Cover vs. Original

Come Together


No comparison really, but Wacko does a suprisingly good funk rendition.

- KC, London, England, 20.11.2007


Michael Jackson
1995

vs.

beatles
1969

CD-Cover: Michael Jackson - HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I 63.5 % 36.5 % CD-Cover: beatles - Abbey Road
Results of the voting: Cover versus Original
Click on the cover for listening Click on the cover for listening
Michael Jackson 4497 Votes beatles

Comments about Come Together:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
It's just not fair to compare them both. It just can't be done. So why would they try to do that. Idk but anyways, they both make wonderful music and are great musicians. People just don't know what to do with they lives.
- mowilliams, akron, United States, 07.01.2010
MJ's a better one.More depth in voice as compared to a more chorous like Beatles.
- Cedric, Singapore, Singapore, 14.12.2009
The Beatles are stronger? yeah I guess since they are all alive right? The two main creative mind were Paul and Lennon. Michael actually was able to accomplish more success, and power than them in a shorter time. The only reason why they seem ALIVE now is because he bough from Paul the ownership of the Beatles music and everyone or anyone can use them suck as Rockband. You can not compare MJ ot the beatles, or elvis, or Jimi Hendrix or Aretha Franklin or even another amazing artist like Prince.
- BOOBS, L.A, United States, 14.12.2009
MJ has fallen and the Beatles has risen! The Beatles are a musical geniuses. They're more stronger and more powerful than MJ! I love the original version of Come Together by The TRUE LEGENDS - THE BEATLES!
- CrashB101, SomewhereOutThere, United States, 08.12.2009
The Beatles, and Michael Jackson both are the most known entertainers. I have heard both versions, and vocally Michael has a much more richer, and more powerful emotional voice than Paul or John. I respect the Beatles with the highest regards, and yes they are in the highest league in songwriting, and just as a band, but to say Mj is not in their league is an understatement and an insult. Michael Jackson never showed he could play an instrument, but did play Guitar, Drums, Piano, and was an amazing beat boxer. He used his vocals and dancing capabilities more because that was his strong point. When he was in the Jackson 5 he, like the rest of his brothers were forced to learn 3 instruments, and MJ learned those three. Mj also was an amazing songwriter, and composer, and his imagination not just changed music.. but music videos. He had more of variety than the Beatles, and also changed more than just music. He influenced dance, and music videos. MJ also worked with Paul twice, with "Say Say Say", and "The Girl is Mine". I seriously doubt Paul would work with someone he saw inferior to him. MJ and the Beatles both are the highest music acts in their own respects, and league. You can not compare what is perfect. Both made perfect music, and that is all that matters. Of course if Mj would have collaborated with the Beatles as a whole, the song would have been superb. Both deserve respect. both are at equal talent.
- XendofheartsX, Los Angeles. , United States, 07.12.2009
Both versions are good, but I think Michael's is way better :)
- Alison, London, Canada, 13.11.2009
I have heard Beatles, Aerosmith ,Carly Smithson and MJ's version and I felt MJs was the best
- me, Bangalore, India, 05.11.2009
Michael Jackson is not even close to the Beatles in talent. Each of the Beatle, with the exception of Ringo(perhaps) could perform on their own with no backup and still put on a great show.Michael J needed an entire stage full of performers to put on a show
- John, Atco, United States, 03.11.2009
HAHAHAHAHA, OWNED by Michael Jackson...only he could take a great song by the one of the most famous bands of all time and make it better. I give credit to the Beatles, but Michael Jackson is WAY out of their league. Easily the greatest entertainer/performer of all time R.I.P. Michael Jackson, you will be missed. All those haters out there are just jealous and can't appreciate both versions and make a proper judgment without their own twisted opinion that they get from the paparazzi. Go MICHAEL! =D
- Chris, Auckland, New Zealand, 21.10.2009
Michael's version is much stronger vocally than the original. This is a truth that can't be denied by anyone. Whether you like it or not is another thing all together though.

Also, the word 'genius' gets thrown around a lot, but unlike John Lennon, Michael Jackson was a child prodigy who grew up to be an adult genius. That in itself is very, very rare. I don't deny that John was a very talented individual and very, very creative, but his 'genius' is not by, any means, on the same scale as Michael's, at all. Michael had a real ear for music, almost like a photographic memory, but for music. He could sing something 40+ ways, and still be able to tell you which versions sounded the best days later. He could also divert his attention and do other things while still being able to pay attention and catch things that the people who were working with him in the studio wouldn't be able to catch even though they had their full attention on it. He never sang a bad note and was gaining octave ranges as he was getting older, never losing them.

While not everything he did was 'gold' per say, but it's really, really hard to emulate a Michael Jackson song which is why a lot of people don't really do it. All this, while being able to build an empire for himself, seeing how he owns a huge chunk of Sony/ATV publishing. He was known as a boardroom shark and paid close attention to fiscal figures. He was just as involved in the business side of music as well as the creative side. People like him don't really come around that often, in fact people like him come around ever 200+ years. While Micheal didn't play an instrument in a band like any of the Beatles for that matter, he still managed to be able to have control over one of the most challenging instruments of all, the human voice. He proved that he was in a class all by himself, which is why everyone holds him to a much higher standard than most musicians.

I also have to say that it's pretty damn amazing to even be held on the same level as the beatles considering that he only had 6 studio albums, as opposed to the 20+ of the Beatles.
- thegreat, one, United States, 13.10.2009
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
««« Top