All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:19 pm

Luuk wrote:They even correct eachother! They were all there, they claim, but remember things very different. Very, very, very different!
If it had been a court case and they would contradict eachother that much, there would be no conviction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd gladly have these 3 as witnesses when I kill someone and want to walk away free.
#1. The smoking gun was in his right hand.
#2. No, it was in his left hand.
#3. It was a knife.


Happens all the time in real life. That's why in a court of law it's important to have all the evidence at hand. An autopsy report can tell whether the victim was shot or knifed and was the killer right or left handed.

I've seen this happen many times. After listening to different people tell about the same incident it's hard to believe that they are talking about the same incident. Also, as the time passes people start forgetting things more and more.

The MMM are talking about things that took place 50 to 30 years ago. Try to discuss with someone about something that happened 50 years ago and you get as many versions as there are tellers. It was the same thing when the Beatles did their anthology tv-series. They contradicted themselfs in many cases and in some cases were clearly wrong. It's perfectly natural.

Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:07 pm

Fans should read everything about an artist that they can, then decipher for themselves what they choose to believe. Too many fans bury their head in the sand, choosing instead to believe Elvis had no faults, and ridiculing those who offer proof to the contrary.

The book is an essential read. It shows that Elvis had human frailties, like the rest of us, but it also offers many, many positive aspects of his character, as well.

Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:44 pm

Agreed KHoots and Marko........

The fact of the matter is, Elvis Presley is a historical figure of monumental proportions. Someone who changed music and popular culture forever.

Figures who achieve great things are going to be analysed.......dissected......inspected.

This is inevitable because so few in history have the power by the force of their personality and the magnitude of their talent to effect change on such a global scale.

The world wants to know what shaped and defined the few among us with the power to shift the cultural, or scientific, or political paradigm.

I doubt that anyone here bristles much over the failings of a Churchill, Einstein, Caruso, etc. They all had episodes of their life, and elements of their personalities and characters exposed, that they would find humiliating as well. If you are a student of history, this is apparent.

The reason that we lack the objectivity to treat Elvis with the same dispassionate analysis is...........well, we love him. We are protective of him. We miss him. We are still passionate about him.

And we must realize......... the fact that we ARE still passionate about him so long after he's left us INVITES the very analysis so many disdain. WHY are we so passionate still?? What is it about him that still holds captive the imagination of so many??? What is the source of the charisma that extends past the clutches of death??

It is a phenomenon that demands inspection. We must accept that. We must embrace it when done fairly and with compassion (RMM, Careless Love, etc.) even when the revelations are not always ones that we would necessarily embrace.

The bottom line is this........Elvis is a historical personage. We can seek to steer the dissection away from the sensationalistic and vitriolic (Goldman) and toward the more scholarly and even-handed. That is all that remains of TCB now.

But to militate against the truth is like spitting in the wind.

Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:15 pm

I haven't read this book, so I can't offer an opinion on it. But I will say that I'm inclined to agree with Luuk. If you're someone's friend you don't talk about the sordid details of your friend's private life, regardless of whether those details are true. It's one thing to talk frankly about Elvis' volcanic temper or the drug addiction/abuse. It's quite another thing to talk about Elvis being diapered cause he sh*t himself in his drug-induced stupor, or that he was experiencing sexual dysfunction towards the end, or that he passed out in a bowl of soup. True or not, to offer up these sorts of sordid details robs a man of his dignity (a man who is no longer here to defend himself) and friends don't do friends that way!

Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:59 pm

I don't think it robs ELvis of his dignity. He's dead, and couldn't give a crap about his earthbound troubles anymore.

It's all life, we all do good things and bad things. We all make mistakes and we all get lost from time to time.

To hear stories about it only reinforces the human side of Elvis. But if you're going to tell the bad stuff, you ought to tell the good stuff too. Understanding Elvis as a human being makes me appreciate the music more.

It's funny, on this very MB I have voiced my views on Elvis' drug habits and the problems they caused (See the thread "Was Elvis Lazy" or something like that)...and other fans then have the gall to question why I'm a fan. These things happened in Elvis' life...it may not always be pleasant to look at, but I'd rather see as much of the whole picture as I can, rather then use tunnel vision.

Also, Elvis was a public figure...most every public figure, especially those not with us anymore, have their lives exposed in various books, movies, articles, etc. Even John Lennon said "everyone gets a book"...

So do we blame the author, or do we blame the thousands of people who BUY the books and read them, or do we just accept that this is how it is and get on with our lives?

In regards to Goldman, that book was a highly sensationalized, pre-judged piece of trash...I doubt Fike knew what Goldman was up to at the time. If all he did was make introductions of various folks to Goldman, that's fine but he should at least show some humility about his mistake.

Anyone know where Albert Goldman is buried? I gotta take a pee...

Axe

Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:07 pm

KHoots wrote:
Fans should read everything about an artist that they can, then decipher for themselves what they choose to believe. Too many fans bury their head in the sand, choosing instead to believe Elvis had no faults, and ridiculing those who offer proof to the contrary.



Good call!

Currently 501 books are listed.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~vnhouten/intro.html

For those who like pursuit of knowledge.


----

In my opinion the positive stories in RMM far outweigh the bad. It is not a definitive account nor has any single book that has been published to date. All accounts, especially 20 years hence, are subject to the biases of the authors. That is a fact of life. But to give a blanket dismissal of all stories as reported by the people who were there - when you were not - also shows a bias on your part.

And Elvis may have given the world an amazing legacy of music and enjoyment to countless millions (me included), but don't try and make him out to be some sort of saint who did all of this purely for love. He charged money for his concert tickets and top bucks for his records, the same as everybody else. He gave away a fortune to people, but those acts were mostly done on a whim, and while I'm not detracting from his gift giving, he was a businessman as well as an entertainer.

Is there really a "more accurate picture"?

I doubt it, because it is always one perspective. Larry, Priscilla, Esposito.... Some of them seem to take constructive criticism pretty well. Unfortunately, some people don't know how to be constructive.

If the MMM make money from their books, it is only because people buy them. Basically we are all hypocrites craving for as much product as we can get our hands on. You have no right to pick and choose who does or doesn't provide the merchandise, even down to those EPE decanters and ducks I hate so much. What you do have is the right to choose what you buy. If somebody chooses not to read RMM, I respect the decision. Just like some people who are trying to avoid ever looking at the coffin photo.

I might be wrong, but I believe Linda Thompson was the first to mention the "soup incident".

Everybody might follow in Priscilla's footsteps and her very own "Elvis And Me", telling the most private things about the marriage. The reasons why he shut her out is what she leaves out of the book. She has stated in interviews that she needed to "tell the truth" for the sake of her daughter, however in reference to the so called "rape" section, what effect would this have on your child and to tell the whole world? I did come away with many questions.

No doubt we would all know a diffrent Elvis, if no story or anectode had ever been told. But now fans are always going to have different opinions about different subjects. If we are going to allow differences of opinions in music (i.e. somebody actually likes "Three Corn Patches," but others don't), then we should allow differences of opinions about people associated with Elvis, the movies, whatever.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:08 am

Pete Dube wrote:It's quite another thing to talk about Elvis being diapered cause he sh*t himself in his drug-induced stupor, or that he was experiencing sexual dysfunction towards the end, or that he passed out in a bowl of soup.


Are you sure that you haven't read this book???? lol :lol:

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Re: REVELATIONS OF MEMPHIS MAFIA

Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:30 pm

jacob wrote:have you read this book? and whats your view on it

If you're really interested in this biography, you should get the title right. It's "Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia" by Alanna Nash.

It's an essential purchase for the serious Elvis fan. Period.

DJC

Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:45 pm

As I said in another thread - this is one of the best books about Elvis. Of course bad things are told in the book, but when reading the book you understand that these guys were close friends to Elvis even in the hard times. I think that the book straightens certain issues that have been told in the wrong way before - like the diaper story and so on. Especially the statements from Billy Smith, who was actually there for the last years, show that he loved Elvis even though Elvis was in big trouble then and most likely not that easy to be around sometimes. Regarding Lamar and Marty, they were not that close to Elvis in the last years. As I remember, Marty did not even meet Elvis in 1977. I think that you get a very good picture of Elvis when reading the book and in my opinion the book does not put Elvis down - it shows his good and bad sides. Some stories are very interesting, like the one regarding the -69 sessions, when Marty told Elvis the truth about why Elvis did not get good material.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:29 pm

With friends like them, who needs enemies. Elvis was no saint, nor did he claim to be, but his motto all of his life was to keep his personal business, in house, not to be betrayed by his friends, the same friends who he not only employed for years, but for whom he bailed out countless times financially. To me, they are all scum.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:06 pm

Have you ever read or bought a book by any member of the MM Joe ?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:11 pm

Ezzz wrote:Have you ever read or bought a book by any member of the MM Joe ?


Yes I have. The problem is we live in a time when loyalty and honor is no longer sacred, where making a quick buck is more important then friendships, past relationships or whatever. I also believe that books like these that get written, tend to exagerate things to sell more, therefore the truth becomes suspect at best.

Re: REVELATIONS OF MEMPHIS MAFIA

Wed May 31, 2006 4:11 pm

jacob wrote:have you read this book? and whats your view on it


i think that the book is fantastic - it tells the story in chronological order.

i could read it over and over - there is so much in it.

Re: REVELATIONS OF MEMPHIS MAFIA

Wed May 31, 2006 6:00 pm

julieannbabe wrote:
jacob wrote:have you read this book? and whats your view on it


i think that the book is fantastic - it tells the story in chronological order.

i could read it over and over - there is so much in it.


The book should be titled "Revenge from the Memphis Mafia".
They only wrote it to get even with Lisa-Marie who did not want to pay them to shut up. Like Lisa said "May they rot in hell".

Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:13 am

The books a good read but as others have stated you have to remember that they are recalling events 40 years previous. I am always dubious of people's ability to repeat word for word conversations so many years later. None of them had the presence of mind to keep a diary or to take more photo's etc at the time so the belated sense of history and in some occasions total recall is a bit suspect. Considering that the mafia were also high as kites half the time it's amazing they can remember anything let alone all the detail! I don't think their lying as such but there is certainely subjective perspectives and filling in the gaps to events that they either don't remember that well or were not directly present. I've actually got more respect for Red and Sonny who at least did their book while Elvis was alive and to his face so to speak. They admit their motive was money but also to put a challenge to Elvis, whether you believe the challenge bit or not it's hard to discount it completely. Infact had the book been published 2 years previous maybe there would still have been enough fight in Elvis to clean up and prove them wrong but maybe thats one for another thread. With regard to Lamar and Marty I personally find these two the most objectionable. Marty is so full of his own importanse that it gets comical - in the mafia documentory shown in 2002 he refers to how WE made history! Do you think his pathological hatred for Priscilla was influenced by her coments -in Elvis and Me- that Elvis stated that Marty was one guy that he would pay to stay away? Lamar presents himself as the straight talker who always told the Big E how it was. Not imediately apparent when you watch the backstage footage of EOT and ETTWIS! If you watch the video's that they produced a few years back along with Red and Sonny you can see the looks that Red,Sonny and Billy give each other in the midst of another Lamar or Marty anecdote, the old raised eyebrows and roll of the eyes that says 'here we go again'

Marty : The ratpack only wanted to hangout with Elvis in Vegas because of all the girls he attracted.

Sonny : (following a look that screams cringe) I don't think these guys had any problems attracting woman!

Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:06 am

In my opinion the positive stories in RMM far outweigh the bad. It is not a definitive account nor has any single book that has been published to date. All accounts, especially 20 years hence, are subject to the biases of the authors. That is a fact of life. But to give a blanket dismissal of all stories as reported by the people who were there - when you were not - also shows a bias on your part.


I totally agree.
If you have seen these guys talking on the "All The Kings Men" videos, their love & devotion for Elvis shines through.

The stories seem honest and there is no truly shocking tabloid crap within the book - as has often been written by others about our man.

It is an essential read for all true Elvis fans.
Elvis was human and learning more about the private side of his life only helps us in this fabulous historial quest that most of us here are on.

Most of all, I find it very upsetting that someone as close to Elvis as Billy Smith could get let out in the cold once Priscilla & EPE took over. There can be no doubting the closeness between Billy & Elvis in his final years. Sad indeed.

EIN has recent interviews with all three of them, go here>
1) Billy Smith
2) Lamar Fike
3) Marty Lakar

Cheers
Piers

Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:33 am

I like the book. It doesn't need to be all peaches and cream.

I will admit, at first, I felt that some stories were better left untold and that they were only out to make a quick buck. After reading the book several times, it made me realize just how human Elvis was after all and how much more I could relate to the pressures and demons of his fame and success.

Their recollections of Elvis-"The Man", has no bearing at all on how I feel about Elvis music, films or performances.

Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:16 am

You all forget the most important fact. These guys were FRIENDS of Elvis. At least that was what Elvis thought.
You do not tell the world all that you heard as a friend. If you do that you are no friend.
It has nothing to do with WHAT they told, whether it was more good than bad, all bad, all good.
All real Elvis fans should ignore these guys and anybody who promotes them.

Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:20 am

This book is essential read for anyone interested in Elvis as person. The claim that they did it as a revenge is deleted - see guidelines #2 It's by far the best book that's been done by any member of MM.

Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:59 am

Scatter wrote:Agreed KHoots and Marko........

The fact of the matter is, Elvis Presley is a historical figure of monumental proportions. Someone who changed music and popular culture forever.

Figures who achieve great things are going to be analysed.......dissected......inspected.

This is inevitable because so few in history have the power by the force of their personality and the magnitude of their talent to effect change on such a global scale.

The world wants to know what shaped and defined the few among us with the power to shift the cultural, or scientific, or political paradigm.

I doubt that anyone here bristles much over the failings of a Churchill, Einstein, Caruso, etc. They all had episodes of their life, and elements of their personalities and characters exposed, that they would find humiliating as well. If you are a student of history, this is apparent.

The reason that we lack the objectivity to treat Elvis with the same dispassionate analysis is...........well, we love him. We are protective of him. We miss him. We are still passionate about him.

And we must realize......... the fact that we ARE still passionate about him so long after he's left us INVITES the very analysis so many disdain. WHY are we so passionate still?? What is it about him that still holds captive the imagination of so many??? What is the source of the charisma that extends past the clutches of death??

It is a phenomenon that demands inspection. We must accept that. We must embrace it when done fairly and with compassion (RMM, Careless Love, etc.) even when the revelations are not always ones that we would necessarily embrace.

The bottom line is this........Elvis is a historical personage. We can seek to steer the dissection away from the sensationalistic and vitriolic (Goldman) and toward the more scholarly and even-handed. That is all that remains of TCB now.

But to militate against the truth is like spitting in the wind.



On the ball Scatter.

Self indoctrination plays a large role too, we read so much about Elvis we reinforce our views time and time again. I have read millions of words about Elvis and still feel I hardly know anything about him.

Most of the gossip is of little interest to me.

Like Scatter says, few historic figures or celebrities stand up to close inspection without losing a little or a lot of their sheen.......even the magnificent Ludwig Van Beethoven!

Bottom line for me is the vast amount of pleasure I have received listening to Elvis's beautiful voice far outweighs his all too human failings.

Nevertheless, Beware the source! But read everything about Elvis you can get hold of. And THINK!

http://press.xtvworld.com/article11751.html

Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:02 pm

Old Shep wrote:Well, it´s a very honest book, but I know a lot of fans, that don´t like it, because it countains a lot of tough things and because of Lamar´s black humor. But it´s my favourite Elvis book. :roll:

O.S.


I 100% agree with you . this is sometimes very painful to read but it's always interesting and fascinating . And it seems honest . The best "tell all book" for me. Far superior to the hodge or esposito books

Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:11 am

Telephone Babe wrote:You all forget the most important fact. These guys were FRIENDS of Elvis. At least that was what Elvis thought.
You do not tell the world all that you heard as a friend. If you do that you are no friend.
It has nothing to do with WHAT they told, whether it was more good than bad, all bad, all good.
All real Elvis fans should ignore these guys and anybody who promotes them.


I understand your perspective TB.........and sympathize with your sentiments towards Elvis. But I couldn't disagree more with the conclusions you reach due to that sentimentality.

How do you think it is that we know all that we do about George Washington........Julius Caesar........Napoleon Bonaparte.........and a host of other historical personages???

A great deal of the knowledge we hold comes through personal correspondence and intimate recollections of those with whom they were conversant or intimate.

That is fact, and I sincerely doubt that your undies got into a bunch when you discovered through private correspondence that John Adams and Ben Franklin frankly could barely stand the sight of each other due to some rather petty frictions.

Or the neighborly gossip that Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln once had a fight that led to Mary chasing him down their Springfield street with a knife in her hand.

Or that Albert Einstein tended to be hygiene-challenged at times.

No, you never gave a thought to the personal, private revelations that made those aspects of their lives common knowledge. But all those juicy little tidbits actually went beyond the salacious and gave valuable insight into these people and helped explain some of their actions and decisions.

You didn't get upset, or even give those revelations (or their highly personal sources) a second thought............but with Elvis you do because of your emotional bond. Nothing wrong with that, mind you.........but you also have to recognize that Elvis is a towering figure of history, and the revelations about him give valuable insight, and are in fact no different than the revelations of the figures of the past.

The only difference is........you didn't love them. But that shouldn't be allowed to color your perspective entirely.
Last edited by Scatter on Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:38 am

I don't know what the fuzz is all about. I guess, some fans just can't accept, that their beloved hero was just an odinary person. Not very educated and a little swamped by his career. It could have been better, but it's nothing extraordinary. No historical figure is as good or as bad as he or she is being portrayed. Every hero of the history isn't so heroic if you just dare to take a closer look. And I guess the same goes for the big villains. The great Alexander is now known to have been a violent alcoholic and Adolf Hitler is said to have been very charming to the ladies, if he wanted to. And the same goes for Elvis. He wasn't the big superhero, just an ordinary person. It seems that some fans feel offended, when someone tells the truth - or at least, what he remembers. You can't blame people, that they tell things a little different when the stories happend 30-40 years ago. Just ask four members of your family about certain things and you'll get to hear four different stories. The human brain isn't a blackbox. In some ways, you just see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. It's the art of life to figure out what might be the reality.

Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:25 am

What you guys miss is: why do we need to know about anybody's private life and why do friends tell-all?
Is Elvis a better singer now we know all about his private life?
Are these guys now better friends because they told us all about what Elvis kept private?
I could not care less if Elvis shot a million TV's, gave away nothing, burped after dinner, pissed in his pants, never took a bath, cursed, and whatever important information we got from these tell-all books.
Ask yourself if we have the right to invade Elvis' (or anybody's) privacy that much! Or are we all National Enquirer readers?

Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:00 am

Telephone Babe wrote:What you guys miss is: why do we need to know about anybody's private life and why do friends tell-all?

What you miss is the fact that some people seek to understand history rather than just have the capacity to recite dates and deeds. All of what we and the greats of history accomplished springs from the fount of our personalities, and the influences that shaped us. If you are content with "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue" as your only grasp of that history, you are deprived of the much more fascinating story of WHY Columbus did it, and what the forces were that propelled him. Such understanding only comes from knowing him through his contemporaries (friends) warts and all.

Is Elvis a better singer now we know all about his private life?
Are these guys now better friends because they told us all about what Elvis kept private?

Is Washington a better General because we know about his reliance upon what he viewed as Divine Providence?? No, but it explains why he was able to withstand the deprivations of Valley Forge.

Is Benedict Arnold less of a traitor because of the Continental Congress' refusal to reimburse him for his personal expenses while he was a hero fighting the War?? No, but it helps us understand why he felt driven to betray his country.

Is Elvis a better singer because we know about the drug dependency?? No, but it explains much about the sad decline of his latter years.

If all these revelations about these men were kept secret, we would understand much less about them and the world they forged..........and the lessons lost would not be outweighed by the warmth of the fuzzy blanket of ignorance



I could not care less if Elvis shot a million TV's, gave away nothing, burped after dinner, pissed in his pants, never took a bath, cursed, and whatever important information we got from these tell-all books.

Then you have a minimalist view of history and are content to remain in the dark as to WHY the story ended as it did. That's fine........some of us seek to understand and learn from what we discover.

Ask yourself if we have the right to invade Elvis' (or anybody's) privacy that much! Or are we all National Enquirer readers?

Was I invading Washington's privacy when I read his diaries?? Was I invading Edison's privacy when I roamed his home and read the recollections of his friends and enemies alike?? Was there nothing of substance to be gained there??Please tell me the difference here between that and Elvis..........aside from your selective protectiveness.

Socrates
(he was a philosopher that led a rather interesting life himself.......though I'm certain that's of no interest to you) said "The unexamined life is not worth living." I would add that the life that does not examine isn't worth living either.

Some of us are compelled to examine.........some are content to spin their discs in the dark. To each their own.