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

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?

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:46 pm

Pretty hilarious knocking Elvis for playing the same songs when Mccartney does it all the time. if u have seen one Mccartney show u have seen them all! or knocking Elvis for his choice of material when mccartney has recorded plenty of crap. or knocking Elvis for singing sappy love songs when Mccartney has sung plenty of goo.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:52 pm

r&b wrote:
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!


No comparasin to Springsteen true, but someone has to be second to him.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:57 pm

Mull of Kintyre, anyone? :smt003

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:20 am

Pink&Black wrote:Mull of Kintyre, anyone? :smt003
A frogs Song. :?

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:30 am

jungleroombear wrote:
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?

..."ageless performer who did great performances throughout his life"...obviously your one of these "blind loyalty" fans. The differance between Elvis and Paul is that, Paul is still around and still performing and he loves doing what hes doing and he's still interested...Elvis lost interest in music, became lazy his shows were routine, rushed and sloppy. They couldn't even get him in the studio much of the 70's...he too much interested in other things than music like, police badges, spending money on strangers and so fourth and sadly he left this world at the young age of 42. All of the above you can not accuse McCartney of.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:52 am

As always, these topics degenerate into a handful of witless, blindly-loyal devotees who can't let anyone else be discussed, even a genius musician like Paul McCartney, who has loved Elvis and his music for over fifty years. It's sad, and more than a little pitiable.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:16 am

DEH wrote:Pretty hilarious knocking Elvis for playing the same songs when Mccartney does it all the time. if u have seen one Mccartney show u have seen them all! or knocking Elvis for his choice of material when mccartney has recorded plenty of crap. or knocking Elvis for singing sappy love songs when Mccartney has sung plenty of goo.


Yes Paul sang a lot of sap, he is not my favorite Beatle by any stretch, but c'mon, to say he keeps the same show like Elvis is ludicrous. Of course he will always do Jude and Yesterday but he is always bringing out new songs (associated with him, or that group he was in) on every tour. Just this tour alone, Lovely Rita, And I Love Her, For The Benefit of Mr Kite. I am also sure he doesn't start each and every show with the same 4 or 5 songs like it was a script. Elvis was very predictable after a while even down to the adlibs with the JD diver bomber routine during the very boring Amen tag ending on I Got A Woman. Now that's something if you hear it once, you heard it for good!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:31 am

Sorry, but the, Ken Dodd, comment, did make me laugh ! :D

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:37 am

all hail Paul McCartney and the Beatles! Elvis sucked after oh... what nov 70 lets say give or take a few months.. now can we move on please.