Customer Discussions > Music forum

Elton John is better than the Beatles.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 641 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012 5:06:52 PM PST
DKPete says:
Hi Rand...I basically agree with everything you're saying..I was just trying to make a differentiation between staying power as far as material quality and staying power meaning, never giving up the live performances.

Posted on Jan 29, 2012 5:15:32 PM PST
Hey DK

I figured we were agreeable but I don't think Paul plays live just for the sake of playing. I think he genuinely loves performing and has a new audience to reach, with adult supervision! lol You can see in the interviews he would give when The Beatles gave up performing and on the Let It Be tapes. They would all be saying they were tired of performing live and would never do it again. Paul just didn't sound like he really wanted to stop, but was being a team player.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012 5:22:19 PM PST
DKPete says:
I have to admit, after reading this post as well, that I over reacted..it's just that I have a problem with that term "staying power" when it comes to a lot of bands that keep going on and on. But You're right about Paul's love of performing live...and, to be honest, I'm sure the same can be said for at least one or two of The Stones (definitely Keith).

Posted on Jan 29, 2012 5:31:30 PM PST
Yeah, Mick and Keith don't love each other so much anymore, but they love performing for different reasons. It's too bad that it takes money to bring old partners together when mutual respect could never do it. Simon & Garfunkel, Gilmour & Waters, Roger Hodgson & Rick Davies, etc.

Yeah, I would think staying power would relate more to the fact that Paul regularly performs for 2-3 hours now, amazing the energy he has at almost 70. Compared to The Beatles performing for 20 minutes and running for the exit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012 5:37:24 PM PST
DKPete says:
His stamina is nothing short of amazing.

Posted on Jan 29, 2012 5:43:27 PM PST
When Paul performed at Comerica Park in Detroit this last summer it was so hot all day and about 20 minutes before the show kicked off a thunderstorm skirted the stadium and we got rained on a little, but the temperature dropped about 10-15 degrees in a matter of minutes, and I think that really contributed to how animated Paul was for that show. He talked to the audience a lot more than he did at the other show I saw a week later in Chicago where the temp was in the 90's.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012 10:01:17 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 29, 2012 10:03:12 PM PST
juniorgilb says:
I love Elton. Better than the Beatles? Don't be ridiculous.

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 4:22:28 AM PST
Perhaps, this is a better phrase: Musically, Elton was on par with "The Beatles" sometimes. It's obvious that Lennon and McCartney were better lyric writers. Elton generally wrote music not lyrics. That was Bernie's job. And we know how Elton's music suffered in the late 70's without Bernie, don't we? Elton really needs Bernie, however Lennon, Harrison, and McCartney don't necessarily need one another. "Imagine", "All Things Must Pass", and "Band on The Run" are good examples of that. So with that, how can you say that just Elton John alone is better than "The Beatles" as a whole? Elton and Bernie at moments, perhaps.

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 4:37:46 AM PST
DKPete says:
His stamina is nothing short of amazing.
-----------------------

I saw a recent Paul McCartney show on VH1 Classic not too long ago. I was stunned at his stamina and just how good he and his band was. He seemed as if he was 20 years younger and didn't let up for the entire show. He and his band were just so phenomenal and tight to boot. Man, I have no problem saying I would pay to see him live. Paul is one of the fewer older guys in his profession that is still doing it right.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 8:07:30 AM PST
barbW says:
They like the sound? No, that's not it.

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 8:18:54 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2012 9:09:47 AM PST
Suzi Carmody says:
Hell,the Beatles tribute bands are better the the Beatles!! Whoops,I forgot to add the Monkees and the Bay City Rollers! ; - { )
Rob not Suzi

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 8:38:39 AM PST
I think you're trying to compare apples to oranges. First of all, when the Beatles came out (1960), music was way simpler than today's complex music. The Beatles were only together for 8 years and at the end were bickering and more interested in separate careers than what they had been doing as a group, so their heart wasn't in it. Elton has been performing for over 40 years (started in 1967) and kind of picked up at the time the Beatles were on their way out; a time when rock was maturing. Even Paul McCartney said that if they had come out 5 years later, they wouldn't have been able to get away with what they were playing when they first started.
From Wikipedia:
The Beatles are the best-selling band in history, and over four decades after their break-up, their recordings are still in demand. They have had more number one albums on the UK charts and have held the top spot longer than any other musical act. According to the RIAA, they have sold more albums in the United States than any other artist, and they topped Billboard magazine's list of all-time Hot 100 artists in 2008.
In 2008, Billboard magazine ranked him [Elton John] as the most successful male solo artist on "The Billboard Hot 100 Top All-Time Artists" (third overall, behind only The Beatles and Madonna).
Personally, after his first few albums, I really didn't care for his music any longer. I've seen Elton 5 or 6 times in concert in the 70s and 80s, but wouldn't consider going to any of his concerts today.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 8:53:56 AM PST
barbW says:
Timing is everything. Bach did the best with what he inherited from the Baroque ideas, and then Beethoven did the best with the classical examples of Mozart and Haydn.

In Beethoven's lifetime his late works were considered too difficult to play and too enigmatic to interpret, but today many teenagers play them impressively.

John and Paul would probably have caught up very quickly with the maturing rock trends if they had started song writing in the late 60s, but it's an interesting question.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 3:29:04 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 3:29:33 PM PST
DKPete says:
I never said a word about your spelling deficiencies..get your posters straight.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 3:33:21 PM PST
Hinch says:
>They like the sound? No, that's not it.<

Then what does make people like music if it's not because it sounds good. Lyrics are important to, but if it doesn't sound good, I don't like it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 3:38:07 PM PST
Hinch says:
Seems the only way he knows how to relate or have a so called "discussion" is to argue, even when someone is trying to somewhat agree.

I coudn't make any sense of that post to you. Maybe he found Elvis' stash.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 4:05:57 PM PST
DKPete says:
I mispelled a word and he got on my back for it..can't win with EF!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 4:11:27 PM PST
DKPete says:
I don't tbelieve Elton's music suffered because of (a lack of) Bernie Taupin...I just don't thInk he was coming up with songs, melodically, that were as good in the early to middle seventies..just my opinion...I know people who swear by Elton's eighties output and are completely ignorant to his seventies stuff (except for the hits)...to them I say, "you don't know what you're missing".

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 4:13:45 PM PST
Hinch says:
>I mispelled a word<

Oh my!!

I can really see why HE would criticize someone for misspelling.

lol!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 4:44:20 PM PST
barbW says:
heh, that was mostly a joke, because Amazon ate my full post :(, but would you likewise say, "I don't like that song because it sounds bad!"?

And if so, do you have an example?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 4:44:34 PM PST
DKPete says:
....I understand you've got a birthday going on...happy one, my brotha!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 6:32:32 PM PST
Hinch says:
LOL!

I probably wouldnt use those exact words.

Seems Amazon eats a lot of posts, or at least parts. I've had complete words comie up missing from the middle of sentences. Sometimes I've wondered if someone isn't doing it on purpose.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 6:33:16 PM PST
Hinch says:
DKPete

Thanks!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 10:54:34 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 4:11:27 PM PST

DKPete says:

I don't tbelieve
niether do I with that miss.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  140
Total posts:  641
Initial post:  Dec 26, 2011
Latest post:  Jul 29, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions