What demos have been heard?

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

Bike's right on this.

It's also been said that Elvis' very "icon"-like status makes him loom so large that people forget that his music is what made him one. I actually
think his charisma and good looks have gotten in the way of his contributions to music.

"The Artist of the Century" set (even the single disc) or even the still-maligned-to-death-by-audiophiles "ELV1S" hits set says it all.


Also, as Bike hints, there's also a class bias in looking for other signs
of artistic sensibilities in Elvis' tastes in architecture, fine arts, etc.

No one asks the same of great bluesmen like Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf or B.B. King. Their music puts them in the pantheon. (All did
extremely similar solos -to the novice ear- even on outtakes and did
little real song-writing if ever..)

In fact, it is this very bias towards the "artiste" that means that jazz
acts and singer-song writers types like Lennon-McCartney or Dylan or even Prince are previleged as as somehow on another level. That's
not how we "hear" or enjoy music and I'm glad that such a view is now growing dated as we see more appreciation for the likes of Crosby, Sinatra, Presley and many other interpreters...

That's what I'm saying.

[Eileen]

Bike's right on this.

HAHAHAHA Given that he's mostly talking about something other than what I'm talking about, I'll go even further and concede that he's ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY more correct than anyone else about his own opinion on what he is talking about.

That's what I'm saying.

ME TOO! And furthermore, I can testify right here and now that you are a ZILLION percent right that you in fact said exactly what it was you said!!

Eileen

[Steve_M]

I beileve it is a fact that that is the opinion expressed.

[likethebike]

He listened to classical. He even listened to some jazz like Duke Ellington. He had a far greater palette than anyone I know. The range of commercial styles of his era were enormous. Everything could hit in the 1950s.

As for improving himself instrumentally (assuming the voice is not an instrument) he did try to improve himself somewhat as the Goldenberg anecdote shows even though it meant losing face. But then many great artists never formally their instrument after gaining the game. The Clash later managed a chord change but that wasn't because of formal instruction as the fact that they improved by playing on the road all the time. Johnny Cash remarks in his book how he regretted that his limited instrumental capacity kept him from playing certain songs. He never did anything about it though. It probably never occurred to these guys who all grew up with a certain class bias. They probably believed the hand you were dealt was the hand you were dealt. Although, as I pointed out before Elvis did self-consciously improve his vocal technique.

[Eileen]

I believe Paul Evans' version of "The Next Step Is Love" along with a few of his other recordings is available on a CD. I'm thinking that "Something Blue" might be on this CD as well but I'm not positive about it.

Just ran across a bit more info on the Paul Evans site.... I think it used to be on this board but is in the data dumper now.

Regarding Paul's cd
"Also included are two songs Elvis was holding at the time of his death, "Tender Moments" and "Quiet Desperation".

About "I Gotta Know"
Elvis had recorded my song, "I Gotta Know", co-written with Matt Williams. Matt and I were called into the offices of the publisher, Hill and Range Songs. Matt didn't show up.

"Paul," the publishers explained to me, "we don't know when or even if your song will be released. We'd like to have it recorded by a new kid we think highly of. His first record will be heavily promoted. But if this new artist's version is released, Elvis' version will never see the light of day. The decision is up to you."
My answer was fast and clear. "I want Elvis!" End of discussion.
The new kid was Fabian......

(I found out later during an interview with Trevor Cajiao of the U.K. magazine, "Elvis - the Man and His Music", that Cliff Richard had cut the song in September 1959, prior to Elvis recording it in April 1960. I'm not clear why that didn't preclude an Elvis release.)

Writing for Elvis
Writers would hear that Elvis had a session planned. So we'd write for him, show the songs to Hill and Range and demo the songs they chose. We had to be careful to make our demos sound like an Elvis recording. The singer had to approximate Elvis (I sang on my demos and on demos for some other writers who wanted to pitch a song to Elvis but couldn't sing like him.) and the arrangement had to sound like an Elvis arrangement. The final Elvis recording would often be just an improved version of the demo.

We were looking for a "sound" for "I Gotta Know". Larry Schnapf, our Associated Recording Studios engineer suggested, "Shoobee Doobee Wha Wha" and we sang those syllables. Check out the Elvis record. What did the singers sing? "Shoobee Doobee Wha Wha".

Writers and Hill and Range
The Colonel had struck a deal making Hill and Range Elvis' exclusive publisher. Up until Elvis reached out of this firm for "Suspicious Minds" and "In the Ghetto", if you wanted Elvis, you went to Hill and Range. Writers who showed songs for Elvis knew the drill. If the powers-that-be chose your song, one third of the writing credits went to Elvis Presley. For the most part, I ducked that give-back by either not returning phone calls or breaking appointments at Hill and Range. I was finally cornered by their attorney who shoved a paper in front of my nose. It was a blanket agreement, assigning one third of your share of songs cut by Elvis to Elvis and was signed by a shocking group of successful New York writers. "Kid," he glared, "you can't duck this anymore. Sign it or else forget about any more Presley recordings."

We went into Freddie Bienstock's office. Freddie was the writer contact at the publishing office. "Freddie," I complained, "you promised that I wouldn't have to give up any of my writing credit (or royalties) to get Elvis."

"I promised you that?" he asked. And when I swore that he had, he turned to the attorney and instructed him that "This man does not have to sign that agreement." Hill and Range eventually tore up that onerous agreement and Freddie told me that my stance was partly responsible for the change.

Eileen

UPDT: There's no good place for this but just noticed, on another open window from the same search, an MP3 for "Hello Lucille, Are You a Lesbian?"

[likethebike]

The Fabian story is interesting but by the time Elvis recorded "I Gotta Know" Fabian had had his run of hits on the charts.

[Eileen]

The Fabian story is interesting but by the time Elvis recorded "I Gotta Know" Fabian had had his run of hits on the charts.

You are correct - Paul's information is completely wrong. His full comment just compounds his error: "The new kid was Fabian. His first release was the smash, "Turn Me Loose". Our Presley record was still not out. My co-writer, Matt, was angry with me because we might have had Fabian's first release."

Looks like the whole story is bunk and all of his comments should be suspect. Thanks for catching, I knew nothing about Fabian.

Eileen

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

Eileen wrote (in selected passages on the first page of this thread, with emphasis added):

I've heard a [negatively meant] Ray Charles quote to the effect that "Elvis sang everything the same".... it does seem he had a point, post-Sun anyway. Not being creative myself I struggle to put words to my thoughts. Elvis did seem to a) mostly copy what he heard and b) perform a song one way once he settled upon his rendition. He didn't much explore what could be done with a song, nor his skills as a musician (once he became established), nor attempt songwriting. Whatever that type of musical/creative expression would be it didn't seem to be a need for him, or at least one he continued to explore. Perhaps because once he was beyond the equal footing of Elvis/Scotty/Bill there wasn't much of a partnership opportunity where he felt safe or inspired to do this - afterwards most everyone involved was in his service to some degree. For Elvis that seemed to make it riskier to go out on limb, given his insecurity. Or perhaps due to his view of himself as more of a hired hand, so to speak.

An article I read called Elvis "the human jukebox" - not perjoratively, as I recall. That might be a fairly accurate summary of his musical talents. His ear for a melody, sense of rhythm, ability to express himself vocally, and his beautiful voice.... I believe he was linguistically gifted in some respects however don't know the proper jargon at all. It's a different talent (or set of talents) than what Charles meant. Personal gifts rather than self-expression via the act of creation. ...
********************

I don't think that's what (Ray Charles) meant. I think he meant.... what I said - that Elvis didn't make significant stylistic changes in the vast majority of his renditions, particularly the b) I mentioned.... the Elvis' rendition of I Got A Woman, for instance, was essentially the same every time Elvis sang it. He didn't do a country rendition in 1974 vs. a blues rendition in 1972 vs. a rock rendition in 1970. Once Elvis settled upon a particular feel and phrasing for a song that's generally where it stayed. At best he'd speed up a track out of boredom or show timing...
**************************************
He apparently didn't have a need to create in that way - to really make something different and new himself out of what was. There was no burning desire to see how he might re-fashion this thing. As you said yourself, twice, he could imagine no reason to change it - vs. folks who climb mountains just because they're there.

This likely also explains why Elvis wasn't looking for material between sessions nor instructing his employees to do so. Why? He didn't HAVE to create something until he was scheduled to be inside the studio, and then not until he was actually there. He just didn't have the need. He was seemingly just as satisfied, maybe more so, to sit in his piano room singing his nth rendition of an old gospel song.

...
(LIketheBike) used ... terms here that I've been (that word again) struggling with. I'm thinking that Elvis used music as a vehicle of expression, not particularly as a medium of creation.

Many highly creative people use multiple mediums because they have an intense desire to express themselves via creation of something. Many singers also paint and write and design. They just have to create something, something from nothing. Whereas with Elvis it just seems that the very act of singing, singing anything whereby he could express himself, was his thing.

Interpretation... that's one of the words I've been needing... a few months ago I mentioned on a Prince board that interpretation was such a devalued talent, and has been for years. Some of the comments folks have made in the thread speak more to Elvis as an interpreter I think....

Eileen, lest we get too far outside of your original comments, I've taken the liberty of posting the above. I'm not going to repeat my comments
about the creativity of Howlin' Wolf (etc.) but to also note that your comment seem to downplay the role of the entertainer/ singer as itself
an act of creation. A bluesman like Sonny Boy Williamson, for one example, created a persona (in part hard-won and an accident of birth) but also a performing act that itself was so highly unique that it was a form of genius.

Elvis, too, had a deceptively "easy"
persona. "Oh, he's just being 'Elvis,'" one might say.

No, I dare say creating a charismatic
and engaging persona was itself a craft for such acts.
(It's also what
I find lacking in otherwise genius performers like John Lennon or Bob Dylan who make up these deficits with their wordplay, songwriting and
ability to put across a song with an instrument.) Only the ROLLING
STONE school of thought reduces Elvis and his rockabilly and blues
ilk to be some kind of
intuitive, natively born entertainers but otherwise seen
as undeveloped...


It seems to me you are taking way too narrow a view of Elvis' creating through his voice, and you are dismissing his well-known need to repeatedly do a take until it had the right "feel" or "sound." As Jorgensen,
Guralnick and others have made plain, in so many cases, Elvis was effectively the producer.

I appreciate your rather brave comments in this "pro-Elvis" arena, but
I take issue with the notion that Elvis wasn't creative. Only a limited
definition of a musical "creator" would exclude Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, B.B. King or Frank Sinatra with such a criteria.

[Eileen]

She's ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-ack!

Okay let's see if this helps. I think it's about Elvis being gifted and Elvis loving to sing and NOT particularly about Elvis having something to say. He may have said things through his music and his persona, but his reason to sing and make records and perform was not to make a statement, it was because he was gifted and loved to sing. And what I was searching for in my posts was specifically the nature of his gifts and how he used them (particularly in his recordings, hence my initial question about demos).

Eileen

[Juan Luis]

I do not remember where I read that Elvis complained in the later years something to the effect that people were not listening to what he had to say and added "its all in the songs I sing". Theres plenty of that in the 70s. Also Priscilla said in Elvis By The Presleys that he did not write her too much but expressed his feelings (messages) by the 45s he sent her. That is equal to making a compilation CD to a loved one. So for the most part (except most soundtracks) I think Elvis believed and FELT what he was singing or giving a reading of.

[likethebike]

JGLB- That's a good point about the divorce songs.

Eileen- I'm starting to get a better grip on your point but the singing is an intrinsic statement whether it's based on a NEED to make a statement is almost irrelevant. It really makes a statement. Sometimes that statement is a burst of anger like "Hound Dog" which was vastly different from the humorous version of the Milton Berle Show a few weeks before. Could there be any doubt a lot of the humiliation from the Berle show carried over? You can't get any more direct a statement than the 1968 TV show and in some ways the 1969 Memphis recordings. The statement there had nothing to do with the songs themselves. The statement there was "I am the best damn singer in the universe. Do something about it." These recordings may be the most purposeful recordings I have ever heard.

Sometimes he did want to vent about the divorce or his mother or do some praising of God.

[Eileen]

the singing is an intrinsic statement whether it's based on a NEED to make a statement is almost irrelevant.

Well, not in my pea brain it's not. Do you think if Elvis had little to no singing talent he would have become a singer anyway out of a burning need to express himself?

Eileen

[Ringrock]

Elvis isn't exactly a Miles Davis.
Still I listen much more often to Elvis.

[likethebike]

I do think he would have found some sort of outlet. His whole life was pushing himself towards a career in music. He defined himself by it. He definitely wanted something beyond the cards he was dealt and he expressed that long before anyone knew his singing talent was anything but ordinary through his hair, his style of dress etc. When he walked into the Sun studios there was really no indication that he was a major singing talent. He knew a few chords and guitar and sang at some parties and with some friends and made a hit at a high school talent show. Literally hundred of thousands of other men could say the same thing. Even after the talent show, I'd bet if he said he could make a hit as a popular singer the suggestion would have been greeted with skepticism if not laughter by all but his closest friends and even his family I.E. Father. It's not as if it was thrust upon him. He was not one of these people born into a career in show business. He had to go after it. And Sun was not his first attempt. Further at Sun, he did not let Sam Phillips forget him. He didn't get called back right away; he kept coming back.

Being an electrician promised a better standard of life than what his father experienced. But he was determined to make a living in this field where by its nature he had to express himself.

I give credit for intent but I only go so far. I have found that many times an artist's greatest work can be a toss off or done against their wishes. A lot of mediocre artists have the best intent in the world.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

You can't get any more direct a statement than the 1968 TV show and in some ways the 1969 Memphis recordings. The statement there had nothing to do with the songs themselves. The statement there was "I am the best damn singer in the universe. Do something about it." These recordings may be the most purposeful recordings I have ever heard. .

Well said! For example,
I'm no fan of most punk rock artists of the '70s but that's part
of the raw "art" they presented- an anger against what they felt was
the bloat and pretentiousness of "dinosaur rock" with its athletic
solos and bombast. Elvis in the '50s had some of that same sense
of revolt.

Likewise, blues and soul music is heavy on feel and emotion and achieves its purpose this way as opposed to the strategy of
"profound" lyrics, which they decidedly are not as a rule. Only
one who hews strictly to either an orthodox (non- pop or non-rock)
sense of what is music ignores emotion as part of the art of music.

Eileen, you seem to come at this thinking that "statements" are black
and white. And who are some of those acts who did make a state-
ment in your view? The Beatles? Dylan? The Stones? Prince?

The first three are all on record for having been inspired by
Elvis along with blues acts like Muddy Waters. I can't speak much
for Prince, but he's clearly was inspired by James Brown, another
act "devoid" of 'making statements."

The laundry list of people offended by Elvis very much knew what
"statement" Elvis was making about emotions, sexuality, and race.

In that way, "Ringrock" ( ) I put Elvis and Miles Davis on the same
plane as very different but great musical artists.

[Juan Luis]

With Jailhouse Rock that song was funny to Leiber and Stoller and ELVIS PRESLEY made people listen and rock . Elvis went way over the writers heads . But someone is going to say that Elvis didn't get it. Elvis got it alright.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

Are you sure you don't mean "LOVE ME"?

[Juan Luis]

Are you sure you don't mean "LOVE ME"?

I did not know it was supposed to be funny. One hell of a song that Elvis did not need a demo to do like he did it ,and Jailhouse.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

I believe LOVE ME was supposed to poke gentle fun at
other country tear jerkers...and to L&S 's surprise: Elvis
sang it straight and with total convincing feeling. Or so I recall
reading.....

[ColinB]

I believe LOVE ME was supposed to poke gentle fun at other country tear jerkers...and to L&S 's surprise: Elvis
sang it straight and with total convincing feeling.
Or so I recall reading.....

Well........ Willy & Ruth did the first version in 1954.

Also pretty straight.

[YDKM]

the demos for songs Elvis never recorded for the supposed to be january 77 sessions, were released on ' a cold night in nashville cd', along with demos for way down and i got a feelin in my body were on that cd. they are not too different from the demos, except Elvis's voice, but the whole original demo feel is still kept

correct and i listened to this 'a cold night in Nashville CD last night and was struck by 2 of the Demos as Tommy Roe 'Energy' and Bob Morrison 'that's what you do to me' as easily being 'hits' for Elvis a pity he never recorded them, a day by day on the other hand is far less interesting to me by Dennis Linde. same as Alan Rush and 'yes i do'.
but 2 strong up-tempo songs their~!