For minkahed: Felton Jarvis Misses, 1970-1976

[Pete Dube]

The question that has to be asked, Midnight, is would another producer have gotten anything? That's why I don't have a problem with Felton. He at least got something.

Chips got something, Binder got something, Marty Passeta got something. They all challenged him and put him in a position where he had to proof himself.

In all three cases it was Elvis who challenged himself because he had something to prove. (And Aloha wasn't as spectacular as it could've been.) After 1970 there really wasn't anything left to prove. He had re-conquered records & radio and live performance within a amazingly short period of time, and with a mystifying ease considering the state of his career in early 1968. Musically, the only real challenge left for Elvis after 1970 was touring abroad.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

*sigh*

What's this "sigh" business after my comment on a previous page? I know I wrote a lot and that can be taxing. Unless you meant my post of the song "Love Me the Life I Lead." Nothing I wrote, however was unreasonable.

On any given day, I can see many of the points made here. But call me an optimist but I find a lot to love about '70s Elvis, with no qualification whatsoever. Really. Such was the power of his voice.

I think the genius of the '70s box was to assemble the best of it. I revere that set and the albums it culled from as much as any '50s set, which I also love.

Blind love, perhaps, but as N8 might say "just a fan."

As an aside, I have an enormously wide record and CD collection, touching many bases and sincerely love all kinds of music. So I don't as a rule begin my day by cueing up the "Fool" album when i write all of the above... Indeed, I often leave the fold (for a change of pace) and return, refreshed by what I hear and find but also reassured that Elvis had the best voice and legacy of anyone.

[Booker T]

*sigh*

What's this "sigh" business after my comment on a previous page? I know I wrote a lot and that can be taxing. Unless you meant my post of the song "Love Me the Life I Lead." Nothing I wrote, however was unreasonable.

I don't think you even realise the unfair and negative assumptions you made in your post towards groups of music fans. I disagreed with so much in and about your post, I didn't honestly know what to say, other than sigh.

[epf]

All of us probably have some differences with Doc's list. He has differences with mine. Most of these songs are tough to defend, but a few aren't as bad as Doc says. As others have said, "Pieces Of My Life" is a good song and a very good, heartfelt performance by Elvis.

No defenders of "Fool" here? I've always liked it and it was a big worldwide hit in 1973. This, "Burning Love," and "Always On My Mind" are my favorites from that 1972 session.

These negative threads always get us going, don't they?

Steve Lecher

Yes, one of the reasons i asked for the opposite. Still, one sits and learns....

[epf]

The question that has to be asked, Midnight, is would another producer have gotten anything? That's why I don't have a problem with Felton. He at least got something.

Chips got something, Binder got something, Marty Passeta got something. They all challenged him and put him in a position where he had to proof himself.

In all three cases it was Elvis who challenged himself because he had something to prove. (And Aloha wasn't as spectacular as it could've been.) After 1970 there really wasn't anything left to prove. He had re-conquered records & radio and live performance within a amazingly short period of time, and with a mystifying ease considering the state of his career in early 1968. Musically, the only real challenge left for Elvis after 1970 was touring abroad.

Maybe he alllowed himself to be challenged during this period of time. But he sure did need the input of others to feed off, whether it was Binder, Chips or Passeta.

[3577]

Source: Talking Elvis by Trevor Cajiao

David Briggs;

question:

I thought some of his overdubs were awful...

answer:

Most of the sessions were awful - f*cking awful! But Felton was in awe of Elvis - he couldn't even look him in the face. He was scared of him. He'd say everything was great. ''It's great, Elvis! That's the best thing i ever heard!'' He was a 'yes' man. I liked him though, he was a great guy. It was just a bad situation with Elvis. It was all just a mish-mash. He had some of the worst f*cking singers and musicians in the world with him! He didn't know! He should've had the best musicians and arrangers. If you want to listen to the real Elvis then listen to the 50's Elvis - the rest of that later stuff's f*cking s*it! The early stuff is great - that's Scotty Moore. Scotty was a genius. He still is. He's a great guy, he's a smart guy. He's done some of the most innovative stuff ever. He's the reason you're here - not any of us. Scotty Moore. If i was in his position i'd be as bitter as s*it!

[dreambear]

Your list Dreambear is pretty similar to mine, although I don´t mind "I´ll never fall in love again" or "If I were you".
The songs you like on that list I agree upon.

The worst song of the entire list would be "This is our dance" closely followed by "Girl of mine" IMO!

Lennart

Those two and Padre, then we have a complete nightmare

//Björn

[midnightx]

The question that has to be asked, Midnight, is would another producer have gotten anything? That's why I don't have a problem with Felton. He at least got something.

Chips got something, Binder got something, Marty Passeta got something. They all challenged him and put him in a position where he had to proof himself.

In all three cases it was Elvis who challenged himself because he had something to prove. (And Aloha wasn't as spectacular as it could've been.) After 1970 there really wasn't anything left to prove. He had re-conquered records & radio and live performance within a amazingly short period of time, and with a mystifying ease considering the state of his career in early 1968. Musically, the only real challenge left for Elvis after 1970 was touring abroad.

Pete, that is way off the mark. There is always something left to prove. How about recording great albums? How about collaborating with other great musical artists? How about reinventing a movie career? How about touring in untapped markets? How about changing the format of a live show permanently? How about headlining a weekly television show? How about producing films? Etc. etc. etc. There were plenty of professional and personal challenges Elvis could have faced. In 1970, he had only returned to relevance for a short period of time. He hadn't even broken the ice in the 70's before he started to deteriorate. Aside from Elvis Country, he really did not make another 'great' album. 7 years went by and were wasted with misguided and lackluster recording sessions which yielded some isolated gems, but his recording career was in complete disarray on so many levels. What a waste....

[3577]

The question that has to be asked, Midnight, is would another producer have gotten anything? That's why I don't have a problem with Felton. He at least got something.

Chips got something, Binder got something, Marty Passeta got something. They all challenged him and put him in a position where he had to proof himself.

In all three cases it was Elvis who challenged himself because he had something to prove. (And Aloha wasn't as spectacular as it could've been.) After 1970 there really wasn't anything left to prove. He had re-conquered records & radio and live performance within a amazingly short period of time, and with a mystifying ease considering the state of his career in early 1968. Musically, the only real challenge left for Elvis after 1970 was touring abroad.

Pete, that is way off the mark. There is always something left to prove. How about recording great albums? How about collaborating with other great musical artists? How about reinventing a movie career? How about touring in untapped markets? How about changing the format of a live show permanently? How about headlining a weekly television show? How about producing films? Etc. etc. etc. There were plenty of professional and personal challenges Elvis could have faced. In 1970, he had only returned to relevance for a short period of time. He hadn't even broken the ice in the 70's before he started to deteriorate. Aside from Elvis Country, he really did not make another 'great' album. 7 years went by and were wasted with misguided and lackluster recording sessions which yielded some isolated gems, but his recording career was in complete disarray on so many levels. What a waste....

Much of those challenges could have work...............if he had more business instinct. Parker wasnt to most coorperative person, even if Elvis really want to do it. So many factors must change. Producing or acting in films again? Do you think Parker allow that? Changing the fromat of a live show? 100% for Elvis to blame. Why? Boredom? Private matters? Drugs? I don't know. Good material for albums. Who's to blame? The people who came up with those songs? For a start, get rid of Felton Jarvis. And then? The offer of songs? Elvis didn't bother anymore whether good or bad.

All in all, i agree. Big f***ing waste.

[midnightx]

The question that has to be asked, Midnight, is would another producer have gotten anything? That's why I don't have a problem with Felton. He at least got something.

Chips got something, Binder got something, Marty Passeta got something. They all challenged him and put him in a position where he had to proof himself.

In all three cases it was Elvis who challenged himself because he had something to prove. (And Aloha wasn't as spectacular as it could've been.) After 1970 there really wasn't anything left to prove. He had re-conquered records & radio and live performance within a amazingly short period of time, and with a mystifying ease considering the state of his career in early 1968. Musically, the only real challenge left for Elvis after 1970 was touring abroad.

Pete, that is way off the mark. There is always something left to prove. How about recording great albums? How about collaborating with other great musical artists? How about reinventing a movie career? How about touring in untapped markets? How about changing the format of a live show permanently? How about headlining a weekly television show? How about producing films? Etc. etc. etc. There were plenty of professional and personal challenges Elvis could have faced. In 1970, he had only returned to relevance for a short period of time. He hadn't even broken the ice in the 70's before he started to deteriorate. Aside from Elvis Country, he really did not make another 'great' album. 7 years went by and were wasted with misguided and lackluster recording sessions which yielded some isolated gems, but his recording career was in complete disarray on so many levels. What a waste....

Much of those challenges could have work...............if he had more business instinct. Parker wasnt to most coorperative person, even if Elvis really want to do it. So many factors must change. Producing or acting in lilms again? Do you think Parker allow that? Changing the fromat of a live show? 100% for Elvis to blame. Why? Boredom? Private matters? Drugs? I don't know. Good material for albums. Who's to blame? The people who came up with those songs? For a start, get rid of Felton Jarvis. And then? The offer of songs? Elvis didn't bother anymore whether good or bad.

All in all, i agree. Big f***ing waste.

Sadly, Elvis isolated himself with pretty unsophisticated characters whom he could not turn to for proper career advice. Yes, a glaring problem was with his management representation who clearly did not many doors and opportunities opened for its star. But, clearly he still had a lot to give and a lot he could prove from an artistic and professional standpoint.

[Pete Dube]

Pete, that is way off the mark. There is always something left to prove. How about recording great albums? How about collaborating with other great musical artists? How about reinventing a movie career? How about touring in untapped markets? How about changing the format of a live show permanently? How about headlining a weekly television show? How about producing films? Etc. etc. etc. There were plenty of professional and personal challenges Elvis could have faced. In 1970, he had only returned to relevance for a short period of time. He hadn't even broken the ice in the 70's before he started to deteriorate. Aside from Elvis Country, he really did not make another 'great' album. 7 years went by and were wasted with misguided and lackluster recording sessions which yielded some isolated gems, but his recording career was in complete disarray on so many levels. What a waste....

Midnightx, Elvis seemed to work on relatively short bursts of inspiration followed by periods of riding the wave of those bursts of inspiration. From late '68 to early '71 we got 6 strong albums. Then the inspiration and enthusiasm waned. Maybe if these albums were spread out more he'd have kept his level up. Same thing happened with the live shows. I did acknowledge that touring abroad was still left, that would fit your 'untapped markets.'

I personally don't believe that Elvis could've revived his movie career. I think he had his shot and, due to Parker's mismanagement, blew it. Hollywood had moved on. What's more, I think Elvis' talk of reviving his movie career was just that - talk. He may very well have had the desire in the early 70's, but by 1975 it was little more than a pipedream. Time waits for no one.

Headlining a weekly series? I don't think he would've wanted to commit to a weekly format, and I also think that would've been a step down in a sense. Leave that to the Tom Jones and Glen Campbells and Mac Davis'. Elvis was too big for that. Plus there's the question of money.

Collaborations with other artists is a fairly recent thing, and I have doubts that Elvis would've been particularly interested as it would mean he'd have to venture out of his comfort zone a bit.

Lastly, Elvis as a film producer? Interesting, but I think he lacked the attention span and the clout for it. Plus it's a risky proposition. Producers are the seed money, and if a given film flops there's no return on investment - or even a loss. Elvis backing one break even or flop film would've put him off producing.

[midnightx]

Midnightx, Elvis seemed to work on relatively short bursts of inspiration followed by periods of riding the wave of those bursts of inspiration. From late '68 to early '71 we got 6 strong albums. Then the inspiration and enthusiasm waned. Maybe if these albums were spread out more he'd have kept his level up. Same thing happened with the live shows. I did acknowledge that touring abroad was still left, that would fit your 'untapped markets.'

I personally don't believe that Elvis could've revived his movie career. I think he had his shot and, due to Parker's mismanagement, blew it. Hollywood had moved on. What's more, I think Elvis' talk of reviving his movie career was just that - talk. He may very well have had the desire in the early 70's, but by 1975 it was little more than a pipedream. Time waits for no one.

Headlining a weekly series? I don't think he would've wanted to commit to a weekly format, and I also think that would've been a step down in a sense. Leave that to the Tom Jones and Glen Campbells and Mac Davis'. Elvis was too big for that. Plus there's the question of money.

Collaborations with other artists is a fairly recent thing, and I have doubts that Elvis would've been particularly interested as it would mean he'd have to venture out of his comfort zone a bit.

Lastly, Elvis as a film producer? Interesting, but I think he lacked the attention span and the clout for it. Plus it's a risky proposition. Producers are the seed money, and if a given film flops there's no return on investment - or even a loss. Elvis backing one break even or flop film would've put him off producing.

Pete, you follow Hollywood don't you? Entertainers that seem completely out of the game reemerge all of the time. A hack is a hack, but a true talent never has the door completely shut. There is no doubt that Elvis could have reentered the movie industry had he been in a semi-healthy state. He would have had to have played by a new set of rules, but he was too big of a talent for some producer or director not to want to take a chance on him. In 1975, it may have been a pipedream with Tom Parker overseeing the decision making process on Elvis' behalf, but clearly there were still real opportunities available.

Do I think he would have wanted to have headlined a weekly series? No. He was probably too big of a star for such a venture. My point was there were plenty of areas he could have pursued to "prove" something to himself and the entertainment world. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss television or opportunities it could have afforded. Yes, he was big, but he was also playing a worn-out, stale show to second and third rate concert markets.

You don't think at some point Elvis may have toyed with the idea of producing films? The fact that he wanted to finance a karate film/documentary in 1974 shows his desire to be involved with that kind of creative process. The right meetings and contacts in Hollywood could have opened up many doors in that area that he probably did not know even existed due to his existence in his sheltered world.

Collaborations between artists were not unheard of during the 70s'. Crosby Stills Nash & Young is one fine example. Bob Dylan and The Band. Pete Townshend and Ronnie Lane. Tony Bennett and Bill Evans. BB King and Bobby Bland. The list goes on and on. Again, the door to creative endeavors was completely shut by Elvis' management team.

There was so much more Elvis could have reached for during the 70's. He was hiding in an isolated world of drugs along with an uncreative, unsophisticated management team and group of "employees."

[brian]

I personally don't believe that Elvis could've revived his movie career. I think he had his shot and, due to Parker's mismanagement, blew it. Hollywood had moved on. What's more, I think Elvis' talk of reviving his movie career was just that - talk. He may very well have had the desire in the early 70's, but by 1975 it was little more than a pipedream. Time waits for no one.

.

I agree with you Elvis was 42 years old when he died and in Hollywood once you hit a certain age it's harder to get quality roles, and to be honest of all the good films that were made in the 80's I can't see Elvis in very many.
Another thing is he'd have to compete with established actors that were around his age like Redford, Nicholson, Eastwood, Hackman etc. to get these roles.
I think Elvis could've made a comeback only if he produced quality films for himself or if he just got really lucky.

[midnightx]

I personally don't believe that Elvis could've revived his movie career. I think he had his shot and, due to Parker's mismanagement, blew it. Hollywood had moved on. What's more, I think Elvis' talk of reviving his movie career was just that - talk. He may very well have had the desire in the early 70's, but by 1975 it was little more than a pipedream. Time waits for no one.

.

I agree with you Elvis was 42 years old when he died and in Hollywood once you hit a certain age it's harder to get quality roles, and to be honest of all the good films that were made in the 80's I can't see Elvis in very many.
Another thing is he'd have to compete with established actors that were around his age like Redford, Nicholson, Eastwood, Hackman etc. to get these roles.
I think Elvis could've made a comeback only if he produced quality films for himself or if he just got really lucky.

He was Elvis Presley! You don't think he couldn't have reestablished a film career? No one is comparing his potential in landing lead roles with Redford, Nicholson, Eastwood, Hackman, etc. except for you. It isn't like he was a legitimate leading man during the mid60's. But he was a box office draw and an intriguing presence. He had star power. And you can bet that if the right role (leading or supporting) presented itself in the right scenario, a director or producer would have taken a chance. Sorry, but his sad reality of the mid-70's of playing sh*t concert markets in gaudy jumpsuits while under the influence of medication was not all he had left in the tank and on the horizon.

[brian]

I personally don't believe that Elvis could've revived his movie career. I think he had his shot and, due to Parker's mismanagement, blew it. Hollywood had moved on. What's more, I think Elvis' talk of reviving his movie career was just that - talk. He may very well have had the desire in the early 70's, but by 1975 it was little more than a pipedream. Time waits for no one.

.

I agree with you Elvis was 42 years old when he died and in Hollywood once you hit a certain age it's harder to get quality roles, and to be honest of all the good films that were made in the 80's I can't see Elvis in very many.
Another thing is he'd have to compete with established actors that were around his age like Redford, Nicholson, Eastwood, Hackman etc. to get these roles.
I think Elvis could've made a comeback only if he produced quality films for himself or if he just got really lucky.

He was Elvis Presley! You don't think he couldn't have reestablished a film career? No one is comparing his potential in landing lead roles with Redford, Nicholson, Eastwood, Hackman, etc. except for you. It isn't like he was a legitimate leading man during the mid60's. But he was a box office draw and an intriguing presence. He had star power. And you can bet that if the right role (leading or supporting) presented itself in the right scenario, a director or producer would have taken a chance. Sorry, but his sad reality of the mid-70's of playing sh*t concert markets in gaudy jumpsuits while under the influence of medication was not all he had left in the tank and on the horizon.

I think It would have been harder than you think

Elvis never established himself as a serious actor, and he'd been out of the game getting older and older.
His box office waned around 1965 and his biggest hits were musicals.
He had no serious movie projects on the horizon when he died

You say no one is comparing his potential to land roles against Nicholson, Redford, Eastwood, Hackman besides me. well, they should because if Elvis couldn't of gotten at least a couple roles that they got then what else was he going to do.
Elvis wouldn't of been right for the roles that Sean Penn, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks and John Travolta were getting in the 80's because he was much older than they were.
So he'd better have worked his ass off to get some of those quality roles that Nicholson, Redford and Hackman were getting otherwise he'd have no great future in the motion picture industry.

[likethebike]

Pete is absolutely right. By 1973 Elvis had done pretty much everything there was to do in rock music. And save for his misfire at songwriting in the early 1960s, he hade done virtually everything brilliantly. He had helped to invent the form, transformed western culture, conquered TV and radio, not once but twice, became a significant live performer twice as well with the second time conquering an adult audience, incorporated auto-biography into his music, recorded a great concept album, covered and integrated an atsonishing array of popular styles and styles within those styles. Save for a legitimate artistic movie career and touring overseas he didn't have a lot left to conquer. There were other things he could do like develop interest in new styles like jazz or show tunes. But nothing save those two things he had to do. And it is worth noting that he did die at 42. It's not as if those options were still not open to a relatively young man. Still even with those unresolved avenues, no one else can touch all of what Elvis did in those 23 years.

The problem with Jarvis was the same problem that would have plagued Moman in that Elvis was a person who lost interest in things very quickly. His mind just worked that way. That Jarvis got what he got was fairly amazing. What do you think would have happened if Chips would have pulled some crap at the Today sessions? Elvis would have walked out the door. You think that stuff about cutting out the gospel in the 1950s pissed him off. Try pushing a legend around 20 years later when he's not that nuts to be there in the first place.

The thing that helped redeem Elvis in the early part of his career was that there were a lot of scenery changes, challenges and new people. Sun he had to prove himself. Then he had to prove himself on a national scale. Then he was given the challenge of recording material for movies. Then he met Leiber and Stoller. Then he was drafted. Then he had a new band. Then he had to come back after two years away. Those, by the way, were a big two years. For virtually the only time after Sun, Elvis got some serious time to think about music and what he wanted to do. Maybe Elvis would have more mustard to record if he had some time away from the industry.

It's also really about time to put away the myth of Binder, Moman and even Phillips. They deserve credit because they helped inspire Elvis at key turning points in his career. However, the bottom line on all that great music was Elvis.

Let me tell you about Steve Binder. Binder never touched that TV show again. His late 1970s Rolling Stone Anniversary Special is considered one of the worst ever specials of its kind.The only thing he had to compare with it before was the TAMI Show. As Dave Marsh pointed out the story line that Binder and his writers came up with for the TV show was astonishingly close to a standard Elvis movie. Those awful orchestrations that mar many of Elvis' classics were Steve Binder's inspiration (via Billy Goldenberg) to modernize Elvis' sound. Binder's credit is that he was new and inspired Elvis and recognized that it was best to leave Elvis do what Elvis did best.

Let's move on to Moman. This production "genius" has disowned many of the songs from the session because he wasn't into Elvis' off the cuff jams. Tracks like "I'll Hold You in My Heart" and "Stranger in My Own Hometown" were indulgences to Moman. And as anyone who has listened to the blaring intro on "Any Day Now" knows Moman could overproduce too. Again, he did good work, but it's not as if he was some sort of Spectoresque visionary. He was good for Elvis at a moment in time. Fans sometimes romanticize his work because there's nothing else from him to compare it to. However, Elvis was determined to take the world back over when he went into those sessions. That desire is what you hear, not Moman.

Unlike the previous two producers, Phillips was an actual genius. However, his genius was to let a performer discover what was already within himself. He had an excellent release policy that highlighted Elvis at his best (even he did whiff on a few choice ballads like "Blue Moon"). And unlike the other two producers Phillips did have an innovative technique with his use of echo. However, what to sing, how to sing it came mostly from Elvis and the band.

For the most part, Phillips was what many fans here would call a "Yes Man" at least according to the idea that a producer that encourages an artist rather than chastizing him, is a yes man. As many sports teams have found out, you do indeed often catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.


Booker T. what fans are dismissed by Greg's contention that rock n' roll is not the whole world?

[midnightx]

I think It would have been harder than you think.

It would not have been as hard as you think it was. Elvis was completely finished in the movie business and ASIB was still presented to him. Imagine Elvis aligning himself with a connected manager and utilizing the William Morris Agency's pull with the studios, producers and directors. Again, some of you guys seem to think it had to be all or nothing with Elvis - leading, headling roles. I haven't implied that once.

[drjohncarpenter]

It's also really about time to put away the myth of Binder, Moman and even Phillips. They deserve credit because they helped inspire Elvis at key turning points in his career. However, the bottom line on all that great music was Elvis.

Let me tell you about Steve Binder. Binder never touched that TV show again. The only thing he had to compare with it before was the TAMI Show. As Dave Marsh pointed out the story line that Binder and his writers came up with for the TV show was astonishingly close a standard Elvis movie. Those awful orchestrations that mar many of Elvis' classics were Steve Binder's inspiration (via Billy Goldenberg) to modernize Elvis' sound. Binder's credit is that he was new and inspired Elvis and recognized that it was best to leave Elvis do what Elvis did best.

Let's move on to Moman. This production "genius" has disowned many of the songs from the session because he wasn't into Elvis' off the cuff jams. Tracks like "I'll Hold You in My Heart" and "Stranger in My Own Hometown" were indulgences. Again, he did good work, but it's not as if he was some sort of Spectoresque visionary. He was good for Elvis at a moment in time. Fans sometimes romanticize his work because there's nothing else from him to compare it to. However, Elvis was determined to take the world back over when he went into those sessions. That desire is what you hear, not Moman.

Unlike the previous two producers, Phillips was an actual genius. However, his genius was to let a performer discover what was already within himself. He had an excellent release policy that highlighted Elvis at his best (even he did whiff on a few choice ballads like "Blue Moon"). And unlike the other two producers Phillips did have an innovative technique with his use of echo. However, what to sing, how to sing came mostly from Elvis and the band.

"Myth"?

What "myth"?

The accomplishments of Steve Binder and Chips Moman, not to mention Sam Phillips before them, are a part of history now.

What each did before or after has no bearing on assessing what they created with Elvis Presley. None.

How anyone with your musical knowledge chooses to dismiss their efforts in order to give Felton Jarvis "a leg up" is astounding in both conception and wrongheadedness.

[Booker T]

Booker T. what fans are dismissed by Greg's contention that rock n' roll is not the whole world.

His "contention" is that rock and roll fans are snobby, musically. I can assure him and anyone else that ain't the case. You are much, much more likely to see a "rock and roll" fan have a diverse collection of music than many hardcore Elvis fans, that seem to think the whole world sets on his music solely. Tonight, I listened to The Louvin Brothers, Miles Davis, Burt Bacharach, Public Enemy, Elvis, Peggy Lee, Ramones and Sarah Vaughan, dig? I don't need to be told rock and roll ain't the whole world by anyone.
People just throw that type of accusation around here because some rock-leaning fans don't prefer Elvis doing MOR-type music, and were turned onto him because he was The King Of Rock And Roll, not The King Of Vegas. Sorry folks, but rock and roll made him what he was, and gave him the freedom to try other forms of music. Rock and roll was what he was the King of, that's what he did better than anyone else. He did a couple of other genres very well too.
It isn't about not being open to all forms of music, it is about having an opinion on Elvis' music. There does not need to be high-handed dismissals of that opinion by folks who may dig Elvis being old because they're getting old and relate to slow songs about gettin' old. I think talk of relatability in a personal fashion has no place in a serious critical discussion, but that's me. I'm only saying that now because it seems to be open season on the dreaded closed-minded "rock fans". PFFT!

[likethebike]

That has certainly not been my experience Booker particularly with rock writing. Virtually no pop artists from the pre-Elvis era is given any respect save Frank Sinatra. The entire blasting of the Carpenters for instance was based on the fact that they were not rock. This was the same charge leveled at Elvis' great post army records. It has only been in the last decade that any pop performers have gotten due in writing. I've read many rock writers mystified at the interest in Tony Bennett. Read the initial Rolling Stone reviews of Elvis-That's the Way it Is the movie and especially the soundtrack albums. Read even Guralnick. On 30 #1 Hits he can't even bring himself to give unqualified praise to "Can't Help Falling in Love," neither could Carr and Farren. Steve Pond in the the audio commentary for Viva Las Vegas can't even admit the title track is a good song. It's not their type of thing. Ok. But that POV has dominated for a generation. Read Francis Davis, a great writer. However, he can't even praise Burt Bacharach without acting guilty and putting down other pop artists in the process as if to prove it's this one exception that he likes. Read the Rolling Stone Record Guide where pop oriented artists get a three star rating at best. Or gosh, look at Bobby Darin. For years it was the common line that Darin wasted his talents mostly because he opted to record more often in pop than in rock. "Why can't he make more records like 'Dream Lover'?" The Supremes are another act that have been dumped on for being too pop. Since rock became the dominant music and the emergence of rock writing in the mid-1960s, virtually anything that does not come from a blues/jazz or less preferably a country base is dismissed. In so many cases, moving towards a pop sound is a criticism in and of itself. To say that "My Boy"- just to use a popular example- is oversung is a real criticism. That it's not a rock song is not. There has also been an unfair bias, ironically, towards art rock and more long form modes of expression.

These biases extend to fans. I can count how many times a Tom Jones or a Perry Como has been held up to ridicule. It's long been a staple of classic rock stations to play a snippet of some pop song and then rip the song out and a DJ says "We don't play that crap here" or some such. It is true that when rock and roll started the snobbery went the other way, but in the past 35-40 years it has been very one sided. A writer recently wrote a book called In Defense of Doris Day. It says something when you believe you have to start out on the defensive. I was on a site a few years back where one fan called Bing Crosby a "footnote" in pop music history. This was a rock first fan.

This is not something that Greg has made up. Many thoughtful writers including Will Friedwald, Daniel Wolfe, and Gary Giddins have commented on it in the past decade and a half.

I disagree about relatability. I think that's kind of at the heart of why we like a given song. We can relate to it. We can see some some essential truth or feeling in there that we recognize.

My points don't concern relatability. They concern the fact that I genuinely like pop music. I like hits, I like hooks. I like conventionally beautiful voices and melody, not the exclusion of everything else but I like those things.

Doc- I don't dismiss their efforts to give Felton a leg up. I just recognize that the exact same force made Elvis' records with Felton great was the same force that made his records with Phillips, with L&S, with Moman etc. That force was Elvis. When Elvis was on, that was what made the records great. Phillips would tell you that with Elvis and all his artists. In most cases, they did not subsume themselves to his vision. Instead he allowed those artists to work and find what was them in themselves. In the few cases where he varied from this formula (Charlie Rich, Roy Orbison) Phillips admitted he was in error. I chafe at the idea that there was a genius behind Elvis.

"Suspicious Minds" and From Elvis in Memphis were not great because Chips Moman said "Elvis you're flat" once in awhile. They're great because Elvis sang like a demon and he did that whether Moman cared- "Suspicious Minds"- or not- "I'll Hold You in My Heart."

I don't dismiss their efforts at all. I acknowledge that they did good work. However, that it was great work was primarily due to Elvis. Sometimes, we go a little nuts with our love of collaborators and greener grass.

It is kind of quizzical to say that what a collaborator did elsewhere has no bearing on assessments on the role of collaborators in a specific collaboration. If one collaborator has a strong track record outside the association, it naturally makes a greater case for that collaborator. This is common procedure.

I have no personal stake in defending Jarvis. My stake is in fairness.

[midnightx]

I have no personal stake in defending Jarvis.

Your constant praise of his work says otherwise.

[likethebike]

I don't constantly praise it. People like Phil Spector, Elvis, Sam Cooke receive my constant praise. It seems the idea that Felton could even get any praise seems to be an issue here. He did a lot of crap, but he did a lot of good work as well. I don't see what is so overweening in making such a mild case. He wasn't a production genius, but he wasn't a hack either.

[Booker T]

Well, I dunno, LTB, nice post, but that just has not been my experience with actual rock fans. Rock writers, I don't care about really. I will say that the first kind words I ever read about the Carpenters were from Lester Bangs.
I really don't know many learned music fans who don't love The Supremes, Darin etc. I was turned onto Doris Day and Tom Jones both by fellow rock fans. I think there is lots of respect around for Bing, Astaire, Judy, Peggy Lee and all the other pre-rock pop greats. I mean, who doesn't like Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, etc.?
I dunno, maybe I've just run in the circles of folks who aren't prejudiced against forms of music, even if they prefer one.
Perry Como for me just isn't that good a singer, dullsville. But I like that type of music when it is great.

[midnightx]

Well, I dunno, LTB, nice post, but that just has not been my experience with actual rock fans. Rock writers, I don't care about really. I will say that the first kind words I ever read about the Carpenters were from Lester Bangs.
I really don't know many learned music fans who don't love The Supremes, Darin etc. I was turned onto Doris Day and Tom Jones both by fellow rock fans. I think there is lots of respect around for Bing, Astaire, Judy, Peggy Lee and all the other pre-rock pop greats. I mean, who doesn't like Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, etc.?
I dunno, maybe I've just run in the circles of folks who aren't prejudiced against forms of music, even if they prefer one.
Perry Como for me just isn't that good a singer, dullsville. But I like that type of music when it is great.

The hypocrisy runs wild. LTB rips on those that don't embrace Darin, Jones, etc - yet, will openly dismiss Pink Floyd and The Eagles out of the same short-sighted bias he claims others have towards his favorites from the 50's and 60's.

Booker, you are correct, most informed "rock fans" do not quickly dismiss artists of different genres. Rock writers, well, some have agendas, some don't. You have to take what they give with a grain of salt....

[ekenee]

Pete, that is way off the mark. There is always something left to prove. How about recording great albums? How about collaborating with other great musical artists? How about reinventing a movie career? How about touring in untapped markets? How about changing the format of a live show permanently? How about headlining a weekly television show? How about producing films? Etc. etc. etc. There were plenty of professional and personal challenges Elvis could have faced. In 1970, he had only returned to relevance for a short period of time. He hadn't even broken the ice in the 70's before he started to deteriorate. Aside from Elvis Country, he really did not make another 'great' album. 7 years went by and were wasted with misguided and lackluster recording sessions which yielded some isolated gems, but his recording career was in complete disarray on so many levels. What a waste....

Midnightx, Elvis seemed to work on relatively short bursts of inspiration followed by periods of riding the wave of those bursts of inspiration. From late '68 to early '71 we got 6 strong albums. Then the inspiration and enthusiasm waned. Maybe if these albums were spread out more he'd have kept his level up. Same thing happened with the live shows. I did acknowledge that touring abroad was still left, that would fit your 'untapped markets.'

I personally don't believe that Elvis could've revived his movie career. I think he had his shot and, due to Parker's mismanagement, blew it. Hollywood had moved on. What's more, I think Elvis' talk of reviving his movie career was just that - talk. He may very well have had the desire in the early 70's, but by 1975 it was little more than a pipedream. Time waits for no one.

Headlining a weekly series? I don't think he would've wanted to commit to a weekly format, and I also think that would've been a step down in a sense. Leave that to the Tom Jones and Glen Campbells and Mac Davis'. Elvis was too big for that. Plus there's the question of money.

Collaborations with other artists is a fairly recent thing, and I have doubts that Elvis would've been particularly interested as it would mean he'd have to venture out of his comfort zone a bit.

Lastly, Elvis as a film producer? Interesting, but I think he lacked the attention span and the clout for it. Plus it's a risky proposition. Producers are the seed money, and if a given film flops there's no return on investment - or even a loss. Elvis backing one break even or flop film would've put him off producing.

I partially agree with some of what you wrote, but one thing you didn't mention could have been done one year and probably wasn't tried because of Parkers fear of over exposing his boy.

He let Elvis rot in Las Vegas for weeks at a time but he could have signed him up for 4 TV specials in one year.

Not as pressured as a weekly series, but it would have gave the fans a chance to hear Elvis with other big stars.

Can you imagine if this was tried and we had 4, one hour specials, each filmed with one special guest.

Show 1 Guest Roy Orbison
Show 2 Guest Glen Campbell
Show 3 Guest Ann Margret
Show 4 Guest Tom Jones

Other big stars would do this in the 1970's. They would do 3 or 4 specials a year.

Some of them did lame comedy skits, but that wouldn't work with Elvis. It would have to be music
and jam session type stuff all the way.