MovieChat Forums > Elvis (2005) Discussion > Why it really needs to be Buddy Holly vs...

Why it really needs to be Buddy Holly vs Chuck Berry vs Elvis


You have this match up because you are talking about icons of the 1950s. Buddy Holly, the original innovator of the 1950s, could of been bigger than Elvis and could of competed with the British Invasion because I feel he could of come into his own in the 60s. Brian Wilson status, without the drugs (Holly could not really drink alcohol or take drugs since he had a very sensitive liver/stomach). Elvis had the voice and the look, but he did not have the talent to compete with Holly's and Berry's songwriting. Berry had a couple of things against him during that era, his ethnicity and a couple of bad habits that don't need to discredit him, but do. Holly should be the winner, because I feel in time he would of had durability, and was best equipted to compete with the changing times of the 60s.

reply

Elvis was a bigger influence to most of the best artists from the 60s, so yeah...Elvis wins.

reply

"Elvis was a bigger influence to most of the best artists from the 60s, so yeah...Elvis wins."

Actually I think that Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry were bigger influences on the *artists*, for instance, though Elvis was an inspiration for the Beatles they cited Buddy Holly as their major influence and it is apparent Chuck Berry was also an influence on them. I think it is hard to compare them, as they are all important in their own way.

I don't think you can hands-down say Elvis wins without explaining it properly (just claiming "Elvis was a bigger influence to most of the best artists from the 60s" doesn't really cut-it as it is highly debatable as in my view a case could be made for Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry over Elvis in this regard).

Whatever the case they are all legends.

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

reply

"Before Elvis there was nothing. Without Elvis there wouldn't have been The Beatles."
-John Lennon

No individual performer compares to the impact that Elvis had (not even MJ).

reply

Right on.

reply

It should also be noted that Holly was STRONGLY influenced by a certain main man from memphis as well. That being the case, with no Elvis, there'd be no Buddy Holly.

Take'em all, take'em all, put'em up against the wall and shoot'em

reply

That one quote says it all.

reply

Elvis is to rock like Muhammad Ali is to boxing; an important figure who is overrated, despite great ability. You tell an Ali worshiper that the "Greatest" was a generally soft puncher and you'll likely be attacked. Elvis made rock a national phenomenon in 1956 and was the most visible performer of that music, hence his being titled "the King" by the press. Look around that era--the Fifties--and you'll see the numerous other musicians who were rocking AND having more influence on those who followed.
John Lennon was wrong: before Elvis there was plenty, AND after. Bill Haley and his Comets were making rock records as of 1951; Fats Domino started in 1950; there were dozens of black r-and-b singers making the music and doing the moves that Elvis himself admitted copying. What about the late Carl Perkins and his rockabilly picking? Buddy Holly's innovations and song-writing talent were far more influential on those who followed--including a certain band from Liverpool. I could write a long article on Chuck Berry's importance to rock musicians; his riffs that seemingly EVERY guitar-player knows, songs, style. Bo Diddley, a more obscure musician who bounced between blues, r-and-b, and rock, was also a major mover-and-shaker. Remember the Everly Brothers? Listen to most of the British Invasion bands singing like them. Should I mention Jerry Lee Lewis?
I hope you get my point.
Elvis is a sentimental favorite among many, many folks. As such he'll be considered the "King" forever--by those who don't know better. As a musician I admit to liking a number of his songs (mostly the early ones since the later stuff sounded pretty showbizzy). When I began I was inspired by him, but as I heard other artists' stuff and read more about rock history, the importance Elvis had for me diminished. Now he's one of many greats only. When I got interested in heavyweight boxing history I discovered other champions that had more on the ball than Ali, and some that compared well to him. This view is going to always be unpopular!

reply

And yet if you total all the hits of all the artist you have listed, they would still be less than Elvis.

reply

Listen to "Well... Alright" and don't tell me you can see him writing protest songs along with Bob Dylan or the likes.

I think Buddy Holly would've survived the 60's better than any other 50's Rock and Roll artist, mainly because he created the sound of the 60's more than any other artist.

reply

Although all three are rock legends, they are very different from each other.

Elvis - look, image, inspiration for future. Musicianship, creativeness, improvisation was average at best. Great voice and look, but controlled by others musically.

In my opinion, Buddy Holly would top my list based on talent, songwriting ability, and studio ability (he probably would have been a big-time producer during the 60's). Also, his ability to influence future MUSIC (not image like Elvis)is evident through the 60's. Creatively, Holly was amazing and his style was shifting at the time of his death.

The Lennon quote doesn't make a lot of sense to me - musically, Lennon should be grateful to the Delta Blues musicians which he took a lot from.

reply

Don't forget about Fats. The posters used to read FATS DOMINO in large letters on the top with Elvis, Johnny Cash and whoever else was playing under his name. There was definitely something before Elvis.

reply