Video ; in 1975, Lennon talked about elvis

[midnightx]

His treatment by Hollywood? He was a reclusive figure. It isn't as if he was actively pursuing relationships and opportunities to get involved with certain producers, directors and writers. He had a manager locking him into low-budget, b-level movies. He got what his manager negotiated for.

[TkoTzer]

Elvis' change after the army is so difficult to completely understand. In fact, an entire book could be written about these years. In a way, you can't blame him for changing into the artist he became. He went to the military, without a doubt matured and understandably lost a bit of that rebel flair. He didn't need to blaze trails anymore.

Unfortunately, we wanted him to still be a trend setter. But he embraced a lot of crappy music. Clambake (in 1967 non the less) is a prime example. The majority of the 60s up to the Comeback are unfulfilling. Yes he had his moments, and he probably was on top until '62....but he became vanilla and the Beatles and numerous other artists picked up the slack in the years that followed. I once again say that growth was not occuring. He made good tunes every now and then but it wasn't the same.

[Tornado]

Once in the movie business, Elvis was really caught in a trap. Lennon is right, Elvis was under the influence of Colonel Parker and followed the "rules", one of them was don't make any waves, do not shock people anymore, be a nice boy, well ,at least look that way. Money seems to be the only rule at the end. Redo the same stuff a zillion times and stay rich, he forgot that being that way you become dumb too and loose the focus on your real talent. Still he did great things after 1960. his voice had really improved and got richer and deeper.

[eligain]

I really think it was the death of his mother. Not only from the loss of the closest person to him but from the loss of his true guidance.

Gladys is said to have not trusted the Colonel and I don't think he would have become so under his thumb if she had lived. She allowed him to be independent and with her gone, he gave total control over to the Colonel.

[jeanno]

I don´t think it has to do with his Mother´s death. It was more about following Parker´s idea of becoming "something for everybody". No need anymore to be the Rockin´ rebel after his return from the army.

[epf]

I don´t think it has to do with his Mother´s death. It was more about following Parker´s idea of becoming "something for everybody". No need anymore to be the Rockin´ rebel after his return from the army.

I DO think it has also with his mother's death. Such events change you as a person, certainly if the relationship was close. These happenings are known as life events and they usually do have their consequences. Look at this page for a bit more explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes_and_Rahe_stress_scale

If you look at the list of life events and you take that into account to what happened in 1958 (his mother's death, his stint in the army, moving away from home and to another country, his career taken away from him) it is no wonder that he got lost. It is a miracle he survived all these life changing occurrences, especially because it all happened in an very short time span. Elvis must have had a very strong personality because what happened to him are really events that shock you to the core of your personality.

These years really do deserve a good book, because what happened in 1958 changed Elvis and his career for the remainder of his life.

[stupot]

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

He's fricking JOHN LENNON.

End of discussion.

Err... not really. It's blind admiration like that that clouds all rational objectivity.

Lennon often talked absolute rubbish!! He got involved with things that he didnt understand and about which he should have kept his mouth shut and his opinions to himself. In that regard he really could have learned a lot from Elvis.

[drjohncarpenter]

He got involved with things that he didnt understand and about which he should have kept his mouth shut and his opinions to himself. In that regard he really could have learned a lot from Elvis.

It seems this is a lesson you need to learn as well.

[bquick]

One can't completely blame the army or the death of his mother...some of his finest work came upon his return, EIB and the hit singles from that sessions. It was more his accepting what Parker signed him up for and not complaining as the quality dropped...gradually at first then worse as the decade went on. And to be fair to Parker...Elvis happily took the cash that came with bad movies and soundtracks.

[midnightx]

And to be fair to Parker...Elvis happily took the cash that came with bad movies and soundtracks.

That is a flawed argument. Why wouldn't he take the money? His manager secured the motion picture contracts; Elvis was paid to perform regardless of the quality. What is the point you are trying to make? That Elvis should have breached his contract with the studio to take a stand against substandard film work?

[stupot]

He got involved with things that he didnt understand and about which he should have kept his mouth shut and his opinions to himself. In that regard he really could have learned a lot from Elvis.

It seems this is a lesson you need to learn as well.

I've done my learning and much of it the hard way as you might imagine after reading my objective and perfectly valid assessment. At least you agree with me which is a start.

Of course we are never to old to learn and clearly you would benefit from a lesson or two in manners, not to mention one in how to remove those psychedelic, rose tinted, Beatle worshiping glasses that have been blurring your view for as long as life itself (or so it seems).

[stupot]

And to be fair to Parker...Elvis happily took the cash that came with bad movies and soundtracks.

That Elvis should have breached his contract with the studio to take a stand against substandard film work?

Now that would have been interesting!! Had that happened, he may have still been here today!

[epf]

One can't completely blame the army or the death of his mother...some of his finest work came upon his return, EIB and the hit singles from that sessions. It was more his accepting what Parker signed him up for and not complaining as the quality dropped...gradually at first then worse as the decade went on. And to be fair to Parker...Elvis happily took the cash that came with bad movies and soundtracks.

I don't think 'blame' is the right word. But as i wrote in my previous message i do think that what happened to Elvis in 1958 made him lost. And i do think that once he got lost he took the things that Parker did and advised, he subduedly took: he did not have a point of reference anymore so he probably happily took the advise from Parker.

The change did not happen in 1960 or just because of the death of his mother. But all the things combined broke the rebel spirit in Elvis.
It came back to life in the later 60's and he tried once more in 1973. But the courage was gone, long gone.

[drjohncarpenter]

He got involved with things that he didnt understand and about which he should have kept his mouth shut and his opinions to himself. In that regard he really could have learned a lot from Elvis.

It seems this is a lesson you need to learn as well.

I've done my learning ...

Actually, your comments on this page alone indicate you have a long, long way to go regarding both knowledge and civility, "stupot."

[bquick]

And to be fair to Parker...Elvis happily took the cash that came with bad movies and soundtracks.

That is a flawed argument. Why wouldn't he take the money? His manager secured the motion picture contracts; Elvis was paid to perform regardless of the quality. What is the point you are trying to make? That Elvis should have breached his contract with the studio to take a stand against substandard film work?

Nothing that extreme. Did he ever even complain directly to Parker about the scripts or songs? Or Hal Wallis? Could he have threatened to not sign further picture deals when he was still a major bankable star if things didn't change? How about a rolling stone interview stating he loved making movies but they won't let him do the kind of flicks or tunes he wanted to. Or yes, perhaps refuse to do certain songs...ask for new ones to be commissioned. These acts may not be Elvis' style, and I understand that. But he was taking the cash, doing these movies, and never really making much of a stink. Perhaps he could even have done some legit albums or a tour to at least keep himself musically relevant while doing the movies as "escapes," which the fans would have been fine with had he also been putting out great music and tours. Far fetched? Sure. But I would have liked him to DO SOMETHING as he was watching his entire career go down the drain.

[midnightx]

Breach a performance contract? I haven't seen that suggestion made by many here.

[bquick]

And to be fair, that is not what I am suggesting. Just, fight the good fight....for his career.

[ekenee]

The one thing a manager is supposed to do, is make deals that are in the best interest of the client.

I think Parker sometimes made deals that were of more interest to him, and instead of benefiting Elvis,
it harmed his career.

[EPA4368]

Lennon was a big Elvis fan! He was right, Elvis did change after the army. John also said many times, "If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been the Beatles." What more can he say how he felt about Elvis? For me, that's sums it up.

[monkboughtlunch]

Lennon was a big Elvis fan! He was right, Elvis did change after the army. John also said many times, "If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been the Beatles." What more can he say how he felt about Elvis? For me, that's sums it up.

Lennon loved Elvis. He even wore an Elvis pin to the 1975 Grammy Awards.



During John's 1972 performance at Madison Square Garden, he says "Elvis, I love ya." during a rendition of Hound Dog. Click here to see it (it occurs at 2:45 into the clip):

..

Lennon acknowledges the late 60s comeback. But I think John felt Elvis was overproduced by Jarvis in the 70s and did too many soundtracks in the 60s. Even a lot of the early 60s Nashville stuff, as great as it was, had a "countrypolitan" undercurrent. There is a print interview circa 1975 that Lennon gave in which he stated he wanted to produce an Elvis Presley record. Lennon wanted Elvis to ROCK again. Lennon also communicated this message to Elvis in the fabled 1965 Beatles/Elvis meeting.

[elvisalisellers]

Lennon was a big Elvis fan! He was right, Elvis did change after the army. John also said many times, "If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been the Beatles." What more can he say how he felt about Elvis? For me, that's sums it up.

Lennon loved Elvis. He even wore an Elvis pin to the 1975 Grammy Awards.



During John's 1972 performance at Madison Square Garden, he says "Elvis, I love ya." during a rendition of Hound Dog. Click here to see it (it occurs at 2:45 into the clip):

..

Lennon acknowledges the late 60s comeback. But I think John felt Elvis was overproduced by Jarvis in the 70s and did too many soundtracks in the 60s. Even a lot of the early 60s Nashville stuff, as great as it was, had a "countrypolitan" undercurrent. There is a print interview circa 1975 that Lennon gave in which he stated he wanted to produce an Elvis Presley record. Lennon wanted Elvis to ROCK again. Lennon also communicated this message to Elvis in the fabled 1965 Beatles/Elvis meeting.

That John Lennon loved Elvis is indisputable. What Elvis thought of him is up for debate. Some say he despised his anti-war/anti-american stance [if this is true u have to ask yourself why Elvis loved and recognised how exceptional a person Muhammad Ali is]. Others including Larry Gellar have stated Lennon was easily Elvis' favourite of The Beatles as he loved his sense of humour and sharp wit [it's well known Elvis was a great fan of British humour]. Gellar even goes on to say [in his original book] that Elvis told him [Gellar] he had been in touch with John and had a hand in Lennon's stay of approval in America in the mid-70's !!!!!!!!!!!! Many people of Lennon's generation have that same stance regarding Elvis' career as they lived through it all first hand, later generations can see the wider picture and because of that are possibly not as dismissive or critical of Elvis. Whatever the case, it's a damn shame Elvis And John never became friends as those with a little knowledge will know how similar both actually were. Amen

[epf]

Dangerous words to post around here. Remember, we're supposed to portray Elvis as a feeble minded idiot who couldn't make up his mind about anything without the Colonel's guidance. Sarcasm aside, I appreciate your insightful post. We often talk about 1976/77 as being the low points in Elvis' life, but 1958 was a terrible time for him to live through.

Thank you for recognizing this.

Some FECC-ers rock!!!

[kajsa89]

A bit hard to listen to Lennon behind the French translation, - but I found his view on the development and work of The Beatles to be a lot more interesting than his views on Elvis! I guess the reason is that I was already familiar, basically, with his view on Elvis (as I assume most, if not all, of YOU all are). While I hadn´t heard/read the stuff about The Beatles´ songwriting before.

Plus, It was a thrill just to see/hear Lennon LIVE this way!! 1980....how sad a fate. While not actually a Beatles fan, I sort of payed my respect for a moment or two outside the Dakota in 2003 (was in NYC for a Springsteen show at Giants). The Band sang something like "I can´t take the way he sings, but I love to hear him talk". I love Lennon in both those respects, - I find him very worthwhile to listen to, - "most of the time" (credit to Bob there).

[midnightx]

A bit hard to listen to Lennon behind the French translation, - but I found his view on the development and work of The Beatles to be a lot more interesting than his views on Elvis! I guess the reason is that I was already familiar, basically, with his view on Elvis (as I assume most, if not all, of YOU all are). While I hadn´t heard/read the stuff about The Beatles´ songwriting before.

Plus, It was a thrill just to see/hear Lennon LIVE this way!! 1980....how sad a fate. While not actually a Beatles fan, I sort of payed my respect for a moment or two outside the Dakota in 2003 (was in NYC for a Springsteen show at Giants). The Band sang something like "I can´t take the way he sings, but I love to hear him talk". I love Lennon in both those respects, - I find him very worthwhile to listen to, - "most of the time" (credit to Bob there).

I had a chance to go inside the Dakota a few years ago when I went to a party at an apartment in the building. It was pretty wild thinking of Lennon's presence there.

[kajsa89]

And to be fair to Parker...Elvis happily took the cash that came with bad movies and soundtracks.

That is a flawed argument. Why wouldn't he take the money? His manager secured the motion picture contracts; Elvis was paid to perform regardless of the quality. What is the point you are trying to make? That Elvis should have breached his contract with the studio to take a stand against substandard film work?

Many here actually suggest that this IS what Elvis should've done.

We know how Elvis´ life story developed and ended....we know he had QUITE a career (to say the very least)...BUT in the post-army days they were facing the challenge of keeping his career (and Parker´s..) alive. It was not THAT long ago that Elvis and his folks hardly had enough food on the table and proper housing! They had to try to survive in the music/ pop market, and we should not at all be surprised that the DOLLAR had the priority. If Elvis´records and movies and flopped several years in a row, do you guys think Vernon - and also Elvis - would have said, like, "oh, it doesn´t matter, as long as we are doing artistically brilliant stuff"?? (saying now, for the sake of argument, that they actually WERE. Apart from Elvis Is Back, they were NOT)
Meeting The British Invasion, Elvis for sure lead a risky professional life, one I guess he actually barely "survived", having to find a solution to sell again.

I guess what I want to say is: It is so easy to judge management decisions in HINDSIGHT, - but incredibly much harder to make the better decisions when facing the unknown (= the future).
I have fought to grasp how come Parker wanted a damn CHRISTMAS special in 1968, instead of what the world got, why he really opposed what in retrospect seems like an infinitely better idea for a show??! However, there IS a chance the June 1969 context in the USA made a christmas show seem a perfectly good money-making idea!!? I don´t know much about that, - but believe I have read that christmas shows were pretty popular mainstream entertainment back then??
Anyone here OLD enough to share some recollections of the TV show tastes back then in the USA?

Hindsight...so easy
Going for ARTISTIC quality over money-making; so much easier if one has enough and have no fear of lack of cash. I at least assume so.
I don´t know how it feels like not having to consider the cash flow for the expenses life brings.
Elvis and Vernon knew how both situations felt like; the bounty and the budget life.