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

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 5:28 am

javilu wrote:
rizzy56 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:PAUL IS ALL.

Why is he all ?


All you need is Paul, Paul
Paul is all you need.

What about john ?

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 6:41 am

I'M VERY BORED.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 8:48 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:I'M VERY BORED.


+1

rjm
P.S. -- Spring Fever. I can sense it . . . that weird feeling in the air . . .
Wikipedia wrote:Symptoms [edit]
In the northern hemisphere the symptoms usually arise from mid-March to mid-April, and depending on the person may be more or less pronounced. Weariness (despite an adequate amount of sleep), sensitivity to changes in the weather, dizziness, irritability, headaches, and sometimes aching joints and a lack of drive are the most common.


Summer comes on June 21.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 9:19 am

rizzy56 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:PAUL IS ALL.


Why is he all ?


Because New York said so.


660823_Paul Is All_Shea Stadium_NY.jpg
Paul, John and George, Shea Stadium, NY - Tuesday, August 23, 1966
The greatest band in the history of rock 'n' roll plays New York for the last time.
Note: "PAUL IS ALL" banner.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 9:41 am

Jaime1234 wrote:What is it that a poster here doen't understand about Elvis pushing the music and social envelop harder, in the 50's, than anyone ever did, singlehandely, in any other decade since. And he did that, in four years, not in ten. Actually from January 1956, until the summer of 1958, when he went to Fort Hood, TX, that's less than three years. Moreover, name me another single person whose musical contribution in a particular decade not just set the standards for that particular decade, hell, even SONY, RCA Mexico and TAMLA took notice in as distant cities as Tokyo, Mexico City and Detroit, and took appropriate action, but whose musical influence was so apparent in look, apparel, day to day life ( with everything that the latter includes), as well as in sexual mores and race relations that anything Presley did, from January 1956, when he was first put on the spotlight, nationally, till his move to Germany was NOT limited to being reported in the entertainment pages, but to local, regional and national news, some of which front page, in the form of a thousands of references which can be still found in the reader's periodicals mof the day, starting with students expelled for attending his concerts, judges rendering him motionless, or else, X rays of his records being smuggled into the Soviet Union, television ratings that went beyond the roof ( in the age when television took over) and all leading to nothing less than the most celebrated Army recruitment in US history. The latter, in itself, and done at the zenith of his popularity, is what separates Elvis from any other performer in the decades that followed. Now, it's true that Pop, Jazz, Classical and even country music were affected, negatively in their case, fuelling disdain, even hate (ask those that "suffered", like Rosemary Clooney or Tony Bennet) for the rock style he helped establish, some of which felt even today. From assertively fusing the two most important music styles in the US, CW and RB, into a third, rockabilly, something he did BEFORE he bacame known, nationally, to a simple hairstyle, by way of a stage act totally ahead of its time, to being held responsible (he, not others, with the pressure that that entails, especially if you know you're not the only one responsible), for starting a musical and social revolution, no single person in the popular music field, not just in that decade, but in any other decade since, pushed the envelop harder than did Elvis in the 1950's. Whatever he did afterwards, like creating a true market for Rock in both Hollywood and Broadway musicals, or changing the course of a city like Las Vegas, or as we witness today, making tourism an important part of a city like Memphis, and its surroundings, including Tupelo, chosen by the best friends of ultra Elvis fan Junishiro Koizumi as the site for their latest car manufacturing plant, is peanuts compared to what Presley achieved, for youth, and life in general, in the 1950's. And he didn't even try to do it....


Great post Jaime1234 :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: 8)

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 9:42 am

rizzy56 wrote:
javilu wrote:
rizzy56 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:PAUL IS ALL.

Why is he all ?


All you need is Paul, Paul
Paul is all you need.

What about john ?


John, who's John :?: :smt017

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 12:57 pm

Hi there!! :D :D :D.

rjm wrote:
HoneyTalkNelson wrote:I'M VERY BORED.


+1

rjm
P.S. -- Spring Fever. I can sense it . . . that weird feeling in the air . . .
Wikipedia wrote:Symptoms [edit]
In the northern hemisphere the symptoms usually arise from mid-March to mid-April, and depending on the person may be more or less pronounced. Weariness (despite an adequate amount of sleep), sensitivity to changes in the weather, dizziness, irritability, headaches, and sometimes aching joints and a lack of drive are the most common.


Summer comes on June 21.


For now let´s enjoy Spring while it last! :wink:. Bye for now :smt006.

phpBB [video]

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 3:28 pm

Image

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 7:50 pm

Here's a look of the only picture ever taken of the two, in a single frame, Paul being the closest to the backseat window, in the silver jacket. In fact, Paul's right side profile is a direct, 70 degree, yet reverse vertical continuation of the left sided profile of Elvis', who's right above him.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7J_WGI7Jygw/S ... sit-03.jpg

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri May 31, 2013 8:15 pm

There may be shots taken inside the Perugia Way house during the visit, but if so they have never surfaced.


650828_Elvis Bids Adieu To Beatles_565 Perugia Way Los Angeles_01.JPG
Elvis Bids Adieu To Beatles - 565 Perugia Way, Los Angeles, CA
Elvis has just walked the Beatles to their limo in the early morning hours of Saturday, August 28, 1965.
NME reporter Chris Hutchins strolls past the vehicle, Paul is visible by the rear door window.
Color snapshot apparently taken by a fan, sitting in a tree outside the house.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Mon Jun 03, 2013 1:17 pm

javilu wrote:Image


That would have been a nice gift for Elvis the other day! He did have a wonderful sense of humor, and if he's anywhere, anywhere at all in this grand multiverse, it would've tickled him. ;)

You can almost hear that laugh.

rjm

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:47 pm

And you may wonder what happened before the concert in Memphis....

phpBB [video]



I know there's another thread about it but this belongs in here too!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:26 pm

javilu wrote:And you may wonder what happened before the concert in Memphis....

phpBB [video]



I know there's another thread about it but this belongs in here too!


True... and great to see again!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:41 pm

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.

Well said, r&b.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:38 pm

mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


Never rated Paul as a great live peformer and unlike Tom Jones his voice has gone these last few years.

A great stage performer, look no further than Springsteen and perhaps Bon Jovi.

As for Elvis post early 70's, many critics of his later show's always commented on his ability to coast on Charisma even when out of sorts, its unquantifiable but don't dismiss it.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:17 pm

FredAistair wrote:
mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


Never rated Paul as a great live peformer and unlike Tom Jones his voice has gone these last few years.

A great stage performer, look no further than Springsteen and perhaps Bon Jovi.

As for Elvis post early 70's, many critics of his later show's always commented on his ability to coast on Charisma even when out of sorts, its unquantifiable but don't dismiss it.


Bon Jovi???

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:03 pm

mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


For a guy alledgedly born in the 50's, r&b displays little empathy for his musical heroes.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:36 pm

jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


For a guy alledgedly born in the 50's, r&b displays little empathy for his musical heroes.

And you show little empathy for someone who has his own opinion.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:58 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


For a guy alledgedly born in the 50's, r&b displays little empathy for his musical heroes.


And you show little empathy for someone who has his own opinion.


Empathy? It seems jungleroombear has simply mistaken r&b's honesty as lack of empathy.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:15 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


For a guy alledgedly born in the 50's, r&b displays little empathy for his musical heroes.

And you show little empathy for someone who has his own opinion.


Gosh you must be so far up r&b's butt that you can see Dr John's boots!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:20 pm

jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


For a guy alledgedly born in the 50's, r&b displays little empathy for his musical heroes.

And you show little empathy for someone who has his own opinion.


Gosh you must be so far up r&b's butt that you can see Dr John's boots!


Not suprised you guys can't recognise a good tune... the sound must be a bit muffled up there!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:27 pm

jungleroombear wrote:
jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


For a guy alledgedly born in the 50's, r&b displays little empathy for his musical heroes.

And you show little empathy for someone who has his own opinion.


Gosh you must be so far up r&b's butt that you can see Dr John's boots!


Not suprised you guys can't recognise a good tune... the sound must be a bit muffled up there!

Must be a bit muffled with your "head in the sand" syndrome.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:37 pm

FredAistair wrote:
mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


Never rated Paul as a great live peformer and unlike Tom Jones his voice has gone these last few years.

A great stage performer, look no further than Springsteen and perhaps Bon Jovi.

As for Elvis post early 70's, many critics of his later show's always commented on his ability to coast on Charisma even when out of sorts, its unquantifiable but don't dismiss it.


Here in New Jersey, if you dare compare Springsteen to that wannabe rocker Bon Jovi, you will be escorted to Pennsylvania by the Sopranos!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:47 pm

jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


For a guy alledgedly born in the 50's, r&b displays little empathy for his musical heroes.


Empathy? Do you really think Elvis was a great performer at 42 yrs old, 30 years younger basically than Paul is today? Paul who plays 2 hours plus and , yes, gosh, he plays the songs you expect to hear at a McCartney concert. His voice isn't what it used to be but isn't that to be expected at his age? Neither was Elvis' at only 42. You can bash me all you want, the facts are the facts. Dion is over 70, still plays a full concert. Frankie Valli is almost 80, he is still out there, and pretty decent. Tom Jones is still great in concert. Did I mention these guys are all over 70 yrs old? Look again at EIC. A 42 year old man dying professionally on stage. And he gave some bad shows even before that age. Empathy? I love my 50's & 60's performers and will tell it like it is. I saw Chuck Berry & Johnny Rivers together a few years ago. I love Chuck but he is awful now, & should pack it in being in his 80's Rivers on the other hand was amazing, didn't realize how great a guitarist he is and still sounds the same. He wiped the floor with Chuck and yes, was a better show than Elvis was in his later years. Elvis needed to stop touring, plain & simple.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:42 pm

r&b wrote:
jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson 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.

Well said, r&b.


For a guy alledgedly born in the 50's, r&b displays little empathy for his musical heroes.


Empathy? Do you really think Elvis was a great performer at 42 yrs old, 30 years younger basically than Paul is today? Paul who plays 2 hours plus and , yes, gosh, he plays the songs you expect to hear at a McCartney concert. His voice isn't what it used to be but isn't that to be expected at his age? Neither was Elvis' at only 42. You can bash me all you want, the facts are the facts. Dion is over 70, still plays a full concert. Frankie Valli is almost 80, he is still out there, and pretty decent. Tom Jones is still great in concert. Did I mention these guys are all over 70 yrs old? Look again at EIC. A 42 year old man dying professionally on stage. And he gave some bad shows even before that age. Empathy? I love my 50's & 60's performers and will tell it like it is. I saw Chuck Berry & Johnny Rivers together a few years ago. I love Chuck but he is awful now, & should pack it in being in his 80's Rivers on the other hand was amazing, didn't realize how great a guitarist he is and still sounds the same. He wiped the floor with Chuck and yes, was a better show than Elvis was in his later years. Elvis needed to stop touring, plain & simple.

I think Elvis is an ageless performer who did great performances throughout his life. You're are so hung-up on Elvis' shortcommings... you allowed them to hijack another thread. And i like Paul McCartney as much as the next person, but there's no denying he looks like Ken Dodd and, he lost his cue to Hey Jude in front of 1 billion people during the Olympic's opening ceremony. (sorry Paul,he's making me say it!) Your "that's a true performer" innuendo showboats contempt for Elvis and is a falsehood esp in view of Maccas' previously mentioned shortcommings, so why continue?