Latest on MJJC

Michael 3rd Most Legendary

dont get me wrong I give credit where it is due and all, Elvis could sing and I can understand the praise he gets for that but dancing :blink:

leave those compliments for the real dancers...
 
Elvis had rhythm, he had some fluent moves that he learned .. What made his dancing known is that it was provacative for tv back then. That is what got peoples attention
 
No offense but when a star dies in America he/she becomes legendary very quickly. While Michael still alive, he has more popular impact in the world than the late Sinatra and Elvis gathered, he's more famous through the five continents not only US and Europe. While he's still alive and active he has been selling more than 750 million records worldwide.
 
very true... U know there was a time ( after elvis's hight, and before he did his last runs in vegas) when elvis could walk the streets without being recognized...
 
KOPV said:
very true... U know there was a time ( after elvis's hight, and before he did his last runs in vegas) when elvis could walk the streets without being recognized...
Click to expand...
when before he was famous? :p
 
suspicious_mind said:
Yeah im pretty sure im sure anyways :lol: I read it somewhere.




Elvis couldnt dance? Are u kidding me? Elvis couldnt beatbox? :toofunny: What era do u think of when u think of Elvis? Elvis wouldnt be the beatbox kinda guy anyways...he was way too cool for that.
Sorry but seems like you know NOTHING about Elvis at all, so really its pointless to reply, but Elvis did play the piano and guitar and several other things as well.
Just say you like Michael or Elvis Dont compare cause there is absolutely NO comparison there at all to speak of.
I personally think ur incredibly brave to criticize a person thats no longer living...someone who cant defend themselves...but whatever gets u through the night..
Click to expand...

No, Elvis couldn't dance. If you think he could, then you don't know much about dancing. I said "as far as I know" he couldn't play anything but the guitar. So if he could play other instruemtns, great. And saying that beatboxing is a silly or uncool talent is meaningless and does nothing to help support your argument. Beatboxing is a major component Michael uses in writing music and he's damn good at it. It is a vocal talent totally seperate from singing, and shows great control over both vocal cords, being able to use each seperate from one another. You still haven't provided any kind of answer as to Michael only being able to do one thing more then Elvis. So far we have the ability to write and compose excellent music, the ability to dance (real, natural talent), the ability to beatbox, and depending on whether you tell me what else he could play, then the ability to play more instruments. Michael's own guitarist has said that he can play just about any instrument by ear and he is credited with having played the drums, guitar and keyboard on more then one track.

The point is, Elvis had two major talents. His voie and his charisma. Michael has about 5. His voice, dancing, songwriting, beatboxing and charisma.
 
Last edited:
suspicious_mind said:
Do you think Michael will have number one albums years and years after his death like Elvis does?
Click to expand...

Yes. If they put out compilations, most especially with unreleased tracks, most assuredly. He's already outsold Elvis with about 90% fewer album releases. And he is more famous.
 
Last edited:
Tony R said:
It all began with Elvis. You can argue whether he was just in the right place at the right time or not but it doesn't matter. Imagine if you can being aroound in the 50's when Elvis first started. How exciting must that have been?

Before him there was no pop or rock n roll, it was classical or crooners. I know there were black artists doing Elvis's thing and he just made it popular, but that argument goes the same for Michael's moonwalk.

I'll try & speak objectively here. Personally, I respect artists a lot more when they write their own songs. For me that is why Michael is better. He created works such as Billie Jean, Who Is It, Will You Be There and 100's more like it.

ELvis's songs were created for him.

But, Elvis represents a time (like Michael). In fact look at the Top 3 they are more than just musical artists, they symbolise a shift in time when it became more than the music.

You can draw a musical timeline and pinpoint where Elvis, Sinatra & Michael started and the effect they had. That's why they are legendary. For us, we put Mike at #1 because he represents the shift in our lifetime. But you have to respect those who think otherwise because their legends mean different things to them.

It's more than the music, songwriting or dance, It's who changed your life.
Click to expand...

Frank Sinatra was the first real superstar. Before Frank, you should say, there was nobody. And Little Richard came before as well, and he was popular. Frankie Lymon, etc...
 
Last edited:
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
No, Elvis couldn't dance. If you think he could, then you don't know much about dancing. I said "as far as I know" he couldn't play anything but the guitar. So if he could play other instruemtns, great. And saying that beatboxing is a silly or uncool talent is meaningless and does nothing to help support your argument. Beatboxing is a major component Michael uses in writing music and he's damn good at it. It is a vocal talent totally seperate from singing, and shows great control over both vocal cords, being able to use each seperate from one another. You still haven't provided any kind of answer as to Michael only being able to do one thing more then Elvis. So far we have the ability to write and compose excellent music, the ability to dance (real, natural talent), the ability to beatbox, and depending on whether you tell me what else he could play, then the ability to play more instruments. Michael's own guitarist has said that he can play just about any instrument by ear and he is credited with having played the drums, guitar and keyboard on more then one track.

The point is, Elvis had two major talents. His voie and his charisma. Michael has about 5. His voice, dancing, songwriting, beatboxing and charisma.
Click to expand...


No...U are so far past any point its scary. U dont live in America do you? Michael wont be known as having any legendary status here. Maybe in other Countries yeah but not here. Elvis takes this wholeheartedly. Elvis opitimized what America stands for and loves. Thats just the way it is. He was a good guy, he fought for his Country, he was EXTREMELY talented, he gave tons of money to several charities, and so on.
Ur obviously just upset Michael isnt gonna be number one on this one....
I dont think you have a clue on what it takes to be legendary. Otherwise you wouldnt be arguing this 'point' of yours.

wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Yes. If they put out compilations, most especially with unreleased tracks, most assuredly. He's already outsold Elvis with about 90% fewer album releases. And he is more famous.
Click to expand...


No hes not more famous. According to YOU he is but not to the majority opinion and thats what makes the difference.
Elvis outsells Michael now so what makes you think Michael would outsell him in 30 years or more? :huh:
Anyways im not gonna continue to argue this with you. Elvis got number one on this. :) Over and out.
 
Your points are ridiculous. I do live in America. The same America which harbors, despite what it may now claim, deep rooted racism which may not be quite as overt as it once was, but then again, doesn't that make it all that much more dangerous.

I'm not "upset", I'm simply pointing out that Michael is, quantintatively and in terms of quality more talented then Elvis, and you have failed to provide me with any argument against that point. Elvis is not more famous nor AS famous as Michael. He isn't even as famous as Muhammad Ali. When they did a rating of the most famous people on earth a few years back, the Pope was number one (which is more a symbol then a person) Queen Elizabeth was number two (again, more a symbol then a person) and Michael was number three. Muhammad Ali was fourth, Princess Diana was number 5. I don't even remember seeing Elvis in the top 10.

If Elvis outsells Michael now, then why is it, with only 7 solo records, Michael has sold 50 million more units then Elvis has with over 100 album releases? Mathamatically, that means Michael outsells Elvis by the vast majority.

I'm not saying Elvis was talentless. Far from it. He was a very good singer and obviously had something very special to be the icon that he is. But to say he was more gifted musically or "otherwise" then Michael Jackson is patently absurd and you've failed miserably to provide any counter points to that statement.

Whether Michael is more legendary in the US is beside the point. The US is not the only nation on this planet, it is not the most important. He is world wide better known, a better seller and has much broader appeal. And you're crazy if you think Michael won't have "any" legendary status in the US. He already does! He has numerous records which Elvis does not, in terms of sales, the number of people he draws. And further more, Michael owns 50% of a large portion of Elvis's music.

Michael makes money off of Elvis's legened and continues to make it off of his own. If Michael's talent doesn't put him over the top, well then, perhaps that little fact does, lol.
 
Last edited:
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Your points are ridiculous. I do live in America. The same America which harbors, despite what it may now claim, deep rooted racism which may not be quite as overt as it once was, but then again, doesn't that make it all that much more dangerous.

I'm not "upset", I'm simply pointing out that Michael is, quantintatively and in terms of quality more talented then Elvis, and you have failed to provide me with any argument against that point. Elvis is not more famous nor AS famous as Michael. He isn't even as famous as Muhammad Ali. When they did a rating of the most famous people on earth a few years back, the Pope was number one (which is more a symbol then a person) Queen Elizabeth was number two (again, more a symbol then a person) and Michael was number three. Muhammad Ali was fourth, Princess Diana was number 5. I don't even remember seeing Elvis in the top 10.

If Elvis outsells Michael now, then why is it, with only 7 solo records, Michael has sold 50 million more units then Elvis has with over 100 album releases? Mathamatically, that means Michael outsells Elvis by the vast majority.

I'm not saying Elvis was talentless. Far from it. He was a very good singer and obviously had something very special to be the icon that he is. But to say he was more gifted musically or "otherwise" then Michael Jackson is patently absurd and you've failed miserably to provide any counter points to that statement.

Whether Michael is more legendary in the US is beside the point. The US is not the only nation on this planet, it is not the most important. He is world wide better known, a better seller and has much broader appeal. And you're crazy if you think Michael won't have "any" legendary status in the US. He already does! He has numerous records which Elvis does not, in terms of sales, the number of people he draws. And further more, Michael owns 50% of a large portion of Elvis's music.

Michael makes money off of Elvis's legened and continues to make it off of his own. If Michael's talent doesn't put him over the top, well then, perhaps that little fact does, lol.
Click to expand...


Ugh. This is getting ridiculous now.
I dont have to 'proove a point' to you. The numbers speak for themselves. But fair enough you go on thinking Michael is more famous if it helps you sleep better. The rest will face reality.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure. Great arguments, I really learned so much, lol. I'm basing this on known facts, so, whatever.

Michael is also, along with Princess Diana, the most photographed person in the world. Another factor backing up my point. At least I can provide them.
 
Last edited:
I think we should leave it as Elvis and Michael are both amazingly talented, they are both ridiculously famous around the world and they've both sold uncountable amounts of records. One shouldn't have to be better than the other. I think too many MJ fans are hung up on MJ being better than everyone else and counting up record sales numbers and other statistics to determine how much better he is than everyone else. I mean, can't MJ fans just be satisfied that out of the millions of recording artists around the world and through out history, MJ is one of the very, very few that you can confidently say is one of the greatest. Everything doesn't have to be ordered from who's the best selling to who's the least selling or who's the most famous to who's the least famous. MJ is one the greatest and most famous entertainers in history. Leave it at that.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
I'm sure. Great arguments, I really learned so much, lol. I'm basing this on known facts, so, whatever.

Michael is also, along with Princess Diana, the most photographed person in the world. Another factor backing up my point. At least I can provide them.
Click to expand...


Well what Elvis did speaks for itself :wub: Time and time and time again ^_^


bob george said:
I think too many MJ fans are hung up on MJ being better than everyone else and counting up record sales numbers and other statistics to determine how much better he is than everyone else. I mean, can't MJ fans just be satisfied that out of the millions of recording artists around the world and through out history, MJ is one of the very, very few that you can confidently say is one of the greatest
Click to expand...

I couldnt agree more. :yes:
 
Last edited:
I'm just putting facts out there to counter the argument that Elvis is more of a legend or icon, that's all. Michael doesn't have to be number one. I wouldn't care if Michael was more famous or had sold more records because he's the most talented recording and performing artist I've ever seen and record sales can't make that. But to state this and that when it isn't true, and arguing for legendary status, its important to bring up statistics as they support the argument, or rather discussion, since that's what this thread is about.
 
Last edited:
Bob George said:
I think we should leave it as Elvis and Michael are both amazingly talented, they are both ridiculously famous around the world and they've both sold uncountable amounts of records. One shouldn't have to be better than the other. I think too many MJ fans are hung up on MJ being better than everyone else and counting up record sales numbers and other statistics to determine how much better he is than everyone else. I mean, can't MJ fans just be satisfied that out of the millions of recording artists around the world and through out history, MJ is one of the very, very few that you can confidently say is one of the greatest. Everything doesn't have to be ordered from who's the best selling to who's the least selling or who's the most famous to who's the least famous. MJ is one the greatest and most famous entertainers in history. Leave it at that.
Click to expand...

i say amen! this thread does not have to be a boxing match between two men of legendary status. altho i must say, elvis' achievements are already said in the past tense(being long dead) while michael is very much alive and is very much capable of attaining greater success in his career. his thriller record is umatched but who knows? the best is yet to come....:p
 
Elvis presley only knows how to shake his arse off on stage but dancing?? nope
 
Last edited:
ppl are bringing album sales into this? If u really want to get down. Count the amount elvis has sold by the large number of albums released... Then take the number of albums mike made devided by the small amount of solo albums he released.. You'll see that michael sells much, much more than elvis..

Between 1956-1977 elvis released 49 full albums.. Not inluding singles. That's 21 years..
 
Last edited:
MANY PEOPLE DO... That is why I posted.. I did not bring it up, untill others mentioned it.. MANY people care...


The big argument that is going on is about WHO'S BIGGER?? Well SALES is a large way to help with this idea.. Knowing that an estimate of 60% of Elvis's sales come straight from U.S., and majority of that left over 40% came from Europe.

Sales and WHERE they come from say alot..
 
Sales mean squat. They just prove who had the biggest marketing campaign. I just get sick of MJ fans being so obsessed with sales. Many fans consider sales more important than actual talent. And that's disappointing.
 
Is this still going on! You're never gonna convince each other, because at the end of the day, it's all about taste and that's subjective.

A Prince fan ain't gonna convince me he's better than Michael, but it doesn't mean they're wrong (ish!).
 
Bob George said:
Sales mean squat. They just prove who had the biggest marketing campaign. I just get sick of MJ fans being so obsessed with sales. Many fans consider sales more important than actual talent. And that's disappointing.
Click to expand...
actually sales means alot, especially when u consider who's buying them in which Mj's case is literally people all over from the world in BIG numbers, Elvis' legendry status is limited to western countrys (yeah there might be some exceptions) but he never did and never could and certainly never will conquer the whole world the way MJ did, I dont think MJ fans are obsessed with sales I reckon they bring it up mainly because its a reflection of his diverse appeal and if u you want to talk about "actual talent" Michael still wins over Elvis.
 
KOPV said:
MANY PEOPLE DO... That is why I posted.. I did not bring it up, untill others mentioned it.. MANY people care...


The big argument that is going on is about WHO'S BIGGER?? Well SALES is a large way to help with this idea.. Knowing that an estimate of 60% of Elvis's sales come straight from U.S., and majority of that left over 40% came from Europe.

Sales and WHERE they come from say alot..
Click to expand...


Um no. The thread is about who is the most LEGENDARY. And that has nothing to do with sales. And btw Elvis has been gone for over 30 years and he had a number one album a few years ago. ^_^ Talk about legendary...thats it.
 
suspicious_mind said:
Um no. The thread is about who is the most LEGENDARY. And that has nothing to do with sales. And btw Elvis has been gone for over 30 years and he had a number one album a few years ago. ^_^ Talk about legendary...thats it.
Click to expand...

then whats makes Elvis Legendry then? if Elvis didnt sell do u think anyone would care?
 
Why the hell are you people coming down on me???? I'm not the one that brought up SALES.. I'm RESPONDING to others comments.. damn!!

And YES Sales reflect ALOT.. Sales alone does not make someone a legend, but who can argue that it is a big factor.. If a person/group can sell a record breaking amount with multiple albums, that obviously shows how they were accepted by the mass.

Sales represent culture.. How do you think business figures out what they should sell.. Supply and Demand.. If there is a strong DEMAND for a specific persons album, it will sell well.. There will not be a strong demand without knowledge and DESIRE of having it..
 
The Constipation Killer said:
then whats makes Elvis Legendry then? if Elvis didnt sell do u think anyone would care?
Click to expand...

He has a HUGE fanbase and always will, He changed the face of Rock And Roll forever, he continues to sell TONS of albums 30+ years after his death, he never had a bad reputation in this Country or any others.
If Elvis didnt sell do i think anyone would care? What kinda question is that? lol



KOPV said:
Why the hell are you people coming down on me???? I'm not the one that brought up SALES.. I'm RESPONDING to others comments.. damn!!

And YES Sales reflect ALOT.. Sales alone does not make someone a legend, but who can argue that it is a big factor.. If a person/group can sell a record breaking amount with multiple albums, that obviously shows how they were accepted by the mass.

Sales represent culture.. How do you think business figures out what they should sell.. Supply and Demand.. If there is a strong DEMAND for a specific persons album, it will sell well.. There will not be a strong demand without knowledge and DESIRE of having it..
Click to expand...


Seriously. Chill. Ur post didnt quote anyone on this board.
 
Last edited:
The Constipation Killer said:
actually sales means alot, especially when u consider who's buying them in which Mj's case is literally people all over from the world in BIG numbers, Elvis' legendry status is limited to western countrys (yeah there might be some exceptions) but he never did and never could and certainly never will conquer the whole world the way MJ did, I dont think MJ fans are obsessed with sales I reckon they bring it up mainly because its a reflection of his diverse appeal and if u you want to talk about "actual talent" Michael still wins over Elvis.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
MJ has worldwide appeal and talks about talent, MJ sure wins over elvis.
as for legendary status, when an artist died, he will become more legendary.
so that's y you see the first two are those who have already passed away.
but anyway, this survey is done in US alone not worldwide.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top