Presley vs. Cash from Dean F. - soulexpress4@attbi.com - August 2, 2003 Over the last several days, there has been an interesting discussion going on at rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s, which began with one simple question: "Who has the greater musical legacy: Elvis Presley or Johnny Cash?" Below is some of the dialogue that question has produced. Feel free to add your own comments, as well! 1. Johnny Cash is a great example of someone who followed his own musical instincts and created a musical legacy that will last for a long, long time. In corny terms, he truly became a "voice of America." Elvis' legacy is more a matter of personal style--he's still the model for what a rock star is supposed to be--but the proportion of first-rate music he produced is sadly small. I suspect Cash will loom larger than Elvis in the future. 2. I suspect Cash will loom larger than Elvis in the future. No way. The average 60 year old person who likes music can probably only name about 5 (or less) Johnny Cash songs. 3. Realistically, how many kids today have even heard of Cash? Almost EVERYONE (of any age) knows Elvis!! 4. The question was which performer will loom larger in the future. I took "the future" to mean decades from now, and I believe a general sorting out takes place once the fires of celebrity die down. Consider who is remembered from the 1920s now (Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Bessie Smith) compared to who was huge in the 20s back then (Sophie Tucker, Paul Whiteman, Rudy Vallee). Rudy Vallee may be a good example of what I mean because his fame lingered for decades, but I think is over now. 5. The question was which performer will loom larger in the future. I took "the future" to mean decades from now... You really believe that, say, fifty years from now Johnny Cash will loom larger than Elvis? ...and I believe a general sorting out takes place once the fires of celebrity die down. Consider who is remembered from the 1920s now (Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Bessie Smith)... Remembered by whom? The people on this newsgroup? Certainly! Serious music fans outside? Probably. But Joe Public at large? Yeah, right! I don't think so! You might get away with Armstrong, but the general public isn't remembering him from his 1920s stuff. They are remembering "High Society" and "Hello Dolly!" To the majority of the public, Ellington is just a name and for the other one, it's Bessie who?? ...compared to who was huge in the 20s back then (Sophie Tucker, Paul Whiteman, Rudy Vallee). Vallee may be a good example of what I mean because his fame lingered for decades, but I think is over now. All totally forgotten now by the majority of the public out there, a situation that will never get better and can only deteriorate as the older folk who may remember them die off one by one. But none of these names begin to compare with Elvis, who shows no signs of diminishing either now or in the foreseeable future. 6. One of the problems we're having is what it means to be remembered. It's the "serious music fans" who in the long run create the public's memory, which is how jazz went from being an aficionado's music to the celebrated thing is is today. I guess that's the model I had in mind--that and my continuing belief that great music somehow lasts. You might get away with Armstrong, but the general public isn't remembering him from his 1920s stuff. They are remembering "High Society" and "Hello Dolly!" To the majority of the public, Ellington is just a name and for the other one, it's Bessie who?? Answered above. Ellington may not be known to huge numbers of people, but he's celebrated in the kind of places that keep cultural memory alive. So is Bessie Smith. She appeared, I believe, in one movie--and in one form or another I see the thing on television all the time. More importantly, any history of blues or jazz is bound to mention her. ...compared to who was huge in the 20s back then (Sophie Tucker, Paul Whiteman, Rudy Vallee). Rudy Vallee may be a good example of what I mean because his fame lingered for decades, but I think is over now. All totally forgotten now by the majority of the public out there, a situation that will never get better and can only deteriorate as the older folk who may remember them die off one by one. Exactly. Pop figures vanish when the people who remembered them in their prime die off--except for those who are good enough to attract new audiences. That's how Mozart and Beethoven did it. That's how Armstrong and Ellington did it. That's how, IMO, the best musicians of our period and beloved genres will do it. But none of these names begin to compare with Elvis, who shows no signs of diminishing either now or in the foreseeable future. As icon. How many twenty-year-olds can name five Elvis songs? And among the ones who can, how many would name good ones? I'll add that I'm not arguing against Elvis but rather for Cash, who I think has been a model of talent, artistic integrity, and authentic soulfulness for nearly 50 years. 7. Neither Ellington nor Smith are remembered by "huge numbers of people" today--a situation that gets worse by the year since their public (what little is left) are dying and they have no worldwide marketing machine to keep their music in the public mind. No, serious music fans are not enough today. Otherwise people like Charlie Feathers and Elmore James and the Bop Chords would be fondly remembered by lots of folk too. But they aren't. 8. I'll add that I'm not arguing against Elvis but rather for Cash, who I think has been a model of talent, artistic integrity, and authentic soulfulness for nearly 50 years. It sounds like you're arguing this way because you "want" Cash to be the most remembered in fifty years from now rather than arguing for what common sense tells you is by far the most likely and realistic scenario. 9. For the record, I'd like them both to be remembered -- along with a dozen of so of our other favorites. But the original question was about "musical legacy." We've ended up mostly having an argument about fame, which as you noted somewhere is a different thing altogether. I surrender on that point. I am sure Elvis will be more famous in 50 years than Johnny Cash. I also agree that the very best of Elvis (the Sun sides and a very small number of later releases) is in a class by itself. But I continue to believe (perhaps with too much optimism) that the overall quality and musical integrity of Cash's ENTIRE output -- his musical legacy -- is both superior to Elvis's and at least potentially more long-lasting. 10. It really comes down to comparing two elemental forces; Elvis was light, and Cash is gravity. In terms of legacy, I think gravity is more important. Elvis was a supernova that changed everything, but for a relatively short time. In terms of musical legacy, you don't see a great deal of Elvis's influence around today. Cash was, and remains, an immensely influential figure, and not only in C&W. He is revered by artists across the musical spectrum. Punks love him, and not just because he wears black and has been photographed giving someone the finger. This from a punk website: "But the true testament to his badassness lies in his music. As a music lover if you haven't already schooled yourself in the way of Cash, then do it and find out what you've been missing out on all these years. His music is raw, it's real, it's passionate, humorous, tear-jerking and gritty. As a man who has seen and done it all, he is a great storyteller. And though he may not sport tattoos (that I know of), spike collars or combat boots, he is still as punk as they come." Songs like "Sam Hall" and "Delia's Gone" don't hurt his credibility with that community either. As for mainstream rock, his continued willingness to experiment and his ability to take unusual material and make it his own inspires other artists to take the same kind of risks. Here's an unscientific test of musical legacy: Eliminating "Greatest Hits" collections, pick two CDs of Elvis's and two of Cash at random. Put them on random play. How many times do you hit the skip button on Elvis? How many on Cash? I think Johnny wins. At least he does here. 11. Realistically, how many kids today have even heard of Cash? With his recent video, I imagine a great many have. My nephew who is 16 turned me on to it. 12. Realistically, how many kids today have even heard of Cash? Sorry to rain on your parade, but the great JC is well known here amongst the younger set, even if it is just for his version of the Nine Inch Nails song. But this is Canada. 13. People who are now like 35 and younger never even heard of Johnny Cash, but most of them know who Presley is. What makes you think that somehow all of a sudden people are going to discover Cash? 14. Cash has been discovered by the current generation of Rock fans. There are albums of reworked Cash tunes by groups such as Third Eye Blind (?), TV tributes starring many current Rock and Country acts etc. 15. People who are now like 35 and younger never even heard of Johnny Cash, but most of them know who Presley is. What makes you think that somehow all of a sudden people are going to discover Cash? This, I think, is wrong. An average 21-year-old is more like to have heard *of* Elvis. But I believe a 21-year-old is more likely to have listened to Johnny Cash. Elvis has been dead for over a quarter of a century. Cash, meanwhile, is recording Nine Inch Nails songs with Rick Rubin. 16. I'm 60 and the only Cash song I can think of offhand is "A Boy Named Sue". I can think of many, many Elvis songs. 17. This is a tough one. I agree with Mark with the exception of Elvis' proportion of first-rate music. I don't think it is "sadly small". It's not as large as it could have been but by no means small. As for Cash "Looming larger" in the future, I don't think so. To this day everyone knows Elvis, but it's sadly not the same with Cash. Were I live there are only 12 radio stations and 22 of them are country and few people (except the adults) know who Johnny Cash is. My own daughter (age 13) who claims to be a hugh country fan has never heard of Johnny Cash. But then she didn't know who Clint Black was either. As for me, I have never liked country music except for Johnny Cash. I like almost all of his music. I don't listen that often but then I don't listen to Jackie Wilson that often and until the day I die no one can convince me that there was anyone better than Wilson. 18. I meant "sadly small" in proportion to what it might have been had he had better instincts for musical honesty (as Cash did) or gotten better advice from his handlers. Anyway, given the number of things he recorded, and his immense natural talent, I'd say that the percentage of first-rate stuff he produced is very disappointing. 19. This is an easy one. Presley by a landslide. Admittedly, it is/will be with music written by others, as opposed to Cash's original tunes. But the sheer depth is incomparable. Back to the "Take Note" Main Page HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: CHECK ON THIS FINE PRINTING COMPANY: Promotional Products, Discount Labels, Post-it Notes, Rubber Stamps, etc.