Bubble Witch Saga 3 Industrial Deals Beauty Little FIres Everywhere Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Music forum

Elton John is better than the Beatles.

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 641 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012, 9:08:05 PM PST
Hinch says:
Great point Bernard.

Posted on Feb 4, 2012, 9:17:48 PM PST
J. C. House says:
Elton is fantastic, but he wrote almost no lyrics. He put the great Bernie Taupin's lyrics to music, and made many classics from that. On the other hand, The Beatles, four lads who wrote the most complete masterpieces of our time, are the best. (Matter of opinion maybe?)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012, 10:05:18 PM PST
You'd be surprised at the newfangled drugs these 4brit worshippers use to keep the dream alive :+

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012, 10:53:15 PM PST
I love EJ but I am not sure if he is better than the Beatles. I can't really think about anyone being better then the Beatles. Why are these topics brought up? I have most of EJ's album, not fond of the recent stuff. I have all of the Beatles stuff. I will say that both are in the top 10 all time in rock history, maybe top 5. Well I know the Beatles are for sure in the top 5. Elton and Bernie wrote some great songs as did John and Paul. Hell I'm not sure why I am even trying to say anything. Beatles are better in a different way. Yes I know I have said nothing here.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012, 11:18:06 PM PST
ronct says:
James L. Dickinson,

Now that you have answered all of your own questions, you can leave as you are no longer needed. Just kidding......:-) Your post just cracked me up. I like your humor.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 6:04:32 AM PST

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 8:16:30 AM PST
DK Pete says:
William, true be that. And what EF is overlooking or, MORE LIKELY, knows nothing about, is that in the early seventies Elton himself went through a major bout with recreational snorting.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 10:03:02 AM PST
ronct says:

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 10:40:53 AM PST
Hinch says:
Same way he overlooks, or makes excuses for, Elvis' drug use.

Posted on Feb 5, 2012, 11:06:09 AM PST
Shacky says:
I love Elton but there may never have been Elton John if not for the Beatles! They were and will always be the best. They revolutionized Rock and Roll.

I never heard of Elton-mania have you ; ) Beatlemania - a phenomena that may never be repeated.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 11:22:09 AM PST
Hinch says:
>there may never have been Elton John if not for the Beatles!<

Exactly what I said a few weeks ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 11:25:59 AM PST
DK Pete says:
F..I can't decide whether he's being serious half the time or not. Can a fan of ANYONE be THAT blinded?? Again, when people around here talk about The Beatles-or any other artist for that matter-there's some good, substancial MUSICAL talk going on. This guy keeps repeating the same stuff about the sales and awards and all that. Those things, to HIM, are what-in and of themselves-make Elvis "great".

Another of his main ploys is to find ways to make others look "bad" as a means of making Elvis look "good". VERY childish. Elvis IS great...no doubt about that..but EF has yet to state a case for that greatness...and what will his response be to THIS post-if any-?? Some ridiculous one liner more akin to boring stand-up comedy than musical value.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 11:30:08 AM PST
Hinch says:
>VERY childish.<

Exactly. I keep picturing a 10 year old taunting people. Sometimes I wonder.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 11:31:13 AM PST
DK Pete says:
We have to be fair minded here, though. Why, exactly, may there have never been An "Elton" if there were no Beatles? I'm not that sure it's due to the actual music of The Beatles as much as the fact that they opened the door for the re-invention of Rock music as a form and HOW it was to be formed (meaning, the self-containment of bands).

This is where "we" have to be careful in terms of the amount of credit The Beatles are given musically (their influence notwithstanding).

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 11:36:04 AM PST
Hinch says:
There may very likely have been a Reginald Dwight making some sort of music, but I dont believe we would have an Elton John as we know today. He was very influenced by The Beatles.

Posted on Feb 5, 2012, 12:29:24 PM PST
[Elton John] toured and played LIVE in front of audiences way more then the 4brits could ever imagine.

According to Beatles historian Mark Lewisohn, prior to signing with EMI in June 1962 the Beatles had given 626 live performances. Another chronicler, Jonathan Gould, has documented that for the 4 year period from 1963-66 the group made over 1,400 live appearances internationally. That's a total of about 2000 live performances in less than a decade. In 2011 Elton John celebrated his 3000th concert in a remarkable career spanning 40 years.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 12:49:34 PM PST
D. Carlisle says:
Nobody is or ever will be better than The Beatles.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 1:38:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 5, 2012, 1:40:01 PM PST
ronct says:

Exactly, some artists don't necessarily attribute the Beatles in influencing their musical style, but more in that they inspired them to be musicians. Just as the arrival of the Beatles helped save the dying guitar industry their impact was felt in many ways.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 2:17:29 PM PST
Hinch says:

The Beatles also played live for, I believe, 6 or 7 hours a night in Germany and other places they played before they became well known. They also played daytime shows at the Cavern. Playing live is how they got noticed and how they got a recording contract. Their live performances are documented on The BBC Radio shows. They had their own radio show for several years.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 8:12:20 PM PST
kevinpm says:
I know I may be in the minority vote here, but I too think Elton John is better. I could tolerate the beatles, but I listen to Elton John more.

Posted on Feb 5, 2012, 9:20:26 PM PST
D. Carlisle says:
I like Elton but even he would admit he is no Beatles. History won't forget The Beatles. Elton will be forgotten eventually. He had a 20 year period of releasing pure crap. The Beatles never did that.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2012, 3:14:45 PM PST
DK Pete says:
He will not be forgotten in our lifetime...not by a longshot...his music is as beloved by as many twenty-somethings as is that of The Beatles. It's not fair to compare anyone to The Beatles in this respect as their significance went well beyond the music. Strictly in terms of the music, however, what Elton achieved in the seventies is strong enough to keep his name in the forefront among the "big" names for an indefinite period of time.

Posted on Feb 8, 2012, 1:37:58 PM PST
If Elvis post Army had been the Elvis of pre Army, the Beatles would have had a tougher time breaking into the scene, imo. Elton from say 1983 on became a MOR caberet act, like Elvis in Vegas. Elton basically became an Elton imitator.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2012, 3:15:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 8, 2012, 3:15:45 PM PST
Not true. Elvis had done EVERYTHING, I mean everything in music before anybody did anything. So he didn't have to prove ANYTHING to anybody. When you have reached the top, over and over and over like Elvis did, you don't have to prove it. You've already done it. Get it?
Elton almost the same way. He had already eclipsed the beatles in almost every catagory, so he was at the top too. Not as high as Elvis musically, but there. So what else is there to do? Both performed live for many more years, and didn't quit after two years. That says a lot.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2012, 7:02:26 PM PST
I would say the same about you.
[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

Recent discussions in the Music forum


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 4 customers