Elvis...or Michael?
 

Interesting question I heard posed today...who had more of an impact on music, Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson?

Personally, I kind of think it's a generational thing and people over 45-50 will tend to choose Elvis while those under 40-45 will tend to choose Michael.

Where do you fall? Who do you think had/will have a more lasting impact on music? Or, do you think they both brought a huge and equally significant change to music and it is an apples to oranges comparison?

Discuss.

I don't agree with the premise of the question. The correct answer is The Beatles.


But since all three will have had Cirque du Soleil shows based on them before the year is out, I suppose the comparison is moot. ;)

On the surface I'd fall on the side of MJ. Musically and entertainment...ly I consider them equals, but MJ gets the edge in my book because of his impact on the music industry itself. Like the Beatles, he went beyond a performer, or even a creator, and personally got involved in shaping the path of the music industry.

But that said, when you get to that scale it becomes silly to debate who is "more" influential. It's like debating "Which affects geology more, earthquakes or volcanoes." Far too many utterly inseparable factors to declare any sort of comparative victory. If you like MJ's music more, he's probably more of a personal impact to you. If you like Elvis' music more, he's probably more of a personal impact to you. Whether you like either of them or not, or claim not to be influenced by either of them, somewhere down the line something you are influenced by was influenced by one or both, thus indirectly influencing you.

The answer is - Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, The Beatles, The Sex Pistols, Bob Dylan, Beck, Jimi Hendrix...

Musically and entertainment-wise. Cumbersome, I know.

Paul Anka and Prince should certainly be up there.

ViSmM.

Just to be contrary, I'd say the GD's presumption that MJ shaped the music industry more than Elvis would be incorrect, and that Elvis actually had a greater impact on the industry as a whole.

But the correct answer is still The Beatles.

Elvis's existence and career perhaps, but Elvis himself? Unless I'm mistaken, it was the people around Elvis that did the real work. Whereas MJ himself wrote a good portion of his own music, produced it, and produced many other people's music himself.

So when it comes to which individual had a greater direct impact, I stand by MJ.

But yes, Beatles beat both in all categories.

Eh, you could say the same thing about Jesus.

It's a matter of timing. It's like saying Walt Disney shaped the theme park industry more than anyone else - which while true, is likely because he nearly invented it.

Recorded music was in its infancy when Elvis was doing his thing, and the same is pretty much true for The Beatles as well. Thus, they each had an opportunity to mold and shape music and its world more than the opportunity granted Michael Jackson by time.

I'll admit to not being a devoted fan of Michael Jackson, but it seems to me his music was not nearly as new or as much a turning point amalgamation of what went before as was the music of The Beatles or even Elvis. Just, ya know, imo.

I say Madonna should be up there, too.
Personally, I like MJ and have never been a fan of Elvis.

All I'm saying is that I give Michael Jackson the man more credit for his influence than I give Elvis. MJ the industry vs. Elvis the industry...who knows. Elvis has a quarter century head start (no counting Jackson-5 era).

MJ was more than a good performer that presented world-changing music and entertainment, he actually had a heavy personal hand in creating it, and in effecting the changes in the industry that followed in its wake. I mean that as no slight to Elvis' ample talent as a performer, but in terms of individual contribution to the whole, MJ wins.

The uniqueness of the music has never been the deciding factor. Sure the Beatles moved on from their early coop of motown staples to some truly unique and experimental stuff, but they were regarded as world-changing even when they were still doing covers of old songs with a slightly faster and louder beat. It's as much about presentation and attitude as it is about the music, which is why, despite my above arguments, I'm still unwilling to say MJ wins over Elvis because his individual talent and creative output are only part of the picture.

I wasn't putting personal vs. institutional as part of the equation. If that's a component, Elvis is OUT for not having written his own material. But if that's the case, I'm gonna put MJ at a disadvantage. He did not write all the stuff he performed. At an early point in The Beatles' career, they started composing ALL their own material.


Sigh, once again, and by any measure, The Beatles win. ;)

Examples?

Just off the top of my head:
*Thriller (writing credit for most of the album and of course the video, in which he was a major creative component).
*The commercial aspect of his work: from pure money-making ventures like the Pepsi deal, to his ownership of music catalogs (not that he invented it, but he certainly upped the ante and turned into the mega-scale business it is today), to the creation of the musical-charity business with Quincy Jones (not that music-as-charity didn't exist, but We Are The World was on a whole new scale compared to, say, Band Aid)
*The dominance since his career of acts like Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Madonna, etc. They all draw from his style and music, in which he was a major creative component.


I don't dispute that his influence on the industry was more about increment and scale than innovation, but he did so as an active participant in a way that hadn't really been done since, well, the Beatles.

I was just about to say if the question is who had more of a bad influence on music, Michael Jackson wins hands down for all the synchronized back-up dancer heavy crap he begat.

GD - he didn't innovate any of those changes - he had a massively successful album and spent a couple of years taking advantage of his fame in an industry that was still fairly insular.

Thriller - Thanksgiving '82
Pepsi - November '83 (Hardly an original deal - even the Rolling Stones had done a similar deal with Jovan for Tattoo You)
We Are The World - March '85 (You already mentioned Band-Aid. What about Bangladesh?)
Jackson buys the Beatles publishing - '85 (Publishing as a way to make money was a "mega-scale business" long before a single note was ever put onto a wax cylinder. In fact, it was Paul McCartney who became the richest songwriter of all time by owning publishing (ironically, not of his own classic songs). It's also ironic that McCartney is the one who suggested Jackson invest in publishing and them was outbid on the Beatles catalog by him.)

I stand with Strangler Lewis on the fact that much of what he influenced artistically is crap.

Side note - I find it a shame that people who I know love music so well pass such harsh judgment on others' tastes.

I don't particularly like Elvis, and I'd probably use the word "crap" to elaborate (not in a way that suggests I have the official opinion on such things), but I would never say that that's a reason why he's less influential.

I was thinking Brittney Spears puts them all to shame.

No shame here, CP. I was completely backing up the notion that Michael Jackson, with his Thriller and Beat It videos - and by extension his live show - clearly begat the era of spectacular "music" concerts where synchronized choreography takes precedent of the actual performing of the music. Maybe MJ wasn't lip-syncing, but most of the arena-filling performers that followed him did. And that's crap.

And I'm saying that as someone who respects Justin and counts himself a fan of Madonna and Beyonce.

Sorry for the "me too" post, but I have to agree with CP's post above. Just because it isn't something you like, doesn't automatically mean it is crap. MJ was very creative in not only his music, but in his performances as well. Although, it could easily be argued that much of his work was more evolutionary than revolutionary.

And the same could be said of Elvis: much of what he was doing was just mimicking what the "black" music scene was had been doing for a while (remember that the 50's were still a very racist time and blacks at the time were still vastly shunned in the entertainment business).

There is a fair amount of music out there that I don't care for, but I am still able to respect the artist (Dylan and Neil Young come to mind).

Up where?

I am mainly joking, but I don't really think of Paul Anka as a trailblazer/trendsetter. Yes, he was very popular and has been around for a while, but I never thought of him as all that unique (he does have an amazing voice though!).

Prince - very talented musician and song writer.

I agree.

Perhaps you posted this before you read my response to CP, which clarified my position.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as crap. I'd love a thread (not this one) which discusses the notion that quality is based on taste and therefore is completely subjective. (Hint: I'd take the opposing side)

I did - I was still composing when your post came up.

But I have to ask: are you are blaming (in this case) MJ for other similar acts that followed that are (in your opinion) crap? That doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility. Am I missing something?

Of course I'm not blaming Michael Jackson for the crap that he didn't do.

This is an example of a frustration I sometimes have with this kind of message board discussion.

GD said (in part) "MJ was more than a good performer that presented world-changing music and entertainment, he actually had a heavy personal hand in creating it, and in effecting the changes in the industry that followed in its wake."

I asked him for examples.

GD replied (in part) "The dominance since his career of acts like Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Madonna, etc. They all draw from his style and music, in which he was a major creative component."

The conversation was (at that stage) about influence. If MJ gets assigned credit for the success of talents like Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Madonna etc, then I added to SL's response in which he said " was just about to say if the question is who had more of a bad influence on music, Michael Jackson wins hands down for all the synchronized back-up dancer heavy crap he begat.".

That's all.

I would say that the crown for biggest influence in creating modern music would go to Thomas Edison or Marconi (or Tesla if you want to have that argument).

But to the extent I care, I'll take Elvis over The Beatles or Michael Jackson (but only because unlike the others he's never annoying and always pretty easy to ignore as background noise).

Chicago rules! - everything else is crap... ;)

Good point, wish I'd said as much.

No snark here. I know you said that. But you also used the verb "create" a bunch, too. Feel free to replace "innovate" with "create" in my response.

Elvis made sleeping with little girls ok.
Michael made sleeping with little boys ok.

MJ pushed the envelope farther.

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.

BTD's comments just made me remember that MJ called himself the "King of Pop" because Elvis was "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" and then he married Elvis' daughter.

Nope*. Liz Taylor called him the "king of pop, rock and soul" in 1989, 5 years before he married Lisa Marie.





* I'm reading your post as saying that marrying Lisa Marie was why he called himself the king of pop. Don't know for sure that's how you meant it

You read me wrong. I said "then" as in "and then time passed". And actually Michael Jackson's publicist Bob Jones claims to have invented the title "King of Pop" for Michael Jackson. Liz Taylor called him "king of pop, rock and soul" publicly at an awards show, so she sometimes gets the credit. Either way, he latched on to the name and used it himself in his own publicity.

It's like asking, which is better, Herman or the Hermits? One doesn't exist without the other.


(Pic related -- it's the Freddie)

I find MJ to be a lot more inspiring than Elvis. Although, Elvis certainly has a kitschiness that seems to be on-goingly popular.

And, I'll confess... I can't stand the Beatles, except for "Ob La Di", and the Beatles "tribute" film, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". :p

Funny you bring that up today as it is the anniversary of their marriage.

Ultimately, time will tell, but Jackson gets props as an influential and innovative songwriter, which Elvis never tried to be.

I'm not a student of music history (obviously) but is it not true that Elvis may be at a handicap in the song writing arena in that he came to fame in an age where it was relatively uncommon for performers to regularly write their own stuff? One question I'd have is, to the extent he wasn't writing his own stuff how involved was he in selecting what he'd perform?

Pretty much so, Alex. Elvis came to prominence in a time much like our own, when pop talent was groomed for looks, style, marketability (though at least back then they really tried to find artists with their own unique sound, unlike the extruded and Auto-tuned acts that are so much with us at present.) The whole singer/songwriter thing came pretty quick on the heels of Elvis' glory days, and I sometimes get the impression he didn't have much use for those artsy-fartsy types. I have no idea how much input Elvis had on what material he wanted to perform, but given his massive success, I'm sure he had a pretty good say in it. It's a good enough question to make me want to read up on it.

Conversely, ever since The Beatles, I've had little respect for artists that don't write all or the vast majority of their own music. I respect vocalists as artists, but I don't accord them the same level of admiration or even legitimacy in the modern musical world as I do bands and artists that compose their own stuff.


Where does MJ fall on that scale?

Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with that point of view, but I'm curious as to why it is.

Is De Niro less of an actor because he's only performing words written for him by someone else?

Conversely, would it have been better if Paul Anka has performed "She's a Lady" rather than Tom Jones or "My Way" instead of Frank Sinatra?

Again, I'm not arguing with the point (I don't have an opinion on much when it comes to music) but I'm find it interested where we draw the lines in preferring a total package versus super specialization (to go to sports is it better to have a fantastic starter good for 7 innings and a fantastic closer good for 2 (not that any pitch two any more) or one pitcher who'll always be out there for the full 9.

Then there's the question of respect versus entertainment. I may have more respect for the person who does a great job singing their own arrangements of their own songs while playing all four instruments needed. But I'll probably be better entertained if you get the best singer, the best songwriter and the best band together (well, I wouldn't, but I'm talking in hypotheticals).

The popular song format allows an individual artist to engage in a more personal form of expression than commercial cinema ever can, though not all musical performers wish to go this route. A singer/songwriter is also, in theory, likelier to be experimental, less conventional, and more engaged in the material since it came from him or her. But that's speaking in woefully broad terms. Most of my favorite musical artists write most of their own stuff, and for that reason I tend to feel, rightly or wrongly, more connected to such artists by listening to their work. If I see a great DeNiro performance, i don't come away feeling like i know him better. (it's way too late for me to elaborate or go into the numerous exceptions, though.) the theory of connecting the best writers with the best singers and the best band might yield something wonderful, of course (as it often does in theater) but it's less likely to seem personal.

I don't hold hard and fast to this myself. For example, Neil Young writes some great songs, but his voice makes my skin crawl.

There are a lot of great songwriters out there who cannot perform well. I would hate to miss their songwriting skills just because I can't stand their performance.

Conversely, there are performers who I greatly enjoy who don't write all of their own material. Led Zeppelin, one of the great (IMO) hard rock bands did a LOT of cover material from old blues musicians of the 40's 50's and 60's.

Yeah, lots of exceptions. And Zepplin's first album is especially heavy with borrowings, but that doesn't prevent it being completely amazing. On the other hand, Tom Waits would never, ever have made it if he was just singing covers. At best, he would have been a curio like Mrs. Miller. But a Tom Waits song, however brilliant, loses something when it's sung by Scarlett Johansen. Waits sounds like he's lived his boozy, hardscrabble poetry, Scarlett sounds like a schoolgirl with a crush.

Oh, there are certainly a LOT of examples of good songs gone bad when in the wrong hands. I was just making the argument that not all songwriters should sing and not all singers should write their own material.

And while I certainly don't listen to the current crop of bubblegum synthetic pop performers, this is hardly a new phenomenon. Promoters having been making stars of no-talent people who looked good on stage for a very long time. There just happens to be more tools available to make people sound better.

Alex, it's just that I'm going to hold in higher regard artists who create their own work, instead of "simply" performing it.

George Lucas gets higher marks for writing Star Wars and directing it than, say, Steven Spielberg gets for directing Raiders of the Lost Ark, but not having anything to do with its creation.

I dig me some Sinatra and don't blame him for not writing the great songs he brought to life, but I admire more the work of John Lennon who created his own stuff from scratch.

DiNiro would not be a better actor in a piece he wrote himself, but I would admire him more as a creative talent were that the case.

:eek:

I deg to biffer

Leonard Cohen does a wonderful job of performing his music! He's fantastic in concert!

Leonard Cohen's voice has definitely improved with age - his early records just don't have the depth and gravity he's seemed to have acquired over time.