I'd argue critical acclaim came straight away with Please, Please Me. And certainly with A Hard Days Night & Help. Granted With the Beatles is a bit of a dud album, rushed and full of covers and Beatles for Sale is a mixed bag too.

well maybe you're right. Tbh sometimes i think early Beatles is my favourite Beatles, but then i'm not sure how those songs would now be viewed as a body of work if that's all they'd done, without later Beatles throwing a different light on it...if that makes any sense.

Anyway i think i'm losing track a bit here

Will her music stand the test of time and still be played in another 30 years time? I don't think so. I love Adele and I love her music and I have all her albums and I'm loving 25, however she's no Michael Jackson. I don't think that in another 30 years she'll be remembered and mentioned in the same way as people like MJ and Elvis are.

And true to form, you're just going to ignore posts when someone points out that you're posting nonsense, hope everyone forgets about it and then post more nonsense on another thread.

Also, your habit of trying to belittle another poster when they post something you don't like is quite sad and immature. You should stick to appreciation threads if you can't have mature discussions about artists you like.

It can only be a matter of time before she is recognised as a saint and people bring their sick children to be cured by kneeling prostrate at her feet and brushing against the hem of her flowing gown. A Nobel Peace Prize is surely imminent.

I really don't get all the hype around Adele at the moment. She's has a fantastic voice for sure, but her music is just plain boring.

No

Just no

Not even the most ardent Adele fans could possibly mount any semblence of Adele being on Michael, Elvis or The Beatles level

No.

if shes still having number 1 albums nearly 40 years after she's dead then, and only then, maybe.

I'm 20 but I don't think Adele can come close to MJ or Elvis or The Beatles. Those artists were a phenomenon of their time and the current time of music as they achieved longevity. Adele is great but she's NOWHERE near that level - basically because she would have had to be around for like 30/40 years! She only started getting recognised in 2011/2012

Fleur East might beat her to it.

Only time will tell.

I agree. I like her music, but she isn't a revolutionary artistic force like all the artists compared to. She's doing phenomenally well, but they were much bigger (in general).

The fact that talented acts have either faded, semi-retired or have not got music out to the same extent helps her situation. That along with swathes of the public thinking there's no talent out there anymore (which isn't true) makes her seem even better.

obviously she's not comparable unless she lasts, but we can hardly hold her lack of longevity against her...what do you want her to do about it at this point?

she does have one thing over the others though, she neither believes in her fame to the extent it destroys her (Elvis). She doesn't have a Guru/messianic complex (Lennon/Jackson), and she lacks the pretensions and egotism of all of them.

And you never know she may surprise us all with a groundbreaking album yet

As I said previously in another thread, I think Adele will be bigger than all three of them put together.

She is MUSIC at the moment and her sales are incredible (as expected). She is also a fantastic performer and her brit awards performance is more iconic than say mj's motown 25 performance.

This is only her 3rd album and the quality she produces is unbelievable. She is only 27 for god sake and is already a music legend.

I don't think Jacko was as big as her at his peak. it was mostly his off stage antics that made him big.

Who on Earth buys this dreadful drippy Shite??

3.5m Americans, 800,00 brits. And some other people in other places. Dont' have a list of names though sorry.

Or did you mean Thriller?

Selling that amount of albums is all well and good. However I can name about 3 Adele songs. I'm not a fan of Micheal Jackson, however back in the 80s I could name most of his big hit songs and know the words. Cause they were played so much. Radio overplayed Adeles big hit and the bond theme. Same with this new song, the rest of her stuff to me is forgettable. MJ while I never liked him did have songs that got into your head and you ended up humming them.

You need to get a little more perspective on things. What do you mean by bigger? More famous, outselling, more influential? Adele has sold a lot of records but has she changed pop music in any serious way? Yet?

There are many iconic performances before MJ at Motown 25.. The Beatles at Shea Stadium in ' 65, Hendrix at Woodstock, Zeppelin at the Royal Albert Hall, The Who at the Isle of Wight 1970, The Pistols at Manchester Lesser Free Trade Hall '76, Queen at Live Aid.....to name but a few.

As for the age thing,...Paul McCartney was 21 at the rise of the Beatles and 28 when they split, in the course of 7 years the group had changed the face of popular music. In the same time Adele has produced 3 quite similar records.

Adele is a great singer and has sold a phenomenal number of records at a time when we were told record sales have been falling. Adele sings about relationships and she has a fine sense of nostalgia. She is unpretentious, authentic, unaffected an incredible counterpoint to much of the chart music I hear. She certainly catches something in the cultural zeitgeist. I'm not sure what it means yet.

that's a good post. And the last bit goes for all of us i'd say

Surely one of the most obvious differences to Adele and the other artists mentioned is that those other artists made more of a cultural impact because they appealed to and generated excitement amongst younger music fans. Adele doesn't seem to have that, she's more someone your mum or dad likes. It's weird to say with the sales figures but it doesn't feel like she will be looked back on as making that much of an impact on music at the moment. Maybe if she did less ballads and more upbeat songs it would feel more exciting....

Isn't the problem that she took the record from NSYNC? Who the hell would consider NSYNC to be on par with or even anywhere in the same solar system as Michael Jackson or the Beatles?

I like Adele but there's a difference between changing or utterly defining an entire genre of music for ever, and having popular songs.

Justin Bieber has more songs in the top 40 all at once than has any living artist ever had in history. Let's not go nuts with the importance of records.

And you accuse me of over-simplistic theories then come up with this beauty? Where to start, I really don't know. OK, where are you getting this info regarding Adele's demographic exactly? I'm not sure you have grasped the enormity of her sales (nothing to be ashamed about, they haven't happened arguably ever before allowing for the digital age in which we live) but it's clear that she pretty much appeals to ALL AGES. There's no other explanation for the level of domination she has over the industry right now. And to borrow your level of assumption for a minute I'm ASSUMING that the popular music site ATRL tends to attract a largely young following (in fact it's clear from many of the posts) . Just look at the threads on there regarding Adele at the moment. No excitement? Please.....

PS And what's wrong with older people getting excited anyway? Ageist Alert..

It's not really her fault whose record she smashed though, is it? And the really huge difference you've missed here is NSYNC sold precisely 400k albums outside the US that week and Adele could sell as many as 3 MILLION more. And this was all during the halcyon days of album sales. Unlike now, where sales are in the gutter. She's also broken Celine Dion's 18 year old first week record in Canada amongst many other records broken (18 years ago that record was set and Dion is the legend of legends in Canada). I'm not even sure whether she's ever in set foot in the country. Same in Australia, where I know she hasn't foot in the country. The problem with threads like this is many of the posts are very much dependent on personal opinion, not facts. Mine are fact-based.

Only time will tell where this all goes. For the moment, there is no one else like her in the world, and seriously when has there ever been someone like her? Where everyone from young kids to grannies, from hip hop to country, love her and buy the music. Where the media is building her up to the level of Barbra Streisand and MJ and the Beatles and Elvis. Has it ever happened before? Conservatives and old white people hated the Beatles and Elvis and MJ.
It's just the beginning of Adele's career. It's staggering.

Ridiculous! Adele has a wide and diverse fan base that covers both men and women and all race groups. She appeals to everyone from old people to middle age people to young adults to teenagers to kids. There isn't another young performer around today who has her wide appeal nor is there one that has had the same worldwide impact. Lada Gaga's success between 2009 and 2011 is nothing compared to Adele's success since 2011. You don't sell 30 million copies of an album while only appealing to one group of people. Adele is the biggest thing that's happened in the music business for a long, long time.

She's definitely not bigger than The Beatles, Elvis or Michael Jackson during the Thriller era, but she's definitely bigger than Madonna was at her peak. Madonna has never released an album that's had as much hype and build-up surrounding it as 25 nor has she sold such a huge amount of records in one week like Adele. 21 was bigger than anything Madonna released in the 1980s and 1990s. It sold 30 million copies in four years whereas True Blue took nearly 30 years to sell 25 million copies. I won't list the rest of my reasons why I think Adele is bigger than Madonna, but you can read them in this thread if you want:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2113862