1976 - One hell of a busy year

[Joe Car]

Doc, that's not fair, the man was ill and dying for God sakes! Wasn't Elvis 34 in 69, and Bruce roughly the same age in 84.

It is totally fair. Review the subject with a little more care.

The argument is Elvis having a grueling tour schedule at the age of 41-42. So an apt comparison would be to look at what Springsteen was up to at the same age.

And Elvis was not "ill and dying" in 1976 -- he did not have "cancer" or any other terminal disease. He was addicted to prescription drugs. He had plenty of chances to change his course, but did not.

Thanks for being the voice of reason. Yes, technically speaking one can characterize drug addiction as an "illness," but the way some of the posters are framing their statements is what is concerning. "He was exhausted from a grueling touring schedule, ate poorly and was very ill" - that is the sort of soft remarks made. Bottom line, EP was a hardcore drug addict in 1976 and that is why he was a mess on and off the stage.

As for Springsteen, not only was he not a drug addict and heavily overweight in his early 40's, he was also still recording and performing vital music - something EP could not boast about during the same era.

Nobody is boasting about Elvis or his work in 76, it seems that Springsteen fans are using that, as way of telling us, what he accomplished at 42. God bless him, but I don't really care. Anybody who denies that Elvis was not ill in 76, is being ridiculous.

[drjohncarpenter]

Anybody who denies that Elvis was not ill in 76, is being ridiculous.

With all due respect, if you stay on topic, you will find much less reason to get so worked up.

[midnightx]

Doc, that's not fair, the man was ill and dying for God sakes! Wasn't Elvis 34 in 69, and Bruce roughly the same age in 84.

It is totally fair. Review the subject with a little more care.

The argument is Elvis having a grueling tour schedule at the age of 41-42. So an apt comparison would be to look at what Springsteen was up to at the same age.

And Elvis was not "ill and dying" in 1976 -- he did not have "cancer" or any other terminal disease. He was addicted to prescription drugs. He had plenty of chances to change his course, but did not.

Thanks for being the voice of reason. Yes, technically speaking one can characterize drug addiction as an "illness," but the way some of the posters are framing their statements is what is concerning. "He was exhausted from a grueling touring schedule, ate poorly and was very ill" - that is the sort of soft remarks made. Bottom line, EP was a hardcore drug addict in 1976 and that is why he was a mess on and off the stage.

As for Springsteen, not only was he not a drug addict and heavily overweight in his early 40's, he was also still recording and performing vital music - something EP could not boast about during the same era.

Nobody is boasting about Elvis or his work in 76, it seems that Springsteen fans are using that, as way of telling us, what he accomplished at 42. God bless him, but I don't really care. Anybody who denies that Elvis was not ill in 76, is being ridiculous.

Elvis was lost in a dark world of drug addiction. The Doc is right; when you say he was ill, the message you are essentially trying to get accross is that somehow his condition was comparible to a person battling cancer or some other terminal illness. Why hide behind the "illness" card, say it for what it truly was - drug addiction.

[Joe Car]

Anybody who denies that Elvis was not ill in 76, is being ridiculous.

With all due respect, if you stay on topic, you will find much less reason to get so worked up.

I am on topic, and I've said all along that had he been healthy, it would have been
a fairly easy year, as compared to years past. To bring Springsteen into the mix, doesn't make sense, since his situation at that very same age, ( to his credit ) was completely different, and not fair to Elvis.

[Joe Car]

Doc, that's not fair, the man was ill and dying for God sakes! Wasn't Elvis 34 in 69, and Bruce roughly the same age in 84.

It is totally fair. Review the subject with a little more care.

The argument is Elvis having a grueling tour schedule at the age of 41-42. So an apt comparison would be to look at what Springsteen was up to at the same age.

And Elvis was not "ill and dying" in 1976 -- he did not have "cancer" or any other terminal disease. He was addicted to prescription drugs. He had plenty of chances to change his course, but did not.

Thanks for being the voice of reason. Yes, technically speaking one can characterize drug addiction as an "illness," but the way some of the posters are framing their statements is what is concerning. "He was exhausted from a grueling touring schedule, ate poorly and was very ill" - that is the sort of soft remarks made. Bottom line, EP was a hardcore drug addict in 1976 and that is why he was a mess on and off the stage.

As for Springsteen, not only was he not a drug addict and heavily overweight in his early 40's, he was also still recording and performing vital music - something EP could not boast about during the same era.

Nobody is boasting about Elvis or his work in 76, it seems that Springsteen fans are using that, as way of telling us, what he accomplished at 42. God bless him, but I don't really care. Anybody who denies that Elvis was not ill in 76, is being ridiculous.

Elvis was lost in a dark world of drug addiction. The Doc is right; when you say he was ill, the message you are essentially trying to get accross is that somehow his condition was comparible to a person battling cancer or some other terminal illness. Why hide behind the "illness" card, say it for what it truly was - drug addiction.

Isn't drug addiction an illness, haven't I said it a few times already. Isn't depression a bonafide illness, haven't I said that a few times already. Didn't according to you, Doc and a few others, Elvis eventually die from drug abuse, so what the are you guys talking about! There are other illnesses besides cancer.

[drjohncarpenter]

I am on topic ...

Sorry, not that anyone here can see ...

[paulsweeney]

I am on topic ...

Sorry, not that anyone here can see ...

This isn't a pissing match guys, it was a good post, with many valid points by all involved, so back in your corners and put your minds in gear before you put your fingers on the keyboard

[Pete Dube]

Joe I won't bring Springsteen into this, but the thing that Doc is trying to get across is that we should've been able to enjoy a fit, clean Elvis in 1976 giving strong performances for 90 minutes or 2 hours. Without having to resort to qualifiers such as "good for the period" and what not. The person who denied us this was Elvis. He was in trouble as early as 1973 and just kept descending deeper into addiction. He was in dire need of help but was unwilling to do what needed to be done to get it. We all wish it weren't so, but that's the hard, sad, frustrating truth of the matter.

[paulsweeney]

Joe I won't bring Springsteen into this, but the thing that Doc is trying to get across is that we should've been able to enjoy a fit, clean Elvis in 1976 giving strong performances for 90 minutes or 2 hours. Without having to resort to qualifiers such as "good for the period" and what not. The person who denied us this was Elvis. He was in trouble as early as 1973 and just kept descending deeper into addiction. He was in dire need of help but was unwilling to do what needed to be done to get it. We all wish it weren't so, but that's the hard, sad, frustrating truth of the matter.

Now that's what I'm talking about - well stated Pete. And it was sad, but true...

[minni1]

That's not quite true. Things had changed by 84. Touring was easier on everyone, roadies up to the star. And by 84, people were a lot more aware of drug addiction.

Good one!

Roadie's job? Piece of cake in the 1980s!

Drugs? Not very well-known in rock and roll until the 1980s.

BTW, the apt Springsteen reference would involve his work in 1991-92, not 1984-85.

My bad, I meant 1991-92, not 84. Still, the rest of my post is the same. Piece of cake, a roadie's job? I doubt it, even today, but surely easier.

[Joe Car]

That's not quite true. Things had changed by 84. Touring was easier on everyone, roadies up to the star. And by 84, people were a lot more aware of drug addiction.

Good one!

Roadie's job? Piece of cake in the 1980s!

Drugs? Not very well-known in rock and roll until the 1980s.

BTW, the apt Springsteen reference would involve his work in 1991-92, not 1984-85.

My bad, I meant 1991-92, not 84. Still, the rest of my post is the same. Piece of cake, a roadie's job? I doubt it, even today, but surely easier.

It goes without saying that it was a lot easier to tour in the nineties, as opposed to the seventies.

[Spanish_Eyes]

Ok, I admit I shouldn't have compared Bruce 1985 vs Elvis 1976, but if you look in retrospective, Elvis was totally worn out long before it would be normal for a person his age and fame. Don't forget that Elvis had always been one of the most admired and loved men in the world, and he truly had an image as an icon of handsomeness. For example, Roy Orbison was just the opposite, so when he was fat and ugly at 40 no one cared. But Elvis, someone who always had taken care of every single detail concerning his appearance, let him go the way he did, you could see something really bad was going on

[ColinB]

I am on topic ...

Sorry, not that anyone here can see ...

Ooh, that's a bit of a sweeping statement !

I mean, how could you know that ?

That's not verifiable, that's not......................

[deadringer]

Ok, I admit I shouldn't have compared Bruce 1985 vs Elvis 1976, but if you look in retrospective, Elvis was totally worn out long before it would be normal for a person his age and fame. Don't forget that Elvis had always been one of the most admired and loved men in the world, and he truly had an image as an icon of handsomeness. For example, Roy Orbison was just the opposite, so when he was fat and ugly at 40 no one cared. But Elvis, someone who always had taken care of every single detail concerning his appearance, let him go the way he did, you could see something really bad was going on

Well do not forget others who were long dead when they 'reached' Elvis age. Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain etc.... all died in their 20s... and all of them were unwell, drug addicts + in cases of Joplin and Morrison also fat/bloated.

[Spanish_Eyes]

Ok, I admit I shouldn't have compared Bruce 1985 vs Elvis 1976, but if you look in retrospective, Elvis was totally worn out long before it would be normal for a person his age and fame. Don't forget that Elvis had always been one of the most admired and loved men in the world, and he truly had an image as an icon of handsomeness. For example, Roy Orbison was just the opposite, so when he was fat and ugly at 40 no one cared. But Elvis, someone who always had taken care of every single detail concerning his appearance, let him go the way he did, you could see something really bad was going on

Well do not forget others who were long dead when they 'reached' Elvis age. Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain etc.... all died in their 20s... and all of them were unwell, drug addicts + in cases of Joplin and Morrison also fat/bloated.

Yep. But they didn't have that God-like image, you know, the son-in-law every mom wants for her daughter. People were shocked when the fact that Elvis had been taking pills by the handful became public through the What Happened book. Everybody knew that Morrison, Joplin or Hendrix were hard-drug junkies, so their deaths weren't a big surprise.

[Joe Car]

Ok, I admit I shouldn't have compared Bruce 1985 vs Elvis 1976, but if you look in retrospective, Elvis was totally worn out long before it would be normal for a person his age and fame. Don't forget that Elvis had always been one of the most admired and loved men in the world, and he truly had an image as an icon of handsomeness. For example, Roy Orbison was just the opposite, so when he was fat and ugly at 40 no one cared. But Elvis, someone who always had taken care of every single detail concerning his appearance, let him go the way he did, you could see something really bad was going on

Well said Spanish Eyes!

[minni1]

You also need to consider that Elvis had been on a grueling schedule for years. And, even though the movies may not havve been epic productions, they were undoubtedly mentally tiring.
There were so many things that Elvis was a pioneer for, that made it easier for other performers. Even if some of it was here's what not to do!

[midnightx]

You also need to consider that Elvis had been on a grueling schedule for years. And, even though the movies may not havve been epic productions, they were undoubtedly mentally tiring.

Well, that doesn't justify what he did to himself and it shouldn't imply that he was over-worked and therefore some sort of victim. You want to throw Springsteen back into the equation; this is a guy that performed non-stop from the early-70's through 1986 in addition to a highly prolific writing and recording schedule. Many artists work like crazy and many have had less time off than Elvis did. There is no reason anyone should use Elvis' work schedule as some sort of excuse for how he looked, behaved and sounded in 1976. He was a drug addict and he did it to himself.

[Joe Car]

You also need to consider that Elvis had been on a grueling schedule for years. And, even though the movies may not havve been epic productions, they were undoubtedly mentally tiring.

Well, that doesn't justify what he did to himself and it shouldn't imply that he was over-worked and therefore some sort of victim. You want to throw Springsteen back into the equation; this is a guy that performed non-stop from the early-70's through 1986 in addition to a highly prolific writing and recording schedule. Many artists work like crazy and many have had less time off than Elvis did. There is no reason anyone should use Elvis' work schedule as some sort of excuse for how he looked, behaved and sounded in 1976. He was a drug addict and he did it to himself.

That's funny, I believe Elvis worked all his adult life, not just Springsteen, and he never took significant time off either. Your negativity is getting ridiculous, my god.

[drjohncarpenter]

That's funny, I believe Elvis worked all his adult life, not just Springsteen, and he never took significant time off either.

Never?

Joe, you should revisit your Elvis history. He worked hard, but also had plenty of time to himself. Take a peek at the years 1964-67, for example. Or 1975.

[midnightx]

That's funny, I believe Elvis worked all his adult life, not just Springsteen, and he never took significant time off either. Your negativity is getting ridiculous, my god.

What negativity? For looking at 1976 in a realistic way? Your constant spinning of reality is what is ridiculous.

[Joe Car]

That's funny, I believe Elvis worked all his adult life, not just Springsteen, and he never took significant time off either. Your negativity is getting ridiculous, my god.

What negativity? For looking at 1976 in a realistic way? Your constant spinning of reality is what is ridiculous.

You're the one who needs a reality check, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Check your posts, I would bet that at least 70% are negative about Elvis, with a majority hammering away at the last couple of years of his life, especially the EIC threads, where you complain about them, but where you never miss a chance to pile on.

[Brad M]

The fact is Elvis worked his a$$ off in '76 with tours and Vegas and Tahoe engagements with rapidly declining health on top of that, but by '76 it wasn't fun anymore, it was all routine for him. The only real reason he kept on touring was just to make money, wasn't about making music anymore. Depressing considering what his concerts use to represent just a few years before.

[midnightx]

That's funny, I believe Elvis worked all his adult life, not just Springsteen, and he never took significant time off either. Your negativity is getting ridiculous, my god.

What negativity? For looking at 1976 in a realistic way? Your constant spinning of reality is what is ridiculous.

You're the one who needs a reality check, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Check your posts, I would bet that at least 70% are negative about Elvis, with a majority hammering away at the last couple of years of his life, especially the EIC threads, where you complain about them, but where you never miss a chance to pile on.

If there is a negative element to the reality of Elvis last couple of years as an artist, why are you so afraid to confront it without constant spin? If a discussion of Elvis' work from 1976 (or even your coveted EIC Special) is started, I'm not going to pretend that he was on fire from a creative and performance standpoint or make excuses for his demise. You are way too emotionally invested in Elvis if you can't have a rational discussion about all eras of his career. It isn't hard to "hammer" Elvis' overall work from 1976 - bad concerts and the recording of mostly subpar material. That is the reality; why ingore it? I'm a big fan, and can enjoy and appreciate most of the eras of Elvis' career, but I'm not living in fantasy land either - 1976 was a bad year, no reason to spin it any other way.

[Joe Car]

That's funny, I believe Elvis worked all his adult life, not just Springsteen, and he never took significant time off either. Your negativity is getting ridiculous, my god.

What negativity? For looking at 1976 in a realistic way? Your constant spinning of reality is what is ridiculous.

You're the one who needs a reality check, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Check your posts, I would bet that at least 70% are negative about Elvis, with a majority hammering away at the last couple of years of his life, especially the EIC threads, where you complain about them, but where you never miss a chance to pile on.

If there is a negative element to the reality of Elvis last couple of years as an artist, why are you so afraid to confront it without constant spin? If a discussion of Elvis' work from 1976 (or even your coveted EIC Special) is started, I'm not going to pretend that he was on fire from a creative and performance standpoint or make excuses for his demise. You are way too emotionally invested in Elvis if you can't have a rational discussion about all eras of his career. It isn't hard to "hammer" Elvis' overall work from 1976 - bad concerts and the recording of mostly subpar material. That is the reality; why ingore it? I'm a big fan, and can enjoy and appreciate most of the eras of Elvis' career, but I'm not living in fantasy land either - 1976 was a bad year, no reason to spin it any other way.

First of all, I don't covet the EIC special, as a matter of fact, I stay out of those threads because they're too predictable. Secondly, I understand the EP struggles of his last couple of years, but the reality is, you don't, you think you do, but judging by your hardline approach, you have no idea what that man went through, because if you did, you might be a bit more understanding.