Elvis...or Michael?

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by mousepod

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

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?

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by mousepod

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 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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by mousepod

GD - he didn't innovate any of those changes

Good point, wish I'd said as much.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by mousepod

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.

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."

[scaeagles]

I was thinking Brittney Spears puts them all to shame.

[Alex]

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).

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Chicago rules! - everything else is crap...

[Alex]

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

MJ pushed the envelope farther.

[Ghoulish Delight]

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?