Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong
Wed May 28, 2003 9:13 pm
I was listening recently to TTWII box set and was again struck by how strange it was to hear Elvis speaking of a time after his passing. He referred to his latest album coming out in 1979 and 1982. He was joking, of course, but are there any other recorded instances when Elvis made reference to a time after 1977?
Did he ever publicly consider what his life might be like in the '80's, 90's or beyond? Any idea if he talked about growing older, his career, grandchildren...etc...? Thanks!
His Truth Is Marching On...
Wed May 28, 2003 9:31 pm
I'm sure in December 1963, Elvis stopped for a moment and tried to envision his life in 1970. RCA had just extended his contract with them to 1970, and he probably tried to picture where his career would be at by that time.
Too bad E didn't live to see 1979, 1982, 1993, etc. etc.
Or to know his grandchildren and various son-in-law(s)
He didn't care about The Long Run and that's why people die like that. Because they are mortally and fatally careless.
George Burns, Bob Hope, Milton Berle....they are big majors stars in entertainment - born into poverty and became rich and famous - but they outlived the Elvis Era like Elvis was a mere blip on the radar, a mere drop in the ocean of time.
Those guys had/have something Elvis didn't. Better self-maintenance.
McCartney, Jagger, Clapton....not as handsome as Elvis, not as whatever as Elvis, but they live longer than 42. They had to cope with the screaming crowds, jet-set pace, arenas, bad business dealings, and drugs too. But they managed to survive and live to see 1979, 1982, etc.
Of all the precious things Elvis Presley had bestowed upon him, too bad a longer life span wasn't one of them. Or perhaps, Elvis was offered a natural longer life span but he rejected it. ?
Thu May 29, 2003 1:43 am
I totally agree with you on this Graceland Gardener.
I think the major difference between these guys and Elvis was that, well, he was ELVIS.
Unfortunately, after a period of time he started to buy into that idea, totally.
Let's face it, our man was not the brightest and he surrounded himself with the same kind of people.
He was the only one who could have changed himself and again, unfortunately, he didn't have the fortitude or "foresight" to understand what he was doing to himself and stop it.
Thu May 29, 2003 1:46 am
One way I've always thought about it, though... they lived longer, but he did so much more than most of them did (not in all cases) and had longer at one time than a lot of them.
Kinda like he did it all at once instead of slowly over time. That'd explain why he felt so burnt out and like he had nothing else to challenge him (I know there way more he could have done, but still).
Just thought I'd share my thinking on that.
Thu May 29, 2003 2:00 am
You got something there.
It's no good comparing Elvis [in this context] with those other guys.
Yes, they were major stars, but Elvis was the first cultural icon, a burden none of them had to carry.
Being a pioneer in any field is a lonely task, and over the years it takes its toll.
Thu May 29, 2003 7:25 am
June 25, 1977 : Unchained Melody "It's coming out in 1987".
Thu May 29, 2003 9:11 am
All of those guys were part of bands. They were never the "one" like Elvis was. And Clapton never inspired the hsyteria that accompanied Elvis.
What makes anyone think that Elvis wasn't bright? The picture I get from the Guralnick books and the Jorgensen book is of an immensely intelligent. (Guralnick in fact said he had a "ferocious intelligence".) Maybe because of his fame and upbringing he didn't get to cultivate that gift as well as he could have doesn't make him dumb.
By the way, what exactly did Jagger, or Keith Richards or Jerry Lee Lewis do to survive? All that separates them from Elvis is luck and time.
And if anyone wonders why Elvis felt invincible or bought into his own fame watch or read "Elvis and Me". The relationship between Elvis and Priscilla is beyond anything any normal person would take. Is the reason that Priscilla put up with all of Elvis' little foibles wasn't so much because she was her guy but because this guy happened to be Elvis Presley. After a certain point few, if any people, approached Elvis as a flesh and blood human being. That's enough to drive anyone to the brink. The individual Beatles at least had three other people who shared the same experiences, who collectively remembered that each was made of flesh and blood.
Thu May 29, 2003 9:17 am
Also to tap into Mike McCoy's point, Elvis' immense talent made it difficult for him to sustain interest. Boredom makes people do crazy things. Consider by the time Elvis was 40 years old, a time when people in business and in most walks of life are entering their prime years, he: overcame crushing poverty, revolutionized American Culture, made some of the greatest and most influential music of the century, became America's highest paid movie star, threw away his fame, regained it, played to over a million people live and a billion people on satellite. It's easy to see how he could have felt there were no challenges left.
Thu May 29, 2003 12:23 pm
I think the problem Elvis faced was that he'd been around since he was very young and by the time he reached 40 it was considered too old to be rock n rollin'. Headlines such as Elvis 40, fat and lonely or whatever the National Enquirer was spouting off on at the time gave the impression that he was passed it.
I think today, in an era of few heroes of Elvis' type, the other older stars command alot more respect. For example Paul McCartney's recent tour has won over the fans and media - there are no 60 and past it stories. The same with Tom Jones.
Alot of stars are way over 40 and don't suffer the same headlines Elvis faced, Springsteen, Dylan, Knofler, Elvis Costello, Madonna are all good examples.
I think Elvis was made to feel old by the media and the length of time he'd been in the business.
Thu May 29, 2003 5:50 pm
great response hebike(?-hard to read on my monitor). You hit it dead on.