All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:16 am

Rob wrote:Oh, all right. Can it at least wait until the weekend?

No.





OK -- if you promise to post a review on the MB by Sunday night.

I'll be watching, and waiting ...

Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:18 am

Oh, I know you will.

Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:19 am

Thanks for the information Peter.

That’s exactly what I was looking for.

Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:05 am

Glad to be of help, 'rebel.

I also just realized (thanks, in part, to elvis-fan's post on the first page) that the following albums were released this year but are not listed on the site (and were therefore not included in my post):

Elvis Sings Flaming Star
Almost in Love
Let’s Be Friends
You’ll Never Walk Alone
Elvis Christmas


The site was last updated on October 3, 2006 (see "Latest News"), at which time all of these CDs had already been released. The Christmas CD even has its own page on the site but it's not listed as part of the main catalogue! I don't know if that means that these five are just limited run prints (the first four are budget releases) and are therefore not considered part of the catalogue, or if Sony are just being sloppy, but if they are part of the catalogue, that brings the tally up to sixty-nine titles.

Image

Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:09 am

The upgrades series was the closest the catalogue came to having a selection worthy of the legacy in the general market place.

Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:18 am

I look forward to reading more of Reb and Franks' exchange, but having just seen the new link of the "official" Elvis messageboard, I see our old freudmeister "Lakeisha" / "Jay" (long banned from FECC) continues his moronic arguments with his alterego..
:roll:

http://www.elvisthemusic.com/messageboard.html


**************
re: The Elvis RCA catalog (the one 90% of fans will only see):

Peter Franks wrote in reply to Mr. Butcher:

You need to understand that rockinrebel, I, and others are not discussing this issue for our own sakes as far as unreleased material is concerned. The issue at hand is not what I can buy, it's what others will be able to buy in future. I care about the catalogue because I wish for Elvis to be represented well and for him to be given the respect that he deserves. This will not happen unless the product that he is famous for - his music - is presented in a respectable manner that is both aesthetically pleasing (both in packaging and content) and logically and economically organized.

The list posted above is none of these, which I personally find astonishing considering Elvis' stature. What is frustrating is that a worthy list that respects all of these requirements as well as the historic significance of his original output can be produced for Elvis, as it has been done for countless other artists. BMG has clearly chosen to make a marginal profit in the short run instead, rather than invest in Elvis as a respectable artist over the long run
.

Perhaps most frustratingly of all, they have used misleading or inaccurate reasons to justify their behavior. That is the issue at hand in these kinds of discussions (although perhaps not this particular one, as rockinrebel mentioned).


As usual, Peter, you make a great case for why we should care about what is available on the main label :!:

Incidentally, thanks for compiling that information from the site. But what makes you think that "Elvis Presley" (the first album) is only the 1999 issue, plus the FTD you mention? There are scores of the 2005 Kevan Budd remaster in stores (with the restored running order with bonus tracks at the end). The same is true with "Elvis, the 2nd album in the U.S.. You do note that "Loving You" in the same series in '05 is in print.


I gather they include this as well, to say nothing of the 2006 reissue that took the same disc and dressed it up in a "Classic albums" cardboard sleeve, which also occurred with the more limited "Golden Records Volume 2" reissue in late '05 (?), which eliminated the bonus tracks but had a new "E1" -appearing disc...


They picture the old (original) "Elvis Presley" CD, for instance, but you're not every likely to see that in stores anymore, let alone the '99 one. I have, however, seen the old "On Stage" CD in stores long after the '99 expanded edition was picked apart for the last time... :lol:

I agree it's all a mess. I can see these lists are not authoritative. They link you to Amazon.com when you click it, but as with other sites, they often are not clear as to what edition you're ordering, so you sometimes have to ask to specify what version it is. Other times, such sites will be specific as to the UPC or edition.

And seeing Tower Records finally close here in the US (a sad event), I noticed how much came out of the warehouses nationwide, be it Elvis or various other genres, in some cases discs I hadn't seen in years.

With Elvis and his active catalogue, I always wonder are they really printing up more new copies of the '92 "MSG" disc or say the "His Hand in Mine" CD of a similar vintage, or just continually tapping a huge inventory in warehouses? I tend to doubt the former. Surely they have this stuff stockpiled, am I right?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:35 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Incidentally, thanks for compiling that information from the site. But what makes you think that "Elvis Presley" (the first album) is only the 1999 issue, plus the FTD you mention? There are scores of the 2005 Kevan Budd remaster in stores (with the restored running order with bonus tracks at the end). The same is true with "Elvis, the 2nd album in the U.S.. You do note that "Loving You" in the same series in '05 is in print.


I gather they include this as well, to say nothing of the 2006 reissue that took the same disc and dressed it up in a "Classic albums" cardboard sleeve, which also occurred with the more limited "Golden Records Volume 2" reissue in late '05 (?), which eliminated the bonus tracks but had a new "E1" -appearing disc...


They picture the old (original) "Elvis Presley" CD, for instance, but you're not every likely to see that in stores anymore, let alone the '99 one. I have, however, seen the old "On Stage" CD in stores long after the '99 expanded edition was picked apart for the last time... :lol:

I agree it's all a mess. I can see these lists are not authoritative. They link you to Amazon.com when you click it, but as with other sites, they often are not clear as to what edition you're ordering, so you sometimes have to ask to specify what version it is. Other times, such sites will be specific as to the UPC or edition.


I included only the information suggested by the links they provided. It would certainly be logical to me to include the 2005 prints of the upgraded classic albums (Elvis Presley, Loving You, etc.), but since they did not explicitly make reference to the availability of the various editions, neither did I. Keep in mind that the links are included on their page to steer customers towards purchasing that specific product from that specific store using that specific page. If they cared at all (admittedly, with BMG that's quite an assumption sometimes) you'd think they'd provide a link to the best choice for them and consumers, which would be the 2005 prints in this case. You can't expect customers to click on those links and then do a search on the site for those very same titles to see if another edition is available. Certainly I would do such research whenever I discover a new artist, but I'm a music enthusiast, not a casual consumer (the focus of this discussion). Specifically because they do link to the 2005 print of Loving You but the 1999 prints of the others leads me to believe that this may be an important detail. (Maybe they still have much left-over stock of the 1999 prints of the first two albums that they'd still like to move, whereas the 1999 print of Loving You was a better seller?) This is an official Sony page, you must realize; you'd think they'd be meticulous in the details of their own product.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:With Elvis and his active catalogue, I always wonder are they really printing up more new copies of the '92 "MSG" disc or say the "His Hand in Mine" CD of a similar vintage, or just continually tapping a huge inventory in warehouses? I tend to doubt the former. Surely they have this stuff stockpiled, am I right?


That's a good question, Greg, and I'm not sure of the answer. On the one hand, I don't see these CDs flying off the shelves, so I can imagine them simply drawing from a large stockpile. On the other hand, a title like His Hand in Mine is always cited as steady seller, so surely the initial print in '90 wasn't so large that we could still be drawing from it seventeen years later?

Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:08 am

After looking over the list that Peter kindly provided, I would have to say that the catalogue is in worse condition now that it was after the so called ‘streamlining’ following the release of “E1”.

As the debate on the state of the catalogue is already underway, here are some of my own thoughts after looking through the current list.

Firstly I think it is correct that the “Golden Records” series remain on general sale. These are now classic albums in their own right, and provide a great snapshot of the respective eras of the Presley career.

Unfortunately BMG’s policy of creating ‘new’ compilations means that many of the tracks included here are duplicated on many other collections, which are in direct competition with these original hits collections. This can also give the casual buyer the impression that if they already have the 30 or 40 hits that are regularly recycled they don’t really need much else, as many other essential tracks are now unavailable outside of the masters box sets. Sets which are surely too expensive for many casual buyers.

I have heard the argument for BMG having to issue ‘new’ collections, but when you consider the success of The Eagles “Greatest Hits” and Bob Marley’s “Legend” etc. you do wonder why BMG can’t sell existing titles to new buyers when other record companies don’t appear to have a problem with this.

Whilst some good albums remain on catalogue, the remaining original works are something of a mixed bag.

Aloha from Hawaii
Blue Hawaii
Elvis
Elvis Presley
Elvis as Recorded at Madison Square Garden
Elvis in Concert
From Elvis In Memphis
He Touched Me
His Hand in Mine
How Great Thou Art
Loving You
Moody Blue
NBC TV-Special
On Stage
Something for Everybody

Aside from the ‘Golden Records’ series we only have fifteen original titles listed above.

Obviously major career events generated a lot of publicity, and therefore it’s not difficult to see why the likes of “Aloha From Hawaii”, “Madison Square Garden” and the “NBC TV Special” will have kept selling steadily over the years. The telecasts from 1973 and 1968 are still repeated quite frequently and this obviously generates new interest in these recordings.

“Blue Hawaii” is one of Elvis’ biggest sellers, and of course the fifties studio albums are indeed essential Presley titles. I’m not one for statistics but I would guess that “Moody Blue” and “Elvis In Concert” sold by the truck load during 1977/8 and therefore achieved a sort of ‘classic’ status that I doubt they would have enjoyed had it not been for the events of August 16th,

The three gospel albums are essential and it’s nice to see them retained, but
with “Amazing Grace”, “Peace In The Valley” and the rather inappropriately
titled “Ultimate Gospel” still on catalogue, it’s clear that this list has evolved by accident rather than design and really hasn’t been given a great deal of thought.

This leaves “From Elvis In Memphis”, “On Stage” and “Something For Everybody”. Obviously the first title is an all time classic, but this may not be the reason it has been retained. Of course the album deserves its place in the mainstream catalogue, but you could also say the same about “King Creole”, “Elvis Is Back” or “Elvis Country”, so I’m guessing that “FEIM” is still a steady seller. Presumably the latter two titles must also sell better than other original works which have now been cut from the catalogue.

Aside from the masters and out take box sets which are excellent releases, sadly there now appear to be more compilations than original titles available. “Elvis At Sun”, “Burning Love”, “Tomorrow Is A Long Time ” and ”Suspicious Minds” are good examples of what can be achieved when an idea is properly thought through, but elsewhere there are far too many titles that duplicate similar material, and each ‘new’ release is really only a re-hash of an older idea, with in some cases the older title being a better option than its more recent counterpart. This could go some way to explaining why when a ‘new’ title appears its predecessor is not automatically deleted.

BMG obviously thought there was need for a ’new’ country set in their recent ‘genre’ series, but nobody seemed to notice that “The Country Side Of Elvis” is still available. Likewise whilst Elvis’ gospel recordings are indeed worthy of their place in the catalogue, you can currently by them all in ay least three different packages, whilst other essential cuts are not available at all unless you are prepared to pay out for the masters box sets.

Similarly Elvis’ breakthrough year 1956 is represented by both the original albums and the complete “Elvis ‘56” set, and whilst again this is essential material, one wonders why it has to be available more than once, when some great albums have been totally overlooked.

Surely 10 albums that contain material that is not available elsewhere would stand a better chance of selling than 10 albums that feature similar material?

Because the catalogue is now an haphazard collection of ‘Old Ones, New Ones and Inbetween Ones’ mastering is also a major problem, and there is no consistency here whatsoever. As Peter pointed out BMG’s site doesn’t always link to the best versions of the albums that are still available, and I think Greg also makes a good point about titles such as “His Hand In Mine”.

Some of these old CD’s could really use an upgrade, but for this to happen the whole catalogue really needs a major overhaul. Recent threads on this board have highlighted the fact that there is no consistency even where the ‘new’ releases are concerned, and this obviously makes things difficult for both collectors and casual buyers. .

I know that the fan and collector is well served by FTD, but we should be concerned about which albums remain on general sale, because outside of the core fan base these releases are responsible for how Elvis is perceived by the casual buyer.

Track duplication and poorly presentation in terms of sound quality and packaging, is not going to win Elvis many new fans, and neither is a catalogue that is not totally representative of his best work.

If BMG can sell the same 30 or 40 hits every year, then surely they could sell the better Presley albums if they were reasonably priced and given some decent promotion? I know this wont happen, but for me the best way to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Elvis’ passing would be to give him a mainstream catalogue that is truly representative of the wonderful musical legacy that he left to the world.

Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:06 am

rockinrebel wrote:I have heard the argument for BMG having to issue ‘new’ collections, but when you consider the success of The Eagles “Greatest Hits” and Bob Marley’s “Legend” etc. you do wonder why BMG can’t sell existing titles to new buyers when other record companies don’t appear to have a problem with this.

A good point that I have made many times in the past as well.

rockinrebel wrote:Track duplication and poorly presentation in terms of sound quality and packaging, is not going to win Elvis many new fans, and neither is a catalogue that is not totally representative of his best work.

Well said.

rockinrebel wrote:If BMG can sell the same 30 or 40 hits every year, then surely they could sell the better Presley albums if they were reasonably priced and given some decent promotion? I know this wont happen, but for me the best way to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Elvis’ passing would be to give him a mainstream catalogue that is truly representative of the wonderful musical legacy that he left to the world.

Once again, well said.

The catalogue is in very sad shape. With the end of the CD era around the corner, it seems highly unlikely that BMG will spend the money trying to reinvent and clean-up the catalogue. Maybe someday, if and when the consumer purchases most of their music through some sort of downloadable set-up, more of Elvis' catalogue/songs will be readily available in a systematic and sensible way. Elvis' recording and artistic legacy deserve a lot more than what is currently represented by the BMG catalogue.

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:46 am

Although I resist that awful trend (what can beat the real thing with real artwork, liner notes and packaging you can hold in your hand?), I hope that day is long off. Sadly, the trend is going that way.


Peter Franks wrote:This is an official Sony page, you must realize; you'd think they'd be meticulous in the details of their own product.
so large that we could still be drawing from it seventeen years later?


:lol:


I do wonder about whether they reprint other apparent steady-sellers like MSG, and the like. It's funny to me that they wouldn't try to throw a "2006" or throw an "FBI warning" on there while (and if) they are re-printing them.

Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:16 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I do wonder about whether they reprint other apparent steady-sellers like MSG, and the like. It's funny to me that they wouldn't try to throw a "2006" or throw an "FBI warning" on there while (and if) they are re-printing them.

MSG is one of Elvis' best selling official live albums released on the RCA mainstream label. It is odd that it has never received the proper reissue treatment with a competent remix and remastering by a skilled engineer. The same could be argued for Aloha. The 1998 reissue is muddy and dull. That is a show screaming for a better mix and improved mastering.

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:56 pm

shanebrown wrote:I don't think the end of the CD era is actually that close. Downloading may be fashionable at the moment, especially with modern pop singles that are often here one day and forgotten the next. I think that CDs will remain, however, for more standard works - pop albums by well-regarded artists, easy listening, jazz, "older" pop, rock n roll, country and so on. Most of these are bought by people who are music lovers, rather than just people who buy whatever is popular at the time. I think the "music lovers" will continue to buy cds over downloads for a long long time to come. What;s more, there are thousands of albums out there are that are, literally, works of art and only work as an album.

I think you can safely say that people over, say, thirty are unlikely to change their music-buying habits significantly, no matter what they buy. They are used to buying a material album rather than a file on a computer and will continue to resist any changes to that. Buying the odd song or two on itunes is different to buying complete albums and putting them onto cd yourself. And what about live albums? They don't really work at all in mp3 form as surely there are very small gaps between each track?

The end of the CD era is closer than you think. After the close of Tower, there are now very few full-scale, full-service record stores in existence. Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, Walmart, etc do not supply loads of catalogue for the most part. They push top-40 and hits packages. Labels make a lot of money off of catalogue and if they have nowhere but internet stores such as Amazon to push the bulk of their catalogue now (with alarming shrinking sales), they will have no choice in the next year or two to emabrace some sort of large-scale downloading model. It may not be what real music fans want who enjoy physical product, but if you follow the industry news closely you will see that it is inevitable. The labels are losing a lot of money with the dying CD model, they will have no choice but to move in a new direction.

Not all downloads have to be mp3s, there are many other files that do not have gaps and that have a fuller sound.

Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:33 am

My music buying habits are as Shane describes them. Unfortunately I believe midnightx is right and the end of the cd era is close at hand. If and when that day comes my music buying days will be over. I will not sit on the"Net" or wherever downloading music into some electronic gadget. I must have a physical something to hold in my hands that represents the music I'm enjoying.

I realize many/most will view this attitude as belonging to a dinosaur, but so be it.

Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:54 am

JerryNodak wrote:My music buying habits are as Shane describes them. Unfortunately I believe midnightx is right and the end of the cd era is close at hand. If and when that day comes my music buying days will be over. I will not sit on the"Net" or wherever downloading music into some electronic gadget. I must have a physical something to hold in my hands that represents the music I'm enjoying.

I realize many/most will view this attitude as belonging to a dinosaur, but so be it.


I'm with you Jerry!!!


8)

Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:49 am

sam wrote:
JerryNodak wrote:My music buying habits are as Shane describes them. Unfortunately I believe midnightx is right and the end of the cd era is close at hand. If and when that day comes my music buying days will be over. I will not sit on the"Net" or wherever downloading music into some electronic gadget. I must have a physical something to hold in my hands that represents the music I'm enjoying.

I realize many/most will view this attitude as belonging to a dinosaur, but so be it.


I'm with you Jerry!!!


Me too! And I'm pretty sure that there will always be a demand for CDs, just like there still is a demand for vinyl records. Collectors and older music fans will not burn their record collections and start downloading everything. So, CDs will be around for a long time, at least if we're talking about older music.

And Jerry, nice to see another Tom Parker fan here! :wink:

Keith Richards, Jr.

Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:39 am

Downloads must be having a significant impact on sales. The UK singles chart has recently been restructured to include downloads, and there is talk of he entire Beatles back catalogue being re-mastered and sold online.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the same thing happens with the Elvis catalogue. I suppose preferences for liner notes and cover art (and I agree with Greg on this) could become a generational thing. If you’ve grown up with Ipod’s and the download culture such things aren’t likely to bother you.

Personally, I can recall buying vinyl albums and singles and the packaging is still a big part of the collecting experience for me.

Thanks for the comments midnightx, I have to agree that an overhaul of the current mainstream catalogue just doesn’t seem likely, but it really is crying out for it.

“MSG” and “Aloha” could really use an upgrade. I wasn’t happy with the ‘new’ cover for the ’98 re-issue of “Aloha” either. Another attempt a revisionist history from BMG. The same thing happened with “Moody Blue”.

“Elvis In Concert” could also use an upgrade. I know this isn’t one of Elvis’ best albums but as it remains in print presumably it still sells, and personally I think the public are being short changed with the quality of some of these releases, and therefore, are not really being given an incentive to come back and buy more Presley albums.

I’ve spoken to a number friends who like Elvis’ music but aren’t fanatics and most are of the opinion that if they buy a set like “Hitstory” they’ve pretty much got all they need as far as Elvis’ music is concerned. Mention a title like “Elvis Country” or “From Elvis In Memphis” and you’ve lost them, but they do not display the same sort of ignorance when it comes to classic works by say The Beatles or The Rolling Stones.

Now I know Elvis was never considered an ‘albums’ artist by the music press, and some of the titles that were thrown together during his lifetime did little to help this situation. Having said that I do wonder whether Sony/BMG’s current policy is also having an impact on how Elvis is perceived.

I have no idea how many copies an album such as Gram Parson’s “G.P.” or Gene Clark’s “No Other” sells each year, but I think it would be safe to say that they are not flying off the shelves. However, the respective record companies must recognise that these are classic works, and therefore they remain in print.

I wish BMG could show the same sort of faith in titles such as “Elvis Is Back” and “Elvis Country”. They may not be the biggest sellers, but they are quality albums, which if purchased by a casual buyer should certainly make them want to seek out additional titles from the Elvis catalogue. Unfortunately I couldn’t say the same for some of the ‘new’ titles which are currently on offer.

Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:40 am

As the FTD classic series moves on, I think it would have been a good idea to take CD1 of the double package and release it as a main label full fledged original album with bonus'.
As such both the collector and the casual buyer would have a chance to get an upgraded "classic" to each their own.
And I'm thinking of the studio/live albums.
CD 1 of TTWII-SE set in original TTWII album artwork. CD1 of Elvis Is Back and so on.
And not least, I would like to have the original ON STAGE album, remastered, back in print!

Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:18 am

bajo wrote:As the FTD classic series moves on, I think it would have been a good idea to take CD1 of the double package and release it as a main label full fledged original album with bonus'.
As such both the collector and the casual buyer would have a chance to get an upgraded "classic" to each their own.
And I'm thinking of the studio/live albums.
CD 1 of TTWII-SE set in original TTWII album artwork. CD1 of Elvis Is Back and so on.
And not least, I would like to have the original ON STAGE album, remastered, back in print!


Things is, they have already tried this, albeit not with alternate takes. The 1997-2000 upgrade series featured original albums with extra tracks and covered Elvis' career start to finish.

Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:20 am

rockinrebel wrote:I have no idea how many copies an album such as Gram Parson’s “G.P.” or Gene Clark’s “No Other” sells each year, but I think it would be safe to say that they are not flying off the shelves. However, the respective record companies must recognise that these are classic works, and therefore they remain in print.

I wish BMG could show the same sort of faith in titles such as “Elvis Is Back” and “Elvis Country”. They may not be the biggest sellers, but they are quality albums, which if purchased by a casual buyer should certainly make them want to seek out additional titles from the Elvis catalogue. Unfortunately I couldn’t say the same for some of the ‘new’ titles which are currently on offer.

rockinrebel, your example about Graham Parson's GP release is spot-on. There are a lot important albums by various artists that may not sell well, but represent an important moment in music history and therefore remain in print. There are so many examples to choose from. Does anyone think The Byrds' "Untitled/Unissued" is still a big seller? It is a great milestone album and remains in print. How about The Who's "A Quick One"? Can anyone really think that Kris Kristofferson's "Kristofferson" sell big numbers? No, but it is a legendary album. The list is endless.

Matthew wrote:Things is, they have already tried this, albeit not with alternate takes. The 1997-2000 upgrade series featured original albums with extra tracks and covered Elvis' career start to finish.

Yes, and they aborted it after 4 years. Aside from rewriting history by changing album covers (Aloha & Moody Blue), the actual execution left a lot to be desired, especially when one compares the Elvis reissues to reissues by other artists. As you point out, alternate takes were not used on the studio album reissues. Alternates would have been real bonus like what is found on reissues from the same era by The Byrds, Miles Davis, The Who, Janis Joplin, Stevie Ray Vaughan, etc. The first disc of FTD's "Elvis Is Back!" is a perfect example of how BMG could have really enhanced some of Elvis' catalogue works. That mirrors what has been done with reissues by the artists just mentioned above.

Well it looks like this ship has passed with the Elvis Presley catalogue. Compilations will continue to thrown out on a yearly basis, great titles such as MSG will remain in print but in terrible form, great studio works such as Elvis Country will remain out of print and hard to find, etc. Basically, Elvis' mainstream catalogue will remain in complete disarray. Very sad for one of music's greatest talents and greatest recording artists.

Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:10 am

ImageImageImage

Midnightx wrote:
Well it looks like this ship has passed with the Elvis Presley catalogue. Compilations will continue to thrown out on a yearly basis, great titles such as MSG will remain in print but in terrible form, great studio works such as Elvis Country will remain out of print and hard to find, etc. Basically, Elvis' mainstream catalogue will remain in complete disarray. Very sad for one of music's greatest talents and greatest recording artists.


I agree, Midnightx, but don't give up the fight so quickly. I do agree, that it's getting to be a late hour for a turn-around. If anything, the demise of the "deep catalog" record store (i.e. a place that just sells recorded music) has hastened this cheapening process. But I do think a demographic above, say 40, will prefer to keep buying real CDs. This could be your casual fan as well as your more committed record collector, the type that keeps FTD and Rhino Select humming...

The sales expectations for the Elvis "brand" (I can't stand that kind of talk) are so far beyond that of your other garden variety "oldies" acts (Dion, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis,) or other legendary pop/ rock/ jazz acts who have passed on: Dean Martin, Sinatra, Lennon, Miles Davis that ironically he gets a cheaper and "fast buck" treatment than if he wasn't such a chronic, evergreen money maker.

ImageImageImageImage
ImageImageImage

Because he's "a cut above" (or so we say and are continually told), there is a "familiarity breeds contempt" manner in which the BMG and then Sony/BMG treats his recordings. I don't know who could afford to purchase the rights (or who might be left as a competitor for BMG) but I'd even prefer a label like "Collector's Choice" to handle his releases at one point. They, like Rhino, and others, can be quite effective in issung the original albums in their original form.


Here's Peter Franks' immortal "Cutting the Catalogue" thread for any of the newbies among us, for more on this subject. ( It actually once ran much longer before the transfer of the forum, when it lost some pages)

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/v ... +catalogue


***********

Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:57 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I do agree, that it's getting to be a late hour for a turn-around. If anything, the demise of the "deep catalog" record store (i.e. a place that just sells recorded music) has hastened this cheapening process.


But does this really matter? I am a complete music nut, but I have to admit that I haven't bought a CD in a record store in years, I buy everything online. In most cases the record store didn't have the CDs I was looking for. My online stores have just about everything.

Speaking of reissues, three of Roy Orbison's Monument albums from the early '60s have recently been relesead on CD. They cost $10 each and includes 4 bonus songs. I seriously doubt "Crying" and "Sings Lonely And Blue" sell better than "Elvis Is Back!" or "Elvis Country", but the difference, I guess, is that Orbison's albums have never been issued on CD before. The people who want "Elvis Is Back!" on CD probably have it already. I would love to see it remain in print forever, but...

The reissues from 1997-2000 are pretty good. However, "Moody Blue" is a downright disgrace - a new, ugly cover and one song missing from the original track-list. And things like "Blue Hawaii" could use a sound upgrade.

I got a question. When those first three albums were reissued in 2005, remastered by Kevan Budd... didn't the press release say that more albums would follow? Sometimes it's very hard to understand what''s going on. First, FTD announces that they will re-release the original albums because this is something that the main label isn't interested anymore. Then, the main label release three upgraded original albums and announces that more will follow. And now it seems that they gave changed their mind again and will focus on different compilations instead.

Keith Richards, Jr.

Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:44 pm

I also seem to recall words to that effect. I suppose the poor sales of the first three doomed the project.

I sometimes wonder if Sony/BMG shouldn't just license select Elvis catalog product to Time-Life Music and let them have a go at it. They seem to understand how to mount an ad campaign and move product.
It isn't as if they'd be new to selling Elvis' music.

Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:38 pm

Doc, ELVIS 30 #1 HITS is essential. Every fan should have this gem in his collection.

Rob, you are missing out if you don’t buy The Complete Million Dollar Quartet. That one is essential. A Kevan Budd masterpiece.

Per

Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:42 pm

Indeed, it is, hence my MDQ avatar this month to promote a great, under-sung release! As for the David Bendeth-produced best seller, E1 is controversial and flawed but still a landmark disc that a true collector will find room for a variety of reasons.

Guys, there's little real proof that the reissues of the first three albums "underperformed" and I never saw any official statement on it and I looked for it , too. They weren't promoted at all, for starters and basically reinstated catalog favorites. I hope it happens again sometime soon with "From Elvis In Memphis" and "Elvis Is Back," as the CD will soldier on a little longer in the mainstream market.




Keith Richards, Jr. wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I do agree, that it's getting to be a late hour for a turn-around. If anything, the demise of the "deep catalog" record store (i.e. a place that just sells recorded music) has hastened this cheapening process.


But does this really matter? I am a complete music nut, but I have to admit that I haven't bought a CD in a record store in years, I buy everything online. In most cases the record store didn't have the CDs I was looking for. My online stores have just about everything.
.


Yes, it does matter, as the end of the "brick and morter" store has hastened the end of the actual CD.
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/v ... ight=tower

Those who congratulate themselves on the cheaper on-line prices have inadvertantly excellerated the download phenomenon- and I'm gulity of this too.

I'm sorry to hear that you never leave your house :lol: but the record store as an institution does deserve at least some lamentation as it passes, and that they no longer can really survive does not bode well for the digital platter. I have used on-line stores myself but liked that stores existed for a variety of reasons.


I saw one of those Monument Roy Orbision reissues which I have on CD. They are quite impressive and the sort of thing I'd like to see for Elvis. After all, I have a Roy Orbioson's "Best of," ("50 Greatest Hits of All Time") but give me packages like that, I'll consider his "real albums" as well. This is what "best of's" do best: make new fans consider digging deeper.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:05 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Yes, it does matter, as the end of the "brick and morter" store has hastened the end of the actual CD.
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/v ... ight=tower

Those who congratulate themselves on the cheaper on-line prices have inadvertantly excellerated the download phenomenon- and I'm gulity of this too.

I'm sorry to hear that you never leave your house :lol: but the record store as an institution does deserve at least some lamentation as it passes, and that they no longer can really survive does not bode well for the digital platter. I have used on-line stores myself but liked that stores existed for a variety of reasons.


But Greg, I live in a pretty small town. In Sweden. Actually, it's the second biggest town in the whole country, but it's still very small compared to where you live. We don't have anything like HMV or Tower Records around here. When I am in London, I always spend hours at HMV - I do love great music stores. I don't buy my CDs online because they are cheaper but because the record stores in this town ain't what they used to be. They mostly stock Top 40 stuff these days. In order to find more unusual stuff, you have to buy your music online.

As usual I find it difficult to express myself properly in this damn language. But, as online stores grow bigger and bigger, does it really matter if most of the "normal" record stores close? The people who bought their CDs there in the 1990s now buy their CDs on Amazon or whatever, right? The market is still there, the buyers are still there. The only difference is that CDs are now sold through Amazon instead of a local record store. I am not talking about the latest Robbie Williams CD now. There is no doubt that CDs with "new music" don't sell anywhere near as good as they used to do. The people who are interested in the latest hits and so on prefer downloads, nothing will change that. But could it be possible that labels like Ace, Bear Family or Rhino - who only sell stuff that collectors and music fanatics are interested in - are doing just as good as they did 10 years ago? I would like to think so. Maybe I'm wrong.

Keith Richards, Jr.