Albert Goldman

[Ampzilla]

Was interviewd by Liz Smith on WNBC TV* How he could have written the things is said about Elvis

Goldman said two Ms Smith Nothing that I have said in my book or anybody say's can damage his image He is A God

Ampzilla

*New York

[JDD]

And Albert Goldman was a Big :censored: :censored: (like our Mod Albert tells people Don't say it here )
who often wrote books about folks no longer here to confront him. I
got a lot less respect for that then I do with someone who does it while
the subject is still alive and Kicking ( and able to Kick)

[Joe Car]

His book did far more damage to EP's legacy then any other book written about him, he really was a weazel!(n)

[ajr]

http://www.beatlesagain.com/breflib/goldman.htm

It's not a question of hating or despising Goldman; it's a matter of using a source which is dependable, trustworthy, and carefully researched. You cannot hope to form balanced opinions of a man's life and work unless his biographer is equally balanced.

Goldman failed to interview primary sources, and relied on people whose views of Lennon's life were colored by ulterior (and questionable) motives. This is no secret. Goldman's sources were heavily flawed, his research often laughably inaccurate, and his own motivations for writing the book quite questionable.

[Leroy]

Goldman died in 1991. Maybe it's about time to write a book about him?
It's just what Joe Car already stated. The books by Goldman did more harm than any can imagine. All of a sudden these books became the source of almost any other story and still have a big influence on the view of younger fans.

A whole new generation of Elvis fans, who were not present while Elvis was alive, grew up with the books of Goldman and are taking its contents very serious.

The problem with his books is that the way it's been written might give you the impression it's done with a great deal of expertise. And there are chapters in the book tht are fun reading, like the chapter about the way the black radio stations developped in the 40's. But when it comes to Elvis you can see he really despises the man.

[srj1967]

Yes, the Goldman book was despicable in many respects, but there were a few kernels of truth hidden amongst the bile.

And at least it was a literate read, if mostly inaccurate.

Oh, and those rumours years ago about Goldman hooking up with a gay Elvis impersonator were made up, presumably by an irate fan.

[KPM]

Goldman, was on record as "hating rock" long before the books on Elvis and Lennon. He was a little easier on Lennon but he showed how much he hated Rock with his book on Elvis. Putting aside the lack of balance and a question of accuracy, he wrote the book in such a venomous way as to strip Elvis of any dignity. It made the Elvis "What Happened" book actually seem not so bad(and it was written by a "Star tabloid reporter)
He also, IMO in a Stealth bomber way, put out the idea that Elvis had little talent- but he does not come out and say it.
Here is a quote from a review of the book:
In his 1981 book titled Elvis, the author repeatedly belittled the late singer over his weight problems, his diet, his choice of performing costumes, and his sexual appetites and peculiarities. He even suggests that Elvis's promiscuity masked latent homosexuality. Goldman saw himself as a purist, and is quoted as saying: "Commercial to the core, Elvis was the kind of singer dear to the heart of the music business. For him to sing a song was to sell a song. His G clef was a dollar sign." Of the more than four hundred books on Presley, none ever upset his fans as much as Goldman's did.
Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post called it a:
"nasty book, written in spectacularly execrable prose..."
I can not agree more.

[Joe Car]

Just a note, it was Elvis' buddy Lamar Fike who provided Goldman with quite a bit of info for his so-called book.

[JDD]

Goldman, was on record as "hating rock" long before the books on Elvis and Lennon. He was a little easier on Lennon but he showed how much he hated Rock with his book on Elvis. Putting aside the lack of balance and a question of accuracy, he wrote the book in such a venomous way as to strip Elvis of any dignity. It made the Elvis "What Happened" book actually seem not so bad(and it was written by a "Star tabloid reporter)
He also, IMO in a Stealth bomber way, put out the idea that Elvis had little talent- but he does not come out and say it.
Here is a quote from a review of the book:
In his 1981 book titled Elvis, the author repeatedly belittled the late singer over his weight problems, his diet, his choice of performing costumes, and his sexual appetites and peculiarities. He even suggests that Elvis's promiscuity masked latent homosexuality. Goldman saw himself as a purist, and is quoted as saying: "Commercial to the core, Elvis was the kind of singer dear to the heart of the music business. For him to sing a song was to sell a song. His G clef was a dollar sign." Of the more than four hundred books on Presley, none ever upset his fans as much as Goldman's did.
Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post called it a:
"nasty book, written in spectacularly execrable prose..."
I can not agree more.




LOL :lmfao: Yeah A guy who is with lots of women over his 42 year life was obviously a homosexual.

[ajr]

Just a note, it was Elvis' buddy Lamar Fike who provided Goldman with quite a bit of info for his so-called book.

I hope people remember this .....