You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Bono wrote:tejastech08 wrote:Elvis shouldn't be listed next to the Beatles. Elvis ripped off music from African American rock and roll pioneers and was able to sell it to white audiences because he was white. He had a good voice but he didn't write his own music and his massive success was very much a product of racial discrimination at the time. Elvis was a massive star, there's no denying his popularity. But he's no more legit than Michael Jackson. In fact, I would argue Jackson is more relevant because at least he wrote his own music and he actually has some really great lyrics.
That's a fair arguement and I can definately understand that point of view of MJ being more legit than Elvis. What you're doing though is basically blaming Elvis for being white and being the first to "rip off" black artists. Is that his fault? Maybe we all owe a huge debt to Elvis for bringing rock n' Roll to the masses. Was it fair that the African American artists were ignored? Nope. Is that Elvis's fault? Nope. I don't really think you can say Elvis "ripped them off" either. That's a pretty bold statement. Yes Elvis had writers but to say white people doing rock n' roll were ripping black people off is almost saying white people should've found their own style and left rock n' roll alone.
He did rip them off though. "Hound Dog" is arguably his biggest hit and guess who sang it first: Big Mama Thornton.
Rock and roll started with the Mississippi Delta Blues. You can say that without a doubt if discrimination wasn't around, Elvis wouldn't have been as big as he was. But since he was as big as he was, he could have easily used his clout to point out the history of rock and roll to all the whites across the country who worshiped him. But he didn't. He played it safe and took all the credit. The Beatles did a far better job of pointing out the influence of African Americans on rock and roll. They weren't afraid to say who their biggest influences were and I think that is commendable.
Led Zeppelin ripped off many a blues artist and other rock bands as well. It happens all over the place, I don't think that should detract from their success. Elvis/Zep may not have been completely original with all they did but they did it better than anyone else.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Thats funny. Even funnier that he was married to Janet before she got big with Control.
I remember Debarge. That song 'Who's Johnny' was all over MTV for a very short period of time.
Who's Johnny was cool because of Short Circuit, to me at least.
But don't forget Rhythm of the Night & You Wear It Well. They beat those into the ground too.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
tejastech08 wrote:Bono wrote:That's a fair arguement and I can definately understand that point of view of MJ being more legit than Elvis. What you're doing though is basically blaming Elvis for being white and being the first to "rip off" black artists. Is that his fault? Maybe we all owe a huge debt to Elvis for bringing rock n' Roll to the masses. Was it fair that the African American artists were ignored? Nope. Is that Elvis's fault? Nope. I don't really think you can say Elvis "ripped them off" either. That's a pretty bold statement. Yes Elvis had writers but to say white people doing rock n' roll were ripping black people off is almost saying white people should've found their own style and left rock n' roll alone.
He did rip them off though. "Hound Dog" is arguably his biggest hit and guess who sang it first: Big Mama Thornton.
Rock and roll started with the Mississippi Delta Blues. You can say that without a doubt if discrimination wasn't around, Elvis wouldn't have been as big as he was. But since he was as big as he was, he could have easily used his clout to point out the history of rock and roll to all the whites across the country who worshiped him. But he didn't. He played it safe and took all the credit. The Beatles did a far better job of pointing out the influence of African Americans on rock and roll. They weren't afraid to say who their biggest influences were and I think that is commendable.
Led Zeppelin ripped off many a blues artist and other rock bands as well. It happens all over the place, I don't think that should detract from their success. Elvis/Zep may not have been completely original with all they did but they did it better than anyone else.
Zeppelin deserves plenty of criticism but they were a lot more creative than Elvis.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
There isn't a single original idea in music. It all originates from something that came before it. It's not a "rip off" You may not like how Elvis handled himself and you may not like the fact that discrimination against black artists was more prevelant in music back than but to say Elvis ripped off rock n' roll is to say all music is a rip off thus tainting every artist throughout time. It's called evolution. Michael Jackson would also be a rip off artist. Everyone who's ever been influenced is a rip off artist then.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Elvis made his legend through his stage presence as a PERFORMER.
That's all it took. E carved his own niche. Nothing else was needed. Elvis was not Lennon or Jackson in terms of making music, but as a performer, I think Elvis was the King on that front.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Elvis was a white man playing black music and that made him somewhat more acceptable in a very repressed period of time in American culture.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Elvis was a white man playing black music and that made him somewhat more acceptable in a very repressed period of time in American culture.
Bingo. Chuck Berry was better than Elvis and would have been much bigger than Elvis if he was white.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Elvis made his legend through his stage presence as a PERFORMER.
That's all it took. E carved his own niche. Nothing else was needed. Elvis was not Lennon or Jackson in terms of making music, but as a performer, I think Elvis was the King on that front.
MJ was a better performer than Elvis. Beatles are hands down the most important artist in modern pop music history. The other two (Elvis, MJ) are fluff compared to the Beatles. But of the two, I consider Jackson slightly more legit because instead of being the beneficiary of discrimination he actually broke down discriminatory barriers and he wrote his own music while Elvis didn't. His music isn't any more stylistically important than Elvis' though. They're both fluff. MJ influenced some truly dreadful crap that rules the music world today. The only one that I think is actually worth a damn is Usher.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
The Beatles are the most influential band in rock history period. I've always said that when teaching music classes in school, that students should be give the entire Beatles catalogue to listen to. With that said MJ is a close second to influence as many artists. I'd probly place him equal to the Beatles but I blame MJ for giving us crap like Timberlake. I said in another thread that it was unbelievable that when asked what MJ's best album is, 4 were named and the four of them were all defendable. Few artists can have that merit. As a matter of fact The Beatles may be the only other ones that can have as many albums to be claimed as their best and have it defendable. And nobody can take that away from MJ wether you like him or not. One of the last icons in music passed away and we may have only one left in McCartney maybe two. I named Jagger but take him away and replace him by Brian Wilson. There will never be another one like MJ nor the Beatles.
