Elvis v Michael Jackson. Who was THE King?

[Buzzer]

So, Norman Potting and BHAFCman, when was the point at which Elvis and Jackson were at their peaks? For me, seeing Elvis in the Vegas comeack tour, I don't think he was ever better.

For Jackson, I'd say either the Off the Wall album or THriller album period. Incredible albums, both of them. Just haven't dated one bit.

 

[Bhafcman]

So, Norman Potting and BHAFCman, when was the point at which Elvis and Jackson were at their peaks? For me, seeing Elvis in the Vegas comeack tour, I don't think he was ever better.

For Jackson, I'd say either the Off the Wall album or THriller album period. Incredible albums, both of them. Just haven't dated one bit.

i don't know much about elvis but from what family and friends say he was the THING pretty much thru his time. Michael has to be from off the wall up until Bad as after that his personal life ruined him and by the time he made invincible he was at the bottom but it still did ok. if u listen to stranger in moscow, leave me alone and off the wall that's MJ at his best

 

[Twinkle Toes]

I didn't really 'get' the importance of EP until I saw the '68 Comeback special. It made me realise how right John Lennon's statement about him was - not to mention Nick Cave (of this parish): i.e. "The King was born in Tupelo".

'Nuff said.

 

[Buzzer]

I didn't really 'get' the importance of EP until I saw the '68 Comeback special. It made me realise how right John Lennon's statement about him was - not to mention Nick Cave (of this parish): i.e. "The King was born in Tupelo".

'Nuff said.

And if Nick Cave thinks Elvis was the mutts nuts then who are we mere mortals to argue?

Nuff said, indeed.

 

[El Presidente]

Elvis for me. Didn't like his stuff when I was growing up, but more appreciative now. MJ had one, perhaps two great albums, but an awful lot of mediocrity too.

Elvis helped change a generation. I'm not sure MJ would have had the same impact had it not been for Quimcy (sic) Jones

 

[Twinkle Toes]

And if Nick Cave thinks Elvis was the mutts nuts then who are we mere mortals to argue?

Nuff said, indeed.

Exactly.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

It is hard to compare but Elvis' day was when media was still in it infancy and to reach out to so many was truly amazing. You have to remember access to lot of his music was with restricted airplay and also TV that didn't start until the afternoon and shutdown at midnight! He still though managed to take the World by storm. His death again remembering airtime was immense when compared to 24hr news today.

Both done stuff I would listen to but neither really rocked by boat.

I do wonder if MJ will be remembered like Elvis is 30 or so years down the line, I doubt it.

 

[BHAFC4EVER]

Neither.

 

[severnside gull]

obviously there will be exceptions but generally if you are over 50 you will be able to choose based on a degree of knowledge of Elvis' work in relation to what was happening in music at the time and his true impact.

If you are under 30 you can only really go for Jackson because you are too young to know anything else.

Those aged between 30 and 50 will swing it because they may have knowledge of both performers either directly or having been influenced by parents etc.


It's a bit like asking whether Stanley Matthews was better than Marradona. You can't really compare between 2 great performers and whatever your choice will tend to be influenced by your age more than by their relative abilities.








So I vote for ELVIS because he is THE King :guitarunk:

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Elvis for me. If you're into music I dont really see how you can knock either artist...other than to say they're not your cup of tea. To say either is over hyped is bollocks.

I've got 3-4 Elvis albums in my collection. In fact, I turned 40 last year and one of my presents was a boxed CD set of the Comeback 68 special. The first time I ever went on holiday on my own was a shoe-string backpacking trip to the US and I headed straight to Memphis and Gracelands/Sun Studio.

Favourite song, In the Ghetto.

 

[Andrew]

mj, imo elvis was crap

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I watched that shoddy Uri Gellar Jacko thing last night. I didnt know that MJ was in a space race with N-Sync to become the first artist to do the moon walk on the moon. This is the kind of lunacy I expect from pop stars. Full credit to both.

 

[drew]

I find Elvis' stuff tedious, boring, overplayed, too short to deserve being released, similar, and basic.

I find Jacko's material exciting, upbeat, ahead of its time, iconic, varied, and legendary.

One vote for Michael.

Too short! It was an age when singles never lasted more than 3 minutes. How can you say MJ was ahead of his time and not EP? In fact, EP was iconic, varied, legendary and upbeat. He did fast numbers and slow ones. I am not saying you have to like him or his music but try pointing out the differences between them rather than the similarities!

Elvis for me. Didn't like his stuff when I was growing up, but more appreciative now. MJ had one, perhaps two great albums, but an awful lot of mediocrity too.

Elvis helped change a generation. I'm not sure MJ would have had the same impact had it not been for Quimcy (sic) Jones

I concur although I suspect that Elvis had help from record producers as well!

It is hard to compare but Elvis' day was when media was still in it infancy and to reach out to so many was truly amazing. You have to remember access to lot of his music was with restricted airplay and also TV that didn't start until the afternoon and shutdown at midnight! He still though managed to take the World by storm. His death again remembering airtime was immense when compared to 24hr news today.

Both done stuff I would listen to but neither really rocked by boat.

I do wonder if MJ will be remembered like Elvis is 30 or so years down the line, I doubt it.

Nail on head.

 

[NMH]

Good question for the pop-pickers here, though Elvis suffers for being further from memory/previous generation.
Elvis endured through several decades, made it alone outside of a group, and was at the start of a completely uncharted style of music that only Little Richard was exploring ahead of him.
He lost a grip on his self-image and what it was to be a regular human being because of his fame and fortune, and he lost a grip on his health situation - to die early.


MJ had more of a hand in the writing and creating of his solo persona. For the times and the technology with video taking a big part in musical entertainment, he was a leading light. In a burgeoning style he forged a strong course for soul music, and took disco-soul to a new high.
His grip on reality and personal and social responsibility was another thing, and he too died young from the psychological dereliction of his health.

To a slight tangent - The Beatles knew when to quit as a band force, and they managed to place their fame and import into something understandable, that they could get over and not allow to consume them. For John Lennon, it was a member of the public that couldn't handle his accessibility and his fame.

In my opinion; The Beatles eclipse both Elvis and Jacko by far, in the pop field.
Vocally Roy Orbison was better than Elvis but lacked the youthful good looks and charisma.
Stevie Wonder, Isley Brothers, and actually, several others are better than MJ in the soul music genre but not as visually glamorous to take it to another level of entertainment.

 

[Binney on acid]

Neither. It's Springsteen.

 

[Nigella's Cream Pie]

Vocally Roy Orbison was better than Elvis but lacked the youthful good looks and charisma.

Orbison had great falsetto - but Elvis had an incredible all-purpose voice, as extolled at
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley

 

[Safe.]

Neither.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Buzzer: Elvis -check out the new Spankox Re- Version CD brought out by Pacha (of all people).

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Elvis for me.

His vocal range was just so much better than Jackson's.

And I grew up with Jackson's music , listened to Elvis retrospectively.