THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

Tonight, after "The Amazing Race": me, my guitar, and the real king of rock 'n roll.

OOOh, and here we were all agreeable and smiling like. 1000 years from now "Elvis" will still mean Elvis P and not Elvis C.

Oh, now Eric wants to pick a fight. No way, man. This would be like asking me whether I favor the left nut or the right one.

If anything, though, Costello will be remembered more because of his extraordinary accomplishments as a COMPOSER.

I'm with Chuck D of Public Enemy when it comes to the boy from Memphis.

Costello rules. :)

I am certain he will be remembered fondly as a composer, but Elvis will be remembered as ELVIS, something entirely larger.

Okay now, both of ya. If'n you wants some political or sociological food fight, have at. However, if we are trying to talk about, you know, MUSIC, Costello just flat has it on Presley- and Chuck D wouldn't even consitute a pimple on either of their ASSES.

I am not a fighter, merely stating my opinion. Elvis P. was darn cute and shook himself well, but his career was about marketing and racism and, well, being darn cute and shaking his pelvis. I credit (blame) Colonel Tom.

Elvis C. -- he is a musician. And cute in his own way.

Chuck D. -- gotta agree with you, Al. :)

Egad man, Public Enemy is arguably the most important rap group of all time and as such will be seen in the same league with Elvis C 100 years from now (though Chuck D is dead wrong about Elvis - Elvis is not the power to be fought, Chuck).

Elvis P wasn't much of a songwriter, but he was a great songSHAPER, was a GREAT singer of every possible style, had charisma out the ass - which counts in music like in anything else - and, more than any other individual, CREATED rock 'n' roll. Declan didn't take Elvis' name because he liked the sound of it.

I have seen Elvis C many times, I love Elvis C; I saw Elvis P as a fat old man and he still blew Elvis C away on every possible level as a performer, singer, icon, force of nature, emotional resonance, etc., and by the time I saw him he was a joke.

Imagine seeing Elvis in about '58 or '59 - he was godlike. Lord what fools these mortals be, sometimes.

It's official: Eric Olsen has lost his frickin' mind. [PE]will be seen in the same league with Elvis C 100 years from now

Hey, Fear of a Black Planet was pretty good, and I can take a joke. But this is MUSIC, dude. PE's entire demagogic career doesn't measure up to "Alison." How much is ANYONE going to care about PE's schtick 10 years from now, let alone 100 or 1000?

How is Chuck wrong about to say he didn't give a shit about Elvis? He's allowed his opinion.

And I gotta stand with Chuck D. on the Presley question. As the old garage punk song went, "If he were here, I'd kick him right in the head; scuff up them blue suede shoes." Being a pacifist, that sentiment, of course, is figurative, not literal.

PE was and is important, no question: culturally; musically, in terms of hip-hop; and sartorially (for folks with no taste, IMO). But as musicians, they don't equal Costello in any way.

And I suspect Mr. McManus became "Elvis" in order to subvert that king of rock n' roll crap.

As far as creating anything, when it comes to the father of the caterwauling Lisa Marie, I blame Colonel Tom.

Yeah, but his opinion is goddam STUPID.

Plus, I doubt he believes any of that nonsense anyway. He's just saying it to sell records.

I'm a fan of Presley and Costello, and for what it's worth -- and it's not worth much, because my knowledge of rap is somewhat limited -- I think It Takes A Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back is a great album even if it is racist (which, speaking as a "grafted white devil," I think it is.)

Still and all, I'm absolutely on Eric's side on this one; I don't think anyone can touch Elvis Presley. Rock has not produced a greater singer; everything he touched turned to gold. He sang other people's songs better than they did. Take Bob Dylan's "Tomorrow is a Long Time" -- when Bob sings it, it sounds fine; when Elvis sings it, he reaches emotional depths Bob may not have known were there.

Another thing you have to remember about Elvis, among many other iconographic matters, is that he was great at everything vocally -- he was gifted in every popular style. He was the greatest singer rock ever had, but he was equally adept at country, gospel, and blues. (Especially blues; if you need proof, check out the glorious Reconsider Baby.)

I love Elvis Costello as a songwriter and a musician, and he has a good voice, but no one is ever going to make a claim for him as some stunningly gifted vocalist -- I doubt even he would. And have you ever heard him sing country? When's the last time you played Almost Blue, Al? I mean, come on, George Jones he ain't.

Elvis Costello will be remembered for two things:

1. Alison

2. Calling Ray Charles a "blind,ignorant nigger"

;-)

by the way, i love the guy.

Also, bad teeth. Dude has some lousy teeth.

I never noticed his teeth. But as Mojo Nixon once pointed out, there are singers with much worse teeth.

thanks guys for some perspective here, and some excellent specifics from Rodney. Re PE: rap IS music and they whipped chopped and pureed it better than anyone. They had one great album after another into the early 90s, combining tough beats, rock instrumentation, clever if dogmatic rhymes.

Let's really boil down Elvis C: either great or unlistenable with very little in between. He largely lost his melodic sense somewhere around 1980 - it reappears periodically, but never with the strength of the '70s and his lyrics are often just facile. Of those who came out at about the same time and had some sonic similarities, I see him as two steps above Joe Jackson and one step above Graham Parker, about on par with Nick Lowe.

He should be remembered as a songwriter, but comparisons to Burt Bacharach are utterly absurd: no comparison whatsoever when it comes to consistency, popular success, and creating a unique sound.

You're badly misunderestimating Elvis. For one thing he is in fact a great singer. That's a particular aspect that has markedly improved over the years. I'm not saying he'll make you forget Presley- but that aspect was Presley's principal musical claim.

To say that he lost his melodic sense in 1980 is just silly. He was only hitting his stride. The 80s belonged to Elvis (and Prince). Crikey, in 1980 he hadn't done Imperial Bedroom yet. Try another listen to the 2002 album of the year, When I Was Cruel.

Now, not absolutely every recording he ever made is absolutely a classic. The Almost Blue album was no classic. Then again, it was a quicky album of covers. No, those dashed off renditions are no competition for George Jones, or at least good George Jones.

On the other hand, if you want to see what Elvis can do with country and folk music styles, dig the King of America. There's some difference in style obviously, but there's no George Jones albums in a league with this. "Little Palaces" in particular is the shiznit here. Also dig on the humor approach of "The Big Light," which merited a Johnny Cash cover.

Now perhaps George Jones could give a superior vocal rendition of the King of America material. That'd be worth hearing- and the credit would still go mostly to Elvis for having written such great songs.

Lastly, props must be given to Elvis as a record maker. The arrangement and production aspect started strong, and he's only gotten better at it. Besides being one of the half dozen most accomplished songwriters of the rock era, he's certainly made some of the most beautifully realized recordings. Again, Imperial Bedroom and King of America spring to mind. Listen again on these grounds to "Pills and Soap" and "Shipbuilding" or "When I Was Cruel No. 2."

I don't give a rat's ass about his teeth, though I don't see anything obviously bad about them. Why would I care? My interest is in him is not because he's purty, it's because he's one of the greatest artists in the whole rock music tradition. Song by song, album for album, he will run anybody in the field, the Beatles, Prince, the Rollling Stones.

Just a question here, Al, more or less for the heck of it -- when's the last time you played Imperial Bedroom? Been awhile for me. Granted, I played it all the time when it came out, thought it was Album of the Year and all that, but you know what? I'm not sure it really is all that great of an album. I'm not sure it's as complex as it seemed at the time, and I kind of doubt that if I played it again I would hear something new and different. It's a concept album about a broken marriage, adultery and so forth, and from the perspective of 20 years it leaves me with no lingering sense that it was an especially penetrating look at that topic the way, say, Blood on the Tracks was.

I can't condemn Costello's post-1980 work quite as strongly as Eric can, but I do find it spotty. When I play those early 80s records, I skip over a bunch -- something I never do with his first three records from the late 1970s. King of America is the exception. When I play All This Useless Beauty, I usually don't get past the first five songs or so.

I gave a few listens to Spike a few months ago and the whole thing seemed more bitter than brilliant. It gave critics a hard-on -- songs fantasizing over Margaret Thatcher's death have that effect -- but to me it just seemed kind of aimlessly vicious.

So let me throw out this assertion, bringing us back to the original point of this discussion: Elvis Presley made more consistently great and consistently interesting albums than Elvis Costello did.

Presley was no songwriter, granted, but when you place the songs and records attached to either artist, the highs are much higher on the side of the King.

There's no way that Presley was as consistent as Costello. Think of all those stupid movie soundtracks, all that crapola like "No Room to Rumba in a Sports Car."

Imperial Bedroom absolutely rules. I never particularly considered it a "concept album." There is some continuity in terms of the production style. In that way, it's about as much a concept album as was, say, Rubber Soul.

At the risk of incurring wrath of all right thinking people, actually Imperial Bedroom rates considerably higher than Blood on the Tracks, which is an outstanding album.

Leaving concepts out of it, it's all about the songs. Leave "complex" out of it to. Complex does not necessarily mean artistically effective- nor does simplicity imply inferiority. That is certainly a prime artistic lesson of the rock tradition.

Simple or complex, these are some beautiful songs. "Beyond Belief" and "Shabby Doll" particularly rock my world. Really though, just about every song here is really outstanding, with kick ass melodies and hooks.

In fact, I listen to this album pretty regularly. I think I'ma have to have some that stuff RIGHT NOW.

Fine. I'll go crank up The Sun Sessions.

I'm going to pull out Almost Blue. Yes, it has been a while.

I'm comin' to this party late, but my $0.02 has it that in 100 years PE might be almost as well-remembered as Elvis P. and more well-regarded than Elvis C. (And I'm a Costello fan.)

Actually, Nirvana is probably a better comparison. PE made two flat out brilliant albums that towered over what other bands were doing at the time, and you could make a good argument that they changed the course of music.

When it comes to influence, PE is the hip-hop Velvet Underground (except they were actually popular) - they still influence everybody.

Since we're arguing over who will be remembered more 100 years from now, can anybody tell me who the top artists were in 1903?

Aaron- There wasn't much of a recorded music industry in 1903. You'd probably be having to get into the 20's or 30's to have enough of an industry to pick top artists. That would be getting you some Louis Armstrong, for one, and the beginnings of "country music" as a commercial medium with Jimmie Rodgers and the Carter Family.

Anyone who thinks that PE is even VAGUELY in a league with either Elvis, I have one word for you: MELODY. This is the centerpiece of songwriting which Costello has in spades, and PE only rarely showed even a glimpse of.

Put another way, how many people have EVER covered ANY PE song? Nearly ZERO. Why? Because there's really no song to cover, let alone a memorable one. Scrape away the production veneer, and there's no song to sing while walking down the street.

THERE ARE NO SONGS THERE. Being somewhat generous because I like some of the beats and general sound, I can give PE maybe 10 recordings that qualify as decent SONGS- tops.

Elvis put nearly as many strong melodic ideas into "Alison" as PE has come up with in their WHOLE FRICKIN' CAREER.

If the songs aren't there, all the production, all the beats, all the clever agitprop and cheap demagoguery won't make a great record.

You know Rodney, some Sun Sessions action does sound pretty good about now.

oh gawd...now we're vearing close to the ever-dangerous 'what is "real" music' discussion.

sorry, melody is not a requirement.

Coltrane totally abandoned it in his later years...that doesn't invalidate the work.

"When it comes to influence, PE is the hip-hop Velvet Underground (except they were actually popular) - they still influence everybody."

Really? How, exactly?

Musically, via beats and samples? PE were notable for being unlike pretty much everyone before or since in this regard. Everyone paid homage to the singular PE sound, but it was singular enough that I don't know of any memorable artist that tried to duplicate or imitate it. Run DMC, EPMD, BDP, NWA and its offshoots, Ice T, Ultramagnetics... all WAY WAY more musically influential IMO.

MC stylings -- rhymes, rhythms, deliveries? Again, Chuck D and Flavor Flav stand out as being unlike virtually everyone on the map. Who could really aspire to duplicate or imitate D or Flav's style, or their particular brand of "MC-and-his-hype-man" teamwork? It's so self-evidently impossible that I can't think of anyone who's even tried.

Politically? Well, did they really have a politics to imitate? PE evidently provided part of the model for "conscious" rap -- I'd say they probably inspired groups like Goodie Mob, which is all to the good(ie) -- but I think the contrast often drawn between PE and an apolitical Other Thing called "gangsta rap" is spurious. In fact, in the days before East Coast-West Coast beef and vacuous "bling bling" hip hop, "gangsta rap" had plenty of political content intermixed with the "gangsterism," and much of it wasn't too different from PE. In a sense, they only really stood out in making the politics a schtick; could they really claim to have been more politically "influential" than, say, KRS-One? Or even as influential? (Yes, yes, the FBI commissioned a report on them -- but so what? The FBI is perennially clueless about popular culture.)

Iconically? Well, they were identifiable icons in much the same way, as I've said elsewhere, that Parliament Funkadelic or Kiss were in their own settings. But again, who could imitate this? Who has even tried? I can think of a sum total of one band -- Outkast, who even borrowed the "straight man and his sidekick in the crazy outfits" thing -- but that certainly doesn't add up to a general pattern.

PE were important in their moment, sure, but influential since? I'd say probably no. This isn't to take anything away from them -- what people remember now is their distinctiveness, which is its own kind of tribute.

The reason why you so called "critics" prefer Costello to Presley is because most of you probably look like him.

Archie - I don't share the sentiment about Costello being in the same league as Presley, but I don't see how your comment makes any sense either.

TDavid - Archie's just quoting an old David Lee Roth line.

Wow... Stumbled on this by accident... I think all of you guys are Way WAY WAYYYY off base. Costello V Presley? PE v Costello??? The whole argument is horseshit... Apples to oranges to grapes.

Presley will ALWAYS be remembered as THE guy who legitimized Rock and Roll for the masses. Talented and a wonderful performer but also the right place at the right time to be who almost anyone concerned with "pop" culture would consider the first real megastar. I love his music... hell I love his movies...

Costello, by definition could never surpass this... no one can. But if you don't acknowledge the body of his work as being extremely impressive and you don't think 100 years from now we'll still be listening/talking about him... you're an idiot. His influence has been huge, and quite frankly if you take each album in context of the time it was released, he has consistently been on the bleeding edge of style. His melodies and arrangements may not have bowled over the masses (at least not here in America)the way some one-hit wonders did at the time, but I'm constantly finding songs that are hits from the 90s and present day that share more than a passing resemblence to songs Costello crafted in the late 70s. I'll bet in 10 years, I'll be hearing songs played on the radio that sound like the stuff costello was doing in the 90's. Talk about a man out of time.

I can't stand when people insist on making one guy or thing the best thing ever... But if you make a list of the 100 greatest musicians/groups in no particular order, Costello is on there just like Presley, Mozart, Beatles, Django, Coltrane, Rivaldi etc etc etc

But again... it's still an apples to oranges comparison. What is better: The Greatest War movie ever made, or the Greatest Romantic movie ever made? There is no answer, its just personal taste. I for one have enough room in my appreciation for both... equal yet different.

I'm not a huge rap fan so I can't really intelligently comment on PE... however, from someone sitting on the sidelines of that music culture, it appears to me that PE could easily be thought of as the Elvis Presley of that genre. For me groups like RunDMC and some of the other contemporaries were making some fun music, but PE was the first that stopped me in my tracks and made me think that Rap was legitmate as a genre on its own and not just some offshoot of Rock or R&B. I can't say I ever really dug the music, but (and perhaps because my knowledge of the genre is limited) they'd probably make my 100 list.

my 2/100 dollars