The Elvis Presley Challenge No 22 – The First Rock And Roll Record
It may not be the ultimate expression of misanthropic despair, the competition is very tough, but the phrase ‘And so it goes’ that
'And so it goes.'
was coined by Kurt Vonnegut in his novel, ‘Cat’s Cradle’ has enough acid to challenge the rivals. Nothing sums up better the contempt for the human race that Vonnegut felt and never overcame. The conviction within the phrase and the short but diamond clear novel is obvious. Humans have an unmatched ability to persist infinitely with self-serving and self-deceiving absurdity.
Oddly, this ability exists alongside a reverence for the last word and for those who utter it. Sometimes, our admiration is inspired merely by an individual sounding as if he has concluded an argument. Stalin was blessed with this gift. Cynics assume he was simply a dictator who ruthlessly used power but he was more than that. After his death, his bureaucrats expressed bewilderment at how they found it impossible to claim the moral high ground against a man who both accidentally and deliberately caused the deaths of millions. We value the last word and those who have the gift of expressing it. Too often we assume it contains a truth when usually it is no more than a consequence of an emotional force or will.
Famous Flames Records have released a compilation of 3 CDs called ‘The First Rock And Roll Record’ which is intended to be definitive. This debate has existed for some time and is likely to 
remain in the future. The chosen name Famous Flames fits well the giants of the past. But I would rather argue with Joseph Stalin than have to persuade James Brown that the title of his backing group always had retrospective overtones. Maybe a James Brown record will eventually appear on the label. Perhaps he will have the last word and why not? His emotional force and willpower bested many.
‘The First Rock And Roll Record’, though, is where the Famous Flames label begins. And, as Elvis once famously said to a fourteen year old girl who he kissed as she stood by the stage, ‘Well, you gotta start somewhere.’ The concept behind the CD is taken from the book, ‘What Was The First Rock And Roll Record?’ written by authors Jim Dawson and Steve Propes. The lists of songs on the CD collection and within the book are different but not by much. The same areas of music are mined. As the headline quote on the CD booklet and the introduction to the book make clear, the title is disingenous.
‘Rock and roll was an evolutionary process – we just looked around and it was here …. To name any record as the first would make any of us look a fool.’
This was said by songwriter, Billy Vera. Now, there is a man who is comfortable with independent thought. He may have even stood a chance with Uncle Jo, on second thoughts, possibly not. Billy Vera understands that rock and roll had too many strands to
be invented by one man. The notion that Elvis or anyone else invented rock and roll emerged well after the time it enjoyed its peak in popularity. The idea of a first rock and roll record exists as an abbreviated explanation of what happened. Elvis was important for various reasons but not because he invented rock and roll. He did, though, make records that distinguished him from others and he did make the leap from roots music to something modern. This was greedily grabbed by a new generation needing an alternative aesthetic. This is why his double A sided single ‘Hound Dog’/ ‘Don’t Be Cruel’ was so important.
Time plays havoc with original judgements and the danger is that our revised opinions and impressions are no more reliable than what we originally thought. Listen to ‘That’s All Right’ by Arthur Crudup in the context of this collection. Fifty years later it no longer feels like a simple gut bucket blues that Elvis transformed into something revolutionary. Charlie Patton may be the exceptional talent and master but Crudup sounds more modern. The Elvis record is powerful and breathtaking but was he actually doing anything that original? Well, he did something because it created imitators. So many years after the event, we not only expect innovations and transformations to be significant for the people who were there at the time, we need it to sound radical for those who have been programmed with subsequent innovations.
Ultimately, the collection is obliged to mislead. Historical accuracy is desirable but the past can never be understood by those tainted by what was once the future. Of course, the more successful last worders often exploit viciously the elusiveness of history. The headstrong listener, though, will acknowledge both the vital and thrilling roots of rock and roll and the seminal contributions of the exceptional. Elvis, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Ike Turner, Bo Diddley or Ray Charles may not have invented anything but their classic contributions stand out from the rest. They pierced the airwaves or they did for those who were listening back then.
The compliation although impressive and essential is not perfect. Too often records are included because they merely include the words rock and roll. The first track ‘The Camp Meeting Jubilee’ which was recorded in 1916 mentions rock and roll but is a conventional example of the gospel music of that period. The record will be treasured by music fans but its inclusion ignores how gospel music and rock and roll not only followed separate paths but also existed in opposition to each other. This opposition was not resolved (or blurred) until the arrival of Ray Charles. And, if the mere mention of rock and roll makes a record eligible, consideration should have been given to ‘Now You Has Jazz’ by Bing Crosby and Louis Armstrong. This record swings far more than the Judy Garland offering ‘The Joint Is Really Jumpin’ Down At Carnegie Hall’. Crosby and Armstrong delivered a great example of how even the distinction between rock and roll jazz is confused when the latter is danceable. Neither is the chronology
exact and Elvis has been deferred so he occurs behind Carl Perkins. This is a deceit that offends this particular fan but the weirdest chronological judgement is the Hank Williams 1947 recording ‘Move It On Over’ which finds itself inexplicably sandwiched between two 1929 recordings. It is also surprising that Jerry Lee Lewis is not included although ‘Hot Rod Race’ by Arthur Shibley and his Mountain Dew Boys anticipates The Killer brilliantly. The carps are more than compensated by the glories. This is a stunning collection that mixes R&B, country, hardcore blues, gospel and Benny Goodman. It also includes the truly exquisite ‘How High The Moon’ by Les Paul and Mary Ford. So I forgive its ideological sleight of hand. Uncle Joe, though, would have expected untampered dates. He would have not been quite so forgiving.
To read more about Elvis, the creation of rock and roll, American music and much more, click here
Elvis Presley Challenge No. 21 – Harry Redknapp
Only the possibility that the England national team will be battered in the European Nations Cup can stop the movie being made. The characters are irresistible, the tale is heartwarming and the climax fabulous. There is also something that the experts call a narrative ark and last week all suddenly became available to the aspiring scriptwriter.
First, there is Milan Mandaric, a billionaire who has lived in exceptional comfort in the Western World since 1969 but who 
resembles the tortured character Ivan Denisovich Shukov in the novel by Solyzhenitsn. The suit may be expensive but his face has wrinkles that qualify as contours and there is a remote expression that insists upon an absence of comfort. Mandaric looks as if he is on a weekend break from a Gulag. He is an emaciated version of the chess playing wrestler in the Stanley Kubrick movie, ‘The Killing’. This Russian bore, who was not one of Kubrick’s better moments, spent most of his time quoting third rate know all philosophy. The doleful perplexed eyes of Mandaric threaten equally awful dialogue.
Next we have Fab Fabio Capello, the man who resigned from the job of England manager while Harry was simultaneously 
escaping being sent to prison. Even his friends would struggle to describe this chap as handsome. A man who looks like Desperate Dan after a lobotomy must have really struggled for admiring looks in Turin, a city known for more exacting physical standards than those encountered by Mandaric in Portsmouth. At the beginning, Capello was actually popular with the English press. They discovered Capello, when he was not sticking his sausages upright in his mashed potato, collected fine art. ‘Look, he is intelligent,’ cried the English football writers. They made the same mistake with Sven Goran Erikkson. They assumed he had brains because he wore glasses and was Swedish. ‘He has to be, doesn’t he?’ they said.
Finally, amongst our charismatic icons we have ‘our ‘Arry’. Surely, the England football team has to be successful with a 
manager called Harry. And there are precedents, as the French can testify from the last time they argued with one of our Harrys. Everyone is agreed that this Harry has a way with people and it can be seen in his face. He uses half a dozen expressions in a millisecond. Harry says hello in the way most of us have a conversation. It is the most active face in football and it makes you wonder if he is using an alternative to skin, some kind of synthesised rubber. There is also the mystery of why the handsome son, Jamie, can look so much like his father and yet be so much better looking. Maybe this is the existential mystery that haunts Mandaric so much.
Better than our screen gods, though, is the tale itself. This is a heartwarming, no, we must not be modest, this is a supreme story about kinship between men separated by background, (Harry originally wanted to be a second hand car salesman and honest I am not laughing), culture, country, wealth (but not for long if Harry can help it) and language. The last barrier was eventually bridged by Mandaric helping Harry with his English. The two men became so close, Milan lent Harry £157,000. 
We will never know if Harry accepted the money with tears in his eyes but in the movie tears will be mandatory. Harry needed this money quickly which was why his spiritual partner responded with a selfless rescue. The money was put where it would be safe, somewhere that they call a tax haven. Unfortunately, not everyone understands kinship and mutual devotion. There is an organisation called the HMRC. This attracts obsessed zealots who, when they are not ignoring £20.5 billion of unpaid tax, ruthlessly persecute innocent individuals. These innocents sometimes put money that they know is not taxable into an account where the holder does not have to pay tax. I know, I can hear the odd mind beginning to whirr as I type. If it’s not taxable why would …..? Shame on you. This is a tale about kinship and spiritual unity.
Then, we had the climax. The last twenty four hours were told breathlessly by newscasters. Harry was set free and Capello refused to manage the England team any longer. ‘No, I’m not running away because the English team is rubbish.’ And he probably was not. He missed his fine arts and he was well disillusioned with the modern English sausage. 
Capello will receive a £1.5m pay off which is not bad for supervising the most abject World Cup performance by an England team. He was actually paid £6m a year which is an awful lot of gourmet sausages and a truly incredible amount of mashed potato. Fortunately, Fabio works hard for his £6m. The FA released a film of a recent training session. Fabio can be seen clearly in the video. He stands and watches. All right, watching does not sound a lot but to paraphrase an old joke, it’s a dark and lonely business and somebody has to do it.
And the narrative ark mentioned earlier? This will definitely appeal to the patriotic Englishman. They had wotcha to gotcha all in one day. The watching was the once aspiring second hand car salesman warily listening to what was happening in court and the getting was Harry desperately being shoehorned into the job of England manager within minutes of leaving the courtroom. The same media that is aghast at Suarez refusing to shake the hand of Evra has no qualms about our Harry, a man whose nickname is Readies Redknapp,* and who said, ‘At the end of the day no one gives a monkey about you once your career’s over so in my view you should make the bucks while you can.’* Fortunately, our sports journalists do not take everything our ‘Arry says at face value. They have the skill to put in context his remark, ‘if there’s a chance to earn a few quid, take it because it doesn’t last for ever’*. The press were vindicated because Harry soon confirmed he was the ‘least greedy person on the planet.’+
Meanhile, the FA is thinking and until the media confirm Harry has the job the media will fret. Some have suggested Harry plays himself in the movie. They quote the advert for the Wii game when the least greedy person on the planet was paid to make a fool of himself and his family. Harry is versatile. He does not just do dignity.
The word innocent has been used a lot this week. Innocent was how Elaine Dunphy described Elvis. His openness and innocence were what made him unique she claimed. Perhaps Harry and Elvis have openness in common and, although he was a victim, Elvis could on occasions be a rogue. But Elvis paid his 90% tax and he never had one scheme to avoid paying tax. Not one cent of his fortune left the country and none of those around him gave Elvis gifts. 
Neither did they acknowledge his vulnerability. Greed consumed them all. Harry has had a second chance and needs to take it. I am not talking about the England job or the money.
* Broken Dreams – Vanity, Greed and the Souring of British Football. Tom Bowyer Pocket Books
+ Police records.
Elvis Presley Challenge 20 – The Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher
In which speech did Margaret Thatcher say this?
‘The old days of grab and greed are on the way out. We are beginning to think of what we owe the other fellow, not just what we are compelled to give him. Time is coming when we shan’t be able to fill our bellies in comfort while other folk go hungry, or sleep in warm beds while others shiver in the cold, when one shan’t be able to kneel and thank God for blessings before our shiny altars while men everywhere are kneeling in either physical or spiritual subjection.’
Okay, you soon spotted the deceit. Margaret Thatcher never did say that or
anything like it. The speech was uttered by Basil Rathbone at the end of the Universal movie ‘Sherlock Holmes Faces Death’. No doubt many have heard the speech and dismissed it as no more than cheap Hollywood tripe. The stirring music certainly makes it sound corny. The movie, though, was made in 1943 which is why the speech is significant. It captured well and accurately the mood that was emerging from the experience of a World War.
Around the same time that the old movie was beginning to appear on TV, the cinemas in Britain were showing ‘The Innocents’, the film version of ‘The Turn Of The Screw’, the classic novel by Henry James. The movie was a sophisticated 
entertainment and it was impossible to watch it back then and not be conscious of the patriarchal civilisation that inspired the movie and had welcomed Henry James and Joseph Conrad. There is a long standing cliché about the underbelly of the American and British left. Americans of all political persuasions are patriotic and believe America is the ‘promised land’ and the British, even on the left and sometimes more so, are snobs who think that Britain represents a superior civilisation.
The post war consensus that supported social democracy in Britain is referred to as Butskellism. Prior to Thatcher, both political parties believed the state and its elite had responsibilities to its citizens that included food in the belly, a warm bed and freedom to be different. This consensus required not only post-war ambition and purpose but also a sense of decency, responsibility and patriarchal largesse. We should not romanticise the past but between 1945 and 1973 there was little faith in neoliberal ideology.
For various reasons, social democracy did not unite Britain like it did other European countries. Sweden has its own unique history and, if we exclude it from the comparisons, we realise that the countries that have been most
successful at sustaining social democracy are those that were conquered or beaten in the Second World War. They also had to avoid the Russians, of course. In Britain, our version of social democracy created tensions and the sympathy for the working man soon became, as Joseph Cotton had famously predicted in the classic Orson Welles movie, ‘Citizen Kane’, resentment of organised labour. Many yearned for the past and those that did voted for Thatcher.
This time her appearance has been quite brief and is of less consequence. The 
movie, ‘The Iron Lady’ is, despite the performance by Meryl Streep, no more than tenth rate ‘King Lear’. The film reveals how dementia and old age has confused Thatcher but the Iron Lady was always more blunt instinct and prejudice than reason. She thought that a national ecnonomy could be managed like a shopping bill and argued that the Government could control inflation by restricting the supply of money, even though it only partially created that supply. Thatcher did not need dementia to leave her looking addled. In her prime, she may have intimidated the left but there were few who thought her intellectually superior.
The beguiled voted for Thatcher thinking she would make British industry competitive. This was what she promised. As today, the pain was supposed to be worthwhile. Instead, British industry perished and Britain now survives on financial services and debt – public and private. The manufacturing that remains is still as uncompetitive as before. Productivity increases have shrunk since social democracy was dismantled.
The movie has been an odd phenomenon. The cinemas in the South have been busy and audiences chortle with satisfaction as they recall her triumphs. In the North, the cinema seats have remained largely empty. Any Northerner who 
watches ‘The Iron Lady’ needs only to observe the empty seats and feel the silence to understand the anger and hatred that exists outside the cinemas. ‘Go and see that film. Not likely. I had to live through it and the first time was bad enough.’ In London, the buses that advertise the film pass by frequently
But all this only describes the grievance of the Northern working class. In the eighties, I was obliged to visit the industrial estates in and around Merseyside and observe the For Sale signs multiply and scar the region. Although the pig headed persecution of ordinary people is the greatest of her crimes, the tragedy of Thatcher, or what followed her, is greater again. I think of myself watching ‘The Innocents’. I was a teenager on a council estate outside Liverpool. It was not called a sink estate because then our estates were something different. The fathers had jobs and their children were better educated than their parents and all received free health care. Young Britons could watch ‘The Innocents’ and respond to its subtle messages about self-control and civilisation, feel as if they were being invited by their superiors to share their doubts and inadequacies.
Eventually, neo-liberalism arrived and everything was supposed to be resolved by the decision making of the market. We soon understood it was a fancy name for survival of the fittest. Once that became the creed, there was no civilisation to inspire pride in anyone. Cheers have been replaced by jeers. Today, Thatcher 
looks less important to neo-liberalism than the sixties that preceded it. In that decade, the British too often confused mature restaint with repression. The sixties did represent progress for previous casualties but neoliberalism would not have been possible without the self indulgence that many assumed to be freedom. Neoliberalism gave what the worst of my generation wanted most of all. It sanctioned their appetites.
All of which leads to the ultimate irony in Thatcher. She would have hated modern Britain, its non-judgemental attitudes and devotion to gluttony. Others have made the same point about Elvis, that he facilitated a generation whose behaviour shocked him. There are more comparisons between Thatcher and Elvis to tempt us. The argument about whether Elvis invented rock and roll is similar to the debate about Thatcher. Was she no more than a mouthpiece and was it really sixties libertarianism and the receding memory of war that undermined social democracy? But, the lady and her memory are wearisome. I was obliged to write this Challenge because that is the nature of these Challenges but, of all of them, this is the one I resent the most. Elvis had his faults but comparing Thatcher to him really sticks in my throat. She offends not just the normal loyalty to class and birthplace but also any sense of what once made Britain half decent. The advert will soon disappear from the the buses. Soon is not soon enough.
Why Treat Me Nice is like no other Elvis book
Elvis Presley Challenge No. 19 – ‘Tamara Drewe’
*Tamara Drewe – Spoiler alert*
Pretension, cinema and posterity rarely prevail as bedfellows. Look at the history of movies. The classics that we watch repeatedly
are sophisticated entertainments, usually but not always, loaded with hidden meanings. The movies of Hitchcock are a good example. Praise has been heaped upon ‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’, ‘The King’s Speech’ and the films of Steve McQueen – ‘Hunger’ and ‘Shame’. Compared to them ‘Tamara Drewe’ is light but like the classic Howard Hawks movie ‘Bringing Up Baby’ it will have more appeal for audiences in thirty years time than puffed up efforts that are determined to be recognised as profound.
The plot of ‘Tamara Drewe’ is a modern version of the Thomas Hardy novel, ‘Far From The Madding Crowd’. This was not his greatest book but it did have the best title because it referred to a lot more than rural retreat. The story is simple. A woman has three men in her life – a dashing soldier, an older but dependent man and finally a practical man that will be supportive. The ending is ambiguous and we read it knowing that Bathsheba has found someone whom she needs to help her survive but not the man who will make her feel fulfilled.
This plot serves ‘Tamara Drewe’ perfectly because it allows the film to entertain and amuse whilst providing a chilling view of human nature. Tamara reconciles herself with Andy, the practical man, by telling him, ‘I need a friend’ so we know that the plot has a romantic conclusion as dubious as that written by Hardy. The movie has had mixed reviews, probably because the happy ending does not reveal moral progress or confirms a heroine who has made decisions rooted in understanding. ‘Tamara Drewe’ is great, though, because it consistently refuses to believe in the worth of human beings. In these days of positive thinking, empathy and emotional intelligence it really is quite refreshing to relax and enjoy nearly two hours of mean spirited misanthropy.
The film has been compared to the novel ‘Cold Comfort Farm’ by Stella Gibbons. This also satirised Thomas Hardy but the aim of the satire by Gibbons was narrower. She lampooned Hardy and our romantic notions about rural life. ‘Tamara Drewe’ has the human race in its sights and it excuses no one. It does not need to offer a landscape with a brutal aspect. The shots of the English countryside are relentlessly beautiful. The people, though, are the same as they are anywhere, inadequate and self-deceiving. Ingmar Bergman has indulged similar ambitions but not with quite so many jokes. Oddly, the humour is not cruel; it merely shows how we are ridiculous. If the movie says anything positive, it is that we all provide amusement for others.
The characters can be criticised as stereotypes but their symbolism confirms that the movie is a satire. The location consists of a writers’ retreat where all the creative talents are narcississtic fantasists. The one successful author describes writers as ‘thieves 
and liars’. If the creative are hopeless and invariably immoral the practical are boring. The wife of the successful writer who owns the retreat runs an organic farm but this is not an honourable woman who is seeking pastoral integrity. Instead, the movie takes a wide swipe at organic farmers. They may be rural idealists but they are dismissed as isolationists unable to deal with reality, people obliged to seek consolation in industry and imagined purpose. The organic farmer has chickens that are ‘ornamental’ but cannot lay eggs.
Like Bathsheba, Tamara eventually chooses a man who is capable and probably even self-sufficient. He lacks pretension but is an emotional primitive whose youthful sex with Tamara once earned him the accusation of baby snatcher. On bad days, and we all have them, he couples with the local barmaid. She pulls pints like someone milking a sheep. This earthy creature is the alternative to ambition but if ambition is self-deluding so is its alternative and it is clear that the staunch yeoman exploits her as he does his other animals. Anybody who believes the yeoman is the hero needs to think about the scene when he prepares to kill the troublesome dog of his rival. This does not happen but only because twenty yards above him the other loyal member of the village does just that. This aggressive land blessed phoney is what the yeoman will become when he becomes older and stays in the village, narrow and vindictive.
The romantic rival to the yeoman in the novel was a soldier. Sergeant Troy was charismatic but irresponsible. In ‘Tamara Drewe’ the equivalent character plays in a rock band. Tamara thinks he is unusual because he is a drummer who writes songs. Again, as with the writers, this alternative to conformity is no more than an inadequate adolescent with an exaggerated sense of entitlement. Throughout the movie, the alternatives are as awful as what they oppose. The drummer is just one more self-appointed spokesman, another ‘gob on sticks’ as we now say except in his case he is a gob with sticks. Tamara abandons him and because the yeoman is the best of a bad lot there will be some in the audience who mistake the ending but when she says she had to stay in the village because he has ‘made the house so nice’ and the yeoman replies he will now get his ‘old bedroom back’ we know we are watching a clueless couple retreat into childhood.
The conclusion for the drummer is even bleaker. It is his dog that has been killed and this has upset him. The graveyard scene that follows evokes a similar moment in ‘Flaming Star’ when Elvis and his family bury his Native American mother. The drummer
has two sociopathic schoolgirl fans and these offer consolation to a hero trapped in an adolescence that mirrors Tamara and her yeoman. The rock star has found his Priscilla and if anybody wants to know why a famous singer would pick a fourteen year old school girl as his soul mate watch the movie. The connection is made even stronger because in an earlier scene the drummer destroys his career when he rages over his rejection by the girl member of the band. He sacrifices his potential because he is unable to retain his lover. These references to Elvis should not be a surprise. The movie is directed by Stephen Frears whose CV includes ‘Long Distance Information’, the BBC film about an Elvis fan which was mentioned on a previous blog.
None of the characters in ‘’Tamara Drewe’ handle rejection well. They fray, find somebody on the rebound or pretend it has not happened. Relationships are begun by sexual predators or those recovering from failure. This is the grim truth. We are as hopeless at love as we are incapable of handling abandonment. ‘Tamara Drewe’ may not be Luis Bunuel or Jonathan Swift but it has a merciless perspective and the laughs never undermine that view. The reference in the film to Hardy as the sexual predator obsessed with young women throughout his life is vital. It suggests Hardy condemned Alex d’Uberville so easily because he was writing about himself. The seduction of Tess is not just a tragedy for Hardy but an irresistible moment. ‘Tamara Drewe’ is a dark film and, if what it says about human beings is true, no wonder Elvis destroyed himself so easily.
Elvis Presley Challenge No. 18 – Flashman and the Colonel
Something like five years ago I sat with my elder daughter in the Oxford Union Bar at Oxford University. I drank decent beer and relaxed on comfortable and tasteful chairs. The place was only half full and the atmosphere evoked purpose and calm curiosity. I
The Oxford Skyline
was seduced. I finished my pint and my daughter asked me if I would like another. I looked around the comfortable elegant bar and remembered how I had wasted my own days at University.
‘No,’ I said. ‘These places are lethal for me.’
If I ever met David Cameron I would probably find him just as seductive. His charm, attention and easy confidence would tempt me in the same way that the bar did five years ago. This is why it is difficult to compare Cameron to Thomas Parker. We should never underestimate how an English public school education benefits the rich. They may be callous and have offensive views but the seductive elegance has a winning appeal.
Stanley Baldwin
The more obvious comparison with Cameron is, of course, Stanley Baldwin. Both advertised themselves as one nation Tories but both have led governments that inflicted huge damage on the British working class. Now the reputation of Baldwin is low. He is considered to have been too tolerant of high unemployment and is condemned for beginning the tradition of appeasing Hitler. Baldwin was undone by economics and Europe and more than one political commentator has predicted a similar fate for Cameron.
Much has happened in British politics since Baldwin but a key development of the last twenty years has been the emphasis on youth. The leaders of the political parties have become attractive actors who are obliged to convince the electorate that they are ordinary just like them, the kind of men and women you would like to meet in your favourite bar. Inevitably, this has weakened representative democracy. The actor soon becomes a puppet and the establishment obtains a firmer grip of the strings it always pulls. Representative democracy is now in crisis as it was 80 years ago. Stanley Baldwin was not its saviour and it is unlikely the charm of David Cameron will rescue us this time either although like Baldwin he may prevail for longer than we would wish.
Philip Roth in ‘American Pastoral’ wrote that only two qualities were needed for success in the American corporate world. These were a perpetual smile and relentless energy. He was half right and it also applies to bureaucracies but Roth should have added an ability to operate under pressure and to survive close scrutiny. Cameron has these abilities but, like his New Labour predecessor, 
they do not make him a leader, merely a highly talented lackey. Those who find it difficult to imagine a Prime Minister as such should picture him as he was the night before the wedding of Charles and Diana. He spent it camped on the pavement outside Buckingham Palace, loyal and faithful. Believers in parallel universes can console themselves with the thought that somewhere Cameron will be obliged to exist as a working class female. I picture him in a Northern working man’s club, impersonating Tammy Wynette and singing ‘Stand By Your Man’.
My views regarding Thomas Parker are also uncomplicated. He was incompetent, misguided and to quote Dr Beecher Smith, a Presley Estate Memphis attorney, ‘There were villainous elements.’ The evidence against Parker is contained in the books of Alanna Nash and there is no need to repeat it here. There is, though, a possibility that Parker was more of a lackey than his bravado and bullying manner indicated. I suspect Parker had the same relationship with Hollywood that Cameron has with the establishment whose bidding he served in Brussels.
Parker and Elvis in Hollywood
Hollywood had massive economic power and was the priority for Parker. The absence of Elvis from the stage between 1961 and 1969 and the sweetening of his music both in the movies and the recording studio reflected the wishes of powerful film studios. They had a celluloid product that needed selling and wanted no competition from an alternative Elvis. Parker picked sides and he was in favour of those whose ambition was only to make money.
The culture of ordinary people and their worth as human beings was not important. For Parker and Cameron, ordinary people exist to help the rich become richer. This was why Parker promoted junk at the expense of quality and why the government of Cameron was so intent on destroying the BBC. Fortunately, the phone hacking scandal messed up the plans of the puppet masters for a private sector monopoly of broadcasting. Of course, what undid Parker was a lack of a plan. He was a promoter and a deal maker and more suited to being the number two in a management team. Indeed, this was the original contract with Elvis. Like Stalin, he leapt above others and, once in charge, he did his damage, signing Elvis to contracts that ensured development was virtually impossible. Cameron also lacks a plan. He is the corporate bureaucrat who when asked for a strategy merely dashes to others and asks them to tick boxes. The responsibility of navigating the economy through a difficult recession he gave to his friend, George Osborne, whose main skill is as a political strategist and whose knowledge of economics is limited. When asked to come up with something visionary David Cameron invented ‘The Big Society’. This concept is so vacuous one wonders about the possible influence of hallucinogenic drugs. The descriptions by Cameron of his ‘Big Society’ resemble a Tim Burton film without the horror although if his plans came to fruition the horror would be real enough – no guaranteed health care, no welfare safety net and employers able to drive down wages to below subsistence level.
Few of us anticipate a glorious future for Britain and many think Cameron is qualified to represent a nation that will become increasingly mediocre. His survival skills are impressive and Cameron has vanquished his British opponents. Despite the money and the glory nobody ever appeared to challenge Parker for the job of managing Elvis. 
There is also a bully in Cameron which has been revealed on more than one occasion in Parliament. This has done him no harm and neither did the same trait in Parker. A bully is not the same as a warrior but the two are easily confused by the British Press.
I visited Oxford University nine times in all. Once a term I would spend the weekend with my daughter. The charm of the University wore thin remarkably quickly. Long before my final visit I noticed not just the elegance of remote privilege but its small minded smugness, the bubbles that insulate our myopic elite. I said nothing to my daughter during my visits. I was keen that she stayed motivated and obtained the glittering prize. I revealed my misgivings to her much later, long after the prize was safely stored in her CV. Even then, I was wary that my thoughts would be interpreted as inadequate parental pride.
‘I’m really proud of what you did,’ I said. ‘I just went right off the place.’
‘Oh, don’t worry,’ she said. ‘I really hated it in the end as well.’
Elvis Presley Challenge No. 17 – Fats Domino
I last saw The Fat Man at Preston Guild Hall in 1973. Later, I purchased a Hi Fi and a double album collection of his hits and discovered that his appeal for me had waned more than I 
had realised. By then, I was listening more to people like Amos Milburn and Willie Mabon whom I thought were grittier. Perhaps I had become a snob. His show in 1973 was not a success. The mikes were wired up to loudspeakers that would have been fine with my new Hi Fi but as part of a PA system they were inadequate. The audience soon became restless.
‘We can’t hear Fats,’ someone yelled.
‘I bet you get bloody better PA systems than this in New Orleans, Fats,’ shouted another.
One woman asserted herself forcefully. She actually resembled Joanne Dru in the Western, ‘Red River’. In one scene, Dru has to have an arrow removed from her shoulder. Dru refused to cry and I doubt if she even gritted her teeth. Those who watch the movie may find the scene fanciful but after witnessing the encounter with the woman who took on Fats and his band I am not so sure. She walked up to Walter Lastie who was on drums and said, ‘You’re too damned loud.’
Walter looked at the lady and offered her the drumsticks. I envied him his naivety, his belief that his sarcasm would have the last word with a woman from Lancashire. The encounter did not last long. The set continued and Walter played quietly as he was told. After the show I had the opportunity to talk to Fats. He was as benign and as likeable as his records. We laughed about the irony, a man, who was famous for adding the back beat to rock and roll and the percussive impact of his piano, being obliged to play quietly and with drums you could hardly hear.
This particular evening is mentioned for two reasons. What the experts think of as the technical breakthroughs often mean little to the people who are gripped by the music. This half relates to Elvis hating stereo. He did not want his audience sitting between speakers listening for instruments to appear out of a speaker. He wanted it to land in one piece in the middle of the chest. Hemingway said of his short stories, ‘I want them to feel more than they understand’ and I believe Elvis felt the same. The technical stuff was his responsibility.
But we cannot ignore the backbeat easily and this leads to the second reason the evening now dominates my memory. The Rick Coleman biography of Fats Domino* claims that it was the
introduction of the backbeat on his great single ‘The Fat Man’ that entitles Domino to be given the credit of creating rock and roll. Coleman regards Fats Domino as the most important figure in rock and roll. He was certainly successful and Elvis was a keen admirer. In a gesture that never earned him any credit, and which I could have mentioned last week, Elvis appeared at his 1969 Vegas press conference with Domino at his side. The Press were there to welcome Elvis back to the stage and to praise. Elvis deflected some of that adoration and introduced Domino as the true King Of Rock And Roll.
I do not think Elvis is right but what do I know. I lost Fats on the way as I did Little Richard, both of whom were childhood heroes of mine. I found that their music became formulaic and what makes me an Elvis fan I suppose is my admiration of his diversity. I will, though, concede that Fats was playing rock and roll before Elvis and if we are tempted to build a bridge between rockabilly and rhythm and blues then the bridge would have to begin in New Orleans. I also found that if I listened to Domino while I read Coleman it was much easier to experience the pleasure that had once led me up the M6 motorway to listen to Fats struggle with an inadequate PA system.
My Spanish teacher was talking to me about England the other day. ‘What is this desire to know the first of everything? You see it everywhere, labels on buildings, everywhere.’
‘It must be in our culture,’ I said.
I did not mention Elvis to her and the obsession writers have with the beginning of rock and roll. The CD collection ‘The First Rock And Roll Record’ on the Famous Flames label is a marvellous collection of music that goes as far back as 1916 but the determination to define the key moment of epiphany is misguided. It is as if we believe that its location will give us the ultimate mythic clarity that we must possess. I had the good fortune to listen to rock and roll when it arrived or when it arrived in the charts at least. I do not remember thinking Elvis invented rock and roll but I did think he was different and that he had more appeal than the rest. I was a child living in England and my ignorance meant that for a while I mistakenly 
believed Bill Haley was the creator of rock and roll. Elvis, though, always had his own mythic clarity and it gripped me as it did so many. But so did African American rock and roll and rhythm and blues. The myths, though, were different. Rhythm and blues reminded us of the talent of an oppressed race and it exposed the limitations of its oppressors. Elvis was about the dreams of an individual although it was an individual who could connect to everything – class, race, gender, bohemia, hierarchy and all the rest. Racial discrimination did hold back black talent and people like Fats Domino were not given credit for their innovations although in the case of Domino he sold a lot of records to white kids. The tilted values of the time must have also affected me in how I assessed individuals. There were so many talented African American talents I saw them as comparable. But there was no white man who sang rock and roll like Elvis. He was on his own amongst white people and he had crossed racial barriers. He had the key ingredient of mythic clarity. He appeared to be a hero.
So, he benefitted but the musical talent was considerable, as were his achievements. Rockabilly was a distinct genre within rock and roll and he played a key part in its creation. There were other examples, too. He had his own epiphanies. He was also a person who could sing it all well. For some reason, this does not always impress others but I was easily convinced by Greil Marcus. Only Elvis, he said, had a talent that could embrace the contradictions of American society. That talent also meant he could express the complex yearnings within human nature.
Some years ago I climbed Baugh Fell in the Howgills, a range of uplands not that far north of where Fats struggled with an 
inadequate PA system. The walk allows you to trace the River Rawthay to its source on top of the fells. The first half of the walk accompanies the river. When it is in full flow, at the foot of the hills, the Rawthay dramatically forces a wide fast running sluice through a harsh landscape. After a demanding climb I expected something unusual, a spout or a large pond. Instead, the beginning was no more than damp grass and familiar English mud. I stood on top of the fell and remembered the power of the river I had accompanied earlier. I suspect that if we ever do find the first rock and roll record or the point where it actually began we may discover something a lot more modest and a lot further away than we imagine.
*Blue Monday Fats Domino And The Lost Dawn Of Rock and Roll, Rick Coleman Published by Da Capo Press.
Elvis Presley Challenge 16 – Luis Suarez, Race and Elvis
Last week began with the murder of an Asian student by a white racist who preferred to be known as ‘Psycho’. The only uplifting moment occurred on Tuesday with the conviction of two of the racist murderers of Stephen Lawrence. The same day, Liverpool Football Club announced that they would not appeal the decision by the FA to suspend their footballer Luis Suarez for 
eight games. Wednesday, the Daily Mail congratulated itself on its campaign to have the murderers of Stephen Lawrence convicted. Twenty four hours later, the same Mail and other English papers were outraged because black politician, Dianne Abbott, had stated that white people had a history that implied poor behaviour. Then came Friday, which was the first day Liverpool played at home after the decision not to contest the eight game ban, and a black player in the visiting team complained he was racially abused by a Liverpool fan. Before the weekend was finished a white twenty year old man was charged with the offence. This Monday the team manager atLiverpoolmade a long statement reiterating the commitment of Liverpool Football Club to fight racism.
The spat between Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra was not edifying. Two overpaid 
and over-indulged young men swapping childish insults. People outside Liverpool Football Club have asked how a club can stand opposed to racism, which I can verify it does, and support Luis Suarez. There are three possible answers. One, Liverpool Football Club believes Suarez is innocent and Evra did not tell the truth; this is what a lot of Liverpool fans think. Two, the club simply fought to protect a valuable commodity; this is what other football fans think. Three, the response was a combination of both; this is thought by those who usually wait until the end of the argument to say something.
I have been a Liverpool fan since – no I am not going to say, imagine me as youthful and ignore the photograph. Like other Liverpool fans, I have no confidence in the decision making process of the FA. But, whether Suarez used the word ‘negro’ once, as he claims, or seven times, as Evra claims, Suarez crossed a line. The word ‘negro’ does mean ‘black’ in Spanish but the words 
‘black’ and ‘white’ can be racially offensive if used in a certain context. Suarez was not being complimentary. He was, at the very least, being patronising. Admittedly, in the context of the slayings of black youths, this is trivial but it will do no harm to build a Chinese wall where Suarez crossed the line. Undoubtedly, Liverpool fans feel an eight game ban is harsh but it is not likely it will have a significant outcome on the fortunes of the team. Suarez has already missed three games. In one of those games, away to Manchester City, Liverpool would have probably been beaten with Suarez in the team and in the other two games Liverpool have managed their highest scores of this season. If the ban costs Liverpool as many as three lost points I will be surprised. This saga needs to be forgotten.
When I was in Brazil I sat at a bar and, shocked by what I had seen in certain parts of Brazil, tried to calculate how many black slaves had been created by white colonialism. I knew from my knowledge of Brazil that four million had been imported into that country alone. I remember staring at the bay in Salvadorand calculating crudely that the total figure across continents must
Slave trade routes
have reached ten millions or what could reasonably be described as a holocaust. If this figure has been accurately determined it has never been shared with the British by their newspaper editors. The figure is ignored as if it is history without relevance. Nor have our Western societies been zealous in repairing the damage. In Britain, black teenagers have appalling prospects – inferior education, shorter lives, more mental illness, higher unemployment and repeated harassment from the police. Present day statistics do not compare to the previous holocaust but they damn us and I think they justify Dianne Abbott losing her cool on Twitter. In view of what has happened to black people she should be given some slack. I know. I have double standards. But this inconsistency does not make me a racist. I am merely ashamed.
As always the rich and powerful dominate the argument. Serious studies of the 
consequences on the dispossessed exist but they are not given serious attention by our media. We would rather make ourselves indignant about what one overpaid footballer says to another or scream at Dianne Abbott for not being politically correct about white people. My God, the woman spoke as if she had a racial grievance, screamed the Mail. Hardly surprising, one is tempted to say.
In these circumstances it is predictable that Elvis and race have been debated in a less than thoughtful way. People who have no real knowledge of Elvis will assert with real conviction that the man was a racist. Elvis was born in a society that practised apartheid. Inevitably, somebody started the rumour that Elvis said black people were only fit to shine his shoes. This was denied by friends and relatives but the rumour has persisted. Peter Guralnick and Alanna Nash have researched the life of Elvis more than anyone. Neither has found any evidence of racist attitudes. Guralnick has asserted that the opposite applied, that Elvis had huge respect for black people and their culture and that he was a
Elvis with BB King, taken by Ernest C. Withers, photographer of civil rights movement
keen supporter of Civil Rights. His heroes included Martin Luther King and Mohammed Ali. This blog will in future weeks examine a biography of Fats Domino. The author of the biography argues the importance of New Orleans to rock and roll and believes that Fats Domino recorded the first rock and roll record, The Fat Man in 1950. The book is a polemic and partial but throughout the book the author uses the statements of Elvis to support his argument. He does this because Elvis acknowledged the contribution of rhythm and blues musicians and the importance of black musicians as much as anyone. In 1970, two Liverpool sisters attended several of Elvis’ Las Vegas concerts. Afterwards, they produced a first hand account of their experience. They remembered Diana Ross at one of the shows. She went to the front of the stage and Elvis kissed her and hugged her enthusiastically. ‘This girl is fabulous,’ he said as he kissed her. ‘I love this girl.’ This was not the action of a racist. It happened despite Elvis spending a large part of his life in a racist society. His behaviour to Diana Ross, his relations with the Sweet Inspirations and his visits to the WDIA concert in 1956 indicate that he rejected the racial values of his society. I have said elsewhere that it can be easy to confuse the charisma of Elvis with heroism. Elvis was not a hero. But, how odd that he stands condemned in the one aspect of his life where he was prepared to demonstrate his principles.
When the BBC presented a programme on the Memphis Mafia it included an interview with Sonny West. ‘Elvis loved black people,’ said Sonny. He said this without prompting or without any need to defend Elvis. It slipped out. The statement by Sonny West could imply that Elvis perhaps had double standards. Maybe he thought black people were ‘more cool’, they had superior musical talent (Albert Goldman quotes him as saying this) and that they had a likeable way. Or maybe he felt like I have done for most of the last week, just a little ashamed, embarrassed by our capacity to be self-righteous and simultaneously ignore the experience of the unfortunate and dispossessed.
The Good Things in Life
These are some of the good things that were said about the first edition of Treat Me Nice. The first edition is sold out but the second edition will be released very early in 2012.
The experts
‘Highly enjoyable and a stimulating read.’ Paul Simpson, author ‘The Rough Guide To Elvis’.
‘A formidable treatise. This book deserves to be noticed. Cogently written and totally absorbing and recommended reading.’ Nigel Patterson, Elvis Information Network.
‘Students should find room for Treat Me Nice. If only to understand what makes an academic study stand out from the crowd.’ Chris High. The Writers News.
‘Howard Jackson can write. The reader is in safe hands.’ Clive Bradley, TV and film scriptwriter.
Amazon readers
‘If you read one Elvis book, make this the one. An essential read for Elvis fans.’ Soul Sister 69
‘This is my Elvis bible, my ultimate reference book. Howard Jackson gets inside Elvis’ head, explains why Elvis is so talented and important, but also why many people cannot see it. Make sure you also visit the highly original and provocative blog.’ You’ll Never Walk Alone
‘If you’re serious about Elvis then this is a must read.’ Alfaman
‘Very well written and thoroughly researched.’ Mike F Belfast
‘A thoughtful dissection of the King.’ Queen Creole.
‘The Frankenstein metaphor works surprsingly well.’ 4Harrisons.
‘Love the review of Long Black Limousine and how it is combined with It Hurts Me.’ Bob 78s.
‘A worthwhile book that is probably essential.’ How Great Thou Art.
‘A pleasure to read, lots of little gems of knowledge and very original.’ Bossa Nova
‘What I like about the book is that it is not just for Elvis fans. The comparison between Elvis and the monster is a fascinating read.’ Even better than the real thing.
Other readers
‘Treat Me Nice is very, very clever.’ City Fan, Stockport.
‘Unputdownable. Immediately after reading it I downloaded every Elvis gospel track I could find.’ Wirral baptist.
‘I have read the book twice and I am not even a big Elvis fan. Second time is better again.’ Duggie Greenall.
‘I was awed by the information contained within the book. Made me realise why Elvis is so important to his fans.’ Exiled inGreece.
‘I read a lot of this book aloud to my boyfriend and parts of it made us laugh out loud. There is a lot of sly humour in the book which you wouldn’t necessarily expect from a book about music.’ Unity Banana.
Elvis Presley Challenge 14 – ‘The Killing’ or ‘Forbrydelsen’
[for those who have not seen Series 1 & 2 of The Killing, spoiler alert]
So far I have not met anyone who has watched all the episodes of the American version of ‘The Killing’. Most people abandon it after the first episode. The Danish actors underact brilliantly and the American actors altered their style to emulate the Danish performances but what had been a subtle approach in
Denmark became vacant in the American show. Even more offensive was the actor who played the American alternative to the detective Meyer. This character was pushy and unpleasant and, whilst alternative interpretations can be honourable, we are talking about Meyer who was shot just after we began to like him. Most of us are still in grief.
The BBC has had hard times lately, its funds have been cut and for a while the Murdoch Empire was able to take pot shots at the Corporation at will. Not that long ago James Murdoch would stand behind a podium and claim that only the financial greed of people like him could guarantee media impartiality. 
Nothing lasts forever and soon afterwards the hacking scandal had Murdoch looking for somewhere to hide, podiums he now sidesteps. Around the same time, the BBC found in their basement an unused Danish TV series called ‘Forbrydelsen’. Bought dirt cheap, the show had originally been deemed unfit for British audiences and had gathered dust but after the success of ‘Wallander’, a Swedish detective series, something Scandinavian was needed and ‘Forbrydelsen’ sounded just that. The show became a massive hit, so successful that it persuaded Channel 4 to buy the American remake.
The original series was not perfect because it was obliged to mix a serious study of the impact of a murder on the family of the victim with red herrings and suspense. Neither was the idea of using just one case as a basis for twenty episodes as original as the partisan but charming Radio Times claimed. This had been done earlier in the American series, ‘Murder One’. The programme, though, was irresistible. When Sarah Lund was betrayed or compromised she did not scream, shout or cry. She merely looked at the camera or looked away and I used to wait for these glorious moments with the belief I had an 
entitlement and it consisted of a quota. The actress Sofie Grabol had a thousand different ways of staring into space and I like everyone else in the audience would just sit there and watch her staring. She is now a superstar in Britain. The sweater she wore in the show is considered a fashion accessory and sales of this not inexpensive £250 item have increased to the extent that the factory in The Faroe Islands which makes these sweaters can no longer cope. The show insists on a certain authenticity and I assume that Danish policewomen can afford them because the sweaters are cheaper over there. The Danes need to be careful. The British have form when it comes to invading sparsely populated remote islands. Cheaper Sarah Lund sweaters could fall within British military parameters.
Because this is an Elvis blog I am obliged to note that her sweater has become 
an icon equivalent to his white suit. Both garments hinted at determination. Sarah wore the same sweater in every episode because she was too involved in her work to worry about a varied wardrobe. Elvis stayed with his white suit because he wanted to communicate an identity beyond music. They initially suggested remoteness although this has since been lost. The first series became a hit DVD box set and the second series used another sweater from the same factory. Not only did Elvis persist with his jump suit for too long he posthumously acquired 250,000 imitators.
Prior to the second series appearing on the BBC one of the producers talked about how they had wanted to do something different. To ensure that they avoided repeating themselves, they decided to try and create more dangerous 
situations for Sarah Lund. Again, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that the second series was the equal of the first. The extra suspense and violence meant more mechanical plotting. The visit by Sarah to Afghanistan may have been plausible but it felt like added exotica. Sarah had a new detective as a partner but he lacked the hidden charm of Meyer and nobody criticised Sarah when she emptied her gun into his body. He had killed six people merely to protect himself and Sarah felt quite correctly that this counted against him.
I am, though, still loyal and am awaiting the third series. I tell myself that perhaps they will have learnt from the last series and avoid the melodrama and realise that ‘Forbrydelsen’ does not need a panoramic sweep to be interesting. Again I have not met anyone who has watched both series and is not committed to watching the third. I understand my own loyalty. I do not believe that my entitlement to the stares of Sarah is exhausted and I remember 
those scenes in the kitchen of the Larsens when the family would both console and doubt one another. ‘Forbrydelsen’ was made in Denmark where the Dogme films where launched. These austere films both gripped and tested audiences. ‘Forbrydelsen’ is not Dogme film making but it is no coincidence that it came from the same country. The actress, Ann Eleonora Jorgensen, who played the mother of the victim, has appeared in a Dogme film and her honest performance as the mother was a key reason why we took the first series so seriously and will return to series three even though its impact will inevitably diminish. As ‘Forbrydelsen’ continues to increase in popularity the memory of Dogme will become increasingly irrelevant.
Not everybody who was thrilled by the arrival of Elvis stayed loyal but I did and so did many others. This was not because we did not recognise the decline. As with the stares of Sarah there are moments that once experienced give you a sense of entitlement and you want them repeated. This is usually accompanied by a belief that there is something or someone worthwhile at the core and that it or them are beyond others and that they or it led the way. In ‘Forbrydelsen’ the core consists of an honest look at human nature and a 
capability within its performers to represent that perfectly. Elvis may not have always been honest but he had an openness that was unusually revealing and his talent expressed an identity as complex as any that have existed in American popular music. For me, there is a parallel with his Sun hits and the Dogme movies. Both leave their memories. His Sun records affect how I listen to all his music and the echoes of Dogme in the Larsen kitchen mean I watch the subsequent melodrama of ‘Forbrydelsen’ differently to how I watch other thrillers. The great strength of Sarah is that she identifies with her victim. She does her best because anything else would be disloyal. Elvis has often been described as a sell out but I think he was far more loyal to his working class roots than people realise. I will not convince everyone but I know why I stayed loyal and why his best moments like the stares of Sarah still put a smile on my face.
