Latest on MJJC

Michael 3rd Most Legendary

yh michael should have been no.1, after all he is the one still going.

i dont like elvses voice sorry
 
Elvis might win in America, but I don't think anyone else has the worldwide appeal of Michael Jackson.
 
I know they are great singers, but this vote is not about worldwide opinion, right?
Frank Sinatar is not that famous in my country.:mello:
 
raingirl said:
Before opening this tread I thought if they put Elvis before Michael I'm gonna scream. And Sinatra too,:perrin OMG!
But I guess that's just how the white american audience feels.
Click to expand...

please dont attack the white amercian audience
which I am included ... I guess you are not american
so you feel it is all right to state that .. Americans
LOVE MJ too - I dont know where people get that idea
from ... its the tabloids attacking MJ . NOT the public.
MJ still has a huge fan base in the USA ..

..............
This survey is done in the ritzy hamptons area and is not the expression of the
whole USA .. plus all the legends they speak of are not living. except for MJ so
at least he was considered legendary .. while still living .. also the age group
of who was surveyed has to taken into consideration - most of the younger
generation dont know who half these people are ... so it is not realistic -
Plus Not everyon is a fan of the pop music culture or MJ ...

Those who are MJ fans were probably were not very interested in taking the survey ...

Michael is number ONE and the ONE and ONLY King of POP - Legendary
some people are just ignorant of that FACT .. becuase MJ is invisible to
Most ... ONLY his fans are in the know ... many dont even know he has
and anniversary album coming .. as they do not keep up with the POPular
music culture ....
 
Last edited:
I can't get the page to load, but judging by the comments, Elvis is #1. I agree with that. He's definitely more "legendary" because he's dead. Plus he died young. That leaves the question "what more could he have done?", "what great things did we miss out on?". So that heightens his "legendary" status a bit. He was also the first true superstar of rock and roll and that always makes people "legendary", to be the first of something.
 
Michael is the greastest intertainer in the world and king of my heart. Nothing against Elvis cause i like him to but know one beats the king of pop no one.
 
Last edited:
^^^^
Fighting words right there lol. Now watch this turn into like a 10 page thread. Anyway, of course an Elvis fan would think he's better than Michael, but I disagree. I think Elvis was a great singer, but Michael is much more diverse and can do more things with his voice, so I just prefer his voice overall but it comes down to what you like personally. Everyone has their opinions.
 
Last edited:
Cinnamon234 said:
^^^^
Fighting words right there lol. Now watch this turn into like a 10 page thread.
Click to expand...



Well i didnt say it to start a fight - lol.
I was just being honest. Ive always liked Elvis more. Some people like Michael more some like Elvis more some like Justin Timberlake....lol
Thats the beauty of opinions...everyone has one to share :) :lol:
 
suspicious_mind said:
Well i didnt say it to start a fight - lol.
I was just being honest. Ive always liked Elvis more. Some people like Michael more some like Elvis more some like Justin Timberlake....lol
Thats the beauty of opinions...everyone has one to share :) :lol:
Click to expand...


^^^
Yeah but saying that about Elvis on an MJ site, you wont find a lot of people agreeing with you there lol so i'm just saying... but like I said in my comment above that I edited everyone has their opinions. Some people think Elvis is the greatest thing since slice bread and others like myself think Michael is pretty much the end all, be all lol. However, It really comes down to what moves you and what you like at the end of the day.
 
Cinnamon234 said:
^^^
Yeah but saying that about Elvis on an MJ site, you wont find a lot of people agreeing with you there lol so i'm just saying... but like I said in my comment above that I edited everyone has their opinions. Some people think Elvis is the greatest thing since slice bread and others like myself think Michael is pretty much the end all, be all lol. However, It really comes down to what moves you and what you like at the end of the day.
Click to expand...


Yeah i knew that. I knew it would get a reaction cause some obsessed fans think if you like someone better than Michael then you are the antichrist :lol:
 
suspicious_mind said:
Honestly would u think Michael was less talented if he didnt write some of his songs?
Click to expand...

To the extent of Elvis's ratio of songs he wrote and didn't write, yes, I would. It wouldn't impact my enjoyment of the music whatsoever, but that's not what I'm talking about.
 
Grand Master S said:
To the extent of Elvis's ratio of songs he wrote and didn't write, yes, I would. It wouldn't impact my enjoyment of the music whatsoever, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...



Well u probably dont know this, but back in 1955 it was just usual practice for A&Rs to choose the artists music for them. Elvis' manager Colonel Parker insisted that Elvis get to choose his own songs (some very much being chosen by the Colonel instead) and it stuck throughout his career. Elvis was pretty much stuck with the way the Colonel had it in the contract.
 
suspicious_mind said:
Well u probably dont know this, but back in 1955 it was just usual practice for A&Rs to choose the artists music for them. Elvis' manager Colonel Parker insisted that Elvis get to choose his own songs (some very much being chosen by the Colonel instead) and it stuck throughout his career. Elvis was pretty much stuck with the way the Colonel had it in the contract.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I don't have anything against Elvis nor even the principle of singers being solely singers and not songwriters. It doesn't impact my enjoyment of the music, again. But when we're actually looking at talent specifically and who has/had more of it, it goes a long, long way. Not to say that Elvis wasn't extremely talented at what he did, but there's the matter of what he didn't do. I understand if you just want to argue for him because he's your favorite, but that aspect of creation is a very relevant one. They are/were both extraordinary, immensely talented and legendary performers, but Michael has this whole other facet to his artistry off the stage that Elvis didn't. Speaking for me, the fact that Michael Jackson created songs such as Billie Jean and numerous others deserves immense recognition in discussions about who the greatest is. A great actor is a great actor, but a great actor who's also a great screenplay writer/director/producer is something else entirely.
 
Grand Master S said:
That's fine. I don't have anything against Elvis nor even the principle of singers being solely singers and not songwriters. It doesn't impact my enjoyment of the music, again. But when we're actually looking at talent specifically and who has/had more of it, it goes a long, long way. Not to say that Elvis wasn't extremely talented at what he did, but there's the matter of what he didn't do. I understand if you just want to argue for him because he's your favorite, but that aspect of creation is a very relevant one. They are/were both extraordinary, immensely talented and legendary performers, but Michael has this whole other facet to his artistry off the stage that Elvis didn't. Speaking for me, the fact that Michael Jackson created songs such as Billie Jean and numerous others deserves immense recognition in discussions about who the greatest is. A great actor is a great actor, but a great actor who's also a great screenplay writer/director/producer is something else entirely.
Click to expand...


I understand what ur saying. I just dont agree with it because i do feel so strongly that Elvis was better at what he did.
Of course Michael Jackson has done many great things and has made a definate name for himself time and again, but in my opinion alone he will never measure up to Elvis Presley. Musically or otherwise.
 
suspicious_mind said:
I understand what ur saying. I just dont agree with it because i do feel so strongly that Elvis was better at what he did.
Of course Michael Jackson has done many great things and has made a definate name for himself time and again, but in my opinion alone he will never measure up to Elvis Presley. Musically or otherwise.
Click to expand...

That "what he did" is really the key. I think it's a very respectable argument to make that Elvis was the greatest performer ever (Michael Jackson is my favorite, so you know which side I'd land on in that discussion). But for that other side of the artistry that Michael Jackson endeavored in to the point where he wrote most of the songs he's known for just give him that extra, much deserved bump overall. I do wonder that if the tables were turned and if Elvis Presley were the writer of his music and Michael Jackson wasn't, if you'd be arguing that Elvis should get extra credit for it, because it just seems fairly logical to me. How can that not be an enormous factor into the equation when we're looking at performers as great as Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson? Both of them so great, charismatic, enthralling, world dominating... But then:

One of them wrote his music and the other one didn't. Sometimes I think people have heard that so much that they've lost sight of what it really means.
 
Last edited:
Grand Master S said:
That "what he did" is really the key. I think it's a very respectable argument to make that Elvis was the greatest performer ever (Michael Jackson is my favorite, so you know which side I'd land on in that discussion). But for that other side of the artistry that Michael Jackson endeavored in to the point where he wrote most of the songs he's known for just give him that extra, much deserved bump overall. I do wonder that if the tables were turned and if Elvis Presley were the writer of his music and Michael Jackson wasn't, if you'd be arguing that Elvis should get extra credit for it, because it just seems fairly logical to me. How can that not be an enormous factor into the equation when we're looking at performers as great as Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson? Both of them so great, charismatic, enthralling, world dominating...

One of them wrote his music and the other one didn't. Sometimes I think people have heard that so much that they've lost sight of what it really means, especially in comparison to someone who doesn't.
Click to expand...


I honestly wouldnt think a thing about it if Elvis wrote his own music as opposed to Michael, because when i started to like Michael i didnt make it a point to learn if he wrote his own songs. I just liked them. I just like him. Same with Elvis, only obviously my admiration for him is much stronger, i never thought a thing about the song-writing aspect. I mean really when u hear a new artist on the radio do you think about the song and how great it is, or the fact that it may or may not have been written by them?
I think they both got this legendary status because of the fact that they both in their own way changed the face of music.
Elvis changed Rock and Roll, made everyone face the new reality of music, and became the King Of Rock And Roll.
Michael broke barriers wide open for artists that previously never had a chance to make it, and became known as the King of Pop.
When i think of the two of them tho personally they arent in the same category unless its just about music.
 
Last edited:
suspicious_mind said:
I honestly wouldnt think a thing about it if Elvis wrote his own music as opposed to Michael, because when i started to like Michael i didnt make it a point to learn if he wrote his own songs. I just liked them. I just like him. Same with Elvis, only obviously my admiration for him is much stronger, i never thought a thing about the song-writing aspect. I mean really when u hear a new artist on the radio do you think about the song or the fact that it may or may not have been written by them?
I think they both got this legendary status because of the fact that they both in their own way changed the face of music.
Elvis changed Rock and Roll, made everyone face the new reality of music, and became the King Of Rock And Roll.
Michael broke barriers wide open for artists that previously never had a chance to make it, and became known as the King of Pop.
When i think of the two of them personally they arent in the same category unless its just about music.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I've already said a bunch of times that whether or not a song is written by the singer doesn't impact how much I enjoy the song. The most important thing about music is the effect it has on me, after all. And for that, I really am cool with Elvis being your favorite and you believing he's the best singer/performer. But when we are looking specifically at genius, talent, being a visionary, etc. how can it possibly not matter that Michael Jackson wrote his music and Elvis Presley didn't? It's almost like fans on the opposite side want to side-step over that enormous aspect because it's inconvenient for Presley when we're talking about these specific things. I really cannot stress enough how important it is for this particular comparison that Michael Jackson created his music. I feel it should be an inherent, obvious truth that goes without saying. If it doesn't matter, then should he not have even bothered writing? Personal preference and acknowledgment are two different things.

Again, it's got nothing to do with who has the best music, but everything to do with who's the greatest genius.
 
Michael is a musical genius, his song writing is one of his major talents. It isn't some small talent, he's a master song writer. He's a technically more advanced, profecient and superior vocalist, he's a technically superior dancer and he's, well, I already said he's a musical genius in terms of composition. Michael writes the majority of his material, most importantly, he writes the majority of his best material and hit songs. Personal tast might lead you to like Elvis more, but Michael is more talented when one measures according to the standards used in determining talent in these areas.

But we're talking about legendary status. Of course, Michael is more well known around the world then is Elvis and he's statistically been more successful. If we're going off of this criteria.

I'll take quality over quantity any day. A great vocalist is more talented then an okay singer/songwriter. But you see, Michael isn't an "okay" singer/songwriter. He is world class in both fields, as well as in dance and stage performance. He emotes, he has the most incredible nuaunces (sp?) and facial expressions, he looks possesed on stage.
 
Last edited:
WannaBeStarin'Somethin, if Michael was around you all the time he'd have one hell of an ego! lol. Not that he doesn't have one now, but wow you sure do have a way with words. Anyway, I agree with everything you just said.
 
Grand Master S said:
I agree with that. I've already said a bunch of times that whether or not a song is written by the singer doesn't impact how much I enjoy the song. The most important thing about music is the effect it has on me, after all. And for that, I really am cool with Elvis being your favorite and you believing he's the best singer/performer. But when we are looking specifically at genius, talent, being a visionary, etc. how can it possibly not matter that Michael Jackson wrote his music and Elvis Presley didn't? It's almost like fans on the opposite side want to side-step over that enormous aspect because it's inconvenient for Presley when we're talking about these specific things. I really cannot stress enough how important it is for this particular comparison that Michael Jackson created his music. I feel it should be an inherent, obvious truth that goes without saying. If it doesn't matter, then should he not have even bothered writing? Personal preference and acknowledgment are two different things.

Again, it's got nothing to do with who has the best music, but everything to do with who's the greatest genius.
Click to expand...


Well i personally cant look at it that way because Elvis wasnt given the chance to express himself in his music like he wanted too. The Colonel ruined that for him. Not only in singles and full albums but in the movies as well. He didnt have the opportunity to do much of anything, but he still made it work VERY well past all that happened. The 68 Special was the ONLY thing that Elvis didnt take all of the Colonels advice on. The Colonel wanted Elvis to make that a Christmas show and obviously Elvis had different ideas, which almost led to them going their seperate ways, which in my opinion wouldve been a good thing.
To me it dosent matter at all that Michael wrote his own music. If tomorrow he comes out with a new song that Akon wrote and Michael never saw until he went into the studio i wouldnt think he was any less of a genius than i do now.
I think we just differ on the definition of 'genius'.
 
Last edited:
suspicious_mind said:
Well u probably dont know this, but back in 1955 it was just usual practice for A&Rs to choose the artists music for them. Elvis' manager Colonel Parker insisted that Elvis get to choose his own songs (some very much being chosen by the Colonel instead) and it stuck throughout his career. Elvis was pretty much stuck with the way the Colonel had it in the contract.
Click to expand...
Yeh, Elvis's contract under Colonel Tom Parker was ridiculous. No one would accept it these days. But I guess he didn't know any better at the time. He did write some songs though. Off the top of my head I know he was the lyricist for Love Me Tender. He was also a great producer. Phil Spector once said he regarded Elvis as one of the best music producers ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top