Woodstock

[tbeshear]

Elvis "went Hollywood" quickly -- he started making movies within 2 years of 
becoming famous. It was briefly interrupted when he was drafted into the 
Army, but resumed immediately upon his return from Germany. In the '60s he 
became all about the Entertainment. Today, Turner Classic Movies is showing 
Elvis movies all day and night. Check 'em out -- listen to some of the songs 
from the '60s movies -- they're irrelevant to what was popular and/or 
interesting at the same time. The songs cross '50s musical tropes with a 
Vegas sensibility and are utterly disposable. Written by hacks, they might 
have been composed by machines.

The movies themselves are crudely made -- often directed by over-the-hill 
guys like Norman Tuarog (now there's a Pynchonesque name) and programmed 
with boring dialogue scenes the kids can skip for a trip to the concession 
stand and not miss anything. I think they were most popular in the South, 
our most conservative musical region in those days, where the Beatles, etc., 
were looked on with great suspicion.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bekah" <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Pynchon Liste" <pynchon-l at waste.org>; "John Bailey" 
<sundayjb at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Woodstock


>I think there was an age divide in the Elvis / Beatles battle,   too. 
>Elvis was really about the 1950s (although he lingered in  concert and 
>movies)  while the Beatles music was for the mid  to late  '60s (and 
>lingered,  especially in influence).
>
>   I was a fairly early Boomer and my babysitter (about 7 years older  than 
> I) listened to Elvis in 1955 or so and I enjoyed it.   But when  the 
> Beatles came along in 1964 I was 16,  my generation was the target  and we 
> "got it" while the older Elvis fans didn't seem to - they got  interested 
> in jazz.   Elvis was on Ed Sullivan in 1956 and '57.  The  Beatles were on 
> the show in 1964 along with the Stones the same year.   Elvis sent them a 
> telegram saying,  "Good Luck."  But that was then -  the early '60s.
>
> Within a year of those Sullivan shows the Beatles and Stones were huge 
> while  Elvis had started basically making movies.   He had 2 songs in  the 
> top 100 in 1963 with the Beatles 0.   In 1964 the Beatles had 9  songs on 
> the list and Elvis had dropped off entirely.  Elvis had  another one in 
> 1965 but the Beatles had 3 and they kept it up while  Elvis dropped off. 
> Elvis and the Beatles met at Elvis' house and it  was a strange but 
> pleasant meeting.  There are mixed reports but most  said it was amicable 
> and that only later did Elvis get upset by the  Beatles' popularity. 
> Elvis did experience a brief come-back in '68  (and it was billed as that) 
> but it was short-lived.  Meanwhile the  Beatles were raging on into new 
> musical territory and incredible  historical fame (the equivalent of Elvis 
> but in a new age,  I suppose).
>
> Fast forward about 6 years to 1971.  Elvis has married his child bride 
> Priscilla and his popularity had diminished.  (He always had a large 
> group of devoted fans, though and he never did die - he only "left the 
> building.")
>
> Elvis came to think of himself as a true-blue American.  He was also a 
> bit paranoid.  He feared the Communists and drugs and hippies,  etc.  but 
> especially drugs.   He got the idea that he could combat the drug 
> situation by being a member of the Narcotics Division but he wanted to  be 
> a "Federal Agent at Large."   At his own request he met with Nixon  and 
> got the badge.  (I remember that in the news! - gads - it was so  weird. 
> It would probably be a "so what?" deal today - except for the  badge - 
> that would be interesting.) "Federal Agent at Large". "He  offered to 
> "infiltrate hippie groups" and claimed that The Beatles had  "made their 
> money, then gone back to England where they fomented anti- American 
> feeling."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley#cite_ref-Guralnick-420_243-0
>
> Bottom line,  I think Elvis was way over the hill (in popularity and 
> mentally)  by the time of the Nixon meeting.  Even Nixon told him he 
> ought to "retain his credibility."   That meeting was soooo weird.     He 
> did have a couple more concerts in him ( "On Tour"-`1972 and  "Hawaii"- 
> 1973)  and his last top 10 single was in 1972.   The Beatles  last album 
> was released in 1970.
>
> This list of Elvis Presley's 114 Top 40 hits includes 18 songs (in  bold) 
> that hit No. 1.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/elvis/epchart.htm
>
> This isn't as good but it gives some info:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_discography
>
> Both Elvis and the Beatles sold more than 1 billion records - the only 
> artists in history to do so.   (They're tied.)  But Elvis did it in 24 
> years (1953 - 1977)  while the Beatles only got 10 years (1960-1970) .
>
> They both live on,  but I'll die a fan of Ringo Starr.
>
> Bekah
> http://web.mac.com/bekker2/
>
> On Aug 16, 2009, at 12:09 AM, John Bailey wrote:
>
>> Was thinking about Woodstock this weekend as it's impossible around
>> here not to (a lot of coverage). Is this just a non-US thing?
>>
>> Which leads to three questions, each broader than the last:
>>
>> 1. Beatles vs Stones - nothing to add, but I always thought the big
>> opposition was Beatles vs Elvis - you had to choose a side and stick
>> to it. Elvis was Americanism, Beatles were Internationalism. PLUS I
>> love all the stories about Elvis deciding he was a CIA agent, sending
>> letters to the CIA, trying to get the Beatles barred from the US by
>> appealing to the CIA.
>>
>> Educate me.
>>
>> 2. Where's Woodstock in IV? Where are all the artists who played that
>> supposedly pivotal event (besides Country Joe...)? Was the IV playlist
>> really more typical of your average preterite stoner than those Name
>> Bands? And even Neil Young was based in Topanga up until the late 60s.
>>
>> 3. Where are all of those Popular Trademarked Sixties Nostalgic
>> Milestones? Woodstock, the Moon Landing, etc? Apart from the Manson
>> murders, IV pretty much seems to stick to surface streets, dropping
>> names that might have slipped off the grid, or require a bit of
>> memory-nudging or research to catch. It's not a nostalgic novel in the
>> sense that it just namechecks the usual suspects; although it might be
>> nostalgic towards a particular seam of 60s/70s America that isn't
>> captured by your usual commercial Today in History retrospective. Or
>> is it? I came in a decade or so late and half a world away.
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Otto<ottosell at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Happy Anniversary
>>>
>>> tracklist of the new 6-CD-set:
>>>
>>> http://www.my-artist.net/woodstock40
>>>
>