According to Wiki, Elton John’s record includes seven number one albums in a row, 56 Top 40 singles, five Grammy Awards, an Academy Award, a Golden Globe award and a Tony award. He has has sold over 250 million records in a career spanning four decades. Link
Here we have a guy with instrumential proficiency equal to or better than that of Steely Dan’s brilliant studio musicians, songwriting ability that I would think is on a par with that of Lennon/McCartney, and vocal ability that to my mind not only surpasses theirs but is better now than it was in the early seventies. (Check out these renditions of Burn Down The Mission, Saturday Night’s All Right For Fighting, or 60 Years On to see what I mean.)
I think the only areas in which he suffers compared to the Beatles is in comparison with the style of some of their soaring, airy types of songs such as Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds or Across The Universe, and by virtue of the fact that the Beatles could employ combinations of two or three voices on their songs whereas Elton is the sole vocalist on his work. If Lennon or McCartney had been the Beatles’ only vocalist I don’t think their work would be thought of as experimental and wide-ranging as it is now.
So all in all, I can’t really think of anyone else who challenges the Beatles on their own turf - songwriting, melody, singing, chart success and record sales - like Elton John does. Anyone care to comment?
I remember some of his earlier stuff, like Honky Chateau - not something to brag about.
He should have known when to quit, perhaps after ‘A single man’ would have been a good place to consider, Nikita was execrable and not the worst by far.
I like Elton John a lot, but much of his more popular stuff isn’t all that good (“Crocodile Rock,” “Don’t Let the Sun Go Down On Me”). And he doesn’t write lyrics, so he’s already secondary to the Beatles, who did.
Elton is an interesting phenomenon, but it seems to me that he tried to cover all his bases by dressing outrageously, apparently thinking that the music couldn’t speak for itself. Both sold concert tickets.
Still the Beatles. I mean, I love Sir Elton and all, and have seen him in concert many times over the years (the Red Piano sets in Vegas were superb). But the Beatles still reign supreme. The only group you could even start to make a successful argument for against them is the Rolling Stones.
I can cut this whole new genre of thread topics really short. The answer is always going to be the Beatles, no matter who you compare them to. If the title is “The Beatles or Jesus Christ?” the answer is the Beatles (and that’s no slur on Jesus Christ, he’s just not John Lennon).
I got free tickets to see Elton John and took a few friends. We left after about 20 minutes - it got so repetitious, one guy sitting at a piano singing pretty much the same kind of song over and over again. Yes, some of his songs over the years were quite good - but I can only listen to a piano man so long before it gets kind of boring for me.
And regarding finding someone better than the Beatles - well, that is going to be a bit difficult. No, the Beatles were not gods - but they were around long enough to have started from some basic rock and roll up to some more esoteric songs. They have a body of work that will be hard to surpass in terms of quality, quantity and variety. Their songs have been covered by singers/musicians in all genres, generations and cultures.
Although, I do like Elton’s take on “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”.
And “Funeral for a Friend” is on my permanent play list, and is in my will to be played at my wake.
Really.
I’m so old that I can remember when Rolling Stone ran reviews of some new albums of people named Rod Stewart and Elton John, raving about them and their English quasi-folk sound. I wasn’t familiar with either name so I made a point of looking for their work. They were pretty darned good, too. Until they got bombastic.
The early Elton is fine stuff indeed. I still like Tumbleweed Connection and am still amazed that an English artist put it out. *Madman Across the Water *is great. Honky Chateau was a fine follow-up. “Funeral for a Friend/Love Lies Bleeding” is a masterpiece, although double albums are, well, double albums.
Elton has lots of range, a great ear for melody, and musical chops. It’s too bad he drifted off into sloppy sentimentality too early. But he’s an underrated choice for a top 10 artist.
Yes, but the question wasn’t Elton John vs. Paul McCartney. The whole of the Beatles is more than the sum of their parts. Sir Paul’s post-Beatles work was a very shallow sea with (at most) a couple of deep spots, I agree, but we’re not there yet, as far as this thread is concerned.
ETA: And I completely agree with you that Elton John vs. Paul McCartney shakes out to a much different answer than Elton John vs. the Beatles. I think, taken individually, only Lennon could claim a higher tier than Elton John. But together? There is no equal to the Beatles.
As noted, Sir Elton isn’t a lyricist. And I’m not sure that, as a composer or a vocalist, he’s as versatile and wide-ranging as either Lennon or McCartney, let alone both of them together, though I admit I haven’t listened to anywhere near his whole catalog.
The Beatles redefined rock. They were the turning point, exemplar of, inspiration for, or cause of multiple genres. Everything from psychedelia to heavy metal. (Helter Skelter was written specifically to be as loud as possible, and can be considered the first metal song.)
To equal them, you have to go to people who innovated, not just composed or performed. The Stones are evolved blues. The Beach Boys came close. Really close. But, well, then they didn’t.
If Kiss had talent, they might be close. Black Sabbath may come close, if you look at the number of people they inspired, but, while innovative, they only have one genre. You’d need someone who broke the entire world open.
Early rap would almost count, but nobody has the depth of work the Beatles did.
The only thing I can think of, after them, would maybe be something involving evolution of electronic instruments, somewhere in the disco/house/techno area, someone so basic I’m ignoring them. Maybe something in the Punk to New Wave spread in England, with exploration of A/V and DIY instruments and the complete lack of musical training.
Before them, the only person to match them would be Les Paul.
I like the Beatles. I would say Elton was around so long he became part of the “establishment of music.” This is much the same way Paul McCartney became a part of it after he left the Beatles. I would site Elton’s 70s work to the Beatles and Elton’s 80s work (to current) with Paul McCartney and other post Beatle’s achivements.