Okay then, how about Elton John vs. the Beatles?

[NDP]

@E-Sabbath

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.

(Shouldn’t this be set up as a voting thread?)

The problem with the recent “Beatles vs. ______” voting threads is that they’re set up in favor of an obvious blow-out in favor of the Beatles. To be interesting, they have to be paired up against an artist or group that would offer them real competition. To me, that would be somebody like Elvis, Dylan, or the Stones.

[Starving_Artist]

@NDP

(Shouldn’t this be set up as a voting thread?)

The problem with the recent “Beatles vs. ______” voting threads is that they’re set up in favor of an obvious blow-out in favor of the Beatles. To be interesting, they have to be paired up against an artist or group that would offer them real competition. To me, that would be somebody like Elvis, Dylan, or the Stones.

Ahem, my point in the OP was that Elton does offer them real competition.

In musical terms anyway. If the Beatles are to be measured by their impact on the world of music, or society, or Beatlemania or their charisma or whatever, then, yeah, no one else measures up. But musicially, Elton recorded seven number one albums in a row, filled stadiums himself (which is rare for a solo performer not a member of a band), is a superb melody writer, instrumentalist and singer, and he’s sold over 250 million records.

In considering who is as great as the Beatles I tend to look at the quality and uniqueness of their music and its impact of that music upon the audience of the time. I can think of no other performer or band whose qualifications challenge the Beatles like Elton John’s do. The Stones, while indeed highly successful, are just a blues-based rock band. Their work isn’t particularly unique. The Who created music that was unique but far less enjoyable and impactful and in my opinion lacked the range of the Beatles. Elvis (and Frank Sinatra) had similar sociological impact upon the society of the time, but Elvis’s songs themselves were no great shakes in musical terms. Let’s face it, if not for his looks and charisma he would have been nowhere near as big as he was. And as for Sinatra, he wrote neither music nor lyrics.

Paul Simon and Bob Dylan are getting props for their songwriting ability and the Stones and Led Zeppelin for being talented and popular rock bands, but to me their accomplishments in songwriting, vocal performance, instumental proficiency, domination of the album charts and appeal to a broader audience do not measure up to those of Elton John in being compared to the Beatles.

Still, I’m not going to insist that Elton is better than the Beatles and tenaciously argue the point. I just thought it would be a good idea to compare the musicality of the two in a way that’s similar to what’s going on the other “Beatles vs.” threads. And you’re right, I probably should have set this up as a poll, but it was late at night when I posted the OP and I didn’t want to take the time to investigate how to do it.

[Leaffan]

The Beatles win every comparison thread and always will. Forever.

[Starving_Artist]

It isn’t my contention that Elton John is necessarily better than the Beatles, but that he perhaps comes closer than anyone else.

[blondebear]

Beatles take the prize again.

I’m a Who fanatic of the highest order, but I’d still rank the Fab Four above them as the best band ever.

[What_Exit]

I agree Beatles beat EJ and all the others in the other threads so far. I love Floyd, Zep and Yes just as much as the Beatles but none of these groups have the range of the Beatles or the impact.

[Little_Nemo]

Good. But not as good as the Beatles.

Better than Oasis though.

[multimediac17]

Love Elton but it’s still the Beatles.

[choie]

@jayjay

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

Strongly disagree. For me, McCartney can claim Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, And I Love Her, For No One, Blackbird, I Saw Her Standing There, Can’t Buy Me Love, Helter Skelter, Hey Jude, Let It Be, Back in the U.S.S.R., Get Back, Paperback Writer, Got to Get You Into My Life, Here There and Everywhere, She’s Leaving Home… and my mind’s now blanking on others, but do I really need to cite much more? Nothing I’ve heard of EJ compares to the least of these. His bench simply isn’t nearly as deep or as broad. Even post-Beatles, I give Paul’s Maybe I’m Amazed, Band on the Run, Live and Let Die, and Jenny Wren major props. (Hell, I even enjoy Silly Love Songs, Coming Up and Uncle Albert.)

Elton John is enjoyable but I find him pretty samey after a while. Good melodies but nothing particularly interesting, musically speaking.

Needless to say? Add in the genius of Lennon and Harrison, and Ringo’s musicianship, and the Beatles take this in a walk.

I think you’re gonna have to go back to Beethoven before the Beatles get any serious competition!

[JohnT]

@Markxxx

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.

I was going to say something similar - had Elton quit perfoming oh, about 1979, this may be more of a contest. The Beatles would still win handily, but it would be more of a contest.

[E-Sabbath]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I think you could put Led Zeppelin underneath the Beatles as far as versatility, innovation and influence.

… Dio, you’re talking about a band that ripped off every major hit they had, from either classic blues or the opening band. (see: Taurus)

Great technical skill, fantastic style and influence… and counter-influence, they’re anti-responsible for punk, but zero for innovation.

[E-Sabbath]

Duh. Dave Grohl’s band-history versus the Beatles.

I think we may have a competition here.