Elvis UK sales and world

[Wayfarer]

Biggest-selling album artists of the 21st century in the UK. (updated March 2022) ( Music Week )
1 Robbie Williams (16,674,978),
2 Coldplay (14,734,824),
3 Elvis Presley (13,502,834),
4 Eminem (13,276,742),
5 Westlife (12,907,183),
6 Take That (12,613,279),
7 The Beatles (12,585,043)
8 Adele (12,402,363).
9 Michael Bublé (12,150,504)
10 Ed Sheeran(11,989,075)

For comparison, 21st Century sales by 28/09/2012 :
1 Robbie Williams (14.1m),
2 Westlife (11.7m),
3 Coldplay (11.0m),
4 Take That (10.7m),
5 Eminem (8.8m),
6 The Beatles (8.2m)
7 Michael Jackson (8.1m)
8 Michael Bublé (7.9m)
Elvis Presley (7.2m)

Wow! If this is not a April Fools joke then I'm so impressed!! All you Brits, well done!!

This really goes against the impression I got from reading this forum that Elvis is no longer popular or is not a big seller these days.

Yes, the numbers are very good, but it is important to put things into perspective too. Do you have any idea of the number of releases that Sony have put out during that twenty year period….re-issued and revamped expanded releases or new sets with unreleased recordings that hardcore fans will have bought to keep their collections up to date.

Doing some quick calculations, Sony/BMG and MRS have put out around a staggering 142 album releases during that 20 years and you could add on a further 21 that were released in 1999 that no doubt would have contributed to sales in the 21st century.

Just to go a bit further for purely an interest thing, since the inception of CDs when RCA released their first Elvis CD in 1983 in the U.K., the number goes up around 300 and that excludes labels that have been granted licenses by RCA/Sony.

The big number releases in the 21st Century are:

30 #1s = 1.8 million
RPO If I can Dream = 1.2 million
RPO Wonder of You = 660k
50 Greatest = 960k

Elvis will always continue to sell in a drip feed way over time, but based on the number of releases put out, it is hardly surprising that Elvis has accumulated the sales he has.

But I just wonder how many additional sales some of those other artists in that listing would have amassed had their record company released a few more albums than they did in those 20 years.

There is an old expression you might not be familiar with - ‘there is more than one way to skin a cat’.

Now it isn’t very politically correct to our furry feline friends, but basically it implies the end result is what counts. And in the case of Elvis’ 21st century sales it is very apposite.

Sure, you can be mean spirited and carp about the number of releases it has required for Elvis to rack up the astonishing total of 13,502,834 21st century sales in the UK up to the start of April 2022, but the name of the game is to sell records and for an artist who has been dead longer than he was alive, almost double the length of his entire professional career, I’d say the feat is astonishing. However it is achieved!

The total alone is an impressive sign of his enduring legacy and shows the continuing love for his music retained by the British public virtually 45 years after his passing, but even more remarkably it also seems to be the third-best accumulation this century by any act. Through all the changes in musical fads and styles that have taken place since 1977 the fact that on average over 600,000 people continue to buy one of his records every year this century is extraordinary and should be admitted as such with no caveats.

The same goes, needless to say, for the Beatles who are just under a million behind the ‘king’ on a tally of 12,585,043. As for the potential for other acts to have additional sales if they'd issued more albums than they actually did is of course implying the record companies behind them didn't know what they were doing. The extra releases could very well have diluted the appeal of the existing albums of the act in question and it is seldom considered a sensible move in this day and age. In case you hadn't noticed, we are no longer in the 50s or 60s in terms of record marketing strategy!

To be continued

'Strange,' as your two posts were on point I had to highlight just some of those key facts.

Your point is clearly made in commerce: Sales of the Honda CR-V make it around the third best-selling car in the world. Ferrari enjoy the fruits of lower sales, but the brand still wants more sales and visibility.

By the way, as you may already know, mentioning the Beatles might again be employed by another as one of the preferred means to divert from the original statement(s).

[Strange]

I’d like to address the numbers and competition more specifically in this list of the UK’s Best Selling Album Artists in the 21st Century.

Like most here, I can see that the 13.5m is sensational whatever the conditions. That it places Elvis third among album sellers in the UK this century is remarkable. It would be interesting to see his position just in the 2010s, the decade which is probably headed by Ed Sheeran on the 10m mark, closely followed by Adele. Elvis’ total was probably around 7m or so but other acts that didn’t make the Music Week Top 10 for the whole century until April 2022 probably sneaked above 7m in the 2010s.

Now it has been claimed that Elvis - who no longer records as far as we know ; - has only managed this total because he has so many releases. Well unless I’m mistaken the sales of physical CD product has been dropping consistently in the last decade to the point where it really is tough for anyone to register even a silver disc from those sales (it needs 60,000 still). It is unlikely that Elvis has been able to sell 10,000 of well-presented packages such as the recent Nashville 4 CD sets (in this current decade) and I suspect MRS also struggle to exceed that level in the UK only.

So there may be dozens of Elvis releases even in the 2010s but they really don’t make a substantial contribution to the overall total. Fifty at a very optimistic 10,000 apiece is a juicy half million but the only people who could be making a profit would be the public domain folks who pay nothing to anyone. And taking 500k off 7m still leaves 6.5m of the core hits packages and RPO-type marketing releases by Sony in the last ten years.

It is still remarkable to me because they are not being bought by yours truly. And, I suspect, many here have not been RPO or public domain customers either, so that makes it likely the general public are the principle patrons - still!

Ultimately the number of releases exist because they are being bought in quantities beyond the fan base of collectors. Equally, as was mentioned earlier about Willie Nelson or Johnny Cash, others can sustain such a quantum of releases and make them viable but will be far away from the tally Elvis achieves. I believe Bob Dylan has a strong collector fan base and unofficial releases exist aplenty for him, but he isn’t shifting 7m or 13.5m it seems.

There are more direct solo rock/pop competitors not making this Top 10. Rod Stewart wasn’t in the list either, nor Elton John, and in the latter's case his catalogue of albums in the UK must be huge by now. Somebody commented on Michael Jackson’s absence too.

In the case of Hot Rod he has been very much alive and kicking this century in the UK and seen fit to do his own marketing ploys with five volumes of ‘crooning’ in his ‘Great American Songbook’ series and other themed sets from Soul to Xmas plus his own new music. (We can but wonder, had Elvis lived, what he would have done to reinvent himself in the 80s/90s, never mind, this century.) Elton meanwhile has had his own biopic and new albums and hit repackaging. Are we to imagine that they would have been able to release dozens more albums with success? If it was possible then I’m sure it would have happened. I don't claim to have any in-depth knowledge of how they've passed their time the last 20 years but judging from their constant TV appearances they are always promoting themselves and probably touring quite regularly for much of the time too. Elvis, of course, can't 'sell' himself.

Having died in June 2009, Jackson was also deceased for the whole of the 2010s so is possibly a greater comparison with Elvis in that regard. Nevertheless, Sony still issued a handful of ‘new’ albums and hit compilations, continued to repackage his original albums in expanded versions, not to mention the ongoing posthumous sales period that saw demand for his past work explode through 2010 at least in much the same manner as Elvis’ did in 1977, especially digitally.

But he is not on the bestselling UK album artist list Top 10 because, apart from his hits - which because of his lifetime strategy was all he really had (by which I mean the promotional aim had always been to milk every original LP with 5, 6 or 7 singles over an extended period to turn every release into a de facto ‘Greatest Hits’ collection) - Sony clearly understood that flooding the market with umpteen compilations would water down this strategy. It would only make things worse as they looked to sell Jackson’s main core product.

In all of these cases the record company or management could have expanded the amount of compilations and revamped albums but chose not to do so in any meaningful way because, I would argue, they could see it would not be beneficial. Each was greatly loved and admired by the general public but were simply not in the same category as Elvis who, as was proven by Colonel Parker from the very start, could sell almost anything over and over again. Where, one might ask, is Sinatra in this list?

I’m as astonished as anyone by this unbelievable sales phenomenon. I always expect it to come to an end one day, but the fact is not only are his multiplicity of releases a sign of his sales strength but also the weakness of his competitors that they are unable to support such a franchise as well as sustain a standard new release marketing presence. It is indeed regal!

[Strange]

Biggest-selling album artists of the 21st century in the UK. (updated March 2022) ( Music Week )
1 Robbie Williams (16,674,978),
2 Coldplay (14,734,824),
3 Elvis Presley (13,502,834),
4 Eminem (13,276,742),
5 Westlife (12,907,183),
6 Take That (12,613,279),
7 The Beatles (12,585,043)
8 Adele (12,402,363).
9 Michael Bublé (12,150,504)
10 Ed Sheeran(11,989,075)

For comparison, 21st Century sales by 28/09/2012 :
1 Robbie Williams (14.1m),
2 Westlife (11.7m),
3 Coldplay (11.0m),
4 Take That (10.7m),
5 Eminem (8.8m),
6 The Beatles (8.2m)
7 Michael Jackson (8.1m)
8 Michael Bublé (7.9m)
Elvis Presley (7.2m)

Marvan

I just noticed that this approximately averages a remarkable 642 000 albums a year. Almost every musician alive would gladly take that at any time in their career. The great man is a perennial throughout the decades and now centuries. A Win/Win!

How ridiculous.

How rude, how childish even.

It is perfectly legitimate to divide a total by the number of years that have passed and estimate an 'average'. The mode, mean, median or any number of other statistical methods are available to make a point and, rightly or wrongly, the one quoted is the most easily understood and used.

If you demur from the comment that was made about almost every musician alive gladly taking 642k at any time in their career then say so. I also find that wholly reasonable. Shall we start with a list of hit makers in 1956 and wonder what they were selling in the 21st century and whether or not they (or their estate) would like Elvis' numbers and the associated income?

[emjel]

Biggest-selling album artists of the 21st century in the UK. (updated March 2022) ( Music Week )
1 Robbie Williams (16,674,978),
2 Coldplay (14,734,824),
3 Elvis Presley (13,502,834),
4 Eminem (13,276,742),
5 Westlife (12,907,183),
6 Take That (12,613,279),
7 The Beatles (12,585,043)
8 Adele (12,402,363).
9 Michael Bublé (12,150,504)
10 Ed Sheeran(11,989,075)

For comparison, 21st Century sales by 28/09/2012 :
1 Robbie Williams (14.1m),
2 Westlife (11.7m),
3 Coldplay (11.0m),
4 Take That (10.7m),
5 Eminem (8.8m),
6 The Beatles (8.2m)
7 Michael Jackson (8.1m)
8 Michael Bublé (7.9m)
Elvis Presley (7.2m)

Marvan

I just noticed that this approximately averages a remarkable 642 000 albums a year. Almost every musician alive would gladly take that at any time in their career. The great man is a perennial throughout the decades and now centuries. A Win/Win!

How ridiculous.

How rude, how childish even.

It is perfectly legitimate to divide a total by the number of years that have passed and estimate an 'average'. The mode, mean, median or any number of other statistical methods are available to make a point and, rightly or wrongly, the one quoted is the most easily understood and used.

If you demur from the comment that was made about almost every musician alive gladly taking 642k at any time in their career then say so. I also find that wholly reasonable. Shall we start with a list of hit makers in 1956 and wonder what they were selling in the 21st century and whether or not they (or their estate) would like Elvis' numbers and the associated income?

If sales were reasonably consistent across each year, then it would be feasible to give an average across that period of time. But they are not - there are a few big peaks and lots of troughs. If one year, Elvis sells 2.5 million records and then in the next four he only sells 125k in each year, then to state that on average across 5 years, he sells 600k in each year is reaching and misleading without further analysis and drilling down.

Oh and the "centuries" and the "win/win" thing was what I categorised as being ridiculous. Perhaps if Elvis continues to sell big in the remaining 21st Century and is still selling big in the 22nd Century, then the statement may have some merit.

[Strange]

I certainly can Ryan73 - Westlife released around 15, Take That 12 , The Beatles 14 and Adele 3, but of course she’s quite current and in a way, so are the others apart from The Beatles. Eminem has put out around 18 and a few collaborations too. Robbie has around 20 and has popularity off the back of Take That. So yeah, all of them are in a way kind of current for the 21st century apart from Elvis and The Beatles.

Worldwide, the English rock band the Beatles released 21 studio albums, six live albums, 54 compilation albums, 36 extended play singles, 63 singles, 17 box sets, 22 video albums and 68 music videos (Wikipedia)

Totally irrelevant because my numbers were about U.K. releases in the 21st Century which, if you cared to read, is the basis of the recent postings that Marvan posted a few days ago, and which was about album sales in the U.K. and NOT albums, singles or EPs or anything else that were issued around the world since 1963. which you list in your response.

You will also note that on that wiki page, it states that the group released just 13 core studio albums which have remained on catalogue since they were originally released. Capitol records in the USA did not follow the official U.K. releases and mixed songs up and created several more albums, which the group could do nothing about until they renewed their contract with EMI in 1967 which stipulated that no territories in the world could release albums that deviated from those released in the U.K. without being agreed by the group and management.

Half of the "live" albums and a percentage of the compilations in the wiki numbers are not Beatles albums, but are when they were in Hamburg backing up Tony Sheridan before they had an official recording contract with EMI.

As for the video albums and music videos, 99% of those are not official. So if you’re trying to compare their official output with that of Elvis, you really do need to do some serious homework especially if you’re using that data as an attempt to bring the numbers up to Elvis output.

It occurs to me the poster above is something of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, praising the 13.5m sales total then finding ways to make it seem unremarkable. Now, the dismissive tone develops into the usual but the Beatles have really done better.

As ever, that is an argument without end. It can be won or lost on many battlefields and the war never concludes to the advantage of either. In this latest list in pure numbers the trade magazine Music Week has stated Elvis has sold more albums in the UK than the Beatles in the 21st century. They don’t make caveats and nitpick, they simply quote the numbers and these days, unlike the pre-digital bar code electronic data transfer times, the figures can be largely trusted.

But nonetheless the poster has decided to make a case for the Beatles on an Elvis Collectors forum. Fair enough, we should be democratic, so let’s revisit the detail of his point that the band have only 13 core studio albums in the UK and accept it on face value. It is basically true after all and US releases from the 60s were - heaven forfend! - by and large marketing ruses to sell more product.

Ok, I have sketched over the band in my musings above about competitor acts for the same reason I stated just now - there is no winning this fight. But as Putin-like it has been brought into our own backyard, I will make the usual counter points.

1.The Beatles career was seven or eight years, depending on how you look at it, and they have these core 13 albums as a result. Plus a compilation or two of their hit singles that were largely kept off the original LPs as was the modus operandi in those days. But wait, after a quick visit to Amazon we find readily available dozens and dozens of other Beatles CDs, vinyls, box sets and compilations. Of course sales of any of these releases into the UK market count in the wonderful world of digital data collection we now enjoy. Just as much as the Elvis public domain or main Sony packages do. The poster is being economical with the truth when focusing on the 13 original studio albums.

2.Some of the releases on Amazon UK are those US albums that are not to be considered. The collectors market for the band will be significantly bigger than that for Elvis I’d imagine so these will be bought by UK fans.

3.Said collectors market is, like Elvis’, fed with vinyl options. These too are counted if bought in the UK. I am not going to bore everyone with the details but at random I alighted on ‘Beatles Night 1963’ which appears to be available for £18.86 on vinyl or £9.02 on CD. It takes Beatles tracks recorded at the BBC and originates from 2017. An MP3 version is normally always offered too of course, and they get counted as a sale too. This non-official market seems to be just as ongoing as for Elvis as last year we can find a 6CD Beatles Box that contains BBC, live on Ed Sullivan and assorted other oddities. At least its sales aren’t counted per disc as in the US!

4.Unlike Elvis, who suffered his greatest years being unscrupulously plundered by public domain labels, the Beatles only had 1962 and 1963 affected. An outfit called Anglo Atlantic cobbled together more live recordings into a 3CD package under the title of Radio Vaults that can currently be picked up for £16 or so. Yes, these sales count, but no MP3 luxury this time.

Enough said, I hope, that to say just 13 studio albums exist and little else is on offer. As for Tony Sheridan releases, that matters little as they too will only be bought for the Beatles name associated with him and undoubtedly Music Week will have considered that probability in its totals. As, I am led to understand, are the numerous EP releases…

The point about videos is valid, but even then the lines have been blurred to such an extent that a package with DVD included (think ‘Prince From Another Planet’) would be counted as an album sale. The Beatles have many such extras in their repacked box sets of the original albums - ‘Let It Be’ being the latest such example I believe. And don’t let’s get started on those and the myriad of options available that the wealthy, retired Beatles fans will have bought in all their collectable varieties!

So yes, rather than the ‘baker’s dozen’ of 13 that the poster wishes us all to consider for the Beatles’ 12.5m album sales this century, there are actually dozens and dozens of both official variations (all heavily promoted) and unofficial albums that contribute to that impressive tally. But it ain’t 13.5m.

That is a little of the ‘serious homework’ you were recommending TheKingOfMusicEP should do. If you are going to bash, stick to facts of the what the Music Week study was addressing and counting and not how you wish to spin it. 13 albums indeed, lol.

[Strange]

If sales were reasonably consistent across each year, then it would be feasible to give an average across that period of time. But they are not - there are a few big peaks and lots of troughs. If one year, Elvis sells 2.5 million records and then in the next four he only sells 125k in each year, then to state that on average across 5 years, he sells 600k in each year is reaching and misleading without further analysis and drilling down.

Oh and the "centuries" and the "win/win" thing was what I categorised as being ridiculous. Perhaps if Elvis continues to sell big in the remaining 21st Century and is still selling big in the 22nd Century, then the statement may have some merit.

Well say what you mean then! Your caustic comment 'how ridiculous' was unwarranted, as I explained, and aggressive in equal measure.

Your attempt at mitigation is as shallow as 'there were no parties' from Boris Johnson. This is a message board where people can pass a moment or two briefly posting their opinions and in no way was anything originally stated by TheKingOfMusicEP worthy of such a response.

I am sure he can speak for himself but on the face of it I found your original tone condescending and arrogant. You now ignore the point I made that there are many, many ways of using an 'average' statistically speaking but, as you well know, the most common and easiest way to quickly express it is, in this matter, to divide the number of sales by the period it covers in years. Anything else is possible but that in itself is not 'ridiculous'. Trying to be smart after the event ('party'?) only makes you appear precious, as if no-one else here is aware that peaks and troughs exist in the grand scale of things.

Were we to say Elvis sold 100m by 1964 and divided it by 8 would we be wrong to account for an average of 12.5m per year since 1956? Of course not, even though most would be aware that each and every year was above or below that 'average'. To be so spurious is petty. Your extremes are equally antagonistic, I mean 2.5m down to 125k is foolish as the reality is indeed some years were closer to maybe 1.25m but few would be much under 500k. But don't miss a chance to misrepresent things, eh?

As I say, to now categorise fairly innocent and not especially inaccurate comments such as 'centuries' and 'win/win' as ridiculous is equally unfair. Technically we have moved into a second century which makes it fine to quip in the plural on a messageboard (except for a pedant perhaps), and 'win/win' is clearly not anything other than showing pleasure in the longevity of the sales however they are broken down.

To then make a flippant remark about Elvis needing to keep selling throughout the rest of the century - I don't doubt he will, whatever the mediums to come - as if it needs a hundred years until such a thing can legitimately be quipped, shows your true colours. As the saying goes, please stop digging!

[Strange]

Once again, what is the relevance - Why bring Johnny Cash or Willie Nelson into the discussion. They do not have the same number of fans in the U.K. that Elvis does. They don’t have the same number of hardcore fans who need to buy every release that comes out either. They just do not have the following that Elvis does.

And before you trot off to give us the Elvis release numbers as shown in Wiki, don’t bother, as it is just a snapshot of what has been released in the U.K. and worldwide.

Lol, you clearly are irritated enough to trot off lots of negativity about the fact Music Week have revealed Elvis is the third biggest album seller in the UK this century. It clearly bothers you.

You keep telling us things we know - of course Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson don't have the number of fans in the UK or anywhere that Elvis does. But you were making a point about the number of releases an act has that somehow makes a significant difference to the total they can sell.That is the relevance. For all the reasons I've already shown, you are being far too simplistic, something you'll comprehend as you attempt to make the same assertion about others when it comes to averages and the like.

There is no doubt the same release totals apply in the States, the heartland for these two country legends where they no doubt do have a continuing significant following, and Elvis will have easily outsold them there no doubt this century.

Anyway, as I indicated earlier above, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Bob Dylan, Frank Sinatra and Michael Jackson are not on the list of the best selling album artists in the UK this century - at least the Top 10. I would say that too is because none have the following of a certain Elvis Presley...

[Strange]

Just for info, here is a list I have of 67 Official BMG/RCA CDs released in the UK between 1999 and 2005 which would have contributed to the 21st Century Sales. It does not include any vinyl albums released during this period.. There are an additional 68 CD releases icensed from BMG/RCA to other record labels plus third party labels that issued many of the "live 1955/56 shows.

So including licensed and third party, that is a total of 135 releases in 7 years. Note that the Christmas Wishes album is the 450th CD to be issued in the UK since Elvis CDs were first introduced in the UK back at the end of 1983. I'll try and add further years soon.

A nice pdf overview of the official BMG/RCA CDs from 1999 to 2005 which would have contributed to 21st century sales. I've not repeated it to save space. But why not go further back? Did releases prior to 1999 not sell any more? I presume the Beatles' 'Yellow Submarine Songtrack' album from December 1999 is equally a big contributor to their total.

Once more a nit-picking pedant out to make mischief reveals himself. Next you'll be blaming Elvis for being too darned productive, eclectic and diversified to enable his labels to produce such a variety of genre specific titles that they could sell over and over again. It really is no argument you know! As for the live 55/56 shows, you do realise that the Beatles have dozens of these too - or should I put up the link to Amazon UK for you?

And as I have expanded upon earlier, the Beatles also have a fair few more mainstream vinyl albums than Elvis as, due to their niche in rock culture, their LPs have a historical status that Elvis' never were given or really tried to attain. As good as many were as entertaining wholes.

To conclude with the notion that 450 CDs were available as of 'Christmas Wishes' in 2005 is also misleading. I'll leave you to check but I'd imagine 400 were probably deleted by the 21st century or unimaginably hard to find...even a good number of the ones you've posted here will not have lasted beyond 2003 in any serious capacity as you are no doubt aware of the massive deletion programme that occurred at the time?

I remember you said something about homework previously. I concur, you should do more.

[Strange]

Here is the remaining official Sony releases and MRS that I am aware of for the period 2006-2021 - 91 in total. It does not include those licensed by Sony nor PD releases. So this brings the total number of CD releases on these two lists in the last 20 years to around 160, but licensed and third party product were included, it would be around 240...maybe more in that period.

And of course whilst not every fan is going to buy every release, whatever number are bought for the collection will still contribute to the overall sales number. How many of us have multiple copies of certain albums that contain the same music etc.
`

Another neat pdf (removed to minimise the post size). Previously I referred to the number of ways of skinning cats, well now I'll introduce geese in as much what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

You now create this list and add an unknown number of public domain to arrive at a total of minimally 240 Elvis albums made available since 2005. You are quite right that not every fan is going to buy each, as I have probably purchased 10 or so at most, but the same logic about multiple copies of the same albums extends to the Beatles as it does to Elvis. Indeed, I'd venture with their smaller catalogue their collectors would far outnumber Elvis' in this regard when it comes to buying the same stuff over and over again.

Like I say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. A small catalogue requires careful archiving and delivery to maintain its interest, whereas a vast one can be plundered in a myriad of ways if their is a market for it. If you include, as you should have, downloads and streaming equivalent sales that the Music Week numbers factor in and which is definitely to the advantage of the Beatles demographic, the options for Beatles fans are, I repeat, equally vast.

So far the digital effort behind Elvis has been spasmodic and may never really grow much. We await the impact of the movie 'Elvis' to see if that can drive Presley's digital figures higher. The jury, as they say, is 'out'.

[Strange]

Can’t we just for once celebrate the fact that Elvis is the 3rd best selling artist of the 21st century.

That is the problem of some on this forum, just to go a be happy for that Elvis is still selling in great numbers. Elvis sold more than any other dead and sold more than the most alive in the UK.
There is no day where someone is not buying Elvis music in one of the offered formats. From the first generation of Rock'n'Roll stars nobody is always in one of the US or UK Charts, but Elvis You can find him there all the time! That made him the greatest selling solo artist of all time.

You are so right here TKOMEP.

I understand that some will prefer to delve into the numbers as if only they can see the wood for the trees, but 13.5m and third this century for someone dead for 23 years before it dawned is to be celebrated by those who seek to use this forum in a genuine manner.

You make a valid point about the first generation of rock stars and their complete absence from the charts these days. By rights that should have befallen Elvis, but he was so unique it probably never will. Another individual I'd forgotten in my comparatives was dear old Cliff. There was a time when he was on the battlefield alongside Elvis and the Beatles from earlier generations, but aside from some forays he is just not a big seller despite still making albums.

I wonder what size his catalogue is? His public domain release numbers? He sure isn't in the Top 10 of the 21st century and I suspect he'd be outside the Top 50. Number of releases is only a fraction of the tale.

[Strange]

Can’t we just for once celebrate the fact that Elvis is the 3rd best selling artist of the 21st century.

Of course you can if that’s what turns you on. I’m not stopping you,but for me, it’s about putting things into context and perspective. Let’s try and put it into simple terms.

There are 10 artists (A through to J, of which you are artist J, and every time an artist releases an album, they sell 10k copies each. Now artist A releases 10 albums and therefore sells a total of 100k copies. And artist B releases 9 albums so sells 90k and so on down to you, artist J and you release just one album, thus selling 10k copies. So when a chart is produced showing Artist A at the top having sold 100k and you are at the bottom in 10th place having sold just 10k records, and people praise and celebrate the achievement of artist A at #1 over you at #10, wouldn’t your reaction be "hey, that’s not fair…they’re at #1 because they released nine more albums than I did…...I only released one album".

From what I have seen, Sony and MRS together have released around 160 Elvis albums in that period so it is hardly surprising that he would have amassed a pretty high number of sales when compared to others who have only released a fraction of that number and a high percentage of those sales would have been generated by hardcore fans who buy every new release, often double dipping when a vinyl variant is also released, regardless of whether it is the fourth or fifth version of say Elvis Country that they now own.

I know several fans who not only bought the Stax and Searcher 3 CD sets, but also the basic one disc version too. This is what hardcore collector fans will do….buy the same material time and time again just because it is in a different format….has a different number of tracks from the original And it all adds to the overall numbers. That’s all I’m saying.

More caustic commentary from the off. In case you'd not noticed this is a thread to indeed discuss and, ahem, if it's alright with you, celebrate Elvis is officially the third best selling album act in the UK this century. Yep, that is the conclusion of the number crunchers my friend. It 'turns us on' as you put it so mockingly because it is a fantastic accomplishment for an artist we all tend to love and admire for his body of work.

As for putting things into context, if you were not quite so condescending and were a bit more evenhanded in your approach then perhaps we'd listen to your observations. But they are coming from a place of bias and do not stack up to scrutiny as I and others have been pointing out.

This time you waffle on about letters 'A' to 'J' being artist 1 to 10 and how the one with one release selling 100k is miffed by another managing the same from 10 releases. Now if that was Adele versus Sheeran I'd say you have a valid point, but seeing as you know it is about a man dead almost half a century with no album of new material recorded since 1977, then forgive us if we feel your commentary doesn't merit scrutiny.

Now if you said we were in 1956 and Elvis was selling more because he was releasing more (which in fact he probably did because of demand) and the final totals were accordingly loaded against another act, you might have a point. I'd rather you used the top five albums of all acts and took the average sale of those for the 21st century and ranked the results. That at least would give some credence to your sniping, even if it would be unfair to Elvis, being long dead, as to how he has had to be marketed.

As previously explained fans buying up an album for the fourth or fifth time is very much not limited to Elvis. 'Elvis Country' might have a 1,000 buyers per variant whereas the Beatles fans are way ahead in buying multiple versions of their classic albums over and over again, and in vinyl reissues too due to their 'historical' appeal. I know it must be galling that the marketing tactics of Sony and co this century are proving more successful for Elvis, but that is the reality it seems.

So as you implore of others, try to stop and think the next time you feel the need to say buying multiple copies or versions of the same album is routinely just the pastime of Elvis fans in a way that impacts in the millions we are talking about. I wish there were still as many hardcore collectors as you seem to think there are, but sadly FTD print runs suggest otherwise.

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

In this forum, some are of the opinion that Elvis will soon be forgotten and his end as a superstar is in sight. It's almost funny how they try to explain why he has a success again and again. Yes, only because of the London Symphonic Orchestra the album was bought, or yes the hit was only because of this big promotion, he appears again and again in the charts because only his fans buy the albums,... . Yes, he at least he have some fans! But, there are also people who just like his music and go and get some music! I don`t know if the people will remember Robbie Williams, Coldplay, Eminem, Westlife, Take That, Adele, Michael Bublé or Ed Sheeran, at the end of this century. But I am sure people will remember Elvis!

[emjel]

In this forum, some are of the opinion that Elvis will soon be forgotten and his end as a superstar is in sight. It's almost funny how they try to explain why he has a success again and again. Yes, only because of the London Symphonic Orchestra the album was bought, or yes the hit was only because of this big promotion, he appears again and again in the charts because only his fans buy the albums,... . Yes, he at least he have some fans! But, there are also people who just like his music and go and get some music! I don`t know if the people will remember Robbie Williams, Coldplay, Eminem, Westlife, Take That, Adele, Michael Bublé or Ed Sheeran, at the end of this century. But I am sure people will remember Elvis!

I don’t know of anyone on this forum who has the opinion that Elvis will soon be forgotten, but rather that his popularity will drop off compared with what it used to be, just like it will do with other iconic artists from the past. Crosby and Sinatra are not forgotten as such and their music is available for those who are interested in either getting it or listening to it, but they are from a different generation where the fanbase that was around when they were in their prime has virtually gone now. That said, Sinatra has 11 million monthly listeners and 5.5 million followers on Spotify - Elvis has 13 million monthly listeners and 6.5 million followers. Classical artists like Beethoven, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Handel to name just a few have not been forgotten and their music is available so why would anyone think or state that Elvis would be soon forgotten. His music will be available on digital platforms for people to enjoy whenever they want to have a listen. As for Elvis not being a superstar anymore, well that is true…he was a superstar while he was alive, and now he is also an icon and it’s already written in the history books and that will never change or be taken away from him.

[TheKingOfMusicEP]

In this forum, some are of the opinion that Elvis will soon be forgotten and his end as a superstar is in sight. It's almost funny how they try to explain why he has a success again and again. Yes, only because of the London Symphonic Orchestra the album was bought, or yes the hit was only because of this big promotion, he appears again and again in the charts because only his fans buy the albums,... . Yes, he at least he have some fans! But, there are also people who just like his music and go and get some music! I don`t know if the people will remember Robbie Williams, Coldplay, Eminem, Westlife, Take That, Adele, Michael Bublé or Ed Sheeran, at the end of this century. But I am sure people will remember Elvis!

I don’t know of anyone on this forum who has the opinion that Elvis will soon be forgotten, but rather that his popularity will drop off compared with what it used to be, just like it will do with other iconic artists from the past. Crosby and Sinatra are not forgotten as such and their music is available for those who are interested in either getting it or listening to it, but they are from a different generation where the fanbase that was around when they were in their prime has virtually gone now. That said, Sinatra has 11 million monthly listeners and 5.5 million followers on Spotify - Elvis has 13 million monthly listeners and 6.5 million followers. Classical artists like Beethoven, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Handel to name just a few have not been forgotten and their music is available so why would anyone think or state that Elvis would be soon forgotten. His music will be available on digital platforms for people to enjoy whenever they want to have a listen. As for Elvis not being a superstar anymore, well that is true…he was a superstar while he was alive, and now he is also an icon and it’s already written in the history books and that will never change or be taken away from him.

Thanks for your opinion but:
Someone whose house is the most visited private home in the U.S., who still sells millions of units of his music, about whom a $200,000,000 movie was made, who is in the music charts in many countries, and about whom so many more books are being written: This man is a superstar for me!

[Strange]

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, with my reply, but as promised, here is some info for you.

Now I never said that people are "only" going for the 13 core albums. What I suggested was that those 13 studio albums have always been on catalogue since they were originally released and have never been deleted, in vinyl or CD formats so are available to buy. And that applies to their 1962-66 and 1967-70 compilation albums released in 1973. In other words, a new fan could go into a record shop today and buy those 13 core albums and those two aforementioned compilations just like anyone did back in the 60s and 70s. Today, they would then have the additional option of also buying four other compilations, three anthology albums, a stripped back album and a live album and then have everything.

As for the extended re-issues you mention that you have seen people buying, they commenced in 2017 when it was the 50th Anniversary of Sgt Pepper. That album had already spent 27 weeks at #1 in 1967 and had already sold 5 million copies in the UK prior to the re-issue. And when it was re-issued, it went back to #1 and has since sold another few hundred thousand copies. The same with the re-issue of Abbey Road that also went back to #1 and sold another couple of hundred thousand copies and this was repeated with Let It Be that came out last October although that did not go back to #1 instead peaking at #2 but has still sold close to 100k copies in the UK, which whilst that appears low, is not bad for an album that had already sold over 910k.

So, in the UK at the moment, there are 24 regular physical albums available to a new fan plus those 4 expanded re-issues if they do not want to buy the basic versions. Since 2000, their "1" album has sold nearly 3.8 million copies in the UK and that is double the sales number of Elvis 30 #1s.
And that's the point I have been trying to make - in the 21st Century, they have generated 12.5 million sales from just those 24 albums compared to all of those 160 albums that BMG/Sony have released on Elvis in a similar period, yet which have sold just one million more.

Hope that helps you understand things a little better.

We'd all understand things a little better if you'd leave the goalposts in the same place. This time you claim you weren't claiming people were only going for the core 13 Beatles studio albums, which technically might be true, but if you read your original comment it is clear you are placing emphasis on that aspect of the Wiki page when the discussion was about the number of albums available for purchase.

As I've shown, anyone looking to buy a Beatles album on Amazon UK will have dozens and dozens to choose from, all of which will be eligible for the UK charts and sales count if bought. Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt, your original quote was as follows:

You will also note that on that wiki page, it states that the group released just 13 core studio albums which have remained on catalogue since they were originally released. Capitol records in the USA did not follow the official U.K. releases and mixed songs up and created several more albums, which the group could do nothing about until they renewed their contract with EMI in 1967 which stipulated that no territories in the world could release albums that deviated from those released in the U.K. without being agreed by the group and management.

Quite clearly you have selected and underlined in bold the 13 core studio albums to make a point that in the context of albums available for purchase is misleading, even if true. It is as misleading as quoting the worldwide albums by TKOMEP, but done with malice aforethought.

Adding in the official compilations and so forth and suggesting this 'on catalogue' total of twenty-odd albums is the extent of what is actually available to buy is disingenuous. How many BBC recordings in all their forms are available on CD or otherwise? Would I be right in thinking hundreds of such exist? Do the Beatles fans not buy these?

As for the extended reissues that only began in 2017, these were all very big promotional efforts and, as you will know in the case of 'Pepper', it gets the same treatment every significant anniversary so the numbers of 5 million since 1967 are entirely understandable if, as is widely believed in the industry, somewhat inflated. How difficult is it for anyone to get a number one album with all the publicity that 'Pepper' (and 'the subsequent expanded editions) got? And once more, the variants over the years of these classic albums have been legion. I know of Beatles collectors who have ten copies of 'Pepper' alone - yes UK!

There is no doubt the fanfare and money poured into 'Let It Be' is far beyond what anything by Elvis would achieve, but once again the variants are numerous along with the combinations of the video material 'Get Back'. It is their way of marketing what they have, dragging it out to maximum effect and with the biggest splash possible. When previously you said how the average had 'peaks and troughs', do you not think that is more true of the Fab4?

Finally, the old chestnut of the '1' versus 'Elv1s' comes up. You have mentioned the 1973 hit compilations - expensive double discs - 1962-66 and 1967-70 but, other than those, it was difficult to obtain a quality and complete compilation of the Beatles' UK hit singles. '1' rectified this and of course has been left alone as such is the method of a controlled and compact marketing campaign. You should know full well that Elvis had plenty of hit compilations released prior to 2002 when 'Elv1s' came out, and then, as it is a different marketing strategy, plenty more since.

The simple comparison of saying the Beatles hit compilation sold double Elvis' is therefore just as flawed as your efforts to reduce his 21st century sales down to the simple number of releases. I'll say it again, before you ask Elvis fans on an Elvis message board to stop and think what it all means, please do so yourself first... cats and geese, cats and geese

[Strange]

Thank You, and wow the Beatles still selling many records, CDs... . Also Paul McCartney and The Wings did great.
But in UK Elvis sold more in the last 20 years all together.
Elvis had also some very good selling albums in the UK and if they had only 2 different best of albums of Elvis (from 1956 until now, let's say only Golden Records and 30 number 1) they sure would also have sold more than 40 million copies worldwide during all the decade's.

Let’s just summarise - Yes, Elvis sold 13.5 million records in the 21st Century, and The Beatles sold 12,5 million, which is 1 million less. There is no dispute about that as we have to take it as reported by Music Week. But Sony released 160 re-issued/revamped or new compilation Elvis albums whilst Apple released 7 new ones and re-issued 17 remastered albums and 4 expanded albums for The Beatles so it stands to reason that Elvis would sell more records

Re your last paragraph, if you are talking about Elvis Gold Records 1 and Elvis 30 #1s, I doubt the worldwide total would exceed 24 million - no way would those two reach 40 million. According to Sony, Elvis 30 #1s has sold around 13 million worldwide and I suspect Gold Records 1 is no more than 10 million. And the general public in the last few decades would have had no need to buy GR1 anymore with the other various greatest hits albums being available.

Summarising is good when you have the knack. I haven't, but at least I grasp the basic truths can be blurred and manipulated to suit a certain agenda.

So let's see. You accept the figures announced in Music Week but insist caveats should be applied from your perspective without balance.

You refer to the largely un-publicised release of 160 reissued/revamped or new compilations of the same tracks that have been available to the public umpteen times over the decades and compare that marketing strategy to the numerous international promotional campaigns of the Beatles this century to keep their music alive.

Aside from striking lucky in 2002 with Nike selecting 'A Little Less Conversation' as their lead music in that year's World Cup campaign, which subsequently assisted 'Elv1s', nothing can match the promotional push given to each and every Beatles release. The RPO venture was largely UK aimed and had some commercial backing at the start but, if truth be known, was shunned by many serious Elvis fans (though we accept it was successful to the wider public). The money behind the Beatles propelling their product has been nothing short of stupendous, and there is nothing wrong with that as their business model - through Apple - and the uniform control at every level around the globe, allows it.

Things were arguably even more publicity weighted towards the Beatles in the UK every time a new release came out because, being British, they had even more clout than possibly anywhere than the States. The national news regularly gets tapped to run items on their 'new' album promotions. Free publicity and so, It stands to reason, that the Beatles should sell more albums than Elvis this century. But wait, it seems with all this effort and unknown to us all, they did not. Only current, living acts Robbie Williams and Coldplay appear to have done better than Presley!

Your myopic view of all of this and the two different marketing strategies employed - by necessity in the case of Sony due to release past patterns, ownership and size of catalogue - is astonishing. Please take note of your own strap line :

"Living is easy with eyes closed...misunderstanding all you see" - indeed, and Lennon would be ashamed of the way you contort that observation to suit your own ends. We know what your game is...

[Strange]

^ oh, and so as not to overlook the other nonsense you spout about Greatest Hits sales overall, TKOMEP males a very reasonable point and yet you seem to know better.

There is no way of knowing what one or two constantly available Elvis hit albums would have sold in total. As I touched upon - and many other too, sadly falling on deaf ears - the number of hit packages over the years released by RCA,BMG,Sony et al is just mind blowing and has maybe even got worse this century as the public domain situation arose and then physical sales began to lose out to downloads and streaming in turn.

But we can get a handle on what the Beatles have done with just three major hit compilations available since 1973 and total UK sales of perhaps 10m for them. It is impossible to really get close to a similar comparison because, like it or not, Elvis had many more records that are deemed hits and have been used in hundreds of compilations and all manner of price points and combinations.

'Elvis Gold Records Vol. 1' and 'Elv1s' getting to 40m globally if that was all that had been available is indeed arguable. As is 24m your finger-in-the-air guess. But to be all encompassing with Elvis' career as 'Red', 'Blue' and '1' are to most casual Beatles fans we should add in the other four volumes of gold discs at least. It is simply unknowable - fun though it could be to try with someone willing to see both sides of the story.

But this is the UK album market and if we are generous and say 10m for the three main hit collections of the Beatles, would Elvis be able to match it by counting all his hit collections? I think so, but it would be just another battlefield with no clear cut victory to end the war.

As you end by saying -

"

the general public in the last few decades would have had no need to buy GR1 anymore with the other various greatest hits albums being available

they did buy all these greatest hits albums. Would they in total match the difference between '1' and 'Elv1s' in sales this century that you find worthy of drawing to our attention? Probably.

[Wayfarer]

In this forum, some are of the opinion that Elvis will soon be forgotten and his end as a superstar is in sight. It's almost funny how they try to explain why he has a success again and again. Yes, only because of the London Symphonic Orchestra the album was bought, or yes the hit was only because of this big promotion, he appears again and again in the charts because only his fans buy the albums,... . Yes, he at least he have some fans! But, there are also people who just like his music and go and get some music! I don`t know if the people will remember Robbie Williams, Coldplay, Eminem, Westlife, Take That, Adele, Michael Bublé or Ed Sheeran, at the end of this century. But I am sure people will remember Elvis!

I don’t think he said both that Elvis will be forgotten soon and his superstar status gone (just the 'superstar' perspective - he included 'icon' as being more significant today) But that discusssion would be a diversion onto something broader that we can all agree on, and so his reply on it will be guaranteed to be more mature than what tends to happen when his diversions and 'yea, but' analysis is picked up on. If the posts are not to his liking, then his terminology and phrases take on a different tone. He will pick on the quoting function, the number of posts someone has made, many other ad hominem Straw Man approaches. See how often that happens. The following point you make is what he would rather not comment on because it points to 13 million sales and third place in a contemporary list:

But, there are also people who just like his music and go and get some music!

Elvis is in third place, ahead of certain acts (about whom he will happily state positive things in comparison to Elvis if given that chance to divert again).

[emjel]

Thank You, and wow the Beatles still selling many records, CDs... . Also Paul McCartney and The Wings did great.
But in UK Elvis sold more in the last 20 years all together.
Elvis had also some very good selling albums in the UK and if they had only 2 different best of albums of Elvis (from 1956 until now, let's say only Golden Records and 30 number 1) they sure would also have sold more than 40 million copies worldwide during all the decade's.

Let’s just summarise - Yes, Elvis sold 13.5 million records in the 21st Century, and The Beatles sold 12,5 million, which is 1 million less. There is no dispute about that as we have to take it as reported by Music Week. But Sony released 160 re-issued/revamped or new compilation Elvis albums whilst Apple released 7 new ones and re-issued 17 remastered albums and 4 expanded albums for The Beatles so it stands to reason that Elvis would sell more records

Re your last paragraph, if you are talking about Elvis Gold Records 1 and Elvis 30 #1s, I doubt the worldwide total would exceed 24 million - no way would those two reach 40 million. According to Sony, Elvis 30 #1s has sold around 13 million worldwide and I suspect Gold Records 1 is no more than 10 million. And the general public in the last few decades would have had no need to buy GR1 anymore with the other various greatest hits albums being available.

Summarising is good when you have the knack. I haven't, but at least I grasp the basic truths can be blurred and manipulated to suit a certain agenda.

So let's see. You accept the figures announced in Music Week but insist caveats should be applied from your perspective without balance.

You refer to the largely un-publicised release of 160 reissued/revamped or new compilations of the same tracks that have been available to the public umpteen times over the decades and compare that marketing strategy to the numerous international promotional campaigns of the Beatles this century to keep their music alive.

Aside from striking lucky in 2002 with Nike selecting 'A Little Less Conversation' as their lead music in that year's World Cup campaign, which subsequently assisted 'Elv1s', nothing can match the promotional push given to each and every Beatles release. The RPO venture was largely UK aimed and had some commercial backing at the start but, if truth be known, was shunned by many serious Elvis fans (though we accept it was successful to the wider public). The money behind the Beatles propelling their product has been nothing short of stupendous, and there is nothing wrong with that as their business model - through Apple - and the uniform control at every level around the globe, allows it.

Things were arguably even more publicity weighted towards the Beatles in the UK every time a new release came out because, being British, they had even more clout than possibly anywhere than the States. The national news regularly gets tapped to run items on their 'new' album promotions. Free publicity and so, It stands to reason, that the Beatles should sell more albums than Elvis this century. But wait, it seems with all this effort and unknown to us all, they did not. Only current, living acts Robbie Williams and Coldplay appear to have done better than Presley!

Your myopic view of all of this and the two different marketing strategies employed - by necessity in the case of Sony due to release past patterns, ownership and size of catalogue - is astonishing. Please take note of your own strap line :

"Living is easy with eyes closed...misunderstanding all you see" - indeed, and Lennon would be ashamed of the way you contort that observation to suit your own ends. We know what your game is...

So what are you - the Officially Appointed FECC Policeman / Spokesperson whose job it is to chase after certain individuals on this board or just a self appointed one on an ego trip. After all, your stats show you have been here for 8 years, made 15 posts, two of which were 8 years ago with the remainder on this thread which apart from one or two, have been challenging my posts and telling me what I should or should not do - a bit of pot/kettle comes to mind. As an observer messaged me last night, you seem obsessed, which in his words is now bordering on harassment. I wonder why that is. I seem to remember you from time gone by.

I won’t get into an in-depth debate of how many Beatles CDs, official or unofficial are on Amazon and are used or not used in the MW stats, suffice to say that if they are used, then they will also use those on there for Elvis too and that will just boost the number of his releases even more - remove the big selling RPO. The hit compilations and a few of the better charting others from the mix which probably accounts for 40% of the total and it will make the balance seem even more worthless.

Anyhow, I better not keep you as I’m sure you’ll want to trawl through other threads to see where other members appear to be transgressing with their views on certain topics. Maybe you could have a go at those who don’t recognise Do The Clam as being a worldwide hit

Oh and don't bother replying as I won't see it.

[Strange]

Since 2000, their "1" album has sold nearly 3.8 million copies in the UK and that is double the sales number of Elvis 30 #1s.

Hope that helps you understand things a little better.

Unfair and false equivalence.
The Beatles "1" was issued 2 years prior to 30 #1 Hits where undoubtedly it would have racked up a lot of its initial sales.
Further, since 30 #1s, Elvis' label have issued innumerable 'hits' compilations that would have diluted its numbers quite considerably, and that's not even accounting for the countless similar compilations prior to its release.
Within the same time frame, other than a reissued version of "1" [and the Red and Blue albums], the Beatles have not issued any 'new' best of comps.

Oh dear...apologies...my mistake - well spotted. We could come back at the end of 2023 so that Elvis' 30 #1s has been available for the same amount of time and see that it has matched that of the "1" album or another solution is a bit further on. Yes, there have been other Elvis hit compilations but it would be difficult to automatically assume that they would have had a considerable affect on the sales of Elvis' album. We have no idea if the people who bought say The Nations Favourite Elvis Songs already had a copy of 30 #1s or whether when that was released in 2013 it stopped them buying the #1s album.

I can only see a couple of hit compilation albums that actually charted after 30 #1s was released so I doubt many of the others whatever they were would have had much of an affect. Yes, it could be argued that 50 Greatest which was already available would have had an affect, but if that was doing so well, especially on the value for money front, why bring out another hits album so soon after. Anyhow, how about we take 50% of the sales from that 50 Greatest album, which probably repesents sales generated between 2000 and 2002 and add it to the 30 #1s. That would bring it up to around 2.3 million and at least would equal the number of years - 50 Greatest (2 years) + #30 #1s (20 years).

But the question that really needs to be asked is why would or do Sony keep pumping out various compilation albums if such releases would have a considerable affect on such an eventful Elvis album. I mean 30 #1s has sold extremely well, and is an album that should remain on catalogue forever, so why harm further sales with releases that offer better value for money. Maybe, it is what RCA/BMG and now Sony have to do to stimulate interest in Elvis product - keep on releasing different hit compilation albums every few years. I bet there will be another one in a few months time that the hardcore fans will support just to keep their collections intact.

Anyhow, it's good to see someone acknowledge the fairness thing when talking about sales numbers vs releases etc.

There is no way, it seems, to get rid of our resident cuckoo who chooses to end posts with mocking contributions such as "Hope that helps you understand things a little better", especially when he's talking utter drivel!

In this installment of the world according to emjel, ElvisAliSellers is castigated for the truth that '1' by the Beatles racked up millions of its sales in the two years prior to the release of 'Elv1s'. Now it might not have much bearing on the ultimate comparison, but I think what he was implying was what I have alluded to, the massive, international and overwhelming promotional push that launched '1' on an unsuspecting world. Nothing equivalent was planned or happened for 'Elv1s', unless you consider adding 'A Little Less Conversation' at the last minute a 'plan'?

Time and time again this century the Apple coffers have been opened and the publicity machine put into overdrive that led to, what the Yanks call' out of the blocks sales. It is their strategy and they are lucky that following the acrimony of the 80s and the cohesion of the Beatles catalogue the marketing could be so organised. Fair play, but yes a massive launch is very advantageous...

Otherwise, of course another two years added on to 'Elv1s' would not make much catch up difference except, of course, if you accept the different marketing strategies in play. The two years around the release of 'Elv1s' saw plenty of different price point compilations with many of the same tracks, all, no doubt, selling to the various niche markets they were aimed at. Emjel gave us this pdf here :

https://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=78896&start=125#p1881323

Now as it was brought up I'll mention just one, '50 Greatest Hits', from November 2000 and observe it was still selling enough to be a Top 100 album in 2021. It seems the public don't think there is enough Elvis on 'Elv1s' and unlike '1' it is not what they choose - or have to choose! '50 Greatest' is at or around a million by the way. Anyway, enough said, there was little need to admonish ElvisAliSellers over the two years advantage '1' had, depending on how you see things...

Oh, seeing as it all needs explaining time and time again to emjel, 'Elv1s' to a large extent was piggy-backing on the Nike publicity and that was the reason it came out so soon after '50 Greatest', and, no doubt, because the US said it was to be an international release à la '1'. On that aspect, we must concede the Beatles lead the way.

The 'compromise' of just taking half of the '50 Greatest' sales over the two years and adding that to 'Elv1s' is yet another that on the surface seems fine. But as the marketing strategy was to keep supplying variations of hits across all niche areas that is ignoring many of those others issued in and around 2000-2002 in that pdf link. As for people buying more than one of the compilations, that is probable but not in significant numbers. It is the general public that these are aimed at, and collector level fans are a very small percentage of the market for these.

Hopefully the final paragraph as to why Sony keep 'pumping out various compilation albums' has sunk in over my recent posts and there is no need for further explanation. They do it because it has always been done and, because it is Elvis, it can continue to be done! It is pretty obvious '1' would not have totaled 3.8m or so if there were even a couple of other hit packages issued in the last 20 years. But Apple see the market as high-end and controlled, not stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap. Like I say, they will have done their market research in the early 90s and seen the demographic was quite affluent and would remain so for years. Waitrose and Aldi, if you like.

One can only hope someone living with his eyes open will finally see how belittling Elvis' UK album sales success in the 21st century in terms of sheer volume of releases is kind of stupid when all is considered. It is a factor, but not the defining one. Elvis is just greatly loved by the British public, no more, no less, and doesn't need big promotions every so often to reignite that love or sell records. Not to say it won't help when a certain film comes along - however it is received among the diehards!

[Strange]

So what are you - the Officially Appointed FECC Policeman / Spokesperson whose job it is to chase after certain individuals on this board or just a self appointed one on an ego trip. After all, your stats show you have been here for 8 years, made 15 posts, two of which were 8 years ago with the remainder on this thread which apart from one or two, have been challenging my posts and telling me what I should or should not do - a bit of pot/kettle comes to mind. As an observer messaged me last night, you seem obsessed, which in his words is now bordering on harassment. I wonder why that is. I seem to remember you from time gone by.

I won’t get into an in-depth debate of how many Beatles CDs, official or unofficial are on Amazon and are used or not used in the MW stats, suffice to say that if they are used, then they will also use those on there for Elvis too and that will just boost the number of his releases even more - remove the big selling RPO. The hit compilations and a few of the better charting others from the mix which probably accounts for 40% of the total and it will make the balance seem even more worthless.

Anyhow, I better not keep you as I’m sure you’ll want to trawl through other threads to see where other members appear to be transgressing with their views on certain topics. Maybe you could have a go at those who don’t recognise Do The Clam as being a worldwide hit

Oh and don't bother replying as I won't see it.

What was it Elvis said in Jailhouse Rock in the fight scene? 'Crawl back under your rock you snake?' Well when people come and belittle and irritate the locals it would be surprising if it is done without a purpose.

As has been observed, I have almost never posted here and enjoy the to-and-fro when it comes along and is of little consequence. This is just the same, who cares about 13.5m or 12.5m either way, but the poster emjel has made it a point that everyone here needs to know how it isn't really as clear cut as that. Now, after reading plenty of false and undoubtedly biased reasoning to the contrary from this "Officially Appointed FECC Policeman / Spokesperson", I get accused of being on an 'ego trip'! Of being 'obsessed' whereas in fact I am just plain annoyed enough to call out a cuckoo when I see one on an Elvis message board.

What we have here is the biter bit, and with every clear counter-point I post he finds it impossible to accept there is a perfectly sensible explanation other than 'yeah but Elvis only sold so many because he releases so many' whereas the great(er?) Beatles can achieve it with a mere 13 studio albums and a few assorted compilations...

It is then rounded off with the usual refuge of a soundly beaten scoundrel, fingers in the ears and eyes closed (lol) singing 'la, la, la' as he knows he's gone too far and won't comment on anything else I post. Oh that we were all so lucky, eh? Instead of accepting he has not been even-handed with his reasoning as to why Elvis is third best selling album artist in the UK this century he takes his ball home.

A bully will be unable to stand his ground, a coward will always shrink from the confrontation when it is a losing fight. The next trait is to try and deflect to bring others in to help his lopsided anti-Elvis opinions by suggesting I should consider what others are saying elsewhere. 'Do The Clam' indeed - wasn't it a worldwide hit then? Or is your definition of worldwide the only one we should adhere too? US, UK and Australia is about as trans-global as you can get I'd say.

Why would you just poke the beehive and run away from addressing the number of Beatles CDs available on Amazon when you were so diligent in producing pdf lists of what Sony/MRS have issued this century (and before!)? Why would you then just continue to have a dig with a complete guess that just 40% of his 13.5m came from the RPO and major compilations and then say it makes the balance of the achievement seem even more 'worthless'?

So if you have anything about you, man up and counter the commentary I've made against your loaded posts. After all, you made them, nobody forced you to. Or do you really wish to stick to your strap line 'living is easy with eyes closed', with its ironic intent of the writer? Defend yourself...

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[daylon]

There is one poster on this thread who has a very similar writing style and views to another poster on a non Elvis forum. This poster was banned for having 2 accounts and was caught out agreeing with his own posts a few times. I believe it’s happened more than once.

This was a few years ago but had a quick look and he’s back there. There’s another member from this forum there as well.

I’m not a member and only read through a few of the threads. But this member with the similar writing style was memorable, mainly due to the sheer nonsensical arguments he was putting up.

His arguments and views are very similar to what I’ve read on here.

He apparently is not an Elvis fan but a champion of another artist / group.

[rollinson1]

There is one poster on this thread who has a very similar writing style and views to another poster on a non Elvis forum. This poster was banned for having 2 accounts and was caught out agreeing with his own posts a few times. I believe it’s happened more than once.

This was a few years ago but had a quick look and he’s back there. There’s another member from this forum there as well.

I’m not a member and only read through a few of the threads. But this member with the similar writing style was memorable, mainly due to the sheer nonsensical arguments he was putting up.

His arguments and views are very similar to what I’ve read on here.

He apparently is not an Elvis fan but a champion of another artist / group.

I remember a few years ago also a certain member who would reply negatively to almost anything that was promoting Elvis in a positive way. There was one one member who I can't recall made me laugh when he came out with a great line "I here a train a coming" referring to the members username.

[NeverEndingLove]

He apparently is not an Elvis fan but a champion of another artist / group.

Yes, it is so obvious, just look at his avatar picture. The guy is so upset when Elvis ranks above the Beatles in the above published Music Week tally.

[JRtherealJR]

There will always be an interest in Elvis and in particular, his hits with the public, but the recent releases have not sold particularly well and have primarily been bought by the fanbase and not the public.

There's clearly a substantial interest in Elvis. He's sold nearly 50% more than The Beatles over the past decade in the UK and is the third biggest seller overall in the 21st century.

Can't argue with facts! TCB