Elvis...or Michael?

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.

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.

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.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

Examples?

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

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

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[mousepod]

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.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by mousepod

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.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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

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.

[Kevy Baby]

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).

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Paul Anka and Prince should certainly be up there.

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.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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.

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)