Sony BMG To Release - Rock, Country & Inspirational CDs

#222574

Is this a USA originated release?

Or is it just Australia local product?

Juan Luis · #222576

I changed my mind. Edit....

#222577

midnightx wrote:
Elvis really does deserve better, and if BMG carry on the like this the mainstream catalogue is going to be an absolute joke in comparison to those of other major artists.
It already is an absolute joke.

No one should be surprised by this. It is going to have to take an executive/A&R person at Sony/BMG who has a true understanding and is a real fan of Elvis' work to ever make any changes to this horrible release philosophy. It has become a lost cause really. The majority of Elvis' albums are being reissued as the 'Classic Album Series' on FTD, so no one should plan on seeing some of these classics available to a mainstream consumer any time soon. Those consumers will continue to get compilation after compilation for decades to come.

In some ways it is really really sad watching the recording legacy of one of music's great artists and talents continue to deteriorate.

Totally agree midnightx! Enough is enough, this has been going on for too long already, something needs to be done...!

Sincerely MB280E

#222667

My question is, "Is Ernst part of this on going problem on the main label":?:

an Elvis ROCK cd and no Ready Teddy, definetely one of the hardest rockers from the 50's...

maybe there will be an Elvis Rock Vol. 2

#222682

My question is, "Is Ernst part of this on going problem on the main label"

Well he certainly doesn't use his influence to help. Yeah, he is just a producer, not the executive that decides how to shape the catalogue.... But, he is also considered by many in the music business as the Elvis expert, they guy that knows it all and the guy that puts out the records. He has influence. If he thought the current state of the catalogue was damaging to Elvis' recording legacy and credibility, he could campaign for changes to be made. And who knows, maybe he has done this behind the scenes to some degree, but publicly, he quietly condones the business philosophy in place for the main catalogue. He should be respected for his work on the FTD label, but if BMG didn't like the financial incentives behind it, you can bet they would pull the plug on it. Ernst has some power and influence to help orchestrate some changes, but it doesn't appear he is heading in that direction.

#222700

Be sure, that etp is not going to buy these ones.

After all, BMG has ripped me off twice with the HITSTORY set, promising first that the UK version is DSD remastered (it isn't at all!), then promising the US-version is completely DSD (which isn't the case either).

Be sure that I don't care for DSD anymore! The whole DSD stuff is a big show, I decided to wait (even if it takes 10 years to buy the next album)

By the way: who said that these 3 upcoming releases will be DSD remasstered!?

#222884

thenexte wrote:
I really don't know what's to criticize here, if you want the standard hits snap up a copy of the excellent History 3 CD set. All the original albums remain in print and it's not often that BMG makes an attempt to introduce the lesser known material to the general public, indeed they should be applauded for doing so. Judging by the covers this thing could even be a whole series with more themed releases in the future and maybe even a multi-disc box set that unites them all (kind of what they did with the Timelife collection).

You can't be serious. Rebel's right: they have run out of ideas.

Read Peter Franks' thread and get back to us!

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=384&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

I'll borrow the following from the thread:

Amajoe wrote:In the sixties Blue Hawaii or G I Blues outsold Elvis Is Back, musical comedies draw more than the more “ambitious” movies. This shortsighted strategy, which at the time might have made sense turned out to be fatal in the long run.

Today we have the same situation: Compilations and projects like 30 # 1 Hits or Elvis by the Presley´s outsell Elvis´ original albums and BMG follow the same short sighted strategy as Parker had before. Fairly I have to admit, that the task to reposition Elvis is a monsterous one. Ernst made up alot of lost space with his 60´s and 70´s box sets and went in the right direction with his re-issue campaign from 97-00. But the perfect combination of only the best original albums(20-30), nearly no soundtracks or compilations, lost albums, the best remastering and top packaging and commited promotion was still absent. Somewhere along the way, the latest at the release of 30 # 1 hits, BMG lost trust in Elvis catalog. Elvis CD´s from BMG cannot hold up to CD´s from other labels, neither in sound quality, packaging or compilation. Compare Johnny Cash´s new Legend Box to Artist of the Century or Hitstory. Compare Dylan´s original albums to Elvis´ and don´t forget to take a look at Universal´s 2 CD Deluxe Series for their most acclaimed albums. Exceptions would be stuff like Elvis at Sun or the Elvis re-issue.

The Amazon list is very revealing and proves what others have pointed out, that artists like the Beatles and Dylan, who have very few compilations and all their original albums available have not only easily outsold Elvis but are far more respected as `serious and respectable recording artists´. This is where the circle closes. The line can be traced from Parker´s business strategy to today´s BMG strategy. In between Elvis is to blame himself for going for the big bucks in movies and endless touring instead of concentrating on what he could do best and sacrificing his artistic integrity.

The Beatles stopped giving concerts in 66 and concentrated on sessions often spending weeks on a single song seeking perfection, whereas Elvis often recorded an entire album in a single night pressed between movie obligations. The fans, music critics and the general public have thanked artists like Beatles, Dylan, Springsteen and Cash for their commitment to their art and non-bullshit commitment to quality by showing respect and opening up their purses.

But it is BMG´s role to represent Elvis in the best possible light by eliminating the bad from the main catalog and recreating a catalog that can match other great artist´s catalog, which I regard to be Beatles or Dylan. The Beatles minimalistic catalog even offers a rarties project, which concentrates on only the highlight of their vast unreleased vault. Dylan has a rareties series similiar to Elvis´ Essential series, which sarted out in 97. Till now in 8 years 7 albums have been released concentrating more on quality than quantity. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if Elvis had had a similiar project like the Beatles Anthology. 4 CD box set for all important 70´s rareties in one place, 4CD for the 60´s and because too much material was lost a 2 CD set for the 50´s.

Regardless of all stated above Elvis´ popularity, legend and myth are greater than ever, sadly overshadowing his artistic achievements. I fear in the future more people, when “consuming” Elvis will do this by means of impersonators, cheap memorabilia or related projects like Elvis Idol. If they want to listen to him the 50 or 60 greatest hits will finely do. Elvis will turn more and more into other legends like Charlie Chaplin or Marilyn Monroe. Icons that are popular but who are not regarded as relevant historic AND contemporary artists. It is also revealing that BMG has a new division called Elvis Content Management, which concentrates on exploiting Elvis the Icon. Years ago it was called something along the lines of Elvis International Commitee, which concentrated on Album release strategies.

I believe it is too late to turn the wheel around - last chance being 2007. CD´s and/or albums are dying formats and the single is experiencing a major revival in the shape of the single song download, which will pave the way for the future music consumation. Let´s not forget that BMG are losing exclusive rights to Elvis music in Europe year after year. In this future only a very few rare artists, who have made their mark in previous decades will be able to sell more than their greatest hits.

Sometimes I think BMG have realized the situation and are not willing to invest the money and effort to achieve what everyone wants on this board and are more comfortable by milking the cow on FTD, where they can sell original albums with added unreleased material three times more often than on the main label, where they would release the album without new outtakes.

#222892

Haven't these albums already been released a dozen times with different covers?

Give me an album called "The King of Rock is Back! consisting of a few well known and a bunch of less know rockers (and perhaps some blues songs) with new rocking backgrounds. Use some good young musicians who dare to take some chances. Elvis wasn't the King of dance remixes as far as I know but I could be wrong.. They did a lot of good and I liked them but it's time for something new.

Oops I forgot that it would be controversial and cost some money! Let's do a compilation album instead... we could call it Elvis Rocks and then we can use Hound Dog and some of the other songs we had on the last compilation. We just change the order of the songs and we got a brand new bestseller which costs nothing extra!! And those stupid collectors will always buy them regardless of the content.

I still would like to hear some duets with great singers. I think Elvis would have liked to work with other artists but the good 'ol Colonel would never have allowed it. Just see how long we had to wait for the Ann-Margaret duets. I guess there were several scenes cut from Viva Las Vegas. We need a special edition of that movie.

There will always be people complaining about projects like Guitar Man where things are changed. To change a song like In The Ghetto is bound to fail but in other cases I think songs could be improved. Just think of some of the movie songs which Elvis just added his voice to when the musicians had already done their part. Do you think he was satisfied every time?

Of course nobody can tell what Elvis would have liked today but we always have the originals to go back to. (Hopefully) nobody will destroy those. Without new things Elvis might once again disappear. I mean young people mostly follows what's new and hip. It's always good to have a big fan base. Music is business and nothing is free so we need more Elvis fans to keep getting special editions of albums and movies. If not prices will go up and eventually those special products will become very rare again. Right now the situation is rather good but we soon will need another boost. In 2007 Elvis will probably get a lot of attention again but I think we need something in 2006 to keep the interest of the new fans.

#222899

All the original albums remain in print - thenexte

I don't think there are very many original albums in print. If they were, there would be no problem with releases like these.

jeff R

#223100

I don't think there are very many original albums in print. If they were, there would be no problem with releases like these.

Yes there would. The Elvis catalogue is saturated with these unimaginative compilations. ELV1S and 2nd TO NONE should have replaced a lot of the crap, including the pointless Hitstory (the release itself and the third disc is a joke). It was a chance for BMG to start fresh with quality compilations and then tidy up the catalogue from there.

There are other legacy artists that could have multiple compilations released constantly. But their labels choose not to tarnish their recording legacy and saturate the market with pointless releases for a quick buck. A good compilation can make way more money than cheap annual compilaitons. Look at The Eagles Greatest Hits Volume One. It has sold over 22 Million copies in the U.S. alone. That is certainly a band that could have new hits compilations out yearly, but for decades Warner kept Greatest Hits volumes 1 & 2 solely on the shelves in the U.S. and those albums sold huge amounts. ELV1S had the same potential. Now it is just another compilation in line with many others. Don't you think The Beatles could release hits compilations yearly? They don't and the few that have been released over time have sold millions upon millions, meanwhile the catalogue has some orginization and some taste.

The bottom line is that the hacks running the Elvis catalogue at BMG are clueless, unimaginative, tasteless, and quick-buck artists that have no business controlling the catalogue of an artist of Elvis' stature. It truely is tragic.

#223110

Mmmm...remember the "Millenium Masters" series, anyone?

Nicely put, Matthew. No f*&%ing duets and no more f%&$ing remixes!

#223182

Don't you think The Beatles could release hits compilations yearly? They don't and the few that have been released over time have sold millions upon millions, meanwhile the catalogue has some orginization and some taste.

Yes, they could have but chose not to, that's the reason "1" became such a big seller. The Beatles have always been more careful about protecting their legacy. Elvis compilation albums on the other hand were not something that was invented after he died, it was a tool that was used early on in his career to promote his songs (think of the "Golden Records" series from the 50's). People tend to forget there were no albums when Elvis started out, it was all singles and EP's, nobody thought in these dimensions. Elvis was just never considered an album artist as he did not write his own material and therefore his output was largely A&R driven. That's the reason only a few Elvis albums have stood the test of time and are truly considered classics that showed a new direction for him as an artist ("Elvis is back", "Elvis in Memphis"). With the Beatles it was essentially each and every album that showed a new artistic direction for them, and that's where the difference lies. There just wasn't much recycling going on, as the Beatles were never interested in replicating the sound from a previous album (while Elvis didn't mind recording the same formulaic movie soundtrack in the 60's over and over). That's the reason why the Beatles catalog is still selling strong and most people could care less about Elvis' movie songs. Elvis' recorded legacy is simply better represented in compilations or box sets, rather than in reissues of his original albums.

#223186

Elvis' recorded legacy is simply better represented in compilations or box sets, rather than in reissues of his original albums.

Do you work for BMG?

C'mon, all legacy artists should have compilations, that is obvious. But most of the prime Elvis material can be available on original albums and in the case of singles or obscure tracks, those can be added as bonus selections to certain releases. There are other artists that have huge catalogues, that for the most part remain available in addition to boxsets and occassional hits or themed compilations. BMG's vision and handling of the Elvis catalogue is a great disservice to Elvis and his recording legacy.

Yes, they could have but chose not to, that's the reason "1" became such a big seller. The Beatles have always been more careful about protecting their legacy.

Yes, and the Elvis catalogue could be treated this way. If ELV1S and 2nd TO NONE were the sole compilations available, over time they would be huge sellers like "1" and The Eagles Greatest Hits V1. It is all about having artistic vision and BMG has none of it with Elvis.

Juan Luis · #223189

I buy the "new" compilations for sound or for other reasons like not being on recent CDs etc.. But I agree that BMG is not on the right track with this crap.

Rob · #223200

But if you buy them (I never do) doesn't that send the wrong signal?

Juan Luis · #223209

Rob wrote:But if you buy them (I never do) doesn't that send the wrong signal?

Yes. But I can't help it.

#223241

I repeat - is this an Australian series or a mainstream USA effort?

If the former then you are getting your collective knickers in a twist over nothing consequential.

If the later - serious questions arise. for example what happened to the classic albums (Kevan Budd). Remember that the flyer issed with these did say that this was the first of a series. Have this been dropped?

#223251

KiwiAlan wrote:I repeat - is this an Australian series or a mainstream USA effort?

Sony BMG will release three new Elvis Presley CDs, Rock, Country & Inspirational worldwide on February 27, 2006.

#223352

If the later - serious questions arise. for example what happened to the classic albums (Kevan Budd). Remember that the flyer issed with these did say that this was the first of a series. Have this been dropped?

Unfortunately, most likely. It isn't the first time BMG has stopped a reissue program with Elvis. There never is any real long-term commitment and vision.

#223404

Midnightx

As a member of Sony BMG's "Elvis Committee", Ernst is one of the execs responsible for the strategic direction and Elvis releases they issue.

You're spot on in saying there is a lack of vision.

John

Steve_M · #223407

Are the two sentences connected there ?

JW, are you saying BMG as a whole lacks the vision or are you saying the board of execs lack the vision or are you specifically saying that Ernst, by just naming him, is lacking the vision ?

#223415

Someone needs a guide dog....thank heaven EPE has not cottoned on to us collectors buying the same old stuff time and time again, as long as it has 10 secs of unreleased stuff on it..Thank God for all the Elvis ducks

Juan Luis · #223428

Rusty Martin* wrote:Someone needs a guide dog....thank heaven EPE has not cottoned on to us collectors buying the same old stuff time and time again, as long as it has 10 secs of unreleased stuff on it..Thank God for all the Elvis ducks

10 seconds is a lonnnnnnng time on a fadeout.

#223472

Steve_M

I'm sure individual members of the Elvis Committee have vision but "collectively" the Committee's decisions lack vision. They need to largely forget the older fans and focus "fressh" ideas on the younger generation. They should also forget the quantity and recycling concepts and focus on quality (like The Beatles and Bob Dylan marketers do).

John

#223476

thenexte wrote:
Don't you think The Beatles could release hits compilations yearly? They don't and the few that have been released over time have sold millions upon millions, meanwhile the catalogue has some orginization and some taste.
Yes, they could have but chose not to, that's the reason "1" became such a big seller. The Beatles have always been more careful about protecting their legacy. Elvis compilation albums on the other hand were not something that was invented after he died, it was a tool that was used early on in his career to promote his songs (think of the "Golden Records" series from the 50's). People tend to forget there were no albums when Elvis started out, it was all singles and EP's, nobody thought in these dimensions. Elvis was just never considered an album artist as he did not write his own material and therefore his output was largely A&R driven. That's the reason only a few Elvis albums have stood the test of time and are truly considered classics that showed a new direction for him as an artist ("Elvis is back", "Elvis in Memphis"). With the Beatles it was essentially each and every album that showed a new artistic direction for them, and that's where the difference lies. There just wasn't much recycling going on, as the Beatles were never interested in replicating the sound from a previous album (while Elvis didn't mind recording the same formulaic movie soundtrack in the 60's over and over). That's the reason why the Beatles catalog is still selling strong and most people could care less about Elvis' movie songs. Elvis' recorded legacy is simply better represented in compilations or box sets, rather than in reissues of his original albums.

Wow, "Thenexte," you are serious - seriously wrong. I'm glad "Midnightx" has beaten me to the punch in pointing out how wrong-headed your comments are.

I like the Beatles some, even plenty, but I dare say we have found someone who likes
the Beatles more than Elvis with such comments. And that's okay, but
just admit it.

What is your problem with "Elvis' Golden Records" and all the follow-ups?
These were necessary vehicles to collect singles that hit the charts but
were not put on albums, as was the common practice at the time.

While it's true Elvis had much success with singles, it's also true that EPs and Lps also sold out and were best sellers. I really don't see the disimilarities
between Elvis and the Beatles: both were immense sellers of pop records.

You seem to be reading something into the fact that singles were the main game in town in the '50s: that doesn't mean the music was any less worthy. And besides, the rather bloated concept of artistically "worthy" albums was a conceit born of the late '60s which frankly hasn't aged well.
Likewise, I no more automatically dismiss Frank Sinatra for not
having ROLLING STONE-approved classic rock credentials.

Elvis' recorded work truly stands up well. You can delete the movie turkeys, if you insists, but as the better soundtrack compilations show us,
his movies had plenty of innovative tracks like BOSSA NOVA BABY,
VIVA LAS VEGAS or FOLLOW THAT DREAM, and numerous nuggets..

You are way too dismissive of his albums (and I include things like
all of his '50 LPs or even SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY or POT LUCK or
ALOHA FROM HAWAII or TODAY. Really, it's time we all started sticking up for the less obvious albums.

We should not play into the idea that Elvis was some kind of "failed"
artist, which is the distinct impression one gets from Beatle-lover
"Thenexte."

Nice to have you visit, though.