PDA

View Full Version : Elvis loses out on yet another Grammy



vivaelvis
02-12-2012, 04:46 PM
He lost out to Paul McCartney's Band On The Run. Unreal and unfair. Unfortunately it looks like Elvis will never win a Grammy for anything other than Gospel. Just goes to show how politics can control these things.(n)(n)

King Of The Whole World
02-12-2012, 06:51 PM
Man that really makes me sick. I was wishing and wishing but I knew politics would come into play. Sorry Elvis, if it was up to us you would have won hands down.

molokai123
02-12-2012, 08:02 PM
figures,but we all know who should have won.

IM4Elvis
02-12-2012, 09:14 PM
I haven't heard the other releases which were being considered. However, the media has always been against Elvis ever since he started back in the '50s. So this is no surprise. He still doesn't get the respect he deserves, IMHO. Elvis doesn't need the adoration of the Hollywood type. Those of us who appreciate Elvis and his musical genius know the truth. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

IM

Brian Quinn
02-12-2012, 11:29 PM
An absolute travesty. The Grammies are nothing more than an exercise in publicity generation. As soon as I saw that McCartney was going to be in attendance at the Awards I knew the result then. The only way Elvis is going to get a Grammy is when the Beatle Dynasty has died out. It is apparent that the music Industry in the U.S.A. does not value their own legends.

Brian :angry:

Raised on Rock
02-13-2012, 12:12 AM
The Sun Records Box Set! I name that revenge right now.

Despite this crap, Man with the Big Beat got great reviews, I believe no other Elvis product ever since the 50's Box in '92 has ever done that well in terms of critics, and in the end that matters the most, and regardles of the Grammys, I beilieve this was a solid step 2 (step one was the 30 cd box set of the masters) on a road finally leading to give Elvis another angle and the musical respect he deserves.

Anyway, I own the Band on the Run set and it is fantastic for sure, BUT, its not about who you like the most Elvis or Macca, there was obviously much more work on the Elvis box set, it really was a superior piece, Elvis fan or Elvis hater, there was no debate, it was the best crafted product from all the nomines. This was mere politics and it is not cool, buy hey, let's get real, grammys, oscars, emmys, its all about politics and power. But let's get beyond that, Elvis doesn't need that, he is and always has been his own tower, for good or bad Elvis its a bussiness that has always worked on its own terms, and as I said, the current direction legacy is taking, goes to me on right path, so.. thumbs up any way for Man With The Big Beat, that box set its an historic one for sure in Elvis catalogue, there would be a before and after in the way they market Elvis from now on.

Jimmy1966
02-13-2012, 06:47 AM
to hell with them i knew McCartney would get it, bottom lickers the whole sorry bunch, ELVIS WILL ALWAYS BE THE KING NO MATTER WHAT.

debtdbruno
02-13-2012, 10:17 AM
it was as we all expected, unfortunately...........

King Of The Whole World
02-13-2012, 10:56 AM
Did anyone see Bruno Mars perform? He is a Elvis fan, he was wearing a gold like jacket, hair combed like early 60's Elvis and added some 50's dance moves. It was actually entertaining.

KPM
02-13-2012, 11:23 AM
I agree about politics and music-when superstars are involved who will appear at the award shows and perform that gives them a huge edge.
Elvis was not allowed to appear in the 60s and 70s, and can't appear now so he can not add to the ratings by being there in person-and that puts him at a disadvantage.
In the 50s when he should have won many Grammys-the politics of what popular music should be-and what was simple considered "fad" worked against him.
He broke ground at the Grammys for other future rockers by showing that rock and roll was not a fad and helping it to be given its rightful legitimate place as a prime music genre......yet he gets no credit for this and many other things.

rocknroll
02-13-2012, 11:29 AM
It's an honor just to be nominated. (y)

Raised on Rock
02-13-2012, 12:19 PM
He broke ground at the Grammys for other future rockers by showing that rock and roll was not a fad and helping it to be given its rightful legitimate place as a prime music genre......yet he gets no credit for this and many other things.

Well he got the Life Time Achievement grammy award at only 35 right?

ELVIS_
02-13-2012, 12:59 PM
These Awards don't mean squat. More people are way into Elvis than Paul McCartney. There wouldn't be Paul McCartney if there wasn't someone like Elvis. To quote Paulie regarding Elvis, "Our A waited Messiah has arrived".
Mr.Sir. Paul McCartney took the path that John Lennon broke free of. Well it might have cost John his life but I have a lot more respect for him.
Paul is safe and pays his dues, he could tour & charge $1,000,00 a ticket. Elvis on the screen with a live couldn't pull that off. So it boils down to money / investors. The side of it is the reason the 50s Elvis will never make it in their fraternity is Elvis sparks ideas in people like no other artist. His voice is God giving Gift. Elvis music especially early Elvis doesn't influence people the same way Paul does. Paul's music is laid back leaves people numb to reality but listening to Elvis sets off a whole slew of ideas and confidence.
That's why if he gets anything. It could be the safe side of Elvis, "Gospel". Another thing even though they try to peg Elvis as a stonner in reality his influence has helps people progress not degrees into la la land. Paul McCartney is prime example of that.

asian1
02-13-2012, 01:59 PM
That fact that Elvis had never won a grammy for the rock catagory is absurd. Having geriatric McCartney win is even more ridiculous. Allowing Minaj to further bash Catholicism is an affront to me and says a great deal about the people behind this insipid award show.

Jungleroom76
02-13-2012, 02:28 PM
it was as we all expected, unfortunately...........

Sadly, you are 100% right Deb!! :angry:

As soon as the nominees were announced and I saw Paul McCartney on the list, I knew it was over then!! But like all Elvis fans, I held out hope that Elvis would finally win a Grammy for the music that he so richly deserves to win for!!!

Unfortunately, I really feel that this was Elvis' best shot to win a Grammy for his rock n' roll music for a very long time!! I highly doubt RCA will put out something of this magnitude focusing on his '56 works again anytime soon (or at least of the high quality that YOUNG MAN was made) so again, it appears that the man who single-handedly changed the face of popular music forever will be denied the recognition he deserves!! :angry: :angry: :angry:

And, as another member stated, once it was announced that McCartney would be on-hand at the Grammy Awards, that only further cemented the fact that he would win. Sadly, Elvis can't be there so why give the award to an artist who has passed away? It's all one big ratings contest... :sad: :sad: :sad:

TCB!
Mike

Raised on Rock
02-13-2012, 02:34 PM
It's an honor just to be nominated. (y)

That's right. I really don't think Grammys had been that unfair to Elvis.

Back in '55-'57, when Elvis music changed the face of music, there was no Grammy Awards. Yet. as soon as that ceremony came to life in '59, Elvis did was nominated several times.

Yet as KMP said, there was no such category as best Rock album or best rock performance, as rock music was still considered a mere fad, so Elvis nominations where named out of his territory. Nominated in the R&B category "Big Hunk O' Love" in '59), R&B idea for the Grammys then, had nothing to do with the funky side of it, but with the mainstream sounds of Ray Charles or Dinah Washington, so there was no way the gritty Big Hunk 'O Love could have earned the price Washington's "What a Diff'rence a Day Makes" got that year. "Fool Such As I" was nominated record of the year, but there was no way a hillbilly/rock and roll record by the controvercial Elvis the Pelvis could have get away with that... the grammy went for Bobby Darin "Mack the Knife", yes grammys where looking for sounds that smelled like the old days instead of looking at the future, this was years before rock music became a category on its own.

Same thing happened next year when "Are You Lonesome Tonight?" was nominated record of the year and best vocal performance, even if Col. Parker was trying to get Elvis into mainstream and away of the not well acepted rocker image, it were the much more mainstream acepted sounds who got the price, Percy Faith for "Theme From A Summer Place" got the first, big lol, and nothing to laugh about: Ray Charles for "Georgia on My Mind" won the second. Again Elvis seemed at odds regadring the competition. Yet Elvis got away with even two more nominations in the soundtrack area: G.I. Blues, best soundtrack and best male performance on an album. Again a more established act won: Cole Porter (composer), Frank Sinatra & the original cast for Can Can.

Next year, Blue Hawaii got the nomine for best soundtrack album, rightfully lost to the West Side Story soundtrack. Then as we know Elvis recordings simply lost the plot. Yet in '67 as soon signs of life appeared, "How Great Thou Art" was the winner on the gospel area. Next year "YouŽll Never Walk Alone" almost does it again.

It is true that none of his post '68 comeback recordings got a grammy nomination, yet, the '68 comback, the memphis recordings, the early life albums (In Person, On STage and TTWII), the nashville '70 sessions, were an unprecedented self reinvention, so succesful that put Elvis whole career and what it meant to the record industry in the lightspot. In '71 Elvis got the Life Time Achievment grammy award, at only 36 years old, not at all a lack of recognition towards Elvis right?

Elvis did great stuff during the 70's, but it is true that is was awfuly packed by RCA; great singles as Burning Love or Always on My Mind where wasted among soundtrack recordings in the Camden albums, albums like NOW, or Elvis (THe Fool) album mixed great stuff with left overs, and instead of getting the best of the Nashville or Stax recordings in one or two strong albums, they where spawned in three or four albums, mixing the good with the so or so, it was imposible that way to get any nominations. 70's Elvis was a bad case of awful marketing, and yes, grammys are 25% about art, the rest its about market stuff, back in the early 60's Blue Hawaii was not nominated for its high calibre of artistry, but because it really delivered the golden eggs right?

Yet as soon as another great and solid gospel album was out (and because gospel is not an area dominated about record sales thinking, and because Elvis did was selling gospel music mainstrem and worldwide heights when nobody else did), He Touched Me (1972) got it again. And the fact that he got one more grammy for the live verion "How Great Thou Art" in 1974 proves that they where closely follow him and not ignoring him. Now many fans complain Elvis got grammys for gospel and not for rock and roll, well, let's not forget, to Elvis, that surely meant much more, as that was the music he loved the most and among all things. (Although I don't even think or I haven't found any evidence that Elvis actually cared too much about the grammys).

In '78 he got another nomination with Softly As I Leave You as best vocal performance, really not that great so nobody complain if it didn't won, yet it was a nice swansong nomination.

Now 30 years latter or so, Elvis got another nomination, well even if it didn't won, that is never bad news but opposite, yes it is too bad that he didn't won, it is even worst that it was as back in the late 50's because of politics and power games, and not about who really deserves it. Well, as Eddie Vedder once said when Pearl Jam got a grammy: "I don't know what this means. I don't think it means anything", it only means to me, that Jorgensen is playing his cards well, and Elvis is getting attention as a musician and not as a Vegas impersonactors contest, and that's nothing but good news, so who cares really, its all good! Does the Grammys really mean that much?

KPM
02-14-2012, 03:18 PM
Well he got the Life Time Achievement grammy award at only 35 right?
Yes you are correct-and Colonel Parker still stressed that you should not go on TV too much, and you never go on for free so Elvis probably did not even consider attending.
BUT "IF" he had-might the politics of the Grammys changed? Perhaps his music would have been given more consideration by the board and all the voting members.
Parker by keeping Elvis away from such shows like the Grammys may have caused some resentment among other performers because the logical conclusion might be....."Elvis is above this sort of thing, and can't come-or won't come"
Sinatra, Crosby, even the Beatles all made appearances overtime on these type events-yet Parker segregated Elvis and I truely believe it worked against him in nominations and voting.

Raised on Rock
02-14-2012, 05:33 PM
Yes you are correct-and Colonel Parker still stressed that you should not go on TV too much, and you never go on for free so Elvis probably did not even consider attending.
BUT "IF" he had-might the politics of the Grammys changed? Perhaps his music would have been given more consideration by the board and all the voting members.
Parker by keeping Elvis away from such shows like the Grammys may have caused some resentment among other performers because the logical conclusion might be....."Elvis is above this sort of thing, and can't come-or won't come"
Sinatra, Crosby, even the Beatles all made appearances overtime on these type events-yet Parker segregated Elvis and I truely believe it worked against him in nominations and voting.

It is true that Parker segegated Elvis, there are pro and contras about it. A somekind of resentment towards Elvis from importan power groups in the entertainment industry and the media (or missinterpretations abour who he really was), that are still manifest today, could certainly be included in the contras about that direction Parker choosed.

But also, it is true that Elvis in fact disliked to socialise outside his inner circle, (he don't even liked to attend to the premiers of his own films), and he consider the Hollywood crowd mostly a bunch of phoneys, and he certainly was not at all an *** kisser who played the game once in a while to get something for himself. He always kept to himself as much as posible, and as much we can blame to Parker, about his seclution, on a big 80% Elvis liked it that way, so...

McCartney on the other way has always been the king of politics in the entertainment social world, and he is good at it. Elvis, regardless of Parker directions,, always seemed to just run away and hide from any social duties, except for charities, and even then he managed to go secretly on that if he could.

Anyway, it would have been great if Elvis got the award, but really? Grammys are a bunch of Monkey Bussiness and not about art. Elvis gospels awards came because he was selling gospel music wordwide and as if it was pop music, when gospel music was on a dead end in terms of sales. As I said: Blue Hawaii nominaded? please, it only meant: yes, that shit really made money. The fact that in '59 records like Fool Such as I and Big Hunk A Love where nominated when it was obvious, rock music was not welcome in the hall, Grammys made the statment clear: they are here because those singles out sold basicaly everything, but they won't get the price as... we don't like a hilbilly, over here. When it became obvious that rock music was big money, it was here to stay, and rather performed by brits than by rednecks, it got its own grammys nominations.

The Life Time award meant a little more, but it was still about $$$, it recognized that it was because of Elvis that teenage oriented music and rock and roll became the biggest income in the industry, that he, not as an artist but as a social phenomenon, revolutionized the way music is on the market. And that with his comeback, then they knew you can still milk to death a pop artist beyond 30 years old in that area, as before Elvis a career in rock music ended at 30 years old, now at 35 he was again making big big numbers on many peoples bank acounts world wide.

So again, I don't think Grammys have been unfair to Elvis, they are simply not awarding what we think they do.
If it was about art, historic relevance, quality, we do know "Man With The Big Beat" did was a superior product than "Band on The Run (reissue)". But in terms of $$$ and opening directions to make even more $$$, plus TV ratings, plus Macca playing his cards (and he has the right to, I'm not bashing McCartney I like him), well the Elvis box set pales in that area, so the Grammy goes to...

Maybe ten years from now, when the FTD label ends his road, much more Elvis music gets wisely packed on the Legacy Label, and so on, he might get, and he surely deserves it as nobody matches him in thar area, the: Afterlive Time Achievment Grammy Award, as nobody else has gave so much money to the industry being dead.

buttonhead
02-14-2012, 09:49 PM
Brit Invasion all over again... I feel like Elvis should've won ! I hate to bring up politics part, But some times it feels like America dont like his own..

King Of The Whole World
02-14-2012, 10:28 PM
Yes you are correct-and Colonel Parker still stressed that you should not go on TV too much, and you never go on for free so Elvis probably did not even consider attending.
BUT "IF" he had-might the politics of the Grammys changed? Perhaps his music would have been given more consideration by the board and all the voting members.
Parker by keeping Elvis away from such shows like the Grammys may have caused some resentment among other performers because the logical conclusion might be....."Elvis is above this sort of thing, and can't come-or won't come"
Sinatra, Crosby, even the Beatles all made appearances overtime on these type events-yet Parker segregated Elvis and I truely believe it worked against him in nominations and voting.


It is true that Parker segegated Elvis, there are pro and contras about it. A somekind of resentment towards Elvis from importan power groups in the entertainment industry and the media (or missinterpretations abour who he really was), that are still manifest today, could certainly be included in the contras about that direction Parker choosed.

But also, it is true that Elvis in fact disliked to socialise outside his inner circle, (he don't even liked to attend to the premiers of his own films), and he consider the Hollywood crowd mostly a bunch of phoneys, and he certainly was not at all an *** kisser who played the game once in a while to get something for himself. He always kept to himself as much as posible, and as much we can blame to Parker, about his seclution, on a big 80% Elvis liked it that way, so...

McCartney on the other way has always been the king of politics in the entertainment social world, and he is good at it. Elvis, regardless of Parker directions,, always seemed to just run away and hide from any social duties, except for charities, and even then he managed to go secretly on that if he could.

Anyway, it would have been great if Elvis got the award, but really? Grammys are a bunch of Monkey Bussiness and not about art. Elvis gospels awards came because he was selling gospel music wordwide and as if it was pop music, when gospel music was on a dead end in terms of sales. As I said: Blue Hawaii nominaded? please, it only meant: yes, that shit really made money. The fact that in '59 records like Fool Such as I and Big Hunk A Love where nominated when it was obvious, rock music was not welcome in the hall, Grammys made the statment clear: they are here because those singles out sold basicaly everything, but they won't get the price as... we don't like a hilbilly, over here. When it became obvious that rock music was big money, it was here to stay, and rather performed by brits than by rednecks, it got its own grammys nominations.

The Life Time award meant a little more, but it was still about $$$, it recognized that it was because of Elvis that teenage oriented music and rock and roll became the biggest income in the industry, that he, not as an artist but as a social phenomenon, revolutionized the way music is on the market. And that with his comeback, then they knew you can still milk to death a pop artist beyond 30 years old in that area, as before Elvis a career in rock music ended at 30 years old, now at 35 he was again making big big numbers on many peoples bank acounts world wide.

So again, I don't think Grammys have been unfair to Elvis, they are simply not awarding what we think they do.
If it was about art, historic relevance, quality, we do know "Man With The Big Beat" did was a superior product than "Band on The Run (reissue)". But in terms of $$$ and opening directions to make even more $$$, plus TV ratings, plus Macca playing his cards (and he has the right to, I'm not bashing McCartney I like him), well the Elvis box set pales in that area, so the Grammy goes to...

Maybe ten years from now, when the FTD label ends his road, much more Elvis music gets wisely packed on the Legacy Label, and so on, he might get, and he surely deserves it as nobody matches him in thar area, the: Afterlive Time Achievment Grammy Award, as nobody else has gave so much money to the industry being dead.


You guys bring up great points.

Albert
02-15-2012, 02:02 AM
Elvis don't need a Grammy. Getting one now is like getting mustard after a dinner. It's just to late and quite meaningless.

He's the one that started it all, the first true worldwide superstar, the Icon of showbusiness. He was the right person at the right time with the right people. If that means that it was too soon to get 6 Grammy awards on one night, so be it. Who doesn't get a Grammy nowadays anyway?

ThreeCornPatches
02-15-2012, 07:18 AM
Sadley another reason probably was because paul mcartney was able to reseive the grammy, and elvis didnt thats how it usually goes here in holland to, I admire paul mcCartney, but i think elvis deserved it to, would have been great 35 years after he left us.

King Of The Whole World
02-15-2012, 08:50 AM
Elvis don't need a Grammy. Getting one now is like getting mustard after a dinner. It's just to late and quite meaningless.

He's the one that started it all, the first true worldwide superstar, the Icon of showbusiness. He was the right person at the right time with the right people. If that means that it was too soon to get 6 Grammy awards on one night, so be it. Who doesn't get a Grammy nowadays anyway?

I know it seems like there are a ton of useless categories for Grammy’s and other award shows. I think in today’s world everybody has to win something.


Sadley another reason probably was because paul mcartney was able to reseive the grammy, and elvis didnt thats how it usually goes here in holland to, I admire paul mcCartney, but i think elvis deserved it to, would have been great 35 years after he left us.

I think Paul didn't except the award either, so I don’t think that was the reason he won. I think I read he was doing something else and somebody received the award for him.

debtdbruno
02-15-2012, 09:50 AM
It grates though......I heard one presenter when talking about Adele.....'even Elvis only got 3 Grammy's in his life'.......Grrrrrrr

He's got to be the most underrated artist ever..............

Jungleroom76
02-15-2012, 10:09 AM
Too many excellent points here to highlight, but I LOVE seeing such a spirited discussion on Elvis' Grammy successes and failures!! :D

I do have to give kudos though to Raised On Rock for all of the research he did with presenting Elvis' nominations, who he lost out to, etc. Very well done my friend!! :notworthy

TCB!
Mike

KPM
02-15-2012, 01:14 PM
It is true that Parker segegated Elvis, there are pro and contras about it. A somekind of resentment towards Elvis from importan power groups in the entertainment industry and the media (or missinterpretations abour who he really was), that are still manifest today, could certainly be included in the contras about that direction Parker choosed.

But also, it is true that Elvis in fact disliked to socialise outside his inner circle, (he don't even liked to attend to the premiers of his own films), and he consider the Hollywood crowd mostly a bunch of phoneys, and he certainly was not at all an *** kisser who played the game once in a while to get something for himself. He always kept to himself as much as posible, and as much we can blame to Parker, about his seclution, on a big 80% Elvis liked it that way, so...

McCartney on the other way has always been the king of politics in the entertainment social world, and he is good at it. Elvis, regardless of Parker directions,, always seemed to just run away and hide from any social duties, except for charities, and even then he managed to go secretly on that if he could.

Anyway, it would have been great if Elvis got the award, but really? Grammys are a bunch of Monkey Bussiness and not about art. Elvis gospels awards came because he was selling gospel music wordwide and as if it was pop music, when gospel music was on a dead end in terms of sales. As I said: Blue Hawaii nominaded? please, it only meant: yes, that shit really made money. The fact that in '59 records like Fool Such as I and Big Hunk A Love where nominated when it was obvious, rock music was not welcome in the hall, Grammys made the statment clear: they are here because those singles out sold basicaly everything, but they won't get the price as... we don't like a hilbilly, over here. When it became obvious that rock music was big money, it was here to stay, and rather performed by brits than by rednecks, it got its own grammys nominations.

The Life Time award meant a little more, but it was still about $$$, it recognized that it was because of Elvis that teenage oriented music and rock and roll became the biggest income in the industry, that he, not as an artist but as a social phenomenon, revolutionized the way music is on the market. And that with his comeback, then they knew you can still milk to death a pop artist beyond 30 years old in that area, as before Elvis a career in rock music ended at 30 years old, now at 35 he was again making big big numbers on many peoples bank acounts world wide.

So again, I don't think Grammys have been unfair to Elvis, they are simply not awarding what we think they do.
If it was about art, historic relevance, quality, we do know "Man With The Big Beat" did was a superior product than "Band on The Run (reissue)". But in terms of $$$ and opening directions to make even more $$$, plus TV ratings, plus Macca playing his cards (and he has the right to, I'm not bashing McCartney I like him), well the Elvis box set pales in that area, so the Grammy goes to...

Maybe ten years from now, when the FTD label ends his road, much more Elvis music gets wisely packed on the Legacy Label, and so on, he might get, and he surely deserves it as nobody matches him in thar area, the: Afterlive Time Achievment Grammy Award, as nobody else has gave so much money to the industry being dead.
That certainly is true after the early 60s-after the Parker rules had become "the Norm" but take the early years of Hollywood, Elvis may not have wanted to sit with Hal Wallis and eat a formal dinner-but he did like other stars and he felt comfortable with meeting and socializing with them....Sammy Davis, Natalee Wood, Dolores Hart, Nick Addams, are some of the stars who he did feel good around-
but my point goes to the crux of Elvis being segregated by Parkers idea of managing Elvis......if you keep a flower, or tree, in a box-it never blooms it never grows.....same with people..........how could Elvis become accustomed to other people, other talent, other ideas if the box is always closed and kept closed.
IMO we see the result from how Elvis never totally grew beyond the 20 year old he was in 1955-except his frustrations grew, his lack of desire to create grew......... every year he was boxed.
Now we all know how Elvis shined when he was given the chance to collaborate with really talented people he met every expectation they had and more...but that interaction was the spark-the chance to listen to someone outside that Parker drawn box......people who said with no reservations or preconditions........."Lets try this.....lets change the format......lets take this beyond what is expected or planned"
Everytime he was given this chance-he succeeded and had confidence to push beyone the norm........and by the same token everytime he was boxed for extended periods he became more resigned and bored with the idea:
"this is how it is, this is the norm," and growth stopped...sometimes actually slipped backward.
I know Elvis should have seen this himself, I know Elvis should have demanded more freedom, more sayso but he always first and foremost was the entertainer-and he relied on Parker to guide the career...
I am certain everytime Parker spoke to Elvis about the reasoning behind the direction of the career (segregation)-it sounded as logical and sensible as ice cream on Apple Pie......and Elvis ate it up.
I tell you the more I read each year about Parkers life....the more I see how he was as manipulative and controling as any person I have read about.
Eddy Arnold, Hank Snow, Tommy Sands all had trouble with Parker and his manipulations.
Sands says his mom did not trust Parker he wanted control over virtually every aspect of Sands life (personal and public) and she put her foot down before Parker could get too much legal control over Sands career.
Snow was cheated by a smiling Parker after Parker had agreed to give Snow some percentage of the management contract over Elvis (which Snow helped lay groundwork for), Snow kept waiting to see income rolling in from that contract and finally confronted Parker who smiled and showed him the contract which Elvis and parents had signed with nothing about Snows involvement in it.
Arnold fired Parker after somehow discovering that all moneys due him were not coming into his accounts and he felt Parker was not honestly managing him.
Bob Neal was pushed and pressured by Parker until he finally was systematically forced out.
Elvis should have fired him in 1965-but Parker had control and had laid the groundwork to keep Elvis where he wanted him.
That is my honest conclusion.

KPM
02-15-2012, 02:05 PM
Here is an excellent article about Col. Parker and his dark side which permeated his entire public life
it gives observations by people closely associated with Parker and Elvis which paint a very telling portrait of Parker and how he operated....from his hidden real identity to the conclusion by the probate judge handling Elvis's estate that he had worked in a self serving way in his management of Elvis and had not always acted in a manner to benefit his client:
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/spotlight_thedarksideofcolonelparker.html

Raised on Rock
02-15-2012, 05:51 PM
That certainly is true after the early 60s-after the Parker rules had become "the Norm" but take the early years of Hollywood, Elvis may not have wanted to sit with Hal Wallis and eat a formal dinner-but he did like other stars and he felt comfortable with meeting and socializing with them....Sammy Davis, Natalee Wood, Dolores Hart, Nick Addams, are some of the stars who he did feel good around-
but my point goes to the crux of Elvis being segregated by Parkers idea of managing Elvis......if you keep a flower, or tree, in a box-it never blooms it never grows.....same with people..........how could Elvis become accustomed to other people, other talent, other ideas if the box is always closed and kept closed.
IMO we see the result from how Elvis never totally grew beyond the 20 year old he was in 1955-except his frustrations grew, his lack of desire to create grew......... every year he was boxed.
Now we all know how Elvis shined when he was given the chance to collaborate with really talented people he met every expectation they had and more...but that interaction was the spark-the chance to listen to someone outside that Parker drawn box......people who said with no reservations or preconditions........."Lets try this.....lets change the format......lets take this beyond what is expected or planned"
Everytime he was given this chance-he succeeded and had confidence to push beyone the norm........and by the same token everytime he was boxed for extended periods he became more resigned and bored with the idea:
"this is how it is, this is the norm," and growth stopped...sometimes actually slipped backward.
I know Elvis should have seen this himself, I know Elvis should have demanded more freedom, more sayso but he always first and foremost was the entertainer-and he relied on Parker to guide the career...
I am certain everytime Parker spoke to Elvis about the reasoning behind the direction of the career (segregation)-it sounded as logical and sensible as ice cream on Apple Pie......and Elvis ate it up.
I tell you the more I read each year about Parkers life....the more I see how he was as manipulative and controling as any person I have read about.
Eddy Arnold, Hank Snow, Tommy Sands all had trouble with Parker and his manipulations.
Sands says his mom did not trust Parker he wanted control over virtually every aspect of Sands life (personal and public) and she put her foot down before Parker could get too much legal control over Sands career.
Snow was cheated by a smiling Parker after Parker had agreed to give Snow some percentage of the management contract over Elvis (which Snow helped lay groundwork for), Snow kept waiting to see income rolling in from that contract and finally confronted Parker who smiled and showed him the contract which Elvis and parents had signed with nothing about Snows involvement in it.
Arnold fired Parker after somehow discovering that all moneys due him were not coming into his accounts and he felt Parker was not honestly managing him.
Bob Neal was pushed and pressured by Parker until he finally was systematically forced out.
Elvis should have fired him in 1965-but Parker had control and had laid the groundwork to keep Elvis where he wanted him.
That is my honest conclusion.

Agree on all you points! I'm not saying Parker was 100%, he was genious until '61, then he simply lost the plot. The mid 60's where a transition perdiod between the old hollywood ways, and the modern hollywood enterprises we know today (same for the music industry), it was obvious that Parker ideas suddenly became old hat by '65, ironically, Elvis and Parkers ideas back in the 50's paved the way for that transition. What Elvis needed was another manager, that as back as in '63 when Elvis clearly saw something was not going as he wished.

Yes everytime new blood was involved and making Parker ideas aside, people like Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller in the 50's, Steve Binder, Chips Moman in the 60's, Marty Pasetta in 70's, even Felton Jarvis during the '66-'71 nashville period(before Jarvis himself also got stucked by Parkers politics), Elvis not only bringing out the best in himself but even in his personal life, gettin out of destructive habits and all. But Parker had to put and end to that each and everytime as there was danger Elvis realized he could do way better with someone else.

Probably the worst deal was the way he cut out Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller as they not only went from writing music for Elvis to even produce Elvis records, but further, Elvis was so happy with their ideas that he started to ask for a lot of career advice from them, more than to Parker, they even started pitching ideas for Elvis acting career and Elvis just loved it! (the first part of '57, before they came to the scene, Elvis was a bit unhappy with the movies and the songs where given to him, kind of missing the good old days) so before Jerry and Mike got deeper in Elvis head, Parker simply cut them away, no matter how Elvis tried to bring them back during the early 60's, they simply refused to came back, as far as in '57 the story of Elvis frustrations was written. YES PARKER PUT ELVIS ON A BOX UNTIL HE DIED OF CREATIVE ASFIXIA. Yes Elvis not showing up to movie premiers, social events like the Grammys, 70's TV talking shows had also a lot to do with that for sure, and it is sickening, BUT not completely, there still was a little bit of wise in not to overexpose Elvis you had to admit, but, because of that also mixing with Parker need to control Elvis so he wont loose the goldmine, the cool and misterious Elvis image, went totally howard hughes, and that was not cool.

Yes I know Elvis was more open and social during the 50's, but he was a kid in a new land, then aside of Parker hands, and as his fame became too much for him, he kind of liked to remain among his close ones. Anyway, in latter days he hide from social events, but he did actually socialice with a lot of people privately and in his own territory, he hanged around with people like James Brown, Tom Jones, even Led Zepellin joined the Elvis party more than one time, recently we learned that even Alice Cooper got a taste of one of Elvis boots in a Karate demostration. Lots of people went to say hi backstage and hanged around a bit, George Harrison included, even Elton John in one of those backstage meetings ofered to write a song just for Elvis. I guess back in the 50's as a naive kid he thought everybody could be his friend and did take them home. By the 70's he kind of separated the all week going party in his vegas suit, from his private life in Graceland or LA. And yes he also knew, unfortunately, that he had to say no to a lot of things as he (and that its awful) had well learned to always answer: well I don't know if Col. Parker would allow that.

Raised on Rock
02-15-2012, 06:10 PM
Here is an excellent article about Col. Parker and his dark side which permeated his entire public life
it gives observations by people closely associated with Parker and Elvis which paint a very telling portrait of Parker and how he operated....from his hidden real identity to the conclusion by the probate judge handling Elvis's estate that he had worked in a self serving way in his management of Elvis and had not always acted in a manner to benefit his client:
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/spotlight_thedarksideofcolonelparker.html

Yes, I think this line hits the issue: There was no way for Elvis to know that after this fifties phase he had actually outgrown his manager.

Kajo
03-12-2012, 04:05 AM
No comment.It makes me just sick!:cursing:

Erhan
03-12-2012, 12:21 PM
Mr. Marty Lacker said that They ask colonel could Elvis sing a song for Grammy show Colonel ask them money for it (something like that)