Did Elvis have a duty to perform overseas??

I think I've got it.

It's Elvis and or colonel turning down a legit offer for him to play overseas. In other words it wasn't as if they were going into the unknown as promotoers were already queueing up ?

If so then I guess you'd be an easy target then.

Personally the offer would have to suit me and I would turn it down without feeling obligated to give a reason, or I may give a reason, depends on what I thought of the offer.

If you gave Elvis and the Colonel an offer they couldn't refuse then you'd have got the deal. As it was no one could come up with such an offer.

That's not their fault it's the promoters.

There were backers out there that would have sponsored a deal, big name cops who'd have wanted sponsorship and slightly bigger than the Pacific Shrimp Company or whoever did the Aloha one.

$10m + a percentage of any profits after that $10m was cleared (in 1970's figures) were not out of the question for a superstar of his calibure - probably the only one in that calibure.

He could afford to not play one night stand tours and Baron Hiltons living room then.

who offered such a deal ? Oh here's where that list of yours could come in handy.


What do you think of that list above then ?

Elvis was made an offer. Elvis was insulted more like.

$10m + a percentage of any profits after that $10m was cleared (in 1970's figures) were not out of the question for a superstar of his calibure - probably the only one in that calibure.

who offered such a deal ?

That LVSun Paris article was online at someone's Elvis site. And I saw it, read it, a few years ago. The news was in either April or August '75.

Which ironically, that very year, Elvis was so hard up for ready cash money he took out a bank loan! Using Graceland as collateral (risked losing his estate if not fully paid back by Nov '77)

If he needs money that bad to resort to a bank loan, then he surely needed to accept that $1 million dollar paycheck for a Paris performance.

Needed to accept any high-dollar ooportunity even at Greenland.

And here's the kicker: the loan was to buy aircraft!!! Jets.
But why? He ain't gonna be using them to fly over the Atlantic!


--- Maybe it's just me but sometimes, the more behind-the-scenes minutea you learn about him, the less impressed you can become with him.

A casual disinterested fan who doesn't invest any study often gets the better impression of Elvis overall.

Learning of the '75 bank loan sullied my impression of him in a way. Too much information. At times you can learn stuff that wish you didn't know.
It's better to be ignorant in some cases.

Of course Elvis I believe understand that theory as well.
Hide the "p" habit because it would be too much information for many fans to cope with or accept, or respect.

But between the Estate, Guralnick and Ernst, FECC, etc, we nowadays get a billion factoids about Evis Presley
and not all of them are impressive but many depressing and has you scratching your head what on earth was he thinking?

For example: My father has always had an admirable impression of Elvis (and he doesn't know much data at all about him - maybe that's why)
but when I played him that infamous desert Storm cd, my dad was disappointed in Elvis. He wasn't grateful to discover new audio - he didn't appreciate hearing it at all.

See, too much info can ruin the image.

My returning to this thread as often as I have is not to be cantancerous with anyone posting opposite positions but truely is due to the fact that this say-you-want-to-play-overseas-but-keep-turning-down-every-opportunity is unfathomable peculiar behavior on his part I'm sorry to say.

To once again, attempt to answer Delboy's question: I think yes, there was a duty. And certainly by the mid-seventies, a need to accept the news-worthy monies that would be derived from overseas invitations.

If you gave Elvis and the Colonel an offer they couldn't refuse then you'd have got the deal. As it was no one could come up with such an offer.

Steve,

Why does it have to be an offer they can't refuse? Do artists these days hold out until it's an offer they can't refuse? On a world tour the management will ensure their client makes money and that's it! What constitutes an offer you can't refuse? A million quid is on the table to a man who's just had to sell his back catalogue and is about to remortgage his home! Let alone any moral obligation he may have felt towards his fans. Whether Elvis and the Colonel didn't want to do it is another story but to question the financial feasibilty doesn't stand up.

Elvis was made an offer. Elvis was insulted more like.

In the seventies the dollar was about four to the pound so an offer of £1M for one show is hardly derisory.

By the mid-1970's Elvis was in no shape at all to tour overseas.

What of all the pills that he had to take with him?

The majority of this thread seems to say why didn't Elvis play here or there.......If Elvis had played anywhere it WOULD have to be a WORLD TOUR and that was just too difficult in the shape he was in.

Imagine if Elvis had just played say Egypt or France, would we in the UK or other countries still say he didn't do enough.

To please ALL of the fans he would have had to do the lot.

Touring by the majority of artists is the hardest part of the business.

'Aloha' was the answer in 1973 and Elvis was as nervous as hell for that.

After 'Aloha', this should have been the year when career strategy should have been at the forefront and maybe different directions taken.

A year off, a whole new different concert set-up.

Alas, it was back to Vegas in February and the rest just can't be re-written.....

Andy

After 'Aloha', this should have been the year when career strategy should have been at the forefront and maybe different directions taken. A year off, a whole new different concert set-up.

Amen to that Brother!

After 'Aloha', this should have been the year when career strategy should have been at the forefront and maybe different directions taken. A year off, a whole new different concert set-up.

agreed.

Elvis did buy the jets with transatlantic flight in mind.

Why does it have to be an offer they can't refuse ? It doesn't. I just said it had to be an offer they can't refuse in order to guarantee getting the deal.

$1m was lowsy for overseas by then.

Been done by then by others. Elvis was still setting performance records at the end of 75.

It had to be the "biggy" in order to have that extra appeal of being able to set Elvis apart from the rest and not just lump him in with the rest. He had to be seen as leading on that front not following.

1975 - how much was it the Beatles were offered that year for a one hour show ?

I still think any option was awkward. Until then it was a case of Elvis goes to the rest of the world or he doesn't go at all. That way he's making it the same for everyone in the rest of the world, not seen as favouring one country or another or upsetting fans in that respect.
I've never heard of any fans going over there and complaining to Elvis about having to do so, I've never heard of any protests being staged outside any of his shows or inside for that matter.

Elvis became the legend he did through listening to none of us - I'd say he made it pretty good overall.

If "we" all know better, why are we sitting here typing away on this MB and not living in Graceland II ?

$1m was lowsy for overseas by then.

We're talking individual shows though. In the mid-seventies there's no question that a well planned world tour by Elvis Presley would have been extremely lucrative.$$$

Yeah, but that's not the issue directly. If it is related to the offers made then I still say there was no promotor who offerd a deal lucrative enough to ahve appealed.

GG knows the offers made and I'll bet he can't come up with one where the offer of a world tour was good enough to be accepted.

--- Maybe it's just me but sometimes, the more behind-the-scenes minutea you learn about him, the less impressed you can become with him.

A casual disinterested fan who doesn't invest any study often gets the better impression of Elvis overall.

That is probably the most on-target statement made on this forum.

For example: My father has always had an admirable impression of Elvis (and he doesn't know much data at all about him - maybe that's why)
but when I played him that infamous desert Storm cd, my dad was disappointed in Elvis. He wasn't grateful to discover new audio - he didn't appreciate hearing it at all.

See, too much info can ruin the image.

That "performance" should never have happened, but that it did, the audience should have walked out in droves or booed him off the stage, to let him know it wasn't acceptable. Fact is, he had NO right to air dirty laundry or use an in-concert appearance as some sort of psychology session wherein he could vent his rage. And the recording should never have seen the light of day, as it has proven to serve no purpose other than present a very detrimental impression of EP to many people.

To say there's been too much information about Elvis Presley during the past three decades would be a gross understatement. A performer is more enjoyed and appreciated when the public knows little to nothing about his or her personal life.

So in keeping that sort of thing within the closed circuit of the US is further evidence that to have spread it around the globe with a world tour would have ruined the overall image of Elvis.

Steve,

Are you suggesting that the reason for no world tour was because Elvis was a liability? Certainly from Summer 1973 onwards he was unpredictable to say the least, but when the challenge was there he came up with the goods (except EIC when it was too late), and I think he would have delivered given the opportunity.

No, I think quasar3 was suggesting this.