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

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:20 am

Matthew wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:As I've said before, fans demean the memory of Elvis by pretending as if he walked on water or making excuses at every turn for shortcomings.

And lessen the quality of the forum too. There are other sites to fawn over the Elvis God, who never sang a note wrong, made a bad movie or song, and was the embodiment of health, honour, humility, and justice in the world. I think he has a movie called Man Of Steel coming out next year.

Here we like to discuss the man called Elvis Presley, a pioneering musical icon who was a flawed person like the rest of us and ultimately (and sadly) succumbed to the pitfalls of super-fame and the empowerment it provides.


It's amazing to me how many people, certainly not limited to Elvis fans, need to have this kind of idolatrous relationship. It most certainly predates the Internet by a very long time. Elvis fans may not even be the worst examples (I'm pretty sure of that) -- you just wouldn't believe what some true believers have done to "protect" the image of their idols. Certain fans have gone to the point of committing serious crimes, and I know of one (fortunately foiled) murder plot. I don't know of any Elvis fans who went that far (well, ok, a shot was fired at Nick at a football game, and hit a companion), but one must be careful and interrogate oneself - ask yourself questions. I remember in Greil Marcus's obit, which was written in Hawaii, he has a passage where he remembers an earlier trip to the Islands. And recalls that when he was on the beach, it was at a time when Elvis was there (Aloha, I guess), and he started looking for him on the beach, and it kind of scared him. He thought maybe he was perhaps "the craziest Elvis fan of all." (I sure hope that's an exact quote . . . if not, it's a blade of grass away). So, it doesn't matter how erudite one is, or anything: it can happen to anyone who has this need, I guess. So it's not a criticism of anyone's intelligence - let's be clear on that.

But it is a problem to do that, to have that need - and not be troubled by it. Some people are aware of the nature of it, and get so afraid of it, that they distance themselves completely. They feel they can't handle it. And so you lose the pleasure of being a fan when it becomes overwhelming, when you cannot see that your idol is a person who often really messed up, or you must deny it, or you don't know how to deal with it. A lot of Elvis fans, over the years, have had trouble with that: read some of the comments on YouTube. And there were those folks who glued the pages of EWH together when it came out! (I just watched a scary live performance on YouTube, where Elvis left the stage during a performance, and then came back. Charlie handled things best he could, and then Elvis popped back in. He started in on "Can't Help Falling In Love," and then did 5 more songs, including "Can't Help Falling In Love." He looked fine: trim, tan, etc. But he wasn't fine. It was from February of 1973. Most of the comments make excuses. All kinds of excuses, and even applauding him for the whole the thing!)

"The image is one thing; the human being is another." Wise words to remember.

rjm
Last edited by rjm on Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:09 am

The man has been dead a long time, yet some still feel the need to demonize him. I see a lot more of that on this board than the other. I don't know anyone who thinks Elvis walked on water, healed the sick, and turned water into wine. Some of us, though, can forgive the man his shortcomings. Actually, it might be a sign of unhealthy fandom when you get downright angry about not every song being a stone cold classic, every performance not being his best, every album not living up to the high standards of, say, Elvis is Back or From Elvis in Memphis. I don't know of ANY artist who ever batted 1.000 (oh, well, okay, them pesky Beatles are going to be mentioned...but they are the exception...I'm sure Doc spins Revolution 9, You Know My Name and Mr. Moonlight every day). As a songwriter and singer myself, I know it impossible to be at your best at all times. Sometimes the inspiration is there, sometimes it's not. Sometimes the voice does everything I want it to, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you are at your best onstage, and the response is poor. Sometimes you are NOT at your best onstage, and people react like "that was the greatest show you've ever done!" Elvis had his share of down times, but I don't feel the need to beat him up over it. I didn't walk in that man's shoes. I have no idea what it was like to live the life he lived. I'll cut him some slack because I think he did the best he could. I doubt that anyone on this board would've handled the pressures of his life and career any better than he did.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:16 pm

The fans here tend to be a lot tougher than the general run of fans. To me, that's refreshing. I've been around . . . the other kind, and not just Elvis fans. I see what you mean: art isn't easy. In some cases fans are much too demanding (think: Dylan fans of certain eras), but that's not the case with a "king." That sorta thing will get someone killed. When people save sweat or a wort, as "keepsakes," the guy probably won't survive that!

With certain stars, there are no rules. They are "kings" - they are thus impervious to the consequences of their actions. The fans feed it, while they live. With some exceptions, such stars do not survive it.

I think some HAVE learned from the "Elvis trip" (Eddie Murphy's phrase). It's probably not easy -- but some learned, their fans, too. Bruce and his fans have a healthy relationship. It's more about those who are coming up now, than about those who fell, with no small "help" from many of their fans.

The "Elvis trip" must be avoided.

rjm

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:17 pm

I think no other singer was ever idolized for so long like Elvis Presley (the Beatles were, but only in 1963-1966 era). But in the meantime I don't think other singer had been more criticised.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:43 pm

Lets not forget we have the same viewpoints now that was also shared when Elvis was alive... some see Elvis's life through rose colored glasses and others don't. Sometimes disagreement can lead to conflict, but it can also lead to discussion and learning, provided you're willing to engage in discussion, it is likely that learning about an opinion or perspective different from your own will broaden your understanding of an issue. I think it comes down to how we express our disagreement respectfully instead of the name-calling and picking that occurs more often than not. That's my opinion hope it helps.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:01 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
karlos wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:As I've said before, fans demean the memory of Elvis by pretending as if he walked on water or making excuses at every turn for shortcomings. He was not always great. Presley was a human being, and what fascinates is how many wonderful things he accomplished in a very short time, despite many ups and downs in his career and personal life.

Rest in peace, Elvis. We still miss you.


Ok Doc - we all know this but as you know and believe - yu must agree with me that Elvis was great yeah - he accomplished so much in a short time - can you think of any other entertainer ta do this - if so please let me know -No offense okay Doc - Im Only enquiring okay -
I cant think of any yet


In popular music, plenty accomplished as much in 23 years or less, such as:

Louis Armstrong
Bing Crosby
Duke Ellington
Frank Sinatra
Hank Williams
Miles Davis
Chuck Berry
James Brown
Buddy Holly
Bob Dylan


And that image in your post -- why is it there? -- is still incorrectly dated. It's from 7-03-1973 in Atlanta.


Ty Doc For Info - My Files state that pic is from 7-03-1973 . Enjoy ya weekend Doc - ::rocks

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:22 pm

Lonely Summer wrote:The man has been dead a long time, yet some still feel the need to demonize him. I see a lot more of that on this board than the other. I don't know anyone who thinks Elvis walked on water, healed the sick, and turned water into wine. Some of us, though, can forgive the man his shortcomings. Actually, it might be a sign of unhealthy fandom when you get downright angry about not every song being a stone cold classic, every performance not being his best, every album not living up to the high standards of, say, Elvis is Back or From Elvis in Memphis. I don't know of ANY artist who ever batted 1.000 (oh, well, okay, them pesky Beatles are going to be mentioned...but they are the exception...I'm sure Doc spins Revolution 9, You Know My Name and Mr. Moonlight every day). As a songwriter and singer myself, I know it impossible to be at your best at all times. Sometimes the inspiration is there, sometimes it's not. Sometimes the voice does everything I want it to, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you are at your best onstage, and the response is poor. Sometimes you are NOT at your best onstage, and people react like "that was the greatest show you've ever done!" Elvis had his share of down times, but I don't feel the need to beat him up over it. I didn't walk in that man's shoes. I have no idea what it was like to live the life he lived. I'll cut him some slack because I think he did the best he could. I doubt that anyone on this board would've handled the pressures of his life and career any better than he did.


What a silly post. "Demonize"? Please.

If all we did was talk about the high points, and "cut him some slack" about everything else, this would be a very hollow forum indeed. The man has been gone a very, very long time. He is a major figure in music, history and popular culture.

FECC is the place where intelligent, discerning fans of Elvis Presley gather to debate every aspect of his art, career and influence. I have learned a lot from many, and am grateful to have a place to share my information and insights.

::rocks

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:24 pm

karlos wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
karlos wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:As I've said before, fans demean the memory of Elvis by pretending as if he walked on water or making excuses at every turn for shortcomings. He was not always great. Presley was a human being, and what fascinates is how many wonderful things he accomplished in a very short time, despite many ups and downs in his career and personal life.

Rest in peace, Elvis. We still miss you.


Ok Doc - we all know this but as you know and believe - yu must agree with me that Elvis was great yeah - he accomplished so much in a short time - can you think of any other entertainer ta do this - if so please let me know -No offense okay Doc - Im Only enquiring okay -
I cant think of any yet


In popular music, plenty accomplished as much in 23 years or less, such as:

Louis Armstrong
Bing Crosby
Duke Ellington
Frank Sinatra
Hank Williams
Miles Davis
Chuck Berry
James Brown
Buddy Holly
Bob Dylan


And that image in your post -- why is it there? -- is still incorrectly dated. It's from 7-03-1973 in Atlanta.


Ty Doc For Info - My Files state that pic is from 7-03-1973 . Enjoy ya weekend Doc - ::rocks


I hope you give some of these other artists a good listen -- they did incredible work.

I'm glad your Files are in order, but your image clearly reads 29th April 73 - receivin award.jpg.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:41 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:FECC is the place where intelligent, discerning fans of Elvis Presley gather to debate every aspect of his art, career and influence. I have learned a lot...

Golly gee whiz, drjohn. Thanks! Am I blushing? :oops:

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:12 am

i had post a year ago the same tread........... watching the final curtain and thought the same thing.........

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:37 am

Anyone who thinks Buddy Holly accomplished as much as Elvis is on crack. His entire catalog is less than 100 songs. How on Earth could he have accomplished as much as an artist who laid out 100 great tracks in his down decade? More great tracks, more influence (including the definitive influence on Holly himself's performing style). There's not even a comparison. It's like comparing the Beatles to the Kinks.

Chuck Berry, by the way, did very little that attracted public or critical attention after 1965. Basically all you have after 1965 with Chuck Berry is arguments, not that there's anything wrong with argument tracks but to use the consistent arguments of the board, where are the consensus tracks? Oh yes, there's none. If Elvis had chosen the Berry path what criticism he would get in these quarters. Imagine if Elvis had decided to record lifeless remakes of his early 1950s classic and then let these tracks be resold as if they were the 1950s classics. Imagine if Elvis had dumped his band and performed with a pick up band in every town he entered.

I definitely agree James Brown may have equaled Elvis' output in 23 years. But as we whine about Elvis let's remember that Brown cared so little about albums in his first decade plus, that he would willingly allow songs to be repeated from LP to LP, had no concern what appeared on his studio LPs.

And the others on the list are the greats of American popular music. Gosh, poor Elvis didn't exceed Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong (who by the way was often heavily criticized for focusing on lighter pop tunes as opposed to pure Dixieland much like a certain singer got criticized for focusing on ballads rather rock n' roll). For shame. If any post exposed the shallow. reflexive thought pattern that so dominates this board that was it. Congratulations Dr.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:17 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
karlos wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
karlos wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:As I've said before, fans demean the memory of Elvis by pretending as if he walked on water or making excuses at every turn for shortcomings. He was not always great. Presley was a human being, and what fascinates is how many wonderful things he accomplished in a very short time, despite many ups and downs in his career and personal life.

Rest in peace, Elvis. We still miss you.


Ok Doc - we all know this but as you know and believe - yu must agree with me that Elvis was great yeah - he accomplished so much in a short time - can you think of any other entertainer ta do this - if so please let me know -No offense okay Doc - Im Only enquiring okay -
I cant think of any yet


In popular music, plenty accomplished as much in 23 years or less, such as:

Louis Armstrong
Bing Crosby
Duke Ellington
Frank Sinatra
Hank Williams
Miles Davis
Chuck Berry
James Brown
Buddy Holly
Bob Dylan


And that image in your post -- why is it there? -- is still incorrectly dated. It's from 7-03-1973 in Atlanta.


Ty Doc For Info - My Files state that pic is from
7-03-1973 . Enjoy ya weekend Doc - ::rocks


I hope you give some of these other artists a good listen -- they did incredible work.

I'm glad your Files are in order, but your image clearly reads 29th April 73 - receivin award.jpg.



Thanx Doc - Now ive re-edited date on my files to July 3rd 73
at Atlanta - ty - ive changd label for pic now Thanks doc - its a typing error
- Lol - all done now - Thank you - ::rocks - sorry for mistake Doc and all -
Ill do bettr and chec all dates in future b4 postn em -
Last edited by karlos on Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:21 am

likethebike wrote:Anyone who thinks Buddy Holly accomplished as much as Elvis is on crack. His entire catalog is less than 100 songs. How on Earth could he have accomplished as much as an artist who laid out 100 great tracks in his down decade? More great tracks, more influence (including the definitive influence on Holly himself's performing style). There's not even a comparison. It's like comparing the Beatles to the Kinks.

Chuck Berry, by the way, did very little that attracted public or critical attention after 1965. Basically all you have after 1965 with Chuck Berry is arguments, not that there's anything wrong with argument tracks but to use the consistent arguments of the board, where are the consensus tracks? Oh yes, there's none. If Elvis had chosen the Berry path what criticism he would get in these quarters. Imagine if Elvis had decided to record lifeless remakes of his early 1950s classic and then let these tracks be resold as if they were the 1950s classics. Imagine if Elvis had dumped his band and performed with a pick up band in every town he entered.

I definitely agree James Brown may have equaled Elvis' output in 23 years. But as we whine about Elvis let's remember that Brown cared so little about albums in his first decade plus, that he would willingly allow songs to be repeated from LP to LP, had no concern what appeared on his studio LPs.

And the others on the list are the greats of American popular music. Gosh, poor Elvis didn't exceed Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong (who by the way was often heavily criticized for focusing on lighter pop tunes as opposed to pure Dixieland much like a certain singer got criticized for focusing on ballads rather rock n' roll). For shame. If any post exposed the shallow. reflexive thought pattern that so dominates this board that was it. Congratulations Dr.


Well, ain't that a kick in the head?

My goodness, is there any discussion on here where you are cordial?

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:48 am

likethebike wrote:Anyone who thinks Buddy Holly accomplished as much as Elvis is on crack. His entire catalog is less than 100 songs. How on Earth could he have accomplished as much as an artist who laid out 100 great tracks in his down decade? More great tracks, more influence (including the definitive influence on Holly himself's performing style). There's not even a comparison. It's like comparing the Beatles to the Kinks.

Chuck Berry, by the way, did very little that attracted public or critical attention after 1965. Basically all you have after 1965 with Chuck Berry is arguments, not that there's anything wrong with argument tracks but to use the consistent arguments of the board, where are the consensus tracks? Oh yes, there's none. If Elvis had chosen the Berry path what criticism he would get in these quarters. Imagine if Elvis had decided to record lifeless remakes of his early 1950s classic and then let these tracks be resold as if they were the 1950s classics. Imagine if Elvis had dumped his band and performed with a pick up band in every town he entered.

I definitely agree James Brown may have equaled Elvis' output in 23 years. But as we whine about Elvis let's remember that Brown cared so little about albums in his first decade plus, that he would willingly allow songs to be repeated from LP to LP, had no concern what appeared on his studio LPs.

And the others on the list are the greats of American popular music. Gosh, poor Elvis didn't exceed Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong (who by the way was often heavily criticized for focusing on lighter pop tunes as opposed to pure Dixieland much like a certain singer got criticized for focusing on ballads rather rock n' roll). For shame. If any post exposed the shallow. reflexive thought pattern that so dominates this board that was it. Congratulations Dr.


Boy, I remember being burned by those Chuck Berry Albums! Thinking I was getting the classics and getting poor sounding remakes instead! Also got burned by seeing him in concert in the early 80's. The pickup bad was so bad, he had to keep stopping songs to teach them how to play them. It was an embarrassment. Plus he was on stage for less than an hour. (like 40 minutes). Chuck has been able to get by on a lot of good will!

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:44 am

likethebike wrote:Anyone who thinks Buddy Holly accomplished as much as Elvis is on crack. His entire catalog is less than 100 songs. How on Earth could he have accomplished as much as an artist who laid out 100 great tracks in his down decade? More great tracks, more influence (including the definitive influence on Holly himself's performing style). There's not even a comparison. It's like comparing the Beatles to the Kinks.

Chuck Berry, by the way, did very little that attracted public or critical attention after 1965. Basically all you have after 1965 with Chuck Berry is arguments, not that there's anything wrong with argument tracks but to use the consistent arguments of the board, where are the consensus tracks? Oh yes, there's none. If Elvis had chosen the Berry path what criticism he would get in these quarters. Imagine if Elvis had decided to record lifeless remakes of his early 1950s classic and then let these tracks be resold as if they were the 1950s classics. Imagine if Elvis had dumped his band and performed with a pick up band in every town he entered.

I definitely agree James Brown may have equaled Elvis' output in 23 years. But as we whine about Elvis let's remember that Brown cared so little about albums in his first decade plus, that he would willingly allow songs to be repeated from LP to LP, had no concern what appeared on his studio LPs.

And the others on the list are the greats of American popular music. Gosh, poor Elvis didn't exceed Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong (who by the way was often heavily criticized for focusing on lighter pop tunes as opposed to pure Dixieland much like a certain singer got criticized for focusing on ballads rather rock n' roll). For shame. If any post exposed the shallow. reflexive thought pattern that so dominates this board that was it. Congratulations Dr.
Bravo, I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't - posts like this are why I continue to frequent this board.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:29 am

likethebike wrote:Anyone who thinks Buddy Holly accomplished as much as Elvis is on crack. His entire catalog is less than 100 songs. How on Earth could he have accomplished as much as an artist who laid out 100 great tracks in his down decade? More great tracks, more influence (including the definitive influence on Holly himself's performing style). There's not even a comparison. It's like comparing the Beatles to the Kinks.

Chuck Berry, by the way, did very little that attracted public or critical attention after 1965. Basically all you have after 1965 with Chuck Berry is arguments, not that there's anything wrong with argument tracks but to use the consistent arguments of the board, where are the consensus tracks? Oh yes, there's none. If Elvis had chosen the Berry path what criticism he would get in these quarters. Imagine if Elvis had decided to record lifeless remakes of his early 1950s classic and then let these tracks be resold as if they were the 1950s classics. Imagine if Elvis had dumped his band and performed with a pick up band in every town he entered.

I definitely agree James Brown may have equaled Elvis' output in 23 years. But as we whine about Elvis let's remember that Brown cared so little about albums in his first decade plus, that he would willingly allow songs to be repeated from LP to LP, had no concern what appeared on his studio LPs.

And the others on the list are the greats of American popular music. Gosh, poor Elvis didn't exceed Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong (who by the way was often heavily criticized for focusing on lighter pop tunes as opposed to pure Dixieland much like a certain singer got criticized for focusing on ballads rather rock n' roll). For shame. If any post exposed the shallow. reflexive thought pattern that so dominates this board that was it. Congratulations Dr.


Another brilliant post by Likethebike!

Your knowledge of popular music is an oasis amongst the hyperbole and fanboy worship frequently expressed here for Chuck Berry and The Beatles.

Please continue to share your wisdom on this board. It is very much needed and enjoyed!

Bob

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:52 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
karlos wrote: Ok Doc - we all know this but as you know and believe - yu must agree with me that Elvis was great yeah - he accomplished so much in a short time - can you think of any other entertainer ta do this - if so please let me know -No offense okay Doc - Im Only enquiring okay -
I cant think of any yet

In popular music, plenty accomplished as much in 23 years or less, such as:
Louis Armstrong
Bing Crosby
Duke Ellington
Frank Sinatra
Hank Williams
Miles Davis
Chuck Berry
James Brown
Buddy Holly
Bob Dylan

C'mon Doc, you could easily replace several of those with these! -

Eddie Bond
Pete Best
Bobby Sherman
Sleepy LaBeef
Porter Wagoner
Bill Haney


smt179 :lol:

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:10 am

Here are some interesting pages, for those who love rock 'n' roll and want to know more about Buddy Holly:


580126_Buddy Holly and Crickets_Sullivan.JPG

Buddy Holly and the Crickets "Oh Boy" - Sunday, January 26, 1958
This was their final appearance on CBS-TV's "Ed Sullivan Show."


Why Buddy Holly will never fade away
Fifty years after Buddy Holly's death, a leading critic argues that the influence of the man who created rock music is as great as ever
By Philip Norman
6:32PM GMT 30 Jan 2009


On the basis of simply counting heads, rock music surpasses even film as the 20th century's most influential art form. By that reckoning, there is a case for calling Buddy Holly, who died in a plane crash 50 years ago next Tuesday, the century's most influential musician ...

To call someone who died at 22 "the father of rock" is not as fanciful as it seems. As a songwriter, performer and musician, Holly is the progenitor of virtually every world-class talent to emerge in the Sixties and Seventies. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, the Byrds, Eric Clapton, Pete Townshend and Bruce Springsteen all freely admit they began to play only after Buddy taught them how. Though normal-sighted as a teenager, Elton John donned spectacles in imitation of the famous Holly horn-rims and ruined his eyesight as a result ...

Pop music has become an endless recycling, each new generation believing they are the first to discover its repertoire of "cool" and limited palette of sentiments and chords. In the genes of almost every band, Buddy Holly has been there, either by conscious assimilation or via his disciples. "Listen to any new release," says Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, whose first killer riff was on the 1964 cover of Not Fade Away. "Buddy will be in it somewhere. His stuff just works."

Read more here -->
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/4402149/Why-Buddy-Holly-will-never-fade-away.html



ROCK AND ROLL ARTISTS INFLUENCED BY BUDDY HOLLY: Beatles, Rolling Stones, Hollies, Bob Dylan, Linda Ronstadt, Elvis Costello, Cliff Richard & the Shadows, Phil Ochs, Fleetwood Mac, Peter & Gordon, Searchers, Eddie Cochran, Bobby Vee, Jimmy Gilmer, Tommy Roe, Bobby Fuller Four, Los Lobos, Hullaballoos, Rogues, Herman's Hermits, Freddie & the Dreamers, Gerry & the Pacemakers, Blind Faith, Eric Clapton, Mike Berry, Adam Faith, Marshall Crenshaw, Iggy Pop, Don McLean, etc..., etc...etc...

Read more here -->
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists-bio/buddyholly.html



Holly set the template for the standard rock and roll band: two guitars, bass, and drums. He was one of the first in the genre to write, produce, and perform his own songs.

Read more here -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Holly#Legacy_and_influence

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by drjohncarpenter on Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:20 am

Here are some interesting pages, for those who love rock 'n' roll and want to know more about Chuck Berry:


580410_w fans_London Arena.JPG

Chuck Berry with fans, London Arena, Thursday, April 10, 1958


Certainly the single most important black artist in rock and roll, Chuck Berry is arguably the most important figure, regardless of race, in rock history. The archetypal rock and roller, Chuck Berry melded blues, country, and a witty, defiant teen outlook into songs that influenced vitally every rock musician in his wake.

Berry achieved a number of firsts:

- The first guitarist singer to reach charts
- The first rock and roller to write words that were relevant and entertaining to his young white audience with out alienating his core black audience
- First songwriter/performer in 1955

He achieved all of this with a driving rock and roll rhythm that was, if not brand new certainly unique enough to be instantly recognizable. For those reasons he more than any other artist, is responsible for the direction of popular music.

When performing his material Berry made sure to enunciate clearly, singing outside the standard blues realm, and he improvised lyrics that caused to audience to pay closer attention.

Read more here -->
http://www.history-of-rock.com/berry.htm



A pioneer of rock music, Berry was a significant influence on the development of both the music and the attitude associated with the rock music lifestyle. With songs such as "Maybellene" (1955), "Roll Over Beethoven" (1956), "Rock and Roll Music" (1957) and "Johnny B. Goode" (1958), Chuck Berry refined and developed rhythm and blues into the major elements that made rock and roll distinctive, with lyrics successfully aimed to appeal to the early teenage market by using graphic and humorous descriptions of teen dances, fast cars, high-school life, and consumer culture, and utilizing guitar solos and showmanship that would be a major influence on subsequent rock music. His records are a rich storehouse of the essential lyrical, showmanship and musical components of rock and roll; and, in addition to The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, a large number of significant popular-music performers have recorded Berry's songs ...

The rock critic Robert Christgau considers him "the greatest of the rock and rollers," while John Lennon said that "if you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'" ...

Berry's recording of "Johnny B. Goode" was included on the Voyager Golden Record, attached to the Voyager spacecraft as representing rock and roll, one of four American songs included among many cultural achievements of humanity.

Read more here -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Berry#Legacy




580400_Chuck Berry in midflight.JPG

Chuck Berry in mid-flight, April 1958
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by drjohncarpenter on Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:22 am

If further reading suggestions are wanted, for some of the greats noted in my earlier reply to karlos, let me know.

Always happy to elevate discourse on this wonderful forum!

::rocks

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:37 am

Research by Google!

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:58 am

No offense intended, drjohn, but with three consecutive posts it appears you're trying a little too hard.


drjohncarpenter wrote:If further reading suggestions are wanted...

No thanks, sir. I think we've seen enough.

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:59 am

LOL!

I'm right. Do you hear me? I'm right!!!

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:02 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:LOL!

I'm right. Do you hear me? I'm right!!!

I love using GOOGLE. It's googlelicious!

Re: ACCEPT ELVIS

Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:17 pm

Elvis liked Berry because he recorded Johnny B.Goode, Memphis and Promised Land (to me Elvis sounds better in this one than Chuck). BTW, exists any Johnny B.Goode version of Elvis when he sang it with all the verses?