Elvis Presley - The Albums and Singles Thread pt2 The Sixties

There's something to be said for giving equal weight to all sources when contradictory accounts exist. Guralnick picks and chooses who to believe, and I think his judgment in that area is often extremely suspect, as well as influenced by his own biases (spite towards people who wouldn't give him interviews, favoritism of the official EPE view of things because he received their cooperation and support, a serious blind spot towards the Colonel, etc).

Ultimately, no book is perfect, and you should always read critically and consult multiple sources on any subject. As I noted, I like Nash's warts-and-all, kitchen sink approach because it gives me raw data and I can come to my own conclusions. Guralnick presents a skewed, one-sided view of the subject.

 

It's a book about Elvis' personal life and relationships with women, none of whom had any involvement in his music. So if you're only looking for details about the creation of his work you might as well stop now.

I am interested in both areas. I enjoy hearing about the history of how the music was created, but I also find it fascinating to learn about the personal history of the artist. I don't think you can separate art from artist, and learning about the personal life of the artist deepens my appreciation of the art.

 

Oh, I completely forgot about that one! Thanks for reminding me; yes, I do like his version. And I need to spend more time with that Star-Club album...I've been quite impressed on the handful of occasions that I've listened to it.

 

While we're talking about the Guralnick bios, does anyone know why he refers to Parker as "Colonel" rather than "the Colonel" (almost like "Colonel" was his first name)? Is it a sign of respect or something like that?

 

I think people who knew him personally did tend to just call him "Colonel" and that's what he liked to be called. I remember reading an interview with photographer Ed Bonja... he got the gig taking pictures of Elvis because his uncle was Tom Diskin and the Colonel was a family friend throughout his childhood. Anyway, he said his Uncle Tom told him that he should call the Colonel "Uncle Colonel."

 

You'd think he would eventually promote himself to a Brigadier General.

 

I don't disagree with your assessment on Guralnick, although, I think the bigger issues you refer to are much more evident with "Careless Love," than with his first volume. With respect to his presentation and/or analysis of Tom Parker, while he is kinder and more forgiving than he should be, he does not exactly whitewash some of the more serious personal and management flaws of the man when they need to be addressed.

 

Seen from the perspective of 2019, Guralnick's flaws seem many, but having lived through the hideous aftermath of Goldman, it was a relief to pick up a biography about Elvis that was focused firmly on the music again.

Speaking of "raw data", I heard Steve Binder say via a podcast interview (@42:00) that Elvis told him that "in the first years of his life he never saw a white person" growing up poor in East Tupelo. I've never heard or read that before.

 

But it would be feasible. Vernon was a share cropper.

 

I agree with this 100%. Neither Guralnick’s nor Nash’s book is perfect. Both have flaws, but both have many good points as well. Reading both gives you a fuller picture of a subject who, like all people, will never be wholly knowable. As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve recently read Joel Williamson’s Elvis Presley: A Southern Life, which gave me a better perspective on the poverty of Elvis’s childhood in Tupelo, and the effect of that childhood poverty on his adult behavior, than I’d ever thought about before.

 

Truer words have never been said on this great forum! There was a collective sigh of relief when Peter Guralnick's first volume on Elvis came out and both critics and fans alike realized this would replace Goldman's hatchet job on Elvis as the definitive biography on Elvis. The second volume was somewhat of a disappointment as I think Guralnick wanted to explain the downfall of Elvis at the cost of everything else. I think there was a lot of important events that took place during the time the first volume left off and Careless Love ends that deserved more in depth review and analysis. Thats my two cents anyways.

 

It amazes me that anyone ever took Goldman's book seriously when its tone was so deliberately contemptuous and insulting. A serious historian doesn't feel the need to editorialize about their subject matter, their job is to present facts. Guralnick actually treated Elvis seriously and with respect, but that's kind of a low bar to clear... it's really the minimum that should be expected.

I wanted to refresh my memory of how Guralnick covered the incident involving A Star is Born, and I went back and reread it. After he details the facts of the incident, Guralnick concludes with the following paragraph:

"But secretly he [Elvis] seemed almost relieved not to have to deal with a matter that had blown up so quickly from a long-awaited dream into something complicated, unfamiliar, and ambiguous all at the same time. In the end, he decided, it was just as the Colonel had told him: he was sorry that Colonel was right, but there it was. Streisand and Peters had thought they could take advantage of him; when they were finally confronted with the reality of the situation, that he had access to a strength and business acumen that they had never imagined he would posses, they simply went away."

Guralnick cites no source for any of the above statements about Elvis' private thoughts and feelings. I am left to conclude this is nothing more than fan fiction. Even worse, it's fan fiction that contradicts what several of the Memphis Mafia say were Elvis' actual feelings about the incident. So Guralnick is placing his own speculation ahead of the testimony of people involved.

Unfortunately, his book is rife with this kind of mind reading, and I personally find this sort of thing more irritating than the silly psychobabble that Alanna Nash sometimes spouts. I know no book is perfect, but I guess it troubles me that the Guralnick book is put on a pedestal by many fans when it really is a seriously flawed work.

 

You're being way too hard on Guralnick here, the man who did music fans a great service with his two Elvis bios (and some others, including a remarkable book on Sam Phillips). I agree with you that there are places where Guralnick is interpreting Elvis's thoughts/feelings -- I think that is quite intentional and open on Guralnick's part -- but I don't think he's doing so out of his ass, as he usually has considerable eye-witness or first-hand account to draw from. The passage you are quoting, above, involving his meeting with Streisand, is referenced to five interviews with Elvis insiders in Elvis: What Happened?. (I don't have that book, so I can't say if any of those interviewees described Elvis's mood or feelings after the Streisand meeting, but maybe they did...?)

Anyway, if you're going to complain every time a biographer interprets something, you might as well not read any biography. There is a point when the writer has to determine he has his own perspective.

Also, I never got the feeling that Guralnick trusts the Colonel or takes his word for everything. He's very open in relating the Colonel's countless failures as manager.

 

It's called "confirmation bias"...

 

Finders Keepers Losers Weepers
Written By :
Dory Jones & Ollie Jones

Recorded :
RCA's Studio B, Nashville, May 26-28, 1963: May 27, 1963. take 3

This is a fairly benign song. It is moderate tempo little tune. It sounds like a soundtrack song somewhat. Really nice vocal. I have no problem with the song, but it isn't the upper shelf of Elvis.

 

In My Way
Written By :
Ben Weisman & Fred Wise

Recorded :
Radio Recorders, Hollywood, November 7-8, 1960: November 7, 1960, take 8

This is a pleasant song and I like its stripped back arrangement. It is well sung and although not changing the world, it is a nice song.

 

Good catch on “The Star Is Born” portion. That was always a bit of a head-scratcher. Why peddle Parker’s lame excuse for turning down the film, particularly when there is contradictory evidence from sources who were directly there? Then again, Parker was present as well, and for whatever reason, Guralnick gave him the benefit of the doubt, even though Parker was the most unreliable source.

 

Didn't Parker want $1Mil for Elvis in Star Is Born? I would think that was the sticking point.

 

I also really like Finders Keepers Losers Weepers. When I first played Elvis For Everyone, when that song came on I heard the most familiar and quintessential Elvis vocal style. (from my experience). It seemed more contemporary (at that time, which it was) than the first two songs.

In May Way is also a nice tune. It has a folky charm and is so pristine.

 

Part of it, but his demands also included billing, control over the soundtrack, and an excessive backend deal. Parker negotiated Elvis right out of that movie, and on some level, it was the final nail in his career coffin. Less than two years later, Elvis would be gone.

 

I'm not an Elvis movie fan but for some reason I like this one. I don't know if its the campiness, low budget style, or tongue in cheek humor. The music is definitely great since it was poaching some of Elvis' best studio work.
I didn't know Elvis had trouble with the IRS though. Although the Colonel could be blamed for a lot of shenanigans and even outright mismanagement, Elvis did do well financially in the 50s and early 60s. It seems to show how cut off Elvis was to his peers that he did not hire anyone to invest for him. Elvis could have invested and been independently wealthy enough to pick and choose artistic projects by the mid 1960's. His view of everything must have been like viewing a closed circuit tv. Management wouldn't let anyone in that might influence him. All of his close friends were on the payroll and had no incentive to tell him no. As useless as the Colonel was after 1965 for Elvis' career, we can't overstate how Elvis was his own worst enemy by being so closed off to the outside world.

 

I must just be a contrarian. I like this LP. It's not Elvis Is Back but it is almost like the Camdens that were released in the 1970's only with better material. This album should have been entitled Pot Luck for sure. I think the songs are good with the exception of Sound Advice. We get to hear Elvis rock again with Your Cheatin Heart, Memphis Tenn, and When It Rains It Pours. I even like the overdubbed Tomorrow Night version on the album.

 

nah mate, not contrarian ... weirdly, this album is one I look at and turn away, but whenever I put it on, I enjoy it.

 

Despite the flack Guralnick is getting here, his two-part tome is still the best biographical work on Elvis, and was written with love and respect for its subject. It did a great deal to elevate Elvis's reputation in the wake of Goldman's hitjob of a biography (for which I recommend reading Greil Marcus's gloriously blistering negative review). Nash's works are valuable less for her interpretations than for the wealth of interviews within them, which will give you an almost full picture of Elvis, even if it's slightly contradictory at times.

If you are still determined to avoid any biographies, you should read Elvis Presley: A Life in Music--The Complete Recording Sessions by Ernst Jorgensen. No one knows more about Elvis's music than this Danish superhero, and no one has done more for it either, with the exception of Elvis himself.

 

Yes, and as you know the contention of Marty Lacker and others is that Parker intentionally torpedoed the negotiations because he was fearful of Elvis interacting with Streisand and possibly finding out that the management he was receiving was substandard and exploitative. This contention is not mentioned at all by Guralnick, and it's a telling, deliberate omission. This is the type of thing that makes me contend Guralnick was to some degree biased toward the Colonel, and/or soft-pedaling the Colonel's actions. It's an important detail to leave out of the story.

The paragraph I quoted goes beyond interpretation. He is ascribing thoughts and feelings to Elvis that are not directly sourced, and he is stating them in Elvis' voice as though Elvis said them himself. And these statements contradict what Lacker and others have said, that Elvis did not agree with the Colonel's decision to torpedo the negotiations, and was disappointed that he had done so.