They are all iconic. Each of them have produced images that have transcended barriers of age, gender, ethnicity and culture. You have Elvis Pressley with the slick hair and the image of him shaking his hips. The Beatles with their famous album covers and unforgettable live performances. Michael Jackson produced his own trademarks such as 'the moonwalk, the glove and the black loafers with the white socks.'
I would say Michael Jackson resonates more with me as I grew up during his era. I remember 'Bad' and how he was the ultimate superstar on the planet and how he filled the biggest venues across the world.
i would also say he was the artist that broke cultural barriers before anyone else. He was the first African American to be appreciated by a mainstream white audience whilst being viewed as an extremely talented soul artist that could incorporate other music genres into his work.
The KING of Pop with the highest selling album of all time would disagree.
Erm you do realise The Beatles have sales of almost 700 million to their name?
MJ might be iconic but he didn't change the musical landscape the way The Beatles did. So when comparing all three this is what you need to factor in. The Beatles, along with Elvis totally changed music and without them Michael Jackson wouldn't have been the artist he was.. MJ just continued, along with Madonna, what they started.
Why are black singers in their own category? They are all musicians, regardless of race and MJ is more iconic than Stevie and definitely more than Marvin. I love Marvin, but that isn't even a question. Marvin and Luther are in the same category, MJ had world wide appeal, they unfortunately didn't.
actually... i do think jacko was more iconic then stevie or marvin... jacko was possibly the most iconic black artist ever..?...
but that doesnt mean he was the best, and certainly not as influencial, after all without the likes of marvin, stevie, ray charles, sam cooke, and a host of others...jacko wouldnt have got anywhere, his position in music big though it is, is on the back of true black pioneers.
has to be elvis... no elvis no beatles... no beatles no jacko...
but the beatles changed the musical landscape more then the others..
MJ owed Quincy Jones a huge debt for bolstering what was a directionless career during most of the 70s. All the arrangemenis and sound for Thriller and Off The Wall were down to QJ. Also MJ's musical style then was largely idown to the disco genre of the 70s.
The Beatles on the other hand were innovators.They were the first band to focus on writing their own songs although they also did covers in theitr early days. They were the first band to shift ithe emphasis towards the album rather than the single..They also pioneered what eventually became prog rock and psychedelic rock.
Erm you do realise The Beatles have sales of almost 700 million to their name?
MJ might be iconic but he didn't change the musical landscape the way The Beatles did. So when comparing all three this is what you need to factor in. The Beatles, along with Elvis totally changed music and without them Michael Jackson wouldn't have been the artist he was.. MJ just continued, along with Madonna, what they started.
I'm sorry, but how did Elvis change music when he was just making music that black artists had already been making? All he did was give it from a white man. That hadn't been seen before, but the music was always there. Nothing Elvis did was innovative in regards to his music. It was all borrowed. The Beatles and Michael are also very similar in that respect. Those dances Michael is known for was taught to him during his Saturdays spent at Soul Train and the teenagers there taught him how to moonwalk and a lot more. They all changed the game in their own respects, but lets not big them up for being brand new or innovative. None of them created a new sound out right. Paul McCartney will tell you to this day that the Beatles heavily borrowed from black culture when they were one of the only ones who would embrace it.
The difference between The Beatles, Elvis and Mike is Mike is the only one who didn't have to borrow from other cultures to make impact. He did "black music" and it became popular just because it was. The other two became popular to begin with because it was different for their demographic. People were outraged Elvis swayed his hips and the way he sang, but it wasn't out of the blue. He used a part of what others were already doing to his advantage because no one else who looked like him was doing it. Now you see a bunch of white artists making what they think is black music, but you know who they all site as inspiration? Not Elvis, but Michael Jackson.
Elvis made it easier for black music to become mainstream, but only if it was delivered by a white face which is why a lot of labels would put fake covers on albums of their black artists for crossover appeal. That was Elvis' main impact. You can't tell me he added anything new to music itself whether it be production, visuals, etc. The Beatles did eventually, but Elvis was just a reworking of what was already being done during his time.
Why are black singers in their own category? They are all musicians, regardless of race and MJ is more iconic than Stevie and definitely more than Marvin. I love Marvin, but that isn't even a question. Marvin and Luther are in the same category, MJ had world wide appeal, they unfortunately didn't.
Marvin Gaye and Luther Vandross did not have worldwide appeal? I doubt that! The difference is they were predominantly associated with soul music and selling to a more mature audience, whereas Michael J., with his clear rhythm and blues roots, crossed over to become a pop phenomenon appreciated by everyone from three to seventy-three. Not many pre-schoolers were going to appreciate the great voices of Luther and Marvin.
They're not, I was just stating not only was Jacko not as Iconic as Honky Homeboys the Beatles, Stones and Elvis, but he was also not as Iconic as Marvin and Stevie.
Bullshit Jacko is more Iconic than Marvin or Stevie. In forty years time will people be praising Bad, Thriller or Off the Wall like Innervisions, Songs in the Key of Life, What's Going On? No.
Michael Jackson, Christ on a bike. 3 pretty good albums (off the wall, thriller and Bad) are hardly comparable to what the Beatles and Elvis did. Id probably say a lot of the success of those albums came from Quincey Jones, since Dangerous, History and Invincible all made without him weren't up to scratch.
A couple of big selling albums. But he's not up with the big boys like the Beatles, Stones and Elvis. Even as far as Black singers go, Marvin and Stevie are probably far more iconic. They're certainly more consistent.
No. Marvin and Stevie were/ are more talented and made better records, they are not more iconic. They are hugely significant but not as recognisable to the 'man in the street'. Their music will most likely be rated more highly than MJ's in forty years and quite rightly so. The Spice Girls are fairly iconic as a unit, in the UK at least which shows that musical merit isn't really what the iconic thing is about. It's the cult of celebrity/recognisability factor that makes someone and biggest icon. (fairly worthless in my view and akin to trying to beat down one artist using another's greater sales).
MJThe Beatles, along with Elvis totally changed music and without them Michael Jackson wouldn't have been the artist he was.. MJ just continued, along with Madonna, what they started.
Nonsense. We're back to the one man did everything, simplistic one man did everything revision of music history again. Where on earth is the profound influence of either Elvis Presley or The Beatles in Michael Jackson or Madonna's music? One would be left with the impression that there was nobody else out there in those wilderness years. Nothing could be further from the truth!
What did Elvis even do? He sold by the bucket-load to a white audience in the era of segregation when a sizeable portion of that audience would not or would not have been allowed to buy the same style of music as recorded by African-Americans. His looks and dance helped him achieve this. He was certainly no Chuck Berry or Bo Diddley.
I suspect the two most iconic figures of the twentieth century ie. most universally recognisable are Che Guevara and Bob Marley. Marilyn Monroe wouldn't be far behind and for people worldwide NOW, Michael Jackson is probably more widely identified than either Elvis of The Beatles.
MJ owed Quincy Jones a huge debt for bolstering what was a directionless career during most of the 70s. All the arrangemenis and sound for Thriller and Off The Wall were down to QJ. Also MJ's musical style then was largely idown to the disco genre of the 70s.
The Beatles on the other hand were innovators.They were the first band to focus on writing their own songs although they also did covers in theitr early days. They were the first band to shift ithe emphasis towards the album rather than the single..They also pioneered what eventually became prog rock and psychedelic rock.
Almost every Motown artist ever signed ended up broke and owing Berry Gordy and Smokey Robinson a shit ton of money because they didn't own anything. That didn't make them bad artists. Whitney Houston barely wrote a word in her entire career, but you can't say she hasn't been influential and isn't one of the most iconic rnb/pop singers of all time.
It's also worth noting just how young the Beatles were when they split up. They'd changed popular music forever, had played a significant part in '60s fashion and popular culture, and yet when they called it a day they were all still in their twenties.
Elvis died aged 42 after a career of over 20 years.
Michael Jackson died at 50 after a career spanning about 40 years - over 20 years solo.
John Lennon and Ringo Starr were 29 when the Beatles split, Paul McCartney was 27, and George Harrison was still only 26. What they achieved was even more astonishing in that they did it all in little more than seven years.
It's also worth noting just how young the Beatles were when they split up. They'd changed popular music forever, had played a significant part in '60s fashion and popular culture, and yet when they called it a day they were all still in their twenties.
Elvis died aged 42 after a career of over 20 years.
Michael Jackson died at 50 after a career spanning about 40 years - over 20 years solo.
John Lennon and Ringo Starr were 29 when the Beatles split, Paul McCartney was 27, and George Harrison was still only 26. What they achieved was even more astonishing in that they did it all in little more than seven years.
true.... but the debate is about who is the most iconic, not whos the greatest influence on popular music...
To be iconic I think you have to be successful and influential at the very least. So all three artists are iconic in that sense.
You might argue that all three have a cultural significance outside pop music as well.
In historical terms it is arguable that pop music might have developed in a different way if Elvis hadn't popularised what was essentially black music in the way that he did. Elvis was an influence on The Beatles and many others.
The Beatles were similar to Elvis in that they also popularised black music and the idea of the pop idol. But then they did so much more, writing their own works, experimenting with musical genres and ideas, bringing art to the craft and again being a cultural influence well beyond the music.
Michael Jackson started in the 60s even before The Beatles stopped and was part of the Motown soul sound. If 20th Century popular music is really the history of African American music (and to a great extent it is) then Jackson is probably its greatest icon and is a key part of the development of pop music.
Jackson was also a song and dance man, so he could be seen as belonging to a musical and entertainment tradition that pre-dated Elvis and The Beatles. I don't think Michael Jackson was as gifted a songwriter as Lennon and McCartney were and it's arguable whether he was as creative or experimental. However, as a performer he was on at least the same level as Elvis and probably superior to The Beatles.
The fact that performance has become such an important part of pop music culture, that might give Jackson the edge in this.
Michael Jackson and there shouldn't even be a debate about it tbh.
Of course there should be a debate about it. To say that Michael Jackson is more iconic than Elvis and the Beatles is ridiculous. End of debate.
The three most iconic artists of the last 100 years are the Beatles, Elvis and Sinatra. As far as I am (and many others are) concerned Michael Jackson is not even in the running.
To be fair to Michael Jackson I would certainly include him in a list of iconic artists of the eighties. Marginally ahead of Russ Abbott, but just below Joe Dolce. :D
Of course there should be a debate about it. To say that Michael Jackson is more iconic than Elvis and the Beatles is ridiculous. End of debate.
The three most iconic artists of the last 100 years are the Beatles, Elvis and Sinatra. As far as I am (and many others are) concerned Michael Jackson is not even in the running.
To be fair to Michael Jackson I would certainly include him in a list of iconic artists of the eighties. Marginally ahead of Russ Abbott, but just below Joe Dolce. :D
The last 100 years and you leave out Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, John Coltrane, Aretha Franklin, Bob Marley...blind spot when it comes to Black music?
And then there's Maria Callas, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein, Bob Dylan amongst others. Quite a few might have claims ahead of the three mentioned if you go back that far.
The last 100 years and you leave out Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, John Coltrane, Aretha Franklin, Bob Marley...blind spot when it comes to Black music?
And then there's Maria Callas, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein, Bob Dylan amongst others. Quite a few might have claims ahead of the three mentioned if you go back that far.
I certainly do not have a blind spot when it comes to black music, and like (and in some cases love) most of the artists you mentioned. They are certainly iconic, but rightly or wrongly, just nowhere near as iconic as the Beatles, Elvis and Sinatra (imo).
To be fair to Michael Jackson I would certainly include him in a list of iconic artists of the eighties. Marginally ahead of Russ Abbott, but just below Joe Dolce. :D
Yes, one should never underestimate the power of Joe Dolce. He pushed Ultravox's classic "Vienna" into second place, and now he's done the same to Michael Jackson.
Iconic most definitely, but not the most iconic. Though he can hang with the best of them, and if it is live performances, pretty much blows anyone else away.
Comments
I would say Michael Jackson resonates more with me as I grew up during his era. I remember 'Bad' and how he was the ultimate superstar on the planet and how he filled the biggest venues across the world.
i would also say he was the artist that broke cultural barriers before anyone else. He was the first African American to be appreciated by a mainstream white audience whilst being viewed as an extremely talented soul artist that could incorporate other music genres into his work.
Erm you do realise The Beatles have sales of almost 700 million to their name?
MJ might be iconic but he didn't change the musical landscape the way The Beatles did. So when comparing all three this is what you need to factor in. The Beatles, along with Elvis totally changed music and without them Michael Jackson wouldn't have been the artist he was.. MJ just continued, along with Madonna, what they started.
Definitely The Beatles for me, they changed the whole scene;)
actually... i do think jacko was more iconic then stevie or marvin... jacko was possibly the most iconic black artist ever..?...
but that doesnt mean he was the best, and certainly not as influencial, after all without the likes of marvin, stevie, ray charles, sam cooke, and a host of others...jacko wouldnt have got anywhere, his position in music big though it is, is on the back of true black pioneers.
has to be elvis... no elvis no beatles... no beatles no jacko...
but the beatles changed the musical landscape more then the others..
The Beatles on the other hand were innovators.They were the first band to focus on writing their own songs although they also did covers in theitr early days. They were the first band to shift ithe emphasis towards the album rather than the single..They also pioneered what eventually became prog rock and psychedelic rock.
I'm sorry, but how did Elvis change music when he was just making music that black artists had already been making? All he did was give it from a white man. That hadn't been seen before, but the music was always there. Nothing Elvis did was innovative in regards to his music. It was all borrowed. The Beatles and Michael are also very similar in that respect. Those dances Michael is known for was taught to him during his Saturdays spent at Soul Train and the teenagers there taught him how to moonwalk and a lot more. They all changed the game in their own respects, but lets not big them up for being brand new or innovative. None of them created a new sound out right. Paul McCartney will tell you to this day that the Beatles heavily borrowed from black culture when they were one of the only ones who would embrace it.
The difference between The Beatles, Elvis and Mike is Mike is the only one who didn't have to borrow from other cultures to make impact. He did "black music" and it became popular just because it was. The other two became popular to begin with because it was different for their demographic. People were outraged Elvis swayed his hips and the way he sang, but it wasn't out of the blue. He used a part of what others were already doing to his advantage because no one else who looked like him was doing it. Now you see a bunch of white artists making what they think is black music, but you know who they all site as inspiration? Not Elvis, but Michael Jackson.
Elvis made it easier for black music to become mainstream, but only if it was delivered by a white face which is why a lot of labels would put fake covers on albums of their black artists for crossover appeal. That was Elvis' main impact. You can't tell me he added anything new to music itself whether it be production, visuals, etc. The Beatles did eventually, but Elvis was just a reworking of what was already being done during his time.
Marvin Gaye and Luther Vandross did not have worldwide appeal? I doubt that! The difference is they were predominantly associated with soul music and selling to a more mature audience, whereas Michael J., with his clear rhythm and blues roots, crossed over to become a pop phenomenon appreciated by everyone from three to seventy-three. Not many pre-schoolers were going to appreciate the great voices of Luther and Marvin.
No. Marvin and Stevie were/ are more talented and made better records, they are not more iconic. They are hugely significant but not as recognisable to the 'man in the street'. Their music will most likely be rated more highly than MJ's in forty years and quite rightly so. The Spice Girls are fairly iconic as a unit, in the UK at least which shows that musical merit isn't really what the iconic thing is about. It's the cult of celebrity/recognisability factor that makes someone and biggest icon. (fairly worthless in my view and akin to trying to beat down one artist using another's greater sales).
Nonsense. We're back to the one man did everything, simplistic one man did everything revision of music history again. Where on earth is the profound influence of either Elvis Presley or The Beatles in Michael Jackson or Madonna's music? One would be left with the impression that there was nobody else out there in those wilderness years. Nothing could be further from the truth!
What did Elvis even do? He sold by the bucket-load to a white audience in the era of segregation when a sizeable portion of that audience would not or would not have been allowed to buy the same style of music as recorded by African-Americans. His looks and dance helped him achieve this. He was certainly no Chuck Berry or Bo Diddley.
I suspect the two most iconic figures of the twentieth century ie. most universally recognisable are Che Guevara and Bob Marley. Marilyn Monroe wouldn't be far behind and for people worldwide NOW, Michael Jackson is probably more widely identified than either Elvis of The Beatles.
Almost every Motown artist ever signed ended up broke and owing Berry Gordy and Smokey Robinson a shit ton of money because they didn't own anything. That didn't make them bad artists. Whitney Houston barely wrote a word in her entire career, but you can't say she hasn't been influential and isn't one of the most iconic rnb/pop singers of all time.
Elvis died aged 42 after a career of over 20 years.
Michael Jackson died at 50 after a career spanning about 40 years - over 20 years solo.
John Lennon and Ringo Starr were 29 when the Beatles split, Paul McCartney was 27, and George Harrison was still only 26. What they achieved was even more astonishing in that they did it all in little more than seven years.
true.... but the debate is about who is the most iconic, not whos the greatest influence on popular music...
You might argue that all three have a cultural significance outside pop music as well.
In historical terms it is arguable that pop music might have developed in a different way if Elvis hadn't popularised what was essentially black music in the way that he did. Elvis was an influence on The Beatles and many others.
The Beatles were similar to Elvis in that they also popularised black music and the idea of the pop idol. But then they did so much more, writing their own works, experimenting with musical genres and ideas, bringing art to the craft and again being a cultural influence well beyond the music.
Michael Jackson started in the 60s even before The Beatles stopped and was part of the Motown soul sound. If 20th Century popular music is really the history of African American music (and to a great extent it is) then Jackson is probably its greatest icon and is a key part of the development of pop music.
Jackson was also a song and dance man, so he could be seen as belonging to a musical and entertainment tradition that pre-dated Elvis and The Beatles. I don't think Michael Jackson was as gifted a songwriter as Lennon and McCartney were and it's arguable whether he was as creative or experimental. However, as a performer he was on at least the same level as Elvis and probably superior to The Beatles.
The fact that performance has become such an important part of pop music culture, that might give Jackson the edge in this.
Of course there should be a debate about it. To say that Michael Jackson is more iconic than Elvis and the Beatles is ridiculous. End of debate.
The three most iconic artists of the last 100 years are the Beatles, Elvis and Sinatra. As far as I am (and many others are) concerned Michael Jackson is not even in the running.
To be fair to Michael Jackson I would certainly include him in a list of iconic artists of the eighties. Marginally ahead of Russ Abbott, but just below Joe Dolce.
I would also add Madonna to the list, though not the greatest by any stretch of the imagination, still Iconic.
The last 100 years and you leave out Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, John Coltrane, Aretha Franklin, Bob Marley...blind spot when it comes to Black music?
And then there's Maria Callas, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein, Bob Dylan amongst others. Quite a few might have claims ahead of the three mentioned if you go back that far.
I certainly do not have a blind spot when it comes to black music, and like (and in some cases love) most of the artists you mentioned. They are certainly iconic, but rightly or wrongly, just nowhere near as iconic as the Beatles, Elvis and Sinatra (imo).
Yes, one should never underestimate the power of Joe Dolce. He pushed Ultravox's classic "Vienna" into second place, and now he's done the same to Michael Jackson.
Iconic most definitely, but not the most iconic. Though he can hang with the best of them, and if it is live performances, pretty much blows anyone else away.