Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:31 am

Yes sir! Around the time of Tickle Me, I think it was. SRO for days at our local cinema! I was a teenager then! Time flies! Silly as they appeared, I still prefer to listen to The Beatles!

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:32 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Tony.. wrote:Interesting and controversial article from 1960.
Image


It's not controversial, rather it's an example of someone seeing the reality of how bad "G.I. Blues" really was, and caring enough (or having the balls) to write about it publicly. It would be great to read the rest of the piece, and one may see it's continued on page 4.

Do you have page 4?

Also, you do not identify the date or source of the article, but it must be from Disc magazine, perhaps the 11-26-1960 issue, where Jack Good anchored a weekly column for several years. We can see a bit of Elvis in his army hat underneath the article, too.

May we see that as well?

Jack Good was a pioneering UK and US TV producer, as well as a record producer, musician and actor. Among other things, he helped to create ABC-TV's "Shindig!"



Image

George Harrison, Jack Good (producer), John Lennon - "Shindig" U.K. taping, Saturday, October 3, 1964



Image
Jack Good (producer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Good_(producer)
http://www.rockabilly.nl/references/messages/jack_good.htm



Good was always forthright, not just in that spot-on review of "G.I. Blues."

Case-in-point: it seems none of you are aware that Jack played a small role in "Clambake" as Hathaway, the front desk clerk.

Well, at the April 1967 film after-party, Good spoke to Presley in the same straightforward, almost desperately earnest manner that John Lennon had done two years earlier, when the Beatles visited 565 Perugia Way. The conversation was recalled in Jerry Hopkins' 1971 biography on Elvis:

"Clambake" was one of the really, really awful ones. There was a party after the film was completed, with Lance LeGault's band playing. And Elvis wouldn't sing. Slowly, Lance got him into a blues thing, "Let It Roll" [sic]. And he was terrific. And I thought what a shame he doesn't do that sort of thing in the film. I said to Elvis, "Why do you keep making these rotten films? Why don't you do something exciting, like "King Creole"? He said he left all that to the Colonel, but that the Colonel promised something really exciting soon, real soon.

- Jack Good


Right on! Good gave a voice to what millions of fans were thinking: "why have you abandoned ship, Elvis?"

The song where Elvis joined Lance LeGault's band and rocked the house was Jimmy Reed's "Baby What You Want Me To Do," which Presley almost recorded in Nashville that August, and performed live for the NBC-TV cameras in June 1968 in stunning fashion.

Better late than never!


G I Blues was only "bad" if you view Elvis purely as a rock n roll performer ...


No, it was a poor film by any measure, and certainly a step down from his two previous films, for MGM (1957) and Paramount (1958), which is kind of the point of Jack Good's column in Disc.


poormadpeter wrote:On another note, I have never been convinced about Elvis being distraught by the quality of the songs ... those comments that Elvis is supposed to have made are all heresay.


No, his problems with the soundtrack are fact.

Peter Guralnick's Careless Love offers in clear prose about Elvis' disenchantment with Leiber and Stoller's submissions being excluded for "business" reasons and how, in a phone conversation with Priscilla, the singer says he told Parker that half the songs in the film should be cut. When she asked what management said, Presley replied it was implicit that nothing could be done. "I'm locked in this thing," was his sad lament.

You should buy that biography and give it a read. Or borrow it from your local library. You'll be amazed. ;-)

---

Back on topic, Jack Good's article on "G.I. Blues" is angry because he senses it is part of management's grand scheme to make Elvis inoffensive and thus palatable to a mass audience, and portends the beginning of the end: a formulaic, assembly-line scheme of film musical/soundtrack album symbiosis.


Jack Good was not a psychic. Anyone who saw G I Blues in 1960, and especially those knowing the nature of the next two films, would not be fearing the worst - a musical that was being followed by a western by a fine director and a drama written by one of America's great playwrights did not signal a formulaic future. Quite the opposite in fact. Good actually comes over as someone quite like yourself: miffed at the idea that Elvis was no longer making rock n roll his top priority - and the reviews he includes snippets of actually bear little relation to what he is actually saying. And Good saying that Elvis was a natural actor is something that one would have to question from the start. He might have had promise, but he was no natural actor. Good simply comes across as a far who is annoyed at the change of direction with this film, and nothing more.

As for the comments about Elvis and G I Blues - es, the Guralnick book is where I read it too...and oh how it fits in so nicely with Guralnick's thesis. It seems odd that Elvis said these things to Priscilla and yet seemingly said nothing of the sort in the recording studio - other than his dissatisfaction with the setup. That seems odd to me - as does the fact that Elvis was keen to do multiple takes of every song except Blue Suede Shoes. The one song that Elvis should care about is the one he spends no time on. That doesn't add up.

Do I believe everything Priscilla says when she appears to be making a living out of being Elvis's ex-wife and benefits from being interviewed at every possible opportunity? Nope. If those comments were backed up by musicians in Guralnick's book, then yes, fine. But Bones Howe was interviewed about the same sessions in the same book - he talks about Elvis's nerves and jitters but nothing about Elvis being disillusioned with the material or the film. Guralnick writes extremely well, but Careless Love suffers a great deal from him joining the dots a little too much, coming to his own conclusions and passing them as fact. It is nowhere near as fine a book as its predecessor.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:37 am

poormadpeter wrote:Jack Good was not a psychic.


Judging by your presumptions, dismissals and general avoidance of facts, Good's a lot closer to being a psychic than you are to a being a scholar. ;-)

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:07 am

It could be that Elvis didn't share his dissatisfaction in the studio because he was being professional and he didn't know the musicians on a personal level.

Why complain to them about it or complain in front of them.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:12 am

poormadpeter wrote:Jack Good was not a psychic.


Apparently, he was!

I just logged on for the first time today, and was slammed in the face by this in the first post of this topic.

I WANT TO FRAME IT!

And hang it on the wall.

This was a contemporaneous piece, and the guy saw it ALL. I don't see how anyone can do anything else but give him respect; you needn't agree with him, but you sure have to respect the guy's insight and courage! He did see the future, and there's no criticizing him for 20/20 hindsight; he had 20-/20 foresight! He actually saw it coming. You can talk about the future, or you can compare Elvis's future film career to that of others, but that is all irrelevant; this guy saw the spit hitting the fan, immediately. It wasn't an "echo" of what John Lennon would later do, or what Bob Dylan would later say, because Jack Good said it first. Jack Good saw it first. And Jack Good let it scream in headlines, as if issuing a dire warning:

Image

Elvis wasn't paying attention. Boom, crash, bang. And what happened? This:

Dom_The_Impotent_Bull.jpg


rjm
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by rjm on Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:29 am

It's sad that Elvis would never again be cast with such Hollywood heavyweights as those that appeared in King Creole. That complete cast made that film... along with a better than average story line.
GI Blues was such a change from that format... it was truly where Parker wanted Elvis to be... singing a dozen songs to girls and cranking out those soundtrack albums. Some tremendous observations by Jack Good.
Didn't John Lennon observe something similar with regard to Elvis' recording career years later... hmmmm...

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:49 am

Oh, and about Elvis being distraught over his films, the content of the films (including the songs, of course), it's on tape! You're a smart guy, pmp: I don't get it? Here it is, and you've heard it. I just don't understand. This is what it was.

phpBB [video]



"In other words, they just used you. They did anything they wanted with you?" Elvis: "It was that type of thing."

rjm

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:45 am

Some 1971 quotes from Jack Good: http://www.elvis-history-blog.com/elvis ... reer2.html

Here is a good article that covers the critical reactions to the film: http://www.elvis-history-blog.com/gi_blues.html

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:21 pm

poormadpeter wrote:The whole intention of 1960 was to reinvent Elvis Presley and make him not just accepted by middle America but have his records bought by them. It was one of the Colonel's brilliantly executed plans from the rock n roll-lite of Stuck on You to the reworking of a neopolitan song as singles, from the pairing of Elvis with Sinatra and the placing of him in traditional musicals and westerns on screen, from the release of an album that never rocked as hard as his 50s records to the release of an album of gospel material. It was brilliantly planned and brilliantly executed. Much of the problem with that plan musically was that Elvis continually needed challenges to get him working to the best of his ability, and none would be presented to him and none would be sought by him for another six years when the How Great Thou Art sessions occured.


Agreed.

It's possible to argue that "the movie period" extended Elvis's career. Otherwise we would not have had a 'comeback' in 1968, a mesmerising album in 1969 and a return to glory in July/August 1969. Elvis's career should have changed direction in, say, January 1964 or 1965 and again in January 1974. But it didn't. On balance, I'm glad we've got what we've got in terms of Hollywood movies, on-stage filmed performances and a huge variety of recorded music.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:43 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:Thanks Tony and The Doc for the info, interesting read. At least someone, at the time, saw it for what it was...

Even today, i still can not understand why Elvis let Hollywood and The Colonel destroy his career like they did.


You are welcome. Jack Good certainly wasn't a typical scribe, producer or actor.

At the time, it seems Elvis was OK to do "G.I. Blues" because better things were promised ... or implied.

Yes, 8yrs is a long time to be promised "better things" and still nothing happens.

In my view, The colonel knew Elvis hated those movies by the complaints he was making to his entourage and various other people. If the Colonel had've been a good manager with a good heart and cared for the wishes and desires of his artist on a professional level that things would've been different. Simple answer is, he wasn't interested in Elvis as a person...only interested in himself and "now money".

To sit back and watch his artist sink lower and lower into deep manic depression and lose interest in almost everything he did shows what a "heartless bastard" the dutchman was.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:10 pm

Wow, my original posting has started a very interesting discussion and not too many insults between us (yet)! LOL I am looking to see if I have the continuation of this article anywhere; it doesn't appear to be in the same scrapbook. However, I have over 20 scrapbooks to look thru, which I have recently acquired from different sources and I have only just started this rather pleasant 'task'. :wink:
If I find the rest of this article, I will post it here.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:27 pm

They where ok as light entertainment but they just knocked to many out, why not document the Hawaii 61 concert that would have been good for him :facep:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:34 pm

I found the rest of Jack Good's piece PLUS a completely opposite review of the same film!!
JACK GOOD 2.jpg

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

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:37 pm

Excellent work, Tony.

Now, would any of our Elvis 'experts' like to comment on Jack Good's very positive review of the G.I. Blues LP ? :D Nice to see that alternative film review, too.

To me, the film was exactly right for the times, is highly enjoyable and does not need so much criticism using 53 years of hindsight.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:47 pm

Thanks again,Tony. Maybe now in a compromise solution I can say the movie was average and the LP was good....for the next Hollywood years to come. As regarding Elvis' career it's strange that Elvis didn't tour for 13 years (1957-1970). This was a good move of the Colonel? Unfortunately the young and super cool rock' n' roll singer of the 50's sad goodbye for a long time (some said for ever) on that March 1961 Hawaii concert. He regained the glory of old days in 1968-1969 but things were never the same.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:51 pm

Well done for finding page 4 Tony.Interesting that Jack Good praises the album (without mentioning the watered down Hound Dog) to the hilt,even the show tunes tickle his fancy.It is only the film that he is criticising in particular the poor miming to the songs and the script.Reading the first page I would have thought that the music would also have irked him.


norrie

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:02 pm

r&b wrote:
DEH wrote:the "travelogues" made lots of money. its called the movie business for a reason.


So did A Hard Day's Night & Help! The powers that be wanted The Beatles to continue but they got out of it quickly. it's called integrity for a reason.


Elvis wanted to be an actor, the Beatles were just cashing in on their popularity and were pretty much focused on music. Big difference.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:10 pm

GI BLUES was the most successful Presley-movie to date and the soundtrack album sold better than any other LP of the King. Besides that, the film was nominated for a Laurel Award and the record was nominated for a Grammy. So in total I do not believe that GI BLUES gave such a bad impression at the time.

Why did Presley allow this? Because he and his management had realized that times had changed. :D

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:11 pm

Joe Car wrote:Elvis wanted to be an actor...

If that was true he would have taken lessons and signed other contracts. Elvis wanted to be rich and wanted to avoid as much work as possible.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:44 pm

rjm wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:Jack Good was not a psychic.


Apparently, he was!

I just logged on for the first time today, and was slammed in the face by this in the first post of this topic.

I WANT TO FRAME IT!

And hang it on the wall.

This was a contemporaneous piece, and the guy saw it ALL. I don't see how anyone can do anything else but give him respect; you needn't agree with him, but you sure have to respect the guy's insight and courage! He did see the future, and there's no criticizing him for 20/20 hindsight; he had 20-/20 foresight! He actually saw it coming. You can talk about the future, or you can compare Elvis's future film career to that of others, but that is all irrelevant; this guy saw the spit hitting the fan, immediately. It wasn't an "echo" of what John Lennon would later do, or what Bob Dylan would later say, because Jack Good said it first. Jack Good saw it first. And Jack Good let it scream in headlines, as if issuing a dire warning:

Image

Elvis wasn't paying attention. Boom, crash, bang. And what happened? This:

Dom_The_Impotent_Bull.jpg


rjm


It wasn't ever brave to knock Elvis - he was knocked pretty much throughout his career, so what's brave in following the crowd and doing the same? What's more we now know that Good also thought the album was wonderful. I stand by my original comments.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:19 pm

A. C. van Kuijk wrote:
Joe Car wrote:Elvis wanted to be an actor...

If that was true he would have taken lessons and signed other contracts. Elvis wanted to be rich and wanted to avoid as much work as possible.


Would you stop. To say he didn't want to work is just frickin stupid and makes you sound like an ignoramus. There are artists who don't record an album or do a concert for three or four years at a time, or movie stars who make a movie once every two or three years, what does that make them?

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:57 pm

In this interview of July 1972 Elvis spoke about his deception regarding his Hollywood career. It's sad and speak volumes about how his state of mind was looking back to the missed 60's.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:40 pm

r&b wrote:
DEH wrote:the "travelogues" made lots of money. its called the movie business for a reason.


So did A Hard Day's Night & Help! The powers that be wanted The Beatles to continue but they got out of it quickly. it's called integrity for a reason.


While i agree with your post we should not forget that there were 4 Beatles and 1 Elvis. Easier to deflate the pressure and easier to talk and easier to make big decisions.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:35 pm

epf wrote:
r&b wrote:
DEH wrote:the "travelogues" made lots of money. its called the movie business for a reason.


So did A Hard Day's Night & Help! The powers that be wanted The Beatles to continue but they got out of it quickly. it's called integrity for a reason.


While i agree with your post we should not forget that there were 4 Beatles and 1 Elvis. Easier to deflate the pressure and easier to talk and easier to make big decisions.


Perhaps, but Brian Epstein was very much like the Col, in fact he admired him greatly. Despite that, the artists seemed to be the ones that made the career decisions and not the manager. Elvis left everything to the Col, which was a huge mistake creatively.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:58 pm

Thanks Tony.., for posting the rest of the article. It's interesting, and surprising, to read that Good liked the "G.I. Blues" soundtrack album so much.

I can dig the album, too. There are some very good songs in it and, of course, Elvis' great singing, even in the poorest songs. It's of course a much better soundtrack than many of those which would follow in the next few years.

But it's also a much worse album than "Elvis Is Back !", which was cut only a few weeks before this soundtrack. I know it may be cheap and unfair to make this comparison, but I can't help but making it. I mean, the guy singing "Wooden Heart" is the same guy singing "Like A Baby". As Elvis fans, we are all used to this kind of apparent contradictions. But this one is so evident.

And now that we're on a Louella Parsons kick, here's a clipping I recently found which fits well within this thread :

600706.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.