# Talk:Elvis Is Back!

About 1001 albums you must hear

The article says this "The album also is one out of two Elvis albuns from the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, it took the 23rd place, presley's other album on the list was "Elvis Presley" which took the 2nd place after Frank Sinatra's "In the Wee Small Hours."
But such book puts the albums in cronologic order, not in best or worse album , so , there is no 2nd or 23nd place , please fix this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.95.107 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elvis Is Back!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I started reading through this, noticed something in the lead, went to talk, and discovered it was up for a GA review, so here we are.


### Lead
"Elvis Is Back! is the tenth studio album by Elvis Presley" - and here is the question I wanted to ask, if that's the case, how is From Elvis in Memphis, released at the opposite end of his career slump (personal opinion of course) his ninth?
That's now corrected. Not counting soundtracks, that would be his 8th LP.--GDuwenTell me! 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The studio albums listing in the Elvis Presley albums discography places it as the 6th album (From Elvis in Memphis as 11th). Adding soundtrack albums makes it the 8th. You have to add the compilations (golden records vol 1 and 2) as well to make it the 10th. My point is that the term "studio album" is ambiguous. Perhaps "hit album" would be more appropriate, ref List of Elvis Presley hit albums where the album is placed as number 10. And maybe link to that list. As it stands now the numbering of the albums is not clear. -- Tengilorg (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"Since release, the album's critical reviews have become progressively more positive" - worth mentioning the original reception?
Done.--GDuwenTell me! 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be good for the lead to mention that Presley reunited with 2/3 of his "classic" backing band during recording
Done.--GDuwenTell me! 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments on the body coming soon Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


### Background and Army years
"Soon after commencing basic training at Fort Hood, Texas" - "starting" might be a better word
"a visit from Eddie Fadal, a businessman he had met on tour" - do we know when abouts that was, any specific tour, or just from general gigging?
Worth mentioning that 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong was released during Elvis' army duties too? Not an original album but still a huge seller and cultural influence, plus the article mentions ""Elvis' 1st New Recording For His 50,000,000 Fans All Over The World"" later
All done.--GDuwenTell me! 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


### Return to music
"For inspiration, Presley used Roy Hamilton's "I Believe" and "Unchained Melody", - is that Roy Hamilton's version of "Unchained Melody", or just the song generally. That might be worth clarifying
"the traditional song "Danny Boy"" - wonder if "traditional Irish" might be a bit more specific
"Tony Martin's English adaptation of "’O sole mio", "There's No Tomorrow"" - isn't there a missing "and" here?
Do you think it's worth qualifying Colonel Tom Parker with "manager"?� Elvis fans obviously know who he is, so do rock fans, but maybe not a casual reader?
Yea, it's worth mentioning that he was his manager. All the rest is done.--GDuwenTell me! 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


### Recording
The caption for the picture here could use a little more context ie: Elvis just after this LP's release
"To prevent possible disruption by fans, the musicians were initially told they were going to play on a Jim Reeves session" - I'm slightly confused by this. Because unless you're recording an impromptu jam session, the musicians would have to know the material. Were they just being told to lie to fans, or was there some other surprise / cover up by Colonel Tom?
"until he finally got the ending" - maybe "until he finally recorded the required performance for the ending"
"Presley played the lead using his Gibson Super 400 rhythm guitar" - lead on a rhythm guitar? This is slightly confusing
No siree, the Nashville session musicians were specially selected by the studios because they could work up arrangements quickly come session day. Talking as far back as the days of the Carter family or Hank Williams, it was so. They would do it on the spot, the Nashville ideology was to produce four songs during a three hour session (two singles). By the time this album was recorded twenty years later, all of those processes were perfected by guys like Chet Atkins and his crew. For this so-called A-team, you could put them with Elvis, Jim Reeves, Waylon Jennings or what-have-you and it would be a walk in the park to make up arrangements.
Well I'll have to take my hats off to those guys - that's damn impressive! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
About the rhythm guitar, the source states that he played the lead. We could just leave it like "Presley played his Gibson Super...".--GDuwenTell me! 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reduced it to "his Gibson Super 400 guitar" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


### Content
"and said his interpretations were "increasingly sophisticated"" - for a quotation, I find it's best to put the source (or a copy of it) next to it if the inline citation is some way away
"Presley and the session musicians, known as the "The Nashville A-Team", had the benefit of recording equipment that was state-of-the-art for its time." - this sentence is probably better suited for the "Recording" section
I added as a note the entire quotation of the book. The thing about the A-team and the equipment is already mentioned in the recording section. I meant this slight mention to work as a sort of "reminder" to let the reader know what highlighted the contents of the album.--GDuwenTell me! 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)--GDuwenTell me! 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


### Release and reception
Is there any reason why "Top Selling LP's" links to "Billboard 200?"
It links there because back in those days it was the name of the Billboard 200. At one point it was called Billboard 100, Top Pop Albums and many other things. It was all merged in 63', so before those days, you could say is a direct reference to the top pop albums. Some editors chose to put it as the Billboard 200, but in my case, I prefer to reference the name at the time of the release.--GDuwenTell me! 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, not a problem Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


### Summary
Not much to report on this one. A very well written and well referenced article. I'll put the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Everything looks in order, so I can pass the review. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There's been some activity of late on this issue, so I figured it was time to start a thread here. I can't access the Connie Kirchberg book to check that it does actually say the album is rhythm and blues, and "Poore 1998" (which is used to support rock and roll) is not accompanied by full source details. The "pop, rock, blues" that follows those two genres is cited to McCormick's Daily Telegraph article, but what McCormick says is that on Elvis Is Back!, Presley "tackles ballads, blues, rock, pop and gospel". McCormick also writes: "The superior Bobby-Sox pop is enlivened by harmony singing from the Jordanaires and precise, unshowy singing from Elvis, but the LP takes off on burning blues rockers with Presley getting down and dirty …" So, perhaps we could take "pop" from McCormick, but "blues, rock, pop [and gospel]" are in fact only given as styles included on the album – McCormick is not saying that the album is blues, rock, pop (and gospel, which we omit).
I'm afraid this was probably my error, years back, when I didn't realise that on Wikipedia, it's not a case of listing genres/styles that sources say the album covers, but only the genre(s) that sources say the album is. For instance, at Rubber Soul, one source says the album is a "pre-psychedelic era mix of 1960s pop, soul, and folk". As accurate a description as "pop, soul, folk" is, imo, it's not what we use in that article. Similarly, at the Beatles White Album, there's only the (bland) "rock" and "pop", even though that album has a vast array of musical styles. So, here at Elvis at Back!, we can take only "pop" from McCormick. As I say, I'm unable to check Kirchberg and Poore with regard to rhythm & blues and rock 'n' roll. JG66 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)