All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Re: Pet Sounds

Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:05 am

johngael wrote:You Beatles apologists kill me. Once again, you miss it. Sgt. Peppers was lame follow up to the far superior Pet Sounds. Throughout the 60's the Beatles tried to keep up with Brian Wilson and couldn't do it. If it hadn't been for George Matin [ sic ] there wouldn't have been a Beatles. Brian had more talent in one finger than any of the Beatles. They wrote some catchy tunes but couldn't produce and weren't terribly great players. Except for McCartney maybe. Brian did it all and did it better. Even Elvis was a producer, Felton Jarvis notwithstanding. Quit trying to make them out to be something they weren't. The Beatles were a distant third in every phase of the game. Right behind Elvis and Brian Wilson.

This is the funniest post I've read all day!

Thanks for the laugh!

God bless you and the Beatles and Brian Wilson, too!

Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:11 am

Forever Young, Forever Beautiful gave me the best chuckle. Thank YOU!

Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:20 am

Personally I don't really care to discuss the Beatles, no disrespect intended. As far as reviews go, it's just an opinion. It's not like Elvis has always gotten positive press from the media anyway. What should matter is what we the fans think, not some frickin a--hole who most likely has no real idea what our guy and his genius is all about.
Last edited by Joe Car on Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:23 am

Too bad you aren't as passionate about Elvis as you are John Lennon and the Beatles, oh wait you do have a fascination with Elvis in leather and the teenage boy Elvis at 706 Union. Perhaps you should look in the mirror first before u start being critical of colgateā„¢'s fascination with statues.

read and learn.......

Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:48 am

I enjoy Beatle-talk any time :) And for the record, I think their albums from 1966-70 are far better than their previous ones. The best of all - Abbey Road (which, also for the record, was made AFTER Let it be. But the latter was the last to be released).

Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:05 am

R.R.Police wrote:I enjoy Beatle-talk any time :) And for the record, I think their albums from 1966-70 are far better than their previous ones. The best of all - Abbey Road (which, also for the record, was made AFTER Let it be. But the latter was the last to be released).

The 1969 Twickenham session tapes used to make the 1970 LP called "Let It Be" was before the Abbey Road session. On the Twick tapes you can hear songs like Mean Mr. Mustard, She Came In Bathroom Window being composed and rehearsed. (hilarious outtakes too :-)

Ask any (living) Beatle, they'll tell you that ABBEY ROAD is their final album.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 6:01 am

Thanks to all for joining the fray, particularly LiketheBike, who most captures my sentiments. I won't join the Elvis vs. the Beatles dispute as too much of it comes down to personal tastes, although I still find it refreshing to hear some counterpoints to the years of Beatles-hype when they surface here on FECC.

Still, Elvis-partisanship aside (the DeCurtis review is fair in its way), it's almost indisputable, as the Doctor seems to state, that the sixties truly belonged to the Beatles and their breathren (the Who, Hendrix, Stones), decidedly not Elvis -no matter our natural dispositions here toward our man. The Beatles "happened" , much as has Hip Hop more recently, love it or hate it: it's out there and even worshiped. Critically, both have earned their place in the anals of music history ( although I still say Hip Hop or rap is treated with kid gloves by guilty liberal white critics afraid to finally find a black music they cannot champion...)

Anyway, with the baby boom hitting full stride in the '60s (and the resulting peak of the "cultural revolution"), it's no wonder that outlets like ROLLING STONE have tended to treat the likes of Elvis as a "caveman," given to only occasional flashes of his earlier (former) brilliance. In terms of population alone, the "youth boom" of the '60s ensured that no matter the band (be it the lightweight Herman's Hermits or the undeniably substantial Beatles), the '50s were being left in the dust on sheer numbers - and sales- alone. ("History is written by the winners," etc.)

Yet I still encounter that still-very-ingrained, condescending attitude toward '50s rockers, including Elvis, who in particular is still held up in some camps as worthy of ridicule, a once-great artist who "strayed" from rock and became a big joke (the familiar -and tiresome- bias about him not writing songs, or being some kind of shallow sex symbol instead a musical talent etc.), as if that's all there was to his legend. In reality, generally *both* camps (Elvis-philes and Beatle advocates) tend to neglect the importance and high quality of things like black music such as blues, jazz, gospel or R&B, which in many ways didn't *need* rock to rescue or promote them for them to be great in their own right.

Anyway, so I say it's the sixties conceit of the original RS magazine that the likes of Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra..and Elvis, could never rival later rock heroes that grates on the nerves. Unless you're still 19, I find this "all rock, all the time" bias dimishes not only appreciation of Elvis' non-rock music, but any other non-rock artists, of yesteryear, or today. I consider it a residue of the "if it ain't rock (or something else "authentic"), then it's square, not hip, etc. , particularly if its in anyway smooth, melodic, graceful or sentimental. The very act of pure, brilliant *singing* that non-Elvis true believers too often just do not get. And if you have to explain that....!

Finally, my point to DeCurtis of RS is that he would do well to have at least acknowledged that few artists can have a boxset of what is essentially leftovers ( "Close-Up", TTF, etc.) which could rival or surpass the masters of many other of RS' "important" acts like the Nirvana, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, the Sex Pistols, Elvis Costello, Run DMC, Bob Dylan, "the Beatles, the Beards, whatever.."

Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:58 am

Hello JJ,

If you read carefully,I wrote that I have very few albums after Sgt. Pepper. I like many of the Beatles songs both before and after Sgt. P. I used "Let it be" as a phrase.

My point is that everyone tries to say that basically Elvis did nothing special after he came out of the army.

To make these comparisons is a futile exercise there will be 6 billion different opinions(Ok make it 3 the other 3 billion sheep just follow):

I see what I like and I like what see ........its called Rubberneckin and thats allright by me.
Last edited by jbgude on Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:37 am

The Beatles were mildly exciting after Elvis.

I like John Lennon and have all his stuff but hardly ever play it now-it is mostly depressing:-( All the same "How Do You Sleep at Night" is a good rocker and considering McCartneys later work may be true?

Ludwig Van Beethoven is another kettle of fish. WOW!

C'mon Doc "Hard Days Night" was silly. Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible" gave Citizen Kane a lead.

"Rolling Stone", means nothing to me at all, just like the rest of the so-called Rock magazines-silly stuff for juveniles.

That is why we are all here discussing Elvis...statues and all. LOL

Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:02 pm

Since this has spun-off into an Elvis vs Beatles thing, I will point out these facts of fair comparison.

The Beatles shunned handicapped fans on crutches and wheelchairs being brought backstage. Lennon often made fun of "the crippled" (even in his 1964 poetry book) but Elvis never behaved that way and he made every person in his presence, no matter their physical infirmaty, feel special and sincerely befriended. He freely went to Children's Hospitals to make some child's day even in the later years (one example in 1975 - his jeweler Lowell Hayes knows the story)

Elvis loved his screaming live audiences. The Beatles grew to despise their screaming live audiences and chose to become studio hermits where they felt their "genius at work" really mattered - behind closed doors.

Those are facts.

Elvis was grateful to his fans.
The Beatles don't appear to have remained grateful to their fans very long. Oh such fleeting gratitude for all the fame and $$$$.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons that The Beatles Phenomenon only lasted 7 years but The Elvis Phenomenon lasted 23 years, over 3 times as long.
And has never ended!

Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:07 pm

I find it quite ironic that "Doctor Carpenter's" obvious disdain for Elvis's work in motion pictures doesn't prohibit him from using the name of Elvis's character in "Change of Habit" as his screen name or from using pics from that movie for his avatar. Hypocritical, to say the least.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:58 pm

Just some comments -
For all this talk of Lennon's "Elvis died when he went into the army" statement I'd like to point out that John did perform "It's Now Or Never" at the Rolling Stones rock & roll circus. So he wasn't completely anti-post- army Elvis.
As for Rolling Stone magazine, let's remember it started in 1967, the year the counter-culture to whom it catered was in full flower (pun intended), and it's primarary focus was on what was considered cutting-edge rock. That's why they could review Neil Diamond's 1970 album Tap Root Manuscript by saying "if someone gives you this album listen to it, but don't spend your dope money on on it." For at least 20 years RS has been fawning over whoever happens to be "this years model", is slavishly dedicated to pop-culture, has an inordinate amount of it's pages dedicated to fashion/consumer advertisements, continues to have a left-wing liberal democrat bias (with the exception of P.J. O'Rourke), and continues to have it's nose up the a$$ (metaphorically speaking) of whatever is considered cutting-edge music. I haven't bothered reading it in well over 10 years. So I frankly couldn't give a rat's rump about their review of Close-Up. In fact, Rockinrebel's or the Doc's reviews of Close-Up would be more worthwhile. They'd be more honest and understanding of the subject matter than RS.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:25 pm

Pete Dube wrote:Just some comments -
For all this talk of Lennon's "Elvis died when he went into the army" statement I'd like to point out that John did perform "It's Now Or Never" at the Rolling Stones rock & roll circus. So he wasn't completely anti-post- army Elvis.

I don't think Lennon put much thought into what he was saying or doing for the most part. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and blame a lot of it on the mind-bending drugs he was taking at the time.

He must have thought "It's Now Or Never" sounded great, considering he thought it was recorded by a dead man!

He tried to be funny when he stated that Elvis died when he went into the army. When, in reality, Elvis made some amazing recordings in the 60's and 70's. Some classic music - and not just a restrictive rock 'n' roll style. He couldn't have continued to do the same stuff year in, year out. It was a pity Lennon didn't say something nice about the man who he idolized, instead of a crass comment.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:25 pm

Pete Dube wrote: "So I frankly couldn't give a rat's rump about their review of Close-Up. In fact, Rockinrebel's or the Doc's reviews of Close-Up would be more worthwhile. They'd be more honest and understanding of the subject matter than RS."

Well, yeah, but Rolling Stone, by virtue of being a mainstream, mass publication (sorry, it may be liberal but hardly "left-wing"), it still "matters" in terms of influence, if nothing like it once it did.

Besides, if you all want an Elvis amen corner, then this is the place (with some exceptions, like Doc). It's good to know how Elvis is being perceived these days anyway.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:05 pm

The best thing the doctor can come up with is an insult when The Beatles faults are mentioned. Take the Beatle defence somewhere else.

You got it, Getlo. Lennon made that mistake a lot and the comments about Elvis were just plain stupid. Nice of Lennon to totally write off a whole part of a man's life. And because of comments like that a good portion of society believe that he didn't do anything worthwhile after the 50's.

We should not even be talking about them here.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:05 pm

Hey Jeff,
I thought I answered you earlier but my post seems to be missing...anyway if you would read again what I wrote it was to say that dismissing Elvis' post 60's music is akin to saying all Beatles music post Sgt P was rubbish, and I used "Let it Be" as a pun/ remark not as an album/song.
These arguments could go on forever so just "let it be" :wink:

Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:16 pm

Lennon was just probably trying to be witty with that comment. In a 1970 interview he was a little more thoughtful stating "There was some good stuff (after 1960) but it wasn't the same. It didn't have the ba**s." That's from memory but it's accurate except for maybe a word or so.

Lennon did love Elvis though. He went to see him in the Garden in 1972 and when he was interviewed by Playboy in 1980 his home jukebox was dominated by Elvis singles.

In Mick Farren and Roy Carr's great book you see that sense of disappointment that Lennon felt but in a less extreme way. It may seem odd nowadays to dismiss a track like "Are You Lonesome To-night?" but to some fans back then it seemed like selling out.

I think later fans that actually listened, those that remember early 60s Elvis first and those that came of age after the 60s, have recognized the value of this music. It still sells in droves and dominates oldies radio.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:19 pm

Regarding John Lennon's comment, "Elvis died when he went into the army."

Hey least he didn't die because one of his fans shot him in the back!

Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:33 pm

Well folks, I took a look at the review in question and it wasn't really a bad review, sort of middle-of-the-road. The box got a 3 star rating which, by Rolling Stone standards equals good. Granted the reviewer got some digs in. He describes the San Antonio show as the "fatal struggle between passion (Burning Love) and schmaltz (How Great Thou Art)." This statement conveniently ignores the fact that Gospel music was a major influence on rock & roll in general and Elvis' style of R&R in particular (as well as soul). It's the basic attitude of "good Elvis rocks, bad Elvis sings schmaltzy ballads." But the fact is it was usually the so-called "schmaltzy ballads" (You Gave Me A Mountain; American Trilogy; My Way; Unchained Melody; You Don't Have To Say You love Me; ect.) that were the best parts of Elvis' 70's concerts.

Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:49 pm

I'm sure John Lennon's negative remarks about Elvis over the years did do some harm to Elvis' image.

But there has been a re-appraisal of both The Beatles & Elvis in more recent times.

A re-appraisal which has looked at just how they affected the music scene and society overall.

Elvis' standing has gone up, and The Beatles standing has come down.

This has meant that less weight is now given to John Lennon's pronouncements [on anything].

Fri Jul 25, 2003 1:03 am

Well said, Pete. It's the antipathy to anything that doesn't "rock" ("Are You Lonesome Tonight," "How Great Thou Art", etc.) by even adult rock critics that makes them sound like permanent juveniles, always trying to be "under 30."

Reminds me of that guy (surely 50-something now) on MTV, Kurt Loder ( who I think is still there) a New York-hipster / writer, always decked out in black and "oh-so-above-it-all." How much do you want to bet he'd also hate "Crying In the Chapel" and dismiss everything after, say, Sun Records? These days, the cut off point is 1969 (no small thanks to the likes of Peter Guralnick, who have written about the "shame" of admitting you liked Elvis in the '60s and '70s among "rock" people ) and has helped salvage the reputation of later Elvis, if less so with the '70s.

You're right: these people are in the dark and at least educated and responded to... I constantly come across free-floating hostility toward Elvis because he dared to be "slick" and sing a ballad or two. It's rooted in this "I'm still 13 years old" attitude, I say.

Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:22 am

There's no doubt Lennon was an Elvis fan.....a disgruntled fan.

but that's what Chapman was too: a disgruntled fan.

When your rock star doesn't live up to your expectations, how do you respond?

Lennon insulted Elvis. Chapman killed Lennon.

both examples were unnecessary and unwelcome.

Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:00 am

The mean-spiritedness and stunning ignorance of the some of the above comments is typical of this MB and pretty sad.

One of the things that Elvis Presley's art had in abundance was heart and soul -- it's a key ingredient in all of his greatest music.

No wonder you're obsessed with Elvis -- he offers something you'll never have.

Say the word.

Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:04 am

Lennons comments about Elvis meant nothing to me. It was just shrugged off as a dumb statement. Didn't make me or millions of others change their feelings about Elvis. 8)

Last edited by sam on Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:12 am

Oh Doc, you pointing out the mean spiritedness of others on here is hysterically funny. i do hope you include yourself in that. If not, you give one more stunning example to add to your resume for hypocrite for the ages!!!