Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Elvis in Rolling Stone

Fri May 02, 2003 10:05 pm ... p?pid=1623


Fri May 02, 2003 10:12 pm

Thanks about the linbk, you could that linik to your website too. :lol:

Fri May 02, 2003 11:47 pm

Tom -

You're taking a big chance, posting an intelligent Elvis article link that mentions Dylan and Springsteen in equal amounts. You know how some people react when they read yet another person -- in this case Jimmy Iovine -- citing how great Bruce Springsteen is, for example.

God bless ya!

Sat May 03, 2003 1:00 am

I appreciate the article, even though it is typical hippy attitude. Downplaying E's contribution, while "equating" it with lesser artists. Furthermore, not having a clue when it comes to musical history. The only things these writers are, in the words of Gene Simmons, AGING HIPPIES! The 3 artists have nothing in common, and it is pitiful that anybody really compares them. I appreciate Dylan and Springsteen, but it is clear how real history is lost over and over. If one were to compare, there are better and closer examples.

Sat May 03, 2003 1:25 am

Hey Gene, you're taking a big chance getting a dressing down from the Doc but im sure u can handle it! :)

Sat May 03, 2003 1:41 am

"Bruce brought together the poetry of Bob Dylan, the innocence and sexuality of Elvis Presley and the live heat of James Brown. Twenty-five years later, he still reflects all that."

Sat May 03, 2003 3:06 am

I like Bruce Springsteen (go to his concerts) but no one can compare to Elvis (historically and musically). :!:

Sun May 04, 2003 8:00 am

I am listening to Madonna's new album, and then I figured it out. I know what is UP!! The day that Rolling Stone excepts her as a artist, then she is OVER!!!!! SHE is the only true female counterpart of E!!!

I know people have been trying to boycott her, for things she has said, but let me put it one way....The movie Casino, Joe Peschi said it best. " I have known the guy for 15 years(this is not word for word) and I am gonna "wack him out" just like THAT!! The women is a true artist and not far removed from the KING. EVERY album she puts out, is TRUE ART. The musice speaks for itself..that is all. Madonna, is poised to break all records, and it is just a matter of time. Maybe there is only one true KING. WHICH IS ELVIS!!, but there is only one true QUEEN.

Sun May 04, 2003 6:37 pm

Of the two aging Queens - Madonna wears her make-up better than Gene Simmons! :lol: :lol:

Sun May 04, 2003 6:56 pm

Great article. I don’t know how anyone can say that the three artists have nothing in common. True they all have their own individual styles, but Elvis was a major influence on the young Dylan, and I think this can be heard on Dylan’s early albums. Not in his vocal style, but certainly in some of the arrangements. They may owe more to the likes of Woody Guthrie, but I think the influence of the Sun sound is definitely in there as well. I think it would be a fair to say that both Bob and Elvis influenced Bruce, and for me his music has always reflected this. Another good observation was the comments about Dylan’s influence over the writing style of The Beatles, and particularly the albums “Rubber Soul” and “Revolver”.

Mon May 05, 2003 2:13 am

"I don’t know how anyone can say that the three artists have nothing in common"

Oh rebel, it's easy to do -- if one is a complete ignoramous. Plenty of examples sit just above your post.

Who reads Rolling Stone any more?

Mon May 05, 2003 2:19 am

This magazine has deteriorated to an MTV GUIDE. I think the older members of this board are treating it like it once was; relevant.

Mon May 05, 2003 2:33 am

Regardless of how far their standards have fallen since they moved from the west to the east, "Rolling Stone" is still the most-read music magazine and prints -- on occasion -- intelligent articles by some terrific writers.

You just have to look carefully between the beer, auto and military adverts.

Mon May 05, 2003 6:25 pm

Kiwialan, you bite your tongue!

To the others,

I am not trying to say that the Dylan and Springsteen have don't have "something" in common with Elvis, but then again not enough to compare! They definetaly don't belong in the same article, like some constellation in the sky. Give me a break! Calling me ignorant, because I don't buy into this hippie arguement, and that says something about post sixties brainwashing.

I could say things about Dylan and Springsteen, but it would get blown out of proportion and my point would be completely lost. I have mentioned one queen having a MUCH bigger impact then both of the above named, anyway. I could name others, but it would also start another war. So I will just go with something that rhymes with ring.

The real problem is that it is the usual attitiude of the last 10 years that come across. It only cool to compare Elvis(and in effect putting him down), by comparing him to 2 other songwriters. First the article makes it seem that he was only popular because of him being white and good looking, then it goes on to say that Bruce embodies both of these things as well as having songwriting ability, in effect putting Elvis last. As if either category is as honorable as E's contribution.

Nevermind that Elvis was one of the best choreographers/conductors the world has ever saw. Elvis had judgement in the studio beyond most any artist. He had versatility to boot. Oh, you think it might have to do with his incredible voice as well!! When I read articles like this, it is just the same as somebody mentioning Peanut Butter and Banana Sandwiches to Lisa Marie in a interview!! To break it down to just white and good looking is rediculous. I would think with all that has happened, a writer could have something better to say. Matter of fact, the writer even wastes space repeating himself. Again, NO CLUE about the subject matter.

To me, it doesn't seem likely that Elvis will get his own article without comparing him to some lesssor artist or putting him down. For me, if one were to compare, then it should at least be someone in the same league. I can think of much better examples. Hell the EMINEM comparison doesn't even seem as bad. And being a fan of EM, I don't even agree with that one!

Mon May 05, 2003 6:37 pm

One further comment, isn't it funny that there is yet again another putdown. John, was influenced by Elvis, but not CHALLENGED till Bob Dylan. Again, it isn't enough that John has said over and over how much Elvis was a influence to him, but the writer must put that down as well!!

I can see why Doc could not see the point. He is good at writing like this himself. The cynicism is apparent in this writers article and the same goes for hundred of other recent writers that don't know what to make of Elvis resurgance. The day the "critics" accept Elvis is the day he is done. It is something they will never understand, and if I was to compare, then a certain queen, would be FIRST on my list!! (no KIWI not your queen-how you feel about gene is your own problem!)

Sorry, if I comment on a article. I again appreciate the posting. But I can't bow down and say how great it is. Sure there are hundreds of ways to correlate artists. Maybe if the writer had done a better job, then he might have been closer to convincing me.

p.s. My personal "attacks" are based on fact(kiwi excluded, I was only kidding). I apologize to all that were offended.

Mon May 05, 2003 6:51 pm

genesim wrote:The real problem is that it is the usual attitiude of the last 10 years that come across. It only cool to compare Elvis(and in effect putting him down), by comparing him to 2 other songwriters. First the article makes it seem that he was only popular because of him being white and good looking, then it goes on to say that Bruce embodies both of these things as well as having songwriting ability, in effect putting Elvis last. As if either category is as honorable as E's contribution.

The article starts with Jimmy Iovine saying the following:

“Elvis Presley was the big bang. He was the most influential single figure in the history of American pop culture”.

Personally I don’t see how that statement can give the impression that Elvis is third best behind Dylan and Springsteen. Of course the writer goes on to praise the work of Dylan and Springsteen, but he is also making the point that this music couldn’t have been made without Elvis’ contribution, which for me underlines the point at the beginning of the article that Elvis was the most influential.

Mon May 05, 2003 7:12 pm

"He was the most influential single figure in the history of American POP culture."

This writer argues about his presentation, not his TRUE ability. Gotta read between the lines partner.

" It was suddenly no longer just teen celebration and fantasy but an ART form as vital as film and literature"

Oh and it wasn't before then!!

"To me, part of what Bruce brought to this world was a complete lack of compromise. You couldn't buy, rent or borrow Bruce Springsteen in any way"

Yet another sting. I got news for your FANBOY(speaking of the writer). They all can be bought.

I already mentioned the other faults. The biggest one of all. Giving ELVIS 1 PARAGRAPH istead of the whole article. Elvis made more of a impact in the last year and he should get his due. Springsteen or Dylan are not the phenomenons that Elvis was this last year. Why can't they just give Elvis the real attention he deserves. I guarantee you if it was the Beatles(oh wait it already happened, can you say COVER!!!), it would be different.

Mon May 05, 2003 7:55 pm

By using the term pop culture rather pop music I don’t think the writer is doing Elvis a disservice. For me the culture statement covers every aspect of Elvis’ impact, which would obviously include the music.

The point about Dylan is valid. He brought a fresh approach to song writing, and addressed social, and political issues through his own music. This had an impact on other artists and their approach to song-writing, hence the point about his influence on The Beatles. However, I don’t see why pointing out that fact is to the detriment of Elvis' own achievements.

If you think that Rolling Stone should have devoted an article entirely to Elvis rather than one that also mentioned the contributions of Dylan and Springsteen, I think that’s a separate issue really. I ‘m not a regular reader of Rolling Stone, and my comments were based purely on what I thought about the article by Jimmy Iovine. Whether or not Rolling Stone devotes enough space in their magazine to Elvis Presley isn’t something I can comment on.

However, I will say that I liked the article because it concentrated on the music, and it highlighted the impact and influence of Elvis Presley. There was a time when you couldn’t read an article about Elvis in a music magazine that didn’t include references to his weight problem in later years, prescription drugs, and cheeseburgers. Thankfully, things have changed for the better, and most critics are concentrating on the music again.
Last edited by rockinrebel on Mon May 05, 2003 8:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Mon May 05, 2003 8:06 pm

I stand by all my points, as I respect yours(even if I don't agree with them). I do think it is a disservice to Elvis to not point out more, and the overall feeling to me is negative, even if it seems like a good thing. Putting Elvis in the same plane as either artist is not doing him justice. Oh well, any promotion is good promotion I guess.

TRUE, I would rather see Elvis get a cover then 1/3 of a half assed praise in a 1 page article.

Then again, this is Rolling Stone we are talking about. At least other magazines can see the significance.

Mon May 05, 2003 9:17 pm

The irony of someone complaining about <i>Rolling Stone</i> when they cannot convey a single intelligent thought is astounding.

Rebel, I enjoyed your cogent observations -- as usual.

Mon May 05, 2003 9:33 pm

How do Lucky Town/Human Touch, Ghost Of Tom Goad, & Nebraska rate in your book Doc? What are Bruces best CDs? I must admit I do like him, but I can't really call myself a "fan".

Mon May 05, 2003 9:47 pm


I will take your sentence to be a pot shot at me, and implying I am not intelligent or earlier as being ignorant. Though the sentence is structured badly and could be aimed at the writers of Rolling Stone magazine!

I will comment by saying that, as usual, you fail to adress any of my issues. Instead you resort to personal attacks. Same ol Doc, different board.

Tue May 06, 2003 6:14 pm

Maybe I am beating a dead horse, but I would like to point out one more thing about this article.

"He injected the power of language and ideas into the music. It was suddenly no longer just teen celebration and fantasy but an art form as vital as film and literature."

To me, this implies that no Dylan did what no other artist did. Speaking for Elvis alone, Dylan didn't or won't have the effect that Elvis had. Elvis didn't need to spell it out. Attitudes were being shattered by the sheer weight of Elvis desegragation of music. Not just black music, but ALL music. Now what does statement for the article say about HUNDREDS of others that came before Dylan as well?

Dylan is a part of a movement. He was just like everyone else in that time. THE SAME. Elvis was not with the movement and made the statements when he felt it was right. Not when THEY thought it was right. I agree that Dylan is above a lot of the other writers at the time...but not that much more. Personally I get more out of Jimi Hendrix Machine Gun then hundred of Blowing In The Winds.(yes I know Jimi was influenced by Dylan)

I doubt once the hippie flower child generation die that Dylan will be remembered to any real extent. The Beatles and Elvis Presley will be along the lines of Beethoven or Mozart. They have solid places in history. The rest...will just follow that.

I will state one more time. Comparing Elvis to these two artists(however good they may be) is rediculous. It is the typical Rolling Stone hippies(and sons and daughters) trying to make "their" heroes relevant, while in the grand scheme of things they are only a small faction.

I don't want to start a political war at all, I am only stating the obvious. There are people that hold on to the belief that the 60's was the only real decade of music. I got news for them, because of the time(like the 80's) it is going to be one of the most DATED times. The great artists stay out of politics and sing songs that people can really relate to. The Beatles for the most part did. That is why Yesterday and Hey Jude are some of the most played songs ever. When all is said and done. Suspicious Minds and Hound Dog are in the same vein.