PDA

View Full Version : Elvis starring in Landover,Maryland (Largo)-Hereee's looking at you kid!



nolvis
12-21-2007, 01:08 AM
And also a couple of great 1977 concert reviews from this time!!!-

CONCERT DATE: May 23, 1977. Providence, PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journal Bulletin
May 24, 1977. Providence, PA

Elvis Puts on a show at the Civic Center
by Tony Lioce




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PROVIDENCE - There was a point last night, during Elvis concert at the Civic Center, when started to sing "My Way."

The first reaction was to bridle. After all, Elvis? Singing a Paul Anka song? That Frank Sinatra made famous? Elvis? Once THE symbol of youthful rebelion against all that is shallow and phony, singing the Las Vegas national anthem? Is this what happens to rock'n'roll rollers when they get to be 42?

But he was tremendous.
Sure those lyrics about "bitting it off and spitting it out" and stuff are so contrived as to be totally ridiculous., but Presley's performance saved them, hard as that may be to believe.

Singing as though he really meant what he was singing, really putting his heart into, he reminded us all that he really has done it his way. The former truck driver from Tupelo, Miss., who scandalized all the 40-year-olds with his hip-shaking and such, who posedsuch a threat to society as we knew it, is a star now, and a big one.

And he really hasn't changed all that much.
Oh sure, the show opened with a hour's worth of Vegas tripe. The opening tune of the evening was that horrendous disco version of "Beethoven's Fifth," all done up by a horn section right out of some supper club. And there was a comic making stupid jokes about marijuana and stuff, before Elvis emerged from backstage.

Even Elvis' set included a song by Bill Preston, the most tentious of current rock performers.

But therewas pelnty of more. Unlike last year, when Elvis came out and Tom Jones'd it up disgracefully, spending less time singing that he did throwing scarves to the audience and crooning his tunes more than really delivering them, Elvis was working last night.

Performing a well-balanced selection of really good country and r & b songs, he really got behind them and really put them across instead of setting back into a routine performance of his "greatest hits," he resurrected such classics as "Little Sister" and "I Got A Woman," and all the bite and drive of the original performances was right there, solid and raunchy as ever.

Even the Billy Preston tune wasn't all that bad, and who'd ever think you'd be able to say that about a Billy Preston tune?

The packed house loved every bit of Elvis' hour-long performance, and, by its very makeup, served to underscore the point that he hasn't turned into a parody of his former self.

There were plenty of people out there who used to be rebelious teeny-hoopers but, who wear leisure suits and work in offices now. But there were a lot of younger, diehard rock'n'rollers out there, too.

Before the show, many said they had come simply to take advantage of the man who started it all to "just to check it out" as one put it. But they were as moved, as stirred and as excited as their elders by the time the show was over.

Courtesy of Mark van Hout


CONCERT DATE: May 24, 1977. (8:30 pm) Augusta, ME
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kennebec Journal
May 25, 1977

They Screamed For Elvis
"All it took was a shake of a finger"
By Paul Betit



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"He stood about four feet away. I just couldn't touched him," said the woman bouncing around in her pink slacks and halter-top, her armed outstretched still trying to touch Elvis.

Tuesday night, she and more than 7,000 others got the thrill of a lifetime when Elvis Presley, the undisputed King of Rock and Roll, played the Augusta Civic Center.

It was electric, and it was made even more so by the fact that Presley was late. His Greyhound bus rolled across the grass at the rear of the Civic Center to within yards of the back door. Twin columns of policemen kept the path clear as Presley sprang out of the bus and into the building. It was there that "The Pink Lady" nearly touched him.

About 10:15 p.m. the lights went down and the orchestra began the haunting, imperial strains of the theme from "A Space Odyssey." Then it started. It was deafening. One shrill scream filled the hall. The stage lights came up and a single spotlight caught Elvis as he made his way onto the stage, slowly strolling it's entire length and back again, seemingly drinking it all in. The scream now reached a crescendo and stayed there for nearly a minute. It subsided, a slight undulation of his hips, and it started once more.

Along with the screams, there was the syncopated blinding light of thousands of flashbulbs. It was as if everyone in the place had an Instamatic.

He didn't have to sing. All he had to do was stand there and move something - a finger, a leg, a shake of the head. It was all the same. Every time he struck a different pose, the flashbulbs and the screams would start again.

But Elvis did sing, and it was his old stuff that brought the greatest response - "Treat Me Like a Fool," "Jailhouse Rock," "It's Now or Never," "Don't Be Cruel," "Heartbreak Hotel," and more.

Every once in a while, in the middle of a song, he would stride along the length of the stage throwing silk scarves, which had been draped around his neck, into the audience. As Elvis rid himself of one scarf, one of his sidemen would place another around his neck. Dozens of women flocked to the front of the stage each time this was done.

Elvis got some things thrown at him too. At one point, someone tossed up a dozen long-stemmed roses. The replica of a bright red Maine lobster also came his way.

Nobody seemed to notice that Elvis has changed a little during the last 20 years. There was the hint of a paunch. But the glamour - his angel white jumpsuit with silver brocade - was distracting. Breathed one woman: "He hasn't changed a bit."

Although all the excitement would make it difficult to for one to make an objective assessment of the concert, it was a slick production. A Las Vegas-based orchestra, Joe Guercio and the Hot Hilton Horns, opened the show with a rock version of Beethoven's Fifth.

Comedian Jackie Kahane followed. Explaining that he was part of the warm up, he said: "the women don't need any warming up. If it were any hotter in here there'd be a fire." After each one of the opening numbers, a slight hush filled the room, as the audience awaited the arrival of the King. It was replaced by a collective groan as the lights went up and there was no Elvis.

It was pure Presley. All the elements of what he is were there - gospel, soul, rock, and plenty of excitement.


Courtesy of John

:xmas::newyear::xmas::newyear::xmas::newyear::xmas ::newyear:

Diane
12-21-2007, 01:19 AM
Fantastic reviews and photos Nolvis, thanks so much for sharing!(y)(y)(y)

Diane

nolvis
12-21-2007, 02:29 AM
:xmas:Your very welcome Diane!!!:xmas:(y)(y):newyear::newyear:

Kris P
12-21-2007, 11:50 AM
A couple of fine reviews.
Thanks for the post, nolvis.

Kris P
12-21-2007, 12:02 PM
If I may select a few of the more poignant words phrases from both reviews:


"There was a point last night, during Elvis concert at the Civic Center, when started to sing "My Way."

The first reaction was to bridle. After all, Elvis? Singing a Paul Anka song? That Frank Sinatra made famous? Elvis? Once THE symbol of youthful rebellion against all that is shallow and phony, singing the Las Vegas national anthem? Is this what happens to rock'n'roll rollers when they get to be 42?

But he was tremendous.
Sure those lyrics about "bitting it off and spitting it out" and stuff are so contrived as to be totally ridiculous., but Presley's performance saved them, hard as that may be to believe.

Singing as though he really meant what he was singing, really putting his heart into, he reminded us all that he really has done it his way. The former truck driver from Tupelo, Miss., who scandalized all the 40-year-olds with his hip-shaking and such, who posed such a threat to society as we knew it, is a star now, and a big one. "

"About 10:15 p.m. the lights went down and the orchestra began the haunting, imperial strains of the theme from "A Space Odyssey." Then it started. It was deafening. One shrill scream filled the hall. The stage lights came up and a single spotlight caught Elvis as he made his way onto the stage, slowly strolling it's entire length and back again, seemingly drinking it all in. The scream now reached a crescendo and stayed there for nearly a minute. It subsided, a slight undulation of his hips, and it started once more."

"Nobody seemed to notice that Elvis has changed a little during the last 20 years. There was the hint of a paunch. But the glamour - his angel white jumpsuit with silver brocade - was distracting. Breathed one woman: "He hasn't changed a bit."


Both reviews appear to be impartial and written by non fans.............no matter how much speculation there is 30 years later, it goes to show he could still give the punters their monies worth right up till the end.

Stryx
12-21-2007, 01:48 PM
If I may select a few of the more poignant words phrases from both reviews:




Both reviews appear to be impartial and written by non fans.............no matter how much speculation there is 30 years later, it goes to show he could still give the punters their monies worth right up till the end.


Thats' simply not true.

Elvis gave poor performances, maybe not at the show in question, but he did.

Why fans persist in pretending Elvis was still performing great and deny his health problems is a mystery to me.

He was unhelthy, he shoudlen't have been on stage and he was not capable mentally or physically of knocking them dead towards the end.

It's sad but true.....Grob and Thomspon even had plans on what to do with his body should be die on tour.

cameron
12-21-2007, 02:22 PM
To quote from one :"It was pure Presley. All the elements of what he is were there - gospel, soul, rock, and plenty of excitement. "

Elvis evidently showed them all that he was not confined to any one "type of music." They heard the voice and saw the man that created it.
They weren't confined to the image that was created by some fans , but accepted him as the artist he was.

ksimms2
12-21-2007, 02:48 PM
Thanks Ian for this - very nice.....Elvis still had his charm even until the end. I know he wasn't well - but I guess his fans wanted anything they could get from him and was just happy to get it.......

nolvis
12-21-2007, 04:37 PM
:xmas:I'm really glad that you liked this post!!! Thank's alot for your responses, and ksimms2 that really is a fantastic Christmas pic of our guy!!!!!:xmas:(y):king:(y):newyear::newyear:

Getlo
12-21-2007, 07:01 PM
A fine review indeed.

It's all very subjective though. Yes, there were some okay shows in 1977 - even this one perhaps, I don't recall if I've ever heard it - but 1977 was not "pure Elvis". No way, no how.

Let's look at excerpts of a review of the show from the following night, Rochester, May 25, 1977.

ROCHESTER TIMES UNION
MAY 26, 1977

ELVIS SINGS LOW AND LAZY - WITHOUT HALF-TRYING
By David Stearns.

Elvis just didn't seem to be trying.

He mumbled semiaudibly and apparently didn't feel the need for courtesies like facing the audience while singing. He also slowed the show down by taking his own sweet time sipping drinks between numbers.

We went in wanting music and left wishing Elvis cared enough to give us more of it.

marijaep
12-21-2007, 07:15 PM
Thanks for sharing Nolvis :notworthy:D

presley31
12-21-2007, 09:42 PM
Thanks for sharing

nolvis
12-21-2007, 11:00 PM
:xmas:Your very welcome!!!:xmas:(y):newyear:(y)(y):king:(y):newyea r:

Kris P
12-21-2007, 11:19 PM
.............no matter how much speculation there is 30 years later, it goes to show he could still give the punters their monies worth right up till the end.

Thats' simply not true.

Elvis gave poor performances, maybe not at the show in question, but he did.

Why fans persist in pretending Elvis was still performing great and deny his health problems is a mystery to me.

He was unhelthy, he shoudlen't have been on stage and he was not capable mentally or physically of knocking them dead towards the end.

It's sad but true.....Grob and Thomspon even had plans on what to do with his body should be die on tour.

Hold the phone.
Please re-read my post...............I used the word 'could'...........also I have stated elsewhere on this forum that EP's performances were not always up to scratch..............a fact that is plainly obvious to any subjective thinker.
As for your statement re Presely being unable to 'knock them dead towards the end', please refer to several posters on this very MB who actually attended 1977 performances and you will find your statement is simply untrue.

Kris P
12-21-2007, 11:37 PM
A fine review indeed.

It's all very subjective though. Yes, there were some okay shows in 1977 - even this one perhaps, I don't recall if I've ever heard it - but 1977 was not "pure Elvis". No way, no how.

Let's look at excerpts of a review of the show from the following night, Rochester, May 25, 1977.

ROCHESTER TIMES UNION
MAY 26, 1977

ELVIS SINGS LOW AND LAZY - WITHOUT HALF-TRYING
By David Stearns.

Elvis just didn't seem to be trying.

He mumbled semiaudibly and apparently didn't feel the need for courtesies like facing the audience while singing. He also slowed the show down by taking his own sweet time sipping drinks between numbers.

We went in wanting music and left wishing Elvis cared enough to give us more of it.

Just curious, why do you feel the need to counter a couple of good reviews with a bad one?
Most do not need to be hit over the head with a big "Elvis had major problems" stick and any that do should be just left to enjoy being a fan.

nolvis
12-21-2007, 11:55 PM
:xmas:It's great to hear from someone like you Kris P!!!!! Thank's alot for your great support for our guy, and to everyone else that can see that Elvis was pure magic right up to his last concert (AND BEYOND!), thank-you to you's,y' all,er,ah, to all of you for seeing the positiveness in Elvis right to the very end!!!!!:xmas:(y):king:(y):newyear::newyear:

Getlo
12-21-2007, 11:57 PM
Just curious, why do you feel the need to counter a couple of good reviews with a bad one?

It's actually a matter of countering blinkered fantasy with reality.

Kris P
12-22-2007, 12:33 AM
It's actually a matter of countering blinkered fantasy with reality.


Is there a problem with 'fantasy'.......I mean is it causing you grief?

Once again, it is proved beyond doubt via accounts from those on this MB that were actually there and reviews of the time, that Presley could still cut it, even with the plethora of personal problems with which he was beset.

Getlo
12-22-2007, 01:02 AM
Once again, it is proved beyond doubt via accounts from those on this MB that were actually there and reviews of the time, that Presley could still cut it, even with the plethora of personal problems with which he was beset.

I'd suggest you re-read the review I posted. That reviewer was there too - he didn't like the show. Or do you only choose to believe positive reviews? If I have four reviews about a show, all of which say it was bad, then it was probably bad. If it's a mixture, as some reviews show, then who knows? If all reviews say it was good, chances are they're right. Reviewers are more objective than straight-out fans anyway.

What I'm saying is, it's all subjective.

You can't seriously say Elvis could still cut it every time. And that's what some of the "1977 is pure Elvis" posts/posters are saying.

It's simply not true.

What do you expect the people on this MB to say about the shows they went to? ... they are fans who were probably thrilled to have seen him. I also know fans who saw him at the end, and thought he was a shambling mess. Both opinions are valid; it's all about one's point of view.

One good review, like that first one printed above, is absolutely no reason to say that 1977 was a good year overall. Just as one bad one isn't an encapsulation of all that was wrong in the final year. Each show - via reviews, and now videos and soundboards, should be judged on its individual merits, and not used to describe an entire era or oeuvre.

cameron
12-22-2007, 01:17 AM
Is there a problem with 'fantasy'.......I mean is it causing you grief?

Once again, it is proved beyond doubt via accounts from those on this MB that were actually there and reviews of the time, that Presley could still cut it, even with the plethora of personal problems with which he was beset.

For what's it's worth; I agree with you. Most people are well aware of all the negatives. It's not necessary to beat everyone over the head until there's really no discussion. It just ends up with who can holler the loudest.
For the ones that "just don't like anyone" including Elvis, maybe they could start their own thread and I'd be happy to stay out of it.

Kris P
12-22-2007, 01:39 AM
You can't seriously say Elvis could still cut it every time. It's simply not true.
Where did I say that.
Please get your facts straight, it would be appreciated.


What do you expect the people on this MB to say about the shows they went to?
I don't expect them to say anything, though I am happy they have provided some firsthand and somewhat glowing accounts of Elvis, circa 1977.

One good review, like that first one printed above, is absolutely no reason to say that 1977 was a good year overall.
Wrong again....I have never said this.

Each show - via reviews, and now videos and soundboards, should be judged on its individual merits, and not used to describe an entire era or oeuvre.

Hallelujah!

Getlo
12-22-2007, 01:57 AM
Where did I say that.
Please get your facts straight, it would be appreciated.

Here:


Once again, it is proved beyond doubt via accounts from those on this MB that were actually there and reviews of the time, that Presley could still cut it, even with the plethora of personal problems with which he was beset.

No other inference could have been made.


Wrong again....I have never said this.

I was referring to the "1977 pure Elvis" posters in general, and to the overall tone of your post.

Cryogenic
12-22-2007, 02:12 AM
Here:


Once again, it is proved beyond doubt via accounts from those on this MB that were actually there and reviews of the time, that Presley could still cut it, even with the plethora of personal problems with which he was beset.

No other inference could have been made.

Actually, other inferences could have been made -- you just chose not to make them. Like you earlier said: it's all subjective. With that in mind, however....

I do believe the selected reviews at the outset of this thread to be a little soft. There is little to no musical criticism (though the positive appraisal of "My Way" is a cherished exception). It seems the reviewers were awestruck by the event itself; the latter even noted this. Still, I appreciate their decision not to trash EP; instead, they appear to have translated their real feelings to print, which were clearly very positive. On that basis, EP still had it.

Kris P
12-22-2007, 02:15 AM
Once again, it is proved beyond doubt via accounts from those on this MB that were actually there and reviews of the time, that Presley could still cut it, even with the plethora of personal problems with which he was beset.

You can't seriously say Elvis could still cut it every time. It's simply not true.

Where did I say that.
Please get your facts straight, it would be appreciated.



No other inference could have been made.


Are you joking?
As english may not be your first language, here is the definition of the verb 'could' as used be me, above:

could.....
(used to express possibility): I wonder who that could be at the door. That couldn't be true.
(used to express conditional possibility or ability): You could do it if you tried.

Hope this helps.

Kris P
12-22-2007, 02:17 AM
@Cryo............you nailed it.

jak
12-22-2007, 02:42 AM
One of my wife's best friends attended one of those show's in Maryland in 76.I think Elvis performed twice that day but I'm not positive which show she attended.I think it was the evening show.We discussed the show at length because I have the audio to these performances and she requested a copy.Those shows were decent ones by Elvis.Above average for most 76 shows.Our friend said musically he did pretty well that night but she was saddened by his appearance.She had good seats plus binoculars.She said he just appeared bloated and pale looking.She saw him something like 55 times starting in 71 through 77.
I've said many times it's hard to get an honest appraisal of an Elvis concert from an eager fan who attended because I think many saw what they wanted to see no matter what.I once talked to the president of a photography dept of a major university who photographed Elvis in concert several times.The first time he did this was in 74 and the last being in 76.He told me he was stunned when he saw Elvis for the last time in concert.He told me Elvis was barely coherent when he talked and was obviously under the influence of something.He just didnt look good at all that night and gave a listless performance.He went on to say that in spite of what he saw that night it seemed as if bolts of electricity were shooting out of him and striking people in the audience.He said the people near him at the front were having a religious experience they were so excited.Those people certainly got their money's worth in spite of his observations.I mention this because it's a reminder that many of the faithfull were going to see a dynamic Elvis concert no matter what actually transpired that evening.Obviously not all Elvis concerts in 76 or 77 were all bad.The bad certainly do outweigh the quality shows in my opinion.As much as I wish I could have seen all those shows ,I still must acknowledge that I would have been seeing Elvis as but a mere shadow of his former self.
Jak

cameron
12-22-2007, 05:07 AM
Quote:"I still must acknowledge that I would have been seeing Elvis as but a mere shadow of his former self." Quote jak

I expect in a few years.. or sooner, we too will be a mere shawdow of our former selves. That's a part of life. It doesn't mean we're a different person than we once were. Nor do we need love and acceptance any the less.
The outer covering will wear out . The inner self remains the same.

Tell me, jak. What do you know about Elvis' life in the 70's?
Just pick one and tell me what you know and your method for dealling with just that one thing. Taking into account you still have bills to pay, a chiild to raise , alimony to pay and a payroll to meet .

Paternity suit
Divorce =2 million settlement
Lawsuits from bodyguards being too rough with fans
making karate movie
Raquetball courts
Swindled =1 million on airplane
glaucoma
colon problem=needed surgery
Diabetic
fired Parker =Parker came up with money Elvis owed him

jak
12-22-2007, 01:34 PM
Quote:"I still must acknowledge that I would have been seeing Elvis as but a mere shadow of his former self." Quote jak

I expect in a few years.. or sooner, we too will be a mere shawdow of our former selves. That's a part of life. It doesn't mean we're a different person than we once were. Nor do we need love and acceptance any the less.
The outer covering will wear out . The inner self remains the same.

Tell me, jak. What do you know about Elvis' life in the 70's?
Just pick one and tell me what you know and your method for dealling with just that one thing. Taking into account you still have bills to pay, a chiild to raise , alimony to pay and a payroll to meet .

Paternity suit
Divorce =2 million settlement
Lawsuits from bodyguards being too rough with fans
making karate movie
Raquetball courts
Swindled =1 million on airplane
glaucoma
colon problem=needed surgery
Diabetic
fired Parker =Parker came up with money Elvis owed him

Elvis was a mere shadow of his self because he was a drug addict.He destroyed himself by his own hand.The problems Elvis had were nothing compared to what everyday people deal with all the time.The everyday people dont have the luxury of making millions of dollrs to combat them either.The amout of money that you listed above was chicken feed to Elvis.How about a guy with a family trying to make a mortage payment and keep his house warm making a hourly wage?How about that guy getting sick and not being able to work.I never want to hear that poor Elvis routine.Most of his health problems which you always overstate were do to his unhealthy lifestyle and drug abuse.Elvis had it all so give me a break.I personally know dozens of people whose problems dwarf Elvis'.So does everybody else on the board.Elvis threw his life away.
Jak

jak
12-22-2007, 01:37 PM
" expect in a few years.. or sooner, we too will be a mere shawdow of our former selves. That's a part of life."

At the proper time.Elvis got there before his time because of his own doing.Big difference.You cant even bring yourself to admit he was in a terrible state without trying to cloak the cirumstances in excuses.

cameron
12-22-2007, 01:55 PM
Elvis was a mere shadow of his self because he was a drug addict.He destroyed himself by his own hand.The problems Elvis had were nothing compared to what everyday people deal with all the time.The everyday people dont have the luxury of making millions of dollrs to combat them either.The amout of money that you listed above was chicken feed to Elvis.How about a guy with a family trying to make a mortage payment and keep his house warm making a hourly wage?How about that guy getting sick and not being able to work.I never want to hear that poor Elvis routine.Most of his health problems which you always overstate were do to his unhealthy lifestyle and drug abuse.Elvis had it all so give me a break.I personally know dozens of people whose problems dwarf Elvis'.So does everybody else on the board.Elvis threw his life away.
Jak
Elvis supported many people, including the "friends" that turned on him.

You STILL have not answered your solution to one thing I've mentioned. It's all true ...and more. You still refuse to look at the "whole picture " and only concentrate on one area. Very sad .

cameron
12-22-2007, 02:00 PM
At the proper time.Elvis got there before his time because of his own doing.Big difference.You cant even bring yourself to admit he was in a terrible state without trying to cloak the cirumstances in excuses.

Unfortunately, it is you and others that refuse to look at all facets of Elvis' life . I "cloak" nothing, but like to bring the whole thing out into the light, instead of dwelling on one aspect only.
You want to "pick apart " Elvis' life ? Then be fair and tell all of it, not just the small part you choose.

jak
12-22-2007, 04:11 PM
Elvis supported many people, including the "friends" that turned on him.

You STILL have not answered your solution to one thing I've mentioned. It's all true ...and more. You still refuse to look at the "whole picture " and only concentrate on one area. Very sad .

The solution was not to obtain and abuse drugs.Dont get lazy and satisfied.It's you that doesnt see the big picture.Youre blind worship doesnt doesnt even afford you the opportunity to critique him in anyway which is ludicrous.Tell me again how Elvis had such a tremendously hard life that was more than anybody could bear.Give me a break.

cameron
12-22-2007, 04:21 PM
The solution was not to obtain and abuse drugs.Dont get lazy and satisfied.It's you that doesnt see the big picture.Youre blind worship doesnt doesnt even afford you the opportunity to critique him in anyway which is ludicrous.Tell me again how Elvis had such a tremendously hard life that was more than anybody could bear.Give me a break.

IF you would look ; you would see who started the medications he was on and what they did to him. One place you can look is in Careless Love.
That book has "no blind worship" but, it does tell much of the truth you refuse to look at.

Yes, Elvis had a rough life ; because he trusted the wrong people ....including some if his doctors.
Of course, I can see what happened to him. Some is his fault; some not.
To blame him entirely is what's ludicrous.

jak
12-22-2007, 04:38 PM
IF you would look ; you would see who started the medications he was on and what they did to him. One place you can look is in Careless Love.
That book has "no blind worship" but, it does tell much of the truth you refuse to look at.

Yes, Elvis had a rough life ; because he trusted the wrong people ....including some if his doctors.
Of course, I can see what happened to him. Some is his fault; some not.
To blame him entirely is what's ludicrous.

Glad you qouted Careless Love because it does portray Elvis without sugar coating it.It doesnt pull any punches.Youre not going to find justification for his drug use in that book.Youre the one that wont look at the truth.I can talk about both sides of Elvis.The artist of the century and the weak drug addict.People like youreself cannot discuss his dual personality or be comfortable when others discuss it.I am a student of his career and music.People like yourself dont really even know that much about the important aspect of his life which was the music.You are content to cling to the image and listen to the few RCA Victor recordings you have and all is well in the Elvis world, until the malcontents dare to threaten this by discussing the reality that Elvis himself created.These non fans are not keepers of the flame like you real fans I guess.
Jak

cameron
12-22-2007, 04:44 PM
Glad you qouted Careless Love because it does portray Elvis without sugar coating it.It doesnt pull any punches.Youre not going to find justification for his drug use in that book.Youre the one that wont look at the truth.I can talk about both sides of Elvis.The artist of the century and the weak drug addict.People like youreself cannot discuss his dual personality or be comfortable when others discuss it.I am a student of his career and music.People like yourself dont really even know that much about the important aspect of his life which was the music.You are content to cling to the image and listen to the few RCA Victor recordings you have and all is well in the Elvis world, until the malcontents dare to threaten this by discussing the reality that Elvis himself created.These non fans are not keepers of the flame like you real fans I guess.
Jak
You'd do yourself a favor by re-reading that book then. I think you missed a few things. IF your only interested in the music, then perhaps you might discuss that and leave his private life private .
It appears you're not so interested in the truth of the mans life. \
BTW: There's quite a few more books on his life out here too you might want to check out. ;)

jak
12-22-2007, 04:51 PM
[QUOTE=cameron;169559]You'd do yourself a favor by re-reading that book then. I think you missed a few things. IF your only interested in the music, then perhaps you might discuss that and leave his private life private .
It appears you're not so interested in the truth of the mans life. [/QUOTE

Unfortunately Elvis wasted his talent because of what he did in his private life.His drug abuse robbed the man of what made him great.His creativity and creative zeal were crushed by his desire to do drugs.The effect of his drug abuse on his music cannot be ignored.Im surprised you didnt know that.
Jak

cameron
12-22-2007, 04:54 PM
Unfortunately Elvis wasted his talent because of what he did in his private life.His drug abuse robbed the man of what made him great.His creativity and creative zeal were crushed by his desire to do drugs.The effect of his drug abuse on his music cannot be ignored.Im surprised you didnt know that.
Jak
Unfortunately, you don't appear to know or acknowledge the truth of his private life .

Sonny
12-22-2007, 05:04 PM
Get back on track here.

All new replies seem valid to me. Keep an open mind.

Sonny

jak
12-22-2007, 06:37 PM
Unfortunately, you don't appear to know or acknowledge the truth of his private life .

I keep forgetting how rough Elvis had it.

cameron
12-22-2007, 06:51 PM
I keep forgetting how rough Elvis had it.

I've noticed .;)

Rover
12-22-2007, 07:19 PM
Thanks for posting this Nolvis...I didn't know that My Way wasn't well accepted. Or maybe the guy who wrote this review has not the same opinion as most of the fans?

Cryogenic
12-22-2007, 07:22 PM
Tell me again how Elvis had such a tremendously hard life that was more than anybody could bear.Give me a break.

- Crushing level of fame / recognition. He couldn't go anywhere without the almost-certain occurrence of being followed and bothered.

- Death of his mother. Everyone experiences death, but Elvis had a staggeringly close relationship with Gladys. He became a lot more insular with her passing.

- Elvis was born into dirt-poor surroundings. He lived a basic life for what turned out to be half his existence. He became a star overnight and wasn't equipped to deal with it. He needed advice and guidance; he got Colonel Parker.

- Because of the nature of his fame, tremendous expectations were placed on him. He was a rebel, so he was "drafted". He was a movie star, so he had to "fulfil" his contracts. He was a singer, so he had to do "approved" material. He was a sex god, so he had to "perform". As talented as he was, it was tough for him to break the mold. His looks were another double-edged sword; he was marketed as a commodity, he seemed unbelievable in his roles (a Martian playing an aspiring writer, a boxer, a racing driver, a doctor etc.) and people presumed to see a trim Adonis on stage.

He was boxed in in so many ways. One shouldn't just lament that boxing in, however; one should celebrate the smashing out. The wit, the verve, the sass, the style, the reinvention. All uniquely his.

Getlo
12-22-2007, 07:34 PM
Are you joking?
As english may not be your first language, here is the definition of the verb 'could' as used be me, above:

could.....
(used to express possibility): I wonder who that could be at the door. That couldn't be true.
(used to express conditional possibility or ability): You could do it if you tried.

Hope this helps.

As a former English teacher, I can assure you I am perfectly aware of the meaning of the word "could", and in which context in might be used.

I stand by my statement: no other inference could have been made.

By the way, "English" should always be written with a capital E.

Hope this helps.

Getlo
12-22-2007, 07:35 PM
Still, I appreciate their decision not to trash EP; instead, they appear to have translated their real feelings to print, which were clearly very positive. On that basis, EP still had it.

Are you including the Rochester review in this statement as well?

Getlo
12-22-2007, 07:38 PM
You still refuse to look at the "whole picture " and only concentrate on one area. Very sad .

????????????????????????????????? :blink::blink::blink:

Getlo
12-22-2007, 07:41 PM
To blame him entirely is what's ludicrous.

It would be ludicrous if someone did that; you're right.

Jak has never done this; neither has Stryx, myself nor any other poster who can see the whole picture.

Getlo
12-22-2007, 07:46 PM
Yes, Elvis had a rough life ; because he trusted the wrong people.

So, when did his "rough" life stop? Was it still rough after he became famous?

If anything, his life was rough only until he hit it big.

Getlo
12-22-2007, 07:48 PM
Unfortunately, you don't appear to know or acknowledge the truth of his private life .

What is that truth then?

cameron
12-22-2007, 08:00 PM
So, when did his "rough" life stop? Was it still rough after he became famous?

If anything, his life was rough only until he hit it big.

IMO, his life just got rougher . Money does not cure all things ,in spite of what some seem to believe.

Getlo
12-22-2007, 08:00 PM
- Crushing level of fame / recognition. He couldn't go anywhere without the almost-certain occurrence of being followed and bothered.

He knew what he was getting into; and if he didn't, he could have made the choice to go back to truckdriving. He chose to live the isolated life: he could have gone out in public, and people would have accepted it over time.


Death of his mother. Everyone experiences death, but Elvis had a staggeringly close relationship with Gladys. He became a lot more insular with her passing.

Still doesn't equate to a rough life, nor anything more than anyone else could bear.


Elvis was born into dirt-poor surroundings.

So are millions of other people around the world, and thousands of Americans every year. Still doesn't equate to a rough life - not from 1954 or so onwards anyway - nor anything more than anyone else could bear.


He was a rebel, so he was "drafted".

He was drafted because his number came up.


He was a movie star, so he had to "fulfil" his contracts. He was a singer, so he had to do "approved" material. He was a sex god, so he had to "perform".

So where's the rough life, or the stuff that's more than anyone could bear?


His looks were another double-edged sword; he was marketed as a commodity, he seemed unbelievable in his roles (a Martian playing an aspiring writer, a boxer, a racing driver, a doctor etc.) and people presumed to see a trim Adonis on stage.

Again ... rough??! And, at many points in his career, he could have said "No, I've had enough of the movies/crap songs/The Colonel" (fill in your own negatives here) and made some changes.

A rough life is one that deals with abuse, violence, living in poverty, or with disease, starvation, denial of education. As far as I remember, Elvis suffered from none of these, aside from relative poverty in the early years.

cameron
12-22-2007, 08:05 PM
We're way off topic here . Start a new thread if you want to discuss all this.

Raised on Rock
12-22-2007, 08:21 PM
Elvis was a mere shadow of his self because he was a drug addict.He destroyed himself by his own hand.The problems Elvis had were nothing compared to what everyday people deal with all the time.The everyday people dont have the luxury of making millions of dollrs to combat them either.The amout of money that you listed above was chicken feed to Elvis.How about a guy with a family trying to make a mortage payment and keep his house warm making a hourly wage?How about that guy getting sick and not being able to work.I never want to hear that poor Elvis routine.Most of his health problems which you always overstate were do to his unhealthy lifestyle and drug abuse.Elvis had it all so give me a break.I personally know dozens of people whose problems dwarf Elvis'.So does everybody else on the board.Elvis threw his life away.
Jak

Elvis hadnīt it easy in '77, but all of his problems (and I agree with Jack 100% here, they where really not such big deal compared with what every day people had to deal with) were nothing but the result of his own actions, and we got to deal with that, all of us, we canīt blame others, we canīt excusse our selves saying we had the odd circumstances, shit is the result of our own actions.

Elvis failed to deal with his addiction, with his bad habits, he failed to deal with many of his psichological issues "demos" if you may call it that way, he failed, just like millions of other people around the world, famous or not, just as we constantly have faults in everyday life. But thatīs what life is about isnīt? we got to keep going, and Elvis keep going utill the end, and I do respect the man for it, thereīs nothing to laugh about his failures, its sad, its a pitty he wasnīt able to get himself together once again.

I think he did enough of great things in life to not to be judged as a total loser, its not about that, but denying his faults change non, better to take a personal lesson out of that.

Going back to topic, thanks for these reviews, sure, Elvis still had good moments during his last years, he was still the man, adored and respected by billions no matter what, and he deserved that respect, we worked hard for it, but YES, ELVIS IT WAS TIME TO TAKE A BREAK.

jak
12-22-2007, 08:26 PM
- Crushing level of fame / recognition. He couldn't go anywhere without the almost-certain occurrence of being followed and bothered.

- Death of his mother. Everyone experiences death, but Elvis had a staggeringly close relationship with Gladys. He became a lot more insular with her passing.

- Elvis was born into dirt-poor surroundings. He lived a basic life for what turned out to be half his existence. He became a star overnight and wasn't equipped to deal with it. He needed advice and guidance; he got Colonel Parker.

- Because of the nature of his fame, tremendous expectations were placed on him. He was a rebel, so he was "drafted". He was a movie star, so he had to "fulfil" his contracts. He was a singer, so he had to do "approved" material. He was a sex god, so he had to "perform". As talented as he was, it was tough for him to break the mold. His looks were another double-edged sword; he was marketed as a commodity, he seemed unbelievable in his roles (a Martian playing an aspiring writer, a boxer, a racing driver, a doctor etc.) and people presumed to see a trim Adonis on stage.

He was boxed in in so many ways. One shouldn't just lament that boxing in, however; one should celebrate the smashing out. The wit, the verve, the sass, the style, the reinvention. All uniquely his.

Elvis loved the fame and noteriety for the most part.He craved attention.The stars of today actually have it far worse than he did.That was the price of his fame.He wanted to be famous and he loved it.
I had an extremely close relationship with my mother and I watched her suffer in a hospital and finally die after experiencing suffering I couldnt begin to imagine.His mom passing is an excuse for nothing.
Elvis could have surrounded himself with different advisers if he had chosen to do so.He did not.
I will never accept the poor Elvis theory.Elvis had the world at his feet.After his comeback it was him alone that flushed it down the toilet.Money and fame doesnt cure all the problems.It does however take away many obstacles.Elvis had it made no matter what anybody says.Once again I say average people have it far worse than he could ever imagine.People try to justify and rationalize his decline because it's to hard to accept that he could have ended up that way.
Jak

Cryogenic
12-22-2007, 08:28 PM
Sorry, cameron. You're absolutely correct. Yet one individual has just made a string of unchallenged, negative posts. Some may find that acceptable; I do not. I'll be brief.


Are you including the Rochester review in this statement as well?

No. And I made that explicit (for your benefit, actually) when I said:

"I do believe the selected reviews at the outset of this thread to be a little soft"

Operative word: outset; meaning: start, beginning.

For a "former English teacher", you surprise me. And as an EP fan, well...


He knew what he was getting into; and if he didn't, he could have made the choice to go back to truckdriving. He chose to live the isolated life: he could have gone out in public, and people would have accepted it over time.



Still doesn't equate to a rough life, nor anything more than anyone else could bear.



So are millions of other people around the world, and thousands of Americans every year. Still doesn't equate to a rough life - not from 1954 or so onwards anyway - nor anything more than anyone else could bear.



He was drafted because his number came up.



So where's the rough life, or the stuff that's more than anyone could bear?



Again ... rough??! And, at many points in his career, he could have said "No, I've had enough of the movies/crap songs/The Colonel" (fill in your own negatives here) and made some changes.

A rough life is one that deals with abuse, violence, living in poverty, or with disease, starvation, denial of education. As far as I remember, Elvis suffered from none of these, aside from relative poverty in the early years.

You've taken all my cogent examples and garbled them. Breaking them down one by one also misses a key point: it's not any of the factors on their own that were necessarily crushing; it was all the factors working together. Almost everywhere Elvis turned, he was confronted with major obstacles because of who he was. On the other hand, you're not entirely wrong. It was up to him to overcome those obstacles and make a go of it. He and he alone. You and Jak are both correct in this context. If our two ideologies can be strung together, then I believe it can be done through the observation that member Kris P has already made: Elvis Presley was the sum of his hopes and fears, like us all; his story is a commentary on being human: the good, the bad and everything in between.

jak
12-22-2007, 08:28 PM
Elvis hadnīt it easy in '77, but all of his problems (and I agree with Jack 100% here, they where really not such big deal compared with what every day people had to deal with) were nothing but the result of his own actions, and we got to deal with that, all of us, we canīt blame others, we canīt excusse our selves saying we had the odd circumstances, shit is the result of our own actions.

Elvis failed to deal with his addiction, with his bad habits, he failed to deal with many of his psichological issues "demos" if you may call it that way, he failed, just like millions of other people around the world, famous or not, just as we constantly have faults in everyday life. But thatīs what life is about isnīt? we got to keep going, and Elvis keep going utill the end, and I do respect the man for it, thereīs nothing to laugh about his failures, its sad, its a pitty he wasnīt able to get himself together once again.

I think he did enough of great things in life to not to be judged as a total loser, its not about that, but denying his faults change non, better to take a personal lesson out of that.

Going back to topic, thanks for these reviews, sure, Elvis still had good moments during his last years, he was still the man, adored and respected by billions no matter what, and he deserved that respect, we worked hard for it, but YES, ELVIS IT WAS TIME TO TAKE A BREAK.

Outstanding post!!!

Stryx
12-23-2007, 07:29 PM
Hold the phone.
Please re-read my post...............I used the word 'could'...........also I have stated elsewhere on this forum that EP's performances were not always up to scratch..............a fact that is plainly obvious to any subjective thinker.
As for your statement re Presely being unable to 'knock them dead towards the end', please refer to several posters on this very MB who actually attended 1977 performances and you will find your statement is simply untrue.

I fear your feelings towards Elvis are clouding your judgment.

You do know fans requested their money back during some the Dec 76' shows in Vegas?

I'm an Elvis fan so I don't want to slag him too much...but do some homework and you'll see he was no great shakes towards the end. The man wasn't well and he didn't seem all that bothered.

jak
12-23-2007, 07:45 PM
"The man wasn't well and he didn't seem all that bothered."

That's the troubling part.He never even tried to turn things around.I have to think he was truly oblivious to the depths his life and career had fallen.Otherwise he would have known just how much he was losing and would have made an attempt to turn it around.
Jak

LianaKaralivanou
12-23-2007, 08:57 PM
Although Elvis was fat in 1976-77 and he didn't perform as he used to, I would KILL to be present in one of his shows...

cameron
12-23-2007, 09:19 PM
Although Elvis was fat in 1976-77 and he didn't perform as he used to, I would KILL to be present in one of his shows...

:hmm:

I saw Elvis in March of 1977 . He looked pretty good to me.
Sounded great too !! Some folks exaggerate .
Wish you could have been there too.

LianaKaralivanou
12-23-2007, 09:39 PM
:hmm:

I saw Elvis in March of 1977 . He looked pretty good to me.
Sounded great too !! Some folks exaggerate .
Wish you could have been there too.



I wish that too, Cameron but I was three years old when he died. I'm so unlucky...:sad:

nolvis
12-23-2007, 09:51 PM
:xmas:That's really awesome that you got to see Elvis in person cameron!!!!!:xmas:(y):king:(y):newyear:

cameron
12-23-2007, 11:27 PM
Only once, Nolvis, only once . Many have seen him much more than I have.
Must admit; I enjoyed it completely. :)

Getlo
12-24-2007, 12:11 AM
I saw Elvis in March of 1977 . He looked pretty good to me.Sounded great too !! Some folks exaggerate.

Yes ma'am, some of them do indeed ...

elvislady
12-24-2007, 06:01 PM
:hmm:

I saw Elvis in March of 1977 . He looked pretty good to me.
Sounded great too !! Some folks exaggerate .
Wish you could have been there too.

You are really lucky to see elvis, it must have been a great experiance.
elvislady:)

cameron
12-24-2007, 06:05 PM
It was an unexpected pleasure to get to see Elvis.
I'm so glad I got to see him perform at least once. :newyear:

elvislady
12-24-2007, 06:08 PM
It was an unexpected pleasure to get to see Elvis.
I'm so glad I got to see him perform at least once. :newyear:

Juat once would be great.:xmas:
elvislady:)

Diane
12-24-2007, 06:39 PM
I wish everyone could have seen him at least just once. I was one of the lucky ones who saw him twice.....never to be forgotten experience, couldn't if I tried.

Diane

nolvis
12-24-2007, 11:56 PM
:xmas:I can only imagine Diane and cameron!!!!!:xmas:(y):king:(y):newyear::newyear:

Getlo
12-25-2007, 09:33 PM
Are you including the Rochester review in this statement as well?



No. And I made that explicit (for your benefit, actually) when I said:

"I do believe the selected reviews at the outset of this thread to be a little soft"

Operative word: outset; meaning: start, beginning.

For a "former English teacher", you surprise me.

Hence my question: "Are you including the Rochester review in this statement as well?"

Operative words: "as well", meaning "in addition to", as in the theoretical sentence "in addition to the reviews published at the outset of this thread". Your statement was clear that you were only talking about the first two reviews, certainly. Hence my folow-up query. It's very simple.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

For a 24-year-old student stretching his "intellectual" wings ... you don't surprise me in the least.

Kris P
12-25-2007, 10:20 PM
I fear your feelings towards Elvis are clouding your judgment.
I know, you should try it sometime.


You do know fans requested their money back during some the Dec 76' shows in Vegas?
Oh no!
Guess what, some fans didn't like what they saw in Vegas '56.:blink:


I'm an Elvis fan so I don't want to slag him too much...
Then maybe try a little harder.

Kris P
12-25-2007, 10:28 PM
As a former English teacher, I can assure you I am perfectly aware of the meaning of the word "could", and in which context in might be used.

I stand by my statement: no other inference could have been made.


Then I would seriously have to doubt your credentials as a "former English teacher".
;)

Getlo
12-25-2007, 10:56 PM
Then I would seriously have to doubt your credentials as a "former English teacher".
;)

Which is precisely why you and Cryo would be wrong.

Getlo
12-25-2007, 11:11 PM
Oh no!Guess what, some fans didn't like what they saw in Vegas '56.:blink:

There were very few actual Elvis fans in the audience in Vegas 1956, and none of them would have asked for their money back.

If anyone did though (source for the Vegas '56 walkouts please?) it would have been older patrons who were not fans.

cameron
12-25-2007, 11:21 PM
Then I would seriously have to doubt your credentials as a "former English teacher".
;)

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with you.

Getlo
12-25-2007, 11:24 PM
I'm afraid I'd have to agree with you.

Please tell us all where I misinterpreted the meaning of the word "could", or made an error when asking if Rochester was included in Cryo's diatribe (remember, I used the expression "as well" in my query).

Don't hitch your wagon to the wrong star, cameron. :lmfao:

cameron
12-25-2007, 11:36 PM
Please tell us all where I misinterpreted the meaning of the word "could", or made an error when asking if Rochester was included in Cryo's diatribe (remember, I used the expression "as well" in my query).

Don't hitch your wagon to the wrong star, cameron. :lmfao:
I make my own decisions; unlike some.

Provide your source. :P

Getlo
12-25-2007, 11:39 PM
Provide your source. :P

I'll assume this was an attempt at humour.

My "source" is the very words I wrote on my two posts - neither of which was incorrect in any way.

Kris P
12-26-2007, 01:08 AM
There were very few actual Elvis fans in the audience in Vegas 1956, and none of them would have asked for their money back.

If anyone did though (source for the Vegas '56 walkouts please?) it would have been older patrons who were not fans.

Are you sure you taught English?
1. I never stated anyone in Las Vegas circa 1956 asked for their money back.
2. I also never stated any of them walked out.

What I did say was:

.....some fans didn't like what they saw in Vegas '56.

Clear enough?

Kris P
12-26-2007, 01:12 AM
Don't hitch your wagon to the wrong star, cameron. :lmfao:


As Cameron is one of the few on this MB who has actually witnessed an Elvis Presley concert, I feel his opinion is an informed one and as such, his wagon is hitched to the facts.

utmom2008
12-26-2007, 01:16 AM
As Cameron is one of the few on this MB who has actually witnessed an Elvis Presley concert, I feel his opinion is an informed one and as such, his wagon is hitched to the facts.
There are more of us on here than you may first realize.....I've seen him 10 times(Vegas and concerts) and SweetCaroline has seen him lots and lots of times. :D

cameron
12-26-2007, 01:21 AM
Just because some have seen him in concert ; makes one no better than any other .

utmom2008
12-26-2007, 01:23 AM
Just because some have seen him in concert ; makes one no better than any other .
Did I miss the post where someone said that it did?? :hmm:

Diane
12-26-2007, 01:31 AM
Lol Rosanne, the twisting of one's posts can really go haywire at times and this one did. :)

Diane

SweetCaroline
12-26-2007, 02:51 AM
Just wanted to pop in and thank Nolvis for posting those wonderful reviews and pictures.
It is nice to see positive things on Elvis being posted on the board. :notworthy

cameron
12-26-2007, 03:09 AM
Assuring younger fans or some that weren't able to get to a concert ....it doesn't matter if you saw him or not.
Sometimes you "see more" than the ones that were there . ;) :)

utmom2008
12-26-2007, 03:14 AM
Lol Rosanne, the twisting of one's posts can really go haywire at times and this one did. :)

Diane

You are so right Diane...especially when there is someone lurking around the corner waiting to twist it!:D;):D

:newyear:

utmom2008
12-26-2007, 03:24 AM
I make my own decisions; unlike some.


?????????? :nono::nono::nono::nono:

Getlo
12-26-2007, 07:31 AM
Clear enough?

Mmm ... yes.

But what was your response in reply to again?

Stryx said, "You do know fans requested their money back during some the Dec 76' shows" ...

... to which you replied, "Oh no! Guess what, some fans didn't like what they saw in Vegas '56"

So had you changed subjects from money back to simply not liking what they saw?

If so, that doesn't quite counter Stryx's point.

Getlo
12-26-2007, 07:34 AM
As Cameron is one of the few on this MB who has actually witnessed an Elvis Presley concert, I feel his opinion is an informed one and as such, his wagon is hitched to the facts.

This is no disrespect to cameron or anyone who had the pleasure of seeing Elvis live, but just because they witnessed him in action does not make them any more hitched to any facts than anyone else. They would be more hitched to anything about whichever shows they attended ... perhaps.

Getlo
12-26-2007, 07:35 AM
Just because some have seen him in concert ; makes one no better than any other .

Straight from the horses' mouth.

Thank you.

Kris P
12-26-2007, 08:44 AM
Mmm ... yes.

But what was your response in reply to again?

Stryx said, "You do know fans requested their money back during some the Dec 76' shows" ...

... to which you replied, "Oh no! Guess what, some fans didn't like what they saw in Vegas '56"

So had you changed subjects from money back to simply not liking what they saw?


Not quite............a change in subject would have been me going from disappointed fans wanting their money back to me discussing the merits of Presley's use of Brut 33 between the years 1974 and 1977.;)

Johnny
12-26-2007, 12:19 PM
Oh no!
Guess what, some fans didn't like what they saw in Vegas '56.:blink:

As far as I know, older people that weren't his fans outweighted the fans that attended - the fans that attended in Las Vegas in 1956 did like what they saw, bud sadly they were just in minority

Getlo
12-27-2007, 01:40 AM
Not quite............a change in subject would have been me going from disappointed fans wanting their money back to me discussing the merits of Presley's use of Brut 33 between the years 1974 and 1977.;)

Ah, so you were talking about fans in 1956 wanting their money back.

Thanks for clearing that up ...

Kris P
12-27-2007, 02:28 AM
Ah, so you were talking about fans in 1956 wanting their money back.

Thanks for clearing that up ...

Please dust off a few of your old text books, then re-read my previous reply.