this was on EIN...
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/elvis_beatles_matrix.htmlContinuing our controversial series of articles comparing the impact of Elvis and The Beatles, in this article we present a tabular (matrix) comparison of the two musical-cultural icons plus supporting arguments/views. Our examination is based on a review of a cross-section of online and printed material about both artists.
franny
I like'em both . The Beatles are an evolution of what Elvis and the Rhythm and Blues guys started. They were teens when it began and Elvis fans, especially of the Sun Days stuff. Its really almost two different kinds of music. The Beatles were talented Songwriters, and inovative, but none of them could arrange and sing a song like Elvis. Its an age old debate that people have tried to make me chose between them in the past. I like Elvis more, but I still like the Beatles, particularly Lennon.
You read my mind, word for word! Thanks!Originally Posted by JDD
Got my family, my kids, my books and my music, I'm good, yeah, I'm good.....
I totally agree.
I like both too but I think Elvis had much more impact for music in general than The Beatles.
Nobody nowadays thinks or talks about The Beatles in the same way as Elvis...this is because Elvis was the beginning of everything and also because with Elvis we don't talk only about music but also charisma, style and so on..
I think The Beatles were excellent song-writers but I can't find in their voices the same passion I see in Elvis...the proof is that I prefer Yesterday and Hey Jude sang by Elvis.
I wonder how "Imagine" would have been if only Elvis had had the chance to sing it.
This maybe depends on the fact I like him so much but I still think that if we talk about interpretation...well...Elvis will always be THE BEST!
The Beatles were artistic gifted (at least John, Paul and George) and changed (along with others) how music was made. This gives them a lot of credit in the books of music critics and well educated people.
The advantage of the Beatles is that their artistic big boom was about 10 years after Elvis started (I'm not talking about the early Beatle Mania period, because that's not the period where critics crave about). So therefor their music was much more contempory and can easier be played on modern radio without sound too old.
I think The Beatles are given too much credit. Has anyone for example forgotten the influence of The Beach Boys? Their surf/drag years are almost the same as the early Beatle years, while artictic speaking they were really at the level of John/Paul. But no critics are remembering The Beach BOys for that.... like they sunk right at the start of Beatlemania....
It seems like history has been rewritten in the favour of The Beatles. Thank God that we still have Ernst to do justice to Elvis heritage
"A year from now, you'll wish you had started today"
Follow TCB-World on Twitter for website updates and Elvisnews: http://twitter.com/tcbworldcom
I totally agree! I always tought that The Beatles are a bit overrated. Never been a fan of their music, i liked the Beach Boys a lot better. Those harmonies are really awesome. It always bugs me that when critics talk about The Beatles its almost always positive. The Beatles ...wow.... what a music, etc etc. When Elvis comes across its a bit positive about the early Sun period, but then right on they laugh about the movies and the jumpsuits. F.ck the Beatles i would say....
The Beatles didn?t change the music, Elvis did ( along with the other early rock artists)
Itotally agree with you!!!I totally agree! I always tought that The Beatles are a bit overrated. Never been a fan of their music, i liked the Beach Boys a lot better. Those harmonies are really awesome. It always bugs me that when critics talk about The Beatles its almost always positive. The Beatles ...wow.... what a music, etc etc. When Elvis comes across its a bit positive about the early Sun period, but then right on they laugh about the movies and the jumpsuits. F.ck the Beatles i would say....
The Beatles didn?t change the music, Elvis did ( along with the other early rock artists)
and I love you so..people ask me how..how I've lived 'till now
The Beatles were artistic gifted (at least John, Paul and George) and changed (along with others) how music was made. This gives them a lot of credit in the books of music critics and well educated people.
I think The Beatles are given too much credit. Has anyone for example forgotten the influence of The Beach Boys? Their surf/drag years are almost the same as the early Beatle years, while artictic speaking they were really at the level of John/Paul. But no critics are remembering The Beach BOys for that.... like they sunk right at the start of Beatlemania....It seems like history has been rewritten in the favour of The Beatles. Thank God that we still have Ernst to do justice to Elvis heritage
I think that has to do with Sales Albert. You can't argue with success and on that level the Beatles eclipsed the Beach Boys by miles. The Beach Boys never got beyond those early sounds though some of Brian Wilsons solo work did, and his writing was genius IMO. The Beatles outsold them all the only real rival for sales and popularity with them was Elvis. A lot has been made of his supposed dislike for them, but I take that with a grain of salt. He obviously listened to some of their stuff as he covered Hey Jude, Yesterday and did an awesome version of George Harrisons "Something". Man that was just a fantastic era for Music. I like everyone here think Elvis was the best but that mid fifties to late sixties era of music was just great great stuff. It IMO has slid backwards since then.
The Beatles were okay I guess...I like a few of their songs, but IMO, Elvis is much better than them. Some people on this thread also brought up the Beach Boys. I prefer them, along with The Rolling Stones over the Beatles. I think the Beach Boys' songs were just as good if not better than the early Beatles songs, but their mistake was not being foreign, which probably didn't make them seem as new and exciting as the Beatles.
JMO
Last edited by Katie; 08-09-2006 at 01:42 PM.
I have always quite liked the Beatles, I think John and Paul were good song writers who have penned some really good music! I think that had they gone on they would have made some interesting music, the material they were producing in the late 60's e.g. Sgt Peppers and the White Album were ground breaking.
John and Pauls voices were not what I would call fantastic or anywhere near the range and power of Elvis but when you here John Lennon singing in "A Day In The Life" it sends shivers down my spine.
The way Paul McCartney is recieved in America always amuses me, it's like he is some kind of god?
As for John Lennon, all the mythic bullsh*t surrounding him e.g. "Working Class Hero" and "Imagine" well........... you can keep all that.
Matt
I'm probably going to get bombarded for this but I never liked the Beatles. I've had an ongoing argument with my brother-in-law for years about Elvis vs the Beatles. Lennon is his big idol! The sound of the old rock and roll seemed to change drastically after they appeared and I resented them for it as I loved the old sound of Elvis, Fats Domino, Little Richard etc. Bob Seiger's song Old Time Rock 'n Roll says it all for me - the music afterwards never did have the same "soul". I do agree the Beach Boys were good though.
I'm not sure if that is what killed them though. I think it had alot to do with the Beach Boys not being as versatile as the Beatles ( or maybe they just weren't doing the right kind of drugs,LOL) It also had alot to do with the main members and their dad. The origins of the Beach Boys music and the group were drastically different that the Beatles. They had a disciplined and structured beginning which can certainly stifle creativity, or the courage to be so. The Beatles had no structure or guidelines in the beginning, which gave them more leeway to pursue different directions, and when it worked, they did it more. It's artists like this that have more staying power. Elvis was definately versatile and creative, probably the father of that, I'd say. Nobody really did their "own thing" until Elvis came along. But the Beatles did emulate him, early on. I think he had a major influence on them and, because of the path that he tread and laid down, the Beatles were able to be creative because Elvis did it first. He was the inspiration in that way for alot of artists.
Beatles was the greatest and more popular at their time. Beatles were good together. as one person elvis is greatest
I have a new song had a new song don't have a new song the song is comming out by me
I have never really understodd these types of debates. Anyone can see that the beatles and Elvis were two different types of music. While yes it can be said that they both did Rock n Roll, they both evolved differently.
Both Elvis and the beatles both started out doing rock n roll, However look at what was happening with the beatles by 1968 into 1969. Their music was more extreme aka "The White Album".
Elvis on the other hand as we all know cooled off in the 70's. He became more of a relaxed more mature type of singer that followed more into country, ballads and some Rock songs.
Have any of you ever noticed the difference between and Elvis fan and a beatles fan? That tells a story. Elvis fans, atleast the ones I know tend to be more calmer people. beatle fans tend to be more hippy and saucy.
And thats fine ! I have always been told that eaither you are a beatles person or an Elvis person. I have met very few who like both.
The main point I am making here is that it doesnt matter who one likes more, or even to compare. Elvis and the beatles did their thing for Rock n Roll.
Mark
Las Vegas
Music Number 4 Rock band structure eLvis N/A? thats the most stupid thing I ever heard, Wast?n ELvis Presley, Scotty Moore and Bill BLack, the prototype of a rockn and roll combo? latter DJ FOntana came along and that was the model that Lennon and Macartney used to form their rock band, you know we need an acoustic rythm guitar to play the intro of "Thats all RIght" and electric to play the solo, and we need a bass player, latter came a drume to. About the JOrdanaires as a side order for the rythm band, didnt Mcartney said once that the Beatles learned to sing in armony because of the need to do the vocal armonies on the elvis covers they made? And at last, wasnt Elvis himself, just he with the guitar, the prototype of what a rock and roller needed to play? the guy who wrote N/A on the elvis side of band structure must be a dam fool
Appart from that, I must say that Im one of those of the rare specie who can be an Elvis fan and a Beatles fan at the same time, and a ROlling Stones fan to... I must have been raised on rock, but yeah, Elvis is number one in my heart. Long Live to the King!
P.S. Sorry for the shoutiing in red, put that point cannot be missed just like that.
Elvis is #1 to me, but I do like The Beatles as well, I think they were a great band...They made their presence known and made an impact, but there's no comparisom...to quote John Lennon "Before Elvis there was nothing"...
I would even say "After Elvis there's still nothing"...
franny
Elvis is #1 to me, but I do like The Beatles as well, I think they were a great band...They made their presence known and made an impact, but there's no comparisom...to quote John Lennon "Before Elvis there was nothing"...
I would even say "After Elvis there's still nothing"...
franny
there is at least Elvis film ...
Yea I agree the sound of good rock n roll sorta disappeared with the Beatles. I can't think of many bands after them that sounded very similar to the old rock n roll, except maybe CCR.
The Beatles, IMHO, were one of the greatest things to ever happen to music. Their writing, their instrumentals, their harmonies, their wit, when all put together, it makes the greatest band in rock history.
I was in the 4th grade when The Beatles first appeared on The Ed Sullivan show. My friends and enemies all gave me hell, saying Elvis was dead, he died from a beatle bite.
I love The Beatles. I can't imagine how Elvis felt, seeing these little girls holding signs saying, "Elvis Is Dead." I feel pretty sure Elvis wasn't in the hippie movement, but Elvis sang "Yesterday", "Something", and "Get Back", I think he appreciated them. In a perfect world, maybe they could have worked together.
All that said, I am first and foremost an Elvis fan.
I've always felt the Beatles are a bit overrated. I think the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin had more of an influence on classic rock and hard rock than the Beatles. The Beatles just happened to be more famous with the fans during the time they entered our country because hard rock wasn't as popular with the mainstream, and they were better looking and cleaner than the Stones, and that's why the Stones were #2 behind the Beatles at that time. Personally, I like the Stones' music much more. The Beatles had some good songs, but nothing great IMO. When their songs were bad, like Strawberry Fields, Yellow Submarine, and All You Need Is Love, they were some of the worst songs ever recorded IMO.
There's no need to compare the influence of Elvis vs. the Beatles, cuz there's no comparison IMO. Sorry if I offended any Beatles fans.
Last edited by STUD; 08-29-2006 at 02:14 PM.
YOU LOOKIN' FOR TROUBLE? YOU CAME TO THE RIGHT PLACE.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
