Sat May 19, 2007 9:32 pm
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.
Daryl
Sat May 19, 2007 11:11 pm
,
Sun May 20, 2007 3:30 am
Elvis_Priestly wrote: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.
Elvis_Priestly wrote:I recognise their accomplishments but do get frustrated that so often they are approached uncritically whilst Elvis is broadly condemned as lacking artistic integrity.
Elvis_Priestly wrote:Personally 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.
Elvis_Priestly wrote:"Psychedelic Pirates" was an exercise in "saying what you see" if there is another description for this fashion style then correct my ignorance.
Elvis_Priestly wrote:I do very much appreciate your sharing of your knowledge with us in so many threads ...
Sun May 20, 2007 3:34 am
PEP wrote:I now found the photo I saw so many years ago, which is also the one that Doc described...
Sun May 20, 2007 4:14 am
Sun May 20, 2007 4:26 am
drjohncarpenter wrote:PEP wrote:I now found the photo I saw so many years ago, which is also the one that Doc described...
That's it! Nice work PEP.
Thanks Doc...![]()
Some of the figures you can see were borrowed from Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum, including the hooded figure on the right. My theory is that if it's not Elvis, it's got to be someone close -- maybe Gene Vincent or Eddie Cochran.
yes, i'm sure you are right...
My money is still on Elvis, modeled around the "Viva Las Vegas" period. If anyone has a history of the museum, perhaps we could see how they were presenting Elvis in 1966-67.
I think we should be told!


Sun May 20, 2007 6:54 am
kris wrote:I've just read "Lennon" by Larry Kane. In this book, the author states many celebrities were left out at the last moment, because the shoot was planned to hastily and therefore the Beatles' managment could not get the reproduction rights settled in time.
In other words: the Beatles feared they were going to get sued by the Colonels of this world.
Sun May 20, 2007 9:54 am
Robt wrote:... in Aug 1965, the meeting became soured, partly by Lennon's needling of Elvis standard of work at the time. Based on this would the fab had really wanted Elvis to grace their front artwork some 18 months later?
Robt wrote:... also were Holly, Richard and Berry also considered as part of the artwork?
Sun May 20, 2007 11:18 am
Robt wrote:hey Doc,
thanks for the response.
You left out one, Roy Orbison!
Doc check out that physique of the headless model. It is
too slim to resemble Elvis' (from the "Viva Las Vegas"period).
hey PEP, let's consult with a Beatles expert about the real
identity.
Sun May 20, 2007 11:33 am
PEP wrote:drjohncarpenter wrote:PEP wrote:I now found the photo I saw so many years ago, which is also the one that Doc described...
That's it! Nice work PEP.
Thanks Doc...![]()
Some of the figures you can see were borrowed from Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum, including the hooded figure on the right. My theory is that if it's not Elvis, it's got to be someone close -- maybe Gene Vincent or Eddie Cochran.
yes, i'm sure you are right...
My money is still on Elvis, modeled around the "Viva Las Vegas" period. If anyone has a history of the museum, perhaps we could see how they were presenting Elvis in 1966-67.
I think we should be told!
By the way I noticed upon closer inspection of the photo
that is not a towel or anything put over the manniquin,
the picture appears to have been ripped and is missing
that piece.....of all places...![]()
So someone out there must have a copy of the picture
without the missing piece....an if they do it would also
help solve the mystery as to who it is....
We are one step closer to solving this mystery...![]()
PEP
Sun May 20, 2007 12:36 pm
Robt wrote:As for me, i am going to e-mail our networks to see if they can re-air the two "Sgt Peppers" specials.
Sun May 20, 2007 2:08 pm
Robt wrote:hey PEP,
where's this BEATLES website you tried? I want to follow your example
with quieries of my own re. the Sgt Peppers artwork.
But if it turns out a Beatles historian has the answer, is it O.K for me to add
for them to come on to F.E.C.D.C? In other words PEP can they
be granted special entry just this one time?
Pep, how do you feel about this?
Sun May 20, 2007 2:27 pm
drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....
Sun May 20, 2007 2:35 pm
ColinB wrote:drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....
A 1984 UK single: We All Stand Together was credited to Paul McCartney and the Frog Chorus.
It reached No.3.
Any well-informed Beatles enthusiast would have known that.............
Sun May 20, 2007 2:35 pm
Sun May 20, 2007 5:20 pm
ColinB wrote:drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....
A 1984 UK single: We All Stand Together was credited to Paul McCartney and the Frog Chorus.
It reached No.3.
Any well-informed Beatles enthusiast would have known that.............
Sun May 20, 2007 5:47 pm
drjohncarpenter wrote:This may have been true a long time ago, it simply isn't so in 2007.
...
Your "frogs" reference escapes me, and you cite two post-Beatles recordings in this dismissal. Is your point that you don't know their oeuvre, but dislike them anyway?
drjohncarpenter wrote:It's just plain rude, and speaks to a lack of knowledge in your arguments.
drjohncarpenter wrote:Thank you for the very kind words. Your observations are, in general, most welcome here -- in fact, you are a breath of fresh air. Maybe just dial it back a tiny bit on Elvis' favourite British quartet?
Sun May 20, 2007 5:53 pm
Little Darlin wrote:EP only made a comparison with that and Little Darlin because He isn't too keen on listening to it at the Kings Court Radio Show but He tolerates it....He says it's like giving a Kitten a ball of wool to play with (meaning Me) when it comes on.
Mon May 21, 2007 6:55 am
ColinB wrote:drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....
A 1984 UK single: We All Stand Together was credited to Paul McCartney and the Frog Chorus.
It reached No.3.
Any well-informed Beatles enthusiast would have known that.............
Mon May 21, 2007 12:35 pm
Mon May 21, 2007 1:22 pm
drjohncarpenter wrote:ColinB wrote:drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....
A 1984 UK single: We All Stand Together was credited to Paul McCartney and the Frog Chorus.
It reached No.3.
Any well-informed Beatles enthusiast would have known that.............
I am -- and that's a very lame single from a solo Beatle, issued about 14 years after the group's demise. If you're going to condemn the group, or try in vain to point out a flaw in my response, you should at least recognize what is and isn't a Beatles recording. Anytime you are confused, feel free to send a PM my way, Colin.
Mon May 21, 2007 3:59 pm
drjohncarpenter wrote:.....and that's a very lame single from a solo Beatle, issued about 14 years after the group's demise.
If you're going to condemn the group, or try in vain to point out a flaw in my response, you should at least recognize what is and isn't a Beatles recording.
Anytime you are confused, feel free to send a PM my way, Colin.
Mon May 21, 2007 4:02 pm
Mon May 21, 2007 4:31 pm
JerryNodak wrote:Well, Ringo was married to Barbara Bach at one time.
Mon May 21, 2007 5:02 pm
woodleyjohn wrote:... As for Ringo, hasn't he done well?
Hosted by ElviCities