No-one's arguing that the song isn't the most important part. It's you arguing that writing songs is the most important.



I never claimed Elvis to be particularly impressive as a musician, nor did I compare him to McCartney or Harrison. Once again, you read the things people write and twist them so it looks like an attack on the Beatles, then you make up your own strawman arguments.



Even if there were only 3 songs, according to your logic, they should be penalised for that. You have no trouble pointing out stuff that other artists did or didn't do, but when it comes to the Beatles doing/not doing the exact same thing, you try and act as if they don't deserve to be penalised.



A 'most influential artists/people' list with Bob Dylan and Aretha Franklin but no Elvis Presley is laughable.



What a load of shit. So the only thing he didn't include Elvis for was not writing his own material? Sounds a lot like you.

You would have brought the Beatles into it anyway. And besides, Beatles vs. Elvis is much more interesting than Elvis vs. Dylan, because Elvis beats Dylan by a landslide.



Of course I do. I love Bob Dylan. Blood On The Tracks is one of my favourite albums, and Shelter from the Storm is one of my favourite songs, along with Desolation Row, Idiot Wind and Hurricane.

1.) James Brown and Jimi Hendrix were not Motown acts.
2.) The point is that you criticize Elvis for not writing or playing on his own material and want to lower him for that, yet probably all Motown acts didn't play or write any of their songs, but you don't play attention to them. Why are you not campaigning to get them lowered?

No, it doesn't. Because they aren't following a set of criteria. Some musician can vote for Leonard Cohen over Chuck Berry. And I'm sure some do. And what do you mean "subjective opinion of this forum"? The whole point of following a set of criteria is to produce as close to an objective list as possible.



It's the opinion of the editors of Time Magazine.



Elvis Presley is the first artist to top the Pop, Country and R&B charts at the same time.



Foghat wrote their own music. They also sang. And they performed on their own musical instruments. Are they greater than Elvis Presley?



If it's that simple, then Foghat is a greater rock artist than Elvis Presley.



A singer like Elvis sure as fucking hell ain't a dime a dozen.



What, you want to break up the list between bands and solo artists, now?

Not that, that's for sure. The point is that you're only gunning for Elvis Presley. Why aren't you clamoring for every other artist on the list who didn't write their own material to be lowered? In fact, why don't you ask to have them all knocked off the list entirely, since you think all great artists have to be songwriters?



Yeah, you just think he's a dime a dozen.



The criteria makes you wrong.

You're flawed.



Without someone to perform it, a song is nothing.



Eat cock.



You need to swallow a bucket of dicks if you think the Beatles are even in the same universe as Elvis Presley when it comes to performing.



More than any other artist, Elvis Presley is responsible for rock becoming the dominant form of popular music. Nothing the Beatles did compares to that.

i think the second you try to pass off Elvis as "a dime a dozen", you shouldn't be taken seriously from that point on. imo.

this list is about who is most important in rock music. who had the biggest impact, culturally, musically, commercially, etc.

anything other than Beatles > Elvis > everyone else, is just insane.

Yeah, but Elvis > Beatles > Everyone else, also isn't insane.

What the hell is your problem with this?

Gibson's lists suck major balls. Who the hell would have Nirvana as a more revolutionary artist than Led Zeppelin.

Smokey Robinson doesn't write his own songs? Marvin Gaye didn't start out as a drummer?