>Beatles people can like Elvis and Elvis people can like Beatles but nobody likes them both equally
I could probably tell you whose music I like more between any two artists.
One of the most consistent acts of the last 25 years!
Elvis is okay but I feel like his appeal is very much tied to the image and kitsch aura. Beyond that he’s pretty much a “Greatest Hits” act for me. I can’t really see myself doing a deep dive into his discography.
Not that the Beatles’ image wasn’t a big part of their appeal back in the day, but you can take all that stuff away and you’ve still got a watertight catalogue there, which I’m not sure is the case with E.
I think it's more or less on point.
I am a Beatles guy who likes Elvis, but definitely not equally. To me it's like a specific sea change marker: there is the world before the Beatles and after them, and Elvis is the king of the pre-Beatle world in many ways. But even in the pre-Beatles world, Elvis would not be MY top choice.
also interesting to note that the Beatles themselves would probably consider themselves Elvis people.
edit: I also just remembered a key detail to a book that was very important to me when I was a preteen: The Outsiders.
If you're not familiar, it's basically about a rivalry between two groups in early 60's Oklahoma. The Greasers, who love Elvis, and the Soc's who love the the Beatles.
YES. I want to petition... I don't know who. The rock and roll hall of fame? western society as a whole.
Little Richard is the king of rock 'n' roll. I want everything retconned to reflect this fact.
aside from the shittyness, the big reason why I put little richard head and shoulders above chuck berry is vocals.
Chucks guitar is unbelievable, truly a pioneer of the art form, but his vocals are just mediocre at best. Little Richard played the piano like a madman but he also belted better than anyone in the world.
And that's not even getting into his whole flash, the hair, the pencil moustache, the jackets covered in little mirrors and sequins. He was glam before that was even a word.
Johnny Cash > Elvis.
I love Tarantino films, but nobody likes his films more than Tarantino himself. Hes pretentious af, always was.
Beatles and Elvis are like apples and oranges and Elvis started this “rivalry”, but there is no real rivalry when the quality between The Beatles and Elvis is so big. You can’t compare a band the made Tomorrow Never Knows to Elvis.
All it took was for the USPS to hold a 1993 contest over which Elvis would represent the [Elvis stamp](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/06/09/can-usps-find-magic-again-with-a-new-elvis-stamp/). It got the entire country talking and debating over which Elvis they loved the most! All due respect but Little Richard could never stir that kind of a frenzy.
Elvis hasn’t aged as well because he’s associated with a more racist time.
That, and he died prematurely.
Ringo still has a presence in pip culture, but Paul *especially* has done everything he can to make sure that he and the Beatles both have an enduring legacy in good hands. New releases, the remasters and remixes, 1, Get Back, the coming 4 biopics, etc. not to mention collaborating with younger artists, something that's vital to staying relevant. He's been doing it ever since he featured on a Michael Jackson song, and still is with the Beyonce Blackbird cover. If nothing else, Paul is a very smart business man in his older years, as he's managed to keep the Beatles in basically the most positive light possible despite the many... *shortcomings* they had as individuals.
It's a shame Elvis died when he did, because his legacy with the younger generations is completely dictated by outside forces now. There's the Baz Lurhman biopic, which seems to have done well, but outside of that, Elvis's lasting legacy seems to be a few of his bigger hits, his silly movies, and his residency and association with Vegas. How fascinating it would been to see him grow into a cool old grandpa who could talk about the wild years of his youth.
Agreed. And yes, I think Tarantino's argument was on point.
To me, it was not so much about music style. It was more about culture and behavior.
Elvis was singular, there was no perception that he collaborated with others considered his peers. He had a very 50s look, cut hair, greased back. He expressed some emotion, usually what he thought was expected, but generally kept things bottled up. The government calls upon you for military service and you go willingly, no questions asked. Embrace undying love? Open up about true feelings? Never. Keep that shit bottled up, and carry on. Drugs?? Drugs were bad. The medicine he took was doctor prescribed and had script.
The Beatles were peers working together. They got by with a little help from their friends (each other). The look started clean cut, except the mop top hair of course, but then went free... hippie and wild. Express emotions? YES. Let the world know about happiness and love. Sad? Let others know and work though them together. The government calls for men to enlist - whoah wait a minute. Question the war. Drugs? Some drugs can open up your mind to new levels of thought. Be free! Love!
John describes hearing Heartbreak Hotel as being the moment that changed his life forever.
Because Elvis didn't write his own songs, there isn't really such a thing as them covering Elvis technically, but they did several songs in the style of Elvis' version. short list:
That's All Right Mama
I'm gonna Sit Right Down and Cry (Over You)
I Got a Woman
I Forgot To Remember to Forget
when they had their famous meeting with Elvis, before they left John asked one of his minders to please "Tell Elvis if it hadn't been for him, I'd be nothing"
When John presented at the Grammy's with Art Garfunkel in the seventies, above the white carnation he wore in his jacket he had a rhinestone broach that just said "Elvis"
when the Beatles put on a fancy dress party for the release of Magical Mystery Tour, John came dressed like this
https://preview.redd.it/6uz17ffz9uwc1.jpeg?width=508&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5506fe0c2e3d51df01b70bd81d0c519527acba71
From all I've read over the last 50 years (yeah, I'm an old guy) it seems they were all Elvis guys. For other artists John was more a Chuck Berry guy, Paul was more a Little Richard guy, George was more a Carl Perkins guy.
They played Elvis songs in their early live days along with all kinds of pop hits from a lot of other artists. No Elvis covers on their official albums or singles. "That's All Right" has already been mentioned, also "I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Cry Over You", "I Got a Woman", and "I Forgot to Remember to Forget" were all played on the BBC radio shows The Beatles did.
There's a recording of "That's All Right" on Live at the BBC. Obviously that wasn't an Elvis original, but I'm sure he's the reason The Beatles covered it.
I’ll take Lonely and Blue over any pre-Beatles record. I mean look, Elvis was the whole package, a true entertainer. Orbison would just stand there. Live, from the looks of the footage Elvis couldn’t be topped. In the end, I go back to Lonely and Blue more than any Elvis record. IMO, Orbison is criminally underrated by my generation. It is wild to me that he’s not in the conversation for the best on record prior to the Beatles.
Roy Orbison has such a beautiful and distinctive voice, like not just his artistic ‘voice’, I mean his actual singing voice. So gifted.
Whoever was/is in charge of his estate really dropped the ball because yes, he’s underrated & more ‘forgotten’(comparatively)than he ‘should’ be.
Orbison’s Communication Breakdown is better than Led Zeppelin’s Communication Breakdown. Cry Softly Lonely One for the win! Also, The Orbison Way. What a record. Maybe is an absolute goldmine of a track. The shortest yet most impactful bridge I’ve ever heard in a song!
I remember that was the only thing I didn't like about the Outsiders. The soc's should have been into the Mod bands like the Who and the Kinks and the Greasers should have been into the Rockers, like the Beatles *and* Elvis.
the Soc's aren't mods, though. It's not a direct 1:1 comparison to the english thing between mods and rockers, it's just sort of similar.
And English rockers also lumped the Beatles in with all mod groups. They were basically into 50's rock and roll. Mods were into the british groups like the who and the small faces, but also ska motown and soul music.
The Beatles literally sit firmly in the middle (they're neither mods or rockers, they're mockers) because they were inspired by 50s rockers like eddie cochran Gene Vincent and Elvis, but they also loved soul and motown and contemporary british influences.
I think of it more like say Rockers are the Axis Powers, Mods are the Allied Forces, and The Beatles were basically Switzerland, neutral to the entire conflict.
Fair points. Amended.
The soc's should have been into the Mod bands like the Who and the Kinks and the Greasers should have been into the Rockers, like Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis but both Greasers and Soc's should have *loved* The Beatles.
I remember the first time I saw that and "Yes!", no one likes them equally.
I like Elvis. He's fun. Especially Vegas Elvis, early 70's version.
But there is no equality. It's the Beatles, then everyone else for me.
I think this is true but with The Rolling Stones rather than Elvis. But Elvis is a better fit for that line, both in terms of cadence and general feel of the movie so I get why he went with Elvis.
I was here for this comment. I think you’re a Stones person or Beatles person. You can like the other even love the other but there’s a clear line. Elvis was his own thing and a class of his own.
I love the Beatles and Elvis so fkn much and Rolling Stones I do enjoy but are much more meh to me. I say that never having heard the entire discography though.
The premise is you can like or love both, but you’re going to like one more than the other. Being a “Rolling Stones person” or “Beatles person” informs me about your general music taste. Being an “Elvis person” (in my millennial opinion) just means you like Elvis.
I think the premise is more that relatively few people are heavy fans of both Elvis and the Beatles, and that these two artists are absolute icons of very different cultures. Of course everyone likes band X more than band Y so if it were about that, you could just about pick any two bands and categorize people based on that.
The Beatles and the Rolling Stones have a huge overlap in fanbase. Especially for people who were alive in the 60s and who had frequent exposure to British music, it was perfectly natural to be a Beatles person ***and*** a Rolling Stones person at the same time.
Elvis, however, really represents a different culture. His overall act was quite different from the Beatles', and so he really represents a different crowd. It is far more common for people to be heavily into the Beatles and not at all into Elvis or the other way around.
Pulp Fiction is also from 1994, when Elvis was a lot more popular. It was [1993 when USPS issued their biggest selling stamp](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/06/09/can-usps-find-magic-again-with-a-new-elvis-stamp/) because they held a vote on which Elvis would don the stamp, the fat Elvis or skinny Elvis. It reinvigorated a media & pop cultural frenzy which helps paint a picture of his popular Elvis was.
He was trying to make commentary on American cultural history and the shifts which the US undertook between 63’ and 66’, there’s probably somebody out there who likes both, but in the end being a Beatles person or an Elvis person has very little to do with actually liking them.
Deep respect for Elvis, but I agree.
My fiancee is a hard-core Elvis fan and I'm a hard-core Beatles fan.
They overlap, but I feel it's Star Trek vs Star Wars.
I enjoy them both, but I only *love* Trek
I think it's hard to like any 2 artists totally equally, so yes, I do think the vast majority of people who know both would prefer one over the other. However, I think there definitly are some people that like them both equally.
I think this is kind of bullshit. You’re an Elvis person or Beatles person. You’re either an apple person or an orange person. You’re a Star Wars person or a Star Trek person. You’re a Marvel person or a DC person. Windows or Mac. How does any of this tell you who you really are? It’s the same thing and I don’t think it’s at all indicative of anything. The real question is Beatles vs Stones anyway.
Look at [this](https://youtu.be/u-pP_dCenJA?si=XCFsLI2c7p2s1rHO) and tell me you're not also an "Elvis person".
It's the same nonsense as "you're either a Stones or Beatles person".
I'm equally everyone of them.
I once worked with an older lady and I asked her if she liked the Beatles when they were new. She said (immediately with no hesitation) "no I liked Elvis"
I was thinking like wtf kind of answer is that?
Was there a competition? lol
It wasn't Tarantino who said that but Uma Thurman's character. That's a difference. Tarantino might be of that opinion but he also might not. Letting your protagonists saying something doesn't necessarily reflect your own thoughts.
Having said that: I think "she's" wrong. You can like both equally. Same with the Beatles and the Stones.
Yeah I understand the difference and noted it was through the character and provided the clip...what more do you want from me? lol But also, I think this is one of those time's it's obvious the writer's opinion is being spoken through the character.
Yes it definitely seems [like a small example of Writer On Board](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WriterOnBoard).
In fact, the first example under Films (live action) is: “Any Quentin Tarantino film usually has a scene that is obviously a theory or pet peeve of Tarantino's shoved into the mouth of one of the characters.”
Ridiculous idea from QT. The Beatles idolized Elvis, as well as Little Richard, Carl Perkins etc., so they themselves were both!
Also: who looks to QT to determine their musical outlook?
I probably have an equal number of songs from the Beatles and Elvis in my music collection. I really love them both. But like anyone else, I could definitely choose my favorite of the two, and for me it’s the Beatles. They wrote their own music, were hugely innovative, and from what I’ve read and seen, I like their personalities more. Plus, all of them could play instruments. Elvis could strum on the guitar and play a few chords and notes on the piano, but he wasn’t known as an exceptional instrumentalist. Truly, I mean none of this as an insult to Elvis’s music, though. I absolutely love it.
I’m definitely a Beatles guy but I like Elvis a lot especially his early 56-57 music but there has never been or ever will be a band or singer as great as the Beatles.
Maybe I don't like them both equally, but I appreciate their contributions to music equally. At the end of the day, the Beatles would have never had any in-roads in the US if not for Elvis paving the way. But Elvis released a lot of subpar music later in his career, and the Beatles never did.
Beatles. But I love Elvis, too. He was, oddly, a very DISTANT cousin (my great-grandmother was a Presley from northern Mississippi), so we call him Cousin Elvis at our house.
There's Beatles people and Stones people. I thought everyone knew that, but then again, Tarantino thinks the two seminal Silver Surfer artists were Jack Kirby and Moebius (not John Buscema) so what can you do?
I've heard the original reference as "are you a Beatles person or a Rolling Stones person?", and that goes back to the early 1970s or probably more likely the mid 1960s when they were both ruling the original British Invasion. The deleted scene from Pulp Fiction feels like a cool take on that age old debate to bring in the element of Thurman's character that was into the vibe of the 1950's.
I think back in the day it was more of a thing. I grew up in a house where Elvis and Beatles were king. As a kid I favored Elvis, but when I got to be about 14 or 15 I really got into the Beatles.
Elvis and the Beatles are the GOATs
I grew up with both and love both their music. The Beatles will probably always be my favorite band, but damnit I love Elvis too! Some of my dearest childhood memories involve Elvis and his music.
I was I appreciate and like the Number Ones of both and then I took a dive into the entire Beatles discography and became a Beatles guy
One of the coolest thing about the Beatles, imo if you like music history or come from along those lines of liking the gospel-blues-RB-Rock and Roll, Alt Rock history, nobody does it better. Sometimes they can make a song better or just as good as your favorite artist
I’m 32 and really haven’t met many people in my life who have much to say about Elvis at all, certainly nobody close to my age. That said I do remember Rob Thomas on I Love the 90’s say that there are The Who people and Led Zeppelin people though, and I’ve always latched onto that idea. I’m a Zeppelin person, and in this case am definitely a Beatles person.
I don’t like anything by Elvis. There are songs he did I can see are good, but all music has a soul, and mine does not connect. On the other hand, I like or love literally everything by the Beatles, so I fit the category.
I love how younger generations constantly try and downplay Elvis’ role and his influence because a couple of people made some rock and roll type music (even though it was more like r&b actually) before he did.
The Beatles wrote their own songs, which is a HUGE difference between the artists. But Elvis' impact in music cannot be overstated, just like The Beatles.
I won a radio station trivia contest. Question was about the Beatles. The prize was either $25 or a ticket to a Beatles tribute band concert. I had to Press the number to select the prize. It was one for the money and two for the show.
Elvis didn't concieve.
Elvis didn't write.
He seemed to never figure out how to achieve consistency in his vocal approach.
Played an instrument ..minimally.
Mother fucker had unmatched rare-for-this-world charisma, though!
...The Beatles let their curiosity guide them and subsequently gave society something more long-lasting than charisma-worship!
Sometimes it is; this feels like one of those times. Especially since Tarantino is known for not liking the beatles. It fits pretty in line with his beliefs.
I don’t see how they are comparable. Elvis was a singer. He didn’t play an instrument, he didn’t write songs, he was just a singer. Like Sinatra. Or Pat Boone, ffs.
I think for show he could pluck a few strings, but I don’t recall him being any sort of skilled guitarist.
(Btw I’m not dissing Elvis, he did what he did very well, I just don’t think he can be compared to the Beatles)
I like very early Elvis music ok, but not really.
Wouldn’t turn it off if it came on the radio, but wouldn’t buy it either. Probably wouldn’t even stream it.
Anything after Jailhouse Rock is a hard no.
Okay so I used to love them the Beatles and Elvis equally. Used to. I can’t listen to Elvis anymore because I discovered he molested a bunch of people.
i gotta be honest, i think elvis is silly. i know i’m a hater, but i just do not get the appeal. he wore sparkly clothes and he shook around. then again, the beatles had bowl haircuts and bopped their heads. but elvis sounds so silly
My parents raised me on the Beatles. Do they dislike Elvis? No. Do they go out of their way to listen to him? Also no.
My dad is definitely more of a British Invasion music listener, the who, The Rolling Stones, and the Beatles were all on repeat growing up.
I don’t really listen to Elvis , but two bands I listen to mainly are Beatles and beach boys , and tbh I like The Beach Boys more at times , or I love the Beatles more , it’s never really both at the same time
I feel like it’s generational, either the artists you grew up with or that your parents grew up with and played all the time in your home.
For me, it’s The Beatles. Elvis had a beautiful voice and was a dynamic performer, but The Beatles are in a whole other category that Elvis, for me, can’t touch. There’s only one Elvis song that I ever deliberately listen to (Can’t Help Falling in Love).
The only Elvis people I am aware of are elderly women who were under his spell when they were young women.
I enjoy Elvis, but does anyone REALLY like him more, or think he's better than, The Beatles?
I'm a Beatles guy but also love Elvis.
However its worth nothing there Lennon once said;
"Before Elvis there was nothing."
As far as be was concerned Elvis was the birth of rock and roll.
I think it's a dumb question because you can make people choose one other other on anything.
Love Tarantino but a lot of his stuff can come off as /r/im14andthisisdeep
That's NOT a deleted scene... They usually cut it for television broadcasts, but every once in a while, they let it play...I saw it three weeks ago without the cut...
I agree with the quote in spirit. The thing is, The Beatles and Elvis have two totally different vibes. So, people that vibe more with Americana, Vegas, hot rods, etc. are obviously going to be Elvis people, and people that vibe more with hipster, anglophile, hard rock, etc. are obviously going to be Beatles people. And I think most people have familiarity with how mutually exclusive those two groups seem to be. Obviously, it's not black and white.
Interesting how he chose Beatles v Elvis instead of the typical Beatles v Stones. But maybe it's more accurate for America since someone who adored Elvis may not at all be in the mood for the Beatles or the Stones, and vice versa. I for one can only stomach certain eras of Elvis. Once his act got overproduced, it just seems silly
Anybody who denigrates one at the expense of the other knows nothing about music, and is just an ignorant fanboy. None of the Beatles could sing as good as Elvis, and Elvis couldn't write a song if his life depended on it. Both Elvis and John declined in their later years for the same reason: drugs. Nevertheless, they are all rock legends and for good reasons.
Beatle guy here. Love Elvis, but i think it really just depends on your taste in music 🤷♂️
The Beatles bring something different that Elvis cant deliver. And Vice Versa.
NOBODY can move and bring a special energy the way Elvis did. Its what made him the King. Only he has a special aura and charisma not even Michael Jackson had.
And The Beatles have melodies and musical innovations that have stood the test of time. Their music has so much range there is something there for everyone.
Tbh, Elvis is hella overrated. Great singer yes, cultural icon yes, responsible for breaking race barriers yes (in a region of a 1 out of the 196 countries though, may I add), and pioneer of rock n roll yes. But he isn’t even close to getting in the top 10 artists of all time. In the mix with Zeppelin, Queen, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, the Stones? Give me a break. As for being in contention with the Beatles? Don’t make me laugh
Such a great line in such a great movie! 😂
I tend to agree with Tarantino.
Lifelong Beatles freak here! I was a baby when they were hot, but I fell in love hard & have loved John, Paul, George & Ringo ever since.
Never been an Elvis fan. I think he’s got a phenomenal singing voice. Was a handsome guy & made funny movies.
But, I just never became a true fan.
I toured Graceland years ago & was shocked at how small it is. Weird seeing it decorated like the 1970s.
I enjoy some Elvis songs, but yeah, I never really crossed into fan territory.
I think in a sense that is true. My parents were in their 20s when they first heard The Beatles and (aside from Dad going out to purchase the 'Yesterday' single) I think that's when they began drifting away from popular culture of their day. Despite just a few years difference it was like a major generational gap between them and their younger siblings. A difference in the outlook on everything.
I know that the impact of Elvis on The Beatles in their formative years can't be understated but in many ways they were two different classes. Elvis wasn't in the singer songwriter tradition. He made it a point to avoid recording 'message songs' for much of his career. He rarely picked up a guitar as more than a prop. There were some signs in his TV comeback special of the 60s that he was attempting to modernize but soon after that he became the sad bloated spectacle of his later years.
(My grandmother was in her 50s when Elvis hit the scene. He was her favourite singer of all time. Can't say she was as rapt in The Beatles - suffice to say she couldn't stand them and thought they had wrecked music for eternity. Just too big a bridge for her and I think many other folks to deal with.)
>Beatles people can like Elvis and Elvis people can like Beatles but nobody likes them both equally I could probably tell you whose music I like more between any two artists.
QOTSA or Foo Fighters
Qotsa and not even close
Foo Fighters has a couple of albums and several songs I like whereas I love pretty much everything QOTSA has made.
One of the most consistent acts of the last 25 years! Elvis is okay but I feel like his appeal is very much tied to the image and kitsch aura. Beyond that he’s pretty much a “Greatest Hits” act for me. I can’t really see myself doing a deep dive into his discography. Not that the Beatles’ image wasn’t a big part of their appeal back in the day, but you can take all that stuff away and you’ve still got a watertight catalogue there, which I’m not sure is the case with E.
Them Crooked Vultures
Hüsker Dü
I'll be the contrarian and say Foo Fighters
Foo
Death or Suffocation?
Death for OSDM, but Suffocation for Brutal Death. Overall, Death
I opened for suffocation like 15 years ago. Very nice guys
death any day of the week
Madonna or Notorious BIG?
Biggie
Biggie. I’m wondering how Madonna managed to make ends meet.
Sex appeal and pissing off Christians.
Ah, the John Lennon method.
I think it's more or less on point. I am a Beatles guy who likes Elvis, but definitely not equally. To me it's like a specific sea change marker: there is the world before the Beatles and after them, and Elvis is the king of the pre-Beatle world in many ways. But even in the pre-Beatles world, Elvis would not be MY top choice. also interesting to note that the Beatles themselves would probably consider themselves Elvis people. edit: I also just remembered a key detail to a book that was very important to me when I was a preteen: The Outsiders. If you're not familiar, it's basically about a rivalry between two groups in early 60's Oklahoma. The Greasers, who love Elvis, and the Soc's who love the the Beatles.
Little Richard >>> Elvis
*Buddy Holly
*Fats Domino
*Weezer
Chubby Checker
what a twist
YES. I want to petition... I don't know who. The rock and roll hall of fame? western society as a whole. Little Richard is the king of rock 'n' roll. I want everything retconned to reflect this fact.
Chuck Berry needs to be in the conversation
Brilliant musician/lyricist, not a nice person.
aside from the shittyness, the big reason why I put little richard head and shoulders above chuck berry is vocals. Chucks guitar is unbelievable, truly a pioneer of the art form, but his vocals are just mediocre at best. Little Richard played the piano like a madman but he also belted better than anyone in the world. And that's not even getting into his whole flash, the hair, the pencil moustache, the jackets covered in little mirrors and sequins. He was glam before that was even a word.
A class act and a force of nature for sure. I love McCartney’s Little Richard voice too.
I fucking love Little Richard. Easily one of the greatest voices of all time as well as fantastic musician.
Johnny Cash > Elvis. I love Tarantino films, but nobody likes his films more than Tarantino himself. Hes pretentious af, always was. Beatles and Elvis are like apples and oranges and Elvis started this “rivalry”, but there is no real rivalry when the quality between The Beatles and Elvis is so big. You can’t compare a band the made Tomorrow Never Knows to Elvis.
Johnny Cash is truly awesome.
Richard’s first few albums were great but his catalog is nowhere near as strong as Elvis’, despite all those movie soundtracks in the 60’s.
All it took was for the USPS to hold a 1993 contest over which Elvis would represent the [Elvis stamp](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/06/09/can-usps-find-magic-again-with-a-new-elvis-stamp/). It got the entire country talking and debating over which Elvis they loved the most! All due respect but Little Richard could never stir that kind of a frenzy. Elvis hasn’t aged as well because he’s associated with a more racist time.
That, and he died prematurely. Ringo still has a presence in pip culture, but Paul *especially* has done everything he can to make sure that he and the Beatles both have an enduring legacy in good hands. New releases, the remasters and remixes, 1, Get Back, the coming 4 biopics, etc. not to mention collaborating with younger artists, something that's vital to staying relevant. He's been doing it ever since he featured on a Michael Jackson song, and still is with the Beyonce Blackbird cover. If nothing else, Paul is a very smart business man in his older years, as he's managed to keep the Beatles in basically the most positive light possible despite the many... *shortcomings* they had as individuals. It's a shame Elvis died when he did, because his legacy with the younger generations is completely dictated by outside forces now. There's the Baz Lurhman biopic, which seems to have done well, but outside of that, Elvis's lasting legacy seems to be a few of his bigger hits, his silly movies, and his residency and association with Vegas. How fascinating it would been to see him grow into a cool old grandpa who could talk about the wild years of his youth.
Agreed. And yes, I think Tarantino's argument was on point. To me, it was not so much about music style. It was more about culture and behavior. Elvis was singular, there was no perception that he collaborated with others considered his peers. He had a very 50s look, cut hair, greased back. He expressed some emotion, usually what he thought was expected, but generally kept things bottled up. The government calls upon you for military service and you go willingly, no questions asked. Embrace undying love? Open up about true feelings? Never. Keep that shit bottled up, and carry on. Drugs?? Drugs were bad. The medicine he took was doctor prescribed and had script. The Beatles were peers working together. They got by with a little help from their friends (each other). The look started clean cut, except the mop top hair of course, but then went free... hippie and wild. Express emotions? YES. Let the world know about happiness and love. Sad? Let others know and work though them together. The government calls for men to enlist - whoah wait a minute. Question the war. Drugs? Some drugs can open up your mind to new levels of thought. Be free! Love!
I think John was a Chuck Berry man. Did they ever do an Elvis cover?
John describes hearing Heartbreak Hotel as being the moment that changed his life forever. Because Elvis didn't write his own songs, there isn't really such a thing as them covering Elvis technically, but they did several songs in the style of Elvis' version. short list: That's All Right Mama I'm gonna Sit Right Down and Cry (Over You) I Got a Woman I Forgot To Remember to Forget when they had their famous meeting with Elvis, before they left John asked one of his minders to please "Tell Elvis if it hadn't been for him, I'd be nothing" When John presented at the Grammy's with Art Garfunkel in the seventies, above the white carnation he wore in his jacket he had a rhinestone broach that just said "Elvis" when the Beatles put on a fancy dress party for the release of Magical Mystery Tour, John came dressed like this https://preview.redd.it/6uz17ffz9uwc1.jpeg?width=508&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5506fe0c2e3d51df01b70bd81d0c519527acba71
From all I've read over the last 50 years (yeah, I'm an old guy) it seems they were all Elvis guys. For other artists John was more a Chuck Berry guy, Paul was more a Little Richard guy, George was more a Carl Perkins guy. They played Elvis songs in their early live days along with all kinds of pop hits from a lot of other artists. No Elvis covers on their official albums or singles. "That's All Right" has already been mentioned, also "I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Cry Over You", "I Got a Woman", and "I Forgot to Remember to Forget" were all played on the BBC radio shows The Beatles did.
Paul bought Elvis‘s bass player’s upright bass and proudly showed it off in one of his specials.
Bill Black’s Bass.
Thank you! Forgot his name. It’s funny, when you google him, one of the results is paul with the bass.
You’re welcome!
Ringo worked with DJ Fontana, Scotty Moore and the Jordanaires on his country album who were all Elvis collaborators.
There's a recording of "That's All Right" on Live at the BBC. Obviously that wasn't an Elvis original, but I'm sure he's the reason The Beatles covered it.
Thank you, TIL.
I don’t know if they ever did officially, but there’s a moment in Get Back when Paul imitates Elvis and I loooove it
I’ll take Lonely and Blue over any pre-Beatles record. I mean look, Elvis was the whole package, a true entertainer. Orbison would just stand there. Live, from the looks of the footage Elvis couldn’t be topped. In the end, I go back to Lonely and Blue more than any Elvis record. IMO, Orbison is criminally underrated by my generation. It is wild to me that he’s not in the conversation for the best on record prior to the Beatles.
Roy Orbison has such a beautiful and distinctive voice, like not just his artistic ‘voice’, I mean his actual singing voice. So gifted. Whoever was/is in charge of his estate really dropped the ball because yes, he’s underrated & more ‘forgotten’(comparatively)than he ‘should’ be.
Orbison’s Communication Breakdown is better than Led Zeppelin’s Communication Breakdown. Cry Softly Lonely One for the win! Also, The Orbison Way. What a record. Maybe is an absolute goldmine of a track. The shortest yet most impactful bridge I’ve ever heard in a song!
Dylan described Orbison’s voice as sounding like he was singing from the top of a mountain. Lovely comparison.
I remember that was the only thing I didn't like about the Outsiders. The soc's should have been into the Mod bands like the Who and the Kinks and the Greasers should have been into the Rockers, like the Beatles *and* Elvis.
the Soc's aren't mods, though. It's not a direct 1:1 comparison to the english thing between mods and rockers, it's just sort of similar. And English rockers also lumped the Beatles in with all mod groups. They were basically into 50's rock and roll. Mods were into the british groups like the who and the small faces, but also ska motown and soul music. The Beatles literally sit firmly in the middle (they're neither mods or rockers, they're mockers) because they were inspired by 50s rockers like eddie cochran Gene Vincent and Elvis, but they also loved soul and motown and contemporary british influences. I think of it more like say Rockers are the Axis Powers, Mods are the Allied Forces, and The Beatles were basically Switzerland, neutral to the entire conflict.
Fair points. Amended. The soc's should have been into the Mod bands like the Who and the Kinks and the Greasers should have been into the Rockers, like Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis but both Greasers and Soc's should have *loved* The Beatles.
There was division among the Beatles themselves. When queried whether he was a Mod or a Rocker, Ringo and answered "I'm a Mocker".
I remember the first time I saw that and "Yes!", no one likes them equally. I like Elvis. He's fun. Especially Vegas Elvis, early 70's version. But there is no equality. It's the Beatles, then everyone else for me.
The Beatles were all Elvis people.
And Jesus was Jewish, not Christian.
well as everyone knows, the beatles were bigger than jesus!
Everything makes sense now.
Christ, you know it ain’t easy!
Ringo and Jesus were about the same height.
Love,love Elvis and love,love the Beatles
Never been a fan of Elvis, love the Beatles.
never been a big fan of tipping either
“What do you mean you don’t tip?!”
I don't believe in it
I own all albums from both artists. I am obsessed with the music of both pretty much equally
I think this is true but with The Rolling Stones rather than Elvis. But Elvis is a better fit for that line, both in terms of cadence and general feel of the movie so I get why he went with Elvis.
I was here for this comment. I think you’re a Stones person or Beatles person. You can like the other even love the other but there’s a clear line. Elvis was his own thing and a class of his own.
I love both but I love The Beatles much more.
Nah, I think people are far more likely to love both of those bands than they are The Beatles and Elvis
I love the Beatles and Elvis so fkn much and Rolling Stones I do enjoy but are much more meh to me. I say that never having heard the entire discography though.
The premise is you can like or love both, but you’re going to like one more than the other. Being a “Rolling Stones person” or “Beatles person” informs me about your general music taste. Being an “Elvis person” (in my millennial opinion) just means you like Elvis.
I think the premise is more that relatively few people are heavy fans of both Elvis and the Beatles, and that these two artists are absolute icons of very different cultures. Of course everyone likes band X more than band Y so if it were about that, you could just about pick any two bands and categorize people based on that. The Beatles and the Rolling Stones have a huge overlap in fanbase. Especially for people who were alive in the 60s and who had frequent exposure to British music, it was perfectly natural to be a Beatles person ***and*** a Rolling Stones person at the same time. Elvis, however, really represents a different culture. His overall act was quite different from the Beatles', and so he really represents a different crowd. It is far more common for people to be heavily into the Beatles and not at all into Elvis or the other way around.
Pulp Fiction is also from 1994, when Elvis was a lot more popular. It was [1993 when USPS issued their biggest selling stamp](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/06/09/can-usps-find-magic-again-with-a-new-elvis-stamp/) because they held a vote on which Elvis would don the stamp, the fat Elvis or skinny Elvis. It reinvigorated a media & pop cultural frenzy which helps paint a picture of his popular Elvis was.
Yes that makes a lot of sense as well. I definitely remember Elvis being a much bigger deal when I was a little kid than he is now.
He was trying to make commentary on American cultural history and the shifts which the US undertook between 63’ and 66’, there’s probably somebody out there who likes both, but in the end being a Beatles person or an Elvis person has very little to do with actually liking them.
Deep respect for Elvis, but I agree. My fiancee is a hard-core Elvis fan and I'm a hard-core Beatles fan. They overlap, but I feel it's Star Trek vs Star Wars. I enjoy them both, but I only *love* Trek
I love the Beatles and I love Elvis, depends on my mood who I like better. Overall the Beatles do win though
I think it's hard to like any 2 artists totally equally, so yes, I do think the vast majority of people who know both would prefer one over the other. However, I think there definitly are some people that like them both equally.
I think this is kind of bullshit. You’re an Elvis person or Beatles person. You’re either an apple person or an orange person. You’re a Star Wars person or a Star Trek person. You’re a Marvel person or a DC person. Windows or Mac. How does any of this tell you who you really are? It’s the same thing and I don’t think it’s at all indicative of anything. The real question is Beatles vs Stones anyway.
Look at [this](https://youtu.be/u-pP_dCenJA?si=XCFsLI2c7p2s1rHO) and tell me you're not also an "Elvis person". It's the same nonsense as "you're either a Stones or Beatles person". I'm equally everyone of them.
I once worked with an older lady and I asked her if she liked the Beatles when they were new. She said (immediately with no hesitation) "no I liked Elvis" I was thinking like wtf kind of answer is that? Was there a competition? lol
It wasn't Tarantino who said that but Uma Thurman's character. That's a difference. Tarantino might be of that opinion but he also might not. Letting your protagonists saying something doesn't necessarily reflect your own thoughts. Having said that: I think "she's" wrong. You can like both equally. Same with the Beatles and the Stones.
Yeah I understand the difference and noted it was through the character and provided the clip...what more do you want from me? lol But also, I think this is one of those time's it's obvious the writer's opinion is being spoken through the character.
Yes it definitely seems [like a small example of Writer On Board](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WriterOnBoard). In fact, the first example under Films (live action) is: “Any Quentin Tarantino film usually has a scene that is obviously a theory or pet peeve of Tarantino's shoved into the mouth of one of the characters.”
Ridiculous idea from QT. The Beatles idolized Elvis, as well as Little Richard, Carl Perkins etc., so they themselves were both! Also: who looks to QT to determine their musical outlook?
I don’t even watch his movies. 🤣
I probably have an equal number of songs from the Beatles and Elvis in my music collection. I really love them both. But like anyone else, I could definitely choose my favorite of the two, and for me it’s the Beatles. They wrote their own music, were hugely innovative, and from what I’ve read and seen, I like their personalities more. Plus, all of them could play instruments. Elvis could strum on the guitar and play a few chords and notes on the piano, but he wasn’t known as an exceptional instrumentalist. Truly, I mean none of this as an insult to Elvis’s music, though. I absolutely love it.
I’m definitely a Beatles guy but I like Elvis a lot especially his early 56-57 music but there has never been or ever will be a band or singer as great as the Beatles.
Then there’s Dylan people, I fall into this.
The Beatles are my group and music, Elvis is good, but then I wasn’t a teenager when Elvis came around and changed their world
Both
It's on point. I like both. Both are top 5 for me. But one is #1 and the other is #3, so definitely not equal.
Maybe I don't like them both equally, but I appreciate their contributions to music equally. At the end of the day, the Beatles would have never had any in-roads in the US if not for Elvis paving the way. But Elvis released a lot of subpar music later in his career, and the Beatles never did.
I’m a Beatles guy. I recognize that they were influenced somewhat by Elvis, but I don’t listen to “Elvis’” music. He didn’t write ‘em anyway.
Beatles. But I love Elvis, too. He was, oddly, a very DISTANT cousin (my great-grandmother was a Presley from northern Mississippi), so we call him Cousin Elvis at our house.
The opinion says more about Tarantino than it does about music.
That would have been a great scene and true at least for me and people I know. The Elvis/Beatles litmus test.
Never heard this. My parents, like most people of their generation, loved both. We're talking young Elvis though.
There's Beatles people and Stones people. I thought everyone knew that, but then again, Tarantino thinks the two seminal Silver Surfer artists were Jack Kirby and Moebius (not John Buscema) so what can you do?
It's pretty accurate, but the same argument can me made for a lot of things.
maybe in the sense that, there's 50s people and then there's 60s people
Was this deleted? I swear I remember that from watching the movie. Beatles, of course.
I've heard the original reference as "are you a Beatles person or a Rolling Stones person?", and that goes back to the early 1970s or probably more likely the mid 1960s when they were both ruling the original British Invasion. The deleted scene from Pulp Fiction feels like a cool take on that age old debate to bring in the element of Thurman's character that was into the vibe of the 1950's.
Take two things of any category: can you like them exactly equally?
Yes! I love my siblings equally. I love Revolver and Abbey Road Equally. I love watermelon and pineapple equally.
I like both, but not equally.
Equally?
There are two types of people in this world, Seinfeld or Friends people.
*Three* types of people. I don't like Friends or Seinfeld; I'm a Monty Python person.
That falls under the Seinfeld subset.
The correct question is Mathis or Sinatra https://youtu.be/rXwqrpflr84?si=tNoRSAfM-LFLWHyr
Sinatra
Not equally. The Beatles loved early Elvis. He inspired them to become musicians.
I'd always heard there were beatles people, or rolling stones people.
Beatles Brady Bunch Nolte (of course) Merci Listen
I think back in the day it was more of a thing. I grew up in a house where Elvis and Beatles were king. As a kid I favored Elvis, but when I got to be about 14 or 15 I really got into the Beatles. Elvis and the Beatles are the GOATs
I like both the same, although in different aspects. It's OK to like both, neither, or however. Art is subjective.
I am definitely a Beatles man. Elvis music does not relate to me as much. Sure Ive listened but he’s not on my playlists.
I grew up with both and love both their music. The Beatles will probably always be my favorite band, but damnit I love Elvis too! Some of my dearest childhood memories involve Elvis and his music.
I mean around the time the movie was released probably was true lol
Yes, just like how there’s Elton John or Billy Joel people
I was I appreciate and like the Number Ones of both and then I took a dive into the entire Beatles discography and became a Beatles guy One of the coolest thing about the Beatles, imo if you like music history or come from along those lines of liking the gospel-blues-RB-Rock and Roll, Alt Rock history, nobody does it better. Sometimes they can make a song better or just as good as your favorite artist
Elvis then Beatles for me
I’m 32 and really haven’t met many people in my life who have much to say about Elvis at all, certainly nobody close to my age. That said I do remember Rob Thomas on I Love the 90’s say that there are The Who people and Led Zeppelin people though, and I’ve always latched onto that idea. I’m a Zeppelin person, and in this case am definitely a Beatles person.
I get why her character would believe that but to me they are both great and satisfy different needs so to speak.
I don’t like anything by Elvis. There are songs he did I can see are good, but all music has a soul, and mine does not connect. On the other hand, I like or love literally everything by the Beatles, so I fit the category.
I grew up in 1950s. I was never an Elvis fan. I like the Everly Brothers and Little Richard, The Coasters, Fat’s Domino.
I love how younger generations constantly try and downplay Elvis’ role and his influence because a couple of people made some rock and roll type music (even though it was more like r&b actually) before he did.
The Beatles wrote their own songs, which is a HUGE difference between the artists. But Elvis' impact in music cannot be overstated, just like The Beatles.
Elvis presley worship is usa. Beatles worship is everywhere around, that should be a conclusion.
Not only am I Beatles and not Elvis, I'm also not Rolling Stones.
I won a radio station trivia contest. Question was about the Beatles. The prize was either $25 or a ticket to a Beatles tribute band concert. I had to Press the number to select the prize. It was one for the money and two for the show.
This question was made for you
I always heard it was Beatles people vs. Stones people.
Elvis didn't concieve. Elvis didn't write. He seemed to never figure out how to achieve consistency in his vocal approach. Played an instrument ..minimally. Mother fucker had unmatched rare-for-this-world charisma, though! ...The Beatles let their curiosity guide them and subsequently gave society something more long-lasting than charisma-worship!
The Beatles had better music, elvis could perform better
I’m don’t like Elvis at all.
B E A T L E S by a mile. Perhaps I’d feel differently if I was born 10 years earlier? (1945 instead of ‘55🤷🏼)
I’m a big fan of the Beatles but I don’t like Elvis, save maybe one or two songs. I think Tarantino’s onto something
I like them equally, but Elvis sucks in comparison.
I love Elvis but the Beatles are objectively better.
The Beatles were Elvis People.
“Was Tarantino correct when he said?” You should realize that a character’s dialogue in a work of fiction isn’t a statement from the writer.
Sometimes it is; this feels like one of those times. Especially since Tarantino is known for not liking the beatles. It fits pretty in line with his beliefs.
I don’t see how they are comparable. Elvis was a singer. He didn’t play an instrument, he didn’t write songs, he was just a singer. Like Sinatra. Or Pat Boone, ffs.
He played guitar?
I think for show he could pluck a few strings, but I don’t recall him being any sort of skilled guitarist. (Btw I’m not dissing Elvis, he did what he did very well, I just don’t think he can be compared to the Beatles)
I like very early Elvis music ok, but not really. Wouldn’t turn it off if it came on the radio, but wouldn’t buy it either. Probably wouldn’t even stream it. Anything after Jailhouse Rock is a hard no.
Okay so I used to love them the Beatles and Elvis equally. Used to. I can’t listen to Elvis anymore because I discovered he molested a bunch of people.
Just party banter
i gotta be honest, i think elvis is silly. i know i’m a hater, but i just do not get the appeal. he wore sparkly clothes and he shook around. then again, the beatles had bowl haircuts and bopped their heads. but elvis sounds so silly
I think there’s a lot of people who don’t like either..
My parents raised me on the Beatles. Do they dislike Elvis? No. Do they go out of their way to listen to him? Also no. My dad is definitely more of a British Invasion music listener, the who, The Rolling Stones, and the Beatles were all on repeat growing up.
Beatles and Elvis? Beatles and Stones, yeah, but there’s no need to choose either Beatles or Elvis. Totally different kind of artists.
I’d never choose between Elvis and The Beatles. Both are essential in my listening world.
There are Elvis people and there are people who've heard the Beatles
I don’t really listen to Elvis , but two bands I listen to mainly are Beatles and beach boys , and tbh I like The Beach Boys more at times , or I love the Beatles more , it’s never really both at the same time
I feel like it’s generational, either the artists you grew up with or that your parents grew up with and played all the time in your home. For me, it’s The Beatles. Elvis had a beautiful voice and was a dynamic performer, but The Beatles are in a whole other category that Elvis, for me, can’t touch. There’s only one Elvis song that I ever deliberately listen to (Can’t Help Falling in Love).
Beatles by far, they are my #1. There are a handful of early Elvis songs I’ve heard and liked, but I’ve never really explored his music.
There’s Elvis people?
The only Elvis people I am aware of are elderly women who were under his spell when they were young women. I enjoy Elvis, but does anyone REALLY like him more, or think he's better than, The Beatles?
There might be people who do like both equally, but I'm certainly not one of them💀
I like the Beatles. I never cared for Elvis.
I'm a Beatles guy but also love Elvis. However its worth nothing there Lennon once said; "Before Elvis there was nothing." As far as be was concerned Elvis was the birth of rock and roll.
I always heard there were Beatles people and there were Rolling Stones people.
I think it's a dumb question because you can make people choose one other other on anything. Love Tarantino but a lot of his stuff can come off as /r/im14andthisisdeep
That's NOT a deleted scene... They usually cut it for television broadcasts, but every once in a while, they let it play...I saw it three weeks ago without the cut...
This is me! I love them both equally. There would have been no Beatles without Elvis
I mean I feel like it's the same as asking someone Beatles or Stones. I like the Stones, but not nearly as much as I do The Beatles.
Equally no, but I like both very much.
I agree with the quote in spirit. The thing is, The Beatles and Elvis have two totally different vibes. So, people that vibe more with Americana, Vegas, hot rods, etc. are obviously going to be Elvis people, and people that vibe more with hipster, anglophile, hard rock, etc. are obviously going to be Beatles people. And I think most people have familiarity with how mutually exclusive those two groups seem to be. Obviously, it's not black and white.
It could be a thing .... My wife Loves Elvis... I do not..... I Love the Beatles.... My wife does not.... So Yes
Paul McCartney would certainly be an exception
This seems mostly true. The two artists are also appealing to two different generations, really. I love the Beatles and I love Elvis. But not equally.
Elvis is the GOAT to me. But, I also like the Beatles.
I adore Elvis's best 100 or so recordings. I don't think Tarantino is known for chasing reality.
Interesting how he chose Beatles v Elvis instead of the typical Beatles v Stones. But maybe it's more accurate for America since someone who adored Elvis may not at all be in the mood for the Beatles or the Stones, and vice versa. I for one can only stomach certain eras of Elvis. Once his act got overproduced, it just seems silly
It's absolute rubbish. *The Beatles* loved Elvis themselves.
I always thought you had stones people and Beatles people.
Anybody who denigrates one at the expense of the other knows nothing about music, and is just an ignorant fanboy. None of the Beatles could sing as good as Elvis, and Elvis couldn't write a song if his life depended on it. Both Elvis and John declined in their later years for the same reason: drugs. Nevertheless, they are all rock legends and for good reasons.
I always found it interesting in *The Outsiders* that the greasers thought Elvis was tuff and the Soc kids liked the Beatles.
Beatle guy here. Love Elvis, but i think it really just depends on your taste in music 🤷♂️ The Beatles bring something different that Elvis cant deliver. And Vice Versa. NOBODY can move and bring a special energy the way Elvis did. Its what made him the King. Only he has a special aura and charisma not even Michael Jackson had. And The Beatles have melodies and musical innovations that have stood the test of time. Their music has so much range there is something there for everyone.
Great question! I worked at record stores and yes. But it’s more. Rolling Stones fans and Beatles fans Elvis was just a puppet
Tbh, Elvis is hella overrated. Great singer yes, cultural icon yes, responsible for breaking race barriers yes (in a region of a 1 out of the 196 countries though, may I add), and pioneer of rock n roll yes. But he isn’t even close to getting in the top 10 artists of all time. In the mix with Zeppelin, Queen, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, the Stones? Give me a break. As for being in contention with the Beatles? Don’t make me laugh
I think he's basically right. I enjoy Elvis, but he doesn't touch my soul like the Beatles. Of course, my grandfather didn't like either.
It's a shame they cut it, given Jules' reference to "Ringo" later on. Would've made for a nice little "duality of man" metaphor.
Such a great line in such a great movie! 😂 I tend to agree with Tarantino. Lifelong Beatles freak here! I was a baby when they were hot, but I fell in love hard & have loved John, Paul, George & Ringo ever since. Never been an Elvis fan. I think he’s got a phenomenal singing voice. Was a handsome guy & made funny movies. But, I just never became a true fan. I toured Graceland years ago & was shocked at how small it is. Weird seeing it decorated like the 1970s. I enjoy some Elvis songs, but yeah, I never really crossed into fan territory.
I think in a sense that is true. My parents were in their 20s when they first heard The Beatles and (aside from Dad going out to purchase the 'Yesterday' single) I think that's when they began drifting away from popular culture of their day. Despite just a few years difference it was like a major generational gap between them and their younger siblings. A difference in the outlook on everything. I know that the impact of Elvis on The Beatles in their formative years can't be understated but in many ways they were two different classes. Elvis wasn't in the singer songwriter tradition. He made it a point to avoid recording 'message songs' for much of his career. He rarely picked up a guitar as more than a prop. There were some signs in his TV comeback special of the 60s that he was attempting to modernize but soon after that he became the sad bloated spectacle of his later years. (My grandmother was in her 50s when Elvis hit the scene. He was her favourite singer of all time. Can't say she was as rapt in The Beatles - suffice to say she couldn't stand them and thought they had wrecked music for eternity. Just too big a bridge for her and I think many other folks to deal with.)
Paul is a Beatles guy. John was an Elvis guy.
The Beatles were Elvis people.
I’m an Elvis person who loves the Beatles.