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

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:20 pm

Having Parker as his manager was a double edged sword for Elvis. On the one hand Parker helped launched Elvis' career into superstardom that is unimagineable in the beginning. On the other hand, Parkers' greed and stubborness ultimately destroyed Elvis's career & life by having him go through a gruelling schedule of doing 2 shows a day without a considerable period of rest. On top of that, Parker would not allow Elvis to diversify and re-invent his career by agreeing to do serious movie roles as well as overseas concerts.(Australia, Japan, U.K.) Yes, I agree Parker was too old to change his ways to become more creative or cutting edge, which is quite unfortunate.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:50 pm

Some excellent responses gang! What bothered me the most about the Colonel, was the lack of respect he had for Elvis' talent. I could never understand that!

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:28 pm

Alexander wrote:Unfortunately you are - just like Parker - only focusing on the money side. Parker did not have an artistic view nor a long term vision and Elvis just did not seem to care. Parker IS the worst thing that could happen to a careless guy like Elvis.

This is the job of a manager. The artist has to produce the art, the manager has to sell it.

I think it is totally correct, if a manager advices the artist to record songs, he has a publishing interest in. And it is totally correct to advice an artist, not to record political songs, because some of the followers might dislike what the artist sings. And it's totally correct to make contracts, that secure a certain income over the next few years.

It's up to the artist, to tell the manager how he wants to be promoted, in what films he wants to play and what kind of songs he wants to sing. If Elvis Presley wasn't satisfied with the way his career was handled by Parker, it was up to him to change it. I guess, that's where he failed.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:29 pm

Alexander wrote:Unfortunately you are - just like Parker - only focusing on the money side. Parker did not have an artistic view nor a long term vision and Elvis just did not seem to care. Parker IS the worst thing that could happen to a careless guy like Elvis.

This is the job of a manager. The artist has to produce the art, the manager has to sell it.

I think it is totally correct, if a manager advices the artist to record songs, he has a publishing interest in. And it is totally correct to advice an artist, not to record political songs, because some of the followers might dislike what the artist sings. And it's totally correct to make contracts, that secure a certain income over the next few years.

It's up to the artist, to tell the manager how he wants to be promoted, in what films he wants to play and what kind of songs he wants to sing. If Elvis Presley wasn't satisfied with the way his career was handled by Parker, it was up to him to change it. I guess, that's where he failed.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:35 pm

TCB-FAN wrote:On the other hand, Parkers' greed and stubborness ultimately destroyed Elvis's career & life by having him go through a gruelling schedule of doing 2 shows a day without a considerable period of rest.

There are several other artists who play shows of 2 to 3 hours each. In Vegas Elvis performed two concerts of an hour each. That's a workload one can handle quite easily for 4 weeks in a row.

TCB-FAN wrote:On top of that, Parker would not allow Elvis to diversify and re-invent his career by agreeing to do serious movie roles.

Parker was not in the position to allow Elvis something. He could have done whatever he wanted and often proved that by doing things, the Colonel certainly didn't want him to.

TCB-FAN wrote:....as well as overseas concerts.(Australia, Japan, U.K.).

One again, if Elvis could have toured every country he wanted to. No Parker was needed to do so.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:36 pm

Joe Car wrote:Some excellent responses gang! What bothered me the most about the Colonel, was the lack of respect he had for Elvis' talent. I could never understand that!

It's not the job of the manager to adore his client's talent. It's his job to sell the product of the artist. And by making him the highest paid movie star, the highest paid entertainer and the biggest selling recording artist of all time I don't think the old man failed.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:37 pm

promiseland wrote:
stevelecher wrote:It's hard to really know because we're looking in from the outside and we can only go by what others have written. I believe the way Col. Parker shafted Hank Snow at the very beginning of his association with Elvis tells me all I need to know. He could be a ruthless person. Gladys knew it and had more brains than Vernon and Elvis combined.

He did a great job of promoting Elvis at the beginning but it's probable any great AR man in the business could have done as much or more. Parker always ran Elvis' career as if he had to make a quick kill today because his client wouldn't last. Some of his schemes seemed smart at first but cost his client plenty in the long run. Saving money on good scripts and good songs seemed like a great idea until people stopped paying for dreck. After the heady first few years, Elvis' artistic integrity should have been as big a consideration as the short term remuneration. Elvis would have been better off selling twice as many records of good songs with no publishing cut than he was owning all of the substandard stuff.

The mystery to me will always be Elvis' acquiescence to Parker's domination. The idea that Parker could stop Lieber and Stoller from influencing Elvis or that Steve Binder could never get to him again. I would like to think that I wouldn't have stood for something like that. Elvis should have been a partner in mapping out his career. It appears he was little more than (as someone else once stated) a highly paid shift worker. The idea he couldn't do a Laugh In episode or try to get a decent movie part because his manager said no. I'll never understand it unless we're to accept that Elvis was easily manipulated and forced into a shell by his manager's preying on his insecurities. It's been said that is exactly what Parker did and that makes him a bad guy in my book.

It appears to me, overall, that Colonel Parker may have been the worst thing that could have happened to Elvis

Could you add just one more paragraph?

Thanks for the feedback.

Ultimately, it does come down to why didn't Elvis take better charge of his own life and career? It will remain a mystery.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:46 pm

I believe a historical lense is best used to understand Tom Parker. In the 50's he keeps Elvis from being taken advantage of by the establishment. Compare Elvis to his peers. The 1974 sale of master recordings was possible only because Elvis owned them (think Chuck Berry as an eg). Teenagers became adults more quickly in the 50/60's with children etc- not the prolonged adolesence of today. Hence the position of Elvis as a mainstream movie idol made fiancial and artistic sense. A rockin rebel in '62 would have been laughable.

But 3 things happened, the Vietnam War changed America and the world, therise of thesinger/songwriter and Elvis was lost. Crummy movies, little ambition and his spiritual quest-Parker could hardly be faulted for these. Make no mistake, Parker made choices that kept him tethered to his pot 'o gold so he could exercise greater control over Elvis. Elvis however kept taking the money and turning out crap. In the beginning, he was laughing at Hollywood-you're paying me this much for this crap; but then the realization kicked in that Hollywood and the rest of the world (ex his fans) had returned the favor as the Vietnam war changed the culture.

IIRC the '68 special was part of a complex 2 picture movie deal because Elvis could no command his salary based on box office reciepts. Parker's desire for a Christmas special was tied to the tried and true formula maximum return for minimum effort. That Parker missed te return of his star's creative yearning in 66 and 67, was more a matter of his age and insularity than outright malice-likely the result of a single client.

From 68 to say 71, elvis was served well by Parker. Vegas too long for sure but don't forget elvis' primary demographic and evolved musical tastes. Post 71, is where thevdrama takes hold. Parker becomes a degenerate gambler; Elvis a recidivist junkie. Elvis never worried about the future- he could always pull a rabitt out of his hat (after all he always had; he couldnt any longer as he was broken as a man). Parker had seen this show before with Hank Snow and knew how the story would end. His gambling problems had him focus on himself and less on his increasingly erradict star.

Elvis and Parker shared a complex relationship. But even in the early 70's, before the drugs ate Elvis and gambling ate Parker, you could see genuine affection between the two. Parker devoted his life to ensuring tat Elvis was the greatest star ever. His stewardship in the 50's and early '60's togetherwith Elvis' talent ensured that outcome. That Parker didn't see times changing more quickly and that the star didn't complain more loudly sums up most of what happened before there personal habits impacted their legacies.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:51 pm

Good Time Charlie wrote:Some people should re-read Peter Guralnick's epic "The Last Train to Memphis". It's a book which fully illustrates that without Colonel Parker, Elvis would never have been the Elvis we saw in the 1950s. I don't think there possibly could've been a greater manager for those formative years of his career. Almost every move Parker was making throughout the 50's was ahead of his time and perfect for Elvis.

Agreed and well stated GTC.

stevelecher wrote:Ultimately, it does come down to why didn't Elvis take better charge of his own life and career?

+1

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:32 pm

KiwiAlan wrote:If Parker never existed what would have become of Elvis.

Would be among the hundreds of southern rockabilly artists who never made it above the Mason/Dixieline?

Can anyone name another manager who could establish an entertainer so powerful that remains so prominent 34 years after his death?


If Elvis never existed what would have become of Parker, we would never of known about him.

Elvis achieved his fame cause of Elvis, not Parker.

To say that Elvis would have been remembered as just another southern rockabilly artist is totally underating Elvis' potential.

Even back in 54/55 is was quite obvious Elvis was one of a kind.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:27 pm

The Welz wrote:
Joe Car wrote:Some excellent responses gang! What bothered me the most about the Colonel, was the lack of respect he had for Elvis' talent. I could never understand that!

It's not the job of the manager to adore his client's talent. It's his job to sell the product of the artist. And by making him the highest paid movie star, the highest paid entertainer and the biggest selling recording artist of all time I don't think the old man failed.

A manager that can appreciate and cultivate his artist's talent can do a much better job at selling the product of the artist. In many ways, Elvis never delivered on the potential of his talent -- and therefore, never maximized his financial potential. Elvis was not the highest paid entertainer -- at various times he was, but by the time he reentered the traditional music business in the late-60s, he was consistently underbid and underpaid. Elvis was the victim of gross mismanagement for the bulk of his career. And yes, Elvis was arguably the biggest selling musical artist in music history -- and that is because of his talent, not Tom Parker's management and tutelage.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:01 am

lvs4evr wrote:most fans and people say that PARKER was a rude and heartless man , some even blame him for ELVIS demise. I feel differntly and want to know how many think the same , and of course those that don't are welcome as well. Ithink from the start ELVIS and his parents knew exactly what to expect with the colonel , his job was to make ELVIS a star , and very wealthy , so it seems he kept his part of the promise he made him, he wasn't going to be his daddy , or finacial adviser , only his manager at whatever the rate they agreed on . I think many a celeb would love to have bin managed by PARKER , but then again there was no one like ELVIS PRESLEY. I think of all the great deals the colonel did and then i also think of some of the bad ones and ask was he a bad manager?

I love how your post is filled with feelings, but not facts.

For instance, Gladys Presley HATED Parker from their first meeting, and recognized him for the con man that he was. But Elvis and Vernon fell hook, line and sinker for his act, so she was overruled. It's another reason her untimely death was regretful. Some of Parker's later dealings would have been difficult to accomplish with Gladys around, watching her son's happiness and well-being erode.

It might be best said that Parker did help propel Elvis to the top of the entertainment field in 1956-57, but after that he did far more harm than good. By 1970, they should have parted ways.

Otherwise, any attempt to justify Parker's management of Elvis leaves me cold. Although it's easy to judge with hindsight, it is beyond question that Parker's management of Presley in the second decade of their relationship was self-serving and short-sighted.

Facts are facts.

Following Presley's death, Parker set up a licensing operation with Factors Etc. Inc, to control Presley merchandise and keep a steady income supporting his estate. It was later revealed that Presley owned 22% of the company, Parker owned 56%, and the final 22% was made up of various business associates.

In January 1979, it was discovered that Presley had lost out on royalties for songs he had been listed as a composer on, due to Parker advising him not to sign up to Broadcast Music Incorporated. Experts in the field at the time summarized that it had potentially cost Presley millions of dollars.

By 1980 the cost of running the estate was estimated to be as much as $500,000 a year. Priscilla and the Trust were prepared to let Parker continue to handle Presley's business affairs, and petitioned the court to that end. However, Judge Joseph Evans, aware that Lisa Marie Presley was still a minor, appointed attorney Blanchard E. Tual to investigate Parker's management. His preliminary finding was that Parker's management deal of 50% was extortionate compared to the industry average of 15–20%. He also noted that Parker's handling of Presley's business affairs during his lifetime, including the decision to sell off past royalties to RCA for $5.4 million in 1973, was "unethical" and poorly handled.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tom_Parker#Surviving_Elvis

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:03 am

A total w*nker ! er sorry i mean bad manager !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by rocknroller on Tue Sep 06, 2011 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:39 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
lvs4evr wrote:most fans and people say that PARKER was a rude and heartless man , some even blame him for ELVIS demise. I feel differntly and want to know how many think the same , and of course those that don't are welcome as well. Ithink from the start ELVIS and his parents knew exactly what to expect with the colonel , his job was to make ELVIS a star , and very wealthy , so it seems he kept his part of the promise he made him, he wasn't going to be his daddy , or finacial adviser , only his manager at whatever the rate they agreed on . I think many a celeb would love to have bin managed by PARKER , but then again there was no one like ELVIS PRESLEY. I think of all the great deals the colonel did and then i also think of some of the bad ones and ask was he a bad manager?

I love how your post is filled with feelings, but not facts.

For instance, Gladys Presley HATED Parker from their first meeting, and recognized him for the con man that he was. But Elvis and Vernon fell hook, line and sinker for his act, so she was overruled. It's another reason her untimely death was regretful. Some of Parker's later dealings would have been difficult to accomplish with Gladys around, watching her son's happiness and well-being erode.

It might be best said that Parker did help propel Elvis to the top of the entertainment field in 1956-57, but after that he did far more harm than good. By 1970, they should have parted ways.

Otherwise, any attempt to justify Parker's management of Elvis leaves me cold. Although it's easy to judge with hindsight, it is beyond question that Parker's management of Presley in the second decade of their relationship was self-serving and short-sighted.

Facts are facts.

Following Presley's death, Parker set up a licensing operation with Factors Etc. Inc, to control Presley merchandise and keep a steady income supporting his estate. It was later revealed that Presley owned 22% of the company, Parker owned 56%, and the final 22% was made up of various business associates.

In January 1979, it was discovered that Presley had lost out on royalties for songs he had been listed as a composer on, due to Parker advising him not to sign up to Broadcast Music Incorporated. Experts in the field at the time summarized that it had potentially cost Presley millions of dollars.

By 1980 the cost of running the estate was estimated to be as much as $500,000 a year. Priscilla and the Trust were prepared to let Parker continue to handle Presley's business affairs, and petitioned the court to that end. However, Judge Joseph Evans, aware that Lisa Marie Presley was still a minor, appointed attorney Blanchard E. Tual to investigate Parker's management. His preliminary finding was that Parker's management deal of 50% was extortionate compared to the industry average of 15–20%. He also noted that Parker's handling of Presley's business affairs during his lifetime, including the decision to sell off past royalties to RCA for $5.4 million in 1973, was "unethical" and poorly handled.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tom_Parker#Surviving_Elvis



That last quote is the ultimate condemnation of Parker. A manager should never, ever come out of a deal better than the client.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:51 am

Bodie wrote:
KiwiAlan wrote:If Parker never existed what would have become of Elvis.

Would be among the hundreds of southern rockabilly artists who never made it above the Mason/Dixieline?

Can anyone name another manager who could establish an entertainer so powerful that remains so prominent 34 years after his death?


If Elvis never existed what would have become of Parker, we would never of known about him.

Elvis achieved his fame cause of Elvis, not Parker.

To say that Elvis would have been remembered as just another southern rockabilly artist is totally underating Elvis' potential.

Even back in 54/55 is was quite obvious Elvis was one of a kind.


Parker found fame by managing Eddy Arnold and then Hank Snow. He was an expert in talent spotting and promotion before he met Elvis. His strong links with RCA created the massive $40,000 buyout.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:30 am

KiwiAlan wrote:Parker found fame by managing Eddy Arnold and then Hank Snow. He was an expert in talent spotting and promotion before he met Elvis. His strong links with RCA created the massive $40,000 buyout.

Parker did not manage Snow, and only became "famous" after the success of Presley.

The RCA buyout was not "created" because of his "strong links with RCA."

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Tue Sep 06, 2011 3:17 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:...It might be best said that Parker did help propel Elvis to the top of the entertainment field in 1956-57, but after that he did far more harm than good. By 1970, they should have parted ways.

Otherwise, any attempt to justify Parker's management of Elvis leaves me cold. Although it's easy to judge with hindsight, it is beyond question that Parker's management of Presley in the second decade of their relationship was self-serving and short-sighted.


Well said, Doc. I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Tue Sep 06, 2011 3:46 pm

I think the best thing Parker did with Elvis (for whatever reason) was keeping them (us fans) wanting more. No talk shows and being seen on tv alot etc.. When I saw Elvis in 1977,I remember he was in and out too fast. And his part of the show lasted an hour or so. One of the longest of his late 70's concerts. I remember thinking I will see him again. Not to be.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:48 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
KiwiAlan wrote:Parker found fame by managing Eddy Arnold and then Hank Snow. He was an expert in talent spotting and promotion before he met Elvis. His strong links with RCA created the massive $40,000 buyout.

Parker did not manage Snow, and only became "famous" after the success of Presley.

The RCA buyout was not "created" because of his "strong links with RCA."

Parker used Snow to woo Gladys Presley on "the deal" and then shafted him when the deal was done. Parker did manage Eddie Arnold who fired him for reasons I've never heard but he was clearly dissatisfied. If only Elvis could have taken that kind of initiative. As Elvis' fortunes were declining how did Parker convince Presley that the partnership should be 50/50? People throughout the industry must have been amazed by that.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:27 am

Juan Luis wrote:I think the best thing Parker did with Elvis (for whatever reason) was keeping them (us fans) wanting more. No talk shows and being seen on tv alot etc.. When I saw Elvis in 1977,I remember he was in and out too fast. And his part of the show lasted an hour or so. One of the longest of his late 70's concerts. I remember thinking I will see him again. Not to be.


I disagree with that.

Im sure Elvis would have loved to have done a TV show like Tom Jones did from 1969-71.

Elvis could have done duets with some of the biggest stars of Rock n Roll, country, blues,gospel etc and it would have been sensational.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:44 am

I would bet serious money that Elvis would not have wanted to do a show like Tom Jones'. He probably would have liked to have been a guest on one of Jones' episodes, but he didn't want a series. He didn't want to do that much extra for his own specials and documentaries.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:56 am

I agree Parker had truly reached his 'use by date' after the Aug/Sept 1973 engagement and that was Elvis's last chance to get rid of him and he didn't! :evil:

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:01 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
KiwiAlan wrote:Parker found fame by managing Eddy Arnold and then Hank Snow. He was an expert in talent spotting and promotion before he met Elvis. His strong links with RCA created the massive $40,000 buyout.

Parker did not manage Snow, and only became "famous" after the success of Presley.

The RCA buyout was not "created" because of his "strong links with RCA."


Yeah ... pigs fly too

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 3:03 am

lvs4evr wrote:most fans and people say that PARKER was a rude and heartless man , some even blame him for ELVIS demise. I feel differntly and want to know how many think the same , and of course those that don't are welcome as well. Ithink from the start ELVIS and his parents knew exactly what to expect with the colonel , his job was to make ELVIS a star , and very wealthy , so it seems he kept his part of the promise he made him, he wasn't going to be his daddy , or finacial adviser , only his manager at whatever the rate they agreed on . I think many a celeb would love to have bin managed by PARKER , but then again there was no one like ELVIS PRESLEY. I think of all the great deals the colonel did and then i also think of some of the bad ones and ask was he a bad manager?


Please check out this detailed article on Elvis Info Network - written together with some fine FECC input - and recently updated.
It's a good read.

'The Dark Side Of Colonel Parker' - EIN Spotlight:
Although comedian Nipsy Russell stated that "Every entertainer should go to bed at night and pray he finds a Colonel Tom Parker under his bed when he wakes up in the morning" - is that really the truth?
It is a fact that after Elvis' death an official investigation found that "both Colonel Parker (and RCA) acted in collusion against Presley's best interests. Colonel Parker was guilty of self-dealing and overreaching and had violated his duty to both Elvis and to the estate."
While there is no doubt that Elvis and The Colonel's story is extremely complex, in this in-depth Spotlight EIN takes a look at the darker side of Colonel Tom Parker - and includes plenty of insights from Elvis’ colleagues and friends.

Go here>>
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/spotlight_t ... arker.html

Cheers
Piers

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:27 am

Is there a section devoted to studying whether the Colonel is still alive?