From Elvis At Sun....in stereo.

[John]

I received this CD today, and I have to say that it's great. It's been very tastefully done and the sound is amazing. You can hear Scotty, and particularly Bill very clearly. A lot of what Bill was doing was covered up, but now you can really hear him working his fingers off to the bone. Elvis' rhythm guitar also shines through on some of the tracks, and his voice really stands out.

I know a lot of people are against messing about with Elvis' Sun tracks, but I say this actually enhances what they were doing. You can appreciate the musicianship a lot more.

The mono material isn't going to disappear, but because the separation brings more clarity to the tracks, it to me, illustrates what this trio was capable of doing. In addition where you have a drummer, again, you can hear more of what was going on with the percussion.

10 out of 10.

[Colin B]

Fascinating !

Post a scan of the back & front of the sleeve.

[John]

Fascinating !

Post a scan of the back & front of the sleeve.

Yes sir.

FEAS01a.jpg

FEAS02.jpg

[Mister Moon]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

560805 Tampa Ger.jpg

[John]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

[HillbillyCat]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

I read somewhere that it is not supposed to be a pressed CD but a CD-R, is that correct?

[Mister Moon]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

Yes, but a wrong packaging is not a good starting point, so to speak.

[John]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

I read somewhere that it is not supposed to be a pressed CD but a CD-R, is that correct?

Who said it, a person with an agenda?

FEAS03.jpg

FEAS04.jpg

[John]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

Yes, but a wrong packaging is not a good starting point, so to speak.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

There's also a reversed image, the reason for which has been explained to me, but I don't agree with it.

However, as I listen to the music, I'm not gazing at the cover.

[Mister Moon]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

Yes, but a wrong packaging is not a good starting point, so to speak.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

There's also a reversed image, the reason for which has been explained to me, but I don't agree with it.

However, as I listen to the music, I'm not gazing at the cover.

Not long ago, I was browsing through Bob Dylan's official site, which is interesting, as it has lots of info about his songs, including all his lyrics. Anyway, there's a merchandising section where you can buy CDs, LPs, etc., and t-shirts. If you look at those t-shirts, most show photos, lettering, etc. that are historically wrong. How can this happen, even with official product ?

I feel that the sense of historical accuracy is being lost with lots of stuff related to rock and roll. And that's a shame, because accuracy dignifies things.

That's my opinion, but I may be wrong.

[John]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

Yes, but a wrong packaging is not a good starting point, so to speak.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

There's also a reversed image, the reason for which has been explained to me, but I don't agree with it.

However, as I listen to the music, I'm not gazing at the cover.

Not long ago, I was browsing through Bob Dylan's official site, which is interesting, as it has lots of info about his songs, including all his lyrics. Anyway, there's a merchandising section where you can buy CDs, LPs, etc., and t-shirts. If you look at those t-shirts, most show photos, lettering, etc. that are historically wrong. How can this happen, even with official product ?

I feel that the sense of historical accuracy is being lost with lots of stuff related to rock and roll. And that's a shame, because accuracy dignifies things.

That's my opinion, but I may be wrong.

You're not wrong, and it's nothing new. Accuracy and rock 'n' roll have often not gone hand in hand. I agree, how can these things happen with official product, but I can't get hung up about it, there are too many other things in life much more important to get concerned about.

[Mister Moon]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

Yes, but a wrong packaging is not a good starting point, so to speak.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

There's also a reversed image, the reason for which has been explained to me, but I don't agree with it.

However, as I listen to the music, I'm not gazing at the cover.

Not long ago, I was browsing through Bob Dylan's official site, which is interesting, as it has lots of info about his songs, including all his lyrics. Anyway, there's a merchandising section where you can buy CDs, LPs, etc., and t-shirts. If you look at those t-shirts, most show photos, lettering, etc. that are historically wrong. How can this happen, even with official product ?

I feel that the sense of historical accuracy is being lost with lots of stuff related to rock and roll. And that's a shame, because accuracy dignifies things.

That's my opinion, but I may be wrong.

You're not wrong, and it's nothing new. Accuracy and rock 'n' roll have often not gone hand in hand. I agree, how can these things happen with official product, but I can't get hung up about it, there are too many other things in life much more important to get concerned about.

Well, that's true.

However, as a music fan AND a potential customer, I feel those things need to be underlined.

A release devoted to Elvis' Sun years CAN'T feature a 1956 photo on the back cover.

[cadillac-elvis]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

Yes, but a wrong packaging is not a good starting point, so to speak.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

There's also a reversed image, the reason for which has been explained to me, but I don't agree with it.

However, as I listen to the music, I'm not gazing at the cover.

Not long ago, I was browsing through Bob Dylan's official site, which is interesting, as it has lots of info about his songs, including all his lyrics. Anyway, there's a merchandising section where you can buy CDs, LPs, etc., and t-shirts. If you look at those t-shirts, most show photos, lettering, etc. that are historically wrong. How can this happen, even with official product ?

I feel that the sense of historical accuracy is being lost with lots of stuff related to rock and roll. And that's a shame, because accuracy dignifies things.

That's my opinion, but I may be wrong.

You're not wrong, and it's nothing new. Accuracy and rock 'n' roll have often not gone hand in hand. I agree, how can these things happen with official product, but I can't get hung up about it, there are too many other things in life much more important to get concerned about.

Well, that's true.

However, as a music fan AND a potential customer, I feel those things need to be underlined.

A release devoted to Elvis' Sun years CAN'T feature a 1956 photo on the back cover.

Look at the positive, at least it isn't a picture of Elvis in his Mexican Gold Calendar jumpsuit from June 1977!

[Mister Moon]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

Yes, but a wrong packaging is not a good starting point, so to speak.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

There's also a reversed image, the reason for which has been explained to me, but I don't agree with it.

However, as I listen to the music, I'm not gazing at the cover.

Not long ago, I was browsing through Bob Dylan's official site, which is interesting, as it has lots of info about his songs, including all his lyrics. Anyway, there's a merchandising section where you can buy CDs, LPs, etc., and t-shirts. If you look at those t-shirts, most show photos, lettering, etc. that are historically wrong. How can this happen, even with official product ?

I feel that the sense of historical accuracy is being lost with lots of stuff related to rock and roll. And that's a shame, because accuracy dignifies things.

That's my opinion, but I may be wrong.

You're not wrong, and it's nothing new. Accuracy and rock 'n' roll have often not gone hand in hand. I agree, how can these things happen with official product, but I can't get hung up about it, there are too many other things in life much more important to get concerned about.

Well, that's true.

However, as a music fan AND a potential customer, I feel those things need to be underlined.

A release devoted to Elvis' Sun years CAN'T feature a 1956 photo on the back cover.

Look at the positive, at least it isn't a picture of Elvis in his Mexican Gold Calendar jumpsuit from June 1977!

Yeah, let's be positive. That fits every situation, ha ha .

[HillbillyCat]

Thanks, John.

I will not be getting this, and I don't feel like commenting on it again (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14513).

As they say, to each his own.

Just a small question - why do they use a damn 1956 photo on the back cover ?

Pretty weird.

Indeed. That isn't right. Still, it doesn't take away from the music.

I read somewhere that it is not supposed to be a pressed CD but a CD-R, is that correct?

Who said it, a person with an agenda?

FEAS03.jpgFEAS04.jpg

I do not think so. It was just a side note. But I'm glad you clarified it here!

I also agree with MM when he complains about a lack of accuracy here and in general. If it was some no name budget label producing for the department stores rummage tables, (minor) errors such as incoherent, misdated or reversed pictures, misspelled song titles or unlisted band members would be kind of negligible. But in the case of collector's labels run mainly by fans, this can only be described as "sloppy work", I'm too much of a nitpicker myself to let it go

But to get back to the main point: the music. If John is that enthusiastic about this new stereo approach, then I think it could definitely worth checking out, at least out of curiosity. Here's one sample ("Good Rockin' Tonight"), posted by "Elvis Day by Day" several weeks ago:

https://elv75.blogspot.com/2023/03/marc ... tereo.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w_hNB0 ... 5Vqs_/view