sgt pepper album sleeve
infact just about EVERY album sleeve
the hofner bass
the neat way the left handed and right handed guitars sync
screaming fans [it was called beatle mania]
classical music incorporated with pop
original music on albums created by the artist themself
i could go on..if you are counting 'wacko sickos' dance moves as evidence of proof here along with his glove then i could go all day......i think the biggest thing you have missed out surely....his hideous plastic face and the way in which he transformed himself from a small black boy into a white female....now thats iconic imagery alright.
And as for 'elvis' im pretty sure the 'white jump suits' like 'wackos' butchered features asscociated in a derogatory manner rather than a positive one........but 'elvis' is not my slight here..he was an iconic artist of the highest degree and deserves to be judged in the same terms as 'the beatles'.....'wacko sicko' simply does not
I'll give you Sgt Peppers and Beatlemania but I'm not convinced the other examples are iconic. The fact that they created their own original music has nothing to do with whether they are iconic, IMO. Asking who is the most iconic isn't the same as asking who is artistically superior. Someone up thread alluded to the fact that Che Guvara is one of, if not the, most iconic images ever. That isn't any sort of declaration about him being the most successful political figure any more than I'm saying MJ is artistically superior to The Beatles (I've already pointed out that in my opinion The Beatles are superior), though some people seem to think it is.
Regarding MJ's "hideous transformation" I agree and I've already included it in the things I think make him iconic. You should also note that I've made no value judgment on these cultural artefacts. I'm not saying they were positive or indicate greatness or anything like that. Whether Elvis' jumpsuit or Jacko's deranged features were a source of negativity is neither here nor there in an assessment of whether they were iconic or not. If I turned up to a fancy dress party with a black quiff and a jump suit I'd be instantly recognisable as Elvis. A hip shake and an "Uh huh" and the parody is complete, universally recognisable because of just a handful of idiosyncratic elements. That's iconic, regardless of whether that image is a bit of a joke or whether Elvis had any artistic merit, his image is a brand in itself.
I really don't know why people are getting their knickers in a twist about the musical credibility of certain artists when really that has sod all to do with how iconic they are. I mean, Britney Spears is one of the big icons of the 21st century and she's probably the least credible music star like ever.
I'll give you Sgt Peppers and Beatlemania but I'm not convinced the other examples are iconic. The fact that they created their own original music has nothing to do with whether they are iconic, IMO. Asking who is the most iconic isn't the same as asking who is artistically superior. Someone up thread alluded to the fact that Che Guvara is one of, if not the, most iconic images ever. That isn't any sort of declaration about him being the most successful political figure any more than I'm saying MJ is artistically superior to The Beatles (I've already pointed out that in my opinion The Beatles are superior), though some people seem to think it is.
.
What makes something iconic is not just the memorability of the picture it conjures up but what it represents. The iconic picture of Che Guevara you mention was a simple snapshot from a funeral service but it has come to be a symbol of rebellion, a revolutionary icon that translates to different contexts quite well. Many teenagers going through their rebellious period like it for example.
I feel that many of the posters here associate being iconic as being representative of the best of pop music. And that is part of it but of course all three are representative of more than just the quality of their art, they are also cultural icons representative of cultural as well as musical change.
Elvis, for example represents rock n roll music, great singing, great entertainment, the importance of image and style, sexual liberation, teenage rebellion, generational difference, the rock star lifestyle, celebrity culture and much more.
but you are accepting without question that he DID solely compose those tracks... personally i doubt he had the wherewithall to tie his showlaces let alone compose all by himself, tracks like that. id suggest keeping an open mind, that there is a possibility that hes being credited for work he didnt do or only partly did, in order to boost his image, his myth, and thats all down to the marketing men creating a money making product.
of course it should.
Proof please re your first ridiculous point.
No it shouldn't.
What makes something iconic is not just the memorability of the picture it conjures up but what it represents. The iconic picture of Che Guevara you mention was a simple snapshot from a funeral service but it has come to be a symbol of rebellion, a revolutionary icon that translates to different contexts quite well. Many teenagers going through their rebellious period like it for example.
I feel that many of the posters here associate being iconic as being representative of the best of pop music. And that is part of it but of course all three are representative of more than just the quality of their art, they are also cultural icons representative of cultural as well as musical change.
Elvis, for example represents rock n roll music, great singing, great entertainment, the importance of image and style, sexual liberation, teenage rebellion, generational difference, the rock star lifestyle, celebrity culture and much more.
The meaning of the part you highlighted wasn't to suggest that the Che image would have become iconic regardless of his significance, it was to point out that it isn't indicative of his success or superiority. Significance and success aren't necessarily the same thing. For example, if I said the image of a dishevelled, bearded Saddam was an iconic image you wouldn't have someone come along and point out all the terrible things he'd done as I would hope people wouldn't confuse being iconic with being great in that instance; but if I say Michael Jackson is iconic it's taken as a declaration of his artistic superiority.
I'll give you Sgt Peppers and Beatlemania but I'm not convinced the other examples are iconic. The fact that they created their own original music has nothing to do with whether they are iconic, IMO. Asking who is the most iconic isn't the same as asking who is artistically superior. Someone up thread alluded to the fact that Che Guvara is one of, if not the, most iconic images ever. That isn't any sort of declaration about him being the most successful political figure any more than I'm saying MJ is artistically superior to The Beatles (I've already pointed out that in my opinion The Beatles are superior), though some people seem to think it is.
Regarding MJ's "hideous transformation" I agree and I've already included it in the things I think make him iconic. You should also note that I've made no value judgment on these cultural artefacts. I'm not saying they were positive or indicate greatness or anything like that. Whether Elvis' jumpsuit or Jacko's deranged features were a source of negativity is neither here nor there in an assessment of whether they were iconic or not. If I turned up to a fancy dress party with a black quiff and a jump suit I'd be instantly recognisable as Elvis. A hip shake and an "Uh huh" and the parody is complete, universally recognisable because of just a handful of idiosyncratic elements. That's iconic, regardless of whether that image is a bit of a joke or whether Elvis had any artistic merit, his image is a brand in itself.
no way buster......
dear mr slarti.....you wrote.."Originally Posted by Slarti Bartfast View Post
Really? In what way do you think? Besides Abbey Road I can't really think of any lasting and iconic imagery of the Beatles. The black and white mop top photos perhaps; maybe John Lennon's round glasses, but that's pushing it. MJ and Elvis both have cultural artefacts that are associated to them which are universally and instantly recognisable. For example, Elvis had his quiff, jump suits and hip shake, Jacko had his clothes, sparkling gloves, moon walk (in fact make that his entire dancing repertoire).
if michael jacksons 'dance moves' are okay to be called iconic...then why not the examples by the beatles i mentioned?..............like many wacko fans you are simply making things up here as you go along.........'sparkling glove' ???give me a break....more iconic than sgt pepper artwork...hmmm think not.:eek:
dear mr slarti.....you wrote.."Originally Posted by Slarti Bartfast View Post
Really? In what way do you think? Besides Abbey Road I can't really think of any lasting and iconic imagery of the Beatles. The black and white mop top photos perhaps; maybe John Lennon's round glasses, but that's pushing it. MJ and Elvis both have cultural artefacts that are associated to them which are universally and instantly recognisable. For example, Elvis had his quiff, jump suits and hip shake, Jacko had his clothes, sparkling gloves, moon walk (in fact make that his entire dancing repertoire).
if michael jacksons 'dance moves' are okay to be called iconic...then why not the examples by the beatles i mentioned?..............like many wacko fans you are simply making things up here as you go along.........'sparkling glove' ???give me a break....more iconic than sgt pepper artwork...hmmm think not.:eek:
You've assumed that I'm a Michael Jackson fan and have based your responses to me on that. I'm not, though I'll admit I do like 'Bad' (the album) and 'Beat It' (but that's really down to Eddie Van Halen's solo). I am much more of a fan of the Beatles, owning several CDs and vinyl as opposed to the one by MJ. I think their contribution to music is unsurpassed and I even stated at the outset that if this was about music I'd have said The Beatles without hesitation so perhaps you could review your accusation that I'm "making this up as I go along" due to being a "Michael Jackson" fan. My comments are about who I see as being, on the whole, the most iconic (I deliberately say "on the whole" because I would agree with you that the cover to Sgt Peppers is more iconic than MJs glove, but I'm referring to the "brand" if you like) nothing else.
On that subject, and to answer a point you made, Michael Jackson's dancing was idiosyncratic. If I did a moonwalk (not that I could) nobody would have any trouble whatsoever in identifying who I was mimicking. His dancing is arguably universally recognisable as the dancing of Michael Jackson, that's why it counts as being part of his iconography. That doesn't seem to be the case with a lot of the examples you gave of The Beatles. They seem to be examples of things they did better than anyone else, not really things that constitute a universally recognisable image or brand.
Proof please re your first ridiculous point. No it shouldn't.
Yes it should, it is part of his legacy, that stain on his image will always remain and cannot be or should not be swept under the carpet, as it is not only his music he will be remembered for.
Ok I have to admit I am a big fan of Elvis and Michael Jackson, they both were some of the greatest artists of their respective generations. (1950's and 1980's) Although the Beatles are associated with the sixties the biggest difference between them is musical progression, the Beatles progressed from playing pop music to redefining it. It has as its members two of the most critically acclaimed and loved songwriters of all time as well as another superb songwriter. They truly were the sum of their parts but even left to their own devices they sold millions of records. McCartney is still relevant today selling out stadiums and records.
The Beatles catalog has never really gone out of demand in 50 years. I have seen album after album of Elvis and MJ in the bargain bins but never a Beatles album. Before his death made it "cool" to like Michael Jackson again his albums would rot on CD shelves. I'm not even 20 but I can look beyond the current fads and popularity contests to see that The Beatles are critically and commercially the greatest music act of all time.
Thinking outside of music, how many when thinking of anything relating to the sixties thinks almost immediately of the Beatles? Just about everyone. In the 50's you also had Sinatra and in the 80's Prince and Madonna, the Beatles were better off in a decade that as it turned out was perhaps the most acclaimed decade of music to date with The Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, Who, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, The Kinks, Neil Young, Led Zeppelin etc.
You've assumed that I'm a Michael Jackson fan and have based your responses to me on that. I'm not, though I'll admit I do like 'Bad' (the album) and 'Beat It' (but that's really down to Eddie Van Halen's solo). I am much more of a fan of the Beatles, owning several CDs and vinyl as opposed to the one by MJ. I think their contribution to music is unsurpassed and I even stated at the outset that if this was about music I'd have said The Beatles without hesitation so perhaps you could review your accusation that I'm "making this up as I go along" due to being a "Michael Jackson" fan. My comments are about who I see as being, on the whole, the most iconic (I deliberately say "on the whole" because I would agree with you that the cover to Sgt Peppers is more iconic than MJs glove, but I'm referring to the "brand" if you like) nothing else.
On that subject, and to answer a point you made, Michael Jackson's dancing was idiosyncratic. If I did a moonwalk (not that I could) nobody would have any trouble whatsoever in identifying who I was mimicking. His dancing is arguably universally recognisable as the dancing of Michael Jackson, that's why it counts as being part of his iconography. That doesn't seem to be the case with a lot of the examples you gave of The Beatles. They seem to be examples of things they did better than anyone else, not really things that constitute a universally recognisable image or brand.
again you are jumping to conclusions that are plain wrong....for a start you have bought and enjoyed 'jacksons' music therefore you ARE a fan..secondly you keep harping on about 'dance moves' and 'moonwalks' e.t.c and therefore proof that jackson is somehow more of a cultural icon?........by the same defination if anyone even picks up a guitar and plays that could constitute a universally recognisable image or brand. with the beatles legacy or brand.
the point 'samack' made in the last post too is completely valid.....'the beatles have always been in fashion,they always will...their legacy transcends fashion and the fickle nature of it.....in 100 years time kids in college WILL be wearing beatle t-shirts and listening and paying top dollar for their music..I GUARANTEE IT ...meanwhile michael jackson will at best be a forgotten tasteless pop star who's music is so weak and incredibly dated that it will have had many more visits to the 'bargain basement bin'......at worst the case will be closed and a full exposure of what a sick peadophile he really was in his life will be confirmed through a discovered tape or something akin.
again you are jumping to conclusions that are plain wrong...
.for a start you have bought and enjoyed 'jacksons' music therefore you ARE a fan..
'the beatles have always been in fashion,they always will...their legacy transcends fashion and the fickle nature of it.....in 100 years time kids in college WILL be wearing beatle t-shirts and listening and paying top dollar for their music..I GUARANTEE IT
...meanwhile michael jackson will at best be a forgotten tasteless pop star who's music is so weak and incredibly dated that it will have had many more visits to the 'bargain basement bin'......
at worst the case will be closed and a full exposure of what a sick peadophile he really was in his life will be confirmed through a discovered tape or something akin.
biggest load of rubbish written by anyone.
1)jumping to conclusions:rolleyes: Pot kettle come to mind.
2)I own beatles songs (not many) but i'm not a fan just like certain songs. Buying records don't make you a fan.
3)Guarantee in 100 years eh!:rolleyes: Do you not read what you write.
4)Jackson will be forgotten:rolleyes: Don't you realize that todays youth know more about Jackson than the beatles. Again pointless drivel.
5)Wow the video tape that proves everything:rolleyes: Can you write anything more obscene.
You love the beatles who were druggies too and despise Jackson because he brought the beatles music. You hate him because paul hated him.
At least Unique tried to post evidence to back up his claims.
again you are jumping to conclusions that are plain wrong....for a start you have bought and enjoyed 'jacksons' music therefore you ARE a fan..secondly you keep harping on about 'dance moves' and 'moonwalks' e.t.c and therefore proof that jackson is somehow more of a cultural icon?........by the same defination if anyone even picks up a guitar and plays that could constitute a universally recognisable image or brand. with the beatles legacy or brand.
the point 'samack' made in the last post too is completely valid.....'the beatles have always been in fashion,they always will...their legacy transcends fashion and the fickle nature of it.....in 100 years time kids in college WILL be wearing beatle t-shirts and listening and paying top dollar for their music..I GUARANTEE IT ...meanwhile michael jackson will at best be a forgotten tasteless pop star who's music is so weak and incredibly dated that it will have had many more visits to the 'bargain basement bin'......at worst the case will be closed and a full exposure of what a sick peadophile he really was in his life will be confirmed through a discovered tape or something akin.
Well, if liking one album makes me a fan in your book so be it but from the context of your post it's very clear that you weren't using fan to suggest I had a passing interest in Michael Jackson but rather that I bore some loyalty towards him that was forming my judgment. You were wrong abut that but rather than accept you made an erroneous assumption you're sticking your fingers in your ears. Fair enough that's your get up.
Also, I'm not presenting anything as "proof", I'm just giving my opinion and showing my reasoning. Maybe we have a different idea of what iconography is but in my opinion it is constituted by the things I have mentioned, vis, idiosyncratic elements that form a 'brand', an image that is instantly recognisable and broadly, if not universally, recognisable. The difference between Jackson's dance moves and The Beatles' guitars is that the average person would see those dance moves and associate them with Jackson, whereas they would associate guitars with rock music in general rather than the Beatles specifically.
You're absolutely right about the Beatles legacy. Their contribution to music is unsurpassed and, as a consequence, their longevity and relevance have transcended anything that they emerged from in the Sixties. That, however, is not the basis for being iconic. In my opinion of course, which I think I've explained in quite a lot of detail to be fair.
Unfortunately I think that rather than read my post for what it is you are determined to read it as a declaration of Michael Jackson's superiority to the Beatles and an endorsement of his personal life. Maybe you just want someone to argue with, you certainly seem that way.
I certainly dont need 'evidence' to prove anything.Perhaps the jackson apologists on here have spent too much time in peadophile courts and need to adjust back to the real world.
Michael Jackson is not on the same planet as the beatles .or elvis for that matter....his place in the grand scheme of rock/pop immortality lies way way below ......and in time when all the hot air and fagash of his weird life has settled down .he will find his place amongst the second tier....leave the real 'history' to the big boys like 'the beatles' and 'elvis'....
I certainly dont need 'evidence' to prove anything.Perhaps the jackson apologists on here have spent too much time in peadophile courts and need to adjust back to the real world.
Michael Jackson is not on the same planet as the beatles .or elvis for that matter....his place in the grand scheme of rock/pop immortality lies way way below ......and in time when all the hot air and fagash of his weird life has settled down .he will find his place amongst the second tier....leave the real 'history' to the big boys like 'the beatles' and 'elvis'....
Wow. You need to get a grip. Jackson apologists? That alone shows that you cannot distinguish between "iconic" and "great". We're all having one discussion and you're having a totally different one.
Wow. You need to get a grip. Jackson apologists? That alone shows that you cannot distinguish between "iconic" and "great". We're all having one discussion and you're having a totally different one.
WUM to the highest degree me thinks. despite Thriller been named by almost everyone as the most iconic and revolutionary video in music history Jackson will be forgotton in 100 years time:rolleyes:
WUM to the highest degree me thinks. despite Thriller been named by almost everyone as the most iconic and revolutionary video in music history Jackson will be forgotton in 100 years time:rolleyes:
I considered it but rather than being constructed to be deliberately provocative his posts seem to be the ramblings of an incredibly angry person. I think he is just genuinely blinded by his Beatles/Jackson love/hate..
I considered it but rather than being constructed to be deliberately provocative his posts seem to be the ramblings of an incredibly angry person. I think he is just genuinely blinded by his Beatles/Jackson love/hate..
yep he hates Jackson so much but yet cant stop from talking about him at every chance he gets. I've just wacked him on ignore now to save me from getting an enforced holiday.
Really? In what way do you think? Besides Abbey Road I can't really think of any lasting and iconic imagery of the Beatles. The black and white mop top photos perhaps; maybe John Lennon's round glasses, but that's pushing it. MJ and Elvis both have cultural artefacts that are associated to them which are universally and instantly recognisable. For example, Elvis had his quiff, jump suits and hip shake, Jacko had his clothes, sparkling gloves, moon walk (in fact make that his entire dancing repertoire).
I think a good acid test for measuring how "iconic" something is is how easily parodied it is. Think how easy it is to parody MJ or Elvis. I'm not sure parodying the Beatles would be quite so easy and relatable.
i've never thought about that as a test of being "Iconic", but haven't you heard of the rutles?
or how about a website called google? you can type in beatles parody songs and get millions of links
I really don't know why people are getting their knickers in a twist about the musical credibility of certain artists when really that has sod all to do with how iconic they are. I mean, Britney Spears is one of the big icons of the 21st century and she's probably the least credible music star like ever.
exactly. i've been repeating the same thing through the thread, but some people prefer to waffle on about how someone is iconic because they drew a drawing that wasn't good enough for the album sleeve but made it to the inner sleeve, or they are credited for banging the case that one of the drums came in. the teletubbies are hugely iconic but i don't think their single quite matches the status of comfortably numb
i've never thought about that as a test of being "Iconic", but haven't you heard of the rutles?
or how about a website called google? you can type in beatles parody songs and get millions of links
You'll note that my argument is not that that the Beatles cannot or have not been parodied, nor that they aren't iconic, just that they are less so than both Elvis and Michael Jackson.
WUM to the highest degree me thinks. despite Thriller been named by almost everyone as the most iconic and revolutionary video in music history Jackson will be forgotton in 100 years time:rolleyes:
you know the problem with making generalisations like that is almost every will dissagree
you are also aware how many people made the thriller video and that it copies two movies from the director, including the choreography that was taken from the blues brothers?
You'll note that my argument is not that that the Beatles cannot or have not been parodied, nor that they aren't iconic, just that they are less so than both Elvis and Michael Jackson.
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 really don't know why people are getting their knickers in a twist about the musical credibility of certain artists when really that has sod all to do with how iconic they are. I mean, Britney Spears is one of the big icons of the 21st century and she's probably the least credible mu
sic star like ever.
Comments
I'll give you Sgt Peppers and Beatlemania but I'm not convinced the other examples are iconic. The fact that they created their own original music has nothing to do with whether they are iconic, IMO. Asking who is the most iconic isn't the same as asking who is artistically superior. Someone up thread alluded to the fact that Che Guvara is one of, if not the, most iconic images ever. That isn't any sort of declaration about him being the most successful political figure any more than I'm saying MJ is artistically superior to The Beatles (I've already pointed out that in my opinion The Beatles are superior), though some people seem to think it is.
Regarding MJ's "hideous transformation" I agree and I've already included it in the things I think make him iconic. You should also note that I've made no value judgment on these cultural artefacts. I'm not saying they were positive or indicate greatness or anything like that. Whether Elvis' jumpsuit or Jacko's deranged features were a source of negativity is neither here nor there in an assessment of whether they were iconic or not. If I turned up to a fancy dress party with a black quiff and a jump suit I'd be instantly recognisable as Elvis. A hip shake and an "Uh huh" and the parody is complete, universally recognisable because of just a handful of idiosyncratic elements. That's iconic, regardless of whether that image is a bit of a joke or whether Elvis had any artistic merit, his image is a brand in itself.
What makes something iconic is not just the memorability of the picture it conjures up but what it represents. The iconic picture of Che Guevara you mention was a simple snapshot from a funeral service but it has come to be a symbol of rebellion, a revolutionary icon that translates to different contexts quite well. Many teenagers going through their rebellious period like it for example.
I feel that many of the posters here associate being iconic as being representative of the best of pop music. And that is part of it but of course all three are representative of more than just the quality of their art, they are also cultural icons representative of cultural as well as musical change.
Elvis, for example represents rock n roll music, great singing, great entertainment, the importance of image and style, sexual liberation, teenage rebellion, generational difference, the rock star lifestyle, celebrity culture and much more.
No it shouldn't.
The meaning of the part you highlighted wasn't to suggest that the Che image would have become iconic regardless of his significance, it was to point out that it isn't indicative of his success or superiority. Significance and success aren't necessarily the same thing. For example, if I said the image of a dishevelled, bearded Saddam was an iconic image you wouldn't have someone come along and point out all the terrible things he'd done as I would hope people wouldn't confuse being iconic with being great in that instance; but if I say Michael Jackson is iconic it's taken as a declaration of his artistic superiority.
no way buster......
dear mr slarti.....you wrote.."Originally Posted by Slarti Bartfast View Post
Really? In what way do you think? Besides Abbey Road I can't really think of any lasting and iconic imagery of the Beatles. The black and white mop top photos perhaps; maybe John Lennon's round glasses, but that's pushing it. MJ and Elvis both have cultural artefacts that are associated to them which are universally and instantly recognisable. For example, Elvis had his quiff, jump suits and hip shake, Jacko had his clothes, sparkling gloves, moon walk (in fact make that his entire dancing repertoire).
if michael jacksons 'dance moves' are okay to be called iconic...then why not the examples by the beatles i mentioned?..............like many wacko fans you are simply making things up here as you go along.........'sparkling glove' ???give me a break....more iconic than sgt pepper artwork...hmmm think not.:eek:
On that subject, and to answer a point you made, Michael Jackson's dancing was idiosyncratic. If I did a moonwalk (not that I could) nobody would have any trouble whatsoever in identifying who I was mimicking. His dancing is arguably universally recognisable as the dancing of Michael Jackson, that's why it counts as being part of his iconography. That doesn't seem to be the case with a lot of the examples you gave of The Beatles. They seem to be examples of things they did better than anyone else, not really things that constitute a universally recognisable image or brand.
Yes it should, it is part of his legacy, that stain on his image will always remain and cannot be or should not be swept under the carpet, as it is not only his music he will be remembered for.
The Beatles catalog has never really gone out of demand in 50 years. I have seen album after album of Elvis and MJ in the bargain bins but never a Beatles album. Before his death made it "cool" to like Michael Jackson again his albums would rot on CD shelves. I'm not even 20 but I can look beyond the current fads and popularity contests to see that The Beatles are critically and commercially the greatest music act of all time.
Thinking outside of music, how many when thinking of anything relating to the sixties thinks almost immediately of the Beatles? Just about everyone. In the 50's you also had Sinatra and in the 80's Prince and Madonna, the Beatles were better off in a decade that as it turned out was perhaps the most acclaimed decade of music to date with The Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, Who, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, The Kinks, Neil Young, Led Zeppelin etc.
again you are jumping to conclusions that are plain wrong....for a start you have bought and enjoyed 'jacksons' music therefore you ARE a fan..secondly you keep harping on about 'dance moves' and 'moonwalks' e.t.c and therefore proof that jackson is somehow more of a cultural icon?........by the same defination if anyone even picks up a guitar and plays that could constitute a universally recognisable image or brand. with the beatles legacy or brand.
the point 'samack' made in the last post too is completely valid.....'the beatles have always been in fashion,they always will...their legacy transcends fashion and the fickle nature of it.....in 100 years time kids in college WILL be wearing beatle t-shirts and listening and paying top dollar for their music..I GUARANTEE IT ...meanwhile michael jackson will at best be a forgotten tasteless pop star who's music is so weak and incredibly dated that it will have had many more visits to the 'bargain basement bin'......at worst the case will be closed and a full exposure of what a sick peadophile he really was in his life will be confirmed through a discovered tape or something akin.
biggest load of rubbish written by anyone.
1)jumping to conclusions:rolleyes: Pot kettle come to mind.
2)I own beatles songs (not many) but i'm not a fan just like certain songs. Buying records don't make you a fan.
3)Guarantee in 100 years eh!:rolleyes: Do you not read what you write.
4)Jackson will be forgotten:rolleyes: Don't you realize that todays youth know more about Jackson than the beatles. Again pointless drivel.
5)Wow the video tape that proves everything:rolleyes: Can you write anything more obscene.
You love the beatles who were druggies too and despise Jackson because he brought the beatles music. You hate him because paul hated him.
At least Unique tried to post evidence to back up his claims.
Also, I'm not presenting anything as "proof", I'm just giving my opinion and showing my reasoning. Maybe we have a different idea of what iconography is but in my opinion it is constituted by the things I have mentioned, vis, idiosyncratic elements that form a 'brand', an image that is instantly recognisable and broadly, if not universally, recognisable. The difference between Jackson's dance moves and The Beatles' guitars is that the average person would see those dance moves and associate them with Jackson, whereas they would associate guitars with rock music in general rather than the Beatles specifically.
You're absolutely right about the Beatles legacy. Their contribution to music is unsurpassed and, as a consequence, their longevity and relevance have transcended anything that they emerged from in the Sixties. That, however, is not the basis for being iconic. In my opinion of course, which I think I've explained in quite a lot of detail to be fair.
Unfortunately I think that rather than read my post for what it is you are determined to read it as a declaration of Michael Jackson's superiority to the Beatles and an endorsement of his personal life. Maybe you just want someone to argue with, you certainly seem that way.
Michael Jackson is not on the same planet as the beatles .or elvis for that matter....his place in the grand scheme of rock/pop immortality lies way way below ......and in time when all the hot air and fagash of his weird life has settled down .he will find his place amongst the second tier....leave the real 'history' to the big boys like 'the beatles' and 'elvis'....
cat got your tongue:cool::sleep:
Wow. You need to get a grip. Jackson apologists? That alone shows that you cannot distinguish between "iconic" and "great". We're all having one discussion and you're having a totally different one.
WUM to the highest degree me thinks. despite Thriller been named by almost everyone as the most iconic and revolutionary video in music history Jackson will be forgotton in 100 years time:rolleyes:
I considered it but rather than being constructed to be deliberately provocative his posts seem to be the ramblings of an incredibly angry person. I think he is just genuinely blinded by his Beatles/Jackson love/hate..
yep he hates Jackson so much but yet cant stop from talking about him at every chance he gets. I've just wacked him on ignore now to save me from getting an enforced holiday.
i've never thought about that as a test of being "Iconic", but haven't you heard of the rutles?
or how about a website called google? you can type in beatles parody songs and get millions of links
exactly. i've been repeating the same thing through the thread, but some people prefer to waffle on about how someone is iconic because they drew a drawing that wasn't good enough for the album sleeve but made it to the inner sleeve, or they are credited for banging the case that one of the drums came in. the teletubbies are hugely iconic but i don't think their single quite matches the status of comfortably numb
You'll note that my argument is not that that the Beatles cannot or have not been parodied, nor that they aren't iconic, just that they are less so than both Elvis and Michael Jackson.
you know the problem with making generalisations like that is almost every will dissagree
http://www.nme.com/list/100-greatest-music-videos/217342/page/10
you are also aware how many people made the thriller video and that it copies two movies from the director, including the choreography that was taken from the blues brothers?
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