All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Beatles LP Influenced By Elvis & Question about a photo

Fri May 18, 2007 1:09 pm

Any comments about McCartney saying this about
the Sgt Pepper Album?

The post is located below taken from Elvis News...

But before you read and comment about that.

I have a question, some 25 years ago or so I saw a outtake
picture of when the Beatles were putting together the photo
shoot for the Sgt. Pepper Album an in this picture there was
an Elvis cut out, which showed in the picture that it had been
put on to the side as it was going to be used in the shoot and
be included on the Album cover along with all the other
celebrities pictured with the Beatles....

For some reason they decided not to include Elvis, which I
think was because there was some fear of being sued or
Parker wanted too much for allowing it or something like
that....is what I believe I read...

If I remember correctly the cut out was a picture of Elvis
from the movie "Roustabout" holding a guitar....

Anyway my point is, has anyone seen the picture I'm
speaking of or do you have it?

If So can you post?

Also what would your feelings have been if Elvis would
have made the cover?
Image

Good thing, Bad thing?

PEP 8)

http://elvisnews.com/Presentation/Funct ... &item=9127
Paul McCartney has confessed The Beatles classic album
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was heavily
influenced by Elvis Presley. The music legend reveals
The Beatles wrote the 1967 LP, using the concept of a
band, so they would not have to go on tour - an idea
they obtained from Presley.

McCartney says, "We had this idea that we'd make
a record, and the record itself would go on tour for us.

"That came from a story we'd heard about Elvis'
Cadillac going on tour. We though that was an amazing
idea: He doesn't go on tour, he just sends his Cadillac
out. Fantastic!"
Last edited by PEP on Sat May 19, 2007 8:16 am, edited 7 times in total.

Fri May 18, 2007 1:19 pm

I've seen several outtake photos from the Sgt Pepper cover shoot but none of them have Elvis in them. Oddly enough Adolf Hitler can be seen in some of those photos and actually Hitler is on the cover behind John I think. I don't know if there was any fear for being sued by Elvis had they used his photo. It was only after the shoot that their manager had his secretary obtain everyones aproval for the use of their photo so I don't think they would've removed it before that. I always did find it odd that Elvis wasn't there as he was such a big influence on them but there really isn't that many rock musicians anyway (Dylan was on the cover but no Buddy Holly for example). I think it certainly would have benefited Elvis to be on the most famous album cover of all time. Also at the time some younger fans might have became interested in him because of it.

The Gold Cadillac on tour giving the idea to put the album on tour is old news. Macca said this over 10 years ago in the Anthology tv-series.
Last edited by Marko on Fri May 18, 2007 2:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fri May 18, 2007 2:16 pm

Regarding the cover shoot -- they certainly would have wanted to include Elvis, but whether they would have chosen a "Roustabout" image, I'm not so sure.

Elvis' touring Cadillac had absolutely nothing to do with the creation the SPLHCB album. McCartney's comment, if verifiable, is offhand. The origins of the landmark album may be read in detail in their biography, The Beatles Anthology (Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 2000).

Fri May 18, 2007 2:17 pm

I did find this quote on a Beatles website...

"Many people have wondered and asked who is on the front cover of The Beatles Sgt. Pepper Album/CD? Listed below in numerical order are those people and things that appeared.

Additionally, others were slated to appear, such as Elvis, Hitler and Jesus, but never made it on the final version.

http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1318.html

By this seeing this quote above, I do suppect I wasn't dreaming this, I'm pretty darn sure I saw the picture...I had thought for years I had remembered seeing it in a old "Hot Wax" bootleg magazine from the 80's, but to No avail it appeared I was wrong.....

But the bottom line is, I'm like 99% sure I saw a picture of this stand up in one of the Pepper outtake shots somewhere....

PEP 8)

Fri May 18, 2007 2:22 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:Elvis' touring Cadillac had absolutely nothing to do with the creation the SPLHCB album. McCartney's comment, if verifiable, is offhand. The origins of the landmark album may be read in detail in their biography, The Beatles Anthology (Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 2000).


As Macca said in the Anthology they wanted wanted to stop touring. They figured Sgt Pepper would be the tour similar to what the Gold Cadillac on tour was for Elvis. To say Sgt Pepper was heavely influenced by Elvis is nonsense. The main inspiration was Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys.

Fri May 18, 2007 2:26 pm

Though I may encounter the wrath that arises when personal tastes collide I am glad for one Elvis wasn't on the cover of this oft-rated album.
I don't think it would have added anything to Elvis's image or attraction to be featured alongside/behind the psychadelic pirates.
Elvis's cadillac tour may be more responsible for the "peace tour" of John Lennon's piano - and people call Elvis fans nuts?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6521055.stm

Fri May 18, 2007 3:01 pm

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Elvis was purposely left off the cover in a thinly veiled dig at his recorded output at the time? I.e he was not considered a 'relevant' or 'valid' artist at that time by the lads.

Fri May 18, 2007 3:57 pm

Delboy wrote:I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Elvis was purposely left off the cover in a thinly veiled dig at his recorded output at the time? I.e he was not considered a 'relevant' or 'valid' artist at that time by the lads.


I find that hard to believe. I had heard that several people were left off because permission wasn't granted.

8)

Fri May 18, 2007 9:54 pm

Robt wrote:Gee i don't know PEP!

If the Fab four had wanted Elvis on their "SGT Peppers" cover front then
howcome none of the Beatles had ever mentioned this or George Martin!
I personally don't have the answer for that Robt, I wasn't
even aware whether or not anything was ever mentioned by
them or not.....

I basically was going by what I thought was a memory I had of
what I believed I saw years ago, which was a black and white
photo of the Sgt Pepper shoot where it showed a Elvis Stand
up put over to the side where along with the picture was a write
up explaining the situation....


PEP, howsabout dropping a line to messrs Martin and McCartney and asking the question?

Sure ya have an email I can send too... ? :smt031

Also, even if they wanted to. then it stands to reason that some of
the other early icons who were as big an influence to the Beatles early sound
such as Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, to name but three,
that the Fab four would've wanted them on the cover as well.

Were they also considered? It's a question that perhaps only
McCartney and Martin can answer.

This may all be the case, but that wasn't the issue with me,
my question related to a picture I was pretty sure I saw....
which I was hoping some one else knew about too....
nothing more... :wink:


PEP 8)

Sat May 19, 2007 12:29 am

Elvis_Priestly wrote:I don't think it would have added anything to Elvis's image or attraction to be featured alongside/behind the psychadelic pirates.

No, in the spring of 1967, Elvis Presley's artistic credibility was at an all-time high with fans and critics alike. Why would he want to have any association with the biggest album of the year, and one of the most culturally significant releases of the 1960s?

Incidently, the "psychadelic [ sic ] pirates" recorded in that vein for less than a year, from about November 1966 to October 1967.

Delboy wrote:I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Elvis was purposely left off the cover in a thinly veiled dig at his recorded output at the time? I.e he was not considered a 'relevant' or 'valid' artist at that time by the lads.

When you remember, take that source and throw it in the trash bin -- it's erroneous.

Robt wrote:... it stands to reason that some of the other early icons who were as big an influence to the Beatles early sound such as Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, to name but three, that the Fab four would've wanted them on the cover as well.

Were they also considered? It's a question that perhaps only McCartney and Martin can answer.

Here's a quicker route to your answers: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Sat May 19, 2007 1:20 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:No, in the spring of 1967, Elvis Presley's artistic credibility was at an all-time high with fans and critics alike. Why would he want to have any association with the biggest album of the year, and one of the most culturally significant releases of the 1960s?


Perhaps his gift of foresight was not as developed as your gift of hindsight.

"Incidently" [sic] 1967 wasn't a bad year for Elvis either - whatever the critics thought The Recording Academy thought he did quite well. Indeed Elvis and the Beatles were both lauded by them the following year.

Sat May 19, 2007 3:10 am

Elvis_Priestly wrote:Perhaps his gift of foresight was not as developed as your gift of hindsight.

Perhaps not.

By 1967, no gift of hindsight was required to note that the Beatles were the #1 rock group in the world for the third year running -- especially for a famous musician and actor living in Los Angeles!

It seems your derision regarding the Beatles hampers any ability to fairly appreciate their accomplishments. Incidentally, I made note of your spelling error only because it was a mean-spirited -- and fairly ignorant -- choice of words to begin with.

Elvis_Priestly wrote:... 1967 wasn't a bad year for Elvis either - whatever the critics thought The Recording Academy thought he did quite well. Indeed Elvis and the Beatles were both lauded by them the following year.

The Grammys has, for the most part, never exactly had its finger on the pulse of popular culture, so it's not much of a talking point.

And if you think Elvis and the Beatles were anywhere close artistically in 1967, you are in shallow water indeed.

Sat May 19, 2007 3:56 am

Robt wrote:hey PEP,


i just recall it never was stated in either the anthology t.v. project
or the television special making of "Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club
Band" that came out in the early 1990's. Surely this would've been the
case.



Personally I was a little dissapointed this wasn't mentioned
nor a picture shown in the book, because I remember
expecting to hear something and see something about it again...

As I do remember seeing this picture I'm speaking of, an thinking
to myself at the time this was pretty cool to see.....

So, it just can't be my imagination....I hope not anyways... :lol: :roll:

Like an idoit I know I have misplaced it somewhere over the years
because I keep everything... :lol:

Anyway this is going to drive me nuts again till I find it....

I was just hoping someone could come forward and save
me the trouble.... :wink:

PEP 8)

Sat May 19, 2007 4:03 am

Hey PEP,

Perhaps an easier option would be for you to consult with
the Beatles website. I am guessing they have a huge website? Do they have a website that is
as fun and lively as F.E.C.D.C?

All Power to PEP!!!

Sat May 19, 2007 4:07 am

Robt wrote:Hey PEP,

Perhaps an easier option would be for you to consult with
the Beatles website. I am guessing they have a huge website? Do they have a website that is
as fun and lively as F.E.C.D.C?



You know I'm sure they do... :lol: Anyway, yes this may be the next
alternative..... :wink:

PEP 8)

Sat May 19, 2007 5:09 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Delboy wrote:I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Elvis was purposely left off the cover in a thinly veiled dig at his recorded output at the time? I.e he was not considered a 'relevant' or 'valid' artist at that time by the lads.

When you remember, take that source and throw it in the trash bin -- it's erroneous.]


Come to think of it.....it was you!!

Sat May 19, 2007 7:31 am

Delboy wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:When you remember, take that source and throw it in the trash bin -- it's erroneous.

Come to think of it.....it was you!!

Good one, Del!

----------

PEP -

There is an outtake shot from the March 30, 1967 "Pepper" photo session which shows a male cut-out that has been pulled to the side, off the main display. However, the head is covered by a cloth. It is allegedly Elvis, but an uncovered image has never been seen.

Sat May 19, 2007 7:35 am

drjohncarpenter wrote: PEP -

There is an outtake shot from the March 30, 1967 "Pepper" photo session which shows a male cut-out placed to the side of the main display, the head covered by a cloth. It is allegedly Elvis, but an uncovered image has never seen the light of day.


Thanks Doc, :wink: that helps a little, I was starting to question myself whether or not I was dreaming this or not.... :lol:

PEP 8)

Sat May 19, 2007 7:35 am

Hello,

Pictures of the photo shoot as well as some alternate cover versions of Sgt. Pepper are found in the Mark Lewisohn book "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" (Hamlyn)

Daryl

Sat May 19, 2007 7:37 am

Daryl wrote:Hello,

Pictures of the photo shoot as well as some alternate cover
versions of Sgt. Pepper are found in the Mark Lewisohn book
"The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" (Hamlyn)

Daryl


But no Elvis, right ?

By the way on a side note, I personally think it would have
been cool to see Elvis on the Cover of the Sgt Pepper Album,
Hell, Marlon Brando was on it, so was Tony Curtis and Bob Dylan.

So why not Elvis? :D

An what would have made it really cool is if they would
have chosen the 50's Gold Lame' Elvis, which I think would
have really suited that Album cover... :wink:

Who knows I betcha they would have sold another
million or two more albums... :lol:

Not that, it would have helped Elvis any, but if Parker
would have had his way you can betcha they maybe
would have made something from it..... :twisted:
Image

PEP 8)

Sat May 19, 2007 8:48 am

Hello PEP,

No Elvis, unfortunately. I was reading on another website (I think it was called songfacts.com) that Beatles had to have written permission to use living persons on the cover. I just wonder if maybe EPE would have in it's archives a letter from the Beatles expressing interest in using Elvis' image on one of their album covers. I would think the Colonel would have received the letter had the Beatles really wanted to feature Elvis on the cover. I do know that a few years earlier than Sgt Pepper, Pat Boone did an Elvis Presley tribute album in which he couldn't even reference Elvis by name in the title of the album and was forced to call the album "Pat Boone Sings Guess Who" while wearing an outfit similiar to the gold lame featured on Elvis' Gold Records Vol. 2.

http://www.patsgold.com/detail.aspx?ID=73

Daryl

Sat May 19, 2007 8:54 am

Daryl wrote:Hello PEP,

No Elvis, unfortunately. I was reading on another website (I think it was called songfacts.com) that Beatles had to have written permission to use living persons on the cover. I just wonder if maybe EPE would have in it's archives a letter from the Beatles expressing interest in using Elvis' image on one of their album covers. I would think the Colonel would have received the letter had the Beatles really wanted to feature Elvis on the cover. I do know that a few years earlier than Sgt Pepper, Pat Boone did an Elvis Presley tribute album in which he couldn't even reference Elvis by name in the title of the album and was forced to call the album "Pat Boone Sings Guess Who" while wearing an outfit similiar to the gold lame featured on Elvis' Gold Records Vol. 2.

http://www.patsgold.com/detail.aspx?ID=73

Daryl


Yes, I remember that story.....it was a Parker thing....

Here's the story...

I even did an album, a tribute album to Elvis. I wanted to call it 'Pat Sings Elvis,' that's the logical title, but his manager, Col. Tom Parker, wanted to charge us a huge extra royalty for the use of his name in the title. And I said, "Colonel, this is my friend, I'm doing a tribute, I'm honoring Elvis." "Yes, but this is business, you know. You got to pay for the use of his name and sell more records." It was really sort of unscrupulous of him. So we didn't call it 'Pat Sings Elvis.' We called it 'Pat Boone Sings Guess Who?' And I wrote, I don't know how this will translate, but I wrote backliner notes all about my friend Guess Whosely. I never said his name.

And Tom Parker eventually tipped his hat to me, and said, "Well, you've conned the con man. You've out-hustled the hustler, and I salute you."


Image


PEP 8)

Sat May 19, 2007 9:10 am

Hello PEP,

I saw Pat Boone on a television program many years ago relating this very same story. (I think the show was Crook & Chase with Lorrianne Crook and Charlie Chase or Nashville Now with Ralph Emery). I do remember that it was on The Nashville Network. I also remember Pat Boone saying something about the Colonel making Pat a member of the "Snowmen's League."

Daryl

Sat May 19, 2007 1:25 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:By 1967, no gift of hindsight was required to note that the Beatles were the #1 rock group in the world for the third year running -- especially for a famous musician and actor living in Los Angeles!


The reference was to Elvis's foresight, and I'm not sure the Beatles even had the foresight to know what a phenomenon this album was going to become.

drjohncarpenter wrote:It seems your derision regarding the Beatles hampers any ability to fairly appreciate their accomplishments. Incidentally, I made note of your spelling error only because it was a mean-spirited -- and fairly ignorant -- choice of words to begin with.


The Beatles composed some fine music, I love those Elvis covered (they fitting my musical taste) and still wish Elvis had recorded "The Long and Winding Road." I recognise their accomplishments but do get frustrated that so often they are approached uncritically whilst Elvis is broadly condemned as lacking artistic integrity. Personally (and I noted, as it seems we have to here, that my musings are such in the caveat which proceeded my original post here) I'd rather Do The Clam than Be a Walrus, hold my Little Darlin's Foot or Hand than join a chorus of frogs, I wish I was in the land of cotton instead of the Mull of Kintyre and I'd always much rather hear about life in the Ghetto than spend some minutes Imagining no possessions in a New York apartment.

I made a note of your spelling error because often in the academic world, which your title leads me to believe we share, "sic"ness is contagious. "Psychedelic Pirates" was an exercise in "saying what you see" if there is another description for this fashion style then correct my ignorance.

drjohncarpenter wrote:The Grammys has, for the most part, never exactly had its finger on the pulse of popular culture, so it's not much of a talking point.

And if you think Elvis and the Beatles were anywhere close artistically in 1967, you are in shallow water indeed.


I don't and neither did I imply that. The "movie years" are often uncritically written off without reference to the several diamonds in the rough which can be found there. "How Great Thou Art" represents one such gem and the reference to the Grammys is, I think, a topical illustration given it won an award in the same year as the album this thread deals with.

Finally Doc, I do very much appreciate your sharing of your knowledge with us in so many threads here. On many matters of fact you bring a certainty and clarity much required. Where subjective matters are concerned the hammer of truth is often rubber and squeaks instead of smites - and those squeaks can sometimes drown out the kind of discussion which facilitates mutual understanding and collective learning. I too am guilty of wielding it to my shame which passion can only partially excuse.

Sat May 19, 2007 2:08 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Elvis_Priestly wrote:I don't think it would have added anything to Elvis's image or attraction to be featured alongside/behind the psychadelic pirates.

Incidently, the "psychadelic [ sic ] pirates" recorded in that vein for less than a year, from about November 1966 to October 1967.


Elvis_Priestly wrote:"Incidently" [sic] 1967 wasn't a........


Even in my new 'Doc friendly' guise........that's fully sic. :shock: :D