Chuck Berry of course. He wrote his own songs, and he could shred on the guitar before shredding really appeared in rock. "Johnny B. Goode" is a incredibly famous song covered by (possibly) hundreds of musicians, and it's still good today. Yup, Chuck Berry hands down.

A lot were written or co-written by Chuck's piano player Johnnie Johnson but never credited to him but Chuck alone.

the King is dead but never forgotten,
this is the story of Johnny Rotten (Johnny Rotten Johnny Rotten)

- Neil Young

Elvis got my vote :)
Just listen to Blue Suede Shoes!

yeah go ahead and listen to Blue Suede Shoes and realize that he had nothing to do with creating it. All he did was perform it.

Sounds like you should be voting for Carl Perkins then.

ya Carl Perkins ftw

Elvis... he changed rock and roll forever.. before him, labels manufactured artists. He came in his own terms. The Beatles and others called him "the messiah" of music later on but during earlier years, he was called Satanist, Demon, and other terms with the same meaning because he was just so different. the world didn't know how to handle him.

he was banned in Asia and several parts of US and Europe. that's how revolutionary he was.

What Elvis did was push the beat and make it rock & roll. The Carl Perkins original is laid-back country in feel. Sometimes the vehicle driving the song (Elvis) is more important than the original writer. Another example is Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain covered by Willie Nelson. Elvis brought Rock & Roll, which was black music, to the masses. Such things can not be understated. But, this is just my opinion. Not saying you are wrong, just what I feel. Someone has to break the mold.

Yes , I agree with you to a certain degree that he was a great performer and he used that ability to make Rock and Roll a more common thing in people's mind. I just don't agree that he should have that title for just being a really good performer. He was really the Britney Spears of his time.

Carl Perkins is more authentic rockabilly

I don't think Elvis was doing anything new to Blue Suede Shoes, the things he did was just speeding up the beat with heavier accents, towards a more Afrocentric style

I do, however, say that when he was with Scotty Moore and Bill Black during the sessions at Sun studios, the music then was pretty innovative and relatively new, incorporating jazz, blues, country - then again, they only revitalised bluegrass, folk and blues standards

I couldn't disagree more. Britney Spears as compared to Elvis, are you serious? Yikes. Good performer? You do realize that Hey Joe by Jimi Hendrix is a cover, right? And half of Led Zeppelin's songs are covers that they did not credit the source. Cocaine is not written by Clapton, neither is Crossroads. Not sure where you're going with the performer thing. 99% of Rock & Roll is performance. Even Chuck Berry knew that and learned from Muddy Waters, T-bone Walker, and may other blues masters.

Comparing Britney Spears to Elvis is like comparing the Monkeys with The Beatles...I just don't know what to say! I think you're picking a fight. So I am walking away now...

mebbe Britney Spears accumulating over time, with lots of hindsight, will be bigger than Elvis in the future?

The Monkees may not be Beatles standard, but they were still pretty good

lol, i'm not picking a fight or trying to troll you or anything.

I know that covers exist and that other artists don't always write their own material but that's not my point.

To my knowledge, Elvis didn't write a single thing that he performed and that he was well known for. I might be wrong and feel free to correct me but that's what I have always thought.

If you feel that the "king of rock n roll" should be the person who brought it to the masses, then shouldn't the title go to Bill Haley? He had the first hit rock song after all.

Buddy Holly....

i voted Elvis Presley, not that I'm a big fan of him but my father told me he was the greatest, ever....and I believed him.

I mentioned the obvious timeline of who was around first and Hendrix definatley was not. But who would deliver the biggest blow to Rock and Roll history if you took them out of the equasion? You just cant convince me that it wouldnt be Hendrix.

Probably Elvis, it was kind of a stolen crown though, the originators were creating the crown and Elvis stole it from them when he introduced it to all the sheltered white kids.


And it was those white kids who created the majority of everything that spawned from rock, didn't they?

Also, I need to keep telling you if you took Hendrix out of the equation rock would have developed just fine. :P

I keep telling Bloozin that but he's such a fanboy that he doesn't believe so.

I try not to let my unliking for Elvis over shadow my better judgment. I just cant bring myself to crown him The King.

Im sure Rock would have progressed without Hendrix. It just would have just been years behind.

Why do you feel that way? I know you are going to provide me with evidence but...could you explain?

I feel like such a nubcake for asking this but what did Hendrix really contribute to rock as a whole?

His solos were pretty awesome but are you trying to say he created the whole idea of doing solos?

You're not a nubcake he just has a hangup about Hendrix, look at the avatar. Hendrix was on his own level, he was a big figure in the 60s, but didn't spawn nearly as much as other bands(The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground, The Beatles, etc.)


I mean honestly, the equation for influence is how many bands sound like Hendrix or spawned off of his sound, or how many people were inspired to form bands because of him? The only category that Hendrix can claim is the latter, but inspiring people to play guitar isn't as big of an influence as sound, in my mind at least.

Lol...no man im saying what he did for the guitar and sound of rock. Was way ahead of its time imo. The experimentation of distortion and effects along with the unique playing style of his. Is imitated and used by many artists today. He paved the way and open the door to many new sounds and ideas. Not just for Rock but other genre's as well.

it's more of influencing how guitars sound in rock, not really rock in general

and as for the King, the King died on his throne (presumably the toilet bowl) - Public Enemy paraphrased

Once again, I don't think your point holds that much weight when you're talking about other influences from other bands. I truly think you're a hopeless fanboy, so yeah, :wave:, why even bother?

How does my point not hold weight? Your saying that Hendrix didnt have that big of influence on Rock or other bands? Is that some kind of joke?
How do you become one of Rocks top artists of all time without influencing others around you?

I dunno - are there any other rock bands playing metallish rock with a soul and funk vibe, besides Living Color and 24-7 Spyz?

he may have changed the way guitars sound or how guitarists play, but not much on the style of rock, compared to, say, The Beatless and The Stoned and The Beards and The Bitch Boys

There is some logic fallacy going on here.

Yes, he was great and unique at the time and yes he inspired some people to pick up a guitar and try to learn to do what he does but I don't being one of Rock's top artist has to do with his unique style at the time not because he influenced so many other bands to do what they do.

Way to Google the variety of genre's he incorporated in his sound. I doubt anyone could find a way to fuse all those together the way he did. However the fact that he was being creative with these sounds as early on as he was. Leaves little room to misconstrue the fact that he was in fact influential. In more than just one way he contributed and left his mark on the music world. Also by changing the way guitar sounded and establishing new technique he was changing the style of Rock. Im not saying every band from then on mimicked his sound or play. But it did indeed leave its mark on rock.
I do agree with the fact the Beatles had more influence but anybody with any music knowledge at all knows that. As far as the total number of bands he did influence..how is there an accurate way to speculate on that? There are many though that have a distinct sound or style that screams Hendrix when they play.

Oh and Spy's are pansies imo:p:

Besides with the exception of Davey you and D.J are just trollin but its cool. I dont get bent out of shape about lil stuff. I stand by Hendrix and Yes im probaly a hopeless fan boy. Thats what it is to truly be a fan of something. Im not however losing my sense of reasoning and logic. Of course the Beatles had more influence than Hendrix did but the initial debate was Elvis being crowned the king. So in comparison other than his mass popularity..no doubt cause of the marketing aspect of things and time of which he came about. I wouldnt place him over Hendrix for the King of Rock title. He was an image not so much an artist or experimenter or lyricist.

I'm not trolling you this time even though you may feel this way. I agree with you that Elvis most definitely shouldn't be the King of Rock and I already stated why in the past but he's basically the Britney Spears of his time.

I really think it should go to Chuck Berry

Yeah I read back though some posts and saw where you stated that. Some dude flipped out with your comparison to elvis and britt. Honestly I think that kinda makes sense. Both just more of a market fab than actual talent.

A stronger case could be made for Chuck B. being crowned the King def imo

neither am I trolling -srsly, I don't hear any of this multifarious genres - Hendrix didn't even play the blues that well - Red House has, in the words of the Emperor of Prussia when commenting on Mozart, too many notes. all I hear is just r n' b souped up in metallic rock, which is not to say I don't like it, but how much has it influenced the "general" sound of rock? no doubt the songs are good but the way Chas Chandler played his cards, they came out like pop songs. Only the Merman suite is that outstanding, but how many groups use that kinda sound?

I mean if technology in the 60s were like today, he would defo be an "innovator" since he repeatedly said he can't quite replicate the sounds in his head

and, of course, a lot of effects pedals and guitar thingummybobs are made to sound like him, but nobody actually does sound like him except for Eric Gales

and as to the extent of influence on rock, I only know that Black Sabbath's war pigs is a duplicate of if 6 was 9

whereas the bands that sound like the big four I mentioned I can't even count

:rofl::rofl::rofl:..I couldnt take anything else you said seriously after that

I'm serious - compare his blues wanking with the elegant lines of Hubert Sumlin and Buddy Guy

I really loved the Star Spankled Banner that he played at one of those Woodstock concerts....that was so awesome!

The Britney Spears of his time is a lil harsh. Elvis did have a very soulful voice and really had a connection with people that britney spears could never have. Plus he never used autotune, guy had perfect pitch. When it comes to that time period i only have my father to lean on and his vast discograph of music. People have borrowed from others throughout time its what musicians will/have and will always do. Elvis succeeded in bringing rock n roll into the spotlight. I won't call him the king just early royalty.

He invented blues wanking.

HART A WAND just sent a cease and desist letter.

His wanking wasnt at a fifth the level JH was wanking at.