PDA

View Full Version : In Elvis lifetime, who do you suppose was the biggest threat to his crown?



ricardo b. prospero
09-21-2007, 04:54 PM
During the British invasion of the 60's, the Beatles seems to have shaken the ground for Elvis and even threatened his crown but after all the shoutings he stood his ground and remain the king. There were contenders before the advent of the Beatles like Fabian, Ricky Nelson, Buddy Holly , Cliff Richards and Richie Valen but somehow they failed to even match the power of the king. Was there a time in Elvis lifetime that someone besides the Beatles post a real challenge to his crown?:clap:

ksimms2
09-21-2007, 05:06 PM
I personally don't think so...The Beatles would be my guess....as far as I'm concerned...nobody was better than Elvis....

ricardo b. prospero
09-21-2007, 05:40 PM
Thank you KSIMMS2, you said it right. I also believe only the Beatles earned the right to challenge him and no one else. Yearly here in our place a popularity contest is run fitting the Beatles against Elvis in a whole day program.

Getlo
09-21-2007, 08:49 PM
"The real Elvis died when he went into the army" - John Lennon.

Elvis, for the most part, completely missed what was going on musically in the 60s. And on into the 70s.

When you talk of artists such as the Beatles "stealing his crown" ... well, no one ever could.

But from a musical standpoint, Elvis never again regained his place as the most relevant artist out there. Sadly.

EDOEP
09-21-2007, 09:02 PM
During the British invasion of the 60's, the Beatles seems to have shaken the ground for Elvis and even threatened his crown but after all the shoutings he stood his ground and remain the king. There were contenders before the advent of the Beatles like Fabian, Ricky Nelson, Buddy Holly , Cliff Richards and Richie Valen but somehow they failed to even match the power of the king. Was there a time in Elvis lifetime that someone besides the Beatles post a real challenge to his crown?:clap:

the biggest threat for elvis' crown in the 60s was the colonel's choice of films! :angry:

hugs, ellie

EnigmaticSun
09-21-2007, 10:29 PM
No artist came close in those days. But that's just popularity-wise. I don't mean to say there haven't been other great musicians. Or did Elvis steal Mozart's crown?

The biggest threat was the inhuman American system.

KPM
09-21-2007, 10:47 PM
No one stays musically the most relevant for very long. In the mid 1920s Rudy Vallee was most relevant,then in the 30s and into the early 40s it was Bing Crosby next was Frank Sinatra-then Elvis in the 50s into the early 60s. Then the Beatles-its very hard to be the most relelvant because someone new is always being discovered. But as far as sales Elvis has sustained much longer than most. I'm not sure who or what would be considered most relevant today. Music is much more fickle I think.
But there is no doubting the Beatles are one of the 2 biggest recording artists of the last 100 years the other being Elvis. (But there were 4 of them;))

rocknroll
09-21-2007, 10:52 PM
Elvis is The King for what he started and who he influenced, not for what he did after that.

KPM
09-21-2007, 11:22 PM
"The real Elvis died when he went into the army" - John Lennon.

I have always loved that comment by Lennon
Yet at Madison Square Garden shows Lennon was there. He also in 69 tried to get Elvis to appear with him at the Toronto Peace Festival and later in the 70s he discussed with Phil Spector trying to get Elvis to let them produce an album by him. He may have made this great flip remark after Elvis died, but he must have not felt that deep down if you go by his actions,

Getlo
09-21-2007, 11:44 PM
He may have made this great flip remark after Elvis died, but he must have not felt that deep down if you go by his actions,

It was far from a flip remark.

What it says is that, after the army, the power and influence Elvis had on the charts and in pop culture overall was never as relevant as the pre-army days.

And Lennon was entirely correct. From the moment Elvis signed on to do G.I.Blues and started releasing stuff like It's Now Or Never (yes, a great song, but it's hardly the stuff of The Hillbilly Cat who tore up the world, is it?) the writing was on the wall.

Lennon's "actions" regarding Elvis later in life do not nullify in any way the accuracy of his statement about Elvis. Had Lennon, Spector et al got to work with Elvis, then The King's musical legacy would be even greater than it is today.

Say what you want about Elvis, but face it: the guy spewed out a lot of crap music in the 60s and 70s (whether it was all his fault or not is the subject of another thread), especially when compared to the other artists who were dominating the charts at that time. As I mentioned elsewhere: Sgt Pepper ... or Clambake?

Sadly, the "real" Elvis (musically speaking at least) died in 1958, as Lennon suggested.

EnigmaticSun
09-21-2007, 11:50 PM
I'm not sure who or what would be considered most relevant today. Music is much more fickle I think.

I don't agree with "music changes every -any given, short period-; you gotta change with it". If you do that, you'll eventually wind up selling your soul to the devil (don't do it) and your integrity. Elvis' character said that in Jailhouse Rock, but this is not the "Real Elvis", so to say. All in all, you may seem like a madman or crazy without having to sell your soul, really. Mr. Yamashita didn't sell his soul, yet people think he's crazy.

I have tremendous respect for Elvis, but the Beatles don't mean that much to me, really. In some cases I've found them to be arrogant, politically correct shout-a-bouts. So sales don't mean a thing to me. I'm much more interested in Willie Nelson compared to the Beatles.

The Beatles (and some other bands) were considered to be the "British Invasion". I'm trying to shape the German invasion, of which I will be F?hrer (leader), eventually getting the Endsieg (final victory) - which means inspiring people and filling up the gap present day music leaves behind. I don't have a "get-rich-quick-scheme" or a schedule, though.

Elvis, you'll never be forgotten. I love you and I really think you're great. Come on, Elvis' love for the Italian opera and German folk songs are just as Presleyssential as "Blue Moon Of Kentucky".

rhythmknights
09-21-2007, 11:54 PM
I don't thinkthe army had anything to do with the 'death' of Elvis, I think it was the death of his mother, and her death occured while he was in the army. He didn't want to go into the army to begin with, but he did his duty, I think maybe he blamed his military service for her death in some way. Or maybe not, he did say on more than one occasion that he was proud to have served, & that he was proud to wear his uniforn & he did make it to the rank of sargeant. oh, well, I'm off the track, here, let me go ahead & jump :doh: :lmfao:

Oh, I don't think anyone could give hima run for his money, but probably Jerry Lee Lewis or Ray Charles would come close.

Getlo
09-22-2007, 12:01 AM
I don't thinkthe army had anything to do with the 'death' of Elvis.

You're missing the point.

Lennon wasn't talking about the death of Elvis as a person (either physically or spiritually).

He was referring to Elvis as a musical artist and a cultural force.

What's he's saying is that after the army, Elvis never set the world of music on fire with as much passion as he did pre-1958.

rhythmknights
09-22-2007, 12:22 AM
Yeah, I got that, I still think that because his mom died, he just didn't have the same heart. She was practically his muse. He did it all for her, for her praise & to make her proud of him. Of course we all know that she was proud of him no matter what he did, she always knew he was meant for bigger things. I get what you're saying, but this is how I see it in my mind.

KPM
09-22-2007, 01:07 AM
It was far from a flip remark.

What it says is that, after the army, the power and influence Elvis had on the charts and in pop culture overall was never as relevant as the pre-army days.

And Lennon was entirely correct. From the moment Elvis signed on to do G.I.Blues and started releasing stuff like It's Now Or Never (yes, a great song, but it's hardly the stuff of The Hillbilly Cat who tore up the world, is it?) the writing was on the wall.

Lennon's "actions" regarding Elvis later in life do not nullify in any way the accuracy of his statement about Elvis. Had Lennon, Spector et al got to work with Elvis, then The King's musical legacy would be even greater than it is today.
".

Say what you want about Elvis, but face it: the guy spewed out a lot of crap music in the 60s and 70s (whether it was all his fault or not is the subject of another thread), especially when compared to the other artists who were dominating the charts at that time. As I mentioned elsewhere: Sgt Pepper ... or Clambake?

Sadly, the "real" Elvis (musically speaking at least) died in 1958, as Lennon suggested.

To me the remark was tongue in cheek flip covering his true feeling-according to all those around him Elvis's death sent him into a depression. Instead of saying "he was my idol he'll be missed" or something like
"I picked up my first guitar because of him" he downplayed his death-with IMO a flip remark which kept up his tough Liverpool hood image. He took Elvis's death hard and this was a hard remark -which he may have believed- but he said it to hide his feelings IMO Elvis did not die musically after 58 he changed-if some did not like the change you can't please everyone can you. Second biggest record seller of the 60s someone was still buying him even when he slumped.
As far as Elvis continuing to be the "Hillbilly Cat" the Beatles did not continue to be the "Mop Tops" they evolved into something entirely different.
So did Elvis, now you and others may not have liked the way he evolved, but someone must have since "Its Now Or Never" sold about 9 million copies.
Elvis was Elvis whether he was the "Hillbilly Cat or in Clambake. I admit I would have preferred if he had not done a lot of the music he did in the 60s but he did. Some hate it, I can find pleasure in some of it it for only the memories I get from hearing it.
Now we can look back and see rock-n-roll was here to stay- but in 1960 they were already saying it was near run its course. The rough edge had already been rounded off so to speak-Elvis did what he thought was the next step and he worked on ballads and more mature singing. The Beatles took it to the next level after Elvis. For Elvis the next level was after Sinatra. He could not be what the Beatles were-and they could not be what he was. IMO That is a fact of evolution. You may disagree and thats fine.

Cryogenic
09-22-2007, 01:35 AM
I think Lennon's comments were and are more prescient than he realised -- I think the army itself and the loss of Elvis' mother changed him more than anything else ever could have. However, Elvis recording "It's Now or Never" is really no slur against his image. He recorded some pretty sryupy ballads in the 50's, too. He was IN LOVE with that style. "Elvis Is Back" is actually the single biggest artistic statement he made on record till that point (IMO). Of course, his 50's recordings are as peerless as they are priceless, but that 1960 album took him to a new level. It's too easy to draw a land in the sand. That said, as I began this paragraph by saying, I think that the army and death of Gladys forever altered Elvis. These two things, as much as they may have made him stronger, also pushed him closer to the Colonel. The wind was knocked out of his sails and he was more malleable after that, even though he dissented more than once. It seems that Elvis became a little more withdrawn from the world and clingier after the double blow of potentially losing his fame and definitely losing the love of his life hit him simultaneously. No disrespect to Charlie (or any of the other guys), but the army is where he picked up Hodge and goodness knows who else; his life to come really took shape in those essential years.

As for this "crown" issue. What, what?! :P

Well, no one can ever stop Elvis from being Elvis. He stands alone. But if you want me to move beyond rhetoric, I will move, musically speaking, to the "Elvis is Back" sessions / album once more. His voice was never better, he was fully committed on each and every recording, and he and the band cooked. The sessions were brilliantly productive and resulted in some of the best and most diverse music of his career. The rich sound quality and sultry blues feel also suggested a new direction for Elvis. That he never really capitalised on this high point as he really could and should have is unfortunate, but it doesn't detract from those sessions or the forward-thinking he demonstrated at the time. There were even very serious plans for him to go back to touring in 1960 / 1961! What happened later is sad. Musically, Elvis did drift into irrelevancy with increasing ennui: 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 . . . each was weaker than the preceding. But there was a gradual upswing beginning in 1966 and Elvis got his mojo working in 1968. In a sense, it is unfair to compare him to The Beatles, Dylan, The Stones and whoever else at the time. The fact of the matter is that Elvis had already enjoyed tons of success in the 50's and beginning of the 60's (with the army potentially depriving him and us of even more!). Back then, those other guys were just beginning to gain inspiration -- from Elvis himself! Y'know, Elvis had already filled his basket and ours quite high; he shouldn't have fallen so low, but he'd earned his stripes and could afford to drift for a while. Then he came back and entered a new -- and, sadly, all too short -- phase of his and our lives. Again, we were changed.

Getlo
09-22-2007, 01:53 AM
As far as Elvis continuing to be the "Hillbilly Cat" the Beatles did not continue to be the "Mop Tops" they evolved into something entirely different.
So did Elvis.

Yes, in their latter years, The Beatles did evolve ... into something better; a group who genuinely kept changing the face of music with each and every new album.

Elvis didn't do that. After 1960, he was homogenised, slicker, more "Hollywood" if you will. For a variety of reasons!

KPM
09-22-2007, 02:23 AM
You have an opinion and its fine with me. As I said Elvis could not be the Beatles, and the Beatles could not be Elvis. I also said Elvis evolved and some may have not been happy with the way he did you are not it seems. Thats what makes the world go round. I on the other hand can see Elvis was Elvis. The Beatles were the Beatles. To compare them is apples and oranges.
They are musical and cultural markers in 2 seperate generations. One led to the other. Elvis was great-one of a kind-for reasons which do not apply to the Beatles and their greatness. The Beatles had each other to work off of-equals to be inspired by. They collaborated. Lennon and McCartney would neither have been as successful alone, Harrison was spurred on by the success of Lennon and McCartney songwriting. Add Ringo and theres the Beatles. Elvis was Elvis.

riley
09-22-2007, 01:12 PM
he was one of a kind, he was unique, no threat for him, no way...

Merry
09-22-2007, 01:30 PM
To me the remark was tongue in cheek flip covering his true feeling-according to all those around him Elvis's death sent him into a depression. Instead of saying "he was my idol he'll be missed" or something like
"I picked up my first guitar because of him" he downplayed his death-with IMO a flip remark which kept up his tough Liverpool hood image. He took Elvis's death hard and this was a hard remark -which he may have believed- but he said it to hide his feelings IMO Elvis did not die musically after 58 he changed-if some did not like the change you can't please everyone can you. Second biggest record seller of the 60s someone was still buying him <snip>.


As always, well said, KPM.

Take care,
Kim

Merry
09-22-2007, 01:33 PM
[quote=Getlo;140709]Yes, in their latter years, The Beatles did evolve ... into something better; a group who genuinely kept changing the face of music with each and every new album. <snip>
quote]


All down to personal taste. Personally, they had a few wonderful songs, a huge proportion, I dislike greatly, in fact, I find irritating.

Merry
09-22-2007, 01:35 PM
You have an opinion and its fine with me. As I said Elvis could not be the Beatles, and the Beatles could not be Elvis. I also said Elvis evolved and some may have not been happy with the way he did you are not it seems. Thats what makes the world go round. I on the other hand can see Elvis was Elvis. The Beatles were the Beatles. To compare them is apples and oranges.
They are musical and cultural markers in 2 seperate generations. One led to the other. Elvis was great-one of a kind-for reasons which do not apply to the Beatles and their greatness. The Beatles had each other to work off of-equals to be inspired by. They collaborated. Lennon and McCartney would neither have been as successful alone, Harrison was spurred on by the success of Lennon and McCartney songwriting. Add Ringo and theres the Beatles. Elvis was Elvis.


Yes! (y)

Kimmi

Diane
09-22-2007, 04:08 PM
To me there is no comparison between Elvis and the Beatles....they were a band....he was a single performer and there was no other single performer who challenged his crown.

Diane

Burning_Love
09-22-2007, 04:14 PM
To me there is no comparison between Elvis and the Beatles....they were a band....he was a single performer and there was no other single performer who challenged his crown.

Diane

I agree Diane !!

Elvis was a single act, they were a band, Elvis did it all by himself...who else did..no one !

ricardo b. prospero
09-22-2007, 05:09 PM
KPM, I wholeheartedly agree with your point of view particularly on the evolution thing.
As I believe nothing in this world is permanent or forever. What goes up must come down.
As a person grew older a lot of changes takes place biologically, mentally and physically and Elvis of course is no exception and certainly those changes may or may not be generally acceptable but again that is how the cookies crumble....

nolvis
09-22-2007, 05:18 PM
:DAt one point The Killer,Jerry Lee Lewis was a bit of a threat.And it's great that these two amazing talents really appreciated each others unique gifts!!!:D(y):king:(y)

SweetCaroline
09-22-2007, 05:35 PM
I agree Diane !!

Elvis was a single act, they were a band, Elvis did it all by himself...who else did..no one !

:king:I agree! Fantastic singer who still holds the crown 30 years after. I personally never cared for the Beatles' music. :king:

Tommy
09-22-2007, 08:45 PM
No body!

Elvis stands as "The King"

KPM
09-22-2007, 09:08 PM
With the Beatles you had 4 distinct personalities that people could choose from, 4 different singers, 4 different talents. Elvis stood alone as Elvis.
His albums were not Sgt. Pepper, but his talent was his voice. Every year from 54 on can anyone deny his voice improved, stretched, and expanded?
He may not have wrote but he tried practically every type music there was and made the mist tepid material sound much better than it was. Kurt Russell anything he did was worth watching because- It Was Elvis.

Suzan
09-22-2007, 09:16 PM
I agree w/ur viewpoint KPM regarding Elvis and the Beatles, but my answer is the same as Tommy's! :)

geordie
09-22-2007, 09:31 PM
What it says is that, after the army, the power and influence Elvis had on the charts and in pop culture overall was never as relevant as the pre-army days.

And Lennon was entirely correct. From the moment Elvis signed on to do G.I.Blues and started releasing stuff like It's Now Or Never (yes, a great song, but it's hardly the stuff of The Hillbilly Cat who tore up the world, is it?) the writing was on the wall.

Lennon's "actions" regarding Elvis later in life do not nullify in any way the accuracy of his statement about Elvis. Had Lennon, Spector et al got to work with Elvis, then The King's musical legacy would be even greater than it is today.

Say what you want about Elvis, but face it: the guy spewed out a lot of crap music in the 60s and 70s (whether it was all his fault or not is the subject of another thread), especially when compared to the other artists who were dominating the charts at that time. As I mentioned elsewhere: Sgt Pepper ... or Clambake?

Sadly, the "real" Elvis (musically speaking at least) died in 1958, as Lennon suggested.
__________________


this is entirly youre opinion,you come across, imo, as very arrogant in youre threads + replies,this could be by the way you write.( i hope it is )
elvis evolved when he came out of the army,you said he died musically,did you want him to continue singing ONLY R&R SONGS untill he died. i for one love every aspect of the kings career,some more than others, i accept that,but i love to listen to BLUE MOON OF KENTUCKY and could quite happily listen to ONE BOY TWO LITTLE GIRLS, and still have the same enjoyment.elvis did not have a career span of 1954- 1958 it was 1954-1977. try to enjoy THE whole rollercoaster ride of what was ELVIS MUSICAL CAREER
if you cant do this, try not to put down those of us who do :D

Getlo
09-22-2007, 10:34 PM
Elvis did it all by himself.


Tell that to Scotty & Bill, DJ Fontana, The Jordanaires, The Imperials, JD Sumner and The Stamps, The TCB Band etc etc and the almost endless list of songwriters! ;)

Oh, and to Elvis himself, who'd be the first to disagree that he did it "all by himself".

Getlo
09-22-2007, 10:37 PM
this is entirly youre opinion,you come across, imo, as very arrogant in youre threads + replies,this could be by the way you write.( i hope it is )
if you cant do this, try not to put down those of us who do :D

That is your perception; I can do nothing about that, nor is it any concern of mine.

I am offering an opinion in response to other peoples' views.

And if you can listen to Blue Moon of Kentucky and One Boy, Two Little Girls with equal enjoyment ... well, bully for you! ;)

Suzan
09-23-2007, 06:22 AM
I like the Beatles, I LOVE LOVE Lennon, but I did not like St. Peppers...so I would have to chose Clambake (though am not a fan of Elvis movies, though I do like a handful, or can watch them.:) )

I think all artists, no matter who they are, don't do it alone, every one of them has gotten influence from somewhere, @ some time.:D

BrianK
09-23-2007, 06:54 AM
I think that it is wrong to say that Elvis peaked in 1958 or 1960. He and the musicians around him evolved & perfected fiis musical style into a more mature mode - the 50s stuff is fresh and vibrant, the post "movie period" stuff is mellower & more thoughtful.

SeeSeeRider777
09-23-2007, 07:36 AM
The only real threat was the Beatles. But Elvis was 1 man no band. He set all the records by himself. I dont want to hear from anyone that the Beatles were better than Elvis. Are they in 4 different halls of fame? No. Did they sell over a billion records? No. Did they have 30 number one hits? No. Did they ever sell out the garden 4 straight shows? No. Were they the first ones to have a live concert? No. I rest my case. Long Live the King. :king:

Suzan
09-23-2007, 07:40 AM
Your right 2 different categories, but still all great artists and all due their kudos.:D

I think both Elvis and the Beatles are in Guinness World Records, but again under different categoris, they are under "group" and he is listed as "solo artist".:D

Raised on Rock
09-23-2007, 09:08 AM
Yes, in their latter years, The Beatles did evolve ... into something better; a group who genuinely kept changing the face of music with each and every new album.

Elvis didn't do that. After 1960, he was homogenised, slicker, more "Hollywood" if you will. For a variety of reasons!


"The real Elvis died when he went into the army" - John Lennon.

Elvis, for the most part, completely missed what was going on musically in the 60s. And on into the 70s.
When you talk of artists such as the Beatles "stealing his crown" ... well, no one ever could.

But from a musical standpoint, Elvis never again regained his place as the most relevant artist out there. Sadly.


You're missing the point.

Lennon wasn't talking about the death of Elvis as a person (either physically or spiritually).

He was referring to Elvis as a musical artist and a cultural force.

What's he's saying is that after the army, Elvis never set the world of music on fire with as much passion as he did pre-1958.

Lennon never stated: "The real Elvis died when he went to the army". So, before going any further into the reading of your interpretation of a Lennon?s quote, here is what Lennon did stated that day:


"Up until Elvis joined the army, I thought it was beatiful music and Elvis was for me and my generation, what The Beatles were to the 60's. But after he went to the army, I think they cut "les bollocks" off. They not only shaved his hair off but I think they shaved between his legs, too. He played some good stuff after the army, but it was never quite the same, It was like something happened to him psychologically. Elvis really died the day he joined the army. That?s when they killed him, and the rest was living dead".


So, when you state that Lennon wasn?t speaking of a spiritual (that could translate into: psychological) death, but only of Elvis as a cultural force, you kind of miss something, well guess that?s what happens when people doesn?t get the complete quotes, not your fault, well maybe it is. I believe Lennon was moslty standing out the point that it was a mental thing what happened to Elvis as a cause of continously losing the edge about his career.

Yes it is true that after the army Elvis wasn?t the same, his mother dead was hard on him, and that combined with his own unsoved psychological stuff and the big posibility of also losing his career, lead him to lost his direction, his self confident self, and mostly he returned as drug adict, a main reason of spending the rest of his life as a living dead, as everytime he was unhappy with something in his career, instead of doing something about it, he just demerol walked into it.

But that doesn?t mean that as you put it: "Sadly, the "real" Elvis (musically speaking at least) died in 1958", that would be to take what it does was a fact to an unreal extreme. First, the REAL Elvis argument its quite a childish way to look at the world, there?s no such thing as a real self as people change everyday, that is as far as going into saying that the real getlo died when he was 24 and now whatever he is, its unreal? no, your old self its the real getlo, we like him or not. Elvis singing Clambake was the real Elvis, a real F*** up Elvis, as he was also a real ELvis doing a gospel grammy awarding album the year before, or the NBC special or the Memphis stuff the years after. Now if your going into the "real art" stuff, well, genuine art does not necesary have to bee rock and roll, to state that only when Elvis did his hillbilly cat act was being genuine, its kind of a shortminded view from your very self.

About changing the world, about Elvis being the front man at a musical and cultural revolution, yes you are right, that goes only for the pre-army Elvis, but one thing its that, and another to state that he didn?t evolve as an artist, no need to prove that he evolved as a singer and as a preformer, again you are taking a fact, mistakenly into an extreme statment that diminishes the man in an unfair way. Yes, he wasted a lot of his time and talend in hollywood and then in vegas, and he didn?t looked for and embraced certain obvious challenges that were in front of him, no argument against that.

Yes after their bublegum period, The Beatles evolved greatly album by album an changed the musical world from '65 to '68, but you are missing one big point here, after the White Album they stoped evolving. No we cannot say the Bealtes were homogenised by the bussines as Elvis was, but that was because there where no longer any Beatles to critize, the group disbanded. But when you go and put on the spot their solo albums, it can be said the same that your stating about Elvis, I mean McCartney first album, Imagine (the album) yes a couple of great tunes but really, if it wasn?t because The Beatles fame it would have been a total flop.

Nothing of what they done after The Beatles wasn?t aready done on a Beatles album, and no they never set the music world on fire again, they certainly stoped changing the world of music album by album, they were never again the most relevant artists out there. TDid they missed what was going on musically during the 70's and 80's? well they did recorded some good stuff after the Bealtes isn?t it? just as Lennon said about Elvis, but they were not at all the rock vanguard of the 70's, in fact, except certain moments, they were hardly rock and roll anymore, just like Elvis after the army, and at last, 1980: Macca's Coming Up? Lennon?s Double Fantasy? that sounded as awfull after the the punk movement, or compared with what Pink Floyd did through the 70's, as Clambake compared to Sgt Pepper, so... anyway to bring out Clambake instead HOw Great Thou Art and related sessions, its to be unfair, as the music Elvis recorded in those session were as genuine as Stg Pepper from the creative point of view, no, not as revolutionary, but you will find out a more meaning full reasoning other than the reductive one you are ofering looking the overall thing and not just a fragment.

So Elvis as a cultural revolution, that goes from from '54 to '60, THe Beatles from '64 to '70, what?s the G. D. diference? KMP had it right all the way: No one stays musically the most relevant for very long.

Suzan
09-23-2007, 09:43 AM
Ahhhh, are we forgetting 1969? Usually I agree w/u Getlo, but I can't this time around, 1968 Special, 1969 Stax recordings, 1970 (?) Studio B in Nahsville...which I think was far superior stuff to anything in the 50's, jmo...Jailhouse Rock, Baby Let's Play House, not really deep in my opinion....though I thoroughly enjoy his 50's stuff, That's Alright, Blue Moon of Kentucky, etc...but he did some great great stuff from '68 on...including his gospel recordings in the mid 70's..
The Beatles broke up fairly quickly, so who knows what they could have done, but I LOVE Lennon's solo stuff, amazing pieces of work in my opinion.

Natalie
09-23-2007, 10:03 AM
To me there is no comparison between Elvis and the Beatles....they were a band....he was a single performer and there was no other single performer who challenged his crown.

Diane


I agree. There is no way Elvis can be compared to the beatles as he was solo they were not. I guess if I had to name a person who comes close it would have to be Micheal Jackson maybee.

geordie
09-23-2007, 10:44 AM
And if you can listen to Blue Moon of Kentucky and One Boy, Two Little Girls with equal enjoyment ... well, bully for you! ;)


thank you for proving my case :lmfao:

Getlo
09-23-2007, 11:17 AM
thank you for proving my case :lmfao:

Why don't you try to be like, for example, RaisedOnRock, who can post threads disagreeing with me without sounding like a childish prat?

Again, I did not attack you, but you chose to attack me.

I am on here to debate and to keep threads going if they're especially interesting. Like this one is.

Or was.

There are posters on here who I think are arrogant or misinformed too; it's just that I choose not to say so and make the effort to simply use this forum as it was intended - for robust debate.

I'd suggest you try the same diplomacy rather than revert to personal attacks.

Getlo
09-23-2007, 11:20 AM
1969 Stax recordings,

The what ... ?

Burning_Love
09-23-2007, 12:21 PM
Tell that to Scotty & Bill, DJ Fontana, The Jordanaires, The Imperials, JD Sumner and The Stamps, The TCB Band etc etc and the almost endless list of songwriters! ;)

Oh, and to Elvis himself, who'd be the first to disagree that he did it "all by himself".


But I didn't mean it like that.... :'(

Brian Quinn
09-23-2007, 01:15 PM
It was far from a flip remark.

What it says is that, after the army, the power and influence Elvis had on the charts and in pop culture overall was never as relevant as the pre-army days.

And Lennon was entirely correct. From the moment Elvis signed on to do G.I.Blues and started releasing stuff like It's Now Or Never (yes, a great song, but it's hardly the stuff of The Hillbilly Cat who tore up the world, is it?) the writing was on the wall.

Lennon's "actions" regarding Elvis later in life do not nullify in any way the accuracy of his statement about Elvis. Had Lennon, Spector et al got to work with Elvis, then The King's musical legacy would be even greater than it is today.

Say what you want about Elvis, but face it: the guy spewed out a lot of crap music in the 60s and 70s (whether it was all his fault or not is the subject of another thread), especially when compared to the other artists who were dominating the charts at that time. As I mentioned elsewhere: Sgt Pepper ... or Clambake?

Sadly, the "real" Elvis (musically speaking at least) died in 1958, as Lennon suggested.

I prefer 'Clambake' any day to Sgt. Pepper. No contest. Such magic numbers as 'Singing Tree'; 'Guitar Man; 'Big Boss Man'; 'Just Call Me Lonesome'. Pure singing talent and no studio 'tricks'.


Brian (y)

Getlo
09-23-2007, 01:25 PM
I prefer 'Clambake' any day to Sgt. Pepper. No contest. Such magic numbers as 'Singing Tree'; 'Guitar Man; 'Big Boss Man'; 'Just Call Me Lonesome'. Pure singing talent and no studio 'tricks'.


Brian (y)

Brian, I know we're Elvis fans and all but ... are you serious?

We might prefer to hear Elvis, but surely you're not suggesting that the Clambake soundtrack (the album that gave us Confidence and Who Needs Money) was actually better than Sgt Pepper ... ? ;):blink::blink:

(I must admit, though, I had forgotten that Guitar Man, Big Boss Man, Singing Tree and Just Call Me Lonesome were tacked onto this LP.)

KPM
09-23-2007, 06:25 PM
Tell that to Scotty & Bill, DJ Fontana, The Jordanaires, The Imperials, JD Sumner and The Stamps, The TCB Band etc etc and the almost endless list of songwriters! ;)

Oh, and to Elvis himself, who'd be the first to disagree that he did it "all by himself".
Elvis naturally did not do everything alone but lets face it-no one bought the records or went to the concerts for any reason other than Elvis. You could have any musicans or back up groups and people were still coming to see Elvis. I think the people ELvis chose were great and thats not to take anything away from them-but James Burton once said "You could stand on your head and no one noticed while Elvis was on stage"
The Beatles were four distinct persons which drew fans for distinct reasons. It added considerable to their fan appeal. My sister liked Ringo because he was fun, George because he was seemed shy- but she disliked John and Paul because she felt they were arrogant. But still it shows you could be drawn to them by a part and then accept the whole.

utmom2008
11-23-2007, 07:29 PM
All down to personal taste. Personally, they had a few wonderful songs, a huge proportion, I dislike greatly, in fact, I find irritating.


(y) I agree with you totally! I much preferred the mop-top early Beatles music to the Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road music. Sometimes progress and change is not all it's cracked up to be. I have alot of Beatles music, but again, not much after 1966. I know that Sgt. Pepper is supposed to be a landmark in the music field, but to me...it was just weird. IMO!

utmom2008
11-23-2007, 07:46 PM
Ahhhh, are we forgetting 1969? Usually I agree w/u Getlo, but I can't this time around, 1968 Special, 1969 Stax recordings, 1970 (?) Studio B in Nahsville...which I think was far superior stuff to anything in the 50's, jmo...Jailhouse Rock, Baby Let's Play House, not really deep in my opinion....though I thoroughly enjoy his 50's stuff, That's Alright, Blue Moon of Kentucky, etc...but he did some great great stuff from '68 on...including his gospel recordings in the mid 70's..
The Beatles broke up fairly quickly, so who knows what they could have done, but I LOVE Lennon's solo stuff, amazing pieces of work in my opinion.
You are sooooo right Suzan (y) And.....who can forget "Suspicious Minds"?? There are alot of teenagers today that like that song, even if they really no very little about the rest of his music. :D I'll take "Suspicious Minds", "American Trilogy" and "In the Ghetto" any day over "Hound Dog", "Teddy Bear" or "Jailhouse Rock". :D:D

cameron
11-23-2007, 08:18 PM
No one ,IMO.

Of course after hearing Elvis music, I listened much less to others .;)

Diane
11-23-2007, 08:55 PM
I sure agree with you Utmom, no comparison with Elvis' early songs such as Hound Dog, Blue Suede Shoes to his later songs from the '68 Special onwards. I think he did evolve in a very beautiful way.

Diane

Lion
11-23-2007, 09:59 PM
No one came close to Elvis. Many other styles of music appeared in the 50s and the 60s; Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones. They were all "one of a kind" - coming with something new. But nobody could ever ut Elvis down, - not even after all the lousy songs for the films in the 60s - Elvis went through that too - still being The King!

GirlHappy19
11-23-2007, 10:25 PM
I don't think there was anything or anyone who could threat elvis'crown.He was unique.not even his death stop him from being number 1.---30 years after his death he still the king.
girlhappy19

Elvisgirl
11-23-2007, 11:42 PM
During the British invasion of the 60's, the Beatles seems to have shaken the ground for Elvis and even threatened his crown but after all the shoutings he stood his ground and remain the king. There were contenders before the advent of the Beatles like Fabian, Ricky Nelson, Buddy Holly , Cliff Richards and Richie Valen but somehow they failed to even match the power of the king. Was there a time in Elvis lifetime that someone besides the Beatles post a real challenge to his crown?:clap:
besides the beatles, no
i'm not saying i like the beatles as much as elvis, but that's just how it was back then, no matter if you like it or not. they were indeed a threat to his crwon

elvisville
11-24-2007, 12:37 AM
You're missing the point.

Lennon wasn't talking about the death of Elvis as a person (either physically or spiritually).

He was referring to Elvis as a musical artist and a cultural force.

What's he's saying is that after the army, Elvis never set the world of music on fire with as much passion as he did pre-1958.

Eh , Elvis not a cultural force ?
So what is he now then, 49 years after 1958 ???

Lisarose
11-24-2007, 12:50 AM
Threat to his Crown, eh? Well, in that he led the way for those who inspired him, no. But as stated by others, he was dragged down by the 60's show tunes. And in my opinion, not all of them were bad. Some were downright inspired - yeah, one or two got through the cracks, (there was a good thread about them show tunes, too)
Beatles were good, they were great, and like Elvis, they managed to put out some tunes that sucked eggs! In that respect they could blame no one but themselves, they wrote their own music, did they produce their records? Basically they were in charge of their creativity.
Personally, I agree with rhythmknights that he lost his electric charge when his mother died. But does anybody think he would have had yet a second or third comeback in him? In that he could have taken his music places? There was a lot of music in the 70's that had they been better managed (for lack of a better word) would have made it for him. Elvis may have lost his momentum for the hard driving rock 'n roll, but sometimes I see it starting to come back in some of the music. The drama in his life was just sucking him in. I like to think he would have made another comeback, Elvis was his music. Once he opened his mouth to sing, the music had a life of its own. I think he would have been like Tony Bennett, and would come back again and again, but not if he stayed in a comfort zone.

Getlo
11-24-2007, 01:41 AM
Eh , Elvis not a cultural force ?
So what is he now then, 49 years after 1958 ???

What? Who said anything about him not being a cultural force?

I say again:

You're missing the point.

Lennon wasn't talking about the death of Elvis as a person (either physically or spiritually).

He was referring to Elvis as a musical artist and a cultural force.

What's he's saying is that after the army, Elvis never set the world of music on fire with as much passion as he did pre-1958.

Suzan
11-24-2007, 02:55 AM
The what ... ?

Huh? I don't understand the ? lol...what was the rest of what I said?

Suzan
11-24-2007, 02:56 AM
Ahhhh, are we forgetting 1969? Usually I agree w/u Getlo, but I can't this time around, 1968 Special, 1969 Stax recordings, 1970 (?) Studio B in Nahsville...which I think was far superior stuff to anything in the 50's, jmo...Jailhouse Rock, Baby Let's Play House, not really deep in my opinion....though I thoroughly enjoy his 50's stuff, That's Alright, Blue Moon of Kentucky, etc...but he did some great great stuff from '68 on...including his gospel recordings in the mid 70's..
The Beatles broke up fairly quickly, so who knows what they could have done, but I LOVE Lennon's solo stuff, amazing pieces of work in my opinion.

Getlo, here is my original post...I said '69 but also (70) as wasn't sure of date as I made the comment off top of my head.:D

Getlo
11-24-2007, 03:02 AM
Getlo, here is my original post...I said '69 but also (70) as wasn't sure of date as I made the comment off top of my head.:D

Yes, you said the 1969 Stax sessions.

'69 was at American Sound. And he recorded at Stax in '73.

Latte
11-24-2007, 05:04 AM
To me the remark was tongue in cheek flip covering his true feeling-according to all those around him Elvis's death sent him into a depression. Instead of saying "he was my idol he'll be missed" or something like
"I picked up my first guitar because of him" he downplayed his death-with IMO a flip remark which kept up his tough Liverpool hood image. He took Elvis's death hard and this was a hard remark -which he may have believed- but he said it to hide his feelings IMO

Thanks KPM for this insight, this sounds right to me

Suzan
11-24-2007, 05:12 AM
Yes, you said the 1969 Stax sessions.

'69 was at American Sound. And he recorded at Stax in '73.

K thanks, like I said I got my dates confused and was unsure, but knew that he DID put out some great music during this timeframe.:D

utmom2008
11-24-2007, 09:29 PM
Eh , Elvis not a cultural force ?
So what is he now then, 49 years after 1958 ???
No doubt that he was a cultural force. :notworthy Leonard Berstein called him the "greatest cultural force of the 20th century" :notworthy

utmom2008
11-24-2007, 09:43 PM
To me the remark was tongue in cheek flip covering his true feeling-according to all those around him Elvis's death sent him into a depression. Instead of saying "he was my idol he'll be missed" or something like
"I picked up my first guitar because of him" he downplayed his death-with IMO a flip remark which kept up his tough Liverpool hood image.

Seems as though another Beatle was guilty of a flippant remark....Paul McCartney;) I will never forget when John Lennon was killed and a reporter got to Paul first to get his reaction. McCartney's remark? "It's a drag man":blush: Years later he admitted that came out wrong, it wasn't exactly as he intended it to be. Yes...KPM I agree with you. Both Beatles are guilty of flippant, insensitive remarks. (n)

KPM
11-25-2007, 02:58 AM
Seems as though another Beatle was guilty of a flippant remark....Paul McCartney;) I will never forget when John Lennon was killed and a reporter got to Paul first to get his reaction. McCartney's remark? "It's a drag man":blush: Years later he admitted that came out wrong, it wasn't exactly as he intended it to be. Yes...KPM I agree with you. Both Beatles are guilty of flippant, insensitive remarks. (n)

IMO I think its hard for men to express themselves fully when tragedy strikes close to home. I have no doubt John Lennon had deep a deep respect for Elvis and was just doing what men do- pretend nothing bothers us. For all their ups and downs McCartney was very close to Lennon and he was probably so shocked it did just come out wrong.