The same damn place the band is

The only quote that I have found is from the 2008 book 'The Elvis Encyclopedia'. This isn't where I first heard it, as that is now lost in time over the previous 48 years, but it does, to myself anyway, substantiate what I did already 99.9% know!

"Elvis later had a row with the director when he refused to allow Elvis to use the Jordanaires to back him for one of the songs. Rich's reasoning was that it would beggar believability to have back-up singing in a movie scene where Elvis sings while riding a motorbike. Rich asked Elvis where he intended to place the backing singers in the shot; Elvis replied "Same damn place as the band!" "

I would have to agree that above statement doesn't make it 100% definite that this happened on this movie, and I also admit that I have never read Felton Jarvis' account of this. But it does make sense as John Rich was trying to make a more serious film than Elvis' previous few.

Of course it does, as I laid out so definitively in my first reply on this topic. Thanks for checking, Chris Roberts. Just to be certain, I checked Alanna Nash's source for the quote on page 395 of her book, and her Endnotes plainly read:

395 - "When he made movies": Felton Jarvis to author, 1977.

Chris Roberts, here again is my scan of the page from her book, a clear, direct quote from Jarvis to Alanna Nash, made years before the Klein documentary that some cling to as hope of salvaging their now-completely debunked theory about the reference being to 1967's "Clambake." It is not. Period.

Baby Let's Play House p395.jpg

Alanna Nash, Baby Let's Play House (New York: It Books, January 5, 2010)


For almost any reasonable person, I have nailed this answer. I hope y'all enjoyed the effort, and also that we hear again from LesterB, who created the query in the first place.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I would argue that it certainly wasn't just the Beatles alone who "created" the 1960s, certainly not with their first wave of explosive success. Was 1965 all that different than 1963, in terms of social customs?

Absolutely, yes.

Here is rocker Steve Van Zandt's take on the moment when everything changed, from UNCUT (Take 145, June 2009) -->

The British Invasion really hit big on February 9, 1964, when the Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show, which the entire family used to watch -- a mass shared experience, which we really don't have anymore.

[ snip ]

The impact of seeing the Beatles was equivalent to a flying saucer landing in Hyde Park. We'd never seen anything like it. They were young, their hair was different, their clothes were different, their attitude was different, the sound was different, and they just exuded hope and the exhilaration of unlimited possibility. It was that much joy being communicated.

Anyway, on February 8, 1964 there were no bands in America. On February 10, everybody had one.

This great topic has more:

Marcus --> How Rock Changed Between 1956 and 1964
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45429

You have highlighted the great difference between the US and UK. We never had a 'big bang' with regard to the Beatles. It all started gradualy from the release of 'Love Me Do' in October 1962 until they appeared on the Royal Variety Show in late 1963. Any North American who visited Britain in the '50's were treated as royalty by us kids, simply because that had come from the country where it was all happening. I suppose it was similar only in reverse, after 9th Feb. '64.

My first visit to the States was in August '72, and a group of us were in the Peabody Hotel and even then I remember all the local youth who came into the lobby wanted to talk about were the Rolling Stones! As I have said elswhere "The grass is always greener"

Also it was very interesting to read the C. Marcus article on the previous topic page that you kindly bought to our attention, and likethebikes reply was equally valid.

Also it was very interesting to read the C. Marcus article on the previous topic page that you kindly bought to our attention, and likethebikes reply was equally valid.

Equally valid to Greil Marcus' observations? Not a chance.

Also it was very interesting to read the C. Marcus article on the previous topic page that you kindly bought to our attention, and likethebikes reply was equally valid.

Equally valid to Greil Marcus' observations? Not a chance.

Doc I have a lot of respect for you and the vast majority of your very inlightened posts. As I have said before this board would obviously be much the poorer without you. But I do believe with regard to the Beatles, you are as fanaticaly devoted to them, in the same way as fans who are fanaticaly devoted to Elvis are, whom you so obviously despise and put down.

Why in your opinion is it alright to be fanatical towards one but not the other?

Also it was very interesting to read the C. Marcus article on the previous topic page that you kindly bought to our attention, and likethebikes reply was equally valid.

Equally valid to Greil Marcus' observations? Not a chance.

Doc I have a lot of respect for you and the vast majority of your very inlightened posts. As I have said before this board would obviously be much the poorer without you. But I do believe with regard to the Beatles, you are as fanaticaly devoted to them, in the same way as fans who are fanaticaly devoted to Elvis are, whom you so obviously despise and put down.

Why in your opinion is it alright to be fanatical towards one but not the other?

That comment is unfair, unwarranted and unsubstantiated. And I do not appreciate it one bit.

I deal in facts, and history. And I admire many artists in many fields.

Marcus' writings are not exclusively about the Beatles anyway, if you look closely. Read the replies I wrote in that other topic to see why likethebike's comments are flawed. It's not "fanaticism," it's reality.

Clearly some on this forum have trouble differentiating between the two. And it is to this view that I frequently and passionately reply. Sorry if you have a problem with it, but it's not my problem, it is yours.

You have highlighted the great difference between the US and UK. We never had a 'big bang' with regard to the Beatles. It all started gradualy from the release of 'Love Me Do' in October 1962 until they appeared on the Royal Variety Show in late 1963. Any North American who visited Britain in the '50's were treated as royalty by us kids, simply because that had come from the country where it was all happening. I suppose it was similar only in reverse, after 9th Feb. '64.

My first visit to the States was in August '72, and a group of us were in the Peabody Hotel and even then I remember all the local youth who came into the lobby wanted to talk about were the Rolling Stones! As I have said elswhere "The grass is always greener"

It's a good observation and true. The Beatles were and still are huge in the UK, but in the US they were elevated to something else because there was the added mystique and romanticism of them coming from a foreign land.

The song was "Wheels On My Heels" from Roustabout. One of the Jordanaires was one of the first to relate the story in a televised interview; I have it on tape (when I get time, it may take a while, I will locate it). If Nash claims it was Felton that told her then he was retelling a story one of the Jordanaires told him. Forgive me doc but I have not taken the time to read the above scanned page as I have a terrible headache as I respond to this but the "Wheels On My Heels" people are 100% correct!

The song was "Wheels On My Heels" from Roustabout. One of the Jordanaires was one of the first to relate the story in a televised interview; I have it on tape (when I get time, it may take a while, I will locate it). If Nash claims it was Felton that told her then he was retelling a story one of the Jordanaires told him. Forgive me doc but I have not taken the time to read the above scanned page as I have a terrible headache as I respond to this but the "Wheels On My Heels" people are 100% correct!

Of course.

The Jarvis quote in Alanna Nash's book (which I scanned and uploaded twice on this topic) includes the caveat that Elvis told him the story.

Also it was very interesting to read the C. Marcus article on the previous topic page that you kindly bought to our attention, and likethebikes reply was equally valid.

Equally valid to Greil Marcus' observations? Not a chance.

Doc I have a lot of respect for you and the vast majority of your very inlightened posts. As I have said before this board would obviously be much the poorer without you. But I do believe with regard to the Beatles, you are as fanaticaly devoted to them, in the same way as fans who are fanaticaly devoted to Elvis are, whom you so obviously despise and put down.

Why in your opinion is it alright to be fanatical towards one but not the other?

What? I don't understand that at all. Unless it has some other meaning: unless you were referring to Elvis's FANS, his "super-fans," then it doesn't make sense. I just want it clear that I never said anything like that about the Doc! It's hard to imagine, so I will assume you meant something else. It could as easily apply to me, as I criticize Elvis often, for various things. (Is "Paradise, Hawaiian Style" the worst song ever? No. There's always "Dust In The Wind," and anything by Air Supply. But it sure is CLOSE! It's on the short list of songs included in "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.") There are a few, a very few other artists I truly love, and maybe I only "like" the Beatles a whole lot, but we all have our faves, as does the Doc, but to claim he "so obviously despise"(es) Elvis??? That is terribly unfair! That's absurd. That is not comprehensible. Look, this WAS a rational, civil argument, and an old argument, by the way, that is worth looking at every so often, without it becoming personal. The issue discussed may be arguable, but the (apparent) allegation against this member is NOT! He does not "obviously despise" Elvis Presley! Do clarify, as it is a confusing post. He sees history in a certain way, and that's what a serious discussion forum is for, to discuss issues that matter. Maybe we're both wrong. Or maybe we're both right. Or maybe one is right and one is wrong. Who knows? The point it that we are here to discuss it! Without personal jabs like that.

Even a fan can be honest about Elvis's personal problems and artistic disappointments (just as one can about any artist), without being accused of "obviously despising" them! I don't get that. Some people don't even see the argument as a dichotomy, although clearly we do, and disagree on the matter of differing perspectives is all. But to say that it's because he is a Beatlemaniac who despises Elvis!? That would be unfair, and out of left field. It is also completely wrong. It's also wrong about critically-minded fans, who want to cut through the B.S. that surrounds megastars, and get at the truth of their lives and art. I feel we owe them that kind of respect. There are fans of certain artists who accept ANYTHING, and put their fingers in their ears, and I have even known fans SO extreme that they have committed, and plotted serious crimes on behalf of the object of their affect. It can get totally out of control!

I hope we can't make civil, vital arguments - that may not agree, without some folks getting all personal about it. This is supposed to be a place of serious discussion.

Clarification would be helpful, Chris.

I criticize Elvis all the time, for one thing or another, but I shouldn't have to worry about whether anyone thinks I "despise" him on account of that. That sort of thing has a chilling effect on discourse.

Meanwhile, a writer from way back yonder kind of summed up what this particular debate is all about, and one should closely consider his words.

The first is from "A Picture of Dorian Gray." (The second I just know by heart, and love, and have to find the original source.)

“One can always be kind to people about whom one cares nothing.”

"Where there is no exaggeration there is no love, and where there is no love there is no understanding. It is only about things that do not interest one, that one can give a really unbiased opinion; and this is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always valueless."

Oscar Wilde

rjm
P.S. -- Rob, chill. I LOVE your awesome Elvis room, and wish my stuff were in such good order, and displayed as nicely! (You can come on over and tidy up! Because I do tend to keep things in a sort of steady-state disarray. My stuff is often like the Known Universe, after the Big Bang, but before galaxies formed, you might say. But I know where everything is! And I DO have Elvis plates! Just not hung up. And a gorgeous '68 platter by Joe Petruccio that I got two years ago at Knott's Berry Farm, which is an Elvis geegaw paradise. And dolls. And a small model pink Cadillac. And LOTS of X-mas ornaments! With more to come! So, yeah, okay: crazy fan. But a crazy fan with a critical eye! )

RJM, you did miss my point. Doc is, of course, a great Elvis fan and I don't know why you thought I was saying otherwise. Like myself there is a lot about Elvis that he condems such as the mid '60's movies and many other aspects about both the man and his career. That as I know you would agree doesn't make him or me any less of a fan.

Others don't admit That Elvis made mistakes, in other words the fanatical fans, these are the people that I was refering to that Doc's replies appear to indicate that he despise and put down. On the other hand if any of us say anything even slightly negative about the Beatles our comments are condemed out of hand. In other words you cannot be a fanatical Elvis fan but you should be a fanatical Beatles fan.

Doc, I certainly don't want to offend you, and if I have, I apologise, and hope that my explanation to RJM explains why I wrote what I did.

Everyone else, please read the C. Marcus article that Doc made a link to several posts back, and then Likethebikes post in reply I feel sure you will agree that both make very good and interesting points.

I see it now, Chris. He'll have to discuss the other part with you.

It being an Elvis forum, we're mostly going to more sharply analyze him. Whereas with other artists, well, it's different - here. Let's say that the Beatles are like "guests" here.

As I said, I can't speak for someone else in this regard.

rjm

The Beatles are great, but they ain't no Elvis.

I'm sitting here playing "A Big Hunk o' Love", with it cranked up LOUD and all I can say is Rock n Roll does not get any better than this!

Hey baby, I ain't askin' much o' you!

The Beatles are great, but they ain't no Elvis.

I'm sitting here playing "A Big Hunk o' Love", with it cranked up LOUD and all I can say is Rock n Roll does not get any better than this!

Hey baby, I ain't askin' much o' you!

I have mentioned this before. Several years ago I used to discuss rock'n'roll with a young (at the time 18) work colleague. He didn't like Elvis and argued that most singers were better at it including Cliff Richard

Sometime later we were at a party and someone put on 'A Big Hunk O' Love' this colleague came over to me with a smirk on his face and stated "This is what I call rock'n'roll", It was my turn to smile

The Beatles are great, but they ain't no Elvis.

I'm sitting here playing "A Big Hunk o' Love", with it cranked up LOUD and all I can say is Rock n Roll does not get any better than this!

Hey baby, I ain't askin' much o' you!

I have mentioned this before. Several years ago I used to discuss rock'n'roll with a young (at the time 18) work colleague. He didn't like Elvis and argued that most singers were better at it including Cliff Richard

Sometime later we were at a party and someone put on 'A Big Hunk O' Love' this colleague came over to me with a smirk on his face and stated "This is what I call rock'n'roll", It was my turn to smile

Nice anecdote.

It's one of those songs that just hits you like a steamroller, the swagger and intensity in the band and Elvis are amazing. He absolutely throws everything he's got into those June 1958 sessions.

Those sessions were literally the end of an era - but boy, what a way to go out.

In this particular case, The Doc is absolutely correct.

I heard this for myself on Sirius channel 13, "Elvis Radio", when Dj Bill Rock dedicated a two part special on his weekly ,"Soundtrack Saturday Night" special when director John Rich passed away a few years ago.

He, of course, played the whole "Roustabout" selections and had a great, in depth interview with John Rich about, not only his Elvis directed pictures, but had a cool story or two about other television shows and films he was also responsible for making a huge success and breaking new ground.

Anyhow, John Rich spoke warmly of Elvis and commented on his professionalism on and off the 1964 set, in great contrast to his not so great recollection, fast forward 1967, "Easy Come, Easy Go".

The "Wheels On My Heels" scene is important, let's not forget the real first steady cam, (later reffered and utilized for 1976's, "ROCKY"), but because the filming of this song was done quickly and in ONE take with two cameras. This had not been done before on film and was actually a first in the movie business.

The second was to match it up with Elvis lip synching riding a live motorcycle down the highway to music. Pretty kool stuff there.

What I gathered from this rather intriguing interview with Mr. Rich was that he wanted, or tried to, make a good Elvis Presley picture, for whatever reasons being financially rewarding, what have you. Let's not forget Elvis' previous movie being his most financially rewarding and famous, "Viva Las Vegas".

Also, the filming of the song was done actually after the motorcycle accident because of Elvis' insistance to do his own stunts, ie. fighting, kicking, etc etc and after falling and cutting his eye, left a big bruise and they had to work around the swelling.

For what it's worth, "Roustabout" is far, far superior to "Easy Come, Easy Go" in EVERY way, not only from soundtrack material, but from the script, the cast, the production, the lighting, and , of course, Elvis' own appearance. I get the impression that John Rich was not at all impressed with his leading star the second time around because of his drastic decline in films, popularity, reputation, respect and innovation in the entertainment field.

I wish they had put him on a real motorcycle. The one in the film is rather pathetic.

I wish they had put him on a real motorcycle. The one in the film is rather pathetic.

I agree, in real life he rode big Harley's, it aways seemed strange to me why they put him on a Honda.

Of course, the implication might be that a struggling singer could not afford a Harley. I know nothing about motorcycles. Were Honda's much cheaper in 1963?

The Beatles are great, but they ain't no Elvis.

I'm sitting here playing "A Big Hunk o' Love", with it cranked up LOUD and all I can say is Rock n Roll does not get any better than this!

Hey baby, I ain't askin' much o' you!

Welcome to For Elvis CD Collectors, the Elvis Presley-centric forum.

I have mentioned this before. Several years ago I used to discuss rock'n'roll with a young (at the time 18) work colleague. He didn't like Elvis and argued that most singers were better at it including Cliff Richard

At that point, one might realize that this teenager was well out of his league in the discussion.

I wish they had put him on a real motorcycle. The one in the film is rather pathetic.

Colleague Lance LeGault makes this exact observation in the 1971 Hopkins biography. He termed the Honda they gave Elvis just about right for the driveway.

many thanks for the effort involved in all the replies relating to this story.

many thanks for the effort involved in all the replies relating to this story.

Welcome back! What do you think?

many thanks for the effort involved in all the replies relating to this story.

Welcome back! What do you think?

Many thanks.

I had simply assumed that the song was 'Wheels' without any further thought, apart from Elvis' comment being perhaps an embellishment from a comment he made in private rather than to the Director directly. However, it did seem at one point that it might have been Who Needs Money but that one was put to bed of course. Moreover, I cannot imagine Elvis caring one way or the other about backing singers on the latter song. Was Clambake the film in which he had to be almost dragged from his Circle G ranch to begin filming?

many thanks for the effort involved in all the replies relating to this story.

Welcome back! What do you think?

Many thanks.

I had simply assumed that the song was 'Wheels' without any further thought, apart from Elvis' comment being perhaps an embellishment from a comment he made in private rather than to the Director directly. However, it did seem at one point that it might have been Who Needs Money but that one was put to bed of course. Moreover, I cannot imagine Elvis caring one way or the other about backing singers on the latter song. Was Clambake the film in which he had to be almost dragged from his Circle G ranch to begin filming?

Yes. Elvis was not in a good place regarding his life and Hollywood in February-March 1967.

I have mentioned this before. Several years ago I used to discuss rock'n'roll with a young (at the time 18) work colleague. He didn't like Elvis and argued that most singers were better at it including Cliff Richard

Cliff Richard IS a great rocker and singer.