Michael Jackson verses Beatles:Come together better version

[Tangled Web]

Happy Xmas (War is Over) is such a nice song. I hold it up there with some of Lennon's best post Beatles work.

 

[jaguarr]

Finally. Along with The Who, I'd say they were one of the first punk bands. The overall attitude and rawness of it was fairly ahead of its time.

Also Noel and Liam have nothing on The Davies brothers when it comes to sibling rivalry in rock and roll. Ray stabbed David with a ****ing fork.

I'll tell you who's underappreciated and had a HUUUUUUUUUGE influence on nearly all of rock and roll to follow: Link Wray. .The guy friggin' invented electric guitar distortion and fuzz. He was the first and original prototype to the modern day guitar hero. And yet not many people even know who he was.

Another band that had a lot of influence but was underappreciated is Thin Lizzy. I know people who know their songs but had no idea that Thin Lizzy was the one that recorded them.

jag

 

[jaguarr]

From what I've seen critics refer to Appetite for Destruction as one of the greatest rock albums of all time. I know they had an image. Me personally I never care about image. It's irrelevant to talent as well as the sound. I think a person would have to feel that way in order to be a Michael Jackson fan as well. MJ probably has the worst image of any musician out there right now, and it's been pretty bad since the early 90's when his face started getting creepy and Neverland tales started emerging.

but G&R made some really good songs. You said yourself the had an ear for melodies and that's important for being respected and considered talented.

I really don't know how you can call Slash mediocre though. He's an amazing guitarist. I'm sure you've heard the solo at the end of November Rain. It's amazing. You should also hear his solo he did for Michael Jackson's billie jean at the 1995 mtv video music awards.

As far as accomplishments though? Appetite for Destruction was huge. I can't emember correctly but I think it sold like 18 million copies and both Use Your Illusions 1 and 2 each sold like 14 million copies.

I dont think Axle is one of the best vocalists of all time or anything. I just think he had a uniqe voice and laid down some vocals for some songs that sounded really good. And his voice was moving in certain songs.

All I said was that they were the sum of their parts and that they weren't all that great as individual musicians. I didn't say what they did wasn't groundbreaking for the time (in fact, I indirectly pointed out some of the things they did that WERE groundbreaking at the time). And, sorry, but Slash is a mediocre guitarist at best. He's not BAD, but he's not a virtuoso by any means. They are all pretty much nothing without each other, as the projects they've done since GNR broke up have all illustrated.

jag

 

[Spider-Bite]

you were pressing your luck with the beatles, dont you dare blaspheme bob dylan!

How was I pressing my luck with the Beatles? geez. And I stand by what I said about Bob Dylan. I know people here are claiming he's got emotions, but how do you define emotion in the music? The guy is a horrible vocalist. Absolutely no control over what notes he's hitting, and an extremely limited range. You absolutely can not lay down a difficult vocal arrangement in front of him and expect him to hit those notes.

 

[Spider-Bite]

All I said was that they were the sum of their parts and that they weren't all that great as individual musicians. I didn't say what they did wasn't groundbreaking for the time (in fact, I indirectly pointed out some of the things they did that WERE groundbreaking at the time). And, sorry, but Slash is a mediocre guitarist at best. He's not BAD, but he's not a virtuoso by any means. They are all pretty much nothing without each other, as the projects they've done since GNR broke up have all illustrated.

jag

well I'm no expert on Slash's post G&R career, but I know he did a lot of stuff with Michael Jackson, and he helped make a really great song called Give in to me. After that album he continued to do stuff with MJ, but that's also when MJ's music started going downhill.

 

[jaguarr]

well I'm no expert on Slash's post G&R career, but I know he did a lot of stuff with Michael Jackson, and he helped make a really great song called Give in to me. After that album he continued to do stuff with MJ, but that's also when MJ's music started going downhill.

You're not exactly pleading your case. Haha!

jag

 

[Spider-Bite]

Bob Dylan also has more soul in just his voice than Michael Jackson has in his whole body through out his whole career. And he can also write circles around Jackson. You think Knocking on Heaven's Door is a good song, that's no where near his best.

Actually I hate the original Knocking on Heaven's door. And he does not have more soul. It's hard for me to judge Dylan's song writing abilities because I can't really listen to the songs, because his voice irritates me so bad, but as far as sould and emotion go?

I really don't think he comes close. MJ can convey the feelings of living free for the moment, good times, happines, extreme sad, or extreme anger. or the whole "why?" question.

 

[Spider-Bite]

You're not exactly pleading your case. Haha!

jag

I know, just being fair.

 

[Tangled Web]

Dylan had soul and was relevent in how his songs reflected the time.

He's bull**** but he's among the most important musicians ever.

 

[The Chairman]

Happy Xmas (War is Over) is such a nice song. I hold it up there with some of Lennon's best post Beatles work.

It's my favorite Christmas song ever. I get teary-eyed hearing it.

I'll tell you who's underappreciated and had a HUUUUUUUUUGE influence on nearly all of rock and roll to follow: Link Wray. .The guy friggin' invented electric guitar distortion and fuzz. He was the first and original prototype to the modern day guitar hero. And yet not many people even know who he was.

Agreed, because I sure don't.

How was I pressing my luck with the Beatles? geez. And I stand by what I said about Bob Dylan. I know people here are claiming he's got emotions, but how do you define emotion in the music? The guy is a horrible vocalist. Absolutely no control over what notes he's hitting, and an extremely limited range. You absolutely can not lay down a difficult vocal arrangement in front of him and expect him to hit those notes.

With Dylan's music, you don't focus on Dylan's vocal abiliities (or lack thereof). The best way to look at Dylan is as a brilliant poet or storyteller who sets his songs to music. He's not a great singer in technical standards the way someone like Frank Sinatra or Freddie Mercury was. But in terms of interpreting and selling the song the way it's meant to be, he's second to none.

I myself can think of very few vocalists in rock who have a technically great voice (of course, jag will prove me wrong). There are some exceptions (McCartney, Elvis, Mercury, and I'd even throw in Robert Plant and Roger Daltrey). But I'd say many of the big rock stars have mostly merely listenable voices. But rock and roll was hardly about how well you could sing. It was always more about raw emotion and attitude (something Dylan has in spades).

 

[jaguarr]

Agreed, because I sure don't.

Do yourself a favor and look up some Link Wray stuff. The man was cited as a major influence by Hendrix.

With Dylan's music, you don't focus on Dylan's vocal abiliities (or lack thereof). The best way to look at Dylan is as a brilliant poet or storyteller who sets his songs to music. He's not a great singer in technical standards the way someone like Frank Sinatra or Freddie Mercury was. But in terms of interpreting and selling the song the way it's meant to be, he's second to none.

This is exactly right. Dylan's more akin to a musical bard poet who explored some incredibly complex socio-political topics at a time when doing so wasn't really the norm at all. He pushed boundaries with his words and his music, from a song-writing and arranging standpoint, is really layered and complex in a very subtle way. His voice, while limited, is an instrument he learned to work within the boundaries of and created a style all his own as a result.

I myself can think of very few vocalists in rock who have a technically great voice (of course, jag will prove me wrong). There are some exceptions (McCartney, Elvis, Mercury, and I'd even throw in Robert Plant and Roger Daltrey).

Well, back in "the day", there were some amazing technically proficient rock vocalists: Mercury, Plant, Daltrey, Annie Lennox, Lou Gramm, Paul Rodgers, Dennis Deyoung, Ronnie James Dio, Rob Halford, Geoff Tate, Don Dokken, EVERYONE from Yes, the guys from ELO, John Wetton of Asia and a whole lot more. Yes, they occasionally broke the rules in what they were doing but a lot of their vocal work is done using very proper singing techniques. Then there were guys like Bon Scott who just did what he did, technical prowess be damned, and flat out rocked on raw talent alone. Scott is a perfect example of someone using what he had and creating his own style that still holds up and is emulated by many to this very day. Axl stole more than a few cues from Bon Scott, but he never matched Scott's versatility or emotive ability, IMHO. (Hey...you asked. )

jag

 

[Addendum]

Traveling Wilburys for the win!

 

[Motown Marvel]

dude, link wray owns. ANTHONYNASTI, you know one of his songs, its that one song in pulp fiction, called "Rumble".

 

[The Chairman]

Do yourself a favor and look up some Link Wray stuff. The man was cited as a major influence by Hendrix.

Will do.

This is exactly right. Dylan's more akin to a musical bard poet who explored some incredibly complex socio-political topics at a time when doing so wasn't really the norm at all. He pushed boundaries with his words and his music, from a song-writing and arranging standpoint, is really layered and complex in a very subtle way. His voice, while limited, is an instrument he learned to work within the boundaries of and created a style all his own as a result.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

No, I really couldn't have.

Well, back in "the day", there were some amazing technically proficient rock vocalists: Mercury, Plant, Daltrey, Annie Lennox, Lou Gramm, Paul Rodgers, Dennis Deyoung, Ronnie James Dio, Rob Halford, Geoff Tate, Don Dokken, EVERYONE from Yes, the guys from ELO, John Wetton of Asia and a whole lot more. Yes, they occasionally broke the rules in what they were doing but a lot of their vocal work is done using very proper singing techniques. Then there were guys like Bon Scott who just did what he did, technical prowess be damned, and flat out rocked on raw talent alone. Scott is a perfect example of someone using what he had and creating his own style that still holds up and is emulated by many to this very day. Axl stole more than a few cues from Bon Scott, but he never matched Scott's versatility or emotive ability, IMHO. (Hey...you asked. )

And you answered. Thank you.

But like I said, many great rock stars did not have conventionally good voices. In addition to Dylan, Hendrix often sounded muffled and incoherent, and Janis is the female Dylan. But regardless, you proved me wrong.

 

[Henry Hill]

I prefer The Beatles' version. I don't care if Michael Jackson's voice is "better", it simply doesn't have the same effect on me as Lennon's does.
That's not to say that Jackson isn't a great artist in his own right though. Like you said, he has a lot of talent and his music is still influencing today's artists so like The Beatles, he's had a big impact on the industry. IMO, it's a bit like the countless Eddie Van Halen vs. Jimi Hendrix topics that turn up on guitar forums every few weeks. Sure, Van Halen might be a "better" guitarist then Jimi Hendrix, just like Michael Jackson might be a "better" vocalist then Lennon, but that doesn't mean that he'll have a greater effect on everyone.

 

[The Chairman]

dude, link wray owns. ANTHONYNASTI, you know one of his songs, its that one song in pulp fiction, called "Rumble".

Yeah, I recognized that one. I looked some of his stuff up on amazon, and I'll check him out.

 

[Tangled Web]

Traveling Wilburys for the win!

Damn that's quite a lineup.

 

[The Chairman]

Damn that's quite a lineup.

Yes it was.

BTW, Jeff Lynne (the guy on the far left) doesn't get enough credit, either. The man's brilliant IMO.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Remember all the talk about how Michael Jackson was wrong for putting the Beatles music in a commercial, and how Paul was so offended by it?

Guess what I just saw on tv. Paul McCartney doing a commercial. He's doing it too.

 

[The Chairman]

Remember all the talk about how Michael Jackson was wrong for putting the Beatles music in a commercial, and how Paul was so offended by it?

Guess what I just saw on tv. Paul McCartney doing a commercial. He's doing it too.

Paul's doing it to promote his album. Michael just put it there for really no reason.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Paul's doing it to promote his album. Michael just put it there for really no reason.

they are both doing it to make money.

 

[The Chairman]

they are both doing it to make money.

Paul's has to do with his new recording contract, I think. His new label is owned by Starbucks, so since Starbucks is promoting his new album, he in return is obligated to promote Starbucks.

 

[Addendum]

Remember all the talk about how Michael Jackson was wrong for putting the Beatles music in a commercial, and how Paul was so offended by it?

Guess what I just saw on tv. Paul McCartney doing a commercial. He's doing it too.

Paul has every right to use his music that he created and performed in a commercial if he chooses to do so.

With the Beatles music, that was music he, Lennon, Harrison, and Ringo created and performed. They decided not to use their music in a commercial, especially after Lennon died. All Michael Jackson did was purchase the rights to it and then use it in commercials.

2 different things

 

[The Chairman]

Paul has every right to use his music that he created and performed in a commercial if he chooses to do so.

With the Beatles music, that was music he, Lennon, Harrison, and Ringo created and performed. They decided not to use their music in a commercial, especially after Lennon died. All Michael Jackson did was purchase the rights to it and then use it in commercials.

2 different things

"You are correct Sir, yes!"

 

[Spider-Bite]

Paul's has to do with his new recording contract, I think. His new label is owned by Starbucks, so since Starbucks is promoting his new album, he in return is obligated to promote Starbucks.

so is he going to criticize starbucks? I didn't even know about that one. I saw him promoting Ipods. Hahaha.
it's the same thing. One guy has the rights, thus has the power. What Mj did is no different than what StarBucks did. It's a corporate world. And Paul is playing in it. Nobody gets to make a album without strings attached. When the Beatles made their music, they knew they were getting involved in the corporate world, and this could happen. And it's no differen today when Paul makes a commercial than it was when the Beatles signed their contracts, or when MJ did that commercial. This is just hypocritical.

Paul could have made less money in exchange for not being in a commercial but he chose to make more money instead, when he's already rich. You really think Paul McCartney couldn't get find somebody to get his album out? He's Paul McCartney. There are countless producers and record labels that would love to sign him.

I'm not saying there isn't anything wrong with Paul being in a commercial. I'm just saying he shouldnt' act all hypocritical. A lot of musicians back in the day got labeled a sell out for doing commercials. Now days it's accepted, but the truth remains, that the original reason for opposing commercials was to gain street cred, and look real, to look like they were thumbing their nose at corporate fat cats. Hammer's career suffered from his commerical he did, but now days all kinds of musicians do it without consequence.