Elvis Presley Vs. The Beatles

[Snake-Pit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MHkgwA8t-g

[bacardimayne]

Anyone who votes Elvis has grease on his chin.

[MEXzilla]

Elvis has bar far the better voice aside from that I'm not really a fan of both.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Oh why did you have to ask this horrible awful question, now I gotta pick one over the other, ugh But yes, The Beatles is the answer although by a fucking hair, a thin formative hair on an 8 yr old boys chin desperately awaiting the onset of puberty.

I will say this, amongst a lot of contemporary rock fans, you'll meet people who are like 'Oh yeaaah, yeah, i love Elvis, Elvis is amazing, Elvis Elvis Elvis' and they can hardly name a song that ain't off his like, 5 or 6 biggest hits. The image of Elvis appeals to a lot more people than the actual substance in some quarters.

Edited December 28, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Daedalus]

Elvis.

[Chewbacca]

Null. I really don't like any of them.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Beatles, and not even close.

[Bruno P.]

The Beatles. Elvis' voice, however, is much greater.

[OmarBradley]

I like them both. Don't know if describing one as "better" than the other is the right way to do this, but I understand what you're getting at. That being said, I'd pick The Beatles 10/10 times.

[Dazey]

Beatles easily. It would be much much closer if Elvis was responsible for writing his music.

[Rovim]

The Beatles, but Elvis was a great performer with one of the best singing voices ever. Ton of Charisma too.

[classicrawker]

Love em both but the Beatles kicked Elvis's ass when it came to song writing IMHO......

[Estranged Reality]

stop it!

this is madness!

[pestilence]

elvis

[PappyTron]

Fat Elvis because he always gave it everything that he had.

Edited December 30, 2013 by PappyTron

[DieselDaisy]

Elvis. Fact of the matter is, Lennon heard Heartbreak Hotel and discovered rock n' roll. No Elvis: no Beatles. (no Cliff Richard either which, thinking about it, would probably have been a good thing).

[Iron MikeyJ]

Elvis. Fact of the matter is, Lennon heard Heartbreak Hotel and discovered rock n' roll. No Elvis: no Beatles. (no Cliff Richard either which, thinking about it, would probably have been a good thing).

By following that train of thought, whomever banged out the first musical note is the greatest musician of all time. Because they influenced someone, who in turned influenced someone else, who in turned influneced Mozart, and so on and so fourth. Being an influence is important, but does not make one "greater or better".

Same goes for painting, whomever first mixed berries together and painted on a cave wall must of been been 10X greater than Leonardo Di Vinci, because without that caveman Old Leo would not of painted shit.

See my point?....

Edited December 31, 2013 by Mike420

[DieselDaisy]

You are completely right but one thing is clear: the teenage John Lennon did not stew over songwriting credits when he first heard Heartbreak Hotel.

[bacardimayne]

So Elvis is better than the Beatles because Lennon happened to hear his cover of a song?

All Elvis ever was was a glorified cover artist. Sure, his voice was great, but he was basically another manufactured pop star. Only difference is this popstar was seen as cool and edgy.

[bacardimayne]

I mean, hell, at least Britney Spears and Lady Gaga write some of their own songs.

[DieselDaisy]

Oh you are such a cunt. You hope you realise I am going to destroy you tommorow when I am more sober?

[Iron MikeyJ]

Hey Diesil, your ok in my book.

[arnold layne]

Elvis never wrote his own music as far as I remember, so he was the fifties version of Justin Beiber.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I really like Elvis but when it comes to 50's music I would much rather listen to Chuck Berry, Fats Domino and Buddy Holly.

[DieselDaisy]

So Elvis is better than the Beatles because Lennon happened to hear his cover of a song?

All Elvis ever was was a glorified cover artist. Sure, his voice was great, but he was basically another manufactured pop star. Only difference is this popstar was seen as cool and edgy.

Elvis was not manufactured. He was the genuine article. He was genuine when he walked into Sam Phillips' studio in 1953. You have to remember that this kid completely absorbed the roots of American music: blues, country, folk, easy listening, gospel - Elvis absorbed it all. This was the time of racial divide. Black people only listened to black music and white people only listened to white music. (Black music was merely filed under the title, 'race music', by whites.) Elvis bridged this gap and, in fact, revolutionised music. He attended black congregations and saw gospel music first hand; he listened to old black bluesman; and he also had his white influence (i.e. 'hick' music and easy listening). Elvis put it all in the pot and shook it all around. And this was the kid who walked into Sam Phillips' studio. He had his musical background and the talent the day he walked into that studio.

In what way is Elvis manufactured? In the '50s he was a proper working musician. He cut songs (unlike Axl) at Sun Studios and later RCA and played the Louisiana Hayride and the Ole Opry. He had to compete (it was not a forgone conclusion that he would suceed). Elvis, Bill Black, Scotty and Fontana would be all packed in in a car with their instruments and driving to shows at three in the morning. Elvis was a proper working musician. In what way was he manufactured? manufactured entails someone talent spotting, morphing and selecting material (a la X Factor). Elvis already had the musical knowledge, had to put in his shift as a proper musican and was in fact so individual that he could not be manufactured. You have to remember that there was a trajectory here. A manufactured artist tends to be thrown at the mainstream for an, already pre-existing market. How does this square with Elvis, a poor white kid from Tupelo who plays 'race music' and 'sings funny' and is sexually provocative in a way that no other entertainer had ever been. The mainstream hated him. Sinatra, Milton Bern et all hated him. But before this, Elvis had to capture the local markets (Nashville etc) before capturing the national and worldwide market. He had to plug himself as a working musician - just like GN'R in 1985-6 in the clubs.

You could not manufacture Elvis Presley even if you wished to. You could not tell Elvis how to throw his voice out in such odd way. You could not tell a teenage Elvis to listen to 'race music'. And it also begs the question, who is doing the manufacturing here? Certainly not Sam Phillips here, the producer. And so long as Tom Parker kept out of the studio, not him either. Who is manufacturing here barcardi?

PS

You could make an argument that The Beatles were more manufactured than Elvis. What did Lennon do when Epstein told him to wear a gay looking suit and cut his hair in a stupid fashion? John Lennon merely put on the suit and cut his hair in a silly moptop. Lennon was the rebel need I point out (Lennon was always envious of the Stones for putting up a resistance to the suit thing in the early 60s). In contrast, Elvis was bullied at school for wearing sport jackets and styling his hair in such an unique fashion when all the other kids wore jeans and crew cuts.

Edited January 1, 2014 by DieselDaisy