Sad To see "The King" album topping charts!

[Pete Dube]

I think part of the main reason why Elvis' albums don't sell the same or similar units as the Beatles lies in the audience demographics. Elvis had an huge fan base in the 50's, and broadened his audience in the early 60's. Then a combination of things happened that impacted his sales: #1.) His core fan base got married, started families, and simply didn't have the discretionary income to buy each and every record. #2.) The quality of his records dropped drastically after '62-'63. 3.) The Beatles came along and teens who supported Elvis' early 60's work now had their own heroes to chase after and throw their lot in with. 4.) By the mid to late '60's Elvis was no longer thought of as a rock artist. At least not in the same sense as the Beatles, Stones ect. And it was the records of these acts that the teens and college aged youth who had discretionary income were buying.

Now fast forward to 69-71. This was a period in which Elvis's sales went up - but still not in the numbers of the upper eschelon rock acts of the time. Why is this? Again it's down to demographics. His sales improved during this period because he was making records that appealed outside the die-hard fan base. He was once again selling to fans who had pretty much given up on him due to the movie stuff, and casual fans who would buy his records when he offered something of quality. But the record-buying general public at large were still a bit out of his reach. They were the one's supporting the rock acts of the day. And that's why From Elvis In Memphis couldn't get into the top 10 here in the states. He just was unable to get that latter group in significant numbers.

[emjel]

Pete - you're spot on here. Many people associate the greatness of Elvis to the 50's, ignore most of the 60's, and see the 70's Elvis as a bloated Vegas entertainer. Unfortunately, the latter has been caused by a) the media concentrating on Elvis' last years, and b) the moronic impersonators who dress up in jumpsuits that attract the media like flies to a rubbish bin. And the ironic thing is that they tarnish the normal fan and the media associates all Elvis fans this way. I know the first question I get asked when I tell someone I'm an Elvis fans is "Do you dress up in a jumpsuit?".

[ColinB]

Someone I quite like [but don't collect] has a 'hits' compilation out [Roy Orbison, say] and it's heavily advertised.

I think 'that sounds good' and keep meaning to get it, but somehow never get around to it.

A couple of years later, there's another Roy compilation out, I see it in the shop & snap it up !

The hype from the first release has had a longer-term effect and caused me to buy the new one.

But if you saw the original hits compilations from "a couple of years" ago, wouldn't you be just as likely to pick that up?
If you see advertising for a release you meant to pick up a few years ago, surely time hasn't diminished your interest in the material?

Of course I would pick it up, my interest would be undiminished.

But the way retailers work, it simply wouldn't be there, would it ?

[KiwiAlan]

Personally i have no interest in chart positions.
Chart positions in this day and age are meaningless when selling 20,000 copies of a single can get you to no.1, what kind of achievement is that, especially when "fans" buy the singles to get them to no.1 rather than the song being good enough to get there on its own merits.


I would much prefer Elvis' record company treat him with the respect he deserves and that the Beatles demand from EMI.

Its all about integrity for me not chart positions.

Agreed! It's quality over quantity we should be concerned about.

Chart positions had their day in the 50's and 60's where sales of several hundred thousand were the norm.

[Peter Franks]

But if you saw the original hits compilations from "a couple of years" ago, wouldn't you be just as likely to pick that up?
If you see advertising for a release you meant to pick up a few years ago, surely time hasn't diminished your interest in the material?

Of course I would pick it up, my interest would be undiminished.

But the way retailers work, it simply wouldn't be there, would it ?

Well, that was my point in my first post of this thread: why not re-promote 30 #1 Hits? All the work has been done already (i.e., marketing slogans, designs, etc.), so isn't that the less costly route? Plus, it helps BMG establish a steady Elvis seller the way EMI has done for The Beatles.

[JerryNodak]

So, has anyone on this MB actually bought this cd and listened to it? If so, how's the sound quality?

[Kingtiger0321]

Kingtiger0321 - so what you're saying is that EMI/Beatles only sacntion releases once they have sorted out the money side of things. That maybe somewhat true for unreleased stuff, but they are also interested in protecting the legacy and integrity of the group, and that's why you won't see countless issues of hits albums rehashed or outtake albums. I'm not saying that die hard Beatles fans would not buy the outtake albums, but the relaining Beatles and the estate holders do not want to appear to be ripping people off. No doubt if Elvis was alive today, and he had not sold his recordings to RCA in '73, you probably would not have had all the FTD stuff either.

Actually I'm not saying anything about this. I can't find anywhere in my post where I mentioned anything about EMI or the Beatles. I've stated in the past that I did not like the Beatles and got jumped all over for that so I'm staying out of that discussion and a lot of people are right, as I don't know a lot about the Beatles, as far as record arrangements and the red tape they need to go through to release an unreleased track and I don't really care. I'm more concerned what's happening in the Elvis camp. So please any Beatles stuff, leave me out of it.

[TJ]

But if you saw the original hits compilations from "a couple of years" ago, wouldn't you be just as likely to pick that up?
If you see advertising for a release you meant to pick up a few years ago, surely time hasn't diminished your interest in the material?

Of course I would pick it up, my interest would be undiminished.

But the way retailers work, it simply wouldn't be there, would it ?

Well, that was my point in my first post of this thread: why not re-promote 30 #1 Hits? All the work has been done already (i.e., marketing slogans, designs, etc.), so isn't that the less costly route? Plus, it helps BMG establish a steady Elvis seller the way EMI has done for The Beatles.

For two pretty logical reasons:

1. The new tracklist and different cover will be enough to ensure reasonable sales among the diehards who already purchased the previous greatest hits. If they simply re-promote the previous album, they lose the sales from these people. We might be a little nutty in the Elvis world, but few will buy exactly the same album twice.

2. Retailers/reviewers will be more ready to independently make a big deal of a brand new album than one which is 5 yrs old, so the general public simply sees and hears about it more.

In both cases, the result is more sales for the new compilation than ever would have been achieved for an old compilation. Does anyone seriously think a re-promoted 30#1s album would have outperformed The King?

[ColinB]

....why not re-promote 30 #1 Hits?
All the work has been done already (i.e., marketing slogans, designs, etc.), so isn't that the less costly route?
Plus, it helps BMG establish a steady Elvis seller the way EMI has done for The Beatles.

With Elvis product, it's hard to get retailers to re-stock & re-promote an 'old' release which has passed its sales peak.

They will all be willing to take a few copies of a 'new' one.

Perhaps this doesn't apply so much with other performers, I don't know.

[Peter Franks]

Well, that was my point in my first post of this thread: why not re-promote 30 #1 Hits? All the work has been done already (i.e., marketing slogans, designs, etc.), so isn't that the less costly route? Plus, it helps BMG establish a steady Elvis seller the way EMI has done for The Beatles.

For two pretty logical reasons:

1. The new tracklist and different cover will be enough to ensure reasonable sales among the diehards who already purchased the previous greatest hits. If they simply re-promote the previous album, they lose the sales from these people. We might be a little nutty in the Elvis world, but few will buy exactly the same album twice.

I see no honor in this. You can say that BMG is a business and that it's all about money, but this is just biting the hand that feeds you. Why not release a new one on the first of every month? And how about that Elvis: The King FTD? Let's be a little nutty for a change!

2. Retailers/reviewers will be more ready to independently make a big deal of a brand new album than one which is 5 yrs old, so the general public simply sees and hears about it more.

You say "brand new album" as if we're finally getting some new Elvis albums in stores. How many Elvis albums were released this year with near-identical content on the main label? How many last year? How many the year before that? Retailers and reviewers are getting excited over this? The red and blue albums may not be "a big deal" anymore, but I see them everywhere.

I see your point about Elvis: The King popping up in reviews where 30 #1 Hits might not anymore but I think the value of establishing a single classic is greater than drawing in the handful of customers that would be steered towards this release by a review in the local paper. (Plus, 30th anniversary articles could just mention 30 #1 Hits as still available and a good buy, it doesn't need a full review since the concept is so obvious.)

In both cases, the result is more sales for the new compilation than ever would have been achieved for an old compilation. Does anyone seriously think a re-promoted 30#1s album would have outperformed The King?

Who can say? But then we should ask again who is buying Elvis: The King. If you rule out the diehards, these are people who don't own this material -- would they not be equally served by 30 #1 Hits? And, as ColinB also already inadvertently suggested, wouldn't they be more likely to pick up 30 #1 Hits because they're familiar with the album and may have been intrigued by its marketing ("Before anyone did anything...")? So logically, the sales would be at least equal since these people are buying it for the music, which is the same. Furthermore, if these people aren't familiar with Elvis, can they really recognize that Elvis: The King is a new album? Why not pick up The Essential Elvis instead? Consumers shouldn't have to bring in spreadsheets to determine which album is their best buy.

I stress again the importance of cultural impact: the red and blue Beatles albums are now seen as classics and are recognizable to non-fans. How many Elvis albums can claim that honor? How many non-fan oriented Elvis compilations? 30 #1 Hits was on its way there, and BMG keep putting up roadblocks.

To say nothing about the upcoming Elvis #1 Hits Performances DVD, which was described in the press release as "sort of a DVD version of the concepts for the ELV1S 30 #1 Hits and ELVIS 2ND To None CDs of 2002 and 2003." Will it share the same near-iconic cover of the CD release to draw in the millions of owners of that CD? EMI would do it that way (Anthology).

[Claus]

A positive review of The King from allmusic.

by James Christopher Monger
Like the days of the week, the emergence of a new Elvis retrospective is a common occurrence that requires little in the way of parades, prime-time news coverage and fireworks. That said, Sony BMG's two-disc companion album to its successful singles campaign from 2005 is worth more than a short blurb. The blurb would state: "The King features 47 classics, two bonus live cuts and one dreadful remix" and it would be correct, but for each new generation the building blocks of rock and roll must be re-packaged, re-mixed and re-inserted into pop culture. Released to coincide with the 30th anniversary of The King's death, listeners will get "Don't Be Cruel," "Suspicious Minds," "Viva Las Vegas," "That's All Right," "Are You Lonesome Tonight" and "Burning Love." What they won't receive is "Blue Moon," but anyone with even the slightest hint of "cool" will have already picked up a copy of Mr. Presley's 1956 eponymous debut, so it's really not that big of a deal. For those just coming of age in 2007, this is the Elvis compilation you will purchase.

http://wm02.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=&sql=10:09fqxzlgldje

[Brian Quinn]

I see both sides of the argument, and Viva Las Vegas is a super release but with a low-to-invisible profile.

Yet, in the UK, Elvis is in the "news" again, with the No. 1 album, singles campaign, DeAgostini partwork (which is excellent) and more radio programmes over the anniversary period than I can remember there having been before. In my local HMV, Elvis is featured prominently with the genre series displayed well and on offer, plenty of DVDs and the singles displayed in front of you as you walk in the door

Elvis has a continuing profile. I am not sure that the Beatles have any. He is far ahead in terms of iconic status.

Steve Morse

Steve,

I fully agree with your observations. It must also be remembered that, in general, 'live' albums sell less than regular studio ones. Even artists like Madonna have found this out recently. No long ago I sent an Elvis CD to a friend with mostly tracks which the general public would not have heard. She was knocked out. There is room for the 'Greatest Hits' packages once every three years or so but it is high time Sony BMG put out an album of those rarely heard 'gems'. However, it is no use releasing any product without TV advertising, otherwise only the fans will buy it.

Sony BMG staff need a course in 'Risk Management'.


Brian

Fully agree Brian. There is more to Elvis than the same 50 tracks appearing year after year.

But as you say promotion is the key. This is where Colonel Tom would be invaluable...there is nobody around to kick RCA's butt to get out and sell!

Kiwi,

I keep hoping that Bob Sillerman may be able to have some influence in this respect - who knows - money talks and he is a billionaire.


Brian

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

I stress again the importance of cultural impact: the red and blue Beatles albums are now seen as classics and are recognizable to non-fans. How many Elvis albums can claim that honor? How many non-fan oriented Elvis compilations? 30 #1 Hits was on its way there, and BMG keep putting up roadblocks.

As usual, Peter Franks is dead-on * particularly on the question of Elvis' legacy going forward. We ought to care more than just about the cheap thrill of a much-diminished boost in sales (to existing fans in most cases) and increasingly symbolic chart positions...

* See his classic thread:

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=384&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

That said, I begrudgingly have come around a bit to the thenexte's point of view that the record store as we know it (be it brick and mortar or on-line) is going the way of the do-do bird. In that sense, at this late hour, any additional attention to Elvis in terms of "new" releases and "chart positions" is welcome publicity.

Still, one can't get around the fact the label does seem to flog the same hits over and over at the expense of his greater catalog and legacy.

To the credit of the "Viva Las Vegas" 2-CD set, at least disc one is comparably "new" material to the public at large.

With FTD as great as it is (and I hope we all recognize that), it's hard to get worked up over the state of the main label, but I think all can or should agree that too many top titles could use more promotion.

The legacy does matter and the lesson of the 30th for me at least is that even now attention can be garnered - but is it the last gasp of a dying generation or is it the beginning of a fandom that will continue to grow?

Social commentator Robert Thompson gives it another 50 years (which I'll take, if my body can't! ) so perhaps it's not over yet, but another part of me thinks Gen X and Y generation types will eventually be in charge of the media and will definitely consider Elvis with a jaundiced eye after years of peanut butter and burger and drug jokes...

[JerryNodak]

I'm ready for the next "new" love song comp in Feb. Hope they include "I Need Somebody To Lean On." That hasn't been on a love song comp since "A Valentine Gift For You." When was that? The late '80s?

[Peter Franks]

"I Need Somebody to Lean on" was on Elvis Chante Mort Shuman & Doc Pomus (2000), the Time-Life compilations Movies (1999) and The Elvis Presley Collection: The Romantic (1998) and, of course, on the Viva Las Vegas/Roustabout Double Features (1993) and Viva Las Vegas FTD (2004) CDs.

[JerryNodak]

Yes, but I meant a mainstream RCA/Sony/BMG love song comp.
I have "The Romantic" from Time/Life you mention.