Elvis or The Beatles?

karaokeman

For me its Elvis.

People always hype about The Beatles but for me Elvis is the big creator who influenced all the good music we have today.

The Scientician

The Beatles. Elvis was an icon, a performer, but the Beatles were creators.

Weepsie

Sam Cooke & The Kinks!! but in all seriousness, The Beatles. Elvis was an icon and a great performer but the Beatles were (not always) innovators, even if some simply refuse to believe this

Rigsby

karaokeman wrote: »

Elvis is the big creator

How many of his well known songs did he write ??

Hannibal

I think Elvis or Roy Orbison would be more realistic..
same as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones.

rcaz

Rigsby wrote: »

How many of his well known songs did he write ??

This.

Latchy

THE BEATLES

Ludwig

They influenced a whole geneartion of people ,enough to go on and form many successful bands themself .

delbertgrady

The Beatles.
Obviously, Elvis is an iconic figure, but compartively speaking, for musicianship, songwriting and innovation, there is no contest. While there is no disputing that The Beatles were influenced by Elvis, other acts - Lonnie Donegan, Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins - were equally inspirational to them, so the "Elvis influenced the Beatles, ergo he is the superior act" argument is irrelevant.

smokedeels

Elvis was a hero to most
But he never meant sh1t to me you see
Straight up racist that sucker was simple and plain

....emm, The Beatles!

Welsh Megaman

'Before Elvis, there was nothing' - John Lennon

DublinWriter

Welsh Megaman wrote: »

'Before Elvis, there was nothing' - John Lennon

...also remember when he heard Elvis was dead he reportedly said "Elvis died when he joined the army".

Anyway, looking forward to the next debate...Which is better, eating or breathing?

Rigsby

karaokeman wrote: »

Elvis is the big creator

Rigsby wrote: »

How many of his well known songs did he write ??

You have not answered my question. So let me show you one of many links that I came across, all saying basically the same thing... i.e. Elvis wrote little or no songs.

So, tell me, how can he be the "big creator" ???


http://www.elvis-history-blog.com/elvis-songwriters.html

smokedeels

Welsh Megaman wrote: »

'Before Elvis, there was nothing' - John Lennon

Bo Diddley?

Kevin Patrick

In his movie Pulp Fiction Mia says, "You are either a Beatles or Elvis fan, you can't like each one equally." Or words to that effect.

desolate sun

It's like comparing apples and oranges.
I don't have an awful lot of time for Elvis to be honest. I can understand why people look up to him but he wasn't a songwriter. For a performer to not write their own music - in my books - is not worth talking about, and that's not to take away from what talent he had.

I would rate Roy Orbison way higher - glorious singer, masterful songwriter (In Dreams, anyone) and he was cool. Maybe not "the King's" looks or presence but he will always be more of a King to me.

The Beatles were in a class of their own and their pop musical legacy will probably never be repeated. The completely changed what recorded music is, what an album is, etc (I won't go on)

I know John Lennon said there wouldnt be The Beatles without Elvis, but Elvis was more of an image, an icon. Did he really influence their sound as such?

Dr.Winston O'Boogie

Elvis has to be respected for the way he influenced so many people and brought rock and roll to the masses. But at the same time...he just ripped off black folk who had been doing it for years beforehand. And as has been said, didn't write his own songs.

The Beatles are the best ever, their body of work in the 8 or so years they were recording is second to none. Although they were always open about their debt to Elvis, they took music to a whole new level, that's never been reached since.

Mr. Presentable

Elvis or the Beatles what?

Who wrote the better songs? Or who danced better?

Who had the more hits? Who do I prefer?

What is your question OP?

dasdog

I wouldn't dismiss someone because they didn't write their own songs/hits. Frank Sinatra, Aretha Franklin? The Beatles I just never got in to bar a few songs, but they were ground breaking at what they did and changed the face of popular music, as did Elvis.

The 'there was nothing...' quote as was pointed out here a few months ago is taken out of context. Lennon meant horn/trumpet players were still the order of the day in the early-mid 1950's before rock n roll and he wanted to sing and make it exciting, something that hadn't really happened in the white American music world before Elvis.

Nailz

The Beatles, hands down, and I wouldn't consider myself a big fan. The Beatles' early stuff was a bit to "meh" for me, catchy, but that isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Those years they were over rated, significantly, just a bunch of trendy lads from Scouse-land who pre-pubic teenagers screamed at. Their later stuff doesn't need to be talked up, it speaks for itself - progressive, intelligent, influencial and different (for the time), it was a great thing to have as a popular form of music. As much as they gathered their ideas from the Mothers of Invention, it still went on to influence great music for future generations.

Elvis never gets sited as an influence to as many good artists as the latter-60's Beatles have, and that speaks volumes. He's some sort of an icon and entertainer, as I've been to Vegas before and I can fully understand and appreciate the culture mega-entertainment, seeing massive banners on the side of 5-Star Hotel-Casinos with Donny and Marie Osmond's face on them and my brother and I going to see the Blue Man Group, which was awesome, stressed the importance of entertainment at a massive scale.

For which Elvis is regarded as king - so I can value what Elvis is to entertainment, and a mighty fine entertainer he was, but as regards an musical artist he's not even in the same ball-part as the Beatles, and I treasure music moreso than the spectical.

Rigsby

dasdog wrote: »

I wouldn't dismiss someone because they didn't write their own songs/hits. Frank Sinatra, Aretha Franklin?

I took the OP up on this because he referred to Elvis as "the big creator". To me a creator is someone who makes something under their own steam, which is unique to, and a part of them. Going by this definition, neither Elvis nor the two you mention, while they had many good things going for them, "creator" was not one of them.

Latchy

Some interesting facts of when the Beatles met Elvis .

When the Beatles went to meet Elvis 1966 and at Elvis's insistence , there were no photographs allowed of the event , which is strange when you think Elvis was photgraphed with just about anybody back then and later. Elvis was not impressed with some of the comments directed at him by Lennon and although they were thrilled to meet him ,the Beatles came away feeling a little disappointed which may have had as much to do with Col Tom Parker and the memphis mafias presense .

From that time on Elvis took a dislike to Lennon ,even going so far as saying that with their pot smoking they were a threat to Americas youth ( from a man who kept the pharmacutical industry in business ) but probably had as much to do with their popularity over him at the time . He also wrote to president Nixon saying as much .(Nixon apparently made Elvis an honoury FBI agent but sure he was the King )

As far as the Beatles were concerned , the old saying '' you should never meet your idols because you may be disapointed '' has a ring of truth to it .

Sinfonia

Welsh Megaman wrote: »

'Before Elvis, there was nothing' - John Lennon

Ugh.

desolate sun wrote: »

For a performer to not write their own music - in my books - is not worth talking about

Yeah, you're right. That's what makes James Blunt so good and Pavarotti so ****.

Minstrel27

Mia Wallace is full of ****. I like both The Beatles and Elvis.

Choochtown

Elvis all the way. His early "new wave" stuff was fantastic from the gorgeous "Alison" to the cool "don't want to go to chelsea" riff.
The 1980s saw him experimenting with soul, country and jazz and some of the clever political commentary in his lyrics went on to influence many songwriters.
The 1990s saw him experiment with classical music and ... etc.

The other Elvis was over-rated .

Irish Guitarist

Why do I have to choose? I love them both. I don't see any point in these forum threads where someone pick two random bands or musicians and pits them against each other.

People that call Elvis a racist are talking crap by the way. If he was a racist he wouldn't have had any time for black music. He didn't 'steal' music from black people either. Most blues songs are traditional songs that have been around for hundreds of years.

Most of Elvis Presleys biggest hits weren't even written by black people. Hound Dog was written by Jerry Lieber and Mike Stoller; two white Jews.

I think this Elvis stealing black music nonsense was started by Public Enemy, a band who based 'their' music on samples taken from other peoples songs.

As for him not writing his songs; he may not have wrote them but he interpreted them in a way that hadn't been done before. It's interesting to hear how different Arthur 'Big Boy' Crudups original of That's Alright Mama is from the Elvis version.

mikedone

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

. It's interesting to hear how different Arthur 'Big Boy' Crudups original of That's Alright Mama is from the Elvis version.

An influence acknowledged by Elvis in an interview in 1956
"Down in Tupelo, Mississippi, I used to hear old Arthur Crudup bang his box the way I do now, and I said if I ever got to the place where I could feel like old Arthur felt, I’d be a music man like nobody ever saw.”