Fri May 18, 2007 1:09 pm

Fri May 18, 2007 1:19 pm
Fri May 18, 2007 2:16 pm
Fri May 18, 2007 2:17 pm
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).
Fri May 18, 2007 2:26 pm
Fri May 18, 2007 3:01 pm
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.
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... ?![]()
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...![]()
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.
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.
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.
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?
Sat May 19, 2007 3:10 am
Elvis_Priestly wrote:Perhaps his gift of foresight was not as developed as your gift of hindsight.
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.
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.
Sat May 19, 2007 4:03 am
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?
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.]
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!!
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.
Sat May 19, 2007 7:35 am
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

Sat May 19, 2007 8:48 am
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
Sat May 19, 2007 9:10 am
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!
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.
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.
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........
Hosted by ElviCities