"Saved".

Anything about Elvis
More than 100 Million visitors can't be wrong

Moderators: Moderator5, Moderator3, FECC-Moderator, Site Mechanic



Mister Moon

Re: "Saved".

#1279872

Post by Mister Moon »

greystoke wrote:I've written numerous times over the years - and just recently on poormadpeter's Wild in the Country thread - that Parker had no real power or influence in Hollywood and that his voice was only reflective of the letter of each contract and the envious position Elvis was in. Elvis was a more influential figure in Hollywood than he often gets credit for, although he wasn't prone to using that influence, especially when all business was conducted by his manager. The source of Elvis's power and influence is quite simple -- his popularity. With this should have come an understanding of Hollywood from the inside that allowed him the creative freedom to choose projects almost at his leisure, be aware that commercial ventures are a necessity and appreciate that good business relationships open doors. This was how John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, Burt Lancaster, Paul Newman and Steve McQueen all operated during the same era -- but where these actors held the reigns of their careers, taking advice as appropriate, Elvis seemed to be along for the ride. Or, more to the point, being taken for a ride. Tom Parker held the reigns on Elvis's career and made the sole destination financial gain. This is quite evident in the article poormadpeter posted on another thread and in other articles from the same timeframe in which this piece is either quoted, or similar articles have been written. Hedda Hopper, for example, in her Looking at Hollywood column on January 24th, 1965, wrote about Parker closing the December, 1964, contract with United Artists, referring to the aforementioned Variety article in the process. Around the same time she spoke to Parker for another column in which she asked about the forthcoming movie, "In My Harem." Parker's response: "I don't read scripts." "If those studios aren't smart enough to come up with a good story, I can't help 'em. For the kind of money they're paying us, we can leave the problem of making pictures to them. All Elvis has to do is be there on time. He is. We just take the money as we work. We give the government its full share, and we've never had it so good . . . "

With such a nonchalant and ignorant attitude being flaunted quite openly, it would be no surprise if studios, producers and other actors had reservations about dealing with Parker and working with Elvis. Clearly, the idea of making quality movies and fostering any artistic desires was a secondary consideration for the Presley camp -- and the above statement does speak for the Presley camp, even if Elvis remained silent more often than not. And although I don't doubt for a second that Elvis had greater ambitions than were ultimately realised in Hollywood, I also think he was accustomed to a certain lifestyle courted through being one of the highest paid actors in the world and being in a position where guaranteed work and major salaries were frequently forthcoming. In that respect, Parker was doing his job. But it's also important to consider the fact that contracts were being inked on the premise of an accompanying album which would include a dozen songs. Which creates the problem of almost forty songs being specially written for Elvis each year, with each song having certain requirements to specific scenes in each particular script. Elvis, I'm sure, was actively involved in selecting songs and could have been as involved as he chose to be on any picture. But with the nature of the films he was acting in and the kind of songs being forwarded, it's easy to envision him taking each subsequent project for granted. After all, that was the kind of business acumen fostered by his manager.

Quite unsurprisingly, I've come across several articles from the sixties that speak of Tom Parker as a shrewd manipulator and a manager with questionable methods. Whilst it often seemed as though Elvis worked for Parker and not the other way around, which is how it actually was. In many instances, however, I do think the type of movie Elvis came to star in was largely instigated by Parker. After all, what more could one expect when a quotient of songs was being agreed upon with a top-line salary for the film's star into the bargain?! Parker and Hal Wallis surely went back on forth on contracts over the years, with changes being made and salaries being altered over the on several points. But once under contract to a studio or a producer, Elvis worked for that studio or producer, and the final decisions lay with them irregardless of what Parker had to say -- UNLESS, the letter of a contract was being walked to ensure some semblance of control by a manager pulling any strings he could grasp. But there's no way otherwise that Tom Parker, who wasn't a producer or studio affiliate, could get involved in a film's production other than having a good working relationship with the producer or director. He did come to pursue certain producers, such as Sam Katzman, to make movies like Kissin' Cousins or Harum Scarum, which afforded cheap production values and the potential of greater profit participation for Elvis. But anyone who figures Tom Parker to have the upper hand on a film produced by the likes of Jerry Wald, Hal Wallis, Walter Mirisch, George Sidney or Jack Cummings far overestimates his reach and importance next to some of Hollywood's most successful and highly regarded producers.

Which brings us back to the question of why Elvis wasn't more proactive in his career. Especially his career as an actor -- given his love of movies, ambition to be a good actor and the kind of work ethic that made him reliable and easy to work with. Perhaps Elvis was appreciative of the success he had within a certain career path and feared tampering with that. Yet opportunity seemed to always be at a premium for Elvis in Hollywood, given the amount of new contracts he signed during the sixties and the salaries he commanded. It's also impossible to be in complete control of one's career and see with true clarity the effect every decision will have. Whilst it must be appreciated that no Elvis picture caused any studio financial distress or the kind of monetary losses that came to define Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor's careers during the sixties. Elvis was a safe bet. But did he know that? Was he aware that with success usually comes a cache of goodwill and open doors? But if he lived in a bubble that kept outside influence and wider opportunity at bay, and never really knew how to function without Parker, then what chance did he have in any environment? I'm not saying Elvis's career in Hollywood was a failure -- not by any stretch of the imagination. Even the most successful actors suffer periods in which choice roles aren't forthcoming or one flop leads to another. That's par for the course. But I can think of very few instances when Elvis actually pursued a role or seemed likely to find the opportunity to act in picture with bigger intentions than being a commercial vehicle for his more obvious talents. Compare this to John Wayne, Marlon Brando or Frank Sinatra, who pursued roles, produced their own movies and often worked for less money than Elvis, but for greater rewards. Especially in establishing their own production companies. Which is something Elvis never done, yet surely could have with the right people around him. Take Steve McQueen, for example, and his Solar Productions. Solar produced the 1968 film, Bullitt, at a cost of just under $5.5 million. With earnings to the tune of almost $25 million in the space of 18 months, the 42.5% Solar earned on the film netted McQueen's company $8.3 million in addition to his own personal salary of $700,000. For The Thomas Crown Affair, McQueen's $650,000 salary and profit participation to the tune of $1.75 million, came in addition to $1,000 per week living expenses, a private house, car, driver and flights from Boston to Los Angeles. Frank Sinatra read scripts and books with a mind to produce the movies he wanted to act in -- Von Ryan's Express being one such project, which he was outbid on by 20th Century Fox, but pursued the leading role knowing the film's potential. John Wayne took over twenty years to bring The Alamo to the big screen in the way he wanted to, whilst McQueen would coin $12 million for The Towering Inferno. But Elvis never seemed to pursue his ambitions or appreciate that a world of opportunity was abound outside of Tom Parker's singular vision -- or lack thereof. Elvis may have had to take a step back and accept a smaller salary on occasion or share top billing with his peers. Yet even as observers this doesn't seem possible given how his career was handled.


Thanks, greystoke, for this interesting post.
greystoke wrote:Quite unsurprisingly, I've come across several articles from the sixties that speak of Tom Parker as a shrewd manipulator and a manager with questionable methods.

Could you post some of those articles when you have the time? It would be cool to read them.




greystoke

Re: "Saved".

#1279874

Post by greystoke »

Mister Moon wrote:
greystoke wrote:I've written numerous times over the years - and just recently on poormadpeter's Wild in the Country thread - that Parker had no real power or influence in Hollywood and that his voice was only reflective of the letter of each contract and the envious position Elvis was in. Elvis was a more influential figure in Hollywood than he often gets credit for, although he wasn't prone to using that influence, especially when all business was conducted by his manager. The source of Elvis's power and influence is quite simple -- his popularity. With this should have come an understanding of Hollywood from the inside that allowed him the creative freedom to choose projects almost at his leisure, be aware that commercial ventures are a necessity and appreciate that good business relationships open doors. This was how John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, Burt Lancaster, Paul Newman and Steve McQueen all operated during the same era -- but where these actors held the reigns of their careers, taking advice as appropriate, Elvis seemed to be along for the ride. Or, more to the point, being taken for a ride. Tom Parker held the reigns on Elvis's career and made the sole destination financial gain. This is quite evident in the article poormadpeter posted on another thread and in other articles from the same timeframe in which this piece is either quoted, or similar articles have been written. Hedda Hopper, for example, in her Looking at Hollywood column on January 24th, 1965, wrote about Parker closing the December, 1964, contract with United Artists, referring to the aforementioned Variety article in the process. Around the same time she spoke to Parker for another column in which she asked about the forthcoming movie, "In My Harem." Parker's response: "I don't read scripts." "If those studios aren't smart enough to come up with a good story, I can't help 'em. For the kind of money they're paying us, we can leave the problem of making pictures to them. All Elvis has to do is be there on time. He is. We just take the money as we work. We give the government its full share, and we've never had it so good . . . "

With such a nonchalant and ignorant attitude being flaunted quite openly, it would be no surprise if studios, producers and other actors had reservations about dealing with Parker and working with Elvis. Clearly, the idea of making quality movies and fostering any artistic desires was a secondary consideration for the Presley camp -- and the above statement does speak for the Presley camp, even if Elvis remained silent more often than not. And although I don't doubt for a second that Elvis had greater ambitions than were ultimately realised in Hollywood, I also think he was accustomed to a certain lifestyle courted through being one of the highest paid actors in the world and being in a position where guaranteed work and major salaries were frequently forthcoming. In that respect, Parker was doing his job. But it's also important to consider the fact that contracts were being inked on the premise of an accompanying album which would include a dozen songs. Which creates the problem of almost forty songs being specially written for Elvis each year, with each song having certain requirements to specific scenes in each particular script. Elvis, I'm sure, was actively involved in selecting songs and could have been as involved as he chose to be on any picture. But with the nature of the films he was acting in and the kind of songs being forwarded, it's easy to envision him taking each subsequent project for granted. After all, that was the kind of business acumen fostered by his manager.

Quite unsurprisingly, I've come across several articles from the sixties that speak of Tom Parker as a shrewd manipulator and a manager with questionable methods. Whilst it often seemed as though Elvis worked for Parker and not the other way around, which is how it actually was. In many instances, however, I do think the type of movie Elvis came to star in was largely instigated by Parker. After all, what more could one expect when a quotient of songs was being agreed upon with a top-line salary for the film's star into the bargain?! Parker and Hal Wallis surely went back on forth on contracts over the years, with changes being made and salaries being altered over the on several points. But once under contract to a studio or a producer, Elvis worked for that studio or producer, and the final decisions lay with them irregardless of what Parker had to say -- UNLESS, the letter of a contract was being walked to ensure some semblance of control by a manager pulling any strings he could grasp. But there's no way otherwise that Tom Parker, who wasn't a producer or studio affiliate, could get involved in a film's production other than having a good working relationship with the producer or director. He did come to pursue certain producers, such as Sam Katzman, to make movies like Kissin' Cousins or Harum Scarum, which afforded cheap production values and the potential of greater profit participation for Elvis. But anyone who figures Tom Parker to have the upper hand on a film produced by the likes of Jerry Wald, Hal Wallis, Walter Mirisch, George Sidney or Jack Cummings far overestimates his reach and importance next to some of Hollywood's most successful and highly regarded producers.

Which brings us back to the question of why Elvis wasn't more proactive in his career. Especially his career as an actor -- given his love of movies, ambition to be a good actor and the kind of work ethic that made him reliable and easy to work with. Perhaps Elvis was appreciative of the success he had within a certain career path and feared tampering with that. Yet opportunity seemed to always be at a premium for Elvis in Hollywood, given the amount of new contracts he signed during the sixties and the salaries he commanded. It's also impossible to be in complete control of one's career and see with true clarity the effect every decision will have. Whilst it must be appreciated that no Elvis picture caused any studio financial distress or the kind of monetary losses that came to define Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor's careers during the sixties. Elvis was a safe bet. But did he know that? Was he aware that with success usually comes a cache of goodwill and open doors? But if he lived in a bubble that kept outside influence and wider opportunity at bay, and never really knew how to function without Parker, then what chance did he have in any environment? I'm not saying Elvis's career in Hollywood was a failure -- not by any stretch of the imagination. Even the most successful actors suffer periods in which choice roles aren't forthcoming or one flop leads to another. That's par for the course. But I can think of very few instances when Elvis actually pursued a role or seemed likely to find the opportunity to act in picture with bigger intentions than being a commercial vehicle for his more obvious talents. Compare this to John Wayne, Marlon Brando or Frank Sinatra, who pursued roles, produced their own movies and often worked for less money than Elvis, but for greater rewards. Especially in establishing their own production companies. Which is something Elvis never done, yet surely could have with the right people around him. Take Steve McQueen, for example, and his Solar Productions. Solar produced the 1968 film, Bullitt, at a cost of just under $5.5 million. With earnings to the tune of almost $25 million in the space of 18 months, the 42.5% Solar earned on the film netted McQueen's company $8.3 million in addition to his own personal salary of $700,000. For The Thomas Crown Affair, McQueen's $650,000 salary and profit participation to the tune of $1.75 million, came in addition to $1,000 per week living expenses, a private house, car, driver and flights from Boston to Los Angeles. Frank Sinatra read scripts and books with a mind to produce the movies he wanted to act in -- Von Ryan's Express being one such project, which he was outbid on by 20th Century Fox, but pursued the leading role knowing the film's potential. John Wayne took over twenty years to bring The Alamo to the big screen in the way he wanted to, whilst McQueen would coin $12 million for The Towering Inferno. But Elvis never seemed to pursue his ambitions or appreciate that a world of opportunity was abound outside of Tom Parker's singular vision -- or lack thereof. Elvis may have had to take a step back and accept a smaller salary on occasion or share top billing with his peers. Yet even as observers this doesn't seem possible given how his career was handled.


Thanks, greystoke, for this interesting post.
greystoke wrote:Quite unsurprisingly, I've come across several articles from the sixties that speak of Tom Parker as a shrewd manipulator and a manager with questionable methods.

Could you post some of those articles when you have the time? It would be cool to read them.
I have them in books, magazines and cut-outs and don't have the use of a scanner just now -- but I'll try to type up a few of them through the week.



User avatar

mike edwards66
Posts: 5729
Registered for: 11 years 11 months
Been thanked: 1600 times

Re: "Saved".

#1279924

Post by mike edwards66 »

greystoke wrote: Elvis was a safe bet. But did he know that? Was he aware that with success usually comes a cache of goodwill and open doors?
What a good point. Makes one view Elvis' film career in a different light, thanks.


>>>


some people say i done all right for a girl . . . oh yeah yeah

User avatar

George Smith
Posts: 3620
Registered for: 16 years 9 months
Location: Down at the end of Lonely Street
Been thanked: 2049 times
Contact:

Re: "Saved".

#1279926

Post by George Smith »

Thank you for your reasoned and informative post, Greystoke: it is, as always, much appreciated.

Thanks also for the heads-up on the book, John, I'll add it to the shopping list.



WALK A LONELY STREET
Elvis Presley, Country Music &
The True Story of Heartbreak Hotel

Now available from Amazon

http://www.GeorgeSmithPublications.com
https://www.facebook.com/WalkALonelyStreet/


HoneyTalkNelson

Re: "Saved".

#1279931

Post by HoneyTalkNelson »

You're very welcome George, I'm glad to have brought it to your attention. As I said, it is HIGHLY recommended!



User avatar

George Smith
Posts: 3620
Registered for: 16 years 9 months
Location: Down at the end of Lonely Street
Been thanked: 2049 times
Contact:

Re: "Saved".

#1279932

Post by George Smith »

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:You're very welcome George, I'm glad to have brought it to your attention. As I said, it is HIGHLY recommended!
Apologies for neglecting to mention you in the list of thanks.



WALK A LONELY STREET
Elvis Presley, Country Music &
The True Story of Heartbreak Hotel

Now available from Amazon

http://www.GeorgeSmithPublications.com
https://www.facebook.com/WalkALonelyStreet/


HoneyTalkNelson

Re: "Saved".

#1279935

Post by HoneyTalkNelson »

It's all good!




Topic author
mysterytrainrideson
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4738
Registered for: 11 years 8 months
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 1055 times

Re: "Saved".

#1279937

Post by mysterytrainrideson »

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:It's all good!
Some.nice info you've given us. Thanks.


This user is no longer a member. They have either been banned or requested their account to be closed.


HoneyTalkNelson

Re: "Saved".

#1279939

Post by HoneyTalkNelson »

My pleasure, it was this topic of SAVED that reminded me of the connection to the film. But there's SO much more in the book.

Bill Bram is truly an Elvis scholar!



User avatar

drjohncarpenter
Posts: 107019
Registered for: 20 years 11 months
Location: United States of America
Has thanked: 11700 times
Been thanked: 33635 times
Age: 89

Re: "Saved".

#1279943

Post by drjohncarpenter »

George Smith wrote:Thanks also for the heads-up on the book, John, I'll add it to the shopping list.
You are welcome, although I just added the essential details about what the book specifically reviews, and a scan of the cover art.

As noted, the lack of an editor is apparent, but it's not so distracting as to make the book dispensable. And again, it is out-of-print, and Bram himself does not have any copies to offer, so you may have to pay a bit to land one.

P.S. No thoughts on my page 1 observations about "Saved"?


.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!

User avatar

drjohncarpenter
Posts: 107019
Registered for: 20 years 11 months
Location: United States of America
Has thanked: 11700 times
Been thanked: 33635 times
Age: 89

Re: "Saved".

#1279945

Post by drjohncarpenter »

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:Regarding Ernst's incredible and important "Recording Sessions" publications, there is a rich history:

FIRST: Softbound, issued 1975, Denmark

Image



SECOND: Softbound, white cover, completed July 1977, issued August 1977

Image



THIRD: Softbound, red cover but same image as SECOND, added info, issued late 1977

Image



FOURTH: Softbound, red cover, completed and issued 1984, Denmark (Had separate Index booklet, too)

Image



FIFTH: Hardcover, issued 1985, straight copy on contents of 1984 book, included booklet text

Image



SIXTH: Hardcover glossy, issued 1986, may have included post-1984 updates

Image



SEVENTH: Hardcover with dust sleeve, issued 1998, expanded to included detailed and delightful narrative ... ESSENTIAL purchase

Image



EIGHTH: Softcover edition of 1998 version, issued 2000, margin reduced on original pages to save money ... ESSENTIAL if one cannot find the hardcover edition

Image



Additional note:
A September 2009 announcement by the Diane Publishing Company of a new imprint of Reconsider Baby (the SIXTH, from 1986) never happened.
Thank you, Doc. Wonderful! The first three issues are new to my eyes and the "Reconsider Baby" one. But the 7th edition in hardback is the one i long to have (god knows why i didn't purchase when it first appeared and i remember it coming out).

Thanks again.
Mike Windgren wrote:Thank you for the info!. If this book had so many reprints it´s because it is an outstanding book 8). Bye for now :smt006.
My pleasure, gentlemen. It's all good!


.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!


HoneyTalkNelson

Re: "Saved".

#1279950

Post by HoneyTalkNelson »

George Smith wrote:Thank you, HTN, your posts have been fascinating, informative and awfully sad ...
You're most welcome, George. "It's what I do!"




HoneyTalkNelson

Re: "Saved".

#1279951

Post by HoneyTalkNelson »

Mister Moon wrote:
HoneyTalkNelson wrote:I'm sorry for the confusion.

Elvis preferred "Saved" but the producers preferred "Sing You Children" for that spot in the film.
Thanks for the clarification.

That's what I understood as well, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't misguided by my own taste...
It's always a pleasure helping the good people on this forum! ::rocks ::rocks ::rocks




HoneyTalkNelson

Re: "Saved".

#1279952

Post by HoneyTalkNelson »

Mike Windgren wrote:Hi there!! :D :D :D.
HoneyTalkNelson wrote:Yes, the Bram book focuses in great detail on the making of nine films while the Neibaur book covers all thirty-three and has both production and release information.

As an example, ECEG is covered in the Neibaur book in five pages. In the Bram book, it's twenty-six pages.
Thank you Sir! 8). Bye for now :smt006.
Thank you, Mike. I'm always glad to help! ::rocks




HoneyTalkNelson

Re: "Saved".

#1279953

Post by HoneyTalkNelson »

mysterytrainrideson wrote:Thanks HoneyTalkNelson. Fascinating read, some real interesting stuff.
You're most welcome, it's always good! ::rocks ::rocks



User avatar

mike edwards66
Posts: 5729
Registered for: 11 years 11 months
Been thanked: 1600 times

Re: "Saved".

#1279966

Post by mike edwards66 »

drjohncarpenter wrote:P.S. No thoughts on my page 1 observations about "Saved"?
Your observations on page 1, about "Saved", were insightful.


P.S. Any thoughts on my feelings, on this page, about Take 1 of "Sing You Children" :
mike edwards66 wrote:Take 1 of 'Sing You Children Sing' remains one of my favorite Elvis Gospel numbers. It is as loose as a goose, and so much the better for it.......'the Lord he parted the waters, de-wah-oo, and singin' hand in hand, de-wah-oo, Moses and the children, de-wah-oo, walked over to the promised land'........

..


>>>


some people say i done all right for a girl . . . oh yeah yeah


skatterbrane

Re: "Saved".

#1279971

Post by skatterbrane »

It is too bad he did not record "Leave My Woman Alone" eventually, even though it was rejected for the movie.



User avatar

drjohncarpenter
Posts: 107019
Registered for: 20 years 11 months
Location: United States of America
Has thanked: 11700 times
Been thanked: 33635 times
Age: 89

Re: "Saved".

#1279978

Post by drjohncarpenter »

mike edwards66 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:P.S. No thoughts on my page 1 observations about "Saved"?
Your observations on page 1, about "Saved", were insightful.
You are not George Smith, but you're very welcome mike edwards66, I'm glad to have brought you insight.

mike edwards66 wrote:P.S. Any thoughts on my feelings, on this page, about Take 1 of "Sing You Children"
As far as favorite Elvis gospel recordings, "Sing You Children" never enters the conversation. But it's nice you get a kick out of it.


.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!

User avatar

jurasic1968
Posts: 12401
Registered for: 11 years 7 months
Has thanked: 13259 times
Been thanked: 2586 times

Re: "Saved".

#1280008

Post by jurasic1968 »

Thanks to all for this very detailed topic and so much accurate information. greystoke, thanks for your comments and examples of the 60's Hollywood back round. But is one thing that always intrigued me: Hal Wallis payed Elvis very little for blockbusters like GI Blues and Blue Hawaii. Of course later with MGM and other studios he made Elvis to earn 4 times more in salary. Wallis offered Elvis only in Easy Come Easy Go a big salary. So the Colonel made also huge mistakes in his "Hollywood moguls snowing job".



User avatar

George Smith
Posts: 3620
Registered for: 16 years 9 months
Location: Down at the end of Lonely Street
Been thanked: 2049 times
Contact:

Re: "Saved".

#1280025

Post by George Smith »

drjohncarpenter wrote:P.S. No thoughts on my page 1 observations about "Saved"?
My notes on the Gospel Medley are as follows, John:

0:00 “Sometimes I Feel Like A Motherless Child”
1:06 “Oh Yes, Oh Yes” (a short linking section – instrumental and backing vocals only)
1:16 “Where Could I Go But To The Lord?”
2:50 “Yes, Yes, Yes” (a short linking section – instrumental and backing vocals only)
3:02 “Up Above My Head” (part 1)
3:36 “Soul Support” (a short linking section -- instrumental and backing vocals only)
4:05 “Up Above My Head” (part 2)
4:14 “I Found That Light”
4:40 “Saved” (part 1)
6:20 “Preach for the Sky” (instrumental section)
7:00 “Saved” (part 2)
7:40 “Saved” (part 3) (instrumental and backing vocals only, but check out Elvis’ “Yeah, baby” at 8:10)
8:20 “Saved” (part 4)
8:40 “Saved” (reprise)

As a complete package, it's an almost perfect expression of Presley's talent as a Gospel singer: sincere, passionate and fervent.

..

The tag sounds to me like it came from the actual session: it's not dissimilar to the end of take 4 as featured on FTD's essential "Let Yourself Go".



WALK A LONELY STREET
Elvis Presley, Country Music &
The True Story of Heartbreak Hotel

Now available from Amazon

http://www.GeorgeSmithPublications.com
https://www.facebook.com/WalkALonelyStreet/

User avatar

George Smith
Posts: 3620
Registered for: 16 years 9 months
Location: Down at the end of Lonely Street
Been thanked: 2049 times
Contact:

Re: "Saved".

#1280028

Post by George Smith »

jurasic1968 wrote:Thanks to all for this very detailed topic and so much accurate information. greystoke, thanks for your comments and examples of the 60's Hollywood back round. But is one thing that always intrigued me: Hal Wallis payed Elvis very little for blockbusters like GI Blues and Blue Hawaii. Of course later with MGM and other studios he made Elvis to earn 4 times more in salary. Wallis offered Elvis only in Easy Come Easy Go a big salary. So the Colonel made also huge mistakes in his "Hollywood moguls snowing job".

To be fair, when Parker signed Elvis to Wallis the singer was, relatively speaking, almost a nobody.

For Elvis, certainly, the money meant zero: he had a contract with Paramount.

Over the coming years, Parker hassled Wallis for more money and benefits, almost driving the producer insane.



WALK A LONELY STREET
Elvis Presley, Country Music &
The True Story of Heartbreak Hotel

Now available from Amazon

http://www.GeorgeSmithPublications.com
https://www.facebook.com/WalkALonelyStreet/

User avatar

rjm
Posts: 11323
Registered for: 13 years 1 month
Location: Cali
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 1200 times
Contact:

Re: "Saved".

#1280032

Post by rjm »

@greystoke

For those lacking a scanner, it is no longer necessary to type out a piece. Take a photograph with your phone, making sure to lay it flat and with bright, even lighting.

If you have the Google Goggles app on your phone, it may even find a digital copy!

Also, you can download a mobile OCR app. Either works great.

Certainly, a scanner is best, but it's not necessary. And typing it out is never necessary! We live in a brave new world!

rjm

Sent via mobile


"And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God."
Aeschylus

"Treat me mean and cruel, treat me like a fool, but love me!"

My Tumblr blog: https://robinmark64.tumblr.com/

https://www.youtube.com/user/robinmark64

User avatar

mike edwards66
Posts: 5729
Registered for: 11 years 11 months
Been thanked: 1600 times

Re: "Saved".

#1280033

Post by mike edwards66 »

drjohncarpenter wrote:You are not George Smith, but you're very welcome mike edwards66, I'm glad to have brought you insight.
I know that silly, I was cuttin' in, it's common practice on here, you may even have done it yourself, from time to time.


>>>


some people say i done all right for a girl . . . oh yeah yeah

User avatar

jurasic1968
Posts: 12401
Registered for: 11 years 7 months
Has thanked: 13259 times
Been thanked: 2586 times

Re: "Saved".

#1280037

Post by jurasic1968 »

Agree, George, You're right. But Elvis was not a nobody in April 1956. Elvis just reached in April 1956 number one on all charts with Heartbreak Hotel. But it was Colonel's mistake to sign with Wallis so early like also he did with the April 1956 Vegas gig.



User avatar

George Smith
Posts: 3620
Registered for: 16 years 9 months
Location: Down at the end of Lonely Street
Been thanked: 2049 times
Contact:

Re: "Saved".

#1280041

Post by George Smith »

jurasic1968 wrote:Agree, George, You're right. But Elvis was not a nobody in April 1956. Elvis just reached in April 1956 number one on all charts with Heartbreak Hotel. But it was Colonel's mistake to sign with Wallis so early like also he did with the April 1956 Vegas gig.

"Heartbreak Hotel" hit the Billboard top spot on 28th April and, successful newcomer though he was, nobody could have foreseen the level of fame that Elvis would go on to achieve.

I think Parker did okay to sign Elvis to Paramount when he did: others may think differently and that's fine!



WALK A LONELY STREET
Elvis Presley, Country Music &
The True Story of Heartbreak Hotel

Now available from Amazon

http://www.GeorgeSmithPublications.com
https://www.facebook.com/WalkALonelyStreet/
Post Reply