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

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:14 am

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
WildStyle wrote:I think some may need to research the life of Elvis Presley a little closer. There are reasons why not only Elvis' career, but also his life took a downward spiral in the 70's, which ultimately lead to his death at 42 fricking years old! It's all well and good to be a critic, no issues with that, but it's also nice to have an understanding of why things were the way they were and to show a bit of human compassion. To say that Elvis was simply lazy in the 70's shows a complete lack of knowledge on the life of Elvis Presley. I recommend at least the following books.

Image
Image
Image

If after that you still have no understanding of the man, I'm afraid there is no hope for you.

I have read and got these three books, excellent reads! But he was still a lazy performer and if you don't think so then there's no hope in explaining it to you.


They are actually my 3 favorite books on Elvis and have read them several times. I don't see how these books can explain any sort of laziness on Elvis' part in regards to his performances after Aloha. He certainly was fine in 1968/69/70. He should have upheld the high standard of those performance throughout the years. If he couldn't or wouldn't for whatever reason(s) maybe it was time to change his life in several ways. He was Elvis and had the means to do anything he wanted. He certainly could sway people to get whatever he wanted!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:59 am

There is a huge difference between laziness and illness. There was never a question of Elvis' stage performances before 1970 and his work ethic in the studio was legendary. He busted his ass, each and ever show, since 1954, plus his performances were untouchable. When his dependency on drugs grew, (along with the failure of his marriage), if effected his work. Not all the time, but quite often. That being said, Elvis at his best, was the best and that's good enough for me!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:48 am

Joe Car wrote:There is a huge difference between laziness and illness. There was never a question of Elvis' stage performances before 1970 and his work ethic in the studio was legendary. He busted his ass, each and ever show, since 1954, plus his performances were untouchable. When his dependency on drugs grew, (along with the failure of his marriage), if effected his work. Not all the time, but quite often. That being said, Elvis at his best, was the best and that's good enough for me!


Agree with this. But your reply is again filled with excuse-making. No need for that.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:53 am

Pink&Black wrote:You know, I really liked the idea of the guitar pick and all, I said so earlier in this thread, it was a sweet gesture. What does annoy me though is that on an Elvis forum you can say what you want about Elvis; he was loser, a wanker, a lazy bum, couldn't act, wasn't interested in music, he betrayed his fans by getting fat, in fact it is a shame he didn't die in 1971.( these are all things I actually read on this board over the last couple of weeks) But don't you touch Paul Mc Cartney?! :wtf: And please don't start the rose colored glasses, apologist rant. I am very much aware of Elvis' weaknesses, but I don't focus on them, I'd rather enjoy the great legacy he left.


I think that may be a wee bit exaggerated (a wanker? lazy bum?), but it IS an Elvis forum. It's like people say things, in private (or as private as things get on the Internet), about family, that they would never say in front of outsiders. It's really that simple. It's like: we can say say this or that -- to a point, but if an outsider did it, well, those would be fightin' words!

I believe that's what you're seeing. Sometimes I think people - fans -wish they could go back in time and face him down, and . . . make things go another way. It's only natural to feel that way. I've read some famous musician fans who seem to feel that way. Especially those in the "original fans" age-cohort. There's a sense of bitterness and betrayal, and a hurt that never goes away.

In any event, the guitar pick was a very sweet gesture, and I don't see how it kicked up such a fuss. One of the kindest things I've ever seen in relation to another musician paying tribute to Elvis. A silent tribute. And it wasn't like he brought a fleet of professional cameras, that's for sure!

Maybe that guitar pick helped Paul make his peace with something hard to understand. So, let him have the last words. They are good words:

phpBB [video]



rjm

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:04 am

r&b wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
WildStyle wrote:I think some may need to research the life of Elvis Presley a little closer. There are reasons why not only Elvis' career, but also his life took a downward spiral in the 70's, which ultimately lead to his death at 42 fricking years old! It's all well and good to be a critic, no issues with that, but it's also nice to have an understanding of why things were the way they were and to show a bit of human compassion. To say that Elvis was simply lazy in the 70's shows a complete lack of knowledge on the life of Elvis Presley. I recommend at least the following books.

Image
Image
Image

If after that you still have no understanding of the man, I'm afraid there is no hope for you.

I have read and got these three books, excellent reads! But he was still a lazy performer and if you don't think so then there's no hope in explaining it to you.


They are actually my 3 favorite books on Elvis and have read them several times. I don't see how these books can explain any sort of laziness on Elvis' part in regards to his performances after Aloha. He certainly was fine in 1968/69/70. He should have upheld the high standard of those performance throughout the years. If he couldn't or wouldn't for whatever reason(s) maybe it was time to change his life in several ways. He was Elvis and had the means to do anything he wanted. He certainly could sway people to get whatever he wanted!

No, the books don't explain Elvis' laziness, that's just the conclusion i've come to. To me, he took the easy route by just sticking to the same routine, singing the same songs over and over etc. He did try to change his show once, sometime in '74, when he started with "Big Boss Man" and did some other different tunes. Apparently, this change didn't go down too well with the Vegas crowd (though there's no proof of this) but the very next night he goes back to his regular routine...There was no one around to push him in the right direction and give him some creative imput.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:22 pm

You guys still don't get it. You don't realise how sick, depressed and far gone this man was. He died at 42, and could have went a number of times even earlier and all we can talk about is that he was "lazy". He was human, he had his own personal problems. He was not a trained monkey simply to be trotted out on stage for our enjoyment. He was flesh and blood, like you and I. Empathy. Learn about it.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:51 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
r&b wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
WildStyle wrote:I think some may need to research the life of Elvis Presley a little closer. There are reasons why not only Elvis' career, but also his life took a downward spiral in the 70's, which ultimately lead to his death at 42 fricking years old! It's all well and good to be a critic, no issues with that, but it's also nice to have an understanding of why things were the way they were and to show a bit of human compassion. To say that Elvis was simply lazy in the 70's shows a complete lack of knowledge on the life of Elvis Presley. I recommend at least the following books.

Image
Image
Image

If after that you still have no understanding of the man, I'm afraid there is no hope for you.

I have read and got these three books, excellent reads! But he was still a lazy performer and if you don't think so then there's no hope in explaining it to you.


They are actually my 3 favorite books on Elvis and have read them several times. I don't see how these books can explain any sort of laziness on Elvis' part in regards to his performances after Aloha. He certainly was fine in 1968/69/70. He should have upheld the high standard of those performance throughout the years. If he couldn't or wouldn't for whatever reason(s) maybe it was time to change his life in several ways. He was Elvis and had the means to do anything he wanted. He certainly could sway people to get whatever he wanted!

No, the books don't explain Elvis' laziness, that's just the conclusion i've come to. To me, he took the easy route by just sticking to the same routine, singing the same songs over and over etc. He did try to change his show once, sometime in '74, when he started with "Big Boss Man" and did some other different tunes. Apparently, this change didn't go down too well with the Vegas crowd (though there's no proof of this) but the very next night he goes back to his regular routine...There was no one around to push him in the right direction and give him some creative imput.




That last sentence is exactly right, he had no one to guide him, musically, or otherwise. That's what I felt after reading Elvis and the Memphis Maffia: he really must have felt uttterly alone. I remember reading about Elvis' wish to educate himself and the guys so he bought everyone dictionairies so they could learn. This was sabotaged quickly by the boys who apparently thought they were smart enough.... Another telling example is when Elvis goes on his spiritual quest in the sixties and gets ridiculed for it. His lovely young wife even makes him burn his books. How would you feel if your friends treated you like that? If I had a friend who was on a spritual search, even if I didn't understand it myself, I would never let him down, and make him go it alone the way Elvis 'friends' did.
It's all too easy to criticise Elvis for the things he did, or didn't do. I guess everyone here lives a perfect life, never made any mistakes, or doesn't have any regrets. Like WildStyle says in his post: you could show a little empathy for this man who was only human.
When I read how much manager Jon Landau is involved in every aspect of Bruce Springsteen' career, it makes me want to scream! If only Elvis had surrounded himself with capable, caring, visionary people.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:14 pm

It was all Elvis' fault for allowing this sh*t to happen...nobody told him to make crap movies, nobody told him to sing crap songs, nobody told him to sing the same songs day after day, year after year, nobody told him to take drugs and so on. He was the only one who could've changed all this, but he didn't and thats sad. And he deserves to be criticized. Criticism, is something he himself didn't like and he turned away from it and made excuses. If only people had confronted him more rather then catering to him, maybe things might have been different.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:51 pm

I think that was a sweet gesture of Paul.

With regards to Elvis and his attitude... something was obviously wrong but i don't necessarily think that Elvis realized his own strength. Listening to the new FTD Stay Away, Joe you can hear the frustration in his attitude but he sings stuff like Dominic anyway. If there ever was a song to throw in the ditch it was this one, mooh mooh...

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:08 pm

Unfortunately, the "Spiritual Awakenings" (like Peter Guralnick described it in Careless Love) period (1964-1967) due to Larry Geller made Elvis more and more isolated from the music of these years. Musically, Elvis recorded the great "How Great Thou Art" LP but nothing to compete with Beatles, Stones, The Who, The Beach Boys, Dylan and so many others

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:15 pm

Pink&Black wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
r&b wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
WildStyle wrote:I think some may need to research the life of Elvis Presley a little closer. There are reasons why not only Elvis' career, but also his life took a downward spiral in the 70's, which ultimately lead to his death at 42 fricking years old! It's all well and good to be a critic, no issues with that, but it's also nice to have an understanding of why things were the way they were and to show a bit of human compassion. To say that Elvis was simply lazy in the 70's shows a complete lack of knowledge on the life of Elvis Presley. I recommend at least the following books.

Image
Image
Image

If after that you still have no understanding of the man, I'm afraid there is no hope for you.

I have read and got these three books, excellent reads! But he was still a lazy performer and if you don't think so then there's no hope in explaining it to you.


They are actually my 3 favorite books on Elvis and have read them several times. I don't see how these books can explain any sort of laziness on Elvis' part in regards to his performances after Aloha. He certainly was fine in 1968/69/70. He should have upheld the high standard of those performance throughout the years. If he couldn't or wouldn't for whatever reason(s) maybe it was time to change his life in several ways. He was Elvis and had the means to do anything he wanted. He certainly could sway people to get whatever he wanted!

No, the books don't explain Elvis' laziness, that's just the conclusion i've come to. To me, he took the easy route by just sticking to the same routine, singing the same songs over and over etc. He did try to change his show once, sometime in '74, when he started with "Big Boss Man" and did some other different tunes. Apparently, this change didn't go down too well with the Vegas crowd (though there's no proof of this) but the very next night he goes back to his regular routine...There was no one around to push him in the right direction and give him some creative imput.




That last sentence is exactly right, he had no one to guide him, musically, or otherwise. That's what I felt after reading Elvis and the Memphis Maffia: he really must have felt uttterly alone. I remember reading about Elvis' wish to educate himself and the guys so he bought everyone dictionairies so they could learn. This was sabotaged quickly by the boys who apparently thought they were smart enough.... Another telling example is when Elvis goes on his spiritual quest in the sixties and gets ridiculed for it. His lovely young wife even makes him burn his books. How would you feel if your friends treated you like that? If I had a friend who was on a spritual search, even if I didn't understand it myself, I would never let him down, and make him go it alone the way Elvis 'friends' did.
It's all too easy to criticise Elvis for the things he did, or didn't do. I guess everyone here lives a perfect life, never made any mistakes, or doesn't have any regrets. Like WildStyle says in his post: you could show a little empathy for this man who was only human.
When I read how much manager Jon Landau is involved in every aspect of Bruce Springsteen' career, it makes me want to scream! If only Elvis had surrounded himself with capable, caring, visionary people.


Apparently that is the case :lol:

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:41 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:It was all Elvis' fault for allowing this sh*t to happen...nobody told him to make crap movies, nobody told him to sing crap songs, nobody told him to sing the same songs day after day, year after year, nobody told him to take drugs and so on. He was the only one who could've changed all this, but he didn't and thats sad. And he deserves to be criticized. Criticism, is something he himself didn't like and he turned away from it and made excuses. If only people had confronted him more rather then catering to him, maybe things might have been different.


When will you feel he has been critisised enough, oh wise one?

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:59 pm

Pink&Black wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
r&b wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
WildStyle wrote:I think some may need to research the life of Elvis Presley a little closer. There are reasons why not only Elvis' career, but also his life took a downward spiral in the 70's, which ultimately lead to his death at 42 fricking years old! It's all well and good to be a critic, no issues with that, but it's also nice to have an understanding of why things were the way they were and to show a bit of human compassion. To say that Elvis was simply lazy in the 70's shows a complete lack of knowledge on the life of Elvis Presley. I recommend at least the following books.

Image
Image
Image

If after that you still have no understanding of the man, I'm afraid there is no hope for you.

I have read and got these three books, excellent reads! But he was still a lazy performer and if you don't think so then there's no hope in explaining it to you.


They are actually my 3 favorite books on Elvis and have read them several times. I don't see how these books can explain any sort of laziness on Elvis' part in regards to his performances after Aloha. He certainly was fine in 1968/69/70. He should have upheld the high standard of those performance throughout the years. If he couldn't or wouldn't for whatever reason(s) maybe it was time to change his life in several ways. He was Elvis and had the means to do anything he wanted. He certainly could sway people to get whatever he wanted!

No, the books don't explain Elvis' laziness, that's just the conclusion i've come to. To me, he took the easy route by just sticking to the same routine, singing the same songs over and over etc. He did try to change his show once, sometime in '74, when he started with "Big Boss Man" and did some other different tunes. Apparently, this change didn't go down too well with the Vegas crowd (though there's no proof of this) but the very next night he goes back to his regular routine...There was no one around to push him in the right direction and give him some creative imput.




That last sentence is exactly right, he had no one to guide him, musically, or otherwise. That's what I felt after reading Elvis and the Memphis Maffia: he really must have felt uttterly alone. I remember reading about Elvis' wish to educate himself and the guys so he bought everyone dictionairies so they could learn. This was sabotaged quickly by the boys who apparently thought they were smart enough.... Another telling example is when Elvis goes on his spiritual quest in the sixties and gets ridiculed for it. His lovely young wife even makes him burn his books. How would you feel if your friends treated you like that? If I had a friend who was on a spritual search, even if I didn't understand it myself, I would never let him down, and make him go it alone the way Elvis 'friends' did.
It's all too easy to criticise Elvis for the things he did, or didn't do. I guess everyone here lives a perfect life, never made any mistakes, or doesn't have any regrets. Like WildStyle says in his post: you could show a little empathy for this man who was only human.
When I read how much manager Jon Landau is involved in every aspect of Bruce Springsteen' career, it makes me want to scream! If only Elvis had surrounded himself with capable, caring, visionary people.


Great post!
IMO Parker ended up a poor manager on every level... a poor business manager and a poor personal manager. By 1973, rather than being holed up in Graceland Elvis should have been touring the world, he should have starred in A Star Is Born and he should have been encouraged to reach his potential musically. All those were management failings. Do you blame the workman for digging the wrong depth hole in the wrong place with a broken spade? No, you blame the foreman for not showing him the plans and for not making sure the tools are in optimum condition. It was all too easy for everyone.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:07 pm

jungleroombear wrote:
Pink&Black wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
r&b wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
WildStyle wrote:I think some may need to research the life of Elvis Presley a little closer. There are reasons why not only Elvis' career, but also his life took a downward spiral in the 70's, which ultimately lead to his death at 42 fricking years old! It's all well and good to be a critic, no issues with that, but it's also nice to have an understanding of why things were the way they were and to show a bit of human compassion. To say that Elvis was simply lazy in the 70's shows a complete lack of knowledge on the life of Elvis Presley. I recommend at least the following books.

Image
Image
Image

If after that you still have no understanding of the man, I'm afraid there is no hope for you.

I have read and got these three books, excellent reads! But he was still a lazy performer and if you don't think so then there's no hope in explaining it to you.


They are actually my 3 favorite books on Elvis and have read them several times. I don't see how these books can explain any sort of laziness on Elvis' part in regards to his performances after Aloha. He certainly was fine in 1968/69/70. He should have upheld the high standard of those performance throughout the years. If he couldn't or wouldn't for whatever reason(s) maybe it was time to change his life in several ways. He was Elvis and had the means to do anything he wanted. He certainly could sway people to get whatever he wanted!

No, the books don't explain Elvis' laziness, that's just the conclusion i've come to. To me, he took the easy route by just sticking to the same routine, singing the same songs over and over etc. He did try to change his show once, sometime in '74, when he started with "Big Boss Man" and did some other different tunes. Apparently, this change didn't go down too well with the Vegas crowd (though there's no proof of this) but the very next night he goes back to his regular routine...There was no one around to push him in the right direction and give him some creative imput.




That last sentence is exactly right, he had no one to guide him, musically, or otherwise. That's what I felt after reading Elvis and the Memphis Maffia: he really must have felt uttterly alone. I remember reading about Elvis' wish to educate himself and the guys so he bought everyone dictionairies so they could learn. This was sabotaged quickly by the boys who apparently thought they were smart enough.... Another telling example is when Elvis goes on his spiritual quest in the sixties and gets ridiculed for it. His lovely young wife even makes him burn his books. How would you feel if your friends treated you like that? If I had a friend who was on a spritual search, even if I didn't understand it myself, I would never let him down, and make him go it alone the way Elvis 'friends' did.
It's all too easy to criticise Elvis for the things he did, or didn't do. I guess everyone here lives a perfect life, never made any mistakes, or doesn't have any regrets. Like WildStyle says in his post: you could show a little empathy for this man who was only human.
When I read how much manager Jon Landau is involved in every aspect of Bruce Springsteen' career, it makes me want to scream! If only Elvis had surrounded himself with capable, caring, visionary people.


Great post!
IMO Parker ended up a poor manager on every level... a poor business manager and a poor personal manager. By 1973, rather than being holed up in Graceland Elvis should have been touring the world, he should have starred in A Star Is Born and he should have been encouraged to reach his potential musically. All those were management failings. Do you blame the workman for digging the wrong depth hole in the wrong place with a broken spade? No, you blame the foreman for not showing him the plans and for not making sure the tools are in optimum condition. It was all too easy for everyone.


Parker lost control of Elvis for the 68 special and the 69 Memphis sessions, two of the greatest bodies of work ever done by anybody. That wasn't going to happen again, especially as Elvis became more dependent on prescription meds in the seventies. There are a lot of managers and artist who learned from Elvis' mistakes.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:03 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:It was all Elvis' fault for allowing this sh*t to happen...nobody told him to make crap movies, nobody told him to sing crap songs, nobody told him to sing the same songs day after day, year after year, nobody told him to take drugs and so on. He was the only one who could've changed all this, but he didn't and thats sad. And he deserves to be criticized. Criticism, is something he himself didn't like and he turned away from it and made excuses. If only people had confronted him more rather then catering to him, maybe things might have been different.


How about we get a layout of what you have done with your life that was so much better than Elvis'?
You sound like a immature little baby trolling the forum . :roll:

Give us a autobiography! We will all be waiting to see just how Elvis should have walked in your footsteps.

Please Hurry!! :roll:

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:14 pm

promiseland wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:It was all Elvis' fault for allowing this sh*t to happen...nobody told him to make crap movies, nobody told him to sing crap songs, nobody told him to sing the same songs day after day, year after year, nobody told him to take drugs and so on. He was the only one who could've changed all this, but he didn't and thats sad. And he deserves to be criticized. Criticism, is something he himself didn't like and he turned away from it and made excuses. If only people had confronted him more rather then catering to him, maybe things might have been different.


How about we get a layout of what you have done with your life that was so much better than Elvis'?
You sound like a immature little baby trolling the forum . :roll:

Give us a autobiography! We will all be waiting to see just how Elvis should have walked in your footsteps.

Please Hurry!! :roll:

My life doesn't come into it...it's far from perfect. No ones life is perfect. I was just commenting some facts about my hero.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:20 am

Joe Car wrote:
r&b wrote:Elvis may have been the better performer in the 50's, 1969 and 1970 but after that? I dont think so. Look at post 1970, Aloha for example then look at Paul even today. He moves from piano to bass to acoustic guitar to play most of his songs (not other artists) and does so for over 2 hours sometimes. That's a true performer. Elvis stood there for an hour, sang, gave out scarves, had Charlie as a gopher and had a terrible orchestra behind him, IMO. He was still in his 30's and got lazy, never trying to change his show much over the years. He always sang better than Paul, yes, but who cares about My Way, Olivia songs and all that other MOR crap he chose to sing after 1970.


Really, I don't want to call you a troll, but your posts are ridiculous and unfair. I don't mind you giving McCartney props, but to dismiss anything Elvis after 1970, says a lot about your agenda here. It's these kind of comments that keep me from posting or coming on this site as much as I used to.


According to Joe and a number of others (going by this thread), there are more trolls on FECC than there ever were in Scandinavia.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:26 am

poormadpeter wrote:
Joe Car wrote:
r&b wrote:Elvis may have been the better performer in the 50's, 1969 and 1970 but after that? I dont think so. Look at post 1970, Aloha for example then look at Paul even today. He moves from piano to bass to acoustic guitar to play most of his songs (not other artists) and does so for over 2 hours sometimes. That's a true performer. Elvis stood there for an hour, sang, gave out scarves, had Charlie as a gopher and had a terrible orchestra behind him, IMO. He was still in his 30's and got lazy, never trying to change his show much over the years. He always sang better than Paul, yes, but who cares about My Way, Olivia songs and all that other MOR crap he chose to sing after 1970.


Really, I don't want to call you a troll, but your posts are ridiculous and unfair. I don't mind you giving McCartney props, but to dismiss anything Elvis after 1970, says a lot about your agenda here. It's these kind of comments that keep me from posting or coming on this site as much as I used to.


According to Joe and a number of others (going by this thread), there are more trolls on FECC than there ever were in Scandinavia.


No, just two come to mind. Most people on this site are terrific, as I know, having been a member for 10 years now.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:08 am

Joe Car wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Joe Car wrote:
r&b wrote:Elvis may have been the better performer in the 50's, 1969 and 1970 but after that? I dont think so. Look at post 1970, Aloha for example then look at Paul even today. He moves from piano to bass to acoustic guitar to play most of his songs (not other artists) and does so for over 2 hours sometimes. That's a true performer. Elvis stood there for an hour, sang, gave out scarves, had Charlie as a gopher and had a terrible orchestra behind him, IMO. He was still in his 30's and got lazy, never trying to change his show much over the years. He always sang better than Paul, yes, but who cares about My Way, Olivia songs and all that other MOR crap he chose to sing after 1970.


Really, I don't want to call you a troll, but your posts are ridiculous and unfair. I don't mind you giving McCartney props, but to dismiss anything Elvis after 1970, says a lot about your agenda here. It's these kind of comments that keep me from posting or coming on this site as much as I used to.


According to Joe and a number of others (going by this thread), there are more trolls on FECC than there ever were in Scandinavia.


No, just two come to mind. Most people on this site are terrific, as I know, having been a member for 10 years now.


You know Joe, I Always wonder why people who loathe Elvis so much spend so much time here. It's really baffling. Why waste their time here when they could be listening to Paul for example. Elvis was great even after 1970, he just sang songs some don't like and are almost mad at Elvis it seems :) Funny world.