Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonniebealestreet
I find that this is a weird thing for people to lambast Elvis about.
Most singers are not songwriters.
In the same way that we don't expect actors to also have written the script
song writing and performing are different talents.
Out of all the posts in response to this article, this one makes the most sense. I agree that Elvis was not out to do anything more than what he did on this record: to get back to recording real, sophisticated music and to start working within the framework of the matured performer he had become at that point. His days of doing 'Old McDonald' and other ridiculous music for his movies had to end. Was Elvis the so-called 'trail blazer' that he was at the beginning of his career? No, and that's probably where the critic that wrote this article should have ended his argument. IMHO from 1969 until the end Elvis inconsistently made some great music. However he was most consistent on this album and in the early Vegas performance years. That stuff still holds up today. I will admit there was one mis-fire on 'From Elvis In Memphis' and that was his cover of 'Hey Jude'. Elvis may have made some clunker songs in the later years, but usually his voice was still there. 'Hey Jude' to me just sounds like a throwaway tune and it's one of the very few times that Elvis does not sound good on record. If they simply included it because it was the novelty of Elvis doing a Beatles song, they should have thought twice about it. Later he did Beatle covers that were way better than this one. Hate to admit it, but I actually omitted it from my iPod, it's just not him at his best and it's painful to listen to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert
Are you really sure you want to run with that? Think about the early RCA albums. Sure, Steve Sholes was there 'producing', but Elvis had creative control over those sessions. Some of the sounds of that stuff, 'First In Line' comes to mind, is absolutely amazing. The mood Elvis achieved in those recordings are the work of a true artist. But this humility is one of the real attractive aspects of Elvis as a creative figure: he didn't make a big deal about things like that. He was an amazing performer, but he didn't sit around and talk about how great he was like alot of these a-holes that are in what's left of the music business today. Alot of those people have no problem calling themselves 'artists' but artists they aren't. Elvis, in my opinion, was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert
Since when a performer, and one like Elvis, it is no a true creating artist, that is based on what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert
Sure my friend, songwriting must be the more obvious talent in showcasing what a creative artist is, but it is by no means the only possibility of life as a "true" creative artist.
We might need to review what is art, and what is to be creative artist, and to review then, in which part, a performer, and interpreter, it is not a "true" creative artist.
Did Elvis then, according to you, never created any new forms of art? any new channels of artistic creation? did Elvis never actually created any art with his singing? Did he never created anything with his performances both live and in the studio, but just entertained us fools being a sterile gallery of someone else art?
To take away from Elvis talent about not being a composer, it is to evaluate his art and talent out of context, Art Theory 101.
The decision to release this recording is the most regrettable thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by intheghetto
It's quite clear, from the bungled lyrics and half-hearted vocal delivery, that Elvis didn't get beyond a few practice runs of the number before losing interest and moving onto something else. You can hear that he isn't under the impression that he is performing a potential master take of the tune.
Whoever made the decision to stick it out there regardless needs a thorough scolding.
Just having a brilliant singer singing a brilliant song isn't enough.
It helps if you actually finish making the record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by intheghetto
"Hey Jude" WAS NOT part of the "From Elvis in Memphis" album, neither was released in the follow up "Elvis Back in Memphis", neither as a single or b side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddy
It was indeed a throwaway no intended to be released.
Its on the Legacy edition just as a bonus song, same as "I'll Be There" and "If Im A Fool for Loving You", stuff that Elvis only did to pass the time in the studio. They got to the overdubs sessions only because they send the whole bulk of recorded material, but it was not to be released on that album.
If only it had remained unreleased!Quote:
Originally Posted by Raised on Rock
There's little pleasure to be garnered from hearing a great artist underachieve.
People seem to enjoy being given these snapshots of material they were never supposed to hear, but frankly I think that having tracks like this in the public domain does more damage to Elvis's legacy than any number of bad tribute artists in cheap jumpsuits.
I stand corrected, and I should have known this since I did read Ernst Jorgensen's book 'A Life In Music' cover to cover. That being said, I wish at least that the Sirius/XM Elvis Radio channel would take it out of their regular rotation. I hate to belabor the point, but it's an awful recording. I said in my earlier post that I omitted it from my iPod, let me just be specific and say that it's the only Elvis song I omitted from my iPod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raised on Rock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy1966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getlo
Not to get the topic off-track but Getlo is 100% correct here. Elvis, for a time, did try booze/alcohol in the early to mid-60s but tired of it and never touched it again.
As I said, it was not released in the original "From Elvis in Memphis".Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddy
It was released for the first time 3 years later on the "Elvis Now" album, one that, despite two or three jewels, it was a collage of studio left overs, and should have not been released at all.
YES I do agree that RCA from the mid 60's until the end, proved to be inept, in the way they released Elvis material, combining jewels with stuff that was not good enough to be released in order to release 3 albums a year, (plus the unnecessary stream of budget releases on the camden label) did damage Elvis and it is to blame for the lack of artistical understanding over the media, giving as a result: a magnificent but totally underrated artist.
If instead of 3 mediocre albums, only 1 album per year would be released, just putting together all the jewels in one single L.P., things would have been brighter for Elvis on the music press for sure. (Most contemporary rock and pop artist started to release only one album per year after '68 or '69).
So although I do consider "from Elvis in Memphis" a good album, If instead of dividing the material in that one and the subsequent "Elvis Back in Memphis", and just put together the best stuff making of two one definitively stronger album, it's impact on the charts and on the collective memory would be far superior.
But I'm talking about back then, but talking about today, so you think then that half of the catalogue on FTD should be out of print, or bonus track as in this "From Elvis in Memphis" release should not happen, cause its damaging Elvis?
I know! Never said it was!Quote:
Originally Posted by Raised on Rock
Should have made myself clearer.
My complaint comes from the current trend of repackaging albums and including substandard material from the period in order to boost sales.
The result is lower quality material in the market place and general compromise in an artist's overall output, which in Elvis's case is especially regrettable, since he isn't around to voice his disapproval.
Like I've said before, even the curiosity value is short lived and usually leaves the listener feeling pretty underwhelmed.
True, I've also think quality is better than quantity. Bonus tracks are Ok, if well selected only.
FTD is a different case, that why is the fan label.