• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Music
Oasis vs The Beatles vs Michael Jackson vs Elvis
<<
<
5 of 13
>>
>
JohnnyForget
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by julomu:
“Btw, why these 4 choices? You could have included artists like Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Queen, Stevie Wonder, etc... just curious.”

I may be wrong, but I would hazard a guess that Elvis was chosen to represent the fifties, The Beatles the sixties, Michael Jackson, as a member of the Jackson Five the seventies and as a solo artist the eighties, and Oasis the nineties. There's nobody to represent the noughties or the teens, but perhaps the OP doesn't like 21st Century music.
Pacman 2011
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by ManUtdFan-92:
“That's a bit harsh Thought my contribution was alright.”

Me to

Originally Posted by Aneechik:
“They're all over-rated really. They're only musicians.”

Nice answer

Originally Posted by Wayne Dibbly:
“I don't quite follow why people need to equate appreciation of music with ones age. Those who do should try opening their minds and broaden their listening. There's some incredible stuff out there across all ages if you are prepared to look and listen with an open mind.”

I agree, I prefere the 80s stuff to 00's.

Originally Posted by Sassernach:
“I never thought you were being rude...
I was just saying I wasn't copping out.”

Oh ok haha

Originally Posted by simmons_5251:
“The beatles - every song is just well written, perfect lyrics, great tunes generally and have a mass of brilliant brilliant hits and are consistently excellent. Enjoyed by every generation too.”

In your opinion... thye were only 'amazing' because their music was ahead of time... then when music caught up to them, they were hardly unique, just showed others could be just as good.

Originally Posted by Jennymoo:
“I don't get the music snobbery. All of the artists mentioned in the OP heavily borrowed from musicians that had gone before them. Even the Beatles. Yeah, they brought together certain genres, but that didn't make them the first artists to pick up a guitar. They borrowed heavily from American Rock and roll, which borrowed heavily from blues and so on and so on. Oasis weren't meagre blots on the musical landscape, they along with the other britpop bands brought "indie" music into the mainstream. We're still seeing the effects of that in todays chart, they were very important in the 90's.”

Great comment and soo truthful!

Originally Posted by CABLEDUDE:
“Can't stand Michael Jackson and Elvis' later stuff makes me vomit :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSeSR-of9Es

My Personal Top 10
1. The Beatles
2. The Kinks
3. Paul McCartney
4. Bob Dylan
5. Pink Floyd
6. The Rolling Stones
7. George Harrison
8. David Bowie
9. Led Zeppelin
10. The Beach Boys”

Only 4 of them I have listened to haha

Originally Posted by snoopy10:
“Personal preference/taste and I'd put:
Michael Jackson
Oasis
The Beatles
Elvis

In terms of impact and who IMO actually had the most influence, as well as a less biased view (without taking personal taste into account):

Michael Jackson
Elvis
The Beatles
Oasis”

Thanks for a unbaised NORMAL comment.

Originally Posted by paralax:
“Out of the three I'd have to say Michael Jackson, I was young but I can remember the excitement he generated was like nothing we have seen since, people like Madonna, Britney and latterly GaGa come along and they are the next big thing but they don't come close to Jackson in terms of the impact they have. Michael really brought the music video to a different level, he was the first black artist to be on MTV, and I respect the stance he took with them, when they wanted him he refused them unless they opened their doors to other black artists, and watching dance routines now you still see his influence, he also started the charity records for fund raising, and the fist bit of rap I heard was in Black and White, so I think he deserves the title.

Elvis brought modern music to the fore, and was a pioneer of his time in that respect, he had the charisma that attracted people to the type rock and role music that hadn't broken the big band monopoly. And his music and songs live on long after he died the same as Michael's music. I doupt that many of the music that is at the top at the momet will still be played in 40 years time like Elvis and Michael's music was. Sadly they both had so much more to give and died before their time.

I liked Oasis music, couldn't stand the foul mouthed Gallaghers but I don't see them as having brought anything new to the table.”

Yeah so when people say MJ is rubbish and can't acknowledge a bit of his work, it just blows anything else out the water to what they may offer as an opinion.

Originally Posted by Fizzbin:
“Oasis - not even my top 50

Beatles - good but overrated

Elvis - the King

Jacko - the King of Pop - beats Elvis because he wrote his own material

Way head of them all....

Freddy Mercury ”

QUEEN!

Originally Posted by SteelEdge:
“Personal preference:

MJ
Oasis
Elvis
Beatles”



Originally Posted by Viridiana:
“Why are Oasis even considered? Is this a joke?

Most people outside the UK remember them, if at all in the US, as that band form the 90s.”

BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO LAZY TO CONCOR usa AS THEY HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FROM HERE, i KNOW MANY AMERICANS WHO LOVE OASIS!

Originally Posted by robo2:
“indie was already in the mainstream long before oasis came along in 94”

Yes but barely anyne knew what it was I bet.

Originally Posted by duckeee:
“1- The Beatles
2- Elvis Presley
3- Michael Jackson



































1,000,000,000 - Oasis”

How boring, seriously think of a new joke rather then abusing the space button

Originally Posted by RichmondBlue:
“I agree. In terms of importance to the popular post war music scene, Oasis wouldn't rate a place in the top 100.
Of course, peoples individual personal choices are a different matter.”

Yes so I won't agree
Pacman 2011
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by JohnnyForget:
“I may be wrong, but I would hazard a guess that Elvis was chosen to represent the fifties, The Beatles the sixties, Michael Jackson, as a member of the Jackson Five the seventies and as a solo artist the eighties, and Oasis the nineties. There's nobody to represent the noughties or the teens, but perhaps the OP doesn't like 21st Century music.”

Why? Would you like The OP to add JUSTIN BEIBER to the list?

But good one for pointing out MJ had a 2 century representation run unlike the rest who had 1
mushymanrob
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by hullaballoo:
“Or maybe some people are grown up enough to accept that different people like different things.”

i would agree, if it wasnt for the protracted debates ive had with jacko fans who insist he created everything worth listening too...

Originally Posted by Pacman 2011:
“But good one for pointing out MJ had a 2 century representation run unlike the rest who had 1 ”

eh?... dont you mean decade? but even so, thats incorrect as elvis was popular in three decades!
julomu
26-04-2011
I didn't know there were people that actually thought MJ was more influential than The Beatles. Elvis, I get... but MJ?
Pacman 2011
26-04-2011
Yes MJ... the greatest enterainer out the ones listed above... soo ignortant.

I'm sure race is involved in this sometimes
JohnnyForget
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by Pacman 2011:
“Why? Would you like The OP to add JUSTIN BEIBER to the list?”

Certainly not!
I'm not sure whether or not the OP does hate 21st Century music, but I certainly do.



Originally Posted by Pacman 2011:
“Yes MJ... the greatest enterainer out the ones listed above... soo ignortant.
I'm sure race is involved in this sometimes”

Love the way you spell entertainer and ignorant.

Race is not involved in this at all. Michael Jackson sucks. End of.
BluseyLou
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by Pacman 2011:
“Yes MJ... the greatest enterainer out the ones listed above... soo ignortant.

I'm sure race is involved in this sometimes”

That is a matter of opinion not fact, and MY opinion is he is not the greatest entertainer ever I would place him third of this group of four behind Beatles at number one and Elvis number two.
Pacman 2011
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by JohnnyForget:
“Certainly not!
I'm not sure whether or not the OP does hate 21st Century music, but I certainly do.

Love the way you spell entertainer and ignorant.

Race is not involved in this at all. Michael Jackson sucks. End of.”

Cant you do what your name says and forget this thread
mushymanrob
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by JohnnyForget:
“Race is not involved in this at all. Michael Jackson sucks. End of.”

just what race was mj anyway?...
poppyblue
26-04-2011
Beatles
Elvis


The rest.
Pacman 2011
26-04-2011
Same responses, thread is getting boring now.
Mr. Fahrenheit
26-04-2011
1. The Beatles.
2. Elvis Presley.
3. Michael Jackson.
4. Oasis.

Not sure why Oasis are there, they weren't original in any way, and I doubt people will be talking about them in the same breath as the other three. The Beatles, Elvis and MJ are three of the biggest Music legends.
BluseyLou
26-04-2011
So glad to see The Beatles winning so far .
Pacman 2011
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by BluseyLou:
“So glad to see The Beatles winning so far .”

How old are you?
BluseyLou
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by Pacman 2011:
“How old are you?”

LOL what on earth has that do with anything ~ so you have to be a certain age to like the Beatles ? I think not .

I won't tell you my age except to say The Beatles had been broken up for many years by the time I was born.
deedee1962
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by BluseyLou:
“So glad to see The Beatles winning so far .”


ME too The Beatles are the greatest ever and always will be.
BluseyLou
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by deedee1962:
“ME too The Beatles are the greatest ever and always will be.”

I love them too ~ I did The Beatles tour in Liverpool a few years ago it was amazing to see where they lived and places like Penny Lane ,Strawberry Fields and The Cavern .
Pacman 2011
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by BluseyLou:
“LOL what on earth has that do with anything ~ so you have to be a certain age to like the Beatles ? I think not .

I won't tell you my age except to say The Beatles had been broken up for many years by the time I was born.”

So basically your a old person... no arguing with old people I find.

Originally Posted by BluseyLou:
“I love them too ~ I did The Beatles tour in Liverpool a few years ago it was amazing to see where they lived and places like Penny Lane ,Strawberry Fields and The Cavern .”

How odd
deedee1962
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by BluseyLou:
“I love them too ~ I did The Beatles tour in Liverpool a few years ago it was amazing to see where they lived and places like Penny Lane ,Strawberry Fields and The Cavern .”


I love going to Liverpool, I went to Julian's White Feather exhibition last year it was great there were some clothes of John's etc.
I went round the John and Paul houses tour one year too that was good although I cried in John's. I really wish the National Trust could get George's home that he was born in that would be amazing to go in there.
I was luck enough to meet Paul in 2006 at a signing he did, also when me and my friend went to see Paul at Earls Court in 2003 Julian Lennon was sat behind us I couldn't believe it, it was an amazing night.
BluseyLou
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by Pacman 2011:
“So basically your a old person... no arguing with old people I find.



How odd”

LOL !! I'm under 35 that is not old atall

Ok so meand the hundreds of thousands who do that tour old and young are odd ...whatever ............
BluseyLou
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by deedee1962:
“I love going to Liverpool, I went to Julian's White Feather exhibition last year it was great there were some clothes of John's etc.
I went round the John and Paul houses tour one year too that was good although I cried in John's. I really wish the National Trust could get George's home that he was born in that would be amazing to go in there.
I was luck enough to meet Paul in 2006 at a signing he did, also when me and my friend went to see Paul at Earls Court in 2003 Julian Lennon was sat behind us I couldn't believe it, it was an amazing night.”

Wow you are sooo lucky to have met him ~ I would love to have the chance to one day .
Pacman 2011
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by BluseyLou:
“Wow you are sooo lucky to have met him ~ I would love to have the chance to one day .”

That is old! Why it is only man who made music, not jesus.
Gaspanic!
26-04-2011
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“just what race was mj anyway?... ”

Pacman 2011
27-04-2011
Originally Posted by BluseyLou:
“That is a matter of opinion not fact, and MY opinion is he is not the greatest entertainer ever I would place him third of this group of four behind Beatles at number one and Elvis number two.”

I never said it was fact that is my opinion... stop being soo smug bout people you have never met.
<<
<
5 of 13
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map