10-13-2004, 07:03 PM
It's been said, either you're a beatles fan or you're an Elvis fan and if you want to say neither, please try and pick one.
Poll: So Elvis or Beatles? - You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Beatles
0
0%
Elvis
0
0%
* You voted for this item.
Show Results
Elvis or Beatles?
10-13-2004, 09:19 PM
I have to say both, although I would rather listen to Elvis than the Beatles, his voice soothes my troubled soul 
Imagine a world before the "beginning was the word.”
10-13-2004, 11:12 PM
Yeah, I'd go for neither. Both are overrated.
10-14-2004, 12:35 AM
I hate Elvis. I just dont get it.
The Beatles are fabulous.
The Beatles are fabulous.
10-14-2004, 08:57 AM
direwolf74 Wrote:I'm goin with the Beatles. I can't stand Elvis.I'm with you I can't stand Elvis.
10-14-2004, 10:11 AM
I like em both. I'll say Elvis, the man was cool personified.
Got to speak to Sam Phillips once after a speech about the history of Sun records... here's the coolest Elvis story ever:
The famous Sullivan appearance was shot from the waist up for a reason. Because of his status with CBS, Sullivan himself had the final call about how to shoot Elvis. At 12:30, Ed was all set to allow Elvis to go on as scheduled, no special angles. As was later evident (Sullivan eventually publicly stood-up for Elvis when his rep was taking a beating) Ed had met Elvis and thought him an upstanding young citizen.
At 1pm, Ed was informed by "one of them Christian types" on his staff about one of Elvis' common practises. In the early days, the King would tape quarters to his ummm... "business..." so that when he thrust his hips forward, his "business" would make a greater impact against the front of his pants. Ed, not knowing that Elvis had discontinued the practice (Some say he never did...) decided at the taping to shoot Elvis from the waist up only.
So, it wasn't because of overzealous censors, it was because of where Mr. Presley kept his change.
...and a small piece of show business was born.
Got to speak to Sam Phillips once after a speech about the history of Sun records... here's the coolest Elvis story ever:
The famous Sullivan appearance was shot from the waist up for a reason. Because of his status with CBS, Sullivan himself had the final call about how to shoot Elvis. At 12:30, Ed was all set to allow Elvis to go on as scheduled, no special angles. As was later evident (Sullivan eventually publicly stood-up for Elvis when his rep was taking a beating) Ed had met Elvis and thought him an upstanding young citizen.
At 1pm, Ed was informed by "one of them Christian types" on his staff about one of Elvis' common practises. In the early days, the King would tape quarters to his ummm... "business..." so that when he thrust his hips forward, his "business" would make a greater impact against the front of his pants. Ed, not knowing that Elvis had discontinued the practice (Some say he never did...) decided at the taping to shoot Elvis from the waist up only.
So, it wasn't because of overzealous censors, it was because of where Mr. Presley kept his change.
...and a small piece of show business was born.
10-14-2004, 10:28 AM
Elvis brought rock 'n roll to the masses, so I can respect him for that. But I think this statement nicely summarizes why it is no question the Beatles are better:
"The Beatles, all big Elvis fans, displaced Presley as the biggest rock act in the world in 1964. What's more, they did so by writing their own material and playing their own instruments; something Elvis had never been capable of, or particularly aspired to."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:6247gjlrj6i9~T1">http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=am ... jlrj6i9~T1</a><!-- m -->
In other words, Elvis was the first American Idol.
"The Beatles, all big Elvis fans, displaced Presley as the biggest rock act in the world in 1964. What's more, they did so by writing their own material and playing their own instruments; something Elvis had never been capable of, or particularly aspired to."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:6247gjlrj6i9~T1">http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=am ... jlrj6i9~T1</a><!-- m -->
In other words, Elvis was the first American Idol.
10-14-2004, 10:33 AM
cferneyh Wrote:Elvis brought rock 'n roll to the masses, so I can respect him for that. But I think this statement nicely summarizes why it is no question the Beatles are better:
"The Beatles, all big Elvis fans, displaced Presley as the biggest rock act in the world in 1964. What's more, they did so by writing their own material and playing their own instruments; something Elvis had never been capable of, or particularly aspired to."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:6247gjlrj6i9~T1">http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=am ... jlrj6i9~T1</a><!-- m -->
In other words, Elvis was the first American Idol.
Simply not true. Elvis played guitar on his records and during live shows throughout his career. He only went to the mic in the Vegas era.
What Elvis did was bring black music to the masses through a white face. Without Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis or Sun Records, there are no Beatles.
10-14-2004, 10:43 AM
Stephen Dame Wrote:cferneyh Wrote:Elvis brought rock 'n roll to the masses, so I can respect him for that. But I think this statement nicely summarizes why it is no question the Beatles are better:
"The Beatles, all big Elvis fans, displaced Presley as the biggest rock act in the world in 1964. What's more, they did so by writing their own material and playing their own instruments; something Elvis had never been capable of, or particularly aspired to."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:6247gjlrj6i9~T1">http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=am ... jlrj6i9~T1</a><!-- m -->
In other words, Elvis was the first American Idol.
Simply not true. Elvis played guitar on his records and during live shows throughout his career. He only went to the mic in the Vegas era.
What Elvis did was bring black music to the masses through a white face. Without Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis or Sun Records, there are no Beatles.
Hey, I'm just quoting the source. If the All Music Guide says Elvis couldn't play guitar or write his own songs, then I'll believe 'em.
As for your "Without Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis or Sun Records, there are no Beatles", that may very well be true, but it doesn't neccessarily mean that it makes Elvis better than the Beatles. Was the first popular movie maker the best movie maker ever? Was the first popular painter the best painter ever? Was the first popular hockey player the best hockey player ever?
First does not equal best. It equals first.
10-14-2004, 10:57 AM
cferneyh Wrote:Stephen Dame Wrote:cferneyh Wrote:As for your "Without Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis or Sun Records, there are no Beatles", that may very well be true
Hence my vote for The King. Who's "best" is purely subjective.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)