Michael Jackson Is The Best Pop Artist Ever

[DeJulez]

How many albums do the Beatles have in the top 10 albums off all time.

Any music publication worth its salt puts at least 3 Beatles albums in top 10 of all time

MJ has none. Hes not even close.

The Beatles were more important to music than MJ. They influenced everyone artistically.

Their impact was more profound on the music industry. Even MJ would tell u that

Ask the biggest artists of the past 30 years and most will list MJ as an influence, the Beatles to a lesser extent.
Id put Thriller over any Beatles album.

 

[Dayman1984]

Was Elvis just a handsome guy or did he sing and make classic songs too? He was the right guy at the right time. There was never a black Elvis before Elvis. All of your favourite bands 'stole' as you say from someone else, all of them. It's called influence. Elvis was a force and nobody had his sexuality back then. None of the other white acts had what Elvis had and they were all on par with the other big black acts too, Elvis stepped over all of them with music, good looks and controversy. Every white rock band and star in the 60's credits black musicians, and Elvis. I've seen plenty of bio's etc for all kinds and the Beatles, Zeppelin, The Stones, Clapton, David Gilmour all credit black music and if you listen to the right stuff you'll hear all those guitarist in the old Blues riffs ....... anyways, not even sure what I'm defending here... who's the best? I choose Elvis based on popularity and influence, not just popularity. I'm not even really an Elvis fan.

I don't want to get into some lame racial divide over music here so I'm changing the subject because it's late on a saturday night.... when I listen to the song below by Albert King I hear David Gilmour from Pink Floyd's Shine on you Crazy Diamond, Jimmy Page's Since I've been Lovin you... Stevie Ray Vaughn, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, BB King... I'm sure there's more but that's who I hear, a bunch of white guys and a couple black guys... all influenced by Albert King. No doubt King listened to Robert Johnson & BB King and was influenced by them, then Albert plays his stuff and then all those guys I listed above heard Albert King and incorporated what he did into their own stuff, maybe even BB King too, the whole thing goes full circle. Black or white has nothing to do with it when it comes to music. Not to me.

Listen to this, at least the first 5 minutes and hear how music can evolve from influence. Enjoy.










Drops mic.

Albert King rules.

 

[Madmick]

You said that in 10 years they sold more than Michael did in 30 years.
The sales total you put up is their sales up to date.
You would have to post the Beatles sales just from 1960-1970 not 1960-Present.

Beatles put out 24-27 studio albums by the way. And Michaels solo stuff as as a teenager sold better than alot of the Beatles early stuff until they got bigger. But Michael's biggest cds sold better than the Beatles CDs, its just that the Beatles have more.
And thats only counting studio albums, and not all their live albums and so on.

A modified, softer concession is still a capitulation. Michael is flat out less popular-- for whatever that is worth-- than the Beatles. This is established.

Almost all of the Beatles sales occur from the albums written in a 7 year-window. Also, The Beatles didn't put out anywhere close to 27 recorded studio albums. This reeks of the ignorance of someone who knows nothing about the Beatles looking at a discography without realizing that "albums" like Something New (a glorified packaging of an already existing movie soundtrack) and multiple re-packaged titles like Introducing...The Beatles (a rehashed US version of Please Please Me) aren't actually "studio albums". This is a vestige of a recording industry that package numerous album revisions for different markets. Today they just release the same album digitally everywhere.

1963 -- Please Please Me
1963 -- With the Beatles
1964 -- A Hard Day's Night
1964 -- Beatles for Sale
1965 -- Help!
1965 -- Rubber Soul
1966 -- Revolver
1967 -- Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
1967 -- Magical Mystery Tour
1968 -- The Beatles [White Album]
1969 -- Yellow Submarine
1969 -- Abbey Road
1970 -- Let It Be
13 Albums

And that's counting Yellow Submarine which barely qualifies. Those albums-- all wrought in a 7-year period-- have outsold MJ's entire discography. Whether or not this counts sales recorded after that period is little more than semantics.

 

[Gervinho]

MJ is the greatest musician ever and its not even close

 

[The Diplomat]

MJ is the greatest musician ever and its not even close

How many instruments did he play?

 

[Fedorgasm]

MJ is the greatest performer in history. Sure, there have been better songwriters, and some better singers, and arguably even some better dancers. But nobody had the total package like Michael. He could do all 3, PLUS he had an amazing flair for the dramatic. He really wanted everything he did to be on the hugest scale imaginable.

Never heard anyone say they were disappointed with a MJ performance.

 

[The Diplomat]

MJ is the greatest performer in history. Sure, there have been better songwriters, and some better singers, and arguably even some better dancers. But nobody had the total package like Michael. He could do all 3, PLUS he had an amazing flair for the dramatic. He really wanted everything he did to be on the hugest scale imaginable.

Never heard anyone say they were disappointed with a MJ performance.

I'd definitely agree with this. Greatest performer ever, puts on an amazing show.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Ask the biggest artists of the past 30 years and most will list MJ as an influence, the Beatles to a lesser extent.
Id put Thriller over any Beatles album.

Lol this must b a joke.
Lif not for the Beatles there are no modern artists like today.

Name an important band. Well they were influenced by the Beatles.

Nirvana, U2, black sabbath.

the Beatles are much more influential than Mj.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

How many instruments did he play?

None.

I'd say Jagger is just as good of a perfeomer if not better than Jackson. But I'll give Jackson the 2 spot under the Beatles.

 

[The Diplomat]

Lol this must b a joke.
Lif not for the Beatles there are no modern artists like today.

Name an important band. Well they were influenced by the Beatles.

Nirvana, U2, black sabbath.

the Beatles are much more influential than Mj.

Yeah, Ozzy and Gene Simmons both wanted to be Beatles when they were younger.

 

[The Diplomat]

None.

I'd say Jagger is just as good of a perfeomer if not better than Jackson. But I'll give Jackson the 2 spot under the Beatles.

Jagger is great with the chicken dance, but people thought Jackson was an alien or something when he pulled this off:



Probably my favorite performance of MJ's, it was his "coming out" party so to speak.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Jagger is great with the chicken dance, but people thought Jackson was an alien or something when he pulled this off:



Probably my favorite performance of MJ's, it was his "coming out" party so to speak.

It's hard to deny MJ being a sick performer. His dance moves are def sick.

 

[HereticBD]

MJ's dance moves are nearly indefinable. I'm sure there were other dudes out there who could do what he did, but on that stage, nobody could match MJ.

MJ's dancing is another beast altogether. I can't even imagine how influential it was/is in that world.

 

[DeJulez]

A modified, softer concession is still a capitulation. Michael is flat out less popular-- for whatever that is worth-- than the Beatles. This is established.

He was wrong its as simple as that. He said in 10 years the Beatles sold more than Michael did in 30. Thats just not correct.
You also name off there albums but failed to mention that their 2nd biggest selling CD came out in 2000, not 1960-1970.
The Beatles are no where near the magnitude that Michael is, let alone theres 4 or 5 of them compared to one guy.
You really think the Beatles are bigger tham MJ in China? Mexico? Japan? Germany? Ghana? South Africa? Ecuador? Not even a chance.
Michael Jackson is a global phenomenon while the Beatles were big in England and America.

What it is is that you guys are rock fans and not r&b fans. Thats why some idiot just said Mick Jagger is a better performer than MJ. Get the fuck outta here with that Jagger shit, puttin your hands on your hips while you make pouty duck lipped faces.

Time to deal with the truth but your precious Beatles are one of the most overrated groups who's subpar music captured a generation of half assed listener's.
Id take Curtis Mayfield and all of the explosions of funk music of the 70s over the Beatles.
Id take Jimi Hendrix to play those ass clowns right out of the building.

 

[DeJulez]

1982 -"Thriller" 65M-110M records. Well round it down to 65M just so the Beatles fans dont get upset.

1987-"Bad" 40-45M records

1991-"Dangerous" 32M records.

Thats 9 years, 3 albums, 137M-187M, for an average of 45M-62M sales per album for that stretch of time.

The Beatles were never fuckin with those types of numbers.

Just to continue the narrative 1995s History has sold 20M-30M, which technically means it sold 40M-60M due to it being a two album CD.

Can you name 4 Beatles albums, in a row, that sold like that?

 

[Madmick]

He was wrong its as simple as that. He said in 10 years the Beatles sold more than Michael did in 30. Thats just not correct.
You also name off there albums but failed to mention that their 2nd biggest selling CD came out in 2000, not 1960-1970.
The Beatles are no where near the magnitude that Michael is, let alone theres 4 or 5 of them compared to one guy.

These are all sales generated from songs produced on the albums of that period.

The Beatles have had vastly more impact. Globalization is not a wise metric to employ. Michael had the benefit of increasing industrialization of telecommunications and the increasing sophistication of delivery of content. By that metric Adele will destroy Michael in the sprawl of her popularity due to the nature an industry as it exists 2 decades after he was last relevant. Hell, add Bieber to the tab. Dude dominates every country on the Spotify charts and has like 2 billion views on YouTube.

1982 -"Thriller" 65M-110M records. Well round it down to 65M just so the Beatles fans dont get upset.

1987-"Bad" 40-45M records

1991-"Dangerous" 32M records.

Thats 9 years, 3 albums, 137M-187M, for an average of 45M-62M sales per album for that stretch of time.

The Beatles were never fuckin with those types of numbers.

Can you name 4 Beatles albums, in a row, that sold like that?

Why would one restrict the Beatles to 3 albums during that stretch of time when they produced 13 albums (that vastly outsell those three) in 2 fewer years? The ability to produce volume (at a level of greatness) in a body of work is just as important as being able to produce the quality of greatness itself. Overexposure is a hazard among others; that the Beatles were more prolific is a tick in their column's favor, not against it.

Just to continue the narrative 1995s History has sold 20M-30M, which technically means it sold 40M-60M due to it being a two album CD.

No, it wasn't. It was a two-volume album. BTW, the White Album was a (four-sided) two-volume album. Just funny to hear you keep talking like any comparisons you make are equally valid when it's so obvious we know both the Beatles & MJ while you only know MJ. Well, apparently not even the latter.

Maybe we should start adjusting album sales for populational inflation while we're desperately attempting to split hairs. Dude, The Beatles were bigger. Bigger than Jesus. There's nothing to debate. It's no one's fault but your own for staking so much in that metric.

 

[DeJulez]

Why would one restrict the Beatles to 3 albums during that stretch of time when they produced 13 albums (that vastly outsell those three) in 2 fewer years? The ability to produce volume (at a level of greatness) in a body of work is just as important as being able to produce the quality of greatness itself. Overexposure is a hazard among others. That the Beatles were more prolific is a tick in their column's favor, not against it.

No, it wasn't. It was a two-volume album. BTW, the White Album was a (four-sided) two-volume album. Just funny to hear you keep talking like any comparisons you make are equally valid when it's so obvious we know both the Beatles & MJ while you only know MJ. Well, apparently not even the latter.

Maybe we should start adjusting album sales for populational inflation while we're desperately attempting to split hairs. Dude, The Beatles were bigger. Bigger than Jesus. There's nothing to debate. It's no one's fault but your own for staking so much in that metric.

Yea, they put out more albums and most weren't classics.
You telling me every Beatles album is must have? Fuck no.
Your mad because you obviously didn't know the magnitude of MJs selling power.
Nothing of what you say proves the Beatles being bigger than Michael.
Michael in death is still bigger than the Beatles. Michael actually OWNING the Beatles, proves Michael was bigger.
I put up 4 albums in a row with monstrous sales and then you ramble some horseshit about splitting hairs, and the Beatles white album was 4 discs or some shit, which means that if its actually 4 separate cds (which i don't think it is) then it selling only 9.5M in America means it really only sold about 2.37M.
The music industry counts out CDs shipped/Sold.
So if you make a double disc album and sell 50 cds, it would actually count as 100 cds, if you understand. Thats not my rules, thats how the business actually works.

 

[DeJulez]

I should add that the White album came out before CDs, obviously

 

[DM1982]

How many instruments did he play?

Keyboard/synthesizer.

Composed lots of his music; including Billie Jean.

A true all-round talent.

 

[DM1982]

None.

I'd say Jagger is just as good of a perfeomer if not better than Jackson. But I'll give Jackson the 2 spot under the Beatles.

Wrong.

Keyboard/synthesizer.

Composed lots of his music; including Billie Jean.

A true all-round talent.