Video ; in 1975, Lennon talked about elvis

To him his great hero suddenly made cheap movies, wore tacky jumpsuits and made music that was a little too kitschy. If you are a fan of JAILHOUSE ROCK, songs like FOOL are hard to take.

So no problem with Lennon from my side.

Cheap movie:



Tacky jumpsuit:



Kitschy music:

Amen Brother. Hilarious when these people jump on Elvis for "crimes" they themselves committed. Hypocrites.

I don't think he cared about Elvis' creative goals, nor do I think he ever bothered to find out what they truly were.

John Lennon didn't care about Elvis' creative goals either. That's why he trashes him and says the things he did. Elvis had no interest in being a rock n roll rebel. And people like Lennon just didn't get it.

Amen Brother. Hilarious when these people jump on Elvis for "crimes" they themselves committed. Hypocrites.

Methinks you missed the joke, Brother. .

I don't think he cared about Elvis' creative goals, nor do I think he ever bothered to find out what they truly were.

John Lennon didn't care about Elvis' creative goals either. That's why he trashes him and says the things he did.

It is beyond any question that John loved Elvis.

If he didn't care, his response to questions about Elvis might have been something blunt, like "I don't give a sh'it."

I don't know what else everyone wants to hear....He flat out said in that interview that Elvis made some good music after the army. He just thought that Elvis changed. A lot of you on this board think that Elvis' best work came before 1958. How is this any different? I'm not a huge fan of Elvis' music post 1972ish, but I love the guy and listen to him excessively. Does this make me or anyone else like me less of a fan?

My take away from all of this is that John Lennon was and remained a huge fan of Elvis (although not all of his songs are favorites). His take on Elvis Presley matters because who else better understands what Elvis went through than John Lennon. I would argue nobody. We discuss what other artists say about Elvis all of the time, but we get far too upset when somebody analyzes critically. Once again, I ask who better than John Lennon to offer his take.

Finally, remember that John Lennon died in 1980. There is no clarifying of his thoughts, there is no benefit of time and reflection. He said what he said. Perhaps he would have felt differently about different aspects with age or with more facts on Elvis' health later on. Who knows. Unfortunately, some jerk cut short the life of one of the 5 greatest rock n rollers of all time.

We talk a lot here about how Elvis let down his fans by dropping the rock and roll image after he got out of the army, recorded mediocre soundtracks and appeared in mediocre movies, played Vegas with an orchestra in tacky jumpsuits,etc, but what about the Beatles? They let down their fans by breaking up. HOW DARE THEY! They should've known that the four of them individually could never be as good as the four of them together - although, occasionally, they came close (John's Imagine album, George's All Things Must Pass, Paul's Band on the Run, and Ringo's...uh...I'll have to get back to you on that one).

I don't know what else everyone wants to hear....He flat out said in that interview that Elvis made some good music after the army. He just thought that Elvis changed. A lot of you on this board think that Elvis' best work came before 1958. How is this any different? I'm not a huge fan of Elvis' music post 1972ish, but I love the guy and listen to him excessively. Does this make me or anyone else like me less of a fan?

My take away from all of this is that John Lennon was and remained a huge fan of Elvis (although not all of his songs are favorites). His take on Elvis Presley matters because who else better understands what Elvis went through than John Lennon. I would argue nobody. We discuss what other artists say about Elvis all of the time, but we get far too upset when somebody analyzes critically. Once again, I ask who better than John Lennon to offer his take.

Finally, remember that John Lennon died in 1980. There is no clarifying of his thoughts, there is no benefit of time and reflection. He said what he said. Perhaps he would have felt differently about different aspects with age or with more facts on Elvis' health later on. Who knows. Unfortunately, some jerk cut short the life of one of the 5 greatest rock n rollers of all time.

He said his balls were chopped off. I am not saying John wasnt a fan. But he did not understand Elvis and is a hypocrite. All of his comments indicate that he wanted Elvis to stay the same way he was in the fifties and knocks him because he didn't. Even though it was impossible for Elvis to stay the same. Everyone grows and changes. If they dont then there is something wrong.lol

For as much crap as Ringo gets, he had some hits post-Beatles. His Ringo album had Photograph and You're Sixteen, both number one singles. He also had earlier hits with It Don't Come Easy and Back off Boogaloo. Maybe he wasn't the most talented Beatle but he sure had some early success.

DEH-

So he said his balls were chopped off. I don't think that was to be taken literally. We're 99.99% sure that Elvis came out of the Army with his balls, I think. It was a way of saying that Elvis was no longer that rebel knocking down walls. That bothered Lennon because that's what he grew up with and blew him away and made him start the most successful Rock N Roll band ever.

I dug this band, O.A.R. when I was in high school. Maybe you've heard of them, maybe not. They sort of had a reggae vibe to them. Anyway, they became more successful and without a doubt grew as musicians and probably matured. Their sound is more refined and sounds like Dave Matthews/radio friendly music. Either way, I still enjoy their older music better. In fact, I will probably never go see them in concert again. Part of it is that I will always remember the early raw stuff that I can tie to my memories of when I was younger. The new stuff doesn't cut it. I could argue that they lost their balls somewhere along the lines and sold out. They would claim that they're better musicians and more mature songwriters. It doesn't make either one of us right or wrong. Thats just the way it is.

The animosity towards Lennon's opinion is odd, but well in line with the anti-Beatles agenda by certain FECC members. Lennon states his opinion which clearly has substance and insight into Elvis' post-Army inconsistency. It isn't the final word on all things related to Elvis' post-Army career. It just provides some perspective.

I don't know what else everyone wants to hear....He flat out said in that interview that Elvis made some good music after the army. He just thought that Elvis changed. A lot of you on this board think that Elvis' best work came before 1958. How is this any different? I'm not a huge fan of Elvis' music post 1972ish, but I love the guy and listen to him excessively. Does this make me or anyone else like me less of a fan?

My take away from all of this is that John Lennon was and remained a huge fan of Elvis (although not all of his songs are favorites). His take on Elvis Presley matters because who else better understands what Elvis went through than John Lennon. I would argue nobody. We discuss what other artists say about Elvis all of the time, but we get far too upset when somebody analyzes critically. Once again, I ask who better than John Lennon to offer his take.

Finally, remember that John Lennon died in 1980. There is no clarifying of his thoughts, there is no benefit of time and reflection. He said what he said. Perhaps he would have felt differently about different aspects with age or with more facts on Elvis' health later on. Who knows. Unfortunately, some jerk cut short the life of one of the 5 greatest rock n rollers of all time.

What a terrific post -- spot-on, my friend!

After reading all pages of this thread I will say IMO Lennon always wrote and sang what he felt like, not what his contracts or managers told him to do.

If he recorded a song he thought was crap, he would not have it released in his lifetime.

That's the kind of attitude I admire of Lennon over Elvis, red jumpsuit be damned.

To the person who compared Elvis movies with The Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour", I have to say that while Elvis movies were cheap, after a quick buck, with terrible songs and stupid scripts, MMT was the first (and last) experiment The Beatles made at film making themselves.

Of course the movie is pretty nonsensical but at least it has some superb songs, like all Beatles movies do.

"The Fool on The Hill", "Walrus", "Magical Mystery Tour" are among the best stuff The Beatles recorded and it's not some crappy soundtrack bull to serve a certain scene taped in a bad sounding soundstage.

So even when the movie was pretty awful, the songs in it made it worthwhile. The same goes for any Beatles movie.

Most Elvis movies throughout the 60s were not redeemed by anything.

I just find it odd than on a forum supposedly devoted to discussing Elvis and his career, it's Elvis that's always taking the hits, while the Beatles are praised as geniuses that never made a wrong move. Don't get me wrong, I love the Beatles. Own all the group albums, and quite a few of the post-breakup music, too. But it seems that around here, Elvis is seen as only having recorded a few worthwhile albums, while the Beatles walked on water. Why do you guys like Elvis so much if most of what he recorded was mediocre or just plain awful?

I just find it odd than on a forum supposedly devoted to discussing Elvis and his career, it's Elvis that's always taking the hits, while the Beatles are praised as geniuses that never made a wrong move. Don't get me wrong, I love the Beatles. Own all the group albums, and quite a few of the post-breakup music, too. But it seems that around here, Elvis is seen as only having recorded a few worthwhile albums, while the Beatles walked on water. Why do you guys like Elvis so much if most of what he recorded was mediocre or just plain awful?

There is definately a biase towards the beatles with some people here. If you say anything negative about them you get jumped on while it's perfectly fine to take a chunk out of Elvis' ass.

I just find it odd than on a forum supposedly devoted to discussing Elvis and his career, it's Elvis that's always taking the hits, while the Beatles are praised as geniuses that never made a wrong move. Don't get me wrong, I love the Beatles. Own all the group albums, and quite a few of the post-breakup music, too. But it seems that around here, Elvis is seen as only having recorded a few worthwhile albums, while the Beatles walked on water. Why do you guys like Elvis so much if most of what he recorded was mediocre or just plain awful?

Perhaps they are psuedo troll fans that only come here to stir up trouble.

I just find it odd than on a forum supposedly devoted to discussing Elvis and his career, it's Elvis that's always taking the hits, while the Beatles are praised as geniuses that never made a wrong move. Don't get me wrong, I love the Beatles. Own all the group albums, and quite a few of the post-breakup music, too. But it seems that around here, Elvis is seen as only having recorded a few worthwhile albums, while the Beatles walked on water. Why do you guys like Elvis so much if most of what he recorded was mediocre or just plain awful?

Perhaps they are psuedo troll fans that only come here to stir up trouble.

I thought we were all here to give our opinions, I didn't know that was "stiring up trouble".

I just find it odd than on a forum supposedly devoted to discussing Elvis and his career, it's Elvis that's always taking the hits, while the Beatles are praised as geniuses that never made a wrong move. Don't get me wrong, I love the Beatles. Own all the group albums, and quite a few of the post-breakup music, too. But it seems that around here, Elvis is seen as only having recorded a few worthwhile albums, while the Beatles walked on water. Why do you guys like Elvis so much if most of what he recorded was mediocre or just plain awful?

There is definately a biase towards the beatles with some people here. If you say anything negative about them you get jumped on while it's perfectly fine to take a chunk out of Elvis' ass.

You got that right!

I just find it odd than on a forum supposedly devoted to discussing Elvis and his career, it's Elvis that's always taking the hits, while the Beatles are praised as geniuses that never made a wrong move.

It's not odd because neither one of your statements is even remotely true.

That said, many of the "pro-Beatles" comments are in reply to some of the most cutting, and inaccurate, slurs or misguided comparisons imaginable, made by members. Unlike them, I love and appreciate both artists.

Too bad this is not a more acceptable position on FECC.

I admire both Elvis and The Beatles. I happen to like Elvis significantly more. I have never really seen the musical parallel that so many try to draw when bashing The Beatles in support of Elvis having to be the "best." They were completely different artists.

Some of you mistake admiration for a prolific and inspirational body of work that occurred over a short period of time with relatively few clunkers for "walking on water." Whether you like it or not, Elvis' entire body of work sadly does not have the same consistency. And let's be honest, The Beatles weren't the only band that had a more consistent, cohesive body of work that was also pioneering and important. That being said, Elvis' greatest achievements are legendary and foundationally vital to contemporary music. His best work has rarely been rivaled. No one denies that. But the reality is that The Beatles and other significant acts do not have "Do The Clam" and "Heart Of Rome" lining their catalogue.

I admire both Elvis and The Beatles. I happen to like Elvis significantly more. I have never really seen the musical parallel that so many try to draw when bashing The Beatles in support of Elvis having to be the "best." They were completely different artists.

Some of you mistake admiration for a prolific and inspirational body of work that occurred over a short period of time with relatively few clunkers for "walking on water." Whether you like it or not, Elvis' entire body of work sadly does not have the same consistency. And let's be honest, The Beatles weren't the only band that had a more consistent, cohesive body of work that was also pioneering and important. That being said, Elvis' greatest achievements are legendary and foundationally vital to contemporary music. His best work has rarely been rivaled. No one denies that. But the reality is that The Beatles and other significant acts do not have "Do The Clam" and "Heart Of Rome" lining their catalogue.

I don't deny that Elvis recorded some clunkers, but why do we harp on that over and over here? Do you spend more time listening to the clunkers than the works that inpsire you? Let's see... that would be the Sun sides, the 50's RCA recordings, EIB, 68 special and FEIM....a relatively small body of great recordings?

I admire both Elvis and The Beatles. I happen to like Elvis significantly more. I have never really seen the musical parallel that so many try to draw when bashing The Beatles in support of Elvis having to be the "best." They were completely different artists.

Some of you mistake admiration for a prolific and inspirational body of work that occurred over a short period of time with relatively few clunkers for "walking on water." Whether you like it or not, Elvis' entire body of work sadly does not have the same consistency. And let's be honest, The Beatles weren't the only band that had a more consistent, cohesive body of work that was also pioneering and important. That being said, Elvis' greatest achievements are legendary and foundationally vital to contemporary music. His best work has rarely been rivaled. No one denies that. But the reality is that The Beatles and other significant acts do not have "Do The Clam" and "Heart Of Rome" lining their catalogue.

nahh they just have Revolution #9, Your Mother Should Know, Dont Bother Me, Hello Goodbye, Bungalow Bill, Octopus' Garden, All Together Now, You Like Me Too Much, Within You Without You..."other significant acts"..Her Satanic Majesties Request, Self Portrait, Under the Red Sky, Human Touch etc etc. no bashing here... just a gentle reminder big fella u cant have it both ways!

Last edited by Kylan on Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

nahh they just have Revolution #9, Your Mother Should Know, Dont Bother Me, Hello Goodbye, Bungalow Bill, Octopus' Garden, All Together Now, Within You Without You..."other significant acts"..Her Satanic Majesties Request, Self Portrait, Human Touch etc etc. no bashing here... just a gentle reminder big fella u cant have it both ways!

What took U so long???

nahh they just have Revolution #9, Your Mother Should Know, Dont Bother Me, Hello Goodbye, Bungalow Bill, Octopus' Garden, All Together Now, You Like Me Too Much, Within You Without You..."other significant acts"..Her Satanic Majesties Request, Self Portrait, Under the Red Sky, Human Touch etc etc. no bashing here... just a gentle reminder big fella u cant have it both ways!

The only song I consider substandard in that list is revolution #9, and that's not even a song, but an avant garde experiment.
"Octopus's Garden" has a terrific guitar solo and a catchy harmony, "You like me too much" has some terific electric piano and chorus and I could find something redeeming in all other songs you listed.
Do I consider them top rate material? No. For Beatles standards they're not among the best.
Still, they're far from "clunkers".

I admire both Elvis and The Beatles. I happen to like Elvis significantly more. I have never really seen the musical parallel that so many try to draw when bashing The Beatles in support of Elvis having to be the "best." They were completely different artists.

Some of you mistake admiration for a prolific and inspirational body of work that occurred over a short period of time with relatively few clunkers for "walking on water." Whether you like it or not, Elvis' entire body of work sadly does not have the same consistency. And let's be honest, The Beatles weren't the only band that had a more consistent, cohesive body of work that was also pioneering and important. That being said, Elvis' greatest achievements are legendary and foundationally vital to contemporary music. His best work has rarely been rivaled. No one denies that. But the reality is that The Beatles and other significant acts do not have "Do The Clam" and "Heart Of Rome" lining their catalogue.

I don't deny that Elvis recorded some clunkers, but why do we harp on that over and over here? Do you spend more time listening to the clunkers than the works that inpsire you? Let's see... that would be the Sun sides, the 50's RCA recordings, EIB, 68 special and FEIM....a relatively small body of great recordings?

You only named a small portion of the Elvis Presley recordings I enjoy, but you certainly listed some highlights.

I find it insulting to be compared to a troll for defending my position on the Beatles. I, in fact, am a much much bigger Elvis fan. However, I am not narrow-minded enough to choose one or the other. Thats the great thing about music, you can listen to whatever the hell you want.

This isn't about knocking Elvis and building up the Beatles or Lennon. If you did your research on Lennon, you'd realize that he was no saint himself. He had a drug addiction that very well could have killed him, he ignored his son for almost 20 years, and he was a complete jerk during the Beatles Hamburg days. BUT he and the Beatles were musical geniuses. As was Elvis. Appreciate them both. The reason that they're brought up on this board excessively is that Elvis and the Beatles changed American (and world) culture and music. They also hit near the same time frame and at a time when the youth of America (and the world) needed a voice and an outlet. They are more alike than some of you want to admit.

I find it insulting to be compared to a troll for defending my position on the Beatles. I, in fact, am a much much bigger Elvis fan. However, I am not narrow-minded enough to choose one or the other. Thats the great thing about music, you can listen to whatever the hell you want.

This isn't about knocking Elvis and building up the Beatles or Lennon. If you did your research on Lennon, you'd realize that he was no saint himself. He had a drug addiction that very well could have killed him, he ignored his son for almost 20 years, and he was a complete jerk during the Beatles Hamburg days. BUT he and the Beatles were musical geniuses. As was Elvis. Appreciate them both. The reason that they're brought up on this board excessively is that Elvis and the Beatles changed American (and world) culture and music. They also hit near the same time frame and at a time when the youth of America (and the world) needed a voice and an outlet. They are more alike than some of you want to admit.

No need to justify your position. Your points were very well crafted and appreciated by many. The blindly-devoted, defensive Elvis fans will also go on the attack against any position that in any way provides reasonable, objective analysis.