THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: soak on 11 Oct 2005, 16:21
-
**** WARNING: The following is most likely incoherent and uninformed ****
I have a deep irrational hatred of Elvis and all things Elvis related. To me it seems that Elvis and (mostly?) his manager laid the foundation for the shitty state of popular (top 40) music today. He is the archetype of image over substance.
Conversely, in my opinion, it seems that after the Beatles stopped touring they initiated the indie scene with their focus on creating music and ignoring the external forces that attempted to redirect their energies.
P.S. I am tired and probably full of crap.
-
Actually, i agree with you. Elvis was a glorified country singer.
Ive never really thought of the beatles as having anything to do with todays indie scene, but i guess they really did set a precedent by recording whatever the hell they wanted, despite their popularity.
-
In terms of what? If we're talking musical ability, then the Beatles hands down, but that isn't really fair, because they were a group and Elvis was a solo artist.
If we're talking influence, which I assume we are, then it's very difficult to say, as they are the two most popular artists in the history of rock and roll (literally). If you put a gun to my head and said I could only pick one, I would reluctantly say the Beatles again, if for no other reason than that they did not only revolutionize rock, but pop, and psychadelia as well. Not to mention songwriting. No matter how iconic Elvis might be, his music is nothing in comparision to the Beatles as far as complexity. However, if not for Elvis, who knows whether the Beatles would have ever gotten together.
But on the other hand, who says that rock and roll wouldn't have surfaced anyway under Buddy Holly and other musicians of the era?
It's a very complicated question.
-
Yeah, buddy holly was probably far more talented than elvis. Elvis was overrated then, and overrated now.
-
My point was that Elvis is responsible for propagating artists who simply record whatever is crapped out in front of them and allow their managers to dominate their careers.
-
"Chuck Berry was doing a very heavy rock and roll thing, the King of rock and roll as a matter of fact, but white people couldn't deal with their daughters going to a show and creaming over a black man wiggling on the stage, so consequently they invented Elvis Presley and let him do it for them"
Something like that, anyway. I'm pretty sure those aren't the exact words but more or less the gist of them. It's from a Gil Scott-Heron poem called 'Ain't No New Thing'.
The Beatles are both the most famous and the best band of all time. Feel free to disagree, if you like, but I've never really heard a good case against that comment. Good thread, any excuse to simoultaneously gripe at Elvis and praise The Beatles.
-
Recording whatever is crapped out in front of you was kind of the norm for popular music until somewhere around... uh, I think the Beatles, amusingly. But Elvis certainly didn't set that precedent; the writer-as-performer hadn't really been conceived as a marketable idea yet. Even the first few Beatles records were half covers, weren't they?
Abbey Road > Sgt. Peppers
but
Pet Sounds > anything by the Beatles
-
My point was that Elvis is responsible for propagating artists who simply record whatever is crapped out in front of them and allow their managers to dominate their careers.
Actually, it's more the other way around: Elvis was simply maintaining a very old tradition in popular music (any of the great singers from any era you care to mention wrote few if any of their own songs - just look at Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, etc., both of whom could be comfortably described as popular singers in their day). The Beatles were responsible in a large part for breaking this trend.
Of course, Buddy Holly got there first, writing most of his own material when doing so was almost unheard of in the world of mass-appeal popular music (as opposed to folk, country, blues etc.).
EDIT: ain't it always the way? You wait for ages for someone to make a point, and then two people make the same point at the same time!
-
If Elvis had died before his embarrassing, fat, sequined-jumpsuit era then you might be thinking differently. I don't know.
The Beatles had the advantage of breaking up before they got shit.
-
Well before recorded music, it was unthinkable for a composer to be a performer as well. The two were very seperate arts, and the composer was the man the credit went to. Nowadays, the performer gets the credit, and the person that wrote the song goes unrecognised.
-
Very true, Se7en. If someone like Cole Porter were to come around today (or his modern stylistic equivalent), it's hard to see him getting much recognition, which is a shame.
Also, in a caged deathmatch, who would win: An amalgamation of all the Beatles or Elvis? Keep in mind that Albert Goldman claims that Lennon did kill a random man in Berlin and got away with it.
-
are we talking fat elvis, or young elvis?
-
I'm thinking young, spry Elvis, to make things more interesting. Another factor: Elvis did enlist in the army.
-
Yeah, but have YOU ever got in a fight with a scouser?
-
While I am definitely in the "Beatles are better" camp, it's just plain fact that without Elvis there would be no rock as we know it. Yes, he was an image. Yes, he didn't right his songs. But, he was also a white man who could sing like a black man, which brought rock to the white side of America that got it into the hands of Buddy Holly (Who everybody thought was black when they heard him on the radio because he was doing "black music" and even played the Apollo to a crowd that thought a black dude was going to come out).
So, in my opinion, no matter what you think of him, any rock music you listen to today is in some way indebted to him.
-
Hate 'em both.
-
Why?
-
I don't see why some of you guys feel the need to hate on Elvis so much. Sure, I like the Beatles better, but I like the Beatles better than a lot of other bands, both from back in the day and in the present. I think what Elvis did for the music industry at the time was imprtant, and y'all should recognize for that, whether you're a fan of his music or not.
-
I think you can blame Elvis just as much for the creating the pop crap we hate nowadays, as you can praise the Beatles for creating the indie scene we love nowadays: none.
-
Well, I'm no anti-Elvis guy, I think he had a lot of raw talent and he sure was pretty - but the way I see it:
Elvis' hits were written for him.
The Beatles wrote their own.
Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the Beatles are superior. There are of course countless other elements in it, but I think The Beatles beat him in most categories.
However I find this Elvis hatred pretty ridiculous. The title of this thread is misleading, because the opening post wasn't the inspiration of debate, it was just the needless bashing of a musical legend and icon.
-
THE BEATLES....
Hands down. No contest. This thread is done heh. Also, you shouldve attached a poll to this eh.
-
You guys are just envious of Elvis' talents.
He is The Real King Of Rock & Roll.
-
Musically, I agree that the Beatles were the hands-down winners, but as far as sheer cultural impact? Elvis changed everything. There is a clear, giant disconnect between pre-Elvis America and post-Elvis America. I read this book a couple years ago, I wish I could remember its name, by this guy who devotes a whole chapter to the first time he heard Elvis on the radio. The Beatles, as popular and brilliant as they were, just didn't do that, I think.
Also, clearly it would be unfair to pit Elvis against a Beatles amalgam. You'd have to at least graft Hendrix to his arm.
-
Elvis' hits were written for him.
The Beatles wrote their own.
Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the Beatles are superior.
This.
Musically, I agree that the Beatles were the hands-down winners, but as far as sheer cultural impact? Elvis changed everything.
Elvis changed a lot of things, yes. But seriously? Even there, the Beatles did him one better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_influence_on_popular_culture).
I mean, yeah, Elvis has his own wiki article for cultural impact, but it isn't anywhere near as impressive.
-
That article's actually thoroughly underwhelming. Beyond developing the importance of the album over the single there's not a lot there of great importance, it's mostly just bits of trivia about meeting Keith Moon and being in the Simpsons.
-
He is The Real King Of Rock & Roll.
WRONG. Elvis was not r&r, he was rockabilly.
Elvis was a talented performer and vocalist, but he did not write any of his songs. I do not consider him one of the greatest musicians of all time, either. If he had written his music, I may have felt differently, but he didn't. There are a LOT of other solo artists from that time period who I think were just as, if not more, talented.
The Beatles, however, wrote all of their music (minus that silly stuff at the beginning of their career to make people think they were nice boys), played it, and basically revolutionized rock and roll and also helped to create art rock. What they did was HUGE compared to what Elvis did. Elvis regurgitated other songs while he wiggled on stage, but these guys actually revolutionized the MUSIC.
I am a little biased, though, because the Beatles are one of my favorite bands ever.
-
That article's actually thoroughly underwhelming.
How about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artists_who_have_covered_the_Beatles)? Or perhaps this little bit:
"The Beatles were the first entertainment act to stage a large stadium concert."
That seems pretty important to me, considering the fact that a lot of really big-name bands won't play in anything BUT stadiums now.
-
It's not much of an innovation though, it was bound to happen that the largest venues available would eventually become used for entertainment acts. It's an interesting bit of trivia, sure, but nothing more to me. I'm not disputing the cultural impact of the Beatles incidentally, just that article giving much of an impression of their actually having much of an impact besides doing a couple of things first. As for the list of people who covered their songs, well, there's a lot there and a lot of them sold a lot of records but you could probably do a comparable list for songs popularised by Elvis.
-
I mean, yeah, Elvis has his own wiki article for cultural impact, but it isn't anywhere near as impressive.
I have to disagree with you on that. Elvis didn't write his own songs, true, and he wasn't the most talented musician of his time, perhaps, but no artist of the 20th century had as much impact as he did. Not just on pop culture, but on race relations, the civil rights movement, the concept of celebrity, youth culture, even arguably the sexual revolution.
(minus that silly stuff at the beginning of their career to make people think they were nice boys)
That silly stuff was what Elvis made ok to play half a decade earlier. It's easy to forget just how unacceptable plain ol' rock n roll was to most of the world before he came along. The racial hatred, the class divide, those were enormous barriers that he had a huge part in breaking down.
Again, I'm not arguing about the music, the Beatles were musically the greatest band of all time, I'm just saying that Elvis was more important.
-
Elvis had raw talent. He may have invented the current top 40, but he was a phenomenon. He had sold ten million records by the end of either 1956 or 1957, I forget which. But when you consider that at this point - when WAY more people buy albums - Weezer have sold ten million records total, you get an idea of the kind of success he was getting. It was unprecedented.
I don't think it would've worked for someone other than Elvis, because it didn't. I'm pretty sure rock 'n' rollers were there before him who didn't sell like that. And if you see any of the life stuff Elvis did when he played guitar, he couldn't play at all, but his vocals and charisma were amazing.
The Beatles were the superior act in so many ways, yes, but when you consider the fact that they worked so fucking hard for all of it and were so great, and Elvis just kind of effortlessly glided into it, his manager made the hype, and then Elvis lived up to it.
-
I'm not exactly sure what the point you're trying to make is. Are you saying that there is more merit to "effortlessly glide in" to fame and to just fall ass-backwards into a wonderful stage-managed hysteria, as opposed to working hard, writing songs, touring doggedly, and then once you're installed as a bona fide phenomena, to continue to challenge perceptions at great risk to their own career, such as the Beatles did? (and let's face it, we don't really think of it as such because of hindsight, but the general public could've easily looked at something like Sgt Pepper's and completely turn their backs).
P.S; I don't exactly get what you're getting at with compare and contrasting Elvis Presley's record sales with Weezer's. I mean, Weezer are a pretty successful band I guess, when compared with other bands from the whole "indie rock" thing, but it's not really relevant to anything to use them as a benchmark on which to measure someone who is easily the most influential solo musician in the twentieth century.
-
People who take pictures with cardboard Elvis cutouts are cool. Right?
-
They are now, K-dawg.
-
Elvis didn't even write songs... He just performed them. He's no different then Brittany spears with a guitar... so Avril Lavigne. The fact that those songs weren't even all that good makes matters even worse. He didn't create or invent anything, he didn't make any radical changes to the industry, he just popularized a watered down version of what was already there, like the pop punk fad not too long ago. Its like saying "Who is better, A simple plan or the Dead Kennedy's?"
The Beatles were an unrivaled song writing force, whose material still strikes me as unique today. No one has successfully re-created that magic since. They had the unbelievable drive to constantly re-invent themselves, and never just settle for the safe bet. The only modern artist that can even begin to approach the foothills of their mountain of self renovation is possibly radiohead. Too many bands have a tendency to grow stagnant after a while, and get comfortable re-making the same same album over and over.
So anyways, The Beatles hands down. Not even a contest. Apples and oranges.
-
He's no different then Brittany spears with a guitar... so Avril Lavigne.
Dude, no. Just... no.
-
Man I'm so stoned I actually thought this was actually the old beatles vs elvis thread from 3 years ago that somebody had resurrected and people were replying to it.
I've got to stop smoking pot as soon as I wake up it is a serious problem.
-
Wow, exactly what Hat said. (That was kinda weird.)
Oh wait.
-
Elvis worked doggedly for three years recording singles for Sun Records that never got him anywhere before he managed a breakthrough. Let's not get hasty and say he rode an easy wave to success.
-
Johnny, let's be fair here. "Baby, Let's Play House" has absolutely nothing on "Suspicious Minds."
(minus that silly stuff at the beginning of their career to make people think they were nice boys)
That silly stuff was what Elvis made ok to play half a decade earlier. It's easy to forget just how unacceptable plain ol' rock n roll was to most of the world before he came along.
Man, my mother still won't listen to any Beatles music from Revolver onward.
-
That is my new favorite Yo Mama joke
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSglV873jPo
Sorry, I had to post it.
-
I'm not exactly sure what the point you're trying to make is. Are you saying that there is more merit to "effortlessly glide in" to fame and to just fall ass-backwards into a wonderful stage-managed hysteria, as opposed to working hard, writing songs, touring doggedly, and then once you're installed as a bona fide phenomena, to continue to challenge perceptions at great risk to their own career, such as the Beatles did? (and let's face it, we don't really think of it as such because of hindsight, but the general public could've easily looked at something like Sgt Pepper's and completely turn their backs).
The Beatles are the better artist in just about every way. The point I was making was that Elvis was just a massive talent, in such a way that his success was something that practically came naturally to him. He could just walk into a studio and record a number one record.
I am a Beatles scholar, I am fully aware of the massive contribution they've made to music - they are not unjustifiably considered by many to be the greatest group ever. I'm not saying there is more MERIT to the fact that Elvis just tripped and fell into fame, I just think it says something about his talent, charisma and I guess the way he was marketed that he did.
P.S; I don't exactly get what you're getting at with compare and contrasting Elvis Presley's record sales with Weezer's. I mean, Weezer are a pretty successful band I guess, when compared with other bands from the whole "indie rock" thing, but it's not really relevant to anything to use them as a benchmark on which to measure someone who is easily the most influential solo musician in the twentieth century.
Nobody bought records in the 1950s. Weezer have been around since 1994 - it was just a random band I plucked out of the air, but in these modern music-buying times, Weezer have sold that many records in 14 years where Elvis, at a time when considerably less people had the luxury, had sold ten million within less than a year of his debut. Especially when you consider the contemporary atmosphere and the fact that many people considering him to be playing devil and/or black music, it's pretty impressive.
-
He is The Real King Of Rock & Roll.
WRONG. Elvis was not r&r, he was rockabilly.
WRONG. He did both. And gospel. And country. And tender ballads. And etc etc etc.
-
(minus that silly stuff at the beginning of their career to make people think they were nice boys)
You mean the music they adored, continued to record and play from that point on, songs which are widely seen as rock 'n' roll classics? Yeah they were shit.
Come on, man. Lennon's vocal take on 'Twist And Shout' was the most shocking people most people had heard up to 1963.
-
Elvis=Rebel
Beatles=Leaders of a Revolution
-
**** WARNING: The following is most likely incoherent and uninformed ****
...
P.S. I am tired and probably full of crap.
Then why start a thread?
-
2:36, y'all. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuTi9UZtPbw)
-
i think when it comes to "who was a bigger inspiration for the musical world"? thats actually thougher than it sounds cuz the beatles inspired an entire generation of counter-culture while elvis dawned the birth of THAT! elvis spawned the early rocknroll scene with the likes of chuck barry (yes timeline monkeys, elvis was before chuck barry), james dean, johnny cash and many others
i still go beatles > elvis
-
Beatles > Elvis
2 completely different stiles of music, both good, but I generally prefer the Beatles
-
WRONG. He did both. And gospel. And country. And tender ballads. And etc etc etc.
Most of what he did I do not consider rock and roll and most of the rock and roll songs he did were covers. Calling him the king of rock and roll is one of my pet peeves, I'm sorry. People give him too much credit for songs that were not his. Even after studying this guy's career, I still only like a few of his songs.
(minus that silly stuff at the beginning of their career to make people think they were nice boys)
You mean the music they adored, continued to record and play from that point on, songs which are widely seen as rock 'n' roll classics? Yeah they were shit.
I'm not saying it was shit. But what I said is true. They made a nice boy image for themselves so they could get popular and then they evolved into what made them really great.
-
I'm not so sure they were going for a nice guy image or anything, I think their earlier music sounds the way it does mostly just because thats what was new at the time, and as music evolved so did what they were able to accomplish. If you think about it in relation to the time they were in even "I wanna hold your hand" or "help" or anything like that was ground breaking. It may strike you as generic bubble gum crap in this day and age, but at the time it was revolutionary.
-
And they were hardly seen as nice boys in those early days either. If anything, despite the fact they became more political, more off-the-wall musically, more druggy, and much more hairy over the years, they still became more respectable than in those early days of fainting girls on the set of Ed Sullivan. For some people's money, the Beatles in 1964 signalled the end of civilisation as we knew it. Those "nice boys" in suits and neat haircuts were utterly scandalous.
-
Yes, but it wasn't as utterly scandalous as, say, the Rolling Stones, who went pretty much in the opposite direction. And a lot of their early music was considered much "nicer" than, sorry to say but it has to do with the time period, black artists were putting out. There were not many if at all, from what I remember, allusions to sex. No, they weren't as nice as the Beach Boys, Pat Boone, or even Chuck Berry, but they were pretty clean cut when they first started out which definitely helped them. Yes, their hair was a bit risqué, but not nearly as much as Elvis's dance moves or songs like Shake, Rattle, n' Roll.
Elvis, however, as he did come before them, made it easier for them to come to the US. Crossing the boundaries of what music is acceptable for what races and what is appropriate stage behavior did make it easier for the artists after him. What is probably the most important thing he ever did was covering "race" songs and doing hip moves on stage.
-
Yeah guys, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is real rebellious. Sure times were different, but this isn't the fucking Renaissance we're talking about here. Love, love me do. OH GOD SOMEBODY FLIP A CAR AND LIGHT IT ON FIRE, YOU GUYS GO UNCAP THE FIRE HYDRANT
-
haha, well I'm not talking about a riot... I'm taking what was there at the time and stretching it a little bit further. All I was saying is that at the time it was something new. Nowdays it seems tired and old, but it wasn't at the time, thankfully as music caught up with them they kept trying to out run it.
-
Not really. Honestly, their old songs sound essentially like all the dance hall music of the time. It's only around the mid-sixties that they start to sound innovative.
-
Dalconnsuch is right, I really love Chuck Barry. Without him we wouldn't have Chuck Berry.
Yeah guys, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is real rebellious. Sure times were different, but this isn't the fucking Renaissance we're talking about here. Love, love me do. OH GOD SOMEBODY FLIP A CAR AND LIGHT IT ON FIRE, YOU GUYS GO UNCAP THE FIRE HYDRANT
Pat, you are talking out of your fucking arse here. These were times when ending 'She Loves You' on a sixth harmony made George Martin laugh out loud at the preposterousness on it, where Ringo wasn't on the b-side to 'Love Me Do' because his off-beat playing was perceived as being out of time.
-
Perhaps because both of those statements are true, dude.
Doesn't mean they don't sound badass and it also doesn't mean I don't love both of those examples, but I still don't see anybody following their lead.
-
Why do you guys care most of these people are dead and the ones who are still alive are generally the less talented and charismatic.
-
Well, both of these bands annoy me intensely. However, it seem Elvis doesn't really get played on the radio much these days, and while people are still lining up to fellate the Beatles, Elvis has a fairly unassuming, not very annoying presence in popular culture. Therefore, Elvis is better, or at least, not as shit.
-
Why do you guys care most of these people are dead and the ones who are still alive are generally the less talented and charismatic.
Flawless logic.
-
I'm glad you agree.
-
Elvis has a fairly unassuming, not very annoying presence in popular culture.
Hahahahaha what
-
Perhaps because both of those statements are true, dude.
Doesn't mean they don't sound badass and it also doesn't mean I don't love both of those examples, but I still don't see anybody following their lead.
I'd say 25% or more of popular music now ends on something other than a fade out or the root chord, and drumming is all over the place now rather than only ever locking into the bass guitar like it did back then. Everyone is following their lead.
-
This thread is from 2005, Ben.
I don't think that guy is coming back any time soon.
Wow, I should really get some sleep.
-
I'd say 25% or more of popular music now ends on something other than a fade out or the root chord
HAHAHA WHAT. Man I would like to see one example of this, and then I might concede this point. Difficulty: It has to be somebody I've heard of.
drumming is all over the place now rather than only ever locking into the bass guitar like it did back then.
Fair enough.
-
I think yes the Beatles are better. But Elvis has done some fine things himself. For instance, influencing the Beatles:
"When we were kids growing up in Liverpool, all we ever wanted to be was Elvis Presley."
Paul McCartney
“Before Elvis, there was nothing.”
John Lennon
-
Flying is a really great instrumental. I don't really want it to be my favorite Beatles song cuz that'd be crazy, but I'm afraid it might be. What should I do? PS I didn't know which thread to post this in
-
Post it in your blog!
If you don't have one, get a blog.
Or a Twitter. A Twitter would be perfect, really.
-
I'd say 25% or more of popular music now ends on something other than a fade out or the root chord
HAHAHA WHAT. Man I would like to see one example of this, and then I might concede this point. Difficulty: It has to be somebody I've heard of.
Now, Pat, you know me - you know I'm now going to root through my whole collection and find as many songs as I possibly can. Do you want to take that chance? Off the top of my head, Fightstar come to mind, 'Palahnuik's Laughter' in particular. And keep in mind, I refer to popular music as in, not jazz or classical.
-
Fightstar?! You know I'm going to have to fight them over my band name.
Also I have never heard of them at all ever.
-
First of all, I'm more of a Stones type of guy... and I actually like Elvis better than the Beatles as long it's pre-military service recordings. That stuff was great!
And to his defence, I'd have to say that he actually DID write a few songs of his own, like "All shook up" and a few others. The best thing about Elvis is that, while he mainly played other people's stuff, he made them his own. Give him a good song and he'll do things with it which weren't thought possible at the time (Blue Moon of Kentucky). But yes, it's sad that when you play Blue Suede Shoes by Carl Perkins, everyone thinks it's Elvis. He was THE guy to bring the new mix of black rhythm and blues and white country&western to the masses, and his early work is so much fun! The early Sun and RCA recordings are masterpieces.
If anyone is to blame for manufactured popmusic it's Colonel Parker who I hope is burning in Hell right now... I mean, he was the one with dollar signs in his eyes, the one who realised there was more money in C-movies than rock records. If he'd been alive still, I'd kill him myself should he ever return to his native country...
also, I genuinely loathe the fact that the Vegas-Camp-Elvis is the Elvis most people seem to know and like, while... well... his later work is crap. Don't get me started on suspicious minds... I really don't know why people like it so much and I'm even more irritated when people request I play it ('cause Rockabilly is my main style and I'm not opposed to covers).
But then, the Beatles wrote some horrifyingly terrible songs too... especially the McCartney stuff. I don't know why I'm not so keen on the beatles. It may be that they were just too nice, even in their revolutionary days. They did have a hilarious sense of humor though, and that's what I like about them.
bit of a long post for 2nd... but I'm very partial to Pre-beatles era rockers...
-
I think the Beatles best stuff - or rather, my favourite stuff - is when they fucked about a bit and then decided it was shit. Like, 'It's All Too Much' is my favourite Harrison track, and I adore 'Hey Bulldog' because it makes no fucking sense at all and is off its nut.
-
I think the Beatles best stuff - or rather, my favourite stuff - is when they fucked about a bit and then decided it was shit. Like, 'It's All Too Much' is my favourite Harrison track
Gaz you know I love you right
-
Elvis=Rebel
Beatles=Leaders of a Revolution
How did elvis become a rebel? He was probably far more humble than the Beatles, u dope. He was an anti-racist. Explain before u complain. U guys should never ever post negative comments to elvis without explaining urselves. U will be all losers.
-
first you register to bump a three-year old thread and do nothing else and then you leave for a few months but then come back to bump the same thread, which had been dead AGAIN, to poorly misconstrue a random comment and i guess you just really really like elvis and also warn about the risks of becoming a loser that come with not liking elvis, all without actually spelling out the word 'you'?
???
-
He went to get coffee while he waited for replies when he commented the first time.
He just got back.
-
The Beatles, unless you count Yellow Submarine. I mean, yeah, it sounds OK, but it's lyrically unimpressive, to say the least.
Aside from my one and only qualm in relation to The Beatles, I think they were all musical geniuses. Maybe not Ringo, but I guess that just stems from the Yellow Submarine thing. It's a pity John Lennon died, but at least I share my name with his son.
Also, Sgt. Pepper's > all, IMO, in pure songwriting.
-
I debated replying to the thread that wouldn't die but ultimately decided to, because I feel it necessary to say that one could strongly argue the case that Elvis was a victim of his success more than anything else.
I'm not really into the idea of getting into a 'who's better' pissing match because it's basically all taste, and I think it's a fairly tough call to say who was more influential. I will also agree that Elvis when he was young and not strung out and crazy was much better than bloated dead-on-the-toilet-with-a-needle-in-his-arm Elvis and it's a shame so many people remember the latter and not the former.
Mainly the first bit is what I wanted to say.
-
Does anyone else find it extremely odd that the guy a few posts above me is posting with adequate spelling and grammar, except for anything to do with "you"?
-
10 yea--
This is what I get for being optimistic.
-
I don't really like either of them- nothing against them personally but I don't find rock 'n' roll or most 60's music all that enjoyable- but Beatles fans are pretty annoying. Therefore, Elvis was a good deal better.
-
Beatles fans are just more profligate. Have you ever actually met a total Elvis freak? The type who has at least one room in their house dedicated to him? (If not the entire house?)
I'm sure you're referring to the type of Beatles fan who absolutely insists the Beatles are a world-changing cultural force and the starting point for pretty much all popular music since the 1960's, and yeah I guess that's pretty annoying, but it also happens to be right.
-
I'm sure you're referring to the type of Beatles fan who absolutely insists the Beatles are a world-changing cultural force and the starting point for pretty much all popular music since the 1960's, and yeah I guess that's pretty annoying, but it also happens to be right.
Well, that's the other annoying thing. They just really aren't that good. I won't deny that their influence on nearly everything is huge, but their music, well. It's kinda shit.
-
Most of the world disagrees!
(including most of your favourite bands, probably)
-
Of the two, I'm leaning towards the early music for both (I prefer blues). Of the two I like early (pre-conscription) Elvis a bit better - His remake of Moon Calf Blues is awesome.
Of course I prefer Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, Howling Wolf and John Lee Hooker to these lads, but there's nothing wrong with either.
-
Most of the world disagrees!(including most of your favourite bands, probably)
Only if you like poppy bands, really.
-
Most of the world disagrees!
(including most of your favourite bands, probably)
The two bands that I like who have aired their views on this subject (that being slayer and metallica) have both aired their distaste on the beatles (and before they both turned shitty, too). I'm willing to bet that Nadja and The Angelic Process don't like 'em, either.
Also, I doubt "most of the world" disagrees with me. Most people over 75 and under 15 (hell, make that under 30) don't like the beatles, which is a large amount of the world's population. I imagine most africans, asians and arabs don't like a lot of western music in general, and this includes the beatles. Most of the world, I think, would be more inclined to agree with me.
-
I remember you mentioning Motorhead and Black Sabbath as being among your favourite bands as well, no?
I've read interviews with Lemmy, Ozzy, and Iommi all saying that The Beatles was "where it all began" for them.
And I have no idea where you get the idea that people over 75 and under 30(!) don't like the Beatles. How old do you think I am? How old do you think most of the people on this forum are? My grandparents love the Beatles as well. Plus it's basically straight-out wrong to say that Asia, Africa and Arabs don't like Western Music. The main musical output of Japan is rock is and pop music, both Western inventions, and both highly influenced by The Beatles (with some more Japanocentric variations, certainly, but still highly recognisable as rock/pop). Even a lot of the popular music that Africa is producing is either influenced by blues, funk, rock or hip-hop. Sure, only one of those genres has really had any sort of major influence from The Beatles but nevertheless they are still Western forms. I can't honestly say I know much about what is popular in Middle Eastern countries.
Only if you like poppy bands, really.
Or metal, or hard rock, or progressive rock, or indie rock, or psychedelic, or folk, or electronic music, or [add your own!]
Not to mention the Beatles were the first band to place importance of albums over singles, they were the first band to film promo music clips and they pioneered many studio techniques now in common use today.
To summarise, the only thing more annoying than an obnoxious Beatles fan is someone who thinks they're being edgy by saying they think the Beatles are "average".
-
(http://www.mitchclem.com/mystupidlife/graphics/strips/20080616.gif)
-
And I have no idea where you get the idea that people over 75 and under 30(!) don't like the Beatles.
Most people over 75 and under 15 (hell, make that under 30) don't like the beatles
Plus it's basically straight-out wrong to say that Asia, Africa and Arabs don't like Western Music.
Well, there's plenty of them that don't; the younger generation might (well, most of them would, i guess) but what about the older? Fact is, less then half of the world likes the beatles, let alone thinks that they are the best band ever. Certainly, there's a lot of people our age who don't like them either.
To summarise, the only thing more annoying than an obnoxious Beatles fan is someone who thinks they're being edgy by saying they think the Beatles are "average".
I can understand where you're coming from with this- whole 'bash the sacred cow' thing is annoying, I admit that. Still, I don't know why it's so surprising that I don't like them; I was born 26 years after they split, and what sounded so edgy and revolutionary back then sounds bland and safe now. Saying "oh it was revolutionary at the time" means nothing to me- just because the first personal computer at the time was revolutionary, does that mean I should use that? No, I'd much rather use a new computer. Why should I listen to a 60's pop group* when I listen to stuff that's one hell of a lot more interesting, and, well, better?
*Bear in mind, too, that this doesn't just apply to the beatles. I think I like maybe 30 or so songs from the 60's; all of which are by Jimi Hendrix.
-
The Beatles are pretty sweet.
-
The Beatles are pretty sweet.
That.
Also, it's amazing how good they still sound now, the recording and production was just brilliant.
-
Man, why can't this thing just die.
I already gave my sentiments on Elvis and the Beatles, so I don't really feel like repeating myself. But honestly, you guys are arguing about 5 guys and three of them are dead. Zombie Elvis, John, and George probably just want to eat your brains and sometime in the future Paul and Ringo will too.
-
I was born 26 years after they split, and what sounded so edgy and revolutionary back then sounds bland and safe now.
Tomorrow Never Knows. Like, seriously.
-
The answer is obviously The Beach Boys.
-
Is this a hypothetical situation where they both meet on a separate plane, each in the prime of their lives, or would it be Ringo, Paul, Zombie George and Zombie John vs. Elvis returned from the mothership?
In the former, the Beatles have the advantage of numbers. Even though Ringo and Paul would be pretty useless, I'm sure John could go pretty hog ass wild on E.
In the latter case, it would depend on what enhancements Elvis had received from our celestial brethren, whether it was the harnassing of his latent psychic abilities, or being outfitted with an ultra-powerful exoskeleton. Either way, even with two Zombies on their side, I think Elvis-El would make short work of them.
-
Or metal, or hard rock
No, not really. Sure, their inspiration's favorite artist's inspiration, might have been the Beatles somewhere way down the line. But very few hard rock or metal bands today would consider the work of the Beatles to be inspiring or interesting to them. The other four I'll give you, in that I don't know enough about the last 2, and indie rock is pretty much just a continuation of Beatles-esque pop rock, and psychedelic got alot of inspiration from that era.
-
My fondness for The Beatles has to be filtered through the lens of them being my fellow countrymen and, thus, I'm strongly in favour of them being thought of as the greatest As to their music prowess and the various pros and cons of their styles... Don't ask me. i just know I like a lot more of their stuff than Mr. Presley's.
I suppose I should point out that some of their songs have become such a part of popular consciousness that they're on the same level as things like "Row row row your boat" (I'm talking about things like "when I'm 64", "A little help from my friends" and "Yellow Submarine" here).
All in all though, The Beatles were the greatest because they had Ringo.
RINGO ROCKS!
-
*Bear in mind, too, that this doesn't just apply to the beatles. I think I like maybe 30 or so songs from the 60's; all of which are by Jimi Hendrix.
So where's the precise date at which you stop giving a shit about music? 1975? 1980? Are you going to stop listening to stuff from the 1990s in ten years' time?
Har.
-
I can somewhat relate to what Caspian's saying, as the oldest bands I regularly listen to are My Bloody Valentine and the Pixies. It's not like I draw the line in the late eighties or anything, nor do I regard anything recorded before then as shit. Not actively listening to anything older was never a conscious decision. Is this ageism?
-
No, I think ageism would be more along the lines of "that stuff is for old people, so I'm not going to listen to it." I never made a conscious decision to listen to older music, I just like it. I love a lot of the music that came out of the 60s, as well as the 70s and 80s. I know not everyone is like that, though, but I don't have many friends who only listen to music made within the past 20 years. I do have several friends who dislike the Beatles, but it's more to blame on them being in marching band when everyone had the "OMG LET'S PLAY ALL BEATLES MUSIC LOL" or just growing up liking other bands better, e.g. The Rolling Stones.
-
No, I think ageism would be more along the lines of "that stuff is for old people, so I'm not going to listen to it."
God damnit, my friends do that exact thing. It pisses me off.
-
So where's the precise date at which you stop giving a shit about music? 1975? 1980? Are you going to stop listening to stuff from the 1990s in ten years' time?
Dude, out of context much? All he's saying is that the impact of music is relative to what you were brought up with. Caspian is a fan of metal, IIRC, so it's natural that the music from the 60s he'd like is that which points in its direction quite obviously. Hendrix experimented quite a lot with dissonance, distortion and improvisation so it's only natural he'd favour that in comparison to the rest of 60s music, which was largely limp-wristed until Led Zeppelin came along.
Then Black Sabbath released their self-titled and blew everyone away (as did other 70s bands, where hard rock and heavy metal came into their own). What you think you're doing is criticising Caspian because you think he sees quality through dates, while he's really seeing common factors in each decade of music that he likes or dislikes. If he does not like 60s music, it's probably because it doesn't interest or excite him. Fair enough.
It's kind of like, instead of interpreting him saying "I dislike 60s music because I find it uninteresting", you're hearing "60s music is bad" or some kind of personal slight against bands like The Who and The Rolling Stones. Not everyone has to like 60s music, and for good reason. Rock was still infantile at that stage.
-
I believe I should have extended my 'har' to further indicate the location of my tongue relative to my cheek.
-
hmmm...
i have to be on the middle ground here, cuz, while elvis IS an overglorified star, he did kinda lay the ground for rock and roll and just rock music in general...
if you look at his things, you'll see that he covers everything from counrty to jazz even to metal, though it wasnt called that back then.
the beates is the same deal, they played a lot of different stuff... from revolution to hey jude, the beatles covered swing, jazz, country ,alt rock, punk, and of course, the then popular "classic" rock
look at these things from both sides before contributing, guys
-
Or metal, or hard rock
No, not really.
HELTER.
SKELTER.
-
Growing up, my answer to this would have been The Beatles and a condescending look, but now that I have an actual identity, I am an Elvis man through and through. Getting over the fact that country music exists was significant in balancing this equation.
-
Now all you need to do is get over the fact that country doesn't always suck.
-
the beates is the same deal, they played a lot of different stuff... from revolution to hey jude, the beatles covered swing, jazz, country ,alt rock, punk, and of course, the then popular "classic" rock
I don't see how a band can cover musical genres or scenes before they existed...
I don't have anything to contribute here, just being a pedant.
-
They existed before they were recognised.
-
yeah...
just because they werent NAMED doesnt mean that different music genres werent PLAYED before that....
i mean, it wasnt named blues until presley played what he played
-
it wasnt named blues until presley played what he played
I hope I'm just completely misunderstanding what you're saying, but Elvis Presley didn't coin the term blues.
I have recordings made in the 1930s of Jelly Roll Morton where he refers to it as blues and it wasn't new then. The term probably came about in the early years of the 20th century, I believe sometime around 1908.
As a blues musician, Presley wasn't all that innovative. What he did with Rhythm and Blues is take something already popular in the Juke Joint scene and bring it together with elements of the white dominated pop-music scene to create music that was palatable to a white middle-class audience but still felt rebellious. Don't get me wrong, this was a great thing to do, but you can't really claim that Elvis started the blues (or even started calling it that) any more than you can claim he started rock & roll or country.
-
Now all you need to do is get over the fact that country doesn't always suck.
Okay my post did not go so far as to imply this, but I absolutely love country music.
-
enh, pop country is the scourge of the earth, but bluegrass effing rules.
-
enh, pop country is the scourge of the earth, but bluegrass effing rules.
Lol.
-
...Then Black Sabbath released their self-titled and blew everyone away (as did other 70s bands...
Black Sabbath was released in 1969.
Also, yes, Helter Skelter.
-
Please don't tell me we've gotten to the stage where a post can consist of nothing but a lol.
I honestly had no clue how to respond to that, and it made me laugh. So, what would you have done?
-
lol
-
The QC public has spoken.
-
it wasnt named blues until presley played what he played
I hope I'm just completely misunderstanding what you're saying, but Elvis Presley didn't coin the term blues.
I have recordings made in the 1930s of Jelly Roll Morton where he refers to it as blues and it wasn't new then. The term probably came about in the early years of the 20th century, I believe sometime around 1908.
As a blues musician, Presley wasn't all that innovative. What he did with Rhythm and Blues is take something already popular in the Juke Joint scene and bring it together with elements of the white dominated pop-music scene to create music that was palatable to a white middle-class audience but still felt rebellious. Don't get me wrong, this was a great thing to do, but you can't really claim that Elvis started the blues (or even started calling it that) any more than you can claim he started rock & roll or country.
The blues was around since halfway through the nineteenth century, and Elvis, 100 years later, just happened to have a nice singing voice. And then people go around giving him credit for the work of thousands of musicians lesser known than him. Elvis wasn't even new in being the first white guy playing the blues, he just was the first one with that many fans. I seriously think that rock & roll wouldn't be much different even if he hadn't been there. He was just one part of a bigger phenomenon. He didn't even write the bulk of his own songs.
And if the Beatles are more popular than Jesus, who's Elvis Presley to beat that? :mrgreen:
[/rant]
-
I think they were all musical geniuses. Maybe not Ringo, (snip)
You do realize that Ringo never EVER plays a drum groove that doesn't fit the rest of the song perfectly, right? Ringo is the most underrated Beatle just because everybody hates every drummer but John Bonham and Ginger Baker.
The drummer in Elvis's "Hound Dog", on the other hand, can't keep tempo for shit. Notice how he speeds up like a motherfucker when he does the fill after the "You ain't no friend of mine" line? That is unjustifiable on a recording made by the "King of Rock and Roll".
-
Ringo wasn't a musical genius but he was a hell of a drummer. He could just lock into something and play exactly what was needed for it.
-
ok......
i totally did not mean that presley made up blues or even coined the term
actually, i forgot what i WAS trying to say...
hmmmmmm......,
and whether ringo starr is good or bad is a matter of opinion. yeah, a lot of people said that he sucked when they first came out, just like a lot of people say hes amazing nowadays...
personally i like his style, if only because of the pure and simple fact that i wish MY drummer could play solos like that man did, but also like somebody said earlier, he could fit into any song perfectly.
the man had absolutely NO musical knowledge, in fact what he did know he learned from the toher three beatles, but just the way he could fit into the songs, even if it was by accident, was amazing.
oh, and i love the yellow submarine
-
The blues was around since halfway through the nineteenth century, and Elvis, 100 years later, just happened to have a nice singing voice.
I know the style was that old, but do you know when the term first appeared? I feel like 1908 was the first time it appeared in print (and it's hard to know when terms appear if they aren't put in to print immediately).
Elvis wasn't even new in being the first white guy playing the blues, he just was the first one with that many fans. I seriously think that rock & roll wouldn't be much different even if he hadn't been there. He was just one part of a bigger phenomenon. He didn't even write the bulk of his own songs.
While this all may be true, I think the genius of Elvis was probably that her brought the music just close enough to the mainstream that certain important demographics (suburban teenagers) could get in to it but still feel rebellious for being in to it.
-
Conversely, I'm actually tired of the 'Ringo was Good' truism, which is now as popular as the original 'Ringo was Bad' theory.
He was a mediocre drummer and a forgettable songwriter. Occasionally he'd do something mildly interesting behind the kit but it was usually in the same manner that a blind chicken finds a kernel of corn every now and then. It's bound to happen eventually.
I still love 'Octopus's Garden,' dammit.
-
(Sorry about the newbiness and not reading the conversations preceding this post, but I adg6jb;ojvoiz'z...)
I think Led Zeppelin contributed more to the indie scene than the Beatles, as they were completely and totally independent from their managers and their manager's opinions, which you can't say about the Beatles. That's why their fourth album has no name, because nobody besides the band could legally tell them not to leave the title blank. Fact is, it was fucking beautiful that they did that, could you imagine what could have happened if they hadn't? Like, a "Simple Plan" of the seventies, I reckon.
Simple Plan... *Shudders*
Also, in a bit of contrast, Pink Floyd wanted to leave "Wish You Were Here" with no name or markings, but their manager got pissy and made them name it. Pink Floyd deserves their own planet, they were so incredible, but could you imagine what could have resulted from them being independent? I don't think there would be another band for a century because it would be that amazing.
But that's just me.
Ah, record labels. Seriously, sorry about the rant, but they don't do anything but hold artists back. People can record and make their own shit in their living rooms and sell it online at a profit with no need for a label whatsoever, not to mention the fact that they can just sell their music on iTunes... Record labels are just there to water music down and force their clients to wear eye shadow.
I'm running on a tangent. The Beatles. Between the two contenders, only the Beatles looked cool in sequins. Out of everybody in the world, even, they looked cooler in sequins. Like Jimi Hendrix and the Strat...
-
newfagginess
Please avoid using term "fag" or similar words around here, it's not appreciated.
. . . Unless you're talking about cigarettes or bundles of sticks, I guess.
Thankyou!
-
Sorry, I'll edit it.
I guess you could apply it to cigarettes, though. I'm addicted to being compulsively ill-informed when it comes to forum etiquette. I'll learn, I'll learn.
-
Don't worry about it. The bad new people are the ones who go "Fuck you man, no way I'm doing what you ask!" Listening and learning is good.
-
I'm converting from being a /b/tard, and I guess I need all the help I can get. I really am sorry about the comment, I didn't even notice I'd used it. Like when you swear in front of your parents for the first time.
I like this place. I don't want to get off to a bad start.
-
Don't fret over it, man. We all say stuff we regret sometimes. At least on the internet you can edit it after the fact!
Except that there's always someone who's inconveniently quoted the post pre-editing, preserving the original for perpetuity. Hmm . . .
Anyway, back to Elvis vs. the Beatles. My answer remains Buddy Holly.
-
My answer would be Bo Diddley,
maybe Steppenwolf.
-
I'll have to go with P. Diddy lulz!
-
I'll have to go with P. Diddy lulz!
If it was a pun, I would call it bad. xD
-
My answer would be Bo Diddley
You have no idea how much that man means to me.
-
Pun not intended my friend. Didn't notice till you pointed it out. Lmao. I found it funny, but then again i am a sick twisted fuck who uses tears for lube when i have sex. I mean.... Bye.
-
Fuck what people were saying before, Ringo is great. He's my favorite Beatle. Maybe. I think John actually is, but that's so cliche. But then again, choosing George Harrison or Ringo as your favorite Beatle because you don't want to choose Paul or John is also cliche. So where does that leave me?
"Act Naturally" is a great song because it's a terrible Beatles song.
-
Do we have to like Ringo because he was good at something?
Can't we just like him because he narrated the "Thomas the Tank Engine" TV series when we were growing up?
Or because he was a geek who managed to score a Bond Girl?
-
I actually think Ringo's solo career has been the best one out of the 4.
-
I actually think Ringo's solo career has been the best one out of the 4.
Personally i think he had the worse, although Paul's new album Memory Almost Full is complete and utter SHIT.
-
It was obviously Ringo because he did Thomas The Tank Engine.
Duh.
-
"Act Naturally" is a great song because it's a terrible Beatles song.
Actually it's a cover of a terrible song.
-
But it's made into a great song. So my original point still stands.
-
I don't know, I've just loved that song whilst always thinking it was shite.
-
I think all of Ringo's solo albums are utterly average.
I think Lennon had two really good albums and a lot of really shit ones.
I think Harrison had one real good album that had one entire side of vinyl too many, and a ton of really shit albums.
I think Macca has had nothing but incredibly dire output and i wish he would die.
When all is balanced, Ringo's work contains the least crap
-
Cmon you honestly can't say Ringo did the best, I'll admit, he did not do the worst, Paul did, but he was second worse.
-
Nope, a cursory listen to George's later output will prove that they were terrible.
A cursory listen to John's albums that were not Plastic Ono Band will prove they were terrible*
There is no reason at all to ever listen to Paul.
Ringo's albums are utterly forgettable. I cannot say bad things about them.
* Live Peace In Toronto was pretty good too, but i am not counting it since it was a live album.
-
Personally i like ALL of John's albums. It's all about preference i suppose. Plus whenever i think of Ringo i think of that one scene in family guy where he is like "I WROTE A SONG!" and Paul said "Ok Ringo we'll put it on the fridge so everyone can see". I don't usually like Family Guy but that scene makes me laugh hysterically.
-
even Imagine?
-
Yes, i like Imagine, hell, I LOVE it. YES I LOVE IMAGINE! Feels good to say it.
-
really?
even Walls and Bridges?
-
Yes, Walls and Bridges wasn't the best of his works. But i like it nonetheless. Well, here's my breakdown of the beatles from Best to Worst
1.)Lennon
2.)Harrison
3.)Ringo
4.)McCartney
-
Replace him with just about any drummer and they'd have been exactly the same band minus a few song titles and an ill advised lead vocal here and there.
Idunno, man. Some of those few song titles are among the most enduring Beatles works of all time. It's the simplicity of them that does it, and the fact that a deaf person could wail along and still be pretty close that gives it immense karaoke potential.
-
Yes, i like Imagine, hell, I LOVE it. YES I LOVE IMAGINE! Feels good to say it.
Even Unfinished Music Volumes 1 and 2, Some Time In New York City, and Mind Games?
-
I like all of Lennon's works. So therefore I like all his albums.
-
even Imagine?
-
Mojo, I need to actually see you post this.
You like the Unfinished Music albums and the Wedding album???
-
Ok, fine you caught me, i do not like the Wedding Album. That is THE only one. I plea the 5th ammendment now.
-
So you like Two Virgins? And Life With The Lions? But Wedding Album was too much for you??
-
Lennon came up with some messed up shit after he left the Beatles. Seriously. Some was brilliant, like the song Imagine, but some of it was seriously down right crazy.
-
It's not that is was too much, I just didn't like it. Remember it's all about preference, don't persecute me my friend.
-
Who's persecuting? You are just literally the only person I've ever known who has anything more positive than disdain for that stuff. I'm not persecuting you, I'm just fucking surprised, man.
But then loads of people seem to love 'Revolution 9,' and to me that's just more of the same stuff.
-
Revolution 9 wasn't that good, I'm with you on that. I suppose i just love nearly everything John does, he's solo music was a lot more meaningful than any of the other Beatles which is possibly why I'm so drawn to most of it.
-
Lennon's song "God" from off of Plastic Ono Band is a pretty succinct summation of a large part of my beliefs on a higher being. So that song is kind of important to me.
I've always loved the off-beat explosion at the end of "Remember," too. I mean I love the whole album, but that moment always makes me laugh. (I know it fits, given he just mentioned the Nov. 5th plot, it's still just exceedingly random.)
-
I genuinely like the last four Macca solo records (not the classical ones, the pop ones, though Flaming Pie is an astoundingly bad album title).
Wings was shit outside of "Live & Let Die."
-
what i've heard from paul's solo stuff i couldn't call it bad exactly, but that's because i can't remember a single song off of them. i've heard the first one with him and his baby on the cover, and the most recent two.
-
The first one has, like, a plate with a red liquid in it or something. Some oriental imagery.
Whatever, it's not paul and his baby on the cover.
-
How did you even hear his last four records?! I can't imagine you've been buying them.
I used the public library and another thing that rhymes with "whore rents." Also, my friend works at a Chapters which has a Starbucks inside, and he managed to get a copy of the last one, which was on Starbucks' Hear Music label, for cheap.
Nigel Godrich produced his 2005 record which meant he actually had someone willing to critique his music working on it with him, and it shows. It's the best of the four by far.
-
The first one has, like, a plate with a red liquid in it or something. Some oriental imagery.
Whatever, it's not paul and his baby on the cover.
you're right; i think its the back of the record sleeve that has him and his baby. it's just called McCartney isn't it?
-
That's the name of his solo debut, yeah. I thought it had two beetles fucking on the back but that might've been Ram.
-
Three guesses for what that symbolism must've been intended to convey.
-
Well I've got a magazine where he's interviewed that, and his response still makes me laugh, he said something like 'What? How could I convince two beetles to shag each other???'