Is it fare to compare Beatles Ed Sullivan to MJ on Motown 25th?

I tend to agree but time will tell how Michael holds up especially after his death. I think he has the potential to become this mythic figure of popular music 50 years from now, not unlike Sinatra, The Beatles, Louis Armstrong, etc. And that video of him on Motown 25th may be the reference point that is played over and over (similar to the Ed Sullivan clip anytime there is mention of the history of Rock music or a "look back" on modern history). Or maybe it will be the Billy Jean video.

 

Possibly. But, as opposed to former, the latter was a detrimental influence on the future of mainstream pop/rock...

 

Well, that particular clip from the Motown special was shown on Brazilian television. In 1964, television was still in its infancy in Brazil and shows from abroad were not widely available. As Lizzie Bravo (the Brazilian "Apple Scruff" who sang with the Beatles on "Across the Universe") pointed out in her interview to Andre Gardner, the Beatles' movies were the only way for Brazilian fans to see them "moving".

 

I was watching the Motown appearance and thinking about how little time it takes to create an indelible image. Michael moonwalked for maybe three seconds in that performance and yet that visual stayed with him forever.

I do think it's kind of odd that that appearance is always talked about as Michael's equivalent to the Ed Sullivan show, and yet Michael had been famous for almost 15 years by that time. Obviously they were both peaks in each artist's career, but they came at completely different times.

 

I think a comparison of the two should have less to do with how popular or influential either artist was or would become. Instead, I think it has more to do with what that given event signaled.

For the Beatles, the Ed Sullivan appearance was essentially their debut in the U.S. It broke them to America at large. Sure, the groundwork had been laid by "I Want to Hold Your Hand." But don't forget that their place in rock 'n' roll was still uncertain before Ed Sullivan and that their earlier singles had largely stiffed in the U.S. Indeed, Ed Sullivan marked the true beginning of Beatlemania, and essentially the beginning of the British Invasion.

Michael Jackson's appearance on Motown 25 had less to do with the debut of an artist to the public, and more to do with the consolidation of his success. Michael Jackson had been a hitmaker for 15 years before appearing on the special. Off the Wall had been out for almost six years by that time and, even if it didn't quite compare to the success of Thriller, it was still a very big hit. And given that Michael had been a solo artist for some time, I don't think one can say Motown 25 even marked a debut as a solo artist.

In short, Ed Sullivan marked the beginning of the Beatles (and much, much bigger things were to come). By contrast, Motown 25 marked the apex of Michael Jackson, assuming that one believes that Thiller was the pinnacle of his career. (I would argue that while Thriller was his best record, the height of his public popularity came with Bad. But that's neither here nor there...)

So, those are pretty much the major differences where I'm concerned. There's more that's different than similar regarding these two events, IMO. And I say that as a huge fan of both.

 

Live or soon after?

 

The night before the Motown 25 program, Michael Jackson was a hit artist. Nothing more, nothing less. Like many others. His performance on the Motown 25 program made him a phenomenon. I mean, the day after the Motown 25 show, I remember my parents commenting on how amazing Michael Jackson was. They didn't love his music, and would never have purchased his albums. But as a dancer and a celebrity, he entered their lives that night.

The Beatles appearance on Ed Sullivan had a similar effect, though in their case it was less a surprise and more a consolidation. Everyone was ready and waiting to see The Beatles by the time they were on Ed Sullivan. Everyone shared that experience and their appearance provided an image that in that simpler time was not nearly as well known as the music itself.

People knew Michael Jackson was going to be on Motown 25. But few were sitting transfixed in front of their TV waiting to see him at the time.

 

It's been rumoured there's 4 seconds of missing footage from the Ed Sullivan show where Ringo Moonwalks.

 

Seems fair to me, since every single one of you including those who see it indisputably in The Beatles favor is doing it. Comparing, that is. And it was certainly a thought that passed through my mind when I heard that Michael Jackson had passed from our world. I think the two events are quite comparable, although in many ways quite different. As has been pointed out. What's similar about the two is how a brief televised performance galvanized the audience and brought both Michael Jackson and The Beatles to a level of fame and attention they hadn't had previously.

 

Michael Jackson's lack of inventing the moonwalk does not downplay his performance of it. There's a reason it became so popular after he debuted it. The man was an extraordinarily gifted dancer.

 

The Beatles didn't invent rock and roll, either.

 

Dude, not to be sacrilegious, but The Beatles performance on Ed Sullivan ain't all that hot.

It was a touchstone moment because it started Beatlemania and essentially the 60's, but any version of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" is not revelatory.

The Royal Command Performance from 1963 with "Twist and Shout" and John's "Rattle yer jewelry" comment is more satisfying than anything on the first Sullivan performance.

 

...on water.

 

According to Wikipedia, the Motown special was taped on March 25 & broadcast on May 16. By that time:
"Billie Jean" had concluded its run at #1
"Beat It" was in its final week at #1
Thriller had been #1 for nearly 3 months

When the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan, "I Want To Hold Your Hand" had been #1 one week. All any Americans had seen of the Beatles playing music before that night were a few seconds shown here & there on the news.

 

The Beatles kicked off a youth revolution that impacted all of society. MJ sold records. So on the one hand they aren't directly comparable. But as pop artifacts, they certainly are. The Bealtes were electrifying on Sullivan and so was Michael on Motown. I remember watching it and being totally captivated, and I couldn't care less about dance music at the time (still don't, really).

 

NO

 

I saw that Motown 25 program when it was broadcast---i was 11----and sure, it was a big deal----but i'd rather have been the same age watching the Beatles live on Ed Sullivan.
Maybe in terms of cultural impact one could compare the two----but musically----no.

 

It was revelatory to all those kids who picked up guitars and joined bands because of it.

 

Those "kids" picked up guitars and joined bands because of the way the girls in the audience (and at school, etc.) reacted to The Beatles on Sullivan. What easier way to pull a few birds than with long hair and a guitar case in your hand?

I hardly think "I Want To Hold Your Hand" led to the forming of ANY bands of note.

 

sorry, misread what i was replying to

 

That would be impossible to quantify.

What can be quantified was I Want to Hold Your Hand's massive chart success and the fact that it was the first successful single in America. You may not care for the tune but it was an important part of their success----indubitably!

 

I'm ancient enough to have seen both the Beatles on Sullivan and the Jackson apppearance. The difference between the two is simply that while the Jackson performance was entertaining and mega-star making, after the Beatles appeared on Sullivan, nothing was the same. The next day, adults were talking about it, the kids in my school couldn't even settle down to start class everyone was so excited. People changed the way they dressed , combed their hair, the music they listened to. It was a cultural and musical game changer. Michael Jackson, while fun to watch, wasn't.

 

Some people in the '80s also wore red leather, a glitter glove, and tried to moonwalk. Some still do.