Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:30 pm

In my thread about the set list of 1969, I learned these points:

1. Elvis was not an album artist with an artistic statement.
2. Elvis started his career, as Hit-singles were the main thing for customer.
3. All the rock/pop acts at his time of starting where singles artists.
4. Elvis’ album material was not well known among the audience of his concerts.
5. It was common for Elvis to sing his hit songs and covers of other artist’s hits.
6. Elvis doing his hit songs to please his fans and songs he enjoyed performing.
7. Elvis’s fan base never changed their mentality for Elvis as a singles artist.
8. Elvis was disoriented about the content of his new albums.
9. Elvis deciding to fulfill the wish of the fans to hear all his old material.
10. Elvis was reminding the audience with his old material that he was "The King of Rock’n’Roll".
11. Lot of the casual fans do not care about lesser-known songs and only wanted the hits.
12. RCA promoted Elvis as a singles artist and not as an album artist.

I thank you all for this session and the posts I have to think about now. However, this brings me to these new thread:

1. What is an album from a real album artist?
2. What must have changed to Elvis that he becomes an album artist?

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:42 pm

1. Blonde on Blonde, Sgt. Pepper, Born to Run
2. His desire to want to make a great thematic album instead of just going into the studio to record a bunch of songs so that RCA can release several LP's.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:45 pm

It is very fair to say that 1971's Elvis Country is an excellent, thematic album.

But Elvis did not come from an era where such ideas were considered, and as he grew older he was not surrounded by people who might have suggested he actively try to make more albums like Elvis Country.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:04 pm

Simply too much output by RCA during his lifetime.I can imagine that 1 album per year would have resulted in much better chart success.You only have to look at the gap between Roustabout 1964 (U.S Number 1) and Aloha From Hawaii 1973 (His last lifetime U.S Number 1)
That's 9 years to get an album to the top of the charts.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:10 pm

docfreem wrote:Simply too much output by RCA during his lifetime.I can imagine that 1 album per year would have resulted in much better chart success.You only have to look at the gap between Roustabout 1964 (U.S Number 1) and Aloha From Hawaii 1973 (His last lifetime U.S Number 1)
That's 9 years to get an album to the top of the charts.

In my opinion RCA was interested in quantity, not quality.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:16 pm

Winston wrote:In my thread about the set list of 1969, I learned these points:

1. Elvis was not an album artist with an artistic statement.
2. Elvis started his career, as Hit-singles were the main thing for customer.
3. All the rock/pop acts at his time of starting where singles artists.
4. Elvis’ album material was not well known among the audience of his concerts.
5. It was common for Elvis to sing his hit songs and covers of other artist’s hits.
6. Elvis doing his hit songs to please his fans and songs he enjoyed performing.
7. Elvis’s fan base never changed their mentality for Elvis as a singles artist.
8. Elvis was disoriented about the content of his new albums.
9. Elvis deciding to fulfill the wish of the fans to hear all his old material.
10. Elvis was reminding the audience with his old material that he was "The King of Rock’n’Roll".
11. Lot of the casual fans do not care about lesser-known songs and only wanted the hits.
12. RCA promoted Elvis as a singles artist and not as an album artist.

I thank you all for this session and the posts I have to think about now. However, this brings me to these new thread:

1. What is an album from a real album artist?
2. What must have changed to Elvis that he becomes an album artist?


Your are absolutely right on this imho....

Elvis was a singles artist and was forced to make Albums by RCA so they could make more money for the size of an Album.They should not have forced it upon him to have to come up with so much material on a yearly basis.Of course Old Tom Parker and RCA are to blame for this,bunch of money grubbing pricks.

I think if he was not forced to do so much recording,he would not have sang so many songs that were not good because he knew he had to fill out these Albums.He could have just concentrated on having to only put out a few singles a year and have the time to think about what songs he wanted to record.

who knows maybe if he did not have that pressure put on him he may have sat down and wrote his own songs,can you imagine if Elvis had really put the effort into writing his own songs,there is no question in my mind they would have been great,he had the talent to do so.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:46 pm

docfreem wrote:Simply too much output by RCA during his lifetime.I can imagine that 1 album per year would have resulted in much better chart success.You only have to look at the gap between Roustabout 1964 (U.S Number 1) and Aloha From Hawaii 1973 (His last lifetime U.S Number 1)
That's 9 years to get an album to the top of the charts.


Winston wasn't talking about chart success.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:49 pm

Clay wrote:
Winston wrote:In my thread about the set list of 1969, I learned these points:

1. Elvis was not an album artist with an artistic statement.
2. Elvis started his career, as Hit-singles were the main thing for customer.
3. All the rock/pop acts at his time of starting where singles artists.
4. Elvis’ album material was not well known among the audience of his concerts.
5. It was common for Elvis to sing his hit songs and covers of other artist’s hits.
6. Elvis doing his hit songs to please his fans and songs he enjoyed performing.
7. Elvis’s fan base never changed their mentality for Elvis as a singles artist.
8. Elvis was disoriented about the content of his new albums.
9. Elvis deciding to fulfill the wish of the fans to hear all his old material.
10. Elvis was reminding the audience with his old material that he was "The King of Rock’n’Roll".
11. Lot of the casual fans do not care about lesser-known songs and only wanted the hits.
12. RCA promoted Elvis as a singles artist and not as an album artist.

I thank you all for this session and the posts I have to think about now. However, this brings me to these new thread:

1. What is an album from a real album artist?
2. What must have changed to Elvis that he becomes an album artist?


who knows maybe if he did not have that pressure put on him he may have sat down and wrote his own songs,can you imagine if Elvis had really put the effort into writing his own songs,there is no question in my mind they would have been great,he had the talent to do so.


Don't think so.

Elvis didn't have much interest in songwriting.

Besides just because you write songs doesn't necessarily make them any better.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:11 pm

A singles artist was fine in 1956 when Elvis was the next big thing and millions were buying your singles. But even by the early to mid 1960s, singers were using the album to make an artistic statement, and Presley never progressed with the times in that respect. While it's fine to say he was not an "album artist" and that his way of working didn't fit into that style of recording, that's not strictly true. His 2nd album, Elvis is Back, Something for Everybody, Pot Luck, Today, gospel albums and soundtrack albums were all pretty much made "as albums".

Presley fell down in the 1970s by doing the large sessions, and not being able to focus on a particular album project. Elvis Country is a great album, but it's also an accidental album. He didn't go in the studio with that album in mind. He just wanted to record the songs required of him, and a link began to form amongst them in that case. Had he been able to focus his mind in 1971, the May sessions may have produced a folk album, gospel album and christmas album - instead of the latter two and a bunch of songs that didn't fit together.

While I firmly believe the 1970s studio work is largely under-valued by critics, Presley's work ethic and the way in which the albums were released are a lot to blame for that. By this point, people didn't want to buy hodge-podge albums, they were more sophisticated and wanted a theme or a feeling that lasted the 30-40 minute duration. Presley's style of recording didn't fit with that, but he should have been steered (or pushed) in that direction. The music industry had grown into adulthood, but sadly Presley had not grown up with it.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:25 pm

The other big selling format was the Extended Play and these were more popular in the 1950's and early 1960's.

Thanks to Ger for copy of ad for the first album.

Image

RCA promoted albums but you have to remember the time frame when youngsters could not afford to buy albums also. So RCA aimed at what they could afford and they continued the same formula over the years.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:33 pm

Wasn't it common for someone that started out as singles artist to stay a singles artist?

If it wasn't common then please name some singers that started out as singles artists but changed to album artists.

As far as I can remember pretty much every pop/rock singer in the 1950s and early 60s period were singles artists.

Then Bob Dylan and The Beatles started to change that but you still had lots of artists during the 1960s that were singles artist.

By the late 1960s and 1970s every rock band that emerged were album oriented artists.

However as far as I can remember singers that started in the 1950s or early 60s that were still around were still singles artists.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:00 pm

brian wrote:Wasn't it common for someone that started out as singles artist to stay a singles artist?

If it wasn't common then please name some singers that started out as singles artists but changed to album artists.

As far as I can remember pretty much every pop/rock singer in the 1950s and early 60s period were singles artists.

Then Bob Dylan and The Beatles started to change that but you still had lots of artists during the 1960s that were singles artist.

By the late 1960s and 1970s every rock band that emerged were album oriented artists.

However as far as I can remember singers that started in the 1950s or early 60s that were still around were still singles artists.


To answer you, Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, Bobby Darin, Everly Bros to name but a few. There is probably more. They all started as singles artists but all made themed albums in the 60's some even before The Beatles and Dylan cam along. Elvis didn't listen to Vince Everett and change with the scene.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:42 pm

r&b wrote:
brian wrote:Wasn't it common for someone that started out as singles artist to stay a singles artist?

If it wasn't common then please name some singers that started out as singles artists but changed to album artists.

As far as I can remember pretty much every pop/rock singer in the 1950s and early 60s period were singles artists.

Then Bob Dylan and The Beatles started to change that but you still had lots of artists during the 1960s that were singles artist.

By the late 1960s and 1970s every rock band that emerged were album oriented artists.

However as far as I can remember singers that started in the 1950s or early 60s that were still around were still singles artists.


To answer you, Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, Bobby Darin, Everly Bros to name but a few. There is probably more. They all started as singles artists but all made themed albums in the 60's some even before The Beatles and Dylan cam along. Elvis didn't listen to Vince Everett and change with the scene.


Okay.

I have another question.

Did the artists that you've mentioned make these albums on a consistent basis?

Remember to be clear i'm not talking about making one or two themed album but to specifically change from being a singles artist to an album artist.

Did these artists continue to do so throughout the rest of their careers?

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:12 pm

brian wrote:
r&b wrote:
brian wrote:Wasn't it common for someone that started out as singles artist to stay a singles artist?

If it wasn't common then please name some singers that started out as singles artists but changed to album artists.

As far as I can remember pretty much every pop/rock singer in the 1950s and early 60s period were singles artists.

Then Bob Dylan and The Beatles started to change that but you still had lots of artists during the 1960s that were singles artist.

By the late 1960s and 1970s every rock band that emerged were album oriented artists.

However as far as I can remember singers that started in the 1950s or early 60s that were still around were still singles artists.


To answer you, Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, Bobby Darin, Everly Bros to name but a few. There is probably more. They all started as singles artists but all made themed albums in the 60's some even before The Beatles and Dylan cam along. Elvis didn't listen to Vince Everett and change with the scene.


Okay.

I have another question.

Did the artists that you've mentioned make these albums on a consistent basis?

Remember to be clear i'm not talking about making one or two themed album but to specifically change from being a singles artist to an album artist.

Did these artists continue to do so throughout the rest of their careers?


Brian, i think your own knowledge of pop music can answer that. Ray Charles's albums were not necessarily themed, but they stuck to one genre or another for the most part. The same with Bobby Darin who, aside from a few pick-up albums at Atco, rarely made an album without a theme or consistent sound. The obvious examples of artists who started off as singles artists and yet emerged in the late 1960s/early 70s as more "ault" album artists are Ricky Nelson and Neil Sedaka.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:18 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
brian wrote:
r&b wrote:
brian wrote:Wasn't it common for someone that started out as singles artist to stay a singles artist?

If it wasn't common then please name some singers that started out as singles artists but changed to album artists.

As far as I can remember pretty much every pop/rock singer in the 1950s and early 60s period were singles artists.

Then Bob Dylan and The Beatles started to change that but you still had lots of artists during the 1960s that were singles artist.

By the late 1960s and 1970s every rock band that emerged were album oriented artists.

However as far as I can remember singers that started in the 1950s or early 60s that were still around were still singles artists.


To answer you, Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, Bobby Darin, Everly Bros to name but a few. There is probably more. They all started as singles artists but all made themed albums in the 60's some even before The Beatles and Dylan cam along. Elvis didn't listen to Vince Everett and change with the scene.


Okay.

I have another question.

Did the artists that you've mentioned make these albums on a consistent basis?

Remember to be clear i'm not talking about making one or two themed album but to specifically change from being a singles artist to an album artist.

Did these artists continue to do so throughout the rest of their careers?


Brian, i think your own knowledge of pop music can answer that. Ray Charles's albums were not necessarily themed, but they stuck to one genre or another for the most part. The same with Bobby Darin who, aside from a few pick-up albums at Atco, rarely made an album without a theme or consistent sound. The obvious examples of artists who started off as singles artists and yet emerged in the late 1960s/early 70s as more "ault" album artists are Ricky Nelson and Neil Sedaka.


Okay.

You say Ray Charles, Bobby Darin, Ricky Nelson and Neil Sedaka were the ones that made the transition.

Thank you Peter.

Thanks also to r&b.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:26 pm

Apart from gospel, Christmas and the aforementioned country project it's ironic that his most thematic albums were soundtracks, such as Acapulco, blue Hawaii, king creole, Frankie and Johnny ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:04 am

frus75 wrote:Apart from gospel, Christmas and the aforementioned country project it's ironic that his most thematic albums were soundtracks, such as Acapulco, blue Hawaii, king creole, Frankie and Johnny ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that was a good one! :smt005

Sad but true. Still enjoy listening to them from time to time anyway.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:23 am

brian wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
brian wrote:
r&b wrote:
brian wrote:Wasn't it common for someone that started out as singles artist to stay a singles artist?

If it wasn't common then please name some singers that started out as singles artists but changed to album artists.

As far as I can remember pretty much every pop/rock singer in the 1950s and early 60s period were singles artists.

Then Bob Dylan and The Beatles started to change that but you still had lots of artists during the 1960s that were singles artist.

By the late 1960s and 1970s every rock band that emerged were album oriented artists.

However as far as I can remember singers that started in the 1950s or early 60s that were still around were still singles artists.


To answer you, Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, Bobby Darin, Everly Bros to name but a few. There is probably more. They all started as singles artists but all made themed albums in the 60's some even before The Beatles and Dylan cam along. Elvis didn't listen to Vince Everett and change with the scene.


Okay.

I have another question.

Did the artists that you've mentioned make these albums on a consistent basis?

Remember to be clear i'm not talking about making one or two themed album but to specifically change from being a singles artist to an album artist.

Did these artists continue to do so throughout the rest of their careers?


Brian, i think your own knowledge of pop music can answer that. Ray Charles's albums were not necessarily themed, but they stuck to one genre or another for the most part. The same with Bobby Darin who, aside from a few pick-up albums at Atco, rarely made an album without a theme or consistent sound. The obvious examples of artists who started off as singles artists and yet emerged in the late 1960s/early 70s as more "ault" album artists are Ricky Nelson and Neil Sedaka.


Okay.

You say Ray Charles, Bobby Darin, Ricky Nelson and Neil Sedaka were the ones that made the transition.

Thank you Peter.

Thanks also to r&b.


Also there was Jack Scott who did a tribute album to Hank Williams, Roy Orbison who did one to Don Gibson. Sam Cooke (before 1964!) did several Billie Holiday tribute albums, also his best album IMO, Night Beat which was realy unusual for a Pop singles artists at the time. He was ahead of the curve. The Everly's did at least 5 themed albums n the 60's. All of these mentioned were not big blockbuster albums,but most were critical successes. The one that got the most critical acclaim was of course Pet Sounds, when the Beach Boys stopped being a singles band. So if you go by these standards, the only themed albums Elvis did were Gospel and Christmas. I agree with that Elvis Country was a good themed album, but also one by accident as someone mentioned.
Last edited by r&b on Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:29 am

I consider Roy Orbison to have been a singles artist.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:00 am

poormadpeter wrote:A singles artist was fine in 1956 when Elvis was the next big thing and millions were buying your singles. But even by the early to mid 1960s, singers were using the album to make an artistic statement, and Presley never progressed with the times in that respect. While it's fine to say he was not an "album artist" and that his way of working didn't fit into that style of recording, that's not strictly true. His 2nd album, Elvis is Back, Something for Everybody, Pot Luck, Today, gospel albums and soundtrack albums were all pretty much made "as albums".

Presley fell down in the 1970s by doing the large sessions, and not being able to focus on a particular album project. Elvis Country is a great album, but it's also an accidental album. He didn't go in the studio with that album in mind. He just wanted to record the songs required of him, and a link began to form amongst them in that case. Had he been able to focus his mind in 1971, the May sessions may have produced a folk album, gospel album and christmas album - instead of the latter two and a bunch of songs that didn't fit together.

While I firmly believe the 1970s studio work is largely under-valued by critics, Presley's work ethic and the way in which the albums were released are a lot to blame for that. By this point, people didn't want to buy hodge-podge albums, they were more sophisticated and wanted a theme or a feeling that lasted the 30-40 minute duration. Presley's style of recording didn't fit with that, but he should have been steered (or pushed) in that direction. The music industry had grown into adulthood, but sadly Presley had not grown up with it.


GREAT Post!

Yeah there are some things that are problematic in the list in the opening topic.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:02 am

[quote="Winston"]In my thread about the set list of 1969, I learned these points:

1. Elvis was not an album artist with an artistic statement.
2. Elvis started his career, as Hit-singles were the main thing for customer.
3. All the rock/pop acts at his time of starting where singles artists.
4. Elvis’ album material was not well known among the audience of his concerts.
5. It was common for Elvis to sing his hit songs and covers of other artist’s hits.
6. Elvis doing his hit songs to please his fans and songs he enjoyed performing.
7. Elvis’s fan base never changed their mentality for Elvis as a singles artist.
8. Elvis was disoriented about the content of his new albums.
9. Elvis deciding to fulfill the wish of the fans to hear all his old material.
10. Elvis was reminding the audience with his old material that he was "The King of Rock’n’Roll".
11. Lot of the casual fans do not care about lesser-known songs and only wanted the hits.
12. RCA promoted Elvis as a singles artist and not as an album artist.


Overall a good summary with grand generalization

as another poster noted when analyzing the theories in greater detail they become somewhat problematic

1) Elvis (second lp), Elvis is Back, How Great Thou Art, From Elvis in Memphis, and Elvis Country are noted for being stong albums with a period artistic expression inherent in the procedural aspects of the approach to recording the songs contained within the albums

basically when Elvis recorded each of these albums he had a specific them or tone in mind...he was making an artistic statement in sessions specified for a particular album...this might not be as strong as other candidates for "concept" albums due to Presleys inclination for diversity in genres, but nevertheless they are "albums" and were approached in the recording sessions with this loosely in mind (with perhaps the exception of "Country" that another member noted was pieced together from a marathon session)

2) basically, but still with his first album selling 20 trillion records and going #1...surely presley was cognizant of the importance of the album format...hence the greater coherence of the second album and the thematic approach to the King Creole movie sountrack

3) again for the most part but presley was not "most artists" and therefore again he must have been cognizant of the importance of an album or at least it manifested itself that way

4) this is the one i find to be most troublesome or problematic...it is difficult to quantify what "50,000,000 Million" Elvis concert goers are or arent familiar with but it would surprise me if a SIGNIFICANT portion of the audience was unfamiliar with tracks of his second album, elvis is back, and from elvis in memphis, as they all were big time sellers in the millions and attained great chart success...heck i would find it somewhat incredulous if a significant portion of those attending an elvis concert in the 70's didn't own at leat 2 of the 3. Two of the albums had been in continuous release and reissued and reissued for almost 20 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5) this is another one that is great at a cursory look but becomes more problematic with an increased focus...basically because over the 8 years of touring there were so many songs that were bona fide HITS on the chart and associated with Presley the he bascially never uttered a lyric from in concert (if he did it was what an off the cuff return to slender, where His Latest Flame, Surrender, Too Much, devils food cake in disguise, Hard Headed Woman [yes difficult to sing i know] those songs are all associated with presley and each and everyone of them reached from #5 all the way up to #1 on the charts and in 8 years and hundreds of concerts presley barely uttered much of a word from them

6) as noted in 5) elvis didn't really do his hit songs and please the fans (i would bet all of nothing on the premise that there were a large portion of concert goers who would have rather heard any of the above songs in 5) to the numerous covers of other artists songs...never been in pain...you've found that hatin feelin...it woudl certainly be a shock to think that PRESLEY people would rather hear such pedestrian / boring and bland fare than songs that were associated with Presley himself

in conjuction with that is the statement songs Presley liked to perform...most of what I read and especially what i hear is that from basically and this is the consensus is that he did NOT enjoy performing the perfunctory 20 second versions of his hits and this can be heard debatable by 71 and without much debate by 73...geez when you look at the horrendous medley from the 74 memphis album...it is almost self insulting that he treats some of his best songs with such contempt and lumps them in with such ditties as "mama can't prance daddy can't rock the bowl" or whatever...i mean come on...a CLASSIC presley tune that is the epitome of rock and roll from one of his top 2 best films, a cinematic dance sequence that is classic, and Jailhouse Rock warrants all of about what 9.75 seconds...and this for a live album that a lot of peopel will hear

7) perhaps

8) most likely

9) this one is GLARINGLY PROBLEMATIC - elvis did NOT fulfill the wishes of the "50,000,000 Million" Presley People who wanted to hear more than one number off of the classic album of the same name with presley defining classics and #1 hits like Don't, A Fool Such as You, I need your love tonight and everynight, I Got Stung...all 50 TRILLION of those fans walked away disappointed as presley performed yet another vegasy loungy middle of the road apple song most likely a cover of someone elses mediocre record that was not befitting the once King of Rock and Roll...its common sense...think about it...how many of you own that record...the fact that those were also MILLION SELLING SINGLES for TWENTY YEARS and you don't hear a single song from one of your favorite presley eras..........seriously is there even an argument here...that doesn't mean that presley cant sing his latest stellar record..."Three Corny Patches" or the incredibly historically accurate and autobiographical "Raised on Rock" or an Elton John of Marie Osmond or even a cover of David Cassidy's latest song, but geeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz...can you throw us a bone here...pick up the 50 million album before each season and incluce a couple of songs in each season...what you are unaware of your own catalog...well presley let me make it easy for you...it is one of your MOST FAMOUS album covers and consistent sellers of the last almost TWENTY YEARS

10) Elvis wasn't reminding anybody anything about him being the King of Rock and Roll with the lackluster version of his actual rock and roll songs...from 72 some might argue earlier on...Elvis was a middle of the roader performing vegas music on the road and over time increasingly going through the motions...one of his hardest rocking songs "Hound Dog" was RARELY even in 69 done correctly...what there is like ONE version with the complete lyrics...Big Mama Thornton's version was preferable to his versions after what like 71...other rockers like I need your love, I got stung, his latest flame, deviled eggs in disguise, wearin that love on look (soul / rocking) etc. werent sung

nevermind the likes of good rockin tonight which could have been a great concert song had presley exhibited even a hint of the vibe that was necessary to pull it off, but to proclaim to your audience "have you heard the news theres good ROCKIN tonigh!" and then proceed with a set list that is anything but rock and roll is anti climatic

11) I would be willing to bet $00000000000000000000000 that there are MORE Presley people to this very day that would very much have like a wider variety of fare at the buffet of presley concerts over 8 years...based on many of the "what are your top 20 favorite Elvis songs" lists on this very board it seems a number of you out there in the world of electronic communication are somewhat / very / mildly disappointed that a number of songs that are your favorites were not given even a single outing as a live version in HUNDREDS of conerts

(certainly the Sun material of which almost every music critic on the planet agrees is essential listening to this day was vastly uncovered with the exception of the two and mystery train was dropped after a while leaving only thats all right to represent what is likely one of the most important eras (the Sun era) in music history for "rock and roll" (Buddy Holly, etc.) in the 50's leading to rock (the stones, beatles, etc.) in the 60's leading to hard rock (black sabbath, ac / dc, etc.) in the 70's...if presley was even the mildest of music observers he should have noted that music historians critics etc. were during his touring years presenting his Sun material (along with 56) as the ball that got this thing rolling...presleys most celebrated 70's album by critics in those one to five star music guide type things invariably tends to go to the sun compilation from 76...gee it would have been nice if presley had taken note of his own great accomplishments...maybe he would have been happier...or maybe not

12) RCA...man there isn't much good to state about them where elvis is concerned, and just as little where elvis people are concerned...eh i wasnt' going to share as i am confident you dont want to read, but i am going to vent...basically out of the gate RCA was garbage and became increasingly stinkier garbage as presleys career rolled on...there near abuse of fans on a musical, financial, etc. levels is basically unparalleled in hte entire history of music

what does that mean

it means that those of you who were alive before 2011 basically know that for about 600 years rca rehashed and rehased the same songs over and over with more lackluster packaging (all the while the vaults were OVERFLOWING with treasures - just look at FTD)

then came an era where you had to buy your 20th version of the studio hound dog to get ONE unreleased track

if it wasnt for Ernst and co. rca would have greedily and miserly released alternate takes on an endless and financially nauseating endless number of compilations

RCA blows so hard they would have taken on FTD of 40 songs and released one unreleased song on each compilation with the same stale CAMDEN like song sequence and acted like we should all just be happy to get it at all

meanwhile they are ripping off Elvis and everyone else they can

i don't know if there is anyone on the planet interested that doesn't think that the rca buyout of 73 amounted to a criminal act on the part of rca

yeah maybe someone else on the board can draft something on the ethical depravity and moral hollowness, etc, etc of RCA and their treatment of Elvis

all of this after Elvis had made them lots and LOTS of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

makes me feel bad for the guy

good thread and good posts

thank you to the contributors
Last edited by music2 on Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:27 am

docfreem wrote:I can imagine that 1 album per year would have resulted in much better chart success.

I believe the albums would have sold more units and charted higher. But in total RCA did the right thing, otherwise Elvis wouldn't be considered to be the best selling artist of all time.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:12 pm

If Elvis really wasn't an album artist, why he sang so much worst songs in the sessions ?

If I listen to his 70's session, there are really al lot of songs, which are not related for an Single release.

Example : Padre....why he sang this song ? If it is not an album song, for what he sang it ?

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:33 pm

Winston wrote:In my thread about the set list of 1969, I learned these points:

1. Elvis was not an album artist with an artistic statement.
2. Elvis started his career, as Hit-singles were the main thing for customer.
3. All the rock/pop acts at his time of starting where singles artists.
4. Elvis’ album material was not well known among the audience of his concerts.
5. It was common for Elvis to sing his hit songs and covers of other artist’s hits.
6. Elvis doing his hit songs to please his fans and songs he enjoyed performing.
7. Elvis’s fan base never changed their mentality for Elvis as a singles artist.
8. Elvis was disoriented about the content of his new albums.
9. Elvis deciding to fulfill the wish of the fans to hear all his old material.
10. Elvis was reminding the audience with his old material that he was "The King of Rock’n’Roll".
11. Lot of the casual fans do not care about lesser-known songs and only wanted the hits.
12. RCA promoted Elvis as a singles artist and not as an album artist.


13. The Colonel had this policy not to allow hit singles on regular albums so the fans always required to buy both singles and albums to own his complete discography. Therefore only by exception Elvis' greatest hits are available on regular studio albums and because of this lack of hit material the average studio album never reflects the best Elvis had delivered at that time.

Re: Elvis was not an album artist!

Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:46 pm

Harty wrote:If Elvis really wasn't an album artist, why he sang so much worst songs in the sessions ?

If I listen to his 70's session, there are really al lot of songs, which are not related for an Single release.

Example : Padre....why he sang this song ? If it is not an album song, for what he sang it ?

Probably simply because he liked the original 1958 version by Toni Arden, which unfortunately he obviously covered in phrasing etc.

He should have recorded it closer to Marty Robbins' slower and softer rendition, which went to #5 on the Billboard Country Charts in 1970.

phpBB [video]