Michael Jackson vs Elvis Presley vs The Beatles

[Powerboy]

For me, it would be the Beatles, then Elvis and then Michael.

But I remember an old Bobcat Goldthwait routine where he asked if anyone ever got into one of those pointless arguments about who was the greatest rock star of all time. Then he said that it is inevitable that someone is going to say Elvis. He said he could understand someone who grew up in the 1950s feeling that way because they grew up in a time when Elvis really was the King of Rock and Roll. They saw him in their formative years.

So I think it mostly comes down to who someone is, when in their own lives and what time period it was that they became aware of someone. The era of the Beatles was what I grew up on although I already knew who Elvis was but his height was before my time. Nowadays, I find Elvis's range a bit limited. For instance, John Schneider did a rendition of one of Elvis's hits but put back the subtleties and nuances that Elvis just couldn't do.

Again, for me, it's the Beatles, then Elvis and then Michael. In fact, I discovered Michael because he did Thriller and the word was out that Vincent Price did a part in it that I wanted to hear. But, again, it comes down to age and my background more than any of them being objectively the best or the worst of the three.

[Powerboy]

I would also argue that they are not the only three in the category of greatest ever. I'm guessing you mean greatest in the realm of Rock. Greatest singers ever? Sammy Davis, Jr., Nat "King" Cole, Frank Sinatra and many others come to mind. Also, within Rock, someone mentioned Queen. Freddie Mercury, I think, tops them all for pure singing voice over Elvis, Michael and any of the Beatles.

[Totoro Man]

other: honestly, I'd take David Bowie, James Brown, Stevie Wonder, or Marvin Gaye over Jackson any day of the week. sure, Jackson sold more copies, could dance better, and was more famous by leaps and bounds at the height of his career... but I feel like those guys were the superior song writers and musicians. I also believe that their music will have a longer reach and lasting cultural influence.

yeah, dancing is now considered an essential part of showmanship... but that's kinda the fault of Elvis and James Brown IMO. the truth is that it's not really required to be a great musician with lasting influence.

I enjoy the Beatles and Elvis when they come on. but they're not really the first people I go to when I want to listen to music that I really enjoy. (I've always been more of a Rolling Stones fan... in spite of how awful they got later!)

I believe the Beatles will prevail because they were a massive corporate enterprise that just can't be ignored... and, hey, Michael Jackson bought their music for a reason, right? after that, I suppose Elvis - since he sorta redefined what true showmanship is considered to be. I mean, sure he's not really influential in terms of present-day musical influence on pop-rock... but you can still see his impact as a performer across the board. and he's probably still influencing country music to this day.

[Jackalope89]

Only thing of the Beatles I actually like, are their early songs. Most of which had been sung by other artists before them.
Michael Jackson, don't get me wrong, the guy had talent. But other than a few songs from the Jackson 5 era and a few in the 80s, I don't know them.
Elvis... Yeah, clear winner for me. He did more than just Rock, he did a lot of spiritual/religious songs (he and his mother went to more liberal churches in his childhood, not the usual racist ones in the South at the time). Not to mention, he had quite a wide vocal range, going from baritone to alto (not an easy thing to do for lower voiced guys, trust me on that).

[Powerboy]

other: honestly, I'd take David Bowie, James Brown, Stevie Wonder, or Marvin Gaye over Jackson any day of the week. sure, Jackson sold more copies, could dance better, and was more famous by leaps and bounds at the height of his career... but I feel like those guys were the superior song writers and musicians. I also believe that their music will have a longer reach and lasting cultural influence.

yeah, dancing is now considered an essential part of showmanship... but that's kinda the fault of Elvis and James Brown IMO. the truth is that it's not really required to be a great musician with lasting influence.

I enjoy the Beatles and Elvis when they come on. but they're not really the first people I go to when I want to listen to music that I really enjoy. (I've always been more of a Rolling Stones fan... in spite of how awful they got later!)

I believe the Beatles will prevail because they were a massive corporate enterprise that just can't be ignored... and, hey, Michael Jackson bought their music for a reason, right? after that, I suppose Elvis - since he sorta redefined what true showmanship is considered to be. I mean, sure he's not really influential in terms of present-day musical influence on pop-rock... but you can still see his impact as a performer across the board. and he's probably still influencing country music to this day.

There's an old interview where Elvis admitted the Beatles were the future of Rock music, that they are their style would eclipse the Rock'n'Roll of his era.

I'm no expert but it seems that, while Rock has certainly changed, there's a core that is still basically what the Beatles started. As you said, Elvis isn't much of an influence on Rock today. But, if you look at Country-Western and the opinions of country-western fans, he's one of the most important figures in country-western history even though it wasn't considered country-western in his heyday of the 1950s.

[TriggerWarning]

I'm gonna be that guy but I don't like any of them for the most part. A song or two by each of them is tolerable (Hey Jude, Suspicious Minds, and Billie Jean) but overall I dislike their music. Elvis's version of rock is just too out of date for the most part for my tastes. I find Paul McCartney's voice to be nasally and whiny. And I was never much of a top 40 pop fan so most of MJ's stuff just isn't in my wheelhouse and even less so now with all his child molestation revealed because for me it absolutely does taint the music.

[Noodle]

There's an old interview where Elvis admitted the Beatles were the future of Rock music, that they are their style would eclipse the Rock'n'Roll of his era.

I'm no expert but it seems that, while Rock has certainly changed, there's a core that is still basically what the Beatles started. As you said, Elvis isn't much of an influence on Rock today. But, if you look at Country-Western and the opinions of country-western fans, he's one of the most important figures in country-western history even though it wasn't considered country-western in his heyday of the 1950s.

But in that same regard, The Beatles (especially Lennon) were influenced by Elvis. There would be no Beatles without Elvis. Any influence The Beatles had are by proxy because of Elvis.

In that same vein, James Brown was influenced by Elvis, and James Brown was Jackson's biggest influence.

[Jim Kelly]

Well the Beatles were influenced by a lot of music in the 1950s. And just as much African-American rhythm and blues as rockabilly. To say that one artist was more influential than another would be to slight those other artists.

The Beatles only lasted from 1962 to 1969. As a band that's different from individual artists like Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson--because you have their output from their entire life to consider.

I can't say as there's many Michael Jackson tunes that I can hum. I'm more likely to remember Elvis tunes, especially around Christmas. While I have at least one Beatles song going through my head every day.

But I might have a grudge against MJ. He was the same age as me. And when I was a little kid the Jackson Five would be on ED SULLIVAN and my parents would be saying look at that kid--what a talent! Made me feel like I was a disappointment to them. Here he was making all that money at a such an early age and what was I--a worthless bum.

Still, I did like the Jackson Five's recordings. And I liked a couple of early solo tunes from Michael--"Ben" and "She's Out of My Life" (neither written by him)--but after that his music didn't appeal to me. And he was not someone that I respected or wanted to be like. I guess my parents were wrong.

[Iron Maiden]

I'd vote for Queen of course but I'm not sure if they were really that big in America until "Wayne's World"/post-Freddie, mainly known for being on the soundtracks of somewhat 'cult' movies like Flash Gordon and Highlander.


Of course in the topic itself, the three sort of crossed paths in interesting ways (although Elvis was of course long passed); Michael had that brief marriage with Lisa Marie Presley in the '90s; Paul McCartney and Michael appeared on each other's albums (Although I think Say, Say, Say has aged a lot better than "The girl is mine") until their friendship dissolved after Michael bought the Beatles music rights or something like that.

I'd throw in a vote for Queen too. I had always liked the group back in the 1970s but I was very much uninformed about them as individuals until the 1980's. And then they joined the elite of legends at Live Aid. They just killed it. Their final live appearance (though they didn't know it would be at the time) drew over 200,000. It's a shame that when they were peaking again was when Freddie Mercury was probably already infected with AIDS. And the group is still touring today with Adam Lambert and doing well. Bohemian Rhapsody became oldest music video to have a billion hits and it's only fitting since it really helped MTV get going with that. All four members of the band have written hits.

Freddie was a unique talent and his vocal range far excels the 3 in the OP. He writing classical pieces for opera singer like Montseratt Caballe and they did an album together.

But as to the OP, as a band they all name the Beatles as a major influence along with Led Zeppelin. But they loved the oldies too. Freddie's Crazy Little Thing Called Love was an Elvis tribute and in live versions he would imitate Elvis a bit. Michael Jackson would come to see Queen when they played the Forum in L.A and even recorded a few tracks with Freddie but they got never got back together and made the final version.

I think it was a shame that Michael and Elvis came to tragic endings when they both had years ahead of them. When I was growing up, our house was about 2 miles from Jackson family home near Roosevelt High School. But they were soon off for fame and fortune. There's a family member that watches over it and they have it fenced off now.

[numberthirty]

Keeping it to the three mentioned, this is the obvious question that sticks out to me...

"Do You Get Michael(And The Musical Mind He Grew Up Into...) Without The Beatles Possibly Influencing That Outcome?"