~~~~~~~~THE ULTIMATE SHOWDOWN~~~~~~~~~ Rank these people in terms of who had the most magic (or who was the rarest talent). An argument for your ranking would be appreciated, but not mandatory. Thanks fam. In random order: Michelangelo, Michael Jordan, Picasso, The Beatles, Mozart, Beethoven, Michael Jackson, Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Pele, Maradona, Messi, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela. Now rank them! @PuckVanHeel @lessthanjake @greatstriker11 @Bada Bing @carlito86 @comme @Pipiolo @Once
1. Einstein 2. Picasso 3. Mozart 4. Sir Isaac Newton 5. Beethoven 6. The Beatles 7. Nelson Mandela 8. Michael Jackson 9. Ghandi 10. Pele 11. Michael Jordan 12. Maradona 13. Messi
How is Mandela or Gandhi a phenomenon? Not my definition of "talent". Michaelangelo Shakespeare Einstein Maradona Picasso The Beatles Newton Pele Michael Jackson Beethoven Mozart Jordan Messi
You don't see Cruijff as a rare 'talent'? (I know, many 'underrate' his technique and passing skills) Among mentioned athletes I'd say: 1) Michael Jordan 2) Pelé 3) Messi 4) Maradona Jordan: eye test, statistical dominance (not only scoring), financial success, transcending sport, cinderella story etc. Artists: 1) Mozart 2) Picasso 3) The Beatles 4) Michelangelo 5) Beethoven 6) Michael Jackson (and no, I don't rank Prince over him as a cultural 'phenomenon') I'm insecure about Picasso vs Michelangelo though. I'm not an art expert but the volume of work and his distinctive trademark stands out for me. Beethoven and Michelangelo might be swapped around. Lunatic and cheat Michael Jackson at the bottom. Scientists: 1) Einstein 2) Newton This is a no-brainer imho Politicians: 1) Gandhi 2) Mandela I think Gandhi was the more important and significant figure. At the time it was still tougher to resist the British Empire. Then I also take into account what happened after the transition.
Picasso is most definitely above Michelangelo. Both were prolific artists, but Picasso even more prolific. What really ranks him above Michelangelo however is that he broke the shackles of 600+ years tradition of "how art should look" even when he was already trained to paint traditionally where as Michelangelo just perfected an existing technique but didnt introduce any new concepts. That takes a great deal of courage.
Yes, my thought went basically along those lines. Although I was under the impression that the conventions were already radically changing in the last part of the 19th century (e.g. the French artists, Cezanne). Maybe I say something dumb now but: Matisse and Picasso were friends/acquaintances. They shared works and ideas. Matisse in turn knew Van Gogh very well (his work). His biographer John Richardson (four volumes about Picasso) wrote that "Van Gogh meant more to Picasso than any other artist in his later years". Although I did think that Picasso 'refined' and popularized it like no other. With also the artist being a piece of art, as they said. edit: I'm pretty sure about how I'd rank the politicians and the scientists. I'm also pretty sure that I'd rank Michael Jackson at the bottom among the artists.
What a bizarre thread for a football forum!! But i like it ... Although i love the Beatles at their best ,i also think they wrote lots of absolute rubbish...sacred cows - but theres no doubt they were a phenomenon
Journalists often like to compare footballers/athletes to figures as De Niro, Bowie, Lennon etc. though...
Yeah, artists always build off of what came before them, and things did start to change with the impressionists, but the changes Picasso made were so major that there is a "before Picasso" and "after Picasso" period in art. The same could be said for Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp, but Picasso was more prolific and also more of a household name which would make more sense for this thread. Matisse was brilliant and went neck and neck with Picasso his entire career exchanging (stealing) ideas from one another, but Matisse started to paint at age 30 where Picasso already had a huge body of work by then. Picasso also introduced collage, installation art, found objects, and maybe an argument can be made for ready-made art.
Yes I dont really listen to The Beatles, I prefer heavier music like Black Sabbath, Burzum, Funk music, as well as soul, and even hip hop but for the sake of this thread I left them out merely due to how well they are known. Same reason I left out Prince who is undoubtedly better than Michael Jackson.
I'd rather spent a weekend listening to nothing else than the Beatles' worst songs than spending one hour in a museum looking at Picasso's best works.
I dont mind a bit of the heavy stuff either..I dont know if i agree about prince.. i prefer jacksons songs to prince's.. I don't rate prince much ! Although he was undeniably a great musician he was never my cup of tea but each to their own. As for Gandhi - an overrated human being - a bigoted racist who became known as some kind of saint !!
In terms of musicality (playing instruments), cerebral/creative qualities, songwriting and artistic 'influence' I'd agree with that, who was arguably not as dependent on a renowned producer for achieving success (question mark?). Michael Jackson is/was however for his videoclips, MTV, dance moves and concert tours the greater worldwide cultural phenomenon. I know for a fact that the likes of The Rolling Stones, U2 have looked very well at his concerts, 'show' and "world tours" (be it with MJ or his entourage as driving force - that's always tough to say). Same for Stevie Wonder, whose musical talent and ability is probably also higher. Just my superficial impression. Kids on a schoolyard and playground copied MJ, not Prince (and he wasn't exactly a Justin Bieber either).
If we transfer the bolded reasoning to music then perhaps Arnold Schönberg should be added to this list as he basically did the same with classical music.
I expected some protest at my suggestion because probably most people think of Dylan as a 1960s writer of protest songs who can't sing and is no showman with fancy stage moves. I suggest a repeated listening to his 1974 album "Blood on the Tracks" which many consider a lyrical and musical masterpiece coupled with superb vocal interpretation by Dylan. That LP to me is an artistic statement on a level that very few popular musicians have been able to match before or since.
Eastern music, Indian specifically, were using atonality much before any classical composer. And @Jaweirdo 's statement is not accurate in respect to Michelangelo, who himself broke a 10,000 year old tradition by placing the human as sole protagonist.
What do you think about replacing Jackson with Elvis Presley? Complete entertainment package (for their time), dance moves, even more successful (in record sales). 'Leaning' on managers and producers as well. Arguably just as, if not more, influential. There's a link with McCartney and especially Lennon. With some exaggeration you can say that popular music - pop music as a genre - did not exist before Elvis Presley his time, in particular combined with the 'entertainment' side of things. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley#Quotes_about_Presley