I don't know how much Jackson composed, but I think composition is an overrated part of rock/pop music.
WTF, if no one wrote the songs, they wouldn't have anything to sing!! Its the most important part!!
And if Elvis hadn't have performed the songs they would be forgotton. How many people know who wrote Suspicious Minds? Or Heartbreak Hotel?
I'm not saying composition isn't important - in some cases more than others - but rock is essentially a performance art. Lennon/McCartney were composers but neither did anything outside the Beatles that matched the group's performances. Same with Jagger/Richards and the Stones, same with Jones/Strummer and the Clash and pretty much everyone else. Of course there are exceptions (eg Burt Bacharach) but knowing your way around a few chords, having a feel for the music and communicating it is where the genius is. Applies to Jackson as well as Elvis.
Elvis changed the whole culture for music way back in 1954, he shook the world and taught it to get down. The man was and still is a phenomonen (sic).
He has been dead for 34 years, and yet still around this country and others, he attracts fans to events and meet ups. Only this Sunday I was at an allday fan club event, attended by well over 200 people, pure Elvis music, nobody in white suits, real fans, who love the man and the music. In three weeks time I am at a weekender in a hotel in Maidstone for 3 nights of indulgence. These events go on up & down the country nearly every weekend , there are two monthly events in London and one in Strood that I attend.
His range was vast, from Rock 'n' Roll, Hillbilly, Rockabilly, Gospel (he learnt to sing in Gospel churches as a child, in fact they were the only records he won grammys for) Ballads, Country, message/protest songs (If I Can Dream). His catalogue is vast, not just Suspicious Minds and Hearbreak Hotel, they are a very small percentage of his work, try youtube for his version of Bob Dylans Dont Think Twice or Hey Jude by the Beatles that he never recorded and only sang on stage for an example.
Michael Jackson was a very talented man and the king of pop, I have no truck with his music or his popularity, but he will never have the longevity, popularity and be able to touch so many peoples lives as Elvis did and still does.
Will over 200 MJ fans gather on a cold night in London in 34 years time to dance the night away to his music?
And for the record, Elvis did not die on the toilet. He was in his bathroom, which is a big as a bedroom in his favourite reading chair. He was nocturnal, slept all day, partied at night. He went in there to read as his girlfriend at the time (Ginger Alden) wanted to sleep, she woke in the late afternoon and found him slumped face forward (still in pyjamas and dressing gown) on the floor in the bathroom,
Great post DA9, I don't believe Michael Jackson will have that kind of legacy due to controversy he attacked in the mid 90s and his general weirdness. If that didn't occur he may have been on a similar level.
The thing with these sort of questions is there is no right or wrong answer, its all about personal taste. I like Jacksons music, but Elvis hit me like a steam train as a boy (born in 67) and that fascination with all things Presley continues today
Jackson sold more, but then he had the advantage of starting much younger, living longer and selling records in a more prosperous era. The relative cost of a single in the 1950's would have been far, far higher than in the 80's.
Jackson was managed from a young age and was never allowed to be anything else. Presley came from a very poor background and got himself 'discovered'.
Jacksons dancing skills were of course sublime, but in the context of the era, were not THAT groundbreaking. Presley had to be filmed from the waist up because his moves were considered too explicit for TV consumption.
Jackson wrote a lot more of his own stuff. However, Presley apparently used to regularly change many of the lyrics in the songs that were written for him, as he did a lot of his own (uncredited) production, and may have written many more songs had he not been part of an era where artists had a lot less influence relative to their management.
Elvis was as successful as he was despite his mismanagement - the dozens of films he made are a good example of this. Jackson as a singing commodity was managed far better (albeit of course to the detriment of his personal wellbeing).
My own personal preference here is for Elvis Presley. Although not a massive fan, I just prefer his sound. Aside from one or two Jackson Five numbers, for me MJ's music was never particularly memorable, although unlike some artists I can see the appeal.
Comments
Elvis changed the whole culture for music way back in 1954, he shook the world and taught it to get down. The man was and still is a phenomonen (sic).
He has been dead for 34 years, and yet still around this country and others, he attracts fans to events and meet ups. Only this Sunday I was at an allday fan club event, attended by well over 200 people, pure Elvis music, nobody in white suits, real fans, who love the man and the music. In three weeks time I am at a weekender in a hotel in Maidstone for 3 nights of indulgence. These events go on up & down the country nearly every weekend , there are two monthly events in London and one in Strood that I attend.
His range was vast, from Rock 'n' Roll, Hillbilly, Rockabilly, Gospel (he learnt to sing in Gospel churches as a child, in fact they were the only records he won grammys for) Ballads, Country, message/protest songs (If I Can Dream). His catalogue is vast, not just Suspicious Minds and Hearbreak Hotel, they are a very small percentage of his work, try youtube for his version of Bob Dylans Dont Think Twice or Hey Jude by the Beatles that he never recorded and only sang on stage for an example.
Michael Jackson was a very talented man and the king of pop, I have no truck with his music or his popularity, but he will never have the longevity, popularity and be able to touch so many peoples lives as Elvis did and still does.
Will over 200 MJ fans gather on a cold night in London in 34 years time to dance the night away to his music?
Jackson sold more, but then he had the advantage of starting much younger, living longer and selling records in a more prosperous era. The relative cost of a single in the 1950's would have been far, far higher than in the 80's.
Jackson was managed from a young age and was never allowed to be anything else. Presley came from a very poor background and got himself 'discovered'.
Jacksons dancing skills were of course sublime, but in the context of the era, were not THAT groundbreaking. Presley had to be filmed from the waist up because his moves were considered too explicit for TV consumption.
Jackson wrote a lot more of his own stuff. However, Presley apparently used to regularly change many of the lyrics in the songs that were written for him, as he did a lot of his own (uncredited) production, and may have written many more songs had he not been part of an era where artists had a lot less influence relative to their management.
Elvis was as successful as he was despite his mismanagement - the dozens of films he made are a good example of this. Jackson as a singing commodity was managed far better (albeit of course to the detriment of his personal wellbeing).
My own personal preference here is for Elvis Presley. Although not a massive fan, I just prefer his sound. Aside from one or two Jackson Five numbers, for me MJ's music was never particularly memorable, although unlike some artists I can see the appeal.