Elvis Presley or Chuck Berry......... Cast Your Vote

[nor_spoon]

This is all sooo Britney...

 

[philodox]

 

[DrBenway]

Wmcmanus: My conversations with you in the past have been quite civil, even warm. I regret this entire exchange. I have no desire to engage in any sort of hostility with you. Nor did I intend any disrespect toward you, in disagreeing with your argument as I interpreted it. Please read this response completely before replying, if you choose to respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Odd, that you're having a hard time understanding why people might think you were comparing Elvis to Brittany Spears, when in fact, that's exactly what you did.

I most certainly did not. As a lifelong Elvis fan, I would never do something that absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...and have followed up your rather singular, simple minded and completely inaccurate interpretation of my post with: "to say that Elvis was somehow more important than Chuck Berry because Elvis had more #1 hits is simply wrogheaded." To say? Show me where I said any such thing.

This is what led me to my interpretation of your post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Versus 31 #1 hits for Elvis.[...] 1 versus 31. You just can't explain that away so easily.

I concluded that you were asserting that Elvis's much larger number of #1 hits suggests something about the question posed in this thread. To wit, that Elvis was somehow the more important or better artist, on the basis of his having scored more #1 hits. Perhaps an incorrect conclusion on my part, but not unreasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was merely pointing out the facts. I didn't offer an explanation nor did I challenge anyone else to do so.

O.K., I'll buy that. But it wasn't apparent to me as presented in your post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I hadn't considered the Brittany Spears factor. Gee, thank you for pointing that rather obvious analogy out to us! Of course, of course, Elvis was the Brittany Spears of his day. He couldn't sing a note and didn't even attempt to on stage. The guy had no talent whatsoever. To think otherwise is simply wrongheaded. The whole Elvis phenomenon was simply sex appeal (and of course, Chuck Berry didn't have any of that with his stage act).

If you choose to believe that I was comparing Elvis to BS, there is not much I can do about it. I was simply attempting to point out that number of hits scored or number of records sold is of little value in comparing artists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I never made such an argument. Just pointed out the facts...

O.K., again I'll accept that. But why point it out, then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Note that the "Get it?" above is intended to be dripping with condescension, much as the "Get it?" question in your post was, which only makes matters worse (which I get, but wonder if you do). In any event, when you completely misinterpret and thus choose to malign one person's post, don't be surprised when someone else comes along and has trouble interpreting your post, which was left equally open to (mis)interpretation.

Yes, it was intended to be condescending, but not to you. I reserve the right to condescend to anyone who tells me to "shove it." That was uncalled for, to put it mildly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I'm good. I loved Chuck Berry just as much as I loved Elvis, and still do (I've got pretty much everything either one of them ever recorded, and I've listened to it all at one point or another). Same goes for Sinatra, Dylan, the Beatles, and so many others who helped in significant ways to shape the future of rock and "pop" (meaning popular) music.

All of the artists you cite are of tremendous significance to me. I got my first Beatles albums in 1972, when I was 12. I sought out the original Chuck Berry Chess recordings when they were out of print in the US. I had to track them down at an oldies shop in the West Village. And I was defending Elvis when my oh-so-cool friends were dismissing him as a mere imitator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't blame any of them for having been popular, but of course don't hold that out as the only, or even most important, measuring stick - in terms of their "significance" or lasting appeal, or anything else you want to call it.

Obviously, I missed your pont. I will freely admit that my post (the one which started this altercation) was snarky and a tad impolite.

But I can't mutely accept the idea that I was in any way comparing Elvis to BS. I brought her up simply because I believed you were suggesting that Elvis's chart history in some way is a measure of his artistic worth. Sorry if I misinterpreted your argument.

And my over the top response, as I said, it might have had something to do with being told (not by you) to "shove it." There is no place for crass verbiage like that in a discussion like this.

 

[GlendaleViper]

Can't say I like a whole lot of Elvis' output beyond his time at Sun Records, so on that basis alone, I have to give it to Chuck, but to be honest, I'd take Bo Diddley over either of them.

 

[n3rdling]

leave britney alone...

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by n3rdling /img/forum/go_quote.gif leave britney alone...

Turn Vipers head sideways.

 

[choomanchoo]

I like the disection Doc. Nice 1

 

[Happy Camper]

OK Doc, lighten up on the snarky you little snarker.

IMO

Elvis was a covers singer supported by some of the best music writers and session musicians of the day. Elvis was the hillbilly knight bringing the black man's soul music to white radio in a racist south. It broke down some long held barriers in radio. At that time (40-50 yrs ago), mom would let us play Elvis & Beatles records but we weren't allowed to bring black music in the house. Chuck was a local talent too. My how times have changed. Glad I was not influenced by my parent's phobias. Or maybe I was but in the opposite way they intended. Youth always want to try what their elders want to protect them from.

Don't take this as a slam on Elvis. His voice was and is still one of the best ever. I just see Chuck overcoming more with less help.

Again, IMO.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choomanchoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like the disection Doc. Nice 1

Thanks. But I'm not trying to score points here, or prove that I'm right. I genuinely believe I was misunderstood, and, for some reason, I can't leave that alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif OK Doc, lighten up on the snarky you little snarker.

I am going to add "lighten up" to my list of New Years resolutions. Also on the list will be the perennial "Think before you hit ENTER, fool."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Elvis was a covers singer supported by some of the best music writers and session musicians of the day.

Elvis certainly was not a songwriter, but I think he was siginificantly different from the other white cover "artists" of the day. I imagine you would agree with me that it wouldn't be right to stick him with the same label that is rightfully applied to Pat Boone and others, like the Crewcuts, who recorded bleached versions of songs originally recorded by Black artists.

On the other hand, Elvis was notorious for taking songwriter's publishing rights as a condition for recording their material. I personally blame the infamous Colonel Parker for this behaviour, and for a lot of other unfortunate moves that made Elvis a lot of money but which complicate his legacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Elvis was the hillbilly knight bringing the black man's soul music to white radio in a racist south. It broke down some long held barriers in radio. At that time (40-50 yrs ago), mom would let us play Elvis & Beatles records but we weren't allowed to bring black music in the house.

I agree that Elvis brought a sound and sensibility to white radio (and not just in the south) that had previously been completely off limits. But I also think that it's an oversimplification to say that he was merely presenting a Black artisitic sensibility to white audiences. As I said in a previous post in this thread, Elvis's music always included elements of country music. To me, that's the essence of rock n roll; it's not purely R&B, and it's not purely country. It's a super-heated combination of the two.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Chuck was a local talent too. My how times have changed. Glad I was not influenced by my parent's phobias. Or maybe I was but in the opposite way they intended. Youth always want to try what their elders want to protect them from.

Exactly. Just try telling a kid "now don't you touch this cookie" and then leave the room. Trying to prohibit something makes it seem exotic and attractive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Don't take this as a slam on Elvis. His voice was and is still one of the best ever. I just see Chuck overcoming more with less help.

All of the pioneering Black rock n roll artists were subjected to various forms of discrimination, and in some cases, persecution. Look at Chuck Berry's first trial, on charges of violating the Mann Act. If I remember correctly, the first jury was thrown out on grounds that it was biased against him on racial grounds. In that day and time, a jury would have to be practically wearing Klan garb for that to be recognized and admitted to.

And there are those who will argue that Allan Freed - a white disc jockey who was one of the earliest to play Black records - lost everything, including his life, for daring to mess with the established order.

And I couldn't agree more about Elvis's voice. It is one of the defining sounds of rock n roll, and it continues to reverberate down through the years. All of those silly inpersonators are, in a way, just emphasizing how iconic his sound really was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, IMO.

Of course, and the same applies to anything and everything that I post here. I think I tend to lob rhetorical hand grenades too readily, and I'm not careful to emphasize that I speak only for myself, and with a clear sense of my own insignificance. That might be part of what got me into trouble in this thread (Ya think?).

 

[Wmcmanus]

Dr Benway, your last two posts have been outstanding in many ways. First and foremost, at least in the context of this thread, they show that your love of music (which I knew of well before reading these posts, by the way) is nearly immeasurable and that your knowledge of that which you post is extraordinary. You know Elvis and Chuck Berry and all of the implications of their lives and music quite well, and are not in any way dismissive of Elvis' contributions. But you know his limitations as well, and on balance, perhaps prefer Chuck's work and the legacy he'll one day leave behind.

It could well be the we just differ in terms of our final conclusion, in terms of which box to check in the poll presented. But I suppose I was 55% Elvis and 45% Chuck. Your analysis was perhaps equally close, but ultimately swayed toward the other side. Nonetheless, it certainly wasn't something for me to get upset or emotional about. In truth, (I'm almost ashamed to admit, but here it goes), I was probably just having a little fun at your expense, and obviously should not have done do. I could have, just as easily, made my points in a less offensive manner. I was more than "a tad impolite" (as you've admitted to being toward another member, not me) and for that, I apologize.

I knew, for example, that you weren't in any serious way attempting to "compare" Elvis to Brittany Spears, although you did leave that open to interpretation, whether you intended to or not, just like I left my "1 versus 31" observation open to interpretation, and thus should have anticipated a response similar to the one you provided.

You're also correct in that we've had good exchanges in the past, and I certainly hope that continues in the future, unmarred by this regrettable episode. It's just a silly website after all. I'm always telling people that in my moderation efforts via PM when they've become upset about someone or something that has occurred here. It should be a fun place to visit every day, and you shouldn't have to duck and hide when you see someone whom you're recently sparred with join a thread that you're participating in.

Moreover, several of your comments in these two posts were quite self effacing, which I admire and respect, although that's not entirely necessary in this case. Don't think that because I'm a moderator that I'm somehow inherently right (I know that you don't actually think that, but don't think that I'd expect you, or anyone else, to act as though you do). I can be and often am quite wrong, both in terms of how I interpret certain posts, and how I react to them.

I also missed entirely, or somehow overlooked, the "shove it" comment that sparked your frustration, so my apologies for that oversight as well.

Quote:

I concluded that you were asserting that Elvis's much larger number of #1 hits suggests something about the question posed in this thread. To wit, that Elvis was somehow the more important or better artist, on the basis of his having scored more #1 hits. Perhaps an incorrect conclusion on my part, but not unreasonable.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one. Yes, I think it has something to do with the topic of this thread, or at least suggests that a whole bunch of other people thought so. Elvis and Chuck were certainly contemporaries, so if Chuck's songs (either by virtue of his singing, or his guitar playing, or the pulse of the music itself - which I still find highly addictive by the way) were so compelling, then why weren't his songs topping the charts? Again, I don't think that "popularity" (as such) should be the single, or even most important, index used to measure the impact of a man's musical career, but certainly it is an index that ought to be considered.

Finally, just for the sake of clarity (and certainly not at this point for the sake of argumentation), you quoted me as follows:

Quote:

Versus 31 #1 hits for Elvis.[...] 1 versus 31. You just can't explain that away so easily.

Here is my post, in full:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Versus 31 #1 hits for Elvis. A great start for anyone who doesn't have any Elvis in their collection, by the way. Well recorded and lots of music packed into one CD. Amazon.com: Elv1s 30 #1 Hits: Elvis Presley: Music Sorry, I don't buy the racism argument as posited above. 1 versus 31. You just can't explain that away so easily.

You snipped two important aspects of my post.

The first was that my "Versus 31 #1 hits for Elvis" was, more than anything, my way of turning people on to a great starter CD for someone who has never given Elvis' music a chance. Incidentally, there is a great line on the inside cover of that CD which reads, "Before anyone did anything, Elvis did everything." (Notwithstanding the great works of Chuck Berry, of course, although not as highly rated by the listeners of the day... he he).

The second, and more important point, was that I was using the 31 #1 hits as a way to refute the rather silly (IMO) "racism" comment in a post right above (which I did not quote because I didn't want to take issue with the person, but rather the notion that racism somehow explained it all, which is not what he said, but it was certainly implied):

Quote:

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Chuck Berry. Elvis was undoubtedly a great entertainer, but I can't help but feel he owes racism a big thank you for his mythical status.

So my emphasis of 31 versus 1 #1 hits was simply a way (in my mind, anyway) of refuting and defusing an argument that I didn't believe deserved a lot of airplay. In other words, what I was saying was, "You just can't explain that away (that being 31 versus 1 #1 hits) so easily (i.e., be racism alone)."

No doubt, racism played a roll, and maybe a more key role than I can possibly realize since I didn't live through that era. Chuck Berry faced racism just as surely as Jackie Robinson or Martin Luther King, Jr., faced it. So I could be wrong, but 31 versus 1 is a mammoth difference that cannot be explained by racism alone, IMO.

In fact, I'd posit that the main reason that Elvis had so many #1 hits was because he was an absolutely amazing singer/performer and he had more range of emotion in his voice than any of his contemporaries could even dream of. Does that mean that he was "better"? Perhaps not in an overall sense, but certainly in terms of what people seemed to value during that era. We may look back now and say, "Well, he didn't write any of his own material, and he couldn't play any instruments; all he provided was a voice." Indeed, but what a voice that was. I've never heard anything like it, before or since.

Quote:

"Thanks. But I'm not trying to score points here, or prove that I'm right. I genuinely believe I was misunderstood, and, for some reason, I can't leave that alone."

I have that same tendency. When I think I've been misunderstood, I'll stop at no end to clarify my position. In the case of your Brittany Spears analogy, I didn't misunderstand it at all. By that, I simply mean that I knew you were exaggerating to make a point and not genuinely "comparing" her to Elvis; no sensible person would do so, and you've always been sensible.

But I did think that it was a cheapshot in the sense that it was so dismissive, as if to say the fact that he was (by far) the most popular recording artist of his time, the likes of which the world had never seen, meant nothing at all. As if you were saying, "Ok, so he was popular... but we all know that has zero relevance to this discussion." Again, I disagree with that assessment and believe that it has at least some relevance. Such enormous popularity cannot be conveniently explained away by "racism" or any other one word explanation other than "talent"; nor can his popularity be dismissed as being entirely irrelevant to our assessment today of the legacy he's left behind.

Quote:

I think I tend to lob rhetorical hand grenades too readily, and I'm not careful to emphasize that I speak only for myself, and with a clear sense of my own insignificance. That might be part of what got me into trouble in this thread (Ya think?).

You and me both! Well put. I have this tendency as well, and should be more aware of it when I'm posting here.

 

[HipHopScribe]

I never meant to imply that racism explained it all alone, that's why I was sure to mention that Elvis was undoubtedly a great entertainer. Rather, what I was addressing was the widespread mythologizing of Elvis as alone atop the rock and roll pantheon, as the "King". During the prime of Chuck Berry's career, roughly 1955-1965, racism was an enormous barrier, in fact I did a little search and I believe I counted only 5 or 6 number one singles by African-Americans during that period, none of them rock and roll, which had its own stigma to deal with. Certainly, Elvis' talent and charisma were key to his breakout success, but in a country where black people were still being lynched, I think it's undeniable that his skin color played a central role in his success as well.

I'm not too concerned with the difference in hits when discussing greatness anyway, Chuck Berry had more than sufficient commercial success to make arguments about his commercial relevance moot in my view, it's not like we're comparing some obscure artist to a star. There's only so much emphasis I give to that brand of consideration in looking at greatness, so differences beyond recognizing they both had multiple hits spanning decades aren't too important to me. If we look to innovation in song writing and technique, if we looks to artistry, Chuck Berry is on a level that Elvis clearly can't be assigned to, and I believe the difference there is of a greater quantity, and more importance, than the popularity issue.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif It could well be the we just differ in terms of our final conclusion, in terms of which box to check in the poll presented. But I suppose I was 55% Elvis and 45% Chuck. Your analysis was perhaps equally close, but ultimately swayed toward the other side. Nonetheless, it certainly wasn't something for me to get upset or emotional about. In truth, (I'm almost ashamed to admit, but here it goes), I was probably just having a little fun at your expense, and obviously should not have done do. I could have, just as easily, made my points in a less offensive manner. I was more than "a tad impolite" (as you've admitted to being toward another member, not me) and for that, I apologize.

I have a tendency to take offence early and often. It didin't dawn on me that you were being ironic to some degree, which makes me feel sheepish in retrospect. And I greatly appreciate your kind words. Frankly, I wasn't looking for an apology. I was looking for a resolution of this argument in a way that left both of us feeling like we understand and respect each other. I think that we have reached that point, and I am grateful to you for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's just a silly website after all. I'm always telling people that in my moderation efforts via PM when they've become upset about someone or something that has occurred here. It should be a fun place to visit every day, and you shouldn't have to duck and hide when you see someone whom you're recently sparred with join a thread that you're participating in.

What upset me most, to tell you the truth, was the feeling that I had, by going over the top, somehow damaged my relationship with this site and the people who post here. It is just a website, as you say, but it's an important place to me, and I do enjoy coming here every day.

My love of music (and of audio) borders on obsession, I'm afraid, and it's been years since I've had the opportunity to display my obsessions without fear of the glassy-eyed stares I get from friends and family when I start talking about obscure 70s punk bands or why tubes sound different from solid state components. To be able to converse with others who are just as interested (or more) is an unimaginable luxury to me. If I had had this outlet in the past, at least one former girlfriend might not have walked away shaking her head sadly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one. Yes, I think it has something to do with the topic of this thread, or at least suggests that a whole bunch of other people thought so. Elvis and Chuck were certainly contemporaries, so if Chuck's songs (either by virtue of his singing, or his guitar playing, or the pulse of the music itself - which I still find highly addictive by the way) were so compelling, then why weren't his songs topping the charts? Again, I don't think that "popularity" (as such) should be the single, or even most important, index used to measure the impact of a man's musical career, but certainly it is an index that ought to be considered.

No argument, since I can readily agree that Elvis the social force was, on a completely different level, as important as Elvis the musician. In a way that would never apply to a cult artist like, say, Richard Hell, despite his central importance to a later musical movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif So my emphasis of 31 versus 1 #1 hits was simply a way (in my mind, anyway) of refuting and defusing an argument that I didn't believe deserved a lot of airplay. In other words, what I was saying was, "You just can't explain that away (that being 31 versus 1 #1 hits) so easily (i.e., be racism alone)." No doubt, racism played a roll, and maybe a more key role than I can possibly realize since I didn't live through that era. Chuck Berry faced racism just as surely as Jackie Robinson or Martin Luther King, Jr., faced it. So I could be wrong, but 31 versus 1 is a mammoth difference that cannot be explained by racism alone, IMO.

I think we would disagree to some extent about the degree to which racism played a role, but I didn't thnk that you were denying that it was a significant factor.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif In fact, I'd posit that the main reason that Elvis had so many #1 hits was because he was an absolutely amazing singer/performer and he had more range of emotion in his voice than any of his contemporaries could even dream of. Does that mean that he was "better"? Perhaps not in an overall sense, but certainly in terms of what people seemed to value during that era. We may look back now and say, "Well, he didn't write any of his own material, and he couldn't play any instruments; all he provided was a voice." Indeed, but what a voice that was. I've never heard anything like it, before or since.

Obviously I never intended to belittle Elvis's worth as a pure singer. I think we agreed about that pretty much throughout.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the case of your Brittany Spears analogy, I didn't misunderstand it at all. By that, I simply mean that I knew you were exaggerating to make a point and not genuinely "comparing" her to Elvis; no sensible person would do so, and you've always been sensible.

I should probably give my Britney hatred a break. She's just a convenient and egregious symbol to me of everything I hate about the recording industry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I did think that it was a cheapshot in the sense that it was so dismissive, as if to say the fact that he was (by far) the most popular recording artist of his time, the likes of which the world had never seen, meant nothing at all. As if you were saying, "Ok, so he was popular... but we all know that has zero relevance to this discussion."

I didn't intend it as a cheap shot. I deliberately used a broad brush in making the point, without really thinking too much about how it could be interpreted.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Such enormous popularity cannot be conveniently explained away by "racism" or any other one word explanation other than "talent"; nor can his popularity be dismissed as being entirely irrelevant to our assessment today of the legacy he's left behind.

Agreed. But I do think that racism plays into this in some more subtle and, to me, really sad ways. I have had conversations with several African Americans who bristled at the mere mention of his name. These people, who didn't seem the slightest bit bigoted to me, nevertheless viewed his career as a massive act of cultural theft. To them, it was a zero sum game; every bit of the success he had came at the expense of more deserving Black artists.

While I can understand that feeling, I obviously disagree. But the point is that this is yet another way in which the great divide in this society plays out. While some white people continue, at this late date, to deny the huge and continuing contributions of Black artists to rock music, the flip side of that is the inability of some African Americans to see the sincere way in which American culture has at times absorbed and celebrated Blach music and culture.

Years ago I saw Eddie Murphy comment without irony, during a Letterman appearance, that he is a big Elvis fan. Letterman took this as a joke, and riffed on it. A Black man who likes Elvis? How can that be? Yet that's the expected reality, and, as I said, it's really sad to me.

This exchange has been painful at times (and I'm glad that aspect of it is behind us now), but it has also forced me to examine the way in which I respond to percieved differences in opinion. I hope to be a little more thoughtful and less hasty in the future.

 

[ssportclay]

Elvis couldn't write music. Elvis couldn't play guitar. "If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry" ,John Lennon. Elvis clearly beats the Booner, (Pat Boone).

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssportclay /img/forum/go_quote.gif Elvis couldn't write music. Elvis couldn't play guitar. "If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry" ,John Lennon. Elvis clearly beats the Booner, (Pat Boone).

I voted for Chuck Berry too. And you are correct in pointing out that Elvis was not a songwriter. But he was a competent rhythm guitarist, and played acoustic rhythm on the Sun sessions. During the '68 comeback TV special, there is a sort of "unplugged" segment during which he plays a hollow-body electric in a group with some of his longtime sidemen. He also had basic piano skills (as most serious musicians do).

I wouldn't mention him as a guitarist in the same breath as Chuck Berry, who pretty much invented rock n roll guitar as we know it, and I doubt he could have made a living as a guitarist or pianist. But he was quite capable of accompanying himself on either instrument.

There is an unfortunate tendency to reduce Elvis to a caricature, and to suggest that he was akin to the teen idols who were cynically manufactured in his wake (Fabian, etc,). He was a serious talent, and deserves to be remembered as such. The "King of Rock n Roll" thing is nonsense, but I don't think he ever referred to himself that way.

 

[DavidMahler]

I voted for Elvis mainly because I feel after a while all the Chuck tunes start to sound the same. Elvis was a more diversified performer. I also think pointing out that he didn't write songs is kind of inconsequential because..........lots of jazz greats hardly wrote songs and it was their interpretive genius that made them so beloved. Elvis was an amazing interpreter and usually made a song his own.

Chuck Berry is probably the most important person to emerge from the 50s, in terms of rock influence. But let me point out that his songs, are essentially just 12 bar blues with very distinct but similar riffs. I'm not putting them down for the sake of it, but I feel to crown Berry on the strength of his songwriting and to denounce Elvis on the lack of his songwriting ability is a weaker argument than if you were to compare......

Bob Dylan versus Joe Cocker.

My vote's with Elvis, though I see Berry as equally influential. I personally would enjoy listening to Elvis for more time. Neither artists rank very highly in my list though of people I enjoy listening to daily.