All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:31 am

Post deleted.
Last edited by Pete Dube on Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:33 am

Scatter wrote:[The damage that book has done is incalculable.


I couldn't agree more. However as Guralnick pointed out following the release of "Last Train", there was a silent majority who never bought into it's bile.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:34 am

C'mon Pete.........I just saw your post on the Hee Haw thread.

Don't tell me little Pete wasn't astir after thinking about that show :lol: :lol:

Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:18 am

I will edit out of embarrassment .......... Best,JL
Last edited by Juan Luis on Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:27 am

Scatter wrote:
JLGB wrote:
Scatter wrote: The damage that book has done is incalculable. [/color]
Ne ver played down purposedly the damage book did. No need to apologize Scatter. :)

Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:51 am

JLGB -
For the record my previous post was written with tongue firmly in cheek.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:15 am

I am glad to know that Pete Dube. Thank you.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:45 am

carolynlm wrote:The only thing worthwhile about the goldman book, was that it made a great fire.

I appreciate your vitriol, but book burning is sinful -- intellectual vigilantism. The book should exist as an example of what not to do with a major biography.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:24 am

carolynlm wrote:It was my book, bought and paid for...I could do exactly what I wanted to do with it.......

What a great example to set for the kids.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:40 am

carolynlm wrote:Yes, doc...it's called 'Freedom of Speech'.......we do have it in this little back woods where I live you know.......
Each person on this planet should be entitled to do whatever they wish, with their own property ......as long as it's not hurting any other person or animal.....without some holier than thou attitude being shoved down their throats by some moron activist sitting at their computer 24 hours a day looking for some outlet to justify their own pitiful life.


Book burning is sinful? Wow, who would have thought? On the other hand, you should see what they are doing to school textbooks these days -- making them oh so politically correct even if the information presented is false.

Makes them feel good, though.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:53 am

Goldman may have been mean spirited but did include some good research. Guralnick is great for minutae of detail but Hopkins is a better overall read. The latest bio "fortunate Son" by de Leon offers another perspective by getting into the triggers which affected Elvis and his place in a socio-historical context.

Susan MacDougall has written an insightful review of de Leon's book:
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/bookreview_susan_fortunateson.html

Nigel
EIN

Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:51 am

nigel wrote:Guralnick is great for minutae of detail


Nigel

The word is spelt "minutiae". It's better not to use big words if you can't spell them correctly.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:58 am

Nigel.

That's an excellent review of a very interesting sounding book. Well done Susan MacDougall. And well done to you for the Elvis book month on EIN. Great stuff!

Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:28 pm

Spellbinder wrote:
nigel wrote:Guralnick is great for minutae of detail


Nigel

The word is spelt "minutiae". It's better not to use big words if you can't spell them correctly.


Hi Spellbinder - the need to correct peoples spelling? Is that like a spelling terrets sindrome thing :wink:

Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:42 pm

carolynlm wrote:The only thing worthwhile about the goldman book, was that it made a great fire.
Hey, I burned it too. And we (me and some friends) did a ritual dance around the fire. It was indeed a great fire. And it kept us warm on the beach.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:38 pm

carolynlm wrote:Yes, doc...it's called 'Freedom of Speech' ...

A book burning is freedom of speech? Did you get that from 1930s Germany?

carolynlm wrote:Each person on this planet should be entitled to do whatever they wish, with their own property ...

No one's said anything to the contrary.

carolynlm wrote:... some holier than thou attitude being shoved down their throats by some moron activist sitting at their computer 24 hours a day looking for some outlet to justify their own pitiful life.

Although your "attitude" is laughable, do you really sit at your computer 24 hours a day? That's a shame.

Maybe you should get off your butt and burn some more books.

Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:58 pm

"No one said anything to the contrary"

Doc - to be fair, it was you who said book burning was sinful, and so you DID say something to the contary in response to Carolyn saying she could do what she wanted with her property.

Secondly, she didn't imply that it was she who was at her computer 24 hours a day.

I have it on good authority that she spends at least portion of her day, after a couple of wines and a rendition of Just Pretend, in all sorts of other positions. Isn't that right, Carolyn? :D

In my youth (many moons ago now!) I actually removed a copy of Goldmans book from my school library, once some friends started asking me how I could like a fat drug addict who wore nappies, and had no talent. To be fair, I didn't burn it, but I can understand those who did. They didn't get that it was a great example of how not to write a biography, they just believed it's contents word for word.[quote][/quote]

Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:09 am

DarrylMac wrote:Doc - to be fair, it was you who said book burning was sinful, and so you DID say something to the contary [sic] in response to Carolyn saying she could do what she wanted with her property.

No. To be really fair, you'll have to show me where ANYONE claims she -- or anyone -- cannot be entitled to do whatever they wish with their own property. Please post that ASAP, thanks!!

DarrylMac wrote:Secondly, she didn't imply that it was she who was at her computer 24 hours a day.

Yes, indeedy-do. Do you feel a slight breeze? My reply was a little something called S-A-R-C-A-S-M.

Thanks for taking it upon yourself to add your thoughts to this thread.

Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:41 am

JlGB- I think you're getting your Elvis books mixed up. There is absolutely no analysis of Elvis' 1969 sessions with Chips Moman. There is a paragraph about Elvis recording a long session Memphis that yielded three top ten singles and several minor hits. Goldman moves onto the 1969 season which he labels old cokes "served up in shiny new cans". Then in a further display of his critical chops, he mentions how Elvis' arrangements are no match for the "rock poetry" of Billy Goldenberg's work on the '68 TV show. OMG. Goldman does point out that Elvis did a showstopping version of his latest record "Suspicious Minds" but really offers no insight other than that the audience liked it.

His analysis of the Sun sessions damns Elvis with faint praise. In analysing the Sun music Goldman not only dismisses Elvis but his heroes like Roy Brown and the legendary Little Junior Parker who are tossed off as "mediocre bluesmen".

One of the big flaws of his book is that there is so little musical analysis. I think we're supposed to read that as a critique of the work, that is deserves no analysis. "Jailhouse Rock", "Burning Love", "Suspicious Minds", "In the Ghetto", "Can't Help Falling in Love", "Little Sister" the Elvis is Back sessions, the From Elvis in Memphis sessions, "All Shook Up" etc are just a few of the important tracks that receive no critical analysis. Though Goldman mentions "Hound Dog" frequently there is no real breakdown of the song or its origins.

As for his research it's not evident in the pages. He goes pages upon pages without any attribution. He gets multiple facts, names and dates wrong. The research to me is very lazy.

For the record, the Colonel's origins were actually exposed in fan publications before Elvis' book.

The only real semi-break throughs are in some of the MM party stuff which has been confirmed over the years (even that pulled heavily from previously published works like "What Happened") and in documenting Elvis' spiritual quest and interviews with some starlets like Deborah Walley and Natalie Wood.

The Binder stuff was alright but done pretty well in Hopkins before.

I really, really, think you've got it confused with Hopkins' book which does have a big breakdown of the 1969 sessions and which set the template for all that fell into place afterwards.

As for Goldman being a great writer, that's really a matter of taste. Personally, I find his writing style overblown teetering on a parody of music and cultural criticism. It's real purpose to demonstrate the author's superiority to his subject matter. Even at that it's purple.

Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:43 am

Dr. Carpenter- With all due respect, I think your sarcasm is missplaced here. Carolynm has never to my knowledge said a mean spirited word to anyone. I think she has earned a certain measure of respect for that.

Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:45 am

[quote="likethebike"]JlGB- I think you're getting your Elvis books mixed up. There is absolutely no analysis of Elvis' 1969 sessions with Chips Moman. There is a paragraph about Elvis recording a long session Memphis that yielded three top ten singles and several minor hits. Goldman moves onto the 1969 season which he labels old cokes "served up in shiny new cans". ........................LTB: I do not have book any longer but no matter how much or little Goldman wrote about 69 sessions...it was enough for me to go out and get those recordings. Impossible for me to have mixed up with Hopkins cause it was not until fairly recent.... that I read that book.

Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:52 am

Goldman's book is a fallacious work. That much is clear. Does it have some truth to it? I dunno. Not read it in full -- yet. But I've read enough extracts, perused enough reviews and assimilated enough articles for it to be clear to me that it's a piece of junk. But remember this: even a broken clock is right twice a day. Ergo, there probably are some elements of "truth" in there somewhere. It's also a culturally significant publication, even if borders on complete artistic and historic vapidity. Nonetheless, even though Goldman tried to give his book the sense of it being the final word on Elvis Aaron Presley, by naming it "Elvis", it's anything but. In fact, in many ways, it can probably be thought of as the "Bizarro biography" of Elvis Presley.

The best -- but by no means ultimate -- refutation of Goldman's gunk I've read is an Internet aritcle entitled "A Presley Pathology". It's only a little thing, but the author manages to expose some significant flaws. He also defines Goldman's prose as "elaborate constructions of tinsel and mud", which is arguably the most brilliant summation I've ever read (again, I stress I have not yet obtained a copy of "Elvis", but have seen extracts and read Goldman's entire Vegas concert review, and from those bits, the description fits like a glove). Here it is: http://www.ulmus.net/ace/aceworks/presley.cfm

As for Guralnick writing like Goldman.... it's TRUE, from a CERTAIN POINT OF VIEW. At the end of "Careless Love", when Guralnick is relaying Elvis' performance of "Unchained Melody" from the cut portion of the 1977 Rapid City concert, he says that "Elvis looks like nothing so much as a creature out of a Hollywood monster film" and describes the entire rendition as "grotesque transcendence". Goldman would have been proud of those clauses. Unfortunately for Goldman, and fortunately for us, as negative as Gurlanick is, and as unfairly negative as he is (a subtle but important difference), he tries to qualify those statements, or at least soften their harshest tones, with more human clauses: thus, paired with the former, we have Guralnick telling us that "we are with [Elvis] all the way as he struggles to achieve grace," and following the latter, he describes the final look on Elvis' face as "both entrancing and heartbreaking". There is no way on Earth that Goldman would have written those latter clauses. That's the key difference. It's a difference that means the world.

Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:00 am

likethebike wrote:Dr. Carpenter- With all due respect, I think your sarcasm is missplaced here. Carolynm has never to my knowledge said a mean spirited word to anyone. I think she has earned a certain measure of respect for that.

LTB, unfortunately, you're mistaken on both counts. Did you miss the comments made here? Do a search of her posts if you like. They tell a different story.

Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:11 am

Cryogenic wrote:The best -- but by no means ultimate -- refutation of Goldman's gunk I've read is an Internet aritcle entitled "A Presley Pathology".

Actually, the finest refutation of Goldman's crap is from the pen of Greil Marcus, "Lies About Elvis, Lies About Us," Village Voice Literary Supplement, November 18-24, 1981. It is brilliant, seething, and right on the money.

If I can find an excerpt -- or more -- I'll post it as a new topic. Look for it.

Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:22 pm

I personally always liked Hopkins book for many
reasons....
Image
It was the first main stream Bio on Elvis and for
its time if you were a Elvis fan it was treated as
your bible so to speak.....

Ironically "Elvis What Happened" became
the next book you needed to have.......
Image

Guralnick's "Last Train to Memphis"
brought us all back to what it was
all about.
Image

Nobody could deny this book became
the new testament......for Elvis fans.

But the original question was which is
better.....the Hopkins book or the
Guralnick book.....

Well, of course its all a matter of
opinion but I guess I would go
with Guralnick book only because
it offered more depth into Elvis'
world as we now know it......

Both authors however I felt
dropped the ball on their
follow up books.....
especially Hopkins who
I feel wrote his second book
on Elvis more for the fast
buck then anything else.....

PEP 8)