Interesting Quotes on Elvis's Vocal ability

[KPM]

I found these very interesting and informative:

"Elvis Presley has been described variously as a baritone and a tenor. An extraordinary compass- the so-called register-, and a very wide range of vocal color have something to do with this divergence of opinion. The voice covers two octaves and a third, from the baritone low-G to the tenor high B, with an upward extension in falsetto to at least a D flat. Presley's best octave is in the middle, D-flat to D-flat, granting an extra full step up or down. Call him a high baritone. In "It's'now or never", (1960), he ends it in a full voice cadence (A, G, F), that has nothing to do with the vocal devices of Rhythm and Blues and Country. That A-note is hit right on the nose, and it is rendered less astonishing only by the number of tracks where he lands easy and accurate B-flats. Moreover, he has not been confined to one type of vocal production. In ballads and country songs he belts out full-voiced high G's and A's that an opera baritone might envy. He is a naturally assimilative stylist with a multiplicity of voices - in fact, Elvis' is an extraordinary voice, or many voices"
- Henry Pleasants, in his book "The Great American Popular Singers" (1974)


"I suppose you'd had to call him a lyric baritone, although with exceptional high notes and unexpectedly rich low ones. But what is more important about Elvis Presley is not his vocal range, nor how high, or low it extends, but where its center of gravity is. By that measure, Elvis was all at once a tenor, a baritone and a bass, the most unusual voice I've ever heard"
- Gregory Sandows, Music Professor at Columbia University, published in "The Village Voice".

[Diane]

Exactly why his voice was never boring. He never sounded the same in any song.

Very good article KPM, thank you for posting.(y)

Diane

[T_J]

It's a top G# in It's Now or Never, not an A, and his lowest note was more an F than a G. Overall, a good summary though :-)

[The King's Queen]

Great post! :) His vocal range was beyond belief!

[Miss Clawdy]

He was a genius(y)

[Wendy56]

Great quotes! Though Elvis' voice was more amazing than those words that are trying to describe it. :notworthy

[KPM]

Heres a few more I found:
"Even in his laziest moments, Presley was a master of intonation and phrasing, delivering his rich baritone with a disarming naturalness. And when he caught a spark from his great T.C.B. Band, Presley could still out-sing anyone in American pop. You can hear it here on inspired versions of Muddy Waters' "Got My Mojo Working", Wayne Carson's "Always on My Mind", Chuck Berry's "Promised Land", McCartney's "Lady Madonna", Percy Mayfield's "Stranger in My Own Hometown", Dennis Linde's "Burning Love" and Joe South's "Walk a Mile in My Shoes".....
- Geoffrey Himes, reviewing the "Essential 70's masters" box-set, for amazon.com

"Even as a young man, that's what Presley sounded, like a man. I wasn't of a culture nor a region that found Presley appealing, and I've never seen a Presley movie through but, a few years ago when in a tribute to him various modern singers covered some of his originals, followed, or enclosed by, his versions of the same songs, I was struck by how much fuller, deeper, and richer his were." - Al Spike, explaining to North Africans why Presley's manly baritone rang true, in the web`s "Chicago Boyz".

[EnigmaticSun]

Yes, Elvis' voice was special indeed. What is interesting to me is how his voice changed after 1970, because these performances took a lot of energy from the body and it's not strictly operatic singing. It has been suggested he didn't have the controlled vibrato professional singers have, but towards the end this relative lack of flexibility is probably more because of failing health than lack of technique, at least that's what I think.

It has also been suggested that he had the ability to reach both unexpected high and low notes - this especially shows after 1975 if you ask me, his sense of drama and tone was marvelous.

Even though he didn't really have education as a professional classical singer, he still got the most out of his possibilities, although I've wondered why he sounded rather hoarse during some rehearsals from August (if memory serves me correctly) 1974..

Behind the Iron Curtain (or to be more specific, the regions being under Russian rule at some point), Elvis' talent would probably have been discovered at an earlier age, such was the case for exceptional talent in sports or culture. In such an environment, he would have been able to adjust more naturally, both vocally but most of all as a human being; I guess the American system usually doesn't recognize talent, since it's all about work, work, work and how could a poor country boy like Elvis ever achieve the multi-million globe-trotting 'the sky is the limit' kind of life?

Elvis hasn't got the largest range ever, that honor is (as far as I know) for the Russian/German bass Ivan Rebrow (also spelled Rebroff). He reaches about 4 octaves and a half, because of his talent for falsetto.

I don't know what I am to be precise. Lower than Elvis, that's for sure.

Some have even suggested that Elvis should have performed in Mozart's 'Don Giovanni'. I suppose they mean the role of 'Don Giovanni' and not of 'Il Commendatore' (which is more of an example for me), but these things would have been interesting and it's a shame Elvis never got to broaden his abilities and interests in music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3nqiKzB5fs

[mistymorning]

yes his vocal ability is amazing, it can impress a proffesional person in singing art and an ordinary listener the same. His vocal ability reached to its prime in 70,s.

[TurnpikeTaylor]

What happened to Elvis` vocal ability in 71 though? If you play the 71 recordings alongside the 70 or 69 recordings there is a massive difference in tone and control, with Elvis sounding slightly strained and nasal.

[Joe Car]

What happened to Elvis` vocal ability in 71 though? If you play the 71 recordings alongside the 70 or 69 recordings there is a massive difference in tone and control, with Elvis sounding slightly strained and nasal.

Between his studio work, live concerts, not to mention a couple of movies, the man worked incredibly hard in 69/70, perhaps his voice was strained. We also have to keep in mind that he would sing for hours after a concert, to wind down.

[KPM]

What happened to Elvis` vocal ability in 71 though? If you play the 71 recordings alongside the 70 or 69 recordings there is a massive difference in tone and control, with Elvis sounding slightly strained and nasal.
I had not noticed. I'll have to listen and compare, It may have been because of the touring increasing which has to put a strain on the voice. He put so much feeling and energy into the 69-70 recordings (since he was truely excited about making good records) perhaps his energy level was not the same after 71 for recording.

[elvislady]

That is why his music is still being bought around the world today, by young and old. his voice was the best.(y)
elvislady:D

[TurnpikeTaylor]

I don`t think the work load at this time impacted on his voice too much Joe, just a case of Elvis` ever changing singing voice, it could change so much over such a short time.

[Tony Trout]

I hate to bring it up but I think his increased drug usage probably had something to do with the change in his voice around 1971 and afterwards......you can definitely tell a huge change in his vocals after 1970.


*dodges things being thrown at him*

[TurnpikeTaylor]

But there was a huge change in vocals between 62 and 65 Tony, and i don`t think that can be put down to drugs.

I`ve always been facinated by this topic, as the first album i ever bought was "I Got Lucky" as a 9 year old, and even at that age, i was intrigued by the change in vocal tone between the early 60`s stuff and the 66 songs.

[KPM]

There is also the factor of the keys the songs were sung in. I know in one session Elvis complained about a song being in one of those
"In between keys"
IMO ON Sun records his voice had a sound to it. The movie songs his voice had certain sound, each step in his evolution there was a differnent approach. IMO it probably is just where his voice had gone at the time.
I used to sing in a band and the way I sang at 16 is not the way I sing at 52 You learn more, your breathe control gets better, you try other keys and types of music. He definitly tried every type of music thats for sure-and you don't sing them all the same way.

[Raised on Rock]

But there was a huge change in vocals between 62 and 65 Tony, and i don`t think that can be put down to drugs.

I`ve always been facinated by this topic, as the first album i ever bought was "I Got Lucky" as a 9 year old, and even at that age, i was intrigued by the change in vocal tone between the early 60`s stuff and the 66 songs.

Well I?ve belive the change in his tone between '62 and '66 it is moslty due to age, just like in puberty our voice did abruptly change, once again between the 25 to 30 years old, a man voice do change again although in a more sublte way.

About the '71 sessions I belive his voice doesn?t sound that great on most tracks ?cause he wasnt to keen about the songs, when you hear stuff like "The Wonderful World Of Christmas" or "Winter Wonder Land" he definetively didn?t sounded great, but whe he switched into stuff like "Merry Christmas Baby", "I?ll be Home On Christmas Day", all the Gospel tracks, he did sounded as good as ever, same goes for the jams, stuff like "Don?t think Twice its All Right" or "Lady Madona", his voice is as unstrained and in control as ever. When he recorded the songs that himself choosed, like "Early Morning Rain" or "That?s What you get FOr Loving Me" he sounded perfect, when he had to do unlikely songs like "Love The Live I Lead" he did sounded strained a bit, but still great anyhow.

I belive it was the '72 March sessions when ELvis did sounded as if he had lost a little bit of control into his voice, anyway by the April tour and the MSG gig his voice was at his best again, specialy in the latest.

The '73 Aloha concert, Elvis did a great job on the big ballads, gospel and country numbers, but he did sounded strained in the rock numbers, something was going on there cause by the July Stax sessions, there was an issue into his voice, when you hear stuff like "Raised on Rock" and the R&B numbers you can tell it could have been a much better session if he had had the vocal control he did had in Jan '69. Whatever it was, for the Dec Stax sessions his voice was even more powerful and in control than in '70, anyway, age factor apears again just as in '62-'66 and his voice become deeper, more matture, and lost some of the playfullness we had heard in the American Studios 5 years earlier.

But in the end, as they say, a man its not completly a man until he ages forty, and by the '75 sessions and the '76 jungleroom sessions, the man sounded like if he was finally getting together all the diferent voices he cultivated during his life time, he was definetively working into something good.

[KPM]

Another comment on Elvis's voice:
"Elvis Presley`s talent as a musical artist was double barrelled and more; his voice, on the one hand, was extraordinary for its quality, range and power, as well as being a unique stage performer with instinctive natural abilities in both areas; he was the master of a wide and diverse range of vocal stylings and ventriloquist effects, from the clear tenor of his C&W heroes, to the vibrato of the Gospel singers he loved, his voice invariably possessing an aching sincerity and an indefinable quality of yearning virtually impossible to pigeonhole". - From the U.S Department of the Interior`s paper on criteria for greatness as a vocalist, which, together with all aspects of his life and legacy, led to the inclusion of his home, Graceland, in the National Register of Historic Places, in 2006.

[EnigmaticSun]

With the right education, Elvis could have had the 'tools' in hand to get even more out of his studio recordings and live performances. For instance, the end of 'He Touched Me' barely holds it together, not to say I don't like it..!

I sometimes have dreams about his singing, usually 'It's Now Or Never' and 'How Great Thou Art' from the 70's.

All in all, there are plenty of classical singers I don't like as much. I suppose that like a blind man at an orgy, Elvis had to feel things out, not having been able to attend professional music/singing classes as a child or kid.

In that context I'd say he's like me - we have some limitations (I had even more during childhood), but that's why we have developed a keen sense for tonality and although we wouldn't know how to lable everything (technically), we do hear everything.

[TLC67]

Maybe it's a good thing he never had professional training. There are 2 friends of mine, IMO who's natural voices sounded much better BEFORE their training.
There are those who are gifted with voice the same way as one can be born a math or science genius.

[EnigmaticSun]

You may be born with a talent or love for music, but should you come out sounding 'less' after lessons, something's wrong with your teacher..! There are those who don't even notice students not standing up right and such. Strange but true. It's what bothers me concerning Billy Gilman. He has got a vocal coach, but he lacks sufficient breathing support. It doesn't matter in that context that I still do love him, but something's odd about that teacher.

[KPM]

Elvis was an "instinct and feeling" type of singer IMO he may have been put off by someone trying to explain how to breath and phrase. Sometimes individuals learn more by trial and error. I alway thought the long jams and gospel singing were just that-he could work on breath control, phrasing, style and have fun. Classes would not have been the same and he may have not learned as much.

[TLC67]

My daughter is a singer and has had no formal training. She started when she was 12 and is now 20. I knew she had talent when she was young but now she just blows me away at the range she is developing. This is all from countless jam sessions and just playing around to see what could be done with a song.
I'm not saying she couldn't get better with training (especially breathing), but she sounds fantastic with her own style.

[SeeSeeRider777]

If you have a natural and unique voice you do not need professional training because vocal coaches make you sing perfect and you would sound different. Right?

[Raised on Rock]

Could have B.B. King been a greater guitar player if he had taken formal classical guitar studies?

Anyhow, Elvis did had a singing coach in the latter years of his life.

[Cliff]

I'll probably get shouted down for saying this,but to me, not only was Elvis everyman he was also every singer. By that I mean, he was influenced vocally by singers he admired.
It's a known fact that he was a big fan of Tom Jones and I'm sure you'll find it was around this period that he started getting the big voice sound.
I seem to remember many years ago reading that he had some voice training while stationed in Germany. How true this is I don't really know, but you have to admit that his vocal abillities certainly did change. We all know from his Jonny Cash and and jonny Ray that he was a born mimic.
I would really like to see someone do an in depth search on this subject instead of writing some of the trash that has been written about him.

Cliff.

[Wendy56]

Elvis' voice is amazing!

[EnigmaticSun]

It's not to say Elvis had a lack of ability or talent, don't get me wrong!

I just think that with some classical education he could have had a lot of fun and could have grown in some respects, which wasn't possible in Vegas, for instance. But no, you don't sing an opera without education or help (at least not to the maximum of possibilities) - but I'm sure Elvis had the raw talent for it.

Remember that people taking professional classes learn by trial and error too. They don't read a book and then go on to sing flawlessly, LOL!

BB King is a neat blues player, but not the best guitarist in the world. That honor is for Kazuhito Yamashita, if you ask me. He can play anything from blues to classical - I know he did marvellous interpretations of 'normal' songs such as Greensleeves or songs by the Beatles - that's why I think this man should consider putting Elvis' or Roy Orbison's tunes to the test and take these to a higher level (another dimension - this guy seems crazy I can tell ya).

You can play the guitar or sing, but you can't take art to a higher level without some help/education. Believe me, all the great artists (visual or musical) from a distant cultural past had lessons: Michelangelo or Mozart, it makes no difference. I'm sure these artists had qualities Elvis would have loved to watch or listen to. It's no crime having a teacher.

[KPM]

I'll probably get shouted down for saying this,but to me, not only was Elvis everyman he was also every singer. By that I mean, he was influenced vocally by singers he admired.
It's a known fact that he was a big fan of Tom Jones and I'm sure you'll find it was around this period that he started getting the big voice sound.
I seem to remember many years ago reading that he had some voice training while stationed in Germany. How true this is I don't really know, but you have to admit that his vocal abillities certainly did change. We all know from his Jonny Cash and and jonny Ray that he was a born mimic.
I would really like to see someone do an in depth search on this subject instead of writing some of the trash that has been written about him.

Cliff.
Actually if you listen to the private recordings he made in the early and mid 60s he was already into the big voice type singing. He was attempting "What Now My Love" in private. He had already recorded "Its Now Or Never" and "Surrender" in 1960 long be fore he knew Tom Jones and his style. Mario Lanza is probably one of his inspirations for big open throat singing IMO He had admired him since he was a teenager.

[EnigmaticSun]

How 'bout Roy Hamilton?

[KPM]

No thats true its no crime to have a teacher and to seek help. But not everyone responds the same to it. For some it takes them to the nest level to others it makes it nothing but "school" Theres no way to know how Elvis might have done with some formal training since he never attempted any.
I will say this in school we had to sing scales when I was in chorus-it ws boring and the time just crawled. When I had my first band and we jammed it was fun and I expanded my voice at the same time-I could not wait until our next practice. Chorus on the other hand was laborous and I hated going. Different methods for different personalities.;)

[EnigmaticSun]

Well not every class is a good one I can tell. For me it's difficult to find people who understand my stubborn nature and ambition.

But I know Elvis appreciated real art (remember 'Wild In The Country'; he asks Hope Lange's character "do you think this is art?" while looking at a horrible modern painting and kinda reacts funny to Hope's confirming answer) and wouldn't be put down or intimidated by a person who knew or could do something special.

[Raised on Rock]

It's not to say Elvis had a lack of ability or talent, don't get me wrong!

I just think that with some classical education he could have had a lot of fun and could have grown in some respects, which wasn't possible in Vegas, for instance. But no, you don't sing an opera without education or help (at least not to the maximum of possibilities) - but I'm sure Elvis had the raw talent for it.

Remember that people taking professional classes learn by trial and error too. They don't read a book and then go on to sing flawlessly, LOL!

BB King is a neat blues player, but not the best guitarist in the world. That honor is for Kazuhito Yamashita, if you ask me. He can play anything from blues to classical - I know he did marvellous interpretations of 'normal' songs such as Greensleeves or songs by the Beatles - that's why I think this man should consider putting Elvis' or Roy Orbison's tunes to the test and take these to a higher level (another dimension - this guy seems crazy I can tell ya).

You can play the guitar or sing, but you can't take art to a higher level without some help/education. Believe me, all the great artists (visual or musical) from a distant cultural past had lessons: Michelangelo or Mozart, it makes no difference. I'm sure these artists had qualities Elvis would have loved to watch or listen to. It's no crime having a teacher.

There?s no such thing as: "the greatest guitar player in the world", to start thinking in those terms its already a stillborn argument. B.B. King and Yamashita are both amazing guitar players in their own terms, but they are worlds apart, certainly Yamashita may have superior techniques and finger agility than King, as well as a deeper musical knowledge but that its only from the classical point of view, that means, it has never been the aim of Mr. King to develope those kind of skills. Yes, Kuzahito due to his skills and great talent (that Im not denying) is somehow able to play the blues, and sound convincent, yet it is not his field and his understanding of it is poor, he can not deliver that feel that grows inside of you like B.B. King or John Lee Hooker, but once again this is not a fault, to be great blues man was never been his aim, neither his condition in life.

Diferent styles of music requires of diferent abilities, and what its considered a quality in certain type of music, might be fault in other. It is a mistake to compare the value of an artist by taking it out of his context. Can we really say that someone like Hooker or Buddy Guy fault is that they had never took his art to a "higher level" just because what they do does not fit into the classical standings point of view? about what is perfection? What I mean is, from another point of view, the blues world point of view, what Yamashita does in the blues field might be technically impresive but superficial in meaning. Yet, to asumme any of both guitar players its a poor artist without any understanding of the particular cultural context of both might be a mistake.

Now, I will make a stop here to ask you: how do you define a "higher lever" in the art field? You might as well explain to us what its a "normal" song?

I totally agree with you on one thing, Elvis Presley had the vocal qualities and the musical talent to became not only an opera singer but a great one, and yes for that kind of singing you do need formal classical training, and there?s nothing wrong with that. Yet I don?t think that was Presley?s aim, yes, he had an opera coach in the latter part of his life, as I had read somewhere, but his aim was to expand and polish certain qualities in his singing, but never to become an opera singer. His aim and genius were in other musical fields, and he mastered them.

You also might remember than in other kinds of music, there is no such thing as proper academic coaching, you learn by instinct, feel and experience, each musical style has his own tradition of passing the knowledge. Yes, Miles Davis had a teacher, nothing wrong with that, his name was Chalie Parker, not much of a coach but a follow me if you can, and the lesons were more or less the same Elvis learnded his way, observe and mimic, then you get you own feel, then you develope your own thing.

[Raised on Rock]

Well not every class is a good one I can tell. For me it's difficult to find people who understand my stubborn nature and ambition.

But I know Elvis appreciated real art (remember 'Wild In The Country'; he asks Hope Lange's character "do you think this is art?" while looking at a horrible modern painting and kinda reacts funny to Hope's confirming answer) and wouldn't be put down or intimidated by a person who knew or could do something special.

P.S. I don?t think what a character Elvis played in a movie says would be a a good reference to know what Elvis Presley believed on any topic.

But yes, from other references we do know Elvis appreciated diferent forms of art.

[Lisarose]

"Schooled training" is good, but it's not the only way a person can learn! That's just the acceptable method for this day & age. Especially with the wide variety of subjects within a subject. For example - guitar playing - there's blues, classical, bluegrass, etc,etc. Elvis studied music his entire life - by studying the preachers in his church, the way sang gospel, their range, their way of telling a story with the song, the way the neighborhood musicians in 'Shakerag District" played the blues on the street corner or in the bars that he may have sneaked it to watch. He learned from Sam Phillips about producing his records - to play a song repeatedly & to listen for that one perfect take. Listening to recordings from Mario Lanza, Dean Martin, & the Blackwood Brothers. Even after his singing grew, he still watched & admired other singers such as Roy Hamilton - whose performances he attended.

[cprimm]

I think his voice change was due to age...maturity. If he was educated "vocally", he would have sounded like everyone else that was educated vocally. His "no vocal" education is responsible for him being THE KING OF ROCK AND ROLL.

[EnigmaticSun]

1. Like I've said before, people with classical education also learn by trial and error. Not to say it's impossible to learn by trial and error without classical education - but it can be helpful. You could sing the blues like in Big Mama's Thornton 'Hound Dog' (abrasive) or Elvis' 'Hard Luck' (more classical). Classical study doesn't diminish your feeling for the blues if it's in your soul. Elvis studied the opera but never lost his sense of the blues or gospel. Classical study doesn't take away anything (if done properly), it gives you even more.

2. Like I've said before, Yamashita did interpret seemingly 'non-classical' material such as the Beatles' work or folk/country songs - that's why I would encourage the man to try Elvis' work for a change.

Mr. Yamashita didn't live in a coal mine or a shotgun shack, but I still trust him to be able to successfully perform a country song - plenty of classical music is based upon folk songs.

The structure of 'Wooden Heart' seems typically classical and both Elvis and classical singers can do it.

3. Both the Carter Family and Yamashita may convincingly interpret 'the Wildwood Flower', but whereas the Carter Family would play the 'standard' C/G kinda chords, mr. Yamashita would probably know how to re-vamp the melody while keeping it recognizable and intact but impressive. In other words: there are countless of ways to play a seemingly simple melody.

4. My appreciation for mr. Yamashita is part of my personal conviction and based on a combination of technique (rational) and feeling (passion). You're free to think otherwise.

5. You can't serve God and mammon. You'll love one and hate the other. In other words: there's music where the aim is to sound pretty and there's noise for the sake of noise. Simple or technical, the Carter Family and mr. Yamashita would try to sound pretty to the best of their abilities, whereas heavy metal, house or hip hop is just noise for the sake of noise. I'd say Elvis is in the line of timeless things, serving God.

6. Yes, to me it is like the real Elvis in 'Wild In The Country' - but I may be wrong and Elvis could have loved horrible modern paintings.

I think the real Elvis is not like the superficial money-driven guy from Jailhouse Rock, so it's not that I would blindly mistake a movie character for the real Elvis.

7. You people are resisting culture probably because you don't have it, but I know Elvis was quite fond of it. That's why 'How Great Thou Art', 'It's Now Or Never' and 'Hurt' were among his favorites.

You're just like the yes-men who said it's wrong for Elvis to play Beethoven at the piano and should just try a typical E-major song instead, which he had done for so many times already and this material alone really couldn't satisfy all of his needs.

[TLC67]

I deeply resent your comment that some of us lack culture just because our opinion is different than yours.
There were many songs Elvis sang that showed his technical ability.
I am a huge lover of classical music, especially Beethoven, and would have LOVED for Elvis to have played it.
However, some of us could care less who or what a Yamashita is and just know what we like to hear.

[EnigmaticSun]

I deeply resent your comment that some of us lack culture just because our opinion is different than yours.
There were many songs Elvis sang that showed his technical ability.
I am a huge lover of classical music, especially Beethoven, and would have LOVED for Elvis to have played it.
However, some of us could care less who or what a Yamashita is and just know what we like to hear.

I deeply resent your comment concerning mr. Yamashita who is my guitar hero/champion and I'm sure you will show more respect when you hear the guy. Yep, made in Japan!

My favorite electrical player is James Burton, if you'd want to know.

You lack argumentation and that's why you attack people personally (ad hominem), whereas I use reasoning to prove the validity of my claims.

I presume you cling on to Elvis' infallibleness, which is a thing some people have used for popes and Hitler alike. My opinion is that Elvis was a sincere, modest and talented man who would have enjoyed being around people who could give him a challenge musically.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying BB King is a mammon server (there are mammon servers in 'classical' music as well). Music of the mammon is either pure noise or soulless, the things you usually hear on the radio nowadays.. With classical education you could learn to understand and play anything with greater ease, whereas blues don't make you master the opera, the art of Fugue or a symphony.

[Getlo]

Anyhow, Elvis did had a singing coach in the latter years of his life.

Who would that be??

[Getlo]

His vocal range was beyond belief!

Let's not go overboard here ....

[Getlo]

He was a genius(y)

Sorry, Clawdy, but I must disagree.

Elvis was a wonderfully instinctual singer, yes, and a great interpretor of songs in a varied range of stylings.

He understood his type of music at almost a gutteral level. But a musical genius?

No. There have only been a handful of those throughout history, and Elvis Presley was not one of them.

And he'd be the first to agree with me ...

[EnigmaticSun]

No. There have only been a handful of those throughout history, and Elvis Presley was not one of them.

I don't quite agree with you, honey. I do think Elvis wasn't short of raw talent to be a genius. If Elvis wasn't among popular American musicians, no one is or was.

If he had the chance to play violin, piano and the organ, combined with singing lessons and (European; Catholic or Lutheran) church music from the age of 4, he would have been able to do some special things for sure.

Not that it's healthy for a child, since it's fair to say Mozart's dad killed him, even from beyond the grave.

Elvis wouldn't be considered an instrumentalistic virtuoso, but I don't think it was due to a lack of talent so to say.

[Getlo]

I don't quite agree with you, honey.

Disagreeing with me is absolutely fine, but please do not refer to me as 'honey' ... (n)

[EnigmaticSun]

Disagreeing with me is absolutely fine, but please do not refer to me as 'honey' ... (n)

Sorry, I must have mistaken you for the school lady in King Creole.

[Joe Car]

Sorry, Clawdy, but I must disagree.

Elvis was a wonderfully instinctual singer, yes, and a great interpretor of songs in a varied range of stylings.

He understood his type of music at almost a gutteral level. But a musical genius?

No. There have only been a handful of those throughout history, and Elvis Presley was not one of them.

And he'd be the first to agree with me ...

He was absolutely a musical genius. If he wasn't a genius, I sure would like to know who was. The man is in 4 hall of fames for music, could sing any genre of music brilliantly, and was for the most part, in charge of all his studio work as far as how the songs would go. It was he who produced his recordings, that's enough for me.

[EnigmaticSun]

Well said.

The only thing that sometimes bothers me are the overdubs and such. But I don't know whether or not he could have done something to avoid it. I know I wouldn't accept that.

And he could have had a more balanced sound on stage - especially concerning Kathy and the Sweet Inspirations. I think a good musical ear notices that.

[Miss Clawdy]

Sorry, Clawdy, but I must disagree.

Elvis was a wonderfully instinctual singer, yes, and a great interpretor of songs in a varied range of stylings.

He understood his type of music at almost a gutteral level. But a musical genius?

No. There have only been a handful of those throughout history, and Elvis Presley was not one of them.

And he'd be the first to agree with me ...

Getlo, you are right, he was no genius, he was even much more than that!:D

I am no music expert, I can only judge what I hear. And what I hear when I listen to Elvis never ceases to amaze me... Elvis could open his mouth and sing completely effortless any genre of music! He oversteps the 'genius mark' by singing his song :D

And yes he would probably agree with you being no genius.;)

[EnigmaticSun]

Well, I just try to find the balance between these two: putting someone down or attributing Messianic proportions.

[SweetCaroline]

He was absolutely a musical genius. If he wasn't a genius, I sure would like to know who was. The man is in 4 hall of fames for music, could sing any genre of music brilliantly, and was for the most part, in charge of all his studio work as far as how the songs would go. It was he who produced his recordings, that's enough for me.

:king:Me too, Joe!:king:

[Diane]

Charlie Hodge claimed in his book "Me and Elvis" that he taught Elvis to do mouth and tongue exercises to enrich and broaden his vocal capabilities similar to the "do re mi" exercises given by voice teachers. So he did have some training, just not from what we think of as professional.

Aside from his incredible voice he was one of not that many people who could pick up any instrument and play it.

He was extremely talented musically. He not only sang on stage, moved and gave directions to his musicians and background singers all at the same time. I don't know any other performer who's done that.

Diane

[TLC67]

I deeply resent your comment concerning mr. Yamashita who is my guitar hero/champion and I'm sure you will show more respect when you hear the guy. Yep, made in Japan!

My favorite electrical player is James Burton, if you'd want to know.

You lack argumentation and that's why you attack people personally (ad hominem), whereas I use reasoning to prove the validity of my claims.

I presume you cling on to Elvis' infallibleness, which is a thing some people have used for popes and Hitler alike.
My opinion is that Elvis was a sincere, modest and talented man who would have enjoyed being around people who could give him a challenge musically.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying BB King is a mammon server (there are mammon servers in 'classical' music as well). Music of the mammon is either pure
noise or soulless, the things you usually hear on the radio nowadays.. With classical education you could learn to understand and play anything with greater ease, whereas blues don't make you master the opera, the art of Fugue or a symphony.

1) I didn't attack anyone personally.
2) I do not lack argumentation, I just prefer not to drone or ramble on a forum and would rather keep answers short.
3) I agree on the underlined quotes above.

This is my last post on the subject. I just agree to disagree with you on some things.:peace:

[EnigmaticSun]

1) I didn't attack anyone personally.
2) I do not lack argumentation, I just prefer not to drone or ramble on a forum and would rather keep answers short.
3) I agree on the underlined quotes above.

This is my last post on the subject. I just agree to disagree with you on some things.:peace:

I took it to be personal, because you 'touched' my Japanese guitar hero. All in all, I'm certain to restore the axis Berlin-Rome-Tokyo to it's former glory and mr. Yamashita is part of that.

I found your argumentation to be insufficient, because you don't appreciate mr. Yamashita by not knowing who he is.

But I'm sure there are some things we agree upon. I don't want to fight you.

Well Diane, Elvis could pick up almost anything, the way I can. But no one would be able to play it like a virtuoso without musical training (you would be able to get a simple melody out of something). Elvis was a nice guitar player, but with some help he could have done even more. This would be considered constructive advice.

The things Diane describes are part of classical, professional (what ever) singing classes. I have that information/experience from my husband who used to work with hard working people in church music.

I don't think Elvis was the only soul ever to achieve something special, but he won't be forgotten and there's no Elvis but Elvis.

[KPM]

Chet Atkins was self taught, and he played classical pieces on his albums. He also played 2 songs at one time on the same guitar on one album. But he was dedicated from an early age to the guitar.

[Jailhouse-Rocker]

those quotes are all fancy musical jargon for "awesome voice" :lmfao:

[Raised on Rock]

Who would that be??

Around '73 Elvis was having obvious trouble with his voice, as I read in another thread here, he did recived some advice from a singing coach to solve his vocal problems out. No, we are not talking here about formal lessons.

[Raised on Rock]

1. Like I've said before, people with classical education also learn by trial and error. Not to say it's impossible to learn by trial and error without classical education - but it can be helpful. You could sing the blues like in Big Mama's Thornton 'Hound Dog' (abrasive) or Elvis' 'Hard Luck' (more classical). Classical study doesn't diminish your feeling for the blues if it's in your soul. Elvis studied the opera but never lost his sense of the blues or gospel. Classical study doesn't take away anything (if done properly), it gives you even more.

You are right, classical training won?t diminish your feeling for the blues, it definetively may help you to develope as a richer artist, but only if you already know how to play/sing the blues. Classical training by itself won?t teach you how to do it by itself, Bill Evans as an example, had a degree in classical piano performance, and he was good enough to build a career in that field, yet he choosed Jazz as his mayor way of expression, and that, as told by himself, was world apart from the classical field, and learned his way to become one of the mayor JAzz pianist the Jazz way, gig by gig, oral transmition, sure enough, his classical training give him the tools to learn all this fast and it was his love for modern classical composers what lead him to latter on revolutionize Jazz its self.

As I said before in this thread, each genere has his own teaching tradition, no, that doesn?t means that picking tools from diferent forms of music will expand your technique and understanding of music and lead you to came up with something new, sure enough, that?s what Elvis did isn?t it? But that doesn?t mean you can belong only to one tradition, like Blues or any other folk music standings and became a tracendent artist without ever recieving any classical training. Thelonious Monk didn?t had any classical training yet, he also, as Evans, took Jazz to another degree.

Many classical artists had recognized they can?t play the blues, neither jazz, and that in order to do that, they would have to enrole into Jazz training, just they way you are suggesting Elvis needed classical training if he wanted to go opera.


2. Like I've said before, Yamashita did interpret seemingly 'non-classical' material such as the Beatles' work or folk/country songs - that's why I would encourage the man to try Elvis' work for a change.

Cool.


Mr. Yamashita didn't live in a coal mine or a shotgun shack, but I still trust him to be able to successfully perform a country song - plenty of classical music is based upon folk songs.

3. Both the Carter Family and Yamashita may convincingly interpret 'the Wildwood Flower', but whereas the Carter Family would play the 'standard' C/G kinda chords, mr. Yamashita would probably know how to re-vamp the melody while keeping it recognizable and intact but impressive. In other words: there are countless of ways to play a seemingly simple melody


No you don?t need to be an African American who lived in the missisipi delta during the depression years to be able to play the blues, but in order to be able to play it right, you got to suck on the blues own musical tradition. Other way you might be able do something interesting, something new, which its fantastic, no doubt Yamashita revamp on folk songs are great, but when I told you that you can?t compare B.B. King with Yamashita cause they belong to total diferent cultural contexts, I meant, as I said, that there is no such thing as the greatest guitar player in the world, each one is good on their own field, to state that Yamashita is better than B.B. King cause he is a classical trained musician is as retarded as to state you need to be African American to play the blues, as it implies, King needed to suck on Bach guitar works to be albe to play a great blues? duh.



4. My appreciation for mr. Yamashita is part of my personal conviction and based on a combination of technique (rational) and feeling (passion). You're free to think otherwise.

Mr. Yamashita its amazinlgy great, but not the greatest guitar player in the world, as there is simply not such a thing.


5. You can't serve God and mammon. You'll love one and hate the other. In other words: there's music where the aim is to sound pretty and there's noise for the sake of noise. Simple or technical, the Carter Family and mr. Yamashita would try to sound pretty to the best of their abilities, whereas heavy metal, house or hip hop is just noise for the sake of noise. I'd say Elvis is in the line of timeless things, serving God.

Such a dualistic and dogmatic inquire seems irrational and brutal to me. There is both great stuff and a lot of crap in any musical genere. Its not about the genere, its about the artist and the song. Well there is even both crap and greatnes on a single artist, Mr. Presley being a good example, so maybe, as Elvis put it, its just according the song.

On thing its personal taste, neither I like House, Heavy Metal and Hip Hop, but to state that they are noise just for the sake of noise its simply being short minded, geniuine creative art can be found in any form.

Noise for the sake of noise, yes you can do art with that, and if you put it in a deprecative way, well, that?s more or less what they say of Elvis in the early days. Sure enough, latter on he did just that, I mean, Do the Clam?



6. Yes, to me it is like the real Elvis in 'Wild In The Country' - but I may be wrong and Elvis could have loved horrible modern paintings.

I think the real Elvis is not like the superficial money-driven guy from Jailhouse Rock, so it's not that I would blindly mistake a movie character for the real Elvis.

7. You people are resisting culture probably because you don't have it, but I know Elvis was quite fond of it. That's why 'How Great Thou Art', 'It's Now Or Never' and 'Hurt' were among his favorites.

"Horrible modern paintings, you people don?t have any culture", WOW, what guy we have found here isn?t it? What is next, questioning if someone is human or not based on his abilities to read Bach? lucky me anyhow, I would love to pass through that test again, although I?ll rather remain as a blues animal king.

You won?t blindly mistake a movie character for the real Elvis but will took a character you do like to make it pass in your whimsical inner life as the real Elvis?

Sure Elvis was quite fond of culture, thats why he embraced all kind of musical generes, and never came up with such arrogant and rather ignorant comments as the ones you sometimes pour out. But I guess its just part of growing up, you?ll be fine.



You're just like the yes-men who said it's wrong for Elvis to play Beethoven at the piano and should just try a typical E-major song instead, which he had done for so many times already and this material alone really couldn't satisfy all of his needs.

Despite your prejudice yes-men comment, you are right on this one, ELvis surely needed to expand his musical knowledge in order to satisfied his artistic needs, we all know it, he needed to be chalenged. Yes, classical training could have been an interesting option for him, It did worked out for McCartney, but that doesn?t mean it would definetively will worked for Elvis as his musical roots were somewhere else.

About the initial comment and back to the topic, Elvis indeed had the vocal range and qualities, as well as the talent to be an opera singer if he had make up his mind about that, and recieving the proper training of course, but although he loved opera, I don?t believe his aim was to be an opera singer at all, sure enough he could have recieved a benefit from that training, but in order to use that knowledge into something else, to suddenly aproach an opera career in '77 is going to far and not the best bet.

In my opinion, if we are talking about Elvis expanding his musical limits, I believe it was the song writing field what could have eased and fullfiled more his artistic needs. But in the end it was getting straight of his drug habit, get a healthy life style, and just being Elvis, the true one, that?s what he needed.

[Getlo]

No you don?t need to be an African American who lived in the missisipi delta during the depression years to be able to play the blues, but in order to be able to play it right, you got to suck on the blues own musical tradition.

And you also have to have experienced the blues yourself, eg lost love, grief etc. You cannot truly appreciate the blues until you've gone out and lived life a bit, and experienced them first hand.

Once you do, you actually hear familiar blues music slightly differently.

That's why I get the shits with half of these so-called "blues" bands fronted by white guys straight out of a "Gap" catalogue singing about "pickin' cotton down on the Delta"!

On that note, may I recommend the movie Ghost World: Steve Buscemi's character Seymour strugles with the same dilemma.

[King_Creole]

Elvis was very instictive and had an incredibly keen ear for voice, melody, harmony and instrumentation.

As for receiving vocal techniques, it's widely known that Elvis had trouble completing the ending to the brilliant #1 record, SURRENDER.

Frustrated, Elvis and Ray Walker, of The Jordanaires, sang and practiced together the ending note together in the bathroom at the studio.

Elvis asked "... but how ? "

Ray exclaimed, "pretend your throwing up ... "

RCA used most of the Master Take 4, then spliced on work part Take 8.

Viola, the rest is history !

Listen to the incredible outtakes and work parts of this song on the excellent and essential HIS HAND IN MINE FTD released earlier this year.

[EnigmaticSun]

Such a dualistic and dogmatic inquire seems irrational and brutal to me.

At least you're now throwing some anger in my direction, which means I must have said something worthwhile. The best thing for many is to deny without argumentation. Anyway you look at it, I won't lower myself to your level calling you whimsical or immature.

Whatever you say or whatever the extent of your anger, I'll continue to be dogmatic in your eyes. At least the "Catholic" Hitler knew that the strength of christianity was the unalterableness of it's Dogma's. Dogma still is the magic word and object of hate, I see!

To continue about Hitler: he didn't like skycrapers, even though they are all over the world, especially noticeable in the anglo-sax world. The rest of the world only followed because of it's imperial rule. A skyscraper is simply not a temple or a cathedrale and the difference is set by the intent of it's architect.

Intention is something you notice in music too, though some ego-oriented people may say that it's just pure technical skill - it is not. You will never win the hearts of your crowd just by playing more or faster, which is a fundamental problem in heavy metal, blues and jazz - this is not even a statement about these styles in general.

There is blues and jazz I do appreciate (heavy metal I don't seem to grasp)! Did you know the classical composer Shostakovich wrote a lot of jazz-pieces? In other words: whereas classical education may help you to understand or learn jazz or the blues with greater ease, jazz or blues alone won't help you to learn the art of fugue, for example.

Classical music, if composed by the right intention, is a fundament for all music - so I don't mean degenerated music such as Sch?nberg or Stockhausen, where the aim to create something pretty is completely gone. Yes, I'd prefer "Do the clam" over Stockhausen's creations, though it's just a cute song for a movie and nothing more.

Jazz is sometimes nice, but in a lot of cases noise or trash. Jazz music and it's importance are way overrated and a disease; though (like I've said before) I do like some of it, it's rather complementary than fundamental - notice how some people in Jailhouse Rock mention that some composer has gone "completely overboard" with all those altered chords and that they expect jazz music to eventually come back to good old Dixieland. There's no soul or heart in degenerated music. I'll prove I can make and understand jazz music sometime, just as I'll be able to create a grand symphony.

If you've found my comments regarding God or mammon to be dogmatic or dualistic, please blame our Lord Jesus Christ for having given me that information (there is a choice for hard work/virtue, both in life and in art)! By all means, stop misquoting me (saying things I have never stated), such as "questioning being human or not by being able to read Bach".

Comments regarding mr. Yamashita are based on my personal opinion (like I have said before), the same way Michael Schumacher is the most complete Formula 1 Race Driver I've ever seen driving. Whatever you feel on these subjects, I won't change my mind but grant you the freedom to feel or think otherwise.

All in all, mr. Yamashita was born in Nagasaki, so I think he has got a clue of human suffering. Although it has been said it's better not to trust atomic energy to the Russians (Chernobil), the Anglo-sax liberators always know how and what they want to destroy instead of causing accidents due to sloppy maintenance.

[Getlo]

At least you're now throwing some anger into my direction, ... I won't change my mind but grant you the freedom to feel or think otherwise.

What has any of this post got to do with Elvis' vocal ability ... or with anything at all? :doh::doh::doh::angry:

[EnigmaticSun]

What has any of this post got to do with Elvis' vocal ability ... or with anything at all? :doh::doh::doh::angry:

Honey, it's just a text explaining my view on music, explaining why I do like the majority of Elvis' work, but not Stockhausen, for example. And you should be consequent and question the remarks concerning my immaturity. Alexander the Great had to cope with similar things.

[Getlo]

Honey, it's just a text explaining my view on music, explaining why I do like the majority of Elvis' work, but not Stockhausen, for example. And you should be consequent and question the remarks concerning my immaturity. Alexander the Great had to cope with similar things.


You are one seriously sick unit ... (n)

[EnigmaticSun]

Thanks! A very sick and dangerous man indeed.. Oooh..! :hug:

[presley31]

You are one seriously sick unit ... (n)

Theres no need for calling people sick.

[sackofnachos]

Theres no need for calling people sick.

Just as there's no need for anyone to expound, in arrogant, insecure patter, for paragraphs and paragraphs on their personal dogma that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Someone needs a gigantic cup of STFU and some Focus Factor.

Part of what makes Elvis so great, IMO, is that he's hard to explain. How do you describe what a voice does to you, why it catches your ear?

I always, always find the technical descriptions and quotes fascinating. I couldn't break down music technically if I tried, but I enjoy the analysis. Elvis is just very personal to people, whatever his range or training.

Interesting topic, though, let's stick to it.

[Raised on Rock]

At least you're now throwing some anger in my direction, which means I must have said something worthwhile. The best thing for many is to deny without argumentation. Anyway you look at it, I won't lower myself to your level calling you whimsical or immature..

You have lowered your self enough by refering to some of the people around this forum as people with no culture, and you lower others with coments like the next one:


At least the "Catholic" Hitler knew that the strength of christianity was the unalterableness of it's Dogma's. Dogma still is the magic word and object of hate, I see!.

I belive it was Hitlers fatal mistake to rely on dogmatism as dogmatic thougth lowered him to the non rational brutality of his very mistaken actions.


Intention is something you notice in music too, though some ego-oriented people may say that it's just pure technical skill - it is not. You will never win the hearts of your crowd just by playing more or faster, which is a fundamental problem in heavy metal, blues and jazz - this is not even a statement about these styles in general.

You are right on this: ego oriented people can?t make music, just a technical skill, this is a fundamental problem in Heavy Metal, you right again, but it is only a fundamental problem in Jazz and Blues when classicaly trained musicians avoid looking into the roots and own musical tradition of the Blues and Jazz stuff and aproached them only via their theoretic knowledge and musical skills, not saying with this that all classicaly trained musicians fall into this mistake, as there are countless classicaly trained musicians that are great Jazz players too.


There is blues and jazz I do appreciate (heavy metal I don't seem to grasp)! Did you know the classical composer Shostakovich wrote a lot of jazz-pieces? In other words: whereas classical education may help you to understand or learn jazz or the blues with greater ease, jazz or blues alone won't help you to learn the art of fugue, for example.

Right! Jazz or Blues by them selves won?t teach you at all the art of fuge cause they had nothing to do with that, just as classical music by it self won?t teach the art of Jazz or BLues playing cause they are not in their cannons.

Diferent music traditions are there to complement themselves, to make you a greater musician, but there is a big mistake if you look down into a diferent tradition.


Classical music, if composed by the right intention, is a fundament for all music - so I don't mean degenerated music such as Sch?nberg or Stockhausen, where the aim to create something pretty is completely gone. Yes, I'd prefer "Do the clam" over Stockhausen's creations, though it's just a cute song for a movie and nothing more.

By the right intention trough the eyes of which standars? the aim to create something pretty? that how you define art boy? anyhow, the so called right intention may be present in any form of music as there is also crap in the classical field.

You do prefer Do The Clam than Stckhausen?s work, well I can?t expect anything but that from someone who defines art as the aim of creating something pretty. Anyway, we are the ones with no culture and resisting to it.

We are going out of topic here, but I?ll be glad to continue this discution about what is art at the Off Topic forum here at TCB world if you are up to it.


Jazz is sometimes nice, but in a lot of cases noise or trash. Jazz music and it's importance are way overrated and a disease; though (like I've said before) I do like some of it, it's rather conplementary than fundamental - notice how some people in Jailhouse Rock mention that some composer has gone "completely overboard" with all those altered chords and that they expect jazz music to eventually come back to good old Dixieland. There's no soul or heart in degenerated music. I'll prove I can make and understand jazz music sometime, just as I'll be able to create a grand symphony.

True there are loads of crap in the Jazz world, and even much more crap in the mouth of its critics, so? same as in the classical world. But it is the amount of genuine art on both worlds what made them stand as great music.

If Jazz its complementary for you as a musician or whatever you are that?s fine, but it is not complementary in terms of modern popular music history at all, and that?s a fact.

If you are about to write some great music all the best from me to you, but if you are doing it just to prove something, well wouldn?t that be kind of ego-centred and rather degenerated?



If you've found my comments regarding God or mammon to be dogmatic or dualistic, please blame our Lord Jesus Christ for having given me that information (there is a choice for hard work/virtue, both in life and in art)! By all means, stop misquoting me (saying things I have never stated), such as "questioning being human or not by being able to read Bach".

I think Jesuscrist is the last one in the history of cristianism to be blamed for its dogmatic ways and the barbarity that springs from that.

Once again were going off topic and by all means I invite you to start a thread on this matters in the off topic forum around here, or as personal messages, as I don?t intend to ofend you, but to have a dialogue, one that you seem to take as: anger? typical simptom of a dogmatic mind.


[QUOTE=EnigmaticSun;141748]Comments regarding mr. Yamashita are based on my personal opinion (like I have said before), the same way Michael Schumacher is the most complete Formula 1 Race Driver I've ever seen driving. Whatever you feel on these subjects, I won't change my mind but grant you the freedom to feel or think otherwise.QUOTE]

You should read much more carefully as no one here has denyed Yamashita skills and great art, as no one has deny you the freedom to think however you feel about to him, but to claim him "The Greatest Guitar Player in the World" its an ilogical claim as there is no such thing, won?t explain you for the third time why, and its a claim that its a direct attack to the freedom of others as it is an asertion directed to look down to other musicians with no fundament.

P.S. I don?t hate cause as we may disagree you are ofering arguments, now you don?t hate me as I write my arguments back.

[EnigmaticSun]

The trouble for Hitler was corruption, military expansion, betrayal and people around him saying "I love you, I think you're great and to me you're like God's representation on earth".

Jesus did say there is a choice for God or the mammon and I think Elvis made the right choice on the whole, because there's so much to be thankful for. Compared to Stockhausen "Do The Clam" is enjoyable indeed. Man, there was a time when visual artists put their feces in a can and called that "art" - to make a long story short, art conveys beauty and/or emotion and you need to do your best for it.

I don't think that classical music is practically meaningless and jazz is almost everything. My wish to create jazz-music sometime is not an ego-project to deify myself, it is out of love for music and to prove I certainly don't categorically hate jazz.

After hearing and seeing mr. Yamashita, I found it to be the most amazing technique I had ever seen - that combined with his integrity and passion made me say that.

All in all, the thing I enjoy the most is Elvis' music and I'm sure he would have appreciated my take on things without having a fight with words.

If we shouldn't go on here, let the moderators replace it.

[Raised on Rock]

The trouble for Hitler was corruption, military expansion, betrayal and people around him saying "I love you, I think you're great and to me you're like God's representation on earth".

Jesus did say there is a choice for God or the mammon and I think Elvis made the right choice on the whole, because there's so much to be thankful for. I don't think that classical music is practically meaningless and jazz is almost everything. My wish to create jazz-music sometime is not an ego-project to deify myself, it is out of love for music and to prove I certainly don't categorically hate jazz.

After hearing and seeing mr. Yamashita, I found it to be the most amazing technique I had ever seen - that combined with his integrity and passion made me say that.

All in all, the thing I enjoy the most is Elvis' music and I'm sure he would have appreciated my take on things without having a fight with words.

If we shouldn't go on here, let the moderators replace it.

No, the root of the touble with Hitler relys in the inconcistence of his premises, this due to the dogmatic thought of his ideology. Or are you suggesting now that he was the victim now? not responsable for his actions?

Jesus did said that, wrong interpretations of that in history are not to blame him.

From your perspective, Elvis served mammon through 28 hollywood movies?

No one has ever stated here that classical music its meaningless and Jazz its almots everything, you seem to just not get it, same with the Yamashita issue! Crist no one is attackin you! just try to lisen please!

So sad that you consider all this as a fight with words as I really hoped to continue discusing this issues about art and religion in the off topic forum or in personal messages. In fact I did appreciate your take on things but to appreciate doesn?t mean I will agree, but that I appreciate as we both may see some light in these issues as we can mantain an open dialgue, one that other may also follow, one that you are not up to it anyway and I respect that.

I won?t go further either in this conversation as now we are totally off topic, but I gladly continue if you will in the off topic forum.

Have a nice day!:hug:

[presley31]

Not sure how hilter has to do with elvis???

[KPM]

A few more opinions on Elvis's vocal talent:
"He got even more maturity in his voice as he got older; I was often amazed at his range, just as one singer listening to another. He could sing anything. I've never seen such a versality, and in fact I don't see it today. Usually a voice can sing one way, but he had that ability about him, and he helped me to learn the importance of communication with an audience. He had such great soul. He had the ability to make everyone in the audience think that he was singing directly to them. He just had a way with communication that was totally unique" - Gospel tenor Shawn Nielsen, who backed Presley`s recordings both with the "Imperials" and with the group "Voice", at the studio and in concert, from the late sixties until Presley's death in 1977


"Presley brought an excitement to singing, in part because rock and roll was greeted as his invention, but for other reasons not so widely reflected on: Elvis Presley had the most beautiful singing voice of any human being on earth."
- William F. Buckley, Jr., in his article "The Crooner, R.I.P.: Perry Como and the casual mode," published by the National Review on June 11, 2001.


"He would probably be considered a baritone, but he could reach notes that most baritone singers could not. Much of his abilities emanated from a very intense desire to execute a song as he wanted to do it, which meant that he really sang higher than he would normally be able to. When the adrenalin is going, and the song is really pumping, you can get into that mode where you can actually do things, vocally, that you couldn?t normally do. So he had a tremendous range because of his desire to excel and be better, and that?s why he could do a lot of things that most people couldn?t."
- Terry Blackwood, lead singer of the Gospel group, the "Imperials"

question-"whose was the greatest voice you had ever heard"
"The young Elvis Presley, without any doubt."
that was top New Zealand opera star and soprano Kiri Te Kanawa's answer to UK show-host Michael Parkinson
(who probably expected her to name Luciano Pavarotti, or Maria Callas), (as published in Blabbermouth.net, 3 January 2007)


"People will often say that opera singers sound too stiff and operatic when singing contemporary music. This is because the vowels in an operatic style tend to be more open, whereas in a rock style singers tend to thin out the vowel. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, in opening the vowel in the higher register so that the higher notes can be sustained. Elvis Presley was very open in his singing style even though he was 'the' rock and roller."
- Brain Gilbertson, world-famous voice teacher.

[EnigmaticSun]

Now to go on mainly about Elvis' talent, I'd have to say I think he didn't sound stiff at all, neither while singing "Unchained Melody", nor while singing "the Hawaiian Wedding Song" (crooning) or "Reconsider Baby" (blues). I think Elvis explored a lot of things and kept that which worked for him.

To make something clear: I certainly don't like every voice they consider "classical" or "operatic". I've heard better female voices than Callas' and better male voices than Pavarotti's.

This is an Elvis board, so no effort goes too far explaining why Elvis is the greatest or the only - I think he is special and irreplaceable, but there have been other great talented artists as well. Every specific message board probably goes on to say their person is the best and that's okay with me.

I've already given some reasons to compare Elvis to Hitler. They are both key 20th century figures who just won't die, really - very manifest in people's minds. "Dogma" to me isn't so much unquestioned belief, rather absolute truth - but like Pontius Pilatus has said, "what is truth"?

Hitler wanted political infallibleness, the same way other people give spiritual infallibleness to the pope, communist infallibleness to Karl Marx, and people here give musical or iconic infallibleness to Elvis - this is something others make out of you. Now don't get angry with me for this, I don't mean to do anything to Elvis' iconic status.

I don't judge people who make some wrong artistic choices, but looking at the way some people trash his material from the 1960's, I think I'm pretty mild. I don't think the scenes from "Clambake" with all those girls have proven to be really satisfying - I do think Elvis must have felt being "caught" every now and then (you'll hate one and love the other) and somehow not able to do and explore everything he could according to his impressive talent and potential.

I've always felt him to be the more human because of his "flaws" (I wouldn't consider it that way, vocally) - the way he intially struggled to get the final note for "Surrender" right. He had some difficulties nailing "Danny Boy", for instance, and with some help this would have been even easier for him - on top of that, it would have given him more spiritual wealth and a lot of pleasure. I think this impossibility is to a great extent due to his environment.

I'll stand by my opinion and do not force others to agree - I have never said that.

[KPM]

Anytime someone is the first of anything-they will be considered special.
If that person has true talent and chrisma even more special. Elvis sold rock and roll to the world. He was the first huge world wide rock star.
Elvis is not the greatest opera singer. Elvis is not the greatest blues singer.
Elvis is not the greatest country singer. But he did have all those in him when the time and feeling were right. He was unique in that his talent could at times be all those things. A musical chameleon if you will. Can anyone name someone else like that before Elvis?

[EnigmaticSun]

I suppose some things are inexplicable or beyond our rational abilities. I think that rationality without feeling is death.

I agree that Elvis was special, a person with something that hadn't been seen before. In popular music, I haven't seen another with that versatility. I do think there have been other artists/musicians with impressive talents/abilities, people who could get a melody out of almost any instrument, for example. It's neither fair nor relevant comparing Elvis to Mozart.

I've never considered him to be rock 'n roll or popular American. I think I've got Elvis the man in mind, not so much Elvis the image. I wouldn't want to keep others from attributing Elvis' kingship, though this is just as ungraspable as the greatest guitar player, so you might as well conclude that being the King is just as dogmatic - but who cares?

Though the fall of the Third Reich is not to be explained by dogma's, but by the vastness of Russian territory (whereas England would be easy to force to it's knees in case of a one-sided war - see Napoleon) and American money which stopped rolling in, people probably need kings (charismatic people) and absolute truth.

I think a country isn't a country without a king or queen, so that's why Americans have been subconsciously looking for one. Some still struggle finding the right balance, I often notice slander and messianic importance on the same message board.