WildStyle;3715851 said:
It's all subjective. I love the Beatles. Michael did too incidentally. I don't like how everything has to be ranked and be in competition. Good music is good music.
Don't get me wrong, but the feeling wasn't quite so mutual, just look at Paul and MJ after the whole catalogue fiasco, he pretty heavily mocked MJ at times, Whilst someone like Stevie Wonder (Musically in another league to McCartney imo) always stuck up for Michael. Something gives me a feeling John wouldn't like him either as the man was ridiculously ignorant, once proclaiming, "Jazz," he said, "is just a lot of old blokes drinking beer at the bar, smoking pipes and not listening to the music." about a genre infinitely more complex and skillful than anything he's ever created, and insulting a lot of the black community indirectly aswell no doubt, who had huge routes in rhythmic music, and then says this “Living is Easy with Eyes Closed.” walking hypocrite i think. I dunno maybe it's just me, but Michael does a brilliant job with come together, vocally nails it, yet as much as i love it, it isn't one of the strongest tracks on history when up there with tracks like stranger in moscow imo, yet it's a beatles classic, something like beat it or something in their catalogue. Yet Michael has to give it everything to make it not seem like a fall in quality on history. I'm a studying musician to a high level (classical degree, doing some pop and jazz aswell), and i'll let you in on a little secret, most people i've ever met higher up in music start to question what is really so good about the Beatles, if anything, once their understanding of music improves, it's a taboo to question them, but once you get away from the school boys learning guitar wanting to be oasis or something, you get into an environment where you can question them. A lot of the great stuff in their work, specifically arrangements was actually done by George Martin, an exceptional producer and a classically trained musician, though i do concede, credit where credit is due, they were great with vocal hooks (see the cliche hey jude for example) and lyrically strong, yes i realize i'm basically doing what other people say regarding Michael and Quincy, however lets just say one act enjoyed a hell of a lot of media praise, while the other was hounded like crazy, and the reality's might be the opposite of the media and general public assumption stance regarding these acts. They in no way imo deserved the hype they got, it was all just that, hype, in the same years Shostakovitch released his 12th symphony (i know most of you guys won't be into classical, but trust me
) and it was genius on a level the Beatles could scarcely comprehend, yet compared to the Beatles, is totally unheard of. Don't shoot me here guys, but to be fair, to be really fair, i would actually say, If Michael were just a song writer/singer he'd be slightly overrated with how big he is, but only slightly, not that he isn't ridiculously good in those fields anyway, but he isn't just that is he, he is the whole package in one, the whole visionary element, dance and entertainment ability, lack of musical training yet still insane results, (had a team yes) a solo artist, he is rated where he should be, however, the Beatles are rated way too high imo, definitely by the general public, but especially by critics, when you compare the difference in how they are treated compared to Michael, it's ludicrous beyond belief. But i forgot, Michael doesn't play any instruments (i know he does really, i'm talking in the style of Beatles fans), he's just an industry dummy with no real talent unlike like the golden Beatles. In exactly the same way that Beethoven was so shite because he was deaf, and obviously you arn't a musician if you can't hear things......... utter bullshit.
Just my two cents though
it's ok if you disagree, just venting some frustration towards the attitudes of Beatles fans I've come across
