Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:52 pm

I'd have to say that I'd go with pretty much any show from 1975-77, particularly 1975.

1970 material is good, but I do find that it sometimes is a bit boring, and I get tired of the 1969 Vegas repetition. Vegas 1972 or 1973 is probably the most boring in my opinion. It's actually amusing how some people complain about Elvis' set lists in 1976 or 1977 when Elvis' set list in 1969 was essentially the same old thing dome pretty much in the same old way. The only difference is that it was 1969 and not 1976.

Of course, keep in mind that when I say "boring" in terms of Elvis, it only relates to how that particular year compares to other years. I like it all, but I like some eras better than others.

In other words, given the choice between, say, a 1956 show and a 1975 show, I'd take 1975 anytime.
Last edited by elvis63 on Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:02 pm

elvis63,

Hilarious! :lol: :lol: :lol: I suppose you'd take Margaret Thatcher over Pamela Anderson too? :wink:

Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:22 pm

Delboy wrote:elvis63,

Hilarious! :lol: :lol: :lol: I suppose you'd take Margaret Thatcher over Pamela Anderson too? :wink:


Glad you found it amusing, but I was actually being serious :)

However, in the case of your choice, it really isn't a choice now is it? I may be different, but I'm not crazy ;)

Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:42 am

elvis63 wrote:It's actually amusing how some people complain about Elvis' set lists in 1976 or 1977 when Elvis' set list in 1969 was essentially the same old thing dome pretty much in the same old way. The only difference is that it was 1969 and not 1976.


The difference between 1969 and 1976 is that in '69, Elvis was hungry.

Yes, he used the same setlist (for the most part) for the entire run in Vegas in '69. However, these performances came from the soul of Elvis.

Some of the same songs used in 1969 were throw away songs in 1976.

The two cannot be compared in any way, shape or form.

Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:49 am

Rob wrote:The two cannot be compared in any way, shape or form.

That would go double for 1956 versus 1975.

DJC

Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:54 am

Doc -
You'll not get an argument from me.

Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:11 am

some times I still think about the 69/70's concert performances and it baffles me how could Elvis lose so much of the fire, heart and soul in his performing and singing after 1972!?

of course, I'm NOT speaking of ALL his performances or vocals, but as a whole. the '69 Vegas shows, IMO, are absolutely FIRE!!!

Elvis was rockin' his balls off and he never really recaptured that feeling, as whole, again.

I guess, sometimes, dreams don't mean anything unless your strong enuff to fight for 'em and stay true to what it was you originally were fighting for...

jus my opinion...

Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:19 am

Rob wrote:
The difference between 1969 and 1976 is that in '69, Elvis was hungry.

Yes, he used the same setlist (for the most part) for the entire run in Vegas in '69. However, these performances came from the soul of Elvis.

Some of the same songs used in 1969 were throw away songs in 1976.

The two cannot be compared in any way, shape or form.


I'd agree...you can't compare Elvis from one era to Elvis from another as Elvis changed quite often. You can't compare Elvis 1969 to Elvis 1956, either, as Elvis was essentially two different people. 1969 blows 1956 away in my opinion. Elvis had more power, more range, and more of an ability to captivate an audience (in my opinion) in 1969 than he did in the 50's. In the 50's, to me, Elvis was a teen idol and not much else. By the 70's though, Elvis was a superstar who appealed to all ages and who had matured as an artist. Thus, in my view, it's not even fair to compare the 50's to 1969. It's like apples and oranges.

It's all a matter of taste of course. I'd agree that Elvis never did better versions of his 50's songs than in 1969. However, I don't listen to Elvis live to hear Hound Dog or All Shook Up, so overall I find I don't listen to 1969 stuff anywhere near as much as I do the later concert stuff. If I'm in the mood to hear live versions of 50's material I'll put on a 1969 show, but 1969 would not be my first choice at all.

Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:32 am

Without a doubt, the show from December 30 1976

Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:44 am

elvis63 wrote:In the 50's, to me, Elvis was a teen idol and not much else.

Where's Ger Rijff when you need him?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:12 am

elvis63 wrote:1969 blows 1956 away ... In the 50's, to me, Elvis was a teen idol and not much else.

Oh boy ... you need to rent "Elvis '56" and watch it about ten times, my friend. And listen to what narrator Levon Helm has to say about the events of that amazing, world-changing year.

elvis63 wrote:I'd agree that Elvis never did better versions of his 50's songs than in 1969.

Are you out of your mind? Or have you just never really listened to the live recodings of Presley in 1954, 1955, 1956 or 1957? It has to be one or the other, to make such a misinformed comment.

DJC

Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:03 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:Oh boy ... you need to rent "Elvis '56" and watch it about ten times, my friend. And listen to what narrator Levon Helm has to say about the events of that amazing, world-changing year.


All a matter of taste...I do not in any way dispute Elvis' accomplishments in 1956, nor in the 50's in general. However, personally, I prefer Elvis' live output from 1969-1977 much more than his live 50's tracks. Watching Elvis' 50's TV appearances (with the exception of the Sullivan material) is actually a bit corny to me. Elvis' stage movements, particularly on the Dorsey Shows, seem kind of "jerky" (for lack of a better word) and not quite as crafted as they would be later. He really doesn't do too much other than, to use Elvis' own later comment, "just jiggle"...

elvis63 wrote:Are you out of your mind? Or have you just never really listened to the live recodings of Presley in 1954, 1955, 1956 or 1957? It has to be one or the other, to make such a misinformed comment.


It's nothing to do with being "misinformed" - I've heard Elvis' live 50's recordings many times. It's just a matter of taste. I don't dispute their power or energy, nor do I dispute the effect they had on audiences at the time. I just don't prefer them to 70's live recordings. 50's live performances, to me, are not exciting. Sure, there are some here and there that I would classify as "exciting", but overall I rarely find myself listening to them.

Looking at it another way, if I were to show something to someone who wasn't an Elvis fan to try and convince them of how great Elvis was, I would not pick Elvis on the Dorsey Shows over TTWII, nor would I play a Sun side before playing You've Lost that Lovin' Feeling or something simiilar. To me, trying to prove what a powerful and dynamic performer Elvis was would not be accomplished by playing someone "I'll Never Let You Go" or "Blue Moon", simply because they are Sun tracks and Sun tracks are supposedly the best of Elvis (if some people are to be believed)...

The stereotype is that Elvis was great in the 50's and sucked in the 70's. However, as with most Elvis stereotypes, that's a rather bland generalization. To me, Elvis had more than his share of average songs in the 50's. It's just the fact that the songs were performed in the 50's rathert han the 70's that gives them a pass (to me). For example, if songs like "We're Gonna Move" or "Let Me" were released on a 60's soundtrack, I believe they'd rank around the level of "Yoga Is As Yoga Does" in peoples' minds. However, since they are from 1956 you don't hear much about their "quality"...it's all very interesting to me.

Again, it all comes down to taste.
Last edited by elvis63 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:08 pm

elvis63 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:Oh boy ... you need to rent "Elvis '56" and watch it about ten times, my friend. And listen to what narrator Levon Helm has to say about the events of that amazing, world-changing year.


All a matter of taste...I do not in any way dispute Elvis' accomplishments in 1956, nor in the 50's in general. However, personally, I prefer Elvis' live output from 1969-1977 much more than his live 50's tracks. Watching Elvis' 50's TV appearances (with the exception of the Sullivan material) is actually a bit corny to me. Elvis' stage movements, particularly on the Dorsey Shows, seem kind of "jerky" (for lack of a better word) and not quite as crafted as they would be later. He really doesn't do too much other than, to use Elvis' own later comment, "just jiggle"...

elvis63 wrote:Are you out of your mind? Or have you just never really listened to the live recodings of Presley in 1954, 1955, 1956 or 1957? It has to be one or the other, to make such a misinformed comment.


Again, it's a matter of taste. 50's live performances, to me, are not exciting. Sure, there are some here and there that I would classify as "exciting", but overall I rarely find myself listening to them. Of course, this does not mean I don't appreciate their historical significance at all. I just don't prefer to listen to them.

Looking at it another way, if I were to show something to someone who wasn't an Elvis fan to try and convince them of how great Elvis was, I would not pick Elvis on the Dorsey Shows over TTWII, nor would I play a Sun side before playing You've Lost that Lovin' Feeling or something simiilar. To me, trying to prove what a powerful and dynamic performer Elvis was would not be accomplished by playing someone "I'll Never Let You Go" or "Blue Moon", simply because they are Sun tracks and Sun tracks are supposedly the best of Elvis (if some people are to be believed)...

It all comes down to taste.


I think that's made EP so great, you can pick from each decade and made a good case for which was the best in all three.

Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:12 pm

elvis63 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:Oh boy ... you need to rent "Elvis '56" and watch it about ten times, my friend. And listen to what narrator Levon Helm has to say about the events of that amazing, world-changing year.


All a matter of taste...I do not in any way dispute Elvis' accomplishments in 1956, nor in the 50's in general. However, personally, I prefer Elvis' live output from 1969-1977 much more than his live 50's tracks. Watching Elvis' 50's TV appearances (with the exception of the Sullivan material) is actually a bit corny to me. Elvis' stage movements, particularly on the Dorsey Shows, seem kind of "jerky" (for lack of a better word) and not quite as crafted as they would be later. He really doesn't do too much other than, to use Elvis' own later comment, "just jiggle"...

elvis63 wrote:Are you out of your mind? Or have you just never really listened to the live recodings of Presley in 1954, 1955, 1956 or 1957? It has to be one or the other, to make such a misinformed comment.


It's nothing to do with being "misinformed" - I've heard Elvis' live 50's recordings many times. It's just a matter of taste. I don't dispute their power or energy, nor do I dispute the effect they had on audiences at the time. I just don't prefer them to 70's live recordings. 50's live performances, to me, are not exciting. Sure, there are some here and there that I would classify as "exciting", but overall I rarely find myself listening to them.

Looking at it another way, if I were to show something to someone who wasn't an Elvis fan to try and convince them of how great Elvis was, I would not pick Elvis on the Dorsey Shows over TTWII, nor would I play a Sun side before playing You've Lost that Lovin' Feeling or something simiilar. To me, trying to prove what a powerful and dynamic performer Elvis was would not be accomplished by playing someone "I'll Never Let You Go" or "Blue Moon", simply because they are Sun tracks and Sun tracks are supposedly the best of Elvis (if some people are to be believed)...

It all comes down to taste.


That is EXACTLY how I think also.

Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:29 am

elvis63 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:Oh boy ... you need to rent "Elvis '56" and watch it about ten times, my friend. And listen to what narrator Levon Helm has to say about the events of that amazing, world-changing year.


All a matter of taste...I do not in any way dispute Elvis' accomplishments in 1956, nor in the 50's in general. However, personally, I prefer Elvis' live output from 1969-1977 much more than his live 50's tracks. Watching Elvis' 50's TV appearances (with the exception of the Sullivan material) is actually a bit corny to me. Elvis' stage movements, particularly on the Dorsey Shows, seem kind of "jerky" (for lack of a better word) and not quite as crafted as they would be later. He really doesn't do too much other than, to use Elvis' own later comment, "just jiggle"...

elvis63 wrote:Are you out of your mind? Or have you just never really listened to the live recodings of Presley in 1954, 1955, 1956 or 1957? It has to be one or the other, to make such a misinformed comment.


It's nothing to do with being "misinformed" - I've heard Elvis' live 50's recordings many times. It's just a matter of taste. I don't dispute their power or energy, nor do I dispute the effect they had on audiences at the time. I just don't prefer them to 70's live recordings. 50's live performances, to me, are not exciting. Sure, there are some here and there that I would classify as "exciting", but overall I rarely find myself listening to them.

Looking at it another way, if I were to show something to someone who wasn't an Elvis fan to try and convince them of how great Elvis was, I would not pick Elvis on the Dorsey Shows over TTWII, nor would I play a Sun side before playing You've Lost that Lovin' Feeling or something simiilar. To me, trying to prove what a powerful and dynamic performer Elvis was would not be accomplished by playing someone "I'll Never Let You Go" or "Blue Moon", simply because they are Sun tracks and Sun tracks are supposedly the best of Elvis (if some people are to be believed)...

The stereotype is that Elvis was great in the 50's and sucked in the 70's. However, as with most Elvis stereotypes, that's a rather bland generalization. To me, Elvis had more than his share of average songs in the 50's. It's just the fact that the songs were performed in the 50's rathert han the 70's that gives them a pass (to me). For example, if songs like "We're Gonna Move" or "Let Me" were released on a 60's soundtrack, I believe they'd rank around the level of "Yoga Is As Yoga Does" in peoples' minds. However, since they are from 1956 you don't hear much about their "quality"...it's all very interesting to me.

Again, it all comes down to taste.


That was a real interesting and well thought out reply elvis63.

Thank You for taking the time and effort in expressing your views and defense of the, often stereotype and misguided thoughts, on 70's Elvis.

Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:19 pm

minkahed wrote:That was a real interesting and well thought out reply elvis63.

Thank You for taking the time and effort in expressing your views and defense of the, often stereotype and misguided thoughts, on 70's Elvis.


thanks a lot for the kind words! I'll always defend the 70's as when I was growing up I heard endless comments about just how bad Elvis was in that decade. It actually made me wary of listening to anything from the 1970's. That is, of course, until I actually *listened* and learned and made my own judgement.

I find the best way of combatting the stereotypes is to be well informed, and in the case of Elvis, well-listened.

As I've stated before, it's all a matter of perception. Lots of people love "Blue Hawaii" (and it's soundtrack) and slag off later movie soundtracks, yet in my opinion, Blue Hawaii is little different from Elvis' later formula movies, except for the fact that it came out in 1961. "Ito Eats", for example, is just as rotten a song as "Yoga Is A Yoga Does", and several other BH sountrack items are average at best, but "Bh has the advantage of having been released early in Elvis' movie career rather than late. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a better soundtrack than some of Elvis' other soundtracks - just that it gets more of a pass. All my opinion, of course! :)

Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:56 am

elvis63 wrote:I do not in any way dispute Elvis' accomplishments in 1956, nor in the 50's in general.

Your previous comments contradict that statement. Thus, my response.

elvis63 wrote:Looking at it another way, if I were to show something to someone who wasn't an Elvis fan to try and convince them of how great Elvis was, I would not pick Elvis on the Dorsey Shows over TTWII, nor would I play a Sun side ...

That is just plain sad. You're unlikely to sway anyone with such choices.

elvis63 wrote:Again, it all comes down to taste.

For yourself, yes. To make the sweeping generalizations that you do, in the face of history, reason, logic, culture and sheer rock and roll excitement, NO. For most, your idea of "taste" and Elvis Presley are miles apart.

Frankly, your opinion fell to the depths when denigrating SUN material like "Mystery Train" -- one of the 20th century's greatest recorded moments.

DJC

Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:33 am

Now I could be here all night listing shows I would have liked to have been at... but if I were to just pick one show. I think I would pick that show from Hawaii in 1961, he sounded sensational on this show. Thank God we have this show... even in the bad quality that it is.

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:11 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:Frankly, your opinion fell to the depths when denigrating SUN material like "Mystery Train" -- one of the 20th century's greatest recorded moments.

DJC


I prefer the 1970 arrangement.

Best Elvis Concert

Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:32 pm

My personal favourites are as follows:

Asheville, July 22, 1975 - Best live version of "Memphis Tennessee" ever
Las Vegas, February 19, 1971. Very long, very strong, some rare songs
Las Vegas, August 19, 1974. Straightforward, incredible setlist
Baltimore, May 29, 1977. Unchained Melody alone is worth the whole show
Lake Tahoe, May 9, 1976 closing. 2 hours pure magic of a very tired king

Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:17 pm

For yourself, yes. To make the sweeping generalizations that you do, in the face of history, reason, logic, culture and sheer rock and roll excitement, NO. For most, your idea of "taste" and Elvis Presley are miles apart.


Speaking of sweeping generalizations...

Frankly, your opinion fell to the depths when denigrating SUN material like "Mystery Train" -- one of the 20th century's greatest recorded moments.

DJC


You pretty much missed my entire point. I said nothing that would denigrate the Sun material at all. I merely pointed out that *I* would not use it to convince a non-fan that Elvis was worth listening to. You were quick to assume I meant songs such as "Mystery Train" in my comments. Perhaps I was not specific enough. To clarify, I would be hard pressed to play "Blue Moon", "I'll Never Let You Go", "You're A Heartbreaker" or "I Love You Because" for some young non-fan in hopes that they'd respond positively to them. Just because they are songs Elvis recorded at Sun doesn't make them earth shattering, or even interesting to other people, and that's my entire point.

Again, I personally as well aware of the importance and signifcance of Elvis' 50's work - that's not my point here. What *I* think of Mystery Train, for example (I think it's a fantastic record), has no bearing on whether or not your average teenager of today would think it's a fantastic record. Given the shallowness of today's teen culture, it's more likely that they'd consider it "old", or be more focused on the fact that sounds "primitive" (again, not *my* thoughts - just projecting possible objections to the material).

For me, to better connect with a young non-fan you need to present them with a vocal performance that they won't instantly dismiss, and playing for them an Elvis live cover of a familiar song, like Bridge Over Troubled Water or You've Lost that Lovin' Feeling would help with that. In my personal experience, I've had more than a few people listen to the above two songs and tell me that they were the best versions of the songs they had heard. This has nothing to do with actual quality of music, but rather the perception of the listener.

In my experience, preconceived notions of Elvis play a big role in how they appreciate his material. I've had people laugh at Elvis' stage movements on the Dorsey shows when I've shown them; I've had people tell me Elvis' performance of "Johnny B. Goode" from Vegas 1969 smacked of the "Vegas lounge lizard" treatment; I've heard people say Elvis was "fat" in Aloha. Conversely, I have yet to meet someone who has not been wowed by viewing "Polk Salad Annie" from TTWII - it's great to hear people tell you they had no idea Elvis was so dynamic.

For me, to get new people into Elvis, I have to put my personal Elvis likes aside and pick the stuff I think will best reach the non-fan. Most Sun material, in my opinion, doesn't fit that definition, but then again, neither does other material from Elvis' output. Kepp in mind I'[m not eliminating Sun material because I don't like it, but because some of it, in my opinion, wouldn't be good to use to try and sway a non-fan. However, if I had to pick a Sun song that *does* fit this, I'd pick "Good Rockin' Tonight" It's not a slight on Sun at all, but rather just a thought about how to influence non-fans initially in order to get them to open their minds to Elvis overall...

Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:38 pm

minkahed wrote:

I guess, sometimes, dreams don't mean anything unless your strong enuff to fight for 'em and stay true to what it was you originally were fighting for...

jus my opinion...


Nice use of Springsteen's quote just before playing Johnny Bye-Bye.