FTD Vinyl

By ElvisNews.com/ LexAug 18, 2009
FTD Vinyl

Last month, during our vacation I received the two vinyl releases by FTD, Blue Hawaii and Standing Room Only. Are they a worthy addition to the FTD collection?



Blue Hawaii FTD VinylBlue Hawaii never was my thing. I know it’s just for a movie, but I still it’s a kind of silly to have an adult on an album cover with a baby guitar, although I have to admit that the front of the FTD release is better than the original. The package of the double album is beautiful (disregarding my opinion of the content). I never got rid of my old vinyl (and actually play it quite regular)… and it still feels fantastic to hold something and be able to read everything without a problem. The back of the “new cover” holds the track list of the extra LP with bonus material, while the original cover has the original back. The LPs are fit in cardboard full with pictures, memorabilia and information, one of them in full color, the other in black and white.


Standing Room Only is more my piece of cake and has the same beautiful production. Both inner sleeves contain color pictures (and black and white), while the inside of the album is filled with liner notes and memorabilia. The back contains the track listing in that typical 70’s style with a commercial for other great albums to enjoy (Now and He Touched Me).


As my review of the CD clearly showed, Blue Hawaii is not my piece of cake, not only visually, but also not musically. Still I put it on my turntable and gave it a swing; the sound is okay, but not exceptional, then again… who is waiting for lullabies in exceptional quality ;-).

Standing Room Only, in opposition to Blue Hawaii, has been played several times. The studio tracks sound marvelous, warm and very detailed. The live tracks sound fine too, but the CD version sounds fuller, which fits the live tracks better. These LPs will find their way to my turntable more often in the future, that’s for sure!


It is great to have some “new” vinyl again, the first LPs since Elvis At Sun. Call me old fashioned, but I only play CDs because it’s easier. Wonderful to really hold something while listening!

Elvis Presley on: eBay, Amazon


Greg Nolan (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 27, 2009report abuse
John41', that's a gross simplification of Elvis' overall artistic worth in three separate decades and his movies were all money makers. Unless someone is a total elitist (and there's an element of that among some Beatle fans), Elvis movies by and large did so well because they provided light comedy entertainment and kept coming because they served this up. And if it set the stage for '68 and '69, all the better. I stack up Elvis next to the Beatles any day and besides it's apples and oranges and not a competition.

Some of the comments from "Elvis fans" (and I'm aware of his lowlights) beg the question what you're even doing here besides riling up Elvis fans. The "Camden" reissues brought many new fans in, dgirl, due to their entry-level price and some actually were quite good. I'm glad they put them on CD. People need to calm down: it's just entertainment , not Van Gogh. Pop Music will never be high art ---and I'm happy about that. The FTD Vinyl is an unexpected treat for both longtime fans and those newer to the concept of vinyl records. Bravo, FTD!
GeertFromNl (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 17, 2009report abuse
Beautiful LP-set!
stu (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 5, 2009report abuse
John, no prob's. Glad i could help!
John4126 (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 5, 2009report abuse
Stu - I'm indebted to you for the correction - many thanks!
stu (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 5, 2009report abuse
It's "figment" John. Guys i was trying to inject some humour (tinged with realism) into the thread! So none of us know how many copies of each format are being manufactured then!
John4126 (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 4, 2009report abuse
Stu - check out the RIAA website - that will show you that the Beatles are not the figmant of the press' imagination.
John4126 (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 4, 2009report abuse
It's inevitable that the Beatles won't get that much favourable comment on an Elvis site. After all, Elvis fans have never been able to handle the adoration the group seem to garner from the music critics and public alike. The Beatles don't suffer from a decade of 'puppet movies for less than bright children'. (A comment from a leading Elvis publication in the late 60's) or from the later Vegas years like our man does and no matter how we protest that image looms large thanks to those ghasterly 'tribute acts' (sic!)

EMI treats The Beatles with huge respect something which has alluded Elvis. I love both artists but you cant really compare them, although it's sad to think that Elvis too often was happy to turn up to a studio, record covers and then fly home showing no interest in the subsequent albums whether it be track listings or cover art. Lazy and not very creative in my book. That's why after the 50's and the odd glimpse of real effort he is not as well regarded as the Beatles in a creative or influential sense.
dgirl (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 4, 2009report abuse
Beatles overrated? No, but I do believe some media outlets/critics believe real serious music began in 1964 and that always upsets me as they forget the founding fathers. As for these remasters, I may buy one or two of their classics albums. But let me point out how the labels differ. We have one music store left in my area, FYE. The Beatles rack (or any other major artist) has a selection of their original albums available. The Elvis rack? The new Memphis double CD set (because its new) and the rest were Camden albums & compilations. All the Camden albums! Thats what our man is reduced to in a CD store. Disgusting. FTD is to blame for some of this by removing albums for general circulation and putting out their classic series at astronomical prices. Camdens!! Sure, Elvis will be taken seriously. Never.
JerryNodak (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 4, 2009report abuse
I don't think the Beatles are overrated. But I didn't care for their music then (or the British invasion in general) and I don't care now. I'm sure the sets will generate tons of press and sell like gangbusters (more power to them), but I could care less.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 3, 2009report abuse
So true oldscudder. I think you hit the nail on the head. These Beatles CDs came out in what the late 80s? This the first time they have been reissued in 20 years! Naturally there is bound to be some media coverage. 20 years is an eternity for a catalog to not change. Take Elvis's albums. They seem to be reissued every time you turn around in new packages, new titles, new compilations, boxed together with cheap artwork, etc. It is ridiculous to compare the 2 labels and how they handle the 2 biggest artists of all time.
theoldscudder (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 3, 2009report abuse
stu The Beatles an overated boy band? Ludicrous. There is a tremendous excitement about these re-issues. They will easily out sell any Elvis recent release. The Elvis catologue has been mishandled. Far to many releases leading to overexposure. Elvis latest release appealed to the die hards, as well as to the people on this site, but sadly to far lesser degree newer people. The Beatles re-issues will be very big.

SteveV, You are right on as usual. But watch you used the word jealous, probably meant envious. Don't want you to get hammered by the nitpickers as when you used the word dribble.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 3, 2009report abuse
stu - anyone who thinks The Beatles were an overrated boys band is in the minority(maybe not on this site however). It also shows just how narrow-minded (and maybe jealous) Elvis fans can sometimes be. I dont plan on buying their remasters but I appreciate what they did for music in the 60's. Elvis surely did. To call them an overrated boys band who are only important because of the media is mind boggling. But I suppose everyone is overrated who isnt Elvis to some folks.
stu (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 3, 2009report abuse
Does anybody know how many copies of each format are being manufactured?

Oh, I'm with Greg as well. Steve V, anyone who gets drivel and dribble mixed up has gotta represent the minority, and in this case clearly flawed, view.

John4126, the media is a powerful force and can sway the outcome of wars. It can easily manipulate opinions and perceptions; take the new Beatles remasters, I am not going to buy any because i think The Beatles are an overrated boy band, but the media would have you believe that they were more than that!

Ron Baker, it sounds like you had a nightmare at the cinema. Hope you feel better, after carrying that round for the last 49 years! I'm sure if Elvis had known how disappointed you were, he would have given you a signed copy of the "Standing Room Only" FTD by way of apology.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 30, 2009report abuse
Well it is certainly true that BH coming out in 1961 had a lot to do with its success. The pop world didnt have any new upcoming stars to change any kind of direction. It was all kind of bland. A year later would be Motown, Beach Boys/surfing music & 4 Seasons to excite some youngsters a bit. Also Hawaii just became a state and tourism was booming. I think this all had to do with the success of the film.
dgirl (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 29, 2009report abuse
Yes, Blue Hawaii was a huge hit because it was 1961. Elvis still fresh out of the Army, was looking & singing fabulous and the pop world was really not going & moving anywhere exciting. That was still 3 years away. Elvis was not breaking any new ground with these movies. The fact is, if it came out in 1965, it probably would have not done so well.
Greg Nolan (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 29, 2009report abuse
To each his own. "Blue Hawaii" for whatever reason was a huge hit.
theoldscudder (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 26, 2009report abuse
Greg, I'm not Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking. I disliked these movies when they came out. I actually saw them all, as soon as they were released, hoping the next one would be better than the last. But with a few exceptions they became progressively worse. Listening to the soundtracks at the time was like a miner looking for gold. More misses than not. Yet still one or two songs that made me thing he could turn things around. Thankfully that time came when he did Guitar Man, Down In The Alley etc.
Greg Nolan (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 26, 2009report abuse
Steve, I'll give you credit for introducing some nuance in your reply as Elvis certainly had some stellar efforts that easily round out some five to ten of his pictures. Make no mistake about it, corners were cut and formulas over-relied upon, but OldScudder, I don't buy your Monday-Morning-Quarter-backing, as I'm sure in another 20-30 years, today's money makers will also be largely unwatchable to modern hipsters, film critics and contemporary-minded movie makers. Nothing last fovever but luckly Elvis made enough that in 2009, TMC can devote a whole day to his once (and still-popular) flicks, although I wince at some of them that were put in prime-time. on the other hand, I can kick back and watch them with the innocent of having seen them decades ago, probably with all too much devotion.

I accept all phases of Elvis career and don't feel like tying myself in knots about bad choices and find the more open minded I am, the more I can tend to my various "Elvis Moods", with the exception of all but a few moments of his cinematic career, and even then, some of them are so bad they're good in a way only Elvis can pull off.

So let's not play the "blinders" card: we all know what he should have been doing in the '60s, say, after "Viva Las Vegas." There's a lot of what might be called boxing with shadows (or whatever the expression is) on this site. By and large, most fans know his "low-lights" but on the whole, his 20-some odd year career was second to none in overall impact, scope, diversity, you name it. Do the same for the beloved, sainted Beatles (and sure I like a lot of their work) by extending, say, the band's work into their solo work and you get a similar "glass half full" instead of "always full" impression. To their credit, they never sunk (arguably) to his depths but I put his best against them any time. And it's not a competition. I love that both kinds of music happened. I love it all.

Getting back to the vinyl in question (so much for the subject!) it's a blast that FTD did this. I'm guess as fans we enjoy coming back to what we started with, albeit in deluxe '09 form. And hey, I listen to a lot of other music (loved the Les Paul documentary / tribute on PBS last night- he and Mary Ford did a great "I Really Don't Want to Know" years ago) but Elvis is why we're here.

Keep rockin' folks and glad to see ElvisNews back in full force!
John4126 (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 25, 2009report abuse
No matter how much you try to justify it or dress it up, Elvis can't shake off the dual public perception that he was a second rate actor who made largely dire movies or the overweight vegas performer who more often than not resembled liberace. I love Elvis but can't argue with those perceptions. We just have to live with it.

Blue Hawaii has always been regarded as the turning point in his acting career. For some it's the last of the good movies and for others it's the first of the dire ones. I always think of Elvis' films as being corny yes, but good fun where you don't have to think too much when watching it.
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 25, 2009report abuse
Natha :so do I, agree with Greg ! Steve : your comments make sence many times, but this time I can't agree . First : Marty wrote " many after him ( Elvis) tried to copy his succes (i.e. The Beatles, Madonna,Britney Spears etc..but VERY FEW were succesfull " He didn't write " they were ALL unsuccesful" , in other words : he's not saying in particular "the Beatles' movies were flops."

In the second place : liking or not liking Elvis' movies is, IMHO, for a part a matter of age and generations. I can live with the fact that someone who became an Elvis-fan in, let's say the seventies, find these movies cheap, childish, or whatever you may call them ( I'm not talking about the movies made before he went in the army ). But fans who are from my generation liked his movies ( probably most of them) when,at that time , they were teens or twens.

Now there are two possiblities : growing older one doesn't have the same feelings for, and changing their opinion about those films, or one can look back and treasure those precious memories, call it nostalgia or sentiment if you like. As for the vinyl re-release of "Blue Hawaii" in another and nicer form : I like it very much and I'm glad I own it and I don't give a damn if it's a re-release. Still : just my opinion, and respecting everybody's point of view .It's nice to have, via this site, the possibility to chance opinions in a polite and civil way. Always El.
Natha (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 25, 2009report abuse
Greg Nolan, just to state: I'm all with you.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 25, 2009report abuse
Marty - The Beatles 2 movies were hugely successful so I dont know what you are talking about. They had enough sense to quit after 2 , thats the difference there. A Hard Days Night blows most 60's Elvis movies away as a cinematic achievement, if not all of them. Critically it ranks up there with Jailhouse Rock & King Creole as some of the greatest pop music movies. In the 60's only Viva Las Vegas stands apart from the others. Blue Hawaii was good for 1961, but the same formula was repeated too often well in to the late 60's while the world was getting more mature and the movies less. I always fault Blue Hawaii as the reason for this since it made so much money. And Greg Im sorry Blue Hawaii is a true part of his legacy. Id rather have seen better studio albums and world tours like other artists have as part of their legacy.
theoldscudder (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 25, 2009report abuse
As far as the movies go I am with SteveV. It's all in one's taste, however one thing that's a fact is they were very cheaply made to maximize profits. Profit not art was the Ole Col's game.They are embarrassing to watch eg. the sync is off when Elvis sings & dances. Singing In The Rain & Sound Of Music just to name a few were great musicals. They had good songs that fit very well into the plot. The songs in Elvis musicals were just there. Too many too often. I believe artistic integrity not profit is what makes a product good. The money is long gone but the stench of these movies remain. Only the diehards & fanatics ( not John Q public) can enjoy these low IQ pieces of mediocrity. Elvis knew they were crap & was sickened to do them. Yet some cannot see what he saw. Some cannot criticize anything Elvis ever did.
marty (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 24, 2009report abuse
I'll have to agree with Greg on that. Elvis didn't only record rock 'n' roll and I am grateful for that, there is more variety, more to choose from (Something For Everybody) . Elvis movie soundtracks especially in the 60’s were just pop music and there were no doubt hugely successful. Hal Wallis once said that the only sure thing in Hollywood is an Elvis movie! Many after him tried to copy his success (i.e. The Beatles, Madonna, Britney Spears etc) but very few were successful. Soundtracks are not my favourite Elvis music, quite the contrary, I sometimes think they sound a bit dated compared to the non-soundtrack studio recordings, but I have friends that became fans from his movies.
Blue Hawaii is one of his most successful movies and soundtracks but isn’t high in my list. Still I am thankful that they decided to release a vinyl version and it is in my wish list. I might have to hurry now that they are planning to delete it from the catalogue…
Greg Nolan (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 24, 2009report abuse
Well, you're just one person, Steve. The fact remains that all the Elvis movies (even the true turkeys, of which BLUE HAWAII doesn't count) all made money and were not just for kids, however you may mean that comment.

You apparently were and are "too cool for school" but face it, Elvis movies, especially "Blue Hawaii" are a key part of his legacy and what made him a star. Not everyone thinks you or OS that they didn't provide entertainment. At the time, they were right up the alleyway for many Americans looking for light, unchallenging comedy with pretty girls, some music, some pretty locations. Nothing that is high art but certainly (at the time) a typical part of pop culture. Sure they eventually hurt him enough to make his '68 comeback so necessary but let's not get so revisionist as to say they were all bad. Somebody paid for them..and again and again. Few serious critics even take your hard-line view, outside of, ironcially, other Elvis fans in particular.

Back to the record, which you have little to say about, it is a premium release as it the SRO record. Hats off to FTD for this fine escape! I'm almost tempted to buy an extra to salt away.
theoldscudder (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 23, 2009report abuse
Dribble or drivel, both describe most (not all) of the songs on Blue Hawaii.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 22, 2009report abuse
No Greg - I did mean 'dribble' because most of these musical soundtrack movies can only appeal to kids. I like silly movies like anyone else (Marx Bros, Peter Sellers) but these 60's films were silly in an embarrassing way for a cool guy like Elvis. They are just hard to watch (and listen to) for me.
mature_elvis_fan75 (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 22, 2009report abuse
Steve, Blue hawaii is a classic,ito eats is one of the best written songs ever!
Greg Nolan (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 22, 2009report abuse
Steve V: the word is "drivel" - not "dribble." I think this has turned into too much of a discussion about Elvis' '60s movies. We get it about the downside of his popular '60s movies, but the historical truth is that they were all commericial SUCCESSES, all told. "Blue Hawaii" always evokes this sort of reaction from the '50s rock-oriented fans (especially on the internet) but let's face it: Elvis and Hawaii are key parts of understanding his appeal. "Can't Help Falling In Love" and Hawaii even as a backdrop are so much linked in his legacy, be it "the Hawaiian Wedding Song" or what have you. And one day I intend to visit Hawaii (beautiful on its own) just to soak up this key aspect of Elvis' career and personal life. And you can bet I'll be listening to a lot of the expanded soundtrack in advance and while I'm there!

So He did in fact become a more mainstream performer, doing the sort of light comedy "travelogue" films akin to Bing Crosby or Dean Martin. They were incredibly popular (this one in particular) for delivering a predictable mix of light fun, comedy, music, pretty girls and sunsets in exotic locales. Hardly high art, but it's what sold for a long time. The grouchy "it's embarrassing" complaint makes me think people just hang around with rock and punk fans. A lot of people actually do like ballads and light silly "family-friendly" songs. They served a purpose in a way. I'm not saying I like them all the time but this was a smash hit movie and soundtrack. Kudos to Sony/FTD for spotlighting it this way. As always, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

I agree about running hot and cold about this music but on a recent beach trip with the family (including young kids), I found these light tunes a lot of lightweight "beach" fun. I'm not going to play 1956 Elvis all the time , or even Elvis all the time. The all-rock, all-rebel stance does not age well. For this reason I"m glad Elvis explored all different genres. Getting back to Lex's mostly excellent review, he's so right about these two superb RECORD (!) releases. I did not find "Stranding Room Only" better on CD sonically, quite the opposite. I'll have to double-check the live tracks.

He's spot-on about the beautiful packaging: now this is bang for the buck. You see people buy flat-screen, super-large TVs for full effect: sitting there with a classic-sized, full-size ELVIS vinyl release makes all those CDs (which I do love too) seem like a bit of a bummer in comparison. Here you have a full canvas to read and enjoy the pictures and of course the slab of vinyl (180 gram heavy vinyl) itself is a beaut to behold. I managed to find Sony/ Legacy Vinyl's 2008 remastered / reissued version of his first U.S. album "ELVIS PRESLEY" while in Nashville, Tennessee this week and was overjoyed to put that next to the new "SRO" and "Blue Hawaii" titles! Keep 'em coming, FTD.
Dan The Man (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 21, 2009report abuse
Hi y'all. Allthough I understand you guy's who's been there and done that, we all must accept the change of times. I'm an Elvis fan from the early 70'thies and I have my favorite Elvis songs. If you have a career covering more than one decade, changes must come, good or bad!!! Take ZZ Top, They did the dirtiest southern blues'n'buggie, all of a sudden it was electronic like hell. Take Eric Clapton, same story...It's just the ol' story where you drive with the flood!(money)
Michael.W. (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 21, 2009report abuse
Thanks for your response!Really interesting to get some firsthand information!
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 20, 2009report abuse
sanQ - and that is the problem in a nutshell. He was still Elvis and singing dribble like Moonlight Swim. I have tired to revisit these songs over the years and they (mostly) still are crap to me. A few good ones here & there. Clambake to me is awful. Most critics agree so I am not alone. Just because its Elvis, doesnt make it good. f you read Elvis 69, he knows it as well.
sanQ (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 20, 2009report abuse
Personally, I like some of the songs on here a lot. There are some beautiful love songs on this disc. I think some of it is ridiculous like Ito Eats, but Moonlight Swim is very nice to listen to, as well as Hawaiian Wedding Song and Ku-ui-po(sic). Don't mistake these for the silliness, they are good songs, if not quite having the cool attitude of the 50's. He did the 50's stuff with attitude, then in the 60's he went for a good natured persona. I didn't like the 60's stuff for a long time and then I discovered it. There is some great stuff there, but you have to look past the crap songs like Ito Eats or whatever. Even Clambake is a catchy song, which I always dismissed. The 60's needs to be re-analyzed. There is too much focus on the bad songs and the good ones don't get attention. He was still Elvis for crying out loud.
RonBaker (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 20, 2009report abuse
You can get most (but not all) of the 'bonus' songs on the "Memphis, Tennessee" FTD release.
theoldscudder (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 20, 2009report abuse
Michael, I was lucky to see the real Elvis before the horrible movies. Blue Hawaii was embarrasing, as were all but a few of his pictures. The only one I can now watch is King Creole. In short the movies & sountracks made me feel embarrased to be a fan. I would like to ask does anyone know if the movie "bonus songs" been put out on cd. Please respond as I'd like to get these on cd.
drjohncarpenter0117 (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 20, 2009report abuse
Would of preferred vinyl versions to have been talked about and produced at the beginning of the FTD series and not where we are at now, as a collectors label this would of been more in the nature of what Ernst was trying to set up???. Giving the fans/collectors chance to buy vinyl versions or cd etc, financial planning was probably the reasons why this did not happen......still both volumes are welcomed and all i need to do now is re-invest in a decent deck to compliment this and all the other vinyl my collection.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 20, 2009report abuse
Michael - Ive been a fan since 1956, so the Elvis I discovered was a totally different dude than the one in Blue Hawaii. I still supported him, but the album to me was a terrible disappointed especially after the great Elvis Is Back and almost as good Something For Everybody. I will also tell you about this time a lot of my friends who liked Elvis started abandoning him and turning their ears to Motown, the 4 Seasons, The Beach Boys, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, etc, and eventually The British Invasion. They weren't into movie stars and silly songs. I cannot listen to this album (and many others that followed) from start to finish to this day. Too much sap for my taste.
RonBaker (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 20, 2009report abuse
As someone who was around then...I thought the album was awful! There were a few tracks that didn't make me ill: No More, Can't Help Falling in Love, Rock a Hula Baby--but it had a terrible instrumental break. The movie was offensive. It's hard to believe this was the same man who was in "King Creole" only a couple years earlier. Thank goodness it was my aunt and uncle who took me to the movie...the most entertaining thing about that was seeing them smooching instead of watching the silliness on screen. My aunt loaned me her album...I returned it to her quickly...I have since bought my own copy...but my opinion on it has not changed.
Michael.W. (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 19, 2009report abuse
I have a question to the fans that were around when "Blue Hawaii" was first released.(I was born 1976). Elvis was the King of Rock'n'Roll and a "Rebel" back then and how were the feelings when you saw him in a movie like that?Were you expecting stuff like that ? For me all of Elvis' music and films were around when i became a fan and i discovered him in a non chronical way but i think that i would have been shocked considering the transformation he went through. and don't get me wrong i actually enjoyed the movie...
Lex (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 19, 2009report abuse
Elvisfreak, for a freak you are pretty ignorant. The MSG cover was made after the cover for Standing Room Only AND the vinyl has a different cover (as you can see on the picture enclosed).

BTW I know that baby guitar is a ukelele, but I still think it's silly AND I don't like hawaiian music, no matter how many people bought the album (like I did, just because it's Elvis).
dgirl (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 19, 2009report abuse
there are people who buy products for the packaging/covers believe it or not. plus if you dont know the contents of blue hawaii by now, well...
elvisfreak (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 19, 2009report abuse
I like to comment on the covers; it shows a lot of "quality" in the how this review was conducted. First of all, the Blue Hawaii album does not have a picture of Elvis playing a "baby guitar"; it is a ukulele, an actual Hawaiian instrument that is used in almost every type of Hawaiian song. Plus; how can you shoot down one of Elvis’ most classic album covers (remember what album we are talking about here; second best post-Army soundtrack on the charts next to GI Blues) on top of the fact that it is an excellent photo of our man in tip-top shape! But then to overhype the “Standing Room Only” cover art when it is a clear rip off of another classic album cover, the Madison Square Garden concert. This over analyzing of the albums gets a little ridiculous sometimes; just tell me if the product is worth my money not what the cover art is like (I buy Elvis records for the content not the covers). Plus the “review” gave no mention of the specific content; only the covers so how can I base a decision to buy this album off of this review??
sitdown68 (profilecontact) wrote on Aug 18, 2009report abuse
and cover art, if there's permission given to do some, is back again. as one cannot talk about cover art regarding insleeves of a cd...

Misc.: 10 most recent articles


Recently Added Shop Items