Go to main content

Cover Recorded Live On Stage In Memphis

June 05, 2013 | Music

Here is the cover of the upcoming FTD vinyl version of Elvis Recorded Live On Stage In Memphis.

Source:The OEPFC of Great Britain

Buy at OEPFC
EJF wrote on June 05, 2013
Not such a flattering pic of our man. I'm sure there are much better ones available. Good thing I don't buy vinyl anymore.
GEORGE (GK) wrote on June 05, 2013
There are so many great photos from this concert, and this is the photo, they selected for the album cover? Geez. Fire the person who selected this photo !
hankfnsw wrote on June 05, 2013
I would have a full concert pic of the show if their is one.
CrownElectric wrote on June 05, 2013
Poor cover (once again) from FTD. They should spend some money on real designers soon.
Smile:-) wrote on June 05, 2013
Oh nooooo....!!! Elvis looks really lame and bloated in this picture.... :-/ Again. He did the same on alternative vinyl version of Promised Land and some other releases. Who is given the right to pick these pictures? Roger Semon? Are there no quality control in the FTD layout department? Ha-ha:-) I really like the colours though. And the contrast to the original cover:-)
Great Dane wrote on June 05, 2013
I like this live album very much and think it's his best, but the only thing i truly miss in this concert when i play the vinyl is the bass palying of Jerry Scheff. Like the original cover better though.
VivaLasDavies wrote on June 05, 2013
At least it's not a picture of damn house (which if they'd had any foresight, would have been a better cover for FEPB).
GEORGE (GK) wrote on June 06, 2013
As we know the original album cover, featured a photo of Elvis Presley's beautiful home, Graceland, and the back cover, featured the Graceland gates, and I think the photos confused the record buying public, because this live album didn't sell as well as Elvis Presley's previous Live albums, and this was one of the better live albums ! If anything the "Elvis-Recorded Live on Stage in Memphis-album cover should have featured a photo of the Mid south Coliseum, where the Album was recorded, and some photos of Elvis on stage. I know RCA was going with the "Elvis-Memphis theme" and decided to show photos of his home. But the album wasn't recorded at Graceland ! The album would have sold better with actual photos, from the concerts. And a promotion, "Letting the fans know, these are Elvis Presley's first concerts in his hometown of Memphis, since the 50s ! "The Graceland photos, should have been used for the "Elvis Presley Boulevard album" which was actually recorded at Graceland. Ironically, RCA featured a live concert photo of Elvis, on the "Boulevard album cover". Talk about doing something backwards ! But then again, who knew Elvis would record at Graceland 2 years later?
JerryNodak wrote on June 06, 2013
I hate the cover. Zero stars for the cover. I'd rather look at a picture of the damn house.
I am Buffalo-Horn! wrote on June 06, 2013
Really! There is no pleasing some people!!
LarsG wrote on June 06, 2013
Great cover! I´m sure there will be a picture of the Mid South arena in the booklet.
dgirl wrote on June 06, 2013
That it didn't sell as well in 1974 as the previous live albums had nothing at all to do with the cover! It was because (and I heard this from fans at the time). it was another live album. The fans were really not enthusiastic about another live album one year after Aloha, 2 years after MSG no matter what the content. That road had been traveled too many times. Everyone was waiting for the next great studio LP like FEIM which sadly never happened.
GEORGE (GK) wrote on June 06, 2013
dgirl, of course, it just wasn't the album cover. I was just giving another example of why (maybe) the album didn't sell well, to the casual fan. The album cover photo was confusing for a live album. Yes, another reason is because there were 5 Live albums, within the span of 5 years, thats obvious !
EJF wrote on June 06, 2013
Yes, I have to agree with both dgirl and George (GK). The last thing the fans and the general public wanted was another live album. And the picture of Graceland on the front cover didn't help much. The sad part is that this show was much better than the MSG and Aloha ones and deserved better recognition, at least in my opinion.
VivaLasDavies wrote on June 06, 2013
I don't think this is such a bad cover, as I said in my previous post, at least it's relevant to the content ( thanks by the way to George for reiterating my previous comments ).
GEORGE (GK) wrote on June 07, 2013
VivaLasDavies, honestly I didn't read your post, before I wrote my post about using the "Graceland photo" for the "Elvis Presley blvd. album cover". (It would have been the perfect choice !)
Deano1 wrote on June 07, 2013
While the original LP did not sell as well as MSG, AFH or "On Stage", it was his best selling LP of 1974. It easily outsold "Good Times" and obviously outsold "Having Fun On Stage". It also (in '74, it has since been outsold by this LP) outsold "A Legendary Performer Vol. 1" and it outsold every studio LP that came between "Elvis Now" and "From Elvis Presley Blvd". It was Elvis' last top 40 Pop LP (peaking at #33) until "Moody Blue" hit the top 40 shortly before his death. It probably was a combination of being "another" live LP and the picture of Graceland that led to it not selling as well as MSG or "On Stage (it had no chance of selling as well as Aloha). Those two things and the fact it was edited and some of the best tracks were left out of the show didn't help. From what I have heard Elvis tried to have RCA release another live LP in '75 to live up to his 3 LPs a year deal, but Felton Jarvis felt the in the concert that later appeared on the Elvis Aron Presley 8 record set was to similar to the previous three concert LP's.
In-A-Flash wrote on June 07, 2013
Agree with Deano1. In the 70s the live albums sold much better as the studio albums. It would have made sense to record the New Year's Eve Concert in '75 or '76 as the next live album. This could even have been a well marketed live broadcast on US television. The marketing idea behind Elvis In Concert was absent, nothing special about Omaha and Rapid City or June 1977.
KINGE wrote on June 07, 2013
Hard to tell from this small image.. much bigger ones on the net elsewere.. anyway his hands looks really weird on the cover.... they look fake aka a photoshop worked image.Hope this isnt the final edition of the cover. In this case I wouldnt mind if the original house picture was used as approx 60% of tracklist is identical to the 1974 release. I like the idea that other FTD vinyl releases had alternate cover as the tracklist was 100% completely different to their original releases.
Smile:-) wrote on June 07, 2013
According to Norwegian fan club Flaming Star web page, tha hands are identical and photoshopped.
Natha wrote on June 07, 2013
I for one would have loved to have bought another live album at the time, provided . . . . However, from the bootlegs I purchased at that time it was obvious that the set list was pretty the same, so I did not prefer that.
In-A-Flash wrote on June 07, 2013
Understand your point Natha, but at the same time we have so many soundboards from a relatively short period of time that an overhaul from one soundboard to another cannot be realistically expected. Still I'm pretty confident that I can tell from any setlist of a concert the year it was given.
marty wrote on June 07, 2013
The cover is not bad, better than a picture of a (his) house! I believe what happened in the 60's with the soundtracks also happened 69-77 with the concerts. A cheap way to produce an album (no studio time etc), marketed by the tour publicity. Fans who attended the show (or a similar one) would want to hear the songs again. Elvis became less and less interested in recording but enjoyed (for the most part) doing the live shows. And the live albums sold relatively well! RCA and the Colonel didn't need much more to be persuaded... They send the engineers to record him live from 69-77 almost as many times as he went to the studio! Some of the live recording are really great but it would have been better if Elvis had spent more time in the studio recording... Am I wrong?
In-A-Flash wrote on June 09, 2013
Not sure if I agree. Elvis made studio recordings throughout the 70's - only 1974 was skipped but that was after recording sessions in December 1973, followed by recording sessions in March 1975. Next to this, the five live albums were very distinct from each other in sound and content. The similarity that I see is that both the movies and concerts declined in quality overtime. The movies due to budget cuts and the concert due to declining health.
circleG wrote on June 11, 2013
The live 'trilogy' was quite exciting for me. I felt other stars always copied him by releasing thier own live stuff.