There have been a LOT of Elvis posts in the last few days due to the anniversary. Enough to surprise me, really, as he didn't seem to generate a lot of MOG interest prior to that (as I remember it, anyway).
My question is: will the music of either Elvis or The Beatles live on and be listened to by future generations? The musical fads of prior decades would suggest that, as fans die, so does the popularity of artists they listened to - that new fans are generated in very very small numbers among later generations.
I'm of the age that Elvis' first breakthough was too early for me to appreciate, as I was playing with toy soldiers. The Beatles, however, hit the U.S. when I was 13, the perfect age to appreciate them for the 7 years that followed. SO - that is probably a factor in what I'm about to say.
I think, other than the first few Sun sides he cut, that Elvis is more of a cultural than a musical phenomenon. As such, his music is irrelevant now and will fade into the mists when his fans die. And...his fans...seem to be kind of a motley crew in general (present company excluded), unrefined yahoos who seem to celebrate his modest beginnings. Many people laugh at Elvis fans. Elvis impersonators are a national joke and, pretty much, so is Elvis.
On the other hand, seeing the impact of the Beatles on my children and probably due to my own experience, I feel their music will be appreciated well after we are all in the ground. But, hey, maybe the generations after mine feel the same about them that I feel about Elvis, and my kids are an exception.
Thoughts?
My Trusted MOGs
It's funny ... I'm two years younger than you, but while I was obviously too young to participate in the initial Elvis madness, I have vague memories of the time. And I later did my honors thesis for my B.A. on Elvis.
To compare Beatles/Elvis to an earlier generation ... those people have mostly died now so maybe this is relevant ... seems like you're comparing the Beatles to a Sinatra or a Crosby or a Bessie Smith, artists whose music lives on due do its inherent greatness, but that you find Elvis to be more in the mode of a Rudy Vallee or, to choose a more appropriate example from movies, Rudolph Valentino, cultural phenomenoms whose artistic catalog is mostly ignored today.
First, I think you underestimate the music of Elvis. No one ... seriously, I think "no one" is accurate ... recorded more crap in their life than Elvis Presley (hunt down a bootleg called "Elvis' Greatest Shit" for a great/awful example). But over the years, we forget about the "Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce" and "Dominic the Impotent Bull" stuff ... that will indeed be forgotten by future generations, in fact it has already been forgotten by most. What's left are the pre-Army 50s material and the 60s comeback material, which at its best is as good as anything in rock and roll and which will, IMO, be listened to forever, the way we still listen to Robert Johnson. More important Elvis put out so much junk that we forget that even in the wasteland that was his 60s career and the indulgent 70s career, he recorded some excellent sides. They were lost in the deluge at the time, but now and in the future, with the crap weeded out, you can salvage the good. I've done it myself ... in one case, I made a mix CD for a friend who didn't think Elvis had done anything good after the Army, that consisted of nothing but Elvis music between 1960 and 1968, the dark years before the comeback, and it was a terrific CD. I could have made a dozen CDs of crap from that period, but no one will care about the crap in the future.
So yes, I think Elvis' music will survive, although obviously it won't be ubiquitous, any more than Robert Johnson is today.
But, I also think you underestimate Elvis as cultural phenomemon. I don't think Elvis the cultural icon will be disappearing any time soon, and as long as his icon status keeps him in the public eye, the music will always be lurking, ready to be heard. Many of the things that make Elvis a "joke" are also things that keep him in our consciousnesses. What I'm arguing is that the existence of all those Elvis impersonators may be a joke, but it's a joke that still resonates, and it will mean that Elvis' music will always be around. It might be introduced to listeners as a joke, but then the quality of the original will take over. And the sheer over-the-top nuttiness of many Elvis fans' obsessions works in its favor, I think ... it's another aspect of Elvis that I don't think will go away when this generation of fans die. (A favorite oddball fan of mine is Joni Mabe, worth checking out via Google.)
Not to forget the religious angle ... to me, this is the silliest part of all, but those folks are out there too, who see Elvis as far more than just a singer.
Finally, I think you do Elvis fans an injustice to say they only see the King as a person of modest beginnings. Elvis fans have their favorite Elvis period, but they tend to love him pretty uncritically in any event. At the least, they are far more appreciative of 70s Elvis than are most people, and what they appreciate as much as anything is his vocals ... the bombast appeals, I guess.
You're right on target, though, it all comes down to the music. I might be correct that his cultural icon status will always keep him in people's thoughts, but my argument that his cultural importance will lead to a continued interest in his music assumes his music does indeed have inherent greatness. If you don't buy that part of my argument, the rest falls apart. Me, I can't imagine a time in the future when people won't be astounded by the greatness of the 68 Comeback Special's "unplugged" segments, which to my mind rank at the top of all rock and roll music ever made. YMMV, as they say.
My Trusted MOGs
blah blah blah blog (my wife typed this and said to tell you you are a jealous ass)
For my opinion, I was born in '56, the year of Elvis' first releases. He may have crept into my 9 month old conscience, dunno ' bout that.
As for the Beatles, ( and it's really odd you bring this up, 'cause I was thinking of posting something on this subject myself! ) my first exposure to this "phenomenon" was when the quite plump (is this politically kosher?) older female siblings of my neighborhood friends forcefully rounded up all 5-7 year olds like a bunch of cattle into a dingy basement. They then donned the appropriate wigs, strapped on their cardboard guitar and drum kits and forced us to sit through their sweaty, mimed performance of Beatle hits. This went on for weeks (months? seemed like). To this day, even though I strongly admire their solo efforts, I do not listen to much Beatles.
And Elvis rocks!
My Trusted MOGs
Here's the way I look at it: Elvis was a total bad-ass in the fifties. You can't deny that he was a fabulous singer and forever changed American culture. Then he disappeared for a while and had to reinvent himself in the late sixties and basically ended up becoming a joke. But he always relied on the songwriting of others (I know, I know, so did Sinatra and every jazz singer out there, but bear with me for a minute). The Beatles created arguably the greatest body of work in rock & roll (I think only Dylan's work might be greater), and one of the most influential in the 20th century. The key word here is created. Although they did covers in the early years, the songs they themselves wrote are pure genius. (Elvis even covered "Something", fer chrissakes.) So I'm sincerely hoping that the Beatles will be the ones who stand the test of time. They deserve it.
My Trusted MOGs
blah blah blah blog....LOL! Masoo, thank you for your sprited and gracious defense of Elvis. Scotfree, hold on while I get out my cardboard guitar.... MasonJar, your feelings seem to pretty much parallel mine, so that makes you a gentleman and a scholar. ;)
My Trusted MOGs
No one has touched on the most critical element though. For although Elvis does have some rocknroll credibility, with enough truely great sides to firmly cement his place in the pantheon of rock gods, and The Beatles almost DEFINED western culure for a brief period, both were beneficiaries of the blossoming mass media. Each played their own unholy role in the passion play. What they did cannot be duplicated today in the fragmented media of the twenty-first century. As more and more niche markets emerge we as a listening herd are drawn to what we like and need not be exposed to anything outside our little spheres. GOD BLESS THE MOG!
My Trusted MOGs
Is is this a bait for Elvis enthusiasts to start a "flame war" of sort? Or is it a casual statement of your fondness for the Beatles?
With regards to your question, I reckon every one will listen to them indifferently. The history of modern pop music is that of ceaseless recuperation of African-cosmopolitan music by Westerners (read Caucasian).
Elvis Presley copied African-American artists, adapting them for mass consumption. Need I remind our distinguished Moggers that his first hit was Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup's "That's All Right, Mama?" Let alone the influence of Gospel choirs and songs on his singing.
The same could be said of the Beatles also imbued with R&B and obsessed with Black music. When they first started the Beatles were continuously covering songs by Chuck Berry or Little Richard. Were they not?
I'm not playing the "ethnic" card here. My point is that all is re-creation and recycling. Nothing is new. Even John Lennon had to agree: "If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been a Beatles."
The future generations will keep listening to Elvis and the Beatles alike without realising it's him or them as their music will be an undercurrent the new streams.
My Trusted MOGs
Both suck ass - and both are going to fall way behind KennyG as music declines by way of the ringtone!! I jest, I jest (with scary thoughts that this is precisely what's happening at the moment). Seriously, I think we're on equal footing here; Elvis and The Beatles belong in the same iconic group of musicians that changed everything during their context and tenure. They each deserve (and will get) record play that's commensurate with their already-assured, legendary status .. long into the future. Both will pass the test of time equally. I think it's wise to remember just how much of Elvis Presley is imbibed in the The Fab Four. I'm sure you've heard the John Lennon quotation on Mike Douglas - "I saw Elvis and thought:..that's a good job." Well, hmmm...... I'm with MJ on the creativity argument - but there is the simple matter of 4 vs. 1 (put that spin on it and Elvis seems as heavy on the 'scale' as his 1976 appearances <:sigh:>). Elvis was certainly creative enough for John - would we have ever heard "Revolution" had Lennon not spun "Hound Dog" every night as a kid? Does Paul McCartney now own the Bill Black upright bass that once played behind his crooning hero for investment purposes? No. I guess my point is: you're not going to be arguing one without mentioning the other.
Just who will "hear" is the question. Anyone willing. Aye, that's the rub ... "hearing". In this bludgeoning mass media frenzy - and simply the dramatic increase in our population and global connections - there's simply TOO MUCH. We're becoming deaf with all this raucousness and crap 'music' that's thrown at us constantly. I think a far more troubling question derhahrk is the decline of 'listening' audiences ... people just 'hear' things anymore. Like Beethoven, Elvis and The Beatles will both have their place in the sacred music places. Places where true, "good listening" is encouraged. I could think of no two better topics to absorb my ears into (save Miles Davis). Let's hope those music places exist when we're gone at least. Hmmm - I suggest a dissertation (or a lookup thereof) of this topic. Fascinating ruminations on music, culture, and time. Great post.
My Trusted MOGs
I think you catch my drift. I hope so. :)
My Trusted MOGs
Keeping it brief as to not repeat earlier comments, I think Elvis' influence cannot be denied as a big part of the trunk in the family tree of rock, and while I think there will always be plenty of listeners who will appreciate the Elvis catalog, the Beatle's catalog will far outlive Elvis' when it comes to mass consumption.
Personally, while I totally dig parts of his catalog he just never did it for me overall. However, I'm going to open myself up to huge amounts of criticism and say I think the main reason Elvis was such a force in the beginning was because he was a great looking white man with a black man's voice in a time of wussy crooners and milk-toast cover versions of great black artists. Yes, he had the charisma and the rebellious rock and roll attitude for the time period, but put a young Elvis Presley in the present day music machine and I can see him on American Idol because he'd be on pretty equal footing with the other "contestants" who only have one thing going for them and that's an above average voice. For me the real geniuses of early rock were guys like Buddy Holly and Carl Perkins. Guys who could actually play an instrument and wrote the material that influenced groups like the Beatles just as much as Elvis ever did.
When I see footage of Elvis standing on stage with his acoustic guitar I just want to scream, "put down the guitar you hypocrite, it's nothing but an empty accessory to you!" That being said I think his long term influence will be more cultural than musical. To me the real Elvis isn't Presley, but Costello. Sorry this sounds so bitter, but I just never got the whole Elvis phenomenon. But at least he'll always exist in the world of black velvet paintings! http://www.thevelvetstore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=vs02&Category_Code=13
My Trusted MOGs
What a great read all this is - thanks for startin' it all Derm! In conclusion - Elvis wins!
Well, somebody had to do it.
My Trusted MOGs
I think there will always be people who are fans of both since there are always new generations coming up & having the curiosity to check out what made those artists great in the first place. I've appreciated both at various times in my life.
When I was growing up in Jr. High I fixated on the Beatles even though their popularity was waning in the early '70s. I started listening to their earlier music to find out why they were so popular. So I believe young minds are always curious to find out what made an icon so great in the first place.
My Trusted MOGs
Elvis needs boats! Elvis needs boats! Elvis Elvis Elvis Elvis Elvis Elvis needs boats!!! Kee-Ryst scot! That video just bout made me whiz my pants. lol. But like I said...it's more cultural than musical. ;-)
My Trusted MOGs
FistRMacIntosh: derhahrk? As in "Derharhk der herald angels sync?"?
Bartleby: not bait, just my honest opinion. I am not "fond" of the Beatles - I've been obsessed with them for 43 years - read at least 20 books on them, subscribe to Beatlefan, defend McCartney endlessly on MOG, etc., etc. Elvis leaves me cold, pretty much, and I MUCH prefer Little Richard, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis - just to name three from his era.
Deadman: Media may be fragmented now, but where were the Elvis / Beatles of the 70s? 80s? I could keep going. I've heard this theory before but not sure that I buy into it. As an individual, I have plenty of exposure to media, selective or not, yet have never encountered another musical act that was as exciting. That could be the flush of youth, but I prefer to think of it as a magical confluence of talent.
Several have cited Elvis' influence on the Beatles as evidence of his weightiness (ok, bad choice of words, there). The Beatles seemed to have NO influence on Elvis in the 13 years of his life. Does that mean anything? I'm not sure that really speaks in favor of Elvis, to say he inspired more talented artists.
And, yes, the Beatles did some Chuck Berry and Little Richard songs - other covers as well. ALL are album-only tracks, no singles, and none of them could in any way be said to have contributed much to the Beatles' popularity. Even as newly-signed neophytes, they refused to record "How Do You Do It?", turned out by some tunesmith. Elvis never really refused to do ANYTHING - including singing to a Hound Dog on Steve Allen (roast in hell, Steve..still writing those godawful songs down there? Say hi to Adolph for me),and taking any interest in his career other than being the Colonel's puppet boy (Clambake II - why no sequel?). His career, indeed his life, is pretty much a tragedy.
Maybe I'm a little puzzled myself as to why I can feel so TOTALLY different about Elvis and The Beatles. But I do.
My Trusted MOGs
Check ZN. ..cept I think you should credit the man's voice a little more for the instrument category. He wasn't too bad a guitar man either (early). He could play to support his voice..and all his _being_ was about that. You could say he had all the right tools for it as well; charismatically good that he did, because in context he's pivotal to the change (all the subsequent knock-offs and wannabes show testament to the legacy, no matter how much you distaste it).
Buddy Holly. I would wager that BH would have squashed EP like an ant (musically speakin)! God rest his soul! There's another (musically better) dissertation for you ... and another stupid "what if" question. :P "That'll Be The Day"
Thanks for the vid post scotfree 8-) Cool banter. Thanks
My Trusted MOGs
Yes, I wanted to thank you for the vid, too. Watched and enjoyed the whole thing.
My Trusted MOGs
Not much I can add to all that's been said. What a lot of well thought out posts. Based on my teenagers, and my contact with young kids in general, I'd have to say the Beatles music is well ahead in terms of being appreciated and enduring. . Scotfree - thanks for the great memories that Mojo Nixon video brought back - ELVIS NEEDS BOATS - indeed!
Deadman - is that a picture of FDR you're using as your icon the past few days ? !
My Trusted MOGs
- Dermahrk: I was born (almost) and bred (happily) on Beatles songs and music. I love everything about them. Defended them against friends and strangers alike who were dismissing them as happy flukes. Still I enjoy listening to Elvis without being ashamed about it.
- FastRmacR: Buddy Holly lives !!!
My Trusted MOGs
ROTFL (your comments) ..so sorry. DERMAHRK my goo man!
uuuuhh ... fistR? lol (again) ..Yeah I'd like to fist (destroy?) my Macintosh sometimes ..damn comfusers! Feh! ... my Pwoofeeding skillz Rn't wut that they shuld B l8telly.ApallOgees my fiend! lolol ahhhheeegotta get off this thing now and get some WORK done..K? Stop posing these heady, important discussions, mkay? Perhaps a little Bach with your monkberry moon delight? Hmm? ;)
I'm totally with you on The Beatles (and comments).
Ta DERMAHRK - thanks again for the post!
My Trusted MOGs
Elvis or the Beatles? Hmm, well they're both good/great but my favorite group has and always will be the Beatles. They were both cultural phenomenons but the Beatles, I would argue, did more to change the way that songs were written than any other rock and roll group. Furthermore, and unheard of today, I think it's sometimes taken for granted that the Beatles were often the most experimental and popular band at the same time.
Elvis too had his innovations, mainly popularizing the new "rock and roll" sound, but it can't be neglected that he was sort of white America's answer to the African American artists who were doing something similar. Indeed his success has been attributed, by some, as xenophobic white-America embracing the African American sound in a more palatable source, a good looking white man.
That assumption can't tell the whole story and I don't mean it as a knock against Elvis but it does seem to partially explain his booming success in relation to the African American artists who were doing something similar.
As for their continued popularity, it's hard to know what the future will bring. I think academically their work will always live on in music courses and through music journalists, audiophiles, etc. It's comforting to think that, like Mozart and Beethoven, they won't ever completely vanish.
My Trusted MOGs
First off: I am an Elvis man.... I don't really care for the beatles...
that said I think that both will survive and be listened to by those who come next... why?
Elvis: really was there and helped define the start of Rock'n'Roll..just as there are people who still dig the old recording of Robert Johnson, Woody Guthrie, and Jimmie Rodgers there will always be those who seek to find the roots of what came before... just look at the Rockin Bones boxset of early Rockabilly that was released last year as a perfect example of giving people a why to look back...
as for the beatles, it's the same thing, they were really the start of what today is thought of as pop music... taking what guys like Buddy Holly, Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis had done only a few years before and building on it...
Both acts also had enough coverage in the mass media, recordings, films, ect that there is no way that their music will ever be allowed to fall too far in the shadows of memory, there is simply too much money at stake...
My Trusted MOGs
Wow, where to start? There's lots of good points here.
I was raised on the Beatles. My mother sat me down in front of the TV to watch _Yellow Submarine_ when I was probably about four years old. Uh, my parents played the records all the time. In fact, their Beatle albums (original presses) are now my Beatle albums. The Beatles started me on music, if it weren't for them I wouldn't be on this website today. They are now and will always in my eyes be the greates rock and roll band. Ever, there is no question. But even they had heroes.
_: "It was Elvis who really got me buying records. I thought that early stuff of his was great. The Bill Haley era passed me by, in a way. When his records came on the wireless, my mother used to hear them, but they didn’t do anything for me. It was Elvis who got me hooked on beat music. When I heard 'Heartbreak Hotel', I thought ‘this is it’ and I started to grow sideboards and all that gear...."_
_"Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been a Beatles."_
John Lennon
It's very difficult in America these days to peel back all the layers of crap we are exposed to via mass media. What we hear about our musical celebrities these days has little to do anymore with the music they make but tends to be driven more by sensationalism about their latest exploits, their abuses, their vices. All of this kind of began in the late sixties and seventies when the media was coming into it's own as the most forceful tool in mass communication the way it is today. In those days there was arguably no more polarizing individual in popular culture, no other person who was known by everyone, than Elvis. It was no secret his music had long gone soft. No one cared, it was just the experience, the feeling of seeing and being in the presence of him which people were so enthralled with. No one remembered his music from the previous decades. His soft Hollywood career saw to that. The British invasion saw to that. In many ways, yes his life and career are tragic because he did indeed allow himself to be manipulated horribly by those more savvy to the business than he. Remember, this is a down home boy from Mississippi we're talking about here, not some sharp clawed business maven. But we must look past all the crap, the bad movies, the glitzy Vegas show, fat, stoned, Elvis, and remember the person who sang all those songs that created the bluepriont by which American rock and roll was created. Did he write the songs, not in the beginning. But if all it took was to write the songs, today we would remember them as we do Elvis, and we do not. You might know their names, but that's about it. Elvis' own music and gyrations and looks and attitudes kind of came back to bit him in the ass. When the Beatles and all the opther groups started to emulate him, they came over here in the mid sixties and were the most popular thing going. At the time, all Elvis was doing was making these schlock movies. And here were the Beatles doing his thing, and on top they had artistic freedom to do whatever they wanted, so he kind of resented that, and it carried over in his feelings toward them.
As far as the Beatles having released singles which were their own and not the old cover songs from the 50's, I think it was as much natural progression of talented artists exerting more control and having more freedom as much as anything. In the early days, the Beatles had singles which they wrote, but not until Rubber Soul did they produce an entire album worth of original songs of that high quality. The record company wanted the Beatles to release two albums a year, and in 63 and 64 they just didn't have the songs, so they had to fill out an album's worth of material with songs already in their stage act which they had been, by that time polishing for almost five years. I do think now though, that Elvis is more and more becoming an artist limited to a particular niche of fans. The more time that passes, the fewer kids there are listening to them. I'm 33, and I didn't start listening to him that much until I met my wife, who was a huge Elvis fan, and she is because her parents were. As the generations progress, less people are going to be exposed, he will be a relic for only true music fans. The Beatles are not quite the same way, although as time passes I think they will be forgotten about to a certain degree. It is sad, future generations moving forward without having any idea of where they came from. I'm just saying you have to hear the music for music's sake, and see it for what it is, on it's own basic level, and forget everything else, then judge, just don't discount the impact.
Oh, one other thing.
My Trusted MOGs
if the beatles are ever forgotten i will roll over in my grave
My Trusted MOGs
Personally I was a Beatles girl. Not much to add as it appears that the pertinent points have been addessed. It is somewhat sad that the kitsch elements now firmly associated with Elvis iconolatry will continue to distract from, and to a degree diminish, his appeal. Not certain these guys can be fairly contrasted for reasons already noted. Feel the Beatles will have greater future reverence, and their musical legacy more highly esteemed. It's reasonable to assume that neither the Beatles or Presley will be 'forgotten' entirely by future generations, but both will likely become far less relevant. Great topic/enquiry for a post!
My Trusted MOGs
look Elvis is very old school and country rock and he dose rock but in my opinion the Beatles will live forever. the Beatles changed their songs throughout their career with made them so popular unlike Elvis who stayed very true to his southern heart. which make his music not appel to everyone in my opinion.
My Trusted MOGs
Some unrelated bits:
A guy at BMG talking to me a few years ago - "We're going to reinvent Elvis as the leather guy from his comeback TV show." (Still waiting for that to happen.)
In 2000 I worked in a music-oriented dotcom startup where everyone of the 30 or so staff were under 32 or 33. When the Beatles 'Number Ones' album came out they played it in heavy heavy rotation - all of the music was new to them. And they loved it.
A few years ago I met a lady of 72 in Shreveport. She had moved from Lubbock to be where Elvis was, appearing on the Hayride. I asked her about how she heard Elvis for the first time (her sister dragged her to a drug store to hear 'That's Alright' on the jukebox) and seeing him - '55 on the Hayride in Lubbock - and all of her experiences and feelings could be summed up as this: "He was just sooo exciting. It was like nothing you'd ever heard before."
Music labels are in the marketing biz: Reinvent Elvis, unleash The Beatles (finally) as downloads, celebrate all the various anniversaries, and their music will stay in the public ear.
My Trusted MOGs
hmmm hav ran outa time to read each and every comment and without arguement gimme the Beatles every time, their music will survive purely because of who they were and where they came from. Soz was goin to post a song but too tired and need som rest. Great post derm thanks x
My Trusted MOGs
Lester, of course they did record the song but never allowed it to be released. I should have made that distinction. Ya got me.
I am really impressed with the responses you all have generated. Passionate, well-informed, well-written. This is why I love MOG, and I think it is safe to say that, among people who really love music neither will EVER be forgotten.
My Trusted MOGs
What Lester said. Cut through the dross, and Elvis is as much rock and roll as anyone before or since, was instrumental in its dissemination at the start, and will be with us in some capacity for the duration. I'll only add that my 15-year-old neice (who happens to have been born and raised in Italy) may be deep into Led Zep and The Clash and Celtic music at the moment, but she and her friends have been devoted Beatle fans since they were tweeners.
My Trusted MOGs
Excellent conversation starter! I'm with you completely, and I agree that as the "personalities" that made music fade away, so does the appeal of the music. Elvis represented the first major presence of a generation gap in post-war America, and gave impetus to a MAJOR shift in pop music. His music, however, is limitedly "of its time," and will become only a curiousity to future generations. This Beatles raised the bar significantly by moving into musical and philosophical genres that defined not only a new generation, but also the notion that pop music could move beyond love songs and out-and-out rockers. One thing that I've noticed, however, is that even the Beatles sound dated to me lately, and have become, like Elvis, limited by 60's and 70's pop culture. Personally, I've been harping for a couple of years now that Pink Floyd's music, which deals with timeless aspects of the human condition (peace/war, love/money, have/have not, etc...) seems to resonate with each successive generation, as indicated by continued album sales and younger fans showing up at David Gilmour and Roger Waters shows lately. I've really got to hand it to you for bringing up this great topic, because I remember my mom and her Tony Bennett, Frank Sinatra sensibilities. My take on it at the time was that my music was SO different from hers, and that speaks precisely to the question you raise! This is something that will be debated forever, and I believe it has to do with the scope and quality of the music itself and what it means to each individual listener over the years.
My Trusted MOGs
Looks like a card carrying Elvis fan to me!
My Trusted MOGs
I have never been a fan of either but I have no doubt that they will always have fans.
My Trusted MOGs
I've yet to hear anyone discuss the current glut of music. I'm 37 so when I was say 12 and really starting to get into music there was only about 25-30 record companies out there selling music. It was just too expensive a task to properly support any up-start labels, sure some tried but shortly folded. Most unheard bands stayed unheard unless some major label A&R guy caught wind of them and that was akin to winning the lottery. Things got easier with digital technologies and as such more and more little labels where now able to produce and as time has gone on technology has gotten to the point that a band can now forgo the label and has learned to self produce. Even further down that thread is the fact that many bands don't even need studios anymore and can do it all from their home computer, open a myspace account, create their own buzz and eventually sell their own songs as downloads. There is so much new music being generated at this very moment that it would be impossible to listen to every single song that comes out this year. When my dad was 12 years old, back in '55, he was lucky if two or three new songs hit the airwaves each week. I worry about myself trying to keep up with it all, in doing so I've had to almost ignore whole genre's of music. I can't imagine what a music geek who won't be born for another twenty or thirty years is going to do. Say this future Mogger has a birth date in 2030, when they're 20 do you think that they are going to be exposed to music that was popular 80 to 90 years earlier. When I was 20 I sure as hell didn't pay any attention to the music that was popular in 1900. So I say yes, unfortunately come 2050 Elvis will be forgotten, the Beatles will get lost in the shuffle and it will be Robert Johnson who?
My Trusted MOGs
I do not believe 4 one second that Elvis will be forgotten, has Marilyn been 4 gotten, and I could go on & on! He had more sex appeal than any artist I have ever seen or will ever see, he was a one in a billlion. He could just breathe and the music poured out! Not only did he have sex appeal but he had a gift when it came to singing! You can ask ANYONE that ever met him...he was a nice man, a good man and he loved his mother! As for the drugs, I think he was given them by his higher ups to get up to go to sleep etc. etc. And he didn't realize what they would do to him! He trusted the wrong people!
My Trusted MOGs
I have to agree with you about Elvis being primarily a cultural phenomenon. I think he did help define the concept of a 'performing artist', considering that what was so new was his blatant sex appeal (pelvic thrust, anyone?). He also was one of the first (though not the first) to introduce the sounds of the African American music scene to a white audience. Who knows where music would have gone without his influence? And I don't even really like Elvis.
That being said, I'll take the Beatles as a truly long-lasting sensation. Besides the importance of the British Invasion to the international nature of music (in a world pre-iTunes, pre-MOG, et cetera), the Beatles morphed from a band known for their catchy, cute-sy pop music to making creative, out-there, political, personal music. They experimented, they found sounds from other sources (i.e., Ravi Shankar), they changed themselves and, with it, music in general. I don't know if the Beatles would be as huge as they still are if all of their songs had been like "Help!" or "Drive My Car". Those songs were perfect for their time, but as the Beatles grew more sophisticated, so did the rest of the music scene, and the world (Vietnam, protests, heightened political awareness).
All I know is that I'm eighteen and I fell in love with the Beatles before I got to middle school. I have no doubt that they will continue on for generations to come, because there really is something for everyone.
My Trusted MOGs
Will Elvis or The Beatles be thought of as a faded image from the past of a couple of generations the way that first generation viewed the big band era? Does Elvis or The Beatles conjure up something abstract the way a twelve year old in 1964 would when hearing about the Glenn Miller Band?
I don't believe that their music would vanish because even in the last few months I've run across kids of my friends who discovered both of these acts totally on their own. Their thirty and forty something parents were products of the seventies and eighties and even though they knew of Elvis and The Beatles - none of them were fans. Their teenage kids on the other hand are eating up songs like "Little Sister", "Suspicious Minds" and "Having A Party" from the Presley songbook while soaking in the many different stages of the roughly 250 songs that The Beatles cranked out.
Even the kids of the fifty somethings who prefered the Stones, Led Zeppelin or Grateful Dead over that "bubblegum quartet" are scratching their heads as to why their children are digging the fab four. They've told me that although they weren't Beatles fans growing up - it's nice to know that their kids appreciate that genre of music over much of the music being offered up to the peers of their children.
Young people will always search for something musically to grab them. Yes...there is that "music of the masses" thing going on but not everyone follows that. There is a strong arguement that no one today is really listening to what is going on the Top 40 charts. There is such a glut of music out there now and the internet has millions of people finding music that they appreciate that wouldn't get the time of day on the radio so the way that Elvis and The Beatles were exposed to the world is now a moot point in today's market.
The music will survive. The cream of the crop from Elvis will last last. The drek that Col. Parker insisted on from that movie career will not. Wonderful songs came from those motion pictures and some horrible songs. I have not met a single hard core Elvis fan who loves "Old McDonald". If there is anyone on MOG who appreciates "Old McDonald"...please come forward. :=) It may also be the cinema world of The Beatles and Elvis that will have future generations wanting to hear more.
For every kid or young adult that I run across today who has never heard of these two iconic acts or even care to...there is another that has or wants to. I'm sure this case can be made for other past acts as well. Heck...I still run across people discovering the Bee Gees catalog for the very first time or Carole King so there is hope for music of the last century to truly become "timeless".
My Trusted MOGs
I feel like both the Beatles and Elvis will live on for ages, though I don't feel the same way about, say, Buddy Holly or the Who even. I think that the Beatles and Elvis are larger than life figures whose legacy will live on for generations. I would compare it more to the works Shakespeare or classical music, which will does transcend time. Elvis is kind of the first American pop culture icon and I feel his image will be around forever in merchandise. That is not dependent on his music staying relevant, however, every now and then they do release an Elvis remix and it becomes a massive hit. As for the Beatles, when I saw "Love" in Vegas it really just solidified for me how I feel they will live on forever. I feel like their music still sounds fresh and exciting ... not dated by any stretch of the imagination.
My Trusted MOGs
dermahrk,
I'm partial to the Beatles myself. But i believe both Elvis and the Beatles music will live on for Generations to come. Its just too good not to.
& Thanks again for your Excellent comments as usual on my mog. Yes I am back and back in Full Throttle. Thats what the NFL does to me as I’m sure it does to you. No more being a hermit from me now. You can count on that!
Yes, I’m all Jacked Up for another NFL season!
Bubb