Let us be candid and honest. What are the Elvis traits you don't like?

[ricardo b. prospero]

I know we all love and respect Elvis, but certainly without being bias as fan we find some traits of him we don't like. Some of those I personally dislike is his being too trustworthy, too obedient and sometimes carefree. These traits I believe somehow became his weaknesses that was easily exploited by some opportunist people around him like Col. Tom Parker , close friends and even relatives.

[EnigmaticSun]

I don't blame him for it, but this over-generosity was one of his weaknesses. You're right about that.

[ksimms2]

I'd say the fact that he thought everything was fun and games and rarely took things serious. I don't like the fact that he was a womanizer and cheated on his wife and every girlfriend he had.

But lord do I love that man.....so really nothing anyone can say will make me feel any different...but I love this thread....good one....be prepared for the negative people though for posting anything not so great about Elvis.

[Getlo]

In no particular order ...

1. Sexism ... his attitudes to women and their place was very backward. He wanted his little women in their home.

2. Immaturity ... the fact that he couldn't / wouldn't get rid of most of the hangers on, and stayed with that "good ole boy" persona. He had so much potential (intellectually speaking) but never pursued it. Also, little things like refusing to watch cop show The Streets of San Francsisco all because the lead character (played by Karl Malden) was called Mike Stone. That's just stupid and childish.

3. Ego ... the unhealthy side of it anyway. He loved having people around him who would do his bidding (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) and hated it when people defied him.

4. Hypocrisy ... especially about the drugs. "Hey, I'm no addict. It's not as if I take street drugs" etc. Also, sleeping with other friends' girlfriends when I'm sure he'd have hated that happening to him.

5. Laziness ... musically speaking, and career-wise. The 60s movie rut. Then the 70s concert rut. His unwillingness to truly stretch himself to see what he could do.

Aside from all that ... he was a top bloke! (y)

And let's not turn this thread into War & Peace regarding the possible reasons behind what I've listed above, and what other people will surely post (they've been discussed ad infinitum on other threads). This thread is asking us what we don't like about the man, that's all.

[presley31]

I really don't like the fact elvis cheated on eveyone and the pills l don't like either, but heck it was elvis presley,what can you say...

[Diane]

Principally for me it would be his lack of being able to grow up. I think had he been able to, a lot of the other problems he had would have been more controlled and some non-existent as in possibly the drugs, putting the colonel in his place and not needing the MM around.

The womanizing of course and I don't think anything would have changed that unfortunately.

Diane

[EnigmaticSun]

In no particular order ...

1. Sexism ... his attitudes to women and their place was very backward. He wanted his little women in their home.



Well, I've always felt him to be all the more respectable because of this. I couldn't agree with him more on this subject, even though I'm gay.

Political correctness is always spineless and without integrity.

In a lot of cases immaturity is part of being a genius. Mozart had this too, but I don't think it's impossible for gifted people to grow in a human context, though some will continue to say you're crazy, sick and weird.

[Getlo]

Seixsm: Well, I've always felt him to be all the more respectable because of this. I couldn't agree with him more on this subject, even though I'm gay.


So, like Elvis, you believe a woman's place is in the home, and that the woman in a relationship should be denied the freedom of a career or other outlets in deference to her husband? ;)

And that womens' liberation was / is an affront to male superiority? ;);)

Because that's what The King believed, like it or not.

[Tommy]

Please stick to the subject and do not bring your personal statements into this EnigmaticSun.

[EnigmaticSun]

Women have the unique biological tendency to form a symbiotic bond with their unborn children. The mother is very important to a child.

I'm not even saying every woman should have a child and no career: what I do think is that women, when they've made a choice for children, have a sacred responsibility.

Yes, I do think "women's rights" are completely blown-up and not really helping the females, who are not made to be mean and vicious (neither are men). The "strong" women have proved to be complete *****es and I can tell, having grown up during the second feminist wave - and in this respect I'm not pointing at real strong women like Mother Mary.

Women's power has always been great. They can kill a man or lead him to his grave and then go on unnoticed with their supposed innocence. And I know some women have consequently tried to bully young boys purely out of categorical hate. Never again, please!

Marriage is rather oppression of the man than oppression of the female: "if you don't do as I say you're not allowed to .... tonight"..

But in all honesty, my view on women is a sacred one.

[EnigmaticSun]

Please stick to the subject and do not bring your personal statements into this EnigmaticSun.

They asked for it. Is there an alternative? I only got to read this comment after reading your post.

[ksimms2]

Principally for me it would be his lack of being able to grow up. I think had he been able to, a lot of the other problems he had would have been more controlled and some non-existent as in possibly the drugs, putting the colonel in his place and not needing the MM around.

The womanizing of course and I don't think anything would have changed that unfortunately.

Diane

Diane, you said this rather well. His lack of being able to grow up. Everything I'm reading about him both from Jerry's book and also from Revelations of the Memphis Mafia talks about this....he was always wanting to mess around, like an overgrown kid. Everything was fun and games...close the theater down (or go after closing) and stay all night - go to the skating rink - rent it out for just him and his friends and stay all night and play these dangerous games of "whip" where people, including females actually get hurt....rent out the amusement park for all nighters....racing each other on motorcycles so fast that they wreck, messing around on his tractor and it almost overturned on him.....just childish stuff. Not too mention his wanting to bed every woman he can get hold of....this is also talked about in both books....it's no wonder alot of these rumors are started by these women.

oops....sorry...I get carried away.....forgive me. I was just agreeing with what you said Diane. :blush:

[ksimms2]

They asked for it. Is there an alternative? I only got to read this comment after reading your post.

I think he means your personal statement....??

[EnigmaticSun]

I think he means your personal statement....??

I was trying to prove the point why I think Elvis wasn't completely wrong on this subject. I don't think it's crazy or unethical to consider Elvis' opinions, but they can't stand anything here.

Anyway, I don't think Elvis' problem was not having grown up. The problem might have been doing dangerous things, but you can be childish without taking unnecessary risks, I think.

[ksimms2]

I disagree. I think he never really had much supervision even growing up....his mom smothered him, but let's face it, he was spoiled. So I think he was used to doing pretty much what he wanted because at this point, his parents depended on him...so what are they going to do - tell him no? He liked to have a good time with the MM and whoever else was around. Not that there is anything wrong with it - but he just took it too far alot from what I can tell.

[EnigmaticSun]

I have to agree on that.. I really don't like the MM.. I just meant to say you can have fun and act "childish" without doing irresponsible or dangerous things.

He missed his mother, though it's not to justify anything. Like I've said before, if you think EP was terrible, you ain't seen nothing in this world, LOL! :)

[KPM]

His faults are many and everyone has pretty much listed them.
But as far as messing around such as renting the theaters,and riding the motorcycles, etc....if I could afford to live like that I would. I mean to me theres nothing wrong with having fun and Elvis surely was able to afford it.
IMO Some people live to work, but most of us have no choice- you have to pay your way. He could afford to goof off if he wanted and pay for others to goof off with him. Other people want to always be doing something constructive and thats fine also.

[Joe Car]

Guys, remember the times, in Elvis' era, many men and women believed that women should be at home, raising a family. Also, I don't agree with the laziness trait, the man worked and supported his family since he was 18 until the day he died, whether it be crown electric, to touring in the mid-fifties, to making movies, to touring again in the seventies. He never took a year or two off, he always kept busy, not to mention having to cut 3 albums a year, nowadays artists cut one album every couple of years. People often mistake depression with the perception of laziness, huge difference.

[Miss Clawdy]

I must admit I like his sunny, childlike traits. He just remained young at heart and mind :D. About the womanizing....I don't believe that he tried to bed all these 1000 women, no I am not naive ;), I just don't think he was that kind of man, although everybody pictures him like a ladykiller :D. I wonder if he would have acted different if he had been with a woman he really loved? I am still under the influence of June Juanico's and Elvis lovestory ;) and according to her Elvis wanted her to be always and everywhere with him...:hug:

Elvis' traits I don't like are his blind mischief bringing trust in Colonel Parker and his disability to realize what a great harm and suffering he caused to himself.:'(

[ksimms2]

His faults are many and everyone has pretty much listed them.
But as far as messing around such as renting the theaters,and riding the motorcycles, etc....if I could afford to live like that I would. I mean to me theres nothing wrong with having fun and Elvis surely was able to afford it.
IMO Some people live to work, but most of us have no choice- you have to pay your way. He could afford to goof off if he wanted and pay for others to goof off with him. Other people want to always be doing something constructive and thats fine also.

KPM, I was just going to say.....he had the money to do it.....so no harm, no foul. Hell, I'd do it too if I could afford to I guess...well maybe not to his extreme, but you know what I mean.

[JDD]

What I dislike the most IMO his being out of touch with the world around him Living in his own cocoon . Example I could see the jumpsuit thing in 1970 even to the "aloha" concert but then I think it was over and I'd have liked him to move on and change a bit with the times to stay competitive. He refused to get out and move around in public even though it was shown to him with the filming of the "68 special" that he could in places. He wouldn't stand up to the Colonel very often , because he had no real concept of what he was worth. There have been agents since some of the Colonels attempts to reel him in have come out that have said that any agency would have paid off the Colonels demands to sever the business relationship, but Elvis being out of touch wasn't aware or didn't seem to be how much power he really had and supposedly let himself feel trapped. Imagine letting someone come into your house and order people that work for you to throw your books away and not let you have anymore . It baffles me he buckled in so often. I don't think being so reclusive did him much good.

[ksimms2]

What I dislike the most IMO his being out of touch with the world around him Living in his own cocoon . Example I could see the jumpsuit thing in 1970 even to the "aloha" concert but then I think it was over and I'd have liked him to move on and change a bit with the times to stay competitive. He refused to get out and move around in public even though it was shown to him with the filming of the "68 special" that he could in places. He wouldn't stand up to the Colonel very often , because he had no real concept of what he was worth. There have been agents since some of the Colonels attempts to reel him in have come out that have said that any agency would have paid off the Colonels demands to sever the business relationship, but Elvis being out of touch wasn't aware or didn't seem to be how much power he really had and supposedly let himself feel trapped. Imagine letting someone come into your house and order people that work for you to throw your books away and not let you have anymore . It baffles me he buckled in so often. I don't think being so reclusive did him much good.

JDD, another good point....you guys really have some good points. (y)

[marijaep]

Elvis was one complex human being, but yet so beautiful :blush:
There are many things I don't like about him, but that doesn't make me not feel like a fan.
What I wanted to say, is that I like that Elvis has bad traits..call me crazy, but the fact that Elvis wasn't perfect makes me happy lol! - They keep reminding me that he was just like the rest of us.....:blink:
At the start, I only liked Elvis because of the music...but, later I found out that he was much more beautiful inside.

I hate what he thought about the womans place.
Just,...hate it! lol
He needed someone to wait for him at home, while he was having fun and probably cheating! It's so odd :blink:
And being a female...I just can't imagine myself doing that. Stuck at Graceland waiting for my prince...no way :lol:
But, I guess that's the way he was raised, you know?

[jak]

In no particular order ...

1. Sexism ... his attitudes to women and their place was very backward. He wanted his little women in their home.

2. Immaturity ... the fact that he couldn't / wouldn't get rid of most of the hangers on, and stayed with that "good ole boy" persona. He had so much potential (intellectually speaking) but never pursued it. Also, little things like refusing to watch cop show The Streets of San Francsisco all because the lead character (played by Karl Malden) was called Mike Stone. That's just stupid and childish.

3. Ego ... the unhealthy side of it anyway. He loved having people around him who would do his bidding (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) and hated it when people defied him.

4. Hypocrisy ... especially about the drugs. "Hey, I'm no addict. It's not as if I take street drugs" etc. Also, sleeping with other friends' girlfriends when I'm sure he'd have hated that happening to him.

5. Laziness ... musically speaking, and career-wise. The 60s movie rut. Then the 70s concert rut. His unwillingness to truly stretch himself to see what he could do.

Aside from all that ... he was a top bloke! (y)

And let's not turn this thread into War & Peace regarding the possible reasons behind what I've listed above, and what other people will surely post (they've been discussed ad infinitum on other threads). This thread is asking us what we don't like about the man, that's all.

You nailed it.
Jak

[Joe Car]

You nailed it.
Jak

Not even close!

[ksimms2]

hey a bit off topic, but do you guys get tired of hearing how much us women love Elvis? I'd think you'd get tired of it....lol. (I know my husband hates it)

[KPM]

I'm starting to wonder why I like Elvis with all the traits so terrible;););)

[ksimms2]

I'm starting to wonder why I like Elvis with all the traits so terrible;););)

lol....well since we've only seen the public Elvis, we really don't know all that much other than what we've read....so.....he's still perfect in my eyes. ;) It would take a whole lot to change my opinion. (and even then I seriously doubt I would...what can I say? I'm hooked, line & sinker! or as my co-workers and family say, OBSESSED)

[presley31]

Elvis was one complex human being, but yet so beautiful :blush:
There are many things I don't like about him, but that doesn't make me not feel like a fan.
What I wanted to say, is that I like that Elvis has bad traits..call me crazy, but the fact that Elvis wasn't perfect makes me happy lol! - They keep reminding me that he was just like the rest of us.....:blink:
At the start, I only liked Elvis because of the music...but, later I found out that he was much more beautiful inside.

I hate what he thought about the womans place.
Just,...hate it! lol
He needed someone to wait for him at home, while he was having fun and probably cheating! It's so odd :blink:
And being a female...I just can't imagine myself doing that. Stuck at Graceland waiting for my prince...no way :lol:
But, I guess that's the way he was raised, you know?

I agree Marija, wouldn't be me either.

[franny]

I'm starting to wonder why I like Elvis with all the traits so terrible;););)

:lol: Good one!

franny

[Diane]

I'll even add to that KPM....why do we like anyone? I don't know a single person who doesn't need a change in attitude, bad habits etc. and I don't know anyone who had he been in the same position that Elvis was in that would have done any better. His sudden fame after so much poverty growing up had to be pretty heady and just that in itself was a lot to deal with. All the other performers learned from his mistakes so they were luckier.

Diane

[ricardo b. prospero]

Thank you guys for this healthy discussion. We all have proven our sincere affection and respect for the man and perhaps if we only have the power to effect the changes we want, Elvis could have live a peaceful and happy life. Nevertheless, Elvis will always be Elvis and what he was and what he turned to was his personal preference influenced and cultured by a lot of factors in his lifetime. Each one of us has a track to trek till we reach the end.

[Tony Trout]

You nailed it.
Jak


Ditto. I agree 100%!

[rickb]

let he who cast the first stone...
rick

[jak]

Not even close!

There's even more?
Jak

[The King's Queen]

Guys, remember the times, in Elvis' era, many men and women believed that women should be at home, raising a family. Also, I don't agree with the laziness trait, the man worked and supported his family since he was 18 until the day he died, whether it be crown electric, to touring in the mid-fifties, to making movies, to touring again in the seventies. He never took a year or two off, he always kept busy, not to mention having to cut 3 albums a year, nowadays artists cut one album every couple of years. People often mistake depression with the perception of laziness, huge difference.

100% totally agree with you! :clap: I think that Elvis' views on women were a byproduct of the era in which he was raised. I don't think that he can be held responsible for that. Sorry, guys. :blush: As for the "laziness"....PLLLEASEEE! I would def not consider him lazy...not by any definition of the word!:nono: Everyone's definition of hard work varies. Elvis worked harder at being an entertainer than anyone else had at that time...and maybe since. He supported many members of his family. And others as well. Let's give him credit for that at least....(y)


I'll even add to that KPM....why do we like anyone? I don't know a single person who doesn't need a change in attitude, bad habits etc. and I don't know anyone who had he been in the same position that Elvis was in that would have done any better. His sudden fame after so much poverty growing up had to be pretty heady and just that in itself was a lot to deal with. All the other performers learned from his mistakes so they were luckier.

Diane

So true Diane, so true! :clap: An unfortunate side effect of being human is having flaws. Elvis was Elvis, and because of that he experienced tremendous popularity. Sadly, it came with a great price for him personally. He gave in to temptations, and he got caught in a vicious cycle of using med's...for whatever reason. I often wonder if he really realized that abusing prescription med's was no different than hooking up with a dealer and scoring street drugs??? :hmm: Who knows??? Maybe, just maybe, he WAS soooo against illegal drug use that the only way he could live with himself was to justify it in his own mind as 'necessary'....? Just a thought. But we'll never know his thoughts on this....

Personally, I can see a lot of reasons behind why Elvis lived as he did. That doesn't excuse them or make them alright, but I can get a bit of insight into why he did what he did, thought like he thought, ect. And besides, I don't consider myself capable of telling or advising anyone as to how to live or conduct their personal affairs. Life is trial and error. We make mistakes, and either learn from them, or become repeat offenders. I am just glad that Elvis had the means to enjoy the short amount of time that he had here. :king:

[jak]

There really is no need to defend Elvis anytime somebody brings up his faults and try to rationalize them.This is an interesting thread.Elvis did have all the personality flaws that the people have listed.To deny he got incredibly lazy or wasnt a sexist is just laughable to name just a couple.I think somebody mentioned he was just perfect.I mean come on people.He wasnt a god.To admit his character flaws which there were many,doesnt mean you are betraying him.You dont have to try and explain away all his negatives every time they are brought up.I will say it's a credit to Elvis' sheer power of charisma that so many maintain a vise lock grip on the image created over the years.Maybe the Colonel wasnt so bad after all?
Jak

[Getlo]

Not even close!

Care to expand?

[Getlo]

As for the "laziness"....PLLLEASEEE!

You've missed the point.

Yes, Elvis worked hard (mostly ... however, let's face it, there were times when he was just going through the motions) but he rarely pushed himself to see what he was really capable of, eg acting, world tour, different projects. He allowed himeslf to get too easily into his ruts, and never cared enough about himself to make changes.

[MissyM]

They couldn't tour the world because Parker could not get a passport. Elvis was put in a box and that was locked tightly.

[Getlo]

They couldn't tour the world because Parker could not get a passport. Elvis was put in a box and that was locked tightly.

We've discussed this before. The lack of a world tour had nothing to do with Parker's not having a passport. Elvis went to Germany, remember. Without Parker.
And a passport wouldn't have been a problem: The Colonel 's people had contacts with associates of Lyndon B Johnson, who had assured them that a passport wouldn't have been a hassle. Yes, there were people who'd known of The Colonel's "shady" past all along.

[presley31]

I think it has to do with the col, elvis did go to germany to join the army not go on a world tour.

[Getlo]

I think it has to do with the col, elvis did go to germany to join the army not go on a world tour.

Elvis was overseas, regardless of the reason. A world tour could've been put together relatibely easily, and The Colonel wouldn't have even had to travel with Elvis.

A quote from Sonny West (which, no doubt, you will dismiss outright):

So why didn?t an overseas tour eventuate?

Two reasons: the guns and the pills. At the end, Elvis couldn?t do without either, and you can't get that sort of stuff through airport security, no matter who you are. And the Colonel had no contacts over there really, so it became out of the question. It's kind of why they put together the Aloha show. If Elvis couldn't come to the people in person, they'd do it by satellite.

[presley31]

l disgree Gelto, It has to do with the col and his past.

[ksimms2]

from what I am reading, Elvis left his whole career in other's hands....Col. Parker, his father as a business manager who knew nothing about business, etc. Even when he was told he was not getting what he should - by others in the business - he turned a blind eye and did nothing about it. I don't know why though, almost like he was afraid to rock the boat so to speak. He let the Col. make ridiculous demands on the movie sets, with RCA and other record labels, for interviews, etc. Col. led Elvis around on a string like a puppet. Sorry to say, but it's true. (which is really off topic for this thread I think but just answering the stuff from above)

[Getlo]

l disgree Gelto, It has to do with the col and his past.

And there has never been any evidence whatsoever to corroborate this theory. It is pure speculation at best.

[presley31]

And there has never been any evidence whatsoever to corroborate this theory. It is pure speculation at best.

don't have to answer to you

[presley31]

I have read on the internet that the col couldn't go with elvis with the world tours cause he killed someone, not sure how, but this might be the reason why.

[Getlo]

I have read on the internet that the col couldn't go with elvis with the world tours cause he killed someone, not sure how, but this might be the reason why.

Oh, for the love of ... are you serious? You read it on the internet???

More complete lies used to discredit The Colonel even further. If you can find this stunning internet allegation, please place a link on here. I'm sure everyone would love to hear how The King's manager was, in fact, a murderer!

[presley31]

Oh, for the love of ... are you serious? You read it on the internet[I]???

More complete lies used to discredit The Colonel even further. If you can find this ****************ing internet allegation, please place a link on here. I'm sure everyone would love to hear how The King's manager was, in fact, a [I]murderer!

before you judge and dismiss, maybe you should see how true it may be.

[Getlo]

Oh, wait. I just found a link.

http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=1658

From a book by Alanna Nash.

Give me a break!!!

Joe Esposito debunks this rubbish:

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/parkers_shadowy_past_news_to_memphis_mafia.shtml

[presley31]

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/parkers_shadowy_past_news_to_memphis_mafia.shtml

coming from joe, well that explains it than

[Getlo]

before you judge and dismiss, maybe you should see how true it may be.

Already did. It is utter hogwash, and is proof that one shouldn't believe everything that can be viewed on the internet.

I cannot believe anyone would consider this as true. File under the same category as "Elvis is alive".

[Getlo]

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/parkers_shadowy_past_news_to_memphis_mafia.shtml

coming from joe, well that explains it than

And Todd Slaughter, respected head of the UK Elvis fan club. Or do you think he's full of crap as well?

[presley31]

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/parkers_shadowy_past_news_to_memphis_mafia.shtml

read it gelto and stop arguing

[Getlo]

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/parkers_shadowy_past_news_to_memphis_mafia.shtml

read it gelto and stop arguing


Yep, just read that link to, and nowhere does it give any serious credence to the murder theory, or the world tour not eventuating because of The Colonel not being able to get a passport.

[presley31]

you know believe what you like l always have a open mind on things, so this is where we are going to disagree

[ksimms2]

Presley31 vs. Getlo :blink:

back to your corners guys.....;)

[Getlo]

We are indeed off topic on this thread.

Perhaps we should continue over on the thread about The Colonel's management style?

[ksimms2]

there are so many threads, I can't keep up! lol.... this thread is about our opinions on his faults right? Getlo I know you say laziness is your opinion, and I guess depending on how you look at it - he did depend on everyone around him to take care of him, every aspect of his life (food, clothing, transportation, even getting him girls) his #1 job was making his music and performing.....so....not sure which way I go on this one.....

[Getlo]

Getlo I know you say laziness is your opinion, and I guess depending on how you look at it

Yes, but as I said, it was laziness in terms of effort he put in to further his own career artistically and creatively. He rarely pushed himself, like the way he did for the '68 Special, and - to a much lesser extent - Aloha.

[presley31]

I don't think he was lazy in the 68 comeback, he worked hard to get that all togther. The Aloha he was going through personal things that can really bring a person down, but the pills also made him a little different too.

[ksimms2]

Yes, but as I said, it was laziness in terms of effort he put in to further his own career artistically and creatively. He rarely pushed himself, like the way he did for the '68 Special, and - to a much lesser extent - Aloha.

I understand what you mean....in 68 he lost weight, got a tan and was really looking good. Aloha, he was told to lose 30lbs. when they asked him would he like to do the show and he said yes. Otherwise that show would not have happened. So I guess I understand what you mean.....his other shows were pretty much the same weren't they? over and over usually?

[Getlo]

his other shows were pretty much the same weren't they? over and over usually?

Depends on your point of view. Certainly he went through mini-ruts in his concert rut of the 70s. Late '73 ... mostly the same show over and over. Most of '76 and '77 ... mostly the same.

While his voice rarely waivered, his getting up on stage night after night after night can be explained more by habit than genuine commitment. Sure, he loved being out there for the fans, but the changes to his setlists became fewer and fewer, and I don't think he was enjoying it as much as in the early 70s, which is understandable.

[Rover]

The thing I hate the most about him, and I'm really surprised none mentioned it...he divorced while he had a kid. His daughter was 5 years old when her parents divorced can you imagine how she must have felt?
Apart from that, the drug thing bothers me, maybe he had reasons to take drugs, but if you want to think like that, everybody has a reason to take drugs.
These are the two things that I don't like, I'm not sure I can judge his personality...what I know of it is what I've seen in videos. Is that the real man? nope.

[Getlo]

The thing I hate the most about him, and I'm really surprised none mentioned it...he divorced while he had a kid. His daughter was 5 years old when her parents divorced can you imagine how she must have felt?

Children are more resilient than well-meaning but misguided adults give them credit for.

To stick with a dead marriage just because there are children involved is wrong. If a marriage is genuinely at its last crossroads (which, I assume Elvis and Cilla's had been for some time), then it's time to end it - hopefully without animosity.

And, at five years old, Lisa wouldn't have known all the ins and out of what was happening. I think this particular criticism of Elvis (and, by default, Priscilla) is unfair.

[Rover]

That was just my opinion...To me, when you have kids with someone, it means you're mature enough to realize you're engaging yourself until the kid is a grown-up.
And a 5 years old would certainly understand what's going on. Or feel that something is not ok. Anyone with children could tell us more maybe?

Someone said Elvis was lazy...I don't think so. He would never have made it in the song business if he was! Plus he worked pretty hard when he was young :)

[ksimms2]

That was just my opinion...To me, when you have kids with someone, it means you're mature enough to realize you're engaging yourself until the kid is a grown-up.
And a 5 years old would certainly understand what's going on. Or feel that something is not ok. Anyone with children could tell us more maybe?

Someone said Elvis was lazy...I don't think so. He would never have made it in the song business if he was! Plus he worked pretty hard when he was young :)

Priscilla wanted a divorce (some say it was Elvis' idea but I'm not 100% sure) because Elvis was on the road all the time and was never faithful...as a woman...I'd get sick and tired of that too. You can't expect someone to stay in a marriage when they aren't happy, because that does trickle down to the child, which is not healthy at all.

I'm in the same boat right now and for financial reasons is only reason why I'm still there and we have a 10yr old daughter. But if I was set up like Priscilla and Elvis were money wise...it would be a different story all together......goes back to good old, "walk a mile in my shoes".....

[KPM]

Elvis was overseas, regardless of the reason. A world tour could've been put together relatibely easily, and The Colonel wouldn't have even had to travel with Elvis.

A quote from Sonny West (which, no doubt, you will dismiss outright):

So why didn’t an overseas tour eventuate?

Two reasons: the guns and the pills. At the end, Elvis couldn’t do without either, and you can't get that sort of stuff through airport security, no matter who you are. And the Colonel had no contacts over there really, so it became out of the question. It's kind of why they put together the Aloha show. If Elvis couldn't come to the people in person, they'd do it by satellite.
In my opinion from 74 on Elvis touring Europe would have been a nightmare but 70-73 he could have and should have.
But The Col- IMO- would not ever have agreed to a world tour and never intended to. Other huge acts had armed security on tour in Europe. You would not have to take guns on planes-you buy them when you get there-gun laws were not the stringent ones we have today. The pill situation-they don't have pharmacys in Europe? IMO Parker could not leave-he had kept the secret of his status for 40 years and for whatever reason during Elvis's life did not want it known. He would never have allowed his golden goose to tour without him-fear of Elvis becoming independent. IMO That was the biggest fear Parker ever had that Elvis would become independent. He had instilled in Elvis from day one-I know whats best for your career.
He should have had Elvis on the world tour no later than 72, 73 it may have been possible-but after 73 it was too late. Elvis mentioned a couple times in the early 70s that he wanted to go to Europe.
I asked this question in another thread -Parkers job as manager was to set up deals and report offers-he got several really huge offers in the early 70s for Europe (shows or tours)-lets say he went to Elvis and said:
"Elvis we have a huge offer, you'll make more in a few months than in a year of touring the US. The time is right you have proved yourself here and we need to fullfill the promise we have been making since the 50s to your fans overseas"
Does anyone really think if the COl made such a recommendation Elvis would have said no? Especially in 1970 or 71 while Elvis was on the upswing. Elvis needed to be tested, he needed the fear of failure to motivate him. HE had proved himself by 1971 in the US as a top draw and was still selling records. But his motivation was already slipping to push himself. Parker was suppose to be a master at reading people-if he had not realized that Elvis constantly needed to be challenged by 1971 he was very overrated indeed.
Parker never ever made such a recommendation to Elvis about Europe
that has ever been reported-he never had any intention of doing so. You can blame Elvis and his problems all you want butIMO the truth is Parker did not want a European tour and had been putting off Elvis since the 50s on the topic.

[presley31]

In my opinion from 74 on Elvis touring Europe would have been a nightmare but 70-73 he could have and should have.
But The Col- IMO- would not ever have agreed to a world tour and never intended to. Other huge acts had armed security on tour in Europe. You would not have to take guns on planes-you buy them when you get there-gun laws were not the stringent ones we have today. The pill situation-they don't have pharmacys in Europe? IMO Parker could not leave-he had kept the secret of his status for 40 years and for whatever reason during Elvis's life did not want it known. He would never have allowed his golden goose to tour without him-fear of Elvis becoming independent. IMO That was the biggest fear Parker ever had that Elvis would become independent. He had instilled in Elvis from day one-I know whats best for your career.
He should have had Elvis on the world tour no later than 72, 73 it may have been possible-but after 73 it was too late. Elvis mentioned a couple times in the early 70s that he wanted to go to Europe.
I asked this question in another thread -Parkers job as manager was to set up deals and report offers-he got several really huge offers in the early 70s for Europe (shows or tours)-lets say he went to Elvis and said:
"Elvis we have a huge offer, you'll make more in a few months than in a year of touring the US. The time is right you have proved yourself here and we need to fullfill the promise we have been making since the 50s to your fans overseas"
Does anyone really think if the COl made such a recommendation Elvis would have said no? Especially in 1970 or 71 while Elvis was on the upswing. Elvis needed to be tested, he needed the fear of failure to motivate him. HE had proved himself by 1971 in the US as a top draw and was still selling records. But his motivation was already slipping to push himself. Parker was suppose to be a master at reading people-if he had not realized that Elvis constantly needed to be challenged by 1971 he was very overrated indeed.
Parker never ever made such a recommendation to Elvis about Europe
that has ever been reported-he never had any intention of doing so. You can blame Elvis and his problems all you want butIMO the truth is Parker did not want a European tour and had been putting off Elvis since the 50s on the topic.

well said KPM(y)(y)

[Getlo]

The pill situation-they don't have pharmacys in Europe?

Sure. I'd have loved to have seen someone from the MM go into a pharmacy without a prescription and order Elvis's usual dose of "medications" !!

"I'll have 500 quaaludes, 350 demerol ..." etc :)

[Getlo]

He would never have allowed his golden goose to tour without him-fear of Elvis becoming independent.

Germany, 1958 - 1960. The Colonel never travelled overseas once to see his boy, something people conveniently forget.

Again, the idea that the reason The Colonel never put up a world tour was because of his supposed status is speculation without any proof whatsoever.

[presley31]

Sure. I'd have loved to have seen someone from the MM go into a pharmacy without a prescription and order Elvis's usual dose of "medications" !!

"I'll have 500 quaaludes, 350 demerol ..." etc :)

what makes you think they couldn't??? Elvis didn't have any problems gettting meds from anybody.

[MissyM]

I don't really take what a West says real seriously. More reliable people have said it was about Parker. One way or the other, he didn't want it. Ask yourself why????
And then ask yourself why Pricilla, & Joe Esposito praise Parker??? They know darn well that Parker literally riped Elvis off and worked him beyond reason!!! When you find the answer, can you please tell me?????

[presley31]

I don't really take what a West says real seriously. More reliable people have said it was about Parker. One way or the other, he didn't want it. Ask yourself why????
And then ask yourself why Pricilla, & Joe Esposito praise Parker??? They know darn well that Parker literally riped Elvis off and worked him beyond reason!!! When you find the answer, can you please tell me?????

I agree with everything except priscilla liking the parker.

[Getlo]

what makes you think they couldn't??? Elvis didn't have any problems gettting meds from anybody.

I simply have no words to this statement ...

[KPM]

Sure. I'd have loved to have seen someone from the MM go into a pharmacy without a prescription and order Elvis's usual dose of "medications" !!

"I'll have 500 quaaludes, 350 demerol ..." etc :)
They also have doctors overseas if I'm not mistaken.

[KPM]

Germany, 1958 - 1960. The Colonel never travelled overseas once to see his boy, something people conveniently forget.

Again, the idea that the reason The Colonel never put up a world tour was because of his supposed status is speculation without any proof whatsoever.
Elvis was on active duty in the Army 75% of his time was already taken if I recall. He was on orders from the Col not to perform for anyone for any reason-pretty tight orders.
The fact that Parker never once visited him is another indication that he could not. He kept very close tabs by phone with Elvis and Vernon. I have not forgot it- its in every bio that has been written.
Also their is some proof in the amount of huge offers the Col turned down. Such as the offer in 1970 that Abe Shoofey (President of the International Hotel) witnessed and could not believe Parker turned down which I have posted once before. It was obvious to Shoofey
that after all Parkers demands were met by the European promoter that Parker did not want to go to Europe. Shoofey had set up the meeting for this promoter with Parker.
Speculation is the name of the game whether you are a fan or Sonny West on some things.
Others who have researched Elvis have had the same speculation on Parker and no European tour.
Finally Parker never took anyone he managed outside the US Eddy Arnold was a huge star in country music very big in Mexico and during the time he managed Arnold he never appeared outside the US. Arnold did play outside the US after Parker and he split.

[Getlo]

The fact that Parker never once visited him is another indication that he could not.

Again, where is your proof with this spurious allegation? You're throwing out allegations against (another) dead man without any foundation whatsoever.

As I suggested, this is off topic, so maybe take it over to the thread about The Colonel's management style?

[presley31]

wheres all your proof Getlo?????

[Getlo]

wheres all your proof Getlo?????

I don't need to provide proof (not quite yet, anyway) because I am not the one making allegations against The Colonel.

[presley31]

Don't ask us for proof unless you have some your self.

[Getlo]

Don't ask us for proof unless you have some your self.

In case you missed it, I was asking KPM for proof, not you. You'd never offer up any anyway! :)

And again: I don't need to provide proof (not quite yet, anyway) because I am not the one making allegations against The Colonel.

[KPM]

Again, where is your proof with this spurious allegation? You're throwing out allegations against (another) dead man without any foundation whatsoever.

As I suggested, this is off topic, so maybe take it over to the thread about The Colonel's management style?
Pal I am saying Elvis did not tour Europe-fact.
Elvis said he wanted to go several times-fact
With or without Elvis- Parker never left the US for a vacation, while managing another performer, or to visit his family in Holland-fact.
Elvis was given several lucrative offers which Parker turned down during Elvis's career to tour or play Europe-fact. I just posted one which was witnessed by a reputable man.-fact.
Some books and some insiders say Elvis and his problems were the sole reason he never left he US. Fact
Other books and insiders point to the COl and his illegal status-fact
In the 50s the gun trouble and pills were not the problem they were in 1973 on-what was the excuse then? Elvis was worldwide business in 56? Fact.
Now you have the Sonny West opinion fine- I don't. IMO
There are 2 camps of thought and opinion on this subject- my "speculation" is not new-it has been proposed by others for years in books and interviews.

[presley31]

well said again KPM

[Getlo]

Pal I am saying Elvis did not tour Europe-fact.
Elvis said he wanted to go several times-fact
With or without Elvis- Parker never left the US for a vacation, while managing another performer, or to visit his family in Holland-fact.
Elvis was given several lucrative offers which Parker turned down during Elvis's career to tour or play Europe-fact. I just posted one which was witnessed by a reputable man.-fact.
Some books and some insiders say Elvis and his problems were the sole reason he never left he US. Fact
Other books and insiders point to the COl and his illegal status-fact
In the 50s the gun trouble and pills were not the problem they were in 1973 on-what was the excuse then? Elvis was worldwide business in 56? Fact.
Now you have the Sonny West opinion fine- I don't. IMO

I agree with all of the above, KPM. Believe me, I do. And, contrary to what some people (no names of course!) on here would have you believe, I do actually respect yours and others opinions.
What I'm saying is that these books and sources are offering a theory only. An idea. A concept. But no proof.
There is no answer one way or the other. But it is healthy to debate, is it not?

[KPM]

I agree with all of the above, KPM. Believe me, I do. And, contrary to what some people (no names of course!) on here would have you believe, I do actually respect yours and others opinions.
What I'm saying is that these books and sources are offering a theory only. An idea. A concept. But no proof.
There is no answer one way or the other. But it is healthy to debate, is it not?\
I would agree everything is circumstancial and heresay on both trains of thought. In another thread I even said that Col and Elvis were a team 50/50 and if you are going to see them as that- IMO in the 70s the team broke down on both sides.

[GirlHappy19]

Unfurtunally I never met him in person to judge or critised what made him human.I only know what people say in books and tabloids.Let's admit that some of his "friends"cheated on him too.He said it himself that he was not "normal"All I can say is that I only know the legend----that Iove the little boy from Tupelo,Ms.who grew up to be king.I love Elvis---the rest of what he did in his personal life are things that don't concern me.He was great and after 30 years he still ROCKS!!!(y)

[Getlo]

\
I would agree everything is circumstancial and heresay on both trains of thought. In another thread I even said that Col and Elvis were a team 50/50 and if you are going to see them as that- IMO in the 70s the team broke down on both sides.

I would suggest it is more circumstantial and hearsay on your side of the debate than mine (and no, I am not arguing here, just keeping the thread going).

To wit: The Colonel "let" Elvis go overseas in 1958 - 1960 without his own supervision. The fact is, Elvis made it safely into another country. In a way, the Colonel wasn't even needed in Germany. Besides, he was busy with Elvis' work back home, ie releasing singles, keeping Elvis in the public's mind. Had The Colonel gone overseas for too long, the wheels would have fallen off.

And the LBJ connections: a passport for The Colonel wouldn't even have been an issue. The book by The Colonel's assistant (whose name escapes me right now) deals with this. As does, I believe, Guralnick's volumes (but I may be mistaken on this).

[KPM]

I would suggest it is more circumstantial and hearsay on your side of the debate than mine (and no, I am not arguing here, just keeping the thread going).

To wit: The Colonel "let" Elvis go overseas in 1958 - 1960 without his own supervision. The fact is, Elvis made it safely into anoter country. In a way, the Colonel wasn't even needed in Germany. Besides, he was busy with Elvis' work back home, ie releasing singles, keeping Elvis in the public's mind. Had The Colonel gone overseas for too long, the wheels would have fallen off.

And the LBJ connections: a passport for The Colonel wouldn't even have been an issue. The book by The Colonel's assistant (whose name escapes me right now) deals with this. As does, I believe, Guralnick's volumes (but I may be mistaken on this).
Well If I went into court I would feel comfortable painting the picture of Parker dragging his feet from 56 on about going overseas-circumstancial evidence if theres enough of it has convicted people;)
The Col staying home was to keep Elvis in the 90% tax bracket-that was the story given in 58.
Elvis did not need the COl in Germany because he was not performing, traveling from venue to venue-there were no arrangements to make or be handled beyond the home where Elvis stayed in Germany. If you go by what the Col was needed for on tour-he was not really needed in the US. Travel was set up, then Elvis got his own plane and even that was not needed, hotels are booked in advance, anyone could set up all the ins and outs of touring-but Parker went on all Elvis's tours in the US.
The reason the going to Europe question is so big to everyone is because it was the next logical step-the COl and Elvis had been promising it for years since the 50s. In 1970 the iron was hot-that is when anyone who has a modem of show business sense can see it should have happened. The money was waiting to be raked in-how many later problems might that fact have solved. What would be smarter playing Vegas on the regular 2 shows a night month long engagments for money that Shoofey could not believe Parker agreed to for 5 years- or taking a couple months of touring Europe for huge money? Then resting more. Elvis had been making changes since the 68 special-taken chances and the momentum was there. In the career of Elvis 1970 was the when he was most ready for such a big thing. I will grant the argument that after 73 there was no way Elvis could have mustered the will to make a world tour.
BuT in 1970 with all the triumphs from 68 on-if Parker had told him it was time-money to be made in truckloads-IMO Elvis would not have said no. If Parker was the management wiz he is cracked up to be-would he have not known this? Of course he would have! Were there serious money offers-yes.
So that brings us back to Why Not? Sure 1973 on I see argument you have given-but not 1970 for sure and into 72 IMO it could have been possible.
The other end of my argument is that Parker was not dumb-he had to see Elvis needed the big things to keep him commited and interested. Then what is more challenging than a world tour. What is more challenging than fulfilling the promises to your overseas fans who have waited literally since 1956 to see you? So if Parker was not dumb there had to be other reasons for not doing it. And that is where we differ.

[MissyM]

So people don't think Pricilla and Parker were buddies? She was at his birthday bash. (his last one) She pretended to like anyone who could bring her into more money and a position of control. (of Elvis's money)

[presley31]

what does priscilla have to do with this thread???

[Getlo]

And that is where we differ.

And that's okay; the world still keeps on spinning, and all is well.

(I'm just waiting on a certain "well said KPM(y)(y)" though!)

:lol::lol::lol:

[ksimms2]

lol Getlo.....

p.s. you both have very good points by the way.....I tend to lean more toward KPM though...as I have read same things he is saying.....so far everything I've read does not put the Col. in a good light....and I have to say, so far I agree. I guess it just depends on if you believe what you are reading and by whom.

[The King's Queen]

There really is no need to defend Elvis anytime somebody brings up his faults and try to rationalize them.This is an interesting thread.Elvis did have all the personality flaws that the people have listed.To deny he got incredibly lazy or wasnt a sexist is just laughable to name just a couple.I think somebody mentioned he was just perfect.I mean come on people.He wasnt a god.To admit his character flaws which there were many,doesnt mean you are betraying him.You dont have to try and explain away all his negatives every time they are brought up.I will say it's a credit to Elvis' sheer power of charisma that so many maintain a vise lock grip on the image created over the years.Maybe the Colonel wasnt so bad after all?
Jak

Jak, I must disagree with you. First of all, my post was not an attempt to rationalize his faults. Have you never heard of anyone blaming their upbringing, or their parents, for their own character flaws??? It's a common occurence, so why should Elvis be denied the same benefit of the doubt? To deny that early influences in his life molded him to have certain beliefs is silly, IMO.
I don't know how lazy Elvis was in the last years of his life. I tend to lean toward failing health, drug abuse, and very little control over his creativity as the culprits for his supposed laziness.
I can see his faults, flaws, ect. And I do not feel that I am betraying him by accepting these flaws or admitting them. I can acknowledge the fact that he did not meet his potential in his career...IMO, he could have done much better in certain areas. But from what I have read, the Col. def held a tight rein on him...to the point of compromising his creativity at times. Elvis wasn't a 'God'...he was a man. And thus, there must have been reasons for the way that he felt about certain things. I choose to look past those 'flaws' to try to see what, if anything, led him to those beliefs or opinions. If anyone wants to look at that as trying to rationalize his behaviorisms, then that is a personal choice.

And IMO...the Colonel was that bad....:blink:

Best regards...:)

[Lisarose]

I don't like that Elvis chose to marry even though he had no intention of being faithful. I can make excuses & I have, but I still don't like it.
I also don't like that he felt he had to single-handedly take on the burden of supporting his entire family - including cousins, aunts & uncles & everyone else that showed up out of the woodwork. It's admirable that he cared, but some of these people, IMO, were just in it for the free ride.
While I like the song Baby Let's Play House, I hate the line " I'd rather see you dead than in the arms of another man" Granted that was just the common thinking of the times, & Elvis didn't write the song, but as we all know, he did change the lyrics when it suited him.

[Suzan]

His weakness w/the Col. and his inability to be faithful.

But I adore him, he had a beautiful heart, a beautiful soul and whatever shortcomings, whatever demons he had, I still love and adore him, for he hurt himself more then he hurt anyone else. Nothing will ever make me love him less, and perhaps, maybe, I love him more for his weaknesses, for it shows he was human.:D

[Suzan]

Jak, I must disagree with you. First of all, my post was not an attempt to rationalize his faults. Have you never heard of anyone blaming their upbringing, or their parents, for their own character flaws??? It's a common occurence, so why should Elvis be denied the same benefit of the doubt? To deny that early influences in his life molded him to have certain beliefs is silly, IMO.
I don't know how lazy Elvis was in the last years of his life. I tend to lean toward failing health, drug abuse, and very little control over his creativity as the culprits for his supposed laziness.
I can see his faults, flaws, ect. And I do not feel that I am betraying him by accepting these flaws or admitting them. I can acknowledge the fact that he did not meet his potential in his career...IMO, he could have done much better in certain areas. But from what I have read, the Col. def held a tight rein on him...to the point of compromising his creativity at times. Elvis wasn't a 'God'...he was a man. And thus, there must have been reasons for the way that he felt about certain things. I choose to look past those 'flaws' to try to see what, if anything, led him to those beliefs or opinions. If anyone wants to look at that as trying to rationalize his behaviorisms, then that is a personal choice.

And IMO...the Colonel was that bad....:blink:

Best regards...:)

Wow so well said, thank you!:D:D:D:D

[Merry]

I'm going to reply to this, without reading anything anyone has written (yet..... :D)

Everyone has flaws, we all learn from them. Elvis knew he had them, he saw them, and did what he could at the time, with the best knowledge he had, at the time. That is what makes us "us", our flaws, but the important thing is, is what we learn from them.

He was a man, with temptations, with a sense of fun. Elvis cared deeply for others, including complete strangers, which is telling to me, as to his character.

Sandi Miller on "Behind The Image" which was a series of Youtube's posted earlier, said: "He (Elvis) was a loyal friend, no matter what happened, he was there for you."

That's how Elvis is known to this day, and should always be known.

:hug: for him always,
Kimmi
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

P.S. His friends, who he showed that love to, are there for him, and will always be there for him, no matter what, you know thatb.

[Merry]

Oh brother! (Reading this).

My thoughts?

Let the perfect person cast their stone first.

Who is up next?

Jesus?

[Suzan]

Oh brother! (Reading this).

My thoughts?

Let the perfect person cast their stone first.

Who is up next?

Jesus?

(y):lmfao::lmfao: Good one.:):D

[jak]

Jak, I must disagree with you. First of all, my post was not an attempt to rationalize his faults. Have you never heard of anyone blaming their upbringing, or their parents, for their own character flaws??? It's a common occurence, so why should Elvis be denied the same benefit of the doubt? To deny that early influences in his life molded him to have certain beliefs is silly, IMO.
I don't know how lazy Elvis was in the last years of his life. I tend to lean toward failing health, drug abuse, and very little control over his creativity as the culprits for his supposed laziness.
I can see his faults, flaws, ect. And I do not feel that I am betraying him by accepting these flaws or admitting them. I can acknowledge the fact that he did not meet his potential in his career...IMO, he could have done much better in certain areas. But from what I have read, the Col. def held a tight rein on him...to the point of compromising his creativity at times. Elvis wasn't a 'God'...he was a man. And thus, there must have been reasons for the way that he felt about certain things. I choose to look past those 'flaws' to try to see what, if anything, led him to those beliefs or opinions. If anyone wants to look at that as trying to rationalize his behaviorisms, then that is a personal choice.

And IMO...the Colonel was that bad....:blink:

Best regards...:)

The topic wasnt dealing with the reasons behind Elvis' flaws.It just asked what they were.The things you mentioned were surely factors.Youre wrong about the Col though.As I have mentioned before Elvis took bascially no interest in the artistic side of his career.Most of the time he had no idea what singles were released,he didnt even know what his album covers looked like.He gave zero input.He didnt care.His recording output in the 70's was dismal because he didnt record anymore.The times he did manage to make some recording sessions in the 70's they were bored and uninspired.The same goes for the live shows.He was on autopilot.He even stopped rehearsing.It was just easier to sing the same old medley's and toss in some Olivia Newton John.He could do it in his sleep and he often did.Elvis Presley was incredibly lazy towards his career.The guy became satisfied which is not good for an artist.Elvis got to a point where he never again strived to do anything.The money kept rolling in so he was content.
Jak

[Donut]

maybe he had reasons to take drugs, but if you want to think like that, everybody has a reason to take drugs.

You are totally right on that. We should aply the same to any other adict because everyone has their own problems, most of them have worse ones than Elvis had. And we could excuse the MM and the other ones actions aswell based on the same theories: genes, depression, background etc. After all they were all human... or maybe I?m wrong?

As for my opinion about Elvis traits I find them very funny since I didn?t have to suffer them myself and I don?t care if others had to. Most of them have been living out of it since then so who cares.

[Donut]

Oh brother! (Reading this).


Who is up next?

Jesus?

Interesting comparison.........

[Joe Car]

The topic wasnt dealing with the reasons behind Elvis' flaws.It just asked what they were.The things you mentioned were surely factors.Youre wrong about the Col though.As I have mentioned before Elvis took bascially no interest in the artistic side of his career.Most of the time he had no idea what singles were released,he didnt even know what his album covers looked like.He gave zero input.He didnt care.His recording output in the 70's was dismal because he didnt record anymore.The times he did manage to make some recording sessions in the 70's they were bored and uninspired.The same goes for the live shows.He was on autopilot.He even stopped rehearsing.It was just easier to sing the same old medley's and toss in some Olivia Newton John.He could do it in his sleep and he often did.Elvis Presley was incredibly lazy towards his career.The guy became satisfied which is not good for an artist.Elvis got to a point where he never again strived to do anything.The money kept rolling in so he was content.
Jak

Elvis was never perceived "lazy" his whole career until he became ill later on in his life. My God, the guy would do countless takes when recording in the studio. Ask anybody who recorded with Elvis, there was absolutely nobody better in the studio, or worked harder in getting a take done, this even goes for a lot of the crappy songs he sang for his movies. He always killed himself on stage when putting on a show, this went on for numerous years, again until later on in his life when he was losing his desire, due to depression. There were also many a time that he went on stage, ill, and he shouldn't have been up there, yet he was, which I'm sure wasn't easy for him. Did Elvis make mistakes, sure he did, but for him and the Colonel, it was trial and error. If you haven't had anybody in your life, who has suffered from depression, then you couldn't possibly understand the reprecussions that go with it. Even the great author Peter Gruralnick just recently wrote an article and how he believed that Elvis Presley did suffer from depression, and and how it effected his last few years. Jak, let me ask you a question, would you say that prior to 1973, Elvis was lazy?

[Merry]

Interesting comparison.........



More sarcasm than anything, nothing Freudian, I'm afraid. (y)

Kim

[Getlo]

Jak, let me ask you a question, would you say that prior to 1973, Elvis was lazy?

Well, I certainly would. The eight long years of the crappy Hollywood music answers that question to my mind. And the soundtracks. Very lazy indeed.

[Merry]

Elvis was never perceived "lazy" his whole career until he became ill later on in his life. My God, the guy would do countless takes when recording in the studio. Ask anybody who recorded with Elvis, there was absolutely nobody better in the studio, or worked harder in getting a take done. He always killed himself on stage when putting on a show, this went on for numerous years <snip>


Well said, Joe Car, thank you.

Kim

[Donut]

More sarcasm than anything, nothing Freudian, I'm afraid. (y)

Kim

Yes it was sarcasm. You just won an Elvis Teddy bear.

[jak]

Elvis was never perceived "lazy" his whole career until he became ill later on in his life. My God, the guy would do countless takes when recording in the studio. Ask anybody who recorded with Elvis, there was absolutely nobody better in the studio, or worked harder in getting a take done, this even goes for a lot of the crappy songs he sang for his movies. He always killed himself on stage when putting on a show, this went on for numerous years, again until later on in his life when he was losing his desire, due to depression. There were also many a time that he went on stage, ill, and he shouldn't have been up there, yet he was, which I'm sure wasn't easy for him. Did Elvis make mistakes, sure he did, but for him and the Colonel, it was trial and error. If you haven't had anybody in your life, who has suffered from depression, then you couldn't possibly understand the reprecussions that go with it. Even the great author Peter Gruralnick just recently wrote an article and how he believed that Elvis Presley did suffer from depression, and and how it effected his last few years. Jak, let me ask you a question, would you say that prior to 1973, Elvis was lazy?

With the exception of a few bursts I would say Elvis was lazy from 1961 overall.Elvis could have countered those crap movies with doing some concerts and of course with recording some decent music.He shot his films in a month or less.He was lazy and complacent.From 73 on his career was stuck in neutral.He gave up his recording career before he let the drugs completely take over.All this talk of Elvis being clinically depressed is speculation.He may have been for all we know.It's obvious though that the drugs took his health away.Depression just sounds better and is more sympathetic.Elvis had his hands off approach to his career soon after the sessions in 60.He was driven in 54 -58 to make it.After that it was steady as she goes.
Jak

[medleyofcostumes]

IMO, In the 70's (I don't know that much of EP in the 50's & 60's) Elvis was unprofessional towards the audiences and musicians.

First of all after 1970, he rarely rehearsed for the tours. Rarely bothered to learn lyrics of new songs - reading lyrics of 'Moody Blue' in February 1977, also reading lyrics of 'My Way' and 'Bridge over troubled waters' etc.
He rarely prepared himself to sing the 'latest' single at the time. He still introduced 'Hurt' as his latest single one year after its release!
Why didn't he prepare a medley of film hits or a medley from the SUN days or a medley from the 68 Special?
When a new band member was to start a tour, he had to learn by himself listening to records!

Elvis didn't bother to record in 1976 so the studio was set up in Graceland. He did not turn up for the January/February 1977 recording session. For the 1976 & 1977 recording sessions, the musicians were left days waiting for him to turn up.

Finally, I consider a 40 - 55 minute live performance too short, considering many artists with a much more limited repertoire are on stage for 90 - 150 minutes. (Elton John recently celebrated his 60th birthday with a concert running for 3 1/2 hours singing a ton of rarely performed tracks)

I don't want to sound that negative, but this is my opinion.

[jak]

IMO, In the 70's (I don't know that much of EP in the 50's & 60's) Elvis was unprofessional towards the audiences and musicians.

First of all after 1970, he rarely rehearsed for the tours. Rarely bothered to learn lyrics of new songs - reading lyrics of 'Moody Blue' in February 1977, also reading lyrics of 'My Way' and 'Bridge over troubled waters' etc.
He rarely prepared himself to sing the 'latest' single at the time. He still introduced 'Hurt' as his latest single one year after its release!
Why didn't he prepare a medley of film hits or a medley from the SUN days or a medley from the 68 Special?
When a new band member was to start a tour, he had to learn by himself listening to records!

Elvis didn't bother to record in 1976 so the studio was set up in Graceland. He did not turn up for the January/February 1977 recording session. For the 1976 & 1977 recording sessions, the musicians were left days waiting for him to turn up.

Finally, I consider a 40 - 55 minute live performance too short, considering many artists with a much more limited repertoire are on stage for 90 - 150 minutes. (Elton John recently celebrated his 60th birthday with a concert running for 3 1/2 hours singing a ton of rarely performed tracks)

I don't want to sound that negative, but this is my opinion.

Everything you stated was true.You cant fault the Colonel or anybody else for the things you mentioned either.
Jak

[charro]

The only traits i dont like is the fact he drove himself in an early grave to please Colonel Parker

[Jailhouse-Rocker]

Elvis was one complex human being, but yet so beautiful :blush:
There are many things I don't like about him, but that doesn't make me not feel like a fan.
What I wanted to say, is that I like that Elvis has bad traits..call me crazy, but the fact that Elvis wasn't perfect makes me happy lol! - They keep reminding me that he was just like the rest of us.....:blink:
At the start, I only liked Elvis because of the music...but, later I found out that he was much more beautiful inside.

I hate what he thought about the womans place.
Just,...hate it! lol
He needed someone to wait for him at home, while he was having fun and probably cheating! It's so odd :blink:
And being a female...I just can't imagine myself doing that. Stuck at Graceland waiting for my prince...no way :lol:
But, I guess that's the way he was raised, you know?

couldn't agree more lol :clap: :clap: (y) (y)

[KPM]

With the exception of a few bursts I would say Elvis was lazy from 1961 overall.Elvis could have countered those crap movies with doing some concerts and of course with recording some decent music.He shot his films in a month or less.He was lazy and complacent.From 73 on his career was stuck in neutral.He gave up his recording career before he let the drugs completely take over.All this talk of Elvis being clinically depressed is speculation.He may have been for all we know.It's obvious though that the drugs took his health away.Depression just sounds better and is more sympathetic.Elvis had his hands off approach to his career soon after the sessions in 60.He was driven in 54 -58 to make it.After that it was steady as she goes.
Jak
Lance Le Gault said Elvis worked harder than anyone on his movies-averaging 3 a year for most of his career. The bigger ones took about 60 days to make plus the recording of the soundtracks. The ones like "Kissin Cousins" took as little as 3 weeks. Le Gault recalled working with Elvis while the crew had lunch to try and get down his moves and marks for the songs on "Kissin Cousin" The shorter the shoot made more money but the rush to get done quick increased tension on Elvis. If I recall his movie contract for Paramount was 7 years
(or 7 movies) He was booked quite a few years in advance for them thats for sure. He still cut records fairly regularly in the 60s and that takes time. Today he would be considered "prolific" in his output compared to artists who take years between albums. So maybe some consider him lazy-and theres a case to be made for it. But I think he was no worse off than most entertainers of the time who made movies and were also singers. Could he have made appearances in those years-yes. Did the Col. advise him to or accept any offers that came to him for Elvis- its obvious no he did not, that was not his plan at the time for Elvis's career. I do not agree with how he did no live shows in the 60s but that was Parkers plan.

[Diane]

I don't think there is any way to convince some people that Elvis was not lazy except to ask them to try living his life. :lol:

Diane

[Jailhouse-Rocker]

I don't think there is any way to convince some people that Elvis was not lazy except to ask them to try living his life. :lol:

Diane



too true!! you make such good, short comments .... ever thought of being a politician or something? :lol: England could use someone who we can actually understand! :lmfao:

[KPM]

I don't think there is any way to convince some people that Elvis was not lazy except to ask them to try living his life. :lol:

Diane
Its true, if someone finds him lazy compared to their idea of how he should have lived his life-you are not going to change their mind.
IMO I think it must have been, at times a pretty hectic existence, and others a very sweet ride.
Levels of boredom, work ethics, and individual stress levels are not universal. Everyone sees them from their point of view and experience.

[marijaep]

couldn't agree more lol :clap: :clap: (y) (y)

Thanks Emily :hug:

[nashville cat]

There's very few of today's stars that would be able to handle Elvis' 60's movie production schedule or the 70's touring/recording schedule. I think he was far from lazy.

Elvis was always working and staying busy througout his career. Most of you are calling him "lazy" for a perceived failure to branch out artistically, in films, stagework or music. In reality, Elvis was just responding to his audience. The box office for the majority of films was very good, and so he continued to make those types of pictures. He tried a few serious ones when he came back from the Army, and they didn't go over as well. During the touring years, he put on a show that was loved by the majority of fans, and he performed songs they were familiar with and wanted to hear. He was giving the fans the show they had paid their money to see.

He had huge demands on him, including a family and staff to support. I would imagine if he didn't have all those demands, perhaps he would have taken more chances. But just like any person, sometimes your own whims and desires take a backseat, when you just have to make a living. Lazy, is sitting around doing nothing the majority of the time. Just because you don't like the career choices made by Elvis, that doesn't make him lazy.

[Diane]

Thank you for the compliment JailhouseRocker.....nope, I could never make it as a politician....not good at lying. :) And...England is not the only country who could use some honest politicians that understand and care for the people.

I agree with KPM, Elvis' life at times must have been like a fantasy life to some but he sure had a hectic one, frustrating and depressing and paid for it with his life.

Diane

[marijaep]

Thank you for the compliment JailhouseRocker.....nope, I could never make it as a politician....not good at lying. :) And...England is not the only country who could use some honest politicians that understand and care for the people.

I agree with KPM, Elvis' life at times must have been like a fantasy life to some but he sure had a hectic one, frustrating and depressing and paid for it with his life.

Diane

lol, good post (y)(y)(y)

[Burning_Love]

too true!! you make such good, short comments .... ever thought of being a politician or something? :lol: England could use someone who we can actually understand! :lmfao:

Too right Emily !!

Yes Diane, that would be great if were Diane.

I agree with you Emily on this comment :)

[presley31]

Diane you do make great sense and l always enjoy reading your posts, elvis would be smiling at you for sure!!

[jak]

Elvis' prolific output in the 60's was a large mountain of crap with some gems tossed in.It's more than just an artistic issue.It reflects his attitude about his career.The same goes for his live shows.Same songs night after night meant no need to rehearse.Forcing RCA to be so desperate for recordings they bring the mobile units to graceland for the resulting jungle room sessions.You guys are mistaking his being on autopilot and cranking out poor soundtracks and carbon copy lackluster shows as a sign he was really trying.He wasnt trying.Being on autopilot is laziness.It was his face on the crappy soundtrack covers.It was him standing in front of 12,000 people rushing through his classics.Taking the easy way out is lazy.
Jak

[Laura Harrell]

Amen to that!! I totally agree with you!!

[ksimms2]

Elvis' prolific output in the 60's was a large mountain of crap with some gems tossed in.It's more than just an artistic issue.It reflects his attitude about his career.The same goes for his live shows.Same songs night after night meant no need to rehearse.Forcing RCA to be so desperate for recordings they bring the mobile units to graceland for the resulting jungle room sessions.You guys are mistaking his being on autopilot and cranking out poor soundtracks and carbon copy lackluster shows as a sign he was really trying.He wasnt trying.Being on autopilot is laziness.It was his face on the crappy soundtrack covers.It was him standing in front of 12,000 people rushing through his classics.Taking the easy way out is lazy.
Jak

In June of this year, me, my mom and daughter went to Graceland for 1st time. The closer we got - we started listening to my Elvis CD's. My mom made the comment about him rushing through his classics, she didn't understand why - it was a live version from either Madison Sq Gardens or Las Vegas that we were listening to. I just figured because he knew the audience wanted to hear them - so he did them quickly for that reason.

[Diane]

You know what? It's all in the way someone perceives someone else. We can't go by what books we read, what we hear in some interview or the media - everyone goes by their own personal agenda whether it's up front and personal, in the media, books, interviews etc. or on these threads.

Some are determined to take the harsh line on Elvis, some the soft line and some are totally indifferent and that's the way it's always going to be forever and ever. So why don't we all give it a rest?

Diane

[presley31]

You know what? It's all in the way someone perceives someone else. We can't go by what books we read, what we hear in some interview or the media - everyone goes by their own personal agenda whether it's up front and personal, in the media, books, interviews etc. or on these threads.

Some are determined to take the harsh line on Elvis, some the soft line and some are totally indifferent and that's the way it's always going to be forever and ever. So why don't we all give it a rest?

Diane

There you go again leaving me speehless:hmm::lmfao::lmfao: Great points diane, its how we feel on things that we should go by.

[marijaep]

You know what? It's all in the way someone perceives someone else. We can't go by what books we read, what we hear in some interview or the media - everyone goes by their own personal agenda whether it's up front and personal, in the media, books, interviews etc. or on these threads.

Some are determined to take the harsh line on Elvis, some the soft line and some are totally indifferent and that's the way it's always going to be forever and ever. So why don't we all give it a rest?

Diane

Agree with you all the way.

I am starting from today...........:smoke::whistling lol

[marijaep]

In June of this year, me, my mom and daughter went to Graceland for 1st time. The closer we got - we started listening to my Elvis CD's. My mom made the comment about him rushing through his classics, she didn't understand why - it was a live version from either Madison Sq Gardens or Las Vegas that we were listening to. I just figured because he knew the audience wanted to hear them - so he did them quickly for that reason.

Awwwwwwwwwwww, 3 generations in Graceland....lovely :D:D:D

[KPM]

Many of his movis songs were sub standard- so why do 20-30 takes on a song like "Adam and Evil" on Spinout?
If you did not care wouldn't you cut a couple takes and say "thats it"?
He spent a lot of time trying to get the best he could out of what he was offered. Thats not lazy or uncaring IMO

The 70s he was on auto pilot many times, but I will not condemn him for it. Instead I try to be more understanding of a situation "in someones elses life"
which I will never be able to fully understand no matter how much I read or hear or discuss about it. If someone can honestly say I could have done so much more than he and been so much smarter-more power to them I can honestly say I would have been worse if it was me IMO Its too easy to just blanket statement someone choices and motivations. As I said work ethic, pressure handling ability, and boredom are not universal among we humans. Neither are childhoods and the genes you inherit. All have a huge role in who you are. Elvis is no exception.

[Diane]

(y)(y)(y)

Diane

[Joe Car]

With the exception of a few bursts I would say Elvis was lazy from 1961 overall.Elvis could have countered those crap movies with doing some concerts and of course with recording some decent music.He shot his films in a month or less.He was lazy and complacent.From 73 on his career was stuck in neutral.He gave up his recording career before he let the drugs completely take over.All this talk of Elvis being clinically depressed is speculation.He may have been for all we know.It's obvious though that the drugs took his health away.Depression just sounds better and is more sympathetic.Elvis had his hands off approach to his career soon after the sessions in 60.He was driven in 54 -58 to make it.After that it was steady as she goes.
Jak

Jak, I have too politely disagree. It was well documented that for his movie roles that he knew everybody's lines, as well as his own. And btw, while he recorded some crappy songs in the sixties, how many great classic songs did he record, let me see, second to the Beatles in record sales for that decade. Did you forget about the incredible, high-energy concerts he put on in 69, or was that lazy as well. I would think that world reknowned author Peter Guralnick, has the contacts to know more about his mental state, then you and I. No, he didn't want to record in the studio after 1973, so what, artists don't record an album for 4 or 5 years at a time. My point is, whether it was depression or drugs, they zapped his desire to work at the level he did before.

Here's a breakdown of this lazy man's work schedule from 1968, through 1971, we should all be so lazy.

1968 comeback special-he lived and breathed that special, living in the NBC dressing room, singing the greatest rock & roll ever performed!
3 movies- stay away Joe, Speedway, Live a little, love a little
speedway soundtrack, not to mention a bunch of singles he cut.

1969-3 movies-charro-the trouble with girls, change of habit
albums-from Elvis in Memphis- as well as singles he cut
58 shows phenomenal shows in Vegas

1970-movie-TTWII
albums-TTWW-many singles he cut-Christmas album-rags to riches-elvis country
concerts-137-many two a day

1971-albums-Love letters-I got lucky, another Christmas album, plus again, many singles
concerts-157! with 75 shows in the span of 6 weeks, insane!

I have also not mentioned his rehearsal's as well. The guy was a working machine.

[Merry]

I don't think there is any way to convince some people that Elvis was not lazy except to ask them to try living his life. :lol:

Diane


Well said, Diane.

I also always enjoy KPM adding facts to a thread.

Thank you for your facts too, Joe Car, well said.

(y)

Kim

[Merry]

There's very few of today's stars that would be able to handle Elvis' 60's movie production schedule or the 70's touring/recording schedule. I think he was far from lazy.

<snip>


Well said, Nashville Cat.

Kim

[Merry]

You know what? It's all in the way someone perceives someone else. We can't go by what books we read, what we hear in some interview or the media - everyone goes by their own personal agenda whether it's up front and personal, in the media, books, interviews etc. or on these threads.

Some are determined to take the harsh line on Elvis, some the soft line and some are totally indifferent and that's the way it's always going to be forever and ever. So why don't we all give it a rest?

Diane



Yep!

Kim

[Diane]

Marija lol :lol::lol::lol:

Thank god for teens like you....the world has a chance :P


Diane

[ksimms2]

you know what? lazy or not - womanizer or not - a big kid - or not - this man was (is) the greatest entertainer on this earth......so he sure did something right didn't he? (y)

19200

[KPM]

Here is a great comment from Hollywood insider writer/director Hal Kanter. He wrote Loving You and co wrote Blue Hawaii. I was looking for info on Elvis's work ethic by those who worked with him but he had an observation on Col Parker I thought was interesting considering all the time spent on how and what Parker did as manager:

Q : What were your impressions about Colonel Parker?

A : My impression about Colonel Parker is that he was much more interesting man than Elvis was. I found him absolutely fascinating. And I would trust him across the room on anything. He was one of the sharpest con men that I've ever run across. And he was remarkable. I can, you know, I can talk about him for two or three hours which you would enjoy hearing about. But I'm not going to. Because actually I thought that he was a contributor to downfall of Elvis himself, in my view. Anyway, we shouldn't do that. Let's destroy all that. Don't, don't... Colonel Parker was a man who had Elvis' best interests at heart. But he had Tom Parker's best interest even closer to heart than he did Elvis, I had a feeling.

[marijaep]

Marija lol :lol::lol::lol:

Thank god for teens like you....the world has a chance :P


Diane

lol, thank you. I'll take that as a compliment :P

But hey, it was your idea anyway lol :laughing:

[nashville cat]

Before we go writing off the sixties, let's consider the highlights of Elvis' album output during that decade for a moment

1960 - Elvis is Back (a rock classic)

1961 - His Hand In Mine (gospel masterpiece)

1961 - Blue Hawaii (a blockbuster bestseller)

1964 - Roustabout (number one seller)

1967 - How Great Thou Art (another Gospel masterpiece, and grammy winner)

1968 - NBC special soundtrack (top ten hit, career changing classic)

1969 - From Elvis In Memphis (another rock classic)

1969 - From Memphis to Vegas (prime, blistering studio and live material)

With the exception of Hawaii and Roustabout, each of these albums is considered a rock and roll classic by all the major rock critics and have appeared on numerous all-time greatest album lists. He was still making groundbreaking music throughout the sixties! And I am not even talking about singles! Not many artists can claim such triumphs over an entire career, let alone a decade.

[KPM]

I know this will come off as crazy to some but I actually like songs on the soundtrack albums. We had a guilty pleasure thread not long ago songs you like that you dont like to admit. I have many from the soundtracks I enjoy listening to. So call me crazy:D;)
Please Don't Stop loving Me
Change of Habit
Little Egypt
Spinout
IF You think I Dont Need You
I Need Somebody to Lean on
Pocket Full of Rainbows
Just to name a few which are not bad IMO

[Donut]

Watching this from the distance I can see you are all arguing about two different matters without anyone wanting to aknowledge it. The laziness jak is talking about has nothing to do with the effort Elvis put on his duties at all. If I am getting it right jak?s point is Elvis not wanting to get rid of his own career and let others to decide for him even though he knew it wasn?t what it was best for him and not what he wanted but he let it happen...

[KPM]

A bad trait he had also was to trust and accept to easily.
Elvis knew he was in the land of wolves and robbers when he hit the big time. He knew he and his parents were not business savy about contracts, movies, and music publishing- he had to rely on someone to handle all that. In came the COl and he did-too well. Elvis trusted the Col. the Col nurtured and built on that trust.
Col was not into what is artistic, or what is good music-he was into net profit-net loss and commission on the same. Its true he never told Elvis what music to record, but he would not let songs get to Elvis for years unless they were deals on publishing-that limited what pool Elvis had to choose from-good business? Top songwriters do not like giving away their royalties. Without top songs you sell less and are less relevant as music changes.
He negotiated the movie long term contracts which paid well-but left the creative end in the hands of the producers-good business? Here was the Colonels recommendation to make Spinout a better movie according to writers and directors interviewed by AMC:
AMC: Anyone else have any personal contact with Colonel Tom Parker?

ANHALT: As little as possible. [Laughter]

KIRGO: On Spinout, we'd done a bunch of drafts, and finally one got sent to Parker. We'd already met him once, when we'd started on the movie: "How do you do, you come highly recommended, Joe Pasternak thinks the world of you." But now he actually read the script, came into our office, threw it on the desk, and said, "This is great. Just one thing: put a dog in it." [Laughter]

AMC: And did you?

KIRGO: Yep. [Laughter]

See IMO Parker was not the great manager that he was cracked up as. He was shortsighted on the long term effects on Elvis and his career by deals like publishing requirements for songs sent to Elvis which continued into the 60s. Producers selecting the projects which Elvis was already years in advance commited for.

Parker worried about Elvis wearing his own wristwatch on the beach in
Blue Hawaii and reportedly told the director "if he wears his own watch thats gonna be more money" Joke or not-why wasn't he worried more about the script?
IMO Elvis should have gotten rid of him in 65.
IMO For whatever reason he didn't-be it trust, loyalty, fear or insecurity.
Perhaps all the above.

[Diane]

By the way Marija, I meant what I said to you as a BIG compliment.:)

Diane

[jak]

Jak, I have too politely disagree. It was well documented that for his movie roles that he knew everybody's lines, as well as his own. And btw, while he recorded some crappy songs in the sixties, how many great classic songs did he record, let me see, second to the Beatles in record sales for that decade. Did you forget about the incredible, high-energy concerts he put on in 69, or was that lazy as well. I would think that world reknowned author Peter Guralnick, has the contacts to know more about his mental state, then you and I. No, he didn't want to record in the studio after 1973, so what, artists don't record an album for 4 or 5 years at a time. My point is, whether it was depression or drugs, they zapped his desire to work at the level he did before.

Here's a breakdown of this lazy man's work schedule from 1968, through 1971, we should all be so lazy.

1968 comeback special-he lived and breathed that special, living in the NBC dressing room, singing the greatest rock & roll ever performed!
3 movies- stay away Joe, Speedway, Live a little, love a little
speedway soundtrack, not to mention a bunch of singles he cut.

1969-3 movies-charro-the trouble with girls, change of habit
albums-from Elvis in Memphis- as well as singles he cut
58 shows phenomenal shows in Vegas

1970-movie-TTWII
albums-TTWW-many singles he cut-Christmas album-rags to riches-elvis country
concerts-137-many two a day

1971-albums-Love letters-I got lucky, another Christmas album, plus again, many singles
concerts-157! with 75 shows in the span of 6 weeks, insane!

I have also not mentioned his rehearsal's as well. The guy was a working machine.

Joe
I agree with you one some of your points and I respect your opinion.He did record some all time classics in the sixties.However the crap outnumbers the good by far.You mentioned the Beatles.Examine how they contrrolled their music and watched over it.They always evolved while Elvis went backwards.
Here is my take on the years you mentioned.
1968-The movies were awfull with Stay Away maybe one of the worst films period.Just disregard the films.They were just hastilit shot money makers.Elvis could crank them out in his sleep.They were beneath him.The 68 special is one of the greatest events in music history.Elvis showing what he can do when he tries.
1969-The concerts were breathtaking.Just minus the wooley buger and squirrel talk.But again it was only a short burst.His enthusiasm and the effort he exerted wouldnt last long at all.There was no better performer ever though in 69.Forget the horrible movies again.
1970-Elvis Country is one of his greatest lp's.It would be his last great lp with the excepetion of gospel cuts.Once again a short burdt of him trying to excell.TTWII is great but required nothing of Elvis.They just filmed his shows at a good time.His concerts were still great but the edge of the 69 shows were gone.
1971-Love letter was a huge disaster.He lost his momentum so fast.After From Elvis and Elvis Country we get Cindy Cindy and the rest of it.If Elvis had cared he never would have allowed that lp to be released.A shoddy collection of leftovers with concert pics on the front.A real downer considering the roll he had been on.Concerts still looking good.
1972-Elvis on Tour a great film but required nothing from Elvis.However his decline had started to show.Still some absolutely great concerts.
1973-1977- You have Aloha and that's it.His last hurrah.No significant recordings.The lp's were really bad.Elvis singing The Last farewell?The concerts were basically a crapshoot from 73-75.The shows in 76 were beyond description.
Elvis had so much going in 68-70 but he just let it slip away so easily.Like I said he went in bursts.When Elvis cared about what he was doing nobody could touch him.He was the greatest ever.
Jak

[marijaep]

By the way Marija, I meant what I said to you as a BIG compliment.:)

Diane

oooooooooooooooooooh :doh:..................:P

Well, in that case.............lol:lmfao: : *Marija pretends that she didn't know*



THANKS DIANE lol :clap::hug:

[Rover]

Very interesting! This always puzzles me, how Mr Parker could stick to Elvis and make money like that while at some point he obviously stopped to be helpful...

Like everyone else said, Diane made a good point about giving a rest to the discussion :D

[medleyofcostumes]

I don't want to sound controversial but I don't agree with fans of various celebrities saying "try to live his/her life."

IMO every job has advantages and disadvantages. Being a star is financially rewarding - if managed responsibly it can allow you to live a comfortable life even after success diminishes. Stars (like Elvis) lived in luxary, had everyone running round them doing anything for them, lived in huge houses, etc. They had a price to pay for this - lack of a normal social life, lack of privacy (even though in Elvis' times paparazzi were not as today). However, the workload / earnings ratio is certainly relaxed compared to other occupations.

I will give you an example - (yes with annoying mathematical calculations).

The bulk of Elvis' workload was touring the US, right? Elvis performed around 1,000 shows between 1969 and 1977 of an average length of 55 minutes - that's 917 hours in 8 years. An average worker working a 40 hr week works around 14,720 hours in 8 years assuming 6 weeks vacation leave each year. And earning a fraction of Elvis' income.

The point is this - Singers, movie actors, etc. earn incomes which are not proportional with their workload - compared to us the normal individuals. If they complain about their lives - they just have to quit, and become employed like anybody else. If you notice, none of them does that.

PS - In no way I am putting in doubt Elvis' talent or singing abilities - he is still the king for me.

[Sleepless~Dreamer]

what y'al talkin about lets forget about all these negative traits EVERYONE has a bad side..so lets just remember him for what he was an absolute Legend!!!!!!!!!! and lets keep his memory alive with his music no im not sayin that the sun shined out of Elvis's a** but lets just Love the good things

no negativity...just love and being proud that we are fans of such a unique and wonderful human being! (y)

WE LOVE YOU E MISS YOU

[Stryx]

I don't want to sound controversial but I don't agree with fans of various celebrities saying "try to live his/her life."

IMO every job has advantages and disadvantages. Being a star is financially rewarding - if managed responsibly it can allow you to live a comfortable life even after success diminishes. Stars (like Elvis) lived in luxary, had everyone running round them doing anything for them, lived in huge houses, etc. They had a price to pay for this - lack of a normal social life, lack of privacy (even though in Elvis' times paparazzi were not as today). However, the workload / earnings ratio is certainly relaxed compared to other occupations.

I will give you an example - (yes with annoying mathematical calculations).

The bulk of Elvis' workload was touring the US, right? Elvis performed around 1,000 shows between 1969 and 1977 of an average length of 55 minutes - that's 917 hours in 8 years. An average worker working a 40 hr week works around 14,720 hours in 8 years assuming 6 weeks vacation leave each year. And earning a fraction of Elvis' income.

The point is this - Singers, movie actors, etc. earn incomes which are not proportional with their workload - compared to us the normal individuals. If they complain about their lives - they just have to quit, and become employed like anybody else. If you notice, none of them does that.

PS - In no way I am putting in doubt Elvis' talent or singing abilities - he is still the king for me.


Only thing is a lot of people can work in a supermarket or do so called "normal" jobs.

Very few have the talent and ability to record great songs and then fill arenas when performing them.

Singing to a crowd twice a night in Vegas is not easy. Hell, id prefer to do a 8 hour shift rather than stand up and sing one note to an audience in the Hilton!

[Merry]

what y'al talkin about lets forget about all these negative traits EVERYONE has a bad side..so lets just remember him for what he was <snip>

WE LOVE YOU E MISS YOU


Well said

:hug:

Kim
xxxb

[Merry]

They had a price to pay for this - lack of a normal social life, lack of privacy (even though in Elvis' times paparazzi were not as today). However, the workload / earnings ratio is certainly relaxed compared to other occupations.

I will give you an example - (yes with annoying mathematical calculations).

The bulk of Elvis' workload was touring the US, right? Elvis performed around 1,000 shows between 1969 and 1977 of an average length of 55 minutes - that's 917 hours in 8 years. An average worker working a 40 hr week works around 14,720 hours in 8 years assuming 6 weeks vacation leave each year. And earning a fraction of Elvis' income.

The point is this - Singers, movie actors, etc. earn incomes which are not proportional with their workload - compared to us the normal individuals. If they complain about their lives - they just have to quit, and become employed like anybody else. If you notice, none of them does that.

PS - In no way I am putting in doubt Elvis' talent or singing abilities - he is still the king for me.


Hi there,

I was thinking, there are some other things involved. Preparation of the concert, rehearsals, vocalising, physically getting to the concerts (logistics of same). I"m sure there is a lot more preparation, that I'm unaware of, to mention.

People are also paid well for the responsibilities or stress they are in, in any job.

Take care,
Kim

[KPM]

I wish I got a 6 week vacation a year:D
But think about going on vacation you are gone 2 weeks rush rush rush get to where you are going- cram as much in- then turn around and head back home to collapse from exhaustion. Maybe being on tour could be like that. Sure you have the best of everything but you don't have time to relax and enjoy it really.

[jak]

I don't want to sound controversial but I don't agree with fans of various celebrities saying "try to live his/her life."

IMO every job has advantages and disadvantages. Being a star is financially rewarding - if managed responsibly it can allow you to live a comfortable life even after success diminishes. Stars (like Elvis) lived in luxary, had everyone running round them doing anything for them, lived in huge houses, etc. They had a price to pay for this - lack of a normal social life, lack of privacy (even though in Elvis' times paparazzi were not as today). However, the workload / earnings ratio is certainly relaxed compared to other occupations.

I will give you an example - (yes with annoying mathematical calculations).

The bulk of Elvis' workload was touring the US, right? Elvis performed around 1,000 shows between 1969 and 1977 of an average length of 55 minutes - that's 917 hours in 8 years. An average worker working a 40 hr week works around 14,720 hours in 8 years assuming 6 weeks vacation leave each year. And earning a fraction of Elvis' income.

The point is this - Singers, movie actors, etc. earn incomes which are not proportional with their workload - compared to us the normal individuals. If they complain about their lives - they just have to quit, and become employed like anybody else. If you notice, none of them does that.

PS - In no way I am putting in doubt Elvis' talent or singing abilities - he is still the king for me.

Brilliant comments.Youre right on.It's the common people like us who have the real problems.Average people worry about the house payment,car payment,insurance or whatever.I have a hard time feeling sorry for mega rich celebrities.Money cant buy happiness but it sure takes care of a lot of stuff.The average working guy supporting a family is the one to be concerned about.
Jak

[KPM]

Brilliant comments.Youre right on.It's the common people like us who have the real problems.Average people worry about the house payment,car payment,insurance or whatever.I have a hard time feeling sorry for mega rich celebrities.Money cant buy happiness but it sure takes care of a lot of stuff.The average working guy supporting a family is the one to be concerned about.
Jak
Since I've never had what anyone would consider "money"-I would not know which way is better. I would be willing to try though. But I'm sure the grass always looks greener when you've never walked in it or had to take care of the lawn.;)

[jak]

Since I've never had what anyone would consider "money"-I would not know which way is better. I would be willing to try though. But I'm sure the grass always looks greener when you've never walked in it or had to take care of the lawn.;)

I would be willing to give it a shot also.I gotta believe an endless supply of cash would eliminate many worries.
Jak

[KPM]

Its something I'd love to try for sure just for a while.Endless cash.
But for every problem it solved, who knows how many it creates?
I've only known one guy in my life who had a lot of money, I worked for him for about 3years. He use to brag to me that he had almost a million dollars in houses and apartment buildings. (this was in 1973 so today that would have to be 9 or 10 million in property) He ventured into renting Motorhomes for vacations, into the ice cream and restaurant business. He had all the money in the world compared to me. His wife and he got a divorce (after 10 years) because he worked to much she said. They had a bitter divorce and it came out he had an affair with one of my co-workers who was half his age.
He ended up giving half of all he'd built up to his wife in settlement.
His kids lived with the ex wife and he complained to me all the time that she would make excuses to keep the kids from regular visitation. He was a pretty good drinker to start with but it got worse.
I left his employ in 76 and the last I heard in 2002 he went bankrupt.

I have been way less well off for my whole life than he was-but I've been married happily for 34 years. We've gone through a couple major financial, problems-we have a son who was brain damaged at birth and we were told he would never be able to have a normal life, (which ended up being wrong hes now 25,has a full time job, a drivers license and is self sufficient) and we have 2 wonderful daughters one graduated from college and the other works at a library. I would not trade my life as its unfolded for all the money my boss use to have.
But just a couple weeks of unlimited funds would be a nice change of pace.:D

[jak]

People that have lots of money can have just as much misery in their personal lives as anyone.I suppose it could create some problems but I would still take my chances with it.My sister and brother in law are worth millions thanks to being around for the big boom in the Charlotte real estate market early on.Yet they do nothing with the money.Both drive old cars and have had only one vacation that I know of in 20 years.They wont spend $20 without taking a week to think about it.I call that rather pitifull.Now for me i put around $55 in the gas tank of my truck tonight and loaded the fishing gear.In about 5 hours i will be heading to the atlantic coast for a day of surf fishing.I will feel like the richest guy in the world shortly.
Jak

[Rover]

Nice point here about the money! When you think about it from this point of view, Elvis hadn't such a hard life after all :)
Something else: money can make someone a real jerk...but it didn't seem to affect Elvis in this way :D

[Diane]

The old saying that money doesn't buy happiness is true.....for some......I do know some very well off people that are extremely happy. They owned two homes on the coast in Calif. one of which they just sold and bought another in Vancouver, retired and have a big fancy motor home they travel in part of the year etc. etc. Yup, I can visualize that kind of life with no financial worries and the freedom to do and go whatever I please. :lol:

Diane

[goodelvisgirl]

well i think elvis was trapped with people who didn't understand his creative needs and he chose to go with it so thats a downfall i suppose and him and his love for all women in the end cost him his marrige well his family and his stubernness in the fact that he had a problem but couldn't reach out for help the addiction to drugs am talking about and his view wonen should stay at home and raise the kids but i suppose in that era it was expected of women but over all a better man than most a truly remarkable human being but like everyone not perfect

[KPM]

The old saying that money doesn't buy happiness is true.....for some......I do know some very well off people that are extremely happy. They owned two homes on the coast in Calif. one of which they just sold and bought another in Vancouver, retired and have a big fancy motor home they travel in part of the year etc. etc. Yup, I can visualize that kind of life with no financial worries and the freedom to do and go whatever I please. :lol:

Diane
Like I said I'd love to try it for a couple weeks-you know just a change of pace.:D:D:D

[*LittleSister1981*]

I don't know,but to me he was almost perfect:DI love everything about him, I may be wrong,but to me he had it all:looks,GSOH,good heart etc.The only thing I'd change about Elvis is,that he didn't know how much he was abusing his body with the prescription drugs.You might say,another crazy and blinded fanatic,but I can't help it,LoL...:blush: I'm sure that a lot of women out there think the same,we just loooove him......;)

[ksimms2]

Elvis was insecure, depressed and unsure of himself. he let the colonel and his dad run over him and he did not take a stand against them and his career was almost in ruins because of it. if Elvis hadn't finally taken a stand on the 68 Comeback Special, it would have bombed to because Colonel wanted it to be a Christmas show......he was constantly testing the MM to see if they were loyal or just using him. But he's the one who wanted them around all the time - even after they would quit - he would call them back. I feel - just from reading lately - that he had inner rage and was almost like a bomb ready to explode because of everyone else running his career and not letting him do what he wanted......of course....all he had to do was stand up for himself, which he rarely did. I can not even imagine how far his career would have gone if he'd done some of what he wanted to.......can you? Perhaps he would have gotten out of his funk and beat the addiction and still be with us today.......one could only hope.

[presley31]

Elvis was insecure, depressed and unsure of himself. he let the colonel and his dad run over him and he did not take a stand against them and his career was almost in ruins because of it. if Elvis hadn't finally taken a stand on the 68 Comeback Special, it would have bombed to because Colonel wanted it to be a Christmas show......he was constantly testing the MM to see if they were loyal or just using him. But he's the one who wanted them around all the time - even after they would quit - he would call them back. I feel - just from reading lately - that he had inner rage and was almost like a bomb ready to explode because of everyone else running his career and not letting him do what he wanted......of course....all he had to do was stand up for himself, which he rarely did. I can not even imagine how far his career would have gone if he'd done some of what he wanted to.......can you? Perhaps he would have gotten out of his funk and beat the addiction and still be with us today.......one could only hope.

agree but not sure what you mean by elvis dad running over him?? .

[tlcElvis]

I think it may have made a difference in Elvis' life if he had earned the millions/fame after he got married. That way he wouldn't have had to question whether or not people loved him for him and not ELVIS.

It would be terrible to constantly question in your mind if people were just out for what they could get from you. I'm not really sure the people around him even knew if they loved him or just loved the lifestyle that they could lead through him.

[ksimms2]

agree but not sure what you mean by elvis dad running over him?? .

Elvis' Dad, The Colonel AND Priscilla were always trying to manipulate things and those around Elvis - trying to chase off the MM and Vernon would make up stuff just to piss Elvis off at others. He and Priscilla were trying to get everyone away from Elvis so he would stay home more, etc. Vernon because he didn't like Elvis spending money on others - Priscilla, because she wanted him more to herself....not that you can blame her of course......but Vernon I don't think always had Elvis' best intentions in mind. Vernon wanted Elvis' money and figured with the others around, there wouldn't be any left for him.

[Merry]

You know, in my opinion, this thread, the negative statements, well, hmmm.

How does anyone know anything about anyone, unless they have met them, know them. You know, there isn't anything wrong with people having opinions, but these opinions are subjective, as in my opinion, they go on what has been written by people who have written the books, to make money.

There are always variables with any situation, and any person. Vernon didn't like some of the "other breed" and I feel that he turned out being right in the end. Parent's gut feeling (which we all have had). Vernon also always took the higher ground when it came to replying publicly to negative remarks made about his family, as Lisa does, now.

I have a letter from Vernon, in reply to the "Elvis: What Happened" book which I can't post, as the sizing is wrong. So if anyone knows how to post something that won't ft on here, and wants to read it, please let me know.

[EnigmaticSun]

After all, Elvis was a human being - and I don't think anything came easy for him. He wasn't the kind of guy with a rich daddy who needn't do anything to achieve status or wealth..

But like Hank Williams has sung we may conclude that "Wealth Won't Save Your Soul"; or how about Elvis' song "A House That Has Everything"? Money can make some things more convenient, but there are things you can't buy with it.

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Having spent the better part of 30 minutes reading this thread, I find it difficult to find a starting point....

Jak, I understand where you are coming from with the comment that Elvis was Lazy in regards to his career and direction, however, I believe that a lot of this can be a attributed to the fact that Elvis was never really in control of his career. The Colonel controlled Elvis from 1957 onwards. The movies and music pre-army are very much what Elvis wanted to do, post-army the Colonel controlled everything and pretty much snuffed out the spirit of rock and roll and made Elvis a carnival attraction. To say that the Colonel had no control over Elvis musically would not be 100% you only have to look at the movies to see how the Colonel and the movie Moguls molded Elvis into a matinee Idol. I'll agree that Elvis' work rate was indeed very high; this does not mean that all that glitters is gold!

The problem that you have with regards to how Elvis is viewed across his career is that he is all things to all men, to remain popular you have to go main stream and this is a double edged sword, yes you can have a wider appeal and bank the cash, but Elvis lost the edginess he had as a 50's rocker and became a crooner, when Elvis tried to recreate that Image it was very successful e.g. 68 Special and the 1969 shows in Vegas. The problem is Elvis was more into the power ballad by the time the 70's rolled in. The Colonel basically steered Elvis down a very steady, profitable road and Elvis responded with apathy, in part this was due to the lack of control he had long ago relinquished to the Colonel for success after the army days. The final nail in the coffin was when Elvis tried to change his set list in 1974, the fans didn't respond favorably...... so Elvis just took more pills until he was completely numb. The kind of stuff Elvis wanted to record wasn't very popular with the masses, they wanted to hear the old rock and roll classics of yesteryear and so Elvis became a parody of himself to give the fans what they wanted, he despised how he had become pigeonholed and so the touring became monotonous.

Unfortunately Elvis' life has become a free for all in the clamor to define what it was that made him special? What made Elvis special was his talent and the fact that he didn't risk the status quo, unfortunately this is also the reason why he only lived to the age of 42!

And to keep this post on topic :blush: I blame the Colonel and Elvis (to a lessor degree) for squandering a precious talent that had much more to give.

[ksimms2]

Having spent the better part of 30 minutes reading this thread, I find it difficult to find a starting point....

Jak, I understand where you are coming from with the comment that Elvis was Lazy in regards to his career and direction, however, I believe that a lot of this can be a attributed to the fact that Elvis was never really in control of his career. The Colonel controlled Elvis from 1957 onwards. The movies and music pre-army are very much what Elvis wanted to do, post-army the Colonel controlled everything and pretty much snuffed out the spirit of rock and roll and made Elvis a carnival attraction. To say that the Colonel had no control over Elvis musically would not be 100% you only have to look at the movies to see how the Colonel and the movie Moguls molded Elvis into a matinee Idol. I'll agree that Elvis' work rate was indeed very high; this does not mean that all that glitters is gold!

The problem that you have with regards to how Elvis is viewed across his career is that he is all things to all men, to remain popular you have to go main stream and this is a double edged sword, yes you can have a wider appeal and bank the cash, but Elvis lost the edginess he had as a 50's rocker and became a crooner, when Elvis tried to recreate that Image it was very successful e.g. 68 Special and the 1969 shows in Vegas. The problem is Elvis was more into the power ballad by the time the 70's rolled in. The Colonel basically steered Elvis down a very steady, profitable road and Elvis responded with apathy, in part this was due to the lack of control he had long ago relinquished to the Colonel for success after the army days. The final nail in the coffin was when Elvis tried to change his set list in 1974, the fans didn't respond favorably...... so Elvis just took more pills until he was completely numb. The kind of stuff Elvis wanted to record wasn't very popular with the masses, they wanted to hear the old rock and roll classics of yesteryear and so Elvis became a parody of himself to give the fans what they wanted, he despised how he had become pigeonholed and so the touring became monotonous.

Unfortunately Elvis' life has become a free for all in the clamor to define what it was that made him special? What made Elvis special was his talent and the fact that he didn't risk the status quo, unfortunately this is also the reason why he only lived to the age of 42!

And to keep this post on topic :blush: I blame the Colonel and Elvis (to a lessor degree) for squandering a precious talent that had much more to give.

very well said....and you know the funny part? I prefer his ballads to his old stuff.....lol....I absolutely love his ballads....but...I love everything Elvis. :king:

[EnigmaticSun]

With more effective spending habits (problem = being overgenerous) he could have had a good life, even without going "popular mainstream". He could have toured Germany with religious material and Christmas songs - he would have had sell-outs, I'm sure. Even without a hit on MTV.

[ksimms2]

some say his overspending was related to his depression.....not all of it though. He was a great entertainer with so much to offer....too bad he didn't pursue his dreams more.

[EnigmaticSun]

I think there's a point where altruism becomes unhealthy. I don't mean total strangers, but people in his direct environment who got a lot of money out of him.

[ksimms2]

I think there's a point where altruism becomes unhealthy. I don't mean total strangers, but people in his direct environment who got a lot of money out of him.

according to the book I'm reading...Elvis hated it when the guys came to him to borrow money. If it was Elvis' idea, then fine, but if the guys came to him, well he didn't like that. And believe it or not - they really didn't make that much money per week with Elvis, I guess because their expenses were paid for made up for lack of actual paycheck.

[jak]

"Jak, I understand where you are coming from with the comment that Elvis was Lazy in regards to his career and direction, however, I believe that a lot of this can be a attributed to the fact that Elvis was never really in control of his career. The Colonel controlled Elvis from 1957 onwards. The movies and music pre-army are very much what Elvis wanted to do, post-army the Colonel controlled everything and pretty much snuffed out the spirit of rock and roll and made Elvis a carnival attraction. To say that the Colonel had no control over Elvis musically would not be 100% you only have to look at the movies to see how the Colonel and the movie Moguls molded Elvis into a matinee Idol. I'll agree that Elvis' work rate was indeed very high; this does not mean that all that glitters is gold!"

I just think Elvis liked having someone else call the shots for him.I dont think any other star took such a hands off approach to his career as Elvis did.I think Elvis equated making money as being succesfull,even if his artistic credibility took a backseat.Elvis shoulders more blame than anyone in that regard.You cant blame anybody but Elvis for the failure to capitilize on the momentum he gained from 68-70.Elvis quit recording good music because he basically stopped recording period.Elvis had absolute control over his concerts.We all know how they went.It's not a crime but I think Elvis just got satisfied.Elvis could have done anything he wanted.I just dont think he strived to grow as an artist.He once commented he became a singer because he "didnt want to sweat".That kinda sums it up.
Jak

[EnigmaticSun]

according to the book I'm reading...Elvis hated it when the guys came to him to borrow money. If it was Elvis' idea, then fine, but if the guys came to him, well he didn't like that. And believe it or not - they really didn't make that much money per week with Elvis, I guess because their expenses were paid for made up for lack of actual paycheck.

That's interesting info, but as far as I know the Colonel got an incredible share of Elvis' work and he gambled it away. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Nbazajou]

I think the most disappointing thing is the drugs and his constant comment that he could stop anytime. for all the reading he did, surely he had to know what he was doing to himself. I feel he would still be with us if not for these drugs. All the other comments were true and I enjoyed reading all the post but it just comes down to the drugs. he could stop when he wanted, he just didn't. We could have had him another 30 years and who knows what greatness he could have had! Oh to have had him with us longer..............

[EnigmaticSun]

I've always had this impression he may have felt to be dying. I don't know.

[MissyM]

At a certain point I believe Elvis became beaten down. He went though a lot in his life time. I'm not just talking about his career. He personally dealt with a lot of loss, just like you and I. The deaths of ppl he was close to. A soul can only take so much. But if you watch the energy he has at concerts and how he tried to give it his all, I don't know how anyone can say he got lazy! He never got to do many things he wanted to in his life. Take a person's dreams and ambitions away and see...this is what happens.

[EnigmaticSun]

The Bible warns people not to fear those who can kill your body, but those who can kill your spirit. I think people have tried to break his spirit, but he still managed to give us timeless performances, even towards his death.

[ksimms2]

That's interesting info, but as far as I know the Colonel got an incredible share of Elvis' work and he gambled it away. Correct me if I'm wrong.

yes the Colonel near the end was getting 50% - and the Colonel owed such high gambling debts that that is main reason he kept Elvis in Vegas...the owners of the hotel saw him as a meal ticket, pure and simple, since the Colonel owed them - they got to keep Elvis.

[Getlo]

He personally dealt with a lot of loss, just like you and I. The deaths of ppl he was close to.

People? More like one person.

Okay, his mother died and he was very close to her. But so what? That's hardly enough to "beat a man down". And I don't think that loss of his mother took 19 years to kill him. And a divorce and the "loss" of a child? A mere blip on the radar of life.

In terms of personal losses, Elvis' don't even rate in the grand scheme of things. Many people have suffered a lot worse than what he went through, and they didn't choose to be self-destructive like he did.

No one took Elvis' dreams and ambitions away. He let most of them go himself.

[jak]

At a certain point I believe Elvis became beaten down. He went though a lot in his life time. I'm not just talking about his career. He personally dealt with a lot of loss, just like you and I. The deaths of ppl he was close to. A soul can only take so much. But if you watch the energy he has at concerts and how he tried to give it his all, I don't know how anyone can say he got lazy! He never got to do many things he wanted to in his life. Take a person's dreams and ambitions away and see...this is what happens.

The energy you mention at his concerts wasnt around that long.The concerts im my opinion offer the perfect example of his "lazy" nature.I dont even need to mention the 40 minute band intro's that developed.The last truly great show he gave probably wasnt later than 72.
Jak

[MissyM]

Apparently we were watching different concerts.

[EnigmaticSun]

I can make people, who don't know what my face looks like or how my voice sounds, cry by telling my story. But I wouldn't say Elvis' losses meant nothing.

[KPM]

"Jak, I understand where you are coming from with the comment that Elvis was Lazy in regards to his career and direction, however, I believe that a lot of this can be a attributed to the fact that Elvis was never really in control of his career. The Colonel controlled Elvis from 1957 onwards. The movies and music pre-army are very much what Elvis wanted to do, post-army the Colonel controlled everything and pretty much snuffed out the spirit of rock and roll and made Elvis a carnival attraction. To say that the Colonel had no control over Elvis musically would not be 100% you only have to look at the movies to see how the Colonel and the movie Moguls molded Elvis into a matinee Idol. I'll agree that Elvis' work rate was indeed very high; this does not mean that all that glitters is gold!"

I just think Elvis liked having someone else call the shots for him.I dont think any other star took such a hands off approach to his career as Elvis did.I think Elvis equated making money as being succesfull,even if his artistic credibility took a backseat.Elvis shoulders more blame than anyone in that regard.You cant blame anybody but Elvis for the failure to capitilize on the momentum he gained from 68-70.Elvis quit recording good music because he basically stopped recording period.Elvis had absolute control over his concerts.We all know how they went.It's not a crime but I think Elvis just got satisfied.Elvis could have done anything he wanted.I just dont think he strived to grow as an artist.He once commented he became a singer because he "didnt want to sweat".That kinda sums it up.
Jak
Until someone proves to me why the COl turned down so many world tour overseas offers-I can not say for certain the loss of momentum for Elvis and his upswing 68-70 was just Elvis. I have made this point before and I know its known so I won't beat it into the ground- but I think its a fair and valid reason for thinking it was not just Elvis. If Parker had not been illegal I would agree 100%. But he was, he kept it under raps for 40 years.

[ksimms2]

Until someone proves to me why the COl turned down so many world tour overseas offers-I can not say for certain the loss of momentum for Elvis and his upswing 68-70 was just Elvis. I have made this point before and I know its known so I won't beat it into the ground- but I think its a fair and valid reason for thinking it was not just Elvis. If Parker had not been illegal I would agree 100%. But he was, he kept it under raps for 40 years.

yup! I agree with you for sure.....(y)

[Getlo]

Until someone proves to me why the COl turned down so many world tour overseas offers

Simple. The old bastard wanted more money. No offer was ever good enough. The whole "illegal alien" story, while probably true (although it has never been definitively proven!), had no bearing on why Elvis never toured overseas.

[KPM]

Simple. The old bastard wanted more money. No offer was ever good enough. The whole "illegal alien" story, while probably true (although it has never been definitively proven!), had no bearing on why Elvis never toured overseas.
According to the Book "The Col" I thought the author had found no record of Parker becoming a US citizen and he was definitly born in Holland, But your opinion is that if did not matter-mine is that it probably did. Another idea came to me about Parkers illegal status-he may not have wanted Elvis to find it out. If the story had come out in 1970 how would Elvis have reacted?
The other thing which bears mentioning is if the Col had hid this information so long why was it so important to keep it hidden. His own family in Holland thought he was dead for years. Why would you want your family to think you were dead? But your opinion is yours and mine is the opposite.
If you are correct no amount of money was good enough-why did he settle for so little in the five years deal with Abe Shoofey at the International. Shoofey could not believe that he agreed so quickly because he was prepared to give so much more. To me it just does not add up.

[Diane]

Your point does add up KPM if the rumor that the Colonel killed someone while he was still in Europe, then he definitely wanted to stay away from there.

Diane

[presley31]

wonder how much turth is to that story, lots of people say its not true, but there more to the story me thinks.

[Getlo]

Your point does add up KPM if the rumor that the Colonel killed someone while he was still in Europe, then he definitely wanted to stay away from there.

That story is probably the biggest and most outrageous lie in the Elvis world!

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

The energy you mention at his concerts wasnt around that long.The concerts im my opinion offer the perfect example of his "lazy" nature.I dont even need to mention the 40 minute band intro's that developed.The last truly great show he gave probably wasnt later than 72.
Jak

Jak, I can't disagree that there were some laclustre concerts but to say that the last one with energy was in 72........ well I just don't agree with that statement!

[Diane]

Nope, me either JJ. I think Elvis did really well even into some concerts in his last two years.

Diane

[KPM]

Jak, I can't disagree that there were some laclustre concerts but to say that the last one with energy was in 72........ well I just don't agree with that statement!
I thought his concerts at the end of 1976 were pretty good the New Years Show was very good I thought.

[KPM]

Your point does add up KPM if the rumor that the Colonel killed someone while he was still in Europe, then he definitely wanted to stay away from there.

Diane
It is just a rumor-but rumors about Elvis are given creedance by some without missing a heartbeat -so a few about Parker should not be out of order. Here is some info on the book "The Colonel" by Alanna Nash who also wrote "The Rev. of The MM"
Thomas Andrew Parker was, in fact, born in Holland as Andreas Cornelis van Kuijk. But Nash has dug much deeper and, in a masterpiece of reporting, unearthed never-before-seen documents, including Parker's army records and psychiatric evaluations, and the original police report of an unsolved murder case in Holland that lies at the heart of the Parker mystery. In the process of weighing the evidence, she answers the biggest riddle in the history of the music industry, as it becomes clear that every move Parker made in the handling of Elvis Presley -- from why he never allowed Elvis to perform in Europe, to why he didn't halt Elvis's drug use, to why he put him in so many mediocre movies, and even the Colonel's direction of Presley's army career -- was designed to protect Parker's own secrets.

Interesting reading to say the least and a totally different take on the Elvis/Col story.

[ms_epblvd]

I really dont see his childlike ways and genorosity faults. If you have the money and you can have fun and make people happy who cares.

Also, Elvis did sleep around but so did everyone else in his group and superstars today and yester years. Just because Elvis wanted Priscilla at home and pregnant isnt a bad quality; and I am a working woman saying this.

I think his worst faults were his temper. He wanted things his way or no way. He sounded like he would snap if something angered him. Also his trusting the clowns that were in his life. So many people sponged off of him and yet he really thought they cared about him. I wonder if they would have cared as much about him if he had stayed a truck driver.

Cheers,
Gina:hmm:

[jak]

I thought his concerts at the end of 1976 were pretty good the New Years Show was very good I thought.

These concerts during the late dec tour have reached mythic quality which they dont deserve.The reason these few shows are talked about is that they offer a stark contrast to the shows just a few months prior.The shows during that time were abslolutely dreadfull.Elvis was oretty much sleepwalking on all of them.It was the absolute lowpoint.The dec shows in 76 have Elvis bouncing off the ceiling and wired to the max.These shows are a sad parody to anything before 72.Not even close.
Jak

[jak]

Jak, I can't disagree that there were some laclustre concerts but to say that the last one with energy was in 72........ well I just don't agree with that statement!

I said the last truly great concert was prior to 72.I will stick to that.I have the Ashville shows and basically ever other live import.Some of the shows had Elvis in good spirits but he would never match the power and greatness of 69-72.Vocally and surely not physically.James Burton saw quite a few Elvis shows.He has stated that the MSG shows were the best and Elvis never matched them again.Sean Shaver stated if you didnt see Elvis prior to 71 you never saw the real Elvis.Dont mistake a good night for Elvis as a being a great elvis concert.He set the bar very high.The truth is that even the good 75 shows show Elvis in poor physical condition.I would have loved to have seen those concerts for sure.But they were a mile away from just 3 years prior.The 76 and 77 shows cannot even be compared.Dont look at his performances with your emotions and the eyes of a fan.Look at it objectively.
Jak

[KPM]

These concerts during the late dec tour have reached mythic quality which they dont deserve.The reason these few shows are talked about is that they offer a stark contrast to the shows just a few months prior.The shows during that time were abslolutely dreadfull.Elvis was oretty much sleepwalking on all of them.It was the absolute lowpoint.The dec shows in 76 have Elvis bouncing off the ceiling and wired to the max.These shows are a sad parody to anything before 72.Not even close.
Jak
I felt his New Years show was upbeat, he seemed well engaged with the band and the crowd and he put a pretty good effort out. I am not saying the show was early 70s quality-just that I found it entertaining and pretty good. I have heard horrid concerts from 74 on- but there were still times when he put on a good show IMO
Joe Tunzi has stated the best vocal performance he ever heard by Elvis live (out of all the times he saw him live) was without a doubt June of 73 at Kiel Auitorium St. Louis. I almost went to that show but tickets sold out by the time I went to get them.

[jak]

Until someone proves to me why the COl turned down so many world tour overseas offers-I can not say for certain the loss of momentum for Elvis and his upswing 68-70 was just Elvis. I have made this point before and I know its known so I won't beat it into the ground- but I think its a fair and valid reason for thinking it was not just Elvis. If Parker had not been illegal I would agree 100%. But he was, he kept it under raps for 40 years.

No matter what Elvis still started to give sloppy,poor concerts at home.Elvis had plenty to concentrate on here at home.Im still mystified that he abandoned making music for the most part in the 70's.You cant point the finger at the Col for that.That was Elvis' business.His recording career is basically what ensures his legacy.Elvis gave up on it.Im not trying to beat a dead horse either,but it had to just be the drugs.He was absolutely brilliant with From Elvis In Memphis,Elvis Country.Then came Love Letters.That's the momentum killer Im talking about.He climbed to the top of the mountain and then did a belly flop off it.From Suspicous minds to Cindy Cindy.There is the problem.Not going overseas.
Jak

[jak]

I felt his New Years show was upbeat, he seemed well engaged with the band and the crowd and he put a pretty good effort out. I am not saying the show was early 70s quality-just that I found it entertaining and pretty good. I have heard horrid concerts from 74 on- but there were still times when he put on a good show IMO

I agree.Good shows but not great by his own standards.
Jak

[jak]

I felt his New Years show was upbeat, he seemed well engaged with the band and the crowd and he put a pretty good effort out. I am not saying the show was early 70s quality-just that I found it entertaining and pretty good. I have heard horrid concerts from 74 on- but there were still times when he put on a good show IMO
Joe Tunzi has stated the best vocal performance he ever heard by Elvis live (out of all the times he saw him live) was without a doubt June of 73 at Kiel Auitorium St. Louis. I almost went to that show but tickets sold out by the time I went to get them.

Im sorry you missed that show.I respect Joe's opinion but I would disagree.People that saw some of the worst shows in the summer of 76 will tell you that the shows were absolutely wonderfull.In a way they were.They saw Elvis and that was good stuff.If I saw him in 76 I would be on here saying how great it was.That's the way it works.I've only met a few fans that saw multiple shows and can give honest views.My wife saw him live 4 times.She saw the Ft Wayne 72 show which is known among the collectors as a great show.She saw him twice in 76.She swears to me that the 76 shows were just as good as the 72.For her I know they were.She loves Elvis and she looks back fondly at them.That's Elvis' power and mystique.The fans loved him no matter what.I know others that saw him dozens and dozens of times.Some tell me how they drove home crying after the shows in 76 and 77, because they knew he was in big trouble and they felt bad for him because they had seen him in his prime.
Jak

[KPM]

Im sorry you missed that show.I respect Joe's opinion but I would disagree.People that saw some of the worst shows in the summer of 76 will tell you that the shows were absolutely wonderfull.In a way they were.They saw Elvis and that was good stuff.If I saw him in 76 I would be on here saying how great it was.That's the way it works.I've only met a few fans that saw multiple shows and can give honest views.My wife saw him live 4 times.She saw the Ft Wayne 72 show which is known among the collectors as a great show.She saw him twice in 76.She swears to me that the 76 shows were just as good as the 72.For her I know they were.She loves Elvis and she looks back fondly at them.That's Elvis' power and mystique.The fans loved him no matter what.I know others that saw him dozens and dozens of times.Some tell me how they drove home crying after the shows in 76 and 77, because they knew he was in big trouble and they felt bad for him because they had seen him in his prime.
Jak
I did see him March 22, 1976 in St. Louis and a fan took front row video of it.
I thought it was a pretty good show-he was not slurring words nor did he do anything "bizarre" But I had told my wife if he wore a dark suit, it was probably he was overweight. He had some movement, but It was not 1970 thats for sure. He got a couple standing ovations and the stage got rushed a couple times. One lady blindsided him and you could hear the mike hit his teeth. I think he was a little shaken by how crazy the crowd near the stage was getting.

[jak]

I did see him March 22, 1976 in St. Louis and a fan took front row video of it.
I thought it was a pretty good show-he was not slurring words nor did he do anything "bizarre" But I had told my wife if he wore a dark suit, it was probably he was overweight. He had some movement, but It was not 1970 thats for sure. He got a couple standing ovations and the stage got rushed a couple times. One lady blindsided him and you could hear the mike hit his teeth. I think he was a little shaken by how crazy the crowd near the stage was getting.

Im glad you saw him.No matter what you were part of history.Everybody is lucky that got to see him
Jak

[Rover]

You guys saw him in concerts...I'm sure you realize how lucky you are, no need to remind you :P
Judging by the videos I saw, it is true that he didn't have the same energy through his whole career...In the 70s he barely danced actually, or am I misjudging?

[jak]

You guys saw him in concerts...I'm sure you realize how lucky you are, no need to remind you :P
Judging by the videos I saw, it is true that he didn't have the same energy through his whole career...In the 70s he barely danced actually, or am I misjudging?

Elvis gave some incredibly energetic shows early on when he returned to performing.After a while he just didnt take that stuff seriously.He was almost doing self parody during the later years.
Jak

[Getlo]

He was almost doing self parody during the later years.


There's no "almost" about it, jak.

Someone once wrote that Elvis Presley was the world's first Elvis impersonator. Truer words were never spoken.

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Jak I don't disagree that the writing was on the wall from as early as 1971!!?? There are moments on Elvis On Tour where he looks bloody awful, pale & bloated. I'm not so sure that energy constitutes a good show..... I love the Aloha rehearsal show and it's not exactly full of energy but the power is there.

I find it amusing that Jak & Getlo both have concert photo's from 1976 as their avatars :lol:

[Getlo]

I find it amusing that Jak & Getlo both have concert photo's from 1976 as their avatars :lol:

What's your point? I happen to like the avatar pic - and the Pitsburgh show actually, it's one of my favourites. But there is no comparison between the Elvis of 1969-71 to that of 1976-77.

[Joe Car]

What's your point? I happen to like the avatar pic - and the Pitsburgh show actually, it's one of my favourites. But there is no comparison between the Elvis of 1969-71 to that of 1976-77.

Nobody could live up the the 1969-71 measuring stick, he was from another planet!

[Joe Car]

Jak I don't disagree that the writing was on the wall from as early as 1971!!?? There are moments on Elvis On Tour where he looks bloody awful, pale & bloated. I'm not so sure that energy constitutes a good show..... I love the Aloha rehearsal show and it's not exactly full of energy but the power is there.

I find it amusing that Jak & Getlo both have concert photo's from 1976 as their avatars :lol:

He may have not looked his best for EOT, but the shows and his performances were incredible, and the documentary, excellent!

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

What's your point? I happen to like the avatar pic - and the Pitsburgh show actually, it's one of my favourites. But there is no comparison between the Elvis of 1969-71 to that of 1976-77.

Oh my goodness aren't we uptight, I was only having a bit of fun... I found it ironic that you were both ardently discussing the virtues of 69-71 and display pictures from 1976??!! :lol:


He may have not looked his best for EOT, but the shows and his performances were incredible, and the documentary, excellent!

Elvis' health was less of an issue at this point and he could really knock em dead, I think that this is the first point that it is obvious that Elvis took drugs even if it hadn't effected his performances.

[jak]

I find it amusing that Jak & Getlo both have concert photo's from 1976 as their avatars

I like that photo because it's very rare.Shot in vegas.He looks pretty good too I think in my photo.One of my favorite suits too.I accept Elvis all through his career.I just can discuss him objectively.For quite some time I either ignored or refused to believe the reality concerning the quality of Elvis' concerts over the years.It was hard for me to believe that people would walk out on his concerts or heckle him.I thought he was godlike and everybody was mesmerized by him.That wasnt the case.I now accept Elvis for what he really was.Just a guy who had an abundance of talent and charisma.He was very special and unique but he still put his pants on one leg at a time.
Jak

[jak]

There's no "almost" about it, jak.

Someone once wrote that Elvis Presley was the world's first Elvis impersonator. Truer words were never spoken.

I was trying to be nice.The impersonator comment is true regrettably.
Jak

[Miss Clawdy]

Oh my goodness aren't we uptight, I was only having a bit of fun... I found it ironic that you were both ardently discussing the virtues of 69-71 and display pictures from 1976??!! :lol:

I never would have noticed it, and yes it was funny :lol: you could see the wink ;)

Jak, I find it very remakable that you admit how your view on Elvis was in the past (y). May I ask, what made you change your mind?

[jak]

I never would have noticed it, and yes it was funny :lol: you could see the wink ;)

Jak, I find it very remakable that you admit how your view on Elvis was in the past (y). May I ask, what made you change your mind?

I just got a older and maybe a bit wiser.I never bought a "non" Elvis record until I was 19.I felt like I was betraying him if I had.I was loyal to the extreme.Over the years I have come to realize that the image of Elvis was just so far removed from reality.I still think he is by far the greatest performer the world has ever seen.His influence cant be measured it's so great and prolific.I think he was a good guy on top of that and he made millions of people happy.He still is.However I can also discuss the other side rationally which so many refuse to admit.To say he didnt have a flip side or continually make excuses for it makes no sense to me anymore.I use to do that all the time.I dont think any less of Elvis when I bring up critical comments in my posts.If I could hop in a time machine and go back to see any live concert I wanted in history vs the worst Elvis concert ever,I would pick the worst Elvis concert every time.Elvis was very special and any chance to see him was special.Nobody even comes close.I just see lots of blind worship on these threads and i try to inject a little common sense if I can.It's obvious many fans dont want to hear the truth however.Many have created their own unfortunately.
Jak

[Getlo]

If I could hop in a time machine and go back to see any live concert I wanted in history vs the worst Elvis concert ever,I would pick the worst Elvis concert every time.
I just see lots of blind worship on these threads. It's obvious many fans dont want to hear the truth however.Many have created their own unfortunately.

Too true, jak, too true.

[LianaKaralivanou]

The only thing about Elvis that I didn't like was his drug addiction. As for if he was spoiled by his mam, of course he was spoiled! He was an only child.

[ricardo b. prospero]

Friends, we seems to be going out the topic's perimeter, We are supposed to tell what Elvis traits we don't like. I just hope we confine our discussion on the main topic and avoid any debate whatsoever. Let us make this a forum for healthy and relevant discussion and not a battleground for word war. Let us respect each others opinion. Thank you

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

I find it amusing that Jak & Getlo both have concert photo's from 1976 as their avatars

I like that photo because it's very rare.Shot in vegas.He looks pretty good too I think in my photo.One of my favorite suits too.I accept Elvis all through his career.I just can discuss him objectively.For quite some time I either ignored or refused to believe the reality concerning the quality of Elvis' concerts over the years.It was hard for me to believe that people would walk out on his concerts or heckle him.I thought he was godlike and everybody was mesmerized by him.That wasnt the case.I now accept Elvis for what he really was.Just a guy who had an abundance of talent and charisma.He was very special and unique but he still put his pants on one leg at a time.
Jak

Hi Jak, we seem to have gone of the rails a little, I don't question you as a fan or question the fact that Elvis had bad hair days :P I also understand the need to be objective when it comes to being an Elvis fan, there is indeed a lot to celebrate and much to berate.

I love your Vegas 1976 photo and even have many pictures from that show, I have over the years spent thousands of $$ on photo's and it doesn't matter from what year I buy them they are all important.

[jak]

Hi Jak, we seem to have gone of the rails a little, I don't question you as a fan or question the fact that Elvis had bad hair days :P I also understand the need to be objective when it comes to being an Elvis fan, there is indeed a lot to celebrate and much to berate.

I love your Vegas 1976 photo and even have many pictures from that show, I have over the years spent thousands of $$ on photo's and it doesn't matter from what year I buy them they are all important.

I know you didnt mean anything.I collect photo's also.I have the ones you posted also.They are a nice set.For some reason my avatar photo just appeals to me.
Jak

[Miss Clawdy]

I just got a older and maybe a bit wiser.I never bought a "non" Elvis record until I was 19.I felt like I was betraying him if I had.I was loyal to the extreme.Over the years I have come to realize that the image of Elvis was just so far removed from reality.I still think he is by far the greatest performer the world has ever seen.His influence cant be measured it's so great and prolific.I think he was a good guy on top of that and he made millions of people happy.He still is.However I can also discuss the other side rationally which so many refuse to admit.To say he didnt have a flip side or continually make excuses for it makes no sense to me anymore.I use to do that all the time.I dont think any less of Elvis when I bring up critical comments in my posts.If I could hop in a time machine and go back to see any live concert I wanted in history vs the worst Elvis concert ever,I would pick the worst Elvis concert every time.Elvis was very special and any chance to see him was special.Nobody even comes close.I just see lots of blind worship on these threads and i try to inject a little common sense if I can.It's obvious many fans dont want to hear the truth however.Many have created their own unfortunately.
Jak

Thank you for your reply, great post (y). I share your opinion about discussing both sides and trying to tell or find the truth. But there is an indefinable something about Elvis that sometimes procures the need of having to defend him. It's hard for me to put it into words, I hope it's understandable ;)

[franny]

Thank you for your reply, great post (y). I share your opinion about discussing both sides and trying to tell or find the truth. But there is an indefinable something about Elvis that sometimes procures the need of having to defend him. It's hard for me to put it into words, I hope it's understandable ;)

I agree, great post by jak! (y) You said it right, Miss Clawdy, I think we all defend Elvis because he's not here to defend himself and because we love him!

It's true there are two sides and we don't love Elvis any less, because nobdy is perfect! That doesn't mean we can't discuss the flip side, as long as it's done without bashing Elvis or each other!

franny

[KPM]

No matter what Elvis still started to give sloppy,poor concerts at home.Elvis had plenty to concentrate on here at home.Im still mystified that he abandoned making music for the most part in the 70's.You cant point the finger at the Col for that.That was Elvis' business.His recording career is basically what ensures his legacy.Elvis gave up on it.Im not trying to beat a dead horse either,but it had to just be the drugs.He was absolutely brilliant with From Elvis In Memphis,Elvis Country.Then came Love Letters.That's the momentum killer Im talking about.He climbed to the top of the mountain and then did a belly flop off it.From Suspicous minds to Cindy Cindy.There is the problem.Not going overseas.
Jak

I happen to like the Love Letters album(my wifes name is Cindy);)
I blame the Col for his "enclosure by management" policy IMO. He enclosed Elvis in the 60s by not allowing him to get the best material by requiring the publishing rights to new songs, the contracts he negotiated in the 50s for all the movies, which lasted well into the 60s, enclosed Elvis in the crappy movies and soundtracts-I pointed out after Elvis signed his deal with Hal Wallis he told at least one interviewer his first film would be the quality feature "The Rainmaker" and he also said he was not interested in singing in the movies-the contract Parker negotiated with Wallis gave Wallis- not Elvis- those decisions. I'm taking a guess if he thought "The Rainmaker" was his first movie that the old bait and switch was in play. So what is Elvis's first movie "Love Me Tender" which is not a bad movie but it did have songs he said he had no desire to do in films and "The Rainmaker" is now considered a minor classic.
He enclosed Elvis by the no live shows and no TV in the 60s. IMO The interaction on TV shows or specials would have been good for Elvis creatively to work with other good artists-to be challenged by their talents.
Instead Parker told him more or less-you're too good to do these shows anymore-you don't need them. So hes trapped in contracts for crappy movies (which I'm sure was not what he had in mind when he signed with Hal Wallis) the songs he gets submitted are not always top grade because of Parkers publishing clause-and he can't interact with other artists- because hes too good for that and you don't give it away for free(Parkers ideas)

I do hold Col Parker accountable for some of this. Hal Kanter who I mentioned in another thread said he would only trust Parker-across the room-in other words "as far as he could be seen"
He also said after spending a couple months traveling with Elvis and the COl that he felt Col had his own interests above those of Elvis.
Jak I think on this one we are going to have to agree to disagree. I feel Elvis did get lazy and he could easily get into a creative rut-but the rut was started by -IMO- bad decisions sold to Elvis by Parker early on.
Some people do not need to be sparked-Paul McCartney comes to mind hes always working on something new-but he was lucky enough to be allowed to record whatever he wanted, with whomever he wanted and no restrictions. After the Beatles he never again had a manager like Brian Epstein who did limit the Beatles a bit and then the guy I think his name was Klein who had them tied up in lawsuits for years by his management. But after those guys he did what he wanted-and with who ever. Musical interaction stimulates creative flow.
Elvis needed to be sparked- he was not getting that from Parkers vision for his career. But as I said I see what you are saying and I don't totally disagree but I see it differently.;)

[jak]

Thank you for your reply, great post (y). I share your opinion about discussing both sides and trying to tell or find the truth. But there is an indefinable something about Elvis that sometimes procures the need of having to defend him. It's hard for me to put it into words, I hope it's understandable ;)

It's completely understandle why people defend Elvis.It's one of the things that makes him so special.Elvis had the gift of making people care for him.I think the relationship with his fans is like no other.Barbara Mandrell had a great qoute.He was the master of making people feel like they knew him,even if they never got within a mile of him.
Jak

[jak]

I happen to like the Love Letters album(my wifes name is Cindy);)
I blame the Col for his "enclosure by management" policy IMO. He enclosed Elvis in the 60s by not allowing him to get the best material by requiring the publishing rights to new songs, the contracts he negotiated in the 50s for all the movies, which lasted well into the 60s, enclosed Elvis in the crappy movies and soundtracts-I pointed out after Elvis signed his deal with Hal Wallis he told at least one interviewer his first film would be the quality feature "The Rainmaker" and he also said he was not interested in singing in the movies-the contract Parker negotiated with Wallis gave Wallis- not Elvis- those decisions. I'm taking a guess if he thought "The Rainmaker" was his first movie that the old bait and switch was in play. So what is Elvis's first movie "Love Me Tender" which is not a bad movie but it did have songs he said he had no desire to do in films and "The Rainmaker" is now considered a minor classic.
He enclosed Elvis by the no live shows and no TV in the 60s. IMO The interaction on TV shows or specials would have been good for Elvis creatively to work with other good artists-to be challenged by their talents.
Instead Parker told him more or less-you're too good to do these shows anymore-you don't need them. So hes trapped in contracts for crappy movies (which I'm sure was not what he had in mind when he signed with Hal Wallis) the songs he gets submitted are not always top grade because of Parkers publishing clause-and he can't interact with other artists- because hes too good for that and you don't give it away for free(Parkers ideas)

I do hold Col Parker accountable for some of this. Hal Kanter who I mentioned in another thread said he would only trust Parker-across the room-in other words "as far as he could be seen"
He also said after spending a couple months traveling with Elvis and the COl that he felt Col had his own interests above those of Elvis.
Jak I think on this one we are going to have to agree to disagree. I feel Elvis did get lazy and he could easily get into a creative rut-but the rut was started by -IMO- bad decisions sold to Elvis by Parker early on.
Some people do not need to be sparked-Paul McCartney comes to mind hes always working on something new-but he was lucky enough to be allowed to record whatever he wanted, with whomever he wanted and no restrictions. After the Beatles he never again had a manager like Brian Epstein who did limit the Beatles a bit and then the guy I think his name was Klein who had them tied up in lawsuits for years by his management. But after those guys he did what he wanted-and with who ever. Musical interaction stimulates creative flow.
Elvis needed to be sparked- he was not getting that from Parkers vision for his career. But as I said I see what you are saying and I don't totally disagree but I see it differently.;)

I too agree with much of your sentiments.Parker's main fault was that he had no artistic vision for Elvis.This in my opinion became 'double trouble" because Elvis himself lacked that quality.Or he chose not to use it.I wish Elvis would have just took a little more responsibilty upon himself.
Jak

[KPM]

I too agree with much of your sentiments.Parker's main fault was that he had no artistic vision for Elvis.This in my opinion became 'double trouble" because Elvis himself lacked that quality.Or he chose not to use it.I wish Elvis would have just took a little more responsibilty upon himself.
Jak
I agree for whatever reason Elvis relied on Parker for such things starting in the 50s and by 1965 Elvis should have got rid of him. I don't know maybe by 65 Elvis's spirit for creation had been effectively killed by the limits he had imposed on him. Or maybe he didn't trust his own instincts because of his insecurities. I thought the Beatles were nuts to go to India and live for a while in the commune with "the Swami" but I almost wish Elvis had done a complete turnaround like that - dumped the MM, Parker, and his old safe and comfortable habits and done something like that. He relied to much on others.

[jak]

I agree for whatever reason Elvis relied on Parker for such things starting in the 50s and by 1965 Elvis should have got rid of him. I don't know maybe by 65 Elvis's spirit for creation had been effectively killed by the limits he had imposed on him. Or maybe he didn't trust his own instincts because of his insecurities. I thought the Beatles were nuts to go to India and live for a while in the commune with "the Swami" but I almost wish Elvis had done a complete turnaround like that - dumped the MM, Parker, and his old safe and comfortable habits and done something like that. He relied to much on others.

This is historic.I completely agree with everything you wrote.I knew we had some common ground somewhere.
Jak

[KPM]

This is historic.I completely agree with everything you wrote.I knew we had some common ground somewhere.
Jak
It was bound to happen sooner or later(y);)

[Diane]

:clap::clap::clap::)

[Dovey]

(y)(y)(y) Woohoo JAK & KPM such a happy day to see you both meeting in the middle of the road. Dovey:D

[jak]

(y)(y)(y) Woohoo JAK & KPM such a happy day to see you both meeting in the middle of the road. Dovey:D

It took a while to get there but we made it.
Jak

[Diane]

We need more posters who can take a lesson from this. It was great to see the two of you meet halfway without totally giving in to your own respective points of view and respecting each other. I'm proud of you both.(y)

[KPM]

I had never felt we that far apart on many topics, he leans a certain way and I the other but basically I think we actually see things very similar. I enjoy his posts.

[jak]

I had never felt we that far apart on many topics, he leans a certain way and I the other but basically I think we actually see things very similar. I enjoy his posts.

Same here KPM.The respect is mutual.It's good to be able to discuss things and not have it break down into attacks on one another.
Jak

[KPM]

Same here KPM.The respect is mutual.It's good to be able to discuss things and not have it break down into attacks on one another.
Jak
Theres no reason it should break down into attacks on one another. I can see you put considerable thought into your posts and that is great. I hope we can set a trend so more people who dont agree can see it doesn't have to go negative and personal. (y)

[Diane]

I agree with both of you. Sorry if you both thought I was suggesting that you were at opposite ends...I wasn't. You always have been very respectful to each other while having minor disagreements. I always enjoy reading what each has to say.

Diane

[cameron]

therefor, I don't know what I'd dislike about him.
I only have "books" written about him ,not any facts. ;)
All saying something different.
So, I just enjoy him for what he gave us.

The trash & bash, I leave to the "gossips" that like that sort of thing.

[Merry]

therefor, I don't know what I'd dislike about him.
I only have "books" written about him ,not any facts. ;)
All saying something different.
So, I just enjoy him for what he gave us.

The trash & bash, I leave to the "gossips" that like that sort of thing.


Well said.

Kim

[MJ27]

I wish Elvis had taken more risks with his music in the second half of career.When I hear rubbish like "Padre" , "Three Corn Patches" and "Take Good Care Of Her" I think why the bloody hell was he doing stuff like this.
I think by 1973 Elvis was too busy being "ELVIS" . It seems he was more interested in playing with guns and hiding behind some image that had nothing to do with real creativity or self - expression.
His concerts had become a joke musically and the main thing that kept him popular was his other worldly charisma.
I believe Elvis only scratched the surface of his musical potential and his creative laziness robbed the music world of much magic.But even with his shortcomings he was still the best that ever was or will be.

[Merry]

I wish Elvis had taken more risks with his music in the second half of career.When I hear rubbish like "Padre" , "Three Corn Patches" and "Take Good Care Of Her" I think why the bloody hell was he doing stuff like this.
I think by 1973 Elvis was too busy being "ELVIS" . It seems he was more interested in playing with guns and hiding behind some image that had nothing to do with real creativity or self - expression.
His concerts had become a joke musically and the main thing that kept him popular was his other worldly charisma.
I believe Elvis only scratched the surface of his musical potential and his creative laziness robbed the music world of much magic.But even with his shortcomings he was still the best that ever was or will be.


No offense, and with all due respect, but I don't understand these comments, and others, lately.

A lot of people, who attended the concerts, would take exception to the comment re Elvis' concerts.

Elvis is the greatest Entertainer in the World to many people, yet people say contradictory things. They say: "Yes he is, but ......".

Elvis' body of work was huge, he changed gears, "you can't please all the people all the timeb" he had challenges, like all of us, we are all aware of that. Elvis didn't disappear for years like a lot of celebrities these days, do. He was always there for his fans, he should have disappeared, and put himself, first, but he didn't! Anyway. Just thought I'd comment, nothing personal.

[jak]

No offense, and with all due respect, but I don't understand these comments, and others, lately.

A lot of people, who attended the concerts, would take exception to the comment re Elvis' concerts.

Elvis is the greatest Entertainer in the World to many people, yet people say contradictory things. They say: "Yes he is, but ......".

Elvis' body of work was huge, he changed gears, "you can't please all the people all the timeb" he had challenges, like all of us, we are all aware of that. Elvis didn't disappear for years like a lot of celebrities these days, do. He was always there for his fans, he should have disappeared, and put himself, first, but he didn't! Anyway. Just thought I'd comment, nothing personal.

Elvis' concerts chronicle his decline like nothing else.He was truly the greatest entertainer ever in my opinion.However that is not based on his later efforts.Elvis could barely function at times on stage in front of 12,000 people.Yet the faithfull would scream just as loud.It's called fan devotion.The power of Elvis' image and mystique carried him in the later years.
Jak

[Merry]

Elvis' concerts chronicle his decline like nothing else.He was truly the greatest entertainer ever in my opinion.However that is not based on his later efforts.Elvis could barely function at times on stage in front of 12,000 people.Yet the faithfull would scream just as loud.It's called fan devotion.The power of Elvis' image and mystique carried him in the later years.
Jak


Yes, and some empathy should be forthcoming. How would you react with all those Court Cases, getting over Divorce, still being there for the fans, having to work and support others, even though sick and distressed? Empathy, understanding.

Bye mate, nice talking with you.

Kim

[ksimms2]

very true JAK, there were times he was so incoherent they had to throw him in a cold shower to revive him. Do you know how many times he's had to be rescusitated (sp?) in the later years? he was so out of it. I'm not saying this to tick anyone off - I'm saying this because of how sad it is. The guys were always amazed at how at the last minute he'd snap out of it long enough to go on stage.....albeit alot of those concerts he hardly performed, forgot words, etc. (I know another attack is coming...but don't forget....we all have our opinions on this subject and just because you don't agree....doesn't necessarily make you right and me wrong - or vice versa)

[Rover]

Elvis' concerts chronicle his decline like nothing else.He was truly the greatest entertainer ever in my opinion.However that is not based on his later efforts.Elvis could barely function at times on stage in front of 12,000 people.Yet the faithfull would scream just as loud.It's called fan devotion.The power of Elvis' image and mystique carried him in the later years.
Jak

I disagree here...in his last concert for exemple, he sang with a lot of feelings. Ok he barely moved, but the feelings were here. I'm sure you know the 77 live version of My Way?
His shows changed, that's true, but I think the word "decline" is a bit strong...ageing, yes, but not decline.

[ksimms2]

Yes, and some empathy should be forthcoming. How would you react with all those Court Cases, getting over Divorce, still being there for the fans, having to work and support others, even though sick and distressed? Empathy, understanding.

Bye mate, nice talking with you.

Kim

Kim, I have a question for you - if you knew FOR SURE that Elvis kept himself messed up all the time on his drugs, really badly, as alot have stated and the MM have stated in their books - but you knew this FOR SURE - would your response be the same? "Give him some empathy"......? Would you still feel that way? Knowing that people around him incuding Dr. Nick, the MM, anyone who cared about him tried to get him to quit? But he kept on and had those around him basically keep him alive by making sure he didn't choke on his food because he'd pass out while eating? Making sure he got the medical help he needed when he'd take too much? Would you still say, "poor Elvis"? I'm just wondering......how long can you continue to say "poor Elvis" and blame the MM for every bad thing that happened to him? If you knew FOR SURE that this stuff was true......what would your thoughts be then? (please, I'm not being nasty okay?)