John Lennon

^also a good choice

the communist?

King of Pop (that isn't actually rock music).

:laughing:

Yeah, no.

If by better you mean spectacularly awful than yes.

:rofl:

Michael and the several writers he worked with pushed the genre forward together. I don't think an artist gets to play the influence card when they also had songwriters with them writing what they thought the public wanted to hear.

I personally like Prince's music more than Michael's. Obviously me suggesting that one can be called better than the other was a joke (hence the smiley).

Michael was influencial in the way he peformed, both as a singer and dancer, he also wrote a lot of his most memorable songs.

But really, with the logic people use to discredit Michael, you'd might as well say that Motown artists weren't very talented or important at all. Just because they had a team of people write their songs for them.

The Temptations, The Supremes, The Four Tops, Martha and The Vendellas.

They weren't that great were they? I mean, Berry Gordy, Norman Whitford, Barrett Strong, Ashford & Simpson, Frankie Wilson, Smokey Robinson. Those were the songwriters, not them.

So before you say The Temptations were the greatest R&B group of all time, just remember. At least Color Me Badd wrote their own songs.

Are you retarded? Michael was the performer. He had the charisma, the vocal skills, the dance moves, everything. Everyone else that helped Michael write those records, with the exception of Quincy Jones, are just a lot of faceless names.

I never said Michael wasn't talented or that he wasn't influential. The difference between his talent and his influence is that he should get all of the credit for his talent. And yes Sodacake, he was a great performer. But if live performance is part of the criteria, shouldn't it be without question that Elvis Presley isn't the king of rock and roll?

Yeah I just changed the subject on your asses

Seriously, you're an idiot.

I love you too :)

I love ya Soda.

But this forum isn't quite as "anything goes" as DDD, there's a bit of strictness, try to be a little nicer, I don't want you to get banned. :(

I like both of you guys, can't we just get along?

I can't be nice all the time.

must be Little Richard.
He is the writer of all the Rock n Roll classics ... and the greatest performer

Fats Domino or Esquerita. Even if Bunker Hill dominates them both.

http://www.peoplequiz.com/images/bio...y.jpg-1478.jpg

..and the thread can be closed.

Not really.
Buddy was the ****ing man, but he was no king.


http://mob160.photobucket.com/albums...asiladkins.jpg

Hasil Adkins is a different story however.

^^Erase both from history, one at a time, and we'll see who makes the biggest whole in music history.

Hmmmmmm
Well Weezer won't exist.

^^There's always that bonus

Elvis wasnt the starting of rock n roll just one of the first white guys but he did dominate rock n roll for a while so is definitly a strong contender

Influential artists
 

Bucks fizz and shakin stevens-living legends

That was after a hefty blow on a joint my friends, sorry about that. in all seriousness i would say Elvis but that's my rock n roll music choice. If it's rock music in general i would have to say jim morrison.

I don't know what the criteria are - hey, Kings aren't elected, they just take their rightful place, correct?

It has to be Elvis.

As has been noted, his was the face, voice and hips of rock and roll - he effectively kicked off the rock and roll party and kept it swinging right into the 1970s, when by rights it should have given way to the musical trends that followed.

Just because someone starts a trend, it doesn't mean that they were either better at it or better at "ruling" the music.

Elvis, while he was alive, completely ruled - it's easy to forget that now he's not here, like it is difficult to appreciate the impact of Glenn Miller, Frank Sinatra and Little Richard, but people continued to play his songs, slick back their hair and generally want to be him in so many other ways right through the 50s, 60s and 70s. There's a guy in my town who thinks he IS Elvis, and there's a guy works down the chip shop...

Little Richard wasn't king of rock and roll - he was a huge explosion of wildness into a scene that was already considered wild, and his legacy lives on - but his energy died out pretty quickly - he had no momentum.

Likewise Chuck Berry. Guitar God and all that, with a few stonking numbers, but only Elvis actually kept it going the whole time and grew (quite literally) with his subjects.

Ask someone to name an Elvis song. Easy right - they can probably name several.

Now a Little Richard song. Bet they can't name as many - they may get "Tutti Frutti" or "Lucille", but that's about it.

Now Chuck Berry. "My Ding-a-Ling". Hmm. Not much of a legacy, eh Chuck?

Then there were the films - Presley had the whole media machine in the palm of his hand right from the start, while Little Richard and Chuck Berry were simply flavours of the month. Films? What films!


Harsh but fair, I think.


Elvis = The King.

Why the heck do we insist on comparing artists in this way. The way I see it, there are three categories: Phenomenal rockers, then there are those that are listen-to-able, then there are the others.

In the Phenomenal rockers category, i dont bother to rank them, that would be useless and I think it would make me have less of an appreciation for the music

...and I dont think elvis should even be on this list, unless celebrity is the main factor under consideration. When I have conversations with friends and over the internet about the legends of rock, elvis never comes up. One of the biggest celebrities, but as far as the music is concerned, not worth a mention. i know i stepped on many toes, but so be it

That was exactly the scenario I tried to avoid - I wasn't getting into aspects of "good", "bad", "better", "phenomenal" or any other nonsensical opinionated term - I made a case, dependent on criteria, which I think is a reasonably strong one.

As I said - dependent on criteria.

And if Elvis never comes up with your friends, maybe he's either taken as read, because he was the first Rock and Roll star proper and hence his legend status is assumed to be undisputed (which, frankly, it is!) - or maybe you and your small circle of friends don't talk about or maybe even don't like his music. Takes all sorts.

You forgot in my opinion

Since you don't qualify your opinion, I think you'll find that few will rise to such a tired troll.

:D

As Far as I'm concerned, Elvis never was the King of Rock, The man was a Ballard singer.
"Jailhouse Rock" is about the only Number i know that came close to Rock-n-Roll.
All just marketing hype as far as i make out.

I think Elvis should have the title, he was young, handsome and had a multi-style about him. Didn't he actually sell the most albums?

Elvis
 

Elvis is a little milder than Chuck Berry, so I would vote for him.

I'm not really sure... :/

Many people deserve the title.

But Elvis would have to be the most influential.

It sounds strange of me to say it, but I've never really enjoyed Elvis' music. I recognize his importance in the grand scheme, but to me rock and roll is a lot more about guitar and a lot less about gyrating your hips wildly. That so many people call him The King doesn't mean he is, in my opinion.

The Killer himself. Mr. Jerry Lee Lewis!

Can someone close this awful thread?

Anyone who can recognize vocal ability and charisma would know that Elvis who is considered THE KING, is not considered such just for the sake of it! Many others have great attributes but I don't think any had the vocal diversity of Elvis,with the raw vocal prowess of eg. Jailhouse Rock to the high c cressendo of An American Trilogy to the sweetness of Are You Lonesome Tonight. I really can't comprehend why it's even being discussed. Apologies to Elvis begrudgers whom I have encountered over the years with a disdain for him like some hate cats. (ha ha the Hillbilly Cat in this case)

Elvis died fat & sweaty on the toilet. Now that's what I call poetic justice.

Elvis was and still is the king of music,he could sing it all,rock,gospol,blues,ballads.He played the guitar and piano very well.If the none beleivers would just do some research they would relize just how talented elvis was.

Then why didn't he play guitar and piano in the records?

Elvis was an image, designed very carefully to be as popular as possible. Without the hired songwriters and the session musicians he was nothing.