Who impacted society more: Elvis or The Beatles?

Cafe Society
41

I have to agree with you, WordMan. Of course the Beatles had varied musical influences, but from everything I have read about them (and that’s a lot…I have had a deep love & interest in them for 30 years), I think Elvis was what made them believe in Rock & Roll and the possibilities of the wider world beyond Liverpool. I think it could be argued as well that some of these other influences, such as Buddy Holly wouldn’t have been what THEY were without Elvis, as well.

Clearly, when it comes purely to music, the Beatles basically invented what popular music is today, and Elvis could never touch them in terms of creative talent. But Elvis launched the whole thing, no doubt in my mind.

42

I was waiting for someone to mention Bob Dylan since there is a strong argument that culturally, he had more of an impact than either Elvis or the Beatles. (I could argue that point here but I don’t want to hijack the main topic of this thread.)

Getting back to the OP, I think the Beatles were far more influential in terms of the direction popular music went after they hit the scene. Elvis had more of an impact as a pop icon and a personification of the American Dream and the American Tragedy.

43

I don’t know why it has to be one or the other; The Beatles built on the Superstar opening of the gates that Elvis unlocked.

Elvis blew Sinatra out of the water with his hip-gyrations, rockabilly hair, and passionate incorporation of Memphis/Mississippi blues with southern country music tradition. Yep, he was in the right place at the right time, thanks be to Sam Phillips, who knew damn well what was going on. Elvis was just boy-next-door enough with his m’ams and sirs, yet had the pipes and ability to bring the force of black music to a still segregated Southern white audience. As said on this thread, that was a pretty unique thing in that day, and it really changed the musical landscape for mainstream America. Young Elvis was a force to be reckoned with, and I wonder how he would have developed without the Old School guidance of Colonel Tom Parker.

Building on that force of departure from the languid archetype of safe 50’s white social mores, the Beatles upped it by being, not a lone front singer, but a group, all attractive guys , banded together and creating new music. Elvis was not a songwriter, he was an interpreter, and melded black and white American culture into a palatable , edgey, mix. The Beatles saw, and heard that, and, as the next generation, started to write their own songs. They were in the right place, too, buoyed by the swell of baby-boomers on both sides of the Big Pond, who were ready for the , I’ll say it, tribalism of bands, as well as the cranking up of the recording industry.

Here’s a link to the Beatles/Elvis meeting, granted, an Elvis site, so probably a bit glossed.

I think Elvis was amazing in his singular stardom and change that one individual can make, musically, and probably diminished by $$$ management, and it wore his ass out. I admire him for what he did to integrate music; as a young man, he really believed in that, and got up on stage to do it, amazing energy. He busted down the doors to the mainstream audience.

The Beatles did not have to deal with the same racial strife as Elvis, and came up in a looser time, perhaps because of Elvis. Both kicked at the boundaries of safe acceptance, and we’re better for their efforts. And, yeah, I wish Buddy Holly had lived long and longer, because he would have upped the whole musical scene then by several notches.

44

Not sure if this is a hijack or not (maybe a little one, but what the hell) – I’m way more familiar with Elvis’s music than the Beatles – did the Beatles ever do anything raw, hot and torchy?

Because that’s something else that Elvis brought to popular music that wasn’t there before, at least not openly – sex. At about the same time that Blue Denim (a shocking movie about teen pregnancy) was in theaters (1959), we were listening to Don’cha Think It’s Time, One Night, I Need Your Love Tonight, and I Beg of You, and we all knew what “Good Rockin’ Tonight” really meant.

Beatles do anything like that?

45

Dylan has been very vocal on his appreciation and admiration of Presley. Presley pretty much created the market for the Beatles’ to exploit. Moreover, the Beatles wear greatly helped by their amazing producer George Marting…himself a big Elvis fan.

46

sorry but elvis was just a singer ,albeit a very charismatic one,singing the music of the particular decades,written, arranged and probably even choreographed by others ,nothing innovative or mould breaking (unless you count the hip shaking early on in his career ! ) he was a product ,just as the manufactured boy bands of today are .his every word ,act or decision was decided by the colonel throughout his career even to which clothes he wore in public on any given day. if anyone should get an accolade it should be parker for his almost flawless handling of presleys career over so many years . his only lapse being the dreadfull films presley appeared in. the beatles on the other hand were self taught , thought and spoke for themselves (sometimes not too wisely !)not only completely changed the face of music from the mersey beat early on to a completely radical flower power style and even then moved on experimentally musically (+8 track recording in the studio),art its self with psychedelia ,popularising indian culture in the west and psychedelic drugs (not neccessarily a good thing i agree) and giving quite radical political opinions where before performing artists had uttered unchallenging pap about their favourite drinks etc. designed to offend no one .elvis gave the impression of being mean ,moody and dangerous on stage but he was the ultimate conformist ,following where others led,whereas the beatles who WERE NT trying to manufacture an image for public consumption were in fact the dangerous ones ! if the beatles had come BEFORE elvis we probably would never had heard of him !and no doubt now im going to get lynched by enraged elvis fans for uttering heresy LOL !

47

I think you are widely off the mark on this one. Presley was renowned for arranging and producing his own songs. One only need to compare Presley’s version of Blue Moon of Kentucky with any previous version. It’s almost a different song. That’s also some trick by Parker to manage his career three years before he actually, you know, managed Presley.

To say he wasn’t mold breaking displays an astonishing ignorance of the states of music in the early 1950’s.

I think Phil Spector said it best when he said:

“You have no idea how great he is, really you don’t. You have no comprehension - it’s absolutely impossible. I can’t tell you why he’s so great, but he is. He’s sensational.”

48

Speaking as a member of a generation that came way after both singers, I have to say that I am way more familiar with the Beatles than with Elvis. I can recognize Elvis’s stuff and I think it’s fun, but it’s never really made me want to hear more of it. The Beatles are on my iPod. :slight_smile:

Someone already mentioned the timeless quality of the Beatles, and I have to agree. Elvis may have been a bigger sensation at the time, and he may be more significant in terms of influencing later singers, but it’s the Beatles that have lasted.

49

I listen to a fair amount of Beatles on my ipod and via my turntable :slight_smile:

Record sales would suggest that Presley has endured and remains popular.

50

I wonder who’s buying Elvis, and the Beatles. Is it new fans, or older ones replacing wornout vinyl, eight-tracks, tapes, or completing their collections?

I’m still buying Johnny Cash because new stuff keeps coming out. Not so for Elvis and the Beatles. So who’s buying it?

I’d like a Beatles fan to answer my question about whether they ever recorded any torchy stuff. It wasn’t a rhetorical/argumentative question. My impression of the Beatles is that they did a lot of upbeat fun songs, and philosophical “message” stuff.

51

I think a lot of the Beetles and Presley sales are driven by re-issues of old albulms. Both have released “new” materials but mostly it is reissues.

I think Presley outsells the Beetles still but I could be wrong. I know he has a fairly rabid fanbase in Japan that includes the Japanese PM

52

Who are these Beetles to which there are numerous mentions?

53

As a 21 year old who just started purchasing Beatles stuff within the last two years, I’m gonna have to say that it’s new fans. Tons of my friends are into the Beatles, and their music is so timeless, that chances are our children will one day be Beatle’s fans.

While growing up, a lot of us reach a point where we hear the Beatles and we finally realize “hey, this stuff our parents listen to is pretty damn good.”

54

New laptop so I’m still getting used to the keyboard!

To respond to the initial OP, I just think Presley had a much greater affect. The Beatles excelled from a platform that had been created for them. Further, I believe Presley still outsells the Beatles (according to Forbes though I think they include merchandising etc.) for whatever that’s worth.

55

Most of the replies so far seem to miss the point of the original question: who impacted society more, not who impacted music more. As someone who is relatively neutral (I lived through both their glory periods and didn’t like either of them), it is safe to say that whether or not Elvis was a more pivotal figure in music, there is no doubt that the Beatles helped change society in profound ways. When the Beatles came along Rock was still a generational thing and even within that generation there will still kids who liked, say, Pat Boone. Within a few years of their advent, it was the mainstream for all generations, almost drowning out other forms of popular music, country and western being the major exception. After the Beatles, rock musicians, rock concerts, rock albums, etc. were reviewed by serious critics in the media; the whole face of music changed for everyone. But more important than that was the non-musical impact of the Beatles. They changed dociety and its culture. From hair and clothing styles, to interest in Eastern religions, to popular acceptance of the drug culture, to contempt for authority, etc. they may not have originated them all, but their promotion of them"legalized" them not only the younger generations but society as a whole. The attitudes and behaviors they sang about fueled a lot of people who took part in the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s. Like it or not, the Beatles changed America.

56

How, exactly? Elvis hit #1 again just a couple years ago, eleventy billion years after his death, link. When was the last time The Beatles topped out? :smiley:

57

Just a couple of years ago as well, with 1, released in 2000, and which was “the fastest selling album of all time and the biggest selling of 2000 and of the decade so far. The collection also premiered at #1 in the U.S. and other countries.”

58

My point exactly. :wink:

59

I think it was Elvis who introduced the Beatles to rock and roll, but their musical influences went far beyond just Elvis. They liked a lot of more obscure rock music.
It was the Beatles who inspired Bob Dylan to go electric.

I’m not exactly sure what you’d consider “raw, hot and torchy”. These songs might count:
Drive My Car
Why Don’t We Do It In the Road?
Come Together
Oh! Darling
I Want You (She’s So Heavy)

60

I agree. If you watch footage of Elvis’ live performances from the 50s you can see why he was such a phenomenon. A lot of people have only seen the bloated cheeseburger Elvis of the 70s or the sanitised bad movie Elvis of the 60s.

As to who is more influential between Elvis and the Beatles I would guess the Beatles, who did after all write their own music.