|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 26, 2015 19:22:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Feb 26, 2015 22:22:05 GMT -5
I read it and thought it was kinda dumb. Was Babe Ruth better than the Brooklyn Dodgers. Was Marlon Brando better than the cast of Oklahoma? How can one compare an individual with a group? Also, the title says "musician," then goes on to be about singing, songwriting, innovation, etc.
The only thing I will say is that I'm not so sure Elvis was a better singer than John or Paul. I can hear John and Paul singing anything Elvis did, but I cannot picture Elvis doing (well) Helter Skelter or Tomorrow Never Knows or any number of other songs. I've heard him do Hey Jude and other rock songs and (in that Elvis style) it seems very forced or inauthentic. He had his style and it worked with his style of music. But, put it in another genre and it's not so far from being William Shatneresque. Have any of you heard an opera singer sing pop? Pretty awful. Pavarotti is GREAT, but stay away from pop. Vanessa Williams is outstanding, but she's no classical diva.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Feb 27, 2015 20:59:08 GMT -5
Not even close. John and Paul individually trump Elvis in my opinion. Put them together and add George and Ringo and it isn't even a debate. The Beatles by a landslide!
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Feb 28, 2015 0:27:07 GMT -5
The answer is no.
Let me state the obvious that I am a major Beatles fan, so I am always going to favour them in this sort of exercise. However, I am also a minor Elvis fan, so I won’t dismiss him out of hand.
I would define a musician as being a singer, an instrumentalist, or a writer, or a combination thereof. I suppose you could add categories like arranger, or producer, but I will not address them here.
Elvis really only properly fulfilled the first of those three main categories, while the Beatles checked all boxes.
The author of the article, David Stewart, favours Presley as a singer, but to my ears he was not any better than either Lennon, or McCartney. Stewart writes that Elvis produced “electrifying” rock ‘n’ roll numbers, but so did the Beatles: Twist And Shout and Long Tall Sally etc. He maintains that Elvis’s ballads were beautiful, but so were And I Love Here and If I Fell etc. I don’t hear Elvis’s singing to be any more powerful than what John could deliver, or more versatile than Paul (and John could be versatile and Paul could be powerful). I enjoy what I consider to be an attractive voice, ahead of a simply strong one. That is how I judge all three of the contenders here. They each had good, attractive voices. They did not necessarily possess outstandingly strong voices. However, the Beatles IMO contained two of the greatest singers of the rock era.
With regards to the playing of instruments, clearly the Beatles win hands down. Elvis could strum a guitar effectively and play piano at a basic level, but that is about it. Stewart maintains that the Beatles were not virtuoso instrumentalists. Surely Paul’s bass playing at least approaches this, if you accept that virtuoso equates to the mastery of an instrument. How much better on the bass does he actually need to be to be acknowledged so? Paul is also a competent multi-instrumentalist, George made that Rolling Stone list of greatest guitarists from a few years back, John has often been praised for his rhythm guitar work and Ringo was one of the leading drummers in his 1960s heyday.
There is also no contest when it comes to song writing. At least Stewart acknowledges this. He could hardly do otherwise. As far as I know, even the handful of tunes that feature Elvis’s name in the song writing credits only do so due to business concerns, not because of any meaningful contribution on his part. Elvis was lucky that he could access a lot of material for his own use supplied by other, legitimately great song writers, like Lieber and Stoller, or Doc Pomus.
Finally, I suspect that the only area as a musician where Elvis bettered the Beatles is that of live performance. Stewart emphasises his pre-eminence in the article, but again I think he is being a little unfair to the Fabs. It wasn’t their fault that the Beatlemania crowds were more intent on screaming, rather than listening. Elvis had a long, varied and impressive live career, but at least the Beatles did not end up on stage slurring their words and needing drinks of water every ten minutes in order to get by.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 28, 2015 2:41:52 GMT -5
Finally, I suspect that the only area as a musician where Elvis bettered the Beatles is that of live performance. Stewart emphasises his pre-eminence in the article, but again I think he is being a little unfair to the Fabs. It wasn’t their fault that the Beatlemania crowds were more intent on screaming, rather than listening. Let's not forget that The Beatles had played 1110 hours onstage in Hamburg (equivalent to 740 ninety-minute concerts) by the end of 1962 (when George was still in his teens), and probably another 500 hours at the Cavern and more at other venues in the same period. Before their first album, judging by hours on stage, they were the world's most experienced rock band. Elvis, by contrast, had never played a single gig in his life when his first single was released. I maintain that The Beatles in 1961 and 1962 and 1963 were a better live act than Elvis ever was. And yes, I like Elvis.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Feb 28, 2015 16:22:20 GMT -5
If I was being totally pedantic then the answer is obvious.
Oxford Dictionary definition of musician : A person who plays a musical instrument.
As Elvis didn't really play a musical instrument then he loses.
I suppose the question should have been "Was Elvis more entertaining than the Beatles?"
I am biased because although I appreciate Elvis and the impact he had in the 1950s I don't think he revolutionized music as much as the Beatles did in the 1960s.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 28, 2015 17:01:15 GMT -5
Elvis played guitar, just not well enough to make it on an album. He was jamming with Scotty Moore on That's Alright Momma at the first Sun Sessions. This is what Sam Phillips heard that let him know that Elvis was the act he had been waiting on.
Elvis's piano playing made it to at least one album that I know of, playing on Unchained Melody. This is from the concert from Elvis's last tour where Elvis was overweight and sweating profusely. (Don't let the light the lights throw you, and try not to throw the lights, but they are hot.) I think he may have played on some of his gospel songs.
The effect that Elvis had on the '50s was enormous. If you look at the pop charts before he showed up, How much is that Doggy in the Window, Que Sara Sara, The Tennessee Waltz etc.... It was like night and day. But the Beatles changed the world every year or two while they were together.
John's singing on some songs, Jealous Guy, Watching the Wheels and Anna, off the top of my head, were every bit as good as Elvis at his best. You can't really take a song of Paul's and dissect it and have him come out the winner over Elvis. Paul's real strength is his versatility.
I'd give Elvis a little more credit for writing than he gets. He was responsible for many of the arrangements for his greatest songs. He helped change Hound Dog from the Big Mama Thorton almost scat arrangement to the version we all know. I'd give musicianship and talent to the Beatles. Elvis just sounds so out of style now. The Beatles still sound cool.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Feb 28, 2015 17:17:07 GMT -5
Songwriters -- people who create ORIGINAL music -- are the ultimate musicians, in my opinion.
Non-songwriters -- no matter how proficient they might be on their instruments -- always occupy a secondary position, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Feb 28, 2015 19:44:39 GMT -5
If you take the question at face value, there is only one response - "Don't be ridiculous. The Beatles were extremely competent musicians, although by no means virtuosos (as kc points out, a case can be made for Paul on bass), but Elvis wasn't a musician in any meaningful sense. The end."
And I can't think of a reason not to take the question at face value.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 28, 2015 20:00:05 GMT -5
Elvis played guitar, just not well enough to make it on an album. Just to point out that Elvis's acoustic guitar playing ('rhythm' if you like) is highly audible on almost all the Sun recordings in 1954-55 (24 recordings made, 10 were released at the time; i.e., 5 singles). After he went to RCA and got mega-famous, he wasn't heard again. A little piano here and there and he strummed the guitar again on the '68 Comeback Special.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 28, 2015 21:55:03 GMT -5
Elvis played guitar, just not well enough to make it on an album. Just to point out that Elvis's acoustic guitar playing ('rhythm' if you like) is highly audible on almost all the Sun recordings in 1954-55 (24 recordings made, 10 were released at the time; i.e., 5 singles). After he went to RCA and got mega-famous, he wasn't heard again. A little piano here and there and he strummed the guitar again on the '68 Comeback Special. Cool. Though I can't find anything that will collaborate that he played on anything other than That's Alright Mama. I know he played at his early shows.
|
|