This may have been brought up before, I’m a newbie, so I don’t know. Furthermore, I don’t feel like reading every single thread to find out. However, it is of my personal opinion that The Beatles kicks Elvis’s ass any day of the week. Am eager to find out what the rest of you think. On a side note…who is the cutest Beatle? I think it’s Paul hand down! =)
“Life is cheap, abortion makes it cheaper.” Peter Goldsmith in The Stand
Actually, the Beatle best with the women I hear was Ringo. He was a decent drummer, but had a lot of personality which helped in his getting the job.
John Lennon said that Elvis died in 1958, or something to indicate that was when his best stuff was over. Elvis started out a rebel. He became mainstream and Rock and Roll left him behind doing stupid beach movies (Hanging with Ann Margaret is tempting). More about this later.
Welcome to this board.
As Elvis got older, he got wierder. He died a bloated lounge singer. He did really odd things. All of the beatles have aged well. Except for those acid tripping days, the Beatles seem pretty pleasant.
Oh dear, a debate after my own heart!!
Welcome lil newbie!!
First, Elvis is called ‘King of Rock and Roll’ for a reason, and it was about the mainstreaming of southern black music and a hillbilly rock style. He opened the door in a big way for what would come next. So, think for a minute, the example that he set.
You are probably pretty young, and I was in the sixth grade when the Beatles came on the scene shortly after John Kennedy was shot. I feel like they grew up with me, their music style, and their outlooks on life, even. A pretty unique contribution all the way around. They were the first BAND that sang and wrote their own music, and later producing and designing their albums.
It could be argued either way, Elvis opened the door, and THE BEATLES strolled in and made the place their home!!
Judy
“Please Disregard the Following.”
Sure the Beatles could “kick Elvis’ ass”. There were four of them and only one of him.
Members of the Beatles wrote their own songs and were more creative musically, introducing a wide variety (for the time)of instruments in their popular songs.
Elvis was a singer with a good voice and a good stage presence.
Cecil’s column: Who was more popular, the Beatles or Elvis?
The final counts: Elvis, 29 consecutive hits; the Beatles, 22.
Yeah, but Elvis was a drug addled “black belt”. 
The Stanley Cup: A repeat is in the STARS!
It’s nice to see so many people agree with me. And I am aware of Cecils column, of course I read it. However I am NOT interested in numbers, 29 to 22. Uh hello, Elvis was around a lot more years then the Beatles, so that doesn’t count anyway. Plus, any performing monkey can have a hit single. I offer Britney Spears and 98 Degrees etc etc for exhibit A. I’m talking ARTISTICALLY.
BTW, I LOVE Paul, as previously stated, but I relate to Lennon the most. Which I find slightly frightening. =P
“Life is cheap, abortion makes it cheaper.” Peter Goldsmith in The Stand
Thank you! As a college student, I am so sick of the teeny-boppers on the hall declaring that Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys are “true musical artists.” gag Anyways…
Having previously lived in Memphis for six years, I must say that Elvis has become overrated. He was initially popular for shock value - a white truck driver singing music from the black community, discovered when he popped in Sun Studios to record a little ditty for his mom’s birthday…and the middle class white teenagers loved it. It was a revolution against the so-called “cult of domesticity” and conformity popular in the 1950s. (Credit for the quote: Bob Faust, history lecturer at Mizzou.) Elvis was basically a mimic, though. He took songs like “Blue Suede Shoes” from black artists and remade them - his remakes became immense hits, while the original artists were often unknown until later years. Plus, in his later years, Elvis’ performing style went downhill at an eighty-seven degree angle. He did perform some of his older hits, but took a turn towards gospel music and such. Drugged and obese, he was most definitely not the young, vivacious man of the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Enter the Beatles.
Okay, yes - they did start out kind of like the Backstreet boys: a “boy band” whose members were…well…at least all somewhat attractive. However, they also knew how to sing and play their instruments (none of this “sing and dance” only schtuff). Their artistic merit is far beyond any group I have ever heard of. With a start like “She Loves Me” with a dance beat of some sort and a hummable tune, they established their place among teens’ hearts. And with an end that included songs like “Hey Jude” and “Let It Be,” they captured their place among the more somber and reflective spirits in the late 60s and early 70s. Finally, their amazing variety of songs from “Love Me Do” to “Yellow Submarine” - wowzas. Let’s see Britney Spears go into animation like that. So IMHO, I am arguing for the Beatles on virtue of their wide range of musical and vocal abilities. Plus, they started cute and have stayed damn good-looking (or improved in some cases).
Christopher Robin Hood - he steals from the rich and gives to the Pooh.
Your comparing apples to oranges.
There’s a search feature up on the top right of the page.
One of the few to be personally welcomed to this board by Ed Zotti.
Yours truly,
aha
I agree with you completely Quadzilla, except on one point. He did not learn “Blue Suede Shoes” froma black artists. Carl Perkins (A very white man) wrote it and recorded it first, Elvis just popularized it. Lets give credit where it is due, since he IS George Harrison’s hero, or was anyway, when he was a boy. 
“Everybody’s got something to hide except for me and my monkey”-The Beatles
Point taken, pepperlandgirl - thanks for the correction. I’ll pass that on to my history prof.
Christopher Robin Hood - he steals from the rich and gives to the Pooh.
It is apples and oranges. Elvis was a performer. His early years, and even his Vegas renewal, were electrifying. There had never been anyone like him before(at least not in rock and roll). Watching an old kinescope of Elvis perofrming gives you a small taste of what the girls were screaming about.
The Beatles were songwriters. After they quit performing, their popularity only increased. Their music continues to be fresh and innovative today.
History has given both of them their proper places.
I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.
The heck with all five of 'em.
Jimi Hendrix forever.
Neither.
Tom Jones.
::tossing undies::
Alcohol and calculus don’t mix. Never drink and derive.
In a nutshell: If Elvis was so good, why are there 10 million impersonators who sound just like him? (Still, apples and oranges…)
Gimme the worst Beatle album over the best Elvis album anytime. As for favourites:
John,
George,
Ringo,
Paul…(and I like McCartney a lot!)
My fate keeps getting in the way of my destiny.
I’ve got to stick up for Elvis. Sure, he was pathetic in his later years. But when he was young (pre-Army) he was better than the Beatles ever dreamed of being. And a hell of alot better looking to boot. Just my humble, if likely unpopular, opinion.
I vote for the Beatles. I mean, they wrote a song about an octapus’ garden!!
and pepperlandgirl - I’d have to say that George was the cutest.
“Organs gross me out. That’s organs, not orgasms.”
-the wallster