Here you can also post any related video's of Elvis too, except impersonator video's where they imitate Elvis' voice of material he recorded.
Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:11 pm
I am sure he's EXTREMELY tired of being asked questions about Elvis. His subconscious giving him away, every time. After seeing tons of his interviews trhroughout the years, and this clip magnifies it, I've finally been able to understand his point of view. Contemplate, if you must, how HE sees it. From a very early age, he was a piano player extraordinaire, and he knew it. Guitar players come in millions, that's his take.
As a rock singer, maybe even as a country and western, even as a gospel singer, he regards himself in the same league as the best that there ever was. He is also well aware of the difficulties a piano player has, as oppossed to others who don't play the instrument as well as he does, and use it, everytime, in making a name for themselves. He knows and breathes all these facts, his entire brain filled with these memories and facts all of which, one must admit, are entirely true.
It is when he mentions, towards the end of the interview, that Elvis was an "entertainer's entertainer", that his subconscious comes back again to haunt him, as if that description has anything to do with the question which the interview threw at him. "You were a friend of Elvis Presley, what was he like?", THAT was the question.
Finally, his pairing himself with both James Dean and Elvis, as to them, the three, being the most representaive members of the generation which in the early, to the mid then to the late fifties, changed the world not just of music, but in schools, dress, appearance, etc, tells us, the viewers, how massive his ego really is. I mean, had he just mentioned Elvis and himself, well, I may have understood his point, as the two had music in common.
But the moment James Dean is mentioned, then his own mention of himself, in that particular group of three, seems a bit like wishful thinking, as there was no instant, in history, when the presence of JLL in the minds of millions of Americans ever recalled what JD had meant to them. A rebel without a cause, which to tens of millions was what JD meant, then, and to the well informed, still means today, has nothing to do with JLL's rebellious attitude, both on stage and in his private ;life, back in the fifties. He thinks that's what ties the three together when that's not REALLY and in ACTUALITY the case.
Elvis's rebellious attitude, in the early 50's, that is, is not what tied him the most to Dean, their main commonality in my own humble opinion, being the fragility they showed in the process of delivering those rebellious traits. It was right in their faces, for everyone to see. Because of it, tens of Millions wanted to be James Dean and Elvis (the actors, the singer,in Elvis' case etc), but many million others wanted to be their dads, brothers, sisters, uncles, whatever (LOL), their weaker qualities being precisely the main component of why they ALL felt that way. The two in fact entered the subconscious of millions upon millions of people, and for at least two different reasons (the good, and the bad), both interchageable,
As to JLL, there was nothing fragile, ever, about him, his bragadocio attitude condemning him to being someone, say, a minority would want in the best of all possible scenarios to be like, not BE, period. In his interviews, which for better or for worse more or define how the world judges a person as ingrained in people's consciousnesses as James Dean and Elvis Presley were, he was more like a young Cassius Clay but, regrettably if I may say so, without his disarming charm.
Finally, can anyone imagine Clay mentioning himself in a group of three (LOL), or conversely, Elvis mentioning himself, in a group, of any size? (LOL)