Machine Head wrote:
Why are you bringing this up? This is a POLL, a collection of people's OPINIONS, something that has NO CRITERIA. Why are you so goddamn biased against Elvis? The only argument you can come up with in regards to Elvis vs. Beatles is 'blah blah blah Beatles wrote their own material blah blah blah', which is only one part of being an artist. You penalise Elvis for being an 'interpreter'; by that logic, the Beatles should be penalised for shunning the concerts, like ClashWho pointed out.
Besides, what kind of a list is this? Brian Wilson, Eddie Van Halen and Jimmy Page, but no Beach Boys, Van Halen or Led Zeppelin? Sex Pistols and Velvet Underground? Django Reinhardt, Les Paul and Charlie Christian revolutionary artists?
Metallica above Stevie Wonder?
Uh, because someone said it was inconceivable for him to see Bob Dylan over Elvis when I have seen plenty of other opinions that differ. If you think that songwriting capabilities is only thing the Beatles have over Elvis that you obviously can't comprehend that there is a difference between someone just singing and someone who performs, writes and sings their own material.
I don’t dislike. First you comparing a band for example went through so many musical parameters on Revolver and that is one album TO A SOLO ARTIST WHO SANG AND WAS AN INTERPETER.
But comparing to Elvis to the Beatles actually dismisses what the Beatles were as musicians/songwriters and vocalists. It’s a joke that in terms of harmonic organization, meter, vocal harmonization, and performing styles or musical styles that you guys are comparing Elvis to the Beatles. If Elvis needed someone to play the parts the Beatles were doing he would have to have a backing band or other musician who could actually play the styles the Beatles were doing.