Reply With QuoteIt took 4 of them to conquer the UK, but only 1 Elvis to conquer the world
Sorry but I never liked the Beatles: for me (ELVIS IS ONE AND ONLY)
LONG LIVE THE KINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG:
[IMG]pic5bg[/IMG]"...EVERY DREAM I EVER DREAMED
HAS COME TRUE A HUNDRED TIMES"
Elvis
It took 4 of them to conquer the UK, but only 1 Elvis to conquer the world
Coming from a completely Beatles-mad house, I have always been surrounded by their music, much more than Elvis until I became a fan of him. I do like the Beatles a lot and think that they were very talented, especially in terms of song-writing and, in many ways, originality. Of course I think their voices, although with their own qualities, are incomparable to Elvis' and personally I think that they convey none of the passion and emotion that makes Elvis' music, although it may not be his own writing, so personal and beautiful.
In my opinion, it is completely ridiculous to compare the two. Elvis was one man. The Beatles were a 4-man band. They were from different countries and different times. They performed, mostly, very different kinds of music. The Beatles were inspired by Elvis and Elvis did seem to like their music.
Both were great in their own way... personally I'd rather listen to and talk about Elvis
Amzie
"Few will have the greatness to bend history"
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3.../69pccopy3.jpg
Elvis was the first and the best
Originally Posted by STUD
Yeah I pretty much agree with everything you said.
Except for the part about the Beatles being better looking than the Stones.
I personally don't think anybody from either band is/was good looking.
WOW very harshgranted they had recorded some crap but so did Elvis! "Old Macdonald" Just to name one
Matt
Last edited by Jumpsuit Junkie; 08-30-2006 at 02:30 PM.
Yeah, but he didn't write those songs, and he didn't enjoy recording them. They were in the script. I'll take ANY of Elvis' movie songs over the Beatles' worst songs.WOW very harsh
Matt
YOU LOOKIN' FOR TROUBLE? YOU CAME TO THE RIGHT PLACE.
Elvis is always the best. Who else can sing Religious, rock 'n' roll, blues, country and western and pop music?
Frank
Every man has a flaming star
Its what you consider worst by the Beatles that is weird, I am a massive Elvis fan and put in many hours work on my site........... But saying you would take ANY of Elvis' movie songs over the worst of the Beatles (Strawberry Fields & All You Need Is Love) well that's just incredible?
Fair play to you
Matt
Well, it's just an opinion. I'm not trying to force it on anybody. A lot of people dug the Beatles, and a lot of people would disagree with my preference of Elvis' bad movie songs over the Beatles' worst. A Day In The Life is another one that comes to mind that I can't stand. I also don't like Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and I never liked Hey Jude. That gets my vote for most overrated song in history, but hey, it was a big hit. I remember hearing some other bad ones, especially in their later years, but I can't think of their names.
I just think the Beatles were and are overrated. I just never understood what the fuss was about over them. I will say that I do like Twist and Shout, Long and Winding Road, and Got to Get You Into My Life. Those are my 3 favorites by them, and I think they're good songs. Some of their early stuff, like Can't Buy Me Love, Love Me Do, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, etc. are pretty good, but nothing I go crazy about.
Just my opinion. Everyone has their musical preference.
Last edited by STUD; 08-31-2006 at 09:40 PM.
YOU LOOKIN' FOR TROUBLE? YOU CAME TO THE RIGHT PLACE.
I play Elvis more than the Beatles. Elvis was not a writer of songs. He did record crappy movie songs like Old MacDonald. Elvis put more feeling in the way he sung some of the ballads and rock 'n' roll. To me the Beatles tracks sounded the same just different words.
Frank
Every man has a flaming star
In the words of John Lennon - 'Before Elvis There Was Nothing'
Need i say anymore!! Elvis all the way!!
Elvis-Memories,Sweet Memories-Elvis
I do feel the Beatles were over-rated too and that a lot of their popularity sprang from their completely different look at the time. The public is a sucker for anything new and different. I never cared for them for the reason I stated in my first thread but do feel that they had some merit. I have always liked Hey Jude. If I was to pick a favorite it would be Paul then George. Ringo didn't do much on his own and Lennon was always stoned and had a close-up personality.
I much prefer the Rolling Stones if I were to get myself out of the rut of strictly being and "oldies but goody". They all look like the walking dead and god knows everyone still wonders how come is Keith still alive. He must have better health genes going for him than Elvis did. But, I have seen Mick in several interviews and he comes off as being intelligent and has a good sense of humor - I enjoyed him.
Its really not fair to compare the two.Im for Elvis all the way but you have to give the Beatles their due.They are the only ones who compare to Elvis in popularity.I much prefer Elvis music but the Beatles were far more creative when it came to their music and being involved in their product.I always admire people who can write their own material and compose the music.Their great talent cant be questioned.When it comes to compiling up a list of all time worst songs performed by a major entertainer our guy would contribute heavily to it.
Jak
Agreed, any popular artist(s) will record some awful songs and given the opportunity Elvis wouldn't have recorded half of the crap he did by choice.
That said had Elvis been firmer with the Hollywood machine given his box office power he wouldn't have done the kind of films he made.
Matt
I think only a person of Elvis magnitude could have survived releasing all that junk.Its a testament to his fans really sticking with him.When Elvis first started recording he really put forth tremendous efforts in the studio.I wish he would have maintained that passion his entire career.As an artist Im surprised he didnt refuse some of that material.
Jak
it might be junk to you but so was a lot of the beatles songs
people call seregant pepper the greatest album in the world but to me its a pile of shite to each his own
This is what I wrote to a member of my forum (sondreh) about this subject.
For me, I think Elvis is the greatest solo singer and Beatles is the greatest group. I wouldn't classify those people into the same area. One reason, for Elvis, he influence alot of people including The Beatles. But the list goes on and on on the influence he put on people. The Beatles are the same way because they to also influence alot of people into forming groups and such. N'Sync, 98 Degrees, Backstreet Boys just to name a few of the new people. Elvis had the gift of all gifts. He had the voice and looks. When he started on the scene he was not like by the grown-ups of those days because of his black ways. The Beatles was also hated but in a different way. When Lennon was misquoted, which he was, about being more popular then Jesus. KKK and the southern people went mad and start having Beatle Burnings. Elvis like the Beatles but he also hated them at the same time. Why? Because that was the time Elvis was doing those movies and The Beatles was a threat to Elvis. Elvis thought he couldn't be that popular anymore. That is why Elvis did the Comeback Special. To see if he still had it and that show was a success and put Elvis back onto the stage. So Elvis and Beatles are great in there own fields but for me I wouldn't rank them higher over the other. They are right by each other. But Elvis would be popular because you see him on everything. And all you have to do is say Elvis and people knows who he is. For Beatles, some would say who is that.
Now, I am going to add more to this. People on here has been saying that The Beatles are over-rated. I need to say to those that say that, that you are wrong. Why? Here is the answer. Elvis you see him on everything. Shoes, ties, cds, videos, shirts, spoons, knifes, swords, cups and so on and so on. The Beatles you don't see alot on them. All you see is a few videos, most of the albums on cds but not all of them as it is with Elvis, a few shirts, a few figures, maybe a hat or two and so on. Elvis is over-rated because of one thing - He is Elvis. That name says it all. Also Hey Jude is not the over-rated Beatle song. Yesterday is because it was sung by alot of famous people including Elvis and he didn't do a good job on it.
Hey STUD, I got news for you Led Zeppelin had been influence by the Beatles. The leader even said that himself. Oh, and also The Beatles - All You Need Is Love was televised around the world before Elvis' Aloha From Hawaii was. Watch the Beatles' Anthology. Elvis was the first to have a live concert to be beemed around the world. But he wasn't the first to be beemed around the world. Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band is considered the greatest album in the history because of it style it was created. It was different then any other album to date and is timeless. The Beatles expanded their music by added more instuments to a standard Rock and Roll feel. Elvis didn't really did that. He stuck with the same type of songs either it was gospel, country, rock and so on. He didn't change it like the Beatles did to their music. He kept it the same but added his take on the song. Those Beatle songs that Elvis did are considered as the worst done version of their songs. That is coming from people who hates the Beatles of all things.
For those who thinks I like The Beatles more then you are wrong. I like Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan and the people from the 50s and 60s the same.
Now, I would like to hear from you now someone.
Did Led Zeppelin also mention the Rolling Stones as one of their influences? I'd be surprised if they didn't. http://rock-songs.com/rolling-stones/
Yes, the Beatles' All You Need Is Love was before Elvis' Aloha From Hawaii, but was watched by only 350 million people while Aloha was watched by over 1 billion.
To say that Elvis didn't change music is just plain wrong. He combined R&B, country and gospel into one style to create Rock & Roll, and HE made it a worldwide sensation. Thus he is named the King of Rock & Roll. I'm not saying you're disputing this, but when you said Elvis didn't change music but kept it the same, well, if that's true, he would've been just another artist. One of the biggest reasons I love Elvis is that he could sing almost any genre great - rock, country, R&B, and gospel. He changed his style to suit the song, and nobody else could do it like Elvis. To this date, he's the only artist to be inducted into 3 musical Halls of Fame. His musical versatility is unmatched.
Yes, the Beatles were very talented. I never disputed that. They wrote their songs and like you said they added more instruments and were one of the originators of the classic rock style, though I don't think they did it as well as the Stones. That could be just a personal opinion on my part, and not fact, though I think a fair share of people would agree with me, since to this day the Stones are still called the world's greatest rock band.
Anyway, I don't think people give Elvis enough credit for how involved he was in the recording of his songs. He grabbed a song and incorporated his own style into it to make it his own. Hardly anyone recognizes Heartbreak Hotel as Mae Axton's song, or Hound Dog as Big Mama Thornton's, and so many others. Elvis practically wrote alot of his songs.
I don't like the song Hey Jude, period. No matter who sings it. Even Elvis couldn't save that song IMO. To me, his best version of a Beatles song was Something, sung at the Hawaii special.
Last edited by STUD; 09-03-2006 at 10:34 PM.
YOU LOOKIN' FOR TROUBLE? YOU CAME TO THE RIGHT PLACE.
I never said Elvis didn't change music. I am disputing the ones who said that The Beatles are over-rated. That is what I am disputing. They are not over-rated. You see Elvis on everything more than you do of The Beatles. Elvis did a ok job on Something but not better than the Beatles. On the Alternate Aloha even made it longer than the original version which was good but still not better than the Beatles version. As Frank Sinatra said "That is the best Lennon and McCartney of them all" but the only thing about it Lennon and McCartney didn't write that song, George Harrison did. About the Rolling Stone as being the greatest Rock and Roll band. That is not what people says that is what they have said. No one except for the RS fans call them The Greatest Rock and Roll Band. Yes, they made of stayed together since the early 60s but they are old and needs to retired just liek Paul McCartney needs to do. All these singers from that time needs to retired because they are not young as they was. Chuck Berry still tours around but not like Rolling Stones does. Jerry Lee Lewis is the same way. He tour around but not like he did in the 50s, 60s or 70s.
Elvis was also troublesome too. He wanted to get rid of the Beatles. He wanted them to be banned from America and wanted them out forever. He considered them as a threat. And they were. While Elvis was making those movies, The Beatles was putting out hit after hit. They are the only group in the history to have the top 5 songs at the same time. No one else, not even Elvis has done that since. The Beatles were the threat to Elvis since Elvis wasn't touring and was doing those movies. Also they are the only group to have all the LPs during that time they was a group to go to number 1 at one time or another.
Posting Permissions
