MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > I find Elvis's music has aged better tha...

I find Elvis's music has aged better than the Beatles


For the following reasons:

1) vocal ability. Now that music is autotuned, the Beatles wouldn't be able to release vocals so pitchy and often weak, if made today. So their vocals aren't up to today's standards.

Whereas Elvis, for the most part, was pitch perfect. His voice has such tonality, grit, softness, strength, range, that he is a pleasure to listen to these days just as much as in his prime.

2) Recording quality. Both the Beatles and Elvis started with very basic sound quality, but it has a classic sound. Elvis went on to enjoy the use of the best studios, live bands and orchestras. His music sounds very polished.

The Beatles went for a different direction, more experimental with their recording and production techniques. Although it may have sounded edgy in its time, now it just sounds distorted or sloppy.

Yes, I know that they wanted that sound, but it hasn't aged well. Nobody is listening to Get Back and thinking "all music should sound distorted like this!'

reply

They're both great. They both had great guitar players on their recordings (Scotty Moore, Hank Garland, and James Burton for Elvis; George Harrison, John Lennon--who was a better guitarist than he gave himself credit for--Paul McCartney, and the great Eric Clapton for The Beatles). You can't go wrong with either one, IMO.

reply

i think both are great and influential. the beatles more influential overall i would think. if you talk to singers and musician, most will say that the beatles and elvis influenced them.

reply

My mother was never that much of a Beatles fan and listened much more to Elvis.
Both were a whole generation before my time, so I never got into The Beatles on my own either.
And thus, I think I must pick Elvis.
But only his early stuff from the first years of his career in the '50s, because he deteriorated later.

reply