Who's bigger? MJ or The Beatles?

[NileQT87]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

That's only the American sales. In worldwide sales, Elvis is ahead of the Beatles (shockingly enough, but it's true--Elvis is actually bigger overseas than in his own country).

Also, that's only counting sales stats counted from 1958 on when the RIAA was founded (see which megastar gets jipped there?). Elvis' sales count from 1954 to 1958 (his biggest years) is a dead zone because the RIAA wasn't founded yet. Neither the Beatles or Michael suffer from uncounted record sales because they simply came later. And I'll remind you that they still haven't figured out how many Elvis records were sold in the days following his death. They couldn't keep up. His accounting has always been a mess for those two reasons (and both were heavy sales periods).

Also, these are ALBUM sales. In Elvis' era, only adults bought albums because they had the money for them. Teens were only buying singles in the '50s. It wasn't until the '60s that teens could afford albums. The Beatles were the kings of the album, while Elvis blows everyone out of the water when it comes to the singles market.

Interestingly enough... We're back to the singles market in the form of the .mp3. Both MTV (Michael Jackson's format) and the album (the Beatles' format) are now dead while the single (Elvis' format) is coming back.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

That's only the American sales. In worldwide sales, Elvis is ahead of the Beatles (shockingly enough, but it's true--Elvis is actually bigger overseas than in his own country).

Also, that's only counting sales stats counted from 1958 on when the RIAA was founded (see which megastar gets jipped there?). Elvis' sales count from 1954 to 1958 (his biggest years) is a dead zone because the RIAA wasn't founded yet.

I trust the Beatles are STILL far ahead of Michael Jackson . . .

 

[NileQT87]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

And you would be correct. As I stated before, both Elvis and the Beatles have surpassed the billion mark. Michael is lagging far behind around the 750 million mark.

 

[FemurBone]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

According to the The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) it breaks down like this.

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt

ArtistCertified Units in Millions
BEATLES, THE 170
BROOKS, GARTH 128
PRESLEY, ELVIS 119
LED ZEPPELIN 111.5
EAGLES 100
JOEL, BILLY 79.5
PINK FLOYD 74.5
STREISAND, BARBRA 71
AC/DC 71
JOHN, ELTON 70
STRAIT, GEORGE 68
AEROSMITH 66.5
ROLLING STONES, THE 66
SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE 64
MADONNA 63.5
CAREY, MARIAH 62.5
JACKSON, MICHAEL 61.5
METALLICA 58 VAN HALEN 56.5
HOUSTON, WHITNEY 54

That list only includes US sales. It doesn't include World Wide Sales.

But Thriller sold 109 Million! There are many other solo artists and groups in the 20 -30 Million range. In terms of pure sales Thriller makes his career lopsided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

He peaked early and diminished after that.

It doesn't matter. He was still outselling everyone else even after Thriller.

 

[NileQT87]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Not only just American sales, but American ALBUM sales. Again, I repeat, the RIAA's standards favor only artists after 1958 who are album artists. Elvis peaked prior to 1958 and was primarily a singles artist when that format was king.

In worldwide sales, it goes 1) Elvis, 2) Beatles, 3) Michael. Garth is an America-only phenomenon (also benefiting from remotely recent and competent record keeping without that 1958 problem). Elvis is more popular overseas while the Beatles are more popular in America.

In fact, I've heard Bing Crosby has outdone Elvis DRAMATICALLY (the Beatles are really outdone here) with charted records.

http://www.elvisinfonet.com/bing.html

Between 1927 and 1962 he scored 368 charted records under his own name, plus twenty-eight as vocalist with various bandleaders, for a total of 369. No one else has come close; compare Paul Whiteman (220), Sinatra (209), Elvis (149), Glen Miller (129), Nat King Cole (118), Louis Armstrong (85), the Beatles (68)

The reason Bing and Sinatra aren't on that list at all is because of that same 1958 problem that hurts Elvis.

Interesting stats: Elvis was the #1 best selling artist of the '50s, #2 best selling artist of the '60s (after the Beatles--but you'd never hear Elvis get credit for being that big in the '60s) and #10 in the '70s (a decade his musical output has largely been diminished much further than that in--he was still selling a lot more records than many supposedly "defining" acts of that decade). Generational bias doesn't always match the real numbers.

And for all the hand-wringing done about the fact that a white man was the top-selling act of the '50s, the #2 best selling artist of the '50s was Fats Domino. Kind of puts a sock in that complaint.

 

[the Dagman]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Reading the thread title, I was half expecting the discussion of bugs on pot plants.

The Beatles, for the reasons mentioned.
But MJ, should be given credit for probably launching MTV and the whole music video business.

Were you alive in the 1980's?

MTV was way successful and established before they ever aired a Michael Jackson music video. In fact, Jackson literally had to fight tooth and nail just to get them to air the videos from Thriller. It was MTV that inspired the Thriller video, not the other way around. True, he did become popular and one of MTV's most played acts after he got them to air his work. But to credit Michael Jackson with the creation of the music video business is complete revisionist history. The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night, Yellow Submarine and Elvis' Comeback Special had more to do with MTV's creation than Jackson ever did.

And yes, the Beatles beats Michael Jackson hands down any day of the week. Jackson peaked with Thriller and everything that followed was merely tweaks on that work and tweaks on those same old dance steps. He never really went out of the creative bounds he established with Thriller as the Beatles did with their later works. Listen to Here's The Beatles and compare it to Sgt. Pepper's or the White Album and you will hear a tremendous amount of musical growth and songwriting prowess. Just because people still bought Jackson's albums in the millions doesn't signify that he was a musical genius. Rather it is more of a statement on the gullibility of his fan base.

 

[FemurBone]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Just because people still bought Jackson's albums in the millions doesn't signify that he was a musical genius. Rather it is more of a statement on the gullibility of his fan base.

Okay now you're just being a bigot! That's all there is to it.

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

But Thriller sold 109 Million! There are many other solo artists and groups in the 20 -30 Million range. In terms of pure sales Thriller makes his career lopsided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

He peaked early and diminished after that.

It's probably better, and more accurate, to say his career "spiked" with Thriller. He still sold a lot of damn copies of his other albums.

 

[Rafterman]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Reading the thread title, I was half expecting the discussion of bugs on pot plants.

The Beatles, for the reasons mentioned.
But MJ, should be given credit for probably launching MTV and the whole music video business.

Were you alive in the 1980's?

MTV was way successful and established before they ever aired a Michael Jackson music video. In fact, Jackson literally had to fight tooth and nail just to get them to air the videos from Thriller. It was MTV that inspired the Thriller video, not the other way around. True, he did become popular and one of MTV's most played acts after he got them to air his work. But to credit Michael Jackson with the creation of the music video business is complete revisionist history. The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night, Yellow Submarine and Elvis' Comeback Special had more to do with MTV's creation than Jackson ever did.

And yes, the Beatles beats Michael Jackson hands down any day of the week. Jackson peaked with Thriller and everything that followed was merely tweaks on that work and tweaks on those same old dance steps. He never really went out of the creative bounds he established with Thriller as the Beatles did with their later works. Listen to Here's The Beatles and compare it to Sgt. Pepper's or the White Album and you will hear a tremendous amount of musical growth and songwriting prowess. Just because people still bought Jackson's albums in the millions doesn't signify that he was a musical genius. Rather it is more of a statement on the gullibility of his fan base.

Spot on.

His fan base was made up of naive children who didn't know any better. My two youngest daughters were among them, they grew out of it.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

The first music video I'm personally aware of (There have always been music promos of some sort or other shot on film), is Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. That's 1975. Thriller showed up in 1984, three years after MTV started. As always, MJ took external influences and took them to the next level. Innovative he was not. Godley and Creme's Cry years before Black and White for morphing faces. Shalamar for the moonwalk.

Elvis was an awesome vocalist. The Beatles were innovative musicians. MJ was the 20th Century's PT Barnum. Showman extraordinaire.

Michael Jackson changed the music business.
The Beatles changed popular music itself.

It's the latter that means more to me.

 

[Joby]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Just because people still bought Jackson's albums in the millions doesn't signify that he was a musical genius. Rather it is more of a statement on the gullibility of his fan base.

Okay now you're just being a bigot! That's all there is to it.

I wouldn't go that far on him or anyone else here, because they probably love it that you called him a bigot. But he has attacked MJ fans with that line Rather it is more of a statement on the gullibility of his fan base. The 3 or 4 folks here trying to stay fair with MJ have not attacked the die hard fans of the Beatles or Elvis.

But reading some of these posts, the way the Beatles are defended and MJ ruthlessly put down, (comparing him to PT Barnum) it DOES make you wonder what the real reasons are for people's firm stance. I had no idea we had that many Beatles and Elvis fans here.

 

[Joby]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Reading the thread title, I was half expecting the discussion of bugs on pot plants.

The Beatles, for the reasons mentioned.
But MJ, should be given credit for probably launching MTV and the whole music video business.

Were you alive in the 1980's?

MTV was way successful and established before they ever aired a Michael Jackson music video. In fact, Jackson literally had to fight tooth and nail just to get them to air the videos from Thriller. It was MTV that inspired the Thriller video, not the other way around. True, he did become popular and one of MTV's most played acts after he got them to air his work. But to credit Michael Jackson with the creation of the music video business is complete revisionist history. The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night, Yellow Submarine and Elvis' Comeback Special had more to do with MTV's creation than Jackson ever did.

And yes, the Beatles beats Michael Jackson hands down any day of the week. Jackson peaked with Thriller and everything that followed was merely tweaks on that work and tweaks on those same old dance steps. He never really went out of the creative bounds he established with Thriller as the Beatles did with their later works. Listen to Here's The Beatles and compare it to Sgt. Pepper's or the White Album and you will hear a tremendous amount of musical growth and songwriting prowess. Just because people still bought Jackson's albums in the millions doesn't signify that he was a musical genius. Rather it is more of a statement on the gullibility of his fan base.

Spot on.

His fan base was made up of naive children who didn't know any better. My two youngest daughters were among them, they grew out of it.

What's with these venomous personal attacks on MJ fans? Don't you think this is out of line and just a little uncalled for?

 

[the Dagman]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Just because people still bought Jackson's albums in the millions doesn't signify that he was a musical genius. Rather it is more of a statement on the gullibility of his fan base.

Okay now you're just being a bigot! That's all there is to it.

No, that's not. It was merely a critique based on the creativity used in creating the music that defined the man's career. Which wasn't much after Thriller. He spent the last 25 years rehashing the ground he staked in that album to continuing diminishing returns. His sales being as high as they were for his work following Thriller, a slow decline over the last two decades, I attribute to his die-hard fan base which you seem to be one of. If he ever would have had another ground-breaking effort, one of his later albums would have exceeded the sales of the album that proceeded it. That would have been evidence of him expanding his fan base. He never had that.

I find your name-calling offensive and inflammatory and I believe it is against the rules of this forum. Please learn to discuss things like a rational adult. In no way did I refer to the man's racial make-up and to have you label me a bigot disgusts me to no end. Just because you have an obvious bias towards Jackson, and obviously turning a deaf ear to his actual work, is no reason to expect other people's opinions to change to suit your own.

I do understand how you feel. I am something of a die-hard fan of Pink Floyd and U2. But I am rational enough to see that the Floyd peaked with The Wall (although some would say Dark Side Of The Moon. But I thoroughly enjoyed Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall. All three of which explored using a single theme for an entire album which peaked with The Wall), and U2 with Joshua Tree. Sure, I really liked a lot of what followed for each group and I have seen each in concert three times. But I can tell the difference between what is merely good and what is ground-breaking, and I invite you to do the same.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

But reading some of these posts, the way the Beatles are defended and MJ ruthlessly put down, (comparing him to PT Barnum) it DOES make you wonder what the real reasons are for people's firm stance.

Just being reactionary I guess. There's only so much wall to wall news coverage, endless tribute shows, and replays of Thriller that some people can take before they start yelling STFU at their TVs, and when it comes to the Dianafication of death, the shameless eulogising and elevation to sainthood that a celebrity (regardless of stature or impact) receives, it's less to do with a public expiation of grief, than it to do with media outlets pushing the biggest news story to come their way, indeed since the death of Princess Di.

After 24 hours of non-stop Jackson mania, even the most tolerant of non-fans will be hard pressed to avoid complaining. And when the first "Yeah but he was a suspected paedo" post appears on a forum, the hardcore fans will be up in arms, and flame war commences. All because of the media milking a story.

Compare it to the days of fewer channels and non-rolling news coverage. With Elvis, and Lennon, it was just as shocking and seismic a news story when it broke. But then we'd get time to take the news in, think about it, examine our feelings. A few hours later there would be more on a proper news bulletin, then some time later, a hastily edited tribute programme. We'd be able to put those events in context for ourselves, and determine what they meant to us personally. Now it's as if we are children again, and the kindly news companies hold our hands through the process, telling us what to feel and when to feel it. Guiding us through the official grief process. What if we don't feel particularly affected? That resentment at being patronised has to be expressed somewhere, and aside from chucking a cushion at the TV screen when channel hopping makes no difference, all that's left is to send a chorus of 'Yeah buts' to a eulogy thread.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

The first music video I'm personally aware of (There have always been music promos of some sort or other shot on film), is Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. That's 1975. Thriller showed up in 1984, three years after MTV started. As always, MJ took external influences and took them to the next level. Innovative he was not. Godley and Creme's Cry years before Black and White for morphing faces. Shalamar for the moonwalk.

Elvis was an awesome vocalist. The Beatles were innovative musicians. MJ was the 20th Century's PT Barnum. Showman extraordinaire.

Michael Jackson changed the music business.
The Beatles changed popular music itself.

It's the latter that means more to me.

The Beatles changed the WORLD.

 

[FordSVT]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

I think MJ had an enormous influence on modern popular music from 1980 onward. He was a true original, and people are still trying to emulate him almost 30 years later. At this point, whether or not that's necessarily a good thing is open for debate. That said, his influence can only be diminished by people who don't know what they're talking about or who have a personal grudge against him. He wasn't just some guy who got lucky, sold a lot of records and grabbed his crotch a lot, that's foolish. He was genuinely talented and influential, definitely one of the most influential people in music in the last 30 years.

The Fab Four, however, have and continue to influence the music industry and culture on a much longer and grander scale. The nod goes to the Beatles.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Beatles without question. Not even close.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Reading the thread title, I was half expecting the discussion of bugs on pot plants.





Were you alive in the 1980's?

MTV was way successful and established before they ever aired a Michael Jackson music video. In fact, Jackson literally had to fight tooth and nail just to get them to air the videos from Thriller. It was MTV that inspired the Thriller video, not the other way around. True, he did become popular and one of MTV's most played acts after he got them to air his work. But to credit Michael Jackson with the creation of the music video business is complete revisionist history. The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night, Yellow Submarine and Elvis' Comeback Special had more to do with MTV's creation than Jackson ever did.

And yes, the Beatles beats Michael Jackson hands down any day of the week. Jackson peaked with Thriller and everything that followed was merely tweaks on that work and tweaks on those same old dance steps. He never really went out of the creative bounds he established with Thriller as the Beatles did with their later works. Listen to Here's The Beatles and compare it to Sgt. Pepper's or the White Album and you will hear a tremendous amount of musical growth and songwriting prowess. Just because people still bought Jackson's albums in the millions doesn't signify that he was a musical genius. Rather it is more of a statement on the gullibility of his fan base.

Spot on.

His fan base was made up of naive children who didn't know any better. My two youngest daughters were among them, they grew out of it.

What's with these venomous personal attacks on MJ fans? Don't you think this is out of line and just a little uncalled for?

Hey, if they want to defend a child molesting, elephant man bones buying, face falling apart, baby dangling freak, then fuck em.

 

[wamdue]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Long-term? The Beatles. MJ declared himself the "King of Pop" - that doesn't actually make it true.

and if I recall correctly The Beatles declared themselves bigger than Jesus.

of course the fact that Micheal Jackson declared himself King of Pop is what it is, but whats important is that the media continued to call him that.

that said I got to go with the Beatles

and black/white issue, it is hard for me to see Micheal Jackson as a black man, but not because his music transcends race. However Jackson is alot better than most of the current black artists, whilst he inspires artists of all colours (see Justin Timberlake)

as for the other stuff, yes he was a very damaged man who probaly did those things he was accused of, but I dont think that makes his music any less great.

 

[ITL]

Re: Who's bigger? MJ or The Beetles?

Long-term? The Beatles. MJ declared himself the "King of Pop" - that doesn't actually make it true.

and if I recall correctly The Beatles declared themselves bigger than Jesus.

Not quite. That was Lennon alone - and even then, it was taken out of context. It was never intended as the egotistical and self-important statement that it was made out to be. Lennon was saying that acts such as The Beatles were having more of an effect on the youth of the day than religion was.

It was not a boast, but an observation of the culture of the time as he saw it.