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 ). 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.