All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:22 am

That's okay, John, I'm not sure I was first anyway.

But it seems some versions of his ill-fated comeback are on You-tube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MYeLE87hvGg& ... ed&search=


I'll drink to his comeback being a much-deserved flop.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:06 am

Unfotunately BMG has the same dilemma with Elvis as Sony does with MJ. The sales figures are an estimate, not based on verifiable evidence. And I seriously doubt 2007 will be any different to other years, namely BMG will not substantiate the claim that Elvis has sold 1 billion + records/CDs.

EIN ran a very controversial set of articles on the Elvis sales issue/Elvis vs. The Beatles some time ago. You can read them here:

http://www.elvisinfonet.com/elvis_beatles_index.html


[/url]http://www.elvisinfonet.com/credibility.html[url]

Nigel
EIN[/url]

Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:36 am

He was a great artist and a very successful one. However, I don't even know what "most successful" means.

750M is an excessive number. As a solo artist he had Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad, HIStory, Dangerous, and Invincible. Even if you rack up a hundred million singles sales, he didn't average a hundred million an album especially since even for Thriller no one has claimed sales of more than 50M. What's more Invincible barely moved a million in the US which is something like 40-50 percent of the world market for record sales by most estimates, at least in the estimates I've read on Elvis. Even with the J-5 he simply does not have enough records to even come close to such a number.

In '83, he came as close as anyone has to Elvis/Beatles like domination but by then the market was too fragmented for that kind of dominataion. Still it was impossible to ignore his album.

I hate to see the freak thing take away the genuine artistry and innovation that he managed to achieve.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:22 am

This is from another site, this is from Billboard.

Chart Beat

Elvis Presley is the only artist to have more than 100 chart entries on The Billboard 200, and he increases his total this week with his 109th title to appear on this list. "Elvis Christmas" (RCA) debuts at No. 200, extending the King's album chart span to 50 years and eight months.

"Elvis Christmas" is the first Presley album to debut in 2006 and his first since "Elvis by the Presleys" peaked at No. 15 in May 2005.

Since the calendar rolled over to 2000, Presley has had 10 albums debut on the chart. That compares to the previous 10 albums, which debuted between 1985-1999.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:04 am

Interesting post, Joe. I 'd like to see Jackson try to match Elvis with such a feat.

likethebike wrote:He was a great artist and a very successful one. However, I don't even know what "most successful" means.

750M is an excessive number.....
In '83, he came as close as anyone has to Elvis/Beatles like domination but by then the market was too fragmented for that kind of dominataion. Still it was impossible to ignore his album.

I hate to see the freak thing take away the genuine artistry and innovation that he managed to achieve.



I kind of knew you'd come to his defense. I grew up hearing the Jackson Five and appreciate his first few years of his solo career.

But I resent (once you get past his "shy" schtick) that he's actually more of a ruthless person, foisting himself on children and also fraudently and arrrogantly attempting to elevate himself to the status of Elvis , as well as the Beatles. Paul McCartney wanted to buy his own songs, and Jackson, at the height of arrogance, refused to let him buy his catalog. His fast approaching bankruptcy may result in the sell-back of these songs and he certainly has it coming.

He also cynically married Elvis' daughter, complete with a sham "kiss" on television. Who knows if Lisa Marie was as equally cynical?

Aside from coming onto little boys with cola and booze , he fraudently put himself out there as the "King of Pop" and now the "most successful " ever.

I'm done liking his music beyond overhearing a song while I'm out and about. His grostesque willful changing of his face and even gender is beyond imagination.

As for the suggestion that Jackson came along too late, part of Elvis' great achievement (and others) was his very ablity to transcend what was a fractured market in the '50s. That's one of many reasons why Elvis will always be on another tier above Michael Jackson.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:20 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Interesting post, Joe. I 'd like to see Jackson try to match Elvis with such a feat.

likethebike wrote:He was a great artist and a very successful one. However, I don't even know what "most successful" means.

750M is an excessive number.....
In '83, he came as close as anyone has to Elvis/Beatles like domination but by then the market was too fragmented for that kind of dominataion. Still it was impossible to ignore his album.

I hate to see the freak thing take away the genuine artistry and innovation that he managed to achieve.



I kind of knew you'd come to his defense. I grew up hearing the Jackson Five and appreciate his first few years of his solo career.

But I resent (once you get past his "shy" schtick) that he's actually more of a ruthless person, foisting himself on children and also fraudently and arrrogantly attempting to elevate himself to the status of Elvis , as well as the Beatles. Paul McCartney wanted to buy his own songs, and Jackson, at the height of arrogance, refused to let him buy his catalog. His fast approaching bankruptcy may result in the sell-back of these songs and he certainly has it coming.

He also cynically married Elvis' daughter, complete with a sham "kiss" on television. Who knows if Lisa Marie was as equally cynical?

Aside from coming onto little boys with cola and booze , he fraudently put himself out there as the "King of Pop" and now the "most successful " ever.

I'm done likeing his music beyond overhearing a song while I'm out and about. His grostesque willful changing of his face and even gender is beyond imagination.

As for the suggestion that Jackson came along too late, part of Elvis' great achievement (and others) was his very ablity to transcend what was a fractured market in the '50s. That's one of many reasons why Elvis will always be on another tier above Michael Jackson.


Well said Greg! What amazes me about Jackson, is how when he does decide to make a live appearance, these sort of King of this, and most successful of that claims, get thrown out there. There is no doubt that one of his goals was to eclipse EP in fame, fortunately that never happened, though to his credit, he ranked underneath EP and the Beatles in his heyday and above everybody else in that department, which is still most impressive. Still, if I never seen his grotesque face in public again, I would be extremely happy.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:30 am

He's not a good guy. He is arrogant. But he was at one point a great artist.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:34 am

likethebike wrote:He's not a good guy. He is arrogant. But he was at one point a great artist.


He was a great artist, no doubt about it.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:44 am

Joe Car wrote:
likethebike wrote:He's not a good guy. He is arrogant. But he was at one point a great artist.


He was a great artist, no doubt about it.
Also agree.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:50 am

Michael Jackson sucks like a donkey. DJC knows that, don'cha?

Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:43 pm

I would be interested to see the American newspaper headlines about his flop in London. Can any of our American members help?

Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:45 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Paul McCartney wanted to buy his own songs, and Jackson, at the height of arrogance, refused to let him buy his catalog. His fast approaching bankruptcy may result in the sell-back of these songs and he certainly has it coming.


The song catalog is half owned by Sony now. I guess Jacko could lose his share of it if he fails to pay back his debts. However, as far as Macca buying Northern Songs Ltd (which owns the Lennon/McCartney song catalog), he had a chance to buy it couple of times. Jacko moved faster and outbid him in it. Macca can only claim himself for it. He had the money and the chance to buy it. Besides Macca has been equally ruthless while building his empire. Ask Denny Laine.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:38 pm

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but my respect for him is on a much higher level than Jacko.

And from what I understand, MJ could have stepped aside when he realized Paul McCartney was bidding on his own songs! And don't tell me MJ is some kind of businessman. He was just being another, well, celebrity jack-off.


likethebike wrote:He's not a good guy. He is arrogant. But he was at one point a great artist.


I can agree with that. He's given us way too much material to hold against him. If he truly disappeared or laid low for another five years, a lot of people might begin to forgive and forget. But he won't. He truly risks tarring his legacy once and for all with his under-whelming singing and out of control personal life.

That's what I like about the march of time: whatever drug-intake and obsesity Elvis may have battled, in time, his lustre is entirely being restored, as with any true legend of the ages.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:52 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I'm not a huge Paul fan, but my respect for him is on a much higher level than Jacko.

And from what I understand, MJ could have stepped aside when he realized Paul McCartney was bidding on his own songs! And don't tell me MJ is some kind of businessman. He was just being another, well, celebrity jack-off.


I'm not in anyway a fan of MJ but I'm a big Beatles/Macca fan (I've seen him twice in concert). Macca is a shrewd businessman who has used every chance to make a good deal but in this case Jacko beat him to it (and I'm not saying MJ is a great businessman). That's all there is to it.

Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:45 pm

I have sent a lengthy e-mail to Joe Dimuro (Sony BMG) in New York concerning how Elvis fans feel about Jackson's claims and urging him to do something about the situation soon. I also requested that Sony BMG upgrade Elvis' record sales.

If I get a reply I will let you know.


Brian :)

Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:59 pm

Brian :

Good man ! There is no reason why BMG can't "substantiate" a figure in the same way that fans have calculated one in the past - in other words, an "informed estimate".

Steve Morse

Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:37 pm

For all the hullabaloo about the Beatles' publishing why wasn't anybody villifying Paul McCartney for buying up the rights to Buddy Holly's music?

Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:42 am

likethebike wrote:For all the hullabaloo about the Beatles' publishing why wasn't anybody villifying Paul McCartney for buying up the rights to Buddy Holly's music?
Because nobody else wanted it.

Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:29 am

Joe Car wrote:This is from another site, this is from Billboard.

Chart Beat

Elvis Presley is the only artist to have more than 100 chart entries on The Billboard 200, and he increases his total this week with his 109th title to appear on this list. "Elvis Christmas" (RCA) debuts at No. 200, extending the King's album chart span to 50 years and eight months.

"Elvis Christmas" is the first Presley album to debut in 2006 and his first since "Elvis by the Presleys" peaked at No. 15 in May 2005.

Since the calendar rolled over to 2000, Presley has had 10 albums debut on the chart. That compares to the previous 10 albums, which debuted between 1985-1999.



Good Info - thanks

Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:13 am

I'm sure Holly's widow could have made some nice coin off that catalogue with all the Holly music used on tv shows and played on oldies radio over the years.

Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:22 pm

White Man Speaks With Forked Tongue

Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:49 pm

I would be interested to see the American newspaper headlines about his flop in London. Can any of our American members help?


Try this link:

http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/michae ... 215152.php

Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:52 am

Thanks for the link. :D

I am glad to see they werent kind to him

Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:10 am

likethebike wrote:I'm sure Holly's widow could have made some nice coin off that catalogue with all the Holly music used on tv shows and played on oldies radio over the years.



But it's not like Buddy Holly himself was alive to bid on the catalogue. Jacko went head to head with Paul over Paul's own music. Not good!

And who's to say who would be a better caretaker of the Holly music anyway? Paul has always been a great ambassador for Holly and other early rocker's music. I agree it doesn't look great but compared to MJ, it looks like charity.

Jackson, on the other hand, came out off as making a vain attempt to drape himself in a greatness that escapes his own legacy...


Marry the King's daughter, buy the biggest rock band's song catalog... :roll:

Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:10 am

"The story behind Paul and Buddy Holly... In 1975, Paul McCartney's MPL Communications bought Holly's publishing catalog from a near-bankrupt Norman Petty. To some, the sale was Petty's final act of theft - having robbed Holly and his widow blind in settling the account of what was owed him as a performer, he was profiting one last time from his perfidy. The truth is that it was a godsend to Maria Elena Holly and the Holly family in Lubbock; amid the events of the years and decades that followed, MPL was able to sell and exploit those songs in ways that Norman Petty in Clovis, New Mexico, never could have, and earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for them that Petty never would have. And with McCartney - a Buddy Holly fan from the age of 15, and probably the most successful fan Holly ever had - as publisher, they were paid every cent they had coming."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------