Elvis Presley
30# 1 Hits

I continue with this review the "cycle of the overrated" that I dared to begin with "One" by the Beatles, despite the understandable criticism from many and the praise of just as many.

The second great overrated figure in the history of modern music is, in my humble opinion, Elvis Presley from Tupelo (Mississippi), a phenomenon in the '50s, a phenomenal trash actor in the '60s, a sideshow phenomenon (Las Vegas) in the '70s, and a phenomenon for nostalgics from his death ('77) to today. All with one eye on the image and another on the wallets of his producers and agents, although it must be observed that Our Man was essentially in good faith and was cleverly exploited by those who understood his impact on the collective imagination of white Americans, Colonel Parker above all.

Also in this case, as with the Beatles, a premise is necessary: no one denies Elvis's importance from a sociological historical standpoint, nor his influence on the taste and style of those who began to strum the guitar to the notes of his hits (which includes everyone, at least in the States and in England, less so in Latin countries, although Johnny Haliday, Little Tony, and Bobby Solo owe him), trying instead to technically reassess the artistic value of his musical offering, overall mediocre. I therefore ask forgiveness from the fanatics of the King of Rock, from those who make pilgrimages to Graceland (even Iron Maiden went there in the early '80s... see the booklet of Killers), and – apologizing for the autobiographical nature – to my girlfriend and her closest relatives.

Elvis the Pelvis's phenomenal career is well summarized by the album "30 #1 Hits", released a few years ago ('02) in conjunction with the relaunch of the American rocker's image and with the excellent Disney animated film Lilo & Stitch, where the young protagonist was a big fan of the leather-clad man (perhaps because she lived... a bit out of this world). Without conducting a tedious and unnecessary analysis of all the tracks on the album, known to most, I want to highlight the structural characteristics of Elvis's music, summarizing them in brief:

a) excellent voice, stentorian, more valid in the lower tones than in the higher ones, with dramatic slippages toward the tenor in the final years of his life, however lacking feeling and pathos, tending rather toward the whiny. Listen to various "Love Me Tender", "Suspicious Minds", "Are You Lonesome Tonight?", just to get concrete;

b) musical accompaniment completely negligible, if not downright banal, without any flair or inventiveness: this fact recurs throughout Our Man's career, from the beginnings to the final phase, without any excuses regarding technological limitations of any kind, given that Elvis could afford the best – just like the Beatles. Does anyone remember a solo, a phrasing, from his backing bands' guitars? A rhythmic groove from bass and drums? All the pieces are built on his voice, denying the very idea of an ensemble that constitutes the essence of jazz, blues, and rock;

c) repetitive repertoire and poorly able to renew itself, with continuous reference to the same rhythms, musical themes, harmonic solutions, without this being considered "classic": it was, simply, consumer music, or a product always alike to itself to be perpetually marketable, which in the second part of Elvis's career spiraled into a pathetic recovery of the country style of the beginnings;

d) taste lapses galore, as in the covers of "O Sole Mio" (It's Now or Never) and "Torna a Surriento" (Surrender). Every comment is superfluous, I refer you to the epochal parody made by Renzo Arbore on the album "Quelli della Notte" ('85);

e) total compositional incapacity. Almost all of Elvis's songs were written by others, he merely performed them. This fact alone is enough to question the greatness of the musician (though certainly not of the "character"). I myself, while criticizing the Beatles as well, cannot deny that they wrote their own songs.

At this point, I already hear the retorts of those who observe, with singular logic inversion, how Elvis was an artist of epochal significance, the first to bring rock to the masses, the model for entire generations of musicians, the symbol of youth emancipation, a total break with the prevailing melodic taste, even in Italy (from Modugno to Celentano, light years pass), and should for this reason alone be considered a great artist. This simply proves how Our Man was the most renowned and influential artist of his time, at least until the aforementioned Beatles arrived, but it does not at all prove that he was the best, or the most original and seminal, as many claim. Many did better, and they did so in those years: Chuck Berry above all (it's a pity he was black, in a nation that still segregated the "niggers" and whose heads of Southern families donned white hoods...), Jerry Lee Lewis (it's a pity he married his underage cousin) and Eddie Cochran (it's a pity he died very young).

The purchase of 30#1 Hits is therefore recommended to all lovers of the King of Rock, as it nonetheless summarizes his best pieces, albeit worn by time, and to all those who wish to understand his true greatness. Perhaps pairing it with "One" by the Beatles.

And mind you, I am fond of Elvis, if only for having indirectly inspired entire parts of "London Calling" by the Clash. But that is another story, belonging more to the myth than to reality.