jackie11
Proud Member
yh michael should have been no.1, after all he is the one still going.
i dont like elvses voice sorry
i dont like elvses voice sorry
Very TrueMJ is number one amongest the living IMO
MJ is number one amongest the living IMO
Before opening this tread I thought if they put Elvis before Michael I'm gonna scream. And Sinatra too,errin OMG!
But I guess that's just how the white american audience feels.
^^^^
Fighting words right there lol. Now watch this turn into like a 10 page thread.
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:
^^^
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.
I personally think Elvis beats Michael hands down.
Musically, it's a matter of perspective. Talent-wise, it goes to the one who wrote his songs.
Honestly would u think Michael was less talented if he didnt write some of his songs?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think we just differ on the definition of 'genius'.
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.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.