Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Elvis Presley was a very good PIANO PLAYER

I have a question which has been occupying me for a long time: Elvis Presely was a good PIANO PLAYER (just listen to the "Million Dollar Quartet", where Elvis plays almost all piano parts and accompanies himself singing.

Everybody knows Elvis played the guitar. But he wasn't a very good guitar player, actually. He could play chords, to accompany his singing, but no more than that.

But his piano capabilities were very good. Not just chords, Elvis really could play the piano very well, no comparison to his guitar playing (which was sufficient for the purpose of course, but Elvis was a good PIANIST).

My question: Why did he play the piano so well (even in 1956), where had he learnt it? And why doesn't anyone seem to notice that Elvis was a good piano player (he is always referred to as a singer - of course - who could also play the guitar. But Elvis wasn't REALLY a guitarist, although he could play chords to sing along to, but he REALLY was a piano player.

It would really be nice if someone could answer these questions:

1. How come Elvis was such a good piano player? Where and how did he learn it?

2. Why is the fact that Elvis was quite a good piano player neglected by all sources?

Thank you for your answer, in advance.

Hello there. Don't know who you are. You can type or paste four tildes after your post to let us all know. To try to answer the two very good points you raise:

1. Presley grew up without access to any piano, but he certainly heard piano played in various styles on recordings and live as he grew up. It is well-documented that Presley had a keen musical ear and it seems he learned to play the piano by simple experimentation when he began to have access to them as a professional entertainer. He is said to have played piano on at least one take of "Tryin' To Get To You" on July 11, 1955, so I guess he was a quick and natural learner. This, and more detail on Elvis and the piano, can be found in Adam Victor's The Elvis Encyclopedia. In addition, DJ Fontana has noted how Presley could be found in a recording studio with any instrument he chose to lay his hands on, and that he could probably play anything competently, given the inclination. I understand other people, including Paul McCartney and Marvin Gaye, had similar natural affinities to music and instruments. It's pretty clear, however, that Presley did not push his abilities as far as either of them, but that's a different story.

2. I am not sure why Presley's piano playing is not mentioned more. Perhaps it is because he played it more outside, rather than inside, the recording studio. May be it's because like his guitar playing, it hasn't been judged as significant compared to his other talents. There have also been professional critics and assorted anti-Presley meatheads who have consistently denigrated his abilities, even to point of claiming he couldn't play anything. Perhaps this has added to the lack of publicity/comment about his musical skills.

It is however, self-evident from Presley's live guitar playing on the '68 Comeback special that he was more accomplished than a mere chord strummer. And I am sure most people would be surprised to know how much piano he played on recordings and live in concert. Perhaps it should be mentioned in this article. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 14:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

From the "Question Asker" (piano playing):

Thank you for your hint. Just watched "Baby what you want me to do" from the 1968 TV Special. I had known the track, but didn't remember that Elvis was such a good, extraordinary rhythm guitarist. To avoid any misunderstandings: I am speaking of the live-version where Elvis is sitting with other musicians (Scotty Moore, D.J. Fontana etc.) and where he is playing Scotty Moore's semi-acoustic guitar. I am NOT speaking of the version where Elvis stands alone and plays a red semi-acoustic with rather a thin sound (on this latter version, Elvis Presley's guitar playing, again, unluckily is DROWNED by uncoordinated NOISE of other musicians who are no match for him, to say the least).

There is no doubt he was the best rhythm guitar player of his time. This is not an exaggeration by a "deafened and blinded" Elvis fan. In 1968 there was nothing comparable. It would have been much more than just a good idea for Elvis to play the rhythm guitars on his later recordings, too.

Of course this isn't mere chord strumming, it would be an insult to say this. I do apologize for my ignorance (it was just because I didn't know better).

Elvis' rhythm guitar was as outstanding as his singing, a real ROCK rhythm guitar. No one of the well-known guitarist of his time could play like this. This is unbelievable rock rhythm guitar playing. And I'm not saying this because I'm an Elvis fan blinded by passion.

Of course it is no wonder that Elvis wasn't "just" the most amazing singer in the world, as his daughter Lisa Marie put it. A person like this (whereas the formula: a person like this seems to be strange in this respect, because there isn't a person "like" Elvis Presley), i. e. a person with this enormous musical talent of course isn't "just" a singer. The way he sings or plays any instrument reveals his talent. Therefore, his rhythm guitar is outstanding, to say the least.

Elvis was the best rock rhythm guitar player of his time (of course I'm speaking only of the ones who are well-known and published). No doubt about that. To avoid getting this wrong: I'm not saying nobody else could play those notes (just as well as it doesn't take a lot to sing the notes of "Treat Me Nice" for instance) but no one could play like this.

Pity he didn't do the rhythm guitars on the recordings of the late 60s/70s. If he did, they weren't like this. Maybe he wasn't self-confident enough to play the guitar on the recordings? What he would needed, in my view, is a rhythm guitar player like himself for the concerts (and a drummer, and a bass player, and a pianist ...).

No one sung like him AND no one played like him. This is incredible. Elvis Presley was a genius, FULL STOP (AE: PERIOD). Did any of you youngins even know Elvis!!! He was my best frien, back in the day. We ate macoroni and cheese every Wednesday and Friday. That was his favorite food. He loved it. Well we were bestest buds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.74.14 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Elvis learned to play piano in church. And sing. And play the guitar. Sagradamoto (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Spirituality

This article is biased to cover up aspects of Elvis Presley's spirituality that disturb the majority of his fans, including his exploration of Mormonism and possible baptism in the Mormon church, which is well documented in articles and even movies (http://blog.ldspad.com/2007/10/26/elvis-presley-mormon-king-of-rock-and-roll/). It is not not inline with Wikipedia's policies to suppress information like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.142.141 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"This article is biased to cover up aspects of Elvis Presley's spirituality that disturb the majority of his fans". It could just as easily be asserted that edits about Mormonism are an attempt to promote said church by including information in high profile articles from sources with vested interests. Neither argument assumes good faith, which is another wiki policy. Rikstar409 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)"

->That's a foolish rebuttal. If something is factual, or debately factual, and releveant to the article, it properly belongs in the article. Material doesn't violate Wikipedia policy simply because one cross-segment of the population is interested in it, promotes it, or appreciates it, while another group is disinterested in it, and wants to suppress it. I propose the following statement be prepended to this article on the topic, which statement I think is fair, "Elvis Presley owned a Book of Mormon which he is known to have read, and which is marcated throughout in his own handwriting. The extent, or nature of, his interest in Mormonism is undetermined and debated."

That statement is bias within itself. Elvis was known, through his interviews and related sources, to have not been associated with the Latter Day Saint movement. Your source is a Blog, blogs are not viable sources at all. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Elvis was affiliated with the Mormon Church and a Book of Mormon with his handwriting expressing belief in the precepts of that church exists. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,650195503,00.html You Elvis fans may not like this fact, but that doesnt' change that it is a fact and should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.147.18 (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.137.146 (talk)

I doubt that Elvis was a Mormon. He was more likely a life-long born-again Christian. Elvis recorded 74 Christian/Gospel singles in his lifetime and many albums of Christian hymns such as He Touched Me, and How Great Thou Art. Most of his best-selling Christian hymns were re-issued posthumously on CD albums such as Amazing Grace, I Believe, and Peace in the Valley. His major Grammy awards were for his Christian recordings (How Great Thou Art[1967], You’ll Never Walk Alone[1968], and He Touched Me[1974]), not his rock-n-roll recordings. Even his backup groups such as The Stamps, The Imperials, and The Sweet Inspirations were born-again Christian groups. And the Jordanaires, too. Santamoly (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I've attempted to archive all previous discussions, with exception to the most recent one above. If anyone feels that some of it should be put back then please feel free. Also, as far as I can see, the archive seems to have been a success, but if I've made any mistakes and something needs to be rectified then I'll keep an eye out for any fixes and try to learn from those mistakes. Thanks. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Signing to RCA and Song selection

These two sections duplicate material regarding how Presley's songs were chosen; any suggestions on editing both and/or merging to keep the basics facts of the topic? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see if any of it can be merged. Thanks, Rik. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

bias

to much unnecessary quotes of praise, this is a encyclopedia page not a tribute... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bias? Too little in the way of specifics I think. "Quotes of praise" are subject to review, as have been the tabloid, negative edits and quotes that have formed this article in previous guises. This is indeed an encyclopedia page, but it has been much less a tribute before several editors tried to redress the balance and make it more neutral (emphasis on neutrality). Please sign your posts, and then others can communicate with you more effectively. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Elvis' total sales are over one billion

With all my respect, I think it's totally unnecessary to use an article on a scottish webpage stating that Elvis sold 300 million records during his lifetime (note 12). This figure is absolutely false; it's a well known fact that at the time of his death Elvis' record sales were over 600 million. You can find too the figure of "more than 500 million" on several sources and that's because they use the data provided by RCA in 1975 (two years before Elvis' death) when the label announced that total Elvis' sales had surpassed the 500 million mark. Two years later, when Elvis died, RCA announced that according with latest reports Elvis' global sales were over 600 million. But 300 million is a false number that in the entire world only appears in this concrete article; I think it's unfair to use it as a valid source to state Elvis' sales.

The same happens with the figure of 300 millions sold from Elvis' death on that appears in the article mentioned in note 13. The only official data you can find everywhere is that Elvis has sold over 1 billion records worlwide, and that announcement was made by RCA in 1981. Since then it was generally used by the media, books, webpages...everywhere; why to pay attention to a wrong figure in a concrete article that collides with the official data? Then, it has no sense to add two false figures to estimate Elvis total sales until now.

Only some sources to back my words (you can easily find many more):

http://www.elvis.com/elvisology/elvis_overview.asp

http://www.worldrecordsacademy.org/arts/most_successful_solo_artist_world_record_set_by_Elvis_Presley_70812.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A702839

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/August/20060816170536BCreklaW0.6157648.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/elvispresley/biography

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1022498420070810

And regarding Elvis' sales until 1975 and until his death (1977):

http://www.superseventies.com/extra_07_8.html (just see the third article)

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrity/biography/elvis-presley.htm

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/15655/The-Elvis-Files/overview

http://sharetv.org/person/elvis_presley

RamiroGaliza (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

- - - -

- - -

I agree. Elvis Presley has sold more than 1 billion years ago, and some suggest he has sold as many as 1,5 billion. According to this biography he has sold more than 1 billion. http://biography.elvis.com.au/

From the official site: http://www.elvis.com/elvisology/bio/elvis_overview.asp "Globally, he has sold over one billion records, more than any other artist. His American sales have earned him gold, platinum or multi-platinum awards for 150 different albums and singles, far more than any other artist."

There is absolutely no point attempting to shorten this article.....

Everyone, at some point, over the last 12 months has agreed that the article is in desperate need of being shortened. I, and many other editors, have spent time editing it to attempt to bring it more in line with a length that is acceptable but also informative. However, there is no point to that if every time there is a major break-through someone comes along and puts it all back the way it was before. The Ed Sullivan appearance and the Legacy section are perfect examples. I shortened the Ed Sullivan appearance because it was dramatically bloated, but I kept the overall feel of how it read beforehand. Today it is back to practically how it was before with information that just repeats exactly what has already been said in the paragraph above it. There is no need to add quotes, paragraphs or even a few words to an article if it expands it needlessly. Sometimes there is a need for such things, but certainly not the way they've been handled today. The legacy section, also, a part that I spent time altering only to find it put back to how it was previously. What a complete waste of time for me to do that if people don't feel it improves the article. Might I also add that it is a LEGACY section, and therefore it should reflect exactly what it is and so there is no need for it to point out any negativity about the subject in question. Michael Jackson's page is a great example. MJ is a man who had some incredibly negative experiences during his lifetime. Do the editors on that article shy away from them? No, they talk about them in the relevant sections and then show how truly brilliant he was again in his legacy section. Why, then, should Elvis Presley be treated any differently? As the title of this section suggests, there is absolutely no point any of us wasting our time to attempt to shorten this article if our work is simply reverted by people who have no interest in seeing the article be improved. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree it needs to shrink. There's a lot of good content, but too much detail. A topic of this size needs presenting in summary style. To get into great shape it needs to continue to reduce in size, not grow. PL290 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree. What you are doing now, ElvisFan1981, is whitewashing the article, as you have primarily removed content that includes critical voices about the singer. This is not a fan site. Some weeks ago, another user has written that there are “too much unnecessary quotes of praise, this is an encyclopedia page not a tribute...” See [1]. And there can be no doubt that this user was right, if you now look at the Legacy section whitewashed by ElvisFan. Let us compare the old and new versions. See [2]

What we now read in the new version is that Elvis was “unique and irreplaceable”, that he “paved the way for many artists, black or white, that followed in his footsteps,” that his music “had a huge effect on the popular culture” and “helped to break down racial barriers”, that his films “are replayed on television all over the world”, that “Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century”, that his “Las Vegas engagements are amongst the most famous and well known of any performer”, that the “worldwide satellite concert, Aloha From Hawaii, is still the biggest single concert any solo entertainer has given to date”, that Graceland “has become one of the most visited tourist attractions in the USA,” that “Presley has been inducted into four music 'Halls of Fame'”, that some years ago one or two of his songs again “topped the charts” in several countries, that Presley was listed as one of “the top-earning deceased celebrity, grossing US$45 million for the Presley estate”, that the singer “Presley enjoyed the kind of worldwide fame that had never been seen before,” that his “name, image and voice are instantly recognisable on every continent and within most cultures,” that “in music polls worldwide, he is constantly recognised as one of the most important musical artists of all time” etc. etc.

This sounds as if it was written for a fan site, as there are no critical voices to be heard, and this is no longer a balanced, encyclopedic view of the singer. Interestingly, more critical, well sourced material written by reputable authors that was part of the old version of the said section has all been removed by ElvisFan1981, for instance,

that “Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society”, that when Presley died, "it was as if all perspective on his musical career was somehow lost," that “latter-day song choices had been seen as poor,” that “many who disliked Presley had long been dismissive because he did not write his own songs,” that “tabloids had ridiculed his obesity and his kitschy, jump-suited performances”, that his “sixties' film career was mocked”, that die-hard fans “even denied that he looked ‘fat’ before he died”, that it “is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load” because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls...", that some even saw him “as a white man who 'stole black music'”.

Removing such critical information is what I would call fan bias. The same kind of whitewash is currently happening concerning other sections of Elvis-related articles. See [3], [4], [5], etc. Let us now analyse some edits by ElvisFan1981 in order to demonstrate his whitewashing tactics that even distort direct quotes (see [6]).

I think there is no such need of Critical voices as everyone knows that they were said/wrote other way around, and most of the people will think just against of how it's said and wrote, so by removing critical voices article, it would be better page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.181 (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Previous version:

Although Presley was praised by directors, like Michael Curtiz, as polite and hardworking (and as having an exceptional memory), "he was definitely not the most talented actor around."

Version by ElvisFan:

Although Presley was praised by directors, like Michael Curtiz, as polite and hardworking (and as having an exceptional memory), he was not always considered the most talented of actors

Previous version:

The scripts of his movies "were all the same, the songs progressively worse."

Version by ElvisFan:

The scripts of his movies were all very similar with songs that were rarely taken seriously.

Previous version:

Julie Parrish, who appeared in Paradise, Hawaiian Style, says that Presley hated many of the songs chosen for his films; he "couldn't stop laughing while he was recording" one of them.

Version by ElvisFan:

Julie Parrish, who appeared in Paradise, Hawaiian Style, says that Presley hated many of the songs chosen for his films.

Previous version:

Sight and Sound wrote that in his movies "Elvis Presley, aggressively bisexual in appeal, knowingly erotic, [was] acting like a crucified houri and singing with a kind of machine-made surrealism."

ElvisFan totally removed this quote, which was taken from a reputable film journal, presumably because of its critical remarks concerning Presley’s acting.

Further examples could be added. All this is unacceptable. Onefortyone (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously not paying much attention, Onefortyone, and you definitely aren't reading the changes correctly. And your desperate attempts to try and make out that I am a die-hard fan who is attempting to make this article all positive won't work on anyone who has ever actually paid attention to some of the edits I've made in the past. All I've done with the above sections you have mentioned as being "whitewashed", is to remove direct quotes and replace them with original written lines that keep the same balance. It is not my fault if you can't see that or disagree, but I'm sure most other editors would find it acceptable. The main goal for me at the moment is to shorten the article, and if that means removing a few lines or some complete paragrahs then that's what it requires. Not everyone will agree with some of the edits and they have the right to say so, but I think most other editors are aware of the fact that removal of some content, both NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE, is definitely necessary to get this article down to a more manageable size.

As for the Legacy section, I cannot and will not accept that it should ever mention anything negative about Presley (NOTE: For future reference, I use Presley as an example because it is the article currently being discussed, but I believe this for any article that has a Legacy section. It's not bias towards just Elvis Presley.). Seriously, compare it to that of Michael Jackson, a man who most people would agree had a much more negative life than Elvis Presley, and you will see no mention in his Legacy section about child abuse, drug taking, skin whitening, debt, overspending, wacky oxygen tanks. Why? Simply because a Legacy section is usually about the good things that they achieved in life and since their death, not the bad things.

Why you feel the need to so drastically paint Elvis to be some kind of monster is beyond me, and some of your additions have been seriously questioned by editors long before I ever came onto the scene. Also, many of your additions are merely repeats of things that have already been mentioned, one of the main reasons they are removed in the first place. I don't know who has uploaded most of what is on the page, and so I have no way of knowing who is responsible for any negative input, but I'm sure it can't all be your work. So why, then, are you the only one who is complaining about it?

As for the article, I have added my fair share of negative, open-minded, well researched information to the article, and so to claim that I am attempting to make it a fan piece is just ludicrous. Also, a lot of the editing that I've done over the last four months has had hardly any effect on the overall negative opinions within the article because most of the work has been to simply replace long quotes and sentences from books with a paraphrased version so that it isn't seen as just an article full of book quotes. Also, I have removed a number of my own additions, both negative and postive, from the article for the sake of space. However, most of your own additions are the long-winded book quotes that are precisely the reason why this article has gotten and is getting so bloated. If you seriously want to help improve the article and possibly reduce its size, then please be my guest. All the editors are welcome to take part and as a team it can be done. However, if you continue to insert long, boring quotes that only add extra size to the article for no reason, then I, and I'm sure other editors, will have no problem with either reverting it completely or re-writing it in thier own paraphrased hand, something that you could do in the first place to save a lot of hassle. Why not spend your time and efforts trying to reduce the articles size instead of adding all the negativity to it? Maybe after it's at a more reasonable size it will be time to sit down and go over what negative issues should definitely be raised or not. I do note that most of your own efforts are simply adding negative paragraphs from books which I'm sure you are already aware of will get a rise from some editors on here, so perhaps you could take a step back yourself and try to understand why your hatred for Presley is so deep within your soul before you attempt it again. There may be such a thing as being too positive, something I don't believe any editor on this article has been, but there is definitely such a thing as being too negative, something that, so far in my experience, only you have displayed.

I said to you a few months ago that I respected your research and your opinion on the subject, and I still do, but it doesn't mean that I have to agree with the way you go about doing things, especially when it chases off a number of very important editors who know so much more about the subject than you or I could ever imagine. Let's work as a team and get this article to the best possible place it can be before we have another editing war and aggro, shall we? A new year is on our doorstep and perhaps 2010 would be the perfect opportunity to start afresh and work together. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, I have to say that I have not looked at a single edit in the article just yet. I will say, for the record, that information that may be viewed, by some, as negative towards the subject, is not prohibited, as long as it is properly cited. I will say, though, that not all information is relevant for a wikipedia article. We have to remember that this is an article about his entire life, and although not a biography of a living person, though I think I saw him walking out of a Taco Bell last week, we should use caution when we add negative information. Again, I have yet to take a side, and as it turns out, I may not take a side, but I will give my opinion when I have time to take a look.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Legacy is something handed down from the past by tradition, and a celebrity’s heritage, as you may also call it, is sometimes good and sometimes bad. “As for the Legacy section”, ElvisFan says above, “I cannot and will not accept that it should ever mention anything negative about Presley.” So much for this user’s recent edits that removed large blocks of more critical information, or, as ElvisFan claims, with an innocent air, his “removal of some content, both NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE.” Onefortyone (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed both negative and positive content, there are huge chunks of positive praise that have now been removed from the Legacy section that was there before my recent edits. There were some very positive praises that I've removed from the Acting Section also today, and from a few of the other sections that I've worked on. To say that I have only removed negative content would a downright lie, and you are very aware of that yourself. Just because I have written that "I cannot and will not accept....", does not mean that I will revert any decision to change it back if that is what any mediator decides is best. Again, you are attempting to make something sound worse that it is. And how so convenient that you only seem to copy/paste the content that is critical and in favour of your argument and fail to mention all the positive praise that has been removed/altered from the article in the last four months.

If you are interested in Wikipedia being as good a source as it can be in general and are not primarily focused on Elvis Presley, why don't you head over to the Michael Jackson article and the Freddie Mercury article and every other article that has nothing but positive remarks about their subject in the Legacy sections and tell them exactly what you've just written above about what a Legacy should be? I'm sure you will be able to find many negative things about both artists to fill into their legacy sections. Could it be that you don't actually care at all about any of that and that this is some kind of personal vendetta against only myself because of our previous disagreement four months ago? It seems very strange to me that since then you haven't had any input into any Wikipedia article, and that your very first input on your return is to alter and then personally attack me for some work that I have done to improve an article. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'm also adding that, at the present time, it may appear that there is too much positive praise in the article. However, this is due to the fact that there are still very, very large chunks of the article that haven't been looked at for possible shortening by myself yet, and so none of those sections have had any positive OR negative content removed. It takes a lot of time to work through such a large article, and there is so much that needs removed that it can be very daunting to just leap in and start clipping away. I have edited both positive and negative content many times for deletion over the last four months, but after reading it over before saving it appears that it just doesn't look right and I leave it for another time. Shortening this article is like electing a new President; it is time consuming and in the end not everyone will be happy with the final outcome. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Before shortening, FIRST get a large consensus before spamming the history page with multiple edits, and do it in one edit, so it can be compared, but firstly, more discussion should be had, this isn't your page, and a lot of information has been put through a work of a lot of people over time. I find that in your attempt to do good and remove unnecessary information you've also removed vital information such as his global landmark of 1 billion views which is a significant feat, and also his record sales which many artists' page on wikipedia have stated in the introduction, you do not know what you're doing, do not edit without a consensus. JFonseka (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the record sales of 1 billion were not added until 5 months ago, and so it clearly wasn't a massively important statistic for a long, long time. I won't be working on this article anymore because it is clear to me that many editors do not think I am capable of doing any good here. Good luck to everyone who works on this in the future. I'm confident that the right mix of people will be able to get it back into good shape, and I'm sorry that I wasn't able to be one of those people I apologise to anyone who found any of my edits during my time on this article to be inappropriate. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being a bit harsh earlier, I believe you were on the right path, but felt a lot of information was removed that perhaps was deemed necessary by some others. This is not my article and I'm just an average user, so it's not my word that ends it all. Please do contribute and edit because the article is indeed pretty long, but perhaps keeping the introduction more intact but shortening certain points in the main-body? I reverted it to the previous version before you edited simply because it was a bit complex to go through each individual edit. This is JFonseka btw, just having problems signing in. 122.106.163.193 (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Legacy is generally the mark or influence left by an event, person etc. on subsequent times, and may be both positive and negative. I'd suggest that anyone making the statement, "As for the Legacy section, I cannot and will not accept that it should ever mention anything negative about Presley", might want to reconsider the accuracy of that remark, although clearly we're not dealing with Adolf_Hitler#Legacy here and in practice the Legacy section may well turn out to be only positive in this case; certainly when I consider the passages whose removal is criticized: “Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society”, that when Presley died, "it was as if all perspective on his musical career was somehow lost," that “latter-day song choices had been seen as poor,” that “many who disliked Presley had long been dismissive because he did not write his own songs,” that “tabloids had ridiculed his obesity and his kitschy, jump-suited performances”, that his “sixties' film career was mocked”, I would have to say that in my opinion none of those things belong in the Legacy section. On a general note, I think the move to reduce the article to a manageable size is a welcome and very necessary one, and one which will indeed make it more possible than it is at present to judge and fine-tune the balance of content. PL290 (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I personnally saw nothing that struck me as "white-washing" in any of Elvisfan's edit history, although I will admit, I only looked at a couple. I am a bit concerned over some of the information that is covered in the controversy section, as I believe that much of that information can be moved to other sections, as could some of the legacy sections information. Other than that, I think everything is square, by my book.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PL290 said: Agree it needs to shrink. There's a lot of good content, but too much detail. A topic of this size needs presenting in summary style. To get into great shape it needs to continue to reduce in size, not grow.

This has already been attempted. It got the thumbs up as a good new starting point from everyone - except Onefortyone, who criticized it as if it was a finished article. See it here [[7]].

This current article has ground to a halt. The only thing moving through it is the tumbleweed. It has been rendered desolate over about 4 long years by one user: Onefortyone. He has systematically pissed off every decent, conscientious and knowledgeable contributor - and many potential editors - with his agenda-driven intransigence. Check out the history. Don't take my word for it. Admin LaraLove spent hours cleaning up the formatting, and then got involved with 141 on these pages. Ouch! She concluded he had a rather unsavory agenda too - so then she jumped ship.

There was nothing going on, no one from whom one could gain a "wide consensus" of opinion, so ElvisFan1981 bravely struck out on her own, not always successfully. But there was 141, concealed in his tower, not saying a word for months about a single one of her edits, and then BANG! he takes a sneaky pot shot at her, a move that could only inspire despondency and reduce her to tears of frustration, and it worked! She bent over backwards to appease him, edit WITH him. But no - the same old tedious, crappy, unjust accusations of bias and whitewashing have got rid of the only person lately willing to try to improve this article. Way to go!!!!!!!!!!!! Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Rikstar's comments above. It has greatly saddened mean to read ElvisFan1981 decision to leave this article, as this young lady has in the past inspired me many a time to stick with it. I would like to put in a quote by Bob Dylan, which pretty well sums up how I feel,(A Metaphor) when dealing with one particular editor and in saying that I believe he is the only one here, getting any sort of gratification out of all this mess and heartache.

"Maybe in the '90s or possibly in the next century people will look upon the '80s as the age of masturbation, when it was taken to the limit, that might be all-that's going on right now in a big way". Personal Quote by Bob Dylan --Jaye9 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Never much cared for Dylan, but I am again challenging editors of good faith who would like this to be a better article. Another reminder about how this works. From a post earlier this year. I am starting with the Ed Sullivan apprearance which dovetails with my primary interest of Elvis's early career. See my edit today and the archived discussion where the majority of editors consistently rejected 141s arguments regarding this material, and its appropriatness for inclusion in the article. We can do this if we work together. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Any individual editor can revert an edit up to three times. At that point, if they continue to revert, they are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Enough of you have stated your opinions on this. I suggest that you "vote" with your edits - to the material in question. I agree with those of you who feel that this material does not belong in this article. I began this discussion with removal of this material from one part of the article. If you can edit the article I suggest you all do the same, in line with your opinions. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

It's exciting to see the King's article get the careful editorial attention it deserves. May I suggest that it's high time the lead infobox image be changed to accord with our best practices: Replace the non-free File:ElvisPresleyAlohafromHawaii.jpg (which already appears in the article's main text), with the no less wonderful, more historic, and free File:Elvis presley.jpg. (And yes, that should be removed from the main text if and when it's placed in the infobox. I'm confident we can locate another public domain image to represent Elvis's acting career.) DocKino (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hop no one will take exception if I go ahead and make this change. To be blunt: the current usage of the Aloha from Hawaii image in the infobox fails our image policy, specifically Non-free content criteria 1, "No free equivalent": The encyclopedic purpose of a main infobox image is to clearly identify the article subject, and in this case, there is a free image which unquestionably serves that purpose. The non-free image has to make way for it. DocKino (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple observations

Just quickly scanning the article, two things leapt out:

(1) The image clutter in "1957–60: Military service and mother's death". I think the photograph of Elvis in uniform among other soldiers is both sufficient and strongest if seen alone. The two additional images of military insignia make the susection very difficult to look at. One of these, at most, is tolerable; neither is necessary--having even two pieces of media in this subsection, when many have none, makes for a very unbalanced presentation.

(2) The "1965: 'The Fab Four' meet 'The King'" subsection is wildly disproportionate in length, and really shouldn't exist as its own subsection at all. Compare the coverage in The Beatles FA of the meeting between the band and Dylan. That encounter, which appears to have had a much greater impact on both parties, is covered in about 40% of the length (and still seems a bit on the long side). The encounter between Presley and The Beatles is interesting anecdotally but negligible historically (his deep influence on them had been registered years earlier). It deserves about two or three sentences in this article that must survey Presley's entire life and career. DocKino (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts and I've now removed all but the photo from "1957–60: Military service and mother's death" as the other illustrations were somewhat overwhelming. Re. the "Fab Four" subsection, yes; and next to it, the "Marriage to Priscilla" subsection is, I feel, similarly afflicted (as well as leaping a long way back chronologically) and probably only its last paragraph really belongs at this point in the history. PL290 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (2). I agree. I deleted the section and mentioned the Beatles meeting as follows in my sandbox version:

"On December 21, 1970, Presley had engineered a somewhat bizarre meeting with President Richard Nixon at the White House to express his patriotism, and his contempt for the hippie drug culture. He also apparently wished to obtain a Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs badge to add to similar items he had begun collecting. He offered to "infiltrate hippie groups" and claimed that The Beatles had "made their money, then gone back to England where they fomented anti-American feeling." (Presley and his friends had had a four-hour get-together with The Beatles five years earlier). Nixon was bemused by his encounter with the singer, and twice expressed his concern to Presley that the singer needed to "retain his credibility". Ringo Starr later said he found it very sad to think Presley held such views. Paul McCartney said also that he "felt a bit betrayed ... The great joke was that we were taking drugs, and look what happened to [Elvis]", a reference to Presley's own abuse of drugs." Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 11:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's efficient! I'm not opposed. Though this should be balanced by noting that during the 1970s he regularly performed in concert the Beatles songs "Something" and "Get Back". DocKino (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree (and with the caveat). PL290 (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

1960–67

Just to note that I changed the subtitle for this subsection to "Focus on movies". During the period covered, twenty-one movies starring Elvis Presley were released. Who would have guessed?!! At the moment, precisely one is mentioned (in passing) in the subsection. Yes, there is a section on Presley's "Acting career", but that is appropriately devoted to post facto critical assessment and cultural weighing. The "History" ball has been dropped (hard) and mangled (especially hard) in this period, as PL290 suggested above. DocKino (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Focus on movies" - sounds good to me. Not so sure about "Post mortem"; while accurate, I think it will commonly be misread as "autopsy" from a glance at the TOC. The section's one I recently added to make a distinction between Legacy and posthumous single releases etc; I wasn't too sure what the best name would be and agree "Later years" wasn't great. I have the feeling there's something lurking out there that's better than either of the two so far and I'll see if I can come up with anything else! PL290 (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, darnnit. I like "Post mortem", but that's my version of a holding pattern too. DocKino (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "Since 1977", which I'm quite taken with. It's another example of saying more by saying less. PL290 (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Online citation advisory

In editing just a couple of primary text sections, I've found repeated problems with the citations of online sources, even aside from the fact that almost all of them have been missing necessary publication and authorship information. I'd ask that everyone who is currently going through and improving the article to take the few extra minutes to verify the content and quality of such cites and to format them with one of the standard templates so we know they've been vetted.

To summarize the problems (aside from the overarching one of formatting):

• Several of the links are dead or effectively so.
• Quite a few more obviously do not meet our WP:Verifiability standards.
• And quite a few more simply do not support the claims in the article for which they are supposedly being cited.

As an additional note, there are those online sources--though they pass the basic hurdles mentioned above--that are of relatively low-quality compared to the many reputable books and respected journal/magazine/newspaper articles (many of which are themselves online) on Presley. These should ultimately be replaced if we ever hope to bring this to Featured Article status.—DocKino (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Proseline

I'm noticing a tendency towards WP:Proseline in the article (on <date>, <x> happened; on <date>, <x> happened...). I suggest editors try to keep an eye out for this when doing any copyediting, so as to incorporate any recasting of the material into a flowing narrative to remove this effect. PL290 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This section and one above is duly noted. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy and cultural impact

I wonder if the following quote might be useful - a better choice - in this section, regarding Presley's ackowledgement of black music:

"The colored folks been singing it and playing it just like I'm doin' now, man, for more years than I know. They played it like that in the shanties and juke joints and nobody paid it no mind 'til I goose it up. I got it from them. Down in Tupelo, Mississippi, I used to hear old Arthur Crudup bang his box the way I do now, and I said if I ever got to the place I could feel all old Arthur felt, I'd be a music man like nobody ever saw." Charlotte Observer, June 26, 1956 (Sourced from here, but appears elswhere). Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. I've just been looking over the New York Times article we've already cited by Guralnick, who also quotes it. I'll bring it into the section from there. DocKino (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This may have already happened but I'd like you to reconsider. There is a paper that was published in a music journal in which the author, who was examining the use of the habanera in rockabilly, states that this Elvis quote is a Red herring (idiom). To me, this is similar to That's alright being pumped up, while in fact "Blue Moon of Kentucky" was the more popular side of the first Elvis release. See the Rockabilly article for more background on how energetic some of the early players of that music is. Rikstar may remember, too, that Elvis says "That sounds like Carl Perkins", who had been palying in a nearby town for years, after a take in an early session. Let me know if you are interested in pursuing this.Steve Pastor (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Steve. I guess first off, if there is any evidence this quote isn't genuine, we need to see it. I'm not sure what the Carl Perkins thing is or how it is significant, so I'm not sure what we're supposed to be pursuing, unless you mean addressing the actual popularity of Blue Moon of Kentucky? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, before the cited quote Elvis spoke about Debra Paget and how SHE was dressed and moved on the Milton Berle Show. Before repeating the above quote, we read in Elvis Everywhere. Robert FInk. American Music. v 16 issue 2. Summer 1998. Page 171. "Of course, Elvis was more than a a little disingenuous; he went on in the same interview to throw the reporter what now looks like one of the biggest red herrings of popular music scholarship:" This is followed by the above quote minus the last up to "I got it from them." Fink goes on for the next 3 pages in the vein of "Such absolute square deliniation of upbeats and downbeats is not at all characteristic of African American rhythm." There's more about where the Elvis version of Hound Dog in particluar came from, but I'll stop for now. Again, musicologist rather than a poplaizer, writes "one of the biggest red herrings of popular music scholarship". Steve Pastor (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

From the Archive - After hearing Elvis mention Carl Perkins on tape after recording Blue Moon of Kentucky (you can hear it on the Elvis '56 DVD), and reviewing the article, I see only one sentence about the music he grew up with. Nevertheless, Rikstar put one heck of a lot of effort into getting this down to an acceptabe size. So, as he writes, there is much that has to be left out. Steve Pastor 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The lack of anything much about early music influences is a good point; I've amended the Early years section to include stuff about this. Rikstar 11:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone followed up on my request to watch/listen to that section of that DVD. I doubt it. I bring this up to support the fact that Elvis most certainly didn't get "it" only from "the colored folks", and leading with this quote perpetuates the myth that he did.Steve Pastor (talk)

More - don't mean to beat a dead horse. There's a whole lot of water over the dam! But here's another bit about the Perkins mention.

Since the Phillips quote came up again. Has no one yet listened to the Elvis '56 dvd? The part where they capture the Bill Black inspired verison of Blue Moon on Kentucky, and Elvis can be heard mentioning Carl Perkins? <edited> Steve Pastor 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Steve Pastor (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Where'd Priscilla Come From?

So, we quote her (already surnamed Presley) rather out of the blue in "1958–60", and then have her marrying Elvis in "1960–67" ("after an eight-year courtship")...but we never have them meeting. Anyone want to lay the groundwork? (She's not in my handy Guralnick Last Train to Memphis.) DocKino (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This information was in the article only a few days ago under its own section [8], but somewhere along the line it has been removed. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, obviously looks like the 1958-60 section needs expanding with some of the deleted Priscilla material. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 12:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A start has been made regarding Priscilla in the above named section - at a point I assume is OK. I used Victor's Encyclopedia as reference, but Guralnick, 1999 has more detail, starting p. 37. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 14:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the history, Victor is way off about the marriage lasting 3 years. Oh dear :) Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 14:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

She was the daughter of an air-force officer. They met while he was serving in Germany. She was 14-yrs old at the time. Santamoly (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Chips Moman and producer credit

Jorgensen, 1998 states: "Felton [Jarvis] had long since accepted the Colonel's edict that no credits be listed on an Elvis album, but Chips Moman found this hard to swallow... to be told he wouldn't be listed as the album's producer [or receive] any producer royalties ... was both insult and injury. ... Chips told them all they could take a flying leap ..." (p.281)

My impression is that Moman was not credited as a producer at the time on the album "From Elvis in Memphis" because he fell out badly with RCA and Parker (but RCA was quick to take every tape they thought had Presley's voice on it from Moman's studio). I don't recall his name or his credit being listed on the LP I had years ago. Can anyone confirm this? Moman may be known now as the album's producer, and duly credited. as in the album's wiki article, but that misses the point of the Moman statement recently deleted. Thanks to anyone who can address this. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 19:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question Rik, was Chips Moman's name or his credit listed on the LP "From Elvis in Memphis"? The answer to that question, is No. Yet, if you look at the Album "Moody Blue" for eg, at the back of that album, is written, Executive Producer: Elvis Presley and Associate Producer: Felton Jarvis. Hope this helps.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I remember Jarvis was credited on some later albums, but you have confirmed why the edit about Moman being uncredited, as if he had nothing to do with the Memphis album, was included. I think it should be reinstated, as it says something about the unsavory practices of Parker and RCA, and ties in with the Moman stuff in Influence of others section. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That little parenthetical had been leaping out at me for a while. Thanks for the explanation. I agree that it should be reinstated, along with a brief description to explain its significance. DocKino (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even certain of what I'm going to mention here, has any significance to what has been dicussed above. But I had a look at 7 Elvis Presley Albums that were re released in the 70's and on the back of each album, the songs have been listed, but the song writers havn't even been given a mention. Yet, you look at other artists from that time, say Jeff Beck and many others, not only are the song writers mentioned, but alot of these albums have the lyrics of each song written out for you. I don't know if I'm going out on a limb here, but unlike today, since Elvis's passing, the packaging has greatly improved, but back then, it was prettly slap dash.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think RCA certainly once took a hard line regarding credits on sleeve designs. The main thing is you confirmed what I suspected about the Moman-produced album :) Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind me Rik, I occassionally think aloud and seem to go with my own trail of thoughts. But as always, your responses are thoughtfull, with no malice attached.--Jaye9 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rikstar, now that you've said more about the reason for that parenthetical bit's inclusion, I agree it should be reinstated, and not just reinstated but done more justice in a sentence of its own. I'll have a think and try and add something unless others get there first, to make this general point about Parker and RCA's treatment of these contributors, rather than losing it as an adjunct to a particular album release. PL290 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the Moman paragraph to this affect in the 'Influence of others' section. Hope it's OK and suitably located. BTW, have amended the JXL World Cup thing with links. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 21:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--saw both--all seems good to me. The only thing would be that if others in the story were also affected by these "unsavory practices of Parker and RCA", it will be good if we can produce cites and build up a slightly fuller picture to make that clear. Currently it still comes over as only Moman. But maybe that's OK. If I come across anything else I may add it at some point. PL290 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A source needs clarifying

In the 1973-77 section, there's this: During this period, his health declined precipitously as his weight shot up. At a University of Maryland concert on September 27, guitarist John Wilkinson recalled, "He walked on stage and held onto the mike for the first thirty minutes like it was a post. Everybody was scared. ... He was all gut. He was slurring. ... It was obvious he was drugged, that there was something terribly wrong with his body. It was so bad, the words to the songs were barely intelligible. ... We were in a state of shock."

There is a request to confirm the author, book and page reference for this quote, but this can only be seen when the article is in edit mode. It might be worth other people scanning the article in edit mode for anymore similar requests or observations relating to the article's improvement. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 10:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rik, I don't own a copy of the "Elvis: The Final Years" by Jerry Hopkins(1980). But I'm assuming that the information was taken from the internet, as no page was given and I found a web site pretty quickly, that had that information. It was a cut and paste job taken from an except of the book, by the Rolling Stone Magazine, dated 10/2/80. I do however have a copy of Jerry Hopkins latest book "Elvis The Biograhphy", which have similiar recollections of the same, by Jerry Schilling, of which we can site the page. What do think?--Jaye9 (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Guralnick (1999) it was keyboardist Tony Brown. I've updated the passage per Guralnick and added the cite. PL290 (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

PL290, I just looked back on that article I found on the web, your spot on. Jerry Schilling was standing beside Elvis that was all. Your correct, it was Tony Brown. Excellant work!--Jaye9 (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I do own a copy of The Final Years by Hopkins and so if it's still information that is required I can look it up. The Wilkinson quote is different to the quote from Tony Brown and they are both insightful to Presley's state at the time, although it's up to other editors to decide as a whole if both are necessary. Feel free to ask for the page number if anyone does require it. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, what am I saying, I ment to say John Wilkinson, not Jerry Schilling, I've should know better not to get on these type of discussions so late in the night, my apology to all.--Jaye9 (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ElvisFan1981, maybe it would be good to include words from both Brown and Wilkinson--it seems there may have been confusion by biographers at some point, if the overlapping words "He walked on stage and held onto the mike for the first thirty minutes like it was a post." are attributed to both (although I suppose these words could have been repeated by any number of parties at different times!). Wilkinson paints a stark picture and I think it will be an improvement if we can add to the end of what's now there, "Guitarist John Wilkinson recalled, "He was slurring ... It was obvious he was drugged, that there was something terribly wrong with his body. It was so bad, the words to the songs were barely intelligible. ... We were in a state of shock." If your source confirms this wording is accurate and you think it will be a plus, perhaps you could add it the article along with the citation details you have. PL290 (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on this, only just managed to find the book amongst all the junk that has accrued in my cupboard over the last 12 months. Anyway, I hope it's still relevant and can be used within the article regarding this issue, I think it adds some good weight to the complete mess that Presley was in at the time.

From the book Elvis: The Final Years by Jerry Hopkins, all from p.136;

Guitarist John Wilkinson was standing a few feet away on the stage. "The lights go down" he recalls, "and Elvis comes up the stairs. He was all gut. He was slurring. He was so fucked up. I looked at Kathy Westmoreland. She looked at me. What happened? It was obvious he was drugged. It was obvious there was something terribly wrong with his body. It was so bad the words to the songs were barely intelligible. You couldn't hear him hardly. College Park let it be known they wouldn't have him back. We were in a state of shock. Joe Guercio said, 'He's finished....'. I remember crying. He could barely get through the introductions on the stage. He cut the show very short and it seemed as though it went on forever."

A quote from an incident in Detroit a few nights later;

"I watched him in his dressing room, just draped over a chair, unable to move," says John Wilkinson. "So often I thought, 'Boss, why don't you just cancel this tour and take a year off....?' I mentioned something once in a guarded moment. He patted me on the back and said, 'It'll be all right. Don't you worry about it.'"

Marvellous--both now added to article. Just what it needed. Thank you. PL290 (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad cite verification request

The following is currently cited four times, all in the "'68 Comeback Special" subsection:

• Kubernick, The Complete '68 Comeback Special Booklet

This is obviously unacceptable. While two of the citations are easily replaceable, the other two involve worthwhile data and an excellent quote that I can't locate (verifiably) elsewhere. Does anyone possess this booklet? Can we verify its contents and get complete publication information? If not, it and anything cited exclusively to it will have to go. DocKino (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi DocKino, Kubernick, The Complete '68 Comeback Special Booklet, came from The Complete '68 Comeback Special, 40th Anniversary release BMG CD review. I have the booklet, or type in Kubernick, The Comlete '68 Comeback Special Booklet and you will find a great review of this booklet on the Elvis Information Network Website.--Jaye9 (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Being off the editing of the article doesn't mean I can't help those who are working on it, and for the claims in the "'68" section here are the page numbers from the booklet if they are still required.

Parker shrewdly maneuvered a deal with NBC that committed the network to both broadcast a special and finance a theatrical feature.[137](PAGE 4)

When the ratings were released the next day, NBC reported that Presley had captured 42 percent of the total viewing audience. It was the network's number one rated show that season.[137] (PAGE 26)

By January 1969, one of the key songs written specifically for the special, "If I Can Dream", reached number 12.[137] (PAGE 26)

Binder said of Presley's reaction, "I played Elvis the 60-minute show, and he told me in the screening room, 'Steve, it's the greatest thing I've ever done in my life. I give you my word I will never sing a song I don't believe in.'"[137] (PAGE 26)

I'm sure that the information is available elsewhere if this booklet isn't a reliable enough source. Also, if required, hte CD catalogue number is 88697306262. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ElvisFan1981 for citing those page numbers and I believe that this booklet is a reliable source, as BMG got Kubernick to write the review(booklet) for their 40th Anniversary 4CD release of the '68 Comeback Special. Looking forward to comeback by the way.--Jaye9 (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Great job, all. EF'81, is the Jerry Schilling quote ("he had not been able to do for years, being able to choose the people; being able to choose what songs and not being told what had to be on the soundtrack. ... He was out of prison, man.") also there on page 26? DocKino (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It sure is, and also the information about the album breaking into the Top 10. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another cite verification request

In the "From Elvis In Memphis and the International" subsection, we currently have six cites of the following:

• The King on The Road, Elvis Presley Enterprises

Does anyone know what this is? If it is Robert Gordon's The King on the Road (which we cite elsewhere), that's not accessible via Google or Amazon. Does anyone happen to have it to provide proper publication information and specific page numbers? DocKino (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure these are citations I added and so the pages are as follows. For reference the books catalogue number is ISBN 0-600-58331-7 the editor is Mike Evans and it is in co-operation with EPE, printed in 1996 by Hamlyn.

The London Palladium offered Parker $28,000 for a one-week engagement. He responded, "That's fine for me, now how much can you get for Elvis?"[144] Page 146

He was scheduled to perform 57 shows over four weeks beginning July 31, after Barbra Streisand opened the new venue.[144] Page 146

Presley assembled top-notch accompaniment, including an orchestra and some of the best soul/gospel backup singers available.[144] Page 146

Parker intended to make Presley's return the show business event of the year, and hotel owner Kirk Kerkorian arranged to send his own plane to New York to fly in the rock press for the debut performance.[144] This is actually from here [9] 31 July 1969

A second standing ovation followed his performance, and a third came after his encore, "Can't Help Falling in Love".[144] Page 149

Backstage, many well-wishers, including Cary Grant, congratulated Presley on his triumphant return which, in the showroom alone, had generated over $1,500,000.[144] Page 150

The next day, Parker's negotiations with the hotel resulted in a five-year contract for Presley to play each February and August, at a salary of $1 million per year.[144] This is actually from here [10] 31 July 1969 ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous. Thanks a lot, EF. DocKino (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And another cite verification request

On August 15, 1955, "Colonel" Tom Parker became Presley's "special adviser" - subsequently we refer to Presley's manager, but so far we have only identified Moore in that role (July 12 1964). We should say Parker became manager, but does anyone have a cite for "special adviser" if that's of particular relevance to state too? PL290 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In the fall 1954 Bob Neal takes charge of many bookings for Presley and at some point, with Moore's consent, it is decided that he would be a better manager to the trio.

On January 1 1955 Elvis' contract with Bob Neal goes into effect. (Guralnik/Jorgensen, Elvis Day by Day p. 27)

August 15 1955 Presley signed a new contract with Bob Neal that stated Parker was a "special advisor" (Guralnik/Jorgensen, Elvis Day by Day p. 45)

On 20 October 1955 Vernon and Gladys Presley sign a telegram provided by Tom Diskin proclaiming that they wish Tom Parker to take "sole and exclusive" representation of their sons recording contract and future negotiations regarding it. (Guralnik/Jorgensen Elvis Day by Day p. 50)

November 26 1955 Parker informs Neal that he (Neal) will remain Presley's personal manager for another four months. (Day by Day p. 54)

March 2 1956, Parker informs his legal team that Bob Neal no longer has any business association with Presley. (Day by Day p.64)

It's a lot of information, and there's so much more, but that is the main points. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Let's see what we can make of that. Thanks again. PL290 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)