Wouldn't this be funny and ironic?

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Since we not long ago had a thread which explored where Elvis could have gone with or without Parker I will not dwell on this-other than to say I think any competent manager with some connections who could have got Elvis on TV would have had the same chance Parker did. Elvis sold Elvis with the talent and controversy which began to start before Parker took over.
IMO Parker getting Elvis on the Sullivan and Steve Allen show and the performances he gave and the controversy which followed is what really lit the fire to his success IMO
I have to believe that there were other competent people who could have got him on National TV.
I pointed out Crosby and Sinatra careers followed the same path in essence-the got on records, onto national radio, and from that into movies. I do not know the names of their managers-but since Crosby was huge, Sinatra was huge-its a similar road that these managers pioneered.Parker just did what is logical. Of course I do not take anything from the Col. on his masterful exploitation-but controversy is easy to exploit.
Elvis had the added extra-besides talent and charisma he had the controversy about his movements and his new music rock and roll. That is my respectful and heartfelt opinion.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Elvis was a Mammoth talent. It isn't inconceivable that another human being could have managed Elvis. It would be naive to think that another manager couldn't have lead Elvis to a successful career as the Colonel did, we could only guess how successful that partnership would have been. What we would probably find is this individual would be just as maligned as the Colonel

[ehollier]

I do not know if another manager, good intentions or not, could have created "ELVIS!!, THE KING OF ROCK AND ROLL". I am not saying that Col. Parker was an alter boy or didn't have less than scrupulous morals when it came to promoting Elvis Presley; however, it has been a popular train of thought that he was ahead of his time with his methods of promotion, marketing, and staging Elvis. I do not know if any other manager could have seen or even realized (without the hindsight, of course) that Elvis could be as big and popular as he became. The Col. created the title "The King of Rock and Roll" which, for better or worse, will always be associated with Elvis Presley for time immemorial. While other promoters were busy trying to dampen the hysteria that Elvis created, the Col. was able to use the attention from the naysayers for the benefit of promoting his only client. Why didn't someone else step up and have the foresight to do this? Was Parker the most scupulous man to ever manage or create a business venture? Not even close!! However, look at any successful man and/or business venture - anyone - and tell me that in order to be successful, you must sometimes do things that would be less than honest or tempted to do something less than ethical. Did he always make the absolute best decisions for his only client? No!! However, he did make his client successful and bring him to the masses; he gave the masses what they wanted and that was ELVIS!!!!! whether that be on the screen or stage or in the studio, he brought what the fans wanted the most.

It is only today that we can realize that what we wanted -- ELVIS!! - was not always best for Elvis, the man.

[utmom2008]

We all put our lives in the hands of others over the course of our lives, we let people guide us in career/life decisions and that does shape us to a degree. We do however have a responsibility to ensure that the advice we are given is in our interest, we should not let apathy be the reason why we continue down the same path.

Great thought Matt. We are all influenced to some degree by different people at different times in our lives. The key is learning from your past mistakes and start paying attention to whatever it is that is influencing you. It brings to mind the expression "fool me once, shame on you ~ fool me twice shame on me."

[KPM]

I do not know if another manager, good intentions or not, could have created "ELVIS!!, THE KING OF ROCK AND ROLL". I am not saying that Col. Parker was an alter boy or didn't have less than scrupulous morals when it came to promoting Elvis Presley; however, it has been a popular train of thought that he was ahead of his time with his methods of promotion, marketing, and staging Elvis. I do not know if any other manager could have seen or even realized (without the hindsight, of course) that Elvis could be as big and popular as he became. The Col. created the title "The King of Rock and Roll" which, for better or worse, will always be associated with Elvis Presley for time immemorial. While other promoters were busy trying to dampen the hysteria that Elvis created, the Col. was able to use the attention from the naysayers for the benefit of promoting his only client. Why didn't someone else step up and have the foresight to do this? Was Parker the most scupulous man to ever manage or create a business venture? Not even close!! However, look at any successful man and/or business venture - anyone - and tell me that in order to be successful, you must sometimes do things that would be less than honest or tempted to do something less than ethical. Did he always make the absolute best decisions for his only client? No!! However, he did make his client successful and bring him to the masses; he gave the masses what they wanted and that was ELVIS!!!!! whether that be on the screen or stage or in the studio, he brought what the fans wanted the most.

It is only today that we can realize that what we wanted -- ELVIS!! - was not always best for Elvis, the man.

I understand what you are saying and respectfully we just see it different.
I sincerily believe it possible to be a success without resorting to less than honest means and being unethical.
Tommy Sands claims his mom fired Parker as his manager because Parker wanted total control. Eddy Arnold fired Parker-for some unknown reason.
Hank Snow has his problems with Parker. Thats some insight into Parker from others before Elvis which I consider when making an opinion on him.
I am not trying to say the Col. did not know his job, was not good at what he did. Was not working to make money-if Elvis made money he made money.
All I have been saying is it is very possible that any good manager-not Bob Neal who had never been a manager, not Scotty Moore who was as green as Elvis in some ways, but someone with real managerial experience could have taken Elvis and probably done as well.
The Col. had Elvis in his sights he saw a the coming explosion and he wanted to be on it. Truthfully Parker was quick to get in on Elvis he recognised very Elvis was going to hit big. He began helping Neal in bookings-but lets face it he was most probably laying groundwork to get Elvis's contract to convince Elvis and his parents he was the man for the job. It happened so quick who else had a chance.
National interest started before Parker was his manager:

June 8th 1955-Elvis Day by Day
Auditorium, Sweetwater, Texas

MGM Records telegrams Sam Phillips to inquire if Elvis' contract is for sale. Both Phillips and Bob Neal begin at this time to receive unsolicited offers from other major record labels as well.


July 29th 1955[B]
The new baseball park,(eventually named the Gator Bowl), Jacksonville, Florida [/B]

At the conclusion of his performance, Elvis announces to a good portion of the audience of 14,000: "Girls, I'll see you backstage." The response is a full--scale riot, with fans pursuing Elvis into the dressing room and tearing off his clothes and shoes. In the opinion of the Colonel's advance man, Oscar Davis, this was the point at which Colonel Parker was irrevocably sold on the growth potential of Elvis Presley.

All I can say is the Col did not produce that riot-Neal was Elvis's manager-Neal did not produce that riot. 14,000 person audience-just unreal for the
50s.

[KPM]

There is no doubt whatsoever that Elvis was a Mammoth talent. It isn't inconceivable that another human being could have managed Elvis. It would be naive to think that another manager couldn't have lead Elvis to a successful career as the Colonel did, we could only guess how successful that partnership would have been. What we would probably find is this individual would be just as maligned as the Colonel

This I agree with totally.

[ehollier]

I understand what you are saying and respectfully we just see it different.
I sincerily believe it possible to be a success without resorting to less than honest means and being unethical.
Tommy Sands claims his mom fired Parker as his manager because Parker wanted total control. Eddy Arnold fired Parker-for some unknown reason.
Hank Snow has his problems with Parker. Thats some insight into Parker from others before Elvis which I consider when making an opinion on him.
I am not trying to say the Col. did not know his job, was not good at what he did. Was not working to make money-if Elvis made money he made money.
All I have been saying is it is very possible that any good manager-not Bob Neal who had never been a manager, not Scotty Moore who was as green as Elvis in some ways, but someone with real managerial experience could have taken Elvis and probably done as well.
The Col. had Elvis in his sights he saw a the coming explosion and he wanted to be on it. Truthfully Parker was quick to get in on Elvis he recognised very Elvis was going to hit big. He began helping Neal in bookings-but lets face it he was most probably laying groundwork to get Elvis's contract to convince Elvis and his parents he was the man for the job. It happened so quick who else had a chance.
National interest started before Parker was his manager:

June 8th 1955-Elvis Day by Day
Auditorium, Sweetwater, Texas

MGM Records telegrams Sam Phillips to inquire if Elvis' contract is for sale. Both Phillips and Bob Neal begin at this time to receive unsolicited offers from other major record labels as well.


July 29th 1955[B]
The new baseball park,(eventually named the Gator Bowl), Jacksonville, Florida [/b]

At the conclusion of his performance, Elvis announces to a good portion of the audience of 14,000: "Girls, I'll see you backstage." The response is a full--scale riot, with fans pursuing Elvis into the dressing room and tearing off his clothes and shoes. In the opinion of the Colonel's advance man, Oscar Davis, this was the point at which Colonel Parker was irrevocably sold on the growth potential of Elvis Presley.

All I can say is the Col did not produce that riot-Neal was Elvis's manager-Neal did not produce that riot. 14,000 person audience-just unreal for the
50s.

Thank you Ken for giving my post some insight and thought. I guess my statement about doing things that would be less than honest or tempted to do something less than ethical to be successful. I guess that was too a general a statement to be true. However, it does happen more often than not; although it is possible to be successful without resorting to such tactics. But I would like to say that Tommy Sands, Eddie Arnold and Hank Snow, although didn't have the talent or charisma that Elvis possessed, their respective careers didn't go very far after Col. Parker was no longer managing them. And I'm not saying that with Col. Parker, they could have even held a candle to Elvis Presley, but Col. Parker did know how to manage, market and promote his star.

[Donut]

Now that we are talking about Parker here is a link to the documentary about his life " Looking For Colonel Parker" for those who can be interested. I think is worth watching it.

(Where has the button to embed YouTube videos gone? )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtmFqCMlUfw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZbQjRBYQGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBayjUWdaU0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNoRzOSLeZA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYn_mw4Qr60

Uploaded by davidvanbeek1983

[Miss Clawdy]

So you are seriously saying the Colonel is to blame for Elvis' death

I am not saying he's to blame for his death, but I think in some way he was one of the nails of Elvis' coffin, of course not wanting to bite the hand that fed him.

the Colonel seems to get an inordinate amount of negative press (Just like Priscilla) without a reasoned argument to back up their claims.

My opinion is based on books, views of other fans and whatever you can find on the internet. And the fact that Parker is getting so much negative press gives me food for thought.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Elvis was a Mammoth talent. It isn't inconceivable that another human being could have managed Elvis. It would be naive to think that another manager couldn't have lead Elvis to a successful career as the Colonel did, we could only guess how successful that partnership would have been. What we would probably find is this individual would be just as maligned as the Colonel

I totally agree with you.

What we would probably find is this individual would be just as maligned as the Colonel

What makes you think?

[Miss Clawdy]

Now that we are talking about Parker here is a link to the documentary about his life " Looking For Colonel Parker" for those who can be interested. I think is worth watching it.

(Where has the button to embed YouTube videos gone? )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtmFqCMlUfw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZbQjRBYQGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBayjUWdaU0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNoRzOSLeZA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYn_mw4Qr60

Uploaded by davidvanbeek1983

Wow, thank you Donut, haven't seen that before, this was really very interesting !

[beckelvis]

Thank you for the videos Donut,they are very interesting,.

[Donut]

You are welcome girls

[Brian]

my thread got turned around

I think this is interesting

I heard that when Parker and Elvis got into that fight in 73 where they split up and Elvis tried to get a new manager so he asked both Jerry Weintraub and Tom Huellet but they both turned him down.

both qualified but Jerry had to many clients and didn't think he was the right manager for Elvis

Tom Huellet turned him down out of loyalty to the Colonel and he just didn't want to manage anyone.

people say Elvis should have dumped Parker and got a new manager but if Weintraub or Huellet didn't want to manage Elvis who else was going to.

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

my thread got turned around

I think this is interesting

I heard that when Parker and Elvis got into that fight in 73 where they split up and Elvis tried to get a new manager so he asked both Jerry Weintraub and Tom Huellet but they both turned him down.

both qualified but Jerry had to many clients and didn't think he was the right manager for Elvis

Tom Huellet turned him down out of loyalty to the Colonel and he just didn't want to manage anyone.

people say Elvis should have dumped Parker and got a new manager but if Weintraub or Huellet didn't want to manage Elvis who else was going to.

We all like to think that we know Elvis, unless you were there I guess we really don't know what he was like. Perhaps other managers had heard that Elvis was difficult to work for, perhaps they had heard about the drugs?

Elvis had a lot of baggage and as much as an attractive proposition it was to manage Elvis, perhaps the thought was to daunting by the time the 70's had arrived

[utmom2008]

Elvis had a lot of baggage and as much as an attractive proposition it was to manage Elvis, perhaps the thought was to daunting by the time the 70's had arrived

True Matt...plus, like him or not, Colonel Parker would have been a tough act to follow.

[KPM]

We all like to think that we know Elvis, unless you were there I guess we really don't know what he was like. Perhaps other managers had heard that Elvis was difficult to work for, perhaps they had heard about the drugs?

Elvis had a lot of baggage and as much as an attractive proposition it was to manage Elvis, perhaps the thought was to daunting by the time the 70's had arrived

The moves which would have helped Elvis-in the long haul-should have taken place in early to mid 60s IMO before the rut and complacency set in. By the mid 70s it may well have been that anyone interested in managing Elvis was hesitant. But many would have given their eye teeth to have a shot at it in 1962 till oh 1971. Elvis did not seriously entertain ideas about getting rid of Parker it seems until the 70s. Thats the shame of it. But I can not stress enough-he trusted Parker was charting a course which was correct-he trusted that not speaking or interacting with the people the Col advised was correct, he trusted that Col. was looking out for Elvis to not be taken advantage by these people (does anyone really think that Parker was always wanting to protect Elvis from the wolves-or was it independent thought)-
I have never liked censorship in anyway.
When the Col. told people to stay away from Elvis (Leiber and Stoller come to mind as examples)-or made it difficult for people to interact with Elvis-he was censoring Elvis's contacts. Contacts which may have led to a different points of view-other than money is the bottom line-that financial success does not always mean creative success and fullfillment. You learn and grow through interaction with others-they may know things you do not. They pass them on to you and you gain in knowledge.
I think any moves which would have given Elvis the feeling of advancing toward a goal and growing- beyond "I make musical movies and I make soundtracks for them-I am guaranteed X-number of dollars" would have been good.
This was the goal of Parker X-number of dollars-growth of Elvis was not a concern, creative people who would help expand growth were people Parker did not understand-and did not want Elvis around. Elvis depended on Parker and Parker wanted it that way-he wanted no one else giving him advice nor ideas-that was dangerous to Parkers position as the brain trust. I guess I sound like a broken record-but thats my take-my opinion.

[Brian]

Another thing to consider when thinking about Colonel Parkers management
of Elvis


many fans say that if Elvis would have fired Parker after he got out of the army and got a new manager he would have become a great dramatic actor with great roles etc. Not so fast

A lot of fans make the mistake of comparing hollywood then to what it is now.
In 1956 Elvis signed a standard (for the time) 7 year contract to make movies
the contract didn't have script control nor did it specify what movies he would be making. Actors back in those days didn't have script approval.

So if Elvis fired Parker in 1960 he still would've had to fulfill his contract which lasted until 1963. That would've been 11 more movies including Girls, Girls,Girls, it Happened at the Worlds Fair and Fun in Acapulco.

Hal Wallis and the other studio bosses that Elvis worked for decided what movies he would make not Parker and not Elvis.

Colonel Parker in 1965 upset about the low budget quality of Harem Scarem writes a letter to the studio requesting better scripts and bigger budgets for Elvis but is turned down.

Jerry Schilling in recent years on Elvis by the Presleys and Viva Las Vegas has talked about how Elvis would get upset over having to make Clambake refuses to do it and doesn't go to the studio for a couple of days but is forced to anyway by the studio.

So even if Elvis had gotten a new manager he still would have faced the same obstacles and problems in Hollywood.

[KPM]

Another thing to consider when thinking about Colonel Parkers management
of Elvis


many fans say that if Elvis would have fired Parker after he got out of the army and got a new manager he would have become a great dramatic actor with great roles etc. Not so fast

A lot of fans make the mistake of comparing hollywood then to what it is now.
In 1956 Elvis signed a standard (for the time) 7 year contract to make movies
the contract didn't have script control nor did it specify what movies he would be making. Actors back in those days didn't have script approval.

So if Elvis fired Parker in 1960 he still would've had to fulfill his contract which lasted until 1963. That would've been 11 more movies including Girls, Girls,Girls, it Happened at the Worlds Fair and Fun in Acapulco.

Hal Wallis and the other studio bosses that Elvis worked for decided what movies he would make not Parker and not Elvis.

Colonel Parker in 1965 upset about the low budget quality of Harem Scarem writes a letter to the studio requesting better scripts and bigger budgets for Elvis but is turned down.

Jerry Schilling in recent years on Elvis by the Presleys and Viva Las Vegas has talked about how Elvis would get upset over having to make Clambake refuses to do it and doesn't go to the studio for a couple of days but is forced to anyway by the studio.

So even if Elvis had gotten a new manager he still would have faced the same obstacles and problems in Hollywood.

Well someone led him to believe before and after he signed that contract that his first role was a straight acting role in "the Rainmaker" he said this in a couple interviews and said I have no desire to sing in films, he also told Hal Kanter director/writer/producer he did not want to smile alot in films because he noticed serious actors smiled seldomly. Whether it was Parker or Wallis who sold him on the roles he was headed for is debateable but someone obviously led him to think this.

Col Parker negotiated the contracts, instead of making them long term he could have negotiated shorter deals with less movies.
It is the long term deals which tied Elvis down and kept him in the rut and at the producers mercy as to material.
Also concerning Harem Scarem, Parker also suggested in a memo a "Talking Camel" to improve the picture. A talking camel?

[Diane]

The one big difference I can see that if Elvis had had someone else to manage him is how much of a big cut the Colonel took out of Elvis' earnings. I don't see any other manager daring to be that greedy.

Diane

[Brian]

Col Parker negotiated the contracts, instead of making them long term he could have negotiated shorter deals with less movies. It is the long term deals which tied Elvis down and kept him in the rut and at the producers mercy as to material.
Also concerning Harem Scarem, Parker also suggested in a memo a "Talking Camel" to improve the picture. A talking camel?

I agree short term deals would have been better but
I don't think that was an option in 1956. I think it was 7 year deal or nothing


personally I think the movies were a huge waste of time, if Elvis wasn't going to be given better projects by the studio's what's the point

Regarding the camel- creativity was never considered Parkers strong suit

[Brian]

Well someone led him to believe before and after he signed that contract that his first role was a straight acting role in "the Rainmaker" he said this in a couple interviews and said I have no desire to sing in films, he also told Hal Kanter director/writer/producer he did not want to smile alot in films because he noticed serious actors smiled seldomly. Whether it was Parker or Wallis who sold him on the roles he was headed for is debateable but someone obviously led him to think this.

It was Hal Wallis who told him about the rainmaker

I heard once that Wallis didn't actually offer him the role, Wallis wanted him to make a screen test for the role to see how well Elvis came off
Elvis mistakenly took that as being up for the role.

If you look at Elvis movies the formula wasn't set until after Blue Hawaii before that there was something of a variety in terms of scripts but after the films success all the studio's wanted to repeat that success
so you had movies like Paradise Hawaiin Style, Girls Girls Girls, and Fun Acupalco being made trying to cash in on Blue Hawaii.