Elvis At Stax: Deluxe Edition

[Justin]

Am I right in recalling that Elvis was getting increasingly reluctant to go into the studio around this time in spite of RCA/The Colonel signing contracts demanding a lot of material?

Yes, you are correct.  The only reason Elvis was recording at Stax was because of its very close proximity to Graceland, where his daughter was staying with him for the summer.  RCA's demands were very heavy on Elvis...it was no surprise he got as burnt out as he did; couple that with the heavy touring schedule he kept which included two 1 month engagements each year in Vegas where he did two shows a night during those engagements.

[Rocker]

Other than what happened at the sessions themselves, I get the feeling he had little control over "what" got released -- and how it was presented.  I suppose if he made his plans clear beforehand, he had a lot of control -- but these Stax sessions, which I freakin' LOVE btw, are a good case-in-point.  It was only a few days.  That's it.  And basically everything was used.  Three albums.

The few days that made up the July sessions, which were kind chaotic with a numbed up Elvis, produced an entire album.  Imagine if The Beach Boys had that same pressure.  We'd have Adult/Child and everything in between (and I'd be a fcking happy camper).  But everything was used.

I'm not complaining since I love Elvis and cherish every second he recorded in the 70s -- which wasn't nearly enough.  And when he did record, he was beat, tired, drugged and rushed.  But he was such a hot fcking commodity, that all of it was used.  And it all sold.  He was milked dry.

Well, yes and no. Elvis had total control. He was the one who decided what was the mater, what was released as a single, etc. People often say the Beach Boys were the first self produced act but Elvis did all that already in the 50s. Colonel made sure that Presley was the only one who had control over his music. That was unheard of in the business before. But there's no question that Elvis at one point in his career became not as demanding and letting other people have a say too. But in the end what was released was released because Elvis said so. It's another topic if he really cared much about his albums and stuff in the later 70s as his health began to get worse and worse.

Am I right in recalling that Elvis was getting increasingly reluctant to go into the studio around this time in spite of RCA/The Colonel signing contracts demanding a lot of material?

Yes, you are correct.  The only reason Elvis was recording at Stax was because of its very close proximity to Graceland, where his daughter was staying with him for the summer.  RCA's demands were very heavy on Elvis...it was no surprise he got as burnt out as he did; couple that with the heavy touring schedule he kept which included two 1 month engagements each year in Vegas where he did two shows a night during those engagements.

Shortly before Elvis and the Colonel made a deal with RCA signing off the rights to Presley's backcatalogue for a laughable sum of money (reminding of Murry). That deal included that there had to be new chart recordings and albums. Elvis could've cut down the touring a little but he didn't want to. So, RCA is not really to blame. Their just wanted Elvis to do his work.

[Ian]

Clearly from comments he made elvis didnt love making many of his films or soundtrack recordings and lost interest in Vegas after the first couple of years.  I think despite the fact that he was a natural rebel, he was incredibly passive in many respects and didn't go in much for confrontation.  He was frequently dissatisfied but didn't really make it known. So nothing changed

[Rocker]

Clearly from comments he made elvis didnt love making many of his films or soundtrack recordings and lost interest in Vegas after the first couple of years.  I think despite the fact that he was a natural rebel, he was incredibly passive in many respects and didn't go in much for confrontation.  He was frequently dissatisfied but didn't really make it known. So nothing changed

I'm quite surprised about this rebel thing everybody always talks about. From what I read and hear about him he wasn't anything like a rebel. He went along with everything because he had to fulfill his contracts (and that is btw a good feature imo because you have to be able to rely on someone you make contracts with; and Elvis and the Colonel were true-to-their-word with that). He didn't try to break any rules or something. He just wanted to make his music the way he wanted it. But to me that's not really rebellious but an artist who is self confident about his music and style (something I respect much more than any rebellionism). But I'd say the Colonel was more of a rebel than Elvis.




Anyway, here's another interview with Norbert Putnam:

http://www.popmatters.com/feature/175031-for-ol-times-sake-an-interview-with-norbert-putnam/

[Ian]

When I say he was a natural rebel-I mean that he rebelled against the conformity of his times.  When everyone else in his school had a flat-top crewcut, Elvis had long greasy hair and sideburns.  In a time of segregation-Elvis was a huge fan of the blues-and said so.  When everyone else dressed like Joe-Average, Elvis showed up in crazy pink jackets and pants.  That wasn't an image that was him and that is why when he appeared on TV in 1956 it was as if an alien from Mars had landed!!! He transformed American culture and that is why he'll be recalled.   Later on he made lots of great music-but he seldom took control (other than perhaps in 68-69).   He believed, and I quote Elvis from a 1972 interview "Hollywood's image of me was all wrong and I knew it" but though he said he got so upset about it that it was all he could think about-he just sullenly retreated inward into isolation and drugs and didn't express himself.  He seldom expressed his displeasure to the Colonel-but silently brooded about everything. 

[Rocker]

Well, maybe we have a different understanding of what a rebel is. Most of what you say hasn't to do with rebellionism but with style. Let me just give a few examples.

See, I don't think there's nothing rebellious about listening to some certain kind of music, even in times of segregation. In fact many white kids were listening to that stuff and there's a long line of interchange between black and white music (which btw is a terrible expression). I could understand calling this rebellious if Elvis did it because he wanted to make a case. But he listened because he loved music (he also listened to other music). He was a natural musician.
 
He dressed differently - as he himself said - not to be different but because he wanted it to try for himself. But a rebel would've done it because of wanting to be different. It was just his style and it wa influenced by other peope's styles.

Elvis wasn't a rebel. He went along with the business. He did wear the Tuxedo on Steve Allen, he did make those movies he didn't like and he did go into the army, although it was a big risk for his career at that time. A rebel would've rebelled against this. Elvis went along. He was a pro. He did what was expected from him. He just had enough talent to do that and still do it in his own style.
And that's also part of why he was so successfull. If Elvis and the Colonel gave you their word they stuck to it.
He also was a mama's boy who travelled by train because his mother didn't want him to use plane's anymore. (I'm exaggerating a little so my point is clear)


The rebel-image is just another way for the Elvis-fans to have an apology to other people for liking Elvis ("see, he was cool, he was a rebell") and another way for not having to focus on the music. Just like that dumb generalization that Rock'n'Roll is just about sex.

BTW I'm not saying that you are like that.


All in all, what you could call Elvis was maybe a martyr but even that would be more iconic than it was. He was an artist. A self confident artist who knew
how to play the game and still not sell himself out.




About the music, he clearly was also in charge after '69. With hiring Felton Jarvis he made sure that he could do what he wanted without anyone telling him to do it again or try it differently. No one would've released crap like "Girl of mine" (I'm talking about the recording and Elvis' performance; the song is nice). But Elvis did, because he was Elvis and what he said applied. A producer who didn't follow him in everything would've demanded something else. But Presley made sure he had someone who could focus on the record while he himself could conentrate on the singing.

It's not as romantic but probably nearer to how it was.

[Bean Bag]

Elvis = rebel.  That's what Elvis was.  When he stopped being Elvis -- a rebel -- that's when his output became stale and his artistic direction becomes faint. 

Being a rebel was in his DNA, in his soul 100% -- and it was his destiny.  That's what he was.  And it made him filthy rich (50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong!)  And every time he stopped being his rebellious self, for whatever reason, he kind of wilted and died a little.

Yes he did go along with those anti-rebellious phases (being a man of his word/honoring his movie deals, etc.) -- but clearly... that just wasn't him.  That wasn't his song.  So, to say Elvis is a rebel, I think that is a very true, honest statement of the man's soul.

[Mikie]

OK, so I just aquired "Elvis At Stax", "Stay Away Joe", "Hot August Night", "Las Vegas Happening", and "Aloha Jerry".

For the Elvis buffs, what are the highlights of these five recordings?  Rocker, Moon Dawg, whatia think?

Thanks in advance!

[Justin]

OK, so I just aquired "Elvis At Stax", "Stay Away Joe", "Hot August Night", and "Las Vegas Happening".

For the Elvis buffs, what are the highlights of these four recordings?  Rocker, Moon Dawg, whatia think?

Thanks in advance!

"Elvis at Stax" is a fascinating revisit at the Stax material and most of the success of this package is in the sequencing.  Great review from a song's early stages to the finished product.  The mix of the studio banter and listening to the progression of how a song moves forward in the recording/writing stages is very rewarding.  Highlights include "I Got A Feelin in my Body"  "I've Got A Thing About You" "Loving Arms" and "Good Time Charlie's Got The Blues."  There is a mix of soft/MOR type of songs but the songs that do stand out are great highlights in Elvis' immense catalog!  Would love to hear your thoughts after listening to it!

[Rocker]

Elvis never stopped being a rebel because he never was one in the first place.

Guys, you get fooled by the image he himself created. That was a role he played in the 50s following his influences by the rebellious movie characters of James Dean and Marlon Brando - and remember these were also just roles, even if they would've been rebels in real life, Elvis didn't know them personally and could just go with their public image.
During his career he had more than just that one image.

So, what is a rebel? A rebel is someone who activey and knowingly breaks rules (in many cases to make his standpoint clear other times just for the sake of breaking them or shock people) and who does things he was told not to do or isn't even allowed to do.
Elvis doesn't fit with these descriptions.


Elvis, who always wanted to be accepted by everybody - young and old, squares and free thinker - and also always wanted to make music that he liked (that includes what we call rock music but also ballads, gospel, "schmaltz" a.s.o.) did use the show business and it's conditions to become a great success, probably the greatest in the 20th century. He did and achieved that by his tremendous talent that gave him the ability to do whatever was expected and do it well. Therefor he had success in everything he himself wanted to do (music, films, being a star).
For this he joined with the best manager he could find to get to his goals. The Colonel had the skills to make everything possible, business-wise, for Presley.


So, after this, where do we go with that rebel myth? Let me explain in going further into the examples I mentioned above. These examples are the Steve Allen Show, the army and the movies.


Elvis was booked on the Setve Allen Show. After the host saw Presley's act on the Milton Berle Show he demanded that Elvis toned his performance down and wrote a skecth that had Presley wear a tuxedo (so he couldn't move around) and [=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoG3oSka_QI]singing "Hound dog"[/url] to an actual hound.
Elvis reportedly hated this idea and 'til the end of his life expressed his dislike of that show when asked.
Now, what would a rebel have done? A rebel would have fought against this, refused to do it or in another way tred to break the deal. Elvis obviously didn't do any of that. It was part of his job and he knew that he had to go on tha show and play along. He also knew that he probably would've had a hard time getting bookings for other shows when word got out that this was someone whom you couldn't trust. Plus he got money. So he went along with it and dressed in the tuxedo and sang to that dog.


When Elvis was drafted he became very upset because he thought his career was over. Two years without him being on the scene might very well mean exactly that. Of course there were options to not go that way, but this is not what Elvis did. Elvis went into the army and served like any other regular guy. Someone in Elvis' position, with this kind of income and with the Colonel as manager easily could've been released from the draft or gotten a job on the entertaining division.
But Elvis didn't go that way, because he knew it would hurt his image and his dream of becoming an artist who is liked by people of all ages.


The movies. After being the highest paid actor in Hollywood for a few years and having very successful movies the scripts began to get worse and worse. The formula wa not just milked dry, in the end it was dust. Not only the movies were terrible, also the masses of songs that had to be included often were miserable. Elvis performances and looks showed that this was not a good time for him and his career.
As a natural rebel he would've refused to do this kind of sh!t or demanded to get him better scripts. Did he do any of that? No. He fulfilled his contracts and made Spinout, Clambake, Paradise Hawaiian Style, etc. He did also record the soundtracks for those movies.
Someone posted the quote "Hollywood's image of me was wrong". In the same interview he said that the only one to blame was himself and that he couldn't do anything about it.
He wanted to go on tour again but the movies kept him at work. He was contratced for three movies a year. If he was a rebel he could've told the Colonel to f*ck Hollywood and book him a tour. He didn't do it because it also would've hurt his career.


So, once again: Elvis was no rebel! Elvis was a pro and that is also why he was in the position to use the business to his benefit.

I don't know why it is so important for some people to keep up the rebel image at all costs. It is just plain wrong and nothing more than the image that Elvis wanted to have and saw fitting to the zeitgeist of those certain times. It had no effect on his music or otherwise on his great talent. In fact he made some of his very best recordings at a time that to those people wasn't rebellious but adapted.


It is not rebellious to listen to different kinds of music and being influenced by them. Neither is it to make music in his own style, 'cause that is the way a natural musician like Elvis works.
History is clear and so are Elvis' comments. He never claimed to be a rebel but in fact showed that he wanted to please everybody and be the best entertainer he could be. if someone can't understand this I fear that he hasn't understand Elvis Presley none.



I haven't seen any reasonable arguments for him being a rebel, just some pale cliches that are based on nothing. If you got some, please tell them. I could think of a few happeings but at a closer look they still fall apart mostly.

[Justin]

Rocker, I believe you are taking the "rebel" definition too literally.  I'm not sure anyone is saying that Elvis was a hard-ass and broke the law.  If that were in fact the definition of a true rebel. then the only people allowed to be called that would be criminals.    The way you describe it above implies that Elvis should have given a huge F-you to the movie studios and the US Army in order for him to be a true "rebel."  Elvis was who he was.  You make it sound like he was a character made out of thin air, fabricated by the teen magazines.  There was a rebellion quality in Elvis because he went against the norm. 

Your definition of a rebel:  

So, what is a rebel? A rebel is someone who activey and knowingly breaks rules (in many cases to make his standpoint clear other times just for the sake of breaking them or shock people) and who does things he was told not to do or isn't even allowed to do.

It is in this manner that Elvis was clearly in fact a rebel...in music.  We're not talking about leather jackets, putting up fights andr carrying a knife.  I'm talking about the rules he broke in music.  Elvis was a rebel much like Jerry Lee Lewis was a rebel or Little Richard was.  These guys exploded onto the scene and rocked music as people knew it.  When Elvis arrived with his hips moving, singing like a black man and dripping of raw sexuality---that sent shock waves around the world. I don't need to give you a lesson on his impact when he first arrived.  Elvis was just being who he was, how he wanted to do it--on his terms.  The guy made a lot of people very angry along the way during those first few years but he pushed through it.  

Artistically speaking, Elvis was most definitely a rebel.

[Rocker]

Rocker, I believe you are taking the "rebel" definition too literally.  I'm not sure anyone is saying that Elvis was a hard-ass and broke the law.  If that were in fact the definition of a true rebel. then the only people allowed to be called that would be criminals.    The way you describe it above implies that Elvis should have given a huge F-you to the movie studios and the US Army in order for him to be a true "rebel."  Elvis was who he was.  You make it sound like he was a character made out of thin air, fabricated by the teen magazines.  There was a rebellion quality in Elvis because he went against the norm. 

Your definition of a rebel:  

So, what is a rebel? A rebel is someone who activey and knowingly breaks rules (in many cases to make his standpoint clear other times just for the sake of breaking them or shock people) and who does things he was told not to do or isn't even allowed to do.

It is in this manner that Elvis was clearly in fact a rebel...in music.  We're not talking about leather jackets, putting up fights andr carrying a knife.  I'm talking about the rules he broke in music.  Elvis was a rebel much like Jerry Lee Lewis was a rebel or Little Richard was.  These guys exploded onto the scene and rocked music as people knew it.  When Elvis arrived with his hips moving, singing like a black man and dripping of raw sexuality---that sent shock waves around the world. I don't need to give you a lesson on his impact when he first arrived.  Elvis was just being who he was, how he wanted to do it--on his terms.  The guy made a lot of people very angry along the way during those first few years but he pushed through it.  

Artistically speaking, Elvis was most definitely a rebel.

No, I didn't say that there was a criminal side to it. I wasn't talking about breaking the law but breaking the rules.

Elvis, Jerry Lee, etc. weren't breaking rules in music as much as people like to think but much more important, they weren't doing it knowingly (as I wrote above) which would be the assumption for rebellion. If you look deeper into the whole southern music  you see that it developed 'til those guys were the logical consequence. That takes nothing away from them (why should it?), since they were great stylists but it wasn't that new a case. White and black music always interchanged with each other. The reason for the big fuss was that thanks to radio, TV etc. it took over to people who hadn't any clue about this kind of music (blues, country, gospel a.s.o.) and therefor it became THAT big. In the south and music scene of hillbilly and country it was a new sound that was quite appreciated (the exception proves the rule).

Also before it came to those "northern"-people - 1956 - no one really seemed to have much of a problem with Elvis' wiggling.

Elvis (and of course all the other cats) were a mirror and the result that the southern music had naturally to result in.


And before anyone misunderstands me: that doesn't degrade the musical (may I say) genius that Elvis was. It just puts him in context. The guy was like a sponge that absorbed every musical influence he could get (mirror), not focusing on just one style, and then had the talent and ability to transform it all into his own (result).
Elvis was like the chosen one (or "the door opener" as Little Richard called it) who was to lead this revolution, because he had the looks, the charisma and the talent. He had a natural sense for show business and what to do in which way to become an icon. He was very intelligent for that matter.

Elvis was just being who he was, how he wanted to do it--on his terms.

Exactly, that is what I said.

The guy made a lot of people very angry along the way during those first few years but he pushed through it.

Again, exactly. But this would be a very nice definition of a martyr not a rebel.

You make it sound like he was a character made out of thin air, fabricated by the teen magazines.

No, re-read my post. I said exactly the contrary. I said Elvis himself made that up.
He had a vision of how he wanted to appear as an artist. And in the 50s it was this image. He changed his images more than once.

[Justin]

Again, you are putting too much emphasis on the word rebel itself.   Your over-emphasis on the word suggests that only revolutionaries who start riots and overthrow governments are the only people to deserve the use of the word.  Let's please see the use of the word in context, as it is used in art, specifically music. 

I don't necessarily buy that Elvis was unaware of what he was doing.  That may have been the case when he was a young guy entertaining crowds in Tupelo, but by the time he broke out nationally he was very aware what his actions meant and what it did to people.   And he did them anyway.

Elvis "created" his image no less than any one of us creates our image of ourselves.  The clothes we wear, the way we wear our hair--that's all us being who we are.  Elvis didn't purposely manufacture a false image of himself...he was who he was.  Somebody trying to go against the norm just because they want to be different or get a reaction is a poser and a fake.  Elvis was neither. Any change that Elvis went through wasn't a conscious one or one that was for the benefit of his career.  He moved from one phase of his life to the other--just as any one of us would in our own lives.  He didn't make the conscious decision, "okay, so I was the leather jacket rebel in the fifties...I was the clean cut sexy dude in the sixties, for the seventies I think I'm going to try the older/respectable crooner of heavy ballads!"  He matured and adjusted himself appropriately in every stage of his life where he found it appropriate.

In the end, you don't seem to give Presley enough credit for what he did do during his first years as a performer.  He was aware of everything he was doing and he was no dummy to see what kind of reaction he was getting.  To go out on a national broadcast and to gyrate the way he did when he sang "Hound Dog" on Berle's show is, to me, a huge F you to the rules.  He knew what kind of programs were on television, he was very aware what kind of entertainment was popular at the time, he knew what was accepted as "the norm" in society, he knew the safe direction to go and yet he did it his way anyway.  The fact that he played it straight with Steve Allen, or eventually joined the Army does not take away from the things he did do before then.   

[Rocker]

Well, if the word rebel is used, then it has to be taken as that. I don't think I read too much into it. There are enough other words that can be used to describe Elvis more properly, even if it ought to give him such an iconic rng as "rebel".
I don't think the meaning of the word is different in german as in english, is it?
It is used very inflationary in Elvis circles, almost as if it had something to do with his music or the quality of it, and that is why I get very upset by it.




First, I think you don't understand my point. I give Presley every credit there is. Everything - the good and the bad. There are people who blame the Colonel for... well, almost everything but Elvis was the boss, the one who had absolute control over his decisions; and he made them. I thought I'd made that clear enough.
But on the other hand I think you don't give him enough credit. Of course he evolved as a human being. But you don't seem to want to admit that show biz was his life and he was extremely paying attention to what the public thought of him.
He very certainly was working up an image and a way he wanted to be seen in the public's eye. He himself admitted such things when asked on the Madison Square Garden conference ("The image is one thing the human being another").


I don't think the two of us are too far apartin our opinions to tell you the truth. I can't tell you how much respect I have for Elvis for coming up with what he did. And I think I take him and his work and the culture it came out of more serious than many other Elvis-fans and music critics.
But I think it is wrong to think he had some kind of "masterplan" behind his music except becoming an successful entertainer. There are enough interviews and quotes by Elvis stating that he just wants to make music. But you haven't even named one in which Elvis says he'd do this for another reason like changing society or shake anything up.
There are quotes of Sam Phillips saying that he wanted to change it and that he wanted to get black music getting the respect and recognition it deserved. And probably Elvis under the influence of Phillips had smilar thoughts. But he didn't mention it.  
All he said was that he wanted to be an entertainer and that he did his music by instinct, not with a plan.
Again, if you can come up with concrete examples and quotes of Elvis please name them. I did, and what I have mentioned is imo very clear. But you can't look at it from a perspective decades after the happenings and assign today's view and historic understanding of what happened in the aftermath of the facts and assume that this is the way the people back then thought too (how should they have known?). It was just life as it went to them as is today's life for us.
I'm not saying that there might not have been a rebellious side in his private life once in a while, but from everything we know it wasn't very big.

And regarding the Ed Sullivan show, of course he knew what was causing the publicity he got (his wiggling). But I don't think he was giving a f!ck you to Sullivan (how you or me or whoever interprets it is another question). He did it because that is what brought him onto the show in the first place, that was what the people/his fans wanted to see and since Elvis was someone who wanted to please, he gave them what they wanted.

Again, I'd ask you to cite some examples as I have. Which interviews have him obviously showing that he was a rebel? I could think of a few (but of course I won't tell you which ones now ) but all in all it just wasn't as much part of his nature as we (can) know it.



All in all, I fear that we at some points talk at cross-purposes. That has to be seen.



Anyway, I like these discussions and I love it that here's someone who to discuss with!  

[Rocker]

OK, so I just aquired "Elvis At Stax", "Stay Away Joe", "Hot August Night", "Las Vegas Happening", and "Aloha Jerry".

For the Elvis buffs, what are the highlights of these five recordings?  Rocker, Moon Dawg, whatia think?

Thanks in advance!

The '69 live shows all are highlights. And since this show is represented on the original "From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis"-live album (which as of now still beats every other '69 live release imo) with 7 recordings you can be sure that it is something very special.
I always loved the "Stay away Joe" recordings. The FTD will give you the sessions to those. It is very well done imo. I don't know what else to say. I guess it's also depending on what you think about the material. But Elvis' version of "Too much monkey business" is a masterpiece imo; in fact I think his Chuck Berry recordings are all great, except for "Memphis, Tennessee".


I don't know Las Vegas Happening or Aloha Jerry. Have you some more infos about them?

[Mikie]

Notes on Aloha Jerry:

This very interesting release features a soundbooth recording of Las Vegas, February 23, 1973 CS and an incomplete soundboard recording of Las Vegas, February 10, 1973 DS.

We already had the CS from February 23, 1973 back in 2005 on "What Now My Love" (X-Entertainment) but definitely not in this excellent sound quality ! For sure this show belongs to the better ones of this Vegas season with highlights like What Now My Love, Steamroller Blues, Fever or I'll Remember You. The DS from February 10, 1973 debuts on silver disc and in addition ìt's  a soundboard recording which makes it worthwhile for your collection in any case ! To sum it up: Highly recommendable !!! It`s already in our Concerts On CD - 1973 section.  On the Audionics label.


Tracklisting

Also Sprach Zarathustra
C. C. Rider
I Got A Woman / Amen
Love Me Tender
You Don't Have To Say You Love Me
Steamroller Blues
You Gave Me A Mountain
Fever
Love Me
Blue Suede Shoes
Hound Dog
What Now My Love
Suspicious Minds
Band Introduction
Introduction of Celebrities
I'll Remember You
I Can't Stop Loving You
An American Trilogy
Can't Help Falling In Love
Closing Vamp

Bonus tracks (February 10, 1973 DS):
Fever
Heartbreak Hotel
Johnny B. Goode
Hound Dog
What Now My Love
Suspicious Minds
Band Introduction
Introduction of Jack Lord
I'll Remember You

The bonus tracks are soundboard recordings.

[Justin]

I enjoy discussing Elvis with other knowledgeable fans as well but I fear we are splitting hairs here and having two very different discussions in one breath.

Well, if the word rebel is used, then it has to be taken as that. I don't think I read too much into it. There are enough other words that can be used to describe Elvis more properly, even if it ought to give him such an iconic rng as "rebel".
I don't think the meaning of the word is different in german as in english, is it?
It is used very inflationary in Elvis circles, almost as if it had something to do with his music or the quality of it, and that is why I get very upset by it.

I'm pretty sure the definition of the word "rebel" is the same in both language but it is up to the person to interpret it and apply it appropriately whenever they use it.  It does not have one singular interpretation only to be used as a person who causes riots and starts a government revolution.  As you can see, the word has a couple meanings:

Rebel:
1
a :  opposing or taking arms against a government or ruler
b :  of or relating to rebels <the rebel camp>
2
:  disobedient, rebellious

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebel


That's the dead end you and I are having here.   Your interpretation of the word is very, very limited and seems to be stuck on the first option in the above definition regarding taking arms on a ruler when my use of the word is the second one: disobedience.  Whether or not Elvis may or may not have been aware that he was a rebel---the point of the discussion is how he came to be known as that.  The public and the media viewed him as a rebel.  Period.  End of discussion.  You wanted to know why people started calling him that?  The answer is in the reaction from the people at the time.  They labeled him as such because that is what they saw him as:  the guy who broke the rules, the guy who danced and sung about sex, the not clean cut Bobby Darin or Frank Sinatra.  He was the anti-everything.  Whether or not it was Elvis' intention to portray this is completely not the point.  It was the public's perception of Elvis Presley that brought this label on him.   You can refute Elvis' "intentions" all you want but it does not change the fact that history has shown that the general public perceived Elvis as the enemy.  We are having two discussions simultaneously here:  "Why was Elvis labeled a rebel?" and "Was Elvis really a rebel?"  Two very different topics.  You cannot refute someone's use of the word when it is based on a perception that had been already established--and long standing.  If you want to discuss the legitimacy of the label---that is a different discussion all together.

He very certainly was working up an image and a way he wanted to be seen in the public's eye. He himself admitted such things when asked on the Madison Square Garden conference ("The image is one thing the human being another").

You are free to interpret that any way you wish.  Elvis admits that there is a clear line between the Elvis on stage/in front of cameras and the Elvis at home in Graceland.  For this quote to reveal that Elvis was secretly creating a false image of himself, fully conscious that it wasn't him on stage would imply that he was a fake.  His quote touches on many aspects of his career..not just his "image."  He is referring to the false perception that people had during the movies he made, the perception that he was a rock and roll singer that only sang fast rock and roll tunes that he didn't have any depth to sing any ballads...there are tons of factors to keep in mind here.  He isn't just referring to one aspect of the word image:  looks, attitude etc.

But you can't look at it from a perspective decades after the happenings and assign today's view and historic understanding of what happened in the aftermath of the facts and assume that this is the way the people back then thought too (how should they have known?). It was just life as it went to them as is today's life for us.

I'm not sure anyone is re-interpreting the facts of nearly 60 years ago.  This is how it was then...the fact that people saw Elvis as the anti-Christ isn't something people are applying today in 2013.   Everything said in this thread is completely representative of what was believed in the 1950's:



“…But Presley is mostly nightmare. On stage, his gyrations…are vulgar… He has also dragged ‘big beat’ music to new lows in taste…”
              – Look magazine, 1956

There are enough interviews and quotes by Elvis stating that he just wants to make music. But you haven't even named one in which Elvis says he'd do this for another reason like changing society or shake anything up. There are quotes of Sam Phillips saying that he wanted to change it and that he wanted to get black music getting the respect and recognition it deserved. And probably Elvis under the influence of Phillips had smilar thoughts. But he didn't mention it. 
Again, if you can come up with concrete examples and quotes of Elvis please name them. I did, and what I have mentioned is imo very clear.

Again, I'd ask you to cite some examples as I have. Which interviews have him obviously showing that he was a rebel? I could think of a few (but of course I won't tell you which ones now ) but all in all it just wasn't as much part of his nature as we (can) know it.

If you want me to provide a quote that has Elvis say: "I sang these songs with the full intention of causing an uproar.  I knew people were upset but I didn't care--I did it anyway.  The world needed to change and I was going to be that person to change it!"....you're not going to find it because it doesn't exist.  But his actions speak louder than words.  Elvis had played many, many shows before he made his debut on the Dorsey show singing "Flip, Flop and Fly.'  He knew exactly what he was doing and although he gave the press the reason saying it was all natural--he still didn't stop what he did.  He saw the resistance from all directions yet he persisted.  That doesn't sound like the behavior of someone who wanted to appease people.  That sounds rebellious.  And I will not force you to agree with me.

[Mikie]

Notes on Las Vegas Happening:

The new Rock Legends have released a double soundboard CD. The Elvis Presley Show was a HAPPENING and first Spring appearance in Sin City since 1956 was no different. The 50s gig was definitely way above in terms of performance, but nonetheless a flop at the time. Wrong place, wrong moment! But by 1969 Elvis returned and established himself as the King Of Vegas. March 1975 wasn't a flop although he had health problems, but he still was in an excellent mood and with new studio material recorded about a week before. He was away from Las Vegas since Sept 1974, but he opened this Season with some of his new songs; And I Love You So, Green Green Grass Of Home and Fairytale. T-R-O-U-B-L-E would wait up to his next tour before entering his song list as a regular number, whilst the odd Shake A Hand and Pieces Of My Life were performed a bit later during the July 1975 tour.  The first CD features the nearly complete pre-show (no Elvis), and on the second CD the March 22, 1975 Midnight performance along with some bonus tracks recorded three nights earlier. The March 22, 1975 MS has been released twice but our source is definitely from an earlier generation. The very short Joe Orchestra introduction before the Also Sprach Zarathustra is not on the aforementioned releases and presence of vocal distortion in Elvis' vocal is rather smooth and less annoying than it was before.
This new digipack double set will be a very LIMITED EDITION and first intended for the fans who didn't have these recordings, or all the ones wanting the COMPLETE HAPPENING.

March 1975 wasn't a flop although he had health problems, but still came in an excellent mood and rich of new studio material recorded about a week before. He was away from Las Vegas since September 1974, but he opened this Season with some of his new songs ; And I Love You So, Green Green Grass Of Home and Fairytale. T-R-O-U-B-L-E would wait up to his next tour before entering his song list as a regular number, whilst the odd Shake A Hand and Pieces Of My Life were performed a bit later during the July 1975 tour. Some material from the strong December 1973 sessions like Promised Land , It's Midnight and My Boy were incorporated along some unrehearsed moments to his basic program.
The first CD features the nearly complete pre-show, and on the second CD the March 22, 1975 Midnight performance along with some bonus tracks recorded three nights earlier.


Suppose to be better quality than the Profile box set and Big Bang release.


CD 1:
01 Joe Guercio's orchestra opening  
02 Voice introduction / Going Back To Memphis Tomorrow      
03 Into The Father's House / Closing      
04 Philadelphia Freedom      
05 Introduction of the Sweet Inspirations / Stevie Is A Wonder / For Once In My Life / You Got It Bad Girl / Superstition / You Are The Sunshine Of My Life / Livin' For The City / All In Love Is Fair / Higher Ground / Closing      
06 Jackie Kahane introduction and Comedy Act      

CD 2:            
01 Also Sprach Zarasthustra      
02 C. C. Rider      
03 I Got A Woman / Amen      
04 Love Me      
05 If You Love me (Let Me Know)    
06 And I Love You So      
07 Big Boss Man      
08 It's Midnight      
09 Promised Land      
10 Green Green Gras Of Home    
11 Fairytale      
12 Band Introductions      
13 What'd I Say (featuring James Burton)        
14 Drum Solo (by Ronnie Tutt)    
15 Bass Solo (by Due Bardwell)      
16 Piano Solo (by Glen D. Hardin)      
17 Electric Piano Solo (by David Briggs)      
18 Introductions of vocalists and orchestra      
19 Orchestra solo      
20 My Boy    
21 I'll Remember You      
22 Let Me Be There (with reprise)      
23 Teddy Bear / Don't Be Cruel      
24 Hound Dog (with reprise)      
25 I'll Be There (excerpt only) / You're The Reason I'm Living        
26 Can't Help Falling In Love      
27 Closing Vamp        
28 Big Boss Man        
29 My Boy      
30 I'll Remember You      
31 Hound Dog      
32 An American Trilogy    
33 If You Love Me (Let Me Know )
      
      
  
Note:   CD1:
Tracks 1-6 recorded in las Vegas on March 19, 1975, Dinner Show
Tracks 2-3 performed by Voice
Tracks 4-5 performed by The Sweet Inspirations
Track 6 performed by Jacky Kahane
CD2:
Tracks 1-4 recorded in Las Vegas on March 20, 1975, Dinner Show
Tracks 5-27 recorded in Las Vegas on March 22,1975, Midnight Show
Tracks 28-33 are bonus songs and recorded in Las Vegas on March 19, 1975, Midnight show

 
 

[Mikie]

Sorry, Justin, didn't mean to step on your "rebel" discussion with Rocker there. Just giving him the info on a couple of recent releases. I'm very slowly coming up to speed with all of this. There's so many Elvis releases that it's kinda hard to keep track. Sure glad I'm not an Elvis completist or I'd be in debt!

Thanks you guys for the good info here and the responses. Gonna go listen to the Elvis Stax release now, which is the main premise of the thread, isn't it? 

[Justin]

Notes on Aloha Jerry:

This very interesting release features a soundbooth recording of Las Vegas, February 23, 1973 CS and an incomplete soundboard recording of Las Vegas, February 10, 1973 DS.

We already had the CS from February 23, 1973 back in 2005 on "What Now My Love" (X-Entertainment) but definitely not in this excellent sound quality ! For sure this show belongs to the better ones of this Vegas season with highlights like What Now My Love, Steamroller Blues, Fever or I'll Remember You. The DS from February 10, 1973 debuts on silver disc and in addition ìt's  a soundboard recording which makes it worthwhile for your collection in any case ! To sum it up: Highly recommendable !!! It`s already in our Concerts On CD - 1973 section.  On the Audionics label.


Tracklisting

Also Sprach Zarathustra
C. C. Rider
I Got A Woman / Amen
Love Me Tender
You Don't Have To Say You Love Me
Steamroller Blues
You Gave Me A Mountain
Fever
Love Me
Blue Suede Shoes
Hound Dog
What Now My Love
Suspicious Minds
Band Introduction
Introduction of Celebrities
I'll Remember You
I Can't Stop Loving You
An American Trilogy
Can't Help Falling In Love
Closing Vamp

Bonus tracks (February 10, 1973 DS):
Fever
Heartbreak Hotel
Johnny B. Goode
Hound Dog
What Now My Love
Suspicious Minds
Band Introduction
Introduction of Jack Lord
I'll Remember You

The bonus tracks are soundboard recordings.

Hope you don't mind me chiming in here!

The Audionics label does quality stuff---well renowned in the Elvis circle.

I see I can listen to it on YouTube: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyQbGzLCWrA)  The description proudly says it's a soundboard yet the main show is obviously an audience recording.  Weird! The one significant aspect of this show is that it is one of the last Jerry Scheff plays with Elvis before leaving the band for a few years hence the name "Aloha Jerry."  "Aloha" I guess in reference to the Aloha From Hawaii show that aired earlier that year. 

1973 was a rough year for Elvis and really began the permanent downward slide both personally and professionally.  There aren't many shows I listen to from this year, even the Aloha show borders on iconic and sleepy.  It's a better event to watch rather than listen to. 

Anyway, apparently one of the highlights from this show is the performance of "What Now My Love"...some comments here from an older version of the recording  here:  http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=54536   It is in fact a very striking version as Elvis speaks some of the lyrics.  He seems to be in a spunky mood throughout the show.  The show seems like a standard '73 show only helped by the enthusiastic crowd who really support Elvis 100%.  His mood reminds me a little of the iconic "Desert Storm" show from the following year:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGIGZ1RNtB4  A trip!

[Justin]

Sorry, Justin, didn't mean to step on your "rebel" discussion with Rocker there. Just giving him the info on a couple of recent releases. I'm very slowly coming up to speed with all of this. There's so many Elvis releases that it's kinda hard to keep track. Sure glad I'm not an Elvis completist or I'd be in debt!

Thanks you guys for the good info here and the responses. Gonna go listen to the Elvis Stax release now, which is the main premise of the thread, isn't it? 

No problem at all..probably my fault for side tracking it a bit....either way this thread seems to be acting like the general Elvis thread!  Any kind of Elvis discussion is good discussion in my book!!

You're definitely right that it's an expensive hobby!  There are still a few active bootleg labels still pumping out new titles (mainly reissues of past titles) so there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.  I've personally scaled back considerably with Elvis boots.  I've become really picky with what I purchase.  I've moved away from much of the material between 1973 and 1977.  But there are some good stuff there to be discovered!   I hope you are also following the FTD collectors label!

Anyway I'm glad to see some fans on this board.  Elvis was my first obsession way before the Beach Boys!    Do share your thoughts about the Stax set. I had found a new appreciation for the recordings after I got my set--and that's after having the material in other releases.  The set really re-focused my attention on the songs and I came away with a new love for them as I noted a few posts up.

[Rocker]

@Justin:

Now, there we go! I was talking the whole time about nothing else but Elvis the person and not what he was in the public's eye. I did so, because I was referring to someone saying Elvis was "a natural rebel" and had it "in his DNA" (maybe it was two different guys, I don't remember) which certainly wasn't .
Of course, in the public's eye he was seen as a rebel. No question about that. That's what I meant when I mentioned the image he made, etc. Sorry, maybe I wasn't too clear.

[Rocker]

1973 was a rough year for Elvis and really began the permanent downward slide both personally and professionally. 

Exactly. IIRC in august of '73 he overdosed and nearly died.
Elvis' voice was also going through some phase. Already on Aloha you can hear it becoming a little flat on some songs (not only the throw away performances), though it was very strong on other songs. I don't know what it was, maybe it was caused by whatever drugs he took at that time. It came down I guess in february when he had to stop a show because his voice was gone.
His voice sounded already a little strange in '72 when he was on stage, but not when he was in the studio. It was still powerful and all that but something was different. In '74 and '75 it again sounded more like '71 just a little "updated" so to speak. And than the terror of '76/'77 started.

[Justin]

Elvis' voice had changed a few times before 1973.  His voice matured as he shifted from decade to decade.  I would personally argue that it was no coincidence that Elvis' voice shifted each time as he faced a major change/shift in his personal life.  Artists are very sensitive creatures and Elvis was a very emotional singer.  It sounded to me that his voice was a sonic representation for the emotional state he was in.  That couldn't have been more clear especially during his final years.

[Ian]

What I find interesting about elvis the live performer is how much his intensity could vary song to song. By the time of aloha he treats the oldies in a cavalier throwaway fashion but he really invests lord you gave me a mountain with concentration. He seems bored with suspicious minds but boy does he belt out my way