Elvis Presley VS The Beatles

[Mikegraham6]

I was thinking of putting this in the Music thread, but I really wanted a poll option, so voila!

I was discussing this with my roommates the other day. We were arguing who's the better/more influencial artist: Elvis or The Beatles.
My roommate credited Elvis with the popularization of Rock and Roll, arguing that The Beatles wouldn't have existed without him. I argued that Elvis never changed his sound, churning out country rock tune after country rock tune while The Beatles evolved significantly with each album, making them more influential over the long run.
Both have popular and iconic songs and looks. Both have a solid fanbase decades after the release of their final album.

In the end, most of my friends agreed with me, but I thought I'd bring it up here to see what you guys think. I think that Elvis Presley is signficantly more popular in the US than up here in Canada so maybe that will give this debate a bit more flavour.

So if you had to choose one, who would it be? The Beatles or Elvis??

[fred]

I'd go with the Beatles.

[Mikegraham6]

fixed

(10)

[fred]

mine is too

[xyzzy]

Elvis, easily. Elvis was revolutionary. Beatles, just evolutionary.

[Tad]

Elvis was a performer. The Beatles not only performed but also wrote music. And as was pointed out, they changed their sound several times and each change influenced other composers.

[Mikegraham6]

Elvis, easily. Elvis was revolutionary. Beatles, just evolutionary.

it could be argued that the only thing revolutionary about Elvis' sound is the fact that it came from a white guy

[xyzzy]

it could be argued that the only thing revolutionary about Elvis' sound is the fact that it came from a white guy

And that it was heard by everybody.

This question, to me, is like asking which is the more influential sitcom, I Love Lucy or Seinfeld. One created the foundation for the genre, the other just built on that.

[horatio616]

The Beatles were terrible vocalists. I don't really like to listen to them. I used to listen to Elvis when I was younger. Now, not so much. Except the Christmas album. Yeah, the Elvis Christmas album puts him over the top for me.

[Mikegraham6]

Elvis definitely did have the better singing voice

i wonder what a beatles christmas album would sound like

[Euchre0]

Influential? Both Lennon and McCartney said they were heavily influenced by Elvis. Lennon is famously quoted as saying "Before Elvis there was nothing." or some such thing. The Beatles probably wouldn't have been any good if they hadn't been influenced by Elvis. So I say Elvis. I don't quite see how changing sounds is a trump card over inspiring genres...which really, Elvis did with his showmanship and by utilizing television, not so much with his music, much of which were covers of unknown (to white folks) blues musicians like Big Mama Thorton.

[Euchre0]

This question, to me, is like asking which is the more influential sitcom, I Love Lucy or Seinfeld. One created the foundation for the genre, the other just built on that.
Very well said.

[kahunablair]

My choice is pretty easy for me. Even the Beatles acknowledge what Elvis had done to music.
I've always been an Elvis fan, and only became a fan of the Beatles recently.
Elvis has to win for me.

I argued that Elvis never changed his sound, churning out country rock tune after country rock tune while The Beatles evolved significantly with each album, making them more influential over the long run.

Seriously? Have you ever listened to Elvis' early more Poppy songs, then listen to his later Gospel stuff? If that isn't a change I don't know what is.

[ConorKilpatrick]

i wonder what a beatles christmas album would sound like

http://www.fab4collectibles.com/CHRISTMASalbumBACK.jpg

[Mikegraham6]

I have to admit that I'm not as well versed with the Elvis stuff as I am with the Beatles, but to me a change in genres isn't necessarily an evolution

[Mikegraham6]

http://www.fab4collectibles.com/CHRISTMASalbumBACK.jpg

this i have to find!

[Euchre0]

I need to get that Beatles Christmas album.

[ConorKilpatrick]

Well, there's another one but it's pricey.

The Beatles Complete Christmas Recordings Volume 2 (http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Complete-Christmas-Recordings-2/dp/B000VZSZRO/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1195153169&sr=8-1)

[Euchre0]

plus $2.98 for shipping! Outrageous!

[kahunablair]

I have to admit that I'm not as well versed with the Elvis stuff as I am with the Beatles, but to me a change in genres isn't necessarily an evolution

You originally said....
I argued that Elvis never changed his sound, churning out country rock tune after country rock tune while The Beatles evolved significantly with each album, making them more influential over the long run.
So I claimed that Elvis changed just as much. I was really talking about the switch from Rock to Gospel. I was talking about his sound and voice.

[k33k3r]

The Beatles

[xyzzy]

What criteria are we using for how influential they are? Because I really don't see how this is even a contest.

[kahunablair]

Have you ever heard the old saying from Sex Education class?
Everytime you have Sex with someone, you are also having Sex with everyone they had before you.
If you follow the same logic... Elvis influenced pretty much everything, including the Beatles. Everyone the Beatles influenced is a result of Elvis.
Elvis wins.

[Labor_Days]

Um, the Beatles are the most influential band of the 20th century. They changed the structure, expectations and possibilities of rock music throughout their career.

Modern pop music wouldn't exist as it is now if not for the Beatles. The entire indie scene, musically and philosophically, is directly the cause of the Beatles.

Elvis, while great, was just another appropriation of African-American music. That isn't to say his influence wasn't great. It is.

Elvis was influential over a smaller spectrum of music and means less to the kinds of forward. progressive music that came afterward.

I prefer the 13th Floor Elevators and The Velvet Underground to both though.

[xyzzy]

Um, the Beatles are the most influential band of the 20th century. They changed the structure, expectations and possibilities of rock music throughout their career.

Modern pop music wouldn't exist as it is now if not for the Beatles. The entire indie scene, musically and philosophically, is directly the cause of the Beatles.

Elvis, while great, was just another appropriation of African-American music. That isn't to say his influence wasn't great. It is.

Elvis was influential over a smaller spectrum of music and means less to the kinds of forward. progressive music that came afterward.

I prefer the 13th Floor Elevators and The Velvet Underground to both though.

Smaller spectrum of music? What? Elvis influenced the entire genre of rock and roll.

[Labor_Days]

Smaller spectrum of music? What? Elvis influenced the entire genre of rock and roll.

I really can't explain to you how rich that statement is without sounding like the music elitist I am.

But if you want a really good debate on the subject, go here (http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/NewAnswersControllerServlet?boardid=41).

Tell Ned Ragget and Simon Reynolds, they're my boys. Word.

[esophagus]

Elvis was a great man at breaking barriers. He could sing Gospel, he could sing Rock, he could sing Country, he could do Pop. And, as has been previously mentioned, he did this in a way that a white man hadn't done previously. For that, he is hugely influential. He has made music the mish-mash it is today. 3/4 of bands asked what genre they fit into(this is a BS statistic), are probably going to say something along the lines of "We don't like to tie ourselves down. We consider ourselves a bit of this and this". That is what Elvis brought us.

That said, I voted for the Beatles. They revolutionized both lyrics and sound in music. They're responsible for a lot of the bands today.


Labor, how can you vote for neither? The question is "Who is more influential?". Not "which of these is mroe influential than anyone else?".

[horatio616]

Elvis, while great, was just another appropriation of African-American music. That isn't to say his influence wasn't great. It is.


Ugh. I hate when people use that. Nobody owns a style of music. It can't be stolen. I appreciate the euphemism "appropriation", though. ;)

[tokenuser]

I think a large problem is that they were different.
My mother was a huge Beatles fan - to the point of skipping school to go the airport when they landed in Sydney. She also has most of their albums and a stack of singles sitting at home.
My mother-in-law was from the other camp - Elvis all the way.

I think the real problem is that there is very little common ground to evaluate who really is the best.

I did some digging, and came up with a song they both did that will really help you decided who is better ...

Beatles:
3WfoccRna6I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WfoccRna6I

Elvis:
MP3 Only - sorry ... video corrupted. [Link (http://www.full-albums.net/download-Neil_Pepper-Stairway_To_Heaven-195342.mp3)]

Both equally genre breaking artists.

Could the Beatles have made it to where they were without Elvis? Absolutely. Elvis might have introduced rock to the US audience, but that country/soul/rock crossover sound that made it possible was playing in the UK already.

Why? The UK didn't care that it was "black" music. Elvis was needed in the US to get the crossover to "white" stations, but that problem didn't exist in the UK.

[Labor_Days]

Labor, how can you vote for neither?

Oops. Overlooked that. Before I read Mike's OP, I thought it was who we prefered.

Which is why I added the Velvets and Erickson up above.

[GungaDin]

You know there's a deleted scene in Pulp Fiction that deals with this question?

Beatles. All the way.

[Euchre0]

You know there's a deleted scene in Pulp Fiction that deals with this question?

Really? I'll have to check that out. Which characters are in the scene?

[GungaDin]

It's a deleted scene where Mia walks in with a video camera talking to Vince before they leave for the diner. Didn't really do much for me director wise (I think by taking it out, Tarantino made the first time we see Mia that much more awesome with the whole "Car driving up" thing) but the writing (as always) brought out this awesome idea. I forget who said what... But still... It's a deleted scene worth checking out...

[Six Gun]

I actually like the Beatles so, they get my vote

[MarshallG]

In my opinion the Beatles were the first band to perfect the pop song. Love em or hate em their songs are catchy as heck. Often imitated never duplicated they are clearly the most influential band/artist EVA.

[superfriend82]

The Beatles were terrible vocalists. I don't really like to listen to them. I used to listen to Elvis when I was younger. Now, not so much. Except the Christmas album. Yeah, the Elvis Christmas album puts him over the top for me.

WHAT ARE YOU CRAZY!!!!

[superfriend82]

The Beatles are my fav and where did you guys find the beatles cristmas album?!

[horatio616]

WHAT ARE YOU CRAZY!!!!

You're telling me the Beatles are good singers?? Come on, now. Songwriters, musicicans, and innovators, yes. Vocalists, no.

And Elvis's Christmas album is good.

[paper]

I'm going with Johannes Gutenberg, inventor of the printing press.

[Jimski]

You're telling me the Beatles are good singers?? Come on, now. This breaks my brain and leaves my heart in a weepy puddle. Ringo is disqualified.

[kahunablair]

I'm going with Johannes Gutenberg, inventor of the printing press.

Does he have a Christmas Album?

[paper]

Well, let's talk about influence and innovation.

Elvis influenced the Beatles, yes. But the mere fact that a craftsman mentored a student does not dictate that the student will always be a lesser craftsman than his master. Genius doesn't have a half life. Neither is it a strict evolution.

Charles Schulz, a powerhouse presence in the funny pages, was influenced by George Herriman the creator of Krazy Kat. But He's not just a shadow of Herriman. He's not an evolved Herriman. But some aspect of Herriman is part of the snowball racing down the hill.

From Wikipedia:
Schulz counted George Herriman (Krazy Kat), Roy Crane (Wash Tubbs), Elzie C. Segar (Thimble Theater) and Percy Crosby (Skippy) among his influences.

Have you heard of these people? Maybe you have. But none can claim the popularity Schulz gained over the years. That's recognition. Influence isn't so obvious.

So Elvis is a shard in the Beatles mosaic. And there are shards of the Beatles in later mosaics. It's impossible to measure.

[RaceMcCloud]

I'll go with the Beatles, but let's be honest, it's close. Elvis was pretty awesome, too. If you look up the sheer volume of songs he recorded and movies he made, I think you'll actually be stunned.

Plus, I think he was a Skrull.

[RaceMcCloud]

I just want to say that I'd vote for Charles Schulz over Elvis or The Beatles.

Well, let's talk about influence and innovation.

Elvis influenced the Beatles, yes. But the mere fact that a craftsman mentored a student does not dictate that the student will always be a lesser craftsman than his master. Genius doesn't have a half life. Neither is it a strict evolution.

Charles Schulz, a powerhouse presence in the funny pages, was influenced by George Herriman the creator of Krazy Kat. But He's not just a shadow of Herriman. He's not an evolved Herriman. But some aspect of Herriman is part of the snowball racing down the hill.

From Wikipedia:


Have you heard of these people? Maybe you have. But none can claim the popularity Schulz gained over the years. That's recognition. Influence isn't so obvious.

So Elvis is a shard in the Beatles mosaic. And there are shards of the Beatles in later mosaics. It's impossible to measure.

[ConorKilpatrick]

You're telling me the Beatles are good singers?? Come on, now. Songwriters, musicicans, and innovators, yes. Vocalists, no.

Yes. John is my favorite lead vocalist of all time.

[horatio616]

Yes. John is my favorite lead vocalist of all time.

Yeah, but technically, is a good singer? Not particularly. Average at best. Not on the level of Elvis at least. His other gifts are what he's remembered for, not his singing.

[ConorKilpatrick]

Yeah, but technically, is a good singer? Not particularly. Average at best. Not on the level of Elvis at least. His other gifts are what he's remembered for, not his singing.

Speaking for yourself, perhaps.

[horatio616]

Speaking for yourself, perhaps.

I guess, but I've never heard him described as a great singer. He's probably third in his own band.

[paper]

Since when is rock and roll a "technical" art form? The impact of a singer's voice has many more components than its classical training or technical ability.

[horatio616]

Since when is rock and roll a "technical" art form? The impact of a singer's voice has many more components than its classical training or technical ability.

I'm just saying they weren't great singers. That has little to do with anything as far as the music business or the art of making rock music goes. By saying they're not great singers, I'm not denying their legendary status, but just saying why I don't particularly care to listen to them.

[Jimski]

If you look up the sheer volume of songs he recorded and movies he made, I think you'll actually be stunned.

Well, I mean, in the sense that someone with so many fans 30 years after his death could have made so many of the cheesiest crappy movies ever, sure, that is stunning. With no disrespect intended towards my mom, who would follow Elvis to the gates of hell.

Not that Help was the next Citizen Kane or anything.

[Labor_Days]

Since when is rock and roll a "technical" art form? The impact of a singer's voice has many more components than its classical training or technical ability.
This man has the right of it.

Anyone calling John or Paul shoddy vocalist doesn't understand rock vocalization at all.

While one can't measure rather you prefer Ringo to George; one can quantify rock/pop after The Beatles. It's not a matter of opinion The Beatles influence is larger than any other rock artist ever.

Some aficionados, scholars and critics even take it a step further and have made the case of Lennon/McCartney being on equal footing with Armstrong. Which is high praise. Very high praise, indeed.

Now I really have to leave it there. I said my peace. Going into this subject further here would...not be a good idea. I welcome anyone interested in rigorous musical debate to check out the link I provided earlier.

Must. Leave. Thread.

[paper]

Take Ringo's "Act Naturally." You take what resources you have and you make it work. That voice isn't the finely tuned instrument you try to hone in a choir. But it has character. It's voice with a voice, ya know?

[horatio616]

This man has the right of it.

Anyone calling John or Paul shoddy vocalist doesn't understand rock vocalization at all.



Oh Lord, my eyes just rolled and now my head hurts. If I say "I don't like the Beatles because they're not good singers", I don't need to justify that by exhibiting my knowledge of "rock vocalization." Singing out of tune and off pitch is singing out of tune and off pitch, no matter what genre of music. (Go listen to John and Yoko warble on that Double Fantasy album.)

The only thing worse than the man who knows nothing is the man who thinks he knows everything.

[horatio616]

Take Ringo's "Act Naturally." You take what resources you have and you make it work. That voice isn't the finely tuned instrument you try to hone in a choir. But it has character. It's voice with a voice, ya know?

I like lots of bands with leads who technically aren't good singers, but have that quality that appeals to me as an individual. The Beatles don't happen to be one, though. I'm like those people who don't like Watchmen. They do exist and they are out there!

[horatio616]

Were the Beatles hipsters?

[paper]

I just think you need to reevaluate your assessment of off pitch and out of tune being bad singing. That goes for all art. Visually, compare it to something simple as a line. There's such thing as a perfectly straight line, but sometimes a straight line isn't what you need. Maybe it's a jagged line, a curve, an irregular form.

You're entitled to not liking the Beatles vocals. But it's not because they're going about it wrong. They're just not singing your tune.

[horatio616]

I just think you need to reevaluate your assessment of off pitch and out of tune being bad singing. That goes for all art. Visually, compare it to something simple as a line. There's such thing as a perfectly straight line, but sometimes a straight line isn't what you need. Maybe it's a jagged line, a curve, an irregular form.

You're entitled to not liking the Beatles vocals. But it's not because they're going about it wrong. They're just not singing your tune.

I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is that if Randy, Paula, and Simon were to listen to the Beatles sing, they wouldn't be effusing praise. And that's perfectly fine. Great music doesn't require a technically proficient singer.

[esophagus]

Yeah, but technically, is a good singer? Not particularly. Average at best. Not on the level of Elvis at least. His other gifts are what he's remembered for, not his singing.Have you ever listened to the Mountain Goats? I think they're a fit comparison here. John Darniell is a master of his domain. He writes the most amazing lyrics, and some simple, yet fantastic music to go along with it. If John Darniell tried out for American Idol he would probably make the gag reel, but he is, in my opinion, one of the best vocalists out there. Because it fits what he does. Lennon with the Beatles. Like Conor said, it's opinion. I consider Lennon to be one hell of a vocalist.

Edit: Heh. You just used the American Idol example. Oops. But that's a great example of opinion. They don't always pick who everyone wants them to. That's because even they can't pick out what makes a great vocalist. Not Labor, nor them, has the ability to rationalize what will work without hearing their own finished product, with their own niche market. The Beatles just happened to have a Niche that encompassed the globe.

Editting my edit: Labor, when I pointed you out I didn't mean to say that you believe you can pin down what makes a great vocalist, or trying to be rude. Just saying even the biggest of aficionados can't do it.

[Labor_Days]

Totally comfortable with music elitism.

I hold nothing to be more worthwhile or on equal standing as great music.


(John Darniell is a regular poster at Ilx. Funny guy and really smart.)

[esophagus]

(John Darniell is a regular poster at Ilx. Funny guy and really smart.)My friend went to his Camp-Out Concert in Ny. Apparently one night someone was playing MG covers outside of their tent. John walked out and took his guitar and said "No, it goes like this". The guy told him he was wrong and sent him back to his tent. "That was John." "I know. He must be forgetting how his music goes."

I'll have to check out Ilx, but this probably belongs elsewhere.

[Mikegraham6]

Must. Leave. Thread.

awww, i thought labor would love this thread! music elitist or not, i love reading his posts about music

[Euchre0]

Well, let's talk about influence and innovation.

Elvis influenced the Beatles, yes. But the mere fact that a craftsman mentored a student does not dictate that the student will always be a lesser craftsman than his master. Genius doesn't have a half life. Neither is it a strict evolution.

Charles Schulz, a powerhouse presence in the funny pages, was influenced by George Herriman the creator of Krazy Kat. But He's not just a shadow of Herriman. He's not an evolved Herriman. But some aspect of Herriman is part of the snowball racing down the hill.

From Wikipedia:


Have you heard of these people? Maybe you have. But none can claim the popularity Schulz gained over the years. That's recognition. Influence isn't so obvious.

So Elvis is a shard in the Beatles mosaic. And there are shards of the Beatles in later mosaics. It's impossible to measure.

I get what you're saying, but my interpretation of "influential" doesn't quite quite go with your craftsman analogy, because influence isn't the same thing a skill. Bob Dylan was heavily influenced by Woody Guthrie, yet Dylan's impact on music is right up there with The Beatles and Elvis. Dylan's impact on music was huge, yet Guthrie's impact on Dylan himself was just as big, so to me, Guthrie's influence was biggest on folk music. Again, i think it is an interpretation of specific words. Personally, I like the Beatles much more than I like Elvis, but I see Elvis' influence on the Beatles as being the thing (along with Skiffle, Chuck Berry, etc.) that helped formed the Beatles, making his influence on music loom larger.
But I can see the argument for the Beatles.

[ConorKilpatrick]

My point is that if Randy, Paula, and Simon were to listen to the Beatles sing, they wouldn't be effusing praise.

I just laughed so hard I almost spit up my morning water.

So we're at the point now where American Idol are the arbitors of what works and what doesn't in music.

Good lord, we're doomed.

[Euchre0]

However, a 15-4 lopsided vote speaks loudly.

[Euchre0]

So we're at the point now where American Idol are the arbitors of what works and what doesn't in music.

Think about what they'd say about Bob Dylan!*










*I don't know why I keep bringing up Dylan...

[ConorKilpatrick]

Think about what they'd say about Bob Dylan!*

It's a good point.

[fred]

I just laughed so hard I almost spit up my morning water.

So we're at the point now where American Idol are the arbitors of what works and what doesn't in music.

Good lord, we're doomed.

I resisted the urge to say almost exactly what you did here because I couldn't think of a nice way to say it.

[horatio616]

I just laughed so hard I almost spit up my morning water.

So we're at the point now where American Idol are the arbitors of what works and what doesn't in music.

Good lord, we're doomed.

They're at least qualified to judge a singing competition. Good singing often has little to do with what works and doesn't in music. Dylan, for example.

[ConorKilpatrick]

They're at least qualified to judge a singing competition. Good singing often has little to do with what works and doesn't in music. Dylan, for example.

A singing competetion of bland pop artists who for the most part make little-to-no impact on the world of music and you never hear from again, sure.

[horatio616]

A singing competetion of bland pop artists who for the most part make little-to-no impact on the world of music and you never hear from again, sure.

Actually, the Idol artists are helping prop up the music industry right now. There's lots of good music out there, but not that many people are making money out of it.

All of them are good singers. Good artists? Well, not so much. Except Clay Aiken. That boy's gold!

[fred]

Honestly, bringing the judges from American Idol into the conversation is akin to asking us not to pay any attention to your position anymore.

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just telling you the truth. They have NO musical credibility. They're hucksters shilling instantly forgettable marketing to the idiot masses.

[horatio616]

Honestly, bringing the judges from American Idol into the conversation is akin to asking us not to pay any attention to your position anymore.

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just telling you the truth. They have NO musical credibility. They're hucksters shilling instantly forgettable marketing to the idiot masses.

Nothing to do with it. They're more qualified to judge singing ability than, say, a group of people on a comic book message board. I'm talking strictly singing ability, not artistic integrity. Separate things.

My only position is that no one in the Beatles is a great singer. They wouldn't win any kind of singing competition. That doesn't have anything to do with how good or successful they are as artists. That's a totally separate issue. Find me a vocal coach or some other expert that says the Beatles were in the top 100 singers in music history and I'll concede the point.

[tokenuser]

They wouldn't win any kind of singing competition.So, without the Beatles they are nothing?

Paul McCartney - Live and Let Die. Iconic James Bond movie theme.
John Lennon - Imagine. Post hippie navel gazing at its finest.
George Harrison - While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Beautiful ballad.
Richard Starkey - Thomas the Tank Engine.

All emotional vocal performances that showcase their individual talents.

[Labor_Days]

awww, i thought labor would love this thread! music elitist or not, i love reading his posts about music

Well, only half joking about being a music Nazi, Mike. My passion for the subject sorta makes conversations about the AI judges impossible for me though.

I believe a proper understanding of context, culture and history are important in critiquing and judging any of the arts. Especially so w/r/t music because it is an art so strongly tied to both culture and ephemeral emotion.

I gotta leave before I go Scanners.

http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

[horatio616]

So, without the Beatles they are nothing?

Paul McCartney - Live and Let Die. Iconic James Bond movie theme.
John Lennon - Imagine. Post hippie navel gazing at its finest.
George Harrison - While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Beautiful ballad.
Richard Starkey - Thomas the Tank Engine.

All emotional vocal performances that showcase their individual talents.

Never said that. Just said that they're not particularly good singers. Can't think of any other way I can say it. You don't have to be a great singer to make a great song, be an influential artist, be a successful artist, or be a legend. I'm going to bow out of the thread now. Being devil's advocate is oppressive!

[ConorKilpatrick]

I'm going to bow out of the thread now. Being devil's advocate is oppressive!

I'm not sure what else you expected coming in to this thread saying that The Beatles were bad singers. :)

[horatio616]

I gotta leave before I go Scanners.

http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

Just to tie everything together:

The guy who played lead in Scanners is one of the worst actors I have ever seen. Great movie. Bad acting.

[horatio616]

I'm not sure what else you expected coming in to this thread saying that The Beatles were bad singers.

What fun would a thread be if there wasn't at least one contrarian?

Everybody knows they are great and, yes, more influential than any other artists in history. I was just saying why I don't particularly like them. I don't think my statement was so outrageous because I wasn't downgrading their contribution to music, only making a tiny criticism.

[kwok_talk]

Another vote for the King!

[esophagus]

What fun would a thread be if there wasn't at least one contrarian?

Everybody knows they are great and, yes, more influential than any other artists in history. I was just saying why I don't particularly like them. I don't think my statement was so outrageous because I wasn't downgrading their contribution to music, only making a tiny criticism.Psst. Saying John Lennon can't sing is definitely a fair-sized criticism.

To each his own, I just can't believe you think Paula Abdul is qualified to judge musical ability. What sells, perhaps, what's good, no? How many people have been kicked off for not having "the look". They're looking for marketability, not talent. They understand that over-producing is always an option. But, we should probably let that argument die.

[JAFlanagan]

John Lennon is the greatest rock voice ever. This is a subjective opinion (shared by a majority of musicians and music fans).

However, pitch is objective. You're either in tune or not. I've never heard that the Beatles were particularly bad technical singers, but if they were, I'm sure there would be some empirical evidence, and unless it turns out that someone here is a classically trained musician with perfect pitch, I'm just going to continue to believe that it's a crackpot theory spouted by someone who really doesn't know any better.

[CAM!]

So I went neither, cause the question "who's MORE influential?" cannot be answered. Not by me anyways. Just look at all your well thought out arguments. :D

(oh and Mike, influential, not influencial ;))

[xyzzy]

John Lennon is the greatest rock voice ever. This is a subjective opinion (shared by a majority of musicians and music fans).

However, pitch is objective. You're either in tune or not. I've never heard that the Beatles were particularly bad technical singers, but if they were, I'm sure there would be some empirical evidence, and unless it turns out that someone here is a classically trained musician with perfect pitch, I'm just going to continue to believe that it's a crackpot theory spouted by someone who really doesn't know any better.

There's more to technique than just pitch though (tone, tibre, etc.). I mean, Billie Holiday is one of the most soulful singers ever. But I feel comfortable saying that her voice is not techinically very good (especially when you compare it to someone like Ella Fitzgerald). But art isn't always about technical proficiency.

[JAFlanagan]

I know this. I consider John Lennon to be the epitome of that as far as rock singers. The crack in his voice is the greatest thing ever. After him, there's Elvis Costello. These parts are subjective, but it was specifically mentioned that they weren't good singers, and didn't stay on key, which I think is untrue. THIS is empirically provable, but I don't think it will be.

I'm not disagreeing that the qualities of a pleasing voice aren't necessarily those of technical skills, but in the case of the Beatles, it's not true. They were fine singers, and harmonists, as was required for the job.

And the Beatles are more influential, as you hear their influence in almost all rock, and pop music today, whether in terms of instrumentation, songwriting, or production.

Elvis influenced many, but from that influence, the "tree" of the Beatles had many more branches. And while Elvis influenced the Beatles, he was not the only ingredient of that stew.

That being said, without Elvis, no Beatles. The same could be said for Chuck Berry as well. And before him, T-Bone Walker, and so on.

Plus, there was no "fat Beatles" period. There isn't a downturn in the Beatles production. No "In the Ghetto," or Vegas karate phase.

[Six Gun]

all the time I'll be listening to music and hear a section that is absolutely pulled from a Beatles track

[horatio616]

Plus, there was no "fat Beatles" period. There isn't a downturn in the Beatles production. No "In the Ghetto," or Vegas karate phase.

Does "Wonderful Christmastitme" or "Spies Like Us" count? ;)

[Euchre0]

For those of you who love the Beatles (myself included) which do you prefer, the early "Beatlemania" Beatles or the Rubber Soul onward Beatles? The only reason I ask is that most big Beatles fans i know love the post Rubber Soul stuff yet tend to scoff at the earlier stuff, which makes me sad. I'm asking which you like better, not which you think can be labeled better. Personally, I like it all.

[Jimski]

Does "Wonderful Christmastitme" or "Spies Like Us" count? ;)

I have way more Paul McCartney solo albums than should generally be admitted in a public forum, especially by someone under 45.

[JAFlanagan]

For those of you who love the Beatles (myself included) which do you prefer, the early "Beatlemania" Beatles or the Rubber Soul onward Beatles? The only reason I ask is that most big Beatles fans i know love the post Rubber Soul stuff yet tend to scoff at the earlier stuff, which makes me sad. I'm asking which you like better, not which you think can be labeled better. Personally, I like it all.

It depends on my mood. It used to be that I ignored the early stuff, but then I went back and realized just how good it was. It's hard to actually quantify. Now I tend to get stuck in the middle. Hard Day's Night through Revolver being my favorite period.

Solo Beatles work does not count as Beatles work. Just for the record.

I have way more Paul McCartney solo albums than should generally be admitted in a public forum, especially by someone under 45.

Worst concert experience ever.

[horatio616]

I have way more Paul McCartney solo albums than should generally be admitted in a public forum, especially by someone under 45.

'Live and Let Die' is a bad-ass song. The flaming skull during the closing credits of the movie is still vivid in my mind.

[esophagus]

'Live and Let Die' is a bad-ass song. The flaming skull during the closing credits of the movie is still vivid in my mind.That, does not, in fact, say Skrull. Why is it that I even thought that plausible? "Paul McCartney? Really? They're everywhere."

[GungaDin]

That, does not, in fact, say Skrull. Why is it that I even thought that plausible? "Paul McCartney? Really? They're everywhere."

If he's not sacred.. No one is... DUN DUN DUN!!!!!!!!

[paper]

I like Sgt. Peppers and Revolver. I also like a lot of the early stuff.

I also discovered something interesting. I tend to like anything where Paul screams. Songs in that category are usually quite good.

[Jimski]

Worst concert experience ever. I saw him in 1993 at Busch Stadium, or at least it is alleged that is what happened. There was a speck in the distance that appeared to be moving in time with the songs, until about 15 minutes in, when a heavy spring fog rolled in. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

It's sad when they're too old to hit the notes they themselves wrote. The reaper man is coming for you, Steven Tyler.

[Diabhol]

So, without the Beatles they are nothing?

Paul McCartney - Live and Let Die. Iconic James Bond movie theme.


Which goes to show that, IMO, McCartney's a hack. Damn near talentless compared to the other three.

But yeah, without the Beatles, only George Harrison made music worth paying for.

[JAFlanagan]

Which goes to show that, IMO, McCartney's a hack. Damn near talentless compared to the other three.

But yeah, without the Beatles, only George Harrison made music worth paying for.

WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!

This can't go on. Paul is not a hack. The Beatles require all four members. John in the Beatles doesn't without Paul in the Beatles and vice versa. You can't count post Beatles work against Beatles work with them. I don't know why. Most of the best songs were a collaboration of the two songwriters, and wouldn't exist without both of them.

For some reason, after 1969, Paul's music wasn't so great (although, very commercially successful), but John Lennon put out a shitload of bad music in the 70's as well. There are maybe 2 songs worth listening to on Double Fantasy.

Education is key people.

[Zombox]

Bob Marley.

[mister s]

There should be an "and" or "both" option in the poll...

[JAFlanagan]

Bob Marley.

There is no style of music in this world I dislike more than reggae.

That being said, if I had to choose one reggae artist to listen to, it would be Bob Marley. I assume he's like the Lennon or Elvis of reggae.

[Six Gun]

There is no style of music in this world I dislike more than reggae.

That being said, if I had to choose one reggae artist to listen to, it would be Bob Marley. I assume he's like the Lennon or Elvis of reggae.

Marley's ok, but I don't like any other reggae either

[comhcinc]

okay let's see if i can sum some of this up. sorry if i reopen old wounds but i have been away.

The Beatles have way more influential than Elvis. Elvis really didn't even play rock'n'roll. he was more in the rockabilly frame. and what he did wasn't even unique. there was bill harely, buddy holly, jerry lee lewis and other white guys doing the same thing at the same time as elvis. elvis was better, but he wasn't alone.

Elvis didn't influence the Beatles as much as the black blues artist did. the same black blues artist that influenced Elvis.

Elvis didn't sing better that the Beatles. He was a lyric baritone. one of the most pleasing sounding voices to the human ear (the Beatles were all tenors). Neither would have made good classical voice singers. the Beatles like to do that control scream while Elvis was a big fan of mumbling the ends of phases. it's a matter of choice as to which you like better but neither were poor singers.

As someone stated american idol is all about selling a package not singing ablity. almost all songs recorded today are done on either pro tools or sonar and both programs have something like this (http://www.cakewalk.com/products/SONAR/English/New/create-vvocal.asp).

yep that's right kids nothing is real anymore. ;)

[Mikegraham6]

i started the thread, and I would vote for marley! ;)

[Euchre0]

For those of you arguing for the Beatles...you've convinced me. I'd change my vote if it was possible.

[Zombox]

There may be no more beautiful song in the world than Redemption Song. Give it a try.

There is no style of music in this world I dislike more than reggae.

That being said, if I had to choose one reggae artist to listen to, it would be Bob Marley. I assume he's like the Lennon or Elvis of reggae.

[Zombox]

And yea, anything in Reggae that isn't by a Marley and usually by Bob isn't worth listening too. Much like with rap the style was co-opted by soulless goons who do nothing but imitate the glory of their predecessors.

Marley's ok, but I don't like any other reggae either

[comhcinc]

That being said, if I had to choose one reggae artist to listen to, it would be Bob Marley. I assume he's like the Lennon or Elvis of reggae.
that would be Jimmy Cliff, in my mind any way


And yea, anything in Reggae that isn't by a Marley and usually by Bob isn't worth listening too. Much like with rap the style was co-opted by soulless goons who do nothing but imitate the glory of their predecessors.
there isn't enough time in the day to explain how wrong that statement is.

[Mikegraham6]

MIchael Franti makes some pretty chill reggae/rock

[Euchre0]

MIchael Franti makes some pretty chill reggae/rock

Absolutely! Michael Franti & Spearhead "Yellfire" is great!

[Devil]

Hank Williams Sr. > *

[JAFlanagan]

Hank Williams Sr. > *

You're not wrong. He's right up there with Chuck Berry when you talk about that there would be what there is now without him then.

[Jimski]

Dotty though he is, Chuck Berry is still a great show. He plays not too far from here every three weeks or so. Whenever his beer money runs out, presumably.

[Zombox]

Hank Williams Sr. > *

Not a bad suggestion at all.

[Diabhol]

So, Paul and John are musical cripples, incapable of making decent music without each other? I'll buy that, since I'm not much of a Lennon-lover. :)

It's still all about George anyway.

[JAFlanagan]

All of George's best work is based around 3 chords that he uses over and over again. A - F minor - C# minor.

It's sort of disconcerting when you realize that. However, Something is one of the best written Beatles songs ever.

[acomicbookgirl]

Elvis or The Beatles? They were both influential when it comes to music IMO. Can't say one or the other..

Beatles stuff were lying around the house as long as I could remember. My mom and her sisters told me stories about the Beatles when they were in the Philippines.. They never really talked about Elvis sad to say..

I remember watching the Beatles cartoons when they used to show them on MTV. I miss those cartoons and wish they were on DVD.

I went to Las Vegas last weekend and saw The Beatles LOVE (http://www.mirage.com/entertainment/entertainment_cirque_du_soleil.aspx). It was sooo good. Must see if you are ever in Las Vegas.. The store though made me think about the cartoons again when they had the toys and lithographs of them..

Loved The King by Rich Kozlawski and loved Across the Universe..

I just don't think you can say one is better and/or influential than the other but that's just me..

[kahunablair]

You can get some "homemade DVDs" on eBay of the Beatles cartoon.
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Beatles-COMPLETE-Cartoon-Series-2-DVD-SET_W0QQitemZ230193661654QQihZ013QQcategoryZ432QQs sPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[acomicbookgirl]

You can get some "homemade DVDs" on eBay of the Beatles cartoon.
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Beatles-COMPLETE-Cartoon-Series-2-DVD-SET_W0QQitemZ230193661654QQihZ013QQcategoryZ432QQs sPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Cute.. But I want one that in a cute little package and everything.. Just like I saw the toys.. I guess this will do until it actually comes out... Those cartoons are one of my favorites..

[Six Gun]

I went to Las Vegas last weekend and saw The Beatles LOVE (http://www.mirage.com/entertainment/entertainment_cirque_du_soleil.aspx). It was sooo good. Must see if you are ever in Las Vegas...

Which seems really awesome