Painful viewing

... it is no small wonder he is not held in such high regard artistically.

Those who do not hold Elvis' greatest achievements, and overall career, as one of the greatest of all time, are simply ignorant. Not too many artists change the world. He was one of them.

I got to agree with you on that one doc.

+ 1
I don't know about elsewhere but certainly in the UK Elvis is still held in very high regard amongst the serious music press.

... it is no small wonder he is not held in such high regard artistically.

Those who do not hold Elvis' greatest achievements, and overall career, as one of the greatest of all time, are simply ignorant. Not too many artists change the world. He was one of them.

I got to agree with you on that one doc.

+ 1
I don't know about elsewhere but certainly in the UK Elvis is still held in very high regard amongst the serious music press.

likewise here in ireland.

... it is no small wonder he is not held in such high regard artistically.

Those who do not hold Elvis' greatest achievements, and overall career, as one of the greatest of all time, are simply ignorant. Not too many artists change the world. He was one of them.

He changed the face of popular music like probably no other artist did and for sure had his impact on sociale life in the 50s but to say he changed the world... Explain yourself Doc, what did I miss?

... it is no small wonder he is not held in such high regard artistically.

Those who do not hold Elvis' greatest achievements, and overall career, as one of the greatest of all time, are simply ignorant. Not too many artists change the world. He was one of them.

I got to agree with you on that one doc.

+ 1
I don't know about elsewhere but certainly in the UK Elvis is still held in very high regard amongst the serious music press.

likewise here in ireland.

The Netherlands has a large fanbase but the press over here never held much for Elvis... It only changed somewhat since the 50s box from the 90s got raving reviews and ALLC remix a decade later. Popular music over here really took off in the mid-60s, before 1960 there were not even charts. Probably that's why Holland is à Beatles and Stones country, if you ask opinion leaders.

... it is no small wonder he is not held in such high regard artistically.

Those who do not hold Elvis' greatest achievements, and overall career, as one of the greatest of all time, are simply ignorant. Not too many artists change the world. He was one of them.

He changed the face of popular music like probably no other artist did and for sure had his impact on sociale life in the 50s but to say he changed the world... Explain yourself Doc, what did I miss?

Elvis Presley was not the only artist, there was another group who turned popular culture around about ten years after.

There are many valuable books written about Elvis' impact on society, popular culture and mores in the United States, and subsequently around the western world, following his breakthrough year in 1956. I'll see if I can round up a few titles for you to pursue.

I see nothing of the Boy From Tupelo in that 'Special'.

I see nothing of the man from just five years earlier at Madison Square Garden! Sad.

is this another EIC thread?

... it is no small wonder he is not held in such high regard artistically.

Those who do not hold Elvis' greatest achievements, and overall career, as one of the greatest of all time, are simply ignorant. Not too many artists change the world. He was one of them.

I got to agree with you on that one doc.

+ 1
I don't know about elsewhere but certainly in the UK Elvis is still held in very high regard amongst the serious music press.

likewise here in ireland.

The Netherlands has a large fanbase but the press over here never held much for Elvis... It only changed somewhat since the 50s box from the 90s got raving reviews and ALLC remix a decade later. Popular music over here really took off in the mid-60s, before 1960 there were not even charts. Probably that's why Holland is à Beatles and Stones country, if you ask opinion leaders.

Hate to agree, but this is true. The 'informed press' is still informed as there was a radio show a couple of years ago on the radio, overstating Elvis weight to twice is original. Also they had Elvis drunk. It will never change.

Well, his voice beats mine even on one of my good days!

It is a misconception that his voice beats many in 77, even without the images..

EIC is hard to view. It is better if you close your eyes though...even at his worst his voice beats many.

Here is the thing about Elvis for me. It is like watching a classic tragedy. The beginning of his story soars. He has a dip or two then he recovers with flying colors the 68 Special and TTWII and Country. Then he proves he is a continuous force w/E on Tour and MSG. Then he declines to EIC and 8-16-1977...which drives me back to the beginning where he soars...

I call it the Elvis: What Happened? syndrome.

For you Beatle fans, it is the same thing...soaring, then the White Album then LIB and break up...which drives me back to the beginning.

Another way to put it is Elvis' lows make his highs even higher. I love it when he triumphs!



Bpd

bpd

... it is no small wonder he is not held in such high regard artistically.

Those who do not hold Elvis' greatest achievements, and overall career, as one of the greatest of all time, are simply ignorant. Not too many artists change the world. He was one of them.

You take my comment entirely out of context. I never said they were right or wrong to do so, but simply stated why The Beatles might be more highly regarded in an artistic context than Elvis: no dud albums in 8 years, and each set of recordings building upon the style and content of the previous one. With the exception of HGTA in 1966, there were no great albums from Pot Luck until the 68 Comeback and, despite the fact I like much of the music, no great albums after That's The Way It Is and Elvis Country.

Where is the Beatles albums of an equivalent lack of ambition amd artistry to Harum Scarum, Girl Happy, Paradise Hawaiian Style, Elvis for Everyone, Spinout, Speedway, Clambake (and before anyone cites the bonus tracks, on these it's worth remembering these are BONUSES and 3 great tracks don't make up for nine dud ones), Love Letters from Elvis, Fool, Raised On Rock , Elvis Now, Elvis in Concert...I could go on + all the budget albums as well.

There was thought, logic, artistry, musicality and progress in each of the Beatles albums over their entire career. For Elvis this is only true from 1954 to 1961 and from 1968-1970. People will cite Aloha because of its success and the fact it got to number 1, but Elvis was looking back, not forward. With The Beatles it was always the other way round.

So for the remaining two thirds of his career, any great recordings Elvis did were thrown away by the powers that be and Elvis's own apparent uninterest in the trajectory of his own career. Bearing this in mind, you have to be an Elvis fan to know the highs of It Hurts Me, Tomorrow Is A Long Time, I'm Leavin, Promised Land, etc.

Elvis would be taken much more seriously today had the soundtrack albums (and the films) not existed and albums of secular material been released from the 1963, 66 and 67 sessions instead. Likewise, if one secular album had come out of the 1971 sessions, Love Letters From Elvis had remained in the can, Standing Room Only had come into being, two albums instead of three had come out of the Stax sessions etc. Elvis's overall career would have been artistically greater and logical. Why would the press take someone seriously who put two great songs (Separate Ways and Always On My Mind) on a compilation of soundtracks, likewise Burning Love. The achievements of 1968-70 had all been thrown away within a matter of months due to greed.

Elvis may well have changed the world, but there was another 20 years of music after that, much of which was marred by a lack of care and attention and ambition. What's more, Elvis's physical decline in the 70s is well documented on video, sub-par shows have been made available via both bootleg and FTD (because fans want them, I might add),

And the legacy is a mess. There are more outtakes available than finished songs, and certainly more compilations available now than original albums. A cohesive release of Presley's music never really happened on CD. If you want to explore his music you are generally in need of FTDs to get to hear them, but they come with the outtakes etc which (although we want them) only disguise the masters any music critic would want to hear. If Universal can re-release all of Sinatra's albums over a two year period, then there is no reason why Sony couldn't do the same with Elvis. A two-fer series would be ideal. We can;t rewrite the past, and how things were released originally, but we can present the albums in the best way possible (and have a duty to do so) for any new fans or people interest in Elvis's music and fascinating (if frustrating) career.

... it is no small wonder he is not held in such high regard artistically.

Those who do not hold Elvis' greatest achievements, and overall career, as one of the greatest of all time, are simply ignorant. Not too many artists change the world. He was one of them.

You take my comment entirely out of context. I never said they were right or wrong to do so, but simply stated why The Beatles might be more highly regarded in an artistic context than Elvis: no dud albums in 8 years, and each set of recordings building upon the style and content of the previous one. With the exception of HGTA in 1966, there were no great albums from Pot Luck until the 68 Comeback and, despite the fact I like much of the music, no great albums after That's The Way It Is and Elvis Country.

Where is the Beatles albums of an equivalent lack of ambition amd artistry to Harum Scarum, Girl Happy, Paradise Hawaiian Style, Elvis for Everyone, Spinout, Speedway, Clambake (and before anyone cites the bonus tracks, on these it's worth remembering these are BONUSES and 3 great tracks don't make up for nine dud ones), Love Letters from Elvis, Fool, Raised On Rock , Elvis Now, Elvis in Concert...I could go on + all the budget albums as well.

There was thought, logic, artistry, musicality and progress in each of the Beatles albums over their entire career. For Elvis this is only true from 1954 to 1961 and from 1968-1970. People will cite Aloha because of its success and the fact it got to number 1, but Elvis was looking back, not forward. With The Beatles it was always the other way round.

So for the remaining two thirds of his career, any great recordings Elvis did were thrown away by the powers that be and Elvis's own apparent uninterest in the trajectory of his own career. Bearing this in mind, you have to be an Elvis fan to know the highs of It Hurts Me, Tomorrow Is A Long Time, I'm Leavin, Promised Land, etc.

Elvis would be taken much more seriously today had the soundtrack albums (and the films) not existed and albums of secular material been released from the 1963, 66 and 67 sessions instead. Likewise, if one secular album had come out of the 1971 sessions, Love Letters From Elvis had remained in the can, Standing Room Only had come into being, two albums instead of three had come out of the Stax sessions etc. Elvis's overall career would have been artistically greater and logical. Why would the press take someone seriously who put two great songs (Separate Ways and Always On My Mind) on a compilation of soundtracks, likewise Burning Love. The achievements of 1968-70 had all been thrown away within a matter of months due to greed.

Elvis may well have changed the world, but there was another 20 years of music after that, much of which was marred by a lack of care and attention and ambition. What's more, Elvis's physical decline in the 70s is well documented on video, sub-par shows have been made available via both bootleg and FTD (because fans want them, I might add),

And the legacy is a mess. There are more outtakes available than finished songs, and certainly more compilations available now than original albums. A cohesive release of Presley's music never really happened on CD. If you want to explore his music you are generally in need of FTDs to get to hear them, but they come with the outtakes etc which (although we want them) only disguise the masters any music critic would want to hear. If Universal can re-release all of Sinatra's albums over a two year period, then there is no reason why Sony couldn't do the same with Elvis. A two-fer series would be ideal. We can;t rewrite the past, and how things were released originally, but we can present the albums in the best way possible (and have a duty to do so) for any new fans or people interest in Elvis's music and fascinating (if frustrating) career.

I hate to say it but there is a lot of truth in this post. Elvis did change the world, but it also worked the other way around. The kind soul Geller talks about started to build a wall around himself and let important decisions to others. Only when he cared enough to do something about it, things did happen. Be it the 1968 special or the the return to live shows. Or the brilliant 1969 sessions.

Elvis thus proved to be able to stand up for himself and he should have done that a lot of times more often, despite the movie contracts that made him physically ill. Better actors and scripts could and should have been demanded. Or more movies without songs. Like Elvis wanted. He so wanted an Oscar. I almost want to give him one posthumously because of what he did for the movie industry, i.e. the money generated by Elvis movies went to serious movies.

Also, there should have been less movies and better songs for those movies that had songs.

In the sixties Elvis was no threat to The Beatles and he knew it. It must have ate him up, but he did little to change things. Only in in 1966 we see the first signs of a comeback: But no matter HGTA is, it was not a world changing record. We had to wait a few more years before Elvis was taking the chains off of him: If you are looking for trouble, you came to the right place.

Kind of off topic, but if people think June 19 or June 21 were painful to watch, then you need to watch the June 18 show in Kansas City. How many times was he going to stop the band for crying out loud? He actually seemed vocally good after messing up See See Rider and That's All Right, but then he stops Blue Christmas and then stops Big Boss Man.

I know this sounds sick and morbid, but I almost had wished CBS had taped Kansas City and Omaha. Because then it wouldn't be much tears when EPE (alledgelly) decided to torch them.

(That being said, I still think June 21 was a classic concert. If Elvis hadn't looked fat and sick, it would have been rated as one of his greatest concerts in 1976-77).

Kind of off topic, but if people think June 19 or June 21 were painful to watch, then you need to watch the June 18 show in Kansas City. How many times was he going to stop the band for crying out loud? He actually seemed vocally good after messing up See See Rider and That's All Right, but then he stops Blue Christmas and then stops Big Boss Man.

I know this sounds sick and morbid, but I almost had wished CBS had taped Kansas City and Omaha. Because then it wouldn't be much tears when EPE (alledgelly) decided to torch them.

(That being said, I still think June 21 was a classic concert. If Elvis hadn't looked fat and sick, it would have been rated as one of his greatest concerts in 1976-77).

June 21st as a classic concert? That is overrating it to a high degree...what is classic about it?

While it may be one of the strongest concerts from the '76/'77 period, Rapid City '77 is far from being a classic.

Kind of off topic, but if people think June 19 or June 21 were painful to watch, then you need to watch the June 18 show in Kansas City.

Agreed.

When I received the '77 box a few months ago, I viewed the Kansas City footage again. It is definitely as bad or worse than Omaha.

A far cry from the show he put on there just 6 years earlier.

June 21st as a classic concert? That is overrating it to a high degree...what is classic about it?

While it may be one of the strongest concerts from the '76/'77 period, Rapid City '77 is far from being a classic.

I disagree, to a point. When I first got into Elvis, at a young age, Elvis In Concert was one of my first concert albums I listened to. My daddy also labeled it "Elvis: Final Concert" when he dubbed it over to cassette. It took years for me to discover it wasn't actually the final concert. (Kind of wierd he wrote that, when years later he knew the TV special came from two different shows even in '77)

In my mind, if Elvis had not been sick, or overweight (sick fat as my Mom put it), with his goofy nature and high vocals - then it could have been a classic.

You have to realize, when I first heard of raw footage (in 1999-2000) existing of Rapid City - it was a dream come true. I had always loved the conviction he sang "My Way" with. I always wondered what happened after he pulled the guitar off after "Lonesome Tonight" as This is Elvis edited it to him introducing his father. (I never knew Record 2 of EIC had been the majority of Rapid City dubbed)

I know the show is crap compared to 1968, or even the TTWIS tapes - but there is something about the show that draws me to it.

June 21st as a classic concert? That is overrating it to a high degree...what is classic about it?

While it may be one of the strongest concerts from the '76/'77 period, Rapid City '77 is far from being a classic.

I disagree, to a point. When I first got into Elvis, at a young age, Elvis In Concert was one of my first concert albums I listened to. My daddy also labeled it "Elvis: Final Concert" when he dubbed it over to cassette. It took years for me to discover it wasn't actually the final concert. (Kind of wierd he wrote that, when years later he knew the TV special came from two different shows even in '77)

In my mind, if Elvis had not been sick, or overweight (sick fat as my Mom put it), with his goofy nature and high vocals - then it could have been a classic.

You have to realize, when I first heard of raw footage (in 1999-2000) existing of Rapid City - it was a dream come true. I had always loved the conviction he sang "My Way" with. I always wondered what happened after he pulled the guitar off after "Lonesome Tonight" as This is Elvis edited it to him introducing his father. (I never knew Record 2 of EIC had been the majority of Rapid City dubbed)

I know the show is crap compared to 1968, or even the TTWIS tapes - but there is something about the show that draws me to it.

Elvis was sick, overweight, in poor voice (yes, he could sing loudly, but that didn't make up for the lack of tone in his voice or the nasally, whining quality that was attached to it in this tour inparticular) and was dying. Had it not been for those things it might have been a good show. Well, we all know that! The problem was he was all of the above and more.

Perhaps the saddest thing about the whole debacle is the embarassment at himself etched across Elvis's face throughout. If you are drawn back to EIC then, going by your story, it is more likely to be through fond childhood memories attached to it rather than anything Elvis achieved in the show.

Elvis' tone at Rapid City is pretty good and his vocals are much better than those from Omaha or many 1976 concerts that were nasally. I'm with those who think this is one of his better shows from 1977. After Omaha, he told the producers he would do better and he did.

For the record, one more time, he may have been unwell in June 1977 but he wasn't dying. If he had gone for treatment after these shows he may have lived for many years to come. He was killing himself, not dying. There is a difference.

Elvis' tone at Rapid City is pretty good and his vocals are much better than those from Omaha or many 1976 concerts that were nasally. I'm with those who think this is one of his better shows from 1977. After Omaha, he told the producers he would do better and he did.

For the record, one more time, he may have been unwell in June 1977 but he wasn't dying. If he had gone for treatment after these shows he may have lived for many years to come. He was killing himself, not dying. There is a difference.

Tone? Only on a few numbers. On others he sounds awful.

Agree with the health assessment. He was only dying on the inside in June 1977. He didn't like where he was at, nor did he want the unblinking eye of the camera taping him for network consumption.

... it is no small wonder he is not held in such high regard artistically.

Those who do not hold Elvis' greatest achievements, and overall career, as one of the greatest of all time, are simply ignorant. Not too many artists change the world. He was one of them.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!
- Again , elvis ,hendrix & the beatles (to name but a few - though the major players)
Turned the musical world upside down & inside out = u dont have to be a personal fan to realise this & appreciate it
but i guess an open mind & intelligence is way too much for way too many people!
it seems to be quit lacking on this very MB so god know the outside world !

Elvis' tone at Rapid City is pretty good and his vocals are much better than those from Omaha or many 1976 concerts that were nasally. I'm with those who think this is one of his better shows from 1977. After Omaha, he told the producers he would do better and he did.

For the record, one more time, he may have been unwell in June 1977 but he wasn't dying. If he had gone for treatment after these shows he may have lived for many years to come. He was killing himself, not dying. There is a difference.

Tone? Only on a few numbers. On others he sounds awful.

Agree with the health assessment. He was only dying on the inside in June 1977. He didn't like where he was at, nor did he want the unblinking eye of the camera taping him for network consumption.

Thanks Doc. I am damning with faint praise when I say his tone is better than many 1977 and summer 1976 shows. On the songs he cared about, he sang better than average at the time.

For the record, one more time, he may have been unwell in June 1977 but he wasn't dying. If he had gone for treatment after these shows he may have lived for many years to come. He was killing himself, not dying. There is a difference.

He was in bad shape by June 1977, Steve. It also depends on whether he OD'ed on August 16, or if his heart simply gave out after years of abuse. If it was the former, he wasn't dying in June. If it was the latter, he was. (Knowing that he was sick, and just getting sicker from all the drugs - I'm not sure which camp I fall in.)

For the record, one more time, he may have been unwell in June 1977 but he wasn't dying. If he had gone for treatment after these shows he may have lived for many years to come. He was killing himself, not dying. There is a difference.

He was in bad shape by June 1977, Steve. It also depends on whether he OD'ed on August 16, or if his heart simply gave out after years of abuse. If it was the former, he wasn't dying in June. If it was the latter, he was. (Knowing that he was sick, and just getting sicker from all the drugs - I'm not sure which camp I fall in.)

He reportedly had a very strong cocktail of medications that morning, fg. My killing himself/dying differentiation holds, I believe.

For the record, one more time, he may have been unwell in June 1977 but he wasn't dying. If he had gone for treatment after these shows he may have lived for many years to come. He was killing himself, not dying. There is a difference.

He was in bad shape by June 1977, Steve. It also depends on whether he OD'ed on August 16, or if his heart simply gave out after years of abuse. If it was the former, he wasn't dying in June. If it was the latter, he was. (Knowing that he was sick, and just getting sicker from all the drugs - I'm not sure which camp I fall in.)

He reportedly had a very strong cocktail of medications that morning, fg. My killing himself/dying differentiation holds, I believe.

Killing yourself with your pants down? No W A Y !

For the record, one more time, he may have been unwell in June 1977 but he wasn't dying. If he had gone for treatment after these shows he may have lived for many years to come. He was killing himself, not dying. There is a difference.

You are correct Steve. However, there are some fans that want to believe Elvis was a seriously sick man in 1977 and that the drug abuse was secondary, and happening because Elvis needed treatment. The reality is that the vast majority of Elvis' health problems stemmed from the drug use - not the other way around. Yes, technically Elvis was "sick" -- and that was because he was a drug addict.