Elvis vs The Beatles

[ehollier]

This endless Elvis versus The Beatles debate should end.

How can you reasonably compare one musician to a group of musicians when their music is as different as oil and water? Elvis' claim to musical prowess was based on the magnificent instrument that was his voice allied to the sheer scale of his vision and his extraordinary interpretative powers that voice.

The Beatles rests on their superb song writing skills, craftsmanship and inventiveness. In more ways than one these two greats came from a different place. Let it finally rest there I say.

[Sonny]

Absolutely right!

All is said in your post.

Sonny

[boogie]

totally agree

[goodelvisgirl]

i agree both were good in there own right although the beatles annoy me they wrote some good music but there voices go through me

[epmoodyblue]

cant be compared... there a group ..elvis was the greatest entertainer of all time.. and the beAtles the best band of all time..SPEAKING OF THE BEATLES..TESTERDAY IN QUEBEC I SAW PAUL in concert in front of 200.000 fans for quebec's 400 th anniversary..over 2 hour show dynamite showwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww it was awesome(y)(y)(y):notworthy

[Getlo]

This endless Elvis versus The Beatles debate should end. ... Let it finally rest there I say.

Why start another thread about it then? :blink:


and the beAtles the best band of all time..

Oh, please ... :rolleyes:

[presley31]

Can't say l'am a fan of the beatles, some songs are good, but not something l would listern to over and over again.

[Diane]

Same here Jen, never forgave them for changing the sound of rock and never considered anything "real rock and roll" since.

Diane

[epmoodyblue]

Why start another thread about it then? :blink:



Oh, please ... :rolleyes:
well we all got our favorite bands getlo..by your response i guess the beatles are not your fav..but they are the greatest band ever

[rocknroll]

One thing Elvis will always have over the Beatles.........he came first.

I do agree, as a complete band, the Beatles are the greatest of all time.

[Unchained Melody]

Why start another thread about it then? :blink:



Oh, please ... :rolleyes:

Agreed Getlo right on....:notworthy

We have enough talk about the beatles on another messageboard..we all know they were a great band in their time but of course this is an Elvis Presley forum so you know the majority is going to go with their man!!

[Getlo]

well we all got our favorite bands getlo..by your response i guess the beatles are not your fav..but they are the greatest band ever

Substitute "greatest" with "most overrated", and you're more on the money.

And all this talk of The Beatles and rock music .. they were a POP band, not rock!

[TotallyInsane]

Substitute "greatest" with "most overrated", and you're more on the money.

And all this talk of The Beatles and rock music .. they were a POP band, not rock!

(y)(y)(y)(y)

[rocknroll]

Substitute "greatest" with "most overrated", and you're more on the money.

And all this talk of The Beatles and rock music .. they were a POP band, not rock!

Says who....on both statements?

[JerryNodak]

Didn't care for the Beatles when they hit it big stateside in 1964 when I was 14, and time has not increased my appreciation. Elvis FOREVER!

[Getlo]

Says who....on both statements?

Most overrated: My opinion. Quite subjective, obviously.

Pop, not rock: Absolute, unequivocal fact. Aside from, maybe, Rock'nRoll Music, The Beatles made POP music.

[Diane]

(y)(y)(y)

Diane

[goodelvisgirl]

Substitute "greatest" with "most overrated", and you're more on the money.

And all this talk of The Beatles and rock music .. they were a POP band, not rock!

yup they thought they were better than they actualy were and its there voices that annoy me john lennon was a great song writer but as for the greatest band of all time i don't think so you can't even compare them to elvis but for the folks who like that style then they are ok they were both good in there own right i suppose

[Brian]

I like the Beatles but in a way I agree with Getlo that they were overrated, in the sixties there were numerous bands both American and British that were coming out with hit singles and albums that were really great and were critically acclaimed by rock music critics but when speaking of the British invasion you only really get two mentions the Rolling stones and the Beatles and when people talk about how great 60's music was the mention the beatles etc. ignoring great bands like the Byrds,Kinks,the Who etc.
I agree with Getlo completely that the beatles did record some rock n' roll songs they but were mainly a pop band.

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

You can debate all you like, but you have to acknowledge their achievements. For a band that is considered overrated (subjective of course) they have many achievements that meet or exceed Elvis.

I'm not a big Beatles fan although they were responsible for some catchy and innovative music. :)

[LtCarman]

People have to remember. Music is very subjective. Some people will say Linkin Park is the best band in the world while some people will say it is the worst band in the world. Sure, it can be measured by record sales and #1 hits, but then people will say it is over-rated. So you can't really say that there is a "best" in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

[john carpenter]

I like some of the Beatles songs. But as Elvis said people can stay home and here you sing on record you have to give them a show (he replies to why he moved around on stage) The Beatles and other bands just stand there and sing. Elvis sang and also entertained you. And the Beatles did come to America to see the #1 entertainer Elvis Aaron Presley. The just can't compare,in voice, style, everything.:notworthy

[marijaep]

People have to remember. Music is very subjective. Some people will say Linkin Park is the best band in the world while some people will say it is the worst band in the world. Sure, it can be measured by record sales and #1 hits, but then people will say it is over-rated. So you can't really say that there is a "best" in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

I completely agree with you (y) Very well said. Each to their own, I guess. Some say that Elvis is overrated :blink:
But, with so many No. hits and record sales...you can't fool that many people. The particular singer or band must be good to be liked by so many people, if you know what I mean. There must have been something about The Beatles that people liked at that time (and still do) That's not overrated. They were famous because they were good.

Of course you can't compare a singer with a group, both in different decades and music styles. I love The Beatles. Their songs are cheerful, catchy and very different from one another.

Different people - different preferences

[The Phoenix]

The Beatles are part of a very select group of "legends". Legends are impressive, but there's only ONE King and he's sitting on his throne at the top of the mountain!

[Unchained Melody]

Matt you said it, theres no denying the acheivements the band made, even though some, well many try too.

[Wendy56]

I found this video. I couldn't watch it cause I was mad by just reading the title of it. :mad:
What's ur thoughts on this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnU31vACyzQ

[Unchained Melody]

I found this video. I couldn't watch it cause I was mad by just reading the title of it. :mad:
What's ur thoughts on this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnU31vACyzQ

obviously made by some ignorant person who has no taste a-tall in real rock music. :angry:

[Diane]

Oho, it's been John Lennon versus Elvis for quite a while between myself and my brother-in-law but he would never put down Elvis like this video did. He still has great respect for him and says he was the king of rock and roll even though John is his personal idol. This video was just plain mean.(n)

Diane

[LtCarman]

I found this video. I couldn't watch it cause I was mad by just reading the title of it. :mad:
What's ur thoughts on this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnU31vACyzQ

That guy just made George W. Bush look good.

[Unchained Melody]

John lennon was pretty great, but theres only one Elvis Presley. :king:

[goodelvisgirl]

i agree with you on that one col john elvis was a one and only and sure people may have more number ones or more awards but no one will ever be able to change music and culture the way elvis did he came along and kick started an awfull lot he changed music styles he changed what was acceptable by a performer

[Elvis_Lady_1984]

hey this dummy should read his books..John has been quoted to say that it was because of Elvis that he wanted to play music..he inspired him....and the most famous one is "Before anyone did anything, Elvis did everything"

[Getlo]

and the most famous one is "Before anyone did anything, Elvis did everything"

Lennon did not say this. This was a slogan created by EPE a few years ago.

The quote attributed to Lennon - and one which has never had a verified source attached to it - was, "Before Elvis, there was nothing".

[presley31]

I found this video. I couldn't watch it cause I was mad by just reading the title of it. :mad:
What's ur thoughts on this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnU31vACyzQ

yep l seen that on youtube and didn't like it at all (n)(n)

[KPM]

"There's only one person in the United States we ever wanted to meet ... not that he wanted us. And we met him last night. We can't tell you how we felt. We just idolized him so much. ... You can't imagine what a thrill that was last night. Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been the Beatles." quote John Lennon
Statement (28 August 1964) after meeting Elvis Presley, as quoted in The Leading Men of MGM (2005) by Jane Ellen Wayne, p. 386; also partly quoted in The Beatles : The Authorized Biography (1968) by Hunter Davies, p. 19

[presley31]

"There's only one person in the United States we ever wanted to meet ... not that he wanted us. And we met him last night. We can't tell you how we felt. We just idolized him so much. ... You can't imagine what a thrill that was last night. Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been the Beatles." quote John Lennon
Statement (28 August 1964) after meeting Elvis Presley, as quoted in The Leading Men of MGM (2005) by Jane Ellen Wayne, p. 386; also partly quoted in The Beatles : The Authorized Biography (1968) by Hunter Davies, p. 19

thank you KPM. I wasn't sure who came up with that quote but l thought it was lennon.

[Diane]

Thanks for the quote Ken. I've never read that one...very nice, I liked it....good for John.(y)

Diane

[KPM]

Heres an interesting clip of Paul, George and Ringo speaking about Elvis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPf98jsxyDs

[Unchained Melody]

The quote attributed to Lennon - and one which has never had a verified source attached to it - was, "Before Elvis, there was nothing".

And that quote says it all imo.

[Diane]

Thanks for the clip Ken. I've seen it before and liked it a lot.

Diane

[Wendy56]

Every artist is different, and that is what makes the "entertainment world" huge. But, I don't like when people attacks Elvis. Is like his song says: walk a mile in my shoes before you abuse, criticize and accuse.

[Getlo]

Is like his song says: walk a mile in my shoes before you abuse, criticize and accuse.

That wasn't Elvis' song though ...

[Raised on Rock]

Most overrated: My opinion. Quite subjective, obviously.

Pop, not rock: Absolute, unequivocal fact. Aside from, maybe, Rock'nRoll Music, The Beatles made POP music.

An absolute, unequivocal fact? lol

Sure, same as Elvis, they are mostly pop as that is what they mostly recorded, but although they didn´t cover such an amazing range of stlyes like Elvis, and although they are not the Stones, they did more than just one Chuck Berry cover in the rock music field. Get real, Helter Skelter? On the other hand, all Rock is Pop as not all Pop is Rock.

Anyhow is funny how these two so called Rock Icons: Elvis and Beatles are in fact much more Pop oriented than straight Rock. But I do love Elvis the most when he did R&R and R&B incluenced music, and I do love The Beatles the most for his so called Pop contributions. In the end there is only music, you know, labels are just the maps, not the land.

The ancient who´s better, who´s bigger battles usually ends up being destructive as they leads people to be more narrow minded instead of strech their views by just learning from both sides. I´m sure if there are any real music lovers out there they will discover lots of real good stuff in both the Elvis and The Beatles fields.

Only Elvis could have been bigger than Elvis as only The Beatles could have been bigger than the Beatles.

Yes I think The Beatles are overated by music critics as the rock music alfa an omega, but remember that rock and roll literature was written in the begining mosty by 60's people so... Also, somehow they are also underated by the 50's and 70's rock music fans.

Presley somehow, seems mostly underated by the critics but overated by his fans.

[Raised on Rock]

I found this video. I couldn't watch it cause I was mad by just reading the title of it. :mad:
What's ur thoughts on this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnU31vACyzQ

Yesterday a real rock song, should I laugh or just cry.
The only real rock song I hear on that video was Heartbreak Hotel.
Hendrix as Elvis was great when he did R&B music, but moslty he was just selling gimmicks taking advantage from the psychedelic craze. Not that his gimmicks are not enjoyable in the same way Elvis easy lisening early 60's pop bubble gum is.

[Getlo]

On the other hand, all Rock is Pop as not all Pop is Rock.

You must be kidding.


Only Elvis could have been bigger than Elvis as only The Beatles could have been bigger than the Beatles.


This makes no sense whatsoever.

[rocknroll]

Most overrated: My opinion. Quite subjective, obviously.

Pop, not rock: Absolute, unequivocal fact. Aside from, maybe, Rock'nRoll Music, The Beatles made POP music.

That isn't fact, but, again, your opinion. The Beatles recorded some of the best, most innovative ROCK music of all time. Certainly, they were more rock than Elvis.

[geordie]

just started reading LENNON the definitive biography- by ray coleman

havnt got passed the MASSIVE foreword, preface and authors note(lol)
but looked at the titles of the chapters. 1 chapter is called 'ELVIS'

has anyone on this site, ever read any elvis book, witch has a chapter titled , lennon,or for that matter, the beatles

i think this says a lot
p.s i am a lennon and beatles fan :D

[Unchained Melody]

That wasn't Elvis' song though ...

Nope I think the person was just referring to this as a song Elvis sang ;)

[Wendy56]

Every artist is different, and that is what makes the "entertainment world" huge. But, I don't like when people attacks Elvis. Is like his song says: walk a mile in my shoes before you abuse, criticize and accuse.
Well, that man ain't even a gentleman, he wrote me this [as reply for my comment I quote above here]:

1 f**k you this is my opinion you foreigner i got freedom of speech

2. f**k u and elvis that old racist ***** i hope all in insects in his grave take a big shit in his mouth pay back for all the shit hes been spewing out of it.

3. i can tell you have no real facts against me cause you have to quote this faget like i said the best are up here hendrix lennon and the beatles elvis sucks

P.S: I edited that "f**k" word, cannot be displayed in this forum. LOL

People like this makes other to waste their time and makes impossible to share something good about music. :lmfao:

[Unchained Melody]

Well, that man ain't even a gentleman, he wrote me this [as reply for my comment I quote above here]:

1 f**k you this is my opinion you foreigner i got freedom of speech

2. f**k u and elvis that old racist ***** i hope all in insects in his grave take a big shit in his mouth pay back for all the shit hes been spewing out of it.

3. i can tell you have no real facts against me cause you have to quote this faget like i said the best are up here hendrix lennon and the beatles elvis sucks

P.S: I edited that "f**k" word, cannot be displayed in this forum. LOL

People like this makes other to waste their time. :lmfao:

What a *****. (n)

[Brian]

That isn't fact, but, again, your opinion. The Beatles recorded some of the best, most innovative ROCK music of all time. Certainly, they were more rock than Elvis.

Hi rocknroll

I disagree that the beatles were more rock than Elvis.

Elvis recorded a lot of rock n' roll tracks in his career

[Unchained Melody]

Hi rocknroll

I disagree that the beatles were more rock than Elvis.

Elvis recorded a lot of rock n' roll tracks in his career

Thats insane saying the Beatles were Rock N Roll Than Elvis Presley, are you kidding me. The beatles were more of a Pop Band...not rock n roll!(n)

[Getlo]

That isn't fact, but, again, your opinion. The Beatles recorded some of the best, most innovative ROCK music of all time. Certainly, they were more rock than Elvis.

I can't possibly take that comment even remotely seriously. It is truly beyond all comprehension. :rolleyes:

[Getlo]

Well, that man ain't even a gentleman, he wrote me this [as reply for my comment I quote above here]:

I'm not following ... who wrote this to you?

[Diane]

Sorry you were targeted by some jerk writing you such a nasty note Wendy. I'm glad you posted it so everyone can see. People like that don't deserve anyone's attention.

Diane

[goodelvisgirl]

Well, that man ain't even a gentleman, he wrote me this [as reply for my comment I quote above here]:

1 f**k you this is my opinion you foreigner i got freedom of speech

2. f**k u and elvis that old racist ***** i hope all in insects in his grave take a big shit in his mouth pay back for all the shit hes been spewing out of it.

3. i can tell you have no real facts against me cause you have to quote this faget like i said the best are up here hendrix lennon and the beatles elvis sucks

P.S: I edited that "f**k" word, cannot be displayed in this forum. LOL

People like this makes other to waste their time and makes impossible to share something good about music. :lmfao:

its disgracefull that someone would say this about anyones opinion these are the small minded people who do not contribute anything good to society

[Unchained Melody]

I can't possibly take that comment even remotely seriously. It is truly beyond all comprehension. :rolleyes:

yeah...seriously....:blink:

[rocknroll]

I can't possibly take that comment even remotely seriously. It is truly beyond all comprehension. :rolleyes:

You need to try harder.

[rocknroll]

Thats insane saying the Beatles were Rock N Roll Than Elvis Presley, are you kidding me. The beatles were more of a Pop Band...not rock n roll!(n)

What this site needs is a dose of objectivity, someone to play devils advocate. I'm here to do that if needed. :D

Again, to state the Beatles were just a pop band is an opinion, and a misguided one at that.

They were more rock than Elvis as Elvis recorded all types of music and the Beatles didn't. Nothing wrong with that and certainly no insult to Elvis.

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Both Elvis and the Beatles moved away from Rock 'n' Roll, if we really want to see who's is the biggest, you'll have to go a long way to get more rock 'n' roll than the Stone's IMHO.

Elvis stopped doing R&R when he went into the army and rarely reached the level of the 50's again. As for the Beatles they went psychedelic and then back to pop.

[utmom2008]

I like the Beatles but in a way I agree with Getlo that they were overrated, in the sixties there were numerous bands both American and British that were coming out with hit singles and albums that were really great and were critically acclaimed by rock music critics but when speaking of the British invasion you only really get two mentions the Rolling stones and the Beatles and when people talk about how great 60's music was the mention the beatles etc. ignoring great bands like the Byrds,Kinks,the Who etc.
I agree with Getlo completely that the beatles did record some rock n' roll songs they but were mainly a pop band.

And don't leave out The Animalsand The Grassroots!:D:D(y)

[utmom2008]

Some people will say Linkin Park is the best band in the world while some people will say it is the worst band in the world. So you can't really say that there is a "best" in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

I can't agree OR disagree. I have never heard of them.:unsure::supriced:;):D

[presley31]

Well, that man ain't even a gentleman, he wrote me this [as reply for my comment I quote above here]:

1 f**k you this is my opinion you foreigner i got freedom of speech

2. f**k u and elvis that old racist ***** i hope all in insects in his grave take a big shit in his mouth pay back for all the shit hes been spewing out of it.

3. i can tell you have no real facts against me cause you have to quote this faget like i said the best are up here hendrix lennon and the beatles elvis sucks

P.S: I edited that "f**k" word, cannot be displayed in this forum. LOL

People like this makes other to waste their time and makes impossible to share something good about music. :lmfao:

Very sorry to see someone do that to you. I know it can pretty upsetting and confusing to why some need to be so rude. just keep her head up and keep posting and don't let people get to you.

[rocknroll]

Both Elvis and the Beatles moved away from Rock 'n' Roll, if we really want to see who's is the biggest, you'll have to go a long way to get more rock 'n' roll than the Stone's IMHO.

Elvis stopped doing R&R when he went into the army and rarely reached the level of the 50's again. As for the Beatles they went psychedelic and then back to pop.

Then your definition of rock and roll is too narrow.

[utmom2008]

Well, that man ain't even a gentleman, he wrote me this [as reply for my comment I quote above here]:

1 f**k you this is my opinion you foreigner i got freedom of speech

2. f**k u and elvis that old racist ***** i hope all in insects in his grave take a big shit in his mouth pay back for all the shit hes been spewing out of it.

3. i can tell you have no real facts against me cause you have to quote this faget like i said the best are up here hendrix lennon and the beatles elvis sucks

P.S: I edited that "f**k" word, cannot be displayed in this forum. LOL

People like this makes other to waste their time and makes impossible to share something good about music. :lmfao:

I feel sure then that they saw this.....:ban: :censored: :ban: :censored: :cop::cop::cop:

[Getlo]

They were more rock than Elvis as Elvis recorded all types of music and the Beatles didn't. Nothing wrong with that and certainly no insult to Elvis.

No, but is is an insult to anyone with intelligence.


Then your definition of rock and roll is too narrow.

Yours it too wide, obviously ...

[utmom2008]

This endless Elvis versus The Beatles debate should end.
Let it finally rest there I say.

:lmfao: Does anyone else find this funny?:lmfao: Elizabeth...you had to know this was going to set off page after page of arguing and debating, right?;);)You knew we were not going to say "Well, OK then".:lmfao::lmfao:

[ehollier]

:lmfao: Does anyone else find this funny?:lmfao: Elizabeth...you had to know this was going to set off page after page of arguing and debating, right?;);)You knew we were not going to say "Well, OK then".:lmfao::lmfao:

Rosanne, if you don't like, don't waste your time on this thread. Its as simple as that. :hmm::hmm::hmm:

[Getlo]

Rosanne, if you don't like, don't waste your time on this thread. Its as simple as that. :hmm::hmm::hmm:

She's not saying she doesn't like it.

She's questioning the logic of starting a thread decrying the Elvis vs Beatles thing. As I said earlier, why raise it in the first bloody place?!

[utmom2008]

Rosanne, if you don't like, don't waste your time on this thread. Its as simple as that. :hmm::hmm::hmm:


She's not saying she doesn't like it.

She's questioning the logic of starting a thread decrying the Elvis vs Beatles thing. As I said earlier, why raise it in the first bloody place?!

Thanks - Yes, that's exactly what I was doing. I said "does anyone find it funny", NOT "who else dislikes this thread". Thinking of a visual of this whole board saying "OK, done deal, we get it" is pretty funny. Your statement was amusing...all that was missing was you pounding the desk with your gavel. Judge Judy style. If you had, then maybe we would have had less of this--:argue::bangin::argue::bangin:

[rocknroll]

No, but is is an insult to anyone with intelligence.



Yours it too wide, obviously ...

This could go on forever....but, what the heck, I'm on vacation. :D

It's an insult to anyone with intelligence only if you're looking to stir it up. I'm not insulting anyone, except you it seems. Don't take it personally. It's not all about you. Sorry.

Rock and roll DESERVES a wide definition.....the music is the very essence of it. Think about it.

Try to get some sleep my friend, I'm not worth it.

[rocknroll]

She's not saying she doesn't like it.

She's questioning the logic of starting a thread decrying the Elvis vs Beatles thing. As I said earlier, why raise it in the first bloody place?!

Thanks Rosanne. :lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:

[rocknroll]

She's not saying she doesn't like it.

She's questioning the logic of starting a thread decrying the Elvis vs Beatles thing. As I said earlier, why raise it in the first bloody place?!

......and also, why keep contributing to it, and contributinhg and contributing???

Me, I don't mind the debate. I can't lose as I like them both.(y)

[Diane]

I find it funny...the same old topics are raised from the dead over and over again and still we get pages and pages of posts protesting the fact.:lol::blink:

Diane

[rocknroll]

I find it funny...the same old topics are raised from the dead over and over again and still we get pages and pages of posts protesting the fact.:lol::blink:

Diane

Bingo........

and who was the first to protest???

[Getlo]

Rock and roll DESERVES a wide definition.....the music is the very essence of it.

Not wide to the point of including non-rock music. If you think the Beatles weren't mainly a pop band, then there's little hope.


Try to get some sleep my friend, I'm not worth it.

You got that right.


and who was the first to protest???

The woman who began this thread ...

[Unchained Melody]

Elvis stopped doing R&R when he went into the army and rarely reached the level of the 50's again. As for the Beatles they went psychedelic and then back to pop.

Excellent points made Matt. The closest Elvis got to R&R again was in '72 with Burning Love...(y)

[rocknroll]

Not wide to the point of including non-rock music. If you think the Beatles weren't mainly a pop band, then there's little hope.

If you think I'm the only one who thinks this way, then there is no hope for you. The Beatles were a ROCK band.

[ehollier]

The woman who began this thread ...

WRONG!! No protesting and incidently, NOT a Beatles fan either.....just something I ran across on the internet comparing Elvis to the Beatles!!!

[Sonny]

And like I stated in my first post.

All was said by the one that raised this topic again. And of course it turns out to be an old fashioned making no sense thread.

[rocknroll]

And like I stated in my first post.

All was said by the one that raised this topic again. And of course it turns out to be an old fashioned making no sense thread.

Now that is an understatement.

Anyone that says the Beatles were not a rock band makes no sense.:D:D:D

[Sonny]

The Stones were a rock band.

[presley31]

The Stones were a rock band.


agree Sonny. I think if the beatles were rock l would be more interested in them but there more pop than anything..Just my opinion.

[Sonny]

Which is the truth.

Beatles of course had influence on popular music. And nobody in his right mind can deny the skills of Lennon/Mc Cartney.

But they were not a true Rock band.

The Stones however can be considered as a true rock band.

[rocknroll]

But they were not a true Rock band.

How do you come to that conclusion? Please back your answer with facts.....if you can. Don't mistake great harmonies and catchy tunes with pop music.

Elvis influenced the Beatles, but the Beatles influenced all who followed.

It's sad that people on here seem to somehow think it is a backhanded insult to the Beatles to label them a "pop" band and that doing so somehow makes Elvis more releveant and important in their eyes.

[Sonny]

In fact you are right with your reply, in a way.

Since we don't need to forget that Elvis liked the Beatles songs very much and covered some even.

I never meant that Elvis was more relevant, even though he was in 1956 and in 1955. But that has nothing to do with The Beatles.

I came to my conclusion in a very simple way to be honest. Just compare the musical styles.

Beatles (don't get me wrong, cuz I like their music) did a lot of lighthearted songs in the beginning. Also their covers were songs fitting their style in a way.

The Stones (do not particularly like em lol) but they did in the beginning copied that rock and roll style. They covered Chuck Berry, Holly, and later on their songs, overall, were more rock and roll style.

Not saying anyone is better, or had more influence in popular music.

[rocknroll]

In fact you are right with your reply, in a way.

Since we don't need to forget that Elvis liked the Beatles songs very much and covered some even.

I never meant that Elvis was more relevant, even though he was in 1956 and in 1955. But that has nothing to do with The Beatles.

I came to my conclusion in a very simple way to be honest. Just compare the musical styles.

Beatles (don't get me wrong, cuz I like their music) did a lot of lighthearted songs in the beginning. Also their covers were songs fitting their style in a way.

The Stones (do not particularly like em lol) but they did in the beginning copied that rock and roll style. They covered Chuck Berry, Holly, and later on their songs, overall, were more rock and roll style.

Not saying anyone is better, or had more influence in popular music.

I see what you are saying, however, a lighthearted song is not necessarily just a pop song. I consider All Shook UP and Teddy Beat to be rock. I guess you need to take it in context with the times.

The Stones had the bad boy image, but, in my opinion, that does not make them anymore rock and roll than the Beatles. I parallel the Stones more with Elvis in that they embraced their influences (country and blues) in the music they recorded.

I can listen to Elvis or the Beatles anytime, but have to be really in the mood to listen to the Stones (and I have almost everything they recorded).

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Then your definition of rock and roll is too narrow.

I mentioned the Stones because IMO they have stuck to a formula that best represents rock 'n' roll as a comparison to the Beatles and Elvis. There are others who I consider rock 'n' roll however I wouldn't want to be too broad either :P



Rock and roll DESERVES a wide definition.....the music is the very essence of it. Think about it.

Oh since you insist.....

Hendrix, Fats Domino, Jerry Lee Lewis etc

Or are they classed as old school??

[utmom2008]

Now that is an understatement.

Anyone that says the Beatles were not a rock band makes no sense.:D:D:D


The Stones were a rock band.

How can you put "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" in the same music category as "Paint It Black" or "Brown Sugar"?:hmm::doh:

[Diane]

You can't...there is no comparison. Rock has a definite beat and there's no mistaking it. It doesn't meander all over the place.

Diane

[utmom2008]

You can't...there is no comparison. Rock has a definite beat and there's no mistaking it. It doesn't meander all over the place.

Diane

True! And....you can dance to The Stones, not alot of Beatles song that find yourself wanting to dance to.:D:D

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Subjective... here is another view...


Music Encyclopaedia: Rock

The term, strictly defined, refers to a musical style that emerged in the mid-1960s; more broadly, it encompasses this and rock and roll, which prevailed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The two styles have similarities both use amplified singing and electric instruments (usually a lead electric guitar, a prominent rhythm section of bass guitar and drums and often a rhythm guitar and keyboard instrument), have a strong rhythmic drive intended to encourage listeners to dance, and appeal principally to young people.

Rock and roll emerged in the USA in the mid-1950s as a development of rhythm-and-blues, but whereas rhythm-and-blues had an almost exclusively African-American audience, rock and roll appealed to a mass audience mainly of young whites. African-American rhythm-and-blues performers like Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Bo Diddley soon found success with this larger audience. But the greater popularity was for such white performers as Bill Haley and the Comets, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Gene Vincent and the Everly Brothers, most from southern country-music backgrounds. Rock and roll quickly gained an international following and in the early 1960s British groups such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and the Who helped broaden its stylistic boundaries and ushered in rock - a more diverse musical category.

Key themes for the early rock movement were youth protest, the counterculture and hallucinogenic drugs. San Francisco became its leading centre. Californian groups of the late 1960s such as the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane and the Doors broke away from the established format of the three-minute song and played loose, extended, improvisatory numbers. Eclecticism and experiment abounded.

By the mid-1970s, much of the experiment was felt to be self-indulgent and the political stances unrealistic. There were attempts to recapture the vigour of 1950s rock and roll and to work within the discipline of the short song, and the distinction between rock and pop music became blurred. Rock now became divided into several sub-categories such as heavy metal, punk and new wave, each with its own audience.

[Sonny]

Thanks for that info Matt!

It all is so simple.

The so called old school artist started it all. And they started what is called rock and roll.
Elvis or Haley, or any of em, did not create that name for it.

The Beatles, first recordings, used that old school rock and roll, but in a more subtle way.
The Stones took those Berry recordings and added a newer beat to it, but stuck to the roughness of the original.

I think it would be really fair to say: they all added to our music in their own way!

I can not think of a radio station not having Beatles, Stones, Elvis and other rock and roll artists together!
I am lucky to be able to listen to one, cuz I love em all!

[Diane]

Ok, so then let's call the old style rock and roll and the new style just plain rock.:)

Diane

[TotallyInsane]

Kinda like this:

j6UJZtCz1-c

[Diane]

Wooohoooo, that's exactly it Gail!(y)(y)(y)

I adore that song, it says it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And...I love that scene...thanks for posting it.:lol:


Diane

[Unchained Melody]

Thanks for that info Matt!

It all is so simple.

The so called old school artist started it all. And they started what is called rock and roll.
Elvis or Haley, or any of em, did not create that name for it.

The Beatles, first recordings, used that old school rock and roll, but in a more subtle way.
The Stones took those Berry recordings and added a newer beat to it, but stuck to the roughness of the original.

I think it would be really fair to say: they all added to our music in their own way!

I can not think of a radio station not having Beatles, Stones, Elvis and other rock and roll artists together!
I am lucky to be able to listen to one, cuz I love em all!

Well said Sonny!

And you are right when you say they all added to the music in their own way.

Theres no need to sit here and debate who was better Elvis or the Beatles because it all comes down to the opinions of others here.(y)

[TotallyInsane]

Wooohoooo, that's exactly it Gail!(y)(y)(y)

I adore that song, it says it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And...I love that scene...thanks for posting it.:lol:


Diane

We be on the same page Diane!! (y)(y)

[Getlo]

Beatles of course had influence on popular music. And nobody in his right mind can deny the skills of Lennon/Mc Cartney.

But they were not a true Rock band.

The Stones however can be considered as a true rock band.

Exactly. They did a lot of rock, and did indeed take rock in new directions, but they were not a true rock band, like The Stones etc.


How do you come to that conclusion? Please back your answer with facts. It's sad that people on here seem to somehow think it is a backhanded insult to the Beatles to label them a "pop" band

No one here has criticised The Beatles or pop music at all! You are the one who thinks it's a backhanded insult to label them as pop, which (ultimately) they were. Probably the greatest pop band in history, no question. Listen to the vast majority of their earlier stuff ... it's all POP.


I consider All Shook UP and Teddy Beat to be rock.

Then your definition of rock'n'roll needs reworking, especially when it comes to Teddy Bear. Those two original versions are pop, not rock in the true sense of the word.

Perhaps you're one of those people that believes Beyonce and her ilk are actually R&B, as per today's definition? She ain't, by the way.


How can you put "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" in the same music category as "Paint It Black" or "Brown Sugar"?:hmm::doh:

Perfectly well said! (y)

[Unchained Melody]

And I don't think it makes them any less great considering them a POP band either...which they were for the most part.

[shelley.m.]

I have never been a Beatles fan.In fact when I do hear a song by them,I turn the radio off.Give me Elvis anytime!!! He still is the greatest entertainer of all-time.

[rocknroll]

Exactly. They did a lot of rock, and did indeed take rock in new directions, but they were not a true rock band, like The Stones etc.



No one here has criticised The Beatles or pop music at all! You are the one who thinks it's a backhanded insult to label them as pop, which (ultimately) they were. Probably the greatest pop band in history, no question. Listen to the vast majority of their earlier stuff ... it's all POP.



Then your definition of rock'n'roll needs reworking, especially when it comes to Teddy Bear. Those two original versions are pop, not rock in the true sense of the word.

Perhaps you're one of those people that believes Beyonce and her ilk are actually R&B, as per today's definition? She ain't, by the way.



Perfectly well said! (y)

Wrong again, on all fronts.

[Unchained Melody]

Wrong again, on all fronts.

Well my friend that is your opinion...as Getlo is entitled to his.

[Unchained Melody]

I have never been a Beatles fan.In fact when I do hear a song by them,I turn the radio off.Give me Elvis anytime!!! He still is the greatest entertainer of all-time.

Absolutley right my friend..to be honest, I'd rather listen to Elvis than any other singer...and that's all i need.

[TotallyInsane]

Absolutley right my friend..to be honest, I'd rather listen to Elvis than any other singer...and that's all i need.

What are you doing in here - you're supposed to be fixing the radio??? :lmfao:

[Getlo]

Wrong again, on all fronts.

Wow, good comeback. Pithy and incisive ... ;)

[Unchained Melody]

What are you doing in here - you're supposed to be fixing the radio??? :lmfao:

its fixed come join us :P:PI'm waiting on you and rossie!!(y)

[rocknroll]

Wow, good comeback. Pithy and incisive ... ;)

Good enough for you. I reserve my best comeback for better people.

[utmom2008]

What are you doing in here - you're supposed to be fixing the radio??? :lmfao:

:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:

[rocknroll]

Well my friend that is your opinion...as Getlo is entitled to his.

Absolutely, as I've explained to him/her.

[Raised on Rock]

How can you put "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" in the same music category as "Paint It Black" or "Brown Sugar"?:hmm::doh:

No you can´t, but you are going out of context, what you are doing there is like comparing a '63 Presley Recording Session with a Presley '69 Recording Session, "Fountain of Love" and "Stranger in My Own Home Town", "Echoes of Love" and "Trouble/Guitar Man", huh? those are worlds apart.

Music changed so much during the 60's that you just can not compare a '64 song with a '66 one. So no you can´t put "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" with "Pain It Black", cause that is a little bit like cheating. What you are doing is like saying Elvis was not a rocker cause "Jailhouse Rock" sounds to pop compared to The Stones '69 "Gimme Shelter". In fact you are going as far as taking a no rock Beatles track comparing it with a rock track, like saying Elvis was no rocker cause "One Broken Heart For Sale" has nothing to do with "Satisfaction".

You do can compare "Pain it Black" with the Beatles '66 recordings like "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Rain", "She Said She Said" or "Love To You".

Or "Brown Sugar" with The Beatles '68-'69 period: "She´s So Heavy", "Helter Skelter", "I´ve Got a Feeling" or "Come Together".

Sure thing, The Rolling Stones recorded let say 90% rock and R&B derived music vs 10% pop, while The Beatles did maybe 80% pop vs 20% rock, but now let see, Elvis Presley recorded Country music and pop Ballads more than anything else, would that made him strictly a country singer? a pop singer? well maybe, but somehow, in essence, he was a rocker more than anything else, I guess the same thing is with the Beatles from my point of view. Remember, they didn´t started out with Love Me Do, they started out in Hamburg playing stragiht forward rock and roll.

[Raised on Rock]

You must be kidding.



This makes no sense whatsoever.

All rock music is POP-ular music, being: POPular music the masses music as opposed to academical-classical music. Not all Pop music is Rock as POP music includes many other kinds of music appart from Rock, like that kind of music that is labeled in record stores as Pop and is not The Rolling Stones.

Nobody could do better in being Elvis than Elvis, same with The Bealtes, or The Stones, beyond music labels, they are music styles in their own, to try to compare them in the who´s better competition is just going nowhere, each has their own abilities, you can say, Presley sang better, McCartney plays piano better, so? each of them did what they did in they own way, and they got to where they got by doing so, even the old who sold more records, or got the most 1 hits is a pointles game, although it could make sense to you, it makes none to me.

[Raised on Rock]

Exactly. They did a lot of rock, and did indeed take rock in new directions, but they were not a true rock band, like The Stones etc.(y)

So first you post: Absolute, unequivocal fact. Aside from, maybe, Rock'nRoll Music, The Beatles made POP music, and now you post they did a lot of rock. So from maybe they did one rock song you go to they did a lot of rock? Wow with the absolute, unequivocal facts. The Beatles made POP music, true, you got one right.

Now what´s the meaning of a TRUE:lmfao: (let me hear it again: TRUE:lmfao:), sorry, what´s the meaning of a TRUE ROCK BAND? "Undercover of the Night"? "Come On"? "You Better Move On"? "As Tears Go By"? does it hides on the etc?

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Excellent points Raised on Rock.

[rocknroll]

So first you post: Absolute, unequivocal fact. Aside from, maybe, Rock'nRoll Music, The Beatles made POP music, and now you post they did a lot of rock. So from maybe they did one rock song you go to they did a lot of rock? Wow with the absolute, unequivocal facts. The Beatles made POP music, true, you got one right.

Now what´s the meaning of a TRUE:lmfao: (let me hear it again: TRUE:lmfao:), sorry, what´s the meaning of a TRUE ROCK BAND? "Undercover of the Night"? "Come On"? "You Better Move On"? "As Tears Go By"? does it hides on the etc?

You speak the truth my friend.

I would say the Beatles did more than 29% rock, and I do consider a song like I Wanna Hold Your Hand as rock and roll when you, like I said before, take in contect with the times. At that time it was straight ahead rock and roll. Much like a song such as Promised Land would be considered country music by todays standards.

[Trev1]

I would not say that the Beatles were pop and not rock. Sure they had songs
that I would call 'pop', such as Penny Lane, but songs such as Helter Skelter, Back In the USSR, Get Back, Drive My Car, and even A Hard Days Night I would consider Rock.

They also recorded some great 'Rock and Roll' cover versions such as
Long Tall Sally, Kansas City, Buddy Hollys 'Words Of Love', Dizzy Miss
Lizzy and so on.

Personally I dont like the term 'pop' anyway. Just because Beatles music isnt as heavy as say Nirvana doesnt mean its not rock !

They recorded (like Elvis) many different types of music, including a number
of ballads/love songs (like Elvis) and a few country songs (like Elvis)
thrown in..

And I dont believe they were overated at all. Look at there back catalogue -
the recorded an unbelievable amount of classics in a very short space of time... e.g. In My Life, Something, Michelle, Yesterday, Girl, For No One,
Here There and Everywhere, Shes Leaving Home, Blackbird,
You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, The Long And Winding Road... I could
go on..

Finally tho its been mention that Lennon was a good songwriter, don't forget
McCartney and Harrison were as well.

Im a huge Elvis fan , but im also a big Bealtes fan too. I believe those two
are far ahead of anyone else (y)

[Trev1]

True! And....you can dance to The Stones, not alot of Beatles song that find yourself wanting to dance to.:D:D


'Twist and Shout' or 'I Saw Her Standing There ' ?? :hmm:

[Trev1]

How can you put "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" in the same music category as "Paint It Black" or "Brown Sugar"?:hmm::doh:

True , no you can't....but you can compare say 'Revolution'....

[Raised on Rock]

Probably the greatest pop band in history, no question. (y)

:doh: Didn´t you posted before: Substitute "greatest" with "most overrated", and you're more on the money. Which was the absolute, unequivocal fact?

[Getlo]

:doh: Didn´t you posted before: Substitute "greatest" with "most overrated", and you're more on the money. Which was the absolute, unequivocal fact?

Try to keep up, I know it must be hard for you ...

Your original quote was:


well we all got our favorite bands getlo..by your response i guess the beatles are not your fav..but they are the greatest band ever

To which I responded:

Substitute "greatest" with "most overrated", and you're more on the money.

Now then - still following me, here? - we have two different statements. One which said they were the greatest band ever (to which I disgreed) and my later comment that they were probably the greatest pop band ever.

Got it, now? Two completely different things. :rolleyes:

[Getlo]

Now what´s the meaning of a TRUE:lmfao: (let me hear it again: TRUE:lmfao:), sorry, what´s the meaning of a TRUE ROCK BAND?

One whom, as a general rule, makes ROCK music.

It's quite simple really.

Do the math: most Beatles tracks are POP.

You can't argue with the facts, though God knows people like you try to ...

[utmom2008]

It just seems to me that there are all sorts of bands that fall into their own category. I have always liked The Beatles, The Eagles and ZZ Top...but they all have 3 different sounds, don' they? The Beatles seemed to change their style more than any of the other bands did. Isn't it funny that a little LSD can bring you to "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds"? The Beatles early music has to be seen as Pop music. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is alot like a "Sugar, Sugar" by The Archies. And no one ever said The Archies were a Rock band.

[Brian]

It just seems to me that there are all sorts of bands that fall into their own category. I have always liked The Beatles, The Eagles and ZZ Top...but they all have 3 different sounds, don' they? The Beatles seemed to change their style more than any of the other bands did. Isn't it funny that a little LSD can bring you to "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds"? The Beatles early music has to be seen as Pop music. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is alot like a "Sugar, Sugar" by The Archies. And no one ever said The Archies were a Rock band.


Very good Post Roseanne

I do like the Beatles a lot personally I just happen to think of them as a Pop band more than a rock band. I own Rubber soul, Revolver, Abbey Road, and the Beatles #1 album. regarding Abbey road I think besides the snippet of polethyne pam and come together the album is a pop album (octopus garden is my favorite song on the album)

I think besides ''And your bird can sing'' and maybe Taxman the album is pop to me as well. I like Eleanor rigby and for no one, my favorite song would be the rocker ''And your bird can sing''

Rubber Soul is my favorite beatles album it has a folk rock type Byrds/Dylan type of influence but I still think of the album as a whole having a pop ballad type sound on most of the songs. my favorite song the uptempo ''I'm looking through you''

Regarding Sgt. Pepper I think of the album as pop with indian music influences I also think Rubber Soul and Revolver are better albums than Pepper but I still give it props because it was highly influential and popular to a lot of people when it came out.

Having said all this the Beatles did record a lot of good rockers in my opinion
I love their cover of Twist and shout and their I saw her Standing there, Help, Ticked to ride, Things we Said today, Get Back. I think She Loves loves you and I wanna hold your hand are good boy loves girl pop rockers that a lot of british bands were doing at the time. On the White album I think that Helter Skelter was proto metal just like Elvis version of hound dog was the loudest song on the radio at the time and a precursor to hard rock.

My favorite beatle ballad is ''I will follow the sun'' I like the words and melody

I never thought of the beatles as having the longevity and staying together for a long time like the Stones have but I do in a way wish that they had stayed togeher a while longer, when Brian Epstein died the beatles sent Colonel Parker a letter asking him to be their manager but he turned them down saying he didn't have time (he only managed 1 client at a time) after he turned them the Beatles couldn't seem to agree on who should be their new manger and drifted further apart. I have often wondered had the Colonel taken the job could he have kept them together until say 1975 when Lennon retired to be a house husband, think of the Beatles working on Paul Mccartney's solo album together as a band contributing songs and them working on Harrison's All things must pass together or McCartney's band on the run that would have been something.

The Colonel hanging around the beatles and their wives (yoko Ono, Linda, Marueen,Patti) advising them. Colonel Parker meeting all of the beatles musician friends like Eric Clapton etc. LOL

If nothing else the Colonel would have been blamed for their breakup instead of Yoko Ono

[Raised on Rock]

One whom, as a general rule, makes ROCK music.

It's quite simple really.

Do the math: most Beatles tracks are POP.

You can't argue with the facts, though God knows people like you try to ...

So from your point of view, if you review any band recording sessions and it turns out that they record 51% rock music and 49% of whatever, now they become a TRUE Rock band? Ok I´ll buy you.

So acording to you TRUE absolute, unequivocal math facts, Elvis Presley is either a country singer or a pop ballader (and there is nothing wrong with that) that once recorded a few rock songs.

Now as a far as I can see from your Mathematical point of view, neither The Rolling Stones. I made the huge mistake of stating that they recorded an 80% rock againts a 20%, but now that I have bought you on a bargain, Im going for the narrow purist view of rock music so now: they were not a True Rock band as they had recorded more R&B, Soul, Pop and Country music together, than actually strictly Rock music, in fact the define themselves as an R&B combo. Neither Zeppelin was as they again recorded more R&B, Blues, Country, Pop, and Progressive than straight out rock music. Neither are The Who or Pink Floyd. Maybe the only True Rocker is Chuck Berry, and isn´t he great for that? although a little tedious in the long run.

It is either that or to realize that the richnes of any rock artist/band as of any pop artist/band is into how they learned to diversify either to survive or to expand their vehicules of expresion, until they surpass chances of being labeled. Elvis being a great example of that, and The Bealtes just come after.

Oddly The Stones started as an R&B band and then they diversified into to Rock and Pop, rock being the money making image just as clean pop was for Elvis, but R&B has remained as their axis. But were The Beatles the ones that Started as a Rock band, they developed as a Pop band, but there was a rock edge that remained as their axis.

Elvis started as a weird mix of gospel, country, blues and R&B, Pop crooning, and that odd mix was his musical signature trough all his life, being the most diverse artist of his time, yet, it is the rock feel that is derived from that odd mix what difined his style, but can you label him strictly a rocker? a country ballader? I don´t think so, neither you can´t with The Bealtes, both are a style on their own. A style in pop music as much as in rock music.

[Raised on Rock]

Very good Post Roseanne

I do like the Beatles a lot personally I just happen to think of them as a Pop band more than a rock band. On the White album I think that Helter Skelter was proto metal just like Elvis version of hound dog was the loudest song on the radio at the time and a precursor to hard rock.



Hey Brian, and you can think of them like a pop band all the way if you like to concieve them like that, just as you can think of Elvis as either a country singer, or a rocker or whatever you like, casue it is part of what they were. But there is one big diference from the multiple interpretations of the artist/band that people can have, (and there is where the richenes of their art lies), to just label them and shortened them, under unilateral, unidimencional, concepts taken as the absolute, unequivocal facts and trues. Math, facts, absoultes? we are talking about Art here. "There are no quite simples really" if you are reading Getlo.

On the second comment of yours that I´m quoting Brian, it is because The Bealtes were a rock rooted group (despite they did not recorded rock stuff very often as same as Elvis) that they were able to suddenly come up with stuff like Helter Skelter. The Archies could have never done something like that for all the money.

[Raised on Rock]

We have two different statements. One which said they were the greatest band ever (to which I disgreed) and my later comment that they were probably the greatest pop band ever.

Got it, now? Two completely different things. :rolleyes:

Oh! thanks for explaining and preventing us from starting to believe you are not the most unequivocal Elvis fan around.

Does the same explanation works for your: "Absolute, unequivocal fact. Aside from, maybe, Rock'nRoll Music, The Beatles made POP music" and then your: "They did a lot of rock". Pop band or not, how did they went form only one rock cover song to "a lot or rock"?

But don´t bother explaining, we are sure you got a good one, and you making the thread interesting anyhow.

[Brian]

Hey Brian, and you can think of them like a pop band all the way if you like to concieve them like that, just as you can think of Elvis as either a country singer, or a rocker or whatever you like, casue it is part of what they were. But there is one big diference from the multiple interpretations of the artist/band that people can have, (and there is where the richenes of their art lies), to just label them and shortened them, under unilateral, unidimencional, concepts taken as the absolute, unequivocal facts and trues. Math, facts, absoultes, we are talking about Art here. "There are no quite simples really" if you are reading Getlo.

On the second comment of yours that I´m quoting Brian, it is because The Bealtes were a rock rooted group (despite they did not recorded rock stuff very often as same as Elvis) that they were able to suddenly come up with stuff like Helter Skelter. The Archies could have never done something like that for all the money.

Hey Raised on Rock How are you?

I think of Elvis as a diverse artist in a similar way to Ray Charles and Bobby Darin. The Beatles were a diverse band but not as diverse as Elvis was in my opinion.

In the 50's I think of Elvis as primarily a Rocker

In the 60's I think of him as a movie Star who recorded all kinds of material
quite a bit of rock n'' roll but he recorded more ballads during this decade

in the 70's I think of Elvis as a country and easy listening artists who sang the occasional rocker. Elvis made TTWII (a ballad album) Promised Land, Good Times, Elvis Country, Today and the Moody Blue album were all country albums to me. Also most of Elvis singles were ballads and country songs except Burning love, I think Promised land and T-R-O-U-B-L-E were country flavored rock n' roll songs but today would be classified as just country.
Also I take into account all the top 20 singles Elvis was having on the country charts during the 70's.

btw Raised on Rock what do you think of the Colonel managing the beatles?
Do you think he could have kept them together longer? I am curious of your opinion

[rocknroll]

Do the math: most Beatles tracks are POP


Wrong again. Or would it be better for me to say that is your absolute, unequivocal opinion? :)

[utmom2008]

Personally, I like the followings bands, in no particular order. The Stones, The Beatles, ZZ Top, The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac. How would you begin to compare and contrast those 5 bands? How do you categorize Neil Diamond? A great songwriter for sure, but is he a balladeer? It's hard to think so if you listen to "Cherry, Cherry" or "Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show.":blink::blush::blink::D

[Diane]

The music sound changed so much after the Beatles appeared on the scene that it all kind of ran into one and now there is not much distinction between any of the music styles. Even the country has other things mixed in. I don't think there is much of any "real" anything anymore.

Diane

[Raised on Rock]

btw Raised on Rock what do you think of the Colonel managing the beatles?
Do you think he could have kept them together longer? I am curious of your opinion

Parker magaing The Bealtes, who knows really, Parker was no fool and sure enough could have make some billlions with them, I mean The Beatles? But personally I think it would have been disastrous for the Beatles, Colonel had not a clue about how managing a modern rock/pop band, he would have wanted them to follow Elvis steps, and in 1967 being Elvis was not something you might wish if you were at the top of the rock scene. On the other hand, neither Lennon neither McCartney were yes man (no ofence to Elvis) so I guess they would have not agreed to do a lot of what Coronel asked for, they would have dropped him '69 and then disbanded around 1970 anyway.

Ironically, it could have been beneficial to Elvis as Colonel might have got some new conections, and get in touch a little bit with the modern music scene, also Elvis could have benefited from being in contact more closely with The Beatles and other artists and producers that were close to The Beatles, also The Beatles finally getting away from Parker and Presley new conections with them could have encouraged him latter on also get away of him and got a new manger.

But these is pure speculation, who knows really what could had happened if both Parker and Beatles had agreed on a managing deal.

[Raised on Rock]

Personally, I like the followings bands, in no particular order. The Stones, The Beatles, ZZ Top, The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac. How would you begin to compare and contrast those 5 bands? How do you categorize Neil Diamond? A great songwriter for sure, but is he a balladeer? It's hard to think so if you listen to "Cherry, Cherry" or "Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show.":blink::blush::blink::D

Great question, that´s what I´ve been trying to say, I guess somehow we always betray the artists anytime we do try to categorize them in a definitive way, like: how do you categorize Elvis? if you say country, pop, rock, etc. you are not wrong, but what about the other stuff? right?

Rock music was born from a melting pot, blues, country, gospel, pop etc. we know the story, but because of that, any of those styles will emerge stronger at any given point in history, and so, any rock band will focus more in one of them styles, or will change from one to another at diferent points of their career. There is no Berlin Wall between musical styles, I mean, ask Elvis.

People say Beatles was a Pop band and the Allman Brothers a Blues Band, they are not wrong, but from a wider perspective, I rather say The Bealtes were a Pop oriented Rock band, and the Allman's a Blues oriented Rock band, that becuase of their background, and musical aims.

I really don´t know enough of Neil Diamond,I don´t know his musical influences and how he started out, but from what I heard, in the early days, sounds like Rock oriented Pop, and also Soul oriented Pop. Deep Purple readed a Hard Rock song when they heard Kentuky WOman anyway.
Fleetwood Mac, I guess they started as a Rock oriented Blues band, but as the members of the band changed and also the musical tastes of the 70's moved, they became more of a roots oriented rock band, and then they ended as a pop oriented rock band.

[Raised on Rock]

The music sound changed so much after the Beatles appeared on the scene that it all kind of ran into one and now there is not much distinction between any of the music styles. Even the country has other things mixed in. I don't think there is much of any "real" anything anymore.

Diane

You are right, I agree with you Diane, and just will add that there hasn´t been any real anything ever if you look backwards, its always a mix of these and that, I mean, when we call the late 40's and 50's recordings of Muddy Waters or the 50's-60's recordings of B.B. King, when we call that: real blues by today standars, some blues artists from the 30's and early 40's already refered to those recordings as a mix up of many other things that were added to the original blues, and yet, that "original blues" was a mix of african music, european folk songs etc. And so on we can go backwards until I don´t know, first human whistling?

Rock music since the 50's until today, has bring that up very clearly, well only when you lisen to music outside absolute and unequivocal labels.

[Getlo]

Wrong again. Or would it be better for me to say that is your absolute, unequivocal opinion? :)

Try actually listening to the Beatles catalogue.

Oh, and welcome back. I see your temper tantrum didn't last long.

[Getlo]

So from your point of view, if you review any band recording sessions and it turns out that they record 51% rock music and 49% of whatever, now they become a TRUE Rock band? Ok I´ll buy you.

You're beginning to bore me.

I shall respond only when you begin to understand such a simple concept.

[Brian]

Parker magaing The Bealtes, who knows really, Parker was no fool and sure enough could have make some billlions with them, I mean The Beatles? But personally I think it would have been disastrous for the Beatles, Colonel had not a clue about how managing a modern rock/pop band, he would have wanted them to follow Elvis steps, and in 1967 being Elvis was not something you might wish if you were at the top of the rock scene. On the other hand, neither Lennon neither McCartney were yes man (no ofence to Elvis) so I guess they would have not agreed to do a lot of what Coronel asked for, they would have dropped him '69 and then disbanded around 1970 anyway.




But these is pure speculation, who knows really what could had happened if both Parker and Beatles had agreed on a managing deal.

I don't think Colonel Parker was all that bad if he stayed out of the creative side of things and only handled the business and promoting end I think he would of been a good manager he didn't really have to understand their music to be an effective manager in my opinion. I also think the hill and range publishing deals wouldn't have been an issue with the beatles as it was with Elvis because they wrote their own songs. The colonel could of agreed to take a 10% cut of whatever the beatles made and he would have been just fine.

[utmom2008]

I really don´t know enough of Neil Diamond,I don´t know his musical influences and how he started out, but from what I heard, in the early days, sounds like Rock oriented Pop, and also Soul oriented Pop.

Actually...Neil Diamond started out writing for others until one day he started recording his own music. He wrote "I'm A Believer" which of course was a huge Pop record for The Monkeys..certainly a Pop band. Much of Neil Diamond's music is auto biographical...."Brooklyn Roads" and of course "I Am I Said".

[rocknroll]

Try actually listening to the Beatles catalogue.

Oh, and welcome back. I see your temper tantrum didn't last long.

Sure, I'll try to squeeze their catalogue into my schedule. :lmfao:

[Raised on Rock]

You're beginning to bore me.

I shall respond only when you begin to understand such a simple concept.

Wow, good comeback. Pithy and incisive ...

I have already understand your concept, I did bought it, but didn´t like it in the end, there is a diference between do not understand and do not agreed man. To bad I´m not fun enough so you could at least try to understand other peoples points of view with at least half of the energy you spend trying to show your narrow view of things as the ultimate, absolute, unequivocal true. Anyhow you math aplied to arts and music neither seems to interesting to me if you are just about to stick to it and live in contempt with it, you are also boring to me or anyone who wants to talk about music beyond the obvious labels.

Enjoy your simple concepts glasses.

[rocknroll]

Wow, good comeback. Pithy and incisive.

Ha ha. :lmfao:

Good one.

Wish I knew what it meant. :D

[Getlo]

I have already understand your concept, I did bought it, but didn´t like it in the end, there is a diference between do not understand and do not agreed man. To bad I´m not fun enough so you could at least try to understand other peoples points of view with at least half of the energy you spend trying to show your narrow view of things as the ultimate, absolute, unequivocal true. Anyhow you math aplied to arts and music neither seems to interesting to me if you are just about to stick to it and live in contempt with it, you are also boring to me or anyone who wants to talk about music beyond the obvious labels.

Come back to me when you have a better grasp on language and politeness, and sentences that actually have periods in them. Adieu.

[Sonny]

Everybody, stay away from personal attacks please.

Stick to the topic...

Sonny

[utmom2008]

:lmfao: 142 posts later everyone is still going at it from a thread that started with instructions to end the debate.;);):lmfao: :lmfao:

[Sonny]

:D

True!

But it was fine for a while!

So, back on topic I'd say.

[Raised on Rock]

This endless Elvis versus The Beatles debate should end.

How can you reasonably compare one musician to a group of musicians when their music is as different as oil and water? Elvis' claim to musical prowess was based on the magnificent instrument that was his voice allied to the sheer scale of his vision and his extraordinary interpretative powers that voice.

The Beatles rests on their superb song writing skills, craftsmanship and inventiveness. In more ways than one these two greats came from a different place. Let it finally rest there I say.

Back to the topic. I think the VS. way of comparing them, as the who is better endless battle, has no reason to be, and it should end when is developed in a way that tends to end in putting down any of both artist.

Yet, there are other more positive and enrichening ways to comparing them and shoud have keep coming. I disagree then if people say that there is no way in which they can be compared, more if they give as a reason the fact that The Beatles were a Pop Band and Elvis a Rock act, as the reasons they use to claim The Beatles were not a Rock act could be the same to be used to state that Elvis was a Pop act as much as The Beatles, leaving them again both in the same category. (And the same will happen with the Stones)

I belive the reason that comparing The Beatles and Elvis may look uneven has more to do with the fact that they belonged to a diferent generation and not so much to do with the musical styles that they played.


************************************************** *****

P.S. I would like to ask, to the moderators and other TCB users, if the fact that Im not an english native speaker, is a reason for me to stop giving my opinion on TCB forums, if anybody have founded that a matter of unpolitness from my side, I will do apologyze.

[KPM]

Back to the topic. I think the VS. way of comparing them, as the who is better endless battle, has no reason to be, and it should end when is developed in a way that tends to end in putting down any of both artist.

Yet, there are other more positive and enrichening ways to comparing them and shoud have keep coming. I disagree then if people say that there is no way in which they can be compared, more if they give as a reason the fact that The Beatles were a Pop Band and Elvis a Rock act, as the reasons they use to claim The Beatles were not a Rock act could be the same to be used to state that Elvis was a Pop act as much as The Beatles, leaving them again both in the same category. (And the same will happen with the Stones)

I belive the reason that comparing The Beatles and Elvis may look uneven has more to do with the fact that they belonged to a diferent generation and not so much to do with the musical styles that they played.


************************************************** *****

P.S. I would like to ask, to the moderators and other TCB users, if the fact that Im not an english native speaker, is a reason for me to stop giving my opinion on TCB forums, if anybody have founded that a matter of unpolitness from my side, I will do apologyze.
You keep posting -I understand what you are saying fine.(y)
If I had to post on a non English site I'd be totally lost as the only language course I ever took was "Latin" so I speak nothing but English.
I wish I did know another language-just never got around to learning one.:blush:

[utmom2008]

P.S. I would like to ask, to the moderators and other TCB users, if the fact that Im not an english native speaker, is a reason for me to stop giving my opinion on TCB forums, if anybody have founded that a matter of unpolitness from my side, I will do apologyze.

You actually do very well with your English. If I had to be on a Spanish speaking MB the only posts I would be able to post would say Bueno and Adios.:lol::D:D

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

P.S. I would like to ask, to the moderators and other TCB users, if the fact that Im not an english native speaker, is a reason for me to stop giving my opinion on TCB forums, if anybody have founded that a matter of unpolitness from my side, I will do apologyze.

TCB-World is all inclusive, we may be a bit boistrous at times but we are all here for one reason even though we disagree on many things (y)

[KPM]

TCB-World is all inclusive, we may be a bit boistrous at times but we are all here for one reason even though we disagree on many things (y)
At times that could be an understatement;):lol:

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

At times that could be an understatement;):lol:

Perhaps we should set up a thread where we can all hug and be friends:hug::cheers:

[Diane]

Sounds great. There really are a lot of very nice people here.

:hug:to everyone, Diane

[presley31]

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh205/cubfan65/cute_hugs.jpg

yep hugs are good (y)

[utmom2008]

Perhaps we should set up a thread where we can all hug and be friends:hug::cheers:

You are such an optimist Matt! It would probably close due to lack of participation.;):lmfao:

[Diane]

Well so far only Jen and I hugged.:'(

Diane

[Elvis_Lady_1984]

Altimately we will all choose Elvis over any other preformer..atleast i do

[utmom2008]

Well so far only Jen and I hugged.:'(

Diane

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

[Getlo]

Perhaps we should set up a thread where we can all hug and be friends:hug::cheers:

I'd kill myself ... :'(

[Donut]

P.S. I would like to ask, to the moderators and other TCB users, if the fact that Im not an english native speaker, is a reason for me to stop giving my opinion on TCB forums, if anybody have founded that a matter of unpolitness from my side, I will do apologyze.

Wouldn´t it be an ideal world if we all spoke spanish? :lol: At least easier for us to post our opinions...

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

I'd kill myself ... :'(

Some need a hug more than others ;)

[midnight]

Awww come on Getlo you can do it, just one little tiny hug from us!! I bet you will like it!!! LOL

[Getlo]

Awww come on Getlo you can do it, just one little tiny hug from us!! I bet you will like it!!! LOL

I'd rather stick a red hot poker in my eye than hug anyone, thanks all the same ...

[ehollier]

I'd rather stick a red hot poker in my eye than hug anyone, thanks all the same ...

Are you always a softie like this or just naturally this hostile and antisocial??

[midnight]

Ok. I`ll get the hot poker ready!!!!

[Sonny]

Here we go again...

It seems about time to finally close this thread :D and start the hugging one :P

Close it? Or do we wanna go on wasting time on this particular subject?

Sonny

[Getlo]

Close it? Or do we wanna go on wasting time on this particular subject?

Er, hug tangent started by:


Perhaps we should set up a thread where we can all hug and be friends:hug::cheers:

[Sonny]

:D I meant this Beatles thread with a particular subject.

[ehollier]

Here we go again...

It seems about time to finally close this thread :D and start the hugging one :P

Close it? Or do we wanna go on wasting time on this particular subject?

Sonny

Are you feeling left out b/c you weren't included in the group hug for Getlo....lol.....:P:P:P:P:P ... when I posted this thread, I didn't realize that we would be hugging this many posts later.......:blink::blink::blink::blink::blink:

[KPM]

Are you feeling left out b/c you weren't included in the group hug for Getlo....lol.....:P:P:P:P:P ... when I posted this thread, I didn't realize that we would be hugging this many posts later.......:blink::blink::blink::blink::blink:
If the Beatles fans and Elvis fans would hug more ofter-this "Elvis vs. Beatles" controversy might end.;) Hows that for bringing it back on topic.:lol:

[Diane]

Pretty darn good Ken.:lol: Actually my brother-in-law and I are doing our part in the Elvis vs Beatles (Lennon) controversy, we hug.:D

Diane

[SleepyJack]

Shouldn`t this thread be about Elvis v The Kinks?.........They were a much better band!:D

[utmom2008]

This endless Elvis versus The Beatles debate should end. Let it finally rest there I say.




Here we go again...

It seems about time to finally close this thread :D and start the hugging one :P

Close it? Or do we wanna go on wasting time on this particular subject?

Sonny

:lmfao::lmfao: How many posts are we up to now.;);) :lmfao:

[ehollier]

:lmfao::lmfao: How many posts are we up to now.;);) :lmfao:

Yours made #171.....

[utmom2008]

Yours made #171.....

:lmfao:I didn't want to miss anything...this seems to be the place to be seen.:lol:

[KPM]

Shouldn`t this thread be about Elvis v The Kinks?.........They were a much better band!:D
The King vs The Kinks!:lol:

[LtCarman]

Man, this is thread ironic.

[rocknroll]

I'd rather stick a red hot poker in my eye than hug anyone, thanks all the same ...

Questions answered.:doh:

[Sonny]

Before going over 200 posts :lmfao:

Goodbye for now....