A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: Beatles v Elvis  (Read 5567 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mr. Mustard

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 217
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #60 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.

Logged

pc31

  • Special Member
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #61 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?

Mr. Mustard

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 217
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #62 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.
Logged

pc31

  • Special Member
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #63 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

pc31

  • Special Member
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #64 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

laurie dated ricky nelson and almost married him......

Mr. Mustard

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 217
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #65 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.
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5432
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #66 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.
Logged
don't follow leaders

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5058
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #67 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.
Logged

Geoff

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2133
  • One Thing I Can Tell You Is You Got To Be Free
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #68 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).  :)

Logged

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #69 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...
Logged

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5058
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #70 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.
Logged

DarkSweetLady

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1326
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #71 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.
Logged

~the guiding light in all your love shines on~

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13490
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #72 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.

Logged

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5058
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #73 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.
Logged

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #74 on: June 26, 2008, 07:23:03 PM »

I absolutely agree with Joost!
Logged

pc31

  • Special Member
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #75 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....

HeatherBoo

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1701
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #76 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.
Logged
<br />

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #77 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!
Logged

HeatherBoo

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1701
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #78 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.
Logged
<br />

pc31

  • Special Member
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Beatles v Elvis
« Reply #79 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....
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
 

Page created in 0.448 seconds with 27 queries.