I wasn't around in the 60s. I wasn't even around in the 80s.

Yeah I agree, I just don't really think The Beatles's music is as great as the hype would have suggested

How much have you actually listened to?

guys...you are showing your ignorance. not being born in the 60's isnt a crime, but not understanding why the beatles were the biggest thing in rock/pop ever IS (for a music fan).

im NOT saying you should like them, but you clearly fail to understand what they actually did, the impact and influence they made which still resounds today. and without that understanding, by making ignorant statements like 'they were overrated/overhyped' makes any further opinion null and void. and to suggest that they werent in the same class as jacko... must be the most inaccurate thing ever posted on here, its wrong on so many levels.

there was no hype with the beatles, there was no hype in the 60's when they started, hype came in with mass commercialisation, and no artist has had more hype then jacko.

Agree with this. I think a lot of the hype around MJ is because he was right place, right time when MTV was in it's infancy and the 24/7 music channels started. Before that, most of us only had TOTP as our weekly visual music fix. But, definitely, there were many, many mainstream black artists before him. The 60's had Motown, 70's had Philadelphia followed by the disco era and then the early 80's was the soul anthems - all of which would be considered mainstream. Two of the biggest acts st the start of the 80's were George Benson and Stevie Wonder who both released massively successful albums (Give Me The Night and Hotter Than July) which managed to retain their artistry and crossover into the mainstream.

I like a few Beatles songs such as Penny Lane, In my life, Hey Jude, Come Together and We can work it out. But most of their popular songs such as Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, Let it be, Long and winding road to name a few are pretty dull

i hate 'hey jude'... and dislike alot of their material, especially their later work. im not fussed at all over sgt pepper. but theres a difference between what an individual likes and what their place is in music history.

Not with you no.

You say MJ fans defend him no matter what but YOU discredit MJ no matter what. Both go hand in hand and amount to the same thing.

Saying you like the odd song then ripping into others opinions without compromising to get why they may think that does not make me think you debate. It makes me think your argumemtative. I have never known a user put so much daily effort to dimiss a music artists effort.

Globally he was succesful more so than thewother black artists mentioned (which you say is wrong but then say is right becausee he was a cash cow promotion. Which one?)

To the dearman or what ever the name is joking about peodophilia. His personal life does ot reflect the way on how I like his music and as he was never proven guilty I won't from a legal standpoint. Take it up with the legal system.

Remember Mushy that is who you having baking you up.

Despite the post I admire your skills as at times you have defended yourself against several users. All of us are moaning instead of celebrating music.

not true.... i suggest that what the fans version of him is overrated, then explain why. we have seen on this thread the total destruction of the myth that he was the greatest person to break down racial barriers in music. that point has been proven. so that bit of discrediting him is sound. however, no one said that he has had no impact on that.... just that there were many before him, and he was one in a line of musicians doing so.

we have seen that music videos were alive and well before thriller, and after, thriller really didnt change anything in the music business BUT it is the most commercially successful.

ive said that theres a cloud around what he actually composed, we will never know the truth. fans chose to believe he is a talented songwriter whilst the doubters think theres possibly more input by others. does it matter?... like ive said, so what even IF he composed everything? so have many many others.


i hardly 'ripped into others opinions' about his material. just like i stated above we will never know for sure how much of his material came out of his head and his head alone... i repeat, so what even IF he composed everything? there are hundreds of songwriters with huge and successful careers.


true, i dont doubt his global success, but thats because he courted popularity, and dropped his black/soul roots. he embraced or was lead to embrace commercialism. now thats fine. but its the same money men, directing him, producing/managing him, that was responsible for his global success.

he produced, or was lead to produce, music that would appeal to a wide audience. fine.



i have no idea what you mean here!

edit...oh a typo... fair play. i dont need anyone to back me up, but id prefer an adult like blondie x to be alongside rather then someone i dont know.


cheers, , please understand, jackson was great, he was a huge star, both here in the uk, in the usa, and globally. possibly the biggest...i dont know. but commercial success doesnt equate to genius, innovative, influencial, etc... now im not saying he wasnt these things to some degree but just not as big to the exclusion of others that the fans would have us believe. he wasnt god, he was one of many all time greats, inspired by many before him, and he inspired many that came after him.

The Beatles are top - no doubt. They literally changed the face of pop music at the time and their influence is still around today. (though they themselves would put Elvis at the top)

In terms of music I like , I would put Michael Jackson second, though in terms of influence I would rate Stevie Wonder higher as he came first.

Elvis has to come third as he obviously was a huge influence on his generation. However, I'd say it was his attitude and style and performance was the greater influence than the sound of his music. (we have Elvis to thank for Cliff Richard, so he loses several points for that )

Oasis are also rans in my book. There are other bands of that era that I prefer.

Wait a minute are we allowed to discuss MJ on here without the same old tired predicable "facts" been brought up by the sam tired old predictable posters????

Elvis>jackson>beatles>oasis now thats my view but i dont go out my way to berate one performer on a constant basis. Are the beatles overhyped, yes! Is elvis the king of rock and roll, yes! Is jackson the king of pop, yes!

Music is subjective.

Conversely:

Beatles overhyped and overrated? No, they are not.

Jackson overhyped and overrated? Undoubtedly.

Music is subjective.

I can only implore anyone who is too young to remember The Beatles to get hold of a copy of the Beatles Anthology video. It really is one of the greatest stories ever told. Some of the youngest viewers might the very early stuff a bit out of their terms of reference, but others interested in social history will find it an absolute treasure trove of information. I defy any true music lover not to be absolutely captivated.

for some reason i couldnt reply to your pm... just to say cheers, and i dont have the time nor interest to argue/debate/discuss fictional dramas which in general i dont watch.


c'mon dude... the same old charges are made regarding jacko, then the same old arguments will be brought to surface. its been a most decent, calm, rational, discussion . will it be repeated?... yes of course it will the next time someone makes inaccurate claims in praising jacko ABOVE his real worth. we have soundy presented the facts, whether you like it or not, as to why jacko was not the main player in breaking down racial barriers in music. why can you not accept this well presented point?

whos berating whom here?... its a forum, forums are for discussion, its not a wall for graffiti where anyone can post any old crap and be expected to be respected for it.

personally, ill not ever sit back and let things i know, i lived through, was part of, regarding pop music go unchallenged if its inaccurate. the history of pop music IS important, its important that the truth, the reality, is upheld and inaccurate fantasy is not promoted as 'facts'.

as for the beatles being over hyped..... utterly ridiculous. there was NO hype regarding the beatles, in fact there was none before the monkees, who in 66-7 were the first purpose created commercial venture. and hype never really got going in music until uber commercialisation took over,

if anything the beatles were UNDERhyped, as most of the adult world back then were 'squares' who were very much anti modern music. and indeed not even all the youths were into modern music. they were in many ways a niche market, being seen with alot of derision early on for their 'screaming girl beatlemania' phase. but they developed, without much promotion, and almost were overlooked as they evolved away from the early twee material. its like people were saying ... 'hold on a minute, thats actually pretty good'. and they went on to win over masses of fans.... but they did it on their own merrit, by the quality of their new, groundbreaking, material (which it was at the time), and absolutely without any hype/over promotion, whatsoever.

say you dont like their material... thats fine, but the most influencial group ever was not, and can not, be described as 'overhyped' by anyone who understands the evolution of pop music.

Any actual Oasis fan?

Oasis are legends of there era just as the other artists were.

You can certainly put What's The Story and Definitely Maybe along side any other of the artists albums.

Although it's quite fashionable for sheeple to say they were a tribute act etc I think they sounded more like the Sex Pistols than the Beatles.

And yes, Noel lifted all his material from other artists. But putting it together is an artform in itself, and every other artist has done it including Elvis and The Beatles.

Yeah a genuine fan!

Have you listened to the new album Noel has done with the HFB's?

Not yet, but I like The Ballad Of Might I. The Oasis sound is definitely there across his solo material with the soaring choruses and melodies. I liked his debut album very much.

tbh i prefer listening oasis to any of these

the beatles for me are, after 50 years, tired and dated. i do like them,... but get more out of oasis 's (early) material now.

BUT....... oasis are nowhere near as influencial, and crucial , to pop music as the beatles were. they arent in the same league.

I agree. Oasis aren't really my thing but they were very good at what they did ad I do think their music defines the era.

I'm going to throw another name into the ring - Paul Weller. Regardless of the fact he isn't my cup of tea, I think it's hard to deny that The Jam and Weller were and still remain hugely influential, respected and revered within the music industry. Not many artists who started out in a band who were considered part of a youth cult have the longevity and respect of their peers that Weller still has. He still sells out gigs within minutes even 35 years after he started out.

Now, I'm not saying he has had worldwide influence, he's definitely a very British act, or that he compares to the likes of Elvis and The Beatles, but I reckon there are 1000's of kids (now middle aged men) who picked up a guitar because of Weller. I'd certainly argue he has been more influential than Oasis

i have a problem with weller ..... he plagiarizes too much... and he build an initial career by ripping off the 60's. and dont get me started on his 'modfather' tag.... he wasnt the founding figure of the mod movement, he, like me, was a mere boy when the mods were formed.

Absolutely.

Oasis get accused of ripping off the Beatles, but Weller was far more blatant. "Start" by the Jam is direct steal from "Taxman" by the Beatles.

Oasis aren't even the most influencial band of the 90's, hell they aren't even the most influencial band of their genre.

wouldnt be so bad if he acknowleged it... but he doesnt

'changing man' is a complete steal from elo - 10538 overture


never said or implied they were.. but they created some great pop songs 20 years ago, even if they werent original in style.

I meant my comment to further back up your statement, not against it

I do disagree on them creating some great pop songs though, I've always found Oasis's rather turgid. The reason I dislike The Beatles and Oasis comparison is that The Beatles (nearly) always had a great sense of melody, Oasis on the other hand to me is just bluster.