SeventeenDayze said:

don't you think there's something to be said for the impact that Michael had on pop music that still exists today? I don't think there are any current pop acts that are influenced by the Beatles as they are influenced by MJ.

If you're talking about current Top 40 on the radio, isn't the influence more hip hop than either Mike or The Beatles directly? Hip hop even has a little influence on country music with some country hits having guest rappers on them and also the sub-genre "hick hop". Rappers like Ice Cube, Fresh Prince, Ice T, Queen Latifah, Snoop Dogg, Eve, Marky Mark, & LL Cool J have become movie/TV stars in a way that old singers like Elvis Presley, Neil Diamond, Bee Gees, Prince, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Madonna, and Mike himself couldn't. Some of Elvis movies made a lot of money at the time, but he was not considered a serious actor by the critics because of the kind of movies he was in. Hip hop has also influenced fashion more than Mike or The Beatles. I don't walk down the street and see people wearing collarless suits, Moe Howard haircuts, penny loafers, or zippered glitter jackets. The lyrics of popular R&B songs are closer to hip hop than to Luther Vandross and so is the look of people like Trey Songz.

SeventeenDayze said:

free2bfreeda said:

they were unique in their delivery.

imo music should bring people of all races together which is what the beatles music did at the time.

Bring people of all races together is something that the Beatles did huh? What about this?? We can talk about the irony of this video in another thread if you'd like....

"at the time."

i luv little richard. he also has had a great impact in music.

i alos luved the beatles, and i still enjoy their music.

3 of my favs.

=======

1.Yesterday

2.Eleanor Rigby

3.Get Back

this is a good thread so far. i hope it's not about denigrating artist and who came first, "the musical egg or the musical chicken."

let's try to stay respectfully positive.

free2bfreeda said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Bring people of all races together is something that the Beatles did huh? What about this?? We can talk about the irony of this video in another thread if you'd like....

"at the time."

i luv little richard. he also has had a great impact in music.

i alos luved the beatles, and i still enjoy their music.

3 of my favs.

=======

1.Yesterday

2.Eleanor Rigby

3.Get Back

this is a good thread so far. i hope it's not about denigrating artist and who came first, "the musical egg or the musical chicken."

let's try to stay respectfully positive.

You always troll me as some sort of "thread police" Who is being anything other than respectful in this discussion? I swear, I could make a thread saying water is wet and people like you and a few others I can think of like clockwork will come in and proceed to be a contrarian. You disregard Little Richard's contribution to bringing "all races" together even though he was already an established artist well before the Beatles came along.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

don't you think there's something to be said for the impact that Michael had on pop music that still exists today? I don't think there are any current pop acts that are influenced by the Beatles as they are influenced by MJ.

If you're talking about current Top 40 on the radio, isn't the influence more hip hop than either Mike or The Beatles directly? Hip hop even has a little influence on country music with some country hits having guest rappers on them and also the sub-genre "hick hop". Rappers like Ice Cube, Fresh Prince, Ice T, Queen Latifah, Snoop Dogg, Eve, Marky Mark, & LL Cool J have become movie/TV stars in a way that old singers like Elvis Presley, Neil Diamond, Bee Gees, Prince, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Madonna, and Mike himself couldn't. Some of Elvis movies made a lot of money at the time, but he was not considered a serious actor by the critics because of the kind of movies he was in. Hip hop has also influenced fashion more than Mike or The Beatles. I don't walk down the street and see people wearing collarless suits, Moe Howard haircuts, penny loafers, or zippered glitter jackets. The lyrics of popular R&B songs are closer to hip hop than to Luther Vandross and so is the look of people like Trey Songz.

The Wiz? Thriller? Moonwalker? Smooth Criminal? Speed Demon? Just because they were short films doesn't mean Michael didn't have an impact outside of music. By the way, do you honestly think Michael didn't influence Chris Brown here?

SeventeenDayze said:

You disregard Little Richard's contribution to bringing "all races" together even though he was already an established artist well before the Beatles came along.

Well Little Richard did have more limited success. That's why Pat Boone outsold him with the same songs. Sam Cooke, however did crossover and had Top 40 pop success and so did Chuck Berry, Chubby Checker, Fats Domino, and Jackie Wilson to a lesser extent. Sam was 2nd after Elvis Presley in popularity on RCA Records during their heyday. It did not help Little Richard's career either that he quit during the height of his popularity to become a preacher. By the time he returned to secular music, his time had passed.

SeventeenDayze said:

free2bfreeda said:

"at the time."

i luv little richard. he also has had a great impact in music.

i alos luved the beatles, and i still enjoy their music.

3 of my favs.

=======

1.Yesterday

2.Eleanor Rigby

3.Get Back

this is a good thread so far. i hope it's not about denigrating artist and who came first, "the musical egg or the musical chicken."

let's try to stay respectfully positive.

You always troll me as some sort of "thread police" Who is being anything other than respectful in this discussion? I swear, I could make a thread saying water is wet and people like you and a few others I can think of like clockwork will come in and proceed to be a contrarian. You disregard Little Richard's contribution to bringing "all races" together even though he was already an established artist well before the Beatles came along.

listen sweetie,

i refuse to lower myself to a disrespectful level in some sort of immature quibble with you.

imo this is a great thread about a great band - the beatles.

a person having an individual pov should not cause an implosion of a great moment in music history.

this thread is not about you or me. so please ease up.

i refuse to insult you back.

The Beatles: 7 Ways the Fab Four Changed America

: http://www.thefiscaltimes...ed-America

1. We Became a Guitar Nation.

2. We Rediscovered Joy.

3. We Changed Our Hair

4. We Felt Anglo Envy.

5. We Enjoyed a Musical Renaissance.

6. We Experienced a Social Uprising.

7. Our Creativity Blossomed.

(note: imo i put the BEATLES right up next to EARTH WIND & Fire as far as the impact on music for the masses)

SeventeenDayze said:

The Wiz? Thriller? Moonwalker? Smooth Criminal? Speed Demon? Just because they were short films doesn't mean Michael didn't have an impact outside of music.

These kinds of comments is why I said research it yourself. Since you're not going to be convinced either way.

free2bfreeda said:

SeventeenDayze said:

You always troll me as some sort of "thread police" Who is being anything other than respectful in this discussion? I swear, I could make a thread saying water is wet and people like you and a few others I can think of like clockwork will come in and proceed to be a contrarian. You disregard Little Richard's contribution to bringing "all races" together even though he was already an established artist well before the Beatles came along.

listen sweetie,

i refuse to lower myself to a disrespectful level in some sort of immature quibble with you.

imo this is a great thread about a great band - the beatles.

a person having an individual pov should not cause an implosion of a great moment in music history.

this thread is not about you or me. so please ease up.

i refuse to insult you back.

The Beatles: 7 Ways the Fab Four Changed America

: http://www.thefiscaltimes...ed-America

1. We Became a Guitar Nation.

2. We Rediscovered Joy.

3. We Changed Our Hair

4. We Felt Anglo Envy.

5. We Enjoyed a Musical Renaissance.

6. We Experienced a Social Uprising.

7. Our Creativity Blossomed.

(note: imo i put the BEATLES right up next to EARTH WIND & Fire as far as the impact on music for the masses)

You always troll me and pretend that YOU are the voice of reason. Why is it okay for YOU to have a certain opinion but I can't? I would appreciate it from now on you don't address me any more. I'm really tired of how you do this on every thread that I post. Enough already. You're being silly and I don't have time for it. I have nothing left to say to you. Thanks.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

The Wiz? Thriller? Moonwalker? Smooth Criminal? Speed Demon? Just because they were short films doesn't mean Michael didn't have an impact outside of music.

These kinds of comments is why I said research it yourself. Since you're not going to be convinced either way.

What makes you think I can't "be convinced"? I backed up my comment with what I perceive to be evidence. Just because you don't agree or have the same perspective doesn't mean that I am lacking somehow in the knowledge department

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

You disregard Little Richard's contribution to bringing "all races" together even though he was already an established artist well before the Beatles came along.

Well Little Richard did have more limited success. That's why Pat Boone outsold him with the same songs. Sam Cooke, however did crossover and had Top 40 pop success and so did Chuck Berry, Chubby Checker, Fats Domino, and Jackie Wilson to a lesser extent. Sam was 2nd after Elvis Presley in popularity on RCA Records during their heyday. It did not help Little Richard's career either that he quit during the height of his popularity to become a preacher. By the time he returned to secular music, his time had passed.

I think perhaps one reason that Sam Cooke was as popular is that he had "softer features" and wasn't as boisterous....we could start another thread on that issue in and of itself

: http://entertainment.hows...ingles.htm

The story of The Beatles is truly epic. Not only did they create some of the most popular music in the history of rock 'n' roll, but when Rolling Stone magazine compiled its 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, The Beatles beat out everyone else with a whopping 23 songs on the list.

For a week in 1964, John, Paul, George, and Ringo had 12 songs on Billboard's Hot 100, including the number one, two, three, four, and five songs. Nobody before or since has accomplished that feat.

Yup!

Yesterday is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their albumHelp! (1965). According to the Guinness Book of Records, "Yesterday" has the most cover versions of any song ever written. The song remains popular today with more than 3000 recorded cover versions, the first hitting the United Kingdom top 10 three months after the release of Help!. BMI asserts that it was performed over seven million times in the 20th century alone, probably cementing the song as the most performed composition of all time. "Yesterday" was voted the best song of the 20th Century,

SeventeenDayze said:

I think perhaps one reason that Sam Cooke was as popular is that he had "softer features" and wasn't as boisterous....we could start another thread on that issue in and of itself

Richard was a flamboyant guy wearing a lot of makeup in the 1950s. Black singers of that time who were mainstream popular (with white adults rather than teens) really wasn't rock n roll so much. It was people like Nat King Cole, Harry Belafonte, Johnny Mathis, and Sammy Davis Jr. A lot of Sam's music was closer to those acts than to Chuck Berry & Elvis Presley. Sam probably was not as offensive to parents and had songs they could listen to as Sam recorded entire albums of standards and showtunes. Many white parents of the time did not like Elvis and called him a N-lover and that rock n' roll music was "corrupting the (white) youth" or making them "juvenile delinquents". Sam did a concert in the Copacabana, which had an "upper class" adult audience that were dressed in suits, tuxes, and fancy dresses, not screaming teenagers. Interestingly. Marvin Gaye originally wanted to be a Frank Sinatra style singer, not sing rock or R&B.

JKOOLMUSIC said:

I can cosign for Bob Marley equaling or surpassing The Beatles in the worldwide popular artist argument. His trajectory in terms of content, message, and presentation throughout his career also sort of mirrors The Beatles starting in consumer pop, then reinvention, and controversy. All the while each hit remains popular to this day. Bob did some really pop stuff before Exodus and all the social justice messages became prevalent in his albums. Michael Jackson's career was similar except he came from the band with his brothers and the dancing was a part of their act. IF MJ hadn't become "king of pop" and the J5 had the same path as say, The Jets (Google em), MJ would be remembered for all those amazing, classic J5 tunes as that adorable boy singing on TV. . Bob Marley didn't have backup dancers, he had a band who felt what he was doing and the tighest backup singers ever probably, both the I Threes (wife) and Tosh and Bunny (co-legend), a male and female take on that role. The Beatles and Bob Marley, if you really dig into their catalogs, there is just days and days of music that your imagination could ride with and you could close your eyes and fly away. They were jammin. Lengthy solos, some even instrumental songs. Dance routines and whatnot for pop acts were more of a Hollywood or Broadway thing before MTV...? This feeling of music combined with imagination, historically, likely traces back to radio in the communication stone age when people would sit around en masse, literally as we do to Nintendo and Netflix now, and they would sit there in a row listening to a box. A box. (Cue 2001:SpaceOdyssey) before the communications dark ages of pre-cable television and picture shows. . Maybe this is why Dayze is more into the psychadelic Beatles, the aural imagery versus actual imagery is much more profound in those albums. Sgt. Pepper's had that crazy historical class photo with the crazy rumors what the cover meant (visual mystery to stare at while listening). Mystery Tour had that weird costumed thing going. . I had to bow out cuz I was at work and they can tell when I get heated over online nonsense. My alltime favorite Beatles cover is Stevie Wonder's We Can Work It Out, second is Elvis Costello's cover of You've Got To Hide Your Love Away. I thiught it was so cool when En Vogue did Yesterday. Lauryn Hill slayed Something on Letterman a few years ago, even Dave was choked up.

That's funny that your coworkers "know" when you're getting heated on internet chat boards Funny.

Yes, I think the Sgt. Pepper's era was probably more profound than the era where they were basically doing remakes of a bunch of random black artists. I think Sgt. Pepper's was probably a bit more prolific than previous work that I've heard.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

I think perhaps one reason that Sam Cooke was as popular is that he had "softer features" and wasn't as boisterous....we could start another thread on that issue in and of itself

Richard was a flamboyant guy wearing a lot of makeup in the 1950s. Black singers of that time who were mainstream popular (with white adults rather than teens) really wasn't rock n roll so much. It was people like Nat King Cole, Harry Belafonte, Johnny Mathis, and Sammy Davis Jr. A lot of Sam's music was closer to those acts than to Chuck Berry & Elvis Presley. Sam probably was not as offensive to parents and had songs they could listen to as Sam recorded entire albums of standards and showtunes. Many white parents of the time did not like Elvis and called him a N-lover and that rock n' roll music was "corrupting the (white) youth" or making them "juvenile delinquents". Sam did a concert in the Copacabana, which had an "upper class" adult audience that were dressed in suits, tuxes, and fancy dresses, not screaming teenagers. Interestingly. Marvin Gaye originally wanted to be a Frank Sinatra style singer, not sing rock or R&B.

So, going back to my original point...don't your think Sam Cooke's looks had something to do with this success? I mean yes he could sing like a bird but he was also very handsome. Don't you think that made a difference?

JKOOLMUSIC said:

Yeah we try to keep it light anyhoo yeah The Beatles were really great musicians and produced some of the most popular modern recorded music. Bach didn't have backup dancers. Joni Mitchell didn't have backup dancers. Its a different type of art, artist, and era compared to today's corporate pop music. Its like Romeo Santos, but he does have backup dancers I think.

Sometimes I wonder if the Beatles were really that prolific because as I mentioned before, most of their fans were screaming teenage girls....I mean, don't you think that the ladies were hung up on the Beatles looks more than their musicianship?

SeventeenDayze said:

So, going back to my original point...don't your think Sam Cooke's looks had something to do with this success? I mean yes he could sing like a bird but he was also very handsome. Don't you think that made a difference?

It might have helped. But remember back in that time, a lot of people didn't know what the acts looked like. They only heard the acts on the radio. 45s didn't neccessarily have photos on them. Some albums by black performers had white people or some kind of drawing/art on the cover so that stores would stock them. Black performers were less likely to be seen on TV during the 1950s, especially in southern states where some TV stations would edit them out. The audience might have seen them if they appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show. But it's not like today where the average music act could be seen on TV often. There were no VCRs if you missed a show or to watch it over. That's how it was easy to have imposter groups in that era to perform concerts. James Brown briefly performed as Little Richard early in his career and they look nothing alike.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

So, going back to my original point...don't your think Sam Cooke's looks had something to do with this success? I mean yes he could sing like a bird but he was also very handsome. Don't you think that made a difference?

It might have helped. But remember back in that time, a lot of people didn't know what the acts looked like. They only heard the acts on the radio. 45s didn't neccessarily have photos on them. Some albums by black performers had white people or some kind of drawing/art on the cover so that stores would stock them. Black performers were less likely to be seen on TV during the 1950s, especially in southern states where some TV stations would edit them out. The audience might have seen them if they appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show. But it's not like today where the average music act could be seen on TV often. There were no VCRs if you missed a show or to watch it over. That's how it was easy to have imposter groups in that era to perform concerts. James Brown briefly performed as Little Richard early in his career and they look nothing alike.

Did Sam Cooke have any album covers that didn't have his face on them? Here's one that I found that had his face, along with others. I think in his case it was to his benefit that people knew what he looked like because he was handsome...

SeventeenDayze said:

Sometimes I wonder if the Beatles were really that prolific because as I mentioned before, most of their fans were screaming teenage girls....I mean, don't you think that the ladies were hung up on the Beatles looks more than their musicianship?

The Beatles released more matrial in around 8 years than later acts like George Michael, New Edition, & Sade have released in 30 years. It was common for acts to release 2 or 3 albums a year and maybe non album singles too. The Beatles had more albums in the US than in many other countries which used the British versions of the albums. Plus they had a lot of stuff that wasn't originally released while they were an active group. It was the early 1970s when record labels started releasing one album a year, then moreso post Thriller to milk it. That doesn't necessarily mean that acts only recorded songs that were released. Before the 1970s many albums came and went.

.

Ed Sullivan had a big audience and it wan't all teenage girls, and that doesn't really have anything to do with productivity. Look at the Jackson 5 who had 10 albums in basically a 6 year period up to 1975, plus a few solo albums by Mike & Jermaine during the same time. Jackie also had a solo album released. George Michael only has 5 albums, and 8 total if you include Wham!.

R&B and Soul covers of the Beatles

(1. smokey robinson comments on how the Beatles covered his song(s) )

1.

[Edited 2/19/16 21:00pm]

hausofmoi7 said:

The Beatles were the Original vanilla Ice from what I gather in the comments. they are praised as the first to use middle Easterrn sounds, the first to successfully co-opt the blues for mass European consumption ect... I have to agree with others thar outside of European dominated countries the Beatles are not that huge. I think Michael Jackson transcends cultural barriers further than any other artist, the Beatles don't even come close.

You are so clueless about both the Beatles and Michael Jackson that you need to go away and educate yourself before you post on this board again...

• To ensure the highest level of fact checking and editorial control, this list sources sales figures to news organizations and highly regarded music industry related organizations such as MTV, VH1, Billboard and Rolling Stone.
• The figures of total certified units within the table below are based on certified units of albums, singles (including digital downloads) and videos.
• Markets' order within the table is based on Retail Value: each market generates respectively, the largest market at the top and smallest at the bottom.^[3][4]

: https://en.wikipedia.org/...ic_artists

$$$$$ - seems money talks when it comes to points of noteriety.

however, michael jackson was a one of a kind entertainer who imo will not ever be matched as far as being an all around vocalist and performer.

purplethunder3121 said:

hausofmoi7 said:

Michael Jackson is bigger than the Beatles or any artist worldwide, from Europe to Asia to Latin America and Africa Michael's music is well known, you cant say that about the Beatles.

If there's country singers in Africa, why wouldn't the Beatles be known there? At least in some African countries.

purplethunder3121 said:

hausofmoi7 said:

The Beatles were the Original vanilla Ice from what I gather in the comments. they are praised as the first to use middle Easterrn sounds, the first to successfully co-opt the blues for mass European consumption ect... I have to agree with others thar outside of European dominated countries the Beatles are not that huge. I think Michael Jackson transcends cultural barriers further than any other artist, the Beatles don't even come close.

You are so clueless about both the Beatles and Michael Jackson that you need to go away and educate yourself before you post on this board again...

How is she clueless? What did she say that was inaccurate?

MickyDolenz said:

hausofmoi7 said:

purplethunder3121 said:

You are so clueless about both the Beatles and Michael Jackson that you need to go away and educate yourself before you post on this board again...

The Beatles seem to be heavily praised for introducing sounds to european masses.. Also for the life of me I cant tell Paul McCartney's voice apart from Cliff Richards. Michael Jackson is bigger than the Beatles or any artist worldwide, from Europe to Asia to Latin America and Africa Michael's music is well known, you cant say that about the Beatles. [Edited 2/19/16 21:46pm]

I can't think of any other ethnic group apart from Black Americans that have had their music routinely co-opted yet do not receive the same amount of "credit" for said cultural/artistic contributions to society. It's baffling. It's almost as if music contributions "don't count" unless they are accepted and then imitated by European counterparts. The Beatles, Stones, David Bowie, etc. have all said they were inspired by Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc.

Someone in this thread seems to be convinced that black artists doing Beatles cover songs is somehow more indicative of the "impact" of the Beatles more than the impact that black artists had on the Beatles which is being conveniently swept under the rug and not held in the same regard...