The correct title for EPA-830 a mystery----no more??

[ekenee]

Now that shows intent of a title. They must have gotten that info from RCA-USA back in the 50's obviously.

Somewhere along the way, the information got mixed up.

Frankie, having the record, is not considered evidence.

The words "Elvis Presley" are referring to the artist, not the title.

We need some vintage RCA paperwork on this debate. Advertising so far has not been conclusive.

[Frankie Teardrop]

See the link from the site of John Boija for the US release and the German release.
The German release from 1957 has the title Shake, Rattle & Roll on the label.

German: http://www.boija.com/skivor/epa830.htm

US: http://www.boija.com/skivor/us_ep/us_epa830.htm

Thank you for providing visual evidence.

[ColinB]

Frankie, having the record, is not considered evidence.

You are really a moron if you think that.

It's not that cut-and-dried, is it ?

The sleeve lists all the song titles, plus the artist's name.

The title of the record could really be any of them..................... and I see Germany plumbed for Shake Rattle & Roll !

[Frankie Teardrop]

Frankie, having the record, is not considered evidence.

You are really a moron if you think that.

It's not that cut-and-dried, is it ?

The sleeve lists all the song titles, plus the artist's name.

The title of the record could really be any of them.....................

No, it couldn't. The title would be in bold somewhere on the record. If anyone can find even one other example of a record's title not being listed as such (clearly, in large and/or bold type) on the record on either the cover, spine or label, I'll fold. Just one example.

[ekenee]

Frankie, having the record, is not considered evidence.

You are really a moron if you think that.

It's not that cut-and-dried, is it ?

The sleeve lists all the song titles, plus the artist's name.

The title of the record could really be any of them.....................

No, it couldn't. The title would be in bold somewhere on the record. If anyone can find even one other example of a record's title not being listed as such (clearly, in large and/or bold type) on the record on either the cover, spine or label, I'll fold. Just one example.

There may not be any other examples, that's why this is a debate and unique.
There are no rules, and the criteria you use for a title is just what you have come up with
it is not a universal truth. The font size doesn't have to be big for it to be the title.

I have showed you several pieces of evidence as to why this could be the title and you have ignored all.

Perhaps there is no title. The first and only one in history.
THe "untitled" EP. Wait.....thats a title.

[Frankie Teardrop]

The evidence presented has confirmed that in other countries, the EP was titled Shake Rattle And Roll, and that the EP in the US was popularly dubbed Shake Rattle And Roll after its release, ala the Fool album, which was really titled Elvis.
The "no title" theory is fine. That would match with Led Zeppelin's fourth album.

[Deke Rivers II]

Interesting discussion but I will not lose any sleep over it. I have always thought this was the "Shake, Rattle And Roll" EP; I have the original EP. But when I first purchased "Reconsider Baby" by Ernst & Company I thought how strange that they would use the same EP Title that close together....confusing to say the least unless acompanied by a picture and track listing. I do agree with Ekenee that just because "Elvis Presley" is on the front with bold white lettering does not make it the title....the artist is Elvis Presley....no doubt and we all know how BIG ELVIS PRESLEY was in 1956. The lead song with no doubt is "Shake, Rattle and Roll" (Side 1, Track 1). And with the exception of "Lawd, Miss Clawdy" definitely received the most airplay. I lean toward the theory that this was an untitled EP and sold purely on the name "Elvis Presley" and to dub it "Shake, Rattle and Roll" by the very record company that was the home of Elvis Presley to distinguish it from a previous release titled "Elvis Presley" only makes good sense. It is clear from past releases when a title was chosen that it was clearly on the front or back covers or both (in most cases) such as Elvis, Volume 1 (only "Elvis" is on the front or 2 or Loving You Vol. I or II or King Creole Vol 1 or 2.....and then came Strictly Elvis and so forth. All evidence points out when titles where chosen that the titles along with the artist's name were printed. So to distinguish the blame thing easily the EPA-830 should always be listed or the Record Company Nickname "Shake, Rattle and Roll".....If is was good enough for them it is good enough for me because I was happy all along with my "Shake, Rattle and Roll" EP. Now if someone could produce some RCA paper work from Steve Sholes or such that showed in conceptions that EPA-830 was supposed to be officially titled "Shake, Rattle And Roll" and some layout artist left is off by accident or intent......that would prove Ekenee's theory of what the real title is. I am satisfied with and untitled EP or the "Shake, Rattle And Roll" Ep. However, if RCA intentionally gave the same title to a June '56 released EP that they had previously given a March '56 EP then they are the ones that made a goofy discision (but of course that would not be their first or their last....would it)?

[KiwiAlan]

The real title isElvis Presley when issued as stated on the RCA Catalogue Aadvertisement published in Billboard April 1959.

Later on RCA realised the confusion of having 4 EP's with the same name the Shake Rattle And Roll name began to appear

[ekenee]

The real title isElvis Presley when issued as stated on the RCA Catalogue Aadvertisement published in Billboard April 1959.

Later on RCA realised the confusion of having 4 EP's with the same name the Shake Rattle And Roll name began to appear

That's a nice theory without a shred of evidence, but what we really need is some paperwork from 1956.

It is so confusing that an RCA ad executive or ad layout person could easily make the mistake and title

the EP "Elvis Presley". The mistake could have started with the ad people.

We still need more information.

[KiwiAlan]

I would have thought thaqt RCA advertising is rather a strong shred of evidence.

[ekenee]

I would have thought thaqt RCA advertising is rather a strong shred of evidence.

Yes, and as can be seen they were not consistent with thier advertising.

Sometimes they titled it "Elvis Presley" and sometimes they advertised it as "Shake rattle and roll".

My thread is about the original intent.

Did they really intend on titling the EP the same exact title of one they just put out a few months earlier?
That is the question here.
So, we need some paperwork from 1956. I hope that clears it up for you.

I started this thread to illustrate that this issue has a major grey area here.

And don't think that there has never been errors in the advertising of music in the last 50 years.

[memphisflash]

Always known as 'Shake' Rattle and Roll', no doubt about it ...

[ColinB]

I would have thought thaqt RCA advertising is rather a strong shred of evidence.

Yes, and as can be seen they were not consistent with thier advertising.

Sometimes they titled it "Elvis Presley" and sometimes they advertised it as "Shake rattle and roll".

My thread is about the original intent.

Did they really intend on titling the EP the same exact title of one they just put out a few months earlier?
That is the question here.
So, we need some paperwork from 1956. I hope that clears it up for you.

I started this thread to illustrate that this issue has a major grey area here.

And don't think that there has never been errors in the advertising of music in the last 50 years.

I reckon that, at the time they released it, & without thinking it through, they [foolishly] called it 'Elvis Presley'.

Then they soon realised it duplicated a previous EP title !

So, they started referring to it by the name of the lead song [which was quite popular] so as to distinguish it from the earlier release !

On overseas issues, they were able to 'correct' the title to Shake, Rattle & Roll.

[Deke Rivers II]

I would have thought thaqt RCA advertising is rather a strong shred of evidence.

Yes, and as can be seen they were not consistent with thier advertising.

Sometimes they titled it "Elvis Presley" and sometimes they advertised it as "Shake rattle and roll".

My thread is about the original intent.

Did they really intend on titling the EP the same exact title of one they just put out a few months earlier?
That is the question here.

So, we need some paperwork from 1956. I hope that clears it up for you.

I started this thread to illustrate that this issue has a major grey area here.

And don't think that there has never been errors in the advertising of music in the last 50 years.

I reckon that, at the time they released it, & without thinking it through, they [foolishly] called it 'Elvis Presley'.

Then they soon realised it duplicated a previous EP title !

So, they started referring to it by the name of the lead song [which was quite popular] so as to distinguish it from the earlier release !

On overseas issues, they were able to 'correct' the title to Shake, Rattle & Roll.

Sounds like a good assessment to me but an "untitled EP" also sounds really good sold purely on the strength of the artist "Elvis Presley"; after all the fans would know if these four songs in this form and different cover were "new" to them.

[ColinB]

I reckon that, at the time they released it, & without thinking it through, they [foolishly] called it 'Elvis Presley'.
Then they soon realised it duplicated a previous EP title !
So, they started referring to it by the name of the lead song [which was quite popular] so as to distinguish it from the earlier release !
On overseas issues, they were able to 'correct' the title to Shake, Rattle & Roll.

Sounds like a good assessment to me but an "untitled EP" also sounds really good sold purely on the strength of the artist "Elvis Presley"; after all the fans would know if these four songs in this form and different cover were "new" to them.

Well, the 'title' of an EP wasn't too important, anyway !

If it sold enough to make the 'singles' chart, it would be listed under the title of the lead song !

There's a thing.............. if it charted in the EP chart, it should be listed under the 'correct' title !

Anyone have access to the US EP Chart of the day ?

[Mississippi]

Billboard, May 25, 1959
Elvis Presley - Shake, Rattle And Roll

http://books.google.pt/books?id=uB4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=EPA-830&as_pt=MAGAZINES&hl=de&cd=1#v=onepage&q=EPA-830&f=false


Mississippi

[Mississippi]

Billboard, April 6,1959
only named ELVIS PRESLEY

http://books.google.pt/books?id=TiAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28&dq=EPA-830&as_pt=MAGAZINES&hl=de&cd=3#v=onepage&q=EPA-830&f=false

Mississippi

[elvisrecords.us]

Here is more support to the subject.
The back cover of the U.S. release EPA-965 Anyway You Want Me (released 10/1956) indicates Elvis Presley as the title.
The back cover of the U.S. releases of 47-6800 (released 1/1957) and 47-6870 (released 3/1957) indicate Elvis Presley as the title.
The back cover of the U.S. release of 47-7506 (released 3/1959) indicate Elvis Presley - Shake, Rattle, and Roll as the title.

It looks as if even RCA's marketing of this release varied throughout the years.

EPA-830 SHAKE,RATTLE,AND ROLL (9/1956, post below)
EPA-830 ELVIS PRESLEY (10/1956)
EPA-830 ELVIS PRESLEY-SHAKE,RATTLE,AND ROLL (3/1959)
EPA-830 SHAKE,RATTLE,AND ROLL (posts above)

[elvisrecords.us]

I also have an early Elvis Presley promo card, likely available at record shops at the time (likely around 9/1956 or 10/1956). It highlights the three 45 extended play titles. Of the titles on the card, EPA-830 is the newest release.

EPA-747 ELVIS PRESLEY
EPA-830 SHAKE, RATTLE, AND ROLL
EPA-821 HEARTBREAK HOTEL

The first song of EPA-830 and EPA-821 are in all caps. EPA-821 is identified as HEARTBREAK HOTEL.

[ekenee]

Thanks for showing that. Now we have earlier multiple documentation from 1956,supporting my theory

that the title was, "Shake Rattle and Roll".

Fantastic.

Of course this is advertising and with what we have seen is that RCA was inconsistent with thier titles.

A 1956 RCA paperwork piece would be nice if anyone has that.

[ekenee]

I reckon that, at the time they released it, & without thinking it through, they [foolishly] called it 'Elvis Presley'.
Then they soon realised it duplicated a previous EP title !
So, they started referring to it by the name of the lead song [which was quite popular] so as to distinguish it from the earlier release !
On overseas issues, they were able to 'correct' the title to Shake, Rattle & Roll.

Sounds like a good assessment to me but an "untitled EP" also sounds really good sold purely on the strength of the artist "Elvis Presley"; after all the fans would know if these four songs in this form and different cover were "new" to them.

Well, the 'title' of an EP wasn't too important, anyway !

If it sold enough to make the 'singles' chart, it would be listed under the title of the lead song !

There's a thing.............. if it charted in the EP chart, it should be listed under the 'correct' title !

Anyone have access to the US EP Chart of the day ?

Actually not always true.

Apparently "Elvis volume 1" made it to number 6 on the charts on the strengh of "Love me" which was the second song.

Sorry I have no documentation on this, but this is what I read. This was apparently based on radio play/requests at the time.

[ColinB]

...If it sold enough to make the 'singles' chart, it would be listed under the title of the lead song !

Actually not always true.
Apparently "Elvis volume 1" made it to number 6 on the charts on the strengh of "Love me" which was the second song.
Sorry I have no documentation on this, but this is what I read.
This was apparently based on radio play/requests at the time.[/quote]

Well, when I said the 'lead' song, I meant the most popular track on the disc !

By contrast, In the UK, an EP making the singles chart was listed under the EP title, not by any song on it............