Elvis doing 2 shows a day on tour was crazy.

You are still wrong about here in the states and in other pats of the world. I don't know about the UK but in 1976 and 1977 Elvis had a unique level of fame. Any little thing he did was big news. When he came here to Aspen and Vail Colorado to vacation in 1976, it was all over the news. When he came here to Denver and was giving away Cadillacs and Lincolns it was big news. When he came here to perform in 1976, they only ran one radio commercial and his show sold out faster than any other artist to date. Faster than Paul McCartney. And the media here went crazy when he came to perform. It was front page news, taking up the whole front page for 2 days! TV weathermen were doing the weather dressed up like Elvis! Same was true when he performed in Chicago. My friend gave me the newspapers that had full color pictures on the front page. In record stores, his records were always well stocked with almost all of his available releases. The 2 record stores I used to go to had Elvis walls that had all of his records displayed and of course he was the king of the tabloids and movie magazines, being on their covers a and having stories more than any other celebrity. There were special magazines that came out in 74, 75, 76, and 77 that were dedicated to only Elvis. There was an article that ran in the Parade magazine in early 1977 about how Elvis was have a resurgence in Germany and his records were selling record amounts. When Elvis died, it was huge here. TV was interrupted in the middle of shows to report the news. There were network tv specials that same night. radio stations went to playing only Elvis records. I went to my favorite record store that night and people were lined up with stacks of Elvis records in there hands openly crying. So no, Elvis hadn't dropped off the face of the earth by 1977 here in the states.

I didn't say that Elvis wasn't important in America, because he clearly was, but are we talking about the same Elvis Presley who was being ridiculed by magazines in the supermarkets at every checkout? It seems to me that your trying to have it all ways. Next you will telling me he could play a flute from his ass

Wow! What's wrong with you?

"But he never rarely bothered to learn new material"

Fans booed him in 74 when he wanted to try new songs.....he shouldve just done them anyway and told those that didnt want to hear em to leave.

Whoa! When did fans ever boo him for trying new songs?

An evil manager, bad press and stupid fans - poor Elvis!

Fans booed him in 74 when he wanted to try new songs.

Stop it.

You are still wrong about here in the states and in other pats of the world. I don't know about the UK but in 1976 and 1977 Elvis had a unique level of fame. Any little thing he did was big news. When he came here to Aspen and Vail Colorado to vacation in 1976, it was all over the news. When he came here to Denver and was giving away Cadillacs and Lincolns it was big news. When he came here to perform in 1976, they only ran one radio commercial and his show sold out faster than any other artist to date. Faster than Paul McCartney. And the media here went crazy when he came to perform. It was front page news, taking up the whole front page for 2 days! TV weathermen were doing the weather dressed up like Elvis! Same was true when he performed in Chicago. My friend gave me the newspapers that had full color pictures on the front page. In record stores, his records were always well stocked with almost all of his available releases. The 2 record stores I used to go to had Elvis walls that had all of his records displayed and of course he was the king of the tabloids and movie magazines, being on their covers a and having stories more than any other celebrity. There were special magazines that came out in 74, 75, 76, and 77 that were dedicated to only Elvis. There was an article that ran in the Parade magazine in early 1977 about how Elvis was have a resurgence in Germany and his records were selling record amounts. When Elvis died, it was huge here. TV was interrupted in the middle of shows to report the news. There were network tv specials that same night. radio stations went to playing only Elvis records. I went to my favorite record store that night and people were lined up with stacks of Elvis records in there hands openly crying. So no, Elvis hadn't dropped off the face of the earth by 1977 here in the states.

I didn't say that Elvis wasn't important in America, because he clearly was, but are we talking about the same Elvis Presley who was being ridiculed by magazines in the supermarkets at every checkout? It seems to me that your trying to have it all ways. Next you will telling me he could play a flute from his ass

Wow! What's wrong with you?

Seriously

"But he never rarely bothered to learn new material"

Fans booed him in 74 when he wanted to try new songs.....he shouldve just done them anyway and told those that didnt want to hear em to leave.

Whoa! When did fans ever boo him for trying new songs?

Boo is prolly a strong word but I did hear the fans weren't all that keen on hearing the new songs , they wanted same old , same old (JR , BSS etc)

I think the fans would've appriciated the new songs had he worked them more into the show.

I don't think it's fair to compare Elvis's show length with younger acts.

But Elvis was never anything BUT young.

Bruce is still giving ridiculously long (3-4 hour) concerts and I'm not even GUESSING what age he is. I saw Cliff Richard in 1997 when he was considerably older than Elvis and he gave an extremely energetic 3 and a half hour show.

We have to be realistic here. Elvis was just a guy. It was his job. Most people work all day (or night) for 5 or six days a week with about 4 weeks leave per year. When you look at it that way - singing twice a day for 50 minutes is a bit of all right.

Paul McCartney plays 3 hours shows now, and he´s almost 71

But Paul does not do much on stage. Just stands there. its not as if he dances or runs around.

He is also twice Elvis's age. And, to be fair, I don't remember Elvis dancing on stage, or running around. I do remember footage of him pacing up and down the stage with a microphone in his hand (very tiring), and handing our scarves (exhausting).

Doesn´t paul do anything on stage? Except singing, I always thought he played bass, guitar and piano?

"But he never rarely bothered to learn new material"

Fans booed him in 74 when he wanted to try new songs.....he shouldve just done them anyway and told those that didnt want to hear em to leave.

Whoa! When did fans ever boo him for trying new songs?

Boo is prolly a strong word but I did hear the fans weren't all that keen on hearing the new songs , they wanted same old , same old (JR , BSS etc)

I think the fans would've appriciated the new songs had he worked them more into the show.

I can´t hear any "boos" when I listen to that show. But perhaps, the crowd doesn´t get as wild as usual when he did "Down in the alley" as they did when he sang "Hound dog", which is sad.

"But he never rarely bothered to learn new material"

Fans booed him in 74 when he wanted to try new songs.....he shouldve just done them anyway and told those that didnt want to hear em to leave.

Whoa! When did fans ever boo him for trying new songs?

Boo is prolly a strong word but I did hear the fans weren't all that keen on hearing the new songs , they wanted same old , same old (JR , BSS etc)

I think the fans would've appriciated the new songs had he worked them more into the show.

I can´t hear any "boos" when I listen to that show. But perhaps, the crowd doesn´t get as wild as usual when he did "Down in the alley" as they did when he sang "Hound dog", which is sad.

While that show is interesting to fans, anyone at that show must have been stunned at the performance Elvis gave - not because of the new songs, but because it was so lacklustre. Elvis is hardly firing on all cylinders, and his speech is noticeably slurred - I'm sue that accounts for much of the reason why the audience is subdued...shock.

I have heard the audience recording from the August opening night show and I heard no difference in the crowd reaction than I do from any other Vegas show from that time. I don't believe the crowd wasn't responsive as much as I do that Elvis was uncomfortable with it.

It was much easier for him to go back and do what he was familiar with.

I agree that Elvis doesn´t sound 100% into it at the august 19 show, but on some of the ´"new" songs like Good time Charlie...", he sounds as good as ever. But on Big boss man he sounds a bit off.

I agree that Elvis doesn´t sound 100% into it at the august 19 show, but on some of the ´"new" songs like Good time Charlie...", he sounds as good as ever. But on Big boss man he sounds a bit off.

Yeah, but look at the off-colour jokes in Good Time Charlie - is that the sort of thing you want to hear a performer say? It must have seemed very odd behaviour at the time, whereas now we're kind of accustomed to the sorts of things Elvis was saying and doing.

I asked the question, was it normal for a star of Elvis's stature in the 70's (arguably the biggest music star in the world) to be doing 2 shows a day. To me, it seems crazy that some one as big as Elvis had to have such a hectic schedule, whether he worked only 93 days or not. When he was working his schedule seemed too grueling for someone as big and established as him. In that question I am alluding to the psychological toll and of course the increased drug use. I didn't think I needed to spell those out. They are a given. It seems that his schedule should have been more slower paced when he was on tour. I also wondered if it was the norm for any other performers at the time. I don't think it was. I don't recall any other performers like McCartney, Neil Diamond, Led Zepplin, etc. doing an afternoon and evening show the same day. If there was high ticket demand they would add a second show the next night, not an afternoon show the same day. Like I said, except for seeing Johnny Cash on a Sunday afternoon in the 80's, I have never been to a afternoon concert. That just seems strange. Vegas seemed more logical; a dinner show at 7:30 and then a midnight show.

After that you came up with all these things about stars having to do talk shows and videos and how it's so much harder for stars today than for Elvis which I don't agree. You also floated some lame theory on how Elvis was much more protected that todays stars which I clearly debunked. Stars today (even lower wrung stars) have publicists, agents, professional assistants, professional accountants and full time attorneys. All Elvis had was the Colonel. Elvis was really under represented compared to today's stars.

So I will ask the question again; Was there any stars at or near Elvis's stature doing 2 shows a day (a afternoon and evening show) in the 70's ?

BTW; telling someone they are wrong about something is not being rude.

Wrong on ALL counts, Nothing debunked!

So Elvis was being so well protected by the Colonel when all the unflattering photos of him were splashed all over the tabloid and movie magazine covers on display in every supermarket check out line, drugstore and newsstand around the world in 75, 76, 77 and beyond? Was he so well protected if covers like the National Lampoon were able to come out making him a national joke? Was he so well protected if Elvis What Happened was allowed to come out or his picture in his casket was able to be published on the cover of the National Enquirer? So how was Elvis so much more protected than today's stars? Do tell!

Sure, tell me which of it wasn't Elvis' fault and then imagine what that would translate into via social media in the modern age

It was ultimately the Colonel's fault. Elvis wasn't protected at all by his manager. Elvis shouldn't have been on stage in that condition for the "paparazzi" to take those pictures that landed in the tabloids and movie magazines. The Colonel should have treated it like when he was in the army. They should have focused on alternate income streams like his records and merchandising while he was made to get into shape.
Given top notch material, Elvis was still capable of having hit records. In 1977, his 56 pink Cadillac came to our big auto show and it attracted the biggest crowds in the Tri-State Auto Show history and his donated Silver Phoenix Jumpsuit attracted huge crowds at a church bizarre. The Colonel could have set up a touring exhibition like when they toured his gold dust Caddy limo in the 60's.Elvis-What Happened should have been stopped in it's tracks by negotiating with the West's. Elvis was sorely under-managed and under-protected in the 70's. For you Matt, to suggest Elvis was so well protected is ridicules.

Elvis's drug use was successfully kept under wraps by the wall of secrecy that Elvis had built up with his guys and that I would credit to Elvis. I don't think the Colonel had anything to do with that.

Elvis's drug use was successfully kept under wraps by the wall of secrecy that Elvis had built up with his guys and that I would credit to Elvis. I don't think the Colonel had anything to do with that.

You would credit it to Elvis? Perhaps more credit to Elvis if he hadn't partaken in the drug use to start with!

Elvis's drug use was successfully kept under wraps by the wall of secrecy that Elvis had built up with his guys and that I would credit to Elvis. I don't think the Colonel had anything to do with that.

You would credit it to Elvis? Perhaps more credit to Elvis if he hadn't partaken in the drug use to start with!

Well yeah, that's a given but it was successfully kept under wraps until the West's were fired because of the wall of secrecy Elvis had built up around him.

I don't mean to absolve Elvis of his failings when it comes to drugs but upper and downer and diet pill use was rampant in Hollywood and the music business in the 50's 60's and 70's and it was all prescribed. We have a friend who worked as a personal assistant to several stars including Bob Hope and he said they all used "pep pills" and sleeping pills to cope with their demanding schedules. Even Bob Hope! So what Elvis was doing was really the norm in Hollywood. It just got out of control. We now know that even President Kennedy had a Dr. Feelgood!

Elvis's drug use was successfully kept under wraps by the wall of secrecy that Elvis had built up with his guys and that I would credit to Elvis. I don't think the Colonel had anything to do with that.

You would credit it to Elvis? Perhaps more credit to Elvis if he hadn't partaken in the drug use to start with!

Well yeah, that's a given but it was successfully kept under wraps until the West's were fired because of the wall of secrecy Elvis had built up around him.

I don't mean to absolve Elvis of his failings when it comes to drugs but upper and downer and diet pill use was rampant in Hollywood and the music business in the 50's 60's and 70's and it was all prescribed. We have a friend who worked as a personal assistant to several stars including Bob Hope and he said they all used "pep pills" and sleeping pills to cope with their demanding schedules. Even Bob Hope! So what Elvis was doing was really the norm in Hollywood. It just got out of control. We now know that even President Kennedy had a Dr. Feelgood!

I'm not sure it was even kept under wraps. Nobody goes on stage and delivers performances like those in the summer and autumn of 1974 and think their drug habit is kept under wraps. But yes, I know what you mean.

Listening to Hamptons Road 1972 show as I read through this thread i have mixed emotions.
First you can't compare Elvis from the 70's to todays standard of media attention.
The shows i thought stopped in 1976 when it became apparent Elvis was not up for 2 shows a day anymore due to his addiciton, and rapidly declining health due to self destruction on his part. I recall reading lastnight in "a lonely life ends" book that Dr nick went to Vernon and Colonel and told them we could save him or atleast a better chance if we can cut down the shows less than what they were doing, because in Vegas and on the road well mainly Vegas he couldn't control Elvis' drug intake because of other physicians, its obvious why they went to one show a day.

And on top of this, to compare to how hard Elvis had it being Elvis, compared to these stars you call them today is a joke. very few reach that level Elvis did, and Michael Jackson, etc, people like brittney spears in the there level, please. I think Elvis had a hard time being himself towards the end more than any of us can imagine.

I think this thread is kind of indicative of how this board has jumped the shark. I mean it's one thing to have a clear eyed assessment; it's another to have a vision so warped by negativity you don't even understand why said artist would be worthy of such discussion today. Really, when I come on here I wonder why Elvis didn't just cut his throat in 1960 given that his rest of his career would be nothing but a string of disappointments that insulted his fan base and anyone smart enough to buy a record from another artist.

I mean it's one thing to give it to a lackluster film like Harum Scarum or some of the more embarrassing performances from 1976-1977, but it's almost become routine to trash various career highlights while never admitting simultaneously that anything could be underrated, to side with anyone but Elvis on any issue, to compare Elvis unfavorably to all manner of artists, no matter how mediocre said artists might be, ever changing goal posts on what is good and bad, with almost always the change in distance designed to condemn the artists in question, to set up a myth of perfection, which no one believes to be torn down, only to be replaced by a simultaneous myth of perfection that would have existed had Elvis not every wrong decision in the world, to compare the worst work of Elvis with the best of others (this was even done a thread that specifically compared Elvis' 1956 to the Beatles 1964 yet we still got comparisons of "Help" to "Roustabout.") Even the sainted '50s work gets slight revisions and pokes downward. Well he wasn't that much popular than the other artists. His redefining chart hits, well they're not that important because Lil' Wayne is just as important and popular now than Elvis was in the 1950s.

It's as if the board suffers from a collective pop Stockholm Syndrome. Because some guy in Palmyra has a shrine to Elvis in his den and regards him with religious like awe and some hipsters think that's lame, we have to go out of our way that we don't think our guy is special in anyway, that not only do we see his flaws we downright fixate on them.

When I come to a board like this, it's to share an enthusiasm and to gain further insight to that enthusiasm. While some posts like George Smith's wonderful exegesis of the birth of "That's All Right Mama" still do that, most of the posts here seem these days to be designed to demonstrate the poster's superiority to the artist and to his/her fellow fans.

Folks, Peter has opened my eyes and I've seen the light. I've wasted 42 of my almost 53 years on a fat, dope-taking, lazy-a$$ b*stard who was only good for maybe 6 years (if even that much). No more! I'm giving away my collection and am going to start seriously collecting Sinatra, since we all know that spaghetti strangling, mob-connected, toupee-wearing, woman beater was perfect.

I think you're being sarcastic.

Yeah, in hindsight I was perhaps a touch on the sarcastic side. And a tad unfair to Ol' Blue Eyes. He didn't strangle spaghetti.

I think this thread is kind of indicative of how this board has jumped the shark. I mean it's one thing to have a clear eyed assessment; it's another to have a vision so warped by negativity you don't even understand why said artist would be worthy of such discussion today. Really, when I come on here I wonder why Elvis didn't just cut his throat in 1960 given that his rest of his career would be nothing but a string of disappointments that insulted his fan base and anyone smart enough to buy a record from another artist.

I mean it's one thing to give it to a lackluster film like Harum Scarum or some of the more embarrassing performances from 1976-1977, but it's almost become routine to trash various career highlights while never admitting simultaneously that anything could be underrated, to side with anyone but Elvis on any issue, to compare Elvis unfavorably to all manner of artists, no matter how mediocre said artists might be, ever changing goal posts on what is good and bad, with almost always the change in distance designed to condemn the artists in question, to set up a myth of perfection, which no one believes to be torn down, only to be replaced by a simultaneous myth of perfection that would have existed had Elvis not every wrong decision in the world, to compare the worst work of Elvis with the best of others (this was even done a thread that specifically compared Elvis' 1956 to the Beatles 1964 yet we still got comparisons of "Help" to "Roustabout.") Even the sainted '50s work gets slight revisions and pokes downward. Well he wasn't that much popular than the other artists. His redefining chart hits, well they're not that important because Lil' Wayne is just as important and popular now than Elvis was in the 1950s.

It's as if the board suffers from a collective pop Stockholm Syndrome. Because some guy in Palmyra has a shrine to Elvis in his den and regards him with religious like awe and some hipsters think that's lame, we have to go out of our way that we don't think our guy is special in anyway, that not only do we see his flaws we downright fixate on them.

When I come to a board like this, it's to share an enthusiasm and to gain further insight to that enthusiasm. While some posts like George Smith's wonderful exegesis of the birth of "That's All Right Mama" still do that, most of the posts here seem these days to be designed to demonstrate the poster's superiority to the artist and to his/her fellow fans.

I love you, man.

Likethebike - one of the best!!!

Nice to see you, Red.

Where have you been Red?

Oh, and I LIKE ELVIS!!!

I LIKE ELVIS!!!

I'm not so sure.

I'm gonna be watching you.

I LIKE ELVIS!!!

I'm not so sure.

I'm gonna be watching you.

It's true... I have the button and everything!