PDA

View Full Version : bigger musical impact



xsecx
05-24-2007, 10:29 PM
elvis or punk, discuss!

stepinsideissue
05-24-2007, 10:32 PM
Elvis for sure. And thats coming from a punk fan.

rodrigo
05-24-2007, 10:36 PM
elvis or punk, discuss!
c'mon man, thats not the point i was trying to make. we know elvis is more important that punk

stepinsideissue
05-24-2007, 10:39 PM
Is this an aim discussion brought here to the boards?

rodrigo
05-24-2007, 10:51 PM
Is this an aim discussion brought here to the boards?
in some way

SgtD
05-25-2007, 11:18 AM
Elvis was a hero for most, but he never meant shit to me!

xsecx
05-25-2007, 11:32 AM
Elvis was a hero for most, but he never meant shit to me!

ok chuck d.

S110111
05-25-2007, 09:04 PM
Elvis definitely. I love punk, but I have to admit that Elvis had a bigger impact than punk.

xANTI-HUMANx
05-31-2007, 04:25 PM
I don't really care for Elvis, but then I listen to crust and hardcore.

XJohnCampbellX
06-05-2007, 04:08 PM
Depends on how you look at it. Without Elvis there wouldn't be punk, and without punk, almost all music would sound like Fleetwood Mac or Iron Butterfly.

straightXed
06-05-2007, 04:30 PM
Elvis is a slider.

strombollii
06-07-2007, 10:03 AM
There's two ways of looking at it...
I mean, yeah, Punk wouldn't exist without Elvis, so in that regard, Elvis is the winner.

But in today's terms, almost everything owes something to punk...from the crappy mall-rock bands to Have Heart. And besides, punk was more than just music, it was a complete revolution...a new way of looking at music, and also a new way of thinking.

I have to go with punk

xsecx
06-07-2007, 10:14 AM
There's two ways of looking at it...
I mean, yeah, Punk wouldn't exist without Elvis, so in that regard, Elvis is the winner.

But in today's terms, almost everything owes something to punk...from the crappy mall-rock bands to Have Heart. And besides, punk was more than just music, it was a complete revolution...a new way of looking at music, and also a new way of thinking.

I have to go with punk

yeah, but look at music before elvis and after elvis and the effect he had on pop culture after the 1954.

rodrigo
06-07-2007, 01:36 PM
There's two ways of looking at it...
I mean, yeah, Punk wouldn't exist without Elvis, so in that regard, Elvis is the winner.

But in today's terms, almost everything owes something to punk...from the crappy mall-rock bands to Have Heart. And besides, punk was more than just music, it was a complete revolution...a new way of looking at music, and also a new way of thinking.

I have to go with punk
and elvis wasnt?

strombollii
06-07-2007, 10:27 PM
and elvis wasnt?
(and @ dusty)

That's not what I'm saying...actually, I'm not really sure how to rectify my point. Unfortunately, I've (and most of the people on this board) have lived with the direct effects of punk rock on culture and music than Elvis (directly, that is). I think you're comparing two separate entities. Obviously, Elvis has had more impact long-term because he was around x number of years before punk...but punk's (direct, once again) impact is still relevant and noticeable, though it may have built itself off of ideals set prior to the movement itself.

Additionally, punk was a movement involving multiple bands and a massive number of people, whilst Elvis is a sole performer, which furthers my 'incomparable' arguement.

xsecx
06-08-2007, 07:49 AM
(and @ dusty)

That's not what I'm saying...actually, I'm not really sure how to rectify my point. Unfortunately, I've (and most of the people on this board) have lived with the direct effects of punk rock on culture and music than Elvis (directly, that is). I think you're comparing two separate entities. Obviously, Elvis has had more impact long-term because he was around x number of years before punk...but punk's (direct, once again) impact is still relevant and noticeable, though it may have built itself off of ideals set prior to the movement itself.

Additionally, punk was a movement involving multiple bands and a massive number of people, whilst Elvis is a sole performer, which furthers my 'incomparable' arguement.

punk only effected a small portion of the population though.

straightXed
06-08-2007, 10:17 AM
(and @ dusty)

That's not what I'm saying...actually, I'm not really sure how to rectify my point. Unfortunately, I've (and most of the people on this board) have lived with the direct effects of punk rock on culture and music than Elvis (directly, that is). I think you're comparing two separate entities. Obviously, Elvis has had more impact long-term because he was around x number of years before punk...but punk's (direct, once again) impact is still relevant and noticeable, though it may have built itself off of ideals set prior to the movement itself.

Additionally, punk was a movement involving multiple bands and a massive number of people, whilst Elvis is a sole performer, which furthers my 'incomparable' arguement.

you aren't comparing punk and elvis, you are looking to compare the impact

strombollii
06-08-2007, 08:50 PM
punk only effected a small portion of the population though.
So Nirvana (who were directly affected by punk) didn't affect the population? Punk influence spreads over almost all genres of music, definitely not just a small portion of the population.



you aren't comparing punk and elvis, you are looking to compare the impact
How did I not compare the impact? I was saying that the impact itself can't be compared because Elvis' legacy has had more time to manifest itself.

rodrigo
06-08-2007, 09:05 PM
So Nirvana (who were directly affected by punk) didn't affect the population? Punk influence spreads over almost all genres of music, definitely not just a small portion of the population.

yep, small portion.
think about it this way, nirvana or punk didnt influence, for example, Celine Dion or any pop artists... they did influence kids and some bands, but not music as a whole. elvis did.

strombollii
06-08-2007, 11:53 PM
yep, small portion.
think about it this way, nirvana or punk didnt influence, for example, Celine Dion or any pop artists... they did influence kids and some bands, but not music as a whole. elvis did.
Eh, don't get me wrong...I still could be wrong, but I, myself, am able to see punk's impact far more clearly than that of Elvis, today at least.

straightXed
06-09-2007, 07:27 AM
So Nirvana (who were directly affected by punk) didn't affect the population? Punk influence spreads over almost all genres of music, definitely not just a small portion of the population.



How did I not compare the impact? I was saying that the impact itself can't be compared because Elvis' legacy has had more time to manifest itself.

Ummm you wrote this right?

"Additionally, punk was a movement involving multiple bands and a massive number of people, whilst Elvis is a sole performer, which furthers my 'incomparable' arguement."

You aren't trying to compare elvis as a sole performer to punks multiple bands, you are comparing the impact. So it isn't incomparable at all and your additionally should be subtracted!

You also made a comment about comparing two seperate entities, well thats the idea, they are two seperate impacts. You wouldn't compare the same entity would you!

And you spoke of elvis having a long term effect due to him coming around before but you certainly seem to have ignored pre elvis to post elvis times to really establish the depth of the impact. So no i don't think you really compared the impact.

I mean if you are going to say you can't compare it because the impacts were at different times then we could say nothing is comparable unless its pretty much identical. Fact is however both impacts share a lot in common, enough to make them comparable. You won't be able to say what will still be around in 50 years time but you couldn't say that even if they both impacted at the same time.

But alas, punk is dead and elvis is a slider so elvis has more impact.

straightXed
06-09-2007, 07:38 AM
Eh, don't get me wrong...I still could be wrong, but I, myself, am able to see punk's impact far more clearly than that of Elvis, today at least.

Perhaps thats because you just don't see it because it has made an influence everywhere. What you are able to see can be looked at and considered what you can't see could either be so small and insignificant that its not worth considering or it could be so vast that it goes unoticed as just a part of the way things are.

It reminds me of king monkey peeing on buddahs hand when he thought he had flown to the edge of the universe, it turns out he hadn't even left buddahs hand due to the vastness of buddah. Which could mean elvis is buddah.

xCrucialDudex
07-09-2007, 02:37 PM
So, Elvis is a God. I knew it!
Jesus sucks. All worship Elvis.

D1988
07-09-2007, 03:27 PM
That Eminem video where Elvis is break dancing in the bathroom is funny shit.

Sorry this thread just reminded of it.

straightXed
07-09-2007, 03:33 PM
That Eminem video where Elvis is break dancing in the bathroom is funny shit.

Sorry this thread just reminded of it.

i'm sorry you were reminded of eminem.

xXx<-FALLEN->xXx
08-05-2007, 11:28 AM
whose elvis

straightXed
08-05-2007, 01:53 PM
whose elvis

Perhaps you could say he belonged to his mother or perhaps to the colonel but generally i think he belonged to himself.

mouseman004
08-05-2007, 08:52 PM
Perhaps you could say he belonged to his mother or perhaps to the colonel but generally i think he belonged to himself.

It took me a second to understand your post, but after reading it a second time, I actually chuckled a little. Clever.

straightXed
08-06-2007, 09:43 AM
It took me a second to understand your post, but after reading it a second time, I actually chuckled a little. Clever.

One second to understand, thats not too shabby.

xXx<-FALLEN->xXx
08-06-2007, 05:21 PM
all i know is there alot alike. everyone thinks there both DEAD but they both are hidding in a issolated island off the south coast!!!

xsecx
08-06-2007, 07:25 PM
all i know is there alot alike. everyone thinks there both DEAD but they both are hidding in a issolated island off the south coast!!!

yeah, but punk really is dead though.