Big Beat Steve

Doesn't really speak for America. Or does this tie in with what you say about America becoming one big jail and a certain mindset being produced by a certain music? Any guarantee that - if there had been no Elvis - this tendency of America becoming one big jail would NOT have happened just as much with mobster-dictated Las Vegas lull-in lounge music as dispensed by Frankieboy et al? :crazy:

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.

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.

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.

You had me until this statement, Jim. Suggested further reading: Nick Tosches, Unsung Heroes of Rock'n'Roll, DaCapo 1999, p. 176 - ESAU SMITH. ^_^

Yes, I had a feeling that's what you did. I realize I got myself out on a limb (somewhat...) with some of my statements too and did hesitate about posting some of them but then I figured if you cannot even speak your mind and make your point in no uncertain terms if you feel things have been blown up beyond all reasonable proportions then why engage in any discussion at all on what is supposed to be a discussion board after all?

Touchy souls, you know, Peter .... But you know, why not just enjoy the music you LIKE to enjoy for WHAT IT IS WORTH TO YOU and for WHAT IT SET OUT TO BE, not for what one would like to project into it (with the benefit - or curse? - of hindsight)? That would be a healthy attitude throughout, IMHO. Bye for now ...

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)...

The only chumps around in my opinion are those who swallow the bait of believing that in their purported enlightedness they tower sky-high about the "rest" of the lowly beings who are willing to take things at face value. "Taking at face value" meaning in this case that one can very well enjoy the music of somebody who in his private life or in the way he wanted to appear to the world was certainly not beyond reproach. In which case being a nasty prick or being a weakling or being a mentally unhinged paranoid amounts to much the same. Because that's how life is in all its imperfections.

That comment reminds me of the time when I was marching in a counter-protest at the Dallas opening of The Last Temptation Of Christ. Some really....concerned citizen ran up into my face and screamed "I BET YOU'D BE MAD IF THEY MADE THIS MOVIE ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING INSTEAD OF JESUS!!!!!!!" In other words, are you serious? Depends on whether you would have been serious in your reply to the above that you WOULD INDEED have been mad. :D But if you REALLY, REALLY want to know ... yes and no. Yes - because if you'd care to compile ANY scale of excesses in the artificialites and phoniness of the pop music business both before and after Elvis, Elvis would rate an also-ran at best on that scale, and No - because I hardly expect anybody who gets soooo worked up about what IMHO essentially are moot points (that deep inside we all take for granted as part of a REALISTIC look at life) will be ready to put things really into perspective. Sorry, no harm meant, but this just had to be said .... possible (transatlantic?) cultural divides 'n all ...

Sorry to insist yet again but this thread was about the MUSIC of Elvis and I still feel you need to see his music (for better or worse) primarily within the context of the history of MUSIC. On the one hand you claim (earlier on in this thread) his societal importance has been acknowledged, on the other you insist that this is NOT about music. So it IS about societal aspects after all?? Or is it a bone you have to pick with Elvis on a PERSONAL or INDIVIDUAL level? Sorry but you still have failed to show conclusively in what way he was such an immensely bigger lie than ALL OTHERS in the pop music business up to and including his time of greatest successes who had achieved a similar status and measure of success. If you mean to show that real, huge, overwhelming success in this business corrupts people, then fine, point taken - so what. Might be said of a thousand others (before and after). Big deal ... Don't we all expect that anyway? In short, the accusations you level at Elvis as a PERSON and what a certain type of his fans want to see in him (or what he or his managers wanted to make them see in him) just don't hold water. Because that might just as well be said about a countless number of other major stars on THIS business, both before and after him. Oh my ... me (at best a moderately fascinated listener of the music of Elvis' early years) defending him to that degree ... what has become of this world and the alleged ills that some project into it??

That we are poor white rednecks with limited skill sets, that we don't have much hope in this world to become anything else, that we are tired of our lot (or not, as the case may be), and that whatever else, we will stand or fail, progress or devolve, engage the rest of the world or disengage from it, from a standpoint of stength, intelligence (native and learned), and integrity towards ourselves and others. Instead, we got the reality that all you gotta do is show up, look pretty, and do what the man says at all times. You'll be taken care of. The message, however, was that The Dream Can Come True. Bullshit. Elvis is a lie. Oh, so the dream world of 30s, 40s or early 50s pop music and all its schmaltzy falseness and artifical imagemaking contrived by shrewd and unscrupulous A&R men was oh so much better? Who are you trying to kid? If making a good living through music (i.e. through the music BUSINESS, of course) is ONE way out and ONE way of making the best of one's (maybe) limited skills, what's wrong with that? The past few decades have shown it has worked for quite a few out there (and reliance on managers, money men and A&R hounds has diminished as time went by), and - like it or not - Elvis was the one who got the ball rolling in the direction where the music and artists who were (adn are) less dependent on the "money men" have sprung up. Tin Pan Alley etc. would have been a dead end for even more aspiring artists and whatever THAT "music" industry produced in phoniness beats ANY "Lies" by Elvis about a zillion to one. One might argue that the way things are now in TODAY'S pop music and its artificiality and lies, the pendulum does swing back to the days of the utter phoniness of Tin Pan Alley etc., but this would mean that Elvis was oh so harmless in BOTH directions of the evolutions that have taken place in music business through the decades. You know what? How about getting worked up about Lady Gaga or whoever of that ilk next time? Just to put things into perspective ...

My arguments are not one bit older than yours. Cf. that thing about them only being part of a circus where only the money men knew what was to be gained. As if that is something all new. And wasn't THIS aspect much worse in the pre-Elvis days? Although I do have to admit I feel slightly baffled about the "The Devil" thing you dwell on. Talking about the music output by Sun, have you been on a Jerry Lee Lewis kick, I wonder? In the end all this is pointless anyway because neither you nor me won't rewrite history, for better or worse. But given the way pop music has evolved ever since 1954 any accusations about what Elvis may or may not have accomplished really are largely irrelevant because whatever his failings and failures were, they pale next to what a HUGE bunch of those who followed him in that music business have racked up since. Yet in the way he at least served as a catalyst to get the train of pop music rolling in a MUCH healthier direction (compared to what had happened pre-1954) he towers sky-high about the majority of those who were there before or after him. Musical dissecting in THIS overall context amounts to nitpicking.

So you mean being unable to sing, being unable to hold a note or carry a tune, knowing only the rudiments of playing an instrument AND not aspiring to make THAT much money but being real, real, real GLAD (given the time and circumstances) to be paid a FLAT session fee makes you an "authentic", "honest" and - a bit later on - "folksy" artist of major lasting importance that TRANSCENDS oh so much more? Ah c'mon. Pop music ain't never worked that way. And in the non-pop field those "arguments" wore thin pretty fast too (see above, except to eternal romanticists). And the decades-old claim that pop music was soooo much better BEFORE Elvis is a myth, too. Much more schlocky and lachrymose it was, yes, but what would THAT have "transcended"? What "honesty" (instead of lies) would that have transmitted?

And that Arthur Crudup did not receive what was due him (especially in his later days) certainly wasm't so much the fault of Elvis but most definitely the fault of Melrose, Hill & Range and probably RCA too. Go blame them in the first place.

The unfortunate truth is that all this needs to be seen - at least to a substantial degree - in the context of its times, like it or not. Otherwise a LOT of black artists who were proud and outspoken in their times would - by TODAY's standards - have to be regarded as irreductible Uncle Toms. The same goes for marketable musical entities such as Elvis. And if he sold a lie, he sold it to a society that would not have been prepared to hear and heed the truth and behave accordingly. Blame it on that society and ALL the individuals who made up that society. Otherwise Chuck Berry would be where Elvis is, Hank Ballard would have been where Chubby Checker was, etc. etc.

No need to. Like it or not - in the case of the impact of Elvis (or in fact of ANYbody who has risen to stardom in music) the societal framework that the artist in question made it to stardom cannot be separated entirely from the strictly musical aspects. And this of course governs the way these "star" artists are being seen and appreciated in hindsight by the majority of music listeners - with the obvious exception of diehard music collectors who explore the music from a given era in REAL depth and consciously disregard what back THEN among other things were the results of marketing ploys. But what use in preaching to the converted? Do you realize (or, in fact, dispute) that the entire debate circling around the question of whether or not other contemporaries of Elvis would have been more worthy of the praise heaped upon him could just as well be carried on (and on and on) on the subject of GLENN MILLER, to name just ONE "star" predecessor of Elvis? (And yes - IMHO it is of very, very little importance in the underlying debate that Glenn Miller actively shaped his musical image and concoctions himself whereas Elvis - like many of his musical successors - let a larger deal of the shaping be done by others) But what for, in the long run? To emphasise - again - that being in the right place at the right time and coming up with the right MIXTURE of all ingredients to satisfy the MASSES' tastes is paramount in POP music? And thereby, to highlight the mediocrity of the masses' tastes in the eyes of the musically enlightened? (Yes, this DOES amount to musical snobism but aren't we all guilty of that in one way or another?)

Agree on ALL counts. And I am NOT that big an Elvis fan and find most of his post-Army stuff extremely expendable (so hats off to Alexander's daughter for developing such good taste in starting with his 50s stuff - which hopefully will lead her to explore more - not necessarily Elvis - in the RIGHT (musical) direction ). Like Danasgoodstuff said - JSngrys ramblings sound like a LOT of sour grapes about not the right people being given credit for what there was to be given credit for in music of the mid-50s. Pointless, VERY pointless - UNLESS, JSngry, you are willing to face the issue how what the U.S society at large (i.e. the WASP society, primarily ) was like at that time. And then you can go on and blame a LOT of peopole (starting maybe with the musical and societal awareness of your own elders) for being neither willing nor able to give credit to muscial achievements by singers and musicians who may very well have been more worthy of receiving that credit but unfortunately did not have the right hue of their skins. Willing to tackle that issue? Bcause - like Allen Lowe said, part of the Elvis phenomenon just HAS to be seen in the context of the times. Speaking from a strictly musical point of view, there were a lot of artists who I for one would rate higher than Elvis too (like I said, I certainly am not one of the biggest Elvis fans of all times) but I am quite willing to concede he was in the right place at the right time and had that certain something that made him a MARKETABLE musical entity within the societal framework he grew up in and came along at. Even though "marketable" was a criterion of far less importance back then than it is today it was a factor not to be neglected in 1954 either. So being marketable or not is something that DID play a role. Or why would you think was it that Joe Turner just did not cut it with the teens in the mid-50s, much less so than Bill Haley (although we all prefer Joe Turner's versions of the songs we all know), and Bill Haley eventually was less marketable than Elvis and his ilk too? And all this goes not only for the skin color issue but also for the comparison of Elvis and his Louisiana Hayride appearances with the performances of LOTS of aspiring young country singers who'd have LOVED to go the same way but just were too awkward, too contrived, too much country-ish, in short, too much of a "hick from the sticks" to make things jell with a pop-oriented TEEN audience. Call it unjust - OK, but just face the realities that the importance of some artists goes a bit beyond strictly musical aspects in POP music (note: POP, not jazz, not even R&B or C&W). And if you're still not satisfied why it was so that things turned out this way even on musical grounds then why not grab your copy of Steve Propes' "What Was The First Rock'n'Roll Record" and read it all over again? IMHO this does NOT detract from the musical qualities of some of those who did not reach Elvis' star status (and whose music therefore remained unjustly underrated) but it does not rewrite history either (sour grapes or not).

Not wanting to pour too much water into the wine, but some time ago I sought out "Bird Call" myself, found an LP in a local secondhand record store but decided to give it a listen in the store first. Instrumental-wise quite interesting but - sorry to say - her singing not only left me unimpressed but decidely marred the record for me so I decided to pass it up at the not quite so cheap price tag for this record (later repress/reissue of the original with B/W cover). Tastes may vary and one man's meat is another one's poison, of course (which is a fact of life and GOT to be accepted), but that one just turned out not to be my cup of tea.

Thanks very much for the words of caution, Brownie! No unseen purchase through Amazon.fr, then. Will wait for may next trip to Strasbourg to have a look at it (hopefully) at the FNAC.

Yes, this is sad. RIP. Will try to get his "Portrait Jazz" book ASAP. His pictures are all over the place anyway, even if you do not own a book credited specifically to him alone you are likely to have come across them quite often. For example, the illustrations in my 8mid-80s) copy of the "Nouvelle Encyclopédie du Blues" by Gerard Herzhaft are by J.P. Leloir throughout. A bit skewed because this largely rules out really old "period" photographs (most of Leloir's pictures seem to be from the late 60s and 70s) but the pictures as such are fine.

I suppose you wouldn't go for the 77nd Sunset Strip soundtrack as recorded by Aaron Bell? Otherwise, Miles Davis' music for Louis Malle's "Ascenseur Pour L'Echafaud" would be hard to beat for atmospheric intensity, though maybe a bit too "modern" jazz-wise if you want to have a 40s atmosphere.

Reads like an entertaining story here (middle-class version upon a theme à la American Graffiti, in a way - my recollections of the entire movie are a bit hazy): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083833/ Though, among that really long list of goofs they missed the incongruity (pointed out in the Youtube comments) that hearing a blues recording released on Chess doesn't quite make sense when visibly a Capitol disc spins on the turntable ... (Thankfully when asking about the flip side of that Little Richard tune, Ellen Barkin is really holding a Specialty 45)

I dimly remember seeing that movie quite a while ago (hey, Ellen Barkin actually looked - and was - that much younger then ...) and having a good laugh about that scene. Because it strikes a chord with any record collector, though it would be sooo easy to avoid misplacing those beloved items. But of course that would not have made such a nice plot. In those rare cases where my better half pulls out any of my records even she knows the trick of leaving the adjacent record a few inches out so everything can go back where it (more or less) belongs. Or just leave the record and its cover on the table for me to file it later. No big deal ... Anyway ... like JSngry said, if you cannot keep track of where your records are with that measly little collection (o.k., it may have been substantial by late 50s standards) then you're done anyway.

Or, worse still ... what if that lady was real, real "big" ("big", what an euphemism to end all euphemisms...) and saw that on this forum historical music such as "Big FAT Mamas Are Back In Style Again" or "I Want A Big FAT Mama (with the meat shaking on her bones)" were discussed here in all earnest and with nary a trace of salivating? Horror of horrors! Outcry of rage about violating the p.c. use of words!