All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:32 am

jak wrote:What if this performance ... didnt have any preconceived notions surrounding it? ... It's just an example of a typical lackluster Elvis concert.

No, it's not.

Why is this so difficult for some to comprehend?

The reason 9/27/74 is significant is because so many, who worked with him professionally for years, noticed something had changed. For the worse.

They'd all been privvy to low points -- "typical lackluster Elvis" -- prior to this date, but 9/27/74 stood out.

That's the point, people.

Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:09 am

Why start another thread is what I want to know? Hasn't this topic been dissected up and down?

Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:12 am

Joe Car wrote:
Rob wrote:We have heard horror stories about this show for years and it is by far a show that I will not listen to on a regular basis. However, I have heard worse shows during the three years following (especially the one on the next night). As mentioned, we only have the audio to go by, but based on that, the show is tolerable (and that's being kind).

As Doc mentioned, the crowd loved the show. I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, but when I saw Elvis in Louisville on May 21, 1977, I heard many a comment on how great the show was and how good he looked. Compared to Omaha four weeks later, they were right. Don't tell the Omaha crowd that though because they loved their show as well.

It is so easy to sit back and criticize his shows and appearance now because of the countless number of pictures and concerts available on CD. It is quite a different story though when the man is on stage right in front of you. That's why having audio only, decades later is damaging. We can pick it to death. Listening to something over and over can give one a chance to find things that would never be noticed by seeing the show one time.

We can all give opinions about the first College Park show, but it is in no way as bad as it has been made out to be for many years. The show the following night was much worse and I refuse to listen to it again.

Fortunately, when we get an import such as Chaos In College Park, we can always put in a little something from June 27, 1968 or Vegas '69 to lift our spirits.


That my friend, was an excellent and fair post!
DITTO!

Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:05 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:

Why is this so difficult for some to comprehend?


pssst, hey John Boy, that's what we are trying to tell you. :wink:

NURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:00 am

:evil: Larry i had my last post deleted because it criticised Dr John, so all i can say is thanks Larry for speaking OUT! Glad to have met you and know you can look after yourself! :roll:

Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:04 am

jak wrote:This concert may have been an omen of things to come.

May have? Oh, dear me.

jak wrote:The discussion around this performance has been the quality of the concert and Elvis' condition.Not if it was the first concert to show a darker side of Elvis.

Actually, no.

The debate is centered around "why" 9/27/74 is cited by so many close to him as a disaster, when a 33 year-old, average quality audience tape indicates to some that he managed to stand erect on a stage for about an hour that night. THAT is the discussion.

jak wrote:Why do so many want to believe it was?That's what I cant comprehend.

It's almost laughable that I fully address this in my previous post, not to mention the previous topic, and yet here you are, with the above query.

You can lead a horse to water ...

Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:13 am

Joe Car wrote:Why start another thread is what I want to know?

JC -- if you revisit the previous topic, you'll immediately notice that the selfsame anemic thinkers on this thread spent a LOT of time typically complaining and taunting about my posts, since I had not given MY thoughts on the CD release itself.

Unlike them, I was honorable enough to keep to my word, that I would make comment when I received a copy to review.

Obviously, my effort was just an excuse to allow these mental midgets to throw more pot shots, rather than address the points I made, or discuss Mike Sanders' spot-on FECC review. One might conclude it's because they have nothing to say.

Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:33 am

YDKM wrote::evil: Larry i had my last post deleted because it criticised Dr John, so all i can say is thanks Larry for speaking OUT! Glad to have met you and know you can look after yourself! :roll:


Yes, it's quite pathetic on the part of admin/John Boy............the deletion of posts is a frequent occurrence on this MB..........it's call censorship and it is of the double standard variety.

Let's see how long this one lasts. :wink:

Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:45 am

DJC wrote: Unlike them, I was honorable enough to keep to my word, that I would make comment when I received a copy to review.

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

Yeah then where is your review? You don't mention anything about the performance but site another persons review.

How convenient. Now no one can debate anything about the show to you, because you have sited anothers review.

If anyone challenges you on this, which is impossible because you havn't given your opinion yet, other than site what others have said.

This protects you from a direct critism because you didn't write the review, but rather someone elses.

In hisreview he said the performances were poor.

Did he listen to "Bridge over troubled water', "It's midnight", "Hawaiian wedding song", and others? The posted review of the show is inaccurate.

The rememberances of friends 30 years ago is not accurate either.

I will concede that we have no visial or audio record of what took place before the show, so I must accept that as fact until proven otherwise.

But whatever shape Elvis was in prior to the show, he was able to pull it together and make the show enjoyable. He was funny and personable on stage that night. Just listen to his answer when someone requested, "don't be cruel" 10 minutes after he already sang it.
He said, "I already did that, where were you?". Classic Elvis.

I am not deaf. This was not perfect. But it was no Omaha either.

Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:53 am

Yes, it's quite pathetic on the part of admin/John Boy............the deletion of posts is a frequent occurrence on this MB..........it's call censorship and it is of the double standard variety.


You are quite pathetic too since you don't have a clue why it was deleted. I'll give you a very good advice and follow it. Post that are deleted are usually for a reason and not of your concern, so keep these little slams for you before we show you the door. It's not the first of this type for you..and close to be the very last. If you like the reply or not..I couldn't careless.

The post was deleted becauise it broke a rule..trying to identify someone and it's not allowed, whether it was right or not.

FECC Team

Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:11 am

Get off our backs as I'm not in the mood for that sh*t.

FECC Team

P.S. This message was related to a post now deleted.

BADDA BING, BADDA BOOM

Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:51 am

ekenee wrote:Yeah then where is your review? You don't mention anything about the performance [sic] but site [sic] another persons [sic] review.

Don't mention anything, huh?

drjohncarpenter wrote:Elvis is clearly "on" some substance ... he's obviously impaired, in both speech and vocals ... the crowd loves him!

Your apology will be accepted at any time.

ekenee wrote:Now no one can debate anything about the show to you, because you have sited [sic] anothers [sic] review.

Again, you're mistaken.

There's no point in being redundant by reprising Mike's astute comments.

I fully endorse Mike Sanders's discussion of my previously cited quandry, and virtually all of his critiques. Debate away!

BTW, an intelligent fan can tell Mike listened VERY closely to this show, the many quotes are evidence enough. Maybe YOU didn't actually READ the review.

ekenee wrote:I am not deaf.

No, you are not deaf ...

Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:27 am

administrator wrote:
Yes, it's quite pathetic on the part of admin/John Boy............the deletion of posts is a frequent occurrence on this MB..........it's call censorship and it is of the double standard variety.


You are quite pathetic too since you don't have a clue why it was deleted. I'll give you a very good advice and follow it. Post that are deleted are usually for a reason and not of your concern, so keep these little slams for you before we show you the door. It's not the first of this type for you..and close to be the very last. If you like the reply or not..I couldn't careless.

The post was deleted becauise it broke a rule..trying to identify someone and it's not allowed, whether it was right or not.

FECC Team


I don't have a clue why it was deleted, but I do know why many of mine have......and it's pathetic.

Ban me bully-boy.

Chaos Revisited...

Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:48 pm

eknee wrote: (regarding my review)
Did he listen to "Bridge over troubled water', "It's midnight", "Hawaiian wedding song", and others? The posted review of the show is inaccurate.

If you had read my review, you would have seen that comments are made regarding my impression of these performances. As you clearly have not, how can you be sure that the review is inaccurate?

In my opinion, this audience recording is not conclusive in accurately conveying the impact of Elvis' performance that night. This is because we don't have a visual record to effectively refute several contemporary independent memories of this concert. After all, you must admit he looks wasted in every photo from this show.

Of course, you are free to hold a different opinion, but it demeans yourself to ridicule the considered thoughts held by others concerning this show without further factual evidence.

Chaos revisited...

Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:59 pm

Might also be time for those who have nothing of further significance to add to our knowledge about this show to reflect on their motives for posting.

Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:29 pm

Joe Car wrote:Why start another thread is what I want to know? Hasn't this topic been dissected up and down?


Doc, seen your response, thanks.

Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:22 pm

Hmmnn.....does anyone not understand that if Elvis had farted out of tune that the crowd would have cheered???

Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:34 pm

Deke Rivers II wrote:Hmmnn.....does anyone not understand that if Elvis had farted out of tune that the crowd would have cheered???


how come?

Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Yes Mike I had read your review and I just don't agree with your observations of the cd.
Some of you don't like this show, some of us do.
The ones liking the show are getting jabs just as much as those saying it sucked, so don't take it personally if I don't agree with you.

Instead of looking at the motives of people liking the show, why not look at the motives of the people that don't like it.

Example:

Rememberances of band members: for a book.

Sensationalistic CD cover and headline: to sell a cd.

Cd review that is bias and obviously swayed by the propaganda.


Bottomline; This show is no better or worse than others from this period.

You can't convince me otherwise by using poorly recollected memories of the show, and what was going on behind the scenes.

In show business, performers often perform under circumstances beyond their control or they have chaos going on at the time in their personal lives.

This should not be ammunition for a negative review.

But in the end if you think Elvis' vocals were "very poor", then I wish I could sing that poorly.

Re: BADDA BING, BADDA BOOM

Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:13 am

woodleyjohn wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
I fully endorse Mike Sanders's (sic) discussion of my previously cited quandry (sic) , and virtually all of his critiques. Debate away!



Who is Mike Sanders?

Who is the Doc?


"y.. y...you can't say those things"

"They'll cut it right out."

Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:57 am

They'll put an X-rating right across your big mouth.

Re: BADDA BING, BADDA BOOM

Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:59 am

woodleyjohn wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
I fully endorse Mike Sanders's (sic) discussion of my previously cited quandry (sic) , and virtually all of his critiques. Debate away!



Who is Mike Sanders?

Who is the Doc?


I know M.Sanders & would like to say he is a nice guy (one of the good guys)... I have my suspicions on the Doc, but we must adhere to the rules of this MB & keep these "suspicions" to ourselves.

Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:17 am

Oh boys.... are we going to another 300+ CHAOS IN COLLEGE PARK topic?
8) :P :) :D :lol:

Return To Chaos...

Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:08 am

Firstly, thanks pseudonym for the vote of support in your earlier post.

eknee wrote:
In show business, performers often perform under circumstances beyond their control or they have chaos going on at the time in their personal lives.

This should not be ammunition for a negative review.

Rest assured it wasn't. I based my review on my impressions through listening to this audience recording and later addressed its infamous reputation in my conclusion.

I'm sorry if you don't consider my conclusions to be a fair assessment in this instance, but we are all free to differ.

Moreover, I don't mean to take your criticism personally, but do most definitely take exception to your suggestion that I had not listened to this CD, as all my reviews to date have aimed to present an in-depth assessment regarding all aspects of the release concerned.

Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:45 am

Mike wrote: Moreover, I don't mean to take your criticism personally, but do most definitely take exception to your suggestion that I had not listened to this CD,

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

I didn't mean to suggest you didn't actually listen to the cd, I was trying to illustrate how someone could hear some of the performances on the disc and grade them as very poor. As if to say you heard them, but weren't listening. Man, I am having a hard time getting my point across. It was like we are listening to 2 different shows, but instead just listening with 2 different ears.

Just a side note: You made reference to Elvis naming "return to sender" a movie. He wasn't doing that. If you listen carefully he starts naming movie titles,(which are also songs) and he is surprised at each one he names he gets a huge applause. So he just keeps naming things to get a "reaction". I think it just amused him. You don't really think Elvis thought he made a movie called "return to sender"? Do You? These are the kind of negative assumptions I don't care for.