why do those, who like other styles, misunderestimate Elvis' musical reach?

[EnigmaticSun]

Hey everybody!

After pondering on different styles in music I wonder why I allegedly play the blues too slow and Mozart too fast (?) - one thing is for sure: fans of other artists or styles in music, be it jazz, Sting, or Freddy Mercury, treat me as if I've only heard what a lullaby is..

..now there's nothing wrong with a lullaby if you don't sing it like rags to riches. My question is: do others treat you, fellow Elvis-fans, as if you were born yesterday?
Don't they know how many styles Elvis interpreted? Did they ever hear him sing in (give or take) 1970? What I like about Elvis in '70 is the Herculean aspect of it all, being the big weight carrier or whatever you want to call it. It was fast and it was powerful..

..it's as if you, being an Elvis fan, don't know what it's like to hear a song with 180-200 beats per minute. Well, ecxusez-moi, but Elvis' band had nothing to fall short of other rock bands: good drumming, bass, lead guitar, never predictable..

Even though I do like to explore other styles or artists, an experienced Elvis fan has plenty of styles and qualities covered just by studying Elvis' act - why the attitude? In some cases, a lot is ruined by stupidity from other Elvis-fans, so we have a job to do to set things right (and not only in California).

Let me know how y'all feel about this!

[SleepyJack]

Possibly because of the role that image has come to play in music.In todays music world the image of the artist has become as important,if not more important,than any qualities that the music itself might have. There is definitely a snobbishness in many circles about music,not just between the different forms but even within the forms themselves.
I don`t think that too many people would really question Elvis` musical abilities if it were based on the music,but unfortunately there is also an intricate web of images and prejudices to get past, usually based on the passing moods and likes of the times.
I sometimes think that Elvis` versatility and broad tastes worked against him.... Rock`n`roll purists think he sold out and became too middle-of-the-road...even though he was a great Rock`n`roll artist..... Blues purists don`t want to acknowledge his place in Blues music...even though he breathed it as easily as air and made some great blues recordings... and so on.... I think also that a lot of people don`t want to acknowledge Elvis simply because he was such a huge star and such a huge success....he became a benchmark for other entertainers.

[EnigmaticSun]

I think also that a lot of people don`t want to acknowledge Elvis simply because he was such a huge star and such a huge success....he became a benchmark for other entertainers.

Good points.. for some reason Elvis brings out typical original sin-related behaviour, such as greed or envy, e.g. "why should Elvis have it if I don't?" - so many are biased and prejudiced against him while not even taking the effort to study his music more thoroughly past the original "Hound Dog" and "Don't Be Cruel" type of stuff.. "Hound Dog" in '68 to '70, it kicked bottom like contemporary rock but they don't even know it.

[SleepyJack]

They must be made learn!:flex::flex::flex:

[debtdbruno]

Possibly because of the role that image has come to play in music.In todays music world the image of the artist has become as important,if not more important,than any qualities that the music itself might have. There is definitely a snobbishness in many circles about music,not just between the different forms but even within the forms themselves.
I don`t think that too many people would really question Elvis` musical abilities if it were based on the music,but unfortunately there is also an intricate web of images and prejudices to get past, usually based on the passing moods and likes of the times.
I sometimes think that Elvis` versatility and broad tastes worked against him.... Rock`n`roll purists think he sold out and became too middle-of-the-road...even though he was a great Rock`n`roll artist..... Blues purists don`t want to acknowledge his place in Blues music...even though he breathed it as easily as air and made some great blues recordings... and so on.... I think also that a lot of people don`t want to acknowledge Elvis simply because he was such a huge star and such a huge success....he became a benchmark for other entertainers.

excellent points SJ..........
Elvis has other problems too with his Image and getting people past that. He is so Iconic, they don't see past the jumpsuit, sunglasses and sideburns unfortunately

[KPM]

Some people just do not explore Elvis because they think they know & what to expect........they think of his movies,...... or the jumpsuits, or that he did not write his songs...........IE they sell him way short. They let the image interfere in the reality of his talent.
So since they think they know him and they go no further in exploring him.
Dylan said Elvis's voice and his interpretation of a song were what made him special-he got it from the start-some get it, some don't.

[Elizasong]

People who are not true Elvis fans do not listen to all his music and assume that he was either limited to Hound Dog or Suspicous Minds. They do not collect all the music we do on Elvis and only see the most notable turning points in his career. I'm happy in seeing artists that are hot today acknowledging him as a huge influence in the music industry. They are the people that need to learn since they are setting the new music trends.

[monk37]

it's plain prejudice against Elvis

partly against him as being from the South - so no credit for brains, taste or talent (him and his fans)

partly it's because Elvis didn't get famous through the approved New York/LA channels.


partly it's to punish Elvis for going from the American Dream to the American Nightmare

[intheghetto]

I really think there is one answer only: when a celebrity goes from being beautiful to fat they are criticized and parodied from that point forward, it's the way our culture works. Some deserve it some don't. Brando, Elizabeth Taylor, and so on. It doesn't matter what they achieved, people hate when their idols get fat and they make fun of them for it. Elvis, at least with his long-time fans got a free pass on that. He was selling out shows until the end. The rest of the general public who weren't so much Elvis fans just jumped on the hater bandwagon.

[debtdbruno]

I really think there is one answer only: when a celebrity goes from being beautiful to fat they are criticized and parodied from that point forward, it's the way our culture works. Some deserve it some don't. Brando, Elizabeth Taylor, and so on. It doesn't matter what they achieved, people hate when their idols get fat and they make fun of them for it. Elvis, at least with his long-time fans got a free pass on that. He was selling out shows until the end. The rest of the general public who weren't so much Elvis fans just jumped on the hater bandwagon.


...........not helped by the fact he was a 'sex symbol'..........

Someone like Paverotti doesn't, because his 'Image' wasn't the focal point

[intheghetto]

...........not helped by the fact he was a 'sex symbol'..........

Someone like Paverotti doesn't, because his 'Image' wasn't the focal point

Opera singers are 'supposed to be' fat.

[Albert]

What works against Elvis (and his fans) is that Elvis never created music. He did give his own interpretation to many songs (main reason for his career to jumpstart). Nobody minded that, because you had on the one hand professional singers and on the other hand professional writers. In the mid-60s it all changed and the singers started to write and produce. Elvis didn't change with it.

We, as Elvisfan, know how Elvis (as no other) was able to blend all those styles into his own sound.

Unfortunately this flaw of non-Elvisfans, and this lack of inside knowledge of his artistic abilities, also shines back on us, the fans. People hear 'Elvis' and think of the lolipop-kinda pictures, used on the million-selling singles i the fifties, his movies (that seem so silly nowadays)... And that reflect back on the way people see his fans. But the shame is on them.

Because on the other side: Elvis may have been a lesser artistic force than many of todays' artists, but he was the world's biggest entertainer... Just think about the press-conference that Elvis gave for the Aloha: "there'll be no (hidden) messages... we're just gonna entertain the people".... it says so much about how Elvis saw himself....

[KPM]

What works against Elvis (and his fans) is that Elvis never created music. He did give his own interpretation to many songs (main reason for his career to jumpstart). Nobody minded that, because you had on the one hand professional singers and on the other hand professional writers. In the mid-60s it all changed and the singers started to write and produce. Elvis didn't change with it.
We, as Elvisfan, know how Elvis (as no other) was able to blend all those styles into his own sound.

Unfortunately this flaw of non-Elvisfans, and this lack of inside knowledge of his artistic abilities, also shines back on us, the fans. People hear 'Elvis' and think of the lolipop-kinda pictures, used on the million-selling singles i the fifties, his movies (that seem so silly nowadays)... And that reflect back on the way people see his fans. But the shame is on them.

Because on the other side: Elvis may have been a lesser artistic force than many of todays' artists, but he was the world's biggest entertainer... Just think about the press-conference that Elvis gave for the Aloha: "there'll be no (hidden) messages... we're just gonna entertain the people".... it says so much about how Elvis saw himself....
I see your point-and agree somewhat. Elvis like Rudy Vallee, Crosby, Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis etc....did not write-he was in the league of these gentlemen. Elvis did produce-or co-produce all his sessions after Sun-in that he set the tone, he knew the sound he wanted when he heard it-Crosby, Martin, Sinatra, Davis-all had producers and arrangers who took care of the details of making sure lead sheets were in place for each member of the orchestras and everyone knew exactly what they were playing.
Elvis self produced on the spot .........so he was the next step after these traditional crooners.
Sinatra nor Crosby-have never been criticized/looked down on for not being songwriters in the way Elvis seems to be.....curious.


IMO Elvis could not change in the mid 60s because he realized he had no talent for writing-the producing end of his sessions he was already deeply involved in producing his session with one major problem-he was never given credit on albums or in public for his efforts as producer. He was not a traditional producer.
Today its widely accepted that Elvis did pretty much self produce his music.
I have observed that over the last 20 years the story of rock seems to have been altered-and many people see the start of rock as the British invasion. The further away from the Elvis/rock explosion the less important it appears to succeeding generations, they think my goodness that stuff seems tame, what impact could it have had?
They assume they understand the music and the situation that existed in 1954-with comparisons to what they see today-they have no inkling because if they do not understand 1954 they surely do not understand all that happened before it Crosby, Sinatra etc....
I am just shy of 55-yet I know about Crosby, Sinatra, Jolson, Vallee, I see that they were huge talents, huge stars who pioneered the music they are known for. I have music by all of these gentlemen.
But today, I am sad to see that generations have no clue to who these people are-what they did.
Elvis is the beginning of the music that today is on the radios, IPODS, Internet-and many times the connection is not made!:blush::blink:

[monk37]

well, and the movies of the later 60's didn't do him any good

so Elvis has an image problem of being a movie sell out and a Jumpsuited lounge act.

people don't like their preconceptions challenged, so they don't bother finding out why he was famous and popular in the first place so that he could appear to have become those things.

[intheghetto]

Because on the other side: Elvis may have been a lesser artistic force than many of todays' artists, but he was the world's biggest entertainer...

I agree with alot of what you said, but I don't agree with that. Elvis is "a lesser artistic force than may of today's artists"? I'm not real clear on what you mean there, but I don't see anybody these days that matches Elvis' talent and/or charisma. Of course the only comparison that comes to mind over the last 25 years is Michael Jackson. But as big as Jackson was, he still has yet to match the shelf life that Elvis has and has had for over 50 years. Elvis has way more attached to him than even Michael Jackson. It's actually unprecedented. You can not only be a fan of Elvis, but you can visit Graceland and pretty much trace his footsteps all over Memphis. But aside from that Elvis was really one of, if not thee bridge between traditional American roots music and American pop music. Like those before him; Robert Johnson, Hank Williams, etc., Elvis came from the ground. He came right out of the soil and went on to build a multi-faceted, somewhat complex life and career that is almost endless in its examination. Now compare that to some of your American Idol types these days, and the fact is you can't compare. There's nothing to compare. My answer to people that want to contest that, and I'm not saying you are, is that even if you're not a fan of Elvis there's no denying his history and contribution. If someone doesn't know that, then they just don't know music and are just casual passive listeners.

[monk37]

I get what Albert is saying that today, people expect that an artist is the writer, performer and producer of their work.

Elvis was the performer/producer.

But, we don't think actors should write the scripts - so there's no reason to expect singers to write the songs.

Writing the song doesn't mean you can sing and emotionally sell it.

I think that if you can sing a song written by someone else and emotionally sell it that that is more impressive.

Elvis aslo did other artist's signature songs and pwned them.

No one has done a cover of an Elvis tune and done it better.

[EnigmaticSun]

Some interesting points to note, e.g. Elvis being from the South (or is it szpelled Szouth?), the issues with health & body, not having his music introduced through the LA/New York channels (why that?), not writing songs..

..all in all you'd rather have to make a list of styles Elvis didn't interpret, if you wish to keep the list short. He had his own style not only in performing and singing, but also in the way he moved, looked and talked; you just can't miss it.

Elvis could rock the clutter from your room to the moon, but what other bands don't have is the ability to be sensitive as well; would the other rock bands have been able to deliver a song like Just Pretend?

[EnigmaticSun]

Elvis also did other artist's signature songs and owned them.

No one has done a cover of an Elvis tune and done it better.

It is strange Elvis recorded beautiful renditions of songs such as Always On My Mind and Wille Nelson had the hit - like Timi Yuro did with Hurt, whereas Elvis' record didn't chart as much. Why is still a mystery to me.

If there are songs by other artists to prefer over Elvis' version, it is usually explained by production factors such as silly overdubs. Perhaps The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face worked out better in the hands of Johnny Cash, who recorded it a later point in his life. And there are those who don't like I Can't Stop Loving You being turned into a rock song; other than that, it is hard to find songs, made famous by Elvis, having a better effect in the hands of an other artist.
That - and his versatility - never wear out, even though they spilled his talent like a toddler playing with a hose.

[Albert]

Sony could set this straight by adding the credits on cd's like "produced by Felton Jarvis / Elvis Presley" (on the albums where Elvis actually co-produced).

But the fact remains that Elvis was an interpretor and not a creator. Compare it with painters: Van Gogh gets praised, but somebody who can duplicate that image, or even change it here and there for the better, does not.

Elvis was the King of Covers.... I always found it a shame that when he returned to live performing that he chose to cover popular songs from that period, instead of finding new ones (and make those hits). For example: Words, Hey Jude, Runaway, Sweet Caroline, Proud Mary, Never Been To Spain, Yesterday....

If you combine all those facts, than it's no wonder that many people give Elvis less credit as an artist (not performer!) than people or bands like Brian Wilson, the Beatles or even Michael Jackson.

Frank Sinatra was (as a creator) in the same league as Elvis. But he had the advantage that he loved the business part of Show Business. He wanted influence on all aspects of his own career and the way people would see him. Elvis didn't care for all that, as long as the money kept rolling in and he could sing songs that he liked. Nothing wrong with that, but the downside of it is that he is now less credited as an artist than many (way less selling) artists.

[intheghetto]

But the fact remains that Elvis was an interpretor and not a creator. Compare it with painters: Van Gogh gets praised, but somebody who can duplicate that image, or even change it here and there for the better, does not.

Elvis was the King of Covers.... I always found it a shame that when he returned to live performing that he chose to cover popular songs from that period, instead of finding new ones (and make those hits). For example: Words, Hey Jude, Runaway, Sweet Caroline, Proud Mary, Never Been To Spain, Yesterday....

If you combine all those facts, than it's no wonder that many people give Elvis less credit as an artist (not performer!) than people or bands like Brian Wilson, the Beatles or even Michael Jackson.

Frank Sinatra was (as a creator) in the same league as Elvis. But he had the advantage that he loved the business part of Show Business. He wanted influence on all aspects of his own career and the way people would see him. Elvis didn't care for all that, as long as the money kept rolling in and he could sing songs that he liked. Nothing wrong with that, but the downside of it is that he is now less credited as an artist than many (way less selling) artists.

I disagree. I don't think you can always separate 'creating' and 'interpreting', they go hand in hand. Elvis 'created' his own sound and he was the de facto producer of most if not all of his work. How can you say that Elvis was an interpreter when he was clearly one of the architects of what became rock n roll music? Elvis was not a lounge singer like Jack Jones or Robert Goulet. Now those guys were interpreters for sure, and they were all interchangeable. You really almost can't tell one from the other. Andy Williams, Perry Como on down the line. If Elvis was as generic as they were he would have been categorized with them a long time ago. I think at times his music has gone in that direction, something like 'Love Letters', but Elvis ventured all over the map.

No this comparison you make with Sinatra. You're saying Elvis didn't care much about his image? What? You think the jump suits just floated out of the air and wrapped around his body on their own? And Elvis' band? That was all his concept, and in that band he had all the musical forms that he had done represented in it. He had R&B Gospel with The Sweet Inspirations, White gospel with The Stamps, rock and roll with the core band of Burton, Wilkinson, Tutt, Scheff, and Glenn D., orchestral with Joe Guercio and even a touch of opera with Kathy Westmoreland/Millie Kirkham. Not to mention James Burton was really doing double duty as a rock and country guitarist. I mean did this stuff just fall out of the sky? So it could be argued all over the place that Elvis was not simply just an interpreter.

[KPM]

Sony could set this straight by adding the credits on cd's like "produced by Felton Jarvis / Elvis Presley" (on the albums where Elvis actually co-produced).

But the fact remains that Elvis was an interpretor and not a creator. Compare it with painters: Van Gogh gets praised, but somebody who can duplicate that image, or even change it here and there for the better, does not.

Elvis was the King of Covers.... I always found it a shame that when he returned to live performing that he chose to cover popular songs from that period, instead of finding new ones (and make those hits). For example: Words, Hey Jude, Runaway, Sweet Caroline, Proud Mary, Never Been To Spain, Yesterday....

If you combine all those facts, than it's no wonder that many people give Elvis less credit as an artist (not performer!) than people or bands like Brian Wilson, the Beatles or even Michael Jackson.

Frank Sinatra was (as a creator) in the same league as Elvis. But he had the advantage that he loved the business part of Show Business. He wanted influence on all aspects of his own career and the way people would see him. Elvis didn't care for all that, as long as the money kept rolling in and he could sing songs that he liked. Nothing wrong with that, but the downside of it is that he is now less credited as an artist than many (way less selling) artists.
Again I see what you are saying-you are correct, part of the reason Elvis is not given the respect is because he is seen as a cover artist-and that IMO is unfair....and it has nothing to do with writing songs-it has to do with vocal ability.
Isn't having extraordinairy vocal ability/prowess - an art?.
Perhaps the people who do not give Elvis the credit his is due.... have a very narrow view of what the word artist entails.
These people see it as someone who "creates something out of nothing, painting, book, song etc"...
This is not the true entire definition.
The definition of an artist is wide-ranging and covers a broad spectrum of activities to do with creating art, practicing the arts and/or demonstrating an art.

Common definition of the word Artist:

!-A person who creates art.
2-A person who creates art as an occupation.
3-A person who is skilled at some activity.
The great opera singers neither write songs nor the stories that operas are based around-but they are indeed artists-they do something that very few can do-in the challenges that the human voice faces in singing operas.
I see Elvis in this light-IMO rightly so. He did have a voice that could cover a wide spectrum of styles, and scale-which very few have-or use as well as he did.
Just because something is more physical in accomplishment-and not "cerebral" does not lessen its artistic achievement in use. You create notes, tones and nuiances with your voice which is governed by the range the voice had. As a vocal artist Elvis increased his ability every year-practicing and exploring his art-the art of singing.

[monk37]

I suspect Elvis' versions didn't chart because they either weren't released as singles

You Don't Know Me from Clambake was a huge hit for Mickey Gilley (a Jerry Lee Cousin and country singer) in the 80s for example

or they didn't get a good marekting campaign.

In the 80's when Willie had a huge hit iwth Always on My Mind, the tv played This is Elvis - and the next day the local radio station was flooded with requests to play Elvis' version instead

I think it's also that Elvis recorded a mind boggling number of songs, people just don't know what all he did


My spouse works with a gal who's an R&B singer locally - she was offered a 7 record deal, but they wanted her to do pop. So, she walked away from it.

I said that was crazy, take the contract and then do your own projects after

our friend who is a music uber geek said these days, 7 records is your whole career.

and it's true

Elvis was doing a single a month, and averaged three albums a year for his 22 year career - 68 albums and hundreds of singles

then I think about Cyndi Lauper who rode She So Unusual for 2 years, same for Jackson with thriller

and I thought at the time it was weird - people bought the albums by the second or so single, so how do you keep spinning off singles that people have on the LP?

[KPM]

The "talking heads-rock critics" of the last 20 years have never recognised the true greatness of Elvis because it is just too simple-his voice.
They want to find the deep meaning of Dylans lyrics, or the experimentation of the Beatles in all they call artists. I do not knock Dylan or the Beatles-they were artists they did write and work at their craft and deserve to be given their due. But because Elvis was not as "seemingly complex and DEEP" and did not write-they view him as something less-sad.

[intheghetto]

The "talking heads-rock critics" of the last 20 years have never recognised the true greatness of Elvis because it is just too simple-his voice.
They want to find the deep meaning of Dylans lyrics, or the experimentation of the Beatles in all they call artists. I do not knock Dylan or the Beatles-they were artists they did write and work at their craft and deserve to be given their due. But because Elvis was not as "seemingly complex and DEEP" and did not write-they view him as something less-sad.

Which rock critics are you talking about? I don't doubt they are out there and I would love to see some of the nonsense they write about Elvis. I know Albert Goldman is the most notorious of the Elvis bashers and I haven't had the chance to read his Elvis biography, but it is on my shelf and I plan on reading it in the very near future. On the other hand there are some very respectable rock journalists/critics that have over the years carefully examined Elvis' life and career and given him the praise, and criticism, he deserves. The two that have wrote at length are of course Peter Guralnick and Greil Marcus. Then there are others as well like Stanley Booth, Lester Bangs, and Chet Flippo.

[EnigmaticSun]

But because Elvis was not as "seemingly complex and DEEP" and did not write-they view him as something less-sad.

It is true, my guess is that these critics root in the 1960's and any discipline was regarded unrelaxed, man - or dude.. Don't dress properly, don't take care of your appearance, smell bad - and you're sure to be appreciated. Perhaps a disciplined voice was also regarded unfashionable..
For some reason Elvis and the later 60's just didn't match up.. and they are still in charge, having done the wildest things and now forbidding their offspring.

In some cases, good lyrics came from the '60's.. but not all was good (why come up with similar pseudo-intellectual words such as "finding bliss in the meaningless reflection on the metaphorical clouded highways hazed by the purple grasping midget speaking through me in tongues from the river of pleasure-seeking philosophical gratitude"). The way I look at it, you may become more complete and in charge if you can write songs or music. We all know Elvis' co-operation with good writers or players never lasted long, such as Leiber & Stoller or Jerry Reed. We're even lucky EP got to play with James Burton for so long..

..Parker rules to this day, even from beyond the grave.

[debtdbruno]

I get what Albert is saying that today, people expect that an artist is the writer, performer and producer of their work.

Elvis was the performer/producer.

But, we don't think actors should write the scripts - so there's no reason to expect singers to write the songs.

Writing the song doesn't mean you can sing and emotionally sell it.

I think that if you can sing a song written by someone else and emotionally sell it that that is more impressive.

Elvis aslo did other artist's signature songs and pwned them.

No one has done a cover of an Elvis tune and done it better.

:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy :notworthy

[KPM]

Which rock critics are you talking about? I don't doubt they are out there and I would love to see some of the nonsense they write about Elvis. I know Albert Goldman is the most notorious of the Elvis bashers and I haven't had the chance to read his Elvis biography, but it is on my shelf and I plan on reading it in the very near future. On the other hand there are some very respectable rock journalists/critics that have over the years carefully examined Elvis' life and career and given him the praise, and criticism, he deserves. The two that have wrote at length are of course Peter Guralnick and Greil Marcus. Then there are others as well like Stanley Booth, Lester Bangs, and Chet Flippo.
My main gripe is the writers and editors who took over the major rock publications in the last 20 years-and the newer magazines such as Spin and Mojo to name a few.
People like Marcus, Flippo, Guralnick, Landau, Marsh all great rock writers and editors understood the art of Elvis..... they gave him his respect and his due as a artist....because they did understand it.
From the liner notes of "Elvis Walk a Mile in my Shoes" by Dave Marsh:
"Artists have 2 basic methods (and the form of art-music, writing, architecure, movie making, -matters little)
Some-work as inspiration strikes, fitfully and with great intensity between relatively long periods of quiet, toward a very uncertain goal. These are the romantics.
Others work regularly, thought not necessarily daily, and with the overt purpose of turning out a product of some kind. These are the laborers. Despite romantic mythology, the results achieved by the laboring process can soar just as high, resound just as deeply, probe into the same secret recesses.
Few artists are purely one thing or another of course, but Elvis probably comes as close to being a pure worker bee in the fields of his chosen art as anybody.
Because he is so clearly toiled, its easy to disrepect what he did-and yet, when you actually just sit back, close your eyes and listen, you have to understand that the intention of all that hard work, from the beginning to the end of his career, was to create a feeling of musical naturalness and easiness that conceptually stood that hard work on its head"


Marsh understands where the artistry of Elvis was based, he understands that it took a lot of work, and it took a lot of talent vocally. There is more to singing,.... singing well.... than just doing it.
There is more to the term artist than writing, sculpting, painting etc......newer critics just do not see it.
My daughter gets Spin, Mojo, and Rolling Stone has for about the last 10 years and I have read their reviews of "anything Elvis" they do not understand the greatness-they are too cerebral and pretentious in their views IMO and that influences the people who read the mags.

[monk37]

....I have read their reviews of "anything Elvis" they do not understand the greatness-they are too cerebral and pretentious in their views IMO and that influences the people who read the mags.

and I think that's the heart of it

Elvis isn't cerebral or pretentious

He was a working class workhorse who could power through material without complaining and make it seem effortless.

If Elvis worked like artists today, averaging 1 album every 2 years (sometimes 3), he would need a career 136 years long to match his 23 year output (54 to 77)

[TCE]

I guess a part is jealousy and the other part is that people don't seem to care anymore, as long as it is crazy and sexy. They compair Elvis with almost anyone, (wich I find funny. If Elvis wasn't that great then why compair him?) without realizing that you can't compair nowadays with 50 or 30 years ago. It was a different aera. People don't seem to realize that in the "old" days the technology wasn't what it is now. You had to have a good voice and had to know to perform. They only had some lightshow to guide them. Nowadays the only thing that counts is that it must be big, bigger, biggest, crazy and sexy. Many singers can't even sing decent live and cover this up with big explosions etc. As for females it often looks like they throw up their body in the battle. (Most of them are half naked when they perform.) It has nothing to do anymore with performing. People just don't seem to bother to look beyond things and easely forget who made it all possible and what Elvis did accomplish. They only remember the bad parts and forget the good. They don't realize that he was a true worthy performer, who could sing bass, tenor and bariton. He didn't need a voice coach or dance coach like Michael. (Some dancepasses even were taken from Elvis 50's years.) I never understood why people see him as a "king". He had some nice songs in the beginning, but afterwards nah and he doesn't have a special voice. To me he is one of the many singers. But that's my opinion.
I hope that the tv will one day send out good docs. like: he touched me or Elvis and Vegas so people see the other side and see what Elvis been through so they understand better why he did what he did (what drove him) and what he did for people. Like Elvis sang: Walk a mile in my shoes then you're able to understand someone better. We need to show the world that Elvis was more than just a man in a jumpsuit. (That's how the most people see Elvis nowadays.)


Christel (TCE)

[EnigmaticSun]

Like Elvis sang: Walk a mile in my shoes then you're able to understand someone better. We need to show the world that Elvis was more than just a man in a jumpsuit. (That's how the most people see Elvis nowadays.)

You have a point there! (y)Great post with an eye for virtue & morality..

Elvis' life.. shows you may not be born a king, but you're meant to be king.

Other than that.. anyone wants to have the fame & fortune, no one understands or wants to suffer as much so that you'd know and feel what you're singing about.

In performing and interpretation, Elvis was like a mister Olympia and he fought hard to achieve it. One problem revolves around the audience being able to consume music, but not knowing how to produce it or at least to try and gain some insight into the process. Another factor is the way they view his later years as only bringing rubbish and nothing is done to promote anything post-Aloha.

[EnigmaticSun]

Down here (in Holland) Elvis always been hot!!

That's too weird man. You see I'm not German and was actually born in Holland. My former classmates there.. might have appreciated metal, rap or Bob Dylan - but Elvis was somewhat uncool.. in fact Elvis was an act to laugh about.

[Raised on Rock]

But the fact remains that Elvis was an interpretor and not a creator. Compare it with painters: Van Gogh gets praised, but somebody who can duplicate that image, or even change it here and there for the better, does not.

Elvis was the King of Covers.... I always found it a shame that when he returned to live performing that he chose to cover popular songs from that period, instead of finding new ones (and make those hits). For example: Words, Hey Jude, Runaway, Sweet Caroline, Proud Mary, Never Been To Spain, Yesterday....

If you combine all those facts, than it's no wonder that many people give Elvis less credit as an artist (not performer!) than people or bands like Brian Wilson, the Beatles or even Michael Jackson...


Songwriting must be the more obvious activity in terms of showcasing what a creative artist is, but it is quite a reductive view about what is to be a creative artist in terms of music.

A Songwriter is by NO means the only possibility of being a "true" creative artist-musician.

We might need to review what is art, and what is to be creative artist, and to review then, in which part, a performer, and interpreter, it is not a "true" creative artist.

KMP and In the Ghetto have bring to the discussion good examples about how a performer, in itself, it is also a creative force. I´ll rephrase them as the next questions.

How could you stick to the view that an interpretor, a performer, is not a creator, against what is evident, or according to you:

Did Elvis Presley never created any new forms of art? Any new channels of artistic-musical creation and expression just by means of his original interpretation of the musical panorama of his time, interpretation delivered in his performance, his mere unique way of singing ? Did Elvis actually never created any new possibilities of art just with his way singing?

That is to say, if an interpretor is not a creator, How it is that he changed forever the course of popular music? or didn't he?

Presley HAD a unique and absolute innovative reading - interpretation of the musical panorama of his time, and he changed our ways to conceive music( and ergo gave us new possibilities to write new music), just by delivering that reading to us in the originality (and cultural breaking intensity) of his PERFORMANCES.

If we understand the above statement, cover king sound to reductive, (as if he was a mere sterile gallery of second hand replicas and us fools who could be entertained forever in that sterility). Not cover king, but Americas greatest popular music amalgamator, and in so, the cornerstone itself of what modern popular music became. And he is that precisely because he was an interpretor that expressed himself as an always unique (and most of the time perfect crafting) performer - singer.

To take away from Elvis talent because not being a composer, it is to evaluate his art and talent out of context, that's Art Theory 101.

Why does Elvis musical reach is so misunderstood, and so underrated? because our society is being more and more absorbed in totalitarian views (this is this and that is that, and that is all) that commit the fault of not reading the richness in the very details, inflections and subjectivity of any phenomenon that occurs.

Anyhow, there is a great article on this thread topic on the book "Aspects of Elvis" (edited by Alan Clayson) that it worths time taken in transcribing it here. I'll do it on the weekend.

[ricardo b. prospero]

I believe the most logical reason would be, you can never please everybody no matter how good you are. Just like the coin with two sides to it, we must accept the fact that there will always be those who likes him and those who don't. Nevertheless, if you are a fan your will should not be influenced in any way to alter what you believe in. I am a fan and I believe in him.

[debtdbruno]

look forward to the article R on R.........

[EnigmaticSun]

I believe the most logical reason would be, you can never please everybody no matter how good you are. Just like the coin with two sides to it, we must accept the fact that there will always be those who likes him and those who don't.

Well said. There will even remain those who don't even take Elvis seriously, since they have fusion jazz or something..

..other than that, it is possible to be an Elvis-fan without adhering to "Elvis was both the beginning of the world and the end of the world".

[SleepyJack]

Well said. There will even remain those who don't even take Elvis seriously, since they have fusion jazz or something..

..other than that, it is possible to be an Elvis-fan without adhering to "Elvis was both the beginning of the world and the end of the world".

You mean we should view him as "just an entertainer"???

:blink::blink::blink::blink:

[lvs2day]

over the past 40 years of being a fan , i believe i have heard it all , many still think he only recorded houndog. I love how even some current rock stars are so limited in their thinking that ELVIS PRESLEY is old hat when nothing could be further from the truth especially with his music from the 70's he had some real great music and a great range of it from country , rock and blues and some real great musians to back him up. I sure know i'm not missing much by not buying nor listening to todays so called music , ELVIS AARON PRESLEY will always be a happening artist.

[EnigmaticSun]

You mean we should view him as "just an entertainer"???

:blink::blink::blink::blink:

An entertainer is not necessarily not an artist.. follow me?

What I meant was:

1. God is the beginning and the ending of the world
2. Why are patriotic Elvis-fans harder in their judgement on his later work than I am?

The way they see Elvis reminds me of Mozart, as a classical composer.. it's hard to explain, perhaps because they got everyone jealous and were the best in their time and trade.

Don't worry.. I'm a Jew and Elvis-fan like you! :)

[SleepyJack]

I think music dies a death when you start to over-analyse it and dissect it into particles, the beauty of music is that it doesn`t need to explain itself....every piece of music means something different to people, just as we could all listen to the same Elvis song at the same point in time and all come away with a different experience of it.
All I ever really want from a song or piece of music is that the person playing it or singing it can convey the essence of the song to me while I`m listening to it and that I will enjoy it.That is one of the main attractions of Elvis music to me,he could (still can) make listening into a very personal experience and get every ounce of emotion out of it,even all these years later on plastic discs,on equipment that didn`t exist back at the time of recording,all that is forgotten when you press play and hear that voice.

[EnigmaticSun]

every piece of music means something different to people, just as we could all listen to the same Elvis song at the same point in time and all come away with a different experience of it.

That's a good point. It's how the universe is meant, infinite possibilities to appreciate art and beauty. In a broader context the western world is now experiecing their form of maoism, all variation and differences slaughtered by (in the western context) consumptive behaviour and numbness. It's very hard to point out differences in current "music".. it's all the same electronic beat.

Hope someone gets the point..

[TTWII2001]

wow these are words of wisdom, it's always been like that all things are perception..and Elvis world...it's like a religion...and religion it's all about perception.....and like religion there is always discordance.....and all the points of discordance are about perception....ex: Elvis was better in the 50's, he lokks...better in taht period or at that time....for some and better in another time....but bottom line it's perception...

[Raised on Rock]

look forward to the article R on R.........

Well better late than never.

I just posted that article on the articles section, here's a direct link: http://www.tcb-world.com/showthread.php?32851-Wise-Men-Say.-By-Simon-Frith-(1994)&p=367300#post367300

I think its totally pertinent to this topic.

Sorry couldn't transcribed it sooner.

[Brian Quinn]

First off I feel that people get into music mainly during their teenage years and the artists and styles that prevail during these years are the ones that are contiguously linked into long term memory. In other words we are somewhat biased towards our own favourites during this formative stage. Of course this is just a generalisation but overall true.

As regards non fans and Elvis I feel the following points mitigate against him:

1. Right from square one Elvis upset the 'status quo' in the U.S.A. Overnight, established stars like Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, Tony Bennett, Mel Torme, Doris Day and countless others suddenly found their careers threatened by this 'outrageous upstart' from the South. Elvis threatened the power structures then prevailing which by and large were controled from the North, the epicentre being New York. This is why Elvis never really wanted to play New York and very rarely performed there. Even today this North/South divide, stemming from the outcome of the Civil War, still echoes today and if you look at most of the articles printed about Elvis in the New York Press they are still mostly unfavourable. In contrast, as if to prove a point, New York latched onto The Beatles in a big way and still do to this day. Paul McCartney has played there often but very little in the South. John Lennon even lived there and has a memorial in Central Park. No memorial for Elvis however.

2. Unfortunately for Elvis he came along in the mid-fifties when camera technology was in it's infancy. Therefore there are no complete concerts filmed of his fifties performances showing the absolute fan mania that surrounded them. Contemporary artists, in contrast, have many of their concerts professionally filmed in colour showing fan mania to the full. The main period for the professional filming of Elvis concerts was in the 1970's and by this time Elvis and his audiences had matured. Crowd reaction was adult and tame compared to the early days. Teenagers today looking at such films as TTWII, Elvis On Tour, the 68 Special and particularly the CBS Elvis In Concert Special must get a very jaded view of Elvis and his audiences. The word that comes to mind is ADULT. For some of these shows I have seen better crowd reaction for an opera performance!! We, as fans, of course, LOVE them.

3. In hindsight, Elvis gave too many performances for the good of his health, especially in the last 5 years. His physical appearance had deteriorated mainly due to illness and his dependency of prescription drugs. This had the effect of Elvis appearing before hundreds of thousands of people with the effect of them being shocked at his deterioration. Again, Elvis himself and greedy management appear to be the catalyst for these. Unfortunately, it is these performances that are now seen by today's public and give a very jaded view of the REAL Elvis.

4. Elvis' record companies throughout his career have never really spent serious money marketing his music. They have relied on a loyal fan base to purchase his records. This has had the effect of hundreds of 'Greatest Hits' collections being sold to mainly the general public. Consequently the vast majority of Elvis' catalogue is unheard of by the general public and even by some casual Elvis fans. Elvis is seen as 'Hound Dog'; 'Heartbreak Hotel'; 'Burning Love'; The Wonder Of You'; Don't Be Cruel'; 'Suspiicious Minds' etc. At my wife's funeral a couple of years back I had played 'I'll Remember You' and after the ceremony I had several people approach me to say they had never heard that Elvis track and even one casual Elvis fan.

5. From the fifties Elvis attracted the tag 'King Of Rock 'n' Roll'. In many ways this title undersells his talent as the vast majority of his catalogue is NOT rock 'n' roll. Original rock 'n' roll as we now know it died out in 1960 with the consequence of Elvis being labelled KING of a dead musical genre. Similarly, Elvis' flared jumpsuits from the 1970's give the impression of a dead fashion era. In contrast Michael Jackson has been far more fortunate with the title 'King oF Pop' as 'pop' covers any popular musical genre even in the future.

6. For most people today 'Elvis' is portrayed by the many Elvis Impersonators. Some are excellent but the vast majority are not. Some are downright disgusting. Unfortunately, in my opinion, EPE/CKX have given in to these people by not charging them for a licence. Elvis' legacy is the one that suffers when these people are bad.

I could go on forever but find this an interesting thread and love to read other fan's opinions on this topic.

Brian

[EnigmaticSun]

I could go on forever but find this an interesting thread and love to read other fan's opinions on this topic.

Thank you, shows a lot of brain power, Brian.

Also a lot of interesting points to note, some of which are new to me. Yes I bet being a Southern underdog has something to do with it. And of course Elvis in the 70's was too much of a class act to appeal to the most hormonal among youth on the short term.

[debtdbruno]

First off I feel that people get into music mainly during their teenage years and the artists and styles that prevail during these years are the ones that are contiguously linked into long term memory. In other words we are somewhat biased towards our own favourites during this formative stage. Of course this is just a generalisation but overall true.

As regards non fans and Elvis I feel the following points mitigate against him:

1. Right from square one Elvis upset the 'status quo' in the U.S.A. Overnight, established stars like Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, Tony Bennett, Mel Torme, Doris Day and countless others suddenly found their careers threatened by this 'outrageous upstart' from the South. Elvis threatened the power structures then prevailing which by and large were controled from the North, the epicentre being New York. This is why Elvis never really wanted to play New York and very rarely performed there. Even today this North/South divide, stemming from the outcome of the Civil War, still echoes today and if you look at most of the articles printed about Elvis in the New York Press they are still mostly unfavourable. In contrast, as if to prove a point, New York latched onto The Beatles in a big way and still do to this day. Paul McCartney has played there often but very little in the South. John Lennon even lived there and has a memorial in Central Park. No memorial for Elvis however.

2. Unfortunately for Elvis he came along in the mid-fifties when camera technology was in it's infancy. Therefore there are no complete concerts filmed of his fifties performances showing the absolute fan mania that surrounded them. Contemporary artists, in contrast, have many of their concerts professionally filmed in colour showing fan mania to the full. The main period for the professional filming of Elvis concerts was in the 1970's and by this time Elvis and his audiences had matured. Crowd reaction was adult and tame compared to the early days. Teenagers today looking at such films as TTWII, Elvis On Tour, the 68 Special and particularly the CBS Elvis In Concert Special must get a very jaded view of Elvis and his audiences. The word that comes to mind is ADULT. For some of these shows I have seen better crowd reaction for an opera performance!! We, as fans, of course, LOVE them.

3. In hindsight, Elvis gave too many performances for the good of his health, especially in the last 5 years. His physical appearance had deteriorated mainly due to illness and his dependency of prescription drugs. This had the effect of Elvis appearing before hundreds of thousands of people with the effect of them being shocked at his deterioration. Again, Elvis himself and greedy management appear to be the catalyst for these. Unfortunately, it is these performances that are now seen by today's public and give a very jaded view of the REAL Elvis.

4. Elvis' record companies throughout his career have never really spent serious money marketing his music. They have relied on a loyal fan base to purchase his records. This has had the effect of hundreds of 'Greatest Hits' collections being sold to mainly the general public. Consequently the vast majority of Elvis' catalogue is unheard of by the general public and even by some casual Elvis fans. Elvis is seen as 'Hound Dog'; 'Heartbreak Hotel'; 'Burning Love'; The Wonder Of You'; Don't Be Cruel'; 'Suspiicious Minds' etc. At my wife's funeral a couple of years back I had played 'I'll Remember You' and after the ceremony I had several people approach me to say they had never heard that Elvis track and even one casual Elvis fan.

5. From the fifties Elvis attracted the tag 'King Of Rock 'n' Roll'. In many ways this title undersells his talent as the vast majority of his catalogue is NOT rock 'n' roll. Original rock 'n' roll as we now know it died out in 1960 with the consequence of Elvis being labelled KING of a dead musical genre. Similarly, Elvis' flared jumpsuits from the 1970's give the impression of a dead fashion era. In contrast Michael Jackson has been far more fortunate with the title 'King oF Pop' as 'pop' covers any popular musical genre even in the future.

6. For most people today 'Elvis' is portrayed by the many Elvis Impersonators. Some are excellent but the vast majority are not. Some are downright disgusting. Unfortunately, in my opinion, EPE/CKX have given in to these people by not charging them for a licence. Elvis' legacy is the one that suffers when these people are bad.

I could go on forever but find this an interesting thread and love to read other fan's opinions on this topic.

Brian

I don't think I've read a more inciteful post on Elvis, ever............fantastic Brian

:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy :notworthy:notworthy:notworthy

[KPM]

Its just a fact of life that Elvis has not been taken as seriously since the early days of the 1950s and its a many fold answer as to why.
The movies, the many second rate songs they included, the lack of change in 1964-65 with the British invasion and the changes in musics directions because of it, his image as the All American boy which was no longer a plus after 1964 etc......all of this overshadowed his main weapon-his vocal ability and his unique delivery which took in all types of music and mixed them together.
The "non writer" fixation of the "serious" rock press after that became somes prerequisite for seriousness and talent.
Its almost like a few people set up rules on what is great-and instead of deciding for ones self many just recited the fews mantra.

[EnigmaticSun]

It's almost like a few people set up rules on what is great - and instead of deciding for ones self, many just recited the fews mantra.

Good points too. Who are they to decide what is great (or not), and why are they so easily believed?

Ah well. Elvis' voice was unique among popular singers and not quite bad in a classical context either.

[monk37]

the Susan Doll book, Elvis for Dummies (yes, the computer book series) is an excellent work on why Elvis is underrated and how he really shouldn't be