The high resolution “Love Me” from Omaha is from the extended, home video VHS release of This Is Elvis. It was used instead of Are You Lonesome Tonight for the VHS release. I can’t speak to what they have shown at Graceland (next to the Sundail suit I presume), and I forgot about the little bits they included in EBTP but UM is only full song they’ve used since TIE. No matter how much you want an official release of EIC, it just ain’t going to happen. Not as long as the Presley family is involved. They own it. It isn’t like his recordings which they don’t own.
"Home video VHS"? Hmm, maybe. But it must be an extremely well-preserved copy. There are few to none of the weird chroma noise issues, brightness problems, tears, or distortions that inevitably plague VHS recordings later digitised and put on YouTube. The picture is rock solid. A little soft, perhaps, and still subject to YouTube compression, but otherwise, it looks incredibly clean and clear. I've never seen EIC presented so naturally. Even "Unchained Melody" from "The Great Performances" doesn't look as good, in my opinion (they put too much blue in the image, for one thing). "Love Me" from Omaha is the closest I've seen to reference quality for this material.
And I think a good-quality release of EIC will happen -- one day.
It is also on the DVD version of TIE which is the same cut as the VHS version. The clean, clear version of Love Me likely comes from the DVD release. There is a clean, clear version of My Way on YouTube from the TIE DVD as well.
I really doubt there will ever be a release of TIE. Lisa was dead set against it and I’m sure Riley will uphold that. Maybe by the time Harper and Finley are controlling things but we’ll be long gone by then.
Interestingly, when I was in Memphis in 1982, one of the unofficial gift shops across the street from Graceland was selling what looked like official VHS releases of the special. I didn’t buy one at the time because I had recorded the special both times it aired with our VCR but now I wish I had bought one. They had a copy playing on a nearby TV and the resolution didn’t look any better than mine so it was likely just recorded from the broadcast by a VCR like mine was and then mass copied to be sold.
The high resolution “Love Me” from Omaha is from the extended, home video VHS release of This Is Elvis. It was used instead of Are You Lonesome Tonight for the VHS release. I can’t speak to what they have shown at Graceland (next to the Sundail suit I presume), and I forgot about the little bits they included in EBTP but UM is only full song they’ve used since TIE. No matter how much you want an official release of EIC, it just ain’t going to happen. Not as long as the Presley family is involved. They own it. It isn’t like his recordings which they don’t own.
"Home video VHS"? Hmm, maybe. But it must be an extremely well-preserved copy. There are few to none of the weird chroma noise issues, brightness problems, tears, or distortions that inevitably plague VHS recordings later digitised and put on YouTube. The picture is rock solid. A little soft, perhaps, and still subject to YouTube compression, but otherwise, it looks incredibly clean and clear. I've never seen EIC presented so naturally. Even "Unchained Melody" from "The Great Performances" doesn't look as good, in my opinion (they put too much blue in the image, for one thing). "Love Me" from Omaha is the closest I've seen to reference quality for this material.
And I think a good-quality release of EIC will happen -- one day.
It is also on the DVD version of TIE which is the same cut as the VHS version. The clean, clear version of Love Me likely comes from the DVD release. There is a clean, clear version of My Way on YouTube from the TIE DVD as well.
Thanks for the information. It's starting to make sense now (very stable and solid picture; a little "too good to be true" for VHS). The "This Is Elvis" DVD, then, is quite possibly where those performances are drawn from on this souped-up EIC upload on YouTube:
Title: Elvis Presley-CBS collection 1977
Channel: Oleksandr Grygoruk
Uploaded: 10 Dec 2022
Description:
Copyrighted by EPE, RCA Victor
Just in lovin memory of EP
Not for commercial use, non profit
Remastered to 720-59.94p, frame aspect between 4*3 and true 16*9 (wider than original 4*3)
Content:
1-Trailer'2022
2-Love Me
3-Are You Lonesome Tonight
4-Unchained Melody
5-Original TV Promos from October 1977
6-Original CBS TV Special "Elvis in Concert", as aired Oct 3, 1977
Note: What they class as item #1, "Trailer'2022", is actually a long clip of the Rapid City performance of "My Way" (but not the full performance, and not without editing, overlays, and inserts) in similar quality to the Omaha performance of "Love Me" that follows straight after.
So, yeah, these two performances can actually be watched in reasonable quality. And I suppose you can toss in "Unchained Melody", but it doesn't look as naturalistic as either "My Way" or "Love Me". Those are the most "pure"-looking versions of the EIC material I've ever seen.
And, frankly, when you see EIC in that great natural quality, looking very true to its late-70s origins, you wonder why the whole TV special can't be released in that same quality for fans that want it. And there are, I assure you, quite a lot of them out there.
I really doubt there will ever be a release of TIE. Lisa was dead set against it and I’m sure Riley will uphold that. Maybe by the time Harper and Finley are controlling things but we’ll be long gone by then.
You could be right, but miraculous things happen in time. Myself? I tend to look at it as EPE friendly up, in a similar vein to how Elvis' management f*cked up a number of times in his career, missing the ball on this or that (like the way the Terry Stafford version of "Suspicion" charted way ahead of Elvis', because Elvis' was held back). These days, with YouTube and other video-sharing sites now being massive (even ten years ago, this wasn't quite the case), a golden opportunity has been missed to make sure, at the very least, these existing high-quality versions of Elvis' EIC performances are all on the official Elvis Presley YouTube channel. That way, all these Gen Z-ers and Gen Alphas reacting to the material (reaction videos, like Elvis, are everywhere) would be reacting to the best versions available, especially if EIC also received the remastering in audio it deserves. All of this is just being allowed to glide by with no noticeable quality control because EPE rigidly refuses to support the material.
Interestingly, when I was in Memphis in 1982, one of the unofficial gift shops across the street from Graceland was selling what looked like official VHS releases of the special. I didn’t buy one at the time because I had recorded the special both times it aired with our VCR but now I wish I had bought one. They had a copy playing on a nearby TV and the resolution didn’t look any better than mine so it was likely just recorded from the broadcast by a VCR like mine was and then mass copied to be sold.
Well, all that glisters is not gold. If it was an "unofficial" shop, then the product itself was likely unofficial. Having never visited Graceland (unfortunately), I can only assume a lot of ad hoc stores and businesses have sprung up over the years, all trying to undercut EPE and draw whatever profits they can from the undisputed popularity of The King. Especially in the early years after Elvis' death, when Elvis' estate was embroiled in a legal battle with Colonel Parker, and it was acquiring properties that it could commercialise. For a time, like the early years of the Internet, I think it was a bit of a "Wild West" frontier, and then things settled down and got more serious, bootleggers were jailed, etc. Since EIC has never been released officially (except on network television), the only way for people to see it and circulate copies to one another is either through leaks or recording those broadcasts, and then, as you said, mass copying those recordings to make a buck (or, in some cases, generously copying them and sending them to other fans for free).
When I learned about the altered EP Blvd. album cover photo, I felt deceived.
That "Recorded Live" bit was a tad misleading, too.
And (although it is kind of iconic now) I would have preferred the EIC album to have actual photos from the concerts (at least Rapid City).
And some design based around a) the original "Elvis In Concert" graphic used in the broadcast itself, and b) EP's jumpsuit, which is almost as much a "star" of the special as Elvis himself.
I think they should have used the "Elvis IN CONCERT" logo / graphic that was seen on the red tour jackets (being escorted to and from the stage, etc.).
I still think the "recorded live" was left on EP Boulevard by mistake. My theory is that the cover was adapted from that which was going to accompany the proposed hybrid album featuring songs from Vegas in December 1975 and studio songs. The live recordings never happened, the overall design was reworked for Boulevard, and "recorded live" was left on in error.
As for EIC, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't have bought that album when I started getting into Elvis in the 1980s if it had a picture of Rapid City on the front.
I got the EIC album in '77, right after it aired. I was just a kid, so I would have loved to have seen some photos from the actual venues used somewhere on the album design.
***
Re: "Recorded Live"
Blvd Live.png
I think it was intentional, to increase sales / interest in the album.
Intentionally misleading (The Col. ?) or a play on words (i.e., recorded "live" in the Jungle Room).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
— "Just enjoy yourself, that's what the whole thing's about." (EP, '76)
When I learned about the altered EP Blvd. album cover photo, I felt deceived.
That "Recorded Live" bit was a tad misleading, too.
And (although it is kind of iconic now) I would have preferred the EIC album to have actual photos from the concerts (at least Rapid City).
And some design based around a) the original "Elvis In Concert" graphic used in the broadcast itself, and b) EP's jumpsuit, which is almost as much a "star" of the special as Elvis himself.
I think they should have used the "Elvis IN CONCERT" logo / graphic that was seen on the red tour jackets (being escorted to and from the stage, etc.).
jacket logo.jpg
That jacket is cool, for sure. Was thinking of recommending it as another option; but, gotta admit, the main EIC graphic grabs me more. Still, that jacket is hard to beat. It also shows up well against the more muted browns, greys, and greens of the main show (that 70s vibe).
I still think the "recorded live" was left on EP Boulevard by mistake. My theory is that the cover was adapted from that which was going to accompany the proposed hybrid album featuring songs from Vegas in December 1975 and studio songs. The live recordings never happened, the overall design was reworked for Boulevard, and "recorded live" was left on in error.
As for EIC, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't have bought that album when I started getting into Elvis in the 1980s if it had a picture of Rapid City on the front.
I got the EIC album in '77, right after it aired. I was just a kid, so I would have loved to have seen some photos from the actual venues used somewhere on the album design.
Yep. There was a really great shot of the Rapid City arena, packed, with Elvis and his band on-stage, mid-performance, taken from many rows back, some years ago, posted to this message board (IIRC). I'm sure I have it somewhere. It was very detailed and you could see many (all?) of the TV cameras used for the taping of the special. Something like that would have made for a nice gatefold image.
Re: "Recorded Live"
Blvd Live.png
I think it was intentional, to increase sales / interest in the album.
Intentionally misleading (The Col. ?) or a play on words (i.e., recorded "live" in the Jungle Room).
I'm tempted to put a speech bubble next to that image. Elvis is holding his thumb and index finger out, and glancing back in mild bemusement, as if he's saying, "Wait a second. 'Recorded Live' -- Is that right, Colonel?"
I think you're right that it could well be a play on words. And it reminds me of Elvis quipping in Las Vegas in his 1969 shows, "I've appeared dead a few times, but this is my first live appearance."
There is, of course, even more irony in the fact that these were the last "studio songs" Elvis did before dying (also at home), and many of the songs -- e.g., "The Last Farewell", "Danny Boy" -- deal with themes like death and despair. Seeing a sobriquet like "Recorded Live" is almost perverse; like, yeah, Elvis was still alive when he recorded these songs, sorta, we swear!
Unfortunately, much of that pun was lost when they decided to overdub the recordings to within an inch of their lives. No longer so much "Recorded Live" with all that natural Jungle Room ambiance as "Recorded Live and preserved with formaldehyde! P.S. Now with added strings!"
Elvis was still able to hit the high notes of My Baby Left Me in January 1974, pretending he was his younger self before dropping it.
Often, emphasis is given to his ability to hit high notes towards the end of his life as a proof of his continued prowess. I am not singling out your observation here, but commenting on general trend. The 74 My Baby performance is tongue in cheek, and nostalgic fun, but purely as 'singing' it falls short of the original performance. I am sure you would agree.
Hitting high notes is just one aspect of singing well. Elvis in the end, sometimes, forced high notes in bellowing manner. Most of his life, it was the interplay between different pitches, registers and notes that gave such dynamism to his singing. I do think he lost that ability to play with different colours towards the end.
Elvis was still able to hit the high notes of My Baby Left Me in January 1974, pretending he was his younger self before dropping it.
Often, emphasis is given to his ability to hit high notes towards the end of his life as a proof of his continued prowess. I am not singling out your observation here, but commenting on general trend. The 74 My Baby performance is tongue in cheek, and nostalgic fun, but purely as 'singing' it falls short of the original performance. I am sure you would agree.
I tend to agree with you a bit on this front. Elvis' early recordings cannot be surpassed, and Elvis' greatest competition, ultimately, was his earlier self. There is, subjectively speaking, much more virality, vivacity, and sheer longing in those formative recordings -- a potent mix he was unable to re-instantiate (at least, not as convincingly) later on.
Hitting high notes is just one aspect of singing well. Elvis in the end, sometimes, forced high notes in bellowing manner. Most of his life, it was the interplay between different pitches, registers and notes that gave such dynamism to his singing. I do think he lost that ability to play with different colours towards the end.
I love that. I might only wish to amend what you said there to "all of his life". The problem with Elvis, or for Elvis, in a way, is that he started out of the gate with such tremendous ability, and such infectious enthusiasm, that it was always going to be a tall order on his part to equal what he achieved in his breakout years, no matter how hard he tried. I wonder if he sensed this, at times, and didn't put his full effort into something because he perceived the futility of trying (especially on older songs that he had largely gotten bored of singing or taking seriously) -- maybe one more factor in his ongoing depression in later years.
On the other hand, he still had a certain felicity of expression in his last few years, health permitting. I notice, for example, even on a recording like "Are You Lonesome Tonight?" in Rapid City, after clowning around on the spoken part, he returns to a more sober reading of the chorus at the end, and there's a richness to his tone that's almost as impressive -- and just as poignant -- as the original recording.
I think the best way of putting it is to say his voice -- like his life -- went through phases, all with things to offer a receptive listener. While he did seem to adopt the habit of over-singing from 1970 onwards, flexing the "power" of his voice on some songs maybe more than he should have, and perhaps trying to cover up certain weaknesses with his instrument later on, he had a remarkable set of pipes and a wonderful feel for music until the very end. That's how I choose to remember Elvis, anyway.
The high resolution “Love Me” from Omaha is from the extended, home video VHS release of This Is Elvis. It was used instead of Are You Lonesome Tonight for the VHS release. I can’t speak to what they have shown at Graceland (next to the Sundail suit I presume), and I forgot about the little bits they included in EBTP but UM is only full song they’ve used since TIE. No matter how much you want an official release of EIC, it just ain’t going to happen. Not as long as the Presley family is involved. They own it. It isn’t like his recordings which they don’t own.
"Home video VHS"? Hmm, maybe. But it must be an extremely well-preserved copy. There are few to none of the weird chroma noise issues, brightness problems, tears, or distortions that inevitably plague VHS recordings later digitised and put on YouTube. The picture is rock solid. A little soft, perhaps, and still subject to YouTube compression, but otherwise, it looks incredibly clean and clear. I've never seen EIC presented so naturally. Even "Unchained Melody" from "The Great Performances" doesn't look as good, in my opinion (they put too much blue in the image, for one thing). "Love Me" from Omaha is the closest I've seen to reference quality for this material.
And I think a good-quality release of EIC will happen -- one day.
It is also on the DVD version of TIE which is the same cut as the VHS version. The clean, clear version of Love Me likely comes from the DVD release. There is a clean, clear version of My Way on YouTube from the TIE DVD as well.
Thanks for the information. It's starting to make sense now (very stable and solid picture; a little "too good to be true" for VHS). The "This Is Elvis" DVD, then, is quite possibly where those performances are drawn from on this souped-up EIC upload on YouTube:
Title: Elvis Presley-CBS collection 1977
Channel: Oleksandr Grygoruk
Uploaded: 10 Dec 2022
Description:
Copyrighted by EPE, RCA Victor
Just in lovin memory of EP
Not for commercial use, non profit
Remastered to 720-59.94p, frame aspect between 4*3 and true 16*9 (wider than original 4*3)
Content:
1-Trailer'2022
2-Love Me
3-Are You Lonesome Tonight
4-Unchained Melody
5-Original TV Promos from October 1977
6-Original CBS TV Special "Elvis in Concert", as aired Oct 3, 1977
Note: What they class as item #1, "Trailer'2022", is actually a long clip of the Rapid City performance of "My Way" (but not the full performance, and not without editing, overlays, and inserts) in similar quality to the Omaha performance of "Love Me" that follows straight after.
So, yeah, these two performances can actually be watched in reasonable quality. And I suppose you can toss in "Unchained Melody", but it doesn't look as naturalistic as either "My Way" or "Love Me". Those are the most "pure"-looking versions of the EIC material I've ever seen.
And, frankly, when you see EIC in that great natural quality, looking very true to its late-70s origins, you wonder why the whole TV special can't be released in that same quality for fans that want it. And there are, I assure you, quite a lot of them out there.
I really doubt there will ever be a release of TIE. Lisa was dead set against it and I’m sure Riley will uphold that. Maybe by the time Harper and Finley are controlling things but we’ll be long gone by then.
You could be right, but miraculous things happen in time. Myself? I tend to look at it as EPE friendly up, in a similar vein to how Elvis' management f*cked up a number of times in his career, missing the ball on this or that (like the way the Terry Stafford version of "Suspicion" charted way ahead of Elvis', because Elvis' was held back). These days, with YouTube and other video-sharing sites now being massive (even ten years ago, this wasn't quite the case), a golden opportunity has been missed to make sure, at the very least, these existing high-quality versions of Elvis' EIC performances are all on the official Elvis Presley YouTube channel. That way, all these Gen Z-ers and Gen Alphas reacting to the material (reaction videos, like Elvis, are everywhere) would be reacting to the best versions available, especially if EIC also received the remastering in audio it deserves. All of this is just being allowed to glide by with no noticeable quality control because EPE rigidly refuses to support the material.
Interestingly, when I was in Memphis in 1982, one of the unofficial gift shops across the street from Graceland was selling what looked like official VHS releases of the special. I didn’t buy one at the time because I had recorded the special both times it aired with our VCR but now I wish I had bought one. They had a copy playing on a nearby TV and the resolution didn’t look any better than mine so it was likely just recorded from the broadcast by a VCR like mine was and then mass copied to be sold.
Well, all that glisters is not gold. If it was an "unofficial" shop, then the product itself was likely unofficial. Having never visited Graceland (unfortunately), I can only assume a lot of ad hoc stores and businesses have sprung up over the years, all trying to undercut EPE and draw whatever profits they can from the undisputed popularity of The King. Especially in the early years after Elvis' death, when Elvis' estate was embroiled in a legal battle with Colonel Parker, and it was acquiring properties that it could commercialise. For a time, like the early years of the Internet, I think it was a bit of a "Wild West" frontier, and then things settled down and got more serious, bootleggers were jailed, etc. Since EIC has never been released officially (except on network television), the only way for people to see it and circulate copies to one another is either through leaks or recording those broadcasts, and then, as you said, mass copying those recordings to make a buck (or, in some cases, generously copying them and sending them to other fans for free).
Early on, the souvenir shops across the street were goldmines! Even though they were tacky and cluttered, they had all the good stuff and were much better than the boring stuff “official” sold by EPE.
When I learned about the altered EP Blvd. album cover photo, I felt deceived.
That "Recorded Live" bit was a tad misleading, too.
And (although it is kind of iconic now) I would have preferred the EIC album to have actual photos from the concerts (at least Rapid City).
And some design based around a) the original "Elvis In Concert" graphic used in the broadcast itself, and b) EP's jumpsuit, which is almost as much a "star" of the special as Elvis himself.
I think they should have used the "Elvis IN CONCERT" logo / graphic that was seen on the red tour jackets (being escorted to and from the stage, etc.).
I still think the "recorded live" was left on EP Boulevard by mistake. My theory is that the cover was adapted from that which was going to accompany the proposed hybrid album featuring songs from Vegas in December 1975 and studio songs. The live recordings never happened, the overall design was reworked for Boulevard, and "recorded live" was left on in error.
As for EIC, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't have bought that album when I started getting into Elvis in the 1980s if it had a picture of Rapid City on the front.
I got the EIC album in '77, right after it aired. I was just a kid, so I would have loved to have seen some photos from the actual venues used somewhere on the album design.
***
Re: "Recorded Live"
I think it was intentional, to increase sales / interest in the album.
Intentionally misleading (The Col. ?) or a play on words (i.e., recorded "live" in the Jungle Room).
I can’t remember if it was someone from our fan club but someone called RCA at the time and the explanation from RCA for the “Recorded Live” tag was that Elvis recorded the album live in his house, with his band, with no overdubs. Of course we know to “no overdubs” part was false but it was true that Elvis did record the songs live at EP Blvd.
One of the problems with the album title is it doesn’t explain what the hell it even means. Except for hardcore fans and some tabloid reports of Elvis shooting out a playback speaker, no one knew he had recorded at Graceland. I remember hearing through the fan club that Elvis’ next album was going to be called something like “Elvis at Home” because he was going to record at Graceland. The title it wound up having would have made more sense if it had explained how it was recorded in the den at Graceland (live) with Elvis’ band and maybe even with pictures of the set up and the RCA truck parked in back. But as we know, RCA and Parker had zero creativity when it came to Elvis’ album designs.
Elvis was still able to hit the high notes of My Baby Left Me in January 1974, pretending he was his younger self before dropping it.
Often, emphasis is given to his ability to hit high notes towards the end of his life as a proof of his continued prowess. I am not singling out your observation here, but commenting on general trend. The 74 My Baby performance is tongue in cheek, and nostalgic fun, but purely as 'singing' it falls short of the original performance. I am sure you would agree.
Hitting high notes is just one aspect of singing well. Elvis in the end, sometimes, forced high notes in bellowing manner. Most of his life, it was the interplay between different pitches, registers and notes that gave such dynamism to his singing. I do think he lost that ability to play with different colours towards the end.
I agree, but going with the original assignment, I was thinking along the lines of him always saying his voice was much higher, and he was able to prove he could still do it like he once did, but his voice had changed so could only do it in bursts.
Early on, the souvenir shops across the street were goldmines! Even though they were tacky and cluttered, they had all the good stuff and were much better than the boring stuff “official” sold by EPE.
So true!
(I think the reason is because fansknowfans and EPE doesn't. )
— "Just enjoy yourself, that's what the whole thing's about." (EP, '76)
When I learned about the altered EP Blvd. album cover photo, I felt deceived.
That "Recorded Live" bit was a tad misleading, too.
And (although it is kind of iconic now) I would have preferred the EIC album to have actual photos from the concerts (at least Rapid City).
And some design based around a) the original "Elvis In Concert" graphic used in the broadcast itself, and b) EP's jumpsuit, which is almost as much a "star" of the special as Elvis himself.
I think they should have used the "Elvis IN CONCERT" logo / graphic that was seen on the red tour jackets (being escorted to and from the stage, etc.).
I still think the "recorded live" was left on EP Boulevard by mistake. My theory is that the cover was adapted from that which was going to accompany the proposed hybrid album featuring songs from Vegas in December 1975 and studio songs. The live recordings never happened, the overall design was reworked for Boulevard, and "recorded live" was left on in error.
As for EIC, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't have bought that album when I started getting into Elvis in the 1980s if it had a picture of Rapid City on the front.
I got the EIC album in '77, right after it aired. I was just a kid, so I would have loved to have seen some photos from the actual venues used somewhere on the album design.
***
Re: "Recorded Live"
I think it was intentional, to increase sales / interest in the album.
Intentionally misleading (The Col. ?) or a play on words (i.e., recorded "live" in the Jungle Room).
I can’t remember if it was someone from our fan club but someone called RCA at the time and the explanation from RCA for the “Recorded Live” tag was that Elvis recorded the album live in his house, with his band, with no overdubs. Of course we know to “no overdubs” part was false but it was true that Elvis did record the songs live at EP Blvd.
One of the problems with the album title is it doesn’t explain what the hell it even means. Except for hardcore fans and some tabloid reports of Elvis shooting out a playback speaker, no one knew he had recorded at Graceland. I remember hearing through the fan club that Elvis’ next album was going to be called something like “Elvis at Home” because he was going to record at Graceland. The title it wound up having would have made more sense if it had explained how it was recorded in the den at Graceland (live) with Elvis’ band and maybe even with pictures of the set up and the RCA truck parked in back. But as we know, RCA and Parker had zero creativity when it came to Elvis’ album designs.
But it's not true - or no more true than other times. Elvis nearly always sang live with the band in the studio, whether at his house or not. It would be different if he was singing live at his house in front of a small audience of friends or family etc. Jazz pianist Oscar Peterson did a series of albums doing just that for the MPS label in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There's a Sinatra album, too, where there were guests in the studio - George Harrison was one of them. And most artists sang live with the bands and/or orchestras at that time anyway. It was nothing to boast about as it was nothing new.
So I really don't believe that fan club explanation, as it makes no sense. If EP Boulevard was recorded live, then so were the Guitar Man sessions, the June 1970 sessions and the 1971 sessions. I don't even buy the idea that it would create more sales, as the last live album didn't do particularly well.
It is, I think, just a cock-up for whatever reason - which is exactly why the UK edition didn't include the wording. We always got our act together better than RCA in America!
Elvis was still able to hit the high notes of My Baby Left Me in January 1974, pretending he was his younger self before dropping it.
Often, emphasis is given to his ability to hit high notes towards the end of his life as a proof of his continued prowess. I am not singling out your observation here, but commenting on general trend. The 74 My Baby performance is tongue in cheek, and nostalgic fun, but purely as 'singing' it falls short of the original performance. I am sure you would agree.
I tend to agree with you a bit on this front. Elvis' early recordings cannot be surpassed, and Elvis' greatest competition, ultimately, was his earlier self. There is, subjectively speaking, much more virality, vivacity, and sheer longing in those formative recordings -- a potent mix he was unable to re-instantiate (at least, not as convincingly) later on.
Hitting high notes is just one aspect of singing well. Elvis in the end, sometimes, forced high notes in bellowing manner. Most of his life, it was the interplay between different pitches, registers and notes that gave such dynamism to his singing. I do think he lost that ability to play with different colours towards the end.
I love that. I might only wish to amend what you said there to "all of his life". The problem with Elvis, or for Elvis, in a way, is that he started out of the gate with such tremendous ability, and such infectious enthusiasm, that it was always going to be a tall order on his part to equal what he achieved in his breakout years, no matter how hard he tried. I wonder if he sensed this, at times, and didn't put his full effort into something because he perceived the futility of trying (especially on older songs that he had largely gotten bored of singing or taking seriously) -- maybe one more factor in his ongoing depression in later years.
On the other hand, he still had a certain felicity of expression in his last few years, health permitting. I notice, for example, even on a recording like "Are You Lonesome Tonight?" in Rapid City, after clowning around on the spoken part, he returns to a more sober reading of the chorus at the end, and there's a richness to his tone that's almost as impressive -- and just as poignant -- as the original recording.
I think the best way of putting it is to say his voice -- like his life -- went through phases, all with things to offer a receptive listener. While he did seem to adopt the habit of over-singing from 1970 onwards, flexing the "power" of his voice on some songs maybe more than he should have, and perhaps trying to cover up certain weaknesses with his instrument later on, he had a remarkable set of pipes and a wonderful feel for music until the very end. That's how I choose to remember Elvis, anyway.
The world weary voice of the mid seventies has its own beauty and pathos. The precocious rock and roller, crooner extraordinaire, mature rocker, soulful balladeer, bluesman, country story teller are all his aspects and one reason why we love Elvis is because all these coexisted in him, just like life in general.
When I learned about the altered EP Blvd. album cover photo, I felt deceived.
That "Recorded Live" bit was a tad misleading, too.
And (although it is kind of iconic now) I would have preferred the EIC album to have actual photos from the concerts (at least Rapid City).
And some design based around a) the original "Elvis In Concert" graphic used in the broadcast itself, and b) EP's jumpsuit, which is almost as much a "star" of the special as Elvis himself.
I think they should have used the "Elvis IN CONCERT" logo / graphic that was seen on the red tour jackets (being escorted to and from the stage, etc.).
I still think the "recorded live" was left on EP Boulevard by mistake. My theory is that the cover was adapted from that which was going to accompany the proposed hybrid album featuring songs from Vegas in December 1975 and studio songs. The live recordings never happened, the overall design was reworked for Boulevard, and "recorded live" was left on in error.
As for EIC, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't have bought that album when I started getting into Elvis in the 1980s if it had a picture of Rapid City on the front.
I got the EIC album in '77, right after it aired. I was just a kid, so I would have loved to have seen some photos from the actual venues used somewhere on the album design.
***
Re: "Recorded Live"
I think it was intentional, to increase sales / interest in the album.
Intentionally misleading (The Col. ?) or a play on words (i.e., recorded "live" in the Jungle Room).
I can’t remember if it was someone from our fan club but someone called RCA at the time and the explanation from RCA for the “Recorded Live” tag was that Elvis recorded the album live in his house, with his band, with no overdubs. Of course we know to “no overdubs” part was false but it was true that Elvis did record the songs live at EP Blvd.
One of the problems with the album title is it doesn’t explain what the hell it even means. Except for hardcore fans and some tabloid reports of Elvis shooting out a playback speaker, no one knew he had recorded at Graceland. I remember hearing through the fan club that Elvis’ next album was going to be called something like “Elvis at Home” because he was going to record at Graceland. The title it wound up having would have made more sense if it had explained how it was recorded in the den at Graceland (live) with Elvis’ band and maybe even with pictures of the set up and the RCA truck parked in back. But as we know, RCA and Parker had zero creativity when it came to Elvis’ album designs.
But it's not true - or no more true than other times. Elvis nearly always sang live with the band in the studio, whether at his house or not. It would be different if he was singing live at his house in front of a small audience of friends or family etc. Jazz pianist Oscar Peterson did a series of albums doing just that for the MPS label in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There's a Sinatra album, too, where there were guests in the studio - George Harrison was one of them. And most artists sang live with the bands and/or orchestras at that time anyway. It was nothing to boast about as it was nothing new.
Granted, it may have been "nothing to boast about", but Elvis' management had long since proved they weren't above gimmicks, and frankly, for Elvis, it was new territory. Singing in his home -- his legendary home, at that (even in his lifetime) -- and this being recorded and made into an album is a bit different to prior occasions, like when Elvis jammed with SUN contemporaries in 1956, or his many private recordings (by definition, not made available to the public; not back then, anyway).
So I really don't believe that fan club explanation, as it makes no sense. If EP Boulevard was recorded live, then so were the Guitar Man sessions, the June 1970 sessions and the 1971 sessions. I don't even buy the idea that it would create more sales, as the last live album didn't do particularly well.
I don't see the connection to those previous recording sessions.
It is, I think, just a cock-up for whatever reason - which is exactly why the UK edition didn't include the wording. We always got our act together better than RCA in America!
It could have been a straightforward cock-up, but maybe it was also a sort of inside joke.
Indeed, it may actually have been something of a "deliberate mistake", in that it might have been a concession to the fact that Elvis was a big-time live performer at this stage of his life, and some of his best-selling albums in this period had been live (on-stage) ones; so this album was made to seem, via the play on words, as if it was as "authentic" as seeing/hearing Elvis perform live (i.e., a marketing ploy on Parker's part, possibly, as earlier alluded to by @Yamaguchi.Y).
Moreover, his other "Memphis" album of a few years prior, which also featured a picture of his Graceland house on the cover, connoting Elvis' abode visually (while the EP Boulevard album connotes it through the street name), bore the title "Elvis Recorded Live On Stage In Memphis". So there was clear precedent to call back and pay a kind of tongue-in-cheek homage to it.
When I learned about the altered EP Blvd. album cover photo, I felt deceived.
That "Recorded Live" bit was a tad misleading, too.
And (although it is kind of iconic now) I would have preferred the EIC album to have actual photos from the concerts (at least Rapid City).
And some design based around a) the original "Elvis In Concert" graphic used in the broadcast itself, and b) EP's jumpsuit, which is almost as much a "star" of the special as Elvis himself.
I think they should have used the "Elvis IN CONCERT" logo / graphic that was seen on the red tour jackets (being escorted to and from the stage, etc.).
I still think the "recorded live" was left on EP Boulevard by mistake. My theory is that the cover was adapted from that which was going to accompany the proposed hybrid album featuring songs from Vegas in December 1975 and studio songs. The live recordings never happened, the overall design was reworked for Boulevard, and "recorded live" was left on in error.
As for EIC, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't have bought that album when I started getting into Elvis in the 1980s if it had a picture of Rapid City on the front.
I got the EIC album in '77, right after it aired. I was just a kid, so I would have loved to have seen some photos from the actual venues used somewhere on the album design.
***
Re: "Recorded Live"
I think it was intentional, to increase sales / interest in the album.
Intentionally misleading (The Col. ?) or a play on words (i.e., recorded "live" in the Jungle Room).
I can’t remember if it was someone from our fan club but someone called RCA at the time and the explanation from RCA for the “Recorded Live” tag was that Elvis recorded the album live in his house, with his band, with no overdubs. Of course we know to “no overdubs” part was false but it was true that Elvis did record the songs live at EP Blvd.
One of the problems with the album title is it doesn’t explain what the hell it even means. Except for hardcore fans and some tabloid reports of Elvis shooting out a playback speaker, no one knew he had recorded at Graceland. I remember hearing through the fan club that Elvis’ next album was going to be called something like “Elvis at Home” because he was going to record at Graceland. The title it wound up having would have made more sense if it had explained how it was recorded in the den at Graceland (live) with Elvis’ band and maybe even with pictures of the set up and the RCA truck parked in back. But as we know, RCA and Parker had zero creativity when it came to Elvis’ album designs.
But it's not true - or no more true than other times. Elvis nearly always sang live with the band in the studio, whether at his house or not. It would be different if he was singing live at his house in front of a small audience of friends or family etc. Jazz pianist Oscar Peterson did a series of albums doing just that for the MPS label in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There's a Sinatra album, too, where there were guests in the studio - George Harrison was one of them. And most artists sang live with the bands and/or orchestras at that time anyway. It was nothing to boast about as it was nothing new.
So I really don't believe that fan club explanation, as it makes no sense. If EP Boulevard was recorded live, then so were the Guitar Man sessions, the June 1970 sessions and the 1971 sessions. I don't even buy the idea that it would create more sales, as the last live album didn't do particularly well.
It is, I think, just a cock-up for whatever reason - which is exactly why the UK edition didn't include the wording. We always got our act together better than RCA in America!
If it was a cock-up it seems strange they would make the mistake on the Hurt single picture sleeve as well. Like was said, album design takes a while and it doesn’t seem likely that a mistake like that would slip by the RCA art department twice. I think it’s more likely that the album concept just wasn’t fully fleshed out.
When I learned about the altered EP Blvd. album cover photo, I felt deceived.
That "Recorded Live" bit was a tad misleading, too.
And (although it is kind of iconic now) I would have preferred the EIC album to have actual photos from the concerts (at least Rapid City).
And some design based around a) the original "Elvis In Concert" graphic used in the broadcast itself, and b) EP's jumpsuit, which is almost as much a "star" of the special as Elvis himself.
I think they should have used the "Elvis IN CONCERT" logo / graphic that was seen on the red tour jackets (being escorted to and from the stage, etc.).
I still think the "recorded live" was left on EP Boulevard by mistake. My theory is that the cover was adapted from that which was going to accompany the proposed hybrid album featuring songs from Vegas in December 1975 and studio songs. The live recordings never happened, the overall design was reworked for Boulevard, and "recorded live" was left on in error.
As for EIC, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't have bought that album when I started getting into Elvis in the 1980s if it had a picture of Rapid City on the front.
I got the EIC album in '77, right after it aired. I was just a kid, so I would have loved to have seen some photos from the actual venues used somewhere on the album design.
***
Re: "Recorded Live"
I think it was intentional, to increase sales / interest in the album.
Intentionally misleading (The Col. ?) or a play on words (i.e., recorded "live" in the Jungle Room).
I can’t remember if it was someone from our fan club but someone called RCA at the time and the explanation from RCA for the “Recorded Live” tag was that Elvis recorded the album live in his house, with his band, with no overdubs. Of course we know to “no overdubs” part was false but it was true that Elvis did record the songs live at EP Blvd.
One of the problems with the album title is it doesn’t explain what the hell it even means. Except for hardcore fans and some tabloid reports of Elvis shooting out a playback speaker, no one knew he had recorded at Graceland. I remember hearing through the fan club that Elvis’ next album was going to be called something like “Elvis at Home” because he was going to record at Graceland. The title it wound up having would have made more sense if it had explained how it was recorded in the den at Graceland (live) with Elvis’ band and maybe even with pictures of the set up and the RCA truck parked in back. But as we know, RCA and Parker had zero creativity when it came to Elvis’ album designs.
But it's not true - or no more true than other times. Elvis nearly always sang live with the band in the studio, whether at his house or not. It would be different if he was singing live at his house in front of a small audience of friends or family etc. Jazz pianist Oscar Peterson did a series of albums doing just that for the MPS label in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There's a Sinatra album, too, where there were guests in the studio - George Harrison was one of them. And most artists sang live with the bands and/or orchestras at that time anyway. It was nothing to boast about as it was nothing new.
Granted, it may have been "nothing to boast about", but Elvis' management had long since proved they weren't above gimmicks, and frankly, for Elvis, it was new territory. Singing in his home -- his legendary home, at that (even in his lifetime) -- and this being recorded and made into an album is a bit different to prior occasions, like when Elvis jammed with SUN contemporaries in 1956, or his many private recordings (by definition, not made available to the public; not back then, anyway).
So I really don't believe that fan club explanation, as it makes no sense. If EP Boulevard was recorded live, then so were the Guitar Man sessions, the June 1970 sessions and the 1971 sessions. I don't even buy the idea that it would create more sales, as the last live album didn't do particularly well.
I don't see the connection to those previous recording sessions.
It is, I think, just a cock-up for whatever reason - which is exactly why the UK edition didn't include the wording. We always got our act together better than RCA in America!
It could have been a straightforward cock-up, but maybe it was also a sort of inside joke.
Indeed, it may actually have been something of a "deliberate mistake", in that it might have been a concession to the fact that Elvis was a big-time live performer at this stage of his life, and some of his best-selling albums in this period had been live (on-stage) ones; so this album was made to seem, via the play on words, as if it was as "authentic" as seeing/hearing Elvis perform live (i.e., a marketing ploy on Parker's part, possibly, as earlier alluded to by @Yamaguchi.Y).
Moreover, his other "Memphis" album of a few years prior, which also featured a picture of his Graceland house on the cover, connoting Elvis' abode visually (while the EP Boulevard album connotes it through the street name), bore the title "Elvis Recorded Live On Stage In Memphis". So there was clear precedent to call back and pay a kind of tongue-in-cheek homage to it.
If the cover hadn’t already been used for the 74 Memphis live album, it would have been a perfect cover for the Blvd album with the album title “Graceland”!
It may not have necessarily helped sell any more units but it may have caused more interest in the album if the fact that it was recorded at Graceland had been promoted more. The title alludes to it without any explanation. It could have even been as simple as using the mock up letter by Elvis on the back of the album saying something like: “Dear friends, thank you for your loyalty. I sincerely hope you enjoy my new RCA album that I recorded at my beloved home, Graceland. Best wishes, Elvis Presley
Btw, even at the time in 1976, I thought this mock up letter on the back of the album was strange.
If it was a cock-up it seems strange they would make the mistake on the Hurt single picture sleeve as well. Like was said, album design takes a while and it doesn’t seem likely that a mistake like that would slip by the RCA art department twice. I think it’s more likely that the album concept just wasn’t fully fleshed out.
It may not have necessarily helped sell any more units but it may have caused more interest in the album if the fact that it was recorded at Graceland had been promoted more. The title alludes to it without any explanation. It could have even been as simple as using the mock up letter by Elvis on the back of the album saying something like: “Dear friends, thank you for your loyalty. I sincerely hope you enjoy my new RCA album that I recorded at my beloved home, Graceland. Best wishes, Elvis Presley
Btw, even at the time in 1976, I thought this mock up letter on the back of the album was strange.
I have seen multiple "originals" of EP-signed letterheads used for the back of the Blvd. album. Multiples. Multiple mock ups that were signed.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
— "Just enjoy yourself, that's what the whole thing's about." (EP, '76)
If it was a cock-up it seems strange they would make the mistake on the Hurt single picture sleeve as well. Like was said, album design takes a while and it doesn’t seem likely that a mistake like that would slip by the RCA art department twice. I think it’s more likely that the album concept just wasn’t fully fleshed out.
It may not have necessarily helped sell any more units but it may have caused more interest in the album if the fact that it was recorded at Graceland had been promoted more. The title alludes to it without any explanation. It could have even been as simple as using the mock up letter by Elvis on the back of the album saying something like: “Dear friends, thank you for your loyalty. I sincerely hope you enjoy my new RCA album that I recorded at my beloved home, Graceland. Best wishes, Elvis Presley
Btw, even at the time in 1976, I thought this mock up letter on the back of the album was strange.
I have seen multiple "originals" of EP-signed letterheads used for the back of the Blvd. album. Multiples. Multiple mock ups that were signed.
I remember first seeing that picture sleeve and being excited that the new album was going to be a new “live album”.
I didn’t finish my thought about the back mock up letter; I thought it was strange at the time because I thought it was a sort of acknowledgement that he had been struggling for the past year and he was thanking the fans for being loyal to him through that. It also made the album seem more personal than (say) the Today album.
Getting back to the 74 live Memphis album cover. Although I’ve always liked that cover, I think one of the reasons that album didn’t sell as well is because Elvis’ picture was not on the cover. Elvis was the product and the attraction. His picture sold magazines which is why he was constantly on the cover of the movie magazines and the tabloids. So even though it was a rare creative cover from RCA, it still should have been a picture of Elvis on stage (Especially for a live album).
If it was a cock-up it seems strange they would make the mistake on the Hurt single picture sleeve as well. Like was said, album design takes a while and it doesn’t seem likely that a mistake like that would slip by the RCA art department twice. I think it’s more likely that the album concept just wasn’t fully fleshed out.
It may not have necessarily helped sell any more units but it may have caused more interest in the album if the fact that it was recorded at Graceland had been promoted more. The title alludes to it without any explanation. It could have even been as simple as using the mock up letter by Elvis on the back of the album saying something like: “Dear friends, thank you for your loyalty. I sincerely hope you enjoy my new RCA album that I recorded at my beloved home, Graceland. Best wishes, Elvis Presley
Btw, even at the time in 1976, I thought this mock up letter on the back of the album was strange.
I have seen multiple "originals" of EP-signed letterheads used for the back of the Blvd. album. Multiples. Multiple mock ups that were signed.
I remember first seeing that picture sleeve and being excited that the new album was going to be a new “live album”.
I didn’t finish my thought about the back mock up letter; I thought it was strange at the time because I thought it was a sort of acknowledgement that he had been struggling for the past year and he was thanking the fans for being loyal to him through that. It also made the album seem more personal than (say) the Today album.
Getting back to the 74 live Memphis album cover. Although I’ve always liked that cover, I think one of the reasons that album didn’t sell as well is because Elvis’ picture was not on the cover. Elvis was the product and the attraction. His picture sold magazines which is why he was constantly on the cover of the movie magazines and the tabloids. So even though it was a rare creative cover from RCA, it still should have been a picture of Elvis on stage (Especially for a live album).
All the albums- live or studio- had the same old picture of jumpsuited Elvis on stage. This was a nice change and might have in fact given an impression that there would be a different set list and some focus on his Memphis roots(I always wondered why there were no tracks from his Memphis specific influences in the concert.)
If it was a cock-up it seems strange they would make the mistake on the Hurt single picture sleeve as well. Like was said, album design takes a while and it doesn’t seem likely that a mistake like that would slip by the RCA art department twice. I think it’s more likely that the album concept just wasn’t fully fleshed out.
It may not have necessarily helped sell any more units but it may have caused more interest in the album if the fact that it was recorded at Graceland had been promoted more. The title alludes to it without any explanation. It could have even been as simple as using the mock up letter by Elvis on the back of the album saying something like: “Dear friends, thank you for your loyalty. I sincerely hope you enjoy my new RCA album that I recorded at my beloved home, Graceland. Best wishes, Elvis Presley
Btw, even at the time in 1976, I thought this mock up letter on the back of the album was strange.
I have seen multiple "originals" of EP-signed letterheads used for the back of the Blvd. album. Multiples. Multiple mock ups that were signed.
I remember first seeing that picture sleeve and being excited that the new album was going to be a new “live album”.
I didn’t finish my thought about the back mock up letter; I thought it was strange at the time because I thought it was a sort of acknowledgement that he had been struggling for the past year and he was thanking the fans for being loyal to him through that. It also made the album seem more personal than (say) the Today album.
Getting back to the 74 live Memphis album cover. Although I’ve always liked that cover, I think one of the reasons that album didn’t sell as well is because Elvis’ picture was not on the cover. Elvis was the product and the attraction. His picture sold magazines which is why he was constantly on the cover of the movie magazines and the tabloids. So even though it was a rare creative cover from RCA, it still should have been a picture of Elvis on stage (Especially for a live album).
All the albums- live or studio- had the same old picture of jumpsuited Elvis on stage. This was a nice change and might have in fact given an impression that there would be a different set list and some focus on his Memphis roots(I always wondered why there were no tracks from his Memphis specific influences in the concert.)
Because of the fact that Parker (And Elvis) weren’t interested in doing any photo shoots for albums, that’s all RCA had for covers. l liked and was fascinated with the Graceland cover, but at the time, I was disappointed there were no pictures of him from that show or at least pictures on stage in 74. Elvis was the product so I think that any album project needed his picture somewhere on the album cover. The live Memphis album sold poorly and I think it was one factor.
There was so much Elvis, Parker and RCA could have done with this project. This was the 20th anniversary of Elvis’s first professional recordings in Memphis. He could have done some of his Sun singles from 54 at those shows. It could have been a TV special about Elvis going back to Memphis to perform on the 20th anniversary year.
All the albums- live or studio- had the same old picture of jumpsuited Elvis on stage. This was a nice change and might have in fact given an impression that there would be a different set list and some focus on his Memphis roots(I always wondered why there were no tracks from his Memphis specific influences in the concert.)
[/quote]
Because of the fact that Parker (And Elvis) weren’t interested in doing any photo shoots for albums, that’s all RCA had for covers. l liked and was fascinated with the Graceland cover, but at the time, I was disappointed there were no pictures of him from that show or at least pictures on stage in 74. Elvis was the product so I think that any album project needed his picture somewhere on the album cover. The live Memphis album sold poorly and I think it was one factor.
There was so much Elvis, Parker and RCA could have done with this project. This was the 20th anniversary of Elvis’s first professional recordings in Memphis. He could have done some of his Sun singles from 54 at those shows. It could have been a TV special about Elvis going back to Memphis to perform on the 20th anniversary year.
[/quote]
Yes!! Imagine Elvis paying tribute to his Memphis influences and his Sun singles. It would have been historic and audience would have lapped it up.
Imagine a EOT kind of documentary tracing his musical steps in the city. although given his state, I don't see that happening.
If it was a cock-up it seems strange they would make the mistake on the Hurt single picture sleeve as well. Like was said, album design takes a while and it doesn’t seem likely that a mistake like that would slip by the RCA art department twice. I think it’s more likely that the album concept just wasn’t fully fleshed out.
It may not have necessarily helped sell any more units but it may have caused more interest in the album if the fact that it was recorded at Graceland had been promoted more. The title alludes to it without any explanation. It could have even been as simple as using the mock up letter by Elvis on the back of the album saying something like: “Dear friends, thank you for your loyalty. I sincerely hope you enjoy my new RCA album that I recorded at my beloved home, Graceland. Best wishes, Elvis Presley
Btw, even at the time in 1976, I thought this mock up letter on the back of the album was strange.
I have seen multiple "originals" of EP-signed letterheads used for the back of the Blvd. album. Multiples. Multiple mock ups that were signed.
I remember first seeing that picture sleeve and being excited that the new album was going to be a new “live album”.
I didn’t finish my thought about the back mock up letter; I thought it was strange at the time because I thought it was a sort of acknowledgement that he had been struggling for the past year and he was thanking the fans for being loyal to him through that. It also made the album seem more personal than (say) the Today album.
Getting back to the 74 live Memphis album cover. Although I’ve always liked that cover, I think one of the reasons that album didn’t sell as well is because Elvis’ picture was not on the cover. Elvis was the product and the attraction. His picture sold magazines which is why he was constantly on the cover of the movie magazines and the tabloids. So even though it was a rare creative cover from RCA, it still should have been a picture of Elvis on stage (Especially for a live album).
All the albums- live or studio- had the same old picture of jumpsuited Elvis on stage. This was a nice change and might have in fact given an impression that there would be a different set list and some focus on his Memphis roots(I always wondered why there were no tracks from his Memphis specific influences in the concert.)
To be fair, the set list on the original album was quite different to previous live discs:
I Got a Woman
Trying to Get to You
Rock medley
How Great Thou Art
Why Me Lord
Help Me
Lawdy Miss Clawdy
My Baby Left Me
Let Me Be There
That's two-thirds of the material not having been released in a concert setting (or, in some cases) at all. The fast-moving, rock-oriented material was quite different to the ballad heavy Aloha.
It's also worth adding that the 1974 release got excellent reviews from most critics, with some even putting it in the year-end list of best lps. I'm not sure the lack of anniversary link to That's all Right is surprising. Elvis fans are obsessed with anniversaries now, but not so much back then, and the Legendary Performer LP could be said to be marking that anniversary anyway.
If it was a cock-up it seems strange they would make the mistake on the Hurt single picture sleeve as well. Like was said, album design takes a while and it doesn’t seem likely that a mistake like that would slip by the RCA art department twice. I think it’s more likely that the album concept just wasn’t fully fleshed out.
It may not have necessarily helped sell any more units but it may have caused more interest in the album if the fact that it was recorded at Graceland had been promoted more. The title alludes to it without any explanation. It could have even been as simple as using the mock up letter by Elvis on the back of the album saying something like: “Dear friends, thank you for your loyalty. I sincerely hope you enjoy my new RCA album that I recorded at my beloved home, Graceland. Best wishes, Elvis Presley
Btw, even at the time in 1976, I thought this mock up letter on the back of the album was strange.
I have seen multiple "originals" of EP-signed letterheads used for the back of the Blvd. album. Multiples. Multiple mock ups that were signed.
I remember first seeing that picture sleeve and being excited that the new album was going to be a new “live album”.
I didn’t finish my thought about the back mock up letter; I thought it was strange at the time because I thought it was a sort of acknowledgement that he had been struggling for the past year and he was thanking the fans for being loyal to him through that. It also made the album seem more personal than (say) the Today album.
Getting back to the 74 live Memphis album cover. Although I’ve always liked that cover, I think one of the reasons that album didn’t sell as well is because Elvis’ picture was not on the cover. Elvis was the product and the attraction. His picture sold magazines which is why he was constantly on the cover of the movie magazines and the tabloids. So even though it was a rare creative cover from RCA, it still should have been a picture of Elvis on stage (Especially for a live album).
All the albums- live or studio- had the same old picture of jumpsuited Elvis on stage. This was a nice change and might have in fact given an impression that there would be a different set list and some focus on his Memphis roots(I always wondered why there were no tracks from his Memphis specific influences in the concert.)
To be fair, the set list on the original album was quite different to previous live discs:
I Got a Woman
Trying to Get to You
Rock medley
How Great Thou Art
Why Me Lord
Help Me
Lawdy Miss Clawdy
My Baby Left Me
Let Me Be There
That's two-thirds of the material not having been released in a concert setting (or, in some cases) at all. The fast-moving, rock-oriented material was quite different to the ballad heavy Aloha.
It's also worth adding that the 1974 release got excellent reviews from most critics, with some even putting it in the year-end list of best lps. I'm not sure the lack of anniversary link to That's all Right is surprising. Elvis fans are obsessed with anniversaries now, but not so much back then, and the Legendary Performer LP could be said to be marking that anniversary anyway.
My point was the Memphis connection, not anniversary. It was his hometown and he was performing there after 14 years there. It had emotional significance, more than historic.
There was an excellent reason to include not just his own songs recorded at Memphis Recording Service, but also local content which influenced him. What I'll Remember You was for Aloha, but magnified hundred times, because this is a place where he lived as a local legend, where he became a star, where he dreamed and where he got developed as a teen.
)
It's a mystery. 
