All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:29 pm

Listening to this rare show makes me realise how great a World Tour would have been in 1961. :cry:

Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:28 pm

A major, 43-city tour with most or all of this band was in the plans for October-November 1962. One reason Elvis did less film work that year -- after "Girls! Girls! Girls!" and "It Happened At The World's Fair" -- was to provide time for this. For a number of reasons -- RCA and $$$ -- it fell through. What a missed opportunity. We all know what happened after that.

Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:18 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:A major, 43-city tour with most or all of this band was in the plans for October-November 1962. One reason Elvis did less film work that year -- after "Girls! Girls! Girls!" and "It Happened At The World's Fair" -- was to provide time for this. For a number of reasons -- RCA and $$$ -- it fell through. What a missed opportunity. We all know what happened after that.


Even had he done it, I doubt the Colonel would have recorded any of the shows!!!

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:13 pm

th 61 show is 10 times better than any show from 74-77. can be.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:01 pm

The 61 benefit from Hawaii has (IMO) great potential for a great sounding restoration. I know for a fact (working on one track) that Elvis' vocals do NOT have mic overload though it sounds like it. It is noise that can be carefully and patiently removed making it sound awsome,stunning...

Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:08 pm

C'mon, JLGB. Don't keep us in suspense! Show us yer work!

Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:10 pm

Cryogenic wrote:C'mon, JLGB. Don't keep us in suspense! Show us yer work!


Hear hear (no pun intended :wink: ) :mrgreen:

Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:54 pm

Thanks for the interest! I will post something when I find it. :)

Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:52 am

Riddle me this, was the source tape for the RCA 1980s release from the first generation location tape? Or was it from a copy or bootleg?

If they didn't have the 1st generation tape for the first official release, does BMG have it now?

Is it just wishful thinking that they can significantly improve the quality of this recording?

It makes one salivate to think this might sound significantly better someday...

Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:00 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:A major, 43-city tour with most or all of this band was in the plans for October-November 1962. One reason Elvis did less film work that year -- after "Girls! Girls! Girls!" and "It Happened At The World's Fair" -- was to provide time for this. For a number of reasons -- RCA and $$$ -- it fell through. What a missed opportunity. We all know what happened after that.


Do you have more specific reasons why it fell through? RCA didn't want him to do it?
Last edited by TJ on Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:07 am

Apparently, RCA was only willing to cover costs for a tour of about a dozen cities, which Parker found unacceptable.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:25 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:Apparently, RCA was only willing to cover costs for a tour of about a dozen cities, which Parker found unacceptable.


On behalf of all fans, I want to thank the two biggest abusers of Elvis Presley, that being the Colonel and RCA for being such a--holes and not coming up with a reasonable partnership for what would have been a tour we'd be talking about till this day. A 27 year old man at his peak, having performed only 3 concerts in 4 years, would have been a hungry, incredible performer, taking it to another level because of how great his voice was during this era. They had no problem getting together for EP to cut three movie soundtracks a year.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:07 am

I believe this failed tour was the reason why they came up with the brilliant idea to take the Solid Gold Cadilaac on a tour.

They toured the car, but not Elvis.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:11 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:Apparently, RCA was only willing to cover costs for a tour of about a dozen cities, which Parker found unacceptable.


How depressing and ridiculous :evil: Thanks for the extra info.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:38 am

ekenee wrote:I believe this failed tour was the reason why they came up with the brilliant idea to take the Solid Gold Cadilaac on a tour.

They toured the car, but not Elvis.

Look on the bright side, the touring Gold Cadillac was the primary influence on the Beatles creating the legendary Sgt. Pepper's LP.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:30 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:Look on the bright side, the touring Gold Cadillac was the primary influence on the Beatles creating the legendary Sgt. Pepper's LP.


Uh? Please tell me how the car was the primary influence for doing Sgt. Pepper's. I didn't know that.

By the way I think that Sgt. Pepper's is a quite good album, but I also think that it is much overrated - mostly by the media imo. I'm more into "Revolver".

Joern

Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:55 pm

It's to do with not having to tour and perform onstage. Paul McCartney has said that the Beatles loved the idea that Elvis had sent his gold Cadillac on tour instead of himself, and that it was drawing huge crowds. This was part of the inspiration behind the Sgt. Pepper idea - that they didn't have to tour but could send the record out in their place. So, it's not really the same is it? :?
Maybe they should have sent out John Lennon's Rolls Royce instead - the one painted like a gypsy caravan. 8)

Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:13 pm

Joern wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:Look on the bright side, the touring Gold Cadillac was the primary influence on the Beatles creating the legendary Sgt. Pepper's LP.


Uh? Please tell me how the car was the primary influence for doing Sgt. Pepper's. I didn't know that.

By the way I think that Sgt. Pepper's is a quite good album, but I also think that it is much overrated - mostly by the media imo. I'm more into "Revolver".

Joern


Joern: Totally agree with you on that. "Revolver" is the better LP with stronger songs throughout that are musically diverse and lyrically incisive. It holds up better than "Pepper" for me becasue the Beatles didn't go overboard with instrumentation. On "Pepper" and the Magical Mystery Tour recordings, the Beatles got into the habit of putting everything they could think of a song. "Pepper" still has many great songs, but "Revolver" is the more consistent record.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:08 pm

Joern wrote:Uh? Please tell me how the car was the primary influence for doing Sgt. Pepper's. I didn't know that.

That's because it's untrue -- I was being "tongue-in-cheek."

A former member of this MB -- one of the most ignorant and mean-spirited -- fought tooth and nail that this was a fact. As usual, he was mistaken. The primary influence on the making of Sgt. Pepper's was Brian Wilson's masterpiece, Pet Sounds, released by the Beach Boys in May 1966.

Ironically, Revolver, issued by the Beatles in August 1966, is quite likely the greatest rock album of all time.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:38 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Joern wrote:Uh? Please tell me how the car was the primary influence for doing Sgt. Pepper's. I didn't know that.

That's because it's untrue -- I was being "tongue-in-cheek."

A former member of this MB -- one of the most ignorant and mean-spirited -- fought tooth and nail that this was a fact. As usual, he was mistaken. The primary influence on the making of Sgt. Pepper's was Brian Wilson's masterpiece, Pet Sounds, released by the Beach Boys in May 1966.

Ironically, Revolver, issued by the Beatles in August 1966, is quite likely the greatest rock album of all time.


I agreed 100% with Doc here. The former member based his claim on something that Macca said on Anthology but as usually he got it all wrong.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:40 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:The primary influence on the making of Sgt. Pepper's was Brian Wilson's masterpiece, Pet Sounds, released by the Beach Boys in May 1966.


That's what I've read and heard all over the years. Thank you - I started to think that my memento was playing a trick on me.

I've tried to listen to "Pet Sounds" a few times, but didn't get through it. I really can't stand it and I honestly don't have a clue why it gets on the first three positions on every poll about the "Best album ever".

Anyhow - thank you for the answer.

Joern

Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:02 am

So i cant buy Hawaii 61 as of right now right?

Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:23 am

Ironically, Revolver, issued by the Beatles in August 1966, is quite likely the greatest rock album of all time.


Well, Revolver is a first class album and highly influential, but labeling is as quite likely the greatest rock album of all time may be a bit of a stretch. There are a handful of great albums that may hold that title, it is practically impossible to narrow it down to one.

Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:27 am

ritchie valens wrote:th 61 show is 10 times better than any show from 74-77. can be.



And you of course have heard all the shows Elvis performed 1974-77...? :roll:


Sincerely MB280E

Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:38 am

You need to re-add what is missing or to be more accurate-what couldnt be faithfully recorded I.E Bass/Drums/Guitars Elvis vocal is just about ok (for obvious reasons)namely as he had the mic near his mouth.

But this sensational band has not been recorded properly .


Look what they did with overdubbs in "This Is Elvis" they vastly improve the enjoyment of the 50's live performances.

If they release this like it was released on EAP box set then it's pure UNLISTENABLE GARBAGE.

Overdubb the instruments to make it sound like it did then it will be sensational--WHY YOU PURISTS LIKE FLAT SOUNDING AUDIO WITH NO DRUMS OR BASS AND ZERO ACCOUSTICS IS BEYOND UNDERSTANDING.

E.G who you think played bass on "Dont Be Cruel" Ed sullivan as it appears on the This Is Elvis soundtrack? it sure as H#ll isnt Bill Black.

And i dont care as long as the bass playing is exactly the same-i am just happy to have Bass on the recording(as you should be)and not like on the Silver Box Set that is totally garbage.