Elvis doing 2 shows a day on tour was crazy.

It's pointles to try and compare our jobs to Elvis' job and to try and understatement what it was like. Elvis' touring and Vegas schedules were outragous. I don't think paparazzi was less intense in the 70 ies. People were always waiting about him.

From what I read, he had no constructive extracurricular activities aside from women, shooting guns and goofing off with his yes-men.

Err, I fail to see the problem with the first two Brad.

Elvis did gave a 2 hour show once in awhile when he was up for it.

Really? When?

The longest one's I have heard are around 90 minutes and both hail from Vegas and Tahoe in 1976 with lots of additional help from band members singing songs and playing extra solos etc.

If memory serves, one of the '76 Tahoe shows hits the 2 hour mark (albeit with the extended band intros).

No, Matt's point was that Elvis had it easier in the 70s with regards to paparazzis, image, music videos, privacy (due to internet) than someone of the same age today. He is simply talking about today's stars over those in the 70s. It's nothign to do with age. Or, to put it another way, Elvis didn't have to deal with the same issues that people like Justin Bieber have today. Yes, he had to deal with photographers, but they didn't chase him down the street in a car and put his life in danger. Pictures of him looking sh*t on stage didn't make it round the world in 1976 because there was no internet. Clips of him mumbling his way through shows didn't emerge because there were no phones with cameras taht could be uploaded to youtube. The only people who saw those shows were the ones that went there. Remember Amy Winehouse's shambolic last appearance - it was on the web within minutes. Elvis didn't have that kind of thing to deal with.

Ok, fair point, but Elvis lived in the time he lived in. I don't undestand why that is being used as a strike against him. In his time he was arguably the most scrutinized male star in the world.

Elvis did gave a 2 hour show once in awhile when he was up for it.

Really? When?

The longest one's I have heard are around 90 minutes and both hail from Vegas and Tahoe in 1976 with lots of additional help from band members singing songs and playing extra solos etc.

If memory serves, one of the '76 Tahoe shows hits the 2 hour mark (albeit with the extended band intros).

dont forget December 31 1975, Which run close to 2 hours.

dont forget December 31 1975, Which run close to 2 hours.

81 minutes without the opening act..add another 30 minutes with it..

Pete made a good point about Bruce Springsteen dragging songs out and the solo's etc. to increase the length of his concerts.

Strongly disagree with you. Every second of Jungleland (a 10 minute song) is worth of it. And that can be said about other long songs by Bruce, which tend to be "epics"

No, Matt's point was that Elvis had it easier in the 70s with regards to paparazzis, image, music videos, privacy (due to internet) than someone of the same age today. He is simply talking about today's stars over those in the 70s. It's nothign to do with age. Or, to put it another way, Elvis didn't have to deal with the same issues that people like Justin Bieber have today. Yes, he had to deal with photographers, but they didn't chase him down the street in a car and put his life in danger. Pictures of him looking sh*t on stage didn't make it round the world in 1976 because there was no internet. Clips of him mumbling his way through shows didn't emerge because there were no phones with cameras taht could be uploaded to youtube. The only people who saw those shows were the ones that went there. Remember Amy Winehouse's shambolic last appearance - it was on the web within minutes. Elvis didn't have that kind of thing to deal with.

Spot on.

But Peter, Elvis wouldn't be 38 today if he had lived. He'd be pushin' 80 (78), so what's your and Matt's point?

The point goes back to the original thread topic, by today's standards Elvis certainly didn't work over and above the high standards he himself set in 1969/1970, in fact he fell short very often. That's not to say he didn't try his best when he could! In today's tech savvy world Elvis would have been scrutinized and perhaps forced to admit to himself that he had a problem. Had Elvis been 38 today, he would have had the opportunity to get the help that wasn't available back in the 70's, today's society may be more intense media wise, but the public love those individuals who overcome their demons.

Elvis didn't have all the pressures that entertainers have today.

How is it different today?

Media scrutiny is far more intense these days, the paparazzi are on the doorstep 24-7, not the relaxed way people were back in the 70's! If Elvis had the same intensity back in the 1970's his drug problem would have been well and truly made public.

Today's stars are expected to make video's for their releases and look amazing, could Elvis had done this post 1973/74? Elvis was falling out of limo's. The less is more philosophy of the Colonel worked to their advantage in the 70's especially as Elvis could turn up slurring his words as in the Aloha announcement.

As has already been touched on, 1 hour shows would not cut the mustard, people expect more from their entertainers. Today's shows are an extravaganza, people will not pay to see artist stumble/mumble for 50 minutes to an hour! Fans now carry mobile phones that can video a performance, if your having a rant (Desert Storm) this stuff can go viral/Facebook/Twitter in a heartbeat, there is simply no room to fail in this modern era. The word of a review can be questioned to interpretation, video footage speaks for it's self.

Today's entertainers are expected to do T.V. interviews, Jay Leno/David Letterman and perform to back up there latest release (or at least have a video)

Record companies want their acts to be out there, today they just simply wouldn't turn up to Graceland hoping Elvis can be cajoled into cutting a few tracks! Even if Elvis decided to have his own studio, would he have had the commitment to produce the goods?

There's no doubting Elvis' talent, however in today's world he would have to seriously up his game to TTWII/Aloha standards every tour!

Pretty much wrong on all accounts!

The media scrutiny was probably stronger on Elvis than any other star in the 50's, 60's and 70's. The paparazzi is usually staked out at specific spots like the Ivy Restaurant and the Sunset Strip and of course movie openings and awards shows. How would taking Elvis's picture expose his drug problem?

Today's established stars are not expected to make videos. That was the 80's. Only up and coming acts are expected to make videos. Video aren't really that essential to promoting music anymore.

Paul McCartney's show is not an extravaganza. Elvis never needed the light show or any other gimmicks because he was Elvis. Fans were carrying super8 film cameras and recording shows with tape recorders. True, video and audio can be uploaded and viewed right after it happens but footage and recordings of Elvis performing were available while he was alive. The transcript of Desert Storm was published in a movie magazine right after it happened. Plus all the unflattering pictures were constantly on the covers of the movie magazines and tabloids.

Today's established stars don't have to do talk shows. McCartney doesn't have to do talk shows. Neither does Jagger. They've done them (rarely) but they aren't expected to. And when a big star does a talk show like Madonna they most of the time don't perform.

Record companies would pretty much let a star of Elvis's stature do what ever he wanted in today's world. If he wanted to record at Graceland, they would probably build him a recording studio. He certainly wouldn't be held to a 3 record a year schedule. He would probably be on a record every 3 years schedule that most established stars are on now. Actually he would probably have his own label.

Elvis wouldn't be touring year in and year out. He would more likely tour every three or more years like McCartney or the Stones do. He also would have more time between shows instead of doing a show every night in a different city.

What Matt is saying is that if Elvis were 38 today he would have found it more tough than being 38 in 1973 because of the added pressures of always looking at your best, videos for songs, paparazzi camping outside the door, candid snapshots floating around the internet etc.

Candid, unflattering snapshots of Elvis were floating around supermarkets and newsstands in the 70's on the covers of movie magazines and tabloid rags for everyone to see!

True enough Rob. But then again Elvis had the added burden of having to be E-L-V-I-S dang near 24/7. Given that he's been in that grave behind Graceland for the past 35 years that burden was ultimately too much for him to cope with.

I have to put up with the burden of being R-O-B every day, too.

And I'm getting damned tired of it.

Well, I hope to high Heaven you don't keel over on the throne with short-shorts around your ankles!

Rob, I feel I owe you an apology. It was my intention to lighten up on you with the short-shorts jokes this new year, but old habits are hard to break. Sorry man.

From what I read, he had no constructive extracurricular activities aside from women, shooting guns and goofing off with his yes-men.

Err, I fail to see the problem with the first two Brad.

Folks, I'd like to apologize for what I wrote above. It's too soon after Newton to be making jokes about guns. That was insensitive of me. If anyone took offence, I'm sorry.

Pretty much wrong on all accounts!

How Rude!

The media scrutiny was probably stronger on Elvis than any other star in the 50's, 60's and 70's. The paparazzi is usually staked out at specific spots like the Ivy Restaurant and the Sunset Strip and of course movie openings and awards shows. How would taking Elvis's picture expose his drug problem?

Are you serious? the paparazzi stalk stars all the time, at their homes, they go through their rubbish, use long telephoto lenses and use the most unflattering pictures they can find! They do not care who you are, for example Britney Spears melt down caught on camera, Vanessa Hudgens (for her nude pics), Charlie Sheen & Michael Jackson. In today's society Elvis would be a target to get a scoop on him. So that doesn't stack up.

Today's established stars are not expected to make videos. That was the 80's. Only up and coming acts are expected to make videos. Video aren't really that essential to promoting music anymore.

Ok, so why do stars like David Bowie, The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith & Madonna release new videos? Your argument just doesn't stack up. And yes videos are essential to promoting music, if it wasn't why on earth are any made?? The youth of today spend countless hours watching MTV or in my daughters case Kerrang. Established star make videos all the time, usually one or two per album.

Paul McCartney's show is not an extravaganza. Elvis never needed the light show or any other gimmicks because he was Elvis. Fans were carrying super8 film cameras and recording shows with tape recorders. True, video and audio can be uploaded and viewed right after it happens but footage and recordings of Elvis performing were available while he was alive. The transcript of Desert Storm was published in a movie magazine right after it happened. Plus all the unflattering pictures were constantly on the covers of the movie magazines and tabloids.

Paul McCartney doesn't walk round in a Jumpsuit mumbling through a show, as for Elvis he wasn't averse to having the stage lit up like a Christmas tree if the occasion warranted it, as in the Aloha show. The other point I was making was fans and critics alike take a dim view of poor performances whatever the caliber of star. The critics don't hesitate to knock stars off their perch nowadays. People are switched into Facebook, Twitter and other modes of Electronic media, all available on smartphones at the touch of a button, the paparazzi are now paid many thousands of dollars to get an incriminating story or photo. Elvis didn't have to worry that someone could take a photo and upload it onto the internet instantly, he had the Colonel taking care of business. There is not such loyalty now

Today's established stars don't have to do talk shows. McCartney doesn't have to do talk shows. Neither does Jagger. They've done them (rarely) but they aren't expected to. And when a big star does a talk show like Madonna they most of the time don't perform.

http://youtu.be/J6NtLjzhKnM
http://youtu.be/qgXn5yWKLCk

Talk shows are one of the life bloods of the modern day star, established or otherwise, stars go on these shows to promote their latest record/book/film. McCartney & Mick Jagger appeared on Saturday Night Live last year and frequently on other shows over the last ten years, even though they don't have to If Elvis didn't participate he would have suffered commercially, another of your arguments that don't stack up.

Record companies would pretty much let a star of Elvis's stature do what ever he wanted in today's world. If he wanted to record at Graceland, they would probably build him a recording studio. He certainly wouldn't be held to a 3 record a year schedule. He would probably be on a record every 3 years schedule that most established stars are on now. Actually he would probably have his own label.

RCA did let Elvis do what he pleased and the results speak for themselves. As I said, if Elvis did have his own label, would he produce the goods given his history and the lengths they had to go to in 1976 just to get him to put down a few tracks?

Elvis wouldn't be touring year in and year out. He would more likely tour every three or more years like McCartney or the Stones do. He also would have more time between shows instead of doing a show every night in a different city.

Pure speculation, Elvis needed the money both for him and the Colonel, what would change? If Elvis had lived and continued his current touring and drug schedule he was only delaying the inevitable.

I'd like to apologize for what I wrote above. It's too soon after Newton to be making jokes about guns. That was insensitive of me. If anyone took offence, I'm sorry.

There is nothing wrong with what you said. Elvis loved to shoot guns. He usually shot at real targets, televisions, or light bulbs in swimming pools. What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary had nothing to do with your comment.

Absolutely no need for an apology.

Thanks Rob.

Well said Robert! I think his lack of desire or any sort of aspirations outside of work led him more and more toward drugs. From what I read, he had no constructive extracurricular activities aside from women, shooting guns and goofing off with his yes-men. His shows were short... but his touring schedules were a mess... once Elvis started flying again, the Colonel had him flying all over the place. Travelling and staying in hotels night after night can be a drain.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I'd say Elvis did have the desire and constructive extracurricular activities outside of work, one being Karate.

Sorry... I forgot that he enjoyed karate up to 1974... haven't read or heard any evidence that he spent much time, if any, practicing karate after that...

Maybe we should look at the 70-75 period where Elvis generally performed very well. Elvis' way of singing requires a lot more physical engagement than most pop singers. I don't think we can call Cliff Richard's singing singing. He seems to ease through his songs in an easy range with no projection. The same can be said about other performers. So maybe we should compare Elvis to an opera singer. Opera singers that sing the leading role in for instance a Verdi opera sing effectively a little over an hour. After a performance they have at least a day off to recuperate, physically and vocally. The way Elvis sang and the high range he sang in required a lot of energy, more than your average crooner. So the time factor has nothing to do with any of our daytime jobs. It's as silly as saying that an athlete that runs 1000m in 1 minute has an easy day, because he only has to work 1 minute.

Whether a paparazzi gets his source from Facebook or from eyewittnesses or photographers, does it really matter?

Maybe we should look at the 70-75 period where Elvis generally performed very well. Elvis' way of singing requires a lot more physical engagement than most pop singers. I don't think we can call Cliff Richard's singing singing. He seems to ease through his songs in an easy range with no projection. The same can be said about other performers. So maybe we should compare Elvis to an opera singer. Opera singers that sing the leading role in for instance a Verdi opera sing effectively a little over an hour. After a performance they have at least a day off to recuperate, physically and vocally. The way Elvis sang and the high range he sang in required a lot of energy, more than your average crooner. So the time factor has nothing to do with any of our daytime jobs. It's as silly as saying that an athlete that runs 1000m in 1 minute has an easy day, because he only has to work 1 minute.

Err, opera singers are singing for considerably more than an hour in most Verdi operas, which mostly run for 2-2/12 hours, with a few of them longer than that (a couple from the 1840s are exceptions to this rule and are a bit under two hours). Either way, an opera singer doesn't throw a significant proportion of their performance away by giving out scarves or cruising through three or four verses of Amen. Presley's singing during this period required none of the control that opera singers require to project their voices without the aid of amplification, and what's more the music itself is considerably more physically demanding.

It should also be added that an opera singer wouldn't sing the same opera season after season and would therefore have to learn completely new material each time. Elvis did not.

Last edited by poormadpeter on Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Whether a paparazzi gets his source from Facebook or from eyewittnesses or photographers, does it really matter?

I never said it did? I implied that social media was far quicker to upload and be out there than any other method.

The opera lasts 2.5 to 3 hours,but there are at least 2 or 3 bigger roles, plus bigger ensembles etc. Chorus parts orchestral interludes etc., so the bigger roles are not singing all the time. You are right that Elvis didn't have to project like opera singers, but the way he sang required some of the same technique. You can't sing the range he sang in without supporting the voice in a somewhat operatic way.

Whether a paparazzi gets his source from Facebook or from eyewittnesses or photographers, does it really matter?

I never said it did? I implied that social media was far quicker to upload and be out there than any other method.

Does that really matter, whether it comes out a day or two later?

Whether a paparazzi gets his source from Facebook or from eyewittnesses or photographers, does it really matter?

I never said it did? I implied that social media was far quicker to upload and be out there than any other method.

Does that really matter, whether it comes out a day or two later?

The amount of people around the whole who would see a bad photo of Elvis today would be considerably more than those purchasing a tabloid in America with it in forty years ago. The internet is seen by most of the world, the tabloid would not have been.

So maybe we should compare Elvis to an opera singer..

No. We shouldn't.

In the old days we bought magazines and watched tv and listened to the radio, now we get the info also through the internet, what's the difference. Elvis was always newsworthy enough to be picked up by the traditional media. Does it matter if it's the whole world or all of America? The pressure wouldnt feel much different.