Who Best Represented The Spirit of RocknRoll??

[diezman]

The Beatles

anyone wanna duke it out with me?

be behind the lunchroom after school!

 

[newdawnfades]

Conversations like this will inspire me to look into reading a bio on Elvis, one with some historical accuracy. I don't know if any of us here know enough facts about how involved Elvis was with what. I've done a bit of research on the net, but good, hard facts are sometimes hard to come by.

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

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.

I'll PM them to you.

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.

Well, right off the bat I said I fully understand his impact and influence. I'm not devaluing it in that sense. What I am saying is that I believe his talent is greatly overrated and that I think there are many better contenders for who embodies rock and roll. Like I said, I'm not going to base my answer to your thread topic on what other people think.

Screaming, taken literally, doesn't sound good no matter how much talent you have in performing it.

Well, see, we're gonna have to differ there too, because I could listen to Lennon, Bowie, Frank Black scream all over the place in rock songs. It's very pleasing to me.

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.

You mean "projection"? Again, I don't think Elvis was all that hot at projecting his voice.

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'm not a singing teacher, but I've had plenty of experience performing vocally, not to mention directing vocal ensembles.

I think when I said "range" earlier, you mistook me to mean only note range. But I'm speaking more about "vocal versatility." Or actually, more accurately, vocal elasticity. Having said that, Elvis' vocal note range is fairly limited. As I sit here right now, I'd say he had a range of about two octaves, which is not bad. But he tended to stay in the same area of that range. If you put up him up against someone like, say, Paul McCartney, Paul would win in terms of range, hands down.

And as for musical screaming--or, as it is often referred to, "vocal fry," which to me can be a vital ingredient in rock and roll--Elvis was not that hot either. It sounds to me like Elvis tried to emulate more technically trained singers (although I'm not sure he had any training himself), which meant his ability to really let go and scream was limited. Perhaps at the time, his sound was the epitome of rock and roll to many, but again, I can point out contemporaries of his that put his "rock voice" to shame.

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.

Well, certainly. I'm not saying range--whichever way one defines it--is everything...or anything, when evaluating a rock singer. However, when it comes to outstanding rock voices, Elvis is never one that leaps to mind. I'm talking more about the timbre and tone of a voice. Take, for instance, Lennon, Kurt Cobain or Elvis Costello. They have a natural raspiness to their voice that, to me at least, is far more "rock and roll." I just don't see a tried and true rocker as having a smooth, soulful baritone, as Elvis did.

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?

Elvis? One of the best rock and roll singers in my book? No.

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.

Go ahead, but it still has nothing to do with rock and roll.

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.

I know how many genres he tried to tackle. But what does that have to do with the spirit of rock and roll? How does trying a bunch of different genres--including rock and roll--therefore embody the spirit of rock and roll?

Oh, and he didn't only sing in different genres but he was a smashing success in those genres.

See my points about commercial success and whether it has anything to do with the spirit of rock and roll. (It doesn't.)

Had to cut it in two again...

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

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.

He tried his hand at many different genres, yes. Would I say that makes his voice inherently "versatile"? No, I can't quite go there. He always sounds like Elvis to me, whether he's singing gospel, country, rockabilly or Vegas-type showtunes. He always has the same swaggering baritone. On the other hand, go listen to Paul McCartney sing "I Will," then listen to "Helter Skelter." It scarcely even sounds like the same guy. And those two songs are on the same album!

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.

Yes, but just because he has a universally recognizable and unique voice does not necessarily mean he embodies rock, IMHO.

What you are basically saying is that 'writing and arranging' are IMPORTANT TO YOU therefore ALL artists will be judged accordingly.

Isn't that the point of starting a thread? Or is everyone supposed to use the same rubric? If it's the latter, you should have stated that in your first post.

As I've stated many times, yes, I think creating one's own art should be a factor when assessing a topic like this. Not every topic, maybe, but certainly this one.

But you probably are better at writing and arranging right? Or at least that holds your interest and takes up more of your time?

Never really thought about it, to tell you the truth.

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.

Well sure, but Elvis' stuff is far from complex as well.

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.

But isn't that also roughly what you said about Elvis? So why is Elvis more revered than LR?

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.

But is it not more respectable when the mother foregoes a nanny and does it all herself? Especially since she created the child? And does it not require more work and effort? I guess that's the point I'm trying to make.

Well to answer you, he did write lyrics to some of his songs,

Can you please name some, because I've never heard that the writing credits were anything more than just a ploy to get royalties.

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.

Well wait, that doesn't really answer my question at all. You said that LR's songs weren't "complex math," and that he probably didn't labor over them. So I asked if it was so easy, why didn't Elvis do it? I don't see how your answer above addresses my question.

Guitar in 3/4ths of his songs? I find that a very dubious claim. Perhaps in the early days.

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'.

Yeah, I'd heard that too.

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.

Led Zep? That's another argument for another time.

So the truth is this topic is a very complicated one. I thought I had an answer for the topic, but the more I think about it, the more I'm just not sure. I don't know if I'll ever have one. I do know that Elvis wouldn't be it.

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

This is going to be a hatchet job I am going to enjoy.

Well if you're gonna go into it with that attitude, I'm not even going to bother posting my thoughts.

 

[newdawnfades]

Well if you're gonna go into it with that attitude, I'm not even going to bother posting my thoughts.

Oh come on, i'm just joking.

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

You know what the craziest part of this is? I'm not even entirely sure voice has that much to do with embodying rock and roll. I'm not even sure how we got on that. And yet it's become the main focus of our discussion.

There are vocalists and vocal performances in rock and roll that I think are truly genre-defining, but it may not be one of the main criteria I'd use for choosing my top candidate for this topic.

 

[Martha Washington]

I think the true spirit of rock and roll is best embodied
by Lester Rosenblatt of Hales Corner, Wisconsin!

WAY TO GO, LES!!!!

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

I think the true spirit of rock and roll is best embodied
by Lester Rosenblatt of Hales Corner, Wisconsin!

WAY TO GO, LES!!!!

Oh yeah, that guy's got anti-establishment written all over him.

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

lmao
Chuckles the f**kstick? A stagename that suits him well.

Or F**kles the Chuckstick.