Topic: Is this statement true or false? (Read 3773 times)

Ivo · « **on:** March 03, 2005, 07:33:17 PM »

Someone told me this a long time ago:

Elvis introduced the world to Rock & Roll; The Beatles proved it could go in any direction.

What do you think? I won't say my opinion on it yet, I wanted to see if anyone wanted to comment, disagree or otherwise mock it.

Indica · « **Reply #1 on:** March 03, 2005, 07:39:58 PM »

I would disagree about how Elvis 'introduced' Rock N Roll.
I'm not sure, Buddy Holly and the likes were already experimenting.
The latter Beatle recordings I always find hard to class as Rock N Roll* Its too narrow of a term.

Wayne L. · « **Reply #2 on:** March 03, 2005, 07:40:10 PM »

I agree with that statement 100% because Elvis brought rock & roll to the masses in the 50's while the Beatles took it into another direction in the 60's.

Frightwolf · « **Reply #3 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:06:12 PM »

Quote from: Wayne_L.

I agree with that statement 100% because Elvis brought rock & roll to the masses in the 50's while the Beatles took it into another direction in the 60's.

I agree. Even if Buddy Holly and the likes were already experimenting (which is true -- Buddy Holly wrote his own stuff for the most part, to the best of my knowledge), it was Elvis that ultimately brought it to the masses. Sure, he wrote almost nothing and only really had his looks, dance, and vocal chords, but it was him that was the most popular rock and roll star of the 50s. The Beatles part I agree with whole-heartedly.

Mairi · « **Reply #4 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:06:14 PM »

I guess it's true.

Wolf · « **Reply #5 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:06:28 PM »

One could argue that "Rock'n'Roll" was introduced to the world by Bill Haley & The Comets. They had a Top 10 hit in England already in December 1954 with "Shake, Rattle & Roll" and "Rock Around The Clock" was the first record to sell over 1 million times in both Britain and Germany - all that happened before anyone outside of Tennessee knew who Elvis Presley was.

Kevin · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:12:40 PM »

I'm with wayne on this one. Elvis took r'n'r from being a fad to the teenage rebellion thing it became. The guy was an absolute complete genius. Fifty years on and he's still the blue print. I think his impact is immeasurable.
(I haven't expressed myself well, but I hope you get the gist)

Frightwolf · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:16:10 PM »

Quote from: kevin_b

I'm with wayne on this one. Elvis took r'n'r from being a fad to the teenage rebellion thing it became. The guy was an absolute complete genius. Fifty years on and he's still the blue print. I think his impact is immeasurable.
(I haven't expressed myself well, but I hope you get the gist)

Didn't Elvis not write his own stuff? Because if that's true, I wouldn't call him a genius by any means -- just a great vocalist that was picked out and made to look handsome.

Kevin · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:18:04 PM »

Writing his own stuff wasn't an expectation then.
C'mon, the man IS rock and roll.

Frightwolf · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:22:02 PM »

Quote from: kevin_b

Writing his own stuff wasn't an expectation then.
C'mon, the man IS rock and roll.

Yea, he has some great vocals; I'll give him that. And I'm a huge fan of his song Can't Help Falling In Love. But a great vocalist isn't a genius -- it's a great vocalist. And a genius doesn't conform to expectations -- that's what made the Beatles so great, wouldn't you agree?

Wolf · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:23:15 PM »

Yes, it was unusual for pop singers to write their own songs, however many c&w and r&b artists were known to write their own songs and almost all of the early rock'n'rollers did write a lot of their own songs (Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins etc.). Elvis was the only major 50s rocker that didn't do that.

Mairi · « **Reply #11 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:26:36 PM »

Yes, that's one of the main reasons I'm not a big fan of his- the fact that he didn't write his own material, basically makes him a teen idol.

Kevin · « **Reply #12 on:** March 03, 2005, 08:34:34 PM »

I hate being wrong.

Kevin · « **Reply #13 on:** March 03, 2005, 09:34:44 PM »

Quote from: Mairi

Yes, that's one of the main reasons I'm not a big fan of his- the fact that he didn't write his own material, basically makes him a teen idol.

no - more than that Mairi. listen to John talk about him on anthology - he was the ideal that the Beatles and all aspired to in the early 60's.
Its easy to forget now the impact a white teenager singing black rock and roll had on the world. His impact on youth and the whole music scene is surpassed by only The Beatles ( and many would argue that as it was him that inspired them in the first place his influence is greater.)
Calling him a teen idol is like calling The Beatles a boy band
ps - and I'm no geat Elvis fan either.

Frightwolf · « **Reply #14 on:** March 03, 2005, 09:39:03 PM »

Quote from: kevin_b

no - more than that Mairi. listen to John talk about him on anthology - he was the ideal that the Beatles and all aspired to in the early 60's.
Its easy to forget now the impact a white teenager singing black rock and roll had on the world. His impact on youth and the whole music scene is surpassed by only The Beatles ( and many would argue that as it was him that inspired them in the first place his influence is greater.)
Calling him a teen idol is like calling The Beatles a boy band
ps - and I'm no geat Elvis fan either.

Yes, but the fact that all he has was looks and a great pair of vocal chords doesn't make him a genius -- it makes him a good singer. I'm sure they coulda picked out any other redneck singer with some good vocals, make him look pretty, and give him songs to sing -- they coulda been Elvis too.

Kevin · « **Reply #15 on:** March 03, 2005, 09:45:57 PM »

Quote from: Frightwolf

Yes, but the fact that all he has was looks and a great pair of vocal chords doesn't make him a genius -- it makes him a good singer.

Frightwolf · « **Reply #16 on:** March 03, 2005, 10:01:44 PM »

Quote from: kevin_b

I withdraw the genius remark.
But the unescapable fact is that it was Elvis who kicked the whole thing off.
I'm probably on dangerous ground here cos my Elvis history ain't too hot but were "they" involved? Was it a big marketing exercise as we understand it today?
It was Elvis on his own who walked into that studio and recorded "It's alright Mama." and the world changed.

Like I said in my first post, I agree with the statement.

Ydoll Gwyn · « **Reply #17 on:** March 03, 2005, 10:18:16 PM »

I think one aspect of Elvis that you've got to remember is that he was a SUPERB showman and a STUNNING live performer. He had an aura, a charisma that all felt - in the fifties. Yes, forget Elvis after his army gig - as John Lennon reminded us often.

But before then: the guy could take a song, shake it, make it his own, and explode it in your face every time.

So in his way, yes, a genius. Don't let the sixties or seventies Elvis fool you, and don't judge Elvis by his declining years. It would be as unfair to judge Beatles material by Paul's 80's output, or Ringo's disco albums, or by the LET IT BE album.

« **Reply #18 on:** March 03, 2005, 10:27:27 PM »

Quote from: Wolf

One could argue that "Rock'n'Roll" was introduced to the world by Bill Haley & The Comets. They had a Top 10 hit in England already in December 1954 with "Shake, Rattle & Roll" and "Rock Around The Clock" was the first record to sell over 1 million times in both Britain and Germany - all that happened before anyone outside of Tennessee knew who Elvis Presley was.

Absolutely, I think Bill Haley and Louis Jordan are the unsung heroes of inventing rock and roll, Sinatra invented the album, and the Beatles perfected the style, medium and everything else.

number14 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 03, 2005, 10:30:46 PM »

I think its true but The beatles were bigger then elvis, in my opinion

News:

Author Topic: Is this statement true or false? (Read 3773 times)

Wayne L.

Wolf

Wolf