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

[debtdbruno]

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!

Wow.....way to go May............LOL

[May]

I know!!!!! I had SUCH trendy parents (not) !!!!! hahaha

[Junebug]

At the time, I believe part of the decision to move away from the red decor was to counter the negative image A. Goldman's 1981 book, ELVIS, painted of Graceland.

Chap. 1 - The King's Palace, the King's Pleasure, pg. 7 -

"When you step through the ten-foot oak door and enter the house, you stop and star in amazement. Having just come from the contemplation of the tenderest scene in the Holy Bible (referring to the Christmas creche on the front lawn), imagine the shock of finding yourself in a *****house! Yet there is no other way to describe the drawing room of Graceland except to say that it appears to have been lifted from some turn-of-the-century bordello down in the French Quarter of New Orleans. LuLu White or........
The room is a gaudy melange of red velour and gilded tassels, Louis XV furniture and porcelain bric-a-brac, all informed by the kind of taste that delights in a ceramic temple d'amour.......

Looking a little closer, you realize that the old madams of the French Quarter would have been horrified at the quality of the hangings and furniture at Graceland. They decorated their sporting houses with magnificent pieces crafted in Europe, upholstered them in the finest......
Though it cost a lot of money to fill up Graceland with the things that appealed to Elvis Presley, nothing in it is worth a dime.

Take that fake fireplace that blocks with its companion bookcases (filled with phony leather bindings)...........
Every piece is elaborately carved and gilded.....; but it's not only fake (Louis XV's upholsteres didn't go in for sectional sofas), its that dreadful fake antique furniture that Italian gansters dote on: garish, preposterous, uncomfortable and cheating wherever it can, as in the substitution of velour for velvet. ..............."

And on it goes through the rooms of Graceland.........

[debtdbruno]

At the time, I believe part of the decision to move away from the red decor was to counter the negative image A. Goldman's 1981 book, ELVIS, painted of Graceland.

Chap. 1 - The King's Palace, the King's Pleasure, pg. 7 -

"When you step through the ten-foot oak door and enter the house, you stop and star in amazement. Having just come from the contemplation of the tenderest scene in the Holy Bible (referring to the Christmas creche on the front lawn), imagine the shock of finding yourself in a *****house! Yet there is no other way to describe the drawing room of Graceland except to say that it appears to have been lifted from some turn-of-the-century bordello down in the French Quarter of New Orleans. LuLu White or........
The room is a gaudy melange of red velour and gilded tassels, Louis XV furniture and porcelain bric-a-brac, all informed by the kind of taste that delights in a ceramic temple d'amour.......

Looking a little closer, you realize that the old madams of the French Quarter would have been horrified at the quality of the hangings and furniture at Graceland. They decorated their sporting houses with magnificent pieces crafted in Europe, upholstered them in the finest......
Though it cost a lot of money to fill up Graceland with the things that appealed to Elvis Presley, nothing in it is worth a dime.

Take that fake fireplace that blocks with its companion bookcases (filled with phony leather bindings)...........
Every piece is elaborately carved and gilded.....; but it's not only fake (Louis XV's upholsteres didn't go in for sectional sofas), its that dreadful fake antique furniture that Italian gansters dote on: garish, preposterous, uncomfortable and cheating wherever it can, as in the substitution of velour for velvet. ..............."

And on it goes through the rooms of Graceland.........

You know, I got this book from the library many, many years ago........and that was how far I got, reading about the red deco, and the 'atrium of a heart'.......didn't read any more.........

[KPM]

You know, I got this book from the library many, many years ago........and that was how far I got, reading about the red deco, and the 'atrium of a heart'.......didn't read any more.........

Goldman hated rock and Elvis was the epitome of Rock. His venom is in every single page, down to the page numbers.
It is one thing to paint a true picture, and to be fair-equal time for good and bad-this book presented nothing that even hinted at good-nothing in a complimentary way, he downgraded Elvis on everything.

[Unchained Melody]

the problem with the Elvis legacy is that Sony owns his recordings - at least the ones that aren't public domain

and the estate owns his image and some works - but they don't seem to care overmuch about quality packages

if you look at the shop on the official site - movies, music and dvds are lumped into one category - and largely lost in the listings for clothes, pictures, knickknacks and the other crap they sell


Sony is interested in compliations and greatest hits - little thought to Elvis' vast recordings or fan interest


so, I rely on companies like www.memphisrecordingservice.com and other bootleggers to put together quality packages

I couldn't agree more, they do not focus on the creative individual Elvis was with his work but stuff like Elvis Ducks and impersonator costumes is what they promote mostly.

If it wasn't for Follow That Dream label I don't know where we'd be.

[KPM]

I couldn't agree more, they do not focus on the creative individual Elvis was with his work but stuff like Elvis Ducks and impersonator costumes is what they promote mostly.

If it wasn't for Follow That Dream label I don't know where we'd be.

EPE/Sillerman can never have any say so about the recordings-and that is not their fault-as I pointed out if they had the artists royalties coming in yearly for all of the recordings Elvis made-they would have never had to even open Graceland to the public and they could afford to be much more selective in what they sell. But the only royalties that come to Elvis from Sony are for the few recordings he did after 1973.
Sillerman can not afford what Sony would ask for all the recordings outright-because they are just priceless-so EPE/Sillerman is left with no say so and little profit from the recordings.
It may not be pretty but thats the truth as I see it.
If they received full royalties for all the recordings, or if they owned them and then they still sold Elvis Ducks-I would probably feel exactly as you do-but they don't own them.
My hope is that someday this tasteless stuff-will not sell well-and then they will rethink their marketing-but......unfortunately the tasteless stuff has been selling since 1956-and its still selling and as long as it does it will be produced.

[yvonne]

I wonder about this? Lisa has little interest, and her children seem pretty removed from it as well.

I think Elvis will still be here long after Priscilla, Lisa and her kids are gone.
It was Elvis who had that fantastic voice, who made that timeless music, who is the the legend and not Priscilla, Lisa or all her kids. Elvis lives on without them.

[Brian]

EPE/Sillerman can never have any say so about the recordings-and that is not their fault-as I pointed out if they had the artists royalties coming in yearly for all of the recordings Elvis made-they would have never had to even open Graceland to the public and they could afford to be much more selective in what they sell. But the only royalties that come to Elvis from Sony are for the few recordings he did after 1973.
Sillerman can not afford what Sony would ask for all the recordings outright-because they are just priceless-so EPE/Sillerman is left with no say so and little profit from the recordings.
It may not be pretty but thats the truth as I see it.
If they received full royalties for all the recordings, or if they owned them and then they still sold Elvis Ducks-I would probably feel exactly as you do-but they don't own them.
My hope is that someday this tasteless stuff-will not sell well-and then they will rethink their marketing-but......unfortunately the tasteless stuff has been selling since 1956-and its still selling and as long as it does it will be produced.

I don't think Elvis' estate would have any say in what Sony puts out regardless of whether Elvis sold the royalty rights.

I do think even if Elvis did not sell the artist royalty rights on his recordings and his estate got the income for them they'd still sell the ducks and other items.

[debtdbruno]

I don't think Elvis' estate would have any say in what Sony puts out regardless of whether Elvis sold the royalty rights.

I do think even if Elvis did not sell the artist royalty rights on his recordings and his estate got the income for them they'd still sell the ducks and other items.

Agree there Brian..........it's all extra $$$$$$$

[Donut]

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.

Yes, I know they don't get his artist royalties but they still own part of the songs wich is something important and doesn't mean pocket change for them either. Correct me if I'm wrong but I read that his top hits can command as much as $250,000 in publishing royalties for a single use.

[Donut]

I do think even if Elvis did not sell the artist royalty rights on his recordings and his estate got the income for them they'd still sell the ducks and other items.

They would have their own duck factories.

[Merry]

At the time, I believe part of the decision to move away from the red decor was to counter the negative image A. Goldman's 1981 book, ELVIS, painted of Graceland.

Chap. 1 - The King's Palace, the King's Pleasure, pg. 7 -

"When you step through the ten-foot oak door and enter the house, you stop and star in amazement. Having just come from the contemplation of the tenderest scene in the Holy Bible (referring to the Christmas creche on the front lawn), imagine the shock of finding yourself in a *****house! Yet there is no other way to describe the drawing room of Graceland except to say that it appears to have been lifted from some turn-of-the-century bordello down in the French Quarter of New Orleans. LuLu White or........
The room is a gaudy melange of red velour and gilded tassels, Louis XV furniture and porcelain bric-a-brac, all informed by the kind of taste that delights in a ceramic temple d'amour.......

Looking a little closer, you realize that the old madams of the French Quarter would have been horrified at the quality of the hangings and furniture at Graceland. They decorated their sporting houses with magnificent pieces crafted in Europe, upholstered them in the finest......
Though it cost a lot of money to fill up Graceland with the things that appealed to Elvis Presley, nothing in it is worth a dime.

Take that fake fireplace that blocks with its companion bookcases (filled with phony leather bindings)...........
Every piece is elaborately carved and gilded.....; but it's not only fake (Louis XV's upholsteres didn't go in for sectional sofas), its that dreadful fake antique furniture that Italian gansters dote on: garish, preposterous, uncomfortable and cheating wherever it can, as in the substitution of velour for velvet. ..............."

And on it goes through the rooms of Graceland.........

This "person", Goldman, was showing his ignorance.

There are percentage rules in Interior Decorating to do with furniture, and colour.

Dreadful, he is, just dreadful. A spiteful little man.

P.S. I'm sure even the furniture recoiled from him, hence it was uncomfortable

[Brian]

Yes, I know they don't get his artist royalties but they still own part of the songs wich is something important and doesn't mean pocket change for them either. Correct me if I'm wrong but I read that his top hits can command as much as $250,000 in publishing royalties for a single use.

Yeah. they get something like that

EPE isn't hurting for money it's just that they'd probably love it if they got the singers royalty rights for the songs which means more money.

[cibetty]

I think Elvis will still be here long after Priscilla, Lisa and her kids are gone.
It was Elvis who had that fantastic voice, who made that timeless music, who is the the legend and not Priscilla, Lisa or all her kids. Elvis lives on without them.

I agree with you Yvonne! He did something what was immortal. I'm sure he will have many new fans in ten years who will never forget him.

[EnigmaticSun]

I'm sure he will have many new fans in ten years who will never forget him.

He has enough to offer new fans besides being the most attractive man that ever walked the face of the earth. In fact his music takes over the world!!

[KPM]

Yes, I know they don't get his artist royalties but they still own part of the songs wich is something important and doesn't mean pocket change for them either. Correct me if I'm wrong but I read that his top hits can command as much as $250,000 in publishing royalties for a single use.

I think it depends on how the song is used, how much time it is heard, etc....some "sampling" of a song actually brings nothing.

[KPM]

I don't think Elvis' estate would have any say in what Sony puts out regardless of whether Elvis sold the royalty rights.
I do think even if Elvis did not sell the artist royalty rights on his recordings and his estate got the income for them they'd still sell the ducks and other items.

Never implied that EPE would have any more to say about the use of recordings if they still had all the artists royalties coming in-that "say so" should have been negotiated into Elvis's RCA contracts (somewhere along the way) while Elvis was alive-when he died it was too late. But those added royalties sure would have come in handy -in the first years after Elvis died when the sale surge was ongoing-would have solved some major problems which many fans see in Graceland being opened at all.


As far as the ducks and other items-perhaps-but lets not forget up until 1973Elvis received all his royalties....and the marketing of questionable Elvis items had continued since 1956 to that point-so if EPE follows the same pattern and precedent that Parkers managing ability had set in place and Elvis had agreed to....perhaps they would.
That is my point-none of this is truely new-it took place while he was alive-ibut as I have said-at least the profit is going into Elvis's familys hands.
The split with Parker on merchandising was 50% and Parker in many instances made more than Elvis in these type deals.

[Brian]

Never implied that EPE would have any more to say about the use of recordings if they still had all the artists royalties coming in-that "say so" should have been negotiated into Elvis's RCA contracts (somewhere along the way) while Elvis was alive-when he died it was too late. But those added royalties sure would have come in handy -in the first years after Elvis died when the sale surge was ongoing-would have solved some major problems which many fans see in Graceland being opened at all.


.

Absolutely I'm sure the co-executors of the estate Joe Hanks, The advisory board of the First National Bank of Memphis and Priscilla would've loved the money generated from those royalties.
I still think Graceland would've been opened as it's a major money maker.

[Donut]

This is not new but it gives you an idea of where the money comes from.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/ckx-inc/...Section21.aspx

Our primary revenue sources include income from licensing Elvis' name and likeness for consumer products, commercials and other uses, royalties and other income derived from intellectual property created or otherwise owned by Elvis including records, movies, videos and music publishing, and ticket sales and related income from public tours of Graceland. We also derive revenue from the operation of Elvis Presley's Heartbreak Hotel and the Meadow Oaks apartment complex.

I can't make this bigger but their major income comes from licensing fees and royalties.