historicrocker Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 How on Earth could the phrase "Elvis is King" be a ploy to sell more records' date=' 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']That above comment was in reply to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Very interesting' date=' 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']Yeah but to many people of a certain age Elvis is relevant to what they like today, certainly much more relenvant to the likes of the Libertines. I think it's challenging the assertion that the charts is for young bands etc, it's not, it's just a marker of who has sold the most copies. Elvis is as entitled to sell lots of records as any other band is. Pretentious ? No, Cash in, most definitely, but if people like it so what. I think Elvis wouldn't be number 1 if many people didn't think he made better music than many of the younger bands. What you seem to be forgetting is its a target for a completely different audience and buying single isn't just the domain of the 12-30 year olds anymore. I would guess the demographic buying the Elvis singles is very different from those buying the Libertines, which in turn is often very different from those buying r'n'b stuff, no-one is right its just that people like different things. One of the ongoing biggest problems with this website is that its based in a specific type of music or a small genre and it often has problems understanding why other genre's music is popular. Just because you and your friends don't like it doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't have a reason to like it. Elvis undoubtedly ushered in a new era of music by being the first to sell to the masses, he certainly deserves some respect for what he acheved, and the fact he' still selling shows that there are a lot of people out there who still love and appreciate what he did. The bigest mistake here is the assertion the charts mean something in new music it doesn't, its as simple as a marker of who, that week, was the most successfull in music not who's best or most original, and as such everyone has a right to be number 1 if they sell the most. If Elvis does, then good, i wonder if the reaction would be the same if the bands challenging for the number 1 spot were Westlife or is it because its a more indie/rock orientated challenger ?CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 If Elvis does' date=' then good, i wonder if the reaction would be the same if the bands challenging for the number 1 spot were Westlife or is it because its a more indie/rock orientated challenger ?[/quote']I'd still believe Westlife were more deserving, because they are current and reflect popular music today. I just don't see there's any thrill in Elvis being number 1 now, as everyone knows (whether they like him or not) that he's hugely popular with a fanatical following and it's a foregone conclusion that he's going to be top of the charts. If record companies just looked to what was popular a few decades ago and rereleased deceased artists singles every other week the point of the charts would be absolutely nothing. What drive would any current artist (pop, indie, rock, whatever genre) have to get their single into the charts if the top ten that week was clogged up with deceased or defunct acts like Elvis, Janis Joplin, Buddy Holly, Johnny Cash, The Beatles, Mr Blobby or Jimi Hendrix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 I'd still believe Westlife were more deserving' date=' because they are current and reflect popular music today. I just don't see there's any thrill in Elvis being number 1 now, as everyone knows (whether they like him or not) that he's hugely popular with a fanatical following and it's a foregone conclusion that he's going to be top of the charts. If record companies just looked to what was popular a few decades ago and rereleased deceased artists singles every other week the point of the charts would be absolutely nothing. What drive would any current artist (pop, indie, rock, whatever genre) have to get their single into the charts if the top ten that week was clogged up with deceased or defunct acts like Elvis, Janis Joplin, Buddy Holly, Johnny Cash, The Beatles, Mr Blobby or Jimi Hendrix?[/quote']But the charts aren't a way of showing who's current and a way of reflecting popular music today, thats not what they're there for, if they happen to do that then fair enough, but they are only a guideline as to who has sold the most. Plain and simple, if Elvis has sold the most he should be number one, he deserves it more than the bands who sold less, thats how it works. You're making th charts into something they're not, they're not a marker of who's current, and they're not their to reflect popular music - though if Elvis sells more than any other artist not sure why you would not think he's popular music, he's the most popularin terms of sales that week - they are simply a way of seeing who's sold the most that week, who the public has decided deserves it, in this case Elvis has won that race. I'm not sure why theres even debate its as simple as Elvis deserves to be number 1 because he sold the most singles, regardless of how relevant the artists are thats not what the charts are about. If the public would vote in long dead singers as the most popular singers and they had chart success all that would do would be to change the whole thing about who is relevant in terms of sales.You're taking the charts as a mystical marker of whats good and re;levant, it isn't its a sales chart and whoever sales the most should be number 1 regardless if they've been dead 20 years or if its the Libertines. The only thing the charts reflect is who's been buying what not who's good or bad.CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zeenat Aman Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 I wonder to whom the royalties from this Elvis single are going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 I wonder to whom the royalties from this Elvis single are going?Elvis' royalties go to Lisa Marie Presley don't they,CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammer Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Does anyone find it interesting that British bands of the early 60's (Beatles' date=' Stones, Yardbirds, Animals etc) would record covers of black artists such as Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley and Muddy Waters rather than Elvis or Jerry Lee Lewis tunes?Elvis made rock n' roll acceptable to a white, mainstream audience. He didn't invent it, and he was the King only to those who refused to look deeper.He was still fucking good at what he did, mind you...[/quote']Good point and another on that angle, the likes of Chuck Berry wrote their own songs wheras Elvis recorded other people's. Little Richard and Chuck Berry were probably the kings of Rock and Roll but Elvis was white and therefore acceptable to the market. He was still a great singer but his early stuff is the best (Suspicious MInds and In The Ghetto and the odd other song excepted).. as Lennon said "Elvis died when he joined the army" .The charts are now more manipuldated than ever and being number one is meaningless. As for someone mentioning Westlife. You cannot say there is any artistic merit in a boy band playing bland ballad covers, it's just marketing the product. They play it welll in advance and then release the song, delete it ready for the next one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammer Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Elvis' royalties go to Lisa Marie Presley don't they' date='CheersStuart[/quote']I thought she'd recently just sold the entire catalogue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 I thought she'd recently just sold the entire catalogueIt's possible, have no idea, it would make most sense if she sold it to the record company that would explainthe rerelease.CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 You're taking the charts as a mystical marker of whats good and re;levant' date=' it isn't its a sales chart and whoever sales the most should be number 1 regardless if they've been dead 20 years or if its the Libertines. The only thing the charts reflect is who's been buying what not who's good or bad.[/quote']Then what is the point of having a weekly roundup of who's sold the most? How else would you measure popularity aside from sales?EDIT - And I've never said the charts indicate quality, just current popularity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 As for someone mentioning Westlife. You cannot say there is any artistic merit in a boy band playing bland ballad covers' date=' it's just marketing the product. They play it welll in advance and then release the song, delete it ready for the next one.[/quote']I'm not defending their artistic merit, just that they are popular and current. Marketing or not, you can't take the horse to water and expect it to drink - People have to want to buy it to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 I'm not defending their artistic merit' date=' just that they are popular and current. Marketing or not, you can't take the horse to water and expect it to drink - People have to want to buy it to do so.[/quote']But doesn't that arguement fall down in the fact that the public have chosen to buy Elvis ?CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Then what is the point of having a weekly roundup of who's sold the most? How else would you measure popularity aside from sales?EDIT - And I've never said the charts indicate quality' date=' just current popularity [/quote']Well why is it so difficult to accept that Elvis is currently the most popular he has outsold everyone else... by your own arguement Elvis is th most populkar this week so deserves to be number 1 which was my point too, aren't we just arguing the same points ?I'm pretty sure that the charts were set uop by the record companies to see who had sold trhew most and therefore who was doing the best, nothings changed, in this week Elvis is most popular therefeore deserves the number 1 spot, simple...CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Elvis' royalties go to Lisa Marie Presley don't they' date='CheersStuart[/quote']Not really. The Colonel sold the rights to all of his recordings pre 1973 to RCA (which is now part of Sony Music) for $5 million, which is an absolute giveaway considering the hundreds of millions they would have made. Bloody managers...Everything else btw, goes to Elvis Presley Enterprises, which was set up by Priscilla. Lisa Marie is technically the heir to the estate but she has appointed her mother (Priscilla) as trustee. EPE have managed to buy back the publishing rights to some of the songs, but not the recordings themselves. They still made $40 million last year alone in merchandise, and from Gracelands tours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Well why is it so difficult to accept that Elvis is currently the most popular he has outsold everyone else... by your own arguement Elvis is th most populkar this week so deserves to be number 1 which was my point too' date=' aren't we just arguing the same points ?[/quote']I think we are, but we're both taking slightly different angles - My opinion is that the charts should be current, giving artists releasing tracks now the opportunity to get the undoubted recognition a number one slot gets them. I know where you are coming from, but I just don't see any point in rehashing old releases now - I see it as having no relevenence as Elvis has had hits spanning two decades whilst he was alive, and as he's been dead for 28 years I think it's nothing but marketting cashing in on his popularity to do more contemporary artists out of something that both benefits them and gives an indication of current muscial trends, not the most endearing of fondly revered artists.As for popularity, I've never disputed Elvis's popularity, but as the records rereleased now have already been released as singles almost three decades ago I don't think they have a place in the charts. It's not how popular Elvis is that I have problem with, just whether it's appropriate for his records to be rereleased now, so late after his death, with the sole intent of claiming the number 1 slot.We're really going in circles here, where I can see your point very clearly - I just happen not to agree with it - Maybe we should just agree to disagree, as we've obviously got radically different ideas of what to expect from the Top Ten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 We're really going in circles here' date=' where I can see your point very clearly - I just happen not to agree with it - Maybe we should just agree to disagree, as we've obviously got radically different ideas of what to expect from the Top Ten [/quote']The only thing I expect from the charts is that it gives a fair and accurate description of what has sold the most that week, that's what the charts are, no matter who gets it, they shouldnt be excluded because it's charted before if its still outselling more contemporary bands. I'm not sure how you can expect anything else from a sales chart except to cover what has sold the most. CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 The only thing I expect from the charts is that it gives a fair and accurate description of what has sold the most that week' date=' that's what the charts are, no matter who gets it, they shouldnt be excluded because it's charted before if its still outselling more contemporary bands. I'm not sure how you can expect anything else from a sales chart except to cover what has sold the most. CheersStuart[/quote']Yeah, I guess I just expect that as it's a weekly chart it should be current, therefore contain current acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Yeah' date=' I guess I just expect that as it's a weekly chart it should be current, therefore contain current acts.[/quote']Yeah but thats a whole different minefield, it covers current sales not current acts. At which point does an artist not become current, is Cliff Richard current, he's still releasing new music, was the number 1 Elvis had a few years ago current because it had never been released before, or does it have to be from an act who has been around for less than 5 years ? CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Yeah but thats a whole different minefield' date=' it covers current sales not current acts. At which point does an artist not become current, is Cliff Richard current, he's still releasing new music, was the number 1 Elvis had a few years ago current because it had never been released before, or does it have to be from an act who has been around for less than 5 years ? [/quote']I've always viewed it as actively releasing. Cliff's been releasing singles for decades, but it's always been his contemporary peices - not rereleases of his original hits (to the best of my Cliff Richard knowledge!) - that he's released. That way, to me, a new Cliff release now represents Cliff's 'artistic' direction in 2005. I'd be irked if, for example, he just rereleased the original, old recordings of his hits from the 70's now, however.I find the Elvis remix grey-ground, because it certainly did update one of his songs to something that couldn't have been produced when Elvis was alive and generating his own releases directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartmaxwell Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Well why is it so difficult to accept that Elvis is currently the most popular he has outsold everyone else... by your own arguement Elvis is th most populkar this week so deserves to be number 1 which was my point too' date=' aren't we just arguing the same points ?I'm pretty sure that the charts were set uop by the record companies to see who had sold trhew most and therefore who was doing the best, nothings changed, in this week Elvis is most popular therefeore deserves the number 1 spot, simple...CheersStuart[/quote']you have been rather annoying these lest few weeks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historicrocker Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Yeah but to many people of a certain age Elvis is relevant to what they like today' date=' certainly much more relenvant to the likes of the Libertines. I think it's challenging the assertion that the charts is for young bands etc, it's not, it's just a marker of who has sold the most copies. Elvis is as entitled to sell lots of records as any other band is. Pretentious ? No, Cash in, most definitely, but if people like it so what. I think Elvis wouldn't be number 1 if many people didn't think he made better music than many of the younger bands. What you seem to be forgetting is its a target for a completely different audience and buying single isn't just the domain of the 12-30 year olds anymore. I would guess the demographic buying the Elvis singles is very different from those buying the Libertines, which in turn is often very different from those buying r'n'b stuff, no-one is right its just that people like different things. One of the ongoing biggest problems with this website is that its based in a specific type of music or a small genre and it often has problems understanding why other genre's music is popular. Just because you and your friends don't like it doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't have a reason to like it. Elvis undoubtedly ushered in a new era of music by being the first to sell to the masses, he certainly deserves some respect for what he acheved, and the fact he' still selling shows that there are a lot of people out there who still love and appreciate what he did. The bigest mistake here is the assertion the charts mean something in new music it doesn't, its as simple as a marker of who, that week, was the most successfull in music not who's best or most original, and as such everyone has a right to be number 1 if they sell the most. If Elvis does, then good, i wonder if the reaction would be the same if the bands challenging for the number 1 spot were Westlife or is it because its a more indie/rock orientated challenger ?CheersStuart[/quote']It's not Elvis selling the single this time though, don't you understand this? His name should not keep coming up when he had his time to blow us all away, what, decades ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historicrocker Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Yeah but thats a whole different minefield' date=' it covers current sales not current acts. At which point does an artist not become current, is Cliff Richard current, he's still releasing new music, was the number 1 Elvis had a few years ago current because it had never been released before, or does it have to be from an act who has been around for less than 5 years ? CheersStuart[/quote']That was very patronising... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 It's not Elvis selling the single this time though' date=' don't you understand this? His name should not keep coming up when he had his time to blow us all away, what, decades ago.[/quote']Elvis's name should keeo coming up because thats the reason people are buying ther single because they're Elvis fans. I would imagine there's very few, if anyone, buying the single who don't like the songs just because its marketed well. What you're saying is that sales shouldn't matter for the number one slot which is what we were talking about. I don't understand why its so controversial that the person who sells the most reaches number one, thats the way its been for 40+ years, throughout that time bands have been hyped and pushed forward by record companies, and in some cases things have been released without the bands consent and people have still bought it, are they any less legitimate releases ?CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 What' date=' a long-deceased drug-addicted sex attacker?[/quote']Just like John Lennon who beat up his wife. Still, the thread is about music Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartmaxwell Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 the thread is about musicunfortunately that has never been an issue on these boards mind you it does provide much humour i heard about midge ure mr hog, good luckdont brick it too much 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.