Elvis was a great performer, probably the last of the "Golden Age" performers. But he wasn't an artist, the way the Beatles were. Elvis wrote none of his own material, and beyond his initial splash, he never really pushed music or culture anywhere interesting, whereas each Beatles album is almost a soundtrack for the year in which it was released.
well thay are in difrent catogoriyues elvis was like 60tis and beetles were in the 70tes so thay are both good to diff peple
I would think that by the amount of records the Beastles have produced as well as the movies and books they should be the better of the two. Elvis does have many followers and when he first appeared in 1956 he was undoubtedly the best until the arrival of the Beatles in 1964. They are really different generations and styles of music and therefore should be viewed as two distinct and seperate styles but are rock nonetheless. I listened to many other bands at that time like Chuck Berry and Little Richard which to me were far better than both Elvis and the Beatles for Elvis and the Beatles used allot of what they were doing and calling it their own.
