All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Re: chaos

Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:01 pm

Robert wrote:
ColinB wrote:
Robert wrote:Well, in 1977 rumours about his declining health were pretty widespread.


Just as I said 'shortly before his death'.


Besides his drugs monologue in Vegas'74 of course...


With hindsight, we can pick up all sorts of pointers and clues.

But it wasn't until 1977 that most of the general public [or fans come to that] learned of his problems in this area.

Re: chaos

Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:04 pm

ColinB wrote:
Robert wrote:Well, in 1977 rumours about his declining health were pretty widespread.


Just as I said 'shortly before his death'.


Can you please be a little more specific! :)

Re: chaos

Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:13 pm

ColinB wrote:
Robert wrote:
ColinB wrote:
Robert wrote:Well, in 1977 rumours about his declining health were pretty widespread.


Just as I said 'shortly before his death'.


Besides his drugs monologue in Vegas'74 of course...


With hindsight, we can pick up all sorts of pointers and clues.

But it wasn't until 1977 that most of the general public [or fans come to that] learned of his problems in this area.


Agree.. some fans still don't believe it :shock:
Thats why the August'77 tour could have been very interesting..
Elvis was affraid his audience would turn against him after the book release.. That's why the suicide theory was born: he couldn't handle the pressure and decided not to face it anymore, the day before leaving to Portland..

"Elvis, what happened"' killed Elvis, allthough the West boys claim they wanted to help him..

Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:15 pm

Interesting....I had forgotten that "suicide theory." What is that exactly, merely among some fans or has someone actually written about it at length?

While it's true (as seen at the end of "Careless Love" and other sources)that Elvis was apparently wracked with thoughts of how he would face his audiences now that the truth was out, we may never know if that led him to over-due it with the drugs. I was under the impression that he always had a lot of drugs flowing through him in the last years and it was just a matter of time...

Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:20 pm

Didn't Albert Goldman write a second book on Elvis, around the last 24 hours, claiming suicide?

To my mind, I can't believe Elvis would contemplate a deliberate, pre meditated suicide when Lisa was staying with him, whatever his state of mind. He'd have been devastated at the thought of her finding him.

That said, Elvis had been killing himself slowly for 3 or 4 years, but there's a big difference between self destructive behaviour, and the final act of taking one's own life.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:51 pm

Why has no one suspected Ginger of doing anything so far? It was obvious he didn't want to mary her and wanted her to leave.

Maybe it wasn't Elvis who mixed up his pills, but someone else.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:13 pm

Oh, yeah, Goldman's "The Last 24 Hours." :roll:

And I thought he was frustrated with the lack of returned love from her. That's not the same as wanting her to leave...

Resident relationship experts?

Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:40 pm

Thomas wrote:Why has no one suspected Ginger of doing anything so far? It was obvious he didn't want to mary her and wanted her to leave.

Maybe it wasn't Elvis who mixed up his pills, but someone else.

I think you're really on to something here.

Re: chaos

Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:06 am

Robert wrote:..."Elvis, what happened"' killed Elvis, allthough the West boys claim they wanted to help him...


Elvis was not killed by a book. His death resulted from years of misuse of drugs, coupled with a breakneck pace of other excesses--concerts, travel, extremely poor dietary habits, and several other factors. We are all responsible for our own actions, and what we put into ourselves. While blaming others is standard operating procedure for some, it is the coward's way out.

Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:22 am

true and all too much for a basic simple Country boy :cry:

Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:36 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Thomas wrote:Why has no one suspected Ginger of doing anything so far? It was obvious he didn't want to mary her and wanted her to leave.

Maybe it wasn't Elvis who mixed up his pills, but someone else.

I think you're really on to something here.


:lol: :lol: You're terrible Doc!!!!! :wink:

Review

Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:15 am

Review from Wash. Post
Elvis: Predictable By Larry Rohter

The tickets said simply, "Elvis In Concert", and little more needed to be said about this event for which some Washington Elvis Presley fans have been waiting 18 years. The capacity crowd at Cole Field House was ready for him last night. It had patiently endured an hour of backup groups and inferior comedians prior to the arrival of "The King". Elvis may have lived up to the expectations of the crowd but he certainly didn't exceed them. It's hard to see what all the fuss was about. Anyone who has seen Elvis' TV specials or heard any of the several live albums that have flooded the market since he began touring again in 1970 could have predicted almost every song and each strained attempt at banter.All the old familiar faces from the Elvis entourage were there. The Sweet Inspirations and J. D. Sumner and The Stamps provided the background singing, and Presley's regular band, led by the exquisite lead guitar of James Burton, the instrumental backing. Last night's show was the first date on Presley's fall tour. There are still a number of kinks that need to be ironed out. Presley's voice seemed weaker and hoarser than usual. Old standbys like "I Got A Woman", and "Hound Dog", however, were as tight as they have been in the past.Presley's passing nod to new musical trends, as on "Bridge Over Troubled Waters", was labored. His efforts were further hindered by horrendous acoustics that could have been avoided had another hall been chosen for the concert.But that would be expecting too much. Elvis Presley is a fine showman and one hell of a smart businessman, but an artist he is not.

Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:01 pm

Hardly an accurate conclusion reached here.

From the dictionary: artist; one who does something with exceptional skill, professional entertainer.

Needless to say, Elvis comfortably qualifies on both these counts. He wasn't much of a businessman though, as his dependence on Colonel Tom testifies.

These reviewers hey, think they know it all.

Re: Review

Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:33 pm

deadringer wrote:Review from Wash. Post
Elvis: Predictable By Larry Rohter

The tickets said simply, "Elvis In Concert", and little more needed to be said about this event for which some Washington Elvis Presley fans have been waiting 18 years. The capacity crowd at Cole Field House was ready for him last night. It had patiently endured an hour of backup groups and inferior comedians prior to the arrival of "The King". Elvis may have lived up to the expectations of the crowd but he certainly didn't exceed them. It's hard to see what all the fuss was about. Anyone who has seen Elvis' TV specials or heard any of the several live albums that have flooded the market since he began touring again in 1970 could have predicted almost every song and each strained attempt at banter.All the old familiar faces from the Elvis entourage were there. The Sweet Inspirations and J. D. Sumner and The Stamps provided the background singing, and Presley's regular band, led by the exquisite lead guitar of James Burton, the instrumental backing. Last night's show was the first date on Presley's fall tour. There are still a number of kinks that need to be ironed out. Presley's voice seemed weaker and hoarser than usual. Old standbys like "I Got A Woman", and "Hound Dog", however, were as tight as they have been in the past.Presley's passing nod to new musical trends, as on "Bridge Over Troubled Waters", was labored. His efforts were further hindered by horrendous acoustics that could have been avoided had another hall been chosen for the concert.But that would be expecting too much. Elvis Presley is a fine showman and one hell of a smart businessman, but an artist he is not.


Deadringer, thanks for posting..
Larry Rohter is kind to Elvis here.

It's gonna be an interesting release folks...

Cheers, RJ

my pleasure

Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:12 pm

::: Deadringer, thanks for posting..

- my pleasure...

::: Larry Rohter is kind to Elvis here.

- both yes and no. he praised some parts of the show but... judge Elvis after just one show... AN ARTIST HE IS NOT, this is really harsh and cruel.

Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:33 pm

Mike S wrote:Hardly an accurate conclusion reached here.

From the dictionary: artist; one who does something with exceptional skill, professional entertainer.

Needless to say, Elvis comfortably qualifies on both these counts. He wasn't much of a businessman though, as his dependence on Colonel Tom testifies.

These reviewers hey, think they know it all.



good point, Mike, although his worst shows by definition tended to challenge the idea of that he had " exceptional skill" and was a " professional entertainer."

Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:35 pm

But Elvis always had exceptional skill, even if he wasn't always inspired or in good health and he rarely failed to satisfy his audience.

A sense of perspective is essential, especially with a performer of Elvis' stature.

Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:50 pm

Thank you, well said and I agree.

Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:15 pm

Fair enough, but the '71 Xmas album is hardly that much of a low-point, although most of us have long since picked up on his voice and mood being off...

And as I think LTB has argued, the common refrain about how "mediocre" Elvis became seems unfair when you compare it to other artists. He lasted for nearly 3 decades and there was cream in all of it.

Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:08 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:He lasted for nearly 3 decades and there was cream in all of it.

1954 to 1977 = ~23 years.

Subtract 1958-59 = ~21 years.

But they were 21 creamy years.

Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:35 pm

I was being generous with the "nearly 3 decades" (23 rounds down easier to 20 than 30, which is a stretch) but then, we often "think" in decades as chunks of time. He was around for three very distinct eras in pop music and pop culture. (And "the Colonel" kept his star alight during the army stint, no?)

Cream of the Crop, King of the Hill, indeed. :lol:

Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:12 pm

Shanebrown wrote:
"Elvis rarely failed to satisfy his audience simply because his audience would accept so little from their idol. Any other performer who gave some of the shows that Elvis did would have had audiences walking out on them."

But surely that's the point. Elvis was not "any other performer" and in truth he gave the audience what he perceived that they wanted to hear. That may not be what we want to hear today, but his audience lapped it up then and he gave a professional show to the best of his ability on the particular night.

Regarding your other points:

As others have pointed out, his talent spanned three decades, and he gave many great performances right up to the very end.

As you concede, the volume of material he was expected to record and his relentless concert shedule would not be tolerated today, so some sub par performances are inevitable.

To return to the topic, this is why I find his College Park shows interesting. For someone who usually gave great shows, it is fascinating to observe an OCCASIONAL poor performance.

Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:37 am

Quote: Subtract 1958-59 = ~21 years.

******************************

My favorite home recordings come from those years.
Very creamy recordings.

Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:28 pm

wow looks like a VERY interesting release(after reading liner note excerpt and viewing the cover!) sounds a very FAIR comment of the show....i remember(from my incomplete and crappy partial audience recording of the show i had for 15 years) that Fever was his WORST ever performance with Love me Tender also being 'crap', but looking forward to hearing the 'highlights' in the full context of a pretty long show!! maybe i'll be able to 'file' this in my CD rack next to Fort Baxters 28.9.74 outing.....leave 2 spaces and put in the Oct 1st South Bend FTD....leave another 5 'spaces' and file my 2 dayton A/S + E/S performances!!!! :roll:

Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:08 am

I also have the bad aud.rec.and I am really curious about this release.

New reviews of this show tidy up another myth....the one of Elvis being totally off the role..let`s see..