All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

The greatest artistic loss of Elvis's career

Poll ended at Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:21 am

The mediocre musical movies of the 60's
5
15%
Loss of a world tour
13
38%
Not getting rid of Colonel Parker when the damage begun
16
47%
 
Total votes : 34

The greatest artistic loss of Elvis's career: THE POLL!

Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:21 am

Feel free to add your thoughts as well

Personally speaking, i think it was the lack of a world tour

Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:24 am

Oh shite, i thought i'd submitted the part of being a dramatic actor, but obviously not. Anyone know how to edit poll options?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:57 am

dont know if you can if they are already started.

But what about editting your very own first post / thread in the other thread and putting the poll in there to save having two threads ?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:30 am

I voted Parker.

Because if he'd done that, the other two wouldn't apply.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:32 am

Steve_M wrote:But what about editting your very own first post / thread in the other thread and putting the poll in there to save having two threads ?


Can you edit one of your own existing threads and add a poll ?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:29 pm

To less options ...

Parker

Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:53 pm

I voted Parker, because Elvis should have had a manager that were more ambisius on Elvis` behalf and who understood his potential much better. Maybe Parker was the right person to get him started, but later on he neded someone who was not only a businessman but someone who was also into the singing and acting.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:30 pm

Blame it all on the manager. Normally the butler did it!

Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:45 pm

Luuk wrote:Blame it all on the manager. Normally the butler did it!


Parker deserves to get the blame.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:12 pm

Parker is to blame for a lot of issues.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:12 pm

Sean wrote:
Luuk wrote:Blame it all on the manager. Normally the butler did it!


Parker deserves to get the blame.


No he doesn't. Why do you think we are here on this forum? It is because of Parker. If Elvis had been managed by someone less of a genius, Elvis would have ranked in the lines of the other stars of his time and perform in pubs, flatbed trucks and shop openings.
Did Parker make mistakes as a manager? Yes of course. But he did far more things that worked out in a positive way.
By mid-1956 everybody in the world knew who Elvis Presley was. His records sold worldwide.
By 1957 everybody could SEE Elvis in the theatre through his movies.
Blame the people who did not attend the serious ones for Elvis bombing as a serious actor, not Parker. Parker gave in to Elvis' wishes to become a seroous actor and like Parker proved to Elvis he was the best manager a singer could want, he proved there was no audience for serious movies featuring Elvis.
A world tour or why no world tour can be discussed from here until eternity. It never happened, yet Elvis is still the best selling artist 29 years after his demise.
Compare this to the sales of people who had a much better manager than Elvis, like Buddy Holly, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry and you will bow your head in shame that you think Parker was not good as a manager.
Oh, but he did take 50%. Yes, only the last few years. Meantime others took more than 50% for just hanging around. Parker at least worked for his money. Parker also never told dirt about Elvis, like his "friends" did.
The greatest artistic loss of Elvis' career was feeling cheated and betrayed by people he thought were friends resulting in his losing the will to live at 42 years old.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:23 pm

Luuk,

With all due respect,you do come out with some twaddle.

You honestly think that if it wasnt for Parker then Elvis would have been just another pub singer. :roll:

We all know how much you worship Parker.

The reason Elvis was so successful was cause of Elvis,not Parker.

If fact, Elvis would have been an even bigger star if he would have got rid of Parker in the 60's and proberly would still be alive today.

I think your praise of Parker will cause a few members to side with me.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:51 pm

Sean wrote:Luuk,

With all due respect,you do come out with some twaddle.

You honestly think that if it wasnt for Parker then Elvis would have been just another pub singer. :roll:

We all know how much you worship Parker.

The reason Elvis was so successful was cause of Elvis,not Parker.

If fact, Elvis would have been an even bigger star if he would have got rid of Parker in the 60's and proberly would still be alive today.

I think your praise of Parker will cause a few members to side with me.


Elvis was managed by someone else in 1954 and 1955. He got nowhere! Performing on flatbed trucks, having to ask his parents to send money for gas to go to the next appearance. Only when Parker took over Elvis became famous.

I do not worship Parker. But I think the man deserves credit instead of slander. The only one able to say Parker did things wrong and should be fired died August 16, 1977. Fact is Parker was never fired by Elvis.
Fact is before Elvis he helped the careers of Eddie Arnold get back on track and he made Hank Snow a wellknown performer.

Neither is it impossible to change history. We will never know what would have happened if Elvis would have kicked out Parker like he kicked out some of his employees/friends/hangers on. However, we do know what those leeches did after being kicked out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:40 pm

I voted for Loss of a world tour. That would have been a great challenge for him. He didn't need the colonel for that...imagine Elvis in a big stadium somewere in europe...it would have been filmed too !!

Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:34 am

Luuk wrote:
Sean wrote:Luuk,

With all due respect,you do come out with some twaddle.

You honestly think that if it wasnt for Parker then Elvis would have been just another pub singer. :roll:

We all know how much you worship Parker.

The reason Elvis was so successful was cause of Elvis,not Parker.

If fact, Elvis would have been an even bigger star if he would have got rid of Parker in the 60's and proberly would still be alive today.

I think your praise of Parker will cause a few members to side with me.


Elvis was managed by someone else in 1954 and 1955. He got nowhere! Performing on flatbed trucks, having to ask his parents to send money for gas to go to the next appearance. Only when Parker took over Elvis became famous.

I do not worship Parker. But I think the man deserves credit instead of slander. The only one able to say Parker did things wrong and should be fired died August 16, 1977. Fact is Parker was never fired by Elvis.
Fact is before Elvis he helped the careers of Eddie Arnold get back on track and he made Hank Snow a wellknown performer.

Neither is it impossible to change history. We will never know what would have happened if Elvis would have kicked out Parker like he kicked out some of his employees/friends/hangers on. However, we do know what those leeches did after being kicked out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You havent a clue what your talking about. :roll:

Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:00 am

I guess I'd have to say his addiction to prescription drugs played a roll in each and every "artistic loss" in the later part of Elvis' career...

Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:05 am

Luuk wrote:
Sean wrote:Luuk,

With all due respect,you do come out with some twaddle.

You honestly think that if it wasnt for Parker then Elvis would have been just another pub singer. :roll:

We all know how much you worship Parker.

The reason Elvis was so successful was cause of Elvis,not Parker.

If fact, Elvis would have been an even bigger star if he would have got rid of Parker in the 60's and proberly would still be alive today.

I think your praise of Parker will cause a few members to side with me.


Elvis was managed by someone else in 1954 and 1955. He got nowhere! Performing on flatbed trucks, having to ask his parents to send money for gas to go to the next appearance. Only when Parker took over Elvis became famous.



That's a little silly. It's precisely because Elvis was causing a stir that Parker was interested. He was building a steady following, but yes hadn't taken the world by storm. Anyway, most of us think Parker did do a good job in the first few years. That's not really the point. It's the appalling job he did (for the most part) after 1962 that people are referring to. I take your point about Elvis being given a chance in serious movie roles and them not working out, but how does that excuse the increasingly terrible quality of the lighter offerings? If Elvis was going to make comedies and family movies, they should at least have maintained a minimum standard. Elvis shares some blame for not having the backbone to demand better scripts/songs, but Parker was the instigator of the deals and couldn't care less about quality.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:35 am

I will continue the poll then, since i guess Parker was the one who stopped the dramatic movies from happening basically. But then that applies to the world tour, and the movies too. lol maybe this is becoming pointless, just blame the colonel!

Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:55 am

I think there should be a fourth option- his early death. Perhaps had Elvis lived everything else would have fallen into place. Maybe the world tour would have happened. Maybe Elvis would have made a great movie that would have made the mid-60s look like a learning period. Because of Elvis' early death, the impact of every event and missed opportunity in his career was heightened.

Luuk- I don't understand your love for Parker. He was only a manager and a far from perfect one at that. TJ has already addressed the fact that Elvis' popularity continued to grow from the time he made that first record and that attention was brough Parker on board.

However, he didn't prove that the dramatic movies didn't make money. Both Flaming Star and Wild in the Country made modest profits which is not bad for heavy duty drama. Since they did not make the truckloads of money as the musicals, Parker steered Elvis away from decent work. Plus, for reasons unknown he turned down decent parts in everything from West Side Story to The Defiant Ones.

Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry and Johnny Cash are all known nationally known icons. Yet you could argue the difference between Elvis and those performers was their limitations. Berry was black which was never going to be a superstar in 1950s America particularly in an art form that was considered culturally suspect. Cash was too country and not especially handsome. Holly also did not have looks or a charisma near Elvis. Jerry Lee was too weird and could barely control his own behavior. However, it must be said all these performers had hits, appeared on television and sold millions of records. Unlike Elvis. most of them did extensive touring overseas. All this without the "genius" of Tom Parker.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:49 am

Debunking the myth of the 50% taking, the world tour Elvis wanted to do (NOT!) plus some other interesting points of view straight from the horses' mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFCAclRgiiU

Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:59 am

Well Parker had a way with words. He says Elvis didn't want to do a World tour because he would have had to play outdoors. So he didn't like that but Parker didn't say what else he told Elvis to influence him not to go. Elvis said in the sixites that he wanted to go overseas and lots of other artists did this. Do you really think Elvis was too chicken to take on that challenge?

What about that gig in Saudi Arabia that Parker turned down? Elvis and the gang was ready to go but the good ole Colonel turned down 10 million dollars!

And also turning down 2 million pounds to play England!? Instead Elvis preferred to play Vegas night after night... Yeah sure...

Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:58 pm

But Elvis did do a few outdoor concerts in the 70's.

Anyway, Elvis could have done shows in London which has venues that were indoors.

The Royal Albert Hall holds more people than the venues Elvis was performing at Vegas so Parkers reason for not wanting Elvis to perform in London is rubbish.

I think Wembley Arena was built in the early 70's as well so Elvis could have opened a season there.

Parker said that Elvis didnt want to do a World Tour but Elvis himself said that he wanted to in several interviews.

Luuk,
You said in an earlier post that Elvis NEVER fired Parker but he did once when Elvis found out Parker had lost $1million gambling and didnt Parker give a bill to Vernon for around $2million which he claimed he wanted if he was gonna be fired but Vernon and Elvis decided to keep Parker as his manager.

Parker knew what strings to pull to get Elvis to do what he wanted.

Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:07 pm

Sean wrote:But Elvis did do a few outdoor concerts in the 70's.

Anyway, Elvis could have done shows in London which has venues that were indoors.

The Royal Albert Hall holds more people than the venues Elvis was performing at Vegas so Parkers reason for not wanting Elvis to perform in London is rubbish.

I think Wembley Arena was built in the early 70's as well so Elvis could have opened a season there.

Parker said that Elvis didnt want to do a World Tour but Elvis himself said that he wanted to in several interviews.

Luuk,
You said in an earlier post that Elvis NEVER fired Parker but he did once when Elvis found out Parker had lost $1million gambling and didnt Parker give a bill to Vernon for around $2million which he claimed he wanted if he was gonna be fired but Vernon and Elvis decided to keep Parker as his manager.

Parker knew what strings to pull to get Elvis to do what he wanted.


All the guys knew which strings to pull after being fired. Fact is in the end some of these guys were fired definitively. After Elvis died they said he would have hired hem back, which is just propaganda.
If Elvis could have gotten rid of Parker for $2million WHY did he not come up with the money. A few cars and houses less for the "friends" and the money would have been there.
Or did the "friends" also come up with bills for their "friendship" to continue?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:58 pm

Luuk wrote:Debunking the myth of the 50% taking, the world tour Elvis wanted to do (NOT!) plus some other interesting points of view straight from the horses' mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFCAclRgiiU


Interesting clip Luuk!
Too bad it doesn't play the entire interview. Any idea where I might be able to see
this whole interview... ie. DVD or was it edited as it appears for television?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:21 pm

Luuk wrote:
Sean wrote:But Elvis did do a few outdoor concerts in the 70's.

Anyway, Elvis could have done shows in London which has venues that were indoors.

The Royal Albert Hall holds more people than the venues Elvis was performing at Vegas so Parkers reason for not wanting Elvis to perform in London is rubbish.

I think Wembley Arena was built in the early 70's as well so Elvis could have opened a season there.

Parker said that Elvis didnt want to do a World Tour but Elvis himself said that he wanted to in several interviews.

Luuk,
You said in an earlier post that Elvis NEVER fired Parker but he did once when Elvis found out Parker had lost $1million gambling and didnt Parker give a bill to Vernon for around $2million which he claimed he wanted if he was gonna be fired but Vernon and Elvis decided to keep Parker as his manager.

Parker knew what strings to pull to get Elvis to do what he wanted.


All the guys knew which strings to pull after being fired. Fact is in the end some of these guys were fired definitively. After Elvis died they said he would have hired hem back, which is just propaganda.
If Elvis could have gotten rid of Parker for $2million WHY did he not come up with the money. A few cars and houses less for the "friends" and the money would have been there.
Or did the "friends" also come up with bills for their "friendship" to continue?


Its not propaganda, its a fact.

Elvis told Billy Smith that he would have hired them back after Elvis found out they were gonna write the book.

Elvis didnt come up with the $2million cause he didnt have it.
Elvis was spending more than he was earning in the 70's.

Regardless of what you think of guys like Red and Sonny they were his friends.
They got gifts off Elvis but they never ask for them or turned them down.

Your saying that if you had the chance to go back in time and Elvis wanted you around him, your gonna turn it down? No you wouldnt.

Your saying that if Elvis wanted to buy you a house or car, your gonna turn it down and hurt his feelings? No, you wouldnt.

Elvis needed guys like Red and Sonny around him cause he had no knowledge of the outside world.

At least they tried to do something about it by hiding his medication and didnt they want to kidnap Elvis and get him cleaned up by force but his Dad wouldnt allow then to?

Elvis sacked Red and Sonny in a really nasty way and didnt even do it to there faces cause he knew he was wrong. Its understandable they were bitter.

Elvis thought he could treat people anyway he liked and he wanted 'yes' men around him.

Some say they were too heavy-handed with some of the fans but Elvis used to go on stage with upto 5 guns on him and was prepared to shoot into the audience if someone was gonna threaten him. :shock:

You have no idea what went on in Elvis's inner circle so you dont have the right to judge any of Elvis's friends.