'Johnny B Goode' official message Warner USA

It's a sad commentary to be sure, but there's still something to be said for the film finally being reissued (however mauled) and given a theatrical setting.

I've often felt that Elvis was a bit more ordinary (less exciting to the girls and charasmatic to men) and just an ordinatary "Joe" (or "bloke"), it would not have overshadowed his great music.

Some of the fan screaming in EOT was humorous but easy to ridicule. After all, is he yesteday's Adam Lambert? To this day his fan base still has that sex appeal draw to him that say, Bob Dylan fans probably never have had.

So corporate policy treats him like a sexual commodity, nothing too serious. Sad but true. It's our burden, I guess.

Don't dismiss Elvis' appeal so easily. Even by today's standards, he is still appealing AND charismatic to the female population of all ages!!!! With all of our celebrity 'stars', he still remains a very appealing person and no doubt would still illicit screams. Even when his music is sung by another band, it still emits screams. It may be a little humorous, but, in Elvis-speak, he could still 'bring it' -- maybe not 1977 Elvis, but certainly his first years until the Aloha.

For what it's worth...

I spoke about this whole JBG/EOT issue with a friend who used to work "in the biz" in the Legal department for a pretty huge distributing company that has released a slew of music DVDs and films (hint: same company that released a DVD set starring our boy Chuck.) Anyway, her opinion about this whole thing was that the official word of JBG being nixed saying "Chuck Berry was unresponsive" is typical PR phrasing. To us laymen, "unresponsive" should not be taken literally as we know the word to mean (i.e. not calling back, not responding etc). "Unresponsive" here is an umbrella term that can range in meaning from "not able to neogotiate" or "could not come to an agreement." So they chose a more PR-friendly term. She suggests that it could be possible that Chuck wanted equal if not more payment than Elvis' cut for this product.

She also mentioned how she wouldn't be surprised if "Don't Be Cruel" was specifically chosen as a replacement as a little jab at Chuck regarding this whole situation. An open hidden message, if you will. Funny, someone else here mentioned that...

Nothing earth-shattering but it gives another insight to Warner's statement about the whole thing.

All I know is I am not buying this sh*t.

I have waited for so many years to get this movie on DVD but I simply do not want this new version. I feel it is an insult. The guy who put "Don't Be Cruel" on here obviously think all Elvis fans are 89 year old grandmothers who've lost here hearing anyway and just want to see his pretty face. Well, fock that. I will watch REAL music DVDs by Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen, Neil "GOD" Young, Grateful Dead and... err, Elvis... I'm talking about "Aloha"... until they get this movie right.

Keith Richards, Jr.

http://chuckberry.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3005

Yeah, I did my best but didn't succeed so far.

All I know is I am not buying this sh*t.

I have waited for so many years to get this movie on DVD but I simply do not want this new version. I feel it is an insult. The guy who put "Don't Be Cruel" on here obviously think all Elvis fans are 89 year old grandmothers who've lost here hearing anyway and just want to see his pretty face. Well, fock that. I will watch REAL music DVDs by Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen, Neil "GOD" Young, Grateful Dead and... err, Elvis... I'm talking about "Aloha"... until they get this movie right.

Keith Richards, Jr.

Isn't that a bit too hars, Keith? To some extent I can agree that the Don't Be Cruel intro is sh*tty (perhaps it is Warner asking the fans not to be cruel to them for the "little" change and still buy their product? ) but to call the whole thing that is simply unfair. The rest of the movie is still intact, very good and exactly the same as it was back in 1972. Thus it does not deserve to be called sh*t. Warner's attitude towards Elvis may be sh*t but the film itself definitely is not.

it's possible that chuck don't own the rights of JBG anymore ....

I like Marvin Berry better

it's possible that chuck don't own the rights of JBG anymore ....

How do you figure that? He's the writer of the song aso he or his publishing company should hold the rights to the song.

tcb4 wrote:
it's possible that chuck don't own the rights of JBG anymore ....


How do you figure that? He's the writer of the song aso he or his publishing company should hold the rights to the song.

You can sel your copy rights. Didn't Elvis do this in the early 70's - sell the copy right?

Didn't Michael Jackson own the rights to many if not all of the Beatles songs?

Maybe at some point Chuck Berry needed the money and sold the copy rights to his songs.

If so, then Warner was asking the wrong person for approval to use Johnny B. Goode.


RKS

yes mccartney must ask the permission if he wants to use "yesterday"
-----

about the name of the publishing company, it is probably written on most JBG music scores

-----

Hi there!!

All I know is I am not buying this sh*t.

I have waited for so many years to get this movie on DVD but I simply do not want this new version. I feel it is an insult. The guy who put "Don't Be Cruel" on here obviously think all Elvis fans are 89 year old grandmothers who've lost here hearing anyway and just want to see his pretty face. Well, fock that. I will watch REAL music DVDs by Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen, Neil "GOD" Young, Grateful Dead and... err, Elvis... I'm talking about "Aloha"... until they get this movie right.

Keith Richards, Jr.

My friend take a look on http://www.ebay.com item nº: 110412869342 . Bye for now .

I've often felt that Elvis was a bit more ordinary (less exciting to the girls and charasmatic to men) and just an ordinatary "Joe" (or "bloke"), it would not have overshadowed his great music.
Some of the fan screaming in EOT was humorous but easy to ridicule. After all, is he yesteday's Adam Lambert? To this day his fan base still has that sex appeal draw to him that say, Bob Dylan fans probably never have had.
So corporate policy treats him like a sexual commodity, nothing too serious. Sad but true. It's our burden, I guess.

Elvis treated not any different from a female sex symbol? There is something to it if you take into account what movie parts he got. And even B.B. King said on the DVD "Elvis Presley - Classic Album" that Elvis was good and got better and better but that he would have been a success anyway because he was so handsome.

For what it's worth...

I spoke about this whole JBG/EOT issue with a friend who used to work "in the biz" in the Legal department for a pretty huge distributing company that has released a slew of music DVDs and films (hint: same company that released a DVD set starring our boy Chuck.) Anyway, her opinion about this whole thing was that the official word of JBG being nixed saying "Chuck Berry was unresponsive" is typical PR phrasing. To us laymen, "unresponsive" should not be taken literally as we know the word to mean (i.e. not calling back, not responding etc). "Unresponsive" here is an umbrella term that can range in meaning from "not able to neogotiate" or "could not come to an agreement." So they chose a more PR-friendly term. She suggests that it could be possible that Chuck wanted equal if not more payment than Elvis' cut for this product.

She also mentioned how she wouldn't be surprised if "Don't Be Cruel" was specifically chosen as a replacement as a little jab at Chuck regarding this whole situation. An open hidden message, if you will. Funny, someone else here mentioned that...

Nothing earth-shattering but it gives another insight to Warner's statement about the whole thing.

Bold added for emphasis

IMET, interesting response from your biz friend, and I had wondered about that.

That's the most plausible explanation I've heard.


I like Keith's rallying cry in one sense but it's also a bit dramatic. I"m on the fence. I think I'll wait for a copy for awhile or buy it used..but still get it.

Nikki wrote:

Don't dismiss Elvis' appeal so easily. Even by today's standards, he is still appealing AND charismatic to the female population of all ages!!!! With all of our celebrity 'stars', he still remains a very appealing person and no doubt would still illicit screams. Even when his music is sung by another band, it still emits screams. It may be a little humorous, but, in Elvis-speak, he could still 'bring it' -- maybe not 1977 Elvis, but certainly his first years until the Aloha.

I wasn't dismissing it and as a guy, I've always admired it (although the "Love Me Tender" in TTWII pushed my limits) and yes, wanted to have half of what he had.

But what I mean is that looks (sexiness, charisma, etc.) are more readily dismissed sometimes (cluelessly, I think) and can be seen at work in some commentary about, say, Buddy Holly, and yes, Chuck Berry, et al.

That is, oddly enough, his looks are seen as trivializing his talent, while a comparably more nerdy Holly is seen as somehow more authentic, which is bogus..I used to have some friends who were clearly able to embrace a Buddy Holly (and even the scruffier aspects of the Beatles or say Pink Floyd) but found Elvis' handsome/ sexuality threatening ...as in some senses they had long ago given up being 10% as cool.

Patricia, I saw that line by BB too (and he meant it well) but it comes off as a demerit, as if he was all flash with no substance. Spend too much time talking about "swiveling hips" or just random screaming (seen all through EOT) and it shifts the focus off the incredible music. As Greil Marcus once said (and quoted to some effect in a Madison release): "How does one create when all he has to do is show up"?

"Elvis!" "Elvis!" "Elvis!"

It's 2010, and Elvis is still being treated like ****.

Amazing.

Well Doc, if you look at it from the grand scheme of things, what's even more amazing is that it's 2010 and the entire world is STILL riddled with famine, disease, wars, hatred, prejudice, greed, government corruption, unemployment and crime. Go figure.

Last edited by TCB-FAN on Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's 2010, and Elvis is still being treated like ****.

Amazing.

Well Doc, if you look at it from the grand scheme of things, what's even more amazing is that it's 2010 and the entire world is STILL riddled with famine, wars, hatred, prejudice, greed, unemployment and crime. Go figure.

And, did you think those things would be resolved by now? History tells a different story.

With regards to Elvis, The Doc is spot-on.

How can this even be an issue after 52 years?

tcb4 wrote:
it's possible that chuck don't own the rights of JBG anymore ....


How do you figure that? He's the writer of the song aso he or his publishing company should hold the rights to the song.

You can sel your copy rights. Didn't Elvis do this in the early 70's - sell the copy right?

Didn't Michael Jackson own the rights to many if not all of the Beatles songs?

Maybe at some point Chuck Berry needed the money and sold the copy rights to his songs.

If so, then Warner was asking the wrong person for approval to use Johnny B. Goode.


RKS

RKS, the rights that Elvis sold back to RCA in 1973 were his recording artist royalty rights. He kept his publishing rights, which is where the real money is in the music business. But it's important to recognize that these are two different types of rights.

Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights to the Beatles music.

Chuck Berry may or may not own the rights to Johnny B. Goode (I don't know), but regarding Elvis On Tour we're talking the music publishing rights.

Pete, glad you stopped by. Would love to see you start posting more frequently.

maybe for a possible re release cash cow cough cough

This time Complete with bonus footage...........

Easter is is Johnny B Goode Intro

You know I never bought it and I am glad. VHS for me until they get it right.

You know I never bought it and I am glad. VHS for me until they get it right.

Laser disc rip for me