90's, through satellite TV, more access to western music, globalization contributing to his longeivity onwards from there on a worldwide scale, the Beatles didn't really have that though the closest they may have gotten to that was when George went to India and learned the sitar. I'm sure Elvis and Beatles may were huge at their peaks, but a surge in popularity came in different forms decades later eg. the 1 album becoming a huge seller, all their cirque shows than through how it did for mj in the 90's and 00's when he was still alive making music, having hits, making iconic music videos and performances and already a living legend. Hip hop was also becoming big and much of it sampled j5 material, mj worked with some hip hop artists and so forth so that also helped, Elvis and Beatles didn't branch out enough, different time in the industry

[Edited 3/25/14 17:04pm]

lowkey said:

are you serious? poor countries know and loved mj.remember mj was also a humanitarian and traveled all over the world helping people. after he died i found out alot of things he did for people that the public didnt know.

There are a few groups in the world who live a older style life and have little if any contact with modern society and technology. One tribe in South America may be in danger of having the forest they live in taken over by loggers. There's another tribe in New Guinea called the Fore who eat the brains of people who died, and they can develop a disease called kuru decades later. The tribes are not a country themselves, but these people probably have not heard of these performers.

Double post sorry/

[Edited 3/25/14 17:39pm]

MickyDolenz said:

lowkey said:

are you serious? poor countries know and loved mj.remember mj was also a humanitarian and traveled all over the world helping people. after he died i found out alot of things he did for people that the public didnt know.

There are a few groups in the world who live a older style life and have little if any contact with modern society and technology. One tribe in South America may be in danger of having the forest they live in taken over by loggers. There's another tribe in New Guinea called the Fore who eat the brains of people who died, and they can develop a disease called kuru decades later. The tribes are not a country themselves, but these people probably have not heard of these performers.

Exactly how some people don't know about this and other tribes should watch National Geographic or similar shows. Just ask the Amish in Pennsylvania Lancaster County about MJ, EP and Beatles. They may know John Denver though.

[Edited 3/25/14 17:41pm]

.

.

11 year old Boise girl spends dream day at Graceland

Video Link: http://www.ktvb.com/news/...02881.html

.

JoeBala said:

.

.

11 year old Boise girl spends dream day at Graceland

Video Link: http://www.ktvb.com/news/...02881.html

.

These are adorable!!! Not surprised to see them.

My older cousin's kid turned 18 and is a Beatles fan. Likes MJ, but is a Beatles fan.

Although one could argue that time will tell the story of who's more popular-see Amadeus. I see in the long run that the Beatles will be more "popular" than MJ based purely on the quality of music produced, just like Prince in the long scheme of things will be.

That doesn't mean MJ will be forgotten.

kewlschool said:

Although one could argue that time will tell the story of who's more popular-see Amadeus. I see in the long run that the Beatles will be more "popular" than MJ based purely on the quality of music produced, just like Prince in the long scheme of things will be.

That doesn't mean MJ will be forgotten.

And MJ owns the Beatles I had to

alphastreet said:

kewlschool said:

Although one could argue that time will tell the story of who's more popular-see Amadeus. I see in the long run that the Beatles will be more "popular" than MJ based purely on the quality of music produced, just like Prince in the long scheme of things will be.

That doesn't mean MJ will be forgotten.

And MJ owns the Beatles I had to

err um the estate of MJ/his kids. (for now)

I think discussing the popularity of these greats is awesome. I think trying to argue their popularity is a bit more complicated and maybe...impossible.

We have recently been bombarded with the Beatles to mark the anniversary of their Ed Sullivan performance One of the things brought up a lot in the coverage was that it had a record breaking number of viewers. Looking at those ratings gives a pretty interesting picture of "Fame" in world developing electronic media.

The Beatles on Ed Sullivan in 1964 had 73 million viewers. Comparitively, in 1956 Elvis only had 60 million. Looking at these numbers (and the media sure did the last few months) it is easy to make the conclusion that The Beatles were more famous that Elvis.

But it isn't that easy. The Beatles only drew about 45 percent of the available tv audience. Elvis drew about 82 percent. The US population had grown in the 8 years between Elvis and the Beatles performances on Sullivan. More importantly a far greater percentage of homes had tvs by 1964. Simply, all but 18 percent of American households tuned into watch Elvis and 55 percent chose to watch something other than the Beatles.

So trying to measure "most famous" with numbers is compicated. What matters more, the percentage of the available audience, or the number of that audience?

MJ should and probably does have a bigger current audience. The time of his biggest success was most recent.

Food for thought...

SoulAlive said:

MickyDolenz said:

Several of Elvis' early records went Top 10 on the R&B chart (Billboard) in the 1950s and others were Top 40 R&B. Elvis had been written about in Jet magazine and he even did an interview with them.

Perhaps,but let's be honest....there weren't alot of R&B and funk fans who were into Elvis On the other hand,rock fans in the 80s were into "Beat It" (which even got airplay on FM rock stations) and the Thriller album.Michael broke alot of boundaries and his music appealed to many more people than the audience that Elvis attracted.I'm not dissing Elvis,btw...just saying that Michael had much more crossover appeal.In 1983,it really felt like everyone on the planet was grooving to Thriller,lol.I can't name one Elvis Presley album that had that same kind of mass appeal and feverish success.

You might be surprised to learn that Elvis was one of the top selling artists on the R&B charts from 1956 through 1962. Elvis' popularity with African Americans in the 50's is often under estimated.

What I am about to say is by no means meant to undermine MJ's success but I do want to point out that you talk about Beat it as if it's cross over appeal was unprecedented especially in comparison to Elvis. This just isn't true. Elvis' singles in the 50's were wildly popular across race lines. I think a lot of people would be blown away to look at the R and B charts from 50'sn(I will leave it to the welling to google it for themselves). They were far more diverse than many people think. What I think you are really saying is that modern funk and RnB fans dont like Elvis' music but that doesn't mean the equivelant audience in 1956 didn't...

Sorry for the two posts in a row...

[Edited 3/25/14 4:49am]

Good points there kalelvisj Only a fraction of Elvis Presley's sales are captured by the RIAA but in spite of all Elvis is still their most certified artist. Elvis is the biggest selling artist of all time. Elvis Christmas albums and Elvis 30 No. 1 hits are his biggest selling albums. Garth Brooks and The Eagles are also major sellers. Elvis just hit the UK charts again with a 40th Anniversary 2-CD Edition of "Elvis Recorded Live On Stage In Memphis", which came out last week.

Thanks, Joe!

I think it is pretty safe to say that Elvis, The Beatles and MJ all set the standard for being the biggest f their respective generations.

As far as Elvis' sales, probably even more important than the not included 50's sales when Elvis regularly sold 5 million plus for each of his singles (Hound Dog/Don't be Cruel over 10 million alone) is the untracked sells between August 77 and and August 78. Articles at the time reported that RCA was shipping 20 million Elvis records weekly through most of that 12 month period. None of the sales from this 12 month period are figured into Elvis' total record sales with the RIAA.

Those sales are spread over 51 different albums that were on available at the time. So, if those sales were included it would be safe to say Elvis would have several more albums on the top selling of all time list.

Elvis, the Beatles and MJ all captivated their available audience, but the fact of the matter is that the audience is getting bigger every year so who ever is most recent is going to have the most "fame" if you go by the numbers. But if you go by the impact on the available audience, it gets far more complicated and interesting.

I'm amazed by the dumb shit argued about on the org. It's like watching a bunch of children.

Stymie said:

I'm amazed by the dumb shit argued about on the org. It's like watching a bunch of children.

Grown men and women get in heated debates about MJ and The Beatles. Like it really fucking matters this is like a high school popularity contest.

Stymie said:

I'm amazed by the dumb shit argued about on the org. It's like watching a bunch of children.

We know that Rihanna will outlive them all anyway.