Interestingly I've had many people argue that the Beatles were, in fact, NOT influential at all. Just a pop band that recycled old music. Not surprisingly it comes out in those conversations that the person doesn't like their music.

I don't particularly like Michael Jackson's music. Nor Elvis's. They both have a few songs I like, but on the whole it doesn't interest me. But I recognize that they had musical talent, and, possibly more germane to the discussion at hand, were skilled entertainers. As such, I am not much of a fan of most people who are heavily, directly, influenced by them, but appreciate the talent of those that do it well (Timberlake, Beyonce, Madonna, or Elvis Costello to throw one in for Elvis that I can think of). As is the case with ANY great artist, most who they influence will be pale echoes because great ones are few and far between. So while the influencer will be appreciated by anyone who can appreciate top-level talent, the influencees will, by and large, remain within the world of the genre. But whether one appreciates the various results of the influence is measure of personal value of the influence, not a measure of the magnitude of influence.

Besides, is what Michael Jackson reduced top-40 entertainment to that much worse than what Elvis reduced Vegas entertainment to?

My use of "create" and "creative component" were in reference to the fact that he wrote a lot of his own songs (including many of the hits), choreographed, was an active participant in the creation of his videos, and collaborated with many other artists to create other music and projects. In contrast to Elvis who did not write his own songs. I suppose I don't have any proof to back this up, but I'll got out on a limb and guess that Michael Jackson gave more creative input during the production of his music video, or The Wiz, than Elvis did for any of his movies. Michale Jackson owned music catalogs and produced other people's music.

No, he wasn't the innovator any of those individual elements, but he did actively help create the Michael Jackson industry and in doing so changed the music landscape (for better or for worse).

In all of those regards, I consider Michael Jackson a more active participant in creating his legacy and influence than was Elvis. How great of a legacy and influence that ended up being is a separate question, which I earlier conceded, from a "how the industry operates" standpoint, may very well favor Elvis. But I'd still argue that when dealing with absolute mega-stars that go far beyond the details of how "good" their music was, or who explicitly claims them as influences, or how record labels changed to accommodate them there's no clear-cut way to simply say, "Yes, so-and-so was more influential than the other guy."

All points well made, GD.

An interesting and somewhat depressing aside is that one thing that both Elvis and Michael had in common (other than premature drug-induced deaths) is that neither of them were able to handle the massive amount of wealth that their careers generated. Towards the end, Elvis had to give away all future royalties on his biggest hits for a relatively minor advance, and Michael wound up in so much debt that the Beatles publishing catalog that owned (much to The Beatles' chagrin) went to Sony.

Breaking up was the smartest thing The Beatles ever did. ;)

Agreed - otherwise we never would have had The Wings

I stand by Kraftwerk

Personally, I don't care much for Elvis, MJ OR the Beatles for that matter. They didn't do much to influence my own musical taste and the music I've chosen to follow for the past 20 or 30 years. Bowie or The Stones, they would be high on my own personal list.

As for Chris' Kraftwork post - I'd have to somewhat agree with the general influence role they took. If it wasn't for Kraftwerk, there would be no rap music.

Back to the original question... I think that they both (and most others mentioned here) had an incredible impact on music (sound, look, related arts, the industry... everything). Whether I particularly enjoy any one over the other, I think, is moot. My opinions weren't asked on musical preference; only, who had the bigger impact on music?

Is impact on something like music even quantifiable? I think that's the problem with these "50 best ever albums/songs/artists" lists. Everyone will have a different one. Some artists, arguably, will find a greater consensus among the people as being 'great' or having a 'big impact'...

Meh, I'm too cranky to be having this conversation in my head. I'll have to revisit this later. I'm cranky with the entire premise. Grr...

I agree. I would add that my use of the word "crap" does not merely signal criticism of pieces of music but of a pernicious cultural phenomenon. Indeed, I would submit that most passionate criticism of art is not directed solely at the art work standing alone but at how art influences behavior.

For example, I would say that whoever convinced the women of America--and, indeed, some of the grade school girls of America--that they need to be walking around with their ass crack popping out of the top of their jeans has not merely committed an error of fashion judgment. They have done something bad.

I think Elvis and MJ influenced music and culture in different ways.

Elvis broke barriers regarding dance and music style as well as "decency standards". Without Elvis who knows if MJs dance style (complete with crotch grabbing) would have been accepted and embraced. Or maybe he would have been the one to break them.

I think, by virtue of being around first Elvis and the Beatles laid the ground work for MJ to be as successful and influential as he was.