Mah name is Ringo. And I play tha drums!

Rush-hands down-best ever.

I voted for Elvis-there would not be the Beatles without Elvis. He changed everything.

heeeylo bongo!

I'm 26, and the only michael jackson I've ever known was that of the old white woman. I only know the beatles from the fact that my dad was a huge beatles fan, and the 'beatles anthology' (volumes 1-3) came out during my formative years, and my sis was obsessed with em'... I bummed them off of her, and absolutely loved their work..

anyway, enough digression

ROFL You typed almost as much as I did.

I AM THE WALRUS!!!! COO COO KACHOOB!!!

I didn't grow up with them, but I love the Beatles.

ditto.

what'd you think about 'across the universe?'

Argument for Elvis -- He was first.

Arguments against Elvis -- 1. Didn't write his own songs. 2. There were others doing similar things at the time, he just made them better. 3. He was a great performer, but it is hard to make the argument that R & R would have never happened with out him.

The Beatles changed the direction of R & R in a manner that everyone else was compelled to follow. And they contributed/controlled every phase of the creative process.

Still does...

Stones, The Who, the Yardbirds, Zep-wrote better songs-but didn't have 20 million girls having orgasms over them. The Beatle were more of a cultural phenom-than anything else. Pre suit and Tie Beatles-damm those guys could rock out though.

One could argue These bands had a bigger impact musically.

well, technically, his estate owns them. he owns nothing anymore.

(and for some reason, I recalled reading that he'd had to sell some of the rights a while back due to money issues. am I mistaken?)

Beatles.

Landslide.

Next question.

Whoa, cowboy.

How many times have you been in an elevator and heard "Stairway to Heaven" on the Muzak?

If the Beatles were just a "cultural phenom", why have they and their music endured for more than 45 years?

:shake:

I was just joking. Until John Branca unseals the will, they still belong to Michael Jackson but obviously, that's just a gesture waiting to happen.

Last I heard (and I've been out of the day to day business for nearly six years), he is still the majority owner of the ATV catalog. I imagine the extent of ownership will make it into the media over the next few weeks.

exactly. to me, it comes down to this.

the beatles were relevant to the fainting teenage girls in 1964.

the beatles were relevant to my dad, who was born in 1957.

the beatles are relevant to me, born in 1983.

their music stands the test of time.

contrariwise, elvis is good for an occasional listen, but not more than a small handful of songs. michael jackson is good for another small handful of songs (I've never been a huge pop/r&b fan... billie jean, thriller, and his other huge hits are great though).

but neither are in the beatles' league, IMHO.