| Author | Message | ||
  Cool Ju (cool_ju) 4-Laureate Username: cool_ju Post Number: 111 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 205.188.116.138 |
What do ya think??? | ||
Cool Ju (cool_ju) 4-Laureate Username: cool_ju Post Number: 113 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 205.188.116.138 |
I say Sam was the Man! | ||
Tony Russi (tony_russi) 5-Doyen Username: tony_russi Post Number: 251 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.210.43.109 |
Well, I like Sam Cookes' singing better and I know Sam Cooke controlled his own career more then Elvis was able to control his.Elvis could really sing though. | ||
Randy Russi (randy_russi) 5-Doyen Username: randy_russi Post Number: 204 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 169.139.180.100 |
These are tough questions...it's an opinion, really. I prefer Sam's voice, but that Elvis could really sing (& rock!). | ||
Gary (gary) 5-Doyen Username: gary Post Number: 193 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 66.73.238.2 |
Personally, I enjoy both Sam and Elvis' gospel music at least as much, if not more, than their secular music. They were both incredible gospel artists, but who was "better"? I will answer with a firm, definitive, unequivocal "I don't know". | ||
Soul Sister (soul_sister) 6-Zenith Username: soul_sister Post Number: 1769 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 65.43.145.122 |
Ju; Come on... there is no comparison, again like apples & oranges!! I agree Gary, I like the Gospel music they both did. S.S. | ||
Davie Gordon (davie_gordon) 5-Doyen Username: davie_gordon Post Number: 234 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 81.157.158.170 |
Sam obviously - he was a writer and producer as well as a singer. What is the point of these questions - it's all a bit schoolyardish - "My teams's beterr than yours - yah boo sucks !" - Does it get us anywhere ? I doubt it deepens anybody's appreciation of the talents of either of them. Davie | ||
isaiah imani (isaiah) 4-Laureate Username: isaiah Post Number: 100 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 216.148.246.70 |
Davie, I beg to differ with you... The question posed is purely conversational, and designed to solicit folks' feelings about either Sam Cooke or Elvis Pressley... If folk choose to do a comparitive of their talents that is because that is the way the understand the question being asked... If they do a comparitive of their personal lives, that again, is what they understand the question to be. Besides, what other way are we to measure these entertainers??? We clearly have our favorites, and that will be borne out in what we write, but to say a question asked is stupid is, it seems to me, something which could be applied to every question asked... If folk don't know about a thing, and wish to gain some insight, then they ask questions... What is so stupid, so assinine, about that???(smile!) It is purely about creating conversation... Peace! Isaiah | ||
Cool Ju (cool_ju) 4-Laureate Username: cool_ju Post Number: 116 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 205.188.116.138 |
Right. It's to stir thought. To promote dialog. To probe opinion. No conclusion expected. I think that Sam and Elvis were not like apples and oranges but very much alike because: 1. Same era 2. Same label 3. Both did pop 4. Both did gospel 5. Both did "lounge" type of music 6. Close in age 7. Same target audiences I think they were pretty parallel Ithink this and the MJ question are pretty good ones. | ||
Tony Russi (tony_russi) 5-Doyen Username: tony_russi Post Number: 256 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.210.43.109 |
Sam Cooke was definetly more involved with the BUSINESS side of things and also produced various artists and had his own label SAR.TheColonel would have never been comfortable with Elvis having that artistic freedom.That might be why he kept "E" in a movie contract. | ||
Lady Mystique (ladymystique) 6-Zenith Username: ladymystique Post Number: 713 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 216.37.254.198 |
Sam Cooke...let's remember that for all what was going on at that time, he managed to write and produce his own songs AND have a record company. I can only think of one other person who did this at that time and that is Quincy Jones...well, Berry Gordy too, but I think Sam helped pave the way. Elvis had talent too, but IMO, Sam takes 1st!  | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2476 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
That's true Lady M. His mentor J.W. Alexander impressed on Sam the importance of ownership. He did an excellent job of schooling Sam & Sam did a great job of listening. Sam was definitely a pioneer, he gave Johnnie Taylor the opportunity to record his first secular sides. If you've ever heard those songs on Sams' SAR label, you'll hear Sams' influence loud & clear. | ||
marilyn (marilyn) 3-Pundit Username: marilyn Post Number: 48 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 209.142.136.38 |
I think Sam had the most talent, but who is Colonel Parker & why in the world would Elvis let him control him like that?? | ||
Dinelle (dinelle_watson) 5-Doyen Username: dinelle_watson Post Number: 313 Registered: 3-2004 Posted From: 67.35.251.168 |
I love Sam Cooke, so I'm gonna go with him. He inspired a lot of people before and after his death. And people still love his music. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2479 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Hi Marilyn, Colonel Parker was Dr. Frankenstein & though he watered Elvis down, he made Elvis wealthy beyond his wildest fantasy. From a pure musical standpoint & waste of talent, what the Col did, is sacriligeous in my eyes. Elvis never really got to live up to his original promise as a Rock & Roller. However, the Colonel figured out a way to turn all of those people who wanted to tie Elvis to a tree into his biggest fans. That was one hell of a trick & a stroke of genius at that. He made Elvis rich with wealth, though it came at the expense of his musical integrity & quality. Hey, priviledge has its price | ||
Morgan (leeway) 3-Pundit Username: leeway Post Number: 70 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 209.104.139.161 |
Colonel Parker also took 50% of whatever Elvis earned until the day COl. Parker died!! It was almost as if Elvis made a pact with the devil. What a guy..... | ||
Kevin Goins - KevGo (kevgo) 5-Doyen Username: kevgo Post Number: 190 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.33.205.135 |
Marilyn: As you probably know by now from the prior posts, Col. Tom Parker was Elvis' manager, who had more control over Presley's career than any manager should have been allowed to have IMO. Parker managed singer Eddie Arnold in the early 1950s. When Elvis signed with RCA Victor (Arnold's label) thanks to label producer/music legend Chet Atkins, Parker dumped Arnold quicker than a heart attack and hooked up with Elvis. While Parker did indeed help Elvis become a big star beyond the expectations of many, he did take advantage of Elvis mainly because Presley trusted him entirely. Yet at the same time Elvis seemed to have the last laugh when his will was read and Parker found that "the King" left the bulk of his estate, earnings, monies and investments to daughter Lisa Marie Presley while all Parker could collect was his percentage. Life in the music biz.... Kevin Goins - KevGo |
