The Beatles and Fifties Elvis

Another brilliant post, thank you very much for sharing.

It's so refreshing to hear from somebody who is knowledgeable on the era; doesn't drink the Kool-Aid and tells it like it is!

Sorry to post again so soon. But I also thought it's important to remember that whatever hipster and youth culture complaints may have been, it's important to remember that the vast majority of the Elvis movie years pleased as many fans as they disappointed. Up until 1966, these movies were hugely popular and remained so for decades as staples on TV. No Elvis record ever stayed as long on the charts as the soundtrack to GI Blues. 1961's Blue Hawaii was probably the biggest multi-media project with which Elvis was involved. 1962's Girls, Girls Girls was at one time one of the ten most frequently shown movies on television ranking alongside beloved staples like The Maltese Falcon. 1965's Tickle Me was so popular that it alone saved Allied Artists from bankruptcy court. So whatever deficiencies they may have had, however thwarted Elvis' acting ambition was, a lot of people liked what Elvis was doing in Hollywood for a very long time.

In the case of Mr. Penniman, a strong argument may be made for his Specialty sides, 1955-1959, as the greatest rock 'n' roll of all.

Are you joking?

Not at all. Little Richard's Specialty sides (and, for that matter, Chuck Berry's Chess recordings) are the DEFINITION of rock and roll. And unlike Elvis, neither artist sold out and became middle of the road artists - unlike the man so many call the king.

Synonyms for rock 'n' roll:
Elvis Presley (Sun/RCA, 1954-1959)
Chuck Berry (Chess, 1955-1959)
Little Richard (Specialty, 1955-1959)
Buddy Holly and the Crickets (Brunswick/Coral, 1957-1959)

I would add;
Gene Vincent (Capitol, 1956-1961)
Eddie Cochran (Liberty, 1957 - 1960)
Jerry Lee Lewis (Sun, 1957 - 1963)

However, it was a statement Elvis made to Nixon in '70 in an effort to convince Nixon to issue him a Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs badge that unfortunately Elvis will be remembered how he felt about the Beatles. Elvis may have been saying what he thought Nixon wanted to hear but that statement years later prompted Ringo to say that Elvis had tried to get the group “banned” in America.

When I first heard this, it as my low point being an Elvis fan. I suffered thru the movies, Tepper/Bennett tunes, but this just showed how out of touch Elvis was with the times and made him seem like the enemy to the youth culture. Its funny, in retrospect Elvis was probably stoned when he visited Nixon.

seriously?

I think you are being a hyperbolic.

It did not show Elvis being out of touch with the times and there wasn't anything really wrong with what he was saying.

Who cares what Elvis said to Nixon because it wasn't important and nothing happened with regards to his alledged statements.

Elvis was not stoned either that's a myth.

That's another topic.

(The handwriting in the letter sure is . . . intriguing. Ok. No proof he was stoned. But was he thinking straight? Naw. And when he said "I have no other agenda" he lied, stoned or not.)

rjm

I believe he was thinking straight.

Whatever condition he was in at the meeting is a moot point. The very irony is he basically died due to drugs and not one Beatle did.

While being introduced on the David Frost show in 1968 before they performed "Hey Jude", John Lennon shortly sang "It's Now Or Never".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_8eJpyGBpk

Elvis, like many others before and after him, went through a career slump in the mid-sixties. But he didn't - from an artistic
perspective, at least - have to make a bunch of increasingly bad movies.

Between January 1964 and May 1966, Elvis recorded nothing but soundtracks. In 1971-1972 the otherwise prolific Bob Dylan, temporarily lacking in inspiration, recorded and released only a handful of songs. What would we think of him if he'd filled the void by inflicting bad movies and soundtrack albums on his fans?

What should we really think of Elvis for doing so?

However, it was a statement Elvis made to Nixon in '70 in an effort to convince Nixon to issue him a Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs badge that unfortunately Elvis will be remembered how he felt about the Beatles. Elvis may have been saying what he thought Nixon wanted to hear but that statement years later prompted Ringo to say that Elvis had tried to get the group “banned” in America.

When I first heard this, it as my low point being an Elvis fan. I suffered thru the movies, Tepper/Bennett tunes, but this just showed how out of touch Elvis was with the times and made him seem like the enemy to the youth culture. Its funny, in retrospect Elvis was probably stoned when he visited Nixon.

I'm with you on that, and so are a lot of Elvis fans as well. I've heard many DJs and Elvis fans say this is why a lot of fans cringe when they see the picture of Nixon and Elvis shaking hands.

Back to the topic we started with (more or less):

The G I Blues album was released in October 1960. The Beatles had arrived in Hamburg on August 17, leaving in late November/early December (George Harrison was deported on November 30, the others - minus Stu Sutcliffe - leaving a few days later). They didn't return to Hamburg until March 17, 1961.

It appears to be well documented that the Beatles played Tonight's All Right For Love (or possibly Tonight Is So Right For Love) in 1960-62. Neither song was issued on a single until 1961 (in Germany and the UK respectively); therefore, in order for the Beatles to have played either song in 1960, they would have had to have heard it on the G I Blues album. Since they were in Hamburg when the album was released, it is highly likely that it was the German version of the album (with Tonight's All Right For Love) that they would have heard, and it is this song that they would have played. Once they returned to Liverpool, of course, they would have had access to the UK version of the album and Tonight Is So Right For Love. Maybe the Cavern fans were treated to both versions.

It would be an interesting question to ask Paul McCartney. I'm sure he remembers, the way we all remember stuff like that when we were that age.

Here's the UK album:

UK GI Blues LP.JPG

And here's (a later pressing of) the German version:

German GI Blues LP.JPG

I'd wager Paul would have no idea about which version, but I agree that the band was most likely covering the version released in Germany.

I wonder if the Beatles managed to find someone to rock an accordion when they did it? Elvis' version wouldn't have been half as ghastly without it.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Elvis, like many others before and after him, went through a career slump in the mid-sixties. But he didn't - from an artistic perspective, at least - have to make a bunch of increasingly bad movies.

Between January 1964 and May 1966, Elvis recorded nothing but soundtracks. In 1971-1972 the otherwise prolific Bob Dylan, temporarily lacking in inspiration, recorded and released only a handful of songs. What would we think of him if he'd filled the void by inflicting bad movies and soundtrack albums on his fans?

What should we really think of Elvis for doing so?

Astute and spot-on observations.

Of course, some feel Elvis should be patted on the back, as he was "supporting" his family while dedicating himself to Hollywood garbage. However, like you, I concur that this period was a disaster, an abyss that almost killed his career. Obviously, Dylan was one who learned from Presley's mistakes, and thus did not fill his early '70s void with something like "bad movies and soundtrack albums."

Any credible evaluation of Elvis in the '60s must come from an artistic perspective. The two year, five month period you cite where Elvis totally abandoned his music for Hollywood soundtrack crap, not coincidentally a period when the British Invasion bowled over America and the world, is crucial. Here is where the plot was lost, and it is unprecedented that someone of Presley's magnitude made such a total career about-face. He didn't "burn out," he checked out. There is a difference.

Elvis Presley wasn't great because a certain segment of the fan base trotted willingly to see each and every bargain-basement travelogue and purchase every substandard soundtrack, he was great because of the music he made when he cared, and the style and attitude he set for an entire generation.

Elvis, like many others before and after him, went through a career slump in the mid-sixties. But he didn't - from an artistic perspective, at least - have to make a bunch of increasingly bad movies.

Between January 1964 and May 1966, Elvis recorded nothing but soundtracks. In 1971-1972 the otherwise prolific Bob Dylan, temporarily lacking in inspiration, recorded and released only a handful of songs. What would we think of him if he'd filled the void by inflicting bad movies and soundtrack albums on his fans?

What should we really think of Elvis for doing so?

Astute and spot-on observations.

Of course, some feel Elvis should be patted on the back, as he was "supporting" his family while dedicating himself to Hollywood garbage. However, like you, I concur that this period was a disaster, an abyss that almost killed his career. Obviously, Dylan was one who learned from Presley's mistakes, and thus did not fill his early '70s void with something like "bad movies and soundtrack albums."

Any credible evaluation of Elvis in the '60s must come from an artistic perspective. The two year, five month period you cite where Elvis totally abandoned his music for Hollywood soundtrack crap, not coincidentally a period when the British Invasion bowled over America and the world, is crucial. Here is where the plot was lost, and it is unprecedented that someone of Presley's magnitude made such a total career about-face. He didn't "burn out," he checked out. There is a difference.

Elvis Presley wasn't great because a certain segment of the fan base trotted willingly to see each and every bargain-basement travelogue and purchase every substandard soundtrack, he was great because of the music he made when he cared, and the style and attitude he set for an entire generation.

Very good point. I'm sure The Beatles could have kept on making films also. The studios would have wanted that. But they were astute enough to know it was time to quit after HELP. The learned from Elvis' mistake while Elvis was still making them.

Elvis, like many others before and after him, went through a career slump in the mid-sixties. But he didn't - from an artistic perspective, at least - have to make a bunch of increasingly bad movies.

Between January 1964 and May 1966, Elvis recorded nothing but soundtracks. In 1971-1972 the otherwise prolific Bob Dylan, temporarily lacking in inspiration, recorded and released only a handful of songs. What would we think of him if he'd filled the void by inflicting bad movies and soundtrack albums on his fans?

What should we really think of Elvis for doing so?

Astute and spot-on observations.

Of course, some feel Elvis should be patted on the back, as he was "supporting" his family while dedicating himself to Hollywood garbage. However, like you, I concur that this period was a disaster, an abyss that almost killed his career. Obviously, Dylan was one who learned from Presley's mistakes, and thus did not fill his early '70s void with something like "bad movies and soundtrack albums."

Any credible evaluation of Elvis in the '60s must come from an artistic perspective. The two year, five month period you cite where Elvis totally abandoned his music for Hollywood soundtrack crap, not coincidentally a period when the British Invasion bowled over America and the world, is crucial. Here is where the plot was lost, and it is unprecedented that someone of Presley's magnitude made such a total career about-face. He didn't "burn out," he checked out. There is a difference.

Elvis Presley wasn't great because a certain segment of the fan base trotted willingly to see each and every bargain-basement travelogue and purchase every substandard soundtrack, he was great because of the music he made when he cared, and the style and attitude he set for an entire generation.

Good points Dr John. But in defence of the 'certain segment of the fan base', including myself, we didn't know at the time that this hiatus was going to last a long 2 years 5 months, we hoped that after Tickle Me, which most contempary audiencs enjoyed, the next film or soundtrack would bring Elvis back on form. In retrospect as I have mentioned elswhere, it would have been better if the cinema's were empty, but - when you've been following a career since the beginning, you want to be, just like now, a completest, and own every record and see every movie.

A few records that I didn't puchase when released were - Such A Night, If Every Day Was Like Christmas and Long Legged Girl singles, as I already had the song on the flip side so they appeared to me as rip-offs.

Good points Dr John. But in defence of the 'certain segment of the fan base', including myself, we didn't know at the time that this hiatus was going to last a long 2 years 5 months, we hoped that after Tickle Me, which most contempary audiencs enjoyed, the next film or soundtrack would bring Elvis back on form. In retrospect as I have mentioned elswhere, it would have been better if the cinema's were empty, but - when you've been following a career since the beginning, you want to be, just like now, a completest, and own every record and see every movie.

A few records that I didn't puchase when released were - Such A Night, If Every Day Was Like Christmas and Long Legged Girl singles, as I already had the song on the flip side so they appeared to me as rip-offs.

By the time many fans realized we kept the movie formula going, it was too late. Maybe we should have taken a hint from Lennon when the Beatles met Elvis in '65...

John, as usual, was being John. ‘Why have you dropped the old rock stuff?’ he asked Elvis bluntly, adding that he’d loved his early records and didn’t go for the film songs.

Elvis responded that he would be making rock records again soon.

‘Oh, good. We’ll buy them when you do,’ came back John.

I have nothing to add to the topic really, but I'd like to state my appreciation to those in this thread who recognised Elvis as a human being and not just an artist.

I have nothing to add to the topic really, but I'd like to state my appreciation to those in this thread who recognised Elvis as a human being and not just an artist.

If you look, you'll find many topics that address one or the other, or both. In this case, we were initially looking at whether the Beatles totally eschewed Elvis' post-1950s output. As I noted, this was not the case.

Everything since is a typical series of tangents, some interesting and some not.

Lewisohn also credits the Beatles with covering "Wooden Heart" in 1961 and 1962.
http://www.beatleswiki.org/wiki/Wooden_Heart

Lewisohn also credits the Beatles with covering "Wooden Heart" in 1961 and 1962.
http://www.beatleswiki.org/wiki/Wooden_Heart

"Wooden Heart" is noted in my Page 1 rundown:
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=74008&p1113090#p1113090

I'm sorry but the vast majority of these are empty, meaningless criticisms. Elvis did not inflict those movies on his fans. His fans, sadly perhaps, demanded them. They wouldn't have made all those movies had they not been great successes and the more serious movies had not crapped out commercially.

This is a massive point to be made here. The fans did not trot out to see every Elvis film. The Elvis films that brought the fans out of their houses were the travelogs. Hmmm, I wonder why they were made.

The checked out/burned out differentiation is meaningless. If he'd had the inspiration he'd have been in the studio recording. He wasn't. Yes, what a stoop Elvis was for continuing to try to make money. What an idiot for thinking he might one day have a promising screen career That there were projects like Stay Away Joe or Live a Little, Love a Little that started out promisingly but ended not to snuff, well Elvis should have just been ashamed for working on those. For shame in the studios trying to predict fan's taste which had been very predictable until 1966. The meat for meaningful criticism would be there if Elvis had not done anything else, but he did Blanche, he did.

"Any credible evaluation of Elvis in the '60s must come from an artistic perspective."

Really? Elvis is Back, His Hand in Mine Elvis' Golden Records Vol. 3 "Can't Help Falling in Love," "Return to Sender" "You're the Devil in Disguise," "There's Always Me," "It Hurts Me," "Suspicion," "Memphis," How Great Thou Art, "If Everyday Was Like Christmas," "Down in the Alley," "Guitar Man," "Big Boss Man," "You Don't Know Me," "Tomorrow is a Long Time," "Viva Las Vegas," "US Male," the '68 television special recordings, From Elvis in Memphis, "Suspicious Minds," "Kentucky Rain," "Stranger in My Own Hometown Elvis in Person. Most artists would kill for a career so prolific. What an output? And yet there's whining, and whining it is, there's no other word for it, that everything was not golden. Big friggin' deal. Who in the hell is this artist hitting it out of the park he steps to the plate? Oh yes, the mythical no one. I don't give a damn if Bob Dylan made movies or not, it doesn't make his crap stink less. It doesn't make him more prolific than he was. All these excuses for other artists yet the subject of the board remains subject to the most ridiculous, nonsensical, unobtainable standards.

Again I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but 1965 was over 47 years ago. There's no one now eagerly waiting the next release to see what next Elvis is going to do. Elvis' body of work is complete and by any standard it's a body of work of depth, breadth, power and influence equaled by few if any artists. Holy hell, look at that collection of songs which contains no arguments. Holy hell! That's a lot of good music. It's over 100 songs if you count everything. Holy hell! And that's from his second best decade. By what logic should there naturally be more?

Hell, there were even good movies. Flaming Star has long been a cult classic and is listed in most serious surveys of the western as an important work. Elvis' performance has been consistently praised. Viva Las Vegas consistently makes best of lists in musicals and in films. Follow That Dream is/was a huge fan favorite and has received some critical praise. Other Elvis movies have also received critical praise in various publications.

So let's add it all up.

At least (we do have to consider that some arguments should be included) 100 classic recordings including four classic LP length statements. Not, two or three or ten but 100 plus. Aka a career for anyone else.

At least two movies that are considered classics or near classics. Maybe another two or three that are pretty good by any standard and another half dozen that are good in the if you like Elvis way.

A television show that not only set standards for rock n' roll performance on television but set a high point for the medium in general, a Peabody winner.

A series of ecstatically reviewed live shows.

His first recognition from the industry with the Grammy Award from How Great Thou Art.


Boy I wish I could have that kind of "disaster" and fall into that kind of "abyss."

I'm sorry but the vast majority of these are empty, meaningless criticisms. Elvis did not inflict those movies on his fans. His fans, sadly perhaps, demanded them. They wouldn't have made all those movies had they not been great successes and the more serious movies had not crapped out commercially.

This is a massive point to be made here. The fans did not trot out to see every Elvis film. The Elvis films that brought the fans out of their houses were the travelogs. Hmmm, I wonder why they were made.

The checked out/burned out differentiation is meaningless. If he'd had the inspiration he'd have been in the studio recording. He wasn't. Yes, what a stoop Elvis was for continuing to try to make money. What an idiot for thinking he might one day have a promising screen career That there were projects like Stay Away Joe or Live a Little, Love a Little that started out promisingly but ended not to snuff, well Elvis should have just been ashamed for working on those. For shame in the studios trying to predict fan's taste which had been very predictable until 1966. The meat for meaningful criticism would be there if Elvis had not done anything else, but he did Blanche, he did.

"Any credible evaluation of Elvis in the '60s must come from an artistic perspective."

Really? Elvis is Back, His Hand in Mine Elvis' Golden Records Vol. 3 "Can't Help Falling in Love," "Return to Sender" "You're the Devil in Disguise," "There's Always Me," "It Hurts Me," "Suspicion," "Memphis," How Great Thou Art, "If Everyday Was Like Christmas," "Down in the Alley," "Guitar Man," "Big Boss Man," "You Don't Know Me," "Tomorrow is a Long Time," "Viva Las Vegas," "US Male," the '68 television special recordings, From Elvis in Memphis, "Suspicious Minds," "Kentucky Rain," "Stranger in My Own Hometown Elvis in Person. Most artists would kill for a career so prolific. What an output? And yet there's whining, and whining it is, there's no other word for it, that everything was not golden. Big friggin' deal. Who in the hell is this artist hitting it out of the park he steps to the plate? Oh yes, the mythical no one. I don't give a damn if Bob Dylan made movies or not, it doesn't make his crap stink less. It doesn't make him more prolific than he was. All these excuses for other artists yet the subject of the board remains subject to the most ridiculous, nonsensical, unobtainable standards.

Again I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but 1965 was over 47 years ago. There's no one now eagerly waiting the next release to see what next Elvis is going to do. Elvis' body of work is complete and by any standard it's a body of work of depth, breadth, power and influence equaled by few if any artists. Holy hell, look at that collection of songs which contains no arguments. Holy hell! That's a lot of good music. It's over 100 songs if you count everything. Holy hell! And that's from his second best decade. By what logic should there naturally be more?

Hell, there were even good movies. Flaming Star has long been a cult classic and is listed in most serious surveys of the western as an important work. Elvis' performance has been consistently praised. Viva Las Vegas consistently makes best of lists in musicals and in films. Follow That Dream is/was a huge fan favorite and has received some critical praise. Other Elvis movies have also received critical praise in various publications.

So let's add it all up.

At least (we do have to consider that some arguments should be included) 100 classic recordings including four classic LP length statements. Not, two or three or ten but 100 plus. Aka a career for anyone else.

At least two movies that are considered classics or near classics. Maybe another two or three that are pretty good by any standard and another half dozen that are good in the if you like Elvis way.

A television show that not only set standards for rock n' roll performance on television but set a high point for the medium in general, a Peabody winner.

A series of ecstatically reviewed live shows.

His first recognition from the industry with the Grammy Award from How Great Thou Art.


Boy I wish I could have that kind of "disaster" and fall into that kind of "abyss."

[imageleft][/imageleft] Now this is far and away the best post in this whole thread. Time after time, we whine about how Elvis didn't do this, didn't do that, threw away his talents, didn't care about his career, and yet we are still here after all these years talking about him. Surely his accomplishments must far outweigh his failures, otherwise, he would've been forgotten long ago.

I'm sorry but the vast majority of these are empty, meaningless criticisms.

[...]

Elvis is Back, His Hand in Mine Elvis' Golden Records Vol. 3 "Can't Help Falling in Love," "Return to Sender" "You're the Devil in Disguise," "There's Always Me," "It Hurts Me," "Suspicion," "Memphis," How Great Thou Art, "If Everyday Was Like Christmas," "Down in the Alley," "Guitar Man," "Big Boss Man," "You Don't Know Me," "Tomorrow is a Long Time," "Viva Las Vegas," "US Male," the '68 television special recordings, From Elvis in Memphis, "Suspicious Minds," "Kentucky Rain," "Stranger in My Own Hometown Elvis in Person.

[...]

I don't give a damn if Bob Dylan made movies or not, it doesn't make his crap stink less. It doesn't make him more prolific than he was.

[...]

Holy hell, look at that collection of songs which contains no arguments.

[imageleft][/imageleft] Now this is far and away the best post in this whole thread. Time after time, we whine about how Elvis didn't do this, didn't do that, threw away his talents, didn't care about his career, and yet we are still here after all these years talking about him. Surely his accomplishments must far outweigh his failures, otherwise, he would've been forgotten long ago.

Hmm. Likethebike's arguments seem to be as follows:

1. Elvis made a lot of great records in the sixties.
2. Dylan recorded crap that stinks.
3. A collection of Elvis' songs contains no arguments.
4. The vast majority of the postings on this topic are empty, meaningless criticisms.

And Lonely Summer's response adds the following:

5. Elvis' accomplishments far outweigh his failures.
6. Likethebike's post is far and away the best post in this whole thread.

Hmm. I can't imagine that anyone contributing to or reading this forum would disagree with (1) or (5). That's one of the reasons we're here.

It's not, however, clear why - or how - Elvis' songs 'contain no arguments' or why the vast majority of the postings on this topic (unlike, presumably, likethebike's description of Dylan's music as 'crap that stinks') are 'empty, meaningless criticisms'. They are not.

I think Chris Roberts, in his earlier post, said it better than anyone:

[...]

We moan about the soundtracks today, but most of you guys should have tried living through that period, it wasn't much fun

Last edited by NumberEight on Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think Chris Roberts, in his earlier post, said it better than anyone:

[...]

We moan about the soundtracks today, but most of you guys should have tried living through that period, it wasn't much fun

That's a key point I think is often overlooked. We went to records shops to buy records and called into radio stations requesting latest single from album to be played. And finding the theater playing Elvis's latest new movie, at times wasn't easy. I can recall hearing the same comments at record shops, from DJs and from calling theaters... "You must be kidding, aren't you?"

After reading through movie industry trade magazines from that time, such as Boxoffice, Motion Picture Herald, Film Daily, Exhibitor, Showman's Trade Review, etc, it's very obvious how popular the Elvis films remained until 1966/67. Many exhibitors, especially from small towns, commented in columns such as "What the Picture Did for Me" to express their gratitude and appreciation for the continued business provided with the Elvis product.

It was around 1966 that many began complaining about the exposure his older films were receiving on network television in prime-time. They felt the free exposure was cutting into their business substantially on the new product.

I'm sorry but the vast majority of these are empty, meaningless criticisms.

[...]

Elvis is Back, His Hand in Mine Elvis' Golden Records Vol. 3 "Can't Help Falling in Love," "Return to Sender" "You're the Devil in Disguise," "There's Always Me," "It Hurts Me," "Suspicion," "Memphis," How Great Thou Art, "If Everyday Was Like Christmas," "Down in the Alley," "Guitar Man," "Big Boss Man," "You Don't Know Me," "Tomorrow is a Long Time," "Viva Las Vegas," "US Male," the '68 television special recordings, From Elvis in Memphis, "Suspicious Minds," "Kentucky Rain," "Stranger in My Own Hometown Elvis in Person.

[...]

I don't give a damn if Bob Dylan made movies or not, it doesn't make his crap stink less. It doesn't make him more prolific than he was.

[...]

Holy hell, look at that collection of songs which contains no arguments.

[imageleft][/imageleft] Now this is far and away the best post in this whole thread. Time after time, we whine about how Elvis didn't do this, didn't do that, threw away his talents, didn't care about his career, and yet we are still here after all these years talking about him. Surely his accomplishments must far outweigh his failures, otherwise, he would've been forgotten long ago.

Hmm. Likethebike's arguments seem to be as follows:

1. Elvis made a lot of great records in the sixties.
2. Dylan recorded crap that stinks.
3. A collection of Elvis' songs contains no arguments.
4. The vast majority of the postings on this topic are empty, meaningless criticisms.

And Lonely Summer's response adds the following:

5. Elvis' accomplishments far outweigh his failures.
6. Likethebike's post is far and away the best post in this whole thread.

Hmm. I can't imagine that anyone contributing to or reading this forum would disagree with (1) or (5). That's one of the reasons we're here.

It's not, however, clear why - or how - Elvis' songs 'contain no arguments' or why the vast majority of the postings on this topic (unlike, presumably, likethebike's description of Dylan's music as 'crap that stinks') are 'empty, meaningless criticisms'. They are not.

I think Chris Roberts, in his earlier post, said it better than anyone:

[...]

We moan about the soundtracks today, but most of you guys should have tried living through that period, it wasn't much fun

Very nice post. It's essential that this forum offers at least some clear-headed, reality-based viewpoints like yours.

Otherwise, FECC will fall into the abyss of empty, meaningless Presley sites where the man is one step below Jesus.

The Beatles were very open about their admiration for Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, and other 50's rockers, so naturally I am curious about what they thought of these artists later records. It's always Elvis getting slammed....yet people insist he was the greatest. How could he be considered so great if he spent the majority of his career making mediocre records?

It isn't the majority of his career. In any case, the Beatles are not "slamming" Elvis, they are lamenting the fact that he is throwing away his career, and seemingly abandoning his crown. There's a difference.

Why do they speak of Elvis and not the others you mention? Because the press does not primarily ask about anyone except the #1 rock 'n' roller, Elvis Presley, who they would soon surpass on many levels. Elvis was the pinnacle.

And yet, in another thread on this very forum, you are attempting to educate us on the many accomplishments of Holly and Berry, as if they are up on that pedestal with the #1 rocker.

The Beatles were very open about their admiration for Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, and other 50's rockers, so naturally I am curious about what they thought of these artists later records. It's always Elvis getting slammed....yet people insist he was the greatest. How could he be considered so great if he spent the majority of his career making mediocre records?

It isn't the majority of his career. In any case, the Beatles are not "slamming" Elvis, they are lamenting the fact that he is throwing away his career, and seemingly abandoning his crown. There's a difference.

Why do they speak of Elvis and not the others you mention? Because the press does not primarily ask about anyone except the #1 rock 'n' roller, Elvis Presley, who they would soon surpass on many levels. Elvis was the pinnacle.

And yet, in another thread on this very forum, you are attempting to educate us on the many accomplishments of Holly and Berry, as if they are up on that pedestal with the #1 rocker.

Actually, no.

You are confusing who the mid-sixties press chose as a pertinent benchmark when interviewing the Beatles, with my thoughtful efforts to enlighten a handful of forum members evidently unaware of the undeniably great music and influential contributions of Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry.

All I can do is try. The rest is up to you!

The Beatles were very open about their admiration for Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, and other 50's rockers, so naturally I am curious about what they thought of these artists later records. It's always Elvis getting slammed....yet people insist he was the greatest. How could he be considered so great if he spent the majority of his career making mediocre records?

It isn't the majority of his career. In any case, the Beatles are not "slamming" Elvis, they are lamenting the fact that he is throwing away his career, and seemingly abandoning his crown. There's a difference.

Why do they speak of Elvis and not the others you mention? Because the press does not primarily ask about anyone except the #1 rock 'n' roller, Elvis Presley, who they would soon surpass on many levels. Elvis was the pinnacle.

And yet, in another thread on this very forum, you are attempting to educate us on the many accomplishments of Holly and Berry, as if they are up on that pedestal with the #1 rocker.

Actually, no.

You are confusing who the mid-sixties press chose as a pertinent benchmark when interviewing the Beatles, with my thoughtful efforts to enlighten a handful of forum members evidently unaware of the undeniably great music and influential contributions of Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry.

All I can do is try. The rest is up to you!

So why didn't the mid 60s press rank Holly and Berry up there with Elvis?