Elvis v.s. other artists of the 60's

[Brian]

Hello Everyone

As everyone knows in 1993 Sony BMG released the box set From Nashville to Memphis a collection of all of Elvis studio recordings in the 60's excluding gospel and movie songs. I was wondering how you would stack up the material included on the set against the other popular artists of the 60's?
I think when Elvis came back from the army he was off to a good start recording the ballads it's Now or never and Are you Lonesome tonight along with the album Elvis is back which included some hard hitting blues and a song that I think was a precursor to the Mersey beat sound ''Girl Next door went A walkin'', I never really liked Stuck on you though and thought it was a poor choice for a single. The sessions of 1961 and 62 were okay highlights for me included his latest flame and little sister which a lot of people say is one of the greatest double sided singles of all time and I agree with that. I do think Elvis, the Colonel and RCA made the mistake of choosing only to release soundtrack albums and to stop releasing studio albums after 1962.
I've always thought that Elvis was doing well in the early 60's and ended the 60's well with the Memphis sessions of 1969 but for me the mid 60's were kind of iffy, I don't really know how I would rank 60's Elvis non soundtrack and non gospel music against all the british and American bands plus all the solo artists and the big top 40 radio hits of the time.
How would you rank Elvis 60's music (non gospel and no soundtrack) against the popular music artists and songs of the 60's?

[Jungleroom76]

Very interesting question Brian...

Personally, I think the 60's music (non Gospel and soundtrack) is really up and down in terms of quality. The music recorded at the first post-Army sessions of 1960 was certainly significant if, for no other reason, then to showcase Elvis' new found maturity in terms of vocal ability as well as musical choices. After those sessions, I think his song choices are a bit lackluster, especially the music recorded for the albums POT LUCK and SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY. There were some excellent songs recorded, don't get me wrong, but some of the songs like FOUNTAIN OF LOVE, IN YOUR ARMS, and IT'S A SIN aren't songs that can be referred to as classic Elvis in my opinion. Again, don't get me wrong, they are decent songs and certainly much better than some of the soundtrack material being churned out during the 1960's, but just ask anyone that isn't a diehard Elvis fan and I will bet they didn't even know Elvis recorded these songs.

The 1963 sessions (commonly referred to as the LOST ALBUM sessions) are above average in terms of song choices, although again there aren't many songs from these sessions that everyone will remember unless you are a member of the Elvis community!!

From this point forward, it is really up and down in terms of musical selections until you get to the cream of the crop...the 1969 Memphis Sessions. Songs like FOOLS FALL IN LOVE and DOWN IN THE ALLEY are clear signs that Elvis was trying to separate his movie music from his non-soundtrack material. His remake of Bob Dylan's TOMORROW IS A LONG TIME is definitely a good choice for Elvis, I think. Of course the Jerry Reed compositions U.S. MALE and GUITAR MAN are often pointed at as the beginning of "The Comeback".

Finally, we have the Memphis Sessions of 1969....classic Elvis!!! Focused, determined, energized....ready to take on the world!!! Nothing more really needs to be said!!!

Obviously Brian, this is only my humble little opinion. In summary I would have to say that there are definitely more hits than misses during the 1960's, although personally I would consider the entire 1960's non-gospel and non-soundtrack Elvis catalog as my least favorite of the 3 decades of music that Elvis recorded.

TCB!
Mike

[KPM]

According to the Billboard point system and sales, Elvis was the number 2 record seller in the 1960s behind the Beatles. So even though his music career after 1962 into 1968 was basically movie soundtracks he still sold enough to be get the second spot. As far as quality I agree it was a mixed bag of music. Trying to come up with a song written to try and fit a certain scene at a certain point in a film is not the ideal way to have hits or good music. I actually like a lot of the movie music, and some is pretty good. But many were just scene fillers.
Songs such as "Return to Sender", "Can't Help Falling in Love", "Follow that Dream" etc. are good songs in or out of film.
From 63 into 67 I think that is the period in which he most was out of musical touch as far as his recording career.

[Brian]

According to the Billboard point system and sales, Elvis was the number 2 record seller in the 1960s behind the Beatles. So even though his music career after 1962 into 1968 was basically movie soundtracks he still sold enough to be get the second spot. As far as quality I agree it was a mixed bag of music. Trying to come up with a song written to try and fit a certain scene at a certain point in a film is not the ideal way to have hits or good music. I actually like a lot of the movie music, and some is pretty good. But many were just scene fillers.

Hi Ken

I think if Elvis would've recorded more non soundrack albums throughout the 60's and more quality material he would have been #1 in sales throughout the decade.

[MojoElvis]

To me it just seemed that music was constantly changing and I don't think Elvis' vision of what he wanted was even close to what was happening. I get the impression he really loved, It's Now Or Never, Surrender and You'll Be Gone", type songs. Vocally he was in my opinion on top of the world. The next accomplishment was the, "How Great Tho Art" LP.
Even though Elvis opened the doors of Religious Coolness to the public I don't think it put him over the top on the main stream.
there's is a lot of personal favorites I have from the Movie soundtracks but America was going through a time of questioning the Government after the killing of JFK. Even collage geeks grew their hair out and started dropping acid and protesting the war. All that wasn't what Elvis was about in my opinion. I believe he was basically just an entertainer that wanted to please the crowd and help them forget the war for that 45 minutes you're listening to music. When He grew up they used music to press on with life and look at the brighter side not focus on something they couldn't change.

[Cliff]

IMO I don't feel Elvis got the respect he deserved when it came to sound engineering. I would have really liked to have seen him go to Abby Rd and do some sessions,can you imagine the results.
Don't get me wrong, there were some darn fine albums that came out of Nashville.
Two that spring to mind of course are "His Hand In Mine" & " Elvis Is Back" and most everything recorded there in Nashville.
But then you have the movie stuff.I play them mostly for the nostalgia. But boy some of the sound engineering. I'm sure they used their junior technicians. Prime example is "Do The Clam". But then there were one or three that weren't too bad in the beginning. "Fun In Acapulco","Roustabout" and maybe even "Kissin' Cousins"
If you really want some information on the so called 'Digitally Remastered ' CDs that we get today,visit this site http://www.elvisrecordings.com/. It is a real eye opener.It's a very interesting site for other apects of Elvis' recordings too.

[KPM]

Hi Ken

I think if Elvis would've recorded more non soundrack albums throughout the 60's and more quality material he would have been #1 in sales throughout the decade.

I would like to think so, but my heart tells me the Beatles were in the right place at the right time, Add in the facts that they were different looking, had varied personalities, very good voices/harmonies and lastly (but not least) were songwriters-I think they would have had great sales anyway.
But if Elvis had had more quality songs and less music tailored for the movies I think he would have made it much closer for the mid 60s.

[KPM]

[QUOTE=MojoElvis;244736]When He grew up they used music to press on with life and look at the brighter side not focus on something they couldn't change.[/QUOTE]

Great point. Elvis was a great rocker-but he was singing and playing music which was not trying to change anything directly. His change was in expression of feelings and attitudes, not expression of thoughts.
The 60s brought about the singer/songwriters who were trying to "directly change" the thoughts and goals of others in a rebellion against the way the world was run-a far cry from the music of the 50s.

[Cryogenic]

Music rapidly changed in the 60's and Elvis didn't keep up. He laid the groundwork for this revolution in the 50's, but took more of a backseat when all the real progress started happening. Quite ironic, on a number of levels.

On the other hand, a lot of his 60's music, especially his early work, is underrated. With songs like "Suspicion", "His Latest Flame", "Return To Sender" and "She's Not You", he cut oustanding pop records. With songs like "It Feels So Right", "Like A Baby" and "Reconsider Baby", he took the sultriness of the blues to the next level. With songs like "Are You Lonesome Tonight", "There's Always Me", "I Met Her Today" and "Something Blue", he made his case for being the greatest ballad singer of all time.

Early on, the problem was one of marketing and structure. "Elvis Is Back" was basically snubbed and Elvis prematurely deemed past it. But it's a fine artistic achievement -- great song choices, first rate production, stellar singing. The diversity is shocking. And the fact that Elvis went and cut so many more great songs in the next few years shows he was still delivering the goods and still creating fresh and new sounds. But he'd already been snubbed, which probably dented his confidence and gave his management greater levity (to basically cheapen and railroad his career).

The real sag point is maybe 1964, 1965 and 1966. In my opinion, this three-year stretch yielded the weakest music and the poorest movies. To make matters worse, Elvis would have had to work doubly hard to compensate for his dull reception in the beginning of the 60's and to attempt to reverse the damage already being done by his bland movie image. Instead, he seemed to be holding back, uncertain, unfocused, unchallenged. The home recordings from this period demonstrate a boy turned man with exceptional taste and the talent to express it, yet where was he? The most significant achievement from this era was a gospel album in mid 1966, but this couldn't replace his staggering potential in secular music.

1967 could have seen redemption with Elvis cutting some edgy new stuff with Jerry Reed. Unfortunately, this only resulted in a handful of songs when a whole new album could have emerged; Elvis was still faltering. The real change happened in 1968. But Elvis' confidence was so blunted that he wasn't convinced after filming in June and he watched nervously when the special finally aired in December. It was only once the reviews poured in that Elvis knew he was still relevant and had to get his *** to American Sound Studios and work under Chips Moman. The result was everything and more: Elvis Presley ended a tumultuous decade on a new artistic high.

Objectively, I think the 60's only yielded two great secular albums, and these serve to bookend it, which is quite an ominous statement in and of itself. The middle is a mixed bag which contains some of the best and worst things he ever did. I think you could take all the great stuff not on "Elvis Is Back" and "From Elvis In Memphis" (i.e. all the Nashville recordings) and structure it into two further great pop / RnB / country albums. Then you can go ahead and add "His Hand In Mine", "How Great Thou Art", the home recordings, the best of the movie stuff, the Comeback Special and the 1969 Las Vegas material. What would result would easily rank amongst the greatest catalogues in pop history, yet with the bittersweet realisation that it could have been whole orders of magnitude greater still. Think about it: The 1960's was the first full decade Elvis had to go wild in. And how often did he do just that?

It's a pretty harsh, bitter truth that Elvis could have been greater in the 60's. At the same time, exactly what he was getting up to and committing to tape has been unfairly maligned. Even Elvis' acclaimed biographer Peter Guralnick cites two personal highlights from the 60's, which he discovered in the course of writing "Careless Love": "I Need Somebody To Lean On" and "That's Someone You'll Never Forget". Elvis' voice will always be his first and last weapon of attack and it was something very special in those early 60's years. The intimacy and beauty of his "weapon" on a recording like "Something Blue" which he sings with a conversational refrain and subtle, clenching pathos just floors me. If more people knew about songs like this, they might just have a different opinion about Elvis Presley and the scope of his brilliance.