Elvis And his re-recording song's.

[curtis simpkins]

If Elvis re do his song's like rca wanted him to do, What song's you liked him to do.
here's my list.


1.I Want you, I need you, I love you.
2.I Got A Woman.
3.Love Me
4.Don't Be Cruel
5.I Was The One
6.That's All Right.
7.Trying To Get To You
8Don't
9.Blue Christmas
10.Heartbreak Hotel

I Think that Elvis was the only one never re-did His music from sun and other's.
he sould of update his music from the 50's.

What you think, Should Elvis re-do his early hit's.

[Lonniebealestreet]

Yes, let's talk him into redoing them.

Curtis, when was this suggested or asked of him?

Songs that he recorded in the 50s and performed live in the 70s are great to hear, but I don't think recording them again in the studio would have been a great idea. Obviously, if he had done them again, I'd sure like to hear them, but IMO re-releasing the original hits on albums in the 70s was enough.

Was it after he showed resistance to the idea that the Legendary Performer series started, and was that their original intent for those albums--re-recordings?

Considering how well they sold, I'd say they did the right thing. Not only that, but if he had actually re-recorded them, that would seem to me even more of an acknowedgement than the re-releases were that he was an artist of the past (not to say that is my opinion).

Additionally, the remakes would naturally have been compared to the originals and even if they had surpassed the prior works in quality, which we certainly should not assume, there would be a lot of people who would always say the original recordings were the best. So why risk having them fail in that respect...why mess with success?

Again, while I personally would have loved to have heard them (but not in place of anything else he recorded in the 70s), it seems to me it would not have been a wise move on his part.

Think of the remake of Blue Suede Shoes from G.I. Blues and how most people think the two versions compare. And those were recorded just four years apart--just like Love Letters, though that remake seems pretty well received among those who recently opined here. I realize neither of those examples are probably like what you are suggesting, but I think they are worth considering.

But I'm not saying I'm right about this and I'd love to hear other opinions.

[Jungleroom76]

WELL.....

I was going to reply to you Curtis, but it seems my good buddy Bobby has already opined on this topic.....there's nothing left for me to say.....

SERIOUSLY BOBBY....as always, your points are EXCELLENT!!! I just can't see Elvis going back and re-recording ANY of his hits (except when he performed them live, of course). Besides (correct me if I am wrong here), it seems to me that GENERALLY SPEAKING, artists only go back and re-record their hit songs when their career has hit something of a lull or slow period and they need a spark to rejuvenate record sales, concert sales, etc. At least that is how it seems to me....

And considering Elvis was still the number one concert draw in the U.S. as late as May, 1977, I certainly don't think his career was anywhere near hitting a slow period to warrant him going back into the studio to re-record his older songs, thus opening him up for the inevitable comparisons of his original recordings versus the re-recordings, as Bobby pointed out!

As for the LEGENDARY PERFORMER series, my GUESS is that RCA decided to create the L.P. series (as well as the 1976 release of THE SUN SESSIONS) to stimulate record sales for Elvis. It was well known by RCA that his current albums (GOOD TIMES, PROMISED LAND, TODAY, FROM E.P. BLVD.) were not selling as well as the albums containing his older hits, thus the need to release albums like the L.P. series and THE SUN SESSIONS. Of course couple that with the fact that thanks to the horrible deal The Colonel made with RCA in 1973, RCA didn't have to pay Elvis any royalties on the L.P. and SUN SESSIONS albums....all the more profit for RCA to walk away with!

Anyway....EXCELLENT discussion Curtis!!! And, as always, EXCELLENT response Bobby!!!

TCB!
Mike

[Lonniebealestreet]

Thanks, Mike, but I did neglect to make the point you did about the typical career status of those artists who do re-record their old hits. It makes me think of budget CDs featuring such material which may or may not say somewhere on the back in small print something like "all songs recorded by the original artists", which you generally see on cheap compilation discs (often another indicator of declined status, as has been discussed here somewhat recently) and which basically tells you they are remakes.

Have you ever unknowingly bought such a CD? If you have, you surely were a little bugged when you discovered you'd been had.

The '73 buyout is another good point, and I wonder now if that had to do with the suggestion to record those songs again. I'd say that's likely. I am assuming that the buyout procluded him from profiting from those actual recordings only and not the songs themselves, since many appeared on subsequent live albums. That would have been a way to mitigate some of the damage done by the buyout, if only to a small extent. Had those songs been re-recorded and done well, Parker would no doubt felt like he had really beaten the deal (which he felt victorious about anyway at the time...which is actually understandable).

Hearing all those 50s songs sung in his 70s voice would unquestionably been a treat for the fans though. Think about how enthusiastic we were upon hearing Young And Beautiful '72 just here recently.

[dennyelvis]

[QUOTE=Lonniebealestreet]Thanks, Mike, but I did neglect to make the point you did about the typical career status of those artists who do re-record their old hits. It makes me think of budget CDs featuring such material which may or may not say somewhere on the back in small print something like "all songs recorded by the original artists", which you generally see on cheap compilation discs (often another indicator of declined status, as has been discussed here somewhat recently) and which basically tells you they are remakes.

Yes good point Bobby
I think it also showed that point when El redid a couple of his songs for the Aloha (No more) ... he sung it well, but it just lacked something of the magic of its first recording

Also maybe u can answer a question .... in an interview on the EBTP DVD hes asked why he just dosent record any real hardrockers anymore ?
he replys that there just are'nt any good songs outthere was this true ... or had he just got lazy in the studio ?

[Lonniebealestreet]

Denny, my take on that is this, and if someone believes differently, please chime in.

I am sure it was true that there were not many "good hard rock songs" that were brought before him, but that is not to say that some good ones weren't sent to him. If his music companies didn't have or couldn't get the publishing on songs, Elvis likely never heard about them.

However, in '72 Elvis was aware that this was happening and 3 years prior, during the American Sound sessions he had put his foot down to declare that he did not want anyone else picking his music and he would record what he pleased. He would not be able to control what Hill and Range submitted for his review (which is a crying shame), but he could get some of his friends and associates in the music industry to help bring some better material to him directly.

That factor though is probably only half the reason he didn't record more rockers; in fact, his response was probably a convenient excuse for someone to give who wasn't that enthused about recording rock and roll anymore but didn't want to announce that to a New York crowd.

I think he loved doing his live shows (if not 100% enthused about singing Hound Dog, etc.) and their fast, rocking pace, but in the studio that was the time for him to sing what he most cared about and obviously rock music wasn't it, even if he could still rock with the best of them.

The part of him that still did love to rock was probably also stifled by his not being much into the rock music of the day. So if he did have the urge to do some rock and roll, it probably would have been songs with a good old time rock and roll feel, and nothing at all like the "hard rock" of the seventies. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, and if he had done that, he may have had a larger part in the rock and roll revival movement which was happening.

These are just my impressions, but hopefully they do make some sense.

[Jungleroom76]

Thanks, Mike, but I did neglect to make the point you did about the typical career status of those artists who do re-record their old hits. It makes me think of budget CDs featuring such material which may or may not say somewhere on the back in small print something like "all songs recorded by the original artists", which you generally see on cheap compilation discs (often another indicator of declined status, as has been discussed here somewhat recently) and which basically tells you they are remakes.

Have you ever unknowingly bought such a CD? If you have, you surely were a little bugged when you discovered you'd been had.

The '73 buyout is another good point, and I wonder now if that had to do with the suggestion to record those songs again. I'd say that's likely. I am assuming that the buyout procluded him from profiting from those actual recordings only and not the songs themselves, since many appeared on subsequent live albums. That would have been a way to mitigate some of the damage done by the buyout, if only to a small extent. Had those songs been re-recorded and done well, Parker would no doubt felt like he had really beaten the deal (which he felt victorious about anyway at the time...which is actually understandable).

Hearing all those 50s songs sung in his 70s voice would unquestionably been a treat for the fans though. Think about how enthusiastic we were upon hearing Young And Beautiful '72 just here recently.

Yes, I have indeed bought a CD here or there that contained re-recordings of the original versions of songs and was admittedly a bit miffed by the attempted deception! Like you said, somewhere on the back cover of the CD under all of the credits, in very small print, you will find:


"Newly recorded versions sung by the original artists"

...or something like that.

As for your point regarding The Colonel's 1973 buyout deal and his feeling of victory at the time of the sale...I have to honestly wonder about that!?! If The Colonel was as shrewd as many think he was, I can't possibly imagine that he didn't consider all possible avenues about this deal. Yes, it would give both Elvis and The Colonel an immediate shot of cash, which considering Elvis' spending habits and The Colonel's increasing gambling debts, was most likely a welcome relief. But at the same time, The Colonel must have realized that Elvis' recent albums weren't selling anywhere near what his older albums did, with no real sign of a turnaround. I just can't believe that The Colonel made this deal, not considering the possibility that the royalties from sales of budget or reissued albums with Elvis' older hits would eventually surpass sales of the albums containing Elvis' newest recordings. Overall, it was not a well thoughtout deal on The Colonel's part (especially considering how shrewd most people thought he was) and it CERTAINLY wasn't a good deal for Elvis, no matter how you look at it!

I do have to agree with you though, on your last two points! The re-recording of Elvis' older songs certainly would have given The Colonel the feeling of having "beaten the deal" so to speak. And, although fans back then might not have felt this way, most fans today in 2005 certainly would have loved to hear what some of Elvis' 50's songs would have sounded like re-recorded in the studio in his 70's voice!

TCB!
Mike

[Lonniebealestreet]

Mike,

Of course I don't know, but...

I seem to recall the Colonel speaking about that deal many years later and he said that he didn't want to do it but Elvis needed the cash, wanted the deal made and that was that.

I tend not to believe that. First of all, I don't think the Colonel would have made any deal happen that he himself wasn't keen on but Elvis wanted him to (though I believe Elvis did in fact think it was a great thing). Think about who we are talking about here.

Also, though he and Elvis had enjoyed the amazing feat of the Aloha special and the album had topped the LP chart that year, I don't think the Colonel really believed that the magic would continue for many more years to come. Perhaps he thought that they would want to do a deal like that at some point, and if Elvis were to decline in popularity/success, so would his catalogue's worth depreciate. So while not sell then, at a time when they could still claim the recent success of Aloha but saw subsequent singles and albums not doing so hot and Elvis the person coming apart in some ways?

Or, whether he thought that way or not, it could simply be chalked up to his not being one to think of the long-term ramifications of many of the deals he made.

In addition, I can't imagine that enough money for the divorce settlement could not have been raised another way, that nothing else could have been worked out. In other words, there may have been another solution but this deal looked so good in Colonel's eyes (his vision probably a bit skewed by his own debts) that he went for it.

It also seems to me that if a deal didn't give the Colonel a mental advantage, if it wouldn't allow him to keep the upper hand, if it wasn't something he could brag about to everyone he knew, then he generally wouldn't do it.

I really can't back my position up with anything factual, but I just wanted to explain some of the thinking behind what I said.

[curtis simpkins]

I thought it would have been nice if Elvis had re-do his song's from the 50s.
even his sun recording days.

Now i have Johnny Cash and he re-done his songs from sun when he went to columbia
and mercury.

and evertime he do folsom prison blues get better evertime when he re-do these
kinda songs

[Lildarling]

I think that it wouldn't be a good idea for Elvis to re-record ANY of the 50's songs. Listen for example to TTWII rehearsals- "A fool such as I" or "Money honey", "Such a night"- there's no such a charisma and "catchiness" of the original recordings (ok, this was an REAHEARSAL and sometimes he was just fooling around )...An exception makes "Love letters" (AGAIN)- both versions are WONDERFULLY sung.

[Jungleroom76]

Mike,

Of course I don't know, but...

I seem to recall the Colonel speaking about that deal many years later and he said that he didn't want to do it but Elvis needed the cash, wanted the deal made and that was that.

I tend not to believe that. First of all, I don't think the Colonel would have made any deal happen that he himself wasn't keen on but Elvis wanted him to (though I believe Elvis did in fact think it was a great thing). Think about who we are talking about here.

Also, though he and Elvis had enjoyed the amazing feat of the Aloha special and the album had topped the LP chart that year, I don't think the Colonel really believed that the magic would continue for many more years to come. Perhaps he thought that they would want to do a deal like that at some point, and if Elvis were to decline in popularity/success, so would his catalogue's worth depreciate. So while not sell then, at a time when they could still claim the recent success of Aloha but saw subsequent singles and albums not doing so hot and Elvis the person coming apart in some ways?

Or, whether he thought that way or not, it could simply be chalked up to his not being one to think of the long-term ramifications of many of the deals he made.

In addition, I can't imagine that enough money for the divorce settlement could not have been raised another way, that nothing else could have been worked out. In other words, there may have been another solution but this deal looked so good in Colonel's eyes (his vision probably a bit skewed by his own debts) that he went for it.

It also seems to me that if a deal didn't give the Colonel a mental advantage, if it wouldn't allow him to keep the upper hand, if it wasn't something he could brag about to everyone he knew, then he generally wouldn't do it.

I really can't back my position up with anything factual, but I just wanted to explain some of the thinking behind what I said.

Well....your points are certainly well taken buddy! But....despite all of the speculation and theories, I guess we'll probably never get the actual version of what really happened and why the deal took place! It is interesting to try and theorize what really happened though...

HOWEVER...I did FINALLY unpack my box of Elvis books and found my copy of the Alanna Nash book on "The Colonel", and since I had only gotten to Chapter 4 before I packed my books up when we moved last summer, I decided to refresh my memory and go back to the beginning and begin reading it again! I'm quite interested to see what Ms. Nash may have uncovered during her research regarding this now-infamous 1973 deal!!!

Did you ever have a chance to read her book Bobby? If so, I'd be interested to hear your take on how you thought the book was!!

TCB!
Mike