💋💋

CherryMoon57 said:

Boydie said:

I think DELIRIOUS is a nod to Elvis - especially how he often sang some of the parts live I also think that the Graceland/Paisley Park parallel is nice

I've always felt that vibe whenever I hear Delerious as well, especially live...

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought that...

LBrent said:

Boydie said:

I think DELIRIOUS is a nod to Elvis - especially how he often sang some of the parts live I also think that the Graceland/Paisley Park parallel is nice

I've always felt that vibe whenever I hear Delerious as well, especially live...

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought that...

peoples see what they want, his black fans who might hate elvis always argued against the influence but it's pretty obvious. I love the part in the live 85 vid where he points his fingers and shakes his leg, one of elvis' signature moves.

TXfan said:

That'hick from Tupelo' still has fans visiting Graceland all year,every year from all over the world for the last 40 years. Of course Prince liked Elvis, who from that generation didn’t? The impact Elvis made on the music world was huge. I can see Prince wanting to do the same, and he did. We all know Chuck Berry and Little Richard started it all. I love those guys but Elvis took it to another level. Doesn’t matter that he was white guy singing like a black guy. Prince was a black guy that played and sounded like a white guy sometimes. I love them both and wish I was able to see those exhibits side by side.

hope you're not taking the hick statement i initiated wrong, that simplicity was a huge part of elvis' appeal, huge. from the get go, even before his first tv appearance he was "the hillbilly cat". Elvis' talent was only one part of his success, sam phillips once said "there are singers with better voiced" but that Elvis communicated better, and it's true.

jcurley said:

bonatoc said:

jcurley said:

Ha. The first time I saw prince was the when doves cry video when I was 12. The scene where he's on his own being moody collars up and bug belt. Yes I know these are regency and Georgian in influence but the first thing I thought was Elvis. I remember reviews at the time comparing prince to Elvis....his heir. And on an audience level I can see it. I wish he was as appreciated

I see more of a Brando type. Elvis didn't look like a real misfit to me. Even the black leather and the "man in black" menacing allure is not originally his. Elvis is not a biker, he offers a Pink Cadillac to his mom, some like that. The sexual charge of the first years is undisputable, but success flooded too early to assert that his subsequent looks (the "fans can't be wrong" golden jacket) are the byproduct of Elvis taste and persona and not the Colonel's. Keep in mind Elvis was a rare phenomenon : in his early years, and the comeback. But for the most part of his career, he was Parker's puppet, and played in way more Razzies than GB. Not to mention his total lack of political awareness. When he finally used his public persona for the common interest, all we got was a Nixon itch. Having said that, naiveness seems to be the main culprit here. And drugs. He still is one of the best male singers ever, just a natural talent. But if you compare their careers in terms of autonomy and self-reliance, Prince is the King, and Elvis an exploited buffoon. As for looks, I tried as hard as I could, but I don't see a single redeeming quality in the white karateka-pimp-bling white outfits of seventies Elvis. That is bad taste on a stick, and a sad revelation that money can do terrible things to your brain.

most of your post is accurate but the gold lame suit he wore was from the colonel, elvis famously didn't like it. and oddly, I have read in a book from his army years that he confidentially mentioned to a superior that the young were getting tired of fighting old men wars, surprising but that was elvis, he was not as simple as he seemed.

bonatoc said:

purplefam99 said:

Those guitars appear to be a perfect match!

Why do white people still live under the illusion that Elvis invented R'n'R? [img:$uid]http://d2ydh70d4b5xgv.cloudfront.net/images/3/7/1987-christian-brothers-brandy-chuck-berry-orange-gibson-es-335-vintage-print-ad-8766a556f1b614f673a55e0140f86749.jpg[/img:$uid] [Edited 11/7/17 3:34am]

because arguably he did, he was recording his best stuff in 54, before the rock and roll explosion officially started or even had a proper name. Of course so large looms his shadow that it's human nature to point to a chink in the armor. same with muhammad ali, he was the greatest but he really wasn't because of....human nature to look at things that way.

Good points, Pete. But Elvis was a crystallization of a post-WWII american society ready to dwelve in mass
into bourgeois passe-temps (hanging out, spending money, flirting, dancing and having sex).
His voice and moves were a great ambassador to a spirit of sexual liberation,
but it was an original black expression that was stolen and marketed with white acceptable faces.

But again, how much stardom is there, and how much is persuading people that such stardom is a real thing, like a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Mass marketing and competition, capitalism for short, is the reason why we were able to hear such good music (Memphis, Motown, Philly...)
But in the case of Elvis it comes at a price, usually your soul.
Because the original spark of the rebel yell gets lost in the darkness, when you turn it into a recurring gimmick.
Even when Elvis sings "In The Ghetto", after years of loving the song, I can't help but wonder if the song is nothing more
than a cheap acknowledgement of how hard life is as a black dude in America. This is not a "get out of the Ghetto!" arms call,
rather a sad depiction that ends where it started: in the ghetto. Implying that things are this way, have been and will always be,
but that a sympathetic ear or some quick thought compassion will fix White America responsabilities, or the common white guy sense of guilt.
It's sung from a zone of comfort, symphonic orchestra and shit, and we're far from London in 1976 or the blunt truth of N.W.A.

Now Elvis may be against war, but then everyone is, except for a few fragile minds.
I don't mean to ditch the guy, but he didn't desert the army, or use the medias as a platform.
Sure, it's easy to laugh at Bono, but he moved his ass to cancel third-world countries debts. He could have stayed at home and drink Martinis.
Now the job of living into the society and helping shape it was taken over by the generation Elvis helped liberate.
I'm disappointed he used his star status to be associated with a POTUS,
which is usually not a good kind of man, no matter the party.

So he's this big thing, that America is proud of, and rightly so.
By making sexual desire a commercial commodity, capitalism has been able to use sexual frustration as a mean to pervert people in ways never before imagined.
I don't want to go too far and accuse Elvis of things he clearly didn't have control over, but compare his career to what Prince did
for gender equality and sexual freedom (both very political things) in the public debate (even if from a distance),
and again, you end up with Prince being a giant and Elvis a dwarf.

Elvis was a hick too pure to see it coming.
Like the good southern kid he was, Elvis sang for mama, even after her passing away (maybe even more after that).
But when you enter into the adulation zone, power and fame, the yes men and women,
you'd better be well educated on the subject of life. Elvis got trapped into turning into yet another posterboy of the American Dream.
Before Elvis, it didn't have the courage to go below the belt and be honest about concupiscence being its main engine.

Prince took sexuality back, and spelled it to us as a Godly, universal right.
Along with art, sex the only human activity that can't be really quantified, that you can't put a price on.
The last zone of true freedom. That is, if our brains weren't hijacked with porn since our childhood, and distorting our desire.
Unless the system keeps on sending out a recurring message: men must fuck this way, and women this way.
Thus the Weinsteinsand the Hefs.

Along with art, sex should be the only human activity that cannot be quantified, or put a price on.
Unless you're willing to play the part of a whore to the system, which Prince never was.

CherryMoon57 said:

💋💋

bonatoc said:

CherryMoon57 said:

💋💋

rdhull said:

Delirious, Jack U off

and "broken" also has a rockabilly feel to it

bonatoc said:

jcurley said:

Ha. The first time I saw prince was the when doves cry video when I was 12. The scene where he's on his own being moody collars up and bug belt. Yes I know these are regency and Georgian in influence but the first thing I thought was Elvis. I remember reviews at the time comparing prince to Elvis....his heir. And on an audience level I can see it. I wish he was as appreciated

I see more of a Brando type. Elvis didn't look like a real misfit to me. Even the black leather and the "man in black" menacing allure is not originally his. Elvis is not a biker, he offers a Pink Cadillac to his mom, some like that. The sexual charge of the first years is undisputable, but success flooded too early to assert that his subsequent looks (the "fans can't be wrong" golden jacket) are the byproduct of Elvis taste and persona and not the Colonel's. Keep in mind Elvis was a rare phenomenon : in his early years, and the comeback. But for the most part of his career, he was Parker's puppet, and played in way more Razzies than GB. Not to mention his total lack of political awareness. When he finally used his public persona for the common interest, all we got was a Nixon itch. Having said that, naiveness seems to be the main culprit here. And drugs. He still is one of the best male singers ever, just a natural talent. But if you compare their careers in terms of autonomy and self-reliance, Prince is the King, and Elvis an exploited buffoon. As for looks, I tried as hard as I could, but I don't see a single redeeming quality in the white karateka-pimp-bling white outfits of seventies Elvis. That is bad taste on a stick, and a sad revelation that money can do terrible things to your brain.

Be careful bonatoc, there are Elvis fans on here who might read this and get real offended

bonatoc said:

CherryMoon57 said:

💋💋

That's a nice guitar, where's his pink outfit!

Oh and we know who Chuck inspired the most...

PeteSilas said:

TXfan said:

That'hick from Tupelo' still has fans visiting Graceland all year,every year from all over the world for the last 40 years. Of course Prince liked Elvis, who from that generation didn’t? The impact Elvis made on the music world was huge. I can see Prince wanting to do the same, and he did. We all know Chuck Berry and Little Richard started it all. I love those guys but Elvis took it to another level. Doesn’t matter that he was white guy singing like a black guy. Prince was a black guy that played and sounded like a white guy sometimes. I love them both and wish I was able to see those exhibits side by side.

hope you're not taking the hick statement i initiated wrong, that simplicity was a huge part of elvis' appeal, huge. from the get go, even before his first tv appearance he was "the hillbilly cat". Elvis' talent was only one part of his success, sam phillips once said "there are singers with better voiced" but that Elvis communicated better, and it's true.

I totally agree. I wrote something very similar in an earlier comment on this thread on how both Elvis and Prince achieved an exceptional rise to the top, not just because of their talent (as there are many other talented people out there) but mostly because of their natural charisma. And if anything, they certainly both have that in common.

CherryMoon57 said:

bonatoc said:

jcurley said: I see more of a Brando type. Elvis didn't look like a real misfit to me. Even the black leather and the "man in black" menacing allure is not originally his. Elvis is not a biker, he offers a Pink Cadillac to his mom, some like that. The sexual charge of the first years is undisputable, but success flooded too early to assert that his subsequent looks (the "fans can't be wrong" golden jacket) are the byproduct of Elvis taste and persona and not the Colonel's. Keep in mind Elvis was a rare phenomenon : in his early years, and the comeback. But for the most part of his career, he was Parker's puppet, and played in way more Razzies than GB. Not to mention his total lack of political awareness. When he finally used his public persona for the common interest, all we got was a Nixon itch. Having said that, naiveness seems to be the main culprit here. And drugs. He still is one of the best male singers ever, just a natural talent. But if you compare their careers in terms of autonomy and self-reliance, Prince is the King, and Elvis an exploited buffoon. As for looks, I tried as hard as I could, but I don't see a single redeeming quality in the white karateka-pimp-bling white outfits of seventies Elvis. That is bad taste on a stick, and a sad revelation that money can do terrible things to your brain.

Be careful bonatoc, there are Elvis fans on here who might read this and get real offended

that's true, elvis fans are wonderfully fanatical, but as for me, all those things have been taken in a million times, and he's still my hero.

that's a great post bona, but I think you're shortchanging Elvis and his meaning. the reason he's so beloved in this country is that he was one of us, a pure archetype of us. When i say us, i mean a perfecty hybrid of human who really transcended race, sex and class in a way that still communicated directly to us. All of us, men, women, black, white, Native American (I've often said if you don't like Elvis you're not Indian to other Indians) As greil Marcus once wrote his success "brooks no comparison" and as Springsteen said "there ain't nobody else". Of course i know it's easy to say he was a puppet and he was an embarrasing failure, lots of truth to that. One thing Greil Marcus said that encapsulated Elvis better than anyone ever did is when he quoted Melville's statement "only the man who says no is free" and then went on to say that Elvis' YES was bigger and grander than anyone else's yes. Was there a price for this? yes, much higher than Greil realized when he wrote those words (Pre-Elvis' death). I've said it many times though, our heroes aren't meant to succeed, they aren't meant to go all the way to the promised land, they are meant to help us start our journey and to make it further than they did. I've said it when people lambasted Obama who was useless for black folk in a real way but as a symbol has started something that tells us that the old anglo domination of our country is on it's way out. Hence, the next guy will take it further and on and on and etc.., etc.., same with boxing, Joe Louis, derided by Ali as an uncle tom but it was Joe Louis who made it possible for Ali to be Ali, after Ali's youth he came to realize the folly of his youthful, hurtful slings towards a man who, like Elvis or obama, just did the best he could with the situation.

bonatoc said:

Good points, Pete. But Elvis was a crystallization of a post-WWII american society ready to dwelve in mass
into bourgeois passe-temps (hanging out, spending money, flirting, dancing and having sex).
His voice and moves were a great ambassador to a spirit of sexual liberation,
but it was an original black expression that was stolen and marketed with white acceptable faces.

But again, how much stardom is there, and how much is persuading people that such stardom is a real thing, like a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Mass marketing and competition, capitalism for short, is the reason why we were able to hear such good music (Memphis, Motown, Philly...)
But in the case of Elvis it comes at a price, usually your soul.
Because the original spark of the rebel yell gets lost in the darkness, when you turn it into a recurring gimmick.
Even when Elvis sings "In The Ghetto", after years of loving the song, I can't help but wonder if the song is nothing more
than a cheap acknowledgement of how hard life is as a black dude in America. This is not a "get out of the Ghetto!" arms call,
rather a sad depiction that ends where it started: in the ghetto. Implying that things are this way, have been and will always be,
but that a sympathetic ear or some quick thought compassion will fix White America responsabilities, or the common white guy sense of guilt.
It's sung from a zone of comfort, symphonic orchestra and shit, and we're far from London in 1976 or the blunt truth of N.W.A.

Now Elvis may be against war, but then everyone is, except for a few fragile minds.
I don't mean to ditch the guy, but he didn't desert the army, or use the medias as a platform.
Sure, it's easy to laugh at Bono, but he moved his ass to cancel third-world countries debts. He could have stayed at home and drink Martinis.
Now the job of living into the society and helping shape it was taken over by the generation Elvis helped liberate.
I'm disappointed he used his star status to be associated with a POTUS,
which is usually not a good kind of man, no matter the party.

So he's this big thing, that America is proud of, and rightly so.
By making sexual desire a commercial commodity, capitalism has been able to use sexual frustration as a mean to pervert people in ways never before imagined.
I don't want to go too far and accuse Elvis of things he clearly didn't have control over, but compare his career to what Prince did
for gender equality and sexual freedom (both very political things) in the public debate (even if from a distance),
and again, you end up with Prince being a giant and Elvis a dwarf.

Elvis was a hick too pure to see it coming.
Like the good southern kid he was, Elvis sang for mama, even after her passing away (maybe even more after that).
But when you enter into the adulation zone, power and fame, the yes men and women,
you'd better be well educated on the subject of life. Elvis got trapped into turning into yet another posterboy of the American Dream.
Before Elvis, it didn't have the courage to go below the belt and be honest about concupiscence being its main engine.

Prince took sexuality back, and spelled it to us as a Godly, universal right.
Along with art, sex the only human activity that can't be really quantified, that you can't put a price on.
The last zone of true freedom. That is, if our brains weren't hijacked with porn since our childhood, and distorting our desire.
Unless the system keeps on sending out a recurring message: men must fuck this way, and women this way.
Thus the Weinsteinsand the Hefs.

Along with art, sex should be the only human activity that cannot be quantified, or put a price on.
Unless you're willing to play the part of a whore to the system, which Prince never was.

🌴🌴🌴







Prince Photos from Afshin Shahidi. Paperback: Prince in Hawaii - An Intimate Portrait of an Artist. (December 2003) ~
First Elvis photo, 1961 at the Pearl Harbor memorial

Second Elvis photo, with Double Bass in a promotional shot for Spinout - 1966 Photo courtesy FECC/Desert Storm (Apart from the first, not sure if the other Elvis photos are taken in Hawaii).

PeteSilas said:

CherryMoon57 said:

Be careful bonatoc, there are Elvis fans on here who might read this and get real offended

that's true, elvis fans are wonderfully fanatical, but as for me, all those things have been taken in a million times, and he's still my hero.

Just to be clear, he's one of my heroes as well.
I tend to consider Jerry Lee Lewis and Johnny Cash more close to the bone,
with more proeminent sexual and social subjects. It's all about repertoire.
And attitude too: they're mavericks. It's not Elvis fault he was so handsome he could be turned into an easy sell,
but it was the beginning of the end. When you're first concerned about millions of fans,
chances are you are going to make compromises, and to me that's the death of the rock'n'roll spirit right there.

You're right, I can't be too harsh on Elvis, those were very different times, with different mindsets.
He's certainly not responsible for how business diverted the primal rock'n'roll scream into an advertising commodity.

Elvis, unwillingly or not, helped make the adolescent rebellion just an episode of our lives, before we join the commutes and the desks.
The fury of youth has been tamed. I mean it evokes to me a nerd with glasses and all, good at his work, diligent, accountable,
who once at home, puts on Sepultura and bangs his head for ten minutes to feel some kind of relief.
Be a rebel, but in your leisure time. How fucked up is that?

I think my rant comes from a place where I'm left clueless about the possibility of seeing another christic figure
taking over the Rebel Without A Cause role. Or another Summer of Love. Because entertainement has been contained to just entertainement,
there is no social agenda whatsoever. No cultural relevance.

A young musician knows he's not going to have a worldwide impact unless he choses the pre-formatted path of innocuous songs,
and pre-formatted looks. He's gonna make songs biaised from the start.
Myley Cyrus is the epitome of how far you can push the concept of total void.
Here's a "rebel" (by Disney®©™) that has nothing left to say but pedophile porn to cause enough momentum so people pay attention.

It's incredible how we are in need of a structural change: the market has deprived popular culture of any substance,
has turned food into something you just ingest, and spread the toxicity of competition in our sex lifes and our workplaces.
I feel like people like us, who deeply care about music, are becoming the last stanfing soldiers.
Sure, you can pass some onto the next generation, but the social context isn't there anymore to bring any sense to the rebel attitude.

It seems to me like no matter how much faith a musician has
in the power of music, his work is going to be treated purely in market terms, as opposed to a time
where label moguls or indies could still sign an act on an act of faith, risk it all just because the music was good.
And so the bravest were kind of free to express themselves to the fullest,
which Prince did with "Dirty Mind", and, say, the New York Dolls (amongst many other unsung heroes) before him.

My playlist looks like a mausoleum. Most of the artists are still alive,
but their music speaks of times long gone.

Speaking of music, I think the closest Prince got to Elvis can be found in the background vocals
of the sublime extended and unreleased version of "Delirious" (you mad find it under the "30 years" moniker),
where Prince stays truthful to the 6/8 rock swing, and doesn't try to turn it into an hybrid 4/4 as he often does.

^ Some great points there bonatoc, although I think that just like Prince, there was a lot more to Elvis than his commercial image.

Lawd I sound sinister.

Let's lighten things up.

bonatoc said:

Lawd I sound sinister.

Let's lighten things up.

This always brings a smile on my face.

It must be a European thing. Not sure Americans see Elvis and Prince that way, but love both of them, of course.


Chuck Berry


Little Richard


Esquerita

[Edited 11/8/17 12:17pm]

bonatoc said:

Lawd I sound sinister.

Let's lighten things up.

i love light hearted self reflection. good on you bonatoc!!!!!!

poppys said:

It must be a European thing. Not sure Americans see Elvis and Prince that way, but love both of them, of course.


Chuck Berry


Little Richard


Esquerita

[Edited 11/8/17 12:17pm]

Tell me there isn't a bit of the Parade Year in all these pics.
The suit on stage (which is pretty socio-political in Prince's hands: he looks like the boss who runs the joint, not a session musician like Chuck),
the impeccable hair grooming, the overall sass of Christopher Tracy ("Love Bizarre" live in Frisco, with Sheila, the horses race outfit in UTCM).

Prince toned it down because he was who he was,
or perfected it: sawing Chuck do the duck, he probably thought
you can look sexy with a guitar, instead of a loon.

I think Prince was at his most Elvissy around '83-'84.

[Edited 11/15/17 3:41am]

Listening to Sexuality always makes me think of Elvis. The little moment after Prince sings, "what's to be expected is three minus three", he does a little ohhohoa noise. That always felt like a little nod to Elvis to me.

TheEnglishGent said:

Listening to Sexuality always makes me think of Elvis. The little moment after Prince sings, "what's to be expected is three minus three", he does a little ohhohoa noise. That always felt like a little nod to Elvis to me.

Yes, I noticed that too. Also some guitar licks and the energy of the song are very reminiscent of 'Blue Suede Shoes'.

Perhaps the '3 minus 3' followed by the 'ohhoaha' are both a subtle references to:'...one for the money, Two for the show,Three to get ready...'

Also he says 'mama' ('mama are u listening?'), Elvis often mentioned 'mama' in his songs.

Both certainly had a fantastic sense of rhythm and were excellent dancers!

Note the jump off the stage at 2:03




Like Prince, Elvis loved a tamborine and those arabian themes!

[Edited 11/15/17 4:17am]