Off Topic Messages

Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:46 pm

So Einstein, you don't think the years leading up to 1964 have an effect on what would be one of the most explosive years in rock music history?

I read the subject, and my response was completely relevant. It is you that has never been able to connect dots.

P.S. Where is the "moderator" title under your name?

Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:47 am

Doc, take another pill and lie down. The nurse will be over soon.

Mant times you have added infomation in posts not pertaining to the topic thread.
So just try and be a bit more human, I know you like to try and rub some people up more than others, but it's getting a bit tired!!!


:roll:

And I think geno's info is quite relevant,

Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:21 am

LTB -
Remember there was no VLV soundtrack in '64, just a modest selling single and a 4 song extended play (a dying format) that hardly anybody but diehard fans bought. This material, good as it was just got dumped into the pipeline of Elvis product.

DJC's point also occured to me. The VLV material was cut in mid '63, and was fresh and energetic for that time. However, by the time the material was released in '64, it lost some of it's freshness due to the new sounds on the scene.

Still, if they had opted for a VLV soundtrack lp and relegated the KC's stuff to an ep, the album would've likely been his biggest seller since Blue Hawaii.

Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:24 am

So Einstein, you don't think the years leading up to 1964 have an effect on what would be one of the most explosive years in rock music history?

Only you would try to posit that 1966 or 1967 -- when the "Smile" recordings were made -- is one of "the years leading up to 1964" ...

Like I said, you're just hopeless.

DJC (aka Einstein)

Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:32 am

drjohncarpenter wrote: Only you would try to posit that 1966 or 1967 -- when the "Smile" recordings were made -- is one of "the years leading up to 1964" ...

Like I said, you're just hopeless.

DJC (aka Einstein)


I can't for the life of me see where Geno said smile was leading up to "64.????

One of us needs a pill!!!
:wink:

Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:22 am

Like I said...he fails to connect the dots.

All the information at his finger tips, but no clue how to apply the knowledge.

Give him time Sam. :lol:

Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:17 am

My point was based on what was available by Elvis in 1964, except for KC, can't be fairly be interpreted as a lack of effort. The "Roustabout" soundtrack was problematic but no more so than many other Elvis soundtrack albums. Of course your point Pete, that there was no real "Viva" soundtrack is a good one. It is also an interesting contention about the wrong film being released on an EP. Dr- I take your point more for public perception in 1965 when those films were released. I do think those films capped by "Harum Scarum" left a bad taste in people's mouths and you saw that in the preciptious drop in sales in 1966. Of course I don't want to go too crazy equating quality with success. "Kissin' Cousins" was MGM's second highest grossing film of 1964 and IMO it is only outstripped by "Paradise Hawaiian Style" as the worst Elvis movie. Still like Burt Reynolds a decade later and Eddie Murphy twenty years it was the string of less than snuff product within a relatively short period that turned people off.

Whatever the flaws in his work and in its presentation in 1964 he still had an audience. "Viva" was the #11 movie for the whole year, he had three Top Ten Albums and a slew of Top 20 singles including two that reached the 750,000 mark which was not Beatles' level but more than respectable at that time.

Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:58 pm

Colin -
I may be beating this subject into the ground, but how did you know Ain't That Lovin' You Baby was an older track? Obviously fans would've known that Kiss Me Quick; Suspicion; Such A Night were older tracks given their previous appearances on lp's, but that wasn't the case for ATLYB. I would've thought that fans (including the Beatles) not knowing it was a 50's recording would've taken to this record as a return to form. Am I on solid ground here? To me ATLYB was the hit that should've been. Had it been released in the long gap between A Big Hunk O' Love and Stuck On You it likely would've been a top 5 smash (a no-brainer). But even in '64 it should've hit at least a little bigger than #16 (U.S.). I suspect that the popularity of Ask Me cut into ATLYB's chart success.

Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:44 pm

"Aint That Loving You Baby" sounds 50`s, Elvis did`nt sound like that by 64.

Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:47 pm

Pete Dube wrote:
Colin -
I may be beating this subject into the ground, but how did you know Ain't That Lovin' You Baby was an older track?


It was in the music papers; NME/Disc or whatever.

I remember joking with my wife that at the rate they were going [with each subsequent release being older than the one before] that the next one would be a Sun track !

Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:43 am

Pete- I remember getting the "Elvis' Golden Records Volume Four" one year for Christmas and with no education on the matter I could tell the difference between "Ain't That Loving You Baby". The arrangement is sparer than Elvis' other hits of the era, it's bluesier/jazzier than any other Top 40 hits of the era, and the echo is very '50s. I agree it's a great record and it did meet with a lot of a popular acclaim Top Ten on some charts and more than 750,000 sold.

Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:51 am

ColinB wrote:Pete Dube wrote:
Colin -
I may be beating this subject into the ground, but how did you know Ain't That Lovin' You Baby was an older track?


It was in the music papers; NME/Disc or whatever.


Albert Hand also stated that it was a 58 track in Elvis Monthly, which had a circulation of around 100,000 a month back then. It was no secret. Besides, when you listen to it, it screams out 1958.

Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:22 am

Well it seems to me that Elvis couldn't win no matter what. A lot of the fans from the 50's felt the early 60's stuff was watered down, and wanted a return to the raucous sound. But even when they released a terrific rock&roll performance in ATLYB it only achieves top 20 success.

And what of It Hurts Me? Yeah I know it was buried on the B side of Kissin' Cousins (according to Ernst that was Elvis' idea), but other B sides in the past had been popular enough to hit the top 5. So what happened here?

And how does Kissin' Cousins hit #12, but the vastly superior What'd I Say doesn't even make the top 20? Not to put anybody down, but it appears to be a situation where a substantial number of the fans at the time failed to recognize these as great records and support them accordingly. What exactly did you folks want from the guy?

Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:04 pm

Pete wrote:
And what of It Hurts Me? Yeah I know it was buried on the B side of Kissin' Cousins (according to Ernst that was Elvis' idea), but other B sides in the past had been popular enough to hit the top 5. So what happened here?
It was a crying shame that It Hurts Me was buried, but even though it was a heartfelt performance, it wasn't really commercial by 1964 standards !

None of Elvis' record output was.

And don't blame 'the fans' !

We bought all the singles, all the albums, and went to see all the movies; in 1964 as in every other year !

It was the bulk of the general public who deserted him for something new !

Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:18 pm

The seeds had already been planted by that time. But never underestimate the events that led up to the 68 comeback. To me, that wasn't just a one off.

The material that came to surface as bonus tracks on the soundtracks leading up to it, helped restore some credibility.

Still, the charts aren't everything. They certaintly shouldn't be the ONLY guage that makes an artist viable.

Facts are facts, Elvis hadn't had a real album since 1962. Even that one was a little weak.

Thats what people were looking at for the future, albums..not singles.

Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:06 pm

ColinB wrote:Pete wrote:
And what of It Hurts Me? Yeah I know it was buried on the B side of Kissin' Cousins (according to Ernst that was Elvis' idea), but other B sides in the past had been popular enough to hit the top 5. So what happened here?
It was a crying shame that It Hurts Me was buried, but even though it was a heartfelt performance, it wasn't really commercial by 1964 standards !

None of Elvis' record output was.

And don't blame 'the fans' !

We bought all the singles, all the albums, and went to see all the movies; in 1964 as in every other year !

It was the bulk of the general public who deserted him for something new !


Good point Colin. But I still think that even some fans began to pass on some of the releases. At least in the U.S. Or maybe it was more a question of airplay on this side of the pond since the Billboard top 40 chart was based on both sales and airplay. How did VLV/What'd I Say; ATLYB/Ask Me; and It Hurts Me do in the U.K. where charts are based soley on sales?

Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:31 pm

Pete wrote:
How did VLV/What'd I Say; ATLYB/Ask Me; and It Hurts Me do in the U.K. where charts are based soley on sales?


These are Elvis' 1964 chart positions:

Kiss Me Quick - Peaked at No.14 [released late '63]

Viva Las Vegas - Peaked at No.17 [What'd I Say not mentioned on chart]

Kissin' Cousins - Peaked at No.10 [It Hurts Me not mentioned on chart]

Such a Night - Peaked at No.13

Ain't That Loving You Baby - Peaked at No.15 [Ask Me not mentioned on chart]

Blue Christmas - Peaked at No.11

Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:09 am

Looking at the chart positions, it is obvious that Elvis wasn't far from people's minds. It just wasn't "cool" at the time.

I think that is how people felt then.

Who could blame the kids. I am glad, cause we never would have got In The Ghetto and Suspicious..etc.

Though I like the soundtrack material, thank the lord that wasn't all we got!

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:41 am

geno wrote:
....I am glad, cause we never would have got In The Ghetto and Suspicious..etc.


How did you arrive at that conclusion ?

Simple truth is, we don't know !

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:07 pm

ColinB wrote:geno wrote:
....I am glad, cause we never would have got In The Ghetto and Suspicious..etc.


How did you arrive at that conclusion ?

Simple truth is, we don't know !


Or we could have got something better!!!

If that's possible!!! :wink:

:D

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:25 pm

I think Elvis would have struggled to retain his number one chart status no matter how good his material by 1964. From that period on, the entertainment industry started to move at a very quick pace, with styles and fashions coming and going even quicker than previous years. For many young people, Elvis with his quiff still intact, looked old fashioned, never mind sounding old fashioned.

Elvis had a fantasic run as chart king between 56-63, but it was inevertable it would come to an end, it`s just a shame he went out with such a wimper in the mid sixties.

And as much as i love tracks like "It Hurts Me" and "Memphis Tennessee", i don`t think they would have troubled the top ten back in 64. Though i do wished they had been released as A sides.

Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:45 am

Interesting post and resulting thread, LTB.

You succeeded in painting '64 as a year that particularly in hindsight was just bursting at the seems with musical riches. And taking a glass half-full and "what if" approach towards Elvis '64 output (in terms of releases) helps put him back into the picture.

I'm often struck just how much pop acts like Sinatra, etc. maintained a currency and popular appeal even during the rock boom years. 1967 comes to mind.

Regarding the "pre-punk" sound of the Kinks' "You Really Got Me" (as you called it) is a point I understand but at the same time I always feel obliged to give props to the wild music that inspired or came before punk. Chronology is important to me in this way, although I usually get the point when someone calls, say, Louis Jordan, a "pre-rap" inspiration/ founding forefather, etc.

Hearing that song during the '70s and '80s growing up, I was always taken at how edgy and raw it still was - no matter how played out it became.

Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:44 am

I think you guys missed my point.

I am glad that fans stop buying like they used to.

Without the support, Elvis had to change.

So it was the lower and lower chart placing's that cause E to re-examine his career.

Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:55 am

To your credit, GeneSimmons, I think you have made a point (as far as I can tell) that is similiar to what Likethebike has written about Elvis' still-underestimated pop longevity. That he had a "downspell" is certainly understandable, if not inevitable. If that's what it took for the '68 Comeback special to be born, it's almost foolhardly to get too worked up over the worst soundtracks.

Still, the charts aren't everything. They certaintly shouldn't be the ONLY guage that makes an artist viable.


Some people who "were there" (Colin or former FECCer spectacle) may bristle, but in time, we can at least look at what Elvis was producing in various down-periods and ask: what part of it was worthwhile, charts be damned...?

History is often times an exercise in seeing what has stood the test of time and certainly songs like "It's Hurts Me" and, yes, "Viva Las Vegas" merit reconsideration, as has been the case on collections like "Artist of the Century" and "Second to None."

Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:53 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Some people who "were there" (Colin or former FECCer spectacle) may bristle, but in time, we can at least look at what Elvis was producing in various down-periods and ask: what part of it was worthwhile, charts be damned...?


I'm not bristling.

Yes, with hindsight, I prefer Ain't That Loving You Baby to many other songs of the day, including some by Elvis !

But we were looking at how things seemed at the time, and why Elvis lost some of his commercial appeal then.

BTW - Hands up all who thought Maurice didn't mean it when he said he was going................

One.... two.... three...........................

Well, that looks like most of you !