YANDHI

5y

Can we stop these threads I swear I’ve seen this convo here 20 times

the reds

5y

Pop Culture wise:
MJ was a superstar for like 20 years, and after his death people literally committed suicide I'm thinking MJ

Music Quality wise:
Idk I dont listen to the beatles lol

MrIndigo96

5y

Beatles are amazing imo.
as writers nothing like them. Dylan and Stevie only writers I put up with them

MrIndigo96

5y

Beatles are amazing imo.
as writers nothing like them. Dylan and Stevie only writers I put up with them

beast444

5y

Black people generally will say MJ
White people generally will pick The Beatles

But for those of us who actually research, I'd say it's equal tbh. They are from different eras and their impressiveness is opposites. It's downright INSANE how the Beatles got 20 #1s in what like a decade? if that?

MJ was the opposite. He stretched out his projects and sold well every time.

The Beatles have longevity too tho. They're compilation album in 2000s was one of the best selling albums of the decade.

The Beatles did outsell tho. They sold over 400 million where MJ's around 350 mil. I think Elvis is either in between or right below MJ.

beast444

5y

Also, MJ is a lot more recent. Some of y'all actually got to experience him in your lifetime whereas the Beatles had already retired, so that's automatically gonna make the scale go in favor of MJ too.

Not siding with the Beatles, I'm neutral on this. Just trying to make it more fair lol

theDonandOnly

5y

also for me you have to count the first lennon album, imagine album, the amazing lennon songs on double fantasy, all things must pass era paul, maybe i'm amazed, the best wings music and all of paul's later collaborations, most recently with kanye and rihanna. and they've got 2 of the most legendary christmas songs too. Plus there songs were covered by every legendary artist, often as a hit single. Meaning they effectively wrote for everyone from Tina Turner to Nina Simone.

i'm just going off music. if you talk about all other things then you can make the argument for MJ, but on music i don't really see the case.

i think if you want to make any knock on the Beatles. it's that they weren't a legendary live act. But to really make that case I think you'd have to pick James Brown, the Rolling Stones or Prince. Those were people who could do a lot of what the Beatles did in the studio, a lot of what they could do as writers and then did what they were doing live but way better. I love MJ as a performer but when it comes to live music a lot of the time he's not even trying to do the thing those artists could.

theDonandOnly

5y

also for me you have to count the first lennon album, imagine album, the amazing lennon songs on double fantasy, all things must pass era paul, maybe i'm amazed, the best wings music and all of paul's later collaborations, most recently with kanye and rihanna. and they've got 2 of the most legendary christmas songs too. Plus there songs were covered by every legendary artist, often as a hit single. Meaning they effectively wrote for everyone from Tina Turner to Nina Simone.

i'm just going off music. if you talk about all other things then you can make the argument for MJ, but on music i don't really see the case.

i think if you want to make any knock on the Beatles. it's that they weren't a legendary live act. But to really make that case I think you'd have to pick James Brown, the Rolling Stones or Prince. Those were people who could do a lot of what the Beatles did in the studio, a lot of what they could do as writers and then did what they were doing live but way better. I love MJ as a performer but when it comes to live music a lot of the time he's not even trying to do the thing those artists could.

beast444

5y

Your point at the end with live music

I wonder why he never really changed the songs from the studio versions. Watch his tour videos and just about all of the songs sound the same as they were recorded, with some changes to his vocals and extra dance breaks

I've watched a few of Prince performances and a lot of James Brown and they always changed everything, almost if not every time they performed (other than a few songs so iconic you don't change it)

I wonder why

Teal_

5y

you know damn well the majority of ktt aren't familiar with the beatles, or any classic pop or rock from the 20th century.

theDonandOnly

5y

fair but i think you don't have to know the music to know how deep that legacy goes, if you start to think about how many careers and artists it reached.

Weekend KaTeezy

5y

i can't really compare these 2

hate giving the safe answer but both goats in different ways

beast444

5y

aren't the beatles the best selling artist of all time with like 400 mil?

theDonandOnly

5y

probably

and if you added the writing credits on literally every single legendary vocalist still active in the 60s/70s, and the solo catalogues i doubt it would even be close

beast444

5y

if you add all the records those cover songs sold and samples, it probably gives them a 100 to 200 million jump

I think James Brown is the most sampled artist in hip hop, so his sales would probably increase significantly as well, though I don't know how much he sold in the first place.

Even tho that's not how you count it lol

theDonandOnly

5y

samples is debatable, and there'd be a few for the beatles anyway (i remember diplo flipped George Harrison for Kano's classic debut album)

But solo projects and songwriting credits should definitely be counted imo. I wonder who could compete. Where do Holland-Dozier-Holland, Burt Bacharach, Carole King, Smokey, Stevie, Max Martin etc. end up?

I feel like with samples it depends, cos a lot of the James Brown ones have become a massive part of hip hop's sound but aren't really writing in a traditional way. One of the most sampled ones is a drum track for example.

But then you've got samples like Common and Lauryn Hill sampling Stevie on Retrospect for Life or Kanye sampling Ray Charles where it definitely should count towards your sales imo.