All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:42 am

JerryNodak wrote:Wasn't Bob Johnston also a producer/arranger or some such for Columbia records around that time?

I seem to remember seeing record labels/album covers with his name in the credits in some capacity.

Yes. Bob produced a few little-known LPs of the time:

Highway 61 Revisited (1965)
Blonde On Blonde (1966)
John Wesley Harding (1968)
Nashville Skyline (1969)

Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:22 am

Axeman wrote:Sexuality or masculinity has nothing to do with it...unless of course that's your own issue.


It evidently is.

Daryl - please post informatively about historical data rather than making spin, too many people here know their stuff to let inaccuracies stick, others oviously need to brush up or indeed learn their facts in the first place. I guess you're "just that kind of guy"

Adios

Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:01 am

Hello,

KiwiAlan, no it's you that's got it all wrong. Joy Byers was indeed Bob Johnston's wife and a Hill & Range employed songwriter. Bob Johnston only produced and sang on the demos of his wife. From time to time he did help his wife (uncredited) with some writing but for the most part she was the one who wrote those songs.

Being that it might that Elvis performed "Heartbreak Hotel" live on a few dates in December '55, that in no way means that Elvis had nailed it to his satisfaction. Why do you think so many songs Elvis had hits with never/rarely were performed live in the '70s. They just didn't come off well. Oh, good doc, I've read Guralnick's two books many a times. Don't make me begin to list the inaccuracies (in particular "Careless Love").

"Nightmare", I'm not the one all up in arms over the comment and accusing people of being "insensitive" to the fact that from '74 to '77 Elvis had issues with his personal appearance. Nothing more than the truth.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:09 am

Daryl wrote:Being that it might that Elvis performed "Heartbreak Hotel" live on a few dates in December '55, that in no way means that Elvis had nailed it to his satisfaction.


Ok, enough now with the spin - when you're wrong you're wrong.

Daryl wrote:Why do you think so many songs Elvis had hits with never/rarely were performed live in the '70s. They just didn't come off well.


Elvis chose not to perform them - plain and simple. He was alway trying to keep some semblance of forward movement as an artist by virtue of wanting to perform NEW material and songs ultimately he enjoyed singing. Why do YOU think he rushed through the 'golden oldies' hit sections of his shows, he was doing them as crowd pleasers.

Daryl wrote:Oh, good doc, I've read Guralnick's two books many a times. Don't make me begin to list the inaccuracies (in particular "Careless Love").


Judging by your apparent lack of knowledge but rather your own spun opinion I'll take these "inaccuracies" with a pinch of salt.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:25 am

From "Writing for the King", Joy Byers' chapter:

"Now those Presley things, old Bob helped meflesh out a bit. He knew more than three chords"

That tells me Bob helped with the music, not the lyrics so much...

Further:

"Bob worked with everyone from Bob Dylan to the Byrds to Johnny Cash...he produced all my demos for the Presley songs, sang the demos"

Axe

Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:53 am

Matthew,

Why do you think songs such as "Devil In Disguise", "Don't", "Good Luck Charm", or "His Latest Flame" didn't get performed on stage in the '70s alot if at all. Why did "Return To Sender" and "Crying In The Chapel" only get performed on rare occasions. After rehearsing them from time to time they still didn't come off the way Elvis wanted them to, else they would have made the rounds in his live repertoire.

The fact of the matter is that it took Elvis till his 3rd Stage Show to finally perform "Heartbreak Hotel." In between the time Elvis recorded it (Jan. 10) and that first performance of it on "Stage Show" (Feb. 11), Elvis made personal appearances on fifteen days, sometimes performing as many as 4 shows on some dates. It was during these dates where Elvis familiarized himself with "Heartbreak Hotel" so that he could perform it on national television without forgetting lyrics.

Matthew, at least I can form an opinion on the subject without having to have Guralnick form the opinion for me. Personally, I think too many people (especially the good Doc) put too much credence in everything he wrote in those two bios, as if the info in those two books descended from high heaven. Even Guralnick is fallible in some instances. If he'd done his homework on "Memphis" he would have known that Jerry Hopkins wrote in his landmark '71 book "Elvis: A Biography" that Johnny Rivers came backstage at the International Hotel to see Elvis in Las Vegas. But according to Marty Lacker, Elvis never saw Rivers after '64. Why would Hopkins make up a story like that. He'd have no reason to. I'm sure Elvis met many a celebrity backstage in Las Vegas. Do you realize that Marty Lacker's drug use may have altered his memory quite a bit (I'm being generous when I say that). I'm much more likely to believe something that was written while it was happening in 1971, rather than Guralnick's after the fact account. And second, if Marty Lacker or any of the other Memphis Mafia guys had a problem with Rivers, do you really think that they would have let him come and chat with Elvis backstage. Hell, no. Which proves my case that Rivers did no wrong.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:07 am

Daryl wrote:Matthew,

Why do you think songs such as "Devil In Disguise", "Don't", "Good Luck Charm", or "His Latest Flame" didn't get performed on stage in the '70s alot if at all. Why did "Return To Sender" and "Crying In The Chapel" only get performed on rare occasions. After rehearsing them from time to time they still didn't come off the way Elvis wanted them to, else they would have made the rounds in his live repertoire.


He simply chose not to perform them - it is YOU that is adding the "they didn't come off the way Elvis wanted them to part"

Daryl wrote:The fact of the matter is that it took Elvis till his 3rd Stage Show to finally perform "Heartbreak Hotel." In between the time Elvis recorded it (Jan. 10) and that first performance of it on "Stage Show" (Feb. 11), Elvis made personal appearances on fifteen days, sometimes performing as many as 4 shows on some dates. It was during these dates where Elvis familiarized himself with "Heartbreak Hotel" so that he could perform it on national television without forgetting lyrics.


Elvis and the band were pretty familier with it to record a live master in the studio in January 1956.

Daryl wrote:Matthew, at least I can form an opinion on the subject without having to have Guralnick form the opinion for me. Personally, I think too many people (especially the good Doc) put too much credence in everything he wrote in those two bios, as if the info in those two books descended from high heaven. Even Guralnick is fallible in some instances. If he'd done his homework on "Memphis" he would have known that Jerry Hopkins wrote in his landmark '71 book "Elvis: A Biography" that Johnny Rivers came backstage at the International Hotel to see Elvis in Las Vegas. But according to Marty Lacker, Elvis never saw Rivers after '64. Why would Hopkins make up a story like that. He'd have no reason to. I'm sure Elvis met many a celebrity backstage in Las Vegas. Do you realize that Marty Lacker's drug use may have altered his memory quite a bit (I'm being generous when I say that). I'm much more likely to believe something that was written while it was happening in 1971, rather than Guralnick's after the fact account. And second, if Marty Lacker or any of the other Memphis Mafia guys had a problem with Rivers, do you really think that they would have let him come and chat with Elvis backstage. Hell, no. Which proves my case that Rivers did no wrong.


I have read many books over the years, Guralnicks are just two of them - two of the more well researched and constructed pieces. It is immaterial whether Elvis saw Johnny Rivers in 1971 - just a footnote in the story of Elvis Presley and hardly an area for Guralnick to have focused a great deal of readers attention on.

Conclusion - I form my own opinions. Where you and I obviously differ is that you don't appear to have the capability to admit when you may be wrong. I look forward to the next installment of Daryl's fictionised postings.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:16 am

It is imaterial whether Elvis saw Johnny Rivers in 1971 - just a footnote in the story of Elvis Presley and hardly an area for Garalnick to have focused a great deal of readers attention to.


No, it is material whether Rivers saw Elvis in Vegas because Guralnick got his story regarding "Memphis" straight from Nash's book in which Lacker claims that they never saw each other after '64, when that isn't the case. Under one lie, you'll find a pack of more lies. It's all too clear. Marty Lacker lied. It's a b.s. story that Lacker tells about Rivers. Lacker blames Rivers for introducing Larry Geller to Elvis and Geller messing with Elvis' head about reading various religious/spiritual books. Lacker felt threatened by Geller constantly bringing these books to Elvis. He wasn't the only one either that didn't like Geller either. Col. Tom was deathly afraid that by Geller getting Elvis on this spiritual kick that it was going to kill the golden goose that Elvis was.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:27 am

Daryl - yours posts bounce from one subject to the next without ever drawing a conclusion when you are questioned. I haven't been in a debate with you about Rivers. Your irrational comments on "It Hurts Me" drew me to respond - your use of the word "queer" in which I can only conclude some sort of homophobic tendancy from you caught my attention.

You make points about historical information about Elvis' singles, his live performance choices without citing any source information but rather all to often saying "why do you think he didn't do this, that, and the other" and then answering your own question with "its because [insert DARYL'S OPINION dressed up as fact here]".

It is hard to have a debate with someone who is so (intentionally??) narrow-minded that I wonder if it is done just to wind other members up. Thus I bid you farewell.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:51 am

Your irractional comments on "It Hurts Me" drew me to respond - your use of the word "queer" in which I can only conclude some sort of homophobic tendancy from you caught my attention.


I can only conclude that you got your mind in the gutter by my use of the word queer. It's just that in my opinion, a guy would never make the comment that "he's just that kind of guy". The vagueness in that line weakens the song, almost as if the songwriters were stumped. In fact if you happen to read Joy Byers chapter in "Writing For The King" she makes mention that Charlie Daniels wrote most of the music and lyrics and that she only supplied help on the lyrics. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Now here is where I draw that conclusion that you keep talking about.

Joy Byers supplied the line "he's just that kind of guy" because that is what a woman would say, not a man. It was a pretty weak verse, to say the least. It's obvious that "It Hurts Me" was mostly written from a man's perspective. But when Joy Byers helped Charlie out by supplying the line "he's just that kind of guy" it came from a woman's perspective. It's the only line in the song that just seems out of place with the rest of the song.
Last edited by Daryl on Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:01 am

Daryl wrote:It's quite obvious that the line "he's just that kind of guy" was written from a woman's perspective, Joy Byers. No straight man would ever comment about another guy in that way. It would almost be too queer. And I seriously doubt that Charlie Daniels is queer.

Daryl wrote:You're simply taking the wrong connotation of the word "queer" which can also mean "strange", was not in relation to anything sexual.


Indeed, you desired connotation of the word "queer" is quite queer, um, er, clear. :roll:

Daryl wrote:Joy Byers supplied the line "he's just that kind of guy" because that is what a woman would say, not a man.


Careful Daryl, you're doing it again.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:07 am

Joy Byers supplied the line "he's just that kind of guy" because that is what a woman would say, not a man. It was a pretty weak verse, to say the least. It's obvious that "It Hurts Me" was mostly written from a man's perspective (Charlie Daniels). But when Joy Byers helped Charlie out by supplying the line "he's just that kind of guy" it came from a woman's perspective. It's the only line in the song that's out of place with the rest of the song.

Does that make it any clearer, Matthew?

Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:43 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
JerryNodak wrote:Wasn't Bob Johnston also a producer/arranger or some such for Columbia records around that time?

I seem to remember seeing record labels/album covers with his name in the credits in some capacity.

Yes. Bob produced a few little-known LPs of the time:

Highway 61 Revisited (1965)
Blonde On Blonde (1966)
John Wesley Harding (1968)
Nashville Skyline (1969)


Thanks, for refreshing my memory, DJC. I was going to drop a couple of those album titles in my post, but thought the old memory might be playing tricks on me.

Again, thanks for the refresher. Those were/are fine albums.

Glad you came back to the MB, Doc.
Last edited by JerryNodak on Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:06 am

Darryl- We just have a chasm of difference between our tastes. I just thinking Johnny Rivers was rotten singer. I don't hate him I hate his music. Unmelodic, clueless unsubtle phrasing and from my aesthetic point of view, his voice was ugly. It's not his fault that he couldn't sing his way out of a paper bag but that's the way it is. I gotta tell you it just drove me crazy when I was a kid and had no money for records and I would desperately want to hear those Motown records and they would play the Rivers' versions. It was like anticipating a gourmet meal and settling for McDonalds. Maybe you see something in his singing. More power to you. That happens sometimes. Taste is the great divider. To me he is a song killer at a level of Michael Bolton and I felt that way years before hearing Guralnick's story.

HDH by the way have been pretty generous in assessing all their cover versions and why shouldn't they be? That's more money in their bank. And a Top 40 career isn't necessarily indicative of quality. Herman's Hermits, who make Rivers look like Sam Cooke by comparison, had 18 Top 40 hits.

The problem with the "Memphis" story is why would Marty and the guys lie? What percentage was there in the 1990s in bashing Johnny Rivers?

I don't agree with your comments about "It Hurts Me". Jerry's comment about it not having a hook is the real reason it did not have particular success. Plus it was a very unusual thing for a pop record, it was simply meant for listening. It was not a slow dance and not dance record or a singalong. With Elvis' gospel drenched vocal and the heavily gospel influenced backing call and response background vocals, it was ahead of its time as a piece of blue eyed soul.

The lyrics had nothing to do with its relative lack of success other than the fact that they weren't naturall easy to sing or hum. I never knew of bad lyrics in any era to keep a record from success. Just listen to "Eve of Destruction" or "Half Breed" or any of dozens of others of unintentionally hilarious lyrics that topped the charts.

Elvis tossing off the "He's just that kind of guy" lyric is the height of his genius in the way it contrasts with the intensity of the rest of his vocal. It's his way of showing exasperation and also easing the pain. It also gives us the listener a break right before Elvis builds up for the big climax. It's really a marvelous bit of singing. It's something a singer like Jobnny Rivers wouldn't even dream to do. Tossed off, of course, is a distortion of what Elvis is doing here in a meticulously crafted vocal.

It's also actually a nice bit of lyric writing in that you know he doesn't need to say anymore. Daniels and Byers don't need to list a litany of sins, the guy's treachery is understood by Elvis and the object of his affection. It's a very common turn of phrase by the way.

It's not a great composition but it's a good solid direct one and Elvis' vocal gives it almost the power of a novel.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:46 pm

Daryl wrote:Joy Byers supplied the line "he's just that kind of guy" because that is what a woman would say, not a man. It was a pretty weak verse, to say the least. It's obvious that "It Hurts Me" was mostly written from a man's perspective (Charlie Daniels). But when Joy Byers helped Charlie out by supplying the line "he's just that kind of guy" it came from a woman's perspective. It's the only line in the song that's out of place with the rest of the song.

Does that make it any clearer, Matthew?


Nope, everything you have just written are your assumptions based on your own point of view, nothing more. You have no factual evidence to prove what you just wrote. Your "a man wouldn't say that" approach is laughable to say the least but I tip my hat to you, you've managed to write a great deal without actually saying anything of merit - well done you.

likethebike wrote:I don't agree with your comments about "It Hurts Me". Jerry's comment about it not having a hook is the real reason it did not have particular success. Plus it was a very unusual thing for a pop record, it was simply meant for listening. It was not a slow dance and not dance record or a singalong. With Elvis' gospel drenched vocal and the heavily gospel influenced backing call and response background vocals, it was ahead of its time as a piece of blue eyed soul.

The lyrics had nothing to do with its relative lack of success other than the fact that they weren't naturall easy to sing or hum. I never knew of bad lyrics in any era to keep a record from success. Just listen to "Eve of Destruction" or "Half Breed" or any of dozens of others of unintentionally hilarious lyrics that topped the charts.

Elvis tossing off the "He's just that kind of guy" lyric is the height of his genius in the way it contrasts with the intensity of the rest of his vocal. It's his way of showing exasperation and also easing the pain. It also gives us the listener a break right before Elvis builds up for the big climax. It's really a marvelous bit of singing. It's something a singer like Jobnny Rivers wouldn't even dream to do. Tossed off, of course, is a distortion of what Elvis is doing here in a meticulously crafted vocal.

It's also actually a nice bit of lyric writing in that you know he doesn't need to say anymore. Daniels and Byers don't need to list a litany of sins, the guy's treachery is understood by Elvis and the object of his affection. It's a very common turn of phrase by the way.

It's not a great composition but it's a good solid direct one and Elvis' vocal gives it almost the power of a novel.


Perfect, I couldn't have said it better if I tried.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:34 pm

Hello,

Matthew, on page 147 of FTD's "Writing For The King", the Joy Byers chapter says

Charlie Daniels did all the music and most of the lyrics for "It Hurts Me." It was put together real quick. I wrote a few lyrics for it but in all honesty I was mostly cheering him on. He's a wonderful songwriter.


It doesn't take a genius to figure out where Joy Byers helped Charlie Daniels out at. It was on the line "he's just that kind of guy."

Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:10 pm

Message to Daryl -- please, stop.

JerryNodak wrote:Thanks, for refreshing my memory, DJC.

You're welcome. Bob Johnston is also a delight in the brilliant Martin Scorcese Dylan documentary, "No Direction Home" (2005). He might have been a wonderful producer for Elvis, judging by his track record with the genius from Hibbing.

Jerry, in case it was not clear -- and I should've used an emoticon to make sure -- the manner of my reply was strictly tongue-in-cheek. Your posts are always a welcome sight on this MB.

Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:19 pm

Hello,

Why are you asking me to stop, Doc? Do you feel threatened by me? I'm not threatened by what anyone else has said in this thread, nor should I be. What's bothering you so much Doc that you have to ask me to stop? Is it that I don't agree with Guralnick/Nash/Lacker's "Memphis" bit? Is it that I found fault with Guralnick' epic bios? I must have hit a nerve somewhere for you to ask me to stop.

Daryl

Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:59 am

Daryl wrote:Why are you asking me to stop, Doc?

I already answered that question. You must've somehow overlooked my analogy in a previous post on this topic. Hope it helps!

Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:17 am

Daryl wrote:It doesn't take a genius to figure out where Joy Byers helped Charlie Daniels out at. It was on the line "he's just that kind of guy."


Repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make this statement of yours anymore factually correct. Stop talking out your ass!

Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:29 am

DJC: I understood it as tongue in cheek. Always enjoy your posts as well.
Quite often I "read and learn."

Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:32 am

Matthew,

I can't help it if you lack the intellect to take facts and thoroughly analyze them and draw your own conclusion. You keep stating that it isn't fact but yet you can't offer a rebuttal to it's contrary. What do you think the Guralnick's, the Tunzi's, the Jorgensen's of the Elvis world have done for the last 20 some years. Offer me something that proves that Joy Byers didn't help write that line. Again, Joy Byers says that Charlie Daniels wrote all the music and most of the lyrics. From that bit of information you can deduce that Charlie Daniels was stuck on coming up with a suitable lyric somewhere in the song, or else he would have finished the song himself. That is when Joy Byers comes in. She helps Charlie out with a line or two. What is the weakest line in the entire song? Again it's "he's just that kind of guy." And again, most guys wouldn't phrase it that way. It's just something that doesn't happen all that often. That line came from a woman's perspective, rather than a man's. I don't think I can spell it out any clearer than that.

Daryl

Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:35 am

I don't think it's a question so much wether Joy wrote the line or not but more the somewhat closed-minded and perhaps homophobic reasoning behind the statement.

Axe

Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:41 am

That's pretty simple Axeman. It's because most of the song is written from a man's perspective with the exception of that line, which is written from a woman's perspective. And when a man sings it, it throws you for a loop, as if that line doesn't quite fit perfectly. You're reading too much into the "queer" comment. It was the closest analagy I could come up with at the time.

Daryl

Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:45 am

Axeman wrote:I don't think it's a question so much wether Joy wrote the line or not but more the somewhat closed-minded and perhaps homophobic reasoning behind the statement.

Bingo!

Say goodnight now, Daryl.