Mike Eder wrote:All I feel on the matter is Elvis is made worse than he is on this thread but by the premise that he had the demented nature of a Spector. not drugs.
To add my 2 cents, I don't think Elvis had a problem with illegal drugs. Frankly what he was eventually getting from his doctors was far, far, worse compared to his dabbling with pot, or acid, As for being a cocaine abuser, even if he went through a period with it, I don't think it played any real role in his demise. It doesn't matter anyway what kind of drugs the guy took, he had an addiction and it's not anything to scorn him for.
What I find alarming is that he is judged on it and so many other personal things in 2013. What matters is that Elvis Presley was one of THE great artists of what I consider to be the golden age of music. Sure his life is open to discussion, but the guy had a heart far more warm than Phil's. Gross speculation on what "COULD" have happened doesn't mean anything. Phil was a fantastic producer, I and others will continue to enjoy his work on a purely musical level, but his legacy won't ever lose the taint of what he did. My hope is that Elvis' work doesn't get similarly tainted, he did nothing to deserve it.
Wonderful post, Mike.
The only thing, now, that "taints" his legacy is that his poor health did affect his work. Other than that, I think he's mostly beloved. No one thinks of him as a Spector-like psycho, and very few would imagine him "above the law" -- he never did anything to even discuss it. You could argue that his high income protected him from what happens to poor addicts, but he paid quite a price in the end.
As I said, if they'd stop this war on addicts - rich or poor, much suffering and tragedy would also be avoided. Elvis was a victim, not a criminal.
We lost him so long ago: too long ago. The only real "taint" is that we lost him.
Thanks again, Mike.
rjm