Video ; in 1975, Lennon talked about elvis

Well let's be honest, Elvis changed after 1960 and beyond. Parker did a fantastic job of keeping him in the spotlight over a two year period while he was in the army, but he was different after. The Colonel's influence/greatness cannot be understated during this period. Whether you agree with parkers handling of
Elvis after 1960 or not, he did a great job before Elvis went away until he came back. Unfortunately, this created dependence that Elvis would not forget afterwards.

Here's what bugs me....the argument that elvis' music and song choice/ career direction in general show that
he grew as an artist after the army. This is
often stated. However, the people that believe this often state 1968 as the next year in this growth.Growth is not a valid argument where a huge gap exists. Elvis was not growing as an artist after Elvis is Back album until 1968.He was treading water. Unfortunately the same can be said from 1972-73ish onward.


That being said, long live the king.

I am just saying, who is John Lennon to talk.

He's fricking JOHN LENNON.

End of discussion.

Who? Wasnt he a nude model?

I am just saying, who is John Lennon to talk.

He's fricking JOHN LENNON.

End of discussion.

Who? Wasnt he a nude model?

You're thinking of Matthew Stephens, writer extraordinaire .

Here's what bugs me....the argument that elvis' music and song choice/ career direction in general show that
he grew as an artist after the army. This is
often stated. However, the people that believe this often state 1968 as the next year in this growth.Growth is not a valid argument where a huge gap exists. Elvis was not growing as an artist after Elvis is Back album until 1968.He was treading water. Unfortunately the same can be said from 1972-73ish onward.


That being said, long live the king.

Well I would argue different. His growth was sometimes over shadowed by the poorer movies, but he continued to do creative work over the sixties other then just Elvis Is Back (though granted that may be his finest work ever). The lists that follow are only my opinion but I doubt that there isn't some value in everything I mention. Not all of it was peak level stuff but all show that Elvis was still trying to do different things.

The Sinatra special, His Hand In Mine, Flaming Star, Wild In The Country, Kid Galahad, the 1961 live shows, the 1961-62 singles and at least half of the studio sessions, much of the 1963 studio session, Viva Las Vegas, the 1964 studio session, most of the 1966 studio sessions, How Great Thou Art, the 1967 session, all of these showed continued growth and commitment. All in all a wonderful catalog but sadly there was a lot of average to downright poor things being done by Elvis at the time too. Still in saying that, it doesn't mean Elvis stopped cold and did nothing of value or maturity.

Even in his later years he still made attempts to do new things. After 1972 they got more and more infrequent and hampered by his depressions, addictions, and the state of his health, but he never completely gave up. Of the five and a half studio albums he cut after 1972, at least a good forty percent of the music was strong and interesting. Plus despite some ill chosen moments on and off stage Elvis still had the fine 1973 tours. The solid 1974 tours (excepting the fall), the summer gig in Vegas with the notably different and creative opener (and it remained very good the first week and stayed at least musically sound the rest of the time). Much of his live work in 1975 was above average with the July tour being excellent. As late as his last tour of 1976 there was an interesting new creative element with the piano numbers. Again from 1973-77 there were bad shows and studio cuts but again that doesn't mean he was making some sort of effort to musically challenge himself. Not a consistent effort perhaps, not always a successful effort, but an effort none the less.

I will concede that after 1961 he wasn't the head figure in rock and roll or youth culture, but that's different then no creative growth. If 1962-67 and 1973-77 did not always present Elvis at his best, I cannot say that "Elvis was not growing as an artist" at least on some level. Maybe in 1965 or 1977 you can argue that to a point, but even then there were (very) brief moments of something special.

Here's what bugs me....the argument that elvis' music and song choice/ career direction in general show that
he grew as an artist after the army. This is
often stated. However, the people that believe this often state 1968 as the next year in this growth.Growth is not a valid argument where a huge gap exists. Elvis was not growing as an artist after Elvis is Back album until 1968.He was treading water. Unfortunately the same can be said from 1972-73ish onward.


That being said, long live the king.

Well I would argue different. His growth was sometimes over shadowed by the poorer movies, but he continued to do creative work over the sixties other then just Elvis Is Back (though granted that may be his finest work ever). The lists that follow are only my opinion but I doubt that there isn't some value in everything I mention. Not all of it was peak level stuff but all show that Elvis was still trying to do different things.

The Sinatra special, His Hand In Mine, Flaming Star, Wild In The Country, Kid Galahad, the 1961 live shows, the 1961-62 singles and at least half of the studio sessions, much of the 1963 studio session, Viva Las Vegas, the 1964 studio session, most of the 1966 studio sessions, How Great Thou Art, the 1967 session, all of these showed continued growth and commitment. All in all a wonderful catalog but sadly there was a lot of average to downright poor things being done by Elvis at the time too. Still in saying that, it doesn't mean Elvis stopped cold and did nothing of value or maturity.

Even in his later years he still made attempts to do new things. After 1972 they got more and more infrequent and hampered by his depressions, addictions, and the state of his health, but he never completely gave up. Of the five and a half studio albums he cut after 1972, at least a good forty percent of the music was strong and interesting. Plus despite some ill chosen moments on and off stage Elvis still had the fine 1973 tours. The solid 1974 tours (excepting the fall), the summer gig in Vegas with the notably different and creative opener (and it remained very good the first week and stayed at least musically sound the rest of the time). Much of his live work in 1975 was above average with the July tour being excellent. As late as his last tour of 1976 there was an interesting new creative element with the piano numbers. Again from 1973-77 there were bad shows and studio cuts but again that doesn't mean he was making some sort of effort to musically challenge himself. Not a consistent effort perhaps, not always a successful effort, but an effort none the less.

I will concede that after 1961 he wasn't the head figure in rock and roll or youth culture, but that's different then no creative growth. If 1962-67 and 1973-77 did not always present Elvis at his best, I cannot say that "Elvis was not growing as an artist" at least on some level. Maybe in 1965 or 1977 you can argue that to a point, but even then there were (very) brief moments of something special.

As always, nicely stated, Mike.

The Sinatra special, His Hand In Mine, Flaming Star, Wild In The Country, Kid Galahad, the 1961 live shows, the 1961-62 singles and at least half of the studio sessions, much of the 1963 studio session, Viva Las Vegas, the 1964 studio session, most of the 1966 studio sessions, How Great Thou Art, the 1967 session, all of these showed continued growth and commitment. All in all a wonderful catalog but sadly there was a lot of average to downright poor things being done by Elvis at the time too. Still in saying that, it doesn't mean Elvis stopped cold and did nothing of value or maturity.

I'm not so sure some of those projects showed actual growth. Commitment, yes, growth, maybe not. I love Viva Las Vegas as much as the next fan, but Elvis elevates material that normally wouldn't be that noteworthy. Same can be said for Wild In The Country. Flaming Star is an admirable attempt at honing his acting craft beyond the standard formula that was in place, but again, I don't see a lot of growth. Clearly some of those recording sessions showed an artist evolving, maybe even maturing vocally. But yes, the '61/'62 singles, His Hand In Mine, the '63 sessions, the obviously the 1961 Bloch Arena show all provided highlights, some even career defining moments. One significant difference compared to what had come before in the '50s is while Elvis was still producing a prolific amount of work, the early-to-mid '60s showed a somewhat disjointed series of results.

The Sinatra special, His Hand In Mine, Flaming Star, Wild In The Country, Kid Galahad, the 1961 live shows, the 1961-62 singles and at least half of the studio sessions, much of the 1963 studio session, Viva Las Vegas, the 1964 studio session, most of the 1966 studio sessions, How Great Thou Art, the 1967 session, all of these showed continued growth and commitment. All in all a wonderful catalog but sadly there was a lot of average to downright poor things being done by Elvis at the time too. Still in saying that, it doesn't mean Elvis stopped cold and did nothing of value or maturity.

One significant difference compared to what had come before in the '50s is while Elvis was still producing a prolific amount of work, the early-to-mid '60s showed a somewhat disjointed series of results.

I agree with that completely.

Observations:

3) Had RCA professionally recorded/filmed/released the 1961 gigs at the time I suspect that the perceived opinion of the castrated post-army Elvis might be easier to deny.

I´m not sure about that. Had the ´61 gig been pro-filmed, we still would have a bright contrast between the 50´s rebel and the already more polished artist. I know there is no footage from those shows but when you compare his live 56-57 shoots with the well known 1961 live hawaiian pictures, you can "feel" that the latest are showing us a somehow different artist. I would say that in 1961, Elvis did not look like a "threatening" singer; actually it seems that he was already using those studied poses!

A milder yes but he still had it, He knew the way he sould go but mangement thought they knew better sell sell sell profit, we know how this got to him in the 60s but when given the chance to be himself 68 he was as good as ever

Here's what bugs me....the argument that elvis' music and song choice/ career direction in general show that
he grew as an artist after the army. This is
often stated. However, the people that believe this often state 1968 as the next year in this growth.Growth is not a valid argument where a huge gap exists. Elvis was not growing as an artist after Elvis is Back album until 1968.He was treading water. Unfortunately the same can be said from 1972-73ish onward.


That being said, long live the king.

Well I would argue different. His growth was sometimes over shadowed by the poorer movies, but he continued to do creative work over the sixties other then just Elvis Is Back (though granted that may be his finest work ever). The lists that follow are only my opinion but I doubt that there isn't some value in everything I mention. Not all of it was peak level stuff but all show that Elvis was still trying to do different things.

The Sinatra special, His Hand In Mine, Flaming Star, Wild In The Country, Kid Galahad, the 1961 live shows, the 1961-62 singles and at least half of the studio sessions, much of the 1963 studio session, Viva Las Vegas, the 1964 studio session, most of the 1966 studio sessions, How Great Thou Art, the 1967 session, all of these showed continued growth and commitment. All in all a wonderful catalog but sadly there was a lot of average to downright poor things being done by Elvis at the time too. Still in saying that, it doesn't mean Elvis stopped cold and did nothing of value or maturity.

Even in his later years he still made attempts to do new things. After 1972 they got more and more infrequent and hampered by his depressions, addictions, and the state of his health, but he never completely gave up. Of the five and a half studio albums he cut after 1972, at least a good forty percent of the music was strong and interesting. Plus despite some ill chosen moments on and off stage Elvis still had the fine 1973 tours. The solid 1974 tours (excepting the fall), the summer gig in Vegas with the notably different and creative opener (and it remained very good the first week and stayed at least musically sound the rest of the time). Much of his live work in 1975 was above average with the July tour being excellent. As late as his last tour of 1976 there was an interesting new creative element with the piano numbers. Again from 1973-77 there were bad shows and studio cuts but again that doesn't mean he was making some sort of effort to musically challenge himself. Not a consistent effort perhaps, not always a successful effort, but an effort none the less.

I will concede that after 1961 he wasn't the head figure in rock and roll or youth culture, but that's different then no creative growth. If 1962-67 and 1973-77 did not always present Elvis at his best, I cannot say that "Elvis was not growing as an artist" at least on some level. Maybe in 1965 or 1977 you can argue that to a point, but even then there were (very) brief moments of something special.

As always, nicely stated, Mike.

Thank you.

"after 1961 he wasn't the head figure in rock and roll"

so who was the head figure in rock and roll in 61 62 63 ?

"after 1961 he wasn't the head figure in rock and roll"

so who was the head figure in rock and roll in 61 62 63 ?

After 1961 is what I said but I guess I could say 1962. By 1963 I would say Spector, The Beach Boys, Motown was more in with say teens or young adults. He was still very big in 1963 but not 1956 or 1960 big.

He was still very big in 1963 but not 1956 or 1960 big.

'Viva Las Vegas' (1963) and 'Blue Hawaii' (1961) were his biggest box office draws so the above statement doesn't hold up.

Andy

A milder yes but he still had it, He knew the way he sould go but mangement thought they knew better sell sell sell profit, we know how this got to him in the 60s but when given the chance to be himself 68 he was as good as ever

Yep. Dig that r-rated (original lyrics) version of "One Night" at the Hawaii benefit. Castrated? I don't think so!

He was still very big in 1963 but not 1956 or 1960 big.

'Viva Las Vegas' (1963) and 'Blue Hawaii' (1961) were his biggest box office draws so the above statement doesn't hold up.

Andy

As I stated twice before I strongly think Elvis was the biggest thing going in 1961. Viva Las Vegas was shot in 1963 but did not come out until 1964. It was huge at the movies, but Elvis was no longer seen by the majority of young people as the most central figure in rock and roll. He still had many loyal fans but the year 1964 was not defined by Elvis Presley it was defined by The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys etc. His LP's did fine but he for the first time since 1955 did not have a top ten Bilboard single. Facts are facts Elvis was not selling as many records or leading a generation by 1963-64. He continued to make fine music, some better then ever before, but the revolutionary effect he had on modern society was over by the mid sixties or at least not generated by his current work.

I am a big defender of Elvis after the army as my posts in this thread should tell you but history is history. Frankly I think Elvis' best work in many ways was from 1968-70 and I think his music of that era was better then many of those who were then seen as hip. Still what Elvis did from 1954-61 or 62 had an added element sociologically.

To give you one more example. Bob Dylan did some great studio work from 1997-2007 ranking among his best. Yet i don't think anyone can say he was the icon of that era in the way he was in the sixties.

Elvis set the benchmark for all those that came after. Remember that it was 'The Beatles' who wanted to meet Elvis in the mid 60's.

Chart achievements for the singles were still Top 20 with the albums going Top 10 and a Number 1 on Billboard with the 'Roustabout' soundtrack in 1964.

Andy

Andy that's all true but Elvis was not a catalyst for the social changes that took place at the time. Elvis' career was not what it had been, nor what it would be later, in the mid sixties. He was a legend no doubt, but I don't think it was because of the work he was doing by 1964. He was always "ELVIS", but he's not the leading rock and roll icon of the mid sixties.

Mike I do understand where you are coming from but in the mid 60's Elvis was still the icon many adhered to.

Andy

Did Elvis change after he came out of the Army? Yes

What was the cause of this change? His mother's death? Or more than that?

While I have no doubt that his mother's death played a large part in the changes in Elvis after his Army discharge, I also think that being in a foreign country, serving your country, being around unfamiliar situations can and will broaden your scope as a human being. Most people who were drafted and served today would say that the U.S. needs to reinstate the military draft, as it taught many young men discipline. I think the Colonel realized that Elvis needed discipline in his life, and that's why he didn't put up much fight in keeping Elvis from being shipped off to some foreign country.

Listening to some of the dialogues from Elvis' 1969 Las Vegas engagement, he makes reference to his Army years with the "motherf*cker" jokes, and later going up to Hollywood directors and making the same comments. No way does Elvis Presley in 1958 go up to Michael Curtiz and call him a "motherf*cker." After Elvis got out of the Army, he felt as if he had earned the respect of his elders, which is what he attained for. Therefore, he could go up to Norman Taurog in 1961 and jokingly call him a "mottherf*cker" and Norman probably wouldn't have liked it, but probably wouldn't have admonished him about it either.

Daryl

Listening to some of the dialogues from Elvis' 1969 Las Vegas engagement, he makes reference to his Army years with the "motherf*cker" jokes, and later going up to Hollywood directors and making the same comments. No way does Elvis Presley in 1958 go up to Michael Curtiz and call him a "motherf*cker." After Elvis got out of the Army, he felt as if he had earned the respect of his elders, which is what he attained for. Therefore, he could go up to Norman Taurog in 1961 and jokingly call him a "mottherf*cker" and Norman probably wouldn't have liked it, but probably wouldn't have admonished him about it either.

Daryl

Did Elvis really walk up to the directors of his 60's films and actually call anyone jokingly or not a motherf$$ker.
or was he just making a joke and making that up.

Observations:

3) Had RCA professionally recorded/filmed/released the 1961 gigs at the time I suspect that the perceived opinion of the castrated post-army Elvis might be easier to deny.

I´m not sure about that. Had the ´61 gig been pro-filmed, we still would have a bright contrast between the 50´s rebel and the already more polished artist.

Bright contrast? Elvis might have come off as having improved on what he did in the 1950s. This is what biographer Jerry Hopkins wrote about the momentous 1961 show:

Glowing praise came from Peter Guralnick in his biography Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley. "Even with the very poorest home recorder-quality sound, you have only to listen to the tape of the performance that has survived to sense the energy that was coming off the stage, to get a whiff of the ferocity of feeling that the music unleashed ... here is a sheer joyousness, a guttural exuberance of expression that refuses to be denied.

"By now the band had been playing together off and on for just over four weeks and Elvis eggs them on with an enthusiasm not just for what they are able to do, but for what they permit hims to do. Again and again he urges guitarist Hank Garland to solo, indicating his appreciation with grunts and exclamations that have nothing to do with the audience. The music crests and surges with an impulse all its own, and Elvis calls for Hank to solo again, he demands another sax solo from Boots, he forgets the words, even loses the structure of the song, but embraces the moment with pure, uninhibited feeling. To Boots it was 'one of the highlights' of his life, and to Jordanaire Gordon Stoker, who had worked with Elvis steadily since 1956, there was a spontaneity to his performance that most closely resembled a man being let out of jail."

Gordon Stoker recalled that at one point Elvis feel to his knees and slid twenty feet to the front of the stage with the microphone in his hands, never missing a note. "We thought he was going right off the edge," he said. "Ray Walker was so surprised, he didn't come in harmonically where he was supposed to. He just stood there with his mouth open, and nothing was coming out."

Jerry Hopkins, Elvis In Hawaii (Honolulu: Bess Press, 2002)

By 1963 I would say Spector, the Beach Boys, Motown was more in with say teens or young adults. He was still very big in 1963 but not 1956 or 1960 big.

This is absolutely correct. Kids were already seeing Elvis, making movie after movie, as someone out of touch with their lives. After the 1964 "British Invasion," and Presley's abdication of creating worthwhile music, it would take years for him to regain any foothold in the pop world.

People like Lennon didn't understand Elvis and did not want to him to change. Even though john did not want to stay the same as he was during his beatle years. It's hypocritical. Elvis matured as a artist. He ventured outside of Rock n roll and people didn't like that. Although Elvis himself liked it.

Listening to some of the dialogues from Elvis' 1969 Las Vegas engagement, he makes reference to his Army years with the "motherf*cker" jokes, and later going up to Hollywood directors and making the same comments. No way does Elvis Presley in 1958 go up to Michael Curtiz and call him a "motherf*cker." After Elvis got out of the Army, he felt as if he had earned the respect of his elders, which is what he attained for. Therefore, he could go up to Norman Taurog in 1961 and jokingly call him a "mottherf*cker" and Norman probably wouldn't have liked it, but probably wouldn't have admonished him about it either.

Daryl

Did Elvis really walk up to the directors of his 60's films and actually call anyone jokingly or not a motherf$$ker.
or was he just making a joke and making that up.

I think that was a joke, that said, IIRC, Lamar Fike, did say,in revelations I believe, that he (Lamar) was "told off" on set one day by a crew member, and Elvis stood up for him and tore into the crew member, calling him a mother fu*ker etc... perhaps Elvis was recalling of that incident ?

I dont see what all the fuss is about when it comes to Lennon, he loved Elvis pre army and didnt enjoy the stuff after. He is not the only one and if he was still alive today I have no doubt he would still be listening to Hound Dog but not Wooden Heart. I honestly believe he loved that early stuff as much as any of us on here.

I dont see what all the fuss is about when it comes to Lennon, he loved Elvis pre army and didnt enjoy the stuff after. He is not the only one and if he was still alive today I have no doubt he would still be listening to Hound Dog but not Wooden Heart. I honestly believe he loved that early stuff as much as any of us on here.

Right

John Lennon was entitled to that opinion.

Some agree while others do not agree.

People have all kinds of different opinions about Elvis, but i've never seen anyone else's opinion about Elvis talked about and debated as much as Lennon's is.

No one ever discusses B.B. King's opinion about Elvis.