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

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 3:09 am

Yes, I do realize we're talking about Elvis here, but you have to realize that the Elvis we're talking about here isn't the Rockin'
Rebel, but rather, the '60's movie idol. Obviously, when you record a whole album full of songs for a film, (many of them written to fit silly, situational scenes) they aren't all going to be materpieces. This goes not only for Elvis musicals, but also for some of the greatest musicals Hollywood ever produced. This however, does not mean enjoyment cannot be deived from said scene or song. The movies and songs are what they are. I accept them as such. So did Elvis (at least to a point). Let's not forget that he was very well paid. By '65 he was the highest paid actor in Hollywood (or so I've read). Even if he took the money and ran, he took the money.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 3:30 am

r&b wrote:
ekenee wrote:
Steve Morse wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Chris Roberts wrote:"Song of the Shrimp". With all the negative comments that are made regarding this atmospheric, very pleasant, story song, I think that I may have to start a "Song of the Shrimp" appreciation society. Am I going to be the only member? :lol:


Perhaps. Of the many less-heralded Presley songs, "Song of the Shrimp" fully deserves its title of "garbage." ;-)

'Garbage' . . . in your opinion. Others think differently, and I'm not the only one. Perhaps you missed my comments above :

"I am glad, too, that there are others who enjoy 'Song Of The Shrimp'. Its title is its downfall, and on that hangs its reputation; but it is a charmingly performed calypso with an exceedingly pretty tune and it is one of the most colourful and beautifully filmed of all of Elvis's songs."

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to why you belittle it ? Please review the performance and production in isolation. It's irrelevant what Elvis recorded in his career, before or after this. Tell me, too, if you will, where and why my brief 'review' of the song is wrong.

Thank you.





He just doesn't like sea food.

I like the song too.

It's not garbage at all.

It fits into the soundtrack and Elvis sings it wonderfully.

The melody is very catchy.

The lyrics are nonsensical but its calypso, its about fun.

Why someone would call this garbage when we know that the bar drop several more notches in the next few years.


You do realize we are talking about Elvis Presley here, the man who revolutionized a whole youth movement almost by himself in the 50's. To think 6 yrs later he would be recording crap like this is mind-boggling. I was 11 when this LP came out, and as kid , I thought it was lame and questioned why? I don't want to hear it fit the scene. Delete the damn scene and save us from having Elvis embarrass himself with this material. The same goes for many other songs. Movie EP soundtracks were always more logical and enjoyable. Even Elvis himself said, when you record 13 songs for a movie, they cant all be good!



It's about music. It's supposed to be entertainment.

Everything doesn't have to revolutionary and change the world.

Everything doesn't have to have a message.

He had already changed the youth in the 50's.

I like the song. I like music.

Elvis also liked what he himself called, "mediocre sh*t".

Like I said, you can call it what you want, but this song in no way reflects what was going on session wise with Elvis.

He wasn't in the ditch yet. the problem came later, when he did drive his career in the ditch.

It is a nice piece of calypso music. I wish we had outtakes for it.

The soundtracks for Frankie and johnny, Paradise haw. style, Double trouble, Harem scarem....those are the bottom of the barrel.

In Girls, girls, girls, he still had nicely produced soundtracks.

You say Elvis said, if there is 13 songs on it, they all can't be good. That is true....but that is true of any album made today soundtrack or not.

Most cd's today have 12 to 14 songs on them, and maybe you get 2 good songs, 2 mediorce songs, and 10 crap songs.

And that is studio releases not soundtracks by top 40 artists of today. It's all crap. Garbage as you put it.

Great song material has always been hard to find. It always will be. So you have to have a super talent, like Elvis, to rise above the material.

Don't believe me, turn on the radio, crap. Most artists are lucky to have a lasting career, because of the lack of good material out there.

They have one hit album then the label drops them. I am just saying, keep it all in perspective.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 5:23 am

The man is dead 35 years, and still some fans cannot stop making excuses for his artistic failures.

Crazy world. ;-)

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 6:15 am

Here's a lovely version with a sync to the stereo master.

Elvis' reaction at 1:43 says it all.

phpBB [video]

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 6:28 am

Steve Morse wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:I haven't seen the film in a while (but I love the sets and Elvis looks terrific in it), but the soundtrack is a delight. -- maybe my favourite, in fact. Some fans love to point fingers at this soundtrack and say that this is when the rot was setting in, but I think it offers a really classy song selection, has fantastic musicianship, solid engineering, and features an Elvis in top voice. From the explosive fun of the title track (a potent aphrodisiac), to the moving and absolutely gorgeous love ballads, the one-off creation of the surreal "Mama", the utterly charming "Earth Boy", the groovy rocker "Plantation Rock", the sweet calypso "Song Of The Shrimp", the amazing "Return To Sender", and strange musical ditties like "We're Coming In Loaded" and "Thanks To The Rolling Sea", this is Elvis flying high, putting his talent to a number of musical styles, and emerging a more rounded, mature artist for what he wrings out of them. He really asserted the magnetic appeal of his singing in these sessions, I think, and it's that, combined with the good range of songs, and the sound quality, that I've found make me return to these tracks willingly and often.

Extremely well expressed, Cryo, and I'm in total agreement.


Thank you, Steve. I wish I'd actually found a better way to say all that, but not too bad a hammering out of my basic position, I suppose.

drjohncarpenter wrote:The 1960s soundtracks are what they are: mostly sub-standard material delivered with as much skill as possible. But, to portray them as anything more is ludicrous from a historical standpoint.


Where was I doing that? Where was I even arguing from "a historical standpoint" to begin with?

The era was when Elvis basically threw away his art and his career. You can find ways to enjoy -- or simply excuse -- garbage like "Earth Boy" or "Song of the Shrimp," but in the real world they will always be just that: garbage.


Assuming I take your proposition -- assuming it's even *possible* to take your proposition -- half seriously, what KIND of garbage do you have in mind?

Image

Image

Image

"Boy, I wish he hadn't recorded this many takes of 'Adam & Evil'"...

OR this kind, perhaps?

Image

Image

Image

Sorry...

I take images of garbage quite seriously. :)

Whether it's music bands or colourful heaps of rubbish strewn across a street (or floating in a pond, river, etc,), I'm all for some garbage.

So, in other contexts, are others. For example:

http://www.noupe.com/inspiration/40-terrific-works-of-art-made-from-common-trash.html

And as that article writer says . . . "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

I don't think you even understand what art *is*, dear ol' Doc.

How great your misunderstanding, how fervent your disdain.

phpBB [video]




As a bit of a sidebar:

I don't think any of us would be here if we didn't have a secret hankering for -- an active fascination toward -- "trash" / "trinkets" / "curios" and general esoterica of one form or another.

We are invested, not so much in pyramids and cathedrals, but rather, cigarette butts and ring-marked table tops. We prefer comic books to Rembrandt; the stroll to ballet. Think about it.

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Steve Morse wrote:Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to why you belittle it ? Please review the performance and production in isolation. It's irrelevant what Elvis recorded in his career, before or after this.


There is no need to mischaracterize a person's words because the opinion is too difficult to digest.


I agree -- when are you going to stop doing this?

It's not belittling, it's stating a fact. The Sid Tepper and Roy C. Bennett song is insipid, insignificant soundtrack fodder, and someone as massively talented as Elvis Presley should never have been wasting his 27 year-old skills and artistry on such garbage. In fact, very few of the dozens of songs they managed to see Presley record were worth a damn.

And it is entirely relevant to consider Elvis' career up to this point. We aren't speaking of Fabian Forte or Tommy Sands. When a musician has proven, again and again, they are capable of making landmark, vibrant, revolutionary and relevant recordings, this means the bar has been set to a certain standard. And it is to this standard that the failures of Presley's 1960s Hollywood recordings must be measured.

Only on a Elvis Presley forum must it be explained in detail why material like "Song of the Shrimp" was inappropriate. ;-)


There are no "standards" in art (just patterns/precedents).

And you realize, don't you, that avant-garde artists like John Cage and Andy Warhol -- to say nothing of one of Elvis Presley's later "impersonators", Andy Kaufman -- frequently experimented with the low-brow, with the mundane, with tedium, banality, and trash?

Please also consider art branches like conceptualism and dadaism (in other words, consider Duchamp):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

Whether Elvis considered it or not, he was partially Dadaist in the 1960s (and throughout his life)...

(from the last wikipedia link):

Dada was born out of negative reaction to the horrors of World War I. This international movement was begun by a group of artist and poets associated with the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich. Dada rejected reason and logic, prizing nonsense, irrationality and intuition. The origin of the name Dada is unclear; some believe that it is a nonsensical word. Others maintain that it originates from the Romanian artists Tristan Tzara's and Marcel Janco's frequent use of the words da, da, meaning yes, yes in the Romanian language. Another theory says that the name "Dada" came during a meeting of the group when a paper knife stuck into a French-German dictionary happened to point to 'dada', a French word for 'hobbyhorse'.


This Emerson essay is also a good read:

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/rwemerson/bl-rwemer-essays-20.htm

From that:

I find the most pleasure in reading a book in a manner least flattering to the author. I read Proclus, and sometimes Plato, as I might read a dictionary, for a mechanical help to the fancy and the imagination. I read for the lustres, as if one should use a fine picture in a chromatic experiment, for its rich colors. ‘Tis not Proclus, but a piece of nature and fate that I explore. It is a greater joy to see the author’s author, than himself.


Flipping Emerson around somewhat, I can find depth, beauty, and genius in "Song Of The Shrimp" -- again, the subjective "Elvis" factor -- just as I can find whatever I want to find in Plato or Proclus. Art, whether it comes into existence for its own sake or not, can more or less be enjoyed on that level, says Emerson. In fact, the analogy he makes -- "as if one should use a fine picture in a chromatic experiment" -- makes it clear he's aware of absurd juxtapositions and delights in that absurdity; for fear of that absurdity, we would do and experience nothing (or our capacity to do and experience would be severely restricted; we would live a self-imposed Procrustean existence).

drjohncarpenter wrote:More enlightenment! Here's a relevant excerpt from an insightful Roy C. Bennett interview:


Many fans consider Elvis' movie songs to be among his worst.

It has always been a disappointment to me as a songwriter that some fans regarded his movie songs as mediocre or just plain bad. Of course there were songs of varying quality, no more nor less than songs that were written for artists other than Elvis. It should be recognized that these songs were written for specific spots in the movies and the topics were therefore limited to particular situations and locales.

For example, for "Fun in Acapulco," where one of the characters is a female bullfighter, we wrote "The Bullfighter Was a Lady;" for "Girls! Girls! Girls!" where Elvis is working on a shrimp boat, "Song of the Shrimp" fit the scene; in the movies "Blue Hawaii" and "Paradise, Hawaiian Style" our songs had a Hawaiian flavor: "Drums of the Islands," "Hawaiian Sunset," "Island of Love," "Ito Eats" and "Beach Boy Blues." And, of course, the song "G.I. Blues" dealt with American occupation forces in Germany. We believed that the scenes were fun and it was a challenge to write for them.

Incidentally, If you analyze our songs, you'll find that most of them are ballads or novelties ... Also, we were two of the few (maybe the only?) songwriters who consciously tried to inject humor into Elvis's songs, for example: "The Bullfighter Was a Lady," "Song of the Shrimp," "Petunia," "The Lady Loves Me," "The Walls Have Ears," "Beach Boy Blues," "Ito Eats" and "Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce."

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/interview_bennett.html



Should Elvis Presley have been singing novelty songs at the peak of his career? No.


That, again, is purely your opinion.

I can also go over the same extract and highlight different aspects:

It has always been a disappointment to me as a songwriter that some fans regarded his movie songs as mediocre or just plain bad. Of course there were songs of varying quality, no more nor less than songs that were written for artists other than Elvis. It should be recognized that these songs were written for specific spots in the movies and the topics were therefore limited to particular situations and locales.

For example, for "Fun in Acapulco," where one of the characters is a female bullfighter, we wrote "The Bullfighter Was a Lady;" for "Girls! Girls! Girls!" where Elvis is working on a shrimp boat, "Song of the Shrimp" fit the scene; in the movies "Blue Hawaii" and "Paradise, Hawaiian Style" our songs had a Hawaiian flavor: "Drums of the Islands," "Hawaiian Sunset," "Island of Love," "Ito Eats" and "Beach Boy Blues." And, of course, the song "G.I. Blues" dealt with American occupation forces in Germany. We believed that the scenes were fun and it was a challenge to write for them.

Incidentally, If you analyze our songs, you'll find that most of them are ballads or novelties ... Also, we were two of the few (maybe the only?) songwriters who consciously tried to inject humor into Elvis's songs, for example: "The Bullfighter Was a Lady," "Song of the Shrimp," "Petunia," "The Lady Loves Me," "The Walls Have Ears," "Beach Boy Blues," "Ito Eats" and "Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce."


Look at that: I even highlighted one of the same remarks that you did. To you, that remark is damning; to me, it is edifying.

Chris Roberts wrote:
Mike Windgren wrote:Hi there!! :D :D :D.

Chris Roberts wrote:"Song of the Shrimp". With all the negative comments that are made regarding this atmospheric, very pleasant, story song, I think that I may have to start a "Song of the Shrimp" appreciation society. Am I going to be the only member? :lol:


Count on me! 8). Bye for now :smt006.


Thanks Mike and Steve, looks like there are 3 of us at least. :wink: John, if you change your mind you are welcome to join us. :)


Hey, I wanna join, too!!! 8)

JerryNodak wrote:Yes, I do realize we're talking about Elvis here, but you have to realize that the Elvis we're talking about here isn't the Rockin'
Rebel, but rather, the '60's movie idol.
Obviously, when you record a whole album full of songs for a film, (many of them written to fit silly, situational scenes) they aren't all going to be materpieces. This goes not only for Elvis musicals, but also for some of the greatest musicals Hollywood ever produced. This however, does not mean enjoyment cannot be deived from said scene or song. The movies and songs are what they are. I accept them as such. So did Elvis (at least to a point). Let's not forget that he was very well paid. By '65 he was the highest paid actor in Hollywood (or so I've read). Even if he took the money and ran, he took the money.


Nicely said, Jerry.

Elvis went through a number of stages in his journey through music (and life).

I try to see validity and worth in each one.

And to look at this another way . . . without all that 1960s ephemera (good/bad) . . . arguably, no "Comeback Special".

And the bottom line in ALL of this is:

ART IS SUBJECTIVE.
Last edited by Cryogenic on Tue May 14, 2013 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 6:29 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:The man is dead 35 years, and still some fans cannot stop making excuses for his artistic failures.

Crazy world. ;-)


And some fans support thier artist thru the lean years, while others are just "fair weather" fans.

It's easy to only like the greatest hits isn't it.

And it's easy to only like what the music critics like so you have that back up.....isn't it.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 12:15 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Steve Morse wrote:Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to why you belittle it ? Please review the performance and production in isolation. It's irrelevant what Elvis recorded in his career, before or after this.


There is no need to mischaracterize a person's words because the opinion is too difficult to digest.

It's not belittling, it's stating a fact. The Sid Tepper and Roy C. Bennett song is insipid, insignificant soundtrack fodder, and someone as massively talented as Elvis Presley should never have been wasting his 27 year-old skills and artistry on such garbage. In fact, very few of the dozens of songs they managed to see Presley record were worth a damn.

And it is entirely relevant to consider Elvis' career up to this point. We aren't speaking of Fabian Forte or Tommy Sands. When a musician has proven, again and again, they are capable of making landmark, vibrant, revolutionary and relevant recordings, this means the bar has been set to a certain standard. And it is to this standard that the failures of Presley's 1960s Hollywood recordings must be measured.

Only on a Elvis Presley forum must it be explained in detail why material like "Song of the Shrimp" was inappropriate. ;-)

Seriously, John, how can an individual's enjoyment of music be classified as 'fact' ? And this business of, "no need to mischaracterize a person's words" - now that is garbage.

It seems I have a lot of people on my side here, as witnesses for the defence - Cryogenic's recent reply is superb and has obviously taken a lot of effort. He makes a great number of pertinent points, not the least of which is, "without the movie period, arguably, there would have been no '68 Comeback" (my paraphrasing). And is the latter not your own favourite Elvis 'thing' ?

You have described Song Of The Shrimp as, 'insipid, insignificant'. That's hardly a critique and addresses nothing about the song/performance itself. I hate to quote myself again and others have used similar words but, I said, "it is a charmingly performed calypso with an exceedingly pretty tune and it is one of the most colourful and beautifully filmed of all of Elvis's songs." Can you tell me which parts of that are wrong ? It is a fun song, a nice little piece of escapism. Great care was taken in the musical arrangement, giving it an authentic feel ; and to be honest, I find that listening to it, or watching it, is nothing less than heartwarming. There is superb variety in the music Elvis laid down during his career and that is what keeps many/most of us interested in the guy.

We shall continue to 'agree to differ', John, but - for heaven's sake - lighten up !!

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 12:53 pm

Wow! the appreciation society is growing. Welcome aboard Honey Talk Nelson, Ekenee, Cryognic and Jerry Nodak (I think). John, Your being left out of the society together with R@B, both of you come and join, you'll be most welcome. :wink:

Out of interest if you think Song of the Shrimp is garbage, what would you call Yoga is as Yoga Does, Come Along, Queenie Wahine's Papaya plus several others, I should imagine that it is unprintable. :)

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 1:09 pm

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:Here's a lovely version with a sync to the stereo master.

Elvis' reaction at 1:43 says it all.

phpBB [video]



Thanks HoneyTalkNelson Elvis Presley as an entertainer can be reproached by anyone at anytime but there is no question that he does not only look great here but he also sings the song beautifully.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 1:25 pm

Hi there!! :D :D :D.

I don´t care if some consider Song Of The Shrimp as garbage :roll: . For me what it counts is that he sang it beautifully :smt007 I don´t even care for the lyrics. Never ever would Elvis match that range of voice during those 1960-1964 years. Bye for now :smt006.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 1:49 pm

Chris Roberts wrote:Out of interest if you think Song of the Shrimp is garbage, what would you call Yoga is as Yoga Does, Come Along, Queenie Wahine's Papaya plus several others, I should imagine that it is unprintable. :)


That is 100% correct.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 1:51 pm

Mike Windgren wrote:I don´t care if some consider Song Of The Shrimp as garbage :roll: . For me what it counts is that he sang it beautifully :smt007 I don´t even care for the lyrics. Never ever would Elvis match that range of voice during those 1960-1964 years.


It is a shame Elvis Presley never took the time to beautifully sing the phone book during those 1960-1964 years. Imagine how different his legacy would be today.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 1:54 pm

Steve Morse wrote:Seriously, John, how can an individual's enjoyment of music be classified as 'fact' ?


My reply, solicited by you, has nothing to do with that. Please don't tell me I wasted my time yet again.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 1:56 pm

Cryogenic wrote:And the bottom line in ALL of this is:

ART IS SUBJECTIVE.


YES!

"Mystery Train" = "Yoga Is As Yoga Does"

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 2:10 pm

Hi there!! :D :D :D.

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Mike Windgren wrote:I don´t care if some consider Song Of The Shrimp as garbage :roll: . For me what it counts is that he sang it beautifully :smt007 I don´t even care for the lyrics. Never ever would Elvis match that range of voice during those 1960-1964 years.


It is a shame Elvis Presley never took the time to beautifully sing the phone book during those 1960-1964 years. Imagine how different his legacy would be today.


C'mon Doc, it's 02.00 AM Pacífic Time for you!. Time to go to bed :wink:. Bye for now :smt006.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 2:37 pm

Chris Roberts wrote:Wow! the appreciation society is growing. Welcome aboard Honey Talk Nelson, Ekenee, Cryognic and Jerry Nodak (I think). John, Your being left out of the society together with R@B, both of you come and join, you'll be most welcome. :wink:

Out of interest if you think Song of the Shrimp is garbage, what would you call Yoga is as Yoga Does, Come Along, Queenie Wahine's Papaya plus several others, I should imagine that it is unprintable. :)


Do we also get free shrimp that swam into dee net? :D

Julian Grant wrote:
HoneyTalkNelson wrote:Here's a lovely version with a sync to the stereo master.

Elvis' reaction at 1:43 says it all.

phpBB [video]



Thanks HoneyTalkNelson Elvis Presley as an entertainer can be reproached by anyone at anytime but there is no question that he does not only look great here but he also sings the song beautifully.


Personally...

I think Elvis not only sounded his best in 1962, but looked his best, too.

In "Girls! Girls! Girls!", I consider him to be at the peak of his physical beauty: the perfect epicene youth, exquisitely balanced between innocence and experience.

The "shrimp boat" scene is also the peak of his looks within the peak, IMO: the absolute pinnacle. Look at his skin tone. Look at his arms. Look at his neck, shoulders, waist, etc.

If this homophilic attraction clouds my judgement, so be it.

Mike Windgren wrote:Hi there!! :D :D :D.

I don´t care if some consider Song Of The Shrimp as garbage :roll: . For me what it counts is that he sang it beautifully :smt007 I don´t even care for the lyrics. Never ever would Elvis match that range of voice during those 1960-1964 years. Bye for now :smt006.


Totally.

This, in my mind, is his best period -- for overall looks (even if he adopted some killer styles later on), vocal excellence, the production and engineering of his albums, the big range of songs he tackled and the beauty of his ballads, Hawaii 1961, and even the film projects he took on ("Flaming Star", "Wild In The Country", "Follow That Dream", "Viva Las Vegas").

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:And the bottom line in ALL of this is:

ART IS SUBJECTIVE.


YES!

"Mystery Train" = "Yoga Is As Yoga Does"


That statement makes no sense (non-sequitur).

It makes exactly the same sense (again, no sense) as saying, "Mystery Train" = "Hound Dog", or "Reconsider Baby" = "Suspicious Minds".

You can't truly compare "like" with "like" -- because, ultimately, there is no "like" that goes with "like".

BTW, I enjoy both "Mystery Train" and "Yoga Is As Yoga Does" a great deal. As satire of his movie career -- "how can I even move twisted like a pretzel?"; "how did I get so tied up in this yoga knot?" -- the latter actually works astonishingly well. You can hear a peculiar torsion in his voice on this one; Elvis knows what he's singing of. And as the beginning of his career, as the seedbed of a new paradigm in recorded music, "Mystery Train", of course, hits every mark. That's what it's best to keep in mind: the songs were written and performed differently and are about different things.

We're talking about a very big legacy here. Not all the music was necessarily of an equal quality from our guy in the 1960s, sure (again, it's subjective), but even when he was being jangled like a puppet by his manager, he found ways of extracting a measure of truth and beauty, IMO, through the medium of communication he felt most confident expressing himself (i.e., his voice). It's actually quite interesting and empowering, in my view, to listen to Elvis working his way through a scrapheap of tunes, testing his voice out on each, and seeing what spin he can put on the songs, and what he can find out about himself -- and give back to his fans -- along the way.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 3:48 pm

I have said many times in the past that Elvis was the master of making garbage sound good.No matter how crappy the material was he elevated it just by the fact his voice was so good.His voice was incredible during the early 60's.Just imagine what he could have done without all those lousy soundtracks.Elvis was forced to sings songs that were sraped from the bottom of the barrel.Im not saying they were all bad.His film soundtracks produced more than a few classics.It's just that for every good track you have another 10 lousy ones.I know many people who really enjoy the soundtracks though.Even the ones that are considered subpar.Elvis just had a way of getting through to people.Even with substandard material.His 70's output is another example of this.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 4:26 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Steve Morse wrote:Seriously, John, how can an individual's enjoyment of music be classified as 'fact' ?


My reply, solicited by you, has nothing to do with that. Please don't tell me I wasted my time yet again.

Yet again, you are avoiding the issue, even when I am trying to be friendly.

I have told you some of the reasons why I like the song and performance, as have many other posters. You have not countered with any sort of objective (or even subjective) analysis of same.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 4:37 pm

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:Here's a lovely version with a sync to the stereo master.

Elvis' reaction at 1:43 says it all.

phpBB [video]


That's priceless. great reaction from Elvis. He knew.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 4:52 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:YES!

"Mystery Train" = "Yoga Is As Yoga Does"

You've blown the scene.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 5:14 pm

ekenee wrote:
The soundtracks for Frankie and johnny, Paradise haw. style, Double trouble, Harem scarem....those are the bottom of the barrel.


Paradise Haw Style? I didn't know the cast of Hee Haw made a film. I gotta seek that film out. I'm dyin' to see Junior Samples surfin'!

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 5:49 pm

jurasic1968 wrote:I think that Girls is better than World's Fair movie but better than both is Fun in Acapulco (in soundtrack and actors like Ursula Andress)

Yep, I was going to say Fun In Acapulco is a pretty fun movie and the songs are generally good and the SOUND of the recording is fantastic.

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 5:57 pm

I think Elvis's best acting performance (not nearly as "self-conscious" or inconsistant scene to scene as usual) was Follow That Dream. Follow That Dream and Kid Galahad were both superior Elvis movies, production values be damned. He seemed more relaxed and comfortable in those two movies. King Creole was probably the best script he ever got, but his acting is all over the place scene to scene.

Paramount tended to be a bit more risque' than MGM. MGM went for a bit more conservative tact (in the early-mid 60s)

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 6:00 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Mike Windgren wrote:I don´t care if some consider Song Of The Shrimp as garbage :roll: . For me what it counts is that he sang it beautifully :smt007 I don´t even care for the lyrics. Never ever would Elvis match that range of voice during those 1960-1964 years.


It is a shame Elvis Presley never took the time to beautifully sing the phone book during those 1960-1964 years. Imagine how different his legacy would be today.

a lot of people would have love to hear sing their name, adress and telefonnumber by elvis for sure.
and i think the colonel might have thought about it already.
but the legal department might also have warned him about to many lawsuits by people who did not like their name sung by elvis presley.
plus.....elvis always had problems with the "P" in producing mic pops while singin words with that letter.
so therefore elvis surely had to do alot of overdubbing with the names in the "p" departments.
and we all know how elvis hated overdubbing.....

so the project fell flat....

Re: Girls! Girls! Girls! is Great! Great! Great!

Tue May 14, 2013 6:08 pm

Cryogenic wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
jurasic1968 wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:From the explosive fun of the title track (a potent aphrodisiac), to the moving and absolutely gorgeous love ballads, the one-off creation of the surreal "Mama", the utterly charming "Earth Boy", the groovy rocker "Plantation Rock", the sweet calypso "Song Of The Shrimp", the amazing "Return To Sender", and strange musical ditties like "We're Coming In Loaded" and "Thanks To The Rolling Sea", this is Elvis flying high, putting his talent to a number of musical styles, and emerging a more rounded, mature artist for what he wrings out of them. He really asserted the magnetic appeal of his singing in these sessions, I think, and it's that, combined with the good range of songs, and the sound quality, that I've found make me return to these tracks willingly and often.



"Earth Boy"? "Song of the Shrimp"? "Mama"? Elvis was a mature artist singing crap like this? Putting "Return to Sender" in the same league with these clunkers is an insult to Elvis Presley's true talent.


I totally agree -- your comments are spot-on.

But I am sure Cryogenic was being ironic. There can be no other logical explanation. ;-)


I wasn't being ironic, ironically. :wink:

Ironically, I think you are -- hmm? :twisted:

You sort of have to take the movie soundtracks for what they are: good, clean fun, where Elvis gets to try out different styles, adopt a kind of Dean Martin-esque swagger, and craft a series of curios that are an apt expression of his upside-down, epicurean lifestyle.

While one can, of course, cherry pick, for either positive or negative ends, his movie song pantheon is, IMO, a highly appealing one, and only really comes in for a drubbing for what Elvis DIDN'T do rather than what he did -- namely, keep the lighter side of his persona/career in check by continuing to record innovative, impassioned pop music (non-movie material) in Studio B or wherever. The movie material should have remained an entertaining sidebar, not become the main focus of his output in a recording studio. But hindsight is always 50-50.


hindsight is always 50-50 :smt003 I will have to remember that one. Sounds like a Yogi Berra quote!