Elvis Vs The Beatles: who was bigger?

[Runa216]

The Beatles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles

Elvis Presley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_presley

I Feel these two artists were the two most influential people in the history of rock and roll. Elvis kinda created the genre from a fusion of jazz and country (If I recall correctly), and the beatles refined it and took it to new heights.

my question is: who was bigger, and why do we not talk about Elvis at all here on the Rock band forums? he was one of the biggest artists ever!

I actually don't know the answer to my question, I can't even begin to comprehend who was 'bigger', but given the beatles hype, I suppose they will 'win'...

So, what are your rationalities? what do YOU think and WHY?

[Lolicat]

Brace yourself, bro. You're gonna hurt after this.

[Julio_Strikes_Back]

Bigger as in more fans or more influence? Beatles have more fans but Elvis had way more influence.

[Lolicat]

my question is: who was bigger, and why do we not talk about Elvis at all here on the Rock band forums? he was one of the biggest artists ever!

I don't think there are many Elvis fans here. Most people seem to prefer other Rock 'n' Roll originators to him... Personally I never really enjoyed any of his songs.

[Runa216]

Brace yourself, bro. You're gonna hurt after this.

Why am I gonna get hurt? I've always wanted to know. when I was young, I was given the impression that elvis was the single biggest artist of all time, and how the 50's and 60s was NOTHING but Elvis...then I grow up and hear about the beatles, then the parallells started to show up...

also:

John Lennon said: "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been a Beatles"

[Lolicat]

Why am I gonna get hurt? I've always wanted to know. when I was young, I was given the impression that elvis was the single biggest artist of all time, and how the 50's and 60s was NOTHING but Elvis...then I grow up and hear about the beatles, then the parallells started to show up...

As important as Elvis was, I'd imagine a lot of people on these boards will lecture you on other, arguably more important innovators in the '50s scene.

[Fizzeler]

As important as Elvis was, I'd imagine a lot of people on these boards will lecture you on other, arguably more important innovators in the '50s scene.
Chuck Berry comes to mind

[Runa216]

yes, but The Beatles and Elvis were the most popular.

**Edit** as far as I can tell...this is why I ask, I'm new to the history of Rock and Roll.

[Buffdog18]

I'm gonna go with Elvis on this one.

[Lolicat]

Popularity and influence aren't always the same thing though. I mean, I hope not when I consider the charts at the moment, you know?

[camero1970]

Why am I gonna get hurt? I've always wanted to know. when I was young, I was given the impression that elvis was the single biggest artist of all time, and how the 50's and 60s was NOTHING but Elvis...then I grow up and hear about the beatles, then the parallells started to show up...

also:

John Lennon said: "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been a Beatles"


Elvis didnt have that much of an effect on me either. I heard the Beatles before Elvis, and i for one think the beatles are better(my opinion). It just depends on your opinion....As for me, The Beatles!

[gmarsh]

as far as popularity goes, its definetly the beatles.

[Lolicat]

I was never really led to believe that either was particularly good, always sort of left to chose my own music.

[afterstasis]

i think both are on a pretty equal level in terms of influence and popularity...

the beatles may have more clout nowadays in rock music, but elvis reached out more to other styles (country, gospel, r&b, lounge, etc.).

[beatlesfan09]

Come on, do we REALLY need to even ASK this question ? The Beatles obviously. By10000000000000%. One of the easiest questions to answer here.

[Cubecubed]

Come on, do we REALLY need to even ASK this question ? The Beatles obviously. By10000000000000%. One of the easiest questions to answer here.

hmmmm....i somehow sense Bias in this post.

[Gowienczyk]

I hate superfans.

[afterstasis]

Come on, do we REALLY need to even ASK this question ? The Beatles obviously. By10000000000000%. One of the easiest questions to answer here.

do you really need to post here?

[Runesmith]

Both kick too much ass for me to answer the poll. I abstain.

[warthogdb]

Writing Elvis out of history is the politically correct thing to do but that doesn't make it factually correct. There was no such thing as a rock star before Elvis. As far as how music is played today, Chuck Berry is the most influential artist of all time. However, had it not been for Elvis arguably nobody would be paying attention to rock and roll music today. He elevated popular music to the place in society that it occupies now. I've already had this argument with all the Elvis haters here so I don't need to do it again. I just needed to weigh in.

[MronoC]

I voted The Beatles, because I like them more, and am biased on the issue of influence. :)

[MrFruitLord]

The Beatles.

[Alright_Computer]

I prefer the Beatles myself, but they were both huge.

[cherokeesam]

Without Elvis, there would have been no Beatles.

He's the one who caused not only John and George to pick up a guitar and play, but also Pete Townshend and Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck and, hell, an entire generation.

Elvis may not have invented rock and roll --- Chuck Berry, Bill Hailey, Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf were its earliest innovators --- but by god, Elvis was its first and greatest prophet. Without Elvis, we'd all still be listening to jazz and classical.

[Runa216]

I like where this thread is going. very civil, very rational.

and I didn't know there were Elvis Haters, to be honest.

[Lolicat]

I like where this thread is going. very civil, very rational.

and I didn't know there were Elvis Haters, to be honest.

Lots of them. Mostly due to the fact that the record companies would buy songs from poor black men at ridiculously low prices and give them to Elvis. However, some see Elvis' later interest in Hinduism (I think that was it) and drug use as an indicator his own guilt of the situation, which I myself believe to be the case.

[cherokeesam]

Lots of them. Mostly due to the fact that the record companies would buy songs from poor black men at ridiculously low prices and give them to Elvis. However, some see Elvis' later interest in Hinduism (I think that was it) and drug use as an indicator his own guilt of the situation, which I myself believe to be the case.

Hinduism....? No....In the 60s and 70s, Elvis (like many others during that period) dabbled in all kinds of esoteric spiritualism like Theosophy and Rosicrucianism and Krishna Consciousness and all that malarkey, but he wasn't alone. That kind of "spiritual questing" was typical of the "'Me' Generation" era.

Nor should Elvis be singled out for stealing blues songs from the black man. It was, unfortunately, a very common practice in the 50s and 60s, and everyone from Elvis to The Who to The Beatles to Cream to Jerry Lee Lewis to Johnny Cash to Led Zeppelin and The Stones were equally guilty of it. In retrospect, it was despicable, but it was just "the way things were done" during the segregation era.

[Lolicat]

Hinduism....? No....In the 60s and 70s, Elvis (like many others during that period) dabbled in all kinds of esoteric spiritualism like Theosophy and Rosicrucianism and Krishna Consciousness and all that malarkey, but he wasn't alone. That kind of "spiritual questing" was typical of the "'Me' Generation" era.

Nor should Elvis be singled out for stealing blues songs from the black man. It was, unfortunately, a very common practice in the 50s and 60s, and everyone from Elvis to The Who to The Beatles to Cream to Jerry Lee Lewis to Johnny Cash to Led Zeppelin and The Stones were equally guilty of it. In retrospect, it was despicable, but it was just "the way things were done" during the segregation era.

That's it!

But yea, I think Elvis has particularly been hit with it. Don't know why.

[XacharyCross]

Elvis was a bit of a poster boy, he certainly helped spread the proverbial word, but was mostly singing other peoples songs, and generally successful because he looked pretty, as compared to the other rock originators.

Not that doesn't partially apply to the Beatles, but they grew out of it.

It's also a bit flawed of a comparison. You're comparing a singular vocalist (and somewhat guitarist), with a full out band.

[onidragon]

The Beatles were far bigger, they stopped the world in the 60's, and it took god damned Led Zeppelin to knock them off a seven year streak as Melody Maker's most popular band, and by then the Beatles had parted ways. Elvis, while inspirational, was left in the dust by the boys from Liverpool.

[Runesmith]

Hinduism....? No....In the 60s and 70s, Elvis (like many others during that period) dabbled in all kinds of esoteric spiritualism like Theosophy and Rosicrucianism and Krishna Consciousness and all that malarkey, but he wasn't alone. That kind of "spiritual questing" was typical of the "'Me' Generation" era.

Nor should Elvis be singled out for stealing blues songs from the black man. It was, unfortunately, a very common practice in the 50s and 60s, and everyone from Elvis to The Who to The Beatles to Cream to Jerry Lee Lewis to Johnny Cash to Led Zeppelin and The Stones were equally guilty of it. In retrospect, it was despicable, but it was just "the way things were done" during the segregation era.

Pretty much every rock n' roller, regardless of skin color, "stole" parts (whether consciously or not) of songs from other rock artists during the 50s.

Hell, Chuck Berry lifted many of his guitar riffs from the pianist in his band without giving him any credit.

[warthogdb]

Pretty much every rock n' roller, regardless of skin color, "stole" parts (whether consciously or not) of songs from other rock artists during the 50s.

Hell, Chuck Berry lifted many of his guitar riffs from the pianist in his band without giving him any credit.

That's right. Whenever there was a hit, multiple artists rushed to get their version out. Many of these songs weren't even written by the artist that made them famous in the first place.

Everyone likes to point to Hound Dog as the classic example of Elvis "stealing" poor Big Momma Thornton's classic when it was in fact written by two white guys and Elvis got the notion to do the song after seeing a variety band play it in Vegas or somewhere. It's also a completely different sound tempo and arrangement very much like his Sun covers differ greatly from the previous artists who performed them.

Plus, if you are going to blame Elvis for stealing these black artists' songs, how were the Beatles any different at the start of their career?

[Soror_YZBL]

has anyone else made a fat elvis joke here? Because I don't wanna repeat anything.

[Rockbandfan23467]

Without Elvis, there would have been no Beatles.

He's the one who caused not only John and George to pick up a guitar and play, but also Pete Townshend and Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck and, hell, an entire generation.

Elvis may not have invented rock and roll --- Chuck Berry, Bill Hailey, Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf were its earliest innovators --- but by god, Elvis was its first and greatest prophet. Without Elvis, we'd all still be listening to jazz and classical.

Not Rock. Blues.


I vote The King. The King managed to get 1/3 of the nation at the time to buy his records at a time when Rock and Roll was hated, and he has more than 100 top 100 hits. He also was probably the first white blues musician, and he had one of the best voices in all of Rock.

[cherokeesam]

The Beatles came to visit and bow down before Elvis.
The reverse, however, never happened.
/thread

[Soror_YZBL]

No?

Then I voted for elvis. what a huge fat pig. fried banana sandwiches indeed! I know the beatles were all skinny british kids, but no one should weigh as much as all of them combined!

[warthogdb]

No?

Then I voted for elvis. what a huge fat pig. fried banana sandwiches indeed! I know the beatles were all skinny british kids, but no one should weigh as much as all of them combined!

I think that it was grilled peanut butter and banana sandwiches. You left out the valuable source of protein.

Would it be better to choke to death on a peanut butter and banana sandwich or a ham sandwich?

[pope58]

i would have to go with Elvis on this one because he is the one who started rock and roll. i am not too sure about fan wise but i am sure Elvis had more fans. the guy had two air plans and lots of cars. i think that they should have done Elvis first then the Beatles.

[MronoC]

I think that it was grilled peanut butter and banana sandwiches. You left out the valuable source of protein.

Would it be better to choke to death on a peanut butter and banana sandwich or a ham sandwich?

The Fool's Gold Loaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fool's_Gold_Loaf) is obviously the only way to go for sandwich choking options.

[clashcityrocker10]

I think that it was grilled peanut butter and banana sandwiches.


For the record, these are delicious. Don't forget they also can come with bacon and honey.

Regarding who was bigger, I'd say it was The Beatles. In terms of popularity, The Beatles were accessible to more people (at least earlier on). I like Elvis and The Beatles, though I definitely like The Beatles more.

[bjyaritz]

The Beatles were a group. Elvis was alone and played Vegas. Elvis is the King because he did it alone. He was the biggest thing from America.

[MronoC]

The Beatles were a group. Elvis was alone and played Vegas. Elvis is the King because he did it alone. He was the biggest thing from America.

umm... I fail to see the relevancy in the argument, looking at top selling artists, it's not as if bands are any more prevalent then solo artists. If anything, it would be harder with a band, dealing with clashing personalities and artistic differences, of which, as we all know, The Beatles dealt with a lot.

[Julio_Strikes_Back]

I voted Elvis accidentally. Didn't notice the "teen sensation" part. Thought poll referred to influence. Beatles were bigger.

[NormanCoxwell]

Go to your local mall. Count the number of people wearing The Beatles shirts opposed to this wearing Elvis shirts. That is your answer.

[bjyaritz]

not an agrument at all, just stating a fact.

[Julio_Strikes_Back]

Go to your local mall. Count the number of people wearing The Beatles shirts opposed to this wearing Elvis shirts. That is your answer.

Question is " who WAS bigger" not "who IS bigger."

[Rockbandfan23467]

But could the Beatles get 1/3 of a nation to buy music of a hated and feared genre?

[DerTommissar]

In terms of popularity, The Beatles were accessible to more people (at least earlier on).

1st. Which one's movies had Ann Margaret, Elvis or the Beatles? I think that answers who was more accessible to more people.

B. The Beatles did pop, rock, and psychedelic. Elvis performed Rock, Blues, Soul, Gospel, and a few other genres. Who reached out to more diverse crowds?

Third. Ann Margaret

4. There is no 4.

[EntropyMu]

This is a strange thing to be comparing, but I think the Beatles were, in the end, more influential. The thing that makes it strange is that they really just took the next step after Elvis, standing on the shoulders of a giant, if you will.

One way that this makes sense to me is that many later Beatles songs still sound like they belong next to current pop music (Back in the USSR as one example I think sounds like anything that Coldplay or The Killers might release as a single). That doesn't work for many Elvis songs.

One other thing that might factor in is that the Beatles wrote their music, Elvis did not.

[NormanCoxwell]

Question is " who WAS bigger" not "who IS bigger."

Well the Beatles are not and have never been "was" for they're popularity never ended. They've been pretty consitant with popularity even after breaking up. After Elvis was abducted by aliens while on the crapper his popularity took a pretty large blow and kind of stopped pretty much all together.

So I mean was kind of translates to is. For if Elvis was more popular than the Beatles, he'd still be popular today.

[RockBandRocker]

I think The Beatles have had a better longevity and have crossed the generations easier than Elvis has.

I like both, but I've realized that The Beatles' music makes me feel a range of emotions that Elvis' doesn't.

[Rockbandfan23467]

One other thing that might factor in is that the Beatles wrote their music, Elvis did not.

Please, don't use that to judge him, back then none of the successful artists wrote their own music. The Beatles were the one who changed that, sence them, with the exception of hacks, everyone writes or has a hand in writing their own material.

[EntropyMu]

Please, don't use that to judge him, back then none of the successful artists wrote their own music. The Beatles were the one who changed that, sence them, with the exception of hacks, everyone writes or has a hand in writing their own material.

That isn't entirely true, some artists of his era were writing their own stuff, but the majority didn't. Wouldn't the second half of your argument be another reason to count the Beatles as more important?

It's hard to discuss a topic like this, because to make an argument for one side or the other, it makes it sound like you're putting the other side down. Yeah, I think the Beatles were bigger, but only marginally so over Elvis.

[AxlVanHagar]

There should be an option for Both. I truly think that Elvis and The Beatles are on equal ground for popularity and impact.

[Gowienczyk]

What's with the "he didn't write his songs" argument? Neither did the Temptations! It's not wrong to use a songwriter.

[cherokeesam]

Well the Beatles are not and have never been "was" for they're popularity never ended. They've been pretty consitant with popularity even after breaking up. After Elvis was abducted by aliens while on the crapper his popularity took a pretty large blow and kind of stopped pretty much all together.

So I mean was kind of translates to is. For if Elvis was more popular than the Beatles, he'd still be popular today.

Are you saying Elvis *isn't* popular today....?
You should really tell that to every single chapter of Elvis impersonators around the globe.

Last time I checked, there wasn't an entire planetary subculture going strong based around guys who dress up like The Beatles.

[40FootWolf]

The Beatles pushed the limits of, and redefined, popular music.

Elvis ripped off Bo Diddley and swiveled his hips.

[timmay9]

Are you saying Elvis *isn't* popular today....?
You should really tell that to every single chapter of Elvis impersonators around the globe.

Last time I checked, there wasn't an entire planetary subculture going strong based around guys who dress up like The Beatles.

There are plenty of bands at the casino that are Beatles look alikes.

[cherokeesam]

The Beatles pushed the limits of, and redefined, popular music.

Elvis ripped off Bo Diddley and swiveled his hips.

And The Beatles ripped off Elvis, as well as the rest of American rockabilly, including Gene Vincent and Buddy Holly.

Again....without Elvis, there would be no Beatles. He inspired an entire generation to become rockers, including John and Paul and many more.

[timmay9]

Please, don't use that to judge him, back then none of the successful artists wrote their own music. The Beatles were the one who changed that, sence them, with the exception of hacks, everyone writes or has a hand in writing their own material.

Buddy Holly anyone?

[cherokeesam]

There are plenty of bands at the casino that are Beatles look alikes.

As someone who's been dealing at a casino for 11 years, I gotta say I have yet to meet a Beatles impersonator there. And yet, we get Elvis impersonators an average of six times a year, including an Elvis contest coming up next month.

Elvis impersonators are ubiquitous. Beatles impersonators are almost nonexistent.

[warthogdb]

The Beatles pushed the limits of, and redefined, popular music.

Elvis ripped off Bo Diddley and swiveled his hips.

The Beatles rise to fame is every bit about their look and teenage appeal as was Elvis' and they ripped off early American rockers. What they did with their fame was entirely different. They did push the limits because popular music had a stage on which to do so. Elvis and Colonel Tom didn't know if rock and roll was a fad so they made movies. Elvis grew up wanting to be a movie star because there was no such thing as a rock star until him. The Beatles grew up wanting to be rock stars because of Elvis.

[cherokeesam]

The Beatles rise to fame is every bit about their look and teenage appeal as was Elvis' and they ripped off early American rockers. What they did with their fame was entirely different. They did push the limits because popular music had a stage on which to do so. Elvis and Colonel Tom didn't know if rock and roll was a fad so they made movies. Elvis grew up wanting to be a movie star because there was no such thing as a rock star until him. The Beatles grew up wanting to be rock stars because of Elvis.

^QFT.

And so did The Who, and The Stones, and The Yardbirds, and Cream, and Led Zeppelin, and The Doors, and The Eagles, and literally any rock band formed in the 60s or early 70s.

[KISSfan84]

The Beatles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles

Elvis Presley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_presley

I Feel these two artists were the two most influential people in the history of rock and roll. Elvis kinda created the genre from a fusion of jazz and country (If I recall correctly), and the beatles refined it and took it to new heights.

In the beginning, Elvis was a mixture of primarily gospel and rhythm & blues.
:cool:

[KISSfan84]

There are certain dates in history that people remember their whole lives:

December 7, 1941
November 22, 1963
September 11, 2001

December 8, 1980
August 16, 1977

The first 3 everyone should know pretty well...Pearl Harbor...President Kennedy assassinated...World Trade Center...people who were around for those moments in time remember exactly where they were and what they were doing.

The assassination of John Lennon in December of 1980 was the 2nd time in my life where I myself witnessed an entire world in mourning.
The first? When Elvis died. Back in the 70's, EVERYONE knew who Elvis was. The shock at his sudden death overwhelmed the world, as did Lennon's 3 years later. However, the flood of books, t-shirts, records, (we still bought our music as 45 rpm vinyl...GASP), TV specials, and made for TV movies outweighed what came after Lennon's death. EP's home, Graceland, was at one time more well known than the White House. He still outsells many other entertainers in merchandise almost 32 years after his death.
While I liked The Beatles, no one was as big to me as Elvis Presley.
He was always TCB...Takin' Care of Business.
Thank yuh, thank yuh vera much...
:cool:

[Rockbandfan23467]

Am I a horrible person for not remembering what I was doing on September 11, 2001? (I was about nine years old)

[Gowienczyk]

I was in school, I didn't really care. Yeah I was a ***** then, too.

[warthogdb]

Am I a horrible person for not remembering what I was doing on September 11, 2001? (I was about nine years old)

I was 7 years old when Elvis died and I remember what I was doing when I first heard the news.

[Quinarvy]

Am I a horrible person for not remembering what I was doing on September 11, 2001? (I was about nine years old)

I was in 3rd grade on my way to my grandmas house (I was sick that day) and listening to Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN was when I heard it.

[polishdog90]

The Beatles have sold more music than any band in history therefore they are the biggest band in history. That's how I interpret it.

[iamgodzilla]

The beatles are definately bigger, the fact that lots of people still actually listen to them. oh and Elvis coming back to life < John Lennon coming back to life

[iwolfe]

Anyone who is actually qualified to vote in this poll is too old to be playing video games. :P

[KISSfan84]

Anyone who is actually qualified to vote in this poll is too old to be playing video games. :P

I got news for ya, bud...there are far more over 30 rockers playing this game than you can imagine. I've even met some in their 50's. We grew up with Pong, the Atari 2600, and ColecoVision. We've been around since the beginning of gaming and have seen it all; we are the Gaming Elders!
In fact, here's a thread full of "Over the Hill" rockers:
http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116580
:cool:

[SisterRay]

And The Beatles ripped off Elvis, as well as the rest of American rockabilly, including Gene Vincent and Buddy Holly.

Again....without Elvis, there would be no Beatles. He inspired an entire generation to become rockers, including John and Paul and many more.



The Beatles changed basically everything in rock/pop music. Elvis even though helped popularized rock and roll he popularized other people’s songs. There would be no Beatles without Chuck Berry either please. Have you ever heard of the pupil bettering the mentors? The Beatles influence on modern music is so much greater than Elvis today or since 1963. How many modern bands cite Elvis as an influence? I like Elvis but please some perspective the Beatles changed how music was written, recorded, and even where we play music Shea Stadium Concert. Elvis did not even write his music. The Beatles changed everything even including rock musicians viewed albums.

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys

"Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, “I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before".



Unlike most of their rock contemporaries, they were not content to simply throw three chords together and cobble together a melody. They took the songwriting craft very seriously, and as a result, their compositions were covered by a huge amount of recording artists, in vocal and instrumental forms. Perhaps their strongest talent, especially in the context of a rock aesthetic, was their ability to find the perfect expression of each song in the studio. While many rock groups took a loose, bluesy, improvisational approach to their music, the Beatles took a more formal, structured approach to their recordings. Every element of a track was worked out to perfectly blend with and complement the other elements of the song. In this sense they were like painters. Of course there is nothing wrong with blues-rock or I am saying the Beatles music is better but for the most part they were just different than most of their peers. This has a lot to with their popularity with huge amounts of musicians and people who like music.

Yes, there are plenty bands that entered by the door The Beatles opened, like Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones. But both made American music (influenced primarily by R&B), as The Who. The Beatles had a strong pop and English influence. It was rock, ok, and rock has American blues to thank, but Revolver and Pepper's were so distant from American roots rock and roll. And both are among the 3 most influent rock albums, changing rock music.

Revolver was certainly important in opening up a commercial market for psychedelic music. It would have happened anyway maybe but we don't know really, but that doesn't change history. Revolver was a very big record for psychedelic music in '66. "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Sgt Pepper did the exact thing for progressive rock and it would have happened anyway but that doesn't change history also.

Much of pop music is based on sampling and looping. Experimental artists like John Cage had used tape loops and sampling before this but the stuff they made was unlistenable and boring. The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" most likely laid the blueprint for all electronica to follow, and even pre-dates Kraftwerk.

[Rockbandfan23467]

Don't knock Elvis for not writing his own material! It was uncommon back then, so don't judge past artists by today's standards!

[SisterRay]

Don't knock Elvis for not writing his own material! It was uncommon back then, so don't judge past artists by today's standards!

I wonder who played a big part in establishing today's standards. If we are talking about the Beatles influence and how they are compared to Elvis then it's fair game. I don't dislike Elvis but part of the Beatles influence was songwriting. Another thing the rock band only became more popular than the solo front man dominated types in 50's rock and roll like Berry, Elvis, and even Buddy Holly & Cricketts when the Beatles became big.

The songs the Beatles were creating like "A Day in the Life" has nothing to with blues music at all or 50's R&R.

[ArmsAreLoud]

For the record, according to my most recent issue of the Book of World Records (07, IIRC), despite the Beatles selling more records Elvis sells more merchandise. Including everything, Elvis makes more money as a dead man then Paul makes living.

[SisterRay]

For the record, according to my most recent issue of the Book of World Records (07, IIRC), despite the Beatles selling more records Elvis sells more merchandise. Including everything, Elvis makes more money as a dead man then Paul makes living.


The Beatles don't own their song rights and they have to split their income between the people who own their own songs and their merchandise. If the Beatles owned their own songs it would not even be close. The Beatles song rights ARE WORTH THE MOST in pop music.

[Rockbandfan23467]

For the record, according to my most recent issue of the Book of World Records (07, IIRC), despite the Beatles selling more records Elvis sells more merchandise. Including everything, Elvis makes more money as a dead man then Paul makes living.

Elvis makes the most money out of any dead man. Lennon is number 3.

(Charles M. Shultz is #2)

[ArmsAreLoud]

So Elvis makes more then Lennon. That doesn't really disprove my point.

[Rockbandfan23467]

I was just throwing that out.

[SisterRay]

So Elvis makes more then Lennon. That doesn't really disprove my point.


The Beatles have to share their earnings with Sony and Apple before they even get any money. They don't own their own songs. The Beatles are going to be on Rock Band because they know young people like the Beatles. It would not work with Elvis because Elvis is really only popular with a certain amount of people. No one answered my question how many modern bands cite Elvis as an influence as compared to the Beatles.?

[ArmsAreLoud]

Few, but most of them cite bands that cite Elvis as an influence.

And I sincerely doubt that many of them are influenced by the Beatles rather than simply admiring them. So many people have just thrown their names out with absolutely no connections to the band's style it has sort of lost its meaning.

[KISSfan84]

The Beatles have to share their earnings with Sony and Apple before they even get any money. They don't own their own songs. The Beatles are going to be on Rock Band because they know young people like the Beatles. It would not work with Elvis because Elvis is really only popular with a certain amount of people. No one answered my question how many modern bands cite Elvis as an influence as compared to the Beatles.?

That's like saying a Rolls Royce needs to cite the Model T as an influence; you're talking about 2 very different periods in rock history. Of course bands from this generation aren't saying Elvis is an influence.
Elvis' influence goes beyond the music itself. Take a look at these two album covers...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/TheClashLondonCallingalbumcover.jpg

Before Elvis, singers barely moved on stage. These days, bands are tripping all over each other while spasming on stage.
Directly or indirectly, Elvis has influenced present day bands.
I don't look at is as influence so much as heritage; The Rolls Royce owes it's heritage to the Model T, and every rocker who's picked up a microphone or guitar owes their heritage to Elvis.
:cool:

[ArmsAreLoud]

Microphone, yes. But I just have to say that every rocker who has ever picked up a guitar owes it to Chuck Berry.

Just sayin'.

[Rockbandfan23467]

Microphone, yes. But I just have to say that every rocker who has ever picked up a guitar owes it to Chuck Berry.

Just sayin'.

Or the Aharbian guy who invented guitars. Was he Aharbain?

[SisterRay]

Few, but most of them cite bands that cite Elvis as an influence.

And I sincerely doubt that many of them are influenced by the Beatles rather than simply admiring them. So many people have just thrown their names out with absolutely no connections to the band's style it has sort of lost its meaning.


I am more of a Velvet Underground and more of a fan of the experimental Beatles stuff not really the pop stuff. No one plays 50’s R&R ANYMORE the Beatles basically killed that style when they started experimenting and it’s arguable it was already dead before 1963.

Many people will tell you that the Beatles influence especially in British Rock music and pop music is still to influenced by the Beatles especially British Indie music. Chris Martin of Coldplay ""Where we come from, everyone is always held up against The Beatles. And everyone falls short. So we feel like we have to keep trying to improve.

The main difference is the Beatles changed everything in popular music from recording, songwriting, and when the Beatles abandoned live performances. Elvis helped popularized R&R true but Bill Haley, Chuck Berry, and Little Richard were on the national charts before Elvis. Elvis had nothing to with songwriting, the way we recorded music, the way musicians conceived albums, and huge stadium tours. The Beatles influence is more across the board it's just the facts.

Rather than releasing a new album every couple of months, each packed with chart-topping singles, the band headed into the studio for months to realize their artistic ambitions.

The brilliance of those releases ("Rubber Soul," "Revolver," "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" among them) changed the way artists worked.

The album, rather than singles, became the focus, spawning the rise of FM radio and its broadcasting niches.


The Beatles ability to marry studio experimentation with a strong pop song structure is such a profound influence that it's taken for granted. It's the very foundation of how music is still made, so I'd say their influence is very much evident today, even if not everybody knows it. “Tomorrow Never Knows," which sums up most of where music has gone it's virtually an big beat/techno and modern electronic record that's as much Public Enemy as it is Philip Glass. Today's music is mostly about sound texture and the group that got us thinking about it the most is the Beatles. Some love to dismiss "Sgt. Peppers," and especially "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," but I'll be all that random splicing up of tape and punching it into a song for sound effects can't be found in Kanye West or many hip-hop crews of the last 25 years or so.

I am not dissing Elvis but the facts are Modern bands like Nirvana, Oasis, U2 and Bono calls the Beatles his biggest influence, Radiohead, Coldplay were influenced by the Beatles.

[RMThompson]

This is one of the better questions I've seen posed on this forum, but in reality it's apples and oranges.

While some people can say that The Beatles (especially Lennon) were inspirted by Elvis, which is true, you also have to consider that The Beatles may have also inspired Elvis.

They each had 17 number ones in their career, or 18 each if you count Elvis's recent re-hit of " A Little Less Conversation" and "Please Please Me" which was number one on tons of charts, but only #2 on the one that counted. (Some people think it was a glitch or counting error).

But, The Beatles last number 1 "The Ballad of John and Yoko" was in 1969, while Elvis was still performing for years later. He even staged a 1968 Comeback Special, complete with a small stage and adoring female fans around him, a look he started and perfected by The Beatles.

[Sargehalo51]

The Beatles!

[Sargehalo51]

Microphone, yes. But I just have to say that every rocker who has ever picked up a guitar owes it to Chuck Berry.

Just sayin'.

I would say that if we are going to get off topic and say who every rocker who has ever picked up a guitar owes it to...I would cast my vote for Bill Haley (and The Comets).

[warthogdb]

Bono calls the Beatles his biggest influence.

Bono said, "Elvis invented the Beatles."

Did you miss all the hullabaloo about the poem Bono wrote about Elvis? Bono is a huge Elvis fan. They even made it a point to record in Sun Studios because of his Elvis fetish.

Joe Strummer, who is as influential in British music as anyone, was also a professed Elvis fan.

[Grim0187]

The Beatles were far bigger, they stopped the world in the 60's, and it took god damned Led Zeppelin to knock them off a seven year streak as Melody Maker's most popular band, and by then the Beatles had parted ways. Elvis, while inspirational, was left in the dust by the boys from Liverpool.

LMAO!!!

Just remember, no Elvis, no boys from Liverpool.

That alone makes Elvis the winner. It wasnt a question of who you liked more, it was a question of who was bigger?

If one of these people cites the other as an influence, it seems to me that the person doing the influencing is automatically bigger. Whether you like it or not.

[PumpActionCow]

Lets see, who's been covered more?

(the beatles)

:D

[Grim0187]

Lets see, who's been covered more?

(the beatles)

:D

And that means?

Absolutly nothing. Beatles songs may be easier to cover. Just because you dont like Elvis, doesnt mean he wasnt bigger.

No elvis, no beatles.

[SisterRay]

And that means?

Absolutly nothing. Beatles songs may be easier to cover. Just because you dont like Elvis, doesnt mean he wasnt bigger.

No elvis, no beatles.

Did you say the Beatles were actually easier to cover? I did not know that Elvis was an influence on progressive or experimentla music also. There are more different time signatures and melodies in a song like "Happiness is A Warm Gun" than the whole Sun Session albums put together. The Beatles are easily more covered than Elvis who did not even write his songs in the first place.www.secondhandsongs.com

The Beatles explored and opened up avenues in the recording studio that no one had ever even dreamed of previously. You can argue about all the cultural things and their influence on style and substance, but without their innovations in the studio, who knows what music, as we know it, might sound like today.

Lastly anyone who knows the Beatles they were more musically influenced by Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry. In fact the Stones were more influenced by Chuck Berry.

[MrFruitLord]

And that means?

Absolutly nothing. Beatles songs may be easier to cover. Just because you dont like Elvis, doesnt mean he wasnt bigger.

No elvis, no beatles.

No.

[Rockbandfan23467]

please stop bringing up that elvis didn't write his own material!

[afterstasis]

If one of these people cites the other as an influence, it seems to me that the person doing the influencing is automatically bigger. Whether you like it or not.

so the raincoats, MDC, the wipers, flipper, and the melvins were all bigger than nirvana?

[Grim0187]

so the raincoats, MDC, the wipers, flipper, and the melvins were all bigger than nirvana?

Exactly

[Billy-93]

Elvis the king

[Sargehalo51]

please stop bringing up that elvis didn't write his own material!

You don't think that is important or a measure of talent?

Not that it really matters...the results of the poll say plenty.

[DerTommissar]

You don't think that is important or a measure of talent?

Why don't we ask Elton John?

And I think we all learned how generic Elvis sounded when Screen Gems was able to slap together a singer with a backing band for a TV show and get a string of #1 albums out of it.

Oh wait, that's the Monkees.

[cherokeesam]

Bono said, "Elvis invented the Beatles."

Did you miss all the hullabaloo about the poem Bono wrote about Elvis? Bono is a huge Elvis fan. They even made it a point to record in Sun Studios because of his Elvis fetish.



Not to mention that they even wrote a tribute song, "ELVIS PRESLEY and America," on The Unforgettable Fire.

To date, they have not written a song called "The Beatles and England."


Joe Strummer, who is as influential in British music as anyone, was also a professed Elvis fan.

"All that phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust"
--- London Calling