Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Elvis ranked #2 behind The Beatles in global record sales

Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:55 pm

EIN (http://www.elvisinfonet.com) has just added news that Wikipedia has ranked Elvis at #2 behind The Beatles for global record and CD sales.

Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:17 pm

Well, they only took the Elvis sales info from the EPE site !

Until BMG/Sony/Ernst give us some kinda breakdown of the '600 Million' US sales, it remains difficult to support such a figure.

Especially as it never changes !

I still think Elvis sold more than that other group.

But then, I'm biased.

Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:41 pm

Thats ridiculous.

Wasnt it in 1984 that RCA/BMG announced worldwide sales of over 1 billion.That was before CDs were even popular.

How many more sales of records/cds has Elvis sold since 1984??

Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:55 pm

Those figures are estimates. Also, neither Beatles or Elvis has in fact sold over 1 billion albums. The figure has been calculated by breaking down albums sales to singles. That is if an album that has 14 songs has sold 10 million, then it would equal to selling 70 million singles (7 singles times 10 million). I doubt they know excatly how many albums Beatles and Elvis have sold worldwide. The list is weird in other ways too. According to it Sir Gliff has sold more records than Sir Elton John. I found it hard to believe.

Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:13 pm

Marko wrote:...That is if an album that has 14 songs has sold 10 million, then it would equal to selling 70 million singles (7 singles times 10 million)...


Hard to imagine a single containing "Yoga Is As Yoga Does," for example, selling 10 million copies!

Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:15 pm

KHoots wrote:
Marko wrote:...That is if an album that has 14 songs has sold 10 million, then it would equal to selling 70 million singles (7 singles times 10 million)...


Hard to imagine a single containing "Yoga Is As Yoga Does," for example, selling 10 million copies!


Or this single selling 10 millions:

Confidence / Old Macdonald

:twisted: :P

Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:07 pm

Before anyone here considers posting anything of length, please keep things in perspective. First of all, Wikipedia did not really list The Beatles any higher than they did Elvis. They are listed as having equal sales, they just had to place one over the other. Perhaps it was done alphabetically - 'B' before 'P.' Second, consider that the information contained within the Wikipedia online encyclopedia is entirely user-provided. In other words, I could register there right now and list Elvis' sales as topping "a bajillion," and it would be equally valid.

Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:31 pm

This has been discussed here before. Because Elvis's record sales are spread on many many different albums his individual albums haven't sold that much. Elvis Xmas album and 30 #1 Hts are his highest selling albums with both of them having sold about 10 million. This means that there are probably a lot of albums that haven't been certified a gold or platinum record because they narrowly miss the required sales. Because of this accounting Elvis's record sales by gold and platinum awards is misleading.

For example as it was pointed out in the booklef of Xmas Peace album each of the tracks on the 57 xmas album have sold more than 15 million and Blue xmas has sold 22 million in different compilations. If Everyday Was Like xmas has sold 11 million. Each track on the '71 xmas album has sold over 5 million. Those figures are the US sales.

Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:04 pm

I think Elvis Sold more than anyone else..

Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:49 pm

Does it really matter?

If, and no-one really knows, the Beatles have sold more than Elvis - does that mean your Elvis' experience is ruined?

It's the music that really matters.

My life has room for many artists - regardless whether they sold only 500 discs or a billion copies.

Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:14 am

KiwiAlan wrote:Does it really matter?

If, and no-one really knows, the Beatles have sold more than Elvis - does that mean your Elvis' experience is ruined?

It's the music that really matters.

My life has room for many artists - regardless whether they sold only 500 discs or a billion copies.


Personally, I don't make room for artists unless they sell at least 1,000 discs. :D

Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:48 pm

This is from another site, I copied and pasted it.

Elvis Well Over One Billion Now - Source: Ernst Jorgenson.

Hey you all, I had a chance to read an interesting letter today from Ernst Jorgenson to a friend of mine in the music business and Ernst has little
doubt in his mind that Elvis not only has sold over a billion records, but has outsold the Beatles (who would be second) by a great deal.

I will try to get the letter and post it when I can, but the points I recall are as follows. For one, Elvis had a huge lead being first out of the gate and being, of course, the number one selling artist of the 1950s and an unprecedented sales phenomenon to that point at that. And even though people act as if Elvis somehow musically went away in the 1960s while making his movies, Ernst mentioned that he was still the number two selling artist in the decade at that time only behind the Beatles. He mentioned that people should get a copy of Billboard where it lists its greatest artists (through the 20th Century) and make note of the point scoring system where points are awarded to an artist for their record achievements and make note of the fact that Elvis exceeds 5000 points while the second place Beatles barely passed the 3,000 mark overall. As he mentioned, Elvis was #1 in the 50s, #2 in the 60s and #11 in the 70s while the Beatles didn't even register in the top 20 during the decade of the 70s. Ernst mentions too,that Elvis' 70s ranking in that book is also artifically low because it has not been updated with Elvis' record sales from 77 through the end of 79.

He also pointed out that Elvis was well ahead of the Beatles still in 1970 and that Elvis - worldwide - sold excellently in the 70s while the Beatles had disbanded.

Also, from his talks with industry execs. with RCA etc., Elvis' sales from the period of 77-80 were unmatched worldwide and truly put the icing on the cake. And it is those sales records that Ernst and others have continually looked for with him saying that they have found some of what they were looking for. (whatever that means as I wish he would give specifics) He did reference - for example - Moody Blue as not even being represented for even half its sales US sales saying they had the proof on it. (Why has there been no certification upgrade as of yet I do not know)

He did mention, though, that the Beatles marketing and sales were much better in the 90s, but that Elvis already had a significant lead, never went
away and has always been a steady seller worldwide with events such as the Anniversary of his death always helping to spark sales worldwide. There was also mention that Elvis has been around for fifty years now and that with so many years gone by and so many different outlets for record sales (like Time Life and various specials as seen on TV) Ie. I have never heard of it, but he mentioned an album that came with posters called Elvis From Hollywood in the 70s - sold over TV - that sold millions upon millions that is not counted and so on.

Has anyone heard of this album? Apparently, it was a several record set and came with record album size photos of Elvis in Concert. This was just an example of many Ernst gave where Elvis sold millions upon million of records and they show up no where in his RIAA statistics. Oh, as to Moody Blue, he did not give a specific number but did say it would not surprise him if Moody Blue were truly Elvis' only 10 million selling album. He also said Aloha from Hawaii numbers are low too and gave other examples I do not remember.

Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:40 pm

KiwiAlan wrote:Does it really matter?

If, and no-one really knows, the Beatles have sold more than Elvis - does that mean your Elvis' experience is ruined?

It's the music that really matters.

My life has room for many artists - regardless whether they sold only 500 discs or a billion copies.


Yours is a great point, Kiwi, and it should be that way. But, for some reason, I think it does matter to many Elvis fans that his sales figures put him on top. Where that comes from, I don't know. I believe it stems, in part at least, from a belief that Elvis doesn't receive the universal acclaim and admiration that he should. Sure, he has always had legions of fans worldwide, but there is also a big segment of society quick to ridicule and poke fun.

My thought is that if "we," the Elvis diehards, at least have the sales figure to hang on to, the other stuff would be easier to tolerate.

Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:25 pm

One problem with the billion number is the credibility of RCA. They have been saying that since 77 when it was not true.

Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:32 pm

Joe Car wrote:
Has anyone heard of this album? Apparently, it was a several record set and came with record album size photos of Elvis in Concert.
Image Image

.

Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:04 am

Yeah my father got it in the mail back in 75 I believe. It was a television offer. The albums were gold vinyl (very cool).

Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:49 am

O.k. folks,
that´s RCA. It´s all maketing. Everyone is thinking of the Beatles as the great phenomenon saleswise, but everywehere you´re coming to someones house, nearly everytime they´re in the possesion of one or more Elvis CDs. Maybe just samplers, but ELVIS IS EVERYWHRE.

Don´t misunderstand me, I sometimes love to hear the Beatles (especially the later tracks), but their legacy is the maketing of the 80´s and 90´s. They only did have a few top selling albums for the last 35 years. EP hat dozends. And speaking of singles: EP sold millions of millions more singles then the Beatles.

RCA should maketing EP as the greatest record artist of all times and they should get they sales figures right! It´s time. With the Beatles it´s some kind of faking history. In the year 2077 historians will say and write of the Beatles as the record selling phenomenon of the 20th century, because of greedy RCA. C´mon BMG! C´mon Ernst! Get the figures right - now!

O.S.

Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:45 am

I don't care about sales figures. It's the music that's important.

Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:04 pm

Claus,
you´re right, but it´s also the legacy. 50 years from now EP could be nearly forgotten, because of RCA that never got their sales figures right. Caruso was a huge seller in the early days of recorded music, but now (100 years after) he is just something for experts. And believe me, he did great songs and operas. So BMG should get the sales figures right for the history books, or do you wnt your garangrandgrandgrand-children to learn in history, that the 20th century only had the Beatles? Me not!

O.S.

Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:18 pm

Old Shep wrote:Claus,
you´re right, but it´s also the legacy. 50 years from now EP could be nearly forgotten, because of RCA that never got their sales figures right. Caruso was a huge seller in the early days of recorded music, but now (100 years after) he is just something for experts. And believe me, he did great songs and operas. So BMG should get the sales figures right for the history books, or do you wnt your garangrandgrandgrand-children to learn in history, that the 20th century only had the Beatles? Me not!

O.S.


I don't think it's fair to compare Elvis with Caruso. Caruso died 85 years ago and not many recordings still exist but I do think that he is greatly admired even today.

My point is that you can't survive on sales figures alone. If the music is good enough, it will stand the test of time. Pat Boone also sold many records in the 1950's and early 60's but he is rarely mentioned today.

The Beatles are not the only group or artist from the 20th century that'll be remembered. Elvis, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington among others will all be remembered, I think.