Presley vs Costello - Advantage, Elvis

[johnfoyle]

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/05/023414.php

Presley vs Costello - Advantage, Elvis

Posted by Al Barger on January 05, 2005



Elvis is king. Everyone knows that. The question, of course, is which one- Presley or Costello?

With due respect to Elvis the First, if your criteria for picking the king are based on technical artistic achievement, Elvis Costello totally rules. For starters, Costello rates as one of the dozen or so best songwriters in the rock music tradition, where Presley wasn't a songwriter at all.

Given that, though, there's still something missing. Costello's great, but somehow isn't quite Elvis. What exactly did Presley have on Costello? You could also think of this as a way of exploring Costello's artistic limitations.

I've got a few ideas on that. I've been listening to an all-Elvis music mix. It's rather instructive to hear the two bouncing off one another. I picked up several points of dominance for Presley.

First of all, Elvis Presley had a really rare animal magnetism. By this I do not mean simply sex appeal. He drew heterosexual men in with that dynamic force about as strongly as women. I don't know how to analyze this magnetism, how to break it down. I don't know that it would do any good. The other obvious example of this in his generation was Marlon Brando.

This magnetism may be more a gift from God than the result of any study or work, but it sure comes through. Obviously, watching Elvis just draws you in, even in ridiculous movie roles. Then, there's the prime experience of watching him singing on stage.

It comes right through even just in his voice, however, as evidenced by his actual records. Anyone can make a great song sound good, but Elvis could turn a mediocre, generic song like "Milkcow Blues Boogie" or "I Love You Because" into an unforgettable classic. He breathed life into all kinds of material that would lie there flat for most people.

Costello has many artistic advantages over Elvis Presley, but no mere mortal Englishman could compete with that presence. Costello has actually developed into one of the best vocalists in the history of recorded pop music, but he could never have made "That's Alright, Mama" into a cultural landmark.

"Lovable" initially came up in the Elvis mix sounding strong. Costello's rockabilly song is just much better written, more memorable and witty than most of Elvis' Sun songs. Costello sang it with great gusto, and a sharp arrangement. Yet hearing them back to back, it's still no "Milkcow Blues Boogie" - much less being any competition to "Baby, Let's Play House."

[Counter examples, songs where Costello has achieved maximum visceral or magnetic presence: "Lipstick Vogue" "I Want You" "The Name of This Thing Is Not Love" and definitely the infamous live 1977 SNL performance of "Radio, Radio."]

On the other hand, Elvis could never have sung "Lovable," even though it would have been broadly right down the center of his performing style. Elvis would never have been able get his mouth around all that college boy wordplay.

Which gets us to Elvis' second point of advantage over Costello: emotional directness. Costello might come up with lots of witty moves that Elvis couldn't have fathomed, smart college boy stuff. That doesn't necessarily always make for superior music, though.

Costello certainly understands this, and often compensates. He gets Hank Williams. Nonetheless, Costello's extreme self-consciousness sometimes gets between him and the audience at least a bit, despite his best intentions.

For example, one Costello song that distinctly lost points in my Elvis mix has been "God's Comic." Now, Costello wrote a classic song with a catchy and distinctive melody, exceptionally witty lyrics, and a totally unique sound from anything else in the history of recorded music.

Yet it very clearly loses something significant in the Elvis mix. It sounds limp, efette or enfeebled. This isn't a matter of not having enough beat. Simple old "Love Me Tender" has more basic emotional impact.

"God's Comic" has a witty lyric and high comic production to backlight the central emotional angst of the outstanding melody. From the lyrics, it would seem to be of the there's-no-God-looking-out-for-us variety.

Yet for all that brilliance and even real feelings behind it, the song loses a little but significant bit of effect for all the contrivance. He loses emotional pressure in the hose going through all the intellectual kinks.

Costello struggles with simple emotions and sentiments. He might make an intellectual decision to will himself to try, but he could never really properly sing "Mama Liked the Roses." His hyperactive self-consciousness would trip him up. You'd be able to hear him thinking about singing, and hitting his performance marks. Elvis, on the other hand, was missing his Mama, and his soul at that moment was an open book. That was straight from his heart to yours, even the cheesy spoken word bridge.

[Counter examples, where Costello has been most seemingly emotionally direct: "Either Side of the Same Town" "Peace, Love and Understanding" or perhaps "Party Girl"]

Finally, though, Elvis' biggest advantage over Costello is spiritual. Elvis Presley had a spiritual openess and aspiration which Costello could never touch.

For starters, think of their broadest respective statements of humanism. Costello gave a highly articulated expression of lower level human despair: "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding." Contrast this to the finale of Elvis' famous 1968 television special, "If I Can Dream." Elvis is reaching out toward something holy and transcendent that Costello could never touch.

Consider the spiritual cowering of Costello's "Monkey to Man," from his modern classic album The Delivery Man. It rocks righteously, with a catchy melody, and a sharp wit as he laments the day that "the vicious creature took the jump from monkey to man." It's a fine pop song, but he's still literally nothing but an overeducated monkey cowering in his cage, no matter the haughty wit of his denunciations. He's stuck spiritually at a low rung on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, as it were.

Walking through the hollow in the cool haze of the New Year's first Sunday dusk, my mp3 player went from the Darwinic despair of "Monkey to Man" directly to the otherworldly ascendence of Elvis "In the Garden." Elvis sure meant about 100 times more than Costello right at that moment.

Gospel, in short, is the biggest critical artistic difference between Elvis and Costello. Declan McManus doesn't have that kind of SOUL. These higher, most truly profound realms of sublime human emotional experience are closed to the monkey. Soul music comes from the church. Elvis was there, Costello wasn't. Listen to Elvis sing "Peace in the Valley" and weep at the purity and unearthly peace. What's Costello got to compete with that?

Getting to those emotions does not necessarily require religious belief, though. Among many possible examples, consider Jimi Hendrix' hymn to "Little Wing" or the ultimate Paul McCartney love song, "Maybe I'm Amazed." (Elvis should have sung these.) They're reaching out to some moment of purity or blissful perfection. They have effectively re-directed those spiritual urges into goddess worship.

"Maybe I'm Amazed" indeed represents just what Costello seemingly most cannot do: a pure, straight love song. They're ALL polluted, nuanced expressions of frustrated love for foolish whores or apologies for his own ill behavior, anything and every damned thing but simple wonder and pleasure. Costello could never compete in the presentation of even the simple, staple romantic pleasures of "Love Me Tender" or "Wear My Ring."

[Counter examples, where Costello breaks on through to the other side or at least has a happy relationship: ...hmm. I'm drawing a blank here.]

In short summary then, Costello is one of the greatest songwriters and record makers ever, speaking more clearly to my daily experience than any other musician ever. But on Sunday, Costello simply can't take the place of Elvis.

[verbal gymnastics]

...and the purpose of Mr Barger's article is...?

What will be the next comparators?

Rocky Marciano v The Rocky Horror Picture Show - which one is the REAL heavyweight?

[Mr. Average]

Clearly, it is a silly feature article that attempts some sort of critical comparative analysis of two important musicians of the 20th century.

But since John felt it was important to contribute this (and I am glad he did) I will comment. Elvis Presley certainly had 'animal magnetism' but he could sing like a son of a bitch. A golden throat of the likes of Frankie, Bing, etc. Costello will never be accussed of being a vocalist of this raw ability.

Staying power? That is another question, isn't it...

And if he is looking for a good comparative analysis, he should juxtapose the discography of Robert Plant with the Stevie Wonder recording "The Secret Life of Plants". The mystical connectivity between these two are far more significant, I think.

Pretty sure Bobster turned me on to this one...but I can't recall for sure.

[johnfoyle]

But since John felt it was important to contribute this

This is not important , just fun.

[Mr. Average]

My wording was poor. I appreciate ALL of your posts. They are the first I read.

[bambooneedle]

Presley is the pelvis of the soul, Costello is the pelvis of the dirty mind. Or whatever.

Some time ago I made it a point to make reference to EC as merely 'Elvis' on the most occassions that it would seem fair enough for people to assume it wasn't Presley. It makes them remember the Costello variety of Elvis, especially if they have to ask.

Thought provoking article, but the guy is being pretty dishonest especially as he purposts to be an informed admirer of Elvis.

[charliestumpy]

This is a very fine discussion-point to raise, amongst other things comparing originality/ability/media perception, and of course DPAM helped publicise his career initially by using the word Elvis. I have bought/enjoy all I can from both artistes, and it's always nice for me to obtain a Costello version of a Presley song. Seems to me that Presley good sing well, and Costello has spent time trying to improve his voice.

Generally a lot of people made a lot from Presley's commercial saleability, whereas a lot of people do not know what a good writer/performer Costello still is.

[Danny]

Am I the only person on earth who's immune to the Presley voice? It just doesn't move me - the wobbliness etc. - it's always left me cold. If you admit this, people look at you like you're a martian.

He's a great rocker of course, but his ballad singing for me is pretty awful. Have you heard how he destroys the Dusty classic 'You Don't Have To Say You Love Me'?

Costello's way with a ballad is far more moving, even though, like Presley, he has a very affected singing style. However, it sounds far more passionate and heartbroken, for me.

[charliestumpy]

I didn't get Presley voice till 1977 - just before he died/I heard Costello ... think Presley had best male pop voice, Eva Cassidy best female ... Costello probably about best living British writer/ pop/rock savant etc etc. (McCartney lost plot).

[AlmostBlue]

But since John felt it was important to contribute this

This is not important , just fun.

very fun indeed
very much appreciated as well.
Yes, why hasn't he covered "Little Wing" and "Maybe I'm Amazed"
but I loved hearing him sing McCartney's "Warm and Beatiful"
Has anyone heard EC sing "Never Walk Alone." He did it once or twice on the last tour also.

[invisible Pole]

He once sang "You'll Never Walk Alone" at some UK tv charity show (I think it was Comic Relief in 1999 or 2000).
At the same show (if I'm not mistaken) he sang Stand By Me accompanied by Pink Floyd's Nick Mason, Jools Holland, Formula 1 racer Damon Hill, and with All Saints providing backing vocals.

[charliestumpy]

YNWA from Boston 27-02-2004 is often available on WinMX - Soulseek.