Little darling ( the song )

Yeah, it's pretty good. Bit more bluesy than the "usual" version, but for a warm up jam it's fantastic!!

Et voila. Already said.

Why any of this needs to be "explained" is beyond me.

It does not John. But thanks anyway for your effort.

After putting aside the initial excitement of Elvis jamming to Tiger Man during a 1975 studio session, the overall results are loose and low-key. Elvis certainly isn't bad, but he doesn't let loose and take it to the next level either.

But for a 1975 warm up jam it is pretty darn good - yes?

Go on Mx, it will not kill you to agree with me.

After putting aside the initial excitement of Elvis jamming to Tiger Man during a 1975 studio session, the overall results are loose and low-key. Elvis certainly isn't bad, but he doesn't let loose and take it to the next level either.

But for a 1975 warm up jam it is pretty darn good - yes?

Go on Mx, it will not kill you to agree with me.

It is interesting, but not darn good.

midnightx / the Doc
Sorry, my english was not too clear: when I said (I needed you) that Presley had 16 tracks for a single album, I was thinking about FROM EP BLVD, not MOODY BLUE. What I was saying was to make a better FROM EP BLVD album by using the best tracks from both Jungle Room sessions. MOODY BLUE OUT! Something like:

SIDE #1
For the heart
She thinks I still care (uptempo version)
Hurt
Danny boy
Moody blue
Blue eyes crying in the rain

SIDE #2
Way down
Pledging my love
Love coming down
It´s easy for you
He´ll have to go

Anyway, at the end, the whole thing remains quite weak (even after putting out THE LAST FAREWELL, SOLITAIR and I´LL NEVER FALL IN LOVE AGAIN).

"Little Darlin'" is in no way tragic. It's Elvis having a little nostalgic fun with a song from the '50s in a genre he loved. He follows the Diamonds' arrangement very closely and that was a damn good arrangement. Elvis version is not a work of startingly originality but it's fun and a little insight into Elvis. The overwrought comments about this piece are indicative of the depressing self-serious view of rock n' roll that became prevalent in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Give the guy his air.

As for "Tiger Man" any version was bound to come up short against the stunning version he did in 1968 that was already widely available on record.

After putting aside the initial excitement of Elvis jamming to Tiger Man during a 1975 studio session, the overall results are loose and low-key. Elvis certainly isn't bad, but he doesn't let loose and take it to the next level either.

But for a 1975 warm up jam it is pretty darn good - yes?

Go on Mx, it will not kill you to agree with me.

It is interesting, but not darn good.

Pretty darn good.

I feel sad for you that it does not do more for you.

After putting aside the initial excitement of Elvis jamming to Tiger Man during a 1975 studio session, the overall results are loose and low-key. Elvis certainly isn't bad, but he doesn't let loose and take it to the next level either.

But for a 1975 warm up jam it is pretty darn good - yes?

Go on Mx, it will not kill you to agree with me.

It is interesting, but not darn good.

Pretty darn good.

I feel sad for you that it does not do more for you.

I don't. There are plenty of other Elvis Presley performances that are darn good that continue to be the source of constant enjoyment.

The March 1975 studio jam of "Tiger Man" is just that -- a jam. The band really shines, though, especially Burton.

When bass player Duke Bardwell was asked many years later about its discovery, he did not even remember it, which may go to show how signifcant it seemed at the time to those present.

Why any of this needs to be "explained" is beyond me.

I would like to add Ronnie Tutt here when you guys talk about shining. I have to agree here with the opinion that it was a very nice discovery, but way to loose to be included on a regular album in the 70´s. I really prefer the live version from the silver box. We all have to remember that the Memphis live album didn´t sell that well and quite a few, incuding myself, hadn´t heard "Let me be there" by Elvis in 1977. But what I can´t understand, is why Felton didn´t grab the studio master of "For the good times", which at least was an unreleased and professionally recorded track (ok, wh had the live version, but anyway).

Kind regards
Björn

I don't. There are plenty of other Elvis Presley performances ..... that continue to be the source of constant enjoyment.

- I hope this is true.

I love the 1975 "Tiger Man" jam -- the band is nicely riding a cool groove (I though Duke's oft-disparaged bass playing was good and Ronnie was as great as usual) and Elvis' vocal is intentionally laid back and cool, nowhere near as frenetic as the 1968 outing nor as hurried as it usually was by now on stage (though the medley was still a nice touch in any concert). I could easily stand to listen to a longer version, in the unlikely event that the entire thing was recorded and shows up one day.

I love the 1975 "Tiger Man" jam -- the band is nicely riding a cool groove (I though Duke's oft-disparaged bass playing was good and Ronnie was as great as usual) and Elvis' vocal is intentionally laid back and cool, nowhere near as frenetic as the 1968 outing nor as hurried as it usually was by now on stage (though the medley was still a nice touch in any concert). I could easily stand to listen to a longer version, in the unlikely event that the entire thing was recorded and shows up one day.

Excellent post.

It is weird that people who profess to be "Elvis enthusiasts" can continually disparage such work as this.

Agent provocateur or habitual parade precipitator?

I love the 1975 "Tiger Man" jam -- the band is nicely riding a cool groove (I though Duke's oft-disparaged bass playing was good and Ronnie was as great as usual) and Elvis' vocal is intentionally laid back and cool, nowhere near as frenetic as the 1968 outing nor as hurried as it usually was by now on stage (though the medley was still a nice touch in any concert). I could easily stand to listen to a longer version, in the unlikely event that the entire thing was recorded and shows up one day.

Excellent post.

It is weird that people who profess to be "Elvis enthusiasts" can continually disparage such work as this.

If you are implying that I disparaged the Tiger Man performance, once again, you are mistaken. I am simply not overrating a vocal performance that is clearly mediocre for Elvis' standards.

If you are implying that I disparaged the Tiger Man performance, once again, you are mistaken. I am simply not overrating a vocal performance that is clearly mediocre for Elvis' standards.

ooooook

Perhaps English is not your first language?

If you are implying that I disparaged the Tiger Man performance, once again, you are mistaken. I am simply not overrating a vocal performance that is clearly mediocre for Elvis' standards.

ooooook

Perhaps English is not your first language?

Perhaps it is not yours? I did not belittle, mock, ridicule, scorn, or denigrate the track. It is an honest look at the track. I never said it was bad, I am simply not overrating as you are just because it is from 1975. For Elvis' standards, it was mediocre work. Nothing really disparaging about that concept.

Perhaps it is not yours? I did not belittle, mock, ridicule, scorn, or denigrate the track. It is an honest look at the track. I never said it was bad, I am simply not overrating as you are just because it is from 1975. For Elvis' standards, it was mediocre work. Nothing really disparaging about that concept.

You are fooling only yourself here. You are an habitual disparager. The only question is one of motive.

Your foolish (and ongoing) assumption that I like performances just because they are from a certain year is extremely childish as well as absurd. But at least it serves as a beacon to your true nature.

Perhaps sub-conciously you are applying a reverse of your own pyschology, whereby if a track comes from after 1970 it is by definition sub standard?

If you are implying that I disparaged the Tiger Man performance, once again, you are mistaken. I am simply not overrating a vocal performance that is clearly mediocre for Elvis' standards.

ooooook

Perhaps English is not your first language?

Perhaps it is not yours? I did not belittle, mock, ridicule, scorn, or denigrate the track. It is an honest look at the track. I never said it was bad, I am simply not overrating as you are just because it is from 1975. For Elvis' standards, it was mediocre work. Nothing really disparaging about that concept.

I had to look up disparaged but it seems to fit perfectly with your posts

do you think that calling something mediocre at best that other people have said is pretty good or enjoyable
and posting this opinion over and over again as if it were gospel fact does not perfectly match the definition
of denigrate and disparage - it does in my dictionary

and this is what you do over and over again

it ruins the forum and puts loads of people off stating their views

Mike, you are getting way too dramatic. The moment I stated that Elvis' performance on the Tiger Man jam was less than amazing (and I have every right to make that thoughtful and informed opinion), others made sure to point out their difference of opinion, over and over again. It is no different. You are simply a hypocrite that chooses to support one side of the argument while attacking anyone who doesn't see it your way. Lighten up. If someone chooses not to state their views because they are concerned others here may disagree with it, well, they obviously have bigger problems that need attention.

Don't listen to him Mike.

He will have you believing black is white if you do.

Look carefully at the twisting of the "thoughful and informed opinion". In the latest post, Tiger Man jam 1975 is less than amazing. But in reality our resident disparager of all things post 1970 has labelled it mediocre at best. Bit of a difference there, eh? And it is everyone else who is repeatedly banging on about their opinions, not him? Of course it is

Rest assured, if Elvis had laid down the exact same rendition warming up for the 1970 session, Mx would be all over it as a great and artful re-working of the classic track into a blues tour de force.

"I had to look up disparaged but it seems to fit perfectly with your posts" - ain't that the truth.

Divergent tastes and views are of course inevitable with an eclectic (look it up) artist like Elvis, and we should expect genuine debate and disagreement. But far far too often, Mx drifts into the realm of repeated "automatic gainsaying" (check out Monty Python - The Arguement) of anyone who expresses a like for a late 70's performance. Soon, no doubt, you will not just be a hypocrite, but a rose colored glasses wearing, latter day Elvis apologist as well.

So please don't get sucked in to thinking you are the hypocrite - his attacks are there for all to see. But also bear in mind that you will not change the leopard's spots.

For Mike and Midnightx.

Well, I love Litte Darlin'. The song itself is great and sure, it's a throwaway for Elvis, he's still having fun on stage and that rock'n' roll is all about.

For Mike and Midnightx.

Now that really did make me 'laugh out loud' !

Well, I love Litte Darlin'. The song itself is great and sure, it's a throwaway for Elvis, he's still having fun on stage and that rock'n' roll is all about.

100% correct. I'd love to know what made him decide to include it in the show.

Now that really did make me 'laugh out loud' !

It's an old time classic, with a message for our times

If someone chooses not to state their views because they are concerned others here may disagree with it, well, they obviously have bigger problems that need attention.

disagreeing is one thing

But you have a marked tendency to mock belittle and label people and there opinions and then persue that agenda across the board

This must be inhibiting to a lot of new members and the many lurkers who do not even join for fear of becoming tangled up in one of your games

you are the bigger problem that needs attention it seems to me