Guardian article: Why Elvis memorabilia is plummeting in value

True enough that Elvis might not have done that, but a contemporary of his, Buddy Holly and The Crickets, made a lot of kids take notice and pick up guitars/form bands well before The Beatles ever did... Like most UK acts, The Beatles were inspired by the original giants of rock 'n roll.

I, like many others in the thread, like The Beatles, but I too get tired of seeing them put up on a pedestal of being groundbreakers in every aspect of music. I'll bet you The Beatles themselves would have a good laugh at a lot of the stuff their disciples say they were responsible for. I would guess Lennon in particular would roll his eyes at a lot of the things said about them...

 

When The Beatles called it quits, I hardly think it was in their minds to say "Well fellas, we ought to hang it up now, lest we release a bad album by our standards"... They called it quits because they were falling apart and were getting quite sick of each other, not because they had a reputation to uphold.

 

I, sir, am both impressed & seriously envious. Cheers!

 

But Elvis did inspire a whole generation to pick up guitars and start learning, there are thousands of singles from the era of nobodies trying out that Elvis rock and roll thing. He forced two entire genres, country and R&B, to change course with their cash in attempts, and a third genre was born. I think Elvis' real time impact musically gets lost because it was not an album era, all the proof is in thousands of singles. And most powerfully his presence and success encouraged the mixing of races during a time of immense stratification, this brought in the police, and state and local governments to try to control it, kill it, legislate it. None of that happened with the Beatles.

 

Yes he probably would, but he could not quite understand the fan worship thing anyhow, although he did say "We're more popular than Jesus now. I don’t know which will go first, rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”

Later after the group split up and fans were distraught, he said "it's not a great disaster. People keep talking about it like it's The End of The Earth. It's only a rock group that split up, it's nothing important. You know, you have all the old records there if you want to reminisce".

So if he were reading this thread, he'd have probably walked away by now, cursing. But that was John - each to his own.

 

What bands? If you haven't noticed, today is kinda ruled by solo artists. I would venture if you were to seriously talk about influence, Elvis has more of a connection purely on the fact of the urban sound and showmanship.

60's Elvis was more than just movie soundtracks. The Comeback, Vegas opening, the Memphis sessions, and Gospel records are but a few. When people say that Elvis didn't grow as an artist past the army I ask seriously what they are smoking. Sure Elvis wasn't completely ruling the pop charts like he used to, so what? He was too busy becoming the living legend the world has ever known. This is because he stepped down. Otherwise he would be a relic of the 50's much like Litte Richard and Chuck Berry were. Elvis was much too big for that.

The Beatles only work in a world where there is just beat pop. Of course reality comes back and says....uh no, the world has other genres as well. Matter of fact, Rock isn't even in first place anymore. When you add up Gospel Country and R&B there is way more support of which the Beatles just don't exist.

You have always been arguing an old argument based on generational propaganda. The facts are that even a few years ago that debate didn't hold water.

Now you do bring up a good argument with Jimi Hendrix. I think Jimi did more for rock lead guitarist than the Beatles would ever dream of. Matter of fact, I put Scotty Moore and James Burton head and shoulders above what George Harrison did as well.

Hey I get liking the Beatles and you feel how you want, but you posting it up as if it is some fact is another thing. I say this with all due respect, you seem to be ignoring the facts as well and just posting Beatles love no matter the outcome.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And that was John for you, the same John that said that Elvis died in the army when he heard about Elvis dying (if true). This to me is a complete and utter dismissal of his art and saying all he had to add to the world shouldn't include something so simple as In the Ghetto which is one of the most powerful message songs ever made?

John didn't appreciate admiring others, and that is why he let some people too close. I guess it is a paradox really. You got Elvis on one side who understood being crazy for an artist and would show his adoration to the point of obsession and then you have John in his "what is the big deal" thing.

Like John saying "well they must be blind" when a reporter calling them 4 Elvis' and being eclipsed by Ringo doing the impersonation and not taking it all so seriously. This harkens back to him talking crap on Mick Jagger for doing Elvis by shaking his hips. Not that I have really seen any of this myself.

I think Elvis and the Beatles get far too much credit, and while I think Elvis is the biggest thing lately like the last 50 years or so, what does that mean for last several 100? There are people that supported Caruso to Mozart that might disagree a tiny bit.

 

Can you point me in the direction of any books etc that tell these facts in the way you describe. I am intrigued. I cannot ever recall reading that Elvis was somewhat responsible for ending race discrimination.

 

Never said he was responsible for ending race discrimination.

 

I don't think anyone here thinks race discrimination has ended. Quite a straw man there.

 

Indeed, it was an attempt to conflate in order to discredit. In our present day and age, most cannot fathom the power of the post World War II rise of the teenager, Elvis's success, the rise of rock and roll and the subsequent good/bad disruptions caused by individuals, businesses, authorities, etc., chasing that success for good or bad.

 

There is a lot of that on this thread. It serves no purpose to attack the individual because of an opinion. Purposely misstating to somehow "win" is just flat out childish. We should be learning from one another, no matter the point of view.

 

Well whatever it was you were trying to say, it would be helpful if you could elaborate on where the evidence of this comes from. You see I am still not sure of the relevance when comparing Elvis with The Beatles (or with anyone else) as musicians and artistic entertainers.

 

So it was an opinion and not a fact then. Just need to clarify why it was mentioned when all we are doing is comparing one artist with another on the basis of their music and achievements.

 

You misstated the person's point of view much like you have done with me. At this point it is trollish behavior and you need to quit while you are behind. No one needs to justify to you why they have their opinion.

An artists achievements and inspiration are born out of where they came from and how they have an impacted the world around them. To not mention the details of either one gives them a great disservice. What Elvis did in regards to racial diverse music gaining stronger support is a great feat indeed. Much like Bing Crosby did in regards to bringing pop jazz to a wider audience. This does not disregard the wonderful black artists that made their footprint on the world and brought in a new era of artists that saw influence well beyond the Beatles. The Beatles quite simply stayed in their safe genre which made for one perception of success while ignoring the possibilities outside of their playing field.

However, I do not diminish the Beatles place in the music world. I quite like their music and their later experimental studio work is quite simply amazing. An avenue that I wish Elvis would have explored more. Elvis Country is perhaps the closest thing we will ever get officially. The Jungle Room sessions are unofficially the closest thing we will get to a "concept" album and that is a just a skeleton of what he was meant to do for his later career.

 

Evidence can be easily found in any biography of any of the major figures of the fifties (you can start with Peter Guralnick's work on Elvis, Sun, Sam Cooke, Soul, etc.) , any decent history of rock and roll, you can start with Ed Ward's most recent one, or Ann Powers' 'Tutti Frutti' deals specifically with the power of the fission/fusion of race caused by rock and roll. The problem with many Beatlefans is they need a wider listening range, and a greater sense of history.

Bear Family's That'll Flat Git It series beautifully documents the best known rockers following in Elvis' wake
Rockabilly Album-Series That'll Flat Git It -bear-family.com

The Boppin Hillbilly Rockabilly series on Collector beautifully collects obscurities across 50- 70 LPs with additional spin offs for a total of 300 albums of Elvis era obscurities.

Collector Records

 

I think so too. The Beatles were a tight little band, but George and John (and Paul) were average guitar players. The fab four weren't great musicians. They were great songwriters, vocalists and, together with George Martin, great arrangers.

 

I think just under 350,000 for the piano is a good price as well. Nothing is going to fetch millions.


While im trying to stay away form the dereiled conversation. I thank you for this.

The Nashville recordings that sadly never got a proper album release in the 60's are AMAZING. Honestly some of the best produced music from that time period. The "His Hand in Mine" sounds amazing on great speakers. Not my favorite material but the production and his voice are in top form. People can say what they want about the late 60's but the Memphis Sessions are sublime material from Elvis. Sure he wasn't as popular or explosive as the 50's but so what? He was doing what he wanted and made great music. (besides the movies and soundtracks, but that's a different story).

 

I am currently working on his complete studio material and yes you are correct. Elvis wasn't as explosive...but only in comparison with himself? Nothing will beat Sun Records, that is a given.

But the 1969 and 1970 sessions are criminally underrated. That dude was belting out some serious work.

I think his soundtracks get unfairly treated, along with movies. I think they are wonderful in their own way. I was just watching Live a Little, Love a Little and for light work and some very entertaining songs I think, what is the big deal? He made movies that people can enjoy for years to come and I hope they all see bluray release. Is it a requirement that everything you do shakes up the world? How much is enough for this great man?

 

If being an above average guitar player means being all about guitar wankery and pretentiousness then I don't want anything to do with the "above average" players.

 

I tried to be diplomatic and give Elvis the credit he is due, but all you see is Beatles "propaganda". You're very ignorant of anything but Elvis. Reducing The Beatles down to "beat pop" (whatever that is) tells me everything I need to know about who I'm talking to.

Hey, I get liking Elvis and you feel how you want, but posting it up as if it's fact is another thing. You're only going to see and hear what you want, and I have no obligation to educate you. Go crazy writing a long, disjointed, out-of-touch-with-reality response about poverty and race and Justin Timberlake, but I'm not going to respond to it.

 

That's the problem, people compare the movies to great films of the time. people went for a fun afternoon and believe it or not he made good money off of those flicks. Im a huge fan and have seen them all, but there's maybe two of his movies i will ever watch again and im fine with that. As for the soundtracks, some are cringing but there's a lot of great tracks sprinkled throughout. "Tender Feeling" comes to mind.

I'm a big fan of listening to Elvis recording music he wanted to the way he wanted to.

 

Jimi Hendrix (or James Burton or Scotty Moore) has nothing to do with wankery and pretentiousness. He expanded the guitar vocabulary in numerous ways and was an innovative and skilled rhythm guitarist foremost. If you listen to Hendrix tunes you'll notice they are built on rhythm guitar parts. His playing served the tunes, and the same is true for Burton and Moore.

Then again, as an added bonus you don't have to cringe as a listener during guitar solos they way you do when George Harrison takes the lead (well, up to '65 or so)...

 

Hendrix's playing was all about wankery and pretentiousness. His legacy, aside from his premature death, was with his wankery and pretentiousness playing.

 

No need to have a fit just because I disagree with you. The fact that I recently worked on a 215 song Beatles bluray and been listening to it all summer shows just how little you know about me and my love for the Beatles (and other thousands of artists that go with it).

And I thought the previous poster was bad.

 

Wow.
Try a google search. Stay on topic. You're embarrassing yourself.
This is the FIRST article that pops up if you do google it. You should do yourself a favor and catch up on American history before making smarmy comments.
08 » Elvis A Civil Rights Pioneer? So Says UF Professor And Rock Music Expert » University of Florida