All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:46 am

Mike Eder wrote:
samses wrote:I have always loved ROR (got it in -73) and I think it is one E's best albums in the 70's with some very good songs like For ol times sake, Find out what's happening, If you don't come back. I never understood why so many put the album down. However, I think that this release can make it appear in a better light to those who are not very found of ROR.



God I couldn't of said it better. Raised On Rock is a great album, so soulful.


Agreed. This has always been a favourite of mine. I even like the title track, silly lyrics be damned. I'm very much looking forward to this FTD.

Keith Richards, Jr.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:51 pm

I always thought that there was no need to release an album after aloha, and let that album sell and sell, and maybe release a golden records 5 for xmas.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:18 pm

I've always enjoyed the original album (even if most of the material is far from great). It is a soulful album. But it's not great and I don't believe the expanded FTD version will change many minds when it comes to the general public or the critics in terms of a new, more positive perspective of the material. Hope I'm wrong.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:47 pm

I agree with what 'likethebike' said but i also agree its a VERY 'soulful' Album! besides isn't the point to be celebrating /enjoying a fundementally excellent release of the material in question, rather than to compare it to 'Aloha' or 'Promised Land' sessions which obviously were far, FAR better...why not just enjoy it for WHAT IT IS...BEST representation of those recording sessions and MOST complete-yet! :lol:

Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:57 pm

likethebike wrote:I don't think so because whatever the deficiencies of the 1976 recordings in both performance and material, Elvis had a level of commitment that he didn't in July 1973. That came through in the outtakes and even on something which is controversial on this board like "I'll Never Fall in Love Again" the complaints have always been about Elvis' technical deficiencies rather than his emotional commitment. In July 1973, Elvis did not want to record at all and, with the exceptions of "I've Got a Thing About You Baby" which caught his fancy and "For Ol Times Sake" which served as an outlet for his pain, the masters reflect. It is IMO the worst non-soundtrack studio session Elvis ever did.

The big huge problem with Raised on Rock is that Elvis' performance is so poor. His voice sounds tired on most tracks and all the tracks lack energy. Not that the material is especially strong. "If You Don't Come Back" was a journeyman like track even in its original version by the Drifters. It wasn't bad but there was nothing special about it. "Three Corn Patches" ranks with L&S's worst. "Raised on Rock" has no hook and a misguided lyric. (James' guitar line is great though.) The ballads with the exception of "For Ol' Times Sake" and "Are You Sincere" are hackery. Even on good material though like Roscoe Gordon's "Just a Little Bit", Elvis lacks verve. And if Elvis had been able to create some sense of loudness or anarchy on "Raised on Rock" he may have been able to redeem that piece. He just was not into it.

I blame Parker and RCA for this situation as much as Elvis. If the man did not want to record, he should not have been made to record. Especially at this point in time, there was no need for it. Any other artist would have still been reaping the rewards of Aloha From Hawaii.

There was a comment on here that recordings like these damaged Elvis' sales. I don't think that's necessarily true. (Cher was selling millions of records which should keep you from making a one to one assessment of quality and sales.) Elvis' relative (and I use the word relative advisedly as Elvis moved something like ten million albums domestically in these seven odd years) lack of record sales was mostly due to the fact that there was too much product. No Elvis album had time to establish an identity and presence in the market because it was soon followed by the next Elvis album. Raised on Rock was Elvis' third LP within eight months and his fourth of 1973. No artist in 1973 could keep a similar pace and stay consistently near the top of the charts.

LTB, nice post. The bottom line is that there was way too much product out there. RCA could have run with Aloha for much of the year; instead they rushed out subpar studio releases. It has been said many times on this board, no other artist of Elvis' caliber was contracted to release 3-4 albums of material in a calender year. It was the most bizarre contract. Even if Parker was pushing for something that odd for royalty advance purposes, one would think the label would have hit the breaks out of logic.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:13 pm

strange that tom jones, sinatra and dean martin all atarted a one year one album policy these years:

- jones in 1972
- dino in 1969
- sinatra in 1970

and all of them almost dissapeared from the charts (except sinatra). And yet elvis kept on his policy and kept being on the charts.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:20 pm

For a man to have to record 3 albums a year, especially while performing 150 live concerts, is lunacy. Also, as a artist who thrived on feel and pouring his heart and soul into his music, if he wasn't into it for any reason, then it should have been postponed, whether by EP himself, or management. Music was and is not a production line, I'm guessing aside from talent, it takes a whole lot of focus, and desire.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:21 pm

Joe Car wrote:Also, as a artist



This should read "as an artist".

Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:24 pm

Since I alread have this album and cd as well as 73's Elvis, Promised Land and Rythem And Country I wont be getting it. But I will say the album has always been a favorite of mine. I love the front cover shot! On the album Elvis sounded tired but he still had that majic of his voice which in my opinion always carried him through no matter how he was felling at the time. Some have said Elvis was over weight and bloated during the ROR sessions. Funny the photos of him that I have seen from these sessions he looked just fine to me and didnt look heavy or bloated at all. But thats just my view.

Anyway that all being said I'm sure this will be a good FTD release but since I already have it and the RAC cd I am gonna pass.

:)

Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:34 pm

the tony joe white words about those sessions and specially about the recording of for ol times sake are great.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:42 pm

Steve1971 wrote:Since I alread have this album and cd as well as 73's Elvis, Promised Land and Rythem And Country I wont be getting it.
Anyway that all being said I'm sure this will be a good FTD release but since I already have it and the RAC cd I am gonna pass.

So, is it safe to say you're going to pass on it?

Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:47 pm

Ya Rob I'm gonna pass on it. But I hope everyone one likes it and enjoys it. I just dont think its worth spending money on an Album that I already have because it has unreleased rehersals on it. RAC is enough for me as far as outtakes goes. But hey everyone else enjoy it to the max.


:D

Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:35 pm

Steve1971 wrote:Ya Rob I'm gonna pass on it. But I hope everyone one likes it and enjoys it. I just dont think its worth spending money on an Album that I already have because it has unreleased rehersals on it. RAC is enough for me as far as outtakes goes. But hey everyone else enjoy it to the max.


:D


If the album is a favorite of yours, you should really get the ftd. It is great and the sound is an improvement over the '90's cd. Besides there aren't that many outtakes on Rhythm & Country as most of it is dedicated to the December sessions. The instrumental tracks are also interesting even without Elvis' vocal.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:08 pm

Spellbinder wrote:
Joe Car wrote:Also, as a artist



This should read "as an artist".


I believe it should read, "as an artist."

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:30 pm

Steve1971 wrote:Ya Rob I'm gonna pass on it. But I hope everyone one likes it and enjoys it. I just dont think its worth spending money on an Album that I already have because it has unreleased rehersals on it.

It could just be my frame of mind, but I just can't make myself pass up an FTD. I must admit though that I haven't tried very hard.
Hell, I was even going to offer to buy it for you, but since you've insinuated several times that you're not interested, so be it.

As for me, I'm looking forward to this one more than I have any other in quite awhile.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:40 pm

For those who put the "Raised On Rock" album on hold, now is your chance to be an Elvis experience richer! Get the FTD!

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:42 pm

OK, I'll consider it. I was just thinking about passing on this one, but I may get it now.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:58 pm

Joe Car wrote:For a man to have to record 3 albums a year, especially while performing 150 live concerts, is lunacy.


Maybe so. But Elvis was not the only artist who released three albums a year in those days. Hell, George Jones released three albums a MONTH! :D

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=am ... ql5ldse~T2

Many country singers released truckloads of records every year. Bill Anderson is another example. If I'm not mistaken, Creedence Clearwater Revival released three albums in 1969 -- and poor ol' John Fogerty also wrote most of the songs on them. So Elvis was not the only who did this. I'm not sure it was a good strategy commercially for him but I sure am glad to have those albums.

Keith Richards, Jr.
Last edited by Keith Richards, Jr. on Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:15 pm

Quote: For a man to have to record 3 albums a year, especially while performing 150 live concerts, is lunacy.

***********************************

It was a contract that Elvis agreed to. I have never read the actual contract but it said 3 albums a year correct?

But it did it specify NEW material?

I think the colonel must have found that loophole in the contract, and that is why starting in 1974 the leg. Perf. series was born. You could still fullfill your contract of an album and yet sell old material.

And don't forget they could also record a live album and Elvis goes out there and does his usual routine, and voila! another album.


You see they found a way around it, because in 1974 there were no sessions. 1975 had one session. And didn't the "pure gold" album come out in 1975? 1976 had almost 2 sessions. but they released the Sun sessions that year along with another Leg. Perf. LP.

So there you have it.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:42 pm

ekenee wrote:I think the colonel must have found that loophole in the contract, and that is why starting in 1974 the leg. Perf. series was born. You could still fullfill your contract of an album and yet sell old material.


Actually, Parker was not thrilled with the Leg. Perf. Series. It was not his idea. After he and Elvis sold EP's rights to his back catalogue for $5.4 Million, RCA quickly issued this vault release.

Whether the 3-4 contractually obligated releases were strickly to made up of "new" material is somewhat irrelevent. Why flood the market with so much product on an annual basis? RCA was trying to get EP into the studio where he would cut enough material for a handful of singles and at least 2 studio albums -- it wasn't 1960 anymore, the industry had changed.....

Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:43 pm

it was RCA (Joan Deary et al) that started legendary performer series to get profits from the 1973 deal. they promoted it more than the stax album (and so sold 500000 copies) and also sold it via the record club, resulting in another 250000 copies sold.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:08 am

Quote: Why flood the market with so much product on an annual basis?

******************************************

You can't compare this with any other artist. With Elvis there is always never enough. There is an endless demand.
Look at what is going on now. One FTD after another at $30 a shot.
How many other artists fans would support this kind of release policy.
What sells the most depends on the material.
Would you not welcome a flood of material if all were of high quality?

Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:24 am

ekenee wrote:Quote: Why flood the market with so much product on an annual basis?

******************************************

You can't compare this with any other artist. With Elvis there is always never enough. There is an endless demand.
Look at what is going on now. One FTD after another at $30 a shot.
How many other artists fans would support this kind of release policy.
What sells the most depends on the material.
Would you not welcome a flood of material if all were of high quality?

That was the misconception. There was not an endless demand for Elvis studio material in 1974. It was not 1956-1962. The industry had changed. Much more thought, care, creativity and integrity needed to be applied to the Elvis Presley release strategy in the mid-70's. An example is how the Aloha album had wheels, RCA could have heavily promoted it throughout 1973 as the sole EP release. Most other major recording artists' labels would have followed that strategy. Instead RCA dropped any sort of marketing campaign a few months later and tossed out subpar material found on Raised On Rock. Elvis was essentially short-changed and so were his fans.

Yeah, look what is going on now. Are you looking? Do you support other collector's labels? Ever purchase any Grateful Dead Dick's Picks or The Doors' BMA releases? Those aren't cheap. Fans of legacy artists will pay top dollar for archival material, that is the nature of the beast.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:46 am

For those advocating that Elvis should have made only one album a year in the 70's.

I would rather have 700 or so different songs out there to enjoy.....than 500 :!:

Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:46 am

Regarding Elvis' record sales, check out RIAA database! About the poor sales of Elvis' 70's studio albums, and check out the 9 track "Frankie & Johnny" Camden/Pickwich album (with the Elvis Now album cover) RIAA sales award which outsold the studio albums by far!
Another gem is "Pure Gold" another 9 tracke'er with RIIA award and be wiser, disentoriented or whatever!!
There's no logic to Elvis' record sales, but for the greatest hits packages!
They sell!