All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Re: They should treat elvis like they treat johnny cash

Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:56 am

Ton Bruins wrote:
joshferrell wrote:I've notice that about every 4 -6 months there's a "live" johnny cash dvd released with complete uncut concerts and tv specials,I think it would be cool if every 4-6 months they release a complete elvis concert on dvd,we have concerts from TTWII and ELVIS ON TOUR,that can be released as their own induvidual releases ,for example if they recorded 6 or 7 complete concerts in 1970 and another 6 or 7 in 1972 then they have enough stuff to release to the public for years to come...like the releases that they have been releasing for johnny cash,,,



Can you please tell were I could buy those DVD's ???



I've seen them ay walmart for about $10 (each) and at borders and best buy as well...

Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:14 am

A good portion of the recordings happened to be Country....so getting out a Country album was a no brainer and with so much recorded (Country to pick and choose) material it became a Presley Classic that stands very strong even today. But Elvis did not set out for a concept album and the IWBATTYA inserts were after the fact and very REFRESHING that Elvis did that ( ala concept but not really) post production work including (guessing here) the cover with little Elvis. The Boy! :lol: .....Too bad the stuff left in the can was released (at the time and would have been a great part of future boxset) Elvis never did know how to make an album per se...It seems to me he just recorded songs that he liked. One at a time and left it to his people to make something out of it... :? edit later-Elvis Today might be exception but not sure if he really set out to record just 10 songs for one and only one album.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:22 am

I think elvis should have done more concept albums,I read somwhere that "raised on rock" was originally intended to be an upbeat "blues/funk" type album, but was scrapped after Elvis lost interest.......that's why all the earlier songs where the funky upbeat songs "if you don't come back" etc and the latter songs were the more mellow sad songs "sweet angeline" etc....

Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:34 am

I wonder sometimes what his albums would have been like if they were put together like Bruce Springsteen. Springsteen would record a lot of songs at sessions and then pick only the best for an album. A single album from the 69 sessions, 70 sessions, 73 sessions etc.

I think the only real times when Elvis had an album head on was when he was making his gospel LPs.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:38 am

Matthew wrote:I think the only real times when Elvis had an album head on was when he was making his gospel LPs.
You got that right! I forgot about that cause I was thinking commercial... and thats where Elvis let it slack...never with Gospel.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:03 am

shanebrown wrote: A decent ten-song album could have come out of the March/May 1971 sessions as well (other than the gospel album).


This for me is where the albums started to slide, as soon as the 10 track albums began to appear. Even Love Letters with Elvis was only 11 and could easily have been 12 although it shouldn't have been put out at all at the time.

One thing that puzzles me is that the album That's The Way It Is was releases in December 1970 right? Elvis Country was released January 1971. Is it me is was that just plain stupidity?!

Elvis Country should have been maybe April/May time then an album from the 1971 sessions later that year. Even if that album was a mixture of 1970 recordings and 1971 recordings it would have been much stronger set than Love Letters from Elvis.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:06 am

I wonder what the 71 sessions would have produced if the Christmas album had not been on the agenda.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:14 am

One thing that puzzles me is that the album That's The Way It Is was releases in December 1970 right? Elvis Country was released January 1971. Is it me is was that just plain stupidity?!

RCA's release philosophy for Elvis in the 1970's is baffling. Somehow the executives at RCA felt saturating the market with 4 releases a year as well as with compilations was a good business model. No other major recording artist had such bizarre recording contract in that era. This is one of those big glaring examples of how inadequate and out of touch Parker was; this blunder rests soley on his shoulders. And no one should be fooled, he wasn't oblivious to the fact that the contract called for far too much product to be delivered. He was only concerned with the advances he and Elvis received. And of course, why RCA felt that releasing multiple albums throughout the year each with handfuls of subpar material with no potential for airplay or artistic praise is a mystery.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:19 am

One wonders if Elvis Country would have had greater success if it had recieved a more realistic release date rather than the following month after TTWII.

Has anyone from the time, people at RCA for example ever been interviewed about the release policy for Elvis back then?

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:24 am

One wonders if Elvis Country would have had greater success if it had recieved a more realistic release date rather than the following month after TTWII.

Certainly. An artist of Elvis' stature with an album of such highly recorded material, which ultimately was highly praised, should have had a smash hit with that project. RCA had no idea how to market and promote it for a long-term campaign and of course the same goes with Parker. His role of manager was to take a big-time project like Elvis Country, to see the potential, and maximize the artistic and financial potential it possessed -- strong arm the record label to perform. The combination of RCA, Felton Jarvis and Colonel Parker in the 1970's was formula for failure. Elvis never had a chance.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:31 am

midnightx wrote:
One wonders if Elvis Country would have had greater success if it had recieved a more realistic release date rather than the following month after TTWII.

Certainly. An artist of Elvis' stature with an album of such highly recorded material, which ultimately was highly praised, should have had a smash hit with that project. RCA had no idea how to market and promote it for a long-term campaign and of course the same goes with Parker. His role of manager was to take a big-time project like Elvis Country, to see the potential, and maximize the artistic and financial potential it possessed -- strong arm the record label to perform. The combination of RCA, Felton Jarvis and Colonel Parker in the 1970's was formula for failure. Elvis never had a chance.


I know, frickin idiots. Here's a guy cutting unbelievable material, and those morons didn't have a clue of what to do.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:08 am

Elvis Country was at the level of a Gospel album. Country music was not so hot at that time in sales...

Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:19 am

Well Glenn Campbell was moving a lot of units at the time, so were country some country rock acts like the Band which were close to the market that would have appreciated Elvis Country. In addition to Parker, RCA's publicity department also missed the ball on that release. They should have sold it under the idea that Elvis had thrown his hat into the concept album ring just like they should have sold "Tomorrow is a Long Time" as Elvis sings a Dylan song. Where Parker and RCA really missed the ball on this album in relation to their release pattern is in the fact that they could potentially have made more money selling one or two albums than they did releasing ten or more in a two year period.

I don't think the concept of EC should be dismissed because of the way Elvis arrived at it. This was the way he had worked going back to Sun. In those days he hit on a 45, here he hit on a whole album concept. The splice and even the picture on the album, not nearly so common as in 1970, bespeak Elvis' involvement in an album process.

Not that he was what you would call an album artist nor should he have necessarily been. He thought mostly in terms of song to song and there is nothing wrong with that.

As for artistic integrity, I can name a dozen circumstances where he did something to take an action that wasn't 100 percent commercially viable or approved by management. Were there a lot of big knock down fights? No. But he steered his own ship.

I agree that the catalogue reflecting the same strategy the label used 50!!! years ago is a mess. I don't think that has much to do with FTD other than some pretty good mainstream projects- Elvis is Back SE, Viva Las Vegas soundtrack etc. are wasted on a collector's label.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:31 am

likethebike wrote:
I don't think the concept of EC should be dismissed because of the way Elvis arrived at it.
Who is dismissing? He recorded a truckload of good country songs and thats that...I t was not mainstream at the time and thus was treated as such...no
Colonel here! :roll: The Colonel is getting toooooo much credit and RCA just did more or less what it did with 69 sessions...Made a strong album and then spread the rest out until only the crappola like Hey Jude was left for Elvis Now 3 or so years later.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:36 am

likethebike wrote: He thought mostly in terms of song to song and there is nothing wrong with that.
Did not say the contrary....unless you want to make a cohesive ALBUM. And the point was not to knock Elvis but to state that SAME thing you did. so whats the argument except that the Colonel did this or that but Elvis nevertheless steered his ship? I know 2 different examples but you can't have it both ways..Either the Colonel did it his way or Elvis did....The truth is BOTH ELVIS PRESLEY AND TOM PARKER AGREED.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:50 am

One of the biggest album losses of the 60s, and of Elvis's career, is for him not to have made songs like 'Indescribably blue', 'Guitarman', 'Tomorrow is a long time', and put them on an album. Just listen to the majority of the compilation 'Tomorrow is a long time', and you know what i'm talking about

And also, what about the one in the early 60s. Songs liek 'Memphis Tennessee', 'It hurts me', 'Echoes of love', all slapped on the back of leftover albums, sountracks, or single B sides. Pity these never got issued as an original album

Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:04 am

Parker deserves blame for not devising a more favorable recording contract for Elvis that called for fewer Elvis releases.

I don't think there is any question that Elvis, it turns out mistakenly, believed that business and music were separate concerns. But because the songs on Love Letters from Elvis are not at the level of Elvis Country or That's the Way it is does not diminish the vision that went into the better music or that these tracks don't represent a part of Elvis' artistic vision. In their own way they are like the non-single Sun tracks like "Harbor Lights", "I Love You Because" or "Just Because". They were what was necessary to get to the best stuff. It's not as if Elvis was forced to record these songs. Whether or not to release those tracks was a commercial decision. And I also think it's unfair to state that there is not a certain level of quality to these tracks. "Heart of Rome" may not be a towering achievement but it's not "Paralyzed" by the Legendary Stardust Cowboy either.

Elvis made the music he wanted to make. How to maximize the commercial potential of that music, outside the single format where Elvis usually made the call due to the hit making ear he established in the '50s and '60, was left to RCA and the Colonel. I very much agree that it was a joint decision by Elvis and the Colonel that this was the best way to make good music and make money. The criticism of the Colonel and RCA is that they should have had a better understanding of the industry and made money in a different better and more productive way.

I think the concept of the "coherent" album is overrated. Is Thriller coherent? To me it's just like many of Elvis' best albums, a demonstration of all the artist can do.

As for EC, Elvis commented on stage that he had a C/W album coming out in the winter. He knew once he laid those tracks down he had the comments.

I disagree about country particularly country rock not being in the mainstream at the time. The dreaded Eagles were only a year away. Cash had several Top 40 discs within the two year timeframe including the massive Folsom Prison and San Quentin albums. Campbell was moving big numbers.Jerry Reed had a pair of pop Top Ten singles. The Band had had two Top Ten albums within two years. And EC itself, bad release schedule and all, scored higher than any other Elvis studio album of the decade.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:28 pm

Harbor Lights is not good at all and good for study...Sam did great with few exceptions Blue Moon and Trying To Get To You. But who knows if those were works in progress to be re recorded? Start Me Up was leftover from Emotional Rescue ...and redone for Tatoo You the Stones last great classic Imo...Elvis did recognize the "Country album" after all was pretty much in the can...could of easily been a Blues album 8) .....Anyway all artists should and mostly do over record to be able to pick the best of the litter. With Elvis (hindsight) it seemed that recording a lot of material hurt him because later the weaker material damned the strong before it. And "you are only as good as your latest record" was not a good time for EP when Love Letters was released. That is for sure. EC was dissapointing also because people had no idea that it was Country/Rock contrary to other groups that people knew like Grateful Dead with 2 majestic masterpieces American Beauty and Workingman's Dead. It should have been an album called ER. R for Rock. Thats what fans were expecting..so EC was justifiably seen as a Gospel type out of mainstream album..IMO.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:49 pm

I think Sony/BMG should release Elvis' albums as two-fers with bonus tracks (singles). Capitol released the Beach Boys catalog as two-fers in the early 90's and they have been in print ever since.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:07 pm

I have never understood the idea of bad material undermining good material. I know it happens but it doesn't make any logical sense to me. The underlying assumption, is that just anyone, could walk into a studio and make a record of the quality of Elvis Country or that a great artist can just make great work on a whim. When you have a total body of work like Elvis' which outstrips that of virtually any performer in his chosen field, it almost seems willfully negative degrade the main of his achievement because he made some bad recordings. The majority of his bad recordings were either left overs or from a sideline career. They do not represent the main thrust of his work just like Hank Williams' Luke the Drifter stuff doesn't represent the heart of his career.

When we talk about Hitchcock we don't go on and on about the deficiencies of stuff like Rope, Torn Curtain, The Trouble With Harry. We talk about the virtues of Strangers on a Train, Psycho, North by Northwest, Shadow of a Doubt etc. When we talk about Dylan we don't go on and on about the defieciencies of Saved, Dylan and the Dead, Under a Red Sky, Self Portrait. Our focus is on the virtues of Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde, Time Out of Mind, Blood on the Tracks, Bringing it All Back Home etc.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:23 pm

I am late to this discussion. Anyhow I can speak for the younger generation, because I am 23, female and collect Elvis music. So I happen to know what FTD is. I didn't, when I bought ELV1S, which started my collection. But I found out, because I cared. Don't be so quick to say that us youngsters are not collecting FTD releases. It's aimed at the people in the know. Those CD's are not being advertised outside the fan base. So why do you expect all music lovers to suddenly know about it? Even the Elvis fans are devided and some will never know about FTD or imports. So what about the general public, who doesn't care? To them Elvis is "the king". That's what I hear most often. But besides one compilation of the greatest hits most don't think about his legacy or dig deeper, because they aren't collectors. I usually get positive feedback from people around my age, when I screen TTWII or the Comeback Special or even a film. And they aren't just being nice, hiding their real opinion. Their jaws usually drop down to the floor, because they had no idea about the Elvis all of us on this board know. And that's where BMG and EPE might be at fault in wrongly advertising, but who it to say.

When you read some of the "Walk The Line" reviews, most of the younger kids, girls aged 12-15 in particular, only went to see the movie, because they have a crush on Joaquin Phoenix. And if he is portraying Johnny Cash, that musician and all of his songs have got to be cool. That is their way of thinking. And they are very forgiving in their judgement regarding his addiction, because nowadays it's just not shocking anymore, when a star openly admits he is hooked on something and needs rehab, Betty Ford clinic. And as has been mentioned, there is a happy end. But ask them about "CashBash" and they are lost. They have no clue. I'd say right now it's a tie between Elvis and JC, because in Europe people my age and younger have no idea about Garth Brooks or Campbell or the other singers, who have been mentioned. Only those who are moving in those circles. Another example would be the Trekkies. If you aren't that, you most likely have no idea when the newest collectible hits the market. So I'd much rather have people telling me "Elvis Is The King", than giving me a blank, clueless stare.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:28 pm

You know what?? I'm glad Elvis recorded the songs that he did (all of them). Even the weaker(est) of them. Because at any given time on any given day I can enjoy any one of them. It's a massive body of work and I'm thankful for ALL of it.

I enjoy all the albums. I'm glad all songs were released. I didn't care what the critics/scholars/whoever thought then and I don't care now.

Thanks, Elvis, for all the listening enjoyment you've given me throughout my lifetime.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:53 pm

Jerry, I second that. But I still can't really put into words the joy to be able to listen that the music, the voice day after day. So happy I found him. Wandering to other artists like Dean Martin, country music, Johnny Cash, usually satellite radio, but I always have to roam back to Elvis, every day. It's a mysterious, but beautiful thing. It's like an invisible force, that pulls me back. The critics and public opinion doesn't give me headaches, because it doesn't matter. While they are still fighting and churning out endless arguments, I enjoy Elvis and his wide range of songs, films and photos. Not wearing rose-colored glasses or anything, I too can be critical and discuss every aspect of his career in depth, but I get much more out of the positive. Even paying attention to the lyrics. By the way I only just recently read, that he apparently was on a small plane that almost crashed in the 50's. Also we shouldn't underestimate the mixed crowd on this board. Because I am not kidding, when I say that forums, that feature other artists are quite boring.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:43 pm

I guess most conumers would prefer to go the "best of" route anyway.For people just discovering Elvis who were not around when Elvis was, I suppose his original lp's dont have the sentimentality factor attached to them either.The casual fan or buyer wouldnt approach their purchase with the mindset that us collector's might have.

Well, that could be said about many legacy artists, but most other labels keep vital and important catalogue albums in print. Casual fans who are intrigued by the artist, usually look for a compilation of some sort as a starting point. If the music really inspires the consumer, they usually want more. That is where the catalogue then comes into play. The consumer doesn't have the chance to explore some of Elvis' greatest works, all they are left with is more compilations. It is a real problem and very damaging to the Elvis Presley recording legacy.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:13 am

JerryNodak wrote:You know what?? I'm glad Elvis recorded the songs that he did (all of them). Even the weaker(est) of them. Because at any given time on any given day I can enjoy any one of them. It's a massive body of work and I'm thankful for ALL of it.

I enjoy all the albums. I'm glad all songs were released. I didn't care what the critics/scholars/whoever thought then and I don't care now.

Thanks, Elvis, for all the listening enjoyment you've given me throughout my lifetime.
I feel the same. My point of view is/was trying to explain reasons for decline. and someone shelling out 5 to 6 bucks in 1970-72 and getting Elvis Now etc..does not really care this artist was capable of doing Long Black Limousine in 1969 or Faded Love in 70..if anything why???????
Last edited by Juan Luis on Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.