why Elvis's posthumous popularity is plummeting

[poormadpeter2]

I'm not sure that sales in the UK are the problem - Elvis seems to consistently out-perform here in the UK to what he does in his home country. This goes right back to the 1950s, where he had more hits than in America, is very noticeable in the 1960s with the greater success of the 1966-1968 singles, and then through the 1970s where the top ten and top twenty hits piled up. And, recently, the RPO album and the Nation's Favourite Elvis Song, which you have mentioned. That doesn't mean that I think Elvis is viewed as hip and cool here, because he isn't, but sales, at least, are no doubt more buoyant (no doubt helped by the continued success of physical product here as well). Even so, the catalogue is still a wreck - and if anyone can give any explanation for ridiculous decisions such as the re-release of the On Stage Legacy Edition or the first two albums, then I shall be very surprised.

The albums were reissued because people decided they could be again profitable at retail. Surprise!

Not quite sure that your loaded comment, "the catalogue is still a wreck," is at all true. Every major hit can be purchased as physical media, and even lesser material like the 1960s film soundtracks are in print, on the FTD fan label.

Additionally, over one hundred albums and thousands of individual songs are available on iTunes:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/elvis-presley/id197443

The music is there, and easily obtainable. The goal remains to point new listeners in the right direction.

Yes. The goal remains to point listeners in the right direction. I agree. But which version of which album is that?

That is a different concern. However, anyone who gets past the twenty greatest hits is going to be invested enough to seek out the information necessary to make that decision. Kind of like what you did once upon a time. It's not rocket science.

Again, the music is out there. The catalogue is far from "a wreck." The goal remains to point new listeners in the right direction.

It was a very different situation when I started looking at Elvis's music. It was 1992. The Elvis in the 90s campaign was then starting, and I bought the original albums as and when they were released on CD for the most part. I was lucky to start my collecting then. If I wanted an album on cassette or CD there was one choice of what to buy - not half a dozen for each album. And there certainly weren't over a hundred CD compilations either. I started for the most part with the Definitive (love/country/film/gospel) series, which, to be fair, were a mess on CD as the tracks were edited in many cases, but oddly they weren't edited on cassette (which was how I bought them as they were cheaper), and from that point of view they were a nice overview of various parts of the Elvis legacy beyond the greatest hits. Now there are probably ten or more CDs covering each of those themes. I repeat, it's enough to put anyone off.

[SenseiHoots]

I dont think anyone is saying that the catalogue by itself is the problem - we are coming up with different aspects, that when put together create the reasons his popularity is on the wane. I know lots of young people who are not into downloads etc - they collect the physical product. But these new young collectors are still into the older catalogue stuff - Dylan, Kinks, Beatles, Clapton, Fleetwood Mac, ELO, McCartney, Lennon, Harrison, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Bowie, Prince to name just a few. They go out and attempt to collect whole catalogues of all these big names albums, but one artist they are not into is Elvis. They just do not get him.

Regarding relevance, apart from the 50s stuff, Elvis' music is not seen as being relevant and Elvis does not have many, if any, albums that can be put in the same class as lots of other big acts. Elvis doesn't have a Thriller album, he doesn't have a Pet Sounds album, he doesn't have a Revolver or Sgt Pepper album, he doesn't have a Rumours album, he doesn't have an Aladdin Sane. The list goes on.

But those issues aside, and as you seem to think that those who are coming up with ideas as to why Elvis' popularity is suffering is as you put it "hilarious", perhaps with your fountain of knowledge or ideas, you can give valid reasons as to why his popularity is on the wane, and what needs to be done to redress the situation, if of course you can - how do you make his music relevant to the age groups mentioned in these articles or how do you create a better awareness and desire to own the product, whether that be physical or download. How do you stop Elvis as being perceived as a bit of a joke with The younger generation or just a curio. Or maybe you just think it is a bit of a lost cause and it is what it is and we should just accept it. Personally I think all of the reasons put forward here are relevant as to why young people are not buying into him.

It's hilarious because you already proved my point within your own reply. Elvis' popularity is suffering because he and his music not been shown to be relevant more broadly to another generation. Newer, younger collectors are into Dylan, Beatles, Prince, etc., as you say, the music isn't considered relevant and there is no one singular album that stands out.

That's not going to change. There will never be a definitive Pet Sounds or Thriller or Sgt. Pepper for Elvis. If there was going to be one, it had to have happened in his lifetime, which it didn't and the albums that COULD have been that definitive Presley album (68 Comeback Special or From Elvis in Memphis) were gimped (the former by virtue of being so horribly hacked up that it's disjointed as a listening experience, the latter by not originally having Suspicious Minds on it.) Trying to make one happen by making other compilation like GERRY suggested will never work. It's just another compilation.

So rather than looking for that one album that's going to change everything for the future of Elvis, which won't work because Elvis wasn't really an albums artist anyway, ideally the way to make his music relevant again is the same way he became a big star: singles.

Don't put out singles collection box sets, don't put out a compilation of singles; those just add to the mess. Even the RPO albums, as well produced as they are, are not a singular listening experience.

Just take one song, like A Little Less Conversation did, and run a campaign for Elvis on that one song. It doesn't HAVE to be remixed or reorchestrated. Shoot a new music video for VEVO. A video that isn't just a celebrity laying on a couch lip-syncing. Videos that put Elvis' music smack in the middle of modern contexts. Viva Elvis had the right idea with "Love Me Tender" at the time, if they had scrapped the crappy duet part of it - which was easily the worst part and the biggest turn-off.

The video itself is great. Don't believe me? Mute it and cue up your Royal Philharmonic version. It works. Make the music the emphasis, one song at a time, just like it did decades ago. Elvis was never an albums artist. He was always a singles artist. Lucky for Elvis the recording industry now has massive success with digital singles. There's no better time to let people rediscover Elvis through his music - not through documentaries, not through biopics of a bygone era. Just by showing how songs can resonate regardless of when they were written or recorded.

..

I like your ideas. It'd be great if Sony or whoever produced some kind of music video set to an Elvis tune, and somehow got Lana Del Rey or someone in it. Not only is she a popular artist with a strong following, she frequently references Elvis and seems to take a lot of inspiration from his music. So a lot of her fans would watch it, hopefully they'd like the music, and want to search out Elvis' songs on their own.

Just they'd have to make a more creative video than the recent Wonder Of You.

[emjel]

It was a very different situation when I started looking at Elvis's music. It was 1992. The Elvis in the 90s campaign was then starting, and I bought the original albums as and when they were released on CD for the most part. I was lucky to start my collecting then. If I wanted an album on cassette or CD there was one choice of what to buy - not half a dozen for each album. And there certainly weren't over a hundred CD compilations either. I started for the most part with the Definitive (love/country/film/gospel) series, which, to be fair, were a mess on CD as the tracks were edited in many cases, but oddly they weren't edited on cassette (which was how I bought them as they were cheaper), and from that point of view they were a nice overview of various parts of the Elvis legacy beyond the greatest hits. Now there are probably ten or more CDs covering each of those themes. I repeat, it's enough to put anyone off.

Why are you still harping on about CDs as if they matter like they did in 1992? If you think young people today discover music in the CD section of a retail store, you're being willfully ignorant. I imagine the trend is just as prevalent in Europe as it is in North America.

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2017/nielsen-releases-2016-us-year-end-music-report.html

"On-demand audio streaming has now grown to 38% of total audio consumption (albums + track equivalents + on-demand audio streaming equivalents) to become the largest share of consumption."

"The on-demand audio streaming share has now surpassed total digital sales (digital albums + digital track equivalents) for the first time in history."

Going back to the young guys who collect the records of the artists I mentioned (and more) they are not interested in downloads but physical product and even the original albums. If they cannot locate an original, they will take a re-issue vinyl until an original comes along. If they think the price for an original is prohibitive, they will take an original CD version.

[Lohmax]

Where do you get to listen to Elvis first? The radio? Hardly. ou do at school. Most music teachers I know are Beatles lovers or perhaps other types of music. They detest Elvis, as most Beatles fans that I know do. One of the teachers I know, an ardent Beatles fan, has taught generations of students that Elvis was a fat alcoholic who performed in casinos. The others just don't mention him at all. So what do you expect?

[drjohncarpenter]

It was a very different situation when I started looking at Elvis's music. It was 1992. The Elvis in the 90s campaign was then starting, and I bought the original albums as and when they were released on CD for the most part. I was lucky to start my collecting then. If I wanted an album on cassette or CD there was one choice of what to buy - not half a dozen for each album. And there certainly weren't over a hundred CD compilations either. I started for the most part with the Definitive (love/country/film/gospel) series, which, to be fair, were a mess on CD as the tracks were edited in many cases, but oddly they weren't edited on cassette (which was how I bought them as they were cheaper), and from that point of view they were a nice overview of various parts of the Elvis legacy beyond the greatest hits. Now there are probably ten or more CDs covering each of those themes. I repeat, it's enough to put anyone off.

Why are you still harping on about CDs as if they matter like they did in 1992? If you think young people today discover music in the CD section of a retail store, you're being willfully ignorant. I imagine the trend is just as prevalent in Europe as it is in North America.

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2017/nielsen-releases-2016-us-year-end-music-report.html

"On-demand audio streaming has now grown to 38% of total audio consumption (albums + track equivalents + on-demand audio streaming equivalents) to become the largest share of consumption."

"The on-demand audio streaming share has now surpassed total digital sales (digital albums + digital track equivalents) for the first time in history."

This was the point I clearly made, which he just as clearly missed. Oh well.

[Eggrert]

However, anyone who gets past the twenty greatest hits is going to be invested enough to seek out the information necessary to make that decision.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. In my case, I was lucky enough to stumble across the decade boxes in a used record store.

The information is certainly out there, but it's also a case of information overload. Someone who liked, say, 30 #1 Hits might want to hear more Elvis, but not 'be sufficiently interested to spend the hours it would take to figure out what to get next.

Best bang for the buck, even at full retail price is the 60CD boxset.

Agreed, but most new fans aren't willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for an artist they're just exploring or getting into...even if it is a good bargain.


All of this having been said, between iTunes and YouTube, there's been an increasing emphasis on great songs, great singles - as opposed to great albums. I think that's a good thing in general, but it's particularly beneficial to Elvis. Or it would be in an ideal world.

[poormadpeter2]

It was a very different situation when I started looking at Elvis's music. It was 1992. The Elvis in the 90s campaign was then starting, and I bought the original albums as and when they were released on CD for the most part. I was lucky to start my collecting then. If I wanted an album on cassette or CD there was one choice of what to buy - not half a dozen for each album. And there certainly weren't over a hundred CD compilations either. I started for the most part with the Definitive (love/country/film/gospel) series, which, to be fair, were a mess on CD as the tracks were edited in many cases, but oddly they weren't edited on cassette (which was how I bought them as they were cheaper), and from that point of view they were a nice overview of various parts of the Elvis legacy beyond the greatest hits. Now there are probably ten or more CDs covering each of those themes. I repeat, it's enough to put anyone off.

Why are you still harping on about CDs as if they matter like they did in 1992? If you think young people today discover music in the CD section of a retail store, you're being willfully ignorant. I imagine the trend is just as prevalent in Europe as it is in North America.

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2017/nielsen-releases-2016-us-year-end-music-report.html

"On-demand audio streaming has now grown to 38% of total audio consumption (albums + track equivalents + on-demand audio streaming equivalents) to become the largest share of consumption."

"The on-demand audio streaming share has now surpassed total digital sales (digital albums + digital track equivalents) for the first time in history."

I was responding to the Doc's comment that things were the same as when I discovered Elvis. Check out the context of the comment before you start mocking - you don't like it when people intentionally misinterpret what you say, do you? We didn't have streaming then. And you are wrong - CDs account for more much consumption in the UK than streaming OR download.

[drjohncarpenter]

However, anyone who gets past the twenty greatest hits is going to be invested enough to seek out the information necessary to make that decision.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. In my case, I was lucky enough to stumble across the decade boxes in a used record store.

The information is certainly out there, but it's also a case of information overload. Someone who liked, say, 30 #1 Hits might want to hear more Elvis, but not 'be sufficiently interested to spend the hours it would take to figure out what to get next.

Then they are done. What I write is those who want more, after getting past the twenty greatest hits, will easily be able to do so.

In your example, it wouldn't take "hours" to learn more, just minutes, with one link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELV1S:_30_No._1_Hits

Tons of information, in a matter of seconds. It's the 21st century now, such a new fan will not be stumbling across box sets in a used record store.

[poormadpeter2]

However, anyone who gets past the twenty greatest hits is going to be invested enough to seek out the information necessary to make that decision.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. In my case, I was lucky enough to stumble across the decade boxes in a used record store.

The information is certainly out there, but it's also a case of information overload. Someone who liked, say, 30 #1 Hits might want to hear more Elvis, but not 'be sufficiently interested to spend the hours it would take to figure out what to get next.

Then they are done. What I write is those who want more, after getting past the twenty greatest hits, will easily be able to do so.

In your example, it wouldn't take "hours" to learn more, just minutes, with one link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELV1S:_30_No._1_Hits

Tons of information, in a matter of seconds. It's the 21st century now, such a new fan will not be stumbling across box sets in a used record store.

Yep, it's the 21st century and you're still making no sense. The question was how someone how had the 30 number one hits then negotiated the catalogue. And your reply is a link to the 30 number 1 hits album they already have. Great move. That will REALLY help them. Clearly new fans will have no problems if they are as good at surfing the internet as you.

[drjohncarpenter]

I'm not entirely convinced of that. In my case, I was lucky enough to stumble across the decade boxes in a used record store.

The information is certainly out there, but it's also a case of information overload. Someone who liked, say, 30 #1 Hits might want to hear more Elvis, but not 'be sufficiently interested to spend the hours it would take to figure out what to get next.

Then they are done. What I write is those who want more, after getting past the twenty greatest hits, will easily be able to do so.

In your example, it wouldn't take "hours" to learn more, just minutes, with one link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELV1S:_30_No._1_Hits

Tons of information, in a matter of seconds. It's the 21st century now, such a new fan will not be stumbling across box sets in a used record store.

Yep, it's the 21st century and you're still making no sense. The question was how someone how had the 30 number one hits then negotiated the catalogue. And your reply is a link to the 30 number 1 hits album they already have. Great move. That will REALLY help them. Clearly new fans will have no problems if they are as good at surfing the internet as you.

Please click the link before uttering nonsense. As I wrote, the page contains a LOT of information, including a separate page link for every song, a link to the official site, and over SIXTY clickable footnotes. All in a matter of minutes. But you didn't even bother to look at the page.

In your never-ending zeal to "one-up" my every comment, all you do is make yourself look foolish and petty. Try something different. Try contributing to the discussion. It's fun, and you may begin to earn the kind of respect given to our best members.

[poormadpeter2]

I'm not entirely convinced of that. In my case, I was lucky enough to stumble across the decade boxes in a used record store.

The information is certainly out there, but it's also a case of information overload. Someone who liked, say, 30 #1 Hits might want to hear more Elvis, but not 'be sufficiently interested to spend the hours it would take to figure out what to get next.

Then they are done. What I write is those who want more, after getting past the twenty greatest hits, will easily be able to do so.

In your example, it wouldn't take "hours" to learn more, just minutes, with one link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELV1S:_30_No._1_Hits

Tons of information, in a matter of seconds. It's the 21st century now, such a new fan will not be stumbling across box sets in a used record store.

Yep, it's the 21st century and you're still making no sense. The question was how someone how had the 30 number one hits then negotiated the catalogue. And your reply is a link to the 30 number 1 hits album they already have. Great move. That will REALLY help them. Clearly new fans will have no problems if they are as good at surfing the internet as you.

Please click the link before uttering nonsense. As I wrote, the page contains a LOT of information, including a separate page link for every song, a link to the official site, and over SIXTY clickable footnotes. All in a matter of minutes. But you didn't even bother to look at the page.

In your never-ending zeal to "one-up" my every comment, all you do is make yourself look foolish and petty. Try something different. Try contributing to the discussion. It's fun, and you may begin to earn the kind of respect given to our best members.

So you're giving them links to the songs they already know. Yep, that's helping.

[Eggrert]

As I wrote, the page contains a LOT of information, including a separate page link for every song, a link to the official site, and over SIXTY clickable footnotes.

Speaking strictly for myself, when I'm first getting into a new artist, I'm not looking for individual Wikipedia pages for the songs I like, or clickable footnotes. I want to know where I should go next. But that's just me.

There are certainly other artists with messy discographies - off the top of my head, The Doors, The Smiths, and The Sex Pistols all have far more compilations than they do original albums. But that actually makes it easier for new fans; pick up the "complete" albums catalogue and fill in the gaps later if you're so inclined (the Doors have six studio albums; the Smiths have four, and Hatful Of Hollow and Louder Than Bombs fill in most of the gaps; the Pistols have two, and Kiss This picks up a few extra tracks).

With Elvis, you really don't have that luxury...unless you want to shell out for the 60 Albums boxset. The decade boxes are still the best introduction to Elvis, imo, but again, a new fan would only know that they exist by sheer chance.

[poormadpeter2]

As I wrote, the page contains a LOT of information, including a separate page link for every song, a link to the official site, and over SIXTY clickable footnotes.

Speaking strictly for myself, when I'm first getting into a new artist, I'm not looking for individual Wikipedia pages for the songs I like, or clickable footnotes. I want to know where I should go next. But that's just me.

There are certainly other artists with messy discographies - off the top of my head, The Doors, The Smiths, and The Sex Pistols all have far more compilations than they do original albums. But that actually makes it easier for new fans; pick up the "complete" albums catalogue and fill in the gaps later if you're so inclined (the Doors have six studio albums; the Smiths have four, and Hatful Of Hollow and Louder Than Bombs fill in most of the gaps; the Pistols have two, and Kiss This picks up a few extra tracks).

With Elvis, you really don't have that luxury...unless you want to shell out for the 60 Albums boxset. The decade boxes are still the best introduction to Elvis, imo, but again, a new fan would only know that they exist by sheer chance.

Exactly - and when do those decade boxes come from? The very same period I said that the catalogue was at its most coherent. On the plus side, those decade boxes are now available for £10 and HMV stores in the UK are stocking them (along with Live in Las Vegas and YMTWBB)

[goldbelt]

However, anyone who gets past the twenty greatest hits is going to be invested enough to seek out the information necessary to make that decision.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. In my case, I was lucky enough to stumble across the decade boxes in a used record store.

The information is certainly out there, but it's also a case of information overload. Someone who liked, say, 30 #1 Hits might want to hear more Elvis, but not 'be sufficiently interested to spend the hours it would take to figure out what to get next.

Then they are done. What I write is those who want more, after getting past the twenty greatest hits, will easily be able to do so.

In your example, it wouldn't take "hours" to learn more, just minutes, with one link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELV1S:_30_No._1_Hits

Tons of information, in a matter of seconds. It's the 21st century now, such a new fan will not be stumbling across box sets in a used record store.

Yep, it's the 21st century and you're still making no sense. The question was how someone how had the 30 number one hits then negotiated the catalogue. And your reply is a link to the 30 number 1 hits album they already have. Great move. That will REALLY help them. Clearly new fans will have no problems if they are as good at surfing the internet as you.

If one were to start with a wikipedia page then the obvious one would be the album discography with it's clickable links to each individual album and compilation album, and even the decade boxes. Certainly not a link to the '30 No. 1 Hits' page of all pages!

--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley_albums_discography

[poormadpeter2]

I was responding to the Doc's comment that things were the same as when I discovered Elvis. Check out the context of the comment before you start mocking - you don't like it when people intentionally misinterpret what you say, do you? We didn't have streaming then. And you are wrong - CDs account for more much consumption in the UK than streaming OR download.

I understood the context perfectly fine. Doc said that if someone had already picked up a compilation and was interested in that, they would already be invested enough to look up enough information to dig deeper. You focused on the other part of his comment instead of that.

As I said in another post that you completely overlooked, I think you are overthinking it, and I even gave an example of a recent situation of my own digging into an artist's back catalogue.

They should start wherever they want to start. When I discover a new artist, I still don't care who mixed or mastered something or when the last update was done. All I cared about was the music. Whether each song resonated with me on the face value of their content. You are overthinking this.

EDIT: Case in point. A couple years ago I discovered Sam Cooke's work more in depth. I started with "The Best of Sam Cooke" and then went to the box set "Portrait of a Legend." I literally never paid a moment's thought to who mastered it or when it came out.

Let me elaborate. It didn't have to be "The Best of Sam Cooke" that I picked to start with. It could have been any given compilation - it could have been The Man Who Invented Soul, the Portrait of a Legend, or Sam Cooke's Greatest Hits, or Forever-Greatest Hits & Favorites, or The Man and His Music... which iteration? Which master or remaster? I didn't care.

It actually started with one song: Having a Party, which I heard a remix of in a video of Grand Theft Auto V stunts. I opened up Spotify and typed in the song, found it, played the original, and the version Spotify pulled up automatically was from The Best of Sam Cooke. So I opened up "The Best of" on Spotify and played it from start to finish. What do you know? I realized already knew some of these songs; I just never knew it was him that did them!

Oh hey - there's more! Knowing Elvis & the Beatles and other artists, albums can be hit and misses... so I decided, let's do another compilation but one that goes more in depth! Portrait of a Legend, looks like a good career overview. I'll listen to all of this and see if the rest of the catalogue is worth digging into. And then I did. And it was. Boom. Sam Cooke fan born.

It is literally that simple now.

Does Sam Cooke have over 100 compilations in his catalogue? 60 original albums? Over 170+ CDs on a collectors label? How about 50 posthumous albums at retail that have all had unreleased material? Or six or seven versions of the same album in print at the same time?

[poormadpeter2]

Does Sam Cooke have over 100 compilations in his catalogue and over 60 original albums?

Wouldn't matter if he did, I still liked what I heard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Cooke_discography

Bob Dylan's catalogue is equally easy to navigate and so, too, is Johnny Cash's much more prolific and varied (in both content and across record labels - arguably more of a minefield than Elvis') is well documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan_discography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Cash_albums_discography

Good music's good music. Doesn't matter how it's presented. What matters is whether it's still relevant.

I give up. Clearly you have no notion of what Elvis's catalogue is like, and you clearly cannot see the difference between it and Dylan's or Cash's for some reason, and so the conversation is pointless.

[Eggrert]

With Elvis, you really don't have that luxury...unless you want to shell out for the 60 Albums boxset. The decade boxes are still the best introduction to Elvis, imo, but again, a new fan would only know that they exist by sheer chance.

Yes, you do. It's called Spotify or Google Play Music or Amazon Prime Music. And it's $10 a month. 90% of the content from the box set is there - plus many other albums and box sets.

Ok, sure, and by that same token, a new fan could just look up Elvis songs on YouTube. But where does that get you?

The problem is that Elvis has a massive catalogue. He recorded ~711 masters, and never made an album that was hailed as a classic ala Blonde On Blonde, etc.

In theory, a new fan could listen to all of those tracks, if they were so inclined. But how many would want to do that, really?

I don't use any digital music services, so I can't testify to what Spotify, etc. are like. But I'd be surprised if they presented Elvis' music in a logical, coherent way that would appeal to people who only know the hits.

[HoneyTalkNelson]

Congratulations on presenting at the Elvis academic conference, Shane.

Be sure to add that credential to your resume along with your excellent book. Thank goodness you do not rely on myths and the same-old tired stories that have been repeated over the years.

You are truly a first-class Elvis scholar!

[poormadpeter2]

Congratulations on presenting at the Elvis academic conference, Shane.

Be sure to add that credential to your resume along with your excellent book. Thank goodness you do not rely on myths and the same-old tired stories that have been repeated over the years.

You are truly a first-class Elvis scholar!

Thanks HTN. It's of as much significance to me for the fact I'm fit enough to travel as for the paper itself! I actually made it out of my own city for the first time in three years last week - sadly the respite is temporary, but making the most of it while it lasts!

[HoneyTalkNelson]

I'm VERY glad to hear it, my friend!

[TJ]

And next week, Apple/EMI are releasing a 50th Anniversary edition(s) of The Beatles Sgt Pepper which is getting so much attention and rave reviews from the media, and rightly so too. It is the first time one of their albums has received this type of special treatment and the fans are clamouring for it as well as those in the music business. All the great work that was done in getting Elvis catalogue sorted out into a coherent way in the 90's has been lost. In two years time, it will be the 50th Anniversary of From Elvis In Memphis. Will Sony mark the occasion? Doubtful as the sessions/albums have been re-issued in various guises since the 80s, starting with The Memphis Record. If Sony did take the opportunity, would it be able to create the type of interest that the Pepper album is getting? Doubtful. Yes, From Elvis In Memphis was a great album when released and brought a lot of attention, but that would not have been too difficult based on what was getting released in prior years, and I suspect that any 50th Anniversary release will to a certain extent get missed by the media unless Sony do a lot of special marketing for it. Time will tell. Will there be anything special to commemorate the 40th Anniversary. If there is, then Sony need to get their act together pretty quickly as it is only 10 weeks away.

Elvis doesn't have a "Sgt Pepper" in his catalogue. Sure, many of us will enjoy some of his albums more than we enjoy "Sgt Pepper", but the Beatles album is incredibly well known and exalted in a way that no single Elvis album is. That said, the reissue will probably sell quite modestly compared to what might have been expected a few years ago. The last few Beatles titles haven't set the world alight when it comes to sales, even if the content is quite interesting. The reality is that the well publicised Elvis releases have tended to do better than the Beatles releases in recent years, in the UK at least. A lot of people will talk about "Sgt Pepper" but not bother buying it.

I am only aware of a couple of Beatles albums in recent years, both "live" shows or recordings and not recorded in the best conditions either, so not sure that trying to compare these with the RPO albums is that valid. I would guess that if you put them up against one of the best Elvis soundboards put out in mainstream, that the comparisons would then be worthwhile. I certainly doubt that a soundboard album would do as well as the RPO albums.

The second volume of the BBC album, the reissue of "1" (complete with remastered videos) and the Hollywood Bowl album were all given lots of publicity and spoken about in the press as competing with the latest Elvis release. It didn't happen. The Hollywood Bowl release was backed by a major movie and the BBC album was a follow-up to a really successful first volume, so I wouldn't compare expectations to that of an Elvis soundboard album. My comparison is also with the "Nation's Favourite Elvis Song" title, which overperformed really. It was just another greatest hits album, but caught on because of the publicity from the television special. The reissue of "1" with all those great videos was also supported by a television special, but it wasn't a particularly big seller. Perhaps it was unreasonable to expect that it would be given the enormous sales of the original.

The "1" album sold over 32 million worldwide with 3.3 million in the UK.In 2015 Apple decided that it could do with a remix and a 5.1 sound too and embarked on a project to add a video disc too. Apart from the hardcore fans buying into it, why would you possibly think that everyone who bought the original album would buy into a slightly revised version. I believe the majority of the videos were also available in the Anthology DVDs too. Once again, great for the fans, but the general public would probably be a bit more selective.

The BBC Vol 2 album was indeed a follow up to a very successful album but once again aimed more at the fans rather than the general public, with Volume I serving that purpose. The Eight Days A Week album was an upgraded release of the original 1977 album and once again was more for the fan than the general public. That is not to say that only the fans bought it, but the original recording quality was ertainly not top notch - the audio, was below professional release standards, but was considered to be more than adequate for hardcore fans who never had anything official from the group that was recorded "live", but back in 1977 it sold extremely well. The newer version did have slightly improved sound, but was still not an album designed for the general public to buy into. My point was that if Sony were to put out an Elvis Show recorded under the same conditions as what they did with The Beatles back in 1964/65 i.e. The best of the soundboards, and put it out in mainstream, it would not sell that well. As I tried to say, you are not really comparing like with like.

How well will the new Sgt Pepper sell. Well we will just have to see, but the original is currently in the Top 20 Official UK Vinyl chart so I guess it is still quite popular even after selling nearly 5.5 million in the UK.

If the Elvis soundboard was backed by a movie, it would have had a shot of doing well, but I do recognise that direct comparisons are not possible. My main point is really that Elvis' recent sales have been excellent, which is relevant when faced with gloomy predictions of Elvis' "plummeting" popularity. In fact, Elvis' sales in recent years have been a complete revelation in the UK. David Bowie's last album should have beaten out Elvis' second RPO album really, particularly given the wave of publicity following Bowie's death, but it didn't. The RPO second volume sold more in a few months than the Bowie album did all year. Frankly, I'd much prefer that a well presented selection of original Memphis recordings had achieved that, but I am nevertheless heartened by the fact that so many people were willing to part with money to buy an Elvis product in 2016 - as they had the year before. With this talk of "plummeting" popularity, we should also probably consider that tens of thousands of people drove to a venues across the country to attend an Elvis concert when the main attraction wasn't even going to be there. Someone could just as easily write an article which marvels at how a man who has been dead for 40 years manages back-to-back platinum albums and a successful concert tour.

[drjohncarpenter]

So you're ...

You are a divisive member of this forum driven by raging jealousy. We are all very tired of dealing with your pettiness and anger.

Contribute to this forum, or just return to reading others who actually do that.

[emjel]

There’s no denying Elvis maintains posthumous popularity and we know how well the last two albums sold especially in the UK, but I suggest that the buyers are a much older generation. However isn't the main part of the article about popularity with the younger generation too and how there is a lack of interest in Elvis' back catalogue as far as record collectors go for physical product as opposed to downloads.

You compare Elvis sales with Bowie, but in a medium used by youngsters, Spotify reveals he achieved 382m streams in 2016, compared to Bowie who clocked in at more than 600m, Michael Jackson (also more than 600m), or The Beatles who split up nearly 50 years ago, with streams recorded of 1.3 billion.

Back to physical product and as mentioned elsewhere, dealers are simply not buying Elvis records or collections anymore simply because there is no demand for the product and the records that you do find at fairs are few and far between - mainly Hits albums, a couple of early 60s soundtracks or budget releases. You might find the odd Elvis is Back or Something for Everybody but they are not commanding high prices, even in excellent condition going for around £20/£25 each for those two. If I want a Beatles album in excellent condition, I am looking at price tags of double those or even £50 plus.

Elvis' popularity is still big in the UK, but mainly to an older generation, but in his home country of the US, I'm not convinced he is that popular in any generation outside of his fan base - witness the poor sales of the last two albums or any recent albums outside of a Hits compilation. And that is the real sad thing.

[emjel]

Check this story out. I'm sure this guy is a very nice person, but these are the type of things the media latches on to and I am convinced that stories with photos like these do not do Elvis any good in the eyes of youngsters.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/who-reading-elvis-met-man-13058956

[Gary Crawford]

I wouldn't wipe my bum with the guardian. Stuffy sniffy 'aren't-i-so-clever-and-cool' lentil-chomping tree-hugging tripe. Written by, and for,wet namby-pamby big girl's blouses.

Go get yourself a copy of the Daily Mail that will be the perfect antidote to this affront to male masculinity The problem is not the Guardian it is the declining standard of journalism in general due to the decline in print media meaning that revenues have plummeted so less money for quality assurance and paying for the best of the crop ofjournalists. Ironically it is also to do with (though to be fair I don't know the age of the writer) the drop in standards of being able to write good and proper English by those that have grown up with txt abbreviations as their first language. More and more you see real howlers that have gone to print whether it be typo's, grammar or spelling mistakes due to lack of proof reading and editorial standards. The article makes some fair points but it is badly researched and uses poor sources such as a professor who sadly also seems to be reflective of generally poorer academic standards. There is also the usual incidences of omission or use of language to create a particular narrative in keeping with the writer viewpoint. Such as Jerry Sheff becomes 'snatched by the doors' in 1971 as opposed to he went to do some session work with them on their last album and then returned to work with Elvis on and off for another 6 years. It suggests that by 1971 Elvis was a spent force which some may agree with but Jerry's session work with the Doors is hardly the best example! Generally lazy journalism which is sadly increasingly the case with the coverage of far more important subject matter than how popular Elvis remains. I'm surprised that nobody has suggested it is FAKE NEWS!!!! (or do you need to tweet to do that ?

There is something lasting about Elvis's music as dated as a lot of it is in the same way that 'old' can still have a beauty and sometimes timeless quality. As some have said about the appeal to children of Elvis this can be in many ways such as Lilo in Stich where you have a child loving the Elvis songs in it and not being part of a family that has any interest in Elvis. However you will also get the children growing up with hearing Elvis music via a grandparent and/or parent and often they reject it at the time but it has a way of hard-wiring in the brain! Even those that liked it as a young child will likely rebel against it as a teen/twenty something where association with anything older people like is instant death amongst peers. However people have a way of reverting to type and many people end up embracing the music of their parents even if it is in a diluted way and doesn't involve rejecting their own generational music which lets face it by the time they themselves have hit their 30/40's will no longer be the latest thing.

On the theme of Elvis impersonators we have to remember that Elvis' career is what it was and the Iconic jumpsuit image while mocked is what keeps Elvis alive much of the time in the wider public's consciousness. He didn't die like James Dean at 24 so you were never going to be able to promote the brand Elvis based just on his 1950's image. Kids know who Elvis is through this cartoon jumpsuit Elvis image and for some (though probably a very small minority) it will be a gateway into a real and lasting love for his music. For the rest it gives them a bit of a giggle and a few years back I saw a bunch of young lads out on the town all dressed in their jumpsuits and silly Elvis wigs singing Burning Love as they walked up the road. There is a mockery there but also affection and the music will appeal or it wont appeal in a lasting way to people but I don't think it will be prevented by the Jumpsuited impersonators. At least a lot of children know who Elvis is even if it is in this context discussed, how many would know Sinatra, Dino, Dylan and even Springsteen or Prince who may have registered with them due to his recent death but before?

Another thought is that a big event like ALLC would be a good boost and attract new young fans as was the case 15 years ago but actually the RPO album's have been 'that big hit' for this decade - just marketed at the older audience but if it got a lot of even 40/50 year old's to buy it who were not previously into Elvis music then they are hardly yet in the dying off category so they could have future potential Elvis purchases in them. Another ALLC would also be very difficult in the digital age where there is now so much media competing for and demanding the attention of young people that the appeal and impact of music in general is more diluted than it was even 15 years ago.