Video ; in 1975, Lennon talked about elvis

Lennon producing Presley would've been cool., especially if it meant Elvis recorded some of John's songs. Elvis doing "Whatever Gets You Through the Night"? "It's So Hard"? "Tight A$"? I'd love to hear him singing "God"..."I don't believe in Parker....I don't believe in Weintraub...I don't believe in Priscilla....I just believe in me....Linda and me...and Sheila...and Ginger... and Joyce...."

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!!!

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).

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.

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.

kajsa89, point well taken. The bottom line, is that it is difficult for artists to control the direction of their careers and specifically, align themselves with appropriate film projects. Yes, Elvis was a huge star and a sizeable box office draw - but really only a sizeable box office draw for a particular kind of film. There is no guarantee that Elvis would have been given access to a multitude of quality scripts had he taken a position that he would take less money and secondary billing. That is a tough gamble to make, particularly when there are few guarantees it will pan out. Tom Parker locked Elvis into lucrative film contracts. Yes, they were not the ultimate direction Elvis himself had dreamed of or envisioned, but they did allow him to work in Hollywood and be handsomely paid. What if Elvis was a substandard actor in a relevant, mainstream film? The work would have dried up. As much as we demand and dreamed of artistic credibility from Elvis on the silver screen, can anyone truly blame him for taking the money? He lost a portion of one decade to these films, not a lifetime. The real problem was Tom Parker turning down opportunities in relevant films. If anything, A Star Is Born would have potentially ushered in a new era of film work for Elvis had he been able to pull off a convincing performance. Again, on some level, there is nothing wrong with Parker maximizing profits from a particular kind of film role that his artist had a mastery of, but at the same time, there was no reason to keep that narrow scope of work the only vehicle for his star, particularly when other kinds of projects were presented as attractive alternatives from time to time.

kajsa89, point well taken. The bottom line, is that it is difficult for artists to control the direction of their careers and specifically, align themselves with appropriate film projects. Yes, Elvis was a huge star and a sizeable box office draw - but really only a sizeable box office draw for a particular kind of film. There is no guarantee that Elvis would have been given access to a multitude of quality scripts had he taken a position that he would take less money and secondary billing. That is a tough gamble to make, particularly when there are few guarantees it will pan out. Tom Parker locked Elvis into lucrative film contracts. Yes, they were not the ultimate direction Elvis himself had dreamed of or envisioned, but they did allow him to work in Hollywood and be handsomely paid. What if Elvis was a substandard actor in a relevant, mainstream film? The work would have dried up. As much as we demand and dreamed of artistic credibility from Elvis on the silver screen, can anyone truly blame him for taking the money? He lost a portion of one decade to these films, not a lifetime. The real problem was Tom Parker turning down opportunities in relevant films. If anything, A Star Is Born would have potentially ushered in a new era of film work for Elvis had he been able to pull off a convincing performance. Again, on some level, there is nothing wrong with Parker maximizing profits from a particular kind of film role that his artist had a mastery of, but at the same time, there was no reason to keep that narrow scope of work the only vehicle for his star, particularly when other kinds of projects were presented as attractive alternatives from time to time.

Well said x. Just wondering if the Colonel had any idea that creatively stifling Elvis was hurting him, or if he even cared.

I don't think he cared about Elvis' creative goals, nor do I think he ever bothered to find out what they truly were.

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!!!

Why thank you, thank you very much, you're very kind. Nice to be appreciated once in a while.

X, thanks for taking the time to make that interesting reply! I agree.

Sadly, 'a portion of a decade' is a significant part when one dies at 42...
In a normal life span, it is no huge big deal. Like, i can think of perhaps smarter ways i couldhave used ca half of the 90's. But it is no big deal.

Yep, it is one of elvis' tragedies - or less fortunate circumstances- that he apparently had a manager who ONLY cared about the dollar and not ONE BIT(?) of challenge (except those 'first' stunts) and keeping elvis NOT bored.

X, thanks for taking the time to make that interesting reply! I agree.

Sadly, 'a portion of a decade' is a significant part when one dies at 42...
In a normal life span, it is no huge big deal. Like, i can think of perhaps smarter ways i couldhave used ca half of the 90's. But it is no big deal.

Yep, it is one of elvis' tragedies - or less fortunate circumstances- that he apparently had a manager who ONLY cared about the dollar and not ONE BIT(?) of challenge (except those 'first' stunts) and keeping elvis NOT bored.

Yes, i agree. But Elvis was content with Parker, at least up to this point, referring to him as 'genius'. So Elvis himself is also an important factor in this. I would not rule that factor out.

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.

And we have a right to our opinions on John's opinion on Elvis. Which was wrong.

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.

But he said Elvis changed in a negative way. Which is where his opinion is flawed. And to say he had his balls chopped off is way over the top.

And to say he had his balls chopped off is way over the top.

It is a bit excessive, but imagine having one of your biggest influences on your musical life and career return to action after being away in the army, only to shortly thereafter start starring in an endless string of lightweight musical comedies along with churning out songs like Do The Clam. It had to have been devastating. Lennon was a loud, abrasive, vocal kind of guy. He said what he was feeling at that moment. And let’s face it, even though Elvis returned to form in ‘68/’69, that again probably only seemed like a blip on the radar screen considering by 1975, Lennon had seen numerous substandard albums from Elvis line the album shelves at record shops. It isn’t just about Elvis not being a “rocker,” it had something to do with the fact that Elvis wasn’t a vital, important recording artist – something he clearly had the talent to be.

Who is Mr. Lennon or anyone for that matter to judge Elvis decline in popularity & health after 1969 ? Rather a callous statement I say.

And we have a right to our opinions on John's opinion on Elvis. Which was wrong.

Don't think so! The reaction of some here makes it clear Lennon's comments struck a chord.

But he said Elvis changed in a negative way. Which is where his opinion is flawed.

No, your opinion is flawed.

The facts are irrefutable: most of the material created, for example, between 1964 and 1967 is horrible.

1964
Studio Session
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640112.htm
Roustabout
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640302.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640429.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640514.htm
Girl Happy
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640610.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640615.htm


1965
Harum Scarum
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650224.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650309.htm
Frankie and Johnny
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650512.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650519.htm
Paradise, Hawaiian Style
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650726.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650802.htm

1966
Spinout
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660216.htm
Studio Session
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660525.htm
Studio Session
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660612.htm
Double Trouble
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660628.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660629.htm
Easy Come, Easy Go
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660928.htm

1967
Clambake
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s670221.htm
Speedway
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s670620.htm
Studio Session
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s670910.htm
Stay Away Joe
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s671001.htm

And to say he had his balls chopped off is way over the top.

The above evidence shows John's observation, although brusque, was actually right on the money.

Sorry...

That is a helluva bad stretch of recordings there. We as fans can look at the few great tracks, as well as the HGTA sessions, but there is no doubt the listed recordings can't hold a candle to the 50s Elvis that Lennon loved. I do wish he had given more credence to the 68 comeback, which was sublime and wonderful...and, oh yeah, rocked.

And we have a right to our opinions on John's opinion on Elvis. Which was wrong.

Don't think so! The reaction of some here makes it clear Lennon's comments struck a chord.

But he said Elvis changed in a negative way. Which is where his opinion is flawed.

No, your opinion is flawed.

The facts are irrefutable: most of the material created, for example, between 1964 and 1967 is horrible.

1964
Studio Session
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640112.htm
Roustabout
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640302.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640429.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640514.htm
Girl Happy
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640610.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s640615.htm


1965
Harum Scarum
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650224.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650309.htm
Frankie and Johnny
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650512.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650519.htm
Paradise, Hawaiian Style
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650726.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s650802.htm

1966
Spinout
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660216.htm
Studio Session
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660525.htm
Studio Session
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660612.htm
Double Trouble
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660628.htm
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660629.htm
Easy Come, Easy Go
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s660928.htm

1967
Clambake
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s670221.htm
Speedway
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s670620.htm
Studio Session
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s670910.htm
Stay Away Joe
http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s671001.htm

And to say he had his balls chopped off is way over the top.

The above evidence shows John's observation, although brusque, was actually right on the money.

Sorry...

The naysayers should know by now that on this board John Lennon's word on Elvis is right on the money and can't be disputed.

Just out of curiousity i wonder what John Lennon thought of Ricky Nelson's and Jerry Lee Lewis' later recordings.

From what i've heard Lennon was a fan of Jerry Lee's 50's rock n' roll material and he liked Ricky Nelson's early stuff.

I wonder if he liked Jerry Lee's country & western material or Ricky Nelson's country rock stuff.
or even if he was aware that they were making those recordings.

I wonder if he would dislike it like he did with Elvis' later recordings.

Of course if Lennon did dislike Jerry Lee Lewis or Ricky Nelson's later material i'm sure it would make their fans take a second look at the artistic value of them.

Several of the rock stars from the 1960's blast Elvis' post army work but i'm genuinely curious as to what they thought of the later material of the other rock n' roll pioneers.

That is a helluva bad stretch of recordings there. We as fans can look at the few great tracks, as well as the HGTA sessions, but there is no doubt the listed recordings can't hold a candle to the 50s Elvis that Lennon loved. I do wish he had given more credence to the 68 comeback, which was sublime and wonderful...and, oh yeah, rocked.

Absolutely right.

Had John not been brutally killed in 1980, one imagines he would have loved these DVDs:

Elvis '56: In the Beginning (Lightyear Video, September 2000)
Elvis: The Ed Sullivan Shows (Image Entertainment, November 2006) - 3 disc set
Elvis: The '68 Comeback Special (BMG Marketing, June 2004) - 3 disc set

My memory may be off on his but thinking of John's comments about Elvis, wasn't that a little strange because didn't John talk about the early Beatle stuff as kind of teenybopper type material and he had grown up past all that, which meant that he
himself changed and wasn't stuck back in time.

And more importantly, the Beatles visited Elvis right in the middle of Elvis' artistic-suicide period, but their jamming
more than likely did not include, "Harem Holiday", "She's a machine", or "It's carnival time".

And I wonder what John thought of Elvis' more contemporary adult material such as,

"Kentucky Rain"
"In the ghetto"
"True love travels on a gravel road"
or "Don't cry daddy".

Not the same old 50's Elvis, but a more mature Elvis.

My guess is, he must have appreciated what Elvis was doing during the late 60's and early 70's.

My memory may be off on his but thinking of John's comments about Elvis, wasn't that a little strange because didn't John talk about the early Beatle stuff as kind of teenybopper type material and he had grown up past all that, which meant that he
himself changed and wasn't stuck back in time.

While The Beatles delivered a few clunkers, never did they venture into "Smorgasboard" or "This Is Our Dance" territory. They evolved into a mature, skilled, highly creative unit. Now, if you want to lay into some of Paul's solo mishaps, that is another discussion.

And I wonder what John thought of Elvis' more contemporary adult material such as,

"Kentucky Rain"
"In the ghetto"
"True love travels on a gravel road"
or "Don't cry daddy".

Not the same old 50's Elvis, but a more mature Elvis.

My guess is, he must have appreciated what Elvis was doing during the late 60's and early 70's.

The quality of the material and the performances are without a doubt obvious, but some of that material is rooted in a soft, soulful adult contemporary vibe. That being said, I already stated that it is more than likely even the highlights from this short span of recordings seemed like a blip on the screen based on the sheer volume of substandard albums and material released between Love Letters and Today.

Not sure how accurate this is but a former Tom Jones press agent claims Elvis disliked Lennon in this article: "Girls, guns and why Tom Jones and Elvis BOTH wanted to beat up John Lennon"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... z1JGqVOnK6

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... ennon.html

His dislike of the pacifist Beatle was born from the night I took the Fab Four to his house for their first — and last — meeting.

John had annoyed Presley by making his anti-war feelings known the moment he stepped into the massive lounge and spotted the table lamps — model wagons engraved with the message: ‘All the way with LBJ.’ Lennon hated President Lyndon B Johnson for raising the stakes in the Vietnam War.

Presley allied himself with the FBI director Edgar Hoover and encouraged him to have Lennon thrown out of the U.S.

‘He should’ve been kicked out long ago,’ Elvis told Tom that night. ‘I had a run-in with him myself,’ Tom said. He made some smart remark at a TV studios in England, where we were appearing on the show Thank Your Lucky Stars. I wanted to take him outside and see what sort of hiding his intellect would stand.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... z1JGoiwO8y

My memory may be off on his but thinking of John's comments about Elvis, wasn't that a little strange because didn't John talk about the early Beatle stuff as kind of teenybopper type material and he had grown up past all that, which meant that he
himself changed and wasn't stuck back in time.

While The Beatles delivered a few clunkers, never did they venture into "Smorgasboard" or "This Is Our Dance" territory. They evolved into a mature, skilled, highly creative unit. Now, if you want to lay into some of Paul's solo mishaps, that is another discussion.

And I wonder what John thought of Elvis' more contemporary adult material such as,

"Kentucky Rain"
"In the ghetto"
"True love travels on a gravel road"
or "Don't cry daddy".

Not the same old 50's Elvis, but a more mature Elvis.

My guess is, he must have appreciated what Elvis was doing during the late 60's and early 70's.

The quality of the material and the performances are without a doubt obvious, but some of that material is rooted in a soft, soulful adult contemporary vibe. That being said, I already stated that it is more than likely even the highlights from this short span of recordings seemed like a blip on the screen based on the sheer volume of substandard albums and material released between Love Letters and Today.

On both accounts you missed my point.
It's not what you or I thought of the songs, it's what John Lennon thought of the material, all the while saying Elvis
had changed. I was trying to get into how and why John would make such statements knowing full well, that
he himself dismissed his early material.

John had some artistic low points and put out some crap too. "Sometime in New York City" (1972) is a pile of agitprop rubbish that Lennon later disowned. One review called it "Proletariat Politics at a Bourgeois Price" (due to it being a pricey double album with superfluous Frank Zappa jams that Lennon tried to copyright himself). I believe the Rolling Stone called STINYC "artistic suicide" or something to that effect. "Mind Games," "Walls & Bridges" Lps both find Lennon penning a few great songs and a bunch of mediocre craftsmanlike potboiler ones. His 1980 recordings and demos are a promising return to form, however.

While Jarvis did snow Elvis under with some heavy handed 70s production approaches replete with string and horn overdubs, Elvis' main problem during this period was the monkey on his back.

John had some artistic low points and put out some crap too.

I don't think anyone would objectively argue otherwise.