The Beatles were inspired by Elvis, just like they were inspired by their parents to play instruments etc....they "covered" very few Elvis numbers, and sounded nothing like his style. The Beatles took more influence musically from the black artists of the time.

Dylan, again, was inspired by Elvis....but as with the Beatles, their music and vocals are nothing alike - and I prefer both Beatles and Dylan far more than Elvis.

The Beatles and Dylan go down in history for writing and producing the greatest songs in history.....Elvis is more famous for swivelling hips and dying on the toilet.

He was a great performer, don't get me wrong....but he never wrote pop songs that changed the face of music like Dylan, Lennon/McCartney or Brian Wilson.

Elvis' 50s stuff was great, but as John Lennon said (since stirling-guy seems to live for John Lennons quotes about Elvis) :

"Up until Elvis joined the army, I thought it was beautiful music and Elvis was for me and my generation what the Beatles were to the '60s. But after he went into the army, I think they cut "les bollocks" off. They not only shaved his hair off but I think they shaved between his legs, too. He played some good stuff after the army, but it was never quite the same, It was like something happened to him psychologically. Elvis really died the day he joined the army. That's when they killed him, and the rest was a living death." - John Lennon

Oh i must say that "stirling-guy" made me laugh

You're right elvis didn't write pop songs that changed the face of music.

It was ELVIS himself that changed the face of music

And can i just point out again that i don't believe that john lennon would have picked up a guitar had it not been for elvis.

After all, it was ART that Mr Lennon was studying at the time of his career change, and we know he never gave up his love of art. Had elvis not existed we may now be referring to John Lennon as "that legendary painter"

you're right he was a great performer and his influence was his presence ..just being there and performing as he did.

i think it says it all when somebody mentions the 'king' of rock and roll everybody knows who is being talked about

Pure speculation. Lennon had been bought a guitar before Elvis had even had a hit in Britain, and played the banjo before that.

Its 100% certain, however, that if John never met Paul on that summers day at a church fete in 1957....music would never have been the same.

Michael Jackson?? Or is that King of Pop??

Elvis' 50s stuff is good fun, and listenable....after that, there is a lot of chaff.

Just feel there needs to be balance to the thread - he WASN'T perfect, and his albums are far from anywhere near the standard of many many other artists.

Performing is all very well and good, but without an absolute-cant-put-down-classic album, it means little to me.

now you're just being argumentative
elvis was the king ... end of
but far be it from me to try and persuade people to the contrary
i'm just giving you the facts

Well to be fair if you aren't a fan of elvis you won't find an aboslute-can't-put-down-classic album of his.

I am a fan of the beatles but there is no complete album of theirs that i enjoy. A lot of their stuff is also a few tracks off this album a few off that one.

As for saying a lot of chaff after the 50's, you are right. For the majority of the 60's elvis was stuck in movie contracts and the soundtracks to these were not made to be "classics" they were made to make money and they most certainly did.

The Beatles too did a lot of absolute rubbish.... Yellow Submarine...Octopus's Garden.... those are just 2 that jump to mind, but i'm sure if i look thru all the beatles albums i have (nearly all of them bar 2 might i add) i would find many more that are neither lyrically genius nor musically genius.

The beatles wrote a handful of songs that could be considered "classic" and they did a lot musically that had not been done before, but these are far outweighed by "ditty pop songs" i'm afraid.

And i am afraid to say that because i am a fan of the beatles too. My opinions are very fair to all concerned as i'm a fan of Elvis, the beatles, dylan and the beach boys.

So i'm not trying to attack either of these acts, i'm just pointing out that Elvis was the ulitmate king, and if the beatles agree then how could anyone who thinks the beatles are the ultimates disagree?

That might be doubting your own idols beliefs?

And does the name beatlegod suggest you are god of the beatles? are you claiming to be superior to them?

WAS being the operative word....the guy died whilst attempting to do a douglas hurd.

The fact is that when you ask people about legendary albums.....they say "Pet Sounds", "Revolver", "Sgt Peppers", "OK Computer", "Nevermind", "Dark Side Of The Moon", "Blood On The Tracks", "Exile On Main Street".....Elvis doesn't really fit into that list.

Like I said, Elvis' persona, his style seemed to be more important that his actual music....i kind of listen to music for the music rather than what they are wearing and stage presence.

I disagree, the "ditty pop songs", which are very good at what they are, are only really from 1963-65 (1965 really was a turning point), from 65-69 their music could hardly be accused of being "ditty pop songs".

The Beatles don't ever say he was the ultimate king, Lennon pretty much said that after he joined the army, Elvis was nnever the same. Elvis tried to get The Beatles banned from America....because he knew as soon as the Beatles landed, his career as "top dog" would be over - he was right to think that, and it did happen.

It would depend on who you ask, how it is asked, and what way it is formed.

Do you ask a student who was born in the 80's? A woman born in 1961?
A man who was brought up by parents who loved classical music?

It's not possible to have a "definitive" collection of legendary albums. There are too many variables.

For every list that has beatles at the top there's a list that has elvis at the top.

For every album list that doesn't include elvis there is one that does.

i think we're in agreement here (apart from the douglas hurd comment....not very nice ) in a strange sort of way.....elvis didn't compose music like the others you mentioned did .....BUT ELVIS WAS/IS THE KING.

oh and you forgot to mention what a fantastic voice the king had.......(swoon)

Elvis' career as "top dog" was already over by 1964 when the beatles landed. He had been replaced at the top of the charts by many little pop groups and 2 bit singers.

He wanted the beatles banned due to their drug and party lifestyle. He felt, as a christian who believed in wholesome entertainment, that the beatles were a bad influence on the youth of america. FACT

To say the beatles never claimed he was the ultimate king just shows you don't actually read any of my previous posts as i have many times quoted lennon and mccartney as you have so very kindly pointed out

But just for you

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

'Before Elvis, there was nothing'
John Lennon

'It was a real thrill sitting there with the King. I mean he was always one of my favorites. I always knew that no matter how I felt if I played an Elvis record it would make me happy. I've always dreamed of producing an album for Elvis.'
Paul McCartney

'He was a legend in his own lifetime, and it's never easy meeting a legend in his own lifetime.'
John Lennon

UPON MEETING ELVIS
'It was Elvis's sense of humor that stuck in my mind. He liked to laugh and make others laugh, too. Which was why I put on a Peter Sellers voice again as we walked out of the door and said, "Tanks for ze music, Elvis--and long live ze King!"'
John Lennon

I got all this from this site, http://features.absoluteelsewhere.ne...ing_and_i.html which is about how Elvis was so important to John and such an influence.

Elvis was an IS the King, John was and IS a legend, but John's idol was Elvis
Last edited by john-stirling : 06-03-2007 at 17:37

I find the dying on the toilet comment a bit flippant.

Personally, I don't compare too much. Elvis was the first rock and roll star, and he influenced countless others. The Beatles always acknowledged the fact - it's on record. Maybe he didn't write songs like the fabs did; that doesn't necessarily mean he was a lesser artist. His early singles were a sensation at the time, and some of the later ones were pretty good, too - In The Ghetto, American Trilogy etc.

Elvis and The Beatles were both vital to music's development - links in the same chain - and both made some excellent music.

oh and btw he DIDN'T die doing the toilet, he was merely using the room to relax and read

This is a very famous story that people seem to have turned into some kind of hilarity and it is quite funny, but not FACT

or perhaps you could - back to the beatles thread - this thread was opened because I felt Elvis posts were taking over what was meant to a beatles discussion thread - this thread welcomes constructive comment and criticism is always appreciated - to become personal against posters is not acceptable - I would not dream of derising you your family or your taste in music - I considered sending this in a PM however decided to publicly post instead - please keep to topic - do not personalise

I agree with elf.

BeatleGod, you're out of order criticising where people go and making comments about their families - I have kept quiet about this until now - the worse thing that can happen to a thread is to personalise it...and that's what you've done.

Thank you Musty for your support I hope that Beatlegod understands the position - I have posted an opinion of my own on the Beatles thread and I just hope I have not lowered my standards to another's level - I hope this can be an end of it now and lets keep music threads about the music/talent luvsya Must

No problem

What I wondered was, what do Elvis fans think of his film soundtracks? Some of his best songs came out of them, like Jailhouse Rock - but I've read that the late 60s ones were a bit weaker; did Colonel Parker lead Elvis astray by doing too many film deals? Was the Comeback Special concert Elvis's way of saying I want to rock instead of act?

I do like quite a lot of the songs from his movies.

They get slated a lot for being weak and very stupid, but they were mostly written to fit around the story. Some of them were good however.

As for his 68 special, it was initailly planned as a xmas special and the colonel wanted elvis to dress in a red santa suit and sing only xmas songs

The directer Steve Binder felt that it was not a suitable option tho and advised elvis to get back to his roots and be raw again, the elvis people remembered.

There's a famous story of Elvis telling Steve that he was so big he couldn't even walk the streets. Steve took him outside into the street, although elvis was a little weary he went, and no one recognised him. This to elvis was a shock and the kick he needed to make him go against the colonel for the first time in his career and go with steve's idea of a raunchy raw performance.

And voila, the 68 special was born

And the colonel knew the movies made a lot of money no matter how crap they were and elvis too saw the money, and although he didn't like acting in them he knew that his lifestyle had to be funded somehow. And the colonel had a habit of contracting elvis to YEARS of movies rather than per movie deals.

His films were meant for one purpose... to entertain his fans and make money, both of these feats were achieved.

It's true the scripts weren't brilliant, and a lot of the plots were rehashed versions of previous films, just different locations and jobs for elvis

They all seemed to follow the same formula...
Elvis leaves or loses job.. travels on an adventure not knowing where he's going...running into (sometimes literally) a little trouble and a beautiful woman... singing to the woman many times... having trouble with another man who wants the beautiful woman... having a fight with the other man... sings to other man to show no hard feelings... then leaves off into the sunset with the beautiful woman whilst singing a song

Oh i wish they'd make movies like that again

I think john has said it all - personally - I love Blue Hawaii Soundtrack - the songs from his films were pretty much OK -it was the scripts that made El and fans cringe - I thought El should have been nominated for King Creole - his acting was superb = The songs were great too

Thanks, john and elf for the answers. I've seen King Creole and thought in that one Elvis did some good acting.

Thank Gawd Elvis never donned the Santa suit for the comeback special

you are so right, King Creole was deffo one of, if not THE, best elvis film he ever did.

If james dean or marlon brando had done it they would have been nominated no doubt, just because elvis was seen as a bad influence at the time hollywood ignored him.

Elvis never felt a part of the hollywood crowd, and i'm sure this hurt him a little as his original dream was to be a great actor like his hero james dean.

King Creole, and probably Jailhouse Rock were his best movies and at least 1 Best Actor oscar was deserved.

Flaming Star wasn't a bad movie either come to think of it, but it had only a couple of songs to it and therefore wasn't a smash with the audiences who had come to love the likes of Blue Hawaii and GI Blues.

I wonder how different things would have been had Elvis been allowed to act alongside Barbara Streissand (spelling?) in A Star is Born which won an oscar for best song..... ironically the role elvis would have got went to Kris Kristofferson who won a golden globe for best actor

Rumour has it tho that the colonel once said to a director, "Don't go winning any oscars with these films. Elvis and i don't own any tuxedo's"