Elvis Aron was a tad superior than King of Pop Michael Jackson

[Donut]

http://www.newspostonline.com/entert...-2009110774275

A comparison between the undisputed ‘King of Pop’ Michael Jackson & the ‘King of Rock and Roll’ Elvis Aron Presley is a futile exercise as both stormed into the showbiz and catapulted the music industry to paramount & unparallel heights. Though the debate will rage on forever, following 5 arguments push Presley an inch ahead of Jacko. :-

1. Background- Elvis battled abysmal poverty and rose to stardom like a phoenix rising from the ashes. Michael, despite childhood traumas, was slightly better-off & received immense guidance from his music-enriched family.

2. Geo-political situation- Post World War II , when the world was still reeling under the after-effects of atomic explosion, Elvis broke all social & political barriers by single-handedly pioneering the ‘Rock & Roll culture’ and webbing the globe with a monochord of musical euphoria. Michael, despite his black origin, had it easier as he bloomed at a time when the industry was awaiting a genius to fill in the void left by Presley’s unfathomable los.


3. Female fan-following- Though Jacko stole millions of hearts through his break-dancing nos. , signature ‘moonwalk’ & curly locks, Elvis earned himself an outrageous no. of feminine admirers through his strikingly magnetic looks, mesmerizing charisma & duck-tailed hairstyle.

4. Technology & Media-coverage- Contrary to Michael’s easy access to a flourishing technology & broader media-coverage in the 80’s, Presley had limited resources but still sent ripples of mellifluous euphony across all continents.

5. Scandals & Controversies- Jacko’s scandalous life was plagued with horrors of drug-abuse, charges of child-molestations & allegations of skin-embleachment. Elvis, comparatively, stayed miles away from such stainful scandals.

Conclusion: 32 years after his departure, Elvis-Presley-frenzy continues. 3 decades later, would the Michael-mania survive???

[rickb]

That's about right!

[mozzarella]

I wouldn't make comparisons about the two of them on that level. Of course they had different background but they both were one of their kind. Elvis was more of a down-to-earth human being and he couldn't take himself seriously. I can't remember seeing MJ ironizing about himself or doing a parody of himself. If you ever want to find the one thing that could possibly put Elvis ahead of Michael is exactly that ability. Besides that, Elvis was a masculine presence, a real Royalty. MJ, I'm sorry to say that, but he was not a man - I love him though and I wish he would have lived longer. 'This Is It' is absolutely awsome. But both of them achieved the level of some kind of a 'fictional character' in their lives. Being almost unreal. And that's not given to every artist. They are true legends. My humble opinion...

[May]

A tad superior???

[Donut]

I wouldn't make comparisons about the two of them on that level.

I think what the person who wrote this article means is you can't compare the two of them, mozzarella.

I wouldn't compare them either, just giving a little thought to this "Elvis broke all social & political barriers by single-handedly pioneering the ‘Rock & Roll culture’ and webbing the globe with a monochord of musical euphoria" makes it pointless.

[kathy parkinson]

A tad superior???

[debtdbruno]

A tad superior???

Yeh, my thoughts exactly

Deb

[Diane]

I think what the person who wrote this article means is you can't compare the two of them, mozzarella.

I wouldn't compare them either, just giving a little thought to this "Elvis broke all social & political barriers by single-handedly pioneering the ‘Rock & Roll culture’ and webbing the globe with a monochord of musical euphoria" makes it pointless.

That's the way I understood it too. Elvis and Michael shouldn't be compared at all, they are two completely different style of artists.

Diane

[Donut]

A tad superior???

:

[TotallyInsane]

:

Donut -
Did you hear? There's "Good Rocking Tonight"....Teddy is backkkkkkkk!!!!!!!

[Donut]

Donut -
Did you hear? There's "Good Rocking Tonight"....Teddy is backkkkkkkk!!!!!!!

Oh yes, I saw his pawprints on the off topic section the other day

[May]

:

like the new avatar piccy!

[TotallyInsane]

like the new avatar piccy!

Oh yeah, that's a good one!!

[Donut]

Thank you girls

[beckelvis]

That's the way I understood it too. Elvis and Michael shouldn't be compared at all, they are two completely different style of artists.

Diane

Totally in agreement with you

[monk37]

Part of the problem is that Elvis continues to not be treated as an artist - but rather as a bottomless ATM machine

I consider Elvis overcame obstacles that were really not faced by other performers - mostly a manager that really didn't understand Elvis' appeal or music, a record label that expected him to be a fad that would fade out as quickly as he became popular

and generally a support team who got while the getting was good


imagine how much Elvis could have done musically if he'd stood up to Parker and RCA and demanded the better treatment that lesser folk expect as their due - only one album a year if not 1 in 2 years, endless studio time to tweak and fiddle with the recordings



It boggles my mind that Elvis was driven enough to get famous, but he never seemed to understand what power and control he could have had over his career

[epmoodyblue]

ALL Michael Jackson threads are in this forum

[May]

Part of the problem is that Elvis continues to not be treated as an artist - but rather as a bottomless ATM machine

I consider Elvis overcame obstacles that were really not faced by other performers - mostly a manager that really didn't understand Elvis' appeal or music, a record label that expected him to be a fad that would fade out as quickly as he became popular

and generally a support team who got while the getting was good


imagine how much Elvis could have done musically if he'd stood up to Parker and RCA and demanded the better treatment that lesser folk expect as their due - only one album a year if not 1 in 2 years, endless studio time to tweak and fiddle with the recordings



It boggles my mind that Elvis was driven enough to get famous, but he never seemed to understand what power and control he could have had over his career

A very insightful post

[SleepyJack]

Part of the problem is that Elvis continues to not be treated as an artist - but rather as a bottomless ATM machine

I consider Elvis overcame obstacles that were really not faced by other performers - mostly a manager that really didn't understand Elvis' appeal or music, a record label that expected him to be a fad that would fade out as quickly as he became popular

and generally a support team who got while the getting was good


imagine how much Elvis could have done musically if he'd stood up to Parker and RCA and demanded the better treatment that lesser folk expect as their due - only one album a year if not 1 in 2 years, endless studio time to tweak and fiddle with the recordings



It boggles my mind that Elvis was driven enough to get famous, but he never seemed to understand what power and control he could have had over his career

I don`t think that Elvis himself ever really believed in fame and success, I don`t think he ever trusted it to last as long as it did. Looking back at the mistakes and mis-management in Elvis` career always makes you wonder about what could have been,so many things could have been so much better. Maybe the question is Was Elvis happy with the level of success he did achieve...or did he want,and know that there could be,more?

[debtdbruno]

I don't think Elvis really had the best personality to deal with the level of fame he got.
In so many ways he was out of his depth, and also was content to just 'go with the flow'.
He didn't question enough decisions.