Who contributed more?
KFrost2008
Posts: 36
My friends and I have been having an argument at school. The question is, who contributed more to the foundation of rock music, The Beatles or Elvis? Now obviously it could be argued of any two artists, and Jazz cpntributed to all of this. I was curious what you guys thought. I think The Beatles contributed to rock and Elvis contributed more to pop.
I can kill because in God I trust.
06/24/06-Cincinnati, OH-US Bank Arena
08/05/07-Chicago, IL-Grant Park(Lollapalooza)
06/24/06-Cincinnati, OH-US Bank Arena
08/05/07-Chicago, IL-Grant Park(Lollapalooza)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Katowice 2007
London 2007
And potentially then no Beatles.
Clearly musically, The Beatles made a greater contribution, but then what would they be contributing to if Elvis hadn't got it all jumpin in the first place?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Yeah, I believe that without The King, there wouldn't have been The Beatles. I am a bigger fan of The Beatles, but maybe I have a tiny bit more respect for Elvis Presley for what he contributed to the history and creation of rock and roll.
good call i agree.
Charlotte 03
Asheville 04
Atlanta 12
Greenville 16, Columbia 16
Seattle 18
Nashville 22
PJ albums, at the moment!! -
1,Vs 2,Vitalogy 3,No Code 4,Yield 5,Ten 6,Backspacer, 7Pearl Jam 8,Binaural 9,Riot Act.
06/24/06-Cincinnati, OH-US Bank Arena
08/05/07-Chicago, IL-Grant Park(Lollapalooza)
Well I do have my Elvy obsession to justify!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
You know I seem to recall one of the Beatles actually saying that Elvis was an influence at some point.
I mean, the man was banned from the waist down on television!!
Before there was Beatlemania, there was Elvis mania.
I'm just glad that we have both.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
In my opinion, Elvis is the foundation of rock music. Like aNiMaL said, without Elvis there would be no Beatles. He opened the gates for the early rock and roll artists. Without Elvis pushing the boundaries and making his blues based music the mainstream, who knows what kind of music we would have today? However, there is no doubt in my mind that the Beatles are more influential to other musicians than Elvis.
I think this is pretty much on point. There would have been no Beatles without Elvis. No Zeppelin either, for that matter. Jimmy Page has said in interviews that Scotty Moore's playing on an old Elvis tune is what got him into the guitar. Elvis is directly responsible for many of the musicians who are now the foundations of classic rock picking up their instruments in the first place.
That said, the Beatles took it to a whole 'nother level. The Beatles have had a broader range of influence, but they needed that initial Elvis influenece (along with Motown and some surf music) to get there in the first place.
But I think your question needs to be more thought out. Rock didnt start with either of them. Rock music was created by african americans in the r and b tradition. There are many people like Chuck Berry or Robert Johnson or Taj Mahal or anyone else, who perfected rock way before it was exploited by whites to make a buck and gain wealth.
The real sadness of it all is while Elvis and The Beatles are important and should be studied, we dont pay attention to the founders of rock, the nonwhite founders of rock. The fact that with the exception of a few bands, most rock right now is exclusively white. Which is odd as this music was created by blacks.
This can be said for any genre of music and bands of any color, The Ramones are an example of forebearers that got no recognition and credit.
But I just cant imagine how much it must have hurt the real "kings" of rock and roll the African American "fathers and mothers" of it, who would turn on ed sullivan and see elvis and see him and others playing their music. They got no credit. Elvis hit it BIG and made millions. But most of the forefathers of rock and roll got nothing in return, no fame, no money, no mansions. Thats what I object to. Its how they treated them, and thats really wrong.
But I think racism in rock and roll played a big part. Why is it that a person like Bill Hailey had the first rock and roll hit with rock around the clock, and is it a coincidence he was white? Why is it that elvis made millions and was called the king, is that also due to the fact he was white? How many millions of other nonwhite rock and blues artists at that time went without recognition? Was their lack of exposure due to their skin color?
As I said before, I think rocks racism is inherent. I can only think of one band right now with a black frontman. And thats Bloc Party. Also Sevendusts lead singer. There are undoubtedly others but its not much more. Why is it that the music that started from african american misery and poverty and racism, and was an expression of all of that, a music that started from african american singers and musicians, why is it that now the typical rock band is a bunch of teenager white boys?
I dunno ... I just got done listening to Michael Franti & Spearhead, and Ben Harper is playing now