|
|
Post by shannondegroot on May 12, 2018 3:26:04 GMT
The King of Rock and Roll?
|
|
|
|
Post by sugarbiscuits on May 12, 2018 3:28:08 GMT
The King of Rock and Roll? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on May 12, 2018 4:12:32 GMT
Did he gyrate his hips the most, or did someone else do it more?
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on May 12, 2018 5:11:37 GMT
No. He was a legend but does not deserve King of R&R title. No one does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 8:29:56 GMT
No
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on May 12, 2018 9:42:05 GMT
I don't think that this is a question that can be answered with genuine authority by anyone. In his early years Elvis was as near to a real king that rock and roll has ever had,--with all due respect to, among others, Bruce Springsteen--and yet from a popularity standpoint the Beatles blew Elvis out of the water circa 1964-65; and while Elvis came back (and the Beatles didn't) he never fully regained his former status.
In time, at the end of the Sixties one could see and hear Elvis Presley on the radio and on television once more, and he still had it even as his material had changed a good deal as to style. His teen idol days were gone. David Cassidy had replaced him. None of this matters in the long term. Elvis's comeback, much of it in Vegas, made him a headliner all over again. His later work contains some of his best and most deeply felt material, and for all the talk about how bloated and drug addicted Elvis had become, when he died, in the summer of 1977, he went out a winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on May 12, 2018 20:49:08 GMT
Elvis Presley was a no-talent hick from Tupelo Mississippi, he wasn't even fit to shine The Beatles shoes
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on May 12, 2018 22:50:02 GMT
If he is the King I let others discuss, but I like many of his songs even when he beacme fat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman on May 12, 2018 23:18:08 GMT
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on May 13, 2018 5:34:24 GMT
No. but like I always see it seems like he and The Beatles etc have this built up untouchable image and based on that I think they are quite overrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 13, 2018 19:16:44 GMT
Yep.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on May 13, 2018 19:19:23 GMT
Uh huh huh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 19:29:28 GMT
He was very good at what he did, but I am not sure anyone is worthy of being called the King. It's kind of meaningless to assign such titles to people.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on May 13, 2018 22:07:11 GMT
No, not for me although I respect him as a pioneer and major influence.
Elvis impersonators, on the other hand, are the definition of lowest common denominator entertainer. They are embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
Post by someguy on May 14, 2018 2:29:25 GMT
There's a pretty long list of bands and artists I like better, but in the mid to late 50s it's hard to think of anybody who deserved the moniker of the King more than he did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 6:35:35 GMT
It depends on who you ask. I think there is no denying how influential he was to the genre and his success helped take Rock & Roll to the top but there are a lot of other artists that don't get acknowledged as much as they should for their role. Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry and the Everly Brothers are examples of that and John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr all said at various times if it wasn't for Buddy Holly the Beatles wouldn't have existed and Brian Wilson has said the Everly Brothers was a major influence for the Beach Boys with their harmonies. 
|
|
