Who Rules Supreme Lennon or Presley?

[admin]

By virtue of coming first and the number of hit records, Elvis "The King" Presley may be considered by most to have been a bigger act than John Lennon. Is that fame offset, however, by the original compositions of Lennon? Who offered more overall, Lennon or Presley?

[jingle_jangle]

Lennon paid tribute to Presley, but did the reverse ever happen?

Presley though of them (in typical cracker style) as "those boys from England with the weird hayer".

Lennon was a songwriter first and performer second (but a very close second), allthough I think the original intention was to create material to perform.

What did Presley ever write? I know he signed Mac Davis' checks...

I think the mystique of Presley is and was wrapped up in the sexual hysteria of his female fans and the homosexual longings of his male ones.

Did I just say that?

[revolver323]

I gotta go with John, for his songwriting if no other reason. Look at the catalog. I'm no expert on Elvis, so I can't honestly say if he ever wrote any of his songs. But I know that "Love Me Tender" was originally a folk melody ("Aura Lee") and "It's Now Or Never" was really "O Sole Mio." And "Hunka Hunk Burnin' Love," recorded relatively late in Elvis's career, isn't up to "A Day in the Life." Not that I dislike Elvis, but a little goes a long way for me. Lennon also avoided the trap of becoming a victim of his own image. My biggest fear about The Beatles was that they'd someday show up in Vegas, McCartney as the front man, the others backing him up singing, "He don't care too much for money, money can't buy him love..." while Paul worked the audience. Elvis was hip, certainly groundbreaking, but he pooped out for me as soon as he started making movies where he walked through musical numbers with his hands seemingly glued to his trouser seams. I won't even get in to how Lennon transcended the music with his activism and outspokenness. Yeah, he did some goofy stuff, but goofy in a different way than Elvis's becoming a Roustabout.

[jingle_jangle]

Very very well said, Dave! I agree 110%.

[sowhat]

Some of the songs performed by Elvis were also credited to him as a songwriter (co-author), although the 'specialists' say it's more a 'spice-up' than truth. It is often said Elvis wrote nothing at all. Well... okay, but i still have many reasons to love him...

[brammy]

yea, I've heard the same thing - that Elvis never really wrote anything. I agree and just to be redundant, Elvis was great in that he blew open the doors of Rock'n'Roll, but Lennon's songriting pushes him ahead of Presley.

I always thought that the story of the time The Beatles went to Graceland was interesting. One of the jokes the Beatles had among themselves upon coming to America was "Where's Elvis?". But when they got the chance to actually meet him, apparently Elvis was ANYTHING but the friendly gracious host (might he have been on some serious drugs as early as '64?). The Fabs left Graceland still repeating the same "Where's Elvis?" line, but this time with an added meaning.

[chingnchime]

I think it's apples and oranges. Both were groundbreaking, but in different ways.

[admin]

Agreed, they are certainly different but I see them more as Granny Smith and Golden Delicious.

[admin]

Without Elvis, it might be argued that Lennon may not have wanted to sing and play guitar. Having said that, Lennon's creativity seems to have shined through moreso that Presley's.

Both had controversial relationships that certainly got the attention of fans in a big way and both died well before their time due to tragic circumstances. There passing at an early age would seem to have heightened their fame to a degree.

It is difficult to choose the criteria by which their greatness should be judged, performing skills, movies, vocal quality, compositions, number one hits, their impact on music in general.

In the end, for me, it is the strength of Lennon's compositions that gives him the edge.
In My Life, A Day In The Life, Imagine ... where does one stop.

[winston]

Can't resist this thread: Lennon all the way. No contest in my books. Music aside (Lennon wins there too) Lennon was cool in a way that transcended the cool cats of the fifties and sixties, even the cream of the crop: Elvis. He also remained a cool guy - right up to his untimely demise on December 8, 1980. GRHS

[longhouse]

Apples and oranges indeed.

Never would have been a Beatles without an Elvis -and this from a diehard Beatles fan. Of course, many of us have heard Elvis kicking around 'Get Back'. He loved the Beatles and the Zombies.

nOel

[brammy]

the word "creativity" is an interesting one. Elvis had a GREAT voice and was a GREAT entertainer, but compared to Lennon he loses out bigtime in the creativity department.

[apollo11]

Who was the bigger star between Elvis and John Lennon, hands down I'd say Elvis.
He was the biggest act since Sinatra, and has spanned generations. So did Lennon, but strictly while being a member of The Beatles. His solo act was nowhere near strong enough to propel him ahead of Elvis. No solo act has ever surpassed Elvis.

On the other hand, if you ask me who was bigger, Elvis or The Beatles, I'd say The Beatles, on the strength of their writing and percentage of hit material. Nobody in music history has had so many hit songs (and quality of non-hit songs) in such a short period of time. Elvis had a whole decade of bad material that hurts him when comparing him to The Beatles. However, Lennon also had quite a bit of sub-par material as a solo act.

And why compare Lennon to Elvis, and not McCartney to Elvis? He unfairly gets knocked for not being a great writer. He is one of the best that I've ever seen, and hit for hit, he has probably done better than Lennon. As a solo act, McCartney probably was more successful than Lennon, even if you compare 1970-1980 only.

Remember, Lennon's anger dominated his 70's releases, so much so that he really only had two classic albums, Plastic Ono Band and Imagine. (P.O.B. is the much better release, in my opinion.) As good as Imagine was, there were a couple sub-par moments on it, and overall the album lacked a stellar production. This was at a time, though, that Lennon didn’t give a ****, so the production really can’t be held against it. Mind Games & Walls and Bridges both had a ton of filler on them. Rock & Roll was released to satisfy a legal settlement, and can’t really be thought of as an enhancement to John Lennon as a solo act. Yes, fans enjoyed it, but it is far from a groundbreaker. Critically, Sometime in NYC was very poorly received, but I think it is a great effort, minus the live jam disc. Double Fantasy was superb, but Yoko’s tracks detract. It was great for what it was, but critically Yoko’s lower the overall effort. With Lennon’s songs on Double Fantasy, he finally decided to do what he did best, which is to create perfectly crafted pop masterpieces, probably the closest resemblance to his Beatle days than anything he ever released as a solo act. Even the production was top-notch, enhancing the quality of the songs to a level that fans were used to when George Martin produced The Beatles.

Ask any music listener who John Lennon was, and the answer would virtually always be that he was a Beatle. All four Beatles will always be thought of as Beatles, and rightfully so. They were 4 people who fit together perfectly and quickly became the standard of success to which all others are compared. In 50 years, no solo act has topped Elvis. In 40+ years, no act, period, has topped The Beatles.

[brammy]

>>>Rock & Roll was released to satisfy a legal settlement, and can’t really be thought of as an enhancement to John Lennon as a solo act.

thats good, because IMHO Lennon's R&R album was a real stinkeroo. Pitty because it could have been good if John had let himself be 18 again. The album was overproduced overly slow and lacked any rock'n'roll energy.

[mgauction]

Lennon!