Whose better

[traviscatholic12]

My and one of my friends get into this arguement all of the time. Whose better, Elvis or the Beatles? I go Elvis hands down, he goes the Beatles hands down. Elvis was the MAN. THE man. There was no one before him. He started it all. There wouldn't be any music if not for him. We'd still be listening to jazz, and hymns. There'd be no rock, no rap, and there might be country, but it'd defintly be different.

 

[Qyöt27]

I would say both. Elvis helped popularize the style of Rock 'n' Roll (there were other artists that started playing similar music earlier than he did, but he really thrust it out there), and the Beatles helped revolutionize the way Rock 'n' Roll was played (by essentially spawning Pop/Rock and later on pushing into Psychedelia; it's where the 'n' Roll part was dropped and it just became 'Rock').

I don't see how Rap has anything to do with Elvis, though, unless it's some sort of extension of Rock 'n' Roll into Funk and then into Disco which co-authored early Rap, but even still the Rock elements were so minimal that I doubt there would have been much impact on its development had it not travelled along the path Elvis (and other artists, like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Buddy Holly) put it on. If you simply mean by pushing limits of what there is to talk about, then yeah, Rap would probably not be as gritty as it is now, but I think it would still exist (I also think Rock would still exist, but it might have developed differently; it'd be interesting to see what would have happened, that's for sure).

 

[nadroj1985]

Well, as overrated as I see both of them, I think Elvis was the more important of the two, but I like the Beatles' music more.

 

[blackwasp]

I think I read somewhere that Elvis never wrote a song in his life. However, he was a great performer.

 

[Z500]

as influential as they were, they both sound dumb

 

[traviscatholic12]

Well, as overrated as I see both of them, I think Elvis was the more important of the two, but I like the Beatles' music more.

Overrated? I'm sorry, Elvis still has the most number one hits of all time. And you know how many artists have sold more records than Elvis? Zero. You know how many people watched his Aloha from Hawaii special? 1.5 billion people watched it. 1.5 BILLION!! I gurantee you take any other musical artist from any era, any decade, anytime, you give them a TV special, and they won't even come close to that. And that was in 1973. You give him the TV audience we have today, and he gets 3-4 billion. And the Beatles took America by strorm. They may not have the numbers that Elvis had, but they revolutionized music. They laid the foundation for actual bands to rise up.

 

[traviscatholic12]

as influential as they were, they both sound dumb

Dumb?!? Listen to their music. Listen to the way Elvis sings. Listen to his voice, the way he can hit some of those low notes was magic. And listen the Beatles lyrics.

 

[TheHumanGenomeProject]

There wouldn't be any music if not for him... There'd be... no rap...

How do you come to this conclusion?

 

[traviscatholic12]

How do you come to this conclusion?

Because he laid the foundation for everything. Now, I exagrated a little bit, it's possible that there'd be rap. But I maintain that music as we know it, would not exist without Elvis Presley. The single most influencial artist of all time, hands down.

 

[TheHumanGenomeProject]

"Because he laid the foundation for everything."

Stop just saying it and actually explain it.

 

[musicPhan#41]

personally, i don't like elvis. but the beatles were incredible.

to the original poster-


i highly doubt that we'd be listening to jazz and hymns if elvis hadn't been born. I think that's a horrible statement. No one person, or one band, has brought music to where it is today. if the beatles hadn't done their thing, other bands that were around in that time would have. the rolling stones, zeppelin, the who, pink floyd, the doors.... these other bands would have come along regardless of the beatles.

of course, it's rediculous to say how things WOULD or COULD have happened, because we'll never know, but most likely, we wouldn't be listening to hymns in 2005 if elvis hadn't existed.

 

[traviscatholic12]

"Because he laid the foundation for everything."

Stop just saying it and actually explain it.

He came along and created a whole new genre of music. He mixed blues, jazz, and some country, and there we have Rock 'N Roll. And Rock 'N Roll was the predecessor to modern rock. And whoever said that some other band would have done the same thing needs to think again. You know why The Who, and all of them were able to make the music they did? Because Elvis pioneered it for them. With out Elvis rock doesn't exist, and all the bands you mentioned by default do not exist.

 

[Qyöt27]

He came along and created a whole new genre of music. He mixed blues, jazz, and some country, and there we have Rock 'N Roll. And Rock 'N Roll was the predecessor to modern rock. And whoever said that some other band would have done the same thing needs to think again. You know why The Who, and all of them were able to make the music they did? Because Elvis pioneered it for them. With out Elvis rock doesn't exist, and all the bands you mentioned by default do not exist.

There were bands that existed before Elvis that did the same thing (the term 'Rock 'n' Roll' was actually coined in the late 40s if I remember correctly - Fats Domino and Bill Haley are the first real 'Rock 'n' Roll' artists, among scores of lesser-known artists; Elvis didn't hit until the 50s). The difference was that Elvis had major mainstream potential (partly because of 'Rockabilly', which is the more accurate term for his music in the mid-50s) and was part of a collective of artists, which largely were signed due to his early success but were very much contemporary with him instead of influenced by him, that introduced it to the average music listener.

Music is essentially a study in a kind of self-correcting chaos theory. Just because one artist doesn't come to prominence doesn't mean an entire genre or category crumbles. There are always other bands performing a style that would rise up eventually if someone else didn't. It would develop with a slightly different set of influences, so the particular nuances wouldn't be the same, but the overall effect would likely still be achieved.

 

[MissSarah8884]

I don't know who was more important, but I like the Beatles better. If you are talking about importance, it might have to be Elvis.

 

[nadroj1985]

Overrated? I'm sorry, Elvis still has the most number one hits of all time. And you know how many artists have sold more records than Elvis? Zero. You know how many people watched his Aloha from Hawaii special? 1.5 billion people watched it. 1.5 BILLION!! I gurantee you take any other musical artist from any era, any decade, anytime, you give them a TV special, and they won't even come close to that. And that was in 1973. You give him the TV audience we have today, and he gets 3-4 billion. And the Beatles took America by strorm. They may not have the numbers that Elvis had, but they revolutionized music. They laid the foundation for actual bands to rise up.

I really don't care how popular an artist is. In some ways, saying an artist is popular is an objection to their greatness, IMO. Note also that a band could not be overrated unless they were popular


Also, there were many, many other bands that helped to lay the "foundations" that you're talking about other than the Beatles and Elvis, and many of those bands did much more good for music, IMO, than the Beatles and Elvis.

 

[LondonsBurning]

I'd probably say the Beatles, but both are overrated.

 

[musicPhan#41]

I really don't care how popular an artist is. In some ways, saying an artist is popular is an objection to their greatness, IMO. Note also that a band could not be overrated unless they were popular


Also, there were many, many other bands that helped to lay the "foundations" that you're talking about other than the Beatles and Elvis, and many of those bands did much more good for music, IMO, than the Beatles and Elvis.

who is that in your avatar?

 

[nadroj1985]

who is that in your avatar?

He's one of the guys who did more good for music than the Beatles and Elvis

Captain Beefheart

 

[NINGirl]

This coming from a rather large Elvis fan -- I believe his image did quite alot for him as well. Yes, he would have probably still achieved his height of success looking like a dog, but I've yet to meet one person who looks past the physical aspect of Elvis. I mean, I see girls who know absolutely nothing about the man wearings shirts with his face on it. It's almost like a fashion.

As far as The Beatles go, I'm a moderate fan and don't know enough about them to really comment on them.

 

[absolutely_lost_86]

well i think elvis is greatly overrated. i cant stand hgis music. i love the music from the beatles