post whos better and why

Where's the "They both suck" option?

I never thought this could be debated. Apparently I was wrong. The Beatles are better in my opinion, not only because they fit my music interests more than Michael Jackson, but they had a much longer legacy (The Beatles's are 49 years old and are still very popular, and most of Michael Jackson's hits can't be much older than 30 years, if that).


It's not there because you're a minority. I'm sure plenty of people don't have positive feelings toward both, but few people would go out of their way to say "They both suck." The question regards which one you like better, not whether or not you like any of them.

I haven't listened to all that much Beatles music, but what I have wasn't too special. I do, however like some of MJ's. My vote lies with him.


>Sal's Runescape Forum>Everything... Not Runescape>Off-Topic Discussion>Polls & Surveys

Any of those would do.

Michael Jackson, in my opinion. I've never really liked The Beatles =/

Is this really worth debating? They're both very influencial and successful pop artists, let's leave it at that.

Just because you've got the hots for Dave Mustaine doesn't mean you need to be butthurt about everyone else who makes music.

What a ridiculous argument. You're really judging Michael Jackson as the lesser because he was born later?

The Beatles. Only because they are more influential.

I hate both of there music but i'de say Michael because he was the butt of more jokes.

No, I'm saying The Beatles legacy has held together better than Michael Jackson's, even though they started much earlier. At least, this is what I have experienced.

Edit: I can see that I wasn't very clear on that.

Michael Jackson.
The Beatles have never appealed to me at all

The Beatles. MJs music makes me cry.

Thread is not titled "Who do you like more". It's "Who is better".

It's ridiculous to compare them both. In fact, it's ridiculous to compare any band through voting. Obviously people are going to pick which one they like more which does not mean that the more popular band necessarily has the most talent.

They're both talented and well-known artists who have made history throughout their careers.

Personal preference is The Beatles. Never liked Michael Jackson very much.

This isn't even a debate.

The Beatles revolutionized music.

Did they? Bob Dylan revolutionized music. He broke the traditional 3-4 minute song barrier and he basically ended the requirement of being an amazing singer. He proved that with the right lyrics, it doesn't matter how you sing. The Beatles didn't break any musical barriers and they didn't influence music as much as you would think. How many modern artists sound anything like The Beatles? You could say Nirvana had influence because they basically made hard rock mainstream. The Beatles did no such thing. They just made genuinely great music.

I disagree, Gillis. The Beatles did change music, but a lot of their major effects were indirect. As far as their music, they didn't do much more than make good songs prior to Revolver, with a few exceptions (ie, introducing sitar to pop music). The Beatles were very important in the birth of progressive and psychedelic rock, mastered production, and experimented in the studio. In example, they started the trend of multi-tracking vocals. The success of the Beatles is that instead of settling with what was guaranteed to sell records, they experimented and mastered the production of music. Overall, more people listen to the Beatles than to Dylan.

Bob Dylan was influencial, but he was in many ways the evolution of Woody Guthrie. Bob Dylan's early career revived folk music and made it popular, but it was really just him emulating his influences. His grandest moment was in 1965, when he went electric with his music. This moment is a powerful symbol of the way the 60's changed music forever. Bob Dylan was a genius and he broke plenty of barriers, but all he tried to do was to be a one-man version of Woody Guthrie, Johnny Cash, and Little Richard.

What's important in measuring "influence" is how much the artist is listened to and drawn from. Almost everyone likes the Beatles in some way, but I know plenty of people who can't stand Bob Dylan. The music of the Beatles has reached and inspired more musicians than Dylan ever did. I'd say that both of them were about equal as far as how they "revolutionized" music. They both represented a new wave of creativity at the same time. The popularity of the Beatles spread their influence further than Dylan, but Dylan was an icon for all the youth of the 60's.

The Beatles did major innovations, started the British musical wave or "British Invasion", had an enormous impact on culture and had an incredible amount of creativity. They are more transcendental than Michael Jackson, and it is amazing how, still even these many years after they disbanded, they keep selling so much, like they did when their remastered albums came out some days ago, but also keep having an impact on cinema (I am Sam, Across the Universe...) and arts (Cirque du Soleil). They also have a larger presence in media and their songs are covered more than MJ's. Like my dad says, usually no day goes by in which you don't hear something that the Beatles wrote, be it played by them or some cover or melody.

My vote, obviously, is with them.

PS: the Beatles also started the trend of music videos, with their videos of Rain and Paperback Writer... They also have a few movies, that aren't necessarily good ones though, and are cherished not only by young people in our days, but also by old people, in other words, they have a wider fan-range.

Too right. Other than the last sentence

The Beatles are better than Michael Jackson but that doesn't say much really.

I could probably name 30/40 bands off the top of my head who are better, but just go to my blog and get the artists on one of the blocks.

edit: i herd u liek gramarz

They cannot be compared. They are 2 seperate genres. They are both amongst the greatest of their genres, though I don't care for MJ's music.

If you are up for 4-chord wonders then the Beatles hit that perfectly and they did that extremely well and I do really enjoy their music but it's all quite similar a lot of the time. For their time, they changed music but music has advanced so much further. There is also the point i think, that The Beatles cannot stand the test of time quite so well as Michael Jackson. Just down to pure variation and personal preference I'll go with Michael Jackson.

On a side note, from Beatles spawned Oasis. Need I say more?

They are 2 different styles, how can you even compare?

I'd prefer MJ's music because im not a fan of boring music

beatles i lyk there music better

Beatles music is similar? Lol

Compare a song like Revolution to Something or Because. Totally different.

As I am a big fan of the Beatles, and not of Jacksons'...well, you can probably guess who I voted for.

debating about music is really stupid because it's entirely subjective, i enjoy both but i just picked the beatles because they influenced a lot of music... i think i was wrong though. so did MJ. whatever


Just give up.