• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Without 'Elvis', there would be no 'Beatles'

Brett a said:
The Beatles were the first pop group to be self-contained; everything that came before was either a single artist (Check Berry Elvis, Carl Perkins, Little Richard; or a vocalist with backing band: Buddy Holy and the Crickets, Jerry and Pacemakers, etc. The Beatles were fresh and new partly because everyone in the band played an instrument, and they wrote (most of) their own material; they were each a memebr of the Beatles; a real collective.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the Beach Boys fall into that category? Also, Buddy Holy and the Crickets were originally listed as The Crickets on the record labels IIRC. So, they might fall into it also.

I do know the Ventures wrote some original material for their albums, a lot of which was better than the hit songs that they covered.

Paul McCartney in an interview might of summed it up best. He said to the effect, that the Beatles came up with nothing new, that they just brought back to the US the rock and roll that originated in the 1950's.
 
Spinning45s said:
Also, Buddy Holy and the Crickets were originally listed as The Crickets on the record labels IIRC. So, they might fall into it also.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. From Wikipedia:

'During 1957 Norman Petty arranged for The Crickets recordings to be marketed under two separate names. The solo vocals went out as "Buddy Holly" and the songs with dubbed backing vocals were issued as "The Crickets." Petty reasoned correctly, that disc jockeys might be reluctant to program a single artist too heavily, but would have no problem playing records by two seemingly different groups. Some disc jockeys referred to the band as "Buddy Holly and The Crickets," but the record labels never used this wording until after Holly's death.'

They also recorded for two different labels (both owned by the same company). The Crickets were on Brunswick, Holly was on Decca.

Happy trials,
Larry B.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Just about everything I've read so far is something new. I'm especially surprised at John Lennon's and McCartney's statements. I think they were not giving themselves credit. Influence is not after all, invention. Which is what they did of themselves. It's interesting to note that the King was not prolifically emulated. He was however copied by many.
 
BlindBoyGrnt said:
Re: Post #2
Tyella, you must be an Uncle Tupelo fan. I recognize the liquor, guns & ammo sign.
Click to expand...

I am! That sign was at Bass Pro in Columbia, MO when that famous liner note photo was taken. The sign now resides at Shakespeare's Pizza, still in town. I will visit it tomorrow and imbibe in its glow.
 
I used to have an interview record of Buddy Holly. He said, basically, that he didn't like Rock and Roll. It was too noisy and he thought it would be a passing fad. Ironic that he would such a profound influence on so many musicians and fans (including myself).

It is impossible to separate an artist from their influences, in my opinion. That's just fine with me! I enjoy music genealogy. I imagine a giant flow chart with lines going from band to band. It is a messy, messy chart, but I still see it in my head. Looks like a mesh of synapses.
 
I cannot imagine McCartney not breaking out on his own had the Beatles not existed however I am sure sheer luck and circumstances play a role. To me McCartney like Elvis before him had a unique vocal range and power almost unequaled in popular music.

Oh and we have not even considered McCartney's song writing talent. I love John Lennon and I sure Elvis played a huge role but think the more apt question would be would there be a Beatles without Paul McCartney.
 
Now that is an alternate music history that would be nice to see!

W/O the Beatles, how would popular music have progressed.


This space intentionally left blank.
 
ducati_EL34 said:
Now that is an alternate music history that would be nice to see!

W/O the Beatles, how would popular music have progressed.


This space intentionally left blank.
Click to expand...

The tunes would have been written regardless. Either by someone else or each of them on their own. The melodic cornucopia is indeed limited as has become very obvious. At least those worth while. But I digress. Didn't Elvis do a couple of Beatles tunes?
 
Superampman said:
Didn't Elvis do a couple of Beatles tunes?
Click to expand...

Yes. He would often cover "Something" and "Get Back" in his 70s concerts.

I'm a huge fan of Elvis from 1969 to 1974. "From Elvis in Memphis" (1969) is my favorite Elvis album. Some, but not all, of his live stuff in the 70s could be mesmerizing. When he was "on," nobody could touch him. Too often, we focus on the exhausted Elvis or the bloated Elvis from the last few months of his life and miss the bigger picture of a great performer w/ a great band (James Burton on guitar).

If you are looking for Elvis, original US RCA LPs sound swell. On CD, look for those mastered by Vin Anesini. The FTD label releases some amazing Elvis product.

BTW, I was only a casual fan, digging the early stuff but not appreciating his later legacy until I visited Graceland. I literally had a graveside conversion.
 
Did He not also do 'Yesterday'? I was an Elvis fan since age 8. Along with Vanilla fudge, Donovan, Dylan, Melanie, Beatles, Stones, Buffalo Springfield, Rod Stewart, all due to two older sisters and an Electrohome console. I've been on the hunt for Elvis's 'Spinout' studio version for a long time. Not the sound track. It's an all white album. Nobody seems to even be aware of it's existence. It's fabulous.
 
^^^
Unless this is a number with which you're already familiar. But even if y'are, you listen to it anyway, for pure enjoyment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom