# Talk:From Elvis in Memphis

Image:ElvisinMemphis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:From Elvis in Memphis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy to review this. One of the most important albums Elvis ever cut, and probably my favourite part of his career.


### Lead
"and was released on RCA Victor." - "released on RCA Victor" is simpler
"The album's arrangements have a Memphis soul-inspired emphasis on rhythm, relying less on strings, brass and woodwinds." - I think this is slightly misleading, there are certainly strings and brass on the album. Perhaps rewrite to "while strings, brass and woodwinds are used sparingly in counterpoint to the rhythm section"
Worth mentioning that retrospective reviews have also been favourable.


### Background
"military service" could link to Elvis Presley's Army career
Colonel Tom Parker should probably be linked in full, this is what most readers would recognise
I wonder if we could take something from the sources in Elvis' Greatest Shit (!) to just briefly say how bad some of the pre Comeback Special recordings were? (But I don't think we should link to that article directly!)
"Presley decided to record a new album" - do we know if he was rebelling against his manager by doing this, whether the Colonel went along with it, or was actively encouraging it? That might be worth adding.


### Recording
"The singer" - suggest "Presley"
"recording the new material in Memphis" - I think the "the" confuses things; we haven't been told what the new material is yet
" Scotty Moore and D. J. Fontana, who had played with Elvis from the start up until the late sixties" - this can't be right, do you mean "up until the late fifties"? Might be simpler to say "who had played with Elvis during his early hit-making career"
"During a January 1969 meeting at Graceland Presley" - needs a comma between "Graceland" and "Presley"
"RCA then contacted producer Chips Moman, head of American Sound." - may be simpler to say "RCA contacted the studio's producer Chips Moman", but that then makes the sentence short enough to be worth merging with one of the others
"Although RCA Records oversaw their company policy to record only on their own studios, the label sent their personnel out to American Sound" - I don't understand what this sentence is trying to convey. Presumably RCA let the session go ahead (it's Elvis, he's a bread winner) but with reservations?
"Colonel Parker's assistant Tom Diskin, and Felton Jarvis" - this section implies that Jarvis is Parker's assistant, rather than a second producer as mentioned earlier
"Meanwhile, Tom Diskin informed Presley" - WP:LASTNAME, should just be "Diskin"
"Diskin contacted Tom Parker" - as above, should be simply "Parker"


### Music
"Moving away from the usual Presley pop recordings aimed at an established audience, Moman" - this sounds convoluted, "Moman moved away from...." would probably scan better
"Many arrangements lean heavily on the rhythm section," - this seems a little too much towards opinion. I don't disagree with this, but perhaps just adding another source here make this claim stand up a bit more.
"Presley's voice is roughened by a cold" - are you sure about that?
"The song has a bluesy sound" - I've never particularly like "bluesy" as a word, maybe "blues-based"
"The lyrics include double entendres," - maybe worth adding a few examples to emphasise this?
"A cover of John Hartford's "Gentle on My Mind" follows Glen Campbell's 1967 Grammy-winning, string-laden arrangement" - This doesn't sound right; I'm not sure what point is trying to be made
"Dallas Frazier's "True Love Travels on a Gravel Road" and Chuck Jackson's 1962 hit, "Any Day Now", follow." - maybe starting this sentence with "This is followed by...." would be better


### Release and reception
"Selling a million copies in the United States, the single reached number two on the British Singles chart." - while I see these sentences have been put together to make the narrative flow, putting US and UK sales stuff together might confuse people
"During the sessions Presley's usual produce" - think there needs to be a comma between "sessions and Presley"
The first paragraph has quite a few names in full that we already know about, such as Chips Moman and Tom Parker. Per WP:LASTNAME, these should be reduced to surname only.
"When the album was due for release Parker" - needs a comma after "release"
"Parker arranged a deal" - to do what exactly?
The footnote {{sfn|Jeansonne, Glen ; Luhrssen, David;  Sokolovic, Dan|2011|p=183}} doesn't appear to work. It should jump to the relevant part in "References" when clicked on.
Probably not an issue with Wikipedia per se, but I'm struggling to get the RIAA site to produce the sale figures so I can verify them against what's in the article
There's a July 1969 Rolling Stone article online here, and what's interesting is it spends time talking about Change of Habit. People with a casual knowledge of Elvis may think that his film career ceased totally after the Comeback Special, so a mention of this, particularly in an interview right off the back of this album, would be worth dropping in.
I think it would be worth mentioning the album topping the UK charts, disposing Jethro Tull's Stand Up for one week. It gives it some context as to what else was going on at the time, and what he was up against.


### Legacy
"including six bonus tracks (released as A- or B-sides) recorded with the album" - suggest "recorded during the album sessions"
I think it would be worth adding a bit about where Presley's career went next. Personally, I think by the end of '69, he could have gone and toured places like the Fillmore West and packed out rock audiences alongside the more MOR Vegas audience, having say John Lennon as special guest (not beyond the bounds of impossibility!) but hindsight is a wonderful thing.


### Audio
I think you can probably cut "Power of My Love" down to about 12 - 15 seconds without cutting out anything important to show in the article.


### Summary
This looks like a well written article about an important and critically acclaimed album. I'll put the review on hold pending resolution of these issues. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the reviews. I'll place all of my future comments under this section. 


### First comments
Lead
Another user worked on the lead before I started, I think he did a good job with it.
I think the main thing I would definitely add is that retrospective reviews have also been favourable - not all albums are (off the top of my head I can think of Tales of Topographic Oceans and Be Here Now where initial reaction was positive but since then has gone downhill). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Background
All done, I'll take a look at Elvis' Greatest Shit to see if we can bring something from there.
I'll try to add something about the Colonel's position on the recordings. I got it from a couple of sources but I need to piece it together.
Recording
I changed some occurrences of "the singer" throughout the article. I left some that seemed fine.
"Although RCA Records oversaw their company policy to record only on their own studios, the label sent their personnel out to American Sound" - I don't understand what this sentence is trying to convey. Presumably RCA let the session go ahead (it's Elvis, he's a bread winner) but with reservations?
Back in those days, RCA records had a deal with the Engineer's Union. According to it, the label was supposed to record in-house, with label engineers only. They made an exception in letting Elvis record at American, but they sent their engineers to run the board. Even though Felton was around, Chips did the real work. I guess it was just to keep appearances. That system was disbanded years later by Waylon Jennings in 1975 (check Dreaming My Dreams). But, back in 69', since Elvis was RCA's darling, I guess they just couldn't say no.
That all makes sense, I just think it wasn't immediately obvious from the prose and had to guess / assume it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
More coming.--GDuwenTell me! 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


### About the Colonel and the recordings
I couldn't really find anything about the Colonel opposing Elvis to record at American. On his mind, I think he really thought that Diskin and the RCA crew would take care that Elvis would not go out-of-bounds with the material. He was not concerned about where or how Elvis recorded, but here's a little something he was concerned about:
On The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (page 251), Alanna Nash writes that the Colonel was upset by Chips' denial of granting the rights to "Suspicious Minds". The Colonel's system was to get full publishing rights to any song Elvis recorded, if he couldn't get the rights, he just dropped it. 
After they recorded "Suspicious Minds", and they couldn't clear the rights with Chips, they were just about to drop it. RCA's exec Harry Jenkins smelled a number one, and told Diskin to tell Colonel to go along with Chips. "Suspicious Minds" went to number one, but according to Nash, Colonel just could see that "Chips Moman had challenged his way of doing business".  The Colonel just decided to never again do business with Chips, as he did before, dropping Steve Binder (producer of the 68' comeback special). Other sources talk about Diskin telling the Colonel that Elvis was out of control, now calling his own shots. That, the Colonel ordered Diskin to return home and let Elvis "fall on his ass". 
With all that said, he was only upset about the business side. Unrelated to the publishing issues,  According to Peter Guralnick's Careless Love [page 539]: "'He could make a hit record in a boxcar' the Colonel was accustomed to respond when asked how much the 'Memphis sound' had contributed to Elvis' success." 
The Colonel was sure that it didn't matter where Elvis recorded, but he was not happy about being challenged with the publishing rights and certainly not thrilled with losing control of his boy.--GDuwenTell me! 16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


### Follow-up comments
Music
Minor issues fixed.
"'Presley's voice is roughened by a cold' - are you sure about that?"
Sure thing. Sources (like the one cited) mention that his voice was roughened by a cold on the song. IMO you can hear it in the part "A chauffeur, a chauffeur at the wheel dressed up so fine". By the way, "Long Black Limousine" was the first song recorded in the session, and multiple sources said Elvis arrived nursing a cold.
I added one of the double entendres (good enough?)
Clarified "Gentle on My Mind" (better now?)
Release and reception
All done, some comments below:
"Probably not an issue with Wikipedia per se, but I'm struggling to get the RIAA site to produce the sale figures so I can verify them against what's in the article"
That site proves to be a headache. Best thing you can do is just to lookup for Elvis' list of gold records. Makes me wish I had SoundScan to get more accurate numbers, but I guess a rough value from the certification is the best we can get.
I didn't consider at the moment Change of Habit, but it's relevant enough. It is now in the article. I wrote also about Elvis forming the TCB band.
Legacy
I added some info about his return to tour the US. Elvis packed some big arenas in his later years. I really don't think he woulda have toured with other big names as Lennon. Elvis liked to be the big name on the bill without the attention being split to another performer. In 69' Lennon would draw the attention of the young ones, stealing the show. Elvis played Vegas for an audience of 30+, HIS audience. When he went there in 56', he played for an audience that belonged to Sinatra or Dean Martin, and that's why he was unsuccessful then in Vegas. Now it was his place. Besides, could you imagine what would happen when the Colonel would corner some big act's manager and say; ok, Elvis gets 80% plus blah, blah.
This was just me rambling off topic. ;-) Still, we can't wish for what we want, the Elvis impersonator may have come out one way or another had he even not done a single Vegas show. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Audio
The excerpt is included in Elvis' article. Since its a FA, I guess somebody already looked into that. I wouldn't like to get my hands in the file, and then get complains about how it was already discussed. I added the rationale for the article on the file's description page.
Okay, we'll leave it as it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Question
Do you think we can add anything to the article based on what I wrote above about the Colonel and his reactions to the sessions and Chips?--GDuwenTell me! 18:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think what we've got is okay. I can we state up front that Moman moved away from the established sound, got Elvis to sing "In The Ghetto", factually stated the tussle over the publishing of it without taking sides, and quoting Rolling Stone raving about his production. I think that's a reasonable balance.
All said and done, I think this is now a comprehensive article that fills in a lot of useful information for anyone wanting to know more about it, so I'm happy to pass the review at this point. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Recording section, reference is made to Elvis starting on February 13th, then later reference to recording continuing January 14th, 15th.  Which month is correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.13 (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC) 

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:From Elvis in Memphis/CommentsTalk:From Elvis in Memphis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 01:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 15:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on From Elvis in Memphis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507235832/http://www.infodisc.fr:80/Album_P.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_P.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)