PDA

View Full Version : Science Okay. Let's Settle This Once & For All Times!!!


FAX
07-07-2009, 04:00 PM
Which one doesn't belong and why?

Just kidding.

Here's the real question, oh ye little marshmallow sugary Easter birds. Which one of the above had the greatest impact on popular music? Vote your conscience and no cheating, if you please.

Poll forthcoming.

FAX

Disclaimers: Sorry if repost.

EDIT: (APOH)

seclark
07-07-2009, 04:02 PM
apohe
sec

KC native
07-07-2009, 04:11 PM
Even though I can't stand the Beatles for the most part (they were brilliant song writers though). It's gotta be them.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 04:17 PM
Where's the Spice Girls option?

Buck
07-07-2009, 04:18 PM
One of those bands heavily influenced one of those individuals. Therefore I am going with that band.

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2009, 04:18 PM
The Beatles were just the first boy band.

FAX
07-07-2009, 04:19 PM
Even though I can't stand the Beatles for the most part (they were brilliant song writers though). It's gotta be them.

Thank you for your honesty and conscientious vote, Mr. KC native. You're right. This poll isn't about personal taste. It's about who has had the greater impact on music. Personally, I don't think it's even close, but we'll see.

FAX

FAX
07-07-2009, 04:21 PM
One of those bands heavily influenced one of those individuals. Therefore I am going with that band.

Elvis always said that The Gaz Brothers were the bestest. Especially when they did that thing with the watermelon and the bass guitar.

FAX

ChiefJustice
07-07-2009, 04:21 PM
http://features.absoluteelsewhere.net/ZeKingandI/young_elvis_graphic.jpgJohn Lennon: “It was Elvis who really got me buying records. I thought that early stuff of his was great. The Bill Haley era passed me by, in a way. When his records came on the wireless, my mother used to hear them, but they didn’t do anything for me. It was Elvis who got me hooked on beat music. When I heard Heartbreak Hotel, I thought ‘this is it’ and I started to grow sideboards and all that gear...”

Simply Red
07-07-2009, 04:24 PM
MJ in my opinion.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 04:28 PM
beatles, and it isn't even close.

elvis, though, was brilliant. 'thriller' era mikey jackson was great too.

Fritz88
07-07-2009, 04:29 PM
Beatles are fucking overrated. I voted MJ although I am not a fan of him but

1- He was a black man who transcended racial barriers and redefined pop.
2- His showmanship is uncomparable.
3- He slept with little babies, acted like a total fool, yet his records are still shattering the charts.
4- His funeral and the public outcry over him prove that his followers are more than anyone else's.

Stewie
07-07-2009, 04:29 PM
These are disparate options. Different times, fan-bases (for the most part), and decades from the beginning to the end.

Elvis and MJ were solo, so that makes them different from the Beatles.

RedNeckRaider
07-07-2009, 04:34 PM
Elvis always said that The Gaz Brothers were the bestest. Especially when they did that thing with the watermelon and the bass guitar.

FAX

Elvis stole all of Gaz's moves and every song he wrote. Gaz was the front man of the Gaz brothers band

RJ
07-07-2009, 04:34 PM
Specifically to the question, I gotta say Elvis. Without Elvis you maybe never have the Beatles, or the Beatles never achieve what they achieve.

MJ was the best pure entertainer of the three, IMO, but I don't think of him as influential.

RJ
07-07-2009, 04:35 PM
Elvis stole all of Gaz's moves and every song he wrote. Gaz was the front man of the Gaz brothers band


Remember that time gaz was on The Ed Sullivan Show and all the girls were going crazy and fainting and stuff?

Baconeater
07-07-2009, 04:39 PM
Beatles, this shouldn't even be a debate.

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 04:46 PM
Beatles, hands down.

Michael Jackson's musical catalog isn't worth in excess of $1 billion dollars.

Katipan
07-07-2009, 04:47 PM
I knew all those people.

Except Gaz. :(

EyePod
07-07-2009, 04:52 PM
http://features.absoluteelsewhere.net/ZeKingandI/young_elvis_graphic.jpgJohn Lennon: “It was Elvis who really got me buying records. I thought that early stuff of his was great. The Bill Haley era passed me by, in a way. When his records came on the wireless, my mother used to hear them, but they didn’t do anything for me. It was Elvis who got me hooked on beat music. When I heard Heartbreak Hotel, I thought ‘this is it’ and I started to grow sideboards and all that gear...”

That's what I figured. The whole rock and roll genre has Elvis to thank. Plus, he's the first dancing singer (or one who moved like that), so that's a nod to MJ. Either way, I'm not an Elvis fan, but I think he's the most important.

EyePod
07-07-2009, 04:53 PM
Beatles, hands down.

Michael Jackson's musical catalog isn't worth in excess of $1 billion dollars.

He did own the Beatles rights though....

LaChapelle
07-07-2009, 04:55 PM
Jerry Lee Lewis, he was a straight pedophile.

alpha_omega
07-07-2009, 04:56 PM
Elvis.

Stewie
07-07-2009, 04:58 PM
I AM THE GOD OF HELLFIRE!!!! Yep, that was the turning point for me.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 04:59 PM
Jerry Lee Lewis, he was a straight pedophile.

INCESTUOUS pedophile at that.

LaChapelle
07-07-2009, 05:00 PM
INCESTUOUS pedophile at that.

Elvis was a pedophile too.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 05:01 PM
Elvis was a pedophile too.

didn't fuck his own cousin, did he?

Phobia
07-07-2009, 05:02 PM
Even though I can't stand the Beatles for the most part (they were brilliant song writers though). It's gotta be them.

Thank you for saving all that typing for me.

LaChapelle
07-07-2009, 05:04 PM
didn't **** his own cousin, did he?

Just his future wife/rumor. Ringo was probably tapping some young shit too.

Der Flöprer
07-07-2009, 05:04 PM
beatles, and it isn't even close.

elvis, though, was brilliant. 'thriller' era mikey jackson was great too.

I'm 32. I wasn't alive for 2 out of the 3. But being a music lover and knowing about the history as I do (which isn't necessarily very much) this is easy. The Beatles hands down. They inspired multiple generations.

Der Flöprer
07-07-2009, 05:04 PM
Just his future wife/rumor. Ringo was probably tapping some young shit too.

Mah name is Ringo. And I play tha drums!

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 05:05 PM
Rush-hands down-best ever.

I voted for Elvis-there would not be the Beatles without Elvis. He changed everything.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 05:05 PM
Mah name is Ringo. And I play tha drums!

heeeylo bongo!

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 05:08 PM
I'm 32. I wasn't alive for 2 out of the 3. But being a music lover and knowing about the history as I do (which isn't necessarily very much) this is easy. The Beatles hands down. They inspired multiple generations.

I'm 26, and the only michael jackson I've ever known was that of the old white woman. I only know the beatles from the fact that my dad was a huge beatles fan, and the 'beatles anthology' (volumes 1-3) came out during my formative years, and my sis was obsessed with em'... I bummed them off of her, and absolutely loved their work..

anyway, enough digression

KC native
07-07-2009, 05:12 PM
Thank you for saving all that typing for me.

ROFL You typed almost as much as I did.

Der Flöprer
07-07-2009, 05:14 PM
I'm 26, and the only michael jackson I've ever known was that of the old white woman. I only know the beatles from the fact that my dad was a huge beatles fan, and the 'beatles anthology' (volumes 1-3) came out during my formative years, and my sis was obsessed with em'... I bummed them off of her, and absolutely loved their work..

anyway, enough digression

I AM THE WALRUS!!!! COO COO KACHOOB!!!

I didn't grow up with them, but I love the Beatles.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 05:33 PM
I AM THE WALRUS!!!! COO COO KACHOOB!!!

I didn't grow up with them, but I love the Beatles.

ditto.

what'd you think about 'across the universe?'

cdcox
07-07-2009, 05:50 PM
Argument for Elvis -- He was first.

Arguments against Elvis -- 1. Didn't write his own songs. 2. There were others doing similar things at the time, he just made them better. 3. He was a great performer, but it is hard to make the argument that R & R would have never happened with out him.

The Beatles changed the direction of R & R in a manner that everyone else was compelled to follow. And they contributed/controlled every phase of the creative process.

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 05:50 PM
He did own the Beatles rights though....

Still does...

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 05:54 PM
Argument for Elvis -- He was first.

Arguments against Elvis -- 1. Didn't write his own songs. 2. There were others doing similar things at the time, he just made them better. 3. He was a great performer, but it is hard to make the argument that R & R would have never happened with out him.

The Beatles changed the direction of R & R in a manner that everyone else was compelled to follow. And they contributed/controlled every phase of the creative process.

Stones, The Who, the Yardbirds, Zep-wrote better songs-but didn't have 20 million girls having orgasms over them. The Beatle were more of a cultural phenom-than anything else. Pre suit and Tie Beatles-damm those guys could rock out though.

One could argue These bands had a bigger impact musically.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 05:55 PM
Still does...

well, technically, his estate owns them. he owns nothing anymore.

(and for some reason, I recalled reading that he'd had to sell some of the rights a while back due to money issues. am I mistaken?)

OnTheWarpath58
07-07-2009, 06:04 PM
Beatles.

Landslide.

Next question.

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 06:06 PM
Stones, The Who, the Yardbirds, Zep-wrote better songs-but didn't have 20 million girls having orgasms over them. The Beatle were more of a cultural phenom-than anything else. Pre suit and Tie Beatles-damm those guys could rock out though.

One could argue These bands had a bigger impact musically.

Whoa, cowboy.

How many times have you been in an elevator and heard "Stairway to Heaven" on the Muzak?

If the Beatles were just a "cultural phenom", why have they and their music endured for more than 45 years?

:shake:

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 06:09 PM
well, technically, his estate owns them. he owns nothing anymore.

(and for some reason, I recalled reading that he'd had to sell some of the rights a while back due to money issues. am I mistaken?)

I was just joking. Until John Branca unseals the will, they still belong to Michael Jackson but obviously, that's just a gesture waiting to happen.

Last I heard (and I've been out of the day to day business for nearly six years), he is still the majority owner of the ATV catalog. I imagine the extent of ownership will make it into the media over the next few weeks.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:10 PM
exactly. to me, it comes down to this.

the beatles were relevant to the fainting teenage girls in 1964.

the beatles were relevant to my dad, who was born in 1957.

the beatles are relevant to me, born in 1983.

their music stands the test of time.

contrariwise, elvis is good for an occasional listen, but not more than a small handful of songs. michael jackson is good for another small handful of songs (I've never been a huge pop/r&b fan... billie jean, thriller, and his other huge hits are great though).

but neither are in the beatles' league, IMHO.

OnTheWarpath58
07-07-2009, 06:12 PM
Whoa, cowboy.

How many times have you been in an elevator and heard "Stairway to Heaven" on the Muzak?

If the Beatles were just a "cultural phenom", why have they and their music endured for more than 45 years?

:shake:

One of the things I took from my Music Appreciation class last semester.

The professor simply defined "good" music as "music that lasts."

The Beatles will arguably still be talked about the way Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, etc are today in future decades and centuries.

Bands like LZ may not even be part of a discussion in 20 years, much less 50, 100 or more.

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2009, 06:15 PM
The professor simply defined "good" music as "music that lasts."


I just discovered Aldo Nova!

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:17 PM
One of the things I took from my Music Appreciation class last semester.

The professor simply defined "good" music as "music that lasts."

The Beatles will arguably still be talked about the way Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, etc are today in future decades and centuries.

Bands like LZ may not even be part of a discussion in 20 years, much less 50, 100 or more.

not to take away from your point, but LZ was simply brilliant in some of their works. granted, I'm not a huge LZ fan, but some of their stuff stands that test of time.

wild1
07-07-2009, 06:21 PM
Elvis was the biggest thing of his era. The Beatles were the Elvis of their era. Michael Jackson was the Elvis of his era. They are all the same in a way.

OnTheWarpath58
07-07-2009, 06:21 PM
not to take away from your point, but LZ was simply brilliant in some of their works. granted, I'm not a huge LZ fan, but some of their stuff stands that test of time.

My idea of "time" differs from yours, apparently.

Not trying to discredit LZ, but I have a hard time believing that their music will still be discussed in 20 years, where The Beatles will go down in the history books as game-changers - and will be talked about in the same circles as the all-time greats for the next 50, 100 or more.

We still talk about Mozart, Beethoven, etc CENTURIES after their work was introduced. I think the Beatles will be the same.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 06:28 PM
Maybe this should be it's own thread, but what rock-era bands WILL stand the test of time (>50 years, say)? I'll grant Elvis and the Beatles, but who else?

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:29 PM
My idea of "time" differs from yours, apparently.

Not trying to discredit LZ, but I have a hard time believing that their music will still be discussed in 20 years, where The Beatles will go down in the history books as game-changers - and will be talked about in the same circles as the all-time greats for the next 50, 100 or more.

We still talk about Mozart, Beethoven, etc CENTURIES after their work was introduced. I think the Beatles will be the same.

with that rubric, I agree with you. to me, there are VERY few of those artists that are remembered a minimum of 50 years after their time. will LZ be remembered like that? I highly doubt it.

I'd guess that MAYBE an artist a generation gets that honor. there's obviously nothing concrete about it, but considering those who we're talking about, look at the generational gap. elvis and the beatles were KINDA contemporary, but in their heyday, not really. mj, obviously, wasn't contemporary.

who else could be considered in that league? I could offer up robert johnson, the 'founder' of the blues (inasmuch as blues truly HAS a founder, that is). music historians will always remember robert johnson. I really can't think of many others though, and nobody REALLY stands out.

interesting thread of thought.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:29 PM
Maybe this should be it's own thread, but what rock-era bands WILL stand the test of time (>50 years, say)? I'll grant Elvis and the Beales, but who else?

obviously, rush.

:spock:

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 06:33 PM
LOL I could make a case for Nirvana. They pretty much resurrected guitars when Teen Spirit came out. Changed music overnight.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 06:33 PM
...and I think I agree on Rush.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:35 PM
LOL I could make a case for Nirvana. They pretty much resurrected guitars when Teen Spirit came out. Changed music overnight.

hmmmm.... maybe.

jimi hendrix? possibly.

B.B. king? maybe.



(and I was j/k about rush, I'm not really a fan. they're ok, but they're not the gods some of their fans make them out to be)

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 06:37 PM
Rush is a pretty fucking good band. They'll be remembered, but just not as one of the biggies.

Jimi? Yes.
Chuck Berry? FUCK yes.

Nzoner
07-07-2009, 06:38 PM
The Beatles were just the first boy band.


oh dear lord :rolleyes:

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 06:38 PM
Whoa, cowboy.

How many times have you been in an elevator and heard "Stairway to Heaven" on the Muzak?

If the Beatles were just a "cultural phenom", why have they and their music endured for more than 45 years?

:shake:

Oh the elevator test-well I stand corrected. :rolleyes:

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 06:38 PM
The Who & The Stones? Absolutely.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:39 PM
it's kinda sad. I can't really think of any artists from 1900-1945 other than robert johnson and a few blues and/or a few jazz guys.

Baby Lee
07-07-2009, 06:39 PM
They're each important in their own manner. Elvis was the pioneer, the Beatles were the best, and most innovative, musicians, Michael resuscitated a moribund industry.

The place one before the other is akin to comparing Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Would Einstein have made the breakthroughs he made if he had to invent calculus first?

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 06:40 PM
Frank Sinatra, Benny Goodman would be legit from that era.

Nzoner
07-07-2009, 06:40 PM
Maybe this should be it's own thread, but what rock-era bands WILL stand the test of time (>50 years, say)? I'll grant Elvis and the Beatles, but who else?

I'd give a nod to The Rolling Stones

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:41 PM
gah. louis armstrong.

and I'm not so sure about the stones and the who. in my world, it's a VERY select club to be in... maybe a band every ten years or so. MAYBE.

I mean, I LOVE rage against the machine. they're my favorite band of all-time. but they're not in the discussion at all.

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:41 PM
Frank Sinatra, Benny Goodman would be legit from that era.

yep. both of them, probably.

Baby Lee
07-07-2009, 06:43 PM
it's kinda sad. I can't really think of any artists from 1900-1945 other than robert johnson and a few blues and/or a few jazz guys.

None of the big band leaders, Artie Shaw, Glenn Miller, Stan Kenton, Gene Krupa, Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, The Dorsey Brothers?

Pioli Zombie
07-07-2009, 06:44 PM
Specifically to the question, I gotta say Elvis. Without Elvis you maybe never have the Beatles, or the Beatles never achieve what they achieve.

MJ was the best pure entertainer of the three, IMO, but I don't think of him as influential.

Without the Beatles you don't have just about everything you have now. Artist who write their own music. Stadium concerts. Listen to any Led Zepplin, REM, U2, any group that came after. The Beatles played any style too, this doesn't get talked about enough. Check out the White Album. You want heavy, you got Helter Skelter. You want Blues, Yer Blues. You want plain old rock you got Back in the USSR, Everybodys got somethin to hide.., Birthday. You want beautiful melody Julia, Blackbird, Dear Prudence. They could do anything. Yes. Elvis had to come first. Chuck Berry too. But culturally its not even close. Guys can wear glasses because of John Lennon. Or their hair long.
To even compare Michael Jackson to the Beatles is a sick joke.
U2 comes much closer and they don't compare either. And don't get me started on the Stones. They NEVER could compare to the Beatles.
Posted via Mobile Device

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 06:45 PM
The question was Greatest Impact-Elvis was the "KIng" of R @R-he influenced tons of bands-including the beatles, U2, Scorpions, not to mention country and Gospel artist. That is a pretty Big impact.

The Beatles sold a ton of records and If they stayed together-could have probably doubled that. So finacial impact would go to them.

But since they were huge Elvis fans-should he not get the credit for influencing them??

Oh yeah he had lots more movies than the Beatle did too-lol

ChiefButthurt
07-07-2009, 06:46 PM
I voted the Beatles. For those of you that voted Elvis....well he had help.

FORREST (V.O.) One time a young man was staying
with us, and he had him a guitar
case.

Mrs. Gump looks into Forrest's room. She hears singing coming
from another room and walks over to a closed door. Mrs. Gump
opens the door, revealing a young man with long sideburns as
he plays the guitar and sings. Forrest holds onto a broom
and dances oddly. The young man is ELVIS PRESLEY.

ELVIS PRESLEY
(sings)
"Well, you ain't never caught a
rabbit, and you ain't no friend of
mine."

Forrest's legs rock back and forth to the guitar.

MRS. GUMP
Forrest! I told you not to bother
this nice young man.

ELVIS
Oh, no, that's all right, ma'am. I
was just showin' him a thing or two
on the guitar here.

MRS. GUMP
All right, but your supper's ready
if y'all want to eat.

ELVIS
Yeah, that sounds good. Thank you,
ma'am.

Mrs. Gump leaves and closes the door. Elvis sits back down.

Forrest stands left, and looks himself in a mirror.

ELVIS
Say, man, show me that crazy little
walk you just did there. Slow it
down some.

Forrest begins to dance again as Elvis plays the guitar and
sings.
ELVIS
(sings)
"You ain't nothin' but a hound, hound
dog..."

FORREST (V.O.)
I liked that guitar.

Forrest dances as he watches himself in the mirror.

FORREST (V.O.)
It sounded good.

ELVIS
(sings)
"...cryin' all the time"

Forrest rocks up and down on his braced legs, then begins to
step.

ELVIS
(sings)
"You ain't nothin' but a hound dog..."

FORREST (V.O.)
I started moving around to the music,
swinging my hips. This one night me
and Momma...

EXT. GREENBOW - NIGHT

Mrs. Gump and Forrest walk along a sidewalk. A television
inside a store window reveals Elvis Presley as he performs
"Houng Dog" on a stage.

FORREST (V.O.)
...was out shoppin', and we walked
right by Benson's Furniture and
Appliance store, and guess what.

The television reveals Elvis as he thrusts his hips and sings.

ELVIS
(sings)
You ain't nothin' but a hound dog...

Mrs. Gump and Forrest watch the television. Elvis dances
around in the same manner Forrest did. A woman in the audience
screaming and applauding.

ELVIS
(sings)
You ain't nothin' but a hound dog...

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 06:47 PM
gah. louis armstrong.

and I'm not so sure about the stones and the who. in my world, it's a VERY select club to be in... maybe a band every ten years or so. MAYBE.

I mean, I LOVE rage against the machine. they're my favorite band of all-time. but they're not in the discussion at all.Yeah but the 60's & early 70's were just DIFFERENT. There were an awful lot of great, very talented musicians floating around then. The Stones were just a raunchier version of the Beatles in a lot of ways, and The Who were pretty much the first punk band. Hell, the Beach Boys should be there too.

OnTheWarpath58
07-07-2009, 06:47 PM
it's kinda sad. I can't really think of any artists from 1900-1945 other than robert johnson and a few blues and/or a few jazz guys.

Aaron Copland. Duke Ellington.

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 06:48 PM
it's kinda sad. I can't really think of any artists from 1900-1945 other than robert johnson and a few blues and/or a few jazz guys.

Glenn Miller, Fats Domino, The Rat Pack, Chuck Berry,

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:49 PM
None of the big band leaders, Artie Shaw, Glenn Miller, Stan Kenton, Gene Krupa, Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, The Dorsey Brothers?

a few of them came to mind, but I've never been a huge big-band fan. that's, admittedly, a gap in my musical tastes.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 06:50 PM
As far as impact is concerned, cases could be made for Eric Clapton or Madonna.

Pioli Zombie
07-07-2009, 06:51 PM
I'd give a nod to The Rolling Stones

What a joke. For one thing the Stones haven't introduced one original thing in 35 years so let's just keep it to the parallel years when they both were at their zenith. In the Stones best era, when Brian Jones wasn't crocked and was heavily influencing the music they were very good. But please. You can't compare the musical productivity, the change in styles, the influence on the culture. Again check out a song like Yer Blues or She's so Heavy. The Beatles could do the Stones. The Stones could never match Sgt Pepper, Revolver, Rubber Soul. Jaggars vocals couldn't compare. The musicianship, with the exception of Jones, could compare.

Not that I have an opinion.....;)
Posted via Mobile Device

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:51 PM
The question was Greatest Impact-Elvis was the "KIng" of R @R-he influenced tons of bands-including the beatles, U2, Scorpions, not to mention country and Gospel artist. That is a pretty Big impact.

The Beatles sold a ton of records and If they stayed together-could have probably doubled that. So finacial impact would go to them.

But since they were huge Elvis fans-should he not get the credit for influencing them??

Oh yeah he had lots more movies than the Beatle did too-lol

common theme? every movie that both the beatles and elvis did was cheesy and pretty much sucked :p

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 06:51 PM
Rush is a pretty ****ing good band. They'll be remembered, but just not as one of the biggies.

.

Best Musicians of All Time-hands down.

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 06:53 PM
common theme? every movie that both the beatles and elvis did was cheesy and pretty much sucked :p

My point was-that Elvis sold a shit load of movie tickets-and every movie had a Soundtrack that went Gold or better.

Take a tour of Graceland and see the Wall of Gold-then tell me the Beatles were bigger.

Pioli Zombie
07-07-2009, 06:55 PM
Best Musicians of All Time-hands down.

Let me guess. You're about 38 or younger.
Posted via Mobile Device

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 06:56 PM
Let me guess. You're about 38 or younger.
Posted via Mobile Device

eh, my dad is 52. he loves rush.

Nzoner
07-07-2009, 06:57 PM
Best Musicians of All Time-hands down.

I'd say great but best of all time :shake:

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 07:15 PM
I'd say great but best of all time :shake:

As voted on by Other Musicians.

Neil just won Best drummer AGAIN. Geddy has won it multiple times as well as Alex.

How many Best musician awards has Ringo won-lol

Baby Lee
07-07-2009, 07:21 PM
As voted on by Other Musicians.

Neil just won Best drummer AGAIN. Geddy has won it multiple times as well as Alex.

How many Best musician awards has Ringo won-lol

There's great musicians, then there's great music. I'd place Rush around the same level as Yes and a level below Styx and Jethro Tull. Certainly not in the circle of all time greats.

RJ
07-07-2009, 07:23 PM
it's kinda sad. I can't really think of any artists from 1900-1945 other than robert johnson and a few blues and/or a few jazz guys.


Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams, Andrews Sisters, Judy Garland.....to name a few.

Hank and Woody would fall in the category of timeless music. Your Cheatin' Heart is as classic as classic gets.

RJ
07-07-2009, 07:27 PM
Rush fans are a strange breed, totally devoted to their band and totally convinced of their musical genius and unsurpassed virtuosity. For me it is all pretentious noise, I can't watch Spinal Tap without hearing Rush.

But to each his own, there is plenty of music/art/literature, etc, that I like and others don't. I'm a big Tom Waits fan. Many find that puzzling.

Baby Lee
07-07-2009, 07:29 PM
Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams, Andrews Sisters, Judy Garland.....to name a few.

Hank and Woody would fall in the category of timeless music. Your Cheatin' Heart is as classic as classic gets.

Perhaps one of my five favorite albums of all time

Check out the tracks, start with Ramblin' Round.

http://www.amazon.com/Tribute-Woody-Guthrie-Various-Artists/dp/B000002LJG

Der Flöprer
07-07-2009, 07:37 PM
Rush has been playing and consistently putting out new music for around 35 years. They're already most of the way there. Love them or hate them, you can't deny their world wide following. They have arguably the greatest drummer of all time, and if not the greatest bassist, one who pioneered and ushered in the rest in the group. For a 3 man band, they are amazing and simply 1 of a kind.

All of that said, I don't know if they'll be remembered 50 years from now. But I wouldn't blame them for that at all.

RJ
07-07-2009, 07:37 PM
Perhaps one of my five favorite albums of all time

Check out the tracks, start with Ramblin' Round.

http://www.amazon.com/Tribute-Woody-Guthrie-Various-Artists/dp/B000002LJG


You know how we all have music that takes us back to a certain place and time in our past? What's cool about Woody Guthrie and Hank Williams is that they take me back to a time and place where I've never even been. Yet, despite never having been there, the music makes me feel like I can see and feel the places they were.

FAX
07-07-2009, 07:40 PM
They're each important in their own manner. Elvis was the pioneer, the Beatles were the best, and most innovative, musicians, Michael resuscitated a moribund industry.

The place one before the other is akin to comparing Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Would Einstein have made the breakthroughs he made if he had to invent calculus first?

There's a heck of a lot of truthiness in this statement.

Still, you begin from where you are at the time, Mr. Baby Lee. It's fair to say that, had the Beatles not been inspired by Elvis, rock-a-billy, and up-tempo blues, they might have been inspired by someone or something else and we might be listening to a whole lot more accordion duos on satellite radio. It doesn't necessarily mean that their impact would be any less ... just very different.

Although Elvis was hugely important to the emergence and wide, cultural acceptance of "rock & roll", to me, the breadth and depth of the Beatles' influence - not to mention the lasting appeal of their songs - gives them the nod. And it shouldn't even be close.

FAX

FAX
07-07-2009, 07:42 PM
As voted on by Other Musicians.

Neil just won Best drummer AGAIN. Geddy has won it multiple times as well as Alex.

How many Best musician awards has Ringo won-lol

Simmah!!! Simmah down nah!!!

Ringo is one of the most underrated drummers of all times. He could put a back beat on a fart, dude. And has. Don't be dissing Ringo.

FAX

FAX
07-07-2009, 07:44 PM
Besides, it can be well argued that, were it not for Ringo, those guys might not even have jobs.

FAX

Just Passin' By
07-07-2009, 07:47 PM
There must be a lot of young people taking this poll.

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 07:49 PM
There's great musicians, then there's great music. I'd place Rush around the same level as Yes and a level below Styx and Jethro Tull. Certainly not in the circle of all time greats.

Really? :rolleyes:

Rush has won a number of Juno awards, inducted into the Candian Hall of Fame and has influenced countless bands from Tool to Metallica. Oh and received the Royal Order of Canada award. The highest honor given in that country.

As a group Rush posess 24 Gold and 14 Platinum records placing them 4th behind only the Beatles, Stones, and Kiss-also 4th for consecutive Gold-a Very tough thing to do.

Over the course of their careers, the individual members of Rush have been acknowledged as being the most proficient players of their instraments with each winning multiple awards. Neil has won more drumming awards than any Other musician in the history of music. Even his instructional videos have won awards. He has won for best live performace, best drum solo, best recorded drumming, Best Rock drumming, ect ect-NOONE is even close-ask any drummer.

Like I said-Best musicians of all time-hands down-not even close.

Baconeater
07-07-2009, 07:50 PM
There must be a lot of young people taking this poll.
:spock: Yeah, all the young people I know are listening to the Beatles.

FAX
07-07-2009, 07:52 PM
They won a Canadian award? Well, all right then.

FAX

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 07:56 PM
Rush has been playing and consistently putting out new music for around 35 years. They're already most of the way there. Love them or hate them, you can't deny their world wide following. They have arguably the greatest drummer of all time, and if not the greatest bassist, one who pioneered and ushered in the rest in the group. For a 3 man band, they are amazing and simply 1 of a kind.

All of that said, I don't know if they'll be remembered 50 years from now. But I wouldn't blame them for that at all.

Maybe they should have had matching haircuts and suits instead of long ass hair and komona's-lol

Rush was just in the number one ranked movie-on several important news shows and just had a two year world tour.

I think people will remember them.

OnTheWarpath58
07-07-2009, 07:56 PM
They won a Canadian award? Well, all right then.

FAX

LMAO

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 07:57 PM
They won a Canadian award? Well, all right then.

FAX

Similar to being Knighted in England-Sir Paul, Sir Elton, Sir Madonna ect

Ebolapox
07-07-2009, 07:59 PM
They won a Canadian award? Well, all right then.

FAX

do yourself a favor, don't get into it about rush with halfcan.

stevieray
07-07-2009, 08:02 PM
Elvis..it's not even close.

Halfcan
07-07-2009, 08:02 PM
do yourself a favor, don't get into it about rush with halfcan.

ROFL I am just stating facts- I am not a fanboy really-lol

















okay yeah I am. :D

DaFace
07-07-2009, 08:05 PM
My idea of "time" differs from yours, apparently.

Not trying to discredit LZ, but I have a hard time believing that their music will still be discussed in 20 years, where The Beatles will go down in the history books as game-changers - and will be talked about in the same circles as the all-time greats for the next 50, 100 or more.

We still talk about Mozart, Beethoven, etc CENTURIES after their work was introduced. I think the Beatles will be the same.

I think it would be an interesting exercise to try and develop a taxonomy of music that identifies the major branches in styles that have occurred over the years.

I think I'd probably disagree with you about Zeppelin in the sense that they would be one of those bands that started a "branch." They were arguably the band that started the heavy metal genre, so they will be important for a while in that sense.

FAX
07-07-2009, 08:06 PM
Elvis..it's not even close.

I can understand how you might feel this way, Mr. stevieray. I just hope that First Down George doesn't see this post.

FAX

Nzoner
07-07-2009, 08:10 PM
As voted on by Other Musicians.

Neil just won Best drummer AGAIN. Geddy has won it multiple times as well as Alex.

How many Best musician awards has Ringo won-lol



Jeez,did I even mention Ringo?

Personally,I'm a Rush fan,I just wouldn't suck their dick like you.

RJ
07-07-2009, 08:10 PM
There's a heck of a lot of truthiness in this statement.

Still, you begin from where you are at the time, Mr. Baby Lee. It's fair to say that, had the Beatles not been inspired by Elvis, rock-a-billy, and up-tempo blues, they might have been inspired by someone or something else and we might be listening to a whole lot more accordion duos on satellite radio. It doesn't necessarily mean that their impact would be any less ... just very different.

Although Elvis was hugely important to the emergence and wide, cultural acceptance of "rock & roll", to me, the breadth and depth of the Beatles' influence - not to mention the lasting appeal of their songs - gives them the nod. And it shouldn't even be close.

FAX



All true, but I think you're ignoring all the other artists besides the Beatles that Elvis influenced. British rockers, American rockers and even R&B groups were influenced and affected by his music and performances. Music and culture changed forever in the 60's and Elvis had a lot to do with that.

Now, if I'm grabbing a CD to listen to, I'm much more likely to pick the Beatles. I enjoy their music far more. But I think they're equally influential, so since Elvis came first I give him the nod.

stevieray
07-07-2009, 08:12 PM
I can understand how you might feel this way, Mr. stevieray. I just hope that First Down George doesn't see this post.

FAX

first with the crib, first with the plane. first with the posse. (which everyone now copies) private home named a national landmark....first to be paid a million dollars...only artist named to country, rock and gospel HOF. over a billion records sold, miilions made thirty years after his death...etc.etc

Nzoner
07-07-2009, 08:14 PM
Although I can see the argument for Elvis I agree with others that when you factor in the writing of one's own lyrics,the experimentation and the like The Beatles are far superior,hell,I've often said had Buddy Holly lived to a ripe old age we'd all consider him the real king of rock-n-roll.

BigMeatballDave
07-07-2009, 08:15 PM
The Beatles, no argument. And I'm not even a fan.

wild1
07-07-2009, 08:17 PM
hahahaha you talk about elvis and the beatles, and then some rush fan comes into the elevator and rips ass

wild1
07-07-2009, 08:19 PM
From wiki - i am sure there is more to this story.


On 27 August 1965, the group arrived at a Bel Air mansion to meet Elvis Presley. Biographer Peter Guralnick maintains that Presley was at best "lukewarm" about playing host to people he did not really know. Paul McCartney later said: "It was one of the great meetings of my life ... I only met him that once, and then I think the success of our career started to push him out a little, which we were very sad about, because we wanted to coexist with him." Marty Lacker, a friend of Presley's, recalls the singer saying: "'Quite frankly, if you guys are going to stare at me all night, I'm going to bed. I thought we'd talk a while and maybe jam a little.' And when he said that, they [The Beatles] went nuts." The group told stories, joked and listened to records. The five of them had an impromptu jam session. "They all went to the piano," says Lacker, "and Elvis handed out a couple of guitars. And they started singing Elvis songs, Beatle songs, Chuck Berry songs. Elvis played Paul's bass part on "I Feel Fine", and Paul said something like, 'You're coming along quite promising on the bass there, Elvis.' I remember thinking later, 'Man, if we'd only had a tape recorder.'"

Reaper16
07-07-2009, 08:21 PM
There's great musicians, then there's great music. I'd place Rush around the same level as Yes and a level below Styx and Jethro Tull. Certainly not in the circle of all time greats.
Well, its well known that you have shitty taste.

Reaper16
07-07-2009, 08:22 PM
BTW -- I voted The Beatles.

Pioli Zombie
07-07-2009, 09:46 PM
Besides, it can be well argued that, were it not for Ringo, those guys might not even have jobs.

FAX

And I love how the best of Rush gets compared to Ringo. Yeah, don't bring up guys named Lennon and McCartney or anything.
Posted via Mobile Device

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 09:48 PM
Ringo was a product of his time. He was GREAT at doing exactly what drummers did at the time.

FAX
07-07-2009, 09:59 PM
Ringo was a product of his time. He was GREAT at doing exactly what drummers did at the time.

Over the years, I've read many quotes by famous, respected musicians who have mentioned that Ringo was one hell of a drummer. Guys like Clapton and Page and Townsend and Gabriel. Just underrated. His talent was merely eclipsed by the other three Fabs.

A lot of bands would be damn happy to have Ringo as their drummer.

You can POH but not OR.

FAX

RJ
07-07-2009, 10:00 PM
I'm just guessing here, but if Ringo wasn't a very good drummer I think they could have found a replacement.

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 10:05 PM
Best Musicians of All Time-hands down.

Not. Even. Close.

FAX
07-07-2009, 10:06 PM
There are some very sweet drum parts on Abbey Road. There's one that goes, "bam, de bam, de bam bam bam bam bam de bam, de bam bam". And that's just one of the toms. Not counting the other drum stuff he hit along with it.

FAX

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 10:08 PM
Simmah!!! Simmah down nah!!!

Ringo is one of the most underrated drummers of all times. He could put a back beat on a fart, dude. And has. Don't be dissing Ringo.

FAX

It seems that only studio musicians, people of that era and music producers "get" Ringo.

Ringo was and is a badass. More importantly, he's a great person and easy to get along with (which 9 times out of 10 is half the battle).

Furthermore, Ringo doesn't need to win awards.

He's fucking Ringo, k?

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 10:11 PM
While I would agree that Neil Peart IS, in fact, a badass drummer, there are others who are just as flashy & badass. See Carl Palmer.

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 10:11 PM
All true, but I think you're ignoring all the other artists besides the Beatles that Elvis influenced. British rockers, American rockers and even R&B groups were influenced and affected by his music and performances. Music and culture changed forever in the 60's and Elvis had a lot to do with that.

In the 60's? After he served? No way. The 50's, absolutely.

If Elvis "changed the culture" as you describe, it's much in the way Nirvana washed away the "Hair Metal" bands of the 80's.

No one tried to be Elvis after the Beatles arrived on the scene.

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 10:12 PM
While I would agree that Neil Peart IS, in fact, a badass drummer, there are others who are just as flashy & badass. See Carl Palmer.

I HATE Carl Palmer.

He's always rushing and pushing the beat.

Yuck.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 10:12 PM
In the 60's? After he served? No way. The 50's, absolutely.

If Elvis "changed the culture" as you describe, it's much in the way Nirvana washed away the "Hair Metal" bands of the 80's.

No one tried to be Elvis after the Beatles arrived on the scene.Cliff Richard did a pretty good job of exactly that in the UK.

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 10:13 PM
I'm just guessing here, but if Ringo wasn't a very good drummer I think they could have found a replacement.

Well, Bernard Purdie will tell you all day long that he played on a few Beatles tracks.

But I think that's just Bernard.

:)

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 10:15 PM
Didn't the Beatles do part of a tour with a replacement while Ringo was ill?

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 10:17 PM
Cliff Richard did a pretty good job of exactly that in the UK.

Before the Beatles, I'd agree.

Put he pretty much fell off a cliff after 1965.

stevieray
07-07-2009, 10:18 PM
Ringo is like Bonzo...it's not just waht they did, it's what they didn't do...both played on small kits...

(though bonham had Ludwig custom make him a huge bass drum.)

stevieray
07-07-2009, 10:20 PM
No one tried to be Elvis after the Beatles arrived on the scene.

not to mention nobody could, anyway...everything else is a mere copy.

FAX
07-07-2009, 10:20 PM
Ringo is like Bonzo...it's not just waht they did, it's what they didn't do...

Very truthy. Very, very truthy, indeed.

FAX

stevieray
07-07-2009, 10:22 PM
Very truthy. Very, very truthy, indeed.

FAX

:rockon:

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 10:24 PM
Before the Beatles, I'd agree.

Put he pretty much fell off a cliff after 1965.I dunno, Dane... According to wikipedia:
(these are in the UK, mind you...)
Top 10 hits in the 50's: 5
60's: 34
70's: 4
80's: 15
90's: 7
00's: 4

While it's true that a lot of those were pre-invasion, 30 top 10's post 1970 is nothing to sneeze at.

Nzoner
07-07-2009, 10:28 PM
Furthermore, Ringo doesn't need to win awards.

He's ****ing Ringo, k?


BACK OFF BOOGALOO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv1u6wLP0sQ)

Pioli Zombie
07-07-2009, 10:30 PM
How big were the Beatles? People know the names of their roadies, their wives, their former girlfriends, their kids, their childhood friends.
Pretty insane.
Posted via Mobile Device

RJ
07-07-2009, 10:31 PM
In the 60's? After he served? No way. The 50's, absolutely.

If Elvis "changed the culture" as you describe, it's much in the way Nirvana washed away the "Hair Metal" bands of the 80's.

No one tried to be Elvis after the Beatles arrived on the scene.



You think any influence Elvis had on music and culture is comparable to Nirvana's? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 10:32 PM
What I always found interesting was that, for the longest time, McCartney sold more albums with Wings than he did with the Beatles.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 10:33 PM
I think the thing we all have to remember is that it's ART. Everything is a product of its time, so you can't really directly compare ANYTHING.

FAX
07-07-2009, 10:35 PM
How big were the Beatles? People know the names of their roadies, their wives, their former girlfriends, their kids, their childhood friends.
Pretty insane.
Posted via Mobile Device

In Greenwich Village everybody who was cool just sat around all day long and smoked weed and dropped acid and listened to Revolver when it came out. Over and over and over. Those guys are all retired bank presidents and politicians now. But, they still know all the lyrics to all the songs. It just doesn't seem right somehow.

FAX

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 10:42 PM
You think any influence Elvis had on music and culture is comparable to Nirvana's? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Yeah, misunderstanding.

What I'm saying is that the Beatles ushered in a new era of popular music. While their earlier recordings were definitely rockabilly influenced (they loved Buddy Holly and Elvis), they didn't spend much time mining that genre.

Music changed with the Beatles, especially "A Hard Day's Night" in 1964 (much like the arrival of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and the rest of the bands that helped create the "Seattle Sound"). "Mop-Top" bands were everywhere, song structures changed as well as vocal arrangements.

DaneMcCloud
07-07-2009, 10:44 PM
I think the thing we all have to remember is that it's ART. Everything is a product of its time, so you can't really directly compare ANYTHING.

Nonsense.

That's like saying that I can't compare a Van Gogh painting to an Andy Warhol work. They can both be pleasing and annoying at the same time.

It's all in the eye (or ear, in this case) of the beholder.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-07-2009, 10:45 PM
That's my point. It's almost 100% subjective.

stevieray
07-08-2009, 01:30 AM
Last time I checked, the Beatles didn't have to be on TV from the waist up..from perry como to Hound Dog....not only music, but a culture itself.

if anything elvis ushered in a new style of music, and subsequently ushered in the Beatles. didn't help that his career was interrupted by the service and movies. to be able to come back years after the British invasion, speaks volumes...Something tells me there is a reason why they sought out the King...paying homage, IMO.

Rausch
07-08-2009, 01:35 AM
I don't understand why Jackson is even on this list.

Hell, I'd argue Madonna or the Beach Boys had a bigger impact on pop music...

DaneMcCloud
07-08-2009, 01:44 AM
I don't understand why Jackson is even on this list.

Hell, I'd argue Madonna or the Beach Boys had a bigger impact on pop music...

Michael Jackson influenced today's artists to the nth degree. The list is endless.

Madonna? She didn't write her music and she's more of a "celeb" than an artist.

The Beach Boys were absolutely amazing but rarely, if ever, emulated.

FAX
07-08-2009, 01:45 AM
One of my earlier posts received a response comprised solely of one of those goofy smiley things that looks like a little, bald, blue dumbass sucking on a gobstopper when all I did was mention that I didn't recall John Lennon having a funeral as extravagant as Jacko's which didn't make sense because the Beatles had a greater influence on pop music than Michael Jackson. Ergo, the gauntlet was thrown, the poll options determined as shown, and the little, bald, blue, gobstopper sucking dumbass exposed as a freakish, uncultured, irritating pain in the ass.

FAX

Rausch
07-08-2009, 03:08 AM
The Beach Boys were absolutely amazing but rarely, if ever, emulated.

Odd, the Beatles listed them as an influence...

DaneMcCloud
07-08-2009, 03:11 AM
Odd, the Beatles listed them as an influence...

The Beatles and the Beach Boys were engaged in a friendly competition.

Brian Wilson heard "Sergeant Pepper's" and set out to create it's rival.

That album is called "Pet Sounds".

Rausch
07-08-2009, 03:14 AM
The Beatles and the Beach Boys were engaged in a friendly competition.

Brian Wilson heard "Sergeant Pepper's" and set out to create it's rival.

That album is called "Pet Sounds".

So you could say there was a "gentlemen's duel" between the two?

Perhaps.

WTF emulated Jackson? WHO? Sure, a lot of people bought his $3it. I did, my family loved most of it. But what did he do that people emulate other than the cinematic music video?...

DaneMcCloud
07-08-2009, 03:21 AM
So you could say there was a "gentlemen's duel" between the two?

Perhaps.

Absolutely. This has been well documented and is not in any way, "privileged" information.

Much of the music that came from the 60's was created this same way. Everyone wanted to write a better record than other artists, whether it was the Beatles, Beach Boys, The Who, The Stones, Hendrix, Cream, etc.

It's very easy to hear the artistic growth from album to album from all of those artists. They were pushing each other to new heights, which is one of the reasons why that era was so special.

WTF emulated Jackson? WHO? Sure, a lot of people bought his $3it. I did, my family loved most of it. But what did he do that people emulate other than the cinematic music video?...

Since then? Usher, Justin Timberlake, Mariah Carey, Backstreet Boys, N'Sync - the list is literally endless.

The overwhelming majority of male R&B artists emulate two people: Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson.

Stevie's much more difficult to pull off, though D'Angelo did his best in 1996 and did pretty well, IMO.

But Michael is the inspiration for most in that field.

Rausch
07-08-2009, 03:46 AM
Since then? Usher, Justin Timberlake, Mariah Carey, Backstreet Boys, N'Sync - the list is literally endless.

And mostly soul-less $#it.

Just pop with nothing behind it. That's his legacy?

Timberlake, the Backstreet Boys, and N'Synch?

That's not a legacy that's a fucking apology demanded and deserved...

ChiefJustice
07-08-2009, 04:09 AM
Last time I checked, the Beatles didn't have to be on TV from the waist up..from perry como to Hound Dog....not only music, but a culture itself.

if anything elvis ushered in a new style of music, and subsequently ushered in the Beatles. didn't help that his career was interrupted by the service and movies. to be able to come back years after the British invasion, speaks volumes...Something tells me there is a reason why they sought out the King...paying homage, IMO.


:thumb: high five FDE !

http://bigeastmeadow.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/elvis-presley-68-comeback.jpg


I love the Beatles for the catalog of music they produced.

I just think Elvis is more iconic in his influence on many genres of music.

Listen to " You gave me a mountain"(penned by Marty Robbins) and you can see not only his range but,his dedication for remembering where he came from.

J Diddy
07-08-2009, 04:52 AM
Last time I checked, the Beatles didn't have to be on TV from the waist up..from perry como to Hound Dog....not only music, but a culture itself.

if anything elvis ushered in a new style of music, and subsequently ushered in the Beatles. didn't help that his career was interrupted by the service and movies. to be able to come back years after the British invasion, speaks volumes...Something tells me there is a reason why they sought out the King...paying homage, IMO.
I agree.

Guru
07-08-2009, 04:57 AM
The Beatles

and I couldn't stand them.

J Diddy
07-08-2009, 05:02 AM
The Beatles

and I couldn't stand them.

Really?

I love the beatles, they most definitely were the gateway to my generation.

That being said, elvis opened them doors.

RedNeckRaider
07-08-2009, 07:55 AM
I'm just guessing here, but if Ringo wasn't a very good drummer I think they could have found a replacement.

Yes but as we all know Ringo got the gig because John and Paul could not handle Pete Best pulling all the top shelf ass after the shows.

Nzoner
07-08-2009, 08:54 AM
And mostly soul-less $#it.

Just pop with nothing behind it. That's his legacy?

Timberlake, the Backstreet Boys, and N'Synch?

That's not a legacy that's a ****ing apology demanded and deserved...

ROFL

You're in prime form

Saccopoo
07-08-2009, 09:37 AM
Elvis. Not even remotely close.

Michael Jackson had one good album - Off The Wall, a small handful of good songs over the course of his career on his other albums and an understanding/taking advantage of being in the "right place at the right time" and utilizing a relatively new avenue/medium (MTV) to it's fullest extent for maximum impact. In addition, he was constantly in the public's eye for not his music, but his excentricities in his private life; e.g., trying to turn himself into a white pixie elf, sleeping in a hyperbolic chamber, Bobo, snuggling up with kids, Neverland, etc. While Thriller remains the highest selling album of all time, remember that the current biggest selling act in music right now is the Jonas Brothers.

The Beatles pushed the boundaries of rock in terms of melody, song writing and instrumentation, but they were almost unique in a sense rather than paving a road that a multitude of bands followed. More of their generations Nirvana than an overall influence of other bands. They were simply better in terms of overall creativity and musical understanding. Sure, St. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club was a genre shattering record that pushed the boundaries of creativity, and did spawn numerous imitators, but one would have to argue that the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin (at the tail end of the Beatles musical collective life) were actually more important in terms of overall impact and influence to music than the Beatles. Yes, their catalog of music, in a relatively short amount of time is nothing less than stunning (SPLHCB, Revolver, Let It Be, etc.), but they were more of being simply better than any other band at the time rather than being a bigger influence than any other band at the time.

Elvis, however, "invented" Rock and Roll. Redefined the whole concept of popular music in terms of what the buying public understood popular music to be. Without Elvis, there would be no "British Invasion," no Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc. No appreciation nor widespread public acceptance of the black blues influeneces that shaped not only Rock 'n Roll, but the Motown sound and numerous other styles. Elvis brought together a number of musical influences (such as blues, gospel, country/western, poppy bugglegum WWII Andrew Sisters stuff, Bing Crosby crooning, etc, etc, etc.) and combined them with raw sex appeal and an understanding of showmanship and entertaining that the world had never seen before and reinvented music as the world knew it.

Again, it's Elvis, and it's not even remotely close.

Fire Me Boy!
07-08-2009, 09:56 AM
KEEP F-IN' DOUBTING CHARLIE DANIELS.

FAX
07-08-2009, 09:58 AM
And mostly soul-less $#it.

Just pop with nothing behind it. That's his legacy?

Timberlake, the Backstreet Boys, and N'Synch?

That's not a legacy that's a ****ing apology demanded and deserved...

ROFL

FAX

Reaper16
07-08-2009, 11:46 AM
Elvis. Not even remotely close.

Michael Jackson had one good album - Off The Wall, a small handful of good songs over the course of his career on his other albums and an understanding/taking advantage of being in the "right place at the right time" and utilizing a relatively new avenue/medium (MTV) to it's fullest extent for maximum impact. In addition, he was constantly in the public's eye for not his music, but his excentricities in his private life; e.g., trying to turn himself into a white pixie elf, sleeping in a hyperbolic chamber, Bobo, snuggling up with kids, Neverland, etc. While Thriller remains the highest selling album of all time, remember that the current biggest selling act in music right now is the Jonas Brothers.

The Beatles pushed the boundaries of rock in terms of melody, song writing and instrumentation, but they were almost unique in a sense rather than paving a road that a multitude of bands followed. More of their generations Nirvana than an overall influence of other bands. They were simply better in terms of overall creativity and musical understanding. Sure, St. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club was a genre shattering record that pushed the boundaries of creativity, and did spawn numerous imitators, but one would have to argue that the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin (at the tail end of the Beatles musical collective life) were actually more important in terms of overall impact and influence to music than the Beatles. Yes, their catalog of music, in a relatively short amount of time is nothing less than stunning (SPLHCB, Revolver, Let It Be, etc.), but they were more of being simply better than any other band at the time rather than being a bigger influence than any other band at the time.

Elvis, however, "invented" Rock and Roll. Redefined the whole concept of popular music in terms of what the buying public understood popular music to be. Without Elvis, there would be no "British Invasion," no Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc. No appreciation nor widespread public acceptance of the black blues influeneces that shaped not only Rock 'n Roll, but the Motown sound and numerous other styles. Elvis brought together a number of musical influences (such as blues, gospel, country/western, poppy bugglegum WWII Andrew Sisters stuff, Bing Crosby crooning, etc, etc, etc.) and combined them with raw sex appeal and an understanding of showmanship and entertaining that the world had never seen before and reinvented music as the world knew it.

Again, it's Elvis, and it's not even remotely close.
Racist.

Duck Dog
07-08-2009, 11:55 AM
Elvis. Not even remotely close.

Michael Jackson had one good album - Off The Wall, a small handful of good songs over the course of his career on his other albums and an understanding/taking advantage of being in the "right place at the right time" and utilizing a relatively new avenue/medium (MTV) to it's fullest extent for maximum impact. In addition, he was constantly in the public's eye for not his music, but his excentricities in his private life; e.g., trying to turn himself into a white pixie elf, sleeping in a hyperbolic chamber, Bobo, snuggling up with kids, Neverland, etc. While Thriller remains the highest selling album of all time, remember that the current biggest selling act in music right now is the Jonas Brothers.

The Beatles pushed the boundaries of rock in terms of melody, song writing and instrumentation, but they were almost unique in a sense rather than paving a road that a multitude of bands followed. More of their generations Nirvana than an overall influence of other bands. They were simply better in terms of overall creativity and musical understanding. Sure, St. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club was a genre shattering record that pushed the boundaries of creativity, and did spawn numerous imitators, but one would have to argue that the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin (at the tail end of the Beatles musical collective life) were actually more important in terms of overall impact and influence to music than the Beatles. Yes, their catalog of music, in a relatively short amount of time is nothing less than stunning (SPLHCB, Revolver, Let It Be, etc.), but they were more of being simply better than any other band at the time rather than being a bigger influence than any other band at the time.

Elvis, however, "invented" Rock and Roll. Redefined the whole concept of popular music in terms of what the buying public understood popular music to be. Without Elvis, there would be no "British Invasion," no Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc. No appreciation nor widespread public acceptance of the black blues influeneces that shaped not only Rock 'n Roll, but the Motown sound and numerous other styles. Elvis brought together a number of musical influences (such as blues, gospel, country/western, poppy bugglegum WWII Andrew Sisters stuff, Bing Crosby crooning, etc, etc, etc.) and combined them with raw sex appeal and an understanding of showmanship and entertaining that the world had never seen before and reinvented music as the world knew it.

Again, it's Elvis, and it's not even remotely close.

:thumb: Very well said.

RedNeckRaider
07-08-2009, 11:59 AM
Racist.

He just hates Jackson because he was white. :shake: It makes me sick

urgmasdaughter
07-08-2009, 11:59 AM
This is a no brainer how can you possibly go any other way than with the Beatles.

Duck Dog
07-08-2009, 12:00 PM
Nonsense.

That's like saying that I can't compare a Van Gogh painting to an Andy Warhol work. They can both be pleasing and annoying at the same time.

It's all in the eye (or ear, in this case) of the beholder.

True, but it's pretty hard to forget that Elvis invented the music that the others were spawn from. His title should be King of Music.

Reaper16
07-08-2009, 12:09 PM
Elvis invented nothing, assholes. He was an effective swindler of black music, though.

urgmasdaughter
07-08-2009, 12:18 PM
The Beatles are the greatest popular group of all-time. Arguably the most successful entertainers of the 20th century, they contributed to music, film, literature, art, and fashion, made a continuous impact on popular culture and the lifestyle of several generations. Their songs and images carrying powerful ideas of love, peace, help, and imagination evoked creativity and liberation that outperformed the rusty Soviet propaganda and contributed to breaking walls in the minds of millions, thus making impact on human history.

For those who say that Elvis influenced the Beatles, that's not entirely correct. Elvis revolutionized Rock and Roll but his style was rockabilly. Rock with a country twang. Plus Elvis got his style of music from spirituals and rhythm and blues not to mention he didn't write all of his music himself. He pilfered music from other blues artists most noteably Howlin Wolf. Gotta give it to the Fab Four!:D

BigMeatballDave
07-08-2009, 12:31 PM
Elvis. Not even remotely close.

The collective opinion of this board disagrees with you, sorry...

RedNeckRaider
07-08-2009, 12:34 PM
Elvis invented nothing, assholes. He was an effective swindler of black music, though.

That is not true however Colonel Parker was.

Reaper16
07-08-2009, 12:36 PM
That is not true however Colonel Parker was.
Good point. Screw that Svengali-like motherfucker.

RJ
07-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Last time I checked, the Beatles didn't have to be on TV from the waist up..from perry como to Hound Dog....not only music, but a culture itself.

if anything elvis ushered in a new style of music, and subsequently ushered in the Beatles. didn't help that his career was interrupted by the service and movies. to be able to come back years after the British invasion, speaks volumes...Something tells me there is a reason why they sought out the King...paying homage, IMO.




This is what I meant when I said Elvis changed our culture.

stevieray
07-08-2009, 02:23 PM
Elvis invented nothing, assholes. He was an effective swindler of black music, though.

ROFL

MOhillbilly
07-08-2009, 02:40 PM
Hiram King Williams & Elvis.

thats it kids, thats the list.

Mr. Krab
07-08-2009, 02:45 PM
Beatles are ****ing overrated. I voted MJ although I am not a fan of him but

1- He was a black man who transcended racial barriers and redefined pop.
2- His showmanship is uncomparable.
3- He slept with little babies, acted like a total fool, yet his records are still shattering the charts.
4- His funeral and the public outcry over him prove that his followers are more than anyone else's.
1. Elvis transcended racial barriers in reverse
2. Elvis was pop musics original showman
3. Wasn't Elvis wife 15 when they started to :hump: ?
4. Some people are still mourning over the death of Elvis. His house is a monument to his life and death and is visited by thousands each year.

MOhillbilly
07-08-2009, 02:53 PM
3. Wasn't Elvis wife 15 when they started to :hump: ?


Jerry lee has him beat.

stumppy
07-08-2009, 03:00 PM
Elvis always will be the King.

Reaper16
07-08-2009, 03:06 PM
Serious inquiry: can someone embed a youtube video of an Elvis song that you find to be a great song that holds up even today? None of the super-famous hits, please.

MOhillbilly
07-08-2009, 03:08 PM
Serious inquiry: can someone embed a youtube video of an Elvis song that you find to be a great song that holds up even today? None of the super-famous hits, please.

Radio will play the legends till the end of time.

Pioli Zombie
07-08-2009, 03:11 PM
To even compare Michael Jackson to Elvis and the Beatles is vile and repulsive. Its like comparing Steve McNair to Joe Montana.

MJ was talented. He was really big in the 80's. He never dominated the industry like Elvis in the 50's and the Beatles later.
You can't even compare MJs catalog to Paul McCartney by himself.
Posted via Mobile Device

CoMoChief
07-08-2009, 03:12 PM
This thread means absolutely nothing without a Michael Bolton option.



I'm dead serious too.

RJ
07-08-2009, 03:17 PM
Serious inquiry: can someone embed a youtube video of an Elvis song that you find to be a great song that holds up even today? None of the super-famous hits, please.


Dude, Elvis had 38 songs that made Billboard Top 10, according to this.

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?aid=61282&pid=5444


It's kind of hard to omit the hits when there's that many of them.

Also, define "holds up", please.

Saccopoo
07-08-2009, 03:35 PM
Elvis invented nothing, assholes. He was an effective swindler of black music, though.

Jesus...don't make me go back to the Neanderthal banging on a log to find who invented music, or who swindled or pillaged from who. Music is one of a few "cultural universals." Nobody invented it. However, Elvis took/borrowed/implemented from a myriad of styles to redefine what the conceptualizations were of "music" and was the established pioneer of what we now call "rock 'n roll." Prior to Elvis, there was gospel, blues, C & W, swing, big band, crooner, jazz and a vast number of regional influences. He took a bit from each and put something together that had never been heard before. All of a sudden, the world heard the blues, gospel, jazz, C & W all rolled into one - rock 'n roll. And it opened up the world to these sub-genres of rock and allowed these to influence the music of people across the globe.

Do I prefer Big Momma Thorton's Hound Dog over Elvis' version? Yep. But if it wasn't for Elvis, I'd have no idea who Thorton was, and that could be applied to a number of other artists as well.

No, I disagree. Rock'nRoll was invented by Elvis. Not intentionally, but he brought together the styles of guys like Muddy Waters (greatest blues artist ever), the progression of swing bop from Bill Haley, the boogie woogie of Fats Domino, the vocalizations and lyrics of Hank Williams, the crooning of Frank Sinatra, the punch of Ike Turner, the drive of the boom-chaka-boom Johnny Cash rock-a-billy, and utilized the genius of people like Les Paul and his guitar and studio innovations and combined them all with a soulful voice, good looks and infectious charisma to bring it all together in a package that people in a wide ranging demographic (globally) found acceptable. He was also helped by record companies switching to 45 rpms, as well as the increased popularity of musical radio pushing the "black sound" by such people as Alan Freed.

However, look at the music scene prior to 1954, and then from 1954 and thereafter. It was Elvis that changed the entire face of music. Yes, the Beatles pushed the envelope, sonically, creatively, harmonically, and were, barely arguably, the greatest musical artists of their day.

But to quote John Lennon: "Before Elvis, there was nothing."

Edit: And this is coming from a person (me) who currently has 67 Beatles songs on my iPod and 1 Elvis song.

Chiefnj2
07-08-2009, 03:36 PM
He never dominated the industry like Elvis in the 50's and the Beatles later.

Posted via Mobile Device

I don't know about that. All of his albums from 1982-1995 went #1 and between 7 and 28x platinum. That's pretty dominant.

Reaper16
07-08-2009, 03:37 PM
Dude, Elvis had 38 songs that made Billboard Top 10, according to this.

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?aid=61282&pid=5444


It's kind of hard to omit the hits when there's that many of them.

Also, define "holds up", please.
Define it as you want. I honestly want some big Elvis fans to link me to some of his underrated material, the songs that you think are great. I'm looking for other's opinions, here.

Saccopoo
07-08-2009, 03:37 PM
The collective opinion of this board disagrees with you, sorry...

That right there probably is the best indicator that I am, without a doubt, 100% correct.

Valiant
07-08-2009, 03:58 PM
Well since you said 'popular' music it is the beatles..

Overall I would say Presley..

Here is what I find funny, I hate the beatles band aka the band members.. Bunch of d-bags imo.. But love their songs.. Weird I know..

stevieray
07-08-2009, 04:00 PM
Serious inquiry: can someone embed a youtube video of an Elvis song that you find to be a great song that holds up even today? None of the super-famous hits, please.

If I Can Dream from the 68 comeback tour...and the song was directed towards the racial divide of the time...

realize the version you will see is proly like the 18th or 20th take in a row at four in the morning...he was a perfectionist when it came to recording...very few have the ability to bring up that much emotion time after time.

Polk Salad Annie
Long Black Train
Early Morning Rain
Kentucky Rain
Little Egypt
Just Pretend

just to name a few

Nzoner
07-08-2009, 04:16 PM
Polk Salad Annie


Sorry dude,it doesn't hold up as well as the original by Tony Joe White.

Reaper16
07-08-2009, 04:25 PM
If I Can Dream from the 68 comeback tour...and the song was directed towards the racial divide of the time...

realize the version you will see is proly like the 18th or 20th take in a row at four in the morning...he was a perfectionist when it came to recording...very few have the ability to bring up that much emotion time after time.

Polk Salad Annie
Long Black Train
Early Morning Rain
Kentucky Rain
Little Egypt
Just Pretend

just to name a few

Sorry dude,it doesn't hold up as well as the original by Tony Joe White.
Before I check out stevie's list, how many songs on his list are covers?

Nzoner
07-08-2009, 04:31 PM
Before I check out stevie's list, how many songs on his list are covers?

The only one I know for sure is Polk Salad Annie and Tony Joe released it in 1969 and according to Wikipedia Elvis snatched it up immediately.

stevieray
07-08-2009, 04:39 PM
Sorry dude,it doesn't hold up as well as the original by Tony Joe White.

disagree..we aren't talking about comparing songs, just a song done by elvis that Jams today.

MOhillbilly
07-08-2009, 04:40 PM
The only one I know for sure is Polk Salad Annie and Tony Joe released it in 1969 and according to Wikipedia Elvis snatched it up immediately.

i wonder how many on here have eaten polk salad. when i was a kid two old black ladies would come year after year and pick polk off our place.

stevieray
07-08-2009, 04:41 PM
Before I check out stevie's list, how many songs on his list are covers?
you've already acknowledged that Elvis didn't write most of his songs..that wasn't the question...

how many songwriters out there can't/don't sing?

Nzoner
07-08-2009, 04:43 PM
disagree..we aren't talking about comparing songs, just a song done by elvis that Jams today.

Maybe I'm not hearing the right Elvis cover then because to my ear this

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WM0dSurdTE8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WM0dSurdTE8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


is WAY better than this

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uPrMbPZl8VQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uPrMbPZl8VQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Reaper16
07-08-2009, 05:15 PM
Maybe I'm not hearing the right Elvis cover then because to my ear this

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WM0dSurdTE8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>


is WAY better than this

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uPrMbPZl8VQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
I agree with Nzoner about this particular song. The original sounded great!

stevieray
07-08-2009, 05:17 PM
I agree with Nzoner about this particular song. The original sounded great!
ya compared to a midnight show where he is laughing during a song. that is one version out of sixty.

not too hard.

Fairplay
07-08-2009, 05:22 PM
The beatles are coming out with a new CD.

One that has their music through the years type of CD.

Nzoner
07-08-2009, 05:25 PM
ya compared to a midnight show where he is laughing during a song. that is one version out of sixty.

not too hard.

Dude,you know how much I love music,I posted the first one that came up,if there's better then post it please,I'd like to hear it.

I will say without hearing it though that no way ANYONE does that song better than the original.

stevieray
07-08-2009, 05:29 PM
Dude,you know how much I love music,I posted the first one that came up,if there's better then post it please,I'd like to hear it.

I will say without hearing it though that no way ANYONE does that song better than the original.



I really don't care which one of us thinks which version is better...that wasn't the question

Reaper16
07-08-2009, 05:43 PM
I really don't care which one of us thinks which version is better...that wasn't the question
Since you're such a stickler about the question, I asked for people to youtube embed links to the songs. After learning that there are many versions out there of these tracks, I want to hear the King at his best. I trust people other than myself to find the proper versions for me.

stevieray
07-08-2009, 05:45 PM
Since you're such a stickler about the question, I asked for people to youtube embed links to the songs. After learning that there are many versions out there of these tracks, I want to hear the King at his best. I trust people other than myself to find the proper versions for me.

If I Can Dream

KC Dan
07-08-2009, 05:56 PM
The Beatles..it's not even close.
fyp. LMAO

Love Elvis and he was the trend starter. But, for influence over the entire spectrum of all music, The Beatles far surpassed Elvis.

One example: What is the most recorded song in history there FDE?

Hint: it's not an Elvis song... Also, according to the RIAA, the Beatles are the record sale kings in the United States, having sold 170,000,000 units. Elvis comes in third behind Garth Brooks, with 118.5 million units. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->

MagicHef
07-08-2009, 06:01 PM
it's kinda sad. I can't really think of any artists from 1900-1945 other than robert johnson and a few blues and/or a few jazz guys.

I can't believe no one said Bing.

One of the first multimedia stars, from 1934 to 1954 Bing Crosby held a nearly unrivaled command of record sales, radio ratings and motion picture grosses. Widely recognized as one of the most popular musical acts in history, Crosby is also credited as being the major inspiration for most of the male singers of the era that followed him, including Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, and Dean Martin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Crosby

Jenson71
07-08-2009, 06:08 PM
I don; tknow enough about music or music history to have a confident say in which had a greater impact -- but the Beatles had an amazing musical talent that doubles the combined efforts of Jackson and Elvis, imo.

MagicHef
07-08-2009, 06:25 PM
Dude, Elvis had 38 songs that made Billboard Top 10, according to this.

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?aid=61282&pid=5444


It's kind of hard to omit the hits when there's that many of them.

Also, define "holds up", please.

It was a different time, but still, wow:

Although the Billboard charts operated under a different methodology for the bulk of Crosby's career, his numbers remain astonishing: 1,700 recordings, 383 of those in the top 30, and of those, 41 hit #1.

Mr. Krab
07-08-2009, 06:28 PM
<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YU2U3QAUGak&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>


"Kentucky Rain" was a 1970 hit song for Elvis Presley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley). Featuring then-unknown pianist Ronnie Milsap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Milsap) and written by Eddie Rabbitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Rabbitt) and Dick Heard, the single peaked at number 16 on the pop charts.

Released as a single on January 29, 1970, "Kentucky Rain" was not included on an album until the compilation package Worldwide 50 Gold Award Hits, Vol. 1 (LPM-6401); while the track does appear on the 2000 re-release of From Elvis in Memphis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Elvis_in_Memphis), it was not included on the original 1969 album. During Elvis' February 1970 engagement he performed this at every show, introducing it as a new song "out about a week". Live versions are available on the box sets Elvis Aaron Presley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Aaron_Presley) and Live in Las Vegas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_in_Las_Vegas).

KC Dan
07-08-2009, 06:37 PM
I can't believe no one said Bing.Bing Crosby was something, that is true especially for his generation. However, the question was "Which one of the above had the greatest impact on popular music?" I sincerely doubt Bing and his music had a massive influence on popular music going forward. I would go so far as to say that his music brand died in the mid-late fifties except with his generation.

FAX
07-08-2009, 07:20 PM
It's really too bad about her granny and all.

FAX

MagicHef
07-09-2009, 10:50 AM
Bing Crosby was something, that is true especially for his generation. However, the question was "Which one of the above had the greatest impact on popular music?" I sincerely doubt Bing and his music had a massive influence on popular music going forward. I would go so far as to say that his music brand died in the mid-late fifties except with his generation.

Just because his exact style of music is not among the most popular right now does not mean that he didn't have an impact on popular music going forward. I don't think you can argue that music would be the same today without his influence.

With Crosby, as Henry Pleasants noted in The Great American Popular Singers, something new had entered American music, something that might be called "singing in American," with conversational ease. The oddity of this new sound led to the epithet "crooner."

Crosby perfected an idea that Al Jolson had hinted at, that the popular performer did not have to limit himself to a mere series of shticks but could be a genuine artist — in this case, a musician. Before Crosby, art was art and pop was pop; opera singers worried about staying in tune and reaching the upper balcony, vaudevillians concerned themselves with their costumes and facial expressions.
Crosby rendered the difference between the two irrelevant. Where earlier recording artists had displayed strictly one-dimensional attitudes, Crosby not only perfected the fully rounded persona, but brought with it the technical ability of a true concert artist. Crosby projected with a majestic sense of intonation that afforded Tin Pan Alley the musical stature of European classics and a jazz influenced time that made him the dominant voice of both the Jazz age and the Swing era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Crosby

Or, in terms of performance, you could go with Al Jolson:

According to the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, "Jolson was to jazz, blues, and ragtime what Elvis Presley was to rock 'n' roll." Being the first popular singer to make a spectacular "event" out of singing a song, he became a “rock star” before the dawn of rock music. His specialty was building stage runways extending out into the audience. He would run up and down the runway and across the stage, "teasing, cajoling, and thrilling the audience," often stopping to sing to individual members, all the while the "perspiration would be pouring from his face, and the entire audience would get caught up in the ecstasy of his performance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jolson

Simply Red
07-09-2009, 10:55 AM
Just because his exact style of music is not among the most popular right now does not mean that he didn't have an impact on popular music going forward. I don't think you can argue that music would be the same today without his influence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Crosby

Or, in terms of performance, you could go with Al Jolson:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jolson



I'm getting a dark feeling, like you're pissed off.

Brock
07-09-2009, 11:01 AM
Without Bing Crosby, there would have been no Perry Como.

MagicHef
07-09-2009, 11:08 AM
Without Bing Crosby, there would have been no Perry Como.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/Supermancomo.jpg

FAX
07-09-2009, 11:18 AM
Without Bing Crosby, there would have been no Perry Como.

And without Perry Como, the universe, as we know it, would not exist.

Wow. We do owe Bing Crosby a big thank you.

FAX

Inspector
07-09-2009, 11:25 AM
:spock: Yeah, all the young people I know are listening to the Beatles.

My youngest son is just a kid - 27 years old, a professional musician, and listens to the Beatles. Funny thing he rarely listens to his own stuff after it gets recorded. Unless he's with me since I'm totally addicted to his band.

JD10367
07-09-2009, 11:28 AM
I'm not really sure any of them (Elvis, The Beatles, or Michael Jackson) had an impact on popular music. True, they were each at the forefront of their respective musical areas, but that wave was already heading ashore and if it wasn't them it would've been someone else. It's akin to saying Neil Armstrong is singlehandedly responsible for the moon landings, when he was simply the biggest name and the first one out the door. White guys other than Elvis would've stolen "black sound" and merged it with "sex symbol". The English musical invasion still would've happened, with other bands. Black pop music and crossover music would've still been a genre.

Then again, you can probably say that with most bands. Bill Haley and the Comets were at the forefront, but were they the creators of a style or simply the most popular band in the first wave? Would there have been an Iron Maiden and a Judas Priest without a Black Sabbath? Would there have been an Eddie Van Halen without a Jimi Hendrix? Rap music without the Sugarhill Gang? ("I, am, Wonder Mike and I'd like to say hell-o... It's like a jungle sometimes, it make me wonder, how I keep from goin' under...") Would there have been hair-metal bands without MTV? College alt-rock without REM, the B-52s, the Talking Heads, The Ramones? Grunge rock without Nirvana?

Now, if the question was "biggest impact on pop culture", that's a different story. Although they all had a huge impact on the pop culture of their respective times. I guess I would vote for Elvis, since his look impacted from as early as James Dean to as recently as Kurt Russell and Patrick Swayze, and he pushed the sex boundaries in pop culture (as well as his musical impact on his genre, and opening the door for other "handsome crooners" like Tom Jones and Englebert Humperdink all the way up to Michael Bolton).

Baby Lee
07-09-2009, 12:25 PM
Serious inquiry: can someone embed a youtube video of an Elvis song that you find to be a great song that holds up even today? None of the super-famous hits, please.

Suspicious Minds in Las Vegas is still the most glorious thing I've ever seen.

JD10367
07-09-2009, 01:12 PM
Suspicious Minds in Las Vegas is still the most glorious thing I've ever seen.

Speaking of Elvis... Went to Foxwoods Casino in CT on Tuesday night, and saw "Legends" (the impersonator show from Vegas). "Michael Jackson" was scarily accurate, and doubly creepy since it was the day of the funeral. Man, "Michael" could dance! He was a bit shorter than the actual Michael but aside from that was a dead ringer. But the highlighter of the show was "Elvis", the last guy out. He looked a lot like Elvis, and the guy sang EXACTLY like Elvis. A great job. He did "Suspicious Minds" in the set, which prompted me to go buy an Elvis "greatest hits" CD. Another late Elvis song that I like is "A Little Less Conversation".

Baby Lee
07-09-2009, 01:21 PM
For those of you bemused by the sig snafu, it's not letting me save changes right now. But rest assured I'm not killing 10 of anything.

Jenson71
07-09-2009, 01:24 PM
My grandpa votes for Eddy Howard especially "To Each His Own"

ct
07-09-2009, 04:10 PM
Elvis, period.

FAX
07-09-2009, 04:18 PM
You know, even though my vote would have to go to the Beatles based on the breadth of their musical styles that ultimately led to an explosion of popular music, I'm really happy that Elvis continues to get so much love. He had a remarkable career and a profound influence on an entire generation of Americans that, not only eventually spread throughout the world, but continues to reverberate even to modern times. It's really good to see.

FAX

MOhillbilly
07-09-2009, 04:24 PM
You know, even though my vote would have to go to the Beatles based on the breadth of their musical styles that ultimately led to an explosion of popular music, I'm really happy that Elvis continues to get so much love. He had a remarkable career and a profound influence on an entire generation of Americans that, not only eventually spread throughout the world, but continues to reverberate even to modern times. It's really good to see.

FAX

I pondered lastnight how the beatles would have faired in this poll if broken into individuals vs. Elvis & MJ.
That would be only fair since the beatles were a collective up against individual acts.

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2009, 04:25 PM
The Beatles: Three world-class songwriters; three great voices; one producer who was out-of-this-world good; four solid musicians.

I don't understand any argument against them.

FAX
07-09-2009, 04:27 PM
I pondered lastnight how the beatles would have faired in this poll if broken into individuals vs. Elvis & MJ.
That would be only fair since the beatles were a collective up against individual acts.

Elvis would win, I think. But, it wouldn't be fair, really. The Beatles were what they were ... not Paul and his band. They performed and wrote and recorded as a group. Elvis could have done the same thing ... he just didn't.

FAX

MOhillbilly
07-09-2009, 04:37 PM
Elvis would win, I think. But, it wouldn't be fair, really. The Beatles were what they were ... not Paul and his band. They performed and wrote and recorded as a group. Elvis could have done the same thing ... he just didn't.

FAX

Elvis had a band:evil:

Pioli Zombie
07-09-2009, 07:24 PM
Elvis would win, I think. But, it wouldn't be fair, really. The Beatles were what they were ... not Paul and his band. They performed and wrote and recorded as a group. Elvis could have done the same thing ... he just didn't.

FAX
Elvis didn't write anything so how can he win? He also wasn't exactly a virtuoso musician either. He got up and sang. The Beatles created a catalog of hits and played all their own instruments.
Elvis was a performer. Like MJ. Like Roger Daltrey. Like Robert Plant.
The Beatles created. They played. They sang. I have much more respect for an artist who writes his own stuff and actually plays an instrument. Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry at least were songwriters.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
07-09-2009, 07:53 PM
Okay, I'm in Vegas, drinkin'.

But when I return home Saturday night, the hammer will drop on the Beatles doubters. :)

Until then, Cheers!
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16
07-09-2009, 08:09 PM
Elvis didn't write anything so how can he win? He also wasn't exactly a virtuoso musician either. He got up and sang. The Beatles created a catalog of hits and played all their own instruments.
Elvis was a performer. Like MJ. Like Roger Daltrey. Like Robert Plant.
The Beatles created. They played. They sang. I have much more respect for an artist who writes his own stuff and actually plays an instrument. Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry at least were songwriters.
Posted via Mobile Device
The MJ deserves your respect, too. He wrote much of his material. He played a wildly divergent array of instruments (not on stage, but on his recordings).

Reaper16
07-09-2009, 08:22 PM
Okay, I'm in Vegas, drinkin'.

But when I return home Saturday night, the hammer will drop on the Beatles doubters. :)

Until then, Cheers!
Posted via Mobile Device
A post so portentous it deserves posting every half hour.

DaneMcCloud
07-09-2009, 08:36 PM
Ha!

Happy Hour in Vegas, Bro.

Happy Hour!
Posted via Mobile Device

RedNeckRaider
07-09-2009, 08:56 PM
Ha!

Happy Hour in Vegas, Bro.

Happy Hour!
Posted via Mobile Device

Do me a favor every time you see a Elvis impersonator tell them if they keep practicing some day they might be as good as First Down Elvis :)