Which is better: Elvis or the Beatles???

Was listening to my Elvis cds today and sparked a controversy in my head. Think I'd have to go with the King, but the Beatles did so much for Music today. Kind of tight, but I'm going with the King. How about you?

JHC

The Beatles loved Elvis, which always puzzled me, because I thought he was a joke. A very lame joke.

Sorry Pontiac, but its not really a sensible comparison to make IMHO.

Too different.. I'm going with the Beatles as they wrote their own songs, and I prefer groups of musicians anyways.

Must be them in terms of musical influence anyways

Beatles for me, though I don't own any of their records

Burt Reynolds wrote: Sorry Pontiac, but its not really a sensible comparison to make IMHO.

Too different.. I'm going with the Beatles as they wrote their own songs, and I prefer groups of musicians anyways.

Must be them in terms of musical influence anyways

I see what your saying. Only reason I see them as a good comparison is because they both changed music drastically. I don't think there have been any other bands/artists that have changed music so much.

JHC

The only thing Elvis changed was he made "race music" acceptable for white kids, because suddenly a white guy was doing th singing.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The only thing Elvis changed was he made "race music" acceptable for white kids, because suddenly a white guy was doing th singing.

Regardless, it was a specific point when music changed.

Well I've got a huge collection of Elvis' CDs, singles, etc. And I've loved the man for a long time. But on the hand, if we'll go by the Hamburg count, I would say the Beatles, just because they have a more flaterring ratio of great songs vs recorded material (starting with Please Please Me, the White album, etc). :)

Elvis had a lot of unlistenble filter during his 60's movie years and his mid-70's crisis. :(

[orange]|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3[/orange] wrote: Well I've got a huge collection of Elvis' CDs, singles, etc. And I've loved the man for a long time. But on the hand, if we'll go by the Hamburg count, I would say the Beatles, just because they have a more flaterring ratio of great songs vs recorded material (starting with Please Please Me, the White album, etc). :)

Elvis had a lot of unlistenble filter during his 60's movie years and his mid-70's crisis. :(

Agree, when I think of elvis, I filter out the Las Vegas jumpsuit days.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The only thing Elvis changed was he made "race music" acceptable for white kids, because suddenly a white guy was doing th singing.

Regardless, it was a specific point when music changed.

It only changed for white kids, and only for those white kids who weren't allowed to/didn't want to listen to "race music." The music was already there, and Elvis didn't add anything to it.

the beatles are better, at least they wrote their own songs. as for which is more important, that will have to be elvis.

in a way... Quentin Tarantino brought this up in Pulp Fiction

never got into Elvis but i understand that for his first couple of years his records are considered good, but he descended into self parody and terrible choices very quickly. pop contemporaries Ray Charles and Johnny Cash had much more respectable careers

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The only thing Elvis changed was he made "race music" acceptable for white kids, because suddenly a white guy was doing th singing.

Regardless, it was a specific point when music changed.

It only changed for white kids, and only for those white kids who weren't allowed to/didn't want to listen to "race music." The music was already there, and Elvis didn't add anything to it.

I think you're too unfair to the man. Elvis did shake the world: just think of the countless amateur groups and singer all around the world (name it: England, Italy, Germany, etc.) who sprang in 1956 and after. It's not just about the race. Bill Halley had played with his Comets for ten years and didn't really manage to change the course of music. It was not a race transfer of Negro style into a white boy's throat: name a Negro musician who sang in the same style. I had a lot of black bluesmen' records from 40s-50s, it was totally different. The approach to music may be quite similar but not exact.

The Beatles were the second, and largest, shake (you have to keep in mind that means of coomunication had improved dramatically since Elvis' days and millions of people already were aware of rock music).

I'm sorry but the Fab Four have it all over the "King". He started the revolution to be sure, but like all forerunners he got surpassed by the kids who came in his wake. And my sis is a huge Elvis fan, so :p

[orange]|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3[/orange] wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The only thing Elvis changed was he made "race music" acceptable for white kids, because suddenly a white guy was doing th singing.

Regardless, it was a specific point when music changed.

It only changed for white kids, and only for those white kids who weren't allowed to/didn't want to listen to "race music." The music was already there, and Elvis didn't add anything to it.

I think you're too unfair to the man. Elvis did shake the world: just think of the countless amateur groups and singer all around the world (name it: England, Italy, Germany, etc.) who sprang in 1956 and after. It's not just about the race. Bill Halley had played with his Comets for ten years and didn't really manage to change the course of music. The Beatles were the second, and largest, shake (you have to keep in mind that means of coomunication had improved dramatically since Elvis' days and millions of people already were aware of rock music).

Bill Hailey didn't change the course of music, and neither did Elvis. And you are as wrong as wrong can be-- it's entirely about race. The ONLY reason Elvis was popular was because he was a good-looking white kid making race music safe for other white kids.

If you want to talk about who cahnged music, then give props to the right artists: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Bo Diddley. They changed the course of music.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

If you want to talk about who cahnged music, then give props to the right artists: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Bo Diddley. They changed the course of music.

Fat Domino may have been a real influence as he had been closer than anyone else to the traditional rock'n'roll style we know today (damn, I had cool recordings from early 50s).

But Little Richard? He came up with his first rock'n'roll hit, Tutti Frutti, early in 1956, by the time Elvis' style was quite developed. Chuck Berry recorded his first well-known song, Maybelline, in the summer of 1955 when Elvis already had recorded all 10 sides for his Sun singles.

The way his back up guitarist played make me think not only of Lonnie Johnson, but of Les Paul, too. ;)

OK, OK, but Elvis was still just singing "race music." He didn't invent the genre, he just made it acceptable for white kids. Now, mind, I'm not saying his early recordings were crap. They were good songs. I'm just saying he didn't invent anything, didn't add anything, he just had the good fortune to be white in a Jim Crow country. One thing you can say about Elvis-- his love of the music was genuine. It was only later, after he got out of the army, that he began recording steaming piles.

Now that abomination Pat Boone-- he was for kids who thought Elvis was too black. What a waste of vinyl.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

OK, OK, but Elvis was still just singing "race music." He didn't invent the genre, he just made it acceptable for white kids.

Well basically he made POP MUSIC out of lonesome bluses, bluegrass, country etc. You're right, he made it acceptable. But in your words it sounds like:

1. He was paid by the government to promote Negro style.
2. White kids were longing for white performers to play Negro music. But there had been alot of white jazz performers and bands but it didn't change anything. I think Elvis genuisly took something in black music that made it distinguished from both black and white styles (to me there was more country in his early rock'n'rolls).

Beatles have their fair share of crap but Elvis had buttloads. Given that the Beatles wrote their own material after their Duran Duran flash I vote for them.

[orange]|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3[/orange] wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

OK, OK, but Elvis was still just singing "race music." He didn't invent the genre, he just made it acceptable for white kids.

Well basically he made POP MUSIC out of lonesome bluses, bluegrass, country etc. You're right, he made it acceptable. But in your words it sounds like:

1. He was paid by the government to promote Negro style.
2. White kids were longing for white performers to play Negro music. But there had been alot of white jazz performers and bands but it didn't change anything. I think Elvis genuisly took something in black music that made it distinguished from both black and white styles (to me there was more country in his early rock'n'rolls).

Not paid by the government. But there was "white radio" and their was "race radio," and if you were a white teenager, you listened to white radio, and they absolutely did not play race music. It was just a fact of life in Jim Crow America.

twist wrote: Beatles have their fair share of crap but Elvis had buttloads. Given that the Beatles wrote their own material after their Duran Duran flash I vote for them.

The Beatles did change music, because after their Duran Duran flash they invented the pop group that writes its own songs. Singer/songriters became de rigeur after The Beatles.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

[orange]|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3[/orange] wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

OK, OK, but Elvis was still just singing "race music." He didn't invent the genre, he just made it acceptable for white kids.

Well basically he made POP MUSIC out of lonesome bluses, bluegrass, country etc. You're right, he made it acceptable. But in your words it sounds like:

1. He was paid by the government to promote Negro style.
2. White kids were longing for white performers to play Negro music. But there had been alot of white jazz performers and bands but it didn't change anything. I think Elvis genuisly took something in black music that made it distinguished from both black and white styles (to me there was more country in his early rock'n'rolls).

Not paid by the government. But there was "white radio" and their was "race radio," and if you were a white teenager, you listened to white radio, and they absolutely did not play race music. It was just a fact of life in Jim Crow America.

As mentioned, Elvis MIXED colored music with country. . .into a new found pop music. Pretty much every band could have it's sounds traced back, can you name any that came up with their own sound not sounding like anyone else's??? The seperation of radio may have had something to do with it, but saying that is his ONLY way his music became big is not giving him proper credit.

JHC

The beatles were just a boyband to start with, merely a prototypical Boyzone (otherwise...why market their looks huh?).

But when they started taking loads of drugs they made great music.

Elvis on the other hand turned to shit when he started getting hammered.

Anyone who doubts Elvis had any talent needs to see that live video of suspuicious minds that's floating around....quite quite remarkable....doubly so since he was decidedly the "burger king" at the time.

Besides....Elvis loved Python, and George Hrrison, not only SAVED Python, bu also appeared in their film taking the piss out of the beatles....LOL :D

Beatles... Elvis had the odd good tune, but I couldn't listen to a whole album - just reminds me of crap impersonators and stuff... Beatles on the other hand, while not a particular fave, still stand up well without taking any nostalgia factor into account...

Than' ya very much...

Snorri xxx

cheeseburger Elvis was a joke.

hippy beatles were a joke.

(neither).

both overated.

got beatles double Red cd. early stuff, but that's all.

:\ohwell:

Never been a big fan of either, but would have to go with the Beatles. Elvis did have some great songs, but he didn't write any of them, and I can't see what the big deal is about his delivery (guess you had to be there).

Thanks for giving the 'they both suck' option. Never understood the big fascination with either. Obviously it wasn't really my era, but i really don't like them and switch over if they ever come on the radio.

I guess the Beatles score doesn't suprise me. NO is a British band, so the band that put Britian on the map musically winning would seem in order.

JHC