# Elvis person or Beatles person?



## Dark Jezter (Dec 19, 2005)

In a deleted scene to the movie *Pulp Fiction*, Mia Wallace (Uma Thurmond's character) comments that there are two kinds of people in this world:  Elvis people and Beatles people.  Now, it's possible for Elvis people to like the Beatles, and it's possible for Beatles people to like Elvis, but nobody likes them both equally.  So, which type of person are you? 

(I'm an Elvis person, BTW)


----------



## kenobi65 (Dec 19, 2005)

I like Elvis quite a bit, but I like the Fab Four more.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 19, 2005)

It's been a Hard Day's night.....


----------



## freebfrost (Dec 19, 2005)

I'm a Police person.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Dec 19, 2005)

Beatles, myself, but I do like the King a lot.

This is really funny to me though.  Although I only saw "Pulp Fiction" once (in the movie theaters), my Wife adamantly stands by the same line Uma says (never knew she says it until reading this thread).  

She's an Elvis fan, but I'm the one registered here, so I voted for the Beatles.


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 19, 2005)

The Beatles, but I have no dislike of Elvis.

Edit: But I'm really a Fleetwood Mac.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 19, 2005)

Elvis person, by a mile.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 19, 2005)

Not really either, but if I had to choose I'd say Beatles.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 19, 2005)

Zeppelin ruleZ!!


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 19, 2005)

Neither, the Moody Blues.

(There are two types of people; those who divide people into two groups, and those with a clue.  )


----------



## Jamdin (Dec 19, 2005)

I had to choose Elvis since The Beatles wouldn't have the same level of success without him, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and the rest to inspire them.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 19, 2005)

Beatles. Definately the Beatles.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Rogue765 (Dec 19, 2005)

Hail to the King, baby.


----------



## Ferret (Dec 19, 2005)

I'd have to say Elvis, despite the fact that both are way before when I was born. I definatly like elvis, but I dunno much/anything about beatles.


----------



## devilbat (Dec 19, 2005)

I have no love for either, but if I had to choose, I'd go Beatles


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Dec 19, 2005)

devilbat said:
			
		

> I have no love for either, but if I had to choose, I'd go Beatles



 Ditto, except I choose Elvis.


----------



## Richards (Dec 19, 2005)

Definitely the Beatles for me.  To this day, _Yellow Submarine_ remains one of my favorite movies.

Johnathan


----------



## buzzard (Dec 19, 2005)

Richards said:
			
		

> Definitely the Beatles for me.  To this day, _Yellow Submarine_ remains one of my favorite movies.
> 
> Johnathan




Which is funny since it's the only Beatles movie that doesn't actually have the Beatles in it (only a brief cameo). The voices for the cartoon are actually done by impersonators. 

I'm a Beatles fan, and don't have a great deal of use for Elvis. Now he's not like Rap music or something which I will avoid like the plague, but he's not on my bother to own list. 

buzzard


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 19, 2005)

I prefer the Beatles.


----------



## loki44 (Dec 19, 2005)

Neither choice defines who I am in any way, shape or form.  What characteristics are inherent in being either an Elvis or a Beatle person?


----------



## DarrenGMiller (Dec 19, 2005)

My brother grew up listening to the Beatles while they were still together and I remember sitting in his room as a small child while he spun vinyl and the Beatles became something more than just music.  I wore a "Reunite the Beatles" shirt while in elementary school and I cried when I found out that I was born on pretty much the same day the Beatles formally broke up.  They were always, to me, more than their music.  They were like a mythology.

Now my mother is an Elvis person.  Her brother (my uncle) was actually an impersonator for some time in the 70's.  My father is a Beatles person, as he always took my brother to concert and they saw Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and George Harrison in concert several times.  I took my brother to what would be his last Paul McCartney concert before he died and I inherited all of those storied Beatle records, some of them very rare imports and picture disks (my father had a friend who worked at Capitol Records) that I grew up listening to in my big brother's room.  I also inherited a large number of their CD's, videos, cassettes, etc.  He was a collector of all things Beatles.

During my childhood, there was the same thing with Yankees fans and Mets fans where I grew up.  We were, as a family, Mets fans and still are.

" and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"
- Paul McCartney

To my brother:

"Golden slumbers fill your eyes.  Smiles awake you when you rise."
- Paul McCartney

DM


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 19, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> Neither choice defines who I am in any way, shape or form.  What characteristics are inherent in being either an Elvis or a Beatle person?




Being a musician myself, I prefer the Beatles by far.  Paul and John were the quintessential songwriters and their music still holds up today.  I'd always considered Elvis to be a little hokey too.


----------



## reveal (Dec 19, 2005)

If it weren't for Elvis, the Beatles would have never existed.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 19, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> If it weren't for Elvis, the Beatles would have never existed.




If it weren't for the Beatles, Elvis would've died in obscurity.


----------



## reveal (Dec 19, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> If it weren't for the Beatles, Elvis would've died in obscurity.




Maybe, although I highly doubt it, considering his "comeback" special. Regardless, if it weren't for Elvis and his bringing rock n' roll to the masses, the Beatles, heck the entire British invasion, would have never had anything to play.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 19, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Maybe, although I highly doubt it, considering his "comeback" special. Regardless, if it weren't for Elvis and his bringing rock n' roll to the masses, the Beatles, heck the entire British invasion, would have never had anything to play.




Or if it weren't for Bill Haley and the Comets doing it a year before Elvis...


----------



## loki44 (Dec 19, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> If it weren't for Elvis, the Beatles would have never existed.




If it weren't for Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Fats Domino, Bo Diddley, John Lee Hooker, et al., there would never have been an Elvis or the Beatles.


----------



## reveal (Dec 19, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> If it weren't for Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Fats Domino, Bo Diddley, John Lee Hooker, et al., there would never have been an Elvis or the Beatles.




You will get no argument from me on that.


----------



## reveal (Dec 19, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Or if it weren't for Bill Haley and the Comets doing it a year before Elvis...




But not nearly at the same level. Yes, Rock around the clock was very popular but it took Elvis to truly showcase how powerful rock music could be in terms of drawing an audience.


----------



## sniffles (Dec 19, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> If it weren't for Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Fats Domino, Bo Diddley, John Lee Hooker, et al., there would never have been an Elvis or the Beatles.



Doesn't matter who came before - the thread is about who you prefer, Elvis or the Beatles!   

I'm a Beatles person. Never really cared for Elvis, musically or otherwise. My mom told me I actually saw the Beatles' first American tv appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, so I guess it must have started me as a fan then.


----------



## kenobi65 (Dec 19, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> If it weren't for Elvis, the Beatles would have never existed.




John Lennon himself apparently once said something to the extent of, "Before Elvis, there was nothing," though the Beatles (and rock & roll in general) were also influenced by those that loki44 mentions, among others.

Here's how I see it:

Elvis was an entertainer, a performer.  He had a charisma that may never be equalled.  Even if what he did was influenced by those that came before him, and even if he had contemporaries that were doing the same thing, he was the focal point of a massive change in the nature of popular music.

But, he wasn't a songwriter, or a particularly gifted instrumentalist.  He sang, and he played the guitar some.

The Beatles were, IMO, more complete musicians.  At least three of them were gifted songwriters (one might debate Ringo's writing chops), as well as being more skilled instrumentalists.  However, they were not particularly great performers (at least, not on a live basis, as if you could even hear them anyway from all the girls screaming), and they eventually stopped performing live entirely, to focus on producing studio music of a complexity that could never be replicated on stage.  They, too, were the focal point of another tremendous shift in popular music.


----------



## loki44 (Dec 19, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter who came before - the thread is about who you prefer, Elvis or the Beatles!





OK, OK, if I HAVE to pick one I'd go with the Beatles:  more originality, variety and depth, less schlock.


----------



## kenobi65 (Dec 19, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> OK, OK, if I HAVE to pick one I'd go with the Beatles:  more originality, variety and depth, less schlock.




Keep in mind that Elvis was still touring and recording (and, arguably, resting on past laurels) 20 years after his debut.  The Beatles broke up less than a decade after they hit it big.  It would have been interesting to see what the Beatles would have done -- and, if they would have been able to keep up the level of quality -- if they'd stayed together longer.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 20, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Maybe, although I highly doubt it, considering his "comeback" special. Regardless, if it weren't for Elvis and his bringing rock n' roll to the masses, the Beatles, heck the entire British invasion, would have never had anything to play.




No Beatles, no comeback.


----------



## ForceUser (Dec 20, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> (I'm an Elvis person, BTW)



Me too. I like the Fab Four, too, but the King is...well, the King.


----------



## ForceUser (Dec 20, 2005)

Ferret said:
			
		

> I dunno much/anything about beatles.



Says the _Londoner_!

Tragic, man. Tragic.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Dec 20, 2005)

On a good day...a Buddy Holly person.

On a bad day...a Johnny Cash person.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 20, 2005)

The Beatles? A bunch of limeys who need a haircut.

Long Live the King!


----------



## Agamon (Dec 20, 2005)

Let's check the MP3 player...

23 Beatles songs

1 Elvis song

So I'd have to say Beatles.


----------



## Harmon (Dec 20, 2005)

Complete hatred of Elvis

I respect the talent of the Beatles (of which there were only 2 the other two could have been anyone with musical talent) but don't like much if any of their music.

I disagree- you can dislike both.


----------



## Algolei (Dec 20, 2005)

I grew up during the 60s and 70s, and I could never stand either of them.  The fact that so many do has become, for me, a tragic waste of bandwidth.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Dec 20, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> If it weren't for Elvis, the Beatles would have never existed.



 If it weren't for Mozart, Beethoven would never have existed.

That's why I like Mozart, he allowed the better Beethoven to exist.

That's why I like Elvis, he allowed the better Beatles to exist.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 20, 2005)

Don't much like either of them, truth be told.

My dislike for Elvis is one _hell_ of a lot stronger than that for The Beatles, however. :\


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 20, 2005)

Elvis isn't dead, he went home.


----------



## trancejeremy (Dec 20, 2005)

The trouble is, both of them have been tarnished by their later days.  Rather than being remembered as the giants they were, they are remembered as eccentrics.

Elvis mostly since he's been dead. But the Beatles, though the Yoko phase and the Wings phase. Not to mention their boy-band days which made up the bulk of their early career. 

But Elvis for me, since I've been both Graceland and the house where he was born.

And whatever else you can say, even in his weird days, Elvis had style. Really really tacky style. But tackiness on a legendary scale.


----------



## Wombat (Dec 20, 2005)

Fab Four over the King for me any day.

There are certain Elvis songs that I rather like, but the majority merely sits there -- I prefer my R&B a bit more Roots-y.

As for the Beatles, there are some of their songs I can't stand, but those are few and far between.

Yep, definitely a Beatles person


----------



## francisca (Dec 20, 2005)

The King, baby, uh-huh-huh.


----------



## Storminator (Dec 20, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> I respect the talent of the Beatles (of which there were only 2 the other two could have been anyone with musical talent) but don't like much if any of their music.




Fundamentally disagree with this. George Harrison was a really impressive guitar player, and wrote a lot of underappreciated music. 

While I generally accept your position on Ringo, apparently John and Paul drove halfway across England to rip him out of another band, so at least in the early days he was highly regarded by the rest of the band.

PS


----------



## Krieg (Dec 20, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Neither, the Moody Blues.
> 
> (There are two types of people; those who divide people into two groups, and those with a clue.  )





..and which did you just place yourself in?


----------



## kenobi65 (Dec 20, 2005)

Storminator said:
			
		

> While I generally accept your position on Ringo, apparently John and Paul drove halfway across England to rip him out of another band, so at least in the early days he was highly regarded by the rest of the band.




Ringo was in a (relatively) succesful band, compared to where the Beatles were at that point.  He gave the Beatles a level of experience that they felt they needed at that point, and was apparently a more solid drummer than Pete Best.


----------



## Harmon (Dec 20, 2005)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Fundamentally disagree with this. George Harrison was a really impressive guitar player, and wrote a lot of underappreciated music.




<shrug> okay, if you think/say so.  It makes no matter to me.


----------



## IcyCool (Dec 20, 2005)

I don't mind Elvis, and I have an intense dislike for most Beatles songs.  So I guess that makes me an Elvis person.

'Course, if I hated Elvis live in concert, would that make me an Elvis in-person-hater?


----------



## Katcracker (Dec 21, 2005)

looking at my mp3s and cds I have to go with the Beatles.

The King has some good songs just, for me, the Beatles have more.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 21, 2005)

Beatles.

Not that I listen to either of them, but if I were to, I'd rather hear Beatles songs.


----------



## MonsterMash (Dec 22, 2005)

Got to take the fab four


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Dec 22, 2005)

It's really a dead heat for me, but I'll put Elvis a little ahead as he had a bit more charisma than the Fab Four.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 22, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> In a deleted scene to the movie *Pulp Fiction*, Mia Wallace (Uma Thurmond's character) comments that there are two kinds of people in this world:  Elvis people and Beatles people.



According to this philosophy, I'm a non-person.



Uh-oh.


----------



## Prince Atom (Dec 22, 2005)

I went with the Beatles, since I own lots of their music and none of Elvis'. Of course, by the same logic, I prefer the Beatles to Bob Dylan a little less, since I have some of his albums.

There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

TWK


----------

