Down With The "King"

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for my tardiness. I have no excuse besides laziness. In order to make up for my lack of punctuality, I will be writing a two part entry for this week. The first part will be the subsequent blog, while the second part will come sometime this weekend. It is with this in mind that I feel it is necessary to talk about something that has caused me serious mental grief. As many of you may be aware, I pride myself in being a discriminating music fan. Despite this, I also don’t hold any illusions concerning my taste in genres and therefore it is with great pride that I announce that I am a fan of pop music. Now, before you gasp in horror, I would like to remind you that I am a music fan. I like popular music, not the bubble gum pop so commonly found among pre-pubescent girls. In any event, the last few years have been devoid of good pop music due to an industry empty of any desire to make the good sounding pop music that I fell in love with. Instead, the money hungry machine has found it to be much easier to just pick an attractive but talent less person and vomit studio production on it. This coupled with some predictable random dance floor beat has become the formula for limited success, and unfortunately people are quite stupid, so they buy it. Despite this, the strategy of focusing purely on the financial side of music is nothing new. While I was patiently waiting for the dawn of a new era in pop music, I began to wonder about the origins of the weak link that occasionally revealed itself. Current pop music was rife with bad covers, terrible crossovers, and even worse “original” music. Who could have blazed the trail for such garbage? How could acts such as “Avril Lavigne,” “Beyonce,” and “Nelly Furtado,” share the same radio waves as “The Beatles,” “Led Zeppelin,” and “Pink Floyd?” I began to ponder all of the great acts, knowing that only someone who was truly popular could have been capable of weakening the defenses of a seemingly impenetrable institution. I racked my brain going through the greats of rock history, but continually found talented musicians who had become famous largely due to talent and ingenuity. It was then that I found one which caused me to gasp in disbelief. Of course, I am referring to the so called “king” of Rock-and-Roll, Elvis Presley.

Elvis Presley was a nice guy. This seems to be a common truth that may go without saying. Another fact was an amazing singing voice (this alone puts him far and above current pop stars). Despite this, neither of these earns him the moniker of “king” of Rock-and-Roll. I wondered how one attains such a title and quickly discovered the root of the terrible music that is so prevalent in today’s world. Apparently one of the prerequisites was not writing your own music. My research only showed one instance where he is credited with the creation of a song. On the song “Love Me Tender”, Elvis and the wife of writer Ken Darby are both listed as contributors, because in the words of Darby, “She didn’t write it either.”

Another quality of a “king” must be lameness. With the exception of the cliché aspects of Presley’s diet and lifestyle, there was of course his general weirdness. He slept with his mother in the same bed up until his early teens, and asked American President Richard Nixon to personally make him a drug-enforcement officer. Of course there was also his period as Las Vegas showman. If becoming the “King” of Rock-and-Roll only requires one to perform in Las Vegas casinos or show an interest in amateur police work, then either Barry Manilow or Shaquille O’Neal should be next in line to the throne. Of course, this option is quite frightening, and it is in our best interest not to discuss such things which could plunge our world into this inescapable darkness.

Finally, in what I see to be the most damning of my criticisms, deals with his early career. Most fans claim that the early period before Elvis joined the army is a true indication of his talent and genius. While looking over his catalog, I discovered that most of his hits were covers of earlier songs by African-American artists. While I realize that Elvis was a fan of many of the artists he covered, it does not negate the argument concerning whether or not a cover artist should be considered the “King” of Rock-and-Roll. If I had to choose one, I’d choose Beatallica, the cover band that commonly mixes songs from the catalogs of both “The Beatles” and “Metallica.”

In conclusion, I would like to say that I think Elvis sucks. Elvis fans love to cite his crossover appeal and good looks as sure proof of his almost divine musical status. I would argue that in the nature of the early Rock scene, crossover was inevitable due to the blurred genre lines. I have also purposefully avoided the common argument concerning Elvis and his purported stealing of African American R&B. I don’t have to tell you my opinion concerning this debate, but just know that despite his incredible respect for all the artists he covered, it was Pressley who enjoyed the profits. Many of the original artists who originally did such famous “Elvis” songs are long forgotten. Can you tell me which songs Arthur “Big Boy” Cudrup or Big Mama Thornton performed? Also, most people can name an Elvis song, but can anyone name one specific Elvis record with out resorting to the almost inevitable self-titled album? The lack of knowledge concerning Rock’s biggest and best act should be some indication of his status in the minds of anyone but his biggest fans. Finally, I’d like to nominate a new king, Pat Boone. Boone performed the same function as Elvis in almost every way. He is overly conservative, styles cover songs as his own, and is from the south. Plus with his royal highness King Pat I on the throne, we would be saved from those insufferable “Elvis” sightings. After all, anyone who caught a glimpse of Boone would hesitate before reporting a “Pat” sighting.