Guardian article: Why Elvis memorabilia is plummeting in value

Best post of this thread!

 

If anyone wants to check out the O2 Arena in November and let us know whether the crowd is exclusively first generation fans, here's the promo for the European Tour from this summer.

 

Fat Elvis (to me) is everything in that damn jumpsuit. That's seemingly the last 7 years of his life. He last looked ridiculously cool on the 68 Comeback Special. It's the last time we saw "cool Elvis".

I do admire both the Beatles and Elvis, but I have a hard time with the way he's been handled posthumously. I wish more people would embrace 50's Elvis or 68 Comeback Special Elvis but we get those lame jumpsuit fat Elvis impersonators that can't stay away from that look for some reason. I think it sucks. Elvis was far better than that.

 

With all due respect, you need to get your eyes checked if you think Elvis was anywhere near "fat" in That's The Way It Is. He was in great physical shape during this time, and his performances were as electrifying as ever. He was still in fine shape on Elvis On Tour and during the Aloha From Hawaii shows as well. It wasn't until late 73/74 when he started to noticeably gain weight.

Also I never understood why the jumpsuits were so bad. Compare those outfits to the gaudy outfits being worn by David Bowie at the time, or Elton John. I think Mick Jagger's attire for a good part of the 70s may have very well been directly inspired by what Elvis was wearing at the time. And to bring things back to the Beatles again, when I think of "cool" I can't say my mind heads towards Sgt. Pepper outfits.

But at the end of the day, why does anyone care what an artist is wearing, or how fit they are? If somebody is going to form their opinion on Elvis, or anybody else, based on such superficial things as their appearance and fashion sense (especially for such a short period of time in a rather lengthy career), then that's their choice. For me, I'll let the music and performances speak for themselves.

 

He was definitely heavier in On Tour than TTWII and trimmed down for the Aloha show, but after that, it was a steady decline. The shows lost there real sparkle after Aloha as Elvis was almost on autopilot. As great as he looked in Aloha, the show was quite stilted compared with what he did between August '69 and Aug '70 when he was really in his prime for that period of his career.

Interesting that you should say "But at the end of the day, why does anyone care what an artist is wearing" yet you make mention of clothes that The Beatles wore for an album cover - and at the time, it was one of the most expensive album covers ever created. And in the end, it would become one of the most iconic images in rock ‘n’ roll history. Just curious but what part of London or the UK do you or did you live.

 

?
He's been treated BETTER posthumously in the musical sense. The box sets have been amazing, we've gotten the incredible FTD sets and there have been great comps.
Again, are you talking MUSIC or his jumpsuits?

 

Well said.

 

So much venom looking back just a few pages...
The Beatles were the best of all rock groups.
Elvis led the way, and without the King... the Beatles may never have happened. John said "before Elvis there was nothing". My favorite Elvis
period will always be the early days, but there was so much greatness till
the last years. I can not tear down Elvis, he just became out of control, a victim of it all... too much of everything.
The same could be said of the Beatles in many ways.
Looking back at these largest musical stars and the price they paid in life
is devastating. Elvis death was an unreal crushing day, but Lennon's was
the worst of them all for me. What Harrison went through with the brutal attack at his England home was unreal, then to die of cancer after a long
battle.

It ain't about jump suits... if that is what you want to dwell on. Sad.
I just won't fight or argue Elvis vs The Beatles.

 

You are right that he slimmed down for Aloha compared to On Tour, but I would hardly say he was overweight even at that point. He still looked relatively healthy - which was my point, that Elvis didn't suddenly gain 100 lbs as soon as he put on the jumpsuits. While I consider Aloha to be a fine performance overall, I agree that the cracks were beginning to show and it was a steady decline from that point on.

As far as the Sgt. Pepper thing goes, it was just an example to illustrate my point. I don't care what somebody wears, whether it's onstage, on an album cover, in their personal lives, or whatever the case may be. I don't think anybody should care. I know Sgt. Pepper is arguably the most highly regarded album of all time, and of course the cover is one of the most iconic. The only point I'm trying to make is I don't think those outfits (as well as those worn by Jagger, Bowie, etc) are any more outlandish than some of the things Elvis wore.

 

In the end I think we are very fortunate to have Elvis and the Beatles and I wish I had more money because I would also collect more Bing and Frank. The one thing I can say about debates like this is that it inspires me to listen to both.

On the way to going out to eat I was listening to Sun singles bluray I made (192khz/24bit) from the record I bought padded with upscaled 4 sides from his first record, and then When It Rains It Really Pours strangely left off.

On the way back I listened to Sgt. Pepper also from vinyl in HD. There is nothing so sweet as pure mono. Two great pioneering recording sessions that took the world to a place as described in Mystery Train "but it never will again).

At least I won't live to see it.

 

Some Elvis records I'd like to have are still too expensive for me.

 

We often cite the influence of Elvis on The Beatles, especially Lennon but many other legends of that era and after have used similar powerful words as Lennon's about Elvis' impact on them.
Look at these names who have either claimed Elvis as their greatest or one of their greatest influence and tell me there are this many names bigger than those on this list that were influenced by anyone else.

John Lennon
Paul McCartney
Bruce Springsteen
Bob Dylan
Jim Morrison
Buddy Holly
Robert Plant
Al Green
Janis Joplin
Bono
Jackie Wilson
Jon Bon Jovi
David Bowie
Mick Jagger
Merle Haggard
Rod Stewart
Isaac Hayes
Elton John
Bruno Mars

 

My 10-year-old niece said to me the other day, "The Beatles are so good."

It warmed my heart. She loves the Beatles. I love the Beatles. So do millions of others.

But they are not as popular today as they were in 1965. Or even 1995. Times change, and new and more exciting things come along. Future generations will enjoy things that we can't even dream of now.

Will people listen to the Beatles 100 years from now? Possibly. But I don't think they will be any more popular than a Jane Austen novel, or a Renoir painting. Flash forward even 50 years: Do you really think the culture will continue to obsess over people who are long dead?

When the first and second generation of Beatles fans are gone, a huge chunk of the band's popularity will go with them. "Life goes on within you, and without you."

 

Oh and Roger Daltrey

 

Debatable, really. Shakespeare's been dead for 400 years. No one has yet to exceed him as a playwright, and it's quite possible it will never happen. As long as the Beatles remain the pinnacle of recording artists, future generations should take an interest in them.

 

I mean no disrespect to your family or anyone else's when I say the following.

Why is the measure of an artists popularity based on what a child or teen says?

To me a child will comment on whatever is on the radio and if a song happens to be on, if it is anything that is noteworthy perhaps it will be noticed. What is noteworthy, that is in the eye of the beholder, or the parent that pushes said artist. I am sure when I was growing up I could have made a comment on the Supremes and not knew the difference. Of course I could comment on Rice Krispies jingles or Captain Kangaroo as well...

Experience is what dictates what is "good". An adult will learn about Elvis or the Beatles and make their own conclusions and that is what will mattter, not the farted thought of an infant. It is going to take a helluva long time before the conclusions of either Elvis or Beatles are "passe".

As if a Jane Austen Novel or Renoir are a small thing. I hope Elvis or the Beatles reach those states because then they have graduated not just from pop icons of their day, but an integral part of history that has moved past the finicky taste of a generation(s).

 

This is the key, I think. Elvis had a huge influence on his contemporaries and those learning to play music during his heyday, including obviously the Beatles themselves. This was true both in terms of the music itself and his style and image. But most likely because he was not involved in changing the direction of music once he got to the top, he is more remembered for his image and style today. Which are slowly fading. The Beatles by comparison, assuredly having their own image and the effect it has had on culture, beyond that also greatly affected the arc of the development of pop and rock music, which is still affecting those who make music. The net effect although not certain is likely to mean their place in culture will be more long lasting.

 

Liverpool is/was mostly white, but it has the oldest black community in England and the only Chinatown in Europe. The Beatles were not middle class, by any means, with the exception of Lennon.

Comparing Elvis and the Beatles is like comparing apples and oranges. They grew up in slightly different eras, under totally different conditions, and of course, their music is going to reflect that. The segregated southern U.S. was totally unlike class obsessed, bombed out and only partially rebuilt, living under rationing, Liverpool.

I think that many people here do not view the Beatles output as a joke. My question re Elvis is why was he recording such crappy songs to begin with? So he wasn't a songwriter--very few singers from the 1950s could write songs--no big deal there. But knowing that, why wasn't he searching out the best songwriters ever for his material? Why did he have to spin crap into gold? Look, you obviously know his repertoire much more than I do--a lot of my info on Elvis comes from Guralnick's books. What comes out clearly in those books however, is that Elvis seemed to care more for his movie career than the music he was producing, for much (though obviously not all) of the 1960s and 1970s. Some of that was due to his lifestyle, some (especially later) was due to the pills.

The Beatles, after the first few albums, had free reign at EMI to spend as much time as they wanted in the studio. They worked hard on their albums. Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys ended up building his own studio. He obsessively worked on each song. Elvis never seemed to have much time in the studio and had to scramble to find songs to record. It seems to me that if he was seriously interested in the music, he would have demanded more studio time and put more effort into it.

I'm sorry if I come across as slamming Elvis--he was one of the greats and there wouldn't have been a Beatles or probably rock and roll at all without him. Truly a giant influence on all that went after. When he was great, he was amazing. However, that doesn't mean that there weren't other equally amazing performers/groups out there.

As far as his music lasting or that of the Beatles, there is no way to know that really, without teleporting into the future. Of course, he/they aren't particularly relevant to younger people. That's the way of things. But there was a folk revival in the 1950s (folk songs from the 19th century--they're cool!) so who knows what will happen down the line.

 

Few people know and fewer care who actually wrote something, unless such information has something to do with the publicity behind the song, i.e., TMZ gossip surrounding the latest Beyonce or Taylor Swift release, or the Behind The Music drama surrounding RUMOURS. Most of the 20th century's great pop music was not self-authored: think of Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis, Motown, etc.

Grading the Beatles "greater" than Elvis Presley requires the debate adopt or assume that those things the Beatles did -- wrote their own songs, assembled albums as artistic statements, maintained the integrity of their roster, brand and core catalog -- are virtues in and of themselves and not just how these particular pop artists got things done in their particular era. Unsurprisingly, the Beatles get good marks on a grading system based on their model.

 

You're limiting your perception to the Rock crowd and to artistry pertaining to only songwriting and studio experimentation.
Elvis is musically relevant to those who are fans of Country music, which embraces the Elvis image and music of Country, Rockabilly and Gospel.
Also, an interpreter of the lyric as gifted as Elvis may not shape the direction of mainstream music, but he radically shapes or reshapes the songs he's recording with his instrument which is his voice.
Listen to his 70s versions of Green Green Grass of Home vs anyone elses.
Same with Always on my Mind or his live 77 version of My Way, or There's A Honky Tonk Angel.
Listen to his 50s arrangements Shake Rattle and Roll, Hound Dog or Blue Moon of Kentucky vs the originals.

 

The two foregoing posts completely missed my point. I did NOT say that ONLY songwriting was/is important. I said in comparing Elvis to the Beatles the main difference is not only that the Beatles wrote much of their own music, they altered the arc of the development of pop and rock music, which I do think came out in part from their songwriting. And that THAT has had a greater effect on those who make music subsequently than has Mr. Presley.

I did NOT say this means that made the Beatles "greater" - that is a complete mischaracterization of my post by the obviously agenda driven Ron Stone. I merely posited that the foregoing imo will have them endure longer.

 

I don't have time to answer this properly, but why does something like The Ballad of John and Yoko which obviously takes the bass line from Don't Be Cruel get the songwriting cred, while Elvis who worked his ass off to make one of the most recognizeable art, ever in music get nothing because he didn't write lyrics?

An artist is one who creates art, and the same is true of his movie soundtracks which provided entertainment on specific scenes.

When I say he turned crap into gold, that is exactly what I meant. Turning to gold, means it ceases to be crap. Get it?

This is caring about the art, and his judgment wasn't actually all that bad in the grand scheme of things down to it being a great setup for his comeback.

To compare the feeble amount of time that Brian Wilson put in compared to what Elvis spent in the studio really?? I can't even dignify that.

I am sorry, but yes I say this with all due respect you need to study up. Elvis not only had a helluva studio career but he toured like a mad man. What was Elvis doing not shopping for songwriters while making a million a picture....uh spending time with family and friends??? And what is wrong with that???

Btw Yokosmom I never said the Beatles output was a joke. Nice strawman.

I said the Beatles made joke songs, and lots of them. Elvis for what he did, took most all his art seriously, even if you don't find value enough to learn it all.

Sorry if this came off bad, but yes I did find your post judgmental and lacking to the history of what Elvis did in the studio.

Lets summarize it. Elvis sets the world on fire from 1954 to 1963. So in his "retirement" from 1964 to 1967 he spends money putting out up to 3 movie soundtracks a year plus at least 3 studio albums worth of material and what do the Beatles do after their same time period of activity....they quit.

Elvis output was amazing and the work he put in to his art was just crazy. Pills were to keep going, not to avoid it???!!

 

Eh I apologize for the rant above. I was in Elvis fanatic mode. Yes I am also aware that the Beatles didn't quit, but rather they went solo. Though I still think that relieves pressure and allows them to have some kind of flawless career without taking true chances

 

I dont know how many of you on this thread were around when he died, I was, and it was very sad indeed.

When I was a kid I didnt know anything about him except that he was a movie star, and I had seen quite of few of those. Yeah he sang in all of them, but I still thought of him as an actor.

Time went by, I drifted out of classical music and into rock, and somehow, got a copy of Elvis the Sun Sessions. Wow. Just Wow. That was like an atomic bomb for me. I couldnt believe it. Like it wasnt the same guy. That was about as raw as anything I'd heard up to that point.

He died just a little bit after I got that album. I had been chasing down some of his earlier work too.

I've got a lot of Elvis stuff around the house now. Maybe its worth nothing but I dont care. I still listen to his earlier stuff and it takes me right back there, to those early days, being in awe of it all.