Haven't read thru all the thread, but with the "who's better" topic title, it kinda reminded me of this quote from John Lennon

"Before Elvis there was nothing."

If there wasn't an Elvis, who arguably was the major force who changed popular music in the 50's, I'm wondering, which artist(s) at the time would have made such an impact from the musical styles of the day to evolve into the whole Rock & Roll phenomeon?. IMO, The Beatles & MJ were products of the success of not only Elvis but other acts before them, as artists from today such as Bruno Mars pattern themselves after MJ/Prince/James Brown et al. Here are a few examples of artists influences, Smokey was influenced by Nolan Strong, Brian Wilson by the Four Freshmen who's vocal harmonies he adapted for the Beach Boys, MJ was influenced by James Brown & Jackie Wilson amongst others. So everything is an evolution of a prior performer/musical style from the past. As for who is more popular, all the artists mentioned music is still being played today and new fans are created all the time.

For record sales, there's an article on Wikipedia here which have The Beatles having sold the most records with certifiable sales of over 250m, Elvis is 2nd, Michael is 3rd. Arguably Elvis popularity has spanned the 50's to present day and if he toured the UK, Europe, Asia then I believe his popularity would have been off the charts, especially during his earlier career. Teaming him with great songwriters and a manager who was focused on the music rather than the movies and merchandise etc. I think Elvis could have been even more successful in musical terms too because whilst he has some great songs, in his later career they weren't as impactful as songs like Heartbreak Hotel, Don't Be Cruel amongst others.

But as its been said, you can't really say whos better than who, without looking at all the factors involved such as today there's many forms of entertainment, ways to distribute that entertainment, the internet, music television etc so imagine an Elvis during the MTV era, or The Beatles being a new act on the scene today, would they have been such a success?.

kalelvisj said:

datdude said:

ummm, except that there are black ppl in the world and as i stated in response to the OP, blk ppl (en masse) were not/are not checking for The Beatles or Elvis. yes all were popular, lots of geographical and generational barriers, but i again, say worldwide, its gonna be Mike.

Except that I know people of all race and religious backgrounds that like Elvis and the Beatles. And more importantly, when they were new on the scene (especially true for Elvis) the black audience of the time really embraced them. One only needs to look at the charts from the 50's to gauge Elvis' popularity with the African American audience.

As far as the current audience, it might be true, but I think many of the same people (regardless of race) who wouldn't like Elvis or the Beatles might not like other musicians from that time regardless of the artists race. I think it might be more a generational issue than a race issue. For instance, Certainly, when I bring up key figures from the 50's I get the same blank looks back from my college students whether I am mentioning Elvis or Chuck Berry or Little Richard or Jerry Lee Lewis.

if thats the case those of us who are in ours 40's now would have grown up hearing elvis and the beatles music in our homes. none of my family members,friends or neighbors were playing elvis or the beatles.my parents favs were james brown,jackie wilson and other black artists from that time period.in the 60's there was motown in my home.black,white,latino,asian and every other group of kids that grew up in the 80's heard mj in their homes,im willing to bet money on that. yall can say race has nothing to do with it but thats unrealistic in america.

thetimefan said:

Haven't read thru all the thread, but with the "who's better" topic title, it kinda reminded me of this quote from John Lennon

"Before Elvis there was nothing."

If there wasn't an Elvis, who arguably was the major force who changed popular music in the 50's, I'm wondering, which artist(s) at the time would have made such an impact from the musical styles of the day to evolve into the whole Rock & Roll phenomeon?. IMO, The Beatles & MJ were products of the success of not only Elvis but other acts before them, as artists from today such as Bruno Mars pattern themselves after MJ/Prince/James Brown et al. Here are a few examples of artists influences, Smokey was influenced by Nolan Strong, Brian Wilson by the Four Freshmen who's vocal harmonies he adapted for the Beach Boys, MJ was influenced by James Brown & Jackie Wilson amongst others. So everything is an evolution of a prior performer/musical style from the past. As for who is more popular, all the artists mentioned music is still being played today and new fans are created all the time.

For record sales, there's an article on Wikipedia here which have The Beatles having sold the most records with certifiable sales of over 250m, Elvis is 2nd, Michael is 3rd. Arguably Elvis popularity has spanned the 50's to present day and if he toured the UK, Europe, Asia then I believe his popularity would have been off the charts, especially during his earlier career. Teaming him with great songwriters and a manager who was focused on the music rather than the movies and merchandise etc. I think Elvis could have been even more successful in musical terms too because whilst he has some great songs, in his later career they weren't as impactful as songs like Heartbreak Hotel, Don't Be Cruel amongst others.

But as its been said, you can't really say whos better than who, without looking at all the factors involved such as today there's many forms of entertainment, ways to distribute that entertainment, the internet, music television etc so imagine an Elvis during the MTV era, or The Beatles being a new act on the scene today, would they have been such a success?.

before elvis there was nothing? omg are you serious. elvis was a white man that jacked black culture and was championed by america for it.

Interpret this information as you see fit, but it looks like the best selling recording artist(s) of all

time are:

1. The Beatles - 259 certified million records sold

2. Elvis Presley - 207 certified million records sold

3. Michael Jackson - 170 certified million records sold


This org is proliferated with a generation who is far removed from the heydays of Elvis and the

Beatles, which is why I think this question is so hotly contested. It's not a knock on the legacy of

Michael Jackson that he's the third highest selling recording artist of all time, if you are using

total units sold as an indicator of how popular someone is.

duccichucka said:

lowkey said:

thetimefan said:

Haven't read thru all the thread, but with the "who's better" topic title, it kinda reminded me of this quote from John Lennon

"Before Elvis there was nothing."

before elvis there was nothing? omg are you serious. elvis was a white man that jacked black culture and was championed by america for it.

Why do you say that cause you read that? He loved the music and always said it. He was championed cause he bought the music to people who never heard it before. It always comes down to race damn.

MotownSubdivision said:

Really don't understand how anyone can say Elvis is the most popular of these 3. MJ>>>Beatles>>>>>>>>>>>>Elvis [Edited 3/30/14 9:17am]

V10LETBLUES said:

duccichucka said:

Interpret this information as you see fit, but it looks like the best selling recording artist(s) of all

time are:

1. The Beatles - 259 certified million records sold

2. Elvis Presley - 207 certified million records sold

3. Michael Jackson - 170 certified million records sold


This org is proliferated with a generation who is far removed from the heydays of Elvis and the

Beatles, which is why I think this question is so hotly contested. It's not a knock on the legacy of

Michael Jackson that he's the third highest selling recording artist of all time, if you are using

total units sold as an indicator of how popular someone is.

yep. it's generational.

No, it's not gerational. I am just as familiar with Elvis and the Beatles' music, influence and accomplishments, as I am Michael. I am a fan of both the Beatles AND Elvis'music. Btw, popularity is not ONLY gauged on record sales. If that was the only criteria, then Julio Englesis,Garth Brooks, etc. would be in this conversation. Michael surpassed all of them in terms of GLOBAL popularity and influence. It's not about who we/I like best, it's about who had/has the most popularity and that is Michael, hands down.

lowkey said:

before elvis there was nothing? omg are you serious. elvis was a white man that jacked black culture and was championed by america for it.

Not really true. Elvis was often called a n-lover, including by a singer at the Grand Ole Opry according to Johnny Cash. Many older whites in the US didn't appreciate Elvis singing "jungle bunny music" and they also complained about Elvis dancing, which is why he was shown waist up on TV. He often got death threats. Elvis was also photographed with black blues and R&B performers, which was a generally a no-no at the time. The parents tended to prefer singers like Pat Boone as far as what was acceptable for their kids to listen to, or even black singers like Johnny Mathis, Nat King Cole, Sammy Davis Jr., & Harry Belefonte who were not really R&B/rock based. Johnny Mathis was the person who helped to really popularize both the Christmas & Greatest Hits albums. Johnny had orchestras and strings on his records, so was like the parents music, even though Johnny was about the same age as Elvis. Nat King Cole got a TV show, although it didn't last long because it couldn't get sponsors. Pat was safe and closer in vocal style and image to Bing Crosby & Rudy Vallée, Elvis was not. Elvis wore makeup, eyeliner, and pink jackets and some folks called him a queer or that he was singing the devil's music and n-music. The FBI spied on Elvis and kept a file. Would they do that if they were "championing his cause"?

.

They were worried about Elvis influence on the (white) youth, the same with the big fuss later with The Beatles long hair. This was the generation of McCarthy & Hoover. The government also tried to shut down rock 'n roll altogether with the payola hearings, when they weren't worried about payola with earlier popular mainstream music like crooner pop, showtunes, and standards. They brought up charges on Chuck Berry & Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his cousin didn't help the cause and neither did Buddy Holly's death. You also have to remember that rock n' roll acts were mostly on indie labels, not majors. At least not until the majors saw that it was becoming popular. Elvis was on Sun, but his contract was later bought out by RCA. After rock n' roll died out a little after the payola thing, there were fewer rock acts played and more teen idol singers like Frankie Avalon, dance craze music like The Twist, and girl pop groups/singers. Even Elvis' post army records (mostly soundtracks) were more pop than rock n' roll/rockabilly and his movies were not the juvenile delinquent style of the 3 pre-army movies and Elvis toned down the movements. That was by design. That's why it has been said The Beatles hitting the US in 1964 started to shut down the soft popular music that had taken over with the "death" of rock n' roll. They started the "British Invasion", which was a harder edged music than the softer music popular right before them. This was also when Motown started to become popular with the mainstream.

Free2BMe said:

Record sales only tell part of the story....just sayin'

There are so many other factors involved.

Free2BMe said:

popularity is not ONLY gauged on record sales. If that was the only criteria, then Julio Englesis,Garth Brooks, etc. would be in this conversation.

Exactly.

MickyDolenz said:

lowkey said:

before elvis there was nothing? omg are you serious. elvis was a white man that jacked black culture and was championed by america for it.

Not really true. Elvis was often called a n-lover, including by a singer at the Grand Ole Opry according to Johnny Cash. Many older whites in the US didn't appreciate Elvis singing "jungle bunny music" and they also complained about Elvis dancing, which is why he was shown waist up on TV. He often got death threats. Elvis was also photographed with black blues and R&B performers, which was a generally a no-no at the time. The parents tended to prefer singers like Pat Boone as far as what was acceptable for their kids to listen to, or even black singers like Johnny Mathis, Nat King Cole, Sammy Davis Jr., & Harry Belefonte who were not really R&B/rock based. Johnny Mathis was the person who helped to really popularize both the Christmas & Greatest Hits albums. Johnny had orchestras and strings on his records, so was like the parents music, even though Johnny was about the same age as Elvis. Nat King Cole got a TV show, although it didn't last long because it couldn't get sponsors. Pat was safe and closer in vocal style and image to Bing Crosby & Rudy Vallée, Elvis was not. Elvis wore makeup, eyeliner, and pink jackets and some folks called him a queer or that he was singing the devil's music and n-music. The FBI spied on Elvis and kept a file. Would they do that if they were "championing his cause"?

.

They were worried about Elvis influence on the (white) youth, the same with the big fuss later with The Beatles long hair. This was the generation of McCarthy & Hoover. The government also tried to shut down rock 'n roll altogether with the payola hearings, when they weren't worried about payola with earlier popular mainstream music like crooner pop, showtunes, and standards. They brought up charges on Chuck Berry & Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his cousin didn't help the cause and neither did Buddy Holly's death. You also have to remember that rock n' roll acts were mostly on indie labels, not majors. At least not until the majors saw that it was becoming popular. Elvis was on Sun, but his contract was later bought out by RCA. After rock n' roll died out a little after the payola thing, there were fewer rock acts played and more teen idol singers like Frankie Avalon, dance craze music like The Twist, and girl pop groups/singers. Even Elvis' post army records (mostly soundtracks) were more pop than rock n' roll/rockabilly and his movies were not the juvenile delinquent style of the 3 pre-army movies and Elvis toned down the movements. That was by design. That's why it has been said The Beatles hitting the US in 1964 started to shut down the soft popular music that had taken over with the "death" of rock n' roll. They started the "British Invasion", which was a harder edged music than the softer music popular right before them. This was also when Motown started to become popular with the mainstream.

Yep Preach MicK!

V10LETBLUES said:

Free2BMe said:

No, it's not gerational. I am just as familiar with Elvis and the Beatles' music, influence and accomplishments, as I am Michael. I am a fan of both the Beatles AND Elvis'music. Btw, popularity is not ONLY gauged on record sales. If that was the only criteria, then Julio Englesis,Garth Brooks, etc. would be in this conversation. Michael surpassed all of them in terms of GLOBAL popularity and influence. It's not about who we/I like best, it's about who had/has the most popularity and that is Michael, hands down.

how old are you?

Probably not as young as you are.

MickyDolenz said:

lowkey said:

before elvis there was nothing? omg are you serious. elvis was a white man that jacked black culture and was championed by america for it.

Not really true. Elvis was often called a n-lover, including by a singer at the Grand Ole Opry according to Johnny Cash. Many older whites in the US didn't appreciate Elvis singing "jungle bunny music" and they also complained about Elvis dancing, which is why he was shown waist up on TV. He often got death threats. Elvis was also photographed with black blues and R&B performers, which was a generally a no-no at the time. The parents tended to prefer singers like Pat Boone as far as what was acceptable for their kids to listen to, or even black singers like Johnny Mathis, Nat King Cole, Sammy Davis Jr., & Harry Belefonte who were not really R&B/rock based. Johnny Mathis was the person who helped to really popularize both the Christmas & Greatest Hits albums. Johnny had orchestras and strings on his records, so was like the parents music, even though Johnny was about the same age as Elvis. Nat King Cole got a TV show, although it didn't last long because it couldn't get sponsors. Pat was safe and closer in vocal style and image to Bing Crosby & Rudy Vallée, Elvis was not. Elvis wore makeup, eyeliner, and pink jackets and some folks called him a queer or that he was singing the devil's music and n-music. The FBI spied on Elvis and kept a file. Would they do that if they were "championing his cause"?

.

They were worried about Elvis influence on the (white) youth, the same with the big fuss later with The Beatles long hair. This was the generation of McCarthy & Hoover. The government also tried to shut down rock 'n roll altogether with the payola hearings, when they weren't worried about payola with earlier popular mainstream music like crooner pop, showtunes, and standards. They brought up charges on Chuck Berry & Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his cousin didn't help the cause and neither did Buddy Holly's death. You also have to remember that rock n' roll acts were mostly on indie labels, not majors. At least not until the majors saw that it was becoming popular. Elvis was on Sun, but his contract was later bought out by RCA. After rock n' roll died out a little after the payola thing, there were fewer rock acts played and more teen idol singers like Frankie Avalon, dance craze music like The Twist, and girl pop groups/singers. Even Elvis' post army records (mostly soundtracks) were more pop than rock n' roll/rockabilly and his movies were not the juvenile delinquent style of the 3 pre-army movies and Elvis toned down the movements. That was by design. That's why it has been said The Beatles hitting the US in 1964 started to shut down the soft popular music that had taken over with the "death" of rock n' roll. They started the "British Invasion", which was a harder edged music than the softer music popular right before them. This was also when Motown started to become popular with the mainstream.

Everything that you say is correct.

duccichucka said:

Interpret this information as you see fit, but it looks like the best selling recording artist(s) of all

time are:

1. The Beatles - 259 certified million records sold

2. Elvis Presley - 207 certified million records sold

3. Michael Jackson - 170 certified million records sold


This org is proliferated with a generation who is far removed from the heydays of Elvis and the

Beatles, which is why I think this question is so hotly contested. It's not a knock on the legacy of

Michael Jackson that he's the third highest selling recording artist of all time, if you are using

total units sold as an indicator of how popular someone is.

This. Fucking this.

MickyDolenz said:

lowkey said:

before elvis there was nothing? omg are you serious. elvis was a white man that jacked black culture and was championed by america for it.

Not really true. Elvis was often called a n-lover, including by a singer at the Grand Ole Opry according to Johnny Cash. Many older whites in the US didn't appreciate Elvis singing "jungle bunny music" and they also complained about Elvis dancing, which is why he was shown waist up on TV. He often got death threats. Elvis was also photographed with black blues and R&B performers, which was a generally a no-no at the time. The parents tended to prefer singers like Pat Boone as far as what was acceptable for their kids to listen to, or even black singers like Johnny Mathis, Nat King Cole, Sammy Davis Jr., & Harry Belefonte who were not really R&B/rock based. Johnny Mathis was the person who helped to really popularize both the Christmas & Greatest Hits albums. Johnny had orchestras and strings on his records, so was like the parents music, even though Johnny was about the same age as Elvis. Nat King Cole got a TV show, although it didn't last long because it couldn't get sponsors. Pat was safe and closer in vocal style and image to Bing Crosby & Rudy Vallée, Elvis was not. Elvis wore makeup, eyeliner, and pink jackets and some folks called him a queer or that he was singing the devil's music and n-music. The FBI spied on Elvis and kept a file. Would they do that if they were "championing his cause"?

.

They were worried about Elvis influence on the (white) youth, the same with the big fuss later with The Beatles long hair. This was the generation of McCarthy & Hoover. The government also tried to shut down rock 'n roll altogether with the payola hearings, when they weren't worried about payola with earlier popular mainstream music like crooner pop, showtunes, and standards. They brought up charges on Chuck Berry & Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his cousin didn't help the cause and neither did Buddy Holly's death. You also have to remember that rock n' roll acts were mostly on indie labels, not majors. At least not until the majors saw that it was becoming popular. Elvis was on Sun, but his contract was later bought out by RCA. After rock n' roll died out a little after the payola thing, there were fewer rock acts played and more teen idol singers like Frankie Avalon, dance craze music like The Twist, and girl pop groups/singers. Even Elvis' post army records (mostly soundtracks) were more pop than rock n' roll/rockabilly and his movies were not the juvenile delinquent style of the 3 pre-army movies and Elvis toned down the movements. That was by design. That's why it has been said The Beatles hitting the US in 1964 started to shut down the soft popular music that had taken over with the "death" of rock n' roll. They started the "British Invasion", which was a harder edged music than the softer music popular right before them. This was also when Motown started to become popular with the mainstream.

But oh "you know, the white man always trying to take away from the black man..." they don't even know the risks people took in the '50s and '60s. If you was a white DJ playing black music in the early fifties, you'd be lucky if you didn't get pulled off the air or, worse, arrested because they thought black music was too "obscene" for radio so imagine the faux outrage from racist conservatives when that "hillbilly queer from Memphis" as some called Elvis came out. People just don't know. They even forget how risky Motown's business was. Different fucking times. By the time MJ came around, the only hills he had to fight was radio push during radio apartheid and MTV but he sure had it a lot easier. Plus, going back on this popularity thing, y'all who argue for Jackson do realize this world had fewer people when Elvis and the Beatles were hip and even less countries that even allowed western music... in some countries like in the Soviet Union, they had to bootleg Elvis and the Beatles. Whereas MJ was lucky to break that barrier when the Soviet Union died down and he was all on Russian TV. Different times.

The Beatles will always be number 1...

Their music is beautiful art, noone on the planet can ever reach what they did....

Prince, Michael Jackson, Madonna these 3 were in a different league as well in the 80s.

They were huge. But they did not achieve what The Beatles did.


The Beatles will always remain the biggest "act" in history, ever.

Timmy84 said:

But oh "you know, the white man always trying to take away from the black man..." they don't even know the risks people took in the '50s and '60s. If you was a white DJ playing black music in the early fifties, you'd be lucky if you didn't get pulled off the air or, worse, arrested because they thought black music was too "obscene" for radio so imagine the faux outrage from racist conservatives when that "hillbilly queer from Memphis" as some called Elvis came out. People just don't know. They even forget how risky Motown's business was. Different fucking times. By the time MJ came around, the only hills he had to fight was radio push during radio apartheid and MTV but he sure had it a lot easier. Plus, going back on this popularity thing, y'all who argue for Jackson do realize this world had fewer people when Elvis and the Beatles were hip and even less countries that even allowed western music... in some countries like in the Soviet Union, they had to bootleg Elvis and the Beatles. Whereas MJ was lucky to break that barrier when the Soviet Union died down and he was all on Russian TV. Different times.

Without the white man, the black acts would have not been heard anyway, and would be forgotten. They had the radio stations, they owned the labels, and in a lot of cases the mafia owned the clubs. B.B. King said that Frank Sinatra got him a gig in Las Vegas in the 1960s. Ella Fitzgerald couldn't get a gig at a certain club because she was black, and Marilyn Monroe called the club and told the owner that she would sit in the front row of the place every night if he would book Ella there. Marilyn was a really big deal then and this helped Ella's career because the press was going to show up wherever Marilyn was. Appearing on Jack Paar's Tonight Show helped comedian Dick Gregory, who became in demand afterwards when he didn't make that much money before. It's the black performers who had developed some white audience that are usually remembered today like Louis Armstrong, Ink Spots, James Brown, Mahalia Jackson, Marion Anderson and actors like Sidney Poiter. The primarily chitlin' circuit entertainers and black only movies & actors (.ie Oscar Micheaux films) are less remembered and talked about.

.
Sam Cooke wanted the Copacabana audience, more than a teen audience, so he recorded a lot of pop standards and showtunes. Jackie Wilson did too such as Danny Boy. Berry Gordy strove for this too and he sent his bigger acts to charm school to know how to behave and talk, and some of them recorded albums at the Copa. Other black oriented labels like Stax didn't care about this, and didn't try to make the Sound Of Young America.

[Edited 3/31/14 0:06am]

^ could you please write in the normal black font..?


I can't read that pink letter writing..

duccichucka said:

Interpret this information as you see fit, but it looks like the best selling recording artist(s) of all

time are:

1. The Beatles - 259 certified million records sold

2. Elvis Presley - 207 certified million records sold

3. Michael Jackson - 170 certified million records sold


This org is proliferated with a generation who is far removed from the heydays of Elvis and the

Beatles, which is why I think this question is so hotly contested. It's not a knock on the legacy of

Michael Jackson that he's the third highest selling recording artist of all time, if you are using

total units sold as an indicator of how popular someone is.

That's the thing...I don't use record sales as the only indicator of an artists' popularity.There are numerous artists and bands who have sold a ton of records in their careers.Record sales only tell part of the story.I also look at things like worldwide impact,crossover success,etc.

thedance said:

^ could you please write in the normal black font..?


I can't read that pink letter writing..

No I can't.

Free2BMe said:

V10LETBLUES said:

yep. it's generational.

No, it's not gerational. I am just as familiar with Elvis and the Beatles' music, influence and accomplishments, as I am Michael. I am a fan of both the Beatles AND Elvis'music. Btw, popularity is not ONLY gauged on record sales. If that was the only criteria, then Julio Englesis,Garth Brooks, etc. would be in this conversation. Michael surpassed all of them in terms of GLOBAL popularity and influence. It's not about who we/I like best, it's about who had/has the most popularity and that is Michael, hands down.

Yes, it is generational. You may be familiar with Elvis and The Beatles but their music, influence

and accomplishments are particular events associated with particular times in history. If you

bothered to look at the link I provided, Garth Brooks, Madonna, Prince, David Bowie are not in

the conversation because they have not amassed the total record sales that the first three have!

You have no idea what Beatlemania was like because that was a generational event. And you

have no idea what Elvis the Pelvis hype was like because that was also generational. And

depending on your age, you probably caught the very back end of the height of Michael Jackson's

popularity too! My god daughter is a huge MJ fan and I shake my head at her level of fandom at

the age of 11 - if this girl only knew how colossal MJ was in '83.

I think most people in this thread who are arguing for MJ's place atop the summit of most popular

recording artist of all time are doing so at the mercy of history and facts. Album sales alone does

not indicate how popular someone is, but it leaves a good impression. If Artist X sells 10 records

and Artist Y sells 100,000 records, who is probably more popular?

John Lennon got blasted for making a quip about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus - he didn't

just wake up one day and say "I'ma say some outlandish shit." There was a reason he could

crack that joke! The Beatles were fucking massive back in 1966, similar to what we experienced

in 1983 with Michael Jackson.

SoulAlive said:

duccichucka said:

Interpret this information as you see fit, but it looks like the best selling recording artist(s) of all

time are:

1. The Beatles - 259 certified million records sold

2. Elvis Presley - 207 certified million records sold

3. Michael Jackson - 170 certified million records sold


This org is proliferated with a generation who is far removed from the heydays of Elvis and the

Beatles, which is why I think this question is so hotly contested. It's not a knock on the legacy of

Michael Jackson that he's the third highest selling recording artist of all time, if you are using

total units sold as an indicator of how popular someone is.

That's the thing...I don't use record sales as the only indicator of an artists' popularity.There are numerous artists and bands who have sold a ton of records in their careers.Record sales only tell part of the story.I also look at things like worldwide impact,crossover success,etc.

Good point, Soul. But what's a better indicator of an artist being successful at worldwide impact

and cross over than record sales? The 60s belonged to the Beatles exclusively. Everything they

did in pop music pushed the art form into new territory. And they have managed to sell the most

records of any recording artist in history. That's gotta count for something.

Michael Jackson was massive in the 80s. But the 80s do not belong to him exclusively. And we

are really short changing Elvis, who was the first popular recording American artist to sell gobs

and gobs of music and sex. I'm an 80s kid so I was in the first row for MJ dominance. But

I'm also not a cretin: The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson are the three most popular

recording artists of all time, respectively.

duccichucka said:

Free2BMe said:

No, it's not gerational. I am just as familiar with Elvis and the Beatles' music, influence and accomplishments, as I am Michael. I am a fan of both the Beatles AND Elvis'music. Btw, popularity is not ONLY gauged on record sales. If that was the only criteria, then Julio Englesis,Garth Brooks, etc. would be in this conversation. Michael surpassed all of them in terms of GLOBAL popularity and influence. It's not about who we/I like best, it's about who had/has the most popularity and that is Michael, hands down.

Yes, it is generational. You may be familiar with Elvis and The Beatles but their music, influence

and accomplishments are particular events associated with particular times in history. If you

bothered to look at the link I provided, Garth Brooks, Madonna, Prince, David Bowie are not in

the conversation because they have not amassed the total record sales that the first three have!

You have no idea what Beatlemania was like because that was a generational event. And you

have no idea what Elvis the Pelvis hype was like because that was also generational. And

depending on your age, you probably caught the very back end of the height of Michael Jackson's

popularity too! My god daughter is a huge MJ fan and I shake my head at her level of fandom at

the age of 11 - if this girl only knew how colossal MJ was in '83.

I think most people in this thread who are arguing for MJ's place atop the summit of most popular

recording artist of all time are doing so at the mercy of history and facts. Album sales alone does

not indicate how popular someone is, but it leaves a good impression. If Artist X sells 10 records

and Artist Y sells 100,000 records, who is probably more popular?

John Lennon got blasted for making a quip about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus - he didn't

just wake up one day and say "I'ma say some outlandish shit." There was a reason he could

crack that joke! The Beatles were fucking massive back in 1966, similar to what we experienced

in 1983 with Michael Jackson.

I love AND chuckle how you assume and probably can't fathom how/if a person can possibly be a part of Beatlemania AND Michaelmania. I KNOW about both. Yes, the Beatles were HUGE and I have never denied that. Beatlemania was staggering. However, I STILL say that Michaelmania eclipsed Beatlemania and on a LONGER and LARGER scale. I will never forget Beatlemania. However, that doesn't diminish Michael's GLOBAL popularity and mania and the LENGTH of that popularity and mania.

Btw, record sales ARE an indication of an artist's popularity and longevity; but, not the only factor. Since you posted the sales of Michael, Elvis and the Beatles, let's put those sales into perspective.

Michael's sales represent pretty much a 30+ year span. Elvis' represent a 50+. Most of Elvis' records sold AFTER his death. Elvis had a 150 GOLD albums. Michael had ONLY about 7 or 8 major album releases and STILL has OVER 200 million( I don't agree with the numbers posted) in records sold. The Beatles released a little over 30 albums. Just looking at those statistics, Michael sold MORE than either the Beatles or Elvis, because he released far less albums and STILL outsold BOTH iover a shorter span of time.

Again, I am not trying to diminish Elvis' popularity nor the Beatles. I am just putting things into perspective when you talk about and post sales. Btw, I like this discussion. Thus far, it hasn't derailed into bashing and that is refreshing.

I

[Edited 3/31/14 19:20pm]

Free2BMe said:

Btw, record sales ARE an indication of an artist's popularity and longevity; but, not the only factor. Since you posted the sales of Michael, Elvis and the Beatles, let's put those sales into perspective.

Michael's sales represent pretty much a 30+ year span. Elvis' represent a 50+. Most of Elvis' records sold AFTER his death. Elvis had a 150 GOLD albums. Michael had ONLY about 7 or 8 major album releases and STILL has OVER 200 million( I don't agree with the numbers posted) in records sold. The Beatles released a little over 30 albums. Just looking at those statistics, Michael sold MORE than either the Beatles or Elvis, because he released far less albums and STILL outsold BOTH iover a shorter span of time.

Again, I am not trying to diminish Elvis' popularity nor the Beatles. I am just putting things into perspective when you talk about and post sales. Btw, I like this discussion. Thus far, it hasn't derailed into bashing and that is refreshing.

I

[Edited 3/31/14 19:20pm]

How many albums did Mozart sell? None, directly from him, but recordings of his music has probably sold millions. Perhaps even more than the Beatles. Longevity equals creativity and brilliant works. Popularity is fleeting.

Free2BMe said:

duccichucka said:

Yes, it is generational. You may be familiar with Elvis and The Beatles but their music, influence

and accomplishments are particular events associated with particular times in history. If you

bothered to look at the link I provided, Garth Brooks, Madonna, Prince, David Bowie are not in

the conversation because they have not amassed the total record sales that the first three have!

You have no idea what Beatlemania was like because that was a generational event. And you

have no idea what Elvis the Pelvis hype was like because that was also generational. And

depending on your age, you probably caught the very back end of the height of Michael Jackson's

popularity too! My god daughter is a huge MJ fan and I shake my head at her level of fandom at

the age of 11 - if this girl only knew how colossal MJ was in '83.

I think most people in this thread who are arguing for MJ's place atop the summit of most popular

recording artist of all time are doing so at the mercy of history and facts. Album sales alone does

not indicate how popular someone is, but it leaves a good impression. If Artist X sells 10 records

and Artist Y sells 100,000 records, who is probably more popular?

John Lennon got blasted for making a quip about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus - he didn't

just wake up one day and say "I'ma say some outlandish shit." There was a reason he could

crack that joke! The Beatles were fucking massive back in 1966, similar to what we experienced

in 1983 with Michael Jackson.

I love AND chuckle how you assume and probably can't fathom how/if a person can possibly be a part of Beatlemania AND Michaelmania. I KNOW about both. Yes, the Beatles were HUGE and I have never denied that. Beatlemania was staggering. However, I STILL say that Michaelmania eclipsed Beatlemania and on a LONGER and LARGER scale. I will never forget Beatlemania. However, that doesn't diminish Michael's GLOBAL popularity and mania and the LENGTH of that popularity and mania.

Btw, record sales ARE an indication of an artist's popularity and longevity; but, not the only factor. Since you posted the sales of Michael, Elvis and the Beatles, let's put those sales into perspective.

Michael's sales represent pretty much a 30+ year span. Elvis' represent a 50+. Most of Elvis' records sold AFTER his death. Elvis had a 150 GOLD albums. Michael had ONLY about 7 or 8 major album releases and STILL has OVER 200 million( I don't agree with the numbers posted) in records sold. The Beatles released a little over 30 albums. Just looking at those statistics, Michael sold MORE than either the Beatles or Elvis, because he released far less albums and STILL outsold BOTH iover a shorter span of time.

Again, I am not trying to diminish Elvis' popularity nor the Beatles. I am just putting things into perspective when you talk about and post sales. Btw, I like this discussion. Thus far, it hasn't derailed into bashing and that is refreshing.

I

[Edited 3/31/14 19:20pm]

How old are you?

USA

1. Elvis

2. Beatles

3. Michael

Internationally:

1. Beatles

2. Michael

3. Elvis