On 6 Apr 2006 15:18:19 -0700, darrint68@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>DGDevin wrote:
>
>> "Spleen Merchant" <waterboy1019@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:ceda32d49c89hg47vcsa67bkv2q9aq9hh7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > I'll never understand what made Elvis the "King". He didn't write his
>> > own songs, wasn't a real great singer, could barely play guitar, and
>> > couldn't act to save his life. Towards the end, he was nothing more
>> > than a Vegas show act. He was mediocre, at best.
>> > I guess he just shook his hips at just the right time. He could
hardly
>> > be classified as a "rock" musician.
>>
>> Some truth there, he appeared at the right time and helped kick open
the
>> door, people who appear at those turning points do tend to be
remembered.
>> However, let's be fair, there were *no* rock musicians when Elvis came
>> along, and there really wouldn't be any until well into the sixties.
And
>> Elvis wasn't just lucky, he was a skilled showman and at least for
awhile
>> delivered some cool music, even if later it got kind of smaltzy.
>
>Speaking of bizarre manifestos, when did you begin listening to music?
>Yesterday?eh The most important decade in rock 'n' roll was from the
>'50s! DOH! Such founding fathers as Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee
>Lewis, Little Richard, Bill Haley & The Coments, Fats Domino, Carl
>Perkins, etc. Why else did Fab and every other British act cover a half
>a gazillion of their songs? Like it or not, the '50s shall forever be
>the "true" decade in rock 'n' roll. While Elvis may have had a greater
>impact on pop culture, Buddy Holly was the one with true talent. One of
>the first to produce, write, and perform his own music.
He was pretty boring though, IMO. Chuck Berry would have been a better
example as a talented singer/songwriter and he was far more
influential than Buddy Holly.
B.t.w. are you one of those infamous American jewish lobbyists?!
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
|
