Elvis doing 2 shows a day on tour was crazy.

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.

Right on Rob...
I got your meaning Pete... that didn't even come into my mind to tell you the truth... it was all about Elvis and btw... you STILL da man in my book!!!

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?

Yes, you cannot control the media like you could in the 70's, the Colonel probably had quite a bit of the press schmoozed and controlled and could head off bad publicity before it got out of control. You cannot control thousands of people with mobile phones. To be honest, if you aren't aware of how the press and the media work these days, I doubt I will be able to convince you anyway

I don't think it's fair to compare Elvis's show length with younger acts.

But Elvis was never anything BUT young.

Bruce is still giving ridiculously long (3-4 hour) concerts and I'm not even GUESSING what age he is. I saw Cliff Richard in 1997 when he was considerably older than Elvis and he gave an extremely energetic 3 and a half hour show.

We have to be realistic here. Elvis was just a guy. It was his job. Most people work all day (or night) for 5 or six days a week with about 4 weeks leave per year. When you look at it that way - singing twice a day for 50 minutes is a bit of all right.

Paul McCartney plays 3 hours shows now, and he´s almost 71

But Paul does not do much on stage. Just stands there. its not as if he dances or runs around.

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.

It's not pointless.

It's just making a point that doing two shows a day wasn't that bad compared to what other people have to do in their jobs.

To me that's valid.

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"

Springsteen still does drag out a lot of songs regardless of ''Jungleland''.

'

Eligain is right music videos aren't as important as they were in the 1980s.

You don't necessarily have to come out with a music video to promote a CD anymore and some artists don't.

I don't think it's fair to compare Elvis's show length with younger acts.

But Elvis was never anything BUT young.

Bruce is still giving ridiculously long (3-4 hour) concerts and I'm not even GUESSING what age he is. I saw Cliff Richard in 1997 when he was considerably older than Elvis and he gave an extremely energetic 3 and a half hour show.

We have to be realistic here. Elvis was just a guy. It was his job. Most people work all day (or night) for 5 or six days a week with about 4 weeks leave per year. When you look at it that way - singing twice a day for 50 minutes is a bit of all right.

Paul McCartney plays 3 hours shows now, and he´s almost 71

But Paul does not do much on stage. Just stands there. its not as if he dances or runs around.

Lets be honest, Elvis was hardly break dancing from 1973 onward.

I don't think it's fair to compare Elvis's show length with younger acts.

But Elvis was never anything BUT young.

Bruce is still giving ridiculously long (3-4 hour) concerts and I'm not even GUESSING what age he is. I saw Cliff Richard in 1997 when he was considerably older than Elvis and he gave an extremely energetic 3 and a half hour show.

We have to be realistic here. Elvis was just a guy. It was his job. Most people work all day (or night) for 5 or six days a week with about 4 weeks leave per year. When you look at it that way - singing twice a day for 50 minutes is a bit of all right.

Paul McCartney plays 3 hours shows now, and he´s almost 71

But Paul does not do much on stage. Just stands there. its not as if he dances or runs around.

He is also twice Elvis's age. And, to be fair, I don't remember Elvis dancing on stage, or running around. I do remember footage of him pacing up and down the stage with a microphone in his hand (very tiring), and handing our scarves (exhausting).

I don't think it's fair to compare Elvis's show length with younger acts.

But Elvis was never anything BUT young.

Bruce is still giving ridiculously long (3-4 hour) concerts and I'm not even GUESSING what age he is. I saw Cliff Richard in 1997 when he was considerably older than Elvis and he gave an extremely energetic 3 and a half hour show.

We have to be realistic here. Elvis was just a guy. It was his job. Most people work all day (or night) for 5 or six days a week with about 4 weeks leave per year. When you look at it that way - singing twice a day for 50 minutes is a bit of all right.

Paul McCartney plays 3 hours shows now, and he´s almost 71

But Paul does not do much on stage. Just stands there. its not as if he dances or runs around.

He is also twice Elvis's age. And, to be fair, I don't remember Elvis dancing on stage, or running around. I do remember footage of him pacing up and down the stage with a microphone in his hand (very tiring), and handing our scarves (exhausting).

Eligain is right music videos aren't as important as they were in the 1980s.

You don't necessarily have to come out with a music video to promote a CD anymore and some artists don't.

If video's are not important then why do established and new artists bother to make them?

Whilst I agree you don't necessarily have to make a video, you would almost certainly have to go on TV to promote an album without a video. if nobody see's you, how do they know what you are about? As with any artist, you should be looking to add to your fan base to sustain your career. Without wanting to be rude, perhaps people in there 30's 40's, 50's and 60's have reached an age where it isn't important to see a video? But teens and twenty somethings want to see their idols, they copy there clothing and hair styles etc.

I also refer back to MTV and other such channels, there are 32 music channels, all playing videos, if videos are pointless why bother?

It is a foolish band/artist who underestimates the market potential of videos, they are there to promote, they are there to sell the band/artist and more importantly they set out what is unique about your talent. Sadly we as Elvis fans have a lot of crappy movie travelogue clips to promote Elvis' sub standard songs, Imagine if we had a great video to Suspicious Minds or In The Ghetto?

Eligain is right music videos aren't as important as they were in the 1980s.

You don't necessarily have to come out with a music video to promote a CD anymore and some artists don't.

If video's are not important then why do established and new artists bother to make them?

Whilst I agree you don't necessarily have to make a video, you would almost certainly have to go on TV to promote an album without a video. if nobody see's you, how do they know what you are about? As with any artist, you should be looking to add to your fan base to sustain your career. Without wanting to be rude, perhaps people in there 30's 40's, 50's and 60's have reached an age where it isn't important to see a video? But teens and twenty somethings want to see their idols, they copy there clothing and hair styles etc.

I also refer back to MTV and other such channels, there are 32 music channels, all playing videos, if videos are pointless why bother?

It is a foolish band/artist who underestimates the market potential of videos, they are there to promote, they are there to sell the band/artist and more importantly they set out what is unique about your talent. Sadly we as Elvis fans have a lot of crappy movie travelogue clips to promote Elvis' sub standard songs, Imagine if we had a great video to Suspicious Minds or In The Ghetto?

Artists continue to make them as a way to promote themselves but i continue to believe that they aren't as important as the were back in the 1980s.

in the 1980s everyone was making videos but in the last ten years or so some artists are coming out with CD's and aren't promoting them by making a music video.

For example I believe both Tony Bennett and Neil Diamond had #1 albums a few years ago and they didn't make music videos to go along with the albums.

Elvis was really the only artist that i can recall that really didn't need to promote his songs in the 1950s and 1960s for them to be hits.

''Suspicious minds'' and ''In the ghetto'' were huge worldwide hits and Elvis didn't do a damn thing to promote either of them.

I think Elvis would have made some music videos if he had lived to see the 1980s but in his day music videos weren't done that often.

Tony Bennett did make a video for the Duets album - there was one of him and Amy Winehouse, and another with him and Lady Gaga. Simple, yes. But they were still shown on the various music channels. Either way, not many ever have promoted albums with videos, it is a singles phenomenon, but to think they are unimportant today is ludicrous. There hasn't been one major hit in recent years that doesn't have a music video - and their continued importance was shown here just last week when the comments were made about One Direction referring to Jailhouse Rock in their latest video.

Tony Bennett did make a video for the Duets album - there was one of him and Amy Winehouse, and another with him and Lady Gaga. Simple, yes. But they were still shown on the various music channels. Either way, not many ever have promoted albums with videos, it is a singles phenomenon, but to think they are unimportant today is ludicrous. There hasn't been one major hit in recent years that doesn't have a music video - and their continued importance was shown here just last week when the comments were made about One Direction referring to Jailhouse Rock in their latest video.

I didn't say they were unimportant.

I said they weren't as important as they use to be which i think is true.

Tony Bennett did make a video for the Duets album - there was one of him and Amy Winehouse, and another with him and Lady Gaga. Simple, yes. But they were still shown on the various music channels. Either way, not many ever have promoted albums with videos, it is a singles phenomenon, but to think they are unimportant today is ludicrous. There hasn't been one major hit in recent years that doesn't have a music video - and their continued importance was shown here just last week when the comments were made about One Direction referring to Jailhouse Rock in their latest video.

I didn't say they were unimportant.

I said they weren't as important as they use to be which i think is true.

But they still exist for each and every song that enters the charts. So Elvis would have to be involved with that.

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.

It's not pointless.

It's just making a point that doing two shows a day wasn't that bad compared to what other people have to do in their jobs.

To me that's valid.

Unless you have been on stage in front of an audience, you would know how much energy it takes to face the exposure and to perform under this pressure. Anyway 2 1 hr solo shows a night for 4 weeks is bad compared to what most of us have to do at our jobs.

Unless you have been on stage in front of an audience, you would know how much energy it takes to face the exposure and to perform under this pressure. Anyway 2 1 hr solo shows a night for 4 weeks is bad compared to what most of us have to do at our jobs.

Tell your nonsense to a bricklayer who works 8 hours a day!
Or anyone else who has an 8 hours a day-in-day-out manual labour job.

Ask PSY how useful a video can be world wide? Gangnam Style has made him a millionaire. Videos are a cheap and effective to be all around the world.

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.

You are still wrong on all accounts!

I was not rude. How is telling you you are wrong rude?

If the Colonel was "Taking Care Of Business" in keeping unflattering pictures of Elvis out of the medial, he totally failed. You're right, Elvis didn't have to worry about photo's being instantly uploaded to smart phones. He only had to worry about unflattering photos on display for everyone to see in every supermarket and drug store check out line and at every newsstand.

Were you alive in the 70's? Here are some perfect examples on how the Colonel protected Elvis so well:

Again I think Elvis in his Bicentennial suit looked the worst of all, even in the Sundial jumpsuit in 1977 he looked slightly better.

Mostly a second show was added due to the great demand..

True but for the most it was Parker his fault because of his arrangement with the Hilton
hotel and his benefits. For Parker Elvis was his moneypig till the end.

You are still wrong on all accounts!

And you are still rude!

I was not rude. How is telling you you are wrong rude?

When you say someone is wrong on all counts and they have provided evidence to refute your claims and you make the same statement can only mean one of the following:-

1. You are struggling to comprehend the evidence before you.
2. You understand but are unwilling to accept the evidence before you.

I suppose you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

Unless you have been on stage in front of an audience, you would know how much energy it takes to face the exposure and to perform under this pressure. Anyway 2 1 hr solo shows a night for 4 weeks is bad compared to what most of us have to do at our jobs.

Tell your nonsense to a bricklayer who works 8 hours a day!
Or anyone else who has an 8 hours a day-in-day-out manual labour job.

As a teenager I worked in construction, my grandfather was a bricklayer. Now I perform in opera productions, so I sort of know the difference(even as a nobody). Now tell me how laying bricks is hard work. You lay them one by one and build something nice, that must be a lot of fun. And when you go home you can forget about it. How about office jobs. You go to work, check the internet, drink coffee have fun with your collegues and you are getting paid. I think most 9 to 5 jobs are a breeze compared to what Elvis was doing. Especially for a superstar he was working very hard. Don't forget about all the people that wanted to meet him before, in between and after the shows, that he had to be nice to and be EP. I'd rather be mixing cement on my own than having to face stupid people all the time.

I think to compare EP's job to manual labor is unfair to both him and the "bricklayer." Does an athlete who plays 15 minutes in a game compare to somebody digging ditches 8 hours a day? Same thing. Point is, Elvis doing two a days was not easy in his field of work, especially given how physical his shows were during 69-71. We all can agree that he could have been managed better as far as his scheduling went when it came to Vegas.

Unless you have been on stage in front of an audience, you would know how much energy it takes to face the exposure and to perform under this pressure. Anyway 2 1 hr solo shows a night for 4 weeks is bad compared to what most of us have to do at our jobs.

Tell your nonsense to a bricklayer who works 8 hours a day!
Or anyone else who has an 8 hours a day-in-day-out manual labour job.

Now tell me how laying bricks is hard work. You lay them one by one and build something nice, that must be a lot of fun.

Now tell me how laying bricks is hard work. You lay them one by one and build something nice, that must be a lot of fun.

They're bricks... not Lego. You obviously have the two confused...

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.