View Full Version : sony vs bmg
lvs2day
10-21-2009, 10:09 AM
was listening to the ol release of rythm and country and remembered what a great cd tghis was and still is i remember how great bmg was at putting out some great product even for joe public to enjoy, it seems ever since they merged with sony that the projects have bin dismal and uninspiring to say the least , i know we have a collectors label for serious fans but what about those who are just not that serious having an outlet like this just might bring in new blood and i'm sure bmg/sony needs it badly, so your thoughts?
debtdbruno
10-21-2009, 01:23 PM
Is this the EssentialElvis vol 5.........???
If it is, I love this cd, one of my favourites.
elvisville
10-21-2009, 01:58 PM
i don't think the general public are interested in that type of release, they just want hits collections , i don't really think they would appreciate alternate takes and studio banter, that kinda stuff is aimed at the diehards i think.
elvisville
10-21-2009, 02:00 PM
i don't think the general public are interested in that type of release, they just want hits collections , i don't really think they would appreciate alternate takes and studio banter, that kinda stuff is aimed at the diehards i think.
i used the word think too many times in that reply, lol.
Albert
10-21-2009, 02:03 PM
BMG sucked at marketing Elvis just as much as RCA during Elvis' lifetime. They had difficulties selling 'the other side of ELvis'. But at times, they released some wonderful albums (as the one you've mentioned). But they did a horrible job maintaining Elvis' catalogue, the artist that earned them billions.
When Sony and BMG merged, I expected a change: reissues of ELvis' original albums in high quality (like those old 24bit Japanese DCC releases of ELvis albums). We, the fans, know for decades that Elvis is much more than 'Teddy Bear' and 'Dont Be Cruel', just as Ernst does. I thought/hoped that this new BMG/Sony combination finally wanted to pay tribute to Elvis and present his material the best way possible.
I also thought that a few years ago BMG/Sony said that they would stop releasing those meaningless 'best of' compilation and would focus on a streamlined, highquality catalogue.
So far, I'm quite dissapointed. There's too much for the masses, too little for the fans and way too little effort to win new fans.
debtdbruno
10-21-2009, 02:29 PM
Spot on Albert
Jungleroom76
10-21-2009, 02:45 PM
BMG sucked at marketing Elvis just as much as RCA during Elvis' lifetime. They had difficulties selling 'the other side of ELvis'. But at times, they released some wonderful albums (as the one you've mentioned). But they did a horrible job maintaining Elvis' catalogue, the artist that earned them billions.
When Sony and BMG merged, I expected a change: reissues of ELvis' original albums in high quality (like those old 24bit Japanese DCC releases of ELvis albums). We, the fans, know for decades that Elvis is much more than 'Teddy Bear' and 'Dont Be Cruel', just as Ernst does. I thought/hoped that this new BMG/Sony combination finally wanted to pay tribute to Elvis and present his material the best way possible.
I also thought that a few years ago BMG/Sony said that they would stop releasing those meaningless 'best of' compilation and would focus on a streamlined, highquality catalogue.
So far, I'm quite dissapointed. There's too much for the masses, too little for the fans and way too little effort to win new fans.
Couldn't have said it better myself Albert!!! :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy
The one positive thing that we can be thankful for though, is that RCA/BMG/Sony/Heritage/Legacy (whichever one they are called these days :blink:) agreed with Ernst's vision for the FTD label, or just imagine all of the wonderful material that FTD has released that we would probably never have seen released through the mainstream releases... :hmm:
TCB!
Mike
I think that its hard to market someone who is dead and left very very little material which was truely new and unreleased.
If we do not want remixes, duets, or new backing tracks behind existing recordings then what is there? Only repackages and reissues.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/elvis+presley/albums.html
This link shows 421 albums under Elvis and it is not a complete list.
Most are just repackages and mixing of material from Elvis's long career.
I know the greatest hits packages have been done to death (long before Sony took over) but someone must explain what else there is that can be done which really has not been done.
The albums have been systematically remastered with added bonus tracks and outtakes, the country cuts have been highlighted in several albums , so have early rock, 60s movie music, love songs, gospel, and the 69 sessions.
70s music has had several albums culled from the output of the 70s.
Lets face it-its a very very limited proposition.
I cut Sony/BMG/RCA no slack-but they better than we realize the limits of using the same 750 songs over and over in some way.
They know we fans tire of reissues with little new added-but what choice have they?
I think the fact that they do continue to try to market Elvis shows they are not saying "the heck with it"
Perhaps we want more promotion-but they are not going to do Elvis 30#1s type promotions...... every year. It just does not pay for them to plan and spend for that type of campaign-they will pick and choose their moments.
In the meantime they will put out the reissues and try to generate new fans as cheaply as possible. Its just plain and simple business-low overhead and as much profit as they can.
I'm am not saying I do not wish they worked more at it-but I am realistic to the problems of the situation. They could just do what has been done for Jim Reeves and Hank Williams all the way back to the 50s-which is practically nothing Reeves albums have been reissued with little or no promotion for decades Williams has had a little more promotion over the years(especially since his son Hank Jr has helped)
I am not taking the labels side-but they can not make new things if they have nothing new in the vaults. They will push what sells easily and save big promotion for special things.
I think that its hard to market someone who is dead and left very very little material which was truely new and unreleased.
If we do not want remixes, duets, or new backing tracks behind existing recordings then what is there? Only repackages and reissues.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/elvis+presley/albums.html
This link shows 421 albums under Elvis and it is not a complete list.
Most are just repackages and mixing of material from Elvis's long career.
I know the greatest hits packages have been done to death (long before Sony took over) but someone must explain what else there is that can be done which really has not been done.
The albums have been systematically remastered with added bonus tracks and outtakes, the country cuts have been highlighted in several albums , so have early rock, 60s movie music, love songs, gospel, and the 69 sessions.
70s music has had several albums culled from the output of the 70s.
Lets face it-its a very very limited proposition.
I cut Sony/BMG/RCA no slack-but they better than we realize the limits of using the same 750 songs over and over in some way.
They know we fans tire of reissues with little new added-but what choice have they?
I think the fact that they do continue to try to market Elvis shows they are not saying "the heck with it"
Perhaps we want more promotion-but they are not going to do Elvis 30#1s type promotions...... every year. It just does not pay for them to plan and spend for that type of campaign-they will pick and choose their moments.
In the meantime they will put out the reissues and try to generate new fans as cheaply as possible. Its just plain and simple business-low overhead and as much profit as they can.
I'm am not saying I do not wish they worked more at it-but I am realistic to the problems of the situation. They could just do what has been done for Jim Reeves and Hank Williams all the way back to the 50s-which is practically nothing Reeves albums have been reissued with little or no promotion for decades Williams has had a little more promotion over the years(especially since his son Hank Jr has helped)
I am not taking the labels side-but they can not make new things if they have nothing new in the vaults. They will push what sells easily and save big promotion for special things.
Very well said.You can only package the same material in so many ways after all these years.He's been gone a long time.I think it's been better than it was in the past though.The legacy edition of From Elvis In Memphis was nice.No matter what though it's still the same songs over and over.The public and most fans dont really have an interest in the stuff FTD puts out.
Jumpsuit Junkie
10-22-2009, 05:06 AM
FTD do a good Job with what material they have unearthed over the years, there is very little left that would surprise us, if any! Ernst has done us proud, but we always knew that there wasn't an exhaustive supply of out-takes..
To be honest a good package of Elvis hits in the best quality every few years is the way to go (perhaps with footage if that can be done). FTD can still produce some stuff for the die hard fans who still want to collect remastered out-takes etc.
The fans who have been around for decades will be selective regarding purchases, there is a limit to what they will re-buy.
SleepyJack
10-22-2009, 12:30 PM
Actually I think that they were definitely heading in the right direction with the "Essential" series... particularly with 4,5 and 6. Many people I`ve met,people who wouldn`t normally listen to a lot of Elvis have commented on these albums and been impressed.There isn`t a lot of applause coming my way for Sony/BMG/RCA etc. but in this case there is.
debtdbruno
10-22-2009, 12:53 PM
Agree there SJ, 4,5,and 6 are some of my most played discs
SleepyJack
10-22-2009, 01:02 PM
Agree there SJ, 4,5,and 6 are some of my most played discs
Same here,something about these albums just makes sense to me...shows you what can be done when the effort is put in. I think one reason for it is that they don`t hop around from era to era,you aren`t listening to the early `60s voice one minute and then being hit with the early `70s voice right after it before being bounced back to good ol` mono Rock`n`Roll from the `50s..... it all makes more sense that way.
I remember playing the "A hundred years from now" album for a friend of mine who is well into the whole country-rock side of things and he was convinced that the tracks must have been made with new backings etc.... very very surprised to find that,if anything,this was mostly what was really recorded in the studio.
Same here,something about these albums just makes sense to me...shows you what can be done when the effort is put in. I think one reason for it is that they don`t hop around from era to era,you aren`t listening to the early `60s voice one minute and then being hit with the early `70s voice right after it before being bounced back to good ol` mono Rock`n`Roll from the `50s..... it all makes more sense that way.
I remember playing the "A hundred years from now" album for a friend of mine who is well into the whole country-rock side of things and he was convinced that the tracks must have been made with new backings etc.... very very surprised to find that,if anything,this was mostly what was really recorded in the studio.
I had a similar experience with a cousin who is not into Elvis all that much-he thought the Rhythm and Country album had been remixed with added instruments to give it a more modern sound. I don't think he ever really believed the truth that it was as recorded while Elvis was alive.:D
Jungleroom76
10-22-2009, 01:26 PM
I think that its hard to market someone who is dead and left very very little material which was truely new and unreleased.
If we do not want remixes, duets, or new backing tracks behind existing recordings then what is there? Only repackages and reissues.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/elvis+presley/albums.html
This link shows 421 albums under Elvis and it is not a complete list.
Most are just repackages and mixing of material from Elvis's long career.
I know the greatest hits packages have been done to death (long before Sony took over) but someone must explain what else there is that can be done which really has not been done.
The albums have been systematically remastered with added bonus tracks and outtakes, the country cuts have been highlighted in several albums , so have early rock, 60s movie music, love songs, gospel, and the 69 sessions.
70s music has had several albums culled from the output of the 70s.
Lets face it-its a very very limited proposition.
I cut Sony/BMG/RCA no slack-but they better than we realize the limits of using the same 750 songs over and over in some way.
They know we fans tire of reissues with little new added-but what choice have they?
I think the fact that they do continue to try to market Elvis shows they are not saying "the heck with it"
Perhaps we want more promotion-but they are not going to do Elvis 30#1s type promotions...... every year. It just does not pay for them to plan and spend for that type of campaign-they will pick and choose their moments.
In the meantime they will put out the reissues and try to generate new fans as cheaply as possible. Its just plain and simple business-low overhead and as much profit as they can.
I'm am not saying I do not wish they worked more at it-but I am realistic to the problems of the situation. They could just do what has been done for Jim Reeves and Hank Williams all the way back to the 50s-which is practically nothing Reeves albums have been reissued with little or no promotion for decades Williams has had a little more promotion over the years(especially since his son Hank Jr has helped)
I am not taking the labels side-but they can not make new things if they have nothing new in the vaults. They will push what sells easily and save big promotion for special things.
WELL SAID KEN!!! :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy
TCB!
Mike
debtdbruno
10-22-2009, 01:42 PM
Same here,something about these albums just makes sense to me...shows you what can be done when the effort is put in. I think one reason for it is that they don`t hop around from era to era,you aren`t listening to the early `60s voice one minute and then being hit with the early `70s voice right after it before being bounced back to good ol` mono Rock`n`Roll from the `50s..... it all makes more sense that way.
I remember playing the "A hundred years from now" album for a friend of mine who is well into the whole country-rock side of things and he was convinced that the tracks must have been made with new backings etc.... very very surprised to find that,if anything,this was mostly what was really recorded in the studio.
I like the live shows, good to hear how he performed and how the audience reacted to him. However I don't think you can beat hearing him working in the studio, and being a fly on the wall to all the banter between them.
Also, I prefer his music pure, with less orchestration, it overwhelmes his vocals sometimes.
Jungleroom76
10-22-2009, 01:49 PM
I like the live shows, good to hear how he performed and how the audience reacted to him.
Plus...you never know if he will sing some unusual gem, like WOODEN HEART on the DINNER AT EIGHT FTD or RETURN TO SENDER on the upcoming NEW HAVEN '76 FTD. Yes, listening to his concerts can become a bit monotonous because he didn't change up his set lists too often, but still...when you come across one of those rare live gems, it makes it all worthwhile!!! ;)
However I don't think you can beat hearing him working in the studio, and being a fly on the wall to all the banter between them.
Also, I prefer his music pure, with less orchestration, it overwhelmes his vocals sometimes.
ABSOLUTELY!!! One of the more recent FTD's, ELVIS GOLD' RECORDS VOL. 2, has the session outtakes from the June '58 sessions where Elvis recorded I GOT STUNG, A FOOL SUCH AS I and I NEED YOUR LOVE TONIGHT and while the mainstream, casual Elvis fans might not find the interest in listening to 24 takes in a row of I GOT STUNG, for us Elvis fans, it is the next best thing to being in the studio with Elvis....just to listen to him perfecting his craft!!! It is absolutely amazing!!! :king: (y)
TCB!
Mike
debtdbruno
10-22-2009, 02:02 PM
Yeh............
The latest FTD of JR............22 takes of 'Young and Beautiful'...........fabulous!!!! one of my fav 50's songs
Unchained Melody
10-22-2009, 02:07 PM
I couldn't agree more Mike.
If we want to see unreleased material, FTD is what we have to look forward to. So its good we keep supporting the label to keep getting the unreleased material. I don't expect nothing but re issues from bmg though.
Raised on Rock
10-22-2009, 03:30 PM
I
I cut Sony/BMG/RCA no slack-but they better than we realize the limits of using the same 750 songs over and over in some way.
FTD aside, but talking about general public releases (the best of, greatest hits, country, love song, type of cd's) the thing to me is, they haven not used those 750 songs to the limit, they have done that with the same old usual 250 well known songs, we had like a hundred "best of" type of cd's with the same dam 250 songs.
There is a whole array of Elvis music (in many cases some of his best sides), that still remains totally unknown to the fans. There is still a chance to market that music to a general audience, both for their own profit and also at Elvis benefit, a chance that had mostly remained death.
I think BMG back in the 90's was doing a better job than Sony, stuff like: Artist of The Century, Platinum, and the follow up to the Essential series were moves over the right direction. Sure, and album full of alternate takes, was not of everybody interest, but as some stories have come up already on this thread, there were quite some people (non fan people I mean) discovering a new side of Elvis, and liking it, one beyond the same old top 10 hits and beloved love songs.
FTD is fantastic for us fans, but it is also creating a very elitist audience for Elvis music beyond the greatest hits, and does not brings a lot of new fans to the map.
Stuff like audience recordings, full sessions and all that is perfect for FTD, but stuff like the Classic Albums series (not all of them), could have worked more than well to restore and revive Elvis mainstream catalogue, delivering the original album, and a extra CD full of new stuff.
Also some the thematic releases could make to the mainstream, as they were the old essential series, ones that although they were not chart toppers at all, were starting to get nice reviews in the specialized critic, helping to rediscover a new Elvis, to a new audience, something that stopped to happen with Sony and a mile of best of CD's, totally a step back to the 80's.
Raised on Rock
10-22-2009, 03:58 PM
Same here,something about these albums just makes sense to me...shows you what can be done when the effort is put in. I think one reason for it is that they don`t hop around from era to era,you aren`t listening to the early `60s voice one minute and then being hit with the early `70s voice right after it before being bounced back to good ol` mono Rock`n`Roll from the `50s..... it all makes more sense that way.
I remember playing the "A hundred years from now" album for a friend of mine who is well into the whole country-rock side of things and he was convinced that the tracks must have been made with new backings etc.... very very surprised to find that,if anything,this was mostly what was really recorded in the studio.
Totally get what you are saying, with a few exceptions, never a big fan of mixing different eras on the same cd. Those type of cd's do not help people outside Elvis world, to get the right picture, the right context of each song, so you could appreciate the relevance of the track.
Thematic releases, help to understand the man better, thematic by historic context, rather than music style (no best of country, gospel, love, but in the vein of: Sunrise Elvis, Elvis '56, Suspicious Minds, Memories, remember those? the Essential Elvis series for sure. FTD has done a wonderful work on that line, but not much has been done outside of it after Sony came in. The thing here is, that I'm talking about presenting Elvis as an artist, while Sony would only care to present Elvis as, let's cash in once again on this.
So about the question in this thread:
I thing BMG was thinking a little bit more far sighted by trying to re introduce Elvis and different sides of him to new audiences, those where the 50's, 60's & 70's boxsets, Platinium, Artist of the Century, the 90's follow ups to the Essential series, all of the moderate success in terms of money making, but successful in their reviews, and introducing a different and a lesser known side of Elvis to the mainstream, also restoring his credibility as a serious musician/artist, (one beyond Viva las Vegas) to the mainstream press.
Sony is rather cashing in the easy way with what Elvis is already well known for, the big hits. Leaving FTD to exist just to exploit and cash in with what was on the vaults with a buying public that needs no marketing. When the vaults are empty, and most of the original Elvis fans on the grave, consider it done. Something that is not necessarily wrong, but what is being done to introduce Elvis to the new generations beyond the 50 most well known songs? beyond: introducing the hit making machine, those where his hits, that's it, bye bye, thanks for the money.
Jungleroom76
10-22-2009, 04:19 PM
FTD aside, but talking about general public releases (the best of, greatest hits, country, love song, type of cd's) the thing to me is, they haven not used those 750 songs to the limit, they have done that with the same old usual 250 well known songs, we had like a hundred "best of" type of cd's with the same dam 250 songs.
There is a whole array of Elvis music (in many cases some of his best sides), that still remains totally unknown to the fans. There is still a chance to market that music to a general audience, both for their own profit and also at Elvis benefit, a chance that had mostly remained death.
Precisely right Raised on Rock!!! (y)
And I think that BMG is heading in the right direction with the upcoming ELVIS75 - GOOD ROCKIN' TONIGHT box set!! Just look at some of the lesser known, lesser used songs that are going to be included:
* MY HAPPINESS
* ONE SIDED LOVE AFFAIR
* I'M GONNA SIT RIGHT DOWN AND CRY (OVER YOU)
* PARALYZED
* THE THRILL OF YOUR LOVE
* DOIN' THE BEST I CAN
* THERE'S ALWAYS ME
* JUDY
* I NEED SOMEBODY TO LEAN ON
* IT HURTS ME
* THIS IS MY HEAVEN
* TOMORROW IS A LONG TIME
* I'M LEAVIN'
* LOVING ARMS
* GOOD TIME CHARLIE'S GOT THE BLUES
While all of the usual suspects are included on the set too (HOUND DOG, DON'T BE CRUEL, etc.) for the millionth time, the fact that the above listed songs are being included on a mainstream release proves (at least for this release) that BMG seems to be digging a little deeper into the regular Elvis catalog to come up with some lesser-known songs to hopefully pull in some new fans.
Of course, there are dozens of other lesser-used songs that could have been included in this set to really open the Elvis catalog up to the new, casual Elvis fans...but one step at a time... :hmm: ;)
Let's hope this is THAT step in the right direction!!! :D
TCB!
Mike
FTD aside, but talking about general public releases (the best of, greatest hits, country, love song, type of cd's) the thing to me is, they haven not used those 750 songs to the limit, they have done that with the same old usual 250 well known songs, we had like a hundred "best of" type of cd's with the same dam 250 songs.
There is a whole array of Elvis music (in many cases some of his best sides), that still remains totally unknown to the fans. There is still a chance to market that music to a general audience, both for their own profit and also at Elvis benefit, a chance that had mostly remained death.
I think BMG back in the 90's was doing a better job than Sony, stuff like: Artist of The Century, Platinum, and the follow up to the Essential series were moves over the right direction. Sure, and album full of alternate takes, was not of everybody interest, but as some stories have come up already on this thread, there were quite some people (non fan people I mean) discovering a new side of Elvis, and liking it, one beyond the same old top 10 hits and beloved love songs.
FTD is fantastic for us fans, but it is also creating a very elitist audience for Elvis music beyond the greatest hits, and does not brings a lot of new fans to the map.
Stuff like audience recordings, full sessions and all that is perfect for FTD, but stuff like the Classic Albums series (not all of them), could have worked more than well to restore and revive Elvis mainstream catalogue, delivering the original album, and a extra CD full of new stuff.
Also some the thematic releases could make to the mainstream, as they were the old essential series, ones that although they were not chart toppers at all, were starting to get nice reviews in the specialized critic, helping to rediscover a new Elvis, to a new audience, something that stopped to happen with Sony and a mile of best of CD's, totally a step back to the 80's.
Perhaps unknown to the general public or a casual fan-but I would think most "fans" have by now got most of his music (unless they are very very young)
IMO unless we want Sony to start working on new modern backing for some of the more obscure good songs-or remixes- its very unlikely that a song like "Let Yourself Go" (which I have heard fans want to be spotlighted or remixed) is just going to be dated sounding.
Well of the 750 songs-lets not forget that a good portion are movie music-31 films with an average of about 7-8 songs a film (so lets say without going to the trouble of actually counting) thats about 220-250 movie songs-and all have been released and released The majority of those songs are only of interest to us fans.
That leaves about around 250 songs left you say have not been used to the fullest. I would assume that if they are not covered as well as you like-that the labels just do not see potential in the songs to sell or grab new fans.
I think the best music is the 1950s, the early 60s and then the late 60s till his death.
Reissue after reissue have highlighed this music very well IMO.
I posted an incomplete list of Elvis music on album-"421 albums" on an earlier post-and I think everything Elvis ever recorded has been released, rereleased and repackaged many times over.
Once again...... I am not taking the labels side-just trying to look at it from a realistic view of what they can and can not do.
We want the labels to run like we would run them-promoting Elvis to the fullest-but no label is a fan club-they are a business and they can not run by the standards you and I would use as fans.
They answer to a board of directors , stock holders, etc.........and a person put in charge of running the Elvis line will who makes decisions as a fan-would end up out of work quickly if the choices they make "which involve large costly promotional campaigns" do not pay off.
So someone who may actually love Elvis music (like Ernst) who is involved in planning releases and promotions has to be mindful of what the label will and will not go for-and if he oversteps or misteps he may be out of work.
His replacement may have no love for Elvis music beyond profit-and then its even worse.
Elvis 30#1s was well thought out, well promoted and the label did go to expense to push it-and with the hype of digital remastering and "30#1s" plus the added ALLC success and it did well.
They then try a couple years later Elvis 2nd to None-they did spend and promote it-but it did not do as well.
I see where its frustrating to us fans-I share in it at times-but without huge profits for a release-no label is going to work on using the less known songs to construct a huge campaign on.
The label will say
"the songs which made Elvis the top seller in the world had to be good and those are the ones which will have the best chance of drawing new fans................and if those can't bring new fans why should songs which were not his biggest hits?"
Frustrating I know but there is a logic to the argument.
Very well said.You can only package the same material in so many ways after all these years.He's been gone a long time.I think it's been better than it was in the past though.The legacy edition of From Elvis In Memphis was nice.No matter what though it's still the same songs over and over.The public and most fans dont really have an interest in the stuff FTD puts out.
Just saw that the other day and it was well done also heard of a new box set in December
OCTOBER 13, 2009
LEGACY RECORDING COMMEMORATING
ELVIS PRESLEY'S 75TH BIRTHDAY WITH THE RELEASE OF
ELVIS 75 - GOOD ROCKIN' TONIGHT,
THE ULTIMATE CAREER-SPANNING BOXED SET
Four CD Set Featuring 100 Songs & 80 Page Booklet
Available Everywhere On Tuesday, December 8
* * * * *
Raised on Rock
10-22-2009, 04:53 PM
FTD do a good Job with what material they have unearthed over the years, there is very little left that would surprise us... To be honest a good package of Elvis hits in the best quality every few years is the way to go.
Us... the fans. But there are tons of material to surprise the non fans, we fans constantly talk about how we surprise people showing to them, "another" Elvis, something that is not those same old big hits, and how actually their reaction is positive, so just more repacking of Elvis hits is really the way to go?
Yet somehow, you are right, that is the most plausible future for Elvis right now.
Raised on Rock
10-22-2009, 05:32 PM
Perhaps unknown to the general public or a casual fan-but I would think most "fans" have by now got most of his music (unless they are very very young)
That's what I mean, general public its something that has to be reached, fans are already fans, most of us might not even need new releases, yet, business wise, to work a new fan base, is priority, let's face it, most of the " I buy it all" Elvis fans are the oldest ones, and they won't be there (no disrespect) more than 20 years.
Those new audiences could be reached with new thematic releases, with lesser known songs, (not with modern new backing tracks, that would be a very bad idea, no overdubs and not well known material would be enough, your story about your relative proves it), portraying a more obscure Elvis, more than obscure, simply portraying Elvis as it was beyond the hits.
But you said it well, I am talking about to make people familiar with the artist beyond the hits, while the logic is as you well pointed:
"the songs which made Elvis the top seller in the world had to be good and those are the ones which will have the best chance of drawing new fans................and if those can't bring new fans why should songs which were not his biggest hits?" But its a sad logic and shorts sighted, isn't actually the array of music beyond his hits, what made of us fans of many different generations, the crazy abnegated, caring and loyal fans that had made those bastards millionaires?
In my own experienced, I've noticed more interest on Elvis music, both on the press, as in non Elvis fans but music fans near to me, in the days when BMG did stuff like the Essentials, Tiger Man and Platinum, than with the #30 hits stuff (which was a smart hits compilation anyway) and the thousands repacking of his then after.
I've noticed a clear effort during the 90's to reintroduce to the word (not just that elitist Us the fans) Elvis Presley as a serious artist and it did pay off, not much maybe in terms of $$$, but did in the critics, reviews in getting many new dedicated $$$ fans.
This decade, written by sony seemed to trashed away those efforts, in favor of the marvelous logic that has permeated Elvis history: let's milk once again that cow, until is death.
Now, that cow is not dead yet, but his life went exile to FTD, wonderful stuff happening there, Beatle Fans, Stones Fans, whoever fans envy us for having FTD, Ernts is the Man, but what will happen, when most of Elvis fans are with the man, and the younger ones, well they already have it all ???
The question is:
Repack hits and more hits till burn him out like in the 80's? or to start finding a way to cleverly re -establish Elvis catalogue (both the original and the worthy outakes) not just for the fans but to general audience, thinking ahead in time, for the days when both FTD is long gone (nothing else to do) and so gone will be most of Elvis original fans, (the younger ones death into buying apathy cause we have it all).
Brian
10-22-2009, 05:42 PM
I agree with you Raised on Rock I said the exact same things in another thread.
Raised on Rock
10-22-2009, 05:42 PM
Precisely right Raised on Rock!!! (y)
And I think that BMG is heading in the right direction with the upcoming ELVIS75 - GOOD ROCKIN' TONIGHT box set!! Just look at some of the lesser known, lesser used songs that are going to be included:
* MY HAPPINESS
* ONE SIDED LOVE AFFAIR
* I'M GONNA SIT RIGHT DOWN AND CRY (OVER YOU)
* PARALYZED
* THE THRILL OF YOUR LOVE
* DOIN' THE BEST I CAN
* THERE'S ALWAYS ME
* JUDY
* I NEED SOMEBODY TO LEAN ON
* IT HURTS ME
* THIS IS MY HEAVEN
* TOMORROW IS A LONG TIME
* I'M LEAVIN'
* LOVING ARMS
* GOOD TIME CHARLIE'S GOT THE BLUES
While all of the usual suspects are included on the set too (HOUND DOG, DON'T BE CRUEL, etc.) for the millionth time, the fact that the above listed songs are being included on a mainstream release proves (at least for this release) that BMG seems to be digging a little deeper into the regular Elvis catalog to come up with some lesser-known songs to hopefully pull in some new fans.
Of course, there are dozens of other lesser-used songs that could have been included in this set to really open the Elvis catalog up to the new, casual Elvis fans...but one step at a time... :hmm: ;)
Let's hope this is THAT step in the right direction!!! :D
TCB!
Mike
Haven't heard of this one, seems like a decent clever one! lets as fan not put it down for having nothing new, as this one, as much as the recent From Elvis in MEmphis, is great quality stuff, to get Elvis around general audiences.
If I worked for Sony and my prime objective was to get young people more interested in Elvis-I would have contemporary artists come into the studio strip all but Elvis's vocal from his lesser known songs and then build a modern
more update sound on that song.
I'd ask Eric Clapton to work on "Power of My Love" and maybe
Springstein, Dave Mathews, John Mayer, McCartney, all could pick a more obscure song-and produce it however they wanted.
The Elvis vocal would have to remain as is-but if they wanted to duet, add voices , whatever that would be their call as producers.
IMO that is a route which would be the most effective in gaining "young people as potential fans" But many long term fans don't want this done-they want people to accept the music as it was recorded when Elvis was alive.
I have to be frank-many songs which have been suggested as ways to "highlight Elvis to younger audiences" will sound "dated" to most of them.
Do not get my wrong-You and I will not agree with their opinion-but you and I are already fans.
This is 2009 and even though Elvis was groundbreaking in 1955-to most young people hearing even the songs from 1969 may seem like us hearing Patty Page, or Bing Crosby when we were there age......it will seem dated and old. So it is very hard to grab these people-even if the songs they hear are totally new and undiscovered to their ears.
There are always people who "get Elvis" from the moment they hear or see him ......virtually every generation since he came on the scene has had those individuals who "get Elvis" and for those people it will not matter if its "Hound Dog" "Don't Be Cruel" or something like the movie songs or "Power of my Love" they will get it as soon as they hear it.
For the ones who do not get it-you need something more-such as I suggested.
So IMO you either have to go with the gimmicky way of duets, new backing, remixes or you go the route of RCA/BMG/SONY and you reissue and remaster and rely on the people who "get Elvis" from the moment they hear him.
I think the labels realise the backlash from many fans when something like ALLC is done-or the Christmas Duets album so they are hesitant about doing what I suggested -remember I said "if my prime objective was to get more young people interested in Elvis"
But you see that is not the only objective that the labels have had to deal with.
I hope I did not offend anyone with these thougths-because I know many do not want anything but the songs as they were recorded-and truthfully my thougths are close to that-I think as little as possible should be changed.
But reissue after reissue-good ones like the Essential Series and the not so good ones which are thrown together.... have been done over and over...
have not produced a huge rush in younger fans.
Unfortunately young people are hugely conscious of what "everyone likes and thinks is hot" and Elvis is not truely hot to the last couple generations.
The big bang in the pond happened in 1956 and the further from the start of that bang-the less explosive it looks to young ones who do not understand what the pond looked like-before the ripples began.:blush::blush:
Raised on Rock
10-24-2009, 09:33 PM
If I worked for Sony and my prime objective was to get young people more interested in Elvis-I would have contemporary artists come into the studio strip all but Elvis's vocal from his lesser known songs and then build a modern
more update sound on that song.
I'd ask Eric Clapton to work on "Power of My Love" and maybe
Springstein, Dave Mathews, John Mayer, McCartney, all could pick a more obscure song-and produce it however they wanted.
If the right people is chosen, (and not an awful bunch of second rate stars as in the christmas duets Cd) and they do produce radical new backing tracks, good marketing, a DVD with showing those people working the new backing tracks, (sometimes bringing in old TCB Band members to collaborate with them) talking about Elvis and so, this could work smoothly and be actually a great project. Would love to see all the people you mentioned, (except Springstein, he's done lol), other people I would like to see there could be Elvis Costello (James Burton could pick some new licks with him), Jack White, Jimmy Page, Cat Power, Keith Richards.
Anyhow, this should be a one time only thing, to produce new backing tracks should not be a constant.
I have to be frank-many songs which have been suggested as ways to "highlight Elvis to younger audiences" will sound "dated" to most of them.
This could be a bit of a myth about tastes in younger people you know.
First of all there is no: the younger people, there are quite several kinds of audiences among young people, who might dig many different kinds of music, both old and new.
Sure a majority might just be interested in whatever prefabricated artist is being marketed to them around the day, but there are other kinds of young people and there are not a minuscule minority. In other words, older gals and guys, cool it down with the: all new artist are prefabricated commercial crap, or a bunch of weirdos creating an awful noise, talking about drugs and naked girls, something that we can not call music. There is actually a whole array, of real musicians, doing stuff that it is as respectable as what Elvis, or Dylan or Beatles did in their time (actually most of them are quite respectful and even fans of those artists of the past), and although it is not a majority, there is a big audience, in younger people to them.
Now talking about that sector in younger people, the fact that something could be old, and do sound dated, it is never at all a reason for not liking something, (some of the today bands that they like do actually search for more and more for a vintage sound rather than modernity), most of these younger audience are actually followers of many acts from the past, despite their "dated old sound", and that is actually part of the charm they see in that music.
But ODDLY, when you talk to them about Presley, and those could be Bo Diddley fans, blues fans, The Animals fans, early Stones Fans, Chucky Berry Fans, Motown or Stax fans, even old vintage rockabilly or country music fans, whatever, they just don't care about Elvis, the reason, the usual one: isn't he the fatso chumming on a burger on stage doing Love Me Tender in Vegas with an awful low voice? Want another reason: this young people are not into the commercial sound of today right? well, Elvis Presley, sure, the guy of the #30 No1 hits Cd right? the guy of the thousand greatest hits and love songs compilations right? well wasnt' he the commercial prefabricated one of his time? Once again Presley is losing and so, how many new fans among young people did the #30 1 hits campaign did get?
So my friend is really not much about Elvis being old music, "dated" sounding music, Beatles are "dated" music too, and well they are appealing enough to younger people as to be releasing a video game devoted to them right?
Too me, the reason behind why younger people do not get Elvis, and not a lot of younger fans are coming (while other old acts do), it is the fact that they DON´T know who's Elvis. I mean sure, everybody knows Elvis, but just the most superficial side of it, a Clambake rerun on TCM? Love Me Tender on the radio station your granny listen on Sundays? Some newcasts about Graceland around August. But the true artist and musician that HE was, its is mostly left aside. Immediate example: every time I show someone my age or younger stuff from the real Elvis, either playing to them records or showing to them DVD's like the old Elvis '56 or that documental on Elvis first album on the classic album series, or just explain to them who he was, his sound, the importance of his music to contemporary music beyond the hits, the reaction, if there is no new fans, it is anyway almost unanimous: WOW I didn't knew that, I though Elvis was about something else, wow, this is actually good stuff, send me some mp3 on this kind of stuff man. In a lesser degree, at least now, if they are not interested, they do know who he was, what he did, and there is respect instead of a cruel laugh.
So from a 29 years old fan, that it is actually quite immerse in today music, and is pretty much in contact with younger people than me, this is what is happening with Elvis among young people.
Yes a project as the one you mention, if done by the right people (and it is not at all something like the new tracks done by Jarvis in the 80's, or the ALLC and the Baby Let's Play house remixes or even the cheapo chep christmas duets) it could be definitively a nice way to put Elvis on the spot.
But then what? another greatest hits release? Yes Elvis music has been repacked over and over, but yet, rarely has been done in a way that puts the true artist before legend, the elvis music legacy before the money money making. And, as much as everything has been repacked till it hurts, most of it is now out of print, and as usual Elvis catalogue is a crying shame (talking FTD aside).
So again, yes, BMG in the 90's (yes with a lot of faults) but do was making a better job by far than Sony around these decade in those terms.
There are always people who "get Elvis" from the moment they hear or see him ......virtually every generation since he came on the scene has had those individuals who "get Elvis" and for those people it will not matter if its "Hound Dog" "Don't Be Cruel" or something like the movie songs or "Power of my Love" they will get it as soon as they hear it.
For the ones who do not get it-you need something more-such as I suggested.
So IMO you either have to go with the gimmicky way of duets, new backing, remixes or you go the route of RCA/BMG/SONY and you reissue and remaster and rely on the people who "get Elvis" from the moment they hear him.
RCA BMG SONY since '56 has never had a clear route or direction about what they want to do with Elvis apart of big time money with the less effort. Yet I will say again, 90's BMG direction was by far the most acceptable, as they actually have a goal by trying to re introduce a by then quite burned Elvis, as a serious artist, a true musician and not just a hit making machine.
Another route: education, yes, to educate new generations about who is Elvis Presley and the importance of his music. NO I'm not talking about an Elvis course on school! give me a break lol. I'm talking about, the best and most effective way they reintroduce The Beatles to the younger generations, the best way to re introduce why they are so important regardless time, the way they got a bunch of new fans on their pockets, the way the did established their importance as artist/musicians in younger generations, was called THE BEATLES ANTOLOGHY, around 6 hours of mastery on DOCUMENTARY making shown for FREE in prime time television around a whole week.
In those terms, what does younger generations have got on education about Elvis, around two or three TV mini series that resembles more to a dam soap opera?
Yes we got "Elvis '56" (which ironically was in fact taken as an idea by McCartney to develop the anthology), a great one on Elvis, but friends that was quite some generations ago!!! More recently we got "Elvis Presley", on the classic albums series, but that got little exposure and once again about the same year, what happened with Elvis from '57 to '77?
...the Essential Series... ...have not produced a huge rush in younger fans.
They stopped the series and moved to a similar project but in a small production label called FTD directed just to the fans. As fans we loved that as that allowed to have projects with content that will hardly or actually were impossible to be released in the mayor label.
Yes, that happened cause stuff like the Essential Elvis series did had a market, but a small one, so big production was not to profitable. YET, they where the kind of releases, that although not big sellers, little by little where noticed by the specialized press, getting in fact great reviews, the best in decades, in other words, those 90's releases that stopped to occur, where the ones that little by little where reintroducing Presley to a younger generation as a Genuine ARTIST, showing his true music making (exposing the tracks as they where, corny overdubs away) making music press aware of what before and today its only told on elvis fanzines, aware of Elvis Presley music beyond the hits. Those where the days that the world outside the Elvis world, started to talk, for the first time in decades, of Elvis as a real musician, a still influential, one to comeback any time for inspiration, and that although not as profitable as the JXL remixes and the #30 hits, in long terms do was the way to reach the newer generations. But as you said, the record label is a business, not an Elvis Presley cultural preservation, so the logic they go, well you put it quite clearly on a previous post.
debtdbruno
10-25-2009, 07:36 AM
If I worked for Sony and my prime objective was to get young people more interested in Elvis-I would have contemporary artists come into the studio strip all but Elvis's vocal from his lesser known songs and then build a modern
more update sound on that song.
I'd ask Eric Clapton to work on "Power of My Love" and maybe
Springstein, Dave Mathews, John Mayer, McCartney, all could pick a more obscure song-and produce it however they wanted.
The Elvis vocal would have to remain as is-but if they wanted to duet, add voices , whatever that would be their call as producers.
IMO that is a route which would be the most effective in gaining "young people as potential fans" But many long term fans don't want this done-they want people to accept the music as it was recorded when Elvis was alive.
I have to be frank-many songs which have been suggested as ways to "highlight Elvis to younger audiences" will sound "dated" to most of them.
Do not get my wrong-You and I will not agree with their opinion-but you and I are already fans.
This is 2009 and even though Elvis was groundbreaking in 1955-to most young people hearing even the songs from 1969 may seem like us hearing Patty Page, or Bing Crosby when we were there age......it will seem dated and old. So it is very hard to grab these people-even if the songs they hear are totally new and undiscovered to their ears.
There are always people who "get Elvis" from the moment they hear or see him ......virtually every generation since he came on the scene has had those individuals who "get Elvis" and for those people it will not matter if its "Hound Dog" "Don't Be Cruel" or something like the movie songs or "Power of my Love" they will get it as soon as they hear it.
For the ones who do not get it-you need something more-such as I suggested.
So IMO you either have to go with the gimmicky way of duets, new backing, remixes or you go the route of RCA/BMG/SONY and you reissue and remaster and rely on the people who "get Elvis" from the moment they hear him.
I think the labels realise the backlash from many fans when something like ALLC is done-or the Christmas Duets album so they are hesitant about doing what I suggested -remember I said "if my prime objective was to get more young people interested in Elvis"
But you see that is not the only objective that the labels have had to deal with.
I hope I did not offend anyone with these thougths-because I know many do not want anything but the songs as they were recorded-and truthfully my thougths are close to that-I think as little as possible should be changed.
But reissue after reissue-good ones like the Essential Series and the not so good ones which are thrown together.... have been done over and over...
have not produced a huge rush in younger fans.
Unfortunately young people are hugely conscious of what "everyone likes and thinks is hot" and Elvis is not truely hot to the last couple generations.
The big bang in the pond happened in 1956 and the further from the start of that bang-the less explosive it looks to young ones who do not understand what the pond looked like-before the ripples began.:blush::blush:
Bang on post Ken:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy
If the right people is chosen, (and not an awful bunch of second rate stars as in the christmas duets Cd) and they do produce radical new backing tracks, good marketing, a DVD with showing those people working the new backing tracks, (sometimes bringing in old TCB Band members to collaborate with them) talking about Elvis and so, this could work smoothly and be actually a great project. Would love to see all the people you mentioned, (except Springstein, he's done lol), other people I would like to see there could be Elvis Costello (James Burton could pick some new licks with him), Jack White, Jimmy Page, Cat Power, Keith Richards.
Anyhow, this should be a one time only thing, to produce new backing tracks should not be a constant.
This could be a bit of a myth about tastes in younger people you know.
First of all there is no: the younger people, there are quite several kinds of audiences among young people, who might dig many different kinds of music, both old and new.
Sure a majority might just be interested in whatever prefabricated artist is being marketed to them around the day, but there are other kinds of young people and there are not a minuscule minority. In other words, older gals and guys, cool it down with the: all new artist are prefabricated commercial crap, or a bunch of weirdos creating an awful noise, talking about drugs and naked girls, something that we can not call music. There is actually a whole array, of real musicians, doing stuff that it is as respectable as what Elvis, or Dylan or Beatles did in their time (actually most of them are quite respectful and even fans of those artists of the past), and although it is not a majority, there is a big audience, in younger people to them.
Now talking about that sector in younger people, the fact that something could be old, and do sound dated, it is never at all a reason for not liking something, (some of the today bands that they like do actually search for more and more for a vintage sound rather than modernity), most of these younger audience are actually followers of many acts from the past, despite their "dated old sound", and that is actually part of the charm they see in that music.
But ODDLY, when you talk to them about Presley, and those could be Bo Diddley fans, blues fans, The Animals fans, early Stones Fans, Chucky Berry Fans, Motown or Stax fans, even old vintage rockabilly or country music fans, whatever, they just don't care about Elvis, the reason, the usual one: isn't he the fatso chumming on a burger on stage doing Love Me Tender in Vegas with an awful low voice? Want another reason: this young people are not into the commercial sound of today right? well, Elvis Presley, sure, the guy of the #30 No1 hits Cd right? the guy of the thousand greatest hits and love songs compilations right? well wasnt' he the commercial prefabricated one of his time? Once again Presley is losing and so, how many new fans among young people did the #30 1 hits campaign did get?
So my friend is really not much about Elvis being old music, "dated" sounding music, Beatles are "dated" music too, and well they are appealing enough to younger people as to be releasing a video game devoted to them right?
Too me, the reason behind why younger people do not get Elvis, and not a lot of younger fans are coming (while other old acts do), it is the fact that they DON´T know who's Elvis. I mean sure, everybody knows Elvis, but just the most superficial side of it, a Clambake rerun on TCM? Love Me Tender on the radio station your granny listen on Sundays? Some newcasts about Graceland around August. But the true artist and musician that HE was, its is mostly left aside. Immediate example: every time I show someone my age or younger stuff from the real Elvis, either playing to them records or showing to them DVD's like the old Elvis '56 or that documental on Elvis first album on the classic album series, or just explain to them who he was, his sound, the importance of his music to contemporary music beyond the hits, the reaction, if there is no new fans, it is anyway almost unanimous: WOW I didn't knew that, I though Elvis was about something else, wow, this is actually good stuff, send me some mp3 on this kind of stuff man. In a lesser degree, at least now, if they are not interested, they do know who he was, what he did, and there is respect instead of a cruel laugh.
So from a 29 years old fan, that it is actually quite immerse in today music, and is pretty much in contact with younger people than me, this is what is happening with Elvis among young people.
Yes a project as the one you mention, if done by the right people (and it is not at all something like the new tracks done by Jarvis in the 80's, or the ALLC and the Baby Let's Play house remixes or even the cheapo chep christmas duets) it could be definitively a nice way to put Elvis on the spot.
But then what? another greatest hits release? Yes Elvis music has been repacked over and over, but yet, rarely has been done in a way that puts the true artist before legend, the elvis music legacy before the money money making. And, as much as everything has been repacked till it hurts, most of it is now out of print, and as usual Elvis catalogue is a crying shame (talking FTD aside).
So again, yes, BMG in the 90's (yes with a lot of faults) but do was making a better job by far than Sony around these decade in those terms.
RCA BMG SONY since '56 has never had a clear route or direction about what they want to do with Elvis apart of big time money with the less effort. Yet I will say again, 90's BMG direction was by far the most acceptable, as they actually have a goal by trying to re introduce a by then quite burned Elvis, as a serious artist, a true musician and not just a hit making machine.
Another route: education, yes, to educate new generations about who is Elvis Presley and the importance of his music. NO I'm not talking about an Elvis course on school! give me a break lol. I'm talking about, the best and most effective way they reintroduce The Beatles to the younger generations, the best way to re introduce why they are so important regardless time, the way they got a bunch of new fans on their pockets, the way the did established their importance as artist/musicians in younger generations, was called THE BEATLES ANTOLOGHY, around 6 hours of mastery on DOCUMENTARY making shown for FREE in prime time television around a whole week.
In those terms, what does younger generations have got on education about Elvis, around two or three TV mini series that resembles more to a dam soap opera?
Yes we got "Elvis '56" (which ironically was in fact taken as an idea by McCartney to develop the anthology), a great one on Elvis, but friends that was quite some generations ago!!! More recently we got "Elvis Presley", on the classic albums series, but that got little exposure and once again about the same year, what happened with Elvis from '57 to '77?
They stopped the series and moved to a similar project but in a small production label called FTD directed just to the fans. As fans we loved that as that allowed to have projects with content that will hardly or actually were impossible to be released in the mayor label.
Yes, that happened cause stuff like the Essential Elvis series did had a market, but a small one, so big production was not to profitable. YET, they where the kind of releases, that although not big sellers, little by little where noticed by the specialized press, getting in fact great reviews, the best in decades, in other words, those 90's releases that stopped to occur, where the ones that little by little where reintroducing Presley to a younger generation as a Genuine ARTIST, showing his true music making (exposing the tracks as they where, corny overdubs away) making music press aware of what before and today its only told on elvis fanzines, aware of Elvis Presley music beyond the hits. Those where the days that the world outside the Elvis world, started to talk, for the first time in decades, of Elvis as a real musician, a still influential, one to comeback any time for inspiration, and that although not as profitable as the JXL remixes and the #30 hits, in long terms do was the way to reach the newer generations. But as you said, the record label is a business, not an Elvis Presley cultural preservation, so the logic they go, well you put it quite clearly on a previous post.
I think what you are talking about is trying to make people fans-thru some better exposure of Elvis the artist-instead of the image they have- and IMO its just not so easy.
As I said many people just see it-from moment one-others never see it, perhaps don't want to see it. I have run into several of those in the last 40 years-they see Elvis as you described munching on a burger singing Love me Tender and thats all they want to see,
I have shown the 68 Special to a few of these or TTWII-some of Elvis's finest performing moments-and they still do not see it (call it a myth driven block if you will) But I hear on line people who saw Blue Hawaii or some other Elvis film-and they got it from that moment on.
I have 3 kids 27, 25. 23 in ages-and they know Elvis is a great artist-but they do not listen to him on regular basis, do not collect his music-they will admit they appreciate his contribution to music-but just like other music much better one daughter is a Beatle fan she says it has more depth and is more varied.
I truely do not think much can be done to market someone who is no longer here that has not been tried.
If TTWII and the 68 Special do not highlight ELVIS the artist-what else is there to be fabricated which can highlight him better that those 2 things?
I think part of the problem the labels have had with Elvis (from day one) is the all across the board material he did-which makes him hard to pin down and hard to have a prime direction for.
I say again I am not siding with the label-but there are many things they have no control over as I pointed out-press accounts of Elvis, books about Elvis, todays rock press which have little seemed appreciation for him and sell him short in their publications, impersonators, and unfortunately the truth of the life Elvis led and his ultimate last 3 years of drifting.
I do not see the type of loyalty to singers, groups that I saw in the 50s 60s and 70s by the last few generations. My own daughter was a huge Madonna fan for a short time then Alanis Morrisette fan-for a year, then Dave Mathews, then John Mayer, and now for the last few years the Beatles.
Same with many of her friends...... they float from artist to artist in hot spells. I recall the huge one year surge for Tony Bennett in the late 80s, Tom Jones also had a surge in the early to mid 90s-both short lived.
I think its unrealistic IMO to think we will ever see a huge surge that lasts for any amount of time for Elvis by succeeding generations-the world moves to fast-videos have the fast cut because people today bore so quickly.......... so it all moves fast.....not enough time to stop and really investigate something-too boring to do so. To me its a little sad.
Brian
10-25-2009, 02:06 PM
I have shown the 68 Special to a few of these or TTWII-some of Elvis's finest performing moments-and they still do not see it (call it a myth driven block if you will) But I hear on line people who saw Blue Hawaii or some other Elvis film-and they got it from that moment on.
I have 3 kids 27, 25. 23 in ages-and they know Elvis is a great artist-but they do not listen to him on regular basis, do not collect his music-they will admit they appreciate his contribution to music-but just like other music much better one daughter is a Beatle fan she says it has more depth and is more varied.
I truely do not think much can be done to market someone who is no longer here that has not been tried.
.
Not every young person is going to like Elvis no matter what you do, but you could pick up a few here and there.
I consider the 68 special to be the greatest performance ever by anyone, but for younger people of a different generation I can understand how they would feel differently.
While Elvis' performance is great during the 68 special he mainly sings his hits from the 50's and early 60's which a lot of young people just won't like. their are a lot of people who can't separate a great performance from great songs and if they simply don't like the music they won't like the performance.
Frank Sinatra is considered to be one of the greatest vocalists in history but if you were to play some songs of his for someone who is in their 20's and 30's they won't like his type of music and because of that some of them will consider him a poor vocalist because they can't separate the two.
I think after Elvis died and in the 80's and 90's it wasn't a good time to be an Elvis fan but in 2002 The animated film Lilo and Stitch came out with several Elvis songs and references of him that along with the remix of A Little less conversation, 30#1 hits, and the 2002 t.v. special Elvis lives certainly helped his image as it became a much better time to be an Elvis fan compared to the 80's and 90's.
I've met kids that don't like Elvis' music but they do like A Little less conversation remix as it's got a modern sound.
debtdbruno
10-25-2009, 03:01 PM
True Brian. I'm in contact with a lot of women who would have been 'teenagers' when Elvis was starting out.
They don't get him, never liked his music, or him as a Man..............we're all different I suppose.
SleepyJack
10-26-2009, 06:26 AM
Just wondering if any of you have come across this or have thoughts on it...
I`ve often come across people who seem to have,for one reason or another,developed a kind of anti-Elvis "snobbery" as far as the music goes,in general this isn`t usually the mainstream music-buying public but rather the ones who buy magazines etc that are for fans of older music...magazines like "Mojo" etc. While they would be more than happy to praise the work of Buddy Holly,Eddie Cochran and those their opinions on Elvis usually seem to be a bit "off"..... I sometimes think that Elvis` own success and record sales over the years sometimes works against him as well.
As well as that,I think that the generations that are buying music now are further removed from the days of Elvis, much of it is based on people who write their own songs and music,music that was,in turn,influenced by singer/songwriters like Dylan,Neil Young etc.... and Elvis` complete lack of that has caused him to drop down in many peoples estimation.
Just a couple of thoughts anyway..
Not every young person is going to like Elvis no matter what you do, but you could pick up a few here and there.
I consider the 68 special to be the greatest performance ever by anyone, but for younger people of a different generation I can understand how they would feel differently.
While Elvis' performance is great during the 68 special he mainly sings his hits from the 50's and early 60's which a lot of young people just won't like. their are a lot of people who can't separate a great performance from great songs and if they simply don't like the music they won't like the performance.
Frank Sinatra is considered to be one of the greatest vocalists in history but if you were to play some songs of his for someone who is in their 20's and 30's they won't like his type of music and because of that some of them will consider him a poor vocalist because they can't separate the two.
I think after Elvis died and in the 80's and 90's it wasn't a good time to be an Elvis fan but in 2002 The animated film Lilo and Stitch came out with several Elvis songs and references of him that along with the remix of A Little less conversation, 30#1 hits, and the 2002 t.v. special Elvis lives certainly helped his image as it became a much better time to be an Elvis fan compared to the 80's and 90's.
I've met kids that don't like Elvis' music but they do like A Little less conversation remix as it's got a modern sound.
I pointed out that Elvis picks up young fans each year-but not by any certain song or new album of obscure songs-his talent and charisma pick them up from the first exposure to him-they get it immediately.
IMO these type fans are going to be long term fans-not grabbed by a certain album or song which may happen to tickle their fancy-but grabbed by Elvis himself as most long term fans are.
You bring up 2002- in 2002 none of the things which happened were truely planned in some grand coordinated scheme.
ALLC was not even sanctioned by the estate nor BMG until they saw it was picked up by the Soccer championships as it anthem and was getting worldwide airplay-the Dutch DJ who remixed it was not working for them in his remix efforts, the film was a Disney film which had been planned for years, the special was EPEs work and the 30#1s was in the works by BMG since the Beatles #1s had come out.
Each fed and helped the others.....not to mention the publicity which naturally came by it being the 25th anniversary year of the death of Elvis.
This was the "perfect storm" for Elvis's legacy but like any storm it was out of nowhere with a lot of things feeding it which just happened.
You will not see this type thing happen often.
Raised on Rock
10-26-2009, 10:53 AM
Just wondering if any of you have come across this or have thoughts on it...
I`ve often come across people who seem to have,for one reason or another,developed a kind of anti-Elvis "snobbery" as far as the music goes,in general this isn`t usually the mainstream music-buying public but rather the ones who buy magazines etc that are for fans of older music...magazines like "Mojo" etc. While they would be more than happy to praise the work of Buddy Holly,Eddie Cochran and those their opinions on Elvis usually seem to be a bit "off"..... I sometimes think that Elvis` own success and record sales over the years sometimes works against him as well.
As well as that,I think that the generations that are buying music now are further removed from the days of Elvis, much of it is based on people who write their own songs and music,music that was,in turn,influenced by singer/songwriters like Dylan,Neil Young etc.... and Elvis` complete lack of that has caused him to drop down in many peoples estimation.
Just a couple of thoughts anyway..
Now you hit the nail on what I'm talking about. That´s the sector of younger people I was talking about, actually the one I do hang around.
In my experience the thing is that when we talk to this old music fans, they see Elvis as the commercial puppet, a media creation an nothing else, his music appearing on Lilo & stich, and a thousand greatest hits compilations or a JXL remix, don't help, but make it worst.
Yet Im my experience, when you show to these people, people into real music old or new, the real Elvis beyond the image, they are usually blown away, and if not a real interest its created, some nice degree of respect is achieved, (enough for me), so the reason behind that anti elvis thing, from my experience it is PLAIN IGNORANCE about him.
Back on topic, what BMG was doing in the 90's was doing more about solving that, while what SONY has done this decade, has ruined that and go back to more food for the Elvis as a media creation image.
Just wondering if any of you have come across this or have thoughts on it...
I`ve often come across people who seem to have,for one reason or another,developed a kind of anti-Elvis "snobbery" as far as the music goes,in general this isn`t usually the mainstream music-buying public but rather the ones who buy magazines etc that are for fans of older music...magazines like "Mojo" etc. While they would be more than happy to praise the work of Buddy Holly,Eddie Cochran and those their opinions on Elvis usually seem to be a bit "off"..... I sometimes think that Elvis` own success and record sales over the years sometimes works against him as well.As well as that,I think that the generations that are buying music now are further removed from the days of Elvis, much of it is based on people who write their own songs and music,music that was,in turn,influenced by singer/songwriters like Dylan,Neil Young etc.... and Elvis` complete lack of that has caused him to drop down in many peoples estimation.
Just a couple of thoughts anyway..
Most definitely I have seen this anti-Elvis "snobbery" its like they dismiss him as "unexplainable"..... they downgrade his talent and ability-constantly mention his lack of songwriting ability.
No one mentions that Crosby, or Sinatra did not write-and neither truely played an instrument on their recordings ever.
They point not to Elvis's domination of music from the 1950s into the early 60s, nor to his triumphs of the late 60s into 1973..... but to the less than quality movie music and the last 2-3 years of his life.
Its like the fact that his sales are so astronomical they think it was a fluke-not any talent involved at all.(n)
Raised on Rock
10-26-2009, 10:59 AM
I think what you are talking about is trying to make people fans-thru some better exposure of Elvis the artist-instead of the image they have- and IMO its just not so easy.
No, I don't care about making new fans, that is people choice.
I'm talking about expose Elvis music beyond his very commercial image and greatest hits to a broader audience that merely the elite of his fans.
That in order to: 1 preserve his legacy (something that as you said is not in the interest of the label being that a mere business) but no. 2 to boost the sales of his record by bringing in a substantial increase on the population that might be potential buyers, rather than relaying and just brutally exploiting a specie on extinction (that might be on the interest of the label cause in the end will mean, another 50 years of money making on this property of them).
Raised on Rock
10-26-2009, 11:07 AM
Most definitely I have seen this anti-Elvis "snobbery" its like they dismiss him as "unexplainable"..... they downgrade his talent and ability-constantly mention his lack of songwriting ability.
No one mentions that Crosby, or Sinatra did not write-and neither truely played an instrument on their recordings ever.
They point not to Elvis's domination of music from the 1950s into the early 60s, nor to his triumphs of the late 60s into 1973..... but to the less than quality movie music and the last 2-3 years of his life.
Its like the fact that his sales are so astronomical they think it was a fluke-not any talent involved at all.(n)
Yep, and I´ll say it again, it is called ignorance, how do you solve that? yet whatever answer we might get it is not is not the labels concern, their is, as it seems right now, to make more money on the ones do buy anyhow his music until their are done.
Other types of projects and releases, focused on solving that would be less profitable, yet in the long term, will give Elvis a significant buying audience for another bunch of decades.
Who knos, maybe Elvis had to simply die out for a few generations, and to be rediscovered under a different most positive and objective light in the future, away from both us fans and them anti elvis.
No, I don't care about making new fans, that is people choice.
I'm talking about expose Elvis music beyond his very commercial image and greatest hits to a broader audience that merely the elite of his fans.
That in order to: 1 preserve his legacy (something that as you said is not in the interest of the label being that a mere business) but no. 2 to boost the sales of his record by bringing in a substantial increase on the population that might be potential buyers, rather than relaying and just brutally exploiting a specie on extinction (that might be on the interest of the label cause in the end will mean, another 50 years of money making on this property of them).
I understand what you are saying-I just think it has been tried.... perhaps not as often as you or I like-but it has been done.
The labels are going to pick and choose how they push the lesser unknown album cuts but it has been done.
Sonys just released Legacy 2 disc set of From Elvis in Memphis is an example of this but not the only example as this ALLMUSIC review of the new set points out:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:gifuxztald6e
One of the undisputed classic LPs of the rock & roll era, From Elvis in Memphis certainly deserves a deluxe expanded reissue — and in a sense it received it more than once. Released in June of 1969, the 12-track From Elvis in Memphis received a sequel almost immediately when a full LP of material from the same sessions appeared as half of From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis, a double-LP set released a mere five months after From Elvis, commemorating both the inauguration of Presley's historic four-week stand at the International Hotel in Las Vegas and the success of the album itself. That second album was released individually as Back in Memphis a year later, marking the first recycling of sessions that were repackaged numerous times, most of them enjoyable, two of them quite exceptional: 1987's double-LP The Memphis Record, which collected highlights from the sessions, and 1999's Suspicious Minds, which presented them in full, complete with alternate takes. With all these releases on the market, a deluxe edition wasn't necessarily needed — all the sessions were available, no bonus tracks seemed to exist — but when the double-disc, 36-track Legacy Edition appeared on the 40th anniversary of the album's 1969 release, it was welcome. It's a handsomely produced package, graced with very good liner notes by Robert Gordon and Tara McAdams and featuring plenty of photos, but the chief attraction of this Legacy Edition is its sequencing. Of all the reissues of these 1969 sessions, this is the most compulsively listenable, presenting the From Elvis in Memphis album in its entirety on the first disc followed by four bonus tracks (including "I'll Be There" and "Hey Jude"), leaving the second disc devoted to Back in Memphis and the ten singles released from this session — including "In the Ghetto," "Any Day Now," "Suspicious Minds," "Rubberneckin'," and "Kentucky Rain" — in their original mono masters. There's nothing new, nothing surprising, just Elvis' arguably best recordings in a definitive reissue, which is reason enough to have this music reissued again.
Raised on Rock
10-26-2009, 11:12 AM
I think after Elvis died and in the 80's and 90's it wasn't a good time to be an Elvis fan but in 2002 The animated film Lilo and Stitch came out with several Elvis songs and references of him that along with the remix of A Little less conversation, 30#1 hits, and the 2002 t.v. special Elvis lives certainly helped his image as it became a much better time to be an Elvis fan compared to the 80's and 90's..
Are you kidding, back in the 90's I had quite a few decent releases to hold on in front of people, Cd's that where material prove that Elvis was good stuff.
Then with the Lilo and Stitch, I felt like hiding underground every time the dam movie was brought on mockery to any music conversation.
JXL at least gave Elvis name a bit of exposure, same with the #30 1 hits, but the that exposure do was followed up with nothing of substance, hitstory? wasted opportunity from my point of view.
Raised on Rock
10-26-2009, 11:17 AM
I understand what you are saying-I just think it has been tried.... perhaps not as often as you or I like-but it has been done.
The labels are going to pick and choose how they push the lesser unknown album cuts but it has been done.
Sonys just released Legacy 2 disc set of From Elvis in Memphis is an example of this but not the only example as this ALLMUSIC review of the new set points out:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:gifuxztald6e
One of the undisputed classic LPs of the rock & roll era, From Elvis in Memphis certainly deserves a deluxe expanded reissue — and in a sense it received it more than once. Released in June of 1969, the 12-track From Elvis in Memphis received a sequel almost immediately when a full LP of material from the same sessions appeared as half of From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis, a double-LP set released a mere five months after From Elvis, commemorating both the inauguration of Presley's historic four-week stand at the International Hotel in Las Vegas and the success of the album itself. That second album was released individually as Back in Memphis a year later, marking the first recycling of sessions that were repackaged numerous times, most of them enjoyable, two of them quite exceptional: 1987's double-LP The Memphis Record, which collected highlights from the sessions, and 1999's Suspicious Minds, which presented them in full, complete with alternate takes. With all these releases on the market, a deluxe edition wasn't necessarily needed — all the sessions were available, no bonus tracks seemed to exist — but when the double-disc, 36-track Legacy Edition appeared on the 40th anniversary of the album's 1969 release, it was welcome. It's a handsomely produced package, graced with very good liner notes by Robert Gordon and Tara McAdams and featuring plenty of photos, but the chief attraction of this Legacy Edition is its sequencing. Of all the reissues of these 1969 sessions, this is the most compulsively listenable, presenting the From Elvis in Memphis album in its entirety on the first disc followed by four bonus tracks (including "I'll Be There" and "Hey Jude"), leaving the second disc devoted to Back in Memphis and the ten singles released from this session — including "In the Ghetto," "Any Day Now," "Suspicious Minds," "Rubberneckin'," and "Kentucky Rain" — in their original mono masters. There's nothing new, nothing surprising, just Elvis' arguably best recordings in a definitive reissue, which is reason enough to have this music reissued again.
Yep and I've already praised that release on a previous post, and as I said, 90's BMG tended much more to those type of releases, Sony when over the top and damaging Elvis with tones of nonsense releases that where not of the benefit of Elvis image, just for they bank accounts. With From Elvis in Memphis and the Elvis '75, the seem to be doing a good job.
Maybe the clue would be just to cut away all the nonsense releases, and to make and event of just one Elvis project per year or every two years, or else its happening what happened with the camden releases back in the 70's, confusing the public and taking away sales from the actual new Elvis albums.
Yep and I've already praised that release on a previous post, and as I said, 90's BMG tended much more to those type of releases, Sony when over the top and damaging Elvis with tones of nonsense releases that where not of the benefit of Elvis image, just for they bank accounts. With From Elvis in Memphis and the Elvis '75, the seem to be doing a good job.
Maybe the clue would be just to cut away all the nonsense releases, and to make and event of just one Elvis project per year or every two years, or else its happening what happened with the camden releases back in the 70's, confusing the public and taking away sales from the actual new Elvis albums.
The trouble with that is-all these releases (going all the way back to Camden) is they are selling well enough that it sustains the continuation of them.
Someone is buying them-be it casual fans, long term fans or others-they sell.
I think they may feel that always having some "new album" coming out-reminds the public at large of him.
I agree that many of them are just money making properties-but if the public were not buying them-they would not produce them.
Its like the complaint about selling Elvis potholders, watches, radios, beach towels etc.........if they did not sell.....problem solved they would not make them.
Jungleroom76
10-26-2009, 11:43 AM
With From Elvis in Memphis and the Elvis '75, the seem to be doing a good job.
Let's just hope this trend continues!!! (y)
TCB!
Mike
Let's just hope this trend continues!!! (y)
TCB!
Mike
Sony has only been in charge of Elvis music since 2004-and perhaps they are learning............RCA/BMG had Elvis for years after his death and only in he mid 90s did they seem to be more selective in their releases.
Jungleroom76
10-26-2009, 11:53 AM
Sony has only been in charge of Elvis music since 2004-and perhaps they are learning............RCA/BMG had Elvis for years after his death and only in he mid 90s did they seem to be more selective in their releases.
How truly sad is that?? Elvis' own record company didn't even know how to properly market him and it seems like Sony has it figured out after only a couple of years of having control of the catalog! :doh:
Oh well, as I said, let's hope this is a positive trend... ;)
TCB!
Mike
Raised on Rock
10-26-2009, 11:57 AM
The trouble with that is-all these releases (going all the way back to Camden) is they are selling well enough that it sustains the continuation of them.
Someone is buying them-be it casual fans, long term fans or others-they sell.
I think they may feel that always having some "new album" coming out-reminds the public at large of him.
I agree that many of them are just money making properties-but if the public were not buying them-they would not produce them.
Its like the complaint about selling Elvis potholders, watches, radios, beach towels etc.........if they did not sell.....problem solved they would not make them.
I know, it was the same with the movies, to me (and most fans) '64 was time to stop with the formula, but hey, Harum Sacrum was a box office success and so was the soundtrack, its terrible from my point of view, but yes, its just the way it is, if it sells, let's make tons of that for another 10 years, guess that its just the way it is, and although its clear how post '64 movies and soundtracks damaged Elvis career, how those camden releases did damage the sales of Elvis proper new albums, and how those hundreds of nonsense Elvis Cd's compilations releases had contributed to nothing, were talking business here right?
Raised on Rock
10-26-2009, 12:04 PM
How truly sad is that?? Elvis' own record company didn't even know how to properly market him and it seems like Sony has it figured out after only a couple of years of having control of the catalog! :doh:
Oh well, as I said, let's hope this is a positive trend... ;)
TCB!
Mike
Let's hope so, also would be interesting to see 10 years from now, when FTD had nothing else to release and most they catalogue will be out of print and hrd to get, how all that material would be re-released little by little, maybe on some sony mainstream releases? An Elvis Country on a legacy release like the From Elvis in Memphis, plus outakes like in the FTD classic albums series?
I know, it was the same with the movies, to me (and most fans) '64 was time to stop with the formula, but hey, Harum Sacrum was a box office success and so was the soundtrack, its terrible from my point of view, but yes, its just the way it is, if it sells, let's make tons of that for another 10 years, guess that its just the way it is, and although its clear how post '64 movies and soundtracks damaged Elvis career, how those camden releases did damage the sales of Elvis proper new albums, and how those hundreds of nonsense Elvis Cd's compilations releases had contributed to nothing, were talking business here right?
Well the good news to me a fan of over 47 years is that Elvis is still selling..... period(y) The fact that we are having this discussion about the proper marketing of Elvis-is a good sign-hes still marketable!
All the way back to 1955 people have thought the end was near (for whatever reason) to the career of Elvis Presley.
It is worth remembering that despite Col Parker and his 1960s ideas of career direction-despite the mid 60s movies which were less than stellar, despite an almost neglect of good songs in the 1960s, despite the drift in direction of his music and even his own death-he is still mentioned, still selling, still well known and loved by many.
I can name dozens of -at one time hot as a fire cracker artists-from 1955 up to the present.......who are not remembered at all.
Who have no label marketing the 2 or 3 hit albums they made when they were the one of the hottest acts going.
I have several times in the 47 years as a fan thought-what are they thinking when it came to how Elvis is treated and marketed.
I have faith in his talent and charisma to survive the bad ideas, the junk put out in his name....... because when you get down to the nitty gritty IMO that always survives.
Jungleroom76
10-26-2009, 12:39 PM
Let's hope so, also would be interesting to see 10 years from now, when FTD had nothing else to release and most they catalogue will be out of print and hrd to get, how all that material would be re-released little by little, maybe on some sony mainstream releases? An Elvis Country on a legacy release like the From Elvis in Memphis, plus outakes like in the FTD classic albums series?
Hmmm...I don't know about that one... :hmm:
It seems to me that Sony is trying to steer clear of releasing compilations with outtakes on them because they really don't attract the casual music buyers, only us die-hard fans. I do think an ELVIS COUNTRY release like the recent FEIM release would be a marketable release, but probably in a format similar to the FEIM release with bonus tracks, but no outtakes... :hmm:
Just my opinion though....I could be wrong... :blush: ;)
TCB!
Mike
Jungleroom76
10-26-2009, 12:40 PM
Well the good news to me a fan of over 47 years is that Elvis is still selling..... period(y) The fact that we are having this discussion about the proper marketing of Elvis-is a good sign-hes still marketable!
All the way back to 1955 people have thought the end was near (for whatever reason) to the career of Elvis Presley.
It is worth remembering that despite Col Parker and his 1960s ideas of career direction-despite the mid 60s movies which were less than stellar, despite an almost neglect of good songs in the 1960s, despite the drift in direction of his music and even his own death-he is still mentioned, still selling, still well known and loved by many.
I can name dozens of -at one time hot as a fire cracker artists-from 1955 up to the present.......who are not remembered at all.
Who have no label marketing the 2 or 3 hit albums they made when they were the one of the hottest acts going.
I have several times in the 47 years as a fan thought-what are they thinking when it came to how Elvis is treated and marketed.
I have faith in his talent and charisma to survive the bad ideas, the junk put out in his name....... because when you get down to the nitty gritty IMO that always survives.
AMEN KEN!!!! :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy
TCB!
Mike
Brian
10-26-2009, 01:24 PM
Are you kidding, back in the 90's I had quite a few decent releases to hold on in front of people, Cd's that where material prove that Elvis was good stuff.
Then with the Lilo and Stitch, I felt like hiding underground every time the dam movie was brought on mockery to any music conversation.
JXL at least gave Elvis name a bit of exposure, same with the #30 1 hits, but the that exposure do was followed up with nothing of substance, hitstory? wasted opportunity from my point of view.
No, I'm not kidding
In the late 70's, 80's and 90's it was a bad time to be an Elvis fan because it was he was fat, drug addict, Thank you very much, he died on a toilet etc.
It seemed a lot of that subsided in 2002 with the release of 30#1 hits, JXL A Little less conversation, 30#1 hits, and Lilo and Stitch.
You won't like Lilo and Stitch because your an adult but it helped introduce a new generation of children to Elvis' music.
Brian
10-26-2009, 01:27 PM
You bring up 2002- in 2002 none of the things which happened were truely planned in some grand coordinated scheme.
ALLC was not even sanctioned by the estate nor BMG until they saw it was picked up by the Soccer championships as it anthem and was getting worldwide airplay-the Dutch DJ who remixed it was not working for them in his remix efforts, the film was a Disney film which had been planned for years, the special was EPEs work and the 30#1s was in the works by BMG since the Beatles #1s had come out.
Each fed and helped the others.....not to mention the publicity which naturally came by it being the 25th anniversary year of the death of Elvis.
This was the "perfect storm" for Elvis's legacy but like any storm it was out of nowhere with a lot of things feeding it which just happened.
You will not see this type thing happen often.
I'm aware of all this just pointing out that it all worked to reverse a terrible trend.
No, I'm not kidding
In the late 70's, 80's and 90's it was a bad time to be an Elvis fan because it was he was fat, drug addict, Thank you very much, he died on a toilet etc.
It seemed a lot of that subsided in 2002 with the release of 30#1 hits, JXL A Little less conversation, 30#1 hits, and Lilo and Stitch.
You won't like Lilo and Stitch because your an adult but it helped introduce a new generation of children to Elvis' music.
I think you have a point-but perhaps its was not quite as bad as you express it.
I never heard anyone go quite to the extreme of negative comments that you have posted.
I think it depends on the type people you are speaking with-people of any age who have some level of maturity do not talk in those extremes-but immature people of any age will say anything.
I have only heard the type things you mention from immature people in the past. But the level of respect for Elvis does have a way to go with many.
Brian
10-26-2009, 01:51 PM
I think you have a point-but perhaps its was not quite as bad as you express it.
I never heard anyone go quite to the extreme of negative comments that you have posted.
I think it depends on the type people you are speaking with-people of any age who have some level of maturity do not talk in those extremes-but immature people of any age will say anything.
I have only heard the type things you mention from immature people in the past. But the level of respect for Elvis does have a way to go with many.
I am speaking of the way Elvis was portrayed in the media.
The media helped fuel that perception that some people had or still have of Elvis.
I am speaking of the way Elvis was portrayed in the media.
The media helped fuel that perception that some people had or still have of Elvis.
Well I can honestly say I never heard a reporter say some of the things you mentioned in your post-nor read some of the things you mentioned.
Elvis was/is portrayed negatively in some ways-but he also gets his due.
The problem is that the negative is what always seems to make the impression on people-not just for Elvis but in general.
I actually thought the 80s were the worst time to be an Elvis fan since Elvis died-and while he was alive from 63 to 68 was bad.
debtdbruno
10-26-2009, 03:50 PM
It's unfortunate that people remember him from the last couple of years of his life.
The amount of people who say to me............'good voice, but didn't he get fat?'
Poor bloke wasn't allowed to be normal, and he was only overweight the last couple of years.
This seems to overshadow his music.
Brian
10-26-2009, 06:52 PM
I know, it was the same with the movies, to me (and most fans) '64 was time to stop with the formula, but hey, Harum Sacrum was a box office success and so was the soundtrack, its terrible from my point of view, but yes, its just the way it is, if it sells, let's make tons of that for another 10 years, guess that its just the way it is, and although its clear how post '64 movies and soundtracks damaged Elvis career, how those camden releases did damage the sales of Elvis proper new albums, and how those hundreds of nonsense Elvis Cd's compilations releases had contributed to nothing, were talking business here right?
I actually liked most of the budget albums except Burning Love and Separate ways because I thought most of them were of high unusual artistic quality with most of them reaching platinum or double platinum status.
I actually liked most of the budget albums except Burning Love and Separate ways because I thought most of them were of high unusual artistic quality with most of them reaching platinum or double platinum status.
Curious-what did you exactly find of "high unusual artistic quality"
Elvis sings hits from his movies
I Got Lucky
Lets Be Friends
Almost in Love
Elvis sings Flaming Star
Frankie and Johnny
etc....
Brian
10-26-2009, 08:26 PM
Curious-what did you exactly find of "high unusual artistic quality"
Elvis sings hits from his movies
I Got Lucky
Lets Be Friends
Almost in Love
Elvis sings Flaming Star
Frankie and Johnny
etc....
Almost in love and Flaming Star have pretty good tracklists
so does I got lucky and Lets be friends.
Raised on Rock
10-26-2009, 11:46 PM
I actually liked most of the budget albums except Burning Love and Separate ways because I thought most of them were of high unusual artistic quality with most of them reaching platinum or double platinum status.
I'm not talking about if they where popular or not, if they sold good or not, or if we can considered them classics or not. I'm talking about this, back in the early 70's: you just don't release two albums at the same time, you just don't release Presley new album and almost at the same time, a camden budget album, you will confuse the buying public, and you'll hurt on the sales of the release with new material. You just DON'T compete with your self that way.
Sure thing, Elvis fans might have bought both albums, but I'm sure some albums from the 70's would have reached higher on the charts if they would haven not been boycotted by the same company with the release of a budget album.
High unusual artistic quality? hmmm... yes definitively contain a let's say 25% of true gems there, but mixed with another %25 of so and so material and a %50 of movie crap??? Those albums as a whole, are the oddest mix of songs at best, for a casual buyer in '71 that got Elvis "new album": I Got Lucky? that could have been quite a regretful experience, quite another experience if he got that other album over there "Elvis Country".
Brian
10-26-2009, 11:54 PM
I'm not talking about if they where popular or not, if they sold good or not, or if we can considered them classics or not. I'm talking about this, back in the early 70's: you just don't release two albums at the same time, you just don't release Presley new album and almost at the same time, a camden budget album, you will confuse the buying public, and you'll hurt on the sales of the release with new material. You just DON'T compete with your self that way.
Sure thing, Elvis fans might have bought both albums, but I'm sure some albums from the 70's would have reached higher on the charts if they would haven not been boycotted by the same company with the release of a budget album.
High unusual artistic quality? hmmm... yes definitively contain a let's say 25% of true gems there, but mixed with another %25 of so and so material and a %50 of movie crap??? Those albums as a whole, are the oddest mix of songs at best, for a casual buyer in '71 that got Elvis "new album": I Got Lucky? that could have been quite a regretful experience, quite another experience if he got that other album over there "Elvis Country".
I've met fans who say the first album they bought was I got lucky
and they loved it
Yes, they ironically did have high artistic quality or at least I thought so.
most of them
Don't think it would've made much difference in the chart position of his studio albums if the budget albums weren't released.
I get the feeling his studio albums would have charted the same positions regardless.
It's just a hunch because Elvis best albums always did tend to go unnoticed.
I actually liked most of the budget albums except Burning Love and Separate ways because I thought most of them were of high unusual artistic quality with most of them reaching platinum or double platinum status.
You lost me on this one.The artistic quality was highly suspect.Those lp's sold well because of several reasons.They were cheap.They were placed in grocery stores so the housewives would see them by the cash registers.They had pretty pictures on them.My mom would give me a few bucks and I would walk to Kroger's to buy them.That was back in the day.Good times,good times.
Raised on Rock
10-27-2009, 12:10 AM
No, I'm not kidding
In the late 70's, 80's and 90's it was a bad time to be an Elvis fan because it was he was fat, drug addict, Thank you very much, he died on a toilet etc.
It seemed a lot of that subsided in 2002 with the release of 30#1 hits, JXL A Little less conversation, 30#1 hits, and Lilo and Stitch.
You won't like Lilo and Stitch because your an adult but it helped introduce a new generation of children to Elvis' music.
Not the 90's, actually that was the decade when luck started to change for Elvis public image outside Elvis world, the type of releases RCA/BMG did around that time had lots to do. From the Grammy nominated 50's boxset, the 60's and 70's follow ups, the essential series, platinum, to artist of the century, and stuff like Elvis '56, Sunrise, Tiger Man, Memories and Suspicious Minds.
Also was the decade of the Guralnick books, books that made a serious impact outside Elvis world, leaving crap like Cilla's book, or Goldmans read a like books behind and for good. Also the decade when EPE started to when beyond the Elvis cheap memorabilia to a much more modern and effective way of doing things.
Anyhow, for the people back then the who used to read music magazines, and other specialized press, it was the decade when you started to read positives reviews on his music (due to those new series of cd releses) and to perceive a fresh and positive attitude in the media towards him, all pointing toward understanding the man and musician beyond the tabloid figure image of the fat guy that chocked with his pants down.
Now this decade, fortunately, also has left way behind that media attitude towards Elvis as the guy that equals his impersonators, which is good, but it when to much on exploiting the most commercial side of his image, rather that the artistic side of it as it was in the 90's. But that's all right any how as long as we keep going far away of the ignorant cliche on those anti-elvis minds, that are still around, but I do dare to say, in less degree than in the 80's, more people today outside the fans, is familiar with what Elvis was really about either they will buy his stuff, or rather go for the new Michael Jackson album.
Raised on Rock
10-27-2009, 12:20 AM
I've met fans who say the first album they bought was I got lucky
and they loved it
Yes, they ironically did have high artistic quality or at least I thought so.
most of them
Don't think it would've made much difference in the chart position of his studio albums if the budget albums weren't released.
I get the feeling his studio albums would have charted the same positions regardless.
It's just a hunch because Elvis best albums always did tend to go unnoticed.
Great songs, best songs ever, tops of the top, but mixed with crap, does not make a high artistic quality album ever. Does made and oddly unbalanced one.
Camden DID hurt the sales of Elvis new material releases? No, can't be proved, but by the early 70's, the most of contemporary artists where releasing an album per year, Elvis was forced to keep releasing two or even three, plus you add two camden releases? one of all those Elvis albums released in just one year definitively had to suffer on sales and because they where making Elvis to compete with himself! Marketing wise, back then might be seen as: keeping Elvis in the public eye, but that was a decade ago mentality (the early 60's), 70's wise, that was just the wrong way of doing it. Period.
Brian
10-27-2009, 12:36 AM
Great songs, best songs ever, tops of the top, but mixed with crap, does not make a high artistic quality album ever. Does made and oddly unbalanced one.
Camden DID hurt the sales of Elvis new material releases? No, can't be proved, but by the early 70's, the most of contemporary artists where releasing an album per year, Elvis was forced to keep releasing two or even three, plus you add two camden releases? one of all those Elvis albums released in just one year definitively had to suffer on sales and because they where making Elvis to compete with himself! Marketing wise, back then might be seen as: keeping Elvis in the public eye, but that was a decade ago mentality (the early 60's), 70's wise, that was just the wrong way of doing it. Period.
I didn't say the budget albums were the greatest ever just put together pretty good which surprised me as they could've been a disaster.
That's not exactly true about album releases in the early 70's
Several artists were still puting out 2 albums a year during 1970-1972
Then by 1973 almost everyone was putting out 1 new studio album a year except Elton John who was releasing 3 new studio albums!!!
and country music artists still released 2 to 3 which in the 70's Elvis was considered a part of that group.
Brian
10-27-2009, 12:40 AM
Not the 90's, actually that was the decade when luck started to change for Elvis public image outside Elvis world, the type of releases RCA/BMG did around that time had lots to do. From the Grammy nominated 50's boxset, the 60's and 70's follow ups, the essential series, platinum, to artist of the century, and stuff like Elvis '56, Sunrise, Tiger Man, Memories and Suspicious Minds.
Also was the decade of the Guralnick books, books that made a serious impact outside Elvis world, leaving crap like Cilla's book, or Goldmans read a like books behind and for good. Also the decade when EPE started to when beyond the Elvis cheap memorabilia to a much more modern and effective way of doing things.
Anyhow, for the people back then the who used to read music magazines, and other specialized press, it was the decade when you started to read positives reviews on his music (due to those new series of cd releses) and to perceive a fresh and positive attitude in the media towards him, all pointing toward understanding the man and musician beyond the tabloid figure image of the fat guy that chocked with his pants down.
Now this decade, fortunately, also has left way behind that media attitude towards Elvis as the guy that equals his impersonators, which is good, but it when to much on exploiting the most commercial side of his image, rather that the artistic side of it as it was in the 90's. But that's all right any how as long as we keep going far away of the ignorant cliche on those anti-elvis minds, that are still around, but I do dare to say, in less degree than in the 80's, more people today outside the fans, is familiar with what Elvis was really about either they will buy his stuff, or rather go for the new Michael Jackson album.
Yes, things started to get better in the 90's with some good releases.
I will concede that Peter Guralknick's Last Train to Memphis was pretty good but he's book Careless love was a let down as i've heard all of that before.
Brian
10-27-2009, 12:48 AM
You lost me on this one.The artistic quality was highly suspect.Those lp's sold well because of several reasons.They were cheap.They were placed in grocery stores so the housewives would see them by the cash registers.They had pretty pictures on them.My mom would give me a few bucks and I would walk to Kroger's to buy them.That was back in the day.Good times,good times.
I know why they sold well
A lot of artists do stuff like that to increase sales of a given record
You might say Elvis through Colonel Parker was the first one to do something like this.
All I know is all the budget albums have reached either platinum or double platinum status and that's something that From Elvis in Memphis, Back in Memphis, Elvis is Back, Elvis, Elvis Presley, Loving You, King Creole and Elvis Country will probably never achieve which is sad but true.
I thought Flaming Star, Almost in Love, I Got lucky, C'mon everybody, Lets be friends and You'll never walk alone were all compiled pretty good with some good tracklists despite a weak song here and there.
I know why they sold well
A lot of artists do stuff like that to increase sales of a given record
You might say Elvis through Colonel Parker was the first one to do something like this.
All I know is all the budget albums have reached either platinum or double platinum status and that's something that From Elvis in Memphis, Back in Memphis, Elvis is Back, Elvis, Elvis Presley, Loving You, King Creole and Elvis Country will probably never achieve which is sad but true.
I thought Flaming Star, Almost in Love, I Got lucky, C'mon everybody, Lets be friends and You'll never walk alone were all compiled pretty good with some good tracklists despite a weak song here and there.
These lp's sold well but Elvis paid a hefty price.His artistic credibility.To include a bona fide classic like Burning Love on a budget lp was criminal.An absolute disgrace.These lp's represent the desire for the quick buck.It things like this that have always chipped away at the respect Elvis is deserved.Elvis was always managed like a sideshow attraction at the county fair.It's only the sheer power of Elvis' talents that he endured in spite of so many bad descions while he was active.
Elvis better studio lp's would have sold better if they had them big round sticker's in the corner saying $2.99.Plus they should ahve been placed next to the candy bars by the register.Back in the day you had to go to a record store to buy Elvis' real lp's.They were like twice as expensive also.
Brian
10-27-2009, 02:13 AM
These lp's sold well but Elvis paid a hefty price.His artistic credibility.To include a bona fide classic like Burning Love on a budget lp was criminal.An absolute disgrace.These lp's represent the desire for the quick buck.It things like this that have always chipped away at the respect Elvis is deserved.Elvis was always managed like a sideshow attraction at the county fair.It's only the sheer power of Elvis' talents that he endured in spite of so many bad descions while he was active.
Elvis better studio lp's would have sold better if they had them big round sticker's in the corner saying $2.99.Plus they should ahve been placed next to the candy bars by the register.Back in the day you had to go to a record store to buy Elvis' real lp's.They were like twice as expensive also.
I know all this but what i'm trying to say is Garth Brooks just did something similar to increase his sales through that Wal Mart deal.
everybody cuts corners. I stand by my statement that most of the budget albums were good.
I didn't like the Burning Love budget album but it came and went it didn't hurt him that bad artistically imo because he had so many LP's coming out at that time.
What I would of done is have Elvis go into a studio and cut 8 addtional songs to go along with Burning love and It's a matter of time rather than put 8 crappy movie songs on it and they still could've released as a budget album.
I know all this but what i'm trying to say is Garth Brooks just did something similar to increase his sales through that Wal Mart deal.
everybody cuts corners. I stand by my statement that most of the budget albums were good.
I didn't like the Burning Love budget album but it came and went it didn't hurt him that bad artistically imo because he had so many LP's coming out at that time.
What I would of done is have Elvis go into a studio and cut 8 addtional songs to go along with Burning love and It's a matter of time rather than put 8 crappy movie songs on it and they still could've released as a budget album.
The difference with Brooks is that there was thought and insight to his Wal Mart deal.He had, and has a very smart marketing strategy.Elvis' time and Garth's cant be compared because the climate of the business is world's apart.The Elvis budget lp's were haphazard at best.Look at the artwork.I shudder when I pull my copy of Seperate Ways out.Personally I think the Burning Love did hurt Elvis.That title track was Elvis' return to rock.A masterpiece.How is it handled?Tossed into the garbage can.I myself and guilty of buying them all when they were released.Even as a youngster I knew they were pretty much crap.I admit they have a certain nostalgia about them.Another wat these lp's hurt Elvis was the over saturation of the market.RCA kept putting out lp's and 45's like it was still 1956.Once Elvis released a new track,it was soon followed by another.The frezny of the 50's was over.Another problem was the fact that Elvis just didnt care about his studio recordngs anymore at this point.Getting him into the studio to perform in a professional matter was about impossible at this point.So toss a few old tracks together and there you go.Most major artists back then never would have let themselves be subject to that type of deal.Most artists cared about their public perception as artists.Do you really think Petunia The Gardner's Daughter didnt hurt his credibilty?That crap should have been buried.Not marketed to the masses.
SleepyJack
10-27-2009, 07:25 AM
I`m surprised anyone would even try to defend the artistic merits(????) of those budget albums. To me it doesn`t always follow that something that sells well is always good for Elvis.A lot of what I`ve read on this thread seems to be divided by financially successful v good for Elvis image as an artist.Surely a mix of both could be achieved if it was done right.I understand that money has to made...as we`ve heard so many times,it is a business after all...and,even though I don`t particularly like it, I understand that it is what it is and the bucks must be made. There will always be a market for the "Greatest Hits" packages,not just of Elvis but of many of the older artists,but these things come and go with the whims of advertising,they are not permanent. To me it is more important to make sure that Elvis` music is available and presented in a way that his place in music history deserves.... sure,the "Greatest Hits" packages practically sell themselves anyway.
Almost in love and Flaming Star have pretty good tracklists
so does I got lucky and Lets be friends.
But the track listings were hodgepodge-a little of this and a little of that-doesn't that go against your idea of a more well thought out "selective" new album with lesser known better songs to help draw credibility to the Elvis catalogue?
I just do not see any "high unusual artistic quality" of these albums.
The difference with Brooks is that there was thought and insight to his Wal Mart deal.He had, and has a very smart marketing strategy.Elvis' time and Garth's cant be compared because the climate of the business is world's apart.The Elvis budget lp's were haphazard at best.Look at the artwork.I shudder when I pull my copy of Seperate Ways out.Personally I think the Burning Love did hurt Elvis.That title track was Elvis' return to rock.A masterpiece.How is it handled?Tossed into the garbage can.I myself and guilty of buying them all when they were released.Even as a youngster I knew they were pretty much crap.I admit they have a certain nostalgia about them.Another wat these lp's hurt Elvis was the over saturation of the market.RCA kept putting out lp's and 45's like it was still 1956.Once Elvis released a new track,it was soon followed by another.The frezny of the 50's was over.Another problem was the fact that Elvis just didnt care about his studio recordngs anymore at this point.Getting him into the studio to perform in a professional matter was about impossible at this point.So toss a few old tracks together and there you go.Most major artists back then never would have let themselves be subject to that type of deal.Most artists cared about their public perception as artists.Do you really think Petunia The Gardner's Daughter didnt hurt his credibilty?That crap should have been buried.Not marketed to the masses.
Yes so true-today the climate of business is much different than in Elvis's time-and Brooks did not put out in these bargain deals at Walmart things like Petunia the Gardners Daughter-he put out good material.
The Burning Love album was the worst for exactly the reasons you state-some young kid hears Burning Love on the radio in 72 and says,
"WOW that rocks"
then he buys the budget album of "Burning Love" and says
"HEY this is not what I expected-I just got taken-by Elvis Presley"
So he dismisses any new album of Elvis with little real listening-just remembering he feels he was taken.
Raised on Rock
10-27-2009, 09:33 AM
These lp's sold well but Elvis paid a hefty price.His artistic credibility.To include a bona fide classic like Burning Love on a budget lp was criminal.An absolute disgrace.These lp's represent the desire for the quick buck.It things like this that have always chipped away at the respect Elvis is deserved.
That is exactly my point about the camden albums, we tend to think just as fans and say something like: oh well I liked the cover of most of them and some of the movie songs on them are "fun" to hear (I´ve also got all of them on cassette tapes when I was around 6 years old, back in the mid 80's, cause man they were amazingly cheap, and I still keep them somewhere out of childhood nostalgia) . But let's get out of our fan minds and think about the music business back in the early 70's. After the Memphis Sessions, Burning Love was the record that did got the most attention outside the fans, attention from newer generations even, and as you well say Jack, what was done with it?
Another wat these lp's hurt Elvis was the over saturation of the market.RCA kept putting out lp's and 45's like it was still 1956.Once Elvis released a new track,it was soon followed by another.The frezny of the 50's was over.
Exactly, as I said, most artists, by 1970, where releasing just one album per year, and that was that, (Beatles started doing that since '66!!! after the mania stopped) RCA constantly buried elvis new releases, both singles and albums, releasing and absurd torrent of 2 other singles just weeks after the main release was out, or a camden album right after the real new album was out. Back in the 50's and the first half of the 60's that might have been the way to go, by 1970 (in fact since '64 that started to be a problem for Presley doings in the charts), that was the wrong way to do it and slowly started to kill the artistic credibility that he had recently achieved, why? cause we has treated and delivered to the masses not at all as an artist but as... you know as what.
Do you really think Petunia The Gardner's Daughter didnt hurt his credibilty?That crap should have been buried.Not marketed to the masses.
Its clear to us how those Camden did hurt the sales of the new albums, but if for any reason had to exist (I don't see none) at least the could have used the good stuff from the old days, and something else could had happened in terms of what would the masses will think of Elvis, but not the stuff that as you well said should have been buried!!! Those Camden one hit and the rest movie crap, served of nothing as a constant reminder to the masses, of Elvis greatest shit, how could that not have hurt Elvis image!
Even today are still are a constant underground mine in record stores, quick anecdote: here in Mexico City for some reason, some of the biggest record stores, do always have some of those camden stuff re-releses on CD that came out years ago, (collectables for fans sure, but here'r the deal), there is also the new Legacy Memphis stuff, and a bunch of other stuff, but the camdens are guess what, yes, they are the cheapest by far, way more cheap than the new memphis stuff. A friend of mine got to hear Always on My Mind, Seperate Ways, stuff like that, and got interested, then she goes to the record store, and saw these ultra cheap camden releases, and under the obvious logic of a non fan, she though of Separate Ways, oh this must be the album from the era when he recorded that kind of stuff! right, plus the cover of this one does make you think its an actual album and not a movie song compilation. Well guess her surprise when she got to hear the record, sure she said some of the songs she founded there kind of liked them (mostly cause Elvis voice if not the song), but hey! that was not what she was looking for, neither what she expected, and her overall feeling was disappointing: what the hell is this? I've been ripped off. Explaining to her the situation, and burning her a Cd with the right tracks, the stuff she was looking for, she got most pleased with my CD and that did saved her interest and respect for Elvis music, but her attitude towards the label remains as what hoax! But tell me about those people in the same situation, without an older fan, or a fan at all to get them the right tracks, or advice them about the right Cd's to buy? those feeling could not be only towards the label but towards Elvis, in other words, that idea of: Elvis is just a joke with a few good hit songs is being perpetuated. No good.
Well another point is that when the Col. renegotiated the record contracts in he could have asked for less product to be released each year.
I think there was an agreement for 3 singles and 2 albums a year for most of Elvis's career-which now seems like a lot in 2009 but most acts did release at least a couple singles a year in the 50s into the 70s.
RCA had the upper hand in all of Elvis's recording years-and it never changed-it even got worse after the pre 73 catalogue deal because they could decide what to do with all that material with virtually no interference by Parker or Elvis. They packaged and repackaged. But in the mid 70s when Elvis seemed burnt out on recording-he just left them few choices because he was constantly dragging his feet about recording. He still owed them so many singles and albums a year and they mined the vaults so to speak.
As far as unfriendly press heres a tidbit which tells exactly the situation with Elvis's image of today from the New York Times in 2002:
For those too young to have experienced Elvis Presley in his prime, today’s celebration of the 25th anniversary of his death must seem peculiar. All the talentless impersonators and appalling black velvet paintings on display can make him seem little more than a perverse and distant memory. But before Elvis was camp, he was its opposite: a genuine cultural force...
Elvis’s breakthroughs are underappreciated because in this rock-and-roll age, his hard-rocking music and sultry style have triumphed so completely.....
"Yes so true-today the climate of business is much different than in Elvis's time-and Brooks did not put out in these bargain deals at Walmart things like Petunia the Gardners Daughter-he put out good material"
Youre right Ken,I hate to say it,but most major stars wouldnt have dreamed of singing the junk Elvis did.Why the junk would be released again on budget lp's makes no sense.I honestly cant believe Elvis would sing some of that stuff.Those budget lp's should just have been forgotten about.
I must say again that the treatment of Burning Love was a travesty.How could that happen?
Raised on Rock
10-27-2009, 12:42 PM
"Yes so true-today the climate of business is much different than in Elvis's time-and Brooks did not put out in these bargain deals at Walmart things like Petunia the Gardners Daughter-he put out good material"
Youre right Ken,I hate to say it,but most major stars wouldnt have dreamed of singing the junk Elvis did.Why the junk would be released again on budget lp's makes no sense.I honestly cant believe Elvis would sing some of that stuff.Those budget lp's should just have been forgotten about.
I must say again that the treatment of Burning Love was a travesty.How could that happen?
And I'm telling you, those camden releases far form being forgotten, were re-released on Cd, and are there, around record stores introducing Old Mcdonlad's by Elvis to a whole new generation... god! help them.
Raised on Rock
10-27-2009, 12:44 PM
For those too young to have experienced Elvis Presley in his prime, today’s celebration of the 25th anniversary of his death must seem peculiar. All the talentless impersonators and appalling black velvet paintings on display can make him seem little more than a perverse and distant memory. But before Elvis was camp, he was its opposite: a genuine cultural force...
Elvis’s breakthroughs are underappreciated because in this rock-and-roll age, his hard-rocking music and sultry style have triumphed so completely.....
(y) Elvis '56 was a documental that at least to me, born in the 80's put everything back in perspective about who is Elvis in modern music.
That kind of stuff, and the respective Cd (released 14 years later :blink:) is to me the way to go.
Hope Elvis '75 could be released with a DVD on that line.
Jumpsuit Junkie
10-27-2009, 01:00 PM
Whilst I agree that 'Old MacDonald' should been erased from history completely, other songs from Camden were some of the first songs I heard of Elvis. Separate Ways was on a Camden release! So it wasn't all bad :blush:
Jungleroom76
10-27-2009, 01:18 PM
Camden DID hurt the sales of Elvis new material releases? No, can't be proved, but by the early 70's, the most of contemporary artists where releasing an album per year, Elvis was forced to keep releasing two or even three, plus you add two camden releases? one of all those Elvis albums released in just one year definitively had to suffer on sales and because they where making Elvis to compete with himself! Marketing wise, back then might be seen as: keeping Elvis in the public eye, but that was a decade ago mentality (the early 60's), 70's wise, that was just the wrong way of doing it. Period.
While I certainly agree that the release of the Camden budget LP's may have hurt the sales of Elvis' "official" RCA albums, it certainly has to be pointed out that the sole reason that those budget albums were even released in the first place was because it was just another way for The Colonel to get around his contracts with Elvis and RCA. By releasing older soundtrack material, and even the current hits BURNING LOVE, SEPARATE WAYS and ALWAYS ON MY MIND (which I am sure were included on the budget LP's to help ensure more sales thus more $$$ for ol' Colonel Tom) on the budget LP's, The Colonel was able to circumvent the contractual agreements with Elvis and RCA in such a way that both Elvis and the record company received less in commission on the budget LP sales so that The Colonel could (once again!) get a bigger slice of the pie than even the artist who created the music in the first place!!! :angry:
So in other words, the budget albums really didn't even need to be released in the first place....it was just another way for The Colonel to keep lining his pockets at Elvis' and RCA's expense!!! :cursing:
TCB!
Mike
Brian
10-27-2009, 01:33 PM
Whilst I agree that 'Old MacDonald' should been erased from history completely, other songs from Camden were some of the first songs I heard of Elvis. Separate Ways was on a Camden release! So it wasn't all bad :blush:
that's my point some real good songs were released first on those budget albums
most everyone is acting like they had nothing but horrible songs on them equivalent to the movie soundtracks.
Brian
10-27-2009, 01:59 PM
Yes so true-today the climate of business is much different than in Elvis's time-and Brooks did not put out in these bargain deals at Walmart things like Petunia the Gardners Daughter-he put out good material.
The Burning Love album was the worst for exactly the reasons you state-some young kid hears Burning Love on the radio in 72 and says,
"WOW that rocks"
then he buys the budget album of "Burning Love" and says
"HEY this is not what I expected-I just got taken-by Elvis Presley"
So he dismisses any new album of Elvis with little real listening-just remembering he feels he was taken.
I hate Garth Brooks his music s***s
Raised on Rock
10-27-2009, 02:32 PM
that's my point some real good songs were released first on those budget albums
most everyone is acting like they had nothing but horrible songs on them equivalent to the movie soundtracks.
Where did I pointed or acted as they had nothing but horrible songs, can't see anyone saying that. What I did clearly pointed out was, that they actually had great songs on them, tops of the tops, I did stated any how, that to mix those great songs, with something as awful as Old Mcdonals, was by no means a brilliant idea in keeping Elvis credibility as an artist, and also that that, by no means makes a high calibre Album.
And the fact that those great songs where mixed with the crap, in albums directed to the masses did hurt Elvis image in ways already pointed out by several people on this thread. And they keep doing it as they are back since a few years.
Yes I bought them all as a kid, I was about 7, and the only reason is that I could buy one each week, just like candy. But I knew even as a child, that there was better Elvis stuff out there, but I had to save for a month to get it, and you see, I needed my weekly shot of Elvis new stuff back then.
But I was already hooked on Elvis, they were not the camden releases what did it, it was other stuff. And I always wondered what with those weird songs between the gems, somebody told me, oh that's the movie stuff, and I just though, oh well, and skip some of those. No, not all the movie stuff was bad.
Raised on Rock
10-27-2009, 02:37 PM
I hate Garth Brooks his music s***s
I dislike that Garth Brooks the most, just no my type of music, BUT KMP HAS A POINT ON WHAT HE IS STATING USING THE BROOKS EXAMPLE.
I hate Garth Brooks his music s***s
Well to each his own, I like some of his music and am impressed with his business savvy. He does what the Col cared less about-Brooks mixes good business ideas without cutting or limiting his own creativity.
Brooks is very aware of how to sell his music, and how to run up his totals-his only idiocy was the alter ego album as Chris Gaines. It flopped but that has been his only flop.
He kept his material quality high-without anyone to limit him and his creativity by business rules or contracts which put creative control in someone elses hands.
Brian
10-27-2009, 06:35 PM
Well to each his own, I like some of his music and am impressed with his business savvy. He does what the Col cared less about-Brooks mixes good business ideas without cutting or limiting his own creativity.
Brooks is very aware of how to sell his music, and how to run up his totals-his only idiocy was the alter ego album as Chris Gaines. It flopped but that has been his only flop.
He kept his material quality high-without anyone to limit him and his creativity by business rules or contracts which put creative control in someone elses hands.
The Budget albums weren't that bad
I don't think it's Brooks doing all that he's got representatives and a record label that tells him what to do.
I thought also that Brooks last album didn't do all that well and was a let down to his others.
The Budget albums weren't that bad
I don't think it's Brooks doing all that he's got representatives and a record label that tells him what to do.
I thought also that Brooks last album didn't do all that well and was a let down to his others.
You would be mistaken-Brooks is deeply involved in the how, why, and where of his music including the business end of it.
If you have ever heard any of the interviews he has done in the past on the now defunct Nashville Network with Ralph Emory-you would see he knows what he wants in his music and his business dealings and he explains it all very well.
Brian
10-27-2009, 06:50 PM
You would be mistaken-Brooks is deeply involved in the how, why, and where of his music including the business end of it.
If you have ever heard any of the interviews he has done in the past on the now defunct Nashville Network with Ralph Emory-you would see he knows what he wants in his music and his business dealings and he explains it all very well.
I don't watch Brook's interviews
I'm sure he's involved and certainly more involved than Elvis was, but how do you know he came up with the Walmart idea?
Brian
10-27-2009, 06:51 PM
Where did I pointed or acted as they had nothing but horrible songs, can't see anyone saying that. What I did clearly pointed out was, that they actually had great songs on them, tops of the tops, I did stated any how, that to mix those great songs, with something as awful as Old Mcdonals, was by no means a brilliant idea in keeping Elvis credibility as an artist, and also that that, by no means makes a high calibre Album.
And the fact that those great songs where mixed with the crap, in albums directed to the masses did hurt Elvis image in ways already pointed out by several people on this thread. And they keep doing it as they are back since a few years.
Yes I bought them all as a kid, I was about 7, and the only reason is that I could buy one each week, just like candy. But I knew even as a child, that there was better Elvis stuff out there, but I had to save for a month to get it, and you see, I needed my weekly shot of Elvis new stuff back then.
But I was already hooked on Elvis, they were not the camden releases what did it, it was other stuff. And I always wondered what with those weird songs between the gems, somebody told me, oh that's the movie stuff, and I just though, oh well, and skip some of those. No, not all the movie stuff was bad.
It's just the impression I got from everyone's posts that they wish those budget albums had never been released.
I don't watch Brook's interviews
I'm sure he's involved and certainly more involved than Elvis was, but how do you know he came up with the Walmart idea?
Because he is smart-he knows while he is taking off all this time from live performing he needs to continue to keep his name and music on the market-he said in his last Emory interview that although he would not be touring for several years-he would still have projects and a few tricks up his sleeve so people did not forget him. That has been the case.
Brian
10-27-2009, 07:03 PM
Budget Album
Almost in love
1. Almost in Love
2. Long legged girl
3. Edge of reality
4. My little friend
5. A little less conversation
6. Rubberneckin
7. Clean up your own backyard
8. U.S. Male
9. Charro
10. Stay away
Elvis sings Flaming Star
1. Flaming Star
2. Wonderful world
3. Night life
4. All I needed was the rain
5. Too much monkey Business
6. Yellow rose of Texas
7. She's a machine
8. Do the Vega
9. Tiger man
You'll never walk alone
1. You'll never walk alone
2. Who am I
3. Let us pray
4. Peace in the valley
5. We call on him
6. I believe
7. It is no secret
8. Sing you children
9. Take my hand, precious lord
These 3 albums have pretty good varied tracklists of songs that contained mostly material that were unavailable on any albums at the time they also showcased songs not associated with Elvis.
The only weak songs to me would be She's a machine, long legged girl and Do the vega.
However, Long legged girl is very short and not as bad as most other movie songs of it's era.
Budget Album
Almost in love
1. Almost in Love
2. Long legged girl
3. Edge of reality
4. My little friend
5. A little less conversation
6. Rubberneckin
7. Clean up your own backyard
8. U.S. Male
9. Charro
10. Stay away
Elvis sings Flaming Star
1. Flaming Star
2. Wonderful world
3. Night life
4. All I needed was the rain
5. Too much monkey Business
6. Yellow rose of Texas
7. She's a machine
8. Do the Vega
9. Tiger man
You'll never walk alone
1. You'll never walk alone
2. Who am I
3. Let us pray
4. Peace in the valley
5. We call on him
6. I believe
7. It is no secret
8. Sing you children
9. Take my hand, precious lord
These 3 albums have pretty good varied tracklists of songs that contained mostly material that were unavailable on any albums at the time they also showcased songs not associated with Elvis.
The only weak songs to me would be She's a machine, long legged girl and Do the vega.
However, Long legged girl is very short and not as bad as most other movie songs of it's era.
Of the Camden perhaps these are the best-but there were many more Camdens than these.
Flaming Star was the start of the budgets and for a time you could only by it at the Singer sewing centers the price for these was $1.98.
The religious album was actually not bad at all-it contained good songs.
Almost in Love was not so bad-but from here on the other 6-7 Camdens-which came out well into Elvis return to recording serious music with serious intent to make hits-were just a diversion from that aim.
I still do not see highly unusual artistic quality to any of the Camden releases.
IMO Its one thing to have these type releases when the artist is dead and you have nothing left in the vaults except outtakes and similar live recordings-but while he was alive trying to return to quality recording is another.
Brian
10-27-2009, 07:24 PM
Of the Camden perhaps these are the best-but there were many more Camdens than these.
Flaming Star was the start of the budgets and for a time you could only by it at the Singer sewing centers the price for these was $1.98.
The religious album was actually not bad at all-it contained good songs.
Almost in Love was not so bad-but from here on the other 6-7 Camdens-which came out well into Elvis return to recording serious music with serious intent to make hits-were just a diversion from that aim.
I still do not see highly unusual artistic quality to any of the Camden releases.
IMO Its one thing to have these type releases when the artist is dead and you have nothing left in the vaults except outtakes and similar live recordings-but while he was alive trying to return to quality recording is another.
Yes, I know I bought all these albums at the time except Burning love and Separate ways.
What do you think Colonel Parker and RCA should've done release these songs at full price?
Yes, I know I bought all these albums at the time except Burning love and Separate ways.
What do you think Colonel Parker and RCA should've done release these songs at full price?
What I think should have been done is to allow the new Elvis recordings the chance to be the only thing out after 1969...........
........Perhaps in 1975 when Elvis had begun to tire and drag his feet about recording then they could release some of the better of the lesser songs to fill the gap-but not while he was trying to make hits, not while he was serious about recording and still going to the studio.
The problem with Elvis from day one IMO was not how to make good music and to help Elvis make good music-but to make profit.
So RCA and Parker would release these "budget releases" whenever they wanted with no concern for the effect on the more current projects-I'm sure they felt
"what we do not sell in the new music-we make up for with the already recorded just setting in the vaults music-and make more profit on"
Not a good way to decide the direction of a career of a top artist, not good for his image as an artist IMO That was the problem from day one.
Brian
10-27-2009, 08:35 PM
What I think should have been done is to allow the new Elvis recordings the chance to be the only thing out after 1969...........
........Perhaps in 1975 when Elvis had begun to tire and drag his feet about recording then they could release some of the better of the lesser songs to fill the gap-but not while he was trying to make hits, not while he was serious about recording and still going to the studio.
That's a good idea
The thing is in 1968/1969 no one knew that Elvis would tire of recording after the 1972 Hollywood sessions and it would be difficult from then on to get him in the studio.
They must've thought Elvis would always march into the studio to record new material whenever they asked.
That's a good idea
The thing is in 1968/1969 no one knew that Elvis would tire of recording after the 1972 Hollywood sessions and it would be difficult from then on to get him in the studio.
They must've thought Elvis would always march into the studio to record new material whenever they asked.
This is true-something burnt him out on it-whether his own lack of initiative, boredom, or the death of his creative spirit.
When something you use to love to do- becomes more work and hassel than enjoyment of accomplishment-you avoid doing it.
Brian
10-27-2009, 09:22 PM
More decent quality budget albums
C'mon everybody
1. C'mon everybody
2. Angel
3. Easy come, easy go
4. A Whistling tune
5. Follow that dream
6. King of the whole wide world
7. I'll take love
8. Today, Tomorrow and forever
9. I'm not the marrying kind
10. This is living
I got lucky
1. I got lucky
2. What a wonderful world
3. I need somebody to lean on
4. Yoga is as yoga does
5. Riding the rainbow
6. Fools fall in love
7. The love machine
8. Home is where the heart is
9. You gotta stop
10. If you think I don't need you
Lets be friends
1. Stay away Joe
2. If i'm a fool
3. Lets be friends
4. Lets forget about the stars
5. Mama
6. I'll be there
7. Almost
8. Change of habit
9. Have a happy
Elvis 1970 Camden Christmas album
1. Blue Christmas
2. Silent night
3. White Christmas
4. Santa Claus is back in town
5. I'll be home for Christmas
6. If every day was like Christmas
7. Here comes Santa Claus
8. Oh little town of Bethlehem
9. Santa, bring my baby back to me
10. Mama liked the roses
Separate ways
1. Separate ways
2. Sentimental me
3. In my way
4. I met her today
5. What now, what next, where to
6. Always on my mind
7. I slipped, I stumbled, I fell
8. It is so strange
9. Forget me never
10. Old shep
Of the 5 albums weak songs are Easy Come, Easy go, Yoga is as yoga does, The love machine and mama.
Now these 4 songs are extremely weak but these budget albums still have good tracklists for the most part.
I think the big picture is being overlooked when it comes to those budget lp's.Elvis had came back from pretty much oblivion just a few years prior to their release.He was riding a new wave of popularity and credibility.Great shows,several top notch lp's,back on the charts.He was being taken seriously as an artist.To me that's important.Then he puts out Love Letters.That was the beginning of the end.His regular lp's became very weak.Then the budget lp's with a good song or two but mostly crap.It's like everything he achieved in that burst of rediscovery and creativity was just cast aside.Elvis was back on top.It wasnt the time for crappy cheap lp's.The bottom fell out of Elvis' recording career after a brief resurgance.
Brian
10-27-2009, 11:07 PM
I think the big picture is being overlooked when it comes to those budget lp's.Elvis had came back from pretty much oblivion just a few years prior to their release.He was riding a new wave of popularity and credibility.Great shows,several top notch lp's,back on the charts.He was being taken seriously as an artist.To me that's important.Then he puts out Love Letters.That was the beginning of the end.His regular lp's became very weak.Then the budget lp's with a good song or two but mostly crap.It's like everything he achieved in that burst of rediscovery and creativity was just cast aside.Elvis was back on top.It wasnt the time for crappy cheap lp's.The bottom fell out of Elvis' recording career after a brief resurgance.
I'm not overlooking the big picture
To me it's more like 5 or 6 good songs out of 10 on the budget albums
They weren't crappy to me,
In the 70's I actually think Elvis career went like this On Stage, TTWII, Elvis country, He touched me, Aloha and Today were good albums
Love letters, Raised on Rock, Fool, EP Boulevard, EIC and Moody Blue were bad albums
Good Times, Promised Land and Elvis Now were mediocre albums,
Good Times and Promised Land could've been a good album if RCA had took the best songs from both albums and just released one of them.
The big picture is being overlooked IMO.Elvis was on a hot streak right up until Elvis Country.It wasnt the time to release those lp's.Having a couple of goods songs tossed in between Yoga Is As Yoga does among others was stupidity.Elvis needed cohesive lp's.He needed to add to his legacy.Not just chase the almighty dollar.There are lots of reason Elvis will never get the credit he is due on a level with the Beatles when it comes to public perception.It's because it's perceived he sold out so much of the time.Those budget lp's were just a sellout.They didnt add anything to his artistic merit.They detracted from it.His entire 70's output suffered greatly from his lack of artistic vision.He and management both dropped the ball.
A good comparison to these budget lp's would be the Spinout lp.You have an absolute terrible soundtrack.It's god awfull.Yet two gems were just cast away in it.I'll Remember You and Tomorrow Is A Long Time.However these two nice tracks cant save the lp from it's reputation.It's a known piece of crap.Far below Elvis' talents.What did the Spinout lp do for Elvis' career and reputation?It reinforced he was recording crap.The budget lp's did the exact same thing.Nice financial return at the expense of Elvis' credibility.They had no merit at all.
Brian
10-28-2009, 12:07 AM
A good comparison to these budget lp's would be the Spinout lp.You have an absolute terrible soundtrack.It's god awfull.Yet two gems were just cast away in it.I'll Remember You and Tomorrow Is A Long Time.However these two nice tracks cant save the lp from it's reputation.It's a known piece of crap.Far below Elvis' talents.What did the Spinout lp do for Elvis' career and reputation?It reinforced he was recording crap.The budget lp's did the exact same thing.Nice financial return at the expense of Elvis' credibility.They had no merit at all.
A good majority of the budget albums were better than the Spinout soundtracks.
I won't accept that the budget LP's hurt Elvis' artistic credibility as much as the soundtracks
Brian
10-28-2009, 12:17 AM
The big picture is being overlooked IMO.Elvis was on a hot streak right up until Elvis Country.It wasnt the time to release those lp's.Having a couple of goods songs tossed in between Yoga Is As Yoga does among others was stupidity.Elvis needed cohesive lp's.He needed to add to his legacy.Not just chase the almighty dollar.There are lots of reason Elvis will never get the credit he is due on a level with the Beatles when it comes to public perception.It's because it's perceived he sold out so much of the time.Those budget lp's were just a sellout.They didnt add anything to his artistic merit.They detracted from it.His entire 70's output suffered greatly from his lack of artistic vision.He and management both dropped the ball.
Have you ever thought because those albums were priced cheaply and only available in certain stores that a lot people didn't even notice them being on the market.
I think most people would agree with me that the budget albums weren't nearly as damaging as the soundracks.
They contained some good songs that quite a few Elvis fans loved.
Regarding Elvis' LP output
I think Elvis would've dropped the ball anyway regardless
Elvis really wasn't the type of guy to record cohesive LP's aside from Elvis Country, Gospel and Christmas albums.
He also got bored real easy and by the early 70's there were only two things that would probably challenge him
1. An overseas tour
2. A serious dramatic film role
Elvis had already made 2 comebacks by 1970 and he probably felt those 2 things were the only thing left to conquer.
"Have you ever thought because those albums were priced cheaply and only available in certain stores that a lot people didn't even notice them being on the market."
No.As you pointed out they sold well.Obviously somebody noticed them.Back where I grew up you couldnt go into a store without seeing those cheap lp's.They were everywhere,not just certain stores.Elvis was a major active artist,music fans and the industry paid attention to his releases back then.Those releases all sucked big time except financially.
"I think Elvis would've dropped the ball anyway regardless
Elvis really wasn't the type of guy to record cohesive LP's aside from Elvis Country, Gospel and Christmas albums."
You are shortchanging my hero.Youre statement illustrates my point about Elvis' reputation as a recording artist.Youre forgetting about Elvis Is Back,From Elvis In Memphis,Back In Memphis.All cohesive lp's.Two of which are masterpieces.Elvis' failure to continue to release good lp's was undermined by the philosophy to make money.The same reason he did those terrible soundtracks.Hence the budget lp's.That's what I've been trying to point out.The big picture.Those lp's were not just harmless lp's quietly tucked away in youre local drugstore waiting to get bought.They are glaring examples of what was wrong with Elvis career.Elvis was the kind of guy to make great lp's.He had more going for him than any entertainer that has ever lived.His failure is due to a bad business philosophy in part.It sucked the life and creativity out of him.We dont need Elvis to go into the studio.Let's just toss some leftover crap on budget lp.They will buy it as long as the cover is pretty.
Brian
10-28-2009, 01:56 AM
"Have you ever thought because those albums were priced cheaply and only available in certain stores that a lot people didn't even notice them being on the market."
No.As you pointed out they sold well.Obviously somebody noticed them.Back where I grew up you couldnt go into a store without seeing those cheap lp's.They were everywhere,not just certain stores.Elvis was a major active artist,music fans and the industry paid attention to his releases back then.Those releases all sucked big time except financially.
"I think Elvis would've dropped the ball anyway regardless
Elvis really wasn't the type of guy to record cohesive LP's aside from Elvis Country, Gospel and Christmas albums."
You are shortchanging my hero.Youre statement illustrates my point about Elvis' reputation as a recording artist.Youre forgetting about Elvis Is Back,From Elvis In Memphis,Back In Memphis.All cohesive lp's.Two of which are masterpieces.Elvis' failure to continue to release good lp's was undermined by the philosophy to make money.The same reason he did those terrible soundtracks.Hence the budget lp's.That's what I've been trying to point out.The big picture.Those lp's were not just harmless lp's quietly tucked away in youre local drugstore waiting to get bought.They are glaring examples of what was wrong with Elvis career.Elvis was the kind of guy to make great lp's.He had more going for him than any entertainer that has ever lived.His failure is due to a bad business philosophy in part.It sucked the life and creativity out of him.We dont need Elvis to go into the studio.Let's just toss some leftover crap on budget lp.They will buy it as long as the cover is pretty.
You are short changing my precious budget albums
What i'm saying about the budget albums is this
I thought Elvis sings Flaming Star, Almost in love, You'll never walk alone, Camden 1970 Christmas album were good albums that didn't damage Elvis' reputation as a serious musical artist.
I like almost all of Elvis' songs from 1968-1969 and songs from Follow that Dream and Kid Galahad so that's why i like most of them.
As you know RCA and Colonel Parker thought they could release albums at a low price that would be cheaper than the regular studio Lp's and to include songs that hadn't yet been released on albums.
For that kinda concept they were actually compiled pretty good with a lot of good songs included on them and they were better than the awful mid 60's soundtracks
They sold well but I'd bet you a lot of people weren't even aware of them
In my opinion the only budget LP that hurt Elvis' artistic credibility a little was Burning love because it contained a new hit single and surrounded it with 8 of the worst possible movie songs.
I would've either released Burning love with 8 new studio tracks or released it on something like Elvis golden records vol. 5
I know Elvis made 2 good LP's during the Memphis sessions but he got bored
he could've recorded a blues LP but chose not to.
He was going to record a folk album as a follow up to Elvis country but he lost interest.
I know Elvis was fully capable of continuing to release quality studio albums it's a shame he didn't.
It's news to me that people paid close attention to Elvis new releases back in the 70's.
The budget albums were not available everywhere where I lived.
"It's news to me that people paid close attention to Elvis new releases back in the 70's"
Elvis began the decade on top of the whole world.Revitalized and full steam ahead.His lp's and 45's were back in the charts.Several gold singles and lp's plus the success of the tv special only 2 years prior.Elvis was relevant again.It made all the difference.The statement you made is Elvis' curse that I dont think he will ever escape.People were paying attention to Elvis as the decade began.He was on fire.The reason was he was putting out quality product.Material that went beyond his normal fan base and grabbed the attention of joe public.Songs like Burning Love and Wonder Of You sold well because they were good songs that appealed to many people.The same goes for his early 70 lp's.Then you get Love Letters and Elvis Now.They hit with a thud.Then the budget lp's.They were all momentum killers.Elvis lousy rep in the 70's is a result of what happened in the latter and mid part of the decade.Every poor official release,every crappy budget lp,they were all nails in the coffin from an artistic standpoint.
Brian
10-28-2009, 03:06 AM
"It's news to me that people paid close attention to Elvis new releases back in the 70's"
Elvis began the decade on top of the whole world.Revitalized and full steam ahead.His lp's and 45's were back in the charts.Several gold singles and lp's plus the success of the tv special only 2 years prior.Elvis was relevant again.It made all the difference.The statement you made is Elvis' curse that I dont think he will ever escape.People were paying attention to Elvis as the decade began.He was on fire.The reason was he was putting out quality product.Material that went beyond his normal fan base and grabbed the attention of joe public.Songs like Burning Love and Wonder Of You sold well because they were good songs that appealed to many people.The same goes for his early 70 lp's.Then you get Love Letters and Elvis Now.They hit with a thud.Then the budget lp's.They were all momentum killers.Elvis lousy rep in the 70's is a result of what happened in the latter and mid part of the decade.Every poor official release,every crappy budget lp,they were all nails in the coffin from an artistic standpoint.
I was speaking of Elvis not being relevant in the 70's to non fans despite the quality releases that you have mentioned and the 68 t.v. special.
and as you've pointed out Elvis was releasing so many things back then some of them went under the radar as far as the general public were concerned
Sure he was putting out quality material at the begining of the decade.
I don't think you can put all his artistic reputation down to the releases of Love letters, Elvis Now and Burning Love LP and the rest of the budget releases. Elvis should've recorded more in the mid and late 70's than he did and those releases could've been good but he didn't.
If Elvis came out with a Blues LP in the 70's of him singing his renditions of blues songs that would've got him some critical praise and it would've sold well but he never made one.
So it at least partially comes down to Elvis.
Jumpsuit Junkie
10-28-2009, 03:52 AM
that's my point some real good songs were released first on those budget albums
most everyone is acting like they had nothing but horrible songs on them equivalent to the movie soundtracks.
I agree, they may have had some awful compilations like "Elvis Sings Hits From His Movies" but it would be disingenuous to say that all albums by camden were that bad.
I'll be honest here, I don't get hung up on album sales, if I like the track listing and it brings something new to the table, it doesn't matter who releases it :blush:
I agree, they may have had some awful compilations like "Elvis Sings Hits From His Movies" but it would be disingenuous to say that all albums by camden were that bad.
I'll be honest here, I don't get hung up on album sales, if I like the track listing and it brings something new to the table, it doesn't matter who releases it :blush:
The good releases were the xmas and gospel lp's.That's only because the quality of his gospel and xmas recordings was so high.There werent any real turkeys to include.
"So it at least partially comes down to Elvis."
Most of the blame belongs to Elvis.He's the one who didnt want to record anymore.When he did try he was unprofessional and it yielded mixed results.Once Elvis threw in the towel it was over.He became essentially a live act in the 70's.
Jumpsuit Junkie
10-28-2009, 05:58 AM
Most of the blame belongs to Elvis. He's the one who didn't want to record anymore. When he did try he was unprofessional and it yielded mixed results. Once Elvis threw in the towel it was over. He became essentially a live act in the 70's.
I agree that Elvis threw in the towel in the early 70's, his commitment was mediocre at best, that said wouldn't that indicate the record companies would have to do the best of a bad job. Record companies have little or no respect for any artist whatever the size of the act! A lot of artists have resorted to creating their own labels to manage their back catalogue.
Elvis was just as bad as the Colonel when it came to income streams, the Colonel would just tell Elvis about what numbers it would bring to him and Elvis just seemed to agree for the most part.
Elvis lost his drive and enthusiasm for recording for many reasons, prescribed drugs being a large part of that!
Albert
10-28-2009, 06:04 AM
I'm not overlooking the big picture
To me it's more like 5 or 6 good songs out of 10 on the budget albums
They weren't crappy to me,
In the 70's I actually think Elvis career went like this On Stage, TTWII, Elvis country, He touched me, Aloha and Today were good albums
Love letters, Raised on Rock, Fool, EP Boulevard, EIC and Moody Blue were bad albums
Good Times, Promised Land and Elvis Now were mediocre albums,
Good Times and Promised Land could've been a good album if RCA had took the best songs from both albums and just released one of them.
Exactly! That's where RCA made a big mistake: they released ALL material. Now all material may be nice for the Elvisfans, but in the 70s the albums should not only have targeted the Elvisfans (who bought -and buy- pretty much everything RCA/BMG/Sony release), but should also give Elvis stage to a younger, newer, more contemporary audience. I can't imagine most of the 70s albums would have received good reviews after their release (and the salesnumbers proof me right).
I agree that Elvis threw in the towel in the early 70's, his commitment was mediocre at best, that said wouldn't that indicate the record companies would have to do the best of a bad job. Record companies have little or no respect for any artist whatever the size of the act! A lot of artists have resorted to creating their own labels to manage their back catalogue.
Elvis was just as bad as the Colonel when it came to income streams, the Colonel would just tell Elvis about what numbers it would bring to him and Elvis just seemed to agree for the most part.
Elvis lost his drive and enthusiasm for recording for many reasons, prescribed drugs being a large part of that!
Agree completely
Exactly! That's where RCA made a big mistake: they released ALL material. Now all material may be nice for the Elvisfans, but in the 70s the albums should not only have targeted the Elvisfans (who bought -and buy- pretty much everything RCA/BMG/Sony release), but should also give Elvis stage to a younger, newer, more contemporary audience. I can't imagine most of the 70s albums would have received good reviews after their release (and the salesnumbers proof me right).
Youre right about this.The big problem was that elvis just didnt have the motivation to further his recording career.He's the one who picked out the demo's and decided what to record.He got hung up on those melancoly ballads.That's why I keep bringing up Burning Love.He finally cuts a classic rocker and it's wasted.RCA just couldnt get new material out of Elvis.Look at Way Down.Great track.I've always liked the Moody Blue lp.Yet it's just a thrown together mess with leftovers with a stellar performance tucked in there.
You are short changing my precious budget albums
What i'm saying about the budget albums is this
I thought Elvis sings Flaming Star, Almost in love, You'll never walk alone, Camden 1970 Christmas album were good albums that didn't damage Elvis' reputation as a serious musical artist.
I like almost all of Elvis' songs from 1968-1969 and songs from Follow that Dream and Kid Galahad so that's why i like most of them.
As you know RCA and Colonel Parker thought they could release albums at a low price that would be cheaper than the regular studio Lp's and to include songs that hadn't yet been released on albums.
For that kinda concept they were actually compiled pretty good with a lot of good songs included on them and they were better than the awful mid 60's soundtracks
They sold well but I'd bet you a lot of people weren't even aware of them
In my opinion the only budget LP that hurt Elvis' artistic credibility a little was Burning love because it contained a new hit single and surrounded it with 8 of the worst possible movie songs.
I would've either released Burning love with 8 new studio tracks or released it on something like Elvis golden records vol. 5
I know Elvis made 2 good LP's during the Memphis sessions but he got bored
he could've recorded a blues LP but chose not to.
He was going to record a folk album as a follow up to Elvis country but he lost interest.
I know Elvis was fully capable of continuing to release quality studio albums it's a shame he didn't.
It's news to me that people paid close attention to Elvis new releases back in the 70's.
The budget albums were not available everywhere where I lived.
:supriced::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:
I agree that Elvis threw in the towel in the early 70's, his commitment was mediocre at best, that said wouldn't that indicate the record companies would have to do the best of a bad job. Record companies have little or no respect for any artist whatever the size of the act! A lot of artists have resorted to creating their own labels to manage their back catalogue.
Elvis was just as bad as the Colonel when it came to income streams, the Colonel would just tell Elvis about what numbers it would bring to him and Elvis just seemed to agree for the most part.
Elvis lost his drive and enthusiasm for recording for many reasons, prescribed drugs being a large part of that!
I agree he threw in the towel on recording-he did not want to do it-but the question is why.
I know his reliance on meds is a part-but I think its much deeper than that.
I know most don't look at it that way-its easy to say he was just lazy and goofed off too much. But he use to love making records, he use to enjoy the process,
Creative drive is like the sex drive-it has to be encouraged, has to be open and honest, with no worries, I don't see the creative drive in Elvis ever being encouraged nor was his career open and honest-too many hoops to jump thru.:blush:
Youre right about this.The big problem was that elvis just didnt have the motivation to further his recording career.He's the one who picked out the demo's and decided what to record.He got hung up on those melancoly ballads.That's why I keep bringing up Burning Love.He finally cuts a classic rocker and it's wasted.RCA just couldnt get new material out of Elvis.Look at Way Down.Great track.I've always liked the Moody Blue lp.Yet it's just a thrown together mess with leftovers with a stellar performance tucked in there.
Yes he did love the ballads-they had to convince him to record Burning Love.
Could it be that being 37 in 1972 (which at the time was considered over the hill for rock in many corners) Elvis may have felt a little funny trying to compete with the up and coming 20 year old rockers? I think also the ballads were where his true heart was-(Dean Martin)
He had hinted in interviews in the late 50s that he was unsure of how long rock would be in style which is why I think he went the route of "Its Now or Never" out of the army-he wanted to be ready to make the transition from young rocker to a more Dean Martin/Crosby mold.
I also think the years of recording soundtracks may have helped to burn him out on recording-sure he picked the songs-the best of the demos-which fit into the script-he knew some of these were horrid-but had to do them.
He had to realize that he had not been offered top songs by top writers for years because of "the piece of the pie" deal which songwriters had to agree to. And the Col. may have eased up on that idea in the 70s but he still scared away many top notch writers because of the reputation of wanting a "piece of the pie"
Then there is the divorce-and some will say he should have got over it by the mid 70s-and on the surface maybe it appeared he had-but his choice of songs does not show it. He wanted to sing what my brother calls "weepers"
He wanted to sink his teeth into them and IMO to feel them (maybe he wanted Priscilla to feel them who knows) but he wanted those "weepers"
I think you add all this together and it comes out a lack of motivation and direction in the 70s...........burnt out.
Jungleroom76
10-28-2009, 11:46 AM
I agree he threw in the towel on recording-he did not want to do it-but the question is why.
I know his reliance on meds is a part-but I think its much deeper than that.
I know most don't look at it that way-its easy to say he was just lazy and goofed off too much. But he use to love making records, he use to enjoy the process...
Good question! :hmm:
Well as was already mentioned, I'm sure the medications Elvis was taking had a big part in his lack of creative drive for recording. Elvis' personal life surely was another big reason as evidenced by the songs he did choose to record in the later 70's. (PIECES OF MY LIFE, HURT, SOLITAIRE, LOVE COMING DOWN, I'LL NEVER FALL IN LOVE AGAIN, etc.)
There was also no encouragement from The Colonel (or anyone else in the Presley camp most likely) given to Elvis to get him to record....it was simply a matter of fulfilling the contractual agreements to RCA and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Elvis' contract with RCA paid him royalties on his albums in advance (or at least a portion of it was paid in advance) so there was no real need for the albums to sell well....as long as Elvis obligated the contracted number of recordings outlined in the catalog, the money would keep coming in regardless of the sales numbers!
Another factor in Elvis' lack of enthusiasm for recording new material could also be traced to The Colonel's system for getting new material to Elvis. Even in the 70's, The Colonel would only allow Elvis to receive songs from songwriters that he knew they could get the publishing rights to. If the songwriter wasn't willing to give up the publishing rights to their song (Dolly Parton, for example), then The Colonel wouldn't allow Elvis to record the song. So given that whole situation, there was certainly stunting of Elvis' potential continued artistic growth by severely limiting the catalog of songs that Elvis could record. (n)
Then of course, there was the simple fact that an Elvis concert could double as a recording session and if that was the case, then why should Elvis have to go through all the trouble of booking a recording studio, picking out songs to record and record them when he could just step on stage and perform for his fans AND record a new album at the same time!
Just a few other theories to ponder... :hmm:
TCB!
Mike
Brian
10-29-2009, 12:44 AM
Another factor in Elvis' lack of enthusiasm for recording new material could also be traced to The Colonel's system for getting new material to Elvis. Even in the 70's, The Colonel would only allow Elvis to receive songs from songwriters that he knew they could get the publishing rights to. If the songwriter wasn't willing to give up the publishing rights to their song (Dolly Parton, for example), then The Colonel wouldn't allow Elvis to record the song. So given that whole situation, there was certainly stunting of Elvis' potential continued artistic growth by severely limiting the catalog of songs that Elvis could record. (n)
TCB!
Mike
I would say this was the main reason.
Though I think the song publishing situtation has been blown out of proportion over the years.
For example I always thought 2 songs that Elvis should've got first crack at were ''I just can't help believing'' and ''Never Been to Spain''. He covered these songs on stage but I would've loved it if Elvis had gotten these 2 songs first and had hits with them instead of B.J. Thomas and Three Dog Night. I did some research and found out that B.J. Thomas recorded IJCHB at American Studios in either late 1969 or early 1970 so even if Elvis had went back to American Studios he wouldn't of gotten the opportunity to record the song first because he didn't have another recording session until June 1970.
I found out that Hoyt Axton wrote Never Been to Spain for himself and was performing as an opening act for Three Dog Night it was during that time that they heard him singing it on stage and they decided to record it.
So even without the publishing issues he wouldn't of got first crack at either of those songs.
Jerry Schilling was once talking and explaining how the publishing situation worked and how it would frustrate Elvis as he went on to explain that when he (Elvis) heard Green Green Grass of home or My Way on the radio and would wonder why he hadn't been asked to record those songs first.
Jerry Schilling gave some bad examples Elvis was offered the opportunity to record Green Green Grass of home before Tom Jones and My Way was written specifically by Paul Anka for Sinatra so even without the publishing situation Elvis wouldn't of gotten My Way.
I do not believe the I will Always love you story.
"I do not believe the I will Always love you story. "
Just curious as to why?Do you think Parton fabricated that whole story?I believe the situation behind that song is well known.
The way Elvis operated as far as obtaining new material cant be emphasized enough here.Most singer/songwriters would be glad to have Elvis record their songs.However most with any common sense didnt want to give away the farm for the honor.This did prevent Elvis from getting access to better material in some cases.The writers were well aware of the financial consequences of giving half of the publishing rights away.Parton's descion concerning Elvis recording her song was very smart on her part.
Brian
10-29-2009, 02:11 AM
"I do not believe the I will Always love you story. "
Just curious as to why?Do you think Parton fabricated that whole story?I believe the situation behind that song is well known.
The way Elvis operated as far as obtaining new material cant be emphasized enough here.Most singer/songwriters would be glad to have Elvis record their songs.However most with any common sense didnt want to give away the farm for the honor.This did prevent Elvis from getting access to better material in some cases.The writers were well aware of the financial consequences of giving half of the publishing rights away.Parton's descion concerning Elvis recording her song was very smart on her part.
Yes, she could be
The reason is Dolly Parton had already had a country hit with I will Always love you in 1974 which means Elvis was free to cover it most likely either on stage or on the Today album.
Elvis recorded covers throughout his career and didn't have to get the publishing on those songs as that's not how it worked.
Elvis covered a ton of songs on stage and also released covers as singles and didn't need the publishing.
The publishing affected Elvis in the sense that a songwriter writes a song for Elvis that has not been a hit and tries to get it to him, but Colonel Parker made sure those songs never made it to him.
Elvis most likely heard the song on the radio in 1974 and thought about recording it but lost interest.
Because Elvis could've sang it live on stage, recorded the song for one of his albums or even put it out as a single because it had already been a hit for Dolly Parton
I don't believe Parker stopped Elvis from recording it.
If Dolly Parton had written a song specifically for Elvis and then offered it to him i'd believe her but that's not what she's saying.
The story doesn't add up or make sense if you think about it.
Yes, she could be
The reason is Dolly Parton had already had a country hit with I will Always love you in 1974 which means Elvis was free to cover it most likely either on stage or on the Today album.
Elvis recorded covers throughout his career and didn't have to get the publishing on those songs as that's not how it worked.
Elvis covered a ton of songs on stage and also released covers as singles and didn't need the publishing.
The publishing affected Elvis in the sense that a songwriter writes a song for Elvis that has not been a hit and tries to get it to him, but Colonel Parker made sure those songs never made it to him.
Elvis most likely heard the song on the radio in 1974 and thought about recording it but lost interest.
Because Elvis could've sang it live on stage, recorded the song for one of his albums or even put it out as a single because it had already been a hit for Dolly Parton
I don't believe Parker stopped Elvis from recording it.
If Dolly Parton had written a song specifically for Elvis and then offered it to him i'd believe her but that's not what she's saying.
The story doesn't add up or make sense if you think about it.
I believe Elvis had the chance to record it first.Once a person releases a song on a recording it's out there.There were no publishing fee's to pay.Just the royalties.Parker kept songs from Elvis only in the sense that he wanted them to come from his own publishing house which Elvis owned half of if im not mistaken.Elvis could have changed that way of doing business also.This of course is why many songs bypassed Elvis.The Col didnt have to stop them.Savy songwriters knew the money was in the rights to the song.This something I dont think Elvis could have cared less about.
Jungleroom76
10-29-2009, 10:59 AM
I would say this was the main reason.
Though I think the song publishing situtation has been blown out of proportion over the years.
Honestly, I don't know how "out of proportion" this story really is Brian. This story has been told over and over again throughout the years by many different people - both inside the Presley camp as well as songwriters who have told similar stories about wanting Elvis to record their songs but not being willing to give up their publishing rights to them!! If it was from just one or two people, perhaps I would consider that the story wasn't true...but when multiple sources tell pretty much the same story, there almost certainly has to be credibility to it. :hmm:
For example I always thought 2 songs that Elvis should've got first crack at were ''I just can't help believing'' and ''Never Been to Spain''. He covered these songs on stage but I would've loved it if Elvis had gotten these 2 songs first and had hits with them instead of B.J. Thomas and Three Dog Night. I did some research and found out that B.J. Thomas recorded IJCHB at American Studios in either late 1969 or early 1970 so even if Elvis had went back to American Studios he wouldn't of gotten the opportunity to record the song first because he didn't have another recording session until June 1970.
I found out that Hoyt Axton wrote Never Been to Spain for himself and was performing as an opening act for Three Dog Night it was during that time that they heard him singing it on stage and they decided to record it.
So even without the publishing issues he wouldn't of got first crack at either of those songs.
Jerry Schilling was once talking and explaining how the publishing situation worked and how it would frustrate Elvis as he went on to explain that when he (Elvis) heard Green Green Grass of home or My Way on the radio and would wonder why he hadn't been asked to record those songs first.
Jerry Schilling gave some bad examples Elvis was offered the opportunity to record Green Green Grass of home before Tom Jones and My Way was written specifically by Paul Anka for Sinatra so even without the publishing situation Elvis wouldn't of gotten My Way.
If I remember correctly, there is a difference between recording a song in the studio and releasing it versus performing the song live on stage and releasing it in terms of the publishing rights and the like. I'm certainly not a law scholar so I don't know the in's and out's of it, but my basic understanding is that Elvis could perform songs live on stage (and even have them be released on record) and there was no issue with the publishing rights...it was only when the song was recorded in the studio that the publishing issue came up. Perhaps it was simply a matter of The Colonel not having control over what songs Elvis sang on stage?? I'm not really sure, but I think that is the reason why the songs you mentioned have been released in concert form only and no studio versions were ever officially released. I know there is a studio version of MY WAY out there now, but it wasn't released during Elvis' lifetime probably because Paul Anka wouldn't give up the publishing rights to the song. So my guess is that MY WAY remained in the RCA vaults until the 70's box set was released and obviously by then, there was no problem getting the publishing rights to it since RCA wasn't asking Paul to give up his rights to the song. :hmm:
I do not believe the I will Always love you story.
Regardless of whether that particular story is true or not, there is enough evidence throughout Elvis' career of this publishing rights issue to lend serious credibility to it.
TCB!
Mike
Jungleroom76
10-29-2009, 11:03 AM
The reason is Dolly Parton had already had a country hit with I will Always love you in 1974...
Didn't Elvis have an interest in this song before '74?? I was thinking it was more like '71?? Perhaps I have my years wrong... :blush:
TCB!
Mike
Yes, she could be
The reason is Dolly Parton had already had a country hit with I will Always love you in 1974 which means Elvis was free to cover it most likely either on stage or on the Today album.
Elvis recorded covers throughout his career and didn't have to get the publishing on those songs as that's not how it worked.
Elvis covered a ton of songs on stage and also released covers as singles and didn't need the publishing.
The publishing affected Elvis in the sense that a songwriter writes a song for Elvis that has not been a hit and tries to get it to him, but Colonel Parker made sure those songs never made it to him.
Elvis most likely heard the song on the radio in 1974 and thought about recording it but lost interest.
Because Elvis could've sang it live on stage, recorded the song for one of his albums or even put it out as a single because it had already been a hit for Dolly Parton
I don't believe Parker stopped Elvis from recording it.
If Dolly Parton had written a song specifically for Elvis and then offered it to him i'd believe her but that's not what she's saying.
The story doesn't add up or make sense if you think about it.
Number one how do you know Elvis was ever even told of the song-wouldn't the proper thing for Parker to do is to tell Parton-send us a demo and I'll let Elvis hear it? If you are trying to get quality music-is Parker the judge-or would the better judge be Elvis? But if the story is true-Parkers only thought was a "piece of the pie"
Anytime the publishing issue came up-Elvis did not bring it up-it was Parker of one of his employees.
I see know reason for Parton to make up a story-she is a well established songwriter, and performer she does not need to make up things to pad her resume. Also.............Dolly has always been a very up front (no pun intended) honest down home type person I just can not imagine her lying.
I would say this was the main reason.
Though I think the song publishing situtation has been blown out of proportion over the years.For example I always thought 2 songs that Elvis should've got first crack at were ''I just can't help believing'' and ''Never Been to Spain''. He covered these songs on stage but I would've loved it if Elvis had gotten these 2 songs first and had hits with them instead of B.J. Thomas and Three Dog Night. I did some research and found out that B.J. Thomas recorded IJCHB at American Studios in either late 1969 or early 1970 so even if Elvis had went back to American Studios he wouldn't of gotten the opportunity to record the song first because he didn't have another recording session until June 1970.
I found out that Hoyt Axton wrote Never Been to Spain for himself and was performing as an opening act for Three Dog Night it was during that time that they heard him singing it on stage and they decided to record it.
So even without the publishing issues he wouldn't of got first crack at either of those songs.
Jerry Schilling was once talking and explaining how the publishing situation worked and how it would frustrate Elvis as he went on to explain that when he (Elvis) heard Green Green Grass of home or My Way on the radio and would wonder why he hadn't been asked to record those songs first.
Jerry Schilling gave some bad examples Elvis was offered the opportunity to record Green Green Grass of home before Tom Jones and My Way was written specifically by Paul Anka for Sinatra so even without the publishing situation Elvis wouldn't of gotten My Way.
I do not believe the I will Always love you story.
BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION?????????????????
From the day Elvis was big-Parker demanded 50% of the rights to any song Elvis recorded. Word got around quick-so by the Army years the best songwriters just quit sending songs to Elvis with the attitude:
"Why the he!! should I give up half of my livelyhood to Parker and Elvis-this is how I make my living"
So Elvis is left with a few good writers who will do this, but mostly writers of lesser ability.
Then add the contracts for the movies and Parker tells Elvis you have to do this film-with 8-10 songs which fit into the plot (???) and you have no say so on the film-but you can pick the songs from what is submitted
Now Elvis this song will be sung as you are coming in on a fishing ship on the ocean, or Elvis this song will be sung in a helicopter of dogs, or this song will be sung on a merry-go-round etc..................
So he no longer get top songs no matter where he looks-sure he picked his material-of what was allowed into the sessions to be looked at.
How can you honestly say this is blown out of proportion?
It robbed Elvis of the opportunity to record great songs which ended up in someone elses hands.
Just by the established precedent and word of mouth-writers just did not even consider Elvis as a potential singer for great songs.
Jerry Reed told his version of being pressured in the middle of the Guitar Man session and it became very heated with Reed packing up his guitar and leaving-telling them something like..... you want my soul because these songs are mine.
It put a dark cloud over the rest of the session-and Elvis who was enjoying interacting with a hugely talented man-was robbed of that interaction because of business entering the session.
Word of things like this get around to other talented people/songwriters-and it keeps them from Elvis.
I happen to think talented gifted people are the type individuals Elvis needed around him to bring more perspective to him and to give him ideas which he then might act on.
Never had a chance to happen in the Colonels management style.
Here is Partons exact version in an interview of the "I Will Always Love You" controversy
and even though she had already published the song-that would not stop her or any writer from signing over a portion of her rights to someone else as the interview shows:
Dolly Parton tells how The Colonel stopped Elvis recording 'I Will Always Love You': In an interview with CMT producer Jeremy Thacker about the 'Greatest Moments' of her career, Dolly Parton revealed how Elvis nearly recorded her famous song.
Dolly Parton: "I hesitated to tell it for a long time because I thought maybe people would not take it right, because it was about Elvis. But Elvis loved "I Will Always Love You," and he wanted to record it.
I got the word that he was going to record it, and I was so excited. I told everybody I knew, "Elvis is going to record my song. You're not going to believe who's recording my song." It's like one of those things I told everybody. I thought it was a done deal because he sent word that he loved it and he was doing it. They got to town and they called and asked if I wanted to come to the session - and, of course, I was going to go.
Then Colonel Parker gets on the phone and said, "You know, I really love this song," and I said, "You cannot imagine how excited I am about this. This is the greatest thing that's ever happened to me as a songwriter." He said, "Now you know we have a rule that Elvis don't record anything that we don't take half the publishing." And I was really quiet. I said, "Well, now it's already been a hit. I wrote it and I've already published it. And this is the stuff I'm leaving for my family when I'm dead and gone. That money goes in for stuff for my brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews, so I can't give up half the publishing." And he said, "Well then, we can't record it." I guess they thought since they already had it prepared and already had it ready, that I would give in. I said, "I'm really sorry," and I cried all night. I mean, it was like the worst thing. You know, it's like, "Oh, my God ... Elvis Presley."
And other people were saying, "You're nuts. It's Elvis Presley. I mean, hell, I'd give him all of it." I said, "I can't do that. Something in my heart says, 'Don't do that.'" And I just didn't do it, and they just didn't do it. But I always wondered what it would sound like. I know he'd kill it. But anyway he never got to record it. Then when Whitney Houston's version came out, I made enough money to buy Graceland! (News: Source, EIN/CMT)
Brian
10-29-2009, 12:48 PM
BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION?????????????????
From the day Elvis was big-Parker demanded 50% of the rights to any song Elvis recorded. Word got around quick-so by the Army years the best songwriters just quit sending songs to Elvis with the attitude:
"Why the he!! should I give up half of my livelyhood to Parker and Elvis-this is how I make my living"
So Elvis is left with a few good writers who will do this, but mostly writers of lesser ability.
Then add the contracts for the movies and Parker tells Elvis you have to do this film-with 8-10 songs which fit into the plot (???) and you have no say so on the film-but you can pick the songs from what is submitted
Now Elvis this song will be sung as you are coming in on a fishing ship on the ocean, or Elvis this song will be sung in a helicopter of dogs, or this song will be sung on a merry-go-round etc..................
So he no longer get top songs no matter where he looks-sure he picked his material-of what was allowed into the sessions to be looked at.
How can you honestly say this is blown out of proportion?
It robbed Elvis of the opportunity to record great songs which ended up in someone elses hands.
Just by the established precedent and word of mouth-writers just did not even consider Elvis as a potential singer for great songs.
Jerry Reed told his version of being pressured in the middle of the Guitar Man session and it became very heated with Reed packing up his guitar and leaving-telling them something like..... you want my soul because these songs are mine.
It put a dark cloud over the rest of the session-and Elvis who was enjoying interacting with a hugely talented man-was robbed of that interaction because of business entering the session.
Word of things like this get around to other talented people/songwriters-and it keeps them from Elvis.
I happen to think talented gifted people are the type individuals Elvis needed around him to bring more perspective to him and to give him ideas which he then might act on.
Never had a chance to happen in the Colonels management style.
As I explained it's blown out of proportion in the sense that Elvis wasn't going to get certain hits songs regardless of the publishing such as My way, I just can't help believing, Never been to Spain and countless others.
Also people like Marty Lacker act like Elvis didn't record any good songs at all because of the publishing situation and that is false.
Elvis recorded Jerry Reed's Guitar man and U.S. Male anyway so it didn't really damper things all that much.
In the movies the songs had to be written to fit a certain scene or plot so those songs were going to be bad regardless of the publishing situation because it's hard for a songwriter to write great songs for specific situations in bad films.
As I explained it's blown out of proportion in the sense that Elvis wasn't going to get certain hits songs regardless of the publishing such as My way, I just can't help believing, Never been to Spain and countless others.
Also people like Marty Lacker act like Elvis didn't record any good songs at all because of the publishing situation and that is false.
Elvis recorded Jerry Reed's Guitar man and U.S. Male anyway so it didn't really damper things all that much.In the movies the songs had to be written to fit a certain scene or plot so those songs were going to be bad regardless of the publishing situation because it's hard for a songwriter to write great songs for specific situations in bad films.
Both were great songs-with Reeds guitar and fire adding much to them, and to Elvis who played off the energy of the quality of Reeds writing and playing-Reed kept his rights-the songs were recorded-but how many other good songs in that session may have come from the fire Reed helped bring out in Elvis??
Thats the part you are overlooking-the important part
The heart of my Colonel Parker argument-is that he never did a thing to make it easy for Elvis to continue his creativity and growth- his business management style and his snowman personality only made doors to creative activity never helped open them
Jungleroom76
10-29-2009, 12:59 PM
Number one how do you know Elvis was ever even told of the song-wouldn't the proper thing for Parker to do is to tell Parton-send us a demo and I'll let Elvis hear it? If you are trying to get quality music-is Parker the judge-or would the better judge be Elvis? But if the story is true-Parkers only thought was a "piece of the pie"
Anytime the publishing issue came up-Elvis did not bring it up-it was Parker of one of his employees.
I see know reason for Parton to make up a story-she is a well established songwriter, and performer she does not need to make up things to pad her resume. Also.............Dolly has always been a very up front (no pun intended) honest down home type person I just can not imagine her lying.
RIGHT ON KEN!!! (y)
Anytime we are dealing with any aspect (especially the later years) of Elvis' career, sadly we have to look at it from the angle of how much money it could make The Colonel...simply because that was the only angle that The Colonel used to do business for Elvis in the later years. Not if it would help Elvis grow artistically, not if it was in Elvis' best interest....just how much money it would make The Colonel!! :cursing:
TCB!
Mike
Brian
10-29-2009, 01:01 PM
Here is Partons exact version in an interview of the "I Will Always Love You" controversy
and even though she had already published the song-that would not stop her or any writer from signing over a portion of her rights to someone else as the interview shows:
Dolly Parton tells how The Colonel stopped Elvis recording 'I Will Always Love You': In an interview with CMT producer Jeremy Thacker about the 'Greatest Moments' of her career, Dolly Parton revealed how Elvis nearly recorded her famous song.
Dolly Parton: "I hesitated to tell it for a long time because I thought maybe people would not take it right, because it was about Elvis. But Elvis loved "I Will Always Love You," and he wanted to record it.
I got the word that he was going to record it, and I was so excited. I told everybody I knew, "Elvis is going to record my song. You're not going to believe who's recording my song." It's like one of those things I told everybody. I thought it was a done deal because he sent word that he loved it and he was doing it. They got to town and they called and asked if I wanted to come to the session - and, of course, I was going to go.
Then Colonel Parker gets on the phone and said, "You know, I really love this song," and I said, "You cannot imagine how excited I am about this. This is the greatest thing that's ever happened to me as a songwriter." He said, "Now you know we have a rule that Elvis don't record anything that we don't take half the publishing." And I was really quiet. I said, "Well, now it's already been a hit. I wrote it and I've already published it. And this is the stuff I'm leaving for my family when I'm dead and gone. That money goes in for stuff for my brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews, so I can't give up half the publishing." And he said, "Well then, we can't record it." I guess they thought since they already had it prepared and already had it ready, that I would give in. I said, "I'm really sorry," and I cried all night. I mean, it was like the worst thing. You know, it's like, "Oh, my God ... Elvis Presley."
And other people were saying, "You're nuts. It's Elvis Presley. I mean, hell, I'd give him all of it." I said, "I can't do that. Something in my heart says, 'Don't do that.'" And I just didn't do it, and they just didn't do it. But I always wondered what it would sound like. I know he'd kill it. But anyway he never got to record it. Then when Whitney Houston's version came out, I made enough money to buy Graceland! (News: Source, EIN/CMT)
That's my point she said It's already been a hit
Colonel didn't call Leiber and Stoller and ask them for the publishing on the huge R&B hit Hound dog so Elvis could record it.
He did want the publishing on songs that they had written for Elvis like Don't and Jailhouse Rock but not songs that previously had been a hit for someone else.
Elvis didn't get Hank Snow's permission to record I'm movin on
Elvis didn't get Baker Knights permission to record The Wonder of You
it was a hit for Ray Petersen in 1959.
Elvis didn't get Chuck Berry's permission to record Memphis and Promised Land.
Colonel Parker didn't try to talk Tony Joe White to give up the publishing on Polk Salad Annie so Elvis could perform in live.
Elvis didn't get publishing from Paul Simon to record Bridge over Troubled water.
Elvis didn't get permission to cover You've lost that loving feeling on stage from Mann and Weil.
As I said since Dolly Parton had already had a hit with it Elvis most likely would've recorded as an album track for the Today album or done it on stage.
Did Elvis get Billy Swann's permission to cover his 1974 hit I can help????
on the Today album
Holes are in Dolly Parton's story.
Brian
10-29-2009, 01:03 PM
The heart of my Colonel Parker argument-is that he never did a thing to make it easy for Elvis to continue his creativity and growth- his business management style and his snowman personality only made doors to creative activity never helped open them
That's a fair point but this stuff about I will Always loves you sounds very bogus when you examine the history of the publishing situation.
Brian
10-29-2009, 01:06 PM
Number one how do you know Elvis was ever even told of the song-wouldn't the proper thing for Parker to do is to tell Parton-send us a demo and I'll let Elvis hear it? If you are trying to get quality music-is Parker the judge-or would the better judge be Elvis? But if the story is true-Parkers only thought was a "piece of the pie"
Anytime the publishing issue came up-Elvis did not bring it up-it was Parker of one of his employees.
I see know reason for Parton to make up a story-she is a well established songwriter, and performer she does not need to make up things to pad her resume. Also.............Dolly has always been a very up front (no pun intended) honest down home type person I just can not imagine her lying.
Because it had already been it hit that's how Elvis became of aware of it.
Dolly Parton was already a successful singer and wrote and recorded it for herself and she had a #1 country hit with it in 1974.
Elvis heard the song on country radio in 1974 that's how he became aware of it and supposedly wanted to record it.
Dolly Parton did not write the song for Elvis.
That's my point she said It's already been a hit
Colonel didn't call Leiber and Stoller and ask them for the publishing on the huge R&B hit Hound dog so Elvis could record it.
He did want the publishing on songs that they had written for Elvis like Don't and Jailhouse Rock but not songs that previously had been a hit for someone else.
Elvis didn't get Hank Snow's permission to record I'm movin on
Elvis didn't get Baker Knights permission to record The Wonder of You
it was a hit for Ray Petersen in 1959.
Elvis didn't get Chuck Berry's permission to record Memphis and Promised Land.
Colonel Parker didn't try to talk Tony Joe White to give up the publishing on Polk Salad Annie so Elvis could perform in live.
Elvis didn't get publishing from Paul Simon to record Bridge over Troubled water.
Elvis didn't get permission to cover You've lost that loving feeling on stage from Mann and Weil.
As I said since Dolly Parton had already had a hit with it Elvis most likely would've recorded as an album track for the Today album or done it on stage.
Did Elvis get Billy Swann's permission to cover his 1974 hit I can help????
on the Today album
Holes are in Dolly Parton's story.
Know I don't see holes in the story-no 2 situations are ever the same-and also I think there may have been a difference between album cuts and songs considered for single release which if Elvis really liked the song-he may have had that in mind. In 1973 when Parton wrote the song-she was strictly country and this song was totally unknown to most rock music followers and most Elvis fans so it would have been opened to a whole new audience and as Whitney Houston showed-with huge sales.
.....................as far as how Elvis got to record the other songs I do know Billy Swan said he went nuts when he was told Elvis was going to record his song.
It boils down to this why would Parton make it up?????
She says that she hesitated to tell the story because of it being Elvis so she was certainly sensitive to the type of "questioning that you are doing"
but she told the story anyway.
Brian
10-29-2009, 01:10 PM
Didn't Elvis have an interest in this song before '74?? I was thinking it was more like '71?? Perhaps I have my years wrong... :blush:
TCB!
Mike
No, because the song didn't exist then.
Because it had already been it hit that's how Elvis became of aware of it.
Dolly Parton was already a successful singer and wrote and recorded it for herself and she had a #1 country hit with it in 1974.
Elvis heard the song on country radio in 1974 that's how he became aware of it and supposedly wanted to record it.Dolly Parton did not write the song for Elvis.
So you believe that part of Dollys story-that Elvis heard it and wanted to do it?
Never said that the song was written for Elvis.
And contrary to your belief just because a song has been published does not bar the writer from "cutting in someone else" to their share of the publishing-it would be an agreement between the writer and who ever they wanted to cut in-it would not affect the publishers end.
Music Publishers role in song publishing:
Successful songwriters and composers have a relationship with a publishing company defined by a publishing contract. The publisher agrees to see to it that the composers receive royalties from various uses of their compositions. They also provide substantial advances against future income. In return, the publishing company receives a percentage, which can be as high as 50% and varies for different kinds of royalties
Now any songwriter is free to cut a side deal with anyone-on the money which is their share of the original publishing deal. The publisher send the songwriters share of royaltees to the songwriter who in turn would send whatever portion they had agreed to with someone else in the side deal.
Brian
10-29-2009, 01:24 PM
Know I don't see holes in the story-no 2 situations are ever the same-and also I think there may have been a difference between album cuts and songs considered for single release which if Elvis really liked the song-he may have had that in mind. In 1973 when Parton wrote the song-she was strictly country and this song was totally unknown to most rock music followers and most Elvis fans so it would have been opened to a whole new audience and as Whitney Houston showed-with huge sales.
.....................as far as how Elvis got to record the other songs I do know Billy Swan said he went nuts when he was told Elvis was going to record his song.
It boils down to this why would Parton make it up?????
She says that she hesitated to tell the story because of it being Elvis so she was certainly sensitive to the type of "questioning that you are doing"
but she told the story anyway.
No, their wasn't a difference Elvis covered both country and pop hits on his albums and on stage and didn't need the publishing on any of them.
I've provided several examples of how it was done.
Since Dolly Parton had recently had a hit with it Elvis wasn't going to put it out as a single.
Elvis wouldn't of needed the publishing then either.
Another example
Hypothetical scenario
Take Kris Kristofferson for example if he wanted Elvis to record Help me make through the night and For the Good times first Freddie Bienstock and Colonel would have asked him for the publishing or they wouldn't send the songs to Elvis.
Kris Kristofferson would've said no thanks and went and gave both songs to artists who could make hits out of them and wouldn't demand publishing.
However after Ray Price and Sammi Smith had hits with both songs Elvis was free to record both songs publishing wasn't an issue.
In a recent interview someone asked Kris about Elvis recording his songs and he said he was unaware that Elvis had recorded his songs.
No, their wasn't a difference Elvis covered both country and pop hits on his albums and on stage and didn't need the publishing on any of them.
I've provided several examples of how it was done.
Since Dolly Parton had recently had a hit with it Elvis wasn't going to put it out as a single.Elvis wouldn't of needed the publishing then either.
Another example
Hypothetical scenario
Take Kris Kristofferson for example if he wanted Elvis to record Help me make through the night and For the Good times first Freddie Bienstock and Colonel would have asked him for the publishing or they wouldn't send the songs to Elvis.
Kris Kristofferson would've said no thanks and went and gave both songs to artists who could make hits out of them and wouldn't demand publishing.
However after Ray Price and Sammi Smith had hits with both songs Elvis was free to record both songs publishing wasn't an issue.
In a recent interview someone asked Kris about Elvis recording his songs and he said he was unaware that Elvis had recorded his songs.
She had a "country hit" with it in 1973 there was a huge difference-a huge country hit might sell 150 to 300 thousand which is not much exposure.
Matter of fact country artists use to take huge pop hits and cover them countrified-and it was a brand new song to the country music followers.
I had a big argument in 1973 with my friends dad about Bill Anderson and his female partner recording the Supremes song "Someday Well Be Together" I told him it was the Supremes song first-he just did not believe me.
Like I said no 2 situations are the same-and I see absolutely no reason for Parton to "lie" especially since she today is one of the most recognised country artists in the world and has her own empire-she has always been honest, and open.
You see holes in the story-I see honesty in her confession with no reason to lie.
Brian
10-29-2009, 01:33 PM
So you believe that part of Dollys story-that Elvis heard it and wanted to do it?
Never said that the song was written for Elvis.
And contrary to your belief just because a song has been published does not bar the writer from "cutting in someone else" to their share of the publishing-it would be an agreement between the writer and who ever they wanted to cut in-it would not affect the publishers end.
Music Publishers role in song publishing:
Successful songwriters and composers have a relationship with a publishing company defined by a publishing contract. The publisher agrees to see to it that the composers receive royalties from various uses of their compositions. They also provide substantial advances against future income. In return, the publishing company receives a percentage, which can be as high as 50% and varies for different kinds of royalties
Now any songwriter is free to cut a side deal with anyone-on the money which is their share of the original publishing deal. The publisher send the songwriters share of royaltees to the songwriter who in turn would send whatever portion they had agreed to with someone else in the side deal.
No, I'm not sure it is true about Elvis wanting to record it
If the story was true about Elvis wanting to record the song he heard Dolly's hit version on the radio
that's how the publishing worked whether or not she wrote the song and had not had a hit with it- Didn't mean you said Dolly wrote the song for
You were also wondering if Elvis was even aware of the song.
That's not how Colonel Parker operated on the publishing deal and I said a song is a hit song.
It can be published but not be a hit.
Besides Elvis had toyed with the idea of recording Reconsider baby for years before getting around to recording it.
Same thing with After loving you.
Jungleroom76
10-29-2009, 01:38 PM
BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION?????????????????
From the day Elvis was big-Parker demanded 50% of the rights to any song Elvis recorded. Word got around quick-so by the Army years the best songwriters just quit sending songs to Elvis with the attitude:
"Why the he!! should I give up half of my livelyhood to Parker and Elvis-this is how I make my living"
So Elvis is left with a few good writers who will do this, but mostly writers of lesser ability.
Then add the contracts for the movies and Parker tells Elvis you have to do this film-with 8-10 songs which fit into the plot (???) and you have no say so on the film-but you can pick the songs from what is submitted
Now Elvis this song will be sung as you are coming in on a fishing ship on the ocean, or Elvis this song will be sung in a helicopter of dogs, or this song will be sung on a merry-go-round etc..................
So he no longer get top songs no matter where he looks-sure he picked his material-of what was allowed into the sessions to be looked at.
How can you honestly say this is blown out of proportion?
It robbed Elvis of the opportunity to record great songs which ended up in someone elses hands.
Just by the established precedent and word of mouth-writers just did not even consider Elvis as a potential singer for great songs.
Jerry Reed told his version of being pressured in the middle of the Guitar Man session and it became very heated with Reed packing up his guitar and leaving-telling them something like..... you want my soul because these songs are mine.
It put a dark cloud over the rest of the session-and Elvis who was enjoying interacting with a hugely talented man-was robbed of that interaction because of business entering the session.
Word of things like this get around to other talented people/songwriters-and it keeps them from Elvis.
I happen to think talented gifted people are the type individuals Elvis needed around him to bring more perspective to him and to give him ideas which he then might act on.
Never had a chance to happen in the Colonels management style.
You put it much better than I would have Ken!!! :notworthy
TCB!
Mike
http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/kris_kristofferson.shtml
Kristofferson seemed to know in this interview that Elvis had recorded 3 of his songs-and he said it was a highlight of his life to have had him do so-that as a young writer coming up he never dreamed that Elvis might do so.
No, I'm not sure it is true about Elvis wanting to record it
If the story was true about Elvis wanting to record the song he heard Dolly's hit version on the radio
that's how the publishing worked whether or not she wrote the song and had not had a hit with it- Didn't mean you said Dolly wrote the song for
You were also wondering if Elvis was even aware of the song.
That's not how Colonel Parker operated on the publishing deal and I said a song is a hit song.
It can be published but not be a hit.
Besides Elvis had toyed with the idea of recording Reconsider baby for years before getting around to recording it.
Same thing with After loving you.
Correct-even if she had a hit, even if she didn't but it was already published-her share of the songwriting royaltees which are sent to her by her publisher are hers to do with as she wants-including having a deal with Elvis, or whoever which gives a percentage to them. It matters not if she had the biggest hit in the world-she can do what she wants with her profits from her publishing deal after they have been sent to her.
Parker would have been well aware of this-and I'm sure there were times when they got only a small portion of the songwriters end-in the case of Reeds songs he already had country hits on both-and they were published-yet Parkers men still wanted a portion of his end of the original publishing deal.
Brian
10-29-2009, 01:44 PM
She had a "country hit" with it in 1973 there was a huge difference-a huge country hit might sell 150 to 300 thousand which is not much exposure.
Matter of fact country artists use to take huge pop hits and cover them countrified-and it was a brand new song to the country music followers.
I had a big argument in 1973 with my friends dad about Bill Anderson and his female partner recording the Supremes song "Someday Well Be Together" I told him it was the Supremes song first-he just did not believe me.
Like I said no 2 situations are the same-and I see absolutely no reason for Parton to "lie" especially since she today is one of the most recognised country artists in the world and has her own empire-she has always been honest, and open.
You see holes in the story-I see honesty in her confession with no reason to lie.
Well, Elvis' songs were getting regular play again on the country stations and he began to have bigger country hits than pop hits as he wasn't getting played on those stations as much.
So if Elvis did put it out as as single (If it's true about him wanting to even record the song in the first place) it would have just dented the pop top 40 and probably wouldn't of been a big country hit as Dolly Parton had the hit.
Marie Osmond doesn't have any reason to make up stories about Elvis but she does.
Her saying Elvis wanted to hang out with the Osmonds and get to know them and invite the over for dinner at Graceland but died before it happened.
Sounds like B.S. to me and Elvis is conviently not here to say otherwise.
I don't belive Cher that Elvis wanted to date her.
After Cher said Elvis wanted to date her she then mentioned that she had also turned down Marlon Brando.
That sounded like name dropping to me.
Pat Boone's claims that Elvis lip synced live in Clevend sounds like B.S. to me as well.
Brian
10-29-2009, 01:50 PM
Correct-even if she had a hit, even if she didn't but it was already published-her share of the songwriting royaltees which are sent to her by her publisher are hers to do with as she wants-including having a deal with Elvis, or whoever which gives a percentage to them. It matters not if she had the biggest hit in the world-she can do what she wants with her profits from her publishing deal after they have been sent to her.
Parker would have been well aware of this-and I'm sure there were times when they got only a small portion of the songwriters end-in the case of Reeds songs he already had country hits on both-and they were published-yet Parkers men still wanted a portion of his end of the original publishing deal.
They were minor country hits for Reed and Elvis was going to and did put both out as singles.
He also recorded both of them regardless.
That brings up another point (if the story is true about the song) how would Colonel Parker even know that Elvis wanted to record the song then to ask Dolly for the publishing?
Unlike Jerry Reed's songs Elvis made no attempt to record the song in the studio
Well, Elvis' songs were getting regular play again on the country stations and he began to have bigger country hits than pop hits as he wasn't getting played on those stations as much.
So if Elvis did put it out as as single (If it's true about him wanting to even record the song in the first place) it would have just dented the pop top 40 and probably wouldn't of been a big country hit as Dolly Parton had the hit.
Marie Osmond doesn't have any reason to make up stories about Elvis but she does.Her saying Elvis wanted to hang out with the Osmonds and get to know them and invite the over for dinner at Graceland but died before it happened.
Sounds like B.S. to me and Elvis is conviently not here to say otherwise.
I don't belive Cher that Elvis wanted to date her.
After Cher said Elvis wanted to date her she then mentioned that she had also turned down Marlon Brando.
That sounded like name dropping to me.
Pat Boone's claims that Elvis lip synced live in Clevend sounds like B.S. to me as well.
How in heavens name can you know-how a song may have charted????
You have never heard how Elvis would have sang it, you do not know how it would have been arranged, you do not know how much feeling the song would have had in it from Elvis?? We do know when it finally got to the pop charts it sold millions later.
We are not talking about Marie, or Cher, or Pat-we are talking about Dolly.
As I have said no 2 situations are the same.
They were minor country hits for Reed and Elvis was going to and did put both out as singles.
He also recorded both of them regardless.
That brings up another point (if the story is true about the song) how would Colonel Parker even know that Elvis wanted to record the song then to ask Dolly for the publishing?
Unlike Jerry Reed's songs Elvis made no attempt to record the song in the studio
Yes he recorded them and just as soon as Bienstock heard he was recording them he began to try and get points from Reed with little tact during the session. I'm sure there were times when they could not get points on songs Elvis had recorded-and they ended up released-the point is it kept songs from Elvis no matter how you look at it.
I would assume The Colonel heard about the song because Elvis mentioned it to him, or Joe, or Marty, or Lamar or perhaps he mentioned he liked the song in front of Freddie Bienstock and he mentioned it to COl. That did happen from time to time.
Parker may have thought "Parton is just a country artist and she'll jump at this chance for the "bigtime"
Brian
10-29-2009, 08:22 PM
How in heavens name can you know-how a song may have charted????
You have never heard how Elvis would have sang it, you do not know how it would have been arranged, you do not know how much feeling the song would have had in it from Elvis?? We do know when it finally got to the pop charts it sold millions later.
We are not talking about Marie, or Cher, or Pat-we are talking about Dolly.
As I have said no 2 situations are the same.
I'm making an educated guess as to how it would've charted based on Elvis chart performances and his lack of airplay on top 40 radio at that time.
My points about Cher, Marie Osmond and Pat Boone are just examples of celebs who don't need to make stuff up about Elvis but they do.
So just because Dolly Parton is famous and successful doesn't mean she's not making this story up.
Brian
10-29-2009, 08:27 PM
Yes he recorded them and just as soon as Bienstock heard he was recording them he began to try and get points from Reed with little tact during the session. I'm sure there were times when they could not get points on songs Elvis had recorded-and they ended up released-the point is it kept songs from Elvis no matter how you look at it.
I would assume The Colonel heard about the song because Elvis mentioned it to him, or Joe, or Marty, or Lamar or perhaps he mentioned he liked the song in front of Freddie Bienstock and he mentioned it to COl. That did happen from time to time.
Parker may have thought "Parton is just a country artist and she'll jump at this chance for the "bigtime"
I think that's unlikely
I don't think Elvis told Colonel Parker what songs he wanted to do.
I think he could've mentioned it when Joe was in the room and he went and told the Colonel.
But I just don't think Elvis planned on recording it.
Around the time the song came out Elvis was losing interest in recording sessions
he didn't record at all in 74 or 77 and only recorded the minimum amount of songs for an album at the Today sessions.
In 1976 Elvis didn't want to record so RCA sent equipment to Graceland and some nights Elvis didn't even bother coming down to record so RCA was lucky that they got any material out of those sessions.
Brian
10-30-2009, 01:32 AM
http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/kris_kristofferson.shtml
Kristofferson seemed to know in this interview that Elvis had recorded 3 of his songs-and he said it was a highlight of his life to have had him do so-that as a young writer coming up he never dreamed that Elvis might do so.
He became aware of it and i'm sure he was glad Elvis did his songs
The article specifically mentions that he didn't know that Elvis had recorded Why me lord.
Jungleroom76
10-30-2009, 09:42 AM
The article specifically mentions that he didn't know that Elvis had recorded Why me lord.
Again, I think this goes back to the whole issue with publishing rights and the fact that there was a difference between recording a song live versus recording the song in the studio. :hmm:
As I said before, I am certainly not a law scholar, but I believe that the publishing rights weren't an issue when a song was performed live on stage or even if that song wound up being recorded and released. :hmm:
TCB!
Mike
He became aware of it and i'm sure he was glad Elvis did his songs
The article specifically mentions that he didn't know that Elvis had recorded Why me lord.
But he did know of the others and he was overjoyed that Elvis had recorded them-which shows he was indeed "glad" that Elvis did his songs.
And coincedentily"Why Me Lord" was only a live recording.
Again, I think this goes back to the whole issue with publishing rights and the fact that there was a difference between recording a song live versus recording the song in the studio. :hmm:
As I said before, I am certainly not a law scholar, but I believe that the publishing rights weren't an issue when a song was performed live on stage or even if that song wound up being recorded and released. :hmm:
TCB!
Mike
I know enough about it to know that the writers end of the publishing deal is theirs to do with what they wish.... after the publisher gets their agreed percentage.
But the songwriter could not give any portion of the publishers percentage to anyone in a new deal-so to break it down if the publishers deal with the songwriter calls for a 50/50 split the publisher will always get his 50%-and the songwriter can make a deal with an artist to split their 50% with the artist to cut the song-or give any percentage to the artist they want to 10, 20 ,5 etc......it is the writers money to do with as they want after it has been sent to them. (in a way its a legal kickback)
I'm making an educated guess as to how it would've charted based on Elvis chart performances and his lack of airplay on top 40 radio at that time.
My points about Cher, Marie Osmond and Pat Boone are just examples of celebs who don't need to make stuff up about Elvis but they do.
So just because Dolly Parton is famous and successful doesn't mean she's not making this story up.
Well the song is (arguably I'm sure you'll say) one of the greatest love songs of the last 50 years-which is a very high step above many of the songs submitted to Elvis in his career-a top notch quality well written simple love song-this gives a very good indication if would have done much much better than the average Elvis release(and as I pointed out-years later it was a huge smash)
My point is not that because Dolly is famous and successful-those are facts and they add to my opinion-but I am more impressed with her honesty, her frankness to me those are more important factors in addressing the question you raise.
I do not get that feeling from the others (that is not to say I think they lie)
I think they are more........how to express this "jaded" in their own ways.
Pat Boone has always had a slight-envy-of Elvis. I have heard it creep into many of his interviews when Elvis is brought up-He also always brings up the idea that for a "few years" he and Elvis traded back and fourth the #1 spot on differing records. But to me it comes off as trying to compare his career and Elvis's career-and there is truely no comparison(except in Pats mind)
Marie has had a wealth of personal problems well documented and I always think perhaps she is not always seeing things as they truely are or were.
Cher has always seemed honest-but also very narcissistic which has a way of shading your memory.
I do not see Dolly in the fashion I see the others-you obviously do.
Brian
10-30-2009, 03:15 PM
Again, I think this goes back to the whole issue with publishing rights and the fact that there was a difference between recording a song live versus recording the song in the studio. :hmm:
As I said before, I am certainly not a law scholar, but I believe that the publishing rights weren't an issue when a song was performed live on stage or even if that song wound up being recorded and released. :hmm:
TCB!
Mike
That's my point and has been all along
To cover a song in the studio or release it as a single Elvis didn't need publishing rights to it as he covered a ton of songs on his albums and put several out as singles, but never got any publishing on any of them.
That did not prevent him from recording, performing or RCA releasing them.
Besides the way Dolly Parton tells the story she says Elvis just wanted to record the song but never mentions if he was planning on releasing it as a single.
Since it had already been a recent hit for Dolly I'd say he would either cover the song on one of his albums or just sing it live.
Elvis never sang it live not even a one liner.
Brian
10-30-2009, 03:18 PM
But he did know of the others and he was overjoyed that Elvis had recorded them-which shows he was indeed "glad" that Elvis did his songs.
And coincedentily"Why Me Lord" was only a live recording.
Elvis sang it during several of his live shows and it was featured on the live in Memphis album.
I'm surprised Kris wasn't aware of it.
Bob Dylan was aware of the Tomorrow is a long time cover and it was tucked away as a bonus track on the horrid Spinout LP
Brian
10-30-2009, 03:38 PM
Well the song is (arguably I'm sure you'll say) one of the greatest love songs of the last 50 years-which is a very high step above many of the songs submitted to Elvis in his career-a top notch quality well written simple love song-this gives a very good indication if would have done much much better than the average Elvis release(and as I pointed out-years later it was a huge smash)
I know Dolly must be very happy with the millions she's made off of the royalties from the success of the Whitney Houston cover, but I bet on a personal level she must not like how everybody thinks it's Whitney Houston's song as most people don't even know she had written the song and had a country hit with it on 3 separate occasions.
That may hurt deep down like Leiber and Stoller being upset that Elvis' version of Hound dog is so well know and Big Momma Thorton's version isn't.
On a sidenote I think Dolly's version is much better and Whitney's is actually quite horrid with all that screaming she does.
I must say that in my opinion the song is better suited to a woman than it would be for a man.
Jungleroom76
10-30-2009, 04:11 PM
I know enough about it to know that the writers end of the publishing deal is theirs to do with what they wish.... after the publisher gets their agreed percentage.
But the songwriter could not give any portion of the publishers percentage to anyone in a new deal-so to break it down if the publishers deal with the songwriter calls for a 50/50 split the publisher will always get his 50%-and the songwriter can make a deal with an artist to split their 50% with the artist to cut the song-or give any percentage to the artist they want to 10, 20 ,5 etc......it is the writers money to do with as they want after it has been sent to them. (in a way its a legal kickback)
Thank you so much for the information Ken!!! (y)
TCB!
Mike
Jungleroom76
10-30-2009, 04:13 PM
I must say that in my opinion the song is better suited to a woman than it would be for a man.
THAT is true Brian!!! I have a hard time imagining how Elvis would have sang the song... :hmm:
TCB!
Mike
Jungleroom76
10-30-2009, 04:14 PM
Bob Dylan was aware of the Tomorrow is a long time cover and it was tucked away as a bonus track on the horrid Spinout LP
Do I remember correctly that Dylan didn't like Elvis' cover of TOMORROW?? :hmm:
I've always thought that Elvis' version of that song is very laid back and just very, very cool!!! :king:
TCB!
Mike
Elvis sang it during several of his live shows and it was featured on the live in Memphis album.
I'm surprised Kris wasn't aware of it.
Bob Dylan was aware of the Tomorrow is a long time cover and it was tucked away as a bonus track on the horrid Spinout LP
Dylan was a huge Elvis fan-and he inspired Bob to decide to become a writer/singer.
Quote:‘When I first heard Elvis’ voice I just knew that I wasn’t going to work for anybody; and nobody was going to be my boss... Hearing him for the first time was like busting out of jail’: Bob Dylan.
Here is what he said to Rolling Stone about artists he wanted to record his songs:
First, when Rolling Stone asked whether there were any particular artists he liked to have record his songs, he replied (and was widely assumed to be joking at the time), ‘Yeah, Elvis Presley. I liked Elvis Presley. Elvis Presley recorded a song of mine. That’s the one recording I treasure the most… it was called “TOMORROW IS A LONG TIME”.’
Jungleroom76
10-30-2009, 06:03 PM
Elvis Presley recorded a song of mine. That’s the one recording I treasure the most… it was called “TOMORROW IS A LONG TIME”.’
O.K. Must be I am remembering my facts wrong... :doh: :'(
I could have sworn that I read somewhere that Dylan didn't care for Elvis' version of the song. Oh well, thanks for setting me straight Ken!!! :notworthy
TCB!
Mike
O.K. Must be I am remembering my facts wrong... :doh: :'(
I could have sworn that I read somewhere that Dylan didn't care for Elvis' version of the song. Oh well, thanks for setting me straight Ken!!! :notworthy
TCB!
Mike
No problem my friend.
Its hard sometimes to recall a specific thing-especially when there can be differing accounts of the same point in print. I also suffer at times from too much info-which clouds my mind.;):D
Jungleroom76
11-02-2009, 03:29 PM
No problem my friend.
Its hard sometimes to recall a specific thing-especially when there can be differing accounts of the same point in print. I also suffer at times from too much info-which clouds my mind.;):D
Well again, thank you for setting me straight!!! (y)
TCB!
Mike
Raised on Rock
11-02-2009, 03:52 PM
I could have sworn that I read somewhere that Dylan didn't care for Elvis' version of the song. Oh well, thanks for setting me straight Ken!!! :notworthy
TCB!
Mike
Nope, Dylan seemed to be quite honest about "Tomorrow is a Long Time" by Elvis Presley as one of his favorites, of any of his songs done by another artist.
And it is surprising that Dylan got to hear it when it was buried in the Spinout album, and that track (except for the die hard fans) actually never got to notoriety until the 90's. I tend to believe that Dylan got to know about that Elvis track either because of the copyrights, or because Dylan and Elvis where both recording in nashville sharing a bunch of session man, that between '66 and '70 and someone there told him what happened at studio B with Elvis. Then he got the Spinout album, not the other way. Anyway Dylan has always being a mayor fan, always speaking highly about Elvis.
I remember somewhere around 2002, there were a vol.1 and vol.2 Cd's series, featuring the best of Bob Dylan as recorded by other artists, and yes, "Tomorrow is A Long TIme" by Elvis, did make it, and guess what, for many non Elvis fans that I know, it turned out to be one of best moments on those CDs, meaning, people outside Elvis world actually liked it. The story of Dylan recalling it as one of his favorites, was also quoted on the booklet.
Nope, Dylan seemed to be quite honest about "Tomorrow is a Long Time" by Elvis Presley as one of his favorites, of any of his songs done by another artist.
And it is surprising that Dylan got to hear it when it was buried in the Spinout album, and that track (except for the die hard fans) actually never got to notoriety until the 90's. I tend to believe that Dylan got to know about that Elvis track either because of the copyrights, or because Dylan and Elvis where both recording in nashville sharing a bunch of session man, that between '66 and '70 and someone there told him what happened at studio B with Elvis. Then he got the Spinout album, not the other way. Anyway Dylan has always being a mayor fan, always speaking highly about Elvis.
I remember somewhere around 2002, there were a vol.1 and vol.2 Cd's series, featuring the best of Bob Dylan as recorded by other artists, and yes, "Tomorrow is A Long TIme" by Elvis, did make it, and guess what, for many non Elvis fans that I know, it turned out to be one of best moments on those CDs, meaning, people outside Elvis world actually liked it. The story of Dylan recalling it as one of his favorites, was also quoted on the booklet.
I read in a book on Dylan that when Elvis died-Dylan was depressed for weeks, that it was one of the points in his life which spurred him to become a born again Christian, for a time he quit drinking/drugs and led to his gospel albums.
SleepyJack
11-03-2009, 05:59 AM
Nope, Dylan seemed to be quite honest about "Tomorrow is a Long Time" by Elvis Presley as one of his favorites, of any of his songs done by another artist.
And it is surprising that Dylan got to hear it when it was buried in the Spinout album, and that track (except for the die hard fans) actually never got to notoriety until the 90's. I tend to believe that Dylan got to know about that Elvis track either because of the copyrights, or because Dylan and Elvis where both recording in nashville sharing a bunch of session man, that between '66 and '70 and someone there told him what happened at studio B with Elvis. Then he got the Spinout album, not the other way. Anyway Dylan has always being a mayor fan, always speaking highly about Elvis.
I remember somewhere around 2002, there were a vol.1 and vol.2 Cd's series, featuring the best of Bob Dylan as recorded by other artists, and yes, "Tomorrow is A Long TIme" by Elvis, did make it, and guess what, for many non Elvis fans that I know, it turned out to be one of best moments on those CDs, meaning, people outside Elvis world actually liked it. The story of Dylan recalling it as one of his favorites, was also quoted on the booklet.
I actually bought that double album of Dylan songs by other artists...and I was well chuffed that Elvis` version of "Tomorrow" was on there...and not just there to make up the numbers it stood solidly with anything else that was on there. Now I`m going to have to root it out of hiding and play it!(y)(y)(y)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.