DM's Beatles forums

Beatles forums => The Beatles => Topic started by: Kevin on August 20, 2007, 01:19:56 PM

Title: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on August 20, 2007, 01:19:56 PM
Some interesting (I think) facts from my Guiness Book of UK Hit Singles.
Elvis was the act with most weeks in the charts in 5 different years - 57, 58, 61 and (suprisingly I thought) 70 and 71. The Beatles only managed this feat once, in 1963.
For most weeks on chart in each decade Elvis was 1st in the 50's and 2nd in the 60's. (Cliff was 1st and Beatles 3rd). Elvis also topped the 70's, but thay might have been because of his death.
All up Elvis has had the most hits (109).  Beatles clock in at 28th (again skewed by Elvis's longer career).
Elvis is also 1st with the most top ten hits, Cliff 2nd and Beatles 3rd. (longevity again)
Elvis just wins with most weeks at number 1 (73 to 69).

Lies, lies and damn statistcs (or something like that.)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: harihead on August 20, 2007, 01:50:33 PM
Statistcs are fun! I imagine someone somewhere has pulled the data to compare the Beatles to their contemporaries just during the years they were active.

Anyway, great fun. Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: on August 20, 2007, 02:36:54 PM
I think it should be Paul McCartney v Elvis , it's a much closer race between these two giants , The Beatles were not together long enough for it to be a fair race , and things could change quite dramatically when The Beatles catologue goe's online they might be on the chart for years once again ?  ;)

DaveRam :)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: DarkSweetLady on August 20, 2007, 03:08:11 PM
How does Elvis win when the Beatles had 27 # 1 hits? Doesn't make sense!

  All I know I hate Elvis! I love The Beatles, they just were down right better! :D
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on August 20, 2007, 03:18:24 PM
Quote from: 668
How does Elvis win when the Beatles had 27 # 1 hits? Doesn't make sense!

  All I know I hate Elvis! I love The Beatles, they just were down right better! :D

???? The Beatles had 17 number 1 hits and 6 top 10
Elvis had 16 number 1's and 35 top 10's (up to his death)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on August 20, 2007, 03:26:22 PM
If you divide that by years active (8 and 20):
The Beatles: 2.12 number 1's and 0.75 top 10's per year.
Elvis: 0.8 and 7.75 per year.

But if you compare Elvis's 1st 8 years with The Beatles 8 years its:
The Beatles: as above
Elvis:1.87 and 2.12

To be fair Elvis released 9 singles in 57 alone.
(I'm not saying these mean anything. Stats can be used to suit any arguement)
But based on figures Elvis was a more dominant chart force than The Beatles.  It really suprised me that he was the major chart act in 70 and 71.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on August 20, 2007, 03:54:23 PM
The "most weeks in the UK charts 1960-1970":
1960 - Cliff Richard
1961 - Elvis
1962 - Acker Bilk
1963 - Beatles/Cliff Richard
1964 - Jim Reeves
1965 - Seekers
1966 - Dave Dee, Dozy etc
1967 - Englebert Humpledink
1968 - Tom Jones
1969 - Fleetwood Mac/Frank Sinatra
1970 - Elvis
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Indica on August 20, 2007, 04:01:20 PM
Personally, I only like Elvis in his early years. I would say based purely on musical creativity, the Beatles win (although there is four of them)  :P
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on August 20, 2007, 04:12:30 PM
Quote from: 158
Personally, I only like Elvis in his early years. I would say based purely on musical creativity, the Beatles win (although there is four of them)  :P

Yeah. It's a hard call - and probably not fair to make too many comparisons. But both completely changed the course of popular music, both were influential beyond compare, both completely dominated the scene in their day.
I wouldn't put one over the other. To his credit pre -army Elvis was the real deal - no image fiddling there- he WAS the rebellious, discontented, dirt poor white boy singing the blues. And he changed everything. And so did The Beatles. Elvis, Dylan, Beatles - all so important and maybe a bit pendantic to put them in the ring together. Each is a vital part of the whole.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Sondra on August 20, 2007, 05:52:30 PM
Elvis didn't write his own music. He also didn't evolve. He started the whole teeny bopper sensation thing and broke sexual barriers. He did influence musicians of the Beatles generation, but I think it was more the image than the music that they were intrigued with. Dylan was much more important to the evolution of rock music than Elvis. Although Elvis did bring black music to the masses. Too bad we just didn't listen to the black artists to begin with.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: on August 20, 2007, 06:29:33 PM
Ive compared Elvis's 21 year recording career with The Beatles/ McCartney over the same period and The Beatles/McCartney give Elvis a run for his money on the Uk charts. :P

Singles

Elvis 55 top 10 singles
The Beatles/McCartney 45 top 10 singles ( All self composed songs )

Add in the fact both John and George had an extra # 1 more than Elvis in the Uk prior to his death :)
On the album side The Beatles/McCartney album weeks dwaf Elvis.

Albums

Elvis 36 top 10 uk albums weeks on chart 870, 9 of Elvis's albums hit # 1
The Beatles/MacCartney 31 top 10 uk albums weeks on chart 1,418 of which 18 hit #1
The Beatles Spent 163 weeks at the top of the Uk album chart ,compared to Elvis's 49 weeks.

I too love early Elvis ,he was so cool  :)

DaveRam :)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Whoever on August 20, 2007, 06:50:32 PM
Why do all the "tribute acts" wear that sparkly seventies romper suit? I cannot recall seeing a 50's Elvis impersonator.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: harihead on August 20, 2007, 07:01:06 PM
Hah, great statistics, DaveRam! That indeed "feels" more like the case--much more parity between these two giant acts. :)

The Beatles/McCartney win in self-composed songs and albums. Elvis wins in terms of singles, sparkly suitage, and hip movement. (I have to admit, I was never an Elvis fan, but I must appreciate him a little just because John did!)

Cheers.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on August 20, 2007, 07:03:59 PM
I'm not a fan of Elvis either
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: legthi on August 20, 2007, 07:21:34 PM
Quote from: 779
Why do all the "tribute acts" wear that sparkly seventies romper suit? I cannot recall seeing a 50's Elvis impersonator.

Because to be one of the 50's elvis impersonator's, you'd actually have to look good ::) ! I only really like early elvis too, and I have the number 1's album, but he is really overated. I can understand why he was so big back in the day, but is he really nessecary nowdays?? No! Anyway, by 1975, Elvis was seen as a joke by most people.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: alexis on August 21, 2007, 02:59:21 AM
What's all this then about Elvis Costello?
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on August 21, 2007, 08:22:19 AM
Quote from: 216
Elvis didn't write his own music. He also didn't evolve.

I think to criticise Elvis because he didn't write music or evolve sort of misses the point. That was not the importance of his contribution. You're applying sixties standards to a fifties act.
And that Elvis popularised to the masses a music form previously only known in a minority group is to his credit, not detriment. There are plenty of people who say The Beatles were guilty of taking black music and wrapping it up all nice for white middle class kids. And they're probably right. But that is the essence of white rock and roll. Everyone does it. Elvis was the first, and for that he deserves greatness.
Elvis popularised the notion that rock and roll was white youth
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Sondra on August 21, 2007, 09:09:48 AM
I wasn't so much criticizing him as much as just pointing out the difference. He could have evolved had he not fallen victim to his own fame. I think so anyway. Also, I think it is to his credit that he popularized black music which is why I mentioned it. But I also think it's sad that this country needed a white guy to shake his butt before we payed any attention. Elvis was great, but in a completely different way. I also said he inspired the next generation. Which is an amazing accomplishment in its own right. I realize his importance.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on August 21, 2007, 09:33:53 AM
Sorry Sandra. I had expected the "he didn't write his songs" response from someone and had already thought up a stock response (yes yes I'm a looser) so once I saw that I probably didn't pay enough attention to the rest of your post.
I don't care to much for his music (or pre Beatles music generally)
But Are You Lonesome Tonight, Suspicious Minds, In The Ghetto,  Heartbtreak hotel - great stuff.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on August 21, 2007, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: 216
Also, I think it is to his credit that he popularized black music which is why I mentioned it. But I also think it's sad that this country needed a white guy to shake his butt before we payed any attention.
oh they were paying attention....look at how they pasted alan freed to the wall...b4 elvis the mccartyists keep black music sequestered....the whole payola scandall was about alan freed taking payments to play black artists....

Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: wingsman on August 22, 2007, 09:59:35 PM
I personally love Elvis. I think he was fantastic and the most exciting thing when he started it all.
It's really hard to me to believe that many people don't like Elvis. I think he was really cool.
And it's too sad how he ended his life and how was took as a joke by many people in his later years. It's like Michael Jackson. The man was incredibly successful at least between 1980-1995 but then everyone treated him as a big bastard.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: The walrus on August 23, 2007, 01:31:39 PM
I'm not really a big fan of elvis but if I lived then I probably would be. I do think the Beatles were alot better but like John said "Before elvis, there was nothing."
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Andy Smith on August 23, 2007, 09:41:03 PM
Quote from: 696
I do think the Beatles were alot better

Plus the fact that they "Wrote their own songs!!" :)

Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Dark Phoenyx on August 23, 2007, 10:35:17 PM
Quote from: 614

Plus the fact that they "Wrote their own songs!!" :)


Just by that fact The Beatles are much better than Elvis Presley.  I don't care how many #1s or whatever else...is just the fact that Te Beatles went beyond what Elvis did... First, they wrote their own songs....but at the same time they were so creative and willing to experiment different sounds...

Maybe I might be insulted by saying this but sometimes I believe Elvis Presley is SO overrated.... well this is only my opinion....
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: fendertele on August 23, 2007, 11:39:42 PM
i totallt respect what he did for music, but ive never been able to get into his stuff, not sure why
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Andy Smith on August 24, 2007, 09:09:18 PM
Quote from: 766

Maybe I might be insulted by saying this but sometimes I believe Elvis Presley is SO overrated.... well this is only my opinion....

I totally agree, Elvis to me had everything layered out in his career from people, what with his
songs, movies & so on. I think he was fantastic when he first burst on the scene in the 50's,
but of course, i wasn't there, so i don't no how it affected people. it must have because John
coundn't believe it. All them Sun Records were brilliant in my opinion but then after he joined the
army he seemed to lose all that he had in those early days! :-/ He started making those crap
movies & all these quite Ridicoulous songs in them.
The period that's so overated is the 'White-Suit 70's' period. i mean, for goodness sake!!
After all he did in them 50's records and he went to that!!  :-/ :-/ I never foget George on the
Anthology when he was dissapointed after seeing a show of his in the 70's with girl singers
behind him singing 'Oh, i did it my way'!!  :P ;D
He was no way creative at all! but i'm sure someone on here will prove me wrong somehow?? :P

Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Waspinators on August 28, 2007, 06:13:40 AM
I hate when people criticize Elvis without really giving him a chance. I am a HUGE Beatles fan, but Elvis is still one of my favorite artists. In the '50s, the man could not be stopped, he was amazing in his voice, style, and energy. Yes, in the '60s Elvis recorded all of those terrible soundtracks, but he still had some choice material in the '60s. Songs like "Guitar Man", "Big Boss Man", "His Latest Flame" and others were nothing short of wonderful.

And as for the '70s period, people exaggerate way, way, way too much. Too many people think that from 1970-1977 he was some morbidly obese, bumbling, drunk idiot with rhinestone jumpsuits on 24/7. In reality, from 1970-1975 he was still a great performer, with a more matured and incredible voice, backed up by a very talented band (James Burton was a great guitarist, and Ronnie Tutt was probably the best double-bass drummer of the decade). In 1976-1977 is when he started acting weird, but not as much as people say. And so he was fatter than he was in the '60s, so what? Should we hate Paul now because he has a droopy face? Plus, he made some great records at that time, like "Promised Land" and "Way Down". You don't have to like Elvis, just don't base your opinions on talentless impersonators and negative exaggerations.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on August 28, 2007, 08:17:39 AM
Quote from: 614

He was no way creative at all! but i'm sure someone on here will prove me wrong somehow?? :P


But once again you're measuring Elvis by sixties standards, when his heyday was as a fifties act, and it is by those times that his geatness should be calculated. He was in his day as influential and popular as The Beatles were in theirs.
To judge him by his 70's career is like judging Paul on the 80's, or John on the 70's.
I don't care too much for his music myself, it just bugs me seeing him so readily dismissed.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Andy Smith on August 28, 2007, 01:09:07 PM
I just can't stand all this 70's Elvis tributes!!! >:(
Why don't we ever see an early 50's tribute to Elvis? :-/
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on June 22, 2008, 11:45:40 PM
I figured somewhere on these forums there would have to be a Beatles vs. Elvis thread, if not I would have likely started one myself.  One of life's great debates, along with chocolate vs vanilla, Dallas vs Dynasty, Yankees vs Dodgers, Coke vs Pepsi.

Regarding the stats given in the early posts, a couple of things to keep in mind (aside from the fact that they were all UK stats):  Elvis's total of over 100 hits (around 150 in the U.S.) is severely misleading.  The vast majority of these songs were not hits -- they cracked the top 100 and fizzled out.  Out of the (approximately) 150 'hits' Elvis had in the states, only about 40 of them cracked the top 10 (including 17 #1s).  That means that less than 30 percent of his releases can be considered true hits!  The rest of these songs are really just records that charted, or, if you prefer, flops.  Some fluff from one of his '60s movies that got released as a single and made it to #36 on the charts is not a hit.  And while the sheer volume of his charted songs is impressive, it doesn't hold a candle to Bing Crosby, who has in the neighborhood of 350!  (Why is it that the pre-rock and roll artists are always left out of the statistical comparisons?)  How much time Elvis, or any other artist, spent on the charts in any given year is irrelevant, when said artist is flooding the market with recordings, the vast majority of which don't even break the top 10 or 20.

How many more chart hits would the Beatles have racked up had they released a single off Sgt. Pepper or the White Album?  The Beatles were the first band whose songs would be played on the radio regardless of whether the song was a single or not.  Which is why album-only tracks such as In My Life, Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Ob-La-Di, Michelle, and dozens of other 'non-hits' have actually become some of their most popular (even if technically they don't fulfill the definition of 'hit').

Compare album performance:  the Beatles spent far more time at #1 on the album charts than Presley;  They hold the record for most #1 LPs (U.S. stats again) with 19 (Elvis had 9).  The Beatles also have a record 6 LPs that have been certified Diamond (10 million copies sold).  Led Zeppelin is second with 5.  Elvis doesn't have one Diamond LP.  The most recent Diamond LP the Beatles achieved was for 1, which came out in  2001.  The Anthology series made them one of the biggest selling (if not THE biggest selling) act of the 1990s.  Elvis doesn't sell records like that anymore.  All the Presley estate revenue comes from tourist trips to Graceland and souvenir sales.  Most Elvis fans aren't big record collectors -- besides a couple of greatest hits albums, and maybe a live performance or a gospel LP, that's a pretty thorough Elvis collection right there.  A new Beatles fan is likely to start off with a greatest hits album, and once that fan's appetite is whetted, he or she will start to delve deeper into the ocean of discovery that comes with each Beatles record.

The most telling stat, if you want to base this comparison on statistics, is simple:  all-time record sales.  While worldwide totals are nearly impossible to audit with 100 percent accuracy (and now that the internet is involved, do downloads now count among total sales?), all the official certifications point to the Beatles as being the #1 record sellers.  The Elvis camp likes to make the claim that Presley has sold over a billion units but the certifications are inaccurate because of primitive auditing procedures from decades ago (Crosby and Sinatra could probably make the same case, as could the Beatles in fact), but the Beatles were certified at over 1 billion sales in the early '80s.  In the U.S., the Beatles have around 180 million certified album sales, according to the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).  Elvis has around 118 million, and he ranks third, behind (gasp, get ready for this) Garth Brooks!  Brooks and Elvis seem to go back and forth at the number 2 position; last year Brooks took back second place with a certification of 122 million.  That Brooks has sold more albums than Elvis (at least in America, if nowhere else) is a bit of a shocker to me.  I can understand Elvis fans' dismay over that stat.  (Led Zeppelin is 4th in the U.S. with about 105 million and in fifth is either Elton John, Pink Floyd or the Eagles.)

Elvis was making records for 24 years.  The Beatles recorded their much smaller catalogue in 7.  That says it all right there.

And that's not even including their solo careers....
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: aspinall_lover on June 23, 2008, 12:35:24 AM
Well.............to make a long story short.............Elvis "started" it all with R'n'R music, as per see.  And Elvis will always be an "icon".  The Beatles were influenced by Elvis, seeing that a young guy from nothing could do "something huge".....and the Beatles took that and made it their own.  The Beatles........the OTHER rock icon.  It's always been Beatles/Elvis, Elvis/Beatles.  No two acts in music EVER changed the world as much as these two artists did.  Hey, in 1984, I made a perfect A+ in college on a research paper I did on this very subject.  Even then people thought I was nuts because I was so into the Beatles.............and by the way..........I liked Elvis "best" during his Las Vegas "lounge-lizard" years...........so cheesy!!!!!
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on June 23, 2008, 01:24:25 AM
Elvis was a legend.  Just like The Beatles are too.  They both are the biggest names in Rock & Roll music.  I love them both.  

Elvis is really more 50's whereas The Beatles are more 60's and 70's.  Elvis was a great singer and entertainer.  The Beatles the same, but The Beatles do have songwriters to add to that.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 23, 2008, 01:26:37 AM
elvis was!!!!
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 23, 2008, 01:40:14 AM
excerpt...........HARP: In your song
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 23, 2008, 01:41:38 AM
i think that elvis got too much credit for the whole ball of wax when actually he was a small cog.....
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: aspinall_lover on June 23, 2008, 02:20:59 AM
Well............as said before............Elvis never wrote his own material.......the Beatles........."Lennon/McCartney"......later "Harrison".......but, in the long run, BOTH are ICONS!!!!  Everyone else, follow behind them.......
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Out Of Me Head on June 23, 2008, 02:32:34 AM
Pulp Fiction - Elvis vs The Beatles

LbTcqyimYVY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbTcqyimYVY)




Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 23, 2008, 02:37:51 AM
elvis was an entertainer and that was it....he never had potential till he was exploited....
T51cYs8zYSE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T51cYs8zYSE)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on June 23, 2008, 02:52:23 AM
Quote from: 284
excerpt...........HARP: In your song
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 23, 2008, 02:52:54 AM
elvis was popularized in the media much the wqay brian did the beatles but he did not do the ground work that made rock and roll what it became...who wrote blue suede shoes?not elvis.....the government approved of elvis that is one of the reasons he was popularized....actually i don't want to get into this because i am too passionately against elvis famed position...i will rebute him being the greatest tho after all his last hit was the bathroom floor........
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 23, 2008, 02:54:30 AM
Quote from: 1333

???

that was me reading up on scott walker and his veiw of the elvis thing was to sing about jesse aaron rather than elvis...it was an unusual approach to the subject......
here is the vid
GYyOkQUyJZM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYyOkQUyJZM)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 23, 2008, 03:01:56 AM
don't get me wrong elvis helped further a cause but i think it would have formed on its own without him.....i even enjoy his 50s music,b4 he even began to over rate himself....he was shopped around more than mary kay cosmetics so everyone knew who he was but as for evolving your music he couldn't because he had no control over that...many a career has ended when the music was controlled by the musician....but many flourished.......i guess you can tell i ain't an elvis fan now... :B
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Geoff on June 23, 2008, 03:33:16 AM
Quote from: 758
i totallt respect what he did for music, but ive never been able to get into his stuff, not sure why

Same here: I play a lot of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and Buddy Holly among others, but very little Elvis. Just doesn't quite click for me.

Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on June 23, 2008, 08:08:51 AM
I think to downgrade Elvis "because he didn't write his own songs" isn't too fair. The obligation for a rock act to be a self contained unit is thanks to The Beatles, but in that pre-army period Elvis was responsible for so much that we should be able to forgive him that one abberation.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: DaveRam on June 23, 2008, 08:15:27 AM
Could Elvis write songs ? his name is credited on some of the early records as a writer .
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 23, 2008, 10:13:37 AM
poppy cock kev....the 40s saw many composers writing scores of music and music for each instrument.......most country folks played and writ also alvis was a departure from the norm...
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on June 23, 2008, 11:03:30 AM
Quote from: 284
poppy cock kev....the 40s saw many composers writing scores of music and music for each instrument.......most country folks played and writ also alvis was a departure from the norm...

Fair enough. That Elvis didn't/couldn't write his own material is a shame, but I think his other accomplishments overshadow this.
I think it's much the same arguement as you get with The Beatles: some other act may have taken rock and roll to the masses, fusing all those elements into something acceptable - but it was Elvis, by crook or by snook, that did.
And I'm not sure we can use the "acceptable" thing as a criticism, especially as we're on a site about a band that was positivily embraced by the establishment, and for the most part  complied by not rocking the boat. (and in the middle of Revolutionary 1968 it's The Beatles telling the kids everything was "going to be alright" but above all, don't bloody break anything. Meanwhile in 69 Elvis releases In The Ghetto, a fine a piece of social commentary and bucking-the-establishment as you'll find.)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: DarkSweetLady on June 23, 2008, 12:06:14 PM
Ok, I never got this then. If they only had 17 #1 hits and 6 top 10 hits, then why is there 27 tracks on the one CD.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on June 23, 2008, 09:38:01 PM
The Beatles 'not rocking the boat' due to their mainstream acceptability isn't really that accurate -- they started off as the darlings of the establishment, but that subsided with the Jesus comments and their openness about their drug use.

Regarding the 27 songs on 1, my presumption is that the album contains both sides of certain double A-side #1s (Come Together/Something, for example), plus the fact that different countries had different #1s:  Please Please Me, From Me to You, Ballad of John and Yoko hit #1 in the U.K. but not the U.S., Love Me Do was #1 in the U.S. but not the U.K.  I've even read that Ob-La-Di hit #1 in Australia, and Michelle may have topped the charts in France.  (I don't own 1 so I'm not sure exactly what it includes and what it doesn't.)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on June 23, 2008, 09:57:42 PM
Also, in regards to Elvis's not writing his own songs: that's obviously a huge artistic advantage in favor of the Beatles.  I don't necessarily begrudge Elvis for not writing his own stuff, but when you consider that other contemporary artists like Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Bo Diddley, and Carl Perkins, as well as a ton of earlier blues artists, were composers, one has to wonder why Elvis didn't at some point sit down and give songwriting a shot.  I think it's because even though he was the King of Rock and Roll, he didn't really feel a deep connection to the music -- his personal favorite songs to sing were gospel songs.  And I think he looked at RnR not as a great new musical form but as a vehicle into bigger things: movies and Hollywood stardom.  At some point in his career he said that his goal was to be like Dean Martin -- make movies, perform in Vegas, do TV appearances, record albums, etc.  His goal wasn't to get to "the Toppermost of the Poppermost."
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: DarkSweetLady on June 24, 2008, 12:03:18 AM
Oh ya, I always forget about that. :)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Sondra on June 24, 2008, 07:42:49 AM
I think it's kind of interesting that both Elvis and the Beatles sort of took from or were inspired by African American artists and became HUGE while the artists that inspired them hardly made ends meet. It's funny how we needed our music packaged in nice, pretty, wholesome looking packages in order to appreciate it.

Anyway, the only comparison here is that they both created a sort of mania. After that, the Beatles are on an entirely different plane. Elvis didn't write or create anything on his own, he never evolved, and he will never have the influence on other artists in the way the Beatles have had and continue to have.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 24, 2008, 10:01:03 AM
Quote from: 668
Ok, I never got this then. If they only had 17 #1 hits and 6 top 10 hits, then why is there 27 tracks on the one CD.

1 is made up of number one's from the UK, and the USA. For instance, Yesterday, and Eight Days A Week were never singles in the UK. And Come Together was the b-side in the UK.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Joost on June 24, 2008, 11:55:37 AM
You can't really compare Elvis and the Beatles. They were in different fields. The Beatles were creative artists, Elvis was an entertainer.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: cubanheel on June 24, 2008, 12:56:14 PM
I may have to be careful how I say this, but, well... [face=Arial]I can't stand Elvis!!!!!!!![/face]
Never could, never will. I just don't 'get' it. The first couple of songs, I can see that he was ok looking and a good performer, but further than that, he leaves me cold. I know I wasn't there, which has a lot to do with it, I'm sure, but as Paul McC once said, when Elvis went to the Army, he lost 'something' or his sparkle (can't remember exact quote).
I'm sure everyone will say, "Yeah but without him, there'd be no Beatles, cos they were inspired by him", but frankly the Beatles were inspired by so many different and diverse things that I think we can get rid of Elvis, can't we????!! (only joking).
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: DarkSweetLady on June 24, 2008, 01:12:56 PM
I don't like Elvis. I don't think he was anything special, I think just his image had an impact, because it was different. The Beatles influenced everyone on many different planes.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Joost on June 24, 2008, 02:46:26 PM
Quote from: 668
I don't think he was anything special

Well, you can or can't like Elvis, but I don't think you can say that he wasn't special. You can't make such a huge impact if you're not special, period.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Jane on June 24, 2008, 07:26:46 PM
Elvis was a phenomenon. He had a very beautiful rich voice, he was extremely handsome, his songs are really good and he sang well. He introduced his own style. So, a lot of pluses. I like his songs but i am not crazy about him. For me he represents the 50s, The Beatles - the 60s, The Queen - the 70s. Though his and Queen`s eras have ended with their decades, The Beatles` era is a never ending one.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on June 24, 2008, 11:45:45 PM
Quote from: 56

Well, you can or can't like Elvis, but I don't think you can say that he wasn't special. You can't make such a huge impact if you're not special, period.


Agreed.  He is one of the highest paid dead celebrities.  That has to count for something!  I know for sure he beats John Lennon, However I think I read somewhere that Kurt Kobain had beat him.  But he was number one for years...
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: DaveRam on June 25, 2008, 12:56:08 AM
I think early Elvis was great , the guy had the looks the moves and the voice . And he's still very muched loved by his fans.
Creatively though The Beatles beat him hands down .(smile)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on June 25, 2008, 01:52:28 AM
Quote from: 1204


Agreed.  He is one of the highest paid dead celebrities.  That has to count for something!  I know for sure he beats John Lennon, However I think I read somewhere that Kurt Kobain had beat him.  But he was number one for years...

I think Cobain overtook Elvis a couple of years ago, but last year Elvis reclaimed the highly non-coveted title of "highest paid dead celebrity," and I think that was mainly due to '07 being the 30th anniversary of his death so there was more promotion, more pilgrimages to Graceland, etc.  

I seem to recall Elvis's revenue last year was listed at $49 million.  John Lennon was highly ranked (maybe even #2, at around $25 million, and George Harrison close behind at over $20 million.  Of course, most of John and George's income came from the Beatles, which gets split four ways (except for songwriting royalties), and it comes predominantly from record sales.  They don't have a tourist trap like Graceland to produce millions of dollars a year.

Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 25, 2008, 02:12:35 AM
off topic for a minute....i think chuck berry would have been bigger than el except that he was BLACK. does anyone share this opinion?or am i alone?
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on June 25, 2008, 02:39:24 AM
Quote from: 284
off topic for a minute....i think chuck berry would have been bigger than el except that he was BLACK. does anyone share this opinion?or am i alone?

I think there's something to that, although other white performers like Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Eddie Cochrane, etc. didn't hit Elvis's level of popularity.

I think that was due to Elvis's looks and sex appeal.  His unique charisma is what made him such a monumental celebrity.  Let's face it, aside from a handful of hits, his musical catalogue isn't that strong, and his movies suck, yet he's one of the biggest stars ever.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 25, 2008, 03:01:44 AM
america was looking for something to cheer them up after war mongering their way thru the 40s and early 50s...elvis was a patriot...that made a major impact on people.....i think the more intellwectual people pebbles like elvis less for sum weason...it is hard to explain but i know my dad didn't like el and he was a great thinker...i once got booted because i blasted an elvis fan for overloading a forum with subjectional info that he said he knew was fact...i couldn't believe he took it on himself to make these claims...it was about elvis being what influenced the rockabilly siblings laurie and larry collins of the collins kids fame...not so i told him and provided facts and in the end told him to go f*** himself....hoy hoy hoy
BDV2D5N8HPo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDV2D5N8HPo)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 25, 2008, 03:03:15 AM
pretty fast learner larry,since this vid was in 57 when elvis was just starting...look a little larry play hiss ass off....
tD16bXzr37A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD16bXzr37A)
laurie dated ricky nelson and almost married him......
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on June 25, 2008, 06:25:17 AM
Hmm.... the main part I understood from the previous threads was that Elvis 'cheered up' the country after all the 'war mongering.'

I disagree.  We won World War 2, so there was no need to 'cheer up' the country.  And Americans weren't feeling bad about their country after Korea -- certainly teenagers weren't.  Elvis was the type of performer no one had ever seen before, it was a no-brainer that he would make it big.

Whereas, one could make the claim that part of the reason that the U.S. embraced the Beatles so strongly was because the country was in mourning over the JFK murder.  Obviously not the whole reason, but the Beatles had some great timing.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on June 25, 2008, 11:25:08 AM
Quote from: 284
off topic for a minute....i think chuck berry would have been bigger than el except that he was BLACK. does anyone share this opinion?or am i alone?

Whoa tiger. I'd agree that being black meant chuck would never be as big as Elvis, but to say if he had been white he would have been bigger is something else. Just like with The Beatles looks, coolness, sex appeal, distinctiveness, timing, management....all play their part.
Teenage girls could swoon to Heartbreak Hotel and Yesterday but did Chuck have that variety that would lead to such mass appeal? Hats off to the man for inventing a sound, but He's always struck me as a bit of a duck walking one trick pony.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Joost on June 25, 2008, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: 284
off topic for a minute....i think chuck berry would have been bigger than el except that he was BLACK.

No way. Chuck Berry was one of the most important people in rock history, but he didn't have the looks, the charisma, the voice or the showmanship that Elvis had. Neither did Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bo Diddley, Carl Perkins, Bill Haley, Little Richard, Fats Domino or Buddy Holly. That's why none of them, black or white, were bigger than Elvis.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Geoff on June 25, 2008, 04:09:13 PM
Quote from: 284
off topic for a minute....i think chuck berry would have been bigger than el except that he was BLACK. does anyone share this opinion?or am i alone?

It might be worth adding that Elvis recorded ballads like "Love Me Tender" and "Are You Lonesome Tonight?" which broke him through with mainstream audiences and made him a lot less threatening to parents. Much of his early sixties recorded output sounds to me like a quite calculated attempt to shed the rock and roll image and become more of an all around entertainer in, say, the Dean Martin mold (who Elvis admired, I believe).  :)

Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Jane on June 25, 2008, 05:33:18 PM
There are Elvis fans who believe that Elvis is still alive and hiding somewhere to lead a quiet life. From time to time they report the sightings of Elvis and give proofs that The King is in good health. Maybe The 2 Beatles are also living somewhere in New Zealand...
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Joost on June 25, 2008, 07:47:21 PM
I read a book last month called "Is Elvis Alive?", by Gail Brewer-Giorgio. Some nice theories about why Elvis would fake his own death and how he did it, but I think it's a theory that fits in the same category as the 'Paul is dead' thing.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: DarkSweetLady on June 26, 2008, 12:51:35 AM
When I said that he wasn't special, I just meant like what he did and what the beatles did in no way can be compared. Elvis was big because he was something different than what was going on around him, his music wasn't different or influential in anyway.

So Elvis is more ,I think, influential as an icon then a musician.

Elvis is the highest paying dead celebrity. Because he has Graceland as well has all his records, and movies, and memorbillia. John Lennon is the second highest paying dead celebrity. That I am sure of. I just heard it on the television.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Bobber on June 26, 2008, 06:59:00 AM
Quote from: 668
When I said that he wasn't special, I just meant like what he did and what the beatles did in no way can be compared. Elvis was big because he was something different than what was going on around him, his music wasn't different or influential in anyway.

So Elvis is more ,I think, influential as an icon then a musician.

I don't think so. Elvis's music was and is highly influental.

Quote from: 668
Elvis is the highest paying dead celebrity. Because he has Graceland as well has all his records, and movies, and memorbillia. John Lennon is the second highest paying dead celebrity. That I am sure of. I just heard it on the television.

And over the years, television has proved to be a reliable source for information.

Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Joost on June 26, 2008, 09:51:33 AM
Quote from: 668
Elvis was big because he was something different than what was going on around him, his music wasn't different or influential in anyway.

I strongly disagree. Elvis was extremely important for the image of the entire rock genre. He made rock sexy and exciting. He was the reason why all the girls wanted to date a rock star and why all the boys wanted to be a rock star.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Jane on June 26, 2008, 07:23:03 PM
I absolutely agree with Joost!
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 29, 2008, 07:34:37 PM
Quote from: 56

I strongly disagree. Elvis was extremely important for the image of the entire rock genre. He made rock sexy and exciting. He was the reason why all the girls wanted to date a rock star and why all the boys wanted to be a rock star.
i also agree with this statement....i just do not like the way they give him more credit than he is due....i grew up in the deep south...where they shove religion,bigotry,patriotism,respect,manners and more down your throat early in life...these things are needed but get over emphasized too....i grew up listening to country and elvis is well liked in the country genre..rightly so too....but to credit him for rock and roll is wrong...the king is a misnomer....

Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on June 29, 2008, 08:04:15 PM
I will say this ... Alot of rock & roll singers back then were black, Elvis obviously not, and Elvis becomes The King.  I think maybe him being white and doing rock and roll may have had something with him being called "The King".  

Not that I have anything at all against Elvis,  I am a fan of his for sure.  But I have always though that maybe someone else deserves the title of King of Rock & Roll.  But I don't make the rules so!

Then again, not only was he a singer but a true entertainer.  So maybe that's why.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Jane on June 29, 2008, 08:31:42 PM
Today I happened to listen to Elvis in the car. You may say whatever you want but... he is great!
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on June 29, 2008, 08:35:32 PM
I think so too.  He was also extremely handsome.  I think that is why he was so appealing.  He had the voice, the looks, and the moves.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 29, 2008, 08:43:21 PM
i do believe that what black thing played largely into his fame....yes he is very everything it seems everything but smart....he got robbed and was normal like everyone else...grieves,crys,laughs,sh*ts,eats...he was normal and quite a gentleman...he gave a sh*t load of cadillacs away...more than the number of guitars jimi gave away....
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on June 29, 2008, 08:45:30 PM
What I wouldn't give for a Elvis caddy or a Jimi guitar  :K)
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on June 29, 2008, 08:49:15 PM
 ;D or a willie nelson pony tail?????!!!!! ;D
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on June 29, 2008, 08:51:14 PM
Quote from: 284
;D or a willie nelson pony tail?????!!!!! ;D

Oh wowsers  :D


Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: aspinall_lover on June 29, 2008, 08:55:36 PM
And who do the "performers" out there in the world today, try to copy "looks" and "sound" of..........Elvis and the Beatles????  The impersonators and tribute bands???  Need I say more, never more, never more............
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on June 29, 2008, 08:58:20 PM
True, Elvis is probably the most impersonated person of all!  But do you notice it's almost always older, fatter Elvis?
And there are alot of Beatle tribute bands out there also.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: aspinall_lover on June 29, 2008, 09:02:05 PM
I've seen one Elvis impersonator that opened the show for "Liverpool Legends" in Branson a couple of years ago and he was from the "young" Elvis years and very, very good.  Need to find a pix and post.  And I LOVE the older Elvis with the white jump-suits and all that.  So "Las Vegas Lounge Lizard" lookin'...........
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on June 29, 2008, 09:05:44 PM
I prefer earlier Elvis myself.  But older Elvis is very Vegas...Flashy & fun!
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: aspinall_lover on June 29, 2008, 09:41:26 PM
^^^^^Oh yeah........."flashy, fun, and cheesy".........LOVE IT!!!!
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Revolver42 on July 01, 2008, 05:24:29 PM
Was Elvis extremely successful?  Absolutely.  To me the differences in the Beatles and Elvis are many.  The Beatles were a self-contained unit.  They wrote amazing songs themselve...continually challenging themselves and improving all the time.  Also, they could play there own instruments...well.  Specifically, I think Paul is one of the best bass players ever.  George and Ringo and underrated I think as they played within the song and did not aspire to be flashy players.  Elvis cannot say the same thing.  He was a great singer, and an amazing entertainer, but not near the artist the Beatles were.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on July 02, 2008, 02:14:36 AM
ok i didn't want to dump this on you but elvis was an alien.... ;D
i love sun record performers period....my fave is the killer jerry lee lewis,then johnny cash then roy orbision then elvis...to me elvis always sounded too churchy....i love that deep voice tho..he had zazz but it just didn't zazzs me enough and never mind those movies...i am very impressed by the fact that he took his mother to one of his first movies and when he died on wscreen she cried and was very upset and as a result he never died in a movie again....his performance was a different story...change of habit was a poor movie as was roustabout...and the story lines kind of were the same most times....there were some scenes of follow that dream recorded in a town not far from here....love him or hate him i can accept him...
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: aspinall_lover on July 02, 2008, 03:06:59 AM
Ok..................Elvis IS the first R'N'R icon.  And then the Beatles...............but here's the difference that I think.  Elvis kept on "hashing" it out in Vegas and made him look like a "performing monkey"......hate to say that, but I think it's true.  The Beatles...........on the other hand........stopped TWICE.........once in '66 from touring live again and then breaking up "for good" in early 1970.  I think this way they, the Beatles, didn't "tarnish" their name with the Vegas stuff.  They left and quit on top and as "ICONS".  And as John Lennon said, "over my dead body will I play Vegas as Elvis does".
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on July 02, 2008, 03:48:29 AM
Yes, it is kind of like a sitcom.  Some are so good but they killed it by dragging it on and on when they should have quit while they were ahead so that people would remember when they were really good.  
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 02, 2008, 07:45:49 AM
As an individual performer, Elvis was basically doomed to a decline.  What was unfortunate was how rapid and obvious that decline was.  Sinatra had a decline too -- but his was one brought on by the natural aging process, not quite such a sad story.  The Beatles are the only act I can think of that actually continued to improve, and went out on a high note -- what they did or didn't accomplish in their solo careers doesn't tarnish what the band did.  No other band -- the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Floyd, the Who -- could avoid the decline that the Beatles did.  (As you can see, I'm a huge fan of Abbey Road.)

Although I wouldn't describe Barbra Streisand's career as being in 'decline.'  Of course, she only performs her periodic farewell shows every few years or so.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: DaveRam on July 02, 2008, 08:15:32 AM
" ABBA " stopped before the rot set in ? but other than The Beatles and them i can't think of another big act that left the stage with their legacy as intact .
ABBA did'nt have the American success The Beatles had , but in Europe and Australia they did .
Their music and image is still very strong in these territories and like The Beatles as grown since their split in 1982 .
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Sondra on July 02, 2008, 09:40:08 AM
Quote from: 971
" ABBA " stopped before the rot set in ? but other than The Beatles and them i can't think of another big act that left the stage with their legacy as intact .
ABBA did'nt have the American success The Beatles had , but in Europe and Australia they did .
Their music and image is still very strong in these territories and like The Beatles as grown since their split in 1982 .

Good God. I remember hearing nothing but ABBA in the seventies! The horror! How much more popular could they have been??

Actually, I love them now, but I HATED them then. I was a snobby little Beatle fan and made fun of my best friend's mom who constantly played them on her eight track! She thought it was hysterical that it drove me insane.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: DaveRam on July 02, 2008, 10:23:46 AM
Well they only got to # 1 once in America Sandra with "Dancing Queen " and although a lot of Americans liked them .
ABBA's success in the rest of the world was mega in comparison to their success in the USA .
A bit like you i was'nt that keen of them in the 70's but i really like them now .
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: HeatherBoo on July 03, 2008, 12:35:06 AM
I think the musical Mama Mia is based on ABBA songs and that it is now a movie! Starring Meryl Strep I think.  I just saw the preview today.  ABBA is not for me but whatever floats your boat!
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Jane on July 03, 2008, 05:32:52 PM
The musical Mama Mia is based on ABBA songs and is has successfully been on all around the world, west and east equally. But i haven`t seen it. I believe that musicals should be seen in London and I failed to see it there this year. Maybe next year? The film is coming out soon and we`re already tired of the promotion which has been imposed on us the last months. It is starring Meril Streep, Pierce Brosnan, whom i like very much, and they are singing! I am going to see it. I like ABBA and liked them in the good old days. I think i liked them more then. Now i don`t listen to them, never. But then: Voulez Vou, Dancing Queen, Thank you for the Music, Waterloo, Honey Honey ( vow!!! ), and I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do...Gonna listen to them this evening...
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 04, 2008, 05:59:32 AM
ABBA is awesome.  Not Beatles awesome.  Not Zeppelin awesome.

But awesome nonetheless.

By the way, is ABBA correctly spelled with all capital letters?  Or is it Abba?
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 05, 2008, 12:07:46 AM
It occurred to me after my previous postings that there are other artists who never went through the inevitable decline -- but unfortunately that's because they died young, like Hendrix and Janis Joplin.

Bob Dylan hasn't had a true decline either, although he's not relevant today like he was in 1965.  But he's done nothing to tarnish his legacy (unlike Elvis, who after 1958 couldn't stop tarnishing his legacy).
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on July 05, 2008, 03:22:55 PM
Quote from: 1333
ABBA is awesome.  Not Beatles awesome.  Not Zeppelin awesome.

But awesome nonetheless.

By the way, is ABBA correctly spelled with all capital letters?  Or is it Abba?
it is with caps...it is the first initial in each name...andre bjorn bianca alice...not that those are the real names but with caps

Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on July 05, 2008, 03:23:40 PM
Quote from: 1255
Ok..................Elvis IS the first R'N'R icon.
not!!!!
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Jane on July 06, 2008, 06:43:49 PM
Who is the first R`N`R icon? Jim Morrison? And what is Elvis? But he certainly is some icon.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Joost on July 06, 2008, 07:21:15 PM
I can't think of any rock 'n' roll icon who predates Elvis...

Elvis's first single came out in 1954, Chuck Berry's first single in 1955... Bill Haley predated Elvis, but he was hardly a rock icon...
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: pc31 on July 06, 2008, 07:54:28 PM
oh but he was iconing on the way...elvis hash marked in the country world first....
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: real01 on September 22, 2012, 11:39:59 PM
Elvis was a king, but in totally different sense than usually meant when that is said.

As somebody before mentioned, he rarely wrote songs - he just had hits.
Also, Elvis had the Jordainers, the backing vocal group. Beatles did all the backing vocal and harmonies by themselves.
Beatles toured around the world, but the King had concert only all around America (and two or three times in Canada.)
His manager, Colonel Parker,
Quote
...had even come up with the idea to market "I Hate Elvis" badges to make money from those who otherwise wouldn't have parted with their cash.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tom_Parker[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tom_Parker[/url])

And when Elvis died, he was asked what he will do now, when Elvis is gone. He replied:
Quote
"Why, I'll just go right on managing him!"

Now, that's marketing. Plus, the 'Colonel' didn't care about quality of scripts offered to Elvis - he just pushed him into whatever movie he could so Elvis could perform his songs in it.
So, the movies were just a big advertise for his songs.

Also...
Quote
Parker was still struggling to believe that Presley's career would last longer than a year or two. He had seen many acts come and go during his earlier years in management, and to think that Presley, despite being Parker's most successful act to date, would be any different was foolish.


When Elvis was serving in the army, Parker also had everything in his hand.
Quote
While Presley was serving in Germany, Parker was hard at work keeping his name known to the public. He realized that by keeping RCA, and more importantly the public, hungry for more Presley material, he would be able to negotiate a better contract for him when he returned from active service. He had arranged for Presley to record five singles before his induction,[25] guaranteeing RCA enough material to release over a two year period.

So, in conclusion, everything was prepared for the King - he just had to show at the stage and perform. And that's why he was King - everything was prepared for him.

If you watched Ed Sullivan Show, Ed shares with audience that Elvis & Parker send a welcoming telegram to the Beatles. Well, that was nice - but notice that it was signed by Elvis & Parker - and not just
by the King himself.

Next.
Quote
"The Colonel" displayed a ruthless devotion to his client's interests and took more than the traditional 10 percent of his earnings (reaching up to 50 percent by the end of Presley's life). Presley said of Parker: "I don't think I'd have ever been very big if it wasn't for him. He's a very smart man.


As you can conclude, I don't like him much.
Too much of his songs are alike (about love), too mellow. He had some good ones like In the Ghetto, Return to Sender, Heartbreak Hotel, Are You Lonesome Tonight.
He also covered three songs from some British band called the Beatles: Yesterday, Something & Hey Jude. (I'm not impressed with his versions.) glassesslip

But, on the other hand, I feel sorry for Elvis. George said:
Quote
Later, I was sorry for Elvis. He had his band, his men around him - but he was one, alone. Four of us shared the experience.


And how different was the relationship Parker - Elvis and Beatles - George Martin - Brian Epstein!
The boys said to either Martin or Epstein: We are not going to America to perform until we have number one hit!
So, they were making decisions!
When THEY decided to stop touring, they stopped touring.
When decided to held the last concert, there were a lot of suggestions - amphitheatre in Greece etc., but Paul just said: Let's do it on the top of the Apple!
They didn't need manager to 'manage' that concert - while Elvis needed Parker to send 'welcome to my Kingdom' telegram to Beatles!

Nevertheless, I like some of his quotes...:
Quote
Rhythm is something you either have or don't have, but when you have it, you have it all over.
Rock and roll music, if you like it, if you feel it, you can't help but move to it. That's what happens to me. I can't help it.'
I sure lost my musical direction in Hollywood. My songs were the same conveyer belt mass production, just like most of my movies were.
Just because I managed to do a little something, I don't want anyone back home to think I got the big head.
Since the beginning, it was just the same. The only difference, the crowds are bigger now.
My movements, ma'am, are all leg movements. I don't do nothing with my body. ha2ha
After a hard day of basic training, you could eat a rattlesnake. :P
[url]http://www.elvis.net/quotes/quotesframe.html[/url] ([url]http://www.elvis.net/quotes/quotesframe.html[/url])


He was also reading a lots of books (which I also like to do):
Quote

Presley would be preoccupied by such matters (spiritual questions) for much of his life, taking trunkloads of books with him on tour.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis[/url])


Believe it or not...
Quote
Elvis' Greatest sh*t is a bootleg recording of Elvis Presley, released in July 1982. It assembles a number of studio recordings, a large number of film scores, and out-takes that, in the opinion of the bootlegger, represent the worst recordings Presley made in his career. The tracks are mostly recordings from film soundtracks, along with a few outtakes of well known songs; one is an aborted take of "Can't Help Falling in Love", in which, at the breakdown of the take, Presley exclaimed "Aw, shiiiiiiiit!
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis%27_Greatest_sh[/url]*t ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis%27_Greatest_sh[/url]*t)


So, the Colonel made Elvis (no question about that he was talented), he made it to the top, but it was very lonely up there. :-\
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: nimrod on September 23, 2012, 02:28:35 AM
our pet mouse (Elvis) just died

he was caught in a trap
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Hello Goodbye on September 23, 2012, 03:11:28 AM
Because he loved you too much, Kev.
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: nimrod on September 23, 2012, 04:00:59 AM
:D
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: real01 on September 23, 2012, 03:42:33 PM
Let me just add one more, that is, stress this, the eight-minute wedding:
Quote
With Priscilla's father dropping heavy hints, and fear that their relationship might become public beforehand, Parker persuaded Presley that he should make an honest woman of her in the very near future. However, it would not be a quiet wedding. Parker decided that Las Vegas was the perfect place to do it, and on May 1, 1967, the couple were married in a ceremony that lasted only eight minutes and had a handful of guests. A breakfast reception was arranged, taking place after the media got their photographs of the couple. It was, to some, nothing more than a circus.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tom_Parker[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tom_Parker[/url])


I could only say: pure marketing and poor girl and the groom!
I guess you lose your soul when you're too much into money.
The Beatles were really lucky to have a friend for the manager.
Ringo said: If anyone was our real friend - that was Brian!
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: chewinggum on September 24, 2012, 08:29:42 PM
elvis never evolved ??? come on ... it's so ridiculous to write that .....
Title: Re: Beatles v Elvis
Post by: Kevin on September 27, 2012, 05:05:06 PM
elvis never evolved ??? come on ... it's so ridiculous to write that .....

I'm sorry but he most certainly did. From rockabilly to rock and roll to gospel to ballads and musicals.
It's a long road from It's Alright Mamma to In The Ghetto.
Certainly until he was made old by Beatlemania (just as The Beatles were made old by punk) he was as current in his sound (if not as good) in the early 60's as any of his peers. And if popular music didn't "evolve" between 53 and 63 as much as it did between 63 and 73, (though how you'd measure that I'm not sure) then that's hardly his fault. He was a man of his times.
I think what most people mean is that he didn't evolve in the 60's.
But give the guy a break...he was a decade older and almost from another generation than The Beatles. By the mid 60's he had his day.  He was no more going to make a groovy sixties album in 1966 than Harrison or Lennon or McCartney were going to make a punk album in 1976 (though McArtney, bless 'em did try. With predictable results.)
Would you criticise any of the solo Beatles for not succesfully adapting to the changes of the 70's? Until 75 Lennon, McCartney and Harrison sound was as contemporyn(if not always as good) as the popular music around them. Punk/new wave (like Beatlemania before it) wiped the slate clean and by the time they hit their mid thirties they were sounding old and irrelevant. Just like Presley in his mid thirties.