The reason Jackson is bigger than Elvis

Johnnytoxic

Johnnytoxic

Johnnytoxic

Permabanned
Joined
13 Nov 2006
Posts
5,798
is because only people of this columnist's age will know the name of more than one Elvis track. Michael Jacksons music is 10x more diverse and cross's over to all genres from soul, pop, rock etc, where as Elvis's songs are hard to transfer over to today's generation.

I guarantee Jackson's music will be listened to far more than Elvis's in years to come.

I read this columnists piece from today's Mirror and hes a nutjob.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/column...ed-but-he-s-no-elvis-presley-115875-21490248/
 
Elvis died a long time ago and his musical career was cut a lot shorter than MJ's.

To compare the 2 is rather silly. The king will live forever as will the king of pop, in their own right
 
Personally, I can name far more Elvis songs, even more Sinatra songs, than Michael Jackson songs, where I would stumble after the most famous tracks (Thriller, Beat It, Billy Jean etc).
 
theukmoog said:
Personally, I can name far more Elvis songs, even more Sinatra songs, than Michael Jackson songs, where I would stumble after the most famous tracks (Thriller, Beat It, Billy Jean etc).
Click to expand...

Personally, I can't name any elvis or sinatra (who the hell is sinatra?) songs at all.

But I could probably name every single track from Michael Jackson, starting with the thriller album.
 
Music evolves as do people so this is a dumb comparison to be honest, but if you want to argue the point so be it.

It can be easily argued that the birth of rock music has had a more wide reaching effect than that of pop. Michael Jackson was a master the genre, however the number of artists deriving inspiration from Elvis far outnumber that of Jackson, and as great as Jackson was, the reason he is more known is because we live in the now not then. In 200 years, I imagine that Elvis will be the better known of the two.


As you said, "is" I will let it go though, at this minute yes he is bigger than Elvis ;)
 
theukmoog said:
Personally, I can name far more Elvis songs, even more Sinatra songs, than Michael Jackson songs, where I would stumble after the most famous tracks (Thriller, Beat It, Billy Jean etc).
Click to expand...

Same here. The only thing that annoys me with these types of threads is the idea that a new popular artist somehow diminishes the talent and achievements of an older one. A great artist is a great artist. People like Elvis, Sinatra and MJ will always find an audience, they just may not be in 'fashion' thats all. My 2p
 
I remember Elvis dying, and I remember the peoples reaction at the time, almost everyone talked about it even though the media-hype-machine was nowhere near as powerful then.

When Jackson died everyone I know only mentioned it when telling jokes about it.
 
Morba said:
Elvis died a long time ago and his musical career was cut a lot shorter than MJ's.

To compare the 2 is rather silly. The king will live forever as will the king of pop, in their own right
Click to expand...

King of pop my ****. He hasn't featured anywhere near the charts in years. The only reason he is now is because he's dead. Otherwise the radio never touched his stuff and I don't know anyone who listens to his cd's in a long long time.

I used to love his stuff as a kid mainly because the videos at the time where awesome. Thriller is actually a **** song, but at the time the video was ace.

Cliff Richards has spanned the era's better than Jacko. Jacko was no longer a feature in the music charts, hell after his voice broke I didn't even rate his voice that much. The whooping and crutch grabbing wailing is long long ago.

Yep he's concerts would sell out in seconds because he was one of the best entertainers but he day was long ago. I dont see how anyone can be the king of pop when they weren't relevant for the last what nearly 20 years of their life.
 
I'm probably been a little harsh on Elvis as he certainly has an audience but even Jacksons 70s stuff I can still play. Elvis just doesn't appeal to me at all.
 
dannyjo22 said:
King of pop my ****. He hasn't featured anywhere near the charts in years. The only reason he is now is because he's dead. Otherwise the radio never touched his stuff and I don't know anyone who listens to his cd's in a long long time.

I used to love his stuff as a kid mainly because the videos at the time where awesome. Thriller is actually a **** song, but at the time the video was ace.

Cliff Richards has spanned the era's better than Jacko. Jacko was no longer a feature in the music charts, hell after his voice broke I didn't even rate his voice that much. The whooping and crutch grabbing wailing is long long ago.

Yep he's concerts would sell out in seconds because he was one of the best entertainers but he day was long ago. I dont see how anyone can be the king of pop when they weren't relevant for the last what nearly 20 years of their life.
Click to expand...

From what i have seen on wikipedia predicted sales put MJ at 3x more records than cliff, despite not making much music of note recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists#1_billion_records_or_more

(The link would put MJ 3rd behind the Beatles and Elvis Presley) - though as it says in the intro, very difficult to know any exact amounts
 
goujon945 said:
Same here. The only thing that annoys me with these types of threads is the idea that a new popular artist somehow diminishes the talent and achievements of an older one. A great artist is a great artist. People like Elvis, Sinatra and MJ will always find an audience, they just may not be in 'fashion' thats all. My 2p
Click to expand...




Agree on that.

Either way I think it also has something to do with the coverage of Jacksons music and personal life. With the internet and other media being more available.
And as mentioned before he also has a longer career compared to Elvis before he died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom