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

It is a fair comparison, but only to a degree.

I was not around to witness the Beatles’ Ed Sullivan performance. I do vividly remember watching Michael Jackson’s Billie Jean performance and being blown away and yes this was the talk around the media and among every one at school the following day, If this is how you would describe the Beatle’s Ed Sullivan performance and subsequent fall-out, then both events are similar in this respect, But to compare both events as having the ‘same’ music/social or cultural impact is a bit myopic, IMO.

While Jackson’s performance provided a harbinger of the phenomena that ‘Thriller’ would become in the 80’s, by 1990 Michael Jackson, Thriller and the ‘moon walk’ novelty, were mere pastiches in our memory. Jackson’s personal decline into the bizarre, digressed the general public from what truly mattered…his music.

Time has proven that the Beatles’ Ed Sullivan performance, and subsequent fall-out, truly impacted the psyche of the youth of the time. It was an event where counter-culture became pop-culture and America was never the same after that.

 

I think this pretty much sums it up IMO. The Beatles Ed Sullivan was definitely of greater social impact but at another level the two are comparable simply because they were touchstone moments where "everyone was watching" so to speak. With so many media options today I think those shared experiences are quickly disappearing. Maybe to some extent we saw it with American Idol but that is way down on the "significance" scale IMO. It would be interesting to what the younger Gen Y'ers feel have been significant "shared experiences" in media similar to Motown 25 and Ed Sulllivan for us older folks.

 

Here here!

Haha, but in all seirousness I wasn't even around at either point so I have no right to say. That said, I prefer Michael Jackson to the Beatles 10 fold (can you tell I'm a child of the late 80s) so...

but again its a very different thing, michael jackson was already a superstar - and motown 25 was a concert of sorts not a variety hour. not to mention jackson won an emmy for his performance so suck on that Paul McCartney! haha (i think i've just got myself annexed from the entire community)

and while its true he did lipsync, didn't people lip sync on ed sulivan and all those shows back in the day? i could be wrong, I wasn't born at the time.

 

Aging gracefully

I saw both the Ed Sullivan and Motown programs. The Sullivan shows have stayed with me as my first visual exposure to The Beatles. The Motown show stood out for how well the sixties acts sounded in 1983. To be honest, I don't remember Michael Jackson's performance from that show. For me, it was not the highlight of the program.

 

>and while its true he did lipsync, didn't people lip sync on ed sulivan and all those shows back in the day?<

No, the Beatles were live.

My two cents. I was very much into music at the time of that Motown special and don't remember anything about this (yes, I was cabled). And I do recall how big MJ was at the time of Thriller.

Same social impact (in America) as the Beatles' first time on Eddy? No way! You know how adults so quickly turned old in those days... Well I remember how my FATHER (and even I think my grandma down in her flat!) reacted to it: he was enthused about Ringo's drumming style!

I am sure MJ's apprearance on that special was a big event for thousands and thousands of kids. But it must have remained basically with that "niche".

It's a little bit like when the media here (French Canada) went that Celine Dion sold more records than the Beatles had, etc. Those two markets just can't be compared.

 

huh. interesting. again i wasn't around but after michael jackson passed anyone who i know who was around at the time all mentioned "that amazing motown 25 performance". in fact one lady at the grocery store i work at mentioned how her father (who was about 70 at the time) couldn't get enough of michael jackson and recorded it on his beta-max and watched it over and over again.

again, i really cant say cause i wasn't around, but I think they were two VERY different moments in history, and culturally significant in their own way.

 

While the Motown 25 performance may not quite equal the Beatles on Sullivan, it's as close as we're ever gonna get today.

I did not have cable then, heck didn't get it until the early 90s. The fact that a large % of people in the early 80s had cable, will undoubtedly hurt the Motown performance. There were many other options (including watching a video).

There are many more entertainment options now, to the point where Sullivan could never happen again.

I think the Beatles on Sullivan started something, that made us more jaded and aware of pop music and spectacle. Now, everyone, everywhere is trying to create a "moment" that everyone remembers, to the point that everyone tunes out and NO ONE REMEMBERS.

 

>The fact that a large % of people in the early 80s had cable, will undoubtedly hurt the Motown performance. There were many other options (including watching a video).

There are many more entertainment options now, to the point where Sullivan could never happen again.<

Excellent point!

 

Very, very few, though. The Beatles much more directly influenced fashion. If MJ had such a big influence on how the average person looked, then you need to explain the scene in "Beverly Hills Cop" - released two years after "Thriller" - when Eddie Murphy laughs at a couple of guys dressed that way...

 

Which means it would have a much bigger cultural impact because so many more people saw it. Don't forget the "Ed Sullivan" appearance had the highest ratings EVER to that point.

When someone makes a movie about fans trying to see MJ on the Motown show, then we'll talk. Until then, thoughts that MJ's appearance had anywhere near the impact of the Fabs' "ESS" debut are pretty , IMO...

 

Good info. Some people here seem to think "Thriller" was in danger of cut-out status until MJ moonwalked and that suddenly created Michael-mania. He was already a huge star, and "Thriller" was already a huge hit. The Motown show appearance just gave things a bump and created more buzz. There was no cultural change or greater impact than that.

The Fabs on "ESS", though - THAT was a big deal. Cripes, the Smithsonian ran a photo exhibit on its 40th anniversary! Does anyone think they'll do the same for MJ's Motown appearance in 2023?

 

The motown thing probably didn't "create" Michael mania but it sure kicked it into high gear. I would say it was more than a bump. What it did do (similar to Ed Sullivan) is that is put Michael Jackson into the minds of people not normally drawn to his music for whatever reason. But yeah, I agree the Beatles on Ed Sullivan did more in creation of a phenomenon (in the US) than the Motown thing, hands down.

 

This is true. I'm a Gen Y'er, and, oddly, the first 'shared TV experience' I can think of is the Janet Jackson's nipple fiasco. The second, sadly, is 9/11.

 

probably. especially if it makes some money for sony.

 

Yeah, I don't think the Smithsonian picks their exhibits based on music sales...

 

I do remember the fuss at school the day after the Motown show aired, so I don't deny it had an impact. I just think it's a really big stretch to state/imply it's on a par with "Ed Sullivan"...

 

The image of Michael Jackson's moonwalk and dancing is the focal point - whereas with the Beatles, it was their music. (The Beatles dress / stage appearance in '64 was not especially 'unique'.)

Imagine this: At the Motown 25th Jackson didn't moonwalk or any special dance moves, he just sang with fairly normal movements singers make. Appearance still as memorable? I'd say not.

I'm not saying one is more culturally important here (music vs. dance...) just that they're apples and oranges.

 

At the time, EVERYBODY watched Ed and The Beatles. On the Motown 25th, it wasn't the same anticipation of something happening.