elvis presley vs all

[HK-47]

In that scenario, Milli Vanilli could have sung it and it would still have been a hit. That said, I do like that song

Yeah, but then it would have been only lip sync so it still would have been Elvis.?

Good point 

[N.I.B]

hes a great singer. hell hes one of the few who should be credited for the creation of rock n' roll

[Butch Français]

he wrote some songs himself.
didn't he write Blue Suede Shoes and In The Ghetto?

[Mattman]

he wrote some songs himself.
didn't he write Blue Suede Shoes and In The Ghetto?

Blue Suede Shoes I know was written solely by Carl Perkins, and In The Ghetto was written by somebody else.  Elvis does have co-writing credit on a few of his songs, but that's mostly him contributing a line or two here and there (for example, he's reputed to have come up with the idea for "All Shook Up" from a can of Pepsi).  He wasn't a songwriter; Elvis wasn't the dominant creative force on his songs.  At least, not until he started singing and performing them, at which point he made them his own.

[Axls Locomotive]

Elvis Presley wrote some of his music and lyrics

He's also alledged to have commissioned songs from other people and passed them off as his own. Not that it matters one bit.

I don't like Elvis, but I'd find it hard to disagree that he was an incredibly charismatic performer whose success had a massive impact on the music industry. Well, it probably created the music industry as we know it today. Which is probably not a good thing. Y'know, the more you think about it, the more reasons there are to stick a pin in your Elvis voodoo doll.

actually it wasnt elvis that dealt with the business side of things, that was the colonel that made those deals...the songs werent commissioned for elvis, the way it worked in the 50's is that some song writers used demos of their songs to try and sell them to the performers, and there were very few who actually wrote their own songs back then...and it is actually true that elvis wrote some of the songs and contributed to others but he certainly wasnt a songwriter as such...i know for sure that he wrote a song called You'll Be Gone and he has 33 real songwriting credits, not bought ones as you suggest

im not sure why you would say that elvis had a negative impact on music...you could say that for any performer who has been successful...some people will like it others wont...what are your reasons for thinking elvis created the music industry as we know it today? please elaborate...im not sure what he has got to do with hip hop and dance music...very little...

[Axls Locomotive]

hes a great singer. hell hes one of the few who should be credited for the creation of rock n' roll

and not to mention the creator of rockabilly, the forerunner of punk music...

let me guess the people who think chuck berry created rnr will get upset...truth is elvis recorded and had hits before berry

People who criticize music recorded decades ago for being "dated" have severe mental difficulties. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but when I hear a song recorded thirty years ago I'm not expecting it to sound contemporary.

I don't think that you picked a good example there, Mattman, because ''...Conversation" was a hit after (I think) and therefore probably because it was used on the soundtrack to Ocean's 11. In that scenario, Milli Vanilli could have sung it and it would still have been a hit. That said, I do like that song

severe mental difficulties, hahaha i love it

ALLConversation was a hit because it was used in a worldwide campaign by nike related to the football world cup...nike wanted to use elvis... and JXL who remixed the song used conversation because he heard it in the movie Oceans 11...it was a hit because of the adverts and the world cup, not because it was partially heard in oceans 11...

[plasmabeam]

i think hes pretty good. i watched that 2-part movie on CBS on him. pretty interesting. his life was a lot more than just rising to the top. he was a courageous guy

[Mattman]

i think hes pretty good. i watched that 2-part movie on CBS on him. pretty interesting. his life was a lot more than just rising to the top. he was a courageous guy

I saw that movie too.  I also saw the 1970s TV biopic with Kurt Russell as Elvis.  In both, they end at the end of the 60s right after the Comeback Special.  I'd like to see an Elvis biopic someday that goes all the way to his 70s days and his death, but I guess they think that would be a too depressing end to the movie.  As if we didn't already know how he ended up anyway.

Anyway, if there's one thing that really stuck with me from watching this movie, it's this: fuck the Colonell!  That guy was a greedy buffoon who stood in the way of a lot of what Elvis could have accomplished artistically, although Elvis himself has to shoulder some of the blame too.  I read that Elvis could have starred in movies like West Side Story, Thunder Road, and Midnight Cowboy, but the Colonel refused them because they didn't offer enough money.  That's a damn shame.

[HK-47]

im not sure why you would say that elvis had a negative impact on music...you could say that for any performer who has been successful...some people will like it others wont...what are your reasons for thinking elvis created the music industry as we know it today? please elaborate...im not sure what he has got to do with hip hop and dance music...very little...

I didn't say that Elvis has a negative impact on music itself, although you're correct, it could be said about anyone who has been successful due to the inevitability of success breeding imitators and directing the course of mainstream music in general - to the exclusion of styles and artists who don't fit the currently-popular mould.

I think there's a vaild argument to be made for Elvis' success influencing the way that the music industry functions though. Certainly, the fetishization of the performer over the music is a negative function of the industy which is pretty directly related to Elvis' success. The idea of the performer as a brand or industry in themselves, churning out all and any kinds of merchandise completely unrelated to their music, is another aspect of the industry today which can be traced back to Elvis - his unprecidented popularity allowed (and still allows) for anyone to vast amounts of anything carrying his name or likeness - I suppose that you could say that Elvis' popularity created the market for the merchandising of a performer on the same level that Star Wars did for movies. All of which contributes to the music industry's primary function these days, as exposed by shows like "American Idol" and its counterparts, the creation and marketing of "Icons" who can sell t-shirts, lunchboxes and anything else that can be licensed, rather than the discovery and distribution of musicians and music.

[Axls Locomotive]

im not sure why you would say that elvis had a negative impact on music...you could say that for any performer who has been successful...some people will like it others wont...what are your reasons for thinking elvis created the music industry as we know it today? please elaborate...im not sure what he has got to do with hip hop and dance music...very little...

I didn't say that Elvis has a negative impact on music itself, although you're correct, it could be said about anyone who has been successful due to the inevitability of success breeding imitators and directing the course of mainstream music in general - to the exclusion of styles and artists who don't fit the currently-popular mould.

I think there's a vaild argument to be made for Elvis' success influencing the way that the music industry functions though. Certainly, the fetishization of the performer over the music is a negative function of the industy which is pretty directly related to Elvis' success. The idea of the performer as a brand or industry in themselves, churning out all and any kinds of merchandise completely unrelated to their music, is another aspect of the industry today which can be traced back to Elvis - his unprecidented popularity allowed (and still allows) for anyone to vast amounts of anything carrying his name or likeness - I suppose that you could say that Elvis' popularity created the market for the merchandising of a performer on the same level that Star Wars did for movies. All of which contributes to the music industry's primary function these days, as exposed by shows like "American Idol" and its counterparts, the creation and marketing of "Icons" who can sell t-shirts, lunchboxes and anything else that can be licensed, rather than the discovery and distribution of musicians and music.

you know...i had a feeling you were going to say something along those lines

you may not realise but marketing a performer through selling things with their name on it has existed since the early 1940's...but i understand the influence elvis had on that part of musical culture...its should be also noted that things like t-shirts, posters and signed images were popularised by elvis and that in the 1950's people didnt have such hang ups about using your name on merchandise and it had never been tried before on many items...

if you do a search for "guns n roses merchandise" on google you will find a lot of merchandise, beanies, posters, belt bucklest shirts, pins, babydolls, songbooks, and even a basketball tshirt...how can elvis be associated with that?...its just people taking an opportunity to make money, it happens everyday, long before elvis and long after...and i bet most people in here have bought merchandise not just for gnr but for other artists as well...and also you will find that a lot of the crap merchandise in the 50's was sold illegally and without permission because as far as i know there were few laws to govern merchandising at that time....you will also find many of the tacky items sold in very few quantities while others like tshirts and posters sold well...

the american idol thing i dont agree with...the merchandising now far exceeds anything elvis, or should i say parker, ever could have dreamed about...do you know elvis did very few interviews (mostly radio)?, he never made a video, there was no mtv, (in fact his appearance on tv probably popularised tv sets as it was quite a new medium at that time)...no mass advertising apart from promo pictures, gigs (about 250 in the 1950's), a few tv appearances (less that 15 in 2 years) and appearing in magazines...do you know that finding anything like that, even the magazines is extremely difficult...dont ya think it would be easy to find that stuff since it was so "popular"?...its one of the many exaggerations people have used to bring him down...success breeds negativity...

as for elvis being created as you seem to insinuate, nothing could be further from the truth, elvis walked into sun studios on his own, recorded his first songs chosen by himself, toured for 2 years in small venues, recorded and produced his own music (unlike most other singers of his time)... nobody told him what music to record (except for those movies) and elvis had several number ones before any merchandising deals or any films had been made...

you said before, something like, that you dont judge a piece of music by todays standards...you really think that elvis, going on national tv and then being banned from the waist down (first ever censorship of that kind on tv) is anything you would ever see on american idol? or when he was banned from actually moving on stage by police in florida or when the radio stations banned, burnt and smashed his records on air...you know things arent that clear cut with elvis, thats what makes him so damned interesting...

[nesquick]

Usually, people who are banned are very often genius. It's always like that. They are banned in their own time period, and then later, they blow poeple's away by their talent, and live forever.

[HK-47]

you know...i had a feeling you were going to say something along those lines

you may not realise but marketing a performer through selling things with their name on it has existed since the early 1940's...but i understand the influence elvis had on that part of musical culture...its should be also noted that things like t-shirts, posters and signed images were popularised by elvis and that in the 1950's people didnt have such hang ups about using your name on merchandise and it had never been tried before on many items...

Oh yes, the concept of merchandising goes as far back as you care to look, and I'm positive that it was done before Elvis but that's not the point I was trying to make. I was saying that the sheer amount of money generated by Elvis-related merchandise opened the music industry's eyes to the potential of merchandising as an equal if not greater source of revenue to recordings. It's not so much a cause-and-effect issue, some performer would have eventually sold millions of photographs and t-shirts and whatever else , bringing about the same result. The fact remains that it was  Elvis who was the catalyst for it and so it should be recognised as an aspect of his legacy.

if you do a search for "guns n roses merchandise" on google you will find a lot of merchandise, beanies, posters, belt bucklest shirts, pins, babydolls, songbooks, and even a basketball tshirt...how can elvis be associated with that?...its just people taking an opportunity to make money, it happens everyday, long before elvis and long after...and i bet most people in here have bought merchandise not just for gnr but for other artists as well...and also you will find that a lot of the crap merchandise in the 50's was sold illegally and without permission because as far as i know there were few laws to govern merchandising at that time....you will also find many of the tacky items sold in very few quantities while others like tshirts and posters sold well...

How can Elvis be associated with the vast amount of merchandise available from other bands today?  Well, how can Ben Franklin be associated with Thomas Edison's invention of the lightbulb? It doesn't matter that Elvis didn't sell a GNR babydoll, he's realted to that product because his success basically created the music-related merchandising market and allowed the idea to thrive. I'm not saying it's a negative thing, just giving credit where it's due.

the american idol thing i dont agree with...the merchandising now far exceeds anything elvis, or should i say parker, ever could have dreamed about...do you know elvis did very few interviews (mostly radio)?, he never made a video, there was no mtv, (in fact his appearance on tv probably popularised tv sets as it was quite a new medium at that time)...no mass advertising apart from promo pictures, gigs (about 250 in the 1950's), a few tv appearances (less that 15 in 2 years) and appearing in magazines...do you know that finding anything like that, even the magazines is extremely difficult...dont ya think it would be easy to find that stuff since it was so "popular"?...its one of the many exaggerations people have used to bring him down...success breeds negativity...

It's not negativity, it's just the truth. The things you mention in the paragraph above are a different aspect from merchandising, what you're talking about is promotion. And, of course,  all of those things are more common today - the media is considerably stronger, larger, cheaper and more pervasive than it was 50 years ago.  And while Elvis' forays into mass media may amount to nothing more than a flirtation by today's standards, compare it to the other artists of his era. How many other performers has their own hour-long t.v. special prior to Elvis? Sure, he never made a music video but how many performers had Hollywood movie contracts?

as for elvis being created as you seem to insinuate, nothing could be further from the truth, elvis walked into sun studios on his own, recorded his first songs chosen by himself, toured for 2 years in small venues, recorded and produced his own music (unlike most other singers of his time)... nobody told him what music to record (except for those movies) and elvis had several number ones before any merchandising deals or any films had been made...

Yeah, I know the story. I'm not insinuating that he was manufactured, I'm not sure why you thought that, but while we're on the issue; Elvis probably suffered something worse than being a studio creation, he was a performer with genuine talent being manipulated by those entrusted with managing his career. From Elvis' perspective, that had to be a negative.

you said before, something like, that you dont judge a piece of music by todays standards...you really think that elvis, going on national tv and then being banned from the waist down (first ever censorship of that kind on tv) is anything you would ever see on american idol? or when he was banned from actually moving on stage by police in florida or when the radio stations banned, burnt and smashed his records on air...you know things arent that clear cut with elvis, thats what makes him so damned interesting...

Of course you wouldn't see anything unexpected on American Idol, and that's part of what I was saying. As with any successful entity he's spawned imitators, or in this case people who think that they can make their own Elvis on television. And, as with all imitators, it's a diluted, sanitized version which tends to completely miss the point. No producer wants to launch a performer as vilified by the public as the early Elvis, they want to skip straight to the bloated jump-suited staduim gig version because that's where the money is. Of course, without the initial controversy and excitement surrounding Elvis he wouldn't have been nearly as interesting and probably not made it to that level anyway. That, sadly, doesn't stop these idiots running American Idol (or the many, many non-televised auditioning processes designed to unearth photogenic radio-friendly mime-artists) from trying year after year.   

[Axls Locomotive]

ok you present good arguments, its good to see someone hasnt got many preconceived notions about elvis and looks at his legacy with open eyes and not to the exaggerations or lies that generally follow him about

Oh yes, the concept of merchandising goes as far back as you care to look, and I'm positive that it was done before Elvis but that's not the point I was trying to make. I was saying that the sheer amount of money generated by Elvis-related merchandise opened the music industry's eyes to the potential of merchandising as an equal if not greater source of revenue to recordings. It's not so much a cause-and-effect issue, some performer would have eventually sold millions of photographs and t-shirts and whatever else , bringing about the same result. The fact remains that it was Elvis who was the catalyst for it and so it should be recognised as an aspect of his legacy.

would it surprise you to know that merchandising sales were nowhere near the sales of his records, well not until at least the early 70's (vegas years) and especially after he died..after he died people could sell anything without getting prosecuted...you think there is a lot of merchandise in the 50s?...check ebay and google and find out for yourself to get a feel for it (and i mean real 50s memorabilia)...there isnt as much quantity as you think there is...thats a fact dude...on the same thought you will find a lot from the 1970's...

and who was it that wanted to sell their own breath in cans? look no further than the beatles for instance...if people add to what is already there it doesnt make it theirs, its the person that thought of the concept of selling an item, not elvis or col parker...as far as im aware selling a poster is different concept from selling a cd...just like selling lipstick is different from selling beatles breath

i find it amusing also that you are saying that most people are copying elvis's lead when it comes to memorabilia/marketing...funny that isnt it... that people are copying what elvis did instead of the other way around which people claim all the time...why dont they do their own thing? lol

elvis also came at the advent of TV...thats what you probably perceive as as the cause of the increasing memorabilia sales and is certainly a significant factor, 5 years either side of 1956 then it would have been different...

im not sure your ben franklin comparison works...merchandising existed before elvis in a larger scale than you realise..there was no "invention" of it...sure there was a fairly large leap because of the time it happened...and the fact that he was a great talent...but to say that he invented it is ridiculous...maybe you should buy the bing crosby ice cream carton, made in 1940 for sale on ebay, to realise what i mean.

merchandising and promotion and interlinked, it people cant see the merchandise then they cant buy it...there was no major outlets or superstores back then you know...

you mention the hour long TV special, that never came until 1968 and was a one-off concert/show...many stars had tv series by that time

bobby darin,tom jones,bob hope,dinah shore,frankie laine,frank sinatra,jimmy durante,jerry lewis,liberace,perry como, nat king cole
and a shitload more...and thats just from a 2 minute search

how many performers had movie contracts?
bing crosby, frank sinatra, dean martin, louis armstrong, sammy davis jr, danny kaye, the beatles etc

yea i agree he was manipulated by parker especially...some claim parker could hypnotise people to doing things his way...parker manipulated a hell of a lot of people including, songwriters, movie execs and the movie studios themselves...he died alone...and few cared

youre right american idol should be confined to history along with other similar programs...these over elaborate, false and image based programs evolved in the 90's thanks to the increase in tv, video and cable culture...sure elvis legacy pervades through so much, but i doubt you can thank him for the creation of MTV or cable tv...

cheers mate