For Diehard Elvis Fans

[JSngry]

This is not about music, pop or otherwise, although the lie is/was played out through music. Sorry if you're not getting that. Besides, this is an Elvis thread, isn't it? so let's talk about Elvis, and let's talk about The Lie as Elvis so perfectly manifested it.

As far as The Devil goes, Jerry Lee Lewis was an honest man. Elvis was not.

Elvis is a lie.

[JSngry]

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

That comment reminds me of the time when I was marching in a counter-protest at the Dallas opening of The Last Temptation Of Christ. Some really....concerned citizen ran up into my face and screamed

"I BET YOU'D BE MAD IF THEY MADE THIS MOVIE ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING INSTEAD OF JESUS!!!!!!!"

In other words, are you serious?

Edited December 27, 2010 by JSngry

[Big Beat Steve]

Sorry to insist yet again but this thread was about the MUSIC of Elvis and I still feel you need to see his music (for better or worse) primarily within the context of the history of MUSIC.

On the one hand you claim (earlier on in this thread) his societal importance has been acknowledged, on the other you insist that this is NOT about music. So it IS about societal aspects after all?? Or is it a bone you have to pick with Elvis on a PERSONAL or INDIVIDUAL level? Sorry but you still have failed to show conclusively in what way he was such an immensely bigger lie than ALL OTHERS in the pop music business up to and including his time of greatest successes who had achieved a similar status and measure of success. If you mean to show that real, huge, overwhelming success in this business corrupts people, then fine, point taken - so what. Might be said of a thousand others (before and after). Big deal ... Don't we all expect that anyway? In short, the accusations you level at Elvis as a PERSON and what a certain type of his fans want to see in him (or what he or his managers wanted to make them see in him) just don't hold water. Because that might just as well be said about a countless number of other major stars on THIS business, both before and after him.

Oh my ... me (at best a moderately fascinated listener of the music of Elvis' early years) defending him to that degree ... what has become of this world and the alleged ills that some project into it??

[Big Beat Steve]

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

That comment reminds me of the time when I was marching in a counter-protest at the Dallas opening of The Last Temptation Of Christ. Some really....concerned citizen ran up into my face and screamed

"I BET YOU'D BE MAD IF THEY MADE THIS MOVIE ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING INSTEAD OF JESUS!!!!!!!"

In other words, are you serious?

Depends on whether you would have been serious in your reply to the above that you WOULD INDEED have been mad. :D

But if you REALLY, REALLY want to know ... yes and no.

Yes - because if you'd care to compile ANY scale of excesses in the artificialites and phoniness of the pop music business both before and after Elvis, Elvis would rate an also-ran at best on that scale, and

No - because I hardly expect anybody who gets soooo worked up about what IMHO essentially are moot points (that deep inside we all take for granted as part of a REALISTIC look at life) will be ready to put things really into perspective.

Sorry, no harm meant, but this just had to be said .... possible (transatlantic?) cultural divides 'n all ...

Edited December 27, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

Elvis was a weak human being, and only a marginally stronger actual talent (sorry, "being your own jukebox" is not a talent, it's a parlor game bordering on masturbation...). I will stipualte to him as a great potential talent, but that's as far as it goes.

The notion as him as any kind of hero, musical or social, is laughable, and he'll only be a "legend" as long as people believe the lie that the legend is predicated on.

If you care to defend the legend, and by extension, the lie be my guest. Elvis thanks you.

Me, I think you're a chump for doing so. But you've got plenty of company, if that matters to you.

Enjoy the lie!

Sorry, no harm meant, but this just had to be said .... possible (transatlantic?) cultural divides 'n all ...

Elvis made George W. Bush possible. How's that for a cultural divide?

[Big Beat Steve]

The only chumps around in my opinion are those who swallow the bait of believing that in their purported enlightedness they tower sky-high about the "rest" of the lowly beings who are willing to take things at face value. "Taking at face value" meaning in this case that one can very well enjoy the music of somebody who in his private life or in the way he wanted to appear to the world was certainly not beyond reproach. In which case being a nasty prick or being a weakling or being a mentally unhinged paranoid amounts to much the same. Because that's how life is in all its imperfections.

[JSngry]

Elvis thanks you. Again.

[AllenLowe]

I didn't say "being his own juke box" was a talent. Jim, your arguments are the ones that are old, bad cliches about straw white men.

[JSngry]

Not at all (Elvis was his own straw white man, not having any backbone and all...), but Elvis thanks you, too (because a good goat'll do that for ya') and has agreed to loan you some of his DNA to ease your journey.

A good goat won't do that for you, but Elvis will. Enjoy the ride!

[Quincy]

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)

Hmm, what of Elvis Is Back!? Maybe I'm a sucker for the Living Stereo sound but I would be hard pressed to think of an album by a major star of pop or rock that's more underrated. The FTD release with outtakes & associated singles is one of imaginary "grab it & run" if there was a fire, assuming it was a slow one with no smoke and the people, cat & laptop (don't forget the charger!) are out of the house along with certain Mosaics. Oh hell, those Devilin' Tunes have a lot of music in a small package that would be easy to grab too… But seriously, it's a nice spot in his career where he's just a tad more polished but not slick and obviously excited to be recording.

The movie Elvis: That's The Way It Is is indeed fantastic. While so much attention is put on his '68 comeback special he was in great voice in '69 & '70.

While there is spotty & downright schmaltzy songs throughout his career I view it the same way as with Bix or Armstrong, the delivery is often strong enough to overcome the material. Less so with Elvis, but it happens nonetheless.

And right you are about Gurlanick's 2 volume bio. It does indeed put the bad cliches to rest. Hell, it cremates them.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Quincy

[Jim R]

Or not.

Have you actually listened to that crap stuff rather than being "awed" by it retroactively? There is no time, no pocket, no groove, and Elvis, for all his flaunted multiplicity of "influences" sounds like nothing more than a redneck momma's boy with an above-average gift for barely average mimicing.

Don't believe the hype.

Elvis as "sociology", ok, legit. See the beginnings of the "Southern Strategy" unfold before your very eyes, ears, heaving stomach, etc.

Elvis as actual "music of significance"?

Only in a world where people need "something like that" to be significant.

Not my world, now, then, and hopefully never.

+1

it don't say nothin' 'bout the music at all.

Ok, let me say it again - the bands on Elvis's Sun & early RCA records sucked. They had no groove. Period. Find a pocket, a mutual agreement as to where the beat is. I dare you.

And Elvis himself...no faults with his voice per se, but...all of his "influences" did what they did far better than he did. The Sun Sessions are some of the most overrated "landmark" recordings of the 20th century. Aimless meandering by the band, narcissistic directionless ramblings by the singer.

"Different"? sure. But "musically significant" (as opposed to sociologically important)? I bought the 197? RCA issue of them desperately hoping to find some Deep Secret Meaning Of Elvis that had evaded me since...1962 or so and...nope. Not there. Not even slightly.

To me, a lot of it is confusingly bad. Not unlike listening to Ringo singing "Matchbox" (and I'm a Beatles fan, but I absolutely can not listen to that track). The much-lauded Scotty Moore (a legend himself, to many guitar players) has never shown me anything. At all. I just don't get the hype there. For me, it all went from bad to (much) worse as time went by. The last time I saw the '68 Comeback Special (which was probably 15-20 years ago), all I could do was tilt my head like a dog. Shallow, weak, phony, pathetic... to me it's truly embarrassing. As a platform for a sex symbol, well, obviously. As a platform for a "musical icon"... ??? Give me a break.

Not that I care anymmore.

[Alexander]

I see Elvis as a tragic figure. He WAS weak. He WAS a momma's boy. That wasn't his fault. That's the way he was built. The man had very little drive to perform, at least initially. Unlike Jerry Lee Lewis or Johnny Cash, he didn't go to Sun with the idea of making a record as a professional. He just wanted to make a record for his momma's birthday, because his momma liked the way he sang. He was overheard and the right set of circumstances got him into the studio with Bill Black and Scotty Moore roughly a year later. Even then, things weren't foreordained. Philips wasn't getting what he wanted from Elvis, Bill and Scotty, not until the three of them started goofing on a Crudup tune.

So, yeah, it was pure chance, not years of hard work that made Elvis into Elvis. That, of course, is a big part of the enduring quality of his legend. If one circumstance had been out of place, he might have gone home from Sun and back to his truck driving job and the world would never have been the wiser. It's like wondering what might have happened if Buddy Holly's plane had touched down okay.

So he starts out, full of potential and youthful energy, just happy to be part of something bigger than himself. He couldn't have imagined what the world had in store for him. It would use him up and throw him away. And Col. Parker was the worst of the lot. He saw Elvis as nothing more than a paycheck. If Elvis had kicked Parker to the curb, he might never have made those terrible movies. He might have toured the world (amazing to think that the biggest pop star on earth NEVER performed outside the U.S.). He might have found the purpose that would have kept him away from the drugs, the food, the eccentricity that eventually devoured him.

He was a rube. He was a hick. He was a fool. But he was also Elvis. And he had talent enough to somehow overcome all of that, at least for a little while.

[JSngry]

Dude, that's not tragedy, that's redneck melodrama.

[J.A.W.]

[sigh]

This thread has become very tedious, with the same arguments repeated over and over again... Time to move on, I think.

By the way, thanks for keeping it civil

[papsrus]

[sigh]

This thread has become very tedious, with the same arguments repeated over and over again... Time to move on, I think.

By the way, thanks for keeping it civil

Maybe for you. I find it fascinating.

[J.A.W.]

[sigh]

This thread has become very tedious, with the same arguments repeated over and over again... Time to move on, I think.

By the way, thanks for keeping it civil

Maybe for you. I find it fascinating.

To each their own

[JSngry]

btw - love the Hovie Lister.

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

Nothing more to say about Elvis, really, at least not right now, but how bout them Statesmen!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=-JugHUSSp4c

Edited December 28, 2010 by JSngry

[Alexander]

Dude, that's not tragedy, that's redneck melodrama.

He had a tragic flaw and he was brought down by it. According to Aeschylus, and generations of English teachers, that's the stuff of tragedy!

[danasgoodstuff]

So I went down to my music room last night and listened again, 'cause wometimes things change right before your ears and there's lots of stuff I used to love that I don't no more. But not here: I hear beauty, joy and wonder (@Sun and sometimes latter) - maybe based on a fantasy/maybe not. and rhythmic assurance - swing/pocket/rock/call it whatchawanna - right out the ying yang. It's like we're looking at my blue/green and I'm saying it's one color and you're saying it's another - not blue v. green, that reasonable people could disagree on, you're telling me it's blackest black and no amount of theory is going to get me there.

People may love Elvis for all sorts of bad reasons, so what? If there's anyone who got credit for some social upheaval for showing up with a limited skill set and doing what they were told, I think the Sex Pistols are better candidates for that dubious distinction than Elvis.

Edited December 28, 2010 by danasgoodstuff

[ghost of miles]

Elvis for a ten year old in 2010 is not that far removed from Wagner in a concentration camp.

Wow--I just read this comment in the Mathis thread and Jsngry, this is really over the line, man. I'm sorry, but whatever the declining state of America etc., this just seems way, way overblown as an analogy. One of my best friends has a three-year-old son who really, really digs the Beatles. Should we all march down there and tell him what a chump he is? If he starts digging some Charlie Parker, should we tell him what a momma's boy Bird was and hup-hup-hup him to music of 2010/11 only? (Talk about a quasi-totalitarian mentality!)

Seriously, man, people are still going to find joy in music and all sorts of other art from now, from 50 years ago, from whenever. "Fight the power" indeed (though you're quoting from a 20-year-old rap song!), go light up the folks at NextBop if you wish, but you, of all people, know--you know--that people dig all sorts of music for all kinds of reasons...why so ginned up about this? I don't even like Elvis particularly... but in his own, screwed-up way, he was, for better and for worse, a revolutionary force in music when he came along. (Read Lester Bangs' essay on him in PSYCHOTIC REACTIONS...and believe me, Lester Bangs had no illusions about Elvis...but even Lester Bangs, purveyor of many a who-the-hell-is-THAT-band or artist, ultimately realized that hipster obscurantism can be as much b.s. in its own way as music-biz hype when it comes to trying to get a grip on musical history.)

But if the point of this is that you're looking for music to be a revolutionary force today (and therefore death to Elvis, death to the Beatles, death to standards, etc.), IMO that possibility is pretty much played out no matter what, and if there is a revolutionary force to be found, it will come from somewhere else. (And while I sympathize with your admiration for underground dance-music culture, that's not going to do it either, again IMO...and anyway, much of that seems to me somewhat akin to rave culture of the late 1980s, which produced a lot of good times, too much Ecstasy-indulgence, and not a whole lot else.) This is still a board very much based in the old Blue Note board, which was a board that centered around a love of 1950s/60s/70s jazz, and a lot of other music and art from that era. People here do talk about newer music, newer artists, etc., but it just strikes me as odd to go so ballistic over posters enthusing about historical figures. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes it's a Philly blunt, and sometimes it's a sociopolitical thingamabob, and sometimes people feel a kinetic connection with a singer--or a trumpet player, or a writer, or anybody who moves their spirit for some reason. I'm sure my friend's kid will eventually move on from his Beatles kick (he's more advanced than me--I didn't go on mine till I was 8 or 9), and Alexander's kid will move on from Elvis as well. Society at large is "moving on" all the time, but that doesn't mean we still can't enjoy the music of Coltrane, Ellington, Miles Davis, Johnny Mathis, the Hi-Lo's, the Fisk Jubilee Singers, Topps baseball cards, ice-cream, a good new drug, or what have you. And sure, we argue and delve into the why and the how of this stuff all the time here--it's what we do. I just think a lot of the import here is misdirected.

Edited December 28, 2010 by ghost of miles

[ghost of miles]

People may love Elvis for all sorts of bad reasons, so what? If there's anyone who got credit for some social upheaval for showing up with a limited skill set and doing what they were told, I think the Sex Pistols are better candidates for that dubious distinction than Elvis.

Oh my God, yes--equal candidates, anyway, and give John Lydon credit for going on to do some interesting things post-Pistols, but talk about the Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle! And yet they had a huge, undeniable impact and a sound that galvanized a lot of people into starting bands. (Though I'd give the Ramones perhaps even more credit, both stateside and even UK--their Bicentennial concert in London '76 shook things up pretty hard.)

[JSngry]

Dude, that's not tragedy, that's redneck melodrama.

He had a tragic flaw and he was brought down by it. According to Aeschylus, and generations of English teachers, that's the stuff of tragedy!

And according to my upbringing, laziness, a lack of direction, and surrender of self are pretty much just basic character flaws. Nothing "tragic" about them.

But yes, Elvis was a victim. We are all victims. Poor us, especially Elvis. Poor, poor Elvis.

And that's why yellow makes me sad.

Wow--I just read this comment in the Mathis thread

Please do not defile Mathis by bringing comments from his thread into an Elvis thread.

Have you no respect? Have you no shame? Have you no mercy for the living?

Does yellow make you sad too? It does me. And that is why I am a victim of my tragic flaws.

Because yellow makes me sad.

[MomsMobley]

Both of you are fucking ridiculous: projecting inane white boy guilt on somebody who VASTLY your musical superior-- rhythmically for starters.

Big Sage Sangry, here's a little project you should have done about 30 years ago but better late than never.

Listen to as many versions of "Long Black Limousine" as you can find-- a dozen are easy to get to, including O.C. Smith if, like the Boormann 6 Girl, you got to have soul.

Then, when you're done with that, expound to us the multiplicities of, uh, Big Boy Crudup's 'genius.'

And then-- if your sacroliliac can still stand it-- tell me what Sinatra, whom you correctly listen to closely-- is greater than Elvis' "20 Days and 20 Nights"?

The ANSWER is Fucking. None.

I can go on across all genres-- country, rockabilly, soul, gospel, pop-- and NOBODY was ** better ** than Elvis at his best in those genres.

I don't give a shit about the fetish item box sets etc but musically ya'll are FOOLS.

"Confusion" is the least of your problems.

Or not.

Have you actually listened to that crap stuff rather than being "awed" by it retroactively? There is no time, no pocket, no groove, and Elvis, for all his flaunted multiplicity of "influences" sounds like nothing more than a redneck momma's boy with an above-average gift for barely average mimicing.

Don't believe the hype.

Elvis as "sociology", ok, legit. See the beginnings of the "Southern Strategy" unfold before your very eyes, ears, heaving stomach, etc.

Elvis as actual "music of significance"?

Only in a world where people need "something like that" to be significant.

Not my world, now, then, and hopefully never.

+1

it don't say nothin' 'bout the music at all.

Ok, let me say it again - the bands on Elvis's Sun & early RCA records sucked. They had no groove. Period. Find a pocket, a mutual agreement as to where the beat is. I dare you.

And Elvis himself...no faults with his voice per se, but...all of his "influences" did what they did far better than he did. The Sun Sessions are some of the most overrated "landmark" recordings of the 20th century. Aimless meandering by the band, narcissistic directionless ramblings by the singer.

"Different"? sure. But "musically significant" (as opposed to sociologically important)? I bought the 197? RCA issue of them desperately hoping to find some Deep Secret Meaning Of Elvis that had evaded me since...1962 or so and...nope. Not there. Not even slightly.

To me, a lot of it is confusingly bad. Not unlike listening to Ringo singing "Matchbox" (and I'm a Beatles fan, but I absolutely can not listen to that track). The much-lauded Scotty Moore (a legend himself, to many guitar players) has never shown me anything. At all. I just don't get the hype there. For me, it all went from bad to (much) worse as time went by. The last time I saw the '68 Comeback Special (which was probably 15-20 years ago), all I could do was tilt my head like a dog. Shallow, weak, phony, pathetic... to me it's truly embarrassing. As a platform for a sex symbol, well, obviously. As a platform for a "musical icon"... ??? Give me a break.

Not that I care anymmore.

[MomsMobley]

Also, "Holiday Gift," etc: ** musically **, it's easy to argue Dylan's greatest period was his Christian phase of late '70s to early '80s. (This was much more evident live than in the studio.)

That music is-- obviously-- TOTALLY-- born (again) of Elvis TCB & Sweet Inspirations etc.

"Funny" guys who'll jerk off every repetitive Willie Mitchell groove (many of which are fine, of course)-- or Sharon Jones (?!?!)-- can seriously complain about Elvis the musician.

"Funny" guys who'll jerk off Beatles, Stones lousy covers etc and deny Elvis the best-- or second best, if you prefer Chuck (defensible)-- "Promised Land."

I say it meant MORE to Elvis than Chuck-- which is what a great interpretive singer is supposed to find.

Etc etc.

[Jim R]

Both of you are fucking ridiculous: projecting inane white boy guilt on somebody who VASTLY your musical superior-- rhythmically for starters.

Rhythmically, eh? Okay, that's good to know. I thought I needed more work on harmony than rhythm, but what the hell do I know about me? I obviously need to compare myself with Elvis more often (more often than never, that is).

Btw o Master scribe, "who was", or "who is"? (Please, don't actually answer that).