King, Does The King's Things (Stax 1969)

[Swedish]

Listening link below it

71w1VDJMsML._AC_SL1084_.jpg

71XhtRPTDuL._SL1200_.jpg

[Igotstung]

I still can't get over the atrocious liner notes by Mr. Goldman. Albert King deserves better.

[drjohncarpenter]

I still can't get over the atrocious liner notes by Mr. Goldman. Albert King deserves better.

Wrote extensively about those hideous notes by Albert Goldman. When the search tool is fixed I'll go find it.

The notes from this June 1969 release echo the garbage he wrote about Elvis' TV special the previous December, the crap review published in 1970 after seeing Elvis in Vegas, and of course the nasty, mendacious, racist biography that appeared in 1981.

A shame he's dead.

[Igotstung]

I still can't get over the atrocious liner notes by Mr. Goldman. Albert King deserves better.

Wrote extensively about those hideous notes by Albert Goldman. When the search tool is fixed I'll go find it.

The notes from this June 1969 release echo the garbage he wrote about Elvis' TV special the previous December, the crap review published in 1970 after seeing Elvis in Vegas, and of course the nasty, mendacious, racist biography that appeared in 1981.

A shame he's dead.

The biography is pathetic. His pretentious and wannabe hip prose, grrr...I still remember his two phrases ' Hormone Hair' and ' Novocaine Lips'. They stuck in my mind not because they are memorable, but because I distinctly got the impression that his cartoonish hatred for Elvis was an effort to mask the author's sexual complex. The shocking racism in that book sounds like a bad spoof.

And you are absolutely right, these same 'qualities' are present in these notes too. Apart from saying nothing about Albert King's music, they are cartoonishly insulting. Mr. Goldman writes like he was a stock tabloid journalist in Austin Powers movie.

[jurasic1968]

Goldman hated Elvis, in my opinion.

[jurasic1968]

And he also wrote a nasty book about John Lennon.

[Igotstung]

Goldman hated Elvis, in my opinion.

Maybe. The book reads like a cheap, bitchy tabloid.

I do recall reading an old thread on this forum about this book a while back. I was surprised that some people were seriously arguing that Goldman is a good writer. Come on. His purple prose, outrageous racism, transparent bias, salacious glee are hallmarks of bad writing.

I know the book was taken seriously then, and people like Andy Kaufman, Greil Marcus, Peter Guralnick et al have critiqued it, so it was not a joke. But reading it for the first time without this context, it came across as a cartoonishly bad spoof a la Rita Skeeter.

[jurasic1968]

A tabloid book, a very good definition.

[billy jack]

A tabloid book, a very good definition.

With the help of Lamar Fike, who said he had no editorial control over the final result.

[drjohncarpenter]

Maybe. The book reads like a cheap, bitchy tabloid.

I do recall reading an old thread on this forum about this book a while back. I was surprised that some people were seriously arguing that Goldman is a good writer. Come on. His purple prose, outrageous racism, transparent bias, salacious glee are hallmarks of bad writing.

I know the book was taken seriously then, and people like Andy Kaufman, Greil Marcus, Peter Guralnick et al have critiqued it, so it was not a joke. But reading it for the first time without this context, it came across as a cartoonishly bad spoof a la Rita Skeeter.

This may be the old thread:


Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do
https://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=76177


I put a lot of time into it. Goldman was a devious and disingenuous writer, and his 1981 book tried very hard to hurt the public perception of Elvis' life and accomplishments.

Four decades later, we can say he failed. But for a time, his book even made me stop listening or caring.

[Igotstung]

Maybe. The book reads like a cheap, bitchy tabloid.

I do recall reading an old thread on this forum about this book a while back. I was surprised that some people were seriously arguing that Goldman is a good writer. Come on. His purple prose, outrageous racism, transparent bias, salacious glee are hallmarks of bad writing.

I know the book was taken seriously then, and people like Andy Kaufman, Greil Marcus, Peter Guralnick et al have critiqued it, so it was not a joke. But reading it for the first time without this context, it came across as a cartoonishly bad spoof a la Rita Skeeter.

This may be the old thread:


Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do
https://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=76177


I put a lot of time into it. Goldman was a devious and disingenuous writer, and his 1981 book tried very hard to hurt the public perception of Elvis' life and accomplishments.

Four decades later, we can say he failed. But for a time, his book even made me stop listening or caring.

I think the thread was about the book- and not the article? But let me read this one as it seems very interesting and it very well might be the one I had read earlier. Thanks.

And yes, the book did the damage then. Can imagine fans' confusion and disappointment. Didn't mean to underestimate that by joking.

Not just fans, the book tries to delegitimize entire cultures, not just a person. The way he writes about South, well, it reminds me of the way 'sahibs' wrote about the "savages".

As far as whether the things were 'truthful' or not- well- the paparazzi also tell the truth by that logic. Would we call them insightful, moral or even decent? We don't. Digging dirt is not literature.

Add the purple / blue prose, by god, it is so so badly written. Goldman deserves to be called tabloid trash.

But Elvis' artistry survived that trash.