1 of 18

Write now Article Tools

I've heard good arguments for both sides of this debate and, in the end, it really comes down to a matter of opinion. For what it's worth, I'll give my two cents. For me, Elvis never was the "King." Some would say, "Well, you just don't like his stuff." That may be partially true, but not entirely. I can think of a handful of songs Elvis made famous that I feel are worth listening to. But, for me, it's more than a matter of liking the stuff. When the rock-n-roll era really got going, it was actually an entire genre (which has since evolved into a dozen or more sub-genres) that, essentially, replaced the big band era. (Yes, there are still people who play big band jazz, but its place in popular culture is severely compromised). For my money, Elvis kind of bridged the gap between the big band era and what we now call rock-n-roll.

To my mind, what makes rock-n-roll what it is, is the fact that most artists (bands) write their own stuff. During the Sinatra, et al, Big Band era, this was not the case. There were the Hoagy Carmichaels, etc. of the world. These people wrote the songs and sold them to whomever would record them. It was a different view of the world. Anyone from that era would tell you that Hoagy Carmichael couldn't sing, but he could write. Same (but, in reverse) for Sinatra. This era, essentially, came to an end with the advent of rock-n-roll.

Yes, Elvis could shake his hips and make the girls swoon. Yes, he could sing a note and sing it well. Yes, his music was upbeat and, certainly, a part of the rock-n-roll era. But, to my knowledge, Elvis never wrote a song. He may have contributed a few lyrics, here and there, but a songwriter, Elvis was not. And, true, there were still a few song peddlers even as the rock age began. Carole King, Neil Diamond, etc. come to mind. But, in addition to writing for others, these writers also had some degree of success recording. But, for me, the defining touch to what we now call rock-n-roll was the singer-songwriter. And no one was a bigger influence on what rock would turn out to be than Chuck Berry.

Chuck Berry wrote most of his own stuff. No, he wasn't above doing the occasional cover song. Anyone would do that. But, between 80-90% of Berry's recordings were of his own material. This was the kind of independence and individuality that rock-n-roll inspired. My guess is Chuck Berry was a bigger influence on the modern era of rock music than Elvis ever will have been. Without Chuck Berry's influence we may never have had Pete Townshend & The Who, Page/Plant & Led Zeppelin or, for that matter, Lennon/McCartney & The Beatles. Chuck Berry was just that influential.

I once had a friend who was a huge Elvis fan. I presented my Chuck Berry argument and he told me that, yeah, Chuck Berry was great, but Elvis made it okay for White America to like rock and, therefore brought it into the mainstream. My argument was, one, it's not true. Rock would have caught on, anyway, between Chuck Berry, Little Richard and a bunch of others, but even if he was correct and rock needed a white voice, for my money, Buddy Holly fills the bill better than Elvis. He didn't write all of his own stuff, but he did write some of it and, towards the end, most of it. From an all around standpoint, Buddy Holly contributed more than Elvis did, and in a much shorter span of time.

Please, Elvis fans, don't get me wrong. I will always give my props to Elvis for what he did for laying the groundwork for rock-n-roll. I will not, however, bow to him as the king. For my money, the king of rock-n-roll will always be Chuck Berry.

Learn more about this author, Paul Schingle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Is Elvis really "The King of Rock and Roll"??
We want to hear your view. Write now!