PDA

View Full Version : TCB World, a division of EPE or Elvis.com number 2 ?



max
04-17-2013, 07:00 AM
There are more and more topics about it here Powered by elvis.com (EPE)

It bothers me.

I came here for a long time to find some rarities about EP;

Now it's over, we are bored with publications from elvis.com indicating the eta contest, re-editions of their bloody re-editions, etc.,;

Bye

there is nothing to do here except see your site has become Elvis.com Number 2 !

(real fans do not already go to the official website)

I would not be a suppot of this context of this businness with three bullets. (n)

Snake Eyes
04-17-2013, 09:17 AM
Simple way to fix this, start your own threads. Good luck.

It gets on my nerves too.

KPM
04-17-2013, 01:41 PM
Elvis news from any source is good for the Elvis fan....if you do not like a thread-including the Elvis news thread-don't go there.
Why people would complain about anything that gives news about events, contests, music, etc concerning Elvis is a mystery to me.

KPM
04-17-2013, 02:21 PM
There are more and more topics about it here Powered by elvis.com (EPE)

It bothers me.

I came here for a long time to find some rarities about EP;

Now it's over, we are bored with publications from elvis.com indicating the eta contest, re-editions of their bloody re-editions, etc.,;

Bye

there is nothing to do here except see your site has become Elvis.com Number 2 !

(real fans do not already go to the official website)

I would not be a suppot of this context of this businness with three bullets. (n)
Real fans???? That blanket subjective opinion bothers me.
A "real fan" is not "Formed out of clay" from the exact same mold spiritually, religiously, politically or emotionally...people are different in likes and dislikes......their is no template for a "real fan"
VIVA la difference....so they say.

max
04-17-2013, 03:07 PM
Elvis news from any source is good for the Elvis fan....if you do not like a thread-including the Elvis news thread-don't go there.
Why people would complain about anything that gives news about events, contests, music, etc concerning Elvis is a mystery to me.

KPM Yes, I agree with you here but please notes that, EPE make here a copy / paste from their site.

So it's enough eh!

What do they propose here? apart to their promotions to sell their ashtrays China;.

I summarize, eh?

especially since they offer nothing new. except their **** store

KPM
04-17-2013, 05:00 PM
KPM Yes, I agree with you here but please notes that, EPE make here a copy / paste from their site.

So it's enough eh!

What do they propose here? apart to their promotions to sell their ashtrays China;.

I summarize, eh?

especially since they offer nothing new. except their **** store
They do not just sell in their news releases, they post articles with interviews or comments by other famous people who knew Elvis when he was alive, or by famous individuals who today admire Elvis' talent and recognize his contributions to culture.
They post new awards or accomplishments that Elvis receives, they post news of events (not just Graceland events) around the world that have an Elvis connection....they post tour dates and locations for the "Elvis in Concert" events.....they post interesting articles from newspapers and magazines that highlight Elvis in some form.
They offer nothing new is a statement that depends upon the eye of the beholder.....if you mean music or films they have no control over either and Elvis left nothing new in the vaults even if they did have total control over both.....but many fans collect anything and everything Elvis and any new item that bears his likeness is something they are interested in...that is their right. (but let me be clear about this- I am not one of them)

"Copy and paste" is the way things move on the information highway-Reuters News or AP release stories that are carried at multiple locations and networks...by "copy and paste" of the exact text and exact story...with credit given to the source.
Nothing really different from each of us here finding a link to an Elvis story and then posting that link here with a description of the content....people can open the thread and follow the link-or not-the option is theirs.

Raised on Rock
04-18-2013, 08:40 AM
Dear Max:

This is an open source forum, and as long as no tcb-world.com rules are broken, anyone can become a member, and as a member, everybody has the right to start a thread of their own topic of choice. All kinds of topics are welcome, and nobody is interested in all, neither is our aim that everybody likes them all.

No, we are no related to EPE, neither we got anything by posting their often mere cheap merch, one that often makes Elvis look -I would have to say- close to a mere disney atraction and a tacky product, rather than the cornerstone and deep artist he was. BUT IT IS THE AIM OF THIS FORUM to circulate ALL KINDS OF ELVIS NEWS in the media, ALL KINDS MEANS: the official often bull... is included too, so sorry. But you can always skip it. ;)

You are always free at any time to start a thread of serious debate and criticism, about how EPE makes of Elvis aura a mere circus, all the way back from Col. Parker and the 60's cheap musicals, and how Elvis world has always been a mix of genius and quick money making crap -like Burning Love released on a Camden Release? Or, as you kindly stated, you can always say bye bye, and find a forum of more selected topics and delimitated interests and aesthetics, so that you could find more at ease with.

It is not our aim to reinventate Elvis image, neither to concentrate in one (rare or not) of the many masks his myth has, but to include them all.

Thank you for your concern.

KPM
04-18-2013, 06:26 PM
I am reminded of the Hal Wallis story about how he would use profits from Elvis films-and then make a major big budget film with top notch writers, directors, and actors such as "Becket" and his rationale was that in order to have profits to make the big budget films he needed to produce the lower budget/higher profit level films like his Elvis productions.....and to be fair that is way of the world.
No company can exist by just promoting the lofty,arty, historic and deeper cultural things they are involved in - because the profit to keep any venture going is usually not found in those areas...but in order to occasionally create and promote the deeper more meaningful things it is necessary to sell "what makes the profit that sustains the company and keeps it growing" and in EPEs case you can not sell what you do not own.
Elvis's will instructions were not selective in nature -they did not bar anything, they did not instruct anyone on Lisas behalf to not do certain things to grow the estate...his will set the stage and its instructions (when boiled down to the barest meaning) were
"Protect and Grow the estate for Lisa"
There was no codicil to the will that said-at a certain point stop making money for Lisa and her family...I know I sound like a broken record on this subject-but that is the truth of the matter.
If people dislike what EPE has done since the probate judge in 81 told the estate that it had to come up with a plan to save the estate from going under-you have got to realize Elvis set this in motion, his legal wishes have not been violated in anyway....Elvis himself was not concerned with how he might be marketed or his legacy-he was concerned with making sure Lisa and her future family was taken care of...that is just the truth of the situation.
I might venture a guess that someone who, while alive, had to sing "Old MacDonald" or "Theres No Room to Rhumba In a Sportscar", and had over 300 hundred products marketed in 1956 including pajamas, lipstick, bubblegum cards, scarfs, hats, buttons, perfume, curtains, shirts, Teddy Bears, record players, etc.....probably understood the rationale behind doing such things-even if he did not like all that was done.
I only cut EPE slack because unlike Parker or people like Wallis-they had little choice in making money to grow the estate-they worked with what they had-the likeness and image.....Parker could have chosen a different path for Elvis's career-one of creative growth- but he chose the path of greatest profit.....Parker in 56 had no legal binding instructions such as EPE had-he sold/snowed Elvis on a certain way of doing things, and it stuck.
Parker could have (and should have) made sure Elvis owned his own music-he could have demanded in negotiations that after so many years the recordings became the property of Elvis (or even a percentage of the recordings) but Parker did not pursue this, even after 1960 when it became obvious that Elvis was around for good as a recording artist. And in 73 Parker even negotiated away most of Elvis' recording career artist royaltee for a fraction of their worth.
Parker could have "really" tried to pursue the acting career Elvis spoke of from the start-but Parker wanted secure long term deals that guaranteed payday and perks...at the expense of any control or input into the type pictures made. Parker and Wallis IMO were less than truthful to Elvis concerning his movie careers direction. Elvis did not own his films-but a certain percentage of profits after all productions costs, marketing costs etc......and as far as VHS/DVD sales the estate gets nothing for those-it was not included in the percentage deals made in the 50s and 60s.
Parker could have given Elvis carte blanche to secure top notch songs-instead of insisting upon only songs that could be run thru publishing companies Elvis and Col formed-in order to secure a piece of the songwriters royaltees.
Please believe me I do not like all the EPE has done-but I have empathy for the reasons they have had to do it.
But the ball was set into play by the will of Elvis A. Presley.

debtdbruno
04-18-2013, 06:40 PM
can't argue with any of that Ken...........

Raised on Rock
04-18-2013, 06:41 PM
I might venture a guess that someone who, while alive, had to sing "Old MacDonald" or "Theres No Room to Rhumba In a Sportscar", and had over 300 hundred products marketed in 1956 including pajamas, lipstick, bubblegum cards, scarfs, hats, buttons, perfume, curtains, shirts, Teddy Bears, record players, etc.....probably understood the rationale behind doing such things-even if he did not like all that was done.

Great post KPM, I would actually add, Elvis himself, often seemed to care way more about money that about artistic integrity, or else he would have refused to a lot of stuff, just as he did those few times like for the '68 comeback, or going to American Studios, so it was in Elvis nature to play both sides (although he didn't seemed to be too happy when he losed the balance between artistic achievment and money making). Nothing wrong with him wanting to make the quick millions, it makes sense when you know about his rural roots. He didn't wanted to be poor never ever again, neither wanted that for Lisa. But, with a better management plan or team, after '61, he wouldn't had to be such a sell out at times and had to do or records stuff he didn't wanted just to keep the millions rolling in. (Also he spended in not the most clever way though all his life).

I think, back in the 80's and early 90's EPE acted pretty much in the Col. Parker quick money no long term vision ways, but from the mid 90's to date, they more or less are trying to get a balance between what keeps the money rolling and the more cultural, artistic values, that they ought to protect.

'60-'61 was a good balance: one dramatic film, one musical (frivolous but still with good production values), one big sell out soundtrack album (still with a couple good tracks), one high calibre studio album and singles. And there was time for concerts, -a tour was being planed for 1962-. But then, let's just go for the big money and threw it all away?

Brian
04-18-2013, 07:22 PM
I'm just not interested in the news that EPE reports.

This site for a long time did not post news from EPE.

KPM
04-18-2013, 07:24 PM
Great post KPM, I would actually add, Elvis himself, often seemed to care way more about money that about artistic integrity, or else he would have refused to a lot of stuff, just as he did those few times like for the '68 comeback, or going to American Studios, so it was in Elvis nature to play both sides (although he didn't seemed to be too happy when he losed the balance between artistic achievment and money making). Nothing wrong with him wanting to make the quick millions, it makes sense when you know about his rural roots. He didn't wanted to be poor never ever again, neither wanted that for Lisa. But, with a better management plan or team, after '61, he wouldn't had to be such a sell out at times and had to do or records stuff he didn't wanted just to keep the millions rolling in. (Also he spended in not the most clever way though all his life).

I think, back in the 80's and early 90's EPE acted pretty much in the Col. Parker quick money no long term vision ways, but from the mid 90's to date, they more or less are trying to get a balance between what keeps the money rolling and the more cultural, artistic values, that they ought to protect.

'60-'61 was a good balance: one dramatic film, one musical (frivolous but still with good production values), one big sell out soundtrack album (still with a couple good tracks), one high calibre studio album and singles. And there was time for concerts, -a tour was being planed for 1962-. But then, let's just go for the big money and threw it all away?
I agree 100%.
Elvis by 1961 was a certified superstar-and Parker never really took advantage of that for creative purposes-only for profit purposes....I'm really not sure Parker understood the power Elvis held....he always seemed to worry that one day the money making prospects would dry up-so he made deals for the "HERE AND NOW"...perhaps that thinking was used to convince Elvis to take the money and run as long as it lasted.
Parker never encouraged creatively..quite the opposite IMO he wanted Elvis to stay boxed into the thinking and ideas that Parker spoon fed to Elvis each year.
IF Parker had been managing a lesser talent like Fabian, Bobby Vee, Bobby Rydell....he would have never got into 1962 with another film deal, another recording contract, or the power Parker got from having Elvis as his client-but even in all the bad films, bad songs... Elvis and Elvis alone drew people to see those films, and buy those less than great soundtracks.
The fact is......the charisma of Elvis was what kept them both as strong and bankable into the mid 60s-and Parker, for all his deals and snowjobs, had little to do with keeping Elvis as popular as he stayed during the British Invasion-IMO his contributions as Manager accomplished the exact opposite...essentially keeping Elvis in a box.

Donut
04-19-2013, 11:45 AM
I can't understand some of your points of view about EPE. If we all are always complaining about what Parker did to Elvis, like presenting him like a "clown" to the whole world instead of letting him show his talent or thinking just in the fastest way to earn millions, it seems contradictory to me that you understand EPE's way of doing business.
Don't you think that it would have been better for Elvis' career not thinking about how much he could make and doing better movies or singing better songs? Then you should expect more from EPE because they are now what Parker was while Elvis was alive.

Tony Trout
04-19-2013, 12:56 PM
Can't argue with that, Donut. Great post!

KPM
04-19-2013, 04:37 PM
I can't understand some of your points of view about EPE. If we all are always complaining about what Parker did to Elvis, like presenting him like a "clown" to the whole world instead of letting him show his talent or thinking just in the fastest way to earn millions, it seems contradictory to me that you understand EPE's way of doing business.
Don't you think that it would have been better for Elvis' career not thinking about how much he could make and doing better movies or singing better songs? Then you should expect more from EPE because they are now what Parker was while Elvis was alive.
No EPE is not Parker, completely different situation and completely different reasonn for what each did.
Parker was representing Elvis while alive-Elvis wanted many things from his career beyond just profit...Parker misled Elvis every step of the way-no question, Parker represented Elvis in a very shady way as the Probate Judge pointed out when he instructed the estate to sue Parker and cut ties between Parker and the estate. Parker had many areas of conflict of interest with his negotiations for movie deals, RCA deals and the Vegas contracts.....in many of the marketing deals Parker made more than Elvis......
As to how EPE is different I think I already explained that-EPE had no choice in how to "GROW the Estate" and protect it for Lisa the probate judge ordered them to come up with a plan to do just that............................marketing his image and likeness and opening Graceland was the plan...if in any way it somehow was not in line with the legal instructions the will included and the probate judge interpretted he would have not agreed to that plan.
Parker did not have the handicap of no new music, no potential for new films, concerts, etc.......he just out and out mismanaged Elvis for his own gain and to control Elvis to keep him solely in Parkers managerial hands...........................There was no reason for him to do this-beyond greed.
EPE did not have the music, nor films, they only had the image and the wills instructions protect and grow the estate-no limits, no exclusions on how to do this-just keep the estate intact for Lisa.
Many want to second guess what Elvis left behind-but Elvis signed the will, Elvis did not leave any instructions to not do anything to keep money rolling into Lisas hands.
That is the difference in my opinion-Parker could have done things above board-he helped fuel the early death with horrid managing that killed creativity-EPE had few options and a legal responsibility to follow the will.
Your or my opinion of how much money is enough is not material -because the will did not say "stop making money at a certain point"
EPE is in a no win situation.
Nothing they have done (except opening the doors to tours)-was not done while Elvis was alive-with usually more profit ending up in Parkers hands than Elvis"

Donut
04-19-2013, 06:28 PM
No EPE is not Parker, completely different situation and completely different reasonn for what each did.
Parker was representing Elvis while alive-Elvis wanted many things from his career beyond just profit...Parker misled Elvis every step of the way-no question, Parker represented Elvis in a very shady way as the Probate Judge pointed out when he instructed the estate to sue Parker and cut ties between Parker and the estate. Parker had many areas of conflict of interest with his negotiations for movie deals, RCA deals and the Vegas contracts.....in many of the marketing deals Parker made more than Elvis......
As to how EPE is different I think I already explained that-EPE had no choice in how to "GROW the Estate" and protect it for Lisa the probate judge ordered them to come up with a plan to do just that............................marketing his image and likeness and opening Graceland was the plan...if in any way it somehow was not in line with the legal instructions the will included and the probate judge interpretted he would have not agreed to that plan.
Parker did not have the handicap of no new music, no potential for new films, concerts, etc.......he just out and out mismanaged Elvis for his own gain and to control Elvis to keep him solely in Parkers managerial hands...........................There was no reason for him to do this-beyond greed.
EPE did not have the music, nor films, they only had the image and the wills instructions protect and grow the estate-no limits, no exclusions on how to do this-just keep the estate intact for Lisa.
Many want to second guess what Elvis left behind-but Elvis signed the will, Elvis did not leave any instructions to not do anything to keep money rolling into Lisas hands.
That is the difference in my opinion-Parker could have done things above board-he helped fuel the early death with horrid managing that killed creativity-EPE had few options and a legal responsibility to follow the will.
Your or my opinion of how much money is enough is not material -because the will did not say "stop making money at a certain point"
EPE is in a no win situation.
Nothing they have done (except opening the doors to tours)-was not done while Elvis was alive-with usually more profit ending up in Parkers hands than Elvis"

I never suggested that what EPE does is illegal. I was implying that they are so greedy that they left Elvis the artist out of the equation, just like Parker. So if we can say that Parker wanted Elvis to do those crappy movies and sing those horrible songs just out of greed I think it's fair that we can believe EPE does what it does out of greed too.

On the other hand, If you think they couldn't have made money off his image and legacy in any other way then you are wrong. They just chose the easiest way just like Parker. Furthermore, they still own, just like 30 years ago, the publishing rights to much of his catalogue. One of their major assets according to Jack Soden himself.
They own Elvis brand, which means they could have endorsed from guitars to anything related to music, something that couldn't hurt his image in a nutshell; instead of their ducks, plates, and all that crap that cost them 5 cents.

They never cared about how he would be perceived by the public now that he can't do it himself. When you are in charge of something as important as the legacy of someone like Elvis your obligation is to protect it. Money shoudn't be your main and only concern, especially when that historic person is your own father.

As for EPE being in a no win situation, well, they could have made things better. Then they would be in a win situation.

KPM
04-19-2013, 07:12 PM
I never suggested that what EPE does is illegal. I was implying that they are so greedy that they left Elvis the artist out of the equation, just like Parker. So if we can say that Parker wanted Elvis to do those crappy movies and sing those horrible songs just out of greed I think it's fair that we can believe EPE does what it does out of greed too.

On the other hand, If you think they couldn't have made money off his image and legacy in any other way then you are wrong. They just chose the easiest way just like Parker. Furthermore, they still own, just like 30 years ago, the publishing rights to much of his catalogue. One of their major assets according to Jack Soden himself.
They own Elvis brand, which means they could have endorsed from guitars to anything related to music, something that couldn't hurt his image in a nutshell; instead of their ducks, plates, and all that crap that cost them 5 cents.

They never cared about how he would be perceived by the public now that he can't do it himself. When you are in charge of something as important as the legacy of someone like Elvis your obligation is to protect it. Money shoudn't be your main and only concern, especially when that historic person is your own father.

As for EPE being in a no win situation, well, they could have made things better. Then they would be in a win situation.
The probate judge was aware of the income from publishing-yet he still ordered a plan to be drawn up to save the estate. tThe publishing rights are split between songwriters and the publishing company-over time its a nice chunk of change-but all this the Judge was well aware of-the judge had every aspect of the financial picture of the estate...literally in front of him and he still saw the estate heading into bankruptcy. That was the reason for suing Parker-he was still getting the lions share of merchandising after his deal with Vernon.
The artists royaltees are what could have avoided this mess-EPE had no hand in selling those. Those profits at 7% royaltee rate would add up to 100s of millions over the last 35 years.
You merchandise the image and sell-thats all you can do. I think Teddy Bears are childish-but Elvis endorsed them, I think Pink Elvis Lipstick is silly,....but Elvis endorsed it...I think Elvis photo on bedspreads and curtains is a little much-but Elvis endorsed them...while alive.
EPE have endorsed guitars among 100s of items they have merchandised-but guitars at $500-$2000 a pop are not within reach of the average fan-and are not easily collectible.......and lets be clear-"Average fans buy these items? Average fans want these items" or they would not be made to sell.
I know you think from previous threads that a certain amount of money for Lisa should be adequate-I myself could live easily on what the publishing rights bring in-at my lifestyle in my home with my situation. Graceland taxes alone could buy and sell my home 10 times over, but we are not talking my situation or yours we are talking the lifestyle Elvis had and more importantly what he envisioned for his daughter. Far different from average.

Gracelands operating expenses in 1977 were $500,000 according to the probate judge and by 79 those expenses were increasing and money just was not coming in at fast enough to keep it afloat...not my opinion thats why the probate judge forced action.
Its hard to market the artist without his art or music....and you are missing the point, Elvis no where in the will asks that the estate market him in any way...Elvis wanted financial security for his daughter and did not care how it was done.....that was the goal and he did not tie the hands of those who would have to figure out "HOW"
So if you want to blame anyone for Teddy Bears Pink Elvis Lipstick, or lack of Elvis the artist being promoted-Elvis left all those avenue totally open and since he did not own the films nor music- he left them open for good reason.
The estate was not created to protect a legacy....it just was not.....it was to protect Lisas financial future...those ...were Elvis's legal wishes.......

KPM
04-19-2013, 07:46 PM
I am dumbfounded at times...if the probate judges orders and recommendations had not been acted upon-today in 2013 I can assure you many would be saying-"WOW Graceland was sold at a bankruptcy auction-and all Elvis' things were sold and now are scattered all over the world...such a terrible thing" and then "What the heck were they thinking back then that they just let this happen?"
I'm sorry but no one ever says "Look at the Brazil exhibition that EPE put together and is showcasing Elvis the superstar"
no one says:
"EPE tried to buy from Turner and Warners EOT and TTWII but they just are not interested in selling, EPE then tried to get Warners to let them work together on some project using the films and outtakes but Warners would not budge"
NO one says,
"EPE spent over 10 years slowly acquiring all rights to the 68 Special and Aloha form Hawaii and put fantastic box sets"
NO one says:
"The Elvis Lives campaign in early 2001 was really good, and the specials on TV that were done to showcase Elvis the artist"
No one says:
"Slowly building some ties between BMG/Sony over the last 35 years to try and have input into newer projects with Elvis music is a good thing"
NO one says:
"Bringing together the original band and using big screen technology to create a Elvis In Concert experience which promotes Elvis the artist and gives the people a chance to come as close to seeing Elvis live as you can get is a good thing"
No one says:
"The Viva Las Vegas special which showed how Elvis revolutionized rock in Vegas is a good thing"
No one says:
"The Before anyone did anything, ELvis did everything...campaign was a good thing"
............................or the continuation of helping charities around the country, the many special events they help sponser for fans, contests, cruises etc......
Negatives seem to always come to the forefront in all aspects of life-before he died and after.

Donut
04-19-2013, 08:15 PM
The probate judge was aware of the income from publishing-yet he still ordered a plan to be drawn up to save the estate. tThe publishing rights are split between songwriters and the publishing company-over time its a nice chunk of change-but all this the Judge was well aware of-the judge had every aspect of the financial picture of the estate...literally in front of him and he still saw the estate heading into bankruptcy. That was the reason for suing Parker-he was still getting the lions share of merchandising after his deal with Vernon.
The artists royaltees are what could have avoided this mess-EPE had no hand in selling those. Those profits at 7% royaltee rate would add up to 100s of millions over the last 35 years.
You merchandise the image and sell-thats all you can do. I think Teddy Bears are childish-but Elvis endorsed them, I think Pink Elvis Lipstick is silly,....but Elvis endorsed it...I think Elvis photo on bedspreads and curtains is a little much-but Elvis endorsed them...while alive.
EPE have endorsed guitars among 100s of items they have merchandised-but guitars at $500-$2000 a pop are not within reach of the average fan-and are not easily collectible.......and lets be clear-"Average fans buy these items? Average fans want these items" or they would not be made to sell.
I know you think from previous threads that a certain amount of money for Lisa should be adequate-I myself could live easily on what the publishing rights bring in-at my lifestyle in my home with my situation. Graceland taxes alone could buy and sell my home 10 times over, but we are not talking my situation or yours we are talking the lifestyle Elvis had and more importantly what he envisioned for his daughter. Far different from average.

Gracelands operating expenses in 1977 were $500,000 according to the probate judge and by 79 those expenses were increasing and money just was not coming in at fast enough to keep it afloat...not my opinion thats why the probate judge forced action.
Its hard to market the artist without his art or music....and you are missing the point, Elvis no where in the will asks that the estate market him in any way...Elvis wanted financial security for his daughter and did not care how it was done.....that was the goal and he did not tie the hands of those who would have to figure out "HOW"
So if you want to blame anyone for Teddy Bears Pink Elvis Lipstick, or lack of Elvis the artist being promoted-Elvis left all those avenue totally open and since he did not own the films nor music- he left them open for good reason.
The estate was not created to protect a legacy....it just was not.....it was to protect Lisas financial future...those ...were Elvis's legal wishes.......

No, KPM, I'm not missing the point and as you may know I already knew all that information.
I'm not saying that they could have saved the estate by just selling guitars. I say that, belive it or not, there are other ways to make money. Also, that argument you use to back up your point of view is something that happened 36 years ago. The estate is not facing bankruptcy now and the lipsticks and teddy bears were approved by Elvis 60 ago. We are in the 21st century now and I highly doubt that Elvis wouldn't have wanted to be marketed in a more fashioned and artistic way.

As for the will, it is true that it doesn't instruct that the estate stopped growing at a certain point. But it neither says make it grow till it makes my legacy and hard work be forgotten. The decision is in the hands and conscience of the person in charge of the estate and that's what I "judge".

KPM
04-19-2013, 08:50 PM
No, KPM, I'm not missing the point and as you may know I already knew all that information.
I'm not saying that they could have saved the estate by just selling guitars. I say that, belive it or not, there are other ways to make money. Also, that argument you use to back up your point of view is something that happened 36 years ago. The estate is not facing bankruptcy now and the lipsticks and teddy bears were approved by Elvis 60 ago. We are in the 21st century now and I highly doubt that Elvis wouldn't have wanted to be marketed in a more fashioned and artistic way. As for the will, it is true that it doesn't instruct that the estate stopped growing at a certain point. But it neither says make it grow till it makes my legacy and hard work be forgotten. The decision is in the hands and conscience of the person in charge of the estate and that's what I "judge".
Did Elvis demand that while alive do nothing that does not promote my legacy-did he tell Parker-no Teddy Bears-No Pink Lipstick??? OF course the answer is no.
As far as I can read and hear Elvis never seemed to worry about "A Legacy" beyond "When they stop asking for my autograph then I'll worry"
We are not talking about Elvis the artist who signed and approved the will-but Elvis the father...he left his estate to his daughter....not his fans.

Without unrestricted use of the music-its hard to promote an artist and showcase his art if he is a recording artist. EPE tries today to work with Sony-as much as they will let them-what more can they do. I know some have suggested they buy his music from Sony-and that is just a joke of an idea-Sony knows the catalogue is priceless and they are reaping the benefits of the 1973 deal that released them from paying those artist royaltees for 90% of all music Elvis recorded.
EPE did what it had to do in 1980-81 and Lisa is secure, as a father myself-I think Elvis would be happy for that fact.
Given the option of seeing my children struggle after I'm gone-or seeing them flourish (thru any legal means) all fathers will choose flourish!
I would venture a guess that Lisa knows her fathers place in music history and as an artist-is totally secure-selling plates, cups, lipstick etc....can not destroy hardwork and genius........ those items have nothing to do with the music-people buy those things because of the power Charisma and talent of Elvis -not the other way around. People buy these things in the millions-they want them....maybe the better campaign would be to try and convince fans who do buy them-to stop.
As long as the music is still heard Elvis and his legacy are secure.....

Brian
04-19-2013, 11:23 PM
Elvis Presley by all accounts was a non confrontational person especially in regards to Colonel Parker.

Just because Parker would have lipstick and other items made up to sell doesn't mean Elvis was okay with it.

Selling pictures, T-shirts and Teddy Bears etc. was kinda tacky while Elvis was alive but Parker wasn't as bad about it as EPE has been.

Believe it or not.

KPM
04-20-2013, 12:20 AM
Elvis Presley by all accounts was a non confrontational person especially in regards to Colonel Parker.

Just because Parker would have lipstick and other items made up to sell doesn't mean Elvis was okay with it.

Selling pictures, T-shirts and Teddy Bears etc. was kinda tacky while Elvis was alive but Parker wasn't as bad about it as EPE has been.

Believe it or not.
Parker had Elvis alive and when ever Parker needed a little income he could always come up with some new project to get Elvis involved in be it music, movies, tv, ....
EPE has never had that option, they can not sign a deal for 5 years of films by Elvis, or for live appearances in Vegas in which Parkers side deals help line his pockets....they can not go to RCA and set up a recording session for a new album or single which will help line their pockets, they can not sell the future artist royaltees for 90% of all recorded material by Elvis and walk away with as much money (if not more as some report) as Elvis himself did.
EPE came into existence partially because of the type manager Parker was-I can not stress this enough....the probate judge looked at years of contracts between Elvis, the Col and RCA, movie deals, and Vegas deals and he saw the Col playing both sides of the deck in all areas...he saw conflict of interest in every case and he ordered the estate to sue Parker to get his fat fingers out of the estates pie.
Parker at first tried to claim they could not sue him, because he was not a US citizen-now come on Brian isn't that the height of hypocrisy and almost funny....he hides for years that he is not an American-but claims in court he is not an American to keep his money train rolling.
EPE does not have a live Elvis to fall upon, they do not have huge film income to rely upon, they do not have huge artist royaltees for 90% of the catalogue (they do have publishing income but it pales to the amount they should have got over the last decades in artist royaltees) they just had the likeness of Elvis. Thats what was left and thats what they marketed ......in ways that average fans could afford...things people buy.
IF people did not buy these things-they would not be sold, so there are fans who want these things (I am not one-I collect music,films, books)
No one forces anyone to buy anything-its a personal decision.
I do not like everything EPE sells, very little actually-BUT the difference between my opinion about this and you is I understand why they had to proceed like this.
I really think that in the last 15 years they have worked much harder at trying to do things that showcase Elvis's talent more and more....but buying and planning say the 68 Special in whole "did not come cheap", nor the Aloha Special...and in order to have the money to do things such as this-they have to sell the trinkets and tickets to Graceland.
Thats just the way it is, Elvis did avoid confrontation-but if he had stood up more and kept his finances in better shape...things may have been much different after his death...
Is EPE at fault for the circumstances that existed after his death?, is Lisa? No

Brian
04-20-2013, 04:35 AM
My point is that you can promote Elvis' likeness in a more tasteful way.

Elvis has become like a cartoon character thanks to their marketing.

Elvis' record label could have also done a better job particularly before Ernst Jorgensen came aboard.

The Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, The Beatles, Frank Sinatra estates does a better job than what EPE has done with Elvis in terms of being marketed and promoted.

Trelane P
04-20-2013, 10:53 AM
Maybe it's the frequency of the elvis.com posts that bother people.

If they posted once a week with links within the post to the news items of that week maybe it would be less intrusive.

Discuss :)

Snake Eyes
04-20-2013, 11:54 AM
Maybe it's the frequency of the elvis.com posts that bother people.

If they posted once a week with links within the post to the news items of that week maybe it would be less intrusive.

Discuss :)

Finally somone gets it!

I rarely, if at all read or comment on their posts, because to me it is just overkill. The likelihood being that before I've even finished this comment, they'll be another thread by EPE.

I have absolutely no problem with their promotions, but your suggestion is a good one - Tie it all up in one thread for the week and those who are interested can fill their boots.

Donut
04-20-2013, 12:03 PM
Did Elvis demand that while alive do nothing that does not promote my legacy-did he tell Parker-no Teddy Bears-No Pink Lipstick??? OF course the answer is no.
As far as I can read and hear Elvis never seemed to worry about "A Legacy" beyond "When they stop asking for my autograph then I'll worry"
We are not talking about Elvis the artist who signed and approved the will-but Elvis the father...he left his estate to his daughter....not his fans.

Without unrestricted use of the music-its hard to promote an artist and showcase his art if he is a recording artist. EPE tries today to work with Sony-as much as they will let them-what more can they do. I know some have suggested they buy his music from Sony-and that is just a joke of an idea-Sony knows the catalogue is priceless and they are reaping the benefits of the 1973 deal that released them from paying those artist royaltees for 90% of all music Elvis recorded.
EPE did what it had to do in 1980-81 and Lisa is secure, as a father myself-I think Elvis would be happy for that fact.
Given the option of seeing my children struggle after I'm gone-or seeing them flourish (thru any legal means) all fathers will choose flourish!
I would venture a guess that Lisa knows her fathers place in music history and as an artist-is totally secure-selling plates, cups, lipstick etc....can not destroy hardwork and genius........ those items have nothing to do with the music-people buy those things because of the power Charisma and talent of Elvis -not the other way around. People buy these things in the millions-they want them....maybe the better campaign would be to try and convince fans who do buy them-to stop.
As long as the music is still heard Elvis and his legacy are secure.....

I am talking about Elvis the artist from the beginning of this discussion. It is you who insists involving legal matters and numbers. Like brian said, things can be done in a more tasteful way, which summarizes very well my posts. But when you say "he left his estate to his daughter, not his fans", implying that we shouldn't care, you are forgetting something important. It is worth so much because the fans care about it. If we didn't care about what Elvis left to his daughter it wouldn't be worth anything.

What I don't care about it's how much money they make or how much they want to make. As a fan my main concern is Elvis the artist, not EPE or Lisa's bank account. That Elvis wanted Lisa to swim in money or not it's not my problem, just like they don't care about what I have to do without to be able to get anything Elvis related.

And finally, don't you think that if people buy those items just because of Elvis charisma they would get other more appropiate things to his legacy as "The King of Rock'N'Roll"? He deserves much more in my opinion and he has that timeless quality that they could exploit in many ways. He had many cool different sides, from his 50's image to the early 70's. He can appeal as much to the country target as to the gospel one. I don't believe that the only public of Elvis is the one that buys the ducks and gets the wedding calendar. But maybe that's exactly the problem, maybe EPE don't believe in Elvis as much as the fans do.

LaurieT
04-20-2013, 04:30 PM
You can not compare,,the marketing of Elvis by Parker,,,to EPE. The fact that they went to court and made sure the New laws said that only one body can have the rights to the name,,,and likeness speaks volumns. Good or bad,,it says the person or enity behind it wants to make sure they make the big money and no one else. And I swear,, I don't understand why people do not get that Priscilla was always about money, money money. She was always ticked off about what he spent money on,,unless it was for her. There is a side to her that had no respect for Elvis,,and was actually embarrassed by his "hillbilly" side, and foolishness. So why would anyone expect her baby--EPE to have any true respect for him. It is well known she had no problem laughing at him to friends behind his back and writing a book that showed it too. Of course unless you actually think she did not do it for profit----LOL Just like that interview she did in which she said how great her life was w/o Elvis and with Mike. Sure,,that really shows respect for the father of your child. LOL
Of course Elvis let Parker market him,,,Elvis always left the business aspect to Parker,,,,but no one can say what Elvis would think of the mega, mega marketing of all things Elvis,,even the vulgar Wedding Calendar?? There just is no comparison.

KPM
04-20-2013, 09:38 PM
I am talking about Elvis the artist from the beginning of this discussion. It is you who insists involving legal matters and numbers. Like brian said, things can be done in a more tasteful way, which summarizes very well my posts. But when you say "he left his estate to his daughter, not his fans", implying that we shouldn't care, you are forgetting something important. It is worth so much because the fans care about it. If we didn't care about what Elvis left to his daughter it wouldn't be worth anything.

What I don't care about it's how much money they make or how much they want to make. As a fan my main concern is Elvis the artist, not EPE or Lisa's bank account. That Elvis wanted Lisa to swim in money or not it's not my problem, just like they don't care about what I have to do without to be able to get anything Elvis related.

And finally, don't you think that if people buy those items just because of Elvis charisma they would get other more appropiate things to his legacy as "The King of Rock'N'Roll"? He deserves much more in my opinion and he has that timeless quality that they could exploit in many ways. He had many cool different sides, from his 50's image to the early 70's. He can appeal as much to the country target as to the gospel one. I don't believe that the only public of Elvis is the one that buys the ducks and gets the wedding calendar. But maybe that's exactly the problem, maybe EPE don't believe in Elvis as much as the fans do.


I am sorry I see a huge difference-it is you who only sees one side.
I understand Elvis the Artist-I understand ducks, lipstick and all the other merchandise have absolutely nothing to do with ELVIS THE ARTIST
But you somehow seem to think that marketing some other items that are somehow associated with music, guitars, pianos, sheet music, etc...is the proper route for merchandising-I do not know about pianos, but I do know guitars, sheet music, picture books, special books on the life of Elvis, etc are sold by EPE.....you say I talk about LEGAL-sorry for bringing up hard facts of life-but LEGAL is what set this all in motion. Elvis not having a better more specific will and not having a better financial situation at death-set this all in motion......yet you want to ignore that, ignore the wishes of the man who should have more sayso upon his death ...than me, you, anyone else-he let his greatest concern be known IN THAT LEGAL WILL!
That concern was for "The financial security forever-of his daughter"
But you do not like how it was done-fine, I see your point-but it does not change the fact that Elvis never, never once said DO NOT SELL anything that does not promote what "some may feel" is appropriate to my career and legacy.....It was not a concern to Elvis, he did not care-all he wanted was financial security for his daughter.
What merchandise is appropriate in your estimation that would have been able to be sold in enough quantity year in year out- to secure the type of financial security Elvis would have wanted for his daughter?(not what you or I would feel is adequate-but in the style Elvis lived and would have wanted his daughter to live)
So are Elvis PhotoT-Shirts acceptable? If t-shirts are-then are photo curtains/bedspreads? If they are then are rugs-shower curtains, bath mats????
How about baseball type pennants with his name and photo?
They all have photos of Elvis on them-but I'm sure some would not like one-or all of these items.
You can not sell just t-shirts, souvenier booklets, photo books, pamplets, and a few $500-$2000 dollar guitars. every year.
I would love to own a replica of the Elvis 1970 stage guitar... I play guitar ....but I can not afford it-it is just way out of reach for "most fans"
Fender came out with a bass that EPE endorsed-but how many fans can afford one?
Priscilla was not the only executor-there were 3-and the probate judge did not give any power to her that the others did not have-he did not say to them in his order:
Okay you have to come up with a plan that is also mindful of the Legacy of Elvis Presley the artist" that judge ordered for them to
"Save the estate for Lisa with a plan that makes money and grows the estate"
Simple-thats what the will demanded, its not what you seem to want it to say-but that is the fact.
Tasteful is not the issue that the judge was concerned with-because it is not a concern expressed by Elvis in his will-why is that hard to understand?
As a fan your concern is Elvis the artist-but Elvis did not mention fans in his will-the heart and soul of his will is about his daughters security.
Still I ask how is that so hard to swallow for fans-his own final wishes, his own decisions, his own concerns for his daughter.
You want all of that put "secondary" because you do not like how it has all played out...well then someone needs a "Back to the Future time machine" and they need to go back and convince Elvis to dump Parker after he got out of the Army...then explain to him how an artist of his stature should have had at least a 10-12% royaltee rate from 1960 on (instead of an average 6-7%) that he should have owned his own music after so many years instead of it becoming the sole property of RCA-and that selling 90% of his artist royaltees for pre 73 music was just stupid!
If you can go back and change all those things the financial crisis of 1980 for the estate will be averted and none of this would be a concern for fans.
The estate would have had artist royaltees in 1977-79 for about 100 million to 200 million in sales according to differing estimates and that amount would have more than been enough to keep Graceland from opening for tickets sales and all that has happened since that time.
That is the reality of the situation-that is the truth.
I do not feel EPE has done anything that was not started by the terrible financial situation that existed in 1977 and "what has been called the dumbest deal in music history" the selling of those artist royaltees in 1973.
Not one person here has to buy a thing EPE markets, not one person has to go to Graceland, not one person has to buy SONY marketed records that are repackaged every single year-but someone does and that is there right...as long as they do-it will be sold.
I have no ax to grind with EPE, Priscilla, or Lisa....I understand the situation Brian said Elvis did not like confrontation
I understand that also-he was not a superhuman- he had faults and unfortunately he did not have financial savvy he trusted Parker to set up the best deals and he was taken and it is the prime reason for this situation.

KPM
04-20-2013, 09:57 PM
You can not compare,,the marketing of Elvis by Parker,,,to EPE. The fact that they went to court and made sure the New laws said that only one body can have the rights to the name,,,and likeness speaks volumns. Good or bad,,it says the person or enity behind it wants to make sure they make the big money and no one else. And I swear,, I don't understand why people do not get that Priscilla was always about money, money money. She was always ticked off about what he spent money on,,unless it was for her. There is a side to her that had no respect for Elvis,,and was actually embarrassed by his "hillbilly" side, and foolishness. So why would anyone expect her baby--EPE to have any true respect for him. It is well known she had no problem laughing at him to friends behind his back and writing a book that showed it too. Of course unless you actually think she did not do it for profit----LOL Just like that interview she did in which she said how great her life was w/o Elvis and with Mike. Sure,,that really shows respect for the father of your child. LOL
Of course Elvis let Parker market him,,,Elvis always left the business aspect to Parker,,,,but no one can say what Elvis would think of the mega, mega marketing of all things Elvis,,even the vulgar Wedding Calendar?? There just is no comparison.
I am unsure as to how you perceive this to be a bad thing-did Elvis leave his image and likeness to someone else?
Is it some company in London, or Paris that should have the right to make financial gain on his photo or name? If it is their right someone explain how?
For years millions were made off of the likeness of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff and not a dime went to the estates of those individuals-until EPE challenged and aggresively pursued getting the laws changed and making sure "families of stars" had rights to the images of their famous relatives.
How is that bad?
Do you think these famous people would want others to make that money-which in essence does not benefit their loved ones?
Am I missing something-how is families having exclusive rights to their famous fathers, mothers or spouses likeness-a bad thing?
I see it basic fairness.
Unless the wills of these people specifically deny those rights to the family-how is this not the fair,just and morally correct way for it to be?

KPM
04-20-2013, 10:12 PM
My point is that you can promote Elvis' likeness in a more tasteful way.

Elvis has become like a cartoon character thanks to their marketing.

Elvis' record label could have also done a better job particularly before Ernst Jorgensen came aboard.

The Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, The Beatles, Frank Sinatra estates does a better job than what EPE has done with Elvis in terms of being marketed and promoted.
Hendrix left a mess-and the family has had to sort it out since his death-just recently a new album of his music came out that is great but it took this long for the family to get it out because of differing companies and individuals claiming ownership of his music.
Promotion for Hendrix has been spotty up until this last couple years as the knot of legal strings was untangled. He had a lot of unreleased music in the can-unlike Elvis. The Beatles did not own the music of their greatest hits but a percentage of it-but they did have better contracts with their labels ....after they formed Apple-they owned everything they did-unlike Elvis who owned ZIP of his master recording. The Beatles also had a premium royaltee rate compared to Elvis. You own the music you do not need to worry about selling lipstick.
Paul,Yoko and Ringo have a tight handle on what can or can not be done-and Paul alone is worth over 1 billion-he can be selective.
Sinatra formed his own Reprise Records in the early 60s and he owned all music from there on, Dean Martin recorded for his label, so did many others Sinatra after 1960 was financially secure and his family-he had many concert films, live recording, tv shows, appearances and specials in his vaults and his lifestyle was totally different from Elvis-Sinatra called the shots-not his manager nor agents.
Joplin has little promotion, and very little unreleased music.
Its easier to market when you own the music and are in better financial shape at death.

KPM
04-20-2013, 10:27 PM
Anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon and chastise me for "NOT being a true fan"
Or for saying
"That I do not care or buy most of the things they market-BUT I do see how it was a necessity without the music or films in their ownership"
Or because I do not hate Priscilla, Lisa, nor anyone else who is involved.
Or because I see Elvis himself as less than perfect because his lack of financial long range planning, lack of business savvy is as much to blame as anything in this situation.
Or because I look at what Elvis himself authorized to be done "while alive" and see years of B-movies, lackluster soundtracks and many items that had absolutely nothing to do with music-marketed in his name and for which he received a royaltee (not as much as Parker but he got it) and surmise by those actions (while he was alive) that he had accepted this end of business as the way its done.
So if anyone else wants to jump on me-okay:lol:;)
I stand by my opinions!

Brian
04-21-2013, 05:05 AM
Hendrix left a mess-and the family has had to sort it out since his death-just recently a new album of his music came out that is great but it took this long for the family to get it out because of differing companies and individuals claiming ownership of his music.
Promotion for Hendrix has been spotty up until this last couple years as the knot of legal strings was untangled. He had a lot of unreleased music in the can-unlike Elvis. The Beatles did not own the music of their greatest hits but a percentage of it-but they did have better contracts with their labels ....after they formed Apple-they owned everything they did-unlike Elvis who owned ZIP of his master recording. The Beatles also had a premium royaltee rate compared to Elvis. You own the music you do not need to worry about selling lipstick.
Paul,Yoko and Ringo have a tight handle on what can or can not be done-and Paul alone is worth over 1 billion-he can be selective.
Sinatra formed his own Reprise Records in the early 60s and he owned all music from there on, Dean Martin recorded for his label, so did many others Sinatra after 1960 was financially secure and his family-he had many concert films, live recording, tv shows, appearances and specials in his vaults and his lifestyle was totally different from Elvis-Sinatra called the shots-not his manager nor agents.
Joplin has little promotion, and very little unreleased music.
Its easier to market when you own the music and are in better financial shape at death.

Who says EPE would do things any differently than RCA had they owned the rights to Elvis catalog and they controlled his music output.

Who says if they had complete control over that they wouldn't still sell crappy merchandise.

I think if EPE did own all that stuff they still operate it in the way that RCA/BMG/Sony did.

I'm not an expert on all those artists i meant that their images were more tastefully promoted and their labels didn't flood the market with hundreds of compilations.

Elvis is alone in that regard.

I did think the Beatles lost the rights to their songs at some point in late 60s and they don't control what compilations their label put out.

debtdbruno
04-21-2013, 01:09 PM
I am sorry I see a huge difference-it is you who only sees one side.
I understand Elvis the Artist-I understand ducks, lipstick and all the other merchandise have absolutely nothing to do with ELVIS THE ARTIST
But you somehow seem to think that marketing some other items that are somehow associated with music, guitars, pianos, sheet music, etc...is the proper route for merchandising-I do not know about pianos, but I do know guitars, sheet music, picture books, special books on the life of Elvis, etc are sold by EPE.....you say I talk about LEGAL-sorry for bringing up hard facts of life-but LEGAL is what set this all in motion. Elvis not having a better more specific will and not having a better financial situation at death-set this all in motion......yet you want to ignore that, ignore the wishes of the man who should have more sayso upon his death ...than me, you, anyone else-he let his greatest concern be known IN THAT LEGAL WILL!
That concern was for "The financial security forever-of his daughter"
But you do not like how it was done-fine, I see your point-but it does not change the fact that Elvis never, never once said DO NOT SELL anything that does not promote what "some may feel" is appropriate to my career and legacy.....It was not a concern to Elvis, he did not care-all he wanted was financial security for his daughter.
What merchandise is appropriate in your estimation that would have been able to be sold in enough quantity year in year out- to secure the type of financial security Elvis would have wanted for his daughter?(not what you or I would feel is adequate-but in the style Elvis lived and would have wanted his daughter to live)
So are Elvis PhotoT-Shirts acceptable? If t-shirts are-then are photo curtains/bedspreads? If they are then are rugs-shower curtains, bath mats????
How about baseball type pennants with his name and photo?
They all have photos of Elvis on them-but I'm sure some would not like one-or all of these items.
You can not sell just t-shirts, souvenier booklets, photo books, pamplets, and a few $500-$2000 dollar guitars. every year.
I would love to own a replica of the Elvis 1970 stage guitar... I play guitar ....but I can not afford it-it is just way out of reach for "most fans"
Fender came out with a bass that EPE endorsed-but how many fans can afford one?
Priscilla was not the only executor-there were 3-and the probate judge did not give any power to her that the others did not have-he did not say to them in his order:
Okay you have to come up with a plan that is also mindful of the Legacy of Elvis Presley the artist" that judge ordered for them to
"Save the estate for Lisa with a plan that makes money and grows the estate"
Simple-thats what the will demanded, its not what you seem to want it to say-but that is the fact.
Tasteful is not the issue that the judge was concerned with-because it is not a concern expressed by Elvis in his will-why is that hard to understand?
As a fan your concern is Elvis the artist-but Elvis did not mention fans in his will-the heart and soul of his will is about his daughters security.
Still I ask how is that so hard to swallow for fans-his own final wishes, his own decisions, his own concerns for his daughter.
You want all of that put "secondary" because you do not like how it has all played out...well then someone needs a "Back to the Future time machine" and they need to go back and convince Elvis to dump Parker after he got out of the Army...then explain to him how an artist of his stature should have had at least a 10-12% royaltee rate from 1960 on (instead of an average 6-7%) that he should have owned his own music after so many years instead of it becoming the sole property of RCA-and that selling 90% of his artist royaltees for pre 73 music was just stupid!
If you can go back and change all those things the financial crisis of 1980 for the estate will be averted and none of this would be a concern for fans.
The estate would have had artist royaltees in 1977-79 for about 100 million to 200 million in sales according to differing estimates and that amount would have more than been enough to keep Graceland from opening for tickets sales and all that has happened since that time.
That is the reality of the situation-that is the truth.
I do not feel EPE has done anything that was not started by the terrible financial situation that existed in 1977 and "what has been called the dumbest deal in music history" the selling of those artist royaltees in 1973.
Not one person here has to buy a thing EPE markets, not one person has to go to Graceland, not one person has to buy SONY marketed records that are repackaged every single year-but someone does and that is there right...as long as they do-it will be sold.
I have no ax to grind with EPE, Priscilla, or Lisa....I understand the situation Brian said Elvis did not like confrontation
I understand that also-he was not a superhuman- he had faults and unfortunately he did not have financial savvy he trusted Parker to set up the best deals and he was taken and it is the prime reason for this situation.

I get exactly where your coming from Ken, its frustrating to fans that Elvis isn't treated with more reverence musically, worldwide like we all believe he should be......but it is unfortunate his image has surpassed everything else. Ultimately the buck does have to stop at his door......

Donut
04-21-2013, 01:34 PM
I am sorry I see a huge difference-it is you who only sees one side.
I understand Elvis the Artist-I understand ducks, lipstick and all the other merchandise have absolutely nothing to do with ELVIS THE ARTIST
But you somehow seem to think that marketing some other items that are somehow associated with music, guitars, pianos, sheet music, etc...is the proper route for merchandising-I do not know about pianos, but I do know guitars, sheet music, picture books, special books on the life of Elvis, etc are sold by EPE.....you say I talk about LEGAL-sorry for bringing up hard facts of life-but LEGAL is what set this all in motion. Elvis not having a better more specific will and not having a better financial situation at death-set this all in motion......yet you want to ignore that, ignore the wishes of the man who should have more sayso upon his death ...than me, you, anyone else-he let his greatest concern be known IN THAT LEGAL WILL!
That concern was for "The financial security forever-of his daughter"
But you do not like how it was done-fine, I see your point-but it does not change the fact that Elvis never, never once said DO NOT SELL anything that does not promote what "some may feel" is appropriate to my career and legacy.....It was not a concern to Elvis, he did not care-all he wanted was financial security for his daughter.
What merchandise is appropriate in your estimation that would have been able to be sold in enough quantity year in year out- to secure the type of financial security Elvis would have wanted for his daughter?(not what you or I would feel is adequate-but in the style Elvis lived and would have wanted his daughter to live)
So are Elvis PhotoT-Shirts acceptable? If t-shirts are-then are photo curtains/bedspreads? If they are then are rugs-shower curtains, bath mats????
How about baseball type pennants with his name and photo?
They all have photos of Elvis on them-but I'm sure some would not like one-or all of these items.
You can not sell just t-shirts, souvenier booklets, photo books, pamplets, and a few $500-$2000 dollar guitars. every year.
I would love to own a replica of the Elvis 1970 stage guitar... I play guitar ....but I can not afford it-it is just way out of reach for "most fans"
Fender came out with a bass that EPE endorsed-but how many fans can afford one?
Priscilla was not the only executor-there were 3-and the probate judge did not give any power to her that the others did not have-he did not say to them in his order:
Okay you have to come up with a plan that is also mindful of the Legacy of Elvis Presley the artist" that judge ordered for them to
"Save the estate for Lisa with a plan that makes money and grows the estate"
Simple-thats what the will demanded, its not what you seem to want it to say-but that is the fact.
Tasteful is not the issue that the judge was concerned with-because it is not a concern expressed by Elvis in his will-why is that hard to understand?
As a fan your concern is Elvis the artist-but Elvis did not mention fans in his will-the heart and soul of his will is about his daughters security.
Still I ask how is that so hard to swallow for fans-his own final wishes, his own decisions, his own concerns for his daughter.
You want all of that put "secondary" because you do not like how it has all played out...well then someone needs a "Back to the Future time machine" and they need to go back and convince Elvis to dump Parker after he got out of the Army...then explain to him how an artist of his stature should have had at least a 10-12% royaltee rate from 1960 on (instead of an average 6-7%) that he should have owned his own music after so many years instead of it becoming the sole property of RCA-and that selling 90% of his artist royaltees for pre 73 music was just stupid!
If you can go back and change all those things the financial crisis of 1980 for the estate will be averted and none of this would be a concern for fans.
The estate would have had artist royaltees in 1977-79 for about 100 million to 200 million in sales according to differing estimates and that amount would have more than been enough to keep Graceland from opening for tickets sales and all that has happened since that time.
That is the reality of the situation-that is the truth.
I do not feel EPE has done anything that was not started by the terrible financial situation that existed in 1977 and "what has been called the dumbest deal in music history" the selling of those artist royaltees in 1973.
Not one person here has to buy a thing EPE markets, not one person has to go to Graceland, not one person has to buy SONY marketed records that are repackaged every single year-but someone does and that is there right...as long as they do-it will be sold.
I have no ax to grind with EPE, Priscilla, or Lisa....I understand the situation Brian said Elvis did not like confrontation
I understand that also-he was not a superhuman- he had faults and unfortunately he did not have financial savvy he trusted Parker to set up the best deals and he was taken and it is the prime reason for this situation.

OK. I give up :blink:!
But what do you think Elvis should have specified in his will to be treated with respect? It's true that he didn't say don't relate my image to all that crap, but he didn't either specify "sell me to the highest bidder and make me look like an as*hole"!
You wanna talk about his will. Right, we can do it. But I can't see this last supposed instruction specied anywhere either. So, as I said, it's the desicion of the person in charge what I don't agree with. There are other ways to make money off Elvis' brand, but they don't like them because it possibly means making less money. Period.

Diane
04-21-2013, 01:58 PM
Looks like everything has been said that could be so my little two pennies worth is that having Elvis.com post here doesn't bother me at all and if you don't like it being the majority on this site, like someone else said....start your own posts!

Donut
04-21-2013, 02:03 PM
Anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon and chastise me for "NOT being a true fan"
Or for saying
"That I do not care or buy most of the things they market-BUT I do see how it was a necessity without the music or films in their ownership"
Or because I do not hate Priscilla, Lisa, nor anyone else who is involved.
Or because I see Elvis himself as less than perfect because his lack of financial long range planning, lack of business savvy is as much to blame as anything in this situation.
Or because I look at what Elvis himself authorized to be done "while alive" and see years of B-movies, lackluster soundtracks and many items that had absolutely nothing to do with music-marketed in his name and for which he received a royaltee (not as much as Parker but he got it) and surmise by those actions (while he was alive) that he had accepted this end of business as the way its done.
So if anyone else wants to jump on me-okay:lol:;)
I stand by my opinions!

No one is telling you you are not a real fan, KPM. It's just a matter of having different opinions.
I don't want to jump on you especifically. It's just that you have a point of view completelly different to mine, so it's you who I have to disagree with ;)

KPM
04-21-2013, 05:38 PM
OK. I give up :blink:!
But what do you think Elvis should have specified in his will to be treated with respect? It's true that he didn't say don't relate my image to all that crap, but he didn't either specify "sell me to the highest bidder and make me look like an as*hole"!
You wanna talk about his will. Right, we can do it. But I can't see this last supposed instruction specied anywhere either. So, as I said, it's the desicion of the person in charge what I don't agree with. There are other ways to make money off Elvis' brand, but they don't like them because it possibly means making less money. Period.
Elvis in order to have a will prepared had to have a few meetings with the lawyer-Elvis would have been asked what is most important to you about your last declarations-go to any lawyer and the same basic questions will be asked....Elvis would then give the lawyer what most mattered to him and any specific bequests to others, charities etc............the lawyer would then draw up the will based upon converstations with Elvis...THE IMPORTANT THING (singular) was Lisas security.....other than Vernon and Dodger-no one else is left a thing. No charity is left a thing.
Now that tells you what Elvis cared about most-his daughter.
Now if Elvis' legacy was his main concern he could have specified in great detail what he did not want done to keep the estate afloat and growing.
A common way to keep a persons image, or perceived image, intact after death is something similar to this:
Under no circumstances should my name or image be used in enterprises that I myself did not approve or participate in during my lifetime.
Its obvious Elvis could not have used this - because he did approve merchandise for profit during his lifetime that was all over the board as I have pointed out.
Curtains have nothing to do with music, nor lipstick, nor t-shirts,statues, lamps with his likeness on the shades, I mean over 300 items in 56 alone but all approved by Elvis.
So-ooo since that blanket statement could not be used, they could have made a list of things that were okay to market and ones that Elvis might not like done...thats one way he could have specified his ideas of how he wanted his likeness used...but then again Elvis did not give Parker a list in 56 he left that to Parker to decide.....Parker came up with all kinds of off the wall items-and they were sold in Elvis' name.
But Elvis had to be advised that since you have no idea for sure what condition your estate will be in at death-leaving all options on the table for your executor is the smart way to proceed-so Elvis left everything to the executors first Vernon, then the 3 party joint executors which came after Vernon died to do whatever it took, whatever course he gave them carte blanche to do anything and everything as long as it benefited the estate-not his legacy nor image-but the estate in trust for Lisa-Elvis chose that path.
Some actors would never do commercials, they felt they had nothing to do with the art of acting and just would not do them nor would they endorse any product....others will endorse things but only if they used them and did think they were as good as advertised.....did Elvis have this attitude during his career-Thats what I am talking about...

Elvis set the precedent during his life about what he would or would not do in product deals...did he really use the Elvis comb? Did he really prefer the Pink LIpstick with his name on it for his girlfriends? I would doubt it;)
I truthfully from my own point of view wish he had never allowed the marketing of his image in 56......I think it was not necessary to keep his career going-but it was a huge amount of money that was made for Parker and Elvis....and thats the way Parker sold the idea to Elvis-its a huge amount of cash in your pocket.
Elvis did not ask-aren't there other ways to profit from my fame-other than lipstick and bedspreads-he pocketed his share every time a check came in (and spent it just as quick)
I love Elvis and his music, love his smile, love his laugh-but his whole professional career was a mixture of great art and money making at its extreme.
He chose that mixture-he trusted Parker and he chose to keep him in charge-
"Thats Allright Mama" great art and revolutionary,
"Clambake" money making at its extreme
"Hound Dog" great art...........
.Pink Elvis lipstick money making at its exteme.........
"Don't" great art....
"Elvis comb" money making at its extreme...
"Old MacDonald" money making at its exteme.....
"Teddy Bear wearing western shirt like in Loving You" money making at its extreme....
"Teddy Bear" the song great art........
Elvis condoned this mixture his whole career..................

EPE endorsed Mr Potato Head-money making at its extreme
EPE buying back 68 Special and putting out a great boxset-showcasing the image and art of Elvis
EPE endorsed Potholders-money making at its extreme
EPE producing the Elvis in Concert big screen world tours-showcasing the image and art of Elvis
I could go on and on, but the idea is clear...

KPM
04-21-2013, 05:49 PM
No one is telling you you are not a real fan, KPM. It's just a matter of having different opinions.
I don't want to jump on you especifically. It's just that you have a point of view completelly different to mine, so it's you who I have to disagree with ;)
No I was not thinking of you with that statement-the first post in this thread mentioned something about real fans do not even go to the EPE site-let alone want it posting stories here.
I was actually trying to add a spark of humor into this conversation......it does not matter to me how many people want to join the bandwagon of chastisement-the more the merrier.;)
I really see a huge large diference in Parker and EPE-Parker had everything in Elvis while alive ongoing recordings, ongoing film career, huge concert career yet he squandered it by his controlling manipulative snowman ways-EPE inherited the remnants after Elvis died.

KPM
04-21-2013, 06:04 PM
Who says EPE would do things any differently than RCA had they owned the rights to Elvis catalog and they controlled his music output.

Who says if they had complete control over that they wouldn't still sell crappy merchandise.

I think if EPE did own all that stuff they still operate it in the way that RCA/BMG/Sony did.

I'm not an expert on all those artists i meant that their images were more tastefully promoted and their labels didn't flood the market with hundreds of compilations.

Elvis is alone in that regard.

I did think the Beatles lost the rights to their songs at some point in late 60s and they don't control what compilations their label put out.
Well Brian you are correct in that there is no way of knowing how the estate would have proceeded if it had owned the music and controlled it.....but....it was the finacial crisis of bankruptcy that started this ball......that would not have been the case if all the royaltees for his entire catalogue were incoming after his death, no denying that...
no crisis no ticket sales at Graceland,
no crisis any merchandise marketed could have been much more selective because the emphasis would not have been-we have to dig out of a whole.
no crisis more emphasis could have been spent on quality... not quantity of sales
no crisis more emphasis upon legacy right from day one

As far as how EPE would have marketed the Elvis music-I'm just not sure there is any other way to market Elvis without "unreleased good music in the vaults" so maybe you are correct. Ernst has explained many times-the reissues of great hits, or albums are for non fans, the FTD label and select regular releases are for the FANS.
Elvis still sells thousands weekly, he is still seen in record stores on a regular basis and new fans do come from the reissues so even though I think the marketing of reissues has been overkill-someone is buying those reissues.
The Beatles did not own their first years of recorded music but when they opened their own label, Apple, most of the music from then on was all theirs

Donut
04-21-2013, 07:06 PM
I could go on and on, but the idea is clear...

Yeah, I could go on too, but the idea it's clear.
You know? I have nothing against of you personally, so don't get offense. But sometimes we wonder how our society has come to this point and the answer it's right in front of us.
Money it's not everything in life.

KPM
04-21-2013, 07:54 PM
Yeah, I could go on too, but the idea it's clear.
You know? I have nothing against of you personally, so don't get offense. But sometimes we wonder how our society has come to this point and the answer it's right in front of us.
Money it's not everything in life.
I agree money is not everything in life-I agree 100%....
To me its not the money being made or how much.... because as I have pointed out-all this went on with Elvis's consent before he died ......its about your last final hold upon life-and your decisions about what happens with all you have acquired in that lifetime and "every persons right to decide that"
Elvis left a financial mess, he over spent, he indulged his whims and he let Parker rob him of millions in contracts that were a joke.
Now every person has the right to do whatever they want with what they make and earn-sometimes without consequences....and sometimes it leads to what we had in 1980 for his family.
Perhaps someone should have convinced Elvis that "money was not everything" because that was his primary concern in his last wishes...that his estate should grow and flourish for Lisa....if it had not been his primary concern-he would have made other arrangements, set limits, provided guidelines, started a trust for Lisa "while he was alive" instead of leaving a mess at death.

I am not being critical of Elvis-he was who he was, he was a combination of his upbringing and heredity that forms who we are...those factors are the building blocks for the personality each person exhibits-good and bad....the quirks, the charity of heart, etc... the foundation of each individual.
Elvis was not concerned with money, nor a great planner for the future and someone had to "fullfill his wishes to grow the estate" because of that lack of concern and planning.
The will does give a hint to Elvis being worried about the financial shape of his estate-in Item II he specifically gives the executor the power to sell virtually any of his things with only one condition-it must be to the benefit of the estate.
In another section he tells the trustees that they must use the prudence and judgement they would use in their own financial affairs when managing and protecting the trust of the estate for minor children....the only instructions from Elvis concern money and financial security.
I totally agree with you money is not everything..........and for Elvis we see a very unconcerned, charitable man when it came to money-
but Elvis did worry about the well being of Lisa....he was concerned about money for her benefit and in extension for her children and their children....that is why very few conditions, very few specifics. That was his right his virtual last right before death.
I do not take offense, I have had way more offensive things accused of me, or thrown at me in my life than a discussion about Elvis.
Parker did not worry about "a legacy" and he did not instill in Elvis a worry for a legacy....he pushed profit and loss.
Elvis accepted that as "business" The "inheritance" of that thinking-is what we see in the aftermath of his death.

Raised on Rock
04-22-2013, 08:49 AM
Maybe it's the frequency of the elvis.com posts that bother people.

If they posted once a week with links within the post to the news items of that week maybe it would be less intrusive.

Discuss :)

Thank you! That's a good one.

I'll let it know to the rest of the team.

KPM
04-22-2013, 06:28 PM
The simplest way to not actually "censor" news is to ignore the threads and links if you do not like the topic, the source, the point of view...but thats just my opinion.

Raised on Rock
04-22-2013, 06:49 PM
The simplest way to not actually "censor" news is to ignore the threads and links if you do not like the topic, the source, the point of view...but thats just my opinion.

If this was facebook, I'll give you likes on all your posts on this thread my friend.

KPM
04-22-2013, 11:23 PM
If this was facebook, I'll give you likes an all your posts on this thread my friend.
Thank you for the nice thoughts.

debtdbruno
04-23-2013, 04:23 PM
If this was facebook, I'll give you likes on all your posts on this thread my friend.

me too..........'talks' a lot of common sense does our Ken(y)(y)

kathy parkinson
04-23-2013, 06:29 PM
He certainly does Deb.