All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:30 am

JLGB wrote:Despite the negatives (Goldman book) there was some brilliant info from the Sun period(sessions and accurate imo descriptions of innovations of Sam as producer and Elvis plus Scotty and Bill) if I am not mistaken.

One cannot ascribe "brilliant" to anything about that book, except perhaps its success at turning people away from Elvis and his titanic achievements.

Goldman's observations about the SUN period were typically flawed, attributing any positive qualities in the music to Sam's placing an "electronic prosthesis" (huh?) on Elvis' voice for that "magical" SUN sound.

He also bastardized one of Sam's most famous lines. What Sam originally said was "If I could find a white man with the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a million dollars." I won't reprint Goldman's crude alterations, but such a choice was inexcusibly disingenous, yet designed to diminish even Sam's heralded role in 20th century popular culture.

Elvis had nothing good to do with those SUN records, or just about anything else in his 42 years, according to the author.

Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:16 am

Even some of the infamous are brilliant for something even if to be used to hurt. I think I am clear about Goldman being negative. Sorry but to me he was a brilliant writer and a terrible ,hateful,sick person as well. But don't tell me that it is not a book filled with tons of facts used by the others that followed the FIRST IMO exhaustive work on EP to that date making Hopkins book superficial in contrast. Question is if you can read it without paying attention to the AUTHORS OPINIONS. And yes he really went after the 68 comeback Myth and to a small degree is right with a lot of stuff we would not comment publicly. And I am NOT talking about any racial and bigotry business either. Just in Case. I kinda like the Colonel (a character to me ) but I do not like Goldman. Hope I am clear. Also Goldman blew the Colonel's hidden ilegal alien thing. So everyone that has mentioned all the bad things about The Colonel indirectly quote the biggest Elvis story post 77 first published by that hateful author....IMO.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:21 am

Goldman was the first person in print (major book just in case someone comes up with an obscure magazine article etc) to recognize the ability of what Elvis did to the Sun songs and transformed them with the same talent or the same as being a COMPOSER. He also said Elvis' guitar playing sounded like a bucket.. He was nice there IMO. :) ....But on the other hand he commended Elvis playing the guitar on a 50's session until his fingers bled.. :? giving that as an example of Elvis turned on( and so did not let the hurt or bleeding stop the take) to the explosion he was making.

Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:11 am

JLGB wrote:Goldman was the first person in print (major book just in case someone comes up with an obscure magazine article etc) to recognize the ability of what Elvis did to the Sun songs and transformed them with the same talent or the same as being a COMPOSER.



Don't forget Greil Marcus with his major book Mystery Train in 1975.

Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:53 am

The Purple Gang wrote:
JLGB wrote:Goldman was the first person in print (major book just in case someone comes up with an obscure magazine article etc) to recognize the ability of what Elvis did to the Sun songs and transformed them with the same talent or the same as being a COMPOSER.



Don't forget Greil Marcus with his major book Mystery Train in 1975.
:) Good thing I put something..

Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:58 pm

JLGB wrote:Also Goldman blew the Colonel's hidden ilegal alien thing.

That is true, he did accomplish that, but it was secondary to his main agenda -- to discredit Elvis, his achievements, and where and when and how he grew up.

Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:09 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
JLGB wrote:Also Goldman blew the Colonel's hidden ilegal alien thing.

That is true, he did accomplish that, but it was secondary to his main agenda -- to discredit Elvis, his achievements, and where and when and how he grew up.


I read this book only once - did he actually finish the book by saying something like and I am para-phrasing heavily from memory : Presley was the greatest con-artist of all time .... he covered up his voice with backing singers ... Presley couldn't even sing

I am pretty sure I read something like that - absolutely astonishing!!!!!!!!!

Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:12 pm

About the Goldman book:
LesterB wrote:I read this book only once - did he actually finish the book by saying something like and I am para-phrasing heavily from memory : Presley was the greatest con-artist of all time .... he covered up his voice with backing singers ... Presley couldn't even sing


And twits like Sir Precipice Dick believed all they read !

Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:18 pm

In ELVISLY YOURS magazine ( yes I know ... but I was very young at the time) Sid Shaw printed a review of an Elvis show in 1969 by Albert Goldman. I believe that was the only time Goldman saw Elvis and the review was absolutely SCATHING!! He must have hated Elvis for a long time.

Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:26 pm

LesterB wrote:... Sid Shaw printed a review of an Elvis show in 1969 by Albert Goldman. I believe that was the only time Goldman saw Elvis and the review was absolutely SCATHING!! He must have hated Elvis for a long time.

The Vegas show Goldman reviewed was the January 26, 1970 OS, and it was published in "Life" magazine around March 1970. The piece wasn't as awful as his 1981 biography, but his prose indicated that he disliked the man, the music, his image and all the people that paid money to see and enjoy his performance. IIRC, in that article he implied how "feminine" (i.e. gay) Elvis seemed -- an eerie precursor to similar crap he'd put in his later book.

Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:51 pm

January 26, 1970 OS!!! -that was a very good show IMHO - especially True Love Travels ..

If Elvis looked feminine then Mike Tyson looks like Kim Bassinger

Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:56 pm

Well at least Tyson have this thin, almost feminine voice :-).

I guess that Goldman was gay and it was the reason of his description of Elvis. Do you remember Goldmans fascination by Jim Morrisons look ?

Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:00 pm

deadringer wrote:Well at least Tyson have this thin, almost feminine voice :-).



I notice you say that from SOMEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE and very quitely too I would imagine :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:03 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
JLGB wrote:Also Goldman blew the Colonel's hidden ilegal alien thing.

That is true, he did accomplish that, but it was secondary to his main agenda -- to discredit Elvis, his achievements, and where and when and how he grew up.
Never contested that. I do know now that brilliant was a bad choice of wording if it was going to be interpreted as a shining example of something. That was not my intention.

Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:19 pm

The thing about Goldman's excrementatious prose is that you spend so much time choking down the bias, hate and spite, that whatever facts are there become irrelevant.

If everything which MAY be accurate has to be processed through the seive of his inexplicable hatred (which was his motivation for writing the book), you can't be certain of ANYTHING.

Like the Doc said referencing Sam Phillip's quote.............It's a fact that Sam said SOMETHING similar, but the re-wording takes a fact and makes it commentary with an agenda.

Screw Albert...........I hope Satan has his pitchfork up his ass eternally.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:00 am

I got into 69 material because of that book! Goldman liked Chips Moman and Elvis' work on those sessions. But it also served the purpose of ripping Elvis to shreds in the 70s..And No the info does not become irrelevant if you have just of bit of common sense to know when he is exagerating. But the info is THERE nevertheless. And at the TIME that was pretty much it. And that is my point. It is easy now to dismiss Goldman completely with Guralnick.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:43 am

JLGB wrote:I got into 69 material because of that book! Goldman liked Chips Moman and Elvis' work on those sessions.

So then you knew very little about Elvis when you read it .........because if you "got into" the '69 sessions in 1981 or later, you were pretty hopelessly out of the loop,no?? I mean, those sessions weren't exactly a "Where's Jimmy Hoffa Buried?" kinda mystery. They were among his most lauded work.

But it also served the purpose of ripping Elvis to shreds in the 70s..

Thanks for proving my point JL........

And No the info does not become irrelevant if you have just of bit of common sense to know when he is exagerating.

Really?? Well, you didn't know enough at the time to dig into the '69 Sessions. How did you know enough then to sift the wheat from the chaff??

And..........how would anyone who wasn't already knowledgeable know enough to dismiss his bias?? The fact that they could not rests in the fact that the portrait of Elvis we fight to this day had its genesis and impetus due to Goldman's hit piece.

But the info is THERE nevertheless. And at the TIME that was pretty much it. And that is my point. It is easy now to dismiss Goldman completely with Guralnick.

The info there is hopelessly twisted and not altogether accurate. There are threads here discussing the flaws...........hope you have some serious time to invest.

As for it being easy to dismiss Goldman NOW..........it was pretty damn easy back in 1981 for most of us. That book is neither "brilliant" (your words) nor essential. As I said, we're still trying to live down the hateful and dismissive rhetoric 25 years later.

Saying the info is "there" and that the way the info is twisted is irrelevant is like justifying such bigoted trash as "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion". There's accurate info in there as well.........


Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:59 am

The book by Goldman was worth the price i paid for it looking back.
I'm glad i bought it even if at elast tis to know what the worse book was like comparativley.
His background intelligence on Parker was very revealing at the time and helped me to overcome as a teenager the myth I'd bought into about Parker having discovered Elvis, moulded him and taught him everything he knew blah blah blah.

I still have the book, and it is very well thumbed.

Coincidently this topic was the very first thing i ever posted on this message board back in March 21st 2004,

I'll dig around for that very post, be interesting to see what I thought then and if it still holds true for me today....

Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:00 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:As mentioned, his description of the '77 CBS Special is a rare example of Guralinck momentary sliding into a Goldman-like view point.

There is nothing in Peter's writing or perspective that can in any way be compared to -- or placed on the same level -- as Albert Goldman's hateful, bigoted rhetoric.

As for this revived thread, it's clear to any careful reader that Hopkins "Elvis" was a very good effort in 1970, but "Last Train To Memphis," Peter's 1994 biography, is in a class of its own, worthy of all the many awards and accolades it has since received.

It is the standard by which all future attempts will be measured.


I generally agree. Goldman is so problematic that I don't want use him to make the point I was attempting to make. What's also true of Guralnick is that non-music fans and the critical establishment were so floored by his biography (Volume one most of all) that they were able to inadvertantly talk seriously about Elvis Presley for once because Guralnick's work would have been excellent for any historical figure, president, poet, what have you. Many a professional historian (Guralnick is not) would have loved to write a biography that will stand the test of time like this one will.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:56 am

Scatter wrote:
And No the info does not become irrelevant if you have just of bit of common sense to know when he is exagerating.

Really?? Well, you didn't know enough at the time to dig into the '69 Sessions. How did you know enough then to sift the wheat from the chaff??
A lot of it was mean but one can sift still. For example Elvis was a PERVERT because he loved to look at girls rolling around in white panties!? :?: I knew that was crap! I was 17 reading that book and got an xxx just by reading that bit. :shock: :shock: :shock: So I thought? Am I one too ?!! IO asked the other guys (I was in a Military Academy) and they !! :lol: Well I guess we are all sick!!! :roll: :wink: :lol: ...And the bit of Elvis hillbilly pecker totally threw me cause my .....(author stupid opinions) ....I will continue to answer point by point but NOT in that style Scatter cause it is usually not nice at all. So I haven't bothered to learn it and won't.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:07 am

Scatter wrote:
[color=blue]The info there is hopelessly twisted and not altogether accurate. There are threads here discussing the flaws...........hope you have some serious time to invest.
I read that book many times and on a bad day I threw it out. Had I known about MBs I would have kept it. But that book was essential and every book I have read in some way looks like a nice person did a re write of Goldman's. book.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:14 am

[quote="Scatter"][quote="JLGB"]I got into 69 material because of that book! Goldman liked Chips Moman and Elvis' work on those sessions.

[color=blue]So then you knew very little about Elvis when you read it .........because if you "got into" the '69 sessions in 1981 or later, you were pretty hopelessly out of the loop,no?? At 17,18 whatever exact age I was ...must have been ..all I knew was Suspicious Minds and thought From Elvis In Memphis was a boring (I thought they were at the time) album...with boring songs like Long Black Limosine etc...But I was not obviously hopeless cause I am here now pretty much IN the loop.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:25 am

Scatter wrote:
Saying the info is "there" and that the way the info is twisted is irrelevant is like justifying such bigoted trash as "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion". There's accurate info in there as well.........
[/color]
(edited in ELVIS) biography is not something political and I would not even attempt to read a bigoted book unless it was part of a project like Hitler or other infamous characters that published something. Anyway it was not complicated with Elvis' book Imo...the only important Elvis book when it was released. Again easy now with all the info right and left up and down. Just in case... anyone that says on this board that when that book came out..if they read it completely cannot say there was loads of straight information that made your Elvis knowledge expand is weak in the memory dept. new edit....I am not justyfying anything bigoted like that Protocals and to say that makes me wonder if by defending the book in the ways I have done makes me a bigot!?
Last edited by Juan Luis on Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:59 am, edited 3 times in total.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:47 am

Scatter wrote:
Thanks for proving my point JL........
]
About the 70s that did not take to much imagination to know Elvis was going to get slaughtered and amazingly if you read the book he was not as much as you might have expected. But all Rock historians will have a hard time objectively putting Elvis in a good light (70s). I don't remember much what Goldman said about Lisa Marie Airplane.. So if you can get past the author telling the stories of Elvis' new toy for e=xample you find it immensly interesting the plane story itself and the other (not told before I think) story of Elvis buying another small one for Parker and Parker refusing it. etc... So did I dwell on Elvis health and the author being merciless? I guess not. Because I just wrote what I remembered which BTW was recounted numerously after that.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:24 am

JLGB wrote:
Scatter wrote:
Saying the info is "there" and that the way the info is twisted is irrelevant is like justifying such bigoted trash as "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion". There's accurate info in there as well.........
[/color]

I am not justyfying anything bigoted like that Protocals and to say that makes me wonder if by defending the book in the ways I have done makes me a bigot!?


JL, I'm sorry you misunderstood my point citing "The Protocols". I was CERTAINLY not ascriing bigotry to you..........you are my friend and I know better than that, of course.

My point was that though a book may have some correct info, if the reader is unaware of the bias used by the author, that info can be presented in a multitude of ways to obscure truth and further an agenda.

That is precisely what Goldman did.........and since so few were aware of the bias he brought to the project, the image he painted has ingrained itself . The damage that book has done is incalculable.