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

young and beautiful versions

Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:41 pm

On a recent thread regarding ballads and Elvis' greatness with them, one writer opined that if he tried 100 times in 1972, Elvis could not have equalled the 1957 version. Do you agree? If he really, really tried, don't you think he could have done an equally, if slightly altered, great version of the song. I think he was in good form in March 72 and could have done the song justice, with effort.

Also, with the two studio versions of Love Letters recorded only four years apart, do you think he was going for a completely different feel on the second attempt or do you think he could not match the subtle, quiet texture of the 66 version?

I find it unexpainable that Elvis' voice is so different from 1962 to 1966 to 1969 and 1970. I doubt that anyone can see a difference in most male singer's voices between the ages of 25 - 37. Elvis' voice changed a lot almost yearly.

I don't know the answer, but I wonder if some medications didn't alter the tonal quality and timbre of his voice. Whatever changed it, he always adapted and remained a great, great vocalist.

Re: young and beautiful versions

Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:06 am

A March 1975 studio version would have been nice, maybe...

Re: young and beautiful versions

Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:27 am

stevelecher wrote:On a recent thread regarding ballads and Elvis' greatness with them, one writer opined that if he tried 100 times in 1972, Elvis could not have equalled the 1957 version. Do you agree? If he really, really tried, don't you think he could have done an equally, if slightly altered, great version of the song.



Honestly, no I don't think he could have matched the exceptional 1957 original.

stevelecher wrote:Also, with the two studio versions of Love Letters recorded only four years apart, do you think he was going for a completely different feel on the second attempt or do you think he could not match the subtle, quiet texture of the 66 version?


I think that he probably figured it would be pointless doing a remake that sounded exactly like the original. He probably could have got pretty close to the original approach if he'd concentrated on doing so.

stevelecher wrote:I find it unexpainable that Elvis' voice is so different from 1962 to 1966 to 1969 and 1970. I doubt that anyone can see a difference in most male singer's voices between the ages of 25 - 37. Elvis' voice changed a lot almost yearly. ?


It really is unusual but also part of what keeps the Elvis listening experience fresh.

Re: young and beautiful versions

Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:43 am

stevelecher wrote:On a recent thread regarding ballads and Elvis' greatness with them, one writer opined that if he tried 100 times in 1972, Elvis could not have equalled the 1957 version. Do you agree? If he really, really tried, don't you think he could have done an equally, if slightly altered, great version of the song. I think he was in good form in March 72 and could have done the song justice, with effort.

I'm sure, with some effort, Elvis obviously could have done a respectable job on the song in 1972... unfortunately by that time Elvis wasn't "really, really" trying at anything... the recording of Young & Beautiful from 1957 was lightning in a bottle... I don't think he could have ever captured the essence of that performance again...

Re: young and beautiful versions

Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:35 am

elvis-fan wrote:
stevelecher wrote:On a recent thread regarding ballads and Elvis' greatness with them, one writer opined that if he tried 100 times in 1972, Elvis could not have equalled the 1957 version. Do you agree? If he really, really tried, don't you think he could have done an equally, if slightly altered, great version of the song. I think he was in good form in March 72 and could have done the song justice, with effort.

I'm sure, with some effort, Elvis obviously could have done a respectable job on the song in 1972... unfortunately by that time Elvis wasn't "really, really" trying at anything... the recording of Young & Beautiful from 1957 was lightning in a bottle... I don't think he could have ever captured the essence of that performance again...


Interesting re the lightning in a bottle. Do you think Elvis could have replicated Mystery Train as early as 1956? Or Milkcow Blues? Could he have retried Heartbreak Hotel in 1957 or All Shook Up in 1958?

I think the re-recording threads are pointless; we have what we have. Although the quality of his recordings diminished over the years, I think we should be grateful with what we have from any period. I think it's remarkable that things are still popping up from time to time at all after so long.

elvisonline

Re: young and beautiful versions

Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:26 am

stevelecher wrote:I doubt that anyone can see a difference in most male singer's voices between the ages of 25 - 37.


Bob Dylan's voice went from being folky passable to a 'wannabe crooner' to a rugged rocker then to a croak in as many years...

Re: young and beautiful versions

Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:33 pm

I actually like the 1972 studio version, and those few live performances.

Re: young and beautiful versions

Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:19 pm

stevelecher wrote:On a recent thread regarding ballads and Elvis' greatness with them, one writer opined that if he tried 100 times in 1972, Elvis could not have equalled the 1957 version.


Maybe not on the great ballads of the '50s (Anyway you Want Me, Don't), but then again Always On My Mind in my humble opinion is as good as anything he had done before in the '50s or 68-70. And some of the '73 ballads I find breath taking and can compare easily to most ballads from the 1969 sessions. The difference between Young and Beautiful in 1957 and Always On Mind is the difference between a boy of only 22 and a man of 38 singing. I think it would be weird if Elvis age 38 would still be singing like a 22 year old.