Is the Elvis "lukewarm/horrible" concert theory just a myth?
C. Johnson
way through. I know that Elvis did some bad concerts, because I have
listened to them. However, I believe that this theory from the so-called
Elvis experts out there they like to say "Elvis Presley stopped giving good
concerts in 1973" is overrated.
I feel that when you consider some bands do crappy live concerts, but do
great on albums in the modern age -- you might say Elvis doing lukewarm
concerts was just that -- a myth. If you compare it to some concerts done by
the Beach Boys in the late 1960s -- it would be called a myth.
That is because Elvis at his worst still almost blew over those bands
that did downright horrible. A lot of the 1977 concerts are actually good in
comparison of other concerts done by other people.
I know Elvis did bad concerts, but . . . compared to rock groups . . .
was it really that bad?
The Clint
P.S.
This is a theory, not what I totally believe.
Bill
1. Short in length: Anywhere from under an hour to at most 1 1/2 hours,
usually about 70 minutes. At that time, bands were doing at least 1 1/2
hours, some were doing 2 hours, Zeppelin was up to 3 hours by 1977, the
Grateful Dead and Allman Brothers could do 4 - 5 hours.
Elvis should have been doing at least 1 1/2 hours, more if he felt like
it that night. And don't try to say that he couldn't because of all the
effort that he put into shows. I have plenty of shows on video and
there is a lot of standing or plain walking around. You want effort,
check out Springsteen around that time. What? Springsteen was younger
than Elvis at that time? Then check out Springsteen in 2000.
2. Too many people onstage: No need for so many backing vocalists. By
the time Elvis got through introducing everybody, a good 10 to 15
minutes had gone by. In a short show, this is a huge chunk, especially
when giving all of the musicians a solo.
3. The Later Year Monologues: I'm paying my money to hear Elvis sing,
not expound on karate and whatever else is going through his brain at
the moment.
These things, and probably more if I thought about it, contributed to
bad shows. I'm sure that other bands had bad nights as well, but it's
just rationalization to say, "Well other bands were bad at times, so
it's ok that Elvis was as well".
Go to other band's fan sites like the Led Zeppelin site and you will
hear people criticize them for bad shows or even bad tours such as the
1973 tour where Robert Plant suffered throat blowout.
Bill
Johnny
Adding my two cents:
One of the main problems with Elvis, post-1973, was his lack of really
changing the show around much. In fact, I'd push this problem back to
maybe 1971-72. Standard opening song, closing song, and lots of the same
"oldies" every single night (and most done poorly and quickly). He began
to coast on his charisma (which was admittedly HUGE) and, at the same
time, his health began to decline.
Plus, as his health went, so did his ability to sing well for an *entire*
show. Listen to lots of the later soundboards and you can hear how he
breezes through the openers, rushes through the oldies, commits to "Hurt"
and maybe a few others, breezes through the final tune and he's gone. The
*worst* example of this is the 'Run On' CD soundboard of his 07 Dec'76
Vegas set; it's like he's a dead man walking. You can read my on-line
review here:
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/run_on.html
That being said, I think a bunch of gigs Elvis did in 1974 to1976 (and a
few in '77) were not too bad considering all of the above, for example
some from Vegas in Aug'74 and Mar'75, on tour in May-Jun-Jul'75 and that
last, amazingly energetic five city tour 27-31 Dec'76. Any of these beats
the "incredible" Aloha show from Jan'73.
As Billy Smith said, it all depended on how he felt that night.
TCB,
Johnny
U-S-A!
In article <3ACFD449...@attglobal.net>, Bill
Cathy
"C. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Before anybody respond to this post, I hope everybody reads it all the
> way through.
I can see why you said that, because you hoped no one would think you
were being the typical apologist but instead offering a different
perspective on the blanket dismissal of post '73 concerts.
Unfortunately, you didn't give us more details on why you disagree with
the "myth". Please do, Clint, it's your favorite topic and you're
itching to talk about it, aren't you?
Cathy
Daniel Lipien
"Bill" wrote in message (edited)...
> Problems that I see in Elvis' concerts from 73 onwards:
>
> 1. Short in length: Anywhere from under an hour to at most 1 1/2 hours,
> usually about 70 minutes. At that time, bands were doing at least 1 1/2
> hours, some were doing 2 hours, Zeppelin was up to 3 hours by 1977, the
> Grateful Dead and Allman Brothers could do 4 - 5 hours.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill,
If this is so then I have a question for you ... Did these "bands" do as
many as 2 or 3 concerts per day per tour ? Did they even come close to the
1700 +++ dates elvis played in the last 7 years of his life ? Did they give
everything they had, vocally, most of the time ? I think NOT !!
Daniel
Marc H.
i really LIKE the aloha show... some of the best versions ever! (burning
love, my way, something, you gave me a mountain, etc...)
[
--
marc h.
ma...@elvis-presley-superstar.de
www.elvis-presley-superstar.de
Richard Palmer
Excuses, excuses.
What's the point in doing 3 concerts a day, (although the number of
times this happened was minimal - 2 was the maximum on most occasions)
if the end result is poor? If you were at a show, and you knew that
you were getting a substandard performance so that the performer could
fit in another audience, would you be happy?
This is disregarding the fact that even 2 of Elvis' concerts added up
to less than one of some acts - and Elvis had a few hours to recover
in between times.
And since when is giving "everything (he) had, vocally, most of the
time" a plus point, when everything he had on stage, particularly
during the '76 and '77 seasons, was less than his best?
Richard
SABandSFB
look back, I realize some were better than others. The Dec. 28th, 1976 show was
about as good a show as I saw Elvis give.
Now, Elvis had an amazing stage presence. So much so that he could fool you.
He could be having a "lukewarm" show, yet his mere presence would win you over.
If one could only listen to the audio of one of these "lukewarm" shows, they
might say YUCK. But, if you were a face in the crowd, you would have "left the
building" very pleased.
Steve
Bill
Daniel Lipien wrote:
> Bill,
>
> If this is so then I have a question for you ... Did these "bands" do as
> many as 2 or 3 concerts per day per tour ? Did they even come close to the
> 1700 +++ dates elvis played in the last 7 years of his life ? Did they give
> everything they had, vocally, most of the time ? I think NOT !!
>
> Daniel
Well, I can tell you that the Stones did two shows a day up through 1973
and they certainly gave it all.
The 2 shows a day in Vegas was helped by the fact that he didn't have to
travel and stay in different hotel rooms night after night. He stayed
in his luxury suite, took the elevator downstairs, did an hour, went
back upstairs ect.
Bill
Johnny
I do love some of his performances that night in Hawaii, especially things
like "American Trilogy," the Roy Orbison-influenced version of "What Now
My Love" or "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry," but one gets a sense he's
holding back on the faster numbers. Was it nerves? Did he want to be
perceived by the world as "more" than a rock and roller? Who knows?
He did much more raucous and exciting things on stage in the concerts I
cited, and his later versions of "Burning Love" were terrific. I'm sure
the next FTD release (from a May'75 gig) will bear this out.
TCB,
Johnny
U-S-A!
In article <9aplha$d4j$1...@news.netcologne.de>, "Marc H."
Edward Tillman
of knowing what was going on In Elvis's life ( personal, medical, or
mentally) But it so easy to set back and find flaws, when there is no way of
finding out the true reasons for your observations.. Have any done any
shows? I do it is 2hrs. 15minutes long with a 20 minute intermission making
it a total of 2hrs 35minute long, it is brutal, physically,mentally, so
unless you walked in my shoes don't assume you know the reason behind the
madness you interpret.
Sincerely,
Edward Tillman
SF
hope others are able to see the truth in your words as I am.
All the best to you,
Saundra
"Edward Tillman" <EtAson...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UjbA6.354$Ak1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Edward Tillman
--
Your Welcome and thank you..
Edward
"SF" <ga...@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:3ad1435a$0$12...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net...
Bill
And what makes you think that we haven't "walked in your shoes". I was
in a band when I was in my 20's. We used to do 3 hour long sets with 15
minutes break in between. And you can bet we weren't paid the money
Elvis was for his hour.
Tell me, isn't it hard to perform while sitting on a high horse?
Bill
Edward Tillman
And at what age are we now? I'm in my forties and trust me it gets more
brutal as age catches up to you. What are you also saying that The Kings
performances in his twenties were also lukewarm/horrible? ok, duh...not.and
now that your older where's the band jigggggssss???????????????????
Edward Tillman
"Bill" <batc...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3AD19AEF...@attglobal.net...
Johnnynoangel
>look back, I realize some were better than others. The Dec. 28th, 1976 show
>was
>about as good a show as I saw Elvis give.
Wow, You can remember the exact date from 25 years ago?
Truly....amazing!
Johnny~
Francesc Lopez
was in a fantastic short tour in Dec 76. I'm pretty sure he doesn´t remember
the tahoe date he attended, Steve? Do you remember?
Francesc
"Johnnynoangel" <johnny...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010409110039...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
Bill
Edward Tillman wrote:
>
> And at what age are we now? I'm in my forties and trust me it gets more
> brutal as age catches up to you. What are you also saying that The Kings
> performances in his twenties were also lukewarm/horrible? ok, duh...not.and
> now that your older where's the band jigggggssss???????????????????
> Edward Tillman
Being older hasn't stopped the Stones or Springsteen from doing 2 1/2 to
3 hour shows now has it? For the money Elvis was getting per show, he
could have put a hell of a lot more effort into it. Unless of course,
you are interested in hearing 30 second versions of Hound Dog in between
giving solo numbers to Voice and Kathy Westmoreland.
Bill
Angeline
toured anyway because the Col. booked him mercilessly. I believe once he was
booked for 3 shows in one day, he told the Col. that he just didn't think he
could do it - Parker told him - O.K. - *You* go out there and tell all
those fans that have bought tickets and traveled to see you that you can't
do the show. So Elvis did the show. As a result of feeling ill and not being
able to say "no", Elvis produced some very lackluster shows toward the end.
But, I have friends that saw some of those shows and they still were
mesmerized by him and wouldn't trade the experience for anything in the
world. Elvis wasn't at his best - but he was still ELVIS.
"Bill" <batc...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3AD251EC...@attglobal.net...
Edward Tillman
and to me the Stones... and others have pasted their prime also.....also how
much of the take did Elvis recieve in the end? Thats why Lisa Marie had to
bring a Suit against The Col. wasn't it? Even while Elvis was in the casket
the Col. was figuring out a way to make a buck off him...
Edward
"Angeline" <an...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:TNsA6.7341$6y1.2...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
Angeline
Instead of insisting that Elvis stay off of the road and get healthy, he
booked the heck out of him, leading to more substance abuse and contributing
to his death, at which time he went into full production of "In Memoriam"
products - what a manager, what a guy...
"Edward Tillman" <EtAson...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PMtA6.2991$Ak1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Steve
> Yes, exactly! Parker is probably answering for that right as we speak,
too!
> Instead of insisting that Elvis stay off of the road and get healthy, he
> booked the heck out of him, leading to more substance abuse and
contributing
> to his death, at which time he went into full production of "In Memoriam"
> products - what a manager, what a guy...
Angeline, it's such a treat to see you actually posting some messages about
Elvis.
Scott
Francesc Lopez
If the Ole Parker said that to Elvis, then itæ„€ Elvis fault. A manager is
for book and "unbook" shows, not for gambling and selling merchandise at the
doors for a $1.
Some of the concerts are good , some are bad but hell I want all of them lol
Francesc
"Angeline" <an...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:TNsA6.7341$6y1.2...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
Angeline
LOL!!
Angeline
"Steve" <St...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:n%tA6.3056$Ak1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Angeline
"Francesc Lopez" <elvi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y%tA6.323$Nm2.2...@nntp1.onemain.com...
Francesc Lopez
"Angeline" <an...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:n2uA6.7850$6y1.2...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
E. P. Henderson
my filter.
Arrghh.
Pauley
"Angeline" <an...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:o1uA6.7849$6y1.2...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
Steve
"Angeline" <an...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> Why thank you. You should give it a try sometime. New killfilter address!
> LOL!!
> Angeline
Well at least I signed it with my name so you'd know who it was. lol
Scott
Luuk
Steve <St...@whocares.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
q1zA6.3738$Ak1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Luuk
are we now going to consider the blockbuster concerts rubbish? What next?
Those records that sold by the millions actually were not realy good?
It is simple: if we, the fans, would not have gone by millions to the
theatre to watch those "dreadful" movies, the colonel would not have made
that much money and would have thought "Hey, I must change the movies as
they no longer sell".
If we, the fans, thought those concerts were too short, we should not have
gone there! But hey, people even pay to watch Elvis on a videoscreen with
the musicians playing live!
Bill <batc...@attglobal.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
3AD251EC...@attglobal.net...
SF
"Luuk" <lu...@bonthond-1.myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:9aukgi$61d$3...@cyan.nl.gxn.net...
Edward Tillman
Edward
--
My Web Page
www.hop.to/the.kings.tribute
http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/springbank/82/
"Luuk" <lu...@bonthond-1.myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:9aukgh$61d$2...@cyan.nl.gxn.net...
Richard Palmer
wrote:
>After all the blockbuster Elvis movies are now considered a lot of rubbish,
>are we now going to consider the blockbuster concerts rubbish? What next?
>Those records that sold by the millions actually were not realy good?
>
>It is simple: if we, the fans, would not have gone by millions to the
>theatre to watch those "dreadful" movies, the colonel would not have made
>that much money and would have thought "Hey, I must change the movies as
>they no longer sell".
>If we, the fans, thought those concerts were too short, we should not have
>gone there! But hey, people even pay to watch Elvis on a videoscreen with
>the musicians playing live!
What you say isn't a comment on Elvis Presley, but on the blind faith
shown by Elvis fans throughout the 60's and 70's. Nobody is trying to
rewrite history - the film songs were substandard when they were being
recorded, and they are substandard now. The movie attendances DID
decline, with the result that he stopped making them. It just took
longer than it should have.
The material recorded in the 1970's was not all bad, some of it was in
fact excellent, but much of it was bland - saved only by the fact that
Elvis could sing the alphabet and make it at least listenable. Sales
of his albums during that period were not substantial, and over here
in England it had the rather fortunate side effect of allowing a
youthful fan like me to buy his latest albums at bargain bin prices
soon after release.
As for concerts, the typical response of an attendee after the fact is
"He had charisma, and we would have gone to see him if he had just
stood there and looked at us". I would most likely have done the same
too, and I make no pretence otherwise. But to my mind, this is not the
same as saying that those concerts were any good. You only have to
listen to the recorded evidence to see how true that is. Yes, you
can't see his expressions, you can't feel his warmth, but you CAN hear
the missed notes and you can hear the lack of enthusiasm in his voice.
Being charismatic is NOT the same as putting on a great show.
Richard
Luuk
Richard Palmer <r.pa...@virgin.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
3ad8405b...@news.virgin.net...
Elvis did some 1200 shows from 1969 through to August 1977.
It does not surprise me there are shows where he missed notes or gave way to
the musicians in order to regain his breath.
Saw a Who concert (from the Royal Albert Hall) and Roger Daltrey near the
end audible did not have the same power in his voice as he had on the first
songs! I am sure he was glad the show was over!
We will never know why Elvis kept on performing. Did he want to or was the
Colonel pushing him or did he push the Colonel to book more concerts due to
the fact his staff did cost a lot of money, especially when there was no
income from films or TV shows.
Cathy
Luuk wrote:
>
>
> Elvis did some 1200 shows from 1969 through to August 1977.
> It does not surprise me there are shows where he missed notes or gave way to
> the musicians in order to regain his breath.
I think all these predictable apologies for Elvis aren't necessary.
First, because you can remain a fan and collect every concert he ever
did and STILL be an objective observer. You could even lighten up and
be an amused observer, or a harsh critic who will never like his studio
recordings any less because of the concert period, the same way you'll
never cringe at your favorite songs because you saw him in a stupid
movie.
Second, you don't have to be unsympathetic to his financial situation
or his health to hold that view. Twisting your argument a little, if
you can say the movie songs were stupid, bad, and a waste of talent, why
can't you say a bad concert is a bad concert, without any hedging or "on
the other hand"? The excuse or the reasons aren't nearly as important
as being able to resist reflexively defending everything he ever did.
Back to Clint...
I didn't want make it like a homework assignment, but you see why I
wanted you to expound on your original thoughts on this? It might have
been a good discussion on why even the most discriminating fans think
'75 was a great year for Elvis live, and why.
Cathy
Richard Palmer
wrote:
>Elvis did some 1200 shows from 1969 through to August 1977.
>It does not surprise me there are shows where he missed notes or gave way to
>the musicians in order to regain his breath.
From 1974 onwards there were entire engagements and tours where the
number of bad shows outweighed the good. We aren't talking about the
occasional fluffed line here.
>Saw a Who concert (from the Royal Albert Hall) and Roger Daltrey near the
>end audible did not have the same power in his voice as he had on the first
>songs! I am sure he was glad the show was over!
And this was a 50 minute show was it?
>We will never know why Elvis kept on performing. Did he want to or was the
>Colonel pushing him or did he push the Colonel to book more concerts due to
>the fact his staff did cost a lot of money, especially when there was no
>income from films or TV shows.
There is some kind of popular misconception, perpetuated from day to
day by fans the world over, that because Elvis did a hundred and fifty
shows a year, it makes him the "hardest working man in show business".
Nobody ever takes into account the plain and simple fact that when he
wasn't touring or in Vegas, he was doing sweet FA. He spent less time
in the studio than the average band or artist spends having a dump,
and he rarely soundchecked or rehearsed. I've known acts that did (and
do) soundchecks longer than most Elvis concerts, and artists that have
spent longer in the studio in one year than Elvis did in his entire
lifetime.
Now refute that.
Richard
Tommy Steiner
Wasn't he specifically requested by the hotel management to do shorter shows
because they wanted the audience to get back to the casino quicker?
(Money talks, as always....)
As far as I know (I could be wrong) he cut down his shows from just below
two hours (in 1969) to about one hour to one-and-a-half to make them happy.
Tommy
C. Johnson
You make some valid points . . .
> 1. Short in length: Anywhere from under an hour to at most 1 1/2 hours,
> usually about 70 minutes. At that time, bands were doing at least 1 1/2
> hours, some were doing 2 hours, Zeppelin was up to 3 hours by 1977, the
> Grateful Dead and Allman Brothers could do 4 - 5 hours.
Elvis' shows were never long shows. He was doing 45 minute shows in
1971. His average show from 1969-1977 was about 75 minutes at best.
>
> Elvis should have been doing at least 1 1/2 hours, more if he felt like
> it that night. And don't try to say that he couldn't because of all the
> effort that he put into shows. I have plenty of shows on video and
> there is a lot of standing or plain walking around.
I know, I saw a concert from June/July 1974 and he didn't do much rocking.
He did more rocking in July 1975 and he was somewhat heavier then. That 8mm
in 1974 was wierd, he was doing Supicious Minds and just standing there. Let
over a year later he is doing the simpliest song and he is moving like it
was out of style.
You want effort,
> check out Springsteen around that time. What? Springsteen was younger
> than Elvis at that time? Then check out Springsteen in 2000.
No defense of Elvis here. Bruce Springsteen has kept himself in better shape
than Elvis ever did. Also, Springsteen always did 3 to 4 hour concerts at a
time, so why stop doing it? Elvis never did a 3 or 4 hour concert ever --
and by the early 1970s both Elvis and his master -- uh manager, Col. Parker
felt all you needed of Elvis was a brief taste.
>
> 2. Too many people onstage: No need for so many backing vocalists. By
> the time Elvis got through introducing everybody, a good 10 to 15
> minutes had gone by. In a short show, this is a huge chunk, especially
> when giving all of the musicians a solo.
Elvis always had a lot of people onstage, in the later years -- Elvis
used this as an excuse. Elvis had many people on stage even in 1969 -- he
just did the introductions faster. He never called the Imperials or the
Stamps until 1974 and that was to take up time. Also, I watched a Cher tv
special from about two years ago and she took over 30 minutes to introduce
her group.
>
> 3. The Later Year Monologues: I'm paying my money to hear Elvis sing,
> not expound on karate and whatever else is going through his brain at
> the moment.
This is what I like about Elvis in the later years. That he would talk
for 20 minutes at a time. Celine Dion has done it in her concerts alot. It
is called being a personality, instead of a singing machine that has no
feelings. So if some woman can talk for hours, then a guy tanked up on drugs
can to.
Again Bill, thanks for your input --
C. Johnson
Yes I am itching. I have listened to many 1975-77 concerts and I will tell
you that I have found some great concerts that are just red hot. A few in
1977 as well . . .
March 27, 1977
April 29, 1977
April 30, 1977
May 3, 1977 -- Has to be one of the greatest flukes in history, as Elvis
opens with That's All Right instead of See See Rider. Was he so "out of it"
that he forgot what year it was? Watch the entire band be professional and
take control.
June 26, 1976 -- Buffalo, Ny -- Unlike any other Elvis concert from that
era -- however, Elvis jokes around with a few songs in the middle of the
concert, but still gives a strong (and unusual) version of Burning Love.
April 26, 1976 -- Not as good as June 26, but still a good concert. Famous
December 31, 1975 talk during this concert. Famous "I learn more things
about myself reading the tabloids" quote.
The October 1976 tour -- I think most of this was fair concert work.
The December 1976 tour -- no about it -- the best tour he did before he
passed on -- and the best tour from 1976.
The July 1975 tour -- no doubt -- Elvis was crazy, full of energy, full of
drugs, and throwing $10000 rings in the audience. Why give 100% and bribe
the audience at the same time is beyond me.
"Cathy" <cat...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3ACFEAF9...@bellsouth.net...
>
>
> "C. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Before anybody respond to this post, I hope everybody reads it all
the
> > way through.
>
> I can see why you said that, because you hoped no one would think you
> were being the typical apologist but instead offering a different
> perspective on the blanket dismissal of post '73 concerts.
>
> Unfortunately, you didn't give us more details on why you disagree with
> the "myth". Please do, Clint, it's your favorite topic and you're
> itching to talk about it, aren't you?
>
>
> Cathy
C. Johnson
"Bill" <batc...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3AD08F1F...@attglobal.net...
>
>
> Daniel Lipien wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > If this is so then I have a question for you ... Did these "bands" do as
> > many as 2 or 3 concerts per day per tour ? Did they even come close to
the
> > 1700 +++ dates elvis played in the last 7 years of his life ? Did they
give
> > everything they had, vocally, most of the time ? I think NOT !!
> >
> > Daniel
>
> Well, I can tell you that the Stones did two shows a day up through 1973
> and they certainly gave it all.
>
> The 2 shows a day in Vegas was helped by the fact that he didn't have to
> travel and stay in different hotel rooms night after night. He stayed
> in his luxury suite, took the elevator downstairs, did an hour, went
> back upstairs ect.
>
> Bill
C. Johnson
"Edward Tillman" <EtAson...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PMtA6.2991$Ak1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Jason Leacock
>
> Before anybody respond to this post, I hope everybody reads it all the
> listened to them. However, I believe that this theory from the so-called
> Elvis experts out there they like to say "Elvis Presley stopped giving good
> concerts in 1973" is overrated.
>
Its all a matter of opinion.......However all of Presley's terrible
shows all happend after 73...He was deffinately more coherent before
73'.....72 was probobly his best live year.Gone were the sappy tunes
like words/mary in the morning/and the rest of those god-awfull sappy
songs from 'thats the way it is',and 'in' were those southern
rockers.Proud mary,never been to spain and big hunk o love were good
additions.
> I feel that when you consider some bands do crappy live concerts, but do
> great on albums in the modern age -- you might say Elvis doing lukewarm
> concerts was just that -- a myth. If you compare it to some concerts done by
> the Beach Boys in the late 1960s -- it would be called a myth.
>
> That is because Elvis at his worst still almost blew over those bands
> that did downright horrible. A lot of the 1977 concerts are actually good in
> comparison of other concerts done by other people.
>
> I know Elvis did bad concerts, but . . . compared to rock groups . . .
> was it really that bad?
>
> The Clint
>
> P.S.
>
> This is a theory, not what I totally believe.
Jason Leacock
>
> Problems that I see in Elvis' concerts from 73 onwards:
>
> 1. Short in length: Anywhere from under an hour to at most 1 1/2 hours,
> usually about 70 minutes. At that time, bands were doing at least 1 1/2
> hours, some were doing 2 hours, Zeppelin was up to 3 hours by 1977, the
> Grateful Dead and Allman Brothers could do 4 - 5 hours.
>
> it that night. And don't try to say that he couldn't because of all the
> effort that he put into shows. I have plenty of shows on video and
> check out Springsteen around that time. What? Springsteen was younger
> than Elvis at that time? Then check out Springsteen in 2000.
>
> th
..Man do those intros suck!!!could of threw in 3 classic songs in
there!Can't stand jd sumner, his voice is like nails on a
blackboard...terrible actually ruins songs ie desert storm's love me
let me know,his ROCK ROCK ROCK rock ..rock rock.....in allmost all
versions of Jailhouse rock his backing vocals on suspicious minds is
awfull sooo bad its allmost comical some boots he is loud man...rca's
not theree to turn it down a bit in the studio....Charlie wouldnt be soo
bad if his mike was turned down lower.In songs where his backgrounds
arent too prevelant hes not bad...Keith richards of the stones is good
for not singing too loud backing up Jagger.If charlie took a note from
richrds' notebook he wouldnt of been too bad.....LUUUUV the sweet
insperations....s.nielson is good singing back up on 'love me let me
know'..its those o solo mio's that r brutal....makes the hair on the
back of the neck stick up.....
thats all!
e time Elvis got through introducing everybody, a good 10 to 15
> minutes had gone by. In a short show, this is a huge chunk, especially
> when giving all of the musicians a solo.
>
> 3. The Later Year Monologues: I'm paying my money to hear Elvis sing,
> not expound on karate and whatever else is going through his brain at
> the moment.
>
> These things, and probably more if I thought about it, contributed to
> bad shows. I'm sure that other bands had bad nights as well, but it's
> just rationalization to say, "Well other bands were bad at times, so
> it's ok that Elvis was as well".
>
> Go to other band's fan sites like the Led Zeppelin site and you will
> hear people criticize them for bad shows or even bad tours such as the
> 1973 tour where Robert Plant suffered throat blowout.
>
> Bill
>
> C. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Before anybody respond to this post, I hope everybody reads it all the
> > way through. I know that Elvis did some bad concerts, because I have
> > listened to them. However, I believe that this theory from the so-called
> > Elvis experts out there they like to say "Elvis Presley stopped giving good
> > concerts in 1973" is overrated.
> >
Jason Leacock
>
> As A Man once said " Walk a Mile in my Shoes" We as the public have no way
> of knowing what was going on In Elvis's life ( personal, medical, or
> mentally) But it so easy to set back and find flaws, when there is no way of
> finding out the true reasons for your observations.. Have any done any
> shows? I do it is 2hrs. 15minutes long with a 20 minute intermission making
> it a total of 2hrs 35minute long, it is brutal, physically,mentally, so
> unless you walked in my shoes don't assume you know the reason behind the
> madness you interpret.
> Sincerely,
> Edward Tillman
I do construction for 10 hrs a day, 5-6 days a week.I would kill for a
job where i could just "ssssssing "for 2 hrs a day.....!
Richard Palmer
Tell me about it! I work in a bank, and some days I'm sat at my desk
for anything up to seven hours and...... OK, just forget I said
anything, this isn't really helping at all.
Richard
BlueMoonBoy
>> usually about 70 minutes. At that time, bands were doing at least 1 1/2
>> hours, some were doing 2 hours, Zeppelin was up to 3 hours by 1977, the
>> Grateful Dead and Allman Brothers could do 4 - 5 hours.
>>
>> Elvis should have been doing at least 1 1/2 hours, more if he felt like
>> it that night. And don't try to say that he couldn't because of all the
>> effort that he put into shows. I have plenty of shows on video and
>> there is a lot of standing or plain walking around. You want effort,
>> check out Springsteen around that time. What? Springsteen was younger
>> than Elvis at that time? Then check out Springsteen in 2000.
+++++++ The reason for the hour long set was the Hilton. They are in it for the
money, they could care less who Elvis was or what he was singing. The longer
the show was the longer all of those potential gamblers were sitting in seats
in showrooms not gaming their money away. Elvis was instructed to leave his set
right at one hour. Some bootlegs have him mentioning this too "they want me to
stay up here for an hour, but tonight I'm going to stay up here as long as I
want" Most of his extended shows are closing nights. As far as his tours go he
probably kept it at an hour because he liked the routine and didn't want to
stay up there that long. He had other priorities in the 70's, and his attention
wasn't on his live show. I say that because if his full attention was on his
live show he would have seen how bad it had slipped from previous years, and
seen how boring his setlist had become and done something about it. He didn't.
Richard Palmer
>+++++++ The reason for the hour long set was the Hilton. They are in it for the
>money, they could care less who Elvis was or what he was singing. The longer
>the show was the longer all of those potential gamblers were sitting in seats
>in showrooms not gaming their money away. Elvis was instructed to leave his set
>right at one hour. Some bootlegs have him mentioning this too "they want me to
>stay up here for an hour, but tonight I'm going to stay up here as long as I
>want" Most of his extended shows are closing nights. As far as his tours go he
>probably kept it at an hour because he liked the routine and didn't want to
>stay up there that long.
So you admit the hour long tour shows were his fault? Where is your
defence then?
>He had other priorities in the 70's, and his attention
>wasn't on his live show. I say that because if his full attention was on his
>live show he would have seen how bad it had slipped from previous years, and
>seen how boring his setlist had become and done something about it. He didn't.
What WAS his priority in the 1970's? It couldn't have been studio
work, because he hated that so much they had to build a recording
studio in his living room just to get an album from him.
You aren't exactly making a case on his behalf, are you?
Richard
BlueMoonBoy
>the
>>money, they could care less who Elvis was or what he was singing. The longer
>>the show was the longer all of those potential gamblers were sitting in
>seats
>>in showrooms not gaming their money away. Elvis was instructed to leave his
>set
>>right at one hour. Some bootlegs have him mentioning this too "they want me
>to
>>stay up here for an hour, but tonight I'm going to stay up here as long as I
>>want" Most of his extended shows are closing nights. As far as his tours go
>he
>>probably kept it at an hour because he liked the routine and didn't want to
>>stay up there that long.
>
>So you admit the hour long tour shows were his fault? Where is your
>defence then?
>
I full put the blame on him. It was his show, and his time spent up there.
Willie Nelson has been known to play for four hours at a time. It's all about
what the artist wants to do. I'm not defending him, just stating the reason for
the hour long shows: The Hilton managment, and Elvis himself.
>>He had other priorities in the 70's, and his attention
>>wasn't on his live show. I say that because if his full attention was on his
>>live show he would have seen how bad it had slipped from previous years, and
>>seen how boring his setlist had become and done something about it. He
>didn't.
>
>What WAS his priority in the 1970's? It couldn't have been studio
>work, because he hated that so much they had to build a recording
>studio in his living room just to get an album from him.
>
>You aren't exactly making a case on his behalf, are you?
>
>Richard
No, im not making a case for him. His actions stand for themselves. The way I
see it his priorities in the 70's weren't music. Elvis had a contract that
called for three records a year, yet they had better luck pulling his teeth
than getting him in the studio. As you stated, and we all know, they brought
the studio to him, and still had a hell of a time getting him in there to
record anything. Most of the studio stuff he did record was depressing, and sad
love songs about broken relationships. One of the only reasons he toured as
much as he did was money. He spent it so fast he was forced to tour to keep up
with his own spending habits. He had a lean against Graceland from the Circle G
fiasco, and the Raquetball courts business. This is Elvis Presley, one of the
most valuble men in the world at any given time getting a loan because he spent
so much money he didn't have any when he needed it. So his quick fix for some
fast cash was a tour. I think his priorities in the 70's ranged from his
relationships with women, his ever changing weight, trying to keep his image
clean, and his secrets secret, and mostly the drugs. I think the last thing on
his mind was the music, or the tours. It wasn't a priority to him. The only
reason he toured was to make money that he could spend as fast as he could get.
On the rare occasion that he did record it was to get RCA off of his back for a
little while. No, im not defending him, just saying it the way I see it. I may
be wrong, or off the mark slightly, but that's how I see it.