Elvis didnt write any songs...so dont know how you can compare these three on those merits if he didnt even write any.
How does that automatically make MJ and the Beatles better them him? Elvis's voice was better than either one of them.
Well..each was best in their different areas.I think that comment about song writing was directed at me (although when posts aren't quoted it becomes a little tricky to follow), but I wouldn't say that Elvis not writing songs automatically makes the others better than him. It all comes down to what criteria you're using to compare them.
Elvis may have been a better performer and singer than either the Beatles or Jackson, but I'm more interested in songs rather than performances of songs. A good song remains a good song regardless of who's performing it (although someone can obviously perform a good song badly). So when I'm judging artists/bands I place far more stock in being able to create something than just being able to perform what someone else has created.
So I would put Elvis below the other two because they wrote songs and he didn't (at least not very many), while other people might evaluate them differently and consider Elvis or Jackson the best of three.
Well..each was best in their different areas.
Mj. Best performer, dancer, showman
Elvis. Best singer
Beatles, best songwriters.
Happy?
That would be Bob Dylan for me.I think some people are gifted songwriters, and musicians but crappy singers! Eg carole King.
I like alan jackson. I think he did a really nice version of 'what a friend we have in Jesus'
No relation to Michael...
Well..each was best in their different areas.
Mj. Best performer, dancer, showman
Elvis. Best singer
Beatles, best songwriters.
Happy?
It was the beatles who thought they were bigger than Jesus.
Cant you say that Elvis was the best in terms of his lasting fame and legacy?