Howard Jackson

The natives are restless in Britain and its Tory masters are anxious.  Not because the World Cup beckons and the humiliation of its national football team is being predicted.  That is normal.  What really worrries the patriotic Brit is the Eurozone and Europe.   To secure the Eurozone, more integration will be needed between member states.  If successful it would create a Europe so powerful it could insist on Britain joining the Euro.  Imagine the humiliation for David Cameron and George Osborne if they had to become subservient to the Germans and abandon the pound.  There would be no TV repeat of ‘The Great Escape’ that week.  But the alternative is almost as bad because if the Eurozone fails there will be an economic crisis as bad as the one that wrecked the first half of the twentieth century.

A Europe dominated by Germany with common welfare and fiscal policies would for many Brits be unbearable.   A few years back the England football team beat Germany 5-1 on German soil.  The result was so good and unexpected many football fans assumed immediately there would be a price to pay.  They imagined the team being played off the park in a future competition which, of course, happened but the idea of a super European state where Germany becomes the common language already has the Daily Mail foaming at the mouth.  This is serious enough for life long lefties to feel sorry for the Tories.   Most, though, are like me and enjoy the spectacle.

All of which, to quote the Guardian, ‘just about makes Angela Merkel the most important woman on the planet.’    Inevitably, the critics, as they did with Elvis, have insisted she is a pretender.  She has been compared to Thatcher and found lacking.   She supposedly lacks the charisma and the bold strategies of Thatcher.  There has been debate about how a politician who demonstrated supreme opportunism in her rise to power has subsequently been cautious and uninspired.  Some of the criticism has been sexist.  Even the article in the Guardian described her as irredeemably frumpy.    Their criterion for redemption was not explained.

I am not a fan of Merkel.   The survival skills of politicians do not impress people like me, probably because we do not have any.  Her right wing politics which she has insisted upon with a narrow conviction worthy of George Osborne have always appeared uninterested in the fate of those who have not been blessed with her opportunities.   Whatever the political system, whatever the country, East or West Germany, this is a woman who has spent most of her life pursuing solitary ambition whilst demonstrating a willingness to tell others how they should live.   But the comparison with Thatcher is unfair especially when it is made unflatteringly.  Thatcher was destructive while Merkel attempts to be concilliatory and constructive.   The two leaders are compared for one reason only.  They are both women and it speaks volumes about the attitudes of political commentators that they are tempted by such easy comparisons.   Merkel should be compared to Obama.  Their social conscience is perhaps shaped in different ways, Obama responds to what is happening to people while Merkel is keen to acknowledge theory, and their politics are different.  They are, though, similar figures with an almost identical cautious political approach.  Always, they both act like people who want to save their gunpowder.

Both these politicians, like Elvis, were obliged to disappoint.    To understand why, we have to distinguish between the characteristics that make people become successful and those that help them later be successful.  Merkel was at her best carving her political career.  She knew when to support and when to challenge.  She trod a careful line in East Germany but was active with propaganda for the local party when needed.  Her dramatic and career forming moment in West Germany was when she challenged Helmut Kohl with a letter that insisted on a complete break with the past.  This counter cultural moment was worthy of Mao but Merkel has been reluctant to acknowledge any influences.  Subsequently, as a leader she has been cautious and, so far, appears unwilling to shape history.   The same charge has been made against Obama.  Both characters, though, work in political systems that restrict them and so we will never know whether they have an appetite for defining the future.    They will fade from power and become elusive mysteries.

These factors shaped the career of Elvis Presley.   Like Merkel and Obama he was better at becoming successful.   At the critical moments, and the seventies decade can be described that way, the task of being successful and managing history appeared to be beyond him.   Fortunately, for Elvis he had four opportunities when he could use his skills for becoming successful.  These were his debut at Sun, his arrival at RCA, his return from the Army and his comeback in 1968.   In these periods, like Merkel and Obama in politics, his rivals were no match for him.

The same sense of elusive mystery that will be the legacy of Obama and Merkel is the same as that endured by Elvis fans.  Why could he not have been more successful when he became eminent and powerful?   What happened to the previous opportunism and flair?  I accept his nature had consequence but one clue exists in the word ‘powerful’.  This is why the legacy is a mystery.  Obama, Merkel and Elvis all operated in systems that had factions and each of the three was accountable to those factions.  Obama has Congress, the Senate, the media, the Executive and the Democratic Party.  Elvis had Parker, Bienstock and BMG, Hollywood and the demands of his fans for glamour.    Ian Hunter from Mott The Hoople once remarked that the problem with being a famous musician is that it soon becomes like work.  When you are only half successful you can turn up at the next club and simply play what makes you happy.   This is probably true but when you are in the very big league, the league of Merkel, Obama and Elvis it is much more complicated than that.   There is compensation of course and it consists of fame and comfort.  If you are positive you will appreciate the satisfaction of knowing that your legacy will exist to baffle the rest of us but if you are self-critical, like Elvis, you will destroy yourself.    Elvis had a responsibility to continually realise his talent for achieving the transcendental in his music.  This required stamina beyond him but his efforts in four key perfiods and in other instances are enough for me to stay loyal.

Merkel is not musical and has a very different responsibility.  She is obliged to save the world economy.  If she gets it wrong we will have something far more serious to fret about than ‘There’s No Room To Rhumba In A Sports Car.’

I’ve signed this petition to prevent the American Billboard from deleting Elvis Presley’s 11 Number 1 records from the site.

You can read more about the progress of the petition on the site’s blog.

Please sign the petition. The man needs respect.

This post has been written by a guest, Peter Harrison.  He issued the first Elvis Presley Challenge which was ‘Violence in American society’. I appreciate very much this contribution to the blog and also his thoughtful remarks about the book Treat Me Nice. I will be back next week.  

Pop culture references to the Renaissance are relatively few but the dialogue by Orson Welles in “The Third Man” is famous. 

“You know what the fellow said – inItaly, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. InSwitzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”

How does Elvis fit into this? Is it possible to draw a parallel between Elvis and the Italian Renaissance?

In the “Failure to Nurture the Memory” section of the book “Treat Me Nice” Howard Jackson describes the changing music scene inAmericaduring the 1960′s. He writes about how the music of the American South might be compared to a regional cuisine with the ‘chefs’ – the musicians and singers – putting together recipes to entertain the people, often working class people for whom this was their main form of entertainment. This was the world that Elvis came from. He entertained. He sang some songs that he liked, and others that those who listened to him liked to hear – or that were demanded of him by his manager. He was not an ‘artist’ in the sense of someone who self-consciously created art. Despite this, Elvis was clearly a man with a strong sense of his own ability. Although he appears rooted in this community (hence his claim to know every gospel song ever recorded) there is much in his music that is personal to him.

Elvis played a significant role in breaking open this community using the music of the American south – the music of his childhood – to build something for an emerging youth movement freeing itself from post-war austerity. To understand Elvis’ unique contribution to this moment, compare his version of “That’s Alright” to that of Arthur ‘Big Boy’ Crudup, one of his early heroes.

Jackson states that the 1960′s saw the rise of the singer-songwriter and a different and more ‘intellectual’ approach to music. This continued the work of creating music for the youth movement which Elvis had begun, but now in a more self-conscious way.  The later musicians were more aware of the process of creation and were keen to demonstrate their ‘difference’. In short, they began to take themselves seriously as artists. Critics (and to some extent fans) came to expect artists to be ‘authentic’. Not simply to make music and entertain, but to be true to themselves or some specific poetic muse. This led directly to criticism of Elvis for being simply an uncouth entertainer, not a true artist, someone who merely entertained people with music (although that strikes me as a fairly strange criticism to make of a singer).

If this thesis is accepted, a parallel can be drawn to the Italian Renaissance. During the Renaissance, a similar cult of the artist grew up. Art became desired on the basis of the artist who created it. Artists became well known and began creating art which served their own personal muse often in addition to, but sometimes in opposition to the desire to create something aesthetically pleasing. This is a trend which remains with us to this day in our attitude to art. Art is something which is created by self-conscious ‘artists’ and can be seen in the attitude of modern artists such as Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst.   Their work reveals no intrinsic desire to please a wide audience. It is delivered purely to satisfy themselves and their inspiration. It is art because it is produced by an artist rather than because it meets any particular aesthetic standard. We are discouraged from judging whether it is actually any good.

This approach, which lauds the individual artist pursuing their own internal muse, can be contrasted with the artistic world before the Renaissance, particularly that in the medieval East Roman empire centred on Constantinople and known today as ‘Byzantine’. There is virtuosity in the art ofByzantium, and work that embodies a strong aesthetic, in other words there are artists. Yet we know the names of almost none of them, and almost no work is signed. The Byzantines valued art which met public expectations, and displayed virtuosity in doing so. Surviving descriptions of artworks by Byzantine writers stress the quality of the workmanship and how aesthetically pleasing it is, but very rarely mention the name of the person who created it. Their critical approach emphasises the artist as part of their community, someone who displays their talent in pleasing (entertaining) the public within an understood artistic framework.

Change, sometimes radical change, existed in Byzantine art. Indeed, it is possible that the shift to a more humanistic style helped spark the Italian Renaissance. The two certainly fed from each other. A community approach does not imply necessarily conservatism in style.

Elvis did much to break the pre-existing popular music framework apart. He brought something very personal to his music, but he also remained bound to his community. He wanted to show that he “don’t sing like nobody”. He demonstrated this by singing an Arthur ‘Big Boy’ Crudup song, but in a way that broke the mould. He remained part of the musical community of the American south, despite his revolutionary talent.

How does this link back to the quote from “The Third Man”? Despite being rooted in his community, Elvis was a very talented invididual who ushered in radical change. After him, things could not return to the world of cuckoo clocks. Those who followed had to maintain the sense of rebellion and radicalism. They had to demonstrate they were continuing the revolution – and yet lacking his talent had to find other aspects to emphasize. They were obliged to stress their special authenticity.  This development is described in Treat Me Nice.

So, we can learn from comparing Elvis, the Renaissance and Byzantine art. In particular, we need to consider whether something is actually any good before deciding it is great art.

Peter Harrison

@4harrisons

The most recent newspaper photograph of the man is evocative.  Berlusconi sits behind his tinted limousine window.  The smile on the ex-crooner is wide and the freshly enamelled teeth are clenched in masculine defiance.   The plastic skin is tighter than normal.  Two comparisons come to mind.  The most obvious is Thatcher leaving Downing Street when she exploited a scarcely used female identity and shed a tear.  The actress pretended that she was vulnerable and sensitive.  The self-pity disgusted and angered me as it must have done so many of her victims, the working class generation she was prepared to condemn to a scrap heap in order to realign power in favour of the rich whom she idolised.   If you think this is harsh you should visit the housing estates where the British house their poor.

Elvis was also caught behind the window of his limousine and it happened on more than one occasion.  The most famous shot is from the documentary, ‘Elvis On Tour’.  The film is edited to suggest that he is pondering his past, that he is a man whose life and circumstance will always be without proper explanation.  He has been selected by fate to be adored but the price is that he will end his life obliged to sit, stare and wonder.  I accept this edited version if only because it implies that of these three famous characters it was the least educated amongst them who was the most thoughtful. 

The last time I was in Rome I was with my two daughters.  In an anonymous but fine restaurant a guitar player serenaded our table.  We confirmed that we were all Elvis fans and the guitar player tortured us with his rendition of ‘It’s Now Or Never’.   The food was of a higher standard than the music.  The waitress was chatty and friendly.    I mentioned Berlusconi.  She shrugged her shoulders and smiled.   The inference was clear.  The man was flawed but some men you indulged.   Such men are everywhere and invariably they have adoptive sisters and mothers and protective mates.  It is in their nature.  Perhaps they are blessed by the devil.

Berlusconi would still be there if emotion had not been boycotted by the market accountants.   A democratically elected leader has been removed and we now understand.  If the choice has to be made capitalism will take priority over democracy.   But those of us who live outside Italy are baffled by the tolerance of the population for an overwheened narcissist and corrupt glutton even if much of the recent history of other Western democracies has also demonstrated willingness in its electorates to approve narcissistic smugness.  The difference between Blair and Berlusconi is not as great as people imagine, probably nothing more than the faith of an ex-patriate Catholic.   The two men are close friends.

People who are not Elvis fans are as bewildered as those who observe Italian politics from a distance.   How was it that Elvis fans could stay loyal to the man?  This was a performer who made 29 awful movies without protest and who was responsible for wildly inconsistent performances on stage and in the recording studio.   I think of the waitress in the Italian restaurant and the resigned smile.   Some men you indulge because without them life would not be quite so interesting.  Or perhaps it is more specific than that. Some men you indulge because whatever their faults their presence will redefine the elite that you have to endure.   They not only rock the boat, they undermine the pretensions that support the supposedly superior.  Their shortcomings become essential to our loyalty.

This is what I imagine the smile of the Italian waitress said.  ‘Who else is there?   At least he understands us.  He wants what the poor want, beautiful women and the good life.  Compared to him the other politicians are smaller men.  We know he is crooked.   We don’t have to trust him.’

Berlusconi was more sinister than that but we are talking about emotions and included are those that are the most dangerous of them all, indulgence and double standards.

The book ‘Treat Me Nice’ begins with a reference to the trumpet player, Louis Armstrong.  I selected him because I thought Louis and Elvis had much in common.  Both were extremely talented and original but they finished their lives as unfashionable characters.   Both had been undermined by the cerebral and talents that insisted they understood the modern world better.   Miles Davis did make music that was beyond the imagination of Louis Armstrong and there were rock musicians that made individual records superior to those of Elvis.  But Armstong and Elvis still left catalogues that compared favourably to their rivals even if they were very different to what followed.   Fortunately, their unfashionability has hardened into something that is beginning to earn respect.   This, of course, takes us back to that final shot of Berlusconi in the limousine.  The defiance within the clenched teeth which reminds us that he may have been corrupt but we will never be able to dismiss his shameless determination.

I think I know what kept me loyal to Elvis.   Other musicians may have staked different ground but once I heard his great records I was always aware of the limitations of others.  I could hear them working to register their achievements and whilst those efforts were appreciated there is nothing as seductive as what appears to be the effortlessly sublime.  I feel the same about Louis Armstrong.   It is more than likely that Armstrong has never made a record as irresistible as ‘I Can’t Get Started’ by Bunny Berrigan but as great as that record is I am always aware of the limitations of Berrigan when I hear his trumpet solo.   Why?  Because I can imagine how Armstrong would have played it perfectly.  That is what happens when I listen to the rivals of Elvis, great records but performers who are less than him.  And perhaps that was the appeal of Berlusconi to the Italian electorate.  He did not have to make as much effort as other politicians.  He could take more risks and was not obliged like them to pretend he was clean.

Or maybe we are just gullible, especially with men who have certain natures.

The first edition of ‘Treat Me Nice: Elvis, His Music and the Frankenstein Creature’ by Howard Jackson is nearly sold out, so get in quick if you would like to buy a copy, as first editions always make for a good Christmas gift.

Treat Me Nice

UK customers can buy a copy for £7.99 + pp on Amazon.

International orders can be placed by filling in the form on the ‘Buy Treat Me Nice’ page.

Over thirty years ago I was both obliged and fortunate enough to attend a week long seminar at Cambridge University on the future of the British Welfare State.  There for the first time I met a neoconservative professor.   Before then the right wing had yearned for the past.  They were neither theorist nor revolutionary.

The professor subsequently became famous and an influence on Margaret Thatcher but for the life of me I cannot remember the Christian name of this professor.  I can still picture his thin frame, dark hair and thick moustache and his surname Harris is ingrained in my brain.  But I have a mental block on his Christian name which is because my sub-conscious is determined to remember him as Frank.  Harris, the definite Frank, was famous, of course, for writing an erotic novel that he claimed remembered his own sexual experiences.  For many years this fantasy tormented young men whose sparse experience was actually much different.  Well, this young man, in particular.  It is not mere intellectual sloth on my part that links the two men, the pornographer and the architect of the social policy of Margaret Thatcher.   No prizes if you have guessed already what they had in common.  They were both fantasists. 

Who would have guessed that the economic dreams of the one nutty least impressive academic I met that week would come to pass.  We all know the results.  Productivity increases halved since 1979, the poor are now poorer and the worldwide economy is on the edge of collapse because the rich have so much money it prevents the rest from being circulated properly.  Our economy is as constipated as our inadequate materialist dreams.

But as we discovered when challenging Professor Harris over thirty five years ago statistics to the neoconservatives were of little consequence.    Statistics would only be considered acceptable when the free market had been established in its entirety which it never would be.  Marxists had used the same defence about Russian Communism.

Nobody in a 1000 word blog can define neoconservatism adequately and this is neither the place nor the time.    Neoconservatism is already being challenged by the future and the young and we still need room to consider Elvis.  So we can settle on the simplest of defintions – small state, low taxes and deregulated business.  This definition is mentioned only for those who are curious and because I feel I have to.   But within the key principles that neoconservatives believe justify ultimate faith in the market and hatred of government there are two that interest.  These are the belief that all decisions made by consumers are rational and that this is perfectly reflected in price and production and that the market will ultimately provide the best of all outcomes.

The notion that price is a sensible reflection of rational decisions always reminds me of when I first bought ‘From Elvis In Memphis’ in 1969.   The price at the time was thirty two shillings and six pence.   Did this price reflect what I and other Elvis fans were prepared to pay for the album?   No, because this was the first serious studio album made by Elvis since he had recorded ‘Elvis Is Back’ in 1960.  We were desperate and would have paid a lot more.  In fact, the market was clueless when it had to apply an accurate price to what was a creative work by a gifted talent.  Instead, the price was determined like most records at the time by companies calculating their unit costs and usual demand.  This calculation was inadequate because no one other than like minded Elvis obsessives could understand my dependency on the music of Elvis.  Such obsessions are beyond the price makers and it may explain why they are rich and I am not but it does not mean they can always determine accurate outcomes.

Neoconservatives may not like it but their beloved entrepreneurs only understand so much and that understanding inevitably means huge errors in the multitude of prices that their free market requires to operate efficiently.   A similar misunderstanding occurred in record company executives who pointed to the superior sales of the Elvis albums that contained only sentimental ballads.  The same executives argued for a while that the album ‘Elvis Is Back’ should be deleted.  This was because all they understood were isolated numbers.  What they failed to realise was that the classic albums created fans that would become obsessive and crawl around the Elvis catalogue buying even more Elvis records.   I may have purchased the same number of copies of ‘Indescribably Blue’ as I have of ‘Reconsider Baby’ but it was hearing the latter that led me to spending so much to support RCA.

The second principle of neoconservatism is that the market will always produce the best of outcomes.  Elvis is a chilling reminder of why this is false.  He was cursed with a manager who lived by the turnover and income aggregates in his accounts.  We all know what happened.  None of the accountants noticed that the only man with the capability of actually earning the money they so liked was bent on self-destruction.  There is a marvellous neoconservative irony in the seventies phase of the career of Elvis.  When he was at his most self-destructive he actually earned more money than when he was responsible and conscientous.    It is obvious now that what the career of Elvis needed was someone capable of making decisions that included data other than pure finance.   Someone like Jerry Wexler at Atlantic would have helped or, to paraphrase Jerry Leiber, somebody who wanted to make history and not just another buck.

The parallel may be pretentious but these blogs because of their nature sometimes leave you no alternative.  Maybe this is what today our neighbouring urban occupiers are saying to their elders.  We need information other than what is contained in the financial accounts of the remote and, above all, we need compassion.    Otherwise our growth curves will only ever relate to money and that means we will all ultimately become pigmies.   If that sounds unreasonable, think about why Elvis destroyed himself.

A final neoconservative irony needs to be mentioned.  Although he was born in the middle of a depression Elvis the performer was not the product of a neoconservative society.  He emerged ten years after social democracy had been successfully introduced into the western world.  His generation had a belief like mine that life, because we only have one, should be enjoyed and this meant having fun and recognising we needed to feel as well as do. Somewhere it was lost in excessive materialism.  Maybe Elvis like the rest of the rich would have welcomed neoconservatism but he paid his ninety per cent taxes and never complained.  This, of course leads to a final neoconservative irony, their belief that high taxes inhibit us from wanting to earn high amounts of money.  It never stopped Parker, more is the pity.

Before I began this I searched for the Christian name of Professor Harris on Google.  I could not find it.  I find this embarrassing but reassuring.   The leading reference to Margaret Thatcher is now a website that is causing a scandal because it is prematurely claiming she has died.   I would hate to be premature myself and I am no expert on the lyrics of Bob Dylan either but for those who remember the sixties it now feels awfully like what he said back then.   ‘The times are a changing.’

Those living outside the UK now can buy signed copies of Treat Me Nice with free CD at a reasonable price by filling in the form below. When your order is received you’ll receive an invoice to be paid via PayPal.  When this is completed you will be sent a copy of the book.  All prices include the cost of postage.  The prices are as follows – in Europe £10.99 or 12.50 Euros, in the Rest of The World, £14 or $23.

Treat Me Nice

Sir Jimmy Saville who died earlier this week became, in his life, rich, famous and successful.  In Britain, his radio and TV shows were listened to and watched by peak audiences.  Few, though, would have been persuaded he had any talent although presumably some of those listeners and viewers must have thought him likeable.   They must have endured him for a reason.  If he did convince many of his worth it was probably because he was sincere, hard working and always enthusiastic about people especially the anonymous.   His non-conformity was regarded as British eccentricity rather than rebellion although resistance did play a part because at some point Saville resolved to be different.  The absence of talent distances Saville from Elvis but as with all these challenges there are connections that can be made.  The most obvious in this case is that Jimmy Saville was a big Elvis fan and he was one of the first British media personalities to actually meet Elvis.  In the early sixties, Saville and the singer Billy Fury were famous for being British and having photographs of themselves posing alongside Elvis.

Elvis with Billy Fury

The DJ continued to champion Elvis records long after others had abandoned him and loyalty more than anything defined Saville.   Although mercenary he gave most of his £250,000 annual income to charity and he spent much of his spare time working in hospitals and care homes.  There was a period when his music programmes were broadcasted from hospitals.   Sir Jimmy Saville cared for the disabled with a concern that had dominated the relationship with his mother.   All this made him unusual and the psychiatrist Sir Anthony Clare concluded perhaps inevitably that such selfless behaviour although admirable was rooted in deep emotional scars.   Mother worship and childhood traumas remind us of Elvis but this is the least interesting of the connections.

Elvis with Jimmy Saville

Saville always reminded us he was working class.  He enjoyed being a miner and had fought criminals to run his early nightclubs.  Later, his popularity rested on his willingness to encourage on his shows the previously anonymous.  Saville never made a smart remark in his life or at least a remark that was intended to be considered smart.   He was always a man of the people.   He was proud to make the dreams of the ordinary come true which is what he attempted in his popular show Jim’ll Fix It.  This was one of the more tedious half hours on British television because the fixes were always so transitory, a shake of the hand of the famous, sitting in a jet plane for a few minutes or kicking into an empty net at a famous football stadium.  His no nonsense pragmatism was ultimately condescending.  But I doubt if Saville ever understood this.  One cannot imagine him saying after the show, ‘I said I’d fix it.  I didn’t say I’d make you happy.’

Perhaps that was why he he was popular.  Despite the failure he really did believe he could make anyone happy.  This almost American faith in happiness ensured that in Britain he was ahead of his time as did his bizarre outfits and his hair that changed colour frequently.  Oddly, I doubt that he ever persuaded anyone to become an Elvis fan.  For a DJ, he talked little about music and his early show on Radio Luxembourg was unusual because he would play the hits rapidly, with only one minute extracts.  The music was always marginal and that indifference to creativity also allowed him to anticipate the future.

The pragmatism or the empty spectacle which was his speciality – routine shows chaired by a personality that relied on gimmicks such as his appearance and a big cigar – remind us more of Parker than Elvis.  This is no coincidence.  When Saville decided to visit the States to meet Elvis and present him with a gold disc for a million sales of ‘It’s Now Or Never’ in the UK his first challenge was to persuade Parker.  Fortunately, the Dutchman found Saville entertaining and he supposedly stopped the filming on Wild In The Country so Elvis could meet Saville, pose for photographs and accept his gold record.  Note that despite the gold record the meeting was not prearranged.    The meeting proceeded with a mixture of conscious stupidity and horseplay.   I am no fan of Parker.   The more observant will have noticed I never acknowledge his honorary title but perhaps it was no coincidence that Parker became the manager of Elvis.  It needed an American equivalent of Saville.  Somebody interested in making money but anarchic enough to tolerate the singularity of Elvis, somone who could console the insecure performer with his faith in empty spectacle, persuade Elvis that failure could be side-stepped.  But where Parker was cynical Saville had faith.  I am prejudiced but I imagine Parker as the overweight man keen to avoid hard physical work.  Jimmy Saville was the opposite.   A driven human being who thrived on digging out coal and later when life became comfortable accepted the challenge of running marathons.

Maybe that is why we like him.   Sir Jimmy Saville may not have had any artistic talent but he had an energy and drive beyond mere mortals.   The British public saw him as unique and if his shows were an endurance test the audience could not resist them and the boredom they induced because the star was always willing to endure so much more.   Elvis was not a man we associate with endurance.  He was at his best with individual challenges.  He is like the existential hero in countless American movies, usually drunk when the film begins but once he is made sober he makes an effort that is only within the reach of the exceptional.  If anything, Saville style endurance is found in the audience of Elvis, those who stayed with him despite the endless movies, repeated live albums and dodgy songs of the seventies.  Of course, we endured for the same reason as the fans or supporters of Saville.  We recognised something unique and important, something that rendered the weaknesses irrelevant.  Saville may have been self-adoring and dull but he did work in hospitals, and he devoted his life to charity.  The psychiatrist may have been right, Saville may have only been administering self-therapy but it entailed loyalty and devotion and this made him unique and ultimately admirable.  Elvis may have been unable to sustain application and his compliance with Parker was both empty headed and irresponsible but he had that special talent.  We had seen the American movies and a little like John Wayne with Dean Martin in Rio Bravo we always gave Elvis one more chance on another album.  So perhaps that is what the two men had in common.  Both men gave an awful lot in very different ways but both took more than they should have.

Note – This has been the third obituary on the trot.  Next week, whoever dies, the challenge will be neo-conservatism.