Muss I Denn

[midnightx]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

[mike edwards66]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

You're not supposed to think of Rock Hudson. It's much more subtle than that. It was a conceptual repositioning, midnightx. This was a new Elvis, a safe Elvis, an Elvis for everyone. One step ahead.

[midnightx]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

You're not supposed to think of Rock Hudson. It's much more subtle than that. It was a conceptual repositioning, midnightx. This was a new Elvis, a safe Elvis, an Elvis for everyone. One step ahead.

But was that really a step ahead? Within a couple of years, he became largely irrelevant.

[poormadpeter2]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

No, what some don't grasp is that this was a musical comedy. And it was a cute scene. Nothing more, nothing less. But that's just too much to take for people who'd rather have him shouting What'd I Say for twenty minutes instead.

[mike edwards66]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

You're not supposed to think of Rock Hudson. It's much more subtle than that. It was a conceptual repositioning, midnightx. This was a new Elvis, a safe Elvis, an Elvis for everyone. One step ahead.

But was that really a step ahead? Within a couple of years, he became largely irrelevant.

1962? Hardly. Anyway, irrelevant to who? The 14 year-olds who bought 45's. He could live with that.

[midnightx]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

You're not supposed to think of Rock Hudson. It's much more subtle than that. It was a conceptual repositioning, midnightx. This was a new Elvis, a safe Elvis, an Elvis for everyone. One step ahead.

But was that really a step ahead? Within a couple of years, he became largely irrelevant.

1962? Hardly. Anyway, irrelevant to who? The 14 year-olds who bought 45's. He could live with that.

Yes, Elvis seemed very content during the mid-60's when 10-12 year olds were buying his lightweight, irrelevant soundtrack singles in shrinking numbers. Meanwhile, one of the greatest music scenes in contemporary music history was exploding in the UK and US, and he was watching it happen from afar as a spectator.

[poormadpeter2]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

You're not supposed to think of Rock Hudson. It's much more subtle than that. It was a conceptual repositioning, midnightx. This was a new Elvis, a safe Elvis, an Elvis for everyone. One step ahead.

But was that really a step ahead? Within a couple of years, he became largely irrelevant.

1962? Hardly. Anyway, irrelevant to who? The 14 year-olds who bought 45's. He could live with that.

Yes, Elvis seemed very content during the mid-60's when 10-12 year olds were buying his lightweight, irrelevant soundtrack singles in shrinking numbers. Meanwhile, one of the greatest music scenes in contemporary music history was exploding in the UK and US, and he was watching it happen from afar as a spectator.

As was every other rock n roll singer who came on to the scene at the same time as Elvis. You always seem to forget that bit.

[Cheiro]

Actually during the mid 60s Elvis was quite happily devouring books on metaphysics and the occult, practicing spiritual healing and learning about kriya yoga. He probably didn't even think very much about the music scene at all. He wanted to quit and join a monastery.

[Juan Luis]

Actually during the mid 60s Elvis was quite happily devouring books on metaphysics and the occult, practicing spiritual healing and learning about kriya yoga. He probably didn't even think very much about the music scene at all. He wanted to quit and join a monastery.

Yes. He reported to work, finished. And back to his books and search...

[r&b]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

You're not supposed to think of Rock Hudson. It's much more subtle than that. It was a conceptual repositioning, midnightx. This was a new Elvis, a safe Elvis, an Elvis for everyone. One step ahead.

Ahead maybe in 1960. Passe by 1963

[Juan Luis]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

The result? A lasting brand. Priceless.

[minkahed]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

You're not supposed to think of Rock Hudson. It's much more subtle than that. It was a conceptual repositioning, midnightx. This was a new Elvis, a safe Elvis, an Elvis for everyone. One step ahead.

Ahead maybe in 1960. Passe by 1963

Elvis just sucks, really ...

[midnightx]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

You're not supposed to think of Rock Hudson. It's much more subtle than that. It was a conceptual repositioning, midnightx. This was a new Elvis, a safe Elvis, an Elvis for everyone. One step ahead.

But was that really a step ahead? Within a couple of years, he became largely irrelevant.

1962? Hardly. Anyway, irrelevant to who? The 14 year-olds who bought 45's. He could live with that.

Yes, Elvis seemed very content during the mid-60's when 10-12 year olds were buying his lightweight, irrelevant soundtrack singles in shrinking numbers. Meanwhile, one of the greatest music scenes in contemporary music history was exploding in the UK and US, and he was watching it happen from afar as a spectator.

As was every other rock n roll singer who came on to the scene at the same time as Elvis. You always seem to forget that bit.

Not forgotten. But the parallel is erroneous because as Elvis proved by the end of the decade, he still very much could be a musical and commercial force, something none of his former contemporaries could accomplish. Some of his former contemporaries that you are likely alluding to became artistic relics of that previous era; they were unable to evolve as commercial artists and spent a number of years recording music that did not resonate with the public and touring behind their "oldies" in small venues. Elvis on the other hand clearly did not have to rely on his past; however, his manager chose the path of lightweight, musical comedies and fluff soundtrack recordings instead of forging ahead with a mainstream music career, or at least a combination of film and a mainstream music career. It was clearly a choice that Elvis waited nearly 8 years to recommit to making artistic, relevant and commercial music.

There lies the big difference, something you either forget, or cannot comprehend. Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, etc. never proved that they could maintain a level of commercial relevance; after Elvis' lost years in Hollywood, he had top ten hits, award winning documentaries, worldwide satellite broadcasts, record-breaking tour revenues at the arena level, sell-outs at prestigious venues like Madison Square Garden and the LA Forum. This level of musical relevancy and success could have been achieved during the mid-1960s as a continuation of his musical career had he chose to commit to it. The fact that he achieved it after becoming largely irrelevant for a number of years only reaffirms the notion that his reputation and talent was capable of maintaining a vibrant musical career between 1962-1969.

[poormadpeter2]

Elvis' performance was quite lovely. It was a new decade, a new audience and a new Elvis. The smart move was to embrace those things.

The dumb move, would have been to look back.

Would have been great for the 60's and 70's rock n rollers. They would be able to do tribute specials and films for their almost forgotten dinosaur idols of the 1950's, as they did with Orbison and Berry.

What some don't grasp, Elvis and the Colonel were selling a new product. Appealing to a different audience, a wider audience, a bigger audience.

In the 50's he was a singing James Dean. in the 60's he was a singing Rock Hudson. One step ahead.

Rock Hudson is not the first thing that comes to mind when one hears Wooden Heart.

You're not supposed to think of Rock Hudson. It's much more subtle than that. It was a conceptual repositioning, midnightx. This was a new Elvis, a safe Elvis, an Elvis for everyone. One step ahead.

But was that really a step ahead? Within a couple of years, he became largely irrelevant.

1962? Hardly. Anyway, irrelevant to who? The 14 year-olds who bought 45's. He could live with that.

Yes, Elvis seemed very content during the mid-60's when 10-12 year olds were buying his lightweight, irrelevant soundtrack singles in shrinking numbers. Meanwhile, one of the greatest music scenes in contemporary music history was exploding in the UK and US, and he was watching it happen from afar as a spectator.

As was every other rock n roll singer who came on to the scene at the same time as Elvis. You always seem to forget that bit.

Not forgotten. But the parallel is erroneous because as Elvis proved by the end of the decade, he still very much could be a musical and commercial force, something none of his former contemporaries could accomplish.

Johnny Cash
Ricky Nelson

both in the wilderness in the mid-60s, both made a comeback around the same time Elvis did. Sedaka, who, according to RCA, was second only to Elvis in sales in the early 60s, also did the same. Wilderness after the British invasion, then a comeback in the early 1970s. The similarities between those three artists and Elvis are huge. Not only were they all huge in the late 50s/early 1960s, they all become irrelevant in the mid-60s, they also all mounted a comeback around the same time, and that comeback had all but fizzled out within the period of about four years.

[jurasic1968]

Well, what about Roy Orbison? In 1964 he was number one in US with Oh, Pretty Woman. And I am tired already with this explanation that The Beatles and the other members of the "British Invasion" conquered US. There were many american bands and artists who reached number one in the Bilboard chart during the 1963-1968 years. Elvis was not one of them, unfortunately.

[Cheiro]

I think for some "fans" more time is spent making Elvis look bad than saying good things about him on this forum.

[drjohncarpenter]

I think for some "fans" more time is spent making Elvis look bad than saying good things about him on this forum.

I think that's a rude and false comment from a "fan" who creates their own fantasy world about who Elvis was and what he accomplished, rather than dealing with his life and career respectfully, and truthfully.

[Cheiro]

Of course you do, but I still love you, darling.

[ICanHelp]

Whenever I watch the puppet scene, I feel somewhat queasy and terribly embarrassed for Elvis. He, however, does sing great in the movie.

[Elfan]

I think for some "fans" more time is spent making Elvis look bad than saying good things about him on this forum.

Very sad.....but true.

[poormadpeter2]

Well, what about Roy Orbison? In 1964 he was number one in US with Oh, Pretty Woman. And I am tired already with this explanation that The Beatles and the other members of the "British Invasion" conquered US. There were many american bands and artists who reached number one in the Bilboard chart during the 1963-1968 years. Elvis was not one of them, unfortunately.

What about Roy Orbison?

A #1 with Oh Pretty Woman in 1964 and then no other top 20 hits until 1989.

What about Elvis

A #3 in 1965, and 5 more top 20 hits between 1965 and the end of 1968.

Which do you think was doing better?

[HoneyTalkNelson]

Oh, but those are just bought by the fans. Don't you know they don't count?

[Juan Luis]

Fans don't count?

[drjohncarpenter]

Not forgotten. But the parallel is erroneous because as Elvis proved by the end of the decade, he still very much could be a musical and commercial force, something none of his former contemporaries could accomplish.

Johnny Cash
Ricky Nelson

both in the wilderness in the mid-60s, both made a comeback around the same time Elvis did.

Neither Johnny Cash nor Ricky Nelson were ever called the "King of Rock 'n' Roll."

And Cash was a country artist.


False equivalence is a very weak rhetorical device.

What about Roy Orbison?

A #1 with Oh Pretty Woman in 1964 and then no other top 20 hits until 1989.

What about Elvis

A #3 in 1965, and 5 more top 20 hits between 1965 and the end of 1968.

Which do you think was doing better?

On what planet did Roy Orbison on any level ever match Elvis Presley?


False equivalence is a very, very weak rhetorical device.

[poormadpeter2]

What about Roy Orbison?

A #1 with Oh Pretty Woman in 1964 and then no other top 20 hits until 1989.

What about Elvis

A #3 in 1965, and 5 more top 20 hits between 1965 and the end of 1968.

Which do you think was doing better?

On what planet did Roy Orbison on any level ever match Elvis Presley?

False equivalence is a very, very weak rhetorical device.

Why don't you actually read the comments in the thread leading up to my post, and then come back and talk some sense.

Yes, Elvis seemed very content during the mid-60's when 10-12 year olds were buying his lightweight, irrelevant soundtrack singles in shrinking numbers. Meanwhile, one of the greatest music scenes in contemporary music history was exploding in the UK and US, and he was watching it happen from afar as a spectator.

As was every other rock n roll singer who came on to the scene at the same time as Elvis. You always seem to forget that bit.

Not forgotten. But the parallel is erroneous because as Elvis proved by the end of the decade, he still very much could be a musical and commercial force, something none of his former contemporaries could accomplish.

Johnny Cash
Ricky Nelson

both in the wilderness in the mid-60s, both made a comeback around the same time Elvis did. Sedaka, who, according to RCA, was second only to Elvis in sales in the early 60s, also did the same. Wilderness after the British invasion, then a comeback in the early 1970s. The similarities between those three artists and Elvis are huge. Not only were they all huge in the late 50s/early 1960s, they all become irrelevant in the mid-60s, they also all mounted a comeback around the same time, and that comeback had all but fizzled out within the period of about four years.

Well, what about Roy Orbison? In 1964 he was number one in US with Oh, Pretty Woman. And I am tired already with this explanation that The Beatles and the other members of the "British Invasion" conquered US. There were many american bands and artists who reached number one in the Bilboard chart during the 1963-1968 years. Elvis was not one of them, unfortunately.

What about Roy Orbison?
A #1 with Oh Pretty Woman in 1964 and then no other top 20 hits until 1989.
What about Elvis
A #3 in 1965, and 5 more top 20 hits between 1965 and the end of 1968.
Which do you think was doing better?

If you want to blame someone for two artists of different levels being compared, blame Jurassic, not me. However, your arguments get more and more bizarre. You constantly denigrate most of Elvis's output and yet then argue that no other artist was on the same level. I'm sure your comments make sense to you, but to everyone else they are highly erratic and irrational.