By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.
The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Moderators: FECC-Moderator, Moderator5, Moderator3, Site Mechanic
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
-
- TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
- Posts: 5002
- Joined: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 355 times
- Been thanked: 2252 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.
Hack n. 1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Call it what you like. But you've been warned of your behavior. You wouldn't have been, if it wasn't trollish. Agitating for the fun of it. You posting history speaks for itself.fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.
With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
-
- TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
- Posts: 5002
- Joined: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 355 times
- Been thanked: 2252 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
Hack n. 1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
You've been spouting elitism since the start of this thread by putting down people's views repeatedly - you just don't even realise it, which is kind of amusing.fn2drive wrote:At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
-
- TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
- Posts: 5002
- Joined: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 355 times
- Been thanked: 2252 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Well it wasnt me who said only outtakes that you deem worthy that you already got to hear should be available to the unwashed masses. All i did was point out that this track is hardly majestic but rather a Felton Jarvis overdubbed monstrosity-i never suggested people who like it shouldnt have access to it because it doesn't live up to my standards as you did for outtakes. Pointing out that the record buying public agreed by ignoring this track as a single is the opposite of elitism-the masses cast their vote and agreed with me by voting with their wallets. Of course you also regularly dismiss record sales as a barometer which is another sign of elitism ie i know better than the people-um okay.poormadpeter2 wrote:You've been spouting elitism since the start of this thread by putting down people's views repeatedly - you just don't even realise it, which is kind of amusing.fn2drive wrote:At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
Hack n. 1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward
-
- Posts: 5177
- Joined: 21 years 10 months
- Been thanked: 1378 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Pardon me for going OT just for a moment.fn2drive wrote:Well it wasnt me who said only outtakes that you deem worthy that you already got to hear should be available to the unwashed masses. All i did was point out that this track is hardly majestic but rather a Felton Jarvis overdubbed monstrosity-i never suggested people who like it shouldnt have access to it because it doesn't live up to my standards as you did for outtakes. Pointing out that the record buying public agreed by ignoring this track as a single is the opposite of elitism-the masses cast their vote and agreed with me by voting with their wallets. Of course you also regularly dismiss record sales as a barometer which is another sign of elitism ie i know better than the people-um okay.poormadpeter2 wrote:You've been spouting elitism since the start of this thread by putting down people's views repeatedly - you just don't even realise it, which is kind of amusing.fn2drive wrote:At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
You have several times made those same comments about "book burning" and "censorship", so let me ask you a couple of questions.
Regarding censorship...do you consider it to be censorship because something that was rejected on artistical grounds for not being good enough, is not released? If you say yes, why do you think the artist should not have any saying in that?
What do you think about EIC being released on mainstream DVD/BR? If you say no, why?
-
- TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
- Posts: 5002
- Joined: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 355 times
- Been thanked: 2252 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Depends on the circumstances. If an artist owns their works and made provision that unreleased recordings or works never be shared publicly, that is not censorship. If the artist as is the case here, sold their master recordings pre 1973 and made no provision in their will to shield outtakes from post 1973 work from the public then both the rights holders and estate are free to do as they choose. If the artist had expressed a view that the post 1973 recording outtakes never see the light if day, a true fan would have a legitimate onjection. Note for example Elvis requested if iirc Dominic not be released when he was alive but said nothing about posthumously. So if the artist was indifferent and Elvis was, claiming outtakes should not be released is censorship. Worse yet is saying after you had the chance to hear them they arent worthy and no one else should smacks of elitism. Who appointed the one or few as the arbiter for the many. Ernst has served that role for many years because he was vested by virtue of rhe ownership of the masters and outtakes by the record company. And while along the way he clearly made artistic and commercial choices, i dont want him or any one else telling me what is worthy of release though he clearly used good judgement in the sequencing. I can make up my own mind as the artist expressed no such desire. I want every take of every master sequentially yes including Padre. Censorship and elitism should never be condoned.Scarre wrote:Pardon me for going OT just for a moment.fn2drive wrote:Well it wasnt me who said only outtakes that you deem worthy that you already got to hear should be available to the unwashed masses. All i did was point out that this track is hardly majestic but rather a Felton Jarvis overdubbed monstrosity-i never suggested people who like it shouldnt have access to it because it doesn't live up to my standards as you did for outtakes. Pointing out that the record buying public agreed by ignoring this track as a single is the opposite of elitism-the masses cast their vote and agreed with me by voting with their wallets. Of course you also regularly dismiss record sales as a barometer which is another sign of elitism ie i know better than the people-um okay.poormadpeter2 wrote:You've been spouting elitism since the start of this thread by putting down people's views repeatedly - you just don't even realise it, which is kind of amusing.fn2drive wrote:At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
You have several times made those same comments about "book burning" and "censorship", so let me ask you a couple of questions.
Regarding censorship...do you consider it to be censorship because something that was rejected on artistical grounds for not being good enough, is not released? If you say yes, why do you think the artist should not have any saying in that?
What do you think about EIC being released on mainstream DVD/BR? If you say no, why?
Hack n. 1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Except that is not what was said. Why don't you go back and find where o supposedly said these things about who should hear what? Who said I had heard/should hear the outtakes and no one else should? Not me. That's all in your warped, obsessive mind. What I said was that many/most should not have been released. Elvis nor any other artist could have foreseen the market for outtakes back in the 1970s - they were not commonly released, so why include thoughts on them in a will. Its rather like expecting a 1940s film director saying he didn't want his film released on DVD. You think people are psychic? No. That would require thinking.fn2drive wrote:Depends on the circumstances. If an artist owns their works and made provision that unreleased recordings or works never be shared publicly, that is not censorship. If the artist as is the case here, sold their master recordings pre 1973 and made no provision in their will to shield outtakes from post 1973 work from the public then both the rights holders and estate are free to do as they choose. If the artist had expressed a view that the post 1973 recording outtakes never see the light if day, a true fan would have a legitimate onjection. Note for example Elvis requested if iirc Dominic not be released when he was alive but said nothing about posthumously. So if the artist was indifferent and Elvis was, claiming outtakes should not be released is censorship. Worse yet is saying after you had the chance to hear them they arent worthy and no one else should smacks of elitism. Who appointed the one or few as the arbiter for the many. Ernst has served that role for many years because he was vested by virtue of rhe ownership of the masters and outtakes by the record company. And while along the way he clearly made artistic and commercial choices, i dont want him or any one else telling me what is worthy of release though he clearly used good judgement in the sequencing. I can make up my own mind as the artist expressed no such desire. I want every take of every master sequentially yes including Padre. Censorship and elitism should never be condoned.Scarre wrote:Pardon me for going OT just for a moment.fn2drive wrote:Well it wasnt me who said only outtakes that you deem worthy that you already got to hear should be available to the unwashed masses. All i did was point out that this track is hardly majestic but rather a Felton Jarvis overdubbed monstrosity-i never suggested people who like it shouldnt have access to it because it doesn't live up to my standards as you did for outtakes. Pointing out that the record buying public agreed by ignoring this track as a single is the opposite of elitism-the masses cast their vote and agreed with me by voting with their wallets. Of course you also regularly dismiss record sales as a barometer which is another sign of elitism ie i know better than the people-um okay.poormadpeter2 wrote:You've been spouting elitism since the start of this thread by putting down people's views repeatedly - you just don't even realise it, which is kind of amusing.fn2drive wrote:At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
You have several times made those same comments about "book burning" and "censorship", so let me ask you a couple of questions.
Regarding censorship...do you consider it to be censorship because something that was rejected on artistical grounds for not being good enough, is not released? If you say yes, why do you think the artist should not have any saying in that?
What do you think about EIC being released on mainstream DVD/BR? If you say no, why?
-
- Posts: 5177
- Joined: 21 years 10 months
- Been thanked: 1378 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
You didn't say anything about EIC..?fn2drive wrote:Depends on the circumstances. If an artist owns their works and made provision that unreleased recordings or works never be shared publicly, that is not censorship. If the artist as is the case here, sold their master recordings pre 1973 and made no provision in their will to shield outtakes from post 1973 work from the public then both the rights holders and estate are free to do as they choose. If the artist had expressed a view that the post 1973 recording outtakes never see the light if day, a true fan would have a legitimate onjection. Note for example Elvis requested if iirc Dominic not be released when he was alive but said nothing about posthumously. So if the artist was indifferent and Elvis was, claiming outtakes should not be released is censorship. Worse yet is saying after you had the chance to hear them they arent worthy and no one else should smacks of elitism. Who appointed the one or few as the arbiter for the many. Ernst has served that role for many years because he was vested by virtue of rhe ownership of the masters and outtakes by the record company. And while along the way he clearly made artistic and commercial choices, i dont want him or any one else telling me what is worthy of release though he clearly used good judgement in the sequencing. I can make up my own mind as the artist expressed no such desire. I want every take of every master sequentially yes including Padre. Censorship and elitism should never be condoned.Scarre wrote:Pardon me for going OT just for a moment.fn2drive wrote:Well it wasnt me who said only outtakes that you deem worthy that you already got to hear should be available to the unwashed masses. All i did was point out that this track is hardly majestic but rather a Felton Jarvis overdubbed monstrosity-i never suggested people who like it shouldnt have access to it because it doesn't live up to my standards as you did for outtakes. Pointing out that the record buying public agreed by ignoring this track as a single is the opposite of elitism-the masses cast their vote and agreed with me by voting with their wallets. Of course you also regularly dismiss record sales as a barometer which is another sign of elitism ie i know better than the people-um okay.poormadpeter2 wrote:You've been spouting elitism since the start of this thread by putting down people's views repeatedly - you just don't even realise it, which is kind of amusing.fn2drive wrote:At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
You have several times made those same comments about "book burning" and "censorship", so let me ask you a couple of questions.
Regarding censorship...do you consider it to be censorship because something that was rejected on artistical grounds for not being good enough, is not released? If you say yes, why do you think the artist should not have any saying in that?
What do you think about EIC being released on mainstream DVD/BR? If you say no, why?
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
This thread posted one year ago today. Time flies. Merry Christmas!
..
..
-
- Posts: 7272
- Joined: 21 years
- Has thanked: 59 times
- Been thanked: 1671 times
Re: "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful"
Single version has Imperials high in the mix and panned right. Very pretty harmony.Eggrert wrote:What are the differences between the single version and the album version? Is the single version available on any CDs?elvisjock wrote:I've become more partial to the single version. It's among Elvis' finest work with The Imperials. Tenor Jim Murray is particularly outstanding.
"Don't tell me to play it. I will when I get ready. Do you understand me?"
-
- Posts: 110079
- Joined: 21 years 10 months
- Location: United States of America
- Has thanked: 12435 times
- Been thanked: 37979 times
- Age: 90
Re: "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful"
One regret of the Stamps not coming on board until near the end of 1971 is that they missed the sessions for the LP. Just imagine a vintage bass slide by J.D. Sumner to end this song!elvisjock wrote:Single version has Imperials high in the mix and panned right. Very pretty harmony.Eggrert wrote:What are the differences between the single version and the album version? Is the single version available on any CDs?elvisjock wrote:I've become more partial to the single version. It's among Elvis' finest work with The Imperials. Tenor Jim Murray is particularly outstanding.
.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
-
- Posts: 5368
- Joined: 20 years 5 months
- Location: New Jersey, USA
- Mood:
- Has thanked: 5853 times
- Been thanked: 2940 times
Re: "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful"
Your point is well taken elvisjock! The Imperials were just amazing voices with Elvis. I loved the songs they recorded with him. Having their voices behind Elvis on this 1971 project helped create a wonderful seasonal album.elvisjock wrote:Single version has Imperials high in the mix and panned right. Very pretty harmony.Eggrert wrote:What are the differences between the single version and the album version? Is the single version available on any CDs?elvisjock wrote:I've become more partial to the single version. It's among Elvis' finest work with The Imperials. Tenor Jim Murray is particularly outstanding.
rlj
-
- Posts: 7272
- Joined: 21 years
- Has thanked: 59 times
- Been thanked: 1671 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Ironically, the group didn't sing live with Elvis on the Christmas songs. It appears they were not available during the May 15 - 17 sessions, when the bulk of TWWOC was recorded. Elvis' isolated vocals are, for the most part, weak. The Imperials played a major role in the polishing of the finished product.
"Don't tell me to play it. I will when I get ready. Do you understand me?"
-
- Posts: 5368
- Joined: 20 years 5 months
- Location: New Jersey, USA
- Mood:
- Has thanked: 5853 times
- Been thanked: 2940 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Thanks elvisjock. I did not know the Imperials were not with Elvis at the recordings. For some reason I thought they were present for them and there was some incident with them where Elvis became angry and stormed out of the studio. I guess my information is incorrect.elvisjock wrote:Ironically, the group didn't sing live with Elvis on the Christmas songs. It appears they were not available during the May 15 - 17 sessions, when the bulk of TWWOC was recorded. Elvis' isolated vocals are, for the most part, weak. The Imperials played a major role in the polishing of the finished product.
Still, I like Elvis' vocals and delivery on this album. To my aging ears he does sound committed and reverent in his delivery.
Thanks again
rlj
-
- TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
- Posts: 5002
- Joined: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 355 times
- Been thanked: 2252 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Missed it. Sorry. As you should be able to infer from my reply, unless Elvis expressed a view, it is up to the rights holders to decide. Perhaps one could argue that the 3 tv special deals were for 2 airings only so a case could be made that none of them should have been released. The restrictions seem more commercial in nature however rather than the star's desire. Do i have an objection to it being released? With the advent of the internet and you tube, it is no longer controlled and essentially in the public domain. The damage to his legacy has been done. If Lisa as the owner doesnt want it shared for obvious reasons, that's not censorship as she is the rights holder- no different than private collectors not sharing their exclusively owned items.Scarre wrote:You didn't say anything about EIC..?fn2drive wrote:Depends on the circumstances. If an artist owns their works and made provision that unreleased recordings or works never be shared publicly, that is not censorship. If the artist as is the case here, sold their master recordings pre 1973 and made no provision in their will to shield outtakes from post 1973 work from the public then both the rights holders and estate are free to do as they choose. If the artist had expressed a view that the post 1973 recording outtakes never see the light if day, a true fan would have a legitimate onjection. Note for example Elvis requested if iirc Dominic not be released when he was alive but said nothing about posthumously. So if the artist was indifferent and Elvis was, claiming outtakes should not be released is censorship. Worse yet is saying after you had the chance to hear them they arent worthy and no one else should smacks of elitism. Who appointed the one or few as the arbiter for the many. Ernst has served that role for many years because he was vested by virtue of rhe ownership of the masters and outtakes by the record company. And while along the way he clearly made artistic and commercial choices, i dont want him or any one else telling me what is worthy of release though he clearly used good judgement in the sequencing. I can make up my own mind as the artist expressed no such desire. I want every take of every master sequentially yes including Padre. Censorship and elitism should never be condoned.Scarre wrote:Pardon me for going OT just for a moment.fn2drive wrote:Well it wasnt me who said only outtakes that you deem worthy that you already got to hear should be available to the unwashed masses. All i did was point out that this track is hardly majestic but rather a Felton Jarvis overdubbed monstrosity-i never suggested people who like it shouldnt have access to it because it doesn't live up to my standards as you did for outtakes. Pointing out that the record buying public agreed by ignoring this track as a single is the opposite of elitism-the masses cast their vote and agreed with me by voting with their wallets. Of course you also regularly dismiss record sales as a barometer which is another sign of elitism ie i know better than the people-um okay.poormadpeter2 wrote:You've been spouting elitism since the start of this thread by putting down people's views repeatedly - you just don't even realise it, which is kind of amusing.fn2drive wrote:At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
You have several times made those same comments about "book burning" and "censorship", so let me ask you a couple of questions.
Regarding censorship...do you consider it to be censorship because something that was rejected on artistical grounds for not being good enough, is not released? If you say yes, why do you think the artist should not have any saying in that?
What do you think about EIC being released on mainstream DVD/BR? If you say no, why?
Hack n. 1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward
-
- Posts: 110079
- Joined: 21 years 10 months
- Location: United States of America
- Has thanked: 12435 times
- Been thanked: 37979 times
- Age: 90
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
As did the mastering engineers at the time.elvisjock wrote:Ironically, the group didn't sing live with Elvis on the Christmas songs. It appears they were not available during the May 15 - 17 sessions, when the bulk of TWWOC was recorded. Elvis' isolated vocals are, for the most part, weak. The Imperials played a major role in the polishing of the finished product.
Although the Imperials missed singing live with Presley for the holiday numbers, they were present for the Nashville sessions starting on the evening of May 19, 1971 (Wed). They were probably booked to do concerts with Jimmy Dean, who played over two hundred dates a year at that time.rlj4ep wrote:Thanks elvisjock. I did not know the Imperials were not with Elvis at the recordings. For some reason I thought they were present for them and there was some incident with them where Elvis became angry and stormed out of the studio. I guess my information is incorrect.
Still, I like Elvis' vocals and delivery on this album. To my aging ears he does sound committed and reverent in his delivery.
Thanks again
rlj
Among the songs done that first night with the quartet was their winning arrangement of Jerry Reed's "A Thing Called Love," with Elvis simply taking the lead vocals. In essence, Presley became a member of the Imperials! Other cuts on He Touched Me were of a similar nature.
The studio brouhaha happened during the June 11, 1971 overdub session in Nashville. A turntable didn't work when Elvis was trying to play a song for girlfriend Joyce Bova (the musicians thought she was Priscilla). So he flung his headphones in anger against the studio wall, apologized to everyone, and left.
IIRC, Presley never returned to RCA's Studio B in his remaining six years. Also, three quarters of the Jordanaires were there, and it was the last time they ever saw him. So sad.
.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
As an aside but sort of on-topic, I heard a real nice version of this song today by The Mills Brothers for the first time. Sung in 3 part harmony with a plain yet effective arrangement. Elvis' version drops another notch on my list.
-
- Posts: 110079
- Joined: 21 years 10 months
- Location: United States of America
- Has thanked: 12435 times
- Been thanked: 37979 times
- Age: 90
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Was the Mills Brothers performance more majestic?r&b wrote:As an aside but sort of on-topic, I heard a real nice version of this song today by The Mills Brothers for the first time. Sung in 3 part harmony with a plain yet effective arrangement. Elvis' version drops another notch on my list.
.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Perhaps one could also argue that recording sessions were made with just the masters released, but that doesn't seem to bother you.fn2drive wrote:Missed it. Sorry. As you should be able to infer from my reply, unless Elvis expressed a view, it is up to the rights holders to decide. Perhaps one could argue that the 3 tv special deals were for 2 airings only so a case could be made that none of them should have been released. The restrictions seem more commercial in nature however rather than the star's desire. Do i have an objection to it being released? With the advent of the internet and you tube, it is no longer controlled and essentially in the public domain. The damage to his legacy has been done. If Lisa as the owner doesnt want it shared for obvious reasons, that's not censorship as she is the rights holder- no different than private collectors not sharing their exclusively owned items.Scarre wrote:You didn't say anything about EIC..?fn2drive wrote:Depends on the circumstances. If an artist owns their works and made provision that unreleased recordings or works never be shared publicly, that is not censorship. If the artist as is the case here, sold their master recordings pre 1973 and made no provision in their will to shield outtakes from post 1973 work from the public then both the rights holders and estate are free to do as they choose. If the artist had expressed a view that the post 1973 recording outtakes never see the light if day, a true fan would have a legitimate onjection. Note for example Elvis requested if iirc Dominic not be released when he was alive but said nothing about posthumously. So if the artist was indifferent and Elvis was, claiming outtakes should not be released is censorship. Worse yet is saying after you had the chance to hear them they arent worthy and no one else should smacks of elitism. Who appointed the one or few as the arbiter for the many. Ernst has served that role for many years because he was vested by virtue of rhe ownership of the masters and outtakes by the record company. And while along the way he clearly made artistic and commercial choices, i dont want him or any one else telling me what is worthy of release though he clearly used good judgement in the sequencing. I can make up my own mind as the artist expressed no such desire. I want every take of every master sequentially yes including Padre. Censorship and elitism should never be condoned.Scarre wrote:Pardon me for going OT just for a moment.fn2drive wrote:Well it wasnt me who said only outtakes that you deem worthy that you already got to hear should be available to the unwashed masses. All i did was point out that this track is hardly majestic but rather a Felton Jarvis overdubbed monstrosity-i never suggested people who like it shouldnt have access to it because it doesn't live up to my standards as you did for outtakes. Pointing out that the record buying public agreed by ignoring this track as a single is the opposite of elitism-the masses cast their vote and agreed with me by voting with their wallets. Of course you also regularly dismiss record sales as a barometer which is another sign of elitism ie i know better than the people-um okay.poormadpeter2 wrote:You've been spouting elitism since the start of this thread by putting down people's views repeatedly - you just don't even realise it, which is kind of amusing.fn2drive wrote:At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
You have several times made those same comments about "book burning" and "censorship", so let me ask you a couple of questions.
Regarding censorship...do you consider it to be censorship because something that was rejected on artistical grounds for not being good enough, is not released? If you say yes, why do you think the artist should not have any saying in that?
What do you think about EIC being released on mainstream DVD/BR? If you say no, why?
-
- Posts: 5368
- Joined: 20 years 5 months
- Location: New Jersey, USA
- Mood:
- Has thanked: 5853 times
- Been thanked: 2940 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Thanks Doc for providing the information on the story I was trying to recall. Also, I was unaware that June 11, 1971 was the final time Elvis was at Studio B. A lot of great music came from that small building. Too bad he never returned. Thanks again.drjohncarpenter wrote:As did the mastering engineers at the time.elvisjock wrote:Ironically, the group didn't sing live with Elvis on the Christmas songs. It appears they were not available during the May 15 - 17 sessions, when the bulk of TWWOC was recorded. Elvis' isolated vocals are, for the most part, weak. The Imperials played a major role in the polishing of the finished product.
Although the Imperials missed singing live with Presley for the holiday numbers, they were present for the Nashville sessions starting on the evening of May 19, 1971 (Wed). They were probably booked to do concerts with Jimmy Dean, who played over two hundred dates a year at that time.rlj4ep wrote:Thanks elvisjock. I did not know the Imperials were not with Elvis at the recordings. For some reason I thought they were present for them and there was some incident with them where Elvis became angry and stormed out of the studio. I guess my information is incorrect.
Still, I like Elvis' vocals and delivery on this album. To my aging ears he does sound committed and reverent in his delivery.
Thanks again
rlj
Among the songs done that first night with the quartet was their winning arrangement of Jerry Reed's "A Thing Called Love," with Elvis simply taking the lead vocals. In essence, Presley became a member of the Imperials! Other cuts on He Touched Me were of a similar nature.
The studio brouhaha happened during the June 11, 1971 overdub session in Nashville. A turntable didn't work when Elvis was trying to play a song for girlfriend Joyce Bova (the musicians thought she was Priscilla). So he flung his headphones in anger against the studio wall, apologized to everyone, and left.
IIRC, Presley never returned to RCA's Studio B in his remaining six years. Also, three quarters of the Jordanaires were there, and it was the last time they ever saw him. So sad.
rlj
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
You have been wanting to push that for a while as if a new mystery solved. It isn't. "He Touched Me" album isn't Elvis doing the Imperials. Get the album and listen to it instead of relying on a few youtube numbers.drjohncarpenter wrote:As did the mastering engineers at the time.elvisjock wrote:Ironically, the group didn't sing live with Elvis on the Christmas songs. It appears they were not available during the May 15 - 17 sessions, when the bulk of TWWOC was recorded. Elvis' isolated vocals are, for the most part, weak. The Imperials played a major role in the polishing of the finished product.
Although the Imperials missed singing live with Presley for the holiday numbers, they were present for the Nashville sessions starting on the evening of May 19, 1971 (Wed). They were probably booked to do concerts with Jimmy Dean, who played over two hundred dates a year at that time.rlj4ep wrote:Thanks elvisjock. I did not know the Imperials were not with Elvis at the recordings. For some reason I thought they were present for them and there was some incident with them where Elvis became angry and stormed out of the studio. I guess my information is incorrect.
Still, I like Elvis' vocals and delivery on this album. To my aging ears he does sound committed and reverent in his delivery.
Thanks again
rlj
Among the songs done that first night with the quartet was their winning arrangement of Jerry Reed's "A Thing Called Love," with Elvis simply taking the lead vocals. In essence, Presley became a member of the Imperials! Other cuts on He Touched Me were of a similar nature.
The studio brouhaha happened during the June 11, 1971 overdub session in Nashville. A turntable didn't work when Elvis was trying to play a song for girlfriend Joyce Bova (the musicians thought she was Priscilla). So he flung his headphones in anger against the studio wall, apologized to everyone, and left.
IIRC, Presley never returned to RCA's Studio B in his remaining six years. Also, three quarters of the Jordanaires were there, and it was the last time they ever saw him. So sad.
-
- TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
- Posts: 5002
- Joined: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 355 times
- Been thanked: 2252 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Firstly, I didnt say the argument had any merit whatsoever as no evidence of the star's view has been discovered. Elvis sold outright the pre 1973 rights. Indeed the Legendary Performer series was released during his lifetime so he had a chance to object. No evidence he did. Again as he made no provision in his will post 1973 then the rights holders have the final say. But of course if you object dont buy and dont listen. Just dont censor thise who want ever we word he note he recorded-esp,without the overdubs. And of course i encourage one and all who are so inclined to never buy or listen to anything but the masters and to take a pledge to swear them off.poormadpeter2 wrote:Perhaps one could also argue that recording sessions were made with just the masters released, but that doesn't seem to bother you.fn2drive wrote:Missed it. Sorry. As you should be able to infer from my reply, unless Elvis expressed a view, it is up to the rights holders to decide. Perhaps one could argue that the 3 tv special deals were for 2 airings only so a case could be made that none of them should have been released. The restrictions seem more commercial in nature however rather than the star's desire. Do i have an objection to it being released? With the advent of the internet and you tube, it is no longer controlled and essentially in the public domain. The damage to his legacy has been done. If Lisa as the owner doesnt want it shared for obvious reasons, that's not censorship as she is the rights holder- no different than private collectors not sharing their exclusively owned items.Scarre wrote:You didn't say anything about EIC..?fn2drive wrote:Depends on the circumstances. If an artist owns their works and made provision that unreleased recordings or works never be shared publicly, that is not censorship. If the artist as is the case here, sold their master recordings pre 1973 and made no provision in their will to shield outtakes from post 1973 work from the public then both the rights holders and estate are free to do as they choose. If the artist had expressed a view that the post 1973 recording outtakes never see the light if day, a true fan would have a legitimate onjection. Note for example Elvis requested if iirc Dominic not be released when he was alive but said nothing about posthumously. So if the artist was indifferent and Elvis was, claiming outtakes should not be released is censorship. Worse yet is saying after you had the chance to hear them they arent worthy and no one else should smacks of elitism. Who appointed the one or few as the arbiter for the many. Ernst has served that role for many years because he was vested by virtue of rhe ownership of the masters and outtakes by the record company. And while along the way he clearly made artistic and commercial choices, i dont want him or any one else telling me what is worthy of release though he clearly used good judgement in the sequencing. I can make up my own mind as the artist expressed no such desire. I want every take of every master sequentially yes including Padre. Censorship and elitism should never be condoned.Scarre wrote:Pardon me for going OT just for a moment.fn2drive wrote:Well it wasnt me who said only outtakes that you deem worthy that you already got to hear should be available to the unwashed masses. All i did was point out that this track is hardly majestic but rather a Felton Jarvis overdubbed monstrosity-i never suggested people who like it shouldnt have access to it because it doesn't live up to my standards as you did for outtakes. Pointing out that the record buying public agreed by ignoring this track as a single is the opposite of elitism-the masses cast their vote and agreed with me by voting with their wallets. Of course you also regularly dismiss record sales as a barometer which is another sign of elitism ie i know better than the people-um okay.poormadpeter2 wrote:You've been spouting elitism since the start of this thread by putting down people's views repeatedly - you just don't even realise it, which is kind of amusing.fn2drive wrote:At least i dont advocate book burning, censorship or elistism.poormadpeter2 wrote:fn2drive wrote:By your definition a troll is someone who disagrees with your opinion, highlights the excessive praise and hyperbole of the mediocre and highlights the truth about the failure of the Elvis system when appropriate.Juan Luis wrote:By your "liking" of the trolls, they have an incentive to keep up the "good work" of derailing threads you do not like. And you have hardly to type at all, they do it for you. But you knew that already! Very sad and pathetic.drjohncarpenter wrote:You sure devote a lot of time on this forum to arguing, rather than contributing.poormadpeter2 wrote:What it shows quite clearly is that, contrary to the accusations you make of people following you and the Doc around, it's you who is following other people around.
Always have, I suppose always will. Sad.With 61 "pledges," 98 "Padres," and 147 posts referring to Felton Jarvis, it is quite clear you fit the definition of a troll.Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
You have several times made those same comments about "book burning" and "censorship", so let me ask you a couple of questions.
Regarding censorship...do you consider it to be censorship because something that was rejected on artistical grounds for not being good enough, is not released? If you say yes, why do you think the artist should not have any saying in that?
What do you think about EIC being released on mainstream DVD/BR? If you say no, why?
Hack n. 1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward