Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna"?

Anything about Elvis
More than 100 Million visitors can't be wrong

Moderators: FECC-Moderator, Moderator5, Moderator3, Site Mechanic


memfisking
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1027
Registered for: 14 years 5 months
Has thanked: 91 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by memfisking »

Who cares really.

Charts everywhere have become meaningless and over the next decade the only charts to count will probably be the "Most Downloaded", "Most Watched on Youtube" etc When i was about 9 or 10 charts mattered to me because they felt like some justification to everyone that Elvis was the greatest because he had the most this and sold the most that, but as i got older i realised that i didn't have to justify Elvis to anybody.....i still don't.

So as far as i am concerned, whether it's Elvis ,Mariah, The Beatles, Garth Brooks, Led Zeppelin or Rihanna(a fantastic artist) who has sold the most albums or has the most number ones, it really doesn't matter because as far as i am concerned all that is important is that i know what Elvis means to me.


This user is no longer a member. They have either been banned or requested their account to be closed.
User avatar

rjm
Posts: 11314
Registered for: 11 years 9 months
Location: Cali
Has thanked: 2702 times
Been thanked: 1172 times

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by rjm »

This is so WHACK!! I work with teens and they KNOW Elvis generalky and from Rubberneckin' which seems to delight the younger set. A 25-year-year old physical therapist actually knew Do The fr**kin' Clam! They are INSANE!

They are a dying pubocation. Cancel. And spread the word!!

rjm



Herkenrath
Posts: 39
Registered for: 11 years
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by Herkenrath »

memfisking wrote:Who cares really.

Charts everywhere have become meaningless and over the next decade the only charts to count will probably be the "Most Downloaded", "Most Watched on Youtube" etc When i was about 9 or 10 charts mattered to me because they felt like some justification to everyone that Elvis was the greatest because he had the most this and sold the most that, but as i got older i realised that i didn't have to justify Elvis to anybody.....i still don't.

So as far as i am concerned, whether it's Elvis ,Mariah, The Beatles, Garth Brooks, Led Zeppelin or Rihanna(a fantastic artist) who has sold the most albums or has the most number ones, it really doesn't matter because as far as i am concerned all that is important is that i know what Elvis means to me.
I agree with that viewpoint. "Joe Average" out there, too, doesn't care about any of this. Elvis is not losing any of his significance or fame due to Billboard's inconsistant way of looking at their charts.



Herkenrath
Posts: 39
Registered for: 11 years
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by Herkenrath »

Elvis Australia wrote:Herkenrath, Joel Whitburn did not cherry-pick chart peaks from 1955-58 or before as you write - at least not with Elvis.
A superb post. Let me just quote the first sentence, though.

I should have been more precise - Whitburn doesn't only cherry-pick the peak positions but all other chart information as well. He takes the peak from one chart, weeks spent on chart from a different chart.

Example:
"All Shook Up" peaked at no. 1 in all four major pop charts (Juke Box, Top 100, Best Sellers, Disc Jockeys).

He took the 9 weeks at no. 1 from the Juke Box chart (it spent 8 weeks at no. 1 in the Best Sellers chart & The Top 100 chart and 7 weeks at no. 1 in the Disc Jockeys chart).

He took "weeks in Top 10" from the Top 100 chart (where it spent 15 weeks inside the Top 10 - 14 weeks in the Best Sellers chart, 13 weeks in the Disc Jockey chart & 10 weeks in the Juke Box chart)

He took "weeks in Top 40" and "weeks in Top 100" from the Top 100 chart (as the other charts were Top 30 at best).

He does it this way for every record charted in any of these charts between 1955 and 1958.

So what you see in Joel Whitburn's books for that period is indeed a cherry-picking from four different charts published by Billboard during that era.

He is presenting statistics from a chart which never existed in that form - there never was a Billboard chart in which "All Shook Up" spent 9 weeks at no. 1 and 15 weeks in the Top 10. That chart doesn't exist. Just one example

He should have kept the method he used in his first ever book, there he took the stats from the Top 100 which was the most logic thing.



Herkenrath
Posts: 39
Registered for: 11 years
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by Herkenrath »

jbnva58 wrote:
Welcome to the FECC forum,Herkenrath.
As on the UKMix forum,I look forward to your contributions.
Thank you very much!


User avatar

Elvis Australia
Posts: 684
Registered for: 19 years 6 months
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Been thanked: 60 times
Age: 58

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by Elvis Australia »

Herkenrath, I have thought the same about Whitburn. As you say "He should have kept the method he used in his first ever book, there he took the stats from the Top 100 which was the most logic thing." [The Wikipedia Top 100 page redirects to their Hot 100 page !!!] as on the face of it the calculation method is almost the same, except maybe not ......

Once again, your post is invaluable and you have me thinking!!!

I wonder is is possible either one or both of the following are true?

1/ Although Elvis and rock n' roll went national in 1956, many radio stations refused to play songs other than what they had been, therefor perhaps in Whitburn 's opinion [And in fact be true] distorting the 'modern era' of music which I would say is 1956 today by including too many of the 'pre-rock era' style.

2/ So considering the above Whitburn decided not to use the Top 100 Chart.

If this is true, it would also be true that as each year passed and especially as we entered the next decade radio would have 'caught up' and be more balanced.

Actually I just found the following on Wikipedia

Most Played In Jukeboxes - ranked the most played songs in jukeboxes across the United States (20 positions). This was one of the main outlets of measuring song popularity with the younger generation of music listeners, as many radio stations resisted adding rock 'n roll music to their playlists for many years.

Reading this I think it proves what I have just written. This being the case the Top 100 could be discredited. But the Hot 100 had three more years for radio 'to catch up with reality'.


David Troedson

Elvis Australia

Image
User avatar

xmascarrol
Posts: 1015
Registered for: 12 years 1 month
Location: anywhere ELVIS IS PLAYING.
Mood:
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 155 times
Age: 52

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by xmascarrol »

TBH i dont give a rats arse wat BB say, i like Rihanna music and good for her that she is on that list but i know in 20 years time if im still around and the world is i will still be listening to Elvis music. Im an Elvis fan through the good bits the excellent parts and the not so good area and in the next couple of years other artists will start beating Elvis's records but then again i would be suprised if it didnt happen, Our man hasnt been around since 1977 and more ppl in the world and alot more of them are downloading music nowdays. So my final word of this subject is WHO CARES cause i don't.


he maybe gone but never forgotten.

likethebike
Posts: 6013
Registered for: 19 years 6 months
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by likethebike »

The thing is that Whitburn chose not to make a value judgment between the validity of those early charts, and most pop sources since Whitburn came out with his research and made average fans aware of the Billboard charts have validated that decision. And as many of the posters here have pointed out. Billboard itself has not been adverse to using this sort of methodology. As a historian, Whitburn made an important choice. These chart positions had to be acknowledged because otherwise there is an imperfect understanding of what impact these records had on their era and how popular they were in their time. Ironically, that's kind of the position the magazine is in today. Without physical sales, with music videos, and alternative radio, and satellite video it's very difficult make an assessment of what is #1.

Joe average on the street does not the Hot 100 from a hole in the ground. He knows what he hears from historians like Whitburn and in releases like this one. He/she doesn't realize that when a release like this is made it's not qualified to within an inch of its life. If I say that Dionne Warwick was the top female artists on Arista Records on the Hot 100, excluding records that made the sales chart, from June to August 1980, it's a lot less impressive than saying she was the #1 artist of the 1980s. This is exaggerated a bit, but this is akin to what they're saying now about Rhianna. Rhianna has moved into seventh place, on the list since this particular chart has been in existence, a chart that does not mean what it meant when it was originated. Yet to the general public this will mean she's whatever place now.

Of course, we have to deal with the very crucial fact that Billboard like the RIAA is not a historically minded organization. It is a commercial enterprise dependent upon advertising dollars from the current music industry. Hence, you have misleading statements such as this one to promote a current artists.

I'm not sure the Top 100 is better to use than the Best sellers in stores because the industry changed so rapidly and so quickly that radio had not caught up with it. Lots of pop records were getting huge airplay and no one was buying them and lots of R&B records were getting huge sales but limited airplay. A record like "Heartbreak Hotel" helped change the dynamic but it was kind of a backwards dynamic where the stations reluctantly changed to accommodate the new sound.

It is also interesting that Billboard opted to retain the Best Sellers chart for several weeks into the Top 100.


User avatar

Elvis Australia
Posts: 684
Registered for: 19 years 6 months
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Been thanked: 60 times
Age: 58

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by Elvis Australia »

likethebike wrote:you would have had to stop in 1999 when singles not available for sale were included which made comparisons to previous completely irrelevant. You can't really compare Dion's #6 "Donna the Prima Donna" with say the Backstreet Boys' "I Want it That Way" when Dion had to sell between 600,000 and a million to reach his position and the BB's sold zero. I'm not saying that the BB record wasn't popular but any direct comparison is lost.quote]

Precisely, and highlights perfectly why they can't exclude Elvis now.
memfisking wrote:Who cares really. Charts everywhere have become meaningless and over the next decade the only charts to count will probably be the "Most Downloaded".
But this is based on sales. Far better than airplay.
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote: EIN understand the semantics of these pre-1958 billboard statistics,
but just as CD sales are now days taken into account along with Download sales,
you cannot ignore past sales and chart placing whatever changes have happened over the years.
This stupid decision by Billboard will no doubt create the wrong historical impression with many
of their readers - and lead to the situation where such unbalanced statistics will be quoted out
of context in musical journals throughout the world.
"Chart History" will change and Elvis's amazing musical legacy will get belittled by it.
EIN are correct!!!
memfisking wrote:Who cares really.
So as far as I am concerned, whether it's Elvis ,Mariah, The Beatles, Garth Brooks, Led Zeppelin or Rihanna(a fantastic artist) who has sold the most albums or has the most number ones, it really doesn't matter because as far as i am concerned all that is important is that i know what Elvis means to me.
I agree 100%, I don't care that the Beatles are ahead of Elvis, I love their music. And one should not be concerned about this matter in order to enjoy whatever music they like. But I would like to know what then truth is. And I think it fair Billboard be challenged on this.

But just as we compiled a very good aticle looking at the claim starting with RCA of Elvis selling a Billion records, I want to demand fair factually correct information, the truth from the company that is regarded as the authority on chart success.

It is not a matter to me if Elvis has 14 number ones as if the Top 100 and Hot 100 were used or 17 or 18 as it was. But I would like to know what it is without Billboard making these two disingenuous moves, first in 2008 removing one hit from the double sided Hound Dog/Don't Be Cruel so they could announce "Mariah Carey has surpassed Elvis Presley as the solo artist with the most No. 1 singles on Billboard's U.S Hot 100 Chart" and in 2011 removing Elvis basically altogether with the announcement, "Rihanna becomes just the seventh artist to notch at least 11 Hot 100 No. 1s" I am not losing any sleep over this, but it is still wrong what Billboard have done, and even what EPE have stated so far.

Billboard cannot be allowed to just change the rules to suit what I think can only be said to be profit orientated motives.

My article is Billboard Change Rules and Cheats Elvis of Ten [10] number one Hits [With help from this forum!!]


David Troedson

Elvis Australia

Image

Pete Dube
Posts: 7684
Registered for: 19 years 7 months
Location: South Carolina
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 490 times

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by Pete Dube »

I say we start an Occupy Billboard movement. I'm also going to run for President on the FTD's are too damn high ticket!



FredAistair
Posts: 1042
Registered for: 11 years
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 336 times

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by FredAistair »

First time posting here.

Having read all the posts on the subject - I believe that Joel Whitburn has called Elvis's No I correctly.

The best Support for the No 1's excluded by Billboard being correctly called by Joel are that all of these were awarded gold discs by RCA for sales of over a million or multi millions soon after release. These were well reported at the time and next time at Graceland you might check some of these out.
And if you were to say that you cannot rely on in house awards. I would say in these cases you can. Any inflated figures and royalty issues would arise. That the RIAA may not accept these is another issue.

And if anyone wants to suggest that competing records at the time of release of the above No1's had a better sales record. Do the research and bring it on for debate. I hold they didn't.

Re Herkenrath's comment on Twist and Shout, that's valid. If any reputable chart such as Cashbox had this at No1 then by all means it should be included in the Beatles over all count as should the several picked up by Cashbox for Elvis not covered by Billboard.

Billboard should at least make clear that Elvis had many more No1 pre their listing and not give a false impression of achievement.

In fact they should also make it clear that Glee (yes I watch and like it) and Rihanna (nice voice) have sold very little in terms of physical media ie CD's to get their singles chart achievements. It's quite absurd to compare this with say those of the Beatles. I don't belittle them, but where is the commonality?
Similarly there are no great single sales for Madonna or Mariah Carey in support of their singles chart achievement as good as they are.

On a separate point - how come Billboard total ignore Elvis' EP records?

And I will conclude on another separate point, one cannot help but notice that many Elvis albums have achieve million plus and multi million sales with very little or no chart action. Figures much better than many No1 albums’.

Regards to all for to all for the enlightening comments :smt006


User avatar

Elvis Australia
Posts: 684
Registered for: 19 years 6 months
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Been thanked: 60 times
Age: 58

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by Elvis Australia »

FredAistair wrote:First time posting here.

Having read all the posts on the subject - I believe that Joel Whitburn has called Elvis's No I correctly.

Yes I do too.

The best Support for the No 1's excluded by Billboard being correctly called by Joel are that all of these were awarded gold discs by RCA for sales of over a million or multi millions soon after release. These were well reported at the time and next time at Graceland you might check some of these out.

No Gold awards do not in anyway indicate how high on the chart a single went. It could have been out of the top 10 and just sold well for a longer period.

Billboard should at least make clear that Elvis had many more No1 pre their listing and not give a false impression of achievement.

If you look at my article you will see I have an image and text showing that when they put out their 50th Anniversary of the Hot 100 Chart, they do make clear mention and acknowledge Elvis did have many number one hits before 1958.

But I say this is still not acceptable as the public don't see this and it pales into insignificance compared to their announcements of Mariah Carey and Rihanna creating new records. I think they are just being sneaky


David Troedson

Elvis Australia

Image
User avatar

Deke Rivers II
Posts: 1180
Registered for: 18 years 6 months
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by Deke Rivers II »

Whitburn was very systematic when compiling his book.

We all know Don't Be Cruel was just as popular as Hound Dog and that Hound Dog was just as popular as Don't Be Cruel. My view has always been that Don't Be Cruel had the longevity of the two But to say that one or neither was not a number one is not giving credit where credit is due, and to try and change history is wrong. The world wants someone from the "livin" music industry to be as good as Elvis and The Beatles or better when it simply cannot happen. Most so called #1 songs today cannot even stack up to a position #40 song from the fifties or sixties with sales or moving units, if they did music shops would not be like searching for four leaf clovers. Airplay is another joke. There are no independent DJ's today. Everybody is doing what two or three big stations are doing; it is monkey see, monkey doo (it is all a pile of s*%t these days). To me Elvis will all ways have at least 18 number one hits if not 20 (Can't Help Falling In Love and Burning Love which were kept from #1 by two novelity songs). Billboard should never try and change or "erase" history! This is what they are attempting to do.


User avatar

Elvis Australia
Posts: 684
Registered for: 19 years 6 months
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Been thanked: 60 times
Age: 58

Re: Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna

Post by Elvis Australia »

I think I have just discovered something new here.

I think Billboard removed all of Elvis hits [11 in total] in 2008.

One in April and then the 10 we assumed were removed this year in July of 2008.

Perhaps it does not matter when they did it, I believe we have proven they did it, but the chart they published in July 2008 and of which I added the image and text of originally in my article [so as to be balanced in our reporting] showing Billboard had somewhere acknowledged Elvis not being on the chart, reveals just that. Elvis was no longer on their chart in July 2008. Was it a once off as it was for the 50th anniversary of the Hot 100? Maybe but I can't see that as they were counting Elvis at 17 number ones publicly in April.

Was this a response to Elvis fans and even EPE disputing the matter and Billboard deciding to rid themselves of any debate? You can decide for yourself ...

Did Billboard Remove Elvis Presleys No. 1 Hits in 2008 : Not 2011 ?


David Troedson

Elvis Australia

Image