Tue May 17, 2011 8:21 pm
Tue May 17, 2011 8:29 pm
Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:15 pm
Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:01 pm
GuitarKing wrote:A lot bigger because he would have stayed ahead of the game and not had to play "catch up" by the end of the 60's.
Even if he would have followed the pattern of the 50's. In the 50's he did good movies, mixed with touring, good records and tv appearences.Why this changed i don't know. By the time he toured again in Sept 1970, it had been 13 YEARS since he toured last...what a shame. He never regained the popularity he once had. But, with all those years of exposure, the case could be made that he would have fizzled out too because "been there, done that" to the public.

Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:02 am
Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:36 am
ElvisTheKid wrote:He needed to fail in order to have a comeback becasue if he had continuing success, The Beatles would have knocked him on his ass eventually anyway. He needed to take a backseat. The end result is his legacy as the greatest ever.
Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:40 am
rjm wrote:ElvisTheKid wrote:He needed to fail in order to have a comeback becasue if he had continuing success, The Beatles would have knocked him on his ass eventually anyway. He needed to take a backseat. The end result is his legacy as the greatest ever.
You can't "fail" if you don't try.
rjm
Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:48 am
promiseland wrote:rjm wrote:ElvisTheKid wrote:He needed to fail in order to have a comeback becasue if he had continuing success, The Beatles would have knocked him on his ass eventually anyway. He needed to take a backseat. The end result is his legacy as the greatest ever.
You can't "fail" if you don't try.
rjm
rjm I think you just made the first post of the new year! in my time zone anyway (Indianapolis)!
Hosted by ElviCities