Video ; in 1975, Lennon talked about elvis

Lennon is correct that Elvis was a changed man after the army and he was not changed for the best. Had the army not drafted Elvis, some things would have been different for a long time.

I agree that Elvis was a changed man after his stint in Germany... but Elvis Is Back is a collection of some of Elvis' finest recordings... along with some of his 1961 recordings... so I can't say that the change was better or worse, but there was a change.

True , but after 1961, Gene Vincent was releasing better albums than Elvis was. He still cared about the music he was singing.

Gene Vincent? Are you kidding? Most rock 'n' roll fans wouldn't know Gene Vincent aside from a few 50's tracks.

Lennon is correct that Elvis was a changed man after the army and he was not changed for the best. Had the army not drafted Elvis, some things would have been different for a long time.

I agree that Elvis was a changed man after his stint in Germany... but Elvis Is Back is a collection of some of Elvis' finest recordings... along with some of his 1961 recordings... so I can't say that the change was better or worse, but there was a change.

True , but after 1961, Gene Vincent was releasing better albums than Elvis was. He still cared about the music he was singing.

Gene Vincent? Are you kidding? Most rock 'n' roll fans wouldn't know Gene Vincent aside from a few 50's tracks.

That may be true, but he stayed true to form , recorded what he wanted, and didnt sell out recording schlock like Elvis did in the 60's. His 60's stuff is pretty damn good although it didnt sell at all. I prefer it to any Elvis soundtrack. Same with the Everly Brothers. Some people equate sales and money with saying Elvis did very well with his records & movies in the 60's, but I think the product was always more important than the dollars. Ito Eats, Rhumba In A Sports Car, Queenie Wahini over Gene? No way.

Lennon is correct that Elvis was a changed man after the army and he was not changed for the best. Had the army not drafted Elvis, some things would have been different for a long time.

I agree that Elvis was a changed man after his stint in Germany... but Elvis Is Back is a collection of some of Elvis' finest recordings... along with some of his 1961 recordings... so I can't say that the change was better or worse, but there was a change.

True , but after 1961, Gene Vincent was releasing better albums than Elvis was. He still cared about the music he was singing.

Gene Vincent? Are you kidding? Most rock 'n' roll fans wouldn't know Gene Vincent aside from a few 50's tracks.

That may be true, but he stayed true to form , recorded what he wanted, and didnt sell out recording schlock like Elvis did in the 60's. His 60's stuff is pretty damn good although it didnt sell at all. I prefer it to any Elvis soundtrack. Same with the Everly Brothers. Some people equate sales and money with saying Elvis did very well with his records & movies in the 60's, but I think the product was always more important than the dollars. Ito Eats, Rhumba In A Sports Car, Queenie Wahini over Gene? No way.

Schlock!?! You do realize that some of the recordings that Elvis made, were written to fit into a particular movie scene don't you!? Give it a break(All of you critics)!!!!!

That may be true, but he stayed true to form , recorded what he wanted, and didnt sell out recording schlock like Elvis did in the 60's. His 60's stuff is pretty damn good although it didnt sell at all. I prefer it to any Elvis soundtrack. Same with the Everly Brothers. Some people equate sales and money with saying Elvis did very well with his records & movies in the 60's, but I think the product was always more important than the dollars. Ito Eats, Rhumba In A Sports Car, Queenie Wahini over Gene? No way.

Schlock!?!

Sounds about right.

Schlock
Schlock is an English word of Yiddish origin meaning "something cheap, shoddy, or inferior ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlock

Lennon is correct that Elvis was a changed man after the army and he was not changed for the best. Had the army not drafted Elvis, some things would have been different for a long time.

I agree that Elvis was a changed man after his stint in Germany... but Elvis Is Back is a collection of some of Elvis' finest recordings... along with some of his 1961 recordings... so I can't say that the change was better or worse, but there was a change.

True , but after 1961, Gene Vincent was releasing better albums than Elvis was. He still cared about the music he was singing.

Gene Vincent aside... Elvis hadn't exactly given up and still put out a few gems from 1962-1964 IMO...
She's Not You
Return To Sender
They Remind Me Too Much Of You
Long Lonely Highway
Love Me Tonight
Devil In Disguise
I Need Somebody To Lean On
It Hurts Me
Puppet On A String

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Last edited by elvis-fan on Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

I would say John Lennon's Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, Paul McCartney's McCartney and Ram and George Harrison's All Things Must Pass, and Living In The Material World, are up there with AT LEAST the average Beatles works. All Things Must Pass deserves to be remixed to take Spector's stink off of it though. At least Specktor did not screw up Plastic Ono Band too much, as it was such a sparse and stark recording.

I made a imaginary Beatles CD using Plastic Ono Band, McCartney, All Things Must pass, and a few non-LP singles from that era and it turned out to be a FANTASTIC Beatles album!

And to be fair to Parker...Elvis happily took the cash that came with bad movies and soundtracks.

That is a flawed argument. Why wouldn't he take the money? His manager secured the motion picture contracts; Elvis was paid to perform regardless of the quality. What is the point you are trying to make? That Elvis should have breached his contract with the studio to take a stand against substandard film work?

Many here actually suggest that this IS what Elvis should've done.

We know how Elvis´ life story developed and ended....we know he had QUITE a career (to say the very least)...BUT in the post-army days they were facing the challenge of keeping his career (and Parker´s..) alive. It was not THAT long ago that Elvis and his folks hardly had enough food on the table and proper housing! They had to try to survive in the music/ pop market, and we should not at all be surprised that the DOLLAR had the priority. If Elvis´records and movies and flopped several years in a row, do you guys think Vernon - and also Elvis - would have said, like, "oh, it doesn´t matter, as long as we are doing artistically brilliant stuff"?? (saying now, for the sake of argument, that they actually WERE. Apart from Elvis Is Back, they were NOT)
Meeting The British Invasion, Elvis for sure lead a risky professional life, one I guess he actually barely "survived", having to find a solution to sell again.

I guess what I want to say is: It is so easy to judge management decisions in HINDSIGHT, - but incredibly much harder to make the better decisions when facing the unknown (= the future).
I have fought to grasp how come Parker wanted a damn CHRISTMAS special in 1968, instead of what the world got, why he really opposed what in retrospect seems like an infinitely better idea for a show??! However, there IS a chance the June 1969 context in the USA made a christmas show seem a perfectly good money-making idea!!? I don´t know much about that, - but believe I have read that christmas shows were pretty popular mainstream entertainment back then??
Anyone here OLD enough to share some recollections of the TV show tastes back then in the USA?

Hindsight...so easy
Going for ARTISTIC quality over money-making; so much easier if one has enough and have no fear of lack of cash. I at least assume so.
I don´t know how it feels like not having to consider the cash flow for the expenses life brings.
Elvis and Vernon knew how both situations felt like; the bounty and the budget life.

Yes, and even in the worst of times in the 60's Elvis was still 50% of all of RCA's sales! None of his movies lost money, no one else can say that. (that I know of) and most people would have been DELIGHTED to have the success Elvis had even in his worst years. I know that most of us would not mine having the kind of success Elvis had in 1965 alone!

Well, John Lennon liked "The King Of Rock'n Roll" and to him most of Elvis' post-army work sounded a little too smooth. If your great rock hero suddenly makes movies like GIRL HAPPY or CLAMBAKE it may be somewhat disturbing.

Back then Lennon didn't know what we all know now. He didn't know that Elvis liked the ballads more than the rock songs and he didn't know what happened to the King's health.

To him his great hero suddenly made cheap movies, wore tacky jumpsuits and made music that was a little too kitschy. If you are a fan of JAILHOUSE ROCK, songs like FOOL are hard to take.

So no problem with Lennon from my side.

Again, I don't think that is really the issue. Too often people jump to conclusions that Lennon and other rockers wanted Elvis to record endless takes of Jailhouse Rock. Even Lennon himself didn't record "rock songs" every time out of the gate. The concern that Lennon and others had was that Elvis was wasting his talent. They saw the Vegas schmaltz, the jumpsuits, the lame album covers, and heard way too much substandard material. Imagine how baffled someone like Lennon must have been hearing his hero belt out My Boy or It's Midnight.

I'd rather listen to those two "atrocities" than Woman is Nigger of the World or Two Virgins anyday.

I rather like "Two Minutes Of Silence" off of Two Virgins. I play it full blast!

For as much crap as Ringo gets, he had some hits post-Beatles. His Ringo album had Photograph and You're Sixteen, both number one singles. He also had earlier hits with It Don't Come Easy and Back off Boogaloo. Maybe he wasn't the most talented Beatle but he sure had some early success.

For a few years, he actually outsold any of the other Beatles too.

I admire both Elvis and The Beatles. I happen to like Elvis significantly more. I have never really seen the musical parallel that so many try to draw when bashing The Beatles in support of Elvis having to be the "best." They were completely different artists.

Some of you mistake admiration for a prolific and inspirational body of work that occurred over a short period of time with relatively few clunkers for "walking on water." Whether you like it or not, Elvis' entire body of work sadly does not have the same consistency. And let's be honest, The Beatles weren't the only band that had a more consistent, cohesive body of work that was also pioneering and important. That being said, Elvis' greatest achievements are legendary and foundationally vital to contemporary music. His best work has rarely been rivaled. No one denies that. But the reality is that The Beatles and other significant acts do not have "Do The Clam" and "Heart Of Rome" lining their catalogue.

nahh they just have Revolution #9, Your Mother Should Know, Dont Bother Me, Hello Goodbye, Bungalow Bill, Octopus' Garden, All Together Now, You Like Me Too Much, Within You Without You..."other significant acts"..Her Satanic Majesties Request, Self Portrait, Under the Red Sky, Human Touch etc etc. no bashing here... just a gentle reminder big fella u cant have it both ways!

Hey, hold on a minute, I LIKE Revolution Number 9, number 9, number 9...........

If the Beatles only recorded through 1965, I would have never been a fan at all. Of couse they made some good music in the early years, but their rock n roll is nothing of the quality of Elvis' 50s material. For me, the Beatles really started hitting their stride with Rubber Soul. It is the 1966-1970 period that is on par with Elvis' 1954-1958 period, historically speaking. And Lennon's Rock n Roll album was pretty lame, if you ask me.

I like both the Walls And Bridges and the Mind Games albums, and I also like Spinout!

Lennon is correct that Elvis was a changed man after the army and he was not changed for the best. Had the army not drafted Elvis, some things would have been different for a long time.

I agree that Elvis was a changed man after his stint in Germany... but Elvis Is Back is a collection of some of Elvis' finest recordings... along with some of his 1961 recordings... so I can't say that the change was better or worse, but there was a change.

True , but after 1961, Gene Vincent was releasing better albums than Elvis was. He still cared about the music he was singing.

I have Gene Vincent's Born To Be A Rollin' Stone, (The Challenge Sessions 1966-68) and I quite like it!

I like Gene Vincent, but the assertion that he was cutting better material than Elvis after ’61 is just ludicrous. Gene Vincent was basically an Elvis impersonator, and his best singles are straight Elvis rip-offs. ‘Be Bop A Lula’ was based on Elvis’ version of ‘Money Honey’, while ‘Baby Blue’ was based on ‘Heartbreak Hotel’. He did make some very good records in 1956 – ’57, mainly thanks to the inventive guitar work of Cliff Gallup.
By ’61, he was washed up and completely forgotten in his own country. He did have a following in the UK and France, but then again, so did Vince Taylor (a copy of Gene Vincent copying Elvis)… these poor carbon copies probably only existed because the real deal wasn’t doing any shows. Musically, Vincent was totally lost by the early sixties, and he was recording pap like ‘I’m Gonna Catch Me A Rat’ and ‘Spaceship To Mars’.
He did cut some nice stuff in the late 60s, but again, nothing compared to what Elvis was doing around that time.
Sorry if I sound a little negative about Vincent… Actually have all his records, all the rare stuff, etc…. But in recent years I have just come to realize that guys like him were just poor carbon copies of the real thing and not worthy of serious interest.

I like Gene Vincent, but the assertion that he was cutting better material than Elvis after ’61 is just ludicrous. Gene Vincent was basically an Elvis impersonator, and his best singles are straight Elvis rip-offs. ‘Be Bop A Lula’ was based on Elvis’ version of ‘Money Honey’, while ‘Baby Blue’ was based on ‘Heartbreak Hotel’. He did make some very good records in 1956 – ’57, mainly thanks to the inventive guitar work of Cliff Gallup.
By ’61, he was washed up and completely forgotten in his own country. He did have a following in the UK and France, but then again, so did Vince Taylor (a copy of Gene Vincent copying Elvis)… these poor carbon copies probably only existed because the real deal wasn’t doing any shows. Musically, Vincent was totally lost by the early sixties, and he was recording pap like ‘I’m Gonna Catch Me A Rat’ and ‘Spaceship To Mars’.
He did cut some nice stuff in the late 60s, but again, nothing compared to what Elvis was doing around that time.

I figured that was just crazy talk... thanks for clarifying RL.

Since he cites a particular song, isn't the real question "what do YOU think of "Devil In Disguise"?"

And why?

If it's a gauntlet thrown, pick it up. Disect it, musically. This an Elvis board so TCB. If it doesn't cut the mustard, why? With more precision. Never mind what he thought; what do you thiink of the track?

I find it inoffensive. Passable. Nothing to write home about. But I'm sure others can go further. Because this isn't about Lennon; it's about DID.

rjm

First off, As much as I love, respect and admire the work of John Lennon and his contribution to the peace movement, among other things, He sounds a lil uneducated when it comes to Elvis and his artistry, his losing his way, only to find himself again to lose his way again, on and off, then his passing.

I mean, Lennon wanted Elvis to stay locked into 1956 forever, so naive ...

Elvis was Elvis, 1954, 1956, 1960, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1977, yes, nothing will ever change that and I don't care what anyone else says or thinks. you guys can sit at your computers for days and argue all you want, over-analyze all you want, dissect every facet of Elvis' facial expressions, music, fav soda, ugh, it's so tiring ...

I'll put:

1960-1969

"Reconsider Baby"
"Such A Night"
"It Feels So Right"
"Like A Baby"
"I Feel So Bad"
"Little Sister"
"Follow that Dream" (honorable mention)
"Tiger man"
"If I Can Dream"
"In The Ghetto"
"Suspicious Minds"

against ANYTHING Lennon and "The Beatles" recorded and still hold up.

With pride, dignity and the world of just feeling free and getting lost in the music and perfect vocal ability, and flexibilty, this is the Elvis I will always cherish and this is the Elvis that will live forever, long after we're all dead and gone ....

Lennon is correct that Elvis was a changed man after the army and he was not changed for the best. Had the army not drafted Elvis, some things would have been different for a long time.

I agree that Elvis was a changed man after his stint in Germany... but Elvis Is Back is a collection of some of Elvis' finest recordings... along with some of his 1961 recordings... so I can't say that the change was better or worse, but there was a change.

True , but after 1961, Gene Vincent was releasing better albums than Elvis was. He still cared about the music he was singing.

Gene Vincent? Are you kidding? Most rock 'n' roll fans wouldn't know Gene Vincent aside from a few 50's tracks.

That may be true, but he stayed true to form , recorded what he wanted, and didnt sell out recording schlock like Elvis did in the 60's. His 60's stuff is pretty damn good although it didnt sell at all. I prefer it to any Elvis soundtrack. Same with the Everly Brothers. Some people equate sales and money with saying Elvis did very well with his records & movies in the 60's, but I think the product was always more important than the dollars. Ito Eats, Rhumba In A Sports Car, Queenie Wahini over Gene? No way.

Schlock!?! You do realize that some of the recordings that Elvis made, were written to fit into a particular movie scene don't you!? Give it a break(All of you critics)!!!!!

So they were written for a movie. They still were put out on an albums and are part of his recorded legacy. It started to make him somehwat of a joke to many people by 1965. He was a grown man and could have said no. The Beatles did even though Brian Epstein and the studio wanted more films. No excuses, it went on too long. Now you give me a break. Thank you!

Lennon is correct that Elvis was a changed man after the army and he was not changed for the best. Had the army not drafted Elvis, some things would have been different for a long time.

I agree that Elvis was a changed man after his stint in Germany... but Elvis Is Back is a collection of some of Elvis' finest recordings... along with some of his 1961 recordings... so I can't say that the change was better or worse, but there was a change.

I like those too! I also think Elvis work on tracks like "Tomorrow Is A Long Time", "US Male", "Down In The Alley", "Big Boss Man" and other similar tracks from 66-69 took him closer to his pre army days. And I do think the change that hit Elvis was for the worse. Just "Imagine" a follow up to those noisiest Pre-army sessions and no army stint. I think Elvis would have finished up the 1950's with a big bang! There might have never been a "Blue Hawaii" (which I think would have been a very good thing).

It's a mistake to think that, if Elvis hadn't been drafted, he would've just gone on year after year with no change. He was gonna grow and mature as an artist either way. And the dumb movies and crummy songs? Parker would've found a way to steer Elvis in that direction eventually. The hard driving 50's rock 'n' roll sound had mostly fallen out of favor by the early 60's - Little Richard was in the ministry, Chuck Berry was in prison, the popular sounds of the era were Roy Orbison's dramatic ballads (It's Over, Crying, In Dreams), Ricky Nelson's pop tunes (Teenage Idol, It's Up to You, Travelin' Man) and Elvis' smoother post-Army sound (Good Luck Charm, Return to Sender, Can't Help Falling in Love). We want him to forever have been the rebel, but that could not last.

If the Beatles only recorded through 1965, I would have never been a fan at all. Of couse they made some good music in the early years, but their rock n roll is nothing of the quality of Elvis' 50s material. For me, the Beatles really started hitting their stride with Rubber Soul. It is the 1966-1970 period that is on par with Elvis' 1954-1958 period, historically speaking. And Lennon's Rock n Roll album was pretty lame, if you ask me.

As a life-long Elvis fan i can say that The Beatles 66-70 period can't compare with Elvis' from 66-70, let alone his from 54-58 or 60-63 but then again a certain bias comes into it!

Elvis' career was a bit like his personal life, volcanic, in that it was interspersed with explossive highs then periods of relative inactivity. A volcano doesn't explode forever it has to take a breather for a while. Even a World changing Super-volcano like Elvis has to re-energise before its next big event. Without the calm the storm would never happen. Had Elvis had a comfortable middle-class upbringing, would he have been so passionate and rebellious in 1954... a rebellion and passion The Beatles could only ever think up and immitate in the shadow of the original? If he hadn't been drafted but instead recorded in 1958 and 59, what would have happened in 1960? If he hadn't made movies in the 60's what would have happened in 1968 and 69?

The RCA sessions from May 66 for example showcase recordings of stunning diversity and world beating vocals, the resultant gospel abum taking the genre to new places (as "His Hand In Mine" had previously done in 1960, despite him already being dead according to Lennon) with Elvis throwing in beautiful renditions of Love Letters and Tomorrow Is A Long Time, just because he could. And move over Gene Vincent for the new Rock n Roll that was Run On, So high and By and By. Elvis was creating and no-one was doing it more instinctively. It didnt take him 6-12 months and shed loads of LSD to do it either.

Then the Nashville sessions from 66 and 67... check the dissimilarity of Hi Heel Sneekers and You'll Never Walk Alone in that same session likewise Guitar Man and Just Call Me Lonesome. All the ingredients for another big event were there to hear if one would only listen. Many other stand-out performances including some from the movies showcase Elvis' ability to do with his voice what others could only try and yet still fail to manufacture with an army of engineers and technical innovation, namely "feel". And that was in his dormant period. lol. Come 1968, 1969 and 1970 no -one could come close to Elvis. Each to their own opinion of course.

Yes, and even in the worst of times in the 60's Elvis was still 50% of all of RCA's sales! None of his movies lost money, no one else can say that. (that I know of) and most people would have been DELIGHTED to have the success Elvis had even in his worst years. I know that most of us would not mine having the kind of success Elvis had in 1965 alone!

I agree. I think sales have to speak for something. It shows that apparently several people liked what he was doing. I'm sure there were several top artists of the early 60s who were not experiencing his overall success or paycheck during that time.

It is very hard to determine the age of people commenting here. I am assuming most are younger than me. As a teenager in the 60's I will tell you it was very difficult being an Elvis fan and trying to defend records like Do The Clam, and every movie after Kissin Cousins. Not one of my friends was into Elvis. Maybe the people generating most of the sales were the hardcore leftover 50's Elvis fans, because my school friends certainly were not buying Elvis. I had a friend who used to buy every Elvis record along with me as they came out. He gave up after 1964 due to the lack of quality(in his words). You can look back and say he had success and such, but you had to be there to know he really wasnt part of the music scene at all as far as young people were concerned. He was considered old fashioned by most teens. Thank goodness for Steve Binder, the most unsung hero in the Elvis story. He made him relevant again if even only for a little while.

To me it's very interesting that in 1964-1965 Elvis' best selling singles (reaching top 20) was I'm Yours, Easy Question, Ain't that Loving You, Baby, Crying in the Chappel (number 3) and Such a Night. All were recorded in the 1960-1962 era. So Elvis was living in the past but the past could not made miracles for ever.

Lennon is correct that Elvis was a changed man after the army and he was not changed for the best. Had the army not drafted Elvis, some things would have been different for a long time.

I agree that Elvis was a changed man after his stint in Germany... but Elvis Is Back is a collection of some of Elvis' finest recordings... along with some of his 1961 recordings... so I can't say that the change was better or worse, but there was a change.

True , but after 1961, Gene Vincent was releasing better albums than Elvis was. He still cared about the music he was singing.

Gene Vincent? Are you kidding? Most rock 'n' roll fans wouldn't know Gene Vincent aside from a few 50's tracks.

That may be true, but he stayed true to form , recorded what he wanted, and didnt sell out recording schlock like Elvis did in the 60's. His 60's stuff is pretty damn good although it didnt sell at all. I prefer it to any Elvis soundtrack. Same with the Everly Brothers. Some people equate sales and money with saying Elvis did very well with his records & movies in the 60's, but I think the product was always more important than the dollars. Ito Eats, Rhumba In A Sports Car, Queenie Wahini over Gene? No way.

Schlock!?! You do realize that some of the recordings that Elvis made, were written to fit into a particular movie scene don't you!? Give it a break(All of you critics)!!!!!

So they were written for a movie. They still were put out on an albums and are part of his recorded legacy. It started to make him somehwat of a joke to many people by 1965. He was a grown man and could have said no. The Beatles did even though Brian Epstein and the studio wanted more films. No excuses, it went on too long. Now you give me a break. Thank you!

Screw that B.S.!