# The Beatles vs. Michael Jackson



## Solrac (Dec 6, 2011)

1) Who is more influential in music?

2) Who was more popular in their prime?

3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music?

4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves?

5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future?


----------



## Uncle Phantom (Dec 6, 2011)

Michael for all five.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Asassin said:


> 1) Who is more influential in music?



the Beattles they took what Elvis and his generation did and created an international phenomenon that basically created what we understand as rock. Their messages were also a bit better in terms of quality



Asassin said:


> 2) Who was more popular in their prime?



the Beattles 



Asassin said:


> ]3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music?



Beattles but Jackson prime has some great music 



Asassin said:


> 4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves?



I would rather go to an eighties-early nineties era Jackson concert he was like Elvis and James Brown a consummate showmen but I'm not sure if he has anything that can top The Beattles live show that basically made them




Asassin said:


> 5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future?



People have compared Paul and John to Mozart and Bethtoven (personally I think it's bullshit Lennon wank Mcartney was the better)

I don't believe I need to elaborate on the significance of that, Jackson reinvented pop...The Beattles are among those few who made today's



Uncle Phantom said:


> Michael for all five.



wait what? I understand you choosing him for the personal opinion questions but really? 5,2 and 1?

hell no man


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

Beatles sweep all five. People don't go to John Lennon's old apartment thirty fucking years after his death for no reason.



Uncle Phantom said:


> Michael for all five.



I'm so tempted to do the galactic ryoma right now.



I'll just use that small Jedah laugh instead.


----------



## Speedy Jag. (Dec 6, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> the *Beattles* they took what Elvis and his generation did and created an international phenomenon that basically created what we understand as rock. Their messages were also a bit better in terms of quality
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How did you miss-spell Beatles when it's there in the title? What's up with the t's? 

1) Beatles 2) MJ 3) MJ but I like listening to The Beatles from time to time. 4) Probably prefer MJ more 5) MJ coz we remember dead artists more and not all the Beatles members are dead yet.


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 6, 2011)

1) Who is more influential in music? *Beatles stomp.*

2) Who was more popular in their prime? *Beatles should take this rather easy.*

3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music? *Beatles utterly stomp.*

4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves? *Beatles stomp even worse.*

5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future? *Beatles stomp.*


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Beatles sweep all five. People don't go to John Lennon's old apartment thirty fucking years after his death for no reason.
> 
> .



_"before  Elvis there was nothing"_ - john Lennon 

that  quote pretty much sums up how low MJ is on the totem pole and I would still put guys like Bob Dylon James Brown Jimmy Hendrix and Jimmy page and Freddie Mercury before I would put Jackson 

he certainly doesn't compare to the Beatles


----------



## Hale (Dec 6, 2011)

Asassin said:


> 1)
> Who is more influential in music?
> Michael
> 2) Who was more popular in their prime?
> ...


  Michael 

I mean top selling album of all time thriller 110 million copies is a wtf number that Mean's 6% percent of the current worlds population bought that album
When you consider that only about 1 billion people in the world speak english that number becomes even more staggering


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 6, 2011)

The Beatles _dethroned_ Elvis...

The King even wrote them a letter praising them and acknowledging it was now their time and no longer his.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Waking Dreamer said:


> The Beatles _dethroned_ Elvis...
> 
> The King even wrote them a letter praising them and acknowledging it was now their time and no longer his.



pretty much this...and that should tell people how outgunned jackson is

edit the Beatles reply? I'd hope it was courteous John seemed to kinda go off the rails at times


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 6, 2011)

I like to see some figures as a world wide not just 1st world countries that makes the beetles more popular , You go to any country and I guarantee 6/10 people would know who MJ is and heard one of his song. 

Beetles were popular no doubt but MJ attain a global status.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> I like to see some figures as a world wide not just 1st world countries that makes the beetles more popular , You go to any country and I guarantee 6/10 people would know who MJ is and heard one of his song.
> 
> Beetles were popular no doubt but MJ attain a global status.



your joking right? Go to Argentina or Brazil or Chile and ask some one about who they think is better and you'll get Beatles 9/10

of course this also has the habit of them all being Lennon fanboys and shitting all over Paul McCartney


----------



## Speedy Jag. (Dec 6, 2011)

They were very much music of their era so to speak, taking advantage of past pioneers in their field before taking that formula, making it their own and running with it to highly successful levels.

I tend to think MJ music is more accessible for the current generation () moreso than the likes of The Beatles or Bob Dylan for that matter.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 6, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> your joking right? Go to *Argentina or Brazil or Chile* and ask some one about who they think is better and you'll get Beatles 9/10
> 
> of course this also has the habit of them all being Lennon fanboys and shitting all over Paul McCartney



LOl wut ? 3rd world countries would know more about MJ than Beetles . 

Even so you go to china or India I guarantee the MJ fandom there will just be miles ahead than the beetles .


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Dec 6, 2011)

oh man... I like  both the beatles and MJ equally.


----------



## Speedy Jag. (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> LOl wut ? 3rd world countries would know more about MJ than Beetles .
> 
> Even so you go to china or India I guarantee the MJ fandom there will just be miles ahead than the beetles .



Even here in the UK and the US, I daresay there is more MJ fans than Beatles by a big factor.

Also 





> beetles


 why?! 
*Mod edit:*_ "I feel your pain."_


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 6, 2011)

Selling more records doesn't make MJ more popular. You have to consider the lack of record players back in the 60ties. Especially in less developed countries. 
The Beatles were part a phenom including nearly every teen in their generation. Back in Michael's time pop was big, but there were thousands of popular genre's, whos fans didn't wanna have to do anything with Michael at all punks, new wavers, all kinds of metal fans, rockers in general.

wrong
 Just listen to this song- ignore the pictures of Charles Manson- and try to think about who you would have awaited to be the artist if you didn't know it was a Beatles song. That's just how many-sided the Beatles are. Don't get me wrong. Michael was great but nowhere that great.

Also think about how Michael was viewed by the public in the late 90ties till the mid-2000s. Noone took him serious at that time everyone made fun of him. The Beatles created some heat, got attacked by fundamentalist preachers and similar things but they always managed to stay respected.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> Yes I am telling your full of it , I am of Brazilian decent and I use to live there. For anyone to listen to Beetles they have to go out their way while MJ use to play on the radio everyday.



and your fucking wrong 



Huey Freeman said:


> Also never use that weak argument you visit the place because visiting doesn't = living .



I'm originally from Argentina and i don't spend time there as a fucking tourist idiot 



Huey Freeman said:


> Your blinded by your fanboy nature that all there is to it. Everything you go on about is opinion not fact.



really? because I despise Lennon think Harrison was a degenerate and believe that Paul has obliterated any talent he once had and is an arrogant living strawman

I'm of the opinion that guys like Buddy holly did more rock and roll than the Beatles ever did and that Jimmy Hendrix was probably the best musician of that era

of course I find it amusing that the guy who came in busting a nut like a depraved fanboy runs around making such claims




Huey Freeman said:


> Fact is MJ is more popular when he died the WHOLE world gave a novation for his work not a single beetle got that respect. /thread/



..because when Lennon died this didn't happen



I3igAl said:


> Selling more records doesn't make MJ more popular. You have to consider the lack of record players back in the 60ties. Especially in less developed countries.



The historical impact is also very important MJ does not even remotely compare to the group that started the counter culture



I3igAl said:


> The Beatles were part a phenom including nearly every teen in their generation. Back in Michael's time pop was big, but there were thousands of popular genre's, whos fans didn't wanna have to do anything with Michael at all punks, new wavers, all kinds of metal fans, rockers in general.



this is also true 



I3igAl said:


> Just listen to this song- ignore the pictures of Charles Manson- and try to think about who you would have awaited to be the artist if you didn't know it was a Beatles song. That's just how many-sided the Beatles are. Don't get me wrong. Michael was great but nowhere that great.]



Micheals not capable of the depth or range of the Beatles but then again I think classic MJ performances were more enjoyable



I3igAl said:


> Also think about how Michael was viewed by the public in the late 90ties till the mid-2000s. Noone took him serious at that time everyone made fun of him. The Beatles created some heat, got attacked by fundamentalist preachers and similar things but they always managed to stay respected.



Jackson at the end of his life was a grotesque parody bloated drug addled and possibly a sex offender.

that being said George Harrison was supposedly into some really fucked up shit and John Lennon completely lost his shit in later years


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> blub blub blub



Stop being wrong.



I3igAl said:


> Selling more records doesn't make MJ more popular. You have to consider the lack of record players back in the 60ties. Especially in less developed countries.



He *hasn't* sold more records.



See that? The Beatles have nearly 100 million more certified record sales worldwide than MJ.

The Beatles changed *everything*. Michael Jackson is just an overrated pop star who was as much a laughing stock as he was good. Though I do like his older stuff.

Trust me in thirty years people aren't gonna be going to Neverland or wherever to honor him death like they still do Lennon. Hell, I might stop by Strawberry fields this year since all I have to do is hop across town.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Dec 6, 2011)

Are we really using Michael Jackson's funeral and death as evidence to boost an argument, because keep in mind you'd get the same result from any other music icon that were on his level (Elvis's death Lennon's death etc)


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Emperor Joker said:


> Are we really using Michael Jackson's funeral and death as evidence to boost an argument, because keep in mind you'd get the same result from any other music icon that were on his level (Elvis's death Lennon's death etc)



yeah you are seeing this idiocy being passed off as valid.

You're also seeing some one ignore the historical weight the Beatles had on one of the most influential generations in the history of the modern world.


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> Fact is MJ is more popular when he died the WHOLE world gave a novation for his work not a single beetle got that respect. /thread



Because the media in the 80ties weren't such a bastardized place trying to milk money even out of the dead of a man, whom they psychologically and physically destroyed until nothing was left.
Also the hype from Michaels dead is still going on and therefore his omnipresence hasn't ceased yet. 

Even due to the ongoing processes, Lennon's death still is a much more known historic fact always being there.


----------



## Speedy Jag. (Dec 6, 2011)

Emperor Joker said:


> Are we really using Michael Jackson's funeral and death as evidence to boost an argument, because keep in mind you'd get the same result from any other music icon that were on his level (Elvis's death Lennon's death etc)



It's a minor issue, because he was really successful despite the scandals and Neverland and his past.

Few artists on his level would have been as popular still or influenced as many modern artists despite the shit that was flung and hang and did stick to him...


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> Before you insult like a 5 year old giving a tantrum, You quoted Brazil and told me you visited the place 5 times a year . Then dare call me a local that I am wrong from my own country.
> You certainly don't live there, if your visiting 3+ countries 5 times a year please continue look like a moron.
> Fact is beetles is rock , that caters to a small demographic in 3rd world countries , and Asia. MJ is more popular deal with it.



and yet his influence pales in comparison to the Beatles that MJ at his best couldn't hold a candle to the impact the Beatles had



Huey Freeman said:


> Rock and roll there you go is not the most popular genre in the world. Small demographic.




and Rock and Roll happens to be a genre that changed..politics altered the face of the planet smashed through barriers armies couldn't and created cultural change even in the most sealed off isolated places and guess who was at the forefront of that?

oh yeah the fucking Beatles



Huey Freeman said:


> Please show me a news report with him dying and the global moment of silence . I know it non existence as you won't find much newspapers of different countries covering that.





> _On 14 December 1980, millions of people around the world responded to Ono's request to pause for ten minutes of silence to remember Lennon. Thirty thousand gathered in Liverpool, and the largest group—over 225,000—converged on New York's Central Park, close to the scene of the shooting. At least two Beatles fans committed suicide after the murder, leading Ono to make a public appeal asking mourners not to give in to despair. Ono released a solo album, Season of Glass, in 1981. The cover of the album is a photograph of Lennon's blood-spattered glasses. A 1997 re-release of the album included "Walking on Thin Ice", the song the Lennons had mixed at the Record Plant less than an hour before he was murdered] Chapman pleaded guilty to Lennon's murder in June 1981, against the advice of his lawyers, who wanted to file an insanity plea. He received a life sentence, but under the terms of his guilty plea became eligible for parole after serving 20 years. Chapman has been denied parole at hearings every two years since 2000 and remains an inmate at Attica State Prison._





> *On 14 December 1980, millions of people around the world responded to Ono's request to pause for ten minutes of silence to remember Lennon. Thirty thousand gathered in Liverpool, and the largest group—over 225,000—converged on New York's Central Par*k



EDIT: Cleaned the useless bickering. 
(willyvereb, 07.12.2011 9:03 GMT)


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

Or how about how George Harrison in particular was very influential in India, derp.

And you're still wrong on popularity.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Dec 6, 2011)

Actually Huey if you want to talk about asia...The Beatles were supposed to have been insanely popular in Japan (oddly enough they also loved KISS)


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Or how about how George Harrison in particular was very influential in India, derp.
> 
> And you're still wrong on popularity.



Listen provide proof in comparison to MJ then you are right until then keep your dribble to yourself.



Emperor Joker said:


> Actually Huey if you want to talk about asia...The Beatles were supposed to have been insanely popular in Japan (oddly enough they also loved KISS)


now the first actual correct statement Yes japan love their rock but they are heavy into POP culture and MJ is also just as big down there.


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> Listen provide proof in comparison to MJ then you are right until then keep your dribble to yourself.



Did you even read my previous post?


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Did you even read my previous post?



he suffers from 'when something contradicts me my brain does not register it' disorder i mean how else can you explain "durr hurr John Lennon did not have a global moment of silence' when..that's exactly what happened


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> This is not about John lennon legacy. This is about some guy going to tell me that if I walk into a random chinese, Mexican, African, Indian, Brazilian, jamaican bar in their respected countries) and mention the beetles name majority of people be like Yeah i know them they are awesome . No fact is few people in most countries can name one of their song, or name the members. MJ is a world wide household name.





> 1) Who is more influential in music?
> 
> *2) Who was more popular in their prime?*
> 
> ...



It was about being more popular in their prime not now. I don't know about the current popularity of Michael in the mentioned countries. I would believe you people are currently more into him considering the hype due to his dead. But in their prime the Beatles were just bigger, especially if we consider the world to be less globalized back than.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 6, 2011)

> 1) Who is more influential in music?


 This is hard to say really, neither one really re-invented the wheel.

Michael Jackson probably had more people try to copy his style than people did with the Beatles if I had to guess. Beatles did have the whole British invasion, but I think that was more short term influence (depends on what type of influence we're talking though). Influence is a really dodgy subject. 





> 2) Who was more popular in their prime?


Michael Jackson was more popular, the Beatles just had a longer prime. Michael Jackson is one of the most famous people to ever live, there isn't any country where he is not known by most people. I've met plenty of people from different backgrounds who could not really name a Beatles song (though I'm sure they've heard of them), but they could parody something from Michael Jackson.

A lot of this has to do with Michael Jackson becoming relevant in an era where commercialism thrived more. Michael Jackson was the ultimate pop machine, far better produced than the Beatles, Jackson' had godly marketing. World-wide, Jackson is probably the most famous music artist of the past couple decades. 



> 3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music?


The Beatles have better music in my opinion. 

A lot of Michael's stuff can really wear thin in terms of replay value. All that synthetic pop stuff becomes boring. The Beatles made good pop songs (which people for some reason refuse to remember that the Beatles were a pop band), and their more uh...drug induced songs were a lot more interesting.

Michael Jackson was in his prime when he made "Off The Wall". "Thriller" and "Bad" were good albums, but Jackson was at his best when he was doing funky stuff. 



> 4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves?


 The Beatles of course. As an artist, I've never thought that highly of Michael Jackson.

Michael hit a huge problem during the 80s. After he made "Thriller", he basically decided he would make every other album after in the same style as that album. If you ever listen to Bad, Dangerous  and the crappy albums that came after, they all have the same track structure, with the same exact style of production. Michael never took any risks, he completely stopped growing as an artist and it shows because he never made a real huge impact with the albums he made in the 90s and 2000s. 

The Beatles broke away from their commercial mode, and would take risks. They made trippy songs, political songs, more charming love songs (compare "I Want to Hold Your Hand to When I'm Sixty-Four").

Michael Jackson more than anything, is entirely a product and has always been since he was a kid. He is a monster that was created in a lab, and it shows in a lot of his work. 



> 5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future?


They'll both be remembered by most people, but if I had to guess it would probably be Michael Jackson due to the fact that he is one person. Not to mention Michael had much more interesting stories, and in general he is more of a character than the Beatles were (measuring them as a whole), so he has a higher chance of being remembered a 100 years from now.


----------



## Solrac (Dec 6, 2011)

Yikes... I didn't know my thread was going to be sown with seeds of shitstormery. Kinda caught me off guard there.

And now we're debating the achievements of singers/musicians like we debate the powers of comic superheroes. Instead of going for the classic "personal preference + popularity" threads.

Yeah, these kind of threads are almost bound to end up in shitstorms. It's a sad fact.

Willy Vereb


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

If you would have noticed, the sources on the wiki are cited. You don't get to go around just denying a source because "hurr durr it's from a wiki." That's nothing more than a thinly veiled ad hominem and appeal to authority.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 6, 2011)

how come no one responds to me


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Violent By Design said:


> how come no one responds to me



because you made a rational case..and we've got a fanboy trolling this thread? I'd go back and tag you when we chase this one away?

as far as characters go Lennon was ermm..well he was fucking nuts I mean he wasn't a p*d*p**** but he was absolutely nuts and Harrison was also into some weird shit


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

Shut up Huey.


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 6, 2011)

While Michael is more famous, the Beatles had a much bigger impact on Pop Culture. Michael did barely have an impact at all, aside of being a well known singer. The Beatles and many other artists have had a uch bigger impact. You mentioned Bob Marley earlier he will never be as big as Michael, but he kinda is much more influential as an artist and for his Rastafari believes. Or lets look at Che Guevara. Most of the guys running around with Guevara-T-Shirts, caps and so on don't even really know what he did or who he was. He just becomes a symbol of freedom to them(, because many just jump the bandwagon). 
And about popularity: Michael kinda was more popular in his time due to developed management media and so on, but relatively speaking the Beatles have this too.If we take into consideration the possibilities back in the sixties. Hell those guys live closer to the first world financial crisis than to the last.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 6, 2011)

I3igAl said:


> While Michael is more famous, the Beatles had a much bigger impact on Pop Culture. Michael did barely have an impact at all, aside of being a well known singer. The Beatles and many other artists have had a uch bigger impact. You mentioned Bob Marley earlier he will never be as big as Michael, but he kinda is much more influential as an artist and for his Rastafari believes. Or lets look at Che Guevara. Most of the guys running around with Guevara-T-Shirts, caps and so on don't even really know what he did or who he was. He just becomes a symbol of freedom to them(, because many just jump the bandwagon).
> And about popularity: Michael kinda was more popular in his time due to developed management media and so on, but relatively speaking the Beatles have this too.If we take into consideration the possibilities back in the sixties. Hell those guys live closer to the first world financial crisis than to the last.


Here's the thing I never mention Michael Music not once , which fanboy IMWD missed the point. Michael is more famous from his antics and he was always on the news , He had marketing on his side. 
I could care less of the influence either have the point is Michael was more talked about and he was more recognized.


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> He's not more famous.



I wanted to say might be.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

I just said Buddy Holly is more influential and more important than the Beatles and Called John Lennon a maniac who was drunk on his own image,..and I'm also pretty sure I mocked Paul

I committed a cardinal sin against beatles fanboys something they'd fly into a rage over and use violence to deny...and your calling me a fanboy? 

never mind you've so far denied valid evidence presented and deliberately lied and ignored the OP's stipulations to continue your tirade


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 6, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> as far as characters go Lennon was ermm..well he was fucking nuts I mean he wasn't a p*d*p**** but he was absolutely nuts and Harrison was also into some weird shit



He was, but when MJ was alive he was one of the most parodied people around. People will remember him alone just due to the crazy stuff that happened to him, like when he became white.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Violent By Design said:


> He was, but when MJ was alive he was one of the most parodied people around. People will remember him alone just due to the crazy stuff that happened to him, like when he became white.



is that really a good thing though? I mean yeah people will remember MJ but it will be for his legal battles and abusing Blanket...and all that more than his music

which is kind of sad because honestly he really was a good musician once

EDIT: Removed the back and forth bickering.
(willyvereb, 07.12.2011 9:24)


----------



## Guru (Dec 6, 2011)

Asassin said:


> 1) Who is more influential in music?
> 
> 2) Who was more popular in their prime?
> 
> ...



*1​*
The Beatles. 

*2​*
The Beatles by a land slide. They were by far the most popular artist of all time. They've sold more music than any other artist period - and their hype and popularity was literally leaps and bounds ahead of MJ. 

*3​*
The Beatles. More melodic, a lot better lyrics, greater meaning, superior instrument playing, more iconic. MJ could dance though, and his music was nothing to be snarled at. 

*4​*
MJ was a wierdo. I'm sorry, but he was. He was creepy, odd, strange. He bleached his skin, don't give me this falacious nonsense about skin disease. He liked kids too, he was wierd. He did have some messsages to send across though, but I fell that John Lennon was just that much more interesting, brooding, intelligent and a superior song writer. Paul mcartney lacked some of Johns traits but was arguably better at composing music and writing songs. Personality wise the Beatles probably, especially for how the bully ringo. 

*5​*
The Beatles. They'll survive forever. 50 years later and everyone still knows who they are. MJ? An acquired taste, people might know one or two of his songs, wheras play almost any beatles song and it's instantly sparking recognition.


----------



## Guru (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> So you did pulled that off wiki and trying to pass that as fact
> 
> concessions accepted.
> 
> Everything you are wanking , and is opinionated. Pop Culture is a huge driving force in the world today and had a huge impact. MJ is a bigger Icon in Pop Culture than the Beetles. Stop being terrible.



You are guilty of overstating your own arguments by passing your opinion as fact. The beetles are factually the most popular music act of all time.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Guru said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> MJ was a wierdo. I'm sorry, but he was. He was creepy, odd, strange. He bleached his skin, don't give me this falacious nonsense about skin disease. He liked kids too, he was wierd. He did have some messsages to send across though, but I fell that John Lennon was just that much more interesting, brooding, intelligent and a superior song writer. Paul mcartney lacked some of Johns traits but was arguably better at composing music and writing songs. Personality wise the Beatles probably, especially for how the bully ringo.



He was a better composer and song writer but he also get's hated on by Beatles fans for some stupid reason. some of their best songs were written by Paul

Lennon was insane..and he went completely overboard in his final years but I'll concede he was good at what he did



Guru said:


> [
> 
> The Beatles. They'll survive forever. 50 years later and everyone still knows who they are. MJ? An acquired taste, people might know one or two of his songs, wheras play almost any beatles song and it's instantly sparking recognition.



people will remember MJ's name quicker but it will be more associated with 'that's the guy who raped kids and used his name and the race card to get out of jail" which again is a tragedy


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

As I said, MJ was as much a laughing stock as he was a good musician. Guru is absolutely right on number five.

Edit: Huey, all you now deserve are insults in this thread.


----------



## Guru (Dec 6, 2011)

In all fairness Lady Gaga will be remember by some in the future. 

Not as 'that amazing artist' but as 'that chick with a dick that whored out stupid clothes'. 

Even if MJ was more recognized, which he is not, and never will be, he would never be as *respected*.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> this is an opinionated debate , you can't have rules



the rules are in place no matter what..you are also failing to read again three of the questions were not opinion based and you were called to task on them




Huey Freeman said:


> You are mad from the fact a) I said MJ was popular that the beetles because "OMG that freak can't have one up on your precious beetles"



...you really can't get it through your head that I'm a  critic of the Beatles can you? 



Huey Freeman said:


> b) I called you out on the whole "I go to brazil so I know more than you huey even though your a native".



I do..and you failed to disprove it



Huey Freeman said:


> After said post you started the insulted which is wonder why an infraction on both ends haven't occurred, I find you funny because apparently *if you got someone backing you up with insults =win in NF. *



oh  right so now we're bitching about the evil OBD? you broke huey..


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> As I said, MJ was as much a laughing stock as he was a good musician. Guru is absolutely right on number five.
> 
> Edit: Huey, all you now deserve are insults in this thread.



it's funny how guru isn't one of the thugs backing me up and jumping poor huey yet he seems to agree and Violent despite disagreeing can have a civil conversation with me

I wonder if he's doing something wrong? or this place really is evil and conspiracy filled 




Guru said:


> In all fairness Lady Gaga will be remember by some in the future.
> 
> Not as 'that amazing artist' but as 'that chick with a dick that whored out stupid clothes'.
> .



she's gonna end up like Janis Joplin or Courtney love

dead on the floor from a drug over dose...or a mentally unhinged parody of herself

also LOL she actually has a shlong?


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

Insulting someone that deserves an insult apparently makes you an internet tough guy.

I think we have someone to add to the dick fear list.


----------



## Akatora (Dec 6, 2011)

PErsonal preferance: In General Jackson

who were more popular? JAckson due to the media's evolution since the days beatless were there.

Beatles might have more influence


----------



## Emperor Joker (Dec 6, 2011)

She apparently had surgery to make her into a Hermaphrodite...or so my sister tells me, i'm not sure if she really did go down that road or not.

god know she creepy enough for it


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 6, 2011)

Michael Jackson will be remembered a lot more than just him being a p*d*p****. To be honest, like many artist of the past, him liking underaged people will probably phase out. 

Michael Jackson is iconic. People will walk around Vegas wearing MJ suits like they do Elvis. In some ways Michael is a symbol of the whole pop-dance culture.

As for his music being an "acquired taste". I really do not know about that one. I mean if Michael Jackson, who is the prototypical studio pop artist's music is an acquired taste, then who's isn't?


----------



## Guru (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> says who, you?



Well considering you quoted me, yes. 

But no, says sales.


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

As if you disagreeing with me is the reason for my insults.

Oh no wait, that isn't it at all.

Do you have the attention span of a five year old with Down Syndrome, might I ask?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 6, 2011)

Guru said:


> Well considering you quoted me, yes.
> 
> But no, says sales.



One of your buddies here says sales doesn't mean your more popular.



Nevermind said:


> As if you disagreeing with me is the reason for my insults.
> 
> Oh no wait, that isn't it at all.
> 
> Do you have the attention span of a five year old with Down Syndrome, might I ask?


It's okay man, we all get mad at some point please I do understand what your going through .


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Insulting someone that deserves an insult apparently makes you an internet tough guy.
> 
> I think we have someone to add to the dick fear list.





Huey Freeman said:


> If that makes you sleep better go right ahead. tough internet guy







Huey Freeman said:


> No where you find x is best singer in the world. One writer will have MJ, The other Beetles, and the other Elvis. They are not rank making your assumption False.



and if you go by cultural impact and historical impact Elvis and The Beatle easily destroy MJ

you really aren't very knowledgeable on music history this must be how Shadowreplicant feels when he argues wrestling with Marks



Huey Freeman said:


> "I am critic" but "eff Michael jackson no no but I am an unbias critic



so basically the only Critic you recognize as impartial is one who bashes the Beatles and praises Jackson?  

talk about hypocrisy



Huey Freeman said:


> I did you didn't prove anything beside being a ignorant moron .



that's why you only have one person who shares your views and he left the thread long ago?


----------



## Guru (Dec 6, 2011)

Violent By Design said:


> Michael Jackson will be remembered a lot more than just him being a p*d*p****. To be honest, like many artist of the past, him liking underaged people will probably phase out.
> 
> Michael Jackson is iconic. People will walk around Vegas wearing MJ suits like they do Elvis. In some ways Michael is a symbol of the whole pop-dance culture.
> 
> As for his music being an "acquired taste". I really do not know about that one. I mean if Michael Jackson, who is the prototypical studio pop artist's music is an acquired taste, then who's isn't?



He will be known for being more than a pedofile, and because he was innovative of course people will remember him.

What I really mean by acquired taste is that while MJ will always have fans that are obsessive, and many more who love his music, but the Beatles will always have more people that like them. Maybe not obsessives. Maybe not 'love their music'. But like it. And know it. I would say their are huge amounts of people that are indifferent to MJs music, and another huge chunk that dislike it. I think you're far more likely to find someone who hates MJ than the Beatles. Because the beatles are more widespread and more generally respected and liked, even if they don't have as many obsessive fans.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> Yep when you are kids who insult anyone who disagrees with them



..Violent disagrees with us and we're not mocking him at all; you disagree wrongly and with ignorance..and well, when you do that, things get rough



Emperor Joker said:


> She apparently had surgery to make her into a Hermaphrodite...or so my sister tells me, i'm not sure if she really did go down that road or not.
> 
> god know she creepy enough for it



holy fucking shit...wow

*EDIT:* Removed the useless bickering.
(willyvereb, 07.12.2011 9:34GMT)


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

Yeah, I'm a fan but not a massive fan of the Beatles by any means since I prefer harder bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Guns, Metallica, Nirvana (which _is_ my favorite, as an astute observer can tell from my user name), AC/DC, etc.

But I'm not gonna be a retard and say any of them are more famous or influential than Michael Jackson, or the Beatles.

Edit: And here Huey just turns back to his worthless wit and circular logic. Also bad grammar too. Seriously the last half of your post reminded me of Unknown.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 6, 2011)

Guru said:


> He will be known for being more than a pedofile, and because he was innovative of course people will remember him.
> 
> What I really mean by acquired taste is that while MJ will always have fans that are obsessive, and many more who love his music, but the Beatles will always have more people that like them. Maybe not obsessives. Maybe not 'love their music'. But like it. And know it. I would say their are huge amounts of people that are indifferent to MJs music, and another huge chunk that dislike it. I think you're far more likely to find someone who hates MJ than the Beatles. Because the beatles are more widespread and more generally respected and liked, even if they don't have as many obsessive fans.



So in other words, generally The Beatles would be more _respected_ as a whole than MJ and all the things associated with him. 

The main reason why there arent as many "obsessive" fans for the Beatles is because MJ has had more recent exposure in a time of more easier access media. Ask these questions to people 60+ years old and they would know a lot more about the Beatles than they would about MJ.


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Yeah, I'm a fan but not a massive fan of the Beatles by any means since I prefer harder bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Guns, Metallica, Nirvana (which _is_ my favorite, as an astute observer can tell from my user name), AC/DC, etc.
> 
> But I'm not gonna be a retard and say any of them are more famous or influential than Michael Jackson, or the Beatles.
> 
> Edit: And here Huey just turns back to his worthless wit and circular logic. Also bad grammar too. Seriously the last half of your post reminded me of Unknown.



I would call Sabbath more influential as Michael Jackson.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Yeah, I'm a fan but not a massive fan of the Beatles by any means since I prefer harder bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Guns, Metallica, Nirvana (which _is_ my favorite, as an astute observer can tell from my user name), AC/DC, etc.
> 
> But I'm not gonna be a retard and say any of them are more famous or influential than Michael Jackson, or the Beatles.
> 
> Edit: And here Huey just turns back to his worthless wit and circular logic. Also bad grammar too. Seriously the last half of your post reminded me of Unknown.



Seeing I speak portuguese and french mostly . My english isn't bad, which already tells me your that type of "American" who make fun of non english speakers and be a complete idiot if he tries another language. 

Fact is the moment you started with the pedofile jokes of a dead man I might add proves how ignorant and childish you are.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 6, 2011)

Guru said:


> What I really mean by acquired taste is that while MJ will always have fans that are obsessive, and many more who love his music, but the Beatles will always have more people that like them. Maybe not obsessives. Maybe not 'love their music'. But like it. And know it.


I don't know about that. There are plenty of people who rave about the Beatles in bizarre ways. They're one of the most over analyzed bands of all time. When it comes to obsessiveness, it's hard to say who has more crazy fans. From the videos I've seen, I would say that Beatles fans are more crazy than Michael Jackson fans. 




> I would say their are huge amounts of people that are indifferent to MJs music, and another huge chunk that dislike it.


Could say the same thing for the Beatles really. That type of stuff is really due to generational gaps.

People would be indifferent to the Beatles just due to the fact that they are older, and their material sounds more dated. The same way that more people are indifferent to Elvis Presleys music, and more people are in different to Mozart's music. Who ever is from the more current generation would naturally benefit because their music sounds more similar to today's and has been likely more widely distributed. 

I would think that the average 20 year old would have a higher affinity for a Michael Jackson song over a Beatles song vs the average 60 year old. 



> I think you're far more likely to find someone who hates MJ than the Beatles.


 Perhaps, but I would say that is due more to Michael Jackson's character. 




> Because the beatles are more widespread and more generally respected and liked, even if they don't have as many obsessive fans.


 I would say they are more respected, I am not sure about the other stuff.


----------



## Pseudo (Dec 6, 2011)

Hughey proves how idiotic Michael Jackson fans are. Read any Michael Jackson vs The Beatles or Michael vs Stevie Wonder/Prince and Michael fans always come out sounding like idiots.

Beatles' fans are terrible but they quote articles, tell what exactly The Beatles did for music e.g recording techniques etc. After they are finished unloading their book knowledge on you, there is no way you can deny the band's influence.  

M.J fans need to step up their debating skills.


----------



## Killerqueen (Dec 6, 2011)

1) Who is more influential in music?
IDK... Both?
 2) Who was more popular in their prime?
Opinion:Michael Jackson
 3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music?
Opinion:Michael Jackson
 4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves?
Opinion:Michael Jackson
 5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future?
Right now more teens know more about Michael Jackson ...well in the US they do, I don't know about other counties


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

---REMOVED---



Nevermind said:


> Yeah, I'm a fan but not a massive fan of the Beatles by any means since I prefer harder bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Guns, Metallica, Nirvana (which _is_ my favorite, as an astute observer can tell from my user name), AC/DC, etc.]



We like virtually the same music minus Nirvana and I'm also an opera fan



Nevermind said:


> But I'm not gonna be a retard and say any of them are more famous or influential than Michael Jackson, or the Beatles.



actually Lead Zepellin probably rivals MJ



Huey Freeman said:


> You prove nothing more that your a fanboy, and what you call bashing is far from it. You went to everyone who agree MJis more popular and said their wrong implying our word is law.



.....you really have reading comprehension problems don't you?

how many times do I have to repeat my views before they get into your head



Nevermind said:


> Edit: And here Huey just turns back to his worthless wit and circular logic. Also bad grammar too. Seriously the last half of your post reminded me of Unknown.



he's also changing his life story..first in the Bruce Lee thread he was a corn fed American, American Marine who could speak with great authority on how god like Lee was..now he's a multi lingual Brazilian History of music expert



ThePseudo said:


> Hughey proves how idiotic Michael Jackson fans are. Read any Michael Jackson vs The Beatles or Michael vs Stevie Wonder/Prince and Michael fans always come out sounding like idiots.
> 
> Beatles' fans are terrible but they quote articles, tell what exactly The Beatles did for music e.g recording techniques etc. After they are finished unloading their book knowledge on you, there is no way you can deny the band's influence.
> 
> M.J fans need to step up their debating skills.



or really? this is just a common occurrence when dealing with MJ fans? Jesus how do they do it over on the music forum?


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 6, 2011)

Asassin said:


> Yikes... I didn't know my thread was going to be sown with seeds of shitstormery. Kinda caught me off guard there.
> 
> And now we're debating the achievements of singers/musicians like we debate the powers of comic superheroes. Instead of going for the classic "personal preference + popularity" threads.



This be Serious Business...


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> he's also changing his life story..first in the Bruce Lee thread he was a corn fed American, American Marine who could speak with great authority on how god like Lee was..now he's a multi lingual Brazilian History of music expert






*Spoiler*: __ 



He really said that in that other shitty thread?






Waking Dreamer said:


> This be Serious Business...



Yeah, I'm sure they wouldn't want this.


----------



## Guru (Dec 6, 2011)

Violent By Design said:


> I don't know about that. There are plenty of people who rave about the Beatles in bizarre ways. They're one of the most over analyzed bands of all time. When it comes to obsessiveness, it's hard to say who has more crazy fans. From the videos I've seen, I would say that Beatles fans are more crazy than Michael Jackson fans.



Over analyzed? That's purely your opinion. All though I'm inclined to agree that people do forget about other bands and act as if they're the only band that ever existed. I don't see Beatles fans being any more crazy, you see guys dressed as Lennon doing Lennon acts often?



> Could say the same thing for the Beatles really. That type of stuff is really due to generational gaps.
> 
> People would be indifferent to the Beatles just due to the fact that they are older, and their material sounds more dated. The same way that more people are indifferent to Elvis Presleys music, and more people are in different to Mozart's music. Who ever is from the more current generation would naturally benefit because their music sounds more similar to today's and has been likely more widely distributed.
> 
> I would think that the average 20 year old would have a higher affinity for a Michael Jackson song over a Beatles song vs the average 60 year old.



Maybe that's true, and I think you're probably right. But of course because of this generation gap it's almost impossible to judge accurately. So for that reason we should compare them at the time. 

*Beatles-
*​First British band to ever blow up in America

#1 best selling artist/band of all time. And that's considering that in the 50s - 60s the global population was just above 1 billion (now at 7 billion+). 

Most #1 albums. 

Held all top 5 positions in the charts on 4th April 1964. 

Created the most covered song in history. 

Largest number of advanced orders for a single (shows their insane following) 

123 weeks at number one (most ever)

*MJ​*
Biggest selling record of all time

Most number 1 hits by an individual

Most awards (grammy etc) of any artist

Largest selling tour 

_Conclusion - 
_​
The facts all point to the Beatles having a superior sustained popularity than MJ. MJ had some big hits, i'm not going to deny it, but the Beatles have superior achievements and have shown to be more consistent. This being in a time before globalization and media was as large as it is now. 

The Beatles were bigger than MJ. 

The Beatles were more popular. 

The Beatles (collectively) have greater attachments. 

Preference is purely based on opinion.


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 6, 2011)

> Most #1 albums.
> 
> Held all top 5 positions in the charts on 4th April 1964.
> 
> ...



Those are the ones, that answer this thread.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 6, 2011)

Guru said:


> Over analyzed? That's purely your opinion.


Every thing we've said is purely opinion, there are no statstics that could tell us who has crazier fans.





> I don't see Beatles fans being any more crazy, you see guys dressed as Lennon doing Lennon acts often?


   I've seen people dress like Superman, it doesn't mean that they are fanatic Superman fans. Michael Jackson has a distinct dress style that is flamboyant, so naturally people would dress like him versus John Lennon. I mean if we wanted to be facetious, I could say something like I've seen people shoot John Lennon which they've never done to Michael Jackson. 

My opinion is mainly based on what my parents have told me. It seems like woman did really crazy stuff, and my father used to tell me that a lot of people got into drugs just because the Beatles did. This is only from personal experience, so I am not trying to say it is a fact. 





> Maybe that's true, and I think you're probably right. But of course because of this generation gap it's almost impossible to judge accurately. So for that reason we should compare them at the time.
> 
> *Beatles-
> *​First British band to ever blow up in America
> ...



Having more accolades doesn't really mean anything because not all accolades are equal. It's not like you can quantify that 6 feats are better than 5 feats. 

 Not only that, but time washes away most of that. The Beatles have been on top much longer, but that was many moons ago, naturally the power that they brought with the British invasion will die out as people from that generation die out, just as Michael Jackson's Thriller tour won't be as well remembered as what ever pop artist did some crazy shit after him.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 6, 2011)

There are also things to take into account that might give MJ more longevity. For one, he heavily influenced music videos, which makes a huge difference commercially. The Beatles did not have that luxury, while Michael Jackson is rather synonymous with MTV (or he was during his prime). In an era where Youtube is a huge outlet for music, having famous music videos will do Michael Jackson's music a lot of good. 

Another thing is that Michael Jackson is also widely associated with dance and wild over-produced shows. People think that Michael Jackson actually invented moves like the moon walk, so things like that alone will make Michael Jackson immortal in culture. 

Sales only tell a certain part of a legacy, The Eagles sold a lot, but they do not have much of a legacy compared to other big names from their era.


----------



## Soledad Eterna (Dec 6, 2011)

1) Who is more influential in music? The Beatles. They shaped popular music to what it is today and helped save rock n roll.

2) Who was more popular in their prime? While it's true that Michal Jackson has the best selling album ever, he still hasn't top the fav five in record sales. Not to mention that they still had prolific careers after they disbanded, that tells you alot about their popularity.

3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music? The Beatles. I grew up with them, didn't really discover Michael Jackson until high school.

4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves? I don't know enough about them to give a personal opinion, though MJ's p*d*p**** cases against him make me lean for the Beatles.

5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future? I think they will be equally remembered.


----------



## The Bite of the She-Wolf (Dec 6, 2011)

I hate Taxman.


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 6, 2011)

Violent By Design said:


> There are also things to take into account that might give MJ more longevity. For one, *he heavily influenced music videos, which makes a huge difference commercially. *The Beatles did not have that luxury, while Michael Jackson is rather synonymous with MTV (or he was during his prime). In an era where Youtube is a huge outlet for music, having famous music videos will do Michael Jackson's music a lot of good.



The point of MJs music videos being more up to date is a pretty good argument on him being more remebered.

On the point of influence the Beatles deserve a mention here. Beatles music vid were among the first real ones to ever exist.



That ridiculous dance shows are really irrelevant. It is just a trend, that will end pretty fast...


----------



## Solrac (Dec 6, 2011)

My thread seems to have turned from "Beatles vs. Michael Jackson" into "Let's All Have A Racial Stand-Off and Insult Mexicans or American People".


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 6, 2011)

Asassin said:


> My thread seems to have turned from "Beatles vs. Michael Jackson" into "Let's All Have A Racial Stand-Off and Insult Mexicans or American People".



Sorry about that bro, I just read the guy call me corn bred american (which in the post was already in an insulting manner) and wonder if he is for real is that how he classify people.


----------



## sonic546 (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey, you monster! Quit manhandling those poor straws!


----------



## OS (Dec 6, 2011)

This is now a thread of good music

[YOUTUBE]HgzGwKwLmgM[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]CfTrthOpKCA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## The Bite of the She-Wolf (Dec 6, 2011)

Asassin said:


> My thread seems to have turned from "Beatles vs. Michael Jackson" into "Let's All Have A Racial Stand-Off and Insult Mexicans or American People".



You should have posted it in the Music section, I don't think I've seen Huey spam post there.


----------



## Killerqueen (Dec 6, 2011)

Original Sin said:


> [YOUTUBE]E0sT7xfC3QY[/YOUTUBE]



I see you a fan of Post-Hardcore/Screamo ,May I ask are you a fan of The Devil Wears Prada


----------



## sonic546 (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> let me try it by your "logic: then.
> 
> "*Sonic your a stupid fricken moron*, that point of yours makes no sense"
> 
> I get it the perfect guise killing 2 birds with 1 stone



So you're just butthurt because the big mean OBD called you stupid?

Good to know.


----------



## OS (Dec 6, 2011)

Killerqueen said:


> I see you a fan of Post-Hardcore/Screamo ,May I ask are you a fan of The Devil Wears Prada



Yeahhhh Buddy 

Love these guys also

[YOUTUBE]5oID_sUtej4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Killerqueen (Dec 6, 2011)

Original Sin said:


> Yeahhhh Buddy
> 
> Love these guys also
> 
> [YOUTUBE]5oID_sUtej4[/YOUTUBE]



I like your choice in music
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXTC0SmgE2s[/YOUTUBE] 
I'm a big fan


----------



## sonic546 (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> Naw I enjoy the double standards here. Flaming is okay as long as you stay on topic.



OBD conspiracy lol.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIUAC03YMlA&ob=av2e[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnpil_pRUiw[/YOUTUBE]


And here OBD, have some quality.


----------



## OS (Dec 6, 2011)

Killerqueen said:


> I like your choice in music
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXTC0SmgE2s[/YOUTUBE]
> I'm a big fan



Oh you 

[YOUTUBE]B1Bi1c9LmhU[/YOUTUBE]

I like all kinds. This rap right here 
[YOUTUBE]O2sQf6wl-Yc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## sonic546 (Dec 6, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> watch out sonic..you back him into a corner and he might call you a bigot



Name calling on the Internet!

EEEEEK!


----------



## Solrac (Dec 6, 2011)

Ok guys, IMWD and Huey... can both of you please STOP arguing and just the drop the pointless name-calling in my thread already? this thread is reserved for talking about the unparalleled awesome of both the beatles and mikey jackson here and not calling each other ethnic or cultural slurs like "Corn Fed Americans" or "Self-Hating Latino Uncle Tom" or stereotyping Mexicans or US Marines.


----------



## sonic546 (Dec 6, 2011)

Apparently you still fail to grasp that "corn-fed American" is not a racial slur.


----------



## Solrac (Dec 6, 2011)

^ Well anything allegedly used as an insult in general is what I meant. 

Still this thread is reserved for talking about two eternal musical legends instead of bickering with each other personally.


----------



## sonic546 (Dec 6, 2011)

Asassin said:


> ^ Well anything allegedly used as an insult in general is what I meant.
> 
> Still this thread is reserved for talking about two eternal musical legends instead of bickering with each other personally.



It's not an insult either.  Loads of us in the States describe ourselves as such.  Especially in places like Texas, New Mexico, etc.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 6, 2011)

Asassin said:


> Ok guys, IMWD and Huey... can both of you please STOP arguing and just the drop the pointless name-calling in my thread already? this thread is reserved for talking about the unparalleled awesome of both the beatles and mikey jackson here and not calling each other ethnic or cultural slurs like "Corn Fed Americans" or "Self-Hating Latino Uncle Tom" or stereotyping Mexicans or US Marines.


Well get a mod to clean it up , I am done arguing with a guy who keeps on resorting into insults and lies .


sonic546 said:


> Apparently you still fail to grasp that "corn-fed American" is not a racial slur.



Go say that to a latin American , the biggest one you can meet and see if you do not end up in a fight. Where I am from we call farmers -farmers.

I do not live in Texas , I do not Live in New Mexico, your telling some who is of hispanic decent he is corn fed (a common stereotype) then I am suppose to be like "that's definitely not a insult"


----------



## sonic546 (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> Well get a mod to clean it up , I am done arguing with a guy who keeps on resorting into insults and lies .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are in absolutely no position to be calling anybody a liar.

Except the term has fuckall to do with Latin Americans, so you are ignorant of American culture.


----------



## Killerqueen (Dec 6, 2011)

Original Sin said:


> Oh you
> 
> [YOUTUBE]B1Bi1c9LmhU[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> ...


You my friends is truly epic


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

---DELETED---

this thread needs more music

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcL---4xQYA[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZru4JG_Uo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## sonic546 (Dec 6, 2011)

Anybody here a Rob Zombie fan?


----------



## OS (Dec 6, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]5CVyA2LmFKU[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]vPUa67AHemk[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]bMT8dZ5UYgY[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]AWggPLXeOkU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Stunna (Dec 6, 2011)

inb4       lock


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

sonic546 said:


> Anybody here a Rob Zombie fan?



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqQuihD0hoI[/YOUTUBE]

---REMOVED---

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lpVjXwAfm0&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

oh and Sonic..bro Sonic!! you..are a corn fed all American, American!!!


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 6, 2011)

I just want to say that 
a) I live in mexico, and the Beatles are more popular.
b) Mexicans are not insulted by Corn-fed, the insult that is used against mexicans "frijolero" o whatever it's english equivalent is.


----------



## Killerqueen (Dec 6, 2011)

I listen to Bring me the horizon my fav song from them is rawwwrr,the others I haven't heard of them so far they sound epic


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Huey Freeman said:


> By the way when you make my wiki, since your obviously butt hurt kid tell your graduate friend I be sure to send you two couple of juice boxes as apologies .



why would I waste time creating an wiki article about you?

also because quality is needed to erase your utter failure

I present the rest of the posters here with Queens entire live aid performance

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDckgX3oU_w[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfYcKNqQoJo&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGUdjHUVd18&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5RFOii3efs&feature=fvwrel[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdcDswc97Bo&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 6, 2011)

Wow you just know someone's butthurt when they peek into your convos and try to use that shit against you.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Samavarti said:


> I just want to say that
> a) I live in mexico, and the Beatles are more popular.
> b) Mexicans are not insulted by Corn-fed, the insult that is used against mexicans "frijolero" o whatever it's english equivalent is.



why thank you..for providing another source validating the fact that huey is full of shit

want the English translation to that by the way?


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 6, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> why thank you..for providing another source validating the fact that huey is full of shit
> 
> want the English translation to that by the way?



Yea, please.


----------



## Solrac (Dec 6, 2011)

I'll say it once more... all of you guys, please:


----------



## The Bite of the She-Wolf (Dec 6, 2011)

Samavarti said:


> Mexicans are not insulted by Corn-fed, the insult that is used against mexicans "frijolero" o whatever it's english equivalent is.



Frijolero/beaner is even used in a popular Mexican song making fun of Gringo/Mexican petty antagonism.

How sad that this thread has come to this.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 6, 2011)

Any way Back on my first stand Beatles has them all except popularity and remembering .

Michael jackson has controversy on his side and Marketing. LIke i said you can find more people around the world who can impersonate and name a song from MJ over the beatles. 
Beatles being rock does contribute this as most countries are not rock driven i.e caribbean, Central and South America.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Wow you just know someone's butthurt when they peek into your convos and try to use that shit against you.


----------



## The Bite of the She-Wolf (Dec 6, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Wow you just know someone's butthurt when they peek into your convos and try to use that shit against you.



Someone's gonna be watching the wiki as well.

Anyway.

[YOUTUBE]CbGYWtQU1Yo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## OS (Dec 6, 2011)

Did someone get insulted being called a beaner?


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Dec 6, 2011)

Look at all the lonely people.

Can't believe this went to 9 pages in just as many hours.


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 6, 2011)

In an attempt to compensate this shitty 9 page.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS9_ipu9GKw[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8h1Wj70kzk&feature=artistob&playnext=1&list=TLTyRGGDh1byQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Hale (Dec 6, 2011)

I3igAl said:


> Selling more records doesn't make MJ more popular. You have to consider the lack of record players back in the 60ties. Especially in less developed countries.
> The Beatles were part a phenom including nearly every teen in their generation. Back in Michael's time pop was big, but there were thousands of popular genre's, whos fans didn't wanna have to do anything with Michael at all punks, new wavers, all kinds of metal fans, rockers in general.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.myvideo.de/watch/7388953/helter_skelter_the_beatles[/YOUTUBE] Just listen to this song- ignore the pictures of Charles Manson- and try to think about who you would have awaited to be the artist if you didn't know it was a Beatles song. That's just how many-sided the Beatles are. Don't get me wrong. Michael was great but nowhere that great.
> ...




Ok Thats Fine Michael Also holds the largest grossing and largest attendance record for A tour with Bad's world Tour, more people more albums... of couse he had the bigger effect on music


Edit
What a good way to ruin a great thread


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04854XqcfCY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGbVoDVWZsc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Solrac (Dec 7, 2011)

I bet by the time I wake up tomorrow, my thread's going to be as good as locked.


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 7, 2011)

Concerning the thread.



Asassin said:


> 1) Who is more influential in music?


Beatles



Asassin said:


> 2) Who was more popular in their prime?


Beatles



Asassin said:


> 3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music?


I'm not a big fan of any of bouth i prefer the beatles, they have more interesting songs,and  i respect MJ more as a dancer than as a singer to be honest.



Asassin said:


> 4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves?


Hard to choose both are crazy, and are quite tragic figures,i would say a tie.



Asassin said:


> 5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future?


Probably the beatles, but i'm not sure.


----------



## Uncle Phantom (Dec 7, 2011)

@IWD just saying from opinion man idk the facts and all that. I grew up in a predominately black area, so MJ was basically the second coming of jesus. As I became more well versed with other races throughout high school and college, it still seems that MJ is more rememebered than the Beatles. Even with some of the older people I've gotten to know, as high up as 40 to 50 years old they seem to believe MJ was more iconic.

But if not, than it's alright lol both were musical titans who won't be forgotten in our lifetimes that's for sure.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 7, 2011)

My father is Asian and in his early 60s. He has never set foot in the States or UK. 

He has every Beatles' single, album, anthology, VHS/DVD documentary, tabs of all their songs and even the same type of guitar you see them use in their numerous performances. In his teenage/college years he learnt how to play the guitar (self taught) and sing so he could be part of a Beatles tribute band where he would play and sing the majority of their songs. 

The only thing he actually has of MJ in his collection is the Christmas album of when he was part of The Jackson Five...ask him these questions and there is an obvious pale in comparison of what he would think   were the more prominent musician/artist. 

He's also of the school of thought that, The Beatles > Elvis Presley.

They beat The King in his own backyard...

[YOUTUBE]YEAkpl8LLLM[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]VW2uMaR3sSI[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]8u4K0eI8nwg[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Dec 7, 2011)




----------



## willyvereb (Dec 7, 2011)

Excuse me guys. I was a bit late to react.
Anyways, I cleaned up the shitstorm and restored the quality.

Let's rock!


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Dec 7, 2011)

How did Queen videos get into this topic?


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Dec 7, 2011)

because quality


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 7, 2011)

spaniardguitarist said:


> How did Queen videos get into this topic?



Because Queen is awesome, no matter the topic having queen videos is never a bad thing.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

Uncle Phantom said:


> @IWD just saying from opinion man idk the facts and all that. I* grew up in a predominately black area,* so MJ was basically the second coming of jesus. As I became more well versed with other races throughout high school and college, it still seems that MJ is more rememebered than the Beatles. Even with some of the older people I've gotten to know, as high up as 40 to 50 years old they seem to believe MJ was more iconic.



maybe you can answer this for me then: what the hell happened with Jimmy Hendrix? he was supposedly never popular with the African American community at all? and it's not because they didn't like rock in the era because Elvis apparently got allotta love (although that might have something to do with him growing up in a ghetto and being influenced by black musicians but all the same man) and I know the stones got love..and Zep mostly because of their jazz influences but what the heck?



Uncle Phantom said:


> But if not, than it's alright lol both were musical titans who won't be forgotten in our lifetimes that's for sure.



it's about historical importance and the magnitude of influence, look at what waking dreamer said the Beatles defined a genre that at the time was influencing everything

mind you Jackson and his generation in the 80's had a massive influence as well I mean American pop culture had as much to do with the downfall of the USSR as anything else..and Jackson organized the famous Live Aid concern..and that was something amazing but he built upon something groups like the Beatles started


----------



## Whimsy (Dec 7, 2011)

Beatles utterly stomp, how is this even a thread.

Though I guess MJ might end up more popular in the population as the old school Beatles fans die off.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

Whimsy said:


> Beatles utterly stomp, how is this even a thread.
> 
> Though I guess MJ might end up more popular in the population as the old school Beatles fans die off.



there are allot of young people who know the Beatles plus you ever see those VH1 top 100 best artist vids? I mean I have trouble trusting them at all..but you do at least see allot of modern musicians praising the Beatles and from more than one genre no less


----------



## Bart (Dec 7, 2011)

*1) Who is more influential in music?*
_Cannot answer that._

*2) Who was more popular in their prime?*
_Michael Jackson, beyond any doubt._

*3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music?*
_The Beatles and Michael Jackson. (Favourite album is the Magical Mystery Tour and almost all of the songs written by Harrison)._

*4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves?*
_Michael Jackson._

*5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future?*
_Can't answer that, because it's difficult; both if I'm being a bit diplomatic._

P.S. There's a reason why Thriller's yet to be surpassed :WOW


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

man I posted Queens entire liveaid concert..don't tell me it was deleted?


----------



## willyvereb (Dec 7, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> man I posted Queens entire liveaid concert..don't tell me it was deleted?


I doubt it.
I conciously avoided any music posts.

Although if I did...
Sorry.
If you know which entry was that post, I can restore it.


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 7, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> man I posted Queens entire liveaid concert..don't tell me it was deleted?



The concert wasn't deleted, it's still here


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 7, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> maybe you can answer this for me then: what the hell happened with Jimmy Hendrix? he was supposedly never popular with the African American community at all? and it's not because they didn't like rock in the era because Elvis apparently got allotta love (although that might have something to do with him growing up in a ghetto and being influenced by black musicians but all the same man) and I know the stones got love..and Zep mostly because of their jazz influences but what the heck?



Jimmy Hendrix is popular with blacks. I've never even met a black person who liked Led Zeppelin.


----------



## Owl (Dec 7, 2011)

Asassin said:


> 1) Who is more influential in music?



The Beatles
They pretty much pioneered a lot of musical genre and many bands look up to them, Oasis for example.



> 2) Who was more popular in their prime?



I'll have to say both.



> 3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music?



Personally, I like the music The Beatles made better than MJ's. They're one of my favorite bands (bias *cough*)



> 4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves?



I don't know man, The Beatles partied hard during the 60s and MJ partied hard  during the 80s 



> 5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future?



Both.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

willyvereb said:


> I doubt it.
> I conciously avoided any music posts.
> 
> Although if I did...
> ...



no you didn't I assumed you did my bad



Samavarti said:


> The concert wasn't deleted, it's still here



I'd put their time in the concert against any modern rock group any day of the week those guys completely stole the show.



Violent By Design said:


> Jimmy Hendrix is popular with blacks. I've never even met a black person who liked Led Zeppelin.



really I'm the opposite no one black i know likes jimmy. I've got one black friend who's a zeptard though


----------



## Bart (Dec 7, 2011)

Violent By Design said:


> Jimmy Hendrix is popular with blacks.* I've never even met a black person who liked Led Zeppelin.*



Oooooo? Considering who Plant and Page's musical idols were and pretty much Zepplin's style of music? Same goes for the likes of AC/DC and the Stones.


----------



## Uncle Phantom (Dec 7, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> maybe you can answer this for me then: what the hell happened with Jimmy Hendrix? he was supposedly never popular with the African American community at all? and it's not because they didn't like rock in the era because Elvis apparently got allotta love (although that might have something to do with him growing up in a ghetto and being influenced by black musicians but all the same man) and I know the stones got love..and Zep mostly because of their jazz influences but what the heck?



Blacks like jimmy Hendrix but he just never became a god amonst men in they're eyes... don't know why, probably because Jackson's music sounded more similar to what they usually listened to or were accustomed to. To alot of people, they were listening to folk like James Brown and the like and MJ was just a fresher, newer version of him I guess.

Probably also had something to do with Jackson's popularity starting at a much younger age (Jackson 5). So when adults, became adults, they were still following him and naturally there kids would end up listening to him. Especially since Jacskon was still rising into popularity as a solo artist so people's kids listening to him really didn't suffer the "generation gap" that most music get's slaughtered with.



> it's about historical importance and the magnitude of influence, look at what waking dreamer said the Beatles defined a genre that at the time was influencing everything
> 
> mind you Jackson and his generation in the 80's had a massive influence as well I mean American pop culture had as much to do with the downfall of the USSR as anything else..and Jackson organized the famous Live Aid concern..and that was something amazing but he built upon something groups like the Beatles started



The Beatles and what they accomplished and brought to the table is definitely incredible and looking through the thread, it would seem I was wrong. I never knew that they were as big as MJ because like I said, MJ prime was basically jesus from where I'm from.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 7, 2011)

Uncle Phantom said:


> I never knew that they were as big as MJ because like I said, MJ prime was basically jesus from where I'm from.



Interesting since John Lennon was the one who also said the controversial line that, The Beatles were _bigger than Jesus..._


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

Uncle Phantom said:


> Blacks like jimmy Hendrix but he just never became a god amonst men in they're eyes... don't know why, probably because Jackson's music sounded more similar to what they usually listened to or were accustomed to. To alot of people, they were listening to folk like James Brown and the like and MJ was just a fresher, newer version of him I guess.
> 
> Probably also had something to do with Jackson's popularity starting at a much younger age (Jackson 5). So when adults, became adults, they were still following him and naturally there kids would end up listening to him. Especially since Jacskon was still rising into popularity as a solo artist so people's kids listening to him really didn't suffer the "generation gap" that most music get's slaughtered with.[



eh there's a thing called timelessness Beatles have it though their music does sound dated Thriller has it too mind you




Uncle Phantom said:


> The Beatles and what they accomplished and brought to the table is definitely incredible and looking through the thread, it would seem I was wrong. I never knew that they were as big as MJ because like I said, MJ prime was basically jesus from where I'm from.



when the USSR so fears your music that it's a capital offense in certain regions..and at the same time Hoover has the feds going after you for being such a danger..it's a telling thing

mind you Jackson and Madona were just as "threatening" during the decline of the cold war..as well and the power of their generation of musicians should not be ignored but if it weren;t for groups like the Beatles it never would have happened

Jackson was a god damn genius for his contribution to liveaid for organizing that. I think aside from Woodstock it's probably the greatest concern ever.



Waking Dreamer said:


> Interesting since John Lennon was the one who also said the controversial line that, The Beatles were _bigger than Jesus..._



John was an arrogant jerk man for all his talent the guy was a complete lunatic and a bit of a douche


----------



## Bart (Dec 7, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> John was an arrogant jerk man for all his talent the guy was a complete lunatic and a bit of a douche



this

P.S. Kudos for bringing up the USSR thing :WOW


----------



## Guru (Dec 7, 2011)

...Still stands that Beatles are the best selling musical entity of all time, even though the population was less than half the worlds current size.

No need for debate Beatles > MJ in all aspects.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

Bart said:


> this



oh wow  what an ass  if he had done that now adays there would have been an epic shitstorm  



Bart said:


> P.S. Kudos for bringing up the USSR thing :WOW



people often forget just how serious things were back then and what made the music of the 50's- 80's so damn powerful especially the rock and pop genres

edit is this for real?


----------



## Endless Mike (Dec 7, 2011)

Beatles for all of them


----------



## Bart (Dec 7, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> oh wow  what an ass  if he had done that now adays there would have been an epic shitstorm



I know right? I have a lot of respect for _Lennon_, but that was a bit too much & without a shadow of a doubt :WOW



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> people often forget just how serious things were back then and what made the music of the 50's- 80's so damn powerful especially the rock and pop genres
> 
> edit is this for real?



Yeah 

Erm that's not real by the way haha :WOW


----------



## Soledad Eterna (Dec 7, 2011)

Bart said:


> Link removed
> 
> P.S. Kudos for bringing up the USSR thing :WOW



I'm pretty sure he also got very angry just for getting called a queer.


----------



## Matta Clatta (Dec 7, 2011)

I look at it like this the Beatles were more successful(selling more records then anyone ever) but MJ was more critically acclaimed.
MJ still has the most successful album of all time with Thriller

If you think awards denote how good your music is then MJ has more awards then every single member of the Beatles combined.

Now who influenced music more?
Well I guess the Beatles would get this but its still close and they both inspired a lot of clones.

Now who was a pop culture staple? 
Well that would undoubtedly be MJ.
No one is going to ever forget the sheer amount of iconic things hes done throughout his career that are still relevant today.


----------



## Soledad Eterna (Dec 7, 2011)

Also if people want to use Thriller as an example of MJ being more popular in his prime, well AC/DC has the second best selling album until Thriller came along and I doubt that AC/DC was more popular than the Beatles.


----------



## Stilzkin (Dec 7, 2011)

Matta Clatta said:


> but MJ was more critically acclaimed.



You mean who most critics prefer critically? I'm not so sure, I'm inclined to say the Beatles are more liked by the critics.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 7, 2011)

Still gonna say The Beatles are on the *same tier *as _*Elvis Presley*_ to the point that they even rivaled and pressured him in his own turf of the US.


----------



## Physics Man (Dec 7, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-TZBavxpes[/YOUTUBE]

This solos.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

Waking Dreamer said:


> Still gonna say The Beatles are on the *same tier *as _*Elvis Presley*_ to the point that they even rivaled and pressured him in his own turf of the US.



pressured him on his own turf? IIRC Elvis never directly competed with them and he loved them, allot of the Beatles say they were inspired by him and Buddy Holly and Fats Domino

IIRC Harrison more or less refereed to Presley as "the Messiah" of rock in one televised interview 

I think the Beatles did accomplish more than Presley I think that's obvious but you cannot deny the sheer magnitude of this mans influence..


----------



## Devil Kings (Dec 7, 2011)

Waking Dreamer said:


> Still gonna say The Beatles are on the *same tier *as _*Elvis Presley*_ to the point that they even rivaled and pressured him in his own turf of the US.



Elvis was good and all that, but compare to MJ and the Beatles he was nothing.


----------



## Soledad Eterna (Dec 7, 2011)

Elvis according to wikipedia is the second best selling act(you can correct me if I'm wrong), when you say Elvis you think of him inmediatley and after several decades there's still people loving him. So I doubt that MJ is bigger than him.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th1kQER770M[/YOUTUBE]\

rock and jazz are kindred spirits in every sense of the word



Devil Kings said:


> Elvis was good and all that, but compare to MJ and the Beatles *he was nothing.*



you know what's fucking awesome? Every one from John Lennon to keith Richards to fucking 50 cent disagrees with you..in fact they usually consider Elvis among the three or four dudes who..if not for them none of the following decades of music would have existed. Seriously when the guy who said he was bigger than jesus goes "before this dude..there was nothing"- you know who ever claims other wise is massively fucking downplaying


----------



## Devil Kings (Dec 7, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th1kQER770M[/YOUTUBE]\
> 
> rock and jazz are kindred spirits in every sense of the word
> 
> ...



I'll give Elvis his dues, but the guy ripped off a lot of people.

One of his best song was ripped off of Little Richard. He didn't even give the man the credit he deserves.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

Devil Kings said:


> I'll give Elvis his dues, but the guy ripped off a lot of people.



allot of those people were glad for it..besides every one from Elvis to the stones to Zeppelin openly admit this

all the gods of Rock and Roll basically say "we played blues with an electric guitar"

Elvis for his part IIRC also grew up around African Americans and adopted their music. Again I don't really think any one gives him allot of shit for it



Devil Kings said:


> One of his best song was ripped off of Little Richard. He didn't even give the man the credit he deserves.



little richard man..yeah that did happen to him allot but he is sooo bent out of shape and resentful it's hard to tell how much was he ripped off of and how much is just a pissed off old man talking shit

any ways the guys who got ripped off the most are Buddy holly Fats Domino and Bob Dylan


----------



## Devil Kings (Dec 7, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> allot of those people were glad for it..besides every one from Elvis to the stones to Zeppelin openly admit this
> 
> all the gods of Rock and Roll basically say "we played blues with an electric guitar"
> 
> ...



Like i said am not taking anything from Elvis. This is the man that went up on stage and chicks were throwing there underwears at him.

Elvis did start a phenomenon and i'll give him that, but i just don't see him being better than MJ or the Beatles.

Even if Dylan was ripped off, i think he later received the f credits.

Anyway, i would choose this guy over all of them any day. He didn't start a movement or anything, but the shits he were singing was some deep shits.
[YOUTUBE]WJTiXoMCppw[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]9aRKZFR5imM[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]yG5e1oaen-M[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]NGorjBVag0I[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]5x12oo8diKE[/YOUTUBE]

Even though he singed mostly love songs, some had some pretty deep meaning, i swear the older he gets, the more powerful his voice becomes.

I get tired of listening to the likes of MJ, the Beatles, especially Elvis, but not Cohen.


----------



## Matta Clatta (Dec 7, 2011)

Devil Kings said:


> One of his best song was ripped off of Little Richard. He didn't even give the man the credit he deserves.



You're right though 
Elvis was such a biter did he even write his own songs?
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjb5pfRvM2s&feature=player_embedded#at=27[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggJZBq8SjJE&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]

I mean he basically made a living off of getting fame from trends black artists started.


----------



## Devil Kings (Dec 7, 2011)

Matta Clatta said:


> You're right though
> Elvis was such a biter did he even write his own songs?
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjb5pfRvM2s&feature=player_embedded#at=27[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> ...



Am not going that far in saying he never wrote his own songs.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

Devil Kings said:


> Am not going that far in saying he never wrote his own songs.



he did write some of them..but in general he wasn't allowed too..or they tried to keep him from doing it..the songs he did write..are well honestly if he had been allowed too the counter culture might have started in the 50's...and been less crazy towards the end

Harrison seems to constantly compare him to gods and Messiah like figures when ever he talks about him this is the second interview I've found where a Beatle speaks of him as such..it's a bit eerie honestly


----------



## Devil Kings (Dec 7, 2011)

The reason Elvis got first famous wasn't because of his voice, though it did play a big part, but mostly because the way he acted on stage.

In the 50's there weren't any famous star that would go up on stage and gyrate the way he did.

It was his gyrating that really put him on the map.

Back then people were truly conservative when it came to any sexual acts outside the bedroom, and that's what Elvis was labeled as thanks to his dancing. And the teens felt in lobe with him even more because he was the rebel there parents hated.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 7, 2011)

that's not what I was talking about at all and that's a bit of an understatement


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Dec 8, 2011)

johnny         cash
/thread


----------



## Bart (Dec 8, 2011)

Guru said:


> ...Still stands that Beatles are the best selling musical entity of all time, even though the population was less than half the worlds current size.
> 
> No need for debate Beatles > MJ in all aspects.



Ooooo really? 

One could argue that the Beatles had less worldwide competition during the 60's compared to Jackson in the 80's+, not to mention the vast amount of genres that were already established or popularised even further after the Beatles split, not to mention the fact music could be listened to on tv and radio on a greater level.

Unless you're trying to argue that the Beatles were more popular in such aspects in the continents such as Asia, Africa or South America :WOW



Soledad Eterna said:


> Also if people want to use Thriller as an example of MJ being more popular in his prime, well AC/DC has the second best selling album until Thriller came along and I doubt that AC/DC was more popular than the Beatles.



Bon Scott's death was an influence, nevertheless Back in Black's one of my favourite albums :WOW


----------



## Guru (Dec 8, 2011)

Devil Kings said:


> Like i said am not taking anything from Elvis. This is the man that went up on stage and chicks were throwing there underwears at him.
> 
> Elvis did start a phenomenon and i'll give him that, but i just don't see him being better than MJ or the Beatles.
> 
> ...



You do realize that Elvis was more influential than the beatles and MJ combined?

He changed music forever, him and Buddy holly. 

Cohens a good song writer but his music cant keep up with his lyrics, and he'd too depressing to listen to for extended periods of time IMO. 

Springsteens an artistic songwriter too mind.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 8, 2011)

Guru said:


> He changed music forever, him and Buddy holly.



Holly probably exceeds Elvis..I have no idea what would have happened to rock if Holly and Presley and the Beatles were all alive at the same time and performing..



Kirihara said:


> johnny         cash
> /thread



you know the guys good when he's past his prime and can barely sing and play the guitar yet he takes the Song Hurt from NIN..and then totally and completely makes the song..to the extent that even the guy who wrote it is like "Yeah..dat Cash man"


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Dec 8, 2011)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> you know the guys good when he's past his prime and can barely sing and play the guitar yet he takes the Song Hurt from NIN..and then totally and completely makes the song..to the extent that even the guy who wrote it is like "Yeah..dat Cash man"



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prDoGmY5kj8[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o22eIJDtKho[/YOUTUBE]

Yeah, no contest.


----------



## Devil Kings (Dec 8, 2011)

Raidou Kuzunoha said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prDoGmY5kj8[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o22eIJDtKho[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Yeah, no contest.



Cash's a fucking beast.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 8, 2011)

Raidou Kuzunoha said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o22eIJDtKho[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Yeah, no contest.



man he took an emo song and made it about a bad ass who lived hard and paid for it.

the Cash versions works me up every time  i listen to it.


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Dec 9, 2011)




----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 9, 2011)

Cash's voice is not made for a song like that.

Ozzy did a cover of that song as well..I didn't like it either that song seems really hard to cover

speaking of covers

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaBvQTNPIf0[/YOUTUBE]

Sinatra looked like he was about to cry


----------



## Guru (Dec 10, 2011)

If you're talking covers, 

Twist and Shout was a cover, and Hey Joe


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Dec 13, 2011)

*3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music?*

John > The Beatles > MJ.

*4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves?*

John > MJ > Rest of Beatles.

Michael is an interesting figure. I feel rather sorry for how he turned out.  

Still, I prefer Lennon to all of them. A truly fascinating individual and one I can very easily relate to.


----------



## Havoc (Dec 13, 2011)

Elvis aint shit.

White man stealing black man's thunder.


----------



## hojou (Dec 13, 2011)

The beetles stol a lot of their music form other uk artist we don't hear about it due to the fact its from another part of the world. Anyway mj has all five.


----------



## Guru (Dec 13, 2011)

hojou said:


> The beetles stol a lot of their music form other uk artist we don't hear about it due to the fact its from another part of the world. Anyway mj has all five.



I like all the examples you've supplied, and well reasoned arguments.

See some of the questions are opinions, some are facts. 

IE who was bigger in there prime, to which the answer is reflected in sales by the Beatles. 

you can prefer whoever you want, but they wrote all their own stuff, did all the music, didn't steal as much shit as MJ did etc.


----------



## I3igAl (Dec 13, 2011)

hojou said:


> The beetles stol a lot of their music form other uk artist we don't hear about it due to the fact its from another part of the world. Anyway mj has all five.



I highly doubt it. Can you give any examples. I'm German. The Beatles had their first concerts in Hamburg Germany. If they really copied that much, I believe I might have heard.
Also looking at the many-sidedness of their music, even if they copied some stufftheir would still be many unique songs.


----------



## willyvereb (Dec 14, 2011)

hojou said:


> *The beetles stol a lot of their music form other uk artist we don't hear about it due to the fact its from another part of the world*. Anyway mj has all five.


Excuse me but this  is one of the most ignorant claims I heard in a while.
You know, there are many users who're posting on NF from overseas.
My (not so) humble self, for example. I'm from Europe, Hungary.

Yet, did you see anyone claiming that the Beatles stole their music?
No.
That theory fall apart right here.


----------



## Tiger (Dec 14, 2011)

Beatles win in all categories as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 14, 2011)

willyvereb said:


> Excuse me but this  is one of the most ignorant claims I heard in a while.
> You know, there are many users who're posting on NF from overseas.
> My (not so) humble self, for example. I'm from Europe, Hungary.
> 
> ...



I like how the Beatles themselves saying they took more from Bob Dylan and Budy Holly and Elvis than any other influence

so yeah not only is that theory an utter lie..but the Beatles themselves disagree


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 15, 2011)

hojou said:


> The beetles stol a lot of their music form other uk artist we don't hear about it due to the fact its from another part of the world. Anyway mj has all five.



This post is so absolutely asinine I simply had to log in to trash it.

willy and IWD already tore apart the first part of your statement, let me do the honor of working on the second one.

The first question was "who was more influential with their music?"

Aside from the Beatles influencing artists all the way from Led Zeppelin to Nirvana to today's musicians, they completely rewrote the map of the music world. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is considered by many to be the greatest album of all time for a reason: it reinvented the music scene again, after the Beatles had already revolutionized it before. One can easily point to a pre and post Beatles world, and again a pre and post Sgt. Pepper's world, where music became more edgy.

The next question was "who was more popular in their prime?"

As one can plainly tell by the first part of my post, the Beatles clearly take it, and I posted certified record sales to prove my point earlier in the thread.

The next semi-opinionated question is "who do you think will be more remembered in the future?"

The answer to this is simple: do you think that, thirty years after his death, people will still go to commemorate and remember Michael Jackson? No, I highly doubt it. I don't recall even anything like that happening in the past two years, but I may be wrong. Still, every year on December 8th people go to remember John Lennon, 31 years and counting. That just shows you how much of an impact the Beatles had.

You are completely and absolutely wrong.


----------



## AldiousIII (Dec 15, 2011)

1) Who is more influential in music?
Definitely The Beatles, he brought rock music to a whole new level.

2) Who was more popular in their prime?
Unarguably The Beatles.

3) Who do you like more in terms of their songs and music?
I loved MJ's music more than The Beatles, maybe due to the fact that I'm born in the late 90s.

4) Who do you like more in terms of the artists themselves?
Michael Jackson. He performed very well on all of his (older) live concerts.

5) Who do you think will be remembered more in the future?
I think it would be Michael Jackson. I don't think kids in the next 20 years will know who The Beatles are.


----------



## Guru (Dec 15, 2011)

I think over the next twenty years it's our job to make sure that children do know the Beatles


----------



## Bart (Dec 15, 2011)

This thread's still alive? Lol :WOW


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 15, 2011)

AldiousIII said:


> 2) Who was more popular in their prime?
> Unarguably The Beatles.



I can't stress what Aldious said enough...people need to realize Elvis Presley had the first ever sat broadcaster live concert a billion and change people saw him perform...think about that number for a second..a billion plus people turned on a tv set to see him perform.

the Beatles still beat him out in record sales...

think about that



Guru said:


> I think over the next twenty years it's our job to make sure that children do know the Beatles



the Beatles and Evils haven't needed any help making sure the generations after their death would know them,

they likely wont ever..Jackson on the other hand might


----------



## Bart (Dec 15, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> The next question was "who was more popular in their prime?"
> 
> As one can plainly tell by the first part of my post, the Beatles clearly take it, and I posted certified record sales to prove my point earlier in the thread.



It's easy to say that when it's almost been 50 years since their first album and around 40 since they broke up.



Nevermind said:


> The next semi-opinionated question is "who do you think will be more remembered in the future?"
> 
> The answer to this is simple: do you think that, thirty years after his death, people will still go to commemorate and remember Michael Jackson? No, I highly doubt it. I don't recall even anything like that happening in the past two years, but I may be wrong. Still, every year on December 8th people go to remember John Lennon, 31 years and counting. That just shows you how much of an impact the Beatles had.
> 
> You are completely and absolutely wrong.



Nothing in the past two years? Oh dear ... unless you're suggesting that an artist's whos music transends a great many things isn't going to remembered I'd really have to cringe at that entire post, and why are you bringing up Lennon? The Beatles are a quartet :WOW


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 15, 2011)

people need to realize artists of this era were very honest about covering,borrowing or ripping off other artists...because in that era there just wasn't much to go around..every one did it because it was a entirely new frontier and people were still "creating" modern music as we understand it today. 

When you hurl out accusations like they ripped off from English bands well that's simply not true or if they did the biggest and most defining influence that the Beatles Emulated was clearly guys like buddy Holly and his generation..and Fats Domino and Elvis and of course McCartney always talked about bob Dylan 

I mean really Hoju I've posted videos of Harrison comparing Elvis to gods..I can go and if you want bring out numerous interviews of every one from the Beatles to Zep to Queen talking about borrowing allot from rhythm and blues hell Love Came to Town is a perfect example of how closely linked rock is with blues

I mean seriously and then claiming Jackson was more influential? it's like failing to properly use google search it's so severe

Jackson was..our Elvis but he wont be as influential as the king and he certainly wont be as influential as a group of musicians people compare to Mozart and Beethoven for christs sake


----------



## Bart (Dec 15, 2011)

Wait ... since when were the Beatles compared to Mozart or Beethoven? 

Sorry but that has to stop right there to be honest ...

P.S. Well yeah the Beatles, AC/DC, Zeppelin, Elvis, Stones, etc were all influenced by R&B and blues :WOW


----------



## Nevermind (Dec 15, 2011)

Bart said:


> Wait ... since when were the Beatles compared to Mozart or Beethoven?
> 
> Sorry but that has to stop right there to be honest ...



Care to say why? It's not every day that you have a musical group completely change the fabric of culture like the Beatles did.

And I brought Lennon into it since well, he's one of the Beatles, part of the songwriting duo and thus was major part of the band's impact, common sense.

And if you would like to show me commemorations on the anniversary of Jackson's death, then do so, though my thoughts on that still stand.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 15, 2011)

Bart said:


> Wait ... since when were the Beatles compared to Mozart or Beethoven?
> 
> Sorry but that has to stop right there to be honest ...



apparently some famous uber prestigious Russian music Acadmey placed Paul McCartney's picture right in between Beethoven and Mozart in terms of "influencing music" and Paul was all hyped up talk'n 'bout

I don't agree with this comparison and I'm a McCartney defender but there you go...dem intellectuals


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Dec 15, 2011)

People commemorate John's death because he was so much more than a musician. He had political ideals and beliefs that most people can relate to and support.

MJ? The only thing really memorable about him personally is stuff that his fans would like to forget or ignore.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 15, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Care to say why? It's not every day that you have a musical group completely change the fabric of culture like the Beatles did.



people are actually surprised at this

really aside from them and maybe Elvis no one else really reaches that level where you can make that comparison

it's not wank I may not agree with it but there is precedent


----------



## The Bite of the She-Wolf (Dec 15, 2011)

Guru said:


> I think over the next twenty years it's our job to make sure that children do know the Beatles



I'll make sure they hate Taxman as much as I do, if I get the chance.

But yeah.


----------



## Casanova (Dec 15, 2011)

*There are a lot of arguments from both Pro Beatles and Pro MJ that I am agreeing with, but these posts right here just made my day.




Nevermind said:



			The answer to this is simple: do you think that, thirty years after his death, people will still go to commemorate and remember Michael Jackson? No, I highly doubt it. I don't recall even anything like that happening in the past two years, but I may be wrong.
		
Click to expand...

1)You are wrong and 2) You might not recall anything of the sort due to you not looking for it.

To sit there and say that a man you revolutionize the world of pop culture and sold about 800 million albums worldwide wont be remember in the years to come, is completely foolish.




Nevermind said:



			And if you would like to show me commemorations on the anniversary of Jackson's death, then do so, though my thoughts on that still stand.
		
Click to expand...

Don't mind if I do.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/26/us-jackson-idUSTRE65H5TV20100626

moncler outlet July 17

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10412117



Like I said above, there are many commemoration of MJ, your simply just not looking for them.*


----------



## Bart (Dec 15, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> Care to say why? It's not every day that you have a musical group completely change the fabric of culture like the Beatles did.
> 
> And I brought Lennon into it since well, he's one of the Beatles, part of the songwriting duo and thus was major part of the band's impact, common sense.
> 
> And if you would like to show me commemorations on the anniversary of Jackson's death, then do so, though my thoughts on that still stand.



Jackson only died rather recently, unless you can show me some commemorations of the anniversary of Lennon's death during 1981-1983 then. I was speaking about his death, I was mentioning why you brought his death into the equation.

*Over 2.5 billion people were reported to have watched Michael Jackson's memorial service I should like to add if you're bringing that into the equation* :WOW



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> apparently some famous uber prestigious Russian music Acadmey placed Paul McCartney's picture right in between Beethoven and Mozart in terms of "influencing music" and Paul was all hyped up talk'n 'bout
> 
> I don't agree with this comparison and I'm a McCartney defender but there you go...dem intellectuals



There's no way The Beatles can be compared to Mozart or Beethoven, those were two genius' who did things that not many people can do today, or none at all. There's a difference between influnce and comparison I guess, the former may be true but definitely not the latter.



Zaelapolopollo said:


> People commemorate John's death because he was so much more than a musician. He had political ideals and beliefs that most people can relate to and support.
> 
> MJ? The only thing really memorable about him personally is stuff that his fans would like to forget or ignore.



MJ wasn't political like Lennon, definitely right about that, but his beliefs as far as humanity in the strictest sense goes were considerably admirable.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Dec 16, 2011)

Beatles win all five, IMO.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Dec 16, 2011)

Bart said:


> There's no way The Beatles can be compared to Mozart or Beethoven, those were two genius' who did things that not many people can do today, or none at all. There's a difference between influnce and comparison I guess, the former may be true but definitely not the latter.
> 
> 
> .



they were part of a select few who changed the face of music forever..they made the rock genre a force for social change that permeated every level of society, they started the counter culture super powers were looking into them and trying to find dirt out of fear

yeah they may honestly one day in retrospect deserve the rating


----------



## Commander Vimes (Dec 16, 2011)

Beatles for 1 and 2. Michael for 3. Tie for 4 and 5. I'm not much of a Beatles fan to be totally honest, never saw the big deal.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Sep 23, 2013)

Lennon soloes low difficulty...


----------



## Solrac (Sep 23, 2013)

First time I've seen someone necro a thread made by me from 2011.


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Sep 23, 2013)

rubber soul tha besto


----------



## Poxbox (Sep 24, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVACUjHn6yU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## P3IN (Sep 24, 2013)

1. Michael rapes 
2. Michael stomps 
3. Michael solos 
4. Michael god stomps 
5. Michael curb stomps


----------

