FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

The Beatles Or Elvis Presley

Jump to newest
 

By *aravancouple OP   Man
over a year ago

A Secret Hideaway In the caravan of love

Which musical legends do you think was the most influential in the 60s

She loves you yeaaaah yeaaaah yeaaaah

Beatles of course.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The beetles win hands down

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Neither - sorry!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the beatles.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

Elvis

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Beatles here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Doors, Who, Stones............

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *MOOTH AND ROUGHCouple
over a year ago

tamworth

Beatles here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ev-PMan
over a year ago

Hampshire

Gotta be Elvis ..awhaw!.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

Elvis wasn't influential in the 60's, he was influential in the 50's...no Elvis, no Beatles.

So neither, or both!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Eric Burdon.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *himanMan
over a year ago

chichester

Elvis much biggee star

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *innamon!Woman
over a year ago

no matter

Beatles

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Beatles, they set the tone for a generation of musicians and music in general

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orset manMan
over a year ago

Bournemouth

or Cliff?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"or Cliff?"
I wish he would!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oi, what about the Archies?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Elvis.

Still number 1 artist of all time refering to hours in charts 2500 plus. Followed by cliff then queen. Then the beatles.

Elvis not influential in the 60s? Watch the 68 comeback special. Makes the beatles look well a bit special .....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge


"Elvis.

Still number 1 artist of all time refering to hours in charts 2500 plus. Followed by cliff then queen. Then the beatles.

Elvis not influential in the 60s? Watch the 68 comeback special. Makes the beatles look well a bit special ..... "
would that be Elvis who never wrote a single single song of his own ? just aperformer no beeter thaan any x factor contender

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Elvis.

Still number 1 artist of all time refering to hours in charts 2500 plus. Followed by cliff then queen. Then the beatles.

Elvis not influential in the 60s? Watch the 68 comeback special. Makes the beatles look well a bit special ..... would that be Elvis who never wrote a single single song of his own ? just aperformer no beeter thaan any x factor contender "

Really ? Must be then......guy had more talent in his little finger or indeed his vocal cords than the beatles put together and trebled. Sales and chart position show that. Will we really be listening to x factor contestants 30 odd years after they died ? Dont think so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uby0000Woman
over a year ago

hertfordshire

neither

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aykayMan
over a year ago

ipwich

[Removed by poster at 13/12/13 22:33:25]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow


"Elvis.

Still number 1 artist of all time refering to hours in charts 2500 plus. Followed by cliff then queen. Then the beatles.

Elvis not influential in the 60s? Watch the 68 comeback special. Makes the beatles look well a bit special ..... would that be Elvis who never wrote a single single song of his own ? just aperformer no beeter thaan any x factor contender "

Lol A bit like

Frank Sinatra

Many brilliant songs would never have been heard,had it not been for a brilliant singer,giving it life.

;-)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Many of the bands and musicians I listen to have stated they were inspired by the Beatles, such as Black Sabbath and Motorhead. I enjoy both Elvis and the Beatles... but I would have to pick The Beatles as I love Sabbath and Motorhead more

Overall, I think both were inspirational. Just like those who inspired them.

Sarah xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hecat007Woman
over a year ago

Round the corner

Elvis .....always

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at2Couple
over a year ago

north Down


"Many of the bands and musicians I listen to have stated they were inspired by the Beatles, such as Black Sabbath and Motorhead. I enjoy both Elvis and the Beatles... but I would have to pick The Beatles as I love Sabbath and Motorhead more

Overall, I think both were inspirational. Just like those who inspired them.

Sarah xx"

Did John Lennon not say that he was inspired by and was a big Elvis fan.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Wasn't alive so I don't know. But McCartney irritates me hugely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at2Couple
over a year ago

north Down


"Wasn't alive so I don't know. But McCartney irritates me hugely."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Beatles for me big fan

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Definitely the Beatles.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To add to that, Elvis (as good as he was), did nothing for the music world after 1961. His influence left a bad taste on the fashion world as well - a lot of people who considered themselves 'teds', or who loved rock & roll, thought it was fashionable to dress up like they were still in 1974 (flared trousers, wing-collar shirts and shoes which their mum probably bought for them).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This site may dispute that ..... http://www.elvis.net/guinness/guinnessframe.html

anyone for a bit of wings ? Urgh

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Beatles were nothing more than a poppy boy band. They are in the same bracket as boyzone or westlife. Nothing wrong with that though. They found their selling point and marketed it very well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Kinks "You Really Got Me" spawned a whole new sound too.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esmond and Molly JonesCouple
over a year ago

Watford

Beatles by a very very long margin. Simply the greatest music band that's ever existed. Genius of Mccartney/Lennon versus some pub singer

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love the Beatles,,,,,, but I'm of the opinion that as a band, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Elvis......always

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I'm not an Elvis fan, I feel that once you move away from a dozen or so songs you hit mediocre tracks pretty quickly, yet without him, would there be the Beatles? Possibly not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

While i can appreciate Elvis and his legacy, I much prefer The Beatles

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uby0000Woman
over a year ago

hertfordshire

had a bf once who dressed like elvis we didn't last long

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Elves impersonators usually get lots of work this time of year

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts


"Elves impersonators usually get lots of work this time of year "

Ever see that episode of Due South were they had a mix up on the identity parade between Elves and Elvis' ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Beatles were nothing more than a poppy boy band. They are in the same bracket as boyzone or westlife. Nothing wrong with that though. They found their selling point and marketed it very well. "

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.

Go listen to the white album and tell me which Westlife / Boyzone album is comparable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I believe that the entire works of the beatles were sent into space years ago for aliens to find them. The way I see it ....they were blasted into space to get rid of them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Beatles were nothing more than a poppy boy band. They are in the same bracket as boyzone or westlife. Nothing wrong with that though. They found their selling point and marketed it very well.

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.

Go listen to the white album and tell me which Westlife / Boyzone album is comparable. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ndy_mandyCouple
over a year ago

Tredegar

Hate the Beatles.

Elvis all the way

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley


"I'm not an Elvis fan, I feel that once you move away from a dozen or so songs you hit mediocre tracks pretty quickly, yet without him, would there be the Beatles? Possibly not. "

Elvis, once he went in the army, was pretty much finished ('68 Comeback Special and a couple of his gospel style songs, notwithstanding) but no, there would have been no Beatles without Elvis.

As for The Beatles just being a boy band, that's just laughable. No one sounded like them before they came along, so they set the precedent for 'boy bands' but their musical progression and influence in the short time they were together is unparalleled; no other band has ever gone from simple 4/4 pop songs to concept albums and influencing the underground scene.

It's like Westlife recording 'OK Computer' or 'Lateralus'...ain't gonna happen.

And I don't even like The Beatles that much but to deny their development and influence is just ludicrous!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not an Elvis fan, I feel that once you move away from a dozen or so songs you hit mediocre tracks pretty quickly, yet without him, would there be the Beatles? Possibly not.

Elvis, once he went in the army, was pretty much finished ('68 Comeback Special and a couple of his gospel style songs, notwithstanding) but no, there would have been no Beatles without Elvis.

As for The Beatles just being a boy band, that's just laughable. No one sounded like them before they came along, so they set the precedent for 'boy bands' but their musical progression and influence in the short time they were together is unparalleled; no other band has ever gone from simple 4/4 pop songs to concept albums and influencing the underground scene.

It's like Westlife recording 'OK Computer' or 'Lateralus'...ain't gonna happen.

And I don't even like The Beatles that much but to deny their development and influence is just ludicrous!"

One and a half billion viewers for 1973 aloha concert may say otherwise . Hardly finished. Less people watched the moon landing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley


"I'm not an Elvis fan, I feel that once you move away from a dozen or so songs you hit mediocre tracks pretty quickly, yet without him, would there be the Beatles? Possibly not.

Elvis, once he went in the army, was pretty much finished ('68 Comeback Special and a couple of his gospel style songs, notwithstanding) but no, there would have been no Beatles without Elvis.

As for The Beatles just being a boy band, that's just laughable. No one sounded like them before they came along, so they set the precedent for 'boy bands' but their musical progression and influence in the short time they were together is unparalleled; no other band has ever gone from simple 4/4 pop songs to concept albums and influencing the underground scene.

It's like Westlife recording 'OK Computer' or 'Lateralus'...ain't gonna happen.

And I don't even like The Beatles that much but to deny their development and influence is just ludicrous!

One and a half billion viewers for 1973 aloha concert may say otherwise . Hardly finished. Less people watched the moon landing. "

I meant finished musically as an influential artist, not as a concert draw. Colonel Tom Parker and the army took away all the raw, visceral qualities he had when he first emerged as an artist. After that, he spent over a decade making rubbish films with twee soundtracks!

In terms of influence, Heartbreak Hotel and Mystery Train or any song from a 60's soundtrack?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not an Elvis fan, I feel that once you move away from a dozen or so songs you hit mediocre tracks pretty quickly, yet without him, would there be the Beatles? Possibly not.

Elvis, once he went in the army, was pretty much finished ('68 Comeback Special and a couple of his gospel style songs, notwithstanding) but no, there would have been no Beatles without Elvis.

As for The Beatles just being a boy band, that's just laughable. No one sounded like them before they came along, so they set the precedent for 'boy bands' but their musical progression and influence in the short time they were together is unparalleled; no other band has ever gone from simple 4/4 pop songs to concept albums and influencing the underground scene.

It's like Westlife recording 'OK Computer' or 'Lateralus'...ain't gonna happen.

And I don't even like The Beatles that much but to deny their development and influence is just ludicrous!

One and a half billion viewers for 1973 aloha concert may say otherwise . Hardly finished. Less people watched the moon landing.

I meant finished musically as an influential artist, not as a concert draw. Colonel Tom Parker and the army took away all the raw, visceral qualities he had when he first emerged as an artist. After that, he spent over a decade making rubbish films with twee soundtracks!

In terms of influence, Heartbreak Hotel and Mystery Train or any song from a 60's soundtrack?"

A little less conversation as a draw to new young fans on its jlx release ........though I am being obtuse I know what you mean in a way. Though I am a vegas era fan

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Both had good music.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley


"I'm not an Elvis fan, I feel that once you move away from a dozen or so songs you hit mediocre tracks pretty quickly, yet without him, would there be the Beatles? Possibly not.

Elvis, once he went in the army, was pretty much finished ('68 Comeback Special and a couple of his gospel style songs, notwithstanding) but no, there would have been no Beatles without Elvis.

As for The Beatles just being a boy band, that's just laughable. No one sounded like them before they came along, so they set the precedent for 'boy bands' but their musical progression and influence in the short time they were together is unparalleled; no other band has ever gone from simple 4/4 pop songs to concept albums and influencing the underground scene.

It's like Westlife recording 'OK Computer' or 'Lateralus'...ain't gonna happen.

And I don't even like The Beatles that much but to deny their development and influence is just ludicrous!

One and a half billion viewers for 1973 aloha concert may say otherwise . Hardly finished. Less people watched the moon landing.

I meant finished musically as an influential artist, not as a concert draw. Colonel Tom Parker and the army took away all the raw, visceral qualities he had when he first emerged as an artist. After that, he spent over a decade making rubbish films with twee soundtracks!

In terms of influence, Heartbreak Hotel and Mystery Train or any song from a 60's soundtrack?

A little less conversation as a draw to new young fans on its jlx release ........though I am being obtuse I know what you mean in a way. Though I am a vegas era fan "

It was an Adidas advert that sold that song, not Elvis

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Influential wise in uk beatles. Influential worldwide elvis.

Personally not keen on elvis music or personality wise.

Do not get me started on elvis tribute acts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anny PepperoniMan
over a year ago

Matlock

Didn't John Lennon once say that without Elvis there would have been no Beatles?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Didn't John Lennon once say that without Elvis there would have been no Beatles?"

He also said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ, which is a brilliant statement!

Mind you, Elvis was......well, towards the end when he ballooned out!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not an Elvis fan, I feel that once you move away from a dozen or so songs you hit mediocre tracks pretty quickly, yet without him, would there be the Beatles? Possibly not.

Elvis, once he went in the army, was pretty much finished ('68 Comeback Special and a couple of his gospel style songs, notwithstanding) but no, there would have been no Beatles without Elvis.

As for The Beatles just being a boy band, that's just laughable. No one sounded like them before they came along, so they set the precedent for 'boy bands' but their musical progression and influence in the short time they were together is unparalleled; no other band has ever gone from simple 4/4 pop songs to concept albums and influencing the underground scene.

It's like Westlife recording 'OK Computer' or 'Lateralus'...ain't gonna happen.

And I don't even like The Beatles that much but to deny their development and influence is just ludicrous!

One and a half billion viewers for 1973 aloha concert may say otherwise . Hardly finished. Less people watched the moon landing.

I meant finished musically as an influential artist, not as a concert draw. Colonel Tom Parker and the army took away all the raw, visceral qualities he had when he first emerged as an artist. After that, he spent over a decade making rubbish films with twee soundtracks!

In terms of influence, Heartbreak Hotel and Mystery Train or any song from a 60's soundtrack?

A little less conversation as a draw to new young fans on its jlx release ........though I am being obtuse I know what you mean in a way. Though I am a vegas era fan

It was an Adidas advert that sold that song, not Elvis"

Well he had been dead for 25 or so years ..........

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Didn't John Lennon once say that without Elvis there would have been no Beatles?

He also said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ, which is a brilliant statement!

Mind you, Elvis was......well, towards the end when he ballooned out!"

Don't really understand what weight has to do with music. Barry white did ok. As does erm ...subo. lets face it none of the beatles were great lookers but shouldnt effect their music????

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Beatles were nothing more than a poppy boy band. They are in the same bracket as boyzone or westlife. Nothing wrong with that though. They found their selling point and marketed it very well.

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.

Go listen to the white album and tell me which Westlife / Boyzone album is comparable. "

All of them.

Just pretty boys having a sing song. All sounds the same to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it was those awful films that marked the start of Elvis becoming a spent force.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

As for The Beatles just being a boy band, that's just laughable. No one sounded like them before they came along, "

Listen to Buddy Holly and the crickets. The early Beatles stuff sounds exactly like them. Even Mcnartny says they based their sound on them. So plenty sounded like them before they came along.

It's not a bad thing. People liked them. Pop music will always appeal. Nothing wrong with that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anny PepperoniMan
over a year ago

Matlock


"I think it was those awful films that marked the start of Elvis becoming a spent force."

That was the colonel's doing. He fucked Elvis artistically and made a bundle by doing so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the beatles

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can't stand Elvis.... Torture to ones ears

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Elvis was the King of rock and roll, a rockabilly and gospel singer, an actor, musician and cultural icon. He had an amazing vocal range and this allowed him to transform anything he sang.

The Beatles hhhmmmmm were a very popular boy band at a time there was nothing like it. McCartney and Lennon, Lennon in particular were hugely talented. The music has an iconic sixties British feel to it, and only really changed at the last album. (or so I think)

My favourite artist of that time, that I think still continues to influence a majority of musicians today, would be Jimi Hendrix. Few guitarists or musicians generally don't have, or know his music, or aspire to play like him.

I guess music is a matter of personal taste, Presley had a fabulous voice and stage presence, Lennon wrote touching lyrics, but for me, it's Hendrix that I have on my iPod.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Beatles, they set the tone for a generation of musicians and music in general"
I (lyn) would like to say Elvis! I hate the Beatles they were overrated!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Beatles, they set the tone for a generation of musicians and music in general I (lyn) would like to say Elvis! I hate the Beatles they were overrated! "

They still are. Especially by themselves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Beatles, they set the tone for a generation of musicians and music in general I (lyn) would like to say Elvis! I hate the Beatles they were overrated!

They still are. Especially by themselves."

Well two of them are dead! But McCartney can still sell out stadiums all over the world, so they can't be that overrated.

Anyway...Elvis is an icon but it's comparing chalk and cheese. Elvis was a singer, The Beatles were song writers and musical innovators. They were both supreme.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Wasn't alive so I don't know. But McCartney irritates me hugely."

Me too!Especially when he makes that irritating peace sign!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Wasn't alive so I don't know. But McCartney irritates me hugely."

He is a bit of an arse these days, but there was a time when he was the epitome of cool.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Beatles, they set the tone for a generation of musicians and music in general I (lyn) would like to say Elvis! I hate the Beatles they were overrated!

They still are. Especially by themselves.

Well two of them are dead! But McCartney can still sell out stadiums all over the world, so they can't be that overrated.

"

So can Cliff Richard. I'll bet most of the country uttered a 'for fucks sake' when they wheeled McCartney out for the opening ceremony at the Olympics.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Beatles, they set the tone for a generation of musicians and music in general I (lyn) would like to say Elvis! I hate the Beatles they were overrated!

They still are. Especially by themselves.

Well two of them are dead! But McCartney can still sell out stadiums all over the world, so they can't be that overrated.

So can Cliff Richard. I'll bet most of the country uttered a 'for fucks sake' when they wheeled McCartney out for the opening ceremony at the Olympics. "

One direction play to packed stadiums. Cheesy pop sells.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oasterCockbumMan
over a year ago

Highway 61

they were both massive marketing successes in different genres ... in both genres there have been much more influential bands/artists who though critically acclaimed and more cited as influences didn't achieve as much chart 'success' as the likes of Elvis and the beatles , stones etc . not so different from todays charts and x factors and the likes , take your picks as to your tastes and opinions , this is merely mine .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Cliff Richard is virtually unknown outside the UK. He couldn't sell out a bar in the states.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

One Direction play to packed stadiums Cheesy pop sells.

Yawn.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Which musical legends do you think was the most influential in the 60s

She loves you yeaaaah yeaaaah yeaaaah

Beatles of course."

both very good however its irrelevant as it all comes back to blues like Robert Johnson

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Neither

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Kind of a false dichotomy. Elvis wasn't influential in the 60's, he was hip in the 50's. Without Elvis, modern music would not have gotten started.

The Beatles shaped the pop world and made it what it is, Elvis started the trend in the first place (so long as you discount the Big Bopper and similar)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oasterCockbumMan
over a year ago

Highway 61


"Kind of a false dichotomy. Elvis wasn't influential in the 60's, he was hip in the 50's. Without Elvis, modern music would not have gotten started.

The Beatles shaped the pop world and made it what it is, Elvis started the trend in the first place (so long as you discount the Big Bopper and similar)"

Sorry but tosh ......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

out of those two definitely The Beatles but an outside choice would be The Rolling Stones.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Beatles

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 15/12/13 20:56:07]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"they were both massive marketing successes in different genres ... in both genres there have been much more influential bands/artists who though critically acclaimed and more cited as influences didn't achieve as much chart 'success' as the likes of Elvis and the beatles , stones etc . not so different from todays charts and x factors and the likes , take your picks as to your tastes and opinions , this is merely mine . "

Would you care to name some of these much more influential groups/artists?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge


"Which musical legends do you think was the most influential in the 60s

She loves you yeaaaah yeaaaah yeaaaah

Beatles of course."

Elvis was more influential in the 50s I think.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Before Elvis, there was no mainstream Rock n Roll.

Before the Beatles there was no mainstream Pop written and performed by group.

Lennon said without Elvis there would be no BBeatls.

Without the Beatles the music s

scene today would not be the same.

The Beatles in my mind were more musically influential and ground breaking. Love Me Do was only 5 years before Strawberry Fields. I challenge any one to name a band that has changed so much in such a short time.

As a footnote, I am a big fan of both.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Before Elvis, there was no mainstream Rock n Roll.

Before the Beatles there was no mainstream Pop written and performed by group.

Lennon said without Elvis there would be no BBeatls.

Without the Beatles the music s

scene today would not be the same.

The Beatles in my mind were more musically influential and ground breaking. Love Me Do was only 5 years before Strawberry Fields. I challenge any one to name a band that has changed so much in such a short time.

As a footnote, I am a big fan of both."

Slade went from a skinhead band to a glam rock band almost overnight.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Before Elvis, there was no mainstream Rock n Roll.

Before the Beatles there was no mainstream Pop written and performed by group.

Lennon said without Elvis there would be no BBeatls.

Without the Beatles the music s

scene today would not be the same.

The Beatles in my mind were more musically influential and ground breaking. Love Me Do was only 5 years before Strawberry Fields. I challenge any one to name a band that has changed so much in such a short time.

As a footnote, I am a big fan of both.

Slade went from a skinhead band to a glam rock band almost overnight. "

But they never had a wider influence. .. although they are credited as a seque between the Beatles and themselves for Oasis.

I recently bought Slades Greatest hits and was surprised how good they were

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ach fuck it ....queen. end of. (Ok 70s plus but unrivalled)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top