Elvis, what if ?????????

[cleptosid]

This has been something that has been crossing my mind for years and I have had very lengthy discussions about with people who most agree. Let's see what you good folk here at Macca-Central think. Elvis Presley was a phenom no doubt. in the mid 50's he made the women scream the same way that the Fab 4 did in the early 60's. The music was new and it terrified parents all over the world watching him gyrate his hips and make young women very sexually aroused. Elvis handled the fame very well for a young man in his 20's and from what I saw always a gentleman. Now comes the 60's a few really big records from 60-63 then the era which I think killed off the aura a bit, the beginning of those awful movies. Maybe it was fate or destiny that made Elvis make such a big, big mistake. The Beatles were just getting their feet wet in the world of celebrity ism when Elvis started to make cheesy movies. If Elvis had stuck to what he did best and that was making hit records maybe, just maybe the Beatles fame would have suffered a bit. I mean Elvis was not really recording hits anymore he was however recording really awful songs written by some really awful songwriters that accompanied really awful movies. But yet the movies were of a cult status. I know they are terrible but I watch them and even own quite a few on DVD. Every one of em is the same in quite a few ways. My point being here is, What splendid hits, songs was the world denied by this choice to make B-movies. Thank god that the Beatles didn't stop recording and focus on making Hard Day's Night into 7 other movies that would have diverted their attention from songwriting. HDN and Help were quite enough in my opinion. But it seemed that 2 or 3 bad movies a year were starring Elvis and he was so caught up in being a Hollywood star rather than being a recording artist that he actually didn't care what sort of rubbish he was singing as long as the pay checks from the movies were rolling in. In a way I can't blame him he definitely secured his future with the decisions he made but his fans I believe suffered a bit with not having anything new to boast of in the music scene since 62's little Sister. Would the Beatles have held the #1 spot in the 60's as many times as they did if Elvis was a full time song maker? I really cant answer that but it would have been very interesting to keep an eye on that competition. I guess things worked out the way they were supposed to.

[lampie1970]

I think what kept Elvis making movies was the contract he had signed. He didn't have the foresight at the time of signing to know that the material would be the way it was. And Ringo said it in Anthology when he says that Elvis just had himself, but that The Beatles had each other. They could look at each other and say: "That is a crap idea" and it would get vetoed. Elvis didn't have that kind of honest sounding board. He was talented and certainly one of the biggest personalities but was surrounded by "Yes" men, at least in the early days.

[cleptosid]

Elvis just had himself, but that The Beatles had each other. They could look at each other and say: "That is a crap idea" and it would get vetoed. Elvis didn't have that kind of honest sounding board. He was talented and certainly one of the biggest personalities but was surrounded by "Yes" men, at least in the early days.

Very Very good point...

[mervap]

Adding to both of your excellent points, I'd add three things:

1. The template of what a "Rock-n-Roll Star" did with his/her career was not yet written...Elvis was the trailblazer, and later folks learned from his mistakes.

2. While I'm sure Elvis loved making records, he did not write songs (much) or try to express himself through that medium. The whole idea of Pop music as an art form was later ushered in by the Lads.

3. Elvis was also badly served by his management, who tried very hard to squeeze every drop out of him while he was popular...pop music stars in that day had a very short 'shelf life'.