Furthermore, I think there's a direct line from Elvis to Springsteen. Alot of Springsteen's stuff would've been perfect for Elvis and if he had been able to work with him like he wanted to Elvis would've stayed with the spirit of R&R instead of veering off with all the crap the Colonel made him do.
Who Best Represented The Spirit of RocknRoll??
- Thread starter newdawnfades
- Start date
Martin Q. Blank
The Happening
Here's web reviewer George Starostin's take on Elvis Presley. I don't always agree with what George has to say, but he is one of my favorite reviewers, and I find that this blurb pretty adequately echoes my thoughts on Elvis:
Certainly, Elvis is overrated. I wouldn't want to argue with that. Sure, he was a miserable songwriter - he probably hasn't penned more than a couple songs in all his life. He was a miserable player - contrary to rumours, he did play guitar on stage, but he never went before simplistic strumming. His career crashed after he got bogged down in sappy ballads, doo-wop and Sinatraesque sludge in the early Sixties, and his well-publicized 1968 'comeback' was just a carefully crafted, and, well, well-publicized stunt that impressed the stupid fans and did not breathe new hope in the more experienced ones.
On the other hand, Elvis' being overrated is an entirely different matter from, say, the overratedness of bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. The latter are revered by their fans for presumably writing some of the best music since the Chinese masters of old; Elvis is certainly not revered for his music. Elvis is revered as a national hero, as a way of life, as a cultural symbol, but certainly not as a musical genius. I had a few friends who adored and deified Elvis; but it was obvious that they did so because of his image. When hard pressed about his songwriting and playing abilities, what did they have to answer? Nothing. In that respect, this deification does not bother me as much as the heavy worship that is gotten by Pink Floyd or, say, Queen in Russia. Let people deify Elvis. There is absolutely no harm in that. As a symbol of America's and the world's cultural liberation, he works quite fine. As a symbol of musical greatness - come on now, who ever took him as a symbol of musical greatness?
Certainly, Elvis is overrated. I wouldn't want to argue with that. Sure, he was a miserable songwriter - he probably hasn't penned more than a couple songs in all his life. He was a miserable player - contrary to rumours, he did play guitar on stage, but he never went before simplistic strumming. His career crashed after he got bogged down in sappy ballads, doo-wop and Sinatraesque sludge in the early Sixties, and his well-publicized 1968 'comeback' was just a carefully crafted, and, well, well-publicized stunt that impressed the stupid fans and did not breathe new hope in the more experienced ones.
On the other hand, Elvis' being overrated is an entirely different matter from, say, the overratedness of bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. The latter are revered by their fans for presumably writing some of the best music since the Chinese masters of old; Elvis is certainly not revered for his music. Elvis is revered as a national hero, as a way of life, as a cultural symbol, but certainly not as a musical genius. I had a few friends who adored and deified Elvis; but it was obvious that they did so because of his image. When hard pressed about his songwriting and playing abilities, what did they have to answer? Nothing. In that respect, this deification does not bother me as much as the heavy worship that is gotten by Pink Floyd or, say, Queen in Russia. Let people deify Elvis. There is absolutely no harm in that. As a symbol of America's and the world's cultural liberation, he works quite fine. As a symbol of musical greatness - come on now, who ever took him as a symbol of musical greatness?
Music Wench
Rock and Roll Grandma
Interesting observation. I think my whole problem with Elvis is I remember him in those sappy movies from the 60s and of course as the fat, drug addicted, Vegas lounge performer. If he had stayed true to the spirit of rock and roll I might have thought differently.algernon said:
Martin Q. Blank
The Happening
I think collective eyes are gonna roll when I eventually get around to stating who I think best embodies the spirit of rock and roll. 
Music Wench
Rock and Roll Grandma
Go ahead, lets get those eyes rolling!!!Martin Q. Blank said:I think collective eyes are gonna roll when I eventually get around to stating who I think best embodies the spirit of rock and roll.
Martin Q. Blank
The Happening
Music Wench said:Go ahead, lets get those eyes rolling!!!
I'm workin' on it.
Music Wench
Rock and Roll Grandma
Okay, now you're just being a tease!!!Martin Q. Blank said:I'm workin' on it.
newdawnfades
Senior Member
Martin Q. Blank said:
None of this is making me any less than cool. If you think i'm being condescending you are going to have to point it out because I don't see it.
Well I don't really see a difference of opinion here. We aren't talking about who deserves praise however.
If you transformed a song as well as Elvis did then i'm sure you'd disagree. Milk Cow Blues, get the audio of his Sun Sessions for this song. Then listen to the original.
I am not sure many of these points are relevent to determining what 'embodies rocknroll'. If we are talking about a form of music with the cultural impact that rocknroll had then how can you really turn a blind eye to the cultural impact of Elvis. You've almost completely devalued it however and it was one of the most important aspects of understanding Rock and how it seeded itself into our psyche. I am not sure how 'writing and arranging your own songs' rates higher if we want to talk about the spirit of rocknroll.
It depends on what talents you focus on.
Screaming, taken literally, doesn't sound good no matter how much talent you have in performing it. I thought we were referring the vocal singing form of emitting your voice. Elvis was known for taking his vocals in a higher, elevated sort of way.
Well I am not a singing teacher, and I don't think you are. So would you mind elaborating what technical limits you are talking about?
I do have to say we aren't talking about opera singers here. You only had to be effective in certain registers and you can be versatile WITHIN the ranges you sing. Eddie Vedder doesn't have an extraordinary range, but it's how he plays around with the range he has that makes him a great vocalist.
He DID have a versatile rock voice, it wasn't 'thunderous' but Elvis knew what to do with his vocal talents better than most. His vocal style was very distinctive and original and magnetic.
It doesn't matter whether you have a collection of singers you think are technically better than Elvis HE IS at least ONE of the best in your book. Or am I wrong on this?
I can go on for quite a while, taking you from song to song detailing the intricacies of his style and the subtle variations and inclusions in his vocal style that made it complex, highly underrated, and very effective.
Just look at the styles and genre's he has covered with that ONE VOICE. Gospel, RocknRoll, Blues, RockABilly, Jazz, Slow Ballads, Pop, Rhythm and Blues. Pretty impressive for a voice that according to you isn't very versatile. Oh, and he didn't only sing in different genres but he was a smashing success in those genres.
You probably COULD name many vocalists who were better PURE RocknRoll singers, and I highlight PURE because you state how you don't think he's versatile and your reasoning for that is that there are many better 'rock-specialized voices'. So I am a little confused by your reasoning there.
But you have to judge an artist on THEIR merits, THEIR contributions. Obviously when you are evaluating where Bob Dylan sits in the rankings you aren't going to look at 'vocal versatility'. Or if you look at Chuck Berry you won't disregard what he did with his guitar. Vocals were Elvis's strong point, and everyone in the world practically can identify an Elvis song right off of the bat based on his unique vocal style.
What you are basically saying is that 'writing and arranging' are IMPORTANT TO YOU therefore ALL artists will be judged accordingly.
I don't have an answer, but I DO disagree with your assessment. I don't have a problem with your opinion at all.
But you probably are better at writing and arranging right? Or at least that holds your interest and takes up more of your time? If so then of course you are going to place a premium on what you like the best.
Whether Little Richard wrote and arranged his own material, of which we don't have a definitive answer, I still don't hold it in the same regard as artist who arrange and write harder and more complex material.
LR's strength was in his stage performance. I think he could have written just about anything and still sounded great because he had the tools to get that across.
Well if you put it in this light then i'd say the writer and arranger is only the 'mother' during the first part of the 'birthing process'. A good portion of the process and the actual babies delivery arrives out of the nanny's (using your example), for lack of a more benign word, vagina. That's why you see Elvis getting writers credit on some of his songs, that's why you many singers get writers credits on songs. They are involved in the process. This is not a new thing.
I know Elvis got a bad rap because Tom Parker strong-armed many writers into including Elvis in the credits, but that doesn't discredit the songs where he did deserve credit on.
Well to answer you, he did write lyrics to some of his songs, he did adjust tempo and rhythm in the studio to most of his songs, he did help arrange and produce much of his music. He did play guitar in 3/4 of his songs. He wasn't involved in it in such a way that many singer-songwriters were, but he had his hands in alot of the music.
He played to his strengths and became such a phenomenon that he was performing quite often and maybe just didn't have the time or desire to take on the task of a writer as we know now them.
I think Elvis got alot of offers from writers to sing their songs as well. He'd often been given a song and asked to see 'what you could do with it'. Every manner of song fell on his desk too. Gospel, RnB, Country, Blues, Jazz. He took these songs and, much like what Zeppelin did with many blues standards, he turned them in to something much more alive and electric.
Last edited:
Martha Washington
eat it! it's GOOD for you
a lightening bolt doesn't do anything to attract the lightening, it's just there when the lightening is.
Elvis was the Lightening Bolt of Rock and Roll.
There's a wonderful pair of Elvis books by the same author "Last Train to Memphis" and "Careless Love" that are spellbinding to read and very contemporary in their concerns.
It wasn't easy being the lightening bolt of rock and roll!
Elvis was the Lightening Bolt of Rock and Roll.
There's a wonderful pair of Elvis books by the same author "Last Train to Memphis" and "Careless Love" that are spellbinding to read and very contemporary in their concerns.
It wasn't easy being the lightening bolt of rock and roll!
newdawnfades
Senior Member
Martin Q. Blank said:I think collective eyes are gonna roll when I eventually get around to stating who I think best embodies the spirit of rock and roll.
This is going to be a hatchet job I am going to enjoy.
