Elvis covers songs I don't like

[Cryogenic]

Yes he did. I cant say the same for the covers I heard post the Elvis Country album. With the exception of Promised Land, most were straight forward copies. Even for the 50's songs where they original is still the better version (Blueberry Hill, Tutti Fruitti, etc ) there is something magical about his voice. it was fresh and exciting to hear him sing anything, and there are basically no 50's songs I ever skip because I love his singing.

Well said... but I still can't stand Elvis' version of Tutti Frutti... IMO it's on par with Pat Boone's

Oh no Pat's? Kinda disagree there. Pat crooned it, at least Elvis rocked it. But no one can ever beat Little Richard. I think his best Little Richard cover was Ready Teddy. a 100% rock and roll performance and the band cooked.

The performance on Ed Sullivan captures the essence of that explosive exuberence and joy of life that is Elvis. Timeless.

It's a fabulous performance, two minutes of pure bliss -- only surpassed, maybe, by the even fierier 1968 Elvis of the Comeback Special. Indeed, like in the sit-down combos of that taping, it's notable how steadily Elvis clings onto and is giddied up by Scotty Moore, shooting him several glances just as he does in the 68 Special. Theirs was a special alchemy never bettered.

It's also good that a decent-quality kinescope survives of this episode of The Ed Sullivan Show. The video feed must have been decent because, ironically, the picture quality is somewhat better than the actual Comeback Special (less harsh-looking). The brighter areas of the image are pretty stable and not blown out, even if the overall contrast is a little flat. I wonder if that's because the final image was captured on film?

[pmp]

Let's be perfectly honest. During many of his 1950s covers, he does nothing remarkable with them.

Long Tall Sally, Rip It Up, Shake, Rattle and Roll, I Got a Woman, Tutti Frutti, When My Blue Moon Turns to Gold, Ready Teddy, I Believe, Blueberry Hill, Have I Told You Lately That I Love You, True Love, When It Rains It Really Pours, Your Cheatin' Heart - none of them were "made his own."

Take a look at that list of songs again. Take a long, hard look. Whether or not Elvis always made a song completely "his own" is irrelevant. What matters is, in the 1950s, Elvis was game to try a broad range of material, infuse it with his own personality and one-of-a-kind style, and blow the hinges off the doors of popular music. Back then, Elvis' incredible versatility shined on every track, and his sheer love for music was evident in abundance, carrying the listener into a sweet kind of ecstatic admiration and awe. The real power of Elvis and all the promise of that young, fearless singer is in these tracks and many others from the period. In his early years, he wove a tapestry of unmatched brilliance and, per Leonard Bernstein, brought the beat to everything.

Good though some of them were, most of them were still not as good as the original, and not even that different from the original. Of course, the same isn't true for much of the Sun material, but it shows how quickly a workmanlike/"that will do" attitude started to seep into Elvis's recording sessions once he got to RCA.

You overlook the fact that, at Sun, Elvis worked with a genius producer, who had his own methodology, philosophy, and style, who brought the best out in Elvis, and who was very picky about what got pressed and sent out to the buying public. At RCA, Elvis had to invent his own sound as he went, and he was also under the gun to produce commercial hits. If he faltered at times, or seemingly failed to turn every last song inside-out, it wasn't that he wasn't trying or deliberately doing a half-assed job.

The fact he ventured back to Sun Studios in 1956 and recorded music in a free-form way with several contemporaries, and is also captured on tape speaking excitedly about Jackie Wilson, for example, shows he had music in his veins and was more comfortable, in a way, performing without the pressure of generating instant hits at RCA. In part, in fact, this is why he went through fallow periods later in his career and struggled to record as consistently well as he did in his pre-army years.

Yes, of course there were exceptions, such as Hound Dog, Blue Suede Shows and the rocking Sun sides (and Blue Moon), but they were actually the exceptions and not the rule when it came to covers - just as in the 1960s, and just as in the 1970s.

Yes, sometimes Elvis was more inventive with one song than another, and yes, he was generally a lot more inventive and engaged in the 1950s than at any other time in his career. In the 1960s and 1970s, he also battled a mounting pharmaceutical addiction, as well as intense depression and loneliness, and was nursing a lot of frustrations with the direction of his life and career. In the 1950s, he was still fresh out the wrapper and the world was his oyster -- that's literally the sound we hear coming through on virtually everything he touched back then, and it's what makes that slice of his musical odyssey so indelible and imperishable.

I never argued against anything you said. "What matters" to you is NOT what I was talking about. He did not take those songs and make them his own. That was my point. You find that argument irrelevant - but that doesn't mean you have proven me wrong. You've skirted around that issue and made other claims instead, which might or might not be true.

But this is a thread about COVERS and what aelvis brought to them, and not a thread about his personality or versatility, or whether he had music in his veins, or his addictions, or a jam session in 1956.

[Cryogenic]

I never argued against anything you said. "What matters" to you is NOT what I was talking about. He did not take those songs and make them his own. That was my point. You find that argument irrelevant - but that doesn't mean you have proven me wrong. You've skirted around that issue and made other claims instead, which might or might not be true.

As usual, you're trying to knock down a strawman. I didn't say that Elvis didn't make some of those covers his own. I wasn't agreeing you on that point, nor is this something I can "prove" you wrong on, since it's subjective. But, yeah, I think he did do the definitive version of some of those songs you listed, like the just-mentioned "Ready Teddy", full of steam and brio, or "Have I Told You Lately That I Love You", which is just lilting and gorgeous. On these tracks and many others, Elvis placed his own stamp on the material -- you hear it, it's instantly recognisable as "Elvis", and excellently his.

But this is a thread about COVERS and what aelvis brought to them, and not a thread about his personality or versatility, or whether he had music in his veins, or his addictions, or a jam session in 1956.

I'll say one thing for ya, pmp -- you're an amusing fella.

I would also argue that this thread, in part, is about Elvis' personality and versatility, at least, since you can hardly discuss his musical genius without those elements being an implicit and intimate part of the conversation. Maybe the other stuff is vague or tangential, but in a "bigger picture" view of things, they might also be relevant. I brought them into the conversation to suggest your premise is flawed. You asserted earlier that a "workmanlike" attitude "seeped" into Elvis' recording sessions at RCA, but my rebuttal was basically, "No, it didn't. Not right away." And if some of those songs were lesser than what he achieved at Sun, it doesn't automatically follow that Elvis was just going through the motions at RCA. I explained why before, but your droll posturing has (again) taken precedence over a serious discussion.

[drjohncarpenter]

Yes he did. I cant say the same for the covers I heard post the Elvis Country album. With the exception of Promised Land, most were straight forward copies. Even for the 50's songs where they original is still the better version (Blueberry Hill, Tutti Fruitti, etc ) there is something magical about his voice. it was fresh and exciting to hear him sing anything, and there are basically no 50's songs I ever skip because I love his singing.

Well said... but I still can't stand Elvis' version of Tutti Frutti... IMO it's on par with Pat Boone's

Oh no Pat's? Kinda disagree there. Pat crooned it, at least Elvis rocked it. But no one can ever beat Little Richard. I think his best Little Richard cover was Ready Teddy. a 100% rock and roll performance and the band cooked.

There isn't a single uptempo track in the Pat Boone canon that can be called "on par" with Elvis' work.

Where they could be more readily compared would be on ballads. In his 1957 Vancouver press conference, Presley said of Boone, "I think he's undoubtedly the finest voice out now. Especially on slow songs." He was being polite, but also truthful.

Here's Pat from 1957, giving his all to a classic Fats Domino track . . .





Pat Boone "The Fat Man" A Date with Pat Boone (Dot EP 1055, April 13, 1957)


Holy Jesus.



Meanwhile, Elvis' live performance of "Tutti Frutti" on "Stage Show" is both rockin' and hilarious. Done just four days after the master cut at RCA New York, we find him full of energy, having a great time, and so are Scotty, Bill and D.J. At one point he imitates Jerry Lewis!

It's better than the studio cut. RCA's Steve Sholes was no Sam Phillips.





Elvis Presley "Tutti Frutti" (CBS-TV's "Stage Show" - Saturday, February 4, 1956)



Pat could never match this.

[drjohncarpenter]

It's a fabulous performance, two minutes of pure bliss -- only surpassed, maybe, by the even fierier 1968 Elvis of the Comeback Special. Indeed, like in the sit-down combos of that taping, it's notable how steadily Elvis clings onto and is giddied up by Scotty Moore, shooting him several glances just as he does in the 68 Special. Theirs was a special alchemy never bettered.

It's also good that a decent-quality kinescope survives of this episode of The Ed Sullivan Show. The video feed must have been decent because, ironically, the picture quality is somewhat better than the actual Comeback Special (less harsh-looking). The brighter areas of the image are pretty stable and not blown out, even if the overall contrast is a little flat. I wonder if that's because the final image was captured on film?

Wonderful and dead-on accurate reading of the Moore-Presley dynamic, and how the 1968 TV special recaptured it. Thank you forever, Steve Binder.

As for the clip, you will find ALL of Presley performances now on the official "Ed Sullivan" YouTube channel are kinescopes in GREAT quality. Why? They are sourced from the essential 2006 3xDVD set Elvis: The Ed Sullivan Shows. You can get a copy for cheap these days.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/285839707106


Our own Kevin Segura (ala General Sarnoff) was hired to use his LiveFeed Video Imaging software on the existing kinescope copies. It's remarkable in that we now see what everyone saw then: a "live" image, not unlike what videotape would capture within a year or two.

https://www.youtube.com/@livefeedvideoimaging
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgkedEBaXQU
https://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=General+Sarnoff



Don't get me started on why the powers that be cannot do the same for the kinescopes for "Stage Show," "Milton Berle," and "Steve Allen."

[Steve Morse]

I think this version tops the '69 versions !

I agree. The 69 live versions are too fast, the lyrics too repetitive. This one is cool !

[Cryogenic]

It's a fabulous performance, two minutes of pure bliss -- only surpassed, maybe, by the even fierier 1968 Elvis of the Comeback Special. Indeed, like in the sit-down combos of that taping, it's notable how steadily Elvis clings onto and is giddied up by Scotty Moore, shooting him several glances just as he does in the 68 Special. Theirs was a special alchemy never bettered.

It's also good that a decent-quality kinescope survives of this episode of The Ed Sullivan Show. The video feed must have been decent because, ironically, the picture quality is somewhat better than the actual Comeback Special (less harsh-looking). The brighter areas of the image are pretty stable and not blown out, even if the overall contrast is a little flat. I wonder if that's because the final image was captured on film?

Wonderful and dead-on accurate reading of the Moore-Presley dynamic, and how the 1968 TV special recaptured it. Thank you forever, Steve Binder.

Thank you, Doc. Art rarely, if ever, happens in a vacuum, and as I've gotten a little older, I have (hopefully) come to appreciate the contributions of other people to the "EP" story and legacy.

As for the clip, you will find ALL of Presley performances now on the official "Ed Sullivan" YouTube channel are kinescopes in GREAT quality. Why? They are sourced from the essential 2006 3xDVD set Elvis: The Ed Sullivan Shows. You can get a copy for cheap these days.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/285839707106

Our own Kevin Segura (ala General Sarnoff) was hired to use his LiveFeed Video Imaging software on the existing kinescope copies. It's remarkable in that we now see what everyone saw then: a "live" image, not unlike what videotape would capture within a year or two.

https://www.youtube.com/@livefeedvideoimaging
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgkedEBaXQU
https://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=General+Sarnoff

Thank you. I actually own the DVD (it was gifted to me by a member of this message board many years ago), but I haven't played it in a while, and I had totally forgotten the name of the guy responsible for it existing (I remembered he used to post on FECC, however).

Don't get me started on why the powers that be cannot do the same for the kinescopes for "Stage Show," "Milton Berle," and "Steve Allen."

Frustrating, right? We are lucky to have the bulk of Elvis' 1950s studio recordings in respectable sound quality, but there are technical deficiencies (and gaps) in his live and television appearances that still need addressing.

[pmp]

Don't get me started on why the powers that be cannot do the same for the kinescopes for "Stage Show," "Milton Berle," and "Steve Allen."

Ah, but you know the reason for that: it's the copyright laws in America. The "powers that be" still have control over those shows. Wouldn't happen under EU copyright laws, of course. How ironic, right?

You hate the copyright laws in Europe because things come out of copyright and anyone can use the material.
Now you don't like the copyright laws in America because they PREVENT people from using the material.

You need to make up your mind about which side of the argument you are on.

[drjohncarpenter]

Don't get me started on why the powers that be cannot do the same for the kinescopes for "Stage Show," "Milton Berle," and "Steve Allen."

Ah, but you know the reason for that: it's the copyright laws in America.

Actually, no. We do not "know the reason."

If there are credible sources for who owns the rights in 2024 to these three programs, and what they have stated about the surviving Presley kinescopes, I have not seen them.

And I'm certain that you haven't either.

[pmp]

Don't get me started on why the powers that be cannot do the same for the kinescopes for "Stage Show," "Milton Berle," and "Steve Allen."

Ah, but you know the reason for that: it's the copyright laws in America.

Actually, no. We do not "know the reason."

If there are credible sources for who owns the rights in 2024 to these three programs, and what they have stated about the surviving Presley kinescopes, I have not seen them.

And I'm certain that you haven't either.

It doesn't matter who owns them. If they are in copyright, then negotiations would need to be made. And if they weren't in copyright, there is no reason whatsoever why the historically important audio hasn't been restored/remastered and used for an FTD release. There was a thread on here about that a few years ago IIRC, which I'm pretty sure you contributed to.

[drjohncarpenter]

It doesn't matter who owns them. If they are in copyright, then negotiations would need to be made. And if they weren't in copyright, there is no reason whatsoever why the historically important audio hasn't been restored/remastered and used for an FTD release. There was a thread on here about that a few years ago IIRC, which I'm pretty sure you contributed to.

Lots of inane assumptions, not a single credible source or what one may have stated about the surviving Presley kinescopes.

You just love the sound of typing on your keyboard.

Sit down now.

[pmp]

It doesn't matter who owns them. If they are in copyright, then negotiations would need to be made. And if they weren't in copyright, there is no reason whatsoever why the historically important audio hasn't been restored/remastered and used for an FTD release. There was a thread on here about that a few years ago IIRC, which I'm pretty sure you contributed to.

You just love the sound of typing on your keyboard.

Pot. Kettle.