For Diehard Elvis Fans

[Big Beat Steve]

This thread has indeed evolved in a funny and somehow tragic way through the (local) night.

And I agree with Ghost of Miles' comment that drawing an analogy between a 10-year old enjoying 50s Elvis and forced Wagner listening in a concentration camp is just way over the top and speaks LONG about somebody out there who evidently has got TONS of sour grapes on his chest about "him making it and my personal heroes not making it".

So, JSngry, note this once and for all:

By your very own yardstick or "reasoning" ANY jazzman who took even so much as a hint of DRUGS (hard drugs of the post-1945 variety, in particular) in his very own life was no less a LIE than Elvis. Because he (willingly or unwittingly) portrayed a picture of a life worthy of emulation that proclaimed loudly "Do as I do and you will reach the heights I have reached". And this not only ruined lives but KILLED people in a very direct artist/emulator relationship. Now how many people did Elvis ruin and kill in such a direct relationship, I wonder? More than himself and those who in despair may have jumped off a bridge after his death?

And now don't give me that crap about them (those jazzmen) having attained far higher artistic achievements (which I certainly would NOT doubt one bit). Because NO measure of artistic achievement entitles ANYBODY to killing (or laying the groundwork for killing) others! In fact, it all spells out nothing but utter personal weakness in one's capability of handling one's everyday life, which in turn makes these jazzmen just as weak human beings as Elvis when it comes to the task of coping with EVERYDAY LIFE DAY IN, DAY OUT. And sorry to say, if you insist on this being reason enough to label somebody a lie because he projects false images on oneself to the world at large, then there have been LOTS of human lies out there - because, again, artistic achievements are not enough of an excuse or justification overall if the "rest" of your life is a shambles that sets others (who - in false and unjustified emulation of their heroes' existence - do not realize what shambles it is) on the WRONGEST track of them all.

I rest my case (for now)...

Edited December 28, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

This thread has indeed evolved in a funny and somehow tragic way through the (local) night.

And I agree with Ghost of Miles' comment that drawing an analogy between a 10-year old enjoying 50s Elvis and forced Wagner listening in a concentration camp is just way over the top and speaks LONG about somebody out there who evidently has got TONS of sour grapes on his chest about "him making it and my personal heroes not making it".

So, JSngry, note this once and for all:

By your very own yardstick or "reasoning" ANY jazzman who took even so much as a hint of DRUGS (hard drugs of the post-1945 variety, in particular) in his very own life was no less a LIE than Elvis. Because he (willingly or unwittingly) portrayed a picture of a life worthy of emulation that proclaimed loudly "Do as I do and you will reach the heights I have reached". And this not only ruined lives but KILLED people in a very direct artist/emulator relationship. Now how many people did Elvis ruin and kill in such a direct relationship, I wonder? More than himself and those who in despair may have jumped off a bridge after his death?

And now don't give me that crap about them (those jazzmen) having attained far higher artistic achievements (which I certainly would NOT doubt one bit). Because NO measure of artistic achievement entitles ANYBODY to killing (or laying the groundwork for killing) others! In fact, it all spells out nothing but utter personal weakness in one's capability of handling one's everyday life, which in turn makes these jazzmen just as weak human beings as Elvis when it comes to the task of coping with EVERYDAY LIFE DAY IN, DAY OUT. And sorry to say, if you insist on this being reason enough to label somebody a lie because he projects false images on oneself to the world at large, then there have been LOTS of human lies out there - because, again, artistic achievements are not enough of an excuse or justification overall if the "rest" of your life is a shambles that sets others (who - in false and unjustified emulation of their heroes' existence - do not realize what shambles it is) on the WRONGEST track of them all.

I rest my case (for now)...

Your case being what, exactly?

[Big Beat Steve]

That those who pull down others instead of ELEVATING them (as they seem to be obliged to do in EVERY aspect of their entire lives according to what you repeatedly said - "to take ownership, at any point, in any way, of the power that was his, musically or otherwise") then they have failed in those not so insignificant aspects of their lives and according to your standards have become human LIES in this particular aspect of their lives. Because the examples they have set in that aspect of their lives have failed to guide people in whatever might be termed the "right" direction that would have ADVANCED people.

In short, whatever accusations of having been a living lie may be leveled at Elvis (and no doubt and undeniably there are plenty), he is in excellent company throughout.

Because nobody (not even Elvis) was a failure or disappointment (or, in your terms, a "lie") throughout ALL aspects of his/her life but hardly anybody is beyond reproach either.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

I am still not understanding your point. Is it that I should be passionate about what I like for wantever reason, but be dispassionate about waht I don't like, of if not, only for certain reasons?

Please clarify, becasue I am beginning to smell yellow, and yellow makes me sad.

[Big Beat Steve]

Is it that I should be passionate about what I like for wantever reason, but be dispassionate about waht I don't like, of if not, only for certain reasons?

Start by trying to put things into perspective, that would help. And basically that's the entire issue.

You may have as much of an axe to grind with Elvis as you like but my feeling is you are interpeting waaaay too much of an (alleged) obligation of what he ought to have assumed as his duties into his existence. If you did that with everybody who has made a name for himself in whatever artistic field you care to name, where would you end? You could fault ANYBODY among those who attained stardom if you looked hard enough. Like I said, ELvis would be in excellent company.

And if you are willing to cut some slack in the case of some (that you happen to like) then try to maintain at least a modicum of fairness by cutting some slack elsewhere too (e.g. in the case of those you don't like). That's all.

[JSngry]

Your heartfelt concerns for the contents of my personal perspectives are duly noted and greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[Dmitry]

Elvis made George W. Bush possible.

Elvis also made Barack H. Obama possible.

[JSngry]

Elvis made everything possible. He was an amazing human being.

[ghost of miles]

Elvis as the beginning of Southern strategy is some narrow/simplified/wrong jive as well. You're boiling down a whole lotta stuff and throwing away the racial/sexual impact of him and everything he led to, which is a helluva lot more than the "Southern strategy" (Gawd awmighty, I can't believe I'm here defending Elvis, but there it is). And hey, maybe bebop would've happened anyway without that weak-willed, drug-addicted, momma's boy Charlie Parker, eh? And maybe a whole lot better--we wouldn't have had all of those dime-a-dozen Bird imitators. GOD! Point taken that you don't like Elvis. I don't particularly like him either, but making him the poster boy for everything that's gone wrong in America over the past several decades is just nuts. Or put it this way: you can't make Elvis a symbol for the coming of George Bush and then deny his symbolic impact for everything that eventually broke loose in the Sixties, which, whatever the chaos and mess and complex upheaval of it all, led to things being better for a whole lotta non-southern-white-male folk.

No, yellow doesn't make me sad, but I can return the condescension and say that sanctimonious/aesthetic would-be drill-sergeant hullabaloos do get irritating and old after awhile. (Hey, I may not be true southern, but I'm "up South," as the term goes, with a fair-ish amount of redneck/Appalachian back in my own backyard.) As do relatives, loved ones and friends, and all of us eventually, I suppose. Love and respect to you in any event, wherever your head's at these days on Elvis, fellow board members, and everything else, but look down that lonesome road before you travel on, OK?

[JSngry]

Elvis as the beginning of Southern strategy is some narrow/simplified/wrong jive as well.

Narrow & simplified, sure.

Jive? But of course.

But wrong?

No way.

[rostasi]

Yellow makes me curious.

[Noj]

As with Led Zeppelin, I like their covers, and I like the original blues and folks songs even better, viewed through the filter of an entirely different genre. I dig some of Elvis' covers for the recorded sounds they are, historical context and personality issues be damned.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Noj

[thedwork]

i've just read through most of this thread and apparently elvis was possibly "lying" about something. can anyone here succinctly, in non-sarcastic, straight-forward literal language describe what he was lying about? i honestly don't understand what's going on here yet...

[JSngry]

i've just read through most of this thread and apparently elvis was possibly "lying" about something. can anyone here succinctly, in non-sarcastic, straight-forward literal language describe what he was lying about?

Life. Truth. Reality.

Yellow makes me curious.

And occasionally blue, although yellow certainly is bigger box office!

[A Lark Ascending]

I think Elvis is not the problem; it's the way we music fans tend to exaggerate the importance of those we love. Which can set off equally exaggerated counter-reactions.

I like a few of Elvis' 50s recordings but by-and-large he is off my radar; I don't begrudge anyone the enjoyment they get from him even if Robert Fripp is far more 'significant' in my musical universe!!!

Now, the claims made about John Lennon's 'genius' - quite different. Don't get me started...

[JSngry]

Now, the claims made about John Lennon's 'genius' - quite different. Don't get me started...

Oh c'mon, please do! Elvis is not feeling well and needs a nap, poor thing.

I mean, that's somebody whose work I loved, but "genius"? No way! Just a damn good, inventive writer/performer of pop songs who caught a wave and used it for personal gain and an attempt at effecting what he saw as positive social change. Also a frequently & severely failed human being, but he at least tried. Sometimes.

But genius? HA! Too often music fans (and musicians) confuse having moments of genius with actually being one.

[Teasing the Korean]

I have not read through the whole thread (yet), but as someone who neither particularly likes nor dislikes Elvis, the arguments on both sides are a fun read.

Not to derail the thread, but a question: Has Elvis's esteem fallen in recent decades? He seemed so huge once. Now, it seems that random samples of listeners will still gush over the Beatles and Sinatra, but Elvis's following seems to be confined to a subculture of diehards.

Just curious.

[A Lark Ascending]

Elvis is still huge on the UK pie and supper club circuit. No end of impersonators who sometimes make it to those wannabee TV shows where people mimic the stars. Plenty of the kids I teach know his music, largely I'd imagine from their parents or grandparents enthusiasms. I suspect it might be a working class thing - I don't recall Elvis idolatry being around in the nouveaux middle class circles of my youth.

http://www.elvis2k.co.uk/

[Matthew]

i've just read through most of this thread and apparently elvis was possibly "lying" about something. can anyone here succinctly, in non-sarcastic, straight-forward literal language describe what he was lying about? i honestly don't understand what's going on here yet...

There is a manufactured truth and a honest truth in life and the arts. Elvis chose to go with the manufactured truth that was part of the "Elvis machine," and did it gladly. Despite the few high points in his career, he went with what he was told to do, kept his mouth shut, and made millions. Some would see that as a pact with the devil, but hey, YMMV.

[JSngry]

Not to derail the thread, but a question: Has Elvis's esteem fallen in recent decades? He seemed so huge once. Now, it seems that random samples of listeners will still gush over the Beatles and Sinatra, but Elvis's following seems to be confined to a subculture of diehards.

Elvis died first, then Lennon, then Sinatra. The public attention span is what it is...

Also, for all these guys, as the actual music becomes else and less relevant to "everyday people", the marketing machines of the estates will resort to manufacturing all kinds of iconography that will attempt to "guilt trip" you into thinking that THESE PEOPLE ARE IMPORTANT SO YOU MUST BUY THIER(OUR) PRODUCT!!! That's going to work, because so few people have fully-formed senses of self these days (due to a combination of malevolent social forces and just flat out personal sloth) that any easy image they can latch on to works for them.

So, what are the images for sale?

Beatles/Lennon - Songs that changed music forever, ended a war, ended hate, ended everything bad, all you need is love, yadayadayada.

Sinatra - Rough, Rugged Lone Wolf Tough Guy With A Sensitive Heart who defined the Great American Songbook for all time

Elvis - three categories:

Young Elvis - redneck rebel, shook his hips and shook up the world, still called everybody m'aam & sir, went off and joined the Army like any other Good American would have done.

Movie Elvis - uhhh...yeah

Vegas/Fat Elvis - Memphis Mafia, specTACular white jumpsuits, TCB, and dead too soon, poor thing.

Really, what are the most "attractive" images of these for today's world? Sinatra and the Beatles at least had a core "reality" inside them. Elvis? He let others make it up for him from jump, pretty much. So there's really nothing to his image but image.

And as far as music, hell, Elvis is not well-served by his "icon songs" being borderline-novelty songs and/or bloated unintentional self-parodies. If he'd have had the guts/brains/whatever to insist on everything (or at least enough of everything) being as good as "Little Sister" (one of the very few Elvis song I can listen to enjoyably, "Kentucky Rain" almost being another, but only on those quirky days we all have from time to time), then there would be something to work with.

But no...

Edited December 28, 2010 by JSngry

[Dmitry]

Beatles had as much of an artificial component to them as Elvis, if not more. In fact, way more, imho.

[JSngry]

Image/hype-wise, absolutely. But they had enough truly great (and yeah, that's totally subjective) songs - and actual creative evolution - to warrant further consideration beyond the hype of the "popular" realm.

In my opinion of course.

Edited December 28, 2010 by JSngry

[Dmitry]

Image/hype-wise, absolutely. But they had enough truly great (and yeah, that's totally subjective) songs

So did Elvis. Which is, obviously, also a subjective quality.

Just to keep the fire going, I don't believe Lennon and McC actually wrote half of the songs that they are credited with. Just a speculation, based on their cumulatively-lackluster post-Beatles output, especially McC's.

BTW, I still don't get the Wagner and concentration camp thing. What was that meant to signify? That concentration camp prisoners didn't like Wagner's music?

[Big Beat Steve]

Forget about Fat Elvis and Movie Elvis, but Young Elvis had a large and very real core of real life in himself, and like Dmitry said, the Beatles (and most other music superstars, right up to thoroughly artificial products such as latter-day Michael Jackson et al.) had as much of an artificial component in them.

But Sinatra - the lone wolf with the big heart and that All-American Song Book blurb? To some "mainstream" middle/uppity class American oldies listeners who grew old (or should I say "ripened"?) with their idol, certainly. But beyond that? On a WIDER scale of the pop music audience at large? And beyond sheer "nostalgia"? I have my doubts.

And what if we equal the worse sides of Elvis (that no doubt were there) with Frankieboy the Eternal Mobster (or should I say Mobster's Darling) and Make-Believe-Boy-Who-Lends-Respectability-To-The-Carefully-Hidden-True-Face-of-Organized-Crime? I can't see this as being any less seamy than what Elvis can be accused of.

And of course there is a not so nice parallel to Fat Elvis - that of "Withering Frankieboy" (or whatever you would like to call it):

Anybody remember that mid-to late 70s rock collage/picture book called "Rock Dreams" (by Nik Cohn and Guy Peellaert)? The final ilustration of the book shows the dimly lit contours of an ageing Frankieboy raising a glass to his audience while holding a mike (onstage) in the other. And this set to the caption of that timeless statement by The Who: "Hope I Die Before I Get Old". And capture they DID indeed the essence of that latter part of Frankieboy's life and career IMHO.

In fact this latter part and all its phoniness of what it pretended to be started a long, long time before that. Just remember those phony make-believe roles Frankieboy and Bing played in "High Society" of 1955. Who were these 40+ grownups trying to kid with the pretended wannabe youthfulness of their roles anyway?

As a timely coincidence in the evolution of pop music, credits should therfore go to Elvis and his ilk for once and for all toppling those phony characters of a bygone era who - if it hadn't been for the rock and pop music events of rock in 1954 - would have clung on to an artificial image of middle-class youthfulness that in fact wasn't even YOUNG anymore by that time in the way it was perceived by the target audience (or why would more and more of them have flocked to unheard-of new artists from "the wrong side of the tracks"?). So if it hadn't been for Elvis who knows how long it would have taken before pop music really would have become a music by young artists for a young audience (like it's been taken granted for the past 55 years), or what thoroughly unhealthy direction the evolution of pop music would have taken?

It would of course have been gratifying if somebody else with greater musical merits had become that LASTING catalyst in 1954 but unfortunately it wasn't so - so credits must go to Elvis.

You can rightly fault Elvis for an awful lot of things and for being a phony but was he more of a phony than what he and his peers pushed out of the "teenagers' music for teenagers" market in 1954 and thereafter? Not in a long shot.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

Just to keep the fire going, I don't believe Lennon and McC actually wrote half of the songs that they are credited with.

Which half?

BTW, I still don't get the Wagner and concentration camp thing. What was that meant to signify?

Simply that America is on the verge of becoming one big jail for all but a few, and that the mindset that resulted from Elvismusic is a primary tool of the enslavers.

And please note that I did not make an exact analogy. I said it was almost like.

Am I not being fair to Wagner?