All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:29 pm

oh man, I woke up this morning and found out I've been buying cd's all these years of Elvis and found out I'm not a fan. I knew I should've been buying shirts instead of the music or the videos. Why am I posting this anyway, it's not like you care! ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG.

"Some day I'll stuff it down your throat, dear boy"

Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:43 pm

Don't make threats that you can't back up.

First off, don't tell me what I can and can't write and second don't be telling people they are not fans because they don't go out and spend $10,000 dollars on a shirt. You don't like the responses your getting don't insult the very people who make up this board, who are real fans of his music, not his shirts, and by the way it wasn't a threat, it was a qoute.

Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:45 pm

ColinB wrote:I would say that the devotion of a fan cannot be measured by the size of their wallet or bank balance.

A fan, so penniless that they can't afford a single CD, may more devoted than a rich fan who buys everything.


Come on, guys, what do the rest of you think ?



My line of thinking mirrors yours exactly, Colin. Hey, we all puff out our chests from time to time when we come upon something which someone else may not have, but there does seem to be a group of collectors who have a childlike attitude when it comes to collecting. "This is ours, and you can't have it." It must get exhausting being so important.

It is not a jealousy on the part of those outside the "inner circle"; rather, a growing disdain for those who believe that fandom can be measured by material things. I have no greater respect for the collector who owns a closet-full of priceless artifacts than I do the guy down the street who owns nothing, but knows Elvis's career inside out. I used to be one who had to have everything, too, but my priorities changed over time. Now, I obtain what gives me the most pleasure.

I hold no animosity towards collectors in any field, unless they carry with them an over-inflated sense of self-worth; unfortunately, there are plenty of those around.

Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:04 pm

You represent a position that I can respect from afar, but (deleted - see guidelines #9),
for the sake of our eyes, please make use of (or learn how to use) the "quote function."

It's actually easier to use and easier for fellow FECC fans to read.

Onward with the debate. :D

Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:23 pm

I tend to side with folks who can provide hard facts vs. those who heard something from a friend of a friend.

Tom

Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:58 pm

(deleted - see guidelines #9) don't be put off by some folks on this board. People will always have different opionions. So be it. Your knowledge is appreciated by many including me. Thanks for sharing your information with us.

Pied piper

Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:04 pm

... I cant remember having ever knocked on your door? I had not heard of you till I started posting here in march of this year. If you have something to say about me than do so... You dont scare me that easily.

Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:04 pm

Initially my first thoughts were is that it is impossible to prove a negative. Like, "Elvis was not filmed" or "Elvis was not recorded", but there just as in law, there is different degrees of proof. On these types of rumors about long lost footage I always hold hope that someone did film it, but it just hasn't surfaced yet because no one knew about it. As Elvis fans we have been surprised by things just turning up and there wasn't even a pre-rumor to prepare us.

I think what EP collector says makes some sense and is logical. I believe it is circumstantial evidence but not absolute evidence, simply because you can't prove a negative. But circumstantially it does hold up.

Remember this was a film about the day in the life of a DJ. He was the central figure not the performers, so why film the acts in full when you know you won't use the film in the end. You still would think that they wouldv'e filmed some of the performance though.

In the end, what a mistake to make a film about a DJ no one remembers other than his association with Elvis but briefly, when they could have made a film about this new music called rock n roll and showcase some of these new up and coming preformers and the excitement they created.

Oh if someone had the insight to film what was really interesting, we would have a priceless film piece of the beginnings of rocknroll that we could enjoy for years to come. It was under theirs noses and they didn't see it.

Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:42 pm

Ekenee, good points. I think (deleted - see guidelines #9) made some interesting ones.
But also:

Marko wrote:(deleted - see guidelines #9) don't be put off by some folks on this board. People will always have different opionions. So be it. Your knowledge is appreciated by many including me. Thanks for sharing your information with us.


Yeah, really. There are no princes here. I thought (deleted - see guidelines #9) was given plenty of credence. For the record, it did seem that there was
some "discussion" if not debate, so I think you should calm down.

You also trivialize the rather knowledgeable folks here on FECC.

"(deleted - see guidelines #9)" wrote:
A thought just hit me.........why in the world would I or any collector of Elvis music, film, or artifacts of an unreleased nature, try to help those who are not in that area of collecting? Stupid on my part.

I also remembered why, I, nor anyone I know in that area do not share information with other fans. This thread is a prime example. When fans who have NOTHING to offer start to getting info, they simply tear it apart, call you a liar, stretch the truth, and basicly are more inclined to listen, and trust one of their own, than the owner, so to speak. Its a real shame. You all preach about wanting info, and knowledge, yet you shoot the very messenger bringing it to you. Go on and on, about how you FEEL a message is delivered, again facts don't change. I have delivered info YOU ALL wanted. I backed up sources, and presented to you an actual account of an event talked about for 50 years. I have proven that my posts are FACT, not speculation. The level of gratitude is zilch. So be it. I do not seek fame, nor fortune. Like all of you, I am a fan first, collector 2nd. I have provided valuable information for years on this site. I have also rumbled with the best. This board has gotten so bad, that it is no longer viewed as a valid source of information. Its nothing more than a school yard for the "Burning Love" boxer shorts crowd. Rest assured myself, and others with knowledge, footage, and artifacts to contribute, will no longer. Your better off listening to Ger Rijff, and his "expertise". Congrats on again severing another link to the very treasure you hoped to obtain.

EPCOLLECTORNote: Ger Rijff don't come knocking when the well runs dry again.


If this site was about "Burning Love" boxing shorts very few of us would
be here. Why the attitude..? :roll: Why so sensitive? Colin B. is the last
one I'd call a bully.

When you cop an attitude, be prepared for people to give you suggestions on how to post properly. Most of us are fair-minded and the real
schoolyard bullies are regularly (if not always) thrown out.

Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:09 pm

Message for the man down at the stable: can you please knock EP Collector off his high horse? Come to think of it, his postings smell worse than anything you'd find in a stable.

Cue reply with blue ink highlights - blah, blah, blah...

Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:15 pm

(deleted - see guidelines #9) wrote:Instead of lip service, deliver some sources.....I have.


Providing a list with names is not the same as delivering reliable sources.

Unlike you, my info is based on direct sources: Bill Randalls daughter and sister (P. Randall & R. Edwards) - the buyer of the audiotape ,the seller of the footage ...and people who saw the '55 screening (the unedited footage),etc. However, your info is merely based on second hand sources and is even far far from correct. You simply did not do your homework: first you rely on second hand sources, secondly you underestimate the intelligence of this MB by fabricating best-guess stories and now some facts have been posted, you try to defend yourself by delivering even more crap ? Pathetic indeed, classic.

Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:19 pm

It's sometimes hard to believe we're all fans of the same singer...! :shock:
ImageImage
:lol:

Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:53 pm

I have no problem with (deleted - see guidelines #9) sharing or not sharing information with fans. I couldn't care less about that. He has been quite forthcoming in most instances, and I appreciate his input to this board.

What irritates me is someone feeling they're better, or in some way more of a fan, just because he/she has access to certain material things. That might impress some--not me.

It is obvious by his comments that he feels he is an impressive figure in the "Elvis World," and my point is that he is no more/less important than many others on this board. I have plenty of Elvis "things," but I don't feel a need to strut my stuff looking for "oohs" and "ahhs."

Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:21 am

Fair enough.

I would also say that at this point we're dealing with diminishing returns.

What's left is not that much of a knock-out as with older finds years ago.

It's the reason why guys like Keith Flynn put up so much for free now.

Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:22 am

I thought some of you might be interested in seeing this....

From what I remember this article was in a People's Magazine
about 15 or 20 years ago...

Sorry I No longer have the magazine...from which this article came from.

PEP 8)

Image
Last edited by PEP on Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:35 am

By the way I just noticed in the article the writer indicates
Randle sold the footage 37 years later.

Original date of production was Oct 20th 1955.

The article was written in 1992.... approx. 13 years ago.....
I was able to confirm this by an advertisement on the
other side of the article page, which has a copyright date of 1992.

Interesting claims in the article are:

It indicates Randle booked Presley especially for this event
where its claimed Elvis was paid $350 to sing five songs.

Its suggested Randle paid the Film crew "extra" to shoot Elvis.

The article indicates Originally it was an British production company
which bought the footage from Randle in 1991 for $1.9 million.....

1991 is suggested because they say they bought the footage
the previous winter, so this would suggest 1991.

The article claims the New owner became PolyGram and inreturn
paid $2.2. million....

Article indicates footage is in Good condition.......

Lets hope the article is based on true facts and not fiction
and the story or the events are true......Time will tell.

PEP 8)

Image
Last edited by PEP on Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:45 am, edited 2 times in total.