Martin Q. Blank said:
Okay NDF, I think I'm almost ready to answer your questions. Well, I'll try...
To me, Elvis has always been more of a "figurehead" for rock and roll than someone who actually "embodies the spirit." A lot of this may simply come down to the different criteria you and I are using, and that's fine. I'm not changing my mind, though, and I suspect you won't either.
I fully understand and recognize Elvis' phenomenal impact as well as the scope of his influence and his continued mainstream appeal throughout the decades. I'd be a fool to deny that. However, that's only one ingredient of what can "embody the spirit of rock and roll." When I read the thread topic, mainstream appeal and influence was not what first leapt to my mind at all. I guess I have somewhat specific criteria for what embodies the spirit of rock. This includes rebelliousness, iconoclasm, energy, overall sound, personal creativity and personal involvement, innovation, attitude, image (to some extent) and yes, even lifestyle.
I don't care if Little Richard's popularity has dwindled throughout the decades. That has nothing to do with why I might choose him for embodying rock and roll in the '50s (or overall). When I see him banging the piano and screaming his songs (many of which he crafted himself), that's rock and roll to me. Elvis grabbing a mic, swivelling his hips and crooning blues songs in a somewhat pedestrian baritone may cut it for some folks...and that's fine. Just doesn't work for me.
What does the level of involvement in one's success have to do with the thread topic? It's simple for me, really. I'll always respect and admire someone who has creative control over his or her own artistic creation than someone who just "performs" or knows how to surround themselves with the right people. It's the difference between, say, a David Bowie and a Ricky Martin. Both have acheived massive levels of success, but which one put more blood, sweat and tears (and neuroses) into their work? I'm sorry...I don't think Ricky (or Elvis, or any other "entertainer") puts as much blood, sweat and tears into their product as someone who's writing, arranging, producing, playing etc. on their recordings. It seems like common sense to me.
Admittedly, I may have a bias towards writers/instrumentalists/producers, etc. because I am one myself and I know the level of work involved. But so much of rock and roll to me is the DIY ethic. The more you can do yourself, the more rock you are.
On its basest level, this is the point I'm making: who's more talented and creative? The person who writes their own songs, or the person who approaches someone else and says "write some songs for me"? It seems obvious to me.
I think the distinction I'm making is that, to me, there's a huge difference between a performer/singer/entertainer and a tried and true artist. Take Frank Sinatra. I love much of his work and think he was a really unique performer and interesting vocalist...but I would never put him on par with someone who actually composed, produced and/or performed instrumentally on their own material.
I need to add that I think the phenomenon of Elvis actually had negative repercussions in the long run. Now granted you could say that about any act that had massive mainstream success (lord knows The Beatles have influenced huge amounts of pure dreck), but if you look at it objectively, it seems to me that Elvis started the whole "teen idol" mindset in rock and roll. That is, a vocalist/entertainer who looked good, was charming/appealing in some way and had little to do creatively with what they were performing. On a similar note, Elvis also set the ball rolling for solo artist/vocalist/diva types (would we have "American Idol" without him?), and, in my eyes, elevated the notion that image was more important than substance. (He sure wore that guitar a lot...barely played it, though.) Now granted Elvis was superior to every other similar "solo artist teen idol" type that came after him in the rock world, but that doesn't diminish the fact that he was what got that archetype moving.
On that note, I find it intensely irritating that Elvis was credited as a co-writer on some of his early songs when in fact he had nothing to do with them. It was just a ploy invented by his manager Col. Parker, so that he could get royalties. If that didn't set a negative precedent in rock and roll right off the bat, I don't know what did.
Above all else, Elvis' main asset was charisma. People liked him, trusted him, wanted to be entertained by him. That can be seen as part of what embodies rock and roll, and it is, but again, it's only one small part. I think he was energetic (in his heyday) and was a decent singer (albeit with an extremely limited vocal range, technically), but he is far overrated in the actual talent department. I am far from a Beatles sycophant (I gave that up years ago), but I think someone like Paul McCartney has more talent in one hand than Elvis had in his whole body. It's ironic that Paul loves and idolizes Elvis so much.
And yes, I do think there's a race angle at play here. It's been said that Elvis put an acceptable white face on black rhythm and blues to make it more palatable to the masses. That's a double-edged sword, I suppose, because on one hand, it opened the floodgates for a lot of other performers, be they black or white. But on another hand, it ensured that other performers who preceded him and (arguably) deserved more credit for getting the genre off the ground would never get their just desserts. Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Fats Domino are viewed as mere relics from the '50s, even though they were a lot more "rock and roll" in some respects than Elvis could ever hope to be. Also, in some ways, I think Elvis' white-washing of a song like "Hound Dog" is on par with, say, Pat Boone's embarrassingly castrated cover of "Tutti Frutti." So why does one get exhalted while the other gets crucified?
And I should add that my estimation of Elvis has nothing to do with his later steep personal decline, because I think, all things considered, I actually prefer his later "Vegas years" over his early days. At least song-wise.
And don't even get me started on how quantity of material has absolutely nothing to do with quality...
As for my own personal answer to the thread topic? I'm still not sure.
Whew, that took a lot out of me. It may be a few days before I can respond again.
