All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Well

Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:48 pm

Well this ELVIS GREATEST S--T LP and CD is one which I never bought even if it was offered to me several times. I have found it too offensive and downright stupid ... to spend my money for it... I can dislike many Elvis songs but I have respect for The Man. This is not a release for me.

Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:12 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Yeah, he's only dead. It's not like his family might even hear about it. :roll:

It's very simple: you don't put dead people on the cover of Lp record albums, not the least a mostly-beloved singer. No one deserves that, not Tiny Tim, not anyone. It's obviously beyond being in bad taste, pure and simple or is that something that we also cannot agree upon?

Even at his worst, he brought much joy to fans for years. I'd say the same about John Lennon or Bing Crosby, or a drug-addicted homeless person.

It's just basic human decency. Putting it on an LP (as obscure as it was) was an outrageously tasteles attempt at humor. "Fans" should know better, no matter how many heroic escapes he was responsible for.

Chuckle to yourself (and not all of my humor is "PC" either) but it's beyond low to have issued this. I don't mean to get on a high-horse, but this LP seriously pisses me off.

And if I found out about it, as I did at the time as a young fan, then surely Lisa Marie did as well. It wasn't that obscure if I saw it in a record shop.

I don't say this makes you a bad guy but I'm asking you to think through what you're saying.

I am as critical of Elvis' lowlights and mistakes as anyone, so you're not talking to a fan who can't take criticism of the guy. This is one of those instances where there should be no gray area. Put a picture of someone dead on a cover of a record, and all other discussions about the merit of such a "humor" release should be off the table.


Greg,

I'm sure Elvs' family has many more pressing things to dea with than a silly bootleg LP...especially during THAT time. The Goldman book, for example, created WAY more negative ripples than this LP ever could.
OF COURSE using a photo of ANYONE dead is tasteless and foul. Still, I can see the intent and laugh at it, or I can get pissed off about it. I choose to see the humor intended. Look, when Howard Stern used to do bits where he "contacted" Elvis via seance, he made fat jokes and drug jokes...but I laughed my ass off. Because it's *entertainment*...not a CNN interviewee talking crap in a factual context. It's a joke...funny or not, realize it's just a joke, misguided as it may be to some, and not meant to be taken seriously.
Dead pic on the cover or not, there are still a few other things on the cover that's really funny...it seems to me that you're judging an LP solely by the front cover.
I'm the first to defend Elvis to someone that is a non-fan...but I can laugh at a joke just the same. There are worse things to be pissed off about than a silly LP in regards to Elvis as far as I'm concerned.
And as far as slinging mud goes, you only lower yourself to the same level if you take yourself as seriously as, say, Albert Goldman. If the guys who put this LP out knew Goldman was a dork, then of course it's easy to find it funnier. I knew Goldman was a dork, so I didn't take it seriously. I saw the insult to Goldman and Deary and even Parker, but there was no direct smack to Elvis. THESE GUYS didn't take the picture of E in his coffin...cut them some slack!
We may have to agree to disagree on this one, Greg. Although I usually agree with your posts!

Axe

Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:44 pm

Image

And I'm sure Lisa Marie wasn't amused. Why would any fan be? Again, I repeat: is nothing sacred?

I appreciate your stand on this (let me guess: you paid cash for it?)as we often do agree, Axe.

I just think if there was ever an issue to make a stand when it comes to Elvis, it would be the only-known picture of him dead being used on an album cover. Someone could call him a fat, MOR Vegas clown if they want, but play around with dead pictures of him and you get on the "Fighting side of me" as the song goes. :lol:

I suppose when Elvis' autopsy photos are finally released (and I fear that they eventually are eligible this century from what I recall), that they too could be fodder for such "satire."

Ever see Marilyn Monroe's autopsy pictures? In a supermarket, I once thumbed through a paperback book about her as a kid and sure enough, there was a picture of her, dead. That's just wrong.

I like Howard Stern and I like "sick" humor, too. But when Howard was sued once for playing with and making sexual jokes as he touched the cremated ashes of someone on the air in the '90s he was fined by the FCC and sued big time by the family, I really thought he had it coming.

There's a reason why the concept of "good taste" was invented in the first place...! I also agree with George Carlin that almost anything can be made to be funny (even rape, as he once talked about)..but life isn't just about comedy.

Okay, agreeing to disagree,
Greg :wink:

Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:32 pm

Greg,

If you hate the album so much, why do you keep adding it to every one of your posts?

BTW, I always thought that picture of Elvis looked like a fake.

Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:54 pm

Easy, Brad.

When people rave over the album, they need to be continually reminded just what we're talking about.

Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:55 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:When people rave over the album, they need to be continually reminded just what we're talking about.

No one on this topic has "raved" over EGS. So your replies are based on a false assumption of how this album is viewed. Please read more carefully in the future, so you don't waste your time -- and ours.

Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:59 am

I fail to raise a laugh at Elvis's expense - everything about this album is in bad taste.

The casual buyer would not see the joke. As an Elvis fan I saw the joke, but found it unfunny and a cheap cash-in for the idiots who produced it.

I can laugh at plenty of humorous jokes but prefer to laugh with Elvis than laugh at him.

I wonder how many of them still listen to the FTD releases and find their thrill when they arrive? I doubt they give a sh*t.

Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:25 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:What's being missed is that the cover is the point of the project.

The LP was a dark and ironic look at all that had happened to Elvis since the publication of Goldman's hateful biography, and a commentary on the revisionism which began to infilrate rock criticism of Elvis and his legacy.

I've always understood the concept of the album. However, it is one that I've never considered getting for one second. They could have made their point without using that picture for their cover.

Greg -
We really can do without seeing it again.

Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:08 am

Getlo wrote:The casual buyer would not see the joke.

What a specious argument. A "casual buyer" of Elvis Presley's music in 1982 did not go shopping for an obscure bootleg. They would "see" the joke because they wouldn't be in a position to buy such a record.

Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:19 pm

This rather mainstream fan (at that time) came across it back then, so your argument isn't bullet-proof. Besides, that's a rather flimsy hope: that no one will see it anyway. Some did.

Why are you so wedded to defending this album? I can't imagine anyone would even keep it in their collection. It shouldn't even be on this website with that glowing review by Eddie Boyes, Jr.

Doc, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:44 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Getlo wrote:The casual buyer would not see the joke.

What a specious argument. A "casual buyer" of Elvis Presley's music in 1982 did not go shopping for an obscure bootleg. They would "see" the joke because they wouldn't be in a position to buy such a record.


Who are you kidding Doc? The casual buyer was having a big belly-laugh at Elvis at that time - I remember. The Goldman book was out - the bodyguard book had cemented the drug stories and the pictures in the paper showed a once sleek performer past his best. They weren't listening to the voice or magic from 1977, they were fueled by the stories and images. February 12th 1977 pictures were used to illustrate his decline. Even pictures from 1975 were labelled as one of Elvis' last performances!

This is Elvis had been in the cinemas, nicely capturing Elvis in 1977 and comparing him to how he looked 20 years before! My Way was used to push the message home and Joe Esposito's comments didn't help. I have never even seen a picture of Joe looking sleek. His comments of Elvis being "way over-weight" were fallacious, as being way overweight would describe Joe, but a medicated bloated appearance would describe Elvis. He had a weight problem, but the drugs he took made him appear much heavier than he was. You only have to look at pictures taken days apart when Elvis appears very heavy and a few days later much thinner.

In 1982 Elvis was a joke in the public eyes. A casual buyer would be only too happy to get an album showing a dead man and a title belittling the man and his music would do very nicely for them. I saw the album and was disgusted by it. If you think fans produced it you need a reality check.

Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:27 pm

Getlo wrote:The casual buyer was having a big belly-laugh at Elvis at that time - I remember. The Goldman book was out - the bodyguard book had cemented the drug stories and the pictures in the paper showed a once sleek performer past his best. They weren't listening to the voice or magic from 1977, they were fueled by the stories and images ... In 1982 Elvis was a joke in the public eyes. A casual buyer would be only too happy to get an album showing a dead man and a title belittling the man and his music would do very nicely for them. I saw the album and was disgusted by it. If you think fans produced it you need a reality check.

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24737