Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:12 pm

No One should get their elvis facts by Beatle fanatics or the Beatles themselves.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:58 pm

Albert Goldman wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Albert Goldman wrote:... no wonder people still think that Elvis fans are some kind of maniacs.


Good point, "Albert Goldman." ;-)


Yes, it is. Thank you.

I guess that your witty smiley implies that one has to be jealous and a maniac to disagree with you about such issues as Elvis' love for The Beatles.


Your guess is incorrect.

My witty smiley implies that, on a forum devoted to Elvis Presley, where a person may select any login name and avatar image they wish, you chose the name and uploaded the portrait of the angriest, most mean-spirited Elvis Presley critic, "Albert Goldman."

What kind of an Elvis fan would do that? ;-)

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:02 pm

InheritTheWind wrote:The word "troll" is overused WAY too much here. DJC uses it all the time to disparage people who don't agree with him.


That is so not true! You are such a troll! ;-)

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:08 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
InheritTheWind wrote:The word "troll" is overused WAY too much here. DJC uses it all the time to disparage people who don't agree with him.


That is so not true! You are such a troll! ;-)


That was actually funny! :lol:

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:40 pm

I'm an Elvis Maniac !! 8)

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:46 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Albert Goldman wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Albert Goldman wrote:... no wonder people still think that Elvis fans are some kind of maniacs.


Good point, "Albert Goldman." ;-)


Yes, it is. Thank you.

I guess that your witty smiley implies that one has to be jealous and a maniac to disagree with you about such issues as Elvis' love for The Beatles.


Your guess is incorrect.

My witty smiley implies that, on a forum devoted to Elvis Presley, where a person may select any login name and avatar image they wish, you chose the name and uploaded the portrait of the angriest, most mean-spirited Elvis Presley critic, "Albert Goldman."

What kind of an Elvis fan would do that? ;-)


It is not a guess. It is obvious.

Maybe my avatar has a meaning that you just haven't figured out yet.

I have been a fan of Elvis for a long time, but I am not your fan, and you are taking it too hard "drjohncarpenter". You should just get over it and give it a rest.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:28 am

Albert Goldman wrote:It is not a guess. It is obvious.


Obviously wrong -- yes, that is clear to all. ;-)

Albert Goldman wrote:Maybe my avatar has a meaning that you just haven't figured out yet.


Whatever its "meaning," you have done very well to avoid direct questions of same from several members of this forum.

Which, of course, is all the answer anyone needs.

Have a great day, "Albert Goldman." ;-)

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:51 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Albert Goldman wrote:It is not a guess. It is obvious.


Obviously wrong -- yes, that is clear to all. ;-)



For all? You mean for you and your smileys "drjohncarpenter"?

Since you have so, so much time on your little hands, why don't you go and read those books that were mentioned in this thread: maybe you'll learn something about Elvis' love for The Beatles. This thread is not about Albert Goldman.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue May 28, 2013 9:32 pm

It's a miracle Elvis survived the movie years. Imagine if he had continued his music career after he left the army. Breaks my heart. Elvis was the most mismanaged performer ever.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue May 28, 2013 9:51 pm

LAURAW wrote:It's a miracle Elvis survived the movie years. Imagine if he had continued his music career after he left the army. Breaks my heart. Elvis was the most mismanaged performer ever.


You forget Vanilla Ice.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue May 28, 2013 11:36 pm

Remember...The Beatles didn't last long...they broke up. Elvis was around a very long time.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 12:18 am

There were four Beatles but there was only one Elvis :smt006

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 12:29 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
LAURAW wrote:It's a miracle Elvis survived the movie years. Imagine if he had continued his music career after he left the army. Breaks my heart. Elvis was the most mismanaged performer ever.


You forget Vanilla Ice.



Milli Vanilli would top that list for me.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 1:49 am

sheila wrote:Remember...The Beatles didn't last long...they broke up. Elvis was around a very long time.


Which makes what they accomplished in that short time span even more impressive. Elvis wasted more years than the Beatles were together.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 2:47 am

sheila wrote:Remember...The Beatles didn't last long...they broke up. Elvis was around a very long time.


What is your point? Longevity does not mean quality, as has been well-detailed on this topic. Also well-discussed is the ongoing admiration for, and influence of, the peerless Beatles catalog. They continue to sell millions, 40+ years since they parted ways.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 11:51 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
sheila wrote:Remember...The Beatles didn't last long...they broke up. Elvis was around a very long time.


What is your point? Longevity does not mean quality, as has been well-detailed on this topic. Also well-discussed is the ongoing admiration for, and influence of, the peerless Beatles catalog. They continue to sell millions, 40+ years since they parted ways.



You are correct on all your points John. What does annoy me though is how the general public, not us on here who take an interest on rock history, assume that the Beatles created music as we now know it today, instead of realising that they were heavily influenced by primarily Elvis, but also by those who made it big in his wake.

Many of his years were wasted but most, if not all, stars of longevity have had their shallow moments, most take a break and come back fresh, in a way it was unfortunate that Elvis just kept working.

Elvis off course continues to sell millions 35+ years after his death.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 3:26 pm

Pink&Black wrote:There were four Beatles but there was only one Elvis :smt006


But also, there was only one Ringo Starr

Image

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 4:28 pm

There was only one John Lennon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9kgu71d81U

Now i know what all the fuss was about. Go Yoko!!

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 5:05 pm

Wow they're pretty ugly..... :shock: .... but that's off topic. Although I'm sure some of you guys would find a way to argue that were definitely better looking than Elvis.

Individually, of course, none of the Beatles could hold a candle to Elvis, as they themselves would agree.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 5:28 pm

I never understood this argument. Why can't you like both? This isn't like a big sports rivalry where you have to choose just one. Me? I love both but I love Elvis more. The Beatles, while I love them, are not even my favorite band. I like Led Zep, The Who, The Doors, and the Allman Bros. more. Part of the reason why I like those bands better is because I feel they are better musicians than the Beatles. If any die-hard Beatles fan is offended by what Elvis may or may not have said about them then they need to get over themselves. There was great music before the Beatles, during the Beatles, and after the Beatles. Same thing goes for Elvis too. Let's enjoy them both and let people judge for themselves who they're going to listen to more.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 pm

nyelvfan wrote:I never understood this argument. Why can't you like both? This isn't like a big sports rivalry where you have to choose just one. Me? I love both but I love Elvis more. The Beatles, while I love them, are not even my favorite band. I like Led Zep, The Who, The Doors, and the Allman Bros. more. Part of the reason why I like those bands better is because I feel they are better musicians than the Beatles. If any die-hard Beatles fan is offended by what Elvis may or may not have said about them then they need to get over themselves. There was great music before the Beatles, during the Beatles, and after the Beatles. Same thing goes for Elvis too. Let's enjoy them both and let people judge for themselves who they're going to listen to more.




I agree with your views wholeheartedly now, however, for a 17 year old during the first half of 1963 it wasn't the case. Everyone was raving about how great the Beatles were with their bass, guitar and drum sound as if it was all brand new. After being bought up on all the great rock originals with Elvis way out in front, songs such as Please, Please Me, Thank You Girl and From Me To You sounded pretty tame after A Big Hunk o' Love, Rocky Road Blues, Jeannie, Jeannie, Jeannie and Lucile. It wasn't until Can't Buy me Love that I started to appreciate the Beatles. I went off them again after All You Need is Love, I never was into that flower power phase.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 9:31 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
sheila wrote:Remember...The Beatles didn't last long...they broke up. Elvis was around a very long time.


What is your point? Longevity does not mean quality, as has been well-detailed on this topic. Also well-discussed is the ongoing admiration for, and influence of, the peerless Beatles catalog. They continue to sell millions, 40+ years since they parted ways.


Hi Doc,

His point (to me) is quite clear and simple, They Beatles broke up, Elvis didn't.

In a way it was almost impossible for Elvis to quit. He couldn't quit with himself, whatever artistically
he would undertake, he'd still be Elvis, perhaps just Elvis the Image.

What do you think what would have happened if the beatles no matter what tried to stay together
for 22 years..have in tought that they were artistically bored with each other after only 7 years?

As i said before in an earlier post , in a sense i can have a respect for the fact he didn't stop
and be wondered in seeing that artistically he was able to refind himself multiple times.
Who could match to that?

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed May 29, 2013 10:32 pm

hli wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
sheila wrote:Remember...The Beatles didn't last long...they broke up. Elvis was around a very long time.


What is your point? Longevity does not mean quality, as has been well-detailed on this topic. Also well-discussed is the ongoing admiration for, and influence of, the peerless Beatles catalog. They continue to sell millions, 40+ years since they parted ways.


Hi Doc,

His point (to me) is quite clear and simple, They Beatles broke up, Elvis didn't.

In a way it was almost impossible for Elvis to quit. He couldn't quit with himself, whatever artistically
he would undertake, he'd still be Elvis, perhaps just Elvis the Image.

What do you think what would have happened if the beatles no matter what tried to stay together
for 22 years..have in tought that they were artistically bored with each other after only 7 years?

As i said before in an earlier post , in a sense i can have a respect for the fact he didn't stop
and be wondered in seeing that artistically he was able to refind himself multiple times.
Who could match to that?


Shelia, I assume is a female member of our forum. And her point seems to imply that because Elvis' career spanned more years, that makes his work superior.

Note that many of Presley's work years were strictly for income, not for art.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Thu May 30, 2013 12:08 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
hli wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
sheila wrote:Remember...The Beatles didn't last long...they broke up. Elvis was around a very long time.


What is your point? Longevity does not mean quality, as has been well-detailed on this topic. Also well-discussed is the ongoing admiration for, and influence of, the peerless Beatles catalog. They continue to sell millions, 40+ years since they parted ways.


Hi Doc,

His point (to me) is quite clear and simple, They Beatles broke up, Elvis didn't.

In a way it was almost impossible for Elvis to quit. He couldn't quit with himself, whatever artistically
he would undertake, he'd still be Elvis, perhaps just Elvis the Image.

What do you think what would have happened if the beatles no matter what tried to stay together
for 22 years..have in tought that they were artistically bored with each other after only 7 years?

As i said before in an earlier post , in a sense i can have a respect for the fact he didn't stop
and be wondered in seeing that artistically he was able to refind himself multiple times.
Who could match to that?


Shelia, I assume is a female member of our forum. And her point seems to imply that because Elvis' career spanned more years, that makes his work superior.

Note that many of Presley's work years were strictly for income, not for art.



And of course the Beatles were all about making art :lol:

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Thu May 30, 2013 12:51 am

Pink&Black wrote:
And of course the Beatles were all about making art :lol:


If that wasn't so they would have continued doing "I Want to hold your hand" just like Elvis continued doing movies. Until the well ran dry.