Probably more than any other album of his career, Elvis’ Christmas Album is generally regarded as having created the most controversy.  Some would argue that the first album in 1956 did this, but actually there was relatively little backlash against it or Elvis in the press prior to the second Milton Berle appearance.   Elvis’ Christmas Album, however, has stories of it being banned by radio stations, firings of DJs, and an irate Irving Berlin all attached to it.  

Most fans will remember these stories being recounted by Charles Wolfe in the liner notes of the 1994 CD If Every Day Was Like Christmas.  In the space of a single paragraph, Wolfe tells us a DJ was fired at KEX in Portland, that “almost all” Canadian radio stations banned the record, and that Irving Berlin ordered his staff to begin calling radio stations “to demand that they stop playing it.”  These events make for great stories, have been often repeated, and only add to the legend of the boy from Tupelo taking on the establishment and coming out with a #1 album. 

Elvis’s version is based upon that by The Drifters, which was released in 1954, getting to #2 in the R&B charts, and entering the Billboard charts the following year.   While Elvis clearly models part of his recording on the earlier version, the notion that his is a carbon copy is simply untrue – the structure, backing vocals, instrumentation, and vocal line are all changed in Elvis’s version.  There are certainly many Elvis recordings where he copies arrangements to a much greater degree than he does here.  We don’t know if Irving Berlin heard The Drifters’ version – Wolfe says he didn’t, but he has no way of knowing, and it seems unlikely given the airplay that it got.

 
Let’s start by saying where this story about Irving Berlin leading a campaign against Elvis’s White Christmas comes from.  It seems to have been first told in 1990 in a book called As Thousands Cheer by Laurence Bergreen, a biography of Irving Berlin.  The story, according to the notes, comes via an interview between the author of the book and a man named Walter Wager. 

This major story, about Irving Berlin, celebrating his 50th year in show business in 1957, and Elvis Presley, the biggest star in the world, never made it into the New York Times.  Or any regional newspapers.  Or Billboard.  Or Sponsor.  Or Variety.  There was/is no logical reason why such a huge story would not have been reported in some (or all) of these publications –unless it never happened.   This would have been big news, and would have been picked up by the trade magazines and journals at the very least.

Since I brought this to the attention of fans about a year ago, people have tried to make excuses as to why the story wasn’t reported.  Irving Berlin, I’ve been told, must have wanted it kept quiet.  He must have told his staff to ring radio stations and ask politely.  There is no reason, though, why Berlin would want it kept quiet. 

He was a man basking in publicity in 1957, thanks to his 50 years in showbiz, but yearning for a hit.   The publicity of him standing up for conservative America against Presley would have been good for him, not bad.   And just because he wanted it kept quiet didn’t mean those his staff were calling would have wanted the same.

January 2018 - More points raised

From: T Anderson.
I read the article by Shane Brown discounting the story about Irving Berlin hating Elvis's version of "White Christmas" to the extent he attempted to get it banned.
As much as I respect Shane Brown's investigation, I think his conclusion is incorrect. 
I know I read or heard about this much earlier than 1990, I believe in 1977 shortly after Elvis's death but it may have even been the late 1960's or early 1970's. I still have several magazine tribute issues that were issued around that time. It could have been reported in Country Music Magazine, Rolling Stone, or many other publications or books. Maybe even The National Enquirer, which makes up stories all the time, so just reading the story in a magazine doesn't make it so....but I read about it much earlier than 1990, someplace. I still have some of these old magazines buried away in my "archives" / box collection and when I come across them at some point in time will look for information about his matter in them.
Meanwhile, I want to point out a couple things:
1. Elvis would not have just decided to arbitrarily send a signed picture with that inscription on it to Irving Berlin out of the blue. He never met Berlin and had no relationship with him, and never recorded any other Berlin songs after "White Christmas", to my recollection. The photo and inscription were certainly sent at the direction of Col. Tom Parker and/or RCA Victor Records, and while not an "apology" to Berlin, this has all the marks of being written and sent in response to a controversy, and it is definitely worded to praise Berlin and lessen hostility. There would have been no other reason to send it. Just based on the fact it was sent gives credence to the story about Berlin's anger over Elvis's recording.
2. You have to remember that rock and roll music was despised by many pop, and country performers (not to mention classical recording artists) who ridiculed the music and the rock performers. It was considered "bad music" and "evil" which incited juvenile delinquency. I grew up in a conservative area of the United States and condemnation of rock music continued into the 1970's here. Entertainers like Frank Sinatra condemned the music and hated it. I don't think Sinatra ever changed his view of rock music although he eventually recorded and performed some songs written by rock performers.  And, there was heavy-handed pressure by many of these established performers to quash rock and roll music and continue forward with their standards of pop and country music.  Part of this was that sales of rock and roll music records cut into their popularity. Elvis's Christmas Album was definitely controversial in 1957 as some people considered it sacrilegious, and I'm sure Berlin although himself Jewish/non-Christian jumped on these sentiments because he didn't like the performance by Elvis.
3. Again regarding the signed picture of Elvis sent to Berlin, no, I do not believe Berlin would have torn it up when he got it "if" he despised Elvis. I have saved letters, photographs, documents etc. I have received from people and organizations through the years which I needed to remember as part of the situation  later. The inscription on Elvis's photo was not offensive and Berlin probably filed it away. Good thing it was saved.
4. If this story was included in a biography of Irving Berlin by a writer who collected information about Berlin, conducted interviews, and had access to Berlin's materials, I don't understand why there would be qualified doubt the story is true.
5. Lack of reporting of this story in the New York Times or other newspapers or even music trade magazines like Billboard at the time means nothing. This was at a time when powerful people could stop stories from being published. Berlin certainly had a lot of power.
6. The disc jockey who was reportedly fired for playing the album itself on the air - I personally have never been fired, but I worked in personnel for some years, and there were many situations where people are told they are "fired" but the person closes out their shift. This happens with some employees who are paid hourly. Depending on the work atmosphere, there are some bosses who reconsider the "firing" and keep the person on, the "firing" have actually been a "suspension".

Shane Brown replies
Thank you for your comments.  I'd like to address them, if I may - and will number them in relation to your own to try and keep it all together.

1 & 3.  We honestly do not know the reason for the photo being sent.  The photo was something that came up after the article was published, which is why it wasn't addressed in the article.  But we don't know if it was sent before or after the release of the record.  It COULD be sent, as you suggest, as an apology or to ingratiate Berlin after the apparent furore which we don't even know took place - or it could have been sent out for the completely unrelated reason that 1957 was Irving Berlin's 50th anniversary in showbusiness, and there was much made of it at the time.  We shall probably never know. 

2.  We can't say for sure that Berlin didn't like the performance because there is no record of him not liking the performance.  I'm sure he very much liked the royalties it gave him.  All we have for definite is a second-hand tale told by Walter Wager who, as far as we are aware didn't even know Berlin in 1957, told to the author of the Berlin biography.  We have no reason to doubt that Wager was telling the story that had been told to him, but not every story we are told is correct or not exaggerated.  I'm aware of how rock 'n' roll was regarded at the time, and have written about it at length elsewhere (see my blog post as an example:  https://silentmovieblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/22/dont-be-cruel-presley-and-the-press-1956/)   However, that doesn't make the White Christmas story any more or any less true.  That is purely background info and not evidence. 

4.  The Berlin biography credits the White Christmas/Elvis story to an interview with Walter Wager - and no-one else.  There is no suggestion within the book that there is any info on this in the Berlin archives. 

5.  The lack of print evidence of this story in the NYT, Variety, Billboard, and other mags and newspapers means everything.  What you are suggesting is that Berlin tried to have the record banned from radio stations, and then tried to keep it quiet.  Why would he do that?  What could he gain from keeping it quiet?  He would gain a great deal of positive attention in 1957 by going public with what he thought of the recording - and publicity of him, a member of the showbiz royalty going up against this young upstart, would be GOOD publicity for Berlin, not bad.  As the article states, the banning of certain songs from the album at certain radio stations was given a number of column inches in the trade mags - and none of the interviewees in those stories once mention Berlin's thoughts of the song.  The story doesn't even appear in what we will politely call the "less prestigious" publications of the period.  Or gossip rags, if you will.

6.  The firing of Al Priddy is not a mystery.  All evidence suggests it didn't happen, it was a publicity stunt.  Margie Boule's research into the incident in 1987, discussed in the article, as good as puts that story to bed thanks to the interviews with the people involved. 

Regarding the introductory points, others have also come forward and said they read the story before 1990.  None of them have come forward with evidence of that in the year since my article was published. If anyone happen to find it amongst their old mags, I would very much like to read it and see how it was reported etc, as only with new evidence can we put more pieces together. 

Since writing the article on the Christmas album, I have done a great deal more research for the 2nd edition of my book which came out in the autumn.  I found no more evidence on this subject that did not repeat what I had already written at the end of 2016.  What we know for certain is that the suggestion in the liner notes to If Every Day was Like Christmas about the Canadian radio ban is false.  I have the Variety articles from the period to prove it (Dec 11, 1957, p. 57).   We also know that the firing of Al Priddy is also, in all likelihood, a fake news story (to use a modern term), and that was disproven back in 1987 - five years before it appeared in those liner notes.  That leaves the Irving Berlin story.  While I understand your points about what might have happened, there is no new evidence there, only suggestions and background info. 

Sadly, once a story is told, it is re-told, whether it is true or not (see my article on EIN on the Roy Orbison Show for another example).  I have worked with trade mags, fan mags and newspapers a huge amount in research for books and journal articles over the last ten years or so and have every faith through that work in saying that the Berlin story would appear SOMEWHERE within those pages if it were true.  Like yourself, and others, I would like to know why Walter Wager told that story to the Berlin biographer, and where he had heard it or been told it, as there is no reason to believe he knew it was fake.  But it has been retold many times since.  Indeed, I was gullible enough to include it in the first edition of my book on Elvis in 2014 before suddenly realising afterwards that all was not as it seems and doing the work to investigate it.  What's more, it's a great story, and it would be wonderful if it were true. 

While we can't ever prove that something didn't happen (that's impossible), we CAN state that there is no proof whatsoever as yet that it DID happen, and that's the nearest we are ever going to get. 
Perhaps Berlin told Wager the story himself, as some excessive exaggeration of his hatred for the recording. 
Perhaps Wager read it many years later in one of the publications you mention and assumed it to be true.  I don't know. 
My own guess is that, if it appeared before 1990, it was in an Elvis Monthly - but, then again, no-one has yet come forward with the article. 
The likelihood is that we will never know where the rumour originated, but it is interesting that neither Jorgensen or Guralnick had enough faith in it to include it in their books.