For Diehard Elvis Fans

[JSngry]

Playing along to an Elvis Sun track on a C-Melody is a form of bliss I'd never dare to as much as dream of experiencing for myself, so go along, go well, and enjoy to the fullest

But do so knowing that my true blind spot (well, one of many, actually) is George Younce singing Bill Gaither:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KYRexJata8

[JSngry]

Another blind spot!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Kd_MxVi7eBk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v81LM7HNVWE

Edited December 27, 2010 by JSngry

[JSngry]

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

[Big Beat Steve]

I would suggest that anyone hesitant about Elvis should: (though not necessarily in this order)

1) watch the film (and I'm drawing a blank on the title) that was made of one of his later Vegas shows, an amazing communion of performer and audience, basically, as I recall thinking, a religious service. Amazing stuff, Elvis at his later best - great blues singing, btw

2) order the 2 CD set the Memphis Sessions -

3) read Peter Guralnick's 2 volume bio, which certainly helps put him in context, needed or not -

4) listen to the Sun sessions (not a surprise, but a necessary reminder to those who might not have heard 'em)

5) listen to the recordings made of the original Louisiana Hayride Tour (maybe 1955; bootlegged many times; if you can find the good-sound version, jump on it, as it's been butchered sonically more than once, even by BMG, sadly enough) -

6) read Charles Wolf excellent essay on the white gospel quartet tradition and Elvis' connection to it. Clarifies some stylistic questions -

7) listen to Elvis' Sun version of Rogers and Hart's Blue Moon - a work of near-accidental genius (which I covered on a a CD called The American Song Project on which I also, btw, did the first secular version of Blind Willie Johnson's Dark was the Night, Cold was the Ground)

Agree on ALL counts.

And I am NOT that big an Elvis fan and find most of his post-Army stuff extremely expendable (so hats off to Alexander's daughter for developing such good taste in starting with his 50s stuff - which hopefully will lead her to explore more - not necessarily Elvis - in the RIGHT (musical) direction ).

Like Danasgoodstuff said - JSngrys ramblings sound like a LOT of sour grapes about not the right people being given credit for what there was to be given credit for in music of the mid-50s.

Pointless, VERY pointless - UNLESS, JSngry, you are willing to face the issue how what the U.S society at large (i.e. the WASP society, primarily ) was like at that time. And then you can go on and blame a LOT of peopole (starting maybe with the musical and societal awareness of your own elders) for being neither willing nor able to give credit to muscial achievements by singers and musicians who may very well have been more worthy of receiving that credit but unfortunately did not have the right hue of their skins.

Willing to tackle that issue?

Bcause - like Allen Lowe said, part of the Elvis phenomenon just HAS to be seen in the context of the times.

Speaking from a strictly musical point of view, there were a lot of artists who I for one would rate higher than Elvis too (like I said, I certainly am not one of the biggest Elvis fans of all times) but I am quite willing to concede he was in the right place at the right time and had that certain something that made him a MARKETABLE musical entity within the societal framework he grew up in and came along at. Even though "marketable" was a criterion of far less importance back then than it is today it was a factor not to be neglected in 1954 either. So being marketable or not is something that DID play a role. Or why would you think was it that Joe Turner just did not cut it with the teens in the mid-50s, much less so than Bill Haley (although we all prefer Joe Turner's versions of the songs we all know), and Bill Haley eventually was less marketable than Elvis and his ilk too?

And all this goes not only for the skin color issue but also for the comparison of Elvis and his Louisiana Hayride appearances with the performances of LOTS of aspiring young country singers who'd have LOVED to go the same way but just were too awkward, too contrived, too much country-ish, in short, too much of a "hick from the sticks" to make things jell with a pop-oriented TEEN audience.

Call it unjust - OK, but just face the realities that the importance of some artists goes a bit beyond strictly musical aspects in POP music (note: POP, not jazz, not even R&B or C&W).

And if you're still not satisfied why it was so that things turned out this way even on musical grounds then why not grab your copy of Steve Propes' "What Was The First Rock'n'Roll Record" and read it all over again?

IMHO this does NOT detract from the musical qualities of some of those who did not reach Elvis' star status (and whose music therefore remained unjustly underrated) but it does not rewrite history either (sour grapes or not).

Edited December 27, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

Pointless, VERY pointless - UNLESS, JSngry, you are willing to face the issue how what the U.S society at large (i.e. the WASP society, primarily ) was like at that time. And then you can go on and blame a LOT of peopole (starting maybe with the musical and societal awareness of your own elders) for being neither willing nor able to give credit to muscial achievements by singers and musicians who may very well have been more worthy of receiving that credit but unfortunately did not have the right hue of their skins.

Willing to tackle that issue?

The legitimate sociological impact of Elvis has already been stipulated to, so this particular bluster is being totally wasted.

Care to try again?

[AllenLowe]

we don't have to try. Elvis is bigger than all of us (too much damned peanut butter).

Also, he was a drug pioneer (by some accurate reports he was addicted as early as the mid-1950s, to amphetamines, one of the hazards of road life. For that alone I would celebrate the man).

But listen to Arthur Crudup and then Elvis, and one realizes what creative use Elvis made of the tradition.

so forgive us white folks for using black music. And I'll forgive Marion Anderson for singing arias.

btw - love the Hovie Lister.

Edited December 27, 2010 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

You really think it's a "white" thing? Nonsense. Black folks can, did, and do suck too! BIG Time!!!

It's that the guy was the ultimate Use Me Like A Tool redneck who didn't do anything but show up at the right place at the right time begging to be used, and he more than got his wish.

Hero? Icon? Musical Savant?

None of the above.

Liar, Fool, Ho' and Hack, that's what he was.

btw - love the Hovie Lister.

Agreed, and what's not to love? Hovie (hell, all the Statesmen) had skills, principles, and backbone.

[AllenLowe]

allright, I'm going to mention one last thing that won't change any minds but which is musically essential - anyone out there who needs a sense of why Elvis was a great singer, check out the Louisiana Hayride performances that I mentioned prior - interesting thing about Elvis is how subtly changeable he was - "his own jukebox" as Francis Davis called him, a guy who soaked up so many influences that, as a singer, he was a multi-personality. The Hayride stuff however (and please take warning that the sound has been screwed up on various reissues) is a revelation - he's light on his feet, the band rocks, and Scotty Moore, not a virtuoso but a great group player, is perfect - here's a link for some short samples on Amazon:

sorry - edited as this release is a bootleg - you're on your own -

Edited December 27, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Matthew]

Off topic, but many, many, thanks for the Thanks To Calvary video, that made my morning!

[JSngry]

Off topic, but many, many, thanks for the Thanks To Calvary video, that made my morning!

Yeah, there's multiple versions of that on You Tube, but this is the one where Younce really hits the zone, I think.

[Big Beat Steve]

Care to try again?

No need to. Like it or not - in the case of the impact of Elvis (or in fact of ANYbody who has risen to stardom in music) the societal framework that the artist in question made it to stardom cannot be separated entirely from the strictly musical aspects. And this of course governs the way these "star" artists are being seen and appreciated in hindsight by the majority of music listeners - with the obvious exception of diehard music collectors who explore the music from a given era in REAL depth and consciously disregard what back THEN among other things were the results of marketing ploys. But what use in preaching to the converted?

Do you realize (or, in fact, dispute) that the entire debate circling around the question of whether or not other contemporaries of Elvis would have been more worthy of the praise heaped upon him could just as well be carried on (and on and on) on the subject of GLENN MILLER, to name just ONE "star" predecessor of Elvis? (And yes - IMHO it is of very, very little importance in the underlying debate that Glenn Miller actively shaped his musical image and concoctions himself whereas Elvis - like many of his musical successors - let a larger deal of the shaping be done by others)

But what for, in the long run?

To emphasise - again - that being in the right place at the right time and coming up with the right MIXTURE of all ingredients to satisfy the MASSES' tastes is paramount in POP music?

And thereby, to highlight the mediocrity of the masses' tastes in the eyes of the musically enlightened? (Yes, this DOES amount to musical snobism but aren't we all guilty of that in one way or another?)

Edited December 27, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

This is a post-racial world, or at least on its way to becoming one (in spite of the current mega-resistance being put up by many gatekeepers of the status quo for many reasons), so please try to find a new relevance. The old "Elvis was a just a thief" line is not true, and would no longer be particularly relevant if it was, and has nothing to do with my extreme lack of respect for him.

Elvis believed in a lie, sold a lie, and continues to attract people with his lies. On top of that, he had no - no - conscience about taking ownership of his talent. He was a punk and he got punked.

Elvis was a hero to most, etc.

Say it loud.

[Big Beat Steve]

The unfortunate truth is that all this needs to be seen - at least to a substantial degree - in the context of its times, like it or not.

Otherwise a LOT of black artists who were proud and outspoken in their times would - by TODAY's standards - have to be regarded as irreductible Uncle Toms.

The same goes for marketable musical entities such as Elvis. And if he sold a lie, he sold it to a society that would not have been prepared to hear and heed the truth and behave accordingly. Blame it on that society and ALL the individuals who made up that society.

Otherwise Chuck Berry would be where Elvis is, Hank Ballard would have been where Chubby Checker was, etc. etc.

[AllenLowe]

Elvis, by the way was ALWAYS clear in crediting his influences, from Arthur Crudup to Junior Parker - and, believe or not, he had a HUGE black audience in the '50s which bought his records and crowded him at things like the Midnight Frolic in Memphis. Any claim to his racism or thievery is Crow Jim, pseudo-liberal bullshit.

read Guralnick's opus, learn more about the whole Memphis scene; sure, it's not, racially, a level playing field. But re: the very specific issue of Elvis style and ability, there is no doubt, and there is no doubt as to his recognition and creditation of prior sources. Read the interviews.

the idea that he was a honkey thief is reflective of the worst kind of mythology and lack of any real time taken other than to consult second and third hand sources.

Edited December 27, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Big Beat Steve]

Elvis, by the way was ALWAYS clear in crediting his influences, from Arthur Crudup to Junior Parker

And that Arthur Crudup did not receive what was due him (especially in his later days) certainly wasm't so much the fault of Elvis but most definitely the fault of Melrose, Hill & Range and probably RCA too. Go blame them in the first place.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[AllenLowe]

Crudup got screwed, royally (and btw he was an incredible and important modern blues man) - but, after he died his family, fortunately, got a very large settlement.

but none of that was Elvis' fault - though we might go after Colonel Parker on some prime issues.

[JSngry]

The "context of the times" was simple - America was living a set of lies, not the least of which was that you could "be" anything you wanted to be.

The simultaneous brilliance and tragedy of the Southern redneck culture from which Elvis sprang was that they knew better. They knew that their skill set was a limited one, as were their options, and they proceeded accordingly. Darkness and beauty both deep in those souls...

But Elvis swallowed the lie, hook, line, and sinker, because he was weak, a classic momma's boy. And once he swallowed the lie, he made no effort to tell the truth. Again, no character, always taking the easy way out.

Result? Generations of people thinking that they could be "accepted" in a world bigger/different than theirs, irregardless of what they brought to it. Much frustration when it turned out not to be so (DUH!), and now...rednecks, guns, Wal-Marts, nice. Very nice.

You also got a new breed of wannabes, people who think that they can somehow achieve Cosmic Redneck status by "absorbing" Elvis and others, because, hey, Elvis transcended who he was, I can too! This too is a lie, Elvis didn't transcend shit, he just went along on somebody else's rides, but like all lies, there is a market, and no end of people more than glad to sell the lie to people more than willing to believe it.

Lies, all of it. Lies that hold people back from the truths of who they are. Lies that prevent real transformation, individual and collectively. Lies that kill the human spirit while pretending to inspire it. Lies for suckers, and suckers for lies.

Thanks, King. Thanks a lot.

[medjuck]

Am I the only one here old enough to have seen Elvis on the Dorsey Bros show? The first time I saw him I thought he was a joke. After the 2nd time I went out and bought his first Lp followed by Eps of Fats Domino and Little Richard. By the time he came back from the Army I thought I was too cool for Elvis (Miles was my man). A decade or so later I saw That's the Way It is and it made me re-evaluate him. The director's seem to be trying to make fun of Elvis and his fans. Doesn't matter, he kills.

[John L]

Jim S. - While I sympathize with your arguments, I think that you are being a bit too hard on Elvis. He may not have invented Rock and Roll, but he did essentially invent Rockabilly. Objectively, you can take apart those early Sun recordings for all the reasons that you give. Yet, there is undeniably something magical in them.

Given the context, they should have completely failed. Sam Phillips was telling a bunch of hillbillies to play and sing as black as possible. The outtakes are even embarrassing, as they reveal Elvis et al virtually engaging in minstrelsy, calling each other "nXXXXr" and the like. But the results are still rather amazing. Elvis et al couldn't sound black no matter how hard they tried. But the very effort of trying led them to something new. Sure, it was a variant of the "hillbilly boogie" music that had already become popular. Yet, it was somehow different, maybe more rural. Whatever, it is a sound that is still strangely compelling for many today.

[JSngry]

Jim S. - While I sympathize with your arguments, I think that you are being a bit too hard on Elvis.

Again - poor Elvis. Always being enabled.

Sam Phillips was telling a bunch of hillbillies to play and sing as black as possible. The outtakes are even embarrassing, as they reveal Elvis et al virtually engaging in minstrelsy, calling each other "nXXXXr" and the like. But the results are still rather amazing. Elvis et al couldn't sound black no matter how hard they tried. But the very effort of trying led them to something new. Sure, it was a variant of the "hillbilly boogie" music that had already become popular. Yet, it was somehow different, maybe more rural. Whatever, it is a sound that is still strangely compelling for many today.

What's compelling is that they proffer up the admittedly intoxicating and seductive notion that you don't really need a skill set to become a person of note, you just need to play at it. And hey - it works, not least of all for the reason that the notion of being something other than we really are without really getting in there and doing the soul-work needed to effect a real transformation is one of the oldes tempations in the book.

Not so sure that there's any ultimate difference, other than financial gain & commercial popular "support" between this type of foolishness and the type of post-Ayler "revolutionary" jazz made by people who were all/strictly about "feeling". Sure, it cuases a tingle, but where does it lead, and do you still have a house in 30 years?

None of the clowns involved in this circus had an idea what they were dealing with other than the money men. And none of them ever woke up enough to take it back for themselves, assuming that they knew enough at some point to realize that they had something to take back. It was a money man's game from the beginning, it still is, and it always will be. God bless those who wake up and figure it out. Elvis, not being one of those, did not get that blessing, nor do/did those who followed his "dream".

The only "magic" in the Elvis Sun sides is that of seeing The Devil at work unimpeded, giving everybody exactly what they ask for. Like all things involving The Devil, it feels really really good until it becomes apparent why it does, which is always waaaaay too late.

Elvis is still a lie.

Edited December 27, 2010 by JSngry

[Big Beat Steve]

So you mean being unable to sing, being unable to hold a note or carry a tune, knowing only the rudiments of playing an instrument AND not aspiring to make THAT much money but being real, real, real GLAD (given the time and circumstances) to be paid a FLAT session fee makes you an "authentic", "honest" and - a bit later on - "folksy" artist of major lasting importance that TRANSCENDS oh so much more?

Ah c'mon.

Pop music ain't never worked that way. And in the non-pop field those "arguments" wore thin pretty fast too (see above, except to eternal romanticists).

And the decades-old claim that pop music was soooo much better BEFORE Elvis is a myth, too. Much more schlocky and lachrymose it was, yes, but what would THAT have "transcended"? What "honesty" (instead of lies) would that have transmitted?

Edited December 27, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

Have you ever been to America?

For that matter, are you aware that your arguments are old?

[JSngry]

What "honesty" (instead of lies) would that have transmitted?

That we are poor white rednecks with limited skill sets, that we don't have much hope in this world to become anything else, that we are tired of our lot (or not, as the case may be), and that whatever else, we will stand or fail, progress or devolve, engage the rest of the world or disengage from it, from a standpoint of stength, intelligence (native and learned), and integrity towards ourselves and others.

Instead, we got the reality that all you gotta do is show up, look pretty, and do what the man says at all times. You'll be taken care of. The message, however, was that The Dream Can Come True. Bullshit.

Elvis is a lie.

[Big Beat Steve]

My arguments are not one bit older than yours. Cf. that thing about them only being part of a circus where only the money men knew what was to be gained. As if that is something all new. And wasn't THIS aspect much worse in the pre-Elvis days?

Although I do have to admit I feel slightly baffled about the "The Devil" thing you dwell on. Talking about the music output by Sun, have you been on a Jerry Lee Lewis kick, I wonder?

In the end all this is pointless anyway because neither you nor me won't rewrite history, for better or worse. But given the way pop music has evolved ever since 1954 any accusations about what Elvis may or may not have accomplished really are largely irrelevant because whatever his failings and failures were, they pale next to what a HUGE bunch of those who followed him in that music business have racked up since. Yet in the way he at least served as a catalyst to get the train of pop music rolling in a MUCH healthier direction (compared to what had happened pre-1954) he towers sky-high about the majority of those who were there before or after him. Musical dissecting in THIS overall context amounts to nitpicking.

[Big Beat Steve]

What "honesty" (instead of lies) would that have transmitted?

That we are poor white rednecks with limited skill sets, that we don't have much hope in this world to become anything else, that we are tired of our lot (or not, as the case may be), and that whatever else, we will stand or fail, progress or devolve, engage the rest of the world or disengage from it, from a standpoint of stength, intelligence (native and learned), and integrity towards ourselves and others.

Instead, we got the reality that all you gotta do is show up, look pretty, and do what the man says at all times. You'll be taken care of. The message, however, was that The Dream Can Come True. Bullshit.

Elvis is a lie.

Oh, so the dream world of 30s, 40s or early 50s pop music and all its schmaltzy falseness and artifical imagemaking contrived by shrewd and unscrupulous A&R men was oh so much better? Who are you trying to kid?

If making a good living through music (i.e. through the music BUSINESS, of course) is ONE way out and ONE way of making the best of one's (maybe) limited skills, what's wrong with that? The past few decades have shown it has worked for quite a few out there (and reliance on managers, money men and A&R hounds has diminished as time went by), and - like it or not - Elvis was the one who got the ball rolling in the direction where the music and artists who were (adn are) less dependent on the "money men" have sprung up.

Tin Pan Alley etc. would have been a dead end for even more aspiring artists and whatever THAT "music" industry produced in phoniness beats ANY "Lies" by Elvis about a zillion to one. One might argue that the way things are now in TODAY'S pop music and its artificiality and lies, the pendulum does swing back to the days of the utter phoniness of Tin Pan Alley etc., but this would mean that Elvis was oh so harmless in BOTH directions of the evolutions that have taken place in music business through the decades.

You know what? How about getting worked up about Lady Gaga or whoever of that ilk next time? Just to put things into perspective ...