Elvis versus the Beatles

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-29 12:01am

For me it was a close one, but I have to say the Beatles, I like their music a lot more than I like Elvis.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-04-29 12:04am

Superman wrote:Sacrilege!

The truth is often viewed as sacrilege. Elvis may have at least written *some* of his stuff, but he hardly created an entire genre. Creativity>Clever sales packaging.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-04-29 12:08am

I never claimed Elvis was a musician. While he did write and produce some of his music, and played a little guitar, he was known for his performing.

And I don't really know who had more overall influence. That is probably impossible to measure.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-04-29 12:15am

Superman wrote:I never claimed Elvis was a musician. While he did write and produce some of his music, and played a little guitar, he was known for his performing.

And I don't really know who had more overall influence. That is probably impossible to measure.

Oh, I wasn't claiming that Elvis wasn't a musician, like sooo many popstars today, as a matter of fact, I think his musicianship is one of best defenses for Elvis. I was just saying that Elvis took a form of music that already existed, and ran with it.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-04-29 12:18am

True, true... But he did fuse that black gospel with the old rockabilly style of the 50's to produce a newer sound. Plus, he had the voice to do it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-29 12:31am

The Beatles are overrated. Sure, they had some great songs, but their ratio of great songs to SHIT was not that high. They made an awful lot of garbage songs, particularly when they got the idea in their heads that they wanted to be creative.

And look at their various solo careers; each member had maybe one or two decent songs over solo careers which spanned decades in some cases, sprinkled throughout a vast sea of shit.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2003-04-29 12:45am

Darth Wong wrote:The Beatles are overrated. Sure, they had some great songs, but their ratio of great songs to SHIT was not that high. They made an awful lot of garbage songs, particularly when they got the idea in their heads that they wanted to be creative.

And look at their various solo careers; each member had maybe one or two decent songs over solo careers which spanned decades in some cases, sprinkled throughout a vast sea of shit.

But...but...YELLOW SUBMARINE, MAN!

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2003-04-29 01:15am

What about those of us who dont like Elvis... what do you think his good songs to bad songs ratio is to us ?

---It just depends on your point of view

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-04-29 01:34am

Okay, I'd say were comparing Bently's to Rolls Royces here. Both are amazing autos, but I dont truly thing one is truly superior to the other until you add in personal preference.

Elvis, Goddamed amazing voice and showmanship, took nascent rock, fused it with r&b and jump-started an entire genre of music. He is , was and always will be The King.

The Beatles - Individually the Beatles, with the possible exception of Lennon, were fairly mediocre musicians, but behold the power of synergy as combined they wrote a series of catchy tunes that became the anthem for generations of British, Eurpean and American teens. thewy tapped into a simple formula for musical success.the Beatles started off as Rockers, but became the genesis for modern pop(sadly, the Beatles are more N'Sync than they are Elvis like, if it hadn't been for Brian Epstien they probably would never have gotten as far as they did, thogh the talent level in Ringo's pinky is greater than all of N'Sync combined)

Both created a legacy of amazing music, and both were responsible for the creation of entire aspects of music and their legacy shapes our musical landscape to this day.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-04-29 03:14am

One cannot really look at all of Elvis' music to try and see the ratio of shit with great stuff and here is why: Elvis had a musical career that went from 1956 to 1977, and in that time period, he did everything from rockabilly to country, crooner music to southern rock, blues to gospel, movie soundtracks to... you name it. Some people only like his music from the 1950's, while many people prefer his 70's Vegas style. I love the orchestral rock and roll he did in the 70's myself.

Another interesting fact: Elvis really hated the music that he had to do for his movies. At some points in his career, and you really distinguish them, he did not have full control over his music and was told what to do.

My point is that you really cannot compare his good stuff with the bad. It depends what style you like, and when he was doing it.

If anyone wants to hear some Beatles covers that Elvis did in the early 70's, PM me and I will be happy to send them. He did a fusion of "Little Sister" and "Get Back" during an informal jam session that rocked.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-29 03:18am

I played a dnd session yesterday where someone rped elvis.

for three hours.

improvising the songs.

. . >_<

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2003-04-29 03:20am

Enforcer Talen wrote:I played a dnd session yesterday where someone rped elvis.

for three hours.

improvising the songs.

. . >_<

Ha! ... sucker

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-04-29 10:24am

A few years ago, I would choose Elvis. But after my 8th grade teacher intro'd me to the Fab Four, I must choose the Beatles by a nose.

Besides, playing "Back in the U.S.S.R." while playing Cossacks or one of those 20th century RTS is just plain helluva cool. Let's not let Mcarthy's(sp?) solo hits or Ringo's appearance in a variety of bad movies stand in the way, They're a perfect example of "United we stand, divided we fall".

Interesting how both Beatles and Elvis had high crap count, but their hits rocked.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-04-29 10:32am

Im from Liverpool so my natural bias forces me to vote Beatles, plus I like them a whole lot more than Elvis...

Anyone who argues is a fool & a lair

Post by **Zaia** » 2003-04-29 10:54am

Superman wrote:One cannot really look at all of Elvis' music to try and see the ratio of shit with great stuff and here is why: Elvis had a musical career that went from 1956 to 1977, and in that time period, he did everything from rockabilly to country, crooner music to southern rock, blues to gospel, movie soundtracks to... you name it. Some people only like his music from the 1950's, while many people prefer his 70's Vegas style. I love the orchestral rock and roll he did in the 70's myself.

Another interesting fact: Elvis really hated the music that he had to do for his movies. At some points in his career, and you really distinguish them, he did not have full control over his music and was told what to do.

My point is that you really cannot compare his good stuff with the bad. It depends what style you like, and when he was doing it.

If anyone wants to hear some Beatles covers that Elvis did in the early 70's, PM me and I will be happy to send them. He did a fusion of "Little Sister" and "Get Back" during an informal jam session that rocked.

But every artist grows and will continue to evole as a musician/performer/etc until they fizzle out. The songs the Beatles did at the beginning of their career are incredibly simple compared to the music they created toward the end. The amount of musical influences apparent in their later music is amazing: they melded classical form with (at the time) virtually unknown scales and instruments from the Eastern music circle, quarter-tone music, pentatonic scales, various modalities, and managed to incorporate a full orchestra into their songs.

I personally find their music incredible for the above reasons but also because I can hear a Beatles song--almost ANY Beatles song--and 1) instantaneously know which song it is (which means they don't all sound the same), and 2) love it. I don't love it simply because it's a Beatles song, but because I really do honestly love almost every single song I've ever heard by them (with a couple exceptions--the song "Doctor Robert" annoys the hell out of me). They mastered the difficult task of combining simple, memorable, varied, catchy melodies with fun, amusing, or emotional, deeply raw lyrics to form a new genre of music.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-29 10:56am

Elvis was good, don't get me wrong, I actually like a lot of his songs now (working in a paint factory when the owner plays his songs all day long has that effect).

But the Beatles will always be the best and have the better songs. They also died with more dignity than on the bog.

Elvis is really comparable to Billy Fury anyway, not a band.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-29 10:57am

The Beatles.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-04-29 11:03am

Seriously folks you haven't lived until you've gotten twisted drunk in the places that Beatles uesd to play in, like the Cavern Club, most of the bars on Mathew Street...

Edited cos Im a spelling spaz

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-04-29 11:04am

weemadando wrote:Rolling fucking Stones.

HELL FUCKING YEAH ANDO!
could it be we agree on something?

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain

I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made

I shouted out,
"Who killed the Kennedys?"
When after all
It was you and me

Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game

Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint

So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-29 11:05am

DocHorror wrote:Seriously folks you haven't lived until you've gotten twisted drunk in the places that Beatles uesd to play in, like the Cavern Club, most of the bars on Mathew Street...

Edited cos Im a spelling spaz

Or Penny Lane.

I think the Yellow Sub and that Yellow Dog thingy are cool too, y'know, next to the Albert Docks.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-04-29 11:12am

Ffnah. One created Rock N Roll, the other is to blame for pop.

The Beatles were mediocre at best. Give me the King any day,

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-29 11:15am

innerbrat wrote:Ffnah. One created Rock N Roll, the other is to blame for pop.

The Beatles were mediocre at best. Give me the King any day,

The King sucked compared to the Beatles and other acts of the heyday. He had good PR and a load of gullible fans, the Beatles rule.

Of course, The Who and Duran Duran and Queen are my other faves.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-04-29 11:18am

It's hard to imagine rock as we know it now without either the Beatles or Elvis, but I think I have to give the nod to the Beatles, partly because their music, I think, has aged better.

Mediocre individually, yes (I can't hear John Lennon's "Imagine" without wanting to vomit), but as a group they were something that transcended their individual talents.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-04-29 11:18am

aphexmonster wrote:Im just way more for the beatles. They were so much more versitile on so many more levels. Elvis was just the Ricky Martin of his time.

Now that's an interesting and fairly accurate analogy.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-29 11:20am

Iceberg wrote:It's hard to imagine rock as we know it now without either the Beatles or Elvis, but I think I have to give the nod to the Beatles, partly because their music, I think, has aged better.

Mediocre individually, yes (I can't hear John Lennon's "Imagine" without wanting to vomit), but as a group they were something that transcended their individual talents.

McCartney was and always has been the best of the group. Lennon was too hippish for me and went out with Yoko Ono, Ringo did the voices for Thomas the Tank Engine (actually, I loved that) and George, well, I don't have anything against him.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Elvis versus the Beatles

Who do you like more?