50 Years, 50 Albums: Cutting The Catalogue

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"....A final note.Neither Roger Semon nor I run RCA Records or BMG for that matter. We don't decide everything on Elvis, and neither does anybody else. If there are certain releases you don't like - don't buy them. How difficult is that? We try to please everybody - but not at the same time."

- Ernst Jorgensen, responding to complaints and questions about FTD releases awhile back, as found on "Ask Ernst," right here on FECC.

[KiwiAlan]

This has been a worthwhile thread.

There is no ready answer to RCA's thinking - which only constant is change.

However while content is is the prime criteria - for us who have all possible tracks several times over - quality should be the major concern.


Will RCA adopt DVD A or SACD or some hybrid? Most of the other majors have made the move but RCA seem very recitent. With ELV1S the only US DVD issue but several SACD (non Elvis) SACD releases in Hong Kong.


Here is a little idea for free RCA - get together with the movie studios and issue DVD with just the movie song scenes plus the record versions. That would give a whole heap of alternatives and the likes of Husky Dusky Day in top sound.

[bajo]

Most of us has noticed the variations in the so called "Original Soundtrack" on record, compared to what actually came off the soundtrack of the movie!
There are many variations in the movies, with overdubs that could be worth sharing, not to be found on record!
Selected videoclips from the movies on DVD, showing Elvis performing the moviesongs, and adding the record versions as bonustracks!
Just a thought!

[Rich_TCB]

Peter,

That was an excellent article. There's no doubt that BMG made some mistakes regarding the new list.

Rich

[Rigs]

Peter,

I must say that I really enjoyed reading your article. And I couldn't agree more. If only BMG handled the catolog like the way the beatles catolog is handled. At least all the original beatle masters are available unlike the elvis masters. Sure Elvis made some lesser quality music, but so did the Beatles, but they don't delete the songs/ albums that sell lesser or sound lesser.


Rigs

[Peter Franks]

....A final note.Neither Roger Semon nor I run RCA Records or BMG for that matter. We don't decide everything on Elvis, and neither does anybody else. If there are certain releases you don't like - don't buy them. How difficult is that? We try to please everybody - but not at the same time."

- Ernst Jorgensen, responding to complaints and questions about FTD releases awhile back, as found on "Ask Ernst," right here on FECC.

I don't think I actually mentioned Ernst in my article (did I?), but he's the only one we've got, so to speak. I don't blame him for anything, I think he's released a ton of great CDs over the years, but the point is someone made that stupid list of 50 albums, and Ernst is the only person we know with enough power to get them to change it.

I will readily admit that I haven't read all that has been said on this thread, but I get the drift. The question I would like to ask is ,"After the release of the re-mix, ALLC, and the movie Lilo and Stitch, which of Elvis' albums were most requested and sold in say about the 6 months to a year after." Surely this would be able to let BMG know what the next generation of fans are looking for.

So are you suggesting that NOT all of Elvis' music should be available to the public then? If that is indeed what you're saying, then the younger public would probably decide what stays. The way I expect things to happen, you can say goodbye to gospel, and anything after 1970. And don't expect much of the 50's stuff to hang around, 'cause it sounds nothing like today's music. Which only leaves the 60's stuff.

However while content is is the prime criteria - for us who have all possible tracks several times over - quality should be the major concern.

Will RCA adopt DVD A or SACD or some hybrid? Most of the other majors have made the move but RCA seem very recitent. With ELV1S the only US DVD issue but several SACD (non Elvis) SACD releases in Hong Kong.

Yes, this is an important issue. But no matter what format you choose, the upgraded sound won't mean anything unless you've got a strong album. Which brings us back to the original issue: which albums?

PS Thanks to everyone with kind words about my article.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

In thinking about this thread more, I'm trying to look on the bright side: cutting down Elvis' catalog to fifty titles (down from some 450?) is a huge step in the right direction, although there is a little of the "burning down the village to save it" feel.

I'm not pleased with the omission of things like "Elvis Is Back" and others, but one can hope that these can be reintroduced at one point. After all, "Elvis Is Back," as critically acclaimed as it has become, saw its sales dwarfed by soundtracks such as "Roustabout" (a number one album!) and set the pattern for RCA/ BMG that's not been forgotten.

In fact, how much of what survives in the catalog is there because there is still so much new stock of it, yet to be "moved," i.e. sold ? I don't know enough about how "deletions" work, but I assume there is a supply and demand component. Does RCA/BMG always issue equal amounts of a title like "Elvis Is Back" versus "Burning Love" etc. ?

How much of this list deals with moving stock around warehouses? I keep thinking that the illogic of some of the choices has more to do with units sold and units stored, somewhere, and (for the company) hopefully to be "moved."

In the light of the ailing recording industry, no doubt partly due to the illegal copying, declining CD floor space as DVD's take over in terms of sales, and record stores closing as sales dip, you can imagine RCA/BMG thinking: want "Elvis Is Back"? Buy the '60s box. And I'm not entirely sure I blame them. Hell, originally, I was quite content to have the boxsets and was bugged by the upgraded albums resurfacing with extra content. I'd spent years with the original Lps and did miss the covers and all, but felt the overlap was annoying, especially if you shelled out for the boxes. But, after all, the average fan is drawn in by albums, not tomb-like collections.

So, yes, Peter's list is especially lean and mean and in the long run would arguably help restore Elvis' lustre for critics, and fans new and old alike.

[curtis simpkins]

if they have to delete any elvis albums
it should be the unreleased albums only

not the good albume like

elvis is back
from elvis in memephis
and so on.

curtis simpkins

[jeffreyjames]

Delete the unreleased albums?

jeff R

[sam]

Delete the unreleased albums?

jeff R

Yeah, makes sense.....that way we wouldn't know what we're missing.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

That's a radical proposal, Curtis, but at least you're trying!

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

Finally, not to be cynical, but I do think that while all of this is worthwhile, I'm not convinced that even the Beatles will always have the popular currency they've enjoyed, as have Elvis and Frank Sinatra as well. In the long run, such acts become lodged as "Music Legends" (as important to have key works of as, say, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, etc.). However, this is not the same as having legions of today's (or tomorrow's) teenagers crazy about these acts. Those days are gone.


I think we all recognize that to a degree, and yet it is RCA/BMG that attempts to keep breathing "new life" into Elvis via new packaging (new bells and whistles: upgraded sound, new artwork and reconfigured song choices, etc.), hence giving short thrift to the historical importance of the original albums. I'm comfortable with the degree that Elvis is now a part of history, and I think many more could respect and enjoy his music using even the original albums and / or something like Peter's proposal.
Ultimately, as a business, there is a strain in RCA that insists on repackaging ad infinitum.

[Peter Franks]

I'm sorry for replying so late, I'm moving, and I haven't really had the time to do a thorough reply... So here goes.

In thinking about this thread more, I'm trying to look on the bright side: cutting down Elvis' catalog to fifty titles (down from some 450?) is a huge step in the right direction, although there is a little of the "burning down the village to save it" feel.

Well, the 400+ number was partially for effect. To fully understand it, you should actually do a search on Amazon.com and see what comes up. It's still a fact that there are hundreds of Elvis CDs available, but part of the results are also repeats. For example, both the original and upgraded versions of albums are in the listing. That doesn't change the fact that the number is huge, though. You won't find problems like that in the Beatles catalog, for example, which - in my opinion - makes both my point and the use of the number valid.

I'm not pleased with the omission of things like "Elvis Is Back" and others, but one can hope that these can be reintroduced at one point. After all, "Elvis Is Back," as critically acclaimed as it has become, saw its sales dwarfed by soundtracks such as "Roustabout" (a number one album!) and set the pattern for RCA/ BMG that's not been forgotten.

Although what you're saying makes sense, I don't think it's a fair argument. First of all, re-introduction of albums like "Elvis Is Back!" obviously means that there will be a period where this album won't be available. A new fan would not be able to buy one of Elvis' best albums ever for a period. And how long? We don't know, BMG hasn't told us anything. Second of all, why "Elvis Is Back!"? I could understand if such an action were taken for the soundtracks, or "Burning Love" (for example), but why one of Elvis' best (and, as you mentioned, one of the most critically acclaimed) albums of his entire career? It's not like you can make a good 2CD set out of it for the general public. And the general public is who my article is about.

In fact, how much of what survives in the catalog is there because there is still so much new stock of it, yet to be "moved," i.e. sold ? I don't know enough about how "deletions" work, but I assume there is a supply and demand component. Does RCA/BMG always issue equal amounts of a title like "Elvis Is Back" versus "Burning Love" etc. ?

How much of this list deals with moving stock around warehouses? I keep thinking that the illogic of some of the choices has more to do with units sold and units stored, somewhere, and (for the company) hopefully to be "moved."

First of all, thanks for introducing a point I hadn't thought about. Well, let's look at the scenario here. Say there are a ton of "Elvis Is Back!" CDs lying around. BMG can keep it in the active catalog, and just not ship out more. Also, if there were a lot of those 'crappy' CDs on their list that were overstocked, they could delete them from the catalog, and they'll disapear by themselves.

In the light of the ailing recording industry, no doubt partly due to the illegal copying, declining CD floor space as DVD's take over in terms of sales, and record stores closing as sales dip, you can imagine RCA/BMG thinking: want "Elvis Is Back"? Buy the '60s box. And I'm not entirely sure I blame them. Hell, originally, I was quite content to have the boxsets and was bugged by the upgraded albums resurfacing with extra content. I'd spent years with the original Lps and did miss the covers and all, but felt the overlap was annoying, especially if you shelled out for the boxes. But, after all, the average fan is drawn in by albums, not tomb-like collections.

I would put up a rebuttal, but you did it for me: "the average fan is drawn in by albums, not tomb-like collections." That is also the reason why I tried to have as few multi-disc sets on my list as possible (7, I believe) - I even mentioned it in my article. People want as much as possible for as little as possible. That's why I had every 50's and 60's master available on both the big, expensive sets and on single CDs. That's how I made my list, actually. I made a giant MS Excel spreadsheet with every master Elvis recorded, and made a list of albums based on that list of songs. I can post the list, if anyone really wants it, although it won't tell you much. Besides reinforcing how tight my list really is.

I think we all recognize that to a degree, and yet it is RCA/BMG that attempts to keep breathing "new life" into Elvis via new packaging (new bells and whistles: upgraded sound, new artwork and reconfigured song choices, etc.), hence giving short thrift to the historical importance of the original albums. I'm comfortable with the degree that Elvis is now a part of history, and I think many more could respect and enjoy his music using even the original albums and / or something like Peter's proposal.
Ultimately, as a business, there is a strain in RCA that insists on repackaging ad infinitum.

I don't mind repackaging, as long as Elvis' original albums are available. I don't mind sets like "Elv1s: 30 #1 Hits" or "Artist of the Century" - if there aren't too many of them. I don't mind a "Love Songs" collection - but I do mind 15 different ones. I think you get my point. Even I allowed for budget albums and collections on my list, but I don't think there should be too many of them. Especially with Apple's newly announced music program (see another thread on here somewhere), if you don't like the track list on Elvis' original album, and you don't like one of the new compilations, too bad. Another thing I'd like to mention is that if they do have to insist on repackaging over and over again, why not delete the old ones when you do it? At this point there are probably more repackages than original albums!

So, yes, Peter's list is especially lean and mean and in the long run would arguably help restore Elvis' lustre for critics, and fans new and old alike.

Thank you for the comment and the reply, I appreciate it.

[davide]

With talk of classic albums on other threads this made me think about what are the classic original Elvis albums on the standard catolgue?

Elvis Presley LPM 1254 (remastered 2005 extra tracks)
Elvis LPM 1382 (remastered 2005 extra tracks)
Elvis is Back LPM 2231 (remastered 1999 extra tracks)
From Elvis In Memphis (remastered 1999 extra tracks)
Elvis Country LSP 4460 (remastered 1999 extra tracks)

What do other people think. I for one would suggest the above albums if they were interested in Elvis Presley the recording artist. The next batch would probably include the following;

Elvis Christmas Album LOC 1035
King Creole LPM 1884
On Stage LSP 4362
Thats The Way It Is LSP 4445
Elvis as recorded at Madison Square Garden
Moody Blue AFL1 2428

I must say I dont like the selection of extra tracks on T.T.W.I,I or On Stage as it takes the original feel of the album away. Sometimes less is more.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

David, thanks for contributing to one of my favorite, "never-dead" threads. It was actually a lot longer before the latest "purge" hit.

I am one of those "less is more" types, so I see your point, although, if done tastefully, respecting the original running order and tacking extras makes-sense. However, I agree that the feel of "On Stage" was totally lost, nevermind the controversial mix. I liked the TWWII box immensely, but have to admit I'm happy to grab either the original LP or the earlier CD and play that instead just as often.

I like how the 2005 reissues of Elvis' first three albums restored the running order, AND tacked the singles from these sessions...at the end. By the way, I'd throw "Loving You" into your list, as flawed as the studio sides may be by some yardsticks, that's an indespensable album. With Kevan Budd at the helm, this is even more the truth.

Today's customer isn't going to sit still for a CD running order that tops out in half an hour , so stretching the running order makes sense, as long as the extra's are clearly marked.

"Elvis Country" came out last in 2000 for the record, if you can find it!

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

Rockin' Rebel wrote:

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:25 am Post subject:

I know BMG are running a business and they are not going to keep a bunch of albums on catalogue that don’t sell, but I think it would be worth looking at why these albums didn’t sell that last time they were re-issued. Promotion is a real factor here. When the catalogues of Bob Dylan and The Rolling Stones were re-mastered their record companies advertised in music magazines. You have to let the public know that the products are out there.

Ernst put some excellent upgrades together in the early ‘90’s, but they just went into the racks with the rest of the Elvis albums, and it would have been difficult for the casual buyer to differentiate between the new versions and the older versions of the same titles that were still taking up shelf space. A promotion campaign drawing attention to the fact that the Elvis catalogue had been expanded and upgraded could have worked wonders. We have a similar situation now with the Kevan Budd re-masters. There was no real promotion and the albums look almost exactly the same as the earlier late ‘90’s versions, which doesn’t help the casual buyer.

I recently bought some classic David Bowie titles on CD and they all came with a card insert showing the rest of the albums that are available in the series. In addition to this the discs carried a little interactive program which linked you to the artist’s website where you can obviously find further information. This type of thing keeps people interested in the music.

At the very least if there is now no turning back and the entire original album catalogue will eventually be issued via FTD, then I would think that it would be a good idea for BMG to include flyers with their mainstream compilations, so that any new fans are aware of the fact that Elvis did record more then 30 – 40 songs, and that the rest of this music is still available.

BMG will always argue that titles like “Love, Elvis” sell and this justifies their release, but I’m of the opinion that this is only the case because a large percentage of Elvis fans buy everything the label puts out, and they continue to exploit this. I do find it hard to believe that Joe Public would shell out for “ELV1S” and “Second To None” and then go and buy another collection that includes 50 per cent of the same tracks.

“Burning Love and Hits From His Movies” sold, but that doesn’t mean that it was a quality product. Just look at the earlier UK editions of the “Love, Elvis” CD. The decision was taken to change the cover photo, but nobody could be bothered to rewrite the sleeve notes, which still made reference to the original cover art. Surely such things should be checked. I realise BMG need to shift units to survive, but they could give the loyal fans that buy all these releases something that has had little more creativity invested into it, not to mention attention to detail, and I’m sure that this would also benefit the casual buyer.

Excellent points, Rebel. If those who apologize for the current BMG non-strategy are correct, than maybe we are all-wrong that Elvis was on par with other artists like the Beatles and Bob Dylan, et al. Elvis' forte was, to follow the argument, just with singles and his albums were forgettable and deserve to die on the vine.

No shame in just being a hitmaker...right?

[davide]

What did I buy today? The new issue of Loving You which as you rightly mention should have been on my list. I agree with you regarding the original track listing and then the extras after that , which works really well .
Loving You does sound superb on my Hi Fi and indeed Kevan Budd has done a great job on the remaster of these tracks and a big step up from the 50's box set. I did have to be carefull when buying the CD as the old 1999 release is almost the same, except the order of the tracks and a yellow sticker on the front.
Its amazing to me how the original tracklisting makes a difference to the whole feel .
Having said all that I do actually prefer Elvis Country without the inserts , perhaps a 2 disc version with the original album on disc 1 and disc 2 without the inserts and the full length tracks as well.
Right I must get Back to my Loving You disc .

[Graceland Gardener]

I think the two 1956 LPs should remain available, as well as Elvis Is Back.

These seminole albums must remain in his catalog

(perhaps we should convince BMG that they are the Elvisian equivilents of "Rubber Soul, Revolver and Peppper')

As for the Christmas music, just 1 Cd/album please.
Don't clog the catalog with 3 or 4 yuletide products to select from.

[minkahed]

since were discussing Elvis' original Lp's on cd, how 'bout the great
PROMISED LAND disc?

The 2000 remaster, I thought, was incredible! for once, I can honestly say that I liked the way Dennis Ferrante remixed and remastered an Elvis release!!!

now, I really never have liked that dire pic of ELvis that graced the artwork, but the music and eclectic repetoire speaks for itself and is
definetely above average.

this cd should be part of the regular catalog and should be made available to the general public!

what a dman shame...

[Rich_TCB]

Minkahed:

I couldn't agree more. That "Promised Land" upgrade was done very well. Those songs sound so damn good. And not only that - how about that extended version of "You're Love's Been A Long Time Coming?" That was such a nice surprise when I first played the CD.

Rich

[ColinB]

Minkahed/Rich -

Yeah, that 2000 re-issue of the Promised Land album is pretty good.

It is virtually a re-issue of the 1974 Good Times album as well, but they omitted two tracks:

Take Good Care of Her

I Got a Thing About You Baby

Wonder why ?

[likethebike]

Those tracks came from the July 1973 session and the intent was to release a document of the December sessions.

BMG's arguments about sales are deliberately distorted because the records they promote and place sell better than the ones they don't. It's kind of a fixed market test.

[ColinB]

Likethebike -

You wrote:

Those tracks came from the July 1973 session and the intent was to release a document of the December sessions.

Well, yeah, but it wouldn't have hurt to include them, would it ?

Their inclusion would only have brought the track total to 20.

They included them on the original album !

It's just that it means the Good Times album hasn't had, & isn't now likely to get, a complete upgrade, like most of the other albums have had [or are getting].

[familyjules]

It's just that it means the Good Times album hasn't had, & isn't now likely to get, a complete upgrade, like most of the other albums have had [or are getting].

Both Promised Land and Good Times are due to get the 7" FTD treatment. I guess that Promised Land didn't sell enough, even in remastered form, to stay on the regular catalogue. Heck as long as they do a good job on the FTD versions, I won't complain. If someone gets into Elvis and wants to hear more than the hits then it's not too difficult to find out about FTDs.

Jules

[ColinB]

Jules -

You wrote:

Both Promised Land and Good Times are due to get the 7" FTD treatment.

Do you know that for a fact ?

Or is it what you are hoping for ?