Elvis or the Beatles

I stole this from a website but it looks like an interesting topic

was watching ‘Pulp Fiction’ last night — a movie of such genius that it never gets old (don’t you wish you could have that kind of dialogue with someone all the time?). In the DVD extras you get to watch a few of the scenes that were cut out of the movie. In one, Mia (Uma Thurman) and Vincent (John Travolta) discuss the fact that in life you are either an ‘Elvis’ person or a ‘Beatles’ person.

Vincent is, of course, an ‘Elvis Man.’

Last week I happened across ‘Elvis’ 30 #1 Hits’ on a BitTorrent site. *Ahem* Of course, I already own the album but wanted a digital backup, so I downloaded it. As I was listening to it, I realize that I am definately an ‘Elvis’ man. No offense to Paul and Ringo, I love them too, but it is different.

I found out yesterday (in that important Gmail) that the person was an ‘Elvis’ person too and it got me thinking. What kind of person are you?

BTW, I am really loving ‘Devil in Disguise’ right now.

Cultural Wars: Elvis Versus The Beatles
I like to peruse different news talk shows from time to time. Recently, Maureen Dowd, the liberal editorialist and Bush watcher from the NY Times was on Tim Russett's show talking about polarization in the country. She described the polarization as the war between *the 50's* and *the 60's*. What Dowd is talking about is memory. There are two memories in the country, memories of who we are. These two memories are fighting with each other.

I was really taken by her metaphor and think she has found a way to describe the split in the country in yet another set of interesting images.

What do we imagine/remember/dream about when we say "the 50's?" This isn't to say that this is what the 50's were about. It is the images that we continually see, when this time period is invoked. Images that are reinforced by nostalgic-oriented movies and shows like "American Graffiti" and "Happy Days".

The WWII Veterans & their enduring spouses were beginning to take charge of the country and the baby-boom was in full swing. Eisenhower, comfortable ole Ike who lead our fathers in battle, was in safely in charge of the country. We discovered Hoola-Hoops and Howdy-Doody and the "I Love Lucy Show". Families were like "Father Knows Best" and "The Donna Reed Show". Teenagers discovered rock & roll and drive-in movies and sock hops dominated the social scene.

And then there was Elvis. Risky, sexy, pelvic-swinging Elvis, who drove the girls crazy with his sultry looks and his raw sexuality. But the 50's tamed Elvis also and the decade ended with a slightly shorn Elvis, patriotically beautiful in his uniform, off to serve his country. Like movie stars in the WWII generation before him, Elvis did his duty. But where was he sent? Not off to any war, but to a nice condo in Germany. Rock & Roll tamed and civilized in service to the polis.


We vaguely remember other things about the 50's. Like McCarthyism and Cold War scares and hiding under our desks to "Duck and Cover". Under the foggy memory of a pseudo-innocent time, we forget the repression that went on in the 50's, the desire to close the country down and the dreaded fear of outside invasions. Remember it was in the 50's that the alien invasion movies became a real genre.

So, what about the 60's? What do we remember when we think of the 60's? Let's start with an invasion from the outside - the British Invasion. Rock and Roll began to discover its chaotic roots once more, but not from within a domesticated national culture, but rather from a group of outsiders who shattered the illusion of the U.S. as a cultural island. As the Beatles and British groups invaded, the country, shook to its core by the assassination of JFK and lost in a progressively unpopular war in Vietnam, began to embrace a notion of chaos.

The coming of age, baby-boomers rejected the pseudo-innocent life of their suburban parents and embraced the pseudo-innocent life of the hippy generation.

Psychedelia reigned everyone - as drug-influenced music and art penetrated and dominated the culture. We could close our eyes to what we didn't want to see and believe that we could still change the world by singing a song, or flashing a peace sign.

And with that cultural movement, everything from the past was considered suspect. Including and especially military service and the war in Vietnam. It is not surprising that Vietnam continues to raise its head when we have to factions in the country, both terribly wounded and unhealed, still fighting the battle of two cultural movements.

The Baby-Boomers believed they could change the world. And they did - opening the country up to global influences, breaking down stereotypes and barriers, both racially and sexually.

But when things fall apart - how do you figure out how to put it back together? The Baby-Boomers didn't bother. They just believed that they could close their eyes to reality and persuade themselves that they had somehow escaped the evil of their parents generations - without looking at their own complicity in evil.

What we have in this country is an illusion of division. We are actually, very united in our own pseudoinnocence. Rollo May wrote a wonderful book on this topic - Power and Innocence. In it he writes about pseudoinnocence:

Capitalizing on naivete, it consists of a childhood that is never outgrown, a kind of fixation on the past. It is childishness rather than childlikeness. When we face questions too big and too horrendous to contemplate, such as the dropping of the atomic bomb [or the bombing of the World Trade Center], we tend to shrink into this kind of innocence and make a virtue of powerlessness, weakness, and helplessness. (49)
The truth is, this country is not divided. It is united in its refusal to recognize itself in the other. Rollo May quotes Arthur Miller in an opening statement to his book on Power and Innocence:

It is always and forever the struggle: to perceive somehow our own complicity
with evil...[It is] much more reassuring to see the world in terms of totally
innocent victims and totally evil instigators of the monstrous violence we see
all about. At all costs, never disturb our innocence.

For me, as a mythologist with a depth perspective, what seems important right now is to break through our own complicity with evil and to find not only how we are different, but also how we are the same. And the sameness is in memory - the memory of an innocent time that never was.

[lefty o]

more of a Waylon Jennings type myself. stand up kinda dude.

[troy2000]

Don't think this is an either-or proposition.

Originally Posted by troy2000

Don't think this is an either-or proposition.

yes it is

[ash]

Queen.

Let me pose this question: Are the Beatles as great as everyone thinks?
Follow me on this one for a few. When Quentin Tarentino shot Pulp Fiction he had a part that got cut out of the original movie but made the DVD's deleted scenes. It was an extended version of the first meeting between Vincent Vega (Travolta) and Ms. Mia Wallace (Thurman). If you remember, she lets him into her house and watches him on closed-circuit TV while she does a couple lines of blow. After "a few shakes of a lambs tail" she comes downstairs, you see the back of her dirty feet, never seeing her face and they leave. In the extended version, she comes out to meet him hiding behind a camcorder, still never seeing her face. She proceeds to interview Vince while she films him. Tarantino cuts this scene later because the camcorder interview was original and unique when he shot it, but had become cliche' by the time the movie came out. (Think Reality Bites)
Anyway, as she films him she proceeds to give Vega her theory. It goes like this:Guys are either Elvis men or Beatles men. You can like both, but you definitely like one better than the other and it shows. I really love this theory because I think it's true and I am definitely an Elvis man and could really care less about the Beatles.
Now I know I have to be missing something. My mom is a big Beatles fan, which probably is true with most women of her generation. My Dad told me that he didn't buy into any of it at first. He was a Beach Boys fan. But, later even he succumbed the to the tractor-beam pull of those mop tops. There's a prominent and definite generation thing going on here because my Aunt Jan and my Aunt Maria, both older sisters to my dad and mom respectively, are Elvis fans.
In my opinion the Beatles are the original boy band. To give them credit, they did play their own instruments and write their own songs. But, if you think about it, when you see footage of the Beatles, they have tens-of-thousands of fourteen year-old girls screaming and crying their eyes out. I remember the same thing during the Hangin' Tough video by NKOTB. Later I saw the same thing on several Backstreet Boys and N'Synk (!!!!, I have no idea if I spelled that correctly) videos. I hate to break it to you but, fourteen year-old girls have no idea what good music is.
A couple of weeks ago, again I was on my way to work and the morning show I was listening to was talking about the Beatles. One of the DJs said that he too did not get "the whole Beatles thing." People started to call the radio station and defend the Beatles through and through. Occasionally someone would call up and agree with the DJ. It was hilarious that these misguided, radio-pop drones were saying things like, "We would never have Rock-&-Roll without the Beatles." And, "the British invasion was the most influential thing to todays American music."
So back to the present we come. I'm sitting here at work waiting for my student to show up and I'm humming a Beatles tune to myself. On the way out here, 99.5 "The Mountain" was having a Weekend Beatles Block, and I found myself listening. Normally I don't really get into the Beatles and it makes me wonder if I am alone in this opinion.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not making a solid connection between these super-lame boy bands of my generation and the Beatles, it's just part of the argument. Now, if you listen to Beatles early years that songs are very positive and bubble-gummy sounding. I Want to Hold Your Hand and Can't Buy me Love are very soft and simple songs when you think about it. Seems like they are geared for fourteen year-old girls. The young Beatles were very wholesome and innocent. Not qualities you would assign the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band of all time." Then when you compare those early years to the later, in older Beatles there is a definite shift in songwriting and image. The later Beatles are psychedelic trippers with nonsense only stoned people could get into. Think Live and Let Die, Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Yellow Submarine.
Now I know I have to be missing something. My mom is a big Beatles fan, which probably is true with most women of her generation. My Dad told me that he didn't buy into any of it at first. He was a Beach Boys fan. But, later even he succumbed the to the tractor-beam pull of those mop tops. There's a prominent and definite generation thing going on here because my Aunt Jan and my Aunt Maria, both older sisters to my dad and mom respectively, are Elvis fans.
As a product of the super-lame-pop 80's, I can look back on both generations and see the benefits. I love Elvis and anything he did. If you want to know who had an influence on American Rock and Roll look at The King, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Richie Valanz, and Buddy Holly. And the "British Invasion" was not only the Fab Four, but also included a band on a completely different level than the Beatles; in my opinion on of the best bands of all time: The Rolling Stones. To me, there is no comparison.
After all this I gotta say that the early years are definitely better than the later years. I really like I Saw Her Standing There and Today is Your Birthday. Even drugged-out, super-hippie John Lennon's Imagine and Superstar are really good songs that I enjoy.
I can just imagine it now. You're driving your beautiful candy-apple red Chevy Malibu with the lovely Uma Thurman sitting next to you. You pull up to Jack Rabbit Slims, as someone once said, "a wax museum with a pulse." you say, "Come on kitty-cat, I want to get a steak." She purrs back to you that "you can get a steak right here daddy-o, even an Elvis man would love it."
She's probably right, I think I would.

[ducktapehero]

I never really liked the Beatles so by default I guess I'm an "Elvis type" although I must second Lefty in his praise of Waylon.

[ducktapehero]

The best Elvis songs you never heard. http://www.kingtinued.com/

[lefty o]

ive never been a follow the leader type, so some food for thought- if people of that generation were such beatles fans, how come Johhny Cash outsold $$$$$ the beatles in 1969?
the beatles may have had tens of thousands of 14yr old girls screaming, but Elvis had thousands of 14yr old girls in his bedroom. HMMMMmmmmmm!

the whole point of this poll is are you a Elvis kind of guy or a Beatles kind of guy ? I'm an Elvis kind of guy :guitar: even though I don't have any of his CD's

If I was going to vote for a band not on this poll..Pink Floyd would be my choice

[Oxford]

Just based on upon the number of CD's in my collection, Elvis would win hands down. But, of course, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the Beatles, too. However, Johnny Cash CD's is the all time champ in my choice of music.:nod:

[lefty o]

BP, i understand the context of this post. its just that some of us are neither like any of the beatles or elvis.

I'm not like Elvis or the Beatles either but who do you identify more with ? who do you like more ?

[lefty o]

waylon.

nope no thanks

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by lefty o

BP, i understand the context of this post. its just that some of us are neither like any of the beatles or elvis.

I don't think you can neatly divide EVERYONE into those two groups; there's too much territory in between.

Yup; I'm a lib. I believe in nuances...

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe the people in the world can divided into two kinds, and those who don't.

[NRAJOE]

Hard to pick...but if I had a choice between listening to either one for eternity, it would be the Beetles...more diverse music...Sorry "King"...

[whirlwind]

i have a healthy respect for both,their contributions to music were invaluable,but personally i never cared for either...i'd rather listen to george jones or perhaps black sabbath,the mama's and papa's,buddy holly heck id rather listen to ricky nelson than the beatles or elvis

[NRAJOE]

I prefer "Insane Clown Posse" actually....