'Elvis Heard Them Here First'

[rick]

theseconddisc.com/2012/04/24/presleys-jukebox-bob-dylan-bobby-darin-rick-nelson-jerry-butler-shine-on-elvis-heard-them-here-first/#more-12903

[Partridge]

I was surprised when I found out fairly recently that Are You Lonesome Tonight? was originally recorded by Al Jolson. I did not much care for the Jolson version.

[erik]

Quote by Partridge re. "Are You Lonesome Tonight?":

I was surprised when I found out fairly recently that Are You Lonesome Tonight? was originally recorded by Al Jolson. I did not much care for the Jolson version.

You'd be even more surprised, I think, when you find out who Elvis recorded that song for. Hint: he was rotund, loud, smoked a big cigar, and talked with a strange foreign accent because he was in this country illegally.

And then there was that jaw-droppingly funny dissolve into laughter that happened when he performed that song on August 26, 1969 in Las Vegas.

[the Scribe]

Blue Barron had a version similar to Elvis' beforehand.

Elvis recorded that song for Rush Limbaugh?

[erik]

Quote by ronstadtfanaz:

Elvis recorded that song for Rush Limbaugh?

LOL--actually, it was Colonel Tom Parker (real name: Andreas van Kuijk).

[sliderocker]

I'm not sure if Elvis heard some of the artists that's claimed for the songs: his recording of "Good Time Charlie's Got the Blues" was recorded in the wake of singer Danny O'Keefe's version from 1973, and I think it was that version which he heard rather than the version by the Bards. Recall that he also recorded "Lovin' Arms" during the same session, which had been a minor hit for Dobie Gray. Likewise, I'm not sure Elvis heard T-Bone Burnette's version of "Three Corn Patches;" unless he was the one heard on the demo recording that Elvis heard in the recording studio. Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller who wrote that song said it was specifically written for Elvis, which if true made that song the very last song they ever wrote for Elvis. And rather than Carl Mann on "I'm Comin' Home," I believe one of Elvis's associates - Marty Lacker, possibly, said that Elvis had a copy of that song in his collection by the song's composer, Charlie Rich. Most of the other artists credited are probably accurate although I'm not sure if Elvis heard the version of "I've Lost You" by the Matthews Southern Comfort band. That one seems a stretch though it may indeed be accurate.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

Most of the other artists credited are probably accurate although I'm not sure if Elvis heard the version of "I've Lost You" by the Matthews Southern Comfort band. That one seems a stretch though it may indeed be accurate.

Yes, Elvis' tastes were much more eclectic than some might believe, though I too am not sure he ever heard Matthews' Southern Comfort's version of "I've Lost You" before doing his take on it. It was one of those fairly dramatic power ballads that became commonplace for him to record during the Seventies.

With respect to "Long Black Limousine", which was the very first song he recorded when he went into Chips Moman's American Studios on January 13, 1969, he modeled his version off of a recent one by R&B singer O.C. Smith, rather than doing it as a traditional country shuffle like it's often done.

And with "The Wonder Of You", Elvis found himself actually having to ask Ray Peterson himself if he, Elvis, could record it. Peterson said, "You don't have to ask, you're Elvis Presley." Elvis replied, semi-seriously, "Yes I do, because you're Ray Peterson."

[sliderocker]

Apr 25, 2012 22:37:42 GMT -5 erik said:

Yes, Elvis' tastes were much more eclectic than some might believe, though I too am not sure he ever heard Matthews' Southern Comfort's version of "I've Lost You" before doing his take on it. It was one of those fairly dramatic power ballads that became commonplace for him to record during the Seventies.

With respect to "Long Black Limousine", which was the very first song he recorded when he went into Chips Moman's American Studios on January 13, 1969, he modeled his version off of a recent one by R&B singer O.C. Smith, rather than doing it as a traditional country shuffle like it's often done.

And with "The Wonder Of You", Elvis found himself actually having to ask Ray Peterson himself if he, Elvis, could record it. Peterson said, "You don't have to ask, you're Elvis Presley." Elvis replied, semi-seriously, "Yes I do, because you're Ray Peterson."

One of Elvis's music publishing companies acquired the US publishing rights to "I've Lost You" prior to Elvis recording the song, so someone at his publishing must've thought it was the kind of song he would've been interested in doing. It also sounded like a song that Tom Jones might've done - think the guys who wrote the song also wrote a few songs for Jones on which Jones and his manager had the publishing.

"I've Lost You" was a good song but cuirously, it faltered in the charts because it was paired with "The Next Step is Love," another good pop ballad and both sides were getting radio airplay and accounting for sales. I always thought having a double-sided hit was great business for an artist or band but I came across a comment by another artist who said both sides charting often resulted in a record having a lower position on the charts rather than a higher position. By 1970, Elvis was the only major artist still managing to chart both sides of a 45 on a regular basis.

Funny little tidbit about "Long Black Limousine:" Elvis owned the publishing on the song. The song was published originally by American Music and that company was acquired by Elvis Presley Music circa 1965, becoming the American division of Elvis Presley Music. At their peak, Elvis's publishing companies reportedly owned the copyrights on more than 2000 songs, which should've assured Elvis of a good yearly income even if he had never had another hit record. But, I sometimes wondered how much money he actually realized from his various publishing companies? I've got a feeling that's another source where Parker and his cronies saw more money on the deal than what Elvis saw.

I liked the story the late Ray Peterson told about Elvis calling him up to ask permission to record "The Wonder of You." That was a very touching story and probably the kind of thing Elvis would've done thoguh he wouldn't have been obligated to have called Peterson for permission because Peterson didn't write the song. But, I do have to wonder when the call was made because there is some documentation at Graceland or RCA to show that the song was one of several songs Elvis planned on recording during 1966-67 at one of the non-movie sessions. I'm guessing the reason it didn't get recorded could've been lack of adequate time or Elvis had to placate Parker by recording songs on which he held the publishing.

The chance a studio version of the song could've been recorded and lost is probably an astronomical number although it can't be ruled out completely.RCA once said about a year after Elvis's death that everything except for one song had been released on Elvis and that one song ("Dominique," from "Stay Away Joe") Elvis had barred from being released because it was a song about the bull in the movie and he hated the song with a passion. Fast forward a decade or two later and RCA released songs on Elvis they never knew existed. They even released "Dominique," which must've had Elvis spinning in his grave.

BMG now says that there's no previously unreleased recordings but who knows, it could be a case of not knowing where to look. RCA didn't have the best bookkeeping and archiving system in place.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

But, I do have to wonder when the call was made because there is some documentation at Graceland or RCA to show that the song was one of several songs Elvis planned on recording during 1966-67 at one of the non-movie sessions. I'm guessing the reason it didn't get recorded could've been lack of adequate time or Elvis had to placate Parker by recording songs on which he held the publishing.

Yes, he had planned to record "The Wonder Of You" back in 1966, along with "After Loving You" (which he did do in 1969 with Moman), but for reasons unknown he didn't get around to it, possibly because they couldn't really find the right arrangement. Elvis probably informed Ray Peterson just prior to that second Vegas engagement that he was going to do the song after he and his band had worked on a suitably big, inspirational arrangement for it. The recording of it was made on February 18, 1970, and released as a single on April 20th, with "Mama Liked The Roses" (from the Memphis Sessions) as the B-side. It became the King's fourth Top 10 hit in just slightly over a year (after "In The Ghetto"; "Suspicious Minds"; and "Don't Cry Daddy"), after having gone the previous five years with just one ("Crying In The Chapel").

[the Scribe]

I wonder how many of Elvis' songs and hits were "covers?" At a certain site which shall remain nameless these pseudo-critic-judges continually use a double standard when it comes to Linda, cover songs and credibility. These little weasels seem to make stuff up and act like they are the final word on the subject while being dismissive of anyone else that disagrees with them. Elvis had some great hits in the late 60's-70. The Wonder of You, Suspicious Minds, Kentucky Rain were among my favorites. Even today when I listen to them I am transported /have flashbacks of feelings from that era.

[erik]

Quote by ronstadtfanaz:

I wonder how many of Elvis' songs and hits were "covers?" At a certain site which shall remain nameless these pseudo-critic-judges continually use a double standard when it comes to Linda, cover songs and credibility. These little weasels seem to make stuff up and act like they are the final word on the subject while being dismissive of anyone else that disagrees with them. Elvis had some great hits in the late 60's-70. The Wonder of You, Suspicious Minds, Kentucky Rain were among my favorites. Even today when I listen to them I am transported /have flashbacks of feelings from that era.

A great many of the things that Elvis recorded were well-worn R&B and C&W standards, such as "Blue Moon Of Kentucky" and "That's All Right, Mama", as well as big-time blues standards like Lowell Fulson's "Reconsider Baby" and Jimmy Reed's "Big Boss Man"; "It's Now Or Never" is, for all intents and purposes, "O Sole Mio" with a big beat; and there's his 1966 recording of "Love Letters" (a big hit for Ketty Lester in 1962). One has to remember, though, that this was stuff he actually liked doing and sank his teeth into; when he was like that, his standing as one of the great artists of the 20th century was unassailable. Things like "Queenie Wahine's Papaya" or "Do The Clam" were Elvis at his worst. And as sliderocker says, "Dominique" (not the 1963 hit by the Singing Nun) was an atrocity about which Elvis only half-jokingly told his producer Felton Jarvis, "If I die, please don't let them release it", because he actually sang that song to a real-live bull in STAY AWAY JOE.

And Elvis really kept this up in the 70s with his live-from-Hawaii recording of James Taylor's "Steamroller Blues" (a #17 hit in June 1973); a high-octane cover of Chuck Berry's "Promised Land" (#14 in December 1974); and a killer version of the Roy Hamilton classic "Hurt" (#28 in May 1976). Sadly, however, "Way Down", which was also one of his best 70s hits, was just climbing the chart in August 1977 when he died (it got to #18).

[sliderocker]

Apr 26, 2012 17:20:06 GMT -5 the Scribe said:

I wonder how many of Elvis' songs and hits were "covers?" At a certain site which shall remain nameless these pseudo-critic-judges continually use a double standard when it comes to Linda, cover songs and credibility. These little weasels seem to make stuff up and act like they are the final word on the subject while being dismissive of anyone else that disagrees with them. Elvis had some great hits in the late 60's-70. The Wonder of You, Suspicious Minds, Kentucky Rain were among my favorites. Even today when I listen to them I am transported /have flashbacks of feelings from that era.

Elvis recorded many covers, especially in the 70s since his publishing companies were accepting less original compositions and more interested in getting a 25% percentage of a song already published. A lot of the so called experts noted songs Elvis recorded in the 50s and 60s that others allegedly did first, even though Elvis's publishing companies had 100% of the publiishing. What they fail to consider on those songs (such as "Never Ending") is that the songs were written for Elvis in the first place and the songwriters often used demo singers who could sing in an Elvis-styled voice, figuring they stood a much better chance of Elvis recording their songs. Sometimes, the demo singer's version was good enough to release on its own merit and those versions may be the ones the experts claimed as other artists having done first.

There were certain other critics who claimed Elvis copied another singer recording verbatim, claiming it was a practice of taking someone else's "proven arrangement." I always read claims like "proven arrangement" as meaning that it was a hit, yet in two examples cited in Jerry Hopkin's second book on Elvis (Elvis: The Final Years), Hopkins claimed Elvis's recording of "Suspicious Minds" was an exact copy of its composer, Mark James, yet the song was never a hit for James. I've never heard James's version but when you consider the same musicians played on both versions of the song and consider that same sound showed up in other recordings produced at American Studios (Jackie DeShannon's 1972 album "Jackie" recorded at American, sounded a lot like many of the songs heard on Elvis's 1969 Memphis recordings), was Elvis intentionally copying or was it the musicians copying themselves, unable to create a different sound or arrangement? In the other example cited by Hopkins, he claimed Elvis took singer Billy Lee Riley's recording of "I've Got a Thing About You Baby," claiming it was the same arrangement despite the fact Elvis's version was different from Riley's. Elvis's version used an electric organ and bass as the lead instruments whereas Riley's version was a guitar-based tune. Hopkins also assumed that Elvis had heard the version by Riley rather than the version by the song's composer, Tony Joe White but there's nothing to indicate he had heard the version by Riley. Chips Moman did play James's version of "Suspicious Minds" for Elvis and I suspect that as the publisher, Moman saw the hit potential in the song that had eluded its composer. B.J. Thomas also recorded a version of the same song when he followed Elvis at American and he also released it as a single, but like James's original recording, "Suspicious Minds" wasn't a hit for him either.

It's hard to figure out all the reasons why the critics adhere to such double standards, but had Linda written more of her own songs or had publishing companies companies set up for her that could've supplied her with original songs, I think the critics would've been just as dismissive. Part of the problem was I think they wanted Linda to remain a certain kind of singer, wanted her to stay a mix of the rock and country genres that she had been successful with. I don't think many of the critics liked her purer pop efforts or the 1940s-styled recordings or the Mexican recordings. But, had she stuck to just the rock and country efforts, they probably would've complained about that as well, saying she wasn't growing as an artist.

Critics often claimed Elvis never grew as an artist but what kind of songs would it have taken for Elvis to have recorded that they would've regarded as him growing as an artist? I could've just them having a conniption fit if he had recorded a disco album in the 70s or an album of opera-styled music. Elvis had close to a three octave range, a range which wasn't always showcased on the songs he did. But, I still think the critics would've found something to have complained about on Elvis or Linda, no matter what they did.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

It's hard to figure out all the reasons why the critics adhere to such double standards, but had Linda written more of her own songs or had publishing companies companies set up for her that could've supplied her with original songs, I think the critics would've been just as dismissive. Part of the problem was I think they wanted Linda to remain a certain kind of singer, wanted her to stay a mix of the rock and country genres that she had been successful with. I don't think many of the critics liked her purer pop efforts or the 1940s-styled recordings or the Mexican recordings. But, had she stuck to just the rock and country efforts, they probably would've complained about that as well, saying she wasn't growing as an artist.

Critics often claimed Elvis never grew as an artist but what kind of songs would it have taken for Elvis to have recorded that they would've regarded as him growing as an artist? I could've just them having a conniption fit if he had recorded a disco album in the 70s or an album of opera-styled music. Elvis had close to a three octave range, a range which wasn't always showcased on the songs he did. But, I still think the critics would've found something to have complained about on Elvis or Linda, no matter what they did.

Like fans, critics have their biases (though at least we the fans are honest about ours [LOL]), and they can change like the wind. I agree that Linda probably never would have been able to satisfy every critic out there even if she had written or co-written more of her own songs, but I don't think even anybody who writes songs regularly and is honest with themselves writes according to what the critics say they should write about. It's not their job to give a s***.

And to those who say that Elvis never grew as an artist--well, I would point out the following examples:

May 1966: his first recording sessions in Nashville that didn't involve soundtrack material, which gave us "Love Letters"; "Indescribably Blue"; "If Everyday Was Like Christmas"; "Down In The Alley"; and Dylan's "Tomorrow Is A Long Time".

September/October 1967: sessions that included "Guitar Man"; "Big Boss Man"; "Hi-Heel Sneakers", again done in Nashville

January 1968: More Nashville recording, this time around recording "Too Much Monkey Business", and "U.S. Male."

And we don't need to mention working with Chips Moman in early 1969 which marked really the pinnacle of the Man's career, other than those twelve days of recording produced a mind-busting thirty-six tracks, four of which went on to become multi-million selling hits.

[sliderocker]

Apr 27, 2012 14:24:25 GMT -5 erik said:

Like fans, critics have their biases (though at least we the fans are honest about ours [LOL]), and they can change like the wind. I agree that Linda probably never would have been able to satisfy every critic out there even if she had written or co-written more of her own songs, but I don't think even anybody who writes songs regularly and is honest with themselves writes according to what the critics say they should write about. It's not their job to give a s***.

And to those who say that Elvis never grew as an artist--well, I would point out the following examples:

May 1966: his first recording sessions in Nashville that didn't involve soundtrack material, which gave us "Love Letters"; "Indescribably Blue"; "If Everyday Was Like Christmas"; "Down In The Alley"; and Dylan's "Tomorrow Is A Long Time".

September/October 1967: sessions that included "Guitar Man"; "Big Boss Man"; "Hi-Heel Sneakers", again done in Nashville

January 1968: More Nashville recording, this time around recording "Too Much Monkey Business", and "U.S. Male."

And we don't need to mention working with Chips Moman in early 1969 which marked really the pinnacle of the Man's career, other than those twelve days of recording produced a mind-busting thirty-six tracks, four of which went on to become multi-million selling hits.

The trouble with critics is that they are too negative in their criticisms and that too many of them think they are the final word on an album, movie, TV show, play or whatever form of entertainment there is. I've never understood critics who delight in being vicious and malicious over anything creative or being so contemptive of people who are fans of a certain artist, album or actor. I sometimes wonder if a critic would consider his or her words carefully if those reading were allowed to criticize the critic in the same way he or she criticizes the artist or actor or art in question? I've got a feeling most of them couldn't take it.

I think Elvis definitely grew as an artist. He recorded songs which had a message to them (If I Can Dream, In The Ghetto, Clean Up Your Own Back Yard), recorded songs that were almost operatic (It's Now Or Never, Surrender), covered Philadelphia soul (Only The Strong Survive), recorded songs that seemed a bit spacey (Life) or had a strange, mystical feeling to them (I'm Leavin'), even recording a song featuring a sitar (You'll Think Of Me). All that plus a mix of rock, pop, country, blues, gospel. As the man himself said, "I sing all kinds." (Linda could make the same claim herself.) He also had the distinction of being the first pop music artist to have one of his concerts beamed by satellite to other countries and he was virtually the only singer to be modestly successful in the movies, despit the quality of most of those movies. He was often credited as the first musician to basically produce himself and come up with the arrangements although until the early to mid 70s, his records never credited him in a production capacity. Most of his records never listed a producer although I have seen a few records from the 60s on Elvis where Chet Atkins is listed as the producer on the record. Elvis dismissed Atkins as the technical producer after he caught him sleeping on the job during a session. Elvis grew as an artist, maybe not in the way critics like yet when some have the attitude that the only thing Elvis did that was important was the Sun recordings, you have to wonder did the critics truly listen at all to anything he did?

[erik]

You can't really satisfy the critics, anyway. Most artists, if they're honest with themselves (like Elvis or Linda), really don't cater and grovel. And most of the critics out there who do this kind of assailing have never sung a note or played an instrument with any kind of competency. It's kind of brutal to think of the millions of music fans who have been brainwashed like that.

In Elvis' case, when it comes to producing, it is very fascinating to note just how good he was at getting what he wanted down in the recording studio, which is something that those in the know, and not the critics, can testify to. One can also understand why Elvis often threw well-justified conniption fits when what he laid down in the studio wasn't what he heard in the finished product. Often his voice would be mixed too far in front of the band as opposed to him actually being a part of the band. He always suspected that RCA was mixing the records this way on orders from the Colonel, which, given what we know about the way he handled his one and only client's career, was probably true. And it always pointed out how the Colonel could often interfere in what Elvis knew best simply to squeeze a fast buck, but with the end result not really being Elvis at his best.

[sliderocker]

Most artists, I think, don't give two bits what any music critic thinks when it comes to their music, yet I think there are some artists who do pay attention to what the critics say. I thought a lot of the message rubbish that was so prevalent in a lot of the music of the late 60s and 70s was the result of critics hyping the belief that every song had to have a meaningful (political) message, although no doubt there were many superpretentious rock musicians who thought they had to pass along their pearls of wisdom through their songs.

Elvis did remarkably well in the studio when it came to producing, even more amazing when one considers what he was given to work with in the 60s on those movie soundtrack songs. Not every movie soundtrack song was a clinker but the gems were sometimes few and far between. As for the mixing of the albums, I know that some of Elvis's touring band members have criticized the various live albums RCA released because Elvis's vocal was mixed too far out in the front and the band and backing singers were mixed far down. I always thought the "Madison Square Garden" and "Aloha from Hawaii" albums sounded like they were poorly mixed and rushed. Most of the studio albums sounded okay although I recall reading on one album in the 70s, RCA sent Elvis a demo album of what was going to be his then-next release and Elvis was shocked to discover RCA had remixed the album in Nashville so that his vocals were up front and everything else was mixed to the back. Elvis deep-sixed that particular mix and had the album remixed to his standards. I don't know if RCA and/or Col. Parker were the culprits or whether it might've been Felton Jarvis who came up with the bad mix. Jarvis was the one who would add the vocal overdubs and orchestrations and additional instrumentation after getting the basic rhythm tracks and Elvis's vocal tracks. And he was the one who would work on the mixes, yet it seemed strange for a man who was so in tune to what Elvis wanted as to those final mixes would mix them not in the way Elvis wanted them to be mixed. Elvis blamed RCA and it might well have been them, but I also find it hard to believe they would've tried to second-guess Elvis's instinct, which had kept him successful for almost two decades by that point.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

Not every movie soundtrack song was a clinker but the gems were sometimes few and far between. As for the mixing of the albums, I know that some of Elvis's touring band members have criticized the various live albums RCA released because Elvis's vocal was mixed too far out in the front and the band and backing singers were mixed far down. I always thought the "Madison Square Garden" and "Aloha from Hawaii" albums sounded like they were poorly mixed and rushed.

With the movie songs, it's true that there were many gems out there: "Return To Sender" (from GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS!); "Bossa Nova Baby" (from FUN IN ACAPULCO); the title songs of "Kissin' Cousins", "Viva Las Vegas", and "Frankie And Johnny"; and the ubiquitous "Can't Help Falling In Love" (from BLUE HAWAII). Those are the movie songs that I think stand out when we're talking about his 1960s films; and they do make one mercifully forget "Song Of The Shrimp", etc., etc.

With the live albums, in particular the Madison Square Garden album was mixed and rushed rather fast because the Colonel wanted to outwit anyone who might try to sell a bootlegged recording of the shows. I think the musicians' complaints were right; but from a business standpoint, this is one ploy of the Colonel's that actually served his client well, since the album reached #11 on the Album Chart and sold 1.2 million copies, one of the biggest-selling live albums of that time; and Aloha From Hawaii, though plagued with some of the same problems that Elvis' musicians complained about on the MSG affair, did even better, actually getting to #1 (the King's last #1 album ever).

[sliderocker]

May 2, 2012 12:55:53 GMT -5 erik said:

With the movie songs, it's true that there were many gems out there: "Return To Sender" (from GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS!); "Bossa Nova Baby" (from FUN IN ACAPULCO); the title songs of "Kissin' Cousins", "Viva Las Vegas", and "Frankie And Johnny"; and the ubiquitous "Can't Help Falling In Love" (from BLUE HAWAII). Those are the movie songs that I think stand out when we're talking about his 1960s films; and they do make one mercifully forget "Song Of The Shrimp", etc., etc.

With the live albums, in particular the Madison Square Garden album was mixed and rushed rather fast because the Colonel wanted to outwit anyone who might try to sell a bootlegged recording of the shows. I think the musicians' complaints were right; but from a business standpoint, this is one ploy of the Colonel's that actually served his client well, since the album reached #11 on the Album Chart and sold 1.2 million copies, one of the biggest-selling live albums of that time; and Aloha From Hawaii, though plagued with some of the same problems that Elvis' musicians complained about on the MSG affair, did even better, actually getting to #1 (the King's last #1 album ever).

Arguably, I think Elvis's best movie soundtrack was the one that was never released originally as an album: "Viva Las Vegas," and I think that was because Parker and RCA couldn't get a soundtrack album with just Elvis on it. It had to have Ann Margret's two solo contributions and her two duets with Elvis. There were a few rejected songs like "Night Life" and "Do the Vega" (Parker's desperate attempt to create a dance craze manifested itself here with this ridiculuous song, about a year before "Do the Clam") which could've filled out an album of just Elvis but VLV was different from most of Elvis's movie musicals in that it was electric from start to finish, and the chemistry between Elvis and Ann gave it an added spark missing from many of Elvis's 1960s movies.

I'm not sure if the Madison Square Garden album was Parker's idea more than it was RCA's idea to record and release Elvis's New York City's appearance. The MSG album was a spur of the moment decision, forcing RCA at the time to cancel what was supposed to have been Elvis's next album, "Standing Room Only." When it came to the bootleggers, it was said Parker didn't have a problem with them because his view was that meant the act was hot with the public and couldn't get enough of the artist or band. He was alleged to have made a comment on the order of, "how many bootleg albums do you see on Paul Anka?"

But, the success of the MSG and AFHVS albums had to have made RCA scratch its corporate head in wondering why the live albums (with duplicated songs) were highly successful while the regular studio albums of new material were only moderately successful. Musically, Elvis was an enigma. All of his concerts were total sell-outs, even the embarrassing ones which according to some who place great value on artists touring to promote sales of new albums, should've meant the studio albums should've been near or at the top of the charts. But, that didn't happen, some barely sold enough to make gold while Elvis's live albums with their umpteenth versions of "See See Rider," throwaway versions of "Hound Dog" and gradually losing power versions of "Suspicious Minds" and all the others, all sold in the millions. I could see where the powers that be preferred the live material but the danger of that is that if you have much of the same material on each live album, fans grumble about that. And they were complaining about the repetition, yet where were any of these fans who were at any of the concerts when a new studio album was released? I always thought some of the concert-goers were fair weather fans or not fans at all, just people for whom Elvis was a night on the town and no particular interest in his or his music.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

But, the success of the MSG and AFHVS albums had to have made RCA scratch its corporate head in wondering why the live albums (with duplicated songs) were highly successful while the regular studio albums of new material were only moderately successful. Musically, Elvis was an enigma. All of his concerts were total sell-outs, even the embarrassing ones which according to some who place great value on artists touring to promote sales of new albums, should've meant the studio albums should've been near or at the top of the charts. But, that didn't happen, some barely sold enough to make gold while Elvis's live albums with their umpteenth versions of "See See Rider," throwaway versions of "Hound Dog" and gradually losing power versions of "Suspicious Minds" and all the others, all sold in the millions. I could see where the powers that be preferred the live material but the danger of that is that if you have much of the same material on each live album, fans grumble about that. And they were complaining about the repetition, yet where were any of these fans who were at any of the concerts when a new studio album was released? I always thought some of the concert-goers were fair weather fans or not fans at all, just people for whom Elvis was a night on the town and no particular interest in his or his music.

Well, pretty much after 1973 and the Aloha From Hawaii album, it became difficult to get Elvis into the studio because he was either going out on tours (sometimes as many as seven a year, which would kill anyone today), or he was so over-medicated that he wasn't thinking coherently enough. So in that sense, in order to meet his contractual obligations to RCA, he did live albums whose material often duplicated the last one. And when he did get into a studio, whether at Stax, at RCA's L.A. facility, or at Graceland itself (he stopped recording in Nashville after 1971), the results weren't always as consistently great as they had been between 1966 and 1971.

This isn't to say there weren't high points, because there were, maybe not Top 10 hits ("Burning Love" was Elvis' 37th and last such hit), but plenty of memorable stuff, and several Top 20 hits. Often, however, he would record a lot of very morose-sounding songs, either ballads or stuff with overdone arrangements, while Top 40 radio was a grab-bag of everything from disco to arena-rock to singer/songwriter material, and so on. It was something of a replay of the mid-60s, when he did those mediocre movie soundtracks while the Beatles and the British Invasion were dominating the charts. I think, though, that his state of mind had to do with the motivation towards morose balladry in the mid-70s, because, let's be honest, Elvis never got over the divorce from Priscilla, and the only way he felt could deal with it was to let it out the way he did, in the form of gut-wrenching stuff like "It's Midnight", and "Pieces Of My Life."

[sliderocker]

May 3, 2012 12:35:32 GMT -5 erik said:

Well, pretty much after 1973 and the Aloha From Hawaii album, it became difficult to get Elvis into the studio because he was either going out on tours (sometimes as many as seven a year, which would kill anyone today), or he was so over-medicated that he wasn't thinking coherently enough. So in that sense, in order to meet his contractual obligations to RCA, he did live albums whose material often duplicated the last one. And when he did get into a studio, whether at Stax, at RCA's L.A. facility, or at Graceland itself (he stopped recording in Nashville after 1971), the results weren't always as consistently great as they had been between 1966 and 1971.

This isn't to say there weren't high points, because there were, maybe not Top 10 hits ("Burning Love" was Elvis' 37th and last such hit), but plenty of memorable stuff, and several Top 20 hits. Often, however, he would record a lot of very morose-sounding songs, either ballads or stuff with overdone arrangements, while Top 40 radio was a grab-bag of everything from disco to arena-rock to singer/songwriter material, and so on. It was something of a replay of the mid-60s, when he did those mediocre movie soundtracks while the Beatles and the British Invasion were dominating the charts. I think, though, that his state of mind had to do with the motivation towards morose balladry in the mid-70s, because, let's be honest, Elvis never got over the divorce from Priscilla, and the only way he felt could deal with it was to let it out the way he did, in the form of gut-wrenching stuff like "It's Midnight", and "Pieces Of My Life."

Another part of the problem Elvis had when it came to his albums in the 70s was that whereas other artists could get by then with releasing a single new album every year or every other year, Parker still had Elvis obligated to releasing four to five new albums per year. And when Elvis put the kabosh on the publishing and avoided the studio because of the publishing hassles, Parker regarded live albums and reissues as the way for Elvis to meet his contractual album obligations. And if Elvis wasn't going to work in the recording studio, thereby costing Parker money, well, then, Elvis could go out on the road and stay on the road and poor ol' Parker could get his 50% commission for essentially doing nothing. There was no reason for Elvis to still be contractually obligated to releasing several new albums per year but I found it difficult for RCA to have been afraid enough of Parker to stand up to him and cut his publishing shenanigans out and kept them out of the studio. What could Parker have done? Taken Elvis to another record label? Parker had never worked with any other record label when he managed Eddy Arnold and Hank Snow. Both were RCA artists and both men's music careers and association with Parker and RCA dated back long before Parker got his slimey arms around Elvis.

Musically, I think what songs Elvis did were a direct result of his putting an end to the publishing hassles in the studio, and not having direct access to more original songs at the time. Parker's stupidity in wanting 25% of the publishing on a song when he could've had 100% of the publishing on an unpublished song was truly not a very bright idea. When it comes to Elvis never getting over Priscilla, I don't really know about that.In the beginning, I think it was the case but later on, the impression I've gotten from reading some of the accounts of his friends was that he was relieved to be rid of her. I thought Linda Thompson was a better choice for him but she didn't stick around either.

But, I thought the morose ballads were an indication of the state of mind Elvis was in, which combined with the medicines he was taking and the very real illnesses he was dealing with and the incessant touring, all pointed to an end everyone around him should've seen coming. Everyone blamed it on the drugs, which was true to some degree but his health went downhill around 1974 and he never really recovered. I think the constant touring and health problems played a much bigger role in his death than did the drugs.

Had Parker taken Elvis off of the road for a couple of years, given him time to work on getting back to a healthier state, things might have been different. That's what needed to happen but Parker always put the buck and his own self-interest ahead of Elvis's best interest. But, why Elvis never gave Parker the heave ho is something I'll never know.

[erik]

Quote bu sliderocker:

Had Parker taken Elvis off of the road for a couple of years, given him time to work on getting back to a healthier state, things might have been different. That's what needed to happen but Parker always put the buck and his own self-interest ahead of Elvis's best interest. But, why Elvis never gave Parker the heave ho is something I'll never know.

He definitely needed to get away from the things that were eating away at him. He didn't need to do Las Vegas after 1972; the only reason he kept on doing it was because the Colonel was such a rotten gambler and kept losing money, and the only way he could keep going was for Elvis to perform there for two engagements per year. Elvis also didn't need to do several tours a year like he was doing; one big two-month tour a year would, I think, have been more than enough to satiate the fans. The other thing Elvis needed was to spend much more time back home in Memphis, resting at Graceland and then making his albums in an atmosphere that kept his mind focused on what he did better than anybody, as he had done with Chips Moman in 1969.

There was that one time, back in '73, when he and the Colonel got into such a violent shouting match regarding the Hilton's firing of Elvis' favorite waiter there that he actually fired the Colonel. But that lasted all of maybe 48 hours, because, when the Colonel tabulated the bill for money owed to him, it ended up being somewhere north of $2 million, and Elvis' father advised his son that it was money they didn't have. And because Elvis was bought up to respect authority and not question it, he took the path of least resistance, which, as has been all too well documented, was to his detriment in every way, shape, and form imaginable.

[sliderocker]

May 4, 2012 8:54:00 GMT -5 erik said:

He definitely needed to get away from the things that were eating away at him. He didn't need to do Las Vegas after 1972; the only reason he kept on doing it was because the Colonel was such a rotten gambler and kept losing money, and the only way he could keep going was for Elvis to perform there for two engagements per year. Elvis also didn't need to do several tours a year like he was doing; one big two-month tour a year would, I think, have been more than enough to satiate the fans. The other thing Elvis needed was to spend much more time back home in Memphis, resting at Graceland and then making his albums in an atmosphere that kept his mind focused on what he did better than anybody, as he had done with Chips Moman in 1969.

There was that one time, back in '73, when he and the Colonel got into such a violent shouting match regarding the Hilton's firing of Elvis' favorite waiter there that he actually fired the Colonel. But that lasted all of maybe 48 hours, because, when the Colonel tabulated the bill for money owed to him, it ended up being somewhere north of $2 million, and Elvis' father advised his son that it was money they didn't have. And because Elvis was bought up to respect authority and not question it, he took the path of least resistance, which, as has been all too well documented, was to his detriment in every way, shape, and form imaginable.

Had Parker arranged a world tour for Elvis, I think Elvis would've risen to that challenge, even if such a world tour had to be laid out over different parts of time. For Elvis, playing Vegas two or three times a year and then hitting the same cities he had been to just a few months to a year before had to have gotten old and tiring. But, of course, Parker would never arrange a world tour because he wasn't a legal US citizen, didn't have a birth certificate and couldn't get a passport , so he couldn't go along on any world tour and he didn't trust those around him or around Elvis to let them run the show.

And if not a world tour, Elvis wanted desperately to get back into making some movies. Bad enough to the point that he was willing to produce them himself and try his hand at writing the story line and maybe even the script! But again, it was a case of what Parker wanted to do and not what Elvis wanted to do, and all Parker wanted to do was keep Elvis out on the road in the US, same cities, year after year.

I thought Elvis's dad gave Elvis some very bad advice in keeping Parker on board rather than paying him off to be rid of him, or hiring a lawyer to have severed the ties with Parker and possibly owe him nothing in the end. Parker would had to have shown a court just what he had done for Elvis that entitled him to a further two million dollars, and with Parker having raised his management commission from a quarter, then to a third and then to half, I don't think he would've much luck with a judge. Plus the 1973 buyout whereby Parker made more money on the deal than did Elvis, the low artist royalty rate Elvis was getting - which was the same rate he had received in 1956. Then, the royalty was a great deal but Parker never sought an increase in the artist royalty rate nor did he ever ask RCA that Elvis receive a producer's royalty. And Elvis never got as much money as what he could have on those road tours and in Vegas. It was sad and downright pathetic that a third rate celebrity performer in Vegas could make more money one night in Vegas than what Parker had Vegas paying Elvis for a month of performances. Vegas wasn't even profitable for Elvis because of having to pay for all of the musicians, singers and extra security just to play there. All that should've come from Parker to some degree or billed as incidental fees for Elvis's services to the hotel.

The problem with Elvis's dad was that having been through the depression and having gone to prison for a forged check after Elvis was born, he was tight with a buck. He hated the thought of Elvis spending a single dollar on anything, even though Elvis had told him on many occasions, "Daddy! It's my money!" Elvis's dad believed that if Elvis got rid of Parker, the money would've come to an end and Elvis would be broke. There was never any danger of that happening because if anything, another manager could've gotten Elvis at the very least ten times the amount of whatever Parker had gotten for him.

But, I also think Elvis had a trust issue when it came to taking on anyone else as a manager and that trust issue was borne from his dealings with Parker. Elvis knew far too well what Parker had or hadn't done for or to him and since Elvis had never worked with any other manager, he may have felt another manager would've done the same things Parker had done and he would've been in the same trap.

Ironically, if you look at any of the other artists who dropped their managers or lost them in some way and who took on another manager, some of them had careers that came to an end or wasn't even a quarter of what they were in their prime. The Beatles lost Epstein through death and while they managed to last another two years without him with Allan Klein representing John, George and Ringo and Paul's father-in-law representing him, their personal relationships soured as Klein and Eastman played the Beatles against each other. A different manager might have done just great for Elvis at the beginning (as Parker had done at the beginning) but as time went on, that manager might have become as lethargic and as poisonous to Elvis as what Parker had become. And with Elvis, I think he preferred the devil he knew to the devil he didn't know.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

And with Elvis, I think he preferred the devil he knew to the devil he didn't know.

Truer and sadder words about Elvis were never spoken, I have to say. And yet, it's important to remember that for all the demons he had, from his manager to his own endless dependency on prescription drugs, the innovative music that he created on his own, and the style that he helped to cultivate, are really what we have been blessed with. Without him, it might have always remained a musically segregated world; and without him, there likely wouldn't have been the Beatles, the Eagles, or even Linda for that matter. What he and his contemporaries began in the 1950s remains perhaps the most important American cultural revolution ever (IMHO).

[the Scribe]

I think someone may have risen to the call if Elvis was never born. Even today there is such great talent that goes unheard that who knows what would happen if there was a void to fill? I think Linda would have made it no matter what. She had a natural talent that could not be denied but even more had that drive and stick-to-it-ive-ness that propelled her even in the midst of all of her insecurities. I had a girlfriend with a voice I can only compare as a cross between Linda Ronstadt and Karen Carpenter. Just as strong, just as clear but she did not have that drive needed to sustain her. I think she married a deadbeat (not me ... ha) and later divorced with a kid in tow. I am sure she has many more regrets than Linda.

Elvis's daddy and step-mom (Dee) were regulars on the talk show circuit in the early 70's. It is always interesting to see the families of the very famous, hear their stories and discover they turned out to be schmucks like everyone else.

[sliderocker]

May 4, 2012 15:07:23 GMT -5 the Scribe said:

I think someone may have risen to the call if Elvis was never born. Even today there is such great talent that goes unheard that who knows what would happen if there was a void to fill? I think Linda would have made it no matter what. She had a natural talent that could not be denied but even more had that drive and stick-to-it-ive-ness that propelled her even in the midst of all of her insecurities. I had a girlfriend with a voice I can only compare as a cross between Linda Ronstadt and Karen Carpenter. Just as strong, just as clear but she did not have that drive needed to sustain her. I think she married a deadbeat (not me ... ha) and later divorced with a kid in tow. I am sure she has many more regrets than Linda.

Elvis's daddy and step-mom (Dee) were regulars on the talk show circuit in the early 70's. It is always interesting to see the families of the very famous, hear their stories and discover they turned out to be schmucks like everyone else.

I think it's kind of questionable as to whether someone else could've come along and filled the void if Elvis had never been born. Look at all the record companies that swooped up every artist in the wake of Elvis's rise, all thinking they had someone who was going to be just as good as Elvis and yet, most of them flamed out within a short matter of months or years. Some of them were songwriters, some couldn't write songs but they didn't have Elvis's talent, charisma, humility or looks. I think a good manager or record company would had to have been on the look out for someone like Elvis to have made it happen but you've got to remember the times out of which Elvis came. The truth is, not only did they not know what to look out for, they didn't really care about younger singers who might appeal to younger audiences. The kids could like the music their parents and grandparents liked, which was the safe pop pablum offered by the likes of Crosby, Sinatra, Fisher, Bennett, et al. Whatever it was Elvis had, only he had it.

As for Linda, would she still have been a singer? Probably though she might have become one of the queens of country making the kind of country music she dislikes. I couldn't have seen her being a pop-styled crooner although she might well have. Just imagine a world where Elvis was never the rock catalyst that turned the world upside down, but that it was Linda who had launched the rock revolution. How different would the world of the 1950s that found it so hard to accept Elvis, would it have been for that same mindset to have accepted Linda if the rock revolution had begun in the 60s with her as the leader? They probably would've skewered and crucified her with the same hatred and venom they used to attack Elvis and the other rockers and R&B artists once rock took hold. The 1950s were that kind of ugly world.

I don't ever recall seeing Elvis's dad on the talk show circuit. His health really was bad and he died just barely two years after Elvis died. He was divorced for some time from Dee, who became a pathetic embarrassment as far as knowing what went on inside Elvis's world, which wasn't much. But, she always pretended like she was a witness to it all. When you consider she'd say anything just to get attention, from spewing garbage like Elvis was gay to saying Elvis had an incestuous relationship with his mother, her credibility was pretty much below zero. Even her own sons, whose collective credibility was not that much higher than hers distanced themselves from some of the wild things she later said about Elvis.