All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:54 am

Hello, wrote:

Uh-huh ...

The fact that you offer -- yet again -- "Nashville Revisited - 1971" as your suggestion for a clever title serves only to reinforce my assertion that you really have no idea what you're talking about, much less what a laughingstock you have made of yourself.

"Nashville Revisisted - 1971"? You're putting us on, right?

It sure as hell beats "I Sing All Kinds." BTW, what's you're suggestion for a title, Mr. Expert? Who's "putting" who on here? I'm putting you on the spot.

If anyone has made a laughingstock of themselves, it would be you, given that you've made no effort whatsoever to even bother to suggest a title. You can't even be bothered to have a point/counter-point discussion because you're too busy using your creative juices towards ripping info from Jorgensen's / Tunzi's sessions books for your website. Now, that's really creative.


Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:12 am

Ummm, here's a suggestion: "I Sing All Kinds." It has a ring to it, and it fits the diversity of the material.

Of course, I have an advantage, as I actually understand the title and recognize to what it alludes.

You don't have that perspective, so of course it'll probably be lost on you.

Thanks for checking my Web site. But there's very little Tunzi material there.

I probably didn't make that clear with the first sentences of the site: "This spreadsheet provides a detailed sortable, searchable database of Elvis Presley's officially released recordings. It is intended as an index, not a substitute, for Ernst Jorgensen's brilliant Elvis Presley: A Life in Music."

Still, again, thanks for checking it out -- even if you once again didn't understand what you were seeing.

Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:37 am


There's definitely ringing in your ears and it's not coming from the title of the next FTD.

What advantage? Again for the deaf from the ringing in their ears, I knew about the Marion Keisker bit, but again you seem to have missed my point that that quote applies to all of Elvis' recorded work, therefore vagueness in what the title represents. Just because you and I understand what the title alludes to doesn't mean that every fan buying this CD will.

Last time I looked at Jorgensen's book, it already had an index in it. When I looked at your website I was looking at Jorgensen's book slightly modified. So please spare me the unnecessary time to explain that what your website represents is an utter rip-off of Jorgensen's book.



Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:31 am As Daryl proudly boasts:-
You can't stop me

.....from posting drivel.

You can only hope to contain me exposing it as such.

Rest assured; mission accomplished.

Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:38 am

Rob wrote:
Matthew wrote:
Mike S wrote:The most pressing question is this: Does anyone (other than Daryl) actually give a damn about this trivial matter?

....and if so, perhaps a few more interests wouldn't go amiss.

Daryl is as Daryl does.


Ouch!! :shock: :D

Good one, Rob...

Keith Richards, Jr.

Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:08 am

what your website represents is an utter rip-off of Jorgensen's book

Oddly, Ernst has never shared that perspective with me, though he certainly has had opportunity in person and online for the nearly five years the site has been in operation.

Perhaps he views the site differently -- and sees it for what it is: a regularly updated database that is a tribute to his wonderful work in documenting Elvis' own wonderful work.

Ernst has said many times he's too busy to revise and republish his work. I've tried in my small way to provide a stopgap measure that also provides (as much as is practical) as complete an accounting of available recordings, as opposed to only initial releases, as he listed. Besides the updates, I've included any corrections I find.

Further, the site honors other sessionographies, and I've never done anything but direct people straight to the best among them: keithflynn, elvisrecordings, elvisconcerts and others.

What the site provides -- and you obviously fail to understand -- is the only online sessionography that can be sorted and revised instantly by any user, regardless of computer or session expertise.

Further, considering I operate the site at my own cost ad-free and anonymously, I'm not sure what the point of any "ripoff" would be. I don't make a secret of my identity, but I've never tried in any way to profit or benefit from the site. Even after years of attending Elvis Weeks, I have identified myself in passing to only perhaps a half-dozen people, at least three of whom would be well-positioned to share any personal affront they felt. They have not done so, and given your vicious attitude toward Ernst and his work, I'm not sure he needs you taking up on his behalf.

Considering that every page, every line -- in fact, the entire structure of the database is designed to honor Ernst's and others' work -- with full credit given every step of the way, it's hardly a ripoff, and the couple of hundred e-mails I've received from site visitors through the years indicate that everyone but you seems to understand -- and appreciate -- the purpose and point of the site.

However, your being the odd man out -- and I do mean "odd" -- is nothing new.

Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:03 pm

Daryl, please, don’t embarrass yourself by going after His site is indeed a tribute to the work of Ernst and other sessionologists. It’s a fantastic reference guide that fans can seek out if they don’t have Ernst’s recording sessions book in front of them and need to check some facts. That site is brilliant, and I love it. You can look upon it as a fan club or supporter club of sorts, because that is essentially what it is, one that is open to everyone, no fees charged.

I detect jealousy and misplaced anger in you, Daryl. Why is that? Can’t you stand another man’s success. I for one admire it.

Keep up the good work,, we all love you (with the odd exception).


Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:25 pm

Thank you, Per.

It's fairly important to me that people understand what my site is -- and isn't -- but the funny thing is that Daryl clearly wants to attack me where he things it will hurt: my ego.

Too bad for him, though I may have a hell of an ego, it's not manifested on my Web site.

I started out like many of us did, keeping notes on scratch pads, then notebooks, etc. Eventually I reached a point that it seemed as if I'd put a hell of a lot of time into something that really couldn't be justified for the benefit of one individual.

I made clear from the beginning that it was an imperfect effort. I imagined that people might just find it useful not to have to re-create a spreadsheet from scratch. I still assume people are refining, improving and fixing along the way and shaping the spreadsheet into something better for themselves.

It's been worth it for me to have some very sharp people catch some mistakes and point out things I've missed. In that, I've achieved far more than I'd hoped for. Beyond that, I have no ambitions at all.

After many, many hours with the online spreadsheet and the personal version I use to add hundreds of notes -- some mysterious now even to me -- I'm probably more aware of the project's shortcomings than anyone else.

I admire the hell out of Sebastian Jeannson and Keith Flynn and others who have provided such great work online, and I've never pretended to be in their league at all.

Still, I appreciate knowing that people find the site useful -- and it inspires me to keep refining and updating.

Anyway, enough of this digression. Let's get this discussion back on track ........ Does anybody remember what the original point of this thread was? :lol:

Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:59 pm


ShaneBrown wrote:

In other words can you name one other session (or set of sesssions) when he recorded gospel, folk, country, rock n roll, pop and christmas songs all at the same time? No? Well, that's why it's got this title!

Yeah, I can name a set of sessions where Elvis recorded with the same diversity that you mention, in some cases even exceeding your list. The May/June 1966 sessions that produced the How Great Thou Art LP, the Christmas single "If Every Day Was Like Christmas", the Bob Dylan folk song "Tomorrow Is A Long Time", the Hawaiian standards "I'll Remember You" and "Beyond The Reef", R&B numbers "Down In The Alley", "Come What May" and "Fools Fall In Love", and pop material like "Indescribably Blue" and "Love Letters"

Or how about the June/September 1970 sessions with its' mix of bluegrass numbers "Little Cabin On The Hill", "A Hundred Years From Now", the numerous country recordings, pop classics "You Don't Have To Say You Love Me", "Bridge Over Troubled Water", "Rags To Riches", gospel material "Only Believe", rock 'n' roll from the '50s "The Fool", "Whole Lotta Shakin' Going On", and R&B material "Got My Mojo Workin'."

The same "I Sing All Kinds" could be said for these sets of sessions as well.


Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:23 pm


Shane, "The Fool" was a 1956 rock-n-roll hit for Sanford Clark. As for out and out blues, what about "Got My Mojo Workin'" (Muddy Waters) and "Down In The Alley." They are without a doubt R&B.

You also wrote:

But I see no country material in your first choice.

True to some extent. But that isn't what I said. I said with the same diversity. There's no Hawaiian standards done in 1971. So it's a tit-for tat.

But getting serious, the bottom line is that "I Sing All Kinds" is a throwaway piece of **** garbage title for a CD.


Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:51 pm


I agree with you woodleyjohn. People on this messageboard think that I get some enjoyment out of my criticism of Ernst and FTD. I don't. I just would like to see FTD present a much better product. In some instances they've been sloppy. For example, the recent confusion regarding whether "Raised On Rock" or "Pot Luck" was going to be released in July. Ernst or Roger could have simply notified several of the Elvis websites to clarify any confusion, instead of just notifying one small website after being contacted about the confusion by that aforementioned website. Why did that website have to contact him? Surely, he was aware that there was some confusion. The whole thing came acroos as if FTD didn't even know what they were putting out, which in my opinion is amateurish.


Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:50 pm


ShaneBrown wrote:

Either way, your Nashville Revisited suggestion is flawed in the extreme due to the fact that Elvis had been revisiting Nashville since 1956!

Hey Shane, I'm not the one who made the distinction between Elvis' 1956-1968 Nashville output and his '70-'71 recordings. Ernst Jorgensen has done that again and again. Look at "The Magic Of Nashville" CD on the "Close Up" boxset for example. Why does it stop in '68. The "revisited" portion of my suggested title is in part because of this distinction that Ernst has made on several releases. I agree with you that there shouldn't be any distinction between them just like there shouldn't be any distinction between the two documentary films (That's The Way It Is & Elvis On Tour) and the other 31 films. But again, on the upcoming Elvis At The Movies 2 CD set, why aren't there any tracks from "That's The Way It Is" and "Elvis On Tour"? The title of the set is "Elvis At The Movies" and weren't those two documentaries movies as well.


Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:25 pm

Daryl wrote:I get some enjoyment out of my criticism of Ernst and FTD.


Well, it's taken long enough but again, small steps.

"My mama says..."

Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:34 pm

shanebrown wrote: There is no point in criticising if you can't come up with a decent alternative.
Even if one could..there is still no point! What's done is done!!

Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:55 pm

Matthew wrote:This CD has complaints about the cover also.

Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:56 pm

This has, thanks to Daryl, turned out to be the funniest thread I've read in a long time.

Before you go on (and on), Daryl, perhaps a little reminder of what you've actually said here?

What gives with the title "I Sing All Kinds"? Surely that isn't the final title. Why does FTD tend to overthink these titles when the obvious choice would simply be "The Nashville Marathon Volume 2"? Or simply "Nashville Revisited - 1971

So they "overthink" the titles and should go for a simpler alternative? OK.

I hardly call it creative. It falls into the same category that so many previous FTD name titles have fallen into. For example:

Big Boss Man
Polk Salad Annie
Let Yourself Go
An American Trilogy
Unchained Melody
Too Much Monkey Business
All Shook Up
So High
The Impossible Dream
Fame And Fortune
It's Midnight
Long, Lonely Highway
Dixieland Rock(s)

And it doesn't just stop with song titles:

I Found My Thrill

Nor does it stop with songs that Elvis recorded

Southern Nights

I would hardly call naming the CD after a songtitle or a line in a song creative or imaginative.


Again, it seems to me that FTD is constantly trying to take the easy way out on coming up with these titles.

So now they're not "overthinking" anymore, then?

You seem to misinterpret that I don't like the idea of using song titles as the name of the CD.

Oh really? :lol:

With that monologue that Elvis used during those '69 shows and the rare live performance of "This Is The Story", another excellent choice could have been "This Is The Story."

Good night, and good luck!

Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:58 pm

Matthew wrote:Albums are being ignored, there is so much work that can be done release Elvis Country, He Touched Me, Pot Luck.

Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:59 pm


Matthew, are you ever going to be serious or are you always going to be a class clown. Why do you try to either misquote me or twist my words? Because, you have no other alternative and that just pisses you off. I do get enjoyment though in seeing you make a fool of yourself. It's mildy entertaining. Actually, it's downright comical.

Juan Luis wrote:

Even if one could..there is still no point! What's done is done!!

How do you expect to learn from your mistakes if no one is critical of your work?


Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:31 am


Hav-A-Tampa, are you trying to twist my words. To reiterate for you:

1.) It isn't very creative to use a song title for the title of a CD.

2.) It is "overthinking" to use an obscure comment to Marion Keisker in 1953 on a CD of outtakes from 1971.

3.) Even though it isn't creative to use a songtitle as the title for a CD, I don't have a problem with it being done as long as there is an obvious correlation between the title and the contents. For example, the "All Shook Up" FTD is great example of where this fails.

4.) There have been approximately 37 5" digipak FTDs and 5 FTD books(excluding the classic albums and the movie soundtracks). And 15 (approximately one-third) of them use a song title, a verse or a derivative from a song or movie. Some of those titles work, like "Southern Nights" whereas others fail miserably like "All Shook Up."

Last edited by Daryl on Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:42 am

It's page five -- WGAS?

Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:07 am


"Southern Nights" is a song title, although not an Elvis song title. I believe New Orleans music great Allen Toussaint wrote it and it was a #1 Country hit for Glen Campbell in 1977, hence the title.

As for your comments on "Close Up" does it really matter whether they were "close ups" of 1960-1968 or 1960-1971? We're only talking about a three year difference, and one of those years (1969) Elvis didn't have any main recording sessions in Nashville. I wouldn't exactly call "The Magic Of Nashville" CD from "Close Up" (1960-1968) "close up" as well. The other three discs fit that description (the 1957 binaural material, the 1960-early 1961 movie material, and the 1972 live show) but not the magic of Nashville.


Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:20 am

What if somebody came up with the album title "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"?

That would not pass Daryl's quality control as to quote him:-

"It isn't very creative to use a song title for the title of a CD."

Which to my mind illustrates just how stupid some people can be :!:

Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:42 am


I wrote:

It isn't very creative to use a song title for the title of a CD.

KiwiAlan wrote:

Which to my mind illustrates just how stupid some people can be

Using a song title for a CD title that has little bearing on the contents illustrates just how lazy some people can be. BTW, KiwiAlan, "SPLHCB" was an original album released during the Beatles' career span. There's a huge difference there.

ShaneBrown wrote:

I don't think the fact that it was a song for somebody else really has nothing to do with it. What will happen next? A new FTD of the Jungle Room session ballads, named after Judy Garland's "Get Happy?".

What's next? You're going to tell me that "I Found My Thrill" wasn't lifted from "Blueberry Hill." If you don't have the sense to realize that the title "Southern Nights" came from the Toussaint song of the same name, you are hopeless.

As for my suggestion of "This Is The Story" for the title of the FTD "All Shook Up", not only does the monologue tie into the title but also the ultra rare live performance of the song "This Is The Story." I've got two things going for my suggested title as opposed to your half-baked concept regarding "All Shook Up."

As for the divide between 1968 and 1971, I don't have too much of a problem with it. It's something I can live with. It was I believe who had a problem with my suggested title "Nashville Revisited - 1971" instead of "I Sing All Kinds." Given that you understand the divide like I do, you'd probably understand why I included the word "revisited" in my title.


Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:46 am

Tupelo's Own is a good title.

Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:51 am


Doc. Carpenter wrote:

Tupelo's Own is a good title.

Indeed it is, doc.