PDA

View Full Version : Neil Diamond Covers



Erhan
04-22-2010, 04:10 AM
Some Rock singers and critizie Elvis because he sings the Neil Diamond songs
what do you think about was it mistak to sing N.D. Songs I thout he sang with The Band's
Watch the film and deside it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYQE5YDsWCc

Teddy
04-22-2010, 04:21 AM
Neil Diamond is a world class songwriter, so it wasn't a mistake to sing his material, but I think there could have been better choices than Sweet Caroline for Elvis.
Even Cherry Cherry would have made more sense, but I guess the motivation was to go with a more current hit.
Too bad Elvis didn't live long enough to tackle Love On The Rocks!

Joe Car
04-22-2010, 04:34 AM
Sweet Caroline was a massive hit and Neil's best known song at the time, so it made sense. "Love on The Rocks," Elvis would have done a great version!

TTWII2001
04-22-2010, 05:37 AM
There's another one that Elvis cover from Neil Diamond and to me it's very good and very well done And The Grass Won't pay no Mind...it's a great song...but as mention before the current hit was Sweet Caroline....and it fits well in TTWII....IMO.

thanks for reading

mislulu
04-22-2010, 10:55 AM
Love on the Rocks !! Elvis would have done a brilliant version. I agree with you Teddy....Niel is a world class and amazing song writer !!

debtdbruno
04-22-2010, 11:05 AM
I love Elvis' version of Sweet Caroline, makes great viewing pleasure..................LOL

Love on the Rocks would have been a great song for him............he would have done a great version of it

KPM
04-22-2010, 01:12 PM
I do not think it was a mistake to do ND songs-they were good songs and they were popular.
I would have encouraged Elvis to try NDs "Brother Loves Traveling Salvation Show" I think he could have made that song his own with a little effort.

Jimmy1966
04-22-2010, 03:01 PM
i have a bootleg of Elvis trying out a bit of 'Holly Holy' he would of done great if it was carried to the studio,
But neil diamond is a great singer/songwriter In his own right, i have been to see him at the M.E.N Arena
and the guy was on stage for 2 hrs 15 minutes, without breaking and he put on a fantastic show.
he is an original and a wonderful entertainer. I would of loved to of heard elvis sing 'AMERICA' from the
Jazz Singer.

rockin
04-22-2010, 05:04 PM
I would of loved to hear Elvis do I Am I Said with that rough voice from '69
When i heard ND sing it on Hot August Night Album I thought it would of been awesome to hear Elvis perform it as well

Erhan
04-23-2010, 08:58 AM
Sweet Caroline was a massive hit and Neil's best known song at the time, so it made sense. "Love on The Rocks," Elvis would have done a great version!

And also september morning and america could be fit for King

Brian Quinn
04-23-2010, 10:35 AM
'September Morn' would have been my choice.

Erhan
04-24-2010, 12:19 AM
Girl you gonna woman soon @;-)

augusta
04-24-2010, 06:22 AM
I'd like HOLLY HOLY!!!

TCB81975
04-24-2010, 06:24 AM
Elvis rocked Neil's songs. I would have liked to have heard him cover "Solitary Man".

Jimmy1966
04-24-2010, 01:04 PM
Baseball was first played in 1749 in England which makes it an English Founded SPORT...Just thought i would mention it...
Love on the Rocks !! Elvis would have done a brilliant version. I agree with you Teddy....Niel is a world class and amazing song writer !!

mislulu
04-24-2010, 02:49 PM
Hey Jimmy...thank you for telling me...I would have never known. I guess that is what I get for quoting somebody...lol

Jimmy1966
04-25-2010, 12:33 PM
No problem. . . Coca-Cola , Mickey Mouse Are Great But Elvis Presley Was Something Else again, The Only
Person In History That I Can Actually Say 'HE HAD IT ALL' GREATEST PERFORMER THAT EVER LIVED.

Unchained Melody
04-27-2010, 09:54 AM
No problem. . . Coca-Cola , Mickey Mouse Are Great But Elvis Presley Was Something Else again, The Only
Person In History That I Can Actually Say 'HE HAD IT ALL' GREATEST PERFORMER THAT EVER LIVED.

If only his own estate would look at him as an artist instead of a dollar sign.

Funny how the spirit of Colonel Tom Parker lives on to this day..

:cursing:

KPM
04-27-2010, 03:25 PM
If only his own estate would look at him as an artist instead of a dollar sign.

Funny how the spirit of Colonel Tom Parker lives on to this day..

:cursing:
Unfortunately thats true-but to be as fair as possible to them-they were left very little of Elvis the Artist to market-they were not left any control over his music nor his movies where the essense of Elvis the Artist lives.
But the artistic things they do own and control such as the TV specials, they have done very good promotion and marketing-and those specials showcase the best of Elvis the Artist. Other than those specials they are just very limited in what they can do on the artisitic end.
The Colonels spirit is living on-in the lack of creative control over the artistic side of Elvis that was left to the estate from the deals made when Elvis and he were here.

Brian
04-27-2010, 05:18 PM
Unfortunately thats true-but to be as fair as possible to them-they were left very little of Elvis the Artist to market-they were not left any control over his music nor his movies where the essense of Elvis the Artist lives.
But the artistic things they do own and control such as the TV specials, they have done very good promotion and marketing-and those specials showcase the best of Elvis the Artist. Other than those specials they are just very limited in what they can do on the artisitic end.
The Colonels spirit is living on-in the lack of creative control over the artistic side of Elvis that was left to the estate from the deals made when Elvis and he were here.

The estate was never going to own the music or the movies it's not like Elvis was ever going to own 100% of his films and the rights to distribute them.
As fas as I know that's unheard of no actor owns 100% of all his films.

I believe in order to control 100% rights of all of his music Elvis would've had to have been a songwriter and written all his songs to secure publishing rights to every song and then the Colonel would've had to have successfully made a deal with RCA for ownership of all his masters

KPM
04-29-2010, 03:27 PM
The estate was never going to own the music or the movies it's not like Elvis was ever going to own 100% of his films and the rights to distribute them.
As fas as I know that's unheard of no actor owns 100% of all his films.I believe in order to control 100% rights of all of his music Elvis would've had to have been a songwriter and written all his songs to secure publishing rights to every song and then the Colonel would've had to have successfully made a deal with RCA for ownership of all his masters
I would have to research it-but I do not have the time right now Brian.
Basically the estate was left litttle if any control over the artisitc end of Elvis movie/music.
I agree it may have been hard to control 100% rights on movies or music-but Elvis had just about none.
The Beatles had little control over their Northern Songs because they just did not understand how it worked-but after that period-they individually and as a group-had pretty much total control over their music. I think into the 1970s artists like the Rolling Stones, Elton John, Billy Joel, etc ...have a huge amount of control over their lifesblood-especially those who write, produce and have their own labels.
But "any" control the estate would have had over these items-would have helped them after Elvis died.
The Snowman could have secured much more control IMO-it just was not important to him-which IMO shows he did not understand the worth of these things into the future. You and I have debated this before and my thoughts have not changed.

Brian
04-30-2010, 12:29 PM
.
I agree it may have been hard to control 100% rights on movies or music.
.

That's my point

lots of artists don't have that type of control

Hypothetically if Elvis' estate did own 100% of the music outright I think they'd do the exact same thing Sony does.
So from an artistic standpoint it doesn't really matter.

I do think if Elvis' estate owned the rights to Elvis on Tour instead of Turner they would've released it a long time ago and if the owned they rights to all of his films they'd all be released.

KPM
05-01-2010, 01:20 PM
That's my point

lots of artists don't have that type of control

Hypothetically if Elvis' estate did own 100% of the music outright I think they'd do the exact same thing Sony does.So from an artistic standpoint it doesn't really matter.

I do think if Elvis' estate owned the rights to Elvis on Tour instead of Turner they would've released it a long time ago and if the owned they rights to all of his films they'd all be released.
My point has been that without totally unreleased whole songs in the vaults, there is just not much anyone can do.
You can not produce tracks you do not have-you can only re-release, repackage, and make it seem new to people unfamiliar with Elvis-thats it.
There have been several releases that feature album tracks that are unfamiliar to many, the Essential Elvis series, the re-release of the original albums like Today, Elvis Now, Promised Land with bonus tracks not on the original albums ...etc.....I just do not see what people expect from Sony, RCA, BMG whomever is in charge. They are going to re-release no matter how you look at it-if its not new its re-release.....period.
They are not going to spend millions on remixes every single year for the actual remixing and the worldwide promotion (partly because many many fans hate them) they are going to do just what they been, what any person or entity in charge would have to do.
Everyone seems to have a magic answer to how to promote Elvis the artist-and its easy to promote him properly when you are just Monday Morning Quarterbacking, when what you say does not have consequences or does not have to be pitched to your boss at Sony.
If Elvis left a 100 songs totally new and unreleased it would be much easier to not continue re-releasing on and on. There are "0" unreleased totally new quality songs-period.
Red West has said he may have a tape or two in his attic that could have some songs similar to the ones that were got from him and became "THe Home Recordings" but he was not sure because he had not listened to them in years. Those home recordings were not the quality to be remixed into hits, so even if he has something-it won't be great quality studio recordings.
I think we sometimes expect too much-because business is business and they have little options....would we all be happier if they gave little or no attention to the Elvis catalogue?
Would we be happier if they did not spend anytime or effort on his recordings?
At least he's still being released and some money spent on promoting him in some way IMO