Live In Vegas

When the upcoming release of FTD was announced with the title 'White Knight In Vegas', the FTD-team also wrote that title and artwork could change. It is now official that the title will be as simple as 'Live In Vegas'. The picture on the CD stays the same, so only the title has changed. The release is planned to arrive mid February.
 

Source: ElvisMatters / Updated: Jan 29, 2011 
Elvis Presley on: eBay, iTunes, Amazon, Sheetmusic

Reactions

Jina Sexton (profilecontact) wrote on Feb 11, 2011report abuse
Nice!
James69 (profilecontact) wrote on Feb 3, 2011report abuse
Thank goodness tornado, you have finally understood to stop your analysis on everything, just enjoy the music!!!
whetherman (profilecontact) wrote on Feb 2, 2011report abuse
I agree Martin, Ernst and Roger deserve one gigantic thank you from us and a huge vote of confidence. They certainly get it from me. Just think what we wouldn't have if it wasn't for them!
Martin DJ (profilecontact) wrote on Feb 1, 2011report abuse
Think of all the releases we owe to Ernst, from the 50s masters box onwards, before trashing him.
Herman (profilecontact) wrote on Feb 1, 2011report abuse
I don't care what the title is, as long if the music is good. And the music is good on this one, I love the '69 shows a lot and I am very happy with another show from this year in perfect sound ! Thanks FTD ! By the way, nothing wrong with this cover: it's like the Dutch flag: red - with - blue !
FLY-TROUBLE! (profilecontact) wrote on Feb 1, 2011report abuse
FTD = Fast Trashy Disappointment. As long as Ernest Jorgensen and Lene Reidel are there, the unimaginative titles, ugly covers and mastering errors will be regular. After 12 years nothing has changed. Why? Because there are still same persons behind the label who make the same mistakes. Sad, very-very sad.
HangLoose (profilecontact) wrote on Feb 1, 2011report abuse
White Knight In Vegas was a fine title. Come on......... bring it back!
Lefty (profilecontact) wrote on Feb 1, 2011report abuse
None of us can know for sure, but to me, the KKK connection to this whole things seems very unlikely. I lived near to the Arkansas/Tenessee boarder for twelve years. I never once heard anything from the KKK. No one in the South seemed to think about them at all. I doubt any Southerner, black or white, would give a hoot about the title of an Elvis album. Actually, I thought the White Knight title was pretty good. At least it had some pizazz. The generic title they decided on is lame, but again, it doesn't mean anything. What should they call another Vegas concert? Seriously, how original can you be when most of what Elvis did in the 70's involved singing on stage in Vegas? At least you won't find something truly offensive on any Elvis album. Last time I was in Best Buy, I saw multiple Rap CD's that had warning labels plastered on the front because of the profanity. Some of the images on the album covers were close to pornographic. No one is in a tither about that stuff! Heck, a lot of rappers are winning Grammy's! So where's the problem? I think this White Knight thing is much a do about nothing.
tornado (profilecontact) wrote on Feb 1, 2011report abuse
Well James69. I surely pissed you off. Yes I used Wikipedia, is it not there for everybody? What's the problem? You don't like history. Good for you. Then just listen to the music and enjoy it and don't look at the title. Sometimes, these kind of discussion grow up in endless disputes. It's just a matter of point of view. You don't like mine? Fine! I, for one, give what you call a "royal ... " because I feel history is important and still there. Words in certain context are important too. If Elvis had been an European singer, then the title White Knight wouldn't have been dramatic. And I feel FTD hasn't been paranoid on the matter just cautious and wise not to start a misunderstanding and yes, I too, feel the new title is unimaginative. But after all, what so unimaginative with Elvis Live In Las Vegas. In my mind it's not at all unimaginative. Or is it? Elvis was imaginative on stage and at his prime in 1969! Are we going to quarrel about a dumb title. It only says what is says. Think of how insipid was the title That's The Way It Is for example. Always found that title rather flat and uninspiring. But it's there forever now. Same with Something For Everybody... Either way, seems FTD's choice is always questioned anyway. It's a catch 22. This forum is, in my book, for opened discussion and in my humble opinion, I thought the matter had to be documented for what's seems to have become a debate. It doesn't harm Elvis memory, on the contrary. Still, I think that Elvis should have kept his distance from a narrow minded racist like George Wallace. That said, anybody has the right to shake hands with anybody they feel like, even with the devil. You see it brings us to a much deeper discussion we thought at first sight: a simple change of title. The fact that Elvis never took a social or political stand in the troubled late 60's. But that's not an accusation, it's a question. But maybe I should keep my so called analysis out of this kind of forum. It's probably not the place and I'll take my leave and wish the best of to all who dig Elvis like I do. God bless!
FLY-TROUBLE! (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 31, 2011report abuse
Even my 5 year old son could choose a better title. Bravo Ernst,you've really surpassed yourself! :) Even 'Ku Klux Elvis' would be a better title than 'Live In Vegas'.
James69 (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 31, 2011report abuse
Thanks tornado for the history lesson obviously copied and pasted from wikipedia.......Really who gives a royal f......This is music, on a small label selling 5,000 copies or less.....Do you really think that some black people from the south are buying FTDs??? And if their is, do you think at this point that they really associate a small budget label cd title with the KKK??? And Elvis shaking hands with George Wallace means nothing at all, he never endorsed him, wasn't Elvis allowed to shake hands with whomever he wanted??? Such paranoia!! And this for an FTD title??? My boy, my boy....
Erika Freiburger (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 31, 2011report abuse
The biggest problem is not that they changed that great original title. The main problem is that they chose a very bad one. "Live In Las Vegas" or "Live In Vegas",i really don't know which one is worse. The are numerous official and unofficial Elvis-releases with the same or very similar titles. This simplistic and stereotypical title says nothing about the actual concert or Vegas season. Any Las Vegas Elvis show (recorded between 1956 and 1976) should be released with this title and based on the title you couldn't tell which concert it is or at least which year it is from. It's such a meaningless title. This is probably a great unreleased show in great sound,so this release would deserve a better title. But what else you'd expect from Ernst Yorgensen? From a person who gave us such simple and bad titles like "Burbank 68", "Tucson 76", "One Night In Vegas", "Live In Las Vegas", "6363 Sunset", "Memphis Sessions 69", "Spring Tours 77", "Live In L.A.", "New Haven 76", "Dallas/Birmingham 76" etc. i really don't have high expectations. Maybe he should hire someone else to create these titles.
Lefty (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 31, 2011report abuse
I'm not going to get bent out of shape about the title when FTD is giving us a multi-track complete concert, mastered by Vic Anesini, and with a 12 page booklet. Call it what you will, I'll still buy this great release. As far as titles go, maybe FTD could try something quirky like "The Power Of Shazam." Oh rats, that one has already been taken! I know, they could call it "One To Beat The Bootleggers!" Now there's a winning title!!
Dazman (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 31, 2011report abuse
The LIV title wouldn't do any '69 show justice. How about titles such as "Summer Night in Vegas" or "Dinner Date at The International". I honestly didn't know 'White Knight' was related to the KKK either. And I don't think FTD had Elvis' skin color in mind when they gave the title nor would it had crossed mine either. Don't forget Elvis' image is synonymous with white jumpsuits.
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 31, 2011report abuse
Steve V : amen to your reaction. Seems a lot of us are pulling the same rope, and that's great ! Always El.
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 31, 2011report abuse
Tony C: exactly ! Well said ! Your reaction was published while I was writing mine, otherwise I would have mentioned your posting too as one I found very OK and to the point. Always El.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 31, 2011report abuse
everett01 I agree with everything you said, but such is the world we live in. There are people who still think Elvis was a racist, (singer Mary J. Blige even said that) so if this White Knight title means KKK, I'm glad they changed it. I wasn't aware of the reference not being from the South. However I think Live In Vegas stinks as a title. A 5 year old could think of a better one that that.
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
Everett001 : 100% agreed ! Colour of skin never was a problem in my life either. We all know Elvis was no racist. The changing of the title is no problem IMHO. Agreed that "White Knight" would probably had been better, but with the KKK-connection of that name , ( I must confess that I never knew about such connection, due to the fact I live in Europe and in those days there was very little known here about segregation, we knew it existed but didn't know how it was in real life in the USA) is a good thing they changed it , so nobody's feelings get hurt. Cannot agree though with Hanloose, calling the person who mentioned the connection on a forum "an idiot". It was a good thing he did ! I second Tornado's posting wholeheartedly . I agree with Drjohncarpenter too : it's the music that counts in the very first place !
Always El.
Tony C (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
Enough people in America already think that Elvis was a racist because that is the myth that certain rap artists perpetuate without any evidence. Do we really want to give them any more ammunition by using the name of a KKK group on an Elvis CD?
everett001 (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
Why do people LOOK for race isues? Man, the music was music. I loved Elvis. I also love Fats Domino; Little Richard, and various other black abd white singers. Compare Elvis doing Blueberry Hill with Fats version; or Elvis version of Little Richards version of Tutti Frutti, and you will see Elvis was not even in the race with their versions! Dont get me wrong. Elvis was great. I basically collect Elvis product. I also collect all the other great artists of the 50's and 60's; Black 7 white. Why does collor have to be an issue? I personally love everybody; and even more so as I get older; and I'll be 70 years old next week. By the way; I love all of you, TOO.
tigerpawl (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
What were people thinking. Got to be policitically correct.
circleG (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
I quite liked the knight title. The kkk connection never occurred to me. Definately buying this. love the period.
tornado (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
HangLoose I didn't know that White Knight was the name associated with the KKK in the old segregated South. If so, it's only natural that FTD wanted to distanced themselves and Elvis from these racists. We all know that when Elvis became famous in 1956, the southern states were still largely against race equality. By singing black repertoire, Elvis transcended the race line and contributed in his way to go beyond that social and cultural limit. He was part of a new opened minded America for that. Sam Philips said it:"when it came to music, Elvis was blind color" And we should all be proud of that. He did his homage to Martin Luther King's memory after his assassination in 1968 by singing the inspired If I Can Dream, reminding the famous speech the black pastor gave on August 28 1963 in Washington. Unfortunately, those rednecks stole the name White Knights and sullied it. And in the South it is probably still a very sensitive topic. It probably still reminds people of a shameful era where Elvis had nothing to do with of course, but still a delicate matter. It's only a question of decency and showing the best side of Elvis as far as we can. Elvis was born in a segregationist state but he was no racist. On the other hand, I always felt a bit embarrassed by a shot around 1974 where we can see Elvis shaking hands with ex-governor George Wallace. A 1972 an assassination attempt left him paralyzed; he used a wheelchair for the rest of his life. He was best known for his Southern populist, pro-segregation position during the desegregation period. This shot witch is rarely shown today, had a distorted comments attached toi it that shocked me when I saw it for the first time: it refers to Elvis as being a "true son of the South". I was appalled cause it suggested Elvis as being of the same mentality as George Wallace. So at first, I was seduced by the title While Knight, not knowing how it could sounded in the South for Blacks and Whites who are not racists. But now I think I prefer the unimaginative and flat title Live in Las Vegas: a sensible reaction from FTD.
drjohncarpenter0117 (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
These days we all have to be so P.C, also read somewhere about the 'White Knight' and so called reference to the KKK........to me the title change is not a problem as long as the track listing and contents are what they should be.
HangLoose (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
The previous title was so much better! "Live in Las Vegas" is the most boring and most unimaginative title i've ever heard. And we already have a 2001 cd box-set with this title. The title was changed because the White Knights were violent members of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960's. And an id!ot member of the fecc forum posted a topic about it. Here's the final result... He can be proud of himself,really:/ For a change,this FTD release looked like a great one. A previously unreleased 1969 multi-track recording with a good title and an acceptable cover, issued as a special 7" release. Then they changed it to a small 5" digipack release and finally they even destroyed the originally good title. You can see that even when rarely they have good ideas,they always scr.w up them at the end.
bajo (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
Regardless of album title, I'd rather have multi-track recordings from august '69 over any soundboard of later years.
As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind having all there is of those multi-tracks from '69.
Sirbalkan (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 30, 2011report abuse
I am BORED of Vegas shows. Enough!!! I mean it. Really...Especially 69,70,71,72 stuff... E.N.O.U.G.H.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011report abuse
I also agree there have too many 'Live In Vegas' type titles. It is very generic and can make a non-hard core fan think, Do I have this already? Of course for the real fanatics they would know, but not all of us are like that or can separate one show from another with similar titles. Anyway these live releases tend to blend into one another after a while, and a title like White Knight would have at least stood out as different. But since the 2nd show from this night has already been released by FTD, there is no need for me to buy this. There is nothing to gain but more of the same show on the same night and another dust collector.
theoldscudder (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011report abuse
White knight sounds like a bootleg title, maybe that's why they changed it. But Live In Vegas sounds too generic. I will not be buying this not because of the title but because of the price & mainly because it's just more of the same. Just no bang for the buck here for me.
marco31768 (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011report abuse
This new title is worst than prevoiusly !
Jesse Garon Presley (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011report abuse
You r not alone in this Tony C, i want to hear this too, no matter what the title is, i agree with you a 100%.
emjel (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011report abuse
I'd fire the artwork designer - the titles swamp what looks like a pretty good photo.
TY1975 (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011report abuse
Looking forward to this, no matter the name. The 1969 & 70 Vegas shows are always fantastic. I'll take 'em all.
Tony C (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011report abuse
I look forward to hearing this show regardless of whether the title is original or not. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to hear all of the multi-track track live RCA recordings that exist, some people appear to have the attitude that just because they don't want to hear it, it should not be released. I believe that there is an opt-out policy with regard to purchase.
dgirl (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011report abuse
Live in Veags? There's an original title for sure! Variations of the same theme over & over. I agree, enough,
Michael.W. (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011report abuse
I want a show from Paris;-)
Sirbalkan (profilecontact) wrote on Jan 29, 2011
Invisible because there were too many capitals in the text

CD / Vinyl: 10 most recent news items

09/23/2016
09/23/2016
2
09/23/2016
09/08/2016
26
09/01/2016
1

Recently Added Shop Items