This Is Not The Story

By Elvis Today / Thomas MelinOct 13, 2007
This Is Not The Story
The Brittish Q Music magazine celebrates it's 21st anniversary with ann article on the 21 people that changed music. Among those listed are John Lennon & Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Madonna and yes, Elvis Presley. But the article about Elvis, written by singer, songwriter and guitarist Richard Hawley is, at least to me, a great disappointment. The reason for this is that it's written very much along the lines of "Elvis died when he went into the army." After describing his love for the early Elvis, "My favourite song is probably Blue Moon Of Kentucky" I know where this is leading, when Hawley one third into the text writes that Elvis "shot himself in the foot...and started believing his own myth around the time he was in the army." Therefore, it’s no surprise when, a little further into the article, I’m told that “the majority of his career he was either really fat and bloated or he was lost in those shitty films”. What confirmation I need I get with the sentence: “You saw a brief flash of the old Elvis again in '68 and then it all went back to business as usual, the Las Vegas horseshit." This is to be expected in an article about Elvis written in the '80s, but c'mon! Nowadays I thought we were well past that, and that Elvis, thanks to the '60s and '70s box sets and Peter Guralnicks books among others, had the recognition he rightly deserves, especially in the music press. Apparently I was wrong, and that makes me sad. To make matters worse, the magazine also writes about "the 21 albums that changed the world." And yeah, you guessed right, among the 21 there is not a single one recorded by a certain Elvis Presley. Sigh! For more daily observations on the Elvis world, visit Thomas Melin' Elvis Today Blog.
Elvis Presley on: eBay, Amazon


snowplow floater (profilecontact) wrote on Nov 26, 2010report abuse
Who is Richard Hawley, obviously couldn't make it as a musician, like he's not a household name or anything. Elvis' first album did change the world, so this guy just sounds jealous.
Lefty (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 16, 2007report abuse
You'd think that after a man has been dead for 30 years historians would've sorted out his legacy, and we'd all have a general opinion on which to hang our hats. But no, he's still controversial! He still gets people fired up! It's just amazing to me. I wonder if anyone will be talking about other great singers at this level 30 years after they're dead? I kind of doubt it. A co-worker of mine in her mid-twenties asked me about Paul Simon. She said, "Wasn't he one of The Beatles?" To which I replied, "No, that's a different Paul all together." Another co-worker of mine in his early 30's visited Graceland and is now hooked. He heard Elvis sing "Bridge" and stated, "His original version must be better than Simon and Garfunkel's copy." I happen to love Simon and Simon & Garfunkel. They're not even dead, yet they're already fading away. To all I say, Long Live The King!
John4126 (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 15, 2007report abuse
Has anyone read the other articles? Do the other artists fair as badly or is it just Elvis who gets the neagtive comments? Unfortunately we have to live with the 'serious' music press' view of the Beatles, whether we consider them an over-rated band or not. Im a fan of music per se and tip my hat to the groundbreakers of which Elvis and the Beatles are but two. I have to say whereas Elvis 'knocked the doors down', The Beatles took music to much higher levels with their song writing, and limitless variety of harmonies, structures and sounds, of which every rock experiment has some precedent on Beatles records. Elvis didnt die when he went in the army but he became less of a relevance despite the odd flashes of brilliance. Listening to FTD's Raised on Rock as i type this re-enforces the point sadly.
Jerome (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 15, 2007report abuse
that's the word You Dont Know Me: 'shallow'. Articles/books in that tone are written by people who know or care little about the 70's. Opinions are worthy but some knowledge is required..
You Dont Know Me (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 15, 2007report abuse
Sounds like another 'shallow' and biased article and a magazine to leave on the newstands! i certainly won't buy this!
mature_elvis_fan75 (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 14, 2007report abuse
By the way steve i agree,paul has shown class towards Elvis,thats whats so ironic in all the Elvis vs Beatles statements,Elvis for the most part was amking movie soundtracks while they were making there run,im sure Elvis could have been in the middle of all that chart success if he had went a differt rout with his material!
mature_elvis_fan75 (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 14, 2007report abuse
While im not a huge fan of the beatles,you have to remember there not the ones writing about Elvis in a negative ways,do i think there overrated? well yes,do i think Elvis is underrated? well yes,Elvis is too often thought of for everything but his music and alot of the general public feel ELVS is overrated because most storys and films on him center on the person and not the music,funny twist huh?
JerryNodak (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 14, 2007report abuse
The only person's opinion about Elvis, his life, times, and music that matters to me is mine.
My boy, my boy (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 14, 2007report abuse
Please everyone, once and for all, when we hear the famous statement from people that Elvis died when he got into the army, they merely talk about the strong impact of his creativity for the pop culture that slowly vanished after 1960...and it's unfortunately true ! Don't get me wrong, my own personnal favorite time of Elvis's career is the 70ties but I must admit that it's because I look at it as a fan, overall I have to say that his big impact on the world (and history has proved it) was back in the 50ties. I personnaly prefer a lot more listening to 1970's Just Pretend than to 1956's Hound dog...but for the public in general, they don't even know what Just Pretend sounds like. And for "Shakingruud", it's true that the Beatles never have bad press, but you have to remember that their career as a team of 4 lasted for the public for something like 7 years. Elvis's career was overlooked by the public on a period of 23 years, so it's easier to spot flaws here and there when you are exposed to critics on a much longer period...Cheers !
Kenneth (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 14, 2007report abuse
who is richard hawley? anybody know? and lex, this is a magazine article not the general public.
colnago (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 13, 2007report abuse
This article doesn't sound too good.It's sad that people don't rate Elvis after 1968.In my opinion Elvis in the early 70s with that voice,the way he moved,the way he looked,the karate and the TCB band behind him was in a class of his own.I was watching Elvis do 'I Got a Woman' from Elvis on Tour the other night and I thought to myself,nobody else could do that song like that.Eventhough he looked tired he was still awesome,very powerful,very physical and the band on fire.
Shakingruud (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 13, 2007report abuse
Hi Steve, the thing i dislike about the Beatles ( sorry for calling them d.ckheads) is that EVERY article about those four is always positive... Oh they were so great blablabla..... i´m sick and tired of that. Most people believe pop music started the the Beatles. Its about time someone sets the record straight. And Elvis didn´t die in the army. If people would ever pick up an album like Elvis Is Back.... But it WAS John Lennon who said those words for the first time....
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 13, 2007report abuse
The article seems nastily written. He could have his opinion but reading it sounds like an excerpt from Albert Goldman's book. And Shakingruud, you are whats wrong with most Elvis fans, calling the Beatles d-heads and professing your hatred of them. Cmon, 1964 is over with , the rivalry is dead. Never had I once heard a negative word from McCartney about Elvis, in fact over the last few years he has only said great things about Elvis, this despite the fact that Elvis had no use for them and wrote a negative letter to Nixon about them. All the Beatles espeically John & Paul always said how Elvis was a major part of their lives. If John didnt like his movie music after the Army, well he & many others felt the same way, but he still wore his Elvis button in public in the 70's now didnt he? And George attended his MSG show in 1972, ditto Ringo in Vegas so they were still fans.
Shakingruud (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 13, 2007report abuse
Well Lex, what on earth are you talking about. Elvis In Memphis was called ´probably the best black soul album of the century´ by the new dutch Revolver Magazine. Now we´re talking!! Q magazine is a Beatles devoted mag ( and i really hated those long haired d.ckheads) they rarely say anything positive about Elvis. I don´t care much for Blue Moon Of Kentucky, please give me Reconsider Baby, Suspicious Minds, Such A Night and, yes!, Burning Love!! He didn´t improve over the years you say....???
Lex (profilecontact) wrote on Oct 13, 2007report abuse
Mmmm... I can understand Thomas' feelings, but I understand the article's point of view even more. How much I like Elvis all around, artistically he didn't improve over the years... Anyway, I don't sleep less because of what the general public thinks :-).

In my opinion: 10 most recent articles


Recently Added Shop Items