Elvis Blog Archives — April 2008
Entry #4: Posted April 3, 2008 A week ago Sunday I was sitting at the kitchen counter reading the morning paper. As I spread the paper out, the cover of Parade magazine caught my eye. There was a picture of Mariah Carey on it, but it was a word in big red letters that drew my attention—“Elvis.” The complete headline read, “Will Mariah Carey Top Elvis?’ My first thought was, “Oh, this is going to bother some Elvis fans.” In the article about Mariah Carey inside, I found the following statement: “ … she has sold 76 million records and charted 16 No. 1 singles—just two fewer than Elvis Presley and four fewer than the Beatles. She could catch or surpass both with this [new] album.” Now, while most of the Elvis faithful fervently insist that their man is Number 1 in all categories, they can probably live with others believing the Beatles surpass him in #1 singles. But Mariah Carey? Can’t let that happen. Since it’s too late to stop her, it’s time to start spinning the numbers. There’s no doubt we live in a society obsessed with making judgments based on statistics. It’s most obvious in the fields of politics and sports, but numbers have always been important in the entertainment business, as well. Any Elvis fan knows that numbers, big numbers, have always been used to support his place atop the list of greatest entertainers. Remember a few years ago? Some publication issued a list of gold and platinum record winners. When Elvis finished down on the list, some incensed fans decided to take action. How could Elvis not be #1? They demanded a recount, and if that didn’t work, they wanted the counting redone in a different way. But hold on. What do all these numbers mean anyway? Does Elvis’s legacy really sit on a foundation of numbers? When other singers build big numbers of their own, does that really diminish Presley’s legacy, as some fans fear? Let’s take a look at some Elvis numbers and see what significance they really have. I found the following stats in a January 2000 of TV Guide. Of course, there have been lots of other Presley numbers thrown around, but I think I can make my point with this group. • Records sold: More than one billion. Wow! That’s a nice big round number. Makes you wonder where it came from. Personally, I would have more trust in it if it were more exact, like say … 1,015,201,583. Now I know they’re probably referring to world-wide sales, but think about it. A billion is a thousand million. To reach that level, Elvis would have to have sold five million copies of 200 different records. Does that sound reasonable? Not to me. Not without some explanation of how the total was determined. The point is that you can throw numbers out there, but they’re meaningless if they aren’t documented. Let’s try another one. • Number of gold, platinum or multiplatinum albums: 63 Now that’s really impressive—63 gold albums or better! But how are such awards determined. Check out the following explanation from Wikipedia: “Originally applied to LP records, certification is now most commonly awarded for compact disc sales. Certification is usually awarded cumulatively, and it is possible for a single album to be certified silver, gold, and platinum in turn. An album that becomes platinum twice over is said to be ‘double platinum’. Artists can also become multi-platinum sellers if they have at least two albums both going single platinum—therefore meaning that they do not have an individual album selling these amounts.” If I read that correctly, those 63 award-winning Elvis albums could actually have been, say, 25 albums, some of which were counted two or three times. That stat just lost some of its luster. The next one is my favorite. • Number of people who tuned into Presley’s 1973 special, Aloha From Hawaii via satellite: 1.5 billion Even though total people and households are different stats, these numbers are obviously meant to infer that the world cared more about an Elvis concert than man walking on the moon. Again, does that pass the “reasonable” test? Also, think about this. In 1973 the world population was 3.973 million. Does it seem likely that 38% of all people in the world watched Elvis’s concert that day? You know what this number sounds like?—a Colonel Parker number. That’s a number designed to make Elvis look good but one that has no basis in reality. Well, you get my point. Numbers can be found, or created, to support any position a person chooses to take. I suggest, however, that Elvis Presley’s legacy should not be, and, in fact, can not be defined by numbers. Elvis’s “legacy” is a term I use often on Elvis-History-Blog. To me it refers to what influence his life had on his generation and on those that followed. That includes his role in changing the course of popular music in the 1950s and on through the present day. It includes how his music helped change attitudes in America about race. It includes how his drawing power gave rise to the large-scale concert industry in the U.S. These and other parts of his legacy can’t be measured in numbers. So my advice to Elvis fans is to relax and have fun with the numbers if you like. But don’t take them too seriously. And don’t feel threatened when another entertainer’s numbers are compared to Elvis’s. His legacy is well established and can’t be enhanced or diminished by numbers. — Alan Hanson
Entry #5: Posted April 10, 2008 Although I am certainly not an expert on Elvis’s movies, I did run across a number of articles about his two 1957 movies while doing research for my book, Elvis ’57: The Final Fifties Tours. This time I’ll share some information about Loving You, and in the future I’ll pass on some facts and anecdotes about Jailhouse Rock. For those hard-core Presley movie scholars, an article in Variety on June 26, 1957, two weeks before Loving You’s release date, explained Paramount’s plans for distributing the movie in the major markets of New York and Chicago. The standard strategy of the day among the major studios was to advertise heavily and then open their big budget films in one of the large downtown theaters for a two-week run. Only then were the smaller, outlying theaters allowed to offer the movie. That’s how 20th Century-Fox handled Love Me Tender eight months before. In 1957, however, the studios were just beginning to experiment with a new distribution strategy, and Loving You seemed a good fit to try it on. Paramount noticed that Love Me Tender had opened big on Broadway in New York, but then faded quickly after the first big flood of teenagers had seen it. So, with Loving You, Paramount decided to skip the downtown showing altogether, and go with a saturation booking in 90 neighborhood theaters in the city starting on July 17, 1957. That brought the potential opening weekend seating to 145,000, instead of the 4,000 or so that a Broadway theater could offer. The mass theater release was preceded by a media advertising blitz, just like under the old system of one major theater opening. The same strategy was used in Chicago, where 55 local theaters were allowed to play Loving You starting July 12, just three days after the movie’s official release. Timing was another reason for Paramount’s decision to open the film in so many theaters at once. Since it was mid-summer, the studio wanted to make sure the movie was available to as many teenagers as possible before school opened in September. Paramount was strictly experimenting with Loving You. It had no other movies scheduled for a saturation opening, and all the studios were waiting to see results of the new distribution strategy before considering it as a standard procedure. Loving You did not disappoint. It brought in $3.7 million, making it one of the 20 top grossing films of the year. So, although he had nothing to say about how his films opened, indirectly Elvis can be credited with helping change Hollywood’s film distribution policy. Loving You first opened Tuesday, July 9, 1957, at the Strand theater in Memphis. An article in the Press-Scimitar the following day revealed impressive numbers. “The first day of ‘Loving You’ broke every existing attendance record in the history of the Strand,” according to the newspaper article. “It also broke every money record except one. The first Saturday run of ‘The 10 Commandments’ brought in $200 more. Its tickets were priced at a $2 top, however, against a 90 cent top for ‘Loving You.’” During opening day, the film’s producer, Hal Wallis, called the Strand’s manager three times from Hollywood. After checking on the picture’s initial attendance figures, Wallis called back later in the day to see if box office numbers were keeping up. (They were increasing.) Finally, Wallis called again to ask the theater manager to airmail him the next day’s newspaper reviews and articles on the film. Attendance was still strong the second day at the Strand. Presley fans arrived in “unexpected numbers,” according to theater manager Lloyd Bailey. Wednesday’s customers were “just as loud as yesterday’s,” he added. “They finally finished ripping off all my billboard displays.” That included a cardboard cutout of Elvis “which gave them a little trouble at first.” The Strand had 1,100 seats, and on opening day when the theater emptied after one showing, it only took 15 minutes for all the seats to fill again. However, the Press-Scimitar noted that, “Some dyed-in-the-wool Presley fans stayed for as many as five performances.” I’ve tried to imagine how exciting it would have been to be among those excited young people who sat in the Strand theater that opening day. I suppose, though, that at the age of eight, those screaming girls would have scared the hell out of me. — Alan Hanson
Entry #6: Posted April 17, 2008 After my recent Elvis blog about the possibility of Mariah Carey overtaking Elvis in total number one singles, I know many Elvis fans have been hoping something would happen to keep it from happening. Well, it’s time for a “Mariah Update.” In a Newsday article, which appeared in my local paper on April 15, writer Glenn Gamboa reported that “countless airings … on radio and the video channels” have shot Carey’s “Touch My Body” to the top of the singles chart. According to Gamboa, “That success moved Carey into second place in music history for the most No. 1 singles, with 18—passing Elvis Presley and putting her within striking distance of The Beatles, at 20.” Now, that’s a little puzzling, since the article I read about this subject a couple of weeks ago had Elvis with 18 top ranked singles. If that’s so, then she is only tied with Elvis at this point. Of course, that’s a useless argument, since Carey, at age 38, will probably continue to add to her total for years to come, leaving The Beatles and Elvis in the dust. To Gamboa’s credit, he addressed the significance of Carey’s string of No. 1 singles. Of her passing Presley, the writer noted, “It’s a distinction that has left many casual music fans scratching their heads.” Gamboa goes on to quote Bill Crandall, AOL Music editor-vice president. “It is hard to put her in the same category with The Beatles and Elvis,” judged Crandall. “She never defined a generation. Mariah has not had that impact on the culture. You can’t necessarily run off a bunch of her songs. Does she have a great voice? Yes.” Carey herself has a reasonable perspective on overtaking Elvis. “I really can never put myself in the category of people who have not only revolutionized music, but also changed the world,” she explained in an Associated Press interview. “That’s a completely different era and time.” A sidebar to the Gamboa’s article lists the titles of Carey’s 18 No. 1 singles. As if to reinforce the article’s point that the pop diva is not a real threat to Presley, the list is headed with the question, “How many of the previous 17 to you remember?” Scanning down the list, I could only find one title that I recalled—“Hero” from 1993. Granted, I’ve never been a Mariah Carey fan, but I venture to say that presented with a similar list of Presley’s 18 No. 1 singles, the casual music fan could recall a line or two from at least a half dozen of them. Let me offer an anecdote to support that contention. When I was a high school history teacher, every year on January 8 I’d arrive at school in the morning wearing an Elvis T-shirt and carrying a Presley cassette. At the start each of my five classes by saying, “Today is Elvis’s birthday. He’s … years old today. And don’t’ give me any of the stuff about him being dead, because Elvis will never die!” Then I’d pop the cassette in the player and tell the kids I was going to play the start of an Elvis song, and that when I pushed the pause button, I wanted them to sing the next line, if they knew it. When I pushed the play button, the kids heard the following: “Wella blessa my soul, what’s a’wrong with me? I’m itching like a man on a fuzzy tree. My friends say I’m actin’ wild as a bug. I’m in love …”—pause. Without fail, nearly the entire class would sing out, “I’m all shook up.” Keep in mind that every one of these kids was born after Elvis died. So how had they recognized this Presley classic from 1957? Perhaps through their parents, or maybe by hearing it on the radio. My two daughters are in their early twenties, and both occasionally tune their car radios to the local oldies channel. It’s not their favorite kind of music, but they enjoy some of the rock and pop sounds of the fifties and sixties. Anyway, why not put Elvis’s No. 1 singles to the test? Below I’ve listed the 18 Presley titles that reached the top of one of Billboard’s pop charts during his career. Show the list to a few relatives, friends, and neighbors who are not Elvis fans. You might be surprised at how many they know. — Alan Hanson Here’s Elvis’s No. 1 singles list: 1. “Heartbreak Hotel” 2. “I Want You, I Need You, I Love You” 3. “Hound Dog” 4. “Don’t Be Cruel” 5. “Love Me Tender” 6. “Too Much” 7. “Teddy Bear” 8. “All Shook Up” 9. “Jailhouse Rock” 10. “Don’t” 11. “Hard Headed Woman” 12. “A Big Hunk o’ Love” 13. “Stuck on You” 14. “It’s Now or Never” 15. “Are You Lonesome Tonight?” 16. “Surrender” 17. “Good Luck Charm” 18. “Suspicious Minds”
Entry #7: Posted April 24, 2008 In this week’s Elvis blog, I’d like to return to the subject of Elvis books. If you have read any of my Elvis book reviews (accessed from “Elvis Books” on the button bar), you know that I have chosen so far to review books that came out years ago as opposed to recent books about Elvis. The reason is that I’ve wanted to concentrate on what I consider to be the most important and influential books about Elvis among the hundreds that have been printed through the years. It’s sort of a way of recommending titles that should be included in a basic Elvis Presley library. In keeping with that, this past week I’ve posted my review of the 1977 volume Elvis: What Happened by Red West, Sonny West, and Dave Hebler “as told to” Steve Dunleavy. If you’ve read into this third paragraph, you probably have a thicker skin than most Elvis fans. Elvis: What Happened? is a decidedly anti-Elvis book written by three former Presley bodyguards after they were fired in 1976. It was a very painful read for Elvis fans when it was published back in 1977 almost simultaneously with Presley’s death. As shocking as it was to Elvis fans back then, the influence the book has had on Elvis’s image since his death can’t be denied. It revealed, for the first time, the seamy side of Presley’s life, and, in doing so, revealed the dark side of the rags-to-riches story that Americans have always revered. I was one of those who read Elvis: What Happened? during those shocking days following Presley’s death. As it was to thousands of other Presley fans, the book’s alleged revelations about Elvis astonished me. I had been an Elvis fan for 14 years and everything I had ever read about Elvis’s private life had portrayed him as a pillar of morality and generosity. Jerry Hopkins’ initial Elvis biography, published in 1971, gave not the slightest indication of the bizarre behavior described in the bodyguards’ book. Like many Elvis fans at the time, I didn’t want to believe what I was reading, but it was impossible to dismiss it all. Obviously, something had “happened” to Elvis that led to his death. The only question was, “How much of what these guys wrote was true, and how much was born in their bitterness toward Elvis?” Revenge, born out of a feeling of being betrayed, was certainly the main motivation behind this book. The West boys, in particular, had spent many years helping to shield Elvis’s private life from public view. Angered at having been cast out of Presley’s inner circle, their way of striking back was to expose what they had given so much of their time and energy to protect. The bitterness of the authors is obvious throughout the volume. They made no effort to hide or deny it. In the book’s Epilogue, however, narrator Dunleavy tried to assign a humanitarian motivation to the bodyguards: “All three, despite their obvious bitterness about the firing and the realization that Presley felt nothing for them, pray and hope that Presley will read the book and come to a realization that his life is leading him on a path to disaster.” We’ll never know if the book actually would have done Elvis some good in the long run. But what is the legacy of this book for those of us left behind—the fans? I know there are many Elvis fans who refuse to dwell on, or even hear about, Presley’s bizarre personal life during those final few years of decline. They remember him as an entertainer—the best who ever lived—and they hang on to that. They’ll share and listen to stories of his personal life, but only those that reflect the generous and loving side of his nature. And even in their book, the dismissed bodyguards admitted he still retained some of that right up until the end. As for me, I have been able to separate Elvis the entertainer from Elvis the private human being. And believe me, after first reading about the dark side of Elvis’s nature, it took me some time to make that separation. When I first read Elvis: What Happened? I asked myself: “How can this be the man I’ve revered all these years?” I came to realize, though, that because we as Elvis fans revered him and loved him so much, we must bear some of the responsibility for his physical and moral decline toward the end of his life. I’m not excusing Elvis. He, like all of us, must be held responsible for his actions in life. But the fact remains that we as fans did not allow Elvis to live the life of a normal human being. We drove him to live a bubble existence by hounding him with affection. What would he have given to have what we take for granted every day—the ability to walk down a public street and have people pay no attention to you. So my memories of Elvis are still fond ones. I still love and listen to Elvis’s music on a daily basis. I still watch and enjoy his movies. I still recall with fondness my personal (though distant) relationship with him as an entertainer. But a book like Elvis: What Happened? also reminds me of my participation in the dark side of the American Dream. I never got close to Elvis, but if I had, I know I would have run toward him like so many others, thus driving him a step deeper into his secluded world. Who are any of us to say that we would have not been changed for the worse had we been forced to live such an existence? — Alan Hanson Go to Current Blog
|
