Elvis...or Michael?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by mousepod

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.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Just off the top of my head: [i]
*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 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.

[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.

[scaeagles]

I was thinking Brittney Spears puts them all to shame.