All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:21 am

TJ wrote:It has nothing to do with not forgiving Elvis for failing to live up to expectations. There's nothing to forgive. For many it's just a case of regretting that the truly dynamic Elvis seen in the early 70s was so short lived due to a mixture of personal and physical problems.


"Forgiving" is the destination that one eventually reaches, if able to, while traversing the road of "regret."

You are still on the that road (not to mention some of the other "issues" you have) ....... :wink: :lol: ).

--------------------------------------------

Always happy to help you find your way. No need to thank me, TJ.

--------------------------------------------

To "Joe" & "Carol" ................. all my best.


N8

Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:23 am

N8, JLGB, Joe Car, Carolyn, CD King, et al, well said.

I thought I was going crazy for a second there from the "Glass Half Empty crowd. :D

The bar was higher than ever (first ever such satellite show, etc.) and, if not exactly to our liking (or his), our "boy" had pulled it off by the end. We share his relief and sense of "yes, it's been nailed!"

If it wasn't for the fact that I watched a goodly portion of ALOHA the other night with some visiting family member (who hadn't seen it in years), I'd cue it up in the next few days soon and see "how bad or "disappointing" it was..." :lol:

It is, however, the function of hindsight and deluxe DVD sets (always at the ready) that allow all of us -and even those born five to ten years after the performance, to pick up on undeniable "gaffes" and "what was that?" moments. That's inevitable, too. May future historians " a hundred years from now" still recognize how much of a triumph this show was at the time...

ALOHA ONE TIME ONLY UNEDITED CONCERT

Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:40 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I thought I was going crazy for a second there from the "Glass Half Empty crowd. :D
It was pretty damn full! :) And contrary to ALOHA the 1968 "comeback" sitdown material became legendary with what was shown that year only. Heavily edited (for time of course) and did not originally show a sometimes amateurish... and very uncomfortable Elvis with a toad problem. Or is it frog? :) :D :lol:

Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:37 am

I don't think the Aloha performance is as good as The On Tour Stuff or TTWII. But the circumstances were different. The Aloha show had to be timed right and i think Elvis did not want to risk making any mistakes so he played it safe.

The song selection had a lot to do with it as well. Lots of ballads. That will turn the excitement level down.

Something
You Gave Me A Mountain
My Way
I'll Remember You
I'm So Lonesome I could Cry
It's Over
What Now My Love
Welvome To My World
American Trilogy

But he looked great. I am surprised someone said he looked bloated. As far as his Beatle covers. The only bad one he did was Hey Jude and that was not even meant to be released. Elvis's voice was tens times better than all of the Beatles combined. That's what makes his covers great.

Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:01 am

N880EP wrote:
TJ wrote:It has nothing to do with not forgiving Elvis for failing to live up to expectations. There's nothing to forgive. For many it's just a case of regretting that the truly dynamic Elvis seen in the early 70s was so short lived due to a mixture of personal and physical problems.


"Forgiving" is the destination that one eventually reaches, if able to, while traversing the road of "regret."

You are still on the that road (not to mention some of the other "issues" you have) ....... :wink: :lol: ).

--------------------------------------------

Always happy to help you find your way. No need to thank me, TJ.

--------------------------------------------

To "Joe" & "Carol" ................. all my best.


N8


Very poetic. Cobblers, but poetic. Again, I don't blame Elvis for what his life became, I sympathise with him for that. Always have and always will. But I do sure as hell regret it. If you don't regret how quickly he went downhill after the triumphs of 69/70, there is something wrong with you. As for my other "issues", I have no clue what you are talking about. That's a rather bold and inane statement, considering you don't even know me. Throwing in a wink and a smile didn't make that comment any less patronising.

Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:49 am

Elvis's voice still seems shaky during 'Something', when in Vegas 1970 when recorded, it sounds confident and full of passion. He seems to be hiding behind the song, afraid to show his best. You can hardly hear him.

Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:50 am

Elvis's voice still seems shaky during 'Something', when in Vegas 1970 when recorded, it sounds confident and full of passion. He seems to be hiding behind the song, afraid to show his best. You can hardly hear him.

Oh, and my opinion only, i would've very much wished if 'welcome to my world' was replaced. It is an ordinary performance to my ears, and not a highlight for me at all. I would've been that much more impressed with 'its impossible'.

Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:52 pm

JYM wrote:I agree with Joe for Something musically and vocally. Elvis at his worst will beat any of the Beatle vocally. The credit I give to them is to have composed it. That's it, that's all.


Elvis is overall a better singer, but that doesn´t mean that Elvis always sounded better vocally. Caruso was probably a better singer than Elvis, but I don´t wanna hear him singing "Tiger man".

With your theory, you mean that Elvis in College park -74 beats Lennon in "Twist and shout" or McCartney in "She came in through the bathroom window"? Perhaps your opinion, but here you´re probably quite alone.
George Harrison was a bit weaker vocally, but it suited the songs he wrote quite well. Ringo is another cup of tea...

//Björn

Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:03 pm

My opinion of the Aloha event is:
He looked great, sang great on the songs he REALLY cared for and
I still think of it as a great triumph for our hero.
What bothers me is:
Hound dog and Blue suede shoes, should not have been included since
he didn´t bother to perform them as he could have.
Welcome to my world, not the greatest song, that´s for sure.
I can´t stop loving you, not bad but weak compared to his Madison version.
I sure wished he had included some more rockers, such as Polk salad Annie, Little sister/get back which he usually performed with a lot of guts.

That said, I do think it´s a great show although he could have moved around a bit more, but I can understand he was nervous of doing some mistakes, like dropping the mike or whatever, it was a live broadcast after all.

Well, that´s my opinion, I´m glad we have this event now on the deluxe DVD package, It´s something that gets played on my DVD-player quite often. So does the incredible 68-special.

Regards

Lennart

Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:19 pm

Great post N8......

I've always been taken aback by the nitpicking criticisms of the Aloha event.

It seems more an expression of regret for what Elvis became rather than the quality of the performance (which to me is nearly unassailable).

The irony of the situation is.........Aloha provides a truer representation of who Elvis really was as a person (purposely, and on multiple levels) than any other performance he ever gave.

Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:39 pm

dreambear wrote:
JYM wrote:I agree with Joe for Something musically and vocally. Elvis at his worst will beat any of the Beatle vocally. The credit I give to them is to have composed it. That's it, that's all.


Elvis is overall a better singer, but that doesn´t mean that Elvis always sounded better vocally. Caruso was probably a better singer than Elvis, but I don´t wanna hear him singing "Tiger man".

With your theory, you mean that Elvis in College park -74 beats Lennon in "Twist and shout" or McCartney in "She came in through the bathroom window"? Perhaps your opinion, but here you´re probably quite alone.
George Harrison was a bit weaker vocally, but it suited the songs he wrote quite well. Ringo is another cup of tea...

//Björn



Hi my friend and others...

I will be more specific here. We have to compare them fairly. In studio, the voice of Elvis Presley was 10 times better than any beatles in studio and surely Elvis at his worst in studio, beat EASILY any of the Beatle in studio.

SAME LIVE.

But the worst voice during a song performed live by Presley won't beat a very good rendition by one of the Beatles in studio.

Period.
Last edited by JYM on Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:50 pm

Scatter wrote:Great post N8......

I've always been taken aback by the nitpicking criticisms of the Aloha event.

It seems more an expression of regret for what Elvis became rather than the quality of the performance (which to me is nearly unassailable).

The irony of the situation is.........Aloha provides a truer representation of who Elvis really was as a person (purposely, and on multiple levels) than any other performance he ever gave.


You are sooo right and our hero was a different guy each 2 or 3 years. We have about 5 or 6 different Elvis! He preferesd balads and country in the 70s. It was impossible for him to repeat himself!! To do a same rendition of Hound Dog than in 68!! Just compare to the Stones.... Always the same. They don't mature.

Not repeating yourself become a quality for per example, the Beatles and for Presley, a fault!! In the case of the Beatles they had to not repeating themselves in composing and for Presley, it was about his choice of material and the way he performed.

Geeeeeez

Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:11 pm

JYM wrote:I will be more specific here. We have to compare them fairly. In studio, the voice of Elvis Presley was 10 times better than any beatles in studio and surely Elvis at his worst in studio, beat EASILY any of the Beatle in studio.

SAME LIVE.

But the worst voice during a song performed live by Presley won't beat a very good rendition by one of the Beatles in studio.

Period.


And you haven't compared fairly - at least your conclusion isn't a fair one. Elvis was overall a better vocalist than any of the Beatles, although I think McCartney in his prime is underrated. But to say Elvis at his worst in the studio is easily better than any Beatles studio vocal is false. Elvis had some astonishing moments in the studio and some poor moments in the studio. The poor moments, such as City By Night, How Can You Lose What You Never Had or Three Corn Patches are not in the same league vocally as Beatles songs such as And I Love Her, We Can Work It Out or If I Fell. Fortunately, Elvis' fine vocal performances far outweight his below par performances.

Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:23 pm

There should be no comparison with The Beatles and Elvis ... Like many acts even up to this day and age... simply PRODUCE and PARTICIPATE in every aspect of the music (product) from composition,arranging, every aspect of studio (performance is #1 priority) pre production :arrow: Post production,artwork, promotion (including live gigs)....etc... The Beatles contrary to Dylan(even though vocal prowess in his and many cases is unimportant and secondary to THE MESSAGE(s) intended to convey via the RECORD..song,album..) and others. The Beatles just happened to sing pretty damn good as well! So no comparison should be made with singing (performance) because that would be unfair to both Elvis (singing is almost everything) and The Beatles (good singing voices not priority.. and being their own band as well) IMO.

Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:13 pm

JYM wrote:We have to compare them fairly.

We don't have to compare them at all -- it's apples and oranges.

But I've yet to see a comparison by you that might be called fair. In fact, one suspects you don't even OWN any Beatles CDs, or at least far fewer than your ever-growing Yanni collection.

JYM wrote:In studio, the voice of Elvis Presley was 10 times better than any beatles in studio and surely Elvis at his worst in studio, beat EASILY any of the Beatle in studio.

You know, when a knowledgeable music fan reads something like this, they quite rightfully think to themselves, "Boy, those Elvis fans really are complete idiots, aren't they?"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:57 pm

The Beatles were not good singers.

Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:07 pm

Me2 wrote:The Beatles were not good singers.

It never stops ...

Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:57 pm

You're right, Doc.

Image

Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:57 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Me2 wrote:The Beatles were not good singers.

It never stops ...


I never made a peep...............

Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:52 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
JYM wrote:We have to compare them fairly.

We don't have to compare them at all -- it's apples and oranges.

But I've yet to see a comparison by you that might be called fair. In fact, one suspects you don't even OWN any Beatles CDs, or at least far fewer than your ever-growing Yanni collection.

JYM wrote:In studio, the voice of Elvis Presley was 10 times better than any beatles in studio and surely Elvis at his worst in studio, beat EASILY any of the Beatle in studio.

You know, when a knowledgeable music fan reads something like this, they quite rightfully think to themselves, "Boy, those Elvis fans really are complete idiots, aren't they?"


You make me laugh Doc...

Are you a singer or a musician? What do know about singing abilities!

Poor guy. Did you ever sing in the mask?

Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:49 am

Why turn this Aloha From Hawaii topic into a Beatles VS Elvis fight again. It is not fair to compare them. They are both very different. Elvis Presley was and still is the best and greatest solo artiste of all time and The Beatles are definately the Greatest and best rock n roll group of all time.
I think the Beatles were extremely brilliant on the "Abbey Road" album. Just like Elvis was on the "From Elvis In Memphis" album.
Paul McCartney's 'Oh Darling' sounds as good as 'One Night With You.' I also liked the Let It Be album and movie. And I am sure Elvis presley himself enjoyed them too. Now, don't bash me as I am not a Beatles fan but Elvis', but I do enjoy good music .

Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:15 am

Why always compare everything to the Beatles?

Paul McCartney is a brilliant composer, performing the songs he creates in his own, unique style. Elvis was an Entertainer, singing more spectacular versions of songs that were already there.

And by the way, "Something" was written by George Harrison.. :roll:

Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:07 am

Scatter wrote:I've always been taken aback by the nitpicking criticisms of the Aloha event.

It seems more an expression of regret for what Elvis became rather than the quality of the performance (which to me is nearly unassailable).


I would argue, and have indeed been doing so, that the two are interlinked.

Scatter wrote:The irony of the situation is.........Aloha provides a truer representation of who Elvis really was as a person (purposely, and on multiple levels) than any other performance he ever gave.


I think I see what you're saying, and from a certain point of view, I might agree, but don't you think that this was true of every performance Elvis gave? Isn't that an intrinsic apart of his appeal? And, if it is, how can one show be more revealing than another? I dunno. I think "Aloha" was and is a good slice of him at that point in '73 -- just as the "Comeback Special" was and is for mid '68.

Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:38 am

Just to get this off the Beatles vs. Elvis topic...I was in the bookstore yesterday and looked at a book on the Rat Pack. I opened to a chapter that began with Elvis' name and continued with how Sinatra didn't like Elvis when he started out "referring to him as a "clyde" which was some sort of put down. However, the book goes on to say that Elvis had a "passable" voice but Sinatra was the greatest singer of all time.

I like Sinatra and the Beatles but don't like all of the comparisons. I was annoyed at reading this part of the Rat Pack book (just like reading others saying the Beatles couldn't sing--like there is some criteria out there for what makes a good singer). All are great...Sinatra's "One For My Baby," "Come Fly With Me," "If I Had You" (1962) all are examples of his artistry just like "Something," "Strawberry Fields Forever," "In My Life," "Hey Jude" examplify the Beatles. These guys didn't sell all of those records/CD's and continue with such a strong fan base long after their existence because they couldn't sing. They all have their own styles. I am glad that all of this music exists.

Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:27 am

Cryogenic wrote:
Scatter wrote:I've always been taken aback by the nitpicking criticisms of the Aloha event.

It seems more an expression of regret for what Elvis became rather than the quality of the performance (which to me is nearly unassailable).


I would argue, and have indeed been doing so, that the two are interlinked.

Scatter wrote:The irony of the situation is.........Aloha provides a truer representation of who Elvis really was as a person (purposely, and on multiple levels) than any other performance he ever gave.


I think I see what you're saying, and from a certain point of view, I might agree, but don't you think that this was true of every performance Elvis gave? Isn't that an intrinsic apart of his appeal? And, if it is, how can one show be more revealing than another? I dunno. I think "Aloha" was and is a good slice of him at that point in '73 -- just as the "Comeback Special" was and is for mid '68.


The black leather of '68 wasn't purposely commissioned by Elvis to represent anything or convey a statement to anyone.........the Bald Eagle and Red, White, and Blue of the Aloha jumpsuit was purposely chosen as personally revelatory. A statement to the world of who he was and what he believed.

And for goodness sake, let's hope that stuff like the "Blue Gypsy" wasn't purposely chosen to make a statement........cuz goodness knows what THAT says :lol: :lol: