Handclapsfingasnapz said:

Shhh... Prince don't know that... He's a
and very sensitive...

Not really... lol... Let's rock...

Firstly, Elvis was a pop-star, an entertainer. I don't think he needs to be relegated to the status of artists such as McCartney, Lennon, or Nelson.

Secondly, the Beatles were legendary, absolutely influential and essential artists. Anyone that gives the White Album a listen, keeping in mind that it was recorded in 1968, and still doesn't think they changed the face of music, must be deaf. They were all-time legends, and nobody will exist that will be as big as them in my lifetime, or at least I highly doubt it. Abbey Road is another must-hear.

But, if I LIKED them more than Prince, I'd be a member of beatles.org, not prince.org.

But they deserve the credit they got. They really brought a lot to music. Their lyrics were very inspired, Harrison is a very underrated guitarist, and they crossed several genres. Once again though, the people that don't like them are usually the ones that hear Hard Day's Night and Help! on the radio, and think all they recorded were catchy pop ditties. That, or they think of Yellow Submarine, and consider the Beatles to have just been fucked up hippies riding the fame train.

Then, you break off to their solo careers, with Lennon's inspiring Mind Games, and Imagine, Paul McCartney's Ram or Band on the Run, and George Harrison's most recent Brainwashed, not to mention his contributions to the Travelling Wilburies sessions, and you realize that these brilliant artists that came together deserved the credit they got, especially in the later years, when things really started to get... different.

Yes,better than everybody even in my opinion the Rolling Stones and I Love them.

savoirfaire said:

Is there a beatles.org? lol...

Muffy said:

Yeah? I don't own any Rolling Stones stuff or Beatles or Elvis... What for? lol...

july said:

maybe.

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

beatles.org... Ya don't say... lol...
Well, there ain't no message board on it though... lol...

edit edit...
[This message was edited Mon Aug 25 22:08:38 PDT 2003 by july]

july said:

thanks handclaps and finga snapz

Elvis and the Beatles made history!
Prince didn't.

So Prince doesn't come close to one of them.

Maybe you like Prince's music more ...
that's just personal taste.

prince is great and elvis is great 2 there is no better in that ok ...they r both great artists they sure know how 2 sing soul ... and i do not know any thing about them nasty named Beatles cuz i never listen 2 them cuz they were not worth it ...but elvis and prince sure is ...Elvis is better then the beatles any day any year and 4ever ...and wait a min we should b talking about the beatles and elvis .not prince...cuz that wus back in the 50s -the 60s ...prince did not get in the spot light intell the 80s ...that is a hole different story ,,,times change music change ok

I've never really been into Elvis' music,but the Beatles are AMAZING.

Strange thred this.

The Beatles were the most influential band ever. They have inspired many artists, including Prince. Elvis also inspired artists. But not on the scale of the Beatles.

I agree with PrettySweet. Very difficult to compare all as they were around at different times. The Beatles changed their sounds and developed over time. So has Prince.

The number of Artists who say they were influenced by one of the three is means that they all have contributed to the progression of music.

But my personal opinion if pushed would be:

Prince V Elvis = Prince
Prince V Beatles = Beatles
Beatles V Elvis = Beatles

Overall I would say The Beatles top the list on just from Prince. But as I say, comparing music from different generations is nigh on impossible.

He's certainly a better musician by objective standards. Elvis imho did little except be white and sound sort of like a black singer when many people where to racist to buy Muddy Waters records. The Beatles where the first boy band but then it also emerged that they were great songwriters. Maybe the Beatles were better songwriters in melodic and harmonic sense (rather than grooves and atmospheres) than Prince. In term of innovation, I think Prince's synth-and-drum machine sound and his peculiar type of vocal harmonies (WDC) were as influential as the Beatles'studio trickery. One thing they have in common is they all made pretty lousy movies, with the Beatles' efforts at least being tongue in cheek. Still I''d rather hear Purple Rain than A Hard Day's Night.

Elvis...NO WAY!!!

Beatles... YEAH!!!

The most songs Elvis sings are produced and written by

another producer or composer!

Prince wrote all his songs alone or with a band!

Elvis is good of course, he is a big personality,but on

the musiclevel, he did not reach Prince`s level!

The Beatles wrotes good songs,but on the musiclevel

there are worlds between them and Prince!Their are not so

good instrumentalist!Prince is a very good one.

But all in all i like The Beatles, Elvis and of course

the one and only Prince

Romance1600 said:

Elvis and Beatles are white, that's why the impact on culture. The themes of most songs of Elvis and The
Beatles are 'nice', Prince was a rude boy from the start, some of his early records were banned in the Usa.

hectim said:

There would be no Prince without The Beatles and there would have been no Beatles without Elvis - so the question's a bit strange.

I think that you'd have to rephrase the question...

Do you mean a better entertainer, a better musician, a better songwriter???

Oh dear, why compare them, they all made different contributions in different ways and in different times.

I love Prince not only because of his great songs and his awesome musicianship, but because of his all round versatility and genius.

I love Elvis because he had charisma, and was the first mainstream rock n roll artist. I know he didnt invent it all, but he certainly kick started it all in a big way, inspiring thousands of musicians across the world including the Beatles and Prince.

However more than anything I love the Beatles. They were great musicians, Paul had a fantastic voice, they wrote their own songs (songs that will live on for centuries), and in terms of studio experimentation, took pop music a long way in a short space of time. They were highly prolific, recording 11 albums and one double album in 7 years (95% of which are excellent).

The Beatles had both mass appeal and critical acclaim. They define 20th century music more than anyone...end of.

DavidEye said:

Co-sign.

Dan said:

Excellent comment Dan - I completely agree with you. All of these artists are great in their own way.

timur said:

Did Elvis actually ever earn a co-write credit? He only added them as the African-American composers (Otis Blackwell etc) had no rights.

It amuses me how a thread that started out so lighthearted can get so serious.

Better then Elvis-Hell yeah!
Better then the Beatles-Yes, and a lot funkier too!

Why is a post like this created? To anger all of the reasonably intelligent music fans who know there is no possible way to compare Prince, Elvis and The Beatles. Lame. I happily own and listen to 'On Stage' 'Abbey Road' and 'Controversy'.

WatchThemFall said:

It may be lame, but i lightens the place a bit.there's a lot of gloomy threads kicking around.You don't have to look far for them.

I welcome it.

Hell give me one of Mr Bliss' old school threads like: "who'd win in a fistfight? Prince or Dudley Moore?"

those were the days.

That is a hard question.Actually,I think he is more talented,but part of how he is what he is is because of their work and influence.What they did was necessary to the evolution of rock-n-roll and show biz.

Having achieved an age from which I can say that I lived through (and listened) to the Beatles entire career(s), most of Elvis' career, as well as Hendrix's career, Dylan's career, etc. (and I still listen to all this stuff), and like these artists, Prince is tops.

Each of these (and some others) had an indelible effect on pop music, but no one has had the output and range of the little purple imp. In my opinion, given his career so far and his "searching" and evolution, Prince is on track to be ranked with Duke Ellington.

Let's look at the data: Beatlemania which lasted thru mid '65 (Help) was cute pap for the masses; though I'll grant they were the first major self enclosed pop group - writing, performing, producing (with help). This morphed into the better albums in late 65-67; by 1968, with the White album, they could record anything - demos, fooling around, druggy nonsense, and get away with it - because they were "The Beatles". Excepting "Abbey Road", they shot their load in these 2-3 years and probably produced 40-50 songs that stand up.

Elvis was a cultural phenomenon, who didn't write shit and could barely play. His run really lasted from '56-60 and even than was spotty, By the time he got out of the army, he was only fit for cheesy movies and even cheesier gospel music. (In fact, I'd argue that Chuck Berry, a black man who sounded white was as important as Elvis, but that's another story.)

big statement. the Beatles were genius' in making the greatest pop music (other than Motown) in my book and Elvis was the (second) greatest showman in rock - James Brown was and still is.
so i guess that does make Prince greater than the two.