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

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:23 pm

Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Mountain Misst wrote:It is a good night out, my very young son thrilled at the time that he could watch Ronnie Tutt the entire time. We still talk about it. Imagine seeing Elvis live? That would have been incredible! Lucky people who did.


Yes, but that isn't the case here. You are seeing Elvis on a screen, backed by musicians who have no relation to the singer in question. It might be worth pointing out that these theatres are simply not big enough to accommodate a screen with all the different camera angles or split screen in the way shown in the past. Or, if they do, each segment of the screen will be MUCH smaller. The screen is likely to be the size of your typical multiplex medium-size screen. What's more, they have to accommodate the musicians as well, which means the screen will have to be some way off the floor.

The width of the stage at Ipswich, for example, is a mere 11 metres - that's 5 metres smaller than the largest screen at the rather modest multiplex in Norwich. The size of the stage in Leicester is just 12.5 metres. But just because these theatres are 11 and 12.5 stage width, doesn't mean all the width can be used for a screen, or people in certain parts of the theatre would not be able to see one or other of the edges. Also, when you see a film at the cinema you are very close to the screen. That's not going to be the case in a theatre, where you will have the whole depth of the stage separating you, plus possibly an orchestra pit, plus however many rows of seats are in front of you.

The sizes above are not the same for all venues (London and Birmingham are around 50% bigger, for example), but even so the effect is going to be much different to a stadium etc.

While Bodie is saying I'm "too tight" to spend £38 to go and watch the show, that isn't the case at all. But £38 is A LOT of money to go and watch a film accompanied by a group of jobbing musicians. I can see a fully-restored silent film, accompanied live by a full symphony orchestra playing a specially commissioned brand new score for £15-20 in a prestigious venue such as the Barbican in London. That would feature around 80 musicians. Bearing that in mind, it seems a vast amount of money to me to pay nearly twice that amount to see a film accompanied by maybe 15-20 people at the most in a provincial theatre. You can even see The Artist, a film from just two years ago, at the Royal Albert Hall in January 2014, accompanied by the London Symphony Orchestra for £25.

When the concerts a decade ago featured a whole orchestra and the original band, then of course it was going to be a high price, but without the orchestra and any named musicians, I fail to see how £38 can be warranted. That's more expensive than going to see Glyndebourne opera at these theatres (with a huge cast, all of which are actually alive) or any musical that visits the theatre (again, often with big casts). I paid £10 less to see Les Mis when it did a tour of the country last year.

It's a clear case once again that fans are happy to pay any money, without question,providing Elvis is involved. We saw the same thing when the complete masters was deemed to be a bargain at £400 the other week on here. It's ludicrous. People are paying £100 for a book and not even thinking "hang on, is this worth it". All sense of proportion financially goes out of the window, it seems, when it comes to Elvis. If he was alive and still touring, you'd only be paying twice that amount at most to see him!


Do you ever see 'Elvis The Concert' when it toured the UK?


Nope, I have always said that it wasn't for me - but at least with a giant screen, the original band and the large venues there was a sense of an "event" about it. However, as my post above (which you failed to comment on) shows quite clearly, that sense of event is not going to be present there this time - the screen will be no bigger than a cinema screen (if that big), the thrill of an arena setting will no longer be there, and the musicians are not ones people can relate to.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:27 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:Nope, I have always said that it wasn't for me - but at least with a giant screen, the original band and the large venues there was a sense of an "event" about it. However, as my post above (which you failed to comment on) shows quite clearly, that sense of event is not going to be present there this time - the screen will be no bigger than a cinema screen (if that big), the thrill of an arena setting will no longer be there, and the musicians are not ones people can relate to.

Interesting points, thank you.

Might it be argued that the smaller venues will give a greater sense of intimacy and therefore an improved experience.

Sort of a Vegas feeling rather than an arena where one is so far from the performer that one can't really relate?

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:45 pm

George Smith wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:Nope, I have always said that it wasn't for me - but at least with a giant screen, the original band and the large venues there was a sense of an "event" about it. However, as my post above (which you failed to comment on) shows quite clearly, that sense of event is not going to be present there this time - the screen will be no bigger than a cinema screen (if that big), the thrill of an arena setting will no longer be there, and the musicians are not ones people can relate to.

Interesting points, thank you.

Might it be argued that the smaller venues will give a greater sense of intimacy and therefore an improved experience.

Sort of a Vegas feeling rather than an arena where one is so far from the performer that one can't really relate?


I wouldn't have thought so. I thought that the whole appeal was seeing the giant screen, with multiple shots at the same time to produce a kind of awe-inspiring event? I sat in a cinema and saw TTWII special edition on roughly the same size screen as these shows will use and didn't feel I was in Vegas - just that I was in a cinema. We keep forgetting here that the singer people are going to be watching is not going to be there, and that any sense of "liveness" is killed by the fact we know these performances inside out. The big arenas give that live atmosphere, but a normal size screen in a normal size venue would, presumably, give a normal cinema experience - with a band playing along.

Look, I know people go to sing-along-rocky-horror or whatever at cinemas all the time. And I'm sure it's fun, and I'm sure the Elvis night will be fun. But you can go to see those shows for £15 at the best cinemas in London. The problem here is that you are going to see a film on a regular screen for £38, and without a "star band" that's just a ridiculous amount of money.

To put it another way, if your local multi-plex cinema was showing TTWII, would you pay £38 to see it, even if they were offering it as a double bill where the second half of the evening was a concert of Elvis music by a group of musicians you've never heard of and without a lead vocalist?
Last edited by poormadpeter on Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:49 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Mountain Misst wrote:It is a good night out, my very young son thrilled at the time that he could watch Ronnie Tutt the entire time. We still talk about it. Imagine seeing Elvis live? That would have been incredible! Lucky people who did.


Yes, but that isn't the case here. You are seeing Elvis on a screen, backed by musicians who have no relation to the singer in question. It might be worth pointing out that these theatres are simply not big enough to accommodate a screen with all the different camera angles or split screen in the way shown in the past. Or, if they do, each segment of the screen will be MUCH smaller. The screen is likely to be the size of your typical multiplex medium-size screen. What's more, they have to accommodate the musicians as well, which means the screen will have to be some way off the floor.

The width of the stage at Ipswich, for example, is a mere 11 metres - that's 5 metres smaller than the largest screen at the rather modest multiplex in Norwich. The size of the stage in Leicester is just 12.5 metres. But just because these theatres are 11 and 12.5 stage width, doesn't mean all the width can be used for a screen, or people in certain parts of the theatre would not be able to see one or other of the edges. Also, when you see a film at the cinema you are very close to the screen. That's not going to be the case in a theatre, where you will have the whole depth of the stage separating you, plus possibly an orchestra pit, plus however many rows of seats are in front of you.

The sizes above are not the same for all venues (London and Birmingham are around 50% bigger, for example), but even so the effect is going to be much different to a stadium etc.

While Bodie is saying I'm "too tight" to spend £38 to go and watch the show, that isn't the case at all. But £38 is A LOT of money to go and watch a film accompanied by a group of jobbing musicians. I can see a fully-restored silent film, accompanied live by a full symphony orchestra playing a specially commissioned brand new score for £15-20 in a prestigious venue such as the Barbican in London. That would feature around 80 musicians. Bearing that in mind, it seems a vast amount of money to me to pay nearly twice that amount to see a film accompanied by maybe 15-20 people at the most in a provincial theatre. You can even see The Artist, a film from just two years ago, at the Royal Albert Hall in January 2014, accompanied by the London Symphony Orchestra for £25.

When the concerts a decade ago featured a whole orchestra and the original band, then of course it was going to be a high price, but without the orchestra and any named musicians, I fail to see how £38 can be warranted. That's more expensive than going to see Glyndebourne opera at these theatres (with a huge cast, all of which are actually alive) or any musical that visits the theatre (again, often with big casts). I paid £10 less to see Les Mis when it did a tour of the country last year.

It's a clear case once again that fans are happy to pay any money, without question,providing Elvis is involved. We saw the same thing when the complete masters was deemed to be a bargain at £400 the other week on here. It's ludicrous. People are paying £100 for a book and not even thinking "hang on, is this worth it". All sense of proportion financially goes out of the window, it seems, when it comes to Elvis. If he was alive and still touring, you'd only be paying twice that amount at most to see him!


Do you ever see 'Elvis The Concert' when it toured the UK?


Nope, I have always said that it wasn't for me - but at least with a giant screen, the original band and the large venues there was a sense of an "event" about it. However, as my post above (which you failed to comment on) shows quite clearly, that sense of event is not going to be present there this time - the screen will be no bigger than a cinema screen (if that big), the thrill of an arena setting will no longer be there, and the musicians are not ones people can relate to.


Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.

The atmosphere of seeing one of these shows is only something you can get if you have actually been to one of these shows and you haven't so it seems you have no right to comment on these shows as you have never seen one.

How you can have the nerve to write a review on something you have never even been to, that is absolutely ridiculous and im not gonna waste my time discussing this with you any more.

Unbelieveable !!! :facep:

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:27 pm

Bodie wrote:[Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.


:lol:

I've never been to one of these concerts, however I've seen the "Elvis Lives" dvd and was hugely disappointed that it didn't sound anything like the songs I knew and love.

Hopefully the songs in the concerts in 2014 will sound like they did originally

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:30 pm

Tigurinn wrote:
Bodie wrote:[Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.


:lol:

I've never been to one of these concerts, however I've seen the "Elvis Lives" dvd and was hugely disappointed that it didn't sound anything like the songs I knew and love.

Hopefully the songs in the concerts in 2014 will sound like they did originally


my grandfather actually thought that the elvis lives dvd sounded very similar to the original live versions of those songs..

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:09 am

Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Mountain Misst wrote:It is a good night out, my very young son thrilled at the time that he could watch Ronnie Tutt the entire time. We still talk about it. Imagine seeing Elvis live? That would have been incredible! Lucky people who did.


Yes, but that isn't the case here. You are seeing Elvis on a screen, backed by musicians who have no relation to the singer in question. It might be worth pointing out that these theatres are simply not big enough to accommodate a screen with all the different camera angles or split screen in the way shown in the past. Or, if they do, each segment of the screen will be MUCH smaller. The screen is likely to be the size of your typical multiplex medium-size screen. What's more, they have to accommodate the musicians as well, which means the screen will have to be some way off the floor.

The width of the stage at Ipswich, for example, is a mere 11 metres - that's 5 metres smaller than the largest screen at the rather modest multiplex in Norwich. The size of the stage in Leicester is just 12.5 metres. But just because these theatres are 11 and 12.5 stage width, doesn't mean all the width can be used for a screen, or people in certain parts of the theatre would not be able to see one or other of the edges. Also, when you see a film at the cinema you are very close to the screen. That's not going to be the case in a theatre, where you will have the whole depth of the stage separating you, plus possibly an orchestra pit, plus however many rows of seats are in front of you.

The sizes above are not the same for all venues (London and Birmingham are around 50% bigger, for example), but even so the effect is going to be much different to a stadium etc.

While Bodie is saying I'm "too tight" to spend £38 to go and watch the show, that isn't the case at all. But £38 is A LOT of money to go and watch a film accompanied by a group of jobbing musicians. I can see a fully-restored silent film, accompanied live by a full symphony orchestra playing a specially commissioned brand new score for £15-20 in a prestigious venue such as the Barbican in London. That would feature around 80 musicians. Bearing that in mind, it seems a vast amount of money to me to pay nearly twice that amount to see a film accompanied by maybe 15-20 people at the most in a provincial theatre. You can even see The Artist, a film from just two years ago, at the Royal Albert Hall in January 2014, accompanied by the London Symphony Orchestra for £25.

When the concerts a decade ago featured a whole orchestra and the original band, then of course it was going to be a high price, but without the orchestra and any named musicians, I fail to see how £38 can be warranted. That's more expensive than going to see Glyndebourne opera at these theatres (with a huge cast, all of which are actually alive) or any musical that visits the theatre (again, often with big casts). I paid £10 less to see Les Mis when it did a tour of the country last year.

It's a clear case once again that fans are happy to pay any money, without question,providing Elvis is involved. We saw the same thing when the complete masters was deemed to be a bargain at £400 the other week on here. It's ludicrous. People are paying £100 for a book and not even thinking "hang on, is this worth it". All sense of proportion financially goes out of the window, it seems, when it comes to Elvis. If he was alive and still touring, you'd only be paying twice that amount at most to see him!


Do you ever see 'Elvis The Concert' when it toured the UK?


Nope, I have always said that it wasn't for me - but at least with a giant screen, the original band and the large venues there was a sense of an "event" about it. However, as my post above (which you failed to comment on) shows quite clearly, that sense of event is not going to be present there this time - the screen will be no bigger than a cinema screen (if that big), the thrill of an arena setting will no longer be there, and the musicians are not ones people can relate to.


Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.

The atmosphere of seeing one of these shows is only something you can get if you have actually been to one of these shows and you haven't so it seems you have no right to comment on these shows as you have never seen one.

How you can have the nerve to write a review on something you have never even been to, that is absolutely ridiculous and im not gonna waste my time discussing this with you any more.

Unbelieveable !!! :facep:


On the contrary - I said quite clearly what the attractions would have been for those big arena shows. I'm not stupid. I never said anything about the quality of them; I didn't offer a review, and I didn't pass judgement on them. I have pointed out what the MAJOR differences will be this time around.

Now, it would make life more sane around here if you stopped taking the hallucinogenic drugs, Bodie, and actually read what I write, and not what you think I'm writing. You will note, that I am actually talking about forthcoming events, that no-one has seen!

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:32 am

Funny that they continue to ignore the U.S. with these type shows, especially the South. If they are going to smaller venues I'm sure they could sell out and not have the expense of going overseas, IMHO.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:17 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Mountain Misst wrote:It is a good night out, my very young son thrilled at the time that he could watch Ronnie Tutt the entire time. We still talk about it. Imagine seeing Elvis live? That would have been incredible! Lucky people who did.


Yes, but that isn't the case here. You are seeing Elvis on a screen, backed by musicians who have no relation to the singer in question. It might be worth pointing out that these theatres are simply not big enough to accommodate a screen with all the different camera angles or split screen in the way shown in the past. Or, if they do, each segment of the screen will be MUCH smaller. The screen is likely to be the size of your typical multiplex medium-size screen. What's more, they have to accommodate the musicians as well, which means the screen will have to be some way off the floor.

The width of the stage at Ipswich, for example, is a mere 11 metres - that's 5 metres smaller than the largest screen at the rather modest multiplex in Norwich. The size of the stage in Leicester is just 12.5 metres. But just because these theatres are 11 and 12.5 stage width, doesn't mean all the width can be used for a screen, or people in certain parts of the theatre would not be able to see one or other of the edges. Also, when you see a film at the cinema you are very close to the screen. That's not going to be the case in a theatre, where you will have the whole depth of the stage separating you, plus possibly an orchestra pit, plus however many rows of seats are in front of you.

The sizes above are not the same for all venues (London and Birmingham are around 50% bigger, for example), but even so the effect is going to be much different to a stadium etc.

While Bodie is saying I'm "too tight" to spend £38 to go and watch the show, that isn't the case at all. But £38 is A LOT of money to go and watch a film accompanied by a group of jobbing musicians. I can see a fully-restored silent film, accompanied live by a full symphony orchestra playing a specially commissioned brand new score for £15-20 in a prestigious venue such as the Barbican in London. That would feature around 80 musicians. Bearing that in mind, it seems a vast amount of money to me to pay nearly twice that amount to see a film accompanied by maybe 15-20 people at the most in a provincial theatre. You can even see The Artist, a film from just two years ago, at the Royal Albert Hall in January 2014, accompanied by the London Symphony Orchestra for £25.

When the concerts a decade ago featured a whole orchestra and the original band, then of course it was going to be a high price, but without the orchestra and any named musicians, I fail to see how £38 can be warranted. That's more expensive than going to see Glyndebourne opera at these theatres (with a huge cast, all of which are actually alive) or any musical that visits the theatre (again, often with big casts). I paid £10 less to see Les Mis when it did a tour of the country last year.

It's a clear case once again that fans are happy to pay any money, without question,providing Elvis is involved. We saw the same thing when the complete masters was deemed to be a bargain at £400 the other week on here. It's ludicrous. People are paying £100 for a book and not even thinking "hang on, is this worth it". All sense of proportion financially goes out of the window, it seems, when it comes to Elvis. If he was alive and still touring, you'd only be paying twice that amount at most to see him!


Do you ever see 'Elvis The Concert' when it toured the UK?


Nope, I have always said that it wasn't for me - but at least with a giant screen, the original band and the large venues there was a sense of an "event" about it. However, as my post above (which you failed to comment on) shows quite clearly, that sense of event is not going to be present there this time - the screen will be no bigger than a cinema screen (if that big), the thrill of an arena setting will no longer be there, and the musicians are not ones people can relate to.


Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.

The atmosphere of seeing one of these shows is only something you can get if you have actually been to one of these shows and you haven't so it seems you have no right to comment on these shows as you have never seen one.

How you can have the nerve to write a review on something you have never even been to, that is absolutely ridiculous and im not gonna waste my time discussing this with you any more.

Unbelieveable !!! :facep:


On the contrary - I said quite clearly what the attractions would have been for those big arena shows. I'm not stupid. I never said anything about the quality of them; I didn't offer a review, and I didn't pass judgement on them. I have pointed out what the MAJOR differences will be this time around.

Now, it would make life more sane around here if you stopped taking the hallucinogenic drugs, Bodie, and actually read what I write, and not what you think I'm writing. You will note, that I am actually talking about forthcoming events, that no-one has seen!



Some people are prepared the pay the fee others are not... That's just down to the individual. As I have said before it's not just going to watch a 'cinema' production it's supporting Elvis memory and giving people chance to meet likeminded people. There's no harm in any of this. Beside we can't make any judgement on a show that hasn't even been preformed yet...

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:38 pm

steve in SC wrote:Funny that they continue to ignore the U.S. with these type shows, especially the South. If they are going to smaller venues I'm sure they could sell out and not have the expense of going overseas, IMHO.


This concert is going to tour the U.S.A. in 2014 also.

Brian

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:25 pm

The stall tickets for the Saturday Concert at Hammersmith are already sold out on the official pre-sale ticket website www.theticketfactory.com
Some can still be obtained from other ticket agencies but the prices range from £60 to £159.

Brian

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:18 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Mountain Misst wrote:It is a good night out, my very young son thrilled at the time that he could watch Ronnie Tutt the entire time. We still talk about it. Imagine seeing Elvis live? That would have been incredible! Lucky people who did.


Yes, but that isn't the case here. You are seeing Elvis on a screen, backed by musicians who have no relation to the singer in question. It might be worth pointing out that these theatres are simply not big enough to accommodate a screen with all the different camera angles or split screen in the way shown in the past. Or, if they do, each segment of the screen will be MUCH smaller. The screen is likely to be the size of your typical multiplex medium-size screen. What's more, they have to accommodate the musicians as well, which means the screen will have to be some way off the floor.

The width of the stage at Ipswich, for example, is a mere 11 metres - that's 5 metres smaller than the largest screen at the rather modest multiplex in Norwich. The size of the stage in Leicester is just 12.5 metres. But just because these theatres are 11 and 12.5 stage width, doesn't mean all the width can be used for a screen, or people in certain parts of the theatre would not be able to see one or other of the edges. Also, when you see a film at the cinema you are very close to the screen. That's not going to be the case in a theatre, where you will have the whole depth of the stage separating you, plus possibly an orchestra pit, plus however many rows of seats are in front of you.

The sizes above are not the same for all venues (London and Birmingham are around 50% bigger, for example), but even so the effect is going to be much different to a stadium etc.

While Bodie is saying I'm "too tight" to spend £38 to go and watch the show, that isn't the case at all. But £38 is A LOT of money to go and watch a film accompanied by a group of jobbing musicians. I can see a fully-restored silent film, accompanied live by a full symphony orchestra playing a specially commissioned brand new score for £15-20 in a prestigious venue such as the Barbican in London. That would feature around 80 musicians. Bearing that in mind, it seems a vast amount of money to me to pay nearly twice that amount to see a film accompanied by maybe 15-20 people at the most in a provincial theatre. You can even see The Artist, a film from just two years ago, at the Royal Albert Hall in January 2014, accompanied by the London Symphony Orchestra for £25.

When the concerts a decade ago featured a whole orchestra and the original band, then of course it was going to be a high price, but without the orchestra and any named musicians, I fail to see how £38 can be warranted. That's more expensive than going to see Glyndebourne opera at these theatres (with a huge cast, all of which are actually alive) or any musical that visits the theatre (again, often with big casts). I paid £10 less to see Les Mis when it did a tour of the country last year.

It's a clear case once again that fans are happy to pay any money, without question,providing Elvis is involved. We saw the same thing when the complete masters was deemed to be a bargain at £400 the other week on here. It's ludicrous. People are paying £100 for a book and not even thinking "hang on, is this worth it". All sense of proportion financially goes out of the window, it seems, when it comes to Elvis. If he was alive and still touring, you'd only be paying twice that amount at most to see him!


Do you ever see 'Elvis The Concert' when it toured the UK?


Nope, I have always said that it wasn't for me - but at least with a giant screen, the original band and the large venues there was a sense of an "event" about it. However, as my post above (which you failed to comment on) shows quite clearly, that sense of event is not going to be present there this time - the screen will be no bigger than a cinema screen (if that big), the thrill of an arena setting will no longer be there, and the musicians are not ones people can relate to.


Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.

The atmosphere of seeing one of these shows is only something you can get if you have actually been to one of these shows and you haven't so it seems you have no right to comment on these shows as you have never seen one.

How you can have the nerve to write a review on something you have never even been to, that is absolutely ridiculous and im not gonna waste my time discussing this with you any more.

Unbelieveable !!! :facep:


On the contrary - I said quite clearly what the attractions would have been for those big arena shows. I'm not stupid. I never said anything about the quality of them; I didn't offer a review, and I didn't pass judgement on them. I have pointed out what the MAJOR differences will be this time around.

Now, it would make life more sane around here if you stopped taking the hallucinogenic drugs, Bodie, and actually read what I write, and not what you think I'm writing. You will note, that I am actually talking about forthcoming events, that no-one has seen!


You have reviewed the shows and you have past judgement on them, in your own way.

How can you say what the MAJOR differences are this time around when you didn't even go and see the shows the last time around? :?

You also seem to not realise that Elvis The Concert has been at the Hammersmith Apollo before.

I have actually been waiting for a complete change into how 'Elvis Presley-On Stage' is shown compared to the previous shows that i have seen.

Obviously you are gonna slate this latest tour cause you never bothered to go to any of the previous tours which i find quite surprising seeing as you are such an expert on these latest shows :roll:

I have been to several of the Elvis The Concert shows that have been in London and some have been better than others and quite different than others as well.
This one should be more different and certainly worth the money they are asking.

Thanks Brian for putting this topic up. :D

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:46 pm

Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Mountain Misst wrote:It is a good night out, my very young son thrilled at the time that he could watch Ronnie Tutt the entire time. We still talk about it. Imagine seeing Elvis live? That would have been incredible! Lucky people who did.


Yes, but that isn't the case here. You are seeing Elvis on a screen, backed by musicians who have no relation to the singer in question. It might be worth pointing out that these theatres are simply not big enough to accommodate a screen with all the different camera angles or split screen in the way shown in the past. Or, if they do, each segment of the screen will be MUCH smaller. The screen is likely to be the size of your typical multiplex medium-size screen. What's more, they have to accommodate the musicians as well, which means the screen will have to be some way off the floor.

The width of the stage at Ipswich, for example, is a mere 11 metres - that's 5 metres smaller than the largest screen at the rather modest multiplex in Norwich. The size of the stage in Leicester is just 12.5 metres. But just because these theatres are 11 and 12.5 stage width, doesn't mean all the width can be used for a screen, or people in certain parts of the theatre would not be able to see one or other of the edges. Also, when you see a film at the cinema you are very close to the screen. That's not going to be the case in a theatre, where you will have the whole depth of the stage separating you, plus possibly an orchestra pit, plus however many rows of seats are in front of you.

The sizes above are not the same for all venues (London and Birmingham are around 50% bigger, for example), but even so the effect is going to be much different to a stadium etc.

While Bodie is saying I'm "too tight" to spend £38 to go and watch the show, that isn't the case at all. But £38 is A LOT of money to go and watch a film accompanied by a group of jobbing musicians. I can see a fully-restored silent film, accompanied live by a full symphony orchestra playing a specially commissioned brand new score for £15-20 in a prestigious venue such as the Barbican in London. That would feature around 80 musicians. Bearing that in mind, it seems a vast amount of money to me to pay nearly twice that amount to see a film accompanied by maybe 15-20 people at the most in a provincial theatre. You can even see The Artist, a film from just two years ago, at the Royal Albert Hall in January 2014, accompanied by the London Symphony Orchestra for £25.

When the concerts a decade ago featured a whole orchestra and the original band, then of course it was going to be a high price, but without the orchestra and any named musicians, I fail to see how £38 can be warranted. That's more expensive than going to see Glyndebourne opera at these theatres (with a huge cast, all of which are actually alive) or any musical that visits the theatre (again, often with big casts). I paid £10 less to see Les Mis when it did a tour of the country last year.

It's a clear case once again that fans are happy to pay any money, without question,providing Elvis is involved. We saw the same thing when the complete masters was deemed to be a bargain at £400 the other week on here. It's ludicrous. People are paying £100 for a book and not even thinking "hang on, is this worth it". All sense of proportion financially goes out of the window, it seems, when it comes to Elvis. If he was alive and still touring, you'd only be paying twice that amount at most to see him!


Do you ever see 'Elvis The Concert' when it toured the UK?


Nope, I have always said that it wasn't for me - but at least with a giant screen, the original band and the large venues there was a sense of an "event" about it. However, as my post above (which you failed to comment on) shows quite clearly, that sense of event is not going to be present there this time - the screen will be no bigger than a cinema screen (if that big), the thrill of an arena setting will no longer be there, and the musicians are not ones people can relate to.


Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.

The atmosphere of seeing one of these shows is only something you can get if you have actually been to one of these shows and you haven't so it seems you have no right to comment on these shows as you have never seen one.

How you can have the nerve to write a review on something you have never even been to, that is absolutely ridiculous and im not gonna waste my time discussing this with you any more.

Unbelieveable !!! :facep:


On the contrary - I said quite clearly what the attractions would have been for those big arena shows. I'm not stupid. I never said anything about the quality of them; I didn't offer a review, and I didn't pass judgement on them. I have pointed out what the MAJOR differences will be this time around.

Now, it would make life more sane around here if you stopped taking the hallucinogenic drugs, Bodie, and actually read what I write, and not what you think I'm writing. You will note, that I am actually talking about forthcoming events, that no-one has seen!


You have reviewed the shows and you have past judgement on them, in your own way.

How can you say what the MAJOR differences are this time around when you didn't even go and see the shows the last time around? :?

You also seem to not realise that Elvis The Concert has been at the Hammersmith Apollo before.

I have actually been waiting for a complete change into how 'Elvis Presley-On Stage' is shown compared to the previous shows that i have seen.

Obviously you are gonna slate this latest tour cause you never bothered to go to any of the previous tours which i find quite surprising seeing as you are such an expert on these latest shows :roll:

I have been to several of the Elvis The Concert shows that have been in London and some have been better than others and quite different than others as well.
This one should be more different and certainly worth the money they are asking.

Thanks Brian for putting this topic up. :D


It does not take a genius to work out what the differences will be, whether people have been to the show or not. I do not need to have gone to previous shows to realise the whole thing is going to be massively scaled down and without the key musicians that were part of the attraction in previous showings. I also stated in my post, above, that the London and Birmingham venues (and possibly others) will not suffer from the same scaling down as other venues. Presumably you missed that line as well.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:50 pm

Johnny2523 wrote:
Tigurinn wrote:
Bodie wrote:[Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.


:lol:

I've never been to one of these concerts, however I've seen the "Elvis Lives" dvd and was hugely disappointed that it didn't sound anything like the songs I knew and love.

Hopefully the songs in the concerts in 2014 will sound like they did originally


my grandfather actually thought that the elvis lives dvd sounded very similar to the original live versions of those songs..


I find it to be very weak sound, especially at Big Hunk O'Love (which, for example, sounds different to my ears)

at around 1:05:00:

phpBB [video]

Last edited by Tigurinn on Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:53 pm

Tigurinn wrote:
Johnny2523 wrote:
Tigurinn wrote:
Bodie wrote:[Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.


:lol:

I've never been to one of these concerts, however I've seen the "Elvis Lives" dvd and was hugely disappointed that it didn't sound anything like the songs I knew and love.

Hopefully the songs in the concerts in 2014 will sound like they did originally


my grandfather actually thought that the elvis lives dvd sounded very similar to the original live versions of those songs..


I find it to be very weak sound, especially at Big Hunk O'Love

at around 1:05:00:

phpBB [video]



It has a lot more power when ur there at the concert.
I been to the concert in 2010 and 2012 and sounding alot stronger then the elvis lives dvd.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:55 pm

The DVD was a cool keepsake of that memorable show but it definitely sounded better in person than what we hear on that DVD.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:25 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Mountain Misst wrote:It is a good night out, my very young son thrilled at the time that he could watch Ronnie Tutt the entire time. We still talk about it. Imagine seeing Elvis live? That would have been incredible! Lucky people who did.


Yes, but that isn't the case here. You are seeing Elvis on a screen, backed by musicians who have no relation to the singer in question. It might be worth pointing out that these theatres are simply not big enough to accommodate a screen with all the different camera angles or split screen in the way shown in the past. Or, if they do, each segment of the screen will be MUCH smaller. The screen is likely to be the size of your typical multiplex medium-size screen. What's more, they have to accommodate the musicians as well, which means the screen will have to be some way off the floor.

The width of the stage at Ipswich, for example, is a mere 11 metres - that's 5 metres smaller than the largest screen at the rather modest multiplex in Norwich. The size of the stage in Leicester is just 12.5 metres. But just because these theatres are 11 and 12.5 stage width, doesn't mean all the width can be used for a screen, or people in certain parts of the theatre would not be able to see one or other of the edges. Also, when you see a film at the cinema you are very close to the screen. That's not going to be the case in a theatre, where you will have the whole depth of the stage separating you, plus possibly an orchestra pit, plus however many rows of seats are in front of you.

The sizes above are not the same for all venues (London and Birmingham are around 50% bigger, for example), but even so the effect is going to be much different to a stadium etc.

While Bodie is saying I'm "too tight" to spend £38 to go and watch the show, that isn't the case at all. But £38 is A LOT of money to go and watch a film accompanied by a group of jobbing musicians. I can see a fully-restored silent film, accompanied live by a full symphony orchestra playing a specially commissioned brand new score for £15-20 in a prestigious venue such as the Barbican in London. That would feature around 80 musicians. Bearing that in mind, it seems a vast amount of money to me to pay nearly twice that amount to see a film accompanied by maybe 15-20 people at the most in a provincial theatre. You can even see The Artist, a film from just two years ago, at the Royal Albert Hall in January 2014, accompanied by the London Symphony Orchestra for £25.

When the concerts a decade ago featured a whole orchestra and the original band, then of course it was going to be a high price, but without the orchestra and any named musicians, I fail to see how £38 can be warranted. That's more expensive than going to see Glyndebourne opera at these theatres (with a huge cast, all of which are actually alive) or any musical that visits the theatre (again, often with big casts). I paid £10 less to see Les Mis when it did a tour of the country last year.

It's a clear case once again that fans are happy to pay any money, without question,providing Elvis is involved. We saw the same thing when the complete masters was deemed to be a bargain at £400 the other week on here. It's ludicrous. People are paying £100 for a book and not even thinking "hang on, is this worth it". All sense of proportion financially goes out of the window, it seems, when it comes to Elvis. If he was alive and still touring, you'd only be paying twice that amount at most to see him!


Do you ever see 'Elvis The Concert' when it toured the UK?


Nope, I have always said that it wasn't for me - but at least with a giant screen, the original band and the large venues there was a sense of an "event" about it. However, as my post above (which you failed to comment on) shows quite clearly, that sense of event is not going to be present there this time - the screen will be no bigger than a cinema screen (if that big), the thrill of an arena setting will no longer be there, and the musicians are not ones people can relate to.


Well how can you comment on something that you have never experienced?

That's like doing a review on a book you have never read.

The atmosphere of seeing one of these shows is only something you can get if you have actually been to one of these shows and you haven't so it seems you have no right to comment on these shows as you have never seen one.

How you can have the nerve to write a review on something you have never even been to, that is absolutely ridiculous and im not gonna waste my time discussing this with you any more.

Unbelieveable !!! :facep:


On the contrary - I said quite clearly what the attractions would have been for those big arena shows. I'm not stupid. I never said anything about the quality of them; I didn't offer a review, and I didn't pass judgement on them. I have pointed out what the MAJOR differences will be this time around.

Now, it would make life more sane around here if you stopped taking the hallucinogenic drugs, Bodie, and actually read what I write, and not what you think I'm writing. You will note, that I am actually talking about forthcoming events, that no-one has seen!


You have reviewed the shows and you have past judgement on them, in your own way.

How can you say what the MAJOR differences are this time around when you didn't even go and see the shows the last time around? :?

You also seem to not realise that Elvis The Concert has been at the Hammersmith Apollo before.

I have actually been waiting for a complete change into how 'Elvis Presley-On Stage' is shown compared to the previous shows that i have seen.

Obviously you are gonna slate this latest tour cause you never bothered to go to any of the previous tours which i find quite surprising seeing as you are such an expert on these latest shows :roll:

I have been to several of the Elvis The Concert shows that have been in London and some have been better than others and quite different than others as well.
This one should be more different and certainly worth the money they are asking.

Thanks Brian for putting this topic up. :D


It does not take a genius to work out what the differences will be, whether people have been to the show or not. I do not need to have gone to previous shows to realise the whole thing is going to be massively scaled down and without the key musicians that were part of the attraction in previous showings. I also stated in my post, above, that the London and Birmingham venues (and possibly others) will not suffer from the same scaling down as other venues. Presumably you missed that line as well.



But why mention the differences when to you it doesn't really matter either way cause you never bothered to go to any of the previous tours when it played to larger venues and had the original backing musicians and singers.

Your argument is meaningless.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:02 pm

Bodie wrote:

But why mention the differences when to you it doesn't really matter either way cause you never bothered to go to any of the previous tours when it played to larger venues and had the original backing musicians and singers.

Your argument is meaningless.


it doesn't matter to me if Sony brings out another Christmas CD, but I'm still entitled to comment on it. My argument is far from meaningless, it not only highlights the differences in the new shows from previous ones, but it also contains pertinent information about how scaled back this will have to be regarding screen size etc - information found nowhere else on this thread.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:06 pm

fabregaz wrote:
Some people are prepared the pay the fee others are not... That's just down to the individual. As I have said before it's not just going to watch a 'cinema' production it's supporting Elvis memory and giving people chance to meet likeminded people. There's no harm in any of this. Beside we can't make any judgement on a show that hasn't even been preformed yet...


I do not feel the need to pay £38 to support Elvis's memory. It's not supporting his memory, it's supporting the organisers diluting an idea and working it into the ground. How does attending this support a memory? Should we buy every CD that comes out in order to support a memory too??!

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:42 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
fabregaz wrote:
Some people are prepared the pay the fee others are not... That's just down to the individual. As I have said before it's not just going to watch a 'cinema' production it's supporting Elvis memory and giving people chance to meet likeminded people. There's no harm in any of this. Beside we can't make any judgement on a show that hasn't even been preformed yet...


I do not feel the need to pay £38 to support Elvis's memory. It's not supporting his memory, it's supporting the organisers diluting an idea and working it into the ground. How does attending this support a memory? Should we buy every CD that comes out in order to support a memory too??!


There are far more Elvis CD releases than than there are live concert experiences. So that sort of analogy is wholly erroneous and using it puts your already very fragile position in mortal danger. Get out whilst you can poormadpeter or just admit that your talking hysterical gobbledygook in order to whip up controversy! Heaven forbid.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:53 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
Bodie wrote:

But why mention the differences when to you it doesn't really matter either way cause you never bothered to go to any of the previous tours when it played to larger venues and had the original backing musicians and singers.

Your argument is meaningless.


it doesn't matter to me if Sony brings out another Christmas CD, but I'm still entitled to comment on it. My argument is far from meaningless, it not only highlights the differences in the new shows from previous ones, but it also contains pertinent information about how scaled back this will have to be regarding screen size etc - information found nowhere else on this thread.


The 'whole' experience of these shows, the build-up, the sound, the fans and atmosphere, is something you can't really comment on as you have never bothered to go to any of the shows.

As i wrote before ' its like doing a review of a book you haven't even read'.
Last edited by Bodie on Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:54 pm

jungleroombear wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
fabregaz wrote:
Some people are prepared the pay the fee others are not... That's just down to the individual. As I have said before it's not just going to watch a 'cinema' production it's supporting Elvis memory and giving people chance to meet likeminded people. There's no harm in any of this. Beside we can't make any judgement on a show that hasn't even been preformed yet...


I do not feel the need to pay £38 to support Elvis's memory. It's not supporting his memory, it's supporting the organisers diluting an idea and working it into the ground. How does attending this support a memory? Should we buy every CD that comes out in order to support a memory too??!


There are far more Elvis CD releases than than there are live concert experiences. So that sort of analogy is wholly erroneous and using it puts your already very fragile position in mortal danger. Get out whilst you can poormadpeter or just admit that your talking hysterical gobbledygook in order to whip up controversy! Heaven forbid.


There is nothing remotely resembling gobbledegook in my posts. Perhaps you should read them. Its wonderful how anyone who speaks their mind is accused of being controversial.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:08 am

Brian Quinn wrote:
steve in SC wrote:Funny that they continue to ignore the U.S. with these type shows, especially the South. If they are going to smaller venues I'm sure they could sell out and not have the expense of going overseas, IMHO.


This concert is going to tour the U.S.A. in 2014 also.

Brian


That is great news. I will look forward to seeing some dates announced.

Re: 'Elvis Presley - On Stage' To Tour The UK In 2014

Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:28 am

With the TCB Band no longer part of the show, it will be impressive if it does sell out in those venues. There are lots of new artists who would be pleased with those numbers.