All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:16 pm

chris c wrote:Going back to the topic of Sandi Miller's stories for a moment, she has a big section all to herself on elvisinsiders.com devoted to her stories about Elvis - absolutely fascinating and some great great facts about Elvis that anyone who loves him ought to read. And no dirt of any description.


That's great to hear, Chris. Thanks for letting us know. I will definitely check that out.


P.S. I started to tell one of her more interesting memories but decided to look and see if she's got it posted over there.

Re: sheila Ryan book

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:17 pm

jak wrote: No


Thank you, Jak. You are a true gentleman.

Re: sheila Ryan book

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:26 pm

Memphis Flash wrote:
sid wrote:
Now I know why I think he was a low life SOB and I am glad to know I wasnt wrong about him.........do the people involved know he did this?


Who are you referring to, Albert Goldman or Lamar Fike?

Yes, I'm sure they all know. Originally Lamar Fike was supposed to be listed as a co-author right on the front of the book, but wisely decided he had better lay low when he realized how explosive the book was going to be. He is still 50% owner of the book, however.

He probably wishes Goldman had been a little less hostile to Elvis in writing the book. The whole thing comes across as one big character assassination - except to those of us who can overlook those overheated passages and appreciate the real information in there.


Well, Goldman *did* blow the hinges off the door of The Colonel, and he deserves major credit for that. But he only then incorporated that information -- just like everything else -- in an attempt to show how Elvis and his entire legacy was built on lies and fakery.

The distortions and smears are so great in Goldman's tome that anyone with a serious understanding of music, culture, people and life itself cannot possibly take it seriously,............ UNLESS blinded by extreme hatred and ignorance. It's almost like Goldman was writing a book about himself : e.g. "look how f*cked up I am to peddle this ****!"

Goldman's book reads as a satire. Though I think it was very much intended to enact "cultural genocide", as Greil Marcus termed it. That is not the function of a satire and never could be. Another intellectual deemed Goldman's style: "elaborate constructions of tinsel and mud." Both of these summations hold at all times; one describes the macroscopic, and the other, the microscopic. It is one of the most fascinating, but trashy, books ever written. Getting truth out of that thing is like eating flecks of fresh steak buried in a giant turd.

Re: sheila Ryan book

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:51 pm

Cryogenic wrote:Goldman's book reads as a satire. Though I think it was very much intended to enact "cultural genocide", as Greil Marcus termed it. That is not the function of a satire and never could be. Another intellectual deemed Goldman's style: "elaborate constructions of tinsel and mud." Both of these summations hold at all times; one describes the macroscopic, and the other, the microscopic. It is one of the most fascinating, but trashy, books ever written. Getting truth out of that thing is like eating flecks of fresh steak buried in a giant turd.


Of course it was intended to articulate the disdain the elites had - and still have - for the south. Witness Charlie Rangel's recent statement, "Who the hell would want to live in Mississippi?" It grated on Goldman that a hick southerner could be a national, even international, sensation.

The truth I'm looking for in reading books like that aren't his 'insights' into music or culture - thanks but no thanks - but in his exhaustive FACTUAL descriptions of Elvis' bedroom, his suite at the Hilton, his jewelry box and what was in each of its drawers - and more. So many little physical details that were free from opinion or interpretation.

If it weren't for that book, I would never have known about Rex Mansfield or Elisabeth Stefaniak and so might never have purchased their book, translated from the German, when I came across it in a San Diego used bookstore. Wouldn't have known how and why Anita Wood moved out of Graceland. Wouldn't have known that Elvis envisioned Ginger's wedding gown covered with little rosebuds with sparkles on them, and so wouldn't have made a connection between that and Ginger's actual wedding gown when she finally did get married years later.

See, I can do my own analysis. But I enjoy facts. Goldman's book, awful though it was, was replete with facts. Heck, even though it wasn't in the book, Goldman's tapes contained the name of the girl Elvis watched Priscilla wrestle with. Her name was Carolyn.

At the time I didn't think I'd regret not listening to those tapes, and on balance I still think that was the right decision. But every once in a while, I think it might have been interesting.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:53 pm

Goldman was a pile of trash and words cannot describe the low-life piece of scrap that is Lamar Fike.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:54 pm

Elvis did great but 68 special was CREATED tv magic not real magic on the stage like in the 69 comeback or 50s explosion. On a regular ,live setting it would have bombed. The editing played major role. It is myth like Goldman wrote...all you have to do is watch Elvis standing there waiting for directions from Binder..This was not seen in 68 but a great editing job where Elvis is live standing up and sometimes sitting down.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:58 pm

JLGB wrote:Elvis did great but 68 special was CREATED tv magic not real magic on the stage like in the 69 comeback or 50s explosion. On a regular ,live setting it would have bombed. The editing played major role.


So what? It worked, didn't it? I don't see any reason to even bring it up, unless to imply Elvis was a bit out of practice.

Can anyone name any other single performer who accomplished so much in such a short period of time? I cannot think of any.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:05 pm

Memphis Flash wrote:
JLGB wrote:Elvis did great but 68 special was CREATED tv magic not real magic on the stage like in the 69 comeback or 50s explosion. On a regular ,live setting it would have bombed. The editing played major role.


So what? It worked, didn't it? I don't see any reason to even bring it up, unless to imply Elvis was a bit out of practice.

Can anyone name any other single performer who accomplished so much in such a short period of time? I cannot think of any.


There was a lot more that went into that show then any of his other shows. First of all, there were dance sequences, musical skits with different scenarios, also the fact that he hadn't performed on stage in over 7 years didn't help the rust or confidence factor. Still, once he got comfortable and in form, it was the greatest rock&roll ever performed, bar none, I don't care what anybody says.

Re: sheila Ryan book

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:07 pm

Memphis Flash wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:Goldman's book reads as a satire. Though I think it was very much intended to enact "cultural genocide", as Greil Marcus termed it. That is not the function of a satire and never could be. Another intellectual deemed Goldman's style: "elaborate constructions of tinsel and mud." Both of these summations hold at all times; one describes the macroscopic, and the other, the microscopic. It is one of the most fascinating, but trashy, books ever written. Getting truth out of that thing is like eating flecks of fresh steak buried in a giant turd.


Of course it was intended to articulate the disdain the elites had - and still have - for the south. Witness Charlie Rangel's recent statement, "Who the hell would want to live in Mississippi?" It grated on Goldman that a hick southerner could be a national, even international, sensation.

The truth I'm looking for in reading books like that aren't his 'insights' into music or culture - thanks but no thanks - but in his exhaustive FACTUAL descriptions of Elvis' bedroom, his suite at the Hilton, his jewelry box and what was in each of its drawers - and more. So many little physical details that were free from opinion or interpretation.

If it weren't for that book, I would never have known about Rex Mansfield or Elisabeth Stefaniak and so might never have purchased their book, translated from the German, when I came across it in a San Diego used bookstore. Wouldn't have known how and why Anita Wood moved out of Graceland. Wouldn't have known that Elvis envisioned Ginger's wedding gown covered with little rosebuds with sparkles on them, and so wouldn't have made a connection between that and Ginger's actual wedding gown when she finally did get married years later.

See, I can do my own analysis. But I enjoy facts. Goldman's book, awful though it was, was replete with facts. Heck, even though it wasn't in the book, Goldman's tapes contained the name of the girl Elvis watched Priscilla wrestle with. Her name was Carolyn.

At the time I didn't think I'd regret not listening to those tapes, and on balance I still think that was the right decision. But every once in a while, I think it might have been interesting.





So you think he would have married Ginger then?

And did Anita leave Graceland because Priscilla came on the scene?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:15 pm

Memphis Flash wrote:
JLGB wrote:Elvis did great but 68 special was CREATED tv magic not real magic on the stage like in the 69 comeback or 50s explosion. On a regular ,live setting it would have bombed. The editing played major role.


So what? It worked, didn't it? I don't see any reason to even bring it up, unless to imply Elvis was a bit out of practice.

Can anyone name any other single performer who accomplished so much in such a short period of time? I cannot think of any.
It worked great and that is not the point. But the idea of Elvis just magically coming back is a myth. Of course I love it and think it is great and brought it up as example of deconstructing myth and not really hurting the artist...unless you think he was superman...

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:19 pm

Memphis Flash wrote:But I enjoy facts.


As do I.

I tend to enjoy finding them in well-written books and from sources without a major bias and slutty writing style, however. Maybe that's just just me.

While Goldman's book has its uses, so did the two A-bombs on Japan. So did Adolf Hitler rising to power. And on and on... It doesn't mean these things are worthy of praise or veneration. Good can arise from bad, and bad often stimulates the good into being. I despise Michael Moore and his equally leacherous and phoney films like "Bowling For Columbine", but I do accept they have their place, and for all their distortions and lies, can actually provoke people into researching issues and speaking out. We're not saying anything different, are we, Memphis Flash?

The ONLY thing I feel I should challenge you on is the claim that Goldman's descriptions were/are accurate. OK, let's assume those particular ones are. But how could you know they were accurate without significantly greater research beyond his book? Because Goldman filled his book with venom and junk, there was no way any of it could be taken at face value if one was being logical and objective, but many people were not. Great: he got some things right. But the book is so hideously polluted and warped that you could just as well - and, in fact, needed to -- learn those things from some place else.

Nonetheless: in broader historical terms, I agree with you. Negativity is an extremely powerful motivator on multiple levels. Without Goldman, some people might never have taken their fandom to the next level after encountering his bile (then again, he could have turned a great many potential fans off Elvis, though an argument can be made that *those* people, if so easily fooled, aren't worth having).

Memphis Flash wrote:
JLGB wrote:Elvis did great but 68 special was CREATED tv magic not real magic on the stage like in the 69 comeback or 50s explosion. On a regular ,live setting it would have bombed. The editing played major role.


So what? It worked, didn't it? I don't see any reason to even bring it up, unless to imply Elvis was a bit out of practice.

Can anyone name any other single performer who accomplished so much in such a short period of time? I cannot think of any.


I'll better you, Ms Flash.

Stand back while I tear JLGB a new one. :wink:

JLGB: The REAL magic captured in those NBC Studios was and is without artifice. The REAL magic was and is Elvis Presley, sat down in a "little theater", performing at the top of his game. And those were two live shows. All Binder had to do was roll the cameras and then *not* botch the footage in editing. That's it. His other ideas -- namely, a stand-up segment with an unpractised orchestra, not to mention untested sound levels and overblown arrangements, the cheesy production numbers which dragged Elvis *right* back to his "employee in his own movie studio" cage and a powerful song like "If I Can Dream" backed with a pre-recorded "Broadway Musical Lite" sludge-pudge instrumental -- were all....... C-R-A-P. Elvis obliged because his career needed digging out of a hole and he didn't have the confidence or the know-how to do it all by himself. Everything Binder did, to borrow one of Goldman's overblown but oh-so-apt phrases, "travestied and soft-soaped" Elvis Aaron Presley; everything Elvis Aaron Presley did only showed him for the demigod of a performer he was. No, Elvis was not and never could be "Superman", but he was firing on all cylinders in 1968, and Binder's ideas only blunted his edges and obscured his true greatness.

Re: sheila Ryan book

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:27 pm

sid wrote:
So you think he would have married Ginger then?

And did Anita leave Graceland because Priscilla came on the scene?


No idea what he would have done, but she certainly believed they were going to get married that Christmas from the things he told her. Others say differently so I just don't know. But Kathy Westmoreland has said in interviews that he really wanted to make that work. Even David Stanley commented that Elvis never opened himself up to Priscilla but he did to Ginger.

But either way it was not to be.

As far as Anita Wood, she apparently was coming down the stairs at Graceland and overheard Elvis saying that he wasn't sure what to do about her. So she confronted him and said she was going to save him the trouble of making a decision, that she was going to leave. And she did.

I was sitting a few feet away from Larry King during his show where he had Patti Parry, Jerry Schilling and Kathy Westmoreland in studio and Anita Wood and Lamar Fike by satellite. Only those with earpieces could hear what Anita was saying, but Elvis once reminisced to Kathy about all his former girlfriends, and he spoke the fondest about Anita Wood, saying how much fun they had.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:29 pm

Cryogenic wrote:
Memphis Flash wrote:But I enjoy facts.


As do I.

I tend to enjoy finding them in well-written books and from sources without a major bias and slutty writing style, however. Maybe that's just just me.

While Goldman's book has its uses, so did the two A-bombs on Japan. So did Adolf Hitler rising to power. And on and on... It doesn't mean these things are worthy of praise or veneration. Good can arise from bad, and bad often stimulates the good into being. I despise Michael Moore and his equally leacherous and phoney films like "Bowling For Columbine", but I do accept they have their place, and for all their distortions and lies, can actually provoke people into researching issues and speaking out. We're not saying anything different, are we, Memphis Flash?

The ONLY thing I feel I should challenge you on is the claim that Goldman's descriptions were/are accurate. OK, let's assume those particular ones are. But how could you know they were accurate without significantly greater research beyond his book? Because Goldman filled his book with venom and junk, there was no way any of it could be taken at face value if one was being logical and objective, but many people were not. Great: he got some things right. But the book is so hideously polluted and warped that you could just as well - and, in fact, needed to -- learn those things from some place else.

Nonetheless: in broader historical terms, I agree with you. Negativity is an extremely powerful motivator on multiple levels. Without Goldman, some people might never have taken their fandom to the next level after encountering his bile (then again, he could have turned a great many potential fans off Elvis, though an argument can be made that *those* people, if so easily fooled, aren't worth having).

Memphis Flash wrote:
JLGB wrote:Elvis did great but 68 special was CREATED tv magic not real magic on the stage like in the 69 comeback or 50s explosion. On a regular ,live setting it would have bombed. The editing played major role.


So what? It worked, didn't it? I don't see any reason to even bring it up, unless to imply Elvis was a bit out of practice.

Can anyone name any other single performer who accomplished so much in such a short period of time? I cannot think of any.


I'll better you, Ms Flash.

Stand back while I tear JLGB a new one. :wink:

JLGB: The REAL magic captured in those NBC Studios was and is without artifice. The REAL magic was and is Elvis Presley, sat down in a "little theater", performing at the top of his game. And those were two live shows. All Binder had to do was roll the cameras and then *not* botch the footage in editing. That's it. His other ideas -- namely, a stand-up segment with an unpractised orchestra, not to mention untested sound levels and overblown arrangements, the cheesy production numbers which dragged Elvis *right* back to his "employee in his own movie studio" cage and a powerful song like "If I Can Dream" backed with a pre-recorded "Broadway Musical Lite" sludge-pudge instrumental -- were all....... C-R-A-P. Elvis obliged because his career needed digging out of a hole and he didn't have the confidence or the know-how to do it all by himself. Everything Binder did, to borrow one of Goldman's overblown but oh-so-apt phrases, "travestied and soft-soaped" Elvis Aaron Presley; everything Elvis Aaron Presley did only showed him for the demigod of a performer he was. No, Elvis was not and never could be "Superman", but he was firing on all cylinders in 1968, and Binder's ideas only blunted his edges and obscured his true greatness.


Well said Cryo. Just to add to this, the fact that Binder wanted to film him jamming in his dressing room, shows the greatness that was Elvis Presley.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:35 pm

Cryogenic wrote:
Memphis Flash wrote:But I enjoy facts.


As do I.

I tend to enjoy finding them in well-written books and from sources without a major bias and slutty writing style, however. Maybe that's just just me.

While Goldman's book has its uses, so did the two A-bombs on Japan. So did Adolf Hitler rising to power. And on and on... It doesn't mean these things are worthy of praise or veneration. Good can arise from bad, and bad often stimulates the good into being. I despise Michael Moore and his equally leacherous and phoney films like "Bowling For Columbine", but I do accept they have their place, and for all their distortions and lies, can actually provoke people into researching issues and speaking out. We're not saying anything different, are we, Memphis Flash?

The ONLY thing I feel I should challenge you on is the claim that Goldman's descriptions were/are accurate. OK, let's assume those particular ones are. But how could you know they were accurate without significantly greater research beyond his book? Because Goldman filled his book with venom and junk, there was no way any of it could be taken at face value if one was being logical and objective, but many people were not. Great: he got some things right. But the book is so hideously polluted and warped that you could just as well - and, in fact, needed to -- learn those things from some place else.

Nonetheless: in broader historical terms, I agree with you. Negativity is an extremely powerful motivator on multiple levels. Without Goldman, some people might never have taken their fandom to the next level after encountering his bile (then again, he could have turned a great many potential fans off Elvis, though an argument can be made that *those* people, if so easily fooled, aren't worth having).

Memphis Flash wrote:
JLGB wrote:Elvis did great but 68 special was CREATED tv magic not real magic on the stage like in the 69 comeback or 50s explosion. On a regular ,live setting it would have bombed. The editing played major role.


So what? It worked, didn't it? I don't see any reason to even bring it up, unless to imply Elvis was a bit out of practice.

Can anyone name any other single performer who accomplished so much in such a short period of time? I cannot think of any.


I'll better you, Ms Flash.

Stand back while I tear JLGB a new one. :wink:

JLGB: The REAL magic captured in those NBC Studios without artifice. The REAL magic was Elvis Presley, sat down in a "little theater", performing at the top of his game. And those were two live shows. All Binder had to do was roll the cameras and then *not* botch the footage in editing. That's it. His other ideas -- namely, a stand-up segment with an unpractised orchestra, not to mention untested sound levels and overblown arrangements, the cheesy production numbers and a powerful song like "If I Can Dream" backed with a pre-recorded "Broadway Musical Lite" sludge-pudge instrumental -- were all....... C-R-A-P. Elvis obliged because his career needed digging out of a hole and he didn't have the confidence or the know-how to do it all by himself. Everything Binder did, to borrow one of Goldman's overblown but oh-so-apt phrases, "travestied and soft-soaped" Elvis Aaron Presley; everything Elvis Aaron Presley did only showed him for the demigod of a performer he was.
After 4 hours of performing plus dozens of hours more for the rest including the great If I Can Dream closing...the magic BEGAN with EDITING and then finally the medium the ole' Colonel used to great,great effect!!! T-E-L-E-V-I-S-I-O-N. Specially in C-O-L-O-R!!!!!...some countries had B/W as late as the late 70s....MAGIC!! :lol:

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:35 pm

Cryogenic wrote:
JLGB: The REAL magic captured in those NBC Studios was and is without artifice. The REAL magic was and is Elvis Presley, sat down in a "little theater", performing at the top of his game. And those were two live shows. All Binder had to do was roll the cameras and then *not* botch the footage in editing. That's it. His other ideas -- namely, a stand-up segment with an unpractised orchestra, not to mention untested sound levels and overblown arrangements, the cheesy production numbers which dragged Elvis *right* back to his "employee in his own movie studio" cage and a powerful song like "If I Can Dream" backed with a pre-recorded "Broadway Musical Lite" sludge-pudge instrumental -- were all....... C-R-A-P. Elvis obliged because his career needed digging out of a hole and he didn't have the confidence or the know-how to do it all by himself. Everything Binder did, to borrow one of Goldman's overblown but oh-so-apt phrases, "travestied and soft-soaped" Elvis Aaron Presley; everything Elvis Aaron Presley did only showed him for the demigod of a performer he was. No, Elvis was not and never could be "Superman", but he was firing on all cylinders in 1968, and Binder's ideas only blunted his edges and obscured his true greatness.


Bravo!!! You nailed it perfectly. Those production numbers were embarrassingly lame, and about as far from a stroke of genius as one could get.

For the record, I have always disliked Binder's stunt, if it's true, of taking Elvis out on the street to demonstrate to him that he was passe'. F*ck Binder. But at least he did override the Colonel's awful ideas. (By the way, the Colonel told Kathy Westmoreland - who he wanted to record a la Kate Smith, with just a piano - that if he'd had his way, "It would be just Elvis and his guitar.'

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:35 pm

Thanks for that. I always thought Ginger was a sweet girl, and who knows she may have been the best thing for him. I remember the interview with Geraldo and she said then that Elvis had been talking about the wedding plans for Christmas time on the evening before he died.

As for Anita,I dont know much about her but after hearing that I feel quite sorry for her.

I have read some of the transcripts from the Larry King show with Priscilla and Lisa Marie on but couldnt find anymore,I bet they were good

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:39 pm

Memphis Flash wrote:
sid wrote:
So you think he would have married Ginger then?

And did Anita leave Graceland because Priscilla came on the scene?


No idea what he would have done, but she certainly believed they were going to get married that Christmas from the things he told her. Others say differently so I just don't know. But Kathy Westmoreland has said in interviews that he really wanted to make that work. Even David Stanley commented that Elvis never opened himself up to Priscilla but he did to Ginger.

But either way it was not to be.


I'm not sure Elvis was actually going to marry Ginger. Not until she started doing his bidding and conforming to his idealised image of her, anyway. (Which was never going to happen).

According to many, and the historical record certainly bears this out, he was obsessed with Ginger. Dr Nick claims that Elvis saw something of his mother in Ginger's face. I believe him on that. (Though Elvis was certainly capable of seeing women who didn't necessarily have such a characteristic, or, from the myriad of women he was romantically involved with, I'd *imagine* that was the case -- though was he capable of thinking marriage with them?). The Oedipal component of the Elvis Legacy cannot be ignored. Note: I am not making any moral judgements about that; it is what it is. (Though, for the record, it can't have been healthy; not if it caused him to concern himself with women who were completely unsuitable for him long-term).

Joe Car wrote:Well said Cryo. Just to add to this, the fact that Binder wanted to film him jamming in his dressing room, shows the greatness that was Elvis Presley.


Indeed.

I will say this much: like the argument with the Goldman book, it's possible that Elvis was inspired by the negative element of the orchestra, and saw something he could salvage and improve upon. The orchestra he then brought into his shows completely LEVELLED the crappy Burbank one (not that any of those original players were necessarily crap; they just didn't gell with him during recording -- rehearsals, Binder, rehearsals!!!). And "Jailhouse Rock", not to mention the off-the-cuff rendition of "Baby What You Want Me To Do", are performed so well that the stand-up segment is a legitimate part of Elvis' performance history. (Though, again, we had to wait to see the "Baby What You Want Me To Do" jam; but I don't hold Binder responsible for this; he only had a limited time to play with and the jam was never foreseen).

Memphis Flash wrote:Bravo!!! You nailed it perfectly. Those production numbers were embarrassingly lame, and about as far from a stroke of genius as one could get.

For the record, I have always disliked Binder's stunt, if it's true, of taking Elvis out on the street to demonstrate to him that he was passe'. F*ck Binder. But at least he did override the Colonel's awful ideas. (By the way, the Colonel told Kathy Westmoreland - who he wanted to record a la Kate Smith, with just a piano - that if he'd had his way, "It would be just Elvis and his guitar.'


The Colonel's basic idea -- a Christmas show -- was NO WHERE NEAR as bad as Binder's. That's my controversial opinion, anyway. Binder had his finger on what made Elvis tick, allegedly, yet he reduced him to a crude circus act (no better than anything Parker had done, with a KEY DIFFERENCE being that Parker never professed to having an artistic knowledge). None of The Colonel's ideas were inherently bad. A Christmas show would have been cool. Really cool. But that's not what Elvis needed at the time. I'm sure The Colonel knew that deep down. That's why he kicked up a stink but did nothing to contradict or override Binder. Parker knew there that Elvis had fire in his belly and was going to make it work. A happy artist is a productive artist. And The Colonel knew he would still get a load out of it. So all was good. I do love all his showboating, personally. That was who *he* was, just as Elvis was who he was. They were two pretty straight-up guys when you get down to it (though The Colonel would have seemed like an enigma at the time). They were like the ultimate father and son team. Elvis had Vernon and he had The Colonel. And The Colonel had Elvis. I really do think he saw him as the handsome son he could never have had. The Colonel just had his strict carny ways, and Elvis, being his "boy", was too obliging. But I credit them both WAAAAAAY more than Binder. Ol' Colonel was a *very* wise man.
Last edited by Cryogenic on Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:41 pm

Memphis Flash wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:
JLGB: The REAL magic captured in those NBC Studios was and is without artifice. The REAL magic was and is Elvis Presley, sat down in a "little theater", performing at the top of his game. And those were two live shows. All Binder had to do was roll the cameras and then *not* botch the footage in editing. That's it. His other ideas -- namely, a stand-up segment with an unpractised orchestra, not to mention untested sound levels and overblown arrangements, the cheesy production numbers which dragged Elvis *right* back to his "employee in his own movie studio" cage and a powerful song like "If I Can Dream" backed with a pre-recorded "Broadway Musical Lite" sludge-pudge instrumental -- were all....... C-R-A-P. Elvis obliged because his career needed digging out of a hole and he didn't have the confidence or the know-how to do it all by himself. Everything Binder did, to borrow one of Goldman's overblown but oh-so-apt phrases, "travestied and soft-soaped" Elvis Aaron Presley; everything Elvis Aaron Presley did only showed him for the demigod of a performer he was. No, Elvis was not and never could be "Superman", but he was firing on all cylinders in 1968, and Binder's ideas only blunted his edges and obscured his true greatness.


Bravo!!! You nailed it perfectly. Those production numbers were embarrassingly lame, and about as far from a stroke of genius as one could get.

For the record, I have always disliked Binder's stunt, if it's true, of taking Elvis out on the street to demonstrate to him that he was passe'. F*ck Binder. But at least he did override the Colonel's awful ideas. (By the way, the Colonel told Kathy Westmoreland - who he wanted to record a la Kate Smith, with just a piano - that if he'd had his way, "It would be just Elvis and his guitar.'


Elvis, his guitar and no Colonel would have been fine with me!

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:44 pm

Joe Car wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:[quote="Memphis Flash"

Stand back while I tear JLGB a new one. :wink: .
Watch it kiddy! just because you have a rich vocabulary does not mean you have any type of authority to disrespect!!!! Don't overestimate yourself..or rather underestimate me!!!! On M-U-L-T-I-P-L-E levels!! :lol: PS...N8 sounds much better AGAIN on multiple levels...

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:50 pm

JLGB wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:Stand back while I tear JLGB a new one. :wink: .
Watch it kiddy! just because you have a rich vocabulary does not mean you have any type of authority to disrespect!!!! Don't overestimate yourself..or rather underestimate me!!!! On M-U-L-T-I-P-L-E levels!! :lol: PS...N8 sounds much better AGAIN on multiple levels...


You really ought to stop thinking I'm N8.

I'm not N8, I'm not Jimmy Hoffa, I'm not the Easter Bunny, I'm not a Sith Lord...

I'm just... me. :D

Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:01 pm

Cryogenic wrote: Dr Nick claims that Elvis saw something of his mother in Ginger's face. I believe him on that. (Though Elvis was certainly capable of seeing women who didn't necessarily have such a characteristic, or, from the myriad of women he was romantically involved with, I'd *imagine* that was the case -- though was he capable of thinking marriage with them?). The Oedipal component of the Elvis Legacy cannot be ignored. Note: I am not making any moral judgements about that; it is what it is. (Though, for the record, it can't have been healthy; not if it caused him to concern himself with women who were completely unsuitable for him long-term).


For that matter, Larry Geller claims that Elvis had a dream that Ginger morphed into his mother as she was riding a horse or something, it's been a long time since I read it but there was some connection he made between Ginger and his mother.

Hmm, I'll have to think about that.

Offhand I don't see much physical similarity. I think he just made those connections where sometimes there weren't any. Case in point, he told Kathy Westmoreland how much she and he were alike, and how much they even looked alike, the same hooded eyes, the same shaped backside, that in a jumpsuit she looked like a smaller version of him. Do you see it? I don't. Again, I think it's projection more than anything else.

Interestingly, Alfred Wertheimer once commented to me that in his younger years Elvis looked like his father, but that as he grew older, he looked more like his mother. I had never thought about that before, but he was an interesting combination of both.

Regardless of whether he was just feeding Ginger a line when they talked about their Christmas wedding just a few hours before he passed away, it has had a profound impact on Ginger's life. I did not realize it until I read an interview (which she rarely gives) that Christmas is always a sad holiday for her, because that's when she and Elvis had planned to marry.

Think of it. Here she has a husband and a young son, and the holiday which is supposed to be happy has always been sad for her? How tragic. And to those who claim she told all to the tabloids, hell, she didn't even tell her own son she had dated Elvis until just before the 25th anniversary when it was I think almost 9 years old. She feared he would hear about it from someone at school.

Ironically, just a year earlier Hunter had asked Ginger about Elvis. Don't remember how it came up, but he brought up the name. And all she said then was that he was not only a great singer but a wonderful person as well. Never even hinted that she had known him. That's how private Ginger was, and is. All the lies she has had to endure. Oh well, that's life, and she never defends herself so I won't bother.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:05 pm

Cryogenic wrote:
You really ought to stop thinking I'm N8.

I'm not N8, I'm not Jimmy Hoffa, I'm not the Easter Bunny, I'm not a Sith Lord...

I'm just... me. :D


Oh no, not N8, not in a million years.

N8 could never write like that, could never think like that. And had a much nastier edge.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:07 pm

I'd be weary of Larry Geller and Ginger Alden.

Then again: I'd be weary of Dr Nick.

I just think he is relatively trust-worthy on non-medical aspects of EP's life that he was privvy to.

That said.........

Everyone has pieces of the puzzle. Geller actually said that there was "no way" Elvis was actually going to marry Ginger. I think he saw a side I spoke of back there: that Ginger and Elvis just weren't suited. I wonder who *was* suited to Elvis. Geller also claims he spoke to Elvis on a hotel balcony and told him he'd only ever had one love affair his whole life. Elvis demanded to know what he was talking about; Geller clarified: "your fans." EP agreed.

EDIT: N8 is a true friend of mine. While I have no idea what he's like in "real life", I have never seen a hint of nastiness from him on the Internet. Ever. He is straight and to the point, but has a patience. He has certainly shown it to me and I will be forever grateful that someone of his standing extended it.*

*OK: That last sentence sounded...... BAAAAAAAAD. (If you have a dirty mind). He has certainly shown his patience to me and I will be forever grateful that someone of his knowledge and intellect offered it.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:21 pm

Cryogenic wrote:I'd be weary of Larry Geller and Ginger Alden.

Then again: I'd be weary of Dr Nick.

I just think he is relatively trust-worthy on non-medical aspects of EP's life that he was privvy to.

That said.........

Everyone has pieces of the puzzle. Geller actually said that there was "no way" Elvis was actually going to marry Ginger. I think he saw a side I spoke of back there: that Ginger and Elvis just weren't suited. I wonder who *was* suited to Elvis. Geller also claims he spoke to Elvis on a hotel balcony and told him he'd only ever had one love affair his whole life. Elvis demanded to know what he was talking about; Geller clarified: "your fans." EP agreed.


Sorry but I have learned that some who appear to be trustworthy actually are not. And that's all I'm going to say about that. About the fans being Elvis' number one love, who doesn't know that? That's self-evident.

Joe Esposito made an interesting comment: He said if [someone] had actually kept a diary for Elvis, "it would have been the first book he wrote, not the third."

The reason people do not simply have pieces of a puzzle that you could put them together and figure out Elvis is that Elvis controlled what each person saw. Joe told Peter Guralnick that if he wanted to know about Elvis, he would have to talk to the women, because Elvis did not open himself up to men, that he put on a macho front to the guys. He could be soft and vulnerable in front of the women.

Even what Priscilla saw was not necessarily the real Elvis. Elvis told Ginger that Priscilla asked to borrow the Lisa Marie to take her hairdresser boyfriend Elie Ezerzer on safari to Africa, and that she wanted Elvis to set up her father in the wine business. "She's crazy if she thinks I'm going to do that," he said. But who thinks for a moment that's what he told Priscilla? You know he was far more tactful to her, gave her some other excuse. So no, I don't believe that anybody but Elvis knows what he really thought about any given thing.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:29 pm

Cryogenic wrote:N8 is a true friend of mine. While I have no idea what he's like in "real life", I have never seen a hint of nastiness from him on the Internet. Ever. He is straight and to the point, but has a patience. He has certainly shown it to me and I will be forever grateful that someone of his standing extended it.


That's your truth. But it would be a mistake to assume that is everyone's truth. Believe me, he knows and tries to control his edge.