Elvis Presley or beatles.(biggest loss?)
Bill
AlphaXiPhi wrote:
> If music never had Elvis, that would have been a great loss.
>
> The Beatles weren't that much of a loss when they split. In my view it was the
> best thing that ever happened to 'em.
>
> - Brian
>
> Jo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >I just would like to know who thinks which >would be the bigger loss,If
> >music never had ELvis or if music never had >the Beatles.Any opinions?
> >
I suppose you can also say that Elvis dying certainly was a career boost. It
certainly helped his sales and saved us the spectacle of watching him file for
bankruptcy. Anyway, it would have been nice if this question had been posted in
the Beatles newsgroup as well so that a more balanced response could be heard.
Let's just say that we are all fortunate that we lived at a time when both Elvis
and the Beatles roamed the Earth and that Elvis died too young and the Beatles
split up at just about the right time and Mark David Chapman should have shot
himself.
Bill
J. Davidson
>
> I just would like to know who thinks which would be the bigger loss,If
> music never had ELvis or if music never had the Beatles.Any opinions?
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we go again.
I own a copy of Sgt. Pepper, as well as the red and blue albums. I
rarely listen to them. I would rather listen to my least favorite Elvis
song 1,000 times in row than listen to a Beatles record.
Steve Braun
"KEEP ON ROCKIN WITH THE KING"
Bill Haddon
been.
bh
Rick Rennie
Frank Sinatra. Rick
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
music never had ELvis or if music never had the Beatles.Any opinions?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
AlphaXiPhi
The Beatles weren't that much of a loss when they split. In my view it was the
best thing that ever happened to 'em.
- Brian
Dennis A. Rodgers
>Let's just say that we are all fortunate that we lived at a time when both Elvis
>and the Beatles roamed the Earth and that Elvis died too young and the Beatles
>split up at just about the right time and Mark David Chapman should have shot
>himself.
>
>Bill
>
Chapman in 1990:
"It was such a waste, some stupid person. If John had been killed by
Elvis, it would of at least had meaning."
Any thoughts?
Dennis
Carol D Vail
"without Elvis there would be nothing" or something to that
affect?
Elvis is credited with a whole cultural change of music &
then some....
Jo...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article <71oaku$uq4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I just would like to know who thinks which would be the bigger loss,If
> music never had ELvis or if music never had the Beatles.Any opinions?
>
VinceEvret
music never had ELvis or if music never had the Beatles.Any opinions?
I'd say the world would never had had the Beatles if it hadn't have had Elvis.
But either would be a great loss to our world. Sounds like a toss up.
Clint Johnson
of Old Fashioned Rock hadn't opened the door?
"Before Elvis, there was nothing" -- John Lennon.
". . .I love you Elvis. . ." -- John Lennon, 1972
Allen Damron
> of Old Fashioned Rock hadn't opened the door?
>
> "Before Elvis, there was nothing" -- John Lennon.
>
> ". . .I love you Elvis. . ." -- John Lennon, 1972
>
>
>
>
If it wasent for ELVIS there would no Beatles.Elvis will always be bigger.
New email address ada...@ls.net (LSNET)
Keeping the Faith with ELVIS,Allen
Clint Johnson
Bill
Kingtcb wrote:
> We all get on our kicks for other singers or groups. But they can't keep us
> away from Elvis like Elvis can keep us away from them.
>
> kingtcb
Not all of us.
Bill (currently on my 5th listen of the Lennon Anthology)
Kingtcb
Anne Kamlet
Before there was Elvis there was nothing!
Anne
Jo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I just would like to know who thinks which would be the bigger loss,If
> music never had ELvis or if music never had the Beatles.Any opinions?
>
Anne Kamlet
>
> Jo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > I just would like to know who thinks which would be the bigger loss,If
> > music never had ELvis or if music never had the Beatles.Any opinions?
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
> Here we go again.
>
> I own a copy of Sgt. Pepper, as well as the red and blue albums. I
> rarely listen to them. I would rather listen to my least favorite Elvis
> song 1,000 times in row than listen to a Beatles record.
Me too! Alwlays and forever the king!
anne
Anne Kamlet
anne
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
Bill <batc...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>
> AlphaXiPhi wrote:
>
> > If music never had Elvis, that would have been a great loss.
> >
> > The Beatles weren't that much of a loss when they split. In my view it was
the
> > best thing that ever happened to 'em.
> >
> > - Brian
> >
> >
> > >I just would like to know who thinks which >would be the bigger loss,If
> > >music never had ELvis or if music never had >the Beatles.Any opinions?
> > >
>
It
> certainly helped his sales and saved us the spectacle of watching him file for
> bankruptcy. Anyway, it would have been nice if this question had been posted
in
> the Beatles newsgroup as well so that a more balanced response could be heard.
Elvis
> and the Beatles roamed the Earth and that Elvis died too young and the Beatles
> split up at just about the right time and Mark David Chapman should have shot
> himself.
>
> Bill
>
Richard (the original and genuine)
wrote:
>Simple, if there were never an Elvis, then the Beatles would never have
>been.
>bh
Hands up anybody who believes this?
It's a statement that long since entered folklore, and is almost taken
as scientific fact: The sun will come up in the morning, and The
Beatles wouldn't have existed without Elvis.
Why? Because John Lennon, in a rare moment of humility said that they
were influenced by him? Well if it's that simple, folks I give you the
grandfathers of Rock and Roll themselves, messrs Mario Lanza and Dean
Martin, the men without whom there would have been no Elvis Presley.
Not.
Does anybody actually imagine that Lennon and McCartney, those vast
stores of untapped talent, would have lived out their days working in
factories, or on the buses, or whatever, simply because they hadn't
got an Elvis figure to look up to? An artist - a true artist, whether
we're talking music, sculpture or painting, any art you want to name -
has no choice but to follow their instincts, and create.
Every generation has it's own style of music. Music develops, because
of what went before, but also because of what is going on at the time.
Perhaps the Beatles might have started out with a different feel, a
different style, but remember that within a couple of years of their
debut album they were already beginning to create music the likes of
which had never been heard before. The gap between "Please Please Me"
(a Roy Orbison knock-off in fact) and "Tomorrow Never Knows" is so
vast that any roots they may have had were buried beyond recognition.
Elvis may have been the catalyst, but he wasn't their sole reason to
be. If it hadn't been him, it would have been somebody else and anyone
that thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
Richard
B Brockman
However, the Beatles, undoubtedly influenced by Elvis, have had more
influence on what we now know as rock music. Their creativity in the
mid-late 60s (when Elvis was stuck in a creative rut with sagging album
sales) was a refreshing change. I choose to look at this question in terms
of today's radio airplay for a more objective answer. The Beatles are a
much more widely listened to and respected group. they get airplay on
classic rock, rock, and oldies formats, while Elvis seems limited to an
occasional Hound Dog or Suspicious Minds on oldies radio.
Does this make Elvis' music any less valuable? No... in terms of music
listeners in the U.S. (not Elvis fans...music listeners in general) the loss
of the Beatles would have been greater.
Let the beatings begin.
Brock
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
wanted to be a musician and when the beatles first started out they tried to
look like him.(if you really are a beatles expert you'd know that,infact you
might have seen the picture of them with the Elvis Presley pompadour
haircut!) Also John Lennon has stated that they used to practice Elvis songs
and they did record songs that Elvis covered.Basically it is logical to state
that without Elvis the beatles would have never been.By the way Elvis gets
quite a bit of play on oldies,rhythm and blues,and even country stations and
I don't hear him or the beatles on any of "todays" music stations. Maybe you
thought you heard the beatles but it was Oasis instead!hehehe Actually you'd
be surprised how many singers and groups of today have been influenced by
Elvis the Brian Setzer Orchestra,Jimmy Ray even Jacob Dylan from the
Wallflowers said he was an Elvis fan,Marilyn Manson though I'm not a huge fan
of his said on politically incorrect that he is the Elvis Presley of today
because of the way he shocked people,Keith Richards(stones)said(when he
backed up Chuck Berry for his birthday and they did a biography on Bravo
about Chuck Berry) he always has his Elvis Presley Sun Session tape with him
and he likes to listen to it before performing.So bottom line both Elvis and
the beatles have inspired many people but one more thing why is it that
Graceland is the second most visited monument in America (2nd to the White
House)and why is that we have so many freakin Elvis impersonators(especially
in vegas,kind of scary) also look at all the movies about Elvis and the
documentaries,they even made a tv series about him and you constantly see new
Elvis merchandise and they make like 5 new cd's every year and let's face it
how many movies have been made about the beatles(1)and who has had more
documentaries,and how many beatles impersonators do you see(besides
Oasis!)Anyway I know a lot about Elvis and the beatles so you beatles fans
out there need to see all of ELvis Presleys early performances and the 68
comeback special before you give an opinion on him when you don't know
anything about him. By the way this post wasn't just intended for this
message it's also in response to other stuff from the beatles NG.
reggie...@hotmail.com
alone and they were four.
- Alvaro
B Brockman
. I would like to know where you live that you get Elvis on R&B, country
and oldies stations. In an ideal world, he would get airplay on all of
these formats...what we live in is far from that. Elvis has been reduced to
a fat, drug-using has-been in terms of the way radio plays his music (as is
such as in my hometown of Cincinnati and my friends' hometowns of Chicago,
LA, New York, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc). Very little has been valued
short of his 50's output and Suspicious Minds.
What I am saying here (and what you would have understood if you were
literate) is that Elvis influenced the Beatles, but the Beatles themselves
took rock music to a whole new level. Throwing out a few new names isn't
enough to change my mind. Let's see...who among the bands you said are any
more than two hit wonders...Brian Setzer (enjoying the rebirth of swing and
selling out for the highest dollar...Jimmy Ray; let's see if we hear
anything after 'Fly,' Walflowers; what's been heard of them since 'One
Headlight?')
(By the way, Graceland is the second most visited RESIDENCE to the White
House...not Monument...get the facts straight...and so a fat guy in
jumpsuits is easier to impersonate than four guys with bowl cuts...there are
plenty of Beatles tribute bands out there).
So you have a negative attitude about Oasis. Big deal. That doesn't mean
that the Beatles were less influential than Elvis. I have seen every last
bit of Elvis material needed. I know who EP was and what he meant to the
field of music. I consider him my favorite singer. However, the Beatles
were musical geniuses. (Didn't they write as well as sing?)
If the Beatles were never around...think of it this way...we wouldn't have
"Yesterday" (the most recorded song in rock music history...if not all-time
as some argue...that is a fact...research it). We also wouldn't have any
songs listed under (Lennon/McCartney) that exist today. This would be a
much greater loss than someone who could sing and put on a show. After all,
Bill Haley started the Rock-and-roll revolution with "Rock Around the Clock"
(you know...from "The Concrete Jungle") not necessarily EP. Elvis took it
to a new level. And trust me, without Elvis, John Lennon would have still
have had his musical creativity.
As for the 68 comeback special, when I look at it as a fan I think it is
brilliant. As a critic, I see it as a cheezy variety show. Elvis did it
because someone told him to. How many times did he say, "I am supposed
to..." or "I have to...here..." He was bored. Give me a break.
So before you start passing yourself off as an "authority," please find out
who you are arguing against. And make some valid arguments. I never
thought I would be making the ones that I am...but they are easily the most
supportable. Long live Elvis AND the Beatles.
So JonC, turn on your version of "Champaigne Supernova" and relish in your
pride of making me feel small...oops you failed. Well, then you can crawl
back in the hole from which you came from and at least run your future posts
through a grammar and spell-check for the sake of those who have to read the
drivel. Nice try... I know you didn't convince me.
Brock
reggie...@hotmail.com
only one day per month but it´s an Elvis program. Can´t remember a Beatles
program. By the way, you all must know that Elvis was really known here in
1969 with the song In The Ghetto. His music was "prohibited" for a long time
here.
Here we don´t have a lot of Elvis fans, but when RCA released the album
"Elvis Grandes Canciones De Amor" it sold a lot of copies. I think it´s a
platinum record now. Some months ago a bunch of popular spanish musicians
made an Elvis tribute album. He´s everywhere! In the past only his image was
known but today you can hear his music more frequently. In the past you could
hear a lot of jokes about Elvis in the movies and some of them were bad taste
jokes. Today the jokes are not so bad intentioned and we´re starting to hear
Elvis songs in many movies. The last that Practical Magic, but what about
Only Fools Rush In (?). In that movie you can hear It´s Now Or Never,
Jailhouse Rock, Can´t Help falling. I think that his image as a musician is
being improved more and more.
And if i´m imagining all these things I don´t care. I will fight to clean that
bad image. He was great!!!
reggie...@hotmail.com
>The Beatles are a much more widely listened to and respected group. they get
>airplay on classic rock, rock, and oldies formats, while Elvis seems limited to
>an occasional Hound Dog or Suspicious Minds on oldies radio.
There are many styles more widely listened to, as Rap, Heavy Metal, etc. and
that does not prove that those groups are better than Elvis or The Beatles.
There is a general bad taste in this world.
Allen Damron
YES ELVIS Friends,
I think ELVIS is sometimes made out to be a joke by most in Rock radio.
We have a Country oldies station here and they play all of ELVIS' songs.
New email address ada...@ls.net (LSNET)
Keeping the Faith ELVIS,Allen
Bigboyisme
thought for a moment...
If Elvis had not went into the army and continued to tour thru the 50's&60's
given the material he was continually coming up with in 58,how well do you
think the Beatles would have done compared to Elvis then.I know this is a "what
if" thought but so what humor me here.I think Elvis would have expanded his
catalog considerably and challenged himself more and he always had a sense of
what was good music then.I would venture to say elvis would have rode the wave
a lot further than the Beatles ever could.Another thing,I don't in my mind
consider the Beatles to be real Rock-n- Roll,more pop than anything but not
rock...their catalog just doesn't fit in that catagory to me,not with American
Rock
BOBBIETCB
> We have a Country oldies station here and they play all of ELVIS' songs.
Allen, that's great! I think one way those who don't have radio stations that
play much Elvis can let the station know what they want to hear is to call them
every so often and request Elvis songs. The stations should be responsive to
the requests of their listeners.
Bobbie
Ralf Hohnhold
Jo...@my-dejanews.com schrieb in Nachricht
<71oaku$uq4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I just would like to know who thinks which would be the bigger loss,If
>music never had ELvis or if music never had the Beatles.Any opinions?
Remember John Lennon said: Without Elvis, the Beatles never exists.
Bye
Mahony
Owner "First German Elvis Page"
http://komet.teuto.de/elvis
Bill
Jo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> Of course your forgetting the fact that Elvis is the reason John Lennon
>
>wanted to be a musician
Simplistic and wrong. Lennon got his first guitar at the age of 15 in 1955 when Elvis was still
on Sun. The chances are that Lennon never heard the Sun singles due to the difficulty in
getting American records in the UK. Lennon's first exposure to Elvis would have been Heartbreak
Hotel in 1956, by which time, Lennon had not only been playing in bands for a year, but had been
writing songs for that period of time. Don't underestimate skiffle in the development of
Lennon's playing which means that Lonnie Donnigan is the real King of Rock.
and when the beatles first started out they tried to
>look like him.(if you really are a beatles expert you'd know that,infact you
>might have seen the picture of them with the Elvis Presley pompadour
>haircut!)
I don't think the fact that they wore their hair in pompadours is a reasonable arguement that
they were trying to look like Elvis. Their all leather look owed more to Gene Vincent than
Elvis. In fact, there is a great photo of Lennon/McCartney with Vincent which shows this.
>Also John Lennon has stated that they used to practice Elvis songs
>and they did record songs that Elvis covered.
Well, duh. The Beatles would have played Elvis songs due to the fact that they were popular at
the time. They also did songs by Fats Waller, Broadway tunes, girl groups, blues, folk and
whatever else they could get their hands on. That is why when they began to write their own
material, they had a vast musical knowledge to pull from.
>Basically it is logical to state that without Elvis the beatles would have never been.
You can't prove this through logic, because you don't have all of the alternative realities at
your fingertips. The Beatles might have followed the exact same course as they did, you just
don't know. If Leo Fender hadn't created the solid body electric guitar, they might have all
been in jug bands.
By the way Elvis gets
>quite a bit of play on oldies,rhythm and blues,and even country stations and
>I don't hear him or the beatles on any of "todays" music stations. Maybe you
>thought you heard the beatles but it was Oasis instead!hehehe
Well, up here in New Hampshire, I hear the Beatles on 101FM and 92.5FM, both of which plays
"todays" music. The only place I hear Elvis is 99.1FM, which is an oldies station.
Actually you'd
>be surprised how many singers and groups of today have been influenced by
>Elvis the Brian Setzer Orchestra,Jimmy Ray even Jacob Dylan from the
>Wallflowers said he was an Elvis fan,Marilyn Manson though I'm not a huge fan
>of his said on politically incorrect that he is the Elvis Presley of today
>because of the way he shocked people,Keith Richards(stones)said(when he
>backed up Chuck Berry for his birthday and they did a biography on Bravo
>about Chuck Berry) he always has his Elvis Presley Sun Session tape with him
>and he likes to listen to it before performing.
I really feel that your statement that many of today's singers and groups are influenced by
Elvis doens't hold water. Just because someone is a fan doesn't mean that they were influenced
in their music. Brian Setzer is playing Louie Prima songs, I hear no Elvis influence in the
Wallflowers and Lord knows, it's tough to hear traces of Elvis in Marilyn Manson's music, shock
value notwithstanding.
So bottom line both Elvis and
>the beatles have inspired many people but one more thing why is it that
>Graceland is the second most visited monument in America (2nd to the White
>House)
I have no idea personally. I won't go to Graceland because I feel that paying money to visit a
person's grave is repulsive. The man performed for you for twenty years and now that he's dead,
you want him to perform still. Close off the grave site and let him rest in peace.
and why is that we have so many freakin Elvis impersonators(especially
>in vegas,kind of scary)
Because all you need to be an Elvis impersonator is a jumpsuit and a tape of backing tracks. To
be a Beatles tribute band, you need four guys who can play instruments and can deal with the
vocal harmonies. Doesn't stop some people though: 1964 as the Beatles, Beatlejuice and the cast
of Beatlemania all make stops around here.
also look at all the movies about Elvis and the
>documentaries,they even made a tv series about him and you constantly see new
>Elvis merchandise and they make like 5 new cd's every year and let's face it
>how many movies have been made about the beatles(1)and who has had more
>documentaries,and how many beatles impersonators do you see(besides
>Oasis!)
There have been more than one movie done about the Beatles: Birth of the Beatles (tv movie), The
Hours and Times, Backbeat, I Want To Hold Your Hand, John and Yoko:A Love Story and these are
off the top of my head. Documentries?: The Beatles Live, The First US Visit, It Was 20 Years Ago
Today, The Complete Beatles, The Making of A Hard Day's Night, The Beatles Collection, again
just off the top of my head. How about radio shows: The Lost Lennon Tapes, The Beatle Years,
McCartney's Oobu Joobu, all nationally syndicated so I can't include the local stuff done by
radio stations. Broadway show: Beatlemania ran on Broadway for quite a few years, as well as
spawning off various national tours. I'm afraid that you can't make you arguement that way.
And please, do you really think that putting out the same stuff year after year like RCA does is
a good thing?
Anyway I know a lot about Elvis and the beatles so you beatles fans
>out there need to see all of ELvis Presleys early performances and the 68
>comeback special before you give an opinion on him when you don't know
>anything about him. By the way this post wasn't just intended for this
>message it's also in response to other stuff from the beatles NG.
>
I think you are being very arrogant here. You knowledge of the Beatles sounds like it comes
from some teen-scream magazine and is so limited that it is laughable. You base your arguements
on the flimsiest of facts, many of which are wrong. I would say to you that before you start
this kind of thread, that you have your facts straight.
Bill
p.s. The real arguement is who is hated more by the fans: Priscilla or Yoko?
B Brockman
And definitely Yoko!
Brock
Bill
Ralf Hohnhold wrote:
This is a favorite quote of Elvis fans, but there was more to the quote
than that. From the Playboy interview:
Playboy: What about those who maintain that without the Beatles, there'd
be no rock and roll as we know it?
Lennon: Without rock and roll, there would be no Beatles. It's all
speculation. Without Elvis there would be no Beatles. Without Johnny Ray,
there would be no Elvis. Without whoever came before Johnny Ray, there
would be no Johnny Ray. It's endless. It's timeless.
So there you go, the King of Rock and Roll is Johnny Ray.
Bill
So there were the standard options in my business: going to Vegas and
singing your greatest hits - if you're lucky - or going to hell, which is
where Elvis went. - John Lennon
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
"B Brockman" <bbro...@xu.campuscw.net> wrote:
> Actually...at heart, I am much more of an Elvis fan than I am a Beatles fan
> . I would like to know where you live that you get Elvis on R&B, country
> and oldies stations. In an ideal world, he would get airplay on all of
> these formats...what we live in is far from that. Elvis has been reduced to
> a fat, drug-using has-been in terms of the way radio plays his music (as is
> such as in my hometown of Cincinnati and my friends' hometowns of Chicago,
> LA, New York, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc). Very little has been valued
> short of his 50's output and Suspicious Minds.
>
radio here.I guess it depends on where you live but ever since I can
remember I've been exposed to Sun Records and especially Elvis Presley
music. (don't get me wrong I do listen to todays music like third eye blind,
DMX,Pearl Jam ect.) --
>
What I am saying here (and what you would have understood if you were
> literate) is that Elvis influenced the Beatles, but the Beatles themselves
> took rock music to a whole new level. Throwing out a few new names isn't
> enough to change my mind. Let's see...who among the bands you said are any
> more than two hit wonders...Brian Setzer (enjoying the rebirth of swing and
> selling out for the highest dollar...Jimmy Ray; let's see if we hear
> anything after 'Fly,' Walflowers; what's been heard of them since 'One
> Headlight?')
>
to much else because Sugar Ray not Jimmy Ray is the group who did "Fly"
but since you mentioned it both like Elvis.
>
(By the way, Graceland is the second most visited RESIDENCE to the White
get the facts straight...and so a fat guy in
> jumpsuits is easier to impersonate than four guys with bowl cuts...there are
> plenty of Beatles tribute bands out there).J.c--Don't even try to say
that the beatles ae as well known for having tribute performers.Next
thing you'll say is las vegas has just as many beatles impersonators,
get your facts straight,hehehe
>
> So you have a negative attitude about Oasis. Big deal. That doesn't mean
> that the Beatles were less influential than Elvis. I have seen every last
> bit of Elvis material needed. I know who EP was and what he meant to the
> field of music. I consider him my favorite singer. However, the Beatles
> were musical geniuses. (Didn't they write as well as sing?)J.c--I never
disputed that.
>
> If the Beatles were never around...think of it this way...we wouldn't have
> "Yesterday" (the most recorded song in rock music history...if not all-time
> as some argue...that is a fact...research it). We also wouldn't have any
> songs listed under (Lennon/McCartney) that exist today. This would be a
> much greater loss than someone who could sing and put on a show. After all,
> Bill Haley started the Rock-and-roll revolution with "Rock Around the Clock"
> (you know...from "The Concrete Jungle") not necessarily EP. Elvis took it
> to a new level. And trust me, without Elvis, John Lennon would have still
> have had his musical creativity.
J.c--but would John have been able to make
the adjustments to his music if Elvis hadn't come?The beatles music came
from experimentation and ELvis really got them started in the new music
they were developing.
>
> As for the 68 comeback special, when I look at it as a fan I think it is
> brilliant. As a critic, I see it as a cheezy variety show. Elvis did it
> because someone told him to. How many times did he say, "I am supposed
> to..." or "I have to...here..." He was bored. Give me a break.
I was talking about the sit down performance which Mtv admittedly said
that the 68 comeback special is really where MTV UNPLUGGED came from.
>
> So before you start passing yourself off as an "authority," please find out
> who you are arguing against. And make some valid arguments. I never
> thought I would be making the ones that I am...but they are easily the most
> supportable. Long live Elvis AND the Beatles.J.c--I'm not passing myself
off as an authority I just think that a lot of beatles fans only think
of Elvis as the fat,drugged,and womanizing 70's vegas singer and they don't
know about what he did for music expecially in 56'.
>
> So JonC, turn on your version of "Champaigne Supernova" and relish in your
> pride of making me feel small...oops you failed. Well, then you can crawl
> back in the hole from which you came from and at least run your future posts
> through a grammar and spell-check for the sake of those who have to read the
> drivel. Nice try... I know you didn't convince me. --J.c--I think your
taking my "drivel" a little to serious and I don't see where you would think
I had an intention to make you feel small because I don't think it is
important to make someone agree with you but I think it is important to get
your views across.I think you act much more omniscient than me,I don't
claim to know everything and by the way I do actually respect the beatles
but nothing can make me like Oasis because they make their money by copying
the beatles,and you can be influenced by a singer or band but you should
have your own identity.Anyway let the bashing begin!
>
> Brock
Kingtcb
>brilliant. As a critic, I see it as a cheezy variety show. Elvis did it
>because someone told him to. How many times did he say, "I am supposed
>to..." or "I have to...here..." He was bored. Give me a break.
>
>
Bored? BORED? Give me a break! Elvis had a way about wanting to down play
situations. Not to "try too hard". His way of controlling the situation and
circumstances. But if you have eyes and ears you can clearly hear his heart and
sould comming out of basically every song he sang in this show. Your comments
take away form Elvis and praise the Meatles and thats your opinion and thats
fine,but don't knock Elvis '68. I am constantly learning in this newsgroup more
and more outrageous comments made by Harrison or Lennon. Its pretty pathetic
that former members of a band of such "caliber" have to dump on Elvis after he
is dead.
I bet Lennon wish he could be singing his greatest hits in Vegas right about
now.
Harrison said Lennons death would have at least made sence if Elvis killed
him?Haha
Did Lennon deprive Elvis of that much? Take his crown?His wife? his daughter?
Too bad Elvis did'nt have the good fortune of having his manager die at an
opportune time in his carreer.
kingtcb
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
kin...@aol.com (Kingtcb) wrote:
> >As for the 68 comeback special, when I look at it as a fan I think it is
> >brilliant. As a critic, I see it as a cheezy variety show. Elvis did it
> >because someone told him to. How many times did he say, "I am supposed
> >to..." or "I have to...here..." He was bored. Give me a break.
> >
> >
>
> Bored? BORED? Give me a break! Elvis had a way about wanting to down play
> situations. Not to "try too hard". His way of controlling the situation and
> circumstances. But if you have eyes and ears you can clearly hear his heart
and
> sould comming out of basically every song he sang in this show. Your comments
> fine,but don't knock Elvis '68. I am constantly learning in this newsgroup
more
> and more outrageous comments made by Harrison or Lennon. Its pretty pathetic
> that former members of a band of such "caliber" have to dump on Elvis after
he
> is dead.
>
> I bet Lennon wish he could be singing his greatest hits in Vegas right about
> now.
>
> Harrison said Lennons death would have at least made sence if Elvis killed
> him?Haha
> Did Lennon deprive Elvis of that much? Take his crown?His wife? his daughter?
>
> Too bad Elvis did'nt have the good fortune of having his manager die at an
> opportune time in his carreer.
>
> kingtcb
>
try to tell everyone else how ignorant they are.Personally I loved
the 68 comeback special and so did the MTV execs , when they came up
with the idea for MTV unplugged,this is a fact MTV got the idea
for MTV UNPLUGGED from the 68 comeback special.Also I didn't like
the comment from one of he beatles NG members who stated "Don't be
Cruel" and "hound dog" didn't affect music at all,considering "Don't
Be Cruel" went #1 for all important music categories including #1
for Rock,#1 for country and #1 in pop (if you don't believe me
research it) also "Hound dog" is (though it does lack lyrical meaning)
one of the songs in rock that helped it develop into a more explosive
style,and Elvis sure did perform it well,so well he got censored on
Ed Sullivan!Heres a good quote from Bob Dylan "Little Richard cracked
the door open for rock and roll and Elvis Presley tore it down"
__ __
/////////// /// \ \ / / /////////////// //////
/ /// \ \ / / /// /// ///
/ /// \ \ / / /// // //
/ /// \ \ / / /// ///
///////// /// \ \ / / /// ////////\\
/ /// \ \ / / /// //
/ /// \ \ / / /// // //
/ /// \ \/ / /// // //
/////////// /////////// \__/ /////////////// ////////
///
/// /// /////
///////////////// /// (And you thought
/// /// /// I took up a lot of space before!)
///////////////// ///
/// /// ///////
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
reggie...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Here in Spain we have a radio program dedicated exclusively to Elvis. It´s
> only one day per month but it´s an Elvis program. Can´t remember a Beatles
> program. By the way, you all must know that Elvis was really known here in
> 1969 with the song In The Ghetto. His music was "prohibited" for a long time
> here.
>
> Here we don´t have a lot of Elvis fans, but when RCA released the album
> "Elvis Grandes Canciones De Amor" it sold a lot of copies. I think it´s a
> platinum record now. Some months ago a bunch of popular spanish musicians
> made an Elvis tribute album. He´s everywhere! In the past only his image was
> known but today you can hear his music more frequently. In the past you could
> hear a lot of jokes about Elvis in the movies and some of them were bad taste
> jokes. Today the jokes are not so bad intentioned and we´re starting to hear
> Elvis songs in many movies. The last that Practical Magic, but what about
> Only Fools Rush In (?). In that movie you can hear It´s Now Or Never,
> Jailhouse Rock, Can´t Help falling. I think that his image as a musician is
> being improved more and more.
>
> And if i´m imagining all these things I don´t care. I will fight to clean that
> bad image. He was great!!!
>
> - Alvaro
>
are made about Elvis Presley,most people of today see him as the fat,drugged,
and womanizing 70's vegas singer(as I've mentioned before)and they don't
remember or know about how he began in 1954 at sun records and how he combined
rhythm and blues along with country pop and gospel to create a newer and more
explosive sound especially heard in "hound dog" though it didn't have much
lyrical meaning.But anyway I just think that people shold know more about
him before they judge him on what they have seen on Saturday night live
or Jay Leno!Also even though I'm not a big fan of the jumpsuit era that
ELvis had ,I do think that time should be respected because if anyone out
there remembers a program called Elvis:Aloha from Hawaii they'd know that
it was the biggest televised concert in history seen almost everywhere in
the world by over more than a billion and a half people,not bad for a vegas
singer huh?!!
Paul Milliot
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:26:23 -0600, "Bill Haddon" <bha...@iglobal.net>
wrote:
==> Simple, if there were never an Elvis, then the Beatles would never
==> have been.
And if there were never an Arthur Crudup, an John Lee Hooker and many
other bluesmen , country singers, or gospell singers, then Elvis would
never have been.
Noone can create a new artistic style ex nihilo.
Everyone builds his Art on some foundations.
So what ?
It amazes me to see that most of the people here think that putting
down other artists could make Elvis bigger.
On the contrary, it shows that his fans don't know that much about
music.
How sad it is for his legacy.
Can't we just say that we love Elvis more than any other artists
without insulting them or putting down their work ?
The Beatles were musical geniuses as Elvis was.
Not in the same way, that's all.
They both helped to build the music we love.
And honestly, Paul MacCartney has managed his career in a much
more clever way than Elvis did.
Til next time,
Paul (from France).
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
> "Yesterday" (the most recorded song in rock music history...if not all-time
> as some argue...that is a fact...research it).
>
Yeah well a lot of people have covered "Can't help falling in love with
you" and Billy Joel has covered"All shook up",Brian Adams and Eric Clapton
have covered"Hound dog",Chris Isaak has covered"Blue Moon"EP version and
many other arists have covered Elvis Presley songs.Artists have also covered
beatles songs,let's face it Elvis and the Beatles are the 2 greatest artists
in rock n roll and now it kind of seems stupid to compare the two because
they came from different times,Elvis being at the beginnings of rock to
change it then the beatles coming in later to change it more.Can't we all just
get a long!hehe
B Brockman
Couldn't agree more. Personally, I do not like to compare Elvis and the
Beatles at all. I have been an Elvis fan all of my life, and really have
just developed an appreciation for the Beatles later material within the
last decade. Unfortunately, you are right and wrong that they came from
different times. In terms of music development and their greatest impact,
you hit it right on the nose. In terms of chronology, they coexisted. That
allows for such comparisons and makes these discussions they way they are.
In no way am i a bigger Beatles fan than an Elvis fan. in fact, it is just
the opposite. However, in terms of purely measurable methods, I think it is
easiest to support the Beatles in such an argument. We could go on all day
disputing the points with counterexamples. I could say following your
statement..."Joe Cocker covered...Fiona Apple covered (quite horribly might
I add)...Steve Martin covered...Aerosmith covered...Tiffany covered...well,
you get the picture (even if drawn pretty poorly...that was intentional).
You can dispute album sales, sales of singles, fan club members, songwriting
vs. performing, influence...the list goes on. I like your solution...accept
that they were the two driving forces in music history and leave it at that.
Thanks
Brock
B Brockman
>> Bored? BORED? Give me a break! Elvis had a way about wanting to down play
>> situations. Not to "try too hard". His way of controlling the situation
and
>> circumstances. But if you have eyes and ears you can clearly hear his
heart
>and
>> sould comming out of basically every song he sang in this show. Your
comments
>> take away form Elvis and praise the beatles and thats your opinion and
thats
>> fine,but don't knock Elvis '68.
Sure, Elvis went all out on the songs...but to me, the show just didn't
sound like it went the way he wanted it to. And I am talking about the
entire show, not just the stage parts. The variety parts were pretty lame,
even compared to other variety styles of the day. Sure, the music
(especially the newer stuff) was great in terms of performance. It has
always been my opinion that, for '68 to truly be a turning point for Elvis,
he should have left some of the 50s material behind. Of course, that
wouldn't have sold as well initially, so the Col. didn't allow it. Elvis
would have loved it, though. Elvis was a great performer, and could turn a
mediocre song into a work of art, but he was not a great creator. Keeping
all of that old material kept him from expressing any creativity at all.
>> I bet Lennon wish he could be singing his greatest hits in Vegas right
about
>> now.
So does EP I am sure....if either one could wish.
>>
>> Harrison said Lennons death would have at least made sence if Elvis
killed
>> him?Haha
>> Did Lennon deprive Elvis of that much? Take his crown?His wife? his
daughter?
No but the Beatles would have appreciated it if Elvis could have taken
lennon's wife... :)
>> Too bad Elvis did'nt have the good fortune of having his manager die at
an
>> opportune time in his carreer.
Would have helped him a hell of a lot more than the Beatles losing Brian.
>>
> I know,these beatles fanatics tend to act quite omniscient and they
>try to tell everyone else how ignorant they are.Personally I loved
>the 68 comeback special and so did the MTV execs , when they came up
>with the idea for MTV unplugged,this is a fact MTV got the idea
>for MTV UNPLUGGED from the 68 comeback special.Also I didn't like
>the comment from one of he beatles NG members who stated "Don't be
>Cruel" and "hound dog" didn't affect music at all,considering "Don't
>Be Cruel" went #1 for all important music categories including #1
>for Rock,#1 for country and #1 in pop (if you don't believe me
>research it) also "Hound dog" is (though it does lack lyrical meaning)
>one of the songs in rock that helped it develop into a more explosive
>style,and Elvis sure did perform it well,so well he got censored on
>Ed Sullivan!Heres a good quote from Bob Dylan "Little Richard cracked
>the door open for rock and roll and Elvis Presley tore it down"
>
These songs affected rock-and-roll the first time around immensely. Too bad
they didn't when Elvis did them for the millionth time on tour in the mid
70s. Then, they were terrible, because Elvis never wanted to sing them.
Once again, not his fault (well, his fault for not shrugging off control and
asserting authority over his life). Que sera sera.
Rip in, folks.
Brock
VinceEvret
VinceEvret
VinceEvret
What stations are you listening too?
You can here Elvis everywhere.... including Country Stations.
B Brockman
>You can here Elvis everywhere.... including Country Stations.
I think the question is, where are you? Memphis or another tenn. city I
presume? It has been my experience in Cincinnati, Chicago, and my
impression of LA, and some other cities that I have friends in that EP isn't
widely played on formats other than oldies. Memphis will tend to be an
exception to the rule for obvious reasons.
Brock
reggie...@hotmail.com
> Elvis was a great performer, and could turn a
> mediocre song into a work of art, but he was not a great creator.
Once I thought that way. Later I changed my mind....
It was when I listened to
*Hurt
*Reconsider baby
*T-R-O-U-B-L-E
*Too Much Monkey Business
I扉e heard some versions of this particular song by other artists.
Man if thatæ„€ not create then what is it?
*What Now My Love
*SteamRoller Blues
*Where No One Stands Alone
and a long etc....
He was not just a performer.
He was Elvis.
- Alvaro
Allen Damron
Hi Alvaro,
I have some alt. takes of some of these songs you have listed I'd like
to send a cassette of to some of the nay sayers that shows ELVIS could really ROCK !
New email address ada...@ls.net (LSNET)
Keeping the ELVIS Faith,Allen
B Brockman
reggie...@hotmail.com wrote in message
<7290ih$qe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>> Elvis was a great performer, and could turn a
>> mediocre song into a work of art, but he was not a great creator.
>
>Once I thought that way. Later I changed my mind....
>It was when I listened to
>
>*Hurt
>*Reconsider baby
>*T-R-O-U-B-L-E
>
>*Too Much Monkey Business
>I扉e heard some versions of this particular song by other artists.
>Man if thatæ„€ not create then what is it?
>
>*What Now My Love
>*SteamRoller Blues
>*Where No One Stands Alone
>
>and a long etc....
>
>He was not just a performer.
>He was Elvis.
>
>- Alvaro
>
Though in a very long stretch of the imagination, these are creation. For
the most part, what you are saying is an argument based on performance.
Each of these songs were at least written by someone else, if not
popularized earlier by another artist, and Elvis gave them life through
performance. The Beatles, however, wrote the lyrics and music for most of
their own material. They created the songs themselves. Of course, there
are exceptions to that rule. I believe Elvis only got credit for creation
on one song, and that was a pretty shaky case at best, from what I remember.
His arrangement work on some pieces, such as Unchained Melody, Hurt,
American Trilogy and America the Beautiful (to name a few) showed that he
had an ear for music, but he was truly not a creator of great music. He was
a great, if not the greatest, performer in the history of rock music. Of
course, I am sure Stones fans, KISS fans, etc. would have something to say
about that...
Brock
reggie...@hotmail.com
> Though in a very long stretch of the imagination, these are creation. For
> the most part, what you are saying is an argument based on performance.
What about Mystery Train, Blue Moon of Kentucky. He just took the words,
nothing more. For me Elvis is and will always be a CREATOR.
> I believe Elvis only got credit for creation on one song, and that was a
> pretty shaky case at best, from what I remember.
NO!!! You´ll Be Gone is one of my favorites from the sixties. That song
deserves more respect, it´s quite good I think. And man! he can sing like
nobody. He was the best singing those italian-spanish sounding songs. I don´t
care if John Lennon hated that kind of Elvis stuff. Maybe he hated that
because he couldn´t sing that way (just maybe).
> His arrangement work on some pieces, such as Unchained Melody, Hurt,
> American Trilogy and America the Beautiful (to name a few) showed that he
> had an ear for music, but he was truly not a creator of great music.
Not a creator of great music??????? Don´t say this aloud.... someone can hear
you.
> a great, if not the greatest, performer in the history of rock music.
I agree. The greatest performer in the story of popular music.
> course, I am sure Stones fans, KISS fans, etc. would have something to say
> about that...
Rick???
We will never agree totally in this discussion, but it does not matter. You
like Elvis, I like Elvis, we all like Elvis. More needed to be said.
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
like you to elaborate on what you meant by I was right and wrong
that they came from different times.I think when you talk about
Elvis you should think of 1954 at Sun records because that is when
the real basis of rock n roll came from,reason being that you see
the same basic setup in todays rock,they had Elvis singing and playing
rhythm guitar,also they had Scotty Moore who's innovation and style
of the guitar really helped in the development of early rock n roll,and
finally a very important addition which is Bill Black and his unique
bass playing.Also later on in 1956 they added D.J. Fontana on drums
and then you put all of them together and you have the basis of
Rock.Not that I'm saying the beatles didn't innovate anything,I'm
just saying that Elvis and the Bluemoon Boys(which was the name of
the group that was formed between Elvis,Scotty,and Bill in 54')really
began the innovation of rock and the Beatles continued it.I do think
it is stupid to argue which is better Elvis or the Beatles.Although
I do see the point in comparison,I think both should be repected.One
more thing, I would really appreciate some views about the way
Elvis changed music in other ways,these ways being how before Elvis
came a long the teenagers at that time listened to the same music as
their parents and when Elvis did come the teenagers had their own music
and started to form their own identities instead of conforming to their
parents ideals.Also at that time white people had their own music(quite
boring music at that)and black people had their own music and with Elvis
in a since crossing the racial barrier by doing rhythm and blues type songs
like "Baby,Let's Play House" and Little Richards "Tutti Frutti" on national
television white teenagers not only listened to Elvis Presley against
their parents wishes,they also listened to black artists as well.
Also Elvis was the first person to be censored on tv because of how
he moved to the music which I think had an impact on the way rock n
roll singers perform,not just stand up their and sing like Perry como
or whoever.That to me is what really sets him apart from the beatles,
here is my sum up sentence,Elvis innovated the beginnings of rock
and the Beatles continued it.
Thanks (p.s.I hope this wasn't found to be meaningless drivel,if so too
bad){:hehe:}
Sala Hilbert Ciencias C-XI
>I have some alt. takes of some of these songs you have listed I'd >like >to send a cassette of to some of the nay sayers that shows ELVIS >could >really ROCK !
Elvis could rock like noboy. He was more than a single performer. As Doc
Pomus said, Elvis was the only one who gave something new to my songs.
(it seems that ray charles did too). He was a creator! Maybe not a song
creator, but a happiness creator!
- Alvaro
B Brockman
>What about Mystery Train, Blue Moon of Kentucky. He just took the words,
>nothing more. For me Elvis is and will always be a CREATOR.
Different views on creation, I guess...
>
>> I believe Elvis only got credit for creation on one song, and that was a
>> pretty shaky case at best, from what I remember.
>
>NO!!! You惻l Be Gone is one of my favorites from the sixties. That song
>deserves more respect, itæ„€ quite good I think. And man! he can sing like
>nobody. He was the best singing those italian-spanish sounding songs. I
donæ„’
>care if John Lennon hated that kind of Elvis stuff. Maybe he hated that
>because he couldnæ„’ sing that way (just maybe).
Thanks for the reminder on this one...I had the "co-writer" credit Elvis got
on "Love Me Tender." I agree that "You'll Be Gone" is a fine song. The LMT
credits were a sham from what I remember...
>
>> His arrangement work on some pieces, such as Unchained Melody, Hurt,
>> American Trilogy and America the Beautiful (to name a few) showed that he
>> had an ear for music, but he was truly not a creator of great music.
>
>Not a creator of great music??????? Donæ„’ say this aloud.... someone can
hear
>you.
I'm not concerned....
>
>> a great, if not the greatest, performer in the history of rock music.
>I agree. The greatest performer in the story of popular music. Of
>> course, I am sure Stones fans, KISS fans, etc. would have something to
say
>> about that...
>
>Rick???
No one in particular in mind...
>
>We will never agree totally in this discussion, but it does not matter. You
>like Elvis, I like Elvis, we all like Elvis. More needed to be said.
>
Probably a valid point...I appreciate the deabte, though.
Brock
B Brockman
> Not to cause another feud(which is what I seem to do best!)
No feud created...
I would
>like you to elaborate on what you meant by I was right and wrong
>that they came from different times.
Understanding what I said is a matter of semantics. To compare as you
did...Elvis 56-56 vs Beatles of 60s is to place them at different times.
However, their place in popular music overlapped from the time the Beatles
broke onto the scene until they disbanded in 1970. That is why you would
be, in a sense, wrong. Making one point or the only depends on the purpose
of comparison.
>I think when you talk about
>Elvis you should think of 1954 at Sun records because that is when
>the real basis of rock n roll came from,reason being that you see
>the same basic setup in todays rock,they had Elvis singing and playing
>rhythm guitar,also they had Scotty Moore who's innovation and style
>of the guitar really helped in the development of early rock n roll,and
>finally a very important addition which is Bill Black and his unique
>bass playing.Also later on in 1956 they added D.J. Fontana on drums
>and then you put all of them together and you have the basis of
>Rock.Not that I'm saying the beatles didn't innovate anything,I'm
>just saying that Elvis and the Bluemoon Boys(which was the name of
>the group that was formed between Elvis,Scotty,and Bill in 54')really
>began the innovation of rock and the Beatles continued it.
Unfortunately, other groups of the time did similar things. Elvis and the
Bluemoon Boys didn't hold exclusive rights on the setup. Whether they were
first or not might be of dispute to some people, but I think there were
definitely others who did it before them, and were popular while doing it.
>I do think
>it is stupid to argue which is better Elvis or the Beatles.Although
>I do see the point in comparison,I think both should be repected.One
>more thing, I would really appreciate some views about the way
>Elvis changed music in other ways,these ways being how before Elvis
>came a long the teenagers at that time listened to the same music as
>their parents and when Elvis did come the teenagers had their own music
>and started to form their own identities instead of conforming to their
>parents ideals.Also at that time white people had their own music(quite
>boring music at that)and black people had their own music and with Elvis
>in a since crossing the racial barrier by doing rhythm and blues type songs
>like "Baby,Let's Play House" and Little Richards "Tutti Frutti" on national
>television white teenagers not only listened to Elvis Presley against
>their parents wishes,they also listened to black artists as well.
OK, let's not make that point...let's put it aside...becuase I don't want to
have to call Pat Boone a revolutionary. He, after all, released Tutti
Frutti and other R&B songs. Actually, most artists releasing black artists'
music in that time was an insult to their talent (the black artists' talent
that is). They released them because they knew the black versions of the
songs wouldn't sell to a white-bred audience, so they butchered them and
sold the result. Elvis, of course, was an exception to this rule, having
grown up around the black music of the south.
>Also Elvis was the first person to be censored on tv because of how
>he moved to the music which I think had an impact on the way rock n
> roll singers perform,not just stand up their and sing like Perry como
>or whoever.That to me is what really sets him apart from the beatles,
>here is my sum up sentence,Elvis innovated the beginnings of rock
>and the Beatles continued it.
Well, he did influence the way people perform music. If that is what sets
him apart from the Beatles, though, it is pretty weak separation. That's
like saying that the beatles influenced rock and roll with their bowl
haircuts, and that's what set them apart from the rest of rock-and-roll.
What sets Elvis apart from the Beatles is his ability to take a song and
make it an Elvis Presley song. What made the Beatles who they were was the
ability to make a Beatles song (pardon the overlap on creation from the
other thread...)
>
>Thanks (p.s.I hope this wasn't found to be meaningless drivel,if so too
> bad){:hehe:}
No you finally made a few good points hehe ;) I am actually staring to
enjoy reading what you write. I would love it if you would find your
spacebar in between sentences, though. It would make for easier reading.
:)
Brock
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
>
>
> >
> > I would really appreciate some views about the way
> >Elvis changed music in other ways,these ways being how before Elvis
> >came a long the teenagers at that time listened to the same music as
> >their parents and when Elvis did come the teenagers had their own music
> >and started to form their own identities instead of conforming to their
> >parents ideals.Also at that time white people had their own music(quite
> >boring music at that)and black people had their own music and with Elvis
> >in a since crossing the racial barrier by doing rhythm and blues type songs
> >like "Baby,Let's Play House" and Little Richards "Tutti Frutti" on national
> >television white teenagers not only listened to Elvis Presley against
> >their parents wishes,they also listened to black artists as well.
>
> OK, let's not make that point...let's put it aside...becuase I don't want to
> have to call Pat Boone a revolutionary. He, after all, released Tutti
> Frutti and other R&B songs. Actually, most artists releasing black artists'
> music in that time was an insult to their talent (the black artists' talent
> that is). They released them because they knew the black versions of the
> songs wouldn't sell to a white-bred audience, so they butchered them and
> sold the result. Elvis, of course, was an exception to this rule, having
> grown up around the black music of the south.
>
Richard said he was pissed off when Pat Boone covered his song and he
said Elvis was the only white artist who could actually put something into
"black" music.(space,hehe)Little Richard did not feel
insulted when Elvis covered "Tutti Frutti" but he wanted to beat the
heck out of Pat Boone. Also with Elvis publicly saying how much
he liked rhythm and blues and black artists, it got the teenagers
to buy Elvis records and Little Richard records (or any of the
good black artists of the time) and they would listen to those and
put the Pat Boone record on top of the dresser for the parents to
see while they put Elvis' and the black artists records in the dresser
so there parent didn't see it.I guess that's why Elvis is the exception.
>
>
>
> Well, he did influence the way people perform music. If that is what sets
> him apart from the Beatles, though, it is pretty weak separation. That's
> like saying that the beatles influenced rock and roll with their bowl
> haircuts, and that's what set them apart from the rest of rock-and-roll.
> What sets Elvis apart from the Beatles is his ability to take a song and
> make it an Elvis Presley song. What made the Beatles who they were was the
> ability to make a Beatles song (pardon the overlap on creation from the
> other thread...)
> >
performing you are also talking about his influence on rock n roll,Elvis
(the Pelvis,putrid nickname) didn't conform to what the networks wanted
which was to just stand their and sing. That is hardly a weak seperation
because Elvis is one of the main reasons that rock n roll artists began
the freedom of expression in terms of performing.He played with the audience
which if you have ever gone to a rock concert of any kind you'd know that
they are always doing things to get the crowd going wild and Elvis started
that,so the white rock n roll artists that came after him noticed that and
started doing more to get the crowd going. (I haven't seen many rock
stars with beatles bowl cuts!) I think that Elvis' performing definitley
set him apart from the beatles,personally I'm not impressed by the beatles
performances and the beatles performances didn't really have an impact
on rock n roll performing,they just kind of stood there singing woo.
B Brockman
If you had read my entire post instead of the first couple of sentences of
each paragraph, you would have noticed that I did NOT categorize Pat Boone
with Elvis. That was an attempt at humor, which obviously went right over
your head.
As for the Beatles being great performers, they were not whatsoever. They
were, however, great songwriters. They knew how to write a melody and fit
lyrics perfectly to it, and later how to add effects to make it sound even
better. Some people call Sgt. Peppers and the White Album (truly "The
Beatles") crap, but it was just another sign of their revolutionary
creativity.
By the way, black artists were getting the crowds riled up well before
Elvis.
Your prejudice against the Beatles showed on that post and in the one in the
"Elvis Vs. Beatles" thread. Give their music a chance...you might
(frighteningly enough) find something you like.
Brock
Sala Hilbert Ciencias C-XI
>
> Brock
Man, if you think that many people here is underrating or putting down
the Beatles then you should go and take a look at the Beatles newsgroup.
This is LOVE for Beatles when compared to that crap said against Elvis.
- Alvaro reggie...@hotmail.com
Allen Damron
Hi ELVIS Friends,
Why do we have so much haterade for things we do not like I find this to be true
om almost any Ng or Forum you go to.Why can't we let people like what
they like and they let us like what we do?? This is what makes the world
go round.Some think you only like ELVIS and thats it well maybe so but we
can like others too.If I like someting else besides ELVIS then please don't
put me down and I want put you down.
New email address ada...@ls.net (LSNET)
Keeping the Faith with Elvis,Allen
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
"B Brockman" <bbro...@xu.campuscw.net> wrote:
> Jon,
>
> If you had read my entire post instead of the first couple of sentences of
> each paragraph, you would have noticed that I did NOT categorize Pat Boone
> with Elvis. That was an attempt at humor, which obviously went right over
> your head.
> As for the Beatles being great performers, they were not whatsoever. They
> were, however, great songwriters. They knew how to write a melody and fit
> lyrics perfectly to it, and later how to add effects to make it sound even
> better. Some people call Sgt. Peppers and the White Album (truly "The
> Beatles") crap, but it was just another sign of their revolutionary
> creativity.
>
about other issues and I used Pat Boone as a reference.
By the way, black artists were getting the crowds riled up well before
> Elvis.
Yeah but Elvis helped remove the racial barrier because he got more
of the teenagers into rock n roll on a wider scale.
>
> Your prejudice against the Beatles showed on that post and in the one in the
> "Elvis Vs. Beatles" thread. Give their music a chance...you might
> (frighteningly enough) find something you like
>
Brock
I do like some beatles music and I don't see how pointing out things that
Elvis did to change music put's down the beatles and using the word
prejudice is asinine. Elvis is the King of rock
notice the word King not Kings,the beatles haven't been labeled as the
"kings" of rock obviously because they didn't change music on such
a large scale like Elvis.(checkmate)
B Brockman
>I do like some beatles music and I don't see how pointing out things that
>Elvis did to change music put's down the beatles and using the word
>prejudice is asinine.
Why is using prejudice asinine, as you say? You are so quick to say that
the Beatles only refined music that Elvis started...but he didn't start it,
he just popularized it. What he did for music is no different from what the
beatles did. You can't see past that...and your posts against some Beatles
songs in the other E vs B thread (e.g. Norwegian Wood) shows that you don't
appreciate their music. There is not anything wrong with that song, in
fact, the melody is pretty decent. I have a feeling that you have heard
that song once and didn't ponder the meaning for more than two seconds. But
even without meanings, most of the rock and roll music of the 50s and 60s
had little meaning, oh yes, until the Beatles started it (just kidding, I
won't make that statement seriously...)
Elvis is the King of rock
>notice the word King not Kings,the beatles haven't been labeled as the
>"kings" of rock obviously because they didn't change music on such
>a large scale like Elvis.(checkmate)
Not quite checkmate...just becuase some guy called him the King of Rock and
Roll one time and it stuck doesn't mean that he has any additional
legitimacy over the Beatles. There were plenty of superlatives tossed
around both artists. After all, Michael Jackson is the King of Pop...that
means he is the most influential artist in pop music history, right? God, I
hope not.
Brock
Kingtcb
>> Elvis.
I've heard some black people say in interviews andd such that back in the 50's
they never saw a black man move like Elvis Presley
I don't know if this is true but it seems it could be because when I see old
rock n roll footage I never saw anybody move like Elvis Presley.Refere to Got
Alot O Livin To Do,(finale) Hound Dog (milton Berle)Jailhouse Rock-for example
But i did see the Wizard of Oz recently and the Tin Man made this Elvis move
when he put his hand on his leg after he got oiled and reminded me of
something Elvis did in the 50's.
touch hands with body
kingtcb
kingtcb
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
"B Brockman" <bbro...@xu.campuscw.net> wrote:
>
> >I do like some beatles music and I don't see how pointing out things that
> >Elvis did to change music put's down the beatles and using the word
> >prejudice is asinine.
>
> Why is using prejudice asinine, as you say? You are so quick to say that
> the Beatles only refined music that Elvis started...but he didn't start it,
> he just popularized it. What he did for music is no different from what the
> beatles did. You can't see past that...and your posts against some Beatles
> songs in the other E vs B thread (e.g. Norwegian Wood) shows that you don't
> appreciate their music. There is not anything wrong with that song, in
> fact, the melody is pretty decent. I have a feeling that you have heard
> that song once and didn't ponder the meaning for more than two seconds. But
> even without meanings, most of the rock and roll music of the 50s and 60s
> had little meaning, oh yes, until the Beatles started it (just kidding, I
> won't make that statement seriously...)
He didn't just popularize that music, he was able to combine different
types of music. A good example is "Don't Be Cruel", reason being it got #1
for all major music categories including #1 for rock,#1 for pop and #1 for
country. I think he experimented with music more than some people might
think. "Love Me Tender" was a ballad (kind of had a Dean Martin feel to
it,don't you think?) that went #1 (which was one of the few songs he
actually helped write) then you have songs like "Little Sister" which of
course is rock.(Ahead of it's time too,I know you disagree!) Also he did
songs like "Clean Up Your Own Backyard" which is rhythm and blues. How about
"Moody Blue" or "Way Down" that went #1 in country and let's not forget all
of his Jimmy Reed covers.
>
> Elvis is the King of rock
> >notice the word King not Kings,the beatles haven't been labeled as the
> >"kings" of rock obviously because they didn't change music on such
> >a large scale like Elvis.(checkmate)
>
> Not quite checkmate...just becuase some guy called him the King of Rock and
> Roll one time and it stuck doesn't mean that he has any additional
> legitimacy over the Beatles. There were plenty of superlatives tossed
> around both artists. After all, Michael Jackson is the King of Pop...that
> means he is the most influential artist in pop music history, right? God, I
> hope not.
>
> Maybe your right we shouldn't call him the King of Rock,let's just call
him the King of Music!(I'm going to get torn a part by that statement
aren't I? Heh,heh!)
>
> Oh and I do actually like some beatles songs like "Yesterday",
"Ticket to Ride", and "A Hard Day's Night" so just because I prefer
Elvis over the Beatles you think I'm prejudice,that is asinine.
Richard Palmer
> I think he experimented with music more than some people might
>think. "Love Me Tender" was a ballad (kind of had a Dean Martin feel to
>it,don't you think?) that went #1 (which was one of the few songs he
>actually helped write) then you have songs like "Little Sister" which of
>course is rock.
Sooner or later they all trip themselves up. Elvis had no hand in
writing this (or any of the other songs that gave him co-credit). It
was a publishing deal, to get him more money. It's credit to Elvis and
Vera Matson, and guess what - she didn't help write it either! It was
written by Ken Darby, her husband.
You know nothing do you? This isn't even an obscure point, it's the
Elvis equivalent of learning the alphabet, one of the first things you
get to know when you start out. The only time he ever contributed to
a song was when he collaborated with Red and Charlie to write "You'll
Be Gone", and that was inspired by Begin The Beguine, hardly a shining
example of innovation.
Richard.
p.s. That's Red West and Charlie Hodge. Thought I'd better clear that
one up for you.
B Brockman
> He didn't just popularize that music, he was able to combine different
>types of music. A good example is "Don't Be Cruel", reason being it got #1
>for all major music categories including #1 for rock,#1 for pop and #1 for
>country. I think he experimented with music more than some people might
>think. "Love Me Tender" was a ballad (kind of had a Dean Martin feel to
>it,don't you think?) that went #1 (which was one of the few songs he
>actually helped write) then you have songs like "Little Sister" which of
>course is rock.(Ahead of it's time too,I know you disagree!) Also he did
>songs like "Clean Up Your Own Backyard" which is rhythm and blues. How
about
>"Moody Blue" or "Way Down" that went #1 in country and let's not forget all
>of his Jimmy Reed covers.
>
Rock, pop and country charts? Was there such a thing as a rock and pop
chart in the late 50s? I really don't know... someone help out here? oh,
and recording other people's music was so revolutionary? Yes, Love Me Tender
was a ballad, yet it sounded like Dean Martin? How utterly revolutionary!
Recording Jimmy Reed (or Jerry Reed for that matter) was so very
revolutionary... And didn't "Moody Blue" and "Way Down" go #1 after his
death? Wonder why the sales were up and radio stations were playing those
songs... Well, i guess Harem Scarem was revolutionary because it mixed the
Egyptian culture with American music, right?
Hey you mentioned some great songs, but don't blow their impact out of
proportion. And Richard addressed the Love Me Tender issue before I got a
chance, but if you had read my other posts completely, that wouldn't have
been an issue...sometimes we do have to wonder about that literacy you claim
to have.
>> Maybe your right we shouldn't call him the King of Rock,let's just call
> him the King of Music!(I'm going to get torn a part by that statement
> aren't I? Heh,heh!)
Not even gonna bother...
>>
>> Oh and I do actually like some beatles songs like "Yesterday",
> "Ticket to Ride", and "A Hard Day's Night" so just because I prefer
> Elvis over the Beatles you think I'm prejudice,that is asinine.
Actually, I think you are prejudiced, not prejudice incarnate. If you don't
know the difference, consult Webster...I guess maybe you're not, though.
It's just that you usually don't seem to either consider or comprehend the
debate placed before you, so you just toss out the same garbage again and
again. Or shall I say drivel again?
Brock
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
r.pa...@virgin.net (Richard Palmer) wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:53:42 GMT, Jo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >think. "Love Me Tender" was a ballad (kind of had a Dean Martin feel to
> >it,don't you think?) that went #1 (which was one of the few songs he
> >actually helped write) then you have songs like "Little Sister" which of
>
> Sooner or later they all trip themselves up. Elvis had no hand in
> writing this (or any of the other songs that gave him co-credit). It
> was a publishing deal, to get him more money. It's credit to Elvis and
> Vera Matson, and guess what - she didn't help write it either! It was
> written by Ken Darby, her husband.
>
> You know nothing do you? This isn't even an obscure point, it's the
> Elvis equivalent of learning the alphabet, one of the first things you
> get to know when you start out. The only time he ever contributed to
> a song was when he collaborated with Red and Charlie to write "You'll
> Be Gone", and that was inspired by Begin The Beguine, hardly a shining
> example of innovation.
>
> Richard.
>
> p.s. That's Red West and Charlie Hodge. Thought I'd better clear that
> one up for you.
>
the rest of my post? I hate when people make it a habit to take out the
least important part of a post and not even acknowledge the actual
point of the entire post. I mean the fact that Elvis didn't write his
own songs is irrelevant. A more important reason Elvis was innovative
is that he could do any song by anyone and make it an Elvis Presley song.
Also the post was about how Elvis didn't just change rock he changed
music, if you would have read the entire post you might have actually
gotten the point. But I guess that's impossible for someone like you,
your to busy trying to correct everyone about their grammar and about
meaningless facts that don't affect the point of the post. I'm guessing
you don't get a long to well with people off the internet too. Kind of
feel sorry for you.
p.s. Try responding to the entire post. Not just picking out a few
sentences. Go back to the -entire- post and see if you can respond
with a good point for a change ;)
Richard Palmer
> That's great that you pointed that out, but what does that have to do with
>the rest of my post? I hate when people make it a habit to take out the
>least important part of a post and not even acknowledge the actual
>point of the entire post. I mean the fact that Elvis didn't write his
>own songs is irrelevant.
You were using it to strengthen your point.
>A more important reason Elvis was innovative
>is that he could do any song by anyone and make it an Elvis Presley song.
>Also the post was about how Elvis didn't just change rock he changed
>music, if you would have read the entire post you might have actually
>gotten the point. But I guess that's impossible for someone like you,
>your to busy trying to correct everyone about their grammar and about
>meaningless facts that don't affect the point of the post.
No, I was trying to annoy you, and make you look stupid. Judging by
the tone of your reply, I'd say I succeeded.
>I'm guessing
>you don't get a long to well with people off the internet too. Kind of
>feel sorry for you.
Your pity is most welcome. Will you be my friend?
>p.s. Try responding to the entire post. Not just picking out a few
>sentences. Go back to the -entire- post and see if you can respond
>with a good point for a change ;)
No.
Next....
Richard
MoonOOO
>>types of music. A good example is "Don't Be Cruel", reason being it got #1
>>for all major music categories including #1 for rock,#1 for pop and #1 for
>>think. "Love Me Tender" was a ballad (kind of had a Dean Martin feel to
>>it,don't you think?) that went #1 (which was one of the few songs he
>>actually helped write) then you have songs like "Little Sister" which of
Brock,
I don't know how old you are but if you were a teenager or older in 1954, her
in the south, and in 1956 in the rest of the country,you'd know how Elvis
changed the music and the country.
I don't think anyone could really appreciate what he did unless you were of
that age.
Marty
B Brockman
> That's great that you pointed that out, but what does that have to do with
>the rest of my post? I hate when people make it a habit to take out the
>least important part of a post and not even acknowledge the actual
>point of the entire post. I mean the fact that Elvis didn't write his
>is that he could do any song by anyone and make it an Elvis Presley song.
>Also the post was about how Elvis didn't just change rock he changed
>music, if you would have read the entire post you might have actually
>gotten the point. But I guess that's impossible for someone like you,
>your to busy trying to correct everyone about their grammar and about
>you don't get a long to well with people off the internet too. Kind of
>feel sorry for you.
>
>sentences. Go back to the -entire- post and see if you can respond
>with a good point for a change ;)
>
Brock
B Brockman
>
>I don't know how old you are but if you were a teenager or older in 1954,
her
>in the south, and in 1956 in the rest of the country,you'd know how Elvis
>changed the music and the country.
>
>I don't think anyone could really appreciate what he did unless you were of
>that age.
>
>Marty
Marty,
Thanks for the comment. I do realize the impact that Elvis had on music
(all you have to do is listen to music from 1953 and then turn the calendar
forward to 1958 and you get the impact). My point in all of this bantering
is to refine the argument to what it truly should be...hey it's working...I
think Jon even basically quoted me in one of his recent posts.
My point is, listen to music of 1965 and then turn to 1970. Sure others had
an impact on rock music at the time, but the Beatles did many of the things
that brought about the change in music during that time. Their (E & the
B's) impact was similar, just at different times. Jon and others are quick
to say that Elvis was more innovative because he started this
"rock-and-roll" trend, but it was, just as the new rock music of the late
60s and 70s, built upon other music. It just got a shiny new name from Alan
Freed (or whatever that djs name was).
Marty, your assumption was right. I did not live through Elvis rock
"revolution," as Jon would say. But I realize its impact. Maybe I have
just gone about the argument in the wrong way.
Brock
MoonOOO
You are right. Elvis had no impact on music from 1964 until 1969. That was
due to the movie crap he was fed and recorded.
However, the impact he had before then made it possible for the Beatles and
many other artists, to be accepted. Had he not changed the music in the
beginning and change the attitude and atmosphere in America, then who knoiws
what the music would have been from the 60's until now. That is not taking
anything away from what The Beatles or anyone else did or their impact on
music.
Like I said in a previous message, "The argument between the two, Elvis and The
Beatles, is a waste of time. They were both great. So just enjoy the music!"
Marty
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
"B Brockman" <bbro...@xu.campuscw.net> wrote:
>
>
> > He didn't just popularize that music, he was able to combine different
> >types of music. A good example is "Don't Be Cruel", reason being it got #1
> >for all major music categories including #1 for rock,#1 for pop and #1 for
> >country. I think he experimented with music more than some people might
> >think. "Love Me Tender" was a ballad (kind of had a Dean Martin feel to
> >it,don't you think?) that went #1 (which was one of the few songs he
> >actually helped write) then you have songs like "Little Sister" which of
> >course is rock.(Ahead of it's time too,I know you disagree!) Also he did
> >songs like "Clean Up Your Own Backyard" which is rhythm and blues. How
> about
> >"Moody Blue" or "Way Down" that went #1 in country and let's not forget all
> >of his Jimmy Reed covers.
> >
>
> Rock, pop and country charts? Was there such a thing as a rock and pop
> chart in the late 50s? I really don't know... someone help out here? oh,
> and recording other people's music was so revolutionary? Yes, Love Me Tender
> was a ballad, yet it sounded like Dean Martin? How utterly revolutionary!
> Recording Jimmy Reed (or Jerry Reed for that matter) was so very
> revolutionary... And didn't "Moody Blue" and "Way Down" go #1 after his
> death? Wonder why the sales were up and radio stations were playing those
> songs... Well, i guess Harem Scarem was revolutionary because it mixed the
> Egyptian culture with American music, right?
>
were much more versatile. I forgot to change the title of the post from
"innovations" to "versatility". I apologize.
Hey you mentioned some great songs, but don't blow their impact out of
> proportion. And Richard addressed the Love Me Tender issue before I got a
> chance, but if you had read my other posts completely, that wouldn't have
> been an issue...sometimes we do have to wonder about that literacy you claim
> to have.
> >>
I was aware of that, and I do remember your post about it, I just wanted
to see if Richard was going to catch it, and he did, pure comedy!heh heh
Maybe your right we shouldn't call him the King of Rock,let's just call
> > him the King of Music!(I'm going to get torn a part by that statement
> > aren't I? Heh,heh!)
>
> Not even gonna bother...
Obviously you noticed I was joking.Wow, I didn't even have to use brackets
to explain it to you.(Unlike some other people,no one in particular)
>
> >>
> >> Oh and I do actually like some beatles songs like "Yesterday",
> > "Ticket to Ride", and "A Hard Day's Night" so just because I prefer
> > Elvis over the Beatles you think I'm prejudice,that is asinine.
>
> Actually, I think you are prejudiced, not prejudice incarnate. If you don't
> know the difference, consult Webster...I guess maybe you're not, though.
> It's just that you usually don't seem to either consider or comprehend the
> debate placed before you, so you just toss out the same garbage again and
> again. Or shall I say drivel again? (Thanks Mr. Brock, look forward to
the next Grammar class.)
>
> I'm not tossing out garbage, although I must admit, sometimes I do
recycle, just for the sake of argument. Your right, I do write a lot
of drivel, it tends to make for a more interesting response, sometimes
quite humorous and sarcastic,those are the best responses to get. Although
don't get that confused with officious posts that some other people try
to give.(again, no one in particular)
By the way Brock, I'm surprised somebody with your extensive music
knoweldge wouldn't know about "Billboards Top 100" list. Here is some
info you might find interesting. On April 7th, 1956- Elvis was awarded
Billboard's "Triple Crown" because "Heartbreak Hotel" reaches #1 on all 3
country charts. May 5th, 1956- "Heartbreak Hotel" reaches #1 on Billboard's
national album chart and the #1 in the top 100. Here is an important
achievment that shows how he transcended music. May 26, 1956-Billboard
anounces that Elvis has hit the #1 in all six charts. This makes Elvis
the first "Triple Crown" winner in the history of Billboard charts.
July 13th,1956- Elvis get's #1 and #2 on the top 100 chart with "Don't
Be Cruel" and "Hound Dog", another achievment. October 20th,1956-
"Love Me Tender" -enters- the Billboard top 100 at #1. December 29th,
1956- Elvis makes chart history again by having 10 songs on Billboard's
top 100 for the week ending the 19th. Just think all of this and more
happened in just the year of 1956, which was probably his most pivotal
year in music. Elvis spent 26 weeks at #1, and sold more than 12.5
million singles and 3 million albums in the U.S. alone. Singles:2
multiplatinum,2 platinum. Extended Plays:3 platinum,4 gold.Albums:2 gold.
Not bad huh, and that's only 1 year of his career. See I don't always
have to write drivel. Also if you think I made those facts up, any Elvis
fan with the booklet for the Elvis 56 CD can back me up, that's where
I got the info. Let's see you debate that.
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
B Brockman
The
>Beatles, is a waste of time. They were both great. So just enjoy the
music!"
>
>Marty
Amen, brother...Amen!
Brock
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > >
> >
> > Rock, pop and country charts? Was there such a thing as a rock and pop
> > chart in the late 50s? I really don't know... someone help out here?
> >
>
> knoweldge wouldn't know about "Billboards Top 100" list. Here is some
> info you might find interesting. On April 7th, 1956- Elvis was awarded
> Billboard's "Triple Crown" because "Heartbreak Hotel" reaches #1 on all 3
> country charts. May 5th, 1956- "Heartbreak Hotel" reaches #1 on Billboard's
> national album chart and the #1 in the top 100. Here is an important
> achievment that shows how he transcended music. May 26, 1956-Billboard
> anounces that Elvis has hit the #1 in all six charts. This makes Elvis
> the first "Triple Crown" winner in the history of Billboard charts.
> July 13th,1956- Elvis get's #1 and #2 on the top 100 chart with "Don't
> Be Cruel" and "Hound Dog", another achievment. October 20th,1956-
> "Love Me Tender" -enters- the Billboard top 100 at #1. December 29th,
> 1956- Elvis makes chart history again by having 10 songs on Billboard's
> top 100 for the week ending the 19th. Just think all of this and more
> happened in just the year of 1956, which was probably his most pivotal
> year in music. Elvis spent 26 weeks at #1, and sold more than 12.5
> million singles and 3 million albums in the U.S. alone. Singles:2
> multiplatinum,2 platinum. Extended Plays:3 platinum,4 gold.Albums:2 gold.
> Not bad huh, and that's only 1 year of his career. See I don't always
> have to write drivel.
P.S. I was just wondering, how did the beatles best year compare to Elvis'
best year (1956) on the charts?
bex...@my-dejanews.com
Jo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > . Elvis spent 26 weeks at #1, and sold more than 12.5
> > million singles and 3 million albums in the U.S. alone. Singles:2
> > multiplatinum,2 platinum. Extended Plays:3 platinum,4 gold.Albums:2 gold.
> > Not bad huh, and that's only 1 year of his career. See I don't always
> > have to write drivel.
>
> best year (1956) on the charts?
> >
the beatles in 1964 had 6 no.1 singles and 11 top ten hits( 3 of the top ten
hits were prevented from being no.1`s by other beatle singles). In one week
they filled no 1. to no.5 in the singles chart as well as no.1,no.2 and no.4
inthe album charts. I WANT TO HOLD YOU HAND was certified at 5 million in
`64, SHE LOVES YOU sold 3 million. CAN`T BUY ME LOVE had advanced orders of 2
million and ended up selling 4 million. The other 3 No.1s sold over 2 million
each In `64 they had a total of 9 singles that passed the million mark. they
had another dozen or so hits in the top 100 that year. i don`t know total
single sales for `64 but even assuming the bare mininium we are talking over
21 million. as for albums; MEET THE BEATLES sold 4.8 million in 64. They also
had no.1 albums with HARD DAYS NIGHT(which sold a million on advance orders
alone) and 2ND ALBUM and the albums SOMETHING NEW and INTRODUCING THE BEATLES
were no.2 hits(blocked by MEET THE BEATLES. they all sold a million +.also
THE BEATLES STORY entered the top ten, and EARLY BEATLES sold consistantly
well in 64 despite not getting in the top ten. again i don`t know total album
figures but a bare minimium would be 10 million. for march `64 they accounted
for 60% of all records sold IN THE NORTHERN AMERICAN CONTINENT!
all the above figures are for the u.s. only.
B Brockman
>have to write drivel. Also if you think I made those facts up, any Elvis
>fan with the booklet for the Elvis 56 CD can back me up, that's where
>I got the info. Let's see you debate that.
No debates on facts here...of course I haven't cracked a book about these
facts either. Never cared to look. My question about the charts came based
on the statement that Elvis hit the top of the Rock, Pop, and Country
charts. My point was that in 1956, the rock & country charts were one in
the same (I thought). What you write here, unless you were incomplete (and
you have way too much time on your hands to be incomplete (sarcastic
drivel...) (parentheses just for you) confirms that there was a country
chart, a top 100 singles chart (the ever popular Hot 100) and a national
album chart. That is hardly three kinds of music. Considering the origins
of early rock and roll music, it is barely two.
Oh, and just give me a legit reason for the next grammar lesson, and I will
gladly take up the charge. I can only tolerate poor grammar and punctuation
in an intelligent argument for so long before something has to be said. A
little proofing goes a long way...
Brock
the anal-retentive debator
Shelton
>> >The Beatles are a much more widely listened to and respected group. they
>get
>> >airplay on classic rock, rock, and oldies formats, while Elvis seems limited
>to
>> >an occasional Hound Dog or Suspicious Minds on oldies radio.
The limitation is with radio, not the artists. Oldies radio has a
short list of Beatles songs they play, the same for Elvis. The
classic rock stations play a few Beatles tracks. Radio just basically
sucks if you have wide tastes in music. Besides, why does it have to
always be Elvis vs. Beatles? I have no problem enjoying both.
Shelton
Shelton
<bbro...@xu.campuscw.net> wrote:
>>What stations are you listening too?
>>You can here Elvis everywhere.... including Country Stations.
>
>I think the question is, where are you? Memphis or another tenn. city I
>presume? It has been my experience in Cincinnati, Chicago, and my
>impression of LA, and some other cities that I have friends in that EP isn't
>widely played on formats other than oldies. Memphis will tend to be an
>exception to the rule for obvious reasons.
>
>Brock
>
The last time I was in Memphis they didn't even HAVE an oldies
station. Much less have one that plays Elvis.
Shelton
Jo...@my-dejanews.com
gets just as much radio time as the beatles. In Memphis it seems no matter
what station you turn it to eventually you'll here an Elvis song and on one
of the stations that plays music from the 80's to 90's, they have an Elvis
marathon every weekend, he is the only artist before the 80's that gets any
play. In Texas, Elvis gets plenty of airplay and in Ohio he gets played
as much as the beatles. I guess it depends on location. As for the 2 months
I spent in California with my girlfriend and some other friends,(for summer
vacation) we didn't here much of the beatles or Elvis, all we seemed
to pick up was mexican stations. Location is everything.
Just thought some
of that drivel ;) may be found interesting.
JC
VinceEvret
vacation) we didn't here much of the beatles or Elvis, all we seemed
to pick up was mexican stations. Location is everything.
Good God man get an FM Radio!