Okay. Let's Settle This Once & For All Times!!!
 

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)

apohe
sec

Even though I can't stand the Beatles for the most part (they were brilliant song writers though). It's gotta be them.

Where's the Spice Girls option?

One of those bands heavily influenced one of those individuals. Therefore I am going with that band.

The Beatles were just the first boy band.

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

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

FAX

beatles, and it isn't even close.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Beatles, this shouldn't even be a debate.

Beatles, hands down.

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

I knew all those people.

Except Gaz. :(

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.

He did own the Beatles rights though....

Jerry Lee Lewis, he was a straight pedophile.

Elvis.

I AM THE GOD OF HELLFIRE!!!! Yep, that was the turning point for me.

INCESTUOUS pedophile at that.

Elvis was a pedophile too.

didn't **** his own cousin, did he?

Thank you for saving all that typing for me.

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

Mah name is Ringo. And I play tha drums!

Rush-hands down-best ever.

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

heeeylo bongo!

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

ROFL You typed almost as much as I did.

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?'

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.

Still does...

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.

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?)

Beatles.

Landslide.

Next question.

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:

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.

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.

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.

I just discovered Aldo Nova!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

obviously, rush.

:spock:

LOL I could make a case for Nirvana. They pretty much resurrected guitars when Teen Spirit came out. Changed music overnight.

...and I think I agree on Rush.

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)

Rush is a pretty ****ing good band. They'll be remembered, but just not as one of the biggies.

Jimi? Yes.
Chuck Berry? **** yes.

oh dear lord :rolleyes:

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

The Who & The Stones? Absolutely.

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.

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?

Frank Sinatra, Benny Goodman would be legit from that era.

I'd give a nod to The Rolling Stones

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.

yep. both of them, probably.

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

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

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

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...

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.

Aaron Copland. Duke Ellington.

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

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.

As far as impact is concerned, cases could be made for Eric Clapton or Madonna.

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

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

Best Musicians of All Time-hands down.

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.

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