• 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'

S

Superampman

AK Member
I just heard this assertion on the tube. Not sure his influence wasn't more than a carefully guided bee-line to the gravy train.He may have been the 'King' but did he invent the inevitable? Do/did the Beatles/others have Elvis to thank for their fame/success? I think not. What do you guys/gals think?
 
Register to hide this ad
I'm with you on the "inevitable" statement. While I love early Elvis, his music was largely derivative of the extant "race" music. If he hadn't brought the blues to the masses, someone else would have.

That said, without Elvis the statement would inevitably become "without (insert artist here), there would be no Beatles."

Now, Scotty Moore and Bill Black. Those guys were the real thing. Not taking away from Elvis, but "without Scotty Moore and Bill Black there would be no Elvis."
 
Just picked up a live from Aloha QUAD recording .. Got it with 20 other outstanding albums.. I dont have Quad so I may turn it off to a quad lover ! However I did get both Boston first and second album as well as a unopened Hary Chapin live album.. Those I will keep
 
Well, influence has a broad connotation when it comes to Elvis' early years. For any young white musician in love with R&B, he was proof positive that something could be done AND accepted by white fans nonetheless. The Beatles early years were similar to Elvis' in the way they covered music by African American artists to really breakthrough and find success.

That said, if you're looking for musical lines between the two giants I think you will find more of a shared heritage.
 
agree with Scotty Moore, Bill Black and the Jordanaires (sp?)....put any singer in with that kind of backup and you'd do well.
 
Buddy Holly


tumblr_lf6fln5jmS1qazufc.jpg
 
Last edited:
And without Blind Lemon Jefferson, Robert Johnson or Willie McTell, there'd be none of them.... we can keep going back, but to what end? The fact is that it was Elvis who broke through and it was Elvis that got a young John Lennon excited for music. Clearly, he wasn't the Beatles' only influence (Crickets as noted above played a huge role), but he was definitely one of the important ones.


And yes, Scotty, Bill and the Jordainaires were huge too. I think one can safely assume that when Lennon said that, he meant Elvis' records, which would include all the players on them as much as "Elvis" the personality.
 
I think people exaggerate the "race" dimension of early Elvis.

It's decisive. But so is country, so is the crooner/ballad tradition, etc.

Rockabilly of the early Sun sort has a lot of country in it AND a lot of R & B. Listen to "Guitar Boogie," recorded by Arthur Smith in 1945--not really a "race" record, but a lot of the rockabilly genome is in it.

And yeah, if we're listing the preconditions for the existence of the Rolling Stones, I'd add Bo Diddley to Chuck Berry.
 
As long as we're examining roots, let's not forget Ike Turner, who was the real force behind Rocket 88, regarded as the first rock 'n roll record. Although credited to "Jackie Brenston", it was Ike's band.

It was recorded in 1951 (Elvis didn't record until 1954) at the same Memphis studio where Elvis began.

Just remember the old saying, success has many fathers; failure is an orphan.

Happy trails,
Larry B.
 
It looks like Redtide found the direct Lennon quote back in post 4

But there's more to The Beatles than what has been mentioned. Although it's fairly easy to trace their influences, (unlike the Velvet Underground, who seemed to come out of thin air).

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.

They really did start a paradigm that didn't exist before them.

Now the Velvets are a bit more complicated...(and arguably at least as important in changing rock and roll)
 
Last edited:
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.

They really did start a paradigm that didn't exist before them.
Click to expand...

Doo Wop? The Clovers, The Chords, The Moonglows, The Five Satins, The Penguins... I could go on.
 
El Pee said:
Doo Wop? The Clovers, The Chords, The Moonglows, The Five Satins, The Penguins... I could go on.
Click to expand...

I thought doo-wop groups were all vocal ensembles with anonymous backing musicians. It's not a genre I know much about, but I don't think I've ever seen a doo-wop group all standing behind instruments. (A self-contained ensemble) Am I wrong about this?
 
Last edited:
Brett a said:
I thought doo-wop groups were all vocal ensembles with anonymous backing musicians, not self-contained groups.. It's not a genre I know much about, but I don't think I've ever seen a doo-wop group all standing behind instruments. Am I wrong about this?
Click to expand...

No, you're right, and that's mainly because many doo-wop groups started out vocalizing on street corners, a capella.

But, as far as self-contained groups playing their own instruments, you only have to look back to the folk era that immediately predated the Beatles - The Brothers Four, The Highwaymen, Peter Paul & Mary, The Kingston Trio...the Beatles certainly didn't originate that.

Happy trails,
Larry B.
 
BlindBoyGrnt said:
How about without Chuck Berry there would be no Rolling Stones?
Click to expand...

Sure. Chuck would be the most direct influence on the Stones' (Keith's especially) guitar style. Of course, one could - and should - add Hubert Sumlin and Jimmy Reed. To name but a few.

Brett a said:
I thought doo-wop groups were all vocal ensembles that used uncredited backing musicians. It's not a genre I know much about, but I don't think I've ever seen a doo-wop group all standing behind instruments (a self-contained group). Am I wrong about this?
Click to expand...

Doo-Wop was not called Doo-Wop until way after-the-fact. I think you are right to focus on the vocal nature of Doo-Wop. I'd say Doo-Wop had way less of an influence on the Fab Four than, say, the Everly Brothers.

Both the Beatles and the Stones soon shed their obvious influences and created their own sounds. And both groups were heavily influenced by Bob Dylan.

I honestly don't hear lots of Elvis in either the Beatles or Stones. But the King certainly created the "rock star" model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom