What was so great about Elvis then?

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

I don't really think much of Elvis. He had a good voice but, well, that was about it wasn't it? I don't really see much difference between him and the Top of the Pops folks of today (although I recognise that there is a difference). I know the songs are great, but as he didn't write them (okay, so they say he co-wrote a couple, but how much of a hand did he really have in them and still, that's only 2 or 3) what was that special about him? His voice was good but an amazing voice isn't that rare, I can think of loads of singers with voices I would describe as better or as good as his and they don't get all the praise he does. There's that Lennon quote about how before Elvis 'there was nothing', but it's not like Elvis was the genius who knew exactly what he was doing and was solely responsible for Rock and Roll being brought to the masses - if it wasn't him it would have been someone else and does he really deserve praise for being incredibly well managed etc? What hand did he actually have himself in changing music? It's the people who wrote his songs and managed him that are actually responsible isn't it? The music may (or may not) have been groundbreaking but that's just it isn't it, it wasn't his music. You can only praise someone so much for having a good voice, and as I used to jokingly suggest to a singer friend of mine, your voice is something you're born with, it's not like you break your back earning such a talent.
People always go on about how you are either a 'Beatles or Elvis person', but how can Elvis even be mentioned in the same sentence as the Beatles? He was just a pretty boy with a great voice who was in the right place at the right time through how much real effort of his own? The Beatles are responsible for writing and performing some of the most amazing music, I think it's almost insulting to compare them to a guy who only played other people's tunes.
So, what was so great about Elvis? And does he deserve the place he now has in musical history?
As an aside, here is a great clip from The Tommy Boyd Shrine site, from Tommy Boyd's BBC Southern Counties show, one of the early shows was about Elvis and how Tommy didn't think he was up to much. If you know Boyd's shows you should know not to take everything he says completely seriously but he still makes good points and is hilarious about it at the same time.
"His songs were just so shallow weren't they. Every song he sings ... He's lonely... He can't get a girlfriend ... He's in prison again ... He's got a dog and it's rubbish."

[Borboski]

the frog song was rubbish.

it looks to me like there's a load of garbage, run of the mill rubbish, loads that it just middle of the road twee muzak for an older generation... and yet there's that live version of Suspicious Minds which is JUST GREAT.

Plus In The Ghetto - just those two songs are enough to make me forgive the rest.

Of course, culturally hugely important blah blah lawson/morley.

[defmem]

I think his marvellous hair and range of sunglasses are certainly a factor in his greatness.

Even today, in a society where glasses are "made from a composite metal containing titanium, creating a high-quality frame which will 'remember' its shape even if it is temporarily distorted"(from glasses direct) not even Bono can beat Elvis' brilliance with glasses.

As a sidenote, In the Ghetto and Suspicious minds ARE bloody great. Although FYC Suspicious minds may just be superior

[NoSleep]

I'm not a big Elvis fan myself, but I have older friends who remember the world before and after him. He caused a revolution in way that eclipses any other artist in the last 50-60 years. He may have nicked all his ideas, but brought them to a new (white, young) audience, and was considered truly dangerous in his time. Witness the countless number of rock stars that have tried to follow his lead on this count, but can never top the effect he had.

That said, I love this grudging account of his early years by Donald Clarke (The Beatles get equally short shrift from Clarke in a later chapter)...

http://www.musicweb-international.com/RiseandFall/14.htm

[micanio]

Always thought Chuck Berry was a far better showman, musician and songwriter.

However Elvis sang American Trilogy which is fantastic, oh and that version of Suspicious Minds someone else mentioned earlier which is superb...

[mayer]

I like the first album too, the only full Elvis LP I've ever heard (the remaster which has some bonus stuff on it), but, as an artist, I'd take Holly, Cochran and Shannon over him in a heartbeat.

[Ciarán2]

He's symbolic, isn't he? A symbol of sexuality in 1950s America, a symbol of that change in US culture and pop culture generally. Loads of great, great records, the Sun period mainly. Being the first enormous pop star. Being an utterly beautiful man, his commonality, the sense that anyone could have been Elvis. His mystique, his rise, his fall. There's a multitude of tings to love about Elvis, but "The 68 Comeback Special" nails it for me. Not to deny the brilliance of Eddie Cochrane or Jerry Lee Lewis or Carl Perkins or even in fact especially Billy Fury, there's no reason why an exaltation of Elvis should piss on their parade, but without Elvis...the Beatles, pop music, rock music...unimaginable.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

Yeah, but he wasn't actually that talented was he? I mean, he had a great voice and he was a good performer but there are people around today who have better voices, are better performers and they write their own songs. As a symbol, yeah, he's great, and everything he influenced etc but when you just look at the man I'm not sure he's all that he's cracked up to be quite honestly. It's just the fact that he didn't write his own music that mainly does it for me - he could have been replaced with any good looking guy with a good voice, couldn't he?

[Marty McFly]

i think really with elvis it was just a case of right place, right time. he didn't invent rock and roll, he was just that catalyst that brought it into the mainstream.

and yeah, to answer your question, i suppose he could have been replaced with another good singer etc.. yeah, probably.

you're reading too much into elvis!

(he's still alive, you know. he's probably reading this thread.)

[Ciarán2]

I suppose it's a question you'd have to go back to 1955 to find a genuinely satisfactory answer to. I suppose there are people in the world who are as handsome, as gifted vocally, as he was. you seem to be saying that he was interchangeable. I don't know, it's difficult to argue either way, I'd say. The big hoo-ha about him is that he was a kind of first, an amalgamation of blues, country, gospel, lots of things really. I suppose you'd have to place him in his proper context to get to the root of his myth that way, you'd have to take the literary and folk movements into account. The element of luck and being in the right place at the right time when he was discovered. As for his innate talent, we risk judging it by 2006 standards, that is post-Elvis standards. At some point in the late 60s this singersongwriteritis took over , where it was seen as necessay for the performer to have wriiten his - and it usualy was a bloke - own songs. I've always thought of this as a bit of a wrong turn in rock history myself. Vocalists today have surely learned from Elvis, if not directly, then via the Beatles, by rock and roll and pop generally. I don't think you can overestimate the sexual potency of Elvis, to both men and women. It's difficult to talk of Elvis as anything other than an icon, a cultural signifier which is shared by everybody, the get to the qualities or otherwise of the man, I dunno, you're peeling back a lot of layers there...

[Jemble Fred]

I hated Elvis for years. And to be honest, as a man, there's very little about him not to despise. But these days I enjoy the music. Frank Sinatra was a pathetic wannabe hoodlum, John Lennon was a fucked-up wife-beater, and Billy Bragg's got a big nose.

None of it matters when you're just listening to such amazing music.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

None of it matters when you're just listening to such amazing music.

Yeah, I do agree, I enjoy the music Elvis makes and the fact that he didn't write it etc doesn't matter when you're lying on your bed with your headphones on. He's had a huge effect on the music world and I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like to hear Heartbreak Hotel on the radio for the first time all those years ago. Still, I feel though his influence etc hasn't been exaggerated he was interchangeable, and wasn't actually that musically talented, or at least no where near the same level as the musicians that followed him (or for that matter the people that wrote his songs). Though I say all this, I wish I was around at that time. Imagine being alive then, so much amazing music ahead of you. Although hopefully people will be saying the same thing in 50 years about now.

[Garfield And Friends]

they say he co-wrote a couple, but how much of a hand did he really have in them and still, that's only 2 or 3

Presley contributed some lyrics to "You'll Be Gone" and "That's Someone You Never Forget".

[sam and janet evening]

<splutters>
I only have about two minutes on the computer today, but I'll use them to say,

Elvis was Great.

...and I'll follow that up with stuff tomorrow.

Edit: although reading the thread a little closer, I see Ciaran has made a lot of the points I was thinking of.

[Peking O]

Anyone who wore this can't be all bad:

[humanleech]

The best bands of the 60s didn't take their inspiration from Elvis Presley, they took it from rhythm and blues - the Rolling Stones listened to imports of Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, as did The Beatles, The Yardbirds and Beefheart; the best American garage bands came from the Stones; Jimi Hendrix, even the Velvet Underground came out of r'n'b mixed with other influences. Reggae came from rhythm and blues plus some domestic influences.
The best r'n'b groups and singers continued the same way through the '50s and into the early 60s, and white rock music picked up from there.

I don't know whether there was much need for Presley, or rockabilly in general. Obviously he helped kick-start 'youth culture', but youth were bound to spend their new-found excess money on something - new kinds of clothes, cars, records, films. Rebel without a Cause came out before Presley captured the music market for two years and then joined the army. Things were happening anyway.

In Britain rockabilly signified the hoodlum Greasers and Teds and their gangs and race riots. The girls screamed at 'Jailhouse Rock' and the boys trashed the cinemas.

[NoSleep]

You're right except Jimi Hendrix actually worked with Little Richard and the Isley Brothers. Imagine no Elvis, but Hendrix (probably in a suit) being the bringer of the the revolution (then he wouldn't have come to Britain either etc etc).

[humanleech]

No Sleep - hope you don't have the insomnia too bad. I'm a vampire myself.

[NoSleep]

My burn is constant. And completely natural. Test me.

[Jemble Fred]

To be fair, both Lennon and McCartney have cited the first hearing of Heartbreak Hotel as turning points in their lives. Even if it was Lonnie Donnegan that made them pick up guitars in the first place.

The biggest trick with liking Elvis' music is in erasing the image of him shaking hands with Nixon from your mind. I mean, what a cunt he was. And his paranoia about The Beatles makes him a pathetic figure as much as a downright bastard.

The salve for me was in hearing mp3s of 'The King' performing Hey Jude, Yesterday and Something in concert. He did have some respect, after all.

[VegaLA]

My Dad called me the other day to tell me he found an autograph of Elvis that was given to him by his cousin. Aparantly he met him in Germany when he was serving in the force, I wonder how much it would fetch on EBay nowdays ?

[sam and janet evening]

The Beatles, Dylan, hell most 60's bands will credit Presley to some extent. Sure they were listening to R'n'B etc, but Elvis is more than R'n'B - not better neccessarily, but there's more there and I believe this to be the key factor in what makes him important/good.

For all that people say "Oh, he only made it 'cos he was white" it can't simply be boiled down to this. Otherwise plenty of other White musicians before Elvis would have been similarly elevated. Elvis formed the link between white and black styles of music in America - or rather re-formed it, back in the 1920's there's not such a difference. In fact it was largely at the insistence of 'Race' labels (such as Okeh, although I'm not sure if Okeh were actually guilty of this) that the styles diverged. They figured you could sell blues to blacks easily, string bands, with their fiddles and more 'country' sound,  were harder to (for want of a better word) market.
Elvis' first few records really do sound incredible, ok so he didn't write 'That's alright' but it's distinct from Arthur Cruddup's version. Ditto his 'Blue Moon of Kentucky', compare it to Bill Monroe's  version: Elvis' sounds like a rock'n'Roll record, it's exciting in a new way.
And no-one else quite acheived that. Other 'first rock and roll records' don't quite nail it. Without Elvis R'n'R would have been less defined, a footnote to blues/country history. His records were pitched in exactly the right place, all that went before had veered too close to something else. He got the blend - by mistake I'd probably concede, but I don't think that matters.
Everyone who could reasonably be claimed as a pretender to the crown (from that time) has something missing (IMHO) Bill Haley was too old, and too country, Buddy Holly lacked the rawness and sex appeal, Chuck Berry didn't have the same versatility, yadda yadda.

Gah! this is all a bit unfocused and rambling, I'm trying to think of points to respond to, errr....

Anyone with a half-decent voice could've done it
I disagree. I've never heard a cover of a *good* Presley song that has improved on his version. And he had a heck of a voice, I watched the 68 show again yesterday and his voice is magnificent, full of personality.
And anyway, there were good voices out there at the time. Loads. They just weren't right. His voice was all he had really, and with it, he did combine elements of almost all popular american music. This is to some extent the failing of his peers, they couldn't encompass as much.

He didn't write his songs
I don't care. It's his name on the record.
And you'd have to discount most pre-Beatles popular music (and jazz, and come to think of it, classical - Maria Callas didn't write any arias that I'm aware of...) if that's your criteria.
There's a lot to be said for a good interpreter, I don't know that such a thing exsists anymore though, now we just have cover artists.
And why is writing a greater talent than singing anyway? Because it takes more effort? What if it doesn't?

Youth Culture would have happened anyway
Probably. In fact I'm pretty much with you on this, except again, he was there. Most big social shifts would probably have happened without the presence of an individual. But to discount, say, The Beatles because the changes they made might have happened anyway, seems harsh.

oh, and we could have done without Rockabilly - but we'd be missing out.

He was a BASTARD
umm...Well, there's a lot not to like about him. But there's far, far more to dislike about Jerry Lee Lewis and no-one seems to mind.
Most of his most dislikable traits only really seemed to take over toward the end of his life. He was probably a bit mental by then, but he was a barely educated southern boy, born into ridiculous poverty who suddenly became the most famous person in the world - I'd have gone mad.
But I'm not saying they should be ignored or forgiven as such, but as Jemble said earlier there's a lot to hate about a lot of artists.

He Wasn't Musically Talented
See, people don't really trust voices do they? If he could play guitar as well as he could sing no one would have a problem. But Vocals! they come naturally and are to be regarded with suspicion!
There's a case to be made for Songwriting being a natural talent, so again 'Why is that seen as being a greater talent than singing?'.
And Bob Dylan's not musically very talented.




congrats if you managed to read all that without feeling the need to take your own life. There's a reason why I shouldn't post long stuff*.


*and indeed short stuff.

[neveragain]

His brilliant version of Bridge Over Troubled Water (and you may not expect that song to be brilliant but there ya go) showcases the talent.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

Great post Sam And Janet, will reply later.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

The Beatles, Dylan, hell most 60's bands will credit Presley to some extent. Sure they were listening to R'n'B etc, but Elvis is more than R'n'B - not better neccessarily, but there's more there and I believe this to be the key factor in what makes him important/good.

I recognise his influence, and I know how much of an effect he had on everything it's just that saying 'well so-and-so liked him and they went onto make amazing music' isn't actually an argument on why musically Elvis was great. Other people liking him doesn't make him good (and I'm not saying he isn't good, just that I think he isn't all that he's cracked up to be)

For all that people say "Oh, he only made it 'cos he was white" it can't simply be boiled down to this. Otherwise plenty of other White musicians before Elvis would have been similarly elevated. Elvis formed the link between white and black styles of music in America - or rather re-formed it, back in the 1920's there's not such a difference. In fact it was largely at the insistence of 'Race' labels (such as Okeh, although I'm not sure if Okeh were actually guilty of this) that the styles diverged. They figured you could sell blues to blacks easily, string bands, with their fiddles and more 'country' sound,  were harder to (for want of a better word) market.

Again, I agree with you, he bridged the gap etc, but it's not like he masterminded the whole thing is it? I don't mean 'he didn't know he was changing everything so shouldn't be praised for it', I mean he just sung what he was given didn't he? Shouldn't it be the people who told him what to do and wrote his songs that get the praise, rather than him? It's like thanking the postman for money you got sent in the post by someone else. That's a shit analogy but do you know what I mean? I don't know much about the history of it all, so could be being really ignorant here, it's just what I feel.

Elvis' first few records really do sound incredible, ok so he didn't write 'That's alright' but it's distinct from Arthur Cruddup's version. Ditto his 'Blue Moon of Kentucky', compare it to Bill Monroe's  version: Elvis' sounds like a rock'n'Roll record, it's exciting in a new way.
And no-one else quite acheived that. Other 'first rock and roll records' don't quite nail it. Without Elvis R'n'R would have been less defined, a footnote to blues/country history. His records were pitched in exactly the right place, all that went before had veered too close to something else. He got the blend - by mistake I'd probably concede, but I don't think that matters.

How much responsibility did he have over the sound of the records though etc? Was it him that decided how his versions would sound or was it a load of other people?

Anyone with a half-decent voice could've done it
I disagree. I've never heard a cover of a *good* Presley song that has improved on his version.

Well there could be loads of reasons why that is so. It's the same with most artists, when it's 'their' song it rarely sounds right without the original vocals. Although there are loads of exceptions I still don't think the fact that there's never been a good cover of one of his good songs alone makes Elvis that unique.

And he had a heck of a voice, I watched the 68 show again yesterday and his voice is magnificent, full of personality.
And anyway, there were good voices out there at the time. Loads. They just weren't right. His voice was all he had really, and with it, he did combine elements of almost all popular american music. This is to some extent the failing of his peers, they couldn't encompass as much.

Yeah, I kind of agree. His voice was great, but I (personal opinion), don't think it was that much better than other singers of that time and later on, now even. I'll talk more about this later on.

He didn't write his songs
I don't care. It's his name on the record.

I really don't understand what that's meant to mean. I'm not saying the music's shit because he didn't write it. The music is great. I'm saying it's not his music, I think the writer deserves more praise than the performer, that's just the way I feel. The songs would exist without Elvis, in a different form admittedly, but Elvis wouldn't exist without the songs. I think think the music is more important than the performer. I still believe the performer is hugely important, and I suppose the music doesn't exist without a performer, it's just, I don't know, I'm crap at explaining myself.

And you'd have to discount most pre-Beatles popular music (and jazz, and come to think of it, classical - Maria Callas didn't write any arias that I'm aware of...) if that's your criteria.

Well I never said I was discounting the music, it's amazing, it's just it isn't his. Callas may not have written any arias, she deserves praise for her amazing voice, as does Elvis. If Elvis had ben given shit songs to sing he wouldn't have been famous or anything. His success, fame, placing in history is completely dependant on the music which he had no control over*. Therefore, it wasn't actually his work that got him where he was, if you know what I mean.

*He had control in that he could interpret the songs he was given, but wasn't he told how to sing it etc? My point is more that without the songs he would have been nothing.

There's a lot to be said for a good interpreter, I don't know that such a thing exsists anymore though, now we just have cover artists.
And why is writing a greater talent than singing anyway? Because it takes more effort? What if it doesn't?

I just think it is. I don't really know how to argue this, I just think it's a rarer, more valuable gift which ultimately results in more people's pleasure and happiness. Writing can exist without performing but it doesn't work the other way. Does that dependance matter? I don't know, I just think it's a greater talent, and people that have both are therefore greater than people who have only one. Elvis was a great performer but I think there are others who were just as great, some with songwriting ability, others without. I just don't think Elvis who performed other people's amazing music amazingly well is in the same league as people who played their own amazing music amazingly well.

Youth Culture would have happened anyway
Probably. In fact I'm pretty much with you on this, except again, he was there. Most big social shifts would probably have happened without the presence of an individual. But to discount, say, The Beatles because the changes they made might have happened anyway, seems harsh.

I agree, my point here though was, because the music existed without him, he was interchangeable because, and again this is personal opinion which you'll probably disagree with, I don't think his performing talent was that unique. To carry on with the Beatles comparison not as unique as their astonishing songwriting ability anyway.

He was a BASTARD
umm...Well, there's a lot not to like about him. But there's far, far more to dislike about Jerry Lee Lewis and no-one seems to mind.
Most of his most dislikable traits only really seemed to take over toward the end of his life. He was probably a bit mental by then, but he was a barely educated southern boy, born into ridiculous poverty who suddenly became the most famous person in the world - I'd have gone mad.
But I'm not saying they should be ignored or forgiven as such, but as Jemble said earlier there's a lot to hate about a lot of artists.

Yeah, I'd like to make it clear that I never used the 'He was a bastard' 'argument' though. I despise people bringing stuff like that into debates about the music. If so-and-so is X, and it doesn't interfere with the music, it has no place in a discussion about the quality of the music.

He Wasn't Musically Talented
See, people don't really trust voices do they? If he could play guitar as well as he could sing no one would have a problem. But Vocals! they come naturally and are to be regarded with suspicion!

I was taking the piss with the whole 'breaking your back' comment really. What I think is all he had was his voice (which again, isn't to the degree of talent I think is as unique as it's made out to be), other people had more and so were, well without wanting to sound like a cock, 'better'.

There's a case to be made for Songwriting being a natural talent, so again 'Why is that seen as being a greater talent than singing?'.

I've said what I thought about this up there.

And Bob Dylan's not musically very talented.

Yes he is! He's very musically talented if you ask me. I love his voice, however much it's sneered I think he is hugely talented vocally, and I'm not joking. His guitar playing is astonishingly good, in terms of technicality (try and learn Don't Think Twice) and in expressiveness. Likewise piano, and harmonica. His ability to write a tune is a little bit good, and that's without mentioning the lyrics which I kind of consider part of the musicality. I am moved so much more by Dylan's music than I am Presley's. And it's good you brought that up at the end of your post because it let's me get back to my original point. Which is: Presley is always mentioned as one of the 'gods' of music. Even above Dylan. I just think this is wrong. It's just the lack of songwriting that bugs me really I suppose, he can be called one of the greats in terms of performance, but Dylan and the Beatles were more than just 'performers'.

congrats if you managed to read all that without feeling the need to take your own life. There's a reason why I shouldn't post long stuff*.


*and indeed short stuff.

Heh, don't put yourself down, it was a pleasure to read. I've just spent over an hour writing all this (sorry, I'm very slow), and that's a credit to how good your post was.

[Marty McFly]

we could do without rockabilly?!

two words:

BUDDY HOLLY.

i rest my case.

[sam and janet evening]

Right ho, Mr McFly, firstly just in case there was a misunderstanding, I adore Rockabilly, I was pointing out that we could have lived without it - but our lives would be poorer (or at least mine would have been). I can't quite tell if you're replying to me or an earlier post.
Mind you, I'm not sure I'd call Buddy Holly 'Rockabilly'...

Now I shall step into Mr Slipper's study and we shall smoke cigars and discuss matters of note...

I recognise his influence, and I know how much of an effect he had on everything it's just that saying 'well so-and-so liked him and they went onto make amazing music' isn't actually an argument on why musically Elvis was great. Other people liking him doesn't make him good (and I'm not saying he isn't good, just that I think he isn't all that he's cracked up to be)

I was responding to someone else there. I'd agree that in itself it doesn't make him good, but I do think that if so many performers (and pretty much top-of-the-tree performers at that) respect him, there must be something going on.

Again, I agree with you, he bridged the gap etc, but it's not like he masterminded the whole thing is it? I don't mean 'he didn't know he was changing everything so shouldn't be praised for it', I mean he just sung what he was given didn't he? Shouldn't it be the people who told him what to do and wrote his songs that get the praise, rather than him? It's like thanking the postman for money you got sent in the post by someone else. That's a shit analogy but do you know what I mean? I don't know much about the history of it all, so could be being really ignorant here, it's just what I feel.

Well, true to a point, but...
He was generally at his best when he was doing the choosing, this is why so many of his performances in the early-mid sixties are so drab and lifeless - he wasn't in control and had no connection to the songs. And to be fair to him, it is rather hard to locate the heart of  such gems as 'Petunia the Gardener's Daughter' or 'Do the Clam'.
More to the point though, I think he could lift fairly average songs into the realms of classics. This is where I think the skill of interpreting, as opposed to covering, comes in. 'That's Alright Mama' in it's original version is (to my mind, many would disagree) a pretty run-of-the-mill blues, Elvis, for me, totally storms it - it becomes his (in fact, I think the charm of the original is all down to it's performance too, I don't think the song's anything to write home about).
Great interpreters - Elvis, Sinatra, Garland, Patsy Cline etc - do that (Sinatra and Garland had far better material to work with mind).
As he moved towards the 70's he was given increasingly lousy, schmaltzy, schlock, mostly he delivered lazy, uninvolved performances (drugs and burgers'll do that for you...) but every now and then he still had the capacity to rise above his material. American Trilogy being one example - corny idea, hokey tunes, but he really delivers.

How much responsibility did he have over the sound of the records though etc? Was it him that decided how his versions would sound or was it a load of other people?

Again his best stuff (Sun, 68 special) he had more to do with. But I sort of take your point. Although again I think his voice rises above some very poor arrangements a lot of the time.

Well there could be loads of reasons why that is so. It's the same with most artists, when it's 'their' song it rarely sounds right without the original vocals. Although there are loads of exceptions I still don't think the fact that there's never been a good cover of one of his good songs alone makes Elvis that unique.

I was just pointing out that he made songs his without writing them. Junior Parker's original 'Mystery Train' is a fantastic record, but the song belongs to Elvis now. That said it's a bit 'Horses for Courses', and not much of an argument.

really don't understand what that's meant to mean. I'm not saying the music's shit because he didn't write it. The music is great. I'm saying it's not his music, I think the writer deserves more praise than the performer, that's just the way I feel. The songs would exist without Elvis, in a different form admittedly, but Elvis wouldn't exist without the songs. I think think the music is more important than the performer. I still believe the performer is hugely important, and I suppose the music doesn't exist without a performer, it's just, I don't know, I'm crap at explaining myself.

I think I was responding to another post there. I meant, Ok 'it takes a mess of help to stand alone' and that, but If I like Elvis records I say I like Elvis, I don't credit everyone involved.
And again, I agree the songs would exist without him, I just don't think a lot of them would be any good.  

I just think it is. I don't really know how to argue this, I just think it's a rarer, more valuable gift which ultimately results in more people's pleasure and happiness. Writing can exist without performing but it doesn't work the other way. Does that dependance matter? I don't know, I just think it's a greater talent, and people that have both are therefore greater than people who have only one. Elvis was a great performer but I think there are others who were just as great, some with songwriting ability, others without. I just don't think Elvis who performed other people's amazing music amazingly well is in the same league as people who played their own amazing music amazingly well

Well, I'll agree to disagree here, I think one phenomenal talent is enough, but then I think his voice is *that* good - you don't - and I can understand that.

Yeah, I kind of agree. His voice was great, but I (personal opinion), don't think it was that much better than other singers of that time and later on, now even.

Plenty of other great singers back then. Several of them I probably like even more than Elvis in a way. But their voices didn't and couldn't do what his did. Like I say, Rock and Roll needed an Elvis to define it, otherwise I believe it would just be a footnote, an of-shoot of R'n'B.

The 'Bastard' argument was a response to other posts I think.

(Bob Dylan's) very musically talented if you ask me. I love his voice, however much it's sneered I think he is hugely talented vocally, and I'm not joking. His guitar playing is astonishingly good, in terms of technicality (try and learn Don't Think Twice) and in expressiveness. Likewise piano, and harmonica. His ability to write a tune is a little bit good, and that's without mentioning the lyrics which I kind of consider part of the musicality. I am moved so much more by Dylan's music than I am Presley's. And it's good you brought that up at the end of your post because it let's me get back to my original point. Which is: Presley is always mentioned as one of the 'gods' of music. Even above Dylan. I just think this is wrong. It's just the lack of songwriting that bugs me really I suppose, he can be called one of the greats in terms of performance, but Dylan and the Beatles were more than just 'performers'.

heh, heh...
You're preaching to the converted there mate. I'm borderline-obsessive about his Bobness and all his Bobbly goodness. And the 'Not very musically' talented bit was a bit harsh (in fact I had half a mind to go back and edit it out in case future generations proclaim me a heretic). But, much as I also adore his voice, he's not that much more musically talented than Elvis. He's a fair-to-good guitarist when he can be arsed (someone else plays on 'Think Twice' btw, I forget his name at present, will edit it in later). His voice is a thing of wonder (again, when he can be arsed) but it's not a good voice in the way Elvis' was. it's more limited.
And I'm not sure he knows what he's doing any more than Elvis did.  
*side note (cos I figure this post's running a little short...) - Dylan can Interpret really well. See 'Good as I been to You', I wish he'd do it more often. He could put out an album of covers every year and then still do one of originals every five. The world just needs more Bob.

err, I missed some stuff and glossed over a few bits. But I think that's the gist.

oh, one thing. Listening to Elvis stuff last night I was struck by the variety of styles he recorded in. This is something other correspondents often praise about the Beatles et al, and bemoan the lack of in our current pop trendies. The more I think about it, it seemed almost de rigeur up until the late 60's to be varied (or 'hedge your bets' if you want to be cynical).
Just a thought.

My this is fun! Do join in when I start the 'Musicals - Why does everyone hate them?' debate...

[NoSleep]

How much responsibility did he have over the sound of the records though etc? Was it him that decided how his versions would sound or was it a load of other people?

Again his best stuff (Sun, 68 special) he had more to do with. But I sort of take your point. Although again I think his voice rises above some very poor arrangements a lot of the time.

Well there could be loads of reasons why that is so. It's the same with most artists, when it's 'their' song it rarely sounds right without the original vocals. Although there are loads of exceptions I still don't think the fact that there's never been a good cover of one of his good songs alone makes Elvis that unique.

I was just pointing out that he made songs his without writing them. Junior Parker's original 'Mystery Train' is a fantastic record, but the song belongs to Elvis now. That said it's a bit 'Horses for Courses', and not much of an argument.

How does that sit with this account by Donald Clarke http://www.musicweb-international.com/RiseandFall/14.htm ... ?

...almost from the beginning Presley seems to have copied the demo records he was given, such as 'Heartbreak Hotel' (sung by Glen Reeves) and 'Don't Be Cruel' (Blackwell). Leiber said, 'If Jeff Barry was the singer on the demo, Elvis would imitate Jeff Barry.' Presley was willing to work hard and would sing all night; but except for low-down dirty country blues, the boy had no style of his own. He could wiggle an audience of girls into a frenzy, but had no idea what to do with a slow blues, which 'Hound Dog' should have been. It is said that during his first Las Vegas gig, which was a flop, he heard a black vocal group doing a frenetic version of 'Hound Dog', which he simply imitated.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

Interesting NoSleep. That's what I thought but I'm not sure why, is there conflicting stories about EP's role in it all then?
I'll do a big reply to your post tommorrow Sam and Janet, I've started one but I'm too sleepy now, weetabix then bed. I'm not gonna risk that horrible insomnia that I've only just got over coming back.

[Marty McFly]

mr and mrs evening - i was referring to this..

I don't know whether there was much need for Presley, or rockabilly in general. Obviously he helped kick-start 'youth culture', but youth were bound to spend their new-found excess money on something - new kinds of clothes, cars, records, films. Rebel without a Cause came out before Presley captured the music market for two years and then joined the army. Things were happening anyway.

In Britain rockabilly signified the hoodlum Greasers and Teds and their gangs and race riots. The girls screamed at 'Jailhouse Rock' and the boys trashed the cinemas.