At Their Peak, Who Was More Famous: The Beatles or Michael Jackson?
- Thread starter bogey_j
- Start date
BlackDiBiase
Superstar
co-sign but people only fcuk with john lennon and george harrison. paul mccartney solo is/was a flop.
null
...
They have a Tupac statue at a major museum in Germany.
That's sure going to help with those stereotyping Germans ...
I'll
them when they let a breh run a Dax 100 company. Hell, even if they let a breh run a McD's 
Michael Jackson
hell Michael Jackson been dead for more than a decade and is still more popular than Paul McCartney and ringo Starr put together
hell Michael Jackson been dead for more than a decade and is still more popular than Paul McCartney and ringo Starr put together
These 5 people are far more famous than Jordan.
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
Elvis
Hitler
Pope
In terms of talent how would you compare elvis to the beatles?
null
...
Elvis was a showman and the Beatles were braniacs. Paul McCartney is a great musician and has an amazing ear for a catchy tune. I don't know Elvis well enough.
Lord have mercy. I didn't say the songs were necessarily about political activity or subjects. Society can change in important ways and your music can be associated with it without you directly referencing it. Just trace back the late 19th century through to the 70's. What happened which could have contributed towards this icon status. Let's think. WWI, WWII, Civil Rights, mass adoption of mass broadcast media, Great Depression, Industrialisation, End of most European Colonialism. Creation of pop culture, pop bands, pop single, chart shows. Mass communication. Global interconnectivity. Global mass travel. Freedom and love power movements. etc etc
The generation that grew up with important events connect the music with those times and those are the people who now decide what gets played, what gets used for adverts, what gets used in film and media, which images are seen and all of this reinforces the association and the timelessness as time passes.
If we had a nuclear war next week you can bet that the songs which inspired us to crawl out of the ashes would become time associated icons as well.
Just ask yourself what makes the golden age of cinema/comics the GOLDEN age.
and ... caveman set the tone for all of us. it doesn't work like that. you are not celebrated because your music is a derivative style of what came before you. if that were the case then all the clones (incl. Beatles clones - Oasis) would also have a tentpole in our common history but they don't have that.
So as to not get buried in opinions and opinion pieces let me illustrate what I was saying in this way;
"Muhammad Ali was honored as the Sportsman of the Century during Sports Illustrated's 20th Century Sports Awards at Madison Square Garden on Thursday night."
Ali Chosen Century's Greatest
Understand now?
What the hell are you talking about though, because John Lennon made some faux political songs doesn’t mean his influence on pop culture would be look on more positively or is more important than MJ...
MJ has every single kid of a certain generation doing the moonwalk, there are millions of kids around the world who don’t even know who the Beatles are, MJ was a big deal in The Beatles era and an even bigger deal worldwide long after they were gone.
All your arguments are from a Rolling Stones magazine Cac western lens, the little kids in Africa who were trying to break dance like MJ could give a fukk about The Beatles and their supposed social activism.
Also Muhammad Ali is the greatest boxer based on skills and narrative, he is heralded as a great man beyond that due to his ideals. Take away that from him and he is still the youngest Heavyweight champion of his time, he is stil, the heavyweight boxer who had the skills and movement that was rarely seen in that division, he is still the aging boxer who produced a complete antithhesis to what he was as a boxer in his early days to defeat Foreman, he is still arguably the greatest.
As someone who follows boxing I get annoyed when people try to act as if it’s only because of his activism and he is revered as he is, it’s not true take that away and he is still that guy.
null
...
Typical coli answer. Two posts now and you are still not understanding it.
I never said anything about the Beatles being more famous. I actually voted for Michael.
I said it before and I'll say it again, MJ's biggest asset was the Beatles catalogue. That is an indication of the time window and breath of utility for those assets. Their value was beyond those of Michael's own catalogue.
Ali is not even close to being the best Sportsman of the Century based on sport alone.
Beatles sold many more records than MJ and that's before you include their solo careers. Wiki has them at double. Others at about 60 million more.
I will leave it at that as you cannot talk to people with so little experience within which to contextualise events.
The Beatles have a bigger cultural footprint and will have a more enduring one. Michael could be supplanted by the right person with the right talent, but because of the cultural elements even clones of the Beatles could not supplant them in the annals of history. Same with Ali, Hendrix etc. Same with Hitler FWIW.
Billy Joel has sold more records than MJ too, thats just because cacs in the usa have more money. Not because they are more famous or more popular. Nobody listens to Billy Joel outside the USA like that. MJ Jackson's world tours in 80 and 90s grossed more than any beatles tours or Billy Joel tour ever did. Thats proof he is more famous.
White people in here making weak arguments for the Beatles
i was on an army base in the Afghanistan desert in the middle of literally NOWHERE and the local nationals who couldn’t speak a LICK of english knew Michael Jackson and would spend time watching DVD’s of his music videos.
If you said “The Beatles” to them they’d think you were talking about insects
NOBODY is touching the worldwide international fame of Michael Joseph Jackson.
That man has the highest selling album worldwide of ALL time. He also has the highest selling Remix album of ALL time. He also has the highest selling double album of ALL time. In the Guinness World Records he is literally named as the most successful artist of ALL time. He’s the FIRST artist to ever sell 100 Million albums OUTSIDE of the United States.
The Beatles were aight but there is NO argument that makes any common sense that could put their fame above
LOOK at this shyt
i was on an army base in the Afghanistan desert in the middle of literally NOWHERE and the local nationals who couldn’t speak a LICK of english knew Michael Jackson and would spend time watching DVD’s of his music videos.
If you said “The Beatles” to them they’d think you were talking about insects
NOBODY is touching the worldwide international fame of Michael Joseph Jackson.That man has the highest selling album worldwide of ALL time. He also has the highest selling Remix album of ALL time. He also has the highest selling double album of ALL time. In the Guinness World Records he is literally named as the most successful artist of ALL time. He’s the FIRST artist to ever sell 100 Million albums OUTSIDE of the United States.
The Beatles were aight but there is NO argument that makes any common sense that could put their fame above
LOOK at this shyt
null
...
My breh @Luke Cage why you gotta do yourself like that ..
I didn't say that the Beatles were more famous. Try and read what I said.
I gave you a discography wikipedia link. You can see what records they sold and where.
Touring. You know the Beatles only existed for 10 years (60-70) and were big for ~6 of those (~64). They stopped touring months after they became famous in '66 for a number of reasons - The Day the Beatles Decided to Stop Touring .
"That's proof that he is more famous" is just BS right? The Beatles only toured at the start of their rise to international fame.
The Beatles are not American. They sold < 3rd of their records in the USA (by wiki count).
interesting links here:
Which artist had a huge impact on Japan, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley or Beatles? - Quora
If you want to argue about things I didn't say then @ someone else.
-
Maybe this will help some:
example 1:
p*ssy Cat Dolls, Nikki Minaj have sold more records than Public Enemy but their cultural footprint is smaller than PE's.
example 2:
Queen is (IMO) a better band than the Rolling Stones but the Rolling Stones have a bigger cultural footprint.
I can accept this even though I prefer Queen to the Rolling Stones. MJ stans need to be more objective.
What significant events and / or cultural changes is MJ associated with? Play an MJ song and outside of his performance what time, events, surroundings, culture, zeitgeist does it evoke? In the absence of these references when the power brokers in society want to evoke feelings of the past / familiarity / better times / home and all that jazz in film, image, marketing etc they will look elsewhere.
I don't see MJ jackets, bandages, hairstyles, bandages, pets, dance moves etc being expressed in contemporary 2020 and they will not see how evoking that imagery or those feelings is going to be effective far out into the future. On the other hand certain hairstyles, "swammi boo" mysticism, those suits, grunge still work. Those are from the 60's, 20 years before MJ.
The modern world was shaped by events like WWII, Civil Rights, colonialism, free-love, rejection of conformity, TV, global communications, splintering of political and social ideologies. They rode the waves of growing prosperity, freedom and choice for women, fashion (still relevant), pop culture, pop concerts. The Beatles benefitted from and influenced the rapid changes during the 60's and heavily contributed to what came in popular music after that.
Crehs make the decisions as to what appears in our media, films, advertising, catwalks, in stores, on the radio so I don't see how the suggestions of a "creh point of view" detract from my point.
Don't hate the messenger.
The thread is about who is more famous, i have no comment on the impact or imprint you're talking about. but go head with it.
null
...
White people in here making weak arguments for the Beatles
i was on an army base in the Afghanistan desert in the middle of literally NOWHERE and the local nationals who couldn’t speak a LICK of english knew Michael Jackson and would spend time watching DVD’s of his music videos.
If you said “The Beatles” to them they’d think you were talking about insects
That man has the highest selling album worldwide of ALL time. He also has the highest selling Remix album of ALL time. He also has the highest selling double album of ALL time. In the Guinness World Records he is literally named as the most successful artist of ALL time. He’s the FIRST artist to ever sell 100 Million albums OUTSIDE of the United States.
The Beatles were aight but there is NO argument that makes any common sense that could put their fame above
LOOK at this shyt
1. I ain't a creh
2. I am not saying the Beatles are more famous
3. The Beatles sold many more records than MJ.
4. The Beatles have a bigger cultural footprint
5. Mania on tour - see below: That screaming that they did at MJ was INVENTED by the Beatles
watch these videos and then say that again ..
1. I ain't a creh
2. I am not saying the Beatles are more famous
3. The Beatles sold many more records than MJ.
4. The Beatles have a bigger cultural footprint
5. Mania on tour - see below: That screaming that they did at MJ was INVENTED by the Beatles
watch these videos and then say that again ..
null
...
Well I only mentioned it by way of passing and then you and about 4 other people misunderstood what I said and jumped on it.
