PROMOTING ELVIS AS ARTIST OF THE CENTURY!
Martin Genz
this post is a new post which will hopefully be a long running thread to
promote ELVIS as artist of the century. Right now 70% here is Orion, and
even though I don't mind, we should also begin posting some stuff about
ELVIS again (especially since Mickey Moran left).
So....any takers out there to come up with an interesting topic to talk
about?
Brian said something about the "from elvis presley boulevard..:" album.
Let's pick up on that. After I have rearranged all my CDs (got about 70
new ones) which I'm gonna do in a minute, I'm gonna join right in and
say something meaningful.
Martin
JesseAron4
Roys Mail
long running thread, if the debate explores all of the issues on why Elvis
should be promoted as Artist of The Century. On music alone this could be
really interesting, couldn't it - especially with a focus on the whole
century? Possibly look at the literature side, too? Perhaps consider the
impact on 20th C. history? Or the continuing impact on popular culture? A
posthumous career which is now virtually equal in length of time to the
uniquely successful performing career? The commercial aspects? Reasons why
Elvis is the "benchmark"?.......
....Wow - this ng could pool all its resources over the coming months and
come up with THE definitive book on Elvis for the 21st Century - entitled,
of course: "ARTIST OF THE CENTURY"!
Roy (getting excited!!)..... :-)
Martin Genz wrote in message
Martin Genz
Okay, here's a start: as there are young and old on AEK I think we'll get
different opions about he following:
Let's talk definitions first. As some of you may know, Elvis is promoted as
ARTIST of the century. Frank Sinatra on the other hand is promoted as
ENTERTAINER of the century. Sinatra died only less than a year ago, so I think
that the label is running this campaign on - and continuing - the buying frenzy
of Sinatra's records after his death.
What is, to you all, the difference between the words artist and entertainer?
Is it just a different way of calling the same thing, or is there a difference
in the two terms.
Here's my take so far: An artist is a very general term. Be it a painter or
singer. However that person doesn't necessarily do his craft for the enjoyment
of (other) people. Rather for himself first. An entertainer does his craft for
people to enjoy, henceforth the word entertain.
So I'm going to make the point that I'd say the Sinatra campaign has the better
title. Certainly Sinatra was a 100% entertainer.
Elvis as an artist is - to me - a somewhat difficult thing to except, due to the
fact that Elvis has been very much commercialized over the past years (decades,
already during his lifetime). Very much like Andy Warhol, who used, as an
example, soup cans as his motif for one of his works of art. He didn't bother
about art in the sense of an ideal. Seemingly he rather did his art as a
by-product of his creative process. It wasn't about being idealistic, it was a
job or something done naturally.
The same applies to elvis. Today, it is hard to realize that there is a creative
process involved in what he did 40 years ago. Certainly as a fan I appreciate
the music and am able to see the creative process. But for the general public, I
find that Elvis is not seen as an "artist", somebody who through a creative
process created something new and unique, but rather as a commercial figure/icon
like Mickey Mouse.
So if you ask yourself or friends who don't care much about Elvis, does he
appear like an artist or like a commercial figure?
Anybody wants to tear my comments apart. I'd be most happy to get a discussion
going.
Martin
Anne Kamlet
I'd agree that Sinatra is considered an entertainer, and
would be a shoo-in for Entertainer of the Year.
I remember when Elvis came out in Britain, I was about
ten years old and had never heard anything like it (rock n roll
in general and Elvis in particular). We had an old record player
and I used to sit on the floor with my ear right up to the
speaker. To say he touched something is an understatement, and
I laugh today when I think of or hear the songs I related to at
such a young age! "Don't" was a particular favorite. "Blue Moon"
another.
If a vote gets going, or a campaign, count me in.
Annie
Wforme1
Why do you think that Elvis Presley should be promoted to Artist of the
Century?? Compared with the other artists like Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, etc.
Tell us in your words - why Elvis should be Artist of the Century and not
Michael Jackson? or Garth Brooks?
This should get people interest in thinking back through the century of what's
their thoughts and heart is. Please do not make a very long reply.
If they ever have a Song of the Century - which do u think should be the main
song for the Century? It does not have to be just Elvis' song but any song and
who recorded it.
Now that should keep the thread going for a long year before Dec 1999 at 11:59
AM.
Have fun!!!
Wil
JCHayden81
>Century?? Compared with the other artists like Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra,
>etc.
>Tell us in your words - why Elvis should be Artist of the Century and not
>Michael Jackson? or Garth Brooks?
Elvis should be the artist of the century if for no other reason than he got
everything started. Yes, I understand that he had his influences and were it
not for them there would not have been Elvis as we come to know him, but he
revolutionized the industry. As John Lennon said, "Before Elvis there was
nothing." Not to mention the millions upon millions of albums he's sold and is
still selling. He's also charted more on the top 100 than any other artist or
group, which is an impressive feat. Few entertainers could live up to such
records.
While there is no doubt that Crosby and Sinatra were great performers they did
not have the same impact as Elvis. As for Michael Jackson and Garth Brooks the
work they did was primarily in the last two decades and while (as good as it
may be and despite the amount of records they have sold) they have not stood
the test of time (not saying the won't someday but have not yet).
In my opinion Elvis and the Beatles are the best of the best to come out in
this century.
-John
DKDeen
> Well, you probably read my post of entertainer vs. artist. So how about the fact
> that before Elvis there was NOT nothing, but rather Sinatra, before Sinatra there
> was Crosby, and before Crosby there was Caruso, and before him somebody else too.
> (As a cultural icon I'd have to add Valentino, he wasn't a singer though, even
> Mozart was famous in his time ).
>
> I'm arguing that Elvis was ONLY lucky that he came along at at time when television
> was just invented. Otherwise he would not have been as famous.
###I'd take issue with that. What separates Elvis from the others is
that his music caused a revolution of sorts. Elvis made "race" music
(i.e. black music) acceptable to the masses and basically integrated
music. Elvis gave young people their own kind of music--no more Doris
Day and Perry Como that Mom & Dad listened to!
> Sinatra made the girls move in the 40s, most people forget that today, because
> there is fairly little footage on film of those days. What John Lennon said was
> just his opinion based on the fact that he was about 13 years old when Elvis came a
> long, he was impressed. Just as much as Elvis was perhaps impressed by Dean Martin
> when he was himself younger.
###But Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra didn't change music the way Elvis
did, nor did they spawn a youth and cultural revolution.
> Also Elvis had, as far as I am concerned, a brilliant manager who with a lot a
> commercialism and "product placement" made the name Elvis known.
###You've gotta be kidding. Elvis made it only because of Parker?! Elvis
was already causing a ruckus before Parker came along. Maybe Elvis
wouldn't have been as big a star without Parker, but I don't buy the
argument that Parker "made" Elvis.
> As for the "Artist" part. I am also putting forward that Elvis as an artist was
> killed by 1956 as he was too commercial and well known. Very much something that
> Guralnick has said, I believe.
###No, Guralnick never said that. Go back and read what he says about
the '68 Comeback or the '69 Memphis sessions. Personally, I think Elvis
made some of his best music AFTER he returned from the Army.
> Opinions?
###I just gave 'em.
> Martin
###DK
Bill
DKDeen wrote:
> Martin Genz wrote:
>
> > Well, you probably read my post of entertainer vs. artist. So how about the fact
> > that before Elvis there was NOT nothing, but rather Sinatra, before Sinatra there
> > was Crosby, and before Crosby there was Caruso, and before him somebody else too.
> > (As a cultural icon I'd have to add Valentino, he wasn't a singer though, even
> > Mozart was famous in his time ).
> >
> > I'm arguing that Elvis was ONLY lucky that he came along at at time when television
> > was just invented. Otherwise he would not have been as famous.
>
> ###I'd take issue with that. What separates Elvis from the others is
> that his music caused a revolution of sorts. Elvis made "race" music
> (i.e. black music) acceptable to the masses and basically integrated
> music. Elvis gave young people their own kind of music--no more Doris
> Day and Perry Como that Mom & Dad listened to!
>
Well, all generations have music that make Mom and Dad scream. Those parents who
complained about Elvis were probably rolling their eyes when their parents complained
about jazz and big band music. As far as Elvis making black music acceptable to the
masses and intergrating music, Benny Goodman did it back in the 30's when he had Teddy
Wilson and Lionel Hampton in his combo.
> > Sinatra made the girls move in the 40s, most people forget that today, because
> > there is fairly little footage on film of those days. What John Lennon said was
> > just his opinion based on the fact that he was about 13 years old when Elvis came a
> > long, he was impressed. Just as much as Elvis was perhaps impressed by Dean Martin
> > when he was himself younger.
>
> ###But Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra didn't change music the way Elvis
> did, nor did they spawn a youth and cultural revolution.
I agree about Deano, but Sinatra did change music by inserting sex into the mix. Very
important to what Elvis later did. Before Elvis first shook his hips, they were hosing
down the seats at the Paramount Theater.
> > Also Elvis had, as far as I am concerned, a brilliant manager who with a lot a
> > commercialism and "product placement" made the name Elvis known.
>
> ###You've gotta be kidding. Elvis made it only because of Parker?! Elvis
> was already causing a ruckus before Parker came along. Maybe Elvis
> wouldn't have been as big a star without Parker, but I don't buy the
> argument that Parker "made" Elvis.
>
I agree with you on this, DK. Parker certainly helped the rise by mainstreaming Elvis,
but once Elvis reached the top, then it was time to turn over the reigns to someone far
more competent to guide Elvis.
> As for the "Artist" part. I am also putting forward that Elvis as an artist was
> killed by 1956 as he was too commercial and well known. Very much something that
> Guralnick has said, I believe.
> ###No, Guralnick never said that. Go back and read what he says about
> the '68 Comeback or the '69 Memphis sessions. Personally, I think Elvis
> made some of his best music AFTER he returned from the Army.
>
> > Opinions?
>
> ###I just gave 'em.
>
> > Martin
>
> ###DK
Don't forget, there are people "who were there" who will tell you that the greatest
entertainer of all time was Jolson.
Bill
Becky woot0n
myself on here alot.
In concert elvis says"let her up", so the officer lets her up and elvis
is singing to her and as she is wiping off his face, she says "oh no"and
he kisses her, she is so excited.
Rick Rennie
"commercialized". The combination he had of both voice and appearance
places him far ahead of any other performer of this century (or any
other as far as I know). He was more than an artist and more than an
entertainer to me. Maybe we should use some other words for it. (?)
Sinatra was great in his own way, but Elvis' appearance with him in
1960 shows that he really does not compare with the king in charisma or
singing. Sure, he had something that set him aside from other
performers, but not like Elvis.
Elvis made some real gems musically in the 50's, 60's & 70's without
really trying.
It's a pity that many have overlooked all but the 50's material.
There should be a real effort to expose the other years' great material
this year. Rick
Bill
Roys Mail wrote:
> Bill wrote in message >
> > Don't forget, there are people "who were there" who will tell you that
> the greatest
> >entertainer of all time was Jolson.
> >
>
> True, Bill. But then is it Jolson's 1927 hit, or Elvis's version of "Are You
> Lonesome Tonight", which is universally recognised and so famous today?
> And - from a worldwide influence viewpoint - wasn't it Elvis's version which
> Yeltsin was reported as saying had provided him with inspiration?
> Hmmm....could be said that the Artist of the Century is the one who has
> generated a link across almost the entire 20th century - from its earlier
> famed entertainers, to its present day world leaders??!!!!
>
> Roy.
Ah, but whose voice was choosen to usher in the age of the talking movie? As
the man said, "Hold on, you ain't heard nothing yet".
Also, if you are saying that the Artist of the Century should be one who
generated a link across the 20th Century, then it has to go to Sinatra. Sinatra
charted a single or album in every decade from the 30's to the 90's. He worked
with artists from Tommy Dorsey to Bono. He was awarded the Presidential Medal
of Freedom. He won an Academy Award for his acting. My God, the man slept with
Ava Gardner!!!!!
Bill
Becky woot0n
expressed it, it is a good post, but some of us have repeated and
repeated, nobody seems to hear what we are saying, are there alot of
guys on here who are hard of hearing, maybe it is time you admit you are
reaching old age and you need a hearing aid.
Becky woot0n
gosh martin, huh,huh,you must be 100 yrs, old, oh, well, when can we
sing happy birthday to you, i hope you have enough wind to blow
aaaaallll the candles out, sinatra!!!!!ugh!!!!
Becky woot0n
need a whole lot of help and i also have said that a trillion times, but
you want our opinions, so that is mine, what are you doing campaigning
at 1:15 am, you that bored, you surely have better things to do.
da...@webtv.net
SO-Bruce would have been a star-struck 13 year old next to ELVIS.....
DA REV (A/K/A AGENT REV) SOLO ACOUSTIC ROCK & ROLL 706 UNION ST
MEETS 2120 S MICHIGAN AVE
Martin Genz
JCHayden81 wrote:
> Elvis should be the artist of the century if for no other reason than he got
> everything started. Yes, I understand that he had his influences and were it
> not for them there would not have been Elvis as we come to know him, but he
> revolutionized the industry. As John Lennon said, "Before Elvis there was
> nothing." Not to mention the millions upon millions of albums he's sold and is
> still selling. He's also charted more on the top 100 than any other artist or
> group, which is an impressive feat. Few entertainers could live up to such
> records.
>
> -John
Well, you probably read my post of entertainer vs. artist. So how about the fact
that before Elvis there was NOT nothing, but rather Sinatra, before Sinatra there
was Crosby, and before Crosby there was Caruso, and before him somebody else too.
(As a cultural icon I'd have to add Valentino, he wasn't a singer though, even
Mozart was famous in his time ).
I'm arguing that Elvis was ONLY lucky that he came along at at time when television
was just invented. Otherwise he would not have been as famous.
Sinatra made the girls move in the 40s, most people forget that today, because
there is fairly little footage on film of those days. What John Lennon said was
just his opinion based on the fact that he was about 13 years old when Elvis came a
long, he was impressed. Just as much as Elvis was perhaps impressed by Dean Martin
when he was himself younger.
Also Elvis had, as far as I am concerned, a brilliant manager who with a lot a
commercialism and "product placement" made the name Elvis known.
As for the "Artist" part. I am also putting forward that Elvis as an artist was
killed by 1956 as he was too commercial and well known. Very much something that
Guralnick has said, I believe.
Opinions?
Martin
Roys Mail
>Well, you probably read my post of entertainer vs. artist.......
Martin, although interesting, I think the definitions of entertainer vs.
artist could distract from the central theme: "Promoting Elvis as Artist of
theCentury". I agree that "entertainer" would be better (but already
snaffled by Sinatra) - especially as my dictionary defines an entertainer as
"a person who sings, dances, tells jokes, or the like, as a profession;
someone who entertains."
But - although it also defines an artist with the expected: "one who creates
works of art; a painter, a sculptor, etc." - it also has..."anyone whose
work shows skill, imagination, or other artistic qualities". And it even
quotes Australian or US slang use as..."one who is adept at, or keen on, a
particular activity" - e.g. "a booze artist"!! And it even adds.... "see
piss-artist"!!!
So let's not be too narrow about the definition of artist!! I think in the
context of this topic, it can be assumed that "artist" and "entertainer"
are interchangeable. So, we are saddled with promoting the artist of the
century, in the field of (popular) entertainment!
And, BTW, as a matter of 20th C. historical fact (rather than personal
taste), this particular artist died in 1977, not 1956!
I think the central question is the one that Wil posted - why do you think
that Elvis Presley SHOULD be promoted as the Artist of the Century? If there
is an alternative candidate, this places the burden of positive proof on why
THEY should be the winner instead (and not why Elvis should not!!). This
echoes my own earlier post, hoping that the debate will explore all of the
issues why Elvis SHOULD be promoted as Artist of the Century. I threw out
some areas to consider:
Music
Literature
Historical Impact
Impact on Popular Culture
Posthumous Career Achievements
Lifetime Career Achievements
Commercial Achievements
Why the "benchmark"?
And I'm sure there's more - ALL of which an alternative candidate, in the
same field of popular entertainment, would need to merit - otherwise the
claim remains with Elvis.
As for Wil's what is the song of the century? - I always thought that White
Christmas, composed by Irving Berlin and sung by Bing Crosby, was judged to
be the 20th century's most popular song? If so, surely Elvis remains in the
frame here too, having recorded that song himself in 1957. A further link
from there to Elvis's own achievements could be said to exist with him being
awarded the Bing Crosby Award in 1971. At the time this had only, I believe,
been given to 5 other people - Sinatra, Duke Ellington, Ella Fitgerald and
Crosby and Irving Berlin themselves.
Any more thoughts?.......
Roy
Roys Mail
Dennis A. Rodgers
>
>> Well, you probably read my post of entertainer vs. artist. So how about the fact
>> that before Elvis there was NOT nothing, but rather Sinatra, before Sinatra there
>> was Crosby, and before Crosby there was Caruso, and before him somebody else too.
>> (As a cultural icon I'd have to add Valentino, he wasn't a singer though, even
>> Mozart was famous in his time ).
>>
>> I'm arguing that Elvis was ONLY lucky that he came along at at time when television
>> was just invented. Otherwise he would not have been as famous.
Let's look at this another way: Elvis seized his moment in history.
He utilized those tools available to him as no one else before or
since. In other words, he made his own "luck." Others around at the
time could have done the same thing. He did...they didn't. Of
course, black performers of the time were held back by racism. But
that is another rather complex issue that I don't want to get into
here.
>
>> Sinatra made the girls move in the 40s, most people forget that today, because
>> there is fairly little footage on film of those days. What John Lennon said was
>> just his opinion based on the fact that he was about 13 years old when Elvis came a
>> long, he was impressed. Just as much as Elvis was perhaps impressed by Dean Martin
>> when he was himself younger.
>
>###But Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra didn't change music the way Elvis
>did, nor did they spawn a youth and cultural revolution.
I find it interesting that while Elvis did indeed spawn the youth
culture...he was eventually rejected by it. I guess this sort of
thing happens to many revolutionaries.
>
>> Also Elvis had, as far as I am concerned, a brilliant manager who with a lot a
>> commercialism and "product placement" made the name Elvis known.
Parker certainly deserves a lot of credit for Elvis' explosion upon
the national scene. There have been many charismatic performers
through the years who have gone no where. In some ways, I think it's
fair to say that Parker did "make" Elvis. At least made him into the
legend he became. Without the intervention of Col. Parker...there is
no guarantee that Elvis' brilliance would have been discovered by the
masses in time, if you will.
>
>> As for the "Artist" part. I am also putting forward that Elvis as an artist was
>> killed by 1956 as he was too commercial and well known. Very much something that
>> Guralnick has said, I believe.
I never read where Guralnick has come out and actually stated this.
Personally, I think you are essentially correct; Elvis the innovative
artist was gone by early 1957. There certainly was great music after
this time...but nothing that had a massive impact upon popular
music/culture. One hundred years from now, pop historians will still
be discussing the Sun Sessions...not the '69 Memphis sessions. If
Elvis has simply gone away after 1957...the evolution of pop music
would have been essentially unaffected. In other words, the cultural
revolution of which DK speaks did not need him anymore.
As for the basic question of this thread: Elvis gets my vote as Artist
of the Century. But there are others close behind.
Dennis
Dennis A. Rodgers
> Sinatra was great in his own way, but Elvis' appearance with him in
>1960 shows that he really does not compare with the king in charisma or
>singing. Sure, he had something that set him aside from other
>performers, but not like Elvis.
I believe Frank was in his 40's when the 1960 "Welcome Home, Elvis"
Special was made. Imagine, for a moment, the following: the year is
1976...Elvis is 41 years old, and he appears on a program with Bruce
Springsteen. Elvis would have lost the charisma battle hands down.
It would have illustrated the same thing as the 1960 Special did: the
past vs. the future.
> It's a pity that many have overlooked all but the 50's material.
>There should be a real effort to expose the other years' great material
>this year. Rick
I agree, Rick. My favorite Elvis decade is actually the 1960's. I
play that music even more than the 50's. A personal bias to be
sure... but there are so many genuinely great tracks over the final 17
years of the man's life. And outside of "Suspicious Minds" and
perhaps a few others...the masses are simply unaware.
Dennis
Elvis Fan
"THE KING OF ROCK AND ROLL MEETS THE ROCKABILLY REBEL AT LAST"!!!
Julian Grant
newsgroup. More importantly lets talk about what we are going to do to
educate the public (we're not the public) on Elvis and what he did for the
music industry. Why are you all talking about how old Sinatra was in 1960 -
who gives a shit. If Elvis does not have a top ten hit this year then it
will be the first decade that he hasn't, thats what we need to be looking at
as well as using every opportunity to mention Elvis to the press over the
coming months when a lot of other entertainers are being talked about. Who
if not us is going to ensure that Elvis is getting the praise that he is
long over due. "If I Can Dream" with a 'new' video - song for the
millennium?
Without a song the road would never bend
Keeping Elvis #1
Julian
Roys Mail
>
> Ah, but whose voice was choosen to usher in the age of the talking movie?
As
>the man said, "Hold on, you ain't heard nothing yet".
>
> Also, if you are saying that the Artist of the Century should be one who
>generated a link across the 20th Century, then it has to go to Sinatra.
Sinatra
>charted a single or album in every decade from the 30's to the 90's. He
worked
>with artists from Tommy Dorsey to Bono. He was awarded the Presidential
Medal
>of Freedom. He won an Academy Award for his acting. My God, the man slept
with
>Ava Gardner!!!!!
>
>Bill
>
possible areas to consider!! Could that make Elvis both the Artist AND
Entertainer of the century??!!
On other counts, though, maybe we'll just have to settle for Sinatra as
Entertainer OTC, and Elvis as Artist OFC? Overall, I'm with Dennis here - my
vote goes to Elvis, but others are close behind.
Reference Bono, didn't he say in relation to Elvis's artistry that: "Elvis
Presley was a genius" and "had the wisdom that makes wise men look foolish"?
(BTW, was that AFTER he'd worked with Sinatra??!! ;-) )
Here's another thought, re achievements in the area of literature......I
think I read in a newspaper article a couple of years back that Napolean had
been the most written about character in history, but was now overtaken by
Elvis?......
If fan clubs was another measure to consider, I see the 1999 Guinness Book
of Records cites Elvis as currently holding the most of any artist (alive or
dead). And will Sinatra (or others?) still have an active newsgroup 22 years
after his death, to discuss promoting him/ them as artist/ entertainer
OTC??!!........(is there even one now?.....)
Roy.
Rick Rennie
charisma. It is preposterous to picture him out shining Elvis at any
time. Rick
Becky woot0n
THE CONCERT IS OVER-THE FANS ARE SO EXCITED-GIRLS ARE CRYING-AND
SHOUTING-ELVIS-ELVIS-THEN COMES THIS:ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING-AH
Becky woot0n
Richard Palmer
wrote:
I can see what you're getting at, but I'd have to disagree with your
conclusions.
For a start I don't think that terms "artist" and "entertainer" have
to be separated, as it's perfectly possible to be one, the other OR
both.
You say that with a gap of 40 years since he began, the public find it
difficult to accept the idea of Elvis being an artist. So why wouldn't
the same apply to a great classical composer, or a painter who had
been dead for a couple of hundred (or more) years?
Michelangelo created the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel
- now it was his vision, and his artistry that put it there, but the
mural was commissioned, and was therefore intended as a form of
"entertainment". He would fall into both categories in that case.
I would say that the word Artist implies that the person or persons
concerned has in some way led to the advancement of their field.
Whether it's a singer who influences others, or who invents or
discovers a new style, or if it's a sculptor who comes up with a
unique work. I would go so far as to say that if in the process their
art does not entertain, then it has little value as art.
Art should move people, even if it's only to provoke a negative
reaction. Entertainment does not even have to be directly related to
enjoyment, as for example it would be perfectly feasible for a
sculpture to be seen as total crap by one person, and yet that same
person could get immense pleasure from debating why they thought it
was rubbish. That sculpture might then be considered more worthy of
the term "art" than a painting which was technically perfect, but
which people passed by only to comment "how nice".
So to the Elvis/Sinatra debate. If push comes to shove, I'd say the
record companies got it wrong, (although in truth I suspect that
Capitol were probably gnashing their teeth because RCA got to the
winning post first with their campaign, and took the Entertainer title
by default. The Artist title carries more critical clout). Elvis'
career spanned just over twenty years, and during that time he put out
a lot of product which for one reason or another could NEVER be said
to have advanced the cause of his art, but at the same time was vastly
entertaining.
Sinatra was recording for almost sixty years, and although he
undoubtedly entertained up to the end, I think that with the kind of
track record he had he deserves to be known as an artist more than
Elvis IF ONLY for the fact that he sang for a greater part of the
Century than Elvis. I know that more isn't always best, but in truth I
don't believe Elvis was an artist (by my definition) for much more
than four or five of his 23 years. Sinatra was at the top of his tree
during several periods of his life, ranging from his Columbia days,
through to his swinging Capitol era, and on into the sixties when he
began his own label and (as well as laying down definitive versions of
many standards himself) coaxed people like Dean Martin into making
some of the better records of his career.
The reality is that Elvis has got his title for one reason only -
because RCA wanted a nifty handle to hang a marketing campaign on.
There was no poll taken, no debate raged over who deserved the title.
I'm not disputing his right to be in the running, but why not Judy
Garland? Why not Bing Crosby? Why not Al Jolson? I'm not even saying
that any of those deserve it more than Elvis, and those are names off
the top of my head - maybe there are a dozen others who could be
considered. All I am saying is that RCA got the idea before anybody
else, Elvis didn't win this.
Richard
Dennis A. Rodgers
Have you ever seen a Springsteen concert...or talked to somebody who
has?
Try it sometime. And you will discover how absurd your statement
really is.
And by the way...Elvis was not hard to out shine by 1976.
Dennis
Anne Kamlet
I'd finished!
I started the the childhood story of my immediate identification
with Elvis and his music to show that I consider Elvis an artist.
I don't think entertainer and artist is the same thing,
an artist can entertain (this not limited to artists in show bizbut an
entertainer is not necessarily an artist.
I agree that the "doing" is more important than the response for an
artist (if I didn't misunderstand your point). Your comment re
his artistry being lost in the commercialism is well taken
(again, if I understood you properly), I agree that non-elvis
fans, or those who don't care one way or the other, probably see
the commercialism and not much else; perhaps the 50s stuff as
history or something.
To me he was an artist in the 50s, I'm taking on trust the things
I read about his attitude toward music and his performances, which
do suggest that he loved both.
Annie
Wforme1
need a whole lot of help and i also have said that a trillion times, but
you want our opinions, so that is mine, what are you doing campaigning
I agree with you Becky, I didnt like Parker one bit - but I can appreciate him
more for helping Elvis in getting all the concerts/recordings plus the TV
Specials. But one thing that you are missing, "Elvis didnt need any help" -
that may be true but without Parker - Elvis probably feels that he wouldnt be
able to find a better manager than Parker - remember? Elvis fired Parker but
then Vernon explained to him that he REALLY does needs Parker. There may be no
other manager as GOOD as Parker. He does a very good job in gettting the best
money and concerts - he's a very good negotiating person. I am not sure where I
read this - but when Parker was negotigating Madison Square Garden - they were
afraid to pay Elvis more than they were to pay - because they feels that Elvis
would not filled the seats - but you know - THEY WERE WRONG!!!! Elvis sold-out
EVERY 4 days concerts in MSG - how? Parker...I dont like the man that treated
Elvis dirt in private life - but I like the man in giving Elvis his due that he
deserves....
Roys Mail
Richard Palmer wrote in message
>
>The reality is that Elvis has got his title for one reason only -
>because RCA wanted a nifty handle to hang a marketing campaign on.
>There was no poll taken, no debate raged over who deserved the title.
>I'm not disputing his right to be in the running, but why not Judy
>Garland? Why not Bing Crosby? Why not Al Jolson? I'm not even saying
>that any of those deserve it more than Elvis, and those are names off
>the top of my head - maybe there are a dozen others who could be
>considered. All I am saying is that RCA got the idea before anybody
>else, Elvis didn't win this.
>
>Richard
True that RCA using a "nifty handle to hang a marketing campaign on" may
have introduced us to the notion of Elvis being promoted as Artist of the
Century. However, not so about there being no debate! There IS a debate over
whether it's a deserved title - even if it's only just begun (courtesy of
Martin!), here on aek!
And - aside from the "blind faith" contingent ("well, of course Elvis is
Artist of the Century, period") - so far there doesn't seem to be a clear
consensus, even here, that Elvis is deserving of the title. At least, that
seems to be the case so far, if limiting the field of debate strictly to the
popular music/ entertainment bits.
That's why I think there are additional, wider areas to consider. The whole
Elvis "phenomenon" and influence across the spectrum of 20th century popular
culture and history surely has to be taken into account, to warrant the
title Artist of the Century? Presumably this would also need to be justified
as big enough to deserve the 100 year timespan? Not then, perhaps, simply
limited to a 1999 RCA campaign? (And, BTW, thanks for some interesting
observations on the artist definition Richard).
All this reverts back to Wil's question to us - why do you think Elvis
Presley should be promoted as the Artist of the Century? If this "WHY"
question reaches a general consensus here worthy of promoting, then Julian's
equally important question naturally follows - "HOW"?
Hold that RCA campaign!! AEK has begun its own one!!.........
Roy.
MoonOOO
Marty
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: AEK NEEDS TO LIVEN UP
From: becky...@webtv.net (Becky woot0n)
Date: 2/2/99 7:53 AM CDT
Message-id: <9916-36B...@newsd-244.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
THANK YOU MY FRIEND-LATER-BECKY!!!!
THE CONCERT IS OVER-THE FANS ARE SO EXCITED-GIRLS ARE CRYING-AND
SHOUTING-ELVIS-ELVIS-THEN COMES THIS:ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING-AH
------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: Re: ELVIS NEEDS NO PROMOTING
>From: KingP...@webtv.net (Elvis Fan)
>Date: 2/2/99 1:37 AM CDT
>Message-id: <15271-36...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>
Martin Genz
"Dennis A. Rodgers" wrote:
Please read my reply to Richard!
Martin Genz
Richard Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:27:12 +0100, Martin Genz <Marti...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >What is, to you all, the difference between the words artist and entertainer?
> >Is it just a different way of calling the same thing, or is there a difference
> >in the two terms.
> >
> >Elvis as an artist is - to me - a somewhat difficult thing to except, due to the
> >fact that Elvis has been very much commercialized over the past years (decades,
> >already during his lifetime). Very much like Andy Warhol, who used, as an
> >example, soup cans as his motif for one of his works of art. He didn't bother
> >about art in the sense of an ideal. Seemingly he rather did his art as a
> >by-product of his creative process. It wasn't about being idealistic, it was a
> >job or something done naturally.
> >
> >The same applies to elvis. Today, it is hard to realize that there is a creative
> >process involved in what he did 40 years ago. Certainly as a fan I appreciate
> >the music and am able to see the creative process. But for the general public, I
> >find that Elvis is not seen as an "artist", somebody who through a creative
> >process created something new and unique, but rather as a commercial figure/icon
> >like Mickey Mouse.
> >
> >So if you ask yourself or friends who don't care much about Elvis, does he
> >appear like an artist or like a commercial figure?
> >
> >Martin
>
> I can see what you're getting at, but I'd have to disagree with your
> conclusions.
>
> For a start I don't think that terms "artist" and "entertainer" have
> to be separated, as it's perfectly possible to be one, the other OR
> both.
>
> You say that with a gap of 40 years since he began, the public find it
> difficult to accept the idea of Elvis being an artist. So why wouldn't
> the same apply to a great classical composer, or a painter who had
> been dead for a couple of hundred (or more) years?
>
> Michelangelo created the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel
> - now it was his vision, and his artistry that put it there, but the
> mural was commissioned, and was therefore intended as a form of
> "entertainment". He would fall into both categories in that case.
>
> I would say that the word Artist implies that the person or persons
> concerned has in some way led to the advancement of their field.
> Whether it's a singer who influences others, or who invents or
> discovers a new style, or if it's a sculptor who comes up with a
> unique work. I would go so far as to say that if in the process their
> art does not entertain, then it has little value as art.
> ....
> Art should move people, even if it's only to provoke a negative
> reaction. Entertainment does not even have to be directly related to
> enjoyment, as for example it would be perfectly feasible for a
> ....
I agree with that. RCA probably thought of this first. So it doesn't contain a lot
of meaning other than making the marketing people happy.
The difficulty I have with Elvis as an artist per definition is that people today
don't see him like that. The image is the fat guy who took the drugs. I'm going so
far as to say that Elvis is not really seen as a person anymore. Rather as a name or
a product or - this may be a bit over the top - I suspect that Elvis is not seen as
an artist at all (singer , yes) , but rather like this surpreme being reigning the
rock'n'roll world. You can't go around the music industry and not find Elvis
anywhere.
Friends of mine who don't care for Elvis think of the fat guy or they talk about how
he was famous in the 50s, be it Love me tender or Jaihouse Rock. And a lot of bad
movies too. He had a lot of number one hits and all of that, but they are talking
about the image/icon Elvis.
And that is exactly where the problem I'm trying to get at comes in: When something
is new/trendy/cool people will like it. When things get commercialized, a lot of
people will turn away and put it off as being a ploy by somebody to get to their
money.
I said this before, I am amazed by the "merchandizing" - as it's called today -
(Lipsticks etc) run in the name of Elvis Presley in the 50s. So has all the success
and commercializing the name (which made Elvis rich by the way, after all, this
business comes down to money) destroyed the artistic VALUE that Elvis has created?
Let me try this: already with Sinatra at the Paramount in 1943 there're the
allegations that his manager paid the girls to scream, so that papers would write
about this thus making Sinatra more know. (still a fairly common practice). So in
1956 Elvis appeared on TV to make him more widely known. At that time there were
perhaps 3 television stations and it wasn't too hard to get high ratings. That would
be impossible today. So through carefully staged "events" the name Elvis was made
known and to what an extend did people "buy" the idea because a lot of young people
thought it was cool to like Elvis?
In the 50s Ronald Reagan advertised Lucky Strikes with the argument that it's good
for your throat (I'm parapharsing a little). A lot of people thought that was true
and smoked them like mad. Today people are much more suspicious by what the media
tries to "sell" them. Sure, plenty of 14 year old girls will run out and watch the
latest sensation - a creation called "Backstreet Boys". (They do have talent, by the
way), but in general people are much more aware of the fact that the media is largely
a business with the aim to make the most money possible.
Perhaps I'm looking at it from the wrong side, as an Elvis fan I'm bound to be
subjective, but people around 50-60 today know what a sensation Elvis was. People
under 50 are already Beatles territory. So in order to justify a campaign as Artist
Of The century, what arguments are being put forward to get anybody under 40 to say:
Oh yeah, this Elvis really did something. Elvis the artist, as Donna said in another
post, integrated music, mixing black and white. But that is not exciting anymore
today, it's accepted, nobody turns their head. It is rather Elvis the icon that is
seen by a lot of people if we're lucky. Elvis the guy who ate too much if we're
unlucky.
So to get this thread in another direction moving, unless BMG has something up their
sleeves they haven't told us yet, I am fairly dissapointed by the AOTC campaign so
far. I am guessing that it is not going to get a lot of 25 years olds out into the
store to buy any of the new CDs.
Martin
PS I hope this post made sense, you don't wanna know how long I edited this!
Elvis Fan
Martin Genz
MoonOOO wrote:
> Do the following two webtv postings seem similar to you??????????
>
> Marty
not really. What about them? What should I see? Different given user
names using different news servers.
Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: AEK NEEDS TO LIVEN UP
> From: becky...@webtv.net (Becky woot0n)
> Date: 2/2/99 7:53 AM CDT
> Message-id: <9916-36B...@newsd-244.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
> THANK YOU MY FRIEND-LATER-BECKY!!!!
>
> THE CONCERT IS OVER-THE FANS ARE SO EXCITED-GIRLS ARE CRYING-AND
> SHOUTING-ELVIS-ELVIS-THEN COMES THIS:ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING-AH
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >Subject: Re: ELVIS NEEDS NO PROMOTING
> >From: KingP...@webtv.net (Elvis Fan)
> >Date: 2/2/99 1:37 AM CDT
> >Message-id: <15271-36...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>
> >
> >THAT'S HOW GOOD HE IS!!!
> >
Julian Grant
Martin Genz
Has - in your opinion - the Artistic VALUE of what Elvis created through his music been
lost by all the commercialism?
Martin
Richard Palmer
wrote:
>The difficulty I have with Elvis as an artist per definition is that people today
>don't see him like that. The image is the fat guy who took the drugs. I'm going so
>far as to say that Elvis is not really seen as a person anymore. Rather as a name or
>a product or - this may be a bit over the top - I suspect that Elvis is not seen as
>an artist at all (singer , yes) , but rather like this surpreme being reigning the
>rock'n'roll world. You can't go around the music industry and not find Elvis
>anywhere.
No, he's definitely an Icon now. I don't see his name mentioned much
at all in interviews, but when it is, it's usually either as you say,
in terms of "that fat guy" or else it's in hushed tones, like he's the
Godfather of Music.
Their perception maybe goes beyond the term "artist", (maybe he should
have a category all of his own, perhaps we need to invent a new word
to cover what he was) but I think the reality is that he was capable
of great art for a small part of his career. But hey, I'm not knocking
it, I can't think of another performer who would coax me into shelling
out $20 for an album containing Song Of The Shrimp. If it's
entertainment vs artistry, give me entertainment every day of the
week.
>I said this before, I am amazed by the "merchandizing" - as it's called today -
>(Lipsticks etc) run in the name of Elvis Presley in the 50s. So has all the success
>and commercializing the name (which made Elvis rich by the way, after all, this
>business comes down to money) destroyed the artistic VALUE that Elvis has created?
You can I'm sure, go to the Louvre and buy a Mona Lisa fridge magnet.
No doubt there are Salvador Dali wastepaper baskets available if you
look. Anything popular will be commercialised. I don't suppose Grieg
would be too pleased to know that his music is used to advertise
loaves of bread over here. But it's still good music.
>Let me try this: already with Sinatra at the Paramount in 1943 there're the
>allegations that his manager paid the girls to scream, so that papers would write
>about this thus making Sinatra more know. (still a fairly common practice). So in
>1956 Elvis appeared on TV to make him more widely known. At that time there were
>perhaps 3 television stations and it wasn't too hard to get high ratings. That would
>be impossible today. So through carefully staged "events" the name Elvis was made
>known and to what an extend did people "buy" the idea because a lot of young people
>thought it was cool to like Elvis?
There are certainly chart hits which were "created" by hype. Not many
of them managed a follow up though. Sinatra 's management DID pay
girls to scream, but it turned out to be un-necessary, when the rest
of the audience beat them to it. The public may be fickle, but the
public aren't stupid.
>Perhaps I'm looking at it from the wrong side, as an Elvis fan I'm bound to be
>subjective, but people around 50-60 today know what a sensation Elvis was. People
>under 50 are already Beatles territory. So in order to justify a campaign as Artist
>Of The century, what arguments are being put forward to get anybody under 40 to say:
>Oh yeah, this Elvis really did something. Elvis the artist, as Donna said in another
>post, integrated music, mixing black and white. But that is not exciting anymore
>today, it's accepted, nobody turns their head. It is rather Elvis the icon that is
>seen by a lot of people if we're lucky. Elvis the guy who ate too much if we're
>unlucky.
>
>So to get this thread in another direction moving, unless BMG has something up their
>sleeves they haven't told us yet, I am fairly dissapointed by the AOTC campaign so
>far. I am guessing that it is not going to get a lot of 25 years olds out into the
>store to buy any of the new CDs.
The idea of having an Artist Of The Century campaign was hardly
earth-shattering. It had potential to be a good springboard however -
and so far BMG have wasted it. If I was the marketing man at EMI I'd
be on the phone to them now saying that if they're not going to do
something with the idea, could I have it so that I could sell more
Beatles albums. All BMG have done up to press, is sticker their
back-catalogue.
Maybe when the AOTC triple set is released we'll see some action, but
by then the century will be almost over, and they'll have missed the
boat.
By the way, I got a voting form recently from a mail order firm. If I
hadn't been a customer, how would I have got one? Is there anywhere
on-line that we can use? I suspect that this is another idea which
won't be utilised fully.
Richard
Steve Braun
year, was one of the best concerts I ever saw Elvis give.
The show sold-out before I could get tickets. Found a lady who had won
some on a radio contest. She couldn't attend, so I quickly "relieved"
her of her prizes. These tickets turned out to be the best(seat
location) I ever had for an Elvis concert.
Elvis was really "on" that evening. The recent "A Hot Winter's Night In
Dallas" boot certainly brought that great evening back too me.
"KEEP ON ROCKIN WITH THE KING"
Jeremy TCB
Elvis in his coffin would have had more charisma than Bruce
Springsteen. Take a room full of of journalists and people in late 1976
and put Elvis and Springsteeen in there and see how many journalists
want to talk to Bruce and how many people flock around him. Elvis was
already larger than life - Bruce isn't and never will be, he is simply a
popular performer. TCB-Jeremy
Dennis A. Rodgers
> Elvis was already larger than life - Bruce isn't and never will be, he is simply a
>popular performer. TCB-Jeremy
die as a young man face down on the bathroom floor.
And what does the phrase "larger than life" really mean? Elvis' image
certainly was larger than life...while the man (like all men)
obviously was not. As Elvis once said...it's hard to life up to an
image. And ultimately, he could not do it. You ask if the media
would swarm around Elvis or Springsteen in 1976. The answer is
obviously Elvis, for two reasons: 1) his greatest fame was already
behind him while Springsteen's was yet to come, and 2) because Elvis
was a mystery; he spent much of his life hidden away behind the walls
of Graceland. He never gave an in depth interview in his entire life.
Why? Because he wanted to be a fantasy figure for the masses. Too
bad in real life that fantasy turned into a nightmare. You are
absolutely correct when you say that the Springsteen is not "larger
than life." Good for him. He had every opportunity to obtain
unmanageable fame in the 1980's. But he refused to let success
dictate his life. He chose not to go that path. That's right...it
was HIS choice. When he started to sense that he may be losing
control, he made sure that did not happen. He purposely pulled back.
This happened after "The River" and again after the phenomenal success
of "Born to Run." If, as you say, Elvis did become "larger than
life"...he also lost his soul in the process. That price is just too
high to pay.
Springsteen is now around 50 years old, enjoying life with his family.
As for my basic claim...I still believe that in 1976, Bruce
Springsteen had more charisma than Elvis. Of course, no one could
challenge Elvis in his prime.
Dennis
Dennis A. Rodgers
No argument from me, Steve. Wish I could have been there.
Dennis
VinceEvret
>
>As for my basic claim...I still believe that in 1976, Bruce
>Springsteen had more charisma than Elvis. Of course, no one could
>challenge Elvis in his prime.
>
>Dennis
>
could understand a word Bruce said... good thing he learned to enunciate....
Yeah Bruce is a great song writer but even he will give the nod to Elvis
IWMackay
In article <21042-36...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>, Ste...@webtv.net
(Steve Braun) writes:
>Elvis was really "on" that evening. The recent "A Hot Winter's Night In
>Dallas" boot certainly brought that great evening back too me.
Lucky bastard
you can't lose with four of these
Keeping Elvis #1
Ian
(remove 'Naespam' from address for email)
cr...@execpc.com
jere...@webtv.net (Jeremy TCB) wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> Elvis in his coffin would have had more charisma than Bruce
> Springsteen. Take a room full of of journalists and people in late 1976
> and put Elvis and Springsteeen in there and see how many journalists
> already larger than life - Bruce isn't and never will be, he is simply a
> popular performer. TCB-Jeremy
Bruce isn't larger than life because he doesn't want to be. He is just a
regular guy. That's because it is exactly what he wants to be. Whereas
Elvis wore chrome suits, Bruce wears blue jeans. Elvis was afraid to go out
in public, but Bruce goes out by himself all the time. I met him in a blues
club once, and he had no security with him. I walked up to him, shook his
hand and talked to him briefly. Can you imagine doing that with Elvis??
That's because Elvis played up to his larger than life image, and became a
very disturbed person in the process.
If you are talking about 1976, it doesn't seem like a fair comparison since
Elvis had his career behind him, and Bruce was just starting out. Still,
Bruce in 1978 was a bigger concert draw than Elvis was in 1977. And Bruce in
1978 had way more charisma than Elvis had anytime in the 70's (or probably
even the 60's), plus Bruce put on a much more passionate live show (and twice
as long). As for your question, I wouldn't be so sure those reporters would
be talking to Elvis instead of Bruce. Elvis is far more popular today than
he was in 1976. At that time, he was generally regarded as an overweight
has-been. Bruce was on his way to becoming a superstar. The previous year,
he had his picture on the cover of Time and Newsweek simultaneously,
something that no other living rock star has done before or since. Bruce was
the future of rock and roll, while Elvis was the past.
Don't get me wrong, Elvis was an amazing talent, and had the greatest voice
in the history of rock and roll. He revolutionized rock music, and had a
tremendous influence on it. Without Elvis, Bruce likely would never have
become the artist he is. But to discount Springsteen is just plain wrong.
He is a true artist in a way Elvis just never was. Springsteen is a
tremendous songwriter, writing hundreds of songs, while Elvis never wrote a
lick. Bruce has also has had a longer career than did Elvis. While Elvis
was dead at 42 years old, at the same age, Springsteen was still playing 4
hour shows night after night, wowing fans and critics alike throughout the
world. Then Bruce decided to do an amazing acoustic tour in small venues
with just him and his guitar. Now, approaching 50, he is about to embark on
another worldwide tour with the E Street Band.
Craig
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
j d brown
Before I respond to the meat of your very interesting post,(in light of
90% of what appears in this forum these days) I'd like to correct a few
points.
First, Bruce isn't a regular guy. He has millions and millions of
dollars. Also, he favors Armani suits over blue jeans, and has for quite
some time.(Bruce doesn't wax his own car either.)
Also, Elvis had tremendous charisma and musical ability until the day he
died.
If you doubt that, I invite you to listen to the 1968 TV special
recordings, the 1969 Memphis recordings, the 1970 album "Elvis Country",
and a host of recordings he made throughout the 1970's, including some
of the final studio ones in 1976. He also charted atleast two top forty
singles in 1976, so 'has-been" is not exactly accurate when one is
speaking of Elvis' commercial viability even at that late date.
These are minor points, but quibbler that I am, I couldn't just let
them slide.
Now, before you dismiss me as just another Elvis nut who doesn't
appreciate other artists, I'll confess I've been a Springsteen fan since
"Darkness on the Edge of Town" came out 21 years ago, that I've seen him
several times over the years (most recently on the Tom Joad tour), and
along with all his official releases I've got a ton of his bootlegs.
In my opinion, he's one of our poets for the ages; belonging to that
club of great American songwriters from chanceless backgrounds that
includes Jimmie Rodgers, Woodie Guthrie, Hank Williams, Chuck Berry, Bob
Dylan, and Merle Haggard.
Just as importantly, he's shown us something that Elvis couldn't--that a
rock-and-roll guy CAN age with grace.
Let's return to 1976, for a moment, though.
Springsteen, as you no doubt know, in that pivotal American year, leapt
the wall at Graceland for an impromptu visit with the king. The king
either wasn't at home or even if he was, wasn't in the mood for
visitors. In any case, Bruce was escorted from the grounds and the
fabled meeting never took place.
But what if it had? Would young Bruce have altered his own course any?
I bet he's wondered the same thing more than once, and might privately
be glad he didn't actually get to meet Elvis, atleast then.
Yes, Springsteen's a prolific and generous songwriter, a great performer
and an inspiration to millions. But, he's not a revolutionary cultural
figure. Elvis Presley was and remains one. Therein lies a key
difference.
Elvis changed the world with his music, attitude, and charisma. I'll say
it again. Elvis changed the world. He didn't intend to certainly, but
the result was the same. The subsequent reaction from people everywhere
the world over to his music, performances, and to him drove him into
isolation, emotional desolation and an early death.
Bruce Springsteen and a whole lot of other entertainers learned a great
deal from Elvis, what to do, how to do it and what not to do.
There's much more to be said here, but I've taken up enough space
tonight. I hope you stick around for awhile, and I hope you give some of
those 1960's-1970's Elvis records a chance. I think you might be
pleasantly surprised with just how good so many of them are.
John
"rock away the days, rock away the nights"
E.P. Henderson
Pauley
Jeremy TCB
JCPD
"E.P. Henderson" wrote:
>
> What's bloviations?
>
> Pauley
To bloviate is to speak with an air of pomposity, presumably a greater
offense than hyperbolic verbosity.
John, of course, is guilty of neither in this self-described
"bloviation".
Cathy
MoonOOO
>>
>> What's bloviations?
>>
>> Pauley
>
Pauley,
Blovations are certain activities of Monica Lewinsky!
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
marty
E.P. Henderson
>Pauley,
>Blovations are certain activities of Monica
>Lewinsky!
>Sorry, I couldn't resist.
>marty
Trust me when I say I understand...
Where did the 'i' go to?
Pauley
VinceEvret
>>>
>>> What's bloviations?
>>>
>>> Pauley
>>
>
>
>Blovations are certain activities of Monica Lewinsky!
>
>Sorry, I couldn't resist.
>
>marty
>
>
>
>
>
>
In her case it was a Standing Blovation.
MoonOOO
>>Blovations are certain activities of Monica
>>Lewinsky!
>>Sorry, I couldn't resist.
>>marty
>
>
>Where did the 'i' go to?
>
>Pauley
>
Marty
Nevstar
Tell us, what do you think Elvis would have thought of this how Presidential
affair?
All the best.....
MoonOOO wrote in message <19990208205153...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
MoonOOO
>
>Tell us, what do you think Elvis would have thought of this how Presidential
>affair?
>
>All the best.....
Elvis would have had two reactions. One he'd laugh! Two he'd want the
congress and senate to mind their own business.
You have to consider that he wouldn't condemn Clinton, it would be the pot
calling the kettle black. Basically that's what the Republicans are guilty of
now.
When Clinton first ran for President, it was made known by his people and the
media that he was a huge Elvis fan and that his boyhood nickname among his
friends was, "Elvis!" Elvis would have loved that.
At the same time Bush and his fellow Republicans were making fun at that in
their campaign speeches. On one televised campaign speech, Bush mockingly
refered to Clinton's proposed economic plan as, "Elvis Economics!" A definate
put down of both Elvis and Clinton.
This whole Presidential fiasco is a hypocritical, political farce and I think
he would have come to the same conclusion.
Marty
cr...@execpc.com
Thanks for your intelligent response to my message.
> First, Bruce isn't a regular guy. He has millions and millions of
> dollars. Also, he favors Armani suits over blue jeans, and has for quite
> some time.(Bruce doesn't wax his own car either.)
Okay, you're right that he isn't a normal guy by standards of money and
celebrity. However, he is as normal a guy as someone with $100 million in
the bank can be. He definitely does not prefer to wear Armani suits over
blue jeans, and only wears them when he needs to (award ceremonies, etc.).
He most certainly was wearing blue jeans the time I met him, and is often
seen wearing them around New Jersey. I'm sure you're right about him not
waxing his own car. However, I've heard a ton of cool Springsteen "regular
guy" stories from Jersey locals. One of them was recently, where a guy on
the Springsteen newsgroup got a call to pick up some cardboard from a New
Jersey learning center. When he arrived, he found Bruce there, putting
together desks that he had apparently just donated to the learning center
(most of Bruce's donations are done anonymously). That is typical Bruce. He
drives himself to some of his local shows (in his Ford Explorer), often goes
out shopping by himself or with his wife. When he arrived at the "We Are the
World" sessions (in 1985, when he was arguably the biggest star in the
world), we parked his rented truck across the street, and walked by himself
past all the limos and papparizzi photographers, barely being noticed. He
doesn't like limos, and usually rents Ford Explorers when he is on tour. He
and his old friends go motorcycling across the country every year. Okay,
enough about "Bruce the regular guy."
> Also, Elvis had tremendous charisma and musical ability until the day he
> died.
>
> If you doubt that, I invite you to listen to the 1968 TV special
> recordings, the 1969 Memphis recordings, the 1970 album "Elvis Country",
> and a host of recordings he made throughout the 1970's, including some
> of the final studio ones in 1976. He also charted atleast two top forty
> singles in 1976, so 'has-been" is not exactly accurate when one is
> speaking of Elvis' commercial viability even at that late date.
I have seen the 1968 special a few times, and I agree that Elvis showed
charisma, but I don't think it compares to the charisma he showed earlier in
his career. I love a lot of Elvis songs put out in the 70's. "Kentucky
Rain" and "Suspicious Minds" are two of my favorite Elvis songs. However,
charisma is something I think of as seeing in person. I don't "hear"
charisma much on studio records. I've seen clips of Elvis in concert in
1977, and whole concerts of Bruce in 1978, and at that time, I just find
Bruce a lot more charasmatic. Of course, Elvis still had an amazing voice up
until the end. There is no doubt about that. If you are correct that Elvis
charted at least 2 top 40 singles in 1976, I have to admit that I'm surprised
by that. However, the fact remains that Elvis didn't have anywhere near the
respect in 1976 that he did earlier in his career, and he was the brunt of a
lot of jokes. I know he had trouble selling out some of his later concerts.
> Now, before you dismiss me as just another Elvis nut who doesn't
> appreciate other artists, I'll confess I've been a Springsteen fan since
> "Darkness on the Edge of Town" came out 21 years ago, that I've seen him
> several times over the years (most recently on the Tom Joad tour), and
> along with all his official releases I've got a ton of his bootlegs.
>
> In my opinion, he's one of our poets for the ages; belonging to that
> club of great American songwriters from chanceless backgrounds that
> includes Jimmie Rodgers, Woodie Guthrie, Hank Williams, Chuck Berry, Bob
> Dylan, and Merle Haggard.
>
> Just as importantly, he's shown us something that Elvis couldn't--that a
> rock-and-roll guy CAN age with grace.
Totally agreed on all points!
> Let's return to 1976, for a moment, though.
>
> Springsteen, as you no doubt know, in that pivotal American year, leapt
> the wall at Graceland for an impromptu visit with the king. The king
> either wasn't at home or even if he was, wasn't in the mood for
> visitors. In any case, Bruce was escorted from the grounds and the
> fabled meeting never took place.
Yes, apparently Elvis was in Lake Tahoe.
> But what if it had? Would young Bruce have altered his own course any?
> I bet he's wondered the same thing more than once, and might privately
> be glad he didn't actually get to meet Elvis, atleast then.
Bruce has stated that jumping over the wall was a dumb thing to do. After a
show in Memphis, the taxi driver suggested taking Bruce and guitarist Steve
Van Zandt to Graceland, and it was an impromptu thing him jumping over the
fence to meet his idol. Bruce has admitted that he has no idea what he would
have said, and hinted that he was glad he didn't get to meet Elvis at that
time.
> Yes, Springsteen's a prolific and generous songwriter, a great performer
> and an inspiration to millions. But, he's not a revolutionary cultural
> figure. Elvis Presley was and remains one. Therein lies a key
> difference.
You may be surprised, but I agree with this. Bruce didn't revolutionize the
world of music the way Elvis did. What Bruce did was take the best of the
music that came before him (Elvis, Dylan, Guthrie, Berry, etc.) and morphed
it into his own music.
> Elvis changed the world with his music, attitude, and charisma. I'll say
> it again. Elvis changed the world. He didn't intend to certainly, but
> the result was the same. The subsequent reaction from people everywhere
> the world over to his music, performances, and to him drove him into
> isolation, emotional desolation and an early death.
> Bruce Springsteen and a whole lot of other entertainers learned a great
> deal from Elvis, what to do, how to do it and what not to do.
Very true! Elvis let his emotional isolation get the best of him, and it
ultimately ruined him, and led to his unfortunate early death. People such
as Bruce learned a lot from him, and owe a great debt of gratitude. In fact,
Bruce has often talked about how to him, isolation is one of the most
dangerous things in life. His acoustic Nebraska album (an absolutely
brilliant album, btw) addresses this subject a lot, and may never have
happened if it hadn't been for Elvis' isolation and death just a few years
before. In fact, the song "Johnny Bye Bye," which Bruce wrote about Elvis,
was originally written and recorded at the Nebraska sessions (although was
left off the record).
> There's much more to be said here, but I've taken up enough space
> tonight. I hope you stick around for awhile, and I hope you give some of
> those 1960's-1970's Elvis records a chance. I think you might be
> pleasantly surprised with just how good so many of them are.
I have checked in here from time to time over the years. I have always
considered Elvis my second favorite artist (guess who my first is), have been
to Graceland twice, attended the Elvis tribute concert in Memphis several
years ago, and own a lot of Elvis CD's (including music from the 60's and
70's). I like a lot of his 60's and 70's output, but find much of it
inferior to his 50's music. I consider Elvis the most important person in
revolutionizing rock and roll, but not necessarily the most important
"artist." I guess I have a problem with Elvis the "artist" since he didn't
write his own songs, and was only an average guitarist. Bruce not only
writes all his own songs, but produces them, plays guitar, harmonica, and
sometimes piano. He also is arguably the best live performer in rock
history, giving passionate 3-4 hour concerts night after night. However,
because Bruce hasn't been nearly as influential as some other artists, I
wouldn't give him the title of "artist of the century." I might give that
award to either Woody Guthrie or Bob Dylan, who have influenced everyone from
Elvis to the Beatles, to Springsteen, not just in their music, but also, very
importantly, in their songwriting.
So basically, we agree on a lot of the points you brought up. However, I
really do feel that Bruce had more charisma than did Elvis in 1976, and was
quite annoyed at the post by someone that said Elvis had more charisma in his
casket than Bruce has ever had, but there is no denying that Elvis epitomized
charisma early in his career.
> "rock away the days, rock away the nights"
Great quote! That's one of my favorite songs off the new Springsteen boxed
set.
Craig
"Bye bye Johnny, Johnny bye bye. You didn't have to die. You didn't have to
die."
Richard Palmer
>>E.P. Henderson" wrote:
>>>
>>> What's bloviations?
>>>
>>> Pauley
>>
>
>Pauley,
>
>Blovations are certain activities of Monica Lewinsky!
No, that would be a standing blovation.
Richard
MoonOOO
Or deep knee bends!
Marty
Jeremy TCB
First, the person asked about how you think ELVIS would have reacted
to the President's crimes, we don't need YOUR opinion. Second, the Bush
statement about "Elvis Economics" was no put down to Elvis. I know
because being schooled in political science, I follow that kind of thing
very closely - especially if Elvis' name is mentioned. Bush said that
Clinton's plan would have taxpayers "all shook up" and we would soon be
checking into the "Heartbreak Hotel". A put down to Clinton? Sure. A put
down to Elvis? Hardly. Don't try to make Republicans out to be
anti-Elvis, how stupid can you get? TCB-Jeremy
VinceEvret
Martin Genz
Jeremy TCB wrote:
this is not really part of the topic: but did Elvis ever vote ??
just curious as always,
Martin
DKDeen
I don't think Elvis ever voted in an election. He was like the average
American--probably whined about the government and politicians, but
never exercised his right (and privilege) to vote.
DK
P.S. Jeremy is correct about what Bush said--I never interpreted Bush's
remarks as being anti-Elvis.
MoonOOO
>
> First, the person asked about how you think ELVIS would have reacted
>to the President's crimes, we don't need YOUR opinion. Second, the Bush
>statement about "Elvis Economics" was no put down to Elvis. I know
>because being schooled in political science, I follow that kind of thing
>very closely - especially if Elvis' name is mentioned. Bush said that
>Clinton's plan would have taxpayers "all shook up" and we would soon be
>checking into the "Heartbreak Hotel". A put down to Clinton? Sure. A put
>down to Elvis? Hardly. Don't try to make Republicans out to be
>anti-Elvis, how stupid can you get? TCB-Jeremy
>
Jeremy,
As for, "We don't need YOUR opinion!"
No one asked you about your opinion.
I wasn't answering you and I don't need your typical smart ass answer to me.
I also don't need correcting from you on what I saw and heard, I remember it
distinctly because it was an elitist, snobbish remark that Bush uttered on TV
pissed me off. He said, and I quote, "ELVIS ECONOMICS!" And it was a typical
Bush remark, who at one time was described as being born with a silver foot in
his mouth! It pissed me off not only because it put Elvis down, but it was a
veiled denegrating remark to the majority of Elvis fans, who are primarily blue
collar workers.
As for your lesson in political science, allow me to invite you to stick it up
your ass junior.
Over the many years I have been on this earth, I have dealt with, and been
involved in, friendships and a few not so very friendly, relationships with
politicians on a number of levels. Local,County, State and Federal.
I'm very much attuned to the certain dispostions and attitudes it takes to be a
politician. The breed of person it takes.
As usual, you jump in on subjects that are not directed to you, and you spout
off your little theories about things you think you know about when you don't.
Marty
MoonOOO
>
>> Marty,
>>
>> First, the person asked about how you think ELVIS would have reacted
>> to the President's crimes, we don't need YOUR opinion. Second, the Bush
>> statement about "Elvis Economics" was no put down to Elvis. I know
>> because being schooled in political science, I follow that kind of thing
>> very closely - especially if Elvis' name is mentioned. Bush said that
>> Clinton's plan would have taxpayers "all shook up" and we would soon be
>> checking into the "Heartbreak Hotel". A put down to Clinton? Sure. A put
>> down to Elvis? Hardly. Don't try to make Republicans out to be
>> anti-Elvis, how stupid can you get? TCB-Jeremy
>
>
>just curious as always,
>Martin
>
Martin,
No he never did.
Marty
IWMackay
In article <27014-36C...@newsd-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
jere...@webtv.net (Jeremy TCB) writes:
>Marty
>First, the person asked about how you think ELVIS would have reacted
>to the President's
(alleged)
> crimes, we don't need YOUR opinion. Second, the Bush
>statement about "Elvis Economics" was no put down to Elvis. I know
>because being schooled in political science, I follow that kind of thing
>very closely - especially if Elvis' name is mentioned. Bush said that
>Clinton's plan would have taxpayers "all shook up" and we would soon be
>checking into the "Heartbreak Hotel". A put down to Clinton? Sure. A put
>down to Elvis? Hardly.
I alwasy take comments like this as a put-down to Elvis. It smacks of the
standard low-rent press releases for people exploiting Elvis at a crappy event.
As long as Elvis is associated instantly with songs such as these, it
trivializes his impact. This is why, if people have to joke about him, I'd
prefer they went down the Hinka Hunka route.
I'd just as soon keep my opinions on that to myself, I'm just an entertainer
JCPD
Jeremy TCB wrote:
>
> Marty,
>
> First, the person asked about how you think ELVIS would have reacted
> to the President's crimes, we don't need YOUR opinion.
When did the question of NEED for a particular opinion become the rule
of order around here?
Second, the Bush
> statement about "Elvis Economics" was no put down to Elvis. I know
> because being schooled in political science, I follow that kind of thing
> very closely - especially if Elvis' name is mentioned. Bush said that
> Clinton's plan would have taxpayers "all shook up" and we would soon be
> checking into the "Heartbreak Hotel". A put down to Clinton? Sure. A put
> down to Elvis? Hardly. Don't try to make Republicans out to be
> anti-Elvis, how stupid can you get? TCB-Jeremy
Ok, not that anybody NEEDS this, but...
It would be very stupid indeed to suggest that conservatives or
Republicans are a monolith of the anti-elvis persuasion. What we are
seeing here with this opinion that you say none of us need, is that to
some observers, Elvis was more apolitical and libertarian than he was an
idealistic conservative.
It's hardly conclusive, this speculation, but it's no different than the
speculating we do about every aspect of his life.
Jeremy, while you have never said that Elvis was card carrying
conservative Republican, it appears to me (again, just my unneeded
opinion) that this is terribly important to you, that we don't get any
crazy ideas about Elvis having some decadent liberal bent. That you
express your beliefs both political and your views on Elvis, is welcome
here to me. Can you extend the same to those of us who see Elvis
differently?
Was Bush overtly bashing Elvis? No, but I do remember him saying the
name Elvis Presley like Elvis was part of some sub-culture that he did
not, nor wanted to understand. He referred to Elvis again in the
campaign when he said that Clinton had been spotted in more places than
Elvis Presley. Just as he did when he mentioned the songs he did, he was
going for the easily understood Elvis joke. Is that an anti-Elvis
stance? Not hardly. But when Al Gore introduced Clinton at the
Democratic Convention with: "I always wanted to be the opening act for
Elvis", the response was more like an embrace of Elvis. I am not trying
to prove to you that Elvis was a wild-eyed liberal, or that Democrats
love Elvis, only that as an observation, one candidate appeared to
understand the cultural impact of Elvis and the other did not.
But if it makes you feel any better, there are conservatives on record
who are definitely Elvis-friendly:
Phil Grahm, Republican of Texas, on the Clinton health care plan:
"It's deader than Elvis, and unlike with Elvis, we won't be happy to
see it come back."
Larry Speakes, the former press secretary to Ronald Reagan, opened a
White House Press Briefing by noting that he was a fellow Mississippian
and played a tape of "That's All Right." He didn't have a whole lot of
information on the question at hand: Iran Contra, but he did say he
would take any question "about the King."
Some of us are schooled by personal observation, and are just as
informed and just as prone to opine.
Cathy
MoonOOO
Cathy,
As usual a intelligent and well balanced response.
In regards to Bush's statement, it's not only what you say, it's the tone and
inflections in which you say it.
And Bush's tone and attitude was definately a, look down his nose, type of
statement. Anyone who thinks that was a pro Elvis or pro the people Elvis
primarily represents, needs to do a refresher class in Political Science,
Semantics and Human Relations. I remember the campaign stop, he said it
standing in front of what looked liked bleachers.
That kind of remark and the tone used to make it, is something Elvis abhored.
Unlike the eight year period of the Republicans Reagan and Bush, Elvis was
squarely in the corner of the majority of the lower and middle income people.
He cared about the welfare of those people and in that area alone, he was far
from being a conservative. Those two and their like minded people, catered to
the the top one and a half percent, the ultra wealthy of the country.
Elvis was patriotic but he was an independent.
Marty
MoonOOO
you about how much he thought about Elvis.
During the Jaycees Ten Outstanding Young Men awards, at the time Elvis was one
of the reciepients of the award, George Bush was the main speaker at the
breakfast that morning.
We were sitting in the audience at two tables.
Around us were the other nine winners.
After his speech, Bush came off the stage and visited some of the winners and
shook their hands and had a few words with them. He skipped Elvis' table and
left without ever saying a word to him.
Marty
Jeremy TCB
I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I had this quote on video for
years. Your impression of Bush is tainting your view of this quote, it
was harmless and funny. As a memer of the "defend Elvis to the death"
crowd, why would I defend a quote that is hurtful to Elvis' memory? The
quote had nothing to do with Bush looking down on blue-collar Elvis
fans, that is absurd speculation on your part. I can promise you that
Bush never gave much thought to which socioeconomic strata group that
Elvis fans belonged to! If you think that he was figuring all of this
into his remarks you are even more idiotic than I already figure you to
be. The quote again for all of you who want the REAL quote without
Marty's paranoid interpretation:
"Clinton's plan could be called Elvis Economics. His plan will leave
taxpayers 'all shook up' and America will soon be checking into the
'Heartbreak Hotel'." President Bush 1992
Of course this has nothing to do with Elvis personally, just a humorous
way to say that Clinton's plan was risky. If I was a politician, I would
like to work Elvis into my speeches too and this statement would be
perfectly fine. TCB-Jeremy
Jeremy TCB
There is nothing wrong with people immediately associating Elvis with
these song titles. It is just one of many examples of how Elvis
influences our everyday lives in so many different ways. TCB-Jeremy
IWMackay
>these song titles. It is just one of many examples of how Elvis
>influences our everyday lives in so many different ways.
Most artists would be delighted with this kind of 'institutionalisation'.
The problem is that Elvis career is seen as one year and two at the most if we
continue to accept his association with such songs.
I suppose you know I gotta lotta cars
Jeremy TCB
stated that the quote Marty used was harmless. I do feel that Elvis had
more in common with Republicans/ conservatives than Democrats/liberals.
I base my opinion on Elvis' beliefs on national defense, patriotism,
traditional values, homosexuality, the 60's counter-culture, etc.
Mostly the social issues, I don't know much about how Elvis felt on
fiscal issues.
I did not mean to imply that there had to be a "need" in order for
people to post. I only meant this regarding Marty's post about Clinton,
where someone asked how Elvis would feel and Marty used half of his time
to give HIS usual anti-Republican opinion. We need to keep straight what
Elvis' opinion was and Marty's opinion is. Often, right or wrong, he
would like us to believe that they are one in the same. We are all
entitled to give our Elvis-related (hopefully) opinions on here. I only
wish that when faced with a good argument that Marty could ever admit
that he might be mistaken. TCB-Jeremy
MoonOOO
Certainly Jeremy, everyone has a right to their opinion.
Problem is, you keep giving us your uninformed opinion about Elvis' private
thinking and conversations. You continue to presume to know what Elvis would
do, what he really liked and what he said in private, even though you never
spent one minute with him.
I think it's wonderful that you are a staunch,
conservative, Republican, I didn't suspect you were anything else.
So what you're saying is that a Democrat or Independent couldn't be for
national defense, patriotism,traditional values or the 60's counter culture?
Pray tell, what were Elvis' beliefs on homosexuals? A bit homophobic, are'nt
you! And whose versions of traditional values are we all supposed to live up
to?
Please do us a favor, don't run for a Federal
office.
Marty
Jeremy TCB
BUSH DID NOT COMPARE CLINTON TO ELVIS AS A PERSON. HE USED ELVIS SONGS
TITLES TO MAKE A POINT. REASONING IS A VERY HARD SKILL FOR SOME ON THIS
NG. TCB-Jeremy
VinceEvret
>taxpayers 'all shook up' and America will soon be checking into the
>'Heartbreak Hotel'." President Bush 1992
>
>Of course this has nothing to do with Elvis personally, just a humorous
>way to say that Clinton's plan was risky. If I was a politician, I would
>like to work Elvis into my speeches too and this statement would be
>perfectly fine. TCB-Jeremy
>
>
>
him to Elvis... Look whipper snapper if your saying your opponent is no better
than Elvis you are slamming Elvis and everyone new at this time that Elvis was
down to his last penny comparatively perhaps because he spent his money
frivalously or spent it on drugs or relied on other peoples advice... Jeremy
you have a lot to learn.... Bush wasnt an Elvis fan he liked The Beach Boys,
LOL
VinceEvret
>
> First, the person asked about how you think ELVIS would have reacted
>statement about "Elvis Economics" was no put down to Elvis. I know
>because being schooled in political science, I follow that kind of thing
>very closely - especially if Elvis' name is mentioned. Bush said that
>Clinton's plan would have taxpayers "all shook up" and we would soon be
>checking into the "Heartbreak Hotel". A put down to Clinton? Sure. A put
>down to Elvis? Hardly. Don't try to make Republicans out to be
>anti-Elvis, how stupid can you get? TCB-Jeremy
>
Mommie can either. Marty was explaining to you all what Elvis's opinion
might have been based on first hand experience. Not just giving you HIS
Opinion.
Wforme1
taxpayers 'all shook up' and America will soon be checking into the
'Heartbreak Hotel'." President Bush 1992
Of course this has nothing to do with Elvis personally, just a humorous
way to say that Clinton's plan was risky. If I was a politician, I would
like to work Elvis into my speeches too and this statement would be
perfectly fine. TCB-Jeremy
I think one of the reason at that political election time why Bush would use
some of Elvis' songs in his speeches against Bush was because Clinton's a fan
of Elvis. When Clinton appeared on David Letterman (I think that was the show
at the time) he was playing "Heartbreak Hotel" with his saxophone so when
Bush's speech writers notice that - they probably feels it would make a good
speech to put Elvis in it. I think it probably was making some kind of a joke
to Clinton because he's the fan of Elvis. I never did like Bush that well.
Wil
Wforme1
of the reciepients of the award, George Bush was the main speaker at the
breakfast that morning.
We were sitting in the audience at two tables.
Around us were the other nine winners.
After his speech, Bush came off the stage and visited some of the winners and
shook their hands and had a few words with them. He skipped Elvis' table and
left without ever saying a word to him.
Marty
I wonder why? Bush dont like him? How did Elvis feel about that or did he
notice?
Wil
MoonOOO
Wil,
He noticed but he brushed it off as he was very happy that day to be receiving
the award.
If I remember correctly, Bush was the U.S. U.N. Ambassador at the time or had
just left that office.
Marty
VinceEvret
Clinton. Using poor frivalous economics as an example. This was not just the
use of song titles. "Elvis economics" didnt you just read me explain that one
to you.
VinceEvret
>way to say that Clinton's plan was risky. If I was a politician, I would
>like to work Elvis into my speeches too and this statement would be
>perfectly fine. TCB-Jeremy
>
>
>I think one of the reason at that political election time why Bush would use
>some of Elvis' songs in his speeches against Bush was because Clinton's a fan
>of Elvis. When Clinton appeared on David Letterman (I think that was the show
>at the time) he was playing "Heartbreak Hotel" with his saxophone so when
>Bush's speech writers notice that - they probably feels it would make a good
>speech to put Elvis in it. I think it probably was making some kind of a joke
>to Clinton because he's the fan of Elvis. I never did like Bush that well.
>
>Wil
>
>
poor plans of my administration All shook up and leave all of America Loving
You.
VinceEvret
>one
>of the reciepients of the award, George Bush was the main speaker at the
>breakfast that morning.
>
>We were sitting in the audience at two tables.
>Around us were the other nine winners.
>After his speech, Bush came off the stage and visited some of the winners and
>shook their hands and had a few words with them. He skipped Elvis' table and
>left without ever saying a word to him.
>
>Marty
>
one.