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!

[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!

[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.