I was having this argument with my sister and I was wondering what other people thought on the subject. Personally I think that they are as iconic as each other but my sister is set on Michael Jackson being the most iconic. What do you think?
looks like elvis is the one most people on here think is the most iconic. does she have any other important questions that need answered?
i would doubt that very much. the beatles had about 20 years on MJ to be parodied and are still parodied today. likewise elvis had an even longer time than the beatles and is still parodied
it's as easy to parody the beatles or elvis than MJ and just as relatable if not more so. with all the diversity of different styles from the beatles and different eras you can parody anything from the early days of yeah yeah yeah and moptops to the acid hippy era or later yoko burnout period. you have a lot less choice with MJ. you basically end up with a bunch of jokes about peados and noses falling off and monkeys. the rutles did it well by covering the beatles career through the ages and there have been a number of other comedic movies about fictional bands that are clearly inspired by the beatles at least in part. how many people apart from weird al have recorded parady songs about MJ compared to the beatles? i can't think of any other than weird al right now
I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make, which is that Michael Jackson, and to a lesser degree Elvis, were highly idiosyncratic which lends itself to parody. I'm not making any claims as to who was parodied more or for how long, just that if one wanted to visually mimic MJ, for instance, one could do so successfully with just a handful of visual cues which are universally and instantly associated with him. The same with Elvis, but much less so (in my opinion) with the Beatles.
I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make, which is that Michael Jackson, and to a lesser degree Elvis, were highly idiosyncratic which lends itself to parody. I'm not making any claims as to who was parodied more or for how long, just that if one wanted to visually mimic MJ, for instance, one could do so successfully with just a handful of visual cues which are universally and instantly associated with him. The same with Elvis, but much less so (in my opinion) with the Beatles.
i understand what you are saying, but what i'm saying is you are wrong. there are a number of things you can do to parody the beatles that would be recognised in the same way, and people have been able to do this for much longer than MJ, and no sign of it decreasing.
if you want to talk about more recognisable, you have to consider which would be the most recognisable to most people. your MJ moves are going to be less recognisable to the elderly than moves by elvis or the beatles, yet at the same time most people over teenage years would recognise it. you have all the iconic beatles album covers that are often copied for example. MJ had pretty poor or boring covers so few people copy them. sgt pepper and abbey road are amonst the most copied album images of all time. there's even an online webcam you can watch of live images of people every day taking photos of themselves copying the abbey road cover whilst risking getting knocked over
however i still don't think being able to parody an artist is a way to measure iconic status. some artists simply lend themselves better to parody
i understand what you are saying, but what i'm saying is you are wrong. there are a number of things you can do to parody the beatles that would be recognised in the same way, and people have been able to do this for much longer than MJ, and no sign of it decreasing.
if you want to talk about more recognisable, you have to consider which would be the most recognisable to most people. your MJ moves are going to be less recognisable to the elderly than moves by elvis or the beatles, yet at the same time most people over teenage years would recognise it. you have all the iconic beatles album covers that are often copied for example. MJ had pretty poor or boring covers so few people copy them. sgt pepper and abbey road are amonst the most copied album images of all time. there's even an online webcam you can watch of live images of people every day taking photos of themselves copying the abbey road cover whilst risking getting knocked over
however i still don't think being able to parody an artist is a way to measure iconic status. some artists simply lend themselves better to parody
Fair points. I'd certainly question your dismissal of ability to parody being a measurement of iconic status though. How would you parody someone who is in no way iconic?
Proof please re your first ridiculous point.
No it shouldn't.
im not trying to argue with you or homer, im suggesting you take on board that the things you have been told pro-jacko might not be the full truth, for reasons that have been made by several posters.
now if you think this point is 'ridiculous' then you are beyond reason.
Fair points. I'd certainly question your dismissal of ability to parody being a measurement of iconic status though. How would you parody someone who is in no way iconic?
just the same way as you would parody anyone who was. have you never mimicked someone at work to another collegue, or at school or at home? someone doesn't need to be famous or iconic to be parodied.
some people will less iconic stature may be easier to parody than people with considerably more iconic status, such as a politician or Z list celeb. the internet is full of parodies of the least important things, like the fat kid who made a video of him pretending to play with a lightsabre or the woman who fell down a hole, or cat playing piano
just the same way as you would parody anyone who was. have you never mimicked someone at work to another collegue, or at school or at home? someone doesn't need to be famous or iconic to be parodied.
some people will less iconic stature may be easier to parody than people with considerably more iconic status, such as a politician or Z list celeb. the internet is full of parodies of the least important things, like the fat kid who made a video of him pretending to play with a lightsabre or the woman who fell down a hole, or cat playing piano
By "easy to parody" I mean that the person is idiosyncratic and easy to recognise. If they are then there's a good chance they are iconic. It's worth mentioning that if I am able to perform a satisfactory impression of my high school history teacher then he must have some idiosyncratic qualities that the audience is able to recognise in the impression. Strictly speaking that makes him iconic, though obviously not in the same context as this discussion.
Fame and importance aren't necessarily essential qualities of being an icon. For example, Bill Gates is not an icon. For a start he just looks like your next door neighbour. The "star wars kid" on the other hand probably is an icon. It's worth pointing out again that saying one is an icon and the other isn't, or is less so, doesn't imply any value judgments on the achievements of each, nor their importance, power or anything else. It is more an indication of their immediate recognizability through idiosyncratic elements.
By "easy to parody" I mean that the person is idiosyncratic and easy to recognise. If they are then there's a good chance they are iconic. It's worth mentioning that if I am able to perform a satisfactory impression of my high school history teacher then he must have some idiosyncratic qualities that the audience is able to recognise in the impression. Strictly speaking that makes him iconic, though obviously not in the same context as this discussion.
the tellytubbies are iconic. but being iconic doesn't mean you are important or talented
Fame and importance aren't necessarily essential qualities of being an icon. For example, Bill Gates is not an icon. For a start he just looks like your next door neighbour. The "star wars kid" on the other hand probably is an icon. It's worth pointing out again that saying one is an icon and the other isn't, or is less so, doesn't imply any value judgments on the achievements of each, nor their importance, power or anything else. It is more an indication of their immediate recognizability through idiosyncratic elements.
i would disagree and say bill gates was an icon. same with stephen hawking. both are considerably most important than the star wars kid. who do you think will be remembered as an icon the longest?
the tellytubbies are iconic. but being iconic doesn't mean you are important or talented
Yes, I totally agree! That's what I've been saying.
i would disagree and say bill gates was an icon. same with stephen hawking. both are considerably most important than the star wars kid. who do you think will be remembered as an icon the longest?
Hang on, now you seem to be basing icon status on importance, which seems to contradict what you say above, and it doesn't have anything to do with how long someone is remembered for either, IMO. Yes, Bill Gates is way more important than SWK and will be remembered far longer, but he isn't iconic as far as I understand the word.
By "easy to parody" I mean that the person is idiosyncratic and easy to recognise. If they are then there's a good chance they are iconic. It's worth mentioning that if I am able to perform a satisfactory impression of my high school history teacher then he must have some idiosyncratic qualities that the audience is able to recognise in the impression. Strictly speaking that makes him iconic, though obviously not in the same context as this discussion.
Fame and importance aren't necessarily essential qualities of being an icon. For example, Bill Gates is not an icon. For a start he just looks like your next door neighbour. The "star wars kid" on the other hand probably is an icon. It's worth pointing out again that saying one is an icon and the other isn't, or is less so, doesn't imply any value judgments on the achievements of each, nor their importance, power or anything else. It is more an indication of their immediate recognizability through idiosyncratic elements.
the tellytubbies are iconic. but being iconic doesn't mean you are important or talented
i would disagree and say bill gates was an icon. same with stephen hawking. both are considerably most important than the star wars kid. who do you think will be remembered as an icon the longest?
There is only one crucial aspect of being an icon and that is that it has to be representative of something.
Here is an icon and what it represents is a smile (and being happy about something).
Icons are used in the Eastern church to represent some scared character such as Jesus Christ or Mary. To the point where the icons become objects of veneration themselves.
In Art, being iconic essentially means being representative of a particular style.
Yes, I totally agree! That's what I've been saying.
Hang on, now you seem to be basing icon status on importance, which seems to contradict what you say above, and it doesn't have anything to do with how long someone is remembered for either, IMO. Yes, Bill Gates is way more important than SWK and will be remembered far longer, but he isn't iconic as far as I understand the word.
no i'm not. i don't consider spongbob to be important, but he's iconic. but spongebob is more iconic in certain fields than others, and likewise bill gates or stephen hawkings will be more iconic in some areas. whether someone is important or not is another thing entireley, such like being the most popular or most talented, each is a different category with seperate definitions or rules.
perhaps you put more emphasis on the word than it really means. this seems to be a common thing on forums generally with people arguing about things because they have a different understanding of the word or topic than the dictionary defines. being iconic in the current day has little real meaning if a bloke from youtube in a toilet can become an icon after being in a viral video
no i'm not. i don't consider spongbob to be important, but he's iconic. but spongebob is more iconic in certain fields than others, and likewise bill gates or stephen hawkings will be more iconic in some areas. whether someone is important or not is another thing entireley, such like being the most popular or most talented, each is a different category with seperate definitions or rules.
We seem to agree on this, but what threw me was when you said "i would disagree and say bill gates was an icon. same with stephen hawking. both are considerably most important than the star wars kid" which certainly seemed to suggest that you thought importance was linked to iconic status.
perhaps you put more emphasis on the word than it really means. this seems to be a common thing on forums generally with people arguing about things because they have a different understanding of the word or topic than the dictionary defines. being iconic in the current day has little real meaning if a bloke from youtube in a toilet can become an icon after being in a viral video
Why? At the risk of misinterpreting your post there seems to be an implicit suggestion that trivial things like YouTube videos diminish iconic status, that being iconic would mean more if it came from some greater achievement than being on YouTube.
We seem to agree on this, but what threw me was when you said "i would disagree and say bill gates was an icon. same with stephen hawking. both are considerably most important than the star wars kid" which certainly seemed to suggest that you thought importance was linked to iconic status.
maybe that's what you thought, but it was simply an example to show iconic status has no bearing on importance, and the same in reverse. throughout the thread i've said similar things such as talent and popularity are also different
Why? At the risk of misinterpreting your post there seems to be an implicit suggestion that trivial things like YouTube videos diminish iconic status, that being iconic would mean more if it came from some greater achievement than being on YouTube.
i'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. but it wasn't what i meant. it was more about trivial youtube videos such as cat piano videos and videos of people falling down holes, as opposed to videos in general as of course along with the dross on youtube you will get higher quality material. a stupid youtube video can be iconic, demonstrating that importance is a seperate value from being iconic
The two best selling music artists also have the largest amount of influence and iconic status, makes sense doesn't it? Michael Jackson influencing more pop stars at this particular point in time doesn't take away from the influence of Elvis and The Beatles have had then and now in music history.
In fact I would argue that in terms of the vocal pop genre with was the most prevalent for the first half of the 20th century that Bing Crosby (who was the first major pop singer of his type) and in turn his successor Frank Sinatra are quite influential, and in the case of Sinatra, iconic. You can add others such as Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis and even Bob Dylan to that list. (For different musical genres I mean)
Comments
looks like elvis is the one most people on here think is the most iconic. does she have any other important questions that need answered?
i understand what you are saying, but what i'm saying is you are wrong. there are a number of things you can do to parody the beatles that would be recognised in the same way, and people have been able to do this for much longer than MJ, and no sign of it decreasing.
if you want to talk about more recognisable, you have to consider which would be the most recognisable to most people. your MJ moves are going to be less recognisable to the elderly than moves by elvis or the beatles, yet at the same time most people over teenage years would recognise it. you have all the iconic beatles album covers that are often copied for example. MJ had pretty poor or boring covers so few people copy them. sgt pepper and abbey road are amonst the most copied album images of all time. there's even an online webcam you can watch of live images of people every day taking photos of themselves copying the abbey road cover whilst risking getting knocked over
however i still don't think being able to parody an artist is a way to measure iconic status. some artists simply lend themselves better to parody
im not trying to argue with you or homer, im suggesting you take on board that the things you have been told pro-jacko might not be the full truth, for reasons that have been made by several posters.
now if you think this point is 'ridiculous' then you are beyond reason.
some people will less iconic stature may be easier to parody than people with considerably more iconic status, such as a politician or Z list celeb. the internet is full of parodies of the least important things, like the fat kid who made a video of him pretending to play with a lightsabre or the woman who fell down a hole, or cat playing piano
By "easy to parody" I mean that the person is idiosyncratic and easy to recognise. If they are then there's a good chance they are iconic. It's worth mentioning that if I am able to perform a satisfactory impression of my high school history teacher then he must have some idiosyncratic qualities that the audience is able to recognise in the impression. Strictly speaking that makes him iconic, though obviously not in the same context as this discussion.
Fame and importance aren't necessarily essential qualities of being an icon. For example, Bill Gates is not an icon. For a start he just looks like your next door neighbour. The "star wars kid" on the other hand probably is an icon. It's worth pointing out again that saying one is an icon and the other isn't, or is less so, doesn't imply any value judgments on the achievements of each, nor their importance, power or anything else. It is more an indication of their immediate recognizability through idiosyncratic elements.
Hang on, now you seem to be basing icon status on importance, which seems to contradict what you say above, and it doesn't have anything to do with how long someone is remembered for either, IMO. Yes, Bill Gates is way more important than SWK and will be remembered far longer, but he isn't iconic as far as I understand the word.
There is only one crucial aspect of being an icon and that is that it has to be representative of something.
Here is an icon
Icons are used in the Eastern church to represent some scared character such as Jesus Christ or Mary. To the point where the icons become objects of veneration themselves.
In Art, being iconic essentially means being representative of a particular style.
perhaps you put more emphasis on the word than it really means. this seems to be a common thing on forums generally with people arguing about things because they have a different understanding of the word or topic than the dictionary defines. being iconic in the current day has little real meaning if a bloke from youtube in a toilet can become an icon after being in a viral video
Why? At the risk of misinterpreting your post there seems to be an implicit suggestion that trivial things like YouTube videos diminish iconic status, that being iconic would mean more if it came from some greater achievement than being on YouTube.
Couldn't agree more.
Elvis was not my cup of tea if I am being honest ... my mum liked him but I thought he looked tacky in his white jump suit.