Log In
Register
12.05am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
Long John Silver, it may surprise you that I agree with much of what you say, though perhaps not if you have read my earlier posts in this thread. You have argued your point reasonably and I respect you for that. I am lucky enough to live in the UK where we have the BBC and do not have to rely on biased and politically-motivated news channels like Fox. I often disagree with Funny Paper’s opinions, as she would undoubtedly say, but I do my best when responding not to be nasty, and would hope she feels I never have been. We disagree on politics and certain other things but treat each other, and each other’s opinions, with respect. We just have different world views, and some agree with mine, others with hers. That is the way of the world.
Had your post earlier been the paragraph above, I would have had nothing to complain about. There is certainly nothing “ugly” about your response. As I say somewhere above, I have never before reported any post other than spam. I just thought that to say, paraphrase, “close this thread or I get ugly”, was wrong. There will be people who agree with you (I am one on a good ninety percent of what you have said above, whereas I agree with roughly one percent of Funny Paper’s comment), there will be those who disagree. The important thing is to have your say with respect, hoping that what you have to say will make others do as John asked in The Ballad Of John And Yoko , “Think!”
I hope you do not resent me too much for my reaction to your earlier post, but I just do not believe any thread should ever have a demand in it that it be ended.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
12.41am
9 May 2012
Offline It’s alright mja6758, I understand why you did it, but I just couldn’t believe that these kind of comments are even allowed on this board, that’s why my reaction was like that. Cheers 
.
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
1.31am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline People are people! You should see how much Funny Paper and I disagree on gun control. The point is always to say what you think calmly and let everybody else here decide what they think. Like someone, I think it was fabfouremily, said, there’s the chance here to hear things you might not come across because we’re such a diverse group, and to come up with your view because your hearing all those different voices.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
1.38am
1 November 2012
Offline Long John Silver said
Anti-American has memorial in the center of NYC, does that seem logic to you?
Sociopolitical positions and attitudes are rarely simplistic and linear. Often they may be less than coherent, sometimes self-contradictory, or riddled with ambivalence.
That also applies to personal relationships. A man can be living with a woman, or even married to her, but also feel that sometimes he hates her, or just can’t be with her (and vice-versa). The mere fact that two people are together doesn’t mean there are no deep problems, resentments, even anger going on.
There are many Americans who are in various ways anti-American; just as there are many Englishmen who are in various ways anti-England; and so forth for many other nations. There are many Catholics who are in various ways anti-Catholics.
It’s actually in some ways a good sign when a group or a culture or a nation has members who have criticisms of it that run so deep, they almost have an antipathy to it. A group or a culture or a nation that ONLY has smiling 100% supporters would be rather suspicious, would it not?
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
1.41am
1 November 2012
Offline Long John Silver said
…but I just couldn’t believe that these kind of comments are even allowed on this board.
I’m still not clear on what “kind” of comments Long John Silver thinks would (should?) be automatically censored. I thought we were all cool cats here, and we don’t dig censorship. What’s up with the fascism, dude?
The following people thank Funny Paper for this post:
C.R.A.Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
2.02am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline 
That’s unfair, Funny Paper! You are pulling part of Long John Silver’s understanding of why I defended your comment as I did, however much I disagree with it, out of context. You should not go on to say “What’s up with the fascism, dude?” because, Mildred (is Mildred a joke or just a name you hate? There’s a conversation in another place about what your 
meant), Long John Silver has said he understands why I defended something I disagree with. Accept that a similar post would not be made again, but an opinion offered for you to disagree with. LJS took on what I had said, and came back with an opinion. Stop pulling it back to his earlier post, or his explanation of why he wrote it. Argue with his opinion respectfully with his opinion above mine. I defended you because I know you don’t get petty but argue opinions. Don’t disappoint me by starting to throw words like “fascist”.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.03am
30 March 2013
Offline I guess we settled why Elvis hated John Lennon at this point lol… Because things are getting pretty philosophical and off-topic in here.
Fun fact: Until I was 19 years old I thought when people said “John Lennon ” they were saying “Lenin” and that he was some Russian communist associated to Vladimir Lenin.
"Long live ze King!" - John Lennon upon leaving Elvis' home
9.50am
31 March 2008
Offline
Wow, I’ve been away for a few days. What an interesting, wide-ranging discussion. I’m not interested in censoring anyone, so please continue to speak freely while respecting your fellow citizens of the world, but maybe this has gone a little off topic. I don’t mind conversations about Elvis and American imperialism, but perhaps it would have worked better if they were separate threads. Just a thought.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
1.17pm
9 May 2012
Offline 
Funny Paper said
Long John Silver said
Anti-American has memorial in the center of NYC, does that seem logic to you?
Sociopolitical positions and attitudes are rarely simplistic and linear. Often they may be less than coherent, sometimes self-contradictory, or riddled with ambivalence.
That also applies to personal relationships. A man can be living with a woman, or even married to her, but also feel that sometimes he hates her, or just can’t be with her (and vice-versa). The mere fact that two people are together doesn’t mean there are no deep problems, resentments, even anger going on.
There are many Americans who are in various ways anti-American;
I think your definition of anti-American is different than most of the people, maybe that’s why. You don’t need to love your government to love your country, you need to seperate those two things, “The state, that is I”.
Funny Paper said
Long John Silver said
…but I just couldn’t believe that these kind of comments are even allowed on this board.I’m still not clear on what “kind” of comments Long John Silver thinks would (should?) be automatically censored. I thought we were all cool cats here, and we don’t dig censorship. What’s up with the fascism, dude?
Fasism? You just said that billion of people are playing victims and I am a fascists here? If I would say Jews play victims after WWII, it doesn’t sound fascist to you? It does, and now change Jews with Muslims and there you got it. Your exact words.
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
9.34pm
1 November 2012
Offline mja6758 said
That’s unfair, Funny Paper! You are pulling part of Long John Silver’s understanding of why I defended your comment as I did, however much I disagree with it, out of context. You should not go on to say “What’s up with the fascism, dude?” because, Mildred (is Mildred a joke or just a name you hate? There’s a conversation in another place about what your
I just find Long John Silver’s unquestioned assumption that any comment would “not be allowed” (we’re not talking about clearly personally abusive or trollish comments of course, but “not allowed” sheerly for political content) to be a bizarre position, especially on a site of loosey-goosey Beatles fans who come out of, and/or respect, the counter-culture and its ideals of freedom of expression. In that context, “not allowed” smacks of Verboten! and is not only weird, but repellant (at least to those who love and cherish freedom of speech and expression).
“Mildred” would be a bit of McCartney trivia that apparently nobody got — in concerts, Paul would casually introduce Linda as “my wife, Mildred” and she would dutifully go along with it, tongue in cheek all the way.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
9.38pm
1 November 2012
Offline ElviszePelvis said
I guess we settled why Elvis hated John Lennon at this point lol… Because things are getting pretty philosophical and off-topic in here.
Fun fact: Until I was 19 years old I thought when people said “John Lennon ” they were saying “Lenin” and that he was some Russian communist associated to Vladimir Lenin.
There was a famous logo many years ago extending that pun:
Marx and Lennon — Groucho and John, that is.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
9.56pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Funny Paper said
mja6758 said
I just find Long John Silver’s unquestioned assumption that any comment would “not be allowed” (we’re not talking about clearly personally abusive or trollish comments of course, but “not allowed” sheerly for political content) to be a bizarre position, especially on a site of loosey-goosey Beatles fans who come out of, and/or respect, the counter-culture and its ideals of freedom of expression. In that context, “not allowed” smacks of Verboten! and is not only weird, but repellant (at least to those who love and cherish freedom of speech and expression).
“Mildred” would be a bit of McCartney trivia that apparently nobody got — in concerts, Paul would casually introduce Linda as “my wife, Mildred” and she would dutifully go along with it, tongue in cheek all the way.
But the Commies did just as much of that as the Fascists, probably more because they held power longer. The Commies even banned The Beatles. I just thought bringing fascism into it, which has certain other connotations as well, was wrong of you. We have a fuss over here in the UK at the moment about a football (soccer) manager who has just been appointed to a football team where our former foreign secretary was on the board, and immediately resigned because the manager had done the Nazi salute on more than one occasion, and said he was a fascist but not a racist.
So, it’s not Mildred. The world is right again. I can go back to assuming it’s Bert! (You started a debate over on “Whatever Happened To…” about whether you a Mildred or not!).
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
8.08pm
10 February 2013
Offline It’s interesting to me at what a generational difference there was between Elvis & The Beatles, which is kind of odd considering there was only 5 years age difference between the two eldest Beatles. Even though Elvis apparently respected them as songwriters/musicians, he just didn’t really “get” what The Beatles (or any artists inspired by the counterculture movement, for that matter) were about.
It’s also interesting that Elvis was such a figure of rebellion, when in reality he doesn’t seem to have been a rebellious type of personality, at least in any conscious way. His form of self-expression defied cultural conventions but he was an old fashioned, polite country boy at heart. (I’m a big Elvis fan, btw)
The following people thank Monkey Finger for this post:
C.R.A.9.23pm
1 December 2009
Offline I’ve been reading Peter Guralnick’s excellent Presley bios, and was interested to learn that Elvis became very interested – obsessed, practically – with all manner of spiritual matters, starting about 1965 or so. He was particularly bored and dispirited with what his Hollywood career – and by extension, his recording career – had come to at the time, and was introduced to Eastern and alternate philosophies and religions by his hairdresser sometime around 1965 or ’66. And since he was always devoutly religious, he incorporated these new ways of thinking into his worldview for the next several years, leading most of his associates and inner circle members to believe he was losing his sanity. Apparently, he was reading Autobiography of a Yogi and Leary’s The Psychedelic Experience even before George and John got around to them!
Which I find pretty ironic, considering how little the Beatle and himself had in common when they had their famous meeting. If only they’d met a year later, Elvis and John and especially George would’ve hit it off real well. Which might’ve changed history in some way!
GEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
6.34pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline Very interesting, von. What a difference a year would/could have made.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
10.55am
15 November 2013
Offline meanmistermustard said
I dont think he hated John, more he hated that his popularity went down and the beatles were in some way responsible, as said above he felt threated. It didnt help Elvis tho that he was shoving out dire movies with bland sountracks which most didnt want to listen to, it wasnt current and up to date, he was an irrelevence sitting in his mansion. If you think of the greats of the 60’s people will think of Dylan, Beatles, Hendrix, Stones, The Who and many many many more before Elvis even gets a look in – if at all. If they do its more out of sentiment than anything based on his musical output.In ’63 John slated Elvis on Juke Box Jury (namely the song Devil In Disguise) and folks complained but more so because it was ‘The King’ and less because the music was any good. John was right when he said that Elvis died when he went into the Army.
Man you said it mustard…when the army came calling, he died..didnt release anything good until 1969/70 too many lousy movies.Never did understand why he cranked out so many..I think it hurt instead of helped his carreer.Thank god the fab never went that route..
1.03pm
6 August 2013
Offline breatle62 said
meanmistermustard said
I dont think he hated John, more he hated that his popularity went down and the beatles were in some way responsible, as said above he felt threated. It didnt help Elvis tho that he was shoving out dire movies with bland sountracks which most didnt want to listen to, it wasnt current and up to date, he was an irrelevence sitting in his mansion. If you think of the greats of the 60’s people will think of Dylan, Beatles, Hendrix, Stones, The Who and many many many more before Elvis even gets a look in – if at all. If they do its more out of sentiment than anything based on his musical output.In ’63 John slated Elvis on Juke Box Jury (namely the song Devil In Disguise) and folks complained but more so because it was ‘The King’ and less because the music was any good. John was right when he said that Elvis died when he went into the Army.
Man you said it mustard…when the army came calling, he died..didnt release anything good until 1969/70 too many lousy movies.Never did understand why he cranked out so many..I think it hurt instead of helped his carreer.Thank god the fab never went that route..
Elvis’ manager, Colonel Tom Parker, had a lot to do with that. He signed Elvis to numerous multi-picture deals and soundtrack deals, figuring the real money to be made was in cinema. Parker notoriously renegotiated a lot of Elvis’ deals, so much so that producers HATED dealing with him. It boggles the mind what a GOOD manager (or even an average one) could have done with Elvis’ career, but Elvis didn’t know any better and by the time he realized it, it was too late as Parker had full control.
"There's no such thing as bad student... only bad teacher."
3.57pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I don’t think Elvis was too happy rehashing the same plots over and over either and instead wanted to get back to making music but, as wetroosa said, there was nothing he could do as the Colonel had screwed him over by signing him to movie making. Someone with Elvis knowledge will know for sure, maybe he was happy shoving out the same crap over and over whilst the cheques came in.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
11.08pm
1 December 2009
Offline No, Elvis got decidedly unhappier with the scripts throughout the ’60s. By decade’s end, to keep him satisfied, they’d progressed to making films with as few as one or two songs, just because the scripts were different, non-musicals; he had high hopes that the films would turn out all right in the end. I guess they must have looked better on paper than on the screen. But by that point, his movies had stopped being profitable, so they were made on very low budgets, too low to be able to afford big-name directors or screenwriters who might’ve been able to produce works of real quality. Then by the time the ’70s came around, there was more money in touring than in films, so they absolutely weren’t a priority anymore, especially since Elvis’ various drug habits were engulfing him. (He did briefly consider co-starring with Barbra Streisand in her ’76 A Star Is Born remake after she asked him to, however.)
GEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
2.00am
7 February 2014
Offline Monkey Finger said
It’s interesting to me at what a generational difference there was between Elvis & The Beatles, which is kind of odd considering there was only 5 years age difference between the two eldest Beatles. Even though Elvis apparently respected them as songwriters/musicians, he just didn’t really “get” what The Beatles (or any artists inspired by the counterculture movement, for that matter) were about.
It’s also interesting that Elvis was such a figure of rebellion, when in reality he doesn’t seem to have been a rebellious type of personality, at least in any conscious way. His form of self-expression defied cultural conventions but he was an old fashioned, polite country boy at heart. (I’m a big Elvis fan, btw)
Elvis was a very complex character. He was rebellious in certain ways. He used to dress differently – he wore pink jackets and had those long sideburns and the quiff, so in ways like that he would defy convention and be his own man. Also, in spite of growing up in an extremely racist society, he listened to and loved “race music” as it was then known. He had black friends. Don’t forget that this is in an era when lynchings were common and before the Civil Rights movement had got going etc. When he went to make his first record he was asked what he sounded like and he famously said “I don’t sound like nobody”. So he was in some ways very much his own man.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that for years Elvis was very much under the thumb of his manager Colonel Parker.
Growing up in the Southern States in the 1940s/50s, it would have been amazing if Elvis hadn’t been somewhat reactionary in his world view.
I saw a film about when Elvis met President Nixon which said Elvis told Nixon that he had studied communist brainwashing techniques and that the Beatles were part of a plot to infiltrate the country and subvert American youth. (Bear in mind also that this was in the 70s when Elvis had returned to a gruelling schedule of live performances – two shows a night – and had upped his drug intake accordingly to keep going.)
I’d agree that, speaking in general terms, Elvis wouldn’t be the type to like the counter-culture but, interestingly, Elvis was a big fan of Muhammad Ali at a time before this was fashionable and when Ali was a very controversial figure who was shunned for refusing to fight in Vietnam. Elvis had a boxing robe made for Ali which said “The People’s Champion” on the back. Also, Elvis admired Bob Dylan who was, at least in the public perception, every bit as subversive as the Beatles, if not more so. So Elvis was a complex character.
IMHO Elvis was basically a decent guy who got twisted a bit by fame. Who wouldn’t? Being the most famous person on the planet would be enough to screw anyone up. The Beatles became incredibly famous too, of course, but there were 4 of them, so the attention was divided between them to some extent and they could support each other a bit so the pressures on them weren’t quite so bad. Elvis, on the other hand, had to shoulder the burden of his fame all on his own, which must have been an incredibly lonely experience.
I think Elvis was a well meaning person at heart and was not by nature a hate filled individual. I think fame brings out the worst in people and as it took it’s toll, Elvis began to lose the plot a bit. I don’t think he ever recovered after his wife left him and was probably clinically depressed – he had an obsession later on with singing melancholy songs which reminded him of Priscilla eg. Hurt, It’s Easy For You, You Gave Me a Mountain
I read an interview with John Lennon from 1975 where John says he would like to produce Elvis but that he wasn’t sure whether he would be too frightened to do so. It is apparent that John idolised Elvis so much that even in 1975, by which time John had become a legend himself and was a grown man in his mid 30s, Elvis could still make John feel star struck.
As regards Elvis’s film career, yes it was lousy and a waste of his talent, but, to his credit, Elvis takes the piss out of it himself in the comeback special (“I made 29 pictures like that!”).
The following people thank tulane for this post:
vonbontee
4 Guest(s)