Poll Question:
Further to some heated discussions on the boards lately, in your opinion was Elvis over-rated? I guess more specifically, was Elvis' influence on rock'n'roll as significant as some say, or was he simply more of a commercial success due to intensive marketing by Colonel Tom Parker and others?

Heh, I don't know how to write poll questions -- I think my bias is showing

Choices:

Yes
No

 

I think polls are over-rated.. I wish I could make a poll so people could agree or disagree with me hehe. I think Chuck Berry's influence on Rock n Roll was underrated. Here's to opening up a whole new can'o'worms!! haha

There's nothing stopping you from creating your own poll.

I know I was just being a goof.. I dont dislike polls at all., in fact , I think they are pretty ok !!

Elvis was definitely over-rated! As much as I can see that he was an icon, I still think that he was an overproduced artist, much like the artists that are on the radio today. It's all a matter of opinion, of course, but the fact that Buddy Holly wrote, produced, recorded and performed his own songs is what a REAL musician and artist is. Hmmm, maybe I should start my own poll on this.
Elvis was definitely over-rated and a product of over-commercialization and marketing. I do beleive, in Elvis' defense, that if he could have, he would have written some songs on his own...but he was very controlled by Colonel Tom Parker. that's my two cents on this. Good poll JohnDaker!

OK, just to add to this post, check out my poll WHAT IS AN ARTIST??

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buddy_Lennon,

The answer to that question in my opinion is no, he was not overrated.

I also believe that Elvis Presley could not have written a song in his life.

Parker had absolutely no control of what he did outside his work with him, be it the movies, concerts and TV.

Neither as a recording artist, in the stuff he decided to do on record, with the exception of one song amongst the 700 he recorded ("Are you lonesome tonight"), or what he chose to sing in the 1,800 shows he appeared, nor in his private life, did Parker have the influence needed to make it difficult for Elvis to find the extra time needed for song writing.

It was just not on him, that particular talent.

As a matter of fact, there has never been a rock music artist with every possible attribute needed, in outstanding measures, that is, for being hugely succesful in the entertainment business, on a sustainable basis.

Each has some flaw that makes that person, for whatever reason, not entirely palatable, or likeable, to most people. Yet, many have survived, through the years, because the public, who has the last word, have recognized these talents as far, far superior to their flaws.

Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly are two who fit this description, for different reasons altogether, but they do. And, although they are not the only ones, the quantity of people like them seems to be fewer, and fewer, as time passes. The more years pass, the more the talent of Buddy Holy will be appreciated, since it ws his talent that got him to the ultra heights, talent wise, in the pantheon of rock.

Likewise, so will Elvis Presley`s music. While Presley becoming as big as he became, was the result of a much more intricate set of variables, his likeability as a person when he was alive, aside from his qualities as a singer, will in my opinion ensure his continuing to be the measure against which future superstars will be judged.

There were not too many figures as likeable, both in person, on stage, or when met privately, as Presley, and no superstar since him, again, in my opinion, has left such a huge mark with as great a fan base, as Elvis Presley.

John, better review your poll question. It can't be answered "Yes" or "No". What you're asking is this: "Is Elvis A or B?...Answer Yes or No".

Well, some people say "yes", while others say "No". I'm inclined to agreee with them.

But to quickly chime in before I take on the morning rush hour - Does it really matter anymore? I don't care who is more popular - Elvis or Buddy. I like Elvis. I like Buddy. I like bands and singers none of you have even heard of - and I don't need to be on the side that's winning a poll in order to enjoy any singer or band I choose.

You know who you guys are reminding me of? Go to the American Idol website, and surf their message board. It's populated with scores of pre-teens arguing over "Constantine or Bo" just like you're doing with "Elvis or Buddy".

Can't you just enjoy the music without having to over-analyze it? I can imagine you all at the prom, arguing over the band's validity instead of getting out on the gym floor and dancing. Peace

Hey Jeri-Curl,

Good point. Sad to know that you checked out the American Idol website. I feel for ya, bud. As for the point of these polls and the discussions about Buddy vs. Elvis....it makes for good conversation...makes the boards quite interesting too. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the fact that you don't have an opinion on either artist. Watching everyone else over-analyze is a trip!

Sigh, American Idol...now THAT's something to analyze. These contestanta are pretty much the new wave of "Elvis" - made up and controlled by a big, monster, music machine.

I like Elvis, I really do, but he is in another realm of music when compared to Buddy. It's true that Elvis recorded many, many songs during Buddy's lifetime...but doesn't this just prove that the music machine was behind him? Buddy, however, didn't have the big machine behind him, so he was able to have his own, natural emotions flow through his music.

Either way, both artists were influential in their own right.

The most common definition of overrated is
to rate or value something too highly.

If we examine the career of Elvis Presley, from the start, and with this in mind, we can perhaps come to a conclusion that is objective, and conclusive, both in retrospect, and with the future in mind.

The first matter we must examine has to do with how he made his name in the first place.

Having released his first five singles at SUN Records, with sales estimated at, on the average, roughly 25,000 copies for each of the five, during the period from July 1954, to December, 1955, Presley´s contract was sold to RCA for US$35,000.

That the five records had tremendous influence on many musicians in the South, is without question, as these five records were continuously spinned in most every major radio station there. However, RCA was now in possession of a new artist, in a totally new medium, and was extremely concerned about where it will all end up. Would his new records be liked elsewhere in the US? That was a big question for them.

Either they had made a bad mistake, in booking Presley, or it would be for the better. As this was the highest sum ever paid for a new recording artist, up to that time, their concern was all the more understandable. Theyt could have egg on their faces, soon, unless he delivered.

As it turned out, RCA released the first two singles, but made sure they had at least some exposure on television. Still, they chose the least costly for them, the Dorsey shows at ABC, whose TV rating were the least impressive.

It took "Heartbreak Hotel" many weeks to reach the top, and even once it did, RCA executives were not sure, at all, whether they had made the right decision. A second #1, "I want you, I need you, I love you", probably the strangest song to have been recorded by Presley, and a totally different one to his first song, gave them some hope.

And that is when RCA decided to give their new artist some additional help, namely his appearance on the Milton Berle Show. Up to this moment, even in retrospect, Presley's value as an artist, both in terms of what he could deliver, and with regards to what the cost had been to RCA, was difficult to judge.

Although "Hotel" sold a million copies as it arrived to the top of the charts, the follow up needed half as many to get there. The difference was that "Hotel" stayed at #1 for 8 weeks, and sold 2 million, while "I want you" only stayed in the top for a week, or two, and sold 1 million overall.

So, had this been the end of Elvis Presley as a top charter in 1956, in other words, had his following recordings been of less quality, had he been less ecclectic in his choosing of material, or had he stopped touring as much as he did, then I believe his value as an artist, both in terms of his label, and the public would still have been difficult to judge.

Those who would think it was still a positive move could argue that with close to US$3 million in gross returns, from the sale of those two singles, against an investment of US$35,000, Elvis was underrated.

But others could argue that the chances of RCA ending with a huge tart on their faces after attempting to become the leading label in the new rock market, and failing with Presley, no matter how well he did in his first two outings, could actually be detrimental to their prestige.

After all, RCA was the biggest and most prestigious label in the world, and thanks to Nipper, the best known, too. As it turned out, it was Elvis´ likeability, when in front of a TV camera, and espcially on stage, that did the job for them, as a second Berle show, as well as the Allen show, and the three Sullivan Shows were the result of Elvis' increasingly becoming in huge demand. While the first Berle show drew 20 million americans to the tube, the second drew 30, a huge increase, which prompted Allen to book Presley, whose appearance there, drew 40 million. It was the first time Allen had beaten Sullivan. The latter then booked Presley, who by that time had released his third single, the first double sided #1 in recording history, staying at the top for 11 weeks. With Sullivan, he drew 55, 58 and then 60 million, By that time, a fifth #1 had been achieved, as well as two # 1 albums, the first time a rock album had reached the top of the charts.

Now, with 12 months behind them, RCA executives could boast about sales racking close to US$ 12 million resulting from their US$35,000 investment. Even in retrospect, the value of an artist as big as Elvis became, by the end of 1956, would still have to be balanced by how the critics saw him.

With some of the most virulent reviews, in entertainment history, both for his TV appearances, as well as from his shows, the latter now extending to every corner of the continental USA, the results achieved by Presley were nothing short of extraordinary.

Had he been well liked by the press, back in 1956, I seriously doubt we would be having this exchange, right here in these boards. He broke so many conventions, in that year alone, and opened so many doors, for so many, that even if he had himself not survived, for x, y, or z reasons beyong January of 1957, his value as a prime mover in rock would, in my opinion, been also tremendous.

Since he continued to deliver for RCA throughout 1957 and early 1958, with an additional 4 number one singles, two number one albums, as well as continued touring, and making blockbuster movies ( 21 million cumulative theater goers, for the three), his value continued to be extremely high.

That the four #1 albums were all different, that the 8 #1 singles were of every caliber, speed, and sound possible, that the four movies were set in totally different surroundings is a testament to Elvis ecclecticness as a singer, as as live performer, as a recording artist, and as a likeable personality.

These four attributes, together with the substantive profit which he made possible for RCA, more than compensate for the fact that he was not either a consumate guitar player, or that he could not read or write music.

In exactly two years time, RCA had established itself as the main label in the new medieum, had earned profits beyond anyone's comprehension and was in possession of an artist with a huge potential. Then, Elvis was drafted.

Since both the periods starting with his actual departure to Germany, as well as his movie period, continued to attract the same positive (from the public), and virulent reviews ( from the press), until his 1968 comeback, which was both a critical and financial success, it is my opinion that he was, in fact, never over rated.

Moreover, I am of the opinion that the fact of giving value to an artist, or to a set of artists is not a zero sum game. Many artists could be over rated, and many artists could be underrated, but the fact that one, many, or all are overrated does not, in the least, imply that it was at the expense of one of those who was underrated. I have read, in these threads, that Berry was underrated, in relation to Presley. And I know for a fact that Berry, Diddley, Little Richard and Jerry Lew Lewis themselves, not just their fans, feel that they were underrated because of Presley's being overrated.

That is four artists out of, say, three hundred artists which made their names, and reputations, in those golden years of rock and roll. And what about the rest? Of the african americans, B.B. King, Jackie Wilson, and James Brown, to name just three, felt, and still feel, that Presley's success in no way dimmed their own luster. Quite to the contrary, they all expressed their admiration for Elvis asn an artist, and felt his contribution were immense.

And I never heard the Platters, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Eddie Cochrane, Buddy Holly, Bill Haley, Rick Nelson, Gene Vincent, Roy Orbison, Paul Anka, or every one else who recorded in the fifties, other than the forst four I mentioned, to express anything but appreciation for Elvis' immense contributions as an artist. The public? Well, they always have the last word. And the great majority admire his work.

So, we now come back to the original question, "was Elvis overrated?

My opinion is that he never was.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gallivant,

quote:

Originally posted by Gallivant:
These four attributes, together with the substantive profit which he made possible for RCA, more than compensate for the fact that he was not either a consumate guitar player, or that he could not read or write music.

To be completely honest with you, I've quit reading your posts, and have even skimped on skimming them, just cause they're so full of everything that you've already told us, that Elvis was better than Buddy. I can't speak for everyone here, but I root for the underdog. Especially when the favoured one has way too much support already. Just to let you know.
Anyways, this caught my eye. Elvis could note write or read a note of music. Did you know that nor could Buddy? Yet that didn't stop him from playing a guitar, writing his own songs (collaborting with his bandmates)and working out arrangements. Not to mention he could describe to Jerry Allison how he wanted something played. (Listen to the Real Buddy Holly Story at the point where Vi Petty is showing us the studio. "Take a [something indecipherable]right before that first part....ka pow ka pow ka pow [Jerry plays] Yeah like that...k let's do it." He didn't know the technical terms for it, but he could still do it. Gary Busey spoke truth when he said "I have a sound in my head." When Buddy did the string sessions, I don't know about all the songs but for sure It Doesn't Matter Anymore was arranged by Buddy. Physically he couldn't write down the arrangement, (Dick Jacobs and his copier did that) but Buddy let them know how he wanted it for sure. He didn't have a lead sheet or anything when he rushed into Dick's office, all he had was his guitar and lyrics. But he sang the song which would be a hit post-humously. There were so many more sounds in his head that he never got to share with us.

You may not have just skimmed through my post, but people reading your latest post and mine, would start wondering what are you refering to, when you mention that all I am doing, in my last post, is saying that Elvis was better than Buddy. I have not said anything that could be even construed as saying that.

As to Buddy Holly not being able to read or write music, just like Elvis, well, that is one more point in favour of Buddy. But what does that have to do with Elvis, other than he not being able to play the guitar as well as Holly? EVERYONE IN THE WORLD KNOWS THAT.

That he produced his own recording sessions, since day one is precisely the result of him being able to play instruments, and extremely well, since a very early age. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.

Because Presley could never play the guitar as good, and as early in his career as Holly, he was not able to direct his first sessions at SUN. But, please inform yourself well of the following. It is not my opinion, but that of everyone who ever worked in those early RCA sessions, before he was drafted:

Elvis produced them, each and every one of them. He chose what he wanted to play, for how long, both in the studio, and when singing those same songs live.

He directed people to make the sound, for each song, exactly as he heard it in his head, much like Buddy, but without the idiosincracies of having to deal with a sound that was almost fixed in Holly's head.

Presley's head was that of a consumate commercial artist, from the start, and he somehow knew, exactly, what the majority of the public would like.

After a sound as strange such as that exemplified by "Too much" ( even as that song was, right there and then, at the #1 position), he picked up a demo by Otis Blackwell, a song called "All shook up", and recorded it in the way he knew it would be best received by the public.

That song stayed 7 weeks at #1. In other words, in the middle of 1957, a song with no drums, but just him slapping his fingers on his guitar. That was a brilliant move, in my opinion.

like Buddy Blue, i too, have decided not to read or respond to any more of your posts, Gallivant, for exactly the reason that BB gave.

but i really must make one final observation:

quote:

...when you mention that all I am doing, in my last post, is saying that Elvis was better than Buddy. I have not said anything that could be even construed as saying that.

now really, Gallivant, how can you say that? your posts are nearly 100% about Elvis and how great he was, in relation to Holly.

and i for one, am tired of the endless Elvis worship and idolization.

as to the poll question, Elvis is UNQUESTIONABLY over-rated.

I mentioned Holly in my last post, twice, and neither in anything other than a cumplimentary manner.

And how could I have failed to mention Elvis in my posts, when this thread asks the question whether Elvis was overrated?

I say he was not, and the poll taken here says, according to you, that he is.

Fine. But, what does it actually mean, overall, that according to a poll taken at a Buddy Holly website, most posters there, ninety percent Buddy Holly fans, feel that Elvis Presley is overrated? Tell me what it means...

With nearly 200 million albums sold the books seem to be closed on who the greatest Rocker was and how can people love Buddy and NOT like Elvis? and yes, Chuck Berry is extrenely underrated.

Was Elvis Overrated Yes and so is every one, we turn into stars, They are simple human beings
who were in the right place at the right time, If there had not been an Elvis, there would not have been a Buddy as we know him.
Elvis influenced everyone who came to the top in that period, as John Lennon said "What was there before Elvis" I'm so glad to have been a teenager when they came on the scene, they certainly changed my life, to one of music, and it sent me in another direction completely.

John Berry Franklin. (Big Buddy Fan As Well )

The question of which is best is not a valid one.
One artist remains an interpreter the other was at least 505 a writer who had more control over his career.
Both were pioneers at a time when music was changing,which is all you need to know

n the 60s the Beatles,Stones and Who would have total control

quote:

Posted October 12, 2005 10:47 AM
With nearly 200 million albums sold the books seem to be closed on who the greatest Rocker was

The number of albums sold is not a relevant indicator in determining 'the greatest rocker'. there are so many factors you must overlook to fixate on that parameter. for one thing, a lot of PR and hype will sell records and get songs on the radio. but that doesn't indicate anything, really. Sony music was recently sued for millions of dollars for paying off radio stations to play their records, and this was common in the 50's as well. more radio play means more popularity for a record and its artist, and hence, more sales. and its commonly known that Colonel Tom was an extraordinary salesman and promoter. that isn't to say that Elvis did not have talent, but the question is whether he is over-rated. in addition, all the great groups of the 60's mentioned Holly's influence on them - few mentioned Elvis. the reason is because Elvis was simply a singer and not a major creative force who arranged, produced, and wrote most of his material, as was the case with Holly. and what rock n' roll became was essentially in the tradition of what Buddy started - self-contained acts doing their own stuff their own way, with electric guitar as the primary instrument. i've covered this in depth on other links.

quote:

Was Elvis Overrated Yes and so is every one, we turn into stars, They are simple human beings
who were in the right place at the right time...
Elvis influenced everyone who came to the top in that period, as John Lennon said "What was there before Elvis"

actually, Lennon's quote was "before
Sun, there was none". he was referring to Sam Phillips and the beginnings of what later became known as rock-a-billy music. sure, Elvis was a part of that, and a big part, but he is still over-rated, considering he didn't write at all nor did he play guitar as a serious player. he covered other people's material and sang those songs well. but rock n' roll did not evolve in the Elvis tradition - it evolved in the Holly tradition. that is, the tradition of recording and performing your own songs your own way, with a self-contained act, lead and rhythm guitars, bass and drums.

besides, the roots of rock n' roll can be traced back to Hank Williams Sr. and even Robert Johnson. so Lennon's quote, while cute, doesn't really tell the whole story.

as to everyone being over-rated, that just isn't so. Buddy barely had time to make a few records and do a few performances and then he was gone. he never had time to be over-rated, and within a couple years after he died, was almost completely forgotten. however, thanks to the efforts of Don McClean and John Goldrosen, and the movie featuring Gary Busey, America began to suddenly appreciate the legend of Buddy Holly. (England, Germany, and other European countries always had loved and appreciated him.) even today, the monument in Iowa, marking the spot where the plane crashed, has been removed and fans are not allowed to go there, thanks to the new owner of that farm. Buddy is still being disrespected, nearly 50 years after he died. the problem with Holly is that he was so far ahead of his time, and he did so many amazing things in such a short time, things that other groups and writers and producers immediately began copying, that his contributions were largely lost in the wave of the British Invasion. however, rest assured that Keith Richards, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and others were paying VERY close attention to Holly before and after his death. Elvis did not have that kind of influence, unless you count giggly, starry-eyed teen girls.
Holly influenced the musicians and songwriters and producers.

quote:

The question of which is best is not a valid one.
One artist remains an interpreter the other was at least 505 a writer who had more control over his career.
Both were pioneers at a time when music was changing,which is all you need to know

it may not be a valid question to you, and that's fine. but it IS a valid question. (i have no idea what your "505" reference is....) but when you say that Holly 'had more control over his career', that is not just a coicidence - Buddy fought long and hard for that, and he established a precedent for the type of artistic control that you attribute to later groups. Elvis had less control over his career because he did not have the vision of a true artist - by virtue of writing his own stuff and recording it his way, as Buddy did. Colonel Tom manipulated Elvis shamelessly, but had Elvis been the more creative songwriter/producer type, like Holly, he would not have stood for the monolithic control that Colonel Tom had over him. they would've parted ways early on, with Elvis going on to do his music his way. but since his talent was primarily his voice, coupled with sexual appeal, he was able to be marketed and sold and promoted as a product. that is not to say he didn't have talent - he most definitely did. but it was a much different type of talent than Holly had. in truth, Buddy was multi-talented, and all the groups and writers and artists and producers that came after him were influenced by the manifestations of those many talents.

as to both being pioneers, sure, that's true. that may be all you need to know, but a careful study of how music developed in the 60's and beyond leads inevitably back to Clovis, New Mexico, and Lubbock, Texas, and the music of the Crickets. i mean Elvis no disrespect, but Buddy, in my view, is the real king of rock n' roll.