I do sometimes worry about your sanity. I did ask you a few posts ago where I actually said those things, but you clearly have no recollection.fn2drive wrote: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?
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"
Didn't you say you no longer buy outtakes and gave the ones you had away and question whether they should cease to be released? And what is an outtake -An Afternoon At The Garden would be one since the original master was the evening performance. Did we swear that one off? Soundboards?Nope not masters. My Happiness? Put it in the trash That's why censorship is ridiculous.poormadpeter2 wrote:I do sometimes worry about your sanity. I did ask you a few posts ago where I actually said those things, but you clearly have no recollection.fn2drive wrote: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
-
- Posts: 23552
- Joined: 21 years 3 months
- Location: The Long and Winding Road
- Has thanked: 1368 times
- Been thanked: 3513 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Perhaps he held onto FTD's "Elvis (Fool)" for the Padre outtakes. Exceptions can be made.
-
- 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"
I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth, but since I witnessed something which connected to this thread, I thought I would share my story. There are no hidden messages, just a true story.
Yesterday afternoon, I took my dog to the Vet for his check up (all is good!). As we were waiting the office had on a local radio station which of course was playing Christmas songs. I was delighted when "O Come All Ye Faithful" by Elvis came on. Interestingly enough, it was the long version! I noticed all three of the young women behind the desk singing along, as we're some other people who were waiting. When the song was over, one of the women said, "Gosh that man could sing." Another said, "I love how he does that song." The third women smiled in agreement saying, "It was good."
The oldest of these women appeared to be in her 30's. I just pass it along to say that there are at least 3 others beside me in South Jersey who love this song by Elvis.
rlj
Yesterday afternoon, I took my dog to the Vet for his check up (all is good!). As we were waiting the office had on a local radio station which of course was playing Christmas songs. I was delighted when "O Come All Ye Faithful" by Elvis came on. Interestingly enough, it was the long version! I noticed all three of the young women behind the desk singing along, as we're some other people who were waiting. When the song was over, one of the women said, "Gosh that man could sing." Another said, "I love how he does that song." The third women smiled in agreement saying, "It was good."
The oldest of these women appeared to be in her 30's. I just pass it along to say that there are at least 3 others beside me in South Jersey who love this song by Elvis.

rlj
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Thank you for sharing!rlj4ep wrote:I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth, but since I witnessed something which connected to this thread, I thought I would share my story. There are no hidden messages, just a true story.
Yesterday afternoon, I took my dog to the Vet for his check up (all is good!). As we were waiting the office had on a local radio station which of course was playing Christmas songs. I was delighted when "O Come All Ye Faithful" by Elvis came on. Interestingly enough, it was the long version! I noticed all three of the young women behind the desk singing along, as we're some other people who were waiting. When the song was over, one of the women said, "Gosh that man could sing." Another said, "I love how he does that song." The third women smiled in agreement saying, "It was good."
The oldest of these women appeared to be in her 30's. I just pass it along to say that there are at least 3 others beside me in South Jersey who love this song by Elvis.![]()
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"
Looks like i've been out Padre'd. Or each outtake was so good, they all really were alternate masters.midnightx wrote:Perhaps he held onto FTD's "Elvis (Fool)" for the Padre outtakes. Exceptions can be made.
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"
How did your doggie and the other pets enjoy the majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful" as it filled the waiting room? Did they kind of wail and coo along to the song, along with the rest of the employees and pet owners?rlj4ep wrote:I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth, but since I witnessed something which connected to this thread, I thought I would share my story. There are no hidden messages, just a true story.
Yesterday afternoon, I took my dog to the Vet for his check up (all is good!). As we were waiting the office had on a local radio station which of course was playing Christmas songs. I was delighted when "O Come All Ye Faithful" by Elvis came on. Interestingly enough, it was the long version! I noticed all three of the young women behind the desk singing along, as we're some other people who were waiting. When the song was over, one of the women said, "Gosh that man could sing." Another said, "I love how he does that song." The third women smiled in agreement saying, "It was good."
The oldest of these women appeared to be in her 30's. I just pass it along to say that there are at least 3 others beside me in South Jersey who love this song by Elvis.![]()
rlj



.
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: 5177
- Joined: 21 years 10 months
- Been thanked: 1378 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Nice of you to answer, but it raises some more questions. EPE has, of course for obvious reasons, not released EIC...I don´t care if they dont...but what else is that than censorship?fn2drive wrote:Didn't you say you no longer buy outtakes and gave the ones you had away and question whether they should cease to be released? And what is an outtake -An Afternoon At The Garden would be one since the original master was the evening performance. Did we swear that one off? Soundboards?Nope not masters. My Happiness? Put it in the trash That's why censorship is ridiculous.poormadpeter2 wrote:I do sometimes worry about your sanity. I did ask you a few posts ago where I actually said those things, but you clearly have no recollection.fn2drive wrote: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?
At least that performing was meant to be released, and was...alternative versions of songs not that much...
An Afternoon In The Garden (no at) could be argued that it was recorded for release...they picked the better show to be released. It was anyhow performed infront of an audience, not in a studio.
Same goes for soundboards...they where at least performed infront of an audience...meant to be heard.
-
- 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"
It's not censorship. It's the right of those who control the material to do with it as they see fit.Scarre wrote:Nice of you to answer, but it raises some more questions. EPE has, of course for obvious reasons, not released EIC...I don´t care if they dont...but what else is that than censorship?
In the case of "Elvis In Concert," his only child has reviewed the material and determined it would harm the legacy of her father, and so it will stay put.
Dialing back to 1977, the agreement made was for a broadcast and a single repeat. There was no agreement about a home video release. So the contract was honored in full, and nothing is owed to any party.
.
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: 5177
- Joined: 21 years 10 months
- Been thanked: 1378 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
drjohncarpenter wrote:It's not censorship. It's the right of those who control the material to do with it as they see fit.Scarre wrote:Nice of you to answer, but it raises some more questions. EPE has, of course for obvious reasons, not released EIC...I don´t care if they dont...but what else is that than censorship?
In the case of "Elvis In Concert," his only child has reviewed the material and determined it would harm the legacy of her father, and so it will stay put.
Dialing back to 1977, the agreement made was for a broadcast and a single repeat. There was no agreement about a home video release. So the contract was honored in full, and nothing is owed to any party.
This, right here, is censorship.
From dictionary.com
"a person authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc, in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc "
-
- 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"
You are mistaken, and your continued arguing makes you look very foolish. The artist who created the work and fulfilled the requirements of the work is deceased. His child is not a "person" but the one legally allowed to represent him in terms of artistic decisions. There is nothing mandatory about releasing this program for home use, and there never was any such agreement. It is discretionary, and up to the artist. The artist says no. That is not censorship.Scarre wrote:drjohncarpenter wrote:It's not censorship. It's the right of those who control the material to do with it as they see fit.Scarre wrote:Nice of you to answer, but it raises some more questions. EPE has, of course for obvious reasons, not released EIC...I don´t care if they dont...but what else is that than censorship?
In the case of "Elvis In Concert," his only child has reviewed the material and determined it would harm the legacy of her father, and so it will stay put.
Dialing back to 1977, the agreement made was for a broadcast and a single repeat. There was no agreement about a home video release. So the contract was honored in full, and nothing is owed to any party.
This, right here, is censorship.
From dictionary.com
"a person authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc, in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc "
.
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: 5177
- Joined: 21 years 10 months
- Been thanked: 1378 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
My post got deleted for no reason.drjohncarpenter wrote:You are mistaken, and your continued arguing makes you look very foolish. The artist who created the work and fulfilled the requirements of the work is deceased. His child is not a "person" but the one legally allowed to represent him in terms of artistic decisions. There is nothing mandatory about releasing this program for home use, and there never was any such agreement. It is discretionary, and up to the artist. The artist says no. That is not censorship.Scarre wrote:drjohncarpenter wrote:It's not censorship. It's the right of those who control the material to do with it as they see fit.Scarre wrote:Nice of you to answer, but it raises some more questions. EPE has, of course for obvious reasons, not released EIC...I don´t care if they dont...but what else is that than censorship?
In the case of "Elvis In Concert," his only child has reviewed the material and determined it would harm the legacy of her father, and so it will stay put.
Dialing back to 1977, the agreement made was for a broadcast and a single repeat. There was no agreement about a home video release. So the contract was honored in full, and nothing is owed to any party.
This, right here, is censorship.
From dictionary.com
"a person authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc, in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc "
Me and most people have a different view of censorship than you.
"makes you look very foolish"...is your "kind reply".
I won´t say what you look like after your response...
-
- 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"
Lisa owns or controls the tapes and she has the right to do as she pleases no different than any collector. She is under no obligation to make it available and hence why i do not believe it is censorship. Calls to cease releasing outtakes because an individual doesnt think they are up,to snuff is a call for censorship as one or a few are imposing their will on others who should freely decide-the thought police. I am more nuanced in my view of edited studio chatter and outtakes that are done to preserve Elvis image. That feels like censorship to me even though the rights holders are within their, well, rights. Either dont release it, mark it as edited or release it intact. The rehearsal of Stranger In My Home Town is a good example. Both the raw and edited versions are fantastic but if you edited out parts, it should be disclosed. I would draw a distinction between an edit made for artistic purposes eg the of Tomorrow Never Comes and one made for image control purposes. Remixes and overdubs done after the original release should be identified as such. But these arent censorship either. Suppression is.Scarre wrote:Nice of you to answer, but it raises some more questions. EPE has, of course for obvious reasons, not released EIC...I don´t care if they dont...but what else is that than censorship?fn2drive wrote:Didn't you say you no longer buy outtakes and gave the ones you had away and question whether they should cease to be released? And what is an outtake -An Afternoon At The Garden would be one since the original master was the evening performance. Did we swear that one off? Soundboards?Nope not masters. My Happiness? Put it in the trash That's why censorship is ridiculous.poormadpeter2 wrote:I do sometimes worry about your sanity. I did ask you a few posts ago where I actually said those things, but you clearly have no recollection.fn2drive wrote: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?
At least that performing was meant to be released, and was...alternative versions of songs not that much...
An Afternoon In The Garden (no at) could be argued that it was recorded for release...they picked the better show to be released. It was anyhow performed infront of an audience, not in a studio.
Same goes for soundboards...they where at least performed infront of an audience...meant to be heard.
My point on An Afternoon is simply it is an outtake or alternate as it was passed over for release. Same for all the On Tour shows that were recorded. If you argue against outtakes you cant stop at studio sessions if you want to be consistent though that seems to be missed in many discussions here. As a completist i want everything so I can decide what is worthy for me including Padre. I want everyone else to have the same option. And i certainly dont want a single censor. Commercial interests result in enough restrictions. Perhaps one day every single piece of material in the vaults will be made available for download or streaming.
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"
It is not censorship if the label decides not to release outtakes. Heck, it is not even censorship if the decide not to re-release certain albums. So if the label had decided not to release "Dominic" I would have understood Elvis' wishes. It wasn't a gem that was withheld. It is a piece of crap. Not missed. Did I purchase it? Of course. I have no guilty feelings for putting it out. That would be the RCA people. And if they don't feel guilty. I don't give a hoot either way. Not my issue.
-
- Posts: 5177
- Joined: 21 years 10 months
- Been thanked: 1378 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Thanks for clarifying some points.fn2drive wrote:Lisa owns or controls the tapes and she has the right to do as she pleases no different than any collector. She is under no obligation to make it available and hence why i do not believe it is censorship. Calls to cease releasing outtakes because an individual doesnt think they are up,to snuff is a call for censorship as one or a few are imposing their will on others who should freely decide-the thought police. I am more nuanced in my view of edited studio chatter and outtakes that are done to preserve Elvis image. That feels like censorship to me even though the rights holders are within their, well, rights. Either dont release it, mark it as edited or release it intact. The rehearsal of Stranger In My Home Town is a good example. Both the raw and edited versions are fantastic but if you edited out parts, it should be disclosed. I would draw a distinction between an edit made for artistic purposes eg the of Tomorrow Never Comes and one made for image control purposes. Remixes and overdubs done after the original release should be identified as such. But these arent censorship either. Suppression is.Scarre wrote:Nice of you to answer, but it raises some more questions. EPE has, of course for obvious reasons, not released EIC...I don´t care if they dont...but what else is that than censorship?fn2drive wrote:Didn't you say you no longer buy outtakes and gave the ones you had away and question whether they should cease to be released? And what is an outtake -An Afternoon At The Garden would be one since the original master was the evening performance. Did we swear that one off? Soundboards?Nope not masters. My Happiness? Put it in the trash That's why censorship is ridiculous.poormadpeter2 wrote:I do sometimes worry about your sanity. I did ask you a few posts ago where I actually said those things, but you clearly have no recollection.fn2drive wrote: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?
At least that performing was meant to be released, and was...alternative versions of songs not that much...
An Afternoon In The Garden (no at) could be argued that it was recorded for release...they picked the better show to be released. It was anyhow performed infront of an audience, not in a studio.
Same goes for soundboards...they where at least performed infront of an audience...meant to be heard.
My point on An Afternoon is simply it is an outtake or alternate as it was passed over for release. Same for all the On Tour shows that were recorded. If you argue against outtakes you cant stop at studio sessions if you want to be consistent though that seems to be missed in many discussions here. As a completist i want everything so I can decide what is worthy for me including Padre. I want everyone else to have the same option. And i certainly dont want a single censor. Commercial interests result in enough restrictions. Perhaps one day every single piece of material in the vaults will be made available for download or streaming.
We gotta agree to disagree on the EIC.
The reasons for why it hasn´t been released is obvious, as said before. He is far from well, alot of the singing is below his once so high standard.
So by not releasing it, she chooses to hide away what really happened...censorship...to keep the image alive. Like I said, I don´t care if she releases it or not, but because of the reasons why she doesn´t release it, it is censorship.
Well, enough of the OT...back to O Come, All Ye Faithful.
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Agree as to Lanza's Christmas album. When I was a kid growing up in a mostly Italian neighborhood of Newark, NJ, folks used to put their record players in their home's open windows during the holidays and play Christmas carols. It was wonderful walking down the street and hearing Christmas music playing from each home. More than one house (ours included) regularly played Lanza's album. If anyone tried that today, he probably would get a public disturbance ticket. Talk about the good times.Greystoke wrote:Lanza`s version of O Come, All Ye Faithful is sublime. It's one of my favourite recordings of this carol. And Lanza Sings Christmas Carols is easily one of my favourite Christmas albums.ICanHelp wrote:One of my favorite Christmas songs, but not one Elvis performs particularly well. I am not a fan of Elvis' 1971 recordings. His voice just sounds too weak. The definitive version of this classic tune was done by the great Mario Lanza.
Frank Sinatra`s 1946 recording is another favourite of mine. His singing is exquisite and boasts everything Elvis`s recording is unfortunately lacking with regards to his vocal. And Axel Stordahl`s arrangement is first class.
Tony Bennett has recorded a couple of fine versions of this carol, too. His Christmas albums and Sinatra`s are always close by at this time of year.
From 1948`s Christmas Songs by Sinatra.
..
From 1968`s Snowfall: The Tony Bennett Christmas Album.
..
-
- Posts: 1898
- Joined: 21 years 9 months
- Has thanked: 1218 times
- Been thanked: 731 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
great story! So good to see Elvis appreciatedrlj4ep wrote:I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth, but since I witnessed something which connected to this thread, I thought I would share my story. There are no hidden messages, just a true story.
Yesterday afternoon, I took my dog to the Vet for his check up (all is good!). As we were waiting the office had on a local radio station which of course was playing Christmas songs. I was delighted when "O Come All Ye Faithful" by Elvis came on. Interestingly enough, it was the long version! I noticed all three of the young women behind the desk singing along, as we're some other people who were waiting. When the song was over, one of the women said, "Gosh that man could sing." Another said, "I love how he does that song." The third women smiled in agreement saying, "It was good."
The oldest of these women appeared to be in her 30's. I just pass it along to say that there are at least 3 others beside me in South Jersey who love this song by Elvis.![]()
rlj

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
"An artist like Elvis is actually pretending, when he’s home, to be normal. And when he goes out on stage at night is who he actually is." — Bruce Springsteen
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic
Yes it is. Elvis is everywhere!Fabbe wrote:great story! So good to see Elvis appreciatedrlj4ep wrote:I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth, but since I witnessed something which connected to this thread, I thought I would share my story. There are no hidden messages, just a true story.
Yesterday afternoon, I took my dog to the Vet for his check up (all is good!). As we were waiting the office had on a local radio station which of course was playing Christmas songs. I was delighted when "O Come All Ye Faithful" by Elvis came on. Interestingly enough, it was the long version! I noticed all three of the young women behind the desk singing along, as we're some other people who were waiting. When the song was over, one of the women said, "Gosh that man could sing." Another said, "I love how he does that song." The third women smiled in agreement saying, "It was good."
The oldest of these women appeared to be in her 30's. I just pass it along to say that there are at least 3 others beside me in South Jersey who love this song by Elvis.![]()
rlj
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Well, you might have a point if that was what was said. But it wasn't. My original post says nothing like what you are suggesting or what you have been waffling on about since I posted it in September. Since you refuse to go back to it and refresh your memory of what it actually says, I will do it for you:fn2drive wrote:Calls to cease releasing outtakes because an individual doesnt think they are up,to snuff is a call for censorship as one or a few are imposing their will on others who should freely decide-the thought police.
Note: no suggestion of banning anything, just:I've always thought that the outtakes that really need to be released are those where there is a slightly different arrangement, or a different element to the vocal, or something else that makes them of real interest. Just because they're a different take, doesn't qualify them for those categories. I don't know how Elvis would have felt about it - but I know that I'd be somewhat miffed if early drafts of books or articles or storied I'd written were released. They were rejected for a reason - either they weren't good enough, or maybe there was something in them I decided I didn't want people to see. We can probably say that for all outtakes in principal, but the way forward would probably have been to use restraint and, just as when Elvis was alive, that was thrown out of the window with regards to releases a long, long time ago.
1.) a questioning of whether the endless outtakes of each song serves any purpose other than to fulfil fans' desire to own every breath Elvis uttered in the studio
2.) a raising of the issue of what Elvis would have felt about the issuing of takes he had already rejected for release
3.) a questioning of whether there is a point to releasing something just because it is there.
For the record, this clearly does apply to soundboards as well in many ways. Are the releases of endless subpar soundboards doing Elvis's credibility any good? What would Elvis have felt about their release? Do they need to be released just because they exist.
No mention of censorship, no mention of banning anything.
Perhaps if you actually read and understood what people wrote rather than inflating it in your own mind to something extreme, this board might work just a little easier.
-
- 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"
Read it and understood it perfectly. You have great act going-i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations. We do. If you dont like it dont buy. Dont advocate censorship- that is limiting the ability of those fans that want to hear every breath to hear it. And if Elvis cared, would Having Fun With Elvis- A Talking Album Only been released? Padre? Most soundboards are a step up from this. Only you can pretend to know what is elvis-worthy. So just take the pledge, i will never buy another Elvis release because i have all the masters. After all, what's left are outakes which you swore off and redubs eg London Philharmonic.Philharmonic-just say no.poormadpeter2 wrote:Well, you might have a point if that was what was said. But it wasn't. My original post says nothing like what you are suggesting or what you have been waffling on about since I posted it in September. Since you refuse to go back to it and refresh your memory of what it actually says, I will do it for you:fn2drive wrote:Calls to cease releasing outtakes because an individual doesnt think they are up,to snuff is a call for censorship as one or a few are imposing their will on others who should freely decide-the thought police.
Note: no suggestion of banning anything, just:I've always thought that the outtakes that really need to be released are those where there is a slightly different arrangement, or a different element to the vocal, or something else that makes them of real interest. Just because they're a different take, doesn't qualify them for those categories. I don't know how Elvis would have felt about it - but I know that I'd be somewhat miffed if early drafts of books or articles or storied I'd written were released. They were rejected for a reason - either they weren't good enough, or maybe there was something in them I decided I didn't want people to see. We can probably say that for all outtakes in principal, but the way forward would probably have been to use restraint and, just as when Elvis was alive, that was thrown out of the window with regards to releases a long, long time ago.
1.) a questioning of whether the endless outtakes of each song serves any purpose other than to fulfil fans' desire to own every breath Elvis uttered in the studio
2.) a raising of the issue of what Elvis would have felt about the issuing of takes he had already rejected for release
3.) a questioning of whether there is a point to releasing something just because it is there.
For the record, this clearly does apply to soundboards as well in many ways. Are the releases of endless subpar soundboards doing Elvis's credibility any good? What would Elvis have felt about their release? Do they need to be released just because they exist.
No mention of censorship, no mention of banning anything.
Perhaps if you actually read and understood what people wrote rather than inflating it in your own mind to something extreme, this board might work just a little easier.
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"
"So just take the pledge, i will never buy another Elvis release because i have all the masters. After all, what's left are outakes which you swore off and redubs eg London Philharmonic.Philharmonic-just say no"
How can anyone "like" this is mind boggling. It is tiring. That pledge crappola.
How can anyone "like" this is mind boggling. It is tiring. That pledge crappola.
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
Really? I swore off all outtakes? Where? When? You clearly cannot understand a simple post. Meanwhile, you spend your time on this board telling everybody else what is "Elvis-worthy."fn2drive wrote:Read it and understood it perfectly. You have great act going-i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations. We do. If you dont like it dont buy. Dont advocate censorship- that is limiting the ability of those fans that want to hear every breath to hear it. And if Elvis cared, would Having Fun With Elvis- A Talking Album Only been released? Padre? Most soundboards are a step up from this. Only you can pretend to know what is elvis-worthy. So just take the pledge, i will never buy another Elvis release because i have all the masters. After all, what's left are outakes which you swore off and redubs eg London Philharmonic.Philharmonic-just say no.
Oh and one more thing.
Who are "we" and these "others?" As far as I can see, the only person who misunderstood my post (intentionally) is you. I don't see legions of friends of yours coming out to support you.You have great act going-i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations. We do.
Last edited by poormadpeter2 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Banned -- Same user as "mysterytrainrideson"
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: 9 years 9 months
- Has thanked: 887 times
- Been thanked: 622 times
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
I seem to remember you saying about it, can't remember what thread it was, but you did babble on about certain outtakes should not be released, in your opinion, so therefore your opinion about these outtakes differ completely from others who want to hear all outtakes. Just because you don't like certain outtakes doesn't mean everyone should share your view, so your view is censorship to others who want to hear it all.poormadpeter2 wrote:It seems to be just you. I don't see anyone else here understanding my post as being about bans or censorship. No one else has commented on that. Just you. Repeatedly So I would rethink your post if I were you, before you're asked to tell us who these "others" are.fn2drive wrote:i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations.
Does that make it any clearer for you? Probably not!! Oh well......
-
Topic author
Re: The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"
I have quoted that post on the previous page. Why don't you revisit it and see what was ACTUALLY written rather than "what you seem to remember."Davelee wrote:I seem to remember you saying about it, can't remember what thread it was, but you did babble on about certain outtakes should not be released, in your opinion, so therefore your opinion about these outtakes differ completely from others who want to hear all outtakes. Just because you don't like certain outtakes doesn't mean everyone should share your view, so your view is censorship to others who want to hear it all.poormadpeter2 wrote:It seems to be just you. I don't see anyone else here understanding my post as being about bans or censorship. No one else has commented on that. Just you. Repeatedly So I would rethink your post if I were you, before you're asked to tell us who these "others" are.fn2drive wrote:i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations.
Does that make it any clearer for you? Probably not!! Oh well......
Here is it YET AGAIN:
Fn2drive is making the case REPEATEDLY that I wanted things censored, and outtakes banned. I said nothing of the sort, as I'm sure even you can see. Instead, there was a questioning of the ethics of issuing takes that Elvis himself had not deemed fit for release, and whether something you should be released just because it exists. There was no talking of bans or censorship or that people shouldn't hear stuff. That is all in fn2drive's (and your) overactive imagination.I've always thought that the outtakes that really need to be released are those where there is a slightly different arrangement, or a different element to the vocal, or something else that makes them of real interest. Just because they're a different take, doesn't qualify them for those categories. I don't know how Elvis would have felt about it - but I know that I'd be somewhat miffed if early drafts of books or articles or storied I'd written were released. They were rejected for a reason - either they weren't good enough, or maybe there was something in them I decided I didn't want people to see. We can probably say that for all outtakes in principal, but the way forward would probably have been to use restraint and, just as when Elvis was alive, that was thrown out of the window with regards to releases a long, long time ago.