Elvis in Omaha: And I Love You So? 1977

For years i been reading ''Elvis was out of tone, elvis couldnt carry the song'' Stuff like that.
But when i watch the performance i dont think it was that bad at all? what do u guys think about it


Note: this is not a thread to bash omaha. But to judge on this particular performance.

The untouched version of the song was way off key. When he sings the lines, "The day you took my hand" and "This is my belief," it is painfully obvious. The version on the album has been cleaned up and is much better represented, but the raw Omaha footage hurts.

Usually the pathos of 1977 is often compared here (to make it obvious) to the glory of 1969. While this is a valid argument, one needn't travel that far back in time. The renditions of and I love you so from march 76 to the end are a HUGH contrast to the march 75 master but also to the much recent December 75 versions. December 75 marks the real last time when elvis sounded consistently good. Had he died on his way to Pontiac, we'd seen him fat and occasionally (read sept 74) in terrible shape, but those last 18 months almost destroyed his image...

The untouched version of the song was way off key. When he sings the lines, "The day you took my hand" and "This is my belief," it is painfully obvious. The version on the album has been cleaned up and is much better represented, but the raw Omaha footage hurts.

He didn't have his best bottom range that night. That's why he had Larry Strickland helping him.

The untouched version of the song was way off key. When he sings the lines, "The day you took my hand" and "This is my belief," it is painfully obvious. The version on the album has been cleaned up and is much better represented, but the raw Omaha footage hurts.

As much as I hate to post this, the evidence is clear... and Charlie does little to help with his off-key backing vocals...

For years i been reading ''Elvis was out of tone, elvis couldnt carry the song'' Stuff like that.
But when i watch the performance i dont think it was that bad at all? what do u guys think about it


Note: this is not a thread to bash omaha. But to judge on this particular performance.

I think the entire show never should've been filmed.

the only reason those two lines sound so horrible is Charlie´s out of tune singing, what was he thinking, he was a tenor, we wasn´t going to reach that note any easier than Elvis. Elvis singing is a bit weak and there´s a slight woble for whatever reason. But I still find it a beautiful version, also because of its frailness

Yes its painful to see Elvis performing a song like this on June 19th 1977 -at Omaha
- The strain was clearly showing on his face and his body movements showed that too -

He surely was ill during this period of his life -

Well the show is a travesty of his last year on Gods Earth -

He showld have rested during this time I feel and believe -

He had earnt a long rest after years of touring . ,-

Last edited by karlos on Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

this was in Omaha on June 19, Elvis didn´t sing this song in Rapid City.

The untouched version of the song was way off key. When he sings the lines, "The day you took my hand" and "This is my belief," it is painfully obvious. The version on the album has been cleaned up and is much better represented, but the raw Omaha footage hurts.

As much as I hate to post this, the evidence is clear... and Charlie does little to help with his off-key backing vocals...

It's possible that Charlie simply couldn't hear himself. Did he even have a monitor?

I know that Jerry Sheff thought that Charlie's mike wasn't on, because he could never hear him. He was always right next to Elvis, so I guess he didn't have a monitor. Poor thing

It's quite clearly one of the worst renditions of any song in any Elvis concert. The album version had a lot of cosmetic surgery on it, but the video shows that Elvis had virtually no control over his voice that night, something which is only amplified by the fact he is singing a relatively soft ballad (compared to his belters) with a number of long notes. His vibrato is wider than a garage door, but that (incredibly) is not the main problem here: Elvis cannot keep his pitch. It's not the fact that Elvis is singing out of tune - he simply doesn't have the control over his voice to keep it on the note he wants. He invariably hits the notes and then wavers from it - not helped by the excessive vibrato. This adds to my suggestion previously on these boards that Elvis chose to belt songs out during his later years to cover up such issue with his voice and his control of it. Singing louder generally makes it easier to keep in pitch, and covers up a multitude of sins.

Downers/sleeping tablets can have the kind of effect we see here - check out the first half of Judy Garland's live 1955 TV special for evidence of the same issues (they supposedly had to wake her up prior to the show by dunking her head in a bucket of water). As difficult as Garland's TV special is to watch (at least the non-mimed sections of the first half), it is nothing compared to Presley here. There is clearly many more problems here than just a possible excess of downers. Presley is clearly physically unwell as well - he seemingly has barely the energy to speak, let alone sing.

It's quite clearly one of the worst renditions of any song in any Elvis concert. The album version had a lot of cosmetic surgery on it, but the video shows that Elvis had virtually no control over his voice that night, something which is only amplified by the fact he is singing a relatively soft ballad (compared to his belters) with a number of long notes. His vibrato is wider than a garage door, but that (incredibly) is not the main problem here: Elvis cannot keep his pitch. It's not the fact that Elvis is singing out of tune - he simply doesn't have the control over his voice to keep it on the note he wants. He invariably hits the notes and then wavers from it - not helped by the excessive vibrato. This adds to my suggestion previously on these boards that Elvis chose to belt songs out during his later years to cover up such issue with his voice and his control of it. Singing louder generally makes it easier to keep in pitch, and covers up a multitude of sins.

Downers/sleeping tablets can have the kind of effect we see here - check out the first half of Judy Garland's live 1955 TV special for evidence of the same issues (they supposedly had to wake her up prior to the show by dunking her head in a bucket of water). As difficult as Garland's TV special is to watch (at least the non-mimed sections of the first half), it is nothing compared to Presley here. There is clearly many more problems here than just a possible excess of downers. Presley is clearly physically unwell as well - he seemingly has barely the energy to speak, let alone sing.

Yet, he sounds quite good a few minutes later, on How Great Thou Art.

It's quite clearly one of the worst renditions of any song in any Elvis concert. The album version had a lot of cosmetic surgery on it, but the video shows that Elvis had virtually no control over his voice that night, something which is only amplified by the fact he is singing a relatively soft ballad (compared to his belters) with a number of long notes. His vibrato is wider than a garage door, but that (incredibly) is not the main problem here: Elvis cannot keep his pitch. It's not the fact that Elvis is singing out of tune - he simply doesn't have the control over his voice to keep it on the note he wants. He invariably hits the notes and then wavers from it - not helped by the excessive vibrato. This adds to my suggestion previously on these boards that Elvis chose to belt songs out during his later years to cover up such issue with his voice and his control of it. Singing louder generally makes it easier to keep in pitch, and covers up a multitude of sins.

Downers/sleeping tablets can have the kind of effect we see here - check out the first half of Judy Garland's live 1955 TV special for evidence of the same issues (they supposedly had to wake her up prior to the show by dunking her head in a bucket of water). As difficult as Garland's TV special is to watch (at least the non-mimed sections of the first half), it is nothing compared to Presley here. There is clearly many more problems here than just a possible excess of downers. Presley is clearly physically unwell as well - he seemingly has barely the energy to speak, let alone sing.

Yet, he sounds quite good a few minutes later, on How Great Thou Art.

BUt that only proves my point - what does he do for the majority of How Great Thou Art? Belt out. It doesn't require the vocal control to do that that it does to sing quieter on And I Love You So. Even in HGTA (and over-rated performance IMO) he still has that strange moment from the transition of the quieter moment to the louder section where he is seemingly searching around for a note he can't find.

He succeeds on HGTA, a song he loves very much. He does have trouble singing with subtlety his last couple years. That's probably a big reason he hated recording in his last years.

I've always liked this version...it's not perfect but seems to be performed with some effort. I also like the version from Cincinnati '76 with the false start.

I've always liked this version...it's not perfect but seems to be performed with some effort. I also like the version from Cincinnati '76 with the false start.

There certainly are a number of similarities in the declines of Elvis and of Judy Garland. She appeared old beyond her years. She died at 47, in a bathroom, full of prescription drugs. I was just watching her 1968 appearance on Mike Douglas. It made me shudder to think of how Elvis would have appeared and sounded, had he sat down with Mike or Merv in 1976. Can you imagine?

For years i been reading ''Elvis was out of tone, elvis couldnt carry the song'' Stuff like that.
But when i watch the performance i dont think it was that bad at all? what do u guys think about it


Note: this is not a thread to bash omaha. But to judge on this particular performance.

The released live master is OK but, as in all things 1977, he sure sounds tired. I don't recall the raw version from the Omaha '77 video feed being much different, but I don't return to it very often. The entire year is not much to speak of, for someone as talented and unique as Elvis.

pitiful

its most certainly NOT one of his better 1977 versions!~

I know his softer singing was less stable in 75-77, but he went for it anyhow and didn't play it safe by just belting out the songs. The piano parts (verses) in HGTA are beatifully sung. He's nervous so he almost messes up the transition. The same can be said about Mountain, the verses are sung softly and intimately and then the operatic refrain makers for one of the more dynamic versions of the song. I like it better than the more distant Aloha version where he hardly gets it on a good breath support.

Last edited by Wiebe on Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Carp nailed it for me. A good response.

It's quite clearly one of the worst renditions of any song in any Elvis concert. The album version had a lot of cosmetic surgery on it, but the video shows that Elvis had virtually no control over his voice that night, something which is only amplified by the fact he is singing a relatively soft ballad (compared to his belters) with a number of long notes. His vibrato is wider than a garage door, but that (incredibly) is not the main problem here: Elvis cannot keep his pitch. It's not the fact that Elvis is singing out of tune - he simply doesn't have the control over his voice to keep it on the note he wants. He invariably hits the notes and then wavers from it - not helped by the excessive vibrato. This adds to my suggestion previously on these boards that Elvis chose to belt songs out during his later years to cover up such issue with his voice and his control of it. Singing louder generally makes it easier to keep in pitch, and covers up a multitude of sins.

Downers/sleeping tablets can have the kind of effect we see here - check out the first half of Judy Garland's live 1955 TV special for evidence of the same issues (they supposedly had to wake her up prior to the show by dunking her head in a bucket of water). As difficult as Garland's TV special is to watch (at least the non-mimed sections of the first half), it is nothing compared to Presley here. There is clearly many more problems here than just a possible excess of downers. Presley is clearly physically unwell as well - he seemingly has barely the energy to speak, let alone sing.

spot on Peter........

I've always liked this version...it's not perfect but seems to be performed with some effort. I also like the version from Cincinnati '76 with the false start.

There certainly are a number of similarities in the declines of Elvis and of Judy Garland. She appeared old beyond her years. She died at 47, in a bathroom, full of prescription drugs. I was just watching her 1968 appearance on Mike Douglas. It made me shudder to think of how Elvis would have appeared and sounded, had he sat down with Mike or Merv in 1976. Can you imagine?

Indeed. The parallels between the two stars is quite disturbing. Both turned to concerts when their film careers ended (Garland would make occasional returns to Hollywood, however). Both would make comebacks after hitting an all-time low (Presley's 68 TV special vs Garland's Carnegie Hall album, which saw her return after life-threatening illness), both would then have TV specials that were acclaimed at the time but now no longer appear as career highlights from an artistic point of view (Aloha, the London Palladium 1965 TV special with Liza Minnelli), in both cases these tv shows were followed by highly erratic performances before a plateau was reached in which both performers were in better form and less erratic on stage (1967 for Garland - the Palace live album is arguably better than the Palladium one with Liza, and 1975 for Elvis), and then both would topple from grace over the next two years until their deaths in 1969 and 1977 respectively. Both suffered with addictions to prescriptive drugs as well, and their performances would suffer as a result. It's also worth noting that neither artist seemed to have any enthusiasm for the recording studio in their last years either. Garland's last known studio recordings were nearly five years before her death, and nothing to write home about.

Carp nailed it for me. A good response.

Who is "Carp"? Is he a friend of "boy1"?