From Elvis In Memphis: Elvis’ sad, dipping trajectory

[Albert]

ELVIS PRESLEY — FROM ELVIS IN MEMPHIS AND BACK IN MEMPHIS (2-CD Legacy Edition)

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:1AVbqcj2HPdarM:http://www.feature.legacyrecordings.com/images/news/elvis-presley/From-Elvis-In-Memphis-LE-640x589.jpgWHEN Elvis Presley makes a record, it’s a signature event, an iconic moment in the epoch of recorded music.

Before The Beatles and Rolling Stones made the girls giddy and the guys seriously consider making music a career option, Elvis ruled the 1950s and the early ’60s.

His moniker King of Rock and Roll probably deserved on the account of his genre-shattering music and impossibly hypnotic body gyrations and stage antics.

In his time, Elvis bridged the rhythm and blues and blues and country, borrowed the hard-driven rockabilly and fused black music, gospel in particular, with pop ballads and the results are pop culture markers — Hound Dog, Love Me Tender, Heartbreak Hotel, the likes never to be seen or heard again, unless they were poor imitations of the King.

However, as his epochal era began to diminish, overrun by younger, more social-conscious artistes in the mould of Bob Dylan, The Byrds, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Neil Young, and hipper, wilder, more gifted players the likes of Jimi Hendrix, Elvis’ sound drowned, barely audible over the pioneering work of the advent of rock/metal.

Elvis was barely 35 and yet nibbles are associated with him when the seminal performances of the 1960s are discussed and reminisced. Perhaps Elvis realised it, perhaps he didn’t, but whatever notions he had about changing the direction of music as he once did in the ’50s, the ’70s was a sad dipping trajectory, right to his inevitable death, if the latest reincarnation of the King’s obscure works is any indication.
pix_topright

While his legacy was more than assured, this record, hyped as his bid for a serious comeback to catapult him back to the charts and perhaps the respect of his peers and critics, merely percolates with mushy renderings, almost amateurish production qualities and a strict middle-of-the-road focus. In a nutshell, recordings of pained blandness. The Ray Conniff Singers may have sounded more adventurous.

Whatever the producers felt about Elvis, they must have thought the halcyon years might help inject some pace but a listen through the first CD didn’t jolt the senses nor raised an excitement.

Even his takes on Gentle On My Mind and the Beatles’ Hey Jude merely added to the awareness that he can’t hack anymore originality. To be plain, they just sound awful. The second CD contains the hits Suspicious Minds, Kentucky Rain and In The Ghetto.

More on the downside, the sound is obsolete, even for its time. Elvis’ voice though is clear, strong and engaging. Had he hired George Martin, maybe he had a chance of shining through as big as before.

This is probably a screwy theory but it might explain Elvis’ waning years with dope and booze after the epiphany struck him that he would never be able to trailblaze new, post-rock and roll innovation in his music.

That’s why when we think of Elvis and all his wooden acting in the boy-meets-girl movies, it’s always the smouldering younger man that we adore and relived. But not this record, though the liner notes and pictures are worth the price of entry. Strictly for unrepented Elvis fanatics.

Mishar (2009/10/28)
source: NewStraitsTimes (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/articles/20091028084049/Article/index_html)

[jak]

The author has an axe to grind.They know nothing about Elvis.

[Jimmy1966]

he never touched booze you *****...get your facts right you *****ic person.

[Albert]

It's obvious that the writer of this article isn't an Elvisfan, and that he doesn't have all facts straight. And if or if not the album sounds dull/boring/flat/uninspired and could have been better with a different producer is also merely a different in taste.

But his claim that this album wasn't really the artistic, contemporary comeback of Elvis, is true in my opinion. For us, the fans, it was a definite breakup with his soundtracks-days. And it may be his best album every since. But compared to what was being released during those days, it had little impact in sales and really had no influence at all on the musicscene. We, the fans, like to think differently because it's such a great album.

But I don't believe Elvis had any intentions to change the musics scene. He just wanted to release a really good Elvis album with more modern music that would clearly sound different from all his prior work. It was a logical followup to his comeback special.

Instead of using new material, Elvis, the King of covers, had to re-record music that was already recorded and made famous by others. By doing so he made himself less creditable as an artist in an era where it was all by 'creating art'.

Elvis was an entertainer, a performer, not a true creating artist. And not that there's anything wrong with that. Elvis made more people happy with his music than any of those so called 'creditable' artists. I dare to say that Elvis made (and still makes) more people happy than bands/artists like the Beatles. And after all, that's what counts most.

[debtdbruno]

Ar*hole!!!!!

He will always be The King..............

[Lonniebealestreet]

Beautiful post, Albert. I would say I agree 99%...my only issue being I do believe Elvis was a true creating artist (though certainly not all of the time) in spite of his not being a songwriter. Well said though and a nice honest analysis.

[Getlo]

he never touched booze you .

Yes, he did.

Elvis the teetotaller is a complete myth.

[Brian]

I don't like the guys tone but about Elvis not creating anything with the album imo is true.
I've always thought that Elvis should have gotten some more contemporary material from the successful songwriters of the day instead of just doing almost an entire album of old country & western songs he could've done that in Nashville.

[debtdbruno]

all about the $$$$, and what was allowed to get through to him

[SleepyJack]

Sounds like our little critic friend is not a fan of Elvis.... So,my little ink-wasting friend, how many times have YOU changed popular culture? How many people have YOU made happy? How many people will talk about YOU over thirty years after your death?
It`s a well-known fact of life anyway that 90% of music critics are just frustrated,failed ukelele players.

[debtdbruno]

Sounds like our little critic friend is not a fan of Elvis.... So,my little ink-wasting friend, how many times have YOU changed popular culture? How many people have YOU made happy? How many people will talk about YOU over thirty years after your death?
It`s a well-known fact of life anyway that 90% of music critics are just frustrated,failed ukelele players.


You tell em' SJ:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:(y)(y)(y)

[Diane]

Sounds like our little critic friend is not a fan of Elvis.... So,my little ink-wasting friend, how many times have YOU changed popular culture? How many people have YOU made happy? How many people will talk about YOU over thirty years after your death?
It`s a well-known fact of life anyway that 90% of music critics are just frustrated,failed ukelele players.

:lol::lol::lol: Lots of critics should read this post Jack!

Diane

[KPM]

The gentleman seems sadly off the mark-and it appears to me to be intentional.
His opinion on the album, and the 69 sessions, is way off base. He has no understanding of what he is talking-American Sound was a center for contemporary Hit making music-how can that make the production values sadly lacking in 1969????
He says Elvis did not create anything new with this project............something which is very enjoyable and very in touch with the sound of Creedance, Tony Joe White, Joe South all who were making great music at the time-it does not have to be new to be great music.
This was not Elvis trying to redesign the wheel-it was Elvis getting back to the basics of his music-and pushing the wheel harder, with more fire behind the engine. It was Elvis saying -THIS IS WHO I AM-THIS IS WHAT MADE ME!

Rolling Stone top 500 Albums album 190-"From Elvis In Memphis"
"I had to leave town for a little while," Presley sings in the first track. Along with his 1968 TV special, this record announced he was back. Cut at Chips Moman's American Studios, it is little short of astounding. With help from a crack crew of Memphis musicians, Presley masterfully tackles quality material from country ("I'm Movin' On"), gospel ("Long Black Limousine"), soul ("Only the Strong Survive") and pop ("Any Day Now") as well as message songs ("In the Ghetto"). The same sessions also yielded one of Presley's greatest singles, the towering pop-soul masterpiece "Suspicious Minds."

It was Elvis saying -THIS IS WHO I AM-THIS IS WHAT MADE ME!

[debtdbruno]

Fantastic post Ken

It's just a case of sour grapes, they can't help pulling him down wherever possible.
IMO, the 69 sessions were the best he did. I adore his vocals, and the commitment to those sessions. He was 'smoking'...........

[Brian]

The gentleman seems sadly off the mark-and it appears to me to be intentional.
His opinion on the album, and the 69 sessions, is way off base. He has no understanding of what he is talking-American Sound was a center for contemporary Hit making music-how can that make the production values sadly lacking in 1969????
He says Elvis did not create anything new with this project............something which is very enjoyable and very in touch with the sound of Creedance, Tony Joe White, Joe South all who were making great music at the time-it does not have to be new to be great music.
This was not Elvis trying to redesign the wheel-it was Elvis getting back to the basics of his music-and pushing the wheel harder, with more fire behind the engine. It was Elvis saying -THIS IS WHO I AM-THIS IS WHAT MADE ME!



The album is also very similar in style to Dusty Springfield's 1969 album Dusty in Memphis which was and is a critical favorite but it bombed with the record buying public.
Also I'd say you could make an argument that Elvis was creating his only near geniune R&B album with From Elvis in Memphis.
Or blue eyed soul album like Dusty in Memphis was.
That was something new and unexplored for him.

[KPM]

The album is also very similar in style to Dusty Springfield's 1969 album Dusty in Memphis which was and is a critical favorite but it bombed with the record buying public.
Also I'd say you could make an argument that Elvis was creating his only near geniune R&B album with From Elvis in Memphis.
Or blue eyed soul album like Dusty in Memphis was.
That was something new and unexplored for him.
Actually there is not much comparison between Elvis and Dusty in the music they chose for the albums-Dusty had some show type tunes such as the
"Windmills of Your Mind" and "In the Land of Make Believe"
So her album was a lot less R&B or soul but Elvis on the other hand chose mainly R&B, country or pop with the arrangements leaning toward R&B IMO
Also in a book about his career her producer Jerry Wexler said she recorded the finished vocals for the album in New York-because she was a little intimidated by the number of true blues and soul artists who had recorded at the studio.
Elvis on the other hand gave it his all in the studio and seemed to not have a problem with the reputation of the artists who had previously recorded there.
But I will agree that this session was as close to real R&B that Elvis ever did.

[Diane]

It was Elvis saying -THIS IS WHO I AM-THIS IS WHAT MADE ME!


:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy


Diane

[Brian]

Actually there is not much comparison between Elvis and Dusty in the music they chose for the albums-Dusty had some show type tunes such as the
"Windmills of Your Mind" and "In the Land of Make Believe"
So her album was a lot less R&B or soul but Elvis on the other hand chose mainly R&B, country or pop with the arrangements leaning toward R&B IMO
Also in a book about his career her producer Jerry Wexler said she recorded the finished vocals for the album in New York-because she was a little intimidated by the number of true blues and soul artists who had recorded at the studio.
Elvis on the other hand gave it his all in the studio and seemed to not have a problem with the reputation of the artists who had previously recorded there.
But I will agree that this session was as close to real R&B that Elvis ever did.

I always thought that Dusty in Memphis had a soul feel to it.
Elvis album has more of a country flavor mixed in on some of the tracks while Dusty did some show tunes as you mentioned.
Dusty's hit from those sessions Son of a Preacher man has soul feel to it sorta like Suspicious minds and in the ghetto did.
I feel that Dusty's sessions for that album were an attempt by her to sing pop tunes with a soul feel.

[Raised on Rock]

It is not about if the author of this article is or not and Elvis fan, its about merely ignorance of two basics for a music critic: to know about the context of the record and to distinguish between personal taste and the actual quality of the music you are talking about.

The author of this review obviously has no idea of what the AMERICAN SOUND STUDIOS and CHIPS MOMAN meant to the music scene in the second half of the 60's. His reference to George Martin just let you know he is just one of those, those how think that the 60's music scene is reducted to the British invation and the so called Woodstock generation.

He has no hint about from where this music is coming, and in which terms this album should be understood. This review is as retarded as to state Ray Charles mid 60's records are crap cause they don't sound as inovative and hip as what The Velvet Underground where doing? or to state that Hendrix was just awful noise as he does not compares to the polished sound and artistry of B.B. King? Dude! you got to put things in context.

[rickb]

what a d...head. Did he even listen to the music?

[monk37]

...in spite of his not being a songwriter. ....


I find that this is a weird thing for people to lambast Elvis about.

Most singers are not songwriters.

In the same way that we don't expect actors to also have written the script

song writing and performing are different talents.

[intheghetto]

His claim that this album wasn't really the artistic, contemporary comeback of Elvis, is true in my opinion. For us, the fans, it was a definite breakup with his soundtracks-days. And it may be his best album every since. But compared to what was being released during those days, it had little impact in sales and really had no influence at all on the musicscene. We, the fans, like to think differently because it's such a great album.

But I don't believe Elvis had any intentions to change the musics scene. He just wanted to release a really good Elvis album with more modern music that would clearly sound different from all his prior work. It was a logical followup to his comeback special.



Out of all the posts in response to this article, this one makes the most sense. I agree that Elvis was not out to do anything more than what he did on this record: to get back to recording real, sophisticated music and to start working within the framework of the matured performer he had become at that point. His days of doing 'Old McDonald' and other ridiculous music for his movies had to end. Was Elvis the so-called 'trail blazer' that he was at the beginning of his career? No, and that's probably where the critic that wrote this article should have ended his argument. IMHO from 1969 until the end Elvis inconsistently made some great music. However he was most consistent on this album and in the early Vegas performance years. That stuff still holds up today. I will admit there was one mis-fire on 'From Elvis In Memphis' and that was his cover of 'Hey Jude'. Elvis may have made some clunker songs in the later years, but usually his voice was still there. 'Hey Jude' to me just sounds like a throwaway tune and it's one of the very few times that Elvis does not sound good on record. If they simply included it because it was the novelty of Elvis doing a Beatles song, they should have thought twice about it. Later he did Beatle covers that were way better than this one. Hate to admit it, but I actually omitted it from my iPod, it's just not him at his best and it's painful to listen to.



Elvis was an entertainer, a performer, not a true creating artist


Are you really sure you want to run with that? Think about the early RCA albums. Sure, Steve Sholes was there 'producing', but Elvis had creative control over those sessions. Some of the sounds of that stuff, 'First In Line' comes to mind, is absolutely amazing. The mood Elvis achieved in those recordings are the work of a true artist. But this humility is one of the real attractive aspects of Elvis as a creative figure: he didn't make a big deal about things like that. He was an amazing performer, but he didn't sit around and talk about how great he was like alot of these a-holes that are in what's left of the music business today. Alot of those people have no problem calling themselves 'artists' but artists they aren't. Elvis, in my opinion, was.

[Raised on Rock]

Elvis was an entertainer, a performer, not a true creating artist.

Since when a performer, and one like Elvis, it is no a true creating artist, that is based on what?

Sure my friend, songwriting must be the more obvious talent in showcasing what a creative artist is, but it is by no means the only possibility of life as a "true" creative artist.

We might need to review what is art, and what is to be creative artist, and to review then, in which part, a performer, and interpreter, it is not a "true" creative artist.

Did Elvis then, according to you, never created any new forms of art? any new channels of artistic creation? did Elvis never actually created any art with his singing? Did he never created anything with his performances both live and in the studio, but just entertained us fools being a sterile gallery of someone else art?

To take away from Elvis talent about not being a composer, it is to evaluate his art and talent out of context, Art Theory 101.

[Teddy]

I will admit there was one mis-fire on 'From Elvis In Memphis' and that was his cover of 'Hey Jude'. Elvis may have made some clunker songs in the later years, but usually his voice was still there. 'Hey Jude' to me just sounds like a throwaway tune and it's one of the very few times that Elvis does not sound good on record. If they simply included it because it was the novelty of Elvis doing a Beatles song, they should have thought twice about it. Later he did Beatle covers that were way better than this one. Hate to admit it, but I actually omitted it from my iPod, it's just not him at his best and it's painful to listen to.


The decision to release this recording is the most regrettable thing.
It's quite clear, from the bungled lyrics and half-hearted vocal delivery, that Elvis didn't get beyond a few practice runs of the number before losing interest and moving onto something else. You can hear that he isn't under the impression that he is performing a potential master take of the tune.
Whoever made the decision to stick it out there regardless needs a thorough scolding.
Just having a brilliant singer singing a brilliant song isn't enough.
It helps if you actually finish making the record.

[Raised on Rock]

I will admit there was one mis-fire on 'From Elvis In Memphis' and that was his cover of 'Hey Jude'. Elvis may have made some clunker songs in the later years, but usually his voice was still there. 'Hey Jude' to me just sounds like a throwaway tune and it's one of the very few times that Elvis does not sound good on record. .


The decision to release this recording is the most regrettable thing.
It's quite clear, from the bungled lyrics and half-hearted vocal delivery, that Elvis didn't get beyond a few practice runs of the number before losing interest and moving onto something else. You can hear that he isn't under the impression that he is performing a potential master take of the tune.
Whoever made the decision to stick it out there regardless needs a thorough scolding.
Just having a brilliant singer singing a brilliant song isn't enough.
It helps if you actually finish making the record.

"Hey Jude" WAS NOT part of the "From Elvis in Memphis" album, neither was released in the follow up "Elvis Back in Memphis", neither as a single or b side.

It was indeed a throwaway no intended to be released.

Its on the Legacy edition just as a bonus song, same as "I'll Be There" and "If Im A Fool for Loving You", stuff that Elvis only did to pass the time in the studio. They got to the overdubs sessions only because they send the whole bulk of recorded material, but it was not to be released on that album.

[Teddy]

It was indeed a throwaway no intended to be released.

Its on the Legacy edition just as a bonus song, same as "I'll Be There" and "If Im A Fool for Loving You", stuff that Elvis only did to pass the time in the studio. They got to the overdubs sessions only because they send the whole bulk of recorded material, but it was not to be released on that album.

If only it had remained unreleased!
There's little pleasure to be garnered from hearing a great artist underachieve.

People seem to enjoy being given these snapshots of material they were never supposed to hear, but frankly I think that having tracks like this in the public domain does more damage to Elvis's legacy than any number of bad tribute artists in cheap jumpsuits.

[intheghetto]

"Hey Jude" WAS NOT part of the "From Elvis in Memphis" album, neither was released in the follow up "Elvis Back in Memphis", neither as a single or b side.



I stand corrected, and I should have known this since I did read Ernst Jorgensen's book 'A Life In Music' cover to cover. That being said, I wish at least that the Sirius/XM Elvis Radio channel would take it out of their regular rotation. I hate to belabor the point, but it's an awful recording. I said in my earlier post that I omitted it from my iPod, let me just be specific and say that it's the only Elvis song I omitted from my iPod.

[Tony Trout]

he never touched booze you *****...get your facts right you *****ic person.


Yes, he did.

Elvis the teetotaller is a complete myth.


Not to get the topic off-track but Getlo is 100% correct here. Elvis, for a time, did try booze/alcohol in the early to mid-60s but tired of it and never touched it again.

[Raised on Rock]

If only it had remained unreleased!
There's little pleasure to be garnered from hearing a great artist underachieve.

People seem to enjoy being given these snapshots of material they were never supposed to hear, but frankly I think that having tracks like this in the public domain does more damage to Elvis's legacy than any number of bad tribute artists in cheap jumpsuits.

As I said, it was not released in the original "From Elvis in Memphis".

It was released for the first time 3 years later on the "Elvis Now" album, one that, despite two or three jewels, it was a collage of studio left overs, and should have not been released at all.

YES I do agree that RCA from the mid 60's until the end, proved to be inept, in the way they released Elvis material, combining jewels with stuff that was not good enough to be released in order to release 3 albums a year, (plus the unnecessary stream of budget releases on the camden label) did damage Elvis and it is to blame for the lack of artistical understanding over the media, giving as a result: a magnificent but totally underrated artist.

If instead of 3 mediocre albums, only 1 album per year would be released, just putting together all the jewels in one single L.P., things would have been brighter for Elvis on the music press for sure. (Most contemporary rock and pop artist started to release only one album per year after '68 or '69).

So although I do consider "from Elvis in Memphis" a good album, If instead of dividing the material in that one and the subsequent "Elvis Back in Memphis", and just put together the best stuff making of two one definitively stronger album, it's impact on the charts and on the collective memory would be far superior.

But I'm talking about back then, but talking about today, so you think then that half of the catalogue on FTD should be out of print, or bonus track as in this "From Elvis in Memphis" release should not happen, cause its damaging Elvis?

[Teddy]

As I said, it was not released in the original "From Elvis in Memphis".


I know! Never said it was!
Should have made myself clearer.
My complaint comes from the current trend of repackaging albums and including substandard material from the period in order to boost sales.

The result is lower quality material in the market place and general compromise in an artist's overall output, which in Elvis's case is especially regrettable, since he isn't around to voice his disapproval.

Like I've said before, even the curiosity value is short lived and usually leaves the listener feeling pretty underwhelmed.

[Raised on Rock]

True, I've also think quality is better than quantity. Bonus tracks are Ok, if well selected only.

FTD is a different case, that why is the fan label.