chester that's the great question; at the risk of seeming cynical i remember the RS Magazine cover on the tenth anniverary of Jim Morrison's death. The big front page headline under a shirtless pic was something very close to:

"He's Young. He's Hot. He's Dead."

and u know for me that was the moment RS Mag became almost the total bad joke and nothing much more to me. The best writers had mostly come and gone by then anyway; and the nature of the whole thing got totally Wennerized and diluted thru the prism of his personal picadillos and profits...

i see all these colorful murals around a supposedly 'hip' neighborhood in lost angeles and you really can't look too long in any direction before seeing Kurt, Jimi, Jim, Janis and assorted famous drug and alcoholic tragedies all in bright happy colors w requiste faux hipster angst here and there....some kind of endless soap opera fasination with the dead young Romeos and Juliettes. it's weird to me; i don't like it personally....

i know that sinatra elvis footage u talk of and E is great there; he just move his neck a little and the girls start shreiking; frank is smiling but know even the Chariman of the Board is the little guy in this lineup; it's glorious.

on the other hand i have to respectfully diagree about Sinatra. I didn't get it at first and for a long time frankly, no pun intended...but i did after awhile; i got Nice & Easy and a few of that era at the end of my teens and was slowly able to get into it then finally kind of 'get' it. the guys phrasing and sound and interpretive gift and natural drama and finesse is overwhelmingly vital and good; he's really exciting if u get the right year and the right show. Frank Sinatra is totally the read dealo as far as I'm concerned. I've got several of his albums over the years and he's his own holy ground for me. I never thought I'd say that as a kid or even as a young man; i was late to the party. Sinatra is an enormous talent. imfo. he cut all those things absolutely live with full on orchestra too. that's a lot of focus and committment and confidence....i know he can seem kinda pedestrian kind of talent if u look at the guy fighting middle and then old age all the time in our younger lives but Frankie's the real deal...and I love it whenever I hear any thing of him. I listen at home too....there goes my rock and roll credibility to many but me no care; frankie's got it....u got to pick the albums aned periods but Frankie's got it imo. he knows ALL about that swing thing...a remarkable career...remarkable guy...

Quote
stanlove

Quote
floodonthepage
How can this thread be kicked up again on the heels of Chuck's passing? Chuck is the King, always will be..

Why would Berry passing have anything to do with Elvis vs Jagger?

Berry is no higher up the ladden now then he was a week ago. I know this is news to many people but when a performer dies it doesn't all of a sudden make them greater.

Well, Berry is the King, so there's no higher up the "ladden" for him to go, number one. Number two, you might consider asking whoever brought up Chuck's name earlier in this thread. Thanks for your sarcastic attempt to educate me though. Speaking of education, I know it's news to many people, but the word is L-A-D-D-E-R.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-21 05:07 by floodonthepage.

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
stanlove

Quote
floodonthepage
How can this thread be kicked up again on the heels of Chuck's passing? Chuck is the King, always will be..

Why would Berry passing have anything to do with Elvis vs Jagger?

Berry is no higher up the ladden now then he was a week ago. I know this is news to many people but when a performer dies it doesn't all of a sudden make them greater.

Well, Berry is the King, so there's no higher up the "ladden" for him to go, number one. Number two, you might consider asking whoever brought up Chuck's name earlier in this thread. Thanks for your sarcastic attempt to educate me though. Speaking of education, I know it's news to many people, but the word is L-A-D-D-E-R.

You mean in your opinion Berry is the King. Just one of many opinions. And Berry's death doesn't change where he is in the rankings just like I said. Could you point out to me where you ever called Berry the King before anywhere? before he died of course.

And just for your information nothing I posted in my previous post was sarcastic.

But great catch pointing out that I hot the N key instead of the R key. Huge contribution on your part. We need more like you. ( sarcasm )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-21 20:49 by stanlove.

Quote
floodonthepage
Mick destroys Elvis.....as a showman, as a musician, and certainly as a songwriter. Elvis is all show and sparkle, that is it. If he resurrected today I wouldn't walk to the end of my block to see him.

You don't like Elvis, fair enough. But "all show and sparkle"? Please. I suggest reading Justin's post on the first page; it may be three years old by this point, but his words are 100% spot on. Elvis deserves all the praise and respect he receives. His influence simply cannot be overrated.

music is personal, record sales, longevity means nothing, do you like it or not, be it elvis ,the stones, bee gees whoever, elvis will be the one for me, love the stones seen them 8 times, I was 16 one afternoon august 16th 1977 watching a brando movie, when w.cronkite busted in and announced elvis had died,it felt a bolt of electricity went thru my body, it was like a family member had died,not before or since have I felt like that when a celebrity died,so whos better elvis or mick, don't know but music rock music specially benifited from them both

Quote
stanlove

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
stanlove

Quote
floodonthepage
How can this thread be kicked up again on the heels of Chuck's passing? Chuck is the King, always will be..

Why would Berry passing have anything to do with Elvis vs Jagger?

Berry is no higher up the ladden now then he was a week ago. I know this is news to many people but when a performer dies it doesn't all of a sudden make them greater.

Well, Berry is the King, so there's no higher up the "ladden" for him to go, number one. Number two, you might consider asking whoever brought up Chuck's name earlier in this thread. Thanks for your sarcastic attempt to educate me though. Speaking of education, I know it's news to many people, but the word is L-A-D-D-E-R.

You mean in your opinion Berry is the King. Just one of many opinions. And Berry's death doesn't change where he is in the rankings just like I said. Could you point out to me where you ever called Berry the King before anywhere? before he died of course.

And just for your information nothing I posted in my previous post was sarcastic.

But great catch pointing out that I hot the N key instead of the R key. Huge contribution on your part. We need more like you. ( sarcasm )

Good lord, of course it's just my opinion. It's a forum full of opinions. What does it matter if I ever called Berry the King on this forum before? Berry came up in THIS thread, as did other musicians for that matter. You think I'm calling him the king because he's dead? No. No I am not. Though while it may not changes the "rankings" for you, which is of course YOUR opinion, it may change things for someone else out there, and that would be THEIR opinion. Again, it's a forum full of opinions.....and buttons. Seems I've pushed yours.

"I hot the N key". Wow



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-22 00:02 by floodonthepage.

As far as I'm concerned, Elvis was nothing more than a cover band with one performer. He invented nothing. Mick Jagger is a fully-functioning musician with the ability to sing, write, play guitar and other instruments. Elvis had good vocals, in some ways better than Mick, but he lacked originality. He was dubbed "king of rock and roll" by the parents of his fans, and it was originally uttered with contempt. Teenagers adopted the term, and it stuck.

Chuck Berry was and always had been the true progenitor of Rock and Roll. I won't get into the debate about him "stealing the songs" from Johnny Johnson, but he had a mixture of Blues, R&B, Country, and who knows what else. But this isn't a thread about Chuck vs. anyone.

And, Elvis' most prolific period was cut short when he entered the army, Mick is still going. No contest.

Quote
roller99
As far as I'm concerned, Elvis was nothing more than a cover band with one performer. He invented nothing. Mick Jagger is a fully-functioning musician with the ability to sing, write, play guitar and other instruments. Elvis had good vocals, in some ways better than Mick, but he lacked originality. He was dubbed "king of rock and roll" by the parents of his fans, and it was originally uttered with contempt. Teenagers adopted the term, and it stuck.

Chuck Berry was and always had been the true progenitor of Rock and Roll. I won't get into the debate about him "stealing the songs" from Johnny Johnson, but he had a mixture of Blues, R&B, Country, and who knows what else. But this isn't a thread about Chuck vs. anyone.

And, Elvis' most prolific period was cut short when he entered the army, Mick is still going. No contest.

Well said, amen.

Elvis Presley versus Mick Jagger: 150 kg versus 65 kg.

Sorry if mentioned before in this thread I only read the title.

Quote
RipThisBone
Elvis Presley versus Mick Jagger: 150 kg versus 65 kg.

Sorry if mentioned before in this thread I only read the title.

If we're talking boxing, my money's on latter day Elvis, but a bit unfair he being a heavyweight vs. Mick the lightweight. Mick can probably run faster though.

But Elvis in his early prime vs. Mick in his prime might be a closer match - still have to go with Elvis though.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
floodonthepage

Good lord, of course it's just my opinion. It's a forum full of opinions. What does it matter if I ever called Berry the King on this forum before? Berry came up in THIS thread, as did other musicians for that matter. You think I'm calling him the king because he's dead? No. No I am not. Though while it may not changes the "rankings" for you, which is of course YOUR opinion, it may change things for someone else out there, and that would be THEIR opinion. Again, it's a forum full of opinions.....and buttons. Seems I've pushed yours.

"I hot the N key". Wow

If anything, it seems stanlove is the one who pushed your buttons, not the other way around. Yes, this is a board full of many people with differing opinions. But there is a difference between an opinion like "I prefer Mick Jagger/Chuck Berry over Elvis" and spouting absurdities like Elvis was "all show and sparkle," while ignoring his talents and the massive impact he had on rock and roll and music in general.

By the way, do you really have room to give spelling and grammar lessons when you're typing sentences like what I've bolded?

Quote
HotStuff92

Quote
floodonthepage

Good lord, of course it's just my opinion. It's a forum full of opinions. What does it matter if I ever called Berry the King on this forum before? Berry came up in THIS thread, as did other musicians for that matter. You think I'm calling him the king because he's dead? No. No I am not. Though while it may not changes the "rankings" for you, which is of course YOUR opinion, it may change things for someone else out there, and that would be THEIR opinion. Again, it's a forum full of opinions.....and buttons. Seems I've pushed yours.

"I hot the N key". Wow

If anything, it seems stanlove is the one who pushed your buttons, not the other way around. Yes, this is a board full of many people with differing opinions. But there is a difference between an opinion like "I prefer Mick Jagger/Chuck Berry over Elvis" and spouting absurdities like Elvis was "all show and sparkle," while ignoring his talents and the massive impact he had on rock and roll and music in general.

By the way, do you really have room to give spelling and grammar lessons when you're typing sentences like what I've bolded?

You are right, Hotstuff92. That is a mistake, indeed. I laughed just now, actually. Thank you. But no buttons pushed here. The "it's news to many", condescending tone (my opinion is better than yours vibe) was so ridiculous that I decided to push back to see what might be under it. But ultimately, I know many of us on this forum take music very seriously, myself included.....but good lord, that whole thing was getting needlessly wound up. I must say though, it is not absurd to have an opinion that Elvis is all show and sparkle. Come on. No more than your opinion that Elvis was more than that. I think his show and sparkle was largely what people liked about him. But for me, it's pretty transparent that he wasn't much more than that. There are many, many musicians who weren't much more than that who still had an impact on rock and roll and music in general.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-22 03:26 by floodonthepage.

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
HotStuff92

Quote
floodonthepage

Good lord, of course it's just my opinion. It's a forum full of opinions. What does it matter if I ever called Berry the King on this forum before? Berry came up in THIS thread, as did other musicians for that matter. You think I'm calling him the king because he's dead? No. No I am not. Though while it may not changes the "rankings" for you, which is of course YOUR opinion, it may change things for someone else out there, and that would be THEIR opinion. Again, it's a forum full of opinions.....and buttons. Seems I've pushed yours.

"I hot the N key". Wow

If anything, it seems stanlove is the one who pushed your buttons, not the other way around. Yes, this is a board full of many people with differing opinions. But there is a difference between an opinion like "I prefer Mick Jagger/Chuck Berry over Elvis" and spouting absurdities like Elvis was "all show and sparkle," while ignoring his talents and the massive impact he had on rock and roll and music in general.

By the way, do you really have room to give spelling and grammar lessons when you're typing sentences like what I've bolded?

You are right, Hotstuff92. That is a mistake, indeed. I laughed just now, actually. Thank you. But no buttons pushed here. The "it's news to some", condescending tone (my opinion is better than yours vibe) was so ridiculous that I decided to push back to see what might be under it. But ultimately, I know many of us on this forum take music very seriously, myself included.....but good lord, that whole thing was getting needlessly wound up. I must say though, it is not absurd to have an opinion that Elvis is all show and sparkle. Come on. No more than your opinion that Elvis was more than that. I think his show and sparkle was largely what people liked about him. But for me, it's pretty transparent that he wasn't much more than that. There are many, many musicians who weren't much more than that who still had an impact on rock and roll and music in general.

Fair enough; perhaps it's just the way of posting on the internet, where a post could come across as condescending or overly defensive or what have you, when there was no such intention from the poster - but I digress!

Perhaps I don't quite get what you mean, when you say the sparkle was part of his appeal. From your perspective, is being all about the show and sparkle inherently a bad thing? Would you say Elvis - and anyone else who had a large influence on music despite having a large emphasis on style - deserve respect and recognition for their talents, impact, and influence?

As for how I feel, I do believe Elvis was so much more than that. For me, the fact that he had one of the most dynamic and diverse voices in all of popular music is what draws me to him. I don't find much issue with him not being a songwriter, as he still had a huge part in the arrangements of what he recorded - whether it be a cover of somebody else or a song written specifically for him. The example Justin used in his post illustrates this; Elvis took Big Mama Thornton's Hound Dog, a blues song, and completely transformed it into a rock and roll classic. Elvis also had a significant part in the creative process in regards to songs written specifically for him. Tommy Durden, one of the co-writers of Heartbreak Hotel, said he didn't recognize it as the song he had written once he heard the recording. He certainly never took a song and played it note for note as he originally heard it.

At the end of the day, a title like "King of Rock and Roll" or anything of that nature, is rather pointless. Roller99 said Elvis did not invent anything; this is something I will agree with, for the most part. That said, I don't think Chuck Berry, or any single individual, is responsible for inventing rock and roll either. The first rock record is highly debatable, but for what it's worth Elvis did debut before Chuck Berry - but even then, Ike Turner debuted before him, and Fats Domino before him, so on and so forth. I'm more of the belief that it was a movement lead by a number of people, with Elvis Presley at the forefront. It's a movement that would simply not have happened the way it did if not for him, and I don't believe for one second this could be achieved if Elvis had no substance to back up the style. And it's why if I had to give the crown to anybody, it would have to be Elvis.

[www.youtube.com]
Elvis Presley Promised Land [1973]
written by Chuck Berry

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
stanlove

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
stanlove

Quote
floodonthepage
How can this thread be kicked up again on the heels of Chuck's passing? Chuck is the King, always will be..

Why would Berry passing have anything to do with Elvis vs Jagger?

Berry is no higher up the ladden now then he was a week ago. I know this is news to many people but when a performer dies it doesn't all of a sudden make them greater.

Well, Berry is the King, so there's no higher up the "ladden" for him to go, number one. Number two, you might consider asking whoever brought up Chuck's name earlier in this thread. Thanks for your sarcastic attempt to educate me though. Speaking of education, I know it's news to many people, but the word is L-A-D-D-E-R.

You mean in your opinion Berry is the King. Just one of many opinions. And Berry's death doesn't change where he is in the rankings just like I said. Could you point out to me where you ever called Berry the King before anywhere? before he died of course.

And just for your information nothing I posted in my previous post was sarcastic.

But great catch pointing out that I hot the N key instead of the R key. Huge contribution on your part. We need more like you. ( sarcasm )

Good lord, of course it's just my opinion. It's a forum full of opinions. What does it matter if I ever called Berry the King on this forum before? Berry came up in THIS thread, as did other musicians for that matter. You think I'm calling him the king because he's dead? No. No I am not. Though while it may not changes the "rankings" for you, which is of course YOUR opinion, it may change things for someone else out there, and that would be THEIR opinion. Again, it's a forum full of opinions.....and buttons. Seems I've pushed yours.

"I hot the N key". Wow

I think to have clarity we need to go outside of forum members opinions.
We measure who is greatest by their success and how well known they are to the rest of the world.
No one can argue that Elvis was the biggest star of them all, even if you think he did Karaoke, it doesn't matter, he was (is) the most famous man on the planet with 600 million record sales.
Mick comes second in comparison to Elvis but he doesn't come second.
Chuck Berry, although making a huge impact or Rock & Roll in particular, comes no where near top of the ladder you refer too.
I love Chuck and his contribution to the music i love but he is not even in the top ten on the ladder. Sorry.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-22 13:32 by stone4ever.

Stone4ever,

World recognition does not, for me, make someone great or important. I see your point about Elvis' acclaim, but Chuck did more for the MUSIC than Elvis in my opinion. Elvis is your King, I get it, but to say Chuck is nowhere near the top 10 just sounds silly to me. For me, even Elvis, who I think is overrated for his contributions, would make it into a top 10 list of early rockers who changed the music, albeit, toward the bottom of the list.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-22 16:08 by floodonthepage.

Quote
HotStuff92

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
HotStuff92

Quote
floodonthepage

Good lord, of course it's just my opinion. It's a forum full of opinions. What does it matter if I ever called Berry the King on this forum before? Berry came up in THIS thread, as did other musicians for that matter. You think I'm calling him the king because he's dead? No. No I am not. Though while it may not changes the "rankings" for you, which is of course YOUR opinion, it may change things for someone else out there, and that would be THEIR opinion. Again, it's a forum full of opinions.....and buttons. Seems I've pushed yours.

"I hot the N key". Wow

If anything, it seems stanlove is the one who pushed your buttons, not the other way around. Yes, this is a board full of many people with differing opinions. But there is a difference between an opinion like "I prefer Mick Jagger/Chuck Berry over Elvis" and spouting absurdities like Elvis was "all show and sparkle," while ignoring his talents and the massive impact he had on rock and roll and music in general.

By the way, do you really have room to give spelling and grammar lessons when you're typing sentences like what I've bolded?

You are right, Hotstuff92. That is a mistake, indeed. I laughed just now, actually. Thank you. But no buttons pushed here. The "it's news to some", condescending tone (my opinion is better than yours vibe) was so ridiculous that I decided to push back to see what might be under it. But ultimately, I know many of us on this forum take music very seriously, myself included.....but good lord, that whole thing was getting needlessly wound up. I must say though, it is not absurd to have an opinion that Elvis is all show and sparkle. Come on. No more than your opinion that Elvis was more than that. I think his show and sparkle was largely what people liked about him. But for me, it's pretty transparent that he wasn't much more than that. There are many, many musicians who weren't much more than that who still had an impact on rock and roll and music in general.

Fair enough; perhaps it's just the way of posting on the internet, where a post could come across as condescending or overly defensive or what have you, when there was no such intention from the poster - but I digress!

Perhaps I don't quite get what you mean, when you say the sparkle was part of his appeal. From your perspective, is being all about the show and sparkle inherently a bad thing? Would you say Elvis - and anyone else who had a large influence on music despite having a large emphasis on style - deserve respect and recognition for their talents, impact, and influence?

As for how I feel, I do believe Elvis was so much more than that. For me, the fact that he had one of the most dynamic and diverse voices in all of popular music is what draws me to him. I don't find much issue with him not being a songwriter, as he still had a huge part in the arrangements of what he recorded - whether it be a cover of somebody else or a song written specifically for him. The example Justin used in his post illustrates this; Elvis took Big Mama Thornton's Hound Dog, a blues song, and completely transformed it into a rock and roll classic. Elvis also had a significant part in the creative process in regards to songs written specifically for him. Tommy Durden, one of the co-writers of Heartbreak Hotel, said he didn't recognize it as the song he had written once he heard the recording. He certainly never took a song and played it note for note as he originally heard it.

At the end of the day, a title like "King of Rock and Roll" or anything of that nature, is rather pointless. Roller99 said Elvis did not invent anything; this is something I will agree with, for the most part. That said, I don't think Chuck Berry, or any single individual, is responsible for inventing rock and roll either. The first rock record is highly debatable, but for what it's worth Elvis did debut before Chuck Berry - but even then, Ike Turner debuted before him, and Fats Domino before him, so on and so forth. I'm more of the belief that it was a movement lead by a number of people, with Elvis Presley at the forefront. It's a movement that would simply not have happened the way it did if not for him, and I don't believe for one second this could be achieved if Elvis had no substance to back up the style. And it's why if I had to give the crown to anybody, it would have to be Elvis.

You make a good case for Elvis. For me ultimately, Chuck is far more of an innovator and Elvis is more of an interpreter. In fact, I would even put Buddy Holly and Fats Domino above Elvis for their innovations and ideas. Still, to answer your question about recognition, I do think Elvis' deserves recognition for his showmanship, and even some of his interpretations of songs, but for me he is not the king, despite being incredibly popular for what he did. Of course, I realize this thread started as an 'Elvis vs Mick' thread. And there again, I think Mick has got Elvis by a Moonlight Mile in every way.

Compare Elvis as a solo artist to Mick as a solo artist.

Quote
floodonthepage
Stone4ever,

World recognition does not, for me, make someone great or important. I see your point about Elvis' acclaim, but Chuck did more for the MUSIC than Elvis in my opinion. Elvis is your King, I get it, but to say Chuck is nowhere near the top 10 just sounds silly to me. For me, even Elvis, who I think is overrated for his contributions, would make it into a top 10 list of early rockers who changed the music, albeit, toward the bottom of the list.

Actually i don't even like Elvis that much, i was just stating facts.
600 million record sales, more than the Beatles and he died in 77'
Its unparalleled for any band let alone a solo artist. Elvis has outsold the Stones by 400 million record sales.
Chuck berry isn't even in the top 50 if you must know, i was letting Chuck off lightly.

Elvis is an icon like Dean, Monroe or Brando. Of course he is the greatest. He is the first real global iconic rock star. He is underrated as an artist because of the Vegas years.

Elvis invented teenage and the male sex (symbol) in music basically.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Elvis is an icon like Dean, Monroe or Brando. Of course he is the greatest. He is the first real global iconic rock star. He is underrated as an artist because of the Vegas years.

Finally someone who gets it

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Elvis is an icon like Dean, Monroe or Brando. Of course he is the greatest. He is the first real global iconic rock star. He is underrated as an artist because of the Vegas years.

Finally someone who gets it

Vegas years in't what tarnished his status as an artist.. his movies and overdosing on a toilet did. His iconic status skyrocketed years after his death.
Mick's iconic rise will eclipse Elvis' after he passes.

Elvis was a huge star even before he made it big - his vocals are unsurpassed. He was a natural overflowing with genuine charisma. A small town truck driver who rose to the top.
Sure there were missteps throughout his career (bad movies, etc. - just like Mick) but that doesn't take away from his natural talent and legendary status.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Elvis is an icon like Dean, Monroe or Brando. Of course he is the greatest. He is the first real global iconic rock star. He is underrated as an artist because of the Vegas years.

Finally someone who gets it

Vegas years in't what tarnished his status as an artist.. his movies and overdosing on a toilet did. His iconic status skyrocketed years after his death.
Mick's iconic rise will eclipse Elvis' after he passes.

Elvis didn't overdose on a toilet, he died of chronic constipation, if it was drugs they were prescription drugs.
Interesting article that suggests Elvis was destined to die young in the link below.
[www.mirror.co.uk]

did not know about the heart and genetics thing. a tremendous loss; he deserved some peace of mind and heart; and to have maybe had some time to mature and clear up and out. it's a false equivalecny to make these kinds of comparions I think; not fair to either artists legacy and the cultural imporance of what they've done.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-21 21:48 by hopkins.

Quote
wonderboy
Compare Elvis as a solo artist to Mick as a solo artist.

OK -- Elvis started at age 21 and Mick at 41.

Without his original backing band, Elvis would have been nowhere.

Elvis was a singer -- that's it. He had the right look at the right time, but musically there was nothing groundbreaking after the first couple of years.

The real innovative talent in early rock music, the one who could take what was newly established to the next level, was Buddy Holly.

By the way, if you haven't already, everyone should hear Link Wray's take on Heartbreak Hotel.

Link to Link's 1958 recording: [www.youtube.com]

Link to Link's 2000 recording: [www.youtube.com]

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
wonderboy
Compare Elvis as a solo artist to Mick as a solo artist.

OK -- Elvis started at age 21 and Mick at 41.

Without his original backing band, Elvis would have been nowhere.

Elvis was a singer -- that's it. He had the right look at the right time, but musically there was nothing groundbreaking after the first couple of years.

The real innovative talent in early rock music, the one who could take what was newly established to the next level, was Buddy Holly.

Seriously Stonehearted "Elvis was just a singer " really ?? do you believe that ?
I think you are far to intelligent to believe that. Elvis was an amazing performer, when he started out there was no one like him. Mick could never move like him , Elvis was so mush more than a singer.

The fact that Elvis died a drug addict on or near his toilet doesn't diminish what he accomplished in my opinion, many rock stars overdosed on drugs.Thankfully, Mick didn't.

Body of work, and longevity does count in this debate, however.
As does how career ended. Elvis' ended horribly as he was widely ridiculed (National Lampoon and others) by many for his weight and his obvious mental issues as a result of his addiction (visit to Nixon etc.)

To try to say that his addiction and the way he died doesn't play a major factor into the equation or debate is absurd.

Mick wins, hands down.