'Treat me mean and cruel' - Elvis by Albert Goldman (viewer discretion!)

[@meveevem1001]

Goldman’s biographies are more a statement about Goldman than Elvis or Lennon.

[@knockedoutloaded279]

Elvis voice was still great at the end....yes he was in bad physical shape, moody blues, hurt and way down were all great hits........

[@nutrianirvana6823]

Good review! I must admit, I chuckled at some of Goldman's vitriol towards Elvis. It was mean-spirited and unnecessary. But he just couldn't hold it back. I couldn't believe how incorrect some of his information was. He misspelled names and other glaring mistakes. Still, it's worth reading...once. I'm a lifelong EP fan, however, I can be objective about him. He's very much a human being to me and I don't take offense at his flaws being pointed out, as long as they're balanced with his strengths as well; something Goldman didn't accomplish.

[@Somee989]

Priscilla threw Elvis to the dogs after her divorce. Today, Elvis was the love of her life.

[@christophertyler3425]

As to acting, go to 'King Creole' where I'd argue that Marlon Brando and/or James Dean would have been hard pressed to do the film much better, especially given Elvis' same level of experience, and they sure as hell were neither as handsome or could even clean the man's shoes when it came to singing. Moreover, and aside from the screen test of Elvis lip synching 'Blue Suede Shoes,' he also blew Hollywood executives away with his screen test doing a scene from the 'Rainmaker.' The legendary producer, Wallis, thought that screen test was incredible and so, too, famed acting coach, Lee Stasberg, and many other Hollywood heavyweights. When the truth is Elvis was actually too damn talented for his own good. For if it hadn't been so easy to simply put him in a film with no production values and a terrible script singing songs - which ALWAYS made money - they would have invested in him far more as an actor - as he more than demonstrated, that when given what other serious actors were given, he could more than do the job, justice, and he was still so, so young. Therefore, given that and Elvis' musical success - where he's sold more records than any singular performer by a mile & will never be surpassed - it is not hard at all to make the case, that Elvis Presley was one of the most overall talented individuals to ever enter the entertainment industry, if not the most talented solely, overall. As there's damn good reason Leonard Bernstein felt as if Elvis Presley was the most culturally significant icon of the 20th century, & all of this was still achieved when the man never even toured outside of the United States, except for Canada. While his popularity, which is huge to this day, near a half century after his death, speaks far more volumes than the volumes of trash Goldman wrote. With the truth being, too - and thank God for KZbin and the Internet - but people who were told scurrilous lies that Elvis was racist, when he was the least race conscience person to ever live - are all now being able to see for themselves what all the fuss was about. Listening to music is subjective, also, but I still haven't found anyone who could show me one singer who could sing Rock, Pop, Rockabilly, Country, Soul, Blues, R&B, ballads and gospel, along with hints of operatic gravitas, so majestically. The reason that BB King said that "Elvis had everything," and "[t]hey named him right when calling him the King." When the Beatles said it themselves that there'd be no Beatles if it weren't for Elvis and no less than the great tenor Placido Domingo, of the Three Tenors, said that if he could have had any voice in the world it would have been that of Elvis Presley. Hence, the influence this man had was monumental & I'm not even going to touch on what a wonderful humanitarian he was or how he helped racial reconciliation in the 1960s, and his whole life, by both the songs he chose to sing; the charities he donated to; & the personal actions he took in taking care of blacks, and every other race, along with total strangers. Given the fact, too, that he had no real vocal training and/or musical training of any sort, aside from picking up a bit as to various instruments - here or there from family & friends - he was clearly a musical prodigy. As based on record sales, alone, he could even be called the 'King of Gospel,' given he's sold more Gospel albums than anyone, ever, and more pop songs, as well, but I'll let the fact that Michael Jackson - due to his fascination with Elvis - actually creating the moniker of 'King of Pop' w/Elizabeth Taylor rather than it being something the fans just naturally conveyed upon him, for others to comment on. Elvis, also - I might add - is the only solo performer ever, based upon Billboard's point rating system, to both be ranked #1 in back to back decades. (The 50s & the 60s) And though he was in terrible physical shape in 1977, he most certainly was not in decline, being the number one touring act in the United States that year, as that magical voice never failed him. When his musicianship, so often given short shrift, is quite remarkable, too, given his golden voice and the fact that he had very little training or time to dedicate to it. Yet, no less than Johnny Cash said that Elvis was the greatest rhythm guitarist he had ever seen. And if one wants to see a performer rock out, while playing some beautiful guitar riffs on the electric guitar, please see Elvis performing "Trying to Get to You' on the '1968 Comeback Special. He was also a more than adept pianist, able to play the 'Moonlight Sonata,' beautifully, and listen to how beautifully he plays the piano on "If I Had Loved You," and or live when singing "You'll Never Walk Alone" in 1975. When, too, he was quite adept at playing the harmonica and even the drums, so his natural musical talent knew no bounds. With there being little question that he could have certainly been a wonderful songwriter, too, but we all know - also - that Elvis came at a time when there was a very distinct separation between singers & writers, unlike later on. Am I trying to say that Elvis was anywhere near the skill level of great guitarists, etc.? Absolutely not! But with a voice like his, he never needed that. But what I am saying is that his proclivity, for anything musical, was magical. When none of this even begins to capture the 'it' factor, as no one else has ever had. Because, societally and culturally, there's Elvis and then there's everyone else. So, whether it was southern charm, charisma, the looks of a Greek God in his prime, or something he was just blessed with, people have been trying to define 'it' since the first day he ever entered the public consciousness. But as to his foibles, & it's important that I make note of them so as to help others see how such massive fame can take away everything, as Elvis wasn't only the world's first superstar, but both time, and the choice of people in their music, have also shown us, he was clearly the best. But that fame killed him;-( Therefore, in the end, if one chooses to focus on the negative without empathy and context, remember this. Elvis Presley hurt no one but himself, yet at the same time has given more happiness to others, around the world, more so than anyone else, save Jesus Christ!

[@bertsbooks2505]

Blimey, lot to digest there, if you don't have a blog already you should think about it! I do think the idea of Elvis doing 'A Star is Born' rather than Kristofferson, that's quite an intriguing what-if.

[@christophertyler3425]

@@bertsbooks2505 Hi Bert, how are you? While my name's Christopher Tyler and I'm a public policy analyst and writer by trade. I believe, too, your thoughts of my doing a blog were said sincerely, so thank you. And let me thank you, too, for this piece to which I responded. While whether it was 'A Star is Born,' or other projects, Elvis could have -amazingly - been even way bigger than he was. As both his talent, heart, and dedication to his crafts were limitless in my view, but he got caught in that wheel just like a hamster. When as to Goldman, I don't think he ever truly recognized his subject's talent and went in with a negative attitude to begin with. When, too, I'd also love to be friends, and so you know, I'm here in Maryland in the good ole USA. When perhaps we could do something together so that I could help you get more subscribers, as well, inasmuch as I am rather well versed in many subjects and always want to see others do well!!! God bless you, my friend! ~ Chris

[@manlystranger4973]

@@bertsbooks2505 - "A Star Is Born" with Elvis would have been a disaster for Elvis. At the moment Streisand offered him the part, Elvis was at the pinnacle of his career, he was not on a decline, even though he was quickly tiring of Vegas and touring. To play a washed-up has been would have been to play into the hands of the vicious press, who like a pack of wild dogs was always waiting to rip a piece out of Elvis. If his performance was superb, rumors would have floated Elvis knew intimately what it was like to be a hopeless drunk or on drugs or whatever they wanted to say, because everyone knew Elvis couldn't act. If the movie failed, Elvis would have been blamed for a poor performance, again evidence he could not act. Streisand could never have held her own with Elvis on screen, she was never Ann-Margret. Elvis knew what he was doing when he turned the project down. Streisand still could have made it happen, but she did not want to pay Elvis's price, a dollar amount he had already been paid as an actor, but she wanted him to go backwards to be in her movie. Without Elvis, the film was not really a success and certainly not what Streisand hoped it would be.

[@bertsbooks2505]

@@manlystranger4973 My understanding of it was that Elvis had been keen, even quite excited about the project, but the Colonel had the final say on it, and he wasn't keen - E was frustrated by this but ultimately let CTP have the final word? (I think this is the gist of how it's represented in the Guralnick book). People find this 'what-if' quite alluring, as it represents something Elvis tended to respond well to (and shape up for) - an artistic challenge.

[@manlystranger4973]

@@bertsbooks2505 - There are a lot of myths about the relationship between Elvis and the Colonel. From the first moment of his career, Elvis was in charge. Elvis wanted to be a singing star and sought out Sam Phillips. Elvis chose his songs from the very first one. Elvis sought out the Colonel because he believed in the Colonel. Elvis spent a single evening talking about A Star Is Born with Barbara and her boyfriend. When they left, Elvis spoke about it with Sonny and Red and at that moment in the glow of wonderful things said about him by Barbara, Elvis appeared to Sonny and Red to be keen on the project. However, even at the high point of his enthusiasm, Elvis never told Barbara he would do it, he said it needed to be run through the Colonel. This is what Elvis said to everyone so that Elvis never had to tell anyone outside his immediate circle "no". By the next morning, Elvis had a different perspective on participating as second fiddle in a movie when he had left Hollywood as the number one movie actor as measured by salary. The Colonel did negotiate with Barbara and never told her no, Barbara simply chose to pass on Elvis's salary demands. No one knows what Colonel told Elvis about doing the movie. That makes it very easy to blame the Colonel. But we know what Elvis told Barbara and that was to get the Colonel involved.

[@manlystranger4973]

With a quick search of the internet, you can locate at a Columbia Library website audio files of all of the interviews Goldman conducted as research for this book. Unfortunately, only someone with login credentials to the library can play the files, so I have never heard them. Wouldn't it be great to hear the original material straight from Lamar and Sonny West and several others listed in the website records?

[@bertsbooks2505]

If his claims on the research are true, there must be a LOT there! Yeah, that'd be interesting though. Particular Lamar, who I think gave him a lot but got cold feet once he realised which way it was going?

[@nathueil1]

He will critize your curtains after your dead😂 now that was GOLD!😂

[@82566]

😆😆

[@saphireblue3563]

Shortly after this book came out, Elvis fans demanded that Priscilla sue. Priscilla issued a form letter, (I got one myself) saying that she would not sue. She also said in public that she would never sue, no matter what anyone said or wrote about Elvis. She was too busy suing the estate to get many thousands of dollars that she said was the last part of her divorce settlement. She threw him to the dogs. That is why you read so many scandalous and contradicting stories about Elvis. He is not here to defend himself, and he has no one who will. Lisa is no better. They care about Elvis as long as they can make money off him, nothing else.

[@saphireblue3563]

@Monster Tech Review I'm sorry, that was a typo. I meant "right after this BOOK came out". Elvis, by Albert Goldman. Gonna change that.

[@saphireblue3563]

@A Z I said she said she would never sue for Elvis for slander or libel. She will sue for plenty of other things, including if anyone slanders or libels her. But anyone can write or say anything about Elvis and she will not sue for him.

[@vlewin1844]

Looking at the photo of the author on the book jacket, it is clear to me this book was motivated more by envy than anything else. The author looks like some kind of gnome or troll who just crawled out from under a rock.

[@bertsbooks2505]

Try watching some interview footage with him! The 'Goldman vs Liverpool' one in the wake of his Lennon book is... quite something!

[@jsgreen1000]

It's highhly inacurate for the reviewer to describe Elvis' concert venues following the Aloha From Hawaii satalite concert as "a return to the casino circut". Elvis did continue his appearances at the International Hotel in Los Vegas but all his other live venues were the same large hockey arenas that the biggest rock bands such as Led Zepplin and The Rolling Stones played. Hardly the casino circut.

[@bertsbooks2505]

May have indulged in a bit of shorthand there, in fairness. However, multi-week stints at the Hilton do seem to have been a feature of Elvis' live schedule in those last years, which I don't think was occurring with other acts such as those you mention.

[@AndrewDoe777]

Your description of Goldman's book makes me think about an interaction I had this weekend with someone who disagreed with me about a political topic. During the brief exchange, they told me I have a haircut that would have looked great in the 80's. I walked away thinking, "People who hate you give the most honest fashion advice." And so it would seem with Goldman and his subjects. You mentioned at the beginning of the vid that you have a friend who told you that you may need to shower after reading... where do you find smart friends? Most of the people I encounter usually talk about work, their family and pets, or how they want to buy a better house or something. As far as art, Disney movies come up somewhat frequently. Where on earth do you meet people who know about Goldman or Zardoz? Cheers.

[@bertsbooks2505]

I think Goldman gets a dig in about E's 'Prince Valiant suits' at some point, which, though gratuitous, sort of made me giggle... oh that was the guy who first lent me a copy of it, known him since college days. You sometimes need to work on people to get 'em into Zardoz, though. They'll thank you for it one day.

[@delcrowe9712]

The book about Elvis made Albert Goldman very rich. Making easy money was the reason for writing it. It was a massive literary hit!

[@delcrowe9712]

I got a free copy of it. I would not spend cash on mere curiosity. Goldman is not a great writer.

[@bertsbooks2505]

Don't know if easy's quite the word, as I believe research time went into Goldman's works, and 700 pages on anything's a pretty hefty task, whether or not we agree with the tone of it. But yes, I believe it features among the top selling Elvis biogs, so he'd have shifted a lot of copies.

[@bertsbooks2505]

@@delcrowe9712 Someone said of his Lennon book 'it's not wholly good, it's not wholly bad' - I think he had talent as a writer, I'd not have got through a book this lengthy if he was just some hack (I think the Lennon one's even longer, and I didn't struggle to get through it). Having checked some of his other work, I think he had his plus points and - of course - his negatives. You have to bear in mind his attack dog schtick when you're reading his work, and adjust your conclusions accordingly. I think Guralnick's work is a valuable counterpoint. Wish he'd done one on Lennon, ha ha.

[@vincenzoridente9994]

Great review of Elvis I know a lot of people criticize this book but I just ordered the book because I'm still interested in reading it

[@bertsbooks2505]

How did you get on with it?

[@82566]

Me too ,I haven't read it yet though

[@JepMasta]

I knew this book was garbage when they took a somewhat innocuous story of Elvis and his crew flying in his private plane to Denver to eat some very special sandwiches at a restaurant, called a Colorado mining company into a scathing long takedown of Elvis is deteriorating mental state. Albert Goldman always struck me as a kind of person who very much liked the sound of his own voice, and believed himself to be America’s foremost intellectual

[@stellaisstriving]

Hell of a review. Instant follow.

[@bertsbooks2505]

Nice of you to say so, thanks!

[@johnbarry1965]

Presley definitely had an Oedipus complex!!

[@bertsbooks2505]

Certainly a mother fixation!

[@nadmaury5735]

no, he never wished to exclude his father

[@saphireblue3563]

@@bertsbooks2505 He had no mother fixation. The reason he was so devastated when she died was that they had been very poor, she had had to work very hard. Just as soon as he got rich enough to give her the good life, she died. That was where the trauma came from, not just that she died.

[@bertsbooks2505]

@@saphireblue3563 'excessive affection/attachment towards one's mother' - I'm struggling to think of a more textbook case here. The communication in private/baby talk way into adulthood, the relationship that was described by one as 'sweet bordering on sickly', the characterisation of that relationship as the defining love of E's life by a romantic partner long after G's passing. Contrast that to his relationship with his other parent.

[@saphireblue3563]

@@bertsbooks2505 These things were written by people who were seeking to make Elvis look like a freak. Psychologists have long said that a little girl looks for part of her father in the man she falls in love with. Same for boys. But you can't go by descriptions. These authors MEAN to make Elvis look abnormal.

[@numinousbookofreview]

By coincidence I'm reading this at the moment, after reading the Lennon tome which I enjoyed immensely.

[@bertsbooks2505]

How far into the book are you, what do you make of it that far?

[@numinousbookofreview]

@@bertsbooks2505 I'm not too far in, having just started. Mind you, the grand opening certainly sets the tone. I'll report back when I'm finished.

[@bertsbooks2505]

Yeah, he sets his stall out there alright!

[@nicolapaterson8176]

Hugh, Nicola Paterson here, am impressed 👏.

[@bertsbooks2505]

Uh huh huh. No ma'am, I'm Bert

[@hollielee6719]

Albert Goldman 😈 wrote awful, negative, malicious, disgusting, and cruel things in a book 📚 about John Lennon 😍 (After the death 💀😟 💀 of John Lennon)

[@bertsbooks2505]

I've still not read the Lennon one, but this seems to have been Goldman's niche!

[@haileyshannon7548]

@@bertsbooks2505they even parodied him on Saturday Night Live

[@jacquescontant2682]

As hard as you are on Goldman, you admit it's a page turner. And he was not wrong about Parker. Why the hell did E have to go into regular army? As a star, he would have been an easy fit for the USO with no controversy. And what kind of "Manager" turns down a million dollar offer because, "That's good for me, now what are ya gonna pay my boy?" The fuckin degenerate gambler that he was. I think Goldman did as fine a job on this as Lacey did with Ford. I like it when a Biographer is not in love with their subject. It gives a view devoid of the color rose. You say Goldman was judgmental when describing Graceland. The fact is it was a hillbilly palace, with cheap replicas and the feel of a bordello. Should Goldman have praised the tackiness? I don't think Goldman was being malicious with this book. I think he wrote the truth of what he'd discovered. In his addendum, the short follow up from 1990, he concludes E killed himself, and I think he's right. I don't know anybody who has read this book, so I am always interested when someone talks about it. I don't agree with everything you said, but I am now subscribed. The Lives of Lennon is also a page turner. I would enjoy listening to your thoughts on that one. You may require more than a shower afterwards however. At least Goldman didn't say E was a murderer. Good luck with the channel.

[@bertsbooks2505]

I saw it suggested somewhere that when a star has received the level of veneration on the level that Elvis, Lennon etc have, it's healthy for someone to come along and do a bit of a wrecking ball job in the interests of balance. There's a sequence (on YT somewhere) in which a Liverpool audience has it out with Goldman, but there is the odd dissenting voice - e.g. a young Liverpudlian wondering when their town is going to give it a rest with The Beatles!

[@bertsbooks2505]

...I get the feeling the Elvis fanbase are a lot more offended by the Wests/Hebler book than this, for whatever reasons - although, to me, there's still a detectable level of affection towards Elvis in that one

[@vlewin1844]

@@bertsbooks2505 I am a new Elvis fan (post the 2022 Baz film) and am on about my 16th book about him. Have read both Guralnick volumes and also read the West/Hebler book. I just started the Goldman book and I can tell you that I find it way more offensive than Elvis What Happened. I do think the writing is good but it's just so mean spirited. I think on some level Goldman is just plain envious of Elvis' looks, sex appeal and popularity.

[@bertsbooks2505]

@@vlewin1844 I do think Guralnik is probably the place to go for a balanced perspective. Goldman, I suppose, has his particular schtick - sometimes he raises an interesting point, sometimes he's sort of comical, sometimes he's just malign! I'll probably do more on him in time.

[@randallslinker3775]

Goldmans books are very entertaining.

[@bertsbooks2505]

I keep meaning to give the Lennon one a look

[@randallslinker3775]

If you liked Elvis you'll love the lennon one.

[@JeffRebornNow]

Did Goldman say "F*ck you" to us at the end?

[@bertsbooks2505]

Supposedly, that's Elvis, responding to a heckler!

[@johnnada6855]

ALBERT GROSSMAN was a great writter and everybody was a hypocrite about him cause he wrote the truth

[@bertsbooks2505]

I don't always agree with him, but I do enjoy him as a writer

[@johnnada6855]

@@bertsbooks2505 His book on john Lennon is one of the best books i´ve ever read, John is my favorite beatle but he as many artist was a very disturbed person, wish Grossman could have done a book on Dylan, although i read some books on Dylan that tells some truths about him, i think everything Grossman wrote was truth and those who benefited on John´s image and merchandise didn´t want the truth to be known

[@bertsbooks2505]

@@johnnada6855 Ah yeah, I read that quite recently - it's fairly grim, but I never had JL down as a straight-up nice guy type really. Also got his Lenny Bruce one in the pile here.

[@johnnada6855]

@@bertsbooks2505 Just read the John one but really gonna read all his books, very interesting

[@saundraweber4395]

I stopped listening when you started talking about Elvis which you know nothing about. The greatest entertainer of All time!!

[@bertsbooks2505]

What point's that? Minutes/seconds?

[@SusanBlakeley]

16.20 Uninterested, not disinterested.