|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
cwatts0462 wrote:
the stones are not making fools of themselves pal
i think we all would have caught on by now
elvis was a total goon up there in 77
a pathetic slob forgetting his own songs
most of which were written for him by the way
Ahh..I see
Mick and the boys handsome good looks and youthful vigor are simply enough to satisfy your desire, and enable you to overlook the shortfalls they face on stage these days, whitewashed by the Leavell orchestra no doubt.
Are you a fan of Broadway musicals mr cwatts0462 ?
|
|
|
| cwatts0462 |
thats not what i mean,what i mean is that the stones are still performing with energy and kick ass shows
are you comparing the elvis of 77 to the licks tour stones
if you are you need serious medical attention |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
cwatts0462 wrote:
thats not what i mean,what i mean is that the stones are still performing with energy and kick ass shows
are you comparing the elvis of 77 to the licks tour stones
if you are you need serious medical attention
Medical attention huh Mr Watts ?
I asked you a question.
Are you a fan of Broadway musicals ?
I'll take your silence as a yes.
Why you keep comparing the Stone's 2002-03 Licks tour to something Elvis did 30 years ago is beyond naive and absolutely idiotic.
Trying to comparing one bad aspect of Elvis's career to a decent aspect of the Stone's modern career, you say he was "a total goon up there in 77 a pathetic slob"
Have you stopped to think about how others viewed The Stones messy, sloshed out drunken concerts of the same era ?
Had Keith OD'd and died in '77 would history view his smacked out, wasted persona as being as positive and as enlightening as say the way we remember Sid Vicious or even Brian Jones ?
What about Mick Jaggers coked-to-the-tits, can barely sing routine that he was known to pull around this time ? Ever seen him on SNL in '78 trying to sing Beast of Burden ?
How about comparing what Elvis was doing at age 45 to what Mick & Keef where doing when they were roughly the same age, say around mid 80's-ish.
1985, Yeah! GREAT year to be a Stones fan.
Elvis wasn't pretty in '77 and his life was a mess, but he could still perform. Not that you'd know it though, in your blinded, starstruck state of mind, with a paltry thirst for pretty faces and tight buns.
To bad he Elvis died we'll never know if he could resurfaced and once again be pretty enough to quench Mr Watt's lusty desirious heart, make it swell and beat, thump thump thump... |
|
|
| Sleepy Joe Presley |
Elvis! |
|
|
| cwatts0462 |
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
Medical attention huh Mr Watts ?
I asked you a question.
Are you a fan of Broadway musicals ?
I'll take your silence as a yes.
Why you keep comparing the Stone's 2002-03 Licks tour to something Elvis did 30 years ago is beyond naive and absolutely idiotic.
Trying to comparing one bad aspect of Elvis's career to a decent aspect of the Stone's modern career, you say he was "a total goon up there in 77 a pathetic slob"
Have you stopped to think about how others viewed The Stones messy, sloshed out drunken concerts of the same era ?
Had Keith OD'd and died in '77 would history view his smacked out, wasted persona as being as positive and as enlightening as say the way we remember Sid Vicious or even Brian Jones ?
What about Mick Jaggers coked-to-the-tits, can barely sing routine that he was known to pull around this time ? Ever seen him on SNL in '78 trying to sing Beast of Burden ?
How about comparing what Elvis was doing at age 45 to what Mick & Keef where doing when they were roughly the same age, say around mid 80's-ish.
1985, Yeah! GREAT year to be a Stones fan.
Elvis wasn't pretty in '77 and his life was a mess, but he could still perform. Not that you'd know it though, in your blinded, starstruck state of mind, with a paltry thirst for pretty faces and tight buns.
To bad he Elvis died we'll never know if he could resurfaced and once again be pretty enough to quench Mr Watt's lusty desirious heart, make it swell and beat, thump thump thump...
you keep prooving my point for me ,i dont need to say anymore,to bad elvis died you say,he looked dead onstage in 77
|
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
*ginda wrote:
Now SIA, did it strike you as strange costuming when Vince was wearing a heavy turtle neck sweater during "Baby I Don't Care"? All his guests were wearing swimming suits.
*ginda it is strange for sure...maybe he was covering his prison tattoos
but most of elvis' movies are filled with the bizarre and the weird - one of the reasons they're so excellent... in fact each Elvis movie seemed to always be weirder than the one that preceeded it
as for others comments abpove about elvis in the '70's imho that version of "Unchained Melody" - I think it's in "Elvis on Tour" - where he's at the piano and clearly pilled out of his head with some friend/flunky at his side - that is one of the most harrowing and appallingly moving performances in the history of rock and roll |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
cwatts0462 wrote:
you keep prooving my point for me ,i dont need to say anymore,to bad elvis died you say,he looked dead onstage in 77
Just as I expected, you got nothing 'cept he had bitch titties in '77
Weak!
Elvis Wins
PS
It truely grieves me to hear about your disbarment as president of the "Boy George's Boys" fan club, I know how much it meant to you, my deepest sympathies |
|
|
| cwatts0462 |
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
Just as I expected, you got nothing 'cept he had bitch titties in '77
Weak!
Elvis Wins
PS
It truely grieves me to hear about your disbarment as president of the "Boy George's Boys" fan club, I know how much it meant to you, my deepest sympathies
I have an idea why dont you join an elvis forum duhhhhhhhh
|
|
|
| Gazza |
Why should he? Is he not allowed to make a perfectly valid point about an artist he likes just because someone makes bitchy comments about them?
I'm a huge fan of both Elvis and Mick and I think theyre two of the greatest entertainers and performers in the history of popular music , but a lot of your comments about Elvis are just plain blind and ruled by tabloid nonsense. Saying Elvis looked ridiculous because he was overweight is as relevant as someone saying the Stones look ridiculous because they are old.
As for Elvis' performances in the last year of life. Trust me, I've heard plenty, and despite his failing health he could still entertain. And whats more, his voice never left him. So what if he forgot words once in a while, most performers do. I've seen Mick do that loads of times - and he even uses a teleprompter for goodness sake! As for the rest of the band, Ronnie Wood has done entire tours that he can barely remember and shows where he's barely played a note. Keith has fallen asleep onstage in a drug induced stupor. Mick's singing around the mid 70's is barely intelligible English at times.
as Bloozehound says, you cant really compare Elvis at 42 to the Stones at 60 because Elvis didnt live long enough to turn his life around. Personally, I think he probably would have but thats a moot point. Times are different now, and if you have problems, there are more avenues open for you to deal with them.
Mick onstage was a parody of himself from the mid 70's to the early 80's. The video evidence is there. Thankfully, he toned down on all that over the top pouting and ridiculous arse wiggling by the time the 1989 tour came around and his performances became all the better for it. I think that right now his level of excellence as an onstage performer and singer are as good as he's been in 35 years.
you're not going to get a logical argument on the whole subject on a Stones board from someone who likes one act and not the other. Bloozehound, as a fan of both of them, is right on the money IMO.
Finally, as someone who's not an American, it might be worth pointing out the impact Elvis has worldwide as from my experience, I dont think a lot of Americans appreciate it. In short, Elvis Presley was almost certainly the most internationally well known and loved American of the entire 20th Century. Quite an accomplishment for someone who never performed or acted outside of North America and whose only visit overseas was as a G.I.
To a lot of people growing up outside the US in the 50s and 60's, American culture is symbolised primarily by two things, Hollywood and rock 'n' roll. The most dominant symbol of the latter is far and away Elvis. Love him or loathe him, he's the most important symbol of music in the 20th Century. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>as for others comments abpove about elvis in the '70's imho that version of "Unchained Melody" - I think it's in "Elvis on Tour" - where he's at the piano and clearly pilled out of his head with some friend/flunky at his side - that is one of the most harrowing and appallingly moving performances in the history of rock and roll.
agreed. Actually, it was later. "Elvis on Tour" was filmed in '72. That performance youre talking about came from one of his last shows, in 1977. I think its on a video/DVD called "The Great Performances" or something. Moving, to put it mildly.
|
|
|
| F505 |
quote:
Love him or loathe him, he's the most important symbol of music in the 20th Century.
Gazza, now I think you overexaggerate a bit! 
|
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
No, I agree, Gazza's right on the money. And he did write "symbol", not "musician"!  |
|
|
| F505 |
|
|
|
| Gazza |
>Gazza, now I think you overexaggerate a bit!
and your nomination is....???
|
|
|
| F505 |
quote: and your nomination is....???
The Beatles (or does it have to be ONE person)? Sinatra? Jagger? They all come close... I wouldn't say Elvis because he is a symbol that goes beyond the music: he is a symbol of the fall and rise of the american way of life in my modest opinion. |
|
|
| parmeda |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>Gazza, now I think you overexaggerate a bit!
and your nomination is....???
...touche`
You nailed it.
...and btw Gazza, when I inherit my mother's Elvis scarf she had gotten at one of his Las Vegas shows, it's yours. |
|
|
| cwatts0462 |
I never said i dont like elvis,i was stating a fact
that mick is a better performer and that in 77 elvis
was a total joke at age 42, and mick at age 60 commands
the stage better than elvis in his 40s,case closed
when the stones become a joke onstage i will be the
first one to say so,as of now they are far from it
thank you |
|
|
| Gazza |
>The Beatles (or does it have to be ONE person)? Sinatra? Jagger? They all come close... I wouldn't say Elvis because he is a symbol that goes beyond the music: he is a symbol of the fall and rise of the american way of life in my modest opinion.
You could make a serious argument about The Beatles being the most important symbol of musical culture in the 20th Century, but WITHOUT Elvis being there before them, they may not have existed.
Sinatra, IMO, less so because despite his undoubted greatness,huge success and the longevity of his career, his appeal wasnt as widespread across the generations. Sinatra openly detested rock'n'roll (which then became the most dominant musical style of the century) and wanted nothing to do with it.
Mick Jagger? I think, with respect, your confusing "favourite performer" with "most important performer". Mick Jagger (or the Stones) didnt revolutionise popular music and popular culture in the same way as Elvis did. That's not in any way a criticism of Mick, by any means (I'm more a Stones fan than an Elvis fan) and also, without the Stones, Mick Jagger as an artist is not really a big deal.
I think in any form of entertainment, those who came along first and kicked the door open for others will always have a longer lasting legacy. Selling over a billion records helps too!
|
|
|
| Gazza |
>I never said i dont like elvis,i was stating a fact
that mick is a better performer and that in 77 elvis
was a total joke at age 42, and mick at age 60 commands
the stage better than elvis in his 40s,case closed
sorry to be pedantic,Marc, but its NOT a fact. Its merely an opinion - hence the subsequent counter arguments by Bloozehound, myself and others who didnt agree with you. LOL. Your opinion's as valid as mine - even though I happen to think youre wrong...lol 
|
|
|
| F505 |
Well wasn't Elvis on his turn influenced by gospel, country and R&B musicians? Without them here was probably no Elvis. To get it straight: i am not an Elvis-hater. I think he made some very good things but also a lot of rubbish and therefore for me he is NOT the most important symbol of popular music in the 20th century. As I said earlier the Elvis-icon goes beyond the music. To me he is more a symbol, like Marilyn Monroe or James Dean, that represents the American way of life and therefore is not that universal. |
|
|
| Gazza |
Of course he was influenced by other types of music, but it was the way those styles were fused that contributed to his greatness. Rock 'n' roll is after all basically a combination of different styles..
and I think his cultural impact extends FAR beyond the borders and culture of the country he lived in - as does all great music, including the Stones. If an artist is going to have a significant impact and long lasting legacy, its rare that its ONLY going to be because of the quality of their music. People like Elvis, The Stones, The Beatles, Dylan, Bon Jovi (OK,I'm kidding about the last one) have a social and cultural impact that transcends the quality and musical boundaries of their work. However that doesnt diminish what made them great to begin with.
I agree 100% he made some rubbish (who hasnt?), but no one is seriously going to argue that what made Elvis great was "Harum Scarum" and "Clambake".
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| F505 |
quote: I agree 100% he made some rubbish (who hasnt?), but no one is seriously going to argue that what made Elvis great was "Harum Scarum" and "Clambake".
No one? Wait till JB reads this |
|
|
| cwatts0462 |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>I never said i dont like elvis,i was stating a fact
that mick is a better performer and that in 77 elvis
was a total joke at age 42, and mick at age 60 commands
the stage better than elvis in his 40s,case closed
sorry to be pedantic,Marc, but its NOT a fact. Its merely an opinion - hence the subsequent counter arguments by Bloozehound, myself and others who didnt agree with you. LOL. Your opinion's as valid as mine - even though I happen to think youre wrong...lol
your right i should have said my opinion
its just that bloozehound started the sarcasm
and thats what started the downfall of this thread
but hey its all good,but i really dug the elvis 0f 56-68
now thats a performer |
|
|
| beer |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Mick Jagger? I think, with respect, your confusing "favourite performer" with "most important performer". Mick Jagger (or the Stones) didnt revolutionise popular music and popular culture in the same way as Elvis did.
I disagree. I think The Stones (and Beatles among others) have a way bigger and more lasting impression on popular music and culture. Kids in rock and roll bands today still dress and look like the Stones circa '66 to '78. And Keiths guitar style is found all over in modern music. Not to mention the attitudes and lifestyle that still defines RocknRoll to millions, is largely a style that the Stones invented.
I don't see any kids or young bands today looking or sounding aything like Elvis. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Actually, in regards to the most influential musician of the 20th Century: I'll take Louis Armstrong for the win, y'all.
But Elvis ultimately is the ambassador of rock and roll not only for the American white audience of the 50's but for the entire consumptive world. No Elvis, no mass culture rock and roll. I truly believe that. There is no doubt that Louis Jordan, Wynonie Harris, and all the rest of the cats were pumping out jumped up jive before Elvis ever cut "That's All Right, Mama", but Elvis's synthesis of Crudup, Sinatra, and Hank Williams is exactly the kind of stew everyone could swallow, and despite having elements of black music in it the combination of elements made it entirely new, as well. To think that Elvis did "nothing" more than steal "black" music is, again, to miss a lot of what Elvis did, intentionally or instinctively or whatever.
Beer, just because people don't try to dress like Elvis did or sound like Elvis did (although this is debateable - there is still a monstrous rockabilly scene going on throughout the entire world) doesn't mean that his influence isn't truly, madly, deeply, everlastingly profound -- it's not Elvis's fault that his looks are so deeply iconic that to cop them is to turn into an instant cliche. Slack, scruffy rock bands that don't comb their hair have the advantage in that regard, as chaos tends to look sorta unique every time. No one goes around dressing like Jesus Christ, either, but that doesn't mean that his influence isn't still felt in the culture. Elvis's influence extends well beyond just rock and roll, and I'll argue that Keith's guitar sound doesn't.
And I'm also with anyone who notes that Elvis performing "Unchained Melody" alone at the piano in 1977 shows that there was still a deep reserve of incredible artistic expression bottled up in the poor old boy even at that late date, even though what it's expressing is being lost, in despair, and about to get beached.
Good thread.
|
|
|
| Bloozehound |
LOL!
Mr. Watts, I was just trying to prove a point, but you wouldn't have it. Nuttin' wrong with a little debate, that's what these forums are for, it's just opinions. I am more of a Stones fan than an Elvis fan too, but I have all respect for Presley or any other pioneer of any musical genre.
Elvis was basically the first, true "white" blues performer. All Elvis wanted to be was like the black Memphis bluesmen he admired. He single handedly made it cool and desirable to wanna sound black to the mainstream. Chuck Berry was still playing for mostly black audiences, until Elvis's popularity helped totally erase that barrier. That's why I said no Elvis = (possibly) no Mick (or Beatles)
In '77 he was definitely still a great and commanding singer, he still had presence.(He's also one of the only gospel singers I enjoy, when he sings gospel he can sing it with more passion & soul than anyone)
He might not have been as pretty or energetic in '77 as in '56, but he could still perform and had serious stage presence. It's sad that people want to be so hard on him and say he's irrelevant just cause they're jealous of his fame, notority or didn't think he was cute anymore. It's all about the performance with -- I could care less what he looked like -- Elvis was still a great entertainer in '77.
And this last is in response to beer's post,
beer I don't know what neck of the woods you come from, but where I'm from Elvis's presence can still be felt, totally. You obviously don't listen to pay much attention to rockablilly, bar band rock n' roll or country, where young upstarts and oldtimers alike regularly sing his songs or tribute songs about him, copying his act from everything to the big sideburns, deep southern vocals, certain stage moves, and/or mixing his variety of musical styles, be it pop, gospel, country, rockabilly, rock n roll ect...he presence is still very felt.
I wonder about how many times a day throughout the entire world -- bar bands at clubs or festivals cover versions of songs like "Hound Dog" Don't be Cruel or "Little Sister" ? I bet it's a staggering number of times.
Tight leather suits, capes, and big, gold sunglasses are still pretty chic staples of rock n roll attire, no ?
Shit, you ever been to Las Vegas ? Practically tributes to Elvis's memory on every corner.
He's still very relevant today, it just depends on where you look. Shit he's been dead almost 30 years, and had a hit song on the charts last year with a remix of "A Little Less Conversation" lol !
He's bad to the bone baby!!
|
|
|
| beer |
>Tight leather suits, capes, and big, gold sunglasses are still pretty chic staples of rock n roll attire, no ?
Shit, you ever been to Las Vegas ? Practically tributes to Elvis's memory on every corner.
He's still very relevant today, it just depends on where you look.<
------------------
I'd hardly call corny Elvis impersonators that marry people in Vegas, a real lasting impact on modern culture. It's a novelty, a goof.
And the whole Vegas thing reeks of Cheeze.
Look, i'm not downplaying Elvis' impact, i admit, it's huge. I respect the man. But In my opinion, Stones, beatles, etc have a much bigger lasting impression on culture and music today.
And i do love that song "The Ghetto". i'd rather listen to that song than Dirty Work. And I would like to own a dinner plater with Elvis' face on it. I'd hang it on my wall.
|
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
beer wrote:
I'd hardly call corny Elvis impersonators that marry people in Vegas, a real lasting impact on modern culture. It's a novelty, a goof.
And the whole Vegas thing reeks of Cheeze.
Look, i'm not downplaying Elvis' impact, i admit, it's huge. I respect the man. But In my opinion, Stones, beatles, etc have a much bigger lasting impression on culture and music today.
And i do love that song "The Ghetto". i'd rather listen to that song than Dirty Work. And I would like to own a dinner plater with Elvis' face on it. I'd hang it on my wall.
Beer think about your statement for a second....if Elvis imperonators marrying people 30 years after his death isn't a lasting cultural impact then you don't have a clue what the hell one really is.
One mans cheeze is another mans good natured fun.
As I type this I can glance at my wall and check the time via my Elvis clock. You should get one, every fan should. It's uber, cheeze-dawg, koolness. It's also very inspiring to have around around 3 a.m. for some very awesome, drunk Elvis impersonations. Very inspiring, indeed. |
|
|
| NHStonesfan |
quote:
jb wrote:
But Elvis has sold substantially more albums...
Peanuts Cartoon sold more than Shakespeare-doesn't mean it's better |
|
|
| Happy Motherfucker!! |
Elvis was the first concert that I ever seen, I was 6 years old. That was 32 years ago and it has always had a lasting impression on me. I'm a musician and have been playing gigs for 20 years, and while I don't perform Elvis tunes in a regular basis, the influence that he has had in my musical life is always there. No Elvis, No Beatles or Stones.
The King Rules! |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]