Who made a bigger impact on music...

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

Agreed.....Is that yet another new option on the poll ?

Comparing the musical influences from Motown, Stax, Atlantic, and other record companies that historically featured black artists would be a very worthy discussion. There is no doubt that all three had a huge influence on rock and popular music.

All right man!!! Good comparison!!!

Led Zeppelin wanted to be on Atlantic from the beginning. Grant had them to not sign there first contract so that later on when they could go to Atlantic they where free to do so. I heard this on a radio show about them in the 1990's, I'm not sure if they where signed to another company before Atlantic or if it had something to do with the Yardbird's deal.

Sorry this may belong in the Trivia area of the forum.

[MisterMcLov1n]

Ok, I give you credit for that but as far as influencing a culture Lennon was more IMHO. That's why I mentioned "All You Need Is Love", Lennon was the key for the entire hippie generation and the whole "Make Love Not War" movement as well. Jackson was a dam good entertainer and was a huge influence on the 1980's dace act scene but this was nothing like the whole hippie culture.

Flower Power was a fad. Paving the way for successful blacks in America is a far more important contribution imo.

[Bong-Man]

I once made a poll...or should I say, it once made me.

I defiantly believe that The Who should also be in this poll. No wait....they already are !

Hell, I'm all confused now. Could someone give me directions to Muscle Shoals...Please ? Or maybe just add it to the poll ? Streisand ? Has anyone seen Babs ?

[redrum]

Paving the way for successful blacks in America is a far more important contribution imo.

Damn right!

[Babs]

I once made a poll...or should I say, it once made me.

I defiantly believe that The Who should also be in this poll. No wait....they already are !

Hell, I'm all confused now. Could someone give me directions to Muscle Shoals...Please ? Or maybe just add it to the poll ? Streisand ? Has anyone seen Babs ?

[bigstickbonzo]

There was Elvis, then the Beatles and finally Michael Jackson.

I see the point of Lennon's possible influence on Jackson's humanitarian side, and I think the whole immortalizing of Lennon ala "Strawberry Fields" is bound to happen with Jackson at some point. I think Jackson's case is different because while Lennon had moments of odd behavior, he was never considered an all out oddball by society. Jackson, on the other hand, was an oddball from the moment Thriller dropped to the day of his death. And for the record, no, I don't believe he was a pedophile, rather someone who suffered severe emotional detachment during childhood and never recovered.

That being said, Jackson's influence is untimely and uncharacteristically difficult to pinpoint because he stretches all across the boundaries of labeled genres in the music world.

Jackson moonwalking at the Grammy's is as significant as Elvis shaking his hips to freshly opened teenage eyes in the black/white 1950s and The Beatles playing infront of a stunned world audience in 1964 on the Ed Sullivan Show. They're moments in history people remember for the rest of their lives and immortalized because of their sheer "shock" factor.

I won't say Jackson made the "biggest" impact because it's fairly disputable, but he clearly stands in a league of musicians that I think even Led Zeppelin haven't quite reached...and that's that.

[Robert's Plant]

Hope to not hurt your feelings but I'm not voting.

Why only Lennon? 95% of the Beatles catalogue was authored by Lennon and Paul McCartney. Lennon post-Beatles was short-lived and sporadic.

Is this poll restricted to the dead?

But in answer, I don't see the parallels anyhow. Apart from the fact that both transcended generations. But no doubt their impact and influence musically and in MJ's case plus artistically, are larger than life. Also agree counting Madonna there. I can't tell her apart from Faye Dunaway these days but these 2 did not dominate the 80's for nothing. Even though MJ came first and whose breakthrough MTV no doubt inspired and paved the way for Madge. MJ put MTV for how large it became then, and Madonna followed suit. They also set the stage for spectacular stage productions than simply concerts.

Bye

[Jarlaxle 56]

That being said, Jackson's influence is untimely and uncharacteristically difficult to pinpoint because he stretches all across the boundaries of labeled genres in the music world.

Hehehaha

Haha

HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA

:hysterical: :hysterical:

ahem

BULLSHITE, Good sir.

What about Avant-Garde music. asian traditional music, folk, contemporary classical, minimalist, ambient, drone, heavy metal, etc... ?

[Rock Action]

Jimmy Page.

[~tangerine~]

John Lennon and The Beatles as a group were a bigger influence world wide. The Beatles had a wide variety of songs... from pop to hard rock. I don't think i need to elaborate on the greatness of The Beatles. John Lennon stands out to me as the one musician who really started a revolution for "PEACE". If you are talking about "humanitarians" then BONO aka Paul Hewson, runs circles around most out there... and Peter Gabriel is another who has put his heart and soul into helping others.

... i love that statement, redrum: The Beatles' music is timeless, but who the hell does the Moonwalk anymore?

[pagemccartney95]

John Lennon

,

Jo

[MisterMcLov1n]

On the post about the transcending genres, I agree. Helter Skelter is the first metal song.

[I have got a horsey]

The Beatles were a bigger influence than MJ was, but was Lenon on his own? I don't know.

MJ was certainly a huge influence in the dancing/video clip world. We can thank him fopr pop stars becoming dancers in those formation routines.

If you look at pop bands around the world in 1963, everyone looks like The Shadows and Del Shannon. By 1965 you notice all the bands look like The Beatles... YOu don't get that as much with Jackson but then the beatles were a much more powerful entity.

Jackson and Lennon really share something in common: they were extremely popular or well-known in their day, but they were both considered a bit weird. I mean Lennon has become rather eulogized since his death, but apart from the hippies and counter-culture people, most people didn't really connect with or understand Lennon in the 70's. And these days it's commonly believed that in 1969 everyone was a hippie, because that's what the media remembers, but most people weren't. So I don't think at the time most average people were influenced by him or even bought a Lennon album, he didn't really sell too many in the 70's. More people were into McCartney. But the question is who were the people Lennon did influence and were they the ones who became the singers and writers of their generation that the public found more acceptable?

[Dzldoc]

The Beatles were a bigger influence than MJ was, but was Lenon on his own? I don't know.

MJ was certainly a huge influence in the dancing/video clip world. We can thank him fopr pop stars becoming dancers in those formation routines.

If you look at pop bands around the world in 1963, everyone looks like The Shadows and Del Shannon. By 1965 you notice all the bands look like The Beatles... YOu don't get that as much with Jackson but then the beatles were a much more powerful entity.

Jackson and Lennon really share something in common: they were extremely popular or well-known in their day, but they were both considered a bit weird. I mean Lennon has become rather eulogized since his death, but apart from the hippies and counter-culture people, most people didn't really connect with or understand Lennon in the 70's. And these days it's commonly believed that in 1969 everyone was a hippie, because that's what the media remembers, but most people weren't. So I don't think at the time most average people were influenced by him or even bought a Lennon album, he didn't really sell too many in the 70's. More people were into McCartney. But the question is who were the people Lennon did influence and were they the ones who became the singers and writers of their generation that the public found more acceptable?

Nice analogy, I would tend to agree with most of that and as a side note I believe the people that followed or were influence by Lennon were more of an intellectual crowd as opposed the the MJ crowd, no offense intended I loved his shows and he was a great stage performer.

[59LesPaul]

Neither one..

The most influential artist of the 20th century is Chuck Berry...the true King...

If he were still alive,John Lennon would agree...vehemently.

[Hickory Man]

Even if you discount his Beatles output I'd still go with Lennon....influencing both life as well as music will always get the nod from me. Lennon's mark could be felt by other musicians of all types, blues, 50's retro, singer-songwriter-storyteller, mainstream rock, politically charged, and even dabbled in noise art (avant garde).

After the Beatles he tried his damndest to promote peace at his own expense, he moved to NYC and walked around like anyone else in the village, accessible, being inspired by life, turning around and putting his own influences into song.

MJ was a great talent and a shining star, but Lennon was actually "felt".

[ninelives]

Even if you discount his Beatles output I'd still go with Lennon....influencing both life as well as music will always get the nod from me. Lennon's mark could be felt by other musicians of all types, blues, 50's retro, singer-songwriter-storyteller, mainstream rock, politically charged, and even dabbled in noise art (avant garde).

After the Beatles he tried his damndest to promote peace at his own expense, he moved to NYC and walked around like anyone else in the village, accessible, being inspired by life, turning around and putting his own influences into song.

MJ was a great talent and a shining star, but Lennon was actually "felt".

:yesnod:

[jimmie ray]

Neither one..

The most influential artist of the 20th century is Chuck Berry...the true King...

If he were still alive,John Lennon would agree...vehemently.

Thank you!

[Del Zeppnile]

Neither one..

The most influential artist of the 20th century is Chuck Berry...the true King...

If he were still alive,John Lennon would agree...vehemently.

I like the cut of your jib!

Exactly! Neither one!

And despite the fact that they were both talented and made popular songs; neither one where particularily interesting people. Who cars about the so called "humanitarian message" of a dope head and a guy who sleeps with little boys? Why people would hang on every word from those two assclowns will always be a mystery to me. Because when "All you need is love" evolves to 'all you need is to be a wierdo --- to all you need is little boys... that's when I pretty much tune all that shit out anyway.

GIVE ME CHUCK BERRY ANYTIME! Because that IS ROCK AND ROLL. You show up at the gig, plug in, play your ass off, take a bow, get paid and leave. Nobody gives a shit about how you FEEL about starving children and how many trees are being cut down to make wooden lawn chairs. All we need is 'Johnny B. Good' 'Carol' and 'Sweet Little Sixteen'.

Fuckin' Aye!

[Hickory Man]

GIVE ME CHUCK BERRY ANYTIME! Because that IS ROCK AND ROLL. You show up at the gig, plug in, play your ass off, take a bow, get paid and leave. Nobody gives a shit about how you FEEL about starving children and how many trees are being cut down to make wooden lawn chairs. All we need is 'Johnny B. Good' 'Carol' and 'Sweet Little Sixteen'.

Fuckin' Aye!

He's out of control! Somebody get this man a burrito!

[CaliforniaÜberAlles]

I'm sorry, but the Beatles were the defining force in popular music in the 20th century. Not only did they represent an entire decade, hell, an entire generation, but they changed the entire musical landscape. Popular music is still where the Beatles left it. They changed all the rules, how music was made, how it was perceived, how it was sold and distributed. This whole idea that an artist who writes and performs their own music has more credibility and merit than an artist who performs songs written by composers -- because of them. I mean, when they first appeared on the scene, they were an exception to the rule. A rock band that wrote their own hits and largely performed their own material? A band with several lead singers? A band that wasn't just a leader with backing musicians? Unheard of.

That's not a knock on any of the other artists mentioned in this thread. Michael Jackson was an incredibly popular and influential musician working within the parameters of a music business the Beatles had carved out. Elvis, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley (who I personally prefer to either), etc. where all hugely influential. But rock music was still seen as a fad during their hey days. Just a few years after that initial rock and roll boom, it had started to fade and the majority of hits were being written by Tin Pan Alley composers picking and choosing artists to sing their songs. Plus, even for someone as successful as Elvis, rock music was never seen as anything more than a means to an end. Being a star was his goal, and that meant going through Hollywood, making movies, being a performer in Vegas, etc. It wasn't until the Beatles that the music business was viewed as just as viable a money maker as Hollywood, and where being musicians and making great music was an end unto itself in the pop/rock world.

And the Beatles were writing songs in ways that hadn't been done before. Their ability to meld such a large variety of influences into wholly unique compositions was second to none.

[ninelives]

I'm sorry, but the Beatles were the defining force in popular music in the 20th century. Not only did they represent an entire decade, hell, an entire generation, but they changed the entire musical landscape. Popular music is still where the Beatles left it. They changed all the rules, how music was made, how it was perceived, how it was sold and distributed. This whole idea that an artist who writes and performs their own music has more credibility and merit than an artist who performs songs written by composers -- because of them. I mean, when they first appeared on the scene, they were an exception to the rule. A rock band that wrote their own hits and largely performed their own material? A band with several lead singers? A band that wasn't just a leader with backing musicians? Unheard of.

That's not a knock on any of the other artists mentioned in this thread. Michael Jackson was an incredibly popular and influential musician working within the parameters of a music business the Beatles had carved out. Elvis, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley (who I personally prefer to either), etc. where all hugely influential. But rock music was still seen as a fad during their hey days. Just a few years after that initial rock and roll boom, it had started to fade and the majority of hits were being written by Tin Pan Alley composers picking and choosing artists to sing their songs. Plus, even for someone as successful as Elvis, rock music was never seen as anything more than a means to an end. Being a star was his goal, and that meant going through Hollywood, making movies, being a performer in Vegas, etc. It wasn't until the Beatles that the music business was viewed as just as viable a money maker as Hollywood, and where being musicians and making great music was an end unto itself in the pop/rock world.

And the Beatles were writing songs in ways that hadn't been done before. Their ability to meld such a large variety of influences into wholly unique compositions was second to none.

But the Beatles wouldn't have been without Chuck Berry et al, so from a standpoint of influence, I'd have to agree with others that someone like Chuck Berry had a greater impact on things. I don't want to knock their importance and influence in music but IMO I don't see the Beatles as "the" defining force.

[MisterMcLov1n]

Chuck Berry was a very important figure in the popularization of rock n roll. Without him, Lennon, McCartney, Page and many other legends would have never learned to do rock music.

[Del Zeppnile]

I'm sorry, but the Beatles were the defining force in popular music in the 20th century.

I would disagree with this. They may have ended up being the most popular force, but I would not say that they defined it. I mean how can you say that when they were at the beggining basically covering music by Chuck Berry, Elvis and Little Richard? And then even when they started doing their own stuff, I still wouldn't call it "defining" by any stretch. I would say that in their era, Bob Dylan was by far more of a defining force, especially since it took Dylan's critisizim of Lennon/McCartney's songs to sort of wake them up.

Without Elvis and Berry the Beatles never exist. And without Robert Johnson and Hank Williams, Elvis and Berry don't even exist.

Not only did they represent an entire decade, hell, an entire generation, but they changed the entire musical landscape. Popular music is still where the Beatles left it. They changed all the rules, how music was made, how it was perceived, how it was sold and distributed. This whole idea that an artist who writes and performs their own music has more credibility and merit than an artist who performs songs written by composers -- because of them. I mean, when they first appeared on the scene, they were an exception to the rule. A rock band that wrote their own hits and largely performed their own material? A band with several lead singers? A band that wasn't just a leader with backing musicians? Unheard of.

You are just flat wrong. They did not in the beggining write their own music. It was Brian Epstein who had to encourage their talent to get to that point, and it was George Martin in the studio who brought it all together.

Elvis, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley (who I personally prefer to either), etc. where all hugely influential. But rock music was still seen as a fad during their hey days.

Any real appreciation of the historical roots and significance of what came to be coined "rock and roll" existed long before the people who made it popular with folks like Elvis and Berry. In fact, Rythem and Blues already WAS, and even without Elvis there still would have been a Muddy Waters, a John Lee Hooker, a Fats Domino and then by logical extension a Yardbirds, Cream and a Led Zeppelin. And all without a link going through the Beatles. But without the Beatles path which came through Elvis, Berry and Little Richard, alll the Beatles ever would have been was a Skiffle band.

Do you see the point I am making?

Just a few years after that initial rock and roll boom, it had started to fade and the majority of hits were being written by Tin Pan Alley composers picking and choosing artists to sing their songs.

That was only because the record labels and big money started screwing with it and corrupting the sound. But obviously that intrusion of the art form was not sustainable because the roots and popularity was already there. So even if rock and roll music went through a stage where it was being reformated for a mass palet. You still had young men like Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page and Eric Burdon collecting obscure records of REAL artists and mimicking their style into a form that eventually had to exist as it was without any meddling by recording studio executives.

For you imply that it was just a fad is again evidence of your complete lack of understaning of the art form, it's history and it's roots. And eventually the extent of the infuence as well.

And the Beatles were writing songs in ways that hadn't been done before. Their ability to meld such a large variety of influences into wholly unique compositions was second to none.

Brian Wilson

[MisterMcLov1n]

Thanks Del. I agree with your points completely. The Beatles may have popularized lots of styles of making music, in many cases they weren't the first. Psychedelia and concept albums were done long before Sgt. Pepper.