Brad's Take:
This is thought to be the first rock 'n roll greatest hits album. It includes eight Elvis #1 hits and five B-sides from 1956 to 1957. It includes "Heartbreak Hotel," "Hound Dog," "All Shook Up," and many more recognizable Elvis jukebox tunes. As of 1999, the album has gone 6x Platinum, which means 6,000,000 units have been sold from its original release date.
One thing that bugged me about this release is something that also bothered me with Elvis' second album Elvis; they kick both of these albums off with an upbeat song and then follow it up with a super slow song. I wish they did these albums like this... A side: Upbeat songs. B side: Slow songs. That way, depending on the mood of the listener, they could choose which version they wanted at that time, rather than having to flip the record over and over and over to get to certain songs. But that's the sequencer's problem, not Elvis' necessarily. Aside from the roller coaster sequencing, this is a great compilation of Elvis songs. It's got everything that any fan of The King would want; the fast upbeat songs and the slow-dancing ballads.
This is just another reminder that I need to make my own Elvis mix CD to listen to in my car
Dad's Take:
Brad has discovered one of the problems vinyl had compared to CDs, if you want to see it that way. We were at the mercy of the people who sequenced the songs. There was no programming the songs in the order you like, and skipping songs was only worth the effort if you really disliked a song. That said, the order of the songs on this record isn't that unusual. A fast song, followed by a ballad, then two or three fast songs, another ballad, and a fast song to end the side. The fast-to-slow-song ratio on this record wouldn't support the breakdown Brad suggests. If he wants a fast side and a slow side, he should check out the excellent Beach Boys Today! album which, somehow, did not make our list.
While I still think it's a little unfair to include a greatest hits package in a list of classic albums, unless the record became a phenomenon on its own (like, say, The Eagles Greatest Hits album that stayed on the charts for, like, forever), there's no denying the greatness of this record. And 40 weeks on the charts in its initial run, plus another 23 weeks after Elvis died in 1977, would qualify it as phenomenal record, I suppose.
Golden Records has most of the songs most people know, and a surprise or two for the casual listener. It's hard to listen to this record without breaking out the old Elvis imitation Mrs. Barbara Williams used to have me do in her Music As Media class back in my old Newark High School days, especially when I hear "I Want You, I Need You, I Love You," which was one of my favorites to do. Only now I'd be the fat old Elvis and I'd have to rest my knees for a few days afterward.
That all of these songs were hits in a two-year period demonstrates Elvis's reign better than anything we can write about the songs. And he had enough hits in the next year and a half for another greatest hits album, which comes later on our list. But if you only wanted one Elvis record, this was the one to get before Elv1s 30 #1 Hits came out in 2002.
6 comments:
I agree with DAD! The sequence of the cuts on albums was an art all in itself -- and often performers worked diligently to create a whole 'experience' if one listened to the songs on the whole album in order. It was almost like listening to a cast album of a Broadway musical. The Beatles' "Sergent Pepper's" album comes to mind.
I don't care if Dad's knees would hurt -- it would be worth it just to get to see him be ELVIS again even if it were only for a few minutes!! Maybe "Teddy Bear" would be easier on him??
I'm definitely one who likes a good solid sequenced album. If this was originally released on CD, I would have re-sequenced it a bit differently. I wouldn't have necessarily clumped all the fast songs together and then all the slow songs together. I would have had at least 2 or 3 fast songs, slowed it down in the middle, and then ended it with a couple of fast songs, which would lead into one final ballad. Or something like that. I just think it's a bad idea to kick an album off with a rocker, and then slow it down to snail-speed for the second song. I'd keep the adrenaline going for a little bit longer.
One of the things I really miss about LPs is the two sides. So many great albums used sides to their advantage as part of work of art. Greatest hits albums are an exception to everything. Do you sequence the songs chronologically? Do you find a balance based on popularity?
I'm surprised this one ends with a slowish song, but it's one of my faces from Elvis, so for me it's still an up note.
Brad puts a lot of effort into getting the right sequence on his own CDs. He definitely gets it.
One of the biggest differences between CDs and records is that the listener can resequence the album if he wants to. That, and the single "side" give the listener more control over the experience than LPs did. That's not necessarily bad and can be used by the artist, but it also gives the artist less control. (Also the argument producers used to make about why they preferred mono over stereo.)
Faves, not faces. Damn you, autocorrect.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how does Mono give the artist more control than Stereo? To me, it seems like it would be the other way around. I'd think it would add a new level of creativity that the artist could play with, affecting the way the listener hears the songs.
Kyle, because the way you place the speakers and the shape of the room affect the sound of stereo. With mono, the mix is the mix. The sound is the same whether you're in the middle of the room or closer to one speaker. It doesn't really matter whether the speakers are close together or in opposite corners.
Post a Comment