PDA

View Full Version : elvis v the beatles



geordie
02-22-2005, 10:44 PM
if someone asked you why you liked elvis better than the beatles what would you say to them.they would come up with,the beatles wrote their own songs,played lots of instruments,and so forth.what could you say to convince them elvis really was the KING. :hmm: :king:

NEA
02-22-2005, 10:57 PM
Hi,

I would probably touch on the fact that Elvis was ONE and The Beatles were FOUR - you can't really compare 1 artist and 1 Group together...must be two different categories.

But, when it comes to the crunch - Elvis was also a musician but he had that one magical thing that separates the men from the boys - Charisma!...both in his voice and as a stage performer.

I don't mean to take anything away from the Fab Four by saying this, but at the end of the day, The Beatles too were not only influenced by that early Elvis Rockabilly sound but also his Charisma and onstage persona.

Good post, Geordie!

Elvisgirl
02-22-2005, 11:09 PM
i don't think you can convince anyone elvis is better than the beatles if they like the beatles most. i wouldn't say anything if someone said to me that the beatles is better than elvis cause it's not my fault that they are ignorant fools :lmfao: no just kidding...each to their. not everyone in the world think elvis is the best...unfortunately

elvis is the king that's a fact and everybody knows that. if someone says something else they're just ignorant

Jumpsuit Junkie
02-22-2005, 11:44 PM
if someone asked you why you liked elvis better than the beatles what would you say to them.they would come up with,the beatles wrote their own songs,played lots of instruments,and so forth.what could you say to convince them elvis really was the KING. :hmm: :king:

I've had these conversations many times, living In a town only 16 miles from where the fab four where born its hard not to come accross this converstion!

I usually ask them to describe the Beatles in ground breaking musicle terms and that usually ends up being ST Peppers, sum up Elvis and its The 50's, 68 Special, Aloha From Hawaii and the films from the 60's.

Case closed.

Matt

P.S. I hate to say it but I think the way in which John Lennon died has added a mystery that surrounds him and the Beatles, this does not detract from the music but ultimately adds to it in a way that gives it a certain nostalgia.

Albert
02-23-2005, 08:40 AM
If the question was "who's the best songwriter/composer" or "who's musically (experimenting, making new sounds, etc) the best", then I would vote for and agree upon the Beatles.

But on all other questions Elvis would beat The Beatles easily. He had more different styles (country, gospel, bigband, evergreens, rock, bigband ballads, dixieland, blues, etc.), had more voices (compare tracks like "Down In The Alley", "Stand By Me", "Surrender", "US Male" with eachother), sold more singles and albums, had a much better stagepower, etc., etc.

Not less important: Elvis did it all alone, while Paul had John. And if the Paul/John combo didn't work, there was always the input of Ringo and George.

Another big point: The Beatles only managed to be together for less than a decade. They didn't need to compete with other styles and big names in the 70s or 80s. Elvis started in the 50s and set a name in that era. In the 60s he had to compete with new acts and musicstyles (like the Beatles). In the 70s he already was considered old, but still managed to be in the hitparade and stay a big name and act. The Beatles are always remembered for those explosive 7 years from 1963-1970, and never had the time to become a band of no-importance. Just imagine when The Beatles would have released albums after 1970 that weren't sold good enough and that they were trashed by the reviewers. That they became so eager to stay "new" that people became bored of it. That would have really tarnished their image.

MysteryTrain
02-23-2005, 12:04 PM
Trying to convince a beatles fan to belive Elvis is better, is like trying to convince us to belive, that the beatles is better than Elvis. It wont work.
But if the question was why i like Elvis better and why i think he is better than that band. I would be another case.
I honestly dont think that there would be Beatles without Elvis. I take Jhon Lennons word for that. Elvis was the mot important person to bring Rock to the comercial world. He was not the person who started rock, but he is responsibe for taking it out to the mainstream.
And i dont belive that another person could do this. (Ex. Little Richar,Chuck Berry, Eddy Chocrane etc.)
In fact i belive Elvis broke down a big part of segregation, so the "black" rockers could come trough and get air time at radios, Ed Sullivan and other.
Also he was a part of a new sound to rock. (You can clearly hear this, on sun records after Elvis broke trough). And this sound would define rock in the later 50s. It became more agressive but also more soft. He kind of mixed different music styles. Hard to explain really.
Also Elvis was the one to take most of the critics coming from the mature community. Not everyone had the backbone to handle this.
Elvis also brought rock to places where country was the only thing played. (Lousiana Hyride and grand ol`e opry) This made rock more "legal" on those places.
And i must also add that ELvis was not any song writer, but he was a better vocalist and entertainer than any of the member in Beatles. Wich can not match Elvis range in singing. (I would like to hear Lennon do Hurt)
When the Beatles hit America all these obstacles where gone, so they could more or less just release their records and wait for the number 1. Cause on that time there was very little critical wiews against rock music. And i must say (this is my opinion, so please no flaming), that the beatles music was a more pop influenced rock. So i cant really compare the early Elvis with the beatles.

P.S. Annie
02-23-2005, 07:22 PM
Well I like the beatles there songs. But I'm not fond of there voices, charisma, entertainmet abilities and so on. Elvis had a greater varity of songs, charisma. Before Elvis there was nothing, before the Beatles there was Elvis, during the Beatles there was Elvis and after the Beatles there is Elvis. O, and did I mention his charisma :lmfao:



Well for me Elvis and the Beatles are two different things and I cant understand why people always compare them and make you choose.

richardo316
02-23-2005, 09:43 PM
i would say that even though elvis never wrote his own song's the songs he did do were done detter then the beatles could have done. example elvis's long tall sally is way better then the beatles. he was a far better live performer as well,as a better actor. they say elvis made bad movies the beatles were even worse. let's not forget that elvis covered a few beatles songs also, and with the exeption of hey jude elvis's versions of something, yesterday were far better then the beatles versions.

Captain Elwood David
02-23-2005, 10:33 PM
I've always felt that the need for the constant "comparisons" between each stems from basic insecurities in both camps.

One is a "group", the other is a single artist. They are inherently different.

---------------------------------

That said, ............ my take on this topic:

One came first & influenced the other, not vice-versa.

One sought the other out, ......... again, not vice-versa.

One raves about the other, ......................again, not vice-versa.

IMO, that just about sums it up.


- Capt. "EL."

Cryogenic
02-23-2005, 10:36 PM
Yeah.

My post is really a coalescence of points already made...

It's apples and oranges. One has to respect The Beatles for their song-writing ability whereas one has to respect Elvis for his vocal ability. Both were/are at the top of their trees. Ask Elvis to have written a song - and who knows what kind of result you'd have gotten (particularly in his drug induced hazes). Likewise, ask John Lennon or Paul McCartney to have sung something like "You Gave Me A Mountain" in the way that Elvis did - and it wouldn't have been pretty! Elvis also weathered three turbulent decades of American history; he's attained an epicness and veneration in a way not even The Beatles could be said to have achieved. Lastly, the range and versatility of Elvis' music is almost certainly without equal.


P.S. I hate to say it but I think the way in which John Lennon died has added a mystery that surrounds him and the Beatles, this does not detract from the music but ultimately adds to it in a way that gives it a certain nostalgia.

And this cannot be said of Elvis...?????!!!!!! :supriced: :blink:

Lennon may have been shot - which is truly tragic - but Elvis' demise and eventual death is a cause of intense fascination from his day to this. It's impossible not to think of the sheer magnitude of untapped potential that will never be realised. For many people (myself included), it's also impossible to fully come to terms with and understand what truly drove a man to self destruction. Many of these same people seem to find a raw honesty, achiness and transcendentality in his latter work. If you're going to apply the particular line of reasoning you have to The Beatles, then you simply MUST apply it to Elvis, too.

Jumpsuit Junkie
02-23-2005, 11:35 PM
P.S. I hate to say it but I think the way in which John Lennon died has added a mystery that surrounds him and the Beatles, this does not detract from the music but ultimately adds to it in a way that gives it a certain nostalgia.




And this cannot be said of Elvis...?????!!!!!! :supriced: :blink:

Lennon may have been shot - which is truly tragic - but Elvis' demise and eventual death is a cause of intense fascination from his day to this. It's impossible not to think of the sheer magnitude of untapped potential that will never be realised. For many people (myself included), it's also impossible to fully come to terms with and understand what truly drove a man to self destruction. Many of these same people seem to find a raw honesty, achiness and transcendentality in his latter work. If you're going to apply the particular line of reasoning you have to The Beatles, then you simply MUST apply it to Elvis, too.

Whilst I recognise your reasoning, the way in which Lennon died was a more shocking event rather than a conclusion of a lifestyle. John Lennon has reached a mythic status and thus has past this onto the Beatles, In most public voting shows, Lennon is always rated higher than the Beatles. Time being the best leveler things will be seen in black and white in the not to distant future.

I found it interesting on a UK television show that the best record of all time was not the famed "Imagine" as had been voted in many different shows, but Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. One of the commentators expressed the opionion that, the song although good was not great and that it is at its rightful place now.

Now when we look at the Elvis world, it has widely accepted the lifestyle of Elvis and the inevitable outcome with the results speaking for themselves, records still charting and the general public wanting more.

Public sympathy (Nostalgia) will only last for so long, it becomes indifferent to sentiment and you are left with talent and talent alone.

I cannot and will not detract from the Beatle legacy, I simply feel that the Lennon factor (Baggism, Give Peace a Chance etc) gives more credence to the whole Beatle synario, The general public simply cannot seperate the two!

The same simply does not apply to Elvis.

Cryogenic
02-24-2005, 12:53 AM
Ah, JJ, I see where you were coming from now. Your last few sentences clarified your position for me.

In the short term, although I wasn't yet born to bear witness to such events, I have the impression that the public reaction to Lennon's passing and Elvis' passing was almost one and the same. There was massive outcry and mourning on both counts, both artists' record sales shot through the roof, and in Elvis' case, the President of the United States issued a public statement! You can't get much higher recognition than that. It's in the long term, I feel, where the two have diverged - and your point comes into sharp focus. With what we now know about Elvis and his lifestyle, his death seems inevitable; a natural punctuation mark for the type of life he had been leading. Just as you have said. Elvis is often villified by the public at large, and even though his fans may lament that situation, the inevitability of his death remains a rigid, unassailable point. By contrast, Lennon's life was tragically cut short in a moment of sheer psychosis. Public reaction to such a thing is inherently more sympathetic. And indeed it was a tragedy.

I'd like to think that talent will indeed be the determining factor in the ultra long term. In which case, BOTH men should and will get the respect they deserve.

nabelt24
02-24-2005, 04:21 AM
John Lennon and Paul MCartney both have stated that ".... without Elvis, there would be no Beatles."

That pretty much sums it up for me! :P

geordie
02-25-2005, 12:16 AM
I've always felt that the need for the constant "comparisons" between each stems from basic insecurities in both camps.

One is a "group", the other is a single artist. They are inherently different.

---------------------------------

That said, ............ my take on this topic:

One came first & influenced the other, not vice-versa.

One sought the other out, ......... again, not vice-versa.

One raves about the other, ......................again, not vice-versa.

IMO, that just about sums it up.


- Capt. "EL."


i posted the same thread on www.bagism.com but putting j lennon in instead of beatles it has got some interesting replies


captain. (y) :) i used your words to reply at the end as i thought they were very apt. hope you dont mind

quinn53
02-25-2005, 08:45 PM
Like everyone says, you can talk until you are blue in the face and you ain't gonna change nobody's mind. I love The Beatles. But to me, Elvis came first, he led the way, and led the way not to be, he chartered the course man, for better or worse. Plus I don't know any other artist that encaptured America's music. I mean who else did gospel,blues, rock,country as well as Elvis. Elvis is The King, The Man, always will be. :king:

Captain Elwood David
02-26-2005, 01:34 AM
i posted the same thread on www.bagism.com but putting j lennon in instead of beatles it has got some interesting replies


captain. (y) :) i used your words to reply at the end as i thought they were very apt. hope you dont mind
Don't mind at all, "geordie."

Interesting, ........... thanks for the link.

Other than hitting a nerve, ............. I didn't see much in the way of substantive retort in any of their replies.

Definitely a different mind-set over there -- --------> I personally don't get the entire "Bagism" philosophy. To each their own, for sure.

Here's to fighting the good fight, .............. cheers ......... !


- Capt. "EL."

Liverbobs
02-26-2005, 09:05 AM
As someone who appreciates both Lennon & The Beatles , for me it's Elvis every time :king:
When this subject is discussed you always get the "Elvis didn't write his own stuff" malarky but so what? I mean can you imagine the Beatles doing "Suspicious Minds" ? It's the way Elvis interpretated (sp?) stuff that helped make him so **** good, and anyway when the Beatles split up , apart from the odd album , both Lennon and Macca wrote nothing but pap ! as the capt. so elegantly put it, it was the Beatles who sought Elvis out ! and on the day of Lennon's death , during his last interview he said " I heard I Want You, I Need You I Love You on the radio a few days ago and I was in heaven (not knowing that in several hours he actually would be ...) and on his last photo shoot on the same day he had his hair in an Elvis quiff.. nuff said :notworthy

richardo316
02-27-2005, 01:44 AM
As someone who appreciates both Lennon & The Beatles , for me it's Elvis every time :king:
When this subject is discussed you always get the "Elvis didn't write his own stuff" malarky but so what? I mean can you imagine the Beatles doing "Suspicious Minds" ? It's the way Elvis interpretated (sp?) stuff that helped make him so **** good, and anyway when the Beatles split up , apart from the odd album , both Lennon and Macca wrote nothing but pap ! as the capt. so elegantly put it, it was the Beatles who sought Elvis out ! and on the day of Lennon's death , during his last interview he said " I heard I Want You, I Need You I Love You on the radio a few days ago and I was in heaven (not knowing that in several hours he actually would be ...) and on his last photo shoot on the same day he had his hair in an Elvis quiff.. nuff said :notworthy
i can't imagine the beatles doing suspicious minds. i remember hearing lennon's version of hounddog once and was not impressed with it at all.

Davey
02-27-2005, 03:18 AM
However, taking on board the points above (and agreeing with many of them) and also trying to get things into perspective here, I can't imagine Elvis ever being able to cover such amazing songs as A Day In the Life, Nowhere Man, Help, Across The Universe etc.

Both did what they did incredibly well but that doesn't make any one 'better' than the other, just different, that's all. I have my Beatles phases just as often as I have my Elvis phases.

richardo316
02-27-2005, 03:32 AM
your right davey. i will say elvis did a horrible job on hey jude, but i think his versions of something andyesterday are better then the beatles versions. although they are close on yesterday.

Liverbobs
02-28-2005, 11:06 AM
I would love to have heard Elvis do a "proper" version of Lady Madonna, if there was ever a Beatles tune that was just right for Elvis this is it ! It does make me wonder though why Elvis chose only to sing Paul's songs and none of John's, also I would have loved to hear Elvis sing "In My Life"

quinn53
02-28-2005, 11:10 AM
LiverBobs, Man that would have been great.

richardo316
02-28-2005, 01:28 PM
i remember reading somewhere that elvis didn't like john. i don't remember why though

Cryogenic
02-28-2005, 03:52 PM
Strange.

I heard the opposite. Depends on whether you're willing to believe Larry Geller or not...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,772036,00.html

Wendy56
07-23-2005, 10:01 AM
Elvis vs. who??? Nobody is better than the king. :P

EnigmaticSun
07-23-2005, 12:08 PM
Well, as we all know, Elvis kind of invented the Beatles.

As far as singing is concerned and stage presence, Elvis was way better. I can't bear the thought of the Beatles singing: It's Now Or Never, How Great Thou Art, Hurt, You Gave Me A Mountain, Unchained Melody...

It's not true that Elvis wasn't capable of playing instruments. He was able to play bass, guitar and piano.. Who knows what else he could have been capable of.

Elvis' acting abilities are also underrated, he did a very decent job on films like Love Me Tender, Jailhouse Rock, King Creole, Flaming Star, Wild In The Country, Charro, The Trouble With Girls. I also like the 'lighthearted' movies like Easy Come, Easy Go, Blue Hawaii and Fun In Acapulco - although not be taken too seriously it is very entertaining and different from today's movies in a way that he was able to please people without becoming overly violent.

It's true that the Beatles had songwriting abilities, though. Elvis liked some of their songs and more or less performed songs like Yesterday, Hey Jude, Lady Madonna and Get Back and I definitely like Elvis' voice better - even though his voice was kind of hoarse on Hey Jude it's fun to listen to anyway..!

It's true that it's hard to compare a group with a man. All I can say is the Beatles owe a lot to Elvis!

ElvisBlue
07-27-2005, 08:57 PM
Elvis Was Also An for The Beatles in The 50's, That's The First Sing Why Elvis Is The King... ...And I Would Say That The Story Behind Elvis, Sound Like An American Dream That Everyone Like To Live... ...That What The Beatles Do In A Team, Elvis Did Alone... ...Also Elvis Could Sing EVery Kind Of Music... ...Rock 'n' Roll, Blues, Gospel, Country Or What Every, It Just Sounds Great.... .. So Could Go On And On, But I Think That This Are Enough Reasons Why I Prefer Elvis...

:king:

buttonhead
07-29-2005, 02:15 AM
The beatles is simply a band, Elvis is an entertainer . :D

thefrankfortspecial
07-29-2005, 12:53 PM
Elvis or Beatles... a tricky question. I have been an admirer of both for about 30 years, and have been asked which was better, my answer both where the best at what they did. Elvis was the essential rock n roll star, his sun recordings, are still listened to in 2005, for that unique sound,original and ground breaking. His fifties rock n roll shows set the mark for many later stars in the early sixties, Buddy Holly said elvis was the guy who gave us all that opening we needed. His movie years bar some of the the early one's where so-so, even Elvis did not like them much, but the Beatles failed at this too. The 68 special, again ground breaking, being placed on a small square stage,with a live audience and cameras, after having left the live scene for so long, a daunting nightmare, but his pure talent and showmanship pulled off an amazing musical perfromance, and re-invented himself for te wonderful 69-77 concert years.
The Beatles, their live days in Hamburgand later Cavern club days before fame,considerd by many to be the best they ever performed in a live sense their early music 63-64, very british pop, their harmonies,haircuts, and several self written titles, enough to attract fans interest. They had that charm and witty Liverpool personality to sway many newspapers, television, and fans. Somthing that endeared them to a large section of the teenage world. The movies, funny,witty, not brilliant pieces of celluloid. Then came their Rubber soul LP, probably the first true rock album. Their lyrics and music becoming more and more the benchmark for other artists, to try and equal. Their studio techniques, very revolutionary, their impact to recording and word use legendary, never equalled and probably will never be surpassed, they where unique, in group or solo make up.
Both artists unique, both adored worldwide, who was better, does it matter?... Enjoy their works for what ever reason, as their likes will never be seen again.

Memphisgurl
10-12-2005, 11:59 PM
i would say, ELVIS!! DUH! LOL but seriously umm, like i would say, if it werent for elvis the beatles would NOT existed! like john lennon said "before elvis, there was nothing"

Tommy
10-13-2005, 12:22 AM
John Lennon and Paul MCartney both have stated that ".... without Elvis, there would be no Beatles."

That pretty much sums it up for me! :P

Yep, that's it for me too. No Elvis no ROCK & ROLL!

Tommy :)

KPM
10-13-2005, 12:45 AM
I stumbled accross a Beatle site by accident and they had a poll about who had done more for Music and the universe? I asked how to vote on there forum and was told it was over, but got into some nice discussions with Beatle fans. By and large they were very pro Elvis, they just preferered the Beatles.But a couple of Beatle fans were so derogatory and rude. The other Beatle fans actually got down on them for being disrespectful to Elvis and people visiting the site. I think most of them have a respect and appreciation for Elvis.(but not all)

0349054
10-13-2005, 12:48 AM
Had there been no Elvis, there would have been no Elvis. I personally think its quite ignorant of Beatles fans to disregard Elvis.

On the other side, some of the feel agrieved that Elvis was there before and after the Beatles.

KPM
10-13-2005, 01:01 AM
The ones I dealt with at the who were disrespectful to quote them "He wasn't a musician, Paul sings better, and he never wrote his own songs" They then went on for about a paragraph describing how dumb I was for thinking he was talented. Others on this forum chastised them for what they said and even defended Elvis as a great singer who pioneered the way for the Beatles. I tried reasoning with with the rude ones but there was no reasoning. I hope they were in there early teens and not adult fans.

0349054
10-13-2005, 01:15 AM
Ignorance is bliss. Some people just dont want to know. I know an ardent Beatles admirer who rarely gives Elvis the recognition he deserved. Accuses Elvis of not writing his own songs, stealing black music, etc......

Yet he always borrows my 68' Deluxe DVD, Aloha Deluxe DVD, is fascinated by the 69' Sessions, TTWII !

He's a closet Elvis fan, but out of pride and the barrier he originally put up, he wont admit it! I like it because I have from the start said I like the Beatles!


BTW, those fans on the board would so well to read what their own idols have said about Elvis. It's like someone admiring Plato but disliking Socrates. You just can't, it makes no sense!