Elvis On Cover German Rolling Stone Magazine

Elvis Presley is featured on one of four covers of the February 2009 edition of the German Rolling Stone magazine with an article on the 100 Greatest Singers. 

Source: Email / Updated: Jan 27, 2009 
Elvis Presley on: eBay, iTunes, Amazon, Sheetmusic

Reactions

theoldscudder (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2009report abuse
I'm pretty sure it covers rock singers. Best non rock singer Tony Bennett( hands down)!
EspenK (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2009report abuse
Oh well, neo-traditional country artists in general and the Elvis duets xmas album in particular is not where artists of today are found. And neither is Dion, Houston, Carey & co... They all try to sound the same. But if we stick to the established artists of today, how about Björk, Coldplay, Bowie, Prince, Robbie Williams, Pink Floyd, White Stripes, U2, Jamiroquai? They all have their own very definitive, distinct voice and sound without being too extreme or challenging. Personally I think it gets a lot more interesting when moving away from the mainstream, but even within the commercial, family-friendly sphere there are tons of talent to discover, loads of artists with integrity and identity.
dgirl (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2009report abuse
Well I sort of agree with SteveV on today's artists. Take the Elvis Duets album for instance. Aside from Anne Murray who sounds like a guy and Wynonna who has some soul , I couldnt tell one country singer from another. With todays 'music', forget hip-hop and forget the Mariah's Celines and Christina's of the world. All the same to me. As for Buble I feel about him as many feel about Sinatra (who he rips off by the way). I cant see why he's so popular.
EspenK (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
Don't take Lex' and my comments *too* seriously, we're having a bit fun. There's no denying that Sinatra is a legend. But when an artist gain such larger-than-life status I usually understand *why* they did so even if their music does not match my personal taste. Take Dylan for example. His music does not appeal to me at all but I do see what a unique artist he is. Same thing with Orbison. Not my cup of tea but I understand why he stands out of the crowd. I respect these artists, Greg.

Sinatra however, is one of those very few huge artists where I am completely blank, unable to point at one single reason why he of all artists became such a phenomenon. And for this reason I've seriously sat down and listened to a lot of his recordings with an as open mind as I've managed to. Nothing.

And Steve, if you can't tell one artist from another amongst todays artists I dare say it is because you're not interested enough to pay attention to them. And that's fair enough, nothing wrong with that. Or, as Greg so correctly put it, "your loss" ;)
Greg Nolan (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
Why, thank you, Benny - whereever you may be!

Good point, Steve V. That's another thing: a singer represents (at their best) their own distinctive take on things. Audiences like singers who have personality , which is key, as it's not strictly about being an operatic "true" singer. Therefore, a guy like Willie Nelson or a legend like Louis Armstrong can wheep or rasp their way through a song and you never mistake it for anyone else.

There has to be quality (very often, the song itself) and the performer (if they are any good -and record sales traditionally were a measure of that) will live or die on whether the audience agrees.

I think we can all agree that modern music is a bad spot for singing of any kind (thanks to technological "fixes," an over-reliance on image and visuals; and yes, the long night of Hip Hop) but I think it will be coming back eventually! It's instinctive to like good singing - and any child will show you that. So there's hope.
Lex (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
Ah, but I always recognize Sinatra immediately... and get bored by his voice. Like I said, I like a lot of the songs, but not his way of performing them. I'm sorry for that. Hopefully everybody that do love him accept this apologize. I DO love Michael Bublé, I think he is one of the few artists of today that has something special in his voice.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
I never saw the magazine so I'm not sure if this is the 100 greatest singers or the 100 greatest singers in rock. Either way Sinatra is a great singer. To me what makes a singer special is his/her uniqueness, like you know who it is from the first note. Elvis of course had that as well as a fabulous voice. Others like Sinatra, Cole, Bennett, Cooke, Brown have it and also Dylan, Jagger, Berry, Lennon even though their voices aren't what you would call a singers voice, but you know who they are instantly. You cannot say that about todays crop of non-descript so called singers. I cannot tell one from the other except for Norah Jones.
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
One cannot overlook Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Dean Martin, Bing Crosby,etc....... just to name A FEW! They sold millions of records too.As usual a wise and straight to the point reaction from Greg Nolan ! I like his comments,they are always full of common sense and give proof of a clear insight! ( this has nothing to do with flattering , don't even know where the guy lives or how old he is !) Always El.
Greg Nolan (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
As usual, when I want to see moronic commentary, I can trust ELVIS NEWS to come through!

Whether he's to your tastes or not, Frank Sinatra is an undeniable legend and one of the top singers of any genre. It's apples and oranges and beyond discussion at one point.

Personally, I've enjoyed tapping into the classy sounds of the Sinatra era and I say that as someone born long after rock made suck a ruckus in 1956. Call me crazy, but I like all kinds of music and it actually takes some work to acclimate yourself to all the great music of the different eras. Elvis, too, took a page from Bing Crosby and other crooners in so many of his ballads, for which the groundwork was laid for him by such forefathers.

The same casual and lazy dismissal that we too often see of the legacy of Elvis is what powers the same casual dismissal of Sinatra - or Nat King Cole or Dean Martin or Roy Orbison or Muddy Waters or Charlie Rich or the Beatles for that matter. So at least let's learn from the idea that can respect even things that don't personally move you. (Your loss, I say.)

As for the ROLLING STONE cover from Germany, it's a great one and much better than the hackneyed (if classic) '56 rocking shot that the American ROLLING STONE used. It captures him actually singing and just oozes that fact that he had a charm (and talent) that so few others ever had.

Unfortunately, I never saw the US Elvis version on the newstands (only all the others!) and it feaured only a perfunctory Elvis article anyway, along with dozens of artists who (when naming their favorite singers) rarely dug back earlier than - you guessed it- their own limited lifetimes.
EspenK (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
Dude, it's official: You've got bigger balls than me. I didn't dare calling it elevator music.
Lex (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
EspenK, I have to disagree with you. Sinatra's not a good hotel-bar singer, since you have the choice to leave then... he's more suitable for elevators or supermarkets, when you can't avoid it. He did numerous great songs thou, but I like them always better if somebody else sings them.
Pedro Nuno (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
Surprise: They used a Sixties Elvis rocking' picture on the cover. A few year ago the music world just ignored Elvis rock resurrection in the 60's. For them, because of the master marketing quote of Lennon (Elvis died the day he went to the army) and because of the Cover of the New Musical Express in August 1977 (when they used a 50's Elvis image and quoted "remember him like that") Elvis career was instantly deleted from 1958 on. During many, many years, Elvis was a pioneer of Rock and Roll, who went to the army, made silly pictures in Hollywood, got married and became a fat entertainer in Las Vegas’ cabarets. Glad those dark days are over...
elvistruth (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
Compare Nat King Cole (the 3rd best singer ever IMO) with the limited-voice but great composer of rock-and-roll Chuck Berry is the most ridicule thing I read in years along the guy saying that Sinatra is only an hotel singer, Oh my God!!!!. The next thing will be read that Bono is the best after Elvis and most better that great Sinatra!!!
elvistruth (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
Sinatra is, along with Elvis, the best by far. But he's not a ROCK singer fortunately. The third best singer, male or female and all styles, is very far after these two greats, IMO and for millions of people too!!!!!!
Natha (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
Nice cover. Luckily they used this type of photo. I think these four cover the mainstream of modern music quite well.
EspenK (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 28, 2009report abuse
I've never understood what the Sinatra fascination was/is all about. In my ears he's just a spineless hotel-bar singer. No vocal performances to speak of at all, ever.
OtisBlue22 (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 27, 2009report abuse
I was surprised to read that Chuck Berry was listed quite highly among the 100 Greatest Singers, while Sinatra was left out completely. That doesn't mean I don't agree with RS. Chuck has a fantastic voice, a smouldering, crooner's voice - not unlike Nat King Cole. And I particularly love Chuck's slower numbers: Down Bound Train, Together (We'll Always Be), Drifting Heart etc. But then, you can't knock Sinatra.

Misc.: 10 most recent news items

09/08/2016
09/01/2016

Recently Added Shop Items