Who Best Represented The Spirit of RocknRoll??

[newdawnfades]

Fair enough. I hope you are able to get things together pal. PM me if you need an ear.

NDF

 

[Music Wench]

I know it's offbeat, but I nominate Brian Wilson...the greatest SURVIVOR with an epic career that is still relevant.

I'm not a huge Brian Wilson fan - or an Elvis fan for that matter - however, I can see the case for both. Brian Wilson did make a major contribution to rock and roll whether I like him or not, like wise Elvis.

Still, for me it will always be Neil Young.

 

[Psychedelic Syd]

50's - Chuck Berry
60's - The Rolling Stones
70's - Led Zeppelin
80's - AC/DC
90's - Nirvana
Overall - The Rolling Stones


-

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

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.

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

While I'm here, I thought of another point.

To me, mainstream acceptability or success has little to do with what actually embodies rock and roll simply because rock and roll is based on rebelliousness, iconclasm and, to some extent, a healthy disrespect for authority. How "rebellious" can you be when you're selling millions of albums...over a period of several decades, no less?

And by the way...I think I have my answer...

 

[newdawnfades]

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, overall sound, personal creativity and personal involvement, innovation, attitude, image (to some extent) and yes, even lifestyle.

All those qualities are in play with Elvis. What I think is this, I think you are judging Elvis from the point of view of another era. In Elvis's time it was common to sing songs that were written by others. But in the next couple of decades the 'singer-songwriter' became the template for artistic legitimacy, and that's where you sit. But that wasn't necessarily Elvis's world. Does it mean he wasn't creative and INVOLVED in his music? Hell no. There wasn't a template for what he was doing back in his day. He was a supreme vocal talent with the charisma, attitude, and looks. But you better believe HE HAD to translate those songs to success. He had to take that music and make it his own. He even had to change the way it was sung, which takes 'creativity' to accomplish.

I don't buy this argument that Elvis wasn't involved enough. He obviously was one of the hardest working talents in the business, but that wasn't 'involved' enough for you. I guess Elton John wasn't anything more than a cypher as well right?

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.

Uh, I think Elvis screamed it just as good if not better than Little Richard. Wasn't that Elvis's bleeping trademark? So you give points for 'involvement' and 'creativity' THEN take away points for 'versatility'?

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.

Miles Davis's key strengths were just performing and knowing how to surround himself with the right people. It doesn't matter what you respect and admire, what matters is who you think embodies the spirit of rocknroll, which to me is mutually exclusive of who I happen to think highly of.

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.

Then you don't value stage performance at all. So if i'm producing and arranging songs in a studio the majority of the year then i've put more 'blood,sweat,and tears' into it than say that guy whose actually onstage 9 months straight playing two sets a night? Sure I gotcha.

I like to hear my favorite bands live, and if you like to 'hear about' how they spent all their time tinkering with their songs in the studio then that's your right.

The assumption here is that Little Richard spent hour upon hour writing, arranging, and producing his songs. This looonnggg, laborious process. Does anyone know how long it ACTUALLY took him to generate his songs? We are talking about 2 minute rock songs here, not complex math.

Oh, and shall we skim Little Richards catalogue to see how many 'songs he covered'. You know, those songs that he only had to 'simply perform' of which he had no creative control or 'effort' involved. How many?

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.

You know how much effort is involved in what you do, but how often do you perform? Writing and producing takes up most of your time naturally because, well this isn't the 50's, and with all our technology you can spend forever in the studio 'tinkering with songs'.

This was all new back in Elvis's day. Musicians performed back then, that's what they did. Singing, songwriting, pruducing, writing all weren't as centralized and developed. Rock songs just weren't all that complicated in the beginning, so naturally you didn't have these rock musicians who sat around for days toiling like you probably do. They didn't have to. You got a two minute song, with some basic chords, and you played.

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 a singer can be just as creative when they take lyrics and translate that to the stage and breathe life into what is on paper. Elvis had to sit down with his band and figure out how to make these words on a paper a rock song. That takes just as much creativity and it's actually just as magical and necessitates alot of hard work.

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.

You don't value the end product as much as I do. What's the purpose of music, have you ever asked yourself that? That's exactly the thing you take for granted. If it was so easy then why can't anybody who can write good lyrics and compose well become a success?

Elvis, according to your mentality, is little more than another Brittany Spears.

Above all else, Elvis' main asset was charisma. People liked him, trusted him, wanted to be entertained by him.

His asset was his vocals, versatility, and stage show. You don't just arrive into the realm of rocknroll and all of a sudden, for some random, indecipherable reason, people want to be entertained by you.

Elvis was a born performer. I've seen you use this word 'entertainer' and if that's your viewpoint then you are entitled. But I think it's ludicrous to think that this is simply the story.

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.

Race had alot to do with it, but you were talking the discussion at it's 'basest level' and considering that then race had very little to do with the combination of talent, persistent, work ethic, and charisma he had. When it came to the performances, which in the 50's that's what the meat of an artist was to the public, Elvis was just better and more charismatic. He was perfectly suited to take on the helm of rock. Yes, the fact that he was white helped him crossover, but why him and not Buddy Holly or any assortment of other white acts of the time. Why not Roy Orbison? Why him? That's when your race card doesn't hold quite as much water, because there were very good reasons WHY it was HIM.

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.

Funny I thought your estimation of him simply as an 'entertainer' had everything to do with his Vegas years. I am not sure if that criticism would enter in most people's minds had he not actually been an entertainer in Vegas.

 

[newdawnfades]

Andre Agassi is my favorite tennis player. I despised Pete Sampras because it always seemed to come so easy for me. He could win a match without breaking a sweat. Andre was the type of player that had to bust his butt on the court to win. You saw and felt all the effort he put into those matches.

With Pete all he had to do was go on court and hit a few aces. He just breezed right through matches.

Does that mean that Pete didn't have to work hard? Does that mean that Andre should have gotten Pete's accolades because I admired his work ethic more?

The short answer is NO.

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

Okay, first off, if I'm going to continue the discussion with you, you have to cool your tone down a little. I know you love debate, but in the end I think you're smart enough to know that neither one of us is going to change their mind. So the verbal finger pointing and condescension has to stop.

All those qualities are in play with Elvis. What I think is this, I think you are judging Elvis from the point of view of another era. In Elvis's time it was common to sing songs that were written by others. But in the next couple of decades the 'singer-songwriter' became the template for artistic legitimacy, and that's where you sit. But that wasn't necessarily Elvis's world.

Well sure, for his time, some of what Elvis did was considered revolutionary. And while it may not have been the norm for musicians to have a fair hand in the creation of their products, it certainly wasn't non-existent. That's why I'm saying there were other artists in the '50s who deserved as much if not more praise than Elvis did.

Does it mean he wasn't creative and INVOLVED in his music?

Sure, but the degree of creativity and involvement was negligible.

There wasn't a template for what he was doing back in his day. He was a supreme vocal talent with the charisma, attitude, and looks. But you better believe HE HAD to translate those songs to success. He had to take that music and make it his own. He even had to change the way it was sung, which takes 'creativity' to accomplish.

You raise an interesting point here, but I'm not sure I buy that Elvis was the brilliant arranging and marketing genius that you're making him out to be. Sure, it was a successful formula, but again (1) I don't believe he had that much to do with it and (2) "translating a song" doesn't really enter into my criteria for what "embodies rock and roll" anyway.

I don't buy this argument that Elvis wasn't involved enough. He obviously was one of the hardest working talents in the business, but that wasn't 'involved' enough for you. I guess Elton John wasn't anything more than a cypher as well right?

Although I'm not much of an Elton John fan, he is more talented than Elvis, in my mind.

Uh, I think Elvis screamed it just as good if not better than Little Richard. Wasn't that Elvis's bleeping trademark?

Screaming was Elvis' trademark? When? My point stands that he had an extremely limited vocal range on a technical level. Contrary to what many believe, I do not agree that Elvis Presley had this amazing, thunderous, versatile rock voice. I can think of dozens of singers who top him when it comes to pure rock and roll. Whether or not he was the "first" is somewhat irrelevant.

So you give points for 'involvement' and 'creativity' THEN take away points for 'versatility'?

First, as I mentioned above, I don't consider Elvis that versatile when it comes to vocals. And second, when adjudicating the spirit of rock and roll, I'm not even sure "vocal versatility" would be one of my personal top criteria.

Miles Davis's key strengths were just performing and knowing how to surround himself with the right people. It doesn't matter what you respect and admire, what matters is who you think embodies the spirit of rocknroll, which to me is mutually exclusive of who I happen to think highly of.

Well sure, one can use objective criteria to divine an answer to a question, but that doesn't mean everyone has to view the criteria the same way or arrive at the same answer. If you already had a universal standard and "correct answer" in your head, why did you even bother starting the thread?

Then you don't value stage performance at all.

Oh, I certainly do...in addition to being a musician, I've been a stage actor, singer and performer for most of my life.

So if i'm producing and arranging songs in a studio the majority of the year then i've put more 'blood,sweat,and tears' into it than say that guy whose actually onstage 9 months straight playing two sets a night?

Not more energy, perhaps, but energy in a different way.

Let me put it to you a different way: who's got the most emotional investment? The mother or the nanny? Who was more fecund? The woman who gave birth or the woman who watches over the offspring? Now of course there are exceptions, but there certainly is something to be said for the person who both creates and nurtures and cares for the resultant creation and shares it with the outside world.

The assumption here is that Little Richard spent hour upon hour writing, arranging, and producing his songs. This looonnggg, laborious process. Does anyone know how long it ACTUALLY took him to generate his songs? We are talking about 2 minute rock songs here, not complex math.

If it was as easy as you claim, why couldn't Elvis do it?

Oh, and shall we skim Little Richards catalogue to see how many 'songs he covered'. You know, those songs that he only had to 'simply perform' of which he had no creative control or 'effort' involved. How many?

Had to cut this into two parts. Post was too long...

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

Right, he covered a fair amount of songs, but it was not his life bread, as it was for Elvis and Sinatra. Elvis and Sinatra are famous for being reinterpreters of other people's songs.

You know how much effort is involved in what you do, but how often do you perform?

As an actor, quite a lot. As a musician, I'm working on it.

Rock songs just weren't all that complicated in the beginning, so naturally you didn't have these rock musicians who sat around for days toiling like you probably do.

See, why be snide?

I think a singer can be just as creative when they take lyrics and translate that to the stage and breathe life into what is on paper. Elvis had to sit down with his band and figure out how to make these words on a paper a rock song. That takes just as much creativity and it's actually just as magical and necessitates alot of hard work.

We definitely disagree here.

And actually, this hits on a topic that I actually find myself discussing quite a lot with people. There is a big difference between writing a song and arranging a song. Most people don't understand that.

You don't value the end product as much as I do. What's the purpose of music, have you ever asked yourself that? That's exactly the thing you take for granted.

I take music for granted? That's really hilarious, NDF. Really.

If it was so easy then why can't anybody who can write good lyrics and compose well become a success?

Charisma, charm, image, marketing...all things I've mentioned. Not to mention drive and ambition, which a lot of creative people don't have enough of, sadly.

Elvis, according to your mentality, is little more than another Brittany Spears.

I'd say that's somewhat accurate. Like I said, he's the best of that genre, but he's not that far removed from what we have in that genre these days.

His asset was his vocals, versatility, and stage show. You don't just arrive into the realm of rocknroll and all of a sudden, for some random, indecipherable reason, people want to be entertained by you.

Like I said, his main asset was charisma, and that's largely what people responded to. And yes, it is indefinable. It's how two people can do the exact same thing and one gets rewarded for it while the other one gets neglected. This has happened time and time again throughout history.

Race had alot to do with it, but you were talking the discussion at it's 'basest level' and considering that then race had very little to do with the combination of talent, persistent, work ethic, and charisma he had. When it came to the performances, which in the 50's that's what the meat of an artist was to the public, Elvis was just better and more charismatic.

Charismatic, yes. Better? I think that's negligible.

Yes, the fact that he was white helped him crossover, but why him and not Buddy Holly or any assortment of other white acts of the time. Why not Roy Orbison? Why him?

Elvis had the image, for one. Roy and Buddy were slightly nebbishy and stereotypically dorky. They didn't have the "hunky good looks" of Elvis.

Funny I thought your estimation of him simply as an 'entertainer' had everything to do with his Vegas years. I am not sure if that criticism would enter in most people's minds had he not actually been an entertainer in Vegas.

The Vegas years were the nadir, but if you think about it, they were in fact a logical extension of what he had started in his early years. I just happen to like some of the songs he did in his later years a little better. Maybe because he wasn't really trying to prove anything in those years. But really, this particular point is kind of outside the realm of the topic at hand. I just added it as a footnote. It has nothing to do with whether or not I see him as embodying rock and roll.

Andre Agassi is my favorite tennis player. I despised Pete Sampras because it always seemed to come so easy for him. He could win a match without breaking a sweat. Andre was the type of player that had to bust his butt on the court to win. You saw and felt all the effort he put into those matches. With Pete all he had to do was go on court and hit a few aces. He just breezed right through matches. Does that mean that Pete didn't have to work hard? Does that mean that Andre should have gotten Pete's accolades because I admired his work ethic more?

The short answer is NO.

But there's a distinction to be made here. To me, there's a difference between "working hard for something" and "putting a lot of work into something." It seems semantic at first, but let me explain. For example, I know that songwriting comes very easy to Paul McCartney, but that doesn't mean he doesn't put actual work and effort into what he does. On the other end of it, someone "working hard" at being a success implies to me that maybe they don't have the same chops, natural talent or even charisma or stage presence as someone else does, but they're willing to try and improve themselves in those areas to try and be successful. Does that make sense?

Is one superior to the other? It depends on the criteria used...which of course is all subjective, just like this entire discussion.

 

[algernon]

I think a latter day performer who captures the spirit would be Springsteen...and in such a positve sense of joy and enthusiasm---not a face down in the pasta,choke-on-your-vomit way. In fact, overall that might be my answer.