recently been having quite a long and sometimes heated debate with my 17 year old son 2 whom of the 2 is most popular. my son is a massive lennon fan as i am but what i was trying 2 say 2 him was that elvis in my opinion is the most well known and popular male solo singer of all time.granted the beatles puts lennons position as a solo artist in a slightly differant position, but altho i think as most people do lennons song writing buts him head and shoulders above elvis i still think elvis is amongst the generall population of most countries more well known and popular.

Elvis for singing voice. (in early years)

Lennon for songwriting. (lousy voice)

Elvis spawned a music revolution with his Rock and Roll music.
I know it wasn't all him, but I'd say he was one of the founding fathers that put it on the map. Along with Chuck Berry etc.

Elvis started the trend that makes the music scene what is is today. Lennon and The Beatles didn't do that much.. they just added to it.

Taking nothing away from either of them as they were and are both massive musical entities... but I'd say Elvis is the major player of the two!

Lennon just has more credibility. Probally due to the fact he died while he was still considered cool. The world saw Elvis' fall from grace and he thus lost some of his iconic staus, he in effect became too human. John Lennon will forever be immortalised as the person others respected and held in high reguard. If he was alive now he probally be just another aging pop star making a bit of a fool of himself with constant come backs and anniversary tours.

Plus Lennon had a much better dress sense and was far more sh@ggable! :thumbsup:

just 2 add a further point elvis's record and album sales are without doubt the greatest by any solo artist.

John Lennon quote when Elvis died
"Elvis died when he joined the army"

There is no doubt that Elvis was a major influence but by the early 60's pop/rock had become stale and the charts were full of ballad singers etc. The Beatles revolutionised everything, music, fashion, art, design, culture. Unfortunately, Elvis became nothing more than a puppet to Col. Tom Parker, appearing in countless films and ending up on the cabaret circuit.

Influence - Elvis (because he came first)
Legacy of work - Lennon

Elvis.

Without Elvis many of the stars that have come and gone, and some that are still with us would probably never have gone into the business, particularly the likes of Sir Cliff, who was once dubbed the English Elvis I believe.

Yes, I admit it, I have inherited my Mum's thing of being a Cliff fan, albeit to a slightly lesser extent than Mum.

without elvis presley a lot of the bands over the last 30 years may not have been playing the music that they are. ithink lennon was quoted in his early days saying elvis changed the world, this before is anti war period and drug use.

hmm

Lennon, only if he is songwriting with McCartney in the Beatles tho.

In terms of solo it's elvis

The mere fact that one is a solo artist and the other a band member makes this argument irrelevant. You can't make the comparison unless you put Elvis against the time when Lennon was a solo artist in which case Elvis wins. Lets face it, Lennon was a bit rubbish after The Beatles (except the Imagine album and a few other songs).

However, in my opinion, Lennon was the more influential (as part of the Beatles) in which case it's which had more affect on a generation, Elvis or The Beatles ? The answer ? The Beatles hands down. As 'Col' said above, Lennon revolutionised attitudes, fashion, music, art, culture, lives and lifestyles. Elvis turned cabaret dressed in white rhinestone jumpsuits with high collars.

Elvis did change a lot with his (early) style and music but he was just a puppet. There was others just as influential but not as popular at the time like Bill Haley or Buddy Holly (the first guitar group line up). Elvis just had more promoters and depended on Col Tom parker. Lennon (and The Beatles) won there popularity by pure talent and intelligence. They were natural genius's. Elvis wasn't.

So the conclusion is Elvis for global popularity but Lennon (with The Beatles) for influencing a generation and we all know which one is the more significant.

Originally posted by Trouncer
Elvis did change a lot with his (early) style and music but he was just a puppet. There was others just as influential but not as popular at the time like Bill Haley or Buddy Holly (the first guitar group line up). Elvis just had more promoters and depended on Col Tom parker. Lennon (and The Beatles) won there popularity by pure talent and intelligence. They were natural genius's. Elvis wasn't.

[/B]

It would be interesting to know how old you are Trouncer because for anyone over forty five ish you are wrong.
Elvis was far more influential and during a time when the media did not have such a big effect.

As for Tom Parker pulling Elvis' strings, who do you think did the same for the Beatles???
They were only the third best band in Liverpool until Brian Epstein got hold of them and turned them into superstars.

Originally posted by brooksy
just 2 add a further point elvis's record and album sales are without doubt the greatest by any solo artist.

You know what I'm going to say don't you - You're forgetting a certain Mr Jackson.

I think we're talking MUSIC ALBUMS, not MUSICAL BUMS:rolleyes:

Elvis. 43 Presidents but only one king.

Originally posted by markham
I think we're talking MUSIC ALBUMS, not MUSICAL BUMS:rolleyes:

Apologies if im wrong, i just thought he sold more albums than anyone else. :cool:

It was a joke, not a very good one, but a joke nonetheless.

Hi,

Michael Jackson has the biggest selling album of all time with Thriller. But isn't the biggest selling artist of all time.

As to who has sold the most, I'm not sure. Both Elvis & The Beatles have sold over 1 billion records. I would say that the Beatles would have sold more albums. In the both the US & UK, the Beatles have sold more albums than Elvis.

The biggest selling album in the UK is Sgt Pepper by the Beatles.

Dean of Disco

Without a shadow of a doubt: Lennon. Marvellous.

Hi,

As to Lennon or Elvis, I'm not sure.

Elvis was the first big icon of Rock & Roll. He wasn't a creator/originator of the style like Ike Turner, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, little Richard & Buddy Holly.

He was a vechicle that helped to put rock & Roll on the world map. He was in the right place at the right time. He wasn't the best or the most consistant but he did have alot in his favour to take him on his road to world stardom.
He did sell more than the early rock & rock pioneers.

His strength was that he was what Sam Phillips of Sun Records was looking for; a white person who could sing black Rhythm & Blues. With the rise of the teenager in the 50s, Elvis was on to a winner. He looked the part of a teen idol.

Elvis was an Icon as shrewd management lead to him being heavily marketed by 'Colonel' Tom Parker. A lot of his material wasn't ground breaking but was safe. His movies made good money & were a good option to sell his name around the world.

There were times in his career when he did hit top form.

John Lennon was part of the biggest band in the world. He and the rest of the Beatles were a big influence on alot of musicians from dffferent fields. They helped to change popular music from it's blues/R&B based roots into a wide evolution of rock.

John Lennon couldn't have done it without the rest of the Beatles. Also they had good management from Brian Epstein. Without this they may never have been signed. To be truthful, they weren't that original. In the early years, they covered & sounded like their idols. Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Motown artists etc. Again being the right place at the right time helped. What made them great was that they made the most of the situation. They knew that they had to write their own songs that could appeal to the masses. They took note of artists & acts from many fields & from the US. They used all these ideas to create their path to greatness. They added a few of their own to set themselves apart from the pack. They sold a greater amount of records in a short space of time.

John Lennon career in the 70s was a bit hit & miss. He didn't want to be the traditional rock star. But his status was already set.


As to which one of the two, I would say John Lennon is more of an influence on popular music. Rock & Roll was already under way before Elvis came on the scene & would have gone on with out him. People like Chuck Berry & Buddy Holly etc were a bigger inflluence on popluar music structure & on John Lennon song writing & ideas.

Elvis was an icon by association, John Lennon was an icon by influence from shaping popular music.

Dean of Disco.

Originally posted by Andyman
It would be interesting to know how old you are Trouncer because for anyone over forty five ish you are wrong.
Elvis was far more influential and during a time when the media did not have such a big effect.

As for Tom Parker pulling Elvis' strings, who do you think did the same for the Beatles???
They were only the third best band in Liverpool until Brian Epstein got hold of them and turned them into superstars.

I understand what your saying Andyman regards Brian Epstiens part in The Beatles although it was later discovered he was quite nieve in the deals he made on there behalf and they lost out financially at the time. Lets not forget he managed Cilla Black and others acts so why weren't they as big as The Beatles ? Because The Beatles would have made it anyway with there writing and performing. In the end, Brian was losing control and couldn't handle the rapis rise pace set by The Beatles so he was good for them at the begining but events would soon have overtaken him as eventually they did.

Elvis did influence the Beatles and Lennon but so did Gene Vincent and Buddy Holly.

I think 'Dean of Disco' has said it all really. Rock n Roll was already emerging before Elvis, it's just that Elvis seemed to epitomise that scene but was never an innovator. As Deano said, an icon but not a creator/originator like Lennon and the Beatles.

John Lennon, definitely. He was mad, but a genius. He wanted us to give peace a chance, and stop killing each other in old mens wars. Right up to the end he was the sort of bloke you'd love to spend a day with, picking his brains.
Elvis used to shoot tv's and eat deep fried sandwiches. He was mad too, but towards the end lost his credibility as he incresaingly mistreated those around him and wallowed in self pity for what he'd done to himself.
No contest in my eyes.

Lennon by a mile. You can't seperate the music from the man. And Elvis was bonkers. Witness his enthusiastic joining the army for Vietnam. Lennon was class, wheras Elvis built Graceland, the mother of all kitsch holes.

i woudnt say lennon by a mile but take your point. as for elvis being mad isnt it always the case when artists become mega stars as elvis was and then fall out of favour that they tend 2 go off the rails. drugs , drinking ete take hold with the usuall paranoia that goes hand in hand with this as in ozzy osbornes case. granted ozzy lived that life but realy went off the rails after is sacking from sabbath and was finished for a while. my point is i dont think elvis was mad but from world domination 2 nowhere is a big fall.

Maybe we're getting of the track here. If the question was which was the most popular in world terms then it must be Elvis. It it was, which is the most significant and important in terms of a legacy to the world, then it must be Lennon. This is irrespective of whether Elvis died mad or depressed etc. or whether Lennon was for world peace etc.

If the thread is 'one or t'other', you can define it however you like. I prefer Lennon's music and songwriting, adn for his hippyish views. He also went less nuts than Elvis (though the Yoko Ono years were a bit egocentric). On the other hand, you have to prefer Elvis for dress sense and dance moves...

John Lennon, mainly because his musics much better. :)

Chris.

thats debateable 2 be honest, elvis on stage singing suspcious minds takes some beating.

the king is dead long live the king

Im 23 and I would have to say Elvis!

Originally posted by brooksy
elvis on stage singing suspcious minds takes some beating.
A fat man drugged up and wobbling around on stage to a song he didn't write. It can't be that hard to beat.

Chris.

Only one winner much as I like both of them.

Elvis is the King.

if you were 2 ask joe public 2 name any john lennon records besides imagine i d bet they would realy stuggle, ask about elvis enough said.

That's probably because Lennon wrote and recorded his own material. Elvis was a bit of a covers man.
Also, ask anyone to name some Beatles songs and the reverse will be true. Lennon wrote a few good tunes before the split and that's still influence. In fact,it's fair to say that without Lennon, The Beatles would have been just another pop group (and the same goes for the Beatles without McCartney but that's for another thread).

Compare the 2 before they died. Which do you respect the most ? A man who wrote amazing songs as part of the biggest band in the world, discovered fatherhood and dedicated a significant time off to look after his family and promoted world peace ? or a Fat guy, overweight, crap diet, couldn't write his own songs doing the cabaret circuit in a studded onepiece ? If Elvis was still alive, I reckon he'd had overtaken Michael Jackson by now on the freak meter !

It's got to be Elvis, he's an icon of cool.

thankyou not just me what thought that then