#Elvis Presley legacy discussion

[esonetwork]

Elvis is Everywhere | Tales From Hollywoodland

New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/elvis-is-everywhere-tales-from-hollywoodland/

Elvis is Everywhere | Tales From Hollywoodland

In this podcast episode, Julian, Steve, and Arthur are joined by producer Mike in a rich discussion about Elvis Presley’s profound influence on the entertainment industry. They reminisce about Elvis’s captivating performances, his controversial gyrations, and his groundbreaking role in popularizing rock and roll. The conversation covers the strategic management by Colonel Tom Parker, Elvis’s transition from movies to live shows in Las Vegas, and the missed opportunities in his career. Personal anecdotes reveal Elvis’s interactions with fans and the challenges he faced, including financial struggles and drug use. The episode paints a comprehensive picture of Elvis’s legacy, his cultural impact, and the lasting significance of his work in music and film.

Tales From Hollywoodland on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/talesfromhollywoodland 

Tales From Hollywoodland on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/talesfromhollywoodland/

Tales From Hollywoodland on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdLX2kbwHqdn47FNN6vVN7Q 

We want to hear from you! Feedback is always welcome. Please write to us at  talesfromhollywoodland@gmail.com and why not subscribe and rate the show on Apple Podcast, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Goodpods, PlayerFM, YouTube, Pandora, Amazon Music, Audible, and wherever fine podcasts are found. 

#TalesFromHollywoodlandPodcast #ElvisPresleycareer #ElvisPresleydiscussion #Elvismusiclegacy #ElvisPresleymovies #Elvisrockandroll #KingofRockandRoll #ElvisHollywoodcareer #ElvisPresleyachievements #ElvisPresleyhistory #ElvisPresleyinfluence #ElvisPresleypopculture #ElvisPresley #ElvisPresleyimpact #ElvisPresleylegacydiscussion #Podcast

[joons]

This may be a prickly subject, and I'm sorry if so. But I'm trying to learn more about Elvis, and every time I bring him up to people I know, they try to tell me he was this terrible person, and point me toward Priscilla's book, the movie made on it, and the discourse. Idk if you've talked about it on here (I tried searching your blog but couldn't find anything on it). If you're willing, I'd love to hear your take on it so I can see a more nuanced view.

The film Priscilla was greenlit roughly a month after Priscilla herself was informed that she was close to becoming financially insolvent in 2022. With a business partner, Brigitte Kruse, who allegedly helped broker the film deal, she established a limited liability company called Priscilla Presley Partners that was supposed to use her image and likeness to create several lines of merchandise to coincide with the film's release. That business partner is now suing Priscilla because she did not have the rights to her image or likeness, or any ability to use the Presley name, because she had already sold all of those rights and was no longer considered in good standing with Graceland or Elvis Presley Enterprises. The entire business deal, then, according to the lawsuit, was built on her misrepresentation of how much her image was worth.

The deal between the two of them fell apart after Riley Keough, Lisa Marie's daughter and Priscilla's granddaughter, settled with Priscilla to give her a lump sum of $1 million from Lisa Marie's estate and yearly amounts of $100,000. Priscilla sued very shortly after Lisa Marie's death because she thought Lisa Marie's signature on a will had been forged because Priscilla was not included in it. All of the assets were supposed to go directly to Lisa Marie's son, Benjamin Keough, who died in 2020, and her three daughters, two of whom are still teenagers. Now, part of those assets have been claimed by Priscilla and her other son, Navarone, who has no connection to the Presley family and has stated he is glad Lisa died.

Four months before Lisa's death, Lisa wrote to Sofia Coppola and made it clear she had strong concerns about the Priscilla film and was suspicious of the intentions behind it:

"As his daughter, I don’t read this and see any of my father in this character. I don’t read this and see my mother’s perspective of my father. ... I will be forced to be in a position where I will have to openly say how I feel about the film and go against you, my mother and this film publicly."

Lisa was enormously grateful for efforts put into 2022's Elvis to find her father's soul and to restore his dignity in a world that often turns him and his family into a joke:

"You can feel and witness Baz’s pure love, care, and respect for my father throughout this beautiful film, and it is finally something that myself and my children and their children can be proud of forever."

It is such a strong and powerful statement, to see how much Lisa valued family, not just her father but her own children and their legacy, and how willing she was to speak up no matter what was going on in her personal life to say what was right. On this and many other things, Lisa and Priscilla's values have rarely been in alignment. A friend and EPE business associate, Joel Weinshanker, said of her, "Lisa couldn't be bought, she couldn't be pushed. If she felt that something wasn't in Elvis' best interest, it was never about money. And she really is the only Presley that you could say that about."

Priscilla, though, has adjusted her stories about her time with Elvis almost every time she discusses it. For a quick example, she said in her book, which was released in 1985, that Elvis insisted she do her hair and makeup a certain way, that he had control over her look and would get upset if she didn't dress how he wanted. But in an interview with Ladies' Home Journal in 1973, she said that she made a deliberate choice to attend makeup school so that she could learn how to style herself, and that it was her idea to wear big, black hair and big, black eyeliner. She said she was embarrassed for going overboard. She said, "I wish that Elvis had said something, but he must have liked it because he never commented." This lines up with recollections from Patti Parry, a platonic friend of Elvis' and a hairstylist, who said Priscilla always wanted Patti to do her hair in a "big boombah," but that Priscilla would then get upset when Elvis didn't notice or didn't like it.

These changes are impossible not to notice if you follow her for any length of time. At the film premiere, she said it felt just like watching her life and said she was consulted on everything, since she was an executive producer. After the film came out, she said she couldn't understand why Coppola had changed so much about the story and misrepresented events. In the '70s, she said she and Elvis lived almost totally separate lives, that she came and went as she pleased, and that she loved this freedom. Later, she said she felt completely stifled and trapped and never left the house, even though she had friends she went out with all the time. In 2019, she tweeted a forceful denial about a National Enquirer story: "This is the Enquirer folks... please don't believe everything you read. ... Never planned on being buried next to Elvis. What will they come up with next?" But part of her settlement demands in her lawsuit against Riley in 2023 asked "to be buried next to Elvis." This year, she said in two separate interviews that Lisa was with her when Elvis died and that Priscilla had to break the news to her, despite the fact that Lisa was at Graceland when it happened. She has said she gave Elvis the idea to wear belts on his jumpsuits, to have a lightning bolt as his logo, to sing "An American Trilogy," though none of that is true. She retells the story about forcing Elvis to burn all of his spiritual books to prove he loved her as an almost funny anecdote about debrainwashing him, while Elvis later said it was the worst thing he ever agreed to, a desperate attempt to make her happy by giving up the things he valued the most. (For the record, this is my opinion about their relationship on both sides: thinking they could change themselves and each other to make it work. It never did.)

Every secondhand Elvis account has to be treated lightly and only valued for its consistency with known facts and other witnesses. I try to give enormous benefit of the doubt to anyone in the Elvis world because they often only have partial knowledge of what Elvis may have been thinking at any given time, and there are numerous examples of people who were taken advantage of by unscrupulous journalists who changed the story they wanted to tell. But Priscilla's stories sometimes are not even consistent with her own statements, which makes them very poor options indeed to base anything on. However careful we are about noting potential biases and inaccuracies in other memoirs, we have to be triply, quadruply careful with anything in which Priscilla involves herself because she has a vested interest in generating discourse today in order to make money. Unfortunately, Priscilla has a habit of stifling other accounts or making sensationalized statements each time there is a possibility that she will lose some of the cachet that comes with being an Elvis Source—after Elvis' death, when she believed she was going to inherit his airplane and disinvited everyone that Vernon said could fly in it to his funeral; when she sued the parents of one of Elvis' ex-girlfriends after he died because he had allowed them to live rent-free in a house he bought for them; when she claimed that Elvis wanted to reunite with her before his death, despite the fact that he was engaged to someone else and told many people he couldn't see a reunion ever happening with her; before Vernon's death, when she convinced him to make her an executor of the Presley estate until Lisa came of age; after Lisa came of age, when she convinced Lisa to let her stay on as partner; when Lisa accused Priscilla of misspending Lisa's money, during which time anonymous sources cropped up to say Lisa was in debt and drug-addled; when Priscilla was removed from her position as an EPE spokesperson but kept collecting $900,000 a year from the company; when Lisa died, and Priscilla sued once she learned she wasn't in the will; when Priscilla was no longer associated with EPE and decided to do another adaptation of a book that she has since recanted parts of and has contradicted before and after its release.

When Priscilla thinks there is a threat to her image and position, she does new interviews and projects to muddy the waters and stir public interest, whether it is true or false, positive or negative, laudatory or defamatory. She gets corrected by Elvis' surviving family members, girlfriends, friends, and fans, but these stories do not get the same reach no matter how much they are backed by contemporaneous documents and witnesses, or how many resources there are to educate the public on how Elvis' and Priscilla's attitudes about marriage and relationships changed—along with the rest of society—between 1960 and 1970.

I think almost any single-source project is not going to advance our understanding of Elvis in any way because no one individual can speak for him, and we are kind of obligated to include all the context we can in order to appreciate his character, his successes and failures, flaws and virtues—and to treat both himself and those around him as fully three-dimensional people who have their own blind spots. Priscilla is far too aware of her own image, and far too willing to change it to suit the audience, to be particularly valuable here.

She is next scheduled to appear at the Lexington (Kentucky) Comic & Toy Con.

[doll-elvis]

Hi! First of all, I love ur blog it’s one of my favourites and I really appreciate your nuanced takes and the research you put in to your answers. :)

I wanted to ask you — I read today that EPE didn’t allow Sofia Coppola to use any of Elvis’ music in her movie. I figured he wouldn’t be depicted very positively in it but I kinda hoped it would be a realistic and human depiction of both of them, not like sort of a condemning ‘he’s the villain of their story’ vibe lol. I guess we still won’t know until it comes out… Anyway it got me feeling like perhaps the depiction will be more negative, but maybe EPE just didn’t consent to his music being used because they weren’t included in the movie. Hard to know. Wanted to ask for your thoughts/take on it.

Also, what do you think Lisa would think about this movie being made?

this just made my day 😭, you are the sweetest <3!! I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to show your appreciation, it truly means the world to me that you get something positive out of my posts

also thank you very much for the ask, I really love to be able to have open discussions on here with fellow Elvis fans, especially regarding all the recent events that are taking place 🤧

as for your question, according to the latest interview with Sofia Coppola and Priscilla Presley, it was “Authentic Brands Group” (who owns 85% of EPE) that denied the request to have Elvis’ music featured in the film. As Sofia tells it, it was because ABG only endorse projects that they have originated as they are protective of their brand ⬇️

(quote from the “Hollywood Reporter”)

so I don’t think Elvis’ music not being in the film is indicative of how he will be portrayed, the decision seems more business based than anything else (hopefully 😭). I’m also wondering if this was a funding issue as this film doesn’t seem to have had the biggest budget (they only had 30 days to shoot) and I would assume the rights to use Elvis’ music would be rather costly 👀

as for how Elvis will be depicted… I think I speak for many other fans when I say when this movie was first announced my heart sank 🤧 the 2022 film accomplished so many amazing things for Elvis and his legacy and I think we all felt like this Priscilla movie would jeopardize that. But this recent interview with Priscilla, along with the film’s official synopsis, has given me more hope that this movie will be more nuanced

Priscilla telling Cailee Spaeny, the actress portraying her, to be sensitive towards Elvis honestly made me breathe a sigh of relief 😩

(quote from the “Hollywood Reporter”)

But I think the reason so many fans are still currently dreading this film and biting their nails over the release of it is because of the reception it has received online… particularly by non-Elvis fans

if you have Instagram or Twitter (especially) you know what I mean 😭

people are literally praising Sofia Coppola (even Priscilla) because they think this film is going to be a hit piece against Elvis and will expose how he “groomed” and “abused” her

I can almost guarantee these people and anyone else who have made similar comments have never even read Priscilla’s book, or have ever read about Elvis besides what they see on social media through things like twitter threads on how he was a “predator” or how he “stole” music from black musicians

their dedication to believing whatever they see written about him just proves their ignorance to me. If they haven’t taken the time to research the claims made about him then I just disregard their opinion🤧 I’ve really struggled with disengaging from people who hate Elvis but I’ve begun to learn that nothing we say as fans will change their opinion of him, and no matter what they say, it cannot change who we know he really was

and whenever I do see these people reference Priscilla’s book I’m like… did we read the same book? did y’all not see how 90-95% percent of that book praised who Elvis was? and do y’all not see how Priscilla still defends his actions to this day and says things like “he was the love of my life”? I’m just confused as to why these people think Priscilla wants Elvis to be “exposed” 😭

and like the majority of people who have written about Elvis, Priscilla’s book has the good, the bad, and the ugly, and I expect the film to be that way as well. However, I hope the good completely outweighs “the bad” and “the ugly” just as much as it did in Priscilla’s book

People always hyper-inflate the “bad” stories (of which there are very few) that are mentioned in Priscilla’s book. For example the story where when they were pillow fighting he accidentally gave her a black eye, which is also referenced now as proof that he “abused” her. But they won’t mention how Elvis profusely apologized and felt incredibly guilty, nor do they mention how Priscilla blamed the pills they were taking for Elvis’ temper in that moment, as opposed to Elvis himself

(excerpt from “Elvis and Me” by Priscilla Presley)

I feel like a lot of anger has been misdirected towards Priscilla lately regarding stories like this but in all honesty you cannot blame her for people taking what she wrote out of context. I’ve seen some fans say that she is only out to make Elvis look bad but she very clearly states he was remorseful for the incident

Like I mentioned above, I think 90-95% of her book puts Elvis in a good light, and shows how truly good his character was

One of my personal favorite stories is the lasagna incident, where Priscilla insisted on cooking for the whole group and in her nerves for proving that she could do such a thing, she forgot to boil the noodles before assembling the dish 💀

and this story is just one out of dozens that show how sensitive Elvis was to Priscilla

(excerpt from “Elvis and Me” by Priscilla Presley)

not to mention the very last paragraph of her book where she has nothing but good things to say about him… yet people who hate Elvis think this film, that is based on her book, will be out to “expose” him 😩?

(excerpt from “Elvis and Me” by Priscilla Presley)

obviously we can only really speculate on what the film will be like but I’m just hoping and praying this film will be a massive disappointment to anyone who is thinking it will affirm their opinions about how Elvis “mistreated” Priscilla… that would heal my soul 😩 like if this film is just a total love letter to Elvis I will be laughing my way out of the theater lmaoo

at this point the only reason I’m not excited about this film is just because I don’t think it was done in a way that would reach it’s full potential. That recent review of it that came out of Reddit was kind of what I expected the film to be (lackluster, lacking depth and Jacob not really capturing Elvis’ essence… Coppola’s reasoning for casting Jacob was that since all the females in the audition room were enamored by him he must have had a similar charisma to Elvis but I just do not get that vibe😭 (no offense to Jacob stans)

as for what Lisa Marie would have thought of this film being made, I’d imagine she would act in a similar way to how Riley is. Supportive but not involved perhaps? This film is really Priscilla’s story. Not Elvis’ story, not Lisa Marie’s story etc. etc. so I don’t expect as many people in the Elvis world to be involved with it as they were with the 2022 film. Like I don’t expect to see Jerry Schilling doing interviews for this movie or girlfriend’s/friends of Elvis to give their review of it

I really really wish Lisa Marie was here, I miss her terribly and I still haven’t fully processed her passing, but I believe that Riley is doing everything her mother would have wanted, and I wish the best for her and her sisters 💗

[kinonostalgie]

Ursula Andress, born on March 19, 1936, in Ostermundigen, Switzerland, is a Swiss actress and sex symbol who gained international fame for her iconic role as Honey Ryder in the first James Bond film, "Dr. No" (1962). Her entrance in a white bikini, emerging from the sea with a knife strapped to her hip, became one of the most memorable scenes in cinematic history and established her as the quintessential Bond girl. This role not only catapulted Andress to stardom but also set the standard for future Bond girls, blending allure, strength, and independence.

Before her breakthrough in "Dr. No," Andress had appeared in several European films, but it was her role as Honey Ryder that brought her to the attention of a global audience. Her performance was praised for its blend of sensuality and toughness, and she quickly became a symbol of 1960s glamour and beauty. Following "Dr. No," Andress continued to capitalize on her newfound fame with a series of high-profile roles in both European and Hollywood films.

Andress starred alongside some of the biggest names in the industry, including Elvis Presley in "Fun in Acapulco" (1963), Frank Sinatra in "4 for Texas" (1963), and Dean Martin in "The Silk Stockings" (1964). Her versatility as an actress was further showcased in the epic comedy "Casino Royale" (1967), where she played Vesper Lynd, another memorable Bond-related role.

Despite being often typecast in roles that emphasized her physical beauty, Andress demonstrated considerable talent and charisma, making her a sought-after actress in the 1960s and 1970s. Her influence extended beyond the screen as she became a fashion icon, known for her distinctive style and elegance.

In her later years, Andress's career slowed down, but her impact on popular culture remained significant. Her portrayal of Honey Ryder continues to be celebrated, and she is often referenced in discussions about the evolution of the Bond girl archetype. Ursula Andress's legacy in the film industry is marked by her groundbreaking role in "Dr. No," her contributions to the spy genre, and her lasting influence as a symbol of beauty and strength.

[dukeofdelirium]

ion know how priscillas constant unnecessary comments is gonna help the presleys image of being racist. it doesn't help that Elvis borrowed or stole ( idk much about that) from black artists.

and priscillas constant belittling of mj just makes her look like a clown. she can claim she isn't racist by offering the poor black woman down the street some money and a coffee. but as soon a black person becomes more successful that ends up being a problem. she's like. " I love black people. As long as they aren't better than me."

Elvis sang songs he never wrote, basically what you’d call a cover, and most of ‘em were from black artists. These artists never got recognition for their own work, and were effectively left in Elvis’s shadow. Elvis’s record producer who was responsible for launching his career and that of Johnny Cash said “If I could find a White man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a million dollars.”

And then came Elvis. His “dances” were copied from black artists of the time and of the location. The famous toe stand that MJ then reclaimed, for example, and did it far better. That wasn’t Elvis’s move. It was part of the black community and culture. Just like the majority of MJ’s most iconic dances, the moonwalk included.

Had Elvis been a black man, he would’ve been nothing like the rest of the black artists of the time period that got ignored by said racist society. The biggest reason Elvis got recognition was because he was a white man. Even MJ said so, and said he and Lisa Marie acknowledged and often discussed it.

The songwriters and people that were used as stepping stones in Elvis’s career have never been widely acknowledged or praised. Hell, Otis Blackwell who wrote some of the best known Elvis songs wasn’t even acknowledged for it until after he died. It took until 2010 for him to be put in the rock n roll hall of fame.

MJ spoke a lot about the struggles of being a black artist in the time period. He himself struggled with it. MTV tried to refuse to show his video for Billie Jean because he was black, for example.

Priscilla is just jealous of Michael’s success, and that his legacy is going to outlive her and the Presley line. Matter of fact, it already did, cuz Priscilla ain’t no damn Presley by blood and no one else in that family makes music or is musically gifted like the Jackson’s

Was Elvis Presley himself a racist? Idk about that. But what I do know is that his career itself, and the fame that came with it, was a product of the racist time and society that hailed him “King”.

[septembersghost]

something that does have a real weight of sorrow for me in all these discussions about elvis, and portrayals of elvis, is that ultimately the overwhelming majority is some degree of projection, and that's rarely kept in mind. we don't know for certain how he felt about things which occurred in his life, how he perceived them, internalized them, because he never had the chance to tell his own story. every book written is from the perspective of its teller, whether it comes from love or greed, compassion or condemnation. every script and every actor is an interpretation, and by necessity condensed and fictionalized. whenever someone says something about the feminine view of the coppola movie, i think about how that's not as unusual as they seem to think it is, we have a swath of women's stories about him - linda, ginger, kathy, june, anita, mindi, and so on, they've shared their experiences and perspectives on him, like priscilla has, for decades (and those are remarkably consistent). this isn't me saying they shouldn't, they have the right to share their voices, and those accounts told are what we have as biographical record of him, but still, every individual naturally speaks from a place of personal bias. this is, of course, startlingly true with everything members of the mm have put out there as well.

people keep contrasting the luhrmann film with coppola's, and it's wildly missing the point because they're not even looking through the same lens. as much as i love baz's work and think the film is so affecting and beautiful, it's necessary to remember that elvis is actually NOT the pov character. that's our antagonist, parker. austin's remarkable and empathetic performance is the beating heart of the movie, but in many respects elvis (2022) isn't solely about elvis presley, and it's not supposed to be. it's about the struggle of empty capitalism vs. fulfilling creation and art, it's about exploitation and grief, it's about the upheaval and changing landscape of american culture and how this singular man was used as a lens through which to filter those shifts. his social consciousness is relevant because it's too often overlooked, or ignored altogether, in his legacy, and that, like his passion for music, like his spirituality, was essential to his soul and his artistry, but we also need to see that conflict of parker not having understanding for that hunger and grace because they're positioned as the dichotomy of a transforming age. its aim is focused on his influence and resonance as a performer, which is why it's often grand and kaleidoscopic. when the movie truly, wholly becomes dedicated to elvis is the switch flip during unchained melody. i'd argue, in fact, that's why it's powerful - we spend two and a half hours as an audience by intent, told this story, watching the rise and struggles of this man, but at a bit of a thoughtful remove, guided by the colonel, who doesn't even get why we're there. the colonel who tells us directly elvis' tragedy was love, and only we are allowed to perceive that love was also his triumph. the final moments of the film allow the crossing of that bridge, where it's between us and elvis, and the connection and legacy he left behind.

obviously i haven't seen priscilla (2023) and thus cannot comment on its narrative structure or portrayal, but can say that once again, the human being he was individually isn't intended to be the center. she's the focal point and the pov character and it's necessary to keep that in mind. elvis is the supporting player, no matter how large he may loom, in a story about a young woman's journey into a whirlwind and to self-discovery.

the trouble with all these varying accounts and portrayals, no matter how sensitively or salaciously done, is that elvis presley disappears into Elvis™ in the ensuing discussion. he becomes a cipher for whatever anyone viewing and commenting WANTS him to be - scintillating iconoclast or tragic disaster, brilliant musician or embarrassing hack, generous, pensive soul or overbearing, gauche cautionary tale. all of which easily becomes too simplistic or too judgmental, erasing his personhood and complexity and extraordinary humanism for the quickest possible sound bite.

there's no real point to me saying all this beyond it being something i feel is essential to remember and to process. he never told this in his own words, so we piece every account together (playing detective, as austin said), learn to differentiate the noise and the furor from the quiet, persistent truths, find the spirit of the person he was and his dreams and philosophies and heart that are left behind, that do still captivate and comfort people who listen.

this is why i don't feel like our job is to constantly go to war for him, or to try and prove haters hanging onto their ugliest possible opinions wrong (it hasn't worked for decades), because even in that tumult, threads are lost and value is obscured. it's not our responsibility to rescue his image. loving what he gave us is enough.

[freeoldiesmusicportal]

Discover the Best Free Oldies Music Portal for Songs from 1935 to 1989

In today's fast-paced digital age, finding a reliable source for classic tunes can be a delightful escape into the past. A dedicated portal offering free oldies music from 1935 to 1989 serves as a treasure trove for music lovers, providing access to timeless melodies that have shaped generations. This article explores the specialty of such a portal and highlights why it's an invaluable resource for fans of vintage music.

Comprehensive and Curated Collections One of the standout features of a free oldies music portal is its meticulously curated collections. Free oldies music portal for songs from 1935 to 1989 often categorizes music by decade, genre, and artist, allowing users to easily navigate and discover songs that resonate with their tastes. Whether you are a fan of Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, The Beatles, or Diana Ross, you can find extensive playlists that showcase the best of each era.

High-Quality Audio and User Experience Despite being free, these portals often prioritize high-quality audio to ensure that the listening experience is as authentic as possible. Advanced streaming technology and user-friendly interfaces make it easy for users to find and play their favorite tracks without interruptions. Features such as personalized playlists, recommendations, and easy-to-use search functions enhance the overall user experience, making it a joy to revisit the classics.

Educational Value and Cultural Preservation A free oldies music portal is not just a source of entertainment; it is also an educational resource that preserves and promotes cultural heritage. For younger generations, it offers an opportunity to learn about the music that influenced their parents and grandparents. For older listeners, it provides a nostalgic trip down memory lane.

Community and Engagement A reputable free oldies music portal for songs from 1935 to 1989 fosters a sense of community among its users. Forums, comment sections, and social media integrations allow fans to connect, share their favorite songs, and discuss the music that has touched their lives. This sense of community enhances the enjoyment of the portal, as users can bond over shared memories and musical tastes.

Accessibility and Convenience The convenience of accessing a wide range of oldies music for free cannot be overstated. With just a few clicks, users can stream their favorite tracks on various devices, including smartphones, tablets, and computers. This accessibility ensures that classic tunes are always within reach, whether you are at home, commuting, or on a road trip.

A free oldies music portal for songs from 1935 to 1989 is a priceless resource for music enthusiasts of all ages. It offers a comprehensive, high-quality, and user-friendly platform to explore the rich tapestry of musical history. By preserving and promoting classic tunes, these portals ensure that the legacy of past musical greats continues to inspire and entertain future generations.

[no-reply95]

Funny story: I was first introduced to the "No Pakistanis" version of Get Back through a callout post on Tumblr back in the early '10s. It took the song WAY out of context and painted them as a bunch of anti-immigrant racists. I had never looked further into it because of that, fearing that I couldn't look at the band the same way. Fast forward to the new Get Back movie, and I was relived to see that was meant to be a satirical jab at the anti-immigrant sentiment in the UK at the time. (cont.)

Hi anon, thanks for the ask! :)

This is a really interesting topic that I’ve thought about on and off for some time so thanks for giving me the push to discuss this!

I think the two main factors behind the negative takes on John are the natural negative pushback to his deification and the advent of the internet.

I think Goldman’s book was certainly one of the first to take aim at the myth of St John, along with books from May Pang, John Green etc. I haven’t read Goldman’s book, but from what I understand, his book was almost universally negative, no context was given to John's actions, evidence of John's good nature was ignored and the agenda behind it was clearly to tear down the messianic image of John that was born on 8 December 1980. When Goldman’s book came out it was trashed by Yoko, Paul, Rolling Stone, pretty much anyone who had anything to do with the Beatles implored the general public not to read or believe it and, by and large, that’s what happened, it was a critical and commercial failure. I think, even by 1988 when The Lives of John Lennon was released, the general public weren’t ready to confront the less savoury aspects of John’s personality and life that were (gleefully) recounted in Goldman’s book. The fact that the book had the bipartisan condemnation of Paul and Yoko made it easy to dismiss it as unfounded lies by the same man who had also published a similar hit piece on Elvis Presley. It didn’t help Goldman that when he was confronted with criticisms he was arrogantly defiant and, on publication, from what I understand, a series of his sources came out to say that their words had been misrepresented or taken out of context. In the late 80s there was no demand for the content of Goldman’s book, its findings were universally rejected and Albert Goldman, as a person, was the ideal hate figure, all in all, on release and in the years subsequent, Goldman’s book didn’t do much to move the dial in the way John and his legacy were perceived.

However, as John’s murder got more distant and became more of a historical event than a contemporary tragedy, I think people were able to view John more objectively. A factor in this was that those who were close to him in life (Paul, Yoko, Cynthia, Julian etc.) were more comfortable talking about the negative side of John’s personality, addressing the fact that he was more than a symbol of peace, but had actually been a flawed man, friend, husband and father. With respect to Goldman, as the decades have gone by, aspects of his book have been confirmed as fact (i.e. Yoko's heroin relapse in the late 70s/early 80s) and prominent Beatles authors (Doggett, Lewisohn etc.) have praised the level of research Goldman did for his book, making it harder to dismiss the John portrayed as complete fiction. I also think, that after a certain point, the deification push from the Lennon Estate reached a saturation point where, after that, it was just diminishing returns, the more and harder the estate pushed it, the less likely people were to believe it. The general public loves to raise up celebrities and put them on pedestals but more than that, they love to knock them off, so I think that’s what happened with John, that natural instinct to want to pull a celebrity down a peg or two collided with the other great equaliser, the advent of the internet.

I think in the 80s and 90s, pre the advent of the internet, the print media and the Beatles/estates had a lot more control over their narratives. If you wanted to know anything about the Beatles you could get a biography, watch a documentary (Compleat Beatles, Anthology etc.), watch interviews or read articles on the band and their history (Rolling Stone, Mojo, etc.) there was only so much information you could find and a lot of it was directly controlled or influenced by the Beatles/estates (granting interviews to publications that gave them favourable reviews, maintaining friendships with magazine editors/authorising books on their lives and granting those books access to close associates and archives) I think the influence that the Beatles had on narratives and their public perception started to breakdown when the internet started to gain traction.

The point that I come back to is that the internet is the place that nuance comes to die. I think people get a kick out of making statements, or taking things out of context (I.e. "John Lennon was a wife beater", "the Beatles were racist", "John abandoned Julian" etc.) once these types of statements are out there, they spread round the internet like wildfire and any additional context or nuance is beaten away to leave a sound bite that’s easy to digest till all you have left is a caricature where a human once was.

With the internet, it became a lot easier to find resources that were going counter to the myth built up by the Lennon Estate, you could read up on Goldman’s takes, May Pang’s, John Green’s, Fred Seaman’s, all books that took chunks out of the ballad narrative that had been spun for decades. Fans were finding it easier to mobilise on online forums to discuss topics, such as the Lost Weekend, that were pretty much taboo in mainstream media, all of these otherwise off limit talking points now had a home on the internet and I think that helped to move the dial on what people were willing to believe about John and the extent they were going to swallow what his Estate had been giving them for years, I think that groundswell attitude also seeped into the mainstream media.

I think things really start to come to a head when people detect any hint of hypocrisy. The Lennon Estate for decades, and even to an extent to this day, built John up as an icon of peace and a proponent of non-violence. The song most prominently pushed by his Estate is Imagine, that song alone is the corner stone of the image of John they project but John himself, during his lifetime, made it clear that Imagine was just a song, not his timeless manifesto. Before I got into the Beatles fandom, you could have told me that John was murdered the day after he released Imagine and I would have believed you, his Estate doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that he released anything after Imagine (aside from Double Fantasy of course), that strategy helped to build up his mythology but it’s also been the biggest source of its downfall. It's hard to sell John as a peace loving, non violent, politically strident hippy to a generation who has the internet at their fingertips and can easily google quotes from Cynthia, May Pang, even John himself, discussing his violence. It's hard to push the image of John as the househusband devoted to raising Sean, being married to Yoko and only baking bread, when Julian has given plenty of interviews about being abandoned by his father, when Yoko herself has admitted to using heroin into the 80s and when May Pang has spoken about maintaining a sporadic sexual relationship with John well after the end of the Lost Weekend. I think the commodification of John worked better pre-internet when it was a lot harder to do independent research into John, past the way he was described in mainstream media, once the internet came around there was an overload of information that anyone could access, a lot of information that the Lennon Estate didn't want shared and that filled in the gaps in the story that the Estate had glossed over.

Ultimately, I think in this current age of celebrity people really value authenticity and they're really suspicious when it looks like they're being fed a fairytale. Because the Lennon Estate weren't proactive in sharing the less savoury aspects of John's life (i.e. promoting the man that John was rather than the myth they created) there's now a disconnect between the John they promote (serious, peace-motivated aggravator and one half of "JohnandYoko") and the John people use to tear down the sainted image (wife-beating, politically hypocritical, absent father in a sham marriage). I think both versions of John lack nuance and don't reflect the complex human he was (as we all are of course). Even with Get Back, you saw the disconnect between actual John and the versions of him that have dominated public discourse in the last decade or so ("John was funny?!!" "John didn't spend 100% of his time being angry" "John was actually a caring person to someone other than Yoko after 1968?!!").

So to bring this long winded ramble to an end, I don't think Goldman is the ultimate reason behind the negative takes you see about John on social media. I think the two underlying reasons are the passage of time (John is no longer the sacred cow he was in the 80s/90s, people are a lot more comfortable talking about his flaws) and the dominance of the internet as a medium in celebrity discourse (prevalence of clickbait, poorly researched information getting passed off as facts and barely a hint of nuance). I don't think Goldman's book is that widely read per se, at least when it comes to the widespread condemnation that John gets in some internet circles, but I think a lot of his research has gained in credibility over time so it's very likely that his findings will become more prevalent as time goes on, hopefully if that's the case, that information is presented in the proper context and with the appropriate level of nuance.

[esonetwork]

Elvis is Everywhere

In this podcast episode, Julian, Steve, and Arthur are joined by producer Mike in a rich discussion about Elvis Presley's profound influence on the entertainment industry. They reminisce about Elvis's captivating performances, his controversial gyrations, and his groundbreaking role in popularizing rock and roll. The conversation covers the strategic management by Colonel Tom Parker, Elvis's transition from movies to live shows in Las Vegas, and the missed opportunities in his career. Personal anecdotes reveal Elvis's interactions with fans and the challenges he faced, including financial struggles and drug use. The episode paints a comprehensive picture of Elvis's legacy, his cultural impact, and the lasting significance of his work in music and film.

Tales From Hollywoodland on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/talesfromhollywoodland 

Tales From Hollywoodland on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/talesfromhollywoodland/

Tales From Hollywoodland on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdLX2kbwHqdn47FNN6vVN7Q 

We want to hear from you! Feedback is always welcome. Please write to us at  talesfromhollywoodland@gmail.com and why not subscribe and rate the show on Apple Podcast, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Goodpods, PlayerFM, YouTube, Pandora, Amazon Music, Audible, and wherever fine podcasts are found. 

#TalesFromHollywoodlandPodcast #ElvisPresleycareer #ElvisPresleydiscussion #Elvismusiclegacy #ElvisPresleymovies #Elvisrockandroll #KingofRockandRoll #ElvisHollywoodcareer #ElvisPresleyachievements #ElvisPresleyhistory #ElvisPresleyinfluence #ElvisPresleypopculture #ElvisPresley #ElvisPresleyimpact #ElvisPresleylegacydiscussion #Podcast

Check out this episode of Tales From Hollywoodland!!

[neworleansvoudou]

My new book is available for preorders here: https://amzn.to/2XBWhyn

This book is unlike all the others written about Marie Laveau. It’s not just a biography, nor is it just a spellbook. It is much more than either of those types of books. But before I share with you an excerpt from the book, I have seen people ask about me on Tumbler and assume my ethnicity and background. To set the record straight, I am Creole, born and raised in New Orleans.  I was introduced to the Mysteries at the age of 6 by my aunt and have spent a lifetime practicing, growing and learning about New Orleans Voudou and related traditions of Southern rootwork and conjure. I write from an insiders’ perspective and often share information others have not heard of before as a result. Trust, there is a whole lot of nonsense out there about Marie Laveau that needs to be cleansed from the practitioner’s palette - in my humble opinion, of course. When you are born and bred, you got the goods, and I spill the tea in this book!

Here’s an excerpt from the Introduction to give you an idea of what to expect:

If Marie Laveau were alive today, I truly believe she would be at the forefront of the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter movements. I envision her standing in front of the White House as a #SisterResister, protesting the current administration’s racist policies, attacks on health care and the environment. Instead of Alyssa Milano, it could have been Marie Laveau sitting behind Brett Kavanaugh at those now notorious SCOTUS hearings that mobilized the female warrior aspect of the country like never before. She would be advocating prison reform, laying the gris gris down at the border for those seeking a better life or in need of asylum, and making sure no one forgets there are children held in cages in internment camps for brown people right now, at this present moment in time, in post-slavery America. But the reason she would be doing these things might surprise a lot of people who are unfamiliar with her as a living, breathing human being. Marie Laveau is no myth; she is no mere legend. While her reputation precedes her as the notorious Voudou Queen of New Orleans, she was also a devout Catholic, an independent businesswoman, a free woman of color, a mother, and healer who lived her life in accordance with the Corporal Works of Mercy. Her belief in Catholicism guided her life as well as her magic in such a distinct way that people from all over the world are inspired by her spirit and her story. This phenomenon is evidenced by the fact that her grave site is purportedly one of the most visited pilgrimage sites in the United States, second only to the King of Rock and Roll, Elvis Presley.

There have been many books written about Marie Laveau that either focus on her life and legend or are popular spellbooks, pamphlets or fictional novels. I wanted to write a different kind of book – one that describes her magical and spiritual legacy with distinct practices found among Laveau devotees of past and present. I wanted to then be able to present the information in this book as a true working grimoire, one that has been thus historically and culturally authenticated as much as possible. Hence, what you will find in the following pages include stylistic workings attributed to her as identified in the aforementioned sources along with oral tradition as a primary indigenous information source. This latter source of information – oral tradition by actual Voudou and Hoodoo practitioners - has been sorely lacking in the available literature. What sets this book apart is that I am both a cultural anthropologist as well as a New Orleans Voudou insider with specialized knowledge of multiple folk traditions – a tradition keeper - which I have chosen to share with the world rather than take with me to my grave. That fact allows me to share with my readers a unique, twenty-first century, practitioner-scholar perspective that has been heretofore undocumented.

This book is divided into three parts. Part 1: La Belle de Nouvelle Orleans focuses on Marie Laveau as a woman, healer, Catholic, and businesswoman. It highlights key events in her life and introduces key players and myths in the Laveau legend as well as her contribution to the evolution of New Orleans Voudou from its African roots. From this exploration, I make the case for a specific type of New Orleans Voudou I call Laveau Voudou. Part 2: Becoming a Devotee discusses what it means to become a Laveau devotee, including how to create an altar to the Voudou Queen and and how to petition her. This section and the next are dedicated to the practitioner interested in learning how to serve Marie Laveau in a meaningful and culturally respectful way. Part 3: A Laveau Grimoire is a working grimoire of conjures, cures, roots and remedies in the Laveau Voudou tradition. It consists of two sections: a) Conjures, Cures, Roots and Remedies, which breaks down the eleven categories of conjure in the Laveau Voudou tradition along with examples of each, and b) Formulas and Receipts, which provides a list of remedies, products and formulas from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including those attributed to Marie Laveau.

In total, The Magic of Marie Laveau: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of the Voodoo Queen of New Orleans provides a pathway for culturally respectful devotion to the Holy Mother of New Orleans Voudou for anyone seeking to incorporate her style of magic into their lives and develop a working relationship with her.

[uptownraisedme-blog]

Family Feud

For as long as I can remember American society has been tarnishing the image of the black man. As of the more recent years, we are seeing icons being stripped of their hard work, legacy, and inspiring exploits. What’s worse is, the American society is using black women to tear down these beloved black men. The late great Micheal Jackson has been tormented, while living, with accusations of being a child molester and after death, when he could no longer defend himself. There was a recent situation with the late, great, Kobe Byrant when Gayle King decided to unsympathetically bring up his rape accusations which he was proved innocent for. I could go on with names like, Bill Cosby and R. Kelly. Before you get to thinking, well “they did it!” So did Harvey Weinstein and Elvis Presley but we don’t hear about those names. They are not defamed and condemned for their actions publicly. So you see, this blog isn’t about right or wrong because the justice system doesn’t judge based on right or wrong, but that’s a discussion for another day. It seems as if the American white agenda is to emasculate the young generations of black Kings while defaming our iconic and inspiring legends. They use black women to do so! For me that is beyond sickening. How are we tearing down the men that we make our children with? That we raise families with? It doesn’t make sense to me. We always exclaim we want equality with men but why? Especially black women, knowing what our black men have to go through on a daily basis. We are over sexualized beings, who’s intellect is denied or disregarded continuously, and although we are the nurturers of the world, we don’t get our credit. Our men are victims of this same thing, robbed of their innovations and creativity, emasculated consistently (sometimes in front of their women and children), criminalized, sexualized, discriminated against, and the list goes on. They wake up in the morning and begin to battle a war, first with themselves, then with the world, and unfortunately they may even battle at home with their wives. Why do we do this to our men?

Black women, lets look at the “feminist movement” which fought for our right to vote (phase one), which was pushed forward by none other than a black man! The legendary Fredrick Douglass exclaimed he couldn’t accept the right to vote unless women could too. Yet we tear the men, that come from similar stock, down! But since then the only women that seem to have benefited from the feminist movement has been middle class white women. They get better jobs, seeing that, when they stopped being housekeepers, and childcare providers, black women took on those duties allowing them to get out in the work force (phase two). Those were the same jobs in which middle class white women were trying to get out of doing. So while we were helping raise their children, we weren’t raising our own. The men were at work or trying to find work as well, so again who is raising our children? This movement has torn our families apart, on top of that, during phase 3 (late 80′s-Current, #MeToo movement, etc). During the 80s, Regan coined the term “war on drugs” and in the 90s Bill Clinton passed the Crime Bill, which created the 3 strikes and that’s life rule. Now as one can put together this is destroying the family. When the factories began shutting down, black men needed work, the drugs entered the US via government, and flooded the black communities. If you are caught with a certain amount and/or type of drugs, it was considered a felony which is your first strike, if convicted. So now the fathers aren’t home and the mothers are working, and no one is raising the children.

To put the mural together, black women are upset with black men for falling victim to this trap that the system put in play for him (this goes back as far as slavery). The women are taking care of the household and becoming the providers and protectors which was a role we weren’t accustom too. Emotions like anger and frustration began to arise but we were upset with our men for trying to find a way to provide when they saw no other way because jobs were being stripped from the community. Our children are being left at home with people who can’t be trusted. At the the time, we were unaware, as we needed childcare, so we could “make ends meet.” I believe this all carries over to now! Are we still angry? Are we still bitter? Can we not forgive and begin to heal one another? WE MUST DEFEND EACH OTHER the same way other races/ethnic groups defend their men. Not that we have to condone improper behavior but we must defend our own in public and scold them in private. Some people just need help and guidance and if we can give them that then we should. Stop hating each other and love on one other. To hate someone that looks like you, just means you are hating yourself. Lets reverse the systematic oppression and not allow them to use us against us! They’ve seen how divide and conquer has worked within the black community, now that’s show them how unity destroys their division! We have to stick together and build each other up in public. Allow our private issues to remain private and handle them accordingly when they go public. Be emphatic and considerate of all parties involved WITHOUT tearing down your black man. There is always a reason behind misconduct, “hurt people, hurt people” so instead of judging be understanding so we can move forward as a people. We are conquer’s and we can overcome the mental warfare, but it starts with unity, with family!

“NOBODY WINS WHEN THE FAMILY FEUDS”

[brokehorrorfan]

5 Horror Directors Who Entered The Twilight Zone

Leading up to today's premiere of Jordan Peele's reboot of The Twilight Zone on CBS All Access, I revisited the original series. Widely considered one of the greatest television shows of all time, Rod Serling's science fiction/horror anthology series ran for 156 episodes over the course of five seasons between 1959 and 1964 on CBS.

The original series attracted an impressive array of actors who would go on to find great success, including William Shatner, Robert Redford, Lee Marvin, Martin Landau, Burt Reynolds, Mickey Rooney, Dennis Hopper, Carol Burnett, Dick York, Ron Howard, Roddy McDowall, Robert Duvall, and many more.

Less discussed but equally important, the show also boasted a number of talented directors. Some were established filmmakers attracted to the Kafkaesque material, while others were eager up-and-comers cutting their teeth in television. Here are five famed horror directors who entered The Twilight Zone.

1. Richard Donner

Richard Donner’s claim to fame among the horror genre is The Omen, but he’s also responsible for bringing The Goonies, Superman, Lethal Weapon, and Scrooged to the screen. Long before crafting such beloved films, he directed six episodes of The Twilight Zone, including one of the show’s most well-known installments. “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet” - which was later remade by George Miller for Twilight Zone: The Movie and again for the new reboot - stars William Shatner as a salesman who sees a monster on the wing of his airplane during a flight. Donner also helmed “The Brain Center at Whipple’s,” “The Jeopardy Room,” “Sounds and Silences,” “From Agnes – with Love,” and “Come Wander with Me,” which was the last episode of the series to be filmed. Perhaps influenced by his experiences on The Twilight Zone, Donner later served as executive producer of Tales from the Crypt.

2. Donald Siegel

Donald Siegel is known for directing the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. He also did five films with Clint Eastwood, including Dirty Harry and Escape from Alcatraz, as well as John Wayne’s final effort, The Shootist. For The Twilight Zone, he worked on two episodes from the show’s fifth and final season. “Uncle Simon,” is one of three episodes to feature Robby the Robot of Forbidden Planet fame, and “The Self-Improvement of Salvadore Ross,” in which Don Gordon stars in the titular role as an insensitive man with the power to trade both physical and personality traits with any other person.

3. Joseph M. Newman

Joseph M. Newman is known for the sci-fi classic This Island Earth, which - despite being a good film - was famously the subject of Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie. Nearly a decade after its release, he directed four episodes for The Twilight Zone’s fifth season. His contributions include “In Praise of Pip,” the season opener and first American TV show to mention the Vietnam War; “The Last Night of a Jockey,” a memorable episode in which Mickey Rooney is the sole actor; “Black Leather Jackets,” about an alien invasion; and “The Bewitchin’ Pool,” the show’s final episode. Newman also tackled ten episodes of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour around the same time he was working on The Twilight Zone.

4. Boris Sagal

Boris Sagal is behind the Charlton Heston-starring cult movie The Omega Man, the second adaptation of regular Twilight Zone writer Richard Matheson’s influential 1954 novel, I Am Legend. He also directed Elvis Presley in Girl Happy. A few years prior, he helmed two episodes of The Twilight Zone. “The Silence” is an intriguing offering, inspired by Anton Chekhov’s short story "The Bet," in which a talkative man is offered $500,000 to remain silent for a year. “The Arrival,” meanwhile, boasts a double twist.

5. Stuart Rosenberg

Stuart Rosenberg directed the original The Amityville Horror, along with the Oscar-winning Cool Hand Luke. He’s also responsible for three Twilight Zone episodes: “I Shot an Arrow into the Air,” which would go on to impact Rod Serling’s Planet of the Apes script, “He’s Alive,” an interesting piece starring Dennis Hopper that involves Adolph Hitler; and “Mute,” adapted by Richard Matheson from his own short story. He’s another director who supplemented his Twilight Zone work with Alfred Hitchcock Presents, handling five episodes.

The Twilight Zone's first revival, which kicked off a three-season run in 1985, attracted a number of notable horror filmmakers, including Wes Craven (A Nightmare on Elm Street), William Friedkin (The Exorcist), Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tommy Lee Wallace (It), Paul Lynch (Prom Night), and Jeannot Szwarc (Jaws II). While it didn’t quite live up to the original, it’s fun to see the masters of the genre become part of the legacy. The Twilight Zone was revived again for a single season in 2002.

The Twilight Zone’s original run holds up remarkably well. While certain trivial aspects may be dated, the core themes remain relevant 60 years later. I highly recommend revisiting it while you enjoy the new incarnation. The complete series is streaming on Netflix and is available on Blu-ray and DVD. You can also watch the entire first episode of the new Twilight Zone series for free below.

[gertrudehalverso-blog]

Which Music Genres Are Fashionable Round The World

It is official - science has primarily confirmed, with a examine, that Pop music is certainly each getting louder and diminishing in variety. An on the spot and enduring anthem for the gay Latinx community, Yo No Te Pido la Luna" is as much about the moon as Coronary heart of Glass" is about cardiovascular health. This is a music about grabbing the evening by the hand and squeezing for expensive mercy as a result of the sun might not come out tomorrow. The track's legacy has solely grown since its release, www.magicaudiotools.com with queer artists like Javiera Mena and Alex Anwandter citing it as a direct affect. Certainly, a whole generation of Latinx electro-pop artists can trace their sonic DNA back to Romo's glittering power-ballad. A.C. Flamenco is a music, music and dance model which is strongly influenced by the Gitanos (Spanish Gypsies), but which has its deeper roots in Moorish and Jewish musical traditions. Originally, flamenco consisted of unaccompanied singing (cante). Later the songs had been accompanied by flamenco guitar (toque), rhythmic hand clapping ( palmas), rhythmic toes stomping (zapateado) and dance (baile). The toque and baile are additionally often found with out the cante, although the music remains at the heart of the flamenco custom. Trotz der unglaublichen Dichte und Menge an Info, ist "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!: The Story of Pop Music from Bill Haley to Beyoncé" zu keiner Sekunde mühselig oder langatmig. Es ist dem frischen Schreibstil und der direkten Art von Stanley zu verdanken, dass die Geschichte der modernen Musik immer lesbar und unterhaltsam bleibt. Der Autor vermag es seine persönlichen Ansichten in objektive Erzählungen einzubringen, bietet Underdogs und vergessenen Musiker eine Plattform und spornt immer wieder zu eigenen Reminiszenzen an. 7. The 1980's saw disco dominate the key music scene with the pop rock taking a back seat. Rock started to distance itself aside increasingly with glam rock, metal and different being different scenes folks followed. pop rock was more different at this point. Bands like R.E.M had been the main trend setters. This music was hyper rational and futuristic byt still had hints of punk which drew crowds in. 1980's was a lull in pop rock. It had been swolled up and e-tournament.ru spat out. Indeed, pop music as it is at present would not be what it's at this time with out that evolution. Pioneers of rock music embrace Muddy Waters, Ike Turner, Louis Jordan, Little Richard and Bo Diddley. They served because the role fashions of later artists similar to Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, Bill Haley, and much more who made it big. From then on, more superstars rose by means of the ranks and made pop music like no different-superstars and worldwide icons like The Beatles, The Yardbirds, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Manfred Mann, Cream, and many others. At present's musician really is spoiled for selection relating to professionally produced and curated packs of presets and synth patches. Zero-G have been producing this stuff since 1990, and you may hear their samples utilized in old dance tracks such as the Prodigy's Climate Expertise to Haddaway's What Is Love? - or more lately in the work of Rammstein and columbustennant36.wikidot.com Skrillex. Kanye West uses Zero-G's Africa voice 161 from 1991 in his 2012 monitor Clique , whereas Africa 13 111" appears in Huge Shot, Kendrick Lamar's recent coupling with Travi$ Scott In the meantime, users of Loopmasters ' Sample Boutique libraries vary from Deadmau5 to David Guetta. Kendrick Lamar's REALLY FEEL (2017) makes use of two of the company's off-the-peg samples - COF_125_Am_LaidOut_Underwater" and COF_134_B_Changed_Dopey"- and if preset sounds are ok for pop's first Pulitzer prize winner, they're adequate for everybody. What does the nervous system of the lowly lobster have to inform us about standing up straight (with our shoulders back) and about success in life? Why did historic Egyptians worship the capability to pay careful attention as the highest of gods? What dreadful paths do individuals tread when they turn out to be resentful, boastful and vengeful? Dr. Peterson journeys broadly, discussing discipline, freedom, journey and duty, distilling the world's wisdom into 12 practical and profound rules for all times. 12 Rules for Life shatters the modern commonplaces of science, faith and human nature, while remodeling and ennobling the mind and spirit of its readers. The exact relationship between music and speech notion stays unclear, nonetheless. (See Musical Roots" here.) Joe Crew of cochlear implant company Superior Bionics suspects that the correlation may merely replicate common auditory processing abilities, such as focus, fatigue, and working reminiscence. The hyperlink between speech and music is pretty tenuous once you factor that out," he says. Goldsworthy thinks it's price a attempt, though. His group is now working to train CI customers to raised hear music in hopes that it may additionally improve their capacity to grasp speech.

Rock and roll brought with it the electric guitar, and Beatlemania could also be spotted throughout Japan. Through the recognition of both a new sub-genre of kayoukyoku called "Group Sounds" sprang up, though its tenure was tenuous at greatest. Group Sounds attempted to recreate the rock band motif with Japanese musicians, however controversy abounded when members argued about whether or not or not rock and roll could be performed in Japanese. Many bands struggled to realize a foothold as they debated between singing in English or Japanese. Finally Group Sounds died away for a few years when no person might come up with a transparent answer.A couple of years ago, my buddy Jill Sternheimer and I started a conversation one night time while driving across the streets of New Orleans. Both of us are music nerds, and we frequently attend the sorts of musical retrospectives which have develop into widespread on this age of historical exploration by way of tribute exhibits and historical playlists. Jill, the truth is, often organizes such exhibits at Lincoln Middle Out of Doorways, where she is the director of public packages. I sometimes write about them, and infrequently ponder how music historical past's being recorded and revised within the digital age. Why, we wondered, was the significance of girls so often acknowledged as a trend as an alternative of a supply of lasting influence? We got here to a conclusion that, in 2017, will likely strike nobody as a shock: that the overall historical past of common music is advised through the nice works of men, and that with no severe revision of the canon, women will all the time remain on the margins.

[septembersghost]

yahoo. com/entertainment/riley-keough-priscilla-presley-lisa-marie-presley-graceland-200958899. html

riley's interview was quite lovely and vulnerable, i feel so much for everything she's been through. her comment that graceland was a place that held positive and beautiful memories for her, but is now a place of tremendous sorrow in her life broke my heart, though it's entirely understandable.

it still feels wrong for lisa to not be here. "She was just so unapologetically herself in every circumstance, and so strong... The life she had was not easy, and the treachery she endured and the lack of real love and real friends... She definitely had some great friends and relationships in her life, but I don’t think she really ever had... People were just coming for her since she was born — wanting something from her and not being totally authentic. She had to develop very thick skin. She was a very powerful presence and extremely loving and extremely loyal and sort of a lioness — a fierce woman, and a really wonderful mother... She was the best mom." :( (the most terrifying thing in my life is the thought of losing my mom, this hits me hard...)

and frankly i need everyone to calm down about cilla wanting to be laid to rest at graceland, considering the hand she's had in the legacy work, and riley said it all: "She said, "Things with Grandma will be happy" now that it's settled. "They’ve never not been happy... There was a bit of upheaval, but now everything’s going to be how it was." She called Priscilla "a beautiful woman" and credited her for being "a huge part of creating my grandfather’s legacy and Graceland. It’s very important to her. He was the love of her life. Anything that would suggest otherwise in the press makes me sad because, at the end of the day, all she wants is to love and protect Graceland and the Presley family and the legacy. That’s her whole life. So it’s a big responsibility she has tried to take on. None of that stuff has really ever been a part of our relationship prior. She’s just been my grandma.” As for reports that Priscilla, who divorced Elvis in 1973, wouldn't be able to be buried at Graceland, Riley said, "If she wants to be, of course... Sharing Graceland with the world was her idea from the start."

tbh i hope her speaking on the record puts some things to rest and brings some peace for that family, they have been through more than enough trauma and grief and deserve time to coalesce, and however the estate and everything else moves forward, i wish the best for her and the girls, they didn't choose to have that legacy or those losses and it's a lot to carry, and none of them are obligated to. i don't like a lot of what the estate/EPE is doing right now, but the family deserves to prioritize whatever is best for their well-being.

[chestnutpost]

8 Things To Watch And Read If You Want To Understand Michael Jackson Better

This post was originally published on this site

We can’t say that the Michael Jackson we hear described in “Leaving Neverland” is a man entirely foreign to us. The searing tales from the documentary’s two subjects are of course shocking. But such tales have come out before.

And Jackson himself: We have always known how weird he was, and most of us suspected that at least some of his behavior — the excessive facial surgery and his odd friendships with kids, for starters — hid deeper and darker secrets.

If you’re coming in new to the Jackson story, or if Dan Reed’s documentary left you with more questions than you started with, here is a list of required watching and reading to fill in the gaps. See and hear how the drama that was Michael played out over the years — and watch how the brightest star in the world began to flicker and finally go out.

If you want to understand Jackson’s upbringing better …

“Michael Jackson: Life of an Icon” is an unheralded film made by David Gest, whom most people know as the guy who, for a while, was Mr. Liza Minnelli. Jackson and Elizabeth Taylor were in attendance at the wedding. It turns out that Gest had known the Jackson family since their earliest days in Los Angeles. His portrait of the family, while of course Jackson-friendly, has an unparalleled intimacy.

If you want to see Jackson single-handedly bring on the worst PR disaster of his career…

Then Watch Martin Bashir’s two-part special, ”Living with Michael Jackson,” which aired on ABC in February 2003. Having hooked this big fish, Bashir reels him in carefully, capturing among other things a manic spending spree at a garishly expensive Las Vegas art gallery. Jackson then discloses that he was still sharing his room with young boys. Among the viewers of the show were prosecutors in Santa Barbara county, where Neverland is situated. After seeing Jackson’s admission, they launched a criminal investigation, found a child who said Jackson had molested him, and arrested Jackson later that year. He was put on trial and acquitted of all charges in 2005.

If you want to get a glimpse of PR damage control at its crudest (and least effective) … 

The Bashir interview dwarfed all previous Jackson PR disasters. The Jackson camp’s response was “The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See.” Jackson had his own copy of the Bashir interviews; he sold these to Fox, which built this program around them. It was hosted by Maury Povich, hitting a new low even for him. The idea is that Bashir was unfair to Jackson. A few complimentary comments from Bashir are pulled out of context, and a whole bunch of Jackson family members are trotted out to tell us the show misrepresented Michael. The attempt to undermine Bashir’s credibility doesn’t work, because all the destruction Jackson did to himself in the original was accomplished by words out of Jackson’s own mouth.

If you want some disturbing details into the molestation charges from a reporter who followed Jackson for years …

Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth posted this just before “Leaving Neverland” aired: 10 Undeniable Facts About the Michael Jackson Sexual-Abuse Allegations. No. 4: “Jordie Chandler drew a picture of the markings on the underside of Jackson’s penis. His drawings were sealed in an envelope. A few months later, investigators photographed Jackson’s genitalia. The photographs matched Chandler’s drawings.” There are also links to Orth’s reports on Jackson from over the years.

If you want to see the beginnings of Jackson’s public decline …

In 1995, Jackson and his then wife, Lisa-Marie Presley, daughter of Elvis Presley, sat down with Diane Sawyer. Note that the show starts with the outlandish claim that ”Bad” would generate $1 billion in sales. Then we see Jackson. And for the first time, it is clear that he was changing his appearance in a highly disturbing way: heavily pancaked, his chin and cheekbones resculpted, even his ears seemingly pinned back. Then comes the formal interview, and Sawyer with a tone of almost dazed disbelief asks Jackson the obvious questions about his sleeping habits with young boys, which Jackson, with his wife sitting uncomfortably by his side, insists is a perfectly wonderful thing to do.

If you want to see stars rally around Jackson …

Jackson did a pair of concerts in late 2001 for later broadcast on television. The world’s memory of this is somewhat occluded because the second of these took place on Sept. 10. The TV special — dubbed “Michael Jackson: 30th Anniversary Celebration” — was shown that November. The guest performers included *NSYNC, Britney Spears, Usher, Whitney Houston, Destiny’s Child, etc. etc. etc. All accounts say Jackson was drugged out at the time — and he looked it — but he sang some oldies with his brothers and did a few wan versions of his hits.

If you missed his memorial service …

The Michael Jackson Memorial Service was a bizarre event held at the Staples Center in Los Angeles on July 9, 2009, about two weeks after his death. While a few Motown luminaries — Stevie Wonder, Berry Gordy, Smokey Robinson — saluted their dead friend, and a few other stars make appearances, this was an underwhelming event for a star of Jackson’s stature. The second half devolved, as political figures like Al Sharpton showed up to harangue the crowd. At one point, addressing Jackson’s kids, Sharpton bellowed, “Wasn’t nothin’ strange about your daddy! It was strange what your daddy had to deal with!”

Nah, he was strange.

If you want a decent overview of Jackson’s life … 

I wrote this long New Yorker essay in 2012, discussing Jackson’s career and music and specifically what the star’s desperate quest for fame and white acceptance did to his psyche: “There’s little doubt that Jackson lost something self-defining along the way. He ended up a shade, and, besides the music, all that he really left behind — an ambiguous legacy, and a tarnished name, to some rich white kids — was just the final, meaningless step in the ultimate crossover.”

RELATED COVERAGE

The post 8 Things To Watch And Read If You Want To Understand Michael Jackson Better appeared first on The Chestnut Post.

from The Chestnut Post https://thechestnutpost.com/news/8-things-to-watch-and-read-if-you-want-to-understand-michael-jackson-better/