The last great Rocker ?

[debtdbruno]

I love the ending of the 'Opening night' version of Patch it up..........he was sooooo supple

[Joe Car]

Promised Land!

[EnigmaticSun]

A lot has to do with what is your concept of a rocker. Let's go back to the 50's, where Don't Be Cruel or Teddy Bear actually rockers? some say big yes, some will say not really. Of course both tracks are classic tunes from the rock and roll era, but what is straight rock and roll? its a complicated answer.

Don't be Cruel is more of a country tune with a huge gospel infusion, so big that it almost deletes the country feel, and of course there is a bit of R&B there, and some pop sounds of the day like Do Woop, same for Teddy Bear, now by definition, the mix of those elements of course makes it rock and roll and well it is. The thing is rock music it not only about the harder, trashier, nasty sounds. So, if we can say Don't Be Cruel, Teddy Bear where rock and roll, sure thing: For the Heart, and Way Down are rock and roll too! as they are the same thing: country, gospel, a bit of R&B and pop sounds of the day.

Other 50's "rock and roll" songs where more about soul, R&B, again mixed with gospel and so on... stuff like "All Shook Up", "One Night", "Lawdy Miss Clawdy", so then you got stuff in the 70's like "Burning Love" (originaly an R&B number), "Pledgin My Love", "Shake A Hand". Other 50's "rock" songs where totaly country stuff: Fools Such as I, Trying to Get to You, so there you go with T-R-O-U-B-L-E, "Talk About The Good TImes", "You Asked Me To". And the was the straight blues and funky sounding R&B: "So Glad Your Mine", "My Baby Left Me", as later was "Merry Christmas Baby", "Find Out What Happeing" Just a Little BIt" etc.

So I don't think Elvis changed that much in his choices and taste, neither in what he did with them: the way he mixed country, gospel, pop sounds of the day, R&B etc.

Now by Rocker I (and its only me) think of the harder sound inagurated with Good Rockin' Tonight, Baby Let's Play House and pointed to modernity with Hound Dog or the Jailhouse Rock, so to me that line concludes in the 70's with Whole Lotta SHaking Goin On and latter Promised Land. Not even Burning Love as to me tha belongs more to the less harsh but more mellow style inagurated with All Shook Up, I Need Your Love TOnight...

Yes rock music is actually a variety of divergent styles, so... Elvis last rocker?

Hey! I gotta appreciate a reply like that.

Songs like Teddy Bear will never pass for rock songs, as they are too cuddly. That is, if you follow the line of rock since the Rolling Stones and bands from the 70's and 80's. Your reasoning is pretty solid!
Hound Dog, Jailhouse Rock and One Night might pass, even if they are "outdated". It's hard to find the right criterion, why later rockers regard it as such. Perhaps just because the recording technology and equipment were somewhat "limited", compared to later tools. It is for sure that the roughened-up voice and electrical guitars are what they prefer.

I found that even Trying To Get To You, at some point, became more like a rock song, even if it has a country feel to it. The later versions from the seventies rocked, that's for sure.

I like all those tunes, from Promised Land to Way Down and For The Heart. Way Down was probably a bit harsher than those other titles, so it would have to be my pick.. even if I prefer For The Heart, just looking at the lyrics. Gotta love that low note by JD, guess no one had tried that before.

[Raised on Rock]

Looking at the Elvis record catalog while he was alive, I would have to say "Way Down" was the last attempt to release a "Rocker" style song.
here's the original vinyl version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GlhQhlvtKQ

Ahh! The Moody Blue album, yes: on Blue Vinyl. I whish I have that one on my vinyl collection! thanks for sharing

[Raised on Rock]

Hey! I gotta appreciate a reply like that.

Songs like Teddy Bear will never pass for rock songs, as they are too cuddly. That is, if you follow the line of rock since the Rolling Stones and bands from the 70's and 80's. Your reasoning is pretty solid!
Hound Dog, Jailhouse Rock and One Night might pass, even if they are "outdated". It's hard to find the right criterion, why later rockers regard it as such. Perhaps just because the recording technology and equipment were somewhat "limited", compared to later tools. It is for sure that the roughened-up voice and electrical guitars are what they prefer.

I found that even Trying To Get To You, at some point, became more like a rock song, even if it has a country feel to it. The later versions from the seventies rocked, that's for sure.

I like all those tunes, from Promised Land to Way Down and For The Heart. Way Down was probably a bit harsher than those other titles, so it would have to be my pick.. even if I prefer For The Heart, just looking at the lyrics. Gotta love that low note by JD, guess no one had tried that before.

And even when you think of the Rolling Stones, it was more image that anything else, as their sound mostly, was not that harsh, their early rock and roll sides where quite teeny weeny to me, 50's rockers rocked harder to me, latter they evolve to a lot of country and blues sounds in the 70's which are my favourite and was not really "hard rock" by any means and not that different from what Elvis did in Nashville if you take out the string overdubbs. In the middle you got all that melllower pop music they did as She´s a Rainbow. So I think of you put things in a balance, the amount of harder rock, simple old fashion rock and roll, mellower sides of it, and countrish or bluesy sides, things are not that diffrent between the Stones and Elvis, or the Beatles if you want to bring down another myth. It all has to do only with Stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham doing all to promote the Stones under the image of "bad boys", vs. Col. Parker doing all to promote Elvis as the clean decent guy, but when you lisen to the music beyond those artificial images, well... its another thing. Also we know that Jagger was such a snob, while Elvis was actually much more of a rocker crazy dangerous guy (which also a bit of exageration) in terms of his way of living, despite his all clean image, so its all a laugh about that media stuff.

70's all hard rock bands where another thing, but it was just a phase, rock music is not just that right? but it is something way way broader and almost imposible to define so...

[EnigmaticSun]

So I think of you put things in a balance, the amount of harder rock, simple old fashion rock and roll, mellower sides of it, and countrish or bluesy sides, things are not that diffrent between the Stones and Elvis, or the Beatles if you want to bring down another myth.

Yes, you have a point. It seems that the way of life and/or the image are more important than the actual music.

Here you have some points which would make you more acceptable for the typical rock-audiences:

-smashing guitars (on stage)
-long hair
-alcoholic excesses
-sexual excesses
-other drugs
-needing to go into rehab, for drug,- or sex-addiction
-rock to shock (for instance, if you'd bite off the heads of living beings on stage)

Not much difference between Elvis & the Stones: I don't know. For sure Elvis is way underrated compared to acts ranging from the Beatles to Elton John. It has to be said Elvis' cultivation of the voice is from another world compared to Mick Jagger.
It is definitely true that the Stones made ballads too (rhyme), even if I can't imagine Elvis singing "Paint it Black" or making an album titled "Let it Bleed".

By just looking at the lifestyle, Hank Williams and Frank Sinatra might be considered hard rockers as well.

I've always wondered why rock-minded people think of Elvis as "betraying rock 'n roll", whereas the Beatles and the Stones made it all possible. It could just be image, but it is a pity nevertheless.

[Raised on Rock]

Yes, you have a point. It seems that the way of life and/or the image are more important than the actual music.

Here you have some points which would make you more acceptable for the typical rock-audiences:

-smashing guitars (on stage)
-long hair
-alcoholic excesses
-sexual excesses
-other drugs
-needing to go into rehab, for drug,- or sex-addiction
-rock to shock (for instance, if you'd bite off the heads of living beings on stage)

Not much difference between Elvis & the Stones: I don't know. For sure Elvis is way underrated compared to acts ranging from the Beatles to Elton John. It has to be said Elvis' cultivation of the voice is from another world compared to Mick Jagger.
It is definitely true that the Stones made ballads too (rhyme), even if I can't imagine Elvis singing "Paint it Black" or making an album titled "Let it Bleed".

By just looking at the lifestyle, Hank Williams and Frank Sinatra might be considered hard rockers as well.

I've always wondered why rock-minded people think of Elvis as "betraying rock 'n roll", whereas the Beatles and the Stones made it all possible. It could just be image, but it is a pity nevertheless.

Funny, The Beatles became famous by betraying rock and roll! quiting black leather and 50's style rock music and hair styles, for a clean cut hair cut, suits and tie, and a buble gum all pop sound, that at the same time, Elvis was doing exactly the same thing so.... Now where they betraying anything? I don't think so, as rock and roll was never exclusively about that. Just as a wild life style (Sinatra, Lady Day etc.) was not invented by rock and roll right? Neither the raw agresive sound of 50's rock was an invention of it, but the R&B element of it. Where THe Stones betraying Rock and Roll and their blues roots by faking being a pop band in '66 and a Psychedelic band in '67 (with awful results) no, they where just doing the same thing Elvis did when he recorded Its Now or Never, exploring territory and answering to trends.

You got a great point on Elvis cultivation of his voice, (he got number 3 on greatest singers of all time, but if you consider numbers #2 & #1 where not rock singers, he is #1 in that area), his cultivation of the voice might be compared to Lennon/McCarney cultivation of their song writing skills, and they also been critized in that area for drifting away from straight rock music, or highly praised, depends in the eyes of who. Elvis cultivation of the voice came from the pre rock era, and aimed also, beyond the rock frame. Now the rock bible has mostly been writen by journalist that cannot write wih an indeep understanding of music beyond their generation aims, and beyond that version of rock standings, and the writte for people that mostly cannot read beyond that. When you find a real academic like Greil Marcus, a man that really understands first about arts & music, then about the rock music roots, and then about the different generations in rock music, he always praises Elvis and puts him in the top of everything else, he even dared to do that in '75, when everybody needed to bash on Elvis to look smart.

The thing is most of the first and second generation of rock journalist confused rock aims with their own generation political agenda, and narrowed rock panorama to just that, now they did kill rock music, making of it something of a one generation pastiche, that then was ready to be mass produced for quick consumption by the third generation of rock journalist, which by now where the simpletons add makers of the MTV era, if there was any seed of true revolution in the 60's rock era, it was now and because of its own followers, packed as Marx for dummies on a Wall Mart. Rock was dead.

But what was revolutionary about rock was not 60's politics (that was just a face), what was really revolutionary about rock music goes back to Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis etc. But mostly Elvis; when you answer what was revolutionary about that you got the ansewer for two questions: when does rock music until today is really about rock and roll and not about marketing trends and faked antiestablishment for quick consumption? and Did Elvis really lost the plot of rock and roll in latter days? or the plot of rock and roll was kidanped by hipsters and Elvis, by refusing to that, and keep doing just what he felt (as he always did), was actually nothing but being loyal to his roots and to the original plot.

[KPM]

Elvis was vocally, physically and culturally a contradictory chameleon!
He was the spirit of rebellion on stage but called everyone ma'am and sir offstage, had respect for elders and God and country... all in pink high collared shirts and black shiny pants.
He pushed the envelope vocally by trying to sing nearly every style of music he liked, and then all aspects of those styled blended and became the Elvis sound. In trying to sing everything-his voice expanded as did his likes in music.
Tenor, baritone and bass.... all there depending on the style and song....all there.
If it was a movie song-he could breathe life into the unliveable. If it was blues he could take it rough low and dirty. Ballads he could croon, emote and be as smooth as silk. Rock such as Jailhouse Rock-he could drive it to a frenzy-when he wanted to. His pop music was catchy and fun....all this in one voice....anytime the spirit really moved him to push the envelope.
His life was full of contradictions which were perfectly at home in his existence. He could be seen as the boy next door, the devil, a saint, and anything in between depending on time place and circumstance, all in one life.
The Stones, Beatles etc.... British Invasion was the next step in the evolution of rock and it was easier for them.
Elvis set the boundaries for what could be called rock and roll by his chameleon like taste and vocal ability-everyone who followed him should thank him everytime they decide to try something different with a rock and roll flavor added to the mix...because his existence made that possible.
Rock and roll has a big umbrella because of Elvis.

[Jungleroom76]

Elvis was vocally, physically and culturally a contradictory chameleon!
He was the spirit of rebellion on stage but called everyone ma'am and sir offstage, had respect for elders and God and country... all in pink high collared shirts and black shiny pants.
He pushed the envelope vocally by trying to sing nearly every style of music he liked, and then all aspects of those styled blended and became the Elvis sound. In trying to sing everything-his voice expanded as did his likes in music.
Tenor, baritone and bass.... all there depending on the style and song....all there.
If it was a movie song-he could breathe life into the unliveable. If it was blues he could take it rough low and dirty. Ballads he could croon, emote and be as smooth as silk. Rock such as Jailhouse Rock-he could drive it to a frenzy-when he wanted to. His pop music was catchy and fun....all this in one voice....anytime the spirit really moved him to push the envelope.
His life was full of contradictions which were perfectly at home in his existence. He could be seen as the boy next door, the devil, a saint, and anything in between depending on time place and circumstance, all in one life.
The Stones, Beatles etc.... British Invasion was the next step in the evolution of rock and it was easier for them.
Elvis set the boundaries for what could be called rock and roll by his chameleon like taste and vocal ability-everyone who followed him should thank him everytime they decide to try something different with a rock and roll flavor added to the mix...because his existence made that possible.
Rock and roll has a big umbrella because of Elvis.

BEAUTIFULLY SAID KEN!!!!

What other artist before, during or since Elvis could shift so easily from one style of music to another?? The answer is simple...NO ONE!!!

Any other artist trying to sing a style of music outside of their norm simply can't do it without it sounding like they are trying to hard...for instance, Willie Nelson is a country singer but if he tried to sing rock n' roll music, it wouldn't come across as sounding right. Or if a gospel singer like Michael W. Smith tried singing HOUND DOG...it just wouldn't work. But Elvis...he could shift so gracefully from JAILHOUSE ROCK to HOW GREAT THOU ART to HURT to LOVE ME TENDER without missing a beat! No matter what style of music Elvis sang, it sounded like he was born to sing it...and there simply has never been, nor will there ever be, any other artist who can do that...PERIOD!!!

TCB!
Mike

[Raised on Rock]

Rock and roll has a big umbrella because of Elvis.

That's a great post! YES, right in the begining, when everything was either Chuck Berry's rythm patterns or rockabilly style hiccups, Elvis took rock and roll further and further.

Elvis reinvented rock and roll over and over not only with each Sun Single and the early RCA ones, but all the way until '62 he streched and streched all the posibilities of it. To me, Elvis is Back! in '60, was an underated/missunderstood statement, it was NOT a betrayal to rock and roll, it was a declaration of liberty from the original 50's forms that had become at that point, a bit of a cage. How many more time does Chuck Berry was going to rewrite Johnny B Goode again? people still loved Jerry Lee and Carl Perkins, but, it was getting too repetitive isn't it? Bo DIddley was a GREAT number, man that beat! but now Bo was repeating it to exahustion, by '60 we got what? The Story of Bo Diddley? Bo's Bounce? Diddling? all great but really? you got to love it, but, from Who Do You Love? in '56 to Who May Your Lover be? in '62, no matter how much you like it, that kind of rock purism was a dead end.

If Elvis is Back! was betrayal to rock music, so was The Bealtes White Album (if anyone wanted the Bealtes to do more phychedelic noveltys or go back to the Yeah! Yeah! era, it sure was betrayal) Both, the White Album, and Elvis is Back! anticipated in their time, what was to come next, with its unexpected breakthrough from old formulas and its almost incongruent array of different musical styles. Elvis is Back! was a look at the future and into modernity of rock music, it was all contained there, Motown, the Brit Blues revival, Country Rock, the Pop sounds from which the Beatles made their arrival.

His Hand in Mine was an exercise in going back to the roots, it took a whole decade so next generations of rockers learned the value of going back to the roots of things now and then, I'm talking about the "roots music" boom of the early 70's. Even Hollywood, if you like, was a glimpse to the future: rock and roll can also go wrong and because of its own economics.

No, Elvis the prophet of rock and roll doesn´t ends in Sun Records or with the Army, even latter, with and after the '68 comback special and until the end, he was still, if not pointing to new horizonts as he did before, he was pointing over and over, towards new roads to go back home (if for a country boy progresive rock had gonne just to far), to keep it basic and true to the early days , to the original spirit of it, BUT without repeating your self, without gettin' stuck in the 50's, although ironically by doing this, he was again "betraying" rock, because either not following the trends of the day, or because he wasn't doing the exact copy of Sun sound anymore.

That being said, how about this: Elvis last great rockers? well those might as well be the last three songs he recorded:

Pleding My Love, an R&B song in country style? He'll Have To Go, a country song with a bluesy edge, now does that sound familiar? and in the middle Way Down, that mix of pop, rock, country, R&B, gospel, all of those of course translated into their modern sound at that point.

[KPM]

That's a great post! YES, right in the begining, when everything was either Chuck Berry's rythm patterns or rockabilly style hiccups, Elvis took rock and roll further and further.

Elvis reinvented rock and roll over and over not only with each Sun Single and the early RCA ones, but all the way until '62 he streched and streched all the posibilities of it. To me, Elvis is Back! in '60, was an underated/missunderstood statement, it was NOT a betrayal to rock and roll, it was a declaration of liberty from the original 50's forms that had become at that point, a bit of a cage. How many more time does Chuck Berry was going to rewrite Johnny B Goode again? people still loved Jerry Lee and Carl Perkins, but, it was getting too repetitive isn't it? Bo DIddley was a GREAT number, man that beat! but now Bo was repeating it to exahustion, by '60 we got what? The Story of Bo Diddley? Bo's Bounce? Diddling? all great but really? you got to love it, but, from Who Do You Love? in '56 to Who May Your Lover be? in '62, no matter how much you like it, that kind of rock purism was a dead end.

If Elvis is Back! was betrayal to rock music, so was The Bealtes White Album (if anyone wanted the Bealtes to do more phychedelic noveltys or go back to the Yeah! Yeah! era, it sure was betrayal) Both, the White Album, and Elvis is Back! anticipated in their time, what was to come next, with its unexpected breakthrough from old formulas and its almost incongruent array of different musical styles. Elvis is Back! was a look at the future and into modernity of rock music, it was all contained there, Motown, the Brit Blues revival, Country Rock, the Pop sounds from which the Beatles made their arrival.

His Hand in Mine was an exercise in going back to the roots, it took a whole decade so next generations of rockers learned the value of going back to the roots of things now and then, I'm talking about the "roots music" boom of the early 70's. Even Hollywood, if you like, was a glimpse to the future: rock and roll can also go wrong and because of its own economics.

No, Elvis the prophet of rock and roll doesn´t ends in Sun Records or with the Army, even latter, with and after the '68 comback special and until the end, he was still, if not pointing to new horizonts as he did before, he was pointing over and over, towards new roads to go back home (if for a country boy progresive rock had gonne just to far), to keep it basic and true to the early days , to the original spirit of it, BUT without repeating your self, without gettin' stuck in the 50's, although ironically by doing this, he was again "betraying" rock, because either not following the trends of the day, or because he wasn't doing the exact copy of Sun sound anymore.

That being said, how about this: Elvis last great rockers? well those might as well be the last three songs he recorded:Pleding My Love, an R&B song in country style? He'll Have To Go, a country song with a bluesy edge, now does that sound familiar? and in the middle Way Down, that mix of pop, rock, country, R&B, gospel, all of those of course translated into their modern sound at that point.

Totally agree-he took each of those songs and did them whatever way his own personal musical filter of styles felt they needed to be done....the freedom to interpret without fear of betraying anything...that freedom is rock and roll.

[Raised on Rock]

.the freedom to interpret without fear of betraying anything...that freedom is rock and roll.

Now I'll be quoting you in any further discussion among friends!!!! GREAT ONE!!!