ELVIS

[Coma16]

I have that MSG record, and love it! I also have Showroom International but wasnt crazy about it. I think I'll give it another spin sometime soon.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Coma16

[action]

I hope they do a 50th anniversary of his 1970 vegas season, like they did with 1969. It's mind boggling that a proper 1970 overview has never been released. It's always bits and pieces. 

[action]

7 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

On the count of shite lyrics, I rest my case  

by his own acount, elvis never wrote a single lyric in his life. there's some debate about certain songs, but general consensus is that some of these earlier songs were co-credited to him for financial reasons. elvis gets exactly zero points for lyrics.

Now Queen, as they said in school, should get a point "for trying"

if we're going by artistic merit, then Queen can be the only winner. Queen were creators, Elvis was an interpreter.

But comparing the two on artistic merit, is like comparing apples with oranges, and is an unfair comparison. It's more meaningfull to compare the live voice. Actually, I think 1968 elvis and wembley 1986 freddie are much alike, in that they both have this "growl". I tend to gravitate towards elvis' growl, but freddies was no joke either. 

Edited January 30, 2020 by action

[Len Cnut]

Quote

by his own acount, elvis never wrote a single lyric in his life. there's some debate about certain songs, but general consensus is that some of these earlier songs were co-credited to him for financial reasons. elvis gets exactly zero points for lyrics.

I weren't talking about Freddie writing either, I had no idea he wrote that until you told me, I was saying they are the words to a song he sings, same with Elvis, he doesn't get credit for writing them but they are his songs inasmuch as his versions that he sings.  But if he wrote them that makes it worse

Quote

if we're going by artistic merit, then Queen can be the only winner. Queen were creators, Elvis was an interpreter.

Without Elvises interpretations you wouldn't have boys from England and Zanzibar taking on a form of black American music in the first place.  And I don't think not writing songs puts you lower on the totem pole, especially not in rock n roll, which you can't look at like you're talking about painting or poetry, its something you perform, without the performer you have nothing. 

I probably shouldn't even engage in discussions here because its unfair, I see very little merit in Queen due to my personal taste, discussions like this you'll probably get more of value out of someone like @PatrickS77 who seems to appreciate both to some degree.

[F*ck Fear]

How anyone could compare Elvis Fucking Presley to Freddie Mercury is something I cannot comprehend.

I'm sorry but there is no competition there.

[action]

19 minutes ago, F*ck Fear said:

How anyone could compare Elvis Fucking Presley to Freddie Mercury is something I cannot comprehend.

I'm sorry but there is no competition there.

could you perhaps clarify why you can't comprehend that people compare elvis to freddie? It's not like one is a tax inspector and the other collector of stamps. both are singers and hugely popular, both being excellent performers.

comparisons are made all the time, and both frequently feature in polls and lists. 

[PatrickS77]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

I weren't talking about Freddie writing either, I had no idea he wrote that until you told me, I was saying they are the words to a song he sings, same with Elvis, he doesn't get credit for writing them but they are his songs inasmuch as his versions that he sings.  But if he wrote them that makes it worse

Without Elvises interpretations you wouldn't have boys from England and Zanzibar taking on a form of black American music in the first place.  And I don't think not writing songs puts you lower on the totem pole, especially not in rock n roll, which you can't look at like you're talking about painting or poetry, its something you perform, without the performer you have nothing. 

I probably shouldn't even engage in discussions here because its unfair, I see very little merit in Queen due to my personal taste, discussions like this you'll probably get more of value out of someone like @PatrickS77 who seems to appreciate both to some degree.

I appreciate Queen more, as they weren't just singers of songs (even though Freddie would put it that way ), they also created those songs. But I also appreciate Elvis for what it's worth. In certain ways I do think he is overrated, as he only performed and interpreted songs and (took and appropriated a form of music that was created by someone else) that does rank you lower than someone creating his own songs (and thus didn't pay too much attention to him for many years), but as a singer, performer and interpretator he was great and that can't be denied.

[Len Cnut]

20 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

I appreciate Queen more, as they weren't just singers of songs (even though Freddie would put it that way ), they also created those songs. But I also appreciate Elvis for what it's worth. In certain ways I do think he is overrated, as he only performed and interpreted songs and (took and appropriated a form of music that was created by someone else) that does rank you lower than someone creating his own songs (and thus didn't pay too much attention to him for many years), but as a singer, performer and interpretator he was great and that can't be denied.

I don't think its possible to overrate Elvis.  This thing that we're into, that began with youth culture, there was no youth culture before rock n roll, the shit basically was created around rock n roll, the fashion sense, the attitude, it kinda congregated around rock n roll and Elvis was the foremost rock n roller, the one who made it famous, the one who took it international, so that kids in Germany and England and America and Japan all had this thing in common.  pre-Elvis, pre-rock n roll, there was no youth culture ( a lot of it is a sociological thing of the first generations of kids with money, some would argue that if it weren't rock n roll it would've been something else).  All your Beatleses and Stones and Who's, these guys exist because there was an Elvis Presley, they almost all cite Elvis Presley as the moment that they knew they wanted to do this thing, its impossible to overrate someone like that, he was the cultural equivalent of a big bang.  To this day, whether they know it or not, when an pop artist comes out and causes a stir, challenges sexual ideals in society, makes rebellious music, causes controversy, offends, excites and entertains in equal measure, whether they know it or like it or not, they are following in the footsteps of Elvis Presley.

As far as the performing and not writing, I don't think singers, rock n rollers, need to write their shit.  It only really even became a thing post-The Beatles, this notion that a pop artist needs to be making some sort of personal statement, the job is the performance of it, without that you have nothing.  Honestly, its taking this pretty simple entertainment thing and trying to make something high fallutin out of it and, eventually, the music suffers.  At its heart this shit is juke joint music, its bass drums guitar and vocals coming together to make a place jump, nowhere in that is the necessity for writing your own shit, nor do I see how that attaches a higher value to the product, or even a higher degree of personal satisfaction though I wouldn't really know about that.  Helps out the bank balance of the artist in question but thats about it.

[action]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't think its possible to overrate Elvis.  This thing that we're into, that began with youth culture, there was no youth culture before rock n roll, the shit basically was created around rock n roll, the fashion sense, the attitude, it kinda congregated around rock n roll and Elvis was the foremost rock n roller, the one who made it famous, the one who took it international, so that kids in Germany and England and America and Japan all had this thing in common.  pre-Elvis, pre-rock n roll, there was no youth culture ( a lot of it is a sociological thing of the first generations of kids with money, some would argue that if it weren't rock n roll it would've been something else).  All your Beatleses and Stones and Who's, these guys exist because there was an Elvis Presley, they almost all cite Elvis Presley as the moment that they knew they wanted to do this thing, its impossible to overrate someone like that, he was the cultural equivalent of a big bang.  To this day, whether they know it or not, when an pop artist comes out and causes a stir, challenges sexual ideals in society, makes rebellious music, causes controversy, offends, excites and entertains in equal measure, whether they know it or like it or not, they are following in the footsteps of Elvis Presley.

As far as the performing and not writing, I don't think singers, rock n rollers, need to write their shit.  It only really even became a thing post-The Beatles, this notion that a pop artist needs to be making some sort of personal statement, the job is the performance of it, without that you have nothing.  Honestly, its taking this pretty simple entertainment thing and trying to make something high fallutin out of it and, eventually, the music suffers.  At its heart this shit is juke joint music, its bass drums guitar and vocals coming together to make a place jump, nowhere in that is the necessity for writing your own shit, nor do I see how that attaches a higher value to the product, or even a higher degree of personal satisfaction though I wouldn't really know about that.  Helps out the bank balance of the artist in question but thats about it.

youth culture in 1560:

[DieselDaisy]

I like both so am adequately placed to reply but Elvis is Elvis. Queen are a great band but you cannot compare the two. I mean there were four members of The Beatles and they almost were as iconic as Elvis as a collective but then I stress almost and I'm not even sure of that. There was only one Elvis. Mercury needed May and to a lesser extent the other two, but Elvis is Elvis. 

Elvis is the pivot of modern popular culture. There is before Elvis and there is after Elvis. The two eras are distinct. 

[action]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I like both so am adequately placed to reply but Elvis is Elvis. Queen are a great band but you cannot compare the two. I mean there were four members of The Beatles and they almost were as iconic as Elvis as a collective but then I stress almost and I'm not even sure of that. There was only one Elvis. Mercury needed May and to a lesser extent the other two, but Elvis is Elvis. 

Elvis is the pivot of modern popular culture. There is before Elvis and there is after Elvis. The two eras are distinct. 

all true, but why make the issue more complex than it is.

simple question: on face value, who sang jailhouse rock better: freddie or elvis? elvis made the song iconic, there is no arguing that fact. but who sang it better?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, action said:

all true, but why make the issue more complex than it is.

simple question: on face value, who sang jailhouse rock better: freddie or elvis? elvis made the song iconic, there is no arguing that fact. but who sang it better?

Elvis

[action]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Elvis

why? 

personally, I think the montreal version of freddie is stupidly awesome. it's like ali fighting tyson, I know, they're both great, but fred's version has a little more "oomph"

[Len Cnut]

 

Hows that for fuckin' vocals.

[Len Cnut]

Just now, action said:

why? 

personally, I think the montreal version of freddie is stupidly awesome. it's like ali fighting tyson, I know, they're both great, but fred's version has a little more "oomph"

Freds version has no panache musically, its pretty straight-forward, he belts it out sure enough but Elvis, with little accents and distinct vocals just gives it a sense of style.  Plus Elvises version swings, a cornerstone of good rock n roll.  Also, Ali pisses all over Tyson

[lame ass security]

5 hours ago, action said:

youth culture in 1560:

All that pic needs is a Sex Pistols soundtrack. 

[action]

14 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 

Hows that for fuckin' vocals.

you don't need to convince me, len. I'm in a sort of elvis craze lately.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, action said:

why? 

You are seriously asking me a question regarding the vocal performances of an Elvis Aaron Presley?

[action]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are seriously asking me a question regarding the vocal performances of an Elvis Aaron Presley?

well, yeah 

I've seen lots of arguments passing, from cultural impact, before and after elvis, youth culture, being iconic, needing other musicians.... it needlessly clutters up the comparison. If we're going to throw all those arguments in the discussion, and they are valid argument make no mistake, then we're going to be arguing till next week.

i've tried to make it as simple as possible, I managed to find two songs they both sang, and a simple comparison of the performance is what we're investigating here. So you need to take the video "as is", devoid of all the rest. Look at these videos like an alien or something, and only judge the performance. So that's why I ask, what parts of the performance / voice / delivery make one or the other superior?

for me, its the part that starts from 0:19 in this video that gives freddie the edge

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by action

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, action said:

well, yeah 

I've seen lots of arguments passing, from cultural impact, before and after elvis, youth culture, being iconic, needing other musicians.... it needlessly clutters up the comparison. If we're going to throw all those arguments in the discussion, and they are valid argument make no mistake, then we're going to be arguing till next week.

i've tried to make it as simple as possible, I managed to find two songs they both sang, and a simple comparison of the performance is what we're investigating here. So you need to take the video "as is", devoid of all the rest. Look at these videos like an alien or something, and only judge the performance. So that's why I ask, what parts of the performance / voice / delivery make one or the other superior?

for me, its the part that starts from 0:19 in this video that gives freddie the edge

 

For me, like a lot of Queen's music, it is like satire or parody, ''rock n' roll'' with an post-ironic ''nudge nudge''. With Elvis, besides the power of his voice, you have the little vocal nuances and cadenzas. As an alternative to the original recording,

His voice was deeper then than it was in 1956.

[action]

31 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

For me, like a lot of Queen's music, it is like satire or parody, ''rock n' roll'' with an post-ironic ''nudge nudge''. With Elvis, besides the power of his voice, you have the little vocal nuances and cadenzas.

good insight. I'll give it some thought.

I'm always looking for performances that match the 1968 special. That performance is what made me a fan. as an entity it is the perfect rock performance, and as a whole the best live performance ever, even eclipsing Queen's live aid. All personal opinion. 

listening to elvis' music is a never ending search for the best performance. his concerts were poorly distributed on album, to this very day. it's only last summer for example, that the whole 1969 vegas season was released. 50 years after it happened. you think GNR are bad at releasing stuff, well this is on another level. Still, the 11cd 1969 boxset is a real treat and a challenge to distill the best live versions of all these songs. and that's just one season.

I'm still waiting for a proper 1970 document, and not snippets and chopped up dates. it's an absolute disgrace, unworthy of elvis' legend. I hope that with the upcoming elvis movie (I'm sure it will suck but thats beside the point), there will be enough public interest so the suits at RCA decide to finally release some quality product.

Edited January 30, 2020 by action

[lame ass security]

Just an aside, Elvis' leather outfit in the comeback special was influenced by Jim Morrison.

[action]

8 hours ago, lame ass security said:

Just an aside, Elvis' leather outfit in the comeback special was influenced by Jim Morrison.

and you know why elvis always wore high collars? he thought his neck was a bit too long and was a bit ashamed of this.

could his longer neck have something to do with his deeper voice?

[lame ass security]

1 minute ago, action said:

and you know why elvis always wore high collars? he thought his neck was a bit too long and was a bit ashamed of this.

could his longer neck have something to do with his deeper voice?

Well, there are some things, structurally speaking, that goes into a person's voice that have nothing to do with the vocal cords.  Such as the sinus cavities and shape of the inside of the mouth, among other things.  So the size of a person's neck could have an effect.  Elvis also never wore jeans as an adult and after some early shows never wore short sleeves onstage.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

For me, like a lot of Queen's music, it is like satire or parody, ''rock n' roll'' with an post-ironic ''nudge nudge''. With Elvis, besides the power of his voice, you have the little vocal nuances and cadenzas. As an alternative to the original recording,

This could be said even for The Beatles and The Stones and The Who.  There's a sort of a knowing revivialist piss taking element to it, though the early albums are less in that vein, probably why I have such a fondness for them.  I think it had something to do with the artists as well as the critics believing somewhere inside that this was kids music and not a very dignified way to be carrying on once in your 30s.  It goes further though, I mean really, in terms of the musical ingridients, even Rockin' All Over the World is rock n roll, it has the Chuck Berry stuff and everything...but its just pale revivialist identi-kit dross.