Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:48 pm
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.
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.
Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:44 pm
Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:32 pm
Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:54 pm
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.
Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:59 am
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.
Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:08 am
Getlo wrote:The casual buyer would not see the joke.
Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:19 pm
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.
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.
Hosted by ElviCities