When It Rains session edited on A Boy From Tupelo?

In Trevor Cajiao's excellent seven page appraisal of the Boy From Tupelo set in Elvis-The Man And His Music 97, when talking about the When It Rains session he states ..............



The complete session (minus only a slight edit for what some would consider "offensive" language) appears here for the first time.

Interesting. Given that there's allready none p.c. banter on the set (check out track 14, disc 2), It does make me wonder what they left out. And why. Anyone know?

And how do you guys feel about the session tapes being edited? I'd have thought, given the nature of the release, there'd be more complaints about stuff left off, rather than stuff left in, no matter now risque it is.

One might assume that, even in 2012, there are those who might manipulate the odd comment on a session tape to make Elvis out to be someone he was not.

Case-in-point is the January 1968 studio jam of "The Prisoner's Song," which was never meant to be anything more than stupid, locker room humour for the dozen people assembled at Nashville's Studio B that evening.

However, an official release of this jam by RCA or FTD would serve as de facto evidence of Presley as a racist or homophobe. And that would be very bad for his family, friends, fans and legacy, as he was neither of those things.

So such official discretion is not only understandable, but vital. Only someone who cares not a whit about Elvis Presley's enduring legacy would choose a different course.

What about Sony caving to a few hypersensative, politically correct, individuals that
take away our right to hear the session as it is?
Those so-called moral majority like to ban, control, and stop all material that they
don't find acceptible.
They are the ones eroding our rights on a wider spectrum.
Thier actions are far more frightening than some remark made in jest, in a studio 60 years ago.

What about Sony caving to a few hypersensative, politically correct, individuals that take away our right to hear the session as it is?

What "right"? You neither own nor manage the Presley catalog or archives.

And what "individuals" are you speaking of? How did they make Sony "cave"?

Are you privy to information on this? Do share.

What about Sony caving to a few hypersensative, politically correct, individuals that take away our right to hear the session as it is?

What "right"? You neither own nor manage the Presley catalog or archives.

And what "individuals" are you speaking of? How did they make Sony "cave"?

Are you privy to information on this? Do share.

My statement was built on implied statements.

The individuals are the people that "would" complain had the so-called sensitve material been included.

It is a pre-emptive caving more or less.

It's a case of lets leave it out, so we don't have to deal with any fall out.

I think that fear is un-founded and they shouldn't worry so much about it.

If anyone gets upset, let them.

Just like I am upset when it gets edited out.

So, Ernst should be thinking, who can I afford to upset.

The fans that buy the product ,or a few righteous complainers that like to stir the pot?

My statement was built on implied statements.

Thought so.

Just like I am upset when it gets edited out.

So, Ernst should be thinking, who can I afford to upset.

Yes, he should indeed.

My statement was built on implied statements.

Thought so.

Just like I am upset when it gets edited out.

So, Ernst should be thinking, who can I afford to upset.

Yes, he should indeed.

He caved.

I think that fear is un-founded and they shouldn't worry so much about it.

Of course, you're right. The chances that 'the media' will pick up on some remark buried in a mega expensive collectors only set is minimal. Un-PC Elvis is all over youtube anyway if someone wants to build a case against him. Nazi hats and everything. Boo hoo ... y'know?

I'd still like to know what was edited out. Chances are it isn't even Elvis saying the "offensive" word anyway... (and judging by Trevor's use of quotation marks in his review I'm guessing he didn't find the edited word so offensive anyway).

I don't think the edit hampers the enjoyment of the magnificent Tupelo set, but I think they've perhaps been a little over-cautious on this one. I'd rather "every last scrap" of audio is included and I'll make my own mind up on the content, thanks.

Does anybody know? "Man In The Moon" is hearable. I'm not offended because I "get it." So, a clue?

One thing: Sam was in a prickly mood at the time. Elvis seemed okay. But we don't know who is being protected. Or from what.

A clue. Some context. Something . . . is this a big deal or a misunderstanding? Sometimes you can't hear who is talking.

A clue? Was there an argument? Carl Perkins had showed up. Many variables!

It seemed a little tense due to the circumstances. So the context is complicated.

rjm

One might assume that, even in 2012, there are those who might manipulate the odd comment on a session tape to make Elvis out to be someone he was not.

Case-in-point is the January 1968 studio jam of "The Prisoner's Song," which was never meant to be anything more than stupid, locker room humour for the dozen people assembled at Nashville's Studio B that evening.

However, an official release of this jam by RCA or FTD would serve as de facto evidence of Presley as a racist or homophobe. And that would be very bad for his family, friends, fans and legacy, as he was neither of those things.

So such official discretion is not only understandable, but vital. Only someone who cares not a whit about Elvis Presley's enduring legacy would choose a different course.

Excellent post.
Also another reason Ernst was never able to squash the bootleg market. No matter how much material Sony may have, there will always be restrictions set to hush the critics.

One might assume that, even in 2012, there are those who might manipulate the odd comment on a session tape to make Elvis out to be someone he was not.

Case-in-point is the January 1968 studio jam of "The Prisoner's Song," which was never meant to be anything more than stupid, locker room humour for the dozen people assembled at Nashville's Studio B that evening.

However, an official release of this jam by RCA or FTD would serve as de facto evidence of Presley as a racist or homophobe. And that would be very bad for his family, friends, fans and legacy, as he was neither of those things.

So such official discretion is not only understandable, but vital. Only someone who cares not a whit about Elvis Presley's enduring legacy would choose a different course.

After this post, it's time to close this topic. This is just so spot-on that any further discussion is pointless.

Keith Richards, Jr.

After this post, it's time to close this topic. This is just so spot-on that any further discussion is pointless.

Keith Richards, Jr.

Well, if you don't mind, I'd still like to know what was censored, if any-one's got any idea.

On Keith Flynn's site it says much of the session is available on an MRS release (which I don't have). Perhaps the uncensored session is on there?

One might assume that, even in 2012, there are those who might manipulate the odd comment on a session tape to make Elvis out to be someone he was not.

Case-in-point is the January 1968 studio jam of "The Prisoner's Song," which was never meant to be anything more than stupid, locker room humour for the dozen people assembled at Nashville's Studio B that evening.

However, an official release of this jam by RCA or FTD would serve as de facto evidence of Presley as a racist or homophobe. And that would be very bad for his family, friends, fans and legacy, as he was neither of those things.

So such official discretion is not only understandable, but vital. Only someone who cares not a whit about Elvis Presley's enduring legacy would choose a different course.

After this post, it's time to close this topic. This is just so spot-on that any further discussion is pointless.

Keith Richards, Jr.

Really? Do you know what was censored?
If you don't then you have no idea how spot on it was.
The key is what did Elvis say, or do we even know who said the offensive remark?
Just going by past censored items, and then finding out what was said later, it is usually
nothing to get worked up about.

Ever watch the show, "all in the family". Archie used to say all kinds of "offensive" things that
was written as comedy.

Until we know what was said, no one can say Ernst made the right decision.
As mentioned before, there has been stuff by Elvis on youtube, on FTD, on bootleg, that
would make sensitive people cringe.
Censorship is rarely a good thing. Not if you care about freedom.

The few should never make decisions for the masses.

In Trevor Cajiao's excellent seven page appraisal of the Boy From Tupelo set in Elvis-The Man And His Music 97, when talking about the When It Rains session he states ..............



The complete session (minus only a slight edit for what some would consider "offensive" language) appears here for the first time.

Interesting. Given that there's allready none p.c. banter on the set (check out track 14, disc 2), It does make me wonder what they left out. And why. Anyone know?

And how do you guys feel about the session tapes being edited? I'd have thought, given the nature of the release, there'd be more complaints about stuff left off, rather than stuff left in, no matter now risque it is.

What is on track 14, disc 2 that is 'none p.c.' as you put it???? And is that taking into account there is a mastering fault on CD2 and the track numbers do not match what is on the track listings?

It's strange that people discuss what was said but not why it was said in the first place.

It's strange that people discuss what was said but not why it was said in the first place.

How can we know why it was said, when we don't know WHAT was said?

How can we know why it was said, when we don't know WHAT was said?

Use your imagination.

One might assume that, even in 2012, there are those who might manipulate the odd comment on a session tape to make Elvis out to be someone he was not.

However, an official release of this jam by RCA or FTD would serve as de facto evidence of Presley as a racist or homophobe. And that would be very bad for his family, friends, fans and legacy, as he was neither of those things.

Quite right John. We live in very PC times now.

And is that taking into account there is a mastering fault on CD2 and the track numbers do not match what is on the track listings?

This is not a mastering fault on the CD.

One might assume that, even in 2012, there are those who might manipulate the odd comment on a session tape to make Elvis out to be someone he was not.

Case-in-point is the January 1968 studio jam of "The Prisoner's Song," which was never meant to be anything more than stupid, locker room humour for the dozen people assembled at Nashville's Studio B that evening.

However, an official release of this jam by RCA or FTD would serve as de facto evidence of Presley as a racist or homophobe. And that would be very bad for his family, friends, fans and legacy, as he was neither of those things.

So such official discretion is not only understandable, but vital. Only someone who cares not a whit about Elvis Presley's enduring legacy would choose a different course.

After this post, it's time to close this topic. This is just so spot-on that any further discussion is pointless.

Keith Richards, Jr.

Thank you.

One might assume that, even in 2012, there are those who might manipulate the odd comment on a session tape to make Elvis out to be someone he was not.

Case-in-point is the January 1968 studio jam of "The Prisoner's Song," which was never meant to be anything more than stupid, locker room humour for the dozen people assembled at Nashville's Studio B that evening.

However, an official release of this jam by RCA or FTD would serve as de facto evidence of Presley as a racist or homophobe. And that would be very bad for his family, friends, fans and legacy, as he was neither of those things.

So such official discretion is not only understandable, but vital. Only someone who cares not a whit about Elvis Presley's enduring legacy would choose a different course.

After this post, it's time to close this topic. This is just so spot-on that any further discussion is pointless.

Keith Richards, Jr.

Thank you.

Your story is invalid because there is no proof what-so-ever that a random comment made in jest would
be "very very bad for his family, friends, fans and legacy".
This is all speculation.
It is unlikely anything would come of it.

It is unlikely anything would come of it.

I am very glad you will never have Ernst's job.

It is unlikely anything would come of it.

I am very glad you will never have Ernst's job.

One thing: clearly Ernst did not intend for this discussion to even take place. How did this information even get out about the edit? Why wasn't such editing of the material strictly on a "need to know basis." How does it end up in a review? What is the point of editing when people could be imagining anything and everything?

He should have listened to the tapes, alone, and then got rid of it, alone, if he was going to do that. How does a reviewer come into this knowledge, or semi-knowledge? In other words, if it was not releasable, and generally irrelevant, it should have been destroyed before anyone could listen to it. Because "it" is out there now. And it could be anything one can imagine.

I had all kinds of ideas last night. I wish it was destroyed, if it's not going to be heard.

rjm

How did this information even get out about the edit?

Think: "carpetbagger."

If this does not reflect who he is, as indicated, but it had to be left off, then it's a little confusing.
rjm

You do 'confusing' rather well yourself, bud.