How would his albums fair today ?

[dennyelvis]

With todays marketing strategy of releasing numerous singles from one album release, i wonder which if any of his albums could have supported that method, maybe his first album, or his first after the Army had enough quality to support 2 or 3 single releases that would chart ?

[Delboy]

It's a completely different industry. How many of today's artists could put out 2 albums and 4 singles a year with the singles not on the album?

Taken as asked I would say Elvis Presley, Elvis is Back and From Elvis in Memphis had more than enough to stand it but strong singles not on the album were already out there.

[RonBaker2003]

There are still physical cd albums (and some vinyl albums) out there these days, but the whole music industry has changed. Singles are individual tracks downloaded via iTunes. Sales are way down because of illegal downloading. It's hard to predict how Elvis' music would fare. I'm just glad I grew up in the 50s and 60s when all the magic was happening and I could go to the local record store and buy Elvis' new single releases with their picture sleeves for 69 cents each. The albums were $2.98 and $3.98. Music was much more important then.

[stevelecher]

I don't think they ever sold well at fairs.

[ElvisTheKid]

With todays marketing strategy of releasing numerous singles from one album release, i wonder which if any of his albums could have supported that method, maybe his first album, or his first after the Army had enough quality to support 2 or 3 single releases that would chart ?

That's kind of like asking, how would Elvis fair after Elvis. If Elvis was coming out today in 2012, the evolution of music might be exactly how it is today.

Elvis was also a man of his times. Elvis couldn't be Elvis in 2012

It's a fun question but impossible to answer. There are way too many variables that would alter past history.

I think artists of today learned something from Elvis called overexposure.

[brian]

Considering that Elvis recorded in the 50s, 60s and 70s his music would fair rather poorly.

If you released the same albums he released back then with todays format they wouldn't sell well because of the kind of music he recorded.

Now if Elvis were a 25 year old rap artist in 2012 he might have done rather well.

[brian]

With todays marketing strategy of releasing numerous singles from one album release, i wonder which if any of his albums could have supported that method, maybe his first album, or his first after the Army had enough quality to support 2 or 3 single releases that would chart ?

I think artists of today learned something from Elvis called overexposure.

I don't think Elvis was overexposed.

If Elvis was overexposed other artists didn't learn how not be from him.

[zolderopruiming1]

It was not overexposure, it was catering for the fans.
In those days money was tight for teenagers.
The rich ones could buy an LP.
The not-so-rich ones could buy all tracks on 3 EP's.
The poor could buy all tracks on 6 singles.

[emjel]

Virtually impossible to answer that question, as the music/albums recorded fits to the period it was recorded ...but I am convinced that if a young Elvis appeared on the X Factor etc, then he would be extremely successful because it was not just about the music - it would be Elvis' personality and charisma that would shine through, plus of course his voice. Elvis had it all, and I do not believe that many so called artists of today have all those.

[dennyelvis]

Interesting replies, what i actually meant was not to put Elvis in 2012 as such, but to ask if his albums themselves were strong enough to cope with songs being culled for single release, the same way they now do for all artists ? , i know its a tricky ? probably one we cant answer ?

[brian]

Interesting replies, what i actually meant was not to put Elvis in 2012 as such, but to ask if his albums themselves were strong enough to cope with songs being culled for single release, the same way they now do for all artists ? , i know its a tricky ? probably one we cant answer ?

The Promised Land album had most of it's songs released as singles.

either released as an A or a B side in 1974, 1975, 1979 they all did well on the country and AC charts.

Promised Land
It's Midnight
If you talk in your sleep
help me
Thinkin about you
Mr. Songman
There's a honkytonk Angel.

Furthermore Loving You and King Creole had several songs that would have made excellent choices for single release.

''Trouble'', ''King Creole'', ''Got a lot of living to do'', ''Party'', ''Crawfish'' and ''Dixieland rock'' very likely would have been huge hits.

''Trouble'', ''King Creole'' and ''Party'' were all released as singles in the U.K. and they all hit the top five.

[ElvisTheKid]

With todays marketing strategy of releasing numerous singles from one album release, i wonder which if any of his albums could have supported that method, maybe his first album, or his first after the Army had enough quality to support 2 or 3 single releases that would chart ?

I think artists of today learned something from Elvis called overexposure.

I don't think Elvis was overexposed.

If Elvis was overexposed other artists didn't learn how not be from him.

In the 50's, you couldn't get enough Elvis but what he did was considered more promotion and capitalizing on his monopolized success.

In the 60's, he was overexposed. Three movies a year with a soundtrack to follow is overexposed.

It wasn't strictly just Elvis per say but this was all brand new at that time and artists of today learned what not to do from artists in the past including Elvis.

So to circle back to the initial question, for Elvis to put out 3 movies and albums in 2012, would be considered overexposed.

[brian]

With todays marketing strategy of releasing numerous singles from one album release, i wonder which if any of his albums could have supported that method, maybe his first album, or his first after the Army had enough quality to support 2 or 3 single releases that would chart ?

I think artists of today learned something from Elvis called overexposure.

I don't think Elvis was overexposed.

If Elvis was overexposed other artists didn't learn how not be from him.

In the 50's, you couldn't get enough Elvis but what he did was considered more promotion and capitalizing on his monopolized success.

In the 60's, he was overexposed. Three movies a year with a soundtrack to follow is overexposed.

It wasn't strictly just Elvis per say but this was all brand new at that time and artists of today learned what not to do from artists in the past including Elvis.

So to circle back to the initial question, for Elvis to put out 3 movies and albums in 2012, would be considered overexposed.

To me that wasn't overexposure.

Elvis wouldn't have been putting out 3 albums a year in 2012 so that's a moot point.

He would have been putting out one album about once every 5 to 10 years like everyone else.

To me artists of today should put out a few more albums than they do because if you wait too long between releases it can kill your career momentum.

[dennyelvis]

Good point Brian, we have some acts now that have been around 5 or 6 years and are only on their 2nd album, plenty of single taken from them of course, i guess that was my point really ? thank god we DO have plenty of Elvis albums !

[likethebike]

The reissues that Ernst did in the late 1990s show what the strategy would have been. There wouldn't have been that separation of single and LP and the likes of "It's Now or Never" or "Are You Lonesome To-Night?" would have sat on Elvis is Back and "His Latest Flame" and others would have been on Something for Everybody. Elvis' LP and song lengths were short enough that he could easily accommodated another three to four tracks per LP. (Song length would be one of his biggest problems today as the standard length is no longer 2-3 minutes, but 3-5.) He undoubtedly would have released much fewer LPs though.

A few months ago I wondered why RCA had tried a hand at Elvis' very popular "Hawaiian Wedding Song" on single being that most companies release a follow up from a phenomenon LP. Today it would be a no-brainer. By the time Blue Hawaii dropped from the top spot, the emphasis was then on Pot Luck and the subsequent studio singles. Today you would never compete with yourself in that way. Artist (or more accurately record labels) live off LPs like Blue Hawaii for years these days.

[episthebest]

Interesting.

[memphisound]

Totally different times you can't even begin to think this one out.

It would totally redefine him of what type of singer he was IMO because when he broke nation wide in the 50's its because he brought a new sound mainstream.

[mysterytrainrideson]

Good point Brian, we have some acts now that have been around 5 or 6 years and are only on their 2nd album, plenty of single taken from them of course, i guess that was my point really ? thank god we DO have plenty of Elvis albums !

The thing with todays artists compared to the artists of 50's, 60's, 70's and even 80's, is the lack of songwriting skills. There are very few writers these days that can write top tunes, they are very much struggling, which is probably why they only have a couple of albums out in say 5years they have been on the scene. Todays writers struggle to come up with decent melodies and of course, its the melody that really makes a record sell. Music today is finished. It's all been done now. Record companies are struggling to keep going. Thats why we've these silly TV shows like x factor, its just a quick buck for ailing record companies.

[Mike Eder]

I think Elvis' career ran through the golden age of the record, radio, and television industry. Today there is so much fragmentation that little has the impact of a bona fide hit circa the mid fifties to the mid seventies. I feel because of it's quality, people will always come back to his era(s) which I feel may well stand as the highpoint in the history of music. Because of that Elvis could (given some sort of promotion that catches on with people) always have new "hits" or at least new standards. Take "Little Less Conversation", or "Viva Las Vegas", as songs both are much more known today because they found prime places on film or television.

[JerryNodak]

That was then. This is now. Now is a completely different ballgame. Certainly, if something Elvis-like were to happen today there would be an entirely different marketing plan. Honestly, I don't spend my time wondering about such things because it's done. I'm not into rewriting history, although Ernst likes to do that. Besides Elvis did very well for himself back "then".

[Rob]

How would his albums fair today ? ?

Fare.

I'd still buy them.

I like Elvis.

[r&b]

No way to answer this. Its a different century!

[George Smith]

It's an impossible question to answer properly but it's fun to speculate.

How about this as a rule of thumb: many current artists seem to issue one album every two years.

Therefore, pick any two year period of Elvis' career and assemble and LP consisting of the best twelve songs from those twenty-four months.

Think about how good those LPs would be ...

[drjohncarpenter]

With todays marketing strategy of releasing numerous singles from one album release, i wonder which if any of his albums could have supported that method, maybe his first album, or his first after the Army had enough quality to support 2 or 3 single releases that would chart ?

How would he fare today?

Depends on the album, and what the artist does after it's on the market.

[drjohncarpenter]

It's an impossible question to answer properly but it's fun to speculate.

How about this as a rule of thumb: many current artists seem to issue one album every two years.

Therefore, pick any two year period of Elvis' career and assemble and LP consisting of the best twelve songs from those twenty-four months.

Think about how good those LPs would be ...

Excellent suggestion.

George Smith, there is your next topic!