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

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:40 am

Eddie Cochran

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:34 pm

I like all kinds of music because i am not focused only on Elvis.
It depends on the artist his way of bringing a song, and with an artist i don't mean teenidols
like Justin Bieber or whatever there name now is.

It starts and ends for me with Elvis (really! :lol: ) and in between there is Frank Sinatra,
Al Martino,Andy Williams,Barry Manilow (70's),Billy Joel,Bob Marley,Elton John,Dalida,
Deep Purple,Mantovani,Michael Jackson,The Beatles (early stuff)Sissel Kyrkjebo (classic)
to name a few.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:44 pm

showfan wrote:
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."


If they were before your time, so then obviously was Elvis, so it would be pretty hard for you to answer this. I would say the lasting impact today is slightly greater for The Beatles, especially for the majority of under 50 folks. The one way to know for sure, we will never experience. That would be for say, 12 newly found studio tracks on each artist (no live recordings, or radio broadcasts), 12 newly found unreleased songs for each, package it on a CD and let the sales determine who has the staying power. I would bet The Beatles disc outsells he Elvis disc and by a lot.
Last edited by r&b on Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:12 pm

r&b wrote:I would bet The Beatles disc outsells he Elvis disc and by a lot.

What I don't understand is why this bothers some. I like what I like and could not care less who outsells, is more popular, or anything else. Nearly 40 years after his death, fans tour Graceland by the thousands and each August hold a candlelight vigil that has to be seen to be believed. Does it really matter who is more popular? When I sit down and put on the headphones to enjoy an Elvis recording, the Beatles and everyone else is the farthest thing from my mind. I don't care if Elvis NEVER sells another CD, I'd be fine with it. I would still enjoy the music he left us and not care who anyone else was listening to.

I just don't get, nor care about, this Elvis versus the Beatles thing.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:18 pm

Rob wrote:
r&b wrote:I would bet The Beatles disc outsells he Elvis disc and by a lot.

What I don't understand is why this bothers some. I like what I like and could not care less who outsells, is more popular, or anything else. Nearly 40 years after his death, fans tour Graceland by the thousands and each August hold a candlelight vigil that has to be seen to be believed. Does it really matter who is more popular? When I sit down and put on the headphones to enjoy an Elvis recording, the Beatles and everyone else is the farthest thing from my mind. I don't care if Elvis NEVER sells another CD, I'd be fine with it. I would still enjoy the music he left us and not care who anyone else was listening to.

I just don't get, nor care about, this Elvis versus the Beatles thing.


I got interested in this one day because I came across numerous websites out there with this very subject, so to some folks it is relevant. I just a search on Elvis vs Beatles. I know throwing it out on an Elvis forum is sort of insane, but just wanted to see the reactions. It is not a topic of popularity per se, but who made the greatest impact on our culture and music. I guess that relates to popularity in some regard.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:19 pm

r&b wrote:
showfan wrote:
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."


If they were before your time, so then obviously was Elvis, so it would be pretty hard for you to answer this. I would say the lasting impact today is slightly greater for The Beatles, especially for the majority of under 50 folks. The one way to know for sure, we will never experience. That would be for say, 12 newly found studio tracks on each artist (no live recordings, or radio broadcasts), 12 newly found unreleased songs for each, package it on a CD and let the sales determine who has the staying power. I would bet The Beatles disc outsells he Elvis disc and by a lot.



r@b, I think your bet would be a sure thing :( It is just such a shame that the mid '60's and mid to late '70's ruined Elvis' credibility as a serious rock artist to the majority of the public, who have no idea of the tremendous and unprecedented impact he had on the world stage in the mid to late '50's.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:20 pm

Elvis or The Beatles?

Elvis and The Beatles.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:19 pm

r&b wrote:
showfan wrote:
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."


If they were before your time, so then obviously was Elvis, so it would be pretty hard for you to answer this. I would say the lasting impact today is slightly greater for The Beatles, especially for the majority of under 50 folks. The one way to know for sure, we will never experience. That would be for say, 12 newly found studio tracks on each artist (no live recordings, or radio broadcasts), 12 newly found unreleased songs for each, package it on a CD and let the sales determine who has the staying power. I would bet The Beatles disc outsells he Elvis disc and by a lot.


I don't know about that the CD format is dying.

I think they would sell about the same.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:29 pm

In thirty years, I don't think The Beatles will have meant as much as Elvis Presley.”(Nik Cohn, 1969)

I’ve been rereading my copy of Nik Cohn’s Pop From The Beginning (aka Awopbopaloobop Alopbamboom), published in 1969. He appears to have completed it some time between February and April 1969 – crucially, before the release of In The Ghetto. And, of course, about a year before the Beatles officially broke up. A fascinating glimpse into what it was like to be an Elvis fan who has no idea what's going to happen next.

Here are extracts from his chapters on Elvis and The Beatles:


Elvis
He never again went back on the road. Instead, he hid himself away in vast mansions in Hollywood or Memphis and there he has stayed ever since. He hasn't toured in years. He lives a life of almost total privacy, kept company only by his wife, his small daughter and twelve ex-G.I.s, who amuse him and fetch him drinks and play touch football with him. Whatever he does, whatever fires him, he's discreet about it — nobody knows for sure what he thinks or wants to do. He gets slightly lonely, we're told. That's all.

Most of his time is spent in churning out an endless series of safe and boring musicals — Kissin' Cousins, Clambake, Frankie and Johnnie, Harem Scarum, Girl Happy — and each one seems worse than the one before. Elvis himself is thirty-four, paunchy, slow and his voice has lost its edge, until he now sounds a bit like Dean Martin. His songs are drab, his scripts are formula-fed and his sets look as if they've been knocked together with two nails and a hammer. He still makes a fortune but his singles sell patchily and his films break no box office records.

To be fair, he's shown recent signs of getting back into business. He issued three strong singles running — Big Boss Man, Guitar Man, U.S. Male — and did a much-publicized TV spectacular on which he sounded tougher, more rocker than he'd done in years. Whether this will grow into any major revival remains to be seen.

As far as his fans are concerned, he could just as well be on another planet. From time to time his gold Cadillac is sent out on tour across America and they come to see it, touch it. His annual earnings are around ten million dollars. He has sold the best part of a hundred and fifty million records. And somehow his fans accept his absence and have come almost to like it.

The point is that he has passed beyond the edge of criticism, that he's somewhere out of reach on a plateau of showbiz untouchability. The obvious parallel is with Frank Sinatra -both of them have changed so much, have earned such astro-nomical money, have so dominated the entertainment worlds of their time that what they do for the rest of their lives has become largely immaterial. They have run out of challenges.

All that's left now is the image, the vision of him as he was when he was twenty-one, twenty-two, strutting and swivelling and swaggering, hanging his grin out, putting on the agony, riding on the top of his Cadillac, gold on gold, and freewheeling through everything. He was magnificent then, he really was. And his whole story has been an ultimate perfection of the Hollywood romance, an all-time saga of what happens to sexy little boys when they get fed into the sausage machine.

So Elvis now is a godhead — unseen, untouchable, more than human. The demon lover has turned into a father, an all-powerful figure who can rule a fan's life without actually having to be there. His remoteness is a positive advantage, his present badness is irrelevant, and there's no reason why it should ever end. Worship is a habit that's hard to break.


The Beatles
What do I say? They're good. They have talent and Lennon/ McCartney are the most inventive, wide-ranging and melodically ingenious writers that pop has produced. They've added whole new dimensions to pop, they have introduced unthought-of sophistications, complexities and subtleties. And Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, their best album, really was quite an impressive achievement.
For all this, I don't enjoy them much and I'm not at all convinced that they've been good for pop. So all right, the Beatles make good music, they really do, but since when was pop anything to do with good music?
[…]
The way I like it, pop is all teenage property and it mirrors everything that happens to teenagers in this time, in this American twentieth century. It is about clothes and cars and dancing, it's about parents and highschool and being tied and breaking loose, it is about getting sex and getting rich and getting old, it's about America, it's about cities and noise. Get right down to it, it's all about Coca Cola.

And, in the beginning, that's what the Beatles were about, too, and they had gimmick haircuts, gimmick uniforms, gimmick accents to prove it. They were, at last, the great British pop explosion and, even when their songs were trash, you could hear them and know it was mid-twentieth century, Liverpool U.S.A., and these boys were coke drinkers from way back.

They've changed. They don't belong to their own time or place any more, they've flown away into limbo. And there are maybe a million acid-heads, pseudo-intellectuals, muddled schoolchildren and generalized freaks who have followed them there but the mass teen public has been lumbered.

What's more, because the Beatles are so greatly worshipped by the rest of pop, most every group in the world pursues them and apes them and kneels at their feet, and that's why there's no more good fierce rock and roll music now, no more honest trash.
[…]
It's bad : originally, in the 50s, the whole point about rock was its honesty, the way it talked so straight after all those years of showbiz blag, and now it's become just as fake as Tin Pan Alley ever was.
So it isn't really their fault, you could hardly blame them, but, indirectly, the Beatles have brought pop to its knees. It'll get back up again, it must do because somehow it's needed, but I don't think it'll be the Beatles who'll revive it, I think it's already too late for that.

In some sense, they have opted out and they can hardly come back in again. They'll keep progressing, they'll make better music yet and they won't ever fall. Only, in thirty years, I don't think they'll have meant as much as Elvis Presley.


“In thirty years, I don't think they'll have meant as much as Elvis Presley”. I wonder if he still thinks that.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:46 pm

Interesting post, Number Eight!


NumberEight wrote:In thirty years, I don't think The Beatles will have meant as much as Elvis Presley.”(Nik Cohn, 1969)

I’ve been rereading my copy of Nik Cohn’s Pop From The Beginning (aka Awopbopaloobop Alopbamboom), published in 1969. He appears to have completed it some time between February and April 1969 – crucially, before the release of In The Ghetto. And, of course, about a year before the Beatles officially broke up. A fascinating glimpse into what it was like to be an Elvis fan who has no idea what's going to happen next.

Here are extracts from his chapters on Elvis and The Beatles:


Elvis
He never again went back on the road. Instead, he hid himself away in vast mansions in Hollywood or Memphis and there he has stayed ever since. He hasn't toured in years. He lives a life of almost total privacy, kept company only by his wife, his small daughter and twelve ex-G.I.s, who amuse him and fetch him drinks and play touch football with him. Whatever he does, whatever fires him, he's discreet about it — nobody knows for sure what he thinks or wants to do. He gets slightly lonely, we're told. That's all.

Most of his time is spent in churning out an endless series of safe and boring musicals — Kissin' Cousins, Clambake, Frankie and Johnnie, Harem Scarum, Girl Happy — and each one seems worse than the one before. Elvis himself is thirty-four, paunchy, slow and his voice has lost its edge, until he now sounds a bit like Dean Martin. His songs are drab, his scripts are formula-fed and his sets look as if they've been knocked together with two nails and a hammer. He still makes a fortune but his singles sell patchily and his films break no box office records.

To be fair, he's shown recent signs of getting back into business. He issued three strong singles running — Big Boss Man, Guitar Man, U.S. Male — and did a much-publicized TV spectacular on which he sounded tougher, more rocker than he'd done in years. Whether this will grow into any major revival remains to be seen.

As far as his fans are concerned, he could just as well be on another planet. From time to time his gold Cadillac is sent out on tour across America and they come to see it, touch it. His annual earnings are around ten million dollars. He has sold the best part of a hundred and fifty million records. And somehow his fans accept his absence and have come almost to like it.

The point is that he has passed beyond the edge of criticism, that he's somewhere out of reach on a plateau of showbiz untouchability. The obvious parallel is with Frank Sinatra -both of them have changed so much, have earned such astro-nomical money, have so dominated the entertainment worlds of their time that what they do for the rest of their lives has become largely immaterial. They have run out of challenges.

All that's left now is the image, the vision of him as he was when he was twenty-one, twenty-two, strutting and swivelling and swaggering, hanging his grin out, putting on the agony, riding on the top of his Cadillac, gold on gold, and freewheeling through everything. He was magnificent then, he really was. And his whole story has been an ultimate perfection of the Hollywood romance, an all-time saga of what happens to sexy little boys when they get fed into the sausage machine.

So Elvis now is a godhead — unseen, untouchable, more than human. The demon lover has turned into a father, an all-powerful figure who can rule a fan's life without actually having to be there. His remoteness is a positive advantage, his present badness is irrelevant, and there's no reason why it should ever end. Worship is a habit that's hard to break.


The Beatles
What do I say? They're good. They have talent and Lennon/ McCartney are the most inventive, wide-ranging and melodically ingenious writers that pop has produced. They've added whole new dimensions to pop, they have introduced unthought-of sophistications, complexities and subtleties. And Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, their best album, really was quite an impressive achievement.
For all this, I don't enjoy them much and I'm not at all convinced that they've been good for pop. So all right, the Beatles make good music, they really do, but since when was pop anything to do with good music?
[…]
The way I like it, pop is all teenage property and it mirrors everything that happens to teenagers in this time, in this American twentieth century. It is about clothes and cars and dancing, it's about parents and highschool and being tied and breaking loose, it is about getting sex and getting rich and getting old, it's about America, it's about cities and noise. Get right down to it, it's all about Coca Cola.

And, in the beginning, that's what the Beatles were about, too, and they had gimmick haircuts, gimmick uniforms, gimmick accents to prove it. They were, at last, the great British pop explosion and, even when their songs were trash, you could hear them and know it was mid-twentieth century, Liverpool U.S.A., and these boys were coke drinkers from way back.

They've changed. They don't belong to their own time or place any more, they've flown away into limbo. And there are maybe a million acid-heads, pseudo-intellectuals, muddled schoolchildren and generalized freaks who have followed them there but the mass teen public has been lumbered.

What's more, because the Beatles are so greatly worshipped by the rest of pop, most every group in the world pursues them and apes them and kneels at their feet, and that's why there's no more good fierce rock and roll music now, no more honest trash.
[…]
It's bad : originally, in the 50s, the whole point about rock was its honesty, the way it talked so straight after all those years of showbiz blag, and now it's become just as fake as Tin Pan Alley ever was.
So it isn't really their fault, you could hardly blame them, but, indirectly, the Beatles have brought pop to its knees. It'll get back up again, it must do because somehow it's needed, but I don't think it'll be the Beatles who'll revive it, I think it's already too late for that.

In some sense, they have opted out and they can hardly come back in again. They'll keep progressing, they'll make better music yet and they won't ever fall. Only, in thirty years, I don't think they'll have meant as much as Elvis Presley.


“In thirty years, I don't think they'll have meant as much as Elvis Presley”. I wonder if he still thinks that.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:15 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.


Hey r&b, I been reading your topic over a few times, I believe It simply comes down to this : Of the two Artists - The Beatles or Elvis Presley - which one's songs has been covered more by other artists and singers ? Answer = The Beatles.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:30 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:Interesting post, Number Eight!

Thanks, Doc. Glad you liked it!

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:04 am

Robt 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.


Hey r&b, I been reading your topic over a few times, I believe It simply comes down to this : Of the two Artists - The Beatles or Elvis Presley - which one's songs has been covered more by other artists and singers ? Answer = The Beatles.



Whilst I have little doubt that you are correct Robt, I am not too sure that it is relevant. Many artists have had their songs covered by more people than Elvis. Paul Anka comes to mind, but I am sure no one would say that he is the most important artist in rock history.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:11 am

Chris Roberts wrote:
Robt 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.


Hey r&b, I been reading your topic over a few times, I believe It simply comes down to this : Of the two Artists - The Beatles or Elvis Presley - which one's songs has been covered more by other artists and singers ? Answer = The Beatles.



Whilst I have little doubt that you are correct Robt, I am not too sure that it is relevant. Many artists have had their songs covered by more people than Elvis. Paul Anka comes to mind.


I have my doubts that more people have covered Paul Anka's songs than Elvis.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:21 am

Rob wrote:
r&b wrote:I would bet The Beatles disc outsells he Elvis disc and by a lot.

What I don't understand is why this bothers some. I like what I like and could not care less who outsells, is more popular, or anything else. Nearly 40 years after his death, fans tour Graceland by the thousands and each August hold a candlelight vigil that has to be seen to be believed. Does it really matter who is more popular? When I sit down and put on the headphones to enjoy an Elvis recording, the Beatles and everyone else is the farthest thing from my mind. I don't care if Elvis NEVER sells another CD, I'd be fine with it. I would still enjoy the music he left us and not care who anyone else was listening to.

I just don't get, nor care about, this Elvis versus the Beatles thing.


I totally agree with Rob on this. Someone can tell me this guy sold more records than Elvis or that guy had more of his songs covered than Elvis...good for them. It's all a matter of taste for the individual. I like what I like.

I was born in 1974 so I missed the birth of rock and roll and beatlemania, I just know that I like Elvis and have never been a fan of the Beatles. To me, Elvis.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:04 pm

brian wrote:
Chris Roberts wrote:
Robt 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.


Hey r&b, I been reading your topic over a few times, I believe It simply comes down to this : Of the two Artists - The Beatles or Elvis Presley - which one's songs has been covered more by other artists and singers ? Answer = The Beatles.



Whilst I have little doubt that you are correct Robt, I am not too sure that it is relevant. Many artists have had their songs covered by more people than Elvis. Paul Anka comes to mind.


I have my doubts that more people have covered Paul Anka's songs than Elvis.



My Way, written be Paul Anka is, (so I have read) together with Yesterday, the most covered song in history.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:18 pm

But thats only one song. But that doesn't mean that Paul Ankas songs have been covered more than Elvis'.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:46 pm

Chris Roberts wrote:
brian wrote:
Chris Roberts wrote:
Robt 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.


Hey r&b, I been reading your topic over a few times, I believe It simply comes down to this : Of the two Artists - The Beatles or Elvis Presley - which one's songs has been covered more by other artists and singers ? Answer = The Beatles.



Whilst I have little doubt that you are correct Robt, I am not too sure that it is relevant. Many artists have had their songs covered by more people than Elvis. Paul Anka comes to mind.


I have my doubts that more people have covered Paul Anka's songs than Elvis.



My Way, written be Paul Anka is, (so I have read) together with Yesterday, the most covered song in history.


Its not true, neither of them. The sources that normally quote this thing such a the Guiness Book of Records has never investigated non english worded songs.
Songs such as O Sole Mio and La Paloma in all their various guises are almost certain to be the most covered songs in history.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:24 pm

Here is something to ponder. I went to an in store signing for Michael Buble yesterday in NYC. After I left the signing area I went into the cd/dvd area. The first thing I saw was a huge Beatles stand up counter display with trivia games, Monopoly, cds and dvds on it. There was nothing on Elvis on display in the store and when I went to the Elvis section it was the same sad comps, a few Legacys and a few Camdens in the rack. A very sad display of Elvis as compared to The Beatles. I would have to say, for this alone, maybe The Beatles have the lasting affect.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:44 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:But thats only one song. But that doesn't mean that Paul Ankas songs have been covered more than Elvis'.



Elvis has definatly had more songs covered, that is true. When you look into it, it is surprising just how many have been covered. With so many of Elvis' songs, of course, it could be argued that the artist was covering the original version for etc. Milk Cow Blues by Eddie Cochran. However, I believe it would be safe to say that in the vast majority of cases the Elvis version would be the one covered.

Listed are the Elvis songs that I know have been covered, I am sure it isn't anywhere near the complete list, please let us know of any others.

I Love You Because, That's All Right, Good Rockin' Tonight, Milk Cow Blues, Hound Dog, Don't Be Cruel, Love Me Tender, Too Much, Mean Woman Blues, Party, Jailhouse Rock, Blue Christmas, Hard Headed Woman, Baby I Dont Care, I Gotta Know, Can't Help Falling In Love, Little Sister, Angel, Suspicion, Because Of Love, Viva Las Vegas, Run On. I am not to sure about the '70 songs, also I haven't listed the artist who did a cover, but am happy to do so if anyone should ask.

Come to think of it, it is just possible that he has had more songs covered than the Beatles. :wink:

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:28 pm

Chris Roberts wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:But thats only one song. But that doesn't mean that Paul Ankas songs have been covered more than Elvis'.



Elvis has definatly had more songs covered, that is true. When you look into it, it is surprising just how many have been covered. With so many of Elvis' songs, of course, it could be argued that the artist was covering the original version for etc. Milk Cow Blues by Eddie Cochran. However, I believe it would be safe to say that in the vast majority of cases the Elvis version would be the one covered.

Listed are the Elvis songs that I know have been covered, I am sure it isn't anywhere near the complete list, please let us know of any others.

I Love You Because, That's All Right, Good Rockin' Tonight, Milk Cow Blues, Hound Dog, Don't Be Cruel, Love Me Tender, Too Much, Mean Woman Blues, Party, Jailhouse Rock, Blue Christmas, Hard Headed Woman, Baby I Dont Care, I Gotta Know, Can't Help Falling In Love, Little Sister, Angel, Suspicion, Because Of Love, Viva Las Vegas, Run On. I am not to sure about the '70 songs, also I haven't listed the artist who did a cover, but am happy to do so if anyone should ask.

Come to think of it, it is just possible that he has had more songs covered than the Beatles. :wink:


I wouldn't count songs like Thats All Right, Run On, etc. They were already covers by Elvis and you don't know if the artist is covering Elvis or the original. Original songs like Little Sister, Viva, etc. make more sense as true covers by other artists.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:58 pm

To be honest, i like them both for different reasons.

I think we could agree that Lennon/McCartney their
songwriting partnership did deliver some of worlds finest popsongs ever.
I truly appreciate this artistic talent wich they keep devolping.

I also think we could agree that vocally Elvis is a totall different league than the
beatles. Elvis wide range and coloured vocals are even today of an unheard quality.

Many more enjoyable aspects of both could be mentioned as well the likes and dislikes.
It's not fair to think that all the songs recorded by the beatles are top notch sing and
songwriting quality.

To tell wich one has a greater impact is almost impossible. How can you measure this?
Elvis is almost dead for 36 years, while Paul McCartney is still performing and keeping the
Beatles legacy alive.

At the end this question doesn't matter or hasn't any importance it's what you
like and enjoy in music, statics don't change that.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:05 pm

r&b wrote:
Chris Roberts wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:But thats only one song. But that doesn't mean that Paul Ankas songs have been covered more than Elvis'.




I wouldn't count songs like Thats All Right, Run On, etc. They were already covers by Elvis and you don't know if the artist is covering Elvis or the original. Original songs like Little Sister, Viva, etc. make more sense as true covers by other artists.


But what if the song were made famous by Elvis?

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:08 pm

hli wrote:To be honest, i like them both for different reasons.

I think we could agree that Lennon/McCartney their
songwriting partnership did deliver some of worlds finest popsongs ever.
I truly appreciate this artistic talent wich they keep devolping.

I also think we could agree that vocally Elvis is a totall different league than the
beatles. Elvis wide range and coloured vocals are even today of an unheard quality.

Many more enjoyable aspects of both could be mentioned as well the likes and dislikes.
It's not fair to think that all the songs recorded by the beatles are top notch sing and
songwriting quality.

To tell wich one has a greater impact is almost impossible. How can you measure this?
Elvis is almost dead for 36 years, while Paul McCartney is still performing and keeping the
Beatles legacy alive.

At the end this question doesn't matter or hasn't any importance it's what you
like and enjoy in music, statics don't change that.

Well said.

Re: Elvis or The Beatles?

Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:13 pm

r&b wrote:Here is something to ponder. I went to an in store signing for Michael Buble yesterday in NYC. After I left the signing area I went into the cd/dvd area. The first thing I saw was a huge Beatles stand up counter display with trivia games, Monopoly, cds and dvds on it. There was nothing on Elvis on display in the store and when I went to the Elvis section it was the same sad comps, a few Legacys and a few Camdens in the rack. A very sad display of Elvis as compared to The Beatles. I would have to say, for this alone, maybe The Beatles have the lasting affect.


That may be so in NYC, but is by no means reflective of other parts of the US or worldwide necessarily.