Of course, quite a few records now considered iconic, were not as well
regarded when released, and there are a few that were big hits only after
they were re-released. As always it takes a combination of publicity and
public interest, for a record to be a hit.

However, not every artist is going to appeal to the masses, nor every record
from an artist that does. There will always be a majority of artists who
have a small but loyal following, and usually a number of people who can't
stand them, with the majority of people who couldn't care one way or the
other.

Which is the real shame, because nearly all records have someone who likes
them, the problem is always expectations of large sales. Once upon a time
the cost of recording/pressing/distribution etc. meant they couldn't take a
risk on low volume sales. Thankfuly these days there is no real reason for
not putting the material out there, other than the fact the Artist
themselves don't want it released because they are unhappy with it.
I personally know of a lot of good stuff that will never see the light of
day, even though the fans really wanted it. Shame really.

That is a benefit if the record company actually releases you from a
contract. Far too many artists were stuffed by companies that failed to
release (and/or promote) their records, and refused to release them from
their contract to boot. These days getting a CD out is within the reach of
everyone *without* needing a major recording label.

Yep, even when they're not ... Think Lennon/McCartney!

Possibly, but Elvis was still recording many songs at the time under other
publishers.
The movies did seem to be a special case however.

Elvis had

some genuine songwriting credits (cowriting credit on "That's Someone
You Never Forget" and "You'll Be Gone," sole writing credit on the
posthumously released "I Didn't Make It On Playing Guitar")

Given the three you mention, maybe with good reason!
Not his biggest hits anyway

But that's what I dispute. A lot of the covers already had other pubishers
and it didn't stop him recording them.
Perhaps some.

True, Elvis didn't have 100% of the publishing on every song, but on a

good majority of the songs in the 50s and 60s, his publishing
companies had 100% of the publishing.

Maybe, I really don't know, I'd love to know where your "good majority"
claim comes from though.

Maybe, but there are also songwriters who still claim to be living on their
Elvis royalties, and others that paid for their houses at the time.

Perhaps, or perhaps he was just full of ****

I totally agree, not only does she re-record the same song a number of times
(Ruby Tuesday must be in the Guiness book for most number of re-recordings
by the same artist by now) but she sometimes puts the same versions on
different albums as well (not just the compilations, although there have
been plenty of those lately)
It does make it easy for you to find "Long Long Time" though, since the same
version from "Silver Anniversary" has been on a number of other compilations
(Unplugged and Millenium Collection for starters)

Don't know anything about her personal troubles, I don't follow the gossip
columns much, just listen to the music.

Probably true, which is why it puzzles me they would complain about long
songs.
The GFR and Rare Earth songs you mention never got much airplay here
however.

All her albums are good, however AFH is not my favourite. (actually follows
their collaboration on "Evangeline Made" already)
I just can't get into any of her Mexican or Cajun stuff as much. Which is
why "Renee" stands out, I wish there were far more like that on the album.
She has certainly earned the right to make what she wants to now however,
and she does.

Probably, I doubt she did it because she wanted to push the idea

The box sets are always a cynical exercise in extracting as much money from
the dedicated fans as possible.
The Monkees Box was no different.

"Next Time, This Time" gets to me because it has the sense of there

being someone real who inspired the song. I can relate to the song

because there has been someone in my life that I feel that way about.

You could add I'll Have to Say I Love You in a Song, Age, Recently, These
Dreams, It Doesn't Have to be That Way, A Long Time Ago and many others to
that list.

I doubt he would have considered not doing so.

even though it cost him his life.

He didn't know that of course.

Yes, it always surprised me how *many* concerts he did, when a few big
stadium gigs a year would have been enough.
After "Aloha from Hawaii", you'd think he would have just done a few more of
those instead of workinhg himself to death.

Parkers greed knew no bounds, I sure hope he lost on that one.

Not sure about the USA, but they're pretty much over "Monkee Bashing" down
here.
You don't hear a lot about them, but it's mostly postive now when you do.

Good point, although I'd add timing to that combination of publicity
and public interest. I've always thought one reason some records
didn't do so well had as much to do with what was out there at the
time and how well the competition was playing on the radio and selling
in the stores.

The record companies don't expect everyone to have large sales. There
was one act -- think it was Alabama -- whose first album was expected
to sell no more than 200,000 copies, tops.

What you say makes sense, although I think it would be in the artist's
interest if the perception was or is they dropped the label, rather
than the label dropped them. Being dropped still carries a negative
connotation for the artist but it can be a positive for the artist
dropping the label, as an artist often cites the lack of label
promotion as a reason for leaving the label.

John was always the first to admit not everything he wrote was a gem.
I'm less certain about Paul. I can't recall him ever saying some of
his songs weren't even up to his standards or John's standards, though
I think he had more songs than John that weren't gems.

Parker tried to get part of the publishing on those songs. Much of the
time, he was successful but not every publisher gave in. It didn't
stop Elvis from recording the song but neither did it stop Parker from
making threats when he wasn't able to get a percentage.

He kept at it
until Elvis finally having had enough told him to just stop as it was
interfering with the recording.

His publishing companies were originally listed as the publishers by
BMI or ASCAP on many of the tunes he recorded. That situation has
changed over the years as the copyrights reverted back to the
songwriters and they took them out of his publishing companies and
into their own or into other publishing companies. The majority of the
soundtrack songs were published by Elvis's publishing companies, and
even many of the non-soundtrack songs were published by one of his
companies because the songwriters were in many instances, the same
people who were writing for the movies. Just look at the writer names
on the credits that keep turning up on recording after recording.
Those songs didn't come from an outside publisher but they were the
majority of what Elvis recorded, especially in the 60s.

If memory serves (and it can be faulty of late), they showed a photo
of that check, which was from Elvis Presley Music, made out to Charlie
Daniels in the amount of $500. But, thinking about that, since Bob
Johnston and/or his wife Joy Byers, cowrote the song, they also
would've been given a royalty check for $500.

I may have Melanie's version of "Long, Long Time." I've got some of of
her later albums, such as "Freedom Knows My Name" and "Old Bitch
Warrior," and thinking about it, I think LLT is on one of those
albums.

I wish she would resist the temptation to remake a song she's
already done. I don't know what the reason is behind so many remakes
of "Ruby Tuesday," unless she's never been satisfied with all the
previous takes and keeps trying to improve on it, hoping to finally
come up with the perfect version of the song.

I'd like to get her
version of "The Long and Winding Road," which she did in the 70s for a
Beatles TV tribute. That was one of the best versions I ever heard of
that song but it was never on any of her albums. (Someone posted the
video on youtube, along with the other Beatle songs she did on that
special, "We Can Work It Out" and "Rocky Raccoon," which were also
pretty good.)

Her personal troubles have interfered with her music career. You name
the trouble, chances are good she's experienced it.

I'd like to see Linda get back into a rock groove or even make a solid
country album. She talked about doing that, once, but nothing ever
came of it.

But, she's into being an artist and that influences what
she's going to do. The Mexican stuff was very successful for her.

The albums didn't do well on the pop charts but she sold millions
in the Spanish market in the US.
I'm not sure why those albums didn't make it
to the top of the pop charts.The sales should've qualified for the top
position or somewhere near the top position.

She was on some TV show at the time -- maybe American Bandstand, and I
think she was asked about the song. I don't remember what her response
was but given her age at the time (22 or 23), she may have been a
little naive then. And perhaps a little innocent.

I agree with you. I'd like to see a box set include rarities and
unreleased stuff as when the artist's original albums are still
available, and greatest hits packages are still available, releasing a
box set with all of the hits and little or none of the rarities or
unreleased, I'm not inclined to buy. You've got to give something I
don't already have, preferably a lot of stuff I don't aalready have.

He wanted to tour Europe, Japan, Australia and other countries around
the world that he had never been to. But, he didn't know that the
reason Parker never booked him outside of the US (except for one time
in Canada) was because Parker wasn't a US citizen and couldn't get a
passport and didn't trust anyone else to run the show. It was claimed
he found out just before he died that Parker wasn't a US citizen

how that would've affected his career is something that will never be
known, although one of the rumors about the six month break following
the September 1977 tour had it that in 1978, one was finally going to
see Elvis's world tour, followed by a return to making movies. That
was claimed by some of the Presley insiders, but on some of those
insiders, their credibility isn't great.

I think it was claimed that it only sold 50,000 copies. Mildly
successful but highly irritating in that the album carried a $7.98
suggested retail price while Elvis's regular studio albums at the time
carried a $5.98 SRP. That album should've been put out at the SRP for
albums on the Camden label ($2.49) with Elvis's regular studio albums
carrying the $7.98 SRP.

I think I did see one positive criticism for the Monkees coming from
the critics regarding the comparison of the shows. And I don't believe
the criticism was aimed at the Jonas brothers so much as the Disney
company, but there's not much Monkee bashing here either, beyond the
normal suspects who will never get over the issue or allow it to die
down completely. It's an issue that doesn't matter to the majority of
people here. It's the music that matters, what it should've always
been,

Sure, but just because something is huge at the time, doesn't prevent
everything else from selling. A *large* number of acts did well at the same
time as the Beatles and Elvis were dominating the charts after all, the
Monkees for one!

I'm not talking 200,000, which isn't bad after all. I'm talking about
20,000! You can certainly make money on that amount of sales these days,
especially when the material is already in the can, and the alternative is
to bury it and make nothing at all! And who knows, you may well be
surprised.

Sure, but only IF it doesn't cost them a fortune like happened to some
artists who walked away from contracts, or bought them out with their own
money.

Legal fees and compensation payments can cripple an artist, better to suffer
a short term "negative connotation" and have the money to do the next album.
Fact is artists have come back from all sorts of scandals, IF the next album
was considered good enough.

So true, their post Beatles efforts certainly proved that IMO.

Parker tried to get part of the publishing on those songs. Much of the
time, he was successful but not every publisher gave in. It didn't
stop Elvis from recording the song but neither did it stop Parker from
making threats when he wasn't able to get a percentage.

Well that sounds about right!

Such a shame he didn't tell Parker where to go, when he was unhappy about
all the crap movie deals in the sixties though.
I blame Elvis for that. Stupid, gutless, or greedy? Not really sure.
Probably all three.

Sure, in the sixties, I never disputed that. The fifties and seventies were
different by and large. Some of the publishing for the fifties stuff was
bought in the sixties by Elvis, but people do get paid for that, (just like
Michael Jackson buying the Beatles songs, the Beatles got a lot when they
sold them originally, before Jackson, but they still complained later of
course)

And how many such checks they got is another matter as well. The only way
they would only get one is IF they agreed to a lump sum payment for all
rights in the first place. IF they did that, then blaming someone else for
their poor decision is just sour grapes IMO.

No, but FKMN, does have her version of "Arrow" which I love.

I wish she would resist the temptation to remake a song she's
already done. I don't know what the reason is behind so many remakes
of "Ruby Tuesday," unless she's never been satisfied with all the
previous takes and keeps trying to improve on it, hoping to finally
come up with the perfect version of the song.

Maybe, funny that I still prefer her first one, and I don't think I'm alone.

I'd like to get her
version of "The Long and Winding Road," which she did in the 70s for a
Beatles TV tribute. That was one of the best versions I ever heard of
that song but it was never on any of her albums. (Someone posted the
video on youtube, along with the other Beatle songs she did on that
special, "We Can Work It Out" and "Rocky Raccoon," which were also
pretty good.)

Haven't seen them, are they still on YouTube?

Mindy McCready

Probably explains why she hasn't done much then. I sometimes wonder but
never follow up on it.

Jessica Andrews is another I thought might have done more. Maybe I will do a
Google search one day

She did do "We Ran" and "Western Wall" after the Spanish and Latin stuff,
now she's onto Cajun stuff it seems. I'll bet she does some more mainstream
one day.

Of course, and I have no problem with that. What annoys me is that the
Spanish concert is the only one officially available on DVD, despite
previous releases on VHS.

Sure, but they don't usually include Classical either, no matter what the
sales.
Or Andrea Reui would probably be in the "Pop" charts too

She was on some TV show at the time -- maybe American Bandstand, and I
think she was asked about the song. I don't remember what her response
was but given her age at the time (22 or 23), she may have been a
little naive then. And perhaps a little innocent.

I'm sure she was at the time.

There's also a clip of Linda and Johnny Cash performing "I Never Will

That's the problem, they do give a *little* nobody has, just so the *real
fans* have to buy. Then they fill it with stuff they already have to justify
a rip off price. Pure greed!!!!
(I will give them credit at least for putting out the three Missing Links
albums though, far better value there)

The Monkees Box could have had all the extra's they put on the album
re-releases, and let those who just want the hits to buy the "Definitive
Collection", or any of the dozen other greatest hits packages instead.
They know damn well that only the fans are going to buy the box set, and
want them to pay for the same songs as many times as they can possibly
manage!
But that's capitalistic greed for you.

I'd be surprised he didn't know before then. But I still claim he was in
idiot for putting up with Parker regardless. And everyone I knew said so
long before he died.

Who cares, $2.49 would probably still be a waste of money IMO. I've not
actually heard it though, far too much good stuff to listen to to waste my
time, let alone money

So true, it just takes some people a long time to overcome their prejudices.
And a lot more people are so intent on being cool, they can't think for
themselves.

Abba suffered the same fate originally. Now they are almost considered cool,
funny how things change.

That was especially true of the larger acts but the lesser acts had to
wait for radio to break them out so their 45s could then get a space
on the store shelf. I look at the Cashbox charts from the 50s, 60s and
70s and see hundreds of singles I didn't remember hearing or seeing in
the stores. Almost everything that was in their Top 50 I remember but
after 50, I started running into quite a few head scratchers.

One thing that bugged me about the charts was showing a different
chart ranking for a B-side if it was being played or accounting for
some of the sales. I think Billboard and Cashbox should've just given
the same chart position to both sides of a 45 when it was appropriate.
When both sides of a single were being played on the radio (Elvis and
the Beatles mostly, many of the Monkees's B-sides also charted), store
clerks didn't know which side of the single a teen was buying. I
remember "Words" having as much radio airplay as "Pleasant Valley
Sunday," yet because PVS was the A-side, it got the higher chart
position. I always felt "Words" got slighted on its showing. Billboard
later adopted the practice of showing the B-side as having the same
chart position as the A-side, but not with a number but a letter. An F
meaning the flip was being played and was selling. Of course, by then,
Elvis was just about the only artist still releasing double sided hit
records.

Quite right, but I think record companies these days have slacked off
from overpressing too many copies. I don't know what the percentage of
unsold recordings is that's allowed to be shipped back to the label,
but in the LP days, the distributors charged fifty cents per LP for
distribution and charged the labels seventy-five cents on the returns.
The labels in turn charged the return fees back to the royalties the
artist was supposed to be receiving. It was no skin off the label's
bottom line if they pressed two million copies of an album and then
the album sold 20,000 copies. The artist was responsible for the
returns. The record companies tried their best in the bad old days to
make the artist responsible for as much of the costs associated with
the recording session and the manufacturing and distribution of the
albums and singles. That's why some artists never saw a dime of their
royalties. The artists had to pay for their own success.

Depends on what's written in their contracts. Most labels had options
in their artist contracts allowing the label to either refuse to
release a recording or to drop the artist, with or without notice. If
an artist's albums and singles didn't generate a lot of money, I doubt
any label would present the artist with a bill for services not
rendered, if the artist suddenly gave notice. Maybe if the artist was
given a huge advance against royalties.

That's true although what usually happens with an artist who's leaving
their label is they discover they were owed royalties that weren't
paid or there was something in their contracts that was objected to,
shouldn't have been there but was left in. Most artists leaving a
label are going to have something they can use in a court, if they
have to, in breaking a contract with the label.

I sometimes feel the
lack of promotion gripe is simply meant to conceal other disputes with
the record companies. Certainly, many artists have a legitimate gripe
when it involves lack of promotion but I'm not sure lack of promotion
will hold up in court as a valid reason to break the contract.

Elvis deserves much of the blame for his own fate but that's still no
reason to allow Parker off the hook.

Elvis complained about the movies
but Parker didn't listen nor did he care. All Parker cared about was
the million dollar salary plus 25-50% the movie and TV profits, enough
songs for a soundtrack and the publishing on those songs. Elvis
should've dumped Parker by '66 but my guess is because he knew how bad
Parker had mangled his career, perhaps he feared what other managers
would do? Parker was a role model in those days for many managers as
to what a good manager should be. Someone else could've took Elvis on
and signed him on for even lousier movies and lousier songs. Elvis may
simply have preferred the devil he knew to the one he didn't know.

Elvis through Parker acquired several publishing companies in the 60s
but don't think the lot included a lot of songs he personally
recorded. I think it was claimed he owned the copyrights to some 2,000
songs, which should've kept him rolling in the money even during lean
times on his own recordings. I'm not sure why Elvis never became a
billionaire with that many songs.

McCartney complaining about Jackson's acquisition of the Lennon-
McCartney catalogue was pretty laughable, given his own acquisition of
the Buddy Holly catalogue. Would Sir Paul give Buddy's catalogue back
to his family members? I doubt it!

I don't recall how BMI and ASCAP make royalty payments. I think they
pay quarterly, so I'm pretty sure Daniels has seen more than just $500
since 1964 from his song. I'm not sure that either organization allows
a lump sum payment against all future rights but it wouldn't surprise
me if either Parker or RCA or Hill and Range (which administered Elvis
Presley Music and Gladys Music) came up with some reason for taking
the money meant for the songwriter.

Good tune. Another tune Melanie did that I love is "I Want to Know
What Love Is," which at first I thought was the Foreigner song. But,
it's a nice ballad that I thought should've been in a movie. I don't
know about what chances it would've had for a single; maybe on AOR/
Adult Contemporary stations as opposed to Top 40.

Definitely the first version, although I did like the remake she made
for "Photograph," but had the sense not to put it on that album. I
remember the local radio stations playing "Cyclone" and I kept
thinking, "All right! Melanie's got a hit!" But, it didn't go on to
become a hit.

I guess people just couldn't see Melanie as a tough
rocker. Personally, I would've put "Secret of the Darkness" out as a
single. That song would've hooked everybody.

Last I looked, they were still on there.

And Melanie was absolutely
foxy, looking more gorgeous and sexy than she looked in the early
70s.

Mindy McCready
Got beat up by a boyfriend, run ins with the law, a couple of suicide
tries, sued by former managers over royalties she made from her first
album -- the kind of tales that make up the cliches of country music.

I blame the labels for not building an artist's long term career. This
year's hitmakers are next year's has-beens. One might break out and go
on to have a career like Elvis or the Beatles or any of the other
heavyweights but there are more one hit wonders than artists with
loads and loads of hits. Course, some of those one hit wonders have
milked a long term career on that one hit and they don't seem to be
pressured into coming up with another hit anytime soon.

I'd like to think so. I'd like to see her write a few more songs,
too.

I wish someone would dig up the TV special she was supposed to have
done for CBS in 1977-78. I think it was filmed and that some bits and
pieces of it are on youtube, including one of Linda singing "Hasten
Down the Wind."

Dang, I knew she wasn't very tall (only 5'2") but she
looked like a midget standing to the front and right of bassist Kenny
Edwards, her bandmate from the Stone Poneys. I'm not sure why Linda's
TV special was canceled but it had been announced at the same time as
the announcement for Elvis's last TV special. I would love to have
seen Linda and Elvis made an album together, though I think their
personalities might have clashed. And, of course, Parker would never
have agreed to it.

I think they should; after all, there isn't an issue with the pop
charts having country albums and R&B/soul albums, which are treated as
separate genres from the pop and rock genres. And the same country or
R&B/soul album that's number one on the pop are likely to be number
one on their respective charts as well. So, if a Spanish album or
classical album (or an album from any other genre) happens to sell
more than the album credited as the number one pop record, why
shouldn't such an album be accorded and shown the same respect and
reported as the number one album?

There's also a clip of Linda and Johnny Cash performing "I Never Will
Marry" on youtube and an interesting behind the scenes story about
that performance. Also, as to "Long, Long Time," there are two
performances on youtube worth watching, one being a live, guitar only
version of on Hugh Hefner's 1970 syndicated show "Playboy After Dark,"
and the other being a version from a Bobby Darin special that was also
syndicated. The Darin special, last I heard, is on dvd. I have it on
videotape and unfortunately, it's Linda's only appearance on his
special. But, that version also uses an arrangement that's quite
different from the studio version.

I think there was a CSN or CSN&Y box set a few years ago that had one
disc containing nothing but unreleased stuff. I think the artists and/
or the labels take the view that if they release a lot of previously
unreleased material, they are giving away the family jewels. But, my
view as a fan is if I follow the artist, I'm a long time fan,
extremely faithful and if the artist is rarely recording these days,
why not come up with a disc or two (or three...or more) of unreleased
material?

The artists aren't getting any younger and their fans aren't
either. The "Missing Links" series got it right but the rarities on
the box sets aren't enough to make the purchase a good value.

I'm seeing a lack of originality on the part of the record labels. In
the 90s, RCA/BMG started releasing a series of Elvis albums with the
title "Essential Elvis," spotlighting a particular era of Presley's
recordings. Well, it proved so popular that RCA started releasing
other "Essential..." albums by other artists and Sony got into the
"Essential" parade and released a ton of "Essential..." albums on
their artists. But, were those albums or songs, essential? Not
necessarily in my book. Very unoriginal. Course, now all those
"Essentials" are being joined by "36 All Time Greatest Hits," of which
there's one for the Monkees. All the same previously released
material, nothing new or improved, with a $30 price tag (discounted in
some catalogs). All time greatest hits? Hmm, well, okay, I can see the
hits that were the hits being considered all time greatest hits but is
"Sunny Girlfriend" one of the all time greatest hits for the Monkees?
I like Nez and I like his tunes and I like that tune but I'm not sure
everyone would agree it's an all time greatest hit.

He should've stood up for himself and put Parker in his place. Like I
said above, given he knew how badly Parker had mangled his career. I
think it's a possibility he just couldn't trust others to do better.

He should've took the chance and allowed the chips to fall where they
would've fell. As a manager, Parker did some good things for Elvis

he also did some lousy things, like never getting Elvis an increase on
the artist royalty or getting him a producer's royalty, and the lousy
Vegas shows at two shows per night at even lousier pay. It was once
said Parker considered it his patriotic duty to keep Elvis's income in
the five to seven million dollars per year, but I think Parker may
have been just a little too gutless to ask for a whole lot more money,
even though, his client deserved it more than any other artist.

I think a lot of people like to think they are cool but if they have
to let someone else decide for them what they can or can't like,
they're mindless idiots and should go home and bang their heads hard
against the wall. Maybe then they'd have enlightenment ;-p

ABBA got another nod from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame but I don't
think this is going to be their year, again. ABBA has some support
from a lot of rock legends, so that helps with acceptance. You can't
really knock an act if another act or artist acknowledge themselves as
fans of that act.

That will always be true, and also depends on what stations you listen to.
And the big question is, did they really deserve to do better anyway?

Yeah, the concept of rating songs differently when they could not be bought
seperately, was amazingly stupid. But hey, what else would you expect from
the recording industry, and radio stations?

Yes, allowing the companies to make money from the artist by pressing too
many records was asking for trouble. The artist usually had little say in
the exercise, and were talked into it by the suggestion they would lose
sales if the public had to wait while more were pressed. Since a good record
will sell for years or even decades, it's a poor admission of lousy lead
times at the pressing plants IMO.

Or even a not so huge one. But companies could, and did, prevent artists
from recording with any other company while they were under contract. So if
they didn't release your album, or didn't promote it, the artist often had
to buy out their contract, or wait until it expired before they could
release a new record.

Maybe, but only IF they can afford the legal fees.

Not unless it breaches a specified agreement. The simple fact is most
artists in the 50's, 60's 70's were far too eager to sign lousy contracts,
and only discovered they should have had better advice after it was too
late. The situation was so bad that is fairly well known now, and newer
artists are trapped far less often.

Of course not, it was only because Parker was so bad, that Elvis was stupid
in not getting rid of him.

And I always say anyone who thinks like that deserves what they get. Fact is
the artist always has the last say no matter what the manager *tries* to
sign him up for. The artists signature is still required, and he has the
right to say no, unless he has an even more ridiculous contract with his
manager that gives them absolute discretion. In which case it is once again
the artists fault for signing *that* contract.

So many people blame others for their bad choices, but frankly I get sick of
hearing their whining. I've made my own bad choices, but I live with them,
and I don't have the money for a raft of legal advice like Elvis did, before
he signed anything!

Allowing for inflation, he was (in todays money) even before he died. The
estate is worth even more now of course.

Me either. But very few people that rich are not hypocrits. Had to laugh
when Heather Mills took half his money, he must have been the only one who
didn't see that coming

Sure, you can arrange contracts to achieve almost anything, BUT they still
have to be signed.

I doubt it unfortunately, I don't think they generate many sales.

Made the top 40 in Australia on the back of her tour. I sure WISH she'd come
back again!

I'm not so sure. While I loved *many* of her songs, she just didn't appeal
to the masses that much after "Candle in the Rain" unfortunately.

And Melanie was absolutely
foxy, looking more gorgeous and sexy than she looked in the early
70s.

I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but she has certainly aged very well!

Mindy McCready
You'd think she has plenty of material for new songs then! or should
that be

Yep, not everyone can, or wants to appeal to the masses for top40 sales. A
good performer can live off their concerts and small volume record sales for
the rest of their life however, and it sure beats digging ditches IMO.

I really doubt that will happen, but who knows, Emmylou Harris only started
fairly late in her career, and she's done a couple of albums of her own
stuff. I certainly wouldn't put money on Linda writing many now though!

I've got the Live in Atlanta one on VHS, is that the one you mean? It's
available on DVD bootlegs if you want it.
Great concert!

The Johnny Cash & Linda 'Behind Prison Walls" is available on DVD though,
she does 4 songs.

No unfortunately, but that "duet" that was put together of them singing
"Love Me Tender" was pretty good.

Of course it would have been even better if the did a film together, then we
may have had some duets like Elvis did with Ann Margret and Nancy Sinatra.
Parker would have agreed to that I imagine.

No argument from me, I'd simply have seperate charts for each genre, *and*
an overall sales chart for everything. The problem still remains on who
publishes what, and who cares. Total sales figures, Gold and Platinum
accreditation ignore genre anyway, and are a better indicator IMO.

Yes, I've seen it on YouTube.

Exactly, they aren't "giving away" anything, they are SELLING it!
It's the "extortion racket" that I hate!

Exactly, and they know it. They just want to generate a few more sales from
desperate fans.

Of course not, but just as with the "Essential" seies, it's only a name. Who
cares whether it's called "Best of", "Greatest Hits", "Essential",
"Definitive Collection", or *any* other name. You buy the songs, and if I
want enough of them to justify the price, I don't mind if there are
"extras". The days of me buying an album for one or two new songs is gone
though. I just get annoyed now, but live with it. Thankfully the day is
probably coming when you will be able to download those one or two songs, in
a NON compressed format without DRM, and skip the others.

I disagree, a good manager simply arranges for you the *choice* of gigs, and
let's you decide which ones you will do. The better the artist, the bigger
the choice, and there were few who will ever have the choices Elvis had, or
*could* have had.

I'm not convinced, just as Brian Epstein didn't do much for the
Beatles.
They were better off after he died. Pity Tom Parker didn't die around the
same time!

Exactly, so how is a manager that gets you lousy gigs at less money than you
can easily command, worth keeping?

Which is why I always loved the fact that the Beatles didn't put the Monkees
down when everyone else was.