Have your say & ask the experts

professorhat:

Clare Newsome:

But I think the real unsung hero of early rock and roll is Chuck Berry....

And of course his inspiration was Marty McFly...

"Cousin Chuck? You know that new sound you were looking for?"

 

dirtydawg1967:

Was Elvis, granted only at certain points in his career, the equivalent of those packaged artists.

Elvis packaged by Col Tom
Beatles packaged by Epstein and started off as a cover band
Stones by Andrew Loog Oldham and started off as a cover band
The Who by Stamp/Lambert
The Small Faces by Don Arden
The Stax Soul Revue packaged Booker T/Sam and Dave
Buddy Holly died on a package tour of artists

Doesn't diminish the talent IMO.

What definition of packaged are we using?

edit: I forgot every Motown artist packaged by Berry Gordy

Gary Mardell:

dirtydawg1967:

Was Elvis, granted only at certain points in his career, the equivalent of those packaged artists.

Elvis packaged by Col Tom Beatles packaged by Epstein and started off as a cover band Stones by Andrew Loog Oldham and started off as a cover band The Who by Stamp/Lambert The Small Faces by Don Arden The Stax Soul Revue packaged Booker T/Sam and Dave Buddy Holly died on a package tour of artists Doesn't diminish the talent IMO. What definition of packaged are we using?

I don't think anyone has said Elvis wasn't talented. Every artist needs their mentors, especially in the early years. The point is, like I've previously mentioned, would he of been the superstar if it wasn't for his looks and image.

Let's break this down into segments:

1)  Was he great song writer?

2) Did he have full control over the material he sang?

3) Was he a great singer?

4) Great musician?

I could on for ages, and if your answers are YES to all those, then fine, but you would be wrong.

How many artists wrote there own material in the late 50's? It was a decade of cover versions. On the beatles theme, when Epstein took control Lennon & McCartney had penned enough material to release 3 albums.

plastic penguin:

Let's break this down into segments:

1)  Was he great song writer?

2) Did he have full control over the material he sang?

3) Was he a great singer?

4) Great musician?

I could on for ages, and if your answers are YES to all those, then fine, but you would be wrong.

How many artists wrote there own material in the late 50's? It was a decade of cover versions. On the beatles theme, when Epstein took control Lennon & McCartney had penned enough material to release 3 albums.

Is your argument that anyone who doesn't fulfill the four criteria above (which interestingly leaves out "Great Performer?")  is rubbish?

I thought we'd concluded that nobody is rubbish? Except Scooch, obviously.

plastic penguin:

Gary Mardell:

dirtydawg1967:

Was Elvis, granted only at certain points in his career, the equivalent of those packaged artists.

Elvis packaged by Col Tom Beatles packaged by Epstein and started off as a cover band Stones by Andrew Loog Oldham and started off as a cover band The Who by Stamp/Lambert The Small Faces by Don Arden The Stax Soul Revue packaged Booker T/Sam and Dave Buddy Holly died on a package tour of artists Doesn't diminish the talent IMO. What definition of packaged are we using?

I don't think anyone has said Elvis wasn't talented. Every artist needs their mentors, especially in the early years. The point is, like I've previously mentioned, would he of been the superstar if it wasn't for his looks and image.

Let's break this down into segments:

1)  Was he great song writer?

2) Did he have full control over the material he sang?

3) Was he a great singer?

4) Great musician?

I could on for ages, and if your answers are YES to all those, then fine, but you would be wrong.

How many artists wrote there own material in the late 50's? It was a decade of cover versions. On the beatles theme, when Epstein took control Lennon & McCartney had penned enough material to release 3 albums.

Hmmm, still not sure on the definition of packaged here.

If you used the four criteria here, then I'd lay money that there are no commercially successful artists that would pass muster.

Artists create the art. They don't always have all the elements necessary to reach a wide audience. Some write, some sing, some perform, some sell. The ones we see are those who perform. The successful ones take performance into communication. The ability to move emotions.

Sure, having great cheekbones helps the selling but it isn't everything. Lisa-Marie has the looks but is she talented? And she's had a little more selling than her father.

Elvis has cultural significance, as do Buddy Holly, the Beatles and many that followed.

Therefore I conclude that Elvis is not rubbish, which was the original discussion point.

The Beatles have their significance, which for me runs out after Revolver. I just never got Sgt. Pepper. They redefined the art of the pop song in the mid-sixties and became very sophisticated songwriters. They were stage-hardened performers before they recorded a note. But, their first album is still 50% covers, so by the criteria above, they are in the same boat as Elvis.
atb
g

No, Clare, I'm not saying that. If you read the first part of my previous post, you'll see I haven't said, nor anyone else, as far as I can make out, that Elvis was not talented. Of course he was. If you look at the truely great artists of the past and present most, if not all, fulfill the above examples.  

Personally I thought His Movies were pure genious from the Point of view of the Movie studio. You can imagine to stuido bods in their meeting saying "Hey lets give Elvis a air-tight contract He cant get out of and make a load of films that are roughly the same only with Elvis main role in the film changing!" Genious!

Now I personally do not dig the great Mans Music, never have and never will, the same goes for the Beatles. But I do not deny the Man's huge Tallent and stage presence, He truely was a Ikon and inspired many after Him. But just because I do like His music does not mean I would ever say He was rubbish.

JohnDuncan:

I thought we'd concluded that nobody is rubbish? Except Scooch, obviously.

But what if they'd won?

Clare Newsome:

plastic penguin:

Let's break this down into segments:

1)  Was he great song writer?

2) Did he have full control over the material he sang?

3) Was he a great singer?

4) Great musician?

I could on for ages, and if your answers are YES to all those, then fine, but you would be wrong.

How many artists wrote there own material in the late 50's? It was a decade of cover versions. On the beatles theme, when Epstein took control Lennon & McCartney had penned enough material to release 3 albums.

Is your argument that anyone who doesn't fulfill the four criteria above (which interestingly leaves out "Great Performer?")  is rubbish?

I give You RICK WALLER! LOL

Gary Mardell:

JohnDuncan:

I thought we'd concluded that nobody is rubbish? Except Scooch, obviously.

But what if they'd won?

It was on the BBC, so they didn't.

D.J.KRIME:

I give You RICK WALLER! LOL

Who?

http://www.rikwaller.com/

He's not bitter.

Andrew Everard:

D.J.KRIME:

I give You RICK WALLER! LOL

Who?

Fat Bloke of X-Factor or what ever it was called then

Drummerdave:

Gerrardasnails:

Andrew Everard:

Gerrardasnails:

  Can any of these lot touch the songs of Radiohead though?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah. IMHO.

Lol! For me they have produced album after album (excusing Kid A) of brilliance.

Lol indeed - can't stand the pretentious whingery of radiohead

"Whingery"?