So Are You an Elvis Person or a Beatles Person?

“Think of what you're saying,

You can get it wrong and still you think that it's alright,

Think of what I'm saying,

We can work it out and get it straight, or say good-night.

We can work it out.

We can work it out.”
--Lennon/McCartney “We Can Work It Out,” 1965.


In the film “Pulp Fiction,” Uma Thurman’s character utters that there are two kinds of people: Elvis people or Beatle people. You can be an Elvis fan who likes the Beatles and a Beatles fan who likes Elvis; but when it comes to a real choice; you can only choose one.

I am a Beatles person.

I doubt it is a generational/age thing. My older brother Mark (only four years here, folks) is an Elvis fan. Kim is an Elvis fan and she is two years younger than me. My Mom is an Elvis person; my Dad probably hates both. My sister is a Beatle person.

The reality is that both changed the direction of their generation. Whereas Elvis is often given credit for creating rock music; it was the Beatles who defined and shaped it.

I think it is less about accomplishments and more about attitudes.

Elvis placated to the masses in my opinion. He made money, but he played nice with his rebellious attitude. The Beatles started out very much the same; however, with the “We are more popular than Jesus” and defending their use of recreational drugs; they seemed to actively define rebellion. They were not acting; they were experiencing.

Elvis lost his crown as the King of Rock by fulfilling his obligations to the United States Armed Forces. The Beatles chose to walk away from their fame as it was causing a world that was crashing in upon them.

Elvis created fantastic singles; the Beatles did the same and then experimented with the concept of total albums. I am giving this difference between the two as an act of change of modern technology.

The Beatles commanded a generation to reexamine itself; Elvis never recognized his power to do the same.

The Beatles stood defiant; Elvis ended up standing alone.

As a Beatles fan, I must that the “sappiness” of McCartney bugs me; the lack of talent of Ringo also annoys me. When McCartney is not trying to play glib, he is almost as brilliant as Lennon. Harrison was always my “rock” in the band, as his guitars and his seldom acknowledged intellect and wit added so much more to the band.

I think most Elvis fans would argue his “Hollywood” sell-out has to be a bit of a downer. Still, one cannot deny that his rhythm and blues period was amazing; and he certainly was able to play to different audiences by feeling equally comfortable with Gospel, Country, Rock, R and B, and Pop. I will leave the “soundtrack” period to people with more familiarity than me; as I cannot stand it.

To me the Beatles gave me a direction. Elvis was about fun; the Beatles were about a purpose. I would safely argue the Beatles have more to do with originality than does Elvis; but that would be rough—as I doubt Elvis had as much to do with the songwriting chores as Lennon/McCartney/Harrison did.

Whereas the Beatles may have recorded Drive My Car, I am the Walrus, and Baby in Black; they never did anything as wretched as In the Ghetto, Frankie and Johnny, and Blue Christmas.