Elvis and cultural appropriation

[Mike]

Obviously inspired by recent entries in Tahlvin's music countdown, and specifically poorpete's response to white rock n roll artists with black artists who did the same songs better and earlier.

And this thread isn't particularly about Elvis, really, but I invoke his name, because he is the most famous white rock artist of the era and is often used as a symbol of whites stealing and profiting from black music.

Did Elvis (along with many other early white artists) profit immensely from a very racist and oppressive system? Yup. No doubt about it. But did he do so knowingly? With ill intent? Is it possible, as many claim, that Elvis (and others) created a path for black music to become mainstream? I'm sure the answer will be mixed and will be different for each performer.

Elvis always seemed humble and grateful to the black community. In his own words: "A lot of people seem to think I started this business. But rock ‘n’ roll was here a long time before I came along. Nobody can sing that kind of music like coloured people. Let’s face it: I can’t sing like Fats Domino can. I know that."

Also, at least in the earliest years of his career, I can't fault a poor kid for making money playing music he loves. Same goes for artists like Eminem. Or Gwen Stefani. Once they've risen to the top and are making bank though... then we can and should hold them to a higher standard.

Looking at Elvis's quote above, I compare it to Pat Boone years later who still hewed closely to the white savior theory and said outright that black artists of the era should be grateful to him and other white performers for creating a way for them to be successful. And even if there might be grains of truth behind that, it is far from the full context. Plus, his lack of gratitude or even the recognition that his own success was built on THEIR work seems galling.

I have too many thoughts, but I'm going to stop for now by saying that Elvis also stayed pretty true to the original music. He did less sanitizing and white-ifying of the songs he covered. And...

I think I found my least favorite (so far) translation of black rock n roll into "acceptable" music:

First, here's Ike Turner's "Rocket 88" (yeah, I know it's credited as Jackie Bengston and his Delta Cats, but they were actually performing as the Kings of Rhythm already) from 1951...


Compare that to Bill Haley and the Saddlemen (they were originally a country band and hadn't become the Comets yet)...


The Bill Haley version just feels lifeless to me compared to the original. And I know you're thinking that Ike should lose points for being an abusive spouse, but it seems that Bill Haley was an abusive drunk, so the playing field is sorta level there.

[poorpete]

Yah Elvis didn't tone down the music to make them pop accessable like lame bands like The Crew Cuts. In many ways he upped a few by speeding them up, making them more rockin' in a certain way. Elvis was cool enough to listen to a lot of early rock and "race records" and digged it. He wasn't looking for a cheap buck. "That's All Right", his first big hit, wasn't released to quickly take advantage of a new song on the rock charts, the original originated in 1947 -- he was twelve at the time -- and clearly soaking in musical influences as we all do in our teens. I lean a lot on appreciation for his earlier stuff, but it's harder when it comes to whether he did enough for black artists and say segregation, while he was at the top

I got a lot of thoughts but wanna note a Twitter follower just a week ago clued me into Cadillac Boogie, from 1948, which Ike Turner ripped off for Rocket 88... just another reason to hate that guy

[Mike]

Et tu, Ike? Are there no more heroes left?

That's just a straight up rip-off.

[Mando]

Ever the Devil's Advocate, here...

I disagree with the idea that "88" is a case of cultural appropriation. I suppose I don't understand the concept.

What "88" is though, is a cover. If it is done with permission how can it be theft? Many time this(cover songs) happens. Sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad.



So is BTS the perpetrator or the cover band?

[Mando]

It may is HIS story, he tells it well and he tells it to an audience that may never have ever given two seconds to think of the people in ghettoes across America.


Excerpted from another video comments section:
"A bit of Elvis history for you so you can understand where this song, In The Ghetto (written by Mac Davis) fits. Elvis was born into a life of severe poverty in Tupelo Mississippi. In those early years he lived “next door to” the poor black community of Shakerag. As an infant Elvis accompanied his mother at times when she worked in the cotton fields while Elvis father tried to find work in nearby towns (during the Great Depression work was very hard to find for poor undereducated people of any color, including whites). At 14 Elvis’ parents moved to Memphis where they eventually secured accommodation in the projects called Lauderdale Courts. It was in Tupelo and Memphis where Elvis first heard, and absorbed to sounds of the blues sung from the despair of black people. It touched Elvis very deeply. As his fame grew Elvis never forgot those early childhood struggles that he shared with the shared with other poor communities. "

[Mike]

Permission is not required to do a cover song. Permission is not required to cover a unique arrangement of a song. In the U.S. today, it does require providing credit and royalties.

In the era we are discussing, in order to get your music recorded and distributed you needed to sign on with a label, and it wasn't unusual for contracts to be grossly unfair, especially to people of color. According to Wikipedia, Ike Turner and his bandmates were paid $20 each for their recording (about $200 today) and since he was credited as the composer, Jackie Brenston was given $910 for the rights to the music. The song went to #1 on the R&B charts (race music) so almost immediately, the company got Bill Haley to cover it so they could make more money selling it to white people. None of the royalties went back to Turner or Brenston. The only further money they made on it had to be live performances.

(If I'm mistaken on any of this, someone let me know.)

[poorpete]

When it comes to appreciation vs. appropriation, I think a lot of the issue lies not in the artists -- for the most part they either love the music they're playing (Elvis, JT) or they had no say in what they were playing (Georgia Gibbs). Most of the issue is with the symbiotic relationship between

THE INDUSTRY - promoters, managers, label bigwigs, payola'd radio and tv producers -- many in that era were more than happy to underpay performers and reap the rewards when songs hit big.

AND

THE PUBLIC - they were more than happy to buy rock and roll music, finally, once white performers started playing them.

Industry promotes white artists over black artists, the public loves their music, industry gets rich and doubles down on their strategy. Similar happens in country music, in the last decade, when country radio stops playing many songs by women, and in return the male singers become bigger, and so they say it proves their point. Or women film directors. A single box office disappointment was proof to studio heads that women were either bad directors or America didn't like women directors. Fun.

For me, when a white/male artist is stuck in this spiral, it's all about how much they fight against it.

And to expand this to everything, this goes for me and patriarchy/white supremacy. I can't change society and cultural systems alone. So how much am I fighting against it?

I need to do better.