Did Elvis Suck???

[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)