Which was most influential
 

The Beatles or Elvis Presley. Debergs prog rock thread started me thinking and I thought it was a fairly easy choice until I talked to a few others about it and looked up some numbers. Now it seems like a toss up... although I know what my original gut feeling was.

The Beatles...
Best selling band in history... roughly 1 billion 600 million units sold
22 #1 singles world wide
7 grammys
10 films

Elvis Presley
Best selling solo act in history... roughly 1 billion 600 million units sold
36 #1 singles
3 grammys
33 films

Of course there is plenty of other criteria. What say you though?

neither,
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jqxNSvFMkag" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So you vote option #4. Got it.

:)

:thumb: LMAOLMAO

As much as I love Elvis, I'd go with the Beatles.

Elvis had a singular talent for singing, dancing, and being a heart throb.

The Beatles had those as well, with talents for writing, philosophy, longevity and evolution of style in addition.

Elvis revolutionized by bringing rockabilly and gospel to the national stage, but the Beatles blew the music scene to smithereens, and seeped into the national conversation on all fronts, philosophical, political, fashion-wise, etc.

The Beatles. Elvis' music was a straight extension of his influences. The Beatles changed the game.

Good arguement. Elvis had top hits in rock 'n roll, country, gospel, pop and blues however and his longevity wasn't all that affected even by his death. That's something...

They did that & then some

Yet The Beatles listed Elvis as a main influence.

NKOTB

Marshall Bruce Mathers III

none of the above because I didn't like any of them. and no, not making a case for someone else.

Liking them has nothing to do with the question though.

Every artist has an influence.

ON THE DAAARKSIDE, OOOOOOH YEAH

Of course. I just found it interesting that The Beatles listed Elvis as an influence in regards to Reapers arguement. I'm not disagreeing.

"Tough All Over" is my favorite JCBBB song.

:D

You wanna' play the reducitivist game? Then you have to take it back to the forefathers of blues.

New Edition.

Ronnie, Bobby, Ricky, and Mike; if I like the girl, who cares who you like.

When judging influence, I go by depth AND breadth. Elvis has ardent support in a SEGMENT of music and near universal support for that segment of music. THe Beatles has ardent support from an IMMENSE base, from punk to orchestra, from yuppies to today's 10yos. It's undiminished in both depth and breadth over 50+ years.

Outside of a handful of Elvis impersonators, you don't see a lot of people aping his fashion sense, or philosophy, or interior decorating sense, or diet. You don't see Circque du Soleil centering an act around his hits. You don't his catalog breaking Itunes wide open. I could give hundreds of other examples, but I hope my point is clear by now.

In before 2pac reference.

:facepalm:

Cool it now...

:)

I was just making a very small point. I voted Beatles.

Jimi Hendrix. If he's not in this conversation than you, good sir, are a moran.

Also Cream aka Clapton.

I'm not sure if they were more influential but they absolutely belong in the conversation.

I wasn't argueing with you, just furthering the debate. I voted Beatles.

I would say Elvis first, then with Beatles maybe later.

I posted, not in rebuttal, but more in terms of clarification/amplification.

I would never argue Hendrix's influence or that off 100 other artists, including Clapton. The Beatles and Elvis are in a league of their own though through the criteria listed in the OP and many other things though.... imo.

Child please, both are great technicians, but they aren't influences. They extended the zietgiest, but they didn't revolutionize it. No noticeable segment of the population wakes up wanting to dress, create, eat, live, play like them, not on the level of the Beatles and Elvis. Madonna and Lady Gaga are frankly ahead of them on those terms, though they're still behind the big two.

The argument has really been worn out on VH1, countless classic rock message boards, and thousands of dorm rooms, so to hold to a point that one is greater than the other is redundant. But as long as there is acknowledgment that these bands were also profoundly influential I'm happy.

LMAO

But... but... he revolutionized... something... in like a handful of years!

Where does Ziggy stardust fit in?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were discussing fashion influences... I thought this was influence from a musician's perspective.

It's just a simple internet poll on one little site. It's not meant to change the world.

If we are talking about influential in society then these two are neck and neck... if we are talking inspiring to other musicians then they again both are near the top... if we are talking genuine influence on music and pushing genres forward neither breaks the top 10, nor the top 20, The Beatles may sneak into the top 50... maybe... if we limit the criteria to the 20th century.

FTR I left "influence" undefined on purpose so it could mean influence on other musicians, influence on the path of music that followed, influence on the public, influence on the way music is perceived... any kind of influence.

#3

Influence=change so I vote Elvis.
I didn't really care that much for Elvis, and the Beatles dominated the music scene in my teen years all the way to my 20s.
The Stones had a bigger influence with my crowd.
Never was that big of fan of the Beatles, preferred bands like Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, Grand Funk and Steve Miller Band.

How can I not mention "Ten Years After?"

In true retrospect, "The Boxtops" had the biggest early influence on me.

The discussion has great value. If I wouldn't have had these types of discussion when I was younger I would be oblivious to hundreds of periphery bands who had or were influenced by some of the better known bands.

What I don't like to see is younger generations saying that "the Beatles are the greatest band of all time," yet are unable to name 5 other bands from the 60's. Heck, even older folks can stand to learn something through this type of discussion.

Completely agree.

I certainly hope you don't view 'younger' people who say that the Beatles are the 'greatest' [leaving aside the issue of what influence means] as universally, or even preponderantly, unaware of other bands of history. I STILL know 10x more about the late 60s, early 70s, than I do the past 10 years. I've been fervently musically engaged from about 83 on.

Bob Dylan and the Stones have to be up there.

I didn't realize Elvis sold so many records...

Too bad I couldn't expierence great artists like Presley or the Beatles. It's all shit now, lil Wayne, Nikki Manaj, and Justin Bieber. I can't stand those 3 stupid ****s.

To expand on my post.. i would put guys like Charlie Parker, Dave Brubeck, Stan Getz and Duke Ellington above both. If we limit it to pop/rock then Buddy Holly jumps far ahead of both... so does Duane Eddy or Booker T. And of course the Beach Boys.

I'm a big fan of both the Beatles and Elvis but neither did a huge amount to push the envelope. It can be argued that the Beatles did as they matured but again, not nearly as much as so many others.

austinchef just quoted himself... that's fantastic!

They're by far the 2 biggest selling acts of all time. The only 2 over a billion units sold and both over half way to 2 billion. Michael Jackson is 3rd at 750 million.

Putting up a top 10, just for kicks, and purely off the cuff

Beatles
Michael Jackson
Madonna
Elvis
Bob Dylan
Nirvana [time limited, but huge temporary impact]
NWA
Woodie Guthrie
Black Sabbath
Johnny Cash

Substitute NWA for Run DMC.

I wanted to respond to the best post so far... left me little choice.. :D

I wholeheartedly disagree.

The Beatles absolutely changed the direction of music, and are responsible for the crap noise that has been generated for the last 40 years.

I don't dislike the Beatles, but I despise the dircection that music took as a result of their influence.

Backstreet Boys
NSYNC
Justin Beiber
George Michael
Elton John
William Hung

Luckily we can still listen to them. I was just a kid when they "went away" as well.

does the Michael Jackson estate still own the rights to the Beatles' songs or did Paul McCartney finally buy the rights back?

I understand

I'm not sure I like you.

Elton John doesn't belong in that list. He's one of the all time greats whether you like him or not and easily in the top 100 influential artists.

I would list that under "inspire" not influence. I know I am kinda defining my own terms here but I don't see much of what they did as anything particularly new or special.. just popular. the Beach Boys on the other hand actually create new sounds... so did Phil Spector for that matter.

I agree with you that they influenced music in the way you are defining it... for sure. I am just trying to take the conversation more into the realm of actual changes to how the music is structured or played. I guess I should change the term to INNOVATE.. I don't see either as big innovators but the bands I listed were.

If you don't like great music then screw you :cuss:

The way I see it, to divide up younger generations of music-listeners there are 2 main groups. Those who are well-versed and well-listened in the rich history of what I will call "modern music" (beginning roughly in the mid 50's) and those who simply pick out a big name i.e. the Beatles and say they're the greatest ever.

The former category is increasingly diminishing as high school and college aged kids ignore the influences in favor of "popular music" of today. That is not to say there is not a large audience who still appreciate "classic rock." Almost without exception, those who are musicians themselves pay homage to their influences and acknowledge them as invaluable. For example, I was watching an old rerun of Bonaroo (or some other music festival) on the Paladia network on DirecTV in which they showed the end of a Katy Perry concert. Imagine my surprise when the outro came along, the band played none other than the intro to Rush's Cygnus X-1, definitely one of their more obscure early pieces. I would almost guarantee no one in the audience knew that the piece the band was playing was anything more than some random riff.

But overall, if those who appreciate music and have listened to many different bands and come to the conclusion that, in their opinion, the Beatles are "the greatest of all time," I have no problem with that. It's when they haven't listened to anything but saw the movie "Across the Universe" and made that decision that irks me. (I ran into someone a while back who thought those were all original pieces from the movie, and when showed the originals, opined that the remakes were all superior)

Its only through discussion and the exchange of ideas, such as here, where we can begin to educate younger audiences on where their modern music comes from.

without Elvis, would rock be the show it is today though? I know how influential the Beatles are they did pretty much start the whole thing. It's a tough one.

I'll disagree about The Beatles there. Their early stuff was literally just pop fodder but their later stuff... Sgt. Peppers, I Am The Walrus etc was pretty ground breaking.

In all honesty, I respect the man. He is a legend. I only put him to keep the gay theme going.

Chuck Berry and Robert Johnson

Agreed.

I want you dead

I believe MJ's estate still owns it but I could be wrong. Someone can correct me if they know better.

Elvis Pressley did not write any of his songs. The Beatles wrote almost all of their songs. Elvis music career went on hold while he was in the army and again when he went into movies. While he did have music from those movies, he wasn't recording in the studio. I really don't think he had a big influence on popular music after returning to the stage in 1969.

The Beatles were so popular they had to stop touring. Their songs entered more into the consciousness. They wrote songs with more meaning. Elvis tried to get into that late in his career but I think with little success.

lol gotcha

It was their innovation that changed the direction of music.

A song like "She's Leaving Home" was groundbreaking and introduced the idea that musical instruments just making noise is music.

Now it's all just ****ing noise.

Why are you even posting in here... you don't even like music.





:p

Hence why I said it could be argued "as they matured"... although by that time they weren't really pushing an envelope that hadn't already been pushed by bands like The Beach Boys with multi-track recording and Phil Spector with his wall of sound. Even Paul McCartney admits that a ton of what came out on Sgt Peppers was inspired by Good Vibrations.

They simply weren't very ground breaking. Again, top 50 in the 20th century in that regard... maybe.

I think music just evolves. There has always been music. Great musicians come along and it just evolves naturally.

First the Beatles, I mean they pretty much have to be at the top. No other music group has produced a more solid and diverse library in such a short amount of time. They defined 60's culture.

The you have Miles Davis and Elvis Presley changing the game the way it's performed.

Then Bob Dylan comes along and makes it about sending a message.

Then you got Chuck Berry rocking out the guitar

The Rolling Stones of course.

Michael Jackson is def the most influential in pop culture.

Then of course Nirvana evolving rock for the whole 90's

Then Nickelback being the top 2000's band, making people think that music is dead and making people really appreciating 90's and older rock.

Yeah, influence is quite subjective, and has to relate to the time period I would think. Charlie Parker and Buddy Holly yes, oh hell yes when it comes to influence.

Elvis literally stole his entire act so I'll go with the Beatles.
Posted via Mobile Device

I saw the rest of your post. I pretty much just wanted to further the debate heh.

While I appreciate what they did...... God I hate the Beach Boys. Just passionately hate them. Sorry.