All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:14 pm

Ok, I have called Elvis a junky and I still think he is. He didn't shot up in his mainline, he had his own nurse who gave him the shots in some other areas of his body. He didn't use herion, but similar stuff. He was a junky deluxe! I still believe Lamar's stories, even though he said (in the Memphis Mafia book) that he needed the money from the Goldman book because he was a gambler back then. Bad for him, the book sold well and he could have been wealthy. Neverthenless Elvis is my idol, but I don't think that idols have to be perfect. Natalie Wood told the press, that Elvis could sing very well, but he can't do much else. I think she was right, but I like Elvis for his singing. And until now I have heard nobody with such a great voice and such an ability to entertain people. As a person (I know only from various books of cause), I don't think that I would have called him a friend. Sorry.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:22 pm

Although I prefer the term medical-addict (less pejorative), .......... "Axeman" is ultimately right - on a number of levels.

Such hair-splitting was also the reasoning behind much of the denial that ultimately led to EP's own demise.


N8
... just a fan ....

Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:43 pm

That's it! Elvis was a junky (I still use this term), but he had a huge team that helped him survive and that helped him to look as good as possible. With money and a faithfull supporting team you can do a lot to make the problem looking not so bad. You can cover a lot and with all those believing people around here it's easy to do so.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:43 pm

To me, calling Elvis a "junkie" is classless, it's image is of a person, locked in a room, shooting heroin all day and then being a desperado, stealing and borrowing money to keep their habit going.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:55 pm

I am not responsible for the images in your head. But in the end Elvis wasn't that far from it.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:04 pm

Some of you guys are thinking of the term 'junkie' in too narrow a context.

Whatever meaning it started out with, it has become to mean anyone who over-indulges in something.

Like a collector of old records might be called a 'vinyl junkie'.

Those with good appetites might be called 'food junkies'.

'Junkie XL' got the nickname from working long hours in his studio.

In popular usage, the word has moved on from its original drug connotation.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:36 pm

ColinB wrote:Some of you guys are thinking of the term 'junkie' in too narrow a context.

Whatever meaning it started out with, it has become to mean anyone who over-indulges in something.

Like a collector of old records might be called a 'vinyl junkie'.

Those with good appetites might be called 'food junkies'.

'Junkie XL' got the nickname from working long hours in his studio.

In popular usage, the word has moved on from its original drug connotation.


In the drug world, being a "junkie" is as low as a person can go, and that's the meaning to which a couple of posters have used in speaking about EP and his abuse of "prescribed" medicine. It's about respect for the man and not overstating something. I'm sorry, being a junk food junkie is not looked upon with utter disdain as that of a junkie drug user, no frickin way. I don't care what anybody says.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:59 pm

Joe is correct. What some of you should try to bear in mind is that the reason why Goldman and others use the term 'junkie' in reference to Elvis is to paint him in an extremely bad light. It's not about brutal honesty, it's a smear! We Elvis fans should not tolerate that. If that's the way it's going to be then anytime there's a reference to Lennon or Hendrix or Joplin in the music trades that refers to their addictions whilst Elvis is called a junkie, then we should take them to task for that hypocritical double standard.

The bottom line: those who call Elvis a junkie do so to smear him.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:16 pm

It's not nice to say, that Elvis was a fat junkie in the end. You can also call him an overweight medication addicted human being. But the problems remain the same, no matter what term you might use.

8)

Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:08 pm

dl wrote:It's not nice to say, that Elvis was a fat junkie in the end. You can also call him an overweight medication addicted human being. But the problems remain the same, no matter what term you might use.

8)


I must say that you do have a lovely way with words.

I have always believed that the drug problem Elvis had was not the real cause of his death.

The main cause of Elvis's death was his eating habits.Its been proved that his colon was blocked which is why he had the fatal heart attack.

If Elvis took the amount of different pills they said he took he would have O.D'd years before.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:21 pm

Sean Ryan wrote:
If Elvis took the amount of different pills they said he took he would have O.D'd years before.


Well, he did suffer a few near misses !

I think it's fair to say his long abuse of prescription drugs at least contributed to his heart failing at such a young age.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:33 pm

Sean Ryan wrote:I have always believed that the drug problem Elvis had was not the real cause of his death.

The main cause of Elvis's death was his eating habits.Its been proved that his colon was blocked which is why he had the fatal heart attack.


Sean -
The colon problem was likely a side effect of the pill abuse, particularly the downers.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:47 pm

dl wrote:I am not responsible for the images in your head. But in the end Elvis wasn't that far from it.


That may be true, but using these terms to describe Elvis, particularly around non fans or where they can read it, will conjure an image to them that will close their minds to the music and talent of Elvis Presley, and continue their idea that that's all Elvis ever was. And while people can say "they should be bigger than that", we can look at what's said about other artists on this board who have problems, and see that not many people are.

But by reading your quote, that doesn't matter...

Again, just my two cents. Something to think about.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:21 pm

JamieAKelley wrote:
dl wrote:I am not responsible for the images in your head. But in the end Elvis wasn't that far from it.


That may be true, but using these terms to describe Elvis, particularly around non fans or where they can read it, will conjure an image to them that will close their minds to the music and talent of Elvis Presley, and continue their idea that that's all Elvis ever was. And while people can say "they should be bigger than that", we can look at what's said about other artists on this board who have problems, and see that not many people are.

But by reading your quote, that doesn't matter...

Again, just my two cents. Something to think about.


Very well said Jamie!

Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:53 pm

I agree.
It doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out junkie and Elvis are two words that fans dont want to see next to each other.

If people like 'dl' come on here and ,even though thats what they think, then they should keep their opinions to themselves and dont put their thoughts on this messageboard.

What a Moby. :roll:

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:09 am

Back to the original question, I think Lamar could care less.

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:37 am

Pete Dube wrote:Joe is correct. What some of you should try to bear in mind is that the reason why Goldman and others use the term 'junkie' in reference to Elvis is to paint him in an extremely bad light.


I'm inclined to agree with this. Goldman, in particular, knew the power of words and chose those which carried the maximum pejorative effect. Take his distortion of Sam Phillips' original quotation, "If I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a million dollars", to, "If I could find a white boy who sang like a deleted - see guidelines #2, I could make a billion dollars". The former, of course, is a simultaneous expression of Phillips' recognition and frustration of the socio-political climate fused with a genuine longing and desire, perhaps, to one day realise that ideal, yet the latter, now infamous, is nothing but a despicable distortion designed to make Phillips appear racist, ruthless and motivated entirely by greed. Goldman deliberately took all the beauty and nuance out of Phillips' real phrasing and reduced it to something crude and incriminating.

And yet... in many senses of the word, Elvis WAS a "junkie". There's just no getting around that fact. Though, as is clear from the responses in this thread, some people would rather play the "ostrich" game...

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:33 am

Cryogenic wrote:
And yet... in many senses of the word, Elvis WAS a "junkie". There's just no getting around that fact. Though, as is clear from the responses in this thread, some people would rather play the "ostrich" game...


Cryogenic -
While there certainly are those who play the 'ostrich game' when it comes to Elvis' addiction, most of us object to the 'junkie' label because of how it was used as a smear, and also because the drugs and weight stuff was all you heard about in the 5 years or so after he died.

Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:44 am

I've read all the books I have found on Elvis, I agree paper won't refuse ink, but after reading what I have read I realize he was not a saint, he was the king and as a result of being the king became his own prisoner. He was introduced to drugs while in the army and his drug habbit grew with his lack of freedom of movement most of us enjoy. It is true that he used many non-hallucinogenio drugs near the end; he was miserable, alone, and getting old. However, I would never call him a junky out of respect, nevertheless he was a drug addict, but that never changed him from who he was, Elvis was the real deal and that's the bottom line.

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:56 am

Pete Dube wrote:In it's original connotation the word 'junkie' referred to a heroin addict. Heroin was known as 'junk.' I know what I'm talking about here folks because 2 of my 4 older sisters were heroin addicts. So when people refer to Elvis as a junkie they don't know what the f#ck they're talking about. He was a pill addict. But he was no 'junkie' in the true sense of the word.


Folks, I came on way too strong in the post above, for that I apologize. The 'junkie' thing is a hot button issue for me because of my 2 sisters (who are deceased).

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:15 pm

Pete Dube wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:In it's original connotation the word 'junkie' referred to a heroin addict. Heroin was known as 'junk.' I know what I'm talking about here folks because 2 of my 4 older sisters were heroin addicts. So when people refer to Elvis as a junkie they don't know what the f#ck they're talking about. He was a pill addict. But he was no 'junkie' in the true sense of the word.


Folks, I came on way too strong in the post above, for that I apologize. The 'junkie' thing is a hot button issue for me because of my 2 sisters (who are deceased).


Sorry to hear about your sisters, Pete.

Obviously the word will always resonate with you in a more personal way than it does with most of us.

Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:51 pm

Thanks for the kind words Colin.

Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:05 pm

and i lived at a rehab program in mexico for 10 months watching girls who actually do qualify as hard-core illegal drug addicts. my depression/isolationism/asperger's syndrome stuff wasn't a blip on the bad radar.

pete dube is absolutely correct that heroin is where junk and junkie comes from.

prescription pills is a serious problem, but elvis deserves to be in the category of marilyn monroe & judy garland (who ALWAYS get their drugs called pills, rather than heroine, crack, coke, etc...). really, pills carries a different connotation, and one that isn't 'illegal', 'stoned', and 'junkie'.

you might think i have rose-colored glasses, but i also see how things like depression and the times in which he lived (when the consequences of pill dependancy weren't as well known). you can't blame elvis for being a man of his time, when legal and illegal drugs were seen as entirely different. one was just seen as medicine and one was considered that hippie stuff that had some legality problems.

elvis was most certainly not a junkie. he was only guilty of polypharmacy--just as dangerous, but legal.

i'm sure all the little old ladies that overdose on pills, or people who have too many doctors prescribing them things without consulting other doctors (whether the person getting the meds is guilty of using multiple doctors or not), appreciate getting called junkies.

Re: Does Lamar Fike regret helping Goldman with that book?

Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:49 pm

Lamar has little credibility. Billy Smith sad clear in the RMM book one time: "Oh, it's just one of the Lamar's stories". So Lamar changed his stories like the wind, and I cannot forget that he, too, he wanted a revenge to Elvis because Presley many times made Lamar a butt of his jokes