Love Letters 66 or 70

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

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


User avatar

TINML
Posts: 3632
Registered for: 20 years 10 months
Has thanked: 1199 times
Been thanked: 1108 times
Age: 36

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400000

Post by TINML »

No contest, 1966.


"We can do what we want, we can live as we chose. You see, there's no guarantee, we've got nothing to lose.."


Matthew

Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400002

Post by Matthew »

Juan Luis wrote:In my opinion, the "fullfill the contract" leftover songs, weren't overproduced, but suffered from the string arrangements of Don Tweedy, which I have no doubt sounded contemporary for the genre then. The Bergen White, Norbert Putmam, and David Briggs post-production arrangements for the other June 1970 recordings, are less busy and complimentary to those particular performances.
Overdubs were all part of the production work, whether the result is overproduced, or not.

Jarvis overproduced Love Letters. But more to the point he should have put a stop to any notion of a re-recording and pressed on with new material. A stronger producer, worthy of the talent he was producing would not have encouraged this.

The "hired hands" cannot be blamed for producing commissioned works, Jarvis was the man in charge of finishing the results, overseeing all elements of the finished productions.

Bridge Over Troubled Water, generally considered one of, if not THE strongest result from these sessions suffers from this for example, from Elvis' over the top vocal to the excesses in orchestrations and bombastic backing vocals.

Jarvis could, and should have tamed that one. Take 1 gives an indication of the direction this should have headed, more understated.

To be honest, I've supported some the positive statements about Jarvis but it's gotten way out of hand now. His contributions to the 69 Memphis sessions exist for example, and should be acknowledged, but they are not significant.

I jump in when the pendulum swings too far the other way and posters deny he contributed anything at all, which is folly.

But let's not loose sight of the bigger picture, he was a mediocre producer at best who did not have the strength or authority to push the star to consistent, better work. Elvis cut a lot of sh*t at those Nashville dates in 1970, because he fell right back into Colonel's and RCA's tight, restricted bubble, with a "yes man" producing the sessions.

Poor manager, poor management, terrible publishing arrangement, and a producer out of his depth.

Suspicious Minds (and others) would never have reached Elvis had this been the situation in 1969.
Last edited by Matthew on Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.



User avatar

londonflash
Posts: 6311
Registered for: 20 years 11 months
Has thanked: 2200 times
Been thanked: 1860 times
Age: 40

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400003

Post by londonflash »

Unquestionably the 1966 version, which is a lovely performance, far more delicate and in keeping with the lyrics.

Elvis, the band and orchestra trampled over the song in 1970.


Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

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: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400009

Post by drjohncarpenter »

CountCanada wrote:Personally, 66 version is smoother and nicer to listen to
"Love Letters" is a beautiful ballad, but nothing beats Ketty Lester's graceful, elegant hit single, issued four years earlier.


Image


Image


..
Ketty Lester "Love Letters" (Era 3068, January 13, 1962)
Billboard "Hot 100" #5, April 14, 1962, "Hot R&B Sides" #2, May 5, 1962 and Cash Box "Top 100" #7, April 21, 1962


What a beautiful performance! That said, Elvis' 1966 vocal and arrangement put up a much better fight than what was waxed four years later.

But in the spring of 1966, an artist of his stature really should have been focusing on new material, ballad and uptempo. The landscape had changed, but neither he nor his co-producer, RCA's Felton Jarvis, seemed willing to recognize that. When "Love Letters" was issued almost exactly 49 (!) years ago this month, with a cover of the 1957 Clyde McPhatter single "Come What May" on the flip side, it barely scraped the top twenty, making #19 on the Billboard "Hot 100" chart on July 23, 1966, and going no higher on Cash Box, making #19 on their "Top 100" on August 6. The music, no matter how sincere, was anachronistic. The cover sleeve didn't help things, either. One look at that portrait, and the "coming soon" LP promo line, told the record buyer all they needed to know.

660618_ RCA 47-8870.JPG
Elvis Presley "Love Letters" (RCA 8870, June 18, 1966)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


.
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: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400025

Post by jurasic1968 »

Oh, what a stupid cover. And the promo for PHS - how sad for Elvis Presley's music in 1966.




Juan Luis

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400026

Post by Juan Luis »

Matthew wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:In my opinion, the "fullfill the contract" leftover songs, weren't overproduced, but suffered from the string arrangements of Don Tweedy, which I have no doubt sounded contemporary for the genre then. The Bergen White, Norbert Putmam, and David Briggs post-production arrangements for the other June 1970 recordings, are less busy and complimentary to those particular performances.
Overdubs were all part of the production work, whether the result is overproduced, or not.

Jarvis overproduced Love Letters. But more to the point he should have put a stop to any notion of a re-recording and pressed on with new material. A stronger producer, worthy of the talent he was producing would not have encouraged this.

The "hired hands" cannot be blamed for producing commissioned works, Jarvis was the man in charge of finishing the results, overseeing all elements of the finished productions.

Bridge Over Troubled Water, generally considered one of, if not THE strongest result from these sessions suffers from this for example, from Elvis' over the top vocal to the excesses in orchestrations and bombastic backing vocals.

Jarvis could, and should have tamed that one. Take 1 gives an indication of the direction this should have headed, more understated.

To be honest, I've supported some the positive statements about Jarvis but it's gotten way out of hand now. His contributions to the 69 Memphis sessions exist for example, and should be acknowledged, but they are not significant.

I jump in when the pendulum swings too far the other way and posters deny he contributed anything at all, which is folly.

But let's not loose sight of the bigger picture, he was a mediocre producer at best who did not have the strength or authority to push the star to consistent, better work. Elvis cut a lot of sh*t at those Nashville dates in 1970, because he fell right back into Colonel's and RCA's tight, restricted bubble, with a "yes man" producing the sessions.
Elvis did not step into a recording studio again until March of 1971. RCA needed the contract fulfilled. Felton had to assemble and finish the leftover material (for Jan 1971 release) from the 1970 June sessions he did on ORDERS from RCA. And it's pretty well produced for what it is. ..MOR."Love Letters" undubbed makes the singer sound bored. With the overdubs a darker sound comes about. Elvis come 1970's, was THE producer and Jarvis the Asociate Producer. Elvis on tape tells Jarvis "good for you is Sh*t"! And Jarvis responds in a weird joking voice "It's a gas"! It was a running gag between friends by that time. Elvis knew when the master was done. And so did Jarvis. There will be exceptions of abandoned material..that had to be finished for RCA. It wasn't easy at all for everyone involved. And speaking of "hired hands", that's what Moman was in 1969 for RCA as well. RCA was the top boss, and chose to release, edit, and do what it felt with the sessions. It was their HIRED studio, engineer, Producer(s), tape and their artist. This wasn't an independent project. It was an RCA payed session with everyone inside. Including Elvis. And all this talk about Moman being strong. He was a softie by the end of the sessions with Elvis as well. And even Elvis snapped (jokingly?) at him for pulling "a Jarvis" on "Only The Strong Survive". Ernst Jorgensen said it well. "Neither Moman nor Jarvis (he actually mentions both) were in CONTROL of the sessions. ELVIS was."...There are two types of producers to this day, the easy-going like Jarvis, and even Chet Atkins. But they got the best of the artist when Elvis was engaged. And those like Moman. Both worked out with Elvis. But who was going to last? What type of producer was going to last like that with EP. Even Sam Phillips let the boy do his thing. And Sam recorded "Harbor lights", but surely would not have let that one (or others ) out if Elvis stayed with his label. My point. It was always up to Elvis. And even Guralnick sees the myth about material for Elvis by 1969. Elvis could record what he wanted. He didn't, cause of his own doing. We will never know all the stuff that was rejected. I bet a lot of potential hits that moved with a good beat. Elvis didn't want that as Jerry Scheff mentions about 1976. Heck it was a miracle "Burning Love" in 1972 happened, thanks to Felton Jarvis. Anything reminding him of Rock and Roll was dismissed quickly, it seems to me. Blame it on medication, or whatever. As the 1970's progressed EP could give it all. But the "ALL" diminished as his health declined.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:43 am, edited 4 times in total.



User avatar

elvis-fan
Posts: 16714
Registered for: 20 years 11 months
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 3951 times
Been thanked: 5487 times
Age: 89

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400029

Post by elvis-fan »

Elvis sounds half asleep in the 1970 recording... it's not a favorite of mine but If I had to choose one, the 1966 recording is the lesser of two evils...




Matthew

Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400042

Post by Matthew »

Chips worked Elvis, Jarvis facilitated Elvis, that is a key difference in their approaches to producing him.

But it's not a competition, these are just the plain facts.

I respect you Juan, always have, but on the topic of Felton Jarvis I fear it's gotten more emotional and less rational as this topic has dragged on over many threads and posts.

Chips was no hired hand in the lowest sense of the words, in fact he told RCA to stuff off ("call it an expensive demo session") when they tried to bully him over Suspicious Minds.

I don't aim to pull down Jarvis (I actually dig the Guitar Man album myself) but I'm not about to make excuses for his lack of authority in the studio, and too gentle approach to coerce better out of Elvis. He also had a direct personal financial interest in scoring as many masters as he possibly could from a Presley session, for better or worse.
Last edited by Matthew on Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Juan Luis

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400046

Post by Juan Luis »

Matthew wrote:Chips worked Elvis, Jarvis facilitated Elvis, that is a key difference in their approaches to producing him.

But it's not a competition, these are just the plane facts.

I respect you Juan, always have, but on the topic of Felton Jarvis I fear it's gotten more emotional and less rational as this topic has dragged on over many threads and posts.

Chips was no hired hand in the lowest sense of the words, in fact he told RCA to stuff off ("call it an expensive demo session") when they tried to bully him over Suspicious Minds.

I don't aim to pull down Jarvis (I actually dig the Guitar Man album myself) but I'm not about to make excuses for his lack of authority in the studio, and too gentle approach to coerce better out of Elvis. He also had a direct personal financial interest in scoring as many masters as he possibly could from a Presley session, for better or worse.
I respect you the same. Hired is hired though. Chips may have thought that it was going to be different with more control etc. But soon found out to the contrary. No matter how much some try to place Chips Moman in full control from beginning to end. "Suspicious Minds" was ultimately done because Of Elvis. He decided. In the can anyway when told about "expensive demo or erasing". Naive to think would not eventually be released. And as for scoring as many masters for a Presley session. I feel the same with the song publishers. All wanted a piece, and the more the better. No exceptions.
The only reason things have dragged is cause of the examples that have had to be given in my opinion of course. Thanks Mathew for being respectful in your views even if contrary to mine.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:14 am, edited 2 times in total.




fn2drive
TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
TWO WEEK SUSPENSION
Posts: 5002
Registered for: 20 years
Has thanked: 355 times
Been thanked: 2251 times

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400086

Post by fn2drive »

Juan Luis wrote:
Matthew wrote:
Juan Luis wrote:In my opinion, the "fullfill the contract" leftover songs, weren't overproduced, but suffered from the string arrangements of Don Tweedy, which I have no doubt sounded contemporary for the genre then. The Bergen White, Norbert Putmam, and David Briggs post-production arrangements for the other June 1970 recordings, are less busy and complimentary to those particular performances.
Overdubs were all part of the production work, whether the result is overproduced, or not.

Jarvis overproduced Love Letters. But more to the point he should have put a stop to any notion of a re-recording and pressed on with new material. A stronger producer, worthy of the talent he was producing would not have encouraged this.

The "hired hands" cannot be blamed for producing commissioned works, Jarvis was the man in charge of finishing the results, overseeing all elements of the finished productions.

Bridge Over Troubled Water, generally considered one of, if not THE strongest result from these sessions suffers from this for example, from Elvis' over the top vocal to the excesses in orchestrations and bombastic backing vocals.

Jarvis could, and should have tamed that one. Take 1 gives an indication of the direction this should have headed, more understated.

To be honest, I've supported some the positive statements about Jarvis but it's gotten way out of hand now. His contributions to the 69 Memphis sessions exist for example, and should be acknowledged, but they are not significant.

I jump in when the pendulum swings too far the other way and posters deny he contributed anything at all, which is folly.

But let's not loose sight of the bigger picture, he was a mediocre producer at best who did not have the strength or authority to push the star to consistent, better work. Elvis cut a lot of sh*t at those Nashville dates in 1970, because he fell right back into Colonel's and RCA's tight, restricted bubble, with a "yes man" producing the sessions.
Elvis did not step into a recording studio again until March of 1971. RCA needed the contract fulfilled. Felton had to assemble and finish the leftover material (for Jan 1971 release) from the 1970 June sessions he did on ORDERS from RCA. And it's pretty well produced for what it is. ..MOR."Love Letters" undubbed makes the singer sound bored. With the overdubs a darker sound comes about. And stop parroting the "yes-man" thing. Cause the Producer is the boss. And Elvis come 1970's, was THE producer and Jarvis the Asociate Producer. Elvis on tape tells Jarvis "good for you is Sh*t"! And Jarvis responds in a weird joking voice "It's a gas". It was a running gag between friends by that time. Elvis knew when the Master was done. And so did Jarvis. There will be exceptions of abandoned material..that had to be finished for RCA. It wasn't easy at all for everyone involved. And speaking of "hired hands", that's what Moman was in 1969 for RCA as well. RCA was the top boss, and chose to release, edit, and do what it felt with the sessions. It was their HIRED studio, engineer, Producer(s), tape and their ARTIST. This wasn't an independent project. It was an RCA payed session with everyone inside. Including Elvis. And all this talk about Moman being strong. He was a softie by the end of the sessions with Elvis as well. And even Elvis snapped (jokingly?) at him for pulling "a Jarvis" on "Only The Strong Survive". Ernst Jorgensen said it well. "Neither Moman nor Jarvis (he actually mentions both) were in CONTROL of the sessions. ELVIS was."...There are two types of producers to this day, the softies like Jarvis, and even Chet Atkins. But they got the best of the artist when Elvis was engaged. And "strong" like Moman. Both worked out with Elvis. But who was going to last? What type of producer was going to last like that with EP. Even Sam Phillips let the boy do his thing. And Sam recorded "Harbor lights", but surely would not have let that one (or others ) out if Elvis stayed with his label. My point. It was always up to Elvis. And even Guralnick sees the myth about material for Elvis by 1969. Elvis could record what he wanted. He didn't, cause of his own doing. We will never know all the stuff that was rejected. I bet a lot of potential hits that moved with a good beat. Elvis didn't want that as Jerry Scheff mentions about 1976. Heck it was a miracle "Burning Love" in 1972 happened, thanks to Felton Jarvis. Anything reminding him of Rock and Roll was dismissed quickly it seems to me. Blame it on medication, or whatever. As the 1970's progressed EP could give it all. But the "ALL" had diminished with his health.
No matter how many times you raise it, Felton was and always will be a hack who Elvis lost respect for the minute he went on his payroll. Moman coaxed the best out of Elvis. jarvis knew how to call them a gas. Big contribution. Elvis knew and didnt care any longer. As to the actual topic, i prefer the 1970 version. Not that it is superior but Elvis conveys a mature desolation and uses a lot of his vocal tricks which hadnt yet morphed into parody. The earlier version the is better sung.


Hack n. 1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward

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: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400102

Post by drjohncarpenter »

drjohncarpenter wrote:
CountCanada wrote:Personally, 66 version is smoother and nicer to listen to
"Love Letters" is a beautiful ballad, but nothing beats Ketty Lester's graceful, elegant hit single, issued four years earlier.


Image


Image


..
Ketty Lester "Love Letters" (Era 3068, January 13, 1962)
Billboard "Hot 100" #5, April 14, 1962, "Hot R&B Sides" #2, May 5, 1962 and Cash Box "Top 100" #7, April 21, 1962


What a beautiful performance! That said, Elvis' 1966 vocal and arrangement put up a much better fight than what was waxed four years later.

But in the spring of 1966, an artist of his stature really should have been focusing on new material, ballad and uptempo. The landscape had changed, but neither he nor his co-producer, RCA's Felton Jarvis, seemed willing to recognize that. When "Love Letters" was issued almost exactly 49 (!) years ago this month, with a cover of the 1957 Clyde McPhatter single "Come What May" on the flip side, it barely scraped the top twenty, making #19 on the Billboard "Hot 100" chart on July 23, 1966, and going no higher on Cash Box, making #19 on their "Top 100" on August 6. The music, no matter how sincere, was anachronistic. The cover sleeve didn't help things, either. One look at that portrait, and the "coming soon" LP promo line, told the record buyer all they needed to know.


Image

Elvis Presley "Love Letters" (RCA 8870, June 18, 1966)
jurasic1968 wrote:Oh, what a stupid cover. And the promo for PHS - how sad for Elvis Presley's music in 1966.
Funny how no one here notices how closely Presley follows the Ketty Lester arrangement. He clearly appreciated her work on that 1962 single, as did everyone that year, across the board.

Yeah, Elvis was already more than two years into his Hollywood decline, and people would not begin to notice him in a big way until his stunning TV Special aired two and a half years after this single. Then began the wonderful renaissance of his career, both commercially and critically, with stellar 1969 work in Memphis with producer Chips Moman, followed by a electrifying stage return later that same year. Things looks pretty darn good right through to the end of 1970, and into 1971. After that, well, you know.


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


HoneyTalkNelson

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400105

Post by HoneyTalkNelson »

Billboard did not have much faith in the single hitting the top 20...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar

EPFan1970
Posts: 65
Registered for: 8 years 9 months
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400151

Post by EPFan1970 »

I unquestionably love both versions, due to how great of a ballad it is. But, if I had to choose, I'd pick the 1966 rendition because in my opinion, his voice in 1966 was more delicate and soft with his incomparable falsetto and tenor. Also, both versions are completely different as the tempo is faster in the 1970 rendition, which makes it more of a raw, baritone flavored rendition. :D

1966 -

1970 -


“Don’t criticize what you don’t understand, son. You never walked in that man’s shoes.”

― Elvis Presley

User avatar

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

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400155

Post by jurasic1968 »

Right now I listened both versions 5 times in a row, and to me the 1966 master it's far better.




Rtn 2 Sndr
Posts: 1168
Registered for: 19 years
Has thanked: 249 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400468

Post by Rtn 2 Sndr »

drjohncarpenter wrote: Funny how no one here notices how closely Presley follows the Ketty Lester arrangement. He clearly appreciated her work on that 1962 single, as did everyone that year, across the board.

Yeah, Elvis was already more than two years into his Hollywood decline, and people would not begin to notice him in a big way until his stunning TV Special aired two and a half years after this single. Then began the wonderful renaissance of his career, both commercially and critically, with stellar 1969 work in Memphis with producer Chips Moman, followed by a electrifying stage return later that same year. Things looks pretty darn good right through to the end of 1970, and into 1971. After that, well, you know.
Actually, I did. :wink:

I personally like the 1966 recording very much.

If it is considered as a random Elvis recording, it is a faithful cover version of a classic R&B song that Elvis sings with a restrained, yet sensitive delivery. The arrangement is tasteful, as it is a copy of the original arrangement. The musicianship is excellent, coming from the usual Nashville musicians who performed on the RCA Studio B recordings.

Now let us consider "Love Letters" in the context of Elvis' recording career in 1966.

"Love Letters" marked the end of a two-year period of recording nothing but soundtrack songs. RCA supplemented the soundtrack albums with a series of singles taken from the Nashville albums ("Elvis Is Back", "Something For Everybody", and "Pot Luck"). To the Elvis fans who were around in 1966, "Love Letters" probably seemed like just another leftover. This performance could have easily appeared on "Pot Luck" or "For the Asking" (if it had been released). So it is not surprising that "Love Letters" was only moderately successful on the charts.


In retrospect, Elvis fans, especially later generations, see "Love Letters" as a break from the soundtrack recordings and perhaps have a little more affection for the song than it may actually deserve. It is indeed a true measure of how low the bar had fallen when an almost note-for-note cover of a moderate R&B hit from four years prior was considered a giant step forward.

As for the original question, I like the 1966 recording of "Love Letters" much more than the 1970 version.


Rtn 2 Sndr
Address Unknown


Tornado
Posts: 1006
Registered for: 15 years
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 166 times
Age: 74

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400473

Post by Tornado »

CountCanada wrote:Personally, 66 version is smoother and nicer to listen to
Absolutely!




Tornado
Posts: 1006
Registered for: 15 years
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 166 times
Age: 74

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400474

Post by Tornado »

Juan Luis wrote:"Love Letters" is a beautiful old standard. The Nat King Cole & later Diana Krall versions with the intro not used by Elvis, are exquisite.
The 1966 version is the best but yes a beautiful version has been done by DIana Krall more to the taste of today I guess.



User avatar

Will
Posts: 904
Registered for: 20 years 9 months
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 304 times

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400477

Post by Will »

70...... :D




stevelecher
Posts: 7378
Registered for: 20 years 10 months
Has thanked: 756 times
Been thanked: 1403 times

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400546

Post by stevelecher »

I like Elvis' 66 version best and I like it better than Ketty's. Sure, it's a total copy of her record, which he used almost like a demo, but I love his voice on it. The 1970 version makes you wonder if Elvis lost his ability to do a tender, soft vocal only four years later. Already, we got the richer voice comment here; not by a mile.

As for what this means in terms of music in 1966, this is not the most dated sounding recording he made at the time. Come What May and Fools Fall In Love are embarrassingly out of date for their time period. Tomorrow Is A Long Time is the eye opener for me and showed perhaps, Elvis could do something with some modern material.




skatterbrane

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400555

Post by skatterbrane »

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Funny how no one here notices how closely Presley follows the Ketty Lester arrangement. He clearly appreciated her work on that 1962 single, as did everyone that year, across the board.

Yeah, Elvis was already more than two years into his Hollywood decline, and people would not begin to notice him in a big way until his stunning TV Special aired two and a half years after this single. Then began the wonderful renaissance of his career, both commercially and critically, with stellar 1969 work in Memphis with producer Chips Moman, followed by a electrifying stage return later that same year. Things looks pretty darn good right through to the end of 1970, and into 1971. After that, well, you know.
So, why do you assume no one notices the very similar arrangements used between Lester's and Elvis'? It is almost impossible not to notice. I assume EVERYONE has noticed but maybe no one though it was worth mentioning the obvious.



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: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400700

Post by drjohncarpenter »

skatterbrane wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Funny how no one here notices how closely Presley follows the Ketty Lester arrangement. He clearly appreciated her work on that 1962 single, as did everyone that year, across the board.

Yeah, Elvis was already more than two years into his Hollywood decline, and people would not begin to notice him in a big way until his stunning TV Special aired two and a half years after this single. Then began the wonderful renaissance of his career, both commercially and critically, with stellar 1969 work in Memphis with producer Chips Moman, followed by a electrifying stage return later that same year. Things looks pretty darn good right through to the end of 1970, and into 1971. After that, well, you know.
So, why do you assume no one notices the very similar arrangements used between Lester's and Elvis'? It is almost impossible not to notice. I assume EVERYONE has noticed but maybe no one though it was worth mentioning the obvious.
Why? How about because no one even mentioned the single until I brought it to the discussion in grand fashion. It is a sure bet this is because almost no one was even aware "Love Letters" was a cover in the first place. The type of observations made here establish that a good portion of the fans who visit FECC listen almost exclusively to Elvis, and not much else. This is a big reason why few commented on Ketty's magnificent single even after my post. Most probably didn't even give the YouTube video a spin.


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

User avatar

Mike Windgren
Posts: 9200
Registered for: 20 years 11 months
Location: España.
Has thanked: 2293 times
Been thanked: 4408 times

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400777

Post by Mike Windgren »

Hi there!! :D :D :D.
skatterbrane wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Funny how no one here notices how closely Presley follows the Ketty Lester arrangement. He clearly appreciated her work on that 1962 single, as did everyone that year, across the board.

Yeah, Elvis was already more than two years into his Hollywood decline, and people would not begin to notice him in a big way until his stunning TV Special aired two and a half years after this single. Then began the wonderful renaissance of his career, both commercially and critically, with stellar 1969 work in Memphis with producer Chips Moman, followed by a electrifying stage return later that same year. Things looks pretty darn good right through to the end of 1970, and into 1971. After that, well, you know.
So, why do you assume no one notices the very similar arrangements used between Lester's and Elvis'? It is almost impossible not to notice. I assume EVERYONE has noticed but maybe no one though it was worth mentioning the obvious.
Exactly! ::rocks. Bye for now :smt006.


Maestro. Mike Windgren. Torero!!!!!!!!.
Always Trying To Make Peace <<--->> On FECC
Not The Best, Just The Coolest Guy Around!.
.


Viva el vino, viva el dinero, viva, viva el amor!!.

Image


matilda
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1789
Registered for: 11 years 7 months
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 264 times

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400783

Post by matilda »

drjohncarpenter wrote:
skatterbrane wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Funny how no one here notices how closely Presley follows the Ketty Lester arrangement. He clearly appreciated her work on that 1962 single, as did everyone that year, across the board.

Yeah, Elvis was already more than two years into his Hollywood decline, and people would not begin to notice him in a big way until his stunning TV Special aired two and a half years after this single. Then began the wonderful renaissance of his career, both commercially and critically, with stellar 1969 work in Memphis with producer Chips Moman, followed by a electrifying stage return later that same year. Things looks pretty darn good right through to the end of 1970, and into 1971. After that, well, you know.
So, why do you assume no one notices the very similar arrangements used between Lester's and Elvis'? It is almost impossible not to notice. I assume EVERYONE has noticed but maybe no one though it was worth mentioning the obvious.
Why? How about because no one even mentioned the single until I brought it to the discussion in grand fashion. It is a sure bet this is because almost no one was even aware "Love Letters" was a cover in the first place. The type of observations made here establish that a good portion of the fans who visit FECC listen almost exclusively to Elvis, and not much else. This is a big reason why few commented on Ketty's magnificent single even after my post. Most probably didn't even give the YouTube video a spin.
Not true and i think you shouldn't put that down in that general fashion. You would have lost your bet.
I knew that elvis covered it and i knew the record from which he did.
Not mentioning it doesn't mean necessarily a lack of knowledge.
Ps: that doesn't mean that i don't appreciate the background imformation you post on songs of elvis or the roots they stemmed from.



User avatar

Good Time Charlie
Posts: 3450
Registered for: 13 years 6 months
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400872

Post by Good Time Charlie »

drjohncarpenter wrote:
skatterbrane wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Funny how no one here notices how closely Presley follows the Ketty Lester arrangement. He clearly appreciated her work on that 1962 single, as did everyone that year, across the board.

Yeah, Elvis was already more than two years into his Hollywood decline, and people would not begin to notice him in a big way until his stunning TV Special aired two and a half years after this single. Then began the wonderful renaissance of his career, both commercially and critically, with stellar 1969 work in Memphis with producer Chips Moman, followed by a electrifying stage return later that same year. Things looks pretty darn good right through to the end of 1970, and into 1971. After that, well, you know.
So, why do you assume no one notices the very similar arrangements used between Lester's and Elvis'? It is almost impossible not to notice. I assume EVERYONE has noticed but maybe no one though it was worth mentioning the obvious.
Why? How about because no one even mentioned the single until I brought it to the discussion in grand fashion. It is a sure bet this is because almost no one was even aware "Love Letters" was a cover in the first place. The type of observations made here establish that a good portion of the fans who visit FECC listen almost exclusively to Elvis, and not much else. This is a big reason why few commented on Ketty's magnificent single even after my post. Most probably didn't even give the YouTube video a spin.
I'm certain that most Elvis fanatics and most fans of music from that era in general are well aware of Lester's fine original recording.


"You go to school, I'm going out to make a buck"

User avatar

Good Time Charlie
Posts: 3450
Registered for: 13 years 6 months
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: Love Letters 66 or 70

#1400875

Post by Good Time Charlie »

Meanwhile, back to the original question, I think it's clearly evident that Elvis' 1966 recording is better in every respect.

It's a shame those secular non-soundtrack songs Elvis recorded at Studio B during that pre-comeback period didn't evolve into an album. "Love Letters" was perfect album material.


"You go to school, I'm going out to make a buck"
Post Reply