How would you manage elvis after 1969

[Elvisfan10]

He liked playing in Las Vegas at first, but after a while he grew tired of it and didn't want to do it anymore. Col. Parker most likely did a lot of string pulling behind Elvis' back to keep him in Vegas even though Elvis wanted out. Sure at first it was great because Elvis wanted to try Vegas again after what happened the first time he was there, but to stay there wasn't a good move at all. Personally, Elvis and Vegas did not mix and he wasn't meant for a place like that to begin with. I think it was very apparent after doing the same shows over and over. I think he became increasingly bored. I bet you that Col. Parker kept Elvis in the dark about touring and his plans for live performances. Of course his “inner-circle” would say the constent Las Vegas shows were great and that it was a good career move, they were all suck ups!

[midnightx]

He liked playing in Las Vegas at first, but after a while he grew tired of it and didn't want to do it anymore. Col. Parker most likely did a lot of string pulling behind Elvis' back to keep him in Vegas even though Elvis wanted out. Sure at first it was great because Elvis wanted to try Vegas again after what happened the first time he was there, but to stay there wasn't a good move at all.

I think that reasoning is typically blown out of proportion. That idea was probably sold to Elvis as motivation for tackling the new opportunity with such vigor, but really, he only played a very short little stint in Vegas to lukewarm reception back in the '50s. What should have been clear was that the Las Vegas audience was not appropriate for Elvis in the '50s and that his manager used poor judgment in booking him there in the first place.

[likethebike]

The Vegas criticisms are just rock snobbery. There's really no logical reason for a rock performer especially one approaching 40 would not play there. The problem was that he played there too often not that he played there at all. It's 2011 time to bury that attitude.

As for the topic, for 1969 and 1970 things would have been close to the same with some significant exceptions. I would have limited the lengthy 1970 Vegas engagements to either one in February or on in the Summer. In the place of the second engagement get that national tour rolling soon so Elvis can go out meet the fans. Accelerate the schedule to get Elvis in MSG in 1971 or 1972. Film "That's the Way It is" either on tour or in one of the Vegas exceptions. Then maybe work on Binder's history of rock or either his closed circuit TV show. The most critical change would be a hammerlock on Elvis' release schedule. No Camden albums. Reduce June 1970 to two LPs. Send Elvis on a world tour in 1972. The merits of this would not be proving that Elvis was an international superstar, which he already was, but in allowing him to visit new environments and meet a new audience. After the tour, you give Elvis six months to a year off to recharge his batteries. Go in fresh for some new recordings. Then secure a good movie deal, something where Elvis is well used. Maybe something with another big star so Elvis could be inspired. After we're there well then take up Arthur Fiedler on his offer to sing with the Boston Pops try something new. Then try and find some Elvis' idols who were still around and work towards some collaboration. Blues, country and gospel. They do it all the time nowadays but Elvis wouldn't have to stick with the legends. You could find some old blues favorites and gospel idols along with pop stars like Dean Martin and R/B stars like Lavern Baker. Who knows maybe in a huge publicity making project with Chuck Berry. If Chuck would have such a thing. Most of all field and evaluate all the offers that come Elvis' way instead of rejecting them because they didn't originate with me as Parker often did.

That's a huge thing people forget about Parker. If Elvis wants something it's his job to go and try and get it, but he didn't have to any really heavy intellectual work there. There were tons of people out there with who would have loved to work with Elvis. He only had to put the feelers out and let the offers come in.

As many have addressed the idea that Elvis could not have toured overseas because of his drug addiction is without a basis in reality. If that were the case virtually no rock star would have toured anywhere. The stars without an addiction are the exception. Also, it implies kind of an ignorance about the purchase of drugs. Even when it's illegal drug you don't have to take an entire stash with you wherever you go. If you're in an urban environment you can generally find drugs.

[midnightx]

The Vegas criticisms are just rock snobbery.

Not in the least. Your comment is simply a way to dismiss a relevant point of view that doesn't conform to the position that embraces the schmaltz of Vegas and how it ultimately influenced a significant portion of what went artistically wrong with Elvis' work in the '70s.

[Matthew]

Elvis was only 34 years old when he began regular concert appearences again in 1969. Here is a man full of fire and energy and he has to use it all up in 6 month-long engagements before beginning regular road touring in 1972. Talk about killing the mood!

The 1969/1970 Vegas recordings are great because Elvis makes them great, not because he is in Vegas. A superstar of his calibre still in his mid 30s could have ripped it up with high profile touring during this time. Sadly that didn't happen.

[bquick]

Man, imagine a 69 live album, "Elvis Live at Madison Square Garden," how great would that be. Elvis doing his 69 show in front of 20,000 instead of 2,000.

[DEH]

Why must some of you constantly compare Elvis to other adult contemporary stars of the era? Nothing wrong with Streisand and Jones, but if you want to compare Elvis to that breed of artist, why not mention that Johnny Cash played Madison Square Garden in 1969, not an extended stay at the International Showroom? Elvis Presley was a pioneering artist, a living legend at the time. He had recently reestablished his recording career and regained relevant footing. Why not secure a traditional tour in mainstream venues across the U.S. and international markets from the start? Why do you think it was only natural to shove him into a Las Vegas showroom? Because Streisand played there? You don’t think managers representing contemporary rock acts could have handled managing Elvis or had the appropriate insight into what kind of markets and venues he should play? We are not talking about Charlie Rich here, we are talking about Elvis Presley during his last creative and artistic prime.

You were the one that brought up contemporary managers that would not have booked Elvis into Vegas in 1969. Name them. Popular and well respected artists were playing vegas then. The only acts that would not have gone near Vegas were the hard rock acts. Elvis was not hard rock. How many people at the time were raising a stink that Elvis was going to open in Vegas in 1969???

I agree that he should not have signed there long term but that was Elvis' fault. Things were progressing fine. He did the dome shows in Houston and then the two tours in 1970. The mistake was repeated engagements in Vegas.

[midnightx]

Popular and well respected artists were playing vegas then. The only acts that would not have gone near Vegas were the hard rock acts. Elvis was not hard rock.

All hard rock? Really? Do you think Crosby, Stills & Nash would have played a Vegas casino engagement? Would Blind Faith have played a casino engagement? Would Bob Dylan have played a casino engagement? No. But because you are lumping Elvis in with the Engelbert Humperdinck's of the music world, the Vegas fit works for you.

How many people at the time were raising a stink that Elvis was going to open in Vegas in 1969???

I doubt Lennon was thrilled that Elvis was turning into a Las Vegas attraction.

Oh, and it is doubtful Elliot Roberts, Peter Grant, Allen Klein, David Geffen, Robert Stigwood, etc. would have ever considered Las Vegas as an appropriate destination for Elvis; and at a minimum, they never would have actively sought out a Vegas contract.

[brian]

The Supremes played in Vegas.

[Walter Hale 4]

1) I would have tried to convince him to play MSG in 1973 and 1974.

2) I would have called Robbie Robertson and The Band and asked Robbie if he would have written, produced and recorded an album with Elvis of new material and re-workings of classic Sun records.

3) I would have tried like hell to convince EP to tour Australia (first) and England.

[TkoTzer]

Vegas was great in 1969. It was pretty darn good in 1970. Great choice by Elvis and management deserves credit for this as well. However, to continue going their for years was unacceptable. After 1969, I would have busted out a tour of the U.S. in 1970. I would have stayed out of New York until 1971. Madison Square Garden was monumental in the history of Elvis and I would have pumped it up on year later. This should have been filmed and included in Elvis on Tour, released in 1972. In late 1972, riding high off of this film and show, the world would see Aloha From Hawaii, which would lead to the Elvis World Tour in 1973.

During this time, only one album release per year except 1972. 1969, From Elvis in Memphis, 1970 That's The Way It is, 1971 Elvis Country, early 1972 Madison Square Garden Live and in later 1972 Standing Room Only(see FTD). At the end of 1973 Elvis could have released Aloha from Hawaii.

1974 should have been a year for rest and relaxation with maybe one or two television appearances.

[DEH]

Popular and well respected artists were playing vegas then. The only acts that would not have gone near Vegas were the hard rock acts. Elvis was not hard rock.

All hard rock? Really? Do you think Crosby, Stills & Nash would have played a Vegas casino engagement? Would Blind Faith have played a casino engagement? Would Bob Dylan have played a casino engagement? No. But because you are lumping Elvis in with the Engelbert Humperdinck's of the music world, the Vegas fit works for you.

How many people at the time were raising a stink that Elvis was going to open in Vegas in 1969???

I doubt Lennon was thrilled that Elvis was turning into a Las Vegas attraction.

Oh, and it is doubtful Elliot Roberts, Peter Grant, Allen Klein, David Geffen, Robert Stigwood, etc. would have ever considered Las Vegas as an appropriate destination for Elvis; and at a minimum, they never would have actively sought out a Vegas contract.

And again, as we talked about earlier. They were managing different acts that would not have played vegas anyways. Like CSN and Blind faith, dylan etc. May have not been hard rock but there were apart of the 60's hippie generation. Different demographic than Elvis. Elvis was not part of that generation. he was in his thirties by that time. Nothing wrong with taking on Vegas in 1969. Elvis was singing middle of the road music. Not hippie loving , hard rock, war protesting, music.

Who cares if Lennon did not like Elvis playing Vegas. We already know his narrow opinion of Elvis.

[midnightx]

He was in his 30's, not his 50's. He was a music icon. He had regained some artistic credibility with his work from 1968/1969; he had not yet become the singer of My Boy. In The Ghetto was hardly "mor". He was young, iconic, and back with vibrant music. He did not need to yet be subjected to Vegas showrooms of the era. His initial few Vegas runs cooked, but they were rooted in an "mor" foundation that his recording and performance career never escaped from.

[DEH]

He was in his 30's, not his 50's. He was a music icon. He had regained some artistic credibility with his work from 1968/1969; he had not yet become the singer of My Boy. In The Ghetto was hardly "mor". He was young, iconic, and back with vibrant music. He did not need to yet be subjected to Vegas showrooms of the era. His initial few Vegas runs cooked, but they were rooted in an "mor" foundation that his recording and performance career never escaped from.

There is nothing wrong with mor. Should not be looked at as negative. Elvis prefered singing that stuff. Most of the memphis stuff in 1969 were ballads.

[Mike Eder]

First let me say I respect midnightx's opinion but I must disagree.

I would say Elvis changed Vegas to a place that was more youthful. He shouldn't have played a month at a time with no days off, but he helped take the stigma off of it. A lot of great artists played Vegas during the same period. Maybe they weren't considered hip by Rolling Stone but they were great acts. Jerry Lee Lewis, Ike and Tina Turner, The Jackson 5 (most of the other Motown acts did as well), James Brown, The First Edition, Fats Domino, Bobby Darin, Charlie Rich,Johnny Cash, Carl Perkins, Everly Brothers, Little Richard All of these groups were well under 40 (except perhaps Charlie Rich I'm not sure when he first did Vegas.) when they played there. The Jacksons' still were (mostly) teenagers. It wasn't 1956 it was 1969 and the people who first bought most of these groups were around 30 themselves. Perhaps some of them weren't selling records like they once had but all were making good strong studio recordings at the time. It was a good move in the short term. In the long term that's a different story. I like Las Vegas and going there. If people have a problem with Elvis' image because of there, that's not a problem to me. It's part of what made him cool.

[javilu]

Man, imagine a 69 live album, "Elvis Live at Madison Square Garden," how great would that be. Elvis doing his 69 show in front of 20,000 instead of 2,000.

And doing dinner shows at Casino hotels, what the hell?

"You ain't nothing but a Hound Dog!!!!!!!!!!!"

Honey, pass me the salt please.

And the comparison with Fats Domino and others who were playing Vegas in 69 is incorrect.
Because Elvis was having number 1 hits then, the other 50s rockers weren't.

Elvis was capable of filling 20k seats stadiums by himself then, the others weren't.

[midnightx]

And the comparison with Fats Domino and others who were playing Vegas in 69 is incorrect.
Because Elvis was having number 1 hits then, the other 50s rockers weren't.

Elvis was capable of filling 20k seats stadiums by himself then, the others weren't.

It is true, many of those pioneering icons like Fats, Berry, Richard, Lewis, etc. were relics of another era. Yes, they continued to work and record, but none of it particularly mattered. It baffles me that people continue to draw parallels between them and Elvis during an era where Elvis was still very much artistically relevant and a huge concert box office draw.