Who was bigger, Elvis in 1956 or The Beatles in 1964?

I'm not sure what Elvis being bigger in 64 has to do with anything?

Edit: it doesn't relate to the question asked or the reply you were answering ...

 

What about Jesus?

 

Anyway....
Isn't this just a thinly disguised "vs thread" lol

 

Jesus is always bigger than both

 

Sure you could, and all three of them would have agreed with this argument.

But I'm thinking The Beatles were somewhat more of a worldwide phenomenon than Elvis, as big as he was. So the quantities of those who picked up guitars were greater after 1964.

The other thing is, mass-produced musical instruments were somewhat of a rarity in many parts of the world, right up until a couple of years before The Beatles. For an absolutely fascinating account of how this situation impacted budding musicians in the UK, I recommend Play Like Elvis by Mo Foster.

 

Wow, never seen this photo! That's rare!

 

This has been discussed a lot and of course more people picked up guitars in 64. The masses didn't want to become musicians over night when Elvis came on the scene because he was looked at as an alien. Nobody saw this guy looking the way he did and singing/moving the way he did and said "That's what I'm going to do!" When guys saw the Beatles, they said "I can do that!"

 

Your statements are belied by the many artists who did just that, and went on to become quite famous after being inspired by their first look at Elvis — most prominently, Buddy Holly, who completely changed his musical direction after seeing Elvis perform live in Texas. With a little research, I could name many others, and that's not counting all those who never so much as cut an obscure single.

Prior to the regional success of "That's All Right," there really had been no such thing as a rockabilly single. After that, there were thousands of them. So certainly, many were inspired.

I'm not sure "the masses" is the right term to use in either case, but I would agree that more were inspired by The Beatles' example than Elvis's, for a number of reasons. But for sure, the term "nobody" in your statement above is inaccurate.

 

This is where that perspective was drawn from: Tom Petty breaks down his experience seeing Elvis/Beatles/Stones and how it influenced him to become a musician.

 

Interesting interview, but it does nothing to alter the truth of what I wrote and the mistaken impression your initial post left.

Also, it should be remembered that:

• When Elvis first hit in 1956, Tom Petty was less that six years old. Of course, nothing of what Elvis was about at the time was "doable" by Petty at that age.
• By the time Petty was in a position to pick up a guitar and be in a band, Elvis was already beginning to make bad movies in earnest, coinciding with a musical decline that would last until 1968. Thus, Petty's comment about "orchestras coming out of nowhere on the beach," etc. So sure, this wouldn't be "doable" either.
• But like so many of us, Petty was just about the right age in 1964 to use The Beatles as inspiration for something that was at least partially achievable — that is, a self-contained band as opposed to a solo artist with Hollywood behind him.
• With their generally simpler song structures and less-polished production, it's also not surprising that The Stones proved an even more potent source of inspiration for Petty's garage bands of the time.
• Meanwhile, by then Elvis was a virtual non-entity on the radio and the charts of the day.

 

I’m persuaded that the bigger impact was from The Beatles, but the times were different and the effect these music icons had on youth was different. Another fair question worthy of speculation is “Would the rock ‘n roll market have been in place as a launching pad for The Beatles without Elvis?” In fact, would other major rock stars of the 1950’s have succeeded ...especially with white youth audiences... if the doors hadn’t been opened by Elvis.

Both were reviled by parents because they were seen as threats on some level to the established order. The rebellious look and demeanor of these musicians insured that both Elvis and The Beatles would be embraced by the youth culture of their respective eras, ...keeping in mind that eight years is almost generational in respect to the young adult culture, ...just as it is today.

What the Beatles brought to the table was optimism, cleverness, transitional rebellion (wearing suits, but styled in opposition to the established norm and hair that made a definitive statement of rebellion), songwriting skill that was infectious, an exotic British background and harmonies. Elvis, brought angst, a sense of danger (stage presence and tough guy image), macho sexuality and good production (songs chosen that played to his strengths); both had solid management, marketing and record company support to guarantee success.

Neither Elvis nor The Beatles achieved their popularity due to versatility on musical instruments, but both were great live performers. The camera made Elvis look powerful and godlike, swooning girls contributed to that impression. Screaming girls wanting more access to The Beatles made them appear unstoppable on stage, whether you could hear the music or not.

I’m sure others will have varying takes on these comparisons and given the complexities of comparing musicians who reached their peaks with young audiences in different eras no single opinion is going to be right or wrong. My two cents (without any adjustment for inflation).


Cat

 

64 Kissin Cousins US - 6 UK -5
Roustabout US - 1 UK - 12
65 Elvis For Everyone US - 10 UK - 8
Girl Happy US - 8 UK - 8
Harum Scarum US - 8 UK - 11
66 Frankie And Johnny US - 20 UK - 11
Paradise Hawaiian Style US - 15 UK - 7
Spinout US - 18 UK - 17
67 How Great Thou Art US - 18 UK - 10
68 NBC special US - 8 UK - 2
69 From Elvis In Memphis US - 13 UK - 1
Memphis to Vegas ..... 2lp US - 12 UK - 3
70 On Stage US - 13 UK - 2
That the way it is US - 31 UK - 12
71 Country US - 12 UK - 6
Love letters US - 33 UK - 7
72 Live at MSG US - 11 UK - 3

Certainly Elvis' incredible run of hit singles had slowed. The US seemed to be having some sort of backlash against Elvis also, because he was charting better everywhere else in the world.
I have no idea about the radio but people were still buying a ton of his music.
68 If I can Dream US - 12 Can - 7 UK - 11 Aus - 2
69 In The Ghetto US - 3 ... No.1 in 9 countries no.2 in UK and Aus
69 Suspicious Minds need I even say ....

Also bear in mind that it is pretty widely recognised that the Harum Scarum to Paradise Hawaiian Style run was easily his worst, and he copped some sales backlash from that

 

"I'm standing at the entrance
behind the main tent.
Immediately behind me,
the festivities have already begun."

 

I would agree with everything except that Elvis had good management lol

 

Several things:

• The statement in my post was "coinciding with a musical decline that would last until 1968." Implicit in this was that after the comeback special, Elvis's status in contemporary culture (along with his chart success and the quality of the records he put out) did indeed take a dramatic turn for the better. That's why I mentioned that year as a cutoff point.
  
• The post I was responding to dealt with Tom Petty, so of course I was answering this question from a US perspective.
• Between 1964 and 1968, Elvis had exactly one song that made the Billboard Top 10 — and that was a gospel number recorded nearly five years previously.
• There's no question that Elvis had a loyal fanbase who bought everything he put out, regardless of its quality. But the discussion was specifically about the extent of his influence on budding musicians during the period in which, like Petty, they reached an age where they might realistically form bands. That influence was quite negligible, IMHO.

 

I was merely referring to the Elvis was a non-entity on the charts of the day. If you sell that many albums somebody is going to hear them.

I was only born in 68. I never really experienced the Beatles or Elvis in the sense of being in the time. Certainly with the advent of modern recording techniques, sampling, digitally pitch corrected vocals etc neither The Beatles or Elvis sound contemporary these days ...
But the first thing I ever recorded was heartfelt version of Heartbreak Hotel when I was five. One of the first albums I flogged the life out of was Elvis Golden Records vol 1, among the next wave of records I flogged was the Beatles red album ... the thing is though, as far removed from those original Elvis recordings as I was, there was no escaping the impact of them.
By the time I was a teen I had moved into hard rock, but that didn't negate the effect Elvis had already had on me musically.

 

Well, Elvis with a big helping of Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, Chet Atkins, Little Richard, etc.

 

Nor would I ever think to minimize the musical effect of Elvis on me.

For a good part of my performing career, I've played rockabilly and classic country music. I've had quite a few Elvis numbers in my repertoire over the years. But like Petty, I was just the right age when The Beatles hit, so they were my first and primary influence. I had to "go back and get" 50s rock 'n' roll, but I have loved performing it for decades now. I would never seek to downplay Elvis or his importance.

We were just speaking of this particular era in the development of rock 'n' roll. "Non-entity" was too strong a word for me to use, but there was a dramatic difference in Elvis's presence in the era in question compared with his success in the 50s and early 60s. But no question, he was still selling plenty of records to his loyal fans.

 

Beatles, but so much had changed in those eight years.

 

My man, you're taking this very literally. ;-) (but I like your posts)

 

The OPs question is who was bigger, which I assume means record sales and concert tickets, Elvis in 56 or The Beatles in 64. Without looking anything up I would say based on sales alone it would have to be The Beatles, they were breaking records (not vinyl) all the time.
If we are talking influence then I don’t think you can separate the two. I’m not an Elvis fan at all but just about every rock biography (and auto-biography) will mention the first time they heard Elvis.
What The Beatles changed was they were writing and performing their own music. Sure, this had been done before - Buddy Holly for example who was another big influence but of course his career was tragically cut short - The Beatles took it to a completely different level and certainly in the UK they opened the gateway for the likes of the Stones, Who, Kinks et al who followed their lead and started writing their own material.
If we are talking about who was better then that can only be a personal opinion. My personal favourite out of the two would be The Beatles.

 

Oh . . . OK . . . then set loose the pigeons!

 

Shame on anyone veering off topic to turn this into an Elvis or Beatles bashing thread

 

There's no doubt that the Beatles were selling more records. Such a completely different market than the fifties.

 

Thanks, but I probably wouldn't have made them if you had just acknowledged that your original statements were mistaken (i.e., "The masses didn't want to become musicians over night when Elvis came on the scene because he was looked at as an alien. Nobody saw this guy looking the way he did and singing/moving the way he did and said 'That's what I'm going to do!' When guys saw the Beatles, they said 'I can do that!'").