Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 121 to 134 of 134

Thread: Do you believeElvis could have done it better if Col. Tom Parker was not his manager?

  1. #121
    TCB Mafia jak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    S.C. USA
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    Even though Elvis died in 1977 he is number 11 on the best selling artist of the 70s. Not selling well is subjective, if you compare it to the 50s (he was the number record seller) or the 60s (he was the number 2 record seller) he did not sell as well-but compared to a 100 other 70s artists he sold pretty good.
    As far as his cash problem in the 70s I gave my opinion of what the Col. "could have done" which would have pumped millions into both their coffers in the 70s on another thread. We complain that Elvis lost his fire, became lazy well IMO the Col. also took the easiest path quick one time deals which he got more than Elvis. He did not manage Elvis "proactively" after 72.
    Elvis is #11 because of the impact of his death.He had an incredible surge in record sales after passing which accounts for his high placement.The demand after his death was amazing.While alive with only a couple of exceptions his sales were very poor.He was lucky to crack the top 50 anymore with the type of material he was able to get recorded.
    Part of the reason the Col took easy cash deals was that Elvis wasnt up to the challenge of anything else a good part of the time.I mentioned the CBS special.I know it has some good parts and i enjoy to watch some of it.However it was done soley out of Elvis' need for cash.It's the most tragic piece of footage ever shot concerning Elvis.I can still see that 19 year old kid's eyes while watching it and that makes it all the more sad.Elvis never would have let himself be filmed in that state if he had a choice.The Col wouldnt have allowed it either but his hands were tied.Elvis' finances were dismal.Maybe people dont realize how much it cost Elvis to maintain his lifestyle and properties.
    Jak

  2. #122
    I wonder why EPE got rid of the Col. and why the courts advised them to do so, and why mangament there has nothing good to say about his "managing" skills, espescially Gary Hovey.
    KPM you are sooo correct, thank you!

  3. #123
    TCB Mafia jak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    S.C. USA
    Posts
    2,125
    EPE got rid of the Col because they are as greedy if not more so than him.They have been more harmfull to Elvis' image than the Col ever was.This year's embracing of the ETA contest was unthinkable and the greatest abomination they ever could have perputrated.Now Im gonna go get me a reese's peanut butter banana cup.Thank god for EPE.
    Jak

  4. #124
    I agree with you, imagine that.
    Only place I disagree w/statement is that they were/are both equally harmful to/for him.

    Anybody else have any opinion on this I would love to read another viewpoint.

  5. #125
    TCB Mafia KPM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,932
    Quote Originally Posted by jak View Post
    Elvis is #11 because of the impact of his death.He had an incredible surge in record sales after passing which accounts for his high placement.The demand after his death was amazing.While alive with only a couple of exceptions his sales were very poor.He was lucky to crack the top 50 anymore with the type of material he was able to get recorded.
    Part of the reason the Col took easy cash deals was that Elvis wasnt up to the challenge of anything else a good part of the time.I mentioned the CBS special.I know it has some good parts and i enjoy to watch some of it.However it was done soley out of Elvis' need for cash.It's the most tragic piece of footage ever shot concerning Elvis.I can still see that 19 year old kid's eyes while watching it and that makes it all the more sad.Elvis never would have let himself be filmed in that state if he had a choice.The Col wouldnt have allowed it either but his hands were tied.Elvis' finances were dismal.Maybe people dont realize how much it cost Elvis to maintain his lifestyle and properties.
    Jak
    Jak I realize the cost of his spending fully. But the Col.being in charge of Elvis's business contracts was in error on many important things I already mentioned-would a royalty increase to the stature Elvis should have had helped? I think yes-would the Col have been smarter to sign a short term deal with Shoofey in Vegas and got more money?(which Shoofey acknowledged he would have done) I think yes. Would the Col have been smarter to demand a full accounting for Elvis's sales in the late 60s to get Elvis the back royalties for sales which "slipped through the cracks'? I think so. We have already discussed the European tour I think the Col should have set up between 70 and 73 when Elvis seemed willing (at least on the surface) so I won't get into that but it would have been a huge money maker. Sure Elvis spent- but his earnings should have been and could have been so much more-if Parker had stayed on top of the situations I have mentioned.
    If Parker had accepted the European deal Shoofey was privy to there was 2 million, plus a picture financed, and a million for Parker-he turned it down. The financial situation was bad but it could have been so much better if these things had been done IMO That was Parkers job and in the late 60s into the 70s he did it badly IMO
    Speaking of the huge sales ELvis had after he died, what would the estates take have been if the Col. had not brokered the deal on the pre 73 catalogue. Lets look at a hypothetical and how it could have maybe played out.
    Parker advises Elvis-"We cant sell the catalogue its 19 years of some of your biggest hits, but if you go to Europe we can make 10s of millions. You could net more in a couple of months of over there than a couple years of touring here. I think you need to do this the time is right" Would Elvis had said no? Thats the question.
    Last edited by KPM; 09-18-2007 at 06:59 PM.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    Jak I realize the cost of his spending fully. But the Col.being in charge of Elvis's business contracts was in error on many important things I already mentioned-would a royalty increase to the stature Elvis should have had helped? I think yes-would the Col have been smarter to sign a short term deal with Shoofey in Vegas and got more money?(which Shoofey acknowledged he would have done) I think yes. Would the Col have been smarter to demand a full accounting for Elvis's sales in the late 60s to get Elvis the back royalties for sales which "slipped through the cracks'? I think so. We have already discussed the European tour I think the Col should have set up between 70 and 73 when Elvis seemed willing (at least on the surface) so I won't get into that but it would have been a huge money maker. Sure Elvis spent- but his earnings should have been and could have been so much more-if Parker had stayed on top of the situations I have mentioned.
    If Parker had accepted the European deal Shoofey was privy to there was 2 million, plus a picture financed, and a million for Parker-he turned it down. The financial situation was bad but it could have been so much better if these things had been done IMO That was Parkers job and in the late 60s into the 70s he did it badly IMO
    Good grief THANKYOUVERYMUCH KPM...
    I can't agree w/u more where the Col. and money situation is concerned, YOU SOOOOOO ROCK!!!!!

  7. #127
    TCB Mafia jak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    S.C. USA
    Posts
    2,125
    Selling the back catalogue was a huge mistake but like I said Elvis needed that cash.After the deal Elvis actually went around bragging about the money he made.Elvis didnt have the pull at RCA anymore to increase his royalties.Like I said before RCA was on the verge of a lawsuit against Elvis because he was having so much trouble meeting his contractual obligations with them.The Col made Elvis the money but he was just foolish with it.Elvis' personal finances were no the Col business.Elvis needed a financiial adviser to take care of it for him.He tax shelters and better investments.Elvis had all the money he needed,he just didnt hold on to it.
    Jak

  8. #128
    Coming On Strong
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    85
    Like i wrote before, there are a lot of things Parker should`nt have done, but he did`nt exactly go sneaking around trying to hide things from Elvis. Elvis should have wised up to Parker by the 70`s, and fired him no matter what the cost.

    By the way kpm, have just checked, and Doris Day sued her husbands business partner Jerry Rosenthal and won over $20 million.

  9. #129
    TCB Mafia KPM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,932
    Quote Originally Posted by jak View Post
    Selling the back catalogue was a huge mistake but like I said Elvis needed that cash.After the deal Elvis actually went around bragging about the money he made.Elvis didnt have the pull at RCA anymore to increase his royalties.Like I said before RCA was on the verge of a lawsuit against Elvis because he was having so much trouble meeting his contractual obligations with them.The Col made Elvis the money but he was just foolish with it.Elvis' personal finances were no the Col business.Elvis needed a financiial adviser to take care of it for him.He tax shelters and better investments.Elvis had all the money he needed,he just didnt hold on to it.
    Jak
    That Elvis bragged to people shows how little Parker explained the deal and "if Parker thought it was a good deal" IMO it shows just how out of touch Parker had become. Elvis may have not had the pull from 74 on but from 68 till 73 he was still RCAs star in sales-several hit singles in that time, several good selling albums. This would have been the time for Parker to get Elvis what he deserved lesser talents were getting more than he in royalties I read an article in the 80s in Rolling Stone which mentioned this. Parker could have threatened to take Elvis elsewhere, no one would have wanted to lose Elvis (even the 1974-77 Elvis). The deal for the catalogue itself shows shows RCA had over "5 million in confidence" that his recordings were going to sell for a long long time. Sure Elvis should have had the tax shelters most people agree Elvis ands his dad did not like dodging taxes (probably because they had seen so many get into trouble for such things Chuck Berry, Fats Domino etc) and investments-unfortunately he left this in his fathers hands and we all know that was not wise. Elvis had his creative problems after 72- that I'll agree on- but money wise he should have had better deals and better guidance from Parker. If they were a team Parker is just as much to blame as Elvis. As I said earlier Parker could have set up several things which may have been creatively good for Elvis and said "You need to do this we'll make a ton of money"
    I am willing to bet for every offer Parker told Elvis about there were a bunch he "deep sixed" -never mentioned.

  10. #130
    TCB Mafia KPM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,932
    Quote Originally Posted by TurnpikeTaylor View Post
    Like i wrote before, there are a lot of things Parker should`nt have done, but he did`nt exactly go sneaking around trying to hide things from Elvis. Elvis should have wised up to Parker by the 70`s, and fired him no matter what the cost.

    By the way kpm, have just checked, and Doris Day sued her husbands business partner Jerry Rosenthal and won over $20 million.
    Well thats good I was in error should have done a search instead of remembering a book I read years ago,- but I knew she could not have sued her husbands estate because in essence she would have been suing herself in that case. Also The suit was not settled until 1985 which did not help her for quite some time-Melchers death was in 68 17-years time span. The point was she did what people do everyday she left things she was not experienced at to someone she trusted.
    Heres info I found on Melchers death and where it left Day until the suit was settled
    When Melcher, who had managed her career since their marriage, died in 1968, Day was in for a shock. Though she had spent the previous decade as one of the top-billing actresses of the silver screen, Melcher had squandered away her money, leaving her in serious debt. She was forced to file a lawsuit against her deceased husband’s business partner, Jerry Rosenthal, to recover.
    But its good she got something back after all that time.
    Last edited by KPM; 09-19-2007 at 02:15 PM.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    That Elvis bragged to people shows how little Parker explained the deal and "if Parker thought it was a good deal" IMO it shows just how out of touch Parker had become. Elvis may have not had the pull from 74 on but from 68 till 73 he was still RCAs star in sales-several hit singles in that time, several good selling albums. This would have been the time for Parker to get Elvis what he deserved lesser talents were getting more than he in royalties I read an article in the 80s in Rolling Stone which mentioned this. Parker could have threatened to take Elvis elsewhere, no one would have wanted to lose Elvis (even the 1974-77 Elvis). The deal for the catalogue itself shows shows RCA had over "5 million in confidence" that his recordings were going to sell for a long long time. Sure Elvis should have had the tax shelters most people agree Elvis ands his dad did not like dodging taxes (probably because they had seen so many get into trouble for such things Chuck Berry, Fats Domino etc) and investments-unfortunately he left this in his fathers hands and we all know that was not wise. Elvis had his creative problems after 72- that I'll agree on- but money wise he should have had better deals and better guidance from Parker. If they were a team Parker is just as much to blame as Elvis. As I said earlier Parker could have set up several things which may have been creatively good for Elvis and said "You need to do this we'll make a ton of money"
    I am willing to bet for every offer Parker told Elvis about there were a bunch he "deep sixed" -never mentioned.


    Again THANKYOUthankyouverymuch!

  12. #132
    Coming On Strong
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    85
    The 73 deal was the sucker of all sucker deals, and the fact that Elvis agreed to it showed huge lack of judgement. Parker himself said he advised Elvis it was a bad deal, but he was duty bound to pass the offer on to Elvis ( i dont believe that though, because he probably floated the idea to RCA in the first place).

  13. #133
    International Level
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    506
    Elvis took advantage of that deal in order to have some cash to pay Priscilla with for the divorce.

    The King didn't have enough liquid cash to pay off Priscilla after she reneged on the original deal and started to look for more out of the divorce.

    Strange though.....in hindsight it's Lisa Marie she has swindled with the strong sales of Elvis's back catalogue.

  14. #134
    International Level SeeSeeRider777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    838
    Some of it was Elvis' fault too. Yeah Elvis got lazy after Aloha, he went coo-coo after the divorce. The man was not there mentally. He did not want to come into the studio and when he did the music was junk. After Burning Love that was it. Elvis let himself get out of shape, he looked bad after 75. Also that payroll took a lot of money. There was no need for that type of Entourage. Also the drugs cost a lot too. Elvis was paying for his meds and most likely he was paying for the MM addictions too. Elvis spent like crazy. Elvis was managed wrong in every way (musically, financially) The Col. managed him wrong. He got Elvis to agree to 50%, thats a big reason he had no money, how the hell to you sell your music for 5 million?, how come he never left RCA? If the Col. pushed it he could have got a lot of money from another label. The Col never let Elvis go out of the US, never let Elvis do A Star is Born because he did not want to share billing. For the Col it was Elvis and Elvis only. He did not let Elvis do any of the music that he wanted because he wanted 50%. How the hell are you going to get any good songs with that? The Col had him doing Vegas over and over to pay debt. Elvis could have done apperances or something later in the 70's to get himself noticed with the younger generation. In the 77 special you saw a lot of older folks in the crowd. There were mistakes on all parts but a good % was the Col's.
    "When I was a child, ladies and gentlemen, I was a dreamer. I read comic books, and I was a hero in the movie. So every dream that I ever dreamed has come true a hundred times. I learned very early in life that without a song, the day would never end; without a song, a man ain't got a friend; without a song, the road would never bend; without a song. So I keep singing a song." - Elvis Presley

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Similar Threads

  1. Tom Parker
    By acmilan in forum Elvis Presley
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-05-2006, 06:27 AM
  2. Ed Parker
    By Diane in forum Elvis Presley
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-30-2006, 07:35 AM
  3. Lee Gordon/ Col Parker
    By elvis2594 in forum Elvis Presley
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-04-2006, 11:59 PM
  4. Elvis,Ed Parker and UFO 's
    By howardrobardhughes in forum Elvis Presley
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-24-2004, 11:17 AM
  5. being elvis' manager
    By E.L.V.I.S in forum Elvis Presley
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-08-2004, 03:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •