Raze said:

Total bullshit. Prince is underrated, not overrated. People who spend a lot of time on the org can easily forget that Prince ranks below far less talented artists like U2 and Kirt Cobain in critics' polls and is largely ignored by the vast majority of people who have absolutely no clue how superior he is to the non-entities they love.

Raze said:

I do not agree with this statement in the slightest, I've witnessed too many other posts that are obviously intelligent from Harlepolis.

Elvis's black friends and peers did not rip off Big Momma Thornton with Hound Dog, Elvis did. He took a music that was cultural (and not his culture) and profited from it in a time of complete ignorance in human history where music was divided by race in the United States. To me, unless he paid someone, every single time he sang the song and a cut on every album sold, he's not a thief. Did he pay? If so, he's not a thief, but if he didn't pay, he is. Pretty basic.

The only person who could call him a racist would be someone who experienced a racist act or statement from him to make them believe it and that's the only reason I think Harlepolis would have that strong of an opinion on the topic.

None of which sounds ignorant to me?

As far as "over rated" what scale of rating are we talking about?

Popularity? Influence?
Money? Judged by history?
The Michael Jackson/Brit and her muff, scale?

Slave2daGroove said:

But he gave credit to and paid respect to fellow black musicians and entertainers who could never achieve the fame Elvis achieved -- not because these black artists were less talented but because it was a much more segregated world back then.

Besides... a number of black musicians and entertainers respected Elvis.

Slave2daGroove said:

Do you not realize how royalty payments work when an artist sings or covers a song written by someone else? If she wrote the song and didn't get paid, that isn't Elvis' fault.




It does sound pretty ignorant, because I don't think either one of us believe that Elvis ever made a racist statement to Harlepolis or that she ever witnessed one by him.
[Edited 9/17/07 18:20pm]

I'm laughing because I don't understand how thinking Elvis is overrated makes one racist. Then I looked at the two names of the people who even brought race into the conversation and it's two people who always/almost always have something to say about ace on this messageboard. MikeMatronik, I've seen you say some ignorant shit on these boards and if you hadn't brought it up, this conversation might of taken a different turn. Oh well.

Is Elvis overrated? Yeah, I truly believe so. It is my opinion. I do not get the appeal of some for the guy.

Just to add another level of actual history to the discusion. Big Momma T. did not write "Hound Dog". Lieber and Stoller two white guys wrote and produced Big Momma T's version of the song. Elvis knew it from the orginal but actually decided to do it after seing Billy Ward and his Dominoes in Vegas in 1956. The unknown lead singer for Billy Wards group was Jackie Wilson, who in the same performance did a three song melody of Elvis hits, Jackie Wilson went on to say that Elvis influenced every male performer black and white with his singing and performance style. For those who really don't know their music history, Jackie WIlson is one of the great soul singers of all time. So before any of us call anyone ignorant, we should know our facts.


as always,

Peace and lovesexy.

kalelvisj said:

I thought so. I had read somewhere that two white males were the ones who wrote Hound Dog.

personally i think he is quite over-rated, my sister is hugely into him and even got me to go to some Elvis Festival here in Oz. The main reason i think he is tho is because at the time there really wasnt many other artists who got the exposure like he did, think about all the crap that is around today and how easy it is to get your name out there, if it were like that back then i think there is no way in hell he woulda been as big as he was.

kcwm said:

Good point.

no

Slave2daGroove said:

If Elvis is a "thief" for "stealing" the Blues and R&B, does that also make Ray Charles and Charley Pride "thieves" for "stealing" Country Music ? How about Wynton Marsalis's "theft" of classical music, or Jessye Norman and Leotyne Price's "theft" of opera ?? Or are people supposed to stay in some little designated cultural niche, and never experience other things outside of that little hole ?????

Slave2daGroove said:[quote]

Raze said:

When the song was played on the radio or TV, or when the records were sold, the people who wrote the song were paid.... two white Jewish dudes name Leiber and Stoller ! (See, this is lot less simple, and more interesting, than you probably thought)
[Edited 9/17/07 20:34pm]
[Edited 9/17/07 20:34pm]
[b][Edited 9/17/07 20:35pm]

paisleypark4 said:

Dont you mean, Crazy little thing called Love, by Queen?

Rodya24 said:

Another way to look at it is, that regardless of the limited media available, and based on the fact that there were already riots and pandemonium at his concerts before he was even on national television or radio that Elvis would have been even more successful in the hyper media available today.

People bought record players just so that they could play Elvis records. Elvis sold at levels in the 1950's that rival the sells of current artists (before the collapse of the CD market) with modern techonology available chances are he would have been even more successful.

People act as if he had his success in a vacuum; that other artists weren't selling at all. Ray Charles, Jerry lee, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Chuck Berry,Buddy Holly and on and on, were all incredibly successful in sales and on the radio in the 50's. And Elvis out sold them all combined. The fact is that after everbody elses success deteriorated because of changing styles and events in their peronal lives, Elvis continued to reinvent himself musically moving effortlessly from pop to rock to blues to country to gospel in a way that only the Genius Ray Charles was able to match. Elvis simply left most of his contemporaries in the dust as an artist who refused to be forced into any one genre of music.

That he did this at a time when society was trying its hardest to maintain lines of hatred and separation beteen the classes (Black and white. rich and poor, north and south) is perhaps the greatest testament to his impact. When people carved "ni#$er lover" in the side of his car he responded by introducing "Tutti Frutti" as a song written by his very close friend "Little Richard" who he couldn't wait to meet. He was a musical and a social rebel who refused to be categorized by a system that declared people were not equal when MUSIC proved they were.


If anything Elvis is underrated, as a musical AND a social force.

And unlike most of the people on the above list he remained humble, polite, and respectful to all of his peers regardless of their race or level of success. He let his success and artistry speak for itself and never ever attacked another performer. That is a "Star"

And before we start talking about the 70's and Presley's decline, lets take a look at our own heroes for a moment...we give them a pass because "fame" was to hard for them to handle, or it happened to fast, or it was the drugs...all things considered, Elvis did all right.

End of rant.

Peace and lovesexy.

kalelvisj said:

I both agree and disagree with your comments. I have read your posts in several Elvis-related threads, and you seem to overlook two critical facts: 1. Elvis was white and attractive during a time of intense segregation -- not ONLY in the US but around the world. You seem to be arguing that his success was SOLELY based on the fact that he was able to reinvent himself, and that he was a "musical and social rebel." I disagree. It is not a coincidence that until the 1980s (Michael Jackson comes to mind) no person of color was able to become a global superstar who commended the same level of fame and commercial success enjoyed by Elvis and The Beatles. I would be hard pressed to find a black American or Chinese or Japanese entertainer who was as successful as Elvis before 1980. Racism and worship of Eurocentric notions of BEAUTY are not limited to Europe and the United States. For example Little Richard never enjoyed much commercial success in South Korea in the '50s and '60s. For that matter, if Elvis looked like Little Richard, Koreans would not even know who Elvis is. Modern popular music is not in a vacuum. Who is popular and who is recognized are not questions ALWAYS based on talent alone.

2. The fact that Elvis is disdained or looked upon contemptuously by some speaks volumes to how little Elvis and his music means to certain people. Not EVERYONE has to adore him. You seem to hold him in high regard with your statements that he was "humble" and "polite." Perhaps the fact that racism is still prevalent in the US and around the world -- i.e. the idolizing of Elvis within the white mainstream media and the consequent overlooking of the contributions of certain cultures to modern popular music and entertainment -- partly explains why there continues to be debates over whether or not Elvis was a "racist who stole black music." These threads reflect not a hatred towards Elvis but anger at particular beliefs and the societies which continue to uphold these beliefs. In fact, I would argue this thread has little to do with Elvis and his music.

I forgot to mention in the previous post: I appreciate your comments on Elvis and his contributions to music and entertainment. I have learned a lot about him from you.

Rodya24 said:

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful comments. I think you make some very important points about the racial and social inequity in the music industry, especially at the time that Elvis, Little Richard, etc were starting to explode on the music scene. It did take far too long for the musical playing field to become even enough for MJ and Prince, as key examples, to enjoy the success and fame they have deserved. That doesn't change the fact that Little Richard and Chuck Berry enjoyed sales that matched and often exceeded most of their white peers, Jerry Lewis, Carl Perkins and Buddy Holly. Of course this is except for Elvis who stood on a plateau all his own.

Something that you touch on that means the world to me, and I often don't express it as well as I think I should.. Did the system rob Elvis's black peers, yes. But Elvis did everything he could to make clear to the world when he aid so clearly in 1956 that he could not hope to match the artistry of Fats Domino or Arthur Crudup. We forget the pure balls Elvis displayed in celebrating black culture at a time when it by all standards of the time destroyed his career. Elvis may have been the first truly "colorblind" person in popular culture.

It is also often overlooked that Elvis was the second most successful performer on the R&B charts in the 50's and the early 60's, second only to Ray Charles.

In the classes I teach about pop culture we spend almost half the semester talking about how important and powerful that it was that at the flashpoint in the mid fifties that the musical cultures that were undeniablly "American" forms of folk music. For the first time in history the music of the poor and downtrodden became the music of the people. It took Elvis and Little Richard and Jerry Lee and Chuck Berry, etc happening all at the same time to make it possible for MJ and Prince to achieve what they achieved. In terms of social change, twenty five years is a very short time.

Yeah, I know, I got lost somewhere in that last paragraph...

Anyway, I guess the best way to sum up my feelings is to say that maybe we should spend less time trying to tear down the legacy of any one performer and instead spend more time celebrating the achievements of the other performers who did so much for our culture and music. If people would spend more time talking about the genius of Little Richard for instance instead of trying to tear down Elvis, the legacies of both would be better off.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I wish I could be as focused and to the point as you are.

Peace and lovesexy!!

kalelvisj said:

Hello Kal. Enjoy all your good info, thanks. In this one though you are confusing Jackie's Elvis medley with the performance of Hound Dog that Elvis (also) saw in Vegas by Freddie Bell & The Bellboys. They were the white group who rewrote Leiber and Stoller's Hound Dog into the more generic (lyrics-wise) composition that Elvis subsequently recorded.

It's endlessly amazing that folks keep reeling off the manufactured Hound Dog urban legend, finding it a comfortable and righteous club with which to hammer at a 24-year recording career of 700+ songs. And nobody cares about poor Bill Monroe....

Eileen

Eileen said:

Thank you!!! It has been driving me crazy...I knew that I had muddied something up there...Thanks for clearing up those details for me.

The time line was naggin at me like a forgotten word just on the tip of my tongue!!!

Peace and Lovesexy!!

Raze said:

I don't think Madonna is overrated,either.Don't know why so many others think so.

kalelvisj said:

At no point was I trying to "tear down the legacy of Elvis" and while I agree that people should spend more time on the genius of Little Richard, Elvis isn't the be all end all of that time (as you've pointed out) my point is bolded above in your statement. He had a good PR guy that kept his devil music in the media and put him in movies and kept him on tour which all made him popular.

America's a cultural stew, I get it but stealing songs and playing in a genre are 2 different things so your references are lost on me. If 2 Jewish guys stole the song from Big Momma Thornton, then it's they who are the thieves, not Elvis. There's a list of African Americans who were taken advantage of, I know.

This statement made me laugh; "And unlike most of the people on the above list he remained humble, polite, and respectful to all of his peers regardless of their race or level of success. He let his success and artistry speak for itself and never ever attacked another performer. That is a "Star" "

Did you know him? From the specials I've watched on him with interviews of people who did he was a normal guy who took things to excess. Y'know, a normal human being, maybe could have been a better father, maybe could have been a better person, met Nixon, thought he was a g-man, normal human being stuff. This saint you make him out to be with this statement is hysterical to me.

People have different opinions, that doesn't make them disrespectful, rude or arrogant. It's called reality and just so you're living in it, Elvis talked shit about the British Invasion and the Beatles, Alice Cooper and a handful of other artists.

This AGAIN!?

It's funny cause some of the people who are saying that Elvis is way overrated are the same people who trip over themselves to say how Michael Jackson is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Just kinda funny and ironic, that's all. Carry on!

Slave2daGroove said:

I am not sure where I try to make Elvis out as a saint. I really hope it takes more than humility and respect for your peers to achieve sainthood. I tried to be very specific about his treatment of his peers, meaning those who were part of the '50 musical movement. I won't get into his comments about the Beatles, etc because what he said in private compared to what he said to Nixon, are far different things. Of course, I only know any of this through research and personal interviews, so I can't declare anything I write here as some unshakeable truth.

WHat is more a matter of public record is that when ever interviewed about his impact, Elvis always made a point of informing the interviewer that he didn't "do it" alone. He always gave credit where credit was due. Period.

As far as Lieber and Stoller stealing "hound dog" from Big Momma, that is really just, well, wrong. They wrote the song, offered to Big Momma, who chose to record it, and they produced the session when she recorded it. They also wrote some of the biggest R & B hits of all time.

It almost sounds as if you are blaming Presley's success for the failure of other 50's stars. I don't think it is fair to take that stance. If artists don't deliver the goods they disappear. Elvis' peers were all incredibly successful and for a variety of reasons, as always happens, fell out of mainstream popularity.

The artists whose music changed/evolved stayed highly successful, the artists who didn't diminished over time. Ray Charles and Elvis both worked very hard to keep their music current and alive and BOTH had long lasting careers. Some of their peers weren't able to keep up. And even Ray and Elvis both had times in their careers where they fell out of mainstream popularity and then reinvented or atleast took a different approach to their music and regained their "former glory."


It is possible for more than one act to be successful at a time. Elvis and his peers from the 50's. The Beatles and the Rollingstones and the Motown movement, Jimi Hendrix and the Doors....Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, Prince and Madonna. There is always room at the top, and the success of one artist shouldn't be held as the reason for the failure of others.

As far as the issue of racism destroying the careers of Elvis' peers from the 50s. It was quite the opposite. Elvis' success helped open the door to a white audience to buying records by African Americans. Did the system at the time work against them? Yes. But they still ALL got to the top, and is always the case in pop music, the difficulty is in staying there.

As far as the stealing issue...Song writers, black and white where beating down Elvis's door to have him record their songs. He made a lot of song writers, regardless of their race, very rich.

B.B. King often states that music can not be stolen. Once it is out there it belongs to the people. All of the people.

Peace and Lovesexy...

guitarslinger44 said:

I don't. I think Michael's overrated, too.

guitarslinger44 said:

And some of the people who think Elvis Presley is overrated also consider Michael Jackson to be overrated. It depends on who you are talking about. Also I have noticed that the few people who have written about their admiration for Elvis on the Org are in fact, Michael Jackson fans as well (i.e. Isolar and WildStyle).

kalelvisj said:

Slave2daGroove said:

Well stated.

hell yes elvis was overrated and whats worse is his life off stage was so scandelous but america seems to overlook those things and still to this day hold him up as this untouchable god.i dont think madonna is overrated at all, she may have been trashed more than any other pop star throughout her career, she is very smart and knows how to manipulate the public, but i never heard anyone hold madonna up like she is the greatest entertainer to walk the earth.i've seen clips of a young elvis and i cant see where he was such a great performer, all he did was hold a guitar,shake his leg and gyrate his hips..jackie wilson,sam cooke,otis redding, all these men were just as entertaining if not more so then elvis.

The funny thing to me is, all these people on here are praising Little Richard as the real King (or Queen ??) of Rock and Roll, yet I bet if you cath him in concert nowadays, the ONLY Black faces you'd probably see in there would be his !

And don't get me wrong..Richard was magnificent, as well as Chuck Berry, and Fats Domino, along with many others. But Richard's career as a vital hit-maker only lasted about 5 years at most, whereas Elvis was a huge star for 20+ years (that may be due partly to how fickle audiences, particularly Black audiences, can be )