Disagree.

In MY opinion he was BIGGER than the Beatles but on the SAME LEVEL as Elvis Presley!

Totally disagree. I dont think he was as famous and I dont think he was better musically.

At the height of his popularity, Michael Jackson would have to be considered one of the biggest pop performers of all time. His album "Thriller" sold over 100,000,000 copies. Elvis will always be the king and the Beatles the Fab four. They belong to their own times. There is no doubt who dominated the pop charts during the 1980'S. If there was ever a contender for prince of pop culture music it would have to be Michael Jackson. (RIP)

The only reason that MJ could be considered bigger than Elvis Presley or The Beatles is because of the way his music was presented. Neither Elvis or the Fab Four had the medium of music videos or the Internet.

Alot of that depends who you talk to and from what decade they developed their music taste from .They will all live in their music forever and never will be forgotten

indians know only mj .who are others ?5

not even close. jackson had a smaller aduience than either elvis or the beatles, not that he didn't have a huge one. but the beatles crossed more segments of the population then did michael.

No, I would not go that far. Think about it - Elvis and The Beatles even shaped the culture of their time. Jackson was incredibly talented, but quickly his eccentricities lessened him in the eys of the public. He virtually disfigured his own personal appearence. Now, think about that question again.

Michael was the king of pop Elvis was the king of Rock n Roll The beatles were some really good singers Eventhough i would lyk to agree with the question, i have to admit elvis and the beatles were pretty amazin too (though i dont no much about them as i too young, which doesnt make sense as i shoudlnt no much about Mj i just do but anyway)they are all great artists and all very famous. Id say that they all on the same level

In a way I agree. Sometimes I think that The Beatles are only holding on because the generation that was around when they were are still alive... we'll see what happens when the boomers are gone. Elvis was also a washed up has-been by the time he died. His wife was the one who was able to turn his image around and make him popular again post-death. Throughout four decades, Michael Jackson had been entertaining people.

He was their equal in his own generation.

I disagree. But technically, you cannot compare them because they are all different genres of music in different time periods.

disagree +5

To me I disagree, but with today's mass media... He likely got more coverage.

Agree

I disagree. Mr. Jackson was a highly popular pop singer - at the same level as Elton John, Jim Morrison, David Bowie, or Jimmy Hendrix....but he was no Elvis, or Sinatra, or could be compared to the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, or even the Who. He certainly lived a colorful life - but that does not qualify him as a multi-generational mega star even in the same category as a Dean Martin or Bing Crosby. But there's nothing wrong with that...he had his great fame...and now he's gone. R.I.P.

Disagree strongly. Given the increase in media blitzing, televisions, music videos, and computers, Michael Jackson's music had the opportunity to reach more people, cheaper and easier, than either Elvis or the Beatles. Yet, look at what Elvis and the Beatles did. They each, in their way, changed the face of music. You can listen to a song, not done by either, from their eras, and say it was influenced by their sound. Michael was good, but he had no 'sound' of his own. What Michael was, was in the right place, at the right time, with the right look. He was smart, as well. He went to choreographers and learned dance moves (the 'moonwalk' for example) and made them sensations. Jackson had 28 top ten hits on the Billboard Hot 100, trailing only The Beatles (29), Elvis Presley (36) and Madonna (37). Jackson has had 13 #1 singles on Billboard's Hot 100 singles chart, trailing only The Beatles (20), Mariah Carey (18) and Elvis Presley (18 or 17, depending on source). Jackson has 9 platinum singles, the second most by any male artist in the U.S. (second only to Elvis). Given that neither Elvis (who also took time out of his career to serve in the military), nor the Beatles, had access to the kind of media coverage MJ did, nor did they have the ability to tour as fast, and to as many places as MJ did, they STILL surpassed his records. MJ was good. He was a sensation. He was, is, and will be, a big name in the music industry. He did not, nor will not, surpass what the Beatles and Elvis did.

Certainly. He sure was much more popular worldwide than Elvis or the Beatles.

disagree, they all contributed,talented, in their era's, but none more than the other.....

Not even remotely. He was good - very good. But the Beatles were up in the clouds. Especially cloud 9 of course. In fact, Michael Jackson was standing on the shoulders of the Beatles. His entire style of music was practically defined by them.

Disagree!!!

I don't know if was bigger than BOTH Elvis and The Beatles but separately I would say yes.

Disagree!! I don't think you can really compare him to the other 2.

Put another notch in the negative column. He and Quincy Jones came out with an amazing album at the right time. But there is no comparison to the other artists.

Vocally, Michael Jackson totally creamed Elvis and The Beatles. Let's not even talk about showmanship and entertainment value --- Jackson trumps anybody before or since!! While I agree that John and Paul wrote better songs, but as a total entertainer, nobody comes even close to the superstar that Michael Jackson was. As an artist that crosses cultural and geographical boundaries, Jackson's global phenomenon reached dizzying heights in countries like China and India, which apart from The Gloved One, pretty much closed out foreign entertainers. They represent the two most populous nations in the world, so how can they not be factored into the argument, when talking about global stardom? As "dr asif bly" alludes to, MJ is the only global star worth mentioning to Asians. And I am speaking as an Asian myself.