The Energon Pub

I was looking through a book on people in entertainment who died either at the top of their careers or before they even got there. One of them was John Lennon, and the article included the phrase "the most influental rock and roll figure of all time."
I always thought this was Elvis Presley.

So, what do you think? Who had a bigger effect on the popular music and cultural aspect of world entertainment? Would popular music as a whole be much different if either or both of these artists never existed?

If we're talking bigger effect then i'd have to go with John Lennon. He and McCartney pioneered a number of different things and to this day influence a lot of young talent.

Elvis, well he was more of just a showman. As far as influencing goes, it extends about as far as the Annual Elvis Impersonator competition.

Would today's music be different without them? No doubt about it. Though i'm sure we'd still have to put up with that hip-hop rubbish.

Elvis

The world loved the Beatles, not John.

The King Of Rock!

I hate 'em both. Over-rated and out dated.


Long live Metal.

Ironhidensh wrote:I hate 'em both. Over-rated and out dated.


Long live Metal.

Well of course they're outdated, but the influence of either is still felt.

You really think Motorhead could have gotten off the ground if distorted guitar music wasn't brought forth first by bands like the Beatles?

Counterpunch wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:I hate 'em both. Over-rated and out dated.


Long live Metal.

Well of course they're outdated, but the influence of either is still felt.

You really think Motorhead could have gotten off the ground if distorted guitar music wasn't brought forth first by bands like the Beatles?

Of course they had influence, I just choose to dismiss it since I don't like their sound.

Ironhidensh wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:I hate 'em both. Over-rated and out dated.


Long live Metal.

Well of course they're outdated, but the influence of either is still felt.

You really think Motorhead could have gotten off the ground if distorted guitar music wasn't brought forth first by bands like the Beatles?

Of course they had influence, I just choose to dismiss it since I don't like their sound.

Good night everybody!

Counterpunch wrote:Elvis

The world loved the Beatles, not John.

Yeah, but I still think Lennon is bigger than Elvis... status wise not physical wise. The reason I believe so is that nearly everybody automatically thinks about the Beetles when they think about Lennon. So with the Beetles you got 200 hundred of the world's greatest songs that are still mostly appreciated today almost as well as the day they were released. Meanwhile with Elvis you have to put yourself back in that time frame. Then the way Lennon went out launched him into even more legendary heights, if you can believe it.

Good question, since both had everlasting impact on popular music around the world. Each one lent their talents and forever-stamp on the world at large, just in different avenues.

Elvis revolutionized popular music and how it was viewed by society as a whole. He brought "hillbilly music" into the mainstream and all but STARTED the rockabilly genre of music.

The Beatles, and their frontman John Lennon, took the kernel of what Elvis started and ran the full field with it for the touchdown. They added nuances of their own to it, forever sealing themselves in the annals of popular music history.

Music we know and love today would be NOTHING we would recognize without the talents of these legends of music history.

BTW, I love both Elvis and The Beatles.

Chupacabra Convoy wrote:Yeah, but I still think Lennon is bigger than Elvis... status wise not physical wise. The reason I believe so is that nearly everybody automatically thinks about the Beetles when they think about Lennon. So with the Beetles you got 200 hundred of the world's greatest songs that are still mostly appreciated today almost as well as the day they were released. Meanwhile with Elvis you have to put yourself back in that time frame. Then the way Lennon went out launched him into even more legendary heights, if you can believe it.

Spoken like a John fan and not a Paul fan...

Elvis

He started the change from the Big Band era to the Beatles who continued on but they themsleves were huge Elvis fans

Ironhidensh wrote:I hate 'em both. Over-rated and out dated.


Long live Metal.

God Thundercracker wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:I hate 'em both. Over-rated and out dated.


Long live Metal.

Yeah, 'bout my reaction. Followed by

I like both Elvis and John, too. I'm not sure I could choose.

Since this is opinion based I will say Lennon.When I think Lennon I think the Bettles like many others do.I have most Bettles songs on CD and still enjoy them.I Do give Elvis his credit for what he did but I really can't listen to much of his music.Its not really my taste.

I love both.. However Elvis set the stage for how music evolved for everyone that followed.

I am more of a Beatles/Paul/George fan though.

My wife loves both but is a huge Elvis fan.

And I do remember the day he died.

Cyber Bishop wrote:I love both.. However Elvis set the stage for how music evolved for everyone that followed.

I am more of a Beatles/Paul/George fan though.

My wife loves both but is a huge Elvis fan.

And I do remember the day he died.

Which brings me to my next questions:

1., To those of you who were alive and old enough for both, whose death was more shocking/surprising/depressing? Knowing Elvis's health and habits, did his heart attack come as less of a surprise than John's shooting?

2., And which of their wives (Priscilla or Yoko) had a bigger effect (positive or negative) on their respective husbands' careers?

Elvis is the one who allegedly widespread the
verse-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus template that was pop-industry-uniform in the later 80's, but Lennons' lyrical pretext was a popular style in the work of many earlier 80's artists.

My old music teacher says the transition to the Elvis style happened at about the same time as the 'corporate takeover began to enter acceptance as normal {as opposed to new or radical} practise'. (You folks decide- it sounds smart, but I don't know).

Yes, both influenced later music, tho both drew on existing templates. At the very least, they entered a new series of "key words" that replaced older styles.I think Lenon also turned peoples' eyes towards the future in his work, but I don't know if he was doing it conciously or if it happened because he ended up getting associated with the Flowerchild/FlowerPower movement.

Topographically, all nations already had the two proto-genres in use: stable communities had something like Lennons ballad pretext commemorating an event or history of a location, whilst migrant and travelling worker communities made use of folk-blues style templates,discussing friends and aquaintances who often move on- tho Elvis and the Beatles both have good examples of each general style in the long run.

Considering the whole cold war period didn't result in WWIII (yet), I class Lennon as the greatest overall influence (tho he was technically only an assist to the whole world-peace ideal:it got there before he jumped on board), whereas Elvis taught a lot of common folks a great deal of stuff about day-to-day relationships. All the finer details could technically result in a tie between the two.

Having supported both, I ultimately vote Lennon: Altho both used copious amounts of drugs, Lennon had not naturally arrived at the conclusion to start regularly overdosing himself with the quantities he was putting into himself-which implies he had at least one last phase to go through as a lyrical messenger before the term of "his natural" life was up.Since he died before expiring himself, we're left to guess what his next phase would have been.This invokes self thinking during a period of world transformation which makes Lennon the greatest depositor of influence into those who want to study his messages.

(Elvis had a great heart as well,tho. He was a very generous giver of his own assets, whereas Lennon bonded with an outside influence,albeit a very important one that needed Champions).

Counterpunch wrote:Elvis

The world loved the Beatles, not John.

This is succinct. And correct. If the question were "Elvis or The Beatles", then it would be a bit more of an equal battle. I would still go with Elvis though.