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

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:45 am

Pink&Black wrote:Mull of Kintyre, anyone? :smt003


My desire is always to be here...

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:32 am

Kylan wrote: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.

We would like to "move on" but there's too many dim wits on this forum who just don't understand the Elvis story and the "blind loyalty" is just ridiculous that they can't see anything else. Trying to explain things to certain people is a waste of time, were trying to state some facts and explain things in an intelligent way, but sadly it's like talking to a brick wall!!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:46 am

It is a little depressing how often a nice story about another artist's respect for Elvis turns into an analysis of the perceived shortcomings of that artist. It was a cool gesture from McCartney.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:37 am

TJ wrote:It is a little depressing how often a nice story about another artist's respect for Elvis turns into an analysis of the perceived shortcomings of that artist. It was a cool gesture from McCartney.

Indeed. As far as I see it, one of rock's true living legends takes time out to visit Graceland then talks about his early excitement seeing the King on the silver screen and reels off cool versions of what he saw to his bandmates, cool isn't in it. Paul rocks. FECC does also ...... but not always. You would have thought McCartney's gestures would have had the forum shouting from the rooftops. Nope! :shock:

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:15 pm

Pink&Black wrote:Mull of Kintyre, anyone? :smt003


Mull Of Kintyre is a good song(9 weeks at no1 in the UK). It is a Scottish themed song, so there can be no possibility of it being poor or cheesy material :smt023 :smt023. I'll send you some Earex, get it fired into those lugholes of yours rapid style.

The MoK peninsula is only around 30 miles or so from my home, as the crow flies... nice area.

And McCartney is one of the few GENUINE living legends left...there you have it.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:52 pm

KHoots wrote:Really cool pic of Macca at Graceland. But stepping over the fence??? Some here will not like that.

Paul.jpg


Like anybody would care if somebdoy would take an offence to that. Elvis was en is no Saint,just another human like us.
Some Elvisfans take it to far with their adoration. :roll:

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:01 pm

moffringa wrote:
KHoots wrote:Really cool pic of Macca at Graceland. But stepping over the fence??? Some here will not like that.

Paul.jpg


Like anybody would care if somebdoy would take an offence to that. Elvis was en is no Saint,just another human like us.
Some Elvisfans take it to far with their adoration. :roll:


Some do. That's life. But as Paul knows that Elvis wouldn't have minded it's cool.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:59 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
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.


Certainly not a "blind loyalty" type fan... i'm just a cuddly jungleroombear. If you want to find blind loyalty, look no further than your new buddie r&b... yes, the one to who's defence you came galloping along to. Yes, the same one who chooses to spend hours of family time trolling through Elvis sites spreading and encouraging vitriolic anti-Elvis detrius. He mentions a "true performer" as if Elvis wasn't one... that is so laughable esp as he negates to mention the 68 special as being one of Elvis' great moments. I guess if i were as embittered and generally lacking as that, i would be visiting Beatle sites engaging in similarly pathetic behaviour. All Elvis' shortcommings both as an entertainer and as a human being, are outweighed by what he brought to the party. Oh and to say Elvis "lost interest in music" is a nonsense! He may have lost interest in the industry but never in music.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:23 pm

jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
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.


Certainly not a "blind loyalty" type fan... i'm just a cuddly jungleroombear. If you want to find blind loyalty, look no further than your new buddie r&b... yes, the one to who's defence you came galloping along to. Yes, the same one who chooses to spend hours of family time trolling through Elvis sites spreading and encouraging vitriolic anti-Elvis detrius. He mentions a "true performer" as if Elvis wasn't one... that is so laughable esp as he negates to mention the 68 special as being one of Elvis' great moments. I guess if i were as embittered and generally lacking as that, i would be visiting Beatle sites engaging in similarly pathetic behaviour. All Elvis' shortcommings both as an entertainer and as a human being, are outweighed by what he brought to the party. Oh and to say Elvis "lost interest in music" is a nonsense! He may have lost interest in the industry but never in music.

You just go on and on with no intelligence in anything you say. You just don't understand the difference between mediocrity and quality.... If someone gives an honest opinion about something that doesn't mean he's knocking or derailing Elvis, he's just stating exactly what he sees. We are all Elvis fans here, thats why we are on this forum in the first place to discuss Elvis.

Sadly, Elvis' musical career was far from perfect. Has time went on it got worse and a lot of it was his fault because he was too lazy to do anything about. And i agree with a lot of what r&b says, not because i'm his "friend" as you state, because i'm of the same opinion has him and your gonna have to learn to deal with that. Calling people names is not the done thing!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:07 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
jungleroombear wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
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.


Certainly not a "blind loyalty" type fan... i'm just a cuddly jungleroombear. If you want to find blind loyalty, look no further than your new buddie r&b... yes, the one to who's defence you came galloping along to. Yes, the same one who chooses to spend hours of family time trolling through Elvis sites spreading and encouraging vitriolic anti-Elvis detrius. He mentions a "true performer" as if Elvis wasn't one... that is so laughable esp as he negates to mention the 68 special as being one of Elvis' great moments. I guess if i were as embittered and generally lacking as that, i would be visiting Beatle sites engaging in similarly pathetic behaviour. All Elvis' shortcommings both as an entertainer and as a human being, are outweighed by what he brought to the party. Oh and to say Elvis "lost interest in music" is a nonsense! He may have lost interest in the industry but never in music.

You just go on and on with no intelligence in anything you say. You just don't understand the difference between mediocrity and quality.... If someone gives an honest opinion about something that doesn't mean he's knocking or derailing Elvis, he's just stating exactly what he sees. We are all Elvis fans here, thats why we are on this forum in the first place to discuss Elvis.

Sadly, Elvis' musical career was far from perfect. Has time went on it got worse and a lot of it was his fault because he was too lazy to do anything about. And i agree with a lot of what r&b says, not because i'm his "friend" as you state, because i'm of the same opinion has him and your gonna have to learn to deal with that. Calling people names is not the done thing!


Thanks for telling me what I'm "gonna have to learn to deal with". But seriously you gotta stop being silly! Did you even read my response? I acknowledged that Elvis had shortcomings and all you can say in reply is "Sadly, Elvis' musical career was far from perfect". Do you actually inhabit another planet or are you just hell-bent on contradiction for its own sake? Clearly, you "agree with a lot of what r&b says" because you share the same foibles.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:41 pm

The only thing anyone has to deal with are the facts. To me, the facts were sometime in the 70's Elvis stopped being the world's greatest performer and recording artist. He just wasn't putting out the quality product like he used to or wasn't wowing them on stage like he used to, and I don't mean the ladies who got scarves. They continued to be wowed. I am talking about the people who want a good quality concert from start to finish. A great version of Hurt surrounded by a lot of so-so performances is not a great concert. In 1977, I was much like others on this board. I saw EIC in Oct 1977, and said , gee wasn't he still so great? He still had it! I have since taken the blinders off and see Elvis and his career differently. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. No one has hi-jacked anything. If I can't state my true feeling here without being trashed, there is no discussion, only put-downs on one's opinion.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:04 pm

r&b wrote:The only thing anyone has to deal with are the facts. To me, the facts were sometime in the 70's Elvis stopped being the world's greatest performer and recording artist. He just wasn't putting out the quality product like he used to or wasn't wowing them on stage like he used to, and I don't mean the ladies who got scarves. They continued to be wowed. I am talking about the people who want a good quality concert from start to finish. A great version of Hurt surrounded by a lot of so-so performances is not a great concert. In 1977, I was much like others on this board. I saw EIC in Oct 1977, and said , gee wasn't he still so great? He still had it! I have since taken the blinders off and see Elvis and his career differently. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. No one has hi-jacked anything. If I can't state my true feeling here without being trashed, there is no discussion, only put-downs on one's opinion.


Exactly! If Elvis' music was so great in the 70's, like some people seem to think it was, why then didn't his records sell by the millions, at the time of there release, like they had done in the 50's & early 60's. In fact, he never had a No.1 again after 1970, so that says something, don't it.

And as for the concerts, i think people came to "see" him rather then for the songs he was singing...and they were screaming for what he once was rather than for the performance he was giving at the time. Just as long as he showed up on stage it didn't matter what he did, he could have farted and burped for an hour on stage and they would still scream.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:09 pm

r&b wrote:The only thing anyone has to deal with are the facts. To me, the facts were sometime in the 70's Elvis stopped being the world's greatest performer and recording artist. He just wasn't putting out the quality product like he used to or wasn't wowing them on stage like he used to, and I don't mean the ladies who got scarves. They continued to be wowed. I am talking about the people who want a good quality concert from start to finish. A great version of Hurt surrounded by a lot of so-so performances is not a great concert. In 1977, I was much like others on this board. I saw EIC in Oct 1977, and said , gee wasn't he still so great? He still had it! I have since taken the blinders off and see Elvis and his career differently. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. No one has hi-jacked anything. If I can't state my true feeling here without being trashed, there is no discussion, only put-downs on one's opinion.


I saw EIC in 1977 and thought oh sh*t! So i have never worn blinkers. I don't buy the soundboards because i don't like listening to poor concerts. I don't need you or anyone else to tell me how bad Elvis was at different periods of his career. It's like walking down the road with an ugly wife... and i have to admit that mine is certainly no oil painting... but i would soon take offence if people started passing by saying "that's one ugly woman you got there boy"! She may be ugly to you but she's a thing of beauty to me. Do you understand where i'm coming from? Iv'e known for 37 years that visually EIC is a bad experience but i got over it and moved on to the stuff that is good. Problem is that every post you make is focusing on how bad Elvis was and how good your other musical heroes are in comparisson. That's just plum pitiful imo.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:08 pm

There really is a lot of knocking Elvis on this thread, but I would have to agree that certainly after Aloha many, but by no means all, of his concerts were becoming to much of the same what with the reticula's dive bombing routine, Amen etc. It is a pity that he didn't persevere with his set change that he tried to introduce in the summer of 1974. I don't collect all those dozens live cd's, and I feel sure that if I did, I would be bored stiff with them.

Apart from being so medicated during those last years, was it because he was doing so many shows that it became such a chore? Two shows a night seven day's a week for four weeks twice a year in Vegas, plus Tahoe and the many tours, no one surely could keep up the enthusiasm for that workload.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe other established performers have that workload. The Stones for instance do a well publicised tour very occasionally and if you are only performing a few times a year, your show is bound to be more refreshed.

Regarding Mull Of Kintyre, I have personally always liked that song and although I am not a big fan of bagpipes, I do think that the arrangement with them is excellent.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:26 pm

Chris Roberts wrote:Regarding Mull Of Kintyre, I have personally always liked that song and although I am not a big fan of bagpipes, I do think that the arrangement with them is excellent.


How could you not? You're from Scotland!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:42 pm

javilu wrote:
Chris Roberts wrote:Regarding Mull Of Kintyre, I have personally always liked that song and although I am not a big fan of bagpipes, I do think that the arrangement with them is excellent.


How could you not? You're from Scotland!


I can't imagine not liking this song! It's such a sweet song and fully captures that feeling when one longs for that idyllic, beautiful place. Of course it's slightly sentimental but, hey, that's Paul!

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:48 pm

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.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:51 pm

InheritTheWind wrote:
javilu wrote:
Chris Roberts wrote:Regarding Mull Of Kintyre, I have personally always liked that song and although I am not a big fan of bagpipes, I do think that the arrangement with them is excellent.


How could you not? You're from Scotland!


I can't imagine not liking this song! It's such a sweet song and fully captures that feeling when one longs for that idyllic, beautiful place. Of course it's slightly sentimental but, hey, that's Paul!



That's funny, I could say the exact same thing about.... My Boy! (except the sentimental guy would be Elvis)

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:09 pm

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.

Because the thread about "Paul McCartney At Graceland" was NOT about "weaknesses" of any of the two. Just a famous fan visting the dead one's home,grave. Can't get any simpler than that.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:15 pm

Pink&Black wrote:But don't you touch Paul Mc Cartney?! :wtf:


I think several people here have said negative things about some of McCartney's songs. Somewhere on this forum I think I said his song "Freedom" is one of the worst songs ever written. McCartney has written a lot of songs I don't like. But he's written so many great songs that it more than makes up for the bad songs.

Elvis did some bad songs and McCartney did some bad songs. It's really no big deal.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:40 pm

Pink&Black wrote:
InheritTheWind wrote:
javilu wrote:
Chris Roberts wrote:Regarding Mull Of Kintyre, I have personally always liked that song and although I am not a big fan of bagpipes, I do think that the arrangement with them is excellent.


How could you not? You're from Scotland!


I can't imagine not liking this song! It's such a sweet song and fully captures that feeling when one longs for that idyllic, beautiful place. Of course it's slightly sentimental but, hey, that's Paul!



That's funny, I could say the exact same thing about.... My Boy! (except the sentimental guy would be Elvis)


Well, one is a terribly dated, schmaltzy arranged, shamefully overblown vomit inducing muzak type of song and the other is "My Boy" :lol:

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:43 pm

jungleroombear wrote:
r&b wrote:The only thing anyone has to deal with are the facts. To me, the facts were sometime in the 70's Elvis stopped being the world's greatest performer and recording artist. He just wasn't putting out the quality product like he used to or wasn't wowing them on stage like he used to, and I don't mean the ladies who got scarves. They continued to be wowed. I am talking about the people who want a good quality concert from start to finish. A great version of Hurt surrounded by a lot of so-so performances is not a great concert. In 1977, I was much like others on this board. I saw EIC in Oct 1977, and said , gee wasn't he still so great? He still had it! I have since taken the blinders off and see Elvis and his career differently. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. No one has hi-jacked anything. If I can't state my true feeling here without being trashed, there is no discussion, only put-downs on one's opinion.


I saw EIC in 1977 and thought oh sh*t! So i have never worn blinkers. I don't buy the soundboards because i don't like listening to poor concerts. I don't need you or anyone else to tell me how bad Elvis was at different periods of his career. It's like walking down the road with an ugly wife... and i have to admit that mine is certainly no oil painting... but i would soon take offence if people started passing by saying "that's one ugly woman you got there boy"! She may be ugly to you but she's a thing of beauty to me. Do you understand where i'm coming from? Iv'e known for 37 years that visually EIC is a bad experience but i got over it and moved on to the stuff that is good. Problem is that every post you make is focusing on how bad Elvis was and how good your other musical heroes are in comparisson. That's just plum pitiful imo.


Well one of my heroes is Jerry Lee Lewis. I saw him in concert a few years ago and thought he was awful Ditto Little Richard. But again we are talking about performers well up in age. You have to remember Elvis was a relatively young man yet at 42, or even 39 when his shows started getting sloppy. If he was sick, or needed help, he should not have been performing and giving substandard shows. its one thing when you are 70, quite another thing when you are 30 years younger than that.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:01 am

r&b wrote:
jungleroombear wrote:
r&b wrote:The only thing anyone has to deal with are the facts. To me, the facts were sometime in the 70's Elvis stopped being the world's greatest performer and recording artist. He just wasn't putting out the quality product like he used to or wasn't wowing them on stage like he used to, and I don't mean the ladies who got scarves. They continued to be wowed. I am talking about the people who want a good quality concert from start to finish. A great version of Hurt surrounded by a lot of so-so performances is not a great concert. In 1977, I was much like others on this board. I saw EIC in Oct 1977, and said , gee wasn't he still so great? He still had it! I have since taken the blinders off and see Elvis and his career differently. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. No one has hi-jacked anything. If I can't state my true feeling here without being trashed, there is no discussion, only put-downs on one's opinion.


I saw EIC in 1977 and thought oh sh*t! So i have never worn blinkers. I don't buy the soundboards because i don't like listening to poor concerts. I don't need you or anyone else to tell me how bad Elvis was at different periods of his career. It's like walking down the road with an ugly wife... and i have to admit that mine is certainly no oil painting... but i would soon take offence if people started passing by saying "that's one ugly woman you got there boy"! She may be ugly to you but she's a thing of beauty to me. Do you understand where i'm coming from? Iv'e known for 37 years that visually EIC is a bad experience but i got over it and moved on to the stuff that is good. Problem is that every post you make is focusing on how bad Elvis was and how good your other musical heroes are in comparisson. That's just plum pitiful imo.


Well one of my heroes is Jerry Lee Lewis. I saw him in concert a few years ago and thought he was awful Ditto Little Richard. But again we are talking about performers well up in age. You have to remember Elvis was a relatively young man yet at 42, or even 39 when his shows started getting sloppy. If he was sick, or needed help, he should not have been performing and giving substandard shows. its one thing when you are 70, quite another thing when you are 30 years younger than that.

Like any of the bashers on this forum would have done it any differently. Elvis was addicted to prescription drugs and lost touch with reality in those final years. The man was human. Looking back in hindsight, he definitely should have not toured and instead, gotten help to kick his addiction. He didn't and because of it, the past couple years of his legacy suffered. It is what it is, and it will never change.

With that being said, it doesn't change his impact on music and the affect he had on millions of people. He is still the King of Rock and Roll and will continue to be.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:12 pm

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.

Re: Paul McCartney at Graceland

Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:03 pm

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.