Why didn't Elvis record more rock 'n roll and rhythm and blues?

Don't forget the Million Dollar Quartet version:

 

Publishing, and the deals Col Prker had made with publishers, had a lot to do with t. This is why Leiber/Stoller were frozen out after awhile. The one time he put his foot down was when "Suspicious Minds" nearly got dumped

 

From what Pricilla has said in various interviews, it sounds like Elvis was less interested in rockers and really gravitated toward ballads because he felt he could better express himself and how he was feeling through that form. Similarly, his passion for gospel seemed to only grow. My take is that his choices to focus more on those areas also probably felt like his own area of eventual creative control.

 

Elvis would have looked ridiculous at Woodstock. He would have been so out of place in every way. Not that he could not have held his own with the other premier acts, but the environment and what it represented would not have been a good fit.

 

The more I go the more I appreciate Elvis' non-rock facets. When I hear the early RnR tracks, well they're just fine (and he had a damn good guitar player!), but I always think this has been done before, "elsewhere" and often even better. Whereas with his whiter roots (country, ballads...), he sounded more "his own thing" IMO. Perhaps more authentic/less derivative.

Of course, that's just for his sound. As a stage act and presence, in his early years he was a storm!

 

My theory is that rock as we know it started in England with bands like: Beatles The Who, Cream, Hendrix Experienced Rolling Stones. Elvis I consider a distinguished coutry singer. He was a solo artist, how many solo artists do you know inside rock? David Gilmour and Roger Waters became solo artists after their relationship became unbearable.

 

Counterpoint: He was the King of Rock & Roll. If he had wanted to, he could have put together a set heavy on blues and R&B that would have appealed to the crowd.

 

Interestingly, Elvis' love of gospel tended to be specifically white country gospel (Blackwood Brothers) which is very mannered and buttoned up, really not that far from the Jordanaires, Mitch Miller, etc., That which he could tap into with blues, and r&b, he didn't seem to find in gospel, not even the swinging jubilee style let alone the hard gospel quartets that reigned during the late 40s and through the 50s.

 

I don't think so. 1969 was the height of not only his 'comeback' but a fresh approach he took to the material he was performing - and how he looked. For most there, Elvis WAS the rock & roll they were spawned on. He would have been huge. Maybe not as edgy or underground as most of the acts but he was... Elvis. Also, the 50's retro thing was already hip; Sha Na Na, Zappa & The Mothers, etc.

 

If Elvis had done this at Woodstock, it would have been an anthem

 

1969 was a huge comeback in hindsight, but it wasn’t yet clear during the summer of 1969, particularly when the festival promoters were booking talent. The December 1968 airing of his Singer Presents television special reintroduced him to the public beyond the “B” musical comedy persona he mostly known as by then, and he did record some of the best music of his career in January 1969 at American Sound, but most of it was not yet heard by the public in July 1969, especially the Woodstock audience. And he ultimately ended up playing in a dinner theater to a conservative Las Vegas audience. That said, he was in remarkable form in Las Vegas, but that show was not a good fit with Woodstock, and that show is all we have to go on. Hypothetically, some might argue he could have put together a soul-drenched, blues and rock set with a taste of rock and roll revival at Woodstock, but that is a fantasy. There is no actual indication that ever could have happened. Furthermore, Elvis would have found the entire environment (the festival grounds, hippies, rampant psychedelic drug abuse, counterculture variety, and several fellow artists) repugnant.

 

The comeback wasn't hindsight whatsoever. It was everywhere, in record stores, on radio, etc. He also wasn't some b grade music comedy act to us - or anyone I new. The 'Woodsock audience' wasn't separate from anything. It was a cross section of young America.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Elvis had very much alienated a lot of fans and was largely irrelevant to the younger generation of music fans circa 1969. And if he wasn’t largely viewed as an irrelevant, former music great starring in second-rate musical comedies, then there would have been no need for a “comeback.” The “Comeback Special” spawned a relatively successful soundtrack, but it had little staying power and none of the singles (Memories and If I Can Dream) were exactly contemporary hits, particularly songs that would appeal to the Woodstock demographic. From Elvis In Memphis was issued only one month prior to Woodstock and not did achieve artistic acclaim right away (and was never a big seller), nor had Suspicious Minds been released. Further, another second rate film was issued in June, Trouble With Girls. Elvis’ career was still very uneven mid-1969 and his artistic reputation was not yet rehabilitated.

 

You're parroting an overly simplistic, generalized history overview. I lived it real time, with friends and older siblings, some of whom were in fact there (although most attended west coast festivals). None of these divisions & career place markers you've depicted existed like that. We didn't live by stats, release dates, factoids, and critical assessments. None of us were gaging whether his 'reputation' had been sufficiently 'rehabilitated.' Thats not they way culture works. Elvis was still Elvis.

It is true that at the time, most (not all) of the people I knew or hung with close to my age didn't play his albums in the context of playing records for each other. He was not the Stones or the Beatles, nor a cool FM radio staple -- but he was still hugely respected for who and what he was and with the right song, still resonated. He was still called the king for a reason. Depending on how he carried himself and what he would have performed, he would have been well received. Probably even a highlight.

 

I disagree. I also know many people who lived through that period. They were Elvis enthusiasts and many did not view it simply as “Elvis was still Elvis.” A lot of fans felt let down by his body of work during most of the 1960s and had moved on. They still liked Elvis and still remembered his greatness, but most people in real time did not think he was particularly relevant in the contemporary music scene. The dividends from the Singer Presents special and American Sound sessions were not immediately felt. If you want to believe Elvis would have been a smashing success at Woodstock and would have felt comfortable in the environment, that is certainly your prerogative, but many will disagree.

 

You're literally making most of this up. It reminds me of a younger guy at a record show a few years ago trying to tell us OK boomers that Deep Purple was a barely known cult band back in the 70's and Velvet Underground was huge, rivaling Led Zeppelin. All of which was true in his mind.

 

Man, everyone posts on the Hoffman forums!

 

Making it up? Nothing I said in my posts with respect to Elvis' career circa 1968/1969 on this thread have been inaccurate and certainly not made up. Take a look around the forum's Elvis threads and get back to me.

 

So true! I've tended to really enjoy Gospel artists like the Golden Gate Gospel Quartet (who Elvis apparently liked), but he seemed to really take most inspiration from the white, country side of Gospel. I love hearing Elvis and J.D. Sumner talk about Elvis visiting the Blackwood Brothers shows as a kid, and reading about how the plane crash in the group's history affected him so closely. Because of his passion for that style of Gospel, I've been exploring and finding that the energetic stuff by the Blackwoods and Statesmen can be pretty fun -though it's sure not as soulful as the black quartets, IMHO. As you say, he wasn't moved to rock too deeply, even in his Gospel tastes. That said, I really do love all of Elvis' Gospel stuff. He was so into it and he sounds authentic. Elvis brought something to that style that was missing, I think. He makes it cool and I actually tend to go back this part of his catalog the most often.

 

Maybe we should dig up Col. Tom Parker, and ask him......

 

Period.

 

It's so easy to blame the Colonel and not Elvis.

 

Parker certainly played a significant role with recording restrictions (both in terms of publishing and collaborative producers), but I don’t think he was to blame for Elvis’ choice to record more and more MOR ballad material as the 1970’s progressed. The only time Parker really cared about the genre was when he negotiated that Elvis deliver gospel and Christmas albums as part of his RCA contracts.

 

I really don't want to derail this thread, but my goodness, as I went through my Hillbillies in Hell series of obscure country music, I fell upon some not-so-obscure music by The Statesmen Quartet that I had long forgotten about and yes, it reminded me of Elvis. I couldn't help but to think, "wow, this stuff has been buried for too long!" A lot of good music.

 

Bruce Springsteen may not have been an ordinary "fan" since he was a young working musician still soaking up all sorts of American influences at the time, but in April 1976 didn't he and Little Steven scale the Graceland fence in a misguided attempt to offer Elvis a song? Don't know Springsteen's feelings about Woodstock but he was/is a fan of many of the bands that played there. Yet Elvis was one of the titans on the mountain top, even if he did waste the 60s making those b-movies. I was too young to be aware of much of this back then but am appreciative of Elvis' comeback since that's what hooked me in personally. I do recall songs like "Suspicious Minds" and "In the Ghetto" on the radio as a kid but that's when radio was more adventurous than today.