what will Elvis's legacy be like in 10 years?

[david72]

I am 20 years old and i have been a elvis fan for 7 yrs. I will always be a elvis fan

[Donut]

Frank never let his managers-present him in anyway shape or form which Frank himself did not approve-unlike Elvis who turned all business over to Parker who could care less what Elvis's name was used to promote-my point is Elvis did not tell Parker to stop no matter what the product or promotion.............the precedent was set by Parker and Elvis.
I can not assume that Elvis today would be upset-when he was not upset about these things when alive especially since his daughter and grandkids are the ones getting the benefit.
If Elvis had actually told Parker I do not want "Teddy Bear Perfume" sold or ashtrays, or cheap guitars, cheap jewelry, or lamps, etc which Parker had deals for in the 50s-I would see it as you do-but Parker had deals with hundreds of vendors for product which was just as tasteless.
I agree I do not like the tasteless but its not like it Elvis was not involved with such products while alive and reaped profit himself (althought not as much as his family is getting since Parker is not getting a good chunk)

KPM, I think we are not understanding each other (as usual )
It's not a matter of what was done 50 or 40 years ago, my point is I don't think that stuff will appeal to new Elvis fans in the future so they'll have to look for new ways to keep their business working and generating money once the older fans are not here anymore. From the point of view of a 30 something (me) the image they have presented of Elvis in general is quite tacky and I wouldn't even have taken Elvis into consideration had I not discovered his music first. There has to be a reason why the majority of young people see Elvis as something old-fashioned when we know he was the coolest thing for most of his life and ahead of his time...

[Sweet_One_E.]

Frank never let his managers-present him in anyway shape or form which Frank himself did not approve-unlike Elvis who turned all business over to Parker who could care less what Elvis's name was used to promote-my point is Elvis did not tell Parker to stop no matter what the product or promotion.............the precedent was set by Parker and Elvis.
I can not assume that Elvis today would be upset-when he was not upset about these things when alive especially since his daughter and grandkids are the ones getting the benefit.
If Elvis had actually told Parker I do not want "Teddy Bear Perfume" sold or ashtrays, or cheap guitars, cheap jewelry, or lamps, etc which Parker had deals for in the 50s-I would see it as you do-but Parker had deals with hundreds of vendors for product which was just as tasteless.
I agree I do not like the tasteless but its not like it Elvis was not involved with such products while alive and reaped profit himself (althought not as much as his family is getting since Parker is not getting a good chunk)

Elvis was in control of matters, thru proxy, by allowing Parker to handle things yes, but the difference is, he needed the money and therefore he was motived to make it to sustain his life, taking care of others, and his loved ones. Priscilla and Lisa, and then EPE has gone way past needing the money for that end. I always wonder, just how much money does one need so badly that they have to compromise his image. and it's not just that. it is their vulgar protest of others who have done so, (and minimally in comparision to them) , and they crying on the worlds shoulders that Elvis has not been done right by..by others. it is the hypocrisy that is ridiculous. They care about his image? in what way, shape or form. please!! it was his image and he owes no one any justification of what he did in his lifetime. if it was their own image then they have to right to do what they choose with theirs. but they were gifted his, and they should not say they are so honorable when so much proves they are not.

[debtdbruno]

KPM, I think we are not understanding each other (as usual )
It's not a matter of what was done 50 or 40 years ago, my point is I don't think that stuff will appeal to new Elvis fans in the future so they'll have to look for new ways to keep their business working and generating money once the older fans are not here anymore. From the point of view of a 30 something (me) the image they have presented of Elvis in general is quite tacky and I wouldn't even have taken Elvis into consideration had I not discovered his music first. There has to be a reason why the majority of young people see Elvis as something old-fashioned when we know he was the coolest thing for most of his life and ahead of his time...

Well said Donut

[KPM]

KPM, I think we are not understanding each other (as usual )
It's not a matter of what was done 50 or 40 years ago, my point is I don't think that stuff will appeal to new Elvis fans in the future so they'll have to look for new ways to keep their business working and generating money once the older fans are not here anymore. From the point of view of a 30 something (me) the image they have presented of Elvis in general is quite tacky and I wouldn't even have taken Elvis into consideration had I not discovered his music first. There has to be a reason why the majority of young people see Elvis as something old-fashioned when we know he was the coolest thing for most of his life and ahead of his time...

Well my point is that the stuff marketed to fans, casual fans, visitors etc...whether in 1956 or in 2009.....will only change when these individuals quit buying those items..........regardless of who is selling the items.
You only produce things you can sell in enough quantity to make a good profit-obviously these things sell well.
In the future, if the sales slip-I'm sure the strategy will change-the products will change-the emphasis of the items will change-it s just smart.
So that is my take on this question.

[KPM]

Elvis was in control of matters, thru proxy, by allowing Parker to handle things yes, but the difference is, he needed the money and therefore he was motived to make it to sustain his life, taking care of others, and his loved ones. Priscilla and Lisa, and then EPE has gone way past needing the money for that end. I always wonder, just how much money does one need so badly that they have to compromise his image. and it's not just that. it is their vulgar protest of others who have done so, (and minimally in comparision to them) , and they crying on the worlds shoulders that Elvis has not been done right by..by others. it is the hypocrisy that is ridiculous. They care about his image? in what way, shape or form. please!! it was his image and he owes no one any justification of what he did in his lifetime. if it was their own image then they have to right to do what they choose with theirs. but they were gifted his, and they should not say they are so honorable when so much proves they are not.

Well in 1956 Elvis did let Parker make the deals and he signed off on them-he was making more money than he had ever seen and he never nixed a deal for any item that Parker marketed tasteless or otherwise.
In the 60s the marketing continued, but also the tasteless movies continued and the weak music continued-these things bothered Elvis I'm sure much more than the products which he did not personally produce for sale.
So part of his legacy-is in those years where his own production of music and film were just not the level he was capable of-those things have helped to lower his legacy in many peoples mind.
As far as how much money is enough-I have said this before-Elvis would have wanted all the money and security he could produce for his daughter and his grandkids-I can not envision him ever saying enough is enough.
As a father I feel the same about my kids and future grandkids-I want to leave them as well off as I humanly can (of course it will be a few notches below the bar Elvis has set)
As far as the image of Elvis Presley-Elvis himself in his life, the way he lived, the young death and all the problems helped to craft the image that the general public has...IMO much more than any thing marketed or sold.
A life speaks volumes-it can be misunderstood, it can be viewed incorrectly but the basis for the image-is in the actual life lived. Elvis lived in his own way, in his own sense of values-I understand them many don't-and for those the negative becomes the image. That has hurt the legacy of Elvis.
I want to be clear I do not like all the things (starting in 1956) which have been marketed in his name-sure much is tasteless, much is gaudy, much is nothing remotely associated with music-but it sells and it always did sell.
My own kids are welcome to market an outhouse in my name-if they can sell it-in order to help them.

[KPM]

Actually the thing I would do if I was marketing Elvis-would be to convince Sony/RCA/BMG to sell every single tape with Elvis's voice on it from all the sessions, all the soundboards all the outtakes-
I would bet it has been discussed at EPE and they know the reality of that-it will never happen.
Sony could not even put a value on this-it is priceless.
So without the recordings, without the films, EPE can not do a single thing on its own to shape the recorded legacy of Elvis. They can not even reap profit from the pre 73 recordings and we all know Elvis did not record much new material after 74.

The thing I find funny about the debate is that everyone wants something different done with the image of Elvis-some are upset that Graceland is not all red furnished and decorated like it was right after Elvis died-wasn't that decor tacky????
So instead it has been decorated more like when Elvis's mom was alive and during the 60s when Priscilla had a hand in the decor-which is not so tacky???
Some want Elvis to be shown warts and all-no punches pulled, no explaination no reasoning for who Elvis was-who he became-yet others don't want to acknowledge any warts, or bit of info which reflects negative on Elvis???
Elvis spent money like it was air-with each breath...so he did not leave a financially secure situation (and I'm sure he wanted to, thought he could always tour could always make a quick couple million) yet 31 years later his estate is richer for his daughter, and grandkids than he could have ever left it (of you go buy his spending and financial planning while alive) I can not see he would be unhappy about this fact.
I guess I just see this way different than most-I see it as a father who will always want the most, for his kids and their kids.

[Donut]

Well my point is that the stuff marketed to fans, casual fans, visitors etc...whether in 1956 or in 2009.....will only change when these individuals quit buying those items..........regardless of who is selling the items.
You only produce things you can sell in enough quantity to make a good profit-obviously these things sell well.
In the future, if the sales slip-I'm sure the strategy will change-the products will change-the emphasis of the items will change-it s just smart.
So that is my take on this question.

OK

The thing I find funny about the debate is that everyone wants something different done with the image of Elvis-some are upset that Graceland is not all red furnished and decorated like it was right after Elvis died-wasn't that decor tacky????
So instead it has been decorated more like when Elvis's mom was alive and during the 60s when Priscilla had a hand in the decor-which is not so tacky???

I think that's a different story, to me that was like trying to change Elvis personality and the way he lived probably because they were ashamed of it. I wouldn't expect to visit Salvador Dali's house, for instance, and find that they have removed the big eggs from the roof just because someone involved in his estate thought he had bad taste. Graceland looks like Elvis died just after Priscilla left and doing this they have erased 5 years of his life in the house, HIS house.

[Sweet_One_E.]

well said dounut

[GIORGIA]

I'm 21 Year's Old Elvis Fan from 2 Year's,and I Remain An Elvis Fan For All My Life
!

[GIORGIA]

Sure, that's why I don't care much for them anyway. To me Elvis and EPE are two different things.

True!Very True My Friend!

[KPM]

OK



I think that's a different story, to me that was like trying to change Elvis personality and the way he lived probably because they were ashamed of it. I wouldn't expect to visit Salvador Dali's house, for instance, and find that they have removed the big eggs from the roof just because someone involved in his estate thought he had bad taste. Graceland looks like Elvis died just after Priscilla left and doing this they have erased 5 years of his life in the house, HIS house.

Well I see what you are saying-but the house does look like it did at one time during Elvis's life-so its not like he never saw it this way or did not approve of how it looked during this period. It does not erase 5 years we all know how it looked, and perhaps one day they will revisit this period-doubtful but possible.

[debtdbruno]

Actually the thing I would do if I was marketing Elvis-would be to convince Sony/RCA/BMG to sell every single tape with Elvis's voice on it from all the sessions, all the soundboards all the outtakes-
I would bet it has been discussed at EPE and they know the reality of that-it will never happen.
Sony could not even put a value on this-it is priceless.
So without the recordings, without the films, EPE can not do a single thing on its own to shape the recorded legacy of Elvis. They can not even reap profit from the pre 73 recordings and we all know Elvis did not record much new material after 74.

The thing I find funny about the debate is that everyone wants something different done with the image of Elvis-some are upset that Graceland is not all red furnished and decorated like it was right after Elvis died-wasn't that decor tacky????
So instead it has been decorated more like when Elvis's mom was alive and during the 60s when Priscilla had a hand in the decor-which is not so tacky???
Some want Elvis to be shown warts and all-no punches pulled, no explaination no reasoning for who Elvis was-who he became-yet others don't want to acknowledge any warts, or bit of info which reflects negative on Elvis???
Elvis spent money like it was air-with each breath...so he did not leave a financially secure situation (and I'm sure he wanted to, thought he could always tour could always make a quick couple million) yet 31 years later his estate is richer for his daughter, and grandkids than he could have ever left it (of you go buy his spending and financial planning while alive) I can not see he would be unhappy about this fact.
I guess I just see this way different than most-I see it as a father who will always want the most, for his kids and their kids.

[Donut]

They can not even reap profit from the pre 73 recordings and we all know Elvis did not record much new material after 74.

It's not my intention to prolong this conversation since we have already given our opinions on the legacy suject and I'm sure you know this but sometimes we forget that Elvis and now EPE still get publisher royalties on sales of a great number of songs independent of the year he recorded them. The 73 deal with RCA had no effect on his publisher's royalties so apart from Graceland they have been getting a profit from this too.

[May]

Just to pick up on the bit about how Graceland is decorated. Personally I would prefer it to be in the red decor, as it was in August 77, because thats how it was lived in by Elvis at that time. I know there are debates as to whether Elvis liked it or didnt like it (as decorated by Linda), but I would like to have visited Graceland and seen it how it was when Elvis last lived there.

Priscilla has herself said she had it redecorated in the blue and white colour scheme, as that was the colour that was used when she lived there. What she also has stated is that only some of the furnishings that are used, are original.

so if you look at pictures (there arent many that I can find, but there are enough) from back in the early 60's of how the dining room was, including table/chairs, you see that how it is now is not like it was at all back in the earlier years. The colour scheme might be similar but thats about it. so thats the reason I would have liked to have seen it in the red decor.

[KPM]

It's not my intention to prolong this conversation since we have already given our opinions on the legacy suject and I'm sure you know this but sometimes we forget that Elvis and now EPE still get publisher royalties on sales of a great number of songs independent of the year he recorded them. The 73 deal with RCA had no effect on his publisher's royalties so apart from Graceland they have been getting a profit from this too.

No I did not forget that, but it does take all his artist royalties.... which for most artists of Elvis's stature should be around 15-20% in todays world-considering the success of yearly album sales in total(such as the Christmas releases) that is substantial.
Sony said a few years back that The Elvis 30#1s had sold around 16 million worldwide, at.... lets say an average of 12$ an album.... total $192 million in sales.... if true-Elvis's estate lost 38.4 million in royaties at the 20% rate or 27 million at the 15% rate-for the one album.
Even at a conservative 10% rate that would be nearly 20 million lost.
His estate has lost untold millions in 31 years which go right into profit for RCA/BMG/SONY-the best deal a record label ever made.

[KPM]

Just to pick up on the bit about how Graceland is decorated. Personally I would prefer it to be in the red decor, as it was in August 77, because thats how it was lived in by Elvis at that time. I know there are debates as to whether Elvis liked it or didnt like it (as decorated by Linda), but I would like to have visited Graceland and seen it how it was when Elvis last lived there.

Priscilla has herself said she had it redecorated in the blue and white colour scheme, as that was the colour that was used when she lived there. What she also has stated is that only some of the furnishings that are used, are original.

so if you look at pictures (there arent many that I can find, but there are enough) from back in the early 60's of how the dining room was, including table/chairs, you see that how it is now is not like it was at all back in the earlier years. The colour scheme might be similar but thats about it. so thats the reason I would have liked to have seen it in the red decor.

Well remember that the few pictures which are seen-do not mean that is the only way the rooms were furnished and arranged during those years. It may only be one way the rooms looked for a period of time. But my point was not how the rooms were at his death or how they are displayed now-its the no-win of the whole argument.................you would like to see the red "somewhat tacky" look of 1977.............yet others see this as tasteless............and prefer the color and style that is "represented" (if not exactly in detail but perhaps close) at Graceland today. Many fans/visitors to Graceland buy the "tacky tasteless items" but.....others dislike, them think they should not be sold............no win. Some want Elvis's music to be promoted, packaged and sold in a better more insightful way by the record label-others are happy they spend as much time as they do promoting a dead artist who has no real new material in their vaults-no win.
If Lisa is not promoting Elvis with all her energy-she is uncaring-but if she records a duet with him like In the Ghetto-gives the profit to charity (in the Elvis spirit of helping)she is doing it to promote herself-no win.
I will not even mention Priscilla-because she is a triple no win

[May]

It doesnt bother me that the red decor was tacky though, in that I dont have to live with it Out of the two colour schemes, I much prefer the blue and white. However, people who say they wouldnt like to see the red decor as it was tacky need to remember that back in the mid 70's this wasnt seen as tacky at all. It was all the fashion. I remember we had bright orange carpet in our hallway and green and white psychodelic wallpaper. I mean YUK!!!!!! but I didnt think that at the time.

also, they would be seeing what Elvis lived with. Not what Priscilla has re-done as it were.

I do understand what you are saying. I just think that Elvis fans should just accept this "tasteless" (as they see it) decor and realise that it was like that in the 70's and if they dont like it, tough. Elvis (and Linda) did!

[KPM]

It doesnt bother me that the red decor was tacky though, in that I dont have to live with it Out of the two colour schemes, I much prefer the blue and white. However, people who say they wouldnt like to see the red decor as it was tacky need to remember that back in the mid 70's this wasnt seen as tacky at all. It was all the fashion. I remember we had bright orange carpet in our hallway and green and white psychodelic wallpaper. I mean YUK!!!!!! but I didnt think that at the time.

also, they would be seeing what Elvis lived with. Not what Priscilla has re-done as it were.

I do understand what you are saying. I just think that Elvis fans should just accept this "tasteless" (as they see it) decor and realise that it was like that in the 70's and if they dont like it, tough. Elvis (and Linda) did!

I actually had a red decor in my living room in 1973-not quite as bright as photos I have seen of Elvis's decor. I did not think it tacky-but then someone pointed out what old time brothels looked like-very fluffy, very red, gold and black look to them and I reconsidered the look-long before I knew Elvis had that style also.

[May]

Yes, very brothel-esque!!