I actually found schlocky Vegas---it wasn't Elvis!

It is bad form to ask for someone's RealName® in a community such as this. If you're an Elvis fan, and you've been here for a little while, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out such things, but it is bad form to pester people, and invade their privacy.

You can disagree with someone without showing disrespect, not only for them, but for the community. People use handles, and some like to use their names, and some use something else, or close to it. But during the CB radio craze, no one bothered people about their handles, I don't think. We can show similar class nowadays.

This is not Facebook.

rjm

I'll give some examples of Elvis' recordings being influenced by Vegas.

See See Rider live
Big boss man live
That's alright mama live
I got my mojo working (studio)

The Nashville 1970 studio sessions don't sound like they were influenced by Vegas at all.

The arrangements in the stage act, starting especially in January 1970, are influenced by playing to a Las Vegas audience. The constant "hold" used to end many songs (a simpleton cue, "the song is ending, folks, please begin to applaud") is but one stylistic example. And this mindset remained through to June 26, 1977.

As for the 1970 sessions, the many middle-of-the-road selections taped are most definitely influenced by Vegas. Ten examples:

The Sound of Your Cry
This Is Our Dance
Life
Heart of Rome
When I'm Over You
Make the World Go Away
Love Letters
There Goes My Everything
If I Were You
Sylvia

Are you sure those aren't just bad songs.

That's a question, right?

Yes, I'm sure. Some are very good ("Make the World Go Away," "Love Letters"), but all are middle-of-the-road selections not befitting a vital, 35 year-old singer who has recaptured his artistry. They are a by-product of playing over a hundred Las Vegas shows in the previous ten months.

And here we have it again. Two songs are "very good" but because they are middle-of-the-road they are not appropriate. What rubbish.

You so often completely miss the point, make a superficial comment or two, and then top it off with a meaningless put-down. Such grace. Such style. And you promote yourself on this forum as a published author. Bravo!

There is no point to miss. Love Letters is fine for Elvis to record in 1966, but not in 1970 (although I agree the remake is redundant), and the country classic Make The World Go Away is betraying signs of Elvis in Vegas? Really? And you have yet to give any logical reason as to why this bigger sound (the Vegas sound, if that;s what you want to call) is intrinsically bad, except that it's a style Elvis "shouldn't have been doing". If he wanted to do it, why shouldn't he have been doing it? Because you don't approve? Because you don't like it? Because it was a move away from the sound that you prefer? Because he was a rock n roll star and shouldn't move away from that? I see no reason there, other than you own disappointment at your idol moving away from the sound you preferred.

Elvis more than once explained his own musical tastes and interests:

1. To Marion Keisker at Sun Records 1954 when she asked him what he sang and who he sounded like..."I sing all kinds"---"I don't sound like nobody."

2. Explaining his interest in ballads and other music forms to somebody in an RCA session in the 50's: "I can do more than just belt." Apparently in reference to a question as to why he wasn't recording just rock numbers.

He could very well have used rock as a vehicle to explore his other interests, i.e. gave his company commercial success which allowed him to pursue his own artistic interests without interference. Burt Lancaster used a similar philosophy: his movies followed a distinct pattern, one for the box office, one for the art house. Two perfect examples are The Birdman of Alcatraz and From Here To Eternity.

There is no point to miss.

And here we have it again. Two songs are "very good" but because they are middle-of-the-road they are not appropriate. What rubbish.

You so often completely miss the point, make a superficial comment or two, and then top it off with a meaningless put-down. Such grace. Such style. And you promote yourself on this forum as a published author. Bravo!

poormadpeter, how does it feel to be drjohn's whipping boy?

... how does it feel to be drjohn's whipping boy?

My post is a fact-filled reply, and has nothing to do with "whipping" anyone.

Go stir up trouble on some other forum, 'Memphis Fan,' 'R&B player' or whatever other login name you use.

Thank you.

And here we have it again. Two songs are "very good" but because they are middle-of-the-road they are not appropriate. What rubbish.

You so often completely miss the point, make a superficial comment or two, and then top it off with a meaningless put-down. Such grace. Such style. And you promote yourself on this forum as a published author. Bravo!

poormadpeter, how does it feel to be drjohn's whipping boy?

I'd rather be the Doc's whipping boy than your friend.

And here we have it again. Two songs are "very good" but because they are middle-of-the-road they are not appropriate. What rubbish.

You so often completely miss the point, make a superficial comment or two, and then top it off with a meaningless put-down. Such grace. Such style. And you promote yourself on this forum as a published author. Bravo!

poormadpeter, how does it feel to be drjohn's whipping boy?

I'd rather be the Doc's whipping boy than your friend.

That is so touching!

Naw, really, in its way, it is!

rjm

I am really sick of internet tyrants who seek to dominate every conversation and bully those who do not bow to them. They might pander to their egos but they make Elvis boards miserable.

They're usually people with little to no self-esteem who hide behind an alias in order to act arrogant and condescending.

And here we have it again. Two songs are "very good" but because they are middle-of-the-road they are not appropriate. What rubbish.

You so often completely miss the point, make a superficial comment or two, and then top it off with a meaningless put-down. Such grace. Such style. And you promote yourself on this forum as a published author. Bravo!

poormadpeter, how does it feel to be drjohn's whipping boy?

I'd rather be the Doc's whipping boy than your friend.

Your wish has come true.

... how does it feel to be drjohn's whipping boy?

My post is a fact-filled reply, and has nothing to do with "whipping" anyone.
Go stir up trouble on some other forum...

The "trouble" here has already been stirred up by you and your whipping boy.

Thank ya'.

I am really sick of internet tyrants who seek to dominate every conversation and bully those who do not bow to them. They might pander to their egos but they make Elvis boards miserable.

Spot on, sir.

They're usually people with little to no self-esteem who hide behind an alias in order to act arrogant and condescending.

Yes, as in "poormadpeter" and "drjohncarpenter".

I don't think poormadpeter is arrogant and condescending.

BlueRiver, the Doc contributes a great deal to this forum. I don't always agree with what he writes - and I'm not even sure how much he believes what writes sometimes, so interested is he in playing the character he has created for himself - but there is no denying that his wealth of knowledge is of a benefit to this forum.

On the other hand, Blueriver, I have no idea what you contribute. I have yet to see you give any facts, or even informed opinions. Instead, your role here seems to be nothing more than causing trouble, being outspoken and overusing smilies. Two people do not have to agree on things. Discussion is healthy, and it's what we are here for. All you do is disrupt those discussions. When you start adding something positive to the forum instead of something negative, then this will be a better place. Until then, (and I'm sure I speak for many) you act as nothing but a nuisance.

I don't think poormadpeter is arrogant and condescending.

At least we agree on one, and can agree to disagree on the other one.

Blueriver, I have no idea what you contribute. I have yet to see you give any facts...

I posted a fact-filled article a couple of months ago in the "off topic" section about how liberals are the least tolerant people of all. My goodness... what more do you want?!

I don't think poormadpeter is arrogant and condescending.

At least we agree on one, and can agree to disagree on the other one.

Blueriver, I have no idea what you contribute. I have yet to see you give any facts...

I posted a fact-filled article a couple of months ago in the "off topic" section about how liberals are the least tolerant people of all. My goodness... what more do you want?!

Yes, you posted someone elses article. You contributed...nothing.

I don't think poormadpeter is arrogant and condescending.

At least we agree on one, and can agree to disagree on the other one.

Blueriver, I have no idea what you contribute. I have yet to see you give any facts...

I posted a fact-filled article a couple of months ago in the "off topic" section about how liberals are the least tolerant people of all. My goodness... what more do you want?!

Yes, you posted someone elses article. You contributed...nothing.

I contributed the article so you could learn the truth.

Now you know.

... how does it feel to be drjohn's whipping boy?

My post is a fact-filled reply, and has nothing to do with "whipping" anyone.

Go stir up trouble on some other forum, 'Memphis Fan,' 'R&B player' or whatever other login name you use.

Thank you.

It seems somewhat ironic that the person Blue River is actually purporting to support on these boards and in any argument is actually as p*ssed off with him as everyone else.

It seems somewhat ironic that the person Blue River is actually purporting to support on these boards and in any argument is actually as p*ssed off with him as everyone else.

That's it!! You've pushed me into a corner and really made me mad this time!!
I've got just one thing to tell you & drjohncarpenter right here and now!!
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1lJFlB-89Q

I am really sick of internet tyrants who seek to dominate every conversation and bully those who do not bow to them. They might pander to their egos but they make Elvis boards miserable.

They're usually people with little to no self-esteem who hide behind an alias in order to act arrogant and condescending.

So true, HoneyTalkNelson. So true.

"Do you know who the subject of this forum is?

Hint: not Ella Fitzgerald."- Doc

Once again Doc you are correct, and you crack me up!
Sadly it may be that the forum member is in denial and that is okay we have all been there as Elvis fans.
It is only in the last few months I have realized that the fall of 1970 is when Elvis started spinning out of control emotionally, physically, and mentally. All this time I thought that it was not until after the divorce in 73' but alas... Funny the almost direct correlation between the increasingly bedazzled jumpsuits in spring of 71' and madness should have lead me to this conclusion earlier.

"Do you know who the subject of this forum is?

Hint: not Ella Fitzgerald."- Doc

Once again Doc you are correct, and you crack me up!
Sadly it may be that the forum member is in denial and that is okay we have all been there as Elvis fans.
It is only in the last few months I have realized that the fall of 1970 is when Elvis started spinning out of control emotionally, physically, and mentally. All this time I thought that it was not until after the divorce in 73' but alas... Funny the almost direct correlation between the increasingly bedazzled jumpsuits in spring of 71' and madness should have lead me to this conclusion earlier.

If you read the posts in question, the Doc stated all "great artists" who perform in Vegas died artistically. I therefore gave a lengthy list of great artists for whom that was not true - including Bobby Darin and Johnny Cash. Sadly, the Doc does not regard non-rock/country stars as "great artists", but I doubt the artists in question would lose any sleep over it.

I am really sick of internet tyrants who seek to dominate every conversation and bully those who do not bow to them. They might pander to their egos but they make Elvis boards miserable.

They're usually people with little to no self-esteem who hide behind an alias in order to act arrogant and condescending.

So true, HoneyTalkNelson. So true.

BlueRiver, the Doc contributes a great deal to this forum. I don't always agree with what he writes - and I'm not even sure how much he believes what writes sometimes, so interested is he in playing the character he has created for himself - but there is no denying that his wealth of knowledge is of a benefit to this forum.

On the other hand, Blueriver, I have no idea what you contribute. I have yet to see you give any facts, or even informed opinions. Instead, your role here seems to be nothing more than causing trouble, being outspoken and overusing smilies. Two people do not have to agree on things. Discussion is healthy, and it's what we are here for. All you do is disrupt those discussions. When you start adding something positive to the forum instead of something negative, then this will be a better place. Until then, (and I'm sure I speak for many) you act as nothing but a nuisance.

I could just burst with contentment! Blue River, by obnoxiously lumping "all liberals" into one bucket, as if we HAD NO HUMAN DIFFERENCES, has brought about an old-fashioned Christmas Truce. Maybe it'll even last.

Summed up, by a good, tough video about the rottenness of war:

rjm

The problem with this thread is that there has been solid, logical reasoning as to why performing in Las Vegas would be destructive to one's career other than that said fans don't care for ballads and MOR type material. More specifically there hasn't been any evidence presented whatsoever why Vegas would be destructive to Elvis specifically other than that he played their for a very long time.

I've always taken umbrage when later Elvis is classified as a lounge singer, not because a cabaret singer is a bad thing but because compared to actual cabaret singers Elvis' phrasings was always too gospel inflected with too much country twang and too conversational. Elvis as Johnny Tyrone in Harum Scarum singing "Go East Young Man" is far more lounge than That's the Way it is.

The problem with this thread is that there has not been solid, logical reasoning as to why performing in Las Vegas would be destructive to one's career other than that said fans don't care for ballads and MOR type material. More specifically there hasn't been any evidence presented whatsoever why Vegas would be destructive to Elvis specifically other than that he played their for a very long time.

I thought I went into quite a bit of detail, but my principal point is that it isolated him from any genuine musical community. If fact, it helped to just completely isolate him. It was worse than the film sets, where there were other actors at work, with whom he could interact. As I said, other musicians came to pay homage; not to really get together. (He did jam with Tom Jones.) When Tony Joe White offered him a fishing trip, it was waved off out-of-hand.

Things could have perhaps been different in a different environment. I can't be sure of that, but it's worthwhile speculation.

The other points were musical, and rather specific at times. Such as Doc's observation that Elvis ended songs, sometimes, in such a way as to tell the audience when to applaud. Which is . . . "Vegas-ey."

Maybe this is not the right view - who knows, but it is a legitimate view, at least.

I don't think I have a problem with him doing "MOR" per se, but it depends on the particular piece of music itself, to see if it works, on a variety of levels. Elvis had always done a version of "MOR," but he did it in a really different way.

I've always taken umbrage when later Elvis is classified as a lounge singer, not because a cabaret singer is a bad thing but because compared to actual cabaret singers Elvis' phrasings was always too gospel inflected with too much country twang and too conversational. Elvis as Johnny Tyrone in Harum Scarum singing "Go East Young Man" is far more lounge than That's the Way it is.

Yes. But that's another thing: image. An image that really locked him in, I think. Perhaps one could see the leather-clad rocker as another trap, but that's conjecture. Clearly the Colonel wanted this image for him, perhaps as early as the mid-'60s, which is why "Johnny Tyrone" feels, to me, like a terrifying prophecy. You also see the cautionary tale, which is overt, in the "fancy nightclub" segment of the '68 Special. It's the one with the real nice black jacket, and it's very brief. The set design is alarmingly close to a parody of what the Showroom Internationale would look like! And that's where the sequence ended: after that moment, Elvis was back where he was most comfortable and at home, rockin' the blues in front of both an adoring small crowd, and an audience of 60,000,000, and he sang that (he) "ain't never, ever gonna look back. I'll never be more than what I am: well-ah, wouldn't you know? I'm a swingin' little guitar man."

What can I say?

rjm
P.S. -- If the Colonel wanted Elvis to go the "classy" route, he could AT LEAST have given him the opportunity to play Carnegie Hall! Where they would have thrown flowers at him, instead of dirty dinner napkins, with which he'd wipe his sweat and sling it back. (Thus starting "the scarves.") Elvis, unlike almost anyone you can name at that level, never had this experience. The Colonel didn't want him to have it. I've long had this fantasy scenario in my mind, of Elvis on stage at Carnegie Hall, dressed in that black Karate Gi of '69, and at the end of the show, picking up the flowers, with more flowers coming at him . . . but that is not how it happened.