Video ; in 1975, Lennon talked about elvis

I find it insulting to be compared to a troll for defending my position on the Beatles. I, in fact, am a much much bigger Elvis fan. However, I am not narrow-minded enough to choose one or the other. Thats the great thing about music, you can listen to whatever the hell you want.

This isn't about knocking Elvis and building up the Beatles or Lennon. If you did your research on Lennon, you'd realize that he was no saint himself. He had a drug addiction that very well could have killed him, he ignored his son for almost 20 years, and he was a complete jerk during the Beatles Hamburg days. BUT he and the Beatles were musical geniuses. As was Elvis. Appreciate them both. The reason that they're brought up on this board excessively is that Elvis and the Beatles changed American (and world) culture and music. They also hit near the same time frame and at a time when the youth of America (and the world) needed a voice and an outlet. They are more alike than some of you want to admit.

Today at work I've listened several times to 2 cds I took to the office:
Return of a prodigy and Double Fantasy.
I am glad I'm able to enjoy 2 of the greatest artists ever back to back without having to adore one and hate the other.

You cannot compare the Beatles with Elvis Presley. They come from different countries, very different cultural backgrounds, were different generations of artists, they also had very different sets of influences and also their artistic agendas were very different. It's lunacy and a critical dead-end to try and compare them and their considerable achievements.

Lennon's comments are perceptive and he has the inside running because to his generation of fans he was the equivalent of Elvis. But he is only speaking of his perception of Elvis, which is interesting, because it does reveal the gap between the fifties rockers, who could comfortably return to the mainstream and the sixties rockers who plowed their own mainstream. It was easy for Elvis to to become a Vegas entertainer, Lennon probably couldn't and wouldn't do it.

The thread has been interesting for me because I am a very casual fan of the Beatles, I only own their albums because I was given the recent mono set as a gift (I do enjoy it). The Beatles have meant very little in my life, I was and am a Stones man, and I also believe that The Smiths were the greatest English band, ever. I am a completely different generation, Morrissey was my Elvis/Lennon. Interestingly for the thread of influence Morrissey revers Elvis too and like me is a huge rockabilly fan.

I love Elvis but I don't and couldn't listen to him everyday, nor the Stones, nor the Smiths, nor the literally hundreds of other musicians and bands I have the music of. There is so much music, and guess what, you can have it all.

Yes, it is nice to be able to listen to music besides Elvis or the Beatles. Tonight it's Squeeze "Spot the Difference" and a Ray Charles collection.

You cannot compare the Beatles with Elvis Presley.

Sure you can. Both Lennon and Presley liked to get high.

You cannot compare the Beatles with Elvis Presley.

Sure you can. Both Lennon and Presley liked to get high.

They also made a lot of money, and pulled a lot of birds.

Even more importantly, they each made some of the greatest rock 'n' roll of the 20th century.

I'll take that.

I could care less about Elvis or John's personal diversions.

I think Lennon was just stating his taste. Devil In Disguise is a great record, the one that got Ernst into being a fan, but if he didn't like it that's fine. Elvis could have sat and said I like The Beatles early stuff better and in fact he did say that to Ray Connely in a 1969 interview. As far as John goes I think he did do some rather mediorce music at times, but he like Elvis admitted it. John had more creative independence at times, but just because he stood behind it at the time doesn't make something like STINYC good as he later admitted. Hell I like both artists and while it's interesting to hear what Lennon said, it doesn't change my taste in either of their work. He was just a bit more outspoken then Elvis in public.

Hell I like both artists and while it's interesting to hear what Lennon said, it doesn't change my taste in either of their work. He was just a bit more outspoken then Elvis in public.

Great post, Mike!
Although I'd say Lennon was a lot more outspoken than Elvis in public.

You cannot compare the Beatles with Elvis Presley.

Sure you can. Both Lennon and Presley liked to get high.

They also made a lot of money, and pulled a lot of birds.

Even more importantly, they each made some of the greatest rock 'n' roll of the 20th century.

I'll take that.

I could care less about Elvis or John's personal diversions.

Fine you liked the rock, debauchery and money aspect of the fame but don't care about the drugs. Some people do care. Elvis' "personal diversions" are why he's no longer around to make more of the world's greatest rock n' roll -- and those very same diversions resulted in a diminishment of the quality of his health and recorded performances during the last 6 years of his life. It's the ultimate cautionary tale.

You cannot compare the Beatles with Elvis Presley.

Sure you can. Both Lennon and Presley liked to get high.

They also made a lot of money, and pulled a lot of birds.

Even more importantly, they each made some of the greatest rock 'n' roll of the 20th century.

I'll take that.

I could care less about Elvis or John's personal diversions.

Fine you liked the rock, debauchery and money aspect of the fame but don't care about the drugs. Some people do care. Elvis' "personal diversions" are why he's no longer around to make more of the world's greatest rock n' roll -- and those very same diversions resulted in a diminishment of the quality of his health and recorded performances during the last 6 years of his life. It's the ultimate cautionary tale.

Doc cares plenty about the drugs Elvis took. He's always reminding us how screwed up the guy was in the latter part of his life. As if we needed reminding.

Fine you liked the rock, debauchery and money aspect of the fame but don't care about the drugs.

No, that first sentence I wrote was making light of two other prurient aspects that some find crucial.

These men are now gone, and when I choose to enjoy them, I do so through their artistry, which is best remembered in the stunning rock 'n' roll music they made.

Hell I like both artists and while it's interesting to hear what Lennon said, it doesn't change my taste in either of their work. He was just a bit more outspoken then Elvis in public.

Great post, Mike!
Although I'd say Lennon was a lot more outspoken than Elvis in public.

I should have put quotes around the words "a bit" it was just a little joke because he was a lot more outspoken.

Hell I like both artists and while it's interesting to hear what Lennon said, it doesn't change my taste in either of their work. He was just a bit more outspoken then Elvis in public.

Great post, Mike!
Although I'd say Lennon was a lot more outspoken than Elvis in public.

I should have put quotes around the words "a bit" it was just a little joke because he was a lot more outspoken.

Thanks, Mike.
I always admired Lennon's honesty.

Fine you liked the rock, debauchery and money aspect of the fame but don't care about the drugs.

No, that first sentence I wrote was making light of two other prurient aspects that some find crucial.

These men are now gone, and when I choose to enjoy them, I do so through their artistry, which is best remembered in the stunning rock 'n' roll music they made.

I love and respect John aswell [was born in his hometown] but to compare his best pure ROCK N' ROLL to Elvis' best are light years away - John sounds like the disciple Elvis the saviour. It's John's more avant garde work [1966 onwards] that is maybe comparable to Elvis' very best work.

I love and respect John aswell [was born in his hometown] but to compare his best pure ROCK N' ROLL to Elvis' best are light years away ...

There's no point in getting into a debate on this on an Elvis Presley forum.

Suffice it to say, outside of this "bubble" your view would be seen as uncommon.
"Light years away"? Don't think so.

To use just one analogous, pure ROCK 'N' ROLL example:

Elvis Presley, "Hound Dog" (1956)
Beatles, "Twist and Shout" (1963)

I love and respect John aswell [was born in his hometown] but to compare his best pure ROCK N' ROLL to Elvis' best are light years away ...

There's no point in getting into a debate on this on an Elvis Presley forum.

Suffice it to say, outside of this "bubble" your view would be seen as uncommon.
"Light years away"? Don't think so.

To use just one analogous, pure ROCK 'N' ROLL example:

Elvis Presley, "Hound Dog" (1956)
Beatles, "Twist and Shout" (1963)

So you are saying based on just those 2 examples [which are debatable anyway] John Lennon was at the least the equal of Elvis Presley as a ROCK N' ROLL artist ? I honestly believe your view is the minority one, even outside of this forum. We do agree however, that without both men, the world that we live in would be much the poorer. Peace.

I find it insulting to be compared to a troll for defending my position on the Beatles. I, in fact, am a much much bigger Elvis fan. However, I am not narrow-minded enough to choose one or the other. Thats the great thing about music, you can listen to whatever the hell you want.

This isn't about knocking Elvis and building up the Beatles or Lennon. If you did your research on Lennon, you'd realize that he was no saint himself. He had a drug addiction that very well could have killed him, he ignored his son for almost 20 years, and he was a complete jerk during the Beatles Hamburg days. BUT he and the Beatles were musical geniuses. As was Elvis. Appreciate them both. The reason that they're brought up on this board excessively is that Elvis and the Beatles changed American (and world) culture and music. They also hit near the same time frame and at a time when the youth of America (and the world) needed a voice and an outlet. They are more alike than some of you want to admit.

No need to justify your position. Your points were very well crafted and appreciated by many. The blindly-devoted, defensive Elvis fans will also go on the attack against any position that in any way provides reasonable, objective analysis.

I agree. No need to justify your position. Except for a handfull of songs, I really do not like The Beatles. No need to explain...And that has nothing, for me, to do with EP...

So you are saying based on just those 2 examples [which are debatable anyway] John Lennon was at the least the equal of Elvis Presley as a ROCK N' ROLL artist ?

No, that is just one example that you would find in, say, a non-Elvis Presley forum.

Again, there is a very strong case to be made that John Lennon is the greatest rocker of them all.

But I'm not going to make that argument. Not here.

So you are saying based on just those 2 examples [which are debatable anyway] John Lennon was at the least the equal of Elvis Presley as a ROCK N' ROLL artist ?

No, that is just one example that you would find in, say, a non-Elvis Presley forum.

Again, there is a very strong case to be made that John Lennon is the greatest rocker of them all.

But I'm not going to make that argument. Not here.

Of course not, because you are/would be:

A) wrong

B) losing

Of course not, because you are/would be:

A) wrong

B) losing

Only in your dreams, rock expert. Sleep tight!

Of course not, because you are/would be:

A) wrong

B) losing

rock expert

You really do not know how to communicate without name calling, do you. No surprise there. But, rest assured. You will not get that from me.

You really do not know how to communicate ...

Ironic.

You post rude, ignorant comments, then you play the victim when someone calls you on it.

Enough already.

You really do not know how to communicate ...

Ironic.

You post rude, ignorant comments, then you play the victim when someone calls you on it.

Enough already.

lol...Please, enough is enough .

People like Lennon didn't understand Elvis and did not want to him to change. Even though john did not want to stay the same as he was during his beatle years. It's hypocritical. Elvis matured as a artist. He ventured outside of Rock n roll and people didn't like that. Although Elvis himself liked it.

Yep, and Lennon and the Beatles should've kept recording songs like "She Loves You', but oh wait, they didn't ,did they? Yet Elvis should've stuck with the "SUn" type songs? Totally unfair.

I wonder what Mike Nesmith thought of Rick Nelson's post Ozzie and Harriet music? Did Keith Richards like anything Chuck Berry did after he got out of prison?

Yep, and Lennon and the Beatles should've kept recording songs like "She Loves You', but oh wait, they didn't ,did they? Yet Elvis should've stuck with the "SUn" type songs? Totally unfair.

And totally incorrect.

The Beatles continued to record after "She Loves You" with energy, creativity and purpose. When they realized after completing their second movie "Help!" that they were bored -- Lennon said they felt like extras in their own movie -- they put an end to their cinema interests, despite manager Brian Epstein's desire to make more such films, and despite the massive profits of box office and soundtracks.

What John correctly points out is not just that "Elvis the rocker" disappeared after the army, but Elvis the creative artist, as evidenced by his lost years in Hollywood. John even had the guts to say as much to Elvis when they met in August 1965.

Why are these points so difficult to understand?