Elvis Presley Vs. The Beatles

[DieselDaisy]

Ahh the class thing rears its head. Listen, Lennon was middle class; he lived in a semi-detatched; his family were doctors etc.; he had an uncle who gave him, I think it was £100 which was a fortune, and John and Paul went to Paris; he even had a spinsterish patrician in Mimi, who used to complain when he associated with working class kids like Paul and George. 'Working Class Hero' my arse.

[Guest Len B'stard]

You started the class thing with your assessment of the suits...also, you can be working class and make it to a three bed semi yknow, thats pretty much lower middle class. And at any rate, thats one lower middle class member of a 4 man band...now tally that up with The Stones, exactly, thank you

[DieselDaisy]

Bill was the son of a bricklayer and Charlie was the son of a lorry driver and grew up in a prefab. Wasn't Richards' father a factory worker. I will give you the thoroughly middle class Jagger and Jones (who even affected an upper class accent).

I did not bring in the class thing in. I am not bothered about the class thing. I said that the Beatles conformed by dressing in Epstein's suits, whereas the Stones did not conform, by ditching bits of the suits before abandoning them altogether. It is that simple. Class has nothing to do with it.

In my opinion The Beatles looked at their best when they had the leathers and the duck's arse hairstyles in Hamburg. They looked super cool in that picture of them which is in the front cover of the anthology 1, and of course Lennon in the doorway. Imagewise it went downhill after that.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Yes you did bring class in with your 'establishment middle class and cacky' comment.

And it's not that simple, thats just a mealey mouthed kowtowing excuse 'yeah, we didn't conform by wearing suits like The Beatles...oh, well, we did but sometimes we took bits off! Eventually we stopped wearing em altogether', do me a favour, have some fuckin' nerve, there's fuckin' pictures of the dozy bastards out there all suited and that. And the smart casual M&S look is hardly that drastic a depature into the realm of anti-establishment modes of dress

And anyway, by your own reckoning thats one noncey Beatle to 2 Stones (im desperate to get ahead here eh? ). Pretty sure Richards old man werent a factory worker either.
Im of the opinion that The Beatles would've looked sad anachronistic wannabes had they held onto the leather look, had they held onto that shite you wouldn't've had a Beatles for very long.

Edited January 2, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Guest Len B'stard]

OMG, a leather jacket in the suit era, they musta been switching bits like The Stones!

Now without ties *gasp*

OMG, Ringos got a sweater on!

Thats how much mileage the 'they look bits off' argument has to it

[DieselDaisy]

Now compare those fab four photos to Presley in the 1950s, brooding, the lip, hips. I rest my case.

Also are you going to argue the fact that we have established three working class Stones members as opposed to two middle class. And we have three working class Beatles to one middle class Beatle. The only difference really is The Stones have one more middle class member than the Beatles (but then they had one more member). It is virtually neck and neck.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Throw in the fact The Beatles were scousers and they win handily

Anyway, the basic premise of what you were putting across, that it was a bit of a sell out move i agree with (although its not as if at that point they had aligned themselves with any high minded

Tao's) its just the 'gay' in chesterfield suits bit that baffled me.

And hey, Elvis, even young Elvis, put on what he was fucking told to when money said so.

As a side note, have you seen the website of the original shop in Memphis where young Elvis used to get his 50s clobber?

[Iron MikeyJ]

Here is a Fact, Lennon and McCartney wrote The Stones first single. Without that single The Stones may not of even happened.

Here is another FACT....

Old blues artists ALWAYS wore suits when they played. So the suit look predates the leather jacket look historically.

Back on topic...

The 60's were different than the 50's. It was a smart move imo to make the Beatles wear suits. It helped seperate them image wise from looking like Elvis or James Dean rip offs. Then when all the other acts started wearing suits to look like The Beatles, thats when they changed their look. Which I always thought was brilliant.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Mike420

[Guest Len B'stard]

Further to Mikes post, The Stones existed as a riposte to The Beatles, its kinda like Satanism, its anti-God yet it sorta needs him to exist

[DieselDaisy]

The old blues guys looked great in suits as they were better looking suits, baggier, trendier. The suits the Beatles wore, as I said, made them look like junior clerks at an office. McCartney looks a particular prat in his. I just do not the look of The Beatles in 1863-4. It got better circa 65 when the suits become more moddish and individualised.

Heck, why are you slagging me off here as even Lennon himself used to slag the suits off when he was a solo artist?

[Guest Len B'stard]

He's allowed to, he's an actual Beatle

[pestilence]

you're discussing fashion like a bunch of females....who gives a fuck?...all i know is john lennon would've sucked elvis dick if he asked him....great, now i'm gay too

[Guest Len B'stard]

Fashion is a key element of rock n roll, always has been. It was just an odd assertion by Dies' and i didn't (and still don't) know where it was coming from, for all it matters to me all The Beatles could've been fuckin' each other while their wives watched, it don't make no difference or anything, it's just a curious association to attach to what were basically plain black suits, as you might see is Reservoir Dogs or Hong Kong action flicks or a bunch of people at a funeral.

[DieselDaisy]

Do not get me wrong, I like a suit but these are not cool suits though - the ones the Beatles were wearing in 1964. The suits you have in say, A Better Tommorow and The Killer, are baggier 80s affairs. It is also, not just the suit per se, but the suit and the moptop. It is a particuarly dorky combo. Pete Best looked much cooler just before he was sacked, when he was in a suit but he maintained his teddy boy hair. Listen, the girls prefered Best's look which was why McCartney got envious and sacked him; do not trust my opinion; trust the female fans in Liverpool. There was boos at Ringo and screams of Pete after he got the chop.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Pete forever, Ringo never i believe the chant went. Now i think about it, the juxtaposition of the art student barnet and the Chesterfield suit is an odd one. Dorky i could get with...but gay? Thing is, The Beatles i'm sure you agree were the dogs bollocks, the greatest band to ever do it, presentation was a huge part of that and i don't have it in me to look at them, their unrivalled success and then go 'not sure about the cut of them suits!' Fuck me, you can't argue with what The Beatles achieved and if their presentation was a functional aspect of that, which is was without doubt, who am i to argue?

I guess it comes down to personal preference I guess.

[pestilence]

speaks for itself and closes the thread

[Crazyman]

No, not really. I also picked the Beatles and see they have almost 80% of the votes.

Just because Elvis had an amazing voice and inspired the early part of the Beatles doesn't mean he's a better artist than they were.

[pestilence]

show me one beatles performance that tops that....one

[MEXzilla]

The Beatles sound awful tho, their best work comes from George Harrison and Eric Clapton lol. I don't care if they wrote their songs that doesn't mean they sound good. Also as far as who looks cool, it's pretty obvious that the Beatles are uncool man lol.

[Johnny Drama]

The Beatles sound awful tho, their best work comes from George Harrison and Eric Clapton lol. I don't care if they wrote their songs that doesn't mean they sound good. Also as far as who looks cool, it's pretty obvious that the Beatles are uncool man lol.

The Beatles sound awful? Christ...

[Guest Len B'stard]

show me one beatles performance that tops that....one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGWUUEQ0Bt0

[Rovim]

show me one beatles performance that tops that....one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGWUUEQ0Bt0

[Johnny Drama]

show me one beatles performance that tops that....one

1. Just no. Elvis butt rapes the Beatles on this one.

2. Little Richard butt rapes the Beatles.

3. That video should be shown when one is asked to demonstrate why white people are stereotyped as sinfully boring, bland and rhythmless

[bacardimayne]

Elvis was the better live performer. Fact. The Beatles live performances (at least when they were together) were mostly shit. They stopped touring all-together after Rubber Soul because they couldn't even hear themselves over the screaming girls.

That said, The Beatles created things that changed the music world. Lennon and McCartney wrote and created COUNTLESS amazing songs that millions of people know and love to this day. No one even comes close. Elvis was a great, hell, amazing singer. His performances were incredible, but in terms of artistry you have to give it to the Beatles.

[DieselDaisy]

show me one beatles performance that tops that....one

1. Just no. Elvis butt rapes the Beatles on this one.

2. Little Richard butt rapes the Beatles.

3. That video should be shown when one is asked to demonstrate why white people are stereotyped as sinfully boring, bland and rhythmless

It is funny you should mention that as, having listened to loads of Little Richard recently, I am starting to feel similar about the Beatles' cover versions. McCartney's version of Lucille on the BBC album sounds unbelievably limp compared to Little Richard's original masterpiece - it does not have that great 'Orleans groove' for a start. But yes there is a few of them, Harrison’s Beethoven, Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey, and none of them live up to the originals.