Elvis the greatest live musical act from 1970-1973

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

There probably weren't that many within a concert
to sing power ballads, rock'n'roll, love songs, gospel, rockabilly, country, rhythm and blues, pop and music with a classical origin. All this with a top band, top voices and a great orchestra.
+ his show, charisma, his unique singing, and moving, his suits, his karate, his humor, his interacting with fans, his laughing, his talking, his good looks ... .
Who could compete with that?
There have been wild ones, people who mad longer concerts, but who cares?
It is like how long would have to be a concert of Enrico Caruso to be thankfull enough when You would have the chance to witness him in a performance?

Aren’t you reaching just a bit with some of those comments in an attempt to prove a point.

Apart from the faithful fans, how many people who wanted to experience a really great concert including those that were a long way from the stage, went to see an Elvis show because of his good looks, his suits and his karate. As for his talking, his humour, his laughing and interaction with the audience, apart from ‘69/70, it was kept to a minimum and are they really important reasons why people would go and watch an Elvis on tour concert. Perhaps they were regarded as a good thing in the coziness of Vegas but hardly a big deal in a 15,000 seating stadium.

Can you or should you simply dismiss other artists concerts with a who cares attitude when their shows were wild and much longer than those done by Elvis. I’m sure there were other artists/groups who used and benefitted from great backing singers, great orchestras and had a great backing group. And I very much doubt people and even fans went along to an Elvis concert because he had The Joe Guercio orchestra playing or The Sweet Inspirations doing backing vocals. He could have probably used any decent vocal backing singers and no doubt and in the eyes of some Elvis fans, they would have been regarded the greatest backing singers ever.

I think it was probably comments similar to yours on here that caused some harsh responses over on the Hoffman forum. A fan posted that Elvis' shows were all sell outs,so he must be the greatest performer but members there told him that doesn't necessarily make him the greatest live performer in those years or any years, but he couldn't or would not accept it and it kicked off from there.

Elvis would not have sell out concerts for 7 years if they were not great!
You don`t understand that I was counting many parts of the Elvis show and that all together they were the greatest show on earth at that time.
It is like Kiss, if they would not have their costumes and their masks they would not have been that great in the music field.
Elvis had his show with all that, what belonged to it, because he wanted it so.
Elvis was one of theese real performers who often did sing an not planned song, thats what I like too.

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

There probably weren't that many within a concert
to sing power ballads, rock'n'roll, love songs, gospel, rockabilly, country, rhythm and blues, pop and music with a classical origin. All this with a top band, top voices and a great orchestra.
+ his show, charisma, his unique singing, and moving, his suits, his karate, his humor, his interacting with fans, his laughing, his talking, his good looks ... .
Who could compete with that?
There have been wild ones, people who mad longer concerts, but who cares?
It is like how long would have to be a concert of Enrico Caruso to be thankfull enough when You would have the chance to witness him in a performance?

Aren’t you reaching just a bit with some of those comments in an attempt to prove a point.

Apart from the faithful fans, how many people who wanted to experience a really great concert including those that were a long way from the stage, went to see an Elvis show because of his good looks, his suits and his karate. As for his talking, his humour, his laughing and interaction with the audience, apart from ‘69/70, it was kept to a minimum and are they really important reasons why people would go and watch an Elvis on tour concert. Perhaps they were regarded as a good thing in the coziness of Vegas but hardly a big deal in a 15,000 seating stadium.

Can you or should you simply dismiss other artists concerts with a who cares attitude when their shows were wild and much longer than those done by Elvis. I’m sure there were other artists/groups who used and benefitted from great backing singers, great orchestras and had a great backing group. And I very much doubt people and even fans went along to an Elvis concert because he had The Joe Guercio orchestra playing or The Sweet Inspirations doing backing vocals. He could have probably used any decent vocal backing singers and no doubt and in the eyes of some Elvis fans, they would have been regarded the greatest backing singers ever.

I think it was probably comments similar to yours on here that caused some harsh responses over on the Hoffman forum. A fan posted that Elvis' shows were all sell outs,so he must be the greatest performer but members there told him that doesn't necessarily make him the greatest live performer in those years or any years, but he couldn't or would not accept it and it kicked off from there.

I have been to many concerts. There was no concert that I did like more than an Elvis concert and I never saw Elvis live.
I`ve seen Bruce Springsteen, wow great, but he can not sing like Elvis. I saw Johnny Cash wow even better than the Boss, but he did not make a show like Elvis. I could go on and on with ZZ Top, Aerosmith, Stray Cats, Billy Walker, Elton John, Little Richard, Jerry lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, and many more I have seen live.
But I believe no one comes close to an Elvis show.

[FredAistair]

There probably weren't that many within a concert
to sing power ballads, rock'n'roll, love songs, gospel, rockabilly, country, rhythm and blues, pop and music with a classical origin. All this with a top band, top voices and a great orchestra.
+ his show, charisma, his unique singing, and moving, his suits, his karate, his humor, his interacting with fans, his laughing, his talking, his good looks ... .
Who could compete with that?
There have been wild ones, people who mad longer concerts, but who cares?
It is like how long would have to be a concert of Enrico Caruso to be thankfull enough when You would have the chance to witness him in a performance?

Aren’t you reaching just a bit with some of those comments in an attempt to prove a point.

Apart from the faithful fans, how many people who wanted to experience a really great concert including those that were a long way from the stage, went to see an Elvis show because of his good looks, his suits and his karate. As for his talking, his humour, his laughing and interaction with the audience, apart from ‘69/70, it was kept to a minimum and are they really important reasons why people would go and watch an Elvis on tour concert. Perhaps they were regarded as a good thing in the coziness of Vegas but hardly a big deal in a 15,000 seating stadium.

Can you or should you simply dismiss other artists concerts with a who cares attitude when their shows were wild and much longer than those done by Elvis. I’m sure there were other artists/groups who used and benefitted from great backing singers, great orchestras and had a great backing group. And I very much doubt people and even fans went along to an Elvis concert because he had The Joe Guercio orchestra playing or The Sweet Inspirations doing backing vocals. He could have probably used any decent vocal backing singers and no doubt and in the eyes of some Elvis fans, they would have been regarded the greatest backing singers ever.

I think it was probably comments similar to yours on here that caused some harsh responses over on the Hoffman forum. A fan posted that Elvis' shows were all sell outs,so he must be the greatest performer but members there told him that doesn't necessarily make him the greatest live performer in those years or any years, but he couldn't or would not accept it and it kicked off from there.

I have been to many concerts. There was no concert that I did like more than an Elvis concert and I never saw Elvis live.
I`ve seen Bruce Springsteen, wow great, but he can not sing like Elvis. I saw Johnny Cash wow even better than the Boss, but he did not make a show like Elvis. I could go on and on with ZZ Top, Aerosmith, Stray Cats, Billy Walker, Elton John, Little Richard, Jerry lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, and many more I have seen live.
But I believe no one comes close to an Elvis show.

There is a clip of Elvis singing make the world go away on the Las Vegas 1970 thread, and he really is (my opinion) incredibly charismatic, I can see and understand why large parts of the audience would have been mesmerised. How to relate this to shows of the Stones, Zeppelin, Bon Jovi, Springsteen etc etc etc is a different issue.

[emjel]

There probably weren't that many within a concert
to sing power ballads, rock'n'roll, love songs, gospel, rockabilly, country, rhythm and blues, pop and music with a classical origin. All this with a top band, top voices and a great orchestra.
+ his show, charisma, his unique singing, and moving, his suits, his karate, his humor, his interacting with fans, his laughing, his talking, his good looks ... .
Who could compete with that?
There have been wild ones, people who mad longer concerts, but who cares?
It is like how long would have to be a concert of Enrico Caruso to be thankfull enough when You would have the chance to witness him in a performance?

Aren’t you reaching just a bit with some of those comments in an attempt to prove a point.

Apart from the faithful fans, how many people who wanted to experience a really great concert including those that were a long way from the stage, went to see an Elvis show because of his good looks, his suits and his karate. As for his talking, his humour, his laughing and interaction with the audience, apart from ‘69/70, it was kept to a minimum and are they really important reasons why people would go and watch an Elvis on tour concert. Perhaps they were regarded as a good thing in the coziness of Vegas but hardly a big deal in a 15,000 seating stadium.

Can you or should you simply dismiss other artists concerts with a who cares attitude when their shows were wild and much longer than those done by Elvis. I’m sure there were other artists/groups who used and benefitted from great backing singers, great orchestras and had a great backing group. And I very much doubt people and even fans went along to an Elvis concert because he had The Joe Guercio orchestra playing or The Sweet Inspirations doing backing vocals. He could have probably used any decent vocal backing singers and no doubt and in the eyes of some Elvis fans, they would have been regarded the greatest backing singers ever.

I think it was probably comments similar to yours on here that caused some harsh responses over on the Hoffman forum. A fan posted that Elvis' shows were all sell outs,so he must be the greatest performer but members there told him that doesn't necessarily make him the greatest live performer in those years or any years, but he couldn't or would not accept it and it kicked off from there.

Elvis would not have sell out concerts for 7 years if they were not great!
You don`t understand that I was counting many parts of the Elvis show and that all together they were the greatest show on earth at that time.
It is like Kiss, if they would not have their costumes and their masks they would not have been that great in the music field.
Elvis had his show with all that, what belonged to it, because he wanted it so.
Elvis was one of theese real performers who often did sing an not planned song, thats what I like too.

No one is suggesting that you are wrong to like what you like - as we keep saying, it is all subjective to each person. You liking Elvis’ shows more than others does not make it factual either that Elvis was the greatest live performer between 1970-73 because of all the reasons you give. And saying that his concerts were sellouts does not make it so either. Lots of artists had sellout shows. But you know as well as I do that a high percentage in the audience of an Elvis show were Elvis fans and they would accept virtually anything he did. And then there were people who would go just to say they had seen Elvis on stage because of his iconic status. It’s no different to people going to Graceland - they don’t go to Graceland because it’s a nice house, but because Elvis lived there.

And I’m not sure you can compare those going to watch Kiss to those going to watch Elvis. In the mid 70’s Kiss attracted a big following with their makeup, costumes, shock rock-style live performances which featured fire-breathing, blood-spitting, smoking guitars, shooting rockets, levitating drum kits, and pyrotechnics with the band members taking on the personae of comic book-style characters. It was all part of a really elaborate show.

And then 1983, Kiss began performing without makeup and costumes, marking the beginning of the band's "unmasked" era that would last for over a decade and the band experienced a commercial resurgence during this era so it is not quite correct to say that Kiss would not have been that great without all the flashy bizarre costumes.

[Strange]

I think a word that better encapsulates the appeal of Elvis' live performances is not necessarily "music" or "creativity" (although both were certainly present, to different and perhaps varying degrees), but "showmanship". Some people have this, some people don't. Elvis, I think, had it in abundance. Even during AFH, in what might be one of his "lesser" performances of "Suspicious Minds", for example, he looks every inch like he belongs there on that stage. He just radiates cool, comfort, charisma, style, attitude, grace, and uniqueness.

Bravo Cryogenic, that is about the third well-observed post in as many pages from you sir, and it is a shame if you haven't been posting so much in recent years. I too have long since tired of the negativity for the sake of it when it comes to what should be, largely, a place where Elvis is shared with affection, not picking holes in what were, let's face it, many career 'missteps'. Shooting fish in a barrel is easy, especially in hindsight, as is picking on fellow posters.

The point you make about the showmanship aspect is really the reason those that 'get it' can say something as nonsensical as 'Elvis the greatest musical live act from 1970-1973'. And those that don't will never understand. There was a well known quote about being an Elvis fan generally along those same lines - maybe Sam Phillips or George Klein or someone?

I have no doubt other artists have exactly the same impact on their admirers. And many of those will also have natural born 'showmanship'. And plenty don't, and I reckon that is where many of those who disagreeing over on that Hoffman thread were missing the point about Elvis - the majority of lead vocalists with bands are nothing without their comrades and what they bring together as a group. Maybe it's just me, but I see little difference between the 'showmanship' of lead singers of bands like Led Zep, The Who, Deep Purple, Rolling Stones on up to the AC/DC, Metallica, Bon Jovi types. They all just rush around the stage, acting demented and leading the crowd in singalongs and hand or torch waving...all interchangeable.

Sure, someone occasionally exudes more 'showmanship' in those settings - Mr. Mercury being the main example - but they do not "radiate cool, comfort, charisma, style, attitude, grace, and uniqueness" as you put it. I accept that is probably not what they were intending to achieve, but ultimately that is the kernel of the two views about what makes a great musical act.

In football I'll take a Pelé, George Best or Lionel Messi any day over a hardworking box-to-box player like a Beckham. In tennis a Federer over a Nadal. It is a perception, a certain je ne sais quoi, and impossible to explain to those that don't 'get it'.

And that quote is still nagging me, blooming memory

[FredAistair]

I think a word that better encapsulates the appeal of Elvis' live performances is not necessarily "music" or "creativity" (although both were certainly present, to different and perhaps varying degrees), but "showmanship". Some people have this, some people don't. Elvis, I think, had it in abundance. Even during AFH, in what might be one of his "lesser" performances of "Suspicious Minds", for example, he looks every inch like he belongs there on that stage. He just radiates cool, comfort, charisma, style, attitude, grace, and uniqueness.

Bravo Cryogenic, that is about the third well-observed post in as many pages from you sir, and it is a shame if you haven't been posting so much in recent years. I too have long since tired of the negativity for the sake of it when it comes to what should be, largely, a place where Elvis is shared with affection, not picking holes in what were, let's face it, many career 'missteps'. Shooting fish in a barrel is easy, especially in hindsight, as is picking on fellow posters.

The point you make about the showmanship aspect is really the reason those that 'get it' can say something as nonsensical as 'Elvis the greatest musical live act from 1970-1973'. And those that don't will never understand. There was a well known quote about being an Elvis fan generally along those same lines - maybe Sam Phillips or George Klein or someone?

I have no doubt other artists have exactly the same impact on their admirers. And many of those will also have natural born 'showmanship'. And plenty don't, and I reckon that is where many of those who disagreeing over on that Hoffman thread were missing the point about Elvis - the majority of lead vocalists with bands are nothing without their comrades and what they bring together as a group. Maybe it's just me, but I see little difference between the 'showmanship' of lead singers of bands like Led Zep, The Who, Deep Purple, Rolling Stones on up to the AC/DC, Metallica, Bon Jovi types. They all just rush around the stage, acting demented and leading the crowd in singalongs and hand or torch waving...all interchangeable.

Sure, someone occasionally exudes more 'showmanship' in those settings - Mr. Mercury being the main example - but they do not "radiate cool, comfort, charisma, style, attitude, grace, and uniqueness" as you put it. I accept that is probably not what they were intending to achieve, but ultimately that is the kernel of the two views about what makes a great musical act.

In football I'll take a Pelé, George Best or Lionel Messi any day over a hardworking box-to-box player like a Beckham. In tennis a Federer over a Nadal. It is a perception, a certain je ne sais quoi, and impossible to explain to those that don't 'get it'.

And that quote is still nagging me, blooming memory

I was going to agree with everything you said until you got to Federer and Nadal, I am a great admirer of the latter who surely but for persistent injuries would have been out of sight in the most won majors race. Still I do get what mean about Federer. McEnroe was similar but wasted it.

[Cryogenic]

There probably weren't that many within a concert
to sing power ballads, rock'n'roll, love songs, gospel, rockabilly, country, rhythm and blues, pop and music with a classical origin. All this with a top band, top voices and a great orchestra.
+ his show, charisma, his unique singing, and moving, his suits, his karate, his humor, his interacting with fans, his laughing, his talking, his good looks ... .
Who could compete with that?
There have been wild ones, people who mad longer concerts, but who cares?
It is like how long would have to be a concert of Enrico Caruso to be thankfull enough when You would have the chance to witness him in a performance?

Aren’t you reaching just a bit with some of those comments in an attempt to prove a point.

Apart from the faithful fans, how many people who wanted to experience a really great concert including those that were a long way from the stage, went to see an Elvis show because of his good looks, his suits and his karate. As for his talking, his humour, his laughing and interaction with the audience, apart from ‘69/70, it was kept to a minimum and are they really important reasons why people would go and watch an Elvis on tour concert. Perhaps they were regarded as a good thing in the coziness of Vegas but hardly a big deal in a 15,000 seating stadium.

Well, I'm sure people went, in part, because they wanted to be in the presence of such a magnificent physical specimen as Elvis -- to experience being in the same building, breathing the same air, and to say they'd been. You could also get some sense of his looks if you used binoculars. It's a little unfortunate that Elvis was a bit too early for giant video screens. His humour, his laughter, and fan interaction were very much intact in later shows. Even in AFH, he gets in plenty of little bits of interaction with fans at the edge of the stage, even if he isn't quite as loose or playful as usual.

Can you or should you simply dismiss other artists concerts with a who cares attitude when their shows were wild and much longer than those done by Elvis. I’m sure there were other artists/groups who used and benefitted from great backing singers, great orchestras and had a great backing group. And I very much doubt people and even fans went along to an Elvis concert because he had The Joe Guercio orchestra playing or The Sweet Inspirations doing backing vocals. He could have probably used any decent vocal backing singers and no doubt and in the eyes of some Elvis fans, they would have been regarded the greatest backing singers ever.

Perhaps; but, of course, you're speculating here. Fact is, Elvis wanted to give people the full package and surround himself with some of the best musical talent in the business. Certainly, before the orchestra was cut down in later years, it would have seemed like he had the backing of angels. The big orchestra, tight musical band, and coterie of backing singers brought Elvis a great deal of satisfaction and security on stage, and essentially flooded the building with a tsunami of sound. The impressive assembly of that much support structure must have surely added to his kingly aura.

Karate? No,thanks. It was a ridiculous pose on stage of Elvis.

It augmented his stage craft and added to his legendary status; something a tad esoteric -- perfect for this energetic "Tiger Man". Elvis obviously learned the value in striking poses and in moving his body in specific ways. Karate evidently helped on these fronts. He also took the underlying philosophy of it seriously and karate seemed to appeal to his life-affirming, democratic spirit (e.g., the TCB Oath he wrote in 1974).

No one is suggesting that you are wrong to like what you like - as we keep saying, it is all subjective to each person. You liking Elvis’ shows more than others does not make it factual either that Elvis was the greatest live performer between 1970-73 because of all the reasons you give. And saying that his concerts were sellouts does not make it so either. Lots of artists had sellout shows. But you know as well as I do that a high percentage in the audience of an Elvis show were Elvis fans and they would accept virtually anything he did. And then there were people who would go just to say they had seen Elvis on stage because of his iconic status. It’s no different to people going to Graceland - they don’t go to Graceland because it’s a nice house, but because Elvis lived there.

If a high percentage of the people in the audience were Elvis fans, what about all the other people that attend shows by other artists in their lifetime -- are they not also fans (of those artists)? It kinda seems like you're applying a bit of a double standard. Perhaps Elvis fans were more forgiving of their idol (I don't know), but if so, maybe there are factors as to why that is. You know, sometimes, a black swan event happens in the universe; and you may consequently witness more devotion, adoration, and adulation than normal. Think in the entertainment field, for example, of the big following surrounding Star Wars, James Bond, or the extra attention and merit heaped on some sports over others.

I think a word that better encapsulates the appeal of Elvis' live performances is not necessarily "music" or "creativity" (although both were certainly present, to different and perhaps varying degrees), but "showmanship". Some people have this, some people don't. Elvis, I think, had it in abundance. Even during AFH, in what might be one of his "lesser" performances of "Suspicious Minds", for example, he looks every inch like he belongs there on that stage. He just radiates cool, comfort, charisma, style, attitude, grace, and uniqueness.

Bravo Cryogenic, that is about the third well-observed post in as many pages from you sir, and it is a shame if you haven't been posting so much in recent years. I too have long since tired of the negativity for the sake of it when it comes to what should be, largely, a place where Elvis is shared with affection, not picking holes in what were, let's face it, many career 'missteps'. Shooting fish in a barrel is easy, especially in hindsight, as is picking on fellow posters.

Thank you, my dear Strange! I seem to do better posting in short, concentrated bursts than lingering on and on for years. There has also been censorship applied on here any number of times (sometimes against my own posts) that I also staunchly disagree with. So it's a few things.

The point you make about the showmanship aspect is really the reason those that 'get it' can say something as nonsensical as 'Elvis the greatest musical live act from 1970-1973'. And those that don't will never understand. There was a well known quote about being an Elvis fan generally along those same lines - maybe Sam Phillips or George Klein or someone?

George Klein.

"If you're an Elvis fan, no explanation is necessary; if you're not an Elvis fan, no explanation is possible."

I have no doubt other artists have exactly the same impact on their admirers. And many of those will also have natural born 'showmanship'. And plenty don't, and I reckon that is where many of those who disagreeing over on that Hoffman thread were missing the point about Elvis - the majority of lead vocalists with bands are nothing without their comrades and what they bring together as a group. Maybe it's just me, but I see little difference between the 'showmanship' of lead singers of bands like Led Zep, The Who, Deep Purple, Rolling Stones on up to the AC/DC, Metallica, Bon Jovi types. They all just rush around the stage, acting demented and leading the crowd in singalongs and hand or torch waving...all interchangeable.

There are some differences (e.g., Mick Jagger is a great frontman), but I would agree that none are really in the mould of Elvis, who was cut from a very different cloth. He was -- and remains -- an extremely commanding presence, both on disc and screen.

Sure, someone occasionally exudes more 'showmanship' in those settings - Mr. Mercury being the main example - but they do not "radiate cool, comfort, charisma, style, attitude, grace, and uniqueness" as you put it. I accept that is probably not what they were intending to achieve, but ultimately that is the kernel of the two views about what makes a great musical act.

You got it. It would make more sense, in many ways, to compare Elvis to Frank Sinatra, or Dean Martin, or Sammy Davis Jr., or Bobby Darin, or the likes of Sam Cooke and James Brown, than all these rock bands that brought an entirely different dynamic to the stage. Elvis did well to still be a sensation on his own terms, given the lively competition of the time; but a sensation he was (and still is).

[emjel]

There probably weren't that many within a concert
to sing power ballads, rock'n'roll, love songs, gospel, rockabilly, country, rhythm and blues, pop and music with a classical origin. All this with a top band, top voices and a great orchestra.
+ his show, charisma, his unique singing, and moving, his suits, his karate, his humor, his interacting with fans, his laughing, his talking, his good looks ... .
Who could compete with that?
There have been wild ones, people who mad longer concerts, but who cares?
It is like how long would have to be a concert of Enrico Caruso to be thankfull enough when You would have the chance to witness him in a performance?

Aren’t you reaching just a bit with some of those comments in an attempt to prove a point.

Apart from the faithful fans, how many people who wanted to experience a really great concert including those that were a long way from the stage, went to see an Elvis show because of his good looks, his suits and his karate. As for his talking, his humour, his laughing and interaction with the audience, apart from ‘69/70, it was kept to a minimum and are they really important reasons why people would go and watch an Elvis on tour concert. Perhaps they were regarded as a good thing in the coziness of Vegas but hardly a big deal in a 15,000 seating stadium.

Well, I'm sure people went, in part, because they wanted to be in the presence of such a magnificent physical specimen as Elvis -- to experience being in the same building, breathing the same air, and to say they'd been. You could also get some sense of his looks if you used binoculars. It's a little unfortunate that Elvis was a bit too early for giant video screens. His humour, his laughter, and fan interaction were very much intact in later shows. Even in AFH, he gets in plenty of little bits of interaction with fans at the edge of the stage, even if he isn't quite as loose or playful as usual.

Can you or should you simply dismiss other artists concerts with a who cares attitude when their shows were wild and much longer than those done by Elvis. I’m sure there were other artists/groups who used and benefitted from great backing singers, great orchestras and had a great backing group. And I very much doubt people and even fans went along to an Elvis concert because he had The Joe Guercio orchestra playing or The Sweet Inspirations doing backing vocals. He could have probably used any decent vocal backing singers and no doubt and in the eyes of some Elvis fans, they would have been regarded the greatest backing singers ever.

Perhaps; but, of course, you're speculating here. Fact is, Elvis wanted to give people the full package and surround himself with some of the best musical talent in the business. Certainly, before the orchestra was cut down in later years, it would have seemed like he had the backing of angels. The big orchestra, tight musical band, and coterie of backing singers brought Elvis a great deal of satisfaction and security on stage, and essentially flooded the building with a tsunami of sound. The impressive assembly of that much support structure must have surely added to his kingly aura.

Karate? No,thanks. It was a ridiculous pose on stage of Elvis.

It augmented his stage craft and added to his legendary status; something a tad esoteric -- perfect for this energetic "Tiger Man". Elvis obviously learned the value in striking poses and in moving his body in specific ways. Karate evidently helped on these fronts. He also took the underlying philosophy of it seriously and karate seemed to appeal to his life-affirming, democratic spirit (e.g., the TCB Oath he wrote in 1974).

No one is suggesting that you are wrong to like what you like - as we keep saying, it is all subjective to each person. You liking Elvis’ shows more than others does not make it factual either that Elvis was the greatest live performer between 1970-73 because of all the reasons you give. And saying that his concerts were sellouts does not make it so either. Lots of artists had sellout shows. But you know as well as I do that a high percentage in the audience of an Elvis show were Elvis fans and they would accept virtually anything he did. And then there were people who would go just to say they had seen Elvis on stage because of his iconic status. It’s no different to people going to Graceland - they don’t go to Graceland because it’s a nice house, but because Elvis lived there.

If a high percentage of the people in the audience were Elvis fans, what about all the other people that attend shows by other artists in their lifetime -- are they not also fans (of those artists)? It kinda seems like you're applying a bit of a double standard. Perhaps Elvis fans were more forgiving of their idol (I don't know), but if so, maybe there are factors as to why that is. You know, sometimes, a black swan event happens in the universe; and you may consequently witness more devotion, adoration, and adulation than normal. Think in the entertainment field, for example, of the big following surrounding Star Wars, James Bond, or the extra attention and merit heaped on some sports over others.

I think a word that better encapsulates the appeal of Elvis' live performances is not necessarily "music" or "creativity" (although both were certainly present, to different and perhaps varying degrees), but "showmanship". Some people have this, some people don't. Elvis, I think, had it in abundance. Even during AFH, in what might be one of his "lesser" performances of "Suspicious Minds", for example, he looks every inch like he belongs there on that stage. He just radiates cool, comfort, charisma, style, attitude, grace, and uniqueness.

Bravo Cryogenic, that is about the third well-observed post in as many pages from you sir, and it is a shame if you haven't been posting so much in recent years. I too have long since tired of the negativity for the sake of it when it comes to what should be, largely, a place where Elvis is shared with affection, not picking holes in what were, let's face it, many career 'missteps'. Shooting fish in a barrel is easy, especially in hindsight, as is picking on fellow posters.

Thank you, my dear Strange! I seem to do better posting in short, concentrated bursts than lingering on and on for years. There has also been censorship applied on here any number of times (sometimes against my own posts) that I also staunchly disagree with. So it's a few things.

The point you make about the showmanship aspect is really the reason those that 'get it' can say something as nonsensical as 'Elvis the greatest musical live act from 1970-1973'. And those that don't will never understand. There was a well known quote about being an Elvis fan generally along those same lines - maybe Sam Phillips or George Klein or someone?

George Klein.

"If you're an Elvis fan, no explanation is necessary; if you're not an Elvis fan, no explanation is possible."

I have no doubt other artists have exactly the same impact on their admirers. And many of those will also have natural born 'showmanship'. And plenty don't, and I reckon that is where many of those who disagreeing over on that Hoffman thread were missing the point about Elvis - the majority of lead vocalists with bands are nothing without their comrades and what they bring together as a group. Maybe it's just me, but I see little difference between the 'showmanship' of lead singers of bands like Led Zep, The Who, Deep Purple, Rolling Stones on up to the AC/DC, Metallica, Bon Jovi types. They all just rush around the stage, acting demented and leading the crowd in singalongs and hand or torch waving...all interchangeable.

There are some differences (e.g., Mick Jagger is a great frontman), but I would agree that none are really in the mould of Elvis, who was cut from a very different cloth. He was -- and remains -- an extremely commanding presence, both on disc and screen.

Sure, someone occasionally exudes more 'showmanship' in those settings - Mr. Mercury being the main example - but they do not "radiate cool, comfort, charisma, style, attitude, grace, and uniqueness" as you put it. I accept that is probably not what they were intending to achieve, but ultimately that is the kernel of the two views about what makes a great musical act.

You got it. It would make more sense, in many ways, to compare Elvis to Frank Sinatra, or Dean Martin, or Sammy Davis Jr., or Bobby Darin, or the likes of Sam Cooke and James Brown, than all these rock bands that brought an entirely different dynamic to the stage. Elvis did well to still be a sensation on his own terms, given the lively competition of the time; but a sensation he was (and still is).

No double standards - Of course shows by other artists had fans of those artists in the audience, but I’m not sure they would be quite so tolerant (if that’s the right word) as Elvis fans are. I’d be surprised if they would have accepted hit songs presented in the kind of throwaway manner that Elvis did for his biggest hits. Even Ernst wrote that Elvis had a ready made sales platform regardless of the quality of the poor records and the movies, so I believe it is safe to think that it would also apply to what Elvis did with his shows too. I note you mention about people wanting to see Elvis for who he was, but from memory, I think I said exactly that - that there would be people wanting to see him because of his iconic status - but that does not necessarily translate into the shows being great too.

And this was one of the arguments that was created over in the Hoffman site. A fan wrote that because Elvis’ shows were always sold out, then it stands to reason that he was the greatest performer in that time period, but when he was challenged, he could not accept it.

I remember listening to an interview from Paul McCartney when he was asked about how he chooses what songs he sings at his shows. He said that primarily, he did his own recent ones and those if Wings too plus a couple of Beatles songs. But he started to get feedback from his team that fans wanted more Beatles songs so that is what he did. He even opened some shows with songs like Can’t Buy Me Love and Eight Day’s A Week. And he did them all with real respect and offered them up in a copy of the record sound too. I watched one show and closed my eyes and it could have been The Beatles on stage themselves.

And I liken that experience to when I was in Memphis one August and along with the Elvis soundalike singer at the tribute concert, they had The Jordanaires on stage too and they did a few of the Elvis classics from the 50’s and I could feel the hairs in the back of my neck stand up. It was as if Elvis himself was on stage - it was that awesome.

[Cryogenic]

No double standards - Of course shows by other artists had fans of those artists in the audience, but I’m not sure they would be quite so tolerant (if that’s the right word) as Elvis fans are. I’d be surprised if they would have accepted hit songs presented in the kind of throwaway manner that Elvis did for his biggest hits. Even Ernst wrote that Elvis had a ready made sales platform regardless of the quality of the poor records and the movies, so I believe it is safe to think that it would also apply to what Elvis did with his shows too. I note you mention about people wanting to see Elvis for who he was, but from memory, I think I said exactly that - that there would be people wanting to see him because of his iconic status - but that does not necessarily translate into the shows being great too.

And this was one of the arguments that was created over in the Hoffman site. A fan wrote that because Elvis’ shows were always sold out, then it stands to reason that he was the greatest performer in that time period, but when he was challenged, he could not accept it.

I remember listening to an interview from Paul McCartney when he was asked about how he chooses what songs he sings at his shows. He said that primarily, he did his own recent ones and those if Wings too plus a couple of Beatles songs. But he started to get feedback from his team that fans wanted more Beatles songs so that is what he did. He even opened some shows with songs like Can’t Buy Me Love and Eight Day’s A Week. And he did them all with real respect and offered them up in a copy of the record sound too. I watched one show and closed my eyes and it could have been The Beatles on stage themselves.

And I liken that experience to when I was in Memphis one August and along with the Elvis soundalike singer at the tribute concert, they had The Jordanaires on stage too and they did a few of the Elvis classics from the 50’s and I could feel the hairs in the back of my neck stand up. It was as if Elvis himself was on stage - it was that awesome.

I can see where you're coming from, and I wouldn't necessarily want to disagree too strongly with you -- just because Elvis was great, doesn't mean he was always the greatest, or couldn't have done better.

However, on your last point about wanting Elvis to perfectly recreate the sound of his records, I think that's misguided and a rather limited view of what live performance can be. Elvis could do many things, be many things, and I think it was illogical to trap him into perfect mimesis. His Comeback Special material certainly doesn't sound like his master recordings of the same material; for the most part, that is a plus. Moreover, Elvis' voice changed rather dramatically over the years, and he was no longer the greasy-haired Memphis Flash. His music and persona necessarily evolved.

That's not to say, on the other hand, he couldn't have tried his hand at a more stripped-down, unplugged sort of sound. It's rather unfortunate he basically abandoned that format after achieving stunning success with it on the 68 Special; not to mention the magic of those private recordings that were later released into the public sphere. Yes, he played guitar a bit here and there on stage, but only the end of 1976 and 1977 offer anything intriguing in this regard, when Elvis returned to sitting behind the piano on a few occasions, belting out slightly frantic yet stunning versions of "Rags to Riches", "Unchained Melody", and "Where No One Stands Alone". How I wish there'd be a great deal more of that sort of thing.

[Lonely Summer]

"If you're an Elvis Presley fan, no explanation is necessary. If you're NOT an Elvis fan, no explanation is possible" - quote attributed to George Klein.

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

1970 TTWIS "Suspicious Minds", "I Just Can't Help Believing",
1972 Elvis On Tour I Got A Woman", "Bridge Over Trouble Water"
1973 Aloha "American Trilogy", "What Now My Love"
Elvis was second to none

[jurasic1968]

Elvis was second to Led Zeppelin.

[jurasic1968]

And to CCR.

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

Elvis was second to Led Zeppelin.

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

And to CCR.

I prefer Elvis version of Proud Mary

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

Elvis was second to Led Zeppelin.

Never been my music
A great band, but
Elvis would have told something else

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

And to CCR.

I prefer Elvis version of Proud Mary

CCR I like some of their songs very much

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

Elvis was second to Led Zeppelin.

Do not forget, that Elvis had 2 documentary's in Cinema and a the most seen worldwide TV Special about his performances between 1970 and 1973 .
That's Kings worthy

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

Elvis was second to Led Zeppelin.

Do not forget, that Elvis had 2 documentary's in Cinema and a the most seen worldwide TV Special about his performances between 1970 and 1973 .
That's king worthy

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

Elvis was second to Led Zeppelin.

Do not forget, that Elvis had 2 documentary's in Cinema and a the most seen worldwide TV Special about his performances between 1970 and 1973 .
That's king worthy

So he did have more viewers than them all

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

No feeling well?

[emjel]

Elvis was second to Led Zeppelin.

Do not forget, that Elvis had 2 documentary's in Cinema and a the most seen worldwide TV Special about his performances between 1970 and 1973 .
That's Kings worthy

What was the most seen worldwide TV Special then. I must have missed that. Do you have any numbers etc.

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

Elvis was second to Led Zeppelin.

Do not forget, that Elvis had 2 documentary's in Cinema and a the most seen worldwide TV Special about his performances between 1970 and 1973 .
That's Kings worthy

What was the most seen worldwide TV Special then. I must have missed that. Do you have any numbers etc.

Aloha From Hawaii was seen by more people than the moon landing. In some countrys like USA it was televised later, but all in all never before and never after it watched more people a concert of an solo singer on TV

[Strange]

Lol Fredaister - or should that be Federaister

I was being too harsh on Nadal, it was really of the top of my head, I should have said the likes of Lendl as the hard-working comparison. I was simply thinking of grace to muscle ratio with Federer and Nadal, and I too take your point about the latter probably would have secured the most Grand Slams without so many later injuries - but that was possibly a result of his style and technique too in a way.

As far as Elvis goes, it was all 'natural' and that is in the eye of the beholder ultimately. I think it is fair to say that far more so-called 'celebrities' see it in him too - and say as much in the media, be it print, radio or TV - and there is nothing quite like peer acceptance then, or as the years have passed.

I might be wrong, and my eyes and ears are more attuned to Elvis-related comments perhaps, but I rarely hear other acts being quite so regularly 'respected' by others in the business. Just the other day I was watching Countdown - a UK afternoon words and numbers TV show for the uninitiated that has run for 40-plus years - that the Mrs likes and each week has a different guest. John Cooper Clark - a somewhat irreverent poet from Yorkshire - was on and to my surprise gave out with a poem about Elvis' greatness. He concluded by saying to the presenter that he would only need to have Elvis' 'How Great Thou Art' as his Desert Island Disc (another popular and long-running UK show that asks guests to list their half-dozen or so records they would take if marooned on said island).

It is the latest of what are still, almost 50 years after his death, many quite regular references to Elvis on the airwaves. 'It never ceases to amaze me'... . Sorry, off at a tangent, but trying to tie this all up it kinda implies why some can believe he was the greatest live musical act 1970-1973. I certainly wouldn't disavow them of that view 'in the round' over such a period of time considering the number of shows.

And who is to say these other acts under consideration didn't have bum gigs too? I for one don't follow them closely enough to really know. Apparently Brian Jones was completely out of it on many latter occasions in his days with the Stones - yet that could be covered up by the other four. No such luxury when you're the only one who matters...

[emjel]

Elvis was second to Led Zeppelin.

Do not forget, that Elvis had 2 documentary's in Cinema and a the most seen worldwide TV Special about his performances between 1970 and 1973 .
That's Kings worthy

What was the most seen worldwide TV Special then. I must have missed that. Do you have any numbers etc.

Aloha From Hawaii was seen by more people than the moon landing. In some countrys like USA it was televised later, but all in all never before and never after it watched more people a concert of an solo singer on TV

That’s not strictly true is it? I was under the impression that over 600 million people actually watched the moon landing happen whereas only around 190 million actually watched Elvis’ live performance in Aloha.