All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:58 am

Lakeisha wrote:

And the poster who I quoted said "there's no such thing as black music" so I was putting them in their place. I don't think it was directed to you but to them.

********************************

Well I'm still not in my place......You missed my entire point because of narrow thinking. I do agree with you that r & b and blues originated with the blacks. Yes that is the history of music. THat was 200 years ago or whatever. Thanks for the history lesson, but you were labeling music as Black music that Elvis loved. Elvis didn't listen to the African's of years ago. By the time he heard it it was called R & b or just blues.

I listen to blues or R & b but that doesn't mean I am listening to Black music. Like I said music is music. I don't listen to music and try to figure out what color of skin the bass player has or where did a certain drum beat originate from, I listen to music for enjoyment.

Also Elvis had that country influence which makes some of his R & B covers have that touch of country which they coined Rock a billy. So he may have sang songs that were written by Black dudes, but his versions do not sound like their versions. They are totally different. Just compare his versions of his Sun and early RCA cover tunes with the originals and you see what I mean. He doesn't just copy them, he borrows here and there with different kinds of music to create his sound. Lakeisha, it is very difficult to put someone in their place when you are a 1000 miles away behind a keyboard. I do love your enthusiasm though.

Lakeisha one more thing. Since you like to label things the way you do, do you say that you are going to make a call on the "white phone" and get in your "white car" because those things were invented by white guys. Elvis listened to music ok. And he drove a car. And talked on the phone. Get it. Good.
Last edited by ekenee on Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:01 am

Lakeisha or Lake blackness whatever it is you want to be known as this week, this is Steve his most pale whiteness.

You really need to stop creating these racist remarks and racist situations. I think if not that you're gonna believe your own words after a while and give the illusion there was racisim in Elvis' career put up by him.

If Parker was so against all this why did he let what was regarded as "race music" into his rep in the 50's thus giving credit, merit and a career to lots of musicians who otherwise would have been outcast for longer due to the retarded policies of the honky whites in power ?

Re: Why does RCA continue to make Elvis sound so easy listen

Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:02 am

I suggest you one FTD CD "Elvis At The International"
That's the sound you looking for...

Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:42 am

Tits McGhee wrote:
If it hadn't been for Parker, then Elvis would have recorded with The Supremes as he desperately wanted to.


Where did you get this from?

He would have starred with Sidney Pontier in The Defiant ones.


This was never intended for Elvis. Sammy Davis Jnr. says it was in his autobiography, but he also stated that it was in the '60s. 'The Defiant Ones' was made in 1958.

Elvis would have had more blacks in his films, which he requested Barbara McNair to be in Change Of Habit and Parker didn't want her toi be in it but gave in.


Says who? You're making all this sh*t up just to suit your cause.

Parker didn't even want Elvis to work with The Sweets. That's why I called him a racist. Elvis wanted to do a blues album and Parker was against it and instead wanted a country folk album.


More unsubstantiated bollocks.

It was Parker who killed Elvis and his career


No, it was Elvis who killed Elvis.


Everything you just quoted by me is 100% acurate.

Joe Espisito says so about the Supremes in his book.

Barabara McNair has said this herself about Elvis not only wanting her but demanding she got some roll in the film. She was on a show last year and talked about how he stood up for racism and how she spent time with him during scenes.

Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:52 am

Steve_M wrote:Lakeisha or Lake blackness whatever it is you want to be known as this week, this is Steve his most pale whiteness.

You really need to stop creating these racist remarks and racist situations. I think if not that you're gonna believe your own words after a while and give the illusion there was racisim in Elvis' career put up by him.

OMG, how can you call me a racist when I am the minority here who is constantly bein racially attacked by a certain few here? :shock:

"Boomchickaboom boom" crap is exactly what I'm talkin about. But enough is enough.

And Steve, I'm not the one with a problem towards people's skin colour. It's a few others here that look at me as just another black girl in the wrong place. That's why I stand up for my race, culture and beliefs. You aren't black so you can't begin to understand that. You don't here me goin around callin people out due to race or religion. Besides, my baby's daddy is white and I love him very much. So don't call me a racist. I'm sorry if me bein upset about all the black attacks bothers some of you. But I have that right to stand up for myself whenever I feel discriminated against or attacked. And I'm gonna continue to stand up for myself.

Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:18 am

Boomchickaboom is a Johnny Cash reference.

I can see Lakeisha's point though because as many of us are, I am a very very very very pale white, nearly albino scrawny white-anglo-Euro-American. And when I hear certain racist comments they just tick me off. Phrases like,

White collar crime. White and crime in the same phrase.
White Elephant gift. Yeah just because its a cheap gift is has to be white.
White flag. Signals surrender. AS in giving up. Or beaten.
White wash. A glossing over of flaws. Which obviously exist because of the whiteness.
White trash. As in garbage.

Man if I could tan I would, but I burn. So I am forever to be tortured within my paleness. Never getting the respect those tanned individuals get on a daily basis.

When the blood pools in my hands and limbs I am a nice shade of purple.
I could go on and on about the discrimination that Purple-Americans get in today's fake tanned corporate America but I don't have the time.
Suffice to say that I am not getting any promotions or raises any time soon.
The purple albino American does not get the respect that he deserves based on his or her character. But I am getting tired. I must go now and rest my pink eyes.

Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:17 am

You really think you are in the minority here Lakeisha ?

maybe you are maybe you are not.

I would think i was in a smaller minority than you.

but what has minority got to do with race ?

You keep posting the racial content, not anyone else. you keep starting threads about race not anyone else.
you are the one who seems to want to bring the issue to the forefront, nothing wrong with that necessarily, but what is wrong is bringing it to the forefront and then blaming others for bringing up racial comments.

why do you have to point out your babys daddy is white ? what difference does it make ? Over here that would be deemd a racist comment to make because the color of a persons skin is not relevant to him being a daddy of your or anyones baby or not.

also like to point out that there's nothing wrong with making racial comments either. It's only wrong if its done to insite hatred or negatitvity purely on the basis of a persons color. But wrong or right it is the relevance I'm questioning as well as the frequnecy of it.

Like i say, just questioning.

Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:47 am

Well said Steverino.........

There is only one racial obsessive on this MB.

There is only one person who brings race into virtually every thread or post she participates in.

There is only one person so defensive that she finds "chickaboom" to be a racist slur.

Tilting at windmills.........

Windmills are from Holland.

Holland is overwhelmingly whitey.

Damn racist windmills. :lol:

Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:18 am

Moving on (or backwards?), the title of this thread still grates.

Elvis' legacy is secure just as that of Caruso, Crosby, Sinatra, Lennon, etc.

Sales for "physical music" are going down (see OFF-TOPIC thread from WS Journal) so why paint a moustache on "Mona Lisa" now?


And no one ever better covered Perry Como (twice!) than Elvis Presley! :D

There'll not be another ALLC-like smash, I'm betting. Let the bootleggers drop reggae beats (Ger?) behind CRYING IN THE CHAPEL if they must. (I sort of liked it :oops: ) but records just don't sell anymore and not by dead artists by and large.

That same article notes how well a recent DEAN MARTIN release did for EMI. But they don't mean he's in the Top Ten!
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why does

Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:29 am

... White Christmas...? Holey Santa! That is one questionable title!

Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:04 pm

Everything you just quoted by me is 100% acurate.

Joe Espisito says so about the Supremes in his book.


Esposito is hardly a reliable source, is he? Is that the same book he says Elvis recorded 'Let It Be'? (or 'Long And Winding Road' or some other Beatles song he never did - can't remember which one)


Barabara McNair has said this herself about Elvis not only wanting her but demanding she got some roll in the film. She was on a show last year and talked about how he stood up for racism and how she spent time with him during scenes.


Isn't is strange that whenever you read or hear an interview with an Elvis co-star they turn out to have been the most important person in Elvis' life? Elvis demanded she got the role in the film? Gimme a break. When did Elvis ever demand a particular co-star? He never demanded a decent script, so why would he demand certain co-stars?

Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:24 pm

you gotta read the book, "Elvis - The REAL Truth" by his dry cleaner. :wink:

Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:05 am

wow - where's drjohncrapenter to make his trademark 'racist' accusations against the people arguing with Lakeisha ?


Doc's so hasty to label and point fingers other times.

Why not now?

Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:22 pm

kevan needs to mix the 1970s songs whoever has before don't know crap about how to mix the 70s songs.kb is the best mixer they have.
ferreante sucks.

Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:56 pm

KB doesn't re-mix, does he ? I think he remasters without changing the mix, but i ain't a 100% on that.

Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:44 am

Steve_M wrote:KB doesn't re-mix, does he ? I think he remasters without changing the mix, but i ain't a 100% on that.
As of today you are 100% correct on that one Steve.

Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:20 pm

You guys are getting confused with what this remixing thing means.

1.Re-mix is the way they did ALLC and Rubberneckin, where it was to put a new backing mix over the orginal still heard in the new mix. To create a new recording.


2.Remix means to update, upgrade, or improve the orginal mixed sound on the recording by digitally remixing the orginal multi-channel recordings into a newer mix, a la The Memphis Record, Aloha and Promised Land. This is NOT meant to give it a new re-recorded sound but to enhance the orginal with a newer mix using the original music to give it a more clearer and up-to-date sound.

Example-Aloha From Hawaii video compared to the newer Delux version on dvd. The new dvd version was remixed using the orginal backing track but updated to modern day sound and standards in Dolby 5.1 without re-recording any of the original music.

This is the type of "remix" that I have been tryin to get across. Not a Hip Hop rap re-mix of an Elvis song as some asume. That's for a totally different topic.

I am sure many younger fans like myself would LOVE to hear Elvis' orginal tracks from the multi-channel mixes updated to where they have punch and life given to them. Not flat base and drums burried in the orginal mix. That's what I mean by "easy listening". Not necessarily the song itself, but more of the mix of the song.

Example-Mary In The Morning. Listen to how the drums are so far lost in this recording that it sounds like they're in the next room. The drums should be mixed in the middle and clear to hear them,not burried to where they almost aren't there. Listen to how Elvis' voice fades in the bad mix of the overdubbs and the strings overtake the music. The song may be considered "easy listening" but the sound and mix is very weak.

Another example-Whole Lotta Shakin Goin On. The orginal has a low base line and the undubbed version has the basline and drums mixed together as it should be and by that they give a more stronger sound an appeal to the recording. There's no reason why they can't remix the orginal to have that same strong feel.

I can understand some thinking that Elvis' music (is sacred and is like the Bible, but it's not) they should be left alone and as they are, that's your right to feel that way. But to younger ears as myself, the music sounds dull compared to some of the other music from those same era's of artists. And by that we should be given an updated version of the orginals by enhancing the sound, not re-recording it. That was the whole purpose of E-1, was to enhance the sound to newer ears.

In 2007, I think it would be the perfect time for RCA to do a cd or 2 cd set of 70's studio recordings only and remix the sound into dolby format to be played on either stereo or dvd format. With improved sound and mix, this would be the best sound improvement ever concerning Elvis' recordings! There's a lot of great '70's recordings that are begging for an upgrade in sound and mix.

If You Don't Come Back
Rasied On Rock
Patch It Up
Sylvia
It's Only Love
Just Pretend
Mary In The Morning
I'll Never Fall In Love Again
It's Easy For You
etc, etc

Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:42 pm

You mean re-mastered using the original sounds only ? Are you sure you mean re-mixed ?

ALLC was not re mixed, it kept the original mix and just had new tracks added over the old ones.

Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:37 pm

Steve_M wrote:You mean re-mastered using the original sounds only ? Are you sure you mean re-mixed ?

ALLC was not re mixed, it kept the original mix and just had new tracks added over the old ones.


No Steve, I mean remixed not remastererd. Remastered is where you only clear up the orginal and leave it in tact as it was orginally mixed. There's a difference in remaster and remix.

ALLC was a re-mix.

Look in the credits for the 1998 reissue of Aloha. It says "Remixed and Mastered by Dennis Ferrante BMG Studios, NewYork.

Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:12 pm

I think the meaning of the phrase, "re-mix" has changed over the years. I believe Lakeisha is correct but so is Steve. What we used to call "over-dubbing" is now referred to as "re-mix", because you are in essence mixing the old record with a new track.

I do agree with Lakeisha in that I think they should try to get the best possible sound out of the original tapes. But its a touchy thing. You are messing around with the approved sound of the time. I wouldn't want them to put all the drums and bass up front on all songs as in a formula. I think it depends on the song. Some songs sound better with just a touch of bass. Some work better with the drums as a "back-beat" and be somewhat in the background. There is never going to be agreement on this. Some are going to prefer a certain sound over the other.
Lakeisha sometimes "less is more". You hold back a little to get an over-all better feel for the track, rather than shoving the bass down your throat. I like bass too, but i don't want the bass and drums overtaking the track and covering Elvis or some softer played instruments.

But, I don't have a problem with most of the 70's songs as far as the way they sound. I still think the key to a great mix is, is you should hear everything, but shouldn't hear one thing in particular. If one things stands out TOO much, then it is obviously mixed way too up front. That is my no-nonsense policy on this in a nut shell.

Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:35 am

The base and drums should be mixed together and more in the middle of the recording. One thing to note, Elvis' music may be legendary but it's not selling to a mtv generation as it could with better sound/mixes and promo. Otherwise Elvis is no better off as Sinatra or other dead artists when it comes to past music.

Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:15 am

One thing to note, Elvis' music may be legendary but it's not selling to a mtv generation as it could with better sound/mixes and promo. Otherwise Elvis is no better off as Sinatra or other dead artists when it comes to past music.


So with your logic, all dead artists that in your opinion do not appeal to the "mtv generation" should have their catalogues revamped with re-recorded music behind their voices for a more contemporary flair in order to sell more music to a younger generation. You basically have no respect for musical history and Elvis' musical history. You have no appreciation for the efforts and creativity of all the great artists from previous generations simply because they do not appeal to 20 year olds who prefer Green Day and Beyonce. Your "mtv generation" wouldn't buy or download an album of Elvis remixes regardless and in the end all it would do is tarnish and destroy the recording legacy of one of music's greatest talents. As someone else pointed out, an example of your logic would be to alter the Mona Lisa. Enough people are trying to rewrite history with Elvis' image, try to keep the music intact.

Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:01 am

Yeah, paint over the Mona Lisa, good analogy. the mtv generation would stop just long enough to catch a glimpse of the new M-Lisa before getting fed up and never know the foundations of genius that lay beneath. Once covered they never will either.

No re-mixes, just remasters.

One thing we really should respect is the musical talent of the guys who laid down the music in the first place never mind Elvis' vocals. As well as Scotty and Bill Elvis had some of the best sessions guys ever, now or then, why hide that up.

It is never-the-less hard to draw a line of acceptance as to what should hnd shouldn't be done to Elvis' music and who's opinion should carry weight when it comes to deciding that something does improve it in order that more of the original work can be heard.
David Bendeths work was top drawer stuff, but even that seems to have drwn critisism from some quarters. Kevan Budds work is alos met with a seal of approval.

But just delving in to the individual tracks to pluck the drum and bass out and lift them up is not where its at only for right now and right now is gone by tomorrow, the mtv degeneration will be bored and be demanding something "new" by 11.30am.

Re: Why does

Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:57 am

Lakeisha wrote:
Tallhair AKA Ger Rijff wrote:... To please you, Lakeisha, lets hope RCA, in the future will call in some members from a Rap Band to lay down some fat drums and bass overdubs on these "dated" Elvis Recordings...KATCHAKKA BOOM, KATCHAKKA BOOM...


Look who's starting racist tention now? That's an ignorant racist comment you just made. I guess you're sayin because I'm black I like rap? :roll:



You are way too sensitive. Your post was about appealing to young audiences. Rap is a dominant musical style among the young, so Ger naturally used Rap as an example. That does not justify calling someone a racist. Do you realise how offensive it is to be called that?

Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:53 am

I agree that some of the mixes are weak. For example, "One Night In Vegas" sounds lame and dull. But the masters shouldn't be messed with. Just make sure they sound as good as the stuff on the "Elvis Is Back!" FTD.

Anyway, Elvis wouldn't gain a new, younger audience just because the bass and drums were mixed a little louder. That's ridiculous. And I can't see why it would be so important for Elvis to appeal to a younger audicence anyway.

Elvis' music sounds old because it is old. If I want to hear some new music, I pull out a Lil' Kim CD or whatever - I don't write a letter to Sony/BMG asking them to remix an Elvis song. You can't expect Elvis to satisfy all your needs.

Don't mess with his music.

Keith Richards, Jr.