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

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:09 pm

I think elvis was the best thing that ever happened in the 50s for music and the Beatles carried it on in the 60's. they both deserve the credits for popular music

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:16 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
r&b wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
r&b wrote:OK, here we go, a topic bound to cause a lot of controversy, but here it goes. I apologize if this has been posted before. To me, there were only 2 major acts that shaped pop music history and youth culture, Elvis and The Beatles. Madonna, MJ, Dylan, all big but didn’t come close. My question is who do you think made the biggest impact/ who was the bigger act? I don’t mean record sales, although that is significant, but that is mostly a tally over time. I mean, who made the biggest impact on the scene when they arrived, Elvis or The Beatles and continued to lead the way while they were active? I would like to hear from folks who were around for both, although that may be tough. I don’t want to hear ‘well since Elvis came first, he had to be the bigger’. That is not necessarily true. I was around for both and I must say although Elvis made the first huge impact on teen culture; I think The Beatles took it even one step further. Some of this is due to the fact there were more TVs in the 60’s, more radio playing rock and roll, etc. but they also did things like a world tour, played in a NY ballpark, they seemed to be everywhere, very accessible, and the news media and fans just seemed to be in frenzy like I had never seen before. A slight dip in popularity in 1966 with the Lennon remark, but it did not slow down the musical growth as their biggest and maybe best music were yet to come. So I would have to say The Beatles because Elvis never reached the initial heights he did in 1956-58 IMO. Once the 60’s were under way, it seemed he just blended into a very comfortable career, but did not excite as before. If he had continued touring cut 'real' music (like Elvis Is Back) , done a world tour, made TV appearances, I think things would have been much better for him critically and artistically, or maybe not, since that LP did not even make #1. Your thoughts? No nasty comments please. Thank you.


This is a forever ongoing debate, here and elsewhere. Obviously, on an Elvis-based forum, the answer to your query will be overwhelmingly slanted towards Presley, as would the same question if posed on a Beatles-based forum.

That said, after all this time they remain perhaps the top two ground-breaking artists of the 20th century.

One difference is that Elvis' reign of dominance and influence was far shorter than that of the Beatles, at least three times less, due in equal measure to his two-year army detour and unwise commitment to Hollywood upon his return in 1960. And, after the group's formal breakup in April 1970, the Beatles' oeuvre and innovations continued to thrill and inspire well into the '70s and beyond.

Another difference is that the Beatles did not stand pat in their success. They were always reaching for something different, when the status quo would have been so much easier to embrace. In many ways they learned from Presley's mistakes. Case-in-point: their movie career. After a second huge film-and-soundtrack LP success ("Help"), in as many years, they realized it was an uncreative, boring treadmill, and they did not make a third such film. This despite the efforts of management to get it done.

Sitting here so many years later, it's really an embarrassment of riches in regards to their respective legacies, and we should all be grateful.


If this was a facebook page, I would 'like' that sentiment. As always, you laid it out reasonably.


You can always click the "thumbs up" icon at the lower right of any post that pleases you. ;-)


Done! Gotta learn the ins & outs of this forum!

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:19 pm

Delboy wrote:Well I wasn't around but have to say that a key element of any argument is Elvis being drafted. He's like Ali in that respect in that he lost his peak years. Would that have made a difference? Arguable. With The Beatles the train never stopped until they chose to stop it.


Lotta truth in that.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:51 pm

r&b wrote:If this was a facebook page, I would 'like' that sentiment. As always, you laid it out reasonably.

drjohncarpenter wrote:You can always click the "thumbs up" icon at the lower right of any post that pleases you. ;-)

r&b wrote:Done! Gotta learn the ins & outs of this forum!

You already learned the "ins & outs" when thanking "ian" back in February here > viewtopic.php?p=1131307#p1131307
Do you have short-term memory loss?

And why on earth are you thanking "drjohncarpenter" [twice on the same thread] just for saying "Lovely reply! I enjoyed every word" when replying to "greystokes" post here ? > viewtopic.php?p=1152107#p1152107

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:54 pm

elvisalisellers wrote:
r&b wrote:If this was a facebook page, I would 'like' that sentiment. As always, you laid it out reasonably.

drjohncarpenter wrote:You can always click the "thumbs up" icon at the lower right of any post that pleases you. ;-)

r&b wrote:Done! Gotta learn the ins & outs of this forum!

You already learned the "ins & outs" when thanking "ian" back in February here > viewtopic.php?p=1131307#p1131307
Do you have short-term memory loss?

And why on earth are you thanking "drjohncarpenter" [twice on the same thread] just for saying "Lovely reply! I enjoyed every word" when replying to "greystokes" post here ? > viewtopic.php?p=1152107#p1152107


Chill out, dude. It's his topic. Go make one of your own.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:26 pm

greystoke wrote:There have certainly been more than two acts who shaped popular culture and proved pivotal in creating major changes and advancements within (and outwith) the field of popular music -- both Elvis and The Beatles made terrific contributions to popular culture, and the entire landscape would surely have been not only different, but lesser without them. But Elvis wasn't the first singer to make a huge impact on pop culture -- Frank Sinatra's impact and popularity during the 1940s created the kind of teenage fandom that was hitherto unseen. Although, before him, Al Jolson, Bing Crosby and Rudy Vallee were hugely popular across a wide range of age groups -- and let's not overlook Crosby's broad ingenuity with regards to recording techniques and the modernising of recording equipment (although, that's another story, as is his unmatched quota of hits and pop No. 1 singles). Whilst, the big bands of the late-thirties and early-forties preceded the rock 'n' roll craze of the nineteen-fifties, with the likes of Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, the Basie band, Louis Armstong, Charlie Parker, Glenn Miller and the Tommy Dorsey orschestras all leading the way for popular music -- and with Frank Sinatra right out in front during a decade that brought about some of the greatest changes in the history of popular music and pop culture at large.

Some of the partnerships of this era made contributions so vast and broad-reaching within the spectrum of not only American pop music, but popular culture and pop music across the globe, that it's incredible to me that Elvis is so often cited here as being the "first" singer to ever have made any major cultural impact -- especially when Bill Haley put rock 'n' roll on the international map first. Over a decade prior, however, it was partnerships more brief than even Lennon and McCartney's that made for unions of the most dazzling talent, as the notion of the jazz soloist within popular music wrought changes that played alongside swing and big band music becoming the popular music of the era. The impact and influence of Artie Shaw and Glenn Miller's orchestras was nigh-on immeasurable, despite their brief tenures. Whilst Sinatra's involvement with the Tommy Dorsey orchestra was not only their equal, but helped shape Sinatra as a vocalist whose vocal style set the bar for popular singers to come -- this, with regards to technique, artistic range and creative freedom. In going solo, Sinatra shifted the musical landscape away from the big band and put the emphasis back on the solo singer -- something he had made in-roads towards even as part of the Dorsey Orchestra. And that's not to make mention of the hysteria that surrounded Sinatra during the peak of his popularity throughout the forties when it became apparent that he was something unique, very special and ultimately enduring as one of the great creative forces of the last century. By 1944 Sinatra, in the way Elvis would be in 1956, was omnipresent throughout popular culture, whether on record, on radio, stage and screen -- at times playing eleven shows a day, starting at 7.00am and performing until the evening as thousands-upon-thousands of fans queued to see the singer who single-handedly created the kind of generation gap that would be built upon by Elvis, The Beatles and every other pop music phenomenon in a direct line right through to Justin Bieber. On October 12th 1944, as Sinatra performed to 5,000 screaming fans inside the New York Paramount, 30,000 teenage girls (the Bobby Soxers) waiting outside in Times Square had to be kept in check by police as they went into hysteria because the girls inside wouldn't vacate the theatre for the next performance -- see the Love Me Tender premier for a later attempt to emulate this huge popular culture event (known as the Columbus Day Riots) with the premiere of Elvis's first picture at the same venue. At this time, Sinatra's salary jumped from $750 per week with the Dorsey orchestra to $25,000 a week as a solo star, then $130,000 for starring in Anchors Aweigh -- something that leads me to the importance and impact of Sinatra, Crosby, Judy Garland and Fred Astaire on the writing of popular song, becuase those were singers for whom the most renowned and talented writers of the era wrote specifically for. For Anchors Aweigh, Sinatra insisted on having Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne write and compose for the film. And that's vital when one considers the volume of songs penned especially for/or introduced by Astaire (A Fine Romance, A Foggy Day, Cheek-to-Cheek, Let's Face The Music and Dance, A Fine Romance, Night and Day, One for My Baby, That's Entertainment etc., etc.) or popularised by Sinatra -- whose contributions remain, arguably, the largest cornerstone in what made the Great American Songbook what it was, and what it has become today. For example, Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein first success as a team came in 1943, with Oklahoma -- Sinatra, during his first recording sessions as a solo singer turned to material from this show and thus began a long-running relationship between Rodgers, Hammerstein and Sinatra, who took many of their finest songs from the the theatrical stage to record, radio and the concert stage. And this, at a time when some of the aforementioned musical partnerships were riding on the crest of a musical wave that saw Charlie Parker unite with Dizzie Gillespie, Duke Ellingston and Jimmy Blanton and both Count Basie and Billie Holiday with Lester Young. Sinatra also helped establish Cole Porter's music within the lexicon of popular song. Here, forming a relationship between voice and words that ran deeper than most. Porter's wit and lyrical sophistication met with Sinatra's popular appeal helped Porter's songs find an audience that may otherwise have overlooked the wit and elegance of his rhyming. Sinatra's interpretation proving every bit as vital as Porter's lyrics, not least of all in how he was able to re-imagine a song in much the same way Elvis would in the nineteen-fifties when putting his own stamp and interpretation on songs that may otherwise have held little interest for a teenage audience far less acquainted with rhythm and blues than he was.

Elvis, in bringing true rhythm and blues to the mainstream done so in a way that helped emancipate the music of innumerable musicians whose colour prevented them from being heard on the radio alongside white singers. This transcended to the concert stage, especially with the impact and influence of Chuck Berry and Little Richard, although the vast contributions of Ray Charles, Louis Armstrong and Nat Cole cannot be overlooked here with regards to how important they were in altering the cultural landscape for black artists. Sinatra also played a part in this respect, with his insistence on black singers being given the same rights as himself as an artist wherever he played -- and if this wasn't adhered to, neither Sinatra or any of his label-mates on Reprise would play those particular venues. Traits shared with Elvis, who never allowed colour to cloud his opinions on artist, artistry or person. But to say that without Elvis there would never have been a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Civil Rights movement is a bit of a fallacy -- especially when the likes of Sinatra, Nat Cole, Louis Armstrong and Billie Holiday were championing civil rights before there became such a term. But for civil rights to advance in the ways it needed to, it took huge cultural steps and the impetus of those in the public eye who believed in equality. It also needed a leader, and that was Martin Luther King, Jr. of course. And to relate this to rock 'n' roll music, to truly succeed, this was a music that required a once-in-a-generation talent like Elvis Presley to make it become THE foremost form of popular music of its day. And those once-in-a-generation stars like Elvis, or Sinatra and Crosby before him, The Beatles, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Eminem, Justin Timberlake and Justin Bieber after, only find success once a new generation is ready for their own musical and cultural icon. And we can equate this with Valentino, Gable, Brando, Dean, McQueen and through to Cruise, Pitt and Gosling in the film world. Elvis straddled the world of both film and music, although without the success, credibility and talent of Sinatra and Crosby. Still, doing so helped elevate him to a unique level of stardom and fandom -- he was a major recording artist and a bona fide movie star. Worth considering also is that, prior to 1970, when Elvis was firmly back on the concert stage, he had been a national and international movie star for as long as he had been popular across America and internationally as a singer. Again, something that can be traced back to Jolson as the singer whose impact on early talking pictures helped make him one of the first - and most important - multi-media stars. Something worth remembering when presuming that popular culture either began with Elvis or revolves around The Beatles. Still, as an on-going debate, there's no real answer to your question -- some prefer Elvis to The Beatles, some believe The Beatles to have made the greatest contributions of all to popular music and some actually love both. And - as mentioned above by the Doc - there's such a vast body of work to enjoy and explore that fretting over who is bigger, best and most important only gets in the way of enjoying what you like. And for Elvis fans, there's an awful lot to like and much to love about a singer who enriched almost every facet and aspect of popular culture. And one can't ask for much more than that.


Stupendous post!

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:35 pm

I have to weigh in on this, and Greystoke's well-reasoned overview seems like a good place to start.

greystoke wrote: -- something that leads me to the importance and impact of Sinatra, Crosby, Judy Garland and Fred Astaire on the writing of popular song, becuase those were singers for whom the most renowned and talented writers of the era wrote specifically for. For Anchors Aweigh, Sinatra insisted on having Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne write and compose for the film. And that's vital when one considers the volume of songs penned especially for/or introduced by Astaire (A Fine Romance, A Foggy Day, Cheek-to-Cheek, Let's Face The Music and Dance, A Fine Romance, Night and Day, One for My Baby, That's Entertainment etc., etc.) or popularised by Sinatra -- whose contributions remain, arguably, the largest cornerstone in what made the Great American Songbook what it was, and what it has become today. For example, Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein first success as a team came in 1943, with Oklahoma -- Sinatra, during his first recording sessions as a solo singer turned to material from this show and thus began a long-running relationship between Rodgers, Hammerstein and Sinatra, who took many of their finest songs from the the theatrical stage to record, radio and the concert stage. And this, at a time when some of the aforementioned musical partnerships were riding on the crest of a musical wave that saw Charlie Parker unite with Dizzie Gillespie, Duke Ellingston and Jimmy Blanton and both Count Basie and Billie Holiday with Lester Young. Sinatra also helped establish Cole Porter's music within the lexicon of popular song. Here, forming a relationship between voice and words that ran deeper than most. Porter's wit and lyrical sophistication met with Sinatra's popular appeal helped Porter's songs find an audience that may otherwise have overlooked the wit and elegance of his rhyming. Sinatra's interpretation proving every bit as vital as Porter's lyrics, not least of all in how he was able to re-imagine a song in much the same way Elvis would in the nineteen-fifties when putting his own stamp and interpretation on songs that may otherwise have held little interest for a teenage audience far less acquainted with rhythm and blues than he was.


Going back to the original posting on this thread, it seems to me that it all depends on what we mean by 'impact'. Cole Porter, Rodgers and Hammerstein, George Gershwin and the rest would surely have written the songs they composed - or similar songs, at any rate - even if Astaire, Crosby, Judy Garland and Sinatra hadn't existed. The songs would, I suppose, have come out differently - in a sort of alternate universe - but we would surely still have a lot of classic songs that we'd consider standards.

The same is surely true for Elvis's songwriters, Leiber and Stoller being an excellent example. While some of us may consider their best songs to have been written for Elvis, they certainly weren't lacking in inspiration when writing for others, both before and after Elvis came on the scene.

Which brings me - finally - to my point. It's almost impossible to distinguish between the impact of the Beatles as performers and their impact as songwriters and recording innovators. Without Elvis, we'd still have a great many of the songs he sang - although, admittedly, they'd probably sound like Pat Boone. Without the Beatles, the music they made simply wouldn't exist.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:46 pm

elvisalisellers wrote:
r&b wrote:If this was a facebook page, I would 'like' that sentiment. As always, you laid it out reasonably.

drjohncarpenter wrote:You can always click the "thumbs up" icon at the lower right of any post that pleases you. ;-)

r&b wrote:Done! Gotta learn the ins & outs of this forum!

You already learned the "ins & outs" when thanking "ian" back in February here > viewtopic.php?p=1131307#p1131307
Do you have short-term memory loss?

And why on earth are you thanking "drjohncarpenter" [twice on the same thread] just for saying "Lovely reply! I enjoyed every word" when replying to "greystokes" post here ? > viewtopic.php?p=1152107#p1152107



Maybe I do have short term memory loss, but I still remember Madonna stinking it up trying to sing live at that award show.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:02 am

SuspiciousMind wrote:
r&b wrote:
SuspiciousMind wrote:
r&b wrote: I mean, who made the biggest impact on the scene when they arrived, Elvis or The Beatles and continued to lead the way while they were active? I would like to hear from folks who were around for both, although that may be tough. I don’t want to hear ‘well since Elvis came first, he had to be the bigger’. That is not necessarily true. I was around for both and I must say although Elvis made the first huge impact on teen culture; I think The Beatles took it even one step further. Some of this is due to the fact there were more TVs in the 60’s, more radio playing rock and roll, etc. but they also did things like a world tour, played in a NY ballpark, they seemed to be everywhere, very accessible, and the news media and fans just seemed to be in frenzy like I had never seen before. .


Troll.


??


It most certainly is true. So what if you don't want to hear it. It's the truth. Just like Elvis came long before Michael Jackson and thus is more important in history because of it.

You say that Elvis wasn't as important as The Beatles, which is totally false and not by opinion. If it were not for Elvis, there would have never been The Beatles. John Lennon is quoted as saying that very thing. And he was the one who created The Beatles. Elvis didn't invent Rock & Roll. It was originally known as the devil's music, played only in the black juke joints. But Elvis was the driving force behind the Rock & Roll movement of the 1950's which also played a huge part in the Civil Rights Movement. Without him being so controversial back then no telling where that movement would have gone, if anywhere at all. I think it's safe to say too that had there never had been Elvis, there may not have been a Martin Luther King Jr to spread his message around the world. Had there never had been MLK, then there never would have been the Civil Rights Movement thus our nation's first black president today. Whereas with The Beatles, all they inspired was the hippie generation that led to all of the problems America faces today. Killings, drugs, violence in schools. It was The Beatles' song Helter Skelter that inspired the nation's most dangerous mass murderer, Charles Manson to brutally kill actress Sharon Tate and her friends.

Having said all that, I will admit that the Fab Four made some fantastic music. But also some corny music. Yellow Submarine come to mind? Maybe not quite as bad as Elvis singing Old McDonald, but still bad.

Another thing, you say that you were around for both Elvis and The Beatles. But in a previous thread you said that you saw Elvis at MSG in 1972 as a 21 year old. If that's true, then you would have only been 5 when Elvis first broke onto the scene, which was the most important year of music history, 1956. So you wouldn't have been aware at that age what was going on and at that particular time. But as for The Beatles invasion, which was 1964, you would have been older, at around 13, but still too young to have known what was or wasn't important at that time. So I question that.

I called you a troll because your posts are always indicating that Elvis wasn't relevant or as important as others were and are today, which is complete BS. Therefor is borderline trolling. But you're not the only one who does that on here.


I was aware of the Beatles at 5 yrs old. I was aware of their impact at 5 yrs. old.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:06 am

r&b wrote:
elvisalisellers wrote:
r&b wrote:If this was a facebook page, I would 'like' that sentiment. As always, you laid it out reasonably.

drjohncarpenter wrote:You can always click the "thumbs up" icon at the lower right of any post that pleases you. ;-)

r&b wrote:Done! Gotta learn the ins & outs of this forum!

You already learned the "ins & outs" when thanking "ian" back in February here > viewtopic.php?p=1131307#p1131307
Do you have short-term memory loss?

And why on earth are you thanking "drjohncarpenter" [twice on the same thread] just for saying "Lovely reply! I enjoyed every word" when replying to "greystokes" post here ? > viewtopic.php?p=1152107#p1152107



Maybe I do have short term memory loss, but I still remember Madonna stinking it up trying to sing live at that award show.

Okay, so we've established that you may be suffering with amnesia. Fair enough.

But then how does that go to explaining you thanking "drjohncarpenter" [twice on the same thread] just for saying "Lovely reply! I enjoyed every word" when replying to "greystokes" post here ? > viewtopic.php?p=1152107#p1152107


P.S. No one ever stunk the place out as bad as Springsteen did on We Are The World.

::rocks

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:10 am

The Beatles.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:08 am

Bob Dylan didn't come close to Elvis and The Beatles? Okay....

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:21 am

Chuck Berry

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:34 am

In response to the first post of this thread: apology accecpted.

Why would anyone want to start this up again?

I love Dylan and Michael Jackson. I think their importance is underappreciated.

rjm

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:25 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
r&b wrote:OK, here we go, a topic bound to cause a lot of controversy, but here it goes. I apologize if this has been posted before. To me, there were only 2 major acts that shaped pop music history and youth culture, Elvis and The Beatles. Madonna, MJ, Dylan, all big but didn’t come close. My question is who do you think made the biggest impact/ who was the bigger act? I don’t mean record sales, although that is significant, but that is mostly a tally over time. I mean, who made the biggest impact on the scene when they arrived, Elvis or The Beatles and continued to lead the way while they were active? I would like to hear from folks who were around for both, although that may be tough. I don’t want to hear ‘well since Elvis came first, he had to be the bigger’. That is not necessarily true. I was around for both and I must say although Elvis made the first huge impact on teen culture; I think The Beatles took it even one step further. Some of this is due to the fact there were more TVs in the 60’s, more radio playing rock and roll, etc. but they also did things like a I agree with every word of that, well said Doc.world tour, played in a NY ballpark, they seemed to be everywhere, very accessible, and the news media and fans just seemed to be in frenzy like I had never seen before. A slight dip in popularity in 1966 with the Lennon remark, but it did not slow down the musical growth as their biggest and maybe best music were yet to come. So I would have to say The Beatles because Elvis never reached the initial heights he did in 1956-58 IMO. Once the 60’s were under way, it seemed he just blended into a very comfortable career, but did not excite as before. If he had continued touring cut 'real' music (like Elvis Is Back) , done a world tour, made TV appearances, I think things would have been much better for him critically and artistically, or maybe not, since that LP did not even make #1. Your thoughts? No nasty comments please. Thank you.


This is a forever ongoing debate, here and elsewhere. Obviously, on an Elvis-based forum, the answer to your query will be overwhelmingly slanted towards Presley, as would the same question if posed on a Beatles-based forum.

That said, after all this time they remain perhaps the top two ground-breaking artists of the 20th century.

One difference is that Elvis' reign of dominance and influence was far shorter than that of the Beatles, at least three times less, due in equal measure to his two-year army detour and unwise commitment to Hollywood upon his return in 1960. And, after the group's formal breakup in April 1970, the Beatles' oeuvre and innovations continued to thrill and inspire well into the '70s and beyond.

Another difference is that the Beatles did not stand pat in their success. They were always reaching for something different, when the status quo would have been so much easier to embrace. In many ways they learned from Presley's mistakes. Case-in-point: their movie career. After a second huge film-and-soundtrack LP success ("Help"), in as many years, they realized it was an uncreative, boring treadmill, and they did not make a third such film. This despite the efforts of management to get it done.

Sitting here so many years later, it's really an embarrassment of riches in regards to their respective legacies, and we should all be grateful.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:31 pm

I was meant to post to the above comments by the Doc, that i agree with every word of that. Well said, Doc.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:19 pm

Elvis by a long, long way.

Brian

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:03 am

mysterytrainrideson wrote:I was meant to post to the above comments by the Doc, that i agree with every word of that. Well said, Doc.


Thank you. It's always so nice to read positive comments from one member to another.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:09 am

Are we talking a 4 on 1 Battle Royal here?? In that case, I think Elvis' karate moves have it over Paul, George, John and Ringo. Unless of course they get him on the ground... then, it's anybody's guess!! :smt062

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:19 pm

I would say definatly Elvis here in the UK. I can remember both impacts being 11 in '56 and 18 in '63. Both Elvis and the Beatles were everywhere in those respective years, although as has been said, the Beatles certainly had much more media exposure, the only way you could hear Elvis on the radio was late evening on radio Luxumburg. So the fact that he made such an impact without that benefit is nothing short of amazing.

I would have said definatly in the US as well, however, after reading so many comments on these threads from our American friends about the impact the Beatles made over there in '64, I have my doubts. But then again without that impact Elvis had over here in '56 you wouldn't have had the Beatles in '64.

Before anyone says that the Beatles weren't only influenced by Elvis - that is true. They were also influenced by Chuck Berry and Little Richard but they most likely wouldn't have been heard without Elvis "He did more than just open the door for rock'n'roll: he blew a hole in the civilized facade of popular music that would never close again" and of course through that door came the aforementioned artists. Also they were influenced by Buddy Holly, but as he himself said "without Elvis none of us could have made it". If that isn't enough John Lennon himself said "without Elvis there would be no Beatles" Bill Haley was over here before Elvis, but the Beatles have made it plain that they weren't influenced by him! It was Heartbreak Hotel that did it, not only for them but Elton John, Cliff Richard and many more.

After all these years I suppose it doesn't really matter, they will all be remembered long after the youngest blogger on here is long gone.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:27 pm

I just didn't get the whole Beatles thing. Obviously, they made quite an impact on the world, but that is one boat i missed.

Image

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:15 am

r&b wrote:OK, here we go, a topic bound to cause a lot of controversy, but here it goes. I apologize if this has been posted before. To me, there were only 2 major acts that shaped pop music history and youth culture, Elvis and The Beatles. Madonna, MJ, Dylan, all big but didn’t come close. My question is who do you think made the biggest impact/ who was the bigger act? I don’t mean record sales, although that is significant, but that is mostly a tally over time. I mean, who made the biggest impact on the scene when they arrived, Elvis or The Beatles and continued to lead the way while they were active? I would like to hear from folks who were around for both, although that may be tough. I don’t want to hear ‘well since Elvis came first, he had to be the bigger’. That is not necessarily true. I was around for both and I must say although Elvis made the first huge impact on teen culture; I think The Beatles took it even one step further. Some of this is due to the fact there were more TVs in the 60’s, more radio playing rock and roll, etc. but they also did things like a world tour, played in a NY ballpark, they seemed to be everywhere, very accessible, and the news media and fans just seemed to be in frenzy like I had never seen before. A slight dip in popularity in 1966 with the Lennon remark, but it did not slow down the musical growth as their biggest and maybe best music were yet to come. So I would have to say The Beatles because Elvis never reached the initial heights he did in 1956-58 IMO. Once the 60’s were under way, it seemed he just blended into a very comfortable career, but did not excite as before. If he had continued touring cut 'real' music (like Elvis Is Back) , done a world tour, made TV appearances, I think things would have been much better for him critically and artistically, or maybe not, since that LP did not even make #1. Your thoughts? No nasty comments please. Thank you.


If you didn't get it, don't get it, you're never going to get it! 8)

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:21 am

Delboy wrote:Well I wasn't around but have to say that a key element of any argument is Elvis being drafted. He's like Ali in that respect in that he lost his peak years. Would that have made a difference? Arguable. With The Beatles the train never stopped until they chose to stop it.


It just made his '68 Special that much more amazing and magical....... 8)

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:09 am

ian wrote:
Delboy wrote:Well I wasn't around but have to say that a key element of any argument is Elvis being drafted. He's like Ali in that respect in that he lost his peak years. Would that have made a difference? Arguable. With The Beatles the train never stopped until they chose to stop it.


It just made his '68 Special that much more amazing and magical....... 8)


Yes, we should be nothing but grateful for all the terrible records and films he made between 1962 and 1968, and the zero concert appearances.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:44 am

Rob wrote:I just didn't get the whole Beatles thing. Obviously, they made quite an impact on the world, but that is one boat i missed.

Image


I missed that boat too. I can't deny the impact that everybody claims they had on them. I actually like them, but i never understood the hysteria that surrounded them. They were before my time, so perhaps one had to "be there."