Check out the album listing at allmusic.com, I only told you one of my favorites, but you really should find a box sex of all the albums, start with the first one and work your way through. Terrapin Station is not typical, but it is better than the allmusic rating.

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/grateful-dead-mn0000988440#discography

American Beauty and Workingman's Dead would be the traditional place to start.

Replies: @Old Virginia

Why’s it assumed that the Southern states must be part of the United States?
 

Replies: @Old Virginia

Why didn’t Lincoln retreat from Sumter instead of re-supplying? The island is South Carolina’s, no more property of the United States than Hong Kong is Britain’s.
 

Too many great German-Americans to list here. But I’m gonna go with Charles Lindbergh as one of my favorites.
 

Replies: @Old Virginia, @GeneralRipper, @GeneralRipper

I can't explain it. But I'm not the typical 'deadhead' either. I like their albums, most of the deadheads like the live shows of which there are many, nearly every show through the years being recorded.

I would say, someone should look into the 'wall of sound' that they built, using 48 McIntosh amps, incredible.

And for a listen, check out the full album Terrapin Station.

Maybe it is like that old quote from Louis Armstrong about jazz, something to the effect "If you have to ask what Jazz it, you'll never know..."

For what it is worth, I've always been a big heavy metal fan also.

Replies: @Jameson, @Old Virginia

I'm not in the conversion business so I don't care what you like. BUT... if you like stuff that "sounds old" look into Charles Ives. Like Our Town set to music. Also R. Crumb & His Cheap Suit Serenaders. The fact that the GD started as a jug band will not be on the test.

Replies: @Old Virginia

You are correct about Lee not being in charge of anything at First Manassas. My bad.

Otherwise, I stand on my claim that the North would not have gone into the core Confederacy if they had not started attacking the US installations in their territory. It's not that radical a claim, because Lincoln knew that they wouldn't have been able to put up with federal pockets of armed force within their borders. He waited and then used the provocation as justification for war.

I'm not sure why you southerners are so upset. Lincoln kept slavery out of the conflict until the Emancipation Proclamation and even then he pushed it as only a military measure.

Simply admit that, once the South declared itself a separate entity, the decisions of both sides took inevitable paths. The North couldn't abide a rebellious South and the South couldn't abide Lincoln's abolitionist leanings.

Slavery might have died naturally or the blacks may have staged a violent uprising if the South hadn't seceded, but they knew that, too. Lincoln said it very clearly:

This nation cannot exist half slave and half free. A house divided cannot stand.

Replies: @Old Virginia

It would have gone on a lot longer during that time period with Len Bias and Reggie Lewis.

People forget that, exactly 8 days after the Celtics won the 1986 championship with arguably the best team in NBA history, they drafted the best player in the draft, Bias, who was dead a few days later of a cocaine overdose.

Replies: @Old Virginia

I guess it would be a measure of the Celtics' dominance that their sixth man (Ramsey, Havlichek, Kevin McHale) tends to end up in the Hall of Fame.

Wiki:
Auerbach is often credited throughout basketball with creating the sixth man. Though Ramsey was one of the Celtics' best players, he felt more comfortable coming off the bench and Auerbach wanted him fresh and in the lineup at the end of close games. Ramsey was the first in a series of sixth men who won championship rings with the Celtics. In the championships the Celtics won after Ramsey's retirement, they have had successful sixth men such as Havlicek, Paul Silas, Kevin McHale, Bill Walton, and James Posey.

Replies: @Old Virginia

If Hondo had been allowed to play 46 minutes per game in the 1960s like Wilt did, he probably would still rank among the NBA's all-time career top scorers. Havlicek was awesome but he was relegated to sixth-man duty in his prime.

Replies: @Old Virginia

Havlicek reminds me a little of Pippen: not a super-accurate shooter, but otherwise a great, great basketball player.

John Havlicek is in the HOF, so clearly his peers believed he's among the all time greats that played in the NBA.

Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Old Virginia

Havlicek was the 6th man because it was the Celtics way and he could fill the role. He didn’t start games but he was there when it ended.
 

Truly a great athlete, he was always great player even if only the Celtics knew it.
 

Replies: @Old Virginia

You're right. Torre led NL in RBIs in '71. Stargell led the NL in RBIs and HRs in '73. Had PIT won the Pennant in '73, Willie probably still would've been screwed out of the MVP, because he played in PIT.

Havlicek had an odd career in that in his 20s, he didn't play that many minutes per game because he was used as a sixth man on the mighty Celtics, but then in 30s he played huge numbers of minutes per game because he had enormous endurance. I can't think of anybody else with that pattern.

Replies: @Old Virginia

https://www.stevesailer.net/p/jerry-west-rip

Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Old Virginia

"I haven’t even bothered arguing that my favorite, Henry Aaron, was better."

For the first time, I have to disagree with you.

Willie was the greater of the two. One way we can tell, is that Willie was CF, not RF as Aaron. And Clemente was a greater RFer than Aaron. Certainly had a greater stronger arm than Aaron (who had a great arm, no doubt). Also, think about this. Willie hit 50+ HR's in a season two times, while Aaron's most was 47 in '71 (lost the HR title that yr to HOF Willie Stargell).

Also, as an aside, I'll never fully understand why Stargell wasn't '71 NL MVP. He lead the league in both HR's and RBI's. PIT won the pennant that yr. Yet STL Joe Torre won the MVP (won the batting title, with .363). I think there was (and perhaps is) some bias against small market PIT, as STL was always known as a premier baseball town. Same reasons that Stargell's only MVP ('79) he had to share with STL Keith Hernandez.

Reason I bring it up, is that usually back then, the MVP winner went to the best player on the pennant winning team. Stargell's '79 MVP award was widely seen as a lifetime career win (and even then the voters couldn't quite bring themselves to vote him it solely, he had to share it with a STL player). Keith was a great fielding 1Bman, no question. But, its interesting the bias that some teams can do no wrong, while other teams can do no right.

Stargell was screwed big time out of the NL's MVP in '71.

But as was saying, both Aaron and Willie were (or are) great.

Mays was greater. He ran out of gas and thus Babe's record wasn't broken by him.

Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Old Virginia, @kaganovitch, @kaganovitch

Well stated. Thank you.

Bench also might have been overworked by Sparky. Catching is a tough position and it takes its toll. Bench hit 389 home runs and put up some impressive offensive numbers particularly in 1970 & 192. The operation, the heavy work load, Bench fell off early because of physical decline. Yogi Berra and Mike Piazza, Pudge? Put them in the Bench era, (superior pitching, no PEDs/ least not in baseball, perform 150+ games behind the plate, etc.) Bench might not have the offensive stats of Piazza but considering the eras and circumstances, Piazza isn’t that much superior offensively to a peak Bench. NO ONE touches Bench on defense. Had Bench not been catching practically out of the crib and played 1st base or the outfield he would have been a member of the 500 club back when that actually meant something. Bench had to face guys like Seaver, Ferguson Jenkins, Juan Marichal, Ferguson Jenkins, Phil Niekro, Steve Carlton, etc., this was a golden age for baseball. How many Hall Of Fame players played in the 1971 All Star Game? I believe it was 18. IMO, 1964-1979 was the real golden age of baseball. Sure, baseball was no longer the top dog, the NFL had replaced it as America’s Game, but this era produced a lot of REAL talent.

Bench was/is not even challenged by anyone past or present on defense and he had a cannon for an arm.

Replies: @Old Virginia

No, don't really think we were arguing, as we both agree that Bench is MLB's gold standard at C position. I stated that his average was below compared to other C's, and that overall hitting, I think Yogi was way better and the offensive stats bear this out. Bill Dickey was also good with the bat as well.

If feeling blue, maybe put on Blue Hawaii soundtrack to enjoy some cool summer vibes.

Replies: @Brutusale, @Old Virginia, @Truth

Never said that Bench wasn't among the greatest ever catchers of all time in MLB. Absolutely he was.

He was primarily a HR slugging catcher. 267 BA sucks overall. But as catchers tend to be the slowest runner in the lineup, it's to be expected.

Hitting wise, Mickey Cochrane's career BA is .320. Yogi's is .285 (and Yogi has more RBIs than Bench and almost as many HRs).

Bill Dickey's career BA is .313 and for a C that is phenomenal. Dickey hit .362 in 1936, I believe. Has almost as many RBIs as Bench. In fact, it was Dickey's 13 consecutive season record of catching 100 or more games per yr that Bench tied, so Bill Dickey for the longest time must've been considered among MLB's all time greatest catchers. As was Yogi.

Cochrane, Dickey, and Yogi were all considered in the conversation as greatest ever C in MLB at some point in the 20th century, but obviously Bench is above them. Though in Yogi's case it could be closer than some would assume. He did catch Larsen's perfect game in the '56 WS. And playing in 14 WS and 10 Championships, many as a starting catcher, he knew what he was doing to call those games that lead NY to so many WS.

Let's say that Berra could be the greatest catcher in the AL. Certainly Yogi was above Therman Munson.

Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer, @Old Virginia

Munson was good but not in the same league with Bench.

Bench had 2 home runs, 6 runs batted in, batted .533 and a slg. % of 1.113 with a double and a triple in the Reds 4 game sweep. MVP of the series obviously. Best catcher ever.

Replies: @Truth, @Old Virginia

"Bench could carry a team for stretches and was revolutionary on defense"

Post Yogi, Bench is probably the greatest defensive C of the 2nd half of the 20th century. At bat, I'd say that Yogi was better overall. Yes, Bench hit HR's but that was about it. He struck out a lot and had a very poor BA. Much like Gorman Thomas. Plenty of HR's and RBI's but weak BA cause he couldn't hit the ball worth a lick outside HR.

Replies: @Truth, @Old Virginia, @Brutusale

Larry Elder used this as his theme song. It is flawless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2bvTVg0oE0

Replies: @Old Virginia

I’m a big fan of FM’s album Bare Trees which was Welch, Kirwan and McVie (Christine) era FM songwriting. I like all of the eras but this may be my favorite and Christine helps make it so.

Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Old Virginia

To me, the more Christine McVie, the better.
 

Replies: @Old Virginia

Agree. CM had (has?) as great a singing voice as Stevie Nicks; SN had better looks, so the marketing zeitgeist favored/pushed her. To me, at certain points. SN's voice can sound too harsh at the higher decibels. The great thing about a lot of the songs on Rumours is that it reflected the Peyton Place aspect of the band members' interpersonal relationships.

Replies: @Old Virginia

"If OJ did it..."?!
 

Replies: @Old Virginia

I would bet real money that the average MLB GMs, managers, and coaches are a standard deviation more intelligent than those from the 60s.
 

Casey Stengel and Earl Weaver might not have been able to use states to derive whether X had a better OPS than Y, but they knew who was good against whom and how to motivate. Don't fall into the fallacy where because a later generation had more technologically advanced tools they were "smarter."

Well, great!

You tried.

In Ball Four, Jim Bouton told the story of how hard young Mike Marshall, future Cy Young Award winner and Doctor of Philosophy in Exercise Physiology, had it during his one season in Seattle because of his intelligence. A lot of that had to do with the Neanderthals that ran most baseball teams at the time. The managers in today's game need a bit more on the ball. I would bet real money that the average MLB GMs, managers, and coaches are a standard deviation more intelligent than those from the 60s.

Replies: @R.G. Camara

Thanks.

Civilization begins when men honor their dead.

Moses Ezekiel the sculptor of the “Reconciliation Monument” which was recently removed from Arlington Cemetery because reconciliation is over, was buried there with the simple identification of his service at Virginia Military Institute. This, after spending his adult life in Italy and recognition as a world renowned classical sculptor.

“Moses J. Ezekiel, Sergeant of Company C Battalion of Cadets of the Virginia Military institute”

In his last days at VMI, Ezekiel was encouraged to pursue art by the President of neighboring Washington College, Robert E. Lee.
 

Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Harry Baldwin, @Old Virginia

I never would've considered putting Namath in the HOF. He had 4-5 good years, but he's not the greatest of all time. His legacy chiefly rests on winning SB 3 vs BAL. The "I guarantee it". Also, Namath played in NY. I'm thinking that if Namath had played for say, MIN or CLE, he wouldn't be in Canton.

I'm not specifically talking fame. I'm talking about being at the level of greatest to ever play---that transcends any short term fame. It gets one into eternity.

Like, Babe Ruth. Sure he was famous. But he was better than 99.9999% of everyone who played in his era. He transcended MLB, and was the standard for decades after he retired.

I certainly can't say that about Joe Namath. I CAN say that about Johnny Unitas.

Re: Bobby Cox. He ranks 4th all time of MLB managers, so yes, that kind of specific stat is more than enough for HOF. John McGraw, one of MLB's all time greatest managers, won 3 WS, but lost 6. But he won more games in MLB than any other manager, except for Connie Mack. McGraw has the most wins of any NL manager, so yes, those kinds of stats are slam dunks for induction.

Dan Marino retired as the leader of TD passes, career passing yards and several records. He was the first QB to throw more than 45 TDs in a single season (48) and was the first QB to throw for more than 5,000 yrds in a single season--this IS impressive because in those days, and for all of Marino's career, defenses could punish receivers going over the middle.
Those kinds of stats back up my earlier argument---that stats in the NFL count for a whole bunch a lot. It's like, either have the SB wins or the career stats. Preferably both, but at least have the stats. And Marino had the stats in boatloads.

The knock vs him, is that for all those gaudy stats of his, he went to one SB and lost--which is the direction Peyton Manning was going until he finally won. And then he lost his second and third. I don't really count him "winning" the SB vs CAR, as Denver's defense that year was absolutely amazing. But while that definitely IS a fair point vs Marino, that he couldn't win when it mattered the most--he did have the stats. And stats no one had ever seen before. So yes, in his specific case, he definitely deserves to be in the HOF.

"According to QB rankings for two players from nearly identical years, Bradshaw and Stabler, Stabler is above Bradshaw by a long shot. "

According to tangible hard stats--career TDs passing yards, INTs, Bradshaw is better than Stabler. And Bradshaw won 4 SBs, and was MVP of 2 of them. Can't take that away from Brad. Also, in his lone SB, Stabler wasn't the MVP.

Again, if it were this obvious that Stabler was all that, he would've been inducted in the first ballot post retirement 30 plus yrs ago, when he was fresh in everyone's mind. QB is the one position everyone focuses on, not like he wasn't well known. But the voters didn't think he was all that. And they were right. Stablers stats didn't improver after retirement. He shouldn't be there, it's an insult to actual legitimate HOFers.

"Bradshaw made up for it by having the Steel Curtain on the field while he was on the sideline."

OAK had a monster Defense as well, come on now. Stabler didn't do it all by himself.

Again, if Stabler was all that, then he'd have been first ballot HOF.

Was Peyton Manning first ballot? He was

Was Fran Tarkenton first ballot? He was

Was Johnny Unitas first ballot? He was

Was Terry Bradshaw first ballot? He was

Marino, Elway, or Montana first ballot? They were

I honestly can't put Stabler in the same sentence of greatness of any of those guys. It's an insult to their legacy to some extent to have to be compared to some dude who the Senior Committee felt sorry for and suddenly put him in.

Don Shula has the most wins of any NFL head coach. This makes my point about stats counting for a lot. He also has the only perfect season (including SB win). So yes, he obviously deserves it.

I honestly don't know why Kirby Puckett is in the HOF, except that some such as Bob Costas really pulled for him early on (Costas named one of his kids after him). Kirby was very good. But then I still don't get why Jim Rice is in the HOF.

I do agree that at times the HOF is a popularity, or political contest--whoever is most popular post retirement, if he's on the borderline, he'll get in .

Example: NE's former WR Julian Edelman now hosts a podcast on youtube. I can see him getting in the HOF in about 15-25 yrs. I can see it. Very personable, likeable, always ready to talk with the media. I can see it coming. But Edelman doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the HOF: very poor stats. But, time will tell.

Whereas someone like MLB's Dave Kingman, who was not very media friendly to say the least will have to wait until hell freezes over five times from Sunday before he gets in. Perhaps if Dave became Davina or was part of an alphabet community, the HOF would make an exception. That's part of the politics of borderline players--some get in and some don't, often the reasons are subjective (and which media people were in their corner pulling for them)

You're correct. In '56 the Colonel had booked Elvis in the New Frontier, and to put it bluntly, Elvis laid an egg. The only time in '56 that he utterly failed to connect with an audience. To be fair, the audience in Vegas in the '50's weren't used to Rock and Roll. To them it was too noisy, too loud, degenerate, etc. Also they felt it distracted them from their gambling. The hotel had a matinee for Elvis specifically for his teenage fans on the weekend, and that's when he connected with his natural audience.

But when he returned in '69, Vegas was all abuzz. He was back, tanned rested and ready for action--and he was a massive success.

Yes, Sinatra came around to Elvis, he even loaned him his private jet in '67 so he and Priscilla could fly to Vegas and get married in privacy.

Steve Allen was supposed to be a comedian. He was the original host of the Tonight Show, before Jack Paar took over. Frankly I don't understand how Allen had a lengthy career; never struck me as particularly interesting much less funny. But it was also the meanness that he had for Elvis.

Just ask yourself: Would Allen have done that to a black entertainer at the time? I don't think so. Or any mainstream entertainer not from the South? I don't think so.

Bigotry, plain and simple.

I like all the artists you mentioned of your parents music, and I'd include Bing Crosby in there as well.

Also, due to Blue Hawaii, I like Tiki Exotica music (a form of jazz fusion that emphasizes woodwind instruments, xylophones, bird calls). Arthur Lyman is representative of the best of this genre of music from midcentury Americana.

But frankly history has shown Allen to be a total jerk and asshole in the way he treated Elvis. No need to do that, especially as he wanted the ratings that went with having Elvis on his show.

You mentioned while back that there was a suspicion regarding Elvis because he was a Southerner. I'll give you an example that this was the truth.

During '56 in his monstrous breakout year into the mainstream, Elvis appeared on Steve Allen's show. It's infamous for the fact that he did "hound dog" dressed in a tuxedo and sang to a bassett hound. Elvis also had to do a comedy skit dressed as a hillbilly.

THAT was all Steve Allen's idea. He was a typical representative of his society--NYer, oh so clever, and thought he knew everything. He was a total asshole and wanted to humiliate Elvis and make him look ridiculous. Those were the types of critics back then, based in NY, who tended to view other Americans, particularly from the South, as dumb, uneducated, knuckle dragging hicks.

Elvis was none of that. It's just that they didn't understand the latest trend called Rock and Roll, and his part in it. They were still stuck in the Jazz, bee-bop, and standard Tin Pan Alley influenced Pop ballads, so they didn't know what to make of it. You think they'd have learned their lesson by the time of the Beatles/British Invasion, but nope, they still hadn't really figured it out.

Of course now it's a different story and they're all on the bandwagon of the latest trends, least they look foolish and out of it like their predecessors.

"Who’s doing the “pausing” on Hall of Fame induction? "

It happens. Case in point--Ken Stabler for 30 yrs and others weren't considered good enough. Now all of a sudden he is. That makes no sense. Either he was when he first retired, or he isn't ever to get in. Not more complicated than that.


"The essential element of choosing for induction is a human one."

True, up to a point. Which is why some things aren't human--stats for one. And championships for another. These are things that can help determine whenever the human biases get in the way or there's slight confusion.


"Bias, politics, influence and time render it an inexact science."

Agree partly. It doesn't have to be this way. Rely on the stats, and also championships. Also individual honors/awards--MVP's, All-Pro selection. These things added all up, tell a story--is that individual all that or not?

"Reputation isn’t always a measure of ability and performance, sometimes it’s a self-perpetuating narrative."

The confusion is with the word reputation. I would say "Earned the right to be considered at the level of the greatest to ever play the game". If certain players continue to make the list generation after generation, well, the consensus isn't wrong. In a court of law, it is up to the defendant to produce the evidence and make his case that the universal consensus is totally wrong; otherwise, his case is thrown out of court.

If I say that Jerry Rice is among the greatest to ever play the game, then the majority consensus is on my side. The stats agree; the individual honor/awards agree; and, in Rice's case, he also has some championships to go with it (including a SB MVP). Eventually, we have to stop acting like nine yr olds and concede that yes, the experts are quite correct.


"I’ve seen too much testimony from a player’s contemporaries that counter reputation."

But players themselves aren't always the most accurate to determine who is the greatest. They too have their own personal reasons and biases. This certainly was proven in MLB's HOF, when many on the Veterans Committee were starting to induct their old teammates and buddies and ignoring the facts--that the individuals they pushed for induction really weren't all that.

So actually, players are the last people I would trust to be impartial and totally unbiased, especially if they're pushing their old teammates for induction.

Again. Sportswriters spend their careers covering NFL teams. They aren't stupid. They know exactly who the greatest players are and which ones aren't. Their experience of decades covering the teams show them that certain individuals are HOF worthy, and others are not.

Of course I'm referring specifically to legitimate, honest, and professional media journalists in sports, not hacks.

So when in doubt, first look at the stats. As the NFL is chiefly a stats oriented league (as is MLB), that's a good place to start.

Reason why I don't believe that Ken Stabler is HOF, is because the QB is the one position that experts, fans, journalists, all focus on, sometimes to the exclusion of other offensive positions. If the original voters weren't impressed with his stats at the time he retired, then he simply wasn't quite all that. Pure and simple. His stats didn't improve 30 yrs after retirement. He had more INT than TD passes--and that's not good. He went to 6 straight title games and lost them all but one--and that's definitely not good.

Compared to Bradshaw, who won 4 SBs, and had better stats overall, the answer was obvious. one QB was HOF worthy and the other wasn't quite all that.

But when in doubt, the stats can help clear it up. For the greatest of the great, the stats are always going to be there.

"Naming Randy Gradishar because he’s the current model, had he played in Dallas or Oakland he would have been more well known, probably awarded more hardware. "

That's an opinion, not necessarily a fact. Have to deal with what is and not what shoulda coulda.

His name isn't prominently discussed in the era he played. If it were, he'd have been inducted into the HOF long before now.

You may assume that he'd be inducted if he played with a winning team, but maybe not. Life isn't always static, cut and dry. Other factors come into play.

Also, it makes total sense that the winners of championships are going to have the most HOFers, why?? Because the players help them WIN.

Example: Ernie Banks was first ballot HOF. He played for the Cubs. In those days, they were perpetual losers (for the most part) it makes total sense then, that CHI wouldn't have many HOFers from those generations aside from individual standouts like Banks.

Eventually the silly talk has to stop.


"Denver had zero legacy before 1975 and the Orange Crush Defense."

Because they were losers. DEN was in OAK's division and it was a foregone conclusion that they wouldn't win. Therefore we shouldn't be surprised that DEN had few HOFers prior to '75.

Orange Crush defense really didn't last long, though. '77 they lost in the SB. In '78 they lost to PIT in the divisional game, and then didn't make the playoffs until Elway.

Let's keep it real--John Elway is the greatest DEN player, ever. I don't think most people will argue that one. There's a reason why--because of stats, and because he WON.

There are few PIT players in the HOF prior to the '70's, because during that time, PIT were losers and thus didn't have great players. It really isn't harder to figure out than that.

Replies: @Old Virginia

"Great players need other great players to make the team great. This where I think of LC Greenwood. "

I definitely agree. One player can't do it all by himself. (though it's easier to carry the team on the back in the NBA as there's only 5 on the field). But alongside Greene, there were Blount, Ham, and Lambert--four players who routinely make the list of all time ever to play the game. Over one-third of the defense were among the all time greatest ever to play the game. That's beyond incredible, and seldom matched. In addition to those 4, you had LC; Russell; Wagner; Edwards (for first 2 SBs); and Thomas, and even White and Holmes (first 2 SBs). So that's a solid defense all around. But after the four greats, the rest are exceptional role players. LC and perhaps Russell, were borderline HOFers. But borderline tends to equal "Nah, not quite." And so there's no reason to put them in.

Bottom line: If you have to pause, then they're not all that worthy of HOF, period. There never should be a pause or hesitation. Either they are or they're not great, and no in between.

"I’m not so sure about the stats. According to quarterback ratings, many Hall of Famers rate low on the charts. "

Stats are everything for the NFL. Granted, they do evolve over time. What was considered an amazing stat fifty or sixty years ago, (say, throwing for 20-25 TDs in a season) is now considered nowhere near good enough. But that tends to happen in most sports. As the players are bigger, stronger, and faster nowadays, it's expected that they put up bigger stats than ever before.

It's when the greatest of the great tend to put up numbers that transcend the generations, that's when it becomes on a totally different level.

"Well – this is over. Great team, great QB."

Exactly. Shame that Tom Brady can't come back and play a few more years, because Mahomes is on his way to catching his all time SB wins.

What I DON'T understand, is that now that Mahomes as been in the NFL for six seasons, there is bunches of tape on him for a Defensive Coordinator to utilize and determine the best way to shut him down. And so far, few if any teams with a really good to great DC have been able to do it.

Which leads me to believe that Mahomes, like Brady, really is all that. The only way he would get beat is if he beats himself, or makes mental mistakes in key crucial moments of the game.

When SF didn't go for a TD and chose instead to kick a FG in OT, you knew it was over. You could see it in Mahomes' eyes that he was going down field and win the game. You can't play it safe in the SB, especially not in OT. Either you want to win the championship, or you don't. And when it came down to it, Shanahan blinked and played it safe--while Andy Reid chose to go for the W.

Now with his 3 SB wins, it's obvious that Andy Reid is HOF bound.

One thing: No NFL team has ever won 3 SB's in a row. There's never been a threepeat. With KC/Mahomes at the helm, next year could be history in the making.

Yes, but let's remember that Townshend never met Elvis. Depending on the musical clique, it's either cool to bash Elvis, or express eternal devotion to his memory. Roger Daltrey, I believe, liked Elvis (though the Who never actually met him).

When Paul McCartney was touring US ca.2013, he stopped at Graceland, and put his guitar pick on Elvis' grave--showing a sign of proper respect and what he meant to him personally. There's a picture of him doing this online.

Follow That Dream definitely holds up, and it shows the potential that Elvis had, if he were given better scripts and had a filmmaker champion him. Also it does help that the film was shot on location in FL. He made it shortly after completing Blue Hawaii. Unfortunately as soon as BH was released and made a gazillion, the template was discovered. From then on, that's the kind of film Elvis would make, with varying results in the process.

Replies: @Old Virginia

I think Randy Gradishar was a difference maker, one of the great linebackers of his day and Hall of Fame’er."

So great I never heard of him until this year. Granted, I don't follow DEN. But it does make my point--if he was all that, it wouldn't have taken him 40 years, 40 YEARS post-retirement to be inducted. Have to draw the line somewhere. It's like, the best time to have inducted him would've been when he first retired and everyone would remember him.

Same with Stabler. He simply wasn't the greatest ever to play the game at that level. Very good. Which is what the HOF is turning into.

May not be everything, but stats do tell you some important things. If the voters during the '80's and '90's ignored Stabler, there was a reason why they did. They didn't ignore Upshaw and Shell. They didn't ignore Biletnikoff. Generally, QBs are the easiest to get inducted, meaning, they're the one position fans and experts alike zero in on the most.

Mike Trout most likely will make the HOF, assuming of course that he gets 3,000H's and/or 500 career HR's, which is looks as though he will.

The greatest of the great nearly always have the career stats to back up the reason they're inducted. Stabler doesn't. Plunkett doesn't. Bert Jones certainly doesn't (and he's not in the HOF)

Fran Tarkenton had the most TD passes and career yards when he retired. No question about him, although he couldn't ever win the big one. Much like Dan Marino couldn't win the big one. But. Marino retired with the most TD passes and passing yards, can't ignore that.

Stats are very important because the NFL is primarily a stats oriented game (as is MLB and NBA, naturally).

I tend to agree regarding Bradshaw. But he had above average stats at the time of his retirement, and 4 SB's as a QB tended to be more than enough back then. Aside from Staubach and Tarkenton, Bradshaw was in the middle. And yet, in the biggest games of their careers, Bradshaw beat them both on the biggest stage--SB's count a lot with voters. Especially if individual SB is ranked as one of the greatest ever. Terry also had slightly better stats than Stabler. The difference maker was that he beat him 3 out of 5 times in the AFC playoffs. As they say, the great ones find a way to get it done on the biggest stage.

Bradshaw also has better stats than Staubach, and beat him twice in the SB, so on that level he's definitely deserving of HOF. Staubach is definitely deserving as well of the HOF. So I'd put them about even or equal. But stats wise of that generation, Tarkenton was the all time greatest, until passed by the successive generation. But his stats aren't shabby, they hold up pretty well overall. He just couldn't get it done three times when he had the chance for a championship. Stats wise, I'd put Tarkenton at Unitas' level, as he had bigger stats, and of course Johnny U was the standard for the modern day QB.

Fouts was amazing for his time. Had he played with a defense of any competency, he could've won at least 2 SBs.

Basically, the right players have earned the right to be recognized and bestowed with the HOF induction. Less inclusive and more exclusive. Deion Sanders take on this holds up with me, and I watch it every few weeks or so to remind me that he's probably not alone among the greats in the HOF on how they feel regarding letting just anyone into a most sacred secular sporting place.

Replies: @Old Virginia

I think some of Smart People’s ignorance and dismissiveness of Elvis is a vestige of suspicion that he was a Southerner."

Exactly. Agree 100%. One reason this could be the case, is because for a very long time, the US's national media capital was headquartered in NYC, with LA receiving some focus as well.

Most NYers tend to think that the rest of the US is no different than Beirut or the jungles of Africa--a weird, strange and foreign place that they really don't want to venture to have to cover. And the inhabitants of these places? They're weird as hell to them.

Said it before. The view of most elite NYers is summed up by NY D Al Smith who ran in '28 vs Hoover for President, as to why he wasn't going to do much campaigning west of the Mississippi--"What states are there West of the Mississippi?"

And that has pretty much been their attitude toward the South in particular, but toward the rest of America in general as well.

Look how they've portrayed the South back in the day. Either as ignorant hillbillies, a la Jed Clampett and Lil' Abner (written by "clever" NYers who didn't know much about the South except for various stereotpyes) or rednecks that need to be endlessly lectured at ad nauseam.

They even attempted to pidgeonhole Elvis in this by giving him scripts to do--"Kissin' Cousins" (lil abner more or less), and even the better film "Follow That Dream". They didn't understand that good music can come from anywhere. But in their way of thinking, if it didn't originate in New York, it doesn't count.

Elvis showed them they were so wrong about that.

Replies: @Old Virginia

"I think Elvis’ business was notably similar to the government and deep state in a way. It becomes the only way it can operate and self-perpetuates."

Now this is an interesting take. Perhaps because Elvis was seen as "the first" to promote or bring Rock and Roll into the mainstream of the time, he would never have died broke, and he didn't.

Also, Elvis came from the Deep South, which at the time was considered to be the poorest region of the country. He lived in public housing up to the time he was about 18. By the time he was 21, he was the biggest musician in the country. Rags to riches literally overnight. He never lost his touch with ordinary Americans, a living breathing example that yes, the American dream can be achieved even by those at the lowest rung of the ladder. And having made it big, he probably didn't want to lose that success.

I've always admired the fact that Elvis never forgot where he came from, and he was always proud to have been a son of the South. Even today, Southerners know that about Elvis, and are still among his loyal fans. I greatly admire and respect that aspect about him. He wasn't perfect, at times he didn't seem to care. But for what he did for music as a whole, and for the things he did try to achieve both for himself, his career, and for others on a personal intimate level, well, that's one reason that Elvis Presley is known as the entertainer of the 20th century.

"You’re making the same case about Randy Gradishar, LC Greenwood and Andy Russell as I did a month ago. "

Actually, no I'm not. We are in total agreement regarding Elvis. On the HOF, I'm consistent: IF Russell; Greenwood; and up til this year Gradishar weren't in Canton it's for the obvious reason--they weren't all that.

The PIT side of me would like Russell and Greenwood in Canton, but the realist understands that they don't measure up for a reason--because they weren't quite all that deserving to be inducted pure and simple. I'm not familiar with Gradishar. Doesn't mean I should or shouldn't be. But I've definitely heard of Lyle Alzado--just googled to find out he's NOT in the HOF, WTF? But...there must be a reason why he isn't.

See, when a player retires, his stats are all fresh in every fan and experts minds. It won't take Tom Brady 20 or 30 yrs to get inducted. It just won't, come on. So if a player is all that, then his onfield play, his stats, should do the talking for him. If they don't, it means he doesn't measure up.

"If they’re great, they’re great. "

And if they're great, it doesn't take 20 or 30 yrs to finally figure that out. That doesn't add up. It didn't take 3o yrs for Lawrence Taylor to get in. The great ones are inducted first ballot. Perhaps 2nd or 3rd ballot. But really, first ballot it should be obvious, and unanimous. Like, there's no doubt or question.

"Linebackers Lambert and Hendricks overshadowed them but Russell and Gradishar were great football players"

Lambert and Hendricks overshadowed them because they were twice as good. Russell didn't make as many pro bowls as Lambert, wasn't ever named Defensive Player of the Year (neither was Gradishar). These things do count. They're indicators that the individual player is on the way (potentially) to be one of the greatest, or at that level.

Thought that PIT LB TJ Watt was going to be named this yrs Defensive Player of the year. He wasn't, even though he had the better stats than CLE LB Myles Garrett.

"LC Greenwood was almost literally in Joe Greene’s shadow and sucked up the headlines."

I have to respectfully disagree. Lou Gehrig was in Babe Ruth's shadow for most of his career (and then later in DiMaggio's shadow) but Lou Gehrig is in the HOF. There was never a doubt that Gehrig would be inducted.

Joe Greene was the standard at his position in the 70's. He won 2 Defensive Player of the year awards, and was voted to several NFL lists for all time greatest players. That counts. LC Greenwood was very good, and that's about it.

Thing is, people tend to think that PIT's 70's Defense was one of the all time greats, because it was, BUT they also tend to think that every single starter on defense was great--when they weren't.

The fact that Greene; Lambert; Ham; and Blount have usually all made NFL lists of all time greatest ever players, all four were inducted first ballot, made multiple pro bowls, well--they were all that. That's 4 starters out of 11, which means that a little over one-third of the defense contained some of the greatest to ever play the game. That kind of thing doesn't happen every decade. Those names were all that. They measure up across the decades and easily compare with various others of different decades who played on defense.

I can't say that with Russell and Greenwood. The homer in me wants to. But I realistically accept that good as they were, they weren't quite at that level. They just weren't. If they were, then they'd have had the awards accolades and first ballot inductions.

I still don't understand why PIT S Donnie Shell was inducted a few yrs ago. That's ridiculous. He was very good, but not quite all that.

If he were, it wouldn't have taken him 30+ yrs to get in.

"That DL was too good to think Greene was the only reason."

Greene was the main reason. The experts have unanimously concurred on that one. Joe Greene was starting for PIT his first season, in the first game or so. Greenwood was drafted the same yr as Greene (69), but he wasn't a full starter until his second or third yr. That alone tells us something. Whereas Greene; Blount; Ham; Lambert were all starters their first yr in the first game of season.

That's the thing though. There were a lot of good and excellent starters on PIT's defense. But that doesn't mean that they all belong in the HOF. They'd have had the awards to make their case. And most of them don't. They still definitely contributed to PIT's success, absolutely. But they weren't quite all that from a HOF standpoint.

More I think about it, the senior category should be done away with. It shoudnt take a player 20 or 30 yrs to get inducted. That's crazy. Either they are a HOF or they're not. Their stats don't suddenly improve after 20 yrs post retirement.

Because all the great players are definitely first balloted in, and its unanimous.

Tom Brady in a few yrs. Who would vote vs him? First ballot. No question.

"Ken Stabler."

Stabler wasn't quite all that. We might as well induct Jim Plunkett next. he won 2 SB's compared to Stabler's 1, and was named MVP of one of them. Both Plunkett and Stabler had more career INT than TDs, and that's simply not good enough.

The Snake was absolutely very good. But not great, certainly not the greatest to ever play the game.

"My perennial point – there are worthy players that fail to gain notoriety but were difference makers."

Difference makers are good, even very good. And that's it. When it comes to the greatest to ever play the game, that's supposed to be reserved for only the greatest ever to have played the game. Each HOF should be a Field of Dreams, so to speak.

Every single name is unanimously considered great.

Every name doesn't take 20+ yrs to get inducted. Why would they? Their stats didn't improve during their retirement.


"Inclusion doesn’t diminish the headliners."

It definitely does. The greatest ever to have played the game belong among only their peers.

Plus, the individual players are already honored by their teams, the Ring of Honor type of thing that each team does. I'm sure that Grandishar was placed in DEN's Ring of Honor or whatever its named. By all means it's good for their individual teams to honor them. But that's where it ends.

I dare say, that if asked these players would be first to say "Aw, shucks, I'm nowhere near as great a player as Joe Greene was." They'd be the first to admit it.

So who do you think will win the SB, KC or SF?

Replies: @Old Virginia, @Old Virginia

"There was a point I remember being pissed at the way the public Elvis was first a wasted drug addict.It’s fortunate that as much as I’ve listened, watched and read about him that I’ve come to regard him as a talented, soulful man – and a good guy."

100% agree. He was a decent man, overall. Flawed, absolutely. I think in some ways, Elvis became a Peter Pan like figure, who was enabled by those around him, coupled with the fact that being who he was---no one ever told him "no"; or "you can't do that". Admittedly, few in the top 1% ever hear those words. No one ever tells Bill Gates "no". Or Soros. Or Bezos. Or Musk, etc etc. So they live in their own worlds of "I can do whatever I want, especially since I always have."

And that's Elvis. And of course whatever he wanted, he basically got.

But again, I think that Sonny, Red, and Dave did their best to try and help, all things considered. It's a shame that he didn't bother to listen to them. He couldn't face that he had a problem in that area.

Replies: @Old Virginia

You’re probably right about Jefferson and Fox News
 

Love to hear about #41. Like Brooks Robinson, Matte always came through in the clutch.

Replies: @Old Virginia

I agree, he was a one in a million talent.

At the same time, I like what Great Britain's Oliver Cromwell told a painter who was about to paint him in an idealized way "Paint me with warts and all".

Amen. Total honesty all the way. Unfortunately because of how Elvis was marketed and idealized over the decades, many fans are in total denial. "What flaws? What drugs? Nothing to see here." Of course it doesn't help that several around him totally went along with the deception in order to keep the myth and image alive.

Sonny, Red, and Dave told the truth. They had the guts, and understood they wouldn't be liked for it.

Ironically, in the late '60's a very popular novel and then movie "The Valley of the Dolls", which tackled the subject of barbiturate usage, something Elvis was well familiar with.

It's also strange that several US entertainers had prescription drug problems: Elvis, Michael Jackson, Judy Garland, Prince, to name a few.

Haha. I hear ya. I remember reading, "Keep Off My Turf" a book about Mike Curtis. You are probably familiar with the time Curtis leveled some fan that ran on the field.

Replies: @Old Virginia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xWfk6ld87o

How can you not love Mike Curtis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xWfk6ld87o

IIRC, George Plympton asked Curtis, given his wild-man behavior on the field (though Plympton gave Curtis credit for being an exceptionally bright and disciplined guy), how would he feel if he knocked a guy's head clean off?

Curtis answered that if it were a legal hit, he'd feel fine.

Replies: @Old Virginia

Of all the Memphis Mafia, only Red, Sonny, and Dave Hebler made a conscious effort to confront Elvis about his drug problem, and for that, he fired them. The consensus is that he told Vernon to give them 5,000 each and that he was going to hire Red and Sonny back in a couple of months. It was his way of showing them that he was boss. Elvis didn't want to deal with the reality that his drug usage was out of control.

I agree that most of the MM wanted to keep their jobs. Red, Sonny, and Dave risked it and got fired. On Youtube you can hear Red's phone call to Elvis made in October 1976, where Red explains that after all he had done for Elvis (Red and Elvis knew each other in High School, Red accompanied Elvis to Germany during his Army stint, etc) and why was he given a week's notice and one week's pay. After 20 plus years of loyalty? Shouldn't treat people, especially loyal friends that way. That really sucks.

When he heard that they were writing a book about him, Elvis tried to buy them off, but they refused. Both Red and Dave stated many times that they made very little money from the book (Rupert Murdoch's publishing company got most of the profits). Yes they were mad at the way they were fired. But they truly cared about him and wanted him to see what he was doing to his life thru drug abuse.

For all the good things written about him, it would appear that Elvis really didn't want to be questioned by anyone about most things. The doctors were bought and paid for--they all should've been disbarred for the amounts given him. Vernon was bought and paid for. Most of the MM were bought and paid for.

Only those three tried to help in some constructive concrete fashion--and for that, Elvis fired them, but they weren't bought off. Their book was published, they tried their best to have him see the light. Unfortunately it was too late.

Shame.

People had very little idea the dangers of prescription drugs back then, unless you saw it up close and personal.

Replies: @Old Virginia

And I appreciate that, thank you. I'm not changing my stand on it either. Losing ain't winning, pure and simple. BUF and MIN ain't that...until they actually...WIN a championship. I also am not keen on people denigrating the winners. Anyone can lose; it takes the ultimate to get it done and win.

In the words of Forest Gump: "And that's all I have to say about that"

Always down to discuss Elvis, always. One in a million. And...Elvis was a winner in his field, the ultimate winner of the 20th century in entertainment/music business. He outsold pretty much everyone in the 20th century recording business. The name trumps all others in the English language. Yes, Elvis still had the talent, but he also connected to the masses in a way few ever have. He wasn't ashamed of commercial success, there's a lesson to be learned there.

I'm fascinated by the fact that Elvis apparently is YUGE in the UK, almost as big as the Beatles. I understand that the Beatles were YUGE in the US. But consider this: one of the UK's all time selling recording artists is Cliff Richard. And yet, millions of Americans have no idea who he is. Cliff wasn't all that in the US. Never. Yet Elvis was big in the UK, even though he never set foot there.

Thinking of getting Sonny West's 2nd book on Elvis (2007). Sonny seemed a cool down home guy, and clearly wanted the best for Elvis. He, Red, and Dave Hebler tried. Unfortunately Presley didn't want to listen.

Shame that.

Amen and amen.

Let's keep in mind that Elvis for the most part did not consciously set out to make albums. He made records (or songs), as that's what he thought in terms of. He didn't think in terms of a total album. Ironically, the most coherently consistent songs that were deliberately recorded to make albums were his movie sountracks--those were consciously conceived of as albums. Unfortunately the soundtracks are a mixed bag (exception being of course, Blue Hawaii--an awesome album).

But Moman was where it was at, especially for the late '60's early '70's. Marty Lacker his Memphis Mafia pal did him right by hooking him up with Chips.

Replies: @Old Virginia

In some ways, Chips Moman was to 60's/70's US pop music what George Martin was to the Beatles. Very creatively necessary.

In the right hands, Christmas music is a joy and treasure. But I do agree that Elvis probably would've laughed his behind off with the Porkmeister's Blue Christmas version.

It's a good thing that Elvis expanded his range beyond the Sun recordings. It would be a shame if he were primarily and only recalled for that. I mean, the energy and rawness for the time is awesome, no doubt about it. But the lyrics for the most part are fairly juvenile. He wanted to expand his range, and he did so. If he had kept recording with Chips, he'd have made more Billboard hits.

Shame that.

Replies: @Old Virginia

Preach the truth.

Yes, Eastern Ukraine the majority is culturally, linguistically, and ethnically Russian. It's not a big secret either. Also Ukraine as a whole was part of Russia for many centuries. It's their backyard, and not ours.

Yes, for the most part.

What I find very interesting, or peculiar, is that the same leftists who overpraised Gorbechev to the skies all throughout the '80's into the '90's, and praised Yeltsin as well in the same manner.

But once Putin took over, they all went vs him and thought that this was the last and final straw! How dare a leader only think about what's good for his own nation, his own country?

The message was clear: Sovietism or global socialism was a good thing, but nationalism was the devil incarnate, an evil not to even be discussed, much less promoted in a positive light.

We didn't much care for Krushev in '62, when he attempted to put nuclear missiles in Cuba (our backyard); why then should we think that Putin would be just fine and peachy for attempting to put Ukraine in NATO? Especially as Ukraine is his backyard? Make that make sense, because it doesn't to me.

Put that down to noticing.

Replies: @Old Virginia

Yep, Muscle Shoals is another one of American recording at its finest. Also proves that talented musicians didn't really need to only record in NY or LA to make great creative masterpieces.

A few years ago, Blue Hawaii the full outtakes of each song were released. (e.g. Can't Help Falling in Love took about 29 or 30 takes to get right. Not every single take went the entire full length, some takes are stops and starts, as to be expected, naturally, when learning a new song).

You hadn't heard "I'll be Home on Christmas day" before recently? Wow. That song was on his '71 Christmas album. A very good song, a bit of a country flavor to it, most definitely.

I tend to like the bump on "Suspicious Minds". Felton I think was attempting to re-create the excitement of when Elvis first introduced the song live in Vegas in Aug. of '69, when he had just returned to live performing. Since the song went #1 on Billboard, Felton's fooling around with the master didn't hurt the song any. But Youtube has the original version that Elvis recorded before it was released so you can decide which version you like. I used to not like all the releasing of the outtakes and alternate versions of the songs, but since he hasn't recorded anything new in half a century, it's all that the FTD can release. Some of it's quite interesting to hear a familiar song played a different way or in a different speed, etc.

Replies: @Old Virginia

Not quite really just the Clintons. I wasn't actually making them the scapegoats, although they certainly didn't help but hastened the US's decline. Seems like as Clinton was the first Boomer, things started to really go down the tank with his generation at the wheel, sorry to say.

Yes, the New World Order was beginning of something to be sure, but the domestic side was left pretty much alone under Bush 1. 1992 was the beginning of the decline on the domestic side as well as the beginning of the globalist agenda.

Ross Perot was certainly on to something when he ran in '92 and garnered 19% of the popular vote. Had he actually been serious or at least better focused on winning the election, who knows? Maybe he'd have garnered some electoral votes as well and really stirred things up even more.

Trump's '16 candidacy lifted or creatively borrowed a ton from Perot's issues (from a domestic side).

1992 was the official end of the Cold War, and by rights the US should've started closing the bases and. bringing the troops home. But, they caught the gleem in their eyes and wanted a globalist empire and wanted to continue to be the lone superpower standing. Can't do that forever indefinitely, and now we see the results of that.

A few years ago, Putin made the observation about how the US reminded him of the former Soviet Union in its final days--Empire of Lies---thinking the US (much as the USSR in last days) could take care of every single global problem either through military might or through bribery, and other unethical means.

Putin was quite accurate in that observation. The US can't do Empire, global supercop forever. What goes up will come down.

And that's why I date the beginning of the end at 1992. We had an opportunity to bring the troops home, and instead we went for being globalcop and lone super power. Hubris, arrogance call it whatever by any name, still adds up the same.

Replies: @Old Virginia

This sounds amazing to purchase, but the 4 box CD sounds like it would cost an arm and a leg. It is Elvis after all. The complete Blue Hawaii recordings are out at the end of this month, it's going to be a 5 CD box set. Of course it could be tons of retreads since they're also including the full album which has been released several times over the decades.

Elvis Country is supposedly one of the few pure albums that Elvis made that could almost be considered a concept album. There's like a few snippets that the producer interspersed in between the various songs, something along those lines.

Replies: @Old Virginia

I'll have to take a closer listen, thanks for recommendation. Glad to see the liner notes give Chips Moman his due. Very underappreciated in the Memphis music scene for too long a time.

Replies: @Old Virginia

I agree about the '90's, that's about when it started to become very apparent. I date the beginning of the US's end of unity in 1992. That was the year that changed everything, and i mean everything. All the social political even economical problems that the US has today can be dated from 1992.

I think Glenn is smoking something strange. Wouldn't date it back as far as Wilson or FDR. Glenn is still in that whole "GOP good, Dems evil" mentality. If only life were that simple. Someone like him, you wonder. Suppose it comes out that more GOP's than Dems visited Epstein's private island? Then they'll be crickets chirping.

Brenda Lee was excellent. She had some soul too, as well as subtlety. Elvis enjoyed "Fever". I like Aloha from Hawaii, and of course, Blue Hawaii. Just finished listening tonight to Dave Hebler, one his ex-bodyguards who helped write "Elvis What happened?" He's the last of the three who's still alive. Very knowledgable.

Elvis repeatedly needed challenges in his career. He didn't want to be forever known as that dude with the pelvis who was tied to Sam Phillips. People who are limited to Rock and Roll, or even Rock, don't get it and think that Elvis just should've stayed in that lane--but Elvis saw an entire highway of great musical genres and wanted to sing as many as he could. For every That's all Right Mama, he also sang I was the One/That's where your heartaches begin.

That's why the first song he wanted to record when he got back from the army was Tony Martin's There's no Tomorrow. A couple songwriters reworked it, and Elvis recorded It's Now or Never. He felt the challenge by Sinatra who in some late '50's article stated "Let's see what he does with grown up material" (words to that affect).

It's now or never must've been one of Elvis' all time favorite songs of his as he sang it live quite a few times in concerts during the '70's. For me there's that, there's also Are you Lonesome Tonight (awesome song, pure platinum). And Can't Help Falling in Love--why wasn't that song Oscar nominated?

When he was at his best, Elvis' songs stand the test of time.

Yes, Elvis' band was playing Rock and Roll, but all eyes were on the King. And his backup vocalists, from the Jordanaires (who were a Gospel group); and the Sweet Inspirations (started in Gospel); and the Imperials/JD Sumner and the Stamps (gospel all the way). I think he was trying to tell us something by using so many gospel based vocalists as his backups.

But I date America's beginning of the decline at 1992. Pretty much all and everything that started to go wrong and what we're seeing today can be traced to that year. Or at least that's the year when the bad started to go public.

Replies: @Old Virginia, @Old Virginia, @Old Virginia

I've been to the USS Arizona in Honolulu. It's awesome, breathtaking. You would appreciate it. Hope you get the opportunity to see it.

With all respect, I ain't putting John Lennon as a singer in the same sentence. He couldn't sing ballads, and if I want screeching and shouting I'll listen to the early Who recordings.

Brilliant songwriter, but nowhere near as great as Elvis as a a singer. Paul was very good, I'll put him above John in vocal talent any day. But he wasn't Elvis either.

Let's face it, the King raised the bar pretty high and set the standards blazing the trail, which few can follow it.

I fully agree. Also, most of the black entertainers of Elvis' generation tended to like him, especially those that knew him or got to meet him. Elvis treated everyone the same, no matter the status or the race. Was he perfect? No, of course not. It's a shame about the prescription drug usage.

I also agree that it was a different time. Tend to miss that aspect of America. We were almost there I think, in achieving not equality but in how the races treated one another--decently and with respect, you know? We were almost there. Can't understand what changed it so that we lost our way.

Replies: @Old Virginia

"I’ve read and reread Peter Guralnick’s two volume bio and it seems Elvis never truly desired to change anything."

Elvis wasn't by nature confrontational. This observation repeatedly pops up over and over by those that knew him, and even from Elvis himself. But then, if he had been in his professional life, he'd have gotten better material to sing and he'd have gotten a world tour as well. He was too willing to let th eColonel run the whole show, when he should've reminded him, "Hey! I AM the show! Without me, the cash register doesn't sing!" But he refused for the most part to take charge of his life in most areas.

Interesting, because I just finished Red/Sonny West/Dave Hebler's Elvis What Happened? All things considering, it's a good book. It more or less jibes with Guralnick's thesis. Elvis never wanted to change things, much less himself. Including things that he had to change, like admit that he had a major problem with prescription drugs.

I think as grownups, sometimes fans don't want to admit that Elvis was what they call today an Alpha Male. That's why I've said I dont see it with the Beatles on stage--I DO get it with Elvis. Something inside him drew women to him like no other entertainer. You see it in video footage of him on stage in the '50's, and the '70's--that's not fake, that's real.

But where the fans don't want to admit the truth--with all those women after him, the idea that Elvis didn't have flings. Come on. He was only human. Perhaps because he came out of the '50's, and people like to think it was a PG rated era, a more innocent and thus less sexual time. BS. If everywhere this person went, everywhere, and tons of women were trying to get him. Don't think he didn't get some every once in a while? Come on.

Some fans don't want to see the truth.

I think one major reason for Elvis's staying power is often overlooked---the women liked him. Women are far more bigger consumers of most things, including music. Part of Elvis' mystique was due to his talent, yes of course, but it was also because of his looks.

No one goes to Buddy Holly's hometown in the numbers they trek to Elvis'. Buddy Holly was very talented musician. If he'd looked like Elvis, well, there you go. Same with Roy Orbison. The reason he wore his trademark sunglasses he said, was due to his lifelong stage fright. Again, he didn't look like Elvis.

So in that department, Elvis' immortality will be fine. He'll last.

Replies: @Steve Sailer

The reason that the Memphis DJ (can't recall the name, Dewey maybe?) in '54 first introduced him as "that boy Elvis Presley from Humes High School" was code word: during Jim Crow era, this would alert the kids that Elvis was white, because he attended a white public high school.

Relax, I'll bet the farm on Elvis. Was a bit concerned over some of what you say a few yrs back, but, seems like the Estate wants the name to live beyond this age, and with the new film, are intent to keep him from getting cancelled. They'll probably make a special case for Elvis anyway. Too good to pass up.

On your previous post Re: the Beatles. Yes they were definitely all that and then some. But solo, and especially vs Elvis, nope, never. Elvis could take them on one at a time.

I'm just not convinced that the Beatles were a great live band, especially vs Elvis. I'm not alone in that perspective either. Think about this: If the Beatles were the most amazing great live band, then when they announced in late '66 that they weren't going to tour anymore than there would've been more of a public outcry from their fans.

I'm basically paraphrasing the prime noticer Steve himself. Steve wrote an awesome-mazing review of Malcolm Gladwell's Blink and made mention that the Beatles weren't all that as a live band; they were of course a great studio producing albums band. And thats what they're primarily remembered for.

Wow, so you've been to Graceland? Did you go during Elvis Week?
Heard it's supposed to be absolutely amazing.

Replies: @Old Virginia, @Old Virginia