3 ms·

A quick sidenote ... And I don't see any "modern band" being as popular and as eternal as the Beatles. Michael Jackson was close, but he wasn't exactly known

• bad_user 17y ago
  The Beatles sold more albums than Michael Jackson, they had more successfully released albums to begin with (eight vs five), they had more nr. 1 singles in the US/UK, their hits stayed longer in the #1 position ... and the Beatles were active for eight years, certainly shorter than Jackson's career which is longer than 20 years. Not that it matters much ... Michael Jackson's albums are here to stay. I was just saying that to be great (instead of just acceptable) ... you have to put a whole lot of effort into it. For instance I haven't heard of a single great gymnast who hasn't practiced until every muscle in his/her body was pushed well beyond limits. I actually heard of a few cases where people have passed out, out of sheer exhaustion. So you're born with a natural talent ... but so are many other people. What makes you stand out is the effort you're putting in achieving your goals.
  • _pius 17y ago
    First, to be clear, I agree with your main point ... I'm just arguing off-topic about Jackson vs. The Beatles. :) Second, these minor differences between the two are not relevant ... they amount to nit-picking. My point is that they Michael Jackson and The Beatles are in the same equivalence class. Who sold more records or whatever really isn't particularly important.