I think he was just a realist. Concentrate on what he was best at, and let
others do what they were better at.

Never heard that excuse and seriously doubt it. I'd play the steel guitar if
that were the case

Big call which I seriously doubt.

Like many respected artists, HE had final say, but worked with others. And
Colonel Tom was always a lousy manager who got lucky.

AFAIK they negotiated their fee.

Not the reason at all since the royalties were tied to the album cost, not
vice versa.
The album cost was always what the market would bear, with big discounts for
whatever couldn't be sold at the astronomical level.

Possibly but I always thought his guitar playing wasn't bad. James
Burton didn't share that view but James wasn't always in the spotlight
and could work at his craft. Elvis didn't always have that luxury,
thanks to Parker either putting him on the road, in the movies,
learning your lines for those movies or in the recording studio. It's
hard to work on your musician skills when you don't have the time to
work on it.

Not an excuse. That actually happened and it was serious enough to
bring the FBI into the case.

Steve Sholes, who A&R director at RCA and who was the man who signed
Elvis to the label and worked the technical side of the production
said Presley produced his own sessions, despite whatever it might've
said on the session files. Many of Presley's records -- singles and
albums -- never carried a producer's credit, although a few did. And
later on in the 70s, Elvis's albums started carrying an "Executive
producer for this album" credit, with Elvis's name listed as executive
producer. The last album released in Elvis's lifetime, "Moody Blue"
listed Elvis as executive producer and Felton Jarvis as associate
producer. His albums also started listing engineering credits,
something else which was missing from a large majority of his albums.

In fairness to Parker (and it's hard for me to be fair to him), he was
very good for Elvis at the outset of his career. He finagled an
excellent royalty for Elvis by 1950s standards, eleven cents per
single and fifty cents per album, set up publishing companies to
handle songs written for Elvis and got him into the movies. But, he
went downhill from there: never asking RCA to bump Elvis's artist
royalties up or asking for a producer's credit, tied him to long term
movie contracts with no regard for the content of those movies other
than there had to be enough songs for a soundtrack, tied Elvis to a
long term Vegas contract at a cut rate weekly fee, switched from
owning 100% of the publishing on an original song to pressuring
songwriters and publishers to give up half of the publishing on an
already published song. And as long as everything worked, it was
great. But, when it started going downhill, the only strategy Parker
changed was in increasing his manager's commission from 25% to 33% and
then to 50%. Parker should've been gone by that time but in Elvis's
defense, perhaps the reason Elvis didn't get rid of Parker was he
didn't know what another manager might do and perhaps didn't want to
find out, leaving him with no choice but to stick with Parker. I
would've taken the gamble and heaved Parker out of the plane somewhere
over the Grand Canyon in Arizona.

I'm not sure when producers and arrangers were eligible for royalties.
It's said that George Martin only received a weekly salary in all the
time he was producing the Beatles, which was incredible. Boyce and
Hart, Jeff Barry, Mike, Chip, and all the others who produced Monkee
recordings received a producer's royalty, prorated on albums with
multiple producers. Arrangers who didn't receive a royalty were often
compensated nicely. I think there was one listed on a session file for
Elvis in 1970 in which it was noted the arranger was paid $325 for his
work. Of course, what wasn't noted was for how many songs or how many
hours that fee covered. Presley used multiple arrangers in the 70s, so
it may have been for a small number of songs.

I'm referring to the suggested retail price of the albums. The price
of an album jumped in 1973 from $5.98 to $6.98, jumping again in 1974
on some albums to $7.98 and to $7.98 on all albums by 1977, with some
jumping to $8.98 or $9.98 by the end of '79. The manufacturing costs
and distribution costs were about the same but the artist royalty
rates increased for the more successful artists, the producers,
arrangers, engineers and even some studio musicians were all starting
to collect royalties in one way or the other. People got used to
paying the higher prices for their favorite artists but the higher
prices made it difficult for newer artists to be heard. That's when
some of the record companies started releasing albums with four or
five tracks, and calling them extended play singles. It gave newer
artists the chance to be heard but if they couldn't break an artist
with an EP single, the chances of another recording were unlikely.

I'm not saying he never had death threats, just that it would not be a
valid
reason for him to play guitar or not, IMO.

Acoustic guitar, no, but during the Vegas concerts of '69 and early
'70, he also played electric guitar,which would've limited his on
stage movements, making him an easier target.

Granted, if whoever made the threat intended to carry it out, Elvis
likely couldn't have walked fast enough to have made himself less of a
target. Changing direction? That might've thrown someone off at first
but if the person was watching Elvis walk around on stage with the
intent of choosing his moment, there's nothing Elvis could've really
done on stage to have prevented someone from trying to kill him. But,
death threats against Elvis had been made from the 50s onward and why
they took the 1970 threat more serious, maybe there was something more
to the story than was reported in the media at the time.

Yep, you seem to forget that it was a much later development for records
and
movies to list *everybody* associated with the work.

Engineering credits started becoming commonplace on many recordings in
the 60s;

Elvis's recordings were among the last to give the engineers
a credit on the back album covers. I wonder how much the engineers or
RCA had to pay Parker to have their names included on the albums? I'm
being facetious

then again, Parker loathed giving credit to anyone other than himself
for Elvis's success. The recording engineers getting a credit probably
drove him nuts.

Have a look at a movie from the fifties and there will be little more
than
the main cast. Recently the credits can last as long as the movie with
up to
a dozen producers, associate producers, assistant producers, executive
producers. Not to mention caterers, tea ladies assitant tea ladies etc.

Yeah, and aren't those credits getting ridiculous? Caterers, tea
ladies and their assistants, drivers, personal assistants to the
stars, personal assistants to the personal assistants. I watched a
movie not too long ago where there was about six producers and about a
dozen executive producers. If a movie is a mess of a movie, I think
it's because there's too many cooks involved in the production. If it
were up to me, I'd start trimming back some of those excessive movie
credits. Seven and a half minutes' worth of end credits or more isn't
needed but the unions probably won't allow the studios to edit out
those unnecessary credits.

Who played on the recordings didn't really matter in the early 60s,
and I don't think it would've mattered at all had the whole issue of
the Monkees not playing on their recordings not come up.

The price increases likely were tied to ever increasing higher royalty
payments

as the manufacturing costs of an album stayed about the same
during all the years when the retail price of the LP kept increasing.

The manufacturing and distribution price of a cd varied. Old catalog
titles cost the less of any as the labels only had to pay the artist
what their original contracts called for.

The one consistency about radio
stations was and is their inconsistency.

Of course, not many would suggest that. Still not as bad as some. You
can
still buy DC/Partridge family CD's here (compilation anyway, not the
original albums). I'll bet you won't get Hannah Montanna CD's at your
local
shop in 30 years time!

That's what some of the Monkees's detractors in the 60s were saying
about the Monkees's music: you won't be able to find it in 30 years.
But, critics are often so far off about who or what will be popular
long after the original popularity has faded, that I think they -- and
us -- have too strong of a tendency to underevaluate the long term
potential of a phenomenon.

As long as a performer can still be pulling in enough money to keep
from having to take a day job, most probably don't care if they never
have another million seller.

I can't see it myself, in fact a solid body guitar would provide better
protection than nothing at all. An acoustic, or semi acoustic guitar would
provide little protection at all. The fact is is a performer would be
unlikely to see someone pull out a gun and dodge the bullet. Security needs
to prevent guns be brought in at all. I still think anyone using that as an
excuse is deluded or lying, but I doubt Elvis himself ever said it anyway.

Elvis's recordings were among the last to give the engineers
a credit on the back album covers. I wonder how much the engineers or
RCA had to pay Parker to have their names included on the albums? I'm
being facetious

Maybe not, Parker didn't give anything away unless he had to.

I'm sure someone has already made a movie where the credits last longer than
the movie, I think I've seen a few already
You''l never get rid of all the producers though, it's part of their
incentive to invest the money. What irks me is the tea ladies and
hairdressers!

Sure it would, people now see the benefit of advertising their achievement
and it is part of their incentive.
Records have always had sudio musicians long before the Monkees, and always
will. Only the ignorant considered it an insult to the Monkees, and I'm sure
it had no bearing on subsequent credits, except maybe the small note on
"Headquarters".

*NOT* IMO. The price has always been what the market will bear. However the
cost of a record was far higher *in real terms allowing for inflation* in
the fifties and sixties, than what it was in the seventies and later.

In fact record costs continually decreased in real terms until the huge
spike with the introduction of CD's, nothing to do with royalties.

And yet the CD versions of those *older* records cost twice as much as vinyl
in the early eighties!

Hairdressers or stylists are part of the make up personnel, and
they've received on screen credit going all the way back to the
beginning of the movies.

I think the music fans who were snobbish, condescending and
hypercritical of the Monkees not playing on their recordings were
unlikely to have had a clue as to who was actually playing on their
favorite artists's or band's recordings.

When you consider many didn't
bother to even read the songwriting credits (if available), many
assumed their favorites wrote the songs they sang.

*NOT* IMO. The price has always been what the market will bear. However
the
cost of a record was far higher *in real terms allowing for inflation*
in
the fifties and sixties, than what it was in the seventies and later.

Another point that was raised in the 70s as to the rising cost of the
LP was the rising cost of oil and vinyl in the making of the LPs.

The
rising cost of oil was laughable, considering what would come later.
As for vinyl, I think it was claimed there was a vinyl shortage, and
if memory serves, I think it was also claimed certain albums were made
from sources other than vinyl. I think I recall reading in the 70s
that they used potato skins (!) but that was so long ago and seems so
bizarre, so don't hold me to that one!

In fact record costs continually decreased in real terms until the huge
spike with the introduction of CD's, nothing to do with royalties.

Outside of the US, maybe, but in the US, I think the manufacturing
cost always remained stable, despite high oil and vinyl prices. I
don't recall a mention of record costs decreasing in real terms

And yet the CD versions of those *older* records cost twice as much as
vinyl
in the early eighties!

The labels quickly realized they had to discount the retail prices on
older titles, if they were going to move any of the stock.

There were
a lot of complaints in the early cd days from people, complaining
about having to pay $15 on an album they had originally paid three
bucks for on vinyl.

Others complained about the lack of warmth on the
sound of a cd, which I never understood, but I think some were just
looking for something else to complain about.

Initially, the labels
had no interest in reissuing every album they had issued in the past,

but the public's desire to have their old albums on cd changed that
perspective -- although there's still a lot of older recordings that
have never seen the light of day and may never see the light of day.

I'm happy to take bets on Hannah Montanna not lasting 10 years either,
let
alone 30!
(not that I hate her, or resent her success, I'm just being realistic)
Hell I don't even see Billy Ray Cyrus Greatest Hit at my local shop, but
they do have The Monkees and Mike Nesmith.

Point taken but just because Hillary Duff's star faded or the Pet Shop
Boys or any of the others you mention, doesn't mean the same will be
true of Miley.

Actually the ones who did make a fortune and blew it all rather than
invest
wisely, are usually the most resentful they don't still make as much as
they
did IME.

Assuming they got paid in the first place. Many artists never saw the
first dime because their record labels or managers found some way to
keep from paying what was owed. I read an account of one artist who
had a million seller, yet the only way that artist had the million
seller was the record label she was on took the money that was owed
her and used it to press up more copies. Nice that the artist had a
million seller but criminal that the record company executives could
only keep the label afloat by not paying the artist.

Not so, very few movies prior to late 60's listed anyone other than the
actors, director, and producer. Some, but certainly not all, listed the
casting agent, cinematographer, sound engineer, lighting technician etc.
Rarely were the set builders, best boy, stage hands, wardrobe assistants,
makeup or hairdressers ever listed.

Amazing how many people still think Frank Sinatra wrote "My Way"!

As I said, and will say again, the price did NOT actually increase in real
terms. Wages simply increased, inflation caused prices to rise.

I doubt it. However many records *were* made of recycled vinyl, and the
price was no less because of it. Some, like RCA simply made the records
thinner as well. The quality was often crap however, which did cause a
backlash eventually.

You really need someone to spell it out for you? Surely you know what the
price of records was doing relative to your own wage?

They had been doing that for years. The introduction of CD's allowed them to
*increase* the cost of those old titles for quite a while.

Yep, but as long as they paid it the record companies laughed all the way to
the bank!

Purely nostalgia, coupled with ignorance, coupled with some amazingly bad CD
remasters at the time.

Not so, they were keen to release anything already in the can that could
make them more profit for very little outlay!

Simply because the demand is not high enough, or there are legal rights
issues no one can be bothered to work out.

You may be right, but I'm still happy to take that bet!?
Name one Miley Cyrus song you think the radio stations will still be playing
in 30 years?

Sure, happened all the time. Those artists rightly resent their record
deals, advisors, agents, lawyers etc.
However the ones who resent most not making big money now are more often the
ones that did get big money and blew it IME.

My first time posting here.  I've never heard any of Michael Nesmith's
solo albums and I noticed at Amazon that there are a few releases of
his early albums, Magnetic South and the second, which I can't recall
now.  There are also varying opinions as to the sound quality.  I'd
like opinions as to which release is best, essentially where I should
start.

Thank you...
Alan