For Elvis CD Collectors

I've officially heard everything. You know it's an overly politically correct society when you hear things like this. Who is this offending, exactly? If the guys were that mad, they'd have walked off. And kids weren't generally allowed in to Vegas shows, so that's out. It's not that great of a joke, sure, but offensive?

I can understand finding some fault with the word flubs, etc - but wow.. (and I never say this because I generally hate being rude).. that person has absolutely no idea what they're talking about with that line, and it paints a perfect example of why context is always very important when considering anything regarding Elvis (or any past-era stuff, really)

A play on words for tough sh*t is pretty tame vulgarity. Certainly wouldn't offend Ronnie & Jerry, and probably only offended a small portion of the Vegas family audience. Same goes for "slander my ass" and "sonofabitch".

I guess it falls into the same category as the stuff from '69 that Elvis had to be taken to task for by the Colonel. Risque and inappropriate for a Dinner Show, but not really "offensive". Well done to the reviewer though for being brave enough to criticise Elvis at a time when some seem think he could do no wrong.

Brave, but I think also trying too hard, maybe. If they think that's offensive, they should never listen to a Rat Pack show - the emotional scars would never heal.

It's not in the same league as the Desert Storm show reference to Liz Taylor having the biggest one - and the biggest diamond too! And certainly not as offensive as Elvis' tirade of "I really don't know how to take this" abuse to Paul Anka at the 5th September 1970 Vegas show.

Maybey telling the Sweets that they look like Flip Wilson is a bit near the knuckle. Or saying that Kathy get's her affection from the whole band. But Tutt Scheff always makes me smile, no matter how lame it is.

Oh dear

One other thing: Speaking as a performer, doing 2 shows a night, 5 or 6 nights a week is not a picnic. You can't give everything you have in the first show because you'll be shot for the 2nd, and you can't give everything in the 2nd because then your voice is tired for the next night. Because of that, I only do one show a night, 5 nights a week (for extended period shows). How Elvis did that and lasted as he did is fantastic and shouldn't be overlooked for people who want to show some balls to criticize a semi-off night during one of Elvis' best periods.

Not one single person in history has ever been able to do that kind of thing and be at the pinnacle of their game every night. With all the over-examination of Elvis' career - and especially his concerts - fans would do well to remember that. But it can be very hard to comprehend if you've never experienced it yourself, as is the case with several of Elvis' professional decisions he made in his lifetime (as well as some that the Colonel made, actually).

Yes, a very odd statement.

Speaking as a performer and also as a recovering drug addict I would say that Elvis' main priority at that point in his life (1970) was not performing. And performing 2 one hour shows a night is not heavy exertion by any means.

I only mention the drug thing because it is so blatant on the recordings. I'm not talking about the hopped up energy but of the speech patterns and carelessness. It's how I was when I had the amphetamine thing going.

Why the analysis? Why the release?

Two, one hour very physical shows I'm sure took it's toll on him, both physically and emotionally. To say that he was not into performing in 1970, isn't correct. His live shows that year were phenomenal, as was his studio work. Like I said earlier, anybody can have an off night, which could have happened for this particular show.

That greatly depends on what kind of show you do. Two one hour shows, if you're moving around, hitting high ballad notes as well as rock notes, and exerting yourself (unlike what a lot of performers do today, speaking generally).. it very much is a lot of work. Two shows for one night isn't hard, but 6 nights a week for over a month? It's draining.

I'm sorry I just find those August 1970 shows so lackluster. The one I can tolerate is the one on the Vegas box set. After watching as much of the footage as I could I am not convinced he give a damn. His attitude certainly doesn't invite me into any of the songs. That's my opinion. Thank you for forgiving me of it.

Elvis played way too many shows during each Vegas engagement. It was stifling and sucked so much creativity and drive from him. There is no doubt that it negatively impacted his health and direction of his career.

I can understand that - personally, I think it's more of Elvis being comfortable on stage and thus being more relaxed and "breaking the fouth wall" a bit, but I can see why you'd have that opinion.

You might want to examine the performances of Suspicious Minds, Polk Salad Annie and You've Lost that Loving Feeling. Nothing lacklustre in those performances. He owns the stage. In fact, his enthusiasm is in tact throughout most of the filmed footage.

Reading this review I cannot help to think that the reviewer isn't really an Elvis-fan. Ever since the 1950s Elvis was messing up lyrics and making jokes throughout the songs. To me this is entertaining, not annoying. Even Frank Sinatra messed up the words and nobody was complaining. If you don't like the way Elvis performs, just don't listen to him.

I found the show very entertaining and I think that Elvis performed a very up-to-date repertoire. I like what I have heared on the CD and I certainly would not be complaining if I had seen the show live. To me it's a good performance.

The review is titled "in perspective" and I think what the reviewer has attempted to do is step back from the fact that he/she is a fan, and try to look at it dispassionately, without the fan blinkers on.

Several of the points made resonate with me. I agree that Stranger In The Crowd is a complete shambles, and this is a damn shame. Of course there are a number of "excuses" a person who argues in defense or justification of something can make for Elvis not being familiar with his song, but that does not change the facts.

And the "oldies" are largely dealt with in a perfunctory manner, and at the speed of light. Most clock in at under 1 minute.

The criticism of the humour is not something I would hold with, but we all have different sensibilities, and again the reviewer takes the critical approach.

My overall impression of the show as presented on the CD Stranger In The Crowd is that it is entertaining, and of course I would have loved to have been in the audience. But there is no doubt in my mind that the show is sloppy. As I think Colin pointed out, on the night this would have barely mattered. This was Elvis man, looking like a god and wowing the crowd with song, moves and his very presence. Warts and all, he would do that for the next 7 years. And That's The Way It Is.

One flaw of some of his live shows,was a simple lack of focus,i dont mind the humor,in fact i like it,but the music sometimes suffered from a lack of commitment!

While Elvis rarely lacked commitment to "putting on a show", I think he did lack commitment to the more serious side of live music, more often than not. Just playing songs at their proper tempos, singing all the verses and letting each piece breathe is vitally important, and he often skimped. It was fun when he pumped energy into his craft, but very sad when he didn't. He did seem to want to get things over quick. A lot of his studio cuts barely have anything more than a 2-bar intro, feature pretty basic, often trite lyrics, and are often a little lean, even for the time. All this means the great variable is Elvis and the band.. But since Elvis ruled the roost, it was really his moods and predilections that determine whether something is worth listening to or not, in my opinion. Cos when he was good .... well, I think you know the rest.

Perhaps you should give that a try with your approach to Elvis' work later in the decade.

I think that we have to understand how Elvis approached his live shows. He wasn't a robot nor was he just a singer. Audience interraction was huge for him, as was joking around, even changing lyrics. Some people call that unprofessional, I beg to differ, that's who he was and that was part of his show. Muhammad Ali would clown around, taunt his opponents, have the crowd laughing and loving it, but the next day, would get criticized by some media for not taking his craft serious. Elvis and Ali understood that it was entertainment first, and it was the fans who made them millionaires and who gave them the love, not the critics!

Cryogenic,i agree,the music part was what could have used some more attention,we all know he had great charisma but the music should be the main ingredient! The throw away style of some of his classics are a great example of what were talking about!

To a point. As the 70's progressed, Elvis too often crossed the line to the point where the lack of focus and commitment irreparably derailed his shows.

One point the reviewer brings into focus is that this trend was nothing new to later 70s performances, just that some people choose to view the 1970 mainifestations in a totally different rose colored light and when the same things happen in later Elvis shows they are down on Elvis like a ton of bricks. Elvis forgets the lyrics to 4 key songs in 1970 that is fine and dandy. He forgets the lyrics to 2 songs in 1976 he is drugged up and a crap live performer.

In perspective are the key words.

Forgetting lyrics in 1976 was the least of his problems on stage. Another misguided attempt to equate 1976 with 1970.