PEOPLESCHICKEN
Dysfunctional Member
Honestly, we could argue about this shit all day. But its just a parlor game. Wanna nitpick about musical tastes? How about @Carnzo weird taste in calliope music?
Please don't! It took me the better part of year to give that shit awayI'll just add it to your sportsbook cash.
I told him flat-out "Dude that is gay!"Honestly, we could argue about this shit all day. But its just a parlor game. Wanna nitpick about musical tastes? How about @Carnzo weird taste in calliope music?
LOL had to look it up.Honestly, we could argue about this shit all day. But its just a parlor game. Wanna nitpick about musical tastes? How about @Carnzo weird taste in calliope music?
Your comment poroves you're an idiot. Elvis is and will always be the king of rock n roll. If it wasn't for Elvis there would have been no Beatles.Elvis is no different than the assembly line "stars" of today. I'd compare him to Brittany Spears.
He is very, very good. I think Who's Next is some of his best work though, "Won't Get Fooled Again, Baba O'Reilly, Behind Blue Eyes etc. I like every song on the album. Was very disappointed, not to mentioned surprised, to find out about him and the child pornography stuff though. I can't look at him the same way anymore.Ohh I think Tommy and Quadrophenia are even better. Pete IMO is pretty much a damn musical genius
Yes, "Band" is another misnomer. My daughter, years ago when she was a teenager, tried to tell me that N'Sync was a better "band" than the Beatles. I told here Bands play music,N'Sync just dances and sings.Musically talented can't argue that. But Michael Jackson is arguably the best entertainer ever and he was pretty much musically inept.
People often misuse the term musician.
Nah, some other no talent hack would have been discovered instead of Elvis.Your comment poroves you're an idiot. Elvis is and will always be the king of rock n roll. If it wasn't for Elvis there would have been no Beatles.
Now that's one you can argue with no issues.Yes, "Band" is another misnomer. My daughter, years ago when she was a teenager, tried to tell me that N'Sync was a better "band" than the Beatles. I told here Bands play music,N'Sync just dances and sings.
McCartney should just retire.
He was better when he collaborated with Lennon.
Dude are you really this dumb? You stated Entertainer and the Beatles cannot touch Elvis when it came to entertainment. Read the other responses and get back with me.
I did see him once with one of his post-Wings bands. It was on his 60th birthday and he made some comment about this bringing a whole new meaning to "sixties music". he did a very touching tribute to George Harrison playing some songs on the ukelele that Harrison really liked to doHe loves what he does and so do many others. No reason to retire. If you don't like it, don't listen. I'm not a huge fan of his recent stuff, but I'll still check it out and see him on tour if I can. He puts on a fantastic concert, just needs to resist the urge to play some of the oddball Wings stuff that is a bit cringy.
On a tangent, I always get a kick out of the idea that the Stones were the bad boys and the Beatles the mop-topped pop sensations.
The Beatles were from one of the toughest towns ever, while the Stones were fucking art school grads from silver spoons en sech
I'm with ya. At least the Beatles went out on top, not hanging on forever like Elvis or the Stones and losing their relevance.The white jumpsuit Vegas years were entertaining for you? Fat, bloated and drugged? Early Elvis is great, beyond that I lose interest quickly.
I agree. he has a style where you know its him like Eric Clapton or Billy Gibbons.The Stones were sloppier and had rougher voices, which gave them that swagger. Richards' rhythm guitar is irreplaceable.
Certainly, he was far from the only one