I don't think it would've done anything for Elvis' career but we would have footage of the ceremony.
Some fans are always complaining about the lack of footage of Elvis and this would've gave us some additional footage.
So in that sense I think it was a missed opportunity.
But many complain of how he fell so easily into a rut-things like this now and then would have been good for him-to feel not like "the King" in a palace but a member of the entertainment/music industry who was included in the gatherings of those individuals now and then.
Anything which put his face and talent before people who usually did not watch or listen to him would have the potential to add to his career.
Its funny but most individuals who met Elvis and interacted with him (fans/non fans/ celebrities) came away with a new respect for him and an appreciation for him...............when he was not allowed to do these "special things" it denied him those meetings-those chances to interact-which in his case usually meant good things and publicity.
Work in Progress!
It may have added to his mysique in the early to mid 60s but by the end of the 60s it almost seemed odd to many, or even arrogant-out of step. Some people actually thought the Col. was afraid Elvis was not sophisticated enough to handle unscripted banter and interaction-did that add to his "mystique" or did it detract from the man Elvis was?
Which IMO is precisely why the Col. was wrong in his judgement that the policy of fees and "mystique" were unwise after the Beatles hit the US and music began moving in other directions. The Beatles had "mystique" and they were on many shows, many interviews, very approachable guys, who were willing to show up, and do whatever. They were even on Carson, Lennon was on Mike Douglas and it did nothing to take away from his "Mystique"
Work in Progress!
But still...having him appear this one time to accept this award could hardly be considered saturating the market!!
We will miss you dearest friend
I recall Johnny Carson asking the Colonel if Elvis would appear on his show and he turned the offer down.
Ed Mcmahon commented on it saying he thought it was because Elvis couldn't handle an interview with Carson.
Ed Mcmahon was just making a wrong assumption about Elvis and the Colonel's way of doing things.
It's absurd to think Elvis couldn't of handled a 5 minute interview with Carson.
If you do one appearance it may lead to more appearances and that could lead to overexposure at least in the Colonel's way of thinking.
If you establish a policy of not giving interviews and spoken appearances etc you're kind of obliged to keep it up.
As soon as you start making exceptions it becomes a political situation and you run the risk of insulting people, which is definitely bad for business.
You become answerable for your decision to indulge one party but not others.
From a managerial perspective, it's far safer to say that there won't be any appearances of that kind and stick to it.
'Taking Care of Beaulieu'.
I disagree. Why are you obliged to keep it up. Says who? People can do what they like. It may not make others warm to them, but if thats what they want to do, its up to them.
If he turns up for the Grammy but not the Oscar, then the movie people will feel snubbed and they'll think twice about nominating his next movie.
If he does neither, they can assume that it's just because "Elvis doesn't do personal appearances" and no one gets offended by any 'perceived partiality'. General progress is uninhibited.
It's straightforward business.
I imagine that The Colonel would also be attracted to the idea that this dramatically raises the value of any appearances that they might agree to further down the road.
If both men were still alive and they'd maintained this policy for the duration, they might have considered doing a brief interview on Oprah (or something similar) to celebrate his 75th birthday, and because it was the first of its kind in decades they could charge an unbelievable amount of money for that kind of exclusivity. It would be his pension plan
'Taking Care of Beaulieu'.
I understand your point, Im just saying that if thats what they want to do, its up to them. As I say, it may not make people warm to them, and they could be doing themselves a disservice, but again - up to them.
I think that Colonel Parker was always worried that Elvis might say something in an interview that would upset somebody or give the public a different impression of him than the one Parker wanted.I think that,right from the early days in the `50s Parker knew that Elvis`s sense of humour could lead to situations that would be outside of his manager`s control...I think that worried Parker big-time. It would probably have been better for Elvis in the long-run to have given regular,honest interviews and been allowed to be himself...but it would have killed Parker`s attempts at building the wholesome,squeaky-clean Elvis that he wanted.