Like, I was looking for songs Jerry Lee wrote, the JLL fanboys posted a page, “the esteemed” Escott and Martin Hawkins wrote (here’s the link to the page):
It’s blurry but it reads: “Jerry Lee Lewis is one of the few influential figures in the history of rock or country music who has written very little of his own material. However, this lack of song-writing ability similar to that of a Carl Perkins, a Chuck Berry or a Tom T. Hall is paradoxically behind much of Jerry Lee’s success.”
I don’t get why older fans respect him, so much, he isn’t even respectful of the people he writes about, he’s mean, mostly to Carl – Like, what’s his problem? I don’t get why he hated Carl, did he say or do something rude to Escott? If so, he should talk about it, but no one will ever know ‘cause he’ll never say, he’d rather make passive aggressive remarks, like this.
I don’t understand how Escott published this and thought it made sense.
Like, God bless Jerry Lee, but he only wrote a few of his own songs, even then, it’s hard to say if he actually did. He’s credited for a lot he didn’t write, by that I mean, songs people helped him write and he covered someone else’s song, retitled it, claimed he wrote it and who’s to say he didn’t do this with other songs? A list of what he’s actually written is needed, Escott could’ve done this, being the self-proclaimed expert and all. Instead, tried to stay face, it’s known Jerry Lee’s strength is playing other people’s songs in his own style, but it’s not cool to praise him then shoot down other musicians who’ve actually written their own music. It’s mean and makes his praise of Jerry Lee’s talent ingenuine.
Now, Carl, Chuck, and Tom T. Hall aren’t the best songwriters in the world, they’re no Bob Dylan or Hank Williams, we all can’t be -- But they each wrote hits that are signature to them, they’ve expressed in their own unique way. There’s nothing wrong with Jerry Lee’s signature hits being covers, ‘Great Balls of Fire’ and ‘Whole Lotta Shakin,’ Elvis didn’t write much either, but the problem is Jerry Lee’s songwriting ability is in question. I’m proposing that Jerry Lee is very poor at songwriting and comparing him to Carl, Chuck, and Tom isn’t fair because they wrote good songs and could write their own music, whereas Jerry Lee can’t sit down and chisel one out on paper, he’s musically gifted but he can’t do what they did.
He can’t make up a song on the spot like ‘Everybody’s Tryna be my Baby’ or write a bunch of songs like Carl did, he can’t articulate himself like Chuck Berry did with ‘Brown Eyed Handsome Man,’ and he can’t write sentimental-happy songs about his feelings like Tom T. Hall has done. That doesn’t make Jerry Lee less, though, it just means they’re each different and that’s okay. It’s unfair to put down their accomplishments like Escott did. More so, when considering the absurdity of what he said, “this lack of song-writing ability similar to that of a Carl Perkins, a Chuck Berry or a Tom T. Hall” ... Like on what planet?
I’ll admit, Carl and Chuck’s prime was the fifties, but they wrote some of the most iconic songs in Rock and Roll history. Carl wrote ‘Blue Suede Shoes’ and ‘Honey Don’t,’ Chuck wrote ‘Johnny B. Goode’ and ‘Roll Over Beethoven,’ I’d like to add it’s mostly Chuck’s songs that Jerry Lee used to perform at his live concerts. I don’t know much about Tom, but the simplicity of his songs is endearing and are country classics -- And why are we even talking about Tom T. Hall? He isn’t Rockabilly or Rock and Roll, why include him in the comparison? If it was based on songwriting, well, we just went through that. It also means Escott is more of a judgemental person than I thought, and I can’t help feeling this was his roundabout way of taking another shot at Carl.
I think he’s long overdue to retire and let a younger generation talk about these guys.
Can also be titled: So, I learned Colin Escott literally hated Carl.
(This was going to be a “passing thought,” but I wanna write what I’ve been thinking about)
In my research, I’ve come across people who were overly judgemental of Carl -- I don’t mean critical from a researcher’s point of view or objective, like disliking or disagreeing with his choices because you can do those things and still like him, same for anyone. I mean, I’ve seen people who were being straight up mean, without even knowing anything about him and “professional” writers who are near-hateful in their writing of him, to a point, it’s a personal attack on his character rather than an objective and unbiased view they should have. Honestly, people who do that to him aren’t worth knowing.
To me, it’s a red flag, says a lot about a person; when they look at Carl and see weakness (for how he showed his emotions, dealt with his addiction), or dislike him personally rather than just not liking his music, it isn’t cool. Carl endured a lot, more than I’ve read, was humble, sweet, and sincere. I’m sure, on top of his addiction, he dealt with mental health problems, he went back and forth thinking he deserved what he had and didn’t -- Like he didn’t deserve anything good or to be happy. It’s unfair, people who judge him so harshly and not acknowledge that he grew from the toxic place he was in, and tried to be a better man for his family and himself.
Carl deserves more, than to be labeled as an “alcoholic,” the guy who happened to be at the Million Dollar Quartet session (even though it was his session), or a “hillbilly” from where he came from and how he spoke, and more than the guy who wrote Elvis’ ‘Blue Suede Shoes.’ His accomplishments and story deserve to be remembered and not forgotten.
(With this introduction done, I’d like to continue to what prompted me to write this, two writers who are guilty of favoritism and don’t like Carl: Robert Hilburn, and Colin Escott.)
I first noticed, this trend of bashing Carl, in Robert Hilburn’s “The Life: Johnny Cash” on pg. 296, where he wrote, “The rockabilly star had fallen into relative obscurity, sabotaged chiefly by his alcoholism.” There are other times, in this book and other sources, where Carl’s described as a “rockabilly star,” yeah -- But an alcoholic too. As if they’re writing, that’s all he was, it’s written so damning, with disgust wrapped around it, as if Carl being an alcoholic was worse than John being a junkie, Roy being a coke head, meanwhile Jerry Lee used to stick needles in his belly, yet no one calls him anything. Hilburn’s no different, he judges Carl for his alcoholism yet turns a blind eye to John being a pill head, even when he’s “critical” of John, it’s apparent he’s a big fanboy. Which is forgivable, compared to what Escott has done.
The recent case I’ve seen of a writer bashing Carl, is Colin Escott, in his musical, “Million Dollar Quartet” and tv show “Sun Records,” along with his 1991 book he based both on, “Good Rockin’ Tonight: Sun Records and the Birth of Rock ‘N’ Roll” which he wrote with Martin Hawkins. In an older post, I wrote *“I Swear Colin Escott Hates Carl.” Though I wrote hate, I was thinking Escott just wasn’t uncomfortable with Carl or didn’t like him as much as Elvis, John, and Jerry Lee, whose characters and stories he handles with care. To me, it seemed Escott didn’t care for Carl, due to the low quality of how Carl is written in the musical and tv show. I got to thinking there were too many mistakes and failures, to be an accident, it looked like Escott was doing it on purpose. But I ignored it and exaggerated that fact he doesn’t like Carl, compared to Elvis, John, and Jerry Lee, by saying he hated him.
It wasn’t until reading Escott’s book, “Good Rock’ Tonight,” that I learned I was actually right, he literally hates Carl. Which is what I’d like to share, excerpts exposing his hatred:
• Chapter 7, “Carl Perkins: Prophet In Blue Suede Shoes,” pg. 125. “There is enduring belief among Carl Perkins’ die hard constituency that if fate had just taken a few different turns--If he had only had a manager as wily as Colonel Parker, if Sun had not deserted him to concentrate on Jerry Lee Lewis--then Carl would have been as big as Elvis.” This introduction was terrible, it’s more like a passive-aggressive statement aimed at everyone, even Carl, who speculated if he were given the same chances as Elvis and Jerry Lee, then he could’ve had more success. Which I don’t think is foolish, Carl would have, though, he wouldn’t have outshined Elvis, he’d wouldn’t have had to stress about money. It’s as if Escott wants to say something else, but he’s too cowardly.
• He goes on to say, on the same page: “Elvis Presley and Carl Perkins leaped into the public consciousness at approximately the same time, each with a branch of music that broke down well-established barriers. Indeed, both were nourished by the same musical wellsprings; but the similarity ends there. It’s not that Perkins was an inferior musician to Presley, for in many ways he was superior it’s not even that Perkins potential was sapped by his fifteen minutes of fame back in 1956. Rather, the fact is that Presley had the personal and musical malleability to sustain a career in an orbit beyond the one that had spawn him. Carl Perkins did not. His music was born and bred in the barrooms of the mid-South. The rhythms that underpinned his music and the images in his song were pure honky-tonk. He got lucky with one song near the dawn of his long career, and he certainly deserved that luck, but you could never take the country out of Carl Perkins.” He’s trying to manipulate the reader’s view of Carl, by diminishing his accomplishments, with condescending remarks followed by fake compliments. He clearly looks down on Carl for being southern.
• Lower on the same page, “Lake County Cotton Country,” he said: “Their second child, born on April 9, 1932, was christened Carl Lee Perkings. The misspelling of the family name suggests that the literacy of the government employees was barely a notch higher than that of the people they were cataloging.” The fact Escott views the misspelling of Carl’s surname this way, speaks to what his true character is. Carl and his writer David McGee saw the misspelling as a case of the “Perkins luck,” the first of many unlucky events in Carl’s life.
• The next, historically inaccurate and insensitive, pages, 140 -141. When writing about Jay’s passing: “His short-lived career as a teen poet fading fast, Perkins turned back to the honky-tonks. He also turned to the bottle. His alcoholism was precipitated by the death of his older brother Jay, who succumbed to a malignant brain tumor in October 1958. The respect in which Jay was held was evidenced by the roster of artists who performed at a memorial concert held in Memphis on November 14 of that year.” Then went on to list the artists who performed at Jay’s memorial in November, as if the number of people equated to Jay’s worth. No mention of how Jay’s death affected Carl, even though excerpts from interviews and quotes from his book, “Disciple in Blue Suede Shoes,” were used in this chapter.
On the flip side, writing about Clayton: “Early in 1959, W.S. Holland quit the line-up and tried artist management before joining Johnny Cash. Clayton Perkins quit a little later to return to Jackson, where he too became an alcoholic, eventually committing suicide.” I can’t say what happened to W.S., some sources say he was going to retire or become an engineer, then he got a call from John in 1960, but that’s a disrespectful of telling what happened to Clayton. It was 1963, Carl fought Clayton in a motel parking lot because Clayton hit Red Foley. After the fight, they were going back to their room, Clayton tried to sucker punch Carl when his back was turned, he ducked and Clayton broke his hand on a brick wall and got knocked out by Carl. He took Clayton home to their parents and fired him, the point is, he didn’t quit on Carl. Also, like Carl, Clayton was more than just an alcoholic.
There’s more, Carl’s chapter is laced with pointed words and Escott is only that way to him, not Elvis, Jerry Lee, or John. So, I learned, Colin Escott literally hates Carl Perkins, and I didn’t understand why until I came up with a theory, which is:
Theory Time! In the preface of the book, Escott wrote that “writing about Sun Records has become something of a growth industry recently,” got me to thinking, he knows of people who write about Sun Records, stays up to date with news about it. So, he’d know about the lawsuit that Carl filed against Sam Phillips for the rights of the Million Dollar Quartet Session in the 1980s since the session is what Escott’s musical is based on, and listed tracks from the officially released album under, “recommended listening.” Surely, the foremost expert on everything Sun Records would know of the other lawsuits Carl filed against Sam, in the 1960s through the 1970s, for the royalty rights on ‘Blue Suede Shoes’ and other songs recorded at Sun, that Sam cheated him out of.
Oh, also Colin Escott adores Sam Phillips! This book is about him, so is his musical, tv show, it’s pretty much summed up on pg, 1. “Sam Phillips is an uncontested legend in his adopted hometown. He came to the city where there was, as he put it, ‘a meeting of musics,’ and in a tiny storefront studio, he recorded music that would change the face of popular culture. He also ensured that not even the most cursory history of American popular music could be written without the reference to Memphis or Sam C. Phillips.” I imagine someone devoted to Sam’s history wouldn’t like it when somebody, like Carl, says something about Sam.
Hell, it’s why I’m writing this, to defend Carl, and in his defense, he was right to tell the truth about what Sam did to him, in his biographies and in that courtroom. Which he didn’t do in spite, he just wanted a full accounting of what was, literally, owed to him: “And it just might be, sir, that I owe him. And if I do, I make this statement in your court, I will walk from Jackson, Tennessee, back to your courtroom, your Honor, this very room, in this courthouse in Memphis. I will walk the median of I-40--I will not drive--I will walk if he overpaid me one dollar.” Carl raised a hand in the air, his thumb and forefinger grasping an imaginary dollar bill. “I’ll bring it and hand it to you, sir. That’s all I ask. I want to know who owe’s who.”
Wasn’t the first time Sam screwed over Carl, he dipped into his earnings from ‘Blue Suede Shoes’ to buy him a two-tone blue Caddilac, said he’d buy one for the first artist signed to him to sell a million copies, Carl had no reason to doubt, so he trusted Sam. In the end, Carl won, he got the rights and gained full control of his songs from Sun, though he was nice to Sam, and would look back at his days there with fondness and wish he never left, he never forgave Sam for taking his earnings. Carl could’ve used the money to support his family when he was unable to work, due to mental health and addiction, through 1959 and 1960.
If I’m correct in my theory, that Escott hates Carl for standing up to Sam than I’m not sure what that says about him, it isn’t good, though.
After writing that, I’d like to purpose a final theory, that ties into this one, it’s short. While reading an article on Elvis Australia, *"Carl Perkins: Blue Suede Shoes and Elvis Presley" by David Troedson, to learn more about Carl's lawsuit against Sam, Troedson used references from "Sam Phillips: Sun Records - The Man Who Invented Rock & Roll" by Peter Guralnick. I didn't care to mention in this, but Escott and Guralnick are friends, Guralnick wrote the Foreward in 'Good Rockin' Tonight.' He also wrote in the article I read, "but he never forgave Sam for taking money he considered to be his, that he needed to support his family." When interpreting what he wrote to my style, I got to thinking: “They’re friends, what if he doesn’t like Carl too? No, he’s a better writer than Escott, but why, does how he worded that, seem off to me? (regardless, I wrote my version, as seen above) Why does he write that Carl needed the money to support his family, like it’s a bad thing? I know why he needed it because he was dealing with his mental health and addiction, it would’ve helped to have it--”
Then it hit me, the reason people like Escott hate Carl, they think he was an old drunk, who blamed the world for everything wrong in his life, that he should’ve sobered up and supported his own family instead of blaming Sam, further, he deserved everything he got and Sam was right to take his money because he’d probably drink it all up.
Which, I don’t think is a theory, it’s the truth and it’s so dumb and hypocritical. I wasted hours of my life on Escott’s tv show Sun Records, he stressed how Sam had problems with his mental health and addiction, so it's baffling to me, how he can look at Carl who also had problems with his mental health and addiction -- Yet, say they’re not the same and try to villainize Carl and paint Sam as a victim. It’s unfair, shallow, petty, unrealistic, and extremely disrespectful to both men. Sam wasn’t a good guy, and Carl wasn’t either all the time, they both went through their struggles, sometimes caused by each other, but Sam screwed over everyone at Sun Records, it’s not right to turn a blind-eye to it, like Escott.
So, those were my best guesses, for why Escott hates Carl, though it could go a bit further. Escott was born in England, on August 31st, 1949, considering his age and where he’s from, it’s not far-fetched to think he looks down on people from the South, thinking they’re hillbillies, though this doesn’t explain how he’s able to write about other southern musicians, without the same judgement he has for Carl, which is why I think it’s personal.
Going back to what I wrote, how I’m not sure what it says about Escott, I think if he holds such bias toward Carl, he can’t call himself the “foremost expert” of everything Sun Records because Carl’s a part of it, he’ll never fully understand and appreciate Carl’s story and music, if he views him with such judgement. It’s what I learned, in my years of researching Carl, John, Roy, and Jerry Lee, if you’re not neutral, you’re not open to learning anything new, about them or anything, it’ll cheapen all that you do and make it a waste. That’s what happened to Escott with his research, and I feel bad for him.
I end this on, as I’ve said before, if Escott loved Sam so much, he should’ve kept the focus of his book, musical, and tv show, on Sam rather than everybody else at Sun Records -- Though I think he didn’t because he knows, no one wants to hear a glorified story about the bad guy. Still, it could work, just make it honest and don’t be afraid to show him as a jerk because he was.
Excerpts of Colin’s hatred of Carl, -- “Good Rockin’ Tonight: Sun Records and the Birth of Rock ‘N’ Roll” by Colin Escott and Martin Hawkins. / pg. 1, pg. 125, pg, 140 -141.
W.S. Holland -- “W.S. Holland: the man behind the Man in Black” by John Connor Coulston. Also, from the *Rockabilly Hall of Fame quoted Peter Cooper’s article from the Tennessean, in which W.S. was said to have been an engineer.
Stories of Clayton, “Disciple in Blue Suede Shoes” by Carl Perkins and Ron Rendleman. Also, the story of Carl at the trial “Go, Cat, Go! The Life and Times of Carl Perkins” by Carl and David McGee.
- - -
Sources: Carl’s lawsuit against Sam, -- "Carl Perkins: Blue Suede Shoes and Elvis Presley" by David Troedson, with references from "Sam Phillips: Sun Records - The Man Who Invented Rock & Roll" by Peter Guralnick. (I also learned, Guralnick’s lowkey judgey of Carl, too.)
The bashing of Carl from Robert Hilburn’s “The Life: Johnny Cash” / pg. 296.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you have a good day!
Photos: The scans of Carl, and photo of the book cover are mine, but the photo of Carl and Sam are from *Pinterest.
I don’t understand people who feel sorry for Sam Phillips. He was literally a villain who exploited everyone who was signed with him and stole from them.
I swear, Collin Escott should be ashamed of himself (for many things but mainly) for trying to portray Sam as a sympathetic character in Sun Records, like I still don’t get that. How do you go from creating a series about the Million Dollar Quartet to it being all about Sam -- Then, it’s not actually, it’s about the other artists he signed, not Billy Lee Riley, Sonny Burgess or Barbara, no. Howlin’ Wolf, B.B. King and Ike Turner, who weren’t even at Sun Records that long, and were just being used to give the TV show a false sense of diversity (using their images to reel more people in), when it was actually about John, Carl, Elvis, Jerry Lee, and Sam (basically five white guys).
Though really it’s not about them because we get to see how Colonel Tom Parker (got a lap dance I’m still scarred from that) screwed over Hank Snow, and how much of a shady con artist he was -- As if he was the bad guy in this, even though he and Sam were pretty much the same. Then regardless of all that, the TV Show is still about Sam, yet it’s really not because his story got lost in the mess.
Like, I hadn’t known Sam had panic attacks from the stress he was under, was hospitalized and dealt with his own addictions. If that’s true, then it’s understandable, he wasn’t a businessman, he was just a guy who loved music, he was doing something new and didn’t know what the outcome would be, I know how uncertainty can be scary, not to mention the pressure of running a company, money, and the artists signed on are stressing you out. Though from how scattered the story is, it’s hard to feel bad for him.
I say this all the time, but these guys’ stories can’t be told from “they’re legends, larger than life, and successful men,” they have to be portrayed as human, relatable with flaws, insecurities, fear, then overcoming their shortcomings or something close. With Sam, it could’ve been interesting to see him written in a less generic way, like you knew he wasn’t a good guy but you could understand where he was coming from, instead, Colin Escott’s trying to make a bad guy sympathetic. If he liked Sam so much he should’ve stuck to telling his story better than trying to put on a three-ring circus, wasting everyone’s time.
With his plaque, Country Music Hall of Fame, Nashville, TN, Oct 4, 2001. This is the only picture I actually like of him, he seems so proud and happy to have been honored, though I think he wanted great things to come of Sun Records, he had doubts that it’d happen.
What it all comes down to is, Colin Escott’s an awful writer. “I Saw The Light,” “Million Dollar Quartet the Musical,” and “Sun Records,” are proof of that. Those who say otherwise are blinded by delusion and sentimentality because it was the film that introduced them to these stories, music and people. Still, he claims to be the foremost expert on everything Sun Records and probably thinks he is with Hank Williams too. It seems everything he wrote is messed up, in some way, but what’s wrose is there are impressionable young (mainly girls) and old people, who believe it, now that’s scary!
If anything, I think the fact Colin Escott’s work, no matter how shabby, is able to thrive, is evidence that people are interested in learning about these musicians, hearing their music and learning their stories, even if it’s told from an old backword fool like him.
Besides research, I like playing video games and watching lets players. In 2016, my favorite was *Markiplier playing Huniecam and Jay from the Kubscoutz *beating Markiplier’s score, I was so into this game after watching them, I wanted to beat their scores, so I got the game during a steam sale. Around that time I heard this song, it’s been my everything since.
For those who don’t know: HunieCam Studio is an adult-themed tycoon game, where you manage a cam show business and hire girls to work fo you. The objective is to earn the most fans by 21 days in-game, depending on your score you get awarded various phallic trophies -- The best is diamond. Though to get fans, you need money.
During my time of playing the game, Sun Records aired, while I was dodging writing anything about it, I vented my frustration over how Sam was portrayed in a glorified way, by saying: “All Sam cared about was money, he exploited and sold everyone who walked into Sun Studio, he might as well have been a pimp.” Then I realized, Sam treated everyone at Sun, like stressed out players do to the girls in Huniecam, they don’t care about them after awhile, they just want money so they won’t be in debt, and could get more fans. When I made that connection, this song reminded me of how Sam treated them all -- Sexual lyrics aside, the chrous is what I think, things were like:
‘‘Move your hips to this beat, you can't stay on your seat.
Having so much fun, we will never be done.
Singing out this song, you can never be wrong.
Don't call me crazy, 'cause here come the ladies.’’
Like, even if they were getting used, it didn’t matter when they were performing or recording, so that worked in Sam’s favor because if they’re not happy, he can’t sell them, and continue to work them hard, “We will never be done.” It also captures the nostalgic feeling of who they used to be, so they can’t be too mad at Sam, even he has to admit those were the best years of his life too, ‘cause it seemed like a never-ending party. It’s what I think of when I come back and listen to this song.
What I’m saying is, I swear if Colin Escott is going to keep backing out of it, I’ll make a movie of Sam Phillips, where he’s the main focus, trying to run a business but his pesky artists want things, like money, so their families could eat -- Okay, that’s mean, but he thinks he’s clever in tricking them, thinking if he pulls money from them, he’ll invest in something else and everyone will get paid, but he fucks up and they all lose. It shows that Sam wasn’t a businessman, just interested in music and keeping the company afloat, and he used them but he ended up playing himself. Though yeah, if Escott won’t, I will.
Basically, whenever I listen to this song, I imagine that’s how Sam treated everyone on Sun.
Sun Records Breakdown:
“Based on Million Dollar Quartet.“ / [⒈]
“First impressions of the characters.“ / [Full ver.⒉] [Index ver.⒉]
“Sun Records and how everyone was color blind.“ / [⒊]
● Jerry Lee: and literally no one cares about Jimmy Swaggart.
I don’t think Colin Escott & Floyd Mutrux even knew what to do with him. In the musical, Jerry Lee was a one-dimensional character, who was wild, crazy, comic relief, and his performances were the highlight of the show. Usually, the guy portraying him would do an over the top version of him, that was similar to Dennis Quaid's portrayal of Jerry Lee in Great Balls of Fire, and rarely any of the real Jerry Lee's actual stage moves. (To be fair, the tv show version is using a few of his real stage moves, it looks like Lees or whoever is helping him did his/their research)
In the musical, there's no room for character development, let alone looking into Jerry Lee's psyche and examining his emotions, or what caused him to become who he is. With the tv show, there’s too much room to develop his character, in fact, you can tell they’re trying too hard to show different dimensions of him, he’s all over the place. If they’re not careful it’ll turn into a mess, kind of like the redirection of the series being about the Million Dollar Quartet to Sam Phillips. So far, he’s the wild, arrogant-20 something cuss, we expect him to be.
However, Escott and Mutrux are attempting to do something different, showing signs of a being human, not so confident, teenage Jerry Lee. This is strange since it seems everyone who talks about him is determined to say he was perfect, always sure, a wild rocker, who could never-ever-do-wrong, pretty much, God’s gift to earth. So, to see a depiction of him, a little frazzled and unsure, is strange -- I gotta admit, I like it because it’s honest to who he was, especially at that age.
To keep the focus, on an awkward and arrogant teenage Jerry Lee, wouldn’t be hard to do, but Escott and Mutrux took it upon themselves to go further, to show him as promiscuous and scoring with a housewife, even though there’s no proof that ever happened, all while being a God fearing, aspiring preacher. Which the ladder part is true, but if not handled carefully with the man hoein’ they added, it won’t flow well.
Although I feel hypocritical for writing this, since I've been guilty of doing this in my own fictional writings; I seriously don't like how they're over sexualizing Jerry Lee. If I remember correctly, wasn't he was 15 when he got married to his first wife Dorothy? Then he was around 16 when he married Jane, after having met her at bible college -- that he was sent to sorta unwillingly after he tried tricking his Uncle Calhoun and failed?
In the scene, where his head’s up a girls dress kissing on her leg, who is that? When he says, what seems to be right after that he "found his calling," how old is he? If he’s 15, that’s messed up. The series takes place in 1950-1956, he’d be underage through the first part of it, also this is where the majority of sex scenes takes place. When he has sex with the housewife, it’s 1952 while he was a door-to-door salesman, he’d be 17 maybe 18. I mean, are they implying an underage Jerry Lee just scored with every woman he met?
I’m only asking for two reasons, it seems inappropriate to sexualize a 15-year-old boy, and if he were a girl, I feel like this wouldn’t have happened. I mean, we as an audience don’t have to see what he’s doing to know what he’s doing, just imply it, that’s all that needs to be done. On a story telling note, this seems like a perfect setup for Jerry Lee’s marriage to Dorothy and leading up to his bible college years.
Though as writing this, it occurred to me, what if the series doesn’t have that important character arch in his story? (After two hours of ranting and dwelling on this question, I’m not prepared to write how foolish they’d be to not include this into Sun Records.) That being said, he’s seen getting married to a blonde girl, which neither of his ex-wives were. He also get’s beaten up by, who I’m assuming are Jane’s brothers, so he’ll marry their sister, who he got pregnant, which happened--but I can’t recall reading if they hit him. I assumed when he saw the log chains and baseball bats they had, he was submissive like: "You got it."
Also, if it’s not in the show, I want to share it here, the important arch in his story should’ve been showing his character. How he tricked his first wife into marrying him, by becoming a good-christian-boy because when he stalked her that’s what he thought she wanted, and this was all so he could have sex with her, then after he regretted it. How he tried tricking his uncle and aunt Calhoun by talking insincerely about going to school, and they thought he meant it so they shipped him to Bible college. How he tricked his second wife into doing his homework for him, getting her pregant and having to marry her, all while still being married to the first wife. How at 16-years-old, he was a father to Jerry Lee Lewis Jr, which made him happy, but it seems like he didn’t know what to make of it, other than “a man should have a family, something to be proud of.” His life then, without knowing he’d go to Sun Records, was pretty much done, married twice, Bible college drop out, with a kid he didn’t know how to raise, all while being a kid himself.
There’s something sad about that, but it sums him up: He responsible for getting himself in trouble since he thought he could trick some body, but for the most part, he fumbles into situations, good or bad, and it shows that as much as he’d like to let on that he knows what he’s doing, he doesn’t. He’s like a leaf blowing in the wind, he’s Forrest Gump, but not nice.
Anyway, moving on.
The only scene that makes sense, is where he’s looking at some woman’s boobs, while his girl is sitting right across him, it gets the point across. (like we get it he’s girl crazy) While the other scenes are too much, unnecessary, and the housewife scene just seemed like it was added in as comic relief. Which isn’t cool, it’s condescending and rude to reduce him to a joke and it’s cheap to revert back to a character they wrote for their musical.
I don't understand why Jimmy's even there, I'm guessing Escott and Mutrux liked the dynamic Jerry Lee had with his cousin Jimmy Swaggart in Great Balls of Fire, so much, they needed it in Sun Records. To add to the drama since this thing has to follow Nashville.
They did the same thing with Walk the Line, by stealing the fictitious tension John had with his father. Personally, I've been wary of Jimmy ever since I read about his scandal, and pretty much since I wrote a post on him, piecing together the odd stories of him as a kid and how his father Sonny Swaggart sexually abused him. I can't look at him the same, and I can't imagine not talking about those things if a story of him is to be told.
I get how Escott and Mutrux wanted him to be Jerry Lee's antagonist so he could tell him to stop playing "the devil’s music," and try to save his soul, as he tried in real life. Though, both versions of Jimmy are completely unnecessary to Jerry Lee's story.
It's like people think, Jerry Lee would ever forget, about where he believes he's gonna go. He was a preacher in his younger years and always had a deep rooted fear of going to Hell. He talked about it all the time when he joined Sun Records, he'd remind everyone on tour they were playing the devil’s music and were going to Hell.
John even witnessed Jerry Lee and Carl fight about it, to which Carl said to him during a tagent: "Maybe you are, but we ain't." He even brought it up to Elvis, freaking him out with the question, if Elvis thought he was going to Hell for the music he was playing, causing him to yell: "Jerry Lee, don't you EVER ask me that again." Jerry Lee in fanboy mode was like "You got it."
The thought of going to Hell has always bothered him and he still lives with that fear today, I think he will for as long as he lives. So no. He doesn't need to be reminded of Hell, he already knows. In fact, after learning it freaks him out, I started disliking how much Jimmy would bother him with it. As if he'd forget.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how he's portrayed in Sun Records, though that's not to say Christian Lees won't do a good job, in my opinion he already has, he's great as Jerry Lee. It’s refreshing to see someone that’s actually close to his age, playing that period of his life. But regardless of how good he does, or a poorly written script and poor character development, people will see Jerry Lee how they want, just like they've always done.
In itself, it’s harmful, for some reason him being human is ignored. Still, I can’t ignore the thought I had while writing this, who cares and why should they? He’s done plenty of to be remembered for, but not all of it good. To put bluntly, he’s a jerk who’s done a ton of bad things, to a point where people believe he’s a real killer.Then, his first bad boy of rock and roll image overshadows everything he does. It’s like people expect the worse or craziest thing from him, and he’s not expected to grow, change, or be a better person. He’s not looked at objectively by the people who admire him and some pretend he’s never made a mistake or had a bad day, and through all outcomes, his feelings get ignored. Why should they care? I understand people see what they wanna see.
For myself, I like Jerry Lee, I acknowledge he’s an ugly dude from the inside out. I wish I didn’t have to learn certain things about him because it’s cumbersome to know them, but they should be known because it’s the truth. I don’t think it’s right to make him likable in a forced narrative since he’s done a lot to make him unlikeable, the best that can be done is to make his story and his choices, understandable. Which this series won’t do. So, I can’t help feeling sad for him, which is a rare thing when it comes to Jerry Lee, I’m reminded of what he said about himself in an interview about Great Balls of Fire, in an issue of "SPIN," in June of 1989.
Q. So why has he now decided to cooperate with the filmmakers?
"The move has been off and on for years. If I didn't, I was concerned about the music more than anything else, and that's right, I made sure of that. But the rest of it is blown out of all proportion. It's not about Jerry Lee's deep feelings, what was in his heart at the time, why he did the things he did. He wasn't too smart, he was just a kid. We all make mistakes in life and I made a big one real early. I had to learn to live with it and Myra had to learn to live without it."
I agree with how he wished to be represented, but I can't help asking, "would you really want that, Jerry Lee?" As good as it'd be to see a story that looks into his feelings, his reasons behind his actions and acknowledging his flaws and the mistakes he made, I wonder if Jerry Lee would be prepared for people to know those things? Maybe not, I don’t know if he’d ever be ready for that, still, I believe his story should be told, the good and the bad.
Concluding the Jerry Lee rant...Out of curiosity, why is there a scene of Jerry Lee in the shower pulling in, who I’m assuming is one of his ex-wives, in the shower with him?
Is this some type of fan service? Then why not save a scene like this for Elvis? (then again there’s already shower scenes of him in his movies.) Who even asked for this scene? Why is it important to anything? (It’d make sense if it were with John and Vivian or Carl and Valda ) Do Escott and Mutrux have a crush on Jerry Lee? Either way, it was unnecessary, it’s like, we get it, they’re in love, and if he’s under age, it’s extremely inappropriate.
Then there’s something Lees said about Jerry Lee, “Jerry is the best at everything. He’s the Killer, you won’t beat him at anything, if you’re a boxer, he’ll still beat you in a fight. You know, that’s his mentality.” I agree, that’s exactly his mentality! The truth is though, it’s just hot air, Jerry Lee can’t fight no one unless he has a guaranteed advantage.
Oh, there’s a scene of Jimmy Swaggart pushing Jerry Lee, and the two fight at what looks to be a church gathering, while I can’t say if that ever took place. What Lees said about Jerry Lee, made me laugh, because it’s true and Jerry Lee fighting his preacher cousin doesn’t make him the world’s strongest fighter, especially when he’s getting whupped by him.
Though they seem to have made this up for viewing purposes, like Elvis and John fighting with their dads. I have no hope for Sun Records’ take on Jerry Lee, especially so if this thing gets a season 2 and the story follows him through 1956-1958 when he meets Myra. Like, yeah, no. (If anyone wants to see that, they already did it with Great Balls of Fire) No need to open up old wounds with their sexually perverted Jerry Lee, and an underage girl.
INDEX:
“Elvis Presley and his fictionally abusive father.” / [x]
“Johnny Cash and his emotionally abusive father.” / [x]
“Jerry Lee Lewis and literally no one cares about Jimmy Swaggart.” / [x]
“Carl Perkins and – this show don’t care about him.” / [x]
Sun Records Breakdown:
“Based on Million Dollar Quartet.“ / [⒈]
“First impressions of the characters.“ / [Full ver.⒉] [Index ver.⒉]
“Sun Records and how everyone was color blind.“ / [⒊]
● ELVIS (and his fictionally abusive father.)
Now, I don’t know much about Elvis, so I can’t say if Vernon ever pushed him like this:
And yelled, “Wash that crap outta your hair,” or if Elvis pushed him back yelling. “Just because you signed some contract for me, doesn’t mean you could tell me what to do!” Like the trailers have shown. I mean, from what I read, Elvis was very close to his parents, so I can’t imagine this ever happening, especially from what I know of Gladys, she’d never let that to happen. I agree with the saying that all families aren’t perfect, but this is taking it too far. I think it’s disturbing that Colin Escott & Floyd Mutrux think it’s okay to tell lies like this, for the sake of storytelling, it’s exploitative and disrespectful to Elvis’ family.
Then, I know Elvis’ first serious girlfriend was Dixie Locke Emmons, so I’m assuming her name was changed to “Trixie” for legal reasons or out of respect, so it’s cool to see a portrayal of their relationship. Her actress, AlexAnn Hopkins said, “She's very much, a rule follower and a good girl, then all of a sudden, a boy comes along who kind of makes her question what she's been taught.”
So, it seems the series will portray -- something like a -- bad boy Elvis, even though, he started out as a rule follower and good boy too. Still, I wonder how far they’re going to go with sexualizing Elvis or even Trixie? The thought of either makes me uncomfortable since Elvis was fresh out of high school and Trixie was fourteen. So far, in a few scenes, it’s been Drake Milligan with his shirt off and it looks like Elvis is with other girls other than Trixie.
Again, I don’t know much about Elvis, so I can’t say what direction his story will go. What I do know, I’ve been spoiled by that 1990 mini series, “Elvis: Good Rockin’ Tonight.” Sure, it had its flaws, but I like how his parents weren’t villainized, in fact, Vernon had an understandable reason to be reluctant of supporting Elvis’ recording career. Also, how Sam was shown as a greedy cheapskate, but not a bad dude, how Elvis’ character developed, along with the people around him, like the friendship he had with Scotty Moore and Bill Black.
Though from the look of the Sun Records trailers, Scotty and Bill will be present, but it doesn't look like they’ll play a major role in the series like the Scotty and Bill had in “Elvis: Good Rockin’ Tonight.” As of this instant, I can’t say what the focus of the Elvis from Sun Records will be, his conflict seems to be with his parents, whereas Good Rockin’ Tonight’s conflict is change, how his success is affecting his personal life and those around him, and how he deals with it. I think the Sun Records version will do this too, but probably not as well, considering their juggling five other characters and minor characters in 8 episodes at 40 minutes each, so...
I don’t think it matters how Elvis’ portrayed in this series anyway, there have been so many adaptions made of him over the years, from TV shows, movies, musicals, art, books, TV movies, and none of those things diminish or really add on to him or his legacy. So, I can’t see Sun Records doing any harm or any good, that and people already know what to expect from an Elvis story. Which is probably why Escott and Mutrux are relying so heavily on the made up drama.
Still, it’s a shame they’re trying to dramatize his life by showing him needlessly argue with his father, but if that happened, it’s a shame they’re writing him to be “Elvis,” and not just a shy kid who was talented, and gained confidence as he got older. Like, show him progress to being the jumpsuit, Memphis Mafia, full grown man, Elvis -- with a contrast of what he was like when he was a teenager in 1950 to 1956. Basically, I hope they show him as a person because, at the end of the day, that’s what he wanted people to see him as first.
INDEX:
“Elvis Presley and his fictionally abusive father.” / [x]
“Johnny Cash and his emotionally abusive father.” / [x]
“Jerry Lee Lewis: Literally no one cares about Jimmy Swaggart.” / [x]
“Carl Perkins and – this show don’t care about him.” / [x]
Sun Records Breakdown:
“Based on Million Dollar Quartet.“ / [⒈]
“First impressions of the characters.“ / [Full ver.⒉] [Index ver.⒉]
“Sun Records and how everyone was color blind.“ / [⒊]
● INTRODUCTION:
( I posted this before, back on May 16th, 2017, but it was laggy and longwinded, so I decided to split these into parts and shorten them up.)
I've put off writing this and watching the show. I sincerely wish I didn’t have to do either, I have to, I can’t put it off forever, my queue won’t allow it. Honestly, I’m worried, not about my assumptions being wrong about Sun Records, admittedly, I’d be a bit embarrassed for having judged so harshly, even based on the poorly edited trailers -- but I’d be glad to have been wrong. Though I believe neither is the case, I’m worried about being right, that everyone will love this show, even if it’s a train wreck, while I’d be the only one who disagrees. Though after some thought, a third outcome emerged; what if I’m overreacting to the situation and furthermore what if no one even cares about Sun Records, as much as I think they would? Also, it’s okay if I’m the only one who doesn’t agree with everything in the show, I’m expressing my thoughts on someone else’s interpretation of these guys, just like anyone else could do. Regardless of what the show does, I gotta express my opinion, so let’s begin:
To me, Sun Records is trying too hard to dramatize their lives, by creating incidents that never happened, examples: The fight Elvis has with his father Vernon, the conflict between John and his father Ray, the fight between Jerry Lee and his cousin Jimmy Swaggart. I gotta feeling it’s so the show can be up to par with shows like Nashville, so, it has to be drama-fied. In the same mindset, Sun Records is overly sexualizing these guys. Now, I know each of them had sex at some point, still, the way it’s portrayed on the show feels like a waste of time and exploitation. I recall, someone saying the era was full of “danger,” and “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll,” so it seems inappropriate to me, to have it as one of the main selling points. Also, I think it’s an attempt to pander to young men and women -- more so, at least nostalgic old people. (Though when you think about it that’s messed up)
On a personal note, I’m seriously uncomfortable with sex scenes including these people, especially Tom Parker and some chick?? Ewww, that stuff grosses me out, and I’m not an innocent person, I’ll be the first one to admit I’ve written some hella inappropriate stuff about these people in my day, but that’s fiction, this show presents real stuff you have to look at. So, I thought it was unnecessary to have a scene of Sam Phillips and Marion Keisker about to get it on, in the main entrance of Sun Records, it’s like, I GET IT, THEY’RE HAVING AN AFFAIR, IT’S BEEN ESTABLISHED, GEEZ. I don’t know why it bothers me, but it does.
Sun Records and the Million Dollar Quartet has a tendency to over exaggerate, I see it as being harmful to the stories. So, it’s confusing when anyone a part of Sun Records or MDQ, say they’re bringing history to life, adding to the legacy of these guys, or that the show is historically accurate. I don’t doubt the first two, but the last is laughable and sad, this isn’t historically accurate, it’s just someone else’s interruption of these guys, that’s equally if not more full of flaws these guys’ lives, but they believe it all really happened that way. Just like a lot of people who watch this series will sadly believe too.
This is the introduction of a breakdown of delving into the problems/concerns shown in trailers, prior to the show's release, regarding how the Million Dollar Quartet is portrayed.
INDEX:
“Elvis Presley and fictionally abusive father.” / [x]
“Johnny Cash and emotionally abusive father.” / [x]
“Jerry Lee Lewis and literally no one cares about Jimmy Swaggart.” / [x]
“Carl Perkins and -- this show don't care about him.” / [x]
"Sun Records” is based off a musical called, “Million Dollar Quartet,” it’s a jukebox musical, that exaggerated and romanticized the real Million Dollar Quartet Session. It was nominated for two Tony Awards, Best Musical, Best Book of Musical and won Best featured Actor in Musical, which was won by Levi Kreis for his role as Jerry Lee. All it really is, just a glorified tribute/impersonator show, but in 2010, the writers Colin Escott and Floyd Mutrux wanted to make it into a tv show. Thus it’s here.
At the beginning of production, Sun Records was titled “Million Dollar Quartet,” like the musical, but on December 16th, 2016, they changed the name to Sun Records, for some reason. Since then the series has had no footing and I'll explain why:
First: It was going to be centered around Elvis, Carl, John and Jerry Lee, which is the logical choice since it's called "Million Dollar Quartet," it would've showed their backstories leading up to the "historical" session. [Though, I worried about this because the series is 8 episodes and 40 minutes each, if you gave them each an episode, even if it's told from their childhoods then going to Sun Records, that's still too much time.]
Second: Even with the name change, it was still about the guys, but not really, they'd be secondary. Sam Phillips seemed to have been made into the main character since the focus went to telling how he created Sun Records. Though it'd still end with the session. [Makes sense, I guess, it's something I faced in my research. When telling the story of these guy's it's hard not to include Sam Phillips or the other musicians at Sun Records in too. It also fills out the episodes better, though it's a little too open ended, since calling it "Sun Records" means all the musicians who were signed, does that mean, they'd be featured too?]
Third: In telling how Sam Phillips created Sun Records, you gotta tell how at first, it was an all-purpose studio where he primarily recorded black musicians. The Sun Records trailers, depict the musicians who recorded a record there, a few off the top of my head, are Howlin' Wolf, Ike Turner, and B.B. King. By doing this, it puts the focus on the history of Rock and Roll, and not so much on Sam Phillips, let alone, Elvis, Carl, John and Jerry Lee. Though it seems pretty cheap, considering they won’t delve into the backstories of Howlin' Wolf, Ike Turner, or B.B King, they seem to be there as a cameos. [While it's good to see they’re showing them, it’s strange they’re not going to have Barbara Pittman, Sonny Burgess, Billy Lee Riley or Roy Orbison there, when it should be about, all musicians who walked into Sun Records? Also, I feel uncomfortable about Sam Phillips, I’m not entirely convinced that wasn’t a racist, or at the very least prejudiced.]
This series is all over the place and doesn’t know what it is. It seems to be about "The History of Rock and Roll," about how “The Legends,” Elvis, Carl, John and Jerry Lee started out, while also it looks like, they’re trying to say Sam Phillips single-handedly created Rock and Roll?? All he did was exploit everyone who walked into Sun Records for all the money they were worth.
I can’t help wondering if they're doing this to get a season 2? That's not a good idea, considering there's nothing to go on from Sun Records. If it were just about the people who made records there, then sure, I'd love to see Charlie Rich and Conway Twitty. But if it's going to focus on Elvis, Carl, John and Jerry Lee, it's not going to work without a proper set up of their stories.
The problem with the musical "Million Dollar Quartet," it was a feel good show and didn't want to make anyone feel bad. So they had over the top performances, corny jokes, with dialogue and line delivery that sounded like it belonged on a live action kids cartoon. This is how squeaky clean it was: At the closing of the show, they made sure Sam Phillips informed the audience that after the session, "everyone lives turned out all right and everyone was happy." That's condescending to an audience full of adults, and that didn't happen in real life.
Without a proper set up to their stories, how jarring will it be for the audience of Sun Records to learn what happens after the session? Elvis: Loses his mother and gets drafted into the army. / Carl: Loses his brother, falls into depression and alcoholism. / John: Signs with Columbia, starts taking pills and cheats on Viv with Lorrie Collins. / Jerry Lee: England, that's all that has to be said. Then what? A season 3? Things don't get any better. If Sun Records has no built up to these moments and does an 180 on the audience, that's not cool. If Sun Records rewrites all of that out of history, then what is it? They should've stuck with the musical.
That's the biggest problem with Colin Escott and Floyd Mutrux’s Million Dollar Quartet, they're under the false impression, they're telling history. No, they're just giving their interpretation, just like Jerry Lee’s cartoony-just wrong-biopic, "Great Balls of Fire," or Nik Cohn and Guy Peellaert book of portraits featuring various rock and roll musicians, "Rock Dreams." Escott and Matrux are just sharing an opinion, like everyone else who talked about these guys, but people shouldn't take it like it's the gospel. Though, most likely they will when they see Sun Records.
