Thanks, folks.

Yes, I have seen the "other" talent show story, and it IS amazing that Humes was not "offended" by the talk of cold fingers at night . . . but he got away with it. That would not last long!

More about the gospel connection, but how can Lair be "credited" on Elvis's version, when he never recorded it to be "credited" to anyone? I mean, he only sang it in a high school.

Perhaps you're thinking of "Hands Off," but he is clearly doing the Broonzy version, but with aggression and some very naughty words added as well {and subtracted by Victor}.

I'm intrigued by the gospel connection: as far as I had known, the first versions of the suggestive "Hands Off" were described as "tent show" staples, and Broonzy wanted to make a record from it, and so "cleaned it up." From Samuel Charters. It is interesting to have a name! Also interesting that this "nasty" little song started out in the gospel field, and so very long ago.

The early versions, as per Charters, we very brief: just "Hands off off it/Don't you dare touch it/Don't belong to you." How this could relate to God, I don't know. That is intriguing. The unsuitability of this for a popular record is obvious, even when it was expanded, so Broonzy decided to make it about a female, and make it "clean." This seems the obvious source for Elvis's later pastiche {he mentioned Broonzy in an early interview as some of the "Mississippi singers" he really liked, but that they were considered "low down": "at home" - where he said he'd get in trouble for listening to them - and this is vague in light of recent information about Elvis's "'tween" years living on The Hill in Tupelo - a very "churchy" black neighborhood directly to the west of Shake Rag. "Home" could mean his parents' actual place to live, or the community itself, which would know a lot more about the impropriety of Shake Rag than his parents. One local musician, Charles Clanton, told Michael Rose - the video-biographer of the Tupelo years, that "the onliest way I knew Elvis was as a kid." He's means little kid, of course: they left when he was just 13, and Clanton saw him {he knew him from the daylight, when their string band rehearsed} - he doesn't say if it was one time or more - catching a "peek" at one of the juke joints in Shake Rag on a Saturday night, "late." Which means he snuck out to do so. The other {former} youngsters from the "Hill" area speak of "Shake Rag" as kind of off-limits, saying it was real "low-down" - using the same language that Elvis used at about 21. Apparently, the children who lived on "The Hill," were told not to go there, or listen to the music, especially, I'd think, on late Saturday nights. Which was, of course, when it got interesting. Clanton said there was a lot of suggestive dancing taking place, and that perhaps that is where Elvis first saw what was later called "wiggling." Actually, it was just dancing, but mainstream America of the '50s did not see it as simply dancing or moving to music. He did know that "low-down" music was considered inappropriate for children, and said "which never bothered me, I guess."}

In this interview, he mentions Broonzy. So, it seems clear that he either heard the song "Keep Your Hands Off Her" live and remembered it, or looked for his records later on. Both can be true, of course, and that is likely. By '55, he would have access to just about any records he wanted, and by '70, it was taken for granted. The question is whether he heard the REAL "low-down" versions of "Hands Off" - and there is information that he sang "Birthday Cake" {a version of "Hands Off"} at about 19 when just beginning his official career. "Birthday Cake" is VERY hard to find: best bet is on a Jerry Lee Lewis compilation. It goes back to the "low-down" version of "Hands Off." And it was considered a country tune! It had crossed over the divide, as had "Cold, Icy Fingers." Some versions of "Hands Off" have titles like "Keep Your Fingers Out of It." This refers to one's "cake" or something like that, but clearly connects to "Cold, Icy Fingers" - at least lyrically. They really are all variations of the same theme. I would be more interested in the chord progressions than melody or tempo. That can be manipulated.

We do know that Sam Phillips sent Perkins on a "learning tour" of Memphis, with Elvis, and he showed him Lansky's, introduced him, and picked out an outfit: black slacks and a bright blue shirt. We do not know if Perkins liked or ever wore this outfit in concert. It certainly was not his taste up to that time. Phillips was trying to "rockabilly"-him, in all respects, using Elvis as tutor. This would be the source of the later "Shoes" extension, "Put Your Cat Clothes On." Perkins saw it, clearly, in some ways as "blacking up." Or, it felt that way for him. And it really didn't suit him: he was, and remained, more of a country artist, and his best work was "Dixie Fried" a wild song about white, after-hours Honky Tonkin' and knife fighting that seemed to owe little or nothing to Beale Street . . . It was strictly country, and Perkins loved the fantasy, if that's what it was, of young white men going wild in the wee hours of the morning: "it's almost dawn, and the cops are gone, so let's all get Dixie Fried." This would not be a song that interested Elvis in any way, shape or form. {He did sing boldly about criminality in a Jordanaires' "I Washed My Hands in Muddy Water" about a son doomed to follow his father's unhappy footsteps.}

"Blue Suede Shoes" - at first, anyway, did not interest Carl Perkins. "Why," he asked, rhetorically, "would anybody want to sing about shoes? I'd rather sing about a pretty girl." So the idea was not his. So Cash intervenes at this point, and says he suggested it due to his service experience. Now, maybe I'm nuts, but I don't see how Army boots relate to "Blue Suede Shoes." And since they were quite uncommon at the time, and we know that Elvis actually wore them, this leaves us with many questions. In Robert Johnson's "Hot Tamales," he inserts a spoken part where he warns others not to "mess with" the hot tamales." The chord progression is similar, and the song fits in with the family of songs, plus you get this revelation: "one for a nickel, two for a dime." Thus, "One for the money, two for the show." To me, clearly, the song is blues based, with several country and western swing cross-overs, as well. All rooted, Charters says, in an old "tent-show" gag: a kind of naughty joke. If it had gospel roots, that makes it even more interesting in terms of border-crossings.

In the classic rock 'n' roll song, we know that NO ONE ever steps on those shoes. But it is in a solid blues tradition, most familiar to Presley - and Perkins also knew some blues, since "Matchbox" goes right to Blind Lemon Jefferson - the original source, btw, for "That's All Right Mama" in his "That Black Snake Moan." Few credit Jefferson, who deserves more than a little credit - Crudup never mentions Jefferson. {Of interest here: some songs on "Loving You" have undeniable blues roots: "Party" is a riff off of a Roy Brown song, and may have been inspired by the interaction between Presley and Lieber/Stoller, since Brown was always a fave for Elvis, and Brown, a major influence on the likes of Jackie Wilson and others, always insisted they knew each other early on.}

So, you see my point: these other songs are traceable, but the composition of "Shoes" is filled with many conflicting accounts. And since all participants have now passed - two quite early, one very early, well, we cannot know for sure.

The onus is on us, now, to look at the information, and see what makes the most sense. I do not know, except that I am confused.

Have at it and thanks.