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

[FAX]

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)

[RJ]

Originally Posted by FAX

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]

Originally Posted by FAX

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]

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]

The Beatles, no argument. And I'm not even a fan.

[wild1]

hahahaha you talk about elvis and the beatles, and then some rush fan comes into the elevator and rips ass

[wild1]

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]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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]

BTW -- I voted The Beatles.

[Pioli Zombie]

Originally Posted by FAX

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]

Ringo was a product of his time. He was GREAT at doing exactly what drummers did at the time.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by SEKChiefsFan

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]

I'm just guessing here, but if Ringo wasn't a very good drummer I think they could have found a replacement.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Best Musicians of All Time-hands down.

Not. Even. Close.

[FAX]

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]

Originally Posted by FAX

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 ****ing Ringo, k?