So many great replies, this is a fun, fun read!
epf wrote:One can never be too sure on this MB!
But thanks once again Doc!
keninlincs wrote:Thanks John,just my kind of journalistic genius
Thank you, my friends.
---
Good Time Charlie wrote:I was saying it is a shame because it is such an overtly negative piece on Presley ...
KHoots wrote:Good Time Charlie wrote:Elvis showed contempt for his fans and the public? Comments like this are ridiculous.
No, they're not. Unfortunately, in many instances, it was true. It can hardly be argued that Elvis exhibited a major indifference towards his craft in the later years--on stage, in the studio, and elsewhere.
I am as big a fan as anyone, but it angers me still today to look back and see how much more he could have given. Yes, he gave a lot. But there will always be that "If only..." part of his career that keeps the naysayers chatting.
Thanks for posting the piece, Doc. I found it to be a fascinating read, and quite different from most authors.
Right on,
KHoots. Needless to say, you are better able to get to the heart of the piece than
Good Time Charlie.
---
KingOfTheJungle wrote:Here's Lester Bangs obit for John Lennon from 1980. It's very similar in tone, though not quite as strong, as the piece on Elvis, and as you can see, there are quite a few things Lennon fans could take offense at. It was just one of the characteristics of his approach to mythic subject matter.
That was terrific as well, thanks. This might help those unfamiliar with Bang's personal style.
---
PEP wrote:However, I am personally disappointed about the misgivings of Lester Bangs stretching the truth the way he did in the article when describing Elvis' appearance for 71.....for me that was kind of a turn off.
As noted earlier in the topic, Bangs was likely being rhetorical as much as literal. "Too fat" may be seen as shorthand for the whole overblown style Elvis presented: the huge sideburns, the outlandish jumpsuit with cape (!) and huge belt. And remember, this was published in the
Village Voice, a
long-established, New York-based newspaper, not "Elvis World" magazine. Bangs was
not a "jumpsuit junkie." In any case, it's such a small part of the entire essay.
I appreciate what
KingOfTheJungle says here:
KingOfTheJungle wrote:... I can see how if the last mental image of Elvis one retained was the 68 Special, or the idealized 1957-era "Loving You" Elvis, that they could think that 1972 era Elvis was "too fat". He doesn't say "bloated" or "pudgy" or "blimp like", just "too fat", which certainly conveys a slighter degree. So, as with many things concerning Elvis, how good he looked at any given time in the 70's is really a matter of relativity, depending on what you are comparing it to. Elvis's huge sideburns made him look heavier than he was in the early 70's, so that probably had something to do with it as well.
---
Good Time Charlie wrote:For me, his complete dismissal of Elvis' post 50s work ...
There is nothing like this in Lester's article.
When he speaks of the way Presley mesmerized the Detroit audience "... after a decade and a half of crappy records, of making a point of not trying," there is a lot of truth. Do we need to once again pile up the scores of soundtrack recordings, or review the dozens of worthless films, Elvis made after 1960?
What is clear is that Bangs analyzes Presley on a far deeper level than most other artists because Elvis was that significant, someone so profound and influential that we will never again see -- or agree upon -- anyone like him. In 33 years since that article, Bangs has been proven correct.
And Lester loved him, just as we all did.
---
Yes, but this transcription has numerous
errors, and does not use the original title.
The one
I posted does, and avoids those errors, as it was taken from my copy of the original, 1977
Village Voice issue. I hope that clears up any confusion for you.
Did you enjoy reading it,
The Pirate?