Did Elvis Suck???

[PeruvianSkies]

Most people that know me well know that I am a huge Elvis Presley fan. Huge. Don't know why, the guy died 3 years before I was even born, but I just like his music. I think he was a really cool icon and I think one of the most talented performers to ever live. Notice I use the word "performer" because he was an entertainer both on screen and on stage. So recently I got into a heated debate with a guy (he's probably about 55) on whether or not Elvis 1. could sing and 2. was talented.

We got into a really argumentative debate because he said "Elvis couldn't even carry a tune", which in mind is just an insane thought to begin with. First off, whether you like his music or not, you certainly can't deny his popularity and recognition world-wide and to this day there have been very few singers who are instantaneously recognized and his voice is one of the most recognized in all of musical history.

I know that there has been tons of controversy and popular thought on whether Elvis stole music from here and there and that he wasn't really where rock started, but I would have to disagree completely and his debut album stands the test of time. Even if he didn't start rock music, he certainly helped bring it into popularity.

So what is everyones opinion, regardless of whether you like his music or not....can Elvis sing and was he talented????

[MindGoneHaywire]

Anyone who doesn't like his music or singing is certainly entitled to their opinion. In my experience, that's sometimes due to a dislike of his 70s material, or a dislike of gospel, or country, whatever, but in many cases because they're simply not familiar with his Sun recordings, for instance.

Anyone who denies that he was one of the most significant vocalists of the 20th Century lacks credibility. The cult that surrounds his popularity and the perception of his movie career tends to obscure the debate, but he's in very elite company in that regard even if he didn't exactly invent rock'n'roll. He had a tremendous influence, obviously, and was in the right place at the right time, surrounded by the right people. Nick Tosches has done some great writing on how he got credit for things he didn't necessarily deserve it for, in the preface to Unsung Heroes Of Rock'N' Roll, among other places...but I don't think of that as staining his legacy.

I've read that he had a wide vocal range--five octaves. I can't confirm or deny this, but even if it's not true, to suggest that he couldn't carry a tune is ludicrous, and I'd wonder what someone who said that has actually heard (certainly not Blue Moon!). In some cases, there is a very slight flatness, but mostly on the later recordings, and not a major issue to my ears. The only vocalists I see as being more significant than him are jazz names like Armstrong, Billie Holiday, & Ella Fitzgerald, and guys like Bing Crosby & Frank Sinatra. Of course, that's subjective, but I do think that the idea that the man wasn't talented or 'couldn't carry a tune' can be refuted on an objective basis. Simply put, he was a one-of-a-kind talent whose legacy isn't appreciated, or perhaps even understood, by those who see only jumpsuits. The Sun Sessions was the first collection that provided me with anything resembling an accurate perspective on what he did. It's included on the first of 3 box sets that I would highly recommend: a 50s box that includes all his recorded output during that decade, The King Of Rock'N'Roll; a collection of all of his non-soundtrack 1960s recordings, From Nashville To Memphis (which hits me hardest since most of it is obscure, leading me to wonder how & why it was so overlooked even during nostalgia trends); and Walk A Mile In My Shoes, which covers a lot of his 70s highlights--and, frankly, sounds a lot better after one listens to the first two boxes I mention, in my opinion.

But anyone who's convinced that Elvis wasn't all that probably shouldn't bother. Maybe the Sun Sessions might be a worthwhile listen, but, for some, that won't matter. Whcih is not something I'll lose sleep over. But while denigrating his music is one thing, denigrating his talent is something I find irrational & not worth taking seriously.

[PeruvianSkies]

Anyone who doesn't like his music or singing is certainly entitled to their opinion. In my experience, that's sometimes due to a dislike of his 70s material, or a dislike of gospel, or country, whatever, but in many cases because they're simply not familiar with his Sun recordings, for instance.

Anyone who denies that he was one of the most significant vocalists of the 20th Century lacks credibility. The cult that surrounds his popularity and the perception of his movie career tends to obscure the debate, but he's in very elite company in that regard even if he didn't exactly invent rock'n'roll. He had a tremendous influence, obviously, and was in the right place at the right time, surrounded by the right people. Nick Tosches has done some great writing on how he got credit for things he didn't necessarily deserve it for, in the preface to Unsung Heroes Of Rock'N' Roll, among other places...but I don't think of that as staining his legacy.

I've read that he had a wide vocal range--five octaves. I can't confirm or deny this, but even if it's not true, to suggest that he couldn't carry a tune is ludicrous, and I'd wonder what someone who said that has actually heard (certainly not Blue Moon!). In some cases, there is a very slight flatness, but mostly on the later recordings, and not a major issue to my ears. The only vocalists I see as being more significant than him are jazz names like Armstrong, Billie Holiday, & Ella Fitzgerald, and guys like Bing Crosby & Frank Sinatra. Of course, that's subjective, but I do think that the idea that the man wasn't talented or 'couldn't carry a tune' can be refuted on an objective basis. Simply put, he was a one-of-a-kind talent whose legacy isn't appreciated, or perhaps even understood, by those who see only jumpsuits. The Sun Sessions was the first collection that provided me with anything resembling an accurate perspective on what he did. It's included on the first of 3 box sets that I would highly recommend: a 50s box that includes all his recorded output during that decade, The King Of Rock'N'Roll; a collection of all of his non-soundtrack 1960s recordings, From Nashville To Memphis (which hits me hardest since most of it is obscure, leading me to wonder how & why it was so overlooked even during nostalgia trends); and Walk A Mile In My Shoes, which covers a lot of his 70s highlights--and, frankly, sounds a lot better after one listens to the first two boxes I mention, in my opinion.

But anyone who's convinced that Elvis wasn't all that probably shouldn't bother. Maybe the Sun Sessions might be a worthwhile listen, but, for some, that won't matter. Whcih is not something I'll lose sleep over. But while denigrating his music is one thing, denigrating his talent is something I find irrational & not worth taking seriously.

Well, the person I was having an argument falls into the category of one of those people who have slight anger issues and take their own shortcomings out in hostile ways that don't even make sense. Sometimes they don't even believe their own B.S., but just feel the need to argue the point just for the sake of arguing.

[GMichael]

According to Dr Who, Elvis had more number 1 hits than The Bugs. (Oops, I meant The Beatles)

[kexodusc]

Elvis ain't my cuppa joe, but saying he sucked is a bit much - damn, I can think of no other human being in history who has been so often impersonated on such a grand scale.
That is absolutely fascinating.

[3-LockBox]

First off, damn you're young...

Of course he didn't suck, but he definately 'jumped the shark' with all those bad movies he did in the '60s (they sucked). Giving credit were credit is due, he at least realized this and gave up making movies. He had that big comeback TV special in '68 (my family watched it) and got back his 'cool factor', but then proceeded to turn into a Vegas lounge act. That, plus all the rumors that swirled around his wierdness (I grew up an hour away from Memphis, so I got to hear a lot). Not that he was a sicko like Jacko, but he was a close second to MJ for eccentricity.

MindGoneHeyride is right, Elvis' legacy is obscured by all things non-music related, but if you can wade through the crap, you have one of the most significant figures in music history. How many other musical acts have their stage personas replicated every year for Halloween besides Kiss, and they don't count cuz they dressed like Halloween on anyway.

Myself, I can count on one hand the number of Elvis songs I ever want to hear again, but that doesn't make him a no talent bum. He was much more talented than a lot of record company posers that's passed for talent since his death.

[Troy]

Elvis certainly did his share of sucking.

"Do the Crab" anyone? I just saw "Clambake" on his deathday. Well, I doubt anyone could actually sit through the whole thing. So much of that 60s movie stuff is hilariously bad. I mean just off the scale. That's why it's my favorite Elvis material. though the fat sweaty 70s Elvis is pretty off the wall too.

Yes, for me Elvis is nothing more than a tacky novelty act.

I don't listen to 50s rock by ANYONE, but if I had to I'd be much more likely to play Berry, Holly or Lewis.

Over time it will become less and less possible to wade through the crap. His stardom always outweighed his art.

[BradH]

Yes, for me Elvis is nothing more than a tacky novelty act.

Nice one, Mr. Subtle. Sure, the Vegas crap was...well, Vegas. And the 60's movies left something to be desired (although I kinda like Spinout). But there was a brilliant career before that and it's not like he lost his voice even in the Vegas years.


Over time it will become less and less possible to wade through the crap. His stardom always outweighed his art.

And you can throw The Beatles and The Grateful Dead and a few others in that pile. Some people have so much cultural baggage surrounding them that it's offputting to large segments of the music-listening public. Way, way too much iconography going around. These people were musicians. Elvis was a musician. That was their true strength and everything else flowed from that. Without that core talent, they wouldn't have made it to first base. Sure, Elvis promoted the Vegas jumpsuit icon himself in the 70's but it doesn't change what he accomplished in the early years.

[PeruvianSkies]

Nice one, Mr. Subtle. Sure, the Vegas crap was...well, Vegas. And the 60's movies left something to be desired (although I kinda like Spinout). But there was a brilliant career before that and it's not like he lost his voice even in the Vegas years.



And you can throw The Beatles and The Grateful Dead and a few others in that pile. Some people have so much cultural baggage surrounding them that it's offputting to large segments of the music-listening public. Way, way too much iconography going around. These people were musicians. Elvis was a musician. That was their true strength and everything else flowed from that. Without that core talent, they wouldn't have made it to first base. Sure, Elvis promoted the Vegas jumpsuit icon himself in the 70's but it doesn't change what he accomplished in the early years.

I think that I serve as a good testimony to the influence of Elvis' greatness in the sense that I wasn't alive during his fame, so what I know of him I grew to love through listening to his music and hearing that long before I saw the icon aspect of him. In other words, I grew to appreciate him as an artist without having to live through his era and being influenced in my decision and opinion of him. For those that lived through the time of Elvis, it's similar in a way to that of Michael Jackson, you forget the brilliant young talent and only remember the current bizarreness surrounding the legacy of the artist.

[BradH]

...I wasn't alive during his fame, so what I know of him I grew to love through listening to his music and hearing that long before I saw the icon aspect of him.

Yeah, in that sense, younger people can sometimes cut through the crap because it doesn't exist for them. I've seen a lot of that. They walk into a music store and buy whatever the hell they want because it sounds good to them whether it's the Beatles or Johnny Cash or King Crimson. Professional critics cut down forests of trees printing their personal manifestos about what you're "supposed" to listen to but they're always behind the curve and it never makes an impression on new listeners 15 years later. I think some myths and images still persist, though. For instance, if you see a kid with a Syd Barrett t-shirt it's aways the "crazy" Syd. And this Lennon vs. McCartney crap has got long legs way past it's sell date.

[bobsticks]

Yeah, later Elvis--big, fat, sweatsuit on the toilet Elvis--was pretty well crap, but there's a lot of good content in the last few posts. Elvis isn't really my cuppa either, and you can add the Dead and the Beattles to that as well, but you'd have to be brain dead to accuse those artists of having no talent.

I love the Stones but don't care for the Beattles, that's just my bag. How am I gonna argue that one or the other wasn't talented or influential? Or, just flat-out sucked? P-Sky tell your boy to put down the glass pipe...

[Troy]

But there was a brilliant career before that and it's not like he lost his voice even in the Vegas years.


Ahhhhh, that voice. The grotesque surplus of Elvis impersonators in our great nation that have nailed his vocal style only confirms that his voice was nothing out of the ordinary. Torte-Elvis in "Dread Zeppelin" is the best IMO.

Maybe he was a musician, but that guitar he always appeared with in the 50s and 60s was simply a prop. Did he ever actually play it?

I always saw him as a pure singer, a stylist. And a plagiarist. Did he write the 50s songs? His best work was all covers or rehashed of r&b motifs, and his later work, well, it was pretty damn awful.

Elvis was a rube that was in the right place at the right time. It was all the Colonel.

And as far as youngsters being able to cut thru the crap, I'm not so sure. Seems like most of the Beatles haters out there are young and they can't get past the fawning deification of them by their boomer parents.

[PeruvianSkies]

Yeah, later Elvis--big, fat, sweatsuit on the toilet Elvis--was pretty well crap, but there's a lot of good content in the last few posts. Elvis isn't really my cuppa either, and you can add the Dead and the Beattles to that as well, but you'd have to be brain dead to accuse those artists of having no talent.

I love the Stones but don't care for the Beattles, that's just my bag. How am I gonna argue that one or the other wasn't talented or influential? Or, just flat-out sucked? P-Sky tell your boy to put down the glass pipe...

For me, I enjoy all of the various phases of Elvis. I like his earlier work for the more 'energy-driven' aspect and was at his most influential during those prime early years. Whether or not he invented the wheel or not, there is little argument that he made the wheel popular. It's one thing to invent something and it's another to make that something successful, especially on a global scale, which back in 1956 was much harder to do than today with things like 'the Internet'.

That being said, I also don't mind the middle years where Elvis branched into more ballad-like material as well as some Gospel/Country and a wide variety of styles. What I respect about Elvis is his ability to cross so many genres of music. Can anyone else think of an artist who could easily fit into the following: pop, rock, gospel, country, blues? Not too many. He is also the single-largest selling performer of all time and still remains one of the top selling artists. And to think he was only 42 when he died, imaging where things could have gone?

Ok, now ...the quote...fat, Vegas, sweaty Elvis...yadda yadda....well, for me I don't mind that either. At this point he was larger than life and quite honestly there aren't too many people that could pull off some of the outfits that guy wore and A. look cool and B. not look gay. Fashion sense? Absolutely. He revolutionized just about every piece of clothing he wore. Also, the sideburns became just as popular and as a sideburn person myself...I think they are cool. Also, what I think is important to mention is that if you actually look at Elvis during this part of his career (a la ALOHA FROM HAWAII) he actually isn't as fat or nasty as some people have labeled him and most of that comes from the various knock-off imitators and spoofs/parodies that have been done to the point where it reflects poorly on his character.

One of the points that I brought up during my debate with this guy is the plain and simple fact that you can play about 10 seconds of just about any vocal part of an Elvis song and very few people wouldn't recognize it. His voice is so distinct that it's impossible to not identify, plus there hasn't really been anyone since who could really pull of the voice part just right, even the best Vegas imitators, who usually are terrible. Let's face it...it's hard to imitate the King and whether you are a fan of his music or not, his contribution to the world of music is well documented and that doesn't happen by accident. This guy I was debating with made it seem like it was all some fluke...the music industry at that time was hardly a fluke....talent sold in those days.

[3-LockBox]

Yeah, in that sense, younger people can sometimes cut through the crap because it doesn't exist for them.... Professional critics cut down forests of trees printing their personal manifestos about what you're "supposed" to listen to but they're always behind the curve and it never makes an impression on new listeners 15 years later.

True. And I never go into too much detail as to why I don't like a particualr act if I know someone else who does (unless of course its a message board :biggrin5: ). No one should listen to anyone they don't want to listen to...I can appreciate what Elvis did, but I'm also one who can count the number of '50s rock acts I want to hear on one hand. That is neither here nor there as far as what anyone else should listen to.

Elvis' persona, bad movies, or wirdness has nothing to do with it. I just don't really listen to that kind of music. He was more than a novelty act when he performed music (his acting career was a novelty act). Like I said before, he prolly died at an opportune time, because he was becoming a caricature of himself.

[3-LockBox]

quite honestly there aren't too many people that could pull off some of the outfits that guy wore and A. look cool and B. not look gay. Fashion sense? Absolutely. He revolutionized just about every piece of clothing he wore.


Uh... a) he only looked cool to older women of the day; no young female I knew though the white jumpsuits were cool b) Elvis certainly didn't look gay, but as far as revolutionizing a look, he merely copied Liberacy, whose persona was and still is, the grand master of gay.

[PeruvianSkies]

Uh... a) he only looked cool to older women of the day; no young female I knew though the white jumpsuits were cool b) Elvis certainly didn't look gay, but as far as revolutionizing a look, he merely copied Liberacy, whose persona was and still is, the grand master of gay.

What I was getting at is that it takes some serious nuts to wear something like that and still be able to pull it off without looking gay. Anyone that can look masculine in a tight white bell bottom jump suit with more gold and diamonds than in Flava Flavs mouth is a feat worthy to be held.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Ahhhhh, that voice. The grotesque surplus of Elvis impersonators in our great nation that have nailed his vocal style only confirms that his voice was nothing out of the ordinary. Torte-Elvis in "Dread Zeppelin" is the best IMO.

Maybe he was a musician, but that guitar he always appeared with in the 50s and 60s was simply a prop. Did he ever actually play it?

I always saw him as a pure singer, a stylist. And a plagiarist. Did he write the 50s songs? His best work was all covers or rehashed of r&b motifs, and his later work, well, it was pretty damn awful.

Elvis was a rube that was in the right place at the right time. It was all the Colonel.

And as far as youngsters being able to cut thru the crap, I'm not so sure. Seems like most of the Beatles haters out there are young and they can't get past the fawning deification of them by their boomer parents.

Do you look at this stuff before you decide to troll it? You make my above points quite effectively.

[3-LockBox]

What I was getting at is that it takes some serious nuts to wear something like that and still be able to pull it off without looking gay. Anyone that can look masculine in a tight white bell bottom jump suit with more gold and diamonds than in Flava Flavs mouth is a feat worthy to be held.

Not that being gay makes anyone less talented. Elton John's being gay hasn't changed my perception of his early works, which I still enjoy listening to from time to time.

But if you were to ask me if Elton John sucks...

well...

[BradH]

AhhhThe grotesque surplus of Elvis impersonators in our great nation that have nailed his vocal style only confirms that his voice was nothing out of the ordinary.

Whether they actually nailed his voice or not is irrelevant. The mere fact that so many attempted it is proof it was distinctive.


Maybe he was a musician, but that guitar he always appeared with in the 50s and 60s was simply a prop. Did he ever actually play it?

Yes.


I always saw him as a pure singer, a stylist. And a plagiarist. Did he write the 50s songs? His best work was all covers or rehashed of r&b motifs, and his later work, well, it was pretty damn awful.

This plagiarism issue involves a lot of mythologizing about black music by white listeners. Black music was always an ever-changing, complex mix made by artists lifting anything and everything from everywhere and each other including the blues itself which is supposedly some primal scream using African motifs. That's bullsh!t. The blues and r&b was showbiz, always. The black audiences understood that, the white audiences have not. A lot of those threads came together in those early performers from the 50's, they understood those genres and mixed them up in their own brilliant way. People thought Elvis was black and Chuck Berry was white until they saw them. Rock 'n' roll has been considered post-modern right from the very start.


Elvis was a rube that was in the right place at the right time. It was all the Colonel..

Every successful performer was in the right place at the right time at some point in their career, doesn't mean they were rubes. If the Colonel was such a genius then he could've managed anybody. But there weren't a lot of Elvis's running around, he was a true original. Before he had a contract he was cruising the club & bar circuit from west Texas to the deep South in a pink cadillac. That takes balls. Sam Philips knew Elivs was an origianl when he picked up a guitar and did his fast R&B version of "Blue Moon", originally a bluegrass song. No one had ever heard anything like that before.


And as far as youngsters being able to cut thru the crap, I'm not so sure. Seems like most of the Beatles haters out there are young and they can't get past the fawning deification of them by their boomer parents.

Maybe in the 70's & 80's but a lot of water has gone under the bridge if you ask me. Most of the Beatle-haters sprang out of the punk/new wave movement in the 70's.

[PeruvianSkies]

Whether they actually nailed his voice or not is irrelevant. The mere fact that so many attempted it is proof it was distinctive.



Yes.



This plagiarism issue involves a lot of mythologizing about black music by white listeners. Black music was always an ever-changing, complex mix made by artists lifting anything and everything from everywhere and each other including the blues itself which is supposedly some primal scream using African motifs. That's bullsh!t. The blues and r&b was showbiz, always. The black audiences understood that, the white audiences have not. A lot of those threads came together in those early performers from the 50's, they understood those genres and mixed them up in their own brilliant way. People thought Elvis was black and Chuck Berry was white until they saw them. Rock 'n' roll has been considered post-modern right from the very start.



Every successful performer was in the right place at the right time at some point in their career, doesn't mean they were rubes. If the Colonel was such a genius then he could've managed anybody. But there weren't a lot of Elvis's running around, he was a true original. Before he had a contract he was cruising the club & bar circuit from west Texas to the deep South in a pink cadillac. That takes balls. Sam Philips knew Elivs was an origianl when he picked up a guitar and did his fast R&B version of "Blue Moon", originally a bluegrass song. No one had ever heard anything like that before.



Maybe in the 70's & 80's but a lot of water has gone under the bridge if you ask me. Most of the Beatle-haters sprang out of the punk/new wave movement in the 70's.

Excellent debate material! Good job presenting some of those issues.

[BradH]

Excellent debate material! Good job presenting some of those issues.

Thanks but, truthfully, Troy and I are old campaigners. Been doing it for years.

Here comes the nurse with our Geritol...

[PeruvianSkies]

Thanks but, truthfully, Troy and I are old campaigners. Been doing it for years.

Here comes the nurse with our Geritol...

I appreciate anyone who can defend their position...it also builds character! Peace.

[GMichael]

Thanks but, truthfully, Troy and I are old campaigners. Been doing it for years.

Here comes the nurse with our Geritol...

My nurse always drinks mine on the way to my room.

[nobody]

This really is a silly argument. We're talking about one of the single most influential artists of the modern era. Of course, he doesn't suck, unless you want to be so elitist and/or narrow in your view as to ignore generations of fans and ignore generations of musicians influenced by him. Sure, you can pick apart any artist if you just comb through, looking for flaws. Pick your favorite and there's someone out there that can make a coherent argument as to why they are crap.

Of course, there is no reason you have to like anyone. So, maybe personally he sucks in the same way anything you don't personally like sucks. But, there's no real argument for him being talentless and/or unimportant to music history if those are the types of terms you wanna go by. I guess, you can do it by picking apart his worst moments and ignoring the rest, but that's not exactly fair and is a method that would ruin pretty much anyone. Personally, I"m a big fan, so I'll always stick up for him. J and others have already spelled out most of the reasons so I'll try not o be too redundant.

It's really no different than some really big, important bands that I prefer not to listen to for the most part. I'm not a big Beatles fan and the overwhelming majority of Rolling Stones records leave me cold. But, while I am happy to say they're not my cup of tea, I think saying they suck would be an overstatement simply due to the vastness of their influence and their legions of fans.

Now, Van Halen, on the other hand. Those guys just suck.

[GMichael]

Now, Van Halen, on the other hand. Those guys just suck.

Oh I see. More sarcasm.
I never liked Bruce Springsteen. He sucks too.

[Troy]

I'd rather listen to fat sweaty 70s Elvis than Van Halen. I mean, it's all a sliding scale, you know? Do people actually play Van Halen albums still?

Yes, it's a silly argument, not because Elvis was influential etc., but because the answer to the question is a pure OPINION statement. If I think Elvis and especially Van Hagar sucks that doesn't mean it's a fact any more than you opinion is fact. All that means is you better not let me pick the music on a long drive together.

As far as ripping off the blues etc. it's all about $ and fame. Elvis made money with it by taking others music that those other black guys couldn't make $ doing. It's no different than that whole Led Zep plagiarism thing we beat into the ground a month or 2 ago.

Yes, the Beatles-hating thing started in the late 70s, but there's plenty of punky kids that hate the Beatles out of spite today, too.

And I'll argue my rube point all day, gramps. There's plenty of evidence that he wasn't the sharpest spoon in the drawer, Parker was the ultimate svengali who ran every single part of Elvis's public life. And Pressley had the worst kind of nouveau riche redneck cracker taste in everything. I've been to Graceland. It was one of the cheesiest experiences I've ever had. Sorry, Call me a snob, but Elvis was a rube.

There was a scene cut from Pulp Fiction (it's on the DVD tho) in which Travolta and Thurman talk before they go out to dance and OD. "Are you an Elvis or a Beatles man?" "Definitely an Elvis man." I always thought that spoke volumes about the 2 wildly divergent schools of rock they come from. Yeah, Elvis influenced that whole side of the rock tree that I don't especially like.

[PeruvianSkies]

I'd rather listen to fat sweaty 70s Elvis than Van Halen. I mean, it's all a sliding scale, you know? Do people actually play Van Halen albums still?

Yes, it's a silly argument, not because Elvis was influential etc., but because the answer to the question is a pure OPINION statement. If I think Elvis and especially Van Hagar sucks that doesn't mean it's a fact any more than you opinion is fact. All that means is you better not let me pick the music on a long drive together.

As far as ripping off the blues etc. it's all about $ and fame. Elvis made money with it by taking others music that those other black guys couldn't make $ doing. It's no different than that whole Led Zep plagiarism thing we beat into the ground a month or 2 ago.

Yes, the Beatles-hating thing started in the late 70s, but there's plenty of punky kids that hate the Beatles out of spite today, too.

And I'll argue my rube point all day, gramps. There's plenty of evidence that he wasn't the sharpest spoon in the drawer, Parker was the ultimate svengali who ran every single part of Elvis's public life. And Pressley had the worst kind of nouveau riche redneck cracker taste in everything. I've been to Graceland. It was one of the cheesiest experiences I've ever had. Sorry, Call me a snob, but Elvis was a rube.

There was a scene cut from Pulp Fiction (it's on the DVD tho) in which Travolta and Thurman talk before they go out to dance and OD. "Are you an Elvis or a Beatles man?" "Definitely an Elvis man." I always thought that spoke volumes about the 2 wildly divergent schools of rock they come from. Yeah, Elvis influenced that whole side of the rock tree that I don't especially like.


So is an Orange actually the color orange or only because it's the popular belief that it is orange and that we have assigned the word 'orange' to describe the color of the fruit, also known as Orange. Or is it just a popular enough of an opinion that Oranges are indeed orange in color? When does opinion become fact? When do facts become opinions?

While we can have opinions on Elvis, there is certainly enough supporting evidence that shows an overwhelming popularity of him to bring him to legendary status and into the Rock N' Roll hall of fame, neither which come by accident, but rather talent and popularity combined.

Whether or not you like what he wore, where he lived, or what he sang about does not change the course of History and the truth that he was indeed a gifted person who could sing well enough for a popularity that no one since has ever achieved. Icons don't happen on accident or by pure luck..icons are made through greatness.

[MindGoneHaywire]

>It's no different than that whole Led Zep plagiarism thing we beat into the ground a month or 2 ago.

Do you actually believe this? You are woefully misinformed.

I'll never understand why you would allow blind hatred to lead to you posting such absolute nonsense.

You probably believe that oft-refuted urban legend about Elvis saying black people could buy his albums, too. But, if you believe what Public Enemy said about him--a dubious prospect, though what you're saying here is very close to it--then you probably don't care that even Chuck D backed off that stance.

This simply doesn't fly. You wanna debate the other stuff? You're the one who went on about the guy's taste, when the question posed was more along the lines of, are you willing to acknowledge that the man was extremely talented. You show no signs of being willing to acknowledge this, which is, like or dislike aside, musically ignorant. It would be like me saying Frank Zappa couldn't play guitar. You know I'm no Zappa fan.

But I wouldn't say something so foolish. I'm not sure why you're unwilling to take note of acknowledged, objectively observed musical fact.

If you're going to try to convince anyone that Elvis was talentless, going on about Graceland, roobiness, the Colonel, and jumpsuits ain't going to do it. Yes, people still listen to Van Halen, myself included. I have a brother-in-law who's going to see them play with the kid. He has about 10 albums in his collection, few if any not by VH, AC/DC, or Boston. So? (You should've seen his reaction when I played him the Moog Cookbook version of 'More Than A Feeling')

I defy you to explain musically why the man was talentless. I'll expect that you've actually heard the Sun Sessions. Clearly you haven't checked the songwriting credits.

I'd say nice try, except it isn't.

[3-LockBox]

. And Pressley had the worst kind of nouveau riche redneck cracker taste in everything. I've been to Graceland. It was one of the cheesiest experiences I've ever had. Sorry, Call me a snob, but Elvis was a rube.

You got something against red crushed-velvet decore in bathrooms?

[Troy]

Peru-
Oranges are orange, that's a fact.

Oranges taste good, that's opinion.

Oranges have a lot of vitamin C and are good for you- fact.

Orange is a good color for cars- opinion.

Elvis was talented and very influential- fact

Elvis sucks- opinion.

With me here?

J, turn down Jamie's Cryin and take a pill, woodja? Did I ever actually say that Elvis had no talent? No. Of course he had talent, but it's talent that I don't particularly value. Your favorite band sucks to me, my favorite bands suck to you. BFD, get over it.

Blind hatred? Don't you think you're overstating it a bit?

[MindGoneHaywire]

>Yes, for me Elvis is nothing more than a tacky novelty act.

Well, that's certainly a noteworthy example of expressing an acknowledgment of talent even when one doesn't care for the product.

You want to list some examples of actionable plagiarism on Presley's part? When you accuse someone of something like that with absolutely nothing to back it up short of not liking the guy's work, I'll say it's a BFD. As someone who relies on creativity to make a living, I'm not sure why you'd disagree with that.

[bobsticks]

Man, between this and the MSNBC thread I'm starting to see how much my parents truly neglected me in my formative years. Is this actionable? If I wake to a fratricidal rage I'm blaming it on a lack of "Yellow Submarine" and "Love Me Tender" in my musical diet.

Punky kids, indeed.

[Troy]

Hey man, Liberace was WAY more talented than Elvis, and he's nothing more than a tacky novelty act that sucks too, dig? Talent and tacky are 2 very different things.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Get back to us when you've actually looked at the songwriting credits & taken the time to listen to the Sun Sessions.

[Troy]

Get back to me after viewing "Kissin' Cousins" and "Clambake" and try to tell me that Elvis doesn't suck. Plagiarizer or not, he was a clown.

[Mr Peabody]

Now, Liberace sucked! literally, and I don't think that was a secret.

I like Elvis's music. I didn't realize he had writing credits. I have certainly heard worse vocalists but Elvis isn't on my top 10 list either. You have to give him his props, it takes talent for the camera man to be given orders to only shoot from the waste UP. I like many of Elvis's movies. Elvis, I thank you for letting me see Ann Margaret in short shorts.

The Disney movie Lilo & Stitch used a couple Elvis songs in the soundtrack and my kids loved them. So now even my 8 year old, though she don't understand the whole phenomenon of Elvis, likes him. I had to turn her on to more Elvis once I realized they were into it.

Rock-n-Roll is just...... Rock-n-Roll. - AC/DC

Take it for what it is, if it has a groove, you gotta move. If we throw out all our recordings by weird, rubes, freaks or whatever, what would be left to listen to?

I began liking the Stones and disliking the Beatles. I still like the Stones and I'm gaining appreciation for the Beatles, especially their earlier stuff. Hey Jude, a killer classic track. I try not to let myself get burned out on Classic Rock. I just don't listen until I'm ready. Over exposure takes the fun out of most things, notice "most" is the operative word here.

[PeruvianSkies]

Does being a popular musician mean that you are talented? Not necessarily...people like Britney Spears isn't exactly the best singer the world has ever seen, yet she has sold more records than most. This only shows that some people (and sometimes a lot of people) like junk. I agree that some people have poor musical preference, but there is also another side to that. Britney for example also dedicated herself to her music and that's no easy gig. No one just wakes up and becomes a famous musician, it takes hard work regardless of what some people might think. As a musician myself and knowing how hard it is to break into the music industry I respect those people and to become a huge megahit or legend like Elvis...takes a lifetime of commitment and his stardom ended up killing him. He had to live up to something that people created him to be: an icon. That lifestyle is a fast one, we have seen it take others long before their time...that list includes some of the greatest from Hendrix to Cobain. Now one hit wonders a different thing, but when it comes to people that have lasted years and even decades that it shear insanity...the fact that the Rolling Stones are still touring is just incredible. The fact that they still have millions of fans worldwide and sell albums at the rate that they do is no accident. They have devoted their lives to stardom and it often comes with a heavy price....just look at Jagger's face. At the same time, there is talent there as well. Millions of people wouldn't still go see this band year after year if they were a one-act gig.

[BradH]

Elvis made money with it by taking others music that those other black guys couldn't make $ doing.

You think those R&B acts sounded just like Elvis, do ya?


There's plenty of evidence that he wasn't the sharpest spoon in the drawer...

Boy, that's a rarity in rock 'n' roll. Do you only listen to rock made by smart people? Must have a small collection.


There was a scene cut from Pulp Fiction (it's on the DVD tho) in which Travolta and Thurman talk before they go out to dance and OD. "Are you an Elvis or a Beatles man?" "Definitely an Elvis man." I always thought that spoke volumes about the 2 wildly divergent schools of rock they come from.

So, if the Beatles didn't come from the Elvis school of rock then exacltly what school did they come from? Here's a hint: there was no other school. They always acknowledged his influence and never once, that I know of, made claims that they were better or more progressive than Elvis or anything like that. Maybe they were rubes too, huh?

[MindGoneHaywire]

Troy--I'm not getting why you would think Elvis' cheezy movie career is somehow a secret. It's real easy to just point at the perfectly obvious. The thing is, it ignores why he was in a position to ever have a movie career in the first place.

I found something out recently that has a relation to this topic. When I was about five years old, Perry Como had a big hit with a ballad that was a rewrite of a Spanish or Mexican folk song--It's Impossible. The guy who adapted it into English was a high-school friend of my uncle, and we had a couple of family gatherings with this guy. Sid Wayne. Awfully cheezy toon. Elvis covered it, it was a Vegas staple for him, he might've had a single of it, I can't recall. But I think he might've had a minor hit with it, actually.

I always sorta wondered why he covered that song, as cheezy as he could be, it almost didn't make sense. A few weeks ago I looked up Sid Wayne on AMG & found that he'd written a few of those songs for some of those Elvis movies. So it makes more sense now, considering the connection.

But, again, it's easy to point at the cheese, less convenient to even think about a collection of recordings like the Sun Sessions. Meanwhile, you've done everything but play the 'Elvis was a racist' card.

You know what? Stan Ridgway was in the Flesheaters, right? So were Dave Alvin & John Doe. Interesting...

[Troy]

Troy--I'm not getting why you would think Elvis' cheezy movie career is somehow a secret. It's real easy to just point at the perfectly obvious. The thing is, it ignores why he was in a position to ever have a movie career in the first place.

And I'm not getting why Elvis gets a pass from you and Brad for the vast suckitude of his cheesy movie career.

He doesn't suck because of the Sun Sessions, he sucks because of the bad movies, 70s comeback, and the whole cult of celebrity thing that overshadowed his later career.

Jeez, man, he sucks just for doing "A Change of Habit" with Mary Tyler Moore. That one movie alone cancells out any cool he generated in the 50s as far as I'm concerned. The rest of his 60s and 70s output pushes him into travesty territory.

And that's what the original question was- "Does Elvis suck?" And my answer is "More than an Idaho senator."

Everything else in the conversation is superfluous.

[PeruvianSkies]

That this thread has gotten somewhat heated...at least now I know my argument with the guy over Elvis was not an isolated one. I truly thought he had to be joking with me when he was talking about how terrible Elvis' voice was....now I know that others share that sentiment, even if I don't agree.

[3-LockBox]

All you Elvis fans are lucky that the press was lazier in the '70s than they are now, or we'd be saying things about Elvis that aren't too far off from what we say about Micheal Jackson. Elvis was a young teen chaser, not too uncommon for a rock star of his day, but we use to hear stories...Of course, this is where this man's legacy was headed in the mid to late '70s. Innuendos, here-say, rumors, instead of the cult of celebrity that became Elvis after his not-so-untimely death.

Elvis Presley was good performer, but like I said, he became a caraciture of himself. Does that make him any different than any other former rock stars? No, but then again, they suck too. Its about the present tense, what they're doing now. VH-DLR sucks. The Rolling Stones suck. Genesis sucks. Rod Stewart has turned into a lounge act, so he sucks too. The longer these guys suck, the more harm they do to their legacy.

Professional wrestling is chocked full of athletic talent - but its tacky, and it sucks.

And yes, growing up an hour away from Memphis, I had my fill of both 'pro' wrestling and Elvis Presley, and don't differentiate between the two. Because all we have to go by is what he was doing before he died. He sucked. I wouldn't have crossed the street to see him. He represented a three ring circus to me. And that wasn't even including all those terrible movies.

So the Sun Sessions are all that and a bag of chips, eh? Good for all you afficienados and completists. Mentioning Elvis' place in rock history is a necessary evil for me, but I realize he has his place. Yes he was influential, but luckily, most rock-n-rollers got over it and the blues guitar afficienados took over. Elvis was what he was and I usually leave it at that. I don't own any Elvis CDs, and don't want to.

Just because an artist has a place in history, or was once great, doesn't meant they can't suck. A band that puts out two or three bad albums in a row, whether they were once great or not, sucks. They can change that by not sucking. Elvis nearly atoned for his bad movies with his '68 comeback, but then became what he became, a fat guy in a tight, white jumpsuit, sweating profusely, forgetting the words to his own songs, looking like he was straining to stand up, prolly thinking about that 15 year old girl he was going to doink in his limo later on.

But in a way, the way Elvis is remembered now should be at the very least, an inspiration to a guy like Michael Jackson, who, if he can lay off the 10 year old boys for a while, might enjoy his own renaissence, and be alive to enjoy it.

[BradH]

He doesn't suck because of the Sun Sessions....

Now you're backtracking. Is this the same Elvis you called a plagiarist?


His best work was all covers or rehashed of r&b motifs...

His best work. WTF? Were there two Elvises? One whose best work sucked and one who didn't suck because of the Sun Sessions? Or is this just an exercise in spewing vitriol?


Jeez, man, he sucks just for doing "A Change of Habit" with Mary Tyler Moore. That one movie alone cancells out any cool he generated in the 50s as far as I'm concerned.

Generating cool? Hell, that rebellious image died when he joined the Army. Yeah, Elvis sucked at generating cool, at least for younger audiences. By the early 70's, young women were more inclined to dig Tom Jones. And where is Tom Jones's legacy? It's right up there with Mac Davis. It doesn't amount to a zit on Elvis's butt. One sucky movie didn't magically erase Elvis's influence on rock 'n' roll. Not even a decade of sucky movies and the Vegas act that followed could erase that.


Everything else in the conversation is superfluous.

That would explain why you're not answering a lot of the points that have been raised. They're all superflous. Who knew?

Once more for the world: Elvis's iconography was bullsh!t. But music is music and, at one point, Elvis accomplished something astonishing and radical for its time and no amount of drugs and bad management changes that.

[Troy]

Well, yeah, there were arguably more than 2 Elvises. Elvi?

The mid-50s Elvis was the one that allowed all the other much suckier iterations of Elvis to exist. Without the ok (but very dated today) Sun Sessions, Elvis, no sucky movie Elvis, no fat sweaty 70s Elvis comeback.

I'm perfectly willing to admit I was wrong about the plagiarizm thing. That doesn't make Elvis after 1958 suck any less, does it?

3LB already talked about it. It's a legacy thing. What if Hendrix didn't die and ended up making a whole pile of cheesy lounge music and bad movies, put on 75 pounds and staged an embarrassing Vegas comeback in 1988? Well, his 1967 work would still be good, but it would be sullied by all the baggage carried by his later bad decisions. Hendrix would suck, regardless of what he did in 1967.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against the point that "Elvis accomplished something astonishing and radical for its time", but that is outweighed by his later awfulness and cheeseball white trash iconography. Ergo, he sucks.

Peru- Heated? Nope, this is how we have fun around here. I know MGH, Brad, 3LB and I are all grinning as we type these responses.

[GMichael]

You guys play funny.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm not even going to try to count all the "sucks" and deviations of suck in this thread, but like I already said... They all suck!!!

This sh!t sucks and I'm not going to take it any more!!!

You suck GM!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Troy, why don't you just try the sarcasm detector and see how it works instead of pooh pooh'ing it. GM went through a case of them, so they must've worked a little bit.

[BradH]

The mid-50s Elvis was the one that allowed all the other much suckier iterations of Elvis to exist. Without the ok (but very dated today) Sun Sessions, Elvis, no sucky movie Elvis, no fat sweaty 70s Elvis comeback.?.

You could make this argument about a lot of people. Do Lennon & McCartney suck because of all the lame solo lp's they put out in the 70's? Does their 70's output suck or do they just downright, comprehensively, globally meta-suck? You can only get so many prime years out of an artist in most cases.


3LB already talked about it. It's a legacy thing..

I don't hear anyone talking about Elvis's movie legacy. It doesn't exist. The suckage made it irrelevant. I never heard anyone say, "Wow, Elvis really left a legacy in Vegas, he changed everything." The only real legacy is the music.


What if Hendrix didn't die and ended up making a whole pile of cheesy lounge music and bad movies, put on 75 pounds and staged an embarrassing Vegas comeback in 1988? Well, his 1967 work would still be good, but it would be sullied by all the baggage carried by his later bad decisions. Hendrix would suck, regardless of what he did in 1967.

How would the '67 work be sullied? Is the sh!t not down on tape? How does it get changed? Wouldn't his influence already have had its effect? If Elvis had started in, say, 1959 as Bobbie Presley in a sweater, then went on to movies and Vegas then I would agree that he sucked. Period. Total global meta-suckage with a side order of hippo balls in llama sauce. But he didn't. So he doesn't.

[PeruvianSkies]

For me, an artist is represented by their entire body of work, good and bad. In the case of Elvis there is little that can overshadow the fact that in his 42 years on earth he put out 30 #1 hits, that's no small feat. Call him untalented all you want, but until you get your FIRST #1 hit....keep your mouth shut.

It's easy to sit back in the critics chair and judge things all we want, but until we actually get involved in the game whether it be the music or movie industry, we really don't have anything but our opinions.

[3-LockBox]

How would the '67 work be sullied? Is the sh!t not down on tape? How does it get changed? Wouldn't his influence already have had its effect? If Elvis had started in, say, 1959 as Bobbie Presley in a sweater, then went on to movies and Vegas then I would agree that he sucked. Period. Total global meta-suckage with a side order of hippo balls in llama sauce. But he didn't. So he doesn't.

I think Elvis would be easier to take if it weren't for his '70s legacy. I think Jerry Lee Lewis was as big an influence on rock-n-roll, and was a longer lasting influence to boot. No one is running around trying to immitate Lewis. Why? Because as flawed as he was, he didn't have this clownish, garrish, bigger than life persona that lent itself to mockery. Jerry Lee Lewis was the most talented of the whole lot coming out of Sun studios. Even though he sullied his rep by marrying his 14 year old cousin, he is also cited as an influence. Hell, punk owes more to Lews than Elvis, from a performance perspective.

But if you need to compartmentalize things, then here ya go, Elvis didn't suck in the '50s. He sucked in the 60s. He sucked in the '70s. He seems to have sucked more than he didn't.

[3-LockBox]

It's easy to sit back in the critics chair and judge things all we want, but until we actually get involved in the game whether it be the music or movie industry, we really don't have anything but our opinions.

Isn't that why we're all here?

[BradH]

But if you need to compartmentalize things, then here ya go

I don't need to compartmentalize anything. I simply have no interest in Elvis's movie career or his Vegas era or what Graceland looks like or who he screwed or what drugs he took or whether Parker had a legal passport. To me, none of that matters. This is a music board, that's what interests me about Elvis. I think his suckage or non-suckage should be based on that. If "Does Elvis Suck?" had appeared on a movie discussion board it would've been in a completely different context.


No one is running around trying to immitate Lewis. Why? Because as flawed as he was, he didn't have this clownish, garrish, bigger than life persona that lent itself to mockery.

Are you kidding me? Look at that hair and those wild antics. Perfect imitation fodder. But how much money can you make imitating a guy who married his underage cousin? In the end, Elvis was simply more popular.

Btw, the punk rockers made a point of hating everything that came before them and that includes Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, Beatles, you name it, although they had their guilty pleasures when they went home. (I remember seeing Andy Gill of the Gang Of Four whip out a little Black Sabbath before their encore.)

I don't see how Lewis's influence is more lasting than Elvis's. If anything, that accolade could possibly go to Chuck Berry, imo. That's probably a thread in itself.

Maybe we can kill this thread with a hairy-headed prog analogy. You say Genesis sucks. Yeah, right now they suck. But let's say Banks or Rutherford dies and ten years later someone asks, "Does Genesis suck?" As a Genesis fan, what would your answer be? Do albums like Foxtrot matter at all or does 20+ years of acting like the Phil Collins Experience overshadow everything? Using Troy's criteria, Genesis sucks. Period.

[Mr Peabody]

It has been said Elvis was a black belt. It's a shame they didn't think to have Elvis do a karate movie. That would have rounded out his movie catalog :)

What is the name of that movie where he works in a nightclub and his boss sends him down to keep an eye on his daughter at spring break? It has been a while but I remember that being a funny movie.

For the period those movies came out and compared to a countless amount of garbage that's on film, Elvis's movies aren't that bad, are they?

[PeruvianSkies]

It has been said Elvis was a black belt. It's a shame they didn't think to have Elvis do a karate movie. That would have rounded out his movie catalog :)

What is the name of that movie where he works in a nightclub and his boss sends him down to keep an eye on his daughter at spring break? It has been a while but I remember that being a funny movie.

For the period those movies came out and compared to a countless amount of garbage that's on film, Elvis's movies aren't that bad, are they?

During that time those movies would have been standard fare. It's not like they weren't putting out other crap at the same time, but then again they were also putting out amazing films as well...like 1962 alone saw LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD.

[Mr Peabody]

P Sky, I think you crossed the line when you said we have to try something in order to speak out about it, or know it sucks. To know if something sucks is an instinct, an instinct that allows us as humans to discern the sucking, from the non-sucking things of this world. If one has to perform to enjoy a performance, who would do the rest of the work around here? I would prefer not to play pro sports, geez, I can't even ice skate, if one had to play to enjoy watching, well, where would that leave ESPN. Of course, on the other hand, your rule might be adopted readily with those who watch porn. I'm sure a little participation would give one amazing insightful power to discern the sucking from the non-sucking things of this world.

Maybe Brad will share how he came to be so knowledgeable in the things that suck.

So if you now see the error of your statement, we will be watching for your retraction.

When you told your mom, brussel sprouts suck, did you become one first?

[PeruvianSkies]

P Sky, I think you crossed the line when you said we have to try something in order to speak out about it, or know it sucks. To know if something sucks is an instinct, an instinct that allows us as humans to discern the sucking, from the non-sucking things of this world. If one has to perform to enjoy a performance, who would do the rest of the work around here? I would prefer not to play pro sports, geez, I can't even ice skate, if one had to play to enjoy watching, well, where would that leave ESPN. Of course, on the other hand, your rule might be adopted readily with those who watch porn. I'm sure a little participation would give one amazing insightful power to discern the sucking from the non-sucking things of this world.

Maybe Brad will share how he came to be so knowledgeable in the things that suck.

So if you now see the error of your statement, we will be watching for your retraction.

When you told your mom, brussel sprouts suck, did you become one first?

Did I say that you had to PLAY a sport to enjoy watching it? Nope. I just said that you are a more credible critic if you actually HAVE played a sport in order to comment on it.

[bobsticks]

So in summation, this thread has boiled down to the equivalent of a good night on the town; basically the same three questions. To wit:

~What exactly constitutes proper sucking?
~Does the duration of the sucking effect one's view of the overall experience?
and
~Who is the most formidable sucker and do past accomplishments in actual sucking necessarily give one the edge over a neophite sucker?


And, yeah I'm done with Elvis and have moved on to baiting GMichael...

[PeruvianSkies]

I like how when talking about whether or not Elvis had talent or not things like ...

professional wrestling come into play. How does that happen?

[BradH]

Maybe Brad will share how he came to be so knowledgeable in the things that suck.

Hey, you suck!

The first time I got high I watched Spinout. I thought, hey, this stupid movie is kind of cool!

Dope obviously enhanced the suckiness.

[3-LockBox]

Two good thing about Elvis movies -

Shelly Fabres in hot pants
Ann Margret in tight capri pants

and I guess Elvis himself kept the shoe pollish industry aloft (assuming that's what he colored his hair with

[MindGoneHaywire]

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

[nobody]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w789CzQdMl0

[Luvin Da Blues]

I like how when talking about whether or not Elvis had talent or not things like ...

professional wrestling come into play. How does that happen?

Cause they're both cheezy???:prrr:


Just joking, although I don't personally like Elvis I do appreciate his singing talent. I'm a big Carl Perkins fan tho.