Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

The King - Dead but NOT forgotten?


Recommended Posts

Considering the scope of the "rock revolution" including the timeline... (50's to now), the number of artists... (thousands), the number of styles, (?) and the millions of fans with different tastes and so on...

 

How can you say any ONE person, act, style, or whatever was the King, root, cause, reason, big-daddy, snake-king or whatever?

 

How about African slaves inventing the blues in the cotton fields?

 

How about the first time some cave-dweller pounded his club against a hollow log in 4/4 time.

 

Anyway God bless Elvis because he had a part in it for sure...

 

guitplayer

I'm still "guitplayer"!

Check out my music if you like...

 

http://www.michaelsaulnier.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Craig, Miro, Ted and Dan:

It's OK about the Who, Yardbirds and such, but the reason I mentioned the Doors is becaus, as you all know, if you break it big in America, you have the whole world, and the Who & Co. didn't do that well until '69, if at all, whereas The Doors were top ten in March 1967. I'll stay with my opinion that the Doors were the first band to introduce "alternative" elements to what basically was, both sides of the Atlantic, a "good time with your girlfriend" affair, expecially in the lyrics if not in the music. Plus, the main Doors album are 2: Doors & Strange Days; they are a pair, to be taken as that (they come even boxed together).

The blueprint of Doors music (excess, death & sacrifice, deep thought explorations coupled with sex and sweat, melody and muscle) are the same new bands use these very days.

 

When you guys mention Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, and several others, it makes me smile, because I already told you I aknowledge a lot of those early pioneers, even before Elvis times, but they did NOT influence culture enough.

Just go find a 15 years old skate-boy with piercing all over and ask him if he knows J.L. Lewis, or Little Richard, or the Yardbirds: he'll call the police on you. Ask him if he knows the Beatles, and he'll picture in his mind funny images of page-haired boys from his grandparents' days. Ask him if he knows the Doors or Jim Morrison, and he'll likely go: "Cool!"

Sometimes we have to aknowledge that the cultural impact of a phenomena MUST happen at the very basic, down-to-earth street level, in order to have a lasting effect.

All of us on this NG are cultured people, we know names, facts and can quote deeply, but the people out there maybe can't, and it's them who have the numbers in the end. Sad but true.

I know , to make an example, that perhaps the Pretty Things did all that the Stones did before the Stones, but if it was the Stones to become famous, then it's the Stones that count and not the Pretty Things.

About Elvis, I still insist he was not a musician and barely a singer, because his mind wasn't really into that. A great performer, yes, but a musician he was not.

Max Ventura, Italy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>How can you say any ONE person, act, style, or whatever was the King, root, cause, reason, big-daddy, snake-king or whatever?>>

 

It's my contention that "King Of Rock n Roll"

is a hook that was pinned upon him during all the after-death marketing.

 

Somebody who might be as old as I may be able to correct me or help me to expand on this thought. Elvis music was in my life ever since I can remember, I was in my mid twenties when he died, and I was livin, eatin and breathin music at that point and if memory serves me right, Elvis was still getting some radio play but was serious in that downhill slide, facing the mortality of his fame, which all POP-stars experience. News and press releases we'ren't being very kind to him. His live act was still drawing but if you look at footage of the act when he first started taking it out on the road and some of his final performances you can't miss the perspective of Elvis sliding into has been territory. He had managed to stay alive during the Beatles and late sixties changes involving some of the great acts mentioned above in this thread but from 77 on the rock/pop arena took on some drastic changes and it's my contention thru all of that Elvis wasn't going to be King of Sh*t.

I don't say that to be unkind, but father time and the evolution of the rock/pop market were going to be.

 

Back to that King Of R&R monicker: Elvis had a great impact on music to that point. He was descibed as an innovator, an outstanding performer, a sex symbol, one of the founding fathers of rock and roll, etc... but that King of R&R tag wasn't a permanent fixture till after his death. In not dying he would probably been in the category of Little Richard, J.L. Lewis, Chuck Berry, and such with his candle perhaps his candle the brightest, a legion of great contributers to R&R as we know it.

 

With the after-death marketing tactics you never hear Elvis mentioned on the radio, in print or on telivision without that "KING of R&R hook. The newer generations that have embraced his music embrace him as the ""KING of R&R.

 

Myself, concerning my personal experience I divide his career into three periods. The early before the military period, where he did some great R&R in the period of R&R infancy, the post military period when he became a bad film star making some really bubblegumish music and the after movie years where he made a comeback with his live act doing what I personally classify as country flavored R&B and had some charting radio play but no smash hits. He was a great performer, had an exceptional career and deserved great credit for his contributions to the music industry but in my eyes wasn't necesarily "King of R&R.

 

 

 

 

------------------

William F. Turner

Guitarist, Composer, Songwriter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argo, I think you're getting your history a little mixed up there. God love the Doors, they're awesome, they were really innovative, and Ray Manzarek is one of my favorite people in this business. But breakthrough records like the Beatles' "Revolver" and the Stones' "Aftermath" and Dylan's "Bringing It All Back Home" were hits in America before the Doors ever broke. None of these records were exactly "Have a good time with your girlfriend" (and what's wrong with that anyway? Sex is a huge part of what defines rock'n'roll and Morrison or Manzarek would be the first to tell you that.) In fact, if any one person could be said to have opened up the possibilities of rock'n'roll it would be Dylan, and everyone was aware of him by '64, '65. The Stones' "Satisfaction" (a huge hit in '65) was also a breakthrough single, sometimes regarded as the defining rock'n'roll single. That song is a double entendre - it's about sex but it's also about social commentary, dissatisfaction with the culture.

 

And I don't know where you get the idea the Pretty Things were doing what the Stones did before the Stones... Dick Taylor of the Pretty Things used to play with Mick and Keith when they were all kids. Lots of musicians in London at that time got into American R&B and the Stones happened to have been the ones who did it best.

 

Les Paul didn't invent the electric guitar either, he just invented my favorite one. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif He did, however, invent multitrack recording. We do owe him a tremendous debt.

 

As for Elvis - I never liked his music, but I don't think that reduces the impact he had on people at the time. Jim Morrison was certainly influenced by him. So were the Beatles and Stones and nearly every other English and American rock band of the 60's, which in turn influenced everything that came after. Without Elvis, rock'n'roll simply would not have become what it did.

 

There are cultural icons whose work still sounds fresh today, and others whose impact seems minimal now because you would have had to be there at the time to appreciate the huge changes that were brought about by that person. I think Elvis falls into the "You had to be there" category, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize the changes in music and culture that he did ignite.

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 01-11-2001 at 09:36 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great views, from all.

 

Seams like we are all heading in the same direction...

 

...Elvis had a big impact, but yes, there were many others too.

 

Was he a musician, a singer, a rebel...I guess it really isn't necessary for us to agree on any ONE "title".

 

Was he really the "King of Rock & Roll"?

Can't really prove it or disprove it.

 

This kind of ties in to my post in GM's forum about "Perception vs. Reality".

 

Sometimes we see things best when they are blurred.

If you try too hard to "get at the real thing" you find it is intangible.

 

So maybe our individual perception of Elvis, or anyone/anything else, is what is really important, and not so much the hard facts.

 

Who first said, "Image is everything"?

miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

 

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't the Doors break the barrier of selling your song to sell a product? a car wasn't it?

anyhow...listen to the Elvis Sun Sessions...he was the catalyst that made all of that happen. Elvis started playing That's All Right Mama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Elvis had died before his middle aged decline like Hendrix, Joplin, Moon, Monroe, Dean, Morrison, and so on... Would we have a different view of his impact today?

 

Imagine an Elvis with no stupid movie legacy... no fat guy in a leather suit, only the hip shaking, parent frightening, wildman "performer" of rock and roll! Elvis posters for everyone!

 

If the "drunk poet" era Morrison had stayed alive and in the public eye... would we have a different view of his impact?

 

Argo, no offense. But the Morrison that changed the world of music had seemingly vanished by the time he embarked on his self appointed exile to Paris... Ironically that move out of the public eye and his subsequent death saved him from Elvis's fate... didn't it?

 

BTW, using the same criteria as you put on Elvis, I think you could make a great argument for Jim to be a premier writer, poet, thinker, rabble rouser, lizard-king... and more... but by his own admission, an entertainer rather than a musician.

 

guitplayer

I'm still "guitplayer"!

Check out my music if you like...

 

http://www.michaelsaulnier.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>If Elvis had died before his middle aged decline like Hendrix, Joplin, Moon, Monroe, Dean, Morrison, and so on... Would we have a different view of his impact today?

 

Sure he would, he'd be right along James Dean and Marilyn Monroe on all of those posters...instead of velvet wall hangings.

 

But, some artists maintain their cool into middle age and beyond. What's the formula? I think the formula is that they keep themselves on top of the game, to the point where looks, where once important, take a back seat to the artist's creativity. Elvis wouldn't have been able to go there, as he wasn't a visionary. He was a singer and sex symbol. Sure, he broke new ground, but he didn't keep breaking it.

"Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the things that makes Elvis king are the velvet paintings, the picture of him shaking Nixon's hand, the idea of him packing multiple pistols at all times in his later years, his TCB jumbo jet...his mythology. In the USA we have no monarchy, long live the king.

 

When there are Jim Morrison salt & pepper shakers, or groups of skydivers calling themselves the flying Morrisons, that would be the time to re-examine our royal family.

 

-David R.

-David R.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO 'elvis' was a talentless moron; a forerunner to drek like Britney Spears and NSYNC.

 

He didn't write music, was not a musician, and was basically just a marketing ploy.

 

He may have been popular, but so was/is a lot of crap.

 

The only spark of anything creative was stolen from black american musicians who wouldn't have had a chance of profiting from their creations in the racist climate of the '50's.

 

It's time to let go of the myth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by argomax:

Just go find a 15 years old skate-boy with piercing all over and ask him if he knows J.L. Lewis, or Little Richard, or the Yardbirds: he'll call the police on you. Ask him if he knows the Beatles, and he'll picture in his mind funny images of page-haired boys from his grandparents' days. Ask him if he knows the Doors or Jim Morrison, and he'll likely go: "Cool!"

 

I don't think that Beavis and Butt-head should be the measuring stick of what is influential and what is not. The person you described knows nothing of history, only this week's buzz. Mention Antonio Vivaldi, Igor Stravinsky, Billy Strayhorn, Edgar Varese, or Charles Ives to this nitwit, and the kid is not going to say, "Cool!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...