Who Has The Greater Musical Legacy....
Bill Bugge
--
Bill
Mark Dintenfass
<wlas...@optonline.net.invalid> wrote:
> ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
Johnny Cash is a great example of someone who followed his own musical
instincts and created a musical legacy that will last for a long, long
time. In corny terms, he truly became a "voice of America." Elvis'
legacy is more a matter of personal style--he's still the model for
what a rock star is supposed to be--but the proportion of first-rate
music he produced is sadly small. I suspect Cash will loom larger than
Elvis in the future.
--
--md
Remove xx to respond
SavoyBG
> I suspect Cash will loom larger than
>Elvis in the future.
No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only name
about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs.
Bruce Grossberg
royph...@direcway.com
This is a tough one. I agree with Mark with the exception of Elvis'
proportion of first-rate music. I don't think it is "sadly small". It's not
as large as it could have been but by no means small. As for Cash "Looming
larger" in the future, I don't think so. To this day everyone knows Elvis,
but it's sadly not the same with Cash. Were I live there are only 12 radio
stations and 22 of them are country and few people (except the adults) know
who Johnny Cash is. My own daughter (age 13) who claims to be a hugh country
fan has never heard of Johnny Cash. But then she didn't know who Clint Black
was either. As for me, I have never liked country music except for Johnny
Cash. I like almost all of his music. I don't listen that often but then I
don't listen to Jackie Wilson that often and until the day I die no one can
convince me that there was anyone better than Wilson.
Roy
x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 800 Gigs/Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
Mark Dintenfass
<sav...@aol.com> wrote:
What matters for the future aren't people who are today in their 60s.
(Alas.)
M
<mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <20030731094146...@mb-m15.aol.com>, SavoyBG
><sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >From: Mark Dintenfass
>>
>> > I suspect Cash will loom larger than
>> >Elvis in the future.
>>
>> No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only name
>> about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs.
>
And to a lot of people, the first song that comes to their mind is
"Boy Named Sue"
M
Cathy D
<wlas...@optonline.net.invalid> wrote:
> ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
In which field? :)
I think the answer is going to depend on who you ask. If you ask fans
of C&W (by C&W I mean *real* C&W music, not the stuff they pass off
today as C&W) they will answer Cash. If you ask fans of R&R they will
answer Elvis. As much as I like Cash I would have to answer Elvis, but
then again I am more of an R&R fan than I am a C&W fan. Elvis really
popularized R&R, and that fact will always remain a part of his legacy.
And while Cash did a lot to popularize C&W I think Hank Williams
deserves a lot more of the credit for popularizing C&W. Another
difference is the styles of music each performed. Cash stuck mainly to
C&W while Elvis' music covered a number of genres: RAB, R&R, Pop,
Gospel, C&W. I think also (sadly) that marketing plays a role in
determining the "legacy" of each, and Elvis wins hands down in that
department.
Cathy :)
--
-------------------------------------------------
e-mail address: cathyd at empire1.net
Naturally the 'at' should be changed! :) The number also needs to be spelled
out. :)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Scarlotti
>
> In which field? :)
When placed alongside of the name "ELVIS," the question becomes one of
"Johnny _who_????
Mark Dintenfass
<royph...@direcway.com> wrote:
>
> This is a tough one. I agree with Mark with the exception of Elvis'
> proportion of first-rate music. I don't think it is "sadly small"
I meant sadly small in proportion to what it might have been had he had
better instincts for musical honesty (as Cash did) or gotten better
advice from his handlers. Anyway, given the number of things he
recorded, and his immense natural talent, I'd say that the percentage
of first-rate stuff he produced is very disappointing.
Roger Ford
<mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
Realistically,how many kids today have even heard of Cash?
Almost EVERYONE (of any age) knows Elvis!!
ROGER FORD
-------------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Roger Ford
<mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
> I suspect Cash will loom larger than
>Elvis in the future.
>
Preposterous Mark!!
I refuse to believe that you really believe this??
As the years progress and Cash---and everyone else from the 50's---is
gradually forgotten the media machine will ensure that the Elvis
legend burns bright with the public at large---and that he remains THE
icon for the 50's and for rock 'n' roll.
Good case in point today---with the death of Sam Phillips.
Whose name did the TV and radio news lead with in the list of stars
that Phillips first recorded?
And whose pic do you suppose with appear alongside that of Phillips in
the papers tommorrow?
Mark Dintenfass
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:56:59 -0500, Mark Dintenfass
> <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <20030731094146...@mb-m15.aol.com>, SavoyBG
> ><sav...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >From: Mark Dintenfass
> >>
> >> > I suspect Cash will loom larger than
> >> >Elvis in the future.
> >>
> >> No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only
> >> name
> >> about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs.
> >
> >What matters for the future aren't people who are today in their 60s.
> >(Alas.)
> >
> Realistically,how many kids today have even heard of Cash?
>
> Almost EVERYONE (of any age) knows Elvis!!
The question was which performer will loom larger in the future. I took
"the future" to mean decades from now, and I believe a general sorting
out takes place once the fires of celebrity die down. Consider who is
remembered from the 20s now (Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Bessie
Smith) compared to who was huge in the 20s back then (Sophie Tucker,
Paul Whiteman, Rudy Vallee). Rudy Vallee may be a good example of what
I mean because his fame lingered for decades, but I think is over now.
Marc Dashevsky
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:54:54 -0500, Mark Dintenfass <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect Cash will loom larger than Elvis in the future.
> >
> Preposterous Mark!!
You should also add, "Preposterous Marc!!"
> I refuse to believe that you really believe this??
I can believe he believes it. After all, I believe it.
> As the years progress and Cash---and everyone else from the 50's---is
> gradually forgotten the media machine will ensure that the Elvis
> legend burns bright with the public at large---and that he remains THE
> icon for the 50's and for rock 'n' roll.
Bill posed the question about musical legacy, not icon status.
According to your logic, one would have to say that Marilyn
Monroe has an enduring acting legacy simply because she has
become an omnipresent pop icon.
> Good case in point today---with the death of Sam Phillips.
>
> Whose name did the TV and radio news lead with in the list
> of stars that Phillips first recorded?
>
> And whose pic do you suppose with appear alongside that of
> Phillips in the papers tommorrow?
These rhetorical questions have little to do with his musical
legacy. They have to do with how media connects with consumers.
--
Marc Dashevsky -- Remove '_' from address if replying by e-mail.
PhillyGuy
<snip>
> As for me, I have never liked country music except for Johnny
> Cash.
You have no idea what you're missing.
I like almost all of his music. I don't listen that often but then I
> don't listen to Jackie Wilson that often and until the day I die no one can
> convince me that there was anyone better than Wilson.
>
> Roy
In a hypothetical situation, and I was a college student of limited
means,
and I have $15 - $25 (which would have gotten me into anywhere back
then), and I have a choice of riding back in a time capsule to see a
Sam Cooke concert in a nightclub in 1963, a Jackie Wilson club
performance in 1967, or a Marvin Gaye performance in 1971, and this is
the last concert I can afford for the semester, guess which one I go
see?
Right. Sam Cooke, who could do anything they could do better. Even
though the other two were legends, Cooke fills the word legend right
up to full justice in its use.
-tb
SavoyBG
>What matters for the future aren't people who are today in their 60s.
>(Alas.)
>
>--
People who are now like 35 and younger never even heard of Johnny Cash, but
most of them know who Presley is. What makes you think that somehow all 0of a
sudden people are going to discover Cash?
Bruce Grossberg
Bill Bugge
> royph...@direcway.com wrote > In a hypothetical situation...and I have
a choice of riding back in a time capsule to see a
> Sam Cooke concert in a nightclub in 1963, a Jackie Wilson club
> performance in 1967, or a Marvin Gaye performance in 1971, and this is
> the last concert I can afford for the semester, guess which one I go
> see?
>
> Right. Sam Cooke, who could do anything they could do better.
That sure as hell settles, once and for all, the Elvis vs. Johnny Cash
musical legacy debate!
--
Bill
Roger Ford
wrote:
>mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk says in article <3f296c2a...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:54:54 -0500, Mark Dintenfass <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I suspect Cash will loom larger than Elvis in the future.
>> >
>> Preposterous Mark!!
>
>You should also add, "Preposterous Marc!!"
>
OK consider it added
>> I refuse to believe that you really believe this??
>
>I can believe he believes it. After all, I believe it.
>
The comment that "Cash will loom larger than Elvis in the future?"
(And on either level---whether by musical legacy or as the icon I was
presenting that coment is amazing)
>> As the years progress and Cash---and everyone else from the 50's---is
>> gradually forgotten the media machine will ensure that the Elvis
>> legend burns bright with the public at large---and that he remains THE
>> icon for the 50's and for rock 'n' roll.
>
>Bill posed the question about musical legacy, not icon status.
>According to your logic, one would have to say that Marilyn
>Monroe has an enduring acting legacy simply because she has
>become an omnipresent pop icon.
>
OK I accept I was considering Elvis more as an icon...so fair
enough...lets examine musical legacy (not that the end result will be
any different)
Cash's musical legacy is considerable of course---but to people on
this newsgroup.And of course to C&W fans.
And to a few handfuls of others.
But after that....in the big wide world????
Hmmmmmm.....
Meantime Elvis' musical legacy is probably 90% shit.
But that remaining 10% includes many of the most well known
performances in rock 'n' roll and several of the most important
recordings ever made by anyone's standards.
Fifty years from now I would bet all the cash (sorry!) I have that the
small (compared to his total output) Elvis musical legacy will still
put all his contemporaries in the shade.
Cathy had this exactly right in her usual right on the ball post in
this thread---marketing will play a big part in helping determine
whose musical legacy looms largest in the future.
And on a marketing level Cash is (and will continue to be) nowhere
compared to Elvis.
Roger Ford
You are right that the percentage is small (as I just mentioned in my
post to Marc).I doubt anyone here will disagree
But that "small" legacy will still,I submit last longerrt---and mean
more for generations to come---than anyone else's from the same
period.
And that includes Johnny Cash
Roger Ford
<mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <3f296bca...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>, Roger Ford
><mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:56:59 -0500, Mark Dintenfass
>> <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <20030731094146...@mb-m15.aol.com>, SavoyBG
>> ><sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >From: Mark Dintenfass
>> >>
>> >> > I suspect Cash will loom larger than
>> >> >Elvis in the future.
>> >>
>> >> No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only
>> >> name
>> >> about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs.
>> >
>> >What matters for the future aren't people who are today in their 60s.
>> >(Alas.)
>> >
>> Realistically,how many kids today have even heard of Cash?
>>
>> Almost EVERYONE (of any age) knows Elvis!!
>
>The question was which performer will loom larger in the future. I took
>"the future" to mean decades from now,
You really believe that,say fifty years from now Johnny Cash will loom
larger than Elvis?
> and I believe a general sorting
>out takes place once the fires of celebrity die down. Consider who is
>remembered from the 20s now (Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Bessie
>Smith)
Remembered by whom?
The people on this newsgroup? Certainly!
Serious music fans outside? Probably.
But Joe Public at large? Yeah,right! I don't think so!
You might get away with Armstrong but the general public is'nt
remembering him from his 20's stuff,,,,they are remembering "High
Society" and "Hello Dolly!" To the majority of the public Ellington is
just a name and for the other one it's Bessie who??
> compared to who was huge in the 20s back then (Sophie Tucker,
>Paul Whiteman, Rudy Vallee). Rudy Vallee may be a good example of what
>I mean because his fame lingered for decades, but I think is over now.
All totally forgotten now by the majority of the public out there,a
situation that will never get better and can only deteriorate as the
older folk who may remember them die off one by one.
But none of these names begin to compare with Elvis who shows no signs
of diminishing either now or in the foreseeable future.
Onyx512
>Date: 07/31/2003 6:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f2998de...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>
>Cathy had this exactly right in her usual right on the ball post in
>this thread---marketing will play a big part in helping determine
>whose musical legacy looms largest in the future.
And we all can bet that Priscilla and Lisa Marie will be right there all the
time to make sure Presley's legacy will always loom largest, thus providing a
continuing steam of $$$ to the estate, and fame and fortune to his surviving
wife and daughter.
Tom M
===========================================================
Endeavor To Persevere
Jim Colegrove
Ford) wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:56:59 -0500, Mark Dintenfass
><mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <20030731094146...@mb-m15.aol.com>, SavoyBG
>><sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >From: Mark Dintenfass
>>>
>>> > I suspect Cash will loom larger than
>>> >Elvis in the future.
>>>
>>> No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only name
>>> about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs.
>>
>>What matters for the future aren't people who are today in their 60s.
>>(Alas.)
>>
>Realistically,how many kids today have even heard of Cash?
>
With his recent video I imagine a great many have. My nephew who is
16 turned me on to it.
Jim Colegrove
co...@thecoolgroove.com
Tregembo
<royph...@direcway.com> wrote
>
> This is a tough one.
>
This is an easy one. Presley by a landslide.
Admittedly it is/will be with music written by others, as opposed to Cash's
original tunes.
But the sheer depth in incomparable.
Ray Arthur
Mark Dintenfass
<sav...@aol.com> wrote:
> What makes you think that somehow all of a
> sudden people are going to discover Cash?
I'm an optimist.
Bill Bugge
> In article <YZ7Wa.2332$Wd5.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Bill Bugge
>
>> ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
>
> mainly to C&W while Elvis' music covered a number of genres: RAB,
> R&R, Pop, Gospel, C&W.
Cash did much more Gospel than Elvis, and did it much better too.
--
Bill
Mark Dintenfass
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> You really believe that,say fifty years from now Johnny Cash will loom
> larger than Elvis?
>
> > and I believe a general sorting
> >out takes place once the fires of celebrity die down. Consider who is
> >remembered from the 20s now (Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Bessie
> >Smith)
>
> Remembered by whom?
>
> The people on this newsgroup? Certainly!
>
> Serious music fans outside? Probably.
>
> But Joe Public at large? Yeah,right! I don't think so!
One of the problems we're having is what it means to be remembered.
It's the "serious music fans" who in the long run create the public's
memory, which is how jazz went from being an aficionado's music to the
celebrated thing is is today. I guess that's the model I had in
mind--that and my continuing belief that great music somehow lasts.
>
> You might get away with Armstrong but the general public is'nt
> remembering him from his 20's stuff,,,,they are remembering "High
> Society" and "Hello Dolly!" To the majority of the public Ellington is
> just a name and for the other one it's Bessie who??
Answered above. Ellington may not be known to huge numbers of people,
but he's celebrated in the kind of places that keep cultural memory
alive. So is Bessie Smith. She appeared, I believe, in one movie--and
in one form or another I see the thing on television all the time. More
importantly, any history of blues or jazz is bound to mention her.
> > compared to who was huge in the 20s back then (Sophie Tucker,
> >Paul Whiteman, Rudy Vallee). Rudy Vallee may be a good example of what
> >I mean because his fame lingered for decades, but I think is over now.
>
> All totally forgotten now by the majority of the public out there,a
> situation that will never get better and can only deteriorate as the
> older folk who may remember them die off one by one.
Exactly. Pop figures vanish when the people who remembered them in
their prime die off--except for those who are good enough to attract
new audiences. That's how Mozart and Beethoven did it. That's how
Armstrong and Ellington did it. That's how, IMO, the best musicians of
our period and beloved genres will do it.
>
> But none of these names begin to compare with Elvis who shows no signs
> of diminishing either now or in the foreseeable future.
As icon, as Marc said. How many twenty year olds can name five Elvis
songs? And among the ones who can, how many would name good ones?
I'll add that I'm not arguing against Elvis but rather for Cash, who I
think has been a model of talent, artistic integrity, and authentic
soulfulness for nearly 50 years.
Mark Dintenfass
<tr...@krajfm.com> wrote:
So is the sheer shallowness.
Tregembo
"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:310720032004587892%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
> In article <vije8oe...@corp.supernews.com>, Tregembo
> <tr...@krajfm.com> wrote:
>
> > <royph...@direcway.com> wrote
> > >
> > > This is a tough one.
> > >
> > > Roy
> >
> > This is an easy one. Presley by a landslide.
> > Admittedly it is/will be with music written by others, as opposed to
Cash's
> > original tunes.
>
> So is the sheer shallowness.
>
> --
> --md
Oohhh the sting.
Your series of posts have tried to complicate, or possible add depth,
to a very simple, not necessarily shallow, but simple question.
It's all in the header. And that simple question has a simple answer,
Presley.
Ray Arthur
Mark Dintenfass
<tr...@krajfm.com> wrote:
My posts have tried to show that it's not THAT simple a question. If it
were, BB probably wouldn't have bothered posing it. Sure Elvis right
now looms a lot larger than Johnny Cash, but if you believe, as I do,
that what lasts over the long run is what is best, I really do think a
case can be made that Cash's collected works are far superior to
Elvis'.
Bob Roman
>People who are now like 35 and younger never even heard of Johnny Cash, but
>most of them know who Presley is. What makes you think that somehow all 0of a
>sudden people are going to discover Cash?
This, I think, is wrong. An average 21-year-old is more like to have
heard *of* Elvis. But I believe a 21-year-old is more likely to have
listened to Johnny Cash. Elvis has been dead for over a quarter of a
century. Cash, meanwhile, is recording Nine Inch Nails songs with
Rick Rubin.
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
<wlas...@optonline.net.invalid> wrote:
>....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
A couple weeks ago I was sitting with a buddy by the big bat in front
of Yankee Stadium, waiting for the guy who was supposed to bring us
our tickets. We were talking about anything we could think of just to
kill time. I asked, if you gave everyone in America a vote, would
they choose Alexander Hamilton or Elvis Presley to be on the $10 bill.
(Elvis' name came to me because he was the first pop icon I thought
of, and also because the thought of him on a $10 bill seemed pretty
funny.)
My friend didn't pause -- he said Alexander Hamilton. He said, Elvis
means nothing to the kids today. To them he could just as well be
Bing or Jolson. They don't know who Hamilton is either, but they'd
follow a rule-of-thumb that if he's on the money already he must be
pretty important. My friend is a college professor, so he knows the
kids today pretty well. I tried to argue the other side, but he
pointed out that the kids in college today were born after John Lennon
died. To them, Kurt Cobain is old fogey music. I think my friend
might be right about the $10 bill.
On the issue at hand, it's hard to say where reputations will go.
When Elvis died his reputation was at a low point -- he died a sad
death and people were writing books about him. But by the mid-80s it
was turning around, as fans started to forget the fat Vegas singer and
again remembered the charismatic kid. Also, RCA began a wiser reissue
policy culminating in the three box sets. The peak was probably
getting his face on the stamp in 1992. But by then the backlash had
started. "Elvis was a hero to most. But he never meant shit to me you
see. Straight up racist that sucker was." Then there was a
counter-backlash. At this point, I think his reputation has hit an
equilibrium point -- I don't think there's going to be much change in
it for a while at least.
Johnny Cash meanwhile is at a new peak in credibility. He's put out
four highly regarded albums in 10 years, and last year gave us two
tribute albums. CMT put him at #1 (ahead of Hank Williams) on their
list of most important country singers. When Johnny dies (which I
hope will not be for quite a while) there will be further
re-examinations and reconsiderations.
Where will this leave us in 50 years? I can't say, but it could very
well turn out that Johnny Cash will be more highly regarded than Elvis
Presley.
And Alexander Hamilton will still be on the $10 bill.
Bob Roman
Tregembo
And we agree to disagree. For the record, I'm a bigger Cash fan than Elvis
fan.
Ray Arthur
Roger Ford
But the best of Elvis is still better than the best of Johnny Cash
n'est pas?
Roger Ford
<mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <3f29a032...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>, Roger Ford
><mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You really believe that,say fifty years from now Johnny Cash will loom
>> larger than Elvis?
>>
>> > and I believe a general sorting
>> >out takes place once the fires of celebrity die down. Consider who is
>> >remembered from the 20s now (Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Bessie
>> >Smith)
>>
>> Remembered by whom?
>>
>> The people on this newsgroup? Certainly!
>>
>> Serious music fans outside? Probably.
>>
>> But Joe Public at large? Yeah,right! I don't think so!
>
>One of the problems we're having is what it means to be remembered.
>It's the "serious music fans" who in the long run create the public's
>memory, which is how jazz went from being an aficionado's music to the
>celebrated thing is is today. I guess that's the model I had in
>mind--that and my continuing belief that great music somehow lasts.
>
But to be remembered properly the public HAS to have the final say and
that "musical legacy" (which hardly any of the posts in this thread
are *really* concentrating on) has to be sold to an ever younger
audience year on year.
>>
>> You might get away with Armstrong but the general public is'nt
>> remembering him from his 20's stuff,,,,they are remembering "High
>> Society" and "Hello Dolly!" To the majority of the public Ellington is
>> just a name and for the other one it's Bessie who??
>
>Answered above. Ellington may not be known to huge numbers of people,
>but he's celebrated in the kind of places that keep cultural memory
>alive. So is Bessie Smith. She appeared, I believe, in one movie--and
>in one form or another I see the thing on television all the time. More
>importantly, any history of blues or jazz is bound to mention her.
>
You answered your own question.Neither Ellington nor Smith are
remembered by "huge numbers of people" today.A situation that gets
worse by the year since their public (what little is lerft) are dying
and they have no worldwide marketing machine to keep their music in
the public mind.
No,seious music fans are not enough today.
Otherwise people like Charlie Feathers and Elmore James and The Bop
Chords would be fondly remembered by lots of folk too.But they are'nt.
>> > compared to who was huge in the 20s back then (Sophie Tucker,
>> >Paul Whiteman, Rudy Vallee). Rudy Vallee may be a good example of what
>> >I mean because his fame lingered for decades, but I think is over now.
>>
>> All totally forgotten now by the majority of the public out there,a
>> situation that will never get better and can only deteriorate as the
>> older folk who may remember them die off one by one.
>
>Exactly. Pop figures vanish when the people who remembered them in
>their prime die off--except for those who are good enough to attract
>new audiences. That's how Mozart and Beethoven did it. That's how
>Armstrong and Ellington did it. That's how, IMO, the best musicians of
>our period and beloved genres will do it.
>
I think Elvis would still scrape by without it but again you are
forgetting the power of marketing here,Mark. Next year sees the 50th
anniversary of Elvis' first record.Pow!! Media and marketing
saturation all over again.Drawing lots of new young fans.
Then deja vu all over again--only bigger in 2007---the 30th
anniversary of his death.Elvis overkill on TV and radio.
And so it goes on.
I can't see any scenario where Cash is going to remotely compete
>>
>> But none of these names begin to compare with Elvis who shows no signs
>> of diminishing either now or in the foreseeable future.
>
>As icon, as Marc said. How many twenty year olds can name five Elvis
>songs? And among the ones who can, how many would name good ones?
>
>I'll add that I'm not arguing against Elvis but rather for Cash, who I
>think has been a model of talent, artistic integrity, and authentic
>soulfulness for nearly 50 years.
>
It sounds like you're arguing this way because you "want" Cash to be
the most remembered in fifty yearrs from now rather than arguing for
what common sense tells you is by far the most likely and realistic
scenario.
Bobby
"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f2a056...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> But the best of Elvis is still better than the best of Johnny Cash
> n'est pas?
>
eliminated, the answer would be a definite "yes". However, if we
non-categorically accept the best of each artist, it becomes a lot tougher
to make the call. Did Cash influence country music the way Elvis influenced
rock? -- No. Has Cash contributed more to the legacy of country music than
Elvis did to rock --- Without a doubt.
paramucho
<mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <YZ7Wa.2332$Wd5.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Bill Bugge
><wlas...@optonline.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
>
>Johnny Cash is a great example of someone who followed his own musical
>instincts and created a musical legacy that will last for a long, long
>time. In corny terms, he truly became a "voice of America." Elvis'
>legacy is more a matter of personal style--he's still the model for
>what a rock star is supposed to be--but the proportion of first-rate
>music he produced is sadly small. I suspect Cash will loom larger than
>Elvis in the future.
As time passes I think Cash will be classified more an country artist
rather than a rock 'n' roll artist, thus I don't see them in
contention.
--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Roger Ford
wrote:
I agree totally with the first of your conclusions and tho I don't
agree with it I can see the merit in the second tho since country
music very much takes a back seat to rock in the public
perception---and IMO will carry on doing so unless both are superceded
with something new---the analogy is superfluous and Elvis still comes
out well ahead on points :) .
Roger Ford
(Scarlotti) wrote:
>> > ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
>>
>> In which field? :)
>
>When placed alongside of the name "ELVIS," the question becomes one of
>"Johnny _who_????
I am sorry to say this to some of the people I respect and usually
agree with most on this newsgroup but since reality seems to have
taken a holiday with them as far as this thread is concerned then
after Cathy's "so right its untrue" post that REALLY summs up the
issue best---Scarlotti's comment above is probably more realistic than
anything else I've seen posted here
Roger Ford
I'm suprised you did'nt add that Cash did more RAB than Elvis and did
that better too :)
Robert J. Boyne
>>From: Mark Dintenfass
>
>> I suspect Cash will loom larger than
>>Elvis in the future.
>
>No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only name
>about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs.
>
>
>
>Bruce Grossberg
**********************************************
I'll be 60 next October 4th and can name loads of JC songs.
Maybe I'm not average, but don't ask my wife!
Robert J.
--
Robert J. Boyne.Sutton Group West Coast Realty.North Vancouver/British Columbia.Cell. 604-644-6973.
***************************************************************************************
" I have the good sense to know that unheard songs are often sweeter".
Email - a-great...@shaw.ca
Home page - http://www.realtor-lower-mainland.com
Robert J. Boyne
Ford) wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:56:59 -0500, Mark Dintenfass
><mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <20030731094146...@mb-m15.aol.com>, SavoyBG
>><sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >From: Mark Dintenfass
>>>
>>> > I suspect Cash will loom larger than
>>> >Elvis in the future.
>>>
>>> No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only name
>>> about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs.
>>
>>What matters for the future aren't people who are today in their 60s.
>>(Alas.)
>>
>Realistically,how many kids today have even heard of Cash?
>
>Almost EVERYONE (of any age) knows Elvis!!
>
>ROGER FORD
**********************************************************************
Sorry to rain on your parade but the great JC is well known here
amongst the younger set even if it is just for his version of the Nine
Inch Nails song.
But this is Canada-EH.
Roger Ford
wrote:
>On 31 Jul 2003 13:41:46 GMT, sav...@aol.com (SavoyBG) wrote:
>
>>>From: Mark Dintenfass
>>
>>> I suspect Cash will loom larger than
>>>Elvis in the future.
>>
>>No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only name
>>about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bruce Grossberg
>**********************************************
>
>I'll be 60 next October 4th and can name loads of JC songs.
>
I will be 60 in 3 years and can probably recite by heart the Cash
singles discography 1955 to 1962 or thereabouts.
But what does that prove?
We are not the average 60 year old in the street that Bruce was
talking about and that this thread is not concentrating on at all.
Robert J. Boyne
Could be a faux pas!
>
>ROGER FORD
*****************************************************************************
I'm a huge Elvis fan, of his earlier work.
But he went downhill quickly once he left Sun Records.
Johnny Cash never recorded "rubbish filler film songs" but
experimented with various styles over the years with success IMHO.
My favourite LP is "From Sea To Shining Sea" something that EP would
have never attempted.
But Elvis started the revolution.
Robert J. (just call me Sue)!
Robert J. Boyne
wrote:
>In article <YZ7Wa.2332$Wd5.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Bill Bugge
><wlas...@optonline.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
>
>In which field? :)
>
>I think the answer is going to depend on who you ask. If you ask fans
>of C&W (by C&W I mean *real* C&W music, not the stuff they pass off
>today as C&W) they will answer Cash. If you ask fans of R&R they will
>answer Elvis. As much as I like Cash I would have to answer Elvis, but
>then again I am more of an R&R fan than I am a C&W fan. Elvis really
>popularized R&R, and that fact will always remain a part of his legacy.
>And while Cash did a lot to popularize C&W I think Hank Williams
>deserves a lot more of the credit for popularizing C&W. Another
>difference is the styles of music each performed. Cash stuck mainly to
>C&W while Elvis' music covered a number of genres: RAB, R&R, Pop,
>Gospel, C&W. I think also (sadly) that marketing plays a role in
>determining the "legacy" of each, and Elvis wins hands down in that
>department.
>
>Cathy :)
************************************************************************************
Cathy,
You are one of my fave posters here. Very succinct.
However JC expanded his repertoire to encompass more than just C&W
many years ago.
Johnny has covered as many genres as EP including comedy, unless you
count EP's "Do The Clam".
Robert J.
PRowan9262
>well turn out that Johnny Cash will be more highly regarded than Elvis
>Presley.
>
>And Alexander Hamilton will still be on the $10 bill.
>
>Bob Roman
The legacy of Elvis will forever shoot down that of Johnny Cash!!!
And Aaron Burr should be on the $10 bill, baby!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
Roger Ford
wrote:
>Johnny has covered as many genres as EP including comedy, unless you
>count EP's "Do The Clam".
Writing about what is perhaps the most dreadful and unlistenable album
ever made---"Having Fun With Elvis On Stage"---somebody wrote that if
God had intended Elvis to be a comedian he'd have given him baggy
pants,a red nose and an exploding guitar
Rockabi101
>
>I think the answer is going to depend on who you ask. If you ask fans of C&W
(by C&W I mean *real* C&W music, not the stuff they pass off today as C&W) they
will answer Cash. If you ask fans of R&R they will answer Elvis. As much as I
like Cash I would have to answer Elvis, but then again I am more of an R&R fan
than I am a C&W fan. Elvis really popularized R&R, and that fact will always
remain a part of his legacy.
And while Cash did a lot to popularize C&W I think Hank Williams deserves a lot
more of the credit for popularizing C&W. Another
difference is the styles of music each performed. Cash stuck mainly to C&W
while Elvis' music covered a number of genres: RAB, R&R, Pop, Gospel, C&W. I
think also (sadly) that marketing plays a role in determining the "legacy" of
each, and Elvis wins hands down in that
department.
>
>Cathy :)
>
As a fan or country (and, yes, I mean traditional country) I would have to say
Elvis. Most peopel fail to realize that Elvis had more than 80 recordings on
the Billboard country charts, topped the country charts before even appearing
on pop charts, and had an immense following amongf the country music community.
Remember, he is in both the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and the Country Music
Hall of Fame and his influence on country -- often as a reaction by country to
Elvis - was enormous. It includes rockabilly (and later influencing country
rock), pushed Nashville towards the countrypolitan sound, and also ioncluenced
country gospel music.
Bill Bugge
> In article <20030731162226...@mb-m23.aol.com>, SavoyBG
> <sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> What makes you think that somehow all of a
>> sudden people are going to discover Cash?
>
> I'm an optimist.
>
Cash has been discovered by the current generation of Rock fans. There are
albums of reworked Cash tunes by groups such as Third Eye Blind (?), TV
tributes starring many current Rock and Country acts etc.
--
Bill
Bill Bugge
> ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
The question is not who will be remembered tomorrow, next week, next month,
next year or in fifty years.
The question is who had the greater musical legacy. Whether or how the
public remembers the singer is irrelevant.
A legacy is something transmitted from the past, not how it is perceived.
With that in mind, I'll throw my vote to Johnny Cash.
Mark D. was right when he said I probably considered it a difficult question
or I wouldn't have posted it.
But as the responses pile up, the weight of the arguments in favor of Cash
outweigh those in favor of Elvis in my opinion. Sorry, Roger.
--
Bill
Bill Bugge
Remember, he (Elvis)
> is in both the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and the Country Music Hall of
> Fame
Cash is in both of those, as well as the Songwriters' Hall Of Fame.
--
Bill
Jim Colegrove
<wlas...@optonline.net.invalid> wrote:
>Cathy D <cat...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> In article <YZ7Wa.2332$Wd5.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Bill Bugge
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
>>
>> Another difference is the styles of music each performed. Cash stuck
>> mainly to C&W while Elvis' music covered a number of genres: RAB,
>> R&R, Pop, Gospel, C&W.
>
>Cash did much more Gospel than Elvis, and did it much better too.
Just curious about this. I don't know the answer.
How many grammies has Johnny won for his gospel records vs grammies
won by Elvis for his gospel records?
Jim Colegrove
co...@thecoolgroove.com
Mark Dintenfass
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >My posts have tried to show that it's not THAT simple a question. If it
> >were, BB probably wouldn't have bothered posing it. Sure Elvis right
> >now looms a lot larger than Johnny Cash, but if you believe, as I do,
> >that what lasts over the long run is what is best, I really do think a
> >case can be made that Cash's collected works are far superior to
> >Elvis'.
> >
> But the best of Elvis is still better than the best of Johnny Cash
> n'est pas?
For the record, I'd like them both to be remembered--along with a dozen
of so of our other favorites. BB's original question was about "musical
legacy." We've ended up mostly having an argument about fame, which as
you noted somewhere is a different thing altogether. I surrender on
that point. I am sure Elvis will be more famous in 50 years than Johnny
Cash. I also agree that the very best of Elvis (the Sun sides and a
very small number of later releases) is in a class by itself. But I
continue to believe (perhaps with too much optimism) that the overall
quality and musical integrity of Cash's ENTIRE output--his musical
legacy!--is both superior to Elvis's and at least potentially more
long-lasting.
Bill Bugge
> Just curious about this. I don't know the answer.
> How many grammies has Johnny won for his gospel records vs grammies
> won by Elvis for his gospel records?
>
Funny thing. Elvis won three Gospel grammies, while Cash has none. Even
funnier, those three are the only Grammies Elvis won. Cash has nine.
Although two are for liner notes and one for spoken words, the six musical
awards are in both Country and Folk genres and include awards in 2000 and
1994.
--
Bill
Cathy D
Boyne <rjb...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> You are one of my fave posters here. Very succinct.
Really??? Thank you! :)
> However JC expanded his repertoire to encompass more than just C&W
> many years ago.
Yes, but how many people are really all that familiar with his other
work? (Not counting fans of C&W music.) Again, speaking from the
viewpoint of an Elvis fan, I know I'm much more familiar with Elvis
being a fan of and recording many Gospel songs. Much more so than with
Johnny Cash. Perhaps it is because I'm mostly familiar with Cash's
early work, and with Elvis I familiar with his entire career.
> Johnny has covered as many genres as EP including comedy, unless you
> count EP's "Do The Clam".
I'm not sure comedy recordings are going to count much towards his
music legacy, but I love Cash's "One Piece At A Time." :)
As to fame vs. legacy: I think it is hard to discuss legacy without
considering the fame of the artist in question. Afterall, if neither
were very well known would the question of whose legacy is the greater
even come up?
Cathy :)
--
-------------------------------------------------
e-mail address: cathyd at empire1.net
Naturally the 'at' should be changed! :) The number also needs to be spelled
out. :)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
PRowan9262
>> many years ago.
>
>Yes, but how many people are really all that familiar with his other
>work? (Not counting fans of C&W music.) Again, speaking from the
>viewpoint of an Elvis fan, I know I'm much more familiar with Elvis
>being a fan of and recording many Gospel songs. Much more so than with
>Johnny Cash. Perhaps it is because I'm mostly familiar with Cash's
>early work, and with Elvis I familiar with his entire career.
>
>> Johnny has covered as many genres as EP including comedy, unless you
>> count EP's "Do The Clam".
>
>I'm not sure comedy recordings are going to count much towards his
>music legacy, but I love Cash's "One Piece At A Time." :)
>
>As to fame vs. legacy: I think it is hard to discuss legacy without
>considering the fame of the artist in question. Afterall, if neither
>were very well known would the question of whose legacy is the greater
>even come up?
>
>Cathy :)
That's succinct?
Stick the qualifying "Chatty" in front of this palaverer's name, baby!!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
Intheway1
Cash is gravity. In terms of legacy, I think gravity is more important.
Elvis was a supernova that changed everything, but for a relatively short time.
In terms of musical legacy, you don't see a great deal of Elvis's influence
around today.
Cash was, and remains, an immensely influential figure, and not only in CW. He
is revered by artists across the musical spectrum. Punks love him, and not
just because he wears black and has been photographed giving someone the
finger.
This from a punk website:
"But the true testament to his badassness lies in his music. As a music lover
if you haven’t already schooled yourself in the way of Cash, then do it and
find out what you’ve been missing out on all these years. His music is raw,
it’s real, it’s passionate, humorous, tear-jerking and gritty. As a man who
has seen and done it all, he is a great storyteller. And though he may not
sport tattoos (that I know of), spike collars or combat boots, he is still as
punk as they come."
Songs like "Sam Hall" and "Delia's Gone" don't hurt his credibility with that
community either. As for mainstream rock, his continued willingness to
experiment and his ability to take unusual material and make it his own
inspires other artists to take the same kind of risks.
Here's an unscientific test of musical legacy:
Eliminating "Greatest Hits" collections, pick two CDs of Elvis's and two of
Cash at random. Put them on random play. How many times do you hit the skip
button on Elvis? How many on Cash? I think Johnny wins. At least he does
here.
Fred
.
Scarlotti
> Bill Bugge wrote:
> > ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
>
> The question is not who will be remembered tomorrow, next week, next month,
> next year or in fifty years.
>
> The question is who had the greater musical legacy. Whether or how the
> public remembers the singer is irrelevant.
>
> A legacy is something transmitted from the past, not how it is perceived.
He ain't "transmitting" if no one's listening.
Elvis is an ICON. Probably _the_ single biggest celebrity ICON that
there is.
(The fact that he's been dead for over a quarter of a century
notwithstanding.)
In all likelihood, 25 years from now there will still be people buy
Elvis T-shirts and Elvis clocks and Elvis collectors dolls ...
Johnny Cash, otoh, will be a paragraph or two in a Country
musicologist's textbook.
Comparing the two is absurd.
Mark Dintenfass
<inth...@aol.com> wrote:
Well said, Fred. I particularly like the light and gravity analogy.
PRowan9262
Why would you like that?
It's a fallacious and pompous analogy and so typical of you two casuistic
casualties!!
If Cash is gravity then he must have recorded on the planet Neptune, baby
cause even now "Delia's Gone" is already a forgotten lark and can't even stack
up to say...." Burnin' Love"!!
Once again, you can still be a cultural cup of cold piss and still practice
law!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
Steve Carras
> ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
Hard to say.
Elvis was a jerk.
Johnny Cash a ncie guy but has been said to give the finger.
Both supported pluraism (antiwhite senitment)
Steve Carras
> In article <3f29a032...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>, Roger Ford
> <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You really believe that,say fifty years from now Johnny Cash will loom
> > larger than Elvis?
> >
> > > and I believe a general sorting
> > >out takes place once the fires of celebrity die down. Consider who is
> > >remembered from the 20s now (Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Bessie
> > >Smith)
> >
> > Remembered by whom?
> >
> > The people on this newsgroup? Certainly!
> >
> > Serious music fans outside? Probably.
> >
> > But Joe Public at large? Yeah,right! I don't think so!
>
> One of the problems we're having is what it means to be remembered.
> It's the "serious music fans" who in the long run create the public's
> memory, which is how jazz went from being an aficionado's music to the
> celebrated thing is is today. I guess that's the model I had in
> mind--that and my continuing belief that great music somehow lasts.
>
> >
> > You might get away with Armstrong but the general public is'nt
> > remembering him from his 20's stuff,,,,they are remembering "High
> > Society" and "Hello Dolly!" To the majority of the public Ellington is
> > just a name and for the other one it's Bessie who??
>
> Answered above. Ellington may not be known to huge numbers of people,
> but he's celebrated in the kind of places that keep cultural memory
> alive. So is Bessie Smith. She appeared, I believe, in one movie--and
> in one form or another I see the thing on television all the time. More
> importantly, any history of blues or jazz is bound to mention her.
>
> > > compared to who was huge in the 20s back then (Sophie Tucker,
> > >Paul Whiteman, Rudy Vallee). Rudy Vallee may be a good example of what
> > >I mean because his fame lingered for decades, but I think is over now.
> >
> > All totally forgotten now by the majority of the public out there,a
> > situation that will never get better and can only deteriorate as the
> > older folk who may remember them die off one by one.
>
> Exactly. Pop figures vanish when the people who remembered them in
> their prime die off--except for those who are good enough to attract
> new audiences. That's how Mozart and Beethoven did it. That's how
> Armstrong and Ellington did it. That's how, IMO, the best musicians of
> our period and beloved genres will do it.
>
> >
> > But none of these names begin to compare with Elvis who shows no signs
> > of diminishing either now or in the foreseeable future.
>
> As icon, as Marc said. How many twenty year olds can name five Elvis
> songs? And among the ones who can, how many would name good ones?
>
> I'll add that I'm not arguing against Elvis but rather for Cash, who I
> think has been a model of talent, artistic integrity, and authentic
> soulfulness for nearly 50 years.
Not surprisngly all of the 20s artists that are well-reembered today
cited were black vis a vis the white performers not as well or not at
all remembered. (Political correctness, to be sure, but SInatra used
the term "Cunt" and "whore" and is STILL highly liked while Bing
Crosby's spanking his kids and supporting "jap-bashing" World War II
veterans is politically incorrect with the same PC crowd..go figure
yet both were w white and Frank started out imitating Rudy and Bing)
Mike Holcombe
<wlas...@optonline.net.invalid> wrote:
>Bill Bugge wrote:
>The question is who had the greater musical legacy. Whether or how the
>public remembers the singer is irrelevant.
>A legacy is something transmitted from the past, not how it is perceived.
>
>
>With that in mind, I'll throw my vote to Johnny Cash.
>
>Mark D. was right when he said I probably considered it a difficult question
>or I wouldn't have posted it.
>
>But as the responses pile up, the weight of the arguments in favor of Cash
>outweigh those in favor of Elvis in my opinion. Sorry, Roger.
Say, Bill, this is interesting. You pose an issue, define it later,
and relegate well-reasoned opinion to the poop deck because it was
trenchant enough to not require six restatements.
I, for one, agree with Roger that perception is a large part of an
artist's legacy. The dictionary says a legacy is something received
from a predecessor. That reception involves many issues, but access
and ease of understanding are surely important.
The King has been Mr. accessible for about 50 years so far, and I bet
he will be received as royalty for the next 100 years. If the picture
with Nixon couldn't stop him ....
Yours for ballots without borders, Mike H.
Bill Bugge
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:53:13 GMT, "Bill Bugge"
> wrote:
>
>
>> A legacy is something transmitted from the past, not how it is
>> perceived.
>>
>>
>> With that in mind, I'll throw my vote to Johnny Cash.
>>
> Say, Bill, this is interesting. You pose an issue, define it later,
> and relegate well-reasoned opinion to the poop deck
>
> I, for one, agree with Roger that perception is a large part of an
> artist's legacy. The dictionary says a legacy is something received
> from a predecessor. That reception involves many issues, but access
> and ease of understanding are surely important.
>
Who leaves the greatest monetary legacy- one who bequeaths a billion dollars
which his heirs squander or one who leaves a thousand dollars which is
invested wisely and becomes worth two billion dollars?
The answer is the one who left a billion dollars. What happens after the
bequest has no bearing on the measurement of the bequest.
And I considered the well reasoned opinions on both sides. It was just that
those of the Cash proponents were more well reasoned.
--
Bill
PRowan9262
>he will be received as royalty for the next 100 years. If the picture
>with Nixon couldn't stop him ....
>
>Yours for ballots without borders, Mike H.
Damn right, Holcombe!!!!
I mean, the image of him on both knees, both elbows, and chin to the bathroom
tile after his ignominious and unproductive dismount from the water closet
STILL keeps Cash in the historical shade, baby!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
PRowan9262
>those of the Cash proponents were more well reasoned.
But still just as wrong!!!
Such limp-dicked verity this well reasoning is!!!
I loved all those Johnny Cash imitators parachuting out of that plane in the
film "Honeymoon in Las Vegas"!!!
Looked like a big wad of migratory blackbirds, baby!!!
Bugge.........the only well reason is for us to draw water, brotha!!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
ebebes
> >From: Mark Dintenfass
>
> > I suspect Cash will loom larger than
> >Elvis in the future.
>
> No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only name
> about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs.
>
>
>
> Bruce Grossberg
I'm 60 and the only Cash song I can think of offhand is "A Boy Nmaed
Sue". I can think of many, many Elvis songs.
e.
PhillyGuy
<snip for brevity and maybe sanity>
>
> And we agree to disagree. For the record, I'm a bigger Cash fan than Elvis
> fan.
>
> Ray Arthur
Ray, doesn't this remark add weight in exactly the direction of the
argument of those making the case for Cash.
Anyway, all of you: Is this possibly not simply a case of comparing
apples to oranges, with the lynchpin to Elvis' fame his work in
rockabilly (I mean, it didn't come from his country sides, gospel
sides, pop stuff then ("It's Now Or Never") or pop stuff later
("Suspicious Minds", basically doing Tom Jones better than Tom Jones
("It's Not Unusual")), or one wouldn't say he his main thing was blues
singing, either, although there a first rate blues song that broke him
out, "Heartbreak Hotel". But you have Johnny Cash in country. So
people are arguing the best rockabilly artist vs. one the great and
essential country artists, and this exercise wrings about as much
usefulness as comparing The Beatles and The Stones, with the former on
the more to the poppish side of rock and roll, and the latter a little
bit towards the blues side of r-n-r.
NAM,B:
Tom B.
Tregembo
"PhillyGuy" <tomfro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9aedb077.03080...@posting.google.com...
> "Tregembo" <tr...@krajfm.com> wrote in message
news:<viju0ek...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> <snip for brevity and maybe sanity>
> >
> > And we agree to disagree. For the record, I'm a bigger Cash fan than
Elvis
> > fan.
> >
> > Ray Arthur
>
> Ray, doesn't this remark add weight in exactly the direction of the
> argument of those making the case for Cash.
Respectfully, no. I'm a bigger Conway Twitty fan than anything else. But
I'm not suggesting Conway should be in this discussion, because Conway
Twitty did not leave a greater musical legacy than either Cash or Presley.
The fact that, as a whole, I prefer Cash over Presley doesn't diminish the
much greater, IMO, contributions of Presley in both quantity and quality.
>
> Anyway, all of you: Is this possibly not simply a case of comparing
> apples to oranges, with the lynchpin to Elvis' fame his work in
> rockabilly (I mean, it didn't come from his country sides, gospel
> sides, pop stuff then ("It's Now Or Never") or pop stuff later
> ("Suspicious Minds", basically doing Tom Jones better than Tom Jones
> ("It's Not Unusual")), or one wouldn't say he his main thing was blues
> singing, either, although there a first rate blues song that broke him
> out, "Heartbreak Hotel". But you have Johnny Cash in country. So
> people are arguing the best rockabilly artist vs. one the great and
> essential country artists, and this exercise wrings about as much
> usefulness as comparing The Beatles and The Stones, with the former on
> the more to the poppish side of rock and roll, and the latter a little
> bit towards the blues side of r-n-r.
>
> NAM,B:
>
> Tom B.
Again, I don't think so, in that the music of both artists in question
crossed different musical formats at different levels at different times.
You bring up an interesting point in the Beatles and the Stones. But
explore it first, strictly from Bill's original question: "Who has the
greatest musical legacy? That's all there is to the question. The question
wouldn't be "Who's a better band? or Which duo wrote better songs? Bill,
Mark and others have expanded the question with many other caveats. And
while they're all interesting, they create different questions. So, in the
simplicity of the question, to me it's apples and apples.
Ray Arthur
Scarlotti
> I'm 60 and the only Cash song I can think of offhand is "A Boy Nmaed
> Sue". I can think of many, many Elvis songs.
>
> e.
I'm 39 and can think of about 7 Cash songs (although I have heard --
and forgotten -- many others back when I used to frequent the Country
stations).
I can also immediately think of _many_ Elvis songs.
And although no one has mentioned it (I'll leave it to the historians
for confirmation), I recall hearing that a recent (as in earlier this
year) cd featuring all of Elvis' #1 singles was the best-selling album
on the charts, and that a remix of one of his lesser singles claimed
top honors on the singles spot as well.
Bob Roman's academic buddy notwithstanding, I'd guess that today's
teens are as familiar with Elvis' music as ever (perhaps moreso, due
to increased accessibility via cds and file sharing).
Scarlotti
> Not surprisngly all of the 20s artists that are well-reembered today
> cited were black vis a vis the white performers not as well or not at
> all remembered. (Political correctness, to be sure, but SInatra used
> the term "Cunt" and "whore" and is STILL highly liked while Bing
> Crosby's spanking his kids and supporting "jap-bashing" World War II
> veterans is politically incorrect with the same PC crowd..go figure
> yet both were w white and Frank started out imitating Rudy and Bing)
I think you nailed this one, Steve.
Just as Jazz, in recent years, has become a political platform for the
PC crowd to tout (often forgotten) African American musicians to the
skies; so the Country field has been designated as the sole musical
provence in which white Americans can legitimately (i.e., from a PC
standpoint) are allowed to stake their claim.
PC R&R fans ignore (and/or denigrate) most of the white artists
(witness the abuse heaped on Pat Boone and Fabian) and focus on the
role played by R&B (and R&B performers) in Rock's development.
Pop (mostly white, and mainstream to boot) is anathema to them.
Elvis has always presented something of a problem to these PC
revisionists. Elvis was the biggest R&R star of all time (sold over a
billion records and, over a quarter century after his death, is still
going strong). But Elvis was white, often sang Pop Rock and Ballads,
starred in enjoyable (if often formulaic) Hollywood star vehicles (of
little merit -- other than a showcase for The King) and was commercial
as anything.
Elvis' unparalleled success throws one heckuva monkeywrench in the PC
arguments for the supremacy of 2nd and 3rd string R&B artists like
Little Richard, et al. Well, you know what they say ... if you can't
dismiss 'em entirely, you can at least attempt to downplay their
significance.
Thus while one cannot deny that Elvis' greatest hits (all 50 or more
of 'em)
represent the pick of the R&R, one can at least claim that while his
hits were undeniably great, one can smugly claim that he cut a lot of
commercial junk as well. Like what? Elvis' lesser songs are at least
as good as 99.9% of the late 50/early-to-mid 60s R&R tunes by other
artists. They're only "lesser" when compared against other Elvis
records (as opposed to when compared against, say, Little Eva records,
or other mass-produced 60s fare).
Johnny Cash, otoh, makes for the perfect PC hero. His songs are
unprepossessing and unpretentious. He's got a "cool" image ("The Man
in Black"), yet gives concerts to convicts (immediately endearing him
to Liberals everywhere). Vocally, he's not very talented -- talent
(except in members of ethnic minorities) is always a negative factor
in PC-based estimations -- but admittedly makes the most of what he's
got.
But the big PC clincher is, as everyone knows: HE'S ONE QUARTER
CHEROKEE INDIAN!
He's currently enjoying a minor resurgence in popularity, having
recorded with 80s rockers, like Tom Petty, and guest starred (as a
singing coyote) on THE SIMPSONS.
paramucho
wrote:
>Elvis has always presented something of a problem to these PC
>revisionists. Elvis was the biggest R&R star of all time (sold over a
>billion records and, over a quarter century after his death, is still
>going strong). But Elvis was white, often sang Pop Rock and Ballads,
>starred in enjoyable (if often formulaic) Hollywood star vehicles (of
>little merit -- other than a showcase for The King) and was commercial
>as anything.
>
>Elvis' unparalleled success throws one heckuva monkeywrench in the PC
>arguments for the supremacy of 2nd and 3rd string R&B artists like
>Little Richard, et al. Well, you know what they say ... if you can't
>dismiss 'em entirely, you can at least attempt to downplay their
>significance.
>
>Thus while one cannot deny that Elvis' greatest hits (all 50 or more
>of 'em)
>represent the pick of the R&R, one can at least claim that while his
>hits were undeniably great, one can smugly claim that he cut a lot of
>commercial junk as well. Like what? Elvis' lesser songs are at least
>as good as 99.9% of the late 50/early-to-mid 60s R&R tunes by other
>artists. They're only "lesser" when compared against other Elvis
>records (as opposed to when compared against, say, Little Eva records,
>or other mass-produced 60s fare).
That's another possible scenario -- that Elvis *will* be remembered
more, but not for the tracks we consider his best today.
Beethoven's biggest hit in his own lifetime was a military spectacle
called WELLINGTON'S VICTORY (including cannon's a-firing) to celebrate
Napolean's defeat. It's never performed these days except for OUTTAKES
things. Perhaps it will be Elvis' versions of "Blue Moon" or "Baby
Let's Play House" which will triumph. Or perhaps it will be for other
reasons -- a recent book have on the blues treats Elvis as one of the
greats.
One of Elvis' major innovations was the way he moved and the way he
integrated movement into his material -- that's less likely to survive
in purely musical terms but perhaps later generations will be more
interested in the combination of movement and music.
In any case, "Jailhouse Rock" will never die... that's the touchstone
of a rock vocal, well, to me anyway. What the moving finger will write
is unknowable and history does teach that it wasn't always obvious.
Telemann was the king of the late Baroque in his day, but we remember
the relatively unknown Bach. Hadyn was probably more respected than
Beethoven in his time but he's in third place after Mozart and
Beethoven these days. Mendelssohn was also huge but is relatively
little remembered.
The other point about history is that it changes -- to become a
Shakespeare or a Beethoven you have to be a Person For All Seasons and
have a broad offering that will suit the changing tastes of the future
as it unfolds -- it's not enough to make it in fifty years, you also
need the material to make it again in a hundred years. Historians like
to discard the choices of their predecessors and along with that,
historians tend have a penchant for artists who can sum up the many
facets of a period because it makes it easier to condense the detail.
--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
Roger Ford
So finally we get to the crux of this thread....inasmuch that whats
really being asked here is "who had the greatest musical legacy" which
broadly translates as "who made the best records" ---the answer to
which when you get to the bottom line is almost certainly going to
equate with "which artist is your favorite"
And the subjective answers not suprisingly vary from person to person.
Some say Elvis. Some say Cash.
Neither are "right" Neither are "wrong".
It's just a matter of opinion.
And on that highly subjective basis you have no need to say sorry
since your differing opinion carries no more weight and is no more or
less worthy than mine.
ROGER FORD
-------------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
paramucho
And it's not like history was ever democratic anyway.
Bob Roman
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>"Bob Roman" <Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>> ....An average 21-year-old is more like to have
>> heard *of* Elvis. But I believe a 21-year-old is more likely to have
>> listened to Johnny Cash. Elvis has been dead for over a quarter of a
>> century. Cash, meanwhile, is recording Nine Inch Nails songs with
>> Rick Rubin.
>-----------------
>I don't know exactly who Nine Inch Nails and Rick Rubin are, but assuming
>they are a Rock band, how is this any different from Pat Boone's "In A Metal
>Mood" album?
Because Boone's album was a joke, whereas Cash's four albums
commercially revived his career, won him a couple Grammies, and proved
to Nashville that there was still a market for hard country.
>Old guys do silly things sometimes, when they have the money....wear
>toupees, sing with rock bands, marry Anna Nicole Smith....
There was nothing silly about him recording "Hurt." When I first read
last year in the NYTimes that he was recording it, I rolled my eyes as
well. Then I bought the album and heard him make it his own.
Bob Roman
Mark Dintenfass
<Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of the late albums because I loved Cash's voice, and
it has become a croak--but making a song his own is what he always did,
and that's artistry.
Bob Roman
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>You mean "Hurt," the Timi Yuro song?
No. It's a 1994 song.
>I never listened to another thing he did after that horrendous duet with Bob
>Dylan.
He's done a lot of good stuff since 1969.
You mean you've never heard "Sunday Morning Coming Down" from 1970?
>I'm glad Hank Williams didn't live long enough to start thinking he had to
>do duets with Ludacris to get back on the charts.
Well, then it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If
an artist continues a formula he's accused of just milking a career.
If he takes risks he's accused of pandering.
Did Johnny Cash take risks to revive his career or did he revive his
career because he took risks?
Bob Roman
Tregembo
"DianeE" <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote
> That was him? Yes, I have heard it. For some reason I thought it was by
> Kris Kristofferson.
IIRC, Kristofferson wrote & recorded, but Cash had the hit. So you very
weell may have heard the Kristofferson version.
> Not pandering, necessarily. Bob Dylan took a risk and recorded an album
of
> other people's songs, and was (deservedly IMO) bashed for it. Linda
> Ronstadt took a risk and recorded an album of "standards" with Nelson
Riddle
> and was (deservedly IMO) bashed for it.
I don't recall any Ronstadt bashing. At the time, 1982 or '83,
she was pretty well out of her R & R era anyway.
Most of the reviews were pretty glowing, plus there was the Pirates of
Penzance
on Broadway which also went well.
> When Frank Sinatra and John Lee
> Hooker, in their old age, recorded albums of duets with rock stars, were
> they "taking risks," "pandering," or just trying to go on making a living?
> I don't know, but I find these things almost excruciating to listen to.
Sinatra was still in comparatively good voice, and the concept seemed
good...
but some of those pairings were just God awful. I can understand why
he wanted to record them long distance.
Ray Arthur
Len Blanks
> I'm glad Hank Williams didn't live long enough to start thinking he
> had to do duets with Ludacris to get back on the charts.
Tired of fast food so they cooked up dope
So now we eatin lobster shrimp
... Jambalaya, Crawfish Pie-ay, Filet Gumbo
an things And watch for imposters that's been in the game
... Cause tonight I'm gonna see
We invented the game and y'all just got hip
... My Cherami-o
Cause I love to walk around like my shit don't stank
... Fill fruit jar and be gay-o
Even if it's cigars and that purple color dank
... Son of a gun, we'll have big fun
Chillin in the gut with no trace of Tom Hanks
... On the bayou
So put this in yo' jaw like weiners and beef franks
... Jambalaya, Crawfish Pie-ay, Filet Gumbo
--
Len
~/.signature is: umop ap!sdn -- Frank Nobis
PhillyGuy
> ....Elvis or Johnny Cash?
That is your question, but what if we could ask a 2nd type of
question: Which has the greater musical legacy: Rockabilly or Country
Music? I think the answer is obvious to that one. Johnny Cash being
part of the latter, a more valued type of music that has NEVER gone
out of fashion, and making some vital music within that form, will be
valued higher.
But not just on popularity, on merit too. Elvis was bigger than any
of his recordings. But Cash was popular because of his recordings.
There was no national fad with Cash, or cult of personality. There is
no one song of Elvis in his pre-Beatles years that outshines "I Walk
The Line", a song more adult in outlook that almost anything early by
The Prez. The part of Elvis that is bigger than his recordings is for
all musical merit evaluations, of course, superfluous.
Country Music has a home city, and a home within that home, Ryman
Auditorium, internationally reknowned. It has a well-established Hall
Of Fame. Elvis sang country, too, of course, but made his name in
rockabilly. Rockabilly was more of a dominant style in a certain era,
and has a "good old days". Country music has a never-yet ending good
old days, in every decade going back to the Carters
and Rodgers, and even when it is too commercial or circumscribed in
style and topic at times in the last 15 years, well you have an
Alternative Country movement as well (Lucinda Williams, and others,
including at times, Steve Earle, the late Dave Carter, etc.). There
is always somebody like a Ricky Scaggs keeping it real, too, for every
Garth Brooks. Rockabilly has its adherents to this day, but it is
either those who lived in the good old days of the late 50's, or else
it finds a younger generation born after that in places, including
Europe, trying to revive it, or endorsing or invoking its style and
attempting to creat new music in the famous style of the 50's.
Moreover, country musicians will continue to be working-class heroes
of the people of The South and rural American elsewhere. Rockabilly
may only have a small cult status at best, among the working class who
are many years from their retirement.
Johnny Cash, more than Elvis, finally, will remain a seminal influence
for many years to come, in a living continuing music culture: Country
& Western Music.
The Fulsom Prison album has achieved a place in the super-stratus of
recorded albums, and special, not unlike What's Going On by Marvin
Gaye in soul music,
Sergeant Pepper or Abbey Road by The Beatles, or Who's Next in hard
rock.
Personal beauty can carry an artist far. It did everything but give
Fabian Forte a career, except he had no musical worth. So can stage
mannerisms and persona (see Michael Jackson, whose worth will continue
to decline in revisionist eyes next to true funksters or soul men like
Brown or Green).
Elvis had some first rate rockabilly, but rock and roll molts every
few years and brings in something new. Although rockabilly will
always be rightfully revered, by a few in every generation, when
Elvis' generation who came of age in the 50's passes on from this
world, I believe County music will be here as long as there is an
Anglo-American culture, especially rural, in the United States. Cash
will be appreciated as part the legacy of this longest running of
popular music forms in 2020, 2030 and 2040 and beyond. Elvis
influence will fade, except among those reviving his style (of dress,
look, supposed attitude, etc.) to where he is revered or remembered
more for that than his music, especially to music-making musicians who
will create next and subsequent generations of popular music.
Country Music sings about life in general, across its full spectrum,
the good, the bad & the ugly. Rockabilly may continue to serve the
purposes of the social rebel somewhere or sometime in some place, but
country music will continue to serve the working man (and women in
working world or at home) in all seasons for all reasons, long past
the rebellious youth stage, too. Cash simply was part of a more
permanent and less popularly fleeting form, appealing to a broader
spectrum. Rockabilly had its day in the sun. The sun has never set
on Country & Western music. Cash also wore a trademark black in stage
clothing throughout his career, The King went from black leather to
self-deprecating white sequined outfits in the last years. Because of
that, wherever a segment of young people of these times in pockets of
revival found here or there in world, the usual associate with
rockabilly in general, or 50's styles in general, rather than Elvis
specifically, because they seek respect, not patronizing pity, which
is all fat Elvis, in on his own joke, engendered from people with
their head on straight. Or because fat Elvis (70's Elvis) was
attractive to middle-age men, their sons or daughters more than likely
would have nothing to do with Elvis. If James Dean had lived, even 3
more years, and was able to be cast in movies as good as "Rebel
Without A Cause", he may have garnered a bigger cult that Elvis might
not have been able to overcome to be named biggest star of the decade.
At least there is no vagueness of the legacy of his image.
I will say this, finally, Hank Williams music is more important than
that of Elvis, and some know this. And Patsy Cline, perhaps country's
biggest all-time star, is generating more reverance and deep
admiration for her career and gifts these days, even without being
associated with the hype (for their own purposes) of a those trying to
keep a label alive financially (RCA) by coming out with a new box set
or disc (30 #1's) to galvanize some part of the public's interest.
-tb
Roger Ford
ROTFL!!!
Nice to see you back!!
(Be nicer still to see The Hammers back...I see the bookies have them
as 3-1 favorites to end up Div One Champions)
ROGER ROEDER
Len Blanks
> "Len Blanks" <ltb+u...@haruspex.net> wrote in message
> news:m3fzkji...@gwrcath.haruspex.net...
> ---------------
> Aaaaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! I can *hear* it!!!!!!!!!
It has an innate melody.
--
Len
-.-./---/--/.--./..-/-/./.-./... .-/.-./.
..-/..././.-.././.../.../.-.-.- -/...././-.-- -.-./.-/-.
---/-./.-../-.-- --./../...-/. -.--/---/..- .-/-./.../.--/./.-./.../.-.-.-
.--./.-/-.../.-../--- .--./../-.-./.-/.../.../---
Rockabi101
sometimes makes me think of what Tasmanians might think of Lapland.
Yes, there are a few Southerners here, but it seems like many live in a far
different world from those of us born below the line
1) Johnny Cash is a great country artist; Elvis is religion. Johnny has fans;
Elvis has apostles. Elvis is as much alive in the South today as ever. Visit
any Southern flea market and you still see Elvis items
selling alongside current artists and icons . How many other artists debut at
#1 on the Billboard chart with songs that were released 40-45 years before?
And, Elvis (like the Beatles) didn’t go out and promote
the release with a tour or by playing with modern rock artists.
2) Elvis is by far the greater influence on American music. Why did Perkins,
Jerry Lee Lewis, Conway Twitty, Charlie Rich, and , yes, Cash (who re-cut Elvis
songs in the 50s) come to Sun. Because they heard
Elvis and he was there. Elvis influenced the very development of white rock &
roll and the future progression of country. Few artists in either field today
are without some influence of Elvis in their music or their performance
styles.
3) Yes, country morphs every few years, as does rock. But do people really
think rockabilly came to a stone wall and just stopped having an influence? It
morphed into white rock & roll, it morphed into country rock, and it morphed
into Southern rock. Elvis’ influence brought about
Charlie Daniels and the Jaguars which led to the Charlie Daniels Band. Elvis
influenced Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks and eventually the Hawks become the
Band. His influence continued in every southern and country rock band and
country-rock performer over the decades. Artists from Buddy Holly to Buck
Owens to Marty Robbins emulated Elvis successfully. Others like Cowboy Copas
Ernest Tubb, and Webb Pierce made sure to add a few rock & roll numbers to
their repertoire. Hank Snow added Elvis
himself. Bluegrass groups like the Stanley Brothers included what they called
“Elvis music” into their shows. That influence has never died out of the
music and is still strong today in many modern country
artists, whether a Travis Trill, Tim McGraw, or Kenny Chesney,
Bob Roman
"DianeE" <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>"Bob Roman" <Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> You mean you've never heard "Sunday Morning Coming Down" from 1970?
>-----------
>That was him? Yes, I have heard it. For some reason I thought it was by
>Kris Kristofferson.
As Ray A. wrote, you might have heard either version. Cash's version
is better, IMO.
>> Well, then it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If
>> an artist continues a formula he's accused of just milking a career.
>> If he takes risks he's accused of pandering.
>-----------
>Not pandering, necessarily. Bob Dylan took a risk and recorded an album of
>other people's songs, and was (deservedly IMO) bashed for it.
Are you talking about "Self Portrait" from 1970 (which inspired the
the review in Rolling Stone that began, "What is this shit?") or the
early '90s albums of folk standards ("Good As I Been to You" and
"World Gone Wrong")? The '90s albums are very good.
>Linda
>Ronstadt took a risk and recorded an album of "standards" with Nelson Riddle
>and was (deservedly IMO) bashed for it.
Few thoughts here:
1) I agree these trad-pop albums revealed her limitations as a
vocalist. But she made three of these albums with Riddle, so someone
liked them.
2) If she had completely landed on her face, I would still respect her
for taking the risk. It's not like those albums were an obvious
career move.
3) Ronstadt completely adapted to another genre. Cash forced others
to adapt to him. In my opinion, they were similar in that way to Ray
Charles' albums of c&w songs.
>When Frank Sinatra and John Lee
>Hooker, in their old age, recorded albums of duets with rock stars, were
>they "taking risks," "pandering," or just trying to go on making a living?
>I don't know, but I find these things almost excruciating to listen to.
I don't consider either of these to be risky.
>The sole exception is JLH's duet with Bonnie Raitt, "I'm In The
>Mood"....somehow she was able to blend into his world seamlessly. IMO.
I like Hooker's work with Carlos Santana on "Chill Out (Things Gonna
Change)." I first heard it when they performed it together on the
Tonight Show. It was a "wow" experience. The studio version's not as
good, but I still like it.
Bob Roman
Mark Dintenfass
<rocka...@aol.com> wrote:
This is the best argument for Elvis I've seen here. The others merely
asserted his greater legacy. Thanks.
Roger Ford
And methinks that says it all.
Terrific post and the best thing this thread has produced.
ROGER FORD
Tregembo
> In article <20030803120206...@mb-m21.aol.com>, Rockabi101
> <rocka...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Listening to this group talk about the South, Country, and rockabilly
> > sometimes makes me think of what Tasmanians might think of Lapland.
> > Yes, there are a few Southerners here, but it seems like many live in a
far
> > different world from those of us born below the line
> >
> > 1) Johnny Cash is a great country artist; Elvis is religion. Johnny
has
> > fans;
> > Elvis has apostles. Elvis is as much alive in the South today as ever.
Visit
> > any Southern flea market and you still see Elvis items
> > selling alongside current artists and icons . How many other artists
debut at
> > #1 on the Billboard chart with songs that were released 40-45 years
before?
> > the release with a tour or by playing with modern rock artists.
> >
> > 2) Elvis is by far the greater influence on American music. Why did
Perkins,
> > Jerry Lee Lewis, Conway Twitty, Charlie Rich, and , yes, Cash (who
re-cut
> > Elvis
> > songs in the 50s) come to Sun. Because they heard
> > Elvis and he was there. Elvis influenced the very development of white
rock &
> > roll and the future progression of country. Few artists in either field
today
> > are without some influence of Elvis in their music or their performance
> > styles.
> >
> > 3) Yes, country morphs every few years, as does rock. But do people
really
> > think rockabilly came to a stone wall and just stopped having an
influence?
> > It
> > morphed into white rock & roll, it morphed into country rock, and it
morphed
> > Charlie Daniels and the Jaguars which led to the Charlie Daniels Band.
Elvis
> > influenced Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks and eventually the Hawks become
the
> > Band. His influence continued in every southern and country rock band
and
> > country-rock performer over the decades. Artists from Buddy Holly to
Buck
> > Owens to Marty Robbins emulated Elvis successfully. Others like Cowboy
Copas
> > Ernest Tubb, and Webb Pierce made sure to add a few rock & roll numbers
to
> > their repertoire. Hank Snow added Elvis
> > himself. Bluegrass groups like the Stanley Brothers included what they
called
of the
> > music and is still strong today in many modern country
> > artists, whether a Travis Trill, Tim McGraw, or Kenny Chesney,
>
>
> This is the best argument for Elvis I've seen here. The others merely
> asserted his greater legacy. Thanks.
I agree with you. But you make me laugh by dismissing everyone else because
"The others merely asserted his greater legacy.
That was the question, remember?
Ray Arthur
Mark Dintenfass
<tr...@krajfm.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is the best argument for Elvis I've seen here. The others merely
> > asserted his greater legacy. Thanks.
> > --md
>
>
> I agree with you. But you make me laugh by dismissing everyone else because
> "The others merely asserted his greater legacy.
>
> That was the question, remember?
Yes, but an assertion isn't an argument. It gives you nothing to chew
on, nothing to think about. Besides, I was arguing on the other side of
the question, and had been unpersuaded by previous posts.
PRowan9262
>"The others merely asserted his greater legacy.
>
>That was the question, remember?
>
>Ray Arthur
Oh shut up, Ray!!!
A true southerner has shoveled out some sagacity and your attempt at some
sniping profundity is, per usual, limpdicked, baby!!!
At least someone finally made your sullen ass laugh!!!
You ain't done that since November of '83!!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
Tregembo
"PRowan9262" <prowa...@aol.com> wrote
>
> Oh shut up, Ray!!!
>
> A true southerner has shoveled out some sagacity and your attempt at
some
> sniping profundity is, per usual, limpdicked, baby!!!
>
>
> At least someone finally made your sullen ass laugh!!!
>
> You ain't done that since November of '83!!!!
>
> Dennis C from Tennessee
Here's a dollar Dennis, Baby, buy a new punctuation mark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ray Arthur
PRowan9262
>
>Ray Arthur
>
Here's 97 cents in change, Queen Arthur, try a another riposte!!!!!
Oh yeah..............
Baby!!!!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
PRowan9262
>
>Yes, but an assertion isn't an argument. It gives you nothing to chew
>on, nothing to think about. Besides, I was arguing on the other side of
>the question, and had been unpersuaded by previous posts.
>
>--
>--md
Damn!!!
Professor Dintenfass takes Arthur to the mat too and pins his ass!!!!
Ray!! You might have to forfeit your Conway Twitty t-shirt after this series
of intellectual toe-stubbings, baby!!!
No question that your assertions have been inarguably con and re futed,
baby!!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
Rockabi101
bluegrass but I do enjoy listening to it sometimes (WKCR-FM has a Sunday
morning bluegrass show) and except for the remake of "Blue Moon of Kentucky"
I don't understand about the Elvis influence.
>
>DianeE
>
Certainly, The Stanley Brothers (Ral[h and Carter) did bluegrass versions of
rock songs (including a recording of "Finger Poppin Time"on King). Other
bluegrass artists like Denver Duke and Jeffrey Null did "Rock & Roll Blues" and
"Blue, Blue, Blue" on RCA . Mac Wiseman (lead singer for Bill Monroe for
several years) did a couple rockers on Dot and Capitol. Jim and Jesse did
several rock & roll based numbers.
One of the great country and bluegrass producers was Henry Glover at King
records (who, IMHO, was one of the greatest influences in bringing about the
interchange of country and R&B). Members of this group will probably think of
Glover for producing acts like Lucky Millinder, Tiny Bradshaw, Buddy Johnson,
Bullmose Jackson, Bill Doggett, Little Willie John, etc.but he also produced
Grandpa Jones, Hawkshaw Hawkins, Jimmiee Osborne, The Delmore Brothers, Cowboy
Copas, and Moon Mullican. The Stanley Brothers arrived at King just at the end
of Glover's career there and also were influenced by him.
Bill Bugge
> On 03 Aug 2003 16:02:06 GMT, rocka...@aol.com (Rockabi101) wrote:
>>Yes, there are a few Southerners here, but it seems like many live in >>a
far
>different world from those of us >>born below the line
>
>
>> 1) Johnny Cash is a great country artist; Elvis is religion.
(clipped)
>
> Terrific post and the best thing this thread has produced.
But Southerners are not the only music audience. Cash may have less
acceptance in the South but more elsewhere.
I still believe he has the greater musical legacy, based largely on his
total repertoire versus Elvis.' Yeah, Elvis was the first Rockabilly, but
others such as Carl Perkins would have popularized it had there been no
Elvis. And white Rock would have developed without Elvis or Rockabilly.
Mythic status can be accorded anyone whether merited or not. Notoriety
should not be confused with greatness.
On merit, I believe Cash is the one who should be religion.
>
--
Bill
Rockabi101
>bluegrass but I do enjoy listening to it sometimes (WKCR-FM has a Sunday
>morning bluegrass show) and except for the remake of "Blue Moon of Kentucky"
>I don't understand about the Elvis influence.
>
>DianeE
>
I listed several bluegrass artists that recorded rock & roll in response to
Elvis, but we also need to look at the influence of bluegrass on rock & roll.
In country the emergence of rockabilly was to some extent presaged by the
emergence of bluegrass. Bluegrass was still new in the early 50s, evolving
from the sounds being developed by Bill Monroe and the Bluegrass boys in the
late 40s- early 50s. In country at that time, bluegrass was something new and
radical--and not always appreciated by traditional country artists of the day
(though much appreciated by younger country listeners.)
Therefore, it's not unusual that Elvis would have recorded "Blue Moon of
Kentucky" or that Gene Vincent would have recorded Monroe's "Rocky Road Blues."
Carl Perkins is quoted as saying. "Upon meeting Elvis - and here's the
historical fact - Elvis said to me, 'You like Mr. Bill Monroe?' I said, 'I
love Mr. Bill Monroe.' Elvis said, 'Man I do too.' I said, 'I knew you did. I
could tell it by that first record.' Rock & roll music is a deriivitve of
rockabilly music; rockabilly music is Bill Monroe and the blues tied together.
That's it." (Carl Perkins from notes on the MCA 3-CD Set, "The Music of Bill
Monroe from 1936 to 1994")
In 1949, a young 13-yr old in Lubbock Texas was so influenced by Bill Monroe
that he learned to play banjo and mandolin and with friend Bob Montgomery
formed a bluegrass group, Buddy and Bob).
Monroe is a member of both the Country Music Hall of Fame and the Rock & Roll
Hall of Fame. I was lucky enough to know Bill and worked with him, including
on that CD. He was very aware of the influence his music had on Elvis and
appreciative that Elvis had made his music known to other audiences.
PRowan9262
>>
>--
> Bill
They call you people athiests, Billy Booger!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
Rockabi101
in the South but more elsewhere.
>
> I still believe he has the greater musical legacy, based largely on his total
repertoire versus Elvis.' Yeah, Elvis was the first Rockabilly, but others such
as Carl Perkins would have popularized it had there been no Elvis. And white
Rock would have developed without Elvis or Rockabilly.
Mythic status can be accorded anyone whether merited or not. Notoriety
should not be confused with greatness.
>
>On merit, I believe Cash is the one who should be religion.
>>
>--
> Bill
the globe. I'm not sure Johnny has reached that point or will, regardless of
how merited that might be.
Bill Bugge
> I agree with you (Mark D.). But you make me laugh by dismissing everyone
else
> because "The others merely asserted his greater legacy.
>
> That was the question, remember?
>
He meant asserting without any evidence or reasons.
Please excuse if Mark has already answered for himself. My messages are
taking three hours to appear.
--
Bill
Roger Ford
But you had taken up your position from the word go and were never
going to be swayed by any kind of argument the same as I had mine and
was similarly not going to be moved. .
Mark,as I said to Bill in the end,because its only the opinions of
folk on here that appear to carrying this "legacy" thingy then this
all comes down to a simple "which is your favorite artist" thread.
Roger Ford
Both of you need to go back and read the posts again.
I did not simply assert---I gave reasons too.
So did others,.
Tregembo
"Bill Bugge" <wlas...@optonline.net.invalid> wrote in message
Bill,
I'd like to send you a private email. Would you forward your address?
Thanx,
Ray Arthur
Mark Dintenfass
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:58:10 -0500, Mark Dintenfass
> <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <viqtgse...@corp.supernews.com>, Tregembo
> ><tr...@krajfm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > This is the best argument for Elvis I've seen here. The others merely
> >> > asserted his greater legacy. Thanks.
> >> > --md
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree with you. But you make me laugh by dismissing everyone else
> >> because
> >> "The others merely asserted his greater legacy.
> >>
> >> That was the question, remember?
> >
> >Yes, but an assertion isn't an argument. It gives you nothing to chew
> >on, nothing to think about. Besides, I was arguing on the other side of
> >the question, and had been unpersuaded by previous posts.
> >
> But you had taken up your position from the word go and were never
> going to be swayed by any kind of argument the same as I had mine and
> was similarly not going to be moved. .
>
> Mark,as I said to Bill in the end,because its only the opinions of
> folk on here that appear to carrying this "legacy" thingy then this
> all comes down to a simple "which is your favorite artist" thread.
Maybe, but it was the best thread we've had in weeks, and I learned a
great deal from Rockabilly's input.