Customer Discussions > Music forum

Elton John is better than the Beatles.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 641 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 10:57:24 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Oh, so your the innocent one.??
C'mon. you brit lovers stick together.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 10:59:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 2, 2012 1:04:58 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Isn't it fun to argue when you know your gonna win?
I guess you guys don't. Thats why I stick with the King! He is the greatest there ever was and will be. A thousand beatles couldn't keep up or replace him. Can you say 30 Number one hits?
******************************************
Imitation is the GREATEST form of flattery, and admiration. MiBo

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:02:35 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Oh HAHAHa your too easy man. you crack me up... DId I fluster you again.

Wait for it wait for it....
DKPete says:
I never said a word about your spelling deficiencies..get your posters (staright )??? HUH?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:28:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 11:48:19 PM PST
Hinch says:
Who said anybody "won"? I didnt know there was a contest going on.

As I've said before, I like both Elvis and The Beatles. Most Beatle fans do. Elvis fans are the ones who have a problem with The Beatles. Maybe it's jealousy, or maybe its because Elvis didnt like them because they knocked him off the thrown.

I dont know how they came up with 30#1 hits for Elvis. In the US he had 18. In the UK he had 21. He had 3 songs that were #1 on the US country charts that didnt make #1 on the pop charts. Maybe they're counting #1s he had in other countries but not in the U.S.

The Beatles had 21 #1 in the US and 19 in the UK.

When The Beatles had #1s and hits they were hits in every country. Some were #1 in every country in the world.

The Beatles released 12 albums in 8 years. Every one was #1. Elvis released albums for almost 20 years. Many more albums than the Beatles. Elvis had quite a few #1 albums but many never made the top 10. Quite a few didnt even hit the top 40, especially his soundtrack albums.

So % wise, The Beatles win.

Sorry Elvis!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:36:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 11:37:23 PM PST
Nothintosay says:
If you want attention on an Amazon thread here are the instructions

1 Pick your favorite band
2 Post that you think they are better than the Beatles *
3 bingo ! ..you've got the attention you sought

* this does not work with any other band because The Beatles are the the best ...and the most successful band ( on many levels ) ...Ever

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:44:51 PM PST
Hinch says:
You are correct!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 3:39:25 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Way better. If you put all the albums together(both of them) and listened to them, you would find way more maturity,(lyrics) creativity, and the melodies and harmonies are spot on. ELTON is waaaayyy better.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 4:24:59 PM PST
DKPete says:
Especially for you...new DVD: ELVIS FOUND ALIVE....directed and produced by Joel Gilbert...I'm sure you can locate it...it's right up the alley of precious Elvis geeks like yourself (how was my spelling?)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 5:44:53 PM PST
Rochman says:
How do you even reply to a statement like this . Elton was good for like 3 or 4 albums and pretty much garbage after that . The Beatles never wrote a bad album and why they still popular 50 years later. The Beatles brought rock music to a new level .

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 7:23:10 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Man you must be in the 4brit club. 1st member or top 10. You lay it on rather thick! Were all gonna need army boot to get through this thread.......
No, you couldn't be more wrong.
Did someone say dillusional? overratedness? Seems like you will need time on the couch to get over it.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 7:27:54 PM PST
W. Grieve says:
Should have titled this thread...Bernie Taupin better than Lennon/McCartney.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 11:49:29 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Yes the stones are stoned. I mean they are frozen in time so to speak. Nothing really that innovative, but they are still playing, giving fans their money's worth. They should be respected more than the beatles because all their ego's get along.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 11:54:06 PM PST
No apostrophe needed for egos.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 11:55:01 PM PST
'dillusional'? Is that a word?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 11:56:17 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
What ? It is harder to create music from already made lyrics, then make lyrics from already made music. C'mon wise up!. Anyways its not that hard to make lyrics. Its the melodies and harmonies that are hard to create well.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2012 4:10:00 PM PST
DKPete says:
EF...now your ignorance is showing...The Stones' egos get along???? Have you spoken to Mick and Keith lately?? And "Beatles" is a proper name so it has a capital "B".

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2012 4:13:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2012 4:13:39 PM PST
DKPete says:
EF...hmm...again, we sort of agree. I'm not going to go as far as to say that it's easy to come up with a good, strong set of lyrics but-and I can't believe I'm agreeing with you here-I definitely feel that coming up with an effective tune (that works rhythmically as well as melodically) TO a set of lyrics is harder than the other way around. This is one reason why I greatly respect Elton John.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2012 7:59:28 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Yes he is a great artist no doubt. But people really get hung up on not creating lyrics. It gets old.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2012 8:01:30 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2012 8:02:24 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Oh beatless is okay then?
At least they are playing. Maybe not that great innovative stuff, but I haven't really listened to them lately. (Stones)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2012 9:30:38 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Yes, lyrically he was and is.

Posted on Feb 1, 2012 9:34:04 PM PST
LMP784 says:
Ok. Early Elton John - sure he was great "bennie and the jets" "saturday nights alright for fighting" - but Elton John NOW - Mr. Adult contemporary? Me dont' think so!! It's like saying John Lennon's solo stuff is better than his work with the Beatles. In my rock n' roll lovin' opinion, I say NO Elton John is not better than the Beatles. In my opinion. But hey, good forum post - it actually shocked me to see "Elton John BETTER than the Beatles" in a sentence - I never thought I'd ever see THAT!!! (But it got me thinking, that's for sure!!!)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 2, 2012 1:01:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 2, 2012 1:03:30 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
Yeah that was me. Starting the EJ forum!

Comparing a single's artist to a 4 man band may be hard for some. But EJ brought more talent, more musical diversity, and more showmanship then all of them put together or singularly. Yes, He even toured and played LIVE in front of audiences way more then the 4brits could ever imagine. I saw him in a concert playing the piano like he always does. There was other concerts that I heard him do before,(like stand up and bounce around)Thats hard to do in itself. But I couldn't believe an artist could do this. He went upside down on the piano so his hands playing was in reverse, AND played beautifully, never missing a note. Now that's GREATNESS, and revolutionary. The beatles could never do this stuff live, let alone in a posh studio!
EJ was way better at the piano then either george or paul (PLAYING THEIR GUITARS) put together!
Extraordinary. Thats what EJ brings to the table.
*********************************************************

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 2, 2012 11:38:52 PM PST
D. Morrison says:
EF:

Elton couldn't carry water for The Beatles.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2012 11:02:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2012 12:50:44 PM PST
barbW says:
"...(like stand up and bounce around)Thats hard to do in itself. But I couldn't believe an artist could do this."

Yes, he is very captivating to watch, with never an unintended movement, he's very talented in whatever this type of entertainment is called.

"He went upside down on the piano so his hands playing was in reverse, AND played beautifully, never missing a note."

As a long time fan, I didn't know that, thanks. There's a similar scene in the movie Amadeus. I wonder if they're somehow related or linked?

at the 5 minute point here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dUZ413n2nk&feature=related

As I've aged with Elton his music seems to continually fit with my piano teaching and my evolving gigs as a pianist, but I CAN see how young people would balk at his changeover to what they would label as Mr. Adult Contemporary (but maybe when they get older...). The average quality of his songs has actually risen, but I don't think it's likely that young people would have a way to reference this, and that's unfortunate (for Elton and for all music)..

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2012 5:51:36 PM PST
"Hands playing in reverse?" Elton wasn't the first (OR BEST) to do that. Check out Keith Emerson...he did it with the Nice in the mid-sixties and ELP since then. And never missed a note (til he needed hand surgery). At the CaliforniaJam in 1974 Keith even played a piano while spinning in the air...without missing a note.

And yet the Beatles are better, imo.
[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