Do The Clam

[Hard Rocker]

He was still having hits all over the world, making profitable movies, topping polls, earning an absolute fortune, and the very biggest up and coming stars were queuing up to meet him and pay homage. While 64/65 may not have been his most creative period he was still The King... and he once the comeback kicked off in '66 it wasn't long before he was full-on back in business. The bizarre notion that he was some kinda washed-up has-been in 64/65 has been thoroughly discredited on these pages, and no amount of distraction can deny or dispute that.

[Juan Luis]

Most threads here work fine until said person decides to railroad the thread with his somewhat obnoxious comments. Likes and dislikes are all subjective, but when members try to substantiate things with certain facts such as poor chart placings/poor sales to Elvis' earlier standards, his responses that you are effectively talking out of your backside can be quite infuriating for some people. We are all members of this forum because we are Elvis fans. Just because many members recognise that Elvis was only human, made mistakes, recorded some poor songs, allowed RCA to release poor material and that in the mid 60s, he was not as good as he was 5 or 10 years earlier, does not mean we have to be subjected to his 'rose tinted thoughts'. To state that Do The Clam was a worldwide smash hit is unbelievable. Thankfully, most fans will realise it was not and that during said years of 64-68, Elvis was not considered by the general public as the force he once was, hence the lower chart placings etc.during this period.

I don't even fall down on the side of defending 65-68 - even the much touted studio work of that period was unsuccessful in the charts and is barely remembered by the general public today. I very much doubt that even a cohesive packaging like the Tomorrow Is A Long Time CD would have changed the public's opinion of Elvis because what was being marketed were the movies. Elvis wasn't performing live, wasn't giving interviews, wasn't on TV - the only means of seeing him was at the movies, and as formulaic as they had become by 1966, I don't blame audiences for not going.

That being said, I see "obnoxious" comments from both sides. Goldbelt's "credible rebuttal" may not take into account the bigger picture, the fact that the movies were the driving force and they indisputably failed, but it certainly does offer at least a different perspective - the international one, which shouldn't be entirely discounted - and it's hard to argue that Elvis didn't have some successes in that period, e.g. How Great Thou Art/Crying in the Chapel. We as fans and Elvis himself were (and are) frustrated because of the shoulda/coulda/woulda. We know he should have been doing better, we know the quality should have been there. But any other artist would have been thrilled to be in the Top 20 albums and Top 10 singles for any release.

This spell of 3-4 years is a difficult topic and will always be a point of contention among fans, but I think with a level head, it's easy to see that both sides have points and there are nuances that one side or the other are not considering. Rose colored glasses are not the most helpful or insightful, but be honest with yourself, neither is pessimism or cynicism.

Every single artist with longevity has up's and downs carrer-wise.

To write off Elvis chart achievements between 1965 - 1968 with inaccuracies just won't do.

13 hits to reach the UK charts within that time period is what some artists never get.

The FACT is he was still having hit singles throughout parts of the world other than the USA.

Let's get back to the facts instead of derailing by personal attacks and double-talk.

Andy

The FACT is that he was not having BIG hits during this period in two of the biggest markets I.e USA and ]UK like he did.

Secondary to the Japan, Asian market.

Japan might have had a decent record buying population, but not the rest of Asia. And you are basing your support for this period on Do The Clam supposedly getting to No.1 in Japan. All you are doing is clutching at straws.

Over 90 million people in Japan plus other Asian countries makes it over 100 million, versus UK of over 50 million in 1965. No straws.

[Davelee]

Most threads here work fine until said person decides to railroad the thread with his somewhat obnoxious comments. Likes and dislikes are all subjective, but when members try to substantiate things with certain facts such as poor chart placings/poor sales to Elvis' earlier standards, his responses that you are effectively talking out of your backside can be quite infuriating for some people. We are all members of this forum because we are Elvis fans. Just because many members recognise that Elvis was only human, made mistakes, recorded some poor songs, allowed RCA to release poor material and that in the mid 60s, he was not as good as he was 5 or 10 years earlier, does not mean we have to be subjected to his 'rose tinted thoughts'. To state that Do The Clam was a worldwide smash hit is unbelievable. Thankfully, most fans will realise it was not and that during said years of 64-68, Elvis was not considered by the general public as the force he once was, hence the lower chart placings etc.during this period.

I don't even fall down on the side of defending 65-68 - even the much touted studio work of that period was unsuccessful in the charts and is barely remembered by the general public today. I very much doubt that even a cohesive packaging like the Tomorrow Is A Long Time CD would have changed the public's opinion of Elvis because what was being marketed were the movies. Elvis wasn't performing live, wasn't giving interviews, wasn't on TV - the only means of seeing him was at the movies, and as formulaic as they had become by 1966, I don't blame audiences for not going.

That being said, I see "obnoxious" comments from both sides. Goldbelt's "credible rebuttal" may not take into account the bigger picture, the fact that the movies were the driving force and they indisputably failed, but it certainly does offer at least a different perspective - the international one, which shouldn't be entirely discounted - and it's hard to argue that Elvis didn't have some successes in that period, e.g. How Great Thou Art/Crying in the Chapel. We as fans and Elvis himself were (and are) frustrated because of the shoulda/coulda/woulda. We know he should have been doing better, we know the quality should have been there. But any other artist would have been thrilled to be in the Top 20 albums and Top 10 singles for any release.

This spell of 3-4 years is a difficult topic and will always be a point of contention among fans, but I think with a level head, it's easy to see that both sides have points and there are nuances that one side or the other are not considering. Rose colored glasses are not the most helpful or insightful, but be honest with yourself, neither is pessimism or cynicism.

Every single artist with longevity has up's and downs carrer-wise.

To write off Elvis chart achievements between 1965 - 1968 with inaccuracies just won't do.

13 hits to reach the UK charts within that time period is what some artists never get.

The FACT is he was still having hit singles throughout parts of the world other than the USA.

Let's get back to the facts instead of derailing by personal attacks and double-talk.

Andy

The FACT is that he was not having BIG hits during this period in two of the biggest markets I.e USA and ]UK like he did.

Secondary to the Japan, Asian market.

Japan might have had a decent record buying population, but not the rest of Asia. And you are basing your support for this period on Do The Clam supposedly getting to No.1 in Japan. All you are doing is clutching at straws.

It hurts their feelings because they like the song(s) and they will say anything to back it up. I wonder what these people would say if Elvis walked into there house while they were playing "Do The Clam" and Elvis said to them, "Man, that was the crappiest song i ever recorded", would they call him a troll? lol "but Elvis it got to number 4 in Japan, it might be crap to you but not to me" lol.

[jurasic1968]

He was still having hits all over the world, making profitable movies, topping polls, earning an absolute fortune, and the very biggest up and coming stars were queuing up to meet him and pay homage. While 64/65 may not have been his most creative period he was still The King... and he once the comeback kicked off in '66 it wasn't long before he was full-on back in business. The bizarre notion that he was some kinda washed-up has-been in 64/65 has been thoroughly discredited on these pages, and no amount of distraction can deny or dispute that.

The King of what? He became a has been in music, that's all.

[emjel]

Most threads here work fine until said person decides to railroad the thread with his somewhat obnoxious comments. Likes and dislikes are all subjective, but when members try to substantiate things with certain facts such as poor chart placings/poor sales to Elvis' earlier standards, his responses that you are effectively talking out of your backside can be quite infuriating for some people. We are all members of this forum because we are Elvis fans. Just because many members recognise that Elvis was only human, made mistakes, recorded some poor songs, allowed RCA to release poor material and that in the mid 60s, he was not as good as he was 5 or 10 years earlier, does not mean we have to be subjected to his 'rose tinted thoughts'. To state that Do The Clam was a worldwide smash hit is unbelievable. Thankfully, most fans will realise it was not and that during said years of 64-68, Elvis was not considered by the general public as the force he once was, hence the lower chart placings etc.during this period.

I don't even fall down on the side of defending 65-68 - even the much touted studio work of that period was unsuccessful in the charts and is barely remembered by the general public today. I very much doubt that even a cohesive packaging like the Tomorrow Is A Long Time CD would have changed the public's opinion of Elvis because what was being marketed were the movies. Elvis wasn't performing live, wasn't giving interviews, wasn't on TV - the only means of seeing him was at the movies, and as formulaic as they had become by 1966, I don't blame audiences for not going.

That being said, I see "obnoxious" comments from both sides. Goldbelt's "credible rebuttal" may not take into account the bigger picture, the fact that the movies were the driving force and they indisputably failed, but it certainly does offer at least a different perspective - the international one, which shouldn't be entirely discounted - and it's hard to argue that Elvis didn't have some successes in that period, e.g. How Great Thou Art/Crying in the Chapel. We as fans and Elvis himself were (and are) frustrated because of the shoulda/coulda/woulda. We know he should have been doing better, we know the quality should have been there. But any other artist would have been thrilled to be in the Top 20 albums and Top 10 singles for any release.

This spell of 3-4 years is a difficult topic and will always be a point of contention among fans, but I think with a level head, it's easy to see that both sides have points and there are nuances that one side or the other are not considering. Rose colored glasses are not the most helpful or insightful, but be honest with yourself, neither is pessimism or cynicism.

Every single artist with longevity has up's and downs carrer-wise.

To write off Elvis chart achievements between 1965 - 1968 with inaccuracies just won't do.

13 hits to reach the UK charts within that time period is what some artists never get.

The FACT is he was still having hit singles throughout parts of the world other than the USA.

Let's get back to the facts instead of derailing by personal attacks and double-talk.

Andy

The FACT is that he was not having BIG hits during this period in two of the biggest markets I.e USA and ]UK like he did.

Secondary to the Japan, Asian market.

Japan might have had a decent record buying population, but not the rest of Asia. And you are basing your support for this period on Do The Clam supposedly getting to No.1 in Japan. All you are doing is clutching at straws.

Over 90 million people in Japan plus other Asian countries makes it over 100 million, versus UK of over 50 million in 1965. No straws.

And all of these 100 million people bought records did they. You know that for a fact? The ratios do not compare especially for the Asian countries. A high percentage probably did not have record players. Still clutching I'm afraid.

[Juan Luis]

He was still having hits all over the world, making profitable movies, topping polls, earning an absolute fortune, and the very biggest up and coming stars were queuing up to meet him and pay homage. While 64/65 may not have been his most creative period he was still The King... and he once the comeback kicked off in '66 it wasn't long before he was full-on back in business. The bizarre notion that he was some kinda washed-up has-been in 64/65 has been thoroughly discredited on these pages, and no amount of distraction can deny or dispute that.

The King of what? He became a has been in music, that's all.

Even you don't believe that a couple of years will do that. It does make for better drama and the myth of 1968-69 comeback greater than it really was. Elvis wasn't alone at the top as in 1956-57. We should all know that. "Has been"? Really? No.

[Juan Luis]

Most threads here work fine until said person decides to railroad the thread with his somewhat obnoxious comments. Likes and dislikes are all subjective, but when members try to substantiate things with certain facts such as poor chart placings/poor sales to Elvis' earlier standards, his responses that you are effectively talking out of your backside can be quite infuriating for some people. We are all members of this forum because we are Elvis fans. Just because many members recognise that Elvis was only human, made mistakes, recorded some poor songs, allowed RCA to release poor material and that in the mid 60s, he was not as good as he was 5 or 10 years earlier, does not mean we have to be subjected to his 'rose tinted thoughts'. To state that Do The Clam was a worldwide smash hit is unbelievable. Thankfully, most fans will realise it was not and that during said years of 64-68, Elvis was not considered by the general public as the force he once was, hence the lower chart placings etc.during this period.

I don't even fall down on the side of defending 65-68 - even the much touted studio work of that period was unsuccessful in the charts and is barely remembered by the general public today. I very much doubt that even a cohesive packaging like the Tomorrow Is A Long Time CD would have changed the public's opinion of Elvis because what was being marketed were the movies. Elvis wasn't performing live, wasn't giving interviews, wasn't on TV - the only means of seeing him was at the movies, and as formulaic as they had become by 1966, I don't blame audiences for not going.

That being said, I see "obnoxious" comments from both sides. Goldbelt's "credible rebuttal" may not take into account the bigger picture, the fact that the movies were the driving force and they indisputably failed, but it certainly does offer at least a different perspective - the international one, which shouldn't be entirely discounted - and it's hard to argue that Elvis didn't have some successes in that period, e.g. How Great Thou Art/Crying in the Chapel. We as fans and Elvis himself were (and are) frustrated because of the shoulda/coulda/woulda. We know he should have been doing better, we know the quality should have been there. But any other artist would have been thrilled to be in the Top 20 albums and Top 10 singles for any release.

This spell of 3-4 years is a difficult topic and will always be a point of contention among fans, but I think with a level head, it's easy to see that both sides have points and there are nuances that one side or the other are not considering. Rose colored glasses are not the most helpful or insightful, but be honest with yourself, neither is pessimism or cynicism.

Every single artist with longevity has up's and downs carrer-wise.

To write off Elvis chart achievements between 1965 - 1968 with inaccuracies just won't do.

13 hits to reach the UK charts within that time period is what some artists never get.

The FACT is he was still having hit singles throughout parts of the world other than the USA.

Let's get back to the facts instead of derailing by personal attacks and double-talk.

Andy

The FACT is that he was not having BIG hits during this period in two of the biggest markets I.e USA and ]UK like he did.

Secondary to the Japan, Asian market.

Japan might have had a decent record buying population, but not the rest of Asia. And you are basing your support for this period on Do The Clam supposedly getting to No.1 in Japan. All you are doing is clutching at straws.

Over 90 million people in Japan plus other Asian countries makes it over 100 million, versus UK of over 50 million in 1965. No straws.

And all of these 100 million people bought records did they. You know that for a fact? The ratios do not compare especially for the Asian countries. A high percentage probably did not have record players. Still clutching I'm afraid.

Roughly double the population (economy of Japan especially then) will be expected higher record sales. That is common sense. And you are the one clutching at nothing. Nothing.

[emjel]

He was still having hits all over the world, making profitable movies, topping polls, earning an absolute fortune, and the very biggest up and coming stars were queuing up to meet him and pay homage. While 64/65 may not have been his most creative period he was still The King... and he once the comeback kicked off in '66 it wasn't long before he was full-on back in business. The bizarre notion that he was some kinda washed-up has-been in 64/65 has been thoroughly discredited on these pages, and no amount of distraction can deny or dispute that.

So if 66 started the comeback, then the 68 TV Special although recognised as The Comeback Special was actually the 2nd comeback then. I don't think anyone here has used the terminology that Elvis was a washed up has been. They have simply said that the songs being recorded were not as good as years before and this is reflected in the record sales.

[jetblack]

the movies were the driving force and they indisputably failed

Didn't the film 'Tickle Me' save a movie studio from going under in 1965?

And in 1966 win him a Golden Laurel award for best actor in a musical film?

Check out some of the other winners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Awards

Tickle Me also had a much stronger soundtrack. That it kept Allied afloat is a separate point altogether... Allied still ended up defunct just a little over a decade later, so while Tickle Me helped in the short term, it didn't do jack for Allied in the long haul. If one of his movies had saved MGM or FOX or WB, it would be more notable in the grander scheme. Also, I'm wasn't talking about one specific movie, I'm talking broadly about the movies in that period. So set aside that one 1965 movie and tell me how everything else movie-wise 1965-1968 did. BTW don't get uppity with me, I was defending you.

emjel, neither Andy nor I indicated a disagreement with you that the movies had been unsuccessful at the box office, so your rant about the movies, while presenting a lot of good information, wasn't really addressing what we said, which was that there were minor (FOR ELVIS) successes during that period. You're still comparing Elvis to his past successes, and while that's a truthful thing to do, it misses the point that if it were ANY OTHER ARTIST getting Top 20 singles, 3 UK #1s (as you yourself cited), a GRAMMY, and Top 20 albums, they would be touted as quite successful even despite box office flops and domestic single/album flops and being considered by some people as a "has been."

A comparable example would be one like Garth's Brook Chris Gaines project. His "failure" was a #5 Hot 100 single, and a 2x Platinum album that reached #2 on the Billboard Top 200. What was a "failure" for Garth would have been a dream come true for other artists. I think we have tended to hold artists like The Beatles, Elvis, Garth Brooks and Michael Jackson to higher standards because we know what the potential on the top end could be, but their "failures" would be massive successes to other artists.

There are thousands of musicians who would have given an arm and a leg to have achieved even Elvis' "has been" period. That's all I'm saying/defending and I think that's all that these other guys are trying to say. I (myself) am not saying the movies didn't suck, I'm not saying some of the songs didn't suck.

Spot on post GG.

Andy

[emjel]

Most threads here work fine until said person decides to railroad the thread with his somewhat obnoxious comments. Likes and dislikes are all subjective, but when members try to substantiate things with certain facts such as poor chart placings/poor sales to Elvis' earlier standards, his responses that you are effectively talking out of your backside can be quite infuriating for some people. We are all members of this forum because we are Elvis fans. Just because many members recognise that Elvis was only human, made mistakes, recorded some poor songs, allowed RCA to release poor material and that in the mid 60s, he was not as good as he was 5 or 10 years earlier, does not mean we have to be subjected to his 'rose tinted thoughts'. To state that Do The Clam was a worldwide smash hit is unbelievable. Thankfully, most fans will realise it was not and that during said years of 64-68, Elvis was not considered by the general public as the force he once was, hence the lower chart placings etc.during this period.

I don't even fall down on the side of defending 65-68 - even the much touted studio work of that period was unsuccessful in the charts and is barely remembered by the general public today. I very much doubt that even a cohesive packaging like the Tomorrow Is A Long Time CD would have changed the public's opinion of Elvis because what was being marketed were the movies. Elvis wasn't performing live, wasn't giving interviews, wasn't on TV - the only means of seeing him was at the movies, and as formulaic as they had become by 1966, I don't blame audiences for not going.

That being said, I see "obnoxious" comments from both sides. Goldbelt's "credible rebuttal" may not take into account the bigger picture, the fact that the movies were the driving force and they indisputably failed, but it certainly does offer at least a different perspective - the international one, which shouldn't be entirely discounted - and it's hard to argue that Elvis didn't have some successes in that period, e.g. How Great Thou Art/Crying in the Chapel. We as fans and Elvis himself were (and are) frustrated because of the shoulda/coulda/woulda. We know he should have been doing better, we know the quality should have been there. But any other artist would have been thrilled to be in the Top 20 albums and Top 10 singles for any release.

This spell of 3-4 years is a difficult topic and will always be a point of contention among fans, but I think with a level head, it's easy to see that both sides have points and there are nuances that one side or the other are not considering. Rose colored glasses are not the most helpful or insightful, but be honest with yourself, neither is pessimism or cynicism.

Every single artist with longevity has up's and downs carrer-wise.

To write off Elvis chart achievements between 1965 - 1968 with inaccuracies just won't do.

13 hits to reach the UK charts within that time period is what some artists never get.

The FACT is he was still having hit singles throughout parts of the world other than the USA.

Let's get back to the facts instead of derailing by personal attacks and double-talk.

Andy

The FACT is that he was not having BIG hits during this period in two of the biggest markets I.e USA and ]UK like he did.

Secondary to the Japan, Asian market.

Japan might have had a decent record buying population, but not the rest of Asia. And you are basing your support for this period on Do The Clam supposedly getting to No.1 in Japan. All you are doing is clutching at straws.

Over 90 million people in Japan plus other Asian countries makes it over 100 million, versus UK of over 50 million in 1965. No straws.

And all of these 100 million people bought records did they. You know that for a fact? The ratios do not compare especially for the Asian countries. A high percentage probably did not have record players. Still clutching I'm afraid.

Roughly double the population (economy of Japan especially then) will be expected higher record sales. That is common sense. And you are the one clutching at nothing. Nothing.

Thanks for the lecture on economics. Very meaningful. I note you use the words "expected higher record sales" as opposed to Firm Record Sales. Is that because you're not really sure. Of course with these staggering statistics and the fact that record sales in Japan, especially for Elvis were so vast, it is strange that out of all the visits I have made to The Trophy Room in Gracelands, I can recall seeing Gold Records from the US, the U.K. Germany, Australia and Norway but I can never recall seeing any such thing from Japan or Asia. I guess that is because there were so many of them that they were in a hidden trophy room. Still clutching I'm afraid.

[emjel]

the movies were the driving force and they indisputably failed

Didn't the film 'Tickle Me' save a movie studio from going under in 1965?

And in 1966 win him a Golden Laurel award for best actor in a musical film?

Check out some of the other winners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Awards

Tickle Me also had a much stronger soundtrack. That it kept Allied afloat is a separate point altogether... Allied still ended up defunct just a little over a decade later, so while Tickle Me helped in the short term, it didn't do jack for Allied in the long haul. If one of his movies had saved MGM or FOX or WB, it would be more notable in the grander scheme. Also, I'm wasn't talking about one specific movie, I'm talking broadly about the movies in that period. So set aside that one 1965 movie and tell me how everything else movie-wise 1965-1968 did. BTW don't get uppity with me, I was defending you.

emjel, neither Andy nor I indicated a disagreement with you that the movies had been unsuccessful at the box office, so your rant about the movies, while presenting a lot of good information, wasn't really addressing what we said, which was that there were minor (FOR ELVIS) successes during that period. You're still comparing Elvis to his past successes, and while that's a truthful thing to do, it misses the point that if it were ANY OTHER ARTIST getting Top 20 singles, 3 UK #1s (as you yourself cited), a GRAMMY, and Top 20 albums, they would be touted as quite successful even despite box office flops and domestic single/album flops and being considered by some people as a "has been."

A comparable example would be one like Garth's Brook Chris Gaines project. His "failure" was a #5 Hot 100 single, and a 2x Platinum album that reached #2 on the Billboard Top 200. What was a "failure" for Garth would have been a dream come true for other artists. I think we have tended to hold artists like The Beatles, Elvis, Garth Brooks and Michael Jackson to higher standards because we know what the potential on the top end could be, but their "failures" would be massive successes to other artists.

There are thousands of musicians who would have given an arm and a leg to have achieved even Elvis' "has been" period. That's all I'm saying/defending and I think that's all that these other guys are trying to say. I (myself) am not saying the movies didn't suck, I'm not saying some of the songs didn't suck.

I'm not having a rant about anything. I am simply saying that compared with previous years, the stuff that Elvis was recording and releasing coupled with the poorer quality films was effecting his chart placings and bums on seats in the cinema. On the back of these things, his popularity during this period was declining and he was not recognised as the force he once had been. I have never said that he was finished, washed out, dead in the water or used anything else to describe this period. If he had done a world tour during this time, it would have been a sell out. If he had made an appearance in the UK on Top Of The Pops, you would not have got close to the studio. That was the power of Elvis. But the fact of the matter is that what was coming out during this period was not as good as previous years and the fact that Elvis knew this surely backs up this argument. Did it make me less of a fan because of the poorer songs. Of course not - I still buy, but it made me a frustrated fan back then. I so much wanted him to produce better singles and albums than he did during this period so that I could see him riding high in the charts where he deserved to be.

[MikeFromHolland]

(..) compared with previous years, the stuff that Elvis was recording and releasing coupled with the poorer quality films was effecting his chart placings and bums on seats in the cinema. On the back of these things, his popularity during this period was declining and he was not recognised as the force he once had been (..) what was coming out during this period was not as good as previous years and the fact that Elvis knew this surely backs up this argument.

Can't argue with that, I feel the same. Though I do enjoy the little gems here and there from that period. For me personally Do The Clam is not one of them unfortunately.

.

[drjohncarpenter]

A number one in Japan (a HUGE record market), Malaysia, and Singapore... Plus a top ten hit in other territories. "Clam" was clearly, obviously, evidently and definitely a global smash. More importantly, The King was far from the mid-60's washed-up has-been that he is regularly been portrayed as on this site on an almost daily basis as he continued to Rock the charts right throughout the planet. He remained a huge international star continuously throughout the decade. You know it, I know, and they know it. They just can't bring themselves to admit it. You can lead a horse...

If you say anything to yourself enough times, you will truly believe you are right. However sensible fans know that this track was not a global smash hit.

And, for the umpteenth time, there is nothing credible supporting the contention "Do The Clam," the worst single A-side to date in Presley's career to that point, even charted in Japan, let alone was "number one." It's very sad to see the failing to defend an artistic low point, lo more than half a century later. It's history. It's done. Get over it, and enjoy the good stuff ... Elvis created lots and lots of that.

Don't see any proof on this Japanese site that Do The Clam was a #1 hit in Japan:

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/エルヴィス・プレスリー

Yup.

[GLAISTER]

Do The Clam ?

Well, I must be honest, it is one of those songs I hate-to-love. Like 'Take Me To Fair' and 'How Would You Like To Be'. Rubbish with no obvious artistic value yet - I love them all. Elvis had a knack for making terrible songs sound great.

Or do you mean you want me to actually "do the clam" ?? You must be kidding

[elvisalisellers]

And, for the umpteenth time, there is nothing credible supporting the contention "Do The Clam," the worst single A-side to date in Presley's career to that point, even charted in Japan, let alone was "number one."

At the very least, it made the Top 10 in Japan [Billboard July 10, 1965] > https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UykEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=elvis+do+the+clam+japan+number+one&source=bl&ots=Y9r_py3BZW&sig=zjSBvGoIxXO_6nzo6EDyAzshTzI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW7feK1P3MAhXnLsAKHaicC8kQ6AEIVzAM#v=onepage&q=elvis%20do%20the%20clam%20japan%20number%20one&f=false

Hope this helps!

[Hard Rocker]

And, for the umpteenth time, there is nothing credible supporting the contention...

...that The Beatles' appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show is "widely accepted" as "the big bang of Rock". When you produce something substantial on that position, then certainly we can then address whatever issue you have with Do The Clam, a very successful hit for Presley in 1965, a top ten in numerous territories, and a number one in three of them.

On the other hand, if you are not prepared to substantiate your claim, then in all fairness it is rather poor form from you to expect others to do the same, particularly given your use of the word "hypocrite" in relation to others.

Key phrase: "nothing credible supporting the contention".

[Juan Luis]

Most threads here work fine until said person decides to railroad the thread with his somewhat obnoxious comments. Likes and dislikes are all subjective, but when members try to substantiate things with certain facts such as poor chart placings/poor sales to Elvis' earlier standards, his responses that you are effectively talking out of your backside can be quite infuriating for some people. We are all members of this forum because we are Elvis fans. Just because many members recognise that Elvis was only human, made mistakes, recorded some poor songs, allowed RCA to release poor material and that in the mid 60s, he was not as good as he was 5 or 10 years earlier, does not mean we have to be subjected to his 'rose tinted thoughts'. To state that Do The Clam was a worldwide smash hit is unbelievable. Thankfully, most fans will realise it was not and that during said years of 64-68, Elvis was not considered by the general public as the force he once was, hence the lower chart placings etc.during this period.

I don't even fall down on the side of defending 65-68 - even the much touted studio work of that period was unsuccessful in the charts and is barely remembered by the general public today. I very much doubt that even a cohesive packaging like the Tomorrow Is A Long Time CD would have changed the public's opinion of Elvis because what was being marketed were the movies. Elvis wasn't performing live, wasn't giving interviews, wasn't on TV - the only means of seeing him was at the movies, and as formulaic as they had become by 1966, I don't blame audiences for not going.

That being said, I see "obnoxious" comments from both sides. Goldbelt's "credible rebuttal" may not take into account the bigger picture, the fact that the movies were the driving force and they indisputably failed, but it certainly does offer at least a different perspective - the international one, which shouldn't be entirely discounted - and it's hard to argue that Elvis didn't have some successes in that period, e.g. How Great Thou Art/Crying in the Chapel. We as fans and Elvis himself were (and are) frustrated because of the shoulda/coulda/woulda. We know he should have been doing better, we know the quality should have been there. But any other artist would have been thrilled to be in the Top 20 albums and Top 10 singles for any release.

This spell of 3-4 years is a difficult topic and will always be a point of contention among fans, but I think with a level head, it's easy to see that both sides have points and there are nuances that one side or the other are not considering. Rose colored glasses are not the most helpful or insightful, but be honest with yourself, neither is pessimism or cynicism.

Every single artist with longevity has up's and downs carrer-wise.

To write off Elvis chart achievements between 1965 - 1968 with inaccuracies just won't do.

13 hits to reach the UK charts within that time period is what some artists never get.

The FACT is he was still having hit singles throughout parts of the world other than the USA.

Let's get back to the facts instead of derailing by personal attacks and double-talk.

Andy

The FACT is that he was not having BIG hits during this period in two of the biggest markets I.e USA and ]UK like he did.

Secondary to the Japan, Asian market.

Japan might have had a decent record buying population, but not the rest of Asia. And you are basing your support for this period on Do The Clam supposedly getting to No.1 in Japan. All you are doing is clutching at straws.

Over 90 million people in Japan plus other Asian countries makes it over 100 million, versus UK of over 50 million in 1965. No straws.

And all of these 100 million people bought records did they. You know that for a fact? The ratios do not compare especially for the Asian countries. A high percentage probably did not have record players. Still clutching I'm afraid.

Roughly double the population (economy of Japan especially then) will be expected higher record sales. That is common sense. And you are the one clutching at nothing. Nothing.

Thanks for the lecture on economics. Very meaningful. I note you use the words "expected higher record sales" as opposed to Firm Record Sales. Is that because you're not really sure. Of course with these staggering statistics and the fact that record sales in Japan, especially for Elvis were so vast, it is strange that out of all the visits I have made to The Trophy Room in Gracelands, I can recall seeing Gold Records from the US, the U.K. Germany, Australia and Norway but I can never recall seeing any such thing from Japan or Asia. I guess that is because there were so many of them that they were in a hidden trophy room. Still clutching I'm afraid.

Tell me or us. Give me some facts. It's easy to brush away anything said. You're on a roll now. It's easy to sit back. Go ahead.

[jurasic1968]

Hard Rocker, again, you mention The Beatles in a "wonderful topic" such as "Do The Clam". Please, let it go and came back to other topics. Why don't you start a topic yourself about "Dominic" ?

[drjohncarpenter]

The Beatles, Tom Jones and Peter Noone (Herman's Hermits) all met Elvis in '64 and '65 and he a made worldwide news on his marriage to Priscilla in 1967 so he was still a major force.

Um, sorry, one look at the pop music world in 1964-1967 proves this is simply untrue. The historical record cannot be disputed.

And, for the umpteenth time, there is nothing credible supporting the contention "Do The Clam," the worst single A-side to date in Presley's career to that point, even charted in Japan, let alone was "number one."

At the very least, it made the Top 10 in Japan [Billboard July 10, 1965] > https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UykEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24

Hope this helps!

It does. It continues to prove that the terrible "Do The Clam" was never "number one" in Japan, or a "smash hit" there, and further undermines the desperation of some to try and legitimize Elvis' career free-fall by making such false statements over and over again.

[emjel]

And, for the umpteenth time, there is nothing credible supporting the contention...

...that The Beatles' appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show is "widely accepted" as "the big bang of Rock". When you produce something substantial on that position, then certainly we can then address whatever issue you have with Do The Clam, a very successful hit for Presley in 1965, a top ten in numerous territories, and a number one in three of them.

On the other hand, if you are not prepared to substantiate your claim, then in all fairness it is rather poor form from you to expect others to do the same, particularly given your use of the word "hypocrite" in relation to others.

Key phrase: "nothing credible supporting the contention".

There is a subtle difference in the wording "widely accepted" compared with your statement that Do The Clam was Number 1. The Doc is not making a statement of fact as such as there is nothing really tangible - some might argue it was, whilst others might argue something else, whereas you are making a statement of fact that "Clam" got to number 1 in Japan. You have the chance to back up your claim with proof that cannot be argued against, if of course you can provide it.

[emjel]

Most threads here work fine until said person decides to railroad the thread with his somewhat obnoxious comments. Likes and dislikes are all subjective, but when members try to substantiate things with certain facts such as poor chart placings/poor sales to Elvis' earlier standards, his responses that you are effectively talking out of your backside can be quite infuriating for some people. We are all members of this forum because we are Elvis fans. Just because many members recognise that Elvis was only human, made mistakes, recorded some poor songs, allowed RCA to release poor material and that in the mid 60s, he was not as good as he was 5 or 10 years earlier, does not mean we have to be subjected to his 'rose tinted thoughts'. To state that Do The Clam was a worldwide smash hit is unbelievable. Thankfully, most fans will realise it was not and that during said years of 64-68, Elvis was not considered by the general public as the force he once was, hence the lower chart placings etc.during this period.

I don't even fall down on the side of defending 65-68 - even the much touted studio work of that period was unsuccessful in the charts and is barely remembered by the general public today. I very much doubt that even a cohesive packaging like the Tomorrow Is A Long Time CD would have changed the public's opinion of Elvis because what was being marketed were the movies. Elvis wasn't performing live, wasn't giving interviews, wasn't on TV - the only means of seeing him was at the movies, and as formulaic as they had become by 1966, I don't blame audiences for not going.

That being said, I see "obnoxious" comments from both sides. Goldbelt's "credible rebuttal" may not take into account the bigger picture, the fact that the movies were the driving force and they indisputably failed, but it certainly does offer at least a different perspective - the international one, which shouldn't be entirely discounted - and it's hard to argue that Elvis didn't have some successes in that period, e.g. How Great Thou Art/Crying in the Chapel. We as fans and Elvis himself were (and are) frustrated because of the shoulda/coulda/woulda. We know he should have been doing better, we know the quality should have been there. But any other artist would have been thrilled to be in the Top 20 albums and Top 10 singles for any release.

This spell of 3-4 years is a difficult topic and will always be a point of contention among fans, but I think with a level head, it's easy to see that both sides have points and there are nuances that one side or the other are not considering. Rose colored glasses are not the most helpful or insightful, but be honest with yourself, neither is pessimism or cynicism.

Every single artist with longevity has up's and downs carrer-wise.

To write off Elvis chart achievements between 1965 - 1968 with inaccuracies just won't do.

13 hits to reach the UK charts within that time period is what some artists never get.

The FACT is he was still having hit singles throughout parts of the world other than the USA.

Let's get back to the facts instead of derailing by personal attacks and double-talk.

Andy

The FACT is that he was not having BIG hits during this period in two of the biggest markets I.e USA and ]UK like he did.

Secondary to the Japan, Asian market.

Japan might have had a decent record buying population, but not the rest of Asia. And you are basing your support for this period on Do The Clam supposedly getting to No.1 in Japan. All you are doing is clutching at straws.

Over 90 million people in Japan plus other Asian countries makes it over 100 million, versus UK of over 50 million in 1965. No straws.

And all of these 100 million people bought records did they. You know that for a fact? The ratios do not compare especially for the Asian countries. A high percentage probably did not have record players. Still clutching I'm afraid.

Roughly double the population (economy of Japan especially then) will be expected higher record sales. That is common sense. And you are the one clutching at nothing. Nothing.

Thanks for the lecture on economics. Very meaningful. I note you use the words "expected higher record sales" as opposed to Firm Record Sales. Is that because you're not really sure. Of course with these staggering statistics and the fact that record sales in Japan, especially for Elvis were so vast, it is strange that out of all the visits I have made to The Trophy Room in Gracelands, I can recall seeing Gold Records from the US, the U.K. Germany, Australia and Norway but I can never recall seeing any such thing from Japan or Asia. I guess that is because there were so many of them that they were in a hidden trophy room. Still clutching I'm afraid.

Tell me or us. Give me some facts. It's easy to brush away anything said. You're on a roll now. It's easy to sit back. Go ahead.

Easy. Just look at the chart positions. Lower chart positions mean lower sales meaning lower popularity. Even in Ernst's book A Life In a Music, it states that Do The Clam failed miserably. Go read it and check out the frustrations Elvis was having whilst recording some of this stuff. But you're the guy with the strong maths with all those population numbers. Go work it out for yourself.

[skatterbrane]

If I am not mistaken, even the worst of Elvis' movies made a profit. The vast majority of movies do not.

[drjohncarpenter]

If I am not mistaken, even the worst of Elvis' movies made a profit. The vast majority of movies do not.

One of the reasons Paramount said bye-bye to Elvis movies was because they were no longer profitable. And with garbage like "Do The Clam" being used as single A-sides, this is not surprising.

[Chris Roberts]

The vast majority of us on this board know differently. But unfortunately to many people who weren't around in the 50's, and know how influential and innovative Elvis in particular, but other rock pioneer's were as well, do in their ignorance think the Beatles were "the big bang of rock". It forever frustrates me that this is so.

When in 1968 the media kept informing us of Elvis's comeback, I thought at the time, as far as I was concerned he had never been away. After all I had seen him in the cinema at least three times a year since 1963, bought each of his three singles and albums each year and seen him on the news (his wedding) and read about him in the musical weeklies. To me someone who was having a 'comeback' would be that he/she had been retired from the business for some years.

I can only suppose they meant a 'comeback' to TV or the live stage.

[drjohncarpenter]

The vast majority of us on this board know differently. But unfortunately to many people who weren't around in the 50's, and know how influential and innovative Elvis in particular, but other rock pioneer's were as well, do in their ignorance think the Beatles were "the big bang of rock". It forever frustrates me that this is so.

When in 1968 the media kept informing us of Elvis's comeback, I thought at the time, as far as I was concerned he had never been away. After all I had seen him in the cinema at least three times a year since 1963, bought each of his three singles and albums each year and seen him on the news (his wedding) and read about him in the musical weeklies. To me someone who was having a 'comeback' would be that he/she had been retired from the business for some years.

I can only suppose they meant a 'comeback' to TV or the live stage.

Would this not have even begun until November 1968, after the NBC-TV special was completed and being pre-screened for review?