Did Elvis Suck???

[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.