All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:27 pm

The 50's Elvis changed our lives forever. The 70's Elvis made us proud, then slowly broke our hearts.
Last edited by Rob on Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:27 pm

Nice post Elvisgirl, regardless of your age.
I'm 44 and also find watching footage of Elvis's last years more compelling than many of his earlier performances.
rick

Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:37 pm

I loved it in the seventies collecting Elvis. It was a great time waiting for each new album to come out. Now because we have learned more about that time we are suposed to not love it as much now as we did when it was happening.(According to some)

My favourite is also the 70's Doc. But I appreciate the 50's and 60's Elvis as well. After all that lead to the 70's!!!!

Tue Feb 07, 2006 1:56 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Liverbobs wrote:... give me EP's last decade including '77 over the 50's anyday of the week ... my favourite period in EP's life

It never ceases to amaze me.

How can decline, depression and early death from drug abuse be the "favorite" period of any fan, when one can choose innovation, triumph, happiness and vibrant life?

DJC


Maybe the great music that he recorded during this period has something to do with it? Anyway Doc, some say the "decline" ( drug taking, behavioral issues etc) in Elvis kicked in as soon as his mother died. You aren't saying that in the 10 years before Elvis died there weren't any "great" periods. We'll have to agree to disagree

Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:02 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:How can decline, depression and early death from drug abuse be the "favorite" period of any fan, when one can choose innovation, triumph, happiness and vibrant life?

DJC


Gee I don't know proffessor, maybe it is because of what I said before. Funny how you call me "ignorant" for saying that Elvis looked high and then you make the statement above. :shock:

No one is "choosing" depression...etc. It is about identifying with mistakes, seeing that even in failure something very good came out of the Presley legacy. Sorry bud, but unlike you, it is his achievements past 1970 that we see. That is the Elvis that people will remember the most. For the art and for the image.

Like it or not Doc, it is just as important of a piece to the puzzle. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, and perhaps from Elvis' story many of us have learned from them, I know I have.

That and the fact that the music was alot more personal. Those are the songs I can hum the most to this day.

Sam nailed it perfectly....you needed the other decades as well to finish the story. That is what makes the 70's more meaningful.

Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:12 pm

How can decline, depression and early death from drug abuse be the "favorite" period of any fan, when one can choose innovation, triumph, happiness and vibrant life?



because it's filled with drama & tragedy worth Shakespeare

Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:16 pm

Hell yeah Raging Bull!!

Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:17 pm

I think alot of it is documentation.
In the 1960's people think of Elvis as that guy that was in those silly movies.

But in 1970 you see this guy in Las Vegas with tremendous a amount of charisma in "that's the way it is".

Then in 1972 there is "Elvis on tour" which I am sure made some fans out of more people.

Then in 1973 Elvis does something that was never done before....
A concert televised all over the world.

Then he dies in 1977. This was well documented. And with any celebrity who dies young, you have people again discovering what all the fuss was about. Since he dies in the 70's, it's what alot of people remember.

Here is the kicker. What I meant by documentation.

We don't really have the type of footage that documents the incredible rise of a star never to be equaled in show business.
The mezmorizing 1955-58 period is only seen in fragments, and those fragments are many times not to up to the technical standards of today, and it takes away from the performance.

We don't have a color concert on film with sound from the 50's.
We don't have a tv special from 50's.
There is still no complete dvd of 50's appearances.
The Frank Sinatra deal is in black and white and a terrible quality kinoscope.

There was no film of the hawaii 1961 show.

"Elvis 56" helps out some, but how many of the general public has seen that?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:10 pm

Sam, Kris,Geneism = my sentiments exactly! Cheers Guys! 8)

Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:28 pm

djc-- (good god, i'm taking on the doc)

some of us feel more for the tragic man rather than the cool cat, because the tragic man is an endearing figure. he was sad and lonely, and you almost wish you were there to help him or cheer him up.

elvis may be the rags to riches story...but he's also the great american tragedy of it's lonely at the top.

one of the most disappointing things about guralnick's books is the fact that like djc and a few others on here, they write off the last years because it's not just the lollypops and pennywhistles of the perfect artist.

perfect is boring. human is endearing. and humans, no matter who you are, have flaws. elvis had many, which is another reason people love that later figure on this board so much.

his music also became more personal. this is another reason we can relate to him in the later years so much more. he was also allowed to speak more freely, or at least more of these comments were recorded for the public record.

in the 70s we get to hear more of his thoughts, he shares his moods with the audience. that's why the "i'll pull their godd*mn tongues out by the roots!" speeches and such, are gems. they are ugly on the surface, indeed. and you may want to hide them from surfacing. but that is just one more element to the fact that in the 70s, the real human emerged from behind colonel parker's golden image of the rarified boy king.

elvis didn't want people to see him as an image, i don't think. i think he wanted to be seen as just one of us. and i think with the real fans, he succeeded. people like him so much because he was accessable in ways other artists would be horrified to consider. most celebrities lock themselves up in beverly hills gated communities, and elvis lived where everybody knew his address. in fact, elvis would come out to the gate and very nearly mingle with the fans. in concerts, he interacted with the audience in a very unpretentious manner...he made it just as much about pleasing the audience or even entertaining himself with jokes, as it was about having a show to do.

this later elvis' imperfections is something we all can relate to. the imperfections are more interesting than the perfections. this also is evident in his music. in a live concert recording--do you remember the performances that mirror the studio recording or the bits where he changes inflections or makes little off-hand comments? i remember the different inflections and the off-hand comments--the imperfections are what separates the real elvis from the one on the record player...and i think the imperfections make for a more compelling and enjoyable performance.

in the 50s, we see bits of this...for they are the same guy. but we have so little to show for it, that what we have isn't really an accurate record. elvis joked with audiences back then too, but what do we have to show for it? the nipper story and such stories that we have no real record of, and perhaps elvis' crazy eyes during ready teddy. i'd say the more interesting 50s footage is how uncomfortable elvis looks with some of milton berle's jokes, and the utter innocence and shyness he exudes.

yet, that shyness is still there in the 70s. even in '77 during eic, we have that british fan mentioning how shy elvis is, when people expect him to be some 10 foot tall godly presence.

elvis is more interesting as a human being than as an image. and with a human being, you've got to love the flaws as well as the perfections.

the 70s music is more human. too much of the 50s is impersonal. one only needs to take a look at the '72 recordings to understand what elvis was going through that year, for example. it hurts, but it makes you feel. pain is as much a feeling as is exuberant enthusiasm...and pain and loneliness can be felt more poignantly on the wide spectrum of human feelings, in my experience.

perhaps we 70s fans are masochists, that we love (and can love) our fallen anti-hero.
Last edited by Elvis' Babe on Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:41 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:30 pm

There are some on here that would rather read what the "critics" think. Anything outside of that, well we can all burn at the stake.

Sad indeed.

Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:19 am

Coincidentally, there are some new (they are to me!) from the 77 Hawaii vacation over at candid central

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/candid- ... tan77.html

Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:22 am

Very cool.

Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:08 am

VERY compelling post, Elvisbabe.

But I feel like pointing something out: I doubt any of us would care (though some might well try and claim otherwise) about the fallible Elvis of the 70's if it wasn't for that rich and godly image that came before. There's a fascination - a perfectly human one, I feel - about finding the ordinary in the extraordinary. No one really wants to find ordinariness in ordinariness; that's just more of the same. But if you have something to contrast ordinariness against - something greater than ordinariness - then it gives life a greater depth and meaning. For now you have two alternating rhythms ebbing and flowing over each other. It's a bit like hearing that Einstein supposedly had a strong sense of humour about himself when teaching - well, who'd give a flying olive in Italy if Einstein wasn't actually a staggering intellect and profound figure in science but merely an average joe teaching in some average inner city school in the country of wherever? Nobody. But knowing that little detail (if it is indeed true) shades Einstein's genius and renders him a little more tangible and real.

But, of course, we're not talking about some quirky little positive attribute of Elvis; we're talking about a sea of depression, decadence, decline, and ultimately, death. So be it. Those are all ultimately human qualities - no matter how saddening and pathetic they might be. The added pathos of those things is a lot like knowing something quirky about Einstein - but taken to a much grander and therefore even more tangible scale. Again, though, who'd give a flying fruitcake in Sweden if Elvis was just your average city dweller working an average 9-5 job in the city of wherever? No one. People are drawn to the twilight era of Elvis precisely because it offers dimensionality, regardless of innovation and energy (or lack thereof), to an already-extensive body of work and a life well-lived. It all ended so soon. Too soon. But the decade of the 70's is what it is. And it shares a unique and intimate relationship with everything that came before.

Elvis' Babe wrote:update--i'm 18, nearing on 19 in 3 months...and probably still too young for the lot of you.


LOL! 22 here. Is that young for this MB? I guess it is. I feel young! Woo hoo. Alright, back to your regular programming...

Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:43 am

Image

Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:57 am

Elvis' Babe wrote:perfect is boring. human is endearing. and humans, no matter who you are, have flaws. elvis had many, which is another reason people love that later figure on this board so much.

his music also became more personal. this is another reason we can relate to him in the later years so much more. he was also allowed to speak more freely, or at least more of these comments were recorded for the public record.


Bravo! :smt038

Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:40 am

genesim wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:How can decline, depression and early death from drug abuse be the "favorite" period of any fan, when one can choose innovation, triumph, happiness and vibrant life?

DJC


Gee I don't know proffessor, maybe it is because of what I said before. Funny how you call me "ignorant" for saying that Elvis looked high and then you make the statement above. :shock:

No one is "choosing" depression...etc. It is about identifying with mistakes, seeing that even in failure something very good came out of the Presley legacy. Sorry bud, but unlike you, it is his achievements past 1970 that we see. That is the Elvis that people will remember the most. For the art and for the image.

Like it or not Doc, it is just as important of a piece to the puzzle. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, and perhaps from Elvis' story many of us have learned from them, I know I have.

That and the fact that the music was alot more personal. Those are the songs I can hum the most to this day.

Sam nailed it perfectly....you needed the other decades as well to finish the story. That is what makes the 70's more meaningful.


This string is getting VERY LONG, but gen and the rest of you are really thinking about the lovely person Elvis was all the way to the end and how sad the mistakes were!! And, of how MUCH we have lost!!
sue

Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:45 am

hmm...it seems that people say the '50s was the golden era, and that means that somehow because elvis was imperfect during the '70s, that the output was somehow inferior. i disagree. to me it is superior because it reaches entirely new depths of the emotional spectrum for elvis.

in fact, for those of you who say elvis did not grow musically in the '70s...i argue, then how did he reach the entirely other end of the emotional spectrum? in the '50s he was only allowed glimpses at the dark side, if you will. in the '50s there was always an innocent yearning quality to everything. and perhaps the '70s elvis reflects someone who's been through too much--yet in some ways he still was that yearning figure from before, underneath.

you argue that without the '50s, the '70s elvis is just a normal joe working 9 to 5 who is unextraordinary. this is far from true. in fact, i'd say as the '70s wore on he became an even godlier presence as he took on the role of the fallen angel.

and i still say, most of his '70s performances are far more compelling and worth more merit to me, because of the material having gotten better and in my opinion he was vocally superior...i just happen to prefer his older voice.

but in turn, i would say that the '50s aren't nearly as compelling on their own as it is when the '70s are included. had elvis ended up in a plane crash, for example, would he just be considered as having about the level of fame as buddy holly?--who i hate to say, doesn't have a smigin of the elvis fanbase, even though critics are probably more apt to give him credit than elvis.

elvis' rise isn't quite so compelling without the final chapter. a sudden death would have made elvis' rise inconsequential due to the fact that he would just be remembered for the death at the top.

in elvis' case, time let him humanize. it gave more chapters to his story. there were many ups and downs...not just rise and fall, but many rises and falls.

elvis would just be another buddy holly without the '70s--going out at the peak...it's not quite so interesting because there's no lead-up, the years of stewing flaws haven't happened, there's no 'what if?s' about thousands of possible fix-points in the subject's life. with the '70s he grew into being something that can leave very polar opinions, and there is a plethora of 'what if's' that are missing in other tragic stories.

take a look at tragedy in a film or story form. the characters with flaws make for a better story, otherwise you have fluff.

someone who dies tragically, who was a perfect citizen, who really didn't do anything to get that consequence...this person is a sad story, but i would argue that the person who dies tragically, had many flaws that added up and past uglies reared their ugly heads to kick them down...i'd argue that that is the sadder and more tragic story.

it is why the anti-hero is more popular among today's audiences than the hero. a hero is perfect and infallible. an anti-hero is flawed, gray...but still heroic.

who is more compelling--the pure, naive hero luke skywalker, or the morally grayer anti-hero figure of han solo?

i'm a fan of anti-heroes...both real, literary and filmatic. those imperfect figures who are extraordinary for being both fascinating and imperfect.

Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:11 pm

Rob wrote:The 50's Elvis changed our lives forever. The 70's Elvis made us proud, then slowly broke our hearts.

This is about the only common sense reply to my statement. For the rest of you, not understanding what Elvis accomplished between 1953 and 1963 is to fail to grasp what the magic was all about. Your loss!

That said, thank God, in Her wisdom, that Ernst runs the Presley catalog, and not some of you folks.

DJC

Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:14 pm

Blablablabla :roll:

Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:37 pm

Denman wrote:Blablablabla
_________________
"Is this suit worn too tight?"

Thanks for your concise and worthwhile contribution.

Oh, you might want to fix your 70s Elvis quote "signature." It's incorrect.

The "joke" Elvis often made in the middle of "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" was:

"If this suit weren't too tight."

DJC

Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:51 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Denman wrote:Blablablabla
_________________
"Is this suit worn too tight?"

Thanks for your concise and worthwhile contribution.

Oh, you might want to fix your 70s Elvis quote "signature." It's incorrect.

The "joke" Elvis often made in the middle of "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" was:

"If this suit weren't too tight."

DJC
You're welcome. And thank you, Doc.

Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:08 pm

Elvis' Babe wrote:who is more compelling--the pure, naive hero luke skywalker, or the morally grayer anti-hero figure of han solo?


For me personally the more compelling person was the nobody who walked into Sun records with $3 dollars and a dream... than the depressed drug addicted dead at 42 Elvis... God rest his soul.

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:28 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Rob wrote:The 50's Elvis changed our lives forever. The 70's Elvis made us proud, then slowly broke our hearts.

This is about the only common sense reply to my statement. For the rest of you, not understanding what Elvis accomplished between 1953 and 1963 is to fail to grasp what the magic was all about. Your loss!

That said, thank God, in Her wisdom, that Ernst runs the Presley catalog, and not some of you folks.

DJC


Doc, I DO understand what Elvis accomplished between 53 & 63 AND appreciate it wholeheartedly, but I just prefer the last decade!!

Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:31 pm

Another great post, Elvis' Babe.

Thw different decades of Elvis' life do somewhat symbiotically reinforce each other. Artistically, I agree with The Doc - nothing, save the amazing Comeback Special (which arguably surpasses them), can touch those early years for innovation, energy or expression. There's an unequalled joy carried from performer to listener when I put one of those recordings on. But the 70's bring greater context to the preceding years; just as the preceding years bring greater context to the 70's. I don't think you can regard Elvis or his work as a complete entity without considering every decade in which he lived and performed.