Ross Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Elvis is 5,000 ahead in the MidweeksManics @ Number 2Killers @ Number 3Couldn't have gone to a nice chap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I think it would be better for the 1000th Number 1 to represent what was currently popular rather than an undoubtedly talented bloke, but ultimately a dead one. Dead for 27 years. Where's the relevence to the 1000th number 1 in that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I think it would be better for the 1000th Number 1 to represent what was currently popular rather than an undoubtedly talented bloke' date=' but ultimately a dead one. Dead for 27 years. Where's the relevence to the 1000th number 1 in that?[/quote']Well it kinda seems fitting that the guy who is the biggest rock star of all time some would say gets it.CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Well it kinda seems fitting that the guy who is the biggest rock star of all time some would say gets it.I don't agree, I think it would be more fitting if a contemporary artist got the 1000th number one and not a wide-spread reissue campaign. Elvis was a phenomenal artist of his time who, whilst alive, got to number one a record number of times. I just don't see the relevence of a reissue campaign topping what are supposed to be charts indicative of current popular music. Scanning the last 999 number ones shows the transitional fads and phases that pop music has gone through in the last 50 odd years, I can't help but feel Elvis at 1000 proves nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Well only the Manics or The Killers can catch him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulDW Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 And neither of them should have it... Hehe... So Im gonna stick with the King... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I don't agree' date=' I think it would be more fitting if a contemporary artist got the 1000th number one and not a wide-spread reissue campaign. Elvis was a phenomenal artist of his time who, whilst alive, got to number one a record number of times. I just don't see the relevence of a reissue campaign topping what are supposed to be charts indicative of current popular music. Scanning the last 999 number ones shows the transitional fads and phases that pop music has gone through in the last 50 odd years, I can't help but feel Elvis at 1000 proves nothing.[/quote']The only things the charts are indicitive is of who sells the most singles, I mean Mike Flowers Pop and Mr Blobby getting to number one didn't show that music was going in the direction of pink rubber men or easy listening, just that people bought most of them that week. Elvis getting to number 1 now shows that he is probably the most popular artist of all time and someone who can still outsell any other artist almost 20 years after his death. Whjat gets to number onew in reality has little to do with the way music is at a speciufic time, just what is hyped or captures people's imagination. In no way can the Band Aid single be indicitive of the musical trend at he time, iy just caught a moment of people wanting to support a charity...CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 The only things the charts are indicitive is of who sells the most singles' date=' I mean Mike Flowers Pop and Mr Blobby getting to number one didn't show that music was going in the direction of pink rubber men or easy listening, just that people bought most of them that week. Elvis getting to number 1 now shows that he is probably the most popular artist of all time and someone who can still outsell any other artist almost 20 years after his death. Whjat gets to number onew in reality has little to do with the way music is at a speciufic time, just what is hyped or captures people's imagination. In no way can the Band Aid single be indicitive of the musical trend at he time, iy just caught a moment of people wanting to support a charity...CheersStuart[/quote']I'd say that Band Aid was more indicative of the time than Elvis now, given that all the contributing artists are currently releasing music that's doing well in the charts. I'm not for a minute dissing the King, his contribution to music is fantastic, but I think that this 1000th single thing is less about his musical contribution and more about SonyBMG raking in profits from an extensive re-release of his back catalogue. Again, if you look at the type of songs getting to number in context they make sense, Mr Blobby was a charity record based on a popular character of the time - If Mr Blobby was released now, when only a select audience remember who he was, then it would be totally irrelevent.Sure, people may not view The Killers or the Manics as being anywhere near as influential as Elvis but they are actively releasing, making and being influenced by events and music now - Which to me is what the charts should be about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I'd say that Band Aid was more indicative of the time than Elvis now' date=' given that all the contributing artists are currently releasing music that's doing well in the charts. I'm not for a minute dissing the King, his contribution to music is fantastic, but I think that this 1000th single thing is less about his musical contribution and more about SonyBMG raking in profits from an extensive re-release of his back catalogue. Again, if you look at the type of songs getting to number in context they make sense, Mr Blobby was a charity record based on a popular character of the time - If Mr Blobby was released now, when only a select audience remember who he was, then it would be totally irrelevent.Sure, people may not view The Killers or the Manics as being anywhere near as influential as Elvis but they are actively releasing, making and being influenced by events and music now - Which to me is what the charts should be about.[/quote']Actually Blobby wasn't a charity single, the money went to Noel Edmonds and the BBC.CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmd040 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Nobody should pay any attention to the charts after the age of about 14 or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Nobody should pay any attention to the charts after the age of about 14 or so.Err.. I do.... religiously..... although it is kinda part my job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Actually Blobby wasn't a charity single' date=' the money went to Noel Edmonds and the BBC.[/quote']Not owning it I went on memory alone Still, the point holds - He was a character that had relevence at the time the CD was released, albeit symbolic of dysmal Saturday night entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael MacLennan Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Elvis is 5' date='000 ahead in the MidweeksManics @ Number 2Killers @ Number 3Couldn't have gone to a nice chap.[/quote']What, a long-deceased drug-addicted sex attacker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammer Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Elvis was a great singer but this number One's thing means nothing for a few reasons:- The singles chart is now more meaningless than ever- There have been over a hundred of Elvis singles released over the years so proportionally he's bound to have a high number of noumber 1s - The record company is the only winner, as ever, with their deceased artists catalogue.- New talent takes a back seat again for a reissue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qzdiablo Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 would elvis care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammer Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Probably not, I mean he was never the man for quality control when he was alive. He'd just zonked out of his face and muching a huge burger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NARC Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Lets hope Empty Souls gets it, as a geniune song of the moment and not something that doesnt deserve to be there in 2005 ie elvis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qzdiablo Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 that looked like a very genuine post there from demon cleaner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingin' Ryan Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Thaty's probably the best thing to happen to the charts for a long time. Elvis at number one and the Manics at number two. Two of my all time favourites. All the Elvis doubters can only but look at the facts, he's long dead and still topping the charts. When private-schooled whining filth like Keane and Coldplay and the baggy-trousered Topman rock of the Lost Prophets are kept off the top by Elvis Presley, when he's lying dead and buried in his velvet-lined coffin, content in the knowledge that he not only created Rock and Roll music but the whole image of Rock and Roll aswell...life is good.Next to Frank Sinatra, Elvis was the best thing to happen to music ever. He came to save us all from Glenn Miller. You wouldn't have your synchronised guitar-jumps and on-stage "rocking-out" if Elvis hadn't had the balls to shake things up. No-one seems to realise how controversial Rock and Roll was in it's time, far more earth-shattering than the Pistols on Bill Grundy or Marilyn Manson's mini-Nuremberg shows. That's why he's still relevant.And so what if he got fat towards the end of his life, he did more for the development of music than anyone I can think of, so he can eat a Bengali Tiger every day if he wants too, it doesn't make a difference.John Lennon said something along the lines of "Before Elvis there was nothing", which was wrong there was Sinatra, but in respect to modern guitar music there wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Not forgetting the amount of gimmicks that the Manics have put into ensuring a good chart position for Empty Souls - what with handing out thousands of slipcases to hold all three single formats AND selling all three formats for 5.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historicrocker Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 I don't think Elvis would give less of a shit really, what with the state of our charts... Eamon and the likes profaning out television sets and 7 o'clock. The fact of the matter here is that Elvis' record company is still profiting from his music. They don't deserve it. Maybe I haven't researched this much, but surely this whole "Elvis is King" thing is just a ploy to sell more records. Why not buy another record? It would keep current artists who can actually MAKE music in the business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historicrocker Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Thaty's probably the best thing to happen to the charts for a long time. Elvis at number one and the Manics at number two. Two of my all time favourites. All the Elvis doubters can only but look at the facts' date=' he's long dead and still topping the charts. When private-schooled whining filth like Keane and Coldplay and the baggy-trousered Topman rock of the Lost Prophets are kept off the top by Elvis Presley, when he's lying dead and buried in his velvet-lined coffin, content in the knowledge that he not only created Rock and Roll music but the whole image of Rock and Roll aswell...life is good.Next to Frank Sinatra, Elvis was the best thing to happen to music ever. He came to save us all from Glenn Miller. You wouldn't have your synchronised guitar-jumps and on-stage "rocking-out" if Elvis hadn't had the balls to shake things up. No-one seems to realise how controversial Rock and Roll was in it's time, far more earth-shattering than the Pistols on Bill Grundy or Marilyn Manson's mini-Nuremberg shows. That's why he's still relevant.And so what if he got fat towards the end of his life, he did more for the development of music than anyone I can think of, so he can eat a Bengali Tiger every day if he wants too, it doesn't make a difference.John Lennon said something along the lines of "Before Elvis there was nothing", which was wrong there was Sinatra, but in respect to modern guitar music there wasn't.[/quote']That would like to appreciate the sharp wit but it's completely irrelevant. The Manic Street Preachers perhaps deserve this but Elvis' record company certianly doesn't. What you've responded with there is some sort of pleading sentimental drivel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingin' Ryan Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 They don't deserve it. Maybe I haven't researched this much' date=' but surely this whole "Elvis is King" thing is just a ploy to sell more records.Why not buy another record? It would keep current artists who can actually MAKE music in the business.[/quote']How on Earth could the phrase "Elvis is King" be a ploy to sell more records, that's like the saying the crux of the Beatles success was the fact they were called the "Fab Four". Elvis is referred to as "The King" as he, as much as can be credited, invented Rock and Roll. He walked into the studio in 1954 and sang a mix of Gospel, Country and Rockabilly, mixed black and white music and created something new and it became Rock and Roll. And from that sound we got the Beatles, then the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, The Sex Pistols, Nirvana...and all the stuff you listen to today. Elvis is the "Big Bang" in the world of Rock music.Buying his single instead of the Lost Prophets or some other piss shows respect to the fact that if Elvis hadn't recorded the music he had you wouldn't have the music we listen to today.Download "Trouble" by the man himself, Punk-Rock 20 years before safety-pins were cool.Fin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartmaxwell Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Well it kinda seems fitting that the guy who is the biggest rock star of all time some would say gets it.CheersStuarthuh?when did Radio Lucifer storm the charts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historicrocker Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Very interesting, yet still sentimental and out of touch with anyone here I would assume. People here are more likely wanting to hear new music. "Jaihouse Rock" has been on everyone's radio before and it's been overplayed. By re-releasing his singles it seems to provoke the idea that no-one has made better music than Elvis since his reign, hence the smug assertion that he'll get the number one spot. I don't think Elvis' music deserves such acclaim nowadays. I believe, perhaps, that if a greatest hits album with his singles went to the number one spot it would be fair. But there is other music out there struggling to be recognised whilst our charts are polluted, not only now by Topman rock and uneccesarily profane "R&B" or rap, but with the overly-sentimental mush for Elvis' re-released singles.Quite frankly, I couldn't care less because I know that if Elvis' singles weren't re-released his place would probably be taken by a re-re-mix of "Call on Me". Even though this is the case I don't like to think that it's in people's minds that Elvis made better music than those who are making it today (I refer not to Franz Ferdinand or Snow Patrol but the much more raw talent of Bright Eyes or, say, the Libertines. These people pour their hearts into music and they don't get recognised for it.) I guess I'm saying that this Elvis thing is just pretentious drivel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.