Sweet Angeline

Anything about Elvis
More than 100 Million visitors can't be wrong

Moderators: Moderator5, Moderator3, FECC-Moderator, Site Mechanic

Post Reply

How do you feel about Sweet Angeline?

It's a great song and I love it!!!
18
25%
It's underrated and I have a soft spot for it.
33
45%
It's not that good but I consider it a guilty pleasure.
12
16%
I don't care.
5
7%
It sucks. Padre-like!
3
4%
Shove it up your nose!
2
3%
 
Total votes: 73


User avatar

jurasic1968
Posts: 12401
Joined: 11 years 7 months
Has thanked: 13259 times
Been thanked: 2586 times

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1519855

Post by jurasic1968 »

I like to write this again and I completely agree with Doc regarding the New York press conference: Elvis is at his best, charming, handsome, healthy, no slurring words at all. Like I sad before, just compare this press conference with the November 20 1972 one. I was shocked when I saw this one for the first time. Elvis clearly on that day was on downers (maybe Demerol).




Topic author
Stvimpe

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1519857

Post by Stvimpe »

Stvimpe wrote:Dear ladies and gents, I don't want to spoil the party, but can we stick to Sweet Angeline? With all due respect, but I'd like to suggest that those who are eager to discuss Elvis' drug habits, create a separate thread. Thanks!
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Image

Anyway, 66 votes and counting... :-)



User avatar

MikeFromHolland
Posts: 7583
Joined: 11 years 11 months
Has thanked: 2479 times
Been thanked: 6842 times

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1519865

Post by MikeFromHolland »

.

Now that I come to think of it. There's one option missing in your poll:

"It's fantastic. Padre-like!"

..


.


Mike

------
lay back,
take it easy
And try a smile...

.


Topic author
Stvimpe

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1519869

Post by Stvimpe »

:-P

Best version of Padre I've seen. Thanks, Mike!




Topic author
r&b

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1519877

Post by r&b »

Juan Luis wrote:
fn2drive wrote:
jetblack wrote:
poormadpeter2 wrote:And once again the obsession with drugs. Earlier we were told it was brought up because it affected Elvis' performances. But here we have a press conference is looking great, alert and quick-witted. What do certain members on the board want to talk about? That he couldn't possibly be clean. And yet a few days ago they were saying the drugs angle was brought up when it affected performances. Here it didn't. So why look for it?

Some people are obsessed.
Peter is right. It's the music that counts.

When listening to Elvis no-one cares outside the few on this board what Elvis was or was not taking.

fn2drive wrote: Exactly what explains the utter crap he produced from 71 tp 77? Why was none of the output remotely close to American? The worst of American mostly bests anything cut during this period.
As you have a biased opinion before you start by calling the majority of Elvis' 70's outpost as "utter crap" makes anything you say about the subject totally moot.

Most posts by certain boardmembers always seem to have a negative slant to them.

It makes one wonder if you are fans of Elvis at all.

Andy
So first there is no response to the foundational question of 7 years of substandard work because the answer is drugs and Las Vegas plus increasing isolation and depression. Not one masterpiece album in 7 years- though for some here Having Fun... is a treasure.. My opinion is my opinion and my opinion is most of the post 1970 releases were totally substandard. If Padre isn't substandard to you, that's only because if Elvis sang it so it must be good.

Elvis was all those things at the press conference and high as well. Spend some time with the Prince DVD press conference and focus on his eyes. I point August 72 as the point of no return for Elvis and his drug abuse-no road home. Elvis was high in June 72 but he was still taking drugs--soon after the drugs took him.
Bunch of crap. McCartney hasn't had a masterpiece since 1973's Band On The Run" unless you count 1982's Tug of War". My point? Masterpieces aren't cranked out on every corner. Seven years is not a long time unless you are 18 years old! How about Lennon? After "Imagine" what? "Double Fantasy"? No. Just so happened he became a martyr shortly after that release. George Harrison? After "All Things Must Pass"... What? All things must pass indeed....You have an obsession with drugs. And I am sure it's not Elvis's fault!
Maybe not LPs but there were still plenty of number one singles into the 80's. Whatever Gets You Through The Night is one of John's best solo efforts and I dont think Starting Over became a hit because he was killed. its a good song, with a nod to Elvis' vocal style in parts.



User avatar

drjohncarpenter
Posts: 107019
Joined: 20 years 11 months
Location: United States of America
Has thanked: 11700 times
Been thanked: 33635 times
Age: 89

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1519999

Post by drjohncarpenter »

fn2drive wrote:
poormadpeter2 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:Bunch of crap. McCartney hasn't had a masterpiece since 1973's Band On The Run" unless you count 1982's Tug of War". My point? Masterpieces aren't cranked out on every corner. Seven years is not a long time unless you are 18 years old! How about Lennon? After "Imagine" what? "Double Fantasy"? No. Just so happened he became a martyr shortly after that release. George Harrison? After "All Things Must Pass"... What? All things must pass indeed....You have an obsession with drugs. And I am sure it's not Elvis's fault!
Why in the world are you bringing up solo Beatles in this conversation? They have nothing to do with what Elvis was doing in the 1970s. And your hysterical tone is unpleasant to read.
One day, you will learn that you are not a parent or teacher on here reprimanding your kids.
A well worded and thoughtful reply vs your stock in trade hurling insults and accusations as if you are the supreme arbitor.
What we learn is that after forty years the force is strong with the drug deny-ers. Because massive quantities of drugs spur creativity according to you, so i ask again where are the masterpieces that were created by Elvis' superhuman drug intake. Juan is saying masterpieces dont just come along but you assert drugs foster creativity-so which is it and please explain why he never topped American? Color me confused.
This is what he does, and so often the irony is striking. Plus, I was replying to someone else.


.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!

User avatar

Mike Windgren
Posts: 9200
Joined: 20 years 11 months
Location: España.
Has thanked: 2293 times
Been thanked: 4408 times

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520028

Post by Mike Windgren »

Hi there!! :D :D :D.
MikeFromHolland wrote:.

Now that I come to think of it. There's one option missing in your poll:

"It's fantastic. Padre-like!"

..


.
Cool video. Thanks for posting!.

Padre an Elvis favourite during his military service :smt020. Bye for now :smt006.
Elvis, most people have a song that is sort of special to them. Do you have a favorite song? My favorite song is a song called “Padre.”
Image

Source: Elvis - Word for Word: What He Said, Exactly As He Said It. Book by Jerry Osborne.


Maestro. Mike Windgren. Torero!!!!!!!!.
Always Trying To Make Peace <<--->> On FECC
Not The Best, Just The Coolest Guy Around!.
.


Viva el vino, viva el dinero, viva, viva el amor!!.

Image


Topic author
poormadpeter2

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520030

Post by poormadpeter2 »

r&b wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:
fn2drive wrote:
jetblack wrote:
poormadpeter2 wrote:And once again the obsession with drugs. Earlier we were told it was brought up because it affected Elvis' performances. But here we have a press conference is looking great, alert and quick-witted. What do certain members on the board want to talk about? That he couldn't possibly be clean. And yet a few days ago they were saying the drugs angle was brought up when it affected performances. Here it didn't. So why look for it?

Some people are obsessed.
Peter is right. It's the music that counts.

When listening to Elvis no-one cares outside the few on this board what Elvis was or was not taking.

fn2drive wrote: Exactly what explains the utter crap he produced from 71 tp 77? Why was none of the output remotely close to American? The worst of American mostly bests anything cut during this period.
As you have a biased opinion before you start by calling the majority of Elvis' 70's outpost as "utter crap" makes anything you say about the subject totally moot.

Most posts by certain boardmembers always seem to have a negative slant to them.

It makes one wonder if you are fans of Elvis at all.

Andy
So first there is no response to the foundational question of 7 years of substandard work because the answer is drugs and Las Vegas plus increasing isolation and depression. Not one masterpiece album in 7 years- though for some here Having Fun... is a treasure.. My opinion is my opinion and my opinion is most of the post 1970 releases were totally substandard. If Padre isn't substandard to you, that's only because if Elvis sang it so it must be good.

Elvis was all those things at the press conference and high as well. Spend some time with the Prince DVD press conference and focus on his eyes. I point August 72 as the point of no return for Elvis and his drug abuse-no road home. Elvis was high in June 72 but he was still taking drugs--soon after the drugs took him.
Bunch of crap. McCartney hasn't had a masterpiece since 1973's Band On The Run" unless you count 1982's Tug of War". My point? Masterpieces aren't cranked out on every corner. Seven years is not a long time unless you are 18 years old! How about Lennon? After "Imagine" what? "Double Fantasy"? No. Just so happened he became a martyr shortly after that release. George Harrison? After "All Things Must Pass"... What? All things must pass indeed....You have an obsession with drugs. And I am sure it's not Elvis's fault!
Maybe not LPs but there were still plenty of number one singles into the 80's. Whatever Gets You Through The Night is one of John's best solo efforts and I dont think Starting Over became a hit because he was killed. its a good song, with a nod to Elvis' vocal style in parts.
Not really plenty in most cases Whatever Gets You Through the Night was Lennon's ONLY solo #1 single prior to his death, whereas George Harrison had the grand total of 3 during the whole of the 1970s and 1980s. Sure, McCartney did better at around 1 a year on average through the 1970s, but "plenty" of Lennon or Harrison singles at #1? Don't think so!




fn2drive
TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
Posts: 5002
Joined: 20 years
Has thanked: 355 times
Been thanked: 2251 times

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520041

Post by fn2drive »

poormadpeter2 wrote:
r&b wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:
fn2drive wrote:
jetblack wrote:
poormadpeter2 wrote:And once again the obsession with drugs. Earlier we were told it was brought up because it affected Elvis' performances. But here we have a press conference is looking great, alert and quick-witted. What do certain members on the board want to talk about? That he couldn't possibly be clean. And yet a few days ago they were saying the drugs angle was brought up when it affected performances. Here it didn't. So why look for it?

Some people are obsessed.
Peter is right. It's the music that counts.

When listening to Elvis no-one cares outside the few on this board what Elvis was or was not taking.

fn2drive wrote: Exactly what explains the utter crap he produced from 71 tp 77? Why was none of the output remotely close to American? The worst of American mostly bests anything cut during this period.
As you have a biased opinion before you start by calling the majority of Elvis' 70's outpost as "utter crap" makes anything you say about the subject totally moot.

Most posts by certain boardmembers always seem to have a negative slant to them.

It makes one wonder if you are fans of Elvis at all.

Andy
So first there is no response to the foundational question of 7 years of substandard work because the answer is drugs and Las Vegas plus increasing isolation and depression. Not one masterpiece album in 7 years- though for some here Having Fun... is a treasure.. My opinion is my opinion and my opinion is most of the post 1970 releases were totally substandard. If Padre isn't substandard to you, that's only because if Elvis sang it so it must be good.

Elvis was all those things at the press conference and high as well. Spend some time with the Prince DVD press conference and focus on his eyes. I point August 72 as the point of no return for Elvis and his drug abuse-no road home. Elvis was high in June 72 but he was still taking drugs--soon after the drugs took him.
Bunch of crap. McCartney hasn't had a masterpiece since 1973's Band On The Run" unless you count 1982's Tug of War". My point? Masterpieces aren't cranked out on every corner. Seven years is not a long time unless you are 18 years old! How about Lennon? After "Imagine" what? "Double Fantasy"? No. Just so happened he became a martyr shortly after that release. George Harrison? After "All Things Must Pass"... What? All things must pass indeed....You have an obsession with drugs. And I am sure it's not Elvis's fault!
Maybe not LPs but there were still plenty of number one singles into the 80's. Whatever Gets You Through The Night is one of John's best solo efforts and I dont think Starting Over became a hit because he was killed. its a good song, with a nod to Elvis' vocal style in parts.
Not really plenty in most cases Whatever Gets You Through the Night was Lennon's ONLY solo #1 single prior to his death, whereas George Harrison had the grand total of 3 during the whole of the 1970s and 1980s. Sure, McCartney did better at around 1 a year on average through the 1970s, but "plenty" of Lennon or Harrison singles at #1? Don't think so!

Unable to respond to the foundational question just like you cant take a simple pledge. Make provocative erroneous statements attack and insult and then pretend.


Hack n. 1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward

User avatar

drjohncarpenter
Posts: 107019
Joined: 20 years 11 months
Location: United States of America
Has thanked: 11700 times
Been thanked: 33635 times
Age: 89

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520065

Post by drjohncarpenter »

Lonely Summer wrote:
r&b wrote:Maybe not LPs but there were still plenty of number one singles into the 80's. Whatever Gets You Through The Night is one of John's best solo efforts and I dont think Starting Over became a hit because he was killed. its a good song, with a nod to Elvis' vocal style in parts.
But are they MASTERPIECES? Most of us agree that Elvis turned out a few GOOD tracks after 1970. That wasn't the debate, the debate was about MASTERPIECES.
Again, in this sub-discussion it is ridiculous that someone brought solo Beatles into this conversation. That work has nothing to do with what Elvis was doing in the 1970s.


.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!


Topic author
Juan Luis

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520066

Post by Juan Luis »

Lonely Summer wrote:
But are they MASTERPIECES? Most of us agree that Elvis turned out a few GOOD tracks after 1970. That wasn't the debate, the debate was about MASTERPIECES.
Exactly. BTW.. Elvis turned out quite a few good to great tracks after 1970, IMO. Solo Beatles or any act Springsteen, Billy Joel, Elton John etc.. they have gone for decades without MASTERPIECES. Elvis in only seven years did mighty, mighty good.




Topic author
Stvimpe

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520086

Post by Stvimpe »

In his review of Raised On Rock, Peter Verbruggen wrote this about the album and Sweet Angeline:

" (...) "I Miss You” and “Girl of Mine” show us once again the real Elvis: never having any trouble to find the right notes, and adding that extra something to the song that makes you just want to listen, instead of sing along. Undisputable highlight on the album is the very sincere “For Ol' Times Sake” (...) Elvis puts down a very close-to-the-original version, not afraid to put his feelings in the song. A true masterpiece that takes away the last shred of doubt. (...)

The tender ballad “Sweet Angeline” moves along the same line. More so than being the co-founder of Rock 'n' Roll, Elvis was the King of Ballads. Although “Sweet Angeline” floats on acoustic guitar, it deserves a spot right next to the great piano-songs that millions of fans love dearly, such as “It's still Here” and “I'll take you Home Kathleen”. Most fans agree that his piano-songs, as released on the Fool album, are part of the best music Elvis ever made. Well, if they are so good, why should one call “Angeline” a mediocre song as some reviewers do?"

Source: Elvis News

http://www.elvisnews.com/articles.aspx/raised-on-rock/118#.V-OaWJ9JTCQ




Topic author
r&b

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520095

Post by r&b »

Lonely Summer wrote:
r&b wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:
fn2drive wrote:
jetblack wrote:
poormadpeter2 wrote:And once again the obsession with drugs. Earlier we were told it was brought up because it affected Elvis' performances. But here we have a press conference is looking great, alert and quick-witted. What do certain members on the board want to talk about? That he couldn't possibly be clean. And yet a few days ago they were saying the drugs angle was brought up when it affected performances. Here it didn't. So why look for it?

Some people are obsessed.
Peter is right. It's the music that counts.

When listening to Elvis no-one cares outside the few on this board what Elvis was or was not taking.

fn2drive wrote: Exactly what explains the utter crap he produced from 71 tp 77? Why was none of the output remotely close to American? The worst of American mostly bests anything cut during this period.
As you have a biased opinion before you start by calling the majority of Elvis' 70's outpost as "utter crap" makes anything you say about the subject totally moot.

Most posts by certain boardmembers always seem to have a negative slant to them.

It makes one wonder if you are fans of Elvis at all.

Andy
So first there is no response to the foundational question of 7 years of substandard work because the answer is drugs and Las Vegas plus increasing isolation and depression. Not one masterpiece album in 7 years- though for some here Having Fun... is a treasure.. My opinion is my opinion and my opinion is most of the post 1970 releases were totally substandard. If Padre isn't substandard to you, that's only because if Elvis sang it so it must be good.

Elvis was all those things at the press conference and high as well. Spend some time with the Prince DVD press conference and focus on his eyes. I point August 72 as the point of no return for Elvis and his drug abuse-no road home. Elvis was high in June 72 but he was still taking drugs--soon after the drugs took him.
Bunch of crap. McCartney hasn't had a masterpiece since 1973's Band On The Run" unless you count 1982's Tug of War". My point? Masterpieces aren't cranked out on every corner. Seven years is not a long time unless you are 18 years old! How about Lennon? After "Imagine" what? "Double Fantasy"? No. Just so happened he became a martyr shortly after that release. George Harrison? After "All Things Must Pass"... What? All things must pass indeed....You have an obsession with drugs. And I am sure it's not Elvis's fault!
Maybe not LPs but there were still plenty of number one singles into the 80's. Whatever Gets You Through The Night is one of John's best solo efforts and I dont think Starting Over became a hit because he was killed. its a good song, with a nod to Elvis' vocal style in parts.
But are they MASTERPIECES? Most of us agree that Elvis turned out a few GOOD tracks after 1970. That wasn't the debate, the debate was about MASTERPIECES.
I dont know, thats all a matter of opinion is it not. To some those singles are I guess. Im sure there are people who think none are and also no Elvis 70's tracks are masterpieces. Good tracks? Sure? But masterpiece is a strong word. As good as Burning Love is, is it a masterpiece in the same vein as Suspicious Minds or In The Ghetto? A lot of people even see it as goofy with the Hunka Hunka tag line which also has been spoofed on over the years and has been picked up on by ETAs. Elvis cut some good stuff in the 70's, and a lot of mediocre to bad stuff. I dont see any masterpieces though.




rlj4ep
Posts: 5303
Joined: 19 years 6 months
Location: New Jersey, USA
Mood:
Has thanked: 5711 times
Been thanked: 2856 times

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520149

Post by rlj4ep »

Stvimpe wrote:In his review of Raised On Rock, Peter Verbruggen wrote this about the album and Sweet Angeline:

" (...) "I Miss You” and “Girl of Mine” show us once again the real Elvis: never having any trouble to find the right notes, and adding that extra something to the song that makes you just want to listen, instead of sing along. Undisputable highlight on the album is the very sincere “For Ol' Times Sake” (...) Elvis puts down a very close-to-the-original version, not afraid to put his feelings in the song. A true masterpiece that takes away the last shred of doubt. (...)

The tender ballad “Sweet Angeline” moves along the same line. More so than being the co-founder of Rock 'n' Roll, Elvis was the King of Ballads. Although “Sweet Angeline” floats on acoustic guitar, it deserves a spot right next to the great piano-songs that millions of fans love dearly, such as “It's still Here” and “I'll take you Home Kathleen”. Most fans agree that his piano-songs, as released on the Fool album, are part of the best music Elvis ever made. Well, if they are so good, why should one call “Angeline” a mediocre song as some reviewers do?"

Source: Elvis News

http://www.elvisnews.com/articles.aspx/raised-on-rock/118#.V-OaWJ9JTCQ
Thanks for that interesting read and for bringing the conversation back to the point of the thread.

rlj




Topic author
Stvimpe

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520153

Post by Stvimpe »

My pleasure, rlj4ep, and thank you.

The full review of the album is available from the link provided. I selected a few lines to give an impression of what Peter wrote about it.

If I find some more reviews of the song, I'll post them.

Cheers! And 70 votes and counting :-)




Topic author
poormadpeter2

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520154

Post by poormadpeter2 »

fn2drive wrote:
poormadpeter2 wrote:
r&b wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:
fn2drive wrote:
jetblack wrote:
poormadpeter2 wrote:And once again the obsession with drugs. Earlier we were told it was brought up because it affected Elvis' performances. But here we have a press conference is looking great, alert and quick-witted. What do certain members on the board want to talk about? That he couldn't possibly be clean. And yet a few days ago they were saying the drugs angle was brought up when it affected performances. Here it didn't. So why look for it?

Some people are obsessed.
Peter is right. It's the music that counts.

When listening to Elvis no-one cares outside the few on this board what Elvis was or was not taking.

fn2drive wrote: Exactly what explains the utter crap he produced from 71 tp 77? Why was none of the output remotely close to American? The worst of American mostly bests anything cut during this period.
As you have a biased opinion before you start by calling the majority of Elvis' 70's outpost as "utter crap" makes anything you say about the subject totally moot.

Most posts by certain boardmembers always seem to have a negative slant to them.

It makes one wonder if you are fans of Elvis at all.

Andy
So first there is no response to the foundational question of 7 years of substandard work because the answer is drugs and Las Vegas plus increasing isolation and depression. Not one masterpiece album in 7 years- though for some here Having Fun... is a treasure.. My opinion is my opinion and my opinion is most of the post 1970 releases were totally substandard. If Padre isn't substandard to you, that's only because if Elvis sang it so it must be good.

Elvis was all those things at the press conference and high as well. Spend some time with the Prince DVD press conference and focus on his eyes. I point August 72 as the point of no return for Elvis and his drug abuse-no road home. Elvis was high in June 72 but he was still taking drugs--soon after the drugs took him.
Bunch of crap. McCartney hasn't had a masterpiece since 1973's Band On The Run" unless you count 1982's Tug of War". My point? Masterpieces aren't cranked out on every corner. Seven years is not a long time unless you are 18 years old! How about Lennon? After "Imagine" what? "Double Fantasy"? No. Just so happened he became a martyr shortly after that release. George Harrison? After "All Things Must Pass"... What? All things must pass indeed....You have an obsession with drugs. And I am sure it's not Elvis's fault!
Maybe not LPs but there were still plenty of number one singles into the 80's. Whatever Gets You Through The Night is one of John's best solo efforts and I dont think Starting Over became a hit because he was killed. its a good song, with a nod to Elvis' vocal style in parts.
Not really plenty in most cases Whatever Gets You Through the Night was Lennon's ONLY solo #1 single prior to his death, whereas George Harrison had the grand total of 3 during the whole of the 1970s and 1980s. Sure, McCartney did better at around 1 a year on average through the 1970s, but "plenty" of Lennon or Harrison singles at #1? Don't think so!

Unable to respond to the foundational question just like you cant take a simple pledge. Make provocative erroneous statements attack and insult and then pretend.
Oh, pray tell what is erroneous about my post? Or where the insult is?




Topic author
Stvimpe

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520166

Post by Stvimpe »

MikeFromHolland wrote:.

As we know, Sweet Angeline was written by Chris Arnold, David Martin and Geoff Morrow.

Image
Thanks, Mike!

Arnold, Martin, Morrow recorded Sweet Angeline in 1971. Here's a picture of their single

Image

Source: http://davidneale.eu/elvis/originals/list8.html

You can listen to a snippet of the original on:

David Neale's web page - Elvis Originals - List - Scroll down to Sweet Angeline

http://davidneale.eu/elvis/originals/list8.html

or on:

Allmusic - Arnold, Martin & Morrow - Album: Ammo: Can't Smile Without You - Disc 1, track 21.

http://www.allmusic.com/album/cant-smile-without-you-1966-1977-mw0002276740

Cheers!



User avatar

drjohncarpenter
Posts: 107019
Joined: 20 years 11 months
Location: United States of America
Has thanked: 11700 times
Been thanked: 33635 times
Age: 89

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520173

Post by drjohncarpenter »

Stvimpe wrote:Thanks, Mike!

Arnold, Martin, Morrow recorded Sweet Angeline in 1971. Here's a picture of their single

Image

Source: http://davidneale.eu/elvis/originals/list8.html

You can listen to a snippet of the original on:

David Neale's web page - Elvis Originals - List - Scroll down to Sweet Angeline

http://davidneale.eu/elvis/originals/list8.html

or on:

Allmusic - Arnold, Martin & Morrow - Album: Ammo: Can't Smile Without You - Disc 1, track 21.

http://www.allmusic.com/album/cant-smile-without-you-1966-1977-mw0002276740

Cheers!
It's worth noting Arnold, Martin & Morrow felt "Sweet Angeline" was only B-side worthy. Bell 135's A-side was "I Believe In You."

http://www.45cat.com/record/nc803545us

Neither side charted.


.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!

User avatar

drjohncarpenter
Posts: 107019
Joined: 20 years 11 months
Location: United States of America
Has thanked: 11700 times
Been thanked: 33635 times
Age: 89

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520184

Post by drjohncarpenter »

Juan Luis wrote:Songs released by their composers do not always chart well, and have nothing to do with quality of the song. Mark James' well produced Suspicious Minds, and Moody Blue come to mind. There's plenty more examples. "Sweet Angeline" is an excellent song, IMO.
No one has said anything different. But Elvis covering a nondescript, 1971 Arnold, Morrow & Martin B-side is hardly scaling the heights of greatness.


.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!


Topic author
Juan Luis

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520188

Post by Juan Luis »

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:Songs released by their composers do not always chart well, and have nothing to do with quality of the song. Mark James' well produced Suspicious Minds, and Moody Blue come to mind. There's plenty more examples. "Sweet Angeline" is an excellent song, IMO.
No one has said anything different. But Elvis covering a nondescript, 1971 Arnold, Morrow & Martin B-side is hardly scaling the heights of greatness.
In your opinion. BTW..I had deleted. Nevertheless do not agree. A very pretty song. "Can't Smile Without You" was a B-side. It's cool to cover B-sides and make them better.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar

drjohncarpenter
Posts: 107019
Joined: 20 years 11 months
Location: United States of America
Has thanked: 11700 times
Been thanked: 33635 times
Age: 89

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520189

Post by drjohncarpenter »

Juan Luis wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:Songs released by their composers do not always chart well, and have nothing to do with quality of the song. Mark James' well produced Suspicious Minds, and Moody Blue come to mind. There's plenty more examples. "Sweet Angeline" is an excellent song, IMO.
No one has said anything different. But Elvis covering a nondescript, 1971 Arnold, Morrow & Martin B-side is hardly scaling the heights of greatness.
In your opinion. BTW..I had deleted. Nevertheless do not agree. A very pretty song.
So, to you, Elvis covering a nondescript, 1971 Arnold, Morrow & Martin B-side IS scaling the heights of greatness. Got it. :smt023


.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!


Topic author
Juan Luis

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520191

Post by Juan Luis »

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:Songs released by their composers do not always chart well, and have nothing to do with quality of the song. Mark James' well produced Suspicious Minds, and Moody Blue come to mind. There's plenty more examples. "Sweet Angeline" is an excellent song, IMO.
No one has said anything different. But Elvis covering a nondescript, 1971 Arnold, Morrow & Martin B-side is hardly scaling the heights of greatness.
In your opinion. BTW..I had deleted. Nevertheless do not agree. A very pretty song.
So, to you, Elvis covering a nondescript, 1971 Arnold, Morrow & Martin B-side IS scaling the heights of greatness. Got it. :smt023
Nondescript is your incorrect assertion. Know the difference between objective and subjective? Study up on it. It will make your postings grand.



User avatar

drjohncarpenter
Posts: 107019
Joined: 20 years 11 months
Location: United States of America
Has thanked: 11700 times
Been thanked: 33635 times
Age: 89

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520193

Post by drjohncarpenter »

Juan Luis wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:So, to you, Elvis covering a nondescript, 1971 Arnold, Morrow & Martin B-side IS scaling the heights of greatness. Got it. :smt023
Nondescript is your incorrect assertion. Know the difference between objective and subjective? Study up on it. It will make your postings grand.
No need to be rude. Nondescript is an apt description of the song "Sweet Angeline." But that doesn't mean you cannot love it that much more.


.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!


fn2drive
TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
Posts: 5002
Joined: 20 years
Has thanked: 355 times
Been thanked: 2251 times

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520240

Post by fn2drive »

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:So, to you, Elvis covering a nondescript, 1971 Arnold, Morrow & Martin B-side IS scaling the heights of greatness. Got it. :smt023
Nondescript is your incorrect assertion. Know the difference between objective and subjective? Study up on it. It will make your postings grand.
No need to be rude. Nondescript is an apt description of the song "Sweet Anigeline." But that doesn't mean you cannot love it that much more.
When frick and frack are wrong on substance they turn to insults and sophmoric advice. In their world everything is subjective. I believe Padre is a great performance therefore it must be. Time for tea with the Mad Hatter.


Hack n. 1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward

User avatar

colonel snow
Posts: 5695
Joined: 16 years 10 months
Location: antarctica
Has thanked: 466 times
Been thanked: 3434 times
Age: 100

Re: Sweet Angeline

#1520380

Post by colonel snow »

The original version was recorded by the composers in november 1971.


colonel snow
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Post Reply