Elvis Presley - The Albums and Singles Thread pt2 The Sixties

I guess that's why I respected James so much as he was not so willing to bite the hand that use to feed him, so to speak. I guess if you were looking for someone to tell you how badly the drug use had affected Elvis as a performer in the 70's, James was not going to be your first choice, but I still think he could have given some interesting insight into Elvis from a musician's standpoint. I was not interested in hearing gossip from James or how bad some of Elvis's worst shows in the 1970' s were, but that might have interested you more than me. James definitely would not have been your choice for an interview, but he sure would have been mine. I still think Burton could have provided some interesting views on Elvis, both the singer and musician, whose great TCB band he lead in studio and live for virtually seven straight years.

 

No need for the jab insinuating that I would have liked James to dish the dirt. The point was “The Searcher” was not a vehicle for a guy like James. “The Searcher” presented honesty and transparency.

 

I don't know much about the people, but a good interviewer a with a good editor should be able to trim the fat if someone is on a waffle.
Ask the right questions and you will get the responses. If you get the answer and then some swooning, you can always edit the swooning out lol

 

No jab intended. However, I do not think that you hold the holy grail on who is being honest or transparent when discussing Elvis's career either. I respect that you and I have very different views on Elvis later period career. I believe that you feel this period damages your personal vision of Elvis that you hold in very high regard earlier, so your tendency is to dismiss the perspectives of important musicians like James Burton, who were such a big part of Elvis's big sound that Tom Petty so articulately addressed in the documentary during the 1970's. I believe The Searcher was the perfect vehicle to hear from one of the most important musicians Elvis ever worked with. James was the first musician that Elvis actually spoke to himself before forming his great TCB band in 1969, and the one Elvis chose to be his band leader for the next eight years. I do not know anyone who really cared about Elvis as a musician that would not have wanted to hear from James Burton in The Searcher.

 

Well, there is another veiled jab -- I never said or implied that I hold "the holy grail" on who is being honest or transparent. If James Burton is going to fawn over Elvis' stage work and overall demeanor from the mid-1970's (like he has done on several occasions), when the audio evidence largely tells a much different story (as well as many other firsthand accounts by Elvis inner-circle), his credibility on the topic becomes suspect. Nevertheless, his perspective from the 1969 Las Vegas rehearsals in Hollywood would be very interesting to hear, but it is unclear how that would have augmented "The Searcher" in any meaningful way other than being a footnote or a quick soundbite. Having James attempt to prop up the 1973-1977 stage work would be irrelevant; again, particularly because that was not the direction "The Searcher" took with the period.

You have a misperception of how I view Elvis' 1970's period, likely due to your own blind, hyper-defense of the era.

I am not sure if I agree with your premise that James was one of the most important musicians Elvis ever worked with. James' role during the Hollywood 1969 rehearsals was important because he helped Elvis put together his terrific band (after Tom Parker low-balled the American Sound band, and both Scotty Moore and DJ Fontana). As far as the 1970's are concerned, Glen D. Hardin arguably played a more significant role because of all of the arranging he was involved with. James was a consistent presence, but he also played his part in creating a musically pedestrian environment as the decade progressed -- the Elvis gig simply became a paycheck.

 

You pre-judge James Burton's theoretical interview before it even happens by you statement that it would have been "dishonest and not transparent," merely because he might not have highly critical things to say about this period. I believe that it is you who is extremely narrow minded and unwilling to respect other people who do not share you proclamations on Elvis career, particularly his later period in the 70's. It seems that anybody who challenges your positions on Elvis is subject to your temper tantrums, i.e. "Likely due to your own blind, hyper defense of the era," is merely one example of you latest wrath, when I have the audacity to chose to disagree with you on one of your very subjective opinions. I could care less whether you disagree with me on a point, and I enjoy reading your posts on occasion, when you don't sound like your coming down from high to tell us the holy truth on Elvis.

 

I think you might be the only Elvis fan or music critic on Earth that thinks that Glen Hardin, a musician that I admire greatly, was a more important band member than James Burton, but hey, if that is what you really believe, go with it.

 

Actually, I qualified my statement with “if he were to fawn over the mid-1970’s.” Why? Because the premise of the documentary presented a different perspective of the final years (which was not “highly critical” for the record), not a whitewashing, something Burton is known for. None of that has anything to do with your erroneous “holy truth” assertions and attacks.

 

Sometimes I wonder how carefully you read my posts. I said: “Hardin arguably played a more significant role because of all the arranging he was involved with.” That does not say or even imply Burton was less important, it only suggests Hardin May have played a more significant role in the band because he was an arranger. Under that scenario, Burton could still be the most important band member for a multitude of reasons. It gets tiresome having you claim I say things that I actually do not say.

 

Come on guys just agree to disagree and play nice

 

That is a distinction without any real difference, but I appreciate your patience with us less informed members on the board.

 

Come on mate, don't be snippy

 

Well its hard when you get attacked for having a different opinion with someone, but we have all derailed your fine thread long enough, so I will bow out for now.

 

@PacificOceanBlue and @RSteven
I respect both you guys and your knowledge. I reckon we can get through the next 12 years and find common ground.
We all love Elvis' work, and we all have slightly different perspectives on what is good and what is bad.
It's no big deal.

Group hug

 

Nothing's derailed. It's all good, I'm not pissy, I just hate to see you guys revving each other up

 

I have really been enjoying the discussions on Elvis' movie years. I had put all Elvis music aside for a couple of years after having immersed myself in it for several years prior while I was building my Elvis CD collection. I wanted some away time so that I could return to it "fresh" again. I have revisited the soundtrack albums lately as our discussions have progressed and some of the comments have actually helped me change my mind on a few of the soundtrack songs that I previously didn't appreciate. Not that I fell in love with those but my opinion went from "yuk" to "ok sorta". I'm an Elvis fan for all his different eras of recordings but the mid 1960's was a tough one. The only bright spot in my opinion are those great ballads. Even with mediocre material, Elvis could take total command of any ballad and make it sound much better than the material really was. I don't care for the so called "rockers" during this time as most of them are so scrubbed of any energy or edge that they seem to me to be in Elvis kids bop style.
I have a question for the experts here. I have read that Elvis was offered a part in "True Grit" starring John Wayne. It was discussed earlier about Elvis losing a serious role in "A Star Is Born". Was this a serious offer for Elvis or was it just testing the waters to give Elvis a part in "True Grit"? Was Elvis stoked to work with John Wayne and the deal sabotaged like the ASIB role?

 

Yup, here.

 

Kismet
Written By :
Roy C. Bennett & Sid Tepper

Recorded :
RCA's Studio B, Nashville, February 24-26, 1965 : February 25, 1965. take 5
This song is ok also ... I have always hated this word ... I don't know why.
The song is ok, it is a gentle love song/ballad type song and of course Elvis sings it well. I can't put my finger on it but the melodic structure reminds me of something else .... but again this song is ok, it doesn't pop like many of my favourite ballads of his.

 

Shake That Tambourine
Written By :
Bill Giant, Bernie Baum & Florence Kaye

Recorded :
RCA's Studio B, Nashville, February 24-26, 1965 : February 24, 1965. take 24 and 38
This track is ok also, but it doesn't call for my attention. One thing about this track, when I watched the movie, it annoyed me no end that the tambourine in the music was not in time with the tambourine that Elvis was hitting in the picture ... to me that's poor direction, and that is also the kind of thing that probably made people feel Elvis wasn't a musician..... If you see someone miming poorly often enough, the tendency is to assume they have no idea what they are doing. In reality it just laziness and poor production value.

 

Ha! I'm the same way, and for that reason, this is one of the few Elvis songs where the lyrics actively bother me. On top of that, the music takes itself a bit too seriously. It's like the song is trying to sound "smart" and just ends up sounding silly.

Shake That Tambourine is a decent uptempo number, but there's not enough energy in the playing for it to really work for me. It makes for a decent filler track, but it's definitely not one that I find myself returning to.

 

If I remember correctly, the outtakes of Shake That Tambourine have a lot more energy than the master. That still doesn’t make it a good song though.

 

Kismet and Shake That Tambourine are two of the more average to weak songs on the album to my ears. Kismet has a decent enough melody, but it is probably never a good sign when you have to look up the title of the song in a dictionary for the meaning. At first listen, I thought it was the name of the girl he was singing to in the movie.

 

I wouldn't put much stock in the Elvis and True Grit story--it's a juicy rumor and no one has found an actual source confirming it. Nor does it show up in the major Elvis biographies. In any case, I don't think Elvis would have benefited much from the role--La Boeuf the Texas Ranger is a thankless, bland second banana role (in the '69 film, not the remake). Whoever played it would have been overshadowed by John Wayne.

 

Kismet was the name of a 1955 film that would have been familiar to most listeners, even if they hadn’t seen it.