elvis v the beatles

[geordie]

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.

[NEA]

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]

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 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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



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]

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]

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]

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...?????!!!!!!

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]

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...?????!!!!!!

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]

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]

John Lennon and Paul MCartney both have stated that ".... without Elvis, there would be no Beatles."

That pretty much sums it up for me!

[geordie]

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

[quinn53]

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.

[Captain Elwood David]

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


captain. 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]

As someone who appreciates both Lennon & The Beatles , for me it's Elvis every time
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

[richardo316]

As someone who appreciates both Lennon & The Beatles , for me it's Elvis every time
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

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]

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]

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.